EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
401 MSt..S.W.
Washington. D.C. 20460 April 1980
Solid Waste
Subtitle C, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976
Final Environmental Impact
Statement—Part I
-------
Notice
The attached document was prepared by one or more
contractors under the guidance of EPA. It is printed here
largely as received from the contractor; the Agency has not
yet completed reviewing it.
Because of the lead time necessary to produce this
study, it was necessary to base it on a preliminary draft
of the final regulations. There were some changes made
later to the regulations. Thus this document unavoidably
does not completely correspond to the regulations finally
promulgated. The Agency is currently analyzing the effect
of the late regulatory changes on the findings of this
study.
-------
DRAFT
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PARTI
FOR
SUBTITLE C, RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 (RCRA)
PREPARED BY
- OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
STEFFEN W. PLEHN
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SOLID WASTE
APRIL 1980
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
PART I
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
SUBTITLE C, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT OF 1976 (RCRA)
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
1. Type of Action
Administrative Action (Regulatory)
2. Brief Description of Action
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
Subtitle C, provides EPA with the authority to regulate the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. RCRA also authorizes States to implement their own
program for the management of hazardous waste if it is, at a
minimum, equivalent to the Federal regulations. Compliance with
the proposed regulations is mandatory; non-compliance is subject
to penalty of law.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
Promulgation of the final Subtitle C regulations will lead to
reduced releases of air, water, and soil contaminants from the
management of hazardous wastes and to resultant beneficial
impacts to air quality, water quality, public health, and
ecological systems. The regulations will increase the cost of
generating and managing hazardous wastes and could lead to some
industrial plant closings and to increased administrative and
paperwork requirements. Many existing facilities would have to
change their current hazardous waste management practices and
some could close due, at least in part, to increased costs and
more stringent requirements.
4. Alternatives Considered
a. Baseline Action
b. No Action
c. Phasing of Generators
d. Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
e. Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection
f. Phase I
iii
-------
5. Federal. State, and Local Agencies From Which Comments Have Been
Received
The proposed Subtitle C regulations and the Draft EIS were
distributed to hundreds of individuals and organizations
representing all sectors of our society. Over 1200 written
comments were received on the proposed regulations. The
following is a list of individuals and organizations who
submitted written comments directly pertaining to the EIS:
American Petroleum Institute
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Mobil Oil Corporation
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and The Edison
Electric Institute
United States Department of Commerce
6. Date Available To The Public
The Part I Final Environmental Impact Statement has been provided
to the Office of Environmental Review, EPA, for the purpose of
publishing an official public notice of availability in the
Federal Register. The Economic Impact Analysis for Subtitle C
has also been provided to the Office of Environmental Review,
EPA. The notice of availability of these documents is antici-
pated on April 30, 1980.
These documents may be obtained by writing: Mr. Edward Cox,
Solid Waste Information Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 26 West St. Glair, Cincinnati, Ohio 45260. The °
documents may be viewed at the library of all EPA Regional
Offices.
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This voluntary Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the assistance
of the MITRE Corporation under EPA Contract Number 58-01-4641. The
Project Officer was Ellen O'Boyle, Office of Solid Waste.
-------
PREFACE
The Part I - Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Subtitle C of RCRA presents an analysis of the Phase I Subtitle C
regulations as drafted in February 1980, as well as an analysis of
other alternatives to the baseline regulations that were considered
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It was necessary to
analyze the February 1980 version of the Phase I regulations due to
time constraints involved in preparing the regulations and conducting
an environmental impact analysis of them.
As a result of numerous comments subsequent to the proposal of
RCRA Section 3004 regulations in December 1978, the Agency has con-
cluded that more study and analysis will be required to develop and
support many of the national "technical" standards which will pre-
scribe the design and construction of facilities. The Agency has
chosen therefore to promulgate the Section 3004 regulations covering
waste management facilities on a phased basis. Phase I, to be
promulgated April 30, 1980, includes primarily the requirements which
are incumbent upon facilities during the Interim Status period (the
time between the effective date of the regulations and final action
on a permit), plus most of the administrative requirements for
permitted facilities. This EIS covers these Phase I Interim Status
Standards.
Since the general technical standards will not be included in
Phase I, it will not be possible to grant permits until Phase II of
the regulations for waste management facilities are issued later this
vii
-------
year. The Phase II regulations will contain a great deal of flexibi-
lity for the Regional Administrator to use his judgment in deciding
the environmental adequacy of a facility. The Phase II regulations
will be sufficiently comprehensive to allow the permitting process to
commence, but will not contain many of the specific technical re-
quirements which the Agency hopes to promulgate over the next several
years as more information is developed. A Part II - Final EIS will
be issued at the time Phase II of the regulations is promulgated.
This promulgation is anticipated for the fall of 1980.
Phase III will involve reproposing and ultimately promulgating
more definite technical standards as the technical issues are re-
solved. The Phase III regulations will not be included within the
scope of this EIS.
A separate economic impact analysis has been prepared for the
final Subtitle C regulations. The report entitled "Economic Impact
Analysis for Subtitle C Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976" is to be available April 30, 1980.
Several major revisions with respect to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement have been incorporated into this Part I - Final En-
vironmental Impact Statement. These revisions are based upon com-
ments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and upon
standards considered for pomulgation under Phase I of the regula-
tions. An additional alternative, the Phase I Alternative, has been
assessed in Chapter 8. The number of generators required to comply
vlii
-------
with the baseline regulations has been modified to consider the
effects of the Transfer of Liability Contract. The Assessment of
energy use impacts in Chapter 7 and 8 has been expanded to consider
impacts to energy production. The assessment of impacts to hazardous
waste management facility capacity has been modified to clarify the
potential for localized capacity shortfalls. The Summary Chapter has
been modified, as necessary, based upon changes to the rest of the
Environmental Impact Statement.
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xxvi
LIST OF TABLES xxvii
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
S.O SUMMARY S-'l
S.I Introduction S-l
S.2 Description of the Baseline Action S-l
S.2.1 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3001) S-2
S.2.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Wastes (Section 3002) S-2
S.2.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes (Section 3003) S-3
S.2.4 Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (Section 3004) S-4
S.2.5 Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
of Hazardous Waste (Section 3005) S-5
S.2.6 Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs
(Section 3006) S-6
S.2.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities (Section 3010) S-7
S.3 Description of the Reasonable Alternatives S-7
S.3.1 No Action S-8
S.3.2 Phasing of Generators S-9
S.3.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental
Protection S-10
S.3.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and
Environmental Protection S-10
S.3.5 Phase I Alternative S-ll
S.4 Impacts of the Baseline Regulations S-l2
S.4.1 Potential Primary Impacts S-l3
S.4.2 Potential Secondary Impacts S-31
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
S.5 Impacts of the Alternatives S-41
S.5.1 No Action Alternative S-41
S.5.2 Phasing of Generators Alternative S-42
S.5.3 Enhancing Public Health and Environmental
Protection Alternative S-45
S.5.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and
Environmental Protection Alternative S-56
S.5.5 Phase I Alternative S-65
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Federal Legislation Leading to RCRA 2-1
2.2 RCRA and Subtitle C 2-4
2.2.1 Definitions Relevant to Subtitle C 2-6
2.2.2 Section 3001 of Subtitle C 2-8
2.2.3 Section 3002 of Subtitle C 2-8
2.2.4 Section 3003 of Subtitle C 2-9
2.2.5 Section 3004 of Subtitle C 2-9
2.2.6 Section 3005 of Subtitle C 2-10
2.2.7 Section 3006 of Subtitle C 2-11
2.2.8 Section 3007 of Subtitle C 2-11
2.2.9 Section 3008 of Subtitle C 2-12
2.2.10 Section 3009 of Subtitle C 2-12
2.2.11 Section 3010 of Subtitle C 2-13
2.2.12 Section 3011 of Subtitle C 2-13
2.3 Related Federal Legislation 2-13
2.4 The Status of State Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste Legislation 2-18
2.4.1 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste 2-30
2.4.2 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste 2-31
2.4.3 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Treaters of Hazardous Waste 2-32
2.4.4 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Storers of Hazardous Waste 2-33
2.4.5 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable
to Disposers of Hazardous Waste 2-34
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.4.6 The Status of State Hazardous Waste Definition,
Monitoring, and Enforcement 2-35
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ACTION 3-1
3.1 Criteria, Identification, and Listing of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3001) 3-1
3.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3002) 3-2
3.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Waste (Section 3003) 3-5
3.4 Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (Section 3004) 3-6
3.5 Permit System for Treatment, Storage, or
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes (Section 3005) 3-11
3.6 Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs
(Section 3006) 3-12
3.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities (Section 3010) 3-14
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 No Action 4-3
4.2 Phasing of Generators 4-5
4.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection 4-11
4.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection 4-19
4.5 Phase I Alternative 4-28
5.0 EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES 5-1
5.1 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Generation 5-1
5.1.1 Hazardous Waste Characteristics 5-1
5.1.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste 5-11
5.2 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Transport 5-22
5.2.1 Generator/Transporter 5-24
5.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters 5-27
5.2.3 For-Hire Transporters 5-28
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.3 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal 5-32
5.3.1 Storage 5-32
5.3.2 Treatment 5-34
5.3.3 Disposal 5-35
5.3.4 Typical Management Practices for Hazardous
Industrial Waste 5-36
5.3.5 Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry 5-43
5.3.6 State Data on On-Site and Off-Site Disposal 5-48
5.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery 5-52
5.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Methods
and Operations 5-52
5.4.2 Resource Recovery and Recycling Estimates 5-56
5.4.3 Constraints to Resource Conservation and Recovery 5-71
6.0 QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED AND CONTROLLED 6-1
6.1 Current Hazardous Waste Generation 6-1
6.1.1 Manufacturing Industries 6-1
6.1.2 Other Potentially Hazardous Wastes 6-4
6.2 Hazardous Waste Generators 6-11
6.3 Estimation of Future Hazardous Waste Generation 6-14
6.4 Hazardous Spills 6-15
6.5 Hazardous Wastes Under State Control 6-24
7.0 IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE ACTION 7-1
7.1 Potential Primary Impacts 7-4
7.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated 7-5
7.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport,
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Practices
and Procedures 7-9
7.1.3 Administrative Changes 7-38
7.1.4 Air Impacts 7-59
7.1.5 Water Quality Impacts 7-107
7.1.6 Public Health Impacts 7-145
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.2 Potential Secondary Impacts 7-161
7.2.1 Impacts to Physiography and Soils 7-161
7.2.2 Biological Impacts 7-168
7.2.3 Social Impacts 7-183
7.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity 7-192
7.2.5 Land Use Impacts 7-201
7.2.6 Water Use impacts 7-204
7.2.7 Impacts to Resource Conservation and Recovery 7-206
7.2.8 Energy Use Impacts 7-208
7.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points 7-211
7.3 Significant Uncertainties in the Impact Analysis 7-213
8.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the
No Action Alternative 8-2
8.1.1 Primary Impacts 8--2
8.1.2 Secondary Impacts 8-5
8.2 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the
Phasing of Generators Alternative 8-6
8.2.1 Primary Impacts 8-6
8.2.2 Secondary Impacts 8-20
8.3 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the
Enhanced Public Health and Environment Protection
Alternative 8-22
8.3.1 Primary Impacts 8-22
8.3.2 Secondary Impacts 8-48
8.4 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the
Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection Alternative 8-69
8.4.1 Primary Impacts 8-69
8.4.2 Secondary Impacts 8-100
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
8.5 Potential Charges in Impacts Resulting from
the Phase I Alternative 8-117
8.5.1 Primary Impacts 8-118
8.5.2 Secondary Impacts 8-170
9.0 MITIGATING MEASURES AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED 9-1
9.1 Redistribution of Hazardous Wastes 9-2
9.2 Impacts Unaffected by the Regulations 9-8
9.2.1 Siting 9-8
9.2.2 Transportation 9-10
9.2.3 Construction and Operation 9-11
9.2.4 Closure 9-13
10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . _ _ 10-1
11.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 11-1
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
APPENDIX A - SELECTED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS A-l
A.I Regulations Applicable To Generators A-l
A.I.I California A-l
A.1.2 Georgia A-2
A.1.3 Illinois A-2
A.1.4 Maryland A-3
A.1.5 Minnesota A-3
A.1.6 Missouri A-4
A.1.7 Montana A-5
A.1.8 Oklahoma A-5
A.1.9 Oregon A-6
A.1.10 Texas A-6
A. 1.11 Washington A-7
xvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
A.2 Regulations Applicable to Transporters A-7
A. 2.1 California A-7
A.2.2 Maryland A-9
A.2.3 Minnesota A-9
A.2.4 Missouri A-10
A.2.5 Montana A-10
A.2.6 Oklahoma A-10
A.2.7 Oregon A-ll
A.2.8 Texas A-ll
A.2.9 Washington A-12
A.3 Regulations Applicable to Storers, Treaters,
and Disposers A-13
A.3.1 California A-13
A.3.2 Georgia A-14
A.3.3 Illinois A-15
A.3.4 Maryland A-16
A.3.5 Minnesota A-16
A.3.6 Missouri A-17
A.3.7 Montana A-18
A.3.8 Oklahoma A-18
A.3.9 Oregon A-19
A.3.10 Texas A-20
A. 3.11 Washington A-21
A.4 Examples of Other State Control Mechanisms A-22
A.4.1 Nebraska A-22
A.4.2 Utah A-23
A.5 Hazardous Waste Legislation for the U.S. Territories A-24
A.5.1 Territory of Guam A-24
A.5.2 Territory of American Samoa A-24
A.5.3 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands A-2S
A.5.4 Puerto Rico A-25
A.5.5 The U.S. Virgin Islands A-25
APPENDIX B - BASELINE SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS B-l
Subpart A - Criteria, Identification, and Listing of
Hazardous Waste B-l
xvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
250.10 Purpose and Scope B-2
250.11 Definitions B-3
250.12 Criteria B-5
250.13 Hazardous Waste Characteristics B-7
250.14 Hazardous Waste Lists B-15
Appendix I - Explosion Temperature Test B-29
Appendix II - Separation Protocol B-30
Appendix III - Structural Integrity Procedure B-32
Appendix IV - pH Adjustment Procedures B-33
Appendix V - Sampling Methods B-34
Appendix VI - Pesticides B-35
Appendix VII - Department of Transportation (DOT)
Classification Poison A, Poison B,
or ORM-A B-37
Appendix VIII - Autoclave Speifications B-43
Appendix IX - CDC Classification of Etiologic Agents B-44
Appendix X - Radioactive Waste Measurements B-50
Appendix XI - Detection of Gene Mutations B-51
Appendix XII - Bioaccumulation Potential Test B-61
Appendix XIII - Controlled Substance List B-67
Appendix XIV - Priority Pollutants B-69
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste B-74
250.20 Scope and Purpose B-75
250.21 Definitions B-77
250.22 Manifest B-80
250.23 Reporting B-83
250.24 Recordkeeping B-91
250.25 Containers B-91
250.26 Labeling Practices B-92
250.27 Confidential Information B-93
250.28 Presumption B-93
250.29 Transfer of Liability Contract B-93
Subpart C - Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes B-97
250.30 Scope B-98
250.31 Definitions B-99
250.32 Identification Code B-101
250.33 Recordkeeping B-101
250.34 Acceptance and Transfer of Hazardous Waste B-102
xviii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
250.35 Compliance with the Manifest B-103
250.36 Delivery of Hazardous Wastes to a Designated
Permitted Facility B-105
250.37 Spills B-105
250.38 Placarding/Marking of Vehicles B-108
Subpart D - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities B-109
250.40 Scope/Applicability B-lll
250.41 Definitions B-113
250.42 Human Health and Environmental Standards B-127
250.43 General Facility Standards B-130
250.44 Standards for Storage B-169
250.45 Standards for Treatment/Disposal B-172
250.46 Special Waste Standards B-210
Annex 1 - Drinking Water Standards B-212
Annex 2 - Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances B-213
Annex 3 - TSDF Report B-221
Annex 4 - Incompatible Wastes B-222
Annex 5 - Methods for Determining Soil pH B-225
Subpart E - Permit System for Facilities Which Treat, Store
or Dispose of Hazardous Waste B-227
250.60 Scope and Purpose B-229
250.61 Definitions B-229
250.62 Permit Provisions B-235
250.63 Application for a Permit B-244
250.64 Formulation of Tenative Determinations
and Draft Permit B-253
250.65 Request for Public Hearing and Notice of
Public Hearing B-256
250.66 Administrative Record B-264
250.67 Emergency Action B-266
250.68 Computation of Time B-266
Subpart F - Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs B-268
250.70 Scope and Purpose B-269
250.71 Definitions B-269
250.72 Authorization B-271
xix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
250.73 Interim Authorization B-279
250.74 Federal Outsight of Authorized Programs B-282
250.75 Application Procedure B-285
250.76 Withdrawal of Authorization B-287
Subpart G - Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activities B-289
250.800 Scope and Purpose B-290
250.801 Definitions B-290
250.810 Limited Interim Authorization B-293
250.811 Application Procedures for States B-294
250.812 Responsibilities and Authority of the EPA
Regional Administrator B-295
250.820 Who Must File Notification B-296
250.821 When to File Notification B-298
250.822 Where to File Notification B-299
250.823 Information Required in Notification B-299
APPENDIX C - CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
WASTES GENERATED BY SELECTED MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIES C-l
C.I Textile Industry C-3
C.2 Inorganic Chemicals Industry C-6
C.3 Pharmaceutical Industry C-7
C.4 Paint and Allied Products Industry and Contract
Solvent Reclaiming Operations C-l2
C.4.1 Paint and Allied Products Industry C-l2
C.4.2 Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations C-l6
C.5 Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives
Industries C-l7
C.6 Petroleum Refining Industry C-l7
C.7 Petroleum Rerefining Industry C-34
C.8 Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry C-35
C.9 Metal Smelting and Refining Industry C-39
C.10 Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries C-46
C.ll Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries C-48
C.I2 Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry C-53
C.13 Storage and Primary Batteries Industries C-55
xx
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES D-l
D.I Treatment Methods D-l
D.I.I Physical Treatment D-2
D.I.2 Chemical Treatment D-6
D.I.3 Biological Treatment D-9
D.I.4 Thermal Treatment D-l3
D.2 Methods for Ultimate Disposal D-19
D.2.1 Open Dumping D-20
D.2.2 Landfills D-21
D.2.3 Landfarming D-23
D.2.4 Surface Impoundments D-24
D.2.5 Incineration D-26
D.2.6 Road Application D-26
D.2.7 Detonation D-27
D.2.8 Engineered Storage D-27
D.3 Treatment and Disposal Practices by Selected
Manufacturing Industries D-28
D.3.1 Textiles Industry D-28
D.3.2 Inorganic Chemicals Industry D-30
D.3.3 Pharmaceutical Industry D-33
D.3.4 Paint and Allied Products Industries and
Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations D-3S
D.3.5 Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and
Explosives Industries D-38
D.3.6 Petroleum Refining Industry D-44
D.3.7 Petroleum Rerefining Industry D-48
D.3.8 Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry D-51
D.3.9 Metal Smelting and Refining Industry D-54
D.3.10 Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Industries D-60
D.3.11 Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries D-62
D.3.12 Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry D-64
D.3.13 Storage and Primary Batteries Industries D-67
xxl
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX E - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
TRANSPORT INDUSTRY E-l
E.I Generator/Transporter E-3
E.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters E-7
E.3 For-Hire Transporters E-10
E.3.1 Common and Contact Highway Carriers E-10
E.3.2 Rail Transport E-14
E.3.3 Air Transport E-20
E.3.4 Pipeline Transport E-21
E.3.5 Waterway Transport E-22
APPENDIX F - POTENTIAL RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERATED BY SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES F-l
F.I Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by
the Inorganic Chemical Industry F-l
F.2 Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by
the Organic Chemical Industry F-4
F.3 Potential Recovery of Hazardous Wastes Generated by the
Metals Smelting and Refining Industries F-4
APPENDIX G - INDUSTRIAL WASTE CLEARINGHOUSES AND EXCHANGES G-l
G.I Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange G-5
G.2 California Industrial Waste Information Exchange G-7
G.3 National Clearinghouses G-9
APPENDIX H - METHODOLOGY FOR THE DERIVATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION FACTORS H-l
H.I Methods of Quantifying Hazardous Wastes H-l
H.2 Data Sources H-4
H.3 Development of Generation Factors H-l2
H.4 Limitations of Generation Factors H-l5
H.4.1 Comparability of Data Sources H-l5
H.4.2 Possible Biases in Industry Coverage H-l9
H.4.3 Possible Inaccuracies Due to Company Responses H-19
H.4.4 Aggregation at the Two-Digit SIC Level H-20
H.4.5 Waste Generation per Employee H-23
H.5 Application of Generation Factors H-23
xxii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
APPENDIX I - DOCUMENTATION FOR PHASING CALCULATIONS 1-1
I.I Methodology 1-1
1.2 Operation 1-4
1.3 Output 1-4
1.4 Limitations and Applicability of Methodology 1-7
1.5 Program Listing 1-15
1.6 Glossary 1-15
APPENDIX J - HAZARDOUS WASTE INCIDENTS J-l
J.I Generation Incidents J-l
J.2 Transport Incidents J-2
J.3 Treatment and Lagoon Incidents J-3
J.4 Storage Incidents J-10
J.5 Disposal Incidents J-l7
APPENDIX K - UNITED STATES DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING
FIRMS BY SIZE, IN STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS 20 AND 22 THROUGH 39 — 1972 K-l
APPENDIX L - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON GROUNDWATER
MOVEMENT AND CONTAMINATION L-l
L.I Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater L-l
L.2 Contamination of Groundwater L-6
L.3 Transport and Natural Attenuation of Contaminants L-7
APPENDIX M - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON INCINERATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES M-l
APPENDIX N - PHASE I ALTERNATIVE N-l
Part 260 - Overview and Definitions N-2
Subpart A - Definitions N-3
Part 261 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste N-5
Subpart A - General N-5
Subpart B - Criteria for Identifying and Applying
Characteristics of Hazardous Waste
and for Listing Hazardous Waste N-l2
Subpart C - Characteristics of Hazardous Waste N-l7
Subpart D - Lists of Hazardous Wastes N-22
xxiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Wastes N-70
Subpart A - General N-71
Subpart B - The Manifest N-72
Subpart C - Pre-Transport Requirements N-73
Subpart D - Recordkeeping and Reporting N-75
Subpart E - Special Conditions N-77
Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste N-86
Subpart A - General N-87
Subpart B - Compliance with the Manifest System
and Recordkeeping N-88
Subpart C - Hazardous Waste Discharges N-92
Part 264 - Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities N-94
Subpart A - General N-96
Subpart B - General Facility Standards N-97
Subpart C - Preparedness and Prevention N-104
Subpart D - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures N-107
Subpart E - Manifest System, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting N-113
Subpart F - Ground-Water Monitoring N-118
Subpart G - Closure and Post-Closure N-126
Appendix I - Recordkeeping Instructions N-132
Appendix II - EPA Report Form and Instructions N-137
Appendix III - EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water
Standards N-147
Appendix IV - Tests for Significance N-148
Part 265 - Interim Status Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities N-150
Subpart A - General N-155
Subpart B - General Facility Standards N-156
Subpart C - Preparedness and Prevention N-163
Subpart D - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures N-165
Subpart E - Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting N-171
xx iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Subpart F - Ground-Water Monitoring N-175
Subpart G - Closure and Post-Closure N-182
Subpart H - Financial Requirements N-188
Subpart I - Use and Management of Containers N-208
Subpart J - Tanks ,N-210
Subpart K - Surface Impoundments N-214
Subpart L - Waste Piles N-218
Subpart M - Land Treatment N-220
Subpart N - Landfills N-226
Subpart 0 - Incinerators N-230
Appendix I - Recordkeeping Instructions N-233
Appendix II - EPA Report Form and Instructions N-238
Appendix III - EPA Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards N-249
Appendix V - Examples of Potentially Incompatible
Waste N-251
Part 266 - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Facilities that Treat, Store, and/or Dispose
of Waste Identified for Discriminate
Standards N-255
Subpart A - General N-256
Subpart B - Uranium Mining and Phosphate
Rock Mining, Beneficiation, and
Processing Waste N-256
APPENDIX 0 - COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0-1
0.1 American Textile Manufacturers Institue, Inc. 0-2
0.2 U.S. Department of Commerce 0-5
0.3 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service 0-9
0.4 The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and
The Edison Electric Institute 0-12
0.5 Mobile Oil Corporation 0-66
0.6 American Petroleum Institute 0-72
0.7 Dow Chemical U.S.A. 0-87
APPENDIX P - LITERATURE CITED P-l
XXV
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
Page
5-1 Geographic Distribution of Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities 5-45
6-1 Cumulative Size Distribution of Hazardous Waste
Generators 1975 6-12
6-2 Cumulative Hazardous Waste Distribution 1975 6-13
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
1-1 Cumulative Hazardous Waste Generation 1984 1-8
L-l Unconfined and Confined Aquifers L-2
M-l Air Emissions from Incineration of Selected
Pesticides at 1000 C and 2 Seconds Retention M-9
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
Page
S-l Comparison of Potential Impacts of the Baseline
Regulations and the Phase I and the Enhanced and
the Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection Alternatives S-46
2-1 State Regulation and Control Authority 2-19
2-2 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Generators 2-24
2-3 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Transporters 2-25
2-4 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Treaters 2-26
2-5 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Storers 2-27
2-6 State Legislation Applicable to Hazardous Waste
Disposers 2-28
2-7 State Approach to Hazardous Waste Definition,
Monitoring, and Enforcement 2-29
4-1 Phasing of Generators 4-9
4-2 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection 4-12
4-3 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental
Protection 4-21
4-4 Phase I Alternative 4-29
5-1 Sources of Chemicals for Inclusion on the Initial
List of the Toxic Substance Control Act Interagency
Testing Committee 5-6
5-2 Examples of General Types of Potentially Hazardous
Waste Constituents 5-12
5-3 Examples of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from
Selected Manufacturing Industries 5-14
5-4 Examples of Spills of Potentially Hazardous Materials 5-23
5-5 Relative Amount of Hazardous Wastes Transported
Off-Site by Mode and Industry Segment 5-25
5-6 Examples of Storage Practices in Selected Industries 5-33
5-7 Estimated Portion of Hazardous Wastes from Fourteen
Manufacturing Industries Disposed by Method, 1973-1975 5-37
5-8 Estimated Percentage of Total Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed On-Site by Various Methods for
Selected Industries - 1973 5-39
5-9 Estimated Percentage of Total Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed Off-Site by Various Methods for
Selected Industries - 1973 5-40
xxvil
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
5-10 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed or Recovered On-Site and
Off/Site 5-42
5-11 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Wastes
Treated/Disposed by Level I, II, or III
Technology for Selected Manufacturing Industries 5-44
5-12 Capacity of Selected Hazardous Waste Management
Service Industry Processes - 1974 5-47
5-13 Types of Hazardous Wastes Handled and Typical
Treatment/Disposal Methods for the Hazardous
Waste Management Industry 5-49
5-14 Estimated Percentage of Hazardous Industrial
Wastes Disposed by Location or Reclaimed for
Selected States 5-50
5-15 Distribution of Hazardous Waste Recovery Operations
in the United States 5-54
5-16 Examples of Hazardous Waste Recovery and Recycling
Practices in Selected Industries 5-58
5-17 Waste Oil Sources and Uses, 1972 5r62
5-18 Estimated Magnitude of Hazardous Wastes from
Selected Industries that may be Potentially
Recoverable or Recyclable 5-65
5-19 Generation and Potential Use of Organic
Chemical Wastes 5-68
5-20 Industries and Hazardous Waste Types Studied for
Energy Recovery Potential 5-69
5-21 Estimated Annual Waste Quantities and Total
Recoverable Energy 5-70
6-1 Summary of Hazardous Waste Generated by EPA Region-1975 6-3
6-2 Estimated Annual Generation of Non-Manufacturing
Wastes Identified as Including Potentially
Hazardous Waste 6-6
6-3 EPA Hazardous Substance Spill File Summary
(February 1977 - February 1978) 6-17
6-4 Types of Discharges Reported for 1976 under
Section 311, PL-92-500 6-20
6-5 Sources of Discharges Reported for 1976 under
Section 311, PL 92-500 6-22
6-6 Commodities Named Most Often in Hazardous Materials
Incident Reports 6-23
6-7 Summary - State Control over Hazardous Wastes 6-25
6-8 Hazardous Waste Control in Large Generator States 6-26
xxviil
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
7-1 Number and Types of Reported Incidents from the
Improper Management of Hazardous Wastes 7-3
7-2 Estimated Quantity of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes and Number of Establishments Excluded
from Regulation at a Generator Limit of 100 kg/mo 7-8
7-3 Number of Manufacturing Establishments by 2-Digit
SIC Code 7-46
7-4 Number of Manufacturing Establishments by EPA Region 7-47
7-5 Potential Hazardous Waste Generators within Selected
Manufacturing Industries by EPA Region 7-49
7-6 Estimated Number of Potential Producers of Hazardous
Wastes within Selected Categories 7-50
7-7 Estimated Number of Potential Permittees 7-54
7-8 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984 from
Transport of Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations 7-78
7-9 Gas Composition Data 7-84
7-10 Origins and Pollutants in 57 Cases of Ground Water
Contamination in the Northeast Caused by Leakage
of Waste Water from Surface Impoundments 7-128
7-11 Summary of Data on 42 Municipal and 18 Industrial
Contamination Cases 7-130
7-12 Groundwater Contamination from Industrial Waste
Land Disposal Sites 7-132
7-13 Properties of Wastes that are Hazardous to Living
Systems 7-169
7-14 Generalized Patterns of the Response of Biological
Systems to Increased Levels of Environmental Stress 7-170
7-15 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations 7-210
8-1 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
First Year of Phasing (1980) by Region and SIC Code 8-9
8-2 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Second Year of Phasing (1981) by Region and SIC Code 8-10
8-3 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Third Year of Phasing (1982) by Region and SIC Code 8-11
8-4 Regulated Hazardous Manufacturing Wastes During the
Fourth Year of Phasing (1983) by Region and SIC Code 8-12
8-5 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984 from
Transport of Additional Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations' 8-36
xx ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
8-6 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Additional Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations 8-67
8-7 Estimated Quantity of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes and Number of Establishments Excluded
from Regulation at a Generator Limit of 1,000
Kilograms Per Month 8-72
8-8 Estimated Change in Vehicular Emissions in 1984
from Transport of Less Hazardous Industrial Wastes
under Subtitle C Regulations 8-88
8-9 Estimated Change in Fuel Consumption in 1984 from
Transport of Less Hazardous Industrial Wastes under
Subtitle C Regulations' 8-116
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
C-l Typical Waste Solvents Generated by the
Pharmaceutical Industry C-9
C-2 Typical Potentially Hazardous Wastes Generated
During Pharmaceutical Active Ingredient Production C-10
C-3 Selected Potentially Hazardous Waste Constituents
from the Paint and Allied Products Industry C-l4
C-4 Potentially Hazardous Components of Selected Waste
Streams from the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and
Explosives Industries C-l8
C-5 Potentially Hazardous Waste Stream Components by
Standard Industrial Classification, Organic
Chemicals and Technical Pesticides Industries C-21
C-6 Potentially Hazardous Constituents of Petroleum
Refining Waste Streams C-30
C-7 Potentially Hazardous Materials Contained in
Petroleum Re-refining Sludge C-36
C-8 Potentially Hazardous Tannery Waste Constituents C-38
C-9 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from Metal
Smelting and Refining C-40
C-10 Potentially Hazardous Waste Constituents Generated
by Metal Smelting and Refining Industries C-42
C-ll Typical Constituents of Potentially Hazardous
Waste Streams in the Special Machinery Manufacturing
Industries C-50
XXX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
C-12 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from the Production
of Storage Batteries C-57
C-13 Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams from the
Production of Primary Batteries C-59
D-l Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Textiles Industry D-29
D-2 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Inorganic Chemicals Industry D-31
D-3 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Pharmaceutical Industry 0-34
D-4 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Paint and Allied Products Industry and
Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations D-36
D-5 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Organic Chemicals and Pesticides Industry D-39
D-6 Percentage of Hazardous Wastes Treated/Disposed
On-Site and Off-Site at Selected Organic Chemical
Plants in 1973 0-43
D-7 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for
the Petroleum Refining Industry D-45
D-8 Estimate of the Percentage of Wastes Disposed/Treated
On-site and Off-site by Petroleum Refinery
in 1973 and 1983 D-49
D-9 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Petroleum Rerefining Industry D-50
D-10 Percentage of Potentially Hazardous Waste Disposed
On-site and Off-site or Recycled in 1975 D-52
0-11 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry D-53
D-l2 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Metal Smelting and Refining Industry 0-55
D-l3 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industry 0-61
0-14 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Special Machinery Industry D-63
0-15 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Electronic Components Industry 0-65
D-l6 Typical Hazardous Waste Handling Procedures for the
Storage and Primary Batteries Industries D-68
E-l Relative Amount of Hazardous Wastes Transported Off-
Site by Mode and Industry Segment E-4
E-2 Examples of Types of Vehicles Used by Generators Who
Transport Wastes E-6
E-3 Wastes Listed in the Hazardous Materials Table E-l6
xxx i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
E-4 Estimated Annual Carloads of Selected Potentially
Hazardous Wastes Carried on Railroads in 1976 E-17
F-l Summary of Technically Demonstrated Alternative
Treatment Systems for Wastes Generated by the
Inorganic Chemical Industries F-2
F-2 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment
Systems with Landfill Options for Wastes Generated by F-5
Inorganic Chemical Industries F-3
F-3 Summary of Alternative Treatment Systems for Waste
Generated by the Organic Chemicals Industry F-5
F-4 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment
Systems with Landfill or Incineration Options for
Wastes Generated by the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides
and Explosives Industries F-8
F-5 Summary of Alternative Treatment Systems for Waste
Generated by the Metals Smelting and Refining
Industries F-9
F-6 Cost Comparison of Resource Recovery Treatment Systems
with Landfill Options for Wastes Generated by the
Metal Smelting and Refining Industries F-l2
G-l Comparison of Clearinghouses and Exchanges G-2
G-2 Approximate Quantities of Hazardous Waste Listed on
the Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange in 1976
and 1977 G-6
H-l Data Sources for Generation Factors H-14
H-2 Generation Factors for the Calculation of Estimated
Quantities of Hazardous Waste Generated by Manufac-
turing Industries (Based on Employment) H-16
H-3 Standard Industrial Classification Major Group 31 -
Leather and Leather Products H-22
H-4 Summary of Hazardous Waste Generated by EPA Region —
1975 (1000 Metric tons per year) H-24
1-1 Approximate Distribution of Hazardous Manufacturing
Wastes Subject to Regulation in 1984 - Generation Limit
100 kg/mo (All wastes in 1000'a of metric tons per
year) 1-5
1-2 Employee Ratios, 1975/1972 1-11
1-3 Ratio of total Employees by Interpolation to Given
Total - 1972 1-12
1-4 Program Listing 1-16
K-l United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classifications 20 -
Food and Kindred Products K-2
xxxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
K-2 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 22 -
Textile Mill Products K-3
K-3 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 23 -
Apparel and Other Textile Products K-4
K-4 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms by
Size for Standard Industrial Classification 24 -
Lumber and Wood Products K-5
K-5 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
25 - Furniture and Fixtures K-6
K-6 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
26 - Paper and Allied Products K-7
K-7 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
27 - Printing and Publishing K-8
K-8 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
28 - Chemicals and Allied Products K-9
K-9 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
29 - Petroleum and Coal Products K-10
K-10 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Finns
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
30 - Rubber and Plastics Products K-ll
K-ll United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
31 - Leather and Leather Products K-12
K-12 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
32 - Stone, Clay, and Glass Products K-13
K-13 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
33 - Primary Metal Industries K-14
K-14 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
34 - Fabricated Metal Products K-15
K-15 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
35 - Machinery Except Electrical K-16
xxxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
K-16 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
36 - Electric and Electronic Equipment K-17
K-17 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
37 - Transportation Equipment K-18
K-18 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
38 - Instruments and Related Products K-19
K-19 United States Distribution of Manufacturing Firms
by Size for Standard Industrial Classification
39 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries K-20
L-l Compounds Identified in Groundwater from Landfill
Well L-8
L-2 Range of Leachate Composition in 18 Sanitary Land-
fills in the United States L-10
M-l Characteristics of Incineration of Selected
Hazardous Wastes M-5
M-2 Trace Metals on Particulate Filters from Test
Incineration of Methyl Methacrylate Wastes M-6
M-3 Uncontrolled Emissions from Combustion of Selected
Munitions in Rotary Kiln Incineration M-l2
M-4 Emission Rates from Open Burning of Selected
Energetic Materials M-l3
M-5 Detonation Products of Confined and Unconfined
Explosions M-l4
M-6 Mass Spectrographic Analysis of Exhaust Gasses from
Fluidized - Bed Incineration of Solvent Recovery
Sludges from Paint Production M-l6
M-7 Analysis of Ash from Incinerated Solvent Recovery
Still Bottoms at One Paint Production Facility M-17
M-8 Ambient Air Concentrations of Lead Near Various
Facilities Burning Waste Oil as Fuel M-19
xxxiv
-------
S.O SUMMARY
S.I Introduction
The objectives of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA) are to promote the protection of health and the environ-
ment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources. Sub-
title C of RCRA provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with the authority to regulate the generation, transportation,
storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes in a manner
consistent with these objectives. Subtitle C also authorizes states
to implement their own hazardous waste management programs pursuant
to Subtitle C and directs EPA to promulgate guidelines to assist
states in the development of such authorized programs.
S.2 Description of the Baseline Action
The baseline action is the set of regulations and guidelines
initially developed by the EPA in response to the mandate of the
following Sections of Subtitle C:
• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Section 3001);
• Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Wastes (Sec-
tion 3002);
• Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3003);
• Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section
3004);
• Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3005);
S-l
-------
• Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006);
• Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities
(Section 3010);
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examines the potential
impacts that could result both from promulgation of the baseline re-
gulations and guidelines and from five regulatory alternatives. The
specific regulations and guidelines being assessed in this EIS are
summarized below, and the five regulatory alternatives are summarized
in the following section.
S.2.1 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Section
3001). The Section 3001 baseline regulations define those wastes
that are to be considered hazardous and, therefore, subject to the
other Subtitle C regulations. Two mechanisms are provided for
determining those wastes that are hazardous: identifying character-
istics and lists of specific hazardous wastes and processes genera-
ting hazardous wastes. Four identifying characteristics are
specified for determining whether a waste is hazardous: ignitabil-
ity, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Any waste which exhibits
any of these characteristics or which is listed (see Appendix B,
Subpart A), would be considered hazardous and would have to be
managed pursuant to the Subtitle C regulations.
S.2.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3002). The Section 3002 baseline regulations establish
standards for manifesting and keeping records of hazardous wastes
S-2
-------
shipped off the site of generation; for containerization of hazardous
wastes; for labeling, placarding, and marking of hazardous waste
shipments; and for reporting the disposition of hazardous wastes.
These standards would apply to those persons or Federal agencies,
except households, who generate and dispose more than 100 kilograms
(about 220 pounds) per month of wastes identified as hazardous under
the Section 3001 regulations. Any person or Federal agency producing
and disposing 100 kilograms or less per month would not be required
to comply with the generator regulations. Also any generator engaged
solely in retail trade or principally in farming would have to comply
with the regulations only with regard to waste automotive oil; how-
ever, any person (e.g., a transporter) could assume a waste automo-
tive oil generator's total liability for compliance with the Section
3002 requirements, providing a written transfer of Liability Contract
is in effect. Generators excluded from compliance with the Subtitle
C regulations would, however, still be obligated to dispose their
hazardous wastes in an acceptable manner, e.g., in a landfill that
meets RCRA Subtitle D criteria.
S.2.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Wastes
(Section 3003). The Section 3003 baseline regulations establish
standards for the acceptance, loading, and stowing of hazardous
wastes; for compliance with the manifest system; for marking and
placarding of transport vehicles; for delivery of hazardous wastes;
and for reporting and cleaning up spills. These standards would
S-3
-------
apply to any person or Federal agency transporting, within the United
States, hazardous wastes that require a manifest under the generator
regulations and also apply to any transporter importing a shipment of
hazardous wastes from abroad. Portions of the standards would also
apply to any transporter who consolidates and transports hazardous
wastes not requiring a manifest. The transporter regulations would
not apply to persons or Federal agencies transporting hazardous
wastes solely on the site of generation or solely on the site of a
permitted hazardous waste management facility.
S.2.4 Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section 3004).
The Section 3004 baseline regulations establish standards for protec-
tion of air quality, groundwater quality, and surface water quality;
for general facility practices and procedures including site selec-
tion, financial requirements, training, emergency preparedness,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and closure; for storage opera-
tions; for treatment/disposal operations including landfills, incin-
erators, surface impoundments, and landfarras; and for management of
'special wastes' (i.e., cement kiln dusts, utility wastes, oil dril-
ling muds/ brines, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and other mining wastes).
These standards apply to owners and operators of any facility
that treats, stores, or disposes any quantity of any waste identified
as hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations, except 'special
wastes'. All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store,
S-4
-------
or dispose 'special wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have
to comply only with specified general facility standards. The
Section 3004 standards do not apply to on-site waste accumulation by
generators who store their own wastes for less than 90 days prior to
subsequent transport off-site, but do apply to any such on-site stor-
age which lasts for 90 days or longer.
Certain practices that are controlled under other Federal acts
are not regulated under the treatment, storage, and disposal stand-
ards. These practices include underground (deep-well) injection,
ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface dis-
charges under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, and all treatment, storage and disposal activities at
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or by ocean dumping barges and
vessels. However the treatment, storage, and disposal regulations
would apply to above ground storage or treatment of hazardous wastes
prior to underground injection, on-shore facilities associated with
ocean dumping activities, and surface impoundments associated with
NPDES permitted industrial wastewater treatment facilities and
hazardous sludges from such facilities.
S.2.5 Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Waste (Section 3005). The Section 3005 baseline regulations require
that all owners or operators of facilities treating, storing, or
disposing hazardous wastes obtain a permit prior to facility con-
struction, modification, or operation. The regulations establish
S-5
-------
standards for permit applications, permit issuance, and permit revo-
cation. Permits would be issued for the projected life of the
facility. The owners/ operators of new facilities would be required
to obtain permits prior to construction, and would have to certify
that construction was performed in compliance with the permit before
commencing operation. Special permits would be available for experi-
mental facilities, qualified hospital and medical care facilities,
POTW's, and ocean dumping barges and vessels. Standards would be
established for including public participation in the permit review
process.
S.2.6 Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006).
Section 3006 provides that states are to be encouraged to apply for
authorization to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste
program pursuant to Subtitle C. Under the baseline regulations there
would be three types of authorization for which states could apply:
full authorization, partial authorization, or interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C. Par-
tial authorization would allow a state to administer and enforce
selected components of a hazardous waste regulatory program estab-
lished pursuant to Subtitle C. EPA would retain responsibility for
the remaining components of the program. States would be considered
for partial authorization only if state legislative authority did
not exist for all required program components. In all cases, the
combination of the state and Federal program would have to meet the
S-6
-------
requirements of a fully authorized program. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed 5 years, but could be re-
newed .
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a haz-
ardous waste program in lieu of the Federal Program under Subtitle C
for a period not to exceed 24 months, beginning on the date 6 months
after the date of promulgation of regulations under Section 3001.
The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the state to make an
orderly transition from its present program to a program eligible for
full authorization.
S.2.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities
(Section 3010). The Section 3010 baseline regulations require that
any person generating or transporting hazardous wastes or owning or
operating a facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
wastes notify the EPA Administrator of such activity not later than
90 days after promulgation of regulations under Section 3001.
Section 3010 specifies in detail who would have to file notification
of hazardous waste activity, when and where such notification would
have to be filed, and the information that would have to be supplied
in the notification.
S.3 Description of the Reasonable Alternatives
During the overall development of both the proposed regulations
and the final Phase I regulations, numerous alternative regulations
and regulatory approaches have been considered. Both the baseline
regulations and subsequent versions of the regulations were selected
S-7
-------
from among the many options initially considered based upon techni-
cal, environmental, institutional, economic, and legal considera-
tions. Because of the enormous number of ways in which these various
options could be structured into alternative sets of regulations, the
approach taken in this EIS is to select and to develop a manageable
set of meaningful alternatives that reasonably bracket the overall
objectives and the resultant impacts anticipated from the regulations
that are ultimately to be promulgated under Subtitle C. With this
approach it is possible to show the types of potential impacts that
could result under various alternatives without having to explicitly
consider the almost infinite variety of options for accomplishing the
same or intermediate objectives.
Five different sets of alternatives, with respect to the base-
line regulations, have been selected and structured to reasonably
bracket the potential impacts that could be expected to result.
These alternatives are as follows:
<
• No Action;
• Phasing of Generators;
• Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Phase I Alternative.
S.3.1 No Action. The No Action alternative has been selected
for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts that could result
from taking no action, i.e., not promulgating regulations for Sub-
title C. For reasons discussed in Chapter 4, the No Action
S-8
-------
alternative assumes that no part of RCRA, including Subtitle C, is to
be implemented and that hazardous waste management would continue as
currently practiced.
S.3.2 Phasing of Generators. The Phasing of Generators alter-
native has been selected for the purpose of analyzing the potential
changes in impacts that could result from the phasing of levels for
standards and criteria established by the regulations to their pro-
posed values over a period of time, rather than from initially set-
ting them at their proposed values. For purposes of analysis, a
five-year time frame measured from the initial implementation date,
is assumed for the phasing of the more stringent levels.
While there are many different ways in which the more stringent
levels for promulgated standards and criteria could be phased in,
most would have essentially the same effect—a gradual expansion of
the total quantity of hazardous wastes being controlled by the haz-
ardous waste program. For purposes of analysis, the method selected
emphasizes increasing the quantity of wastes controlled during the
first 5 years following promulgation of the regulations by gradually
expanding the number of generators brought under control. With this
approach, the level of the generator limit established under Section
3002 of the baseline regulations is to be reduced annually over a
five-year period of time in order to bring the larger generators into
the program first and the smaller generators into the program later.
Furthermore, the generator limit is to be reduced so that equal
amounts of hazardous wastes are annually brought under the programs's
S-9
-------
control over the five-year period, i.e., 20 percent of the total
industrial hazardous wastes per year.
S.3.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection. The
Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection alternative has
been selected for the purpose of analyzing the potential change in
impacts that could result from modifications to the baseline Subtitle
C regulations designed to further increase public health and environ-
mental protection even above that level afforded by the baseline
regulations.
The basic strategy of this alternative is to expand the defini-
tion of hazardous waste in order to bring additional wastes under
control of the program; to remove exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to apply even more stringent design and operational
requirements for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate the
special standards for 'special wastes'; to reduce reporting intervals
for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate the use of deli-
very documents in lieu of manifests; and to decrease the life of
permits and impose additional restrictions on obtaining permits.
S.3.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protec-
tion. The Lesser Degree of Public Health and Enviornraental Protec-
tion alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing the
potential changes in impacts that could result from modifications to
the baseline Subtitle C regulations designed to provide a lesser
degree of public health and environmental protection than that
afforded by the baseline regulations.
S-10
-------
The basic strategy of this alternative is to contract the defi-
nition of hazardous wastes in order to bring fewer wastes under the
control of the program; to increase exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to reduce manifest requirements; to apply less
stringent design and operational requirements for storers, treaters,
and disposers; to eliminate any regulation of 'special wastes'; to
decrease recordkeeping times for generators, transporters, storers,
treaters, and disposers; to increase the length of permit exclusions
for generators who store prior to off-site disposal; to eliminate
restrictions on interim authorization; and to ease restrictions on
full and partial authorization.
S.3.5 Phase I Alternative. The Phase I alternative contains
the set of non-technical modifications that are being considered for
inclusion in the final Phase I Subtitle C regulations. The Phase I
Alternative has been included for the purpose of analyzing the
potential change in impacts that could result from modifications to
the baseline Subtitle C regulations which incorporate this specific
set of non-technical changes.
Under this alternative, revisions have been made in the mechan-
isms for identifying whether a waste is hazardous under Section 3001;
exclusions for hazardous waste generators have been modified; special
standards for 'special wastes' have been eliminated; Interim Status
standards have been added; permit requirements have been modified;
reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been changed; General
S-ll
-------
Facility Standards have been extensively revised; and human health
and environmental standards have been eliminated.
S.4 Impacts of the Baseline Regulations
The potential impacts, both beneficial and adverse, that could
result from implementation of the baseline Subtitle C regulations are
summarized in this section. Two major types of impacts are identi-
fied: primary impacts and secondary impacts. Primary impacts in-
clude those effects that would be directly attributable to the
implementation of the baseline regulations. Secondary impacts
include those effects that would be indirectly attributable to the
implementation of the baseline regulations. In some cases, secondary
impacts might not be observed until years, or even decades, after
implementation of the regulations.
Potential impacts are analyzed for two separate years: 1980,
the year of expected implementation of the regulations, and 1984, the
year by which the full effects of the regulations are expected to
become established. For the reasons discussed in Chapter 7, it is
anticipated that at least five years would be required for such
effects and resultant impacts to become fully established.
The impact analysis is both generic in scope and conducted on a
national level due to the extreme waste-specific, process-specific,
and site-specific nature of most impacts, and due to the data limi-
tations noted in the text. Because most available data relate to
S-12
-------
manufacturing industries, the emphasis of the impact analysis is
necessarily directed toward manufacturing industries.
Over 300 reported incidents of damage from the improper manage-
ment of hazardous wastes were reviewed to assist in identifying the
potential for beneficial impacts resulting from promulgation of the
proposed regulations. From the way in which most of the incidents
have come to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such
incidents go unreported, especially human health incidents which may
require many years of exposure and for which direct causative
relationships are difficult to trace or establish. The reported
incidents indicate that there is often a considerable time interval
between the occurrence of those events which lead to damage and the
time when the damage becomes evident. Since virtually all of the
reported incidents were discovered only after damage had already
occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant potential for many
similar damage incidents to be detected in the future from wastes
that have already been improperly transported, stored, treated, or
disposed.
S.4.1 Potential Primary Impacts. The potential primary impacts
from implementation of the baseline regulations fall into the follow-
ing areas:
• Hazardous wastes to be regulated;
• Changes to existing generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal practices and procedures;
• Administrative changes;
S-13
-------
• Air impacts;
• Water impacts;
• Public health impacts.
S.4.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. Approximately 35
million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes could be con-
trolled under the baseline Subtitle C regulations in 1980, and
approximately 40 million metric tons of hazardous wastes could be
controlled in 1984. The wastes regulated would constitute slightly
over 10 percent of the total manufacturing wastes (hazardous and
non-hazardous) generated annually in the U.S. The generator limit of
100 kilograms per month could exclude about 29,000 metric tons per
year of hazardous manufacturing wastes from regulation. The excluded
wastes would represent less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous
manufacturing wastes; approximately 26 percent of manufacturing
establishments generating hazardous wastes would be excluded, by this
generator Limit, from complying with the generator regulations. In
addition to manufacturing wastes, an indeterminate portion of other
large volume wastes, such as waste automotive oil, coal ash, oil
drilling muds and brines, cement kiln dusts, phosphate mining and
processing wastes, and uranium mining wastes, could be more substan-
tially controlled under the regulations.
S.4.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. The baseline
Subtitle C regulations would lead to a number of major changes in
S-14
-------
existing practices and procedures. The changes would be caused by
the enactment of more stringent environmental requirements than those
that currently exist, resultant increases in treatment and disposal
costs, and specific procedural and operational requirements imposed
by the regulations.
Generation. The regulations would result in procedural changes
in the methods used by regulated generators for tracking and report-
ing hazardous waste shipments and for preparing such shipments for
transport. Every generator would be required to provide a manifest
for each off-site hazardous waste shipment—intrastate, interstate,
and international—sent to a facility not owned by the generator and
to file annual reports and keep records on such shipments. Genera-
tors designating hazardous waste for an off-site facility owned by
the generator and located in the same state as the generator would
have to provide a manifest, but would not have to comply with the
reporting or recordkeeping requirements (although the facility itself
would be subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements under
Section 3004); shipments to generator-owned facilities in other
states would have to comply with the manifesting, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. On-site shipments would not have to be mani-
fested, but would have to be sent to permitted on-site facilities and
would have to be reported to appropriate Federal or state authori-
ties. All such hazardous waste shipments would have to be container-
ized, labeled, and placarded in accordance with Department of
S-15
-------
Transportation (DOT) regulations. Currently, very few shipments of
hazardous wastes are subject to such requirements.
In addition, since one major result of the regulations would be
to increase costs to generators and costs associated with hazardous
waste storage, treatment, and disposal, generators would have an
incentive to modify processes so as to reduce and/or change the types
and amounts of hazardous wastes generated, and to enable the in-
creased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks.
Transport. There are numerous reported instances of hazardous
waste transporters dumping wastes surreptitiously, rather than deliv-
ering the wastes to an environmentally acceptable storage, treatment,
or disposal facility. The manifest and reporting requirements should
significantly reduce, if not eliminate, such practices. Furthermore,
the regulations would impose requirements that all transportation-
related spills of hazardous wastes be reported immediately and be
cleaned up by the transporter. Requirements for accepting, loading,
and stowing hazardous waste shipments would potentially lead to fewer
accidents and spills from hazardous waste transport. However, the
average distance over which hazardous wastes are transported would
likely increase as a result of the regulations. Increased transport
distances would increase the potential for vehicular accidents.
Increased transport distances would also increase the potential for
spills, and this could off-set some of the benefits indicated above.
S-16
-------
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. A major impact resulting from
the Subtitle C regulations would be the closing of those hazardous
waste management facilities (both off-site and on-site) that could
not or would not comply with the storage, treatment, or disposal
requirements. It would also lead to the modification of other
hazardous waste management facilities to enable compliance. It is
expected that a large portion of existing facilities would require
modification in order to comply with the regulations.
Those existing hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal
practices that are environmentally unacceptable according to the
baseline Subtitle C regulations would also be prohibited or restric-
ted or would have to be modified; some practices could be replaced by
other, more environmentally acceptable practices.
Existing practices that are likely to be prohibited or severely
restricted by the baseline Subtitle C regulations include: open
burning; uncontrolled incineration; road application of hazardous
waste oil; the use of landfills without leachate collection systems
and groundwater monitoring systems; the use of surface impoundments
without leachate detection systems and groundwater monitoring
systems; landfarming of highly volatile wastes; the location of land-
fills, surface impoundments, and landfarms within 150 meters (500
feet) of functioning public or private water supplies or livestock
water supplies; and the mixing of incompatible wastes in surface
impoundments and basins, except for the purpose of treatment. In
S-17
-------
addition, the Subtitle C regulations specifically prohibit such
existing practices as open dumping; the placing of reactive wastes,
ignitable wastes, and highly volatile wastes in landfills, surface
impoundments, or basins; the mixing of incompatible wastes in land-
fills and landfarms; the use of waste application practices that
allow the zone of incorporation of landfarms to become anaerobic; and
the use of continuous feed treatment facilities without automatic
waste feed cut-offs or by-pass systems that are activated when a
malfunction occurs.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations also impose specific
requirements for the closure of treatment/disposal facilities. For
example, at the time of closure, all disposal operations would have
to be completed and all wastes removed from storage and treatment
facilities for disposal in accordance with the regulations. Hazard-
ous wastes and hazardous waste residue would also have to be removed
from all surface impoundments that do not meet the standards for
landfills and would have to be disposed in accordance with the regula-
tions. Contaminated soil-filter medium at landfarms could also have
to be removed and disposed according to the regulations. Monitoring
and maintenance care would have to be provided for a period that need
not exceed 20 years from closure.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations would likely lead to changes
in the portion of hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site by gener-
ators and off-site by the waste management industry. For reasons
S-18
-------
discussed in Chapter 7, it is not possible to accurately determine
the extent of any shift that could occur under the baseline Subtitle
C regulations. For purposes of analysis, a range of 13 to 25 percent
off-site treatment/disposal of hazardous manufacturing wastes in 1984
is used to assess potential impacts of a shift in off-site disposal.
S.4.1.3 Administrative Changes. Implementation of the baseline
Subtitle C regulations would necessitate a widesweeping series of
administrative changes that would affect industry, state governments,
and the Federal government.
State Administration of Programs. EPA staff estimates are that
approximately 34 states and territories could qualify for interim
authorization under the Subtitle C regulations. No states are
believed to be currently able to qualify for full authorization. No
states would be able to qualify for partial authorization before the
end of the interim authorization period.
Although RCRA encourages states to administer their own author-
ized hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program, states
are not required to administer such programs. If a state does not
choose to administer a program under Subtitle C of RCRA, there would
be a Federally run program in that state. RCRA, however, does not
prohibit states without authorized programs from enacting and
enforcing their own more stringent or non-consistent hazardous waste
program to be run in the state in addition to the Federal program.
At this time, it is not known if any state would run such a program
S-19
-------
in addition Co the Federal program, or what regulations would be
promulgated under any such overlapping program. Such additional
state programs, if enacted, would have the potential for creating
various impacts, including the imposition of conflicting and/or
duplicative requirements on hazardous waste generators, transporters,
storers, treaters, and disposers.
Number of Generators Required to Comply with the Regulations.
It is estimated that on the order of 270,000 to 300,000 manufacturing
establishments, automotive service stations, hospitals, medical
laboratories, and research facilities could have to comply with the
generator regulations. An indeterminable number of other potential
generators (e.g., 'special waste1 generators) could also have to
comply.
Number of Storers, Treaters. and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. It is estimated that on the order of 29,000 manufacturing
establishments, hospitals, Federal installations, and hazardous waste
management service industry facilities could be required to obtain
permits. An indeterminable number of other storers, treaters, and
disposers could also be required to obtain permits.
Paperwork Requirement Under the Regulations. The potential gen-
erators and permitters identified above would initially have to file
about 270,000 to 300,000 notifications, under Section 3010, with EPA
or authorized states. An indeterminable number of transporters and
other potential generators and permittees would also have to file
S-20
-------
such notifications. These permittees would also have to submit
approximately 29,000 permit applications and additional supplemental
material.
It is estimated that there could be between 350,000 and 690,000
off-site shipments of hazardous industrial wastes annually by 1984,
necessitating industrial generators to prepare between 350,000 and
690,000 manifests annually. The aggregated generators, transporters,
and owners/operators of hazardous waste management facilities would
each have to keep between 1.0 and 2.1 million manifests in storage on
an annual basis. Most transporters currently keep at least 3 years
worth of delivery documents in storage due to various company, state,
and Federal requirements. To the extent that transporters use ac-
ceptable delivery documents in lieu of manifests, or use manifests
in lieu of existing delivery documents, this recordkeeping require-
ment would not constitute an additional burden on transporters.
Each owner/operator of a permitted hazardous waste management fa-
cility would also have to keep an operating log for the life of the
facility, plus 3 years worth of specified records.
It is estimated that generators and hazardous waste management
facilities could prepare upwards of 387,000 to 417,000 reports annu-
ally for submittal to permitting authorities. Transporters could
have to file between 140 to 270 spill reports annually; some spill
reports are presently being filed by transporters under other acts.
S-21
-------
Most of this recordkeeping and reporting would represent addi-
tional requirements on generators and owners/operators of hazardous
waste management facilities, based upon the existing state
regulations.
S.4.1.4 Air Quality. Current hazardous waste generation,
transport, storage, treatment, and disposal practices involve a
variety of activities, each of which has the potential for releasing
air pollutants to the environment. The potential for the release of
air pollutants by each of these activities would be affected in dif-
ferent ways by the baseline Subtitle C regulations. For the most
part, the regulations would lead to reduction in the release of air
»
contaminants and to resultant improvements in air quality.
Generation. Subtitle C regulations would not have a direct
effect on air emissions resulting from activities generating hazard-
ous wastes. However, to the extent that the regulations change the
economics of disposal or treatment and, thus, result in process modi-
fications engineered to recycle hazardous wastes or to reduce or
alter the quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated, Sub-
title C could indirectly result in changes in process air emissions.
Transport. Current practices in the transport of hazardous
wastes have the potential to release air emissions in three major
ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
S-22
-------
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
Containerization requirements applied to both intrastate and
interstate shipments of hazardous wastes would reduce the potential
for fugitive emissions from the transport of hazardous wastes.
Requirements for the acceptance, loading, and stowing of hazardous
wastes, especially incompatible wastes or leaking containers, would
greatly reduce the potential for explosions and spills to occur from
hazardous waste transport. Requirements for spill clean-up would
reduce the potential for the release of air emissions following
spills. Increased transport distances could result in increased vehi-
cular emissions; however, any such increase in emissions would be
extremely small compared to total national vehicular emissions.
Increased transport distances would also increase the potential for
spills, and this could off-set some of the benefits indicated above.
Storage. Current practices in the storage of hazardous wastes
can lead to the release of air pollutants in three major ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills, fires, explosions,
and other accidental releases of hazardous wastes and/or
their constituents;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes.
The regulations contain provisions that would reduce the poten-
tial for the release of air emissions from each of these sources.
S-23
-------
Hazardous waste storage operations would have to be conducted in such
a manner that no discharge occurs; these storage operations would
also have to be monitored and inspected to detect any potential dis-
charge. Hazardous wastes which, if stored in an open manner, could
release air emissions that could adversely affect human health or
environment would be required to be stored in tanks or other closed
containers. Restrictions would be placed on the storage of incompa-
tible, explosive, ignitable, or highly reactive wastes to reduce the
potential for accidental releases to occur from improper storage.
Required spill containment measures and contingency plans could fur-
ther reduce the potential for accidental releases and the time neces-
w
sary to clean up any such accidental releases. Hazardous wastes
would have to be removed from storage operations during facility
closure and be disposed in accordance with the regulations.
Treatment/Disposal. The major sources of air emissions from
current hazardous waste treatment/disposal practices are as follows:
• Fugitive emissions from land-based treatment/disposal acti-
vities, such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Emissions generated by explosions, fires, and other acci-
dents;
• Residuals from the combustion of hazardous wastes by inciner-
ation or open burning;
• Fugitive emissions from other treatment facilities.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations contain requirements that
should reduce the potential for fugitive emissions from the
S-24
-------
land-based treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. For example,
volatile wastes—those with a true vapor pressure greater than 78 mm
mercury at 25 C—would not be allowed to be treated/disposed in
landfills, surface impoundments, or basins; such wastes could be
landfarmed only if the facility owner/operator could demonstrate,
before landfarming the wastes, that the specified air contaminant
levels would not be violated. With regard to wastes that are land-
filled, cover material would have to be applied daily on active
hazardous waste landfill cells. At facility closure, a final cover
would have to be provided. Where gases are generated, a gas collec-
tion and control system would have to be installed in most instances
9
to control the vertical and horizontal escape of gases.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that
should, to a large degree, reduce the potential for fires, explo-
sions, and other accidents at hazardous waste treatment/disposal
facilities. The primary cause of most explosions and fires has been
the mixing of incompatible wastes and the improper treatment/disposal
of ignitable or reactive wastes. The manifesting, labeling, waste
analysis, and training requirements would reduce the potential for
the improper management of such wastes. Restrictions on the
treatment/disposal of incompatible, highly reactive, or ignitable
wastes and requirements for contingency plans and spill containment
measures would further reduce the potential for the release of air
emissions.
S-25
-------
The baseline Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that
should reduce the potential for the release of air contaminants from
the combustion of hazardous wastes. The regulations would require
the use of controls for almost all combustion of hazardous wastes and
would set design and operational standards. Open burning of hazard-
ous wastes would be prohibited in most instances. All facilities
would also be required to comply with all applicable standards of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, in order to maintain their permits.
The regulations would also set specific standards for the incin-
eration of hazardous wastes. Incinerators would also have to be
designed, constructed, and operated such that fugitive emissions of
f
unburned hazardous wastes and combustion products are controlled and
such that waste feed is automatically cut-off if significant changes
occur in flame, combustion zone temperature, excess air, or scrubber
water pressure.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that
should reduce the potential for fugitive emissions from other hazard-
ous waste treatment facilities (e.g., biological, physical, and chem-
ical treatment facilities). Fugitive emissions would be controlled,
for the most part, by the regulatory provisions previously discussed.
To the extent that the baseline Subtitle C regulations result in
modifications to or construction of additional hazardous waste stor-
age, transportation, disposal, or treatment facilities, there would
be an increase in construction-related air emissions. The major
S-26
-------
emissions would include exhaust from motor vehicles, including con-
struction equipment, and fugitive dust raised by such construction
activities as grading, excavation, and movement of equipment.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose these
additional wastes under the regulations as compared to the unregu-
lated current practices. Such shifts would change both the types and
quantities of air emissions generated from the management of specific
wastes. For example, a shift from landfilling to incineration of a
particular waste would result in the increased release of combustion
products and the reduc.ed release of particulate matter and/or vola-
»
tile gases. Such shifts could, to an indeterminable extent, either
enhance or reduce the potential for indicated reductions in specific
air emissions. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities could
lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of the
facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing facili-
ties could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the vicinity
of the facility and along transport routes. The net result could be
both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the releases of many
air contaminants from hazardous waste management, and a localized
and/or nationwide increase in the releases of other air contaminants.
Thus, while there would most likely be improvements in air quality
under the regulations, there could also be some localized degradation
of air quality. All emissions and any localized degradation of air
S-27
-------
quality would, however, have to be in compliance with all applicable
requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act, OSHA standards, state standards,
and Subtitle C standards).
S.4.1.5 Water Quality. Surface water may be contaminated by
current hazardous waste management practices through spills; runoff
from storage, treatment, or disposal areas; discharges from generat-
ing or treatment facilities; or through discharges of contaminated
groundwaters. Groundwater contamination may result from infiltration
of spilled materials or wastes stored or disposed on permeable sur-
faces, from percolation of leachate or runoff which has been in con-
tact with hazardous wastes, from leakage or infiltration of fluids,
from poorly sealed or unlined waste impoundments, or from injection
of wastes into aquifers.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations would potentially result in
a decrease in the number and size of spills of hazardous wastes, pri-
marily through containerization requirements. However, any shift to
off-site treatment or disposal would necessitate more handling and
farther transportation distances, and could tend to off-set some of
the potential for a decrease in hazardous spills. Similarly, any
increases in the quantity of hazardous waste transported by barge
could increase the potential for spills directly into surface waters.
The regulations would, however, provide for more rapid notification
of authorities and for rapid initiation of clean-up procedures fol-
lowing spills.
S-28
-------
The baseline Subtitle C regulations would result in a consider-
able reduction in other surface releases of hazardous wastes. The
regulations would require all generators to store, treat, and dispose
their hazardous wastes in permitted facilities. All owners/operators
of such facilities would be required to construct and maintain
diversion structures to prevent surface runoff from entering active
portions of facilities and to collect any runoff or other discharges
originating on the active portions. All discharges from the
facilities would have to be confined to point sources which comply
with the regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act. Storage
facilities would be prohibited from making any discharges. These
9
regulations would constitute a substantial improvement over the
present unregulated situation and should produce a decrease in the
number of surface water pollution incidents resulting from hazardous
wastes.
Since there are no estimates of the extent of existing
groundwater contamination due to hazardous wastes, it is not possible
to quantify the improvements that would result from the regulations.
However, numerous incidents of severe groundwater contamination have
occurred as a result of actions which would be prohibited by these
regulations. Although the regulations would not address the closure
and clean-up of existing abandoned sites, they would institute
siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and closure require-
ments designed to ensure that no contamination of any underground
S-29
-------
drinking water source occurs as a result of any facility in operation
after the regulations are promulgated.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
types of methods used to treat/dispose the wastes brought under regu-
lation by this alternative. As previously discussed, such shifts
could result in localized changes in the release of specific water
contaminants and, thus, could result in localized changes in water
quality.
S.4.1.6 Public Health. Appendix J summarizes over 300 reported
incidents that have resulted from the improper management of hazard-
ous wastes. This improper management resulted in 49 separate
instances of traceable public health impacts, including death, and 84
instances of drinking water contamination, including contamination of
major aquifers. From the way in which most of the reported incidents
have come to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such
incidents go unreported, especially human health incidents which may
require many years of exposure, and for which direct causative
relationships are difficult to trace or establish. The reported
incidents indicate that there is often a considerable time lag
between the occurrence of those events which lead to public health
impacts and the time when the impact becomes evident. Since vir-
tually all of the reported incidents were discovered only after
damage had already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant
potential for many similar public health impacts to be detected from
S-30
-------
wastes that have already been, or currently are being improperly
transported, stored, treated, or disposed.
The baseline Subtitle C regulations should significantly reduce
the potential for such public health impacts to occur from future
management of hazardous wastes. The regulations would reduce the
potential for the release of air, water, and soil contaminants from
hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant public health
impacts. Furthermore, requirement for recording where hazardous
wastes are disposed and prohibitions against using such sites for
residential or agricultural purposes could prevent future public
health catastrophes, such as that which occurred at Love Canal in
»
Niagara Falls, New York (see Section 7.1.6).
S.4.2 Potential Secondary Impacts. The potential secondary
impacts from implementation of the proposed regulations include
impacts to the following areas:
• Physiography and soils;
• Biological environment;
• Water use;
• Hazardous waste management facility capacity;
• Land use;
• Social impacts;
• Resource conservation and recovery;
• Energy use;
• Special interest points.
S-31
-------
S.4.2.1 Physiography and Soils. The principal areas of envi-
ronmental concern regarding physiography and soils are soil contami-
nation, alterations of topography, and loss and physical disruption
of soils. At present, impacts to soils from hazardous wastes are
widespread, primarily as a result of spills and unregulated dumping.
The manifest system and permit requirements would eliminate most
irresponsible disposal of these wastes. The closure of existing
sites which do not meet the proposed standards would result in
additional impacts to both physiography and soils. In some cases,
significant volumes of clayey soils would have to be acquired and
placed at new disposal sites. Excavation of the clays would result
in alterations of topography. Creation of new disposal sites could
result in contamination of additional soils; however, any such con-
tamination would occur in a controlled manner and would be localized
in relatively few places, as compared to the present situation.
S.4.2.2 Biological Environment. The major routes of hazardous
waste transport to, and subsequent impact upon biological systems are
by: groundwater contamination via leaching, surface water contam-
ination via runoff, air pollution, poisoning via direct contact,
poisoning via the food chain, and fires and explosion. The proposed
regulations would substantially reduce improper transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, and would result in the
containment and long-term separation of these wastes from biological
systems. Although the impact of the regulations cannot be
S-32
-------
quantified, many of the types of incidents of contamination and asso-
ciated biological effects which have been observed in the past would
be prevented by promulgation of the regulations. In general, biolo-
gical impacts due to contact with regulated wastes or from fires or
explosions involving regulated wastes would be greatly reduced, while
other impacts would be reduced in proportion to the reduction of air,
water, and soil contamination. Creation of new disposal sites would
necessitate the pre-emption of land from existing uses. Although
siting restrictions would protect wetlands and critical habitats of
endangered species, construction of disposal facilities in remote
areas could impact other habitat types that may be of value to wild
t
or domesticated animals.
S.4.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations
would likely cause some plant closings and job losses in a few seg-
ments of some industrial categories (e.g., textile industry, inor-
ganic chemicals industry, organic chemicals industry, metals smelting
and refining industry, electroplating and metal finishing industry).
Such plant closings and job losses would have the potential to cause
relocations of some of the affected workers and their families.
There would be a potential for some out-migrations from communities
or areas for which plants being closed constituted the primary source
of employment.
S-33
-------
Operational requirements for hazardous waste management, under
the baseline Subtitle C regulations, would likely result in addition-
al workers being required to track the hazardous wastes; to transport
the wastes; and to store, treat, or dispose the wastes both off-site
and on-site. Additional workers would also be required to administer
and enforce the regulations at both the state and Federal levels.
Construction workers would also be required for necessary modifi-
cations to existing facilities or construction of new facilities. It
is estimated that a total of at least 20,000 workers could be re-
quired nationally, by 1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous
wastes. Data are not available to estimate how many of these would
be new workers due to the Subtitle C regulations.
Some populations shifts could occur if the required number of
workers was not available where needed, particularly in the case of
treatment/disposal sites being located in rural or undeveloped areas.
Any such shifts in population are expected to be relatively small on
a national scale; however, there could be localized instances of a
relatively large influx of workers.
Social Conditions. Impacts to existing social conditions could
result from changes in the siting and operation of hazardous waste
management facilities and from any population shifts caused by the
regulations. The increased public health protection that would be
derived from the regulations would provide significant social
benefits. Many of the social costs related to the exposure of
S-34
-------
workers and the general public to hazardous wastes and their resi-
duals, under current practices, would be reduced or eliminated.
The regulations, while not applying to household wastes, could
also focus more public attention on the problems associated with the
improper treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes, and could result in
increased care in the disposal of hazardous wastes and a further
reduction in public health impacts from such disposal.
On the other hand, an increased public awareness of problems
that have been associated with improper disposal of hazardous wastes
could, in the short-term, add to the opposition to local siting of
hazardous waste management facilities. However, in the long-term,
r
promulgation of the regulations, accompanied by increased public
participation in the facility siting process and specific demonstra-
tions that the objectives of the regulations can be achieved, could
also serve to lessen such opposition in the future and could lead to
more effective siting of facilities.
Social impacts could also result from the expansion of construc-
tion of hazardous waste management facilities and from any increase
off-site transport of hazardous wastes. The construction and opera-
tion of new facilities, especially off-site facilities, would have
aesthetic impacts and could result in localized noise impacts, both
in the vincinity of the facility and along any transportation routes.
Shifts in population that may result from the baseline Subtitle
C regulations would have the potential to cause social impacts. The
S-35
-------
magnitude of any such impacts would be site-specific and would depend
upon such factors as the size of the shift relative to the size of
the existing population in affected areas, the rate of the shift, the
existing infrastructure in the affected areas, and the adequacy of
advanced planning.
S.4.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity. It is
estimated that there would potentially be sufficient process capa-
city, on a nationwide basis, to manage hazardous industrial wastes
shipped off-site in 1980. In the case of 13 percent off-site ship-
ment, there would potentially be sufficient process capacity on a
nationwide basis to manage hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-
t
site in 1984. In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there
would potentially be a nationwide shortfall of 2.6 million metric
tons of environmentally adequate off-site capacity for treating/
disposing hazardous industrial wastes in 1984; without any growth in
existing, environmentally adequate, capacity, this nationwide short-
fall could be 4.9 million metric tons. Approximately 45 additional
off-site facilities could be required to handle hazardous industrial
waste by 1984 in the former case and approximately 80 additional off-
site facilities could be required in the latter case. Data are not
available to estimate if there would be any potential shortfall in
environmentally adequate, on-site, hazardous waste management process
capacity under the Subtitle C regulations.
Even in those instances where sufficient capacity is estimated
to be available on a nationwide basis, regional, statewide, or
S-36
-------
localized shortfalls of capacity would be very likely to occur as dis-
cussed in Chapter 7. Furthermore, treatment/disposal of hazardous
non-manufacturing wastes could create shortfalls or exacerbate
existing shortfalls.
S.4.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus on-
site, would be required for environmentally adequate hazardous waste
management under the baseline Subtitle C regulations than for hazard-
ous waste management under current practices. The additional land
necessary for the environmentally adequate management of hazardous
waste would be required, both for the construction of permitted
facilities necessary to meet any additional capacity shortfalls that
t
could occur under the Subtitle C regulations, and for such conjunc-
tive developments as construction of roads, power lines, and pipe-
lines. However, while more total land would be required, in the case
of 13 percent off-site shipment, there could be less off-site land
use and more on-site land use for hazardous industrial wastes by 1984
than under current practices. In the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment, there could be more off-site land use and less on-site land
use for hazardous industrial waste by 1984 than under current
practices.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management areas. Fol-
lowing closure of the hazardous waste management facility and rehab-
ilitation of the site according to the closure plans, the land would
S-37
-------
be available for limited new uses or, in some cases, previously
existing uses. Sites from which hazardous wastes have not been
removed would be precluded from residential and agricultural uses,
and may be precluded from some recreational and grazing uses follow-
ing closure. Any activity requiring excavation would also be prohi-
bited at sites where wastes are not removed. Further, since the
regulations would require records to be kept of the location and
types of all hazardous wastes remaining at the site, the potential
for incidents, such as that which occurred at Love Canal in Niagara
Falls, New York, would be reduced.
To the extent that the regulations would prevent other lands
f
from being contaminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage, or
treatment under current practices and regulations, there would be a
potential for offsetting land use benefits.
S.4.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The potential for the degradation
of both groundwater and surface water would be reduced under the reg-
ulations. To the extent that degradation of water quality would have
resulted in a decreased supply of surface water or groundwater being
available to some or all consumers in the water use area, there would
be an additional supply of groundwater or surface water potentially
available to such consumers and fewer restrictions on the productive
use of such surface water and groundwater supplies. New facilities
would, however, be additional consumers of water.
S-38
-------
S.4.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. Since one of the
major impacts of the regulations would be to increase generator's
costs and the costs associated with hazardous waste transport, stor-
age, treatment, and disposal, the regulations would provide an incen-
tive for generators to modify processes so as to enable increased
recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks, to reduce the
quantities of hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to
alter the nature of the wastes generated. Any changes would be
extremely waste stream and process-specific. Furthermore, since the
regulations prohibit the placing of ignitable wastes in landfills,
landfarms, surface impoundments, and basins, the potential for in-
creased incineration of such wastes, with possible energy recovery,
would be greatly enhanced.
S.4.2.8 Energy Use. The facility modification and construction
that would be necessary under the regulations would result in
increased energy use. More energy would also be used for the
construction of new facilities under the regulations than would have
otherwise been needed due to requirements directed toward making
these facilities more environmentally secure. Increased energy use
would also result from required changes in storage, treatment, and
disposal operations under the regulations (e.g., higher incineration
temperatures and longer retention times). While any increase in re-
source recovery would also likely require the initial input of addi-
tional energy, energy savings from increase energy recovery, from
S-39
-------
further reduction in the quantities of wastes requiring storage,
treatment, or disposal, and from materials recovery and reuse, could
result in an overall energy savings from resource recovery
operations.
The changes in energy use from the transport of hazardous wastes
would depend upon such factors as shifts in the portion of wastes
managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport distances. The
estimated change in annual energy use in 1984 ranges from a decrease
equivalent to about 20,000 barrels of crude oil for an average 100-
mile round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal,
to an increase equivalent to about 2.2 million barrels of crude oil
for an average 1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent off-
site treatment/disposal.
The regulations could also potentially have an impact on energy
production. The requirements and their resultant costs could poten-
tially result in the closure of or reduced production at some energy
producing operations. The regulations could also potentially lead
some facilities to change the fuels they use so as to reduce or elim-
inate the generation of hazardous waste.
S.4.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. The baseline
Subtitle C regulations contain provisions which, while not applying
specifically to the protection of special interest points, would
provide indirect benefits to special interest points and to the human
enjoyment of such features. For example, restrictions on the siting
S-40
-------
of hazardous waste management facilities in wetlands and critical
habitats would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to such
areas. Furthermore, provisions that would potentially reduce the
release of air, water, and soil contaminants from hazardous wastes
management activities would reduce the potential for these contami-
nants to infringe upon special interest points and would increase, or
at least maintain, the opportunity for human enjoyment of such spe-
cial interest points. However, to the extent that additional lands
would be disturbed by facility construction and operation and by
conjunctive developments, there would be an increased potential for
some infringement upon other special interest points.
S.5 Impacts of the Alternatives
This section summarizes the potential changes in impacts, rela-
tive to those of the baseline action, that could result from imple-
mentation of each alternative. Impacts that would be substantially
the same as those of the baseline regulations are not presented in
order to avoid duplication.
S.5.1 No Action Alternative. Since implementation of RCRA is
mandated by an act of Congress, implementation of this alternative is
not considered to be feasible without an additional act of Congress
repealing RCRA. However, if implemented, this alternative would
result in a continuation of current hazardous waste management prac-
tices, modified by the requirements of any further legislation enact-
ed by individual states.
S-41
-------
The overall control of hazardous wastes would be much less
effective than with a national program. The public health and
environmental problems previously discussed would continue to occur,
though they could be mitigated by the enactment of more stringent
state regulations than those that currently exist. In any state with
significantly less stringent regulations than it would have under the
Federal program, there could be a significant increase in public
health and environmental problems relative to those that would occur
under the Subtitle C regulations. Impacts could also extend to
neighboring states.
S.5.2 Phasing of Generators Alternative. Under this alterna-
tive, a total of approximately 74 million metric tons of hazardous
industrial wastes could be excluded from regulation during the first
four years following implementation of the Subtitle C regulations.
This would be about a 50 percent reduction in regulated hazardous
industrial wastes during this period, as compared to the baseline
regulations. There would be no change in wastes regulated after the
first four years.
During the first year, regulatory control would essentially be
limited to industries in SIC Codes 26 (Paper and Allied Products), 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products), 29 (Petroleum and Coal Products),
and 33 (Primary Metal Industries), with about 75 percent of the
controlled wastes being generated within SIC Code 28. While wastes
would be regulated within all EPA Regions, Regions III, IV, and V
S-42
-------
would generate about 65 percent of the regulated wastes. Approxi-
mately 230 manufacturing establishments could be regulated nation-
wide.
During the second year, regulatory control would be extended to
SIC Codes 31 (Leather and Leather Products), 32 (Stone, Clay, and
Glass Products), 34 (Fabricated Metal Products), and 35 (Machinery,
Except Electrical), with about 60 percent of the controlled wastes
being generated within SIC Code 28. Control efforts would be more
pronounced in EPA Regions III, IV, and V, though their overall share
of regulated wastes could decrease to about 61 percent, with one-half
of that being in Region V. Approximately 1,500 manufacturing estab-
lishments would be regulated nationwide.
During the third year, regulatory control would be extended to
industries in SIC Codes 25 (Furniture and Fixtures), 30 (Rubber and
Miscellaneous Plastic Products), 37 (Transportation Equipment), and
39 (Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries). EPA Region V would gen-
erate about 29 percent of the regulated wastes, while Regions II,
III, IV, and V would each generate between 10 and 16 percent. About
4,300 manufacturing establishments would be regulated nationwide.
During the fourth year, regulatory control would be extended to
establishments in all SIC Codes except 23 (Apparel and Other Textile
Products), 24 (Lumber and Wood Products), and 27 (Printing and
Publishing). The distribution of regulated wastes among the EPA
regions would remain essentially the same as in the previous year.
S-43
-------
Approximately 15,500 manufacturing establishments could be regulated
nationwide.
A major benefit resulting from this alternative would be the
gradual expansion of administrative requirements, rather than the
abrupt imposition of such requirements. Administrative requirements,
primarily paperwork, would be reduced during the first four years
following implementation of the regulations. There could be a 50
percent reduction in manifests and over a 97 percent reduction in the
submittal of annual reports during this period, compared to the
baseline regulations. Reduction in administrative requirements could
also encourage additional states to apply for interim or full author-
ization. The longer transition period would also provide an in-
creased opportunity for planning and instituting measures to mitigate
the potential impacts of any population shifts or of any shortfalls
in hazardous waste management facility capacity.
To the extent that the 74 million metric tons of hazardous in-
dustrial wastes excluded from the generator regulations, under this
alternative, were not to be managed in a manner equivalent to that
required under the baseline Subtitle C regulations, there would be an
increased potential for the release of air, water, and soil contami-
nants from these wastes.* Changes in public health and
*It should be noted that as discussed in Section 7.1.2, it is
expected that at least 5 years would be necessary to act upon and to
issue all permits under the proposed regulations. Thus, some inde-
terminable portion of the 74 million metric tons of hazardous waste
excluded under this alternative might not be managed under the
baseline regulations as adequately as would be required following
issuance of a permit.
S-44
-------
environmental effects would be directly related to changes in the
release of air, water, and soil contaminants. To 'the extent that
increased releases were to occur, there would be an increased poten-
tial for the occurrence of adverse public health and environmental
impacts. Both chronic health effects, related to long-term, low-
level exposure to such contaminants, and water quality impacts could
continue for many years following improper disposal of such wastes.
S.5.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
Alternative. Table S-l indicates some of the changes under this
alternative, compared to the baseline regulations. These and other
major changes are discussed below.
S.5.3.1 Primary Impacts.
Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 57 and 65 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing
wastes would be controlled, under this alternative, in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. This would represent about a 63 percent increase in
the hazardous industrial wastes controlled in both these years.
There would also be an indeterminable, but possibly quite large,
increase in hazardous non-manufacturing wastes regulated under this
alternative.
i
Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment, and Dispo-
sal Practices. Additional changes to generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal practices, similar to those discussed for the
baseline regulations, would be likely to occur under this alternative
S-45
-------
TABLE S-l
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE REGULATIONS AND
THE PHASE I AND THE ENHANCED AND THE LESSER DEGREE OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES*
Impact
area
Regulated manufacturing
wasces - 1984
Baseline
regulations
40 million
metric tons
Enhanced
protection
alternative
65 million
metric tons
Lesser degree
of protection
alternative
26 million
metric tons
Phase I
alternative
*40 million
metric tona
Regulated non-manufacturing
wastes
Number of identifiable
regulated generators
Number of identifiable
regulated storers, treaters,
and disposers
Number of manifests
prepared annually - 1984
Number of reports
submitted annually
Number of workers required
to store, treat, or dispose
regulated manufacturing
wastes - 1984
Off-site process capacity
shortfall on nationwide
basis for hazardous
manufacturing wastes
1930
1984
13Z off-site shipment
25Z off-site shipment
Change in annual off-site
landfill requirements for
regulated manufacturing
wastes after 1984t
13Z off-site shipment
25Z off-site shipment
Potentially Potentially large
large quantities quantities
270,000-300,000
29.000
i2.2 million
not deteminable
350,000-690,000 580,000-1,100.000
390,000-420,000 3.9 million
20,000 33,000
Potentially Potentially
small quantities large quantities!
110,000-140,000 «
not deteminable t29,000
200,000-420,000 t
140,000-170,000 250.000-280.000
12,000 t
2.6 million metric
tons (approximately
45 additional
facilities)
2.7 million metric
tons (approximately
45 additional facilities)
0.9 million metric
tons (no additional
facilities)
9.6 million metric
tons (approximately
160 additional facilities)
-160 to -320 acres -260 to -520 acres
800 to 1,600 acres 1,300 to 2,600 acres
-95 to -190 acres
500 to 1,000 acres
*Based upon methodologies and assumptions described in Chapters 7 and 8.
tlhere would be commensurate changes In on-slte landfill requirements.
TNot deteminable, but expected to be on the order of the quantity estimated for the baseline regulations.
IMosc special wastes subject to full set of regulations.
1110,000-140,000 for first 2 to 5 years; then 220,000-250,000.
S-46
-------
due to the additional wastes being regulated; due to the additional
generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste
management facilities being regulated; due to the enactment of more
stringent environmental requirements; due to resultant increases in
storage, treatment, and disposal costs; and due to the imposition of
additional procedural and operational requirements.
Administrative Changes. Several changes in the administration
of hazardous waste management programs would result from promulgation
of the regulations within this alternative. It is likely that fewer
states would apply for authorization under this alternative because
expansion of both the quantity of hazardous wastes and the number of
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers being
regulated, plus the increases in reporting frequencies, would lead to
increased administrative and manpower requirements for authorized
states.
It is estimated that on the order of 2.2 million manufacturing
establishments, automotive service stations, hospitals, medical
laboratories, research facilities, farmers, and dry cleaning estab-
lishments could have to comply with the generator regulations under
this alternative. This would represent over a 700 percent increase
in the number of generators being regulated, compared to the baseline
regulations. It is expected, however, that there would be only a
relatively small increase in the number of permittees under this
alternative.
S-47
-------
It is estimated that the industrial generators could have to
prepare between 580,000 and 1.1 million manifests annually by 1984.
Based upon this number of manifests, the aggregated generators,
transporters, and hazardous waste management facility owner/operators
could each have to keep between 1.7 million and 3.4 million manifests
in storage on an annual basis. This would represent over a 60 per-
cent increase in both requirements, as compared to the proposed
regulations. It is estimated that generators and permittees could
prepare upward of 8.9 million quarterly reports on an annual basis—
over a 2,100 percent increase.
The identified generators and permittees would have to file over
2.2 million notifications under Section 3010—about a 700 percent
increase. Furthermore, since potential permittees would have to
renew permits every 5 years, rather than being issued one permit good
for the projected life of the facility as under the proposed regula-
tions, there could be up to a six-fold increase (in the case of a
30-year facility site life) in the paperwork associated with obtain-
ing permits. These potential permittees would also have to prepare
approximately 29,000 Supplemental Environmental Analyses as part of
the initial permit review procedure; these Supplemental Environmental
Analyses would not be required under the baseline regulations.
Air and Water Quality. The regulations under this alternative
would have the potential to cause further changes, primarily reduc-
tions, in the release of air emissions and water effluents from the
S-48
-------
generation, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
wastes, as compared to the baseline regulations. To the extent that
the requirements under this alternative would cause further changes
in the economics of storage, treatment, or disposal relative to those
of the baseline regulations, there would be a greater potential for
generators to make process modifications designed to further increase
hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quantity and/or types of
hazardous wastes generated; any such process modifications would
likely lead to changes in air emissions and water effluents released
by processes generating hazardous wastes. Furthermore, to the extent
that additional generators would be brought under control of the pro-
gram through the expanded definition of hazardous wastes and the eli-
mination of exclusions, the potential for such process modifications
and resultant changes in air emissions and water effluents would be
increased.
The additional 25 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be
brought under control of the regulations in 1984, by this alterna-
tive, would now have to be transported, stored, treated, or disposed
in accordance with the Subtitle C regulations. Since most of these
wastes would otherwise have been transported, stored, treated, or
disposed by methods that are not likely to be environmentally accept-
able under the Subtitle C regulations, the overall potential for
S-49
-------
the release of hazardous air emissions or water effluents from the
management of such additional wastes would be reduced.
Additional requirements imposed by this alternative would fur-
ther reduce the potential for the release of air and water contami-
nants from the management of both the additional 25 million metric
tons of hazardous industrial wastes controlled under this alterna-
tive, and the 40 million metric tons also controlled under the base-
line regulations. The major impact, with regard to air quality,
would result from changing the application of the Threshold Limit
Values (TLV) from an air human health and environmental standard to a
mandatory standard with which facilities must always be in compli-
ance, and the imposition of the TLV's as a maximum concentration not
to be exceeded at any time, rather than as a time-weighted average
not to be exceeded over an 8-hour day and 40-hour week. The major
impact, with regard to water quality, would result from requiring
lower permeabilities for soil liners for landfills and surface
impoundments.
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be modified or would have to be constructed
under this alternative, there would be an increase in fugitive dust,
vehicular emissions, and runoff from such construction activities.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
types of methods used to treat/dispose the additional wastes
regulated under this alternative, compared to the unregulated methods
S-50
-------
that would have been used under the baseline regulations. As previ-
ously discussed, the net result could be both a localized and/or
nationwide reduction in the releases of many air and water contamin-
ants from hazardous waste management, and a localized and/or nation-
wide increase in the total releases of other air and water contami-
nants. Thus, while there would most likely be improvements in air
and water quality due to this alternative, there could also be some
localized degradation of air and water quality. All releases and any
localized degradation of air or water quality would, however, have to
be in compliance with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air
Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA standards, state standards, and Subtitle C
standards).
Public Health. The regulations under this alternative would
have the potential for further increasing the public health benefits
to be derived from the control of hazardous wastes. The regulations
would reduce the potential for the release of air, water, and soil
contaminants from hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant
public health impacts. Furthermore, since most of the additional
wastes to be regulated under this alternative would be potentially
toxic organic wastes, there could be a much greater potential for
significant reductions in chronic health effects related to long-
term, low-level exposure to residuals resulting from the improper
disposal of such wastes.
S.5.3.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts that could occur, as a result of implementation of this
S-51
-------
alternative, would result from the control of an additional 25 mil-
lion metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial wastes, plus
other hazardous wastes; the enactment of more stringent environmental
requirements with regard to transport, storage, treatment, and dis-
posal of hazardous wastes; and resultant increases in hazardous
wastes storage, treatment, and disposal costs. To the extent that
these changes result in reductions in the release of air, water, and
soil contaminants, there would be further beneficial impacts to the
biological environment, soils, water use, land use, and special
interest points, as compared to the baseline regulations.
The above changes would also provide increased incentives for
generators to modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of
hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of
hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the
nature of wastes generated. Energy use could, however, be increased
by the additional facility modification and construction required
under this alternative, by required changes in facility operation and
closure, and by any increases in hazardous waste transport. Changes
in resource recovery could lead to other changes in energy use, in-
cluding additional savings in energy use. There could also be
increased reductions in energy production due to increased costs of
waste disposal and to the elimination of special standards for 'spe-
cial wastes'; many 'special wastes' are generated by energy produc-
tion activities.
S-52
-------
Additional industrial plant closings or relocations due to the
increased costs, under this alternative, could lead to additional
population shifts and resultant impacts. Additional workers would
also be required to manage hazardous wastes, to construct facilities,
and to administer and enforce the regulations. It is estimated that,
under this alternative, at least 33,000 workers could be required
nationally, by 1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes;
this would represent over a 60 percent increase in this requirement,
compared to the baseline regulations. Additional population shifts
could occur in response to the increased personnel requirements; any
such shifts would be expected to be small on a national scale, though
there could be localized instances of a relatively large influx or
out flux of workers.
It is estimated that, under this alternative, there could poten-
tially be a nationwide shortfall of 2.7 million metric tons of envi-
ronmentally adequate off-site capacity for hazardous industrial
wastes in 1980; without any growth in existing, environmentally
adequate, off-site capacity, this nationwide shortfall could be 4.2
metric tons. Approximately 45 additional permitted off-site facili-
ties could be required to handle hazardous industrial waste in 1980
in the former case and approximately 70 additional permitted off-site
facilities could be required in the latter case, compared to the
baseline regulations. In the case of 13 percent off-site shipment,
there could potentially be a nationwide shortfall of 0.9 million
S-53
-------
metric tons of environmentally adequate off-site capacity for hazard-
ous industrial waste in 1984; without any growth in existing, envi-
ronmentally adequate, off-site capacity, this nationwide shortfall
could be 3.2 million metric tons. Since less capacity would be re-
quired in 1984 than in 1980 in the case of 13 percent off-site ship-
ment, no additional permitted off-site facilities could be required
to handle hazardous industrial wastes in 1984. In the case of 25
percent off-site shipment, there could potentially be a nationwide
shortfall of 9.6 million metric tons of environmentally adequate off-
site capacity for hazardous industrial wastes in 1984; without any
growth in existing, environmentally adequate, off-site capacity, this
nationwide shortfall could be 11.9 million metric tons. Approximate-
ly 160 additional permitted off-site facilities could be required to
handle hazardous industrial waste in 1984 in the former case and
approximately 200 additional permitted off-site facilities could be
required in the latter case. Based upon the estimated shortfall
under the baseline regulations, only 115 of the necessary permitted
facilities would be attributable to this alternative in the former
case and only 120 would be attributable to this alternative in the
latter case. Data are not available to estimate potential shortfalls
in environmentally adequate on-site process capacity. Treatment dis-
posal of hazardous non-manufacturing waste could exacerbate these
shortfalls, as could other factors discussed under the baseline
regulations.
S-54
-------
More total land, off-site plus on-site, would be required for
environmentally adequate hazardous waste management under this alter-
native than under the baseline regulations. This land would be
required both for the construction of the permitted facilities neces-
sary for the storage, treatment, and disposal of the additional
wastes regulated under this alternative, and for such conjunctive
developments as construction of roads, power lines, and pipelines.
However, while more total land would be required under this alterna-
tive, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment, there could be
less off-site land use and more on-site land use for hazardous indus-
trial wastes by 1984, compared to the baseline regulations. In the
case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there could be more off-site
land use and less on-site land use for hazardous industrial wastes by
1984, compared to the baseline regulations.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Exist-
ing animal habitats would also be disturbed on all such lands. Fol-
lowing closure of the hazardous waste management facility and any
rehabilitation of the site, according to the closure and long-term
care plans, the land would be available for new or, in some cases,
previously existing uses. The biological community on disturbed
areas could differ in species composition and diversity following
site rehabilitation.
The construction and operation of the required facilities, espe-
cially off-site facilities, would cause additional aesthetic impacts
S-55
-------
and could result in additional instances of localized noise impacts.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous waste
management facilities could be further exacerbated by the increased
requirements for such facilities under this alternative. However,
this opposition could be somewhat mitigated by the more stringent
environmental requirements under this alternative, by the require-
ment for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental Analysis as
part of the permit review process, and by the requirement for permits
to be renewed every 5 years, rather than not at all.
S.5.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protec-
tion Alternative. Table S-l indicates some of the changes under this
alternative, compared to the baseline regulations. These and other
major changes are discussed below.
S.5.4.1 Primary Impacts.
Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 20 and 24 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing
wastes would be controlled under this alternative in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. This would represent about a 40 percent decrease in
the hazardous industrial wastes controlled in both these years.
There would also be an indeterminable, but possibly quite large,
decrease in hazardous non-manufacturing wastes regulated under this
alternative.
Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment, and Dispo-
sal Practices. Fewer changes of the type discussed for the baseline
S-56
-------
regulations would be likely Co occur to existing generation, trans-
port, storage, treatment, and disposal practices under this alterna-
tive due to the lesser amount of wastes being regulated; due to the
reduced number of generators, transporters, and owners/operators of
hazardous waste management facilities being regulated; due to the
enactment of less stringent environmental requirements; due to
resultant reductions in storage, treatment, and dispoal costs; and
due to the imposition of fewer procedural and operational
requirements.
Administrative Changes. Several changes in the administration
of hazardous waste management programs would result from promulgation
of the regulations within this alternative. Additional states could
consider applying for full, partial, or interim authorization due to
elimination of almost all restriction on granting of interim authori-
zation, elimination of restrictions on granting of full or partial
authorization to states with more stringent standards, and reductions
in administrative and manpower requirements. However, the elimina-
tion of the toxicity characteristic could also off-set such a poten-
tial for increases in state authorization. If enough states felt
that the regulations were not adequate without the inclusion of toxic
wastes, there could be an overall reduction in authorized states
under this alternative. Furthermore, the less stringent standards
and reduced amount of hazardous waste controlled under this alterna-
tive could increase the potential benefits to, and, thus, the
S-57
-------
Likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent, independent,
hazardous waste program.
It is estimated that on the order of 110,000 to 140,000 manufac-
turing establishments, hospitals, and medical laboratories could have
to comply with the generator regulations under this alternative. This
would represent nearly a 60 percent reduction in the number of gener-
ators being regulated, compared to the baseline regulations. Data
are not available to estimate the reductions in the number of trans-
porters and owners/operators of hazardous waste management facilities
to be regulated.
It is estimated that the industrial generators could have to
prepare between 200,000 and 420,000 manifests annually by 1984.
Based upon this number of manifests, the aggregated generators,
transporters, and hazardous waste management facility owners/
operators could each have to keep between 200,000 nd 420,000 mani-
fests in storage on an annual basis. This would represent approxi-
mately an 80 percent decrease in both requirements, as compared to
the baseline regulations. It is estimated that generators and per-
mittees could prepare between 140,000 and 170,000 reports on an
annual basis—a reduction of approximately 60 percent. The identi-
fied generators and permittees could have to file between 110,000 and
140,000 notifications under Section 3010—a reduction of nearly 60
percent.
S-58
-------
Air and Water Quality. The regulations under this alternative
would have the potential to cause fewer changes affecting the release
of air and water contaminants from the generation, transport, stor-
age, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the
baseline regulations. The primary result would be fewer beneficial
changes in air quality and water quality. To the extent that the
requirements under this alternative would cause fewer changes in the
economics of storage, treatment, or disposal relative to those of
baseline regulations, there would be less of a potential for genera-
tors to make process modifications designed to further increase
hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quantity and/or types of
hazardous wastes generated; any such reductions in process modifica-
tions would likely lead to fewer changes in the release of air and
water contaminants by processes generating hazardous wastes. Fur-
thermore, to the extent that fewer generators would be brought under
control of the program, the potential for such process modifications
and resultant changes in the release of air and water contaminants
would be further decreased.
The 16 million metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial
wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be removed from
regulation in 1984, by this alternative, would not have to be trans-
ported, stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the Subtitle
C regulations. Since most of these wastes would not likely be
transported, stored, treated, or disposed by methods that are
S-59
-------
environmentally acceptable under the Subtitle C regulations, the
overall potential for the release of hazardous air emissions or water
effluents from the management of such additional wastes would be
increased.
With regard to the estimated 24 million metric tons of potenti-
ally hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) that
would still be regulated under this alternative in 1984, the less
stringent requirements under this alternative would have the poten-
tial for increasing the release of air contaminants from the manage-
ment of these wastes, as compared to their management under the base-
line regulations. The major impact, with regard to air quality,
would result from less stringent incineration requirements and from
allowing volatile wastes to be placed in landfills, landfarms, sur-
face impoundments, or storage tanks vented directly to the atmos-
phere. The application of the Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) as a
time-weighted average for a 24-hour day, rather than as a time-
weighted average for an 8-hour day and a 40-hour week, would further
allow an increase in air emissions from such non-point sources as
landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage areas. The
major impact, with regard to water quality, would result from allow-
ing higher permeabilities for soil liners for landfills and surface
impoundments.
To the extent that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal facili-
ties would have to be modified or would have to be constructed under
S-60
-------
this alternative, there would be a decrease in fugitive dust, vehicu-
lar emissions, and runoff from such construction activities.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both
the regulated wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative, compared to the methods that would have been used
to manage these wastes under the baseline regulations. As previously
discussed, the net result could be both localized and/or nationwide
increases in the release of many air and water contaminants from
hazardous waste management, and localized and/or nationwide decreases
in the release of other air and water contaminants relative to the
proposed regulations. The likely result would be increased localized
degradation of air and water quality, along with some localized
improvement in air and water quality. All releases and any localized
degradation of air or water quality would have to be in compliance
with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards,
Clean Water Act standards, OSHA standards, state standards).
Public Health. The regulations under this alternative would
have the potential for reducing the public health benefits to be
derived from the control of hazardous wastes. As discussed else-
where, the regulations would increase (relative to the proposed regu-
lations) the potential for the release of air, water, and soil con-
taminants from hazardous waste management and, thus, for resultant
public health impacts. Furthermore, since most of the wastes to be
S-61
-------
removed from regulations under this alternative would be potentially
toxic wastes, there could be a much greater potential for significant
increases in acute and chronic health effects to result from the
improper disposal of such wastes.
S.5.4.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts (relative to the proposed regulations) that could occur, as a
result of implementation of this alternative, would result primarily
from the removal of approximately 16 million metric tons of hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation annu-
ally by 1984; the enactment of less stringent environmental require-
ments with regard to the transport, storage, treatment, and disposal
of hazardous wastes; and potentially lower increases in storage,
treatment, and disposal costs as a result of these less stringent
regulations. To the extent that these changes result in increases in
the release of air, water, and soil contaminants, there would be
fewer beneficial impacts to the biological environment, soils, water
use, land use, and special interest points, as compared to the base-
line regulations.
The above changes would also provide less of an incentive for
generators to modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of
hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of
hazardous wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the
nature of wastes produced. Energy use could, however, be decreased
by the lesser amount of facility modification and construction
S-62
-------
required under this alternative, by less stringent requirements for
facility operation and closure, and by any resultant decreases in
hazardous waste transport. Changes in resource recovery could lead
to fewer changes in energy use, including less recovery of energy.
There could also be fewer reductions in energy production due to the
reduced costs associated with management of wastes from such activi-
ties and due to the exclusion of hazardous 'special wastes' from
regulation; many 'special wastes' are generated by energy production
activities.
Fewer industrial plant closings or relocations, due to the
reduced costs under this alternative, could lead to fewer population
shifts and resultant impacts. Fewer workers would also be required
to manage hazardous wastes, to construct facilities, and to adminis-
ter and enforce the regulations. It is estimated that, under this
alternative, at least 12,000 workers could be required nationally, by
1984, to store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes; this would repre-
sent approximately a 40 percent decrease in this requirement, com-
pared to the baseline regulations. Fewer population shifts could
occur in response to the reduced personnel requirements; any shifts
would be expected to be small on a national scale, though there could
still be localized instances of a relatively large influx or out flux
of workers.
It is estimated that, under this alternative, there could poten-
tially be sufficient, environmentally adequate, off-site capacity on
S-63
-------
a nationwide basis to handle all hazardous industrial wastes sent
off-site in 1980 and 1984. However, without any growth in existing,
environmentally adequate, off-site capacity, there could potentially
be a nationwide shortfall of 0.5 million metric tons in such capacity
in 1984 in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. In this case,
approximately 72 fewer permitted off-site facilities could be
required to handle hazardous industrial waste, as compared to the
baseline regulations. Data are not available to estimate any poten-
tial shortfalls in environmentally adequate on-site capacity; how-
ever, there would be less of a potential for any shortfalls to occur.
Even in those instances where sufficient capacity is estimated to be
available on a nationwide basis, regional, statewide, or localized
shortages would be likely to occur, as discussed under the baseline
regulations.
Less total land, off-site plus on-site, would be required for
the construction of any storage, treatment, and disposal facilities
needed under this alternative, and for such conjunctive developments
as construction of roads, power lines, and pipelines. Less addition-
al land would be required since fewer wastes would have to be sent to
permitted facilities; the wastes removed from regulation could use
existing facilities or other facilities that were not adequate under
the baseline regulations. However, while less total land would be
required under this alternative, in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment, there could be more off-site land use and less on-site land
S-64
-------
use for hazardous industrial wastes by 1984, compared to the baseline
regulations. In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there
could be less off-site land use and more on-site land use for hazard-
ous industrial wastes by 1984, compared to the baseline regulations.
Existing land uses would not change on lands excluded from
hazardous waste management under this alternative; however, there
could be localized changes in land use from any additional shifts to
off-site management from on-site management, or to on-site management
from off-site management, as discussed above. There would be fewer
disruptions of ecological communities as a result of the lesser land
disturbances.
The construction and operation of fewer facilities, especially
off-site facilities, would cause fewer aesthetic impacts and could
result in fewer instances of localized noise impacts. While public
opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities could be reduced by the need for fewer facilities
under this alternative, any opposition that occurs could be exacer-
bated by the less stringent requirements under this alternative.
S.5.5 Phase I Alternative. Table S-l indicates some of the
changes under this alternative, compared to the baseline regulations.
These and other major changes are discussed below.
S.5.5.1 Primary Impacts.
Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. Various modifications under
this alternative would exclude from regulation some wastes that would
S-65
-------
have been regulated under this baseline regulation and would subject
to regulation additional wastes that would not have been regulated
under the baseline regulations. While data are not available to
determine the specific changes in the quantity of waste that would be
regulated, it is estimated that the net effect of all the modifica-
tions would likely be a slight decrease in the total quantity of
waste regulated under this alternative. There would likely be a net
decrease in the quantity of both manufacturing and non-manufacturing
wastes being regulated. While there would also be a net decrease in
the quantity of 'special waste* being regulated, much 'special waste'
would be subject to the full set of regulations rather than just to a
limited portion of the regulations. During the first 2 to 5 years
following implementation of the regulations, less total waste would
be subject to regulation in the period that follows due to indicated
changes in the generator limit.
Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment, and Dis-
posal Practices. Changes to generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment and disposal practices would likely occur under this alternative
due to the changes in wastes being regulated; due to implementation
of the Interim Status Standards*; due to revisions in procedural
The Interim Status Standards represent the minimum requirements
with which an existing treatment, storage, or disposal facility must
comply until administrative disposition of the facility's permit
application is made. The Interim Status Standards would apply to
all activities affecting any hazardous waste handled at such a
facility after the effective date of the regulations. Under the
baseline regulations, existing facilities would not be required to
modify their present practices until after being issued a permit.
S-66
-------
and operational requirements; and due to resultant changes in stor-
age, treatment, and disposal costs.
In general, there would be some significant differences between
those changes related to the generation and management of hazardous
'special wastes' and those changes related to the generation and
management of all other hazardous wastes. These differences would be
the result of the requirement that most hazardous 'special wastes'
comply with the full set of Subtitle C standards under this alterna-
tive, rather than the limited set of standards specified under the
baseline regulations. All other hazardous wastes would already be
required to comply with the full set of baseline regulations.
With regard to all hazardous wastes other than 'special wastes',
fewer changes of the types discussed for the baseline regulations
would be likely to occur to existing generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal practices under this alternative. However,
those changes that do occur would take place sooner due to the re-
quirements of the Interim Status Standards. Generators, trans-
porters, and waste management facilities would also have to make some
additional modifications to comply with the additional requirements
discussed in Section 8.5.1.2. These include increased requirements
for tracking of waste shipments and for post-closure care at disposal
facilities.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes', many additional
changes to generation, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal
S-67
-------
practices would be likely to occur under this alternative. Most of
these changes would be essentially equivalent to those discussed
under the baseline regulation. These changes would occur sooner than
under the baseline regulations, however, due to the Interim Status
Standards.
Administrative Changes. Several changes in the administration
of the hazardous waste management program would result from promulga-
tion of the regulations within this alternative.
Little or no change is expected to occur in the number of states
applying for interim or full authorization. However, partial autho-
rization of state program would be eliminated under this alternative.
This could increase the potential for a few states to enact one or
more components of an independent, hazardous waste program.
It is estimated that during the initial 2 to 5 years following
implementation of the regulations, on the order of 110,000 to .140,000
manufacturing establishments, hospitals, and medical laboratories
could have to comply with the generator regulations under this alter-
native. This would represent nearly a 60 percent reduction in the
number of generators identified as being subject to the Section 3002
requirements under the baseline regulation during this period.
Following this initial 2 to 5 year period, on the order of 220,000 to
250,000 generators could be required to comply. This would represent
over a 15 percent reduction, as compared to the baseline regulations.
There would also be an indeterminable reduction in the total number
S-68
-------
of other generators (e.g., hazardous 'special waste' generators) who
would be required to comply with the regulations.
It is estimated that there would also be a slight reduction in
the number of permittees under this alternative; fewer facilities
would, however, require permits during the initial 2 to 5 year period
than in the period which follows. Facilities managing hazardous
'special wastes' would be subject to more stringent permit require-
ments under this alternative.
Information required on manifests would be reduced under this
alternative. Generators of hazardous 'special wastes' could have to
prepare an indeterminable number of additional manifests under this
alternative. The aggregated generators, transporters, and hazardous
waste management facility owners/operators handling these wastes
would also have to keep the additional manifests in storage for 3
years. There would, however, likely be a net reduction in the number
of manifests that would be prepared by generators of other hazardous
wastes. The aggregated generators, transporters and hazardous waste
management facility owners/operators handling these latter wastes
would thus have to keep fewer manifests in storage. The total number
of manifests prepared and stored would be less during the first 2 to
5 years than in the following years.
It is estimated that the identified generators and permittees
could prepare between 250,000 and 280,000 reports on annual basis
after the initial 2 to 5 year period — a reduction of over 40
S-69
-------
percent. Fewer reports would be prepared during the initial 2 to 5
year period. However, other additional reporting, recordkeeping, and
administrative requirements would be imposed for generators and
permittees under this alternative. For example, generators would
have to prepare outlines of programs for assessment of groundwater
damage and for implementing corrective actions. The identified
generators and permittees could have to file on the order of 110,000
to 140,000 notifications under Section 3010 — a reduction of nearly
60 percent. While the total number of permit applications would
likely decrease, permits would be reviewed at least once every 5
years rather than being issued for the projected life of the
facility. Consolidation of requirements for obtaining RCRA permits,
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, Underground
Inspection Control permits, and permits under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act would reduce the total administrative requirements
associated with these permits.
Air and Water Quality. The regulations under this alternative
would have the potential to cause changes affecting the release of
air and water contaminants from the generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the base-
line regulations. As discussed below, this would lead to instances
of both localized improvements in air and water quality and localized
degradation of air and water quality.
S-70 '
-------
For Chose generators of hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes', to the extent that the requirements under this alternative
would cause lesser changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or
disposal relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would
t
be less of a potential for these 'generators to make process modifica-
tions designed to increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce
the quantity and/or type of hazardous wastes generated; any such
reductions in process modifications would likely lead to fewer
changes in the release of air and water contaminants by processes
generating hazardous waste. For generators of 'special wastes', to
the extent that the requirements under this alternative would cause
further increases in the economics of storage, treatment, or disposal
relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would be greater
potential for generators of these wastes to make process or opera-
tional modifications designed to reduce the quantity and/or types of
hazardous wastes generated; any such modifications could lead to
increased changes in the release of air and water contaminants by
processes generating hazardous wastes. Furthermore, to the extent
that fewer generators would be brought under control of the program
in both instances, the potential for any such process modifications
and resultant changes in the release of air and water contaminants
would be accordingly reduced.
Slightly less waste would likely be regulated under this alterna-
tive than under the baseline regulations. As a result, those
hazardous wastes excluded from regulation would not have to be
S-71
-------
transported, stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the Sub-
title C regulations. Since it is likely that many of these wastes
would not be managed by methods that are environmentally acceptable
under the regulations, the overall potential for the release of
hazardous air and water contaminants from the management of such
wastes would be increased.
With regard to the hazardous waste that would still be regulated
under this alternative, the requirements under this alternative would
have the potential for affecting the release of air and water con-
taminants from the management of these wastes in various ways. Some
of the requirements would result in an increase in the potential for
the release of such contaminants while others would result in a de-
crease. Changes that could potentially have significant affects on
the release of contaminants are discussed below.
Reductions in the release of air and water contaminants would
result from the more stringnet requirements being placed on the
management of hazardous wastes at existing facilities during the
Interim Status period. These requirements include restrictions on
treating and/or disposing wastes in surface impoundments, incinera-
tors, landfartns, landfills, and basins. They also impose require-
ments for monitoring, inspections, remedial actions, facility
closure, and post-closure care. Following the Interim Status period,
other changes would further reduce the potential for the release of
air and water contaminants. These include subjecting hazardous
S-72
-------
'special wastes' to the full set of Section 3004 requirements; re-
ducing time requirements for completing closure activities; extending
time requirements for post-closure care; and adding requirements for
preparing groundwater damage assessment and corrective action pro-
grams, for conducting groundwater monitoring at landfarms, for in-
cluding provisions for controlling spills and unplanned non-sudden
discharges in contingency plans, and for performing necessary repairs
or remedial actions.
Increases in the release of air and water contaminants from
regulated wastes would result primarily from the elimination of the
human health and environmental standards. This would increase the
potential for the release of air and water contaminants from non-
point sources (e.g., surface impoundments, landfills, storage areas)
at permitted facilities. The elimination of leachate monitoring
requirements could increase the potential for degradation of water
quality; however, other changes related to siting of groundwater
monitoring wells and to implementing groundwater damage assessment
and corrective action programs would tend to off-set this. The
elimination of spill response information from manifests could
increase the potential for air and water quality impacts to result
from spills during transport. Any increased off-site transport of
hazardous 'special wastes' could also increase the potential for
transportation related impacts.
S-73
-------
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities for hazardous 'special wastes' would have to be modified
or constructed, there would be an increase in fugitive dust, vehi-
cular emissions, and runoff from such construction activities. To
the extent that fewer facilities for other hazardous wastes would
have to be modified or constructed, there would be a decrease in
fugitive dust, vehicular emissions, and runoffs.
It should be noted that there would likely be some shift in the
types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both regulated
wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under this alternative
compared to the methods that would have been used to manage these
wastes under the baseline regulations. Such shifts would change both
the types and quantities of air and water contaminants produced by
the management of specific wastes. Such shifts could either enhance
or reduce the potential for this alternative to cause the indicated
increases or decreases in the release of specific air or water con-
taminants in any given locality. Furthermore, the construction of
new facilities could lead to increased releases of air and water
contaminants in the vicinity of the facility and along any transport
routes. Closure of existing facilities could lead to reduced releases
of air and water contaminants in the vicinity of the facility and
along any transport routes. All emissions and any localized degrada-
tion of air quality would have to be in compliance with all applic-
able requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards, OSHA standards,
state standards).
S-74
-------
Public Health. The regulations under this alternative would
have the potential for increasing some of the public health benefits
to be derived from the control of hazardous wastes through the base-
line regulations and would also have the potential for reducing other
public health benefits to be derived from the baseline regulations.
As discussed, the regulations would both increase and decrease (rela-
tive to the baseline regulations) the potential for the release of
air, water, and soil contaminants from hazardous waste management
and, thus, for resultant public health impacts.
Additional public health benefits could be derived from the re-
quirements for turning over to the local land authority records on
where wastes are disposed and for notations to be recorded on the
property deed (or equivalent instruments) to, in perpetuity, notify
any potential purchaser both that the land has been used to manage
hazardous waste and that the land is subject to use restrictions.
This could help prevent future public health catastrophes such as
that which occurred at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York (see
Section 7.1.6). Additional restrictions on the disposal of hazardous
uranium and phosphate surface mining and beneficiation wastes would
also lead to increased public health benefits. Review of permits at
least once every five years, rather than no review as under the base-
line regulations, would also reduce the potential for adverse public
health impacts.
S-75
-------
Elimination of the requirement that contingency plans must in-
clude an outline of a program for familiarizing employees with emer-
gency procedures and for drills on these procedures could increase
the potential for public health impacts to occur in the event of an
emergency situation at the facility; however, this would be off-set
by other indicated changes in contingency plans. Elimination of the
requirement that the contingency plan must be implemented when there
is a discharge that threatens human health only within the facility
would increase the potential for adverse impacts to facility
employees. The exclusion of some infectious wastes from regulation
could also lead to some increased instances of adverse public health
impacts.
S.5.5.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary im-
pacts (relative to the baseline regulations) that could occur, as a
result of implementation of this alternative, would result primarily
from the net reduction in the quantity of waste that would be subject
to regulation; the enactment of more stringent environmental require-
ments with regard to the storage, treatment, and disposal of hazard-
ous wastes during the Interim Status period; the modification of some
requirements for managing wastes following the Interim Status period;
the enactment of more stringent requirements for tracking manifested
waste shipments; the enactment of more stringent environmental re-
quirements with regard to the storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous 'special wastes'; and from modified costs to generators and
S-76
-------
costs associated with hazardous waste transport, storage, treatment,
and disposal as a result of these revised requirements. To the ex-
tent that these changes result in indicated increases or decreases in
the release of air, water, and soil contaminants, there would be com-
mensurate impacts to the biological environment, soils, water use,
land use, and special interest points, as compared to the baseline
regulations.
The changes described above would, as previously indicated, also
affect the potential for generators to modify processes and opera-
tions so as to enable increased recycling of hazardous waste as pro-
cess feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of hazardous wastes gener-
ated, or to change the nature of wastes produced. In addition, this
alternative would provide a further incentive for all generators to
recycle, re-use, or recover hazardous waste materials. All hazardous
waste materials that are used, re-used, or processed for energy re-
covery or that are stored for such purposes would be excluded from
regulation under this alternative. Similarly, all hazardous waste
materials, except waste oils, that are used or re-used in a manner
constituting disposal or that are being stored for such purposes
would be excluded from regulation.
Energy use, with regard to the management of hazardous 'special
wastes', would be increased by the additional facility modification
and construction required under this alternative, by required changes
in facility operation and closure, and by any increases in hazardous
S-77
-------
waste transport. Furthermore, many 'special waste1 generators are
energy producers (e.g., oil and gas drilling operations). Due to the
more stringent requirements and increased costs associated with the
management of these wastes, there could be some increased reductions
in energy production.
Energy use, with regard to the management of other hazardous
wastes, would be reduced by the lesser amount of facility modifica-
tion and construction and by any reductions in hazardous waste trans-
port. The requirements of the Interim Status Standards along with
the lengthened post-closure care period could off-set some of this
decrease in energy use.
With regard to generators of hazardous 'special wastes', in-
creased costs under this alternative could lead to some additional
closings or relocations of plants and operations, and this could lead
to additional population shifts and resultant impacts. In addition,
additional workers could also be required to manage these wastes and
to construct or modify facilities managing these wastes. With regard
to generators of other hazardous wastes, lesser increases in costs
under this alternative could lead to fewer plant closings or reloca-
tions, and this could lead to fewer population shifts and resultant
impacts. Fewer workers could also be required to manage these wastes
and to construct or modify facilities managing these wastes. There
could also be an overall decrease in the number of personnel required
to administer and enforce the regulations. Population shifts could
S-78
-------
occur in response to changed personnel requirements. Any such shifts
would be expected to be small on a national scale; however, there
could still be localized instances of a relatively large influx or
outflux of workers. Due to the Interim Status Standards, plant
closings and changes in personnel requirements could occur earlier
under this alternative than under the baseline regulations.
It is estimated that under this alternative there would poten-
tially be sufficient off-site capacity on a nationwide basis to
treat/dispose regulated hazardous manufacturing wastes shipped off-
site in 1980. There would also potentially be sufficient off-site
capacity nationwide in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site ship-
ment. As compared to the baseline regulations, there would be a
reduction in the potential shortfall in nationwide off-site capacity
estimated to occur in 1984, in the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment. As a result, fewer permitted off-site facilities could be
required in this latter case under this alternative as compared to
the baseline regulations. Similarly, under this alternative, there
would also be reductions in the potential for any shortfall in the
on-site capacity necessary for treating/disposing regulated hazardous
manufacturing wastes.
With regard to hazardous 'special waste1, there would be an in-
creased potential for shortfalls in both environmentally adequate on-
site and off-site capacity in 1980 and 1984. The increased potential
for shortfalls in on-site capacity would result from increased
S-79
-------
facility closings due to the requirement that facilities managing
'special wastes' comply with all Section 3004 requirements rather
than a limited portion of such requirements. The increased potential
for shortfalls in off-site capacity would result from likely in-
creases in the quantity of wastes being sent off-site; however, any
increases in off-site shipments would also off-set some of the
potential for an increase in the shortfall of on-site capacity.
Other factors discussed under the baseline regulations could
either lead to shortfalls or exacerbate the size of any estimated
shortfalls in both on-site and off-site process capacity, especially
on a localized basis.
With regard to hazardous wastes other than 'special wastes',
less total land, off-site plus on-site, would be required than under
the baseline regulations. Lesser land requirements would result
since fewer wastes would have to be sent to permitted facilities; the
waste removed from regulation could use existing facilities or other
facilities that were not adequate under the baseline regulations.
However, while less total land would be required, in the case of 13
percent off-site shipment, there could be more off-site land use and
less on-site land use for hazardous manufacturing wastes. In the
case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there could be less off-site
land use and more on-site land use.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes', more total land could
be required under this alternative for the management of all
S-80
-------
(regulated and unregulated) hazardous special wastes. There would
likely be more off-site land use and less on-site land use for
regulated special wastes.
With regard to all hazardous wastes, existing land uses would
not change on any lands excluded from hazardous waste management
under this alternative; however, there could be localized changes in
land use from any additional shifts to off-site management from on-
site management or to on-site management from off-site management.
Existing biological communities would not be disturbed on lands ex-
cluded from hazardous waste management activities. To the extent
that the management of wastes excluded from regulation under this
alternative would result in additional land being contaminated
through inadequate practices, there would be off-setting adverse
impacts to existing land uses.
Existing land uses would, however, cease, either permanently or
temporarily, on all land converted to hazardous waste management
uses. Existing biological communities would also be disturbed on all
such lands. Following closure of hazardous waste management facili-
ties and necessary post-closure care, the land used for the facility
could be available for new or, in some cases, previously existing
uses. The biological community on disturbed areas could differ in
species composition and diversity following site rehabilitation.
Less land could be available for future use than under the baseline
regulations since this alternative eliminates the requirement that
all facilities
S-81
-------
must be designed such that the land is amenable to some acceptable
use so that perpetual isolation and care to maintain isolation are
not required. This alternative would also affect future use of the
land by requiring that a notation be recorded on the property deed
(or equivalent instruments) to notify, in perpetuity, any potential
purchaser both that the land has been used to manage hazardous waste
and that the land is subject to use restrictions.
Indicated changes in the construction and operation of facili-
ties, especially off-site facilities, would cause commensurate
changes in aesthetic impacts and localized noise impacts. Public
opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities could be reduced by the requirement for permits to be
reviewed at least once every 5 years rather than not at all and by
the lengthening of the period specified for post-closure care. With
regard to facilities managing hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes', public opposition to such facilities could be further re-
duced by the need for fewer of thse facilities. With regard to
facilities managing hazardous 'special wastes', public opposition to
such facilities could be reduced by the more stringent environmental
requirements under this alternative. However, any opposition that
occurs could be exacerbated by possible increases in the number of
these facilities required. The addition of the Interim Status
Standards could also reduce opposition to some existing facilities.
S-82
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is Part I of the final Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) addressing the potential effects of implementing regula-
tions under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA). Specifically, the regulations addressed in this
document are those being developed under the mandate of the following
Sections of Subtitle C:
• Section 3001— Identification and listing of hazardous waste;
• Section 3002— Standards applicable to generators of
hazardous waste;
• Section 3003— Standards applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste;
• Section 3004— Standards applicable to owners and operators,
of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities;
• Section 3005— Permit system for treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Sectio'n 3006— Guidelines for state hazardous waste programs;
• Section 3010— Preliminary notification of hazardous waste
activities.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has responded
to the mandate of all other Sections of Subtitle C, namely:
• Section 3007 — Inspections;
• Section 3008 — Federal enforcement;
• Section 3009 — Retention of state authority;
• Section 3011 — Authorization of assistance to the states.
A summary of the major aspects of these sections is presented in
Chapter 2 of this document. Chapter 3 summarizes the baseline
1-1
-------
Subtitle C regulations that are the subject of this EIS (see Appendix
B for a detailed description of these regulations). Chapter 4 sum-
marizes the set of alternatives selected and developed for analysis
in relation to these baseline regulations.
The development of regulations under Subtitle C has been and is
continuing to be a dynamic, changing process. In the event of major
changes to the regulations following their promulgation, and/or in
the event of additional regulations affecting specific wastes, such
as the large volume special wastes identified under the proposed
Subtitle C regulations (i.e., cement kiln dusts, utility wastes, oil
drilling muds/brines, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and other mining wastes), a supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared if necessary.
The scope of this EIS includes all hazardous wastes within the
definition of the baseline regulations and the alternatives. How-
ever, the regulations, and thus the EIS, do not address those wastes
specifically.excluded by the Act or by Congressional intent, namely:
• Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
• Solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows;
• Industrial discharges which are point discharges subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880);
• Source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923);
• Household wastes.
1-2
-------
2.0 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
2.1 Federal Legislation Leading to RCRA
The first Federal legislation relating to solid waste disposal
was the Refuse Act comprising Section 13 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899 (30 Stat. 1152). This Act states that:
...it shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit,
or cause, suffer or procure to be thrown, discharged, or
deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other
floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manu-
facturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse
matter of any kind or description whatever other than that
flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a
liquid state, into any tributary of any navigable water
from which the same shall float or be washed into such nav-
igable water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, or
cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited material of any
kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on
the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the
same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable
water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or
floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be
impeded or obstructed: Provided, that nothing herein con-
tained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the opera-
tions in connection with the improvement of navigable
waters or construction of public works, considered neces-
sary and proper by the United States officers supervising
such improvement or public work: and provided further, \,
that the Secretary of War, whenever in the judgment .of the
Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be
injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material
above mentioned in navigable waters, within limits to be
defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him, pro-
vided application is made to him prior to depositing such
material; and whenever any permit is so granted the condi-
tions thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any
violation thereof shall be unlawful.
Although the original intent of this Act was to prevent obstructions
to navigation, it did represent the first Federal regulation of open
dumping and is still in effect.
2-1
-------
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, passed in 1965, was the first Act
of Congress dealing directly with the solid waste problem and was
primarily aimed at establishing a national research and development
program for new and improved methods of proper and economic disposal
of solid waste. It authorized the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare to make grants to state and interstate agencies to conduct
surveys of solid waste disposal practices and associated problems.
In 1970, the Solid Waste Disposal Act was amended by the Re-
source Recovery Act, which shifted its objectives to include the pro-
motion of resource recovery programs and added provisions for grants
to these programs. It also required the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of
s
a system of national disposal sites for the storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes. That report (Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, 1974c) was an important step in dealing with the problems of
hazardous waste management. The Solid Waste Disposal Act has since
expired.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the Hazardous Waste
Management Act (S.1086) early in 1973. Although never enacted, this
Bill led directly to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA). There are several important differences between these
two pieces of legislation. The objectives of the Hazardous Waste
Management Act included Federal regulation of certain hazardous
wastes and Federal guidelines for state regulation of others, while
2-2
-------
RCRA aims to provide Federal assistance to state and local solid
waste management programs, thus giving the states more authority and
placing the Environmental Protection Agency in an advisory capacity.
The definition of hazardous waste in the Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Act was:
Any waste or combination of wastes which pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or living
organisms because such wastes are nondegradable or persis-
tent in nature or because they can be biologically mag-
nified, or because they can be lethal, or because they may
otherwise cause or tend to cause detrimental cumulative ef-
fects.
In the RCRA the definition was expanded to:
A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which be-
cause of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical
or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Other changes involve the definition of storage, treatment, and dis-
posal. Under the Hazardous Waste Management Act, storage for more
than two years is considered disposal. Under RCRA, storage may be
either temporary or for a period of years, but is not to constitute
disposal. The definition of treatment was altered considerably from
"any activity or processing designed to change the physical form or
chemical composition of waste so as to render such materials non-
hazardous" in the Hazardous Waste Management Act to RCRA1s "any
method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition
2-3
-------
of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to
render waste non-hazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recov-
ery, amen°ble for storage, or reduced in volume." Under the Hazar-
dous Waste Management Act, disposal refers only to land disposal,
while RCRA considers disposal into or on any land or water, including
groundwaters. RCRA also deals individually with generators, trans-
porters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous wastes, where-
as the Hazardous Waste Management Act considered them all together.
On October 21, 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (Public Law 94-580) was signed by the President and became
law.
2.2 RCRA and Subtitle C
RCRA has as its objectives the protection of health and the en-
vironment and the conservation of valuable material and energy re-
sources. These objectives are to be met by:
• Providing technical and financial assistance to state and lo-
cal governments and interstate agencies for the development
of solid waste management plans (including resource recovery
and resource conservation systems) which will promote im-
proved solid waste management techniques (including more
effective organizational arrangements), new and improved
methods of collection, separation, and recovery of solid
waste, and the environmentally safe disposal of nonrecover-
able residues;
• Providing training grants in occupations involving the de-
sign, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal sys-
tems;
• Prohibiting future open dumping on the land and requiring the
conversion of existing open dumps to facilities which do not
pose a danger to the environment or to health;
2-4
-------
• Regulating the treatment, storage, transportation, and dis-
posal of hazardous wastes which have adverse effects on
health and the environment;
• Providing for the promulgation of guidelines for solid waste
collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal
practices and systems;
• Promoting a national research and development program for
improved solid waste management and resource conservation
techniques, more effective organizational arrangements, and
new and improved methods of collection, separation, and re-
covery, and recycling of solid wastes and environmentally
safe disposal of nonrecoverable residues;
• Promoting the demonstration, construction, and application of
solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource con-
servation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of
air, water, and land resources;
• Establishing a cooperative effort among the Federal, state,
and local governments and private enterprise in order to re-
cover valuable materials and energy from solid waste.
In addressing these objectives, Title II of RCRA, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (the Act), is divided into eight subtitles:
• Subtitle A - General Provisions
• Subtitle B - Office of Solid Waste; Authorities of the
Administrator
• Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
• Subtitle D - State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
• Subtitle E - Duties of the Secretary of Commerce in Resource
and Recovery
• Subtitle F - Federal Responsibilities
• Subtitle G - Miscellaneous Provisions
• Subtitle H - Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Information
2-5
-------
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act calls for regulatory
action and guidelines within 11 separate categories as follows:
• Section 3001 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
• Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazard-
ous Wastes
• Section 3003 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes
• Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
posal Facilities
• Section 3005 - Permits for Treatment, Storage or Disposal of
Hazardous Waste
• Section 3006 - Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs
• Section 3007 - Inspections
• Section 3008 - Federal Enforcement
• Section 3009 - Retention of State Authority
• Section 3010 - Effective Date
• Section 3011 - Authorization of Assistance to States
2.2.1 Definitions Relevant to Subtitle C. Several definitions
listed in Section 1004 of 'the Act are particularly important to an
understanding of the scope of Subtitle C and the mandate of each of
the Sections 3001 through 3011. These definitions, not detailed
elsewhere in the regulations, are:
• Disposal—the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spil-
ling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous
waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste
or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters, including groundwaters.
2-6
-------
• Hazardous waste—solid waste, or combination-of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics may:
(1) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise man-
aged.
• Hazardous Waste Generation—the act or process of producing
hazardous waste.
• Hazardous Waste Management—the systematic control of the
collection, source separation, storage, transportation,
processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
• Resource Recovery—the recovery of materials or energy
from solid waste.
• Solid Waste—any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treat-
ment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material re-
sulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities but does not
include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or
solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or
industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).
• Storage—the containment of hazardous waste, either on a tem-
porary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as
not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste.
• Treatment—any method, technique, or process, including neu-
tralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of any hazardous waste
so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such
wastes nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for re-
covery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
2-7
-------
2.2.2 Section 3001 of Subtitle C. Section 3001 of Subtitle C,
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, requires:
• The development and promulgation of criteria for identify-
ing the characteristics of hazardous waste and for listing
hazardous waste, taking into account toxicity, persistence,
degradability in nature, potential for accumulation in tis-
sue, flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous
characteristics;
• The promulgation of regulations identifying the character-
istics of hazardous waste and listing particular hazardous
wastes which are subject to the provisions of Subtitle C,
based on the above criteria;
• The ability of the Governor of any state to petition the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
identify or list a material as a hazardous waste.
2.2.3 Section 3002 of Subtitle C. Section 3002 requires the
promulgation of regulations establishing standards applicable to
generators of hazardous waste. These standards must establish
requirements respecting:
• Recordkeeping practices that accurately identify the
quantities of such hazardous waste generated, the con-
stituents thereof which are significant in quantity or in
potential harm to human health or the environment, and the
disposition of such wastes;
• Labeling practices for any containers used for the storage,
transport or disposal of such hazardous waste such as will
identify accurately such waste;
• Use of appropriate containers for such hazardous waste;
• Furnishing of information on the general chemical compo-
sition of such hazardous waste to persons transporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of such wastes;
• Use of a manifest system to assure that all such hazardous
waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or
disposal in treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
2-8
-------
(other than facilities on the premises where the waste is
generated) for which a permit has been issued as provided
in this subtitle;
• Submission of reports setting out:
(1) The quantities of hazardous waste identified or listed
under this subtitle that have been generated during a
particular time period;
(2) The disposition of all hazardous waste reported
above.
2.2.4 Section 3003 of Subtitle C. Section 3003 requires the
promulgation of standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
waste. These standards must include, but need not be limited to,
requirements respecting:
• Recordkeeping concerning such hazardous waste transported,
and their source and delivery points;
• Transportation of such waste only if properly labeled;
• Compliance with the manifest system referred to in Section
3002;
• Transportation of all such hazardous waste only to the
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities '
which the shipper designates on the manifest form to be a
facility holding a permit issued under this subtitle.
These standards must be coordinated with regulations of the Secretary
of Transportation regarding the transport of hazardous wastes that
are subject to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (88 Stat.
2156; 49 U.S.C. 1801 and following).
2.2.5 Section 3004 of Subtitle C. Section 3004 requires the
establishment of such performance standards, applicable to owners and
operators of facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
2-9
-------
hazardous waste identified or listed under Subtitle C, as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment. These
standards must include, but are n«u necessarily limited to,
requirements respecting:
• Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or
listed under this title which are treated, stored, or dis-
posed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated,
stored, or disposed of;
• Satisfactory reporting, monitoring, and inspection and com-
pliance with the manifest system referred to in Section
3002;
• Treatment, storage, or disposal of all such waste received
by the facility pursuant to such operating methods, tech-
niques and practices as may be satisfactory to the
Administrator;
• The location, design, and construction of such hazardous
waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;
• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unan-
ticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal
of any such hazardous waste;
• The maintenance and operation of such facilities and re-
quiring such additional qualification as to ownership, con-
tinuity of operation, training for personnel and financial
responsibility as may be necessary or desirable;
• Compliance with the requirements of Section 3005 respecting
permits for treatment, storage, or disposal.
2.2.6 Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 3005 of Subtitle C
which deals with permits for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste requires:
• The promulgation of regulations requiring each person own-
ing or operating a facility for the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste to have a permit;
• The promulgation of regulations requiring certain infor-
mation to be contained in permit applications, including:
2-10
-------
(1) Estimates with respect to the composition, quantities,
and concentrations of any hazardous waste identified
or listed under Subtitle C, or combinations of any
such hazardous waste and any other solid waste,
proposed to be disposed of, treated, transported, or
stored, and the time, frequency, or rate of which such
waste is proposed to be disposed of, treated, trans-
ported, or stored;
(2) The site at which such hazardous waste or the products
of treatment of such hazardous waste will be disposed
of, treated, transported to, or stored.
Section 3005 also discusses permit issuance, permit revocation, and
interim status for persons who have filed applications for permits
for existing facilities.
2.2.7 Section 3006 of Subtitle C. Section 3006 pertains to the
authorization of state hazardous waste programs. It requires the
promulgation of guidelines to assist states in the development of
such programs. Procedures are given for any state to apply for
authorization of its hazardous waste program and provides for interim
authorization of state programs which exist before the date 90 days
after the date required for promulgation of regulations under
Sections 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3005. Any action taken by a state
under an authorized program is given the same force and effect as
action taken by the EPA Administrator under Subtitle C. Procedures
are also established for withdrawal of authorization by the
Administrator.
2.2.8 Section 3007 of Subtitle C. Section 3007 requires any
person who generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes, or
otherwise handles hazardous wastes to allow access to records
2-11
-------
relating to these wastes to any officer or employee of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency designated by the Administrator or any duly
designated officer or employee of a state having an authorized
hazardous waste program. Such officers or employees are authorized:
• To enter at reasonable times any establishment or other
place maintained by any person where hazardous wastes are
generated, stored, treated, or disposed;
• To inspect and obtain samples from any person of any such
wastes and samples of any containers or labeling for such
wastes.
Procedures are given for conducting such inspections. In addition,
provisions are made for the public to obtain records, reports, or
information.
2.2.9 Section 3008 of Subtitle C. Section 3008 deals with
Federal enforcement of Subtitle C. Procedures are given for the
issuance of a compliance order and the commencement of a civil action
in the event the Administrator determines that any person is in
violation of any requirement of Subtitle C. A public hearing may be
requested by the person or persons named in the order or permit
revocation. Any compliance order shall specify the nature of the
violation and a time limit for compliance. Provision is made for
criminal penalties for violations of Subtitle C.
2.2.10 Section 3009 of Subtitle C. Under Section 3009,
Retention of State Authority, no state may impose any requirements
less stringent than those authorized under Subtitle C, except that if
2-12
-------
application of a regulation under Subtitle C is postponed or enjoined
by the action of any court, a state may not be prohibited from acting
on the matter until the regulation takes effect.
2.2.11 Section 3010 of Subtitle C. Section 3010 requires any
person generating or transporting hazardous wastes or owning or
operating any facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazar-
dous wastes to file a notification with the Administrator within 90
days of the promulgation or revision of regulations under Section
3001 identifying or listing such wastes as hazardous. The regula-
tions under Subtitle C respecting requirements applicable to the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste shall take effect six months after their date of
promulgation.
2.2.12 Section 3011 of Subtitle C. Section 3011 authorizes to
be appropriated $25 million for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 "to be
used to make grants to the States for purposes of assisting the
States in the development and implementation of authorized state
hazardous waste programs," and provides for the allocation of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated.
2.3 Related Federal Legislation
A number of other Federal Acts are specifically addressed within
RCRA. Section 1006 of RCRA states that "nothing in this Act shall be
construed to apply to...any activity or substance which is subject
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 and
2-13|
-------
following), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f and follow-
ing), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1401 and following), or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. and following), except to the extent that such application...
is not inconsistent with the requirements of such Acts."
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act contains a number of
sections which apply directly to the handling and disposal of
hazardous wastes. Several of these sections are summarized below:
• Section 301, dealing with effluent limitations, prohibits the
"discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the
navigable waters."
• Section 304(f) requires EPA to publish guidelines for the
pretreatment of pollutants which are determined not to be
susceptible to treatment by publicly-owned treatment works.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act of 1977, EPA is also
directed to regulate the control of plant site runoff, spil-
lage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from
raw material storage which are associated with the industrial
manufacturing or treatment process of the designated
industries, which may contribute significant amounts of pol-
lutants to navigable waters.
• Section 306 deals with new source performance standards for
industrial point sources. EPA is authorized to determine the
best available demonstrated control technology, and require
its installation for specified categories of sources. If EPA
determines that a zero-discharge standard is practicable,
such a standard may be set.
• Under Section 307, the Administrator is directed to publish a
list of toxic pollutants and effluent limitations. These
limitations may constitute an absolute prohibition against
discharging. Additionally, EPA must publish pretreatment
standards requiring any industry discharging into a municipal
sewage treatment plant to pretreat its effluent so that it
does not interfere with the operation of the plant or pass
through the plant untreated or without adequate treatment.
2-14 .
-------
• Section 311 is designed to protect the navigable waters and
shorelines from "hazardous substance" discharges.
• Under Section 402, each state government is responsible for
issuing permits under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. While EPA issues guidelines for state
permit programs, it retains the right to review a state-
issued permit affecting another state's water resources.
• Section 405 requires that a permit be issued by EPA for the
disposal or relocation of sewage sludge that could affect the
navigable waters. Such disposal is prohibited without a
permit.
• Under Section 504, the EPA Administrator may bring suit
against any person contributing to a pollution source causing
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare. In accordance with the 1977 amendments, EPA is also
authorized to provide assistance in emergencies which may
present an imminent and substantial danger to public health
on welfare. EPA may authorize emergency assistance "to prev-
ent, limit, or mitigate the emergency; when "there is an im-
mediate significant risk to public health or welfare and the
environment;" and when "such assistance will not otherwise be
provided on a timely basis."
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 authorizes EPA to regulate
underground injection of wastes (and other substances) to protect
underground sources of drinking water. It also authorizes the EPA
Administrator to conduct a study of the impacts -on underground water
supplies of surface water disposal of wastes.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
prohibits the marine transport and disposal into U.S. territorial
waters of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agents,
high level radioactive wastes, or any other material, except as
authorized by Federal permit. In the granting of permits for ocean
dumping, EPA must consider "appropriate locations and methods of
2-15
-------
disposal or recycling, including land-based alternatives, and the
associated impacts of such actions.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes botn the
Atomic Energy Commission and private industry to regulate the
disposal of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials.
In addition to the four acts specifically referred to in Section
1006 of RCRA, several other Federal acts affect the management of
hazardous wastes. Selected acts are summarized below.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 authorizes the regula-
tion of hazardous substances before they become wastes. EPA is
authorized to require that data be developed by manufacturers con-
cerning the effects of chemical substances and mixtures on health and
the environment when EPA feels that such chemicals present an unrea-
sonable risk of injury to health or to the environment. EPA may also
issue an order prohibiting or limiting the manufacture, processing,
distribution, or disposal of specified substances.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (Section 112) and its amendments
authorize the EPA to set standards for hazardous air pollutants at
any level which provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In accordance with the 1977 amendments, the Administrator
may instead promulgate design or equipment standards to protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. The control strategy
of standards and/or design plans is meant to protect the public
2-16
-------
health and welfare by placing the burden of standards compliance on
the air polluter.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is designed to
protect workers from occupational hazards, including hazards
associated with contact of hazardous materials. Section 6(b)(5)
deals specifically with toxic materials, requiring the Secretary of
Labor to "set the standard which most adequately assures...that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or financial
capacity" from regular exposure to such hazards.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as
amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972,
requires EPA to establish procedures and regulations for the disposal
or storage of packages, containers, and excess amounts of pesticides
and to accept at convenient locations for safe disposal, those
pesticides whose registration has been cancelled or suspended.
Under the authority of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act of 1974, the Department of Transportation promulgated regulations
listing hazardous materials and specifying procedures to be followed
when transporting those materials. Furthermore, the responsibility
for documentation, prevention, and containment of spills of oil and
hazardous materials is divided between the Department of Transporta-
tion (including the U.S. Coast Guard) and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977.
2-17
-------
The Armed Forces Appropriating Authorizations of 1971 prohibits
the disposal of any chemical or biological warfare agent "within or
outside the United States unleoo such agent has been detoxified or
made harmless to man and his environment unless immediate disposal is
clearly necessary, to safeguard human life."
2.4 The Status of State Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
Legislation
Every state has addressed the hazardous waste problem to at
least a limited degree, with the level of state control over hazar-
dous waste presently ranging from essentially none to full and
comprehensive programs. The majority of states exercise their
legislative authority over hazardous wastes under their existing
solid waste legislation, with authority extended under broadly-
worded provisions that do not contain guidelines, criteria, or
regulations specifically dealing with hazardous waste. As a result,
enforcement and management are largely a matter of individual inter-
pretation by state regulatory authorities, with most states exer-
cising their legislative authority on a case-by-case basis. In some
states, the principal regulatory control of hazardous wastes is
divided between two agencies.
Table 2-1 presents a summary of the extent of authority and con-
trol exercised by each state and U.S. territory as of 1978, and the
principal regulatory agency responsible for control within each state
and territory. In accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, all
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-1
STATE REGULATION AND CONTROL AUTHORITY*
STATES
Allhana
Aliaka
Arlcoaa
Artinaia
Calif orala
Colorado
Coanacclc.it
Dalavnn
Olicrlec of CaluabU
Plorldi
Caorila
Bavall
Idaho
Illlnola
1..XI-...
tova
Zaaaaa
Kaacucky
Loulalana
Malaa
Maryland
naiiachiiaat ta
Hlchllan
MlaniBoca
Hlailailppl
Hlaiourl
noncana
•abraaki
Ilavada
?•« Bamam
Raw Jaraay
Ian Tork
forth Carolina
•torch Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoaa
Onion
paanayLvanla
Ihoda laliad
South Carollni
South Dakota
TaoBMiaa
TBKU
otab
Virneat
Virginia
Uaablnitaa
UalE Vlrilnla
Ulaconaln
Uycaiag
D S. Tarrleorlait
ban.
Sanoi
Paclllc laliadl
Piarto Rico
Virgin Iilandi
nuciPAL lEcuunn
AGBUT
Dapt ol Public Baaltb
Dapt ol Environ Coniarvatlon
Oapt ol Bailth Sirvleaa
Pollution Control 4 Eeololy
Dapt ol Public Hialth
Dapt ol Hallch
Dapt. ol Environ. Protactlon
Dope, ol .lot laaourcu 1 Environ Control
tavirOB. Hoallh Admin -Dipt of lavlroa. S«rv
Dapt. of Environ. Boaulatloa
DOPE ol BBE. laaaurcia
Offlco of Environ. Quality Control
Dapc. ol Baalth 4 Haltara-Olv. of Environ.
Ul. Enirounaatal Protactlon Agamy
Buaiii ul BulLa-Solla U.U 1»L tcrclm
Dapt. ol Environ quality
Dapt ol Baalth 4 Eavlronaant
Oapc of Nat. laaeureM 4 Environ. ProEacEloa
Dapc. for Baalch 4 nuaaa Xoaourcoo
Dope, ol EnvlroB rrotoetloa
Uitar RiBourcai 4 Eavlroa Haaleh Adnln.
Dipt, ol Environ. Quality
Dapt. of Rat. laaourcaa
Minn Pollution Control Aaaney
Board of Bealch
Dipt, of Hie Eaauurcia
Dipt, of Baalth ana Eavlroa Sclancia
Dapc of Environ. Control
Dipt, of Ceaaarvatton 6 Nat. BoiourcM
Ifcar of Ranch 4 U-lfara
Dipt of Environ. Procactloa
Dipt, of Envlroa. CoaiorvatloB
Dipt: of BUBBB Baaourcaa
Dipt of Baaltb
Ohla EnvlraaBaatal Protactlan Aganey
Dipt of Baalth
Dipt of Environ. Duality
Dapt of Environ laaourcaa
Dapt. of Baalth
Dtpt. of Baalth 4 Environ. Control
Dipt, of Environ Protactlon
Dapc of ruhlle aailth
Dipt of Baalth; Dipt of Uacar Kaaourcai
Dope of Baalch
Agoacy for Environ. Coaaervaelon
Dipt, of Baaltb
Dipt of Ecology; Baalch Dapt
Dipt, of Bat laaourcia. Dapt of Baalth
Dipt of Nat. Baaaunia
Dipt, of Hatar QuallEy
Guam EavlraDaaaeal Pncaeeloa Aganey
EavlrouantAl Qiallty Coaaiaiioa
Truat Tarrltory Environ. Protactlon Board
Envlnnmancal Qiallty Board
Dipt, of Public Uarka
gs
!§
j u
S3
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
i
X
z
a
v
Z
X
v.
Z
*•
Z
I
X
i
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
=•!
S <
al
1969
197]
1971
1971
1972
1971
1971
1974
1967
1974
1972
1972
1970
1970
196>
1971
1971
1966
1930
197]
1970
1969
1963
1970
1974
1971
1)69
1971
1971
""
1974
1972
1969
1973
1967
1971
1969
1966
1966
1972
1971
1971
1969
1974
1967
1971
1971
1971
1967
1971
1978
1976
g
si
U Q
3
1972
1971
1977
1977
1977
1973
1971
1976
197*
1976
1974
1971
Ul*
1973
1977
1973
1966
1973
1971
1971
1971
1976
1976
1977
1976
1977
1177
1977
1976
1976
1976
197B
1977
1977
1977
1971
1974
1977
1977
1976
1977
1974
1976
1974
1971
197]
3
H
j
sr!
3s
<
S3
< g
3-
z
z
z
z
.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
si
P S
S3
1979
197]
1977
1976
1977
1976
I|
S™ d
i
SS
1 "•
's
z
z
X
X
z
z
§
H
2
|
P
P
3 M
3
'
pnpoaad
^ropoiad
Z
Z
Z
z
X
z
vrovonv
propoiad
Z
Z
z :
1977
1976
1976
1978
1971
1977
1976
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
z
S9LU OASIS
IECUUTIOVS
UITH uAZABDOUS
UASTE PBOV1SIOJ
S 3
3 9
a Z
i
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
X
X
z
z
-
X
z
z
X
z
z
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
"
z
z
f
a
p
(• (•>
a
z
z
z
X
X
z
z
z
z
X
z
z
X
«!
SS
S 11.
3S
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
I
X
X
X
z
*
z
z
z
z
z
I
X
X
X
X
X
z
X
z
ii
11
N «
SS
X
X
z
z
z
X
I
X
X
X
z
z
z
X
-
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
I
z
„
if
o 5
ii
§i
11
1
X
X
z
z
S
z
z
z
> BUFMU of Kiciaa.il Affilri. lac . l»77
cm. n til , 197B
2-19
-------
states currently have laws regulating the management of solid wastes.
Even if no additional legislative action has been enacted within a
particular state, the management of hazardous wastes could be regula-
ted, to some extent, under this existing solid waste legislation.
However, the effective regulation of hazardous wastes requires the
application of significantly different management standards than does
the regulation of conventional solid waste. Furthermore, solid waste
legislation must often be interpreted broadly to be effectively
extended to the control of hazardous waste. Also, while various
aspects of hazardous waste management could be exercised under
existing authority, few designated regulatory agencies currently have
the resources or manpower necessary to run an adequate hazardous
waste program.
Enabling solid waste legislation is often derived from early
state environmental control laws through which the management of
solid waste was first addressed. As indicated in Table 2-1, specific
solid waste laws may date back many years, with updated versions
incorporated as amendments. Many of the more recent amendments
specifically address hazardous wastes, or mention hazardous wastes
along with solid wastes. Almost every state so far has found it
necessary to amend their current solid waste legislation at least
once to meet the increased need for more control. Each state and
territory now has at least one principal regulatory agency that has
the enabling authority to control hazardous wastes. State authority
2-20
-------
to regulate hazardous waste is difficult to compare from one state to
another because the legislation allows widely varying individual
interpretation of the authority to be exercised.
Fifteen states have passed separate and specific laws govern-
ing the management of hazardous wastes as of 1978. In these cases,
authority is clearly distinguished and hazardous wastes are defined
for control purposes. Although the comprehensiveness of these laws
varies among states, management plans and approaches generally follow
the requirements given in RCRA. In addition to these 15 states,
another 10 states and one territory have proposed legislation that,
as of 1978, is pending approval of state legislatures. These
proposed laws have been presented either as a bill, separate from any
authority designated under a state's existing solid waste
legislation, or have been presented as an amendment specifically
governing hazardous wastes under a state's existing solid waste
legislation. The remaining states use existing solid waste
legislation to govern .hazardous wastes.
Host states do not have specific regulations or guidelines for
hazardous waste management. In those that do, the strength of
promulgated regulations may be a matter of the interpretation given
by the particular state. Regulations may take the form of an amend-
ment to the existing solid or hazardous waste legislation, or may be
a separate document generated and used by the principal state re-
gulatory agency. In some states, the existing regulations may
clearly distinguish between the designated levels of authority over
2-21
-------
hazardous wastes, with specific criteria and procedures described,
while in other states the regulations may limit the scope of
authority to a particular hazardous waste category, such as pesticide
disposal. As shown in Table 2-1, as of 1978 16 states have
promulgated specific regulations or guidelines for the management of
hazardous wastes, and an additional four states have proposed such
regulations. No attempt has been made to compare the equivalency of
these regulations.
As indicated in Table 2-1, all but three of the states have
addressed the identification of hazardous waste in the definition
section of their general solid waste legislation or within a
particular section of the solid waste legislation. The other three
states have defined hazardous wastes under separate hazardous waste
legislation that has been proposed or passed.
Collectively, as of 1978 at least 37 states and two territories
have addressed the management of hazardous waste to a limited extent
within their existing solid waste regulations. As illustrated in
Table 2-1, hazardous wastes may be either addressed "in part" for the
regulation of a particular activity, such as disposal procedures, or
may be specifically addressed as a separate section within the
general solid waste regulations. When regulated under the authority
of existing solid waste laws, the management of hazardous wastes is
usually handled on a case-by-case basis, with little systematic
control on the various levels of hazardous waste management,
particularly for on-site activities.
2-22
-------
Most of the states have initiated an effort to identify the
sources of hazardous waste generation within their boundaries by the
means of a survey. In a few cases, a survey was not deemed necessary
since such sources were previously identified for control through the
use of state tax department listings or through industrial director-
ies in conjunction with a working manifest system. As indicated in
Table 2-1, as of 1978 at least 24 states have completed such a
survey, and an additional nine states have surveys in progress. Of
the remaining states, several have plans to conduct such a survey.
Tables 2-2 through 2-7 are directed to the various aspects of
state hazardous waste management as they apply to generators, trans-
porters, treaters, storers, and disposers, respectively. The speci-
fic control mechanisms included in the tables are some of those
included in Sections 3002 through 3004 of RCRA, addressing standards
applicable to each group involved in the hazardous waste management
process. The tables should not be interpreted as a comparison of
equivalency but, rather, are presented to illustrate the presence and
form of the mechanisms by which hazardous wastes are being managed as
of 1978. In four states, proposed regulations are far enough along
the legal path to be included in these tables for discussion
purposes. In many states, legislation is being drafted for future
consideration; however, the majority of states are waiting for
Federal regulations on hazardous wastes to be approved before issuing
their own state regulations.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-2
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS*
Stataa
Alabaoa (propoMd)
Alaata
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connaetlcut
Dalavara
Olatrlct of Columbia
Florida (propoiad)
Gaorila
Hawaii
I Ulioli
Indiana
Ion
Kanaaa
Kantuckr
Nalna
Maryland
Hlchl(aa
Hlaalaalppl
Mlaaourl
Montana
Hebnika
tta» BampiUn
N« Jaria?
.Saw Tork
north Carolina (propoMd)
Rorth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahna
Onion
Pointy Irani*
Ihoda laland
South Carolina
South Dakota
Teoaaaaaa
Tana
Utah
Varaoot
Virginia
Wuhlngton
Wait Virginia
Wlaconaln
fa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
laalfaat
'fa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bacord-
kaiplni
*fa
X
X
X
.
X
X
'//*
y/i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
Raportlni
fA
i
X
X
X
X
X
•Intonation prutntad In thla tabla «a rocalvad In perioaal comnlcatlon vlth rapnaentatlvai
froo tha Stata offlcaa llatod In labla 2-1 and cha Environmental Protection
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-3
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTERS*
Scau
Alabsae (proposed)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of ColuabU
Florida (proposed)
Ceorila
Hawaii
Idaho
Illtaoli
Indiana
loua
Xanaaa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massif hiisefts
Hlchlgin
linnesota (propoaad)
Mississippi
Hisaourl
Montuia
Nabruka
Nevada
Raw Hampshire
Hav Jersey
S«v Xaxleo
»«v Vork
Borth Cuolina (propoaad)
north Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oragon
Pennaylvanla
Ihoda bland
Soutb Carolina
loath Dakota
Tannaaaao
Taxai
Utah
VarDont
Vlrilnla
Uaahiaston
vaat Vlrilnla
Vlaconaln
Wjraalnn
//t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fraltt
•tonlfaat
Record-
kaaplni
Repottlnl
Inspection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•Information preacntad in thia tablo vaa received in personal cooounlcatloa with represencaclw
froo the State offices luted In Table 2-1 and the Environmental Protecti
Uncludes pamlt. registration, license, and certification.
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-4
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATERS*
Statea
Alabama (propoaad)
Alaika
Ariiona
Arkaaaaa
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dlitrlct o« Columbia
Florida (propoied)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illlaole
Indiana
Iowa
Xaaaaa
Ceatuck;
loulalana
Maine
Maryland
Maasachuaetts
Michigan
Mlnneaou (propoied)
MlMUllppl
Hlaaauri
Montana
Hebreaka
Havana
><• nampablce
Hew Jeraay
Hew Mexico
new lark
north Carolina (propoied)
north Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Bhode Iiland
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tenaeaiee
Teiaa
Utah
Virginia
Vaahlnjton
Ueic Virginia
Uiaeonaiii
uyoilng
Perait
Hanifeot
Ricord-
kaeplnn
Reporting
Inapaetlon
^/$$/J$//l$/$$//J.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
•lafonucion proaaiccd In thla Gobi* vu received la personal cooBimLeatlon ^leb repr
from che Seat* office* Lilted in Table 2-1 and the Environmental Protection Agency.
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-5
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE STOKERS*
1 Panic 1 Manlfeac
//////////////.
Sutts
Alabama (proposed)
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connacticut
Dalavara
Dlacrlct of Columbia
Florida (propoied)
Caorsla
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Ion
Kentucky
toulltua
Malna
Maryland
Maeaachueetta
Mlehltaa
Mlaalaalppl
Mlaaourl
Montana
i Kabraaka
Ravada
Hew Banpehlre
i Haw Jeriay
rtew lort
Horch Carolina (propoaad)
! Sorth Dakota
1 Ohio
Oklahoma
• Oregon
renniylvania
Rhode Iiland
Soutb Carolina
South Dakota
Tannaaaea
Utah
Vanoat
Vlrjlnla
Uaahlngun
Veat Virginia
Vlaeonala
Vyaplni
•Intonation praaancad In c
fraa eha Scaca offleea lla
///
*
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
r*
X
X
X
X
xt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ft
X
/4i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
kSX 1 ««p<'«i»«
?//$/Ł//////.
hla cabla waa received in paraonai rmnmmira
cad la Tabla 2-1 and Bnvlranuncal Protaccloi
/**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ton W1C
\ Aaaney
(
n reprei
•/**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
encaciv
Inspection
////
/* °
X
/
*
tApplieabla Co off-*ita only
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-6
STATE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSERS*
Statea
Alabana (propoied)
Alaafca
Arizona
Calif ora la
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dlatrlct of Columbia
Florida (propoaed)
Ceorila
Hawaii
Idaho
Ullnole
Iowa
Xaoaaa
Kentucky
louialane
Heine
Maryland
Maaaachuaatta
Michigan
Miauaota (propoaed)
Mlaalailppi
MUaourl
Montana
Kahraaka
•evade
Haw Baapahlre
Rev Jareey
Hew Maalco
Haw Tork
North Carolina (propoaad)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahome
Oreaon
Femaylnnla
Rhode leland
South Carolina
South Dakota,
Taonaaaee
Taxae
Utah
Vamont
Virginia
Ueohlaacon
Veat Virginia
Viacom in
Wyonlnj
•Inforaaclon preeenced in
from the scace off leea 111
t>
X
X
X
X
xt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
hla cab
cad in 1
Panic
f
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e ware received
eble 2-1 end Q
Xaaifaac
r
X
^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Record-
keep la(
/&
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
in personal commie* clou vl
vinmenul Protection Agency
Reporciai
X
^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ch repreeentatl
Enapectlon
X
X
X
X
X
X
ves
f
toff-alta only.
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-7
STATE APPROACH TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
DEFINITION, MONITORING, AND ENFORCEMENT*
1 Uo*te Definition ikmltorlog 1 Enforcement
1 1
// /, //////ft/////
State
ftUhua (propoaed)
Maaka
Ar it ana
Ukaniae
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dlatrlct of Coliabla
Florida (prapoud)
Georgia
Brail
Idaho
Ullnoli
[nd<«i«
ton
Kanaaa
Kentucky
Loulalana
Halne
Maryland
Maeeachitetta
Michigan
Nlmeaoca (propoeed)
Xleolielppl
Hlaaoticl
Haacaaa
Nebratka
Reyeda
Soy HdapflhlrQ
Kay Jeraey
Rev Kazlco
Xau York
north Carolina (propoaed)
Ohio
OUahcoa
Oreton
FaanaylTiala
Uada IiUnd
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennaaaae
Toaa
Utah
7anont
Virginia
Haahlagtoa
»aac Virginia
Ulacoaaln
Uvemlns
I
I
X
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xt
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
I
• Intonation preeeued In chla table wae racalTed In pereonal coaaunlcattona vlth repreaentatlvea
frm the Sceta off leu llacad In Table 2-1 and the BMronaencal Protection Agency.
t Ueat Virginia - Standards for Oa-Slte Only
2-29
-------
The various regulatory criteria presented in Tables 2-2 through
2-7 relate to general enabling authority or to more detailed stan-
dard? or regulations. In a relative sense, the enabling authority
provides the formal power to regulate hazardous waste activities
while standards and regulations provide specific requirements. En-
abling authority usually indicates that the particular state has the
power to control a particular acitivity. In the absence of specific
standards or regulations, this authority may be exercised on a case-
by-case basis, or it may extend to the regulation of only a parti-
cular management activity, such as disposal. In examining each of
these tables, it should be remembered that the status of state legis-
lation is in flux and that these tables are meant to present only a
general view of the nationwide status of hazardous waste management.
Appendix A provides a description of the specific hazardous
waste management regulations for selected states as summarized in
Tables 2-2 through 2-7. These tables illustrate the general differ-
ences in existing regulatory approaches while the information in Ap-
pendix A provides more specific detail.
2.4.1 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-2 illustrates the status of
the regulatory criteria that are applicable to generators of hazard-
ous waste as of 1978. (Additional regulatory criteria applicable to
generators who treat, store, or dispose hazardous waste on-site are
discussed in Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5.) Twenty-five states
2-30
-------
currently have (or have proposed) the enabling authority over
manifest-type requirements pertaining to generators of hazardous
wastes; ten of these states have promulgated (or have proposed)
standards for such manifests. Twenty-three states have (or have
proposed) the enabling authority over recordkeeping requirements
applicable to generators. Seven of these states have (or have
proposed) recordkeeping standards for hazardous waste generators; one
additional state also has recordkeeping standards. Twenty-three
states currently have (or have proposed) a reporting requirement
applicable to generators of hazardous waste. Eight of these states
have (or have proposed) reporting standards that apply to these
generators; one additional state also has reporting standards.
2.4.2 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-3 presents the status of
the regulatory criteria that are applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste as of 1978. Twenty-three states have (or have
proposed) the enabling authority to require transporters of hazardous
waste to be permitted, licensed, registered, or certified. Ten of
these states have (or have proposed) standards for the permitting,
licensing, registering, or certifying of hazardous waste transport-
ers. Twenty-five states currently have (or have proposed) the
authority to initiate a manifest system applicable to such transport-
ers, eleven of these states have standards for manifests. Twenty-
three states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority over
recordkeeping requirements; twelve of these states have (or have
2-31
-------
proposed) recordkeeping standards. Nineteen states have (or have
proposed) the authority to require reporting requirements; while
eight of the states have (or have proposed) reporting standards.
Eighteen states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority for
inspection of transporters; five of these states have regulations or
standards for inspection.
2.4.3 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Treaters of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-4 illustrates the status of the
regulatory criteria that are applicable to on-site and off-site
treaters of hazardous waste as of 1978. Twenty-five states have (or
have proposed) the enabling authority to require such treaters of
hazardous waste to be permitted; nine of these states have
promulgated (or have proposed) permit standards. Twenty-three states
have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to require treaters to
comply with a manifest system; ten of these states have promulgated
(or have proposed) manifest standards. Twenty-two states have (or
have proposed) the enabling authority to regulate.recordkeeping
requirements; eight of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) recordkeeping standards for treaters. Twenty states (or
have proposed) the enabling authority to require reports from
hazardous waste treaters; six of these states have promulgated (or
have proposed) reporting standards for such treaters. Twenty-four
states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to inspect
hazardous waste treatment facilities; seven of these states have (or
have proposed) inspection standards.
2-32
-------
2.4.4 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Storers of Hazardous Waste. Table 2-5 shows the status of the
regulatory criteria that are applicable to on-site and off-site
storers of hazardous waste .as of 1978. Twenty-five states have (or
have proposed) the enabling authority to require permits of hazardous
waste storers; nine of these states have enacted (or have proposed)
permit standards for storage. Twenty-one states have (or have
proposed) the enabling legislation to require compliance with the
manifest system. Six of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards for manifest compliance; one additional state
also has manifest standards. Eighteen states have (or have proposed)
the enabling authority to require recordkeeping by the storer; six of
these states have (or have proposed) recordkeeping standards.
Seventeen states have (or have proposed) the enabling authority to
require reporting by storers of hazardous waste; five of these states
have (or have proposed) standards. Twenty-three states have
indicated that they have (or have proposed) specified authority to
inspect hazardous waste storage facilities; five of these states (or
have proposed) have inspection standards.
2.4.5 The Status of State Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
Disposers of Hazardous Waste. The issue of the disposal of hazardous
waste has thus far received more legislative attention than has any
other hazardous waste management activity. As of 1978 thirty-eight
states have (or have proposed) the legal authority to require permits
2-33
-------
for the operation of on-site and/or off-site disposal facilities
receiving hazardous wastes. Seventeen of these states have
promulgated (or have proposed) standards specifically relating, to the
permitting of disposal facilities. Twenty-five states have (or have
proposed) the enabling authority to require compliance with a
manifest system; twelve of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards for manifest requirements. Thirty-four states
have reported that they have (or have proposed) the authority to
require recordkeeping practices from hazardous wastes disposers;
fifteen of these states have (or have proposed) standards for the
recordkeeping requirements. Twenty-nine states indicate that they
have (or have proposed) enabling authority to require hazardous waste
disposers to report on the materials being handled; thirteen of these
states have promulgated (or have proposed) standards for reporting.
Thirty-nine states have (or have proposed) legal capabilities to
inspect hazardous waste disposal sites; fifteen of these states have
(or have proposed) standards specifically relating to the inspection
requirements of disposal sites.
2.4.6 The Status of State Hazardous Waste Definition, Moni-
toring, and Enforcement. Table 2-7 presents the status of state
hazardous waste definition, monitoring practices, and enforcement
capabilities as of 1978. While all of the states have a textual
definition of hazardous waste, several states have developed a more
specific definition of hazardous waste. Seven states presently
2-34
-------
define hazardous waste exclusively by the use of criteria; one ad-
ditional state defines hazardous waste exclusively by a listing of
particular substances; eight additional states employ the use of both
criteria and a list.
Both monitoring and enforcement refer to authority that is
generally exercised only over disposal activities; however, this
authority can be extended to include other hazardous waste management
activities. Thirty states report that they have (or have proposed)
the enabling authority to control monitoring activities related to
hazardous wastes; tweleve of these states have promulgated (or have
proposed) standards with regard to monitoring procedures and re-
quirements. One additional state also has such standards.
Forty-five states have (or have proposed) some type of enabling
enforcement capabilities over hazardous wastes; twenty-four of these
states have (or have proposed) enforcement standards specifically re-
lating to hazardous wastes. In most of the states, the enforcement
power is interpreted as an extension of the authority vested through
existing solid waste enforcement capabilities.
2-35
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ACTION
The baseline action is chat set of regulations and guidelines
initially developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
response to the mandate of Subtitle C of RCRA. Baseline regulations
have been developed under the mandate of Sections 3001 through 3006
and 3010 of Subtitle C. These baseline regulations and guidelines
fall within several broad areas, as follows:
• Identification of hazardous waste subject to regulation;
• Control of hazardous waste from generation to ultimate dis-
posal;
• Guidelines for state hazardous waste programs.
Because of the extensive nature of the baseline regulations, a
summary of the most relevant points is presented in the following
sections. The specific baseline regulations being assessed in this
EIS are described in Appendix B.
3.1 Criteria, Identification, and Listing of Hazardous Waste
(Section 30017
The Section .3001 baseline regulations delimit wastes-that are to
be considered hazardous and, therefore, to be brought under regula-
tory control. The regulatory approach taken is to use both identi-
fying characteristics and lists of hazardous wastes, industrial
processes, and sources to be brought under regulatory control.
The characteristics used to delimit hazardous waste are as fol-
lows :
3-1
-------
• Ignitability;
• Corrosiveness;
• Reactivity;
• Toxicity.
Any waste which exhibits any of these characteristics or which
is listed (see Appendix B, Subpart A), would be considered hazardous
and would have to be managed pursuant to the Subtitle C regulations.
The hazardous waste lists identify specific hazardous wastes (e.g.,
water-based paint wastes), sources generating hazardous waste (e.g.,
various departments of hospitals), and processes which generate haz-
ardous waste (e.g., asbestos wastes from cell diaphrams in production
of chlorine); and indicate for each listed waste or waste stream the
reason for its is inclusion (e.g., ignitable, corrosive, reactive,
toxic). A generator producing a listed waste may be exempted from
regulation providing that he could demonstrate that the reason for
listing that waste does not apply to his particular waste stream.
The methods to be used for such a demonstration include the four
identifying characteristics plus tests for low-level radioactivity,
infectiousness, mutagenic activity, bioaccumulation potential, and
toxicity.
3.2 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (Section
3002)
The Section 3002 baseline regulations identify generators of
hazardous waste who would be subject to regulation and specify the
responsibilities of these generators. The generator requirements
3-2
-------
would apply Co chose persons or Federal agencies, except households,
who produce and dispose more Chan 100 kilograms (abouC 220 pounds)
per month of wastes identified as hazardous under the Section 3001
regulations. Any person or Federal agency producing and disposing
100 kilograms or less per month would not be required to comply with
the generator regulations. Also any generator engaged solely in
retail trade or principally in fanning would have to comply with Che
regulations only with regard Co wasCe automotive oil; however, any
person (e.g., a transporter) could assume a waste automative oil
generator's total liability for compliance with the Section 3002
requirements, providing a written transfer of liability contract is
in effect. Generators excluded from compliance with the Subtitle C
regulations would, however, still be obligated to dispose their
hazardous wastes in an accepCable manner, e.g., in a landfill chat
meets RCRA Subtitle D criteria.
The requirements of the generators of hazardous waste fall
within the following broad categories:
• Compliance with the manifest system;
• Reporting;
• Recordkeeping;
• Containerization;
• Labeling;
• Furnishing information on general chemical composition.
The key aspects of these regulations, and the greatest benefits
to be derived, revolve around the development of a manifest system
3-3
-------
and periodic reporting requirements. The manifest system would
require that detailed information regarding each off-site shipment of
hazardous waste is recorded, accompanies the waste during transport,
and serves as the basis for filing periodic reports. This system
would serve to promote proper delivery and disposal of all hazardous
wastes consigned by the generator. Other aspects of these
regulations (e.g., containerization and labeling) have been developed
to be consistent with existing Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations.
The full set of reporting and recordkeeping requirements under
Section 3002 would be applicable only to generators designating
hazardous wastes for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal in a
facility not owned by the generator. These generators would have to
submit both an annual report summarizing all hazardous waste ship-
ments and a quarterly report for hazardous wastes which were shipped,
but not received by a permitted facility (as evidenced by the failure
to receive -the signed original of the manifest or delivery document
from the designated disposal facility). Generators designating
hazardous wastes for disposal at an off-site facility owned by the
generator and located within the same state as the generator would
not have to comply with any of the reporting or recordkeeping
requirements (although the facility itself would be subject to
reporting and recordkeeping requirements under Section 3004).
3-4
-------
Generators designating hazardous wastes for on-site treatment,
storage, or disposal would be exempted from manifesting, contain-
erization, and labeling requirements, though they would have to make
an annual report, keep records, and comply with the Section 3004
regulations.
3.3 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (Section
3003)
The Section 3003 baseline regulations identify those transpor-
ters who are subject to regulation and specify requirements that fall
within the following broad categories:
• Recordkeeping;
• Acceptance and transport of hazardous waste;
• Compliance with the manifest;
• Delivery of the hazardous waste to the designated, permitted
facility;
• Emergency situations;
• Marking and placarding of vehicles.
• Many of these controls are currently imposed upon some trans-
porters of hazardous waste by regulations under the Hazardous Ma-
terials Transportation Act. Therefore, the baseline regulations
within this section are designed to be consistent with current DOT
regulatory practices. Further, the baseline regulations would extend
the DOT regulations to intrastate, as well as interstate, transporta-
tion of hazardous wastes. The most significant additions to those
existing regulations affecting hazardous waste transport are the
3-5
-------
manifest and delivery requirements that would assure that all
hazardous wastes are delivered to the designated permitted facility.
In the case of spills during transport, the transporter regulations
would require the transporter to immediately notify the specified
authority, to file a written report within 15 days, and to clean up
all spilled hazardous waste or take such action as required so that
the spilled hazardous waste no longer presents a hazard to human
health or the environment.
The transporter regulations would apply to any person or Federal
agency transporting, within the United States, hazardous wastes that
require a manifest under the generator regulations and also apply to
any transporter importing a shipment of hazardous wastes from abroad.
Portions of the standards would also apply to any transporter who
consolidates and transports hazardous wastes not requiring a mani-
fest. The transporter regulations would not apply to persons or
Federal agencies transporting hazardous wastes solely on the site of
generation or solely on the site of a permitted hazardous waste
management facility.
3.4 Standards For Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Section 3004T
The Section 3004 baseline regulations are intended to provide an
adequate degree of environmental and public health protection during
the treatment, storage, and ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes.
These standards include requirements relating to the general aspects
of facility operations (i.e., site selection, monitoring, training,
3-6
-------
security, emergency procedures, and contingency plans, inspections,
closure, financial requirements, and recordkeeping/reporting) as well
as standards applicable to specific types of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (i.e., storage tanks, containers, landfarms,
landfills, surface impoundments, basins, incinerators, and chemical,
physical, and biological treatment facilities).
With the few exclusions noted below, these standards apply to
owners and operators of any facility that treats, stores or disposes
any quantity of waste identified as hazardous under the Section 3001
/regulations, except 'special wastes'. All owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose 'special wastes', and no
other hazardous waste, would have to comply only with selected
general facility standards. The Section 3004 standards do not apply
to on-site storage by generators who store their own wastes for less
than 90 days prior to subsequent transport of-site, but do apply to
any such on-site storage which lasts for 90 days or longer.
Certain practices that are controlled under other Federal acts
are not regulated under the treatment, storage, and disposal stan-
dards. These practices include underground (deep-well) injection,
ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface dis-
charges under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, and all treatment, storage, and disposal activities
at Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or by ocean dumping barges
and vessels. However, the treatment, storage, and disposal regu-
lations would apply to above ground storage or treatment of hazardous
3-7
-------
wastes prior to underground injection, on-shore facilities associated
with ocean dumping activities, and surface impoundments associated
with NPDES permitted industrial wastewater treatment facilities and
hazardous sludges from such facilities.
The Section 3004 baseline regulations have been divided into
five major sections: Human Health and Environmental Standards,
General Facility Standards, Storage Standards, Treatment and Disposal
Standards, and Special Waste Standards. Some of the standards are
accompanied by notes which either provide further explanation of the
standard or specify a basis for permitting authorities to allow
deviations from the standard. No deviation is allowed from standards
which do not have accompanying notes.
There are overriding standards for human health and environ-
mental protection: Groundwater, Surface Water, and Air. They
establish criteria for human health and environmental protection and
are intended to assure that the design, construction and operation of
hazardous waste facilities does not adversely affect human health or
the environment by degrading the groundwater, surface water, or air.
The human health and environmental standards are used by EPA in
drafting and evaluating more specific standards and can be used in
designing facilities. While human health and environmental standards
would be legally binding, they are not intended to be directly
enforced. They are designed to be used on a case-by-case basis only
3-8
-------
where there is reason to believe (e.g., a third party challenge) that
the standards are insufficient for human health and environmental
protection. In such cases, EPA may monitor to determine if the
facility is in compliance with the human health and environmental
standards at issue.
Furthermore, it is the burden of the government to show that a
facility is in violation of a human health and environmental standard
if the facility is in compliance with all other applicable standards.
Therefore, if a facility is in compliance with all other applicable
standards, but is, nevertheless, discovered to be violating a-human
health and environmental standard, no penalty would be assessed to
the facility owner/operator for the period of time prior to that
discovery, and a reasonable time would be allowed for the facility to
be brought into compliance.
Specific standards which provide measurable criteria and a means
to achieve the human health and environmental standards are necessary
for practical implementation of these regulations, and are required
by the statute. Thus, the general facility standards, the storage
standards, and the treatment/disposal standards translate the human
health and environmental standards into usefully enforceable require-
ments. The details of these standards are presented in Subpart D of
Appendix B.
3-9
-------
General facility standards apply to every type of hazardous
waste management facility. They must be complied with at all times
by all regulated facility owners/operators. If these standards are
not complied with, the facility owner/operator would be considered to
be in violation of these regulations and could be subject to enforce-
ment action for the entire period of the violation. Unless exempted,
the facility owner/operator has the burden of demonstrating that
he/she is in compliance. Facility owners/operators may be required
to monitor, report, and otherwise demonstrate compliance with the
general facility standards.
In addition to the general facility standards, facilities which
store hazardous waste must also comply with general storage standards
as well as with standards which apply to storage tanks and storage
containers. RCRA's definition of storage implies no discharge to
groundwater, surface water, or air. The storage standards reflect
this intent.
In addition to the general facility standards, facilities which
treat or dispose of hazardous waste must also comply with the general
treatment/disposal standards. Facilities with incinerators; land-
fills; surface impoundments; basins; landfarms; or chemical,
physical, or biological treatment processes must comply with the
standards prescribed under these subsections.
Several waste streams have been identified as being of special
concern due to their unique characteristics and the techno-economic
3-10
-------
uncertainties regarding their disposal. These 'special wastes' are
high volume wastes which are often disposed on-site by generators,
for which traditional land disposal technology is techno-economically
inappropriate, and whose environmental risk is ill-defined. These
'special waste' streams include: utility wastes (fly ash, bottom
ash), oil drilling muds and brines, cement kiln dusts, phosphate rock
mining and processing wastes, uranium mining wastes, and other mining
wastes. In the event these wastes meet a hazardous characteristic or
are listed, unique facility standards will be developed for them.
However, these wastes would presently be subject only to general
standards for recordkeeping, reporting, etc. EPA intends to
develop control technology standards for these wastes as soon as
possible.
3.5 Permit System for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes (Section 3005)
Section 3005(a) of-RCRA requires "...each person owning or
operating a facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous waste identified or listed under this subtitle to have a
permit issued, pursuant to this section." In the baseline regula-
tions as presented in Appendix B, Subpart E, a hazardous waste
management facility is defined as any land and appurtenances thereto
used for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous waste.
On the effective date of these regulations (i.e., 180 days after
their promulgation), no such facility would be allowed to accept
3-11
-------
hazardous waste unless its owner or operator had applied for a per-
mit. The purpose of such permits is to assure that facilities are
constructed and/or operated in a manner consistent with the objec-
tives of the Section 3004 standards.
The Section 3005 baseline regulations would require that all
owners or operators of facilities treating, storing, or disposing
hazardous wastes obtain a permit prior to facility construction,
modification, or operation. The regulations establish standards for
permit applications, permit issuance, and permit revocation. Permits
would be issued for the projected life of the facility. The owners/
operators of new facilities would be required to obtain permits prior
to construction and would have to certify that construction was
performed in compliance with the permit before commencing operation.
Special permits would be available for experimental facilities,
qualified hospital-medical care facilities, Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, and ocean dumping barges and vessels.
The Section 3005 baseline regulations would also require the
circulation of a public notice of any tenative determination to
issue, deny, or modify a permit. Within 30 days of publication of
the notice, any person would be able to request a public hearing on
the determination. The Regional Administrator would decide whether
such a hearing is appropriate at his discretion.
3.6 Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006)
Section 3006 provides that states are to be encouraged to apply
for authorization to administer and enforce their own hazardous waste
3-12
-------
program pursuant to Subtitle C. Under the baseline regulations there
would be three types of authorization for which states could apply:
full authorization, partial authorization, or interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C. Par-
tial authorization would allow a state to administer and enforce
selected components of the program. States would be considered for
partial authorization only if state legislative authority did not ex-
ist for all required program components. In all cases, the combina-
tion of the state and the Federal program would have to meet the
requirements of a fully authorized program. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed five years, but could be
renewed.
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazard-
ous waste program in lieu of the Federal Program under Subtitle C for
a period not to exceed twenty-four months, beginning on the date six
months after the date of promulgation of regulations under Section .
3001. The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the state to
make an orderly transition from its present program to a program eli-
gible for full authorization. The guidelines describe the substan-
tive and procedural requirements for States applying for authoriza-
tion, EPA's oversight of the State's hazardous waste program, and for
the withdrawal of authorization pursuant to Section 3006(e) of Sub-
title C. Specific guidelines are drafted with respect to equivalency
3-13
-------
of programs; consistency with Che Federal program; oversight; appli-
cation procedures; and withdrawal of authorization.
3.7 Preliminary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activicies (Section
3010)
These baseline regulations (see Appendix B, Subpart G) define
the administrative procedures under which states may be granted
authority to receive notifications of hazardous waste activities
(limited interim authorization) and specify the procedures for filing
such notifications by persons generating or managing hazardous
wastes.
These regulations would allow states to receive a limited, one-
time authorization (expiring six months after promulgation of the
Section 3001 regulations) to receive notifications of hazardous waste
activities from generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and dis-
posers. The states would not have authority to grant exceptions to
the filing requirements and would have to maintain files of all
receipts, making these files available to EPA at the request of the
Regional Administrator.
The filing requirements would apply to every person conducting
a hazardous waste activity at the time of promulgation of the Section
3001 regulations. Such notification would constitute one of the con-
ditions for interim status for storers, treaters, and disposers to
continue operations pending issuance of a facility permit. The base-
line regulations would allow combination of notification requirements
3-14
-------
with application for an identification code by generators and trans-
porters, and with application for facility permits for storers,
treaters, and disposers.
3-15
-------
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the overall objectives of RCRA (see Chapter 2), the
major objectives for Subtitle C are to promote public health and en-
vironmental protection in the generation and management of hazardous
wastes, to enhance resource recovery from hazardous wastes, and to
encourage state participation in the hazardous waste management pro-
gram established under Subtitle C. The baseline Subtitle C regula-
tions, summarized in Chapter 3, comprise the set of regulations
initially developed to achieve these objectives in a feasible and
enforceable manner.
During the overall development of both the proposed regulations
and the final Phase I regulations, numerous alternative regulations
and regulatory approaches have been considered. The baseline regula-
tions and subsequent regulatory versions were selected from among the
many alternatives based upon technical, environmental, institutional,
economic, and legal considerations.* The various alternatives that
were considered included changes in regulatory approaches (e.g.,'per-
formance standards versus design and operating standards for hazard-
ous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities) and changes in
the standards and criteria to be established by the regulations (e.g.,
the level of hazardous waste generation at which generators are
designated for purposes of regulation under Section 3002).
^Background documents prepared by EPA on the Subtitle C regulations
provide a detailed discussion of the major issues raised and the
major regulatory options considered during the development of the
Subtitle C regulations.
4-1
-------
Because of the enormous number of ways in which Che overall ob-
jectives, regulations, and standards could be structured and developed
the approach in this EIS is to select and develop a manageable set of
meaningful alternatives that reasonably bracket the overall objectives
and the resultant impacts anticipated from the regulations that are
ultimately to be promulgated under Subtitle C.* The set of alterna-
tives that have been developed is meaningful in the sense that each is
considered to be technically, legally, economically, and institution-
ally feasible and enforceable, and each provides an assessable shift
in the potential impacts that might result from the proposed regula-
tions. Also, the alternatives selected fall within the scope of
actions allowable under Subtitle C (e.g., tax incentives to promote
resource recovery are not within the allowable scope of Subtitle C
actions). By reasonably bracketing the overall objectives and the
resultant impacts, it is possible to show the types of potential
impacts that could result -under various alternatives without having to
explicitly consider the almost infinite variety of options for accom-
plishing the same or intermediate objectives.
It is not meant to be implied that the baseline regulations or
any one of the alternatives selected and structured in this chapter
would define the actual regulations promulgated under Subtitle C.
^Analyses of all the specific detailed alternatives and options
considered are provided in the background documents for the Subtitle
C regulations.
4-2
-------
Rather, Che set of alternatives should only be viewed as representa-
tive cases for purposes of analysis and as guidelines for assisting in
the planning and development of the Subtitle C regulations.
Based upon the objectives of Subtitle C, five different sets of
alternatives, with respect to the baseline regulations, have been
selected and structured to reasonably bracket the potential impacts
that could be expected to result. These alternatives are as follows:
• No Action;
• Phasing of Generators;
• Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection;
• Phase I Alternative.
For each of these alternatives, the purpose and rationale for the
selection and structure of the alternative are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections. To the extent practical, the major options that were
not considered to be reasonable for inclusion are also indicated, and
the rationale for their elimination is presented. In the discussion
of the structure of each alternative, all components of the baseline
Subtitle C regulations (see Appendix B) are assumed to be included
under each alternative, except for those specific modifications that
are indicated below.
4.1 No Action
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential impacts that could result from taking no action, i.e.,
4-3
-------
not promulgating regulations for Subtitle C. There are two ways in
which the No Action alternative may be approached. One way is to
assume that No Action involves not implementing any portion of RCRA,
including Subtitle C. The other approach is to assume that No Action
involves implementing all portions of RCRA, except Subtitle C.
Under the former approach, hazardous wastes would continue to be
generated, stored, transported, treated, and disposed in essentially
the same manner as is currently practiced. Under the latter approach,
hazardous wastes would also continue to be generated, stored, trans-
ported, and treated in much the same manner as is currently practiced;
however, disposal would be somewhat different due to the Subtitle D
regulations. Open dumps would be prohibited and criteria would be
established with which sanitary landfills would have to comply. How-
ever, Section 4003(2) of Subtitle D specifically exempts hazardous
wastes from the requirement that solid wastes be utilized for resource
recovery or disposed of in sanitary landfills or otherwise disposed of
in an environmentally sound manner. Thus, it is uncertain how the
implementation of Subtitle D would affect hazardous waste disposal if
Subtitle C were not to be implemented.
It is not possible to prepare a meaningful assessment of the No
Action alternative that assumes that all of RCRA, except Subtitle C,
is to be implemented. This conclusion is based upon the unavailabil-
ity of the state solid waste management plan required under Subtitle
D, the recent promulgation of regulations and criteria under Subtitle
4-4
-------
D for sanitary landfills, and the many significant uncertainties and
lack of data about the ways Subtitle D and the rest of RCRA would
affect hazardous waste generation, storage, transport, treatment and
disposal. Therefore, the No Action alternative to be assessed in this
report assumes that no part of RCRA, including Subtitle C, is to be
implemented and that hazardous waste management would continue as
currently practiced.
4.2 Phasing of Subtitle C Regulations
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential change in impacts that could result from the promulga-
tion of the baseline Subtitle C regulations on a phased basis, rather
than from their total implementation at one time. For purposes of
analysis, a five-year time frame measured from the proposed implemen-
tation date is assumed for the phasing of the regulations. The pri-
mary objectives of phased implementation are to ensure that resources
(e.g., manpower, disposal sites, and capital) would not be stressed
beyond their capacity to respond effectively to the baseline Subtitle
C regulations.
There are two basic mechanisms for phasing the implementation of
baseline Subtitle C regulations. First, the regulations within the
different Sections of Subtitle C (i.e., Sections 3001 through 3006 and
3010) could be implemented over a significantly extended period of
time (e.g., implementation of the 3001 regulations first, followed by
the implementation of the 3002 regulations 6 months later; or imple-
mentation of a portion of the Section 3004 regulations, followed by
4-5
-------
implementation of the remainder of the Section 3004 regulations 6
months later). Second, the regulations for all the Sections of Sub-
title C could be promulgated at the same time, and the levels for the
standards and criteria established by the regulations could be phased
to their proposed values over a period of time (e.g., the generator
limit under Section 3002 could be set at 1,075 metric tons per month
the first year, 303 metric tons per month the second year, ..., and
100 kilograms per month the fifth year).
The implementation of each and every individual Section of Sub-
title C over a significantly extended period of time is not a feasible
alternative, due both to the interdependence of the various Sections
of Subtitle C and to court-imposed deadlines for the promulgation of
various Sections. However, for reasons discussed in the Preface, the
Section 3004 regulation is necessarily being promulgated in three
phases. A Phase I Alternative, which is discussed in Section 4.5, has
been developed for the purpose of analyzing the impacts associated
with the regulations to be included in the first phase of this
promulgation. As discussed in the Preface, a Phase II Alternative
which relates to the second phase of this promulgation will be
developed and analyzed in Part II of the EIS.
There are many different methods by which phasing could be
implemented with regard to the second phasing mechanism discussed
above (i.e., promulgation of all Subtitle C regulations at the same
time and a gradual phasing in of more stringent levels for those
4-6
-------
standards and criteria that are established by the regulations).
However, most methods would have essentially the same effect—a
gradual expansion of the total quantity of hazardous wastes being
controlled by the hazardous waste program. For purposes of analysis,
the method selected emphasizes gradually increasing the quantity of
wastes controlled by gradually expanding the number of generators
brought under control. With this approach, the level of the generator
limit established under Section 3002 of the baseline regulations is to
be reduced annually over a five-year period of time in order to bring
the larger generators into the program first and the smaller genera-
tors into the program later.* Furthermore, the generator limit is to
be reduced so that equal amounts of hazardous wastes are annually
brought under the program's control over the five-year period, i.e.,
20 percent of the total industrial hazardous wastes per year.
A second method based on gradually increasing the quantity of
wastes controlled through the mechanism of expanding the promulgated
levels of the characteristics used to identify hazardous wastes has
been determined not to be a reasonable alternative at the present
time. While it is a simple matter to change the levels of the char-
acteristics to include more wastes under the program's control, avail-
able data preclude the setting of characteristic levels (e.g.,
specific changes in the pH level) so as to increase the waste load
The generator limit is the upper bound on the amount of hazardous
wastes that can be produced and disposed monthly without being sub-
ject to the Subtitle C regulations.
4-7
-------
annually by a specified amount. At the very least, such an alterna-
tive would result in difficult program management and enforcement
problems.
A further approach to phasing which involves the gradual phasing
in of more stringent levels for those performance standards promul-
gated under Section 3004 and the permit requirements promulgated under
Section 3005 has also been determined not to be a reasonable alterna-
tive since no person can be reasonably expected to construct a hazard-
ous waste facility to meet regulations that would be superseded by
more stringent regulations in succeeding years*
Table 4-1 presents the specific changes to each section of the
baseline Subtitle C regulations that are to be included under this
alternative. All components of the baseline regulations discussed in
Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alternative, except
for those specific modifications that are indicated in Table 4-1.
For ease in correlating the indicated modifications with the baseline
regulations summarized in Appendix B, the appropriate section of
Appendix B being modified is given immediately following the change
presented in Table 4-1.
While this alternative emphasizes the phasing of generators to be
regulated under the program, the modifications presented in Table 4-1
are not limited solely to this one change. Rather, two additional
modifications have been included to assist in fulfilling the stated
objectives of this phasing alternative. These additional modifica-
tions phase in the time limit that generators may accumulate hazardous
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1
PHASING OF GENERATORS
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
• No changes.
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
• Phase in the generator limit (250.21(6]).*
1,075 metric tons per month during the first year;
303 metric tons per month during the second year;
125 metric tons per month during the third year;
34 metric tons per month during the fourth year;
100 kilograms per month during the fifth year.
• Phase in the 90-day exclusion for generators who temporarily
accumulate hazardous wastes prior to off-site disposal
(250.61[dd]).*
- Twelve-month exclusion for the first two years, then
decrease to 270 days, 180 days, and 90 days over the
last three years.
3003 Modifications (Subpart C)*
• No changes.
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
• Phase in the time limit for reporting of unmanifested wastes
delivered to permitted facilities (250.43-6(a)(4)).
- No reporting during the first year;
- Quarterly reporting during the second and third years;
- Monthly reporting during the fourth year;
- Immediate reporting during the fifth year.
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
• Phase in generator storage exemption as specified above under
3002 modifications (250.61[dd]).*
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Concluded)
•
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• No changes.
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• No changes.
*Section of the baseline regulations in Appendix B that is being
changed by this modification.
4-10
-------
wastes prior to off-site disposal without being brought into the per-
mit system and the time limit for reporting of unmanifested wastes.
Since the baseline regulations provide for the phasing of state
participation into the program through both interim authorization and
partial authorization, no additional modifications have been made to
promote phasing of state authorized programs.
4.3 Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential change in impacts that could result from modification of
the baseline Subtitle C regulations designed to further increase pub-
lic health and environmental protection even above that level afforded
by the baseline regulations.
The basic strategy of this alternative is to expand the defini-
tion of hazardous waste in order to bring additional wastes under
control of the program; to remove exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to apply even more stringent design and operational
requirements, for storers, treaters, and disposers; to eliminate spe-
cial waste standards; to reduce reporting intervals for storers,
treaters, and disposers; to eliminate the use of delivery documents in
lieu of manifests; and to decrease the life of permits and impose
additional restrictions on obtaining permits.
Table 4-2 presents the specific changes to each section of the
baseline regulations that are to be included under this alternative.
As previously discussed, all components of the baseline regulations
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-2
ENHANCED PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
Add characteristics for identifying infectious wastes and radio-
active wastes as hazardous wastes (250.13).*
(1) A solid waste is an infectious waste if it is generated from
the sources listed in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14(a)(2)(i),
unless the waste does not contain microorganisms or helminths
of CDC Classes 2 through 5 of the Etiologic Agents listed in
Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix IX.
(2) A waste is a radioactive waste if it is not source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and if a representative
sample of the waste has either of the properties listed
in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14(b)(2)(F)(i and ii).
Eliminate the toxic waste characteristic based upon the EPA Primary
Drinking Water standards and replace with the following character-
istic for identifying toxic wastes as hazardous (250.13(4]):*
- A solid waste is a toxic waste if the extract obtained from
applying the extraction procedure (EP) in Appendix B, Subpart A,
250.13(b)(4)(i) to a representative sample of the waste has any
of the following properties:
(1) Gives a positive response in any one of a set of re-
quired tests for a mutagenic activity, described
in Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14(b)(2)tG)(i).
(2) Gives a positive result in the Bioaccumulation Potential
Test, defined in Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix XII.
(3) Contains more than the specified concentration of any
substance in Appendix B, Subpart A, Appendix XIII.
(4) Exceeds any of the following thresholds, when applica-
ble:
(a) Has a concentration of a substance, for which an
EPA Primary Drinking Water Standard has been es-
tablished, greater than or equal to 10 times that
criteria.
(b) Contains any organic substance, which has a calcu-
lated human LD50 of less than 800 mg/kg, at a con-
centration in mg/1 greater than or equal to 0.35
times its LD50 expressed in units of mg/kg.
(c) Has a concentration of any substance listed below
greater than that specified:
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
Maximum Permissable EP
Substance Elutriate Concentration (mg/1)
Antimony ?
Beryllium ?
Copper ?
Dalapon 3.5
Dichobenil 10.
Diquat 50.
Fenac 1.0
Nickel ?
Picloram 0.1
Thallium ?
Zinc ?
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
• Eliminate the 100 kilograms per month generator limit (250.21[6]).*
- Anyone, except households, generating any amount of the
hazardous wastes identified under Section 3001 must comply
with the Section 3002 regulations.
• Remove exclusion from Section 3002 regulations for generators
engaged solely in retail trade or principally in farming
(250.20[f]).*
- Farmers and retail generators must comply with Section 3002
requirements for all hazardous wastes identified under Sec-
tion 3001.
• Increase reporting frequency from annually to quarterly for all
generators (250.23).*
- All portions of the "previous" annual report are to be re-
ported quarterly.
• Increase the reporting frequency for manifests not received by the
designated facility from quarterly to monthly (250.23[a][2]).*
• Eliminate the use of a delivery document in lieu of a manifest
(250.21[3]).*
- All hazardous waste shipments must be accompanied by the
manifest at all times.
• Eliminate the transfer of liability contract (250.20[i and j] and
250.29).*
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
3003 Modifications (Subpart O*
• Eliminate the use of a delivery document in lieu of a manifest
(250.31U]).*
- All hazardous waste shipments must be accompanied by the
manifest at all times.
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
Eliminate special waste standards for cement kiln dust waste,
utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.46).*
- These wastes, if hazardous under Section 3001, must comply
with all Section 3004 standards.
Change the application of the threshold limit value for air con-
taminents from non-point emission sources (250.42-3[b]).*
(1) The threshold limit value is to be applied as a maximum
concentration that is not to be exceeded at any time
rather than as a time-weighted average for an 8-hour
day and 40-hour week.
(2) The threshold limit value is to be applied as a mandatory
standard rather than a human health and environmental
standard.
Increase the minimum distance active portions of facilities must be
located from the facility's property line from 200 feet to 400 feet
(250.43-1th]).*
Increase the minimum distance surface impoundments, active portions
of landfills, and treated areas of landfarms must be located from
any functioning public or private water supply or livestock water
supply from 150 meters (500 feet) to 300 meters (1000 feet)
(250.45-2[a][3], 250.45-3[a][3], and 250.45-5[c][3]).*
Increase the financial responsibility required of owner/operators
of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities during site operation
from a minimum of $5 million to a minimum of $10 million (250.43-2
[b]).*
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
• Increase Che tine during which the owner/operator of a facility is
to provide post close-out care from a period which need not exceed
20 years from closure to a period which need not exceed 40 years
from closure (250.43-8[k] [1] ).*
- The annual cash payment into the trust fund for post close-
out monitoring and maintenance is to be adjusted based upon
this 40-year period (250.43-2[a] [2] ).*
• Add a requirement that all inactive treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities must comply with the Section 3004 regulations.'
• Add a requirement that all wastes be treated using the best prac-
tical technology (BPT) to reduce their waste solubility and over-
all toxicity before disposal.'
• For all landfills and surface impoundments, increase the required
permeability of the soil liner and of the final cover from less
than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, to less than or equal to 1 x
10-8 cm/sec. (250.45-2[bJ [10] , 250.45-2[b] [12] [ii] , 250.45-2[b]
[12][v], 250.45-2[c][l], 250.45-3[c] [2] , and 250.45-3[c] [9] ).*
• Add the requirement that any land farm that has the potential to
discharge to groundwater must be monitored so as to detect any
discharge (250.43-9).*
- Such landfarms must comply with the groundwater and leachate
monitoring standards.
• Reduce the maximum vapor pressure of wastes that may be treated,
stored, or disposed as indicated below from 78 mm of Hg at 25 C
(250.44-lla]ll], 250.45-2lb] 15] liii] , 250.45-3lb] UJ lv] , 250.45-4
[2][e], and 250.45-5[i] [ii] ).*
- Wastes with a vapor pressure greater than 53 mm of Hg at
25 C may not be disposed in landfills, placed in surface
impoundments or basins, landfarmed, nor put in storage
tanks vented directly to the atmosphere.
• Increase reporting frequency for report based on manifest informa-
tion from annually to quarterly (250.43-6[a] [3] ).*
• Add a requirement that for those hazardous wastes determined by the
permitting agency to have a recovery potential within the reason-
able forseeable future, any land disposal must be in a segregated
manner. t
4-15
4'
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
Reduce Che duration of permits from the projected life of the
facility to a period no longer than 5 years (250.62-5).*
- Permits may be renewed for the maximum time period (5 years)
an unlimited number of times.
Eliminate special permits for experimental facilities, qualified
hospital-medical care facilities, ocean dumping barges or vessels,
and publicly owned treatment works (POTW) (250.62-6, 250.62-7,
250.62-8, and 250.62-9).*
- All these facilities must submit both Part A and B of the
permit application and a supplementary environmental analy-
sis described below (250.62-6[b], 250.62-7[b], 250.62-8[b],
and 250.62-9[b]).*
- Experimental facilities and qualified hospital-medical care
facilities must comply with all Section 3004 requirements
(250.62-6[b] and 250.62-6[a][3]).*
- POTW1s and ocean dumping barges or vessels must comply with
Section 3004 requirements applicable to storage of hazardous
wastes (250.62-8[b] and 250.62-9[b]).*
Owners/operators of facilities for the treatment, storage, or dis-
posal of special wastes (e.g., cement kiln dust wastes) must apply
for Section 3005 permits and comply with all Section 3005 permit
application requirements.'
All permit applicants must submit a Supplementary Environmental
Analysis of the facility and its potential impacts. The Supple-
mentary .Environmental Analysis is to contain:'
(1) An analysis of the impact of and methods proposed to comply
with the following Federal statutes and published regula-
tions where applicable: The Endangered Species Act; The
National Historic Preservation Act; The Historic Sites,
Buildings and Antiquities Act; The Fish and Wildlife Coor-
dination Act; and The Coastal Zone Management Act.
(2) A discussion of whether alternative methods for treatment,
recovery, or recycling of wastes to be stored, treated, or
disposed were considered, or whether the wastes will be
treated prior to storage or disposal.
(3) A description of how hazardous wastes will be transported to
the facility, including a listing of the access routes.
(4) The proximity of the site to population centers and size of
the population centers.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Concluded)
(5) A description of any easements, pipelines, utilities,
public roads, or rights-of-way located within the bounda-
ries of the facility.
(6) A description of applicable local and state zoning or land
use laws in effect.
(7) A description of adjacent land uses within one mile of the
facility.
(8) A description of the methods proposed to minimize and con-
trol impacts of dust, odors, and noise associated with
construction and operation of the facility.
(9) A listing of applications submitted or permits obtained
under local state, or Federal acts involving toxic or
hazardous wastes.
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• No changes.
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• Eliminate the exclusion for owners of inactive hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.t
- The owner of inactive facilities must file a notification.
^Section of the baseline regulations in Appendix B that is being
changed by this modification.
TNo equivalent regulation appears in the baseline regulations in
Appendix B.
4-17
-------
discussed in Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alterna-
tive, except for those specific modifications indicated in Table 4-2.
Under this alternative, the definition of hazardous wastes in
Section 3001 has been expanded by adding characteristics for defining
infectious wastes and radioactive wastes as hazardous. The character-
istic for identifying toxic wastes has also been expanded to bring
additional wastes under control of the regulations.
The exclusion from the Section 3002 regulations for generators
who produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes has
been eliminated. The exclusion for those generators engaged solely in
retail trade or principally in farming for all hazardous wastes pro-
duced, except waste automotive oil, has also been eliminated. All
hazardous wastes produced by such generators are to be managed in
accordance with the Subtitle C regulations. The transfer of liability
contract for waste automotive oil has been eliminated.
The use of delivery documents in lieu of manifests for hazardous
waste transport has been eliminated. The reporting frequency for the
generator report on manifests not received by the designated facility
has been increased from quarterly to monthly. Other reporting fre-
quencies for generators, storers, treaters, and disposers have been
increased from annually to quarterly. A requirement has been added
that owners of inactive treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
comply with all Section 3004 regulations.
4-18
-------
Special standards for 'special wastes' (i.e., cement kiln dust
wastes, utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes,
uranium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines) have been
eliminated; such 'special wastes' must comply with all Section 3004
standards. Design and operating standards for facility location,
non-point source air emission concentrations, post close-out care,
soil liner permeabilities, groundwater monitoring, financial responsi-
bilities, management of volatile wastes, and treatment and segregation
of wastes before disposal have been made more stringent.
The duration of the permit life has been reduced from the pro-
jected life of a facility to a period not to exceed 5 years; permits
may be renewed an unlimited number of times. Special permits for
experimental facilities, qualified hospital-medical care facilities,
ocean dumping barges or vessels, and publicly owned treatment works
(POTW's) have been eliminated; the former two have to comply with all
Section 3004 requirements, the latter two have to comply with Section
3004 storage requirements. A requirement has been added that all
permit applicants submit a Supplementary Environmental Analysis.
4.4 Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection
This alternative has been selected for the purpose of analyzing
the potential change in impacts that could result from modifications
to the baseline Subtitle C regulations designed to provide a lesser
degree of public health and environmental protection than that
afforded by the baseline regulations.
4-19
-------
The basic strategy of this alternative is to contract the defini-
tion of hazardous wastes in order to bring fewer wastes under the
control of the program; to increase exclusions provided for hazardous
waste generators; to reduce manifest requirements; to apply less
stringent design and operational requirements for storers, treaters,
and disposers; to eliminate regulation of special wastes; to decrease
recordkeeping times for generators, transporters, storers, treaters,
and disposers; to increase the length of permit exclusions for genera-
tors who store prior to off-site disposal; to eliminate restrictions
on interim authorization; and to ease restrictions on full and partial
authorization.
Table 4-3 presents the specific changes to each section of the
baseline regulations that are to be included under this alternative.
As previously discussed, all components of the baseline regulations
discussed in Appendix B are assumed to be included under this alterna-
tive, except for those specific modifications indicated in Table 4-3.
Under this alternative, the definition of hazardous wastes in
Section 3001 has been modified to include fewer wastes by eliminating
the characteristic for toxic wastes; listed wastes whose listing is
based solely on the toxicity characteristic (including those listed
based on the criterion of Administrator's Judgment) have also been
removed from the Section 3001 lists. Special wastes (e.g., cement
kiln dust wastes and utility wastes) have been specifically excluded
from being identified as hazardous wastes under Section 3001.
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-3
LESSER DEGREE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
Eliminate Che characteristic for toxic wastes (250.13[4]).*
- Eliminate the listed wastes whose listing is based solely
on the toxicity characteristic or on the Administrator's
judgment (250.14).*
Exclude the following wastes from being identified as hazardous
wastes under Section 3001: cement kiln dust wastes, utility
wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes, uranium
mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.14[a]
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
• Increase the generator limit from 100 kilograms per month to
1000 kilograms per month (250.21[6]).*
• Increase the length of the permit exclusion for generators who
temporarily accumulate hazardous waste prior to off-site disposal
from 90 days to 1 year (250.61[dd]).*
• For off-site shipments of hazardous wastes-by generators, replace
the Section 3002 manifest requirements with a new manifest require-
ment that all such shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be
accompanied by shipping paper/bill of lading which designates
delivery to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility
and which meets the requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations (250.21[3] and 250.22).*
- For example, spill information need not be provided on the
shipping paper/bill of lading, and the shipping paper/bill
of lading need only be signed as required under the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations (i.e., must be signed only
by the generator shipping the wastes).
• Replace requirement for recordkeeping of manifest copy with a
requirement for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading
(250.24).*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading used in place of manifest from 3 years to 1 year.
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
Eliminate the reporting of shipping paper/bill of lading not re-
ceived at designated facility (250.23[a][2]).*
3003 Modifications (Subpart O*
Replace the Section 3002 manifest requirements with a new manifest
requirement that all shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be
accompanied by shipping paper/bill of lading which designates de-
livery to a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility and
which meets the requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials Regu-
lations (250.21(31 and 250.22).*
- Eliminate need for signatures on shipping paper/bill of
lading, except as required under the DOT Hazardous Mate-
rials Regulations (i.e., must be signed only by the gen-
erator shipping the wastes).
Replace requirement for recordkeeping of manifest with a require-
ment for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading (250.33).*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading from 3 years to 1 year, except where DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations specify retention times longer than
1 year.
Eliminate special emergency spill regulations (250.37).*
- Eliminate requirements for the transporter to notify
appropriate officials in the case of a spill and to
file a report on the spill.
- Eliminate requirement for transporter to clean up spill
or to take other action required to insure the spill no •
longer presents a hazard to human health or the environ-
ment.
Eliminate requirement that if a transporter consolidates shipments
of hazardous wastes that do not require a manifest, the entire
shipment must be delivered to a permitted facility (250.30[a]).*
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
Eliminate special waste standards for cement kiln dust wastes,
utility wastes, phosphate rock mining and processing wastes, ura-
nium mining wastes, and oil drilling muds/brines (250.46).*
- Exclude these wastes from compliance with Section 3004
regulations.
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
Change Che application of the threshold limit value for air conta-
minants from non-point emission sources (250.42-3[b]).*
- The threshold limit value is to be applied as time-
weighted average for a 24-hour day rather than as a
time-weighted average for an 8-hour day and 40-hour
week.
Decrease the minimum distance active portions of facilities must
be located from the facility's property line from 200 feet to 100
feet (250.43-l[h]).*
Decrease the minimum distance surface impoundments, active portions
of landfills, and treated areas of landfarms must be located from
any functioning public or private water supply or livestock water
supply from 150 meters (500 feet) to 75 meters (250 feet) (250.45-2
[a][3], 250.45-3[a][3], and 250.45-5[c][3]).*
Decrease the financial responsibility required of owners/operators
of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities during site operation
from a minimum of $5 million to a minimum of $2 million (250.43-2
[b]).*
Decrease the time during which the owner/operator of a facility is
to provide post close-out care from a period which need not exceed
20 years from closure to a period which need not exceed 10 years
from closure (250.43-8[k][1]).*
- The annual cash payment into the trust fund for post close-
out monitoring and maintenance is to be adjusted based upon
•this 10-year period (250.43-2[a][2]).*
For incineration, reduce the required destruction efficiency of the
principal components of the waste from 99.99% to 99.9%, the com-
bustion efficiency from 99.9% to 99%, and halogen removal from
exhaust gases from 99% to 90% (250.45-l[b], 250.45-1 [d], and
250.45-1[h]).*
For all landfills and surface impoundments, decrease the required
permeability of the soil liner and of the final cover from less
than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, to less than or equal to 1 x
10-6 cm/sec. (250.45-2[b][10], 250.45-2[b][12][ii], 250.45-2[b]
[12][v], 250.45-2[c][l], 250.45-3[c][2], and 250.45-3[c][9]).*
Limit to groundwaters that are underground drinking water sources
the requirement that all facilities, except landfarms, that have
the potential to discharge to groundwater must be monitored to
detect any discharge (250.43-9).*
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
- There does not have to be monitoring of potential
discharge to groundwaters which are non-underground
drinking water sources.
For those facilities for which there is to be groundwater and
leachate monitoring, eliminate the quarterly monitoring and
minimum analysis of samples from both the leachate detection
system and the groundwater (250.43-9[b][4] and 250.43-9[b][5]).*
- Eliminate the quarterly reporting of this monitoring
data (250.43-9[d][l]).*
- Retain annual monitoring and comprehensive analysis
(250.43-9(c][4] and 250.43-9[c][5]).*
Eliminate the restriction on the maximum vapor pressure of
wastes that may be treated, disposed, or stored as indicated
below (250.44-l[a][l], 250.45-2[b][5][iii], 250.45-3[b][1][v],
250.45-4[2][e], and 250.45-5[1][ii]).*
- Wastes with a vapor pressure greater than 78 mm of Hg
at 25 C may be disposed in landfills, placed in surface
impoundments or basins, landfarmed, or put in storage
tanks vented directly to the atmosphere.
Increase the time interval for completing training of personnel
from 6 months to 1 year (250.43-5[a]).*
Eliminate the regulation of commercial products made from
hazardous wastes (250.45-7).*
Such commercial products are not to be considered
hazardous wastes.
Replace requirements for recordkeeping of manifest copy with a
requirement for recordkeeping of shipping paper/bill of lading
(250.43-6[a][2].*
- Decrease recordkeeping time for shipping paper/bill of
lading used in lieu of manifest from 3 years to 1 year
(250.43-6[a][2]).*
Eliminate need for signatures on shipping paper/bill of lading,
except as required under the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations
(250.43-6la][l][a]).*
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Concluded)
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
Increase Che length of the permit exclusion for generators who
temporarily store hazardous wastes prior to off-site disposal
from 90 days to 1 year (250.61[dd]).*
Eliminate the need for publicly owned treatment facilities,
qualified hospital-medical care facilities, and ocean dumping
barges or vessels to apply for a special permit (250.62-7[b],
250.62-8(b], and 250.62-9[b]).*
- Such facilities are automatically granted the special
permits.
^-o
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
Eliminate restrictions on granting of full or partial authori-
zation to states with more stringent standards (250.72[a][ii]
and 250.72[b][l]).*
Eliminate all restrictions on granting of interim authorization,
except for the Memorandum of Understanding (250.73).*
- All states desiring interim authorization are to be
granted it, providing that they have a Memorandum of
Understanding
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• Retail generators need not notify (250.820[a]).*
^Section of the baseline regulations in Appendix B that is being
changed by this modification.
tNo equivalent regulation appears in the baseline regulations in
Appendix B.
4-25
-------
The exclusion from the Section 3002 regulations for generators
who produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes has
been replaced by an exclusion for all generators who produce less than
1000 kilograms per month. The 90-day permit exclusion for temporary
waste accumulation by generators prior to off-site disposal has been
increased to a one-year exclusion. Retail generators have been
excluded from notification required under Section 3010.
For off-site shipments of hazardous wastes by generators, the
Section 3002 manifest requirements are replaced by a requirement that
all such shipments (interstate and intrastate) must be accompanied by
a shipping paper/bill of lading which designates delivery to a permit-
ted storage, treatment, or disposal facility and which meets the
requirements of the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.* For example
the spill information required by the manifest is not required for the
shipping paper/bill of lading, and the signature requirements of the
manifest are replaced by signature requirements under the DOT Hazard-
ous Materials Regulations (i.e., only the generator shipping the
wastes needs to sign the shipping paper/bill of lading).
The reporting of shipping papers/bills of lading not received at
the designated facility is eliminated. Recordkeeping requirements for
shipping papers/bills of lading are reduced from 3 years to 1 year for
*The DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations are to be applied to both
interstate and intrastate shipments of hazardous wastes.
4-26
-------
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers. The spe-
cial emergency spill regulations for transporters have been elimi-
nated.
Regulation of 'special wastes' under Section 3004 has been elim-
inated. Design and operating standards for facility location, non-
point source air emission concentrations, incineration, post close-
out care, soil liner permeabilities, groundwater monitoring, financial
responsibilities, management of volatile wastes, training of person-
nel, and commercial products have been made less stringent.
Permit requirements for POTW's, qualified hospital-medical care
facilities, and ocean dumping barges or vessels have been eliminated.
Such facilities would be granted permits by rule and would not have to
comply with any Section 3004 requirements.
All restrictions on the granting of interim authorization, except
the Memorandum of Understanding, have been eliminated. Any state
desiring interim authorization would be granted such status, providing
the state submits a Memorandum of Understanding that specifies how the
state plans to become eligible to attain full authorization at the end
of the interim authorization period. States may also impose consider-
ably more stringent standards than those promulgated under Sections
3001 through 3005 and still be authorized for full or partial authori-
zation, even if there is no public health and/or environmental protec-
tion basis for the more stringent standards.
4-27
-------
4.5 Phase I Alternative
The Phase I Alternative contains the set of non-technical modi-
fications that are being considered for inclusion in the final Phase
I Subtitle C regulations, based both upon recent studies conducted by
EPA and upon public comments received by EPA subsequent to the propo-
sal of Subtitle C regulations in December 1978. The Phase I Alterna-
tive has been included for the purpose of analyzing the potential
change in impacts that could result from modifications to the base-
line Subtitle C regulations which incorporate this specific set of
non-technical changes.
The regulations comprising Sections 3001 through 3004 of the
Phase I Alternative are presented in Appendix N. The regulations
comprising Sections 3005 and 3006 are contained in the Proposed Con-
solidated Permit Regulations published in the Federal Register, Vol.
44, No. 116, Parts II and III, June 14, 1979.
Table 4-4 summarizes the specific changes to each section of the
baseline regulations that are included in this alternative. As pre-
viously discussed, all components of the baseline regulations dis-
cussed in Appendix B are assumed to be included under this Phase I
Alternative, except for those specific modifications indicated in
Table 4-4. Thus, all the Section 3004 technical standards of the
baseline regulations (e.g., landfill standards) are assumed to be
included under this alternative.*
^Modifications to the Section 3004 technical standards are to be
assessed as an additional alternative in Part II of the EIS.
4-28
-------
TABLE 4-4
PHASE I ALTERNATIVE
3001 Modifications (Subpart A)*
• Modify the definition of materials that are to be considered solid
waste subject to the requirements of Section 3001 (such solid waste
may be identified as hazardous waste under Section 3001) ( 250.11 [d
and g]).*
(1) Clarify the definition of those discarded (and not used or
re-used) materials that are to be considered solid waste
(261.2[a][2]).t
(2) Add requirement for listing as solid wastes specific materials
that are used or re-used or that are being stored for use or
re-use (261.2[a](3] and 261.2[b]).t
(a) Place waste oil on this list (261. 2[a] [3] [i])t and delete
those specific used oils listed in 250.11(d) (2)(ii) .*
(b) Listing of other materials is reserved (261. 2[a] [3] [ii] ) .t
(3) Add requirement for listing as solid wastes specific materials
that are used or re-used or processed for material or energy
recovery, or stored for such purposes (261.2[a][4] and
261.2[b]).t
(a) Delete those specific used oils listed in
(b) Listing of materials is reserved (261. 2[a] [4] [ij).t
(4) Clarify two additional wastes specifically excluded from being
identified as solid waste (250.10[c] ).*
(a) Point source air emissions that are subject to regulation
under the Clean Air Act, as amended (261. 4[a] [5]).t
(b) Dredge spoils that are disposed of in navigable waters,
including wetlands, and that are subject to regulation
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended
(261.4[a][7]).t
• Exclude the following solid wastes from regulation as hazardous
wastes and from notification under Section 3010 (250.10[d] ).*
(1) Material that is used, re-used, or processed for energy
recovery or is stored for such purposes and that is not listed
in 261.2(a)(4).t
(2) Material that is not listed in 261.2[a][3]t and that is used
or re-used in a manner constituting disposal or that is being
stored for such purposes.
(3) In-situ mining wastes, including in-situ wastes from certain
oil shale, uranium, and other extraction processes which
extract minerals, fuels, or other materials from geological
formations without removing the waste material from the
formation (261. 4[b] [5]).t
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(4) Fly ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag that is both (i) generated
by a utility or industrial boiler, process steam generator, or
coal gasification or liquefaction unit from the sole use of
fossil fuels or from the use of certain fuels in combination
with fossil fuels, including refuse-derived fuels from
municipal solid waste or any alternative fuel which is not a
hazardous waste and (ii) used in the construction of roads, as
a de-icing agent on roads, or as a soil conditioner
(261.4[b][6]).t
(5) Cement kiln dust waste used in the construction of roads or for
soil conditioning, including agricultural liming
(261.4[b][7]).t
(6) Blast furnace slag used in the construction or maintenance of
railroad beds or roads (261.4[b][8]).t
Eliminate the 100 kilogram generator limit (250.21(6])* and replace
it with the following:
(1) Except for those hazardous waste identified in subparagraphs
(a) through (d) below, none of the hazardous wastes generated
by a commercial establishment or the part(s) of commercial
establishments that is exclusively engaged in the retailing of
merchandise or an individual facility that generates and dis-
pose of no more than 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds) of hazardous
waste in any 30-day period is subject to regulation as hazard-
ous waste (261.4[c]):t
(a) Any quantity of those hazardous wastes listed under 261.33
(a or b).t
(b) Any quantity greater than 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of those
hazardous wastes listed under 261.33(c).t
(c) Any quantity greater than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of
those hazardous wastes listed under 261.33(d).t
(d) Any quantity of a hazardous waste listed in 261.31t or
261.32,t for which an exclusion limit is specified, that is
generated and disposed of in an amount that exceeds the
specified exclusion limit.
Comment: Exclusive of the exceptions in subparagraphs (a)
through (d), paragraph (1) does not specifically
exclude small quantities of hazardous wastes: it
only excludes hazardous wastes from retailers and
generators of small quantities (less than 1000 kilo-
grams per 30-day period) of hazardous waste. If a
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
non-retail, individual facility generates a quantity
of hazardous waste that exceeds 1,000 kilograms in
any 30-day period, all quantities of hazardous
wastes, including any and all quantities of indivi-
dual hazardous waste(s) generated in amounts less
than 1,000 kilograms per 30-day period, are subject
to regulation as hazardous waste.)
(2) The Administrator will revise the exclusion of paragraph (1) to
reduce the 1000 kilograms for a 30-day period to 100 kilograms
(220 pounds) for a 30-day period. This revision will be made
through rulemaking initiated not before two years nor after
five years after original promulgation of Section 3001. The
Administrator may make this reduction in steps during the
three-year period (261.4[d]).t
Modify the pH limits for identifying an aqueous waste as a corro-
sive waste (250.13[a][2]).*
- Change the pH limits to Ł2 or M2.5 instead of <3 or M2 (261.21
• Modify the characteristic for identifying toxic waste
(250.13[a][4]).*
(1) A solid waste possessing the characteristic is defined as a
Type I toxic waste (261.23[a])t , rather than as a toxic waste
(250.13[a][4]).*
(2) Raise the concentration of contaminants in the extract used
to identify a Type I toxic waste (250. 13 [a] [4] [i]) .*
- Increase the contaminant concentration in the extract from
10 times the EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards to 100
times that Standard (261. 23 [Table I]).t
• Eliminate the criterion of Administrator's Judgment for listing
hazardous waste (250.14[a])* and replace it with the following
criteria (261.11):t
(1) The Administrator will list a solid waste (or classes or types
of solid wastes) as a hazardous waste if, after considering the
criteria delineated in 261.1 Kg thru j)t, he determines that
the solid waste, if improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed, may:
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(a) Cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(b) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment.
(2) In listing a hazardous waste or class or type of hazardous
waste, the Administrator will designate the waste as one or a
combination of the following (261.11[g thru j]t delineate the
criteria for each category):
(a) Type II Toxic Waste.
(b) Type III Toxic Waste.
(c) Radioactive Waste.
(d) Infectious Waste*
• Modify the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources
(250.14[a][l]).*
- See 261.31t and 261.33t for new lists. The listing of wastes
under 261.33 is reserved.
• Modify the list of specific sources generating hazardous waste
(250.14[a][2][ii]).*
- See 261.32t for new list.
• Modify the list of infectious wastes (250.14[a][2][i]).*
(1) For hospital, veterinary hospitals, and medical and research
laboratories, eliminate the listing of all wastes generated
by specified departments and replace with a more specific
listing of wastes (See 261.34T for new list).
(2) Delete listing of unstabilized sludge from non-publicly owned
treatment works.
• Modify the methods used to demonstrate that a listed wastes
generated by an individual facility is not a hazardous waste
(250.14[b]).*
- See 261.39T for revised methods.
• Delineate the procedure to be used for petitions both for identify-
ing characteristics of hazardous waste or for listing of hazardous
waste (250.12[b][2])*, (261.40).t
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
3002 Modifications (Subpart B)*
Modify exclusion from Section 3002 regulations for generators
engaged solely in retail trade (250.20[f]).*
(1) Eliminate exclusion that retailers must comply with all
Section 3002 requirements only with regard to the generation
of waste automotive oil (250.20[f)).*
(2) Add a requirement that commercial establishments or the
part(s) of commercial establishments exclusively engaged in
the retailing of merchandise must comply with Section 3002
requirements only for those wastes specified in 261.4(c).t
Modify exclusion from Section 3002 regulations for generators
engaged principally in farming (250.20[f]).*
(1) Eliminate exclusion that farmers must comply with all Section
3002 requirements only with regard to the generation of waste
automotive oil (250.20[f]).*
(2) Add a requirement that a farmer who disposes only waste
pesticide from his own use is not subject to Subtitle C
•requirements for the waste pesticide, if it is hazardous,
providing the farmer complies with the requirements of
262.51(a).t
(3) Add a requirement that a farmer who generates hazardous waste
other than waste pesticide in a quantity in excess of that
specified in 261.4(c)t must comply with all Section 3002 re-
quirements for that waste (262.51[b]).T
Add a requirement that any person who imports hazardous waste into
the jurisdiction of the U.S. must comply with all Section 3002
requirements (262.10[c] and 262.50[a and d]).T,4
Revise the generator limit of 100 kilograms per month (250.21(6])*
to the generator limit specified in 261.4(c and d).t
Limit the number of permitted facilities to which the generator
may designate transport of the waste (250.22[a][4]).*
(1) Add a requirement that the generator must designate on the
manifest one facility which is permitted to handle the waste
described on that manifest (262.20[b]).t
(2) Add a requirement that the generator may designate on the
manifest one alternative facility which is permitted to han-
dle the waste in the event an emergency prevents delivery to
the primary designated facility (262.20[c]).t
Revise information required on manifest (250.22[a])*:
(1) Eliminate spill response information.
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(2) Eliminate use of EPA shipping description and hazard class
when the DOT shipping description and hazard class are not
applicable (262.21[a][5]).t
(3) Add a requirement for specifying number and type of
containers (262.21[a][6]).t,4
Eliminate reporting and recordkeeping exclusion for generators
that designate hazardous waste for off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal at a facility which the generator owns and which is
located in the same state in which the hazardous waste generation
occurs (250.20[d]).*
- Such generators need to prepare annual reports (262.41[a])t and
exception reports (262.42)t and to retain copies of manifests
for three years (262.40[a]).t
Add two additional recordkeeping requirements (250.24).*
(l) A copy of each annual report and exception report must be
retained for a period of three years (262.40[b]).t
(2) Records of any test results, waste analyses, or other deter-
minations made in accordance with 262.lit must be retained
for not less than three years from the date that the waste
was last sent on-site or off-site for treatment, storage, or
disposal (262.40[c]).t
Except for international shipments, increase the reporting fre-
quency for manifests not recieved from the designated permitted
facility from quarterly to 45 days from date of acceptance by the
initial transporter'(250.23[a][2])* , (262.42[b]).t
- Add a requirement that generators who do not receive a signed
copy of the manifest from the designated permitted facility
within 35 days of acceptance by the initial transporter shall
contact the transporter and/or designated facility to determine
status of movement (262.42[a]).t
For international shipments eliminate quarterly reporting of all
shipments (250.23[a][2] and 250.23[f][2])* and add manifesting
and reporting requirements specified in 262.50(a,b, and c).t
Add an additional requirement with regard to generators accumulat-
ing hazardous waste on-site for less than 90 days without a permit
(250.25)*.
- The date upon which the period of accumulation begins is to be
clearly marked and visible on each container (262.34[a][3].t
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
Add a requirement that the Administrator may, as he deems
necessary, require generators to furnish additional reports
(262.43).t,4
3003 Modifications (Subpart C)*
Add one additional way in which a transporter is required to com-
ply with the Section 3002 generator requirements (250.36[c])*:
The transporter imports a hazardous waste into the United
States (263.10[c]).T
Eliminate the prohibition against transporters accepting
containers that are leaking or that appear to be damaged
(250.34[e]).*
Add a requirement that the transporter must deliver the entire
quantity of hazardous waste in accordance with 263.21(a) ; if the
movement cannot be delivered in accordance with that requirement,
the transporter must contact the generator for further directions
and must revise the manifest according to the generators
instructions (263.21[b]).t,4
Remove the exemption that allows non-bulk water transporters not
to obtain a signature (on the manifest or shipping papers) for
intramodal transfers of hazardous waste movements (250.35[b])*
- Non-bulk water transporters must obtain signatures at each
intramodal transfer (263.21[d][3]).T
Eliminate the requirement allowing a transporter up to five work-
ing days after delivery of the hazardous waste to obtain the
signature of the authorized agent of the designated permitted
facility (250.35[d][2]).*
- The transporter must obtain the signature upon delivery of the
waste (the transporter- is responsible for the waste until the
signature is obtained) (263.21[c][3][i] and 263.21[d][4][i]).t
Add a requirement that transporters who transport movements out of
the United States must comply with the requirements of
263.21(e)t,4 and 263.22(c).T.4
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
Revise the start date of the three year period for retaining the
manifest or shipping paper to the date of initial acceptance by a
transporter (263.22)t instead of the date of transfer to another
transporter or the date of delivery to the designeated permitted
facility (250.33).*
Replace the term hazardous waste spill (250.37)* with the term
hazardous waste discharge (263.30).t
(1) Replace the requirement that all transporters must im-
mediately notify either the National Response Center or de-
signated government official of any discharge of hazardous
waste (250.37[b])* with a requirement that air, rail,
highway, and water (non-bulk shipment) transporters must give
notice as may be required by 49 CFR 171.15 and that water
(bulk shipment) transporters must give notice as may be
required by 33 CFR 153.203 (263.30[c][1] and 262.30[d]).t
(2) Replace the requirement that all transporters must file a
written report on each discharge within 15 days
(250.37[b][3])* with a requirement that air, rail, highway,
and water (non-bulk shipment) transporters must report in
writing as required by 49 CFR 171.16 (263.30[c][2]).t
3004 Modifications (Subpart D)*
Add a requirement that where portions of a facility at which waste
management activities took place before the effective date of the
Section 3004 regulations could potentially interfere with the mon-
itoring and/or control of an active portion, the owner/operator
may be required to comply with one or more of the requirements
specified in 264.1[e]t for those portions.+
Eliminate special wastes and the special standards for the special
wastes (250.40[c] and 250.46).*
(1) Add the discriminate standards specified in Part 266t for
uranium mining and phosphate rock mining, beneficiation, and
processing waste.
(2) All other special wastes must comply with all Section 3004
requirements.
Eliminate all Human Health and Environmental Standards and all
requirements to comply with such standards (250.42, 250.40[e],
250.43[a], 250.43[c], 250.43[d], 250.43[e], 250.44[d],
250.45-6[a], 250.45-4[1], 250.45-3[3], 250.45-3[c][1],
250.45-3[c][8], 250.45-3[d][1], 250.45-5[a][1][ii],
250.45-5[c][4], 250.45-2[a][3], 250.45-2[b][8,9, and 11].*
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
Revise the General Facility Standards (250.43)* as follows:
(1) Add a requirement that an owner/operator of a facility that
has arranged to receive hazardous waste from foreign sources
must notify the Regional Administrator at least two weeks in
advance of the expected arrival date of the shipment
(264.12[al).T,4
(2) Add a requirement that an owner/operator of a facility that
receives hazardous waste from off-site (except when the
owner/operator is also the generator) must inform the
generator in writing that he has the appropriate permit(s)
for and will accept the waste; such notice must be retained
by the owner/operator (264.12[b]).T,+
(3) Add a requirement that before transferring ownership or oper-
ation of a facility during its operating life, or a disposal
facility during the post-closure care period, the
owner/operator must notify the new owner/operator in writing
of the Section 3004 requirement (264 12[c]).T,4
(4) Add a requirement for the development of a waste analysis
plan which provides for periodic analysis of the waste man-
aged at the facility (250.43[h])*, (264.13[a][3] and
264.13[b]).t
(5) Exempt on-site facilities from the requirement that each
waste shipment be tested to determine whether the shipment
matches the identity of the waste designated on the accom-
panying manifest (250.43U])*, (264.13[a][4] and 264.13(c]).t
Replace the requirements that the active portion of a facility .
must be surrounded by a fence or barrier (250.43-3[a])* and that
the ingress to the facility must be controlled (250.43-3[b])* with
the requirements specified in 264.14(b).t
Revise the Inspection Standards as follows:
(1) Eliminate the requirement for daily inspections of the items
specified in 250.43-7(a).*
(2) Add a requirement for facility owners/operators to develop
and implement a schedule for inspection of monitoring equip-
ment, safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and
operating and structural equipment that are important to the
prevention and detection of, or response to, environmental or
human health hazards (264.15[a and b]).t,4
(3) Add a requirement that repairs or other remedial action be
performed as specified in 264.15(c).t
4-37
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
• Revise the Emergency Procedures and Contigency Plans Standards as
follows:
(1) Add a requirement that facilities must be designed, con-
structed, maintained, and operated so that the possibility of
a discharge, fire, or explosion which could threaten the en-
vironment outside the facility is minimized (264.31).T,+
(2) Add a requirement that the contigency plan shall include
provisions for unplanned non-sudden discharges of hazardous
waste (250.43-4[a][l])*, (264.51[a]).t
(3) Limit implementation of the contigency plan to those dis-
charges which threaten the environment or human health out-
side the facility (250.43[a][1])*, (264.51[b]).t
(4) Add a requirement that the contingency plan must include
provisions for controlling spills (250.434[a]),*
(264.52[aJ).t
(5) Eliminate the requirement that the contingency plan must
include an outline of a program for familiarizing employees
with emergency procedures and for drills on these procedures
(250.43-4[a][8]).*
(6) Add a requirement that the contigency plan must be maintained
at the facility (264.53[a||).t,+
(7) Add a requirement for revision of contingency plan under the
conditions specified in 264.54.t,^
(8) Add a requirement allowing the emergency coordinator to be
on-call rather than present at the facility
(250.43-44[a][4])*, (264.55).t
(9) Change the requirement that recovered waste, contaminated
soil, or contaminated material shall be analyzed to determine
whether it is a hazardous waste (250.43-4[c][9])* to a
requirement that these materials must be handled as a
hazardous waste unless analyzed and determined not to be
(264.56[g]).T
(10) Increase the time for filing written report on emergencies
from immediately after the incident (250.43-6[cJ[1])* to
within 15 days of the incident (264.56[j]).t
(11) Require that the additional information specified in
264.56[j][1,2,4,5,6, and 7]t be included in the emergency re-
port (250.43-4[c][9]).*
(12) Add a requirement that the facility owner/operator must
notify the Regional Administrator, and appropriate State and
local authorities, that the facility is in compliance with
the requirements of 264.56(h)t before operations are resumed
in the affected areas(s) of the facility (264.56[i]).t
• Revise Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Standards as
fo1lows:
4-38
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(1) Add a definition of what constitutes a significant discre-
pancy between the manifest and the waste shipment
(250.43-6[c])*, (264.72[a]).t
(2) Increase from immediately (250.43-6[a][1])* to 15 days
(264.72[b])t the time limit for notifying the Regional
Administrator when significant discrepancies are discovered
between the manifest and the waste shipment; the owner/oper-
ator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy during this
15 day period.
(3) Increase from immediately (250.43-6[a][4])* to 15 days
(264.76)t the time limit for notifying the Regional
Administrator when a facility accepts waste without an
accompanying manifest.
(4) Decrease the time for retaining records and results of
inspections from the time of facility closure
(250.43-6[b][2][fj)* to a period of three years
(264.73[b][5]).
(5) Increase the time for retaining training records that docu-
ment the training completed by facility employees from 3
years (250.43-6[b][2][a][5])* to the time of facility closure
for current employees and to three years from the time of
departure for former employees (264.16[e]).
(6) Add a requirement that records of waste disposal locations
must also be turned over to the local land authority upon
closure of the facility (250.43-6[b][3])*, (264.74).t
(7) Add a requirement that the annual report submitted by both
on-site (250.23[e])* and off-site (250.43-6[a][3][c])*
facilities also include the methods of treating, storing, or
disposing each hazardous waste (264.75[e]).t
(8) Add a requirement that the Regional Administators may, as he
deems necessary, require owners/operators to furnish addi-
tional reports (264.77[d]).T,4
Revise Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring Standards as follows:
(1) Add land treatment facilities to and delete incinerators from
those facilities that may be required to install, maintain,
and operate a groundwater monitoring system (250.43-9)*,
(264.90U and b]).t
(2) Revise the criteria for implementing groundwater monitoring
from a potential for discharge to groundwater (250.43-9)* to
that specified in 264.90[a and b].t
(3) Delete all leachate monitoring requirements (250.43-9[b and
c]).*
(4) Increase the number of monitoring wells from four
(250.43-9[a])* to a minumum of four (264.91[a]).t
4-39
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(5) Add a requirement for annually evaluating and modifying the
ne^esary number of groundwater monitoring wells
(264.93[g]).t,*
(6) Revise the requirement for location of monitoring wells
(250.43-9[a][3 and 4])* to that specified in 264.9l(b).t
(7) Revise sampling frequency and analyses (250.43-9[c])* to that
specified in 264.92.t
(8) Add requirements for preparing a groundwater damage assess-
ment program and a corrective action program, for evaluating
impacts to groundwater quality, for notifying the Regional
Administator, and for implementing the damage assessment
program and/or the corrective action program
(264.93[a,b,c,d,e, and f]).t,*
(9) Increase the time limit for maintaining groundwater moni-
toring records from three years for all facilities
(250.43-9[d][2])* to throughout the active life of storage
and treatment facilities and to throughout the post-closure
care period for disposal facilities (264.94[a]).t
(10) Revise the reporting of monitoring data from quarterly
(250.43-9[d][i])* to the times specified in 264.94(b).t
Revise the Closure and Post-Closure Standards as follows:
(1) Add a requirement that all facilities must be closed in a
manner that minimizes further maintenance necessary to prot-
ect human health and the environment and that minimizes any
discharge of wastes, leachate, contaminated rainfall, or
waste decomposition products to ground or surface waters or
the atmosphere (284.111).t,4
(2) Revise the required contents of the closure plan
(250.43-8[d])* to that specified in 264.112(a).t
(3) Delete the term "close out" (250.43-8[e])* and add a re-
quirement that within 90 days of receiving the final volume
of wastes, the owner/operator must treat and/or remove all
wastes in storage or in process from the site, or dispose of
them on-site, in accordance with the closure plan
(264.113[a]).T
(4) Decrease the time limit for completing closure activities
from within three years after close out (250.43-8[f])* to
within six months of receiving the final volume of wastes
(264.113[b])t; a longer time may be permissible if the
conditions specified in 264.113(b)t are met.
(5) Delete the requirement that the owner/operator must notify
the Regional Administrator at least 15 days before any par-
tial closure (250.43-8[d])*.
4-40
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(6) For facilities other than land disposal facilities, increase
the time for notifying the Regional Administrator of the ex-
pected date of the completion of closure from 90 days before
the end of final closure (250.43-8[d])* to 180 days before
the end of final closure (264.115[a]).t
(7) Add a requirement that at the completion of closure, the
owner/operator must certify that the facility has been closed
in compliance with the closure plan (250.43-8[j])*,
(264.115[b]).t
(8) Revise post-closure care as follows (250.43-8[m])*:
(a) Add requirements for reporting of monitoring results and
for maintenance of monitoring systems (264.117[a]).T
(b) Delete requirement for maintenance of waste containment
devices.
(c) Limit maintenance of site security devices to those con-
ditions specified in 264.117(b).t
(9) Delete the requirement that all facilities be designed such
that the land is amenable to some acceptable use so that
perpetual isolation and care to maintain isolation are not
required (250.43-8[c]).*
(10) Remove the prohibition that after closure, all facilities
shall be secured such that hazardous waste remaining cannot
be contacted by animal (non-human) life (250.43-8[h])*.
(11) Replace the prohibition on future use of the land
(250.43-8[b])* with the requirements specified in
264.117(c).t
(12) Increase the time requirement for post-closure care from a
period not to exceed 20 years (250.43-8[1])* to a period of
at least 30 years, with some variances as noted in
264.117(d).t . •
(13) Add requirements for submitting and amending a post-closure
plan to the Regional Administrator (264.118[a and b]).t,
(14) Limit the time for filing a survey plat to within 90 days
after completion of closure (250.43-8[k])*, (264.119).T
(15) Add a requirement that the owner of the property on which a
disposal facility is located must record a notation on the
deed to the property or, in accordance with State law, on any
other such instrument which is normally examined during title
search, that will in perpetuity notify any potential pur-
chaser of the property that the land has been used to manage
hazardous waste, and of the use restriction on the land
(264.120).t,4
Eliminate requirements for commercial products (250.45-7).*
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
Add a set of interim status standards applicable only to facility
owners/operators who have fully complied with the requirements for
interim status defined in Section 3005(e) of RCRA (264.3).?,=}=
- During the period of interim status, an owner/operator must
comply with the requirements specified in Part 265T in lieu of
the regulations in Part 264.t
Add the following General Facility Interim Status Standards (265
Subpart B):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Identification number
(3) Required notices
(4) General waste analysis
(5) Security
(6) General inspection requirements
(7) Personnel training.
Add the following Preparedness and Prevention Interim Status
Standards (265 Subpart C):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Maintenance and operation of facility
(3) Required equipment
(4) Testing and maintenance of equipment
(5) Access to communication or alarm system
(6) Required aisle space
(7) Special handling for ignitable or reactive waste
(8) Arrangements with local authorities.
Add the following Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
Interim Status Standards (265 Subpart D):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Purpose and implementation of contingency plan
(3) Content of contingency plan
(4) Copies of contingency plan
(5) Amendment of contingency plan
(6) Emergency coordinator
(7) Emergency procedures.
Add the following Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Interim Status Standards (265 Subpart E):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Use of manifest system
(3) Manifest discrepancies
(4) Operating record
(5) Disposition of records
4-42
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(6) Annual report
(7) Unmanifested waste report
(8) Additional reports.
Add the following Groundwater Monitoring Interim Status Standards
(265 Subpart F):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Groundwater monitoring system
(3) Sampling and analysis
(4) Preparation, evaluation, and response
(5) Recordkeeping and reporting.
Add the following Closure and Post-closure Interim Status
Standards (264 Subpart G):T
(1) Applicability
(2) Closure performance standard
(3) Closure plan; amendment of plan
(4) Time allowed for closure
(5) Disposal or decontamination of equipment
(6) Certification of closure
(7) Post-closure care and use of property;- period of care
(8) Post-closure plan; amendment of plan
(9) Notice to local land authority
(10) Notice in deed to property.
Add the following Financial Requirements Interim Status Standards
(265 Subpart H):T
(1) Applicability
(2) Cost estimate for facility closure
(3) Financial assurance for facility closure
(4) Cost estimate for post-closure monitoring and maintenance
(5) Financial assurance for post-closure monitoring and mainte-
nance
(6) Applicability of State financial requirements
(7) Transfer of ownership.
Add the following Use and Management of Containers Interim Status
Standards (265 Subpart I):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Condition of 'containers
(3) Compatibility of waste with container
(4) Management of containers
(5) Inspections
(6) Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste
(7) Special requirements for incompatible waste.
'4-43
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
Add the following Tanks Interim Status Standards (265 Subpart J):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Construction requirements
(3) General Operating requirements
(4) Waste analysis and trial tests
(5) Inspections
(6) Groundwater monitoring
(7) Closure
(8) Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste.
Add the following Surface Impoundments Interim Status Standards
(265 Subpart K):t
(1) Applicability
(2) General operating requirements
(3) Containment system
(4) Waste analysis and trial test
(5) Inspections
(6) Closure and post-closure
(7) Special requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes
(8) Special requirements for incompatible wastes.
Add the following Waste Piles Interim Status Standards (265
Subpart L):t
(1) Applicability
(2) Protection from wind
(3) Waste analysis
(4) Containment
(5) Special requirements for ignitable waste
(6) Special requirements for reactive waste
(7) Special requirements for incompatible wastes.
Add the following Land Treatment Interim Status Standards (265
Subpart M):T
(1) Applicability
(2) General operating requirements
(3) Waste analysis
(4) Food chain crops
(5) Zone of aeration monitoring
(6) Recordkeeping
(7) Closure and post-closure
(8) Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste
(9) Special requirements for liquid waste.
Add the following Landfill Interim Status Standards (265 Subpart
N):t
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
(1) Applicability
(2) General Operating Requirements
(3) Waste analysis
(4) Surveying and recordkeeping
(5) Closure
(6) Post-closure care
(7) Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste
(8) Special requirements for incompatible wastes
(9) Special requirements for liquid waste.
Add the following Incinerators Interim Status Standards (265 Sub-
part 0):t
(1) Applicability
(2) General operating requirements
(3) Waste analysis
(4) Monitoring and inspections
(5) Closure
(6) Open burning; explosive waste.
3005 Modifications (Subpart E)*
Add a requirement for review of RCRA permit at least once every 5
years to determine if the permit should be modified or revoked and
reissued (250.62-2[a])*, (122.9).S
- If the facility also has a UIC, NFDES, or Section 404 permit,
the RCRA permit shall be reviewed each time one of these other
permits is modified, reissued, or terminated.
Add the following as cause for termination of the permit
(250.62-3[a])*, (122.10).§
(1) Information indicating that the permitted facility posed a
threat to the environment.
(2) A change in ownership or control at a permitted facility
where required by 122.8[e].§
Eliminate requirement setting a maximum of 3 years for completion
of a schedule of compliance (250.62-4[b][1])*, (122.12).§
Add a requirement limiting the duration of experimental facility
permits to not more than 1 year with an allowable extension of not
more than 1 additional year (250.62-6[c]*, (122.25[b][3]).§
Add a requirement for revocation of the health care facility spe-
cial permit (250.62-7)*, (122.25[a][4]).§
4-45
-------
TABLE 4-4 (Concluded)
• Eliminate need for publically owned treatment works (POTW's) and
ocean disposal barges or vessels to apply for a special permit
C250.62-8[b] and 250.62-9[b])*, (122.26[b and c]).§
3006 Modifications (Subpart F)*
• Eliminate partial authorization of state programs (250.72[b]) ,*
(123.33[b]).§
• Allow states that have legislative authority to control on-site or
off-site disposal facilities no later than 90 days after the date
of promulgation of Section 3001 to be considered for interim
authorization (250.73)*, (123.32[a][!]).§
- Previously a state needed legislative authority by July 20,
1978.
• Change the time period for interim authorization to the 24 months
beginning on the date six months after the date of promulgation of
Section 3001 (250.73U1) ,* (123.32[a]) .§
- Previously interim authorization was effective only from
October 21, 1978 through October 21, 1980.
3010 Modifications (Subpart G)*
• Eliminate the use of limited interim authorization (250.810,
250.811, and 250.812).*
^Section of baseline regulation in Appendix B that is being changed
by this modification.
tSect ion of Phase I Alternative in Appendix N in which this modi-
fication appears.
+No equivalent regulation appears in the baseline regulation in
Appendix B.
§Sect ion of 40 CFR 122, 123, and 124, Proposed Consolidated Permit
Regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 116, Parts II and III,
Thursday, June 14, 1979) in which this modification appears.
4-46
-------
Under this alternative, revisions have been made in the mecha-
nisms for identifying whether a waste is hazardous under Section
3001. The lists of hazardous wastes and processes generating hazard-
ous wastes have been modified. The criterion of Administrator's
Judgment for listing hazardous waste has been replaced by specific
criteria for listing hazardous waste under four new categories. The
methods used to demonstrate that a listed waste is not hazardous have
been modified. The pH limits for identifying an aqueous waste as a
corrosive waste have been contracted. The lower limit on the concen-
trations of contaminants used to identify a waste as a toxic waste*
has been raised. Several additional wastes and materials have been
specifically excluded from being identified as hazardous waste.
Criteria have been added for listing, as solid wastes subject to the
regulations, materials that are used or re-used. In addition, the
specific procedures used for petitioning for listing of hazardous
waste and/or for identifying characteristics of hazardous waste have
been delineated. The exclusion from the regulations for generators
who produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste has
been modified.
The exclusion from the Section 3002 regulations for those
generators engaged solely in retail trade or principally in farming
for all hazardous waste produced, except waste automotive lubricating
*Such a waste is defined as a Type I Toxic waste rather than a
toxic waste under this alternative.
4-47
-------
oil, has been modified. Generators engaged solely in retail trade
must comply with the regulations only for a specific set of listed
waste?. Generators engaged principally in farming must comply with
the regulations for all hazardous wastes, except pesticide wastes if
certain conditions are met.
The number of permitted facilities to which a generator may
designate transport of the waste has been limited to two. Spill
response information and EPA shipping descriptions and hazards clas-
ses have been eliminated from the manifest. Manifesting and report-
ing requirements for international shipments of hazardous waste have
been delineated. The frequency for generators to report on manifests
not received by the designated facility has been increased. The
reporting and recordkeeping exclusion for off-site generator-owned
facilities located in the same state in which hazardous waste genera-
tion occurs has been eliminated. Additional recordkeeping require-
ments have been added. A requirement for marking the date waste
accumulation begins has been added for generators who accumulate
wastes on-site, without a permit, for less than 90 days prior to
off-site disposal.
The entire body of the Department of Transporation (DOT) hazard-
ous materials regulations were incorporated by reference under Sec-
tion 3003 of the baseline regulations. Due to revision of the DOT
regulations, this incorporation by reference is duplicative and has
been eliminated under this alternative. Similarly, the baseline
4-48
-------
regulations on placarding, labelling, and marking are not considered
necessary and have been eliminated. These modifications are not
listed in Table 4-4 since they would not lead to change in impacts.
A requirement has been added under Section 3003 that a trans-
porter who imports hazardous waste into the U.S. can be considered a
generator subject to Section 3002 requirements. The prohibition that
a transporter not transport containers that are leaking or that
appear to be damaged has been eliminated. The exclusion allowing
non-bulk water transporters not to obtain signatures on manifests (or
shipping papers) for intramodal transfers of hazardous wastes has
been eliminated. A requirement has been added that transporters must
contact the generator for further directions if the hazardous waste
movement cannot be delivered to either of the facilities designated
on the manifest. The requirement allowing transporters up to five
working days after delivery to obtain the signature of the authorized
agent of the permitted facility has been eliminated; the signature
must be obtained at the time of delivery.
Requirements for movements of hazardous waste out of the United
States have been added. The requirements for all transporters to
notify immediately the National Response Center or designated
government official of any discharge of hazardous waste has been
replaced by a requirement that the transporter must give notice as
may be required by 49 CFR 171.15 or 33 CFR 153.203. The requirement
that all transporters must file a written report on each discharge
4-49
-------
within 15 days has been replaced by a requirement that the trans-
porter must report in writing as required by 49 CFR 171.16.
Under Section 3004, only the non-technical standards have been
modified; the technical standards (e.g., landfill standards) are not
changed from the baseline regulations. A requirement has been added
for regulation of portions of a facility at which waste management
activities took place before the effective date of the Section 3004
regulations if such portions could potentially interfere with the
monitoring and/or control of active portions of the facility. All
human health and environmental standards and all commercial product
standards have been eliminated. Special wastes and the special
standards for special wastes have been eliminated. Discriminate
standards have been added for uranium mining and phosphate mining,
beneficiation, and processing waste.
Extensive modifications have been made to all General Facility
Standards except site selection and financial requirements. For
example, leachate monitoring has been eliminated and the period for
post-closure care has been increased from a period not to exceed 20
years to a period of at least 30 years.
A set of interim status standards have been added; during the
period of interim status specified in RCRA, an applicable owner/oper-
ator must comply with the interim status requirements instead of the
full set of Section 3004 requirements. Interim status standards
apply to:
4-50
-------
• General Facility Requirements;
• Preparedness and Prevention;
• Contigency Plan and Emergency Procedures;
• Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting;
• Groundwater Monitoring;
• Closure and Post-Closure;
• Financial Requirements;
• Use and Management of Containers;
• Tanks
• Surface Impoundments;
• Waste Piles;
• Land Treatment;
• Landfills;
• Incinerators.
The application for a RCRA permit under Section 3005 has been
consolidated with the applications for NPDES permits under the Clean
Water Act, UIC permits under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Section
404 permits (Dredge Or Fill) under the Clean Water Act. A require-
ment has been added for the review of the RCRA permits at least once
every five years. Requirements for termination of permits or revoca-
tion of the health care facility special permit have been added.
Requirements have been added allowing publically owned treatment
works (POTW's) and ocean disposal barges or vessels to obtain permits
by rule following Section 3010 notification. The duration of the
4-51
-------
experimental facility permit has been limited to one year with an
allowable extension of not more than one year. The limit of three
years for the completion of a schedule of compliance has been
eliminated.
Partial authorization of state programs under Section 3006 has
been eliminated. The date for the beginning of interim authorization
and the date by which a state needs legislative authority to be able
to qualify for interim authorization have been changed to six and
three months, respectively, after the date of promulgation of Section
3001 regulations.
Limited interim authorization of states under Section 3010 has
been eliminated.
4-52
-------
5.0 EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This chapter provides a characterization of the types of wastes
that could be considered as potentially hazardous under the Subtitle
C regulations and identifies potential sources of hazardous waste
generation. Examples of the types of potentially hazardous waste
generated by selected sources are also presented. Prevalent trans-
port, storage, treatment, and disposal methods are also described,
and the relevant aspects of typical hazardous waste management
practices are summarized. Estimates of the quantities of hazardous
waste being generated are provided in Chapter 6.
5.1 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Generation
This section presents a general description of the charac-
teristics of wastes that are considered hazardous. This is followed
by selected examples identifying existing sources of hazardous waste
and the types of potentially hazardous waste currently being gener-
ated by such sources. It is the intent of this section to
characterize hazardous waste only to the extent necessary to provide
a general understanding of the various properties, types, and sources
of such waste rather than to present an exhaustive delineation of
potentially hazardous wastes and their sources of generation.
5.1.1 Hazardous Waste Characteristics. The Subtitle C regula-
tions and the alternatives to the regulations (see Chapters 3 and 4)
contain characteristics and lists for identifying wastes that are to
be considered hazardous and, thus, to be brought under control of the
5-1
-------
regulations. The specific characteristics that have been considered
for use in identifying hazardous waste are as follows:
• Flammability;
• Corrosiveness;
• Infectiousness;
• Reactivity;
• Radioactivity;
• Toxicity.
Appendix B (Subpart A) and Chapters 3 and 4 describe the
specific properties a waste must exhibit to be considered hazardous
or nonhazardous under any one or more of these characteristics and
list waste materials which are considered hazardous•
Wastes to which these characteristics apply and which could thus
be identified as hazardous under Subtitle C include garbage; refuse;
sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or
air pollution control facility; and other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities.* Wastes specifically
exempted from regulation by RCRA itself, and thus exempted from
Subtitle C, include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under Section
*However, the Subtitle C regulations contain provisions specifically
exempting household refuse and household septic tank pumpings from
regulation.
5-2
-------
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat.
880); and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923). Any
waste, except those wastes specifically exempted from regulation,
which meets any one or more of the specified characteristics or which
is listed, would be considered as hazardous under the Subtitle C
regulations.
In attempting to characterize those wastes that could be consi-
dered hazardous under Subtitle C, it must be realized that most waste
streams consist of a mixture of waste materials and that it is this
mixture, not just individual components, which establishes the
hazardous nature of the waste. Very rarely do wastes consist of just
one material. The hazardous nature of every waste stream depends
upon several factors, including the types of materials present, the
concentration of each constituent, the interactions of the materials
present, and the physical form of the waste materials.
The types of materials (both hazardous and nonhazardous) present
in any waste stream, and the relative concentrations of these
materials, vary from waste stream to waste stream and are very highly
dependent upon such factors as the types of feedstock utilized by the
process or activity generating the waste, the specifics of that
process or activity, and the presence of any pollution controls and
waste treatment practices. No two waste streams are identical;
similar processes or activities can generate waste streams
5-3
-------
that are very different in nature. In fact, most waste generators
produce more than one type of waste stream, e.g., waste streams from
any generator may be in the form of liquids, solids, sludges, slur-
ries, containerized gases, or any combination of these and any one or
all of these waste streams may be classified as hazardous under the
Subtitle C regulations. (Section 5.1.2 presents examples of poten-
tially hazardous waste streams and waste stream constituents for
selected generators.)
With regard to the constituents present, the totality of the
waste streams generated in the U.S. is likely to contain, to some
degree, practically every type of substance or product produced in or
imported into the U.S. as well as nearly every type of material used
as a feedstock in a manufacturing process along with many of the
intermediate materials generated by these processes. Many of these
constituents are by themselves potentially hazardous and their
presence, in sufficient concentration, can make the waste stream
hazardous.
A number of studies have attempted to define the characteristics
that make materials toxic and/or hazardous* and to identify and rank
such materials. Most of these studies have dealt with pure sub-
stances and commercial products, rather than with wastes. Thousands
^Materials which are toxic are hazardous. However, toxicity is just
one of several characteristics for judging a waste to be hazardous.
Wastes do not necessarily have to be toxic to be hazardous.
5-4
-------
of compounds have been listed as potentially toxic or hazardous. For
example, the United States Toxic Substances Control Act, Interagency
Testing Committee has initially identified about 3,600 compounds as
representing the potentially most hazardous compounds within the
larger universe of around 60,000 chemicals used in U.S. commerce.
These 3,600 compounds represent a consolidation of 19 separate
priority chemical lists compiled in recent years (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978). Table 5-1 indicates the sources of these
other 19 lists, the number of chemicals included, and the main
selection criteria. For a more detailed discussion of the selection
criteria and the substances included on each list, see the individual
sources. Every one of the thousands of materials contained in these
lists may appear in some waste stream, and the presence of any one
could, in sufficient quantity, result in the waste stream being
hazardous*
While the types and the concentrations of materials present are
the prime determinants of the hazardous nature of the waste stream,
interactions among the various constituents 'can drastically alter the
hazardous nature of the waste stream. Interactions which can occur
include synergisms, antagonisms, complex formation, and chemical
reactions.
Synergism involves two or more materials acting together to
create a combined effect which is greater than the sum of their
individual effects or to lower the threshold level at which effects
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-1
SOURCES OF CHEMICALS FOR INCLUSION ON THE INITIAL LIST OF THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT INTERAGENCY TESTING COMMITTEE*
Source lists used
Number of
chemicals
included
Main
selection
criteria
1. Toxic Pollutants in Point Source Water 129 T
Effluent Discharge, Environmental
Defense Fund/EPA PL-92-500
2. Scoring of Organic Air Compounds, June 337 T & P
1976, MITRE, MTR-6248
3. Final Report of NSF Workshop Panel to 80 P
Select Organic Compounds Hazardous to
the Environment, April 1975, Stanford
Research Institute/National Science
Foundation
4. Potential Industrial Carcinogens and 88 T & P
Mutagens, National Center for Toxico-
logical Research
5. Occupational Carcinogens for Potential 116 T
Regulatory- Action, Department of Labor—
Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration (OSHA)
6. Chemicals Tested or Scheduled for Testing 174 T
at the Fish-Pesticide Research Labora-
tory, Department of Interior—Department
of Fish and Wildlife
7. Substances with Chronic Effects other — T
than Mutagenicity, Carcinogenicity or
Teratogenicity: A Subfile of the NIOSH
Registry (Source List 13)
8. Criteria Documents Prepared or Planned 127 T & P
by NIOSH, February 24, 1977
9. Suspected Carcinogens; A Subfile of 1,900 T
the NIOSH Registry
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-1 I Continued)
Source lists used
Number ot
chemicals
included
Main
selection
criteria
E, T, 0
E & T
T & 0
10. Suspected Mutagens; A Subfile of NIOSH 100
Registry
11. Suspected Teratogens; A Subfile of the 200
NIOSH Registry
12. Department of Health Education and Wei- 21,453
fare, National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health, Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
1976
13. The Ecological Impact of Synthetic 9
Organic Compounds on Estuarine Eco-
systems, September 1976, EPA-1600/
3-76-075
14. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical 570
Substances and Physical Agents in the
Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1976, American Conference
of Government Industrial Hygienists
15. National Occupational Hazard Survey 7,000
(1972-1974)/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
16. Chemicals Being Tested for Carcino- 372
genicity by the Bioassay Program DCCP,
National Cancer Institute, 1977
17. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances List 162
of Priority Toxic Chemicals, 1977
18. A Study of Industrial Data on Candidate 650
Chemicals for Testing, EPA Contract
#68-01-4109, November 1976, Stanford
Research Institute
19. General List of Problem Substances, 160
Environmental Contaminants Committee,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1977
T & 0
0, T, & P
T & P
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-1 (Concluded)
Number of Main
Other lists used for reference, chemicals selection
but not used as source lists included criteria
1. Research Project to Gather and Analyze 3,200 T & P
Data and Information on Chemicals that
Impact Man and the Environment, National
Institute of Health, National Cancer
Institute/Stanford Research Institute
2. Other Potential Modifiers of the Strato- 41 E & P
sphere, 1975, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences/Stanford
Research Institute
3. EPA/Office of Research and Development, 140 P
Chemical Production, 1975
KEY: T = Toxicity
P = Production/Use
0 = Occupational Exposure
E = Environmental Persistence
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
5-8
-------
begin to occur. For example, chlorinated aromatics become more toxic
in the presence of various solvents (Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, 1973). Antagonism is the opposite of synergism and
involves two or more materials acting together to create a combined
effect which is less than the sum of their individual effects or to
raise the threshold level at which effects begin to occur.
Complex formation in the waste stream involves the forming of a
chemical bond between a metal ion and a complexing agent, e.g.,
organic compounds. This complex formation affects the solubilities
and re'actions of the materials involved. For example, the formation
of water soluble metal-organic complexes with heavy metals may
increase the concentrations of these constituents in leachate to
levels far in excess of their normal solubilities, while the forma-
tion of water insoluble complexes may decrease the concentrations of
these constituents in leachate. Chemical reactions in the waste
stream involve two or more materials combining to produce a poten-
tially hazardous, material which is not originally present in the
waste or combining to neutralize or eliminate potentially hazardous
materials which are present.
The net effect of all such interactions can be to make waste
streams hazardous even if they do not contain any individually hazar-
dous materials and to render other waste streams nonhazardous even if
they contain individually hazardous materials.
5-9
-------
In addicion to such interactions, the physical form of both the
waste stream and its constituents can also influence the hazardous
nature of the waste stream. For example, beryllium dust is toxic at
relatively low levels when inhaled; however, beryllium in water poses
little ingestive threat at equivalent concentrations (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976a).
With regard to identifying hazardous wastes, a number of pre-
vious studies (Booz-Allen, Applied Research, Inc., 1973; Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1973; Ottinger et al., 1973; Arthur
D. Little, Inc., 1973) have attempted to delineate the specific char-
acteristics that make waste hazardous, to list waste stream consti-
tuents whose forms and quantities could make waste streams hazardous,
and to identify sources of these potentially hazardous waste stream
constituents. A series of more recent studies (Arthur D. Little,
1976b; Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1976; Calspan Corporation,
1977; Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976; SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976;
Swain et al., 1977; TRW, Inc., 1976; Versar, Inc., 1975, 1975a, 1976;
Wapora, Inc., 1975', 1977, 1977a) have attempted to identify poten-
tially hazardous waste streams generated within selected industries,
using a few preselected hazardous constituents as the basis for the
determination.* 4
All of the above studies have indicated numerous problems in
identifying and characterizing hazardous waste streams and hazardous
waste constituents due to considerable data limitations, both with
*This group constitutes a series of EPA contractor studies on indus-
trial hazardous waste practices in selected manufacturing indus-
tries. For ease in referencing these studies, the entire set will
henceforth be called the Industry Studies (1975-1978).
5-10
-------
regard to determining what materials are actually hazardous and the
levels at which they are hazardous and with regard to determining
what materials are present in different waste streams and the concen-
trations and interactions of the various constituents. Furthermore,
the different studies have used different definitions of hazardous
waste and hazardous material. Therefore, the types and sources of
wastes identified as hazardous have varied among the studies and, in
some cases, may be discrepant with the regulatory definition under
Subtitle C. Detailed descriptions of the waste streams considered in
the Industry Studies are presented in Appendix C. Table 5-2 lists
some of the general types of hazardous waste constituents most fre-
quently identified in the various studies.
5.1.2 Sources of Hazardous Waste. Waste is generated as a
byproduct of nearly every activity of man. Sources of hazardous
waste generation can be broadly grouped into four categories:
• Manufacturing processes;
• End use activities;
• Finished products becoming unusable, unneeded, or unwanted;
• Spills of hazardous, nonwaste materials during transport.
5.1.2.1 Manufacturing Processes. Manufacturing processes
generate a wide variety of potentially hazardous waste streams and
waste stream constituents. The types of hazardous waste generated by
different manufacturing processes are characterized based upon the
findings of the Industry Studies (1975-1978). These studies identi-
fied potentially hazardous waste streams within each of the following
thirteen manufacturing industries:
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-2
EXAMPLES OF GENERAL TYPES OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
WASTE CONSTITUENTS
Acids
Caustics
Cyanides
Dyes
Explosives
Fluorides
Heavy metals and their compounds
Organics
- Oils
- Phenols
- Polynuclear aromatics
- Other organic compounds and organic residues
Paints
Pesticides
Radioactive materials
Solvents
5-12
-------
• Textiles;
Inorganic chemicals;
Pharmaceuticals;
Paint and allied products and contract solvent reclaiming;
Organic chemicals, pesticides, and explosives;
Petroleum refining;
Petroleum re-refining;
Leather tanning and finishing;
Metal smelting and refining;
Electroplating and metal finishing;
Special machinery manufacturing;
Electronic components manufacturing;
Storage and primary batteries.
Table 5-3 contains examples of the potentially hazardous waste
streams and waste stream constituents generated by each of these
manufacturing industries. Potentially hazardous waste from manu-
facturing processes very seldom consists of pure materials; the
wastes usually consist of a mixture of materials from one part of the
process which are then combined with other mixtures of wastes from
other parts of the process. A detailed description of each poten-
tially hazardous waste stream from each industry and an enumeration
of specific, potentially hazardous constituents within the waste
stream appears in Appendix C.
It should be noted that no one individual facility within any of
these industries generates all of the potentially hazardous waste
streams and waste stream constituents shown in Table 5-3. It is also
not meant to be implied that all waste streams and waste stream con-
stituents identified as potentially hazardous in Table 5-3 would
necessarily be considered hazardous under the Subtitle C regulations.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-3
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS FROM
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Manufac tur ing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Textiles*
(SIC 22)
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Discarded dye and
chemical containers
Solvents and still
bottoms
Heavy metals, dyestuffs,
chlorinated organic s,
other residual organics
Residual dyestuffs and
residual chemicals
Solvents and organic
residues
Inorganic
chemical st
(SIC 281)
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Heavy metals, fluorides,
cyanides, pigments
Solids
Heavy metals, cyanides,
radioactive materials
Pharma-
ceutical s$
(SIC 2831,
2833, 2834)
Waste solvents
Still bottoms, tars,
and muds
Solids
Organic solvents
Organic residues
Heavy metals, contaminated
high inert content wastes,
active ingredients
Paint and
allied
products §
(SIC 285)
Raw material containers
Water treatment sludges
Solids
Waste products
Wash solvents and still
bottoms
Heavy metals, organic and
inorganic pigments, sol-
vents, additives
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals, solvents,
pigments, additives,
fungicides
Organic and Inorganic
solvents, pigments,
organic residues
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Leather
tanning and
finishing§§
(SIC 3111)
Fleshings
Trimmings and shavings
Buffing dust
Finishing residues
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals, organic
solvents
Heavy metals
Metal smelting
and
refining ***
(SIC 33)
Sludges
Slurries
Dusts
Slag
Waste ammonia liquor
Waste pickle liquor
Heavy metals, fluorides,
cyanides, oils, phenols,
grease
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Phenols, cyanides
Heavy metals, acids
Electroplating
and metal
finishingttt
(SIC 3471)
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Process preparation
wastes
Miscellaneous process
solids
Oegreaser sludges
Heavy metals, cyanides,
acid and alkaline cleaners,
solvents, oils,-grease
Heavy metals, lubricants,
buffing compounds
Process chemicals, heavy
metals, acid and alkaline
cleaners, plating salts,
organic additives, sol-
vents , cyanides, paints
Heavy metals, oils, grease,
buffing compounds, organic
solvents, paint pigments,
abrasives
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Special
machinery |||
manuf ac tur ing*^1
(SIC 355 and
347)
Heat treating wastes
Electroplating wastes
Machining wastes
Coating wastes
Heavy metals, cyanides,
oils, additives, organic
solvents, acid and alka-
line cleaners, organic
residues
Heavy metals, cyanides
organic solvents, acid
and alkaline cleaners,
oils, grease, scale
Oils, organic solvents,
heavy metals
Paints, solvents, acid
and alkaline cleaners
Electronic
components
(SIC 367)
§§§
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Solvents and still
bottoms
Waste oils
Paint wastes
Metal scrap
Heavy metals, fluorides
Organic solvents, organic
residues, heavy metals,
oils,
Oils, heavy metals,
additives
Heavy metals, oils, sol-
vents, fungicides, resins
Heavy metals
Storage and pri- Wastewater treatment
mary sludges
batteries****
<« MU an, "
.
Heavy metals, electro-
lytic solutions
Heavy metals
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Continued)
Manufacturing
industry
Potentially hazardous
waste stream
Potentially hazardous
constituents
Organic
chemicals
pesticides and
explosives **
(SIC 286, 2879
2892)
Petroleum
Liquid heavy ends
still bottoms
sludges
waste products
solids
semi-solids
See Appendix D.3.5 for
specifics
refining tt
(SIC 2911)
Tank bottoms
Process sludges
Filter clays
Wastewater treatment
sludges
Fines
Oil, phenols, polynuclear
aromatics, other organics
heavy metals
Oil, phenols, ammonia
salts, polynuclear
aromatics, other organics,
heavy metals, acids
Oil, phenols, polynuclear
aromatics, ammonia salts,
other organics, heavy
metals
Phenols, ammonia salts,
heavy metals, runoff
constituents
Phenols, ammonia salts,
heavy metals
Petroleum Sludges
re-refiningtt
(SIC 2992)
Spent clay
Process water
Acids, caustics, heavy
metals, ammonia, cresol,
oils, polymers, other
polar compounds,
asphaltenes
Oil, heavy metals,
polymers, other polar
compounds
Heavy metals, oils,
polymers, other polar
compounds, phenols,
sulfur compounds
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Concluded)
*
Versar, Inc., 1976
Versar, Inc., 1975
Arthur D. Little Inc., 1976
Wapora, Inc., 1975
**TRW, Inc., 1976
Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976
±t
Swain et.al., 1977
§§
SCS Engineers Inc., 1976
***
Calspan Corporation, 1977
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1976
ttt
Wapora, Inc., 1977
§§§
333Wapora, Inc., 1977a
****
Versar, Inc., 1975a
5-18
-------
5.1.2.2 End Use Activities. Activities which involve the end
use of finished products generate four basic categories of poten-
tially hazardous wastes:
• Product containers with residual product;
• Spills of hazardous products;
• Used products containing hazardous materials;
• Residuals from product consumption.
End use generators of potentially hazardous waste include, but
are not limited to, households*, governmental agencies, utilities,
agricultural activities, service industries, construction activities,
wholesale and retail trade, and transportation activities. For the
most part, the potentially hazardous waste streams from these end use
activities tend to be more homogeneous than those from manufacturing
activities.
Different end use activities use or consume practically every
product manufactured, produced, or imported into the U.S. As
previously discussed, many of these products are by themselves poten-
tially hazardous. Such products usually are packaged or container- '
ized for delivery to the point of end use. Following this end use,
the product container or packaging is normally discarded as a waste.
These waste containers or packaging materials usually contain resid-
ual amounts of the potentially hazardous product and, thus, may
represent a potentially hazardous waste. These residues may include
pesticides, paints, cleaning fluids, and oils. Packaging materials
^Households are specifically exempted from regulation under Sub-
title C.
5-19
-------
containing pesticide residuals, for example, may be found in wastes
from households, agriculture, garden stores, golf courses, and
organizations engaged in right-of-way maintenance such as govern-
mental agencies, utilities, and railroads.
End use activities may also result in spills of potentially
hazardous products. Following cleanup, the spilled product is
usually discarded as a waste. Both this waste product and the
materials which are used to clean up the spill represent potentially
hazardous waste.
A third category of potentially hazardous waste from end use
activities consists of used, broken, or nonfunctioning products that
are hazardous themselves or that contain potentially hazardous
material. These products may include waste automotive oils and
solvents; used dry cleaning fluids; spent batteries and fluorescent
tubes containing mercury; nonfunctioning capacitors and transformers
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (FCB's); nonfunctioning smoke
detectors containing radioactive materials; and waste construction
materials containing asbestos.
End use activities which consume part or all of a product may
produce residual materials which are potentially hazardous. For
example, coal-fired power plants generate coal ash which may be a
potentially hazardous waste, depending upon its constituents.
5.1.2.3 Unusable, Unneeded, or Unwanted Products. Unusable,
unneeded, or unwanted finished products that are potentially hazar-
dous represent a further source of potentially hazardous waste.
5-20
-------
Finished products may become unusable, unneeded, or unwanted for a
variety of reasons, including governmental regulations prohibiting
the use of specific products; product recalls due to contamination,
decomposition, deficiencies, or other problems; and products becoming
obsolete or overage. For example, a number of pesticides, such as
DDT, chlordane, and mirex have had their registrations canceled for
some or all of their uses, and the existing supplies have become
potentially hazardous wastes. Recalled products that have become
potentially hazardous waste include contaminated or decomposed lots
of Pharmaceuticals. Obsolete military munitions, such as initiating
agents, propellants, pyrotechnics, explosives, and riot control
agents, represent a third type of finished product that has become a
potentially hazardous waste.
5.1.2.4 Transportation-Related Spills of Hazardous Materials
That Are Not Wastes. Spills of hazardous materials that are not
wastes occasionally occur during transport and are a further source
of hazardous waste. When many hazardous materials particularly
•liquids, volatile materials, and fine materials, are spilled, this
material is likely to become a waste and would be subject to regula-
tion under Subtitle C if it exhibits the properties in Appendix B,
Subpart A. Spills can also occur during the manufacture or end use
of any product or material; however, such spills are included in
existing waste streams from such activities and do not represent an
additional source of potentially hazardous wastes.
5-21
-------
Major sources of transportation-related spills of hazardous
materials include rail, truck, barge, and pipeline transport and
transfer operations. Table 5-4 shows examples of potentially
hazardous materials that have been spilled in recent years.
5.2 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Transport
The basic role of the hazardous waste transport industry is to
move hazardous waste from the point of generation to off-site
facilities for purposes of storage, treatment, and/or disposal.
Hazardous waste transport includes intrastate, interstate, and inter-
national movements by highway, rail, air, pipelines, and waterway.
Three hazardous waste transport industry segments have been
identified in a study by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978a). These seg-
ments are as follows: generator/transporter, hazardous waste manage-
ment facility/transporter, and for-hire transporter.
• Generator/transporters are hazardous waste generators who
function as private carriers by self-hauling hazardous wastes
off-site to hazardous waste management facilities (transport
by this "segment is invariably by truck).
• Hazardous waste management facility/transporters are opera-
tors of hazardous waste management facilities who also
function as contract or private carriers in providing trans-
portation from generators to storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities (transport by this segment is invariably by
truck).
• For-hire transporters are common and contract carriers who
transport hazardous wastes (and other property as well) but
who do not generate, treat, store, or dispose of such wastes
(transport by this segment is primarily by truck, but
includes rail, waterway, and air).
5-22
-------
TABLE 5-4
EXAMPLES OF SPILLS OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS*
Acids
arsenic
chlo ro sulfur ic
hydrochloric
muriatic
nitric
phosphoric
sulfuric
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia solution
Ammonium nitrate
Anhydrous ammonia
Batteries and electrolytic fluid
Benzene
Butyl cellusolve
Caustic soda
Chlorine
Coolants
Copper sulfate
Creosote
Cyanide
Cycloh exylam ine
Denatured ethyl alcohol
Dyes
Ethylene diamine
Ethylene glycol
Ferric chloride
Ferrous sulfate
Formaldehyde
Gasoline
Hexane
Ink
Kepone
Latex
Lead oxide
Linseed oil
Methyl alcohol
Methyl bromide
Naptha
Nitrofurdzone
Oils
crude
cutting
fuel
hydraulic
lube
turbine
Faint
Paint thinner
PCB
Pentachorophenol
Perchloroethylene
Pesticides
Phenol
Phosdrin
Phosphorus
Potassium hydroxide
Resins
Seed corn (containing captan)
Sodium hydroxide
Solvents
Toluene
Trimethylamine
* U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation
Bureau, 1976; personal communication, J.E. Aho, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, 1977; State of Ohio, 1974; personal
communication, J. Dobbins, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
1977; Illinois EPA Emergency Action Center, 1977.
5-23
-------
According to the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study, neither the
number of firms within each industry segment nor in the industry as a
whole is known, nor is the rate of firms entering or leaving the
industry. Furthermore, the quantity of hazardous wastes transported
annually by the industry is unknown, as is the distribution of waste
transport by mode or by industry segment.
To illustrate the magnitude of hazardous waste being trans-
ported off-site, based upon the waste quantities in Chapter 6 and the
average off-site disposal factor (see Table 5-10), there is on the
order of 8 to 10 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
manufacturing waste currently being transported off-site on an annual
basis. Table 5-5 presents a qualitative estimate of the relative
amount of hazardous waste moved by mode and by industry segment. The
vast majority of such waste is transported by highway with a small
amount being transported by rail and even smaller amounts being moved
by waterway. Appendix E contains a detailed description of the three
industry segments, based on the Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978a) study.
The following reiterates pertinent portions of that description.
5.2.1 Generator/Transporter. According to Arthur D. Little,
Inc., reliable data are extremely limited with regard to generator/
transporters; most of the information available on generator/trans-
porters is contained in the Industry Studies (1975-1978) prepared for
EPA. About 3.5 percent of the plants inventoried in the Industry
5-24
-------
TABLE 5-5
RELATIVE AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TRANSPORTED
OFF-SITE BY MODE AND INDUSTRY SEGMENT*
Mode
Air
Rail
Highway
Waterway
Pipeline
Generator/
transporter
None
None
Very small
None
Negligible
Hazardous waste
management facility/
transporter
None
None
Large
None
Negligible
For-hire
transporter
Negligible
Small
Large
Very small
None
Modified from Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a.
5-25
-------
Studies transported their own wastes off-site, and less than three
percent of the total quantity of waste hauled off-site was trans-
ported by the generator.
The tendency to self-haul is industry dependent. For example,
waste oil re-refiners self-haul over 50 percent of their wastes going
off-site while the metal smelting and refining industry does little
or no self-hauling. The limited data available suggest that
self-hauling firms tend to be the smaller firms in an industry and
tend to be located in rural areas where contractor services are not
available. Wastes transported by self-hauling firms are usually
transported a distance of under 10 miles, and often are moved no more
than 1 to 2 miles.
Wastes that are hauled by generators are typically transported
as generated, without treatment, and are usually taken either to a
site owned and operated by the company and dedicated specifically to
its wastes, or to a general-purpose municipal or private'landfill
that also handles municipal wastes.
Generators, at least the major generators, do keep records of
how much waste is shipped, who carried it, and where it went. Such
records are usually kept for a period of at least seven years. Self-
haulers transporting to a company-owned site typically prepare a sum-
mary report monthly on the quantity of material hauled (Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1978a).
5-26
-------
5.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management Facility/Transporters. In
1977, there were approximately 110 hazardous waste management facili-
ties in the U.S. (Straus, 1977). An estimated 50 to 67 percent of
these facilities also transport hazardous wastes (Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1978a; Straus, 1977).
Transportation activities of the hazardous waste management/
transporters tend to be interstate; 64 percent of the facilities con-
tacted in the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study have interstate transpor-
tation capabilities. Further, 56 percent have locations in more than
one state or receive waste materials from out of state. Those haz-
ardous waste management facility/transporters who operate intrastate
tend to serve a relatively small geographical area or section of the
state. Those who operate interstate generally operate within one re-
gion rather than within several regions. The portion of hazardous
waste handled by each type of operation is not known, nor is the
portion of the interstate operator's business that is done outside
his home state.
Nearly all the facilities contacted keep records which contain
limited information about the quantity, source, waste type, and
delivery point for each transport/disposal job. These records are in
various forms and include: billing records (invoices), shipping
documents or bills of lading, purchase orders or job tickets, and
self initiated or state required manifests. Usually these documents
are filed together and are retained for several years, based in part
5-27
-------
upon requirements by the Interstate Commerce Commission (3-year
retention), Internal Revenue (7-year retention), state tax depart-
ment, and other state agencies (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
5.2.3 For-Hire Transporters. For-hire transporters include
common and contract carriers that transport hazardous waste by high-
way, rail, air, pipeline, and waterway.
5.2.3.1 Common and Contract Highway Carriers. According to
Arthur D. Little, Inc., very few data are available with regard to
common and contract highway carriers involved in the transport of
hazardous waste, and as a result, it was not possible even to develop
a representative sample for study purposes. Thus, the information
reported by the study should only be considered as preliminary.
About one-half of the for-hire transporters contacted do not
transport any hazardous waste across state borders. Others indicated
that anywhere from 80 to 100 percent of their hazardous waste trans-
port is interstate. Within those states which required permits for
transporting hazardous waste, the transporters usually indicated
statewide service. Smaller transporters tended to see states requir-
ing permits as the practical limit of their service radius. Exclud-
ing the national common carriers who provided no estimates, transpor-
ters indicated trip distances ranging from 25 to 150 miles, with most
companies responding at 50 miles. One common carrier indicated that
500 to 600 mile trips were normal. However, the above figure may not
be representative of the entire industry. Quantities of hazardous
5-28
-------
waste being transported interstate or intrastate could not be identi-
fied, nor, in most cases, could the total quantity of hazardous waste
being transported by individual companies.
Very sketchy information is available on the nature of the
wastes transported. Most of the firms contacted handled primarily
liquid wastes. General transporters who handled the following types
of waste were identified: liquids/solids/sludges, waste oils, sol-
vents for recycle, general hazardous trash, paint wastes, hydrocar-
bons, chlorine, acids, cyanide wastes, caustic wastes, hydrogen
fluoride, cleaning solutions, and radioactive wastes. Though some
general transporters specialize in a particular waste, such as waste
oil or spent acid, most handle many kinds of hazardous waste.
All of the firms contacted keep records. The most common forms
for recordkeeping are the bill of lading and the weigh ticket. The
transporters indicated that records were retained for at least five
or seven years as a result of state, Internal Revenue Service, and/or
Interstate Commerce Commission regulations in addition to general
management practice.
5.2.3.2 Rail Transport. As common carriers under the ICC, the
railroads must accept all cargo tended to them that is properly pack-
aged and labeled. One of the most important aspects of the practices
and regulations in the transport of hazardous waste by railroad is
that the railroad does not directly handle the hazardous material as
such, but only transports rail cars ready for delivery. The shipper
must provide to the railroad the sealed or closed containers of the
5-29
-------
hazardous material or waste and certify in the bill of lading that
the shipment conforms to regulations.
A small amount of hazardous waste is transported by rail as
compared to highway transport. Most rail shipments are by tank car.
Only a limited number of disposal sites accept hazardous waste by
rail, and only a small portion of the total hazardous waste trans-
ported by rail is believed to go to such disposal sites; most of it
is believed to go to reclamation and recovery facilities. For exam-
ple, nearly all spent sulfuric acid and petroleum refinery treating
wastes transported by rail go to recyclers who have rail sidings on
their own property.
The relevant documents for the transport of hazardous waste con-
sist of the bill of lading and the waybill. The bill of lading is
prepared by the shipper, the waybill by the railroad. For hazardous
materials, a copy of the certified bill of lading must be kept on
file by the original carrier for at least three years, in accordance
with ICC regulations (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
5.2.3.3 Air Transport. The amount of hazardous waste trans-
ported by air is very small, possibly on the order of several tons
per year. Small amounts of waste acids, flammable metal shavings,
radioactive materials, and laboratory samples of hazardous wastes
have been identified as being shipped by air.
The existing DOT and FAA regulations require that copies of
shipping papers, prepared by the shipper, must be carried onboard.
5-30
-------
The originating carrier must then maintain a copy of the shipping
paper for 90 days. In addition to shipping papers, the air carrier
is to prepare a manifest for the total cargo of the shipment.
5.2.3.4 Pipeline Transport. Off-site pipeline transport of
hazardous waste is extremely limited. On a national level, there are
no major pipelines for transporting wastes; the commercial pipeline
industry is almost entirely devoted to the transport of fuel
products. Waste transport by pipeline is generally limited to a few
concentrated industrial areas in the U.S. A number of isolated cases
of hazardous waste transport by private, not for-hire, pipeline were
identified by the Arthur D. Little, Inc. study.
5.2.3.5 Waterway Transport. The quantity of hazardous waste
transported by barge on inland waters appears to be small relative to
highway transport. No vessels other than barges are known to carry
hazardous waste. Shipments of hazardous waste move primarily on the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Mississippi River System in tank barges
with a capacity range of 1,200 to 1,500 tons. A typical one-way trip
may be on the order of 1,000 or more miles. Most often, the waste
transported includes spent acids, spent caustics, and waste glycol.
The wastes are generally in liquid bulk form with a water content up
to 90 percent and normally are transported to resource recovery
facilities.
5-31
-------
The bill of lading, weigh ticket, and shipping manifest papers
are the commonly used forms for recordkeeping. The companies contac-
ted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. stated that records are retained in
current files for 5 to 7 years because of legal requirements as well
as administrative procedures. In addition to the above forms, ship-
ping papers and a dangerous cargo manifest must accompany shipments
of hazardous packaged cargo and solids in bulk.
5.3 Characterization of Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment, and
Disposal
Hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal currently oc-
curs both on and off the site of generation. When transported off-
site as described in Section 5.2, the hazardous waste goes to such
locations as dumps, hazardous waste management facilities, resource
recovery facilities, and municipal and private landfills and incin-
erators. This section presents a summary of typical hazardous waste
management practices; Appendix D provides a more detailed discussion.
5.3.1 Storage. Hazardous waste is often stored before treat-
ment or disposal, both on-site by the generator and off-site by
treatment and disposal facilities. In the case of off-site treatment
or disposal, the waste is usually also stored by the generator until
economically transportable loads are accumulated. Hazardous waste is
typically stored in ponds, lagoons, basins, drums, tanks, piles on
the ground, tank trucks, and dumpsters (see Appendices D and J).
Table 5-6 shows examples of storage practices in selected indus-
tries.
5-32
-------
m
u>
CJ
Industry
Paints and
coatings
TABLE 5-6
EXAMPLES OF STORAGE PRACTICES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
Type of waste
Storage mode
Emulsion sludge from tank
washings - 18% solids,
82% water
with vermiculite
Holding tank
Storage time
Pesticides
Pharmac eut ica Is
Rinsed and crushed 5-gallon
metal Insecticide containers
Radlocative material
Bin
Packed in drums
3 months
3-4 months
1-2 days
Electroplating and
metal finishing
Waste oil re-
refining
Waste oil re-
refining
Plating sludges
Spent liquid PCB's
Tarry sludge
Oil soaked In earth
(filter medium)
Holding tank
5 5-gallon drums
Holding tank
Contractor sup-
plied containers
4 hours
5-10 days
3-7 days
5 days
*Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a.
-------
Engineered storage is sometimes used when there is no safe
method of treating or disposing a particular hazardous waste. Under
such circumstances the waste is containerized and buried or otherwise
stored until technologies are developed for treating or disposing it.
Wastes that have been subject to engineered storage in recent years
are discussed in Appendix D.
5.3.2 Treatment. The treatment of hazardous waste is gen-
erally directed toward separating the hazardous components from the
non-hazardous components of the hazardous waste stream, concentrating
the hazardous waste, rendering the waste less hazardous, reducing the
volume of waste requiring ultimate disposal, and/or recovering
materials or energy from the waste. There are four basic types of
methods typically used for the treatment of hazardous waste: physi-
cal treatment, chemical treatment, biological treatment, and thermal
treatment.
Physical treatment consists of non-chemical means to remove sol-
uble and suspended constituents from aqueous waste streams and to
concentrate various constituents of the waste stream. Chemical
treatment involves alteration of the molecular structure of waste
constituents so as to render the wastes less hazardous or to
separate specific constituents of the waste stream. Biological
treatment involves the use of microorganisms to remove or degrade
organic materials present in wastewater streams by adsorption and
direct metabolism. Thermal treatment employs heat to destroy
5-34
-------
hazardous waste, to render the waste less hazardous, and to recover
materials and energy from the waste. Appendix D describes typical
processes used for each of the four treatment methods and the types
of wastes amenable to treatment by each method.
Treatment of hazardous waste is at times limited to the appli-
cation of just one of the methods discussed above. However, in many
instances, especially in the case of wastewater treatment or re-
source recovery, several of the methods are used in the course of
treating the hazardous waste.
The treatment of hazardous waste using the above methods does
not typically constitute the ultimate disposal of the waste. Treat-
ment generally produces a residual (e.g., sludge, ash, still bottom,
concentrated waste) which may be hazardous and which is typically
disposed using the methods discussed in Section 5.3.3. For example,
many of the various physical, chemical, and biological treatment
methods are used as part'of primary, secondary, or tertiary waste-
water treatment and produce a sludge which is potentially hazardous
(see Table 5-3) and which requires disposal.
Data are not available to estimate the portion of hazardous
waste that is annually treated prior to disposal, nor to estimate the
portion treated using each of the four basic types of treatment
methods.
5.3.3 Disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste involves the dis-
charge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of
any of the waste into or on any land or water so that such waste or
5-35
-------
any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into
the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwaters. Meth-
ods typically used for ultimate disposal of hazardous waste include:
open dumping, landfilling, landfarming, lagooning (surface impound-
ment), incineration, deep-well injection, discharge to municipal
sewer systems, surface discharge to rivers and streams, ocean dump-
ing, road application, and detonation. In addition, engineered
storage is used in some instances. Appendix D describes each of
these disposal methods and the types of wastes amenable to disposal
by each method.
Data are not available to estimate the portion of all hazardous
waste disposed annually by each method. However, Table 5-7 provides
an estimate of the portion of hazardous waste from 14 manufacturing
industries disposed annually by each method during the period from
1973 to 1975. The table also provides an estimate of the portion of
waste disposed by each method that were disposed in environmentally
adequate and inadequate manners. Less than 10 percent of these
hazardous manufacturing wastes are estimated to have been treated/
disposed in an environmentally adequate manner.
5.3.4 Typical Management Practices for Hazardous Industrial
Waste. Typical hazardous waste management practices are charac-
terized for thirteen manufacturing industries in Appendix D. The
manufacturing industries discussed are as follows: electronic
components manufacturing; electroplating and metal finishing;
5-36
-------
TABLE 5-7
ESTIMATED PORTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM FOURTEEN
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES DISPOSED BY METHOD, 1973-1975
LJ
Disposal method
Surface Impoundment
Dump 1
Landfill J
Incineration
Deep-well injection
Landspreading
Road application
Sewer
Othert
Weighted average
i
Percent disposed
by method^
48 §
33
15 §
2
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
2
-
Percent
environmentally
adequate
< 0.1
7
37
-
-
-
-
N/AU
10
Percent
environmentally
Inadequate
> 99.9
93
63
100
100
100
100
N/Afl
90
*0ffice of Solid Waste, unpublished data.
tPrimarily resource recovery
^Due to rounding, total exceeds 100%.
§An unknown portion of the wastes handled by this method were ultimately disposed by other
methods, primarily landfilling and dumping.
UNot available.
-------
inorganic chemicals; leather tanning and finishing; metal smelting
and refining; organic chemicals, pesticides, and explosives; paint
and allied products and contract solvent reclaiming; petroleum
refining; petroleum re-refining; Pharmaceuticals; special machinery
manufacturing; storage and primary batteries; and textiles.
Tables 5-8 and 5-9 indicate the estimated portion of potentially
hazardous waste treated/disposed by various methods in four manufac-
turing industries for which data are available. Table 5-8 shows
estimated on-site treatment/disposal. Table 5-9 shows estimated off-
site treatment/disposal. Some of the methods listed, e.g., inciner-
ation and recovery, may generate hazardous residuals requiring
further disposal. Data are not available as to the disposal of such
residuals. It should be noted that the data in Tables 5-8 and 5-9
are based upon limited surveys of the industries and, according to
the various authors, may not be entirely typical of the industry as a
whole.
For the thirteen manufacturing industries, treatment of poten-
tially hazardous wastes has, for the most part, been limited to
dewatering and some neutralization of hazardous sludges from
wastewater treatment, segregation of some waste streams or waste
stream components, and incineration of specific wastes or waste
streams. Where reclamation and recovery is practiced, it has
typically been limited to on-site recovery of solvents, metals, oil,
products, plating solutions, and energy and to off-site recovery of
solvents, metals, and oil.
5-38
-------
TABLE 5-8
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
ON-SITE BY VARIOUS METHODS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES - 1973*
U)
LO
VO
Treatment/disposal method
(percentage of total generated)
Industry
Organic chemlcalst,9
Pharmaceut Icala*. 1
Petroleum refining^,**
Petroleum re-ref iningt.tt
Biological
treatment/lagoon
<1
2
18
-
Deep-well
2
-
1
-
Incineration Landfarm
70 #
37
B
-
Landfill
15
-
17
12
Recovery Application
8
-
-
* *
* 1975 data used for petroleum re-refining industry.
t Baaed upon dry weight of hazardous waste stream.
f Based upon wet weight of hazardous waste stream.
TRW, Inc., 1976.
11 Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976b.
**Jacoba Engineering Company, 1976.
ttSwaln et al., 1977.
ft Small amount, data not available.
-------
TABLE 5-9
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
OFF-SITE BY VARIOUS METHODS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES - 1973*
Y1
S
Treatment/disposal method
(percentage of total generated)
Incineration Lagoon Landfill Recovery Road application
Organic chemicalt.i 2
Pharmaceutical s$, 11 51
Petroleum
4
- 9 1
21 34 -
refining^,**
Petroleum
re-refiningtjtt
70
12*+
* 1975 data used for petroleum re-refining industry.
t Based upon dry weight of hazardous waste stream.
$ Based upon weight of hazardous waste stream
§ TRW, Inc., 1976.
V Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976b.
**Jacobs Engineering Company, 1976
ttSwain et al., 1977.
^Includes small amount treated/disposed on-slte.
-------
Table 5-10 presents, for the indicated year of assessment, the
estimated portion of hazardous waste treated/disposed on-site and
off-site and the portion going to reclamation for each of the
thirteen manufacturing industries. A weighted average of about 82
percent of the hazardous waste is treated/disposed on-site and about
15 percent is transported off-site for treatment/disposal. It should
be noted that these figures for on-site and off-site treatment/
disposal must be considered slight overestimates since they include a
very small amount of hazardous waste that is recovered on-site or
off-site, but for which separate data are not available. It is
estimated that such waste comprises less than two percent of the
total hazardous waste. The weighted average of hazardous waste for
which resource recovery is practiced is thus estimated to be three to
five percent.
Three levels of treatment/disposal were identified for the thir-
teen manufacturing industries by the Industry Studies (1975-1978).
These levels are as follows:
• Level I - the level of treatment/disposal used commonly by
the industry for a particular waste;
• Level II - the best technology employed commercially by the
industry for a particular waste;
• Level III - the technology necessary for protection of
health and the environment.
It was possible (though unusual) for Level I to be the same as Level
II for a given waste. Levels II and III were frequently reported as
being the same (Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1978).
5-41
-------
TABLE 5-10
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
OR RECOVERED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE*
Industry
Electronic components
manufacturing§
Electroplating and
metal finish ing §
Inorganic chemical t
Leather tanning and
finishing^
Metal smelting and
refining^
Organic chemical st
Paint and allied
products^
Petroleum refineryt
Petroleum re-refinery §
Pharmaceuticalst .
Special machinery
manufacturing §
Storage and primary
batterlest
Textiles*
Weighted average
Treated/
disposed
on-site
13
19
85-90
10
98
87
5
44
12
39
10"
35
49
82
Treated/
disposed
off-site
66
81 1
10-15
90
2
5
90
56
76
60
90
65
51
15
Recycled/
reclaimed
21
—
**
**
tt
8
5
tt
12
1
tt
tt
**
3§§
* Industry studies, 1975-1978.
t 1973 data.
$ 1974 data.
§ 1975 data.
11 Includes 45% sent to sanitary sever systems
**Data not available, small amount reclaimed included in off-site data.
ttData not available, small amount reclaimed included in on-site data.
$$Data not available, small smount reclaimed Included in off-site and
onrsite data.
§§Small additional amount included in off-site and on-site data.
5-42
-------
Table 5-11 provides, for four manufacturing industries for
which data are available, estimates of the portion of hazardous
wastes generated by each industry that was subject to Level I, II, or
III treatment/disposal during the year of assessment. Data are not
available to provide similar estimates for the other nine manufac-
turing industries. For the industries listed in Table 5-11, between
70 and 85 percent of the hazardous waste was treated/disposed using
Level I technologies (i.e., one that is not the best technology
commercially available nor adequate for protection of health and
environment) and between zero and 5 percent was treated/disposed
using Level III technologies.
5.3.5 Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry. The hazard-
ous waste management service industry is engaged in the off-site
storage, treatment, disposal, and reprocessing/recovery of hazardous
wastes. The industry operates independently of hazardous waste gen-
erators; however, as a service to generators, over half the firms in
the industry transport hazardous waste to their facilities from gen-
erators (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1978a).
In 1975 there were approximately 95 firms active in the indus-
try, operating about 110 hazardous waste management facilities. The
industry's facilities are concentrated in industrial areas, with
nearly 60 percent of both the facilities and the overall process
capacity* located in EPA Regions II, V, and IX. Figure 5-1 shows
^Process capacity consists of the throughput capability for hand-
ling hazardous wastes and includes storage, treatment, disposal,
and recovery capacity.
5-43
-------
TABLE 5-11
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED/DISPOSED
BY LEVEL I, II, OR III TECHNOLOGY FOR
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Industry
Leather tanning and
finish Ing*, 1
Paint and allied
products t, H
Petroleum re-refining^,**
Special machinery
manufacturing!!,**
Level I
85
70
78
70
Level II Level III
10 5
25 5
22
30
*SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976.
tWapora Inc., 1975.
±Swain et al., 1977.
iWapora, Inc., 1977.
11974 data.
**1975 data.
5-44
-------
Cn
i
01
SOUTH DAKOTA ? \ '""'
*•• •
•vw
OOUDRAOO 1
L i
— ^.— -x
FIGURE 5-1
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Source: Straus, 1977.
-------
Che geographic distributions of the facilities. Total employment
within the industry was approximately 2,000 persons in 1975 (Foster
D. Snell, Inc., 1976).
At the end of 1974, the process capacity for the industry as a
whole was nearly 7.3 million metric tons per year, with about 53 per-
cent of the overall process capacity being utilized on an annual
basis* (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976). Since some hazardous waste
requires several process stages (e.g., treatment and disposal), the
total quantity of waste that can be handled is somewhat less than the
overall process capacity. The Foster D. Snell, Inc. study es-
timated that about 5.3 million metric tons of the overall process
capacity might be considered environmentally adequate.t The study
further estimated that the overall process capacity would expand to
8.2 million metric tons at the end of 1977, with about 6.2 million
metric tons being considered environmentally adequate.* Table 5-12
shows, for selected processes, the daily capacity available in 1974
by EPA Region.
^According to the Foster D. Snell, Inc. study, the low capacity
utilization is the result of poor regulations and/or poor enforce-
ment of regulations applicable to hazardous waste treatment/
disposal.
Foster D. Snell, Inc. study considered incineration, secure
landfills, chemical treatment, biological treatment, and resource
recovery as environmentally adequate processes. Some unknown
portion of these processes, however, might not be considered
environmentally adequate under the Subtitle C regulations.
5-46
-------
TABLE 5-12
CAPACITY OF SELECTED HAZARDOUS WASTE ^
MANAGEMENT SERVICE INDUSTRY PROCESSES - 1974
Process capacity
(thousands of gallons per 24
EPA
region
I
II
III
u. IV
S v
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Number of
facilities
6
18
9
7
27
10
8
1
19
5
110*
Chemical
treatment
46
71
265
20
1,530
70
250
t
57
28
2,337*
Secure
Incineration landfill
4
153
35
44
361
60
5
t
14
-
6764=
4
239
15
46
230
135
66
t
639
325
1,714*
hour day)
Deep well Resource
injection recovery
9
57
15
100 315
795 230
50
t tt
400
405
395* 1,481*
*Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976.
tData are not available.
not Include EPA Region VIII.
-------
The hazardous waste management service industry generally
groups the wastes it handles into five categories: metals/metal
finishing; paints/solvents/coatings; organics; petroleum; and
inorganics. Table 5-13 lists examples of the types of hazardous
wastes handled within each category and typical treatment/disposal
methods employed.
5.3.6 State Data on On-Site and Off-Site Disposal. Very few
states have at this time accumulated sufficient data to estimate the
portion of hazardous waste generated within the state that is being
disposed on-site and off-site of the generation facility. Table 5-14
presents, for eight states and one EPA Region, recent estimates of
the portion of each state's hazardous industrial waste that is
disposed on-site and off-site, the portion of the waste whose
disposal whereabouts is unknown, and the portion of the waste being
reclaimed. Table 5-14 also indicates the estimated portion of each
state's hazardous industrial waste upon which the disposal and
recovery estimates are based. The fate of the remainder of the
hazardous industrial waste in these states is not known.
Except for Texas and Illinois, the data in Table 5-14 were
collected as part of studies to assess existing hazardous waste
management practices in the state and to determine needed changes in
the state's regulatory approach to hazardous waste management. The
data for Texas and Illinois were reported to these states as required
under their hazardous waste regulations. Comparable data for dispo-
sal and recovery practices either prior to or after enactment
5-48
-------
TABLE 5-13
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES HANDLED AND TYPICAL
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL METHODS FOR THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
Market category
Typical
treatment/disposal
methods
Types of
hazardous
wastes handled
Metals/metal
finishing
Paints/solvents/
coatings
Neutralization
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Deep well injection
Ocean disposal
Incineration
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Acid solutions
Metals containing
sludges
Organics
Solvents
Organics
Incineration
Biological treatment
Chemical treatment
Sanitary landfill
Secure landfill
Pesticides
Biologicals
Rubber
Plastics
Petroleum
Inorganics
Incineration
Deep well injection
Chemical treatment
Ocean dumping
Secure landfill
Oily wastes
Aqueous
solutions of
salts, metals,etc.
Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976
5-49
-------
TABLE 5-14
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISPOSED BY LOCATION OR RECLAIMED FOR SELECTED STATES
Ul
o
State
Florida*,!
niinoisU
Kansas**
Marylandtt,**
Ma s sachu set t s § §
Mlnnesotaflfl
Region X***
Rhode Islandttt
Texas^tt
wastes included
In estimate*
NA§§§
100
23
NA
100
9-16
NA
NA
100
Disposal location
On-site
85
50
39
12
. -
65
63
1
36
Off -Bite
8
18
49
33
14
25
22
81
9
Unknown Othert
Unknown Diacharge8 Deep-well
Injection
7 g
21 - 10
5
51 #
65 10
- 3 -
_
14
20 - 31
Reclaimed
-
-
7
4
11
7
15
4
4
-------
TABLE 5-14 (Concluded)
* This is the estimated portion of the state's total, hazardous,
Industrial wastes upon which the disposal and recovery percentages are
based
t Other Includes disposal by methods which are not regulated under
Subtitle C. These Include discharges to municipal sewer systems, surface
discharges under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
and deep-well injection.
$ Carter et al., 1977.
§ These data have been modified to eliminate a large volume of wastewater
containing a small amount of hazardous waste that is discharge to
municipal sewers.
H Personal communication, S. Miller, 1978.
** State of Kansas, 1977.
ft State of Maryland, 1977.
$$ These data have been modified to eliminate a large volume of wastewater
containing a small amount of hazardous waste that is discharge
municipal sewers and to streams.
§§ Fennelly et.al., 1976. If waste automotive oil is included, the
percentages are as follows: on-slte - 0%, off-site - 8%, unknown - 68%,
discharged - 6%, reclaimed - 18%.
flu Battelle Pacific Northwest, 1977.
***Stradley et.al., 1975. Region X includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. .
tttRhode Island Department of Health, 1977.
±#State of Texas, 1976.
§§§NA means not available.
-------
of che state's current hazardous waste legislation (or equivalent
legislation) are not available. Differences in the portion of waste
disposed on-site and off-site in the various states are due primarily
to factors such as differences in types of industries and wastes gen-
erated by these industries, availability of allowable on-site and
off-site disposal locations, and specific state regulations and
enforcement policies.
5.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery
RCRA defines resource conservation as the reduction of the
amounts of solid waste that are generated, the reduction of overall
resource consumption, and the utilization of recovered resources.
Resource recovery is defined as the recovery of material or energy
from solid waste.
This section describes typical methods used for resource conser-
vation and recovery and the typical operations specializing in_ the
recovery of hazardous waste. Estimates of the extent to which
hazardous waste is presently being recovered or recycled are pre-
sented, along with examples of the potential for increasing the
recovery and recycling of hazardous waste. Factors which have tended
to constrain the recovery and recycling of hazardous waste are
summarized.
5°.4.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Methods and Opera-
tions. There are three basic procedures for recovering materials and
energy from potentially hazardous wastes: separation, material
conversion, and energy conversion (Sittig, 1.975).
5-52
-------
Separation involves the removal of specific waste constituents
using the physical and chemical treatment methods discussed in Appen-
dix D. Material conversion involves the transformation of waste con-
stituents from a form which is not acceptable for recovery or reuse
to one that is acceptable, using the chemical treatment methods dis-
cussed in Appendix D; the waste may not be in an acceptable form due
to such factors as its toxicity or its inability to yield to separa-
tion. Energy conversion involves the direct utilization of the waste
as an energy source either through combustion using the incineration
methods discussed in Appendix D or by using the waste to drive a
chemical process.
Operations that specialize in the recovery of hazardous waste
can be categorized as follows: solvent reclaimers, mercury reproces-
sors, metal reprocessors, petroleum rerefineries, industrial waste
information clearinghouses, and industrial waste exchanges (Straus,
1977). Of these resource recovery operations, the industrial waste
clearinghouses and exchanges would likely have the most direct bear-
ing on increasing the recovery of hazardous waste. These opera-
•
tions are described in Appendix G.
Table 5-15 presents the nationwide distribution of these types
of recovery operations. A total of 131 solvent reclaimers, eight
mercury reprocessors, seven metal reprocessors, 28 petroleum
re-refiners, eight industrial waste information clearinghouses, and
one industrial waste exchange have been identified. The states with
5-53
-------
TABLE 5-15
DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS HASTE RECOVERY OPERATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES*
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
- Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Solvent reclaimers
1
4
-. 11
1
1
1
2
3
14
5
7
4
2
2
2
9
4
1
10
6
1
a
Mercury reprocessol
2
1
1
1
1
„
Reprocessors (metal
non-mercury
1
1
1
4
Petroleum
rc-ref Iners
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Industrial waste
Information
clearinghouses
1 Remarks
NA
NA
1 Waste
Exchani
i
i
i
•
NA
. one firm ocean
dumps
1
me firm ocean
dumps
1
NA
,NA
NA
NA
5-54
-------
TABLE 5-15 (Concluded)
Stste
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Veroont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
nt reclaimers
&
10
3
4
2
2
3
8
3
5
'
131
i
1
14
X
3
1
1
iH
i.
23
if
as
1
Agent for oeeai
8
7
Leura
refiners
S.
U b
S.
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
trial waste
oroation
ringhouaes
SSS
!"»
1
1
-going Incineration ship
1
28
8
3
1
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
.
*Straus, 1977.'
5-55
-------
the greatest activity in this area are California, with 17 reclaimers
and one industrial vaste clearinghouse, Illinois with 17 reclaimers
and one industrial waste exchange, New Jersey with 13 reclaimers, New
York with 13 reclaimers and one industrial waste clearinghouse, and
Texas with 12 reclaimers and one industrial waste clearinghouse
(Straus, 1977).
5.4.2 Resource Recovery and Recycling Estimates. This section
discusses the quantity of hazardous waste currently being re-
covered and recycled and the potential for increasing the recovery
and recycling of hazardous waste.
5.4.2.1 Quantities Recovered and Recycled. Extremely limited
data are available as to the extent to which resource recovery 'from
hazardous waste currently occurs in the U.S. The available data tend
to be very industry and waste stream specific. As discussed below,
the available data indicate that only a very small portion of the
total hazardous waste stream is subject to any resource recovery,
probably less than 3 to 5 percent of all such wastes. This recovery
rate is similar to, but slightly less than, that for post-consumer
municipal wastes. In recent years between 8 and 10 percent of the
overall post-consumer municipal wastes have been recovered for re-
cycling, with waste paper accounting for over 85 percent, by weight,
of the material recovery (Office of Solid Waste, 1977b). Section
5.4.3 discusses factors that have tended to limit the recycling and
recovery of all waste materials.
5-56
-------
Table 5-16 presents examples of hazardous waste recovery and re-
cycling practices for the manufacturing industries analyzed in the
Industry Studies (1975-1978). Such practices are generally limited
to the recovery of solvents, oil, metals, and energy and to some
recycling of off-specification and rejected products back into the
production process (see Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of
recovery and recycling practices). For these industries, it is
estimated that on the order of 3 to 5 percent of the total hazardous
waste stream is annually subject to resource recovery (see Table
5-10).
Table 5-14 shows, for eight states and one EPA Region, the
percentage of the industrial hazardous waste that is estimated to
have been reclaimed in recent years. These available data indicate
that four percent or less of the hazardous waste is being reclaimed
in five of these states. Only in Massachusetts and EPA Region X is
more than 10 percent of the hazardous waste being reclaimed.
The only specific hazardous waste components for which nation-
wide recovery data are available are waste oil and waste solvents.
Table 5-17 indicates sources of waste oil generation and uses of this
waste oil during 1972. Over 51 percent of the waste oil is estimated
to have been recycled, with about 44 percent used as a fuel and about
8 percent re-refined to lube oil.
Data are not available as to the total quantity of wastes sol-
vent generated annually; however, it is estimated that in 1974
5-57
-------
TABLE 5-16
EXAMPLES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING
PRACTICES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practices-
Textiles (SIC 22)
Dye and chemical containers
Solvent and still bottoms
Recycled
Solvent recovery
Ul
in
oo
Inorganic chemicals
(SIC 281)
Mercury contaminated wastes
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Chrome pigments production
Mercury recovery
Used inorganic chemicals
manufacture
Metal recovery
Pharmaceuticals
(SIC 2831, 2833,
and 2834)
Waste solvents
Heavy metals
Solvent recovery; energy
recovery; production of
low grade fuel
Zinc and chromium recovery
Paint and allied
products (SIC 285)
Discarded products and spills
Recycled in lower grade
products
Waste wash solvents
Solvent recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (continued)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
Organic chemicals, Heavy ends from nitrobenzene
pesticides, and production
explosives (SIC 286, Semisolid wastes from toluene
2879, and 2892) dllsocynate production
Sludge from lead alkyIs
purification
Red water
Energy recovery
Energy recovery
Lead recovery
Recycled to kraft pulp mills
01
vo
Petroleum refining
(SIC 2911)
Crude tank bottoms
API separator sludge
Dissolved air flotation float
Slop oil emulsion solids
Spent lime
FCC catalyst fines
Spent catalyst
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Oil recovery
Recycled to spent acid
neutralization
Aluminum recovery
Metal recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (continued)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
Leather tanning and
finishing
(SIC 3111)
Trimming and shavings
Finishing residues
Used in fertilizer, animal
feed supplements, glue,
leather articles
Solvent recovery
Metal smelting and
refining (SIC 33)
Primary copper dusts
Primary copper slurries
Primary lead sludge
Primary zinc sludge
Primary aluminum potliners
and pot skimmings
Iron and steel mill sludges
Iron and steel mill scales
Iron and steel pickle liquor
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
Cryolite recovery
Iron and tin recovery
Iron recovery
Acid regeneration
Electroplating and
metal finishing
(SIC 3471)
Degreaser sludges
Solvent recovery
-------
TABLE 5-16 (Concluded)
Industry
Hazardous waste stream
Reclamation practicet
Special machinery
manufacturing
(SIC 355 and 357)
Machinery wastes
Electroplating wastes
Heat treating wastes
Solvent recovery; metal
recovery; recovery and/or
reuse of oils
Metal recovery
Solvent recovery, metal
recovery
Electronics components Solvents
manufacturing
(SIC 367) Oils
Metal scraps
Solvent recovery
Recovery and/or reuse metal
recovery
Metal recovery
Storage and primary
batteries
(SIC 3691 and 3692)
Wastewater treatment sludge
Rejected and scrap cells
Metal recovery
Metal recovery
* Industry studies (1975-78)
t On-site and/or off-site reclamation practices
-------
TABLE 5-17
WASTE OIL SOURCES AND USES, 1972*
Quantity
Source and uses (million gallons)
Consumption of lube oils
Automotive 1,100
Industrial and aviation 700
Other (includes government) 400
Total consumption 2,200
Generation of waste lube oils
Automotive
Industrial and aviation
Other (includes government)
Total waste oil generation
600
400
100
1,100
Current uses of waste oil
Fuel 480
Re-refined 90
Road oil and asphalt 200
Fate unknown 340t
Total 1,110
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974
t Includes 30 million gallons of re-refining wastes
5-62
-------
contract solvent reprocessing operations reclaimed about 270,000
metric tons of waste organic solvents and that an unknown amount of
solvents was also recovered on-site by generators (Wapora, Inc.,
1975). Two major categories of solvents are reprocessed. One
category is halogenated solvents, such as me thylane chloride, tri-
chloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which
result primarily from degreasing and metal cleaning operations. The
other category is non-halogenated solvents which includes aliphatic
hydrocarbons, aromatic and naphthenic hydrocarbons, alcohols,
ketones, and esters. These waste solvents are generated by the
chemical process industry, metal cleanings and coatings operations,
industrial painting operations, printing operations, solvent manu-
facture and distribution, and paint manufacture (Wapora, Inc., 1975).
5.4.2.2 Potential for Recovery and Recycling of Hazardous
Wastes. This section discusses the potential for increased resource
recovery and recycling of hazardous waste. Any evaluation of the
potential recoverability of hazardous waste is complicated by the
diverse nature of both the waste itself and the processes for
recovering or for recycling the waste material. Because of this
extreme diversity, each waste stream must be considered separately
within each industry, and often on a plant-by-plant basis, in order
to obtain an accurate picture of the recovery or recycling potential
for that type of waste. In addition, the processes required for
recovery or recycling must also be considered to determine their
5-63
-------
economic viability. The following examples are presented to illus-
trate the potential for increased recovery and recycling. Appendix F
presents several other examples of specific waste streams that have a
potential to be recoverable.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1976) examined the potential for trans-
ferring selected wastes from generators to other facilities that
could use the waste as a feedstock.* Individual hazardous waste
streams identified as having a relatively high potential for recovery
or recycling are those which contain: solvents, alkalies, concentra-
ted acids, catalysts, oils, combustibles, and high concentrations of
recoverable metals. Based upon these potentially recoverable consti-
tuents, Table 5-18 presents estimates of the types and quantities of
selected hazardous wastes that might have a potential for being
recovered or recycled. It should be noted that the quantities in
Table 5-18 are meant only as an order-of-magnitude estimate; the
listed wastes were selected by Arthur D. Little, Inc. based solely
upon the properties previously described, without regard to the eco-
nomic or technical feasibility of their recovery; the quantities
represent the estimated total amount of such wastes generated, not
necessarily the amount that could realistically be expected to be
recovered or recycled. The listed wastes represent about 25 percent
of the hazardous waste stream from the industries included in the
Industry Studies and about 3 percent of the total solid waste stream
*The hazardous wastes examined were those identified in the
Industry Studies (1975-1978).
5-64
-------
TABLE 5-18
ESTIMATED MAGNITUDE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SELECTED INDUSTRIES THAT
MAY BE POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE OR RECYCLABLE*
Industry
Waste
Potential value
for recovery or
recycling
Quantity as
generated (metric
tons/year)
Pharmaceuticals
(SIC 283)
Paint and allied
products
(SIC 2851)
Organic chemicals
pesticides,
explosives (SIC
286, 2879, & 2892)
Petroleum refining
(SIC 2911)
Leather tanning
and finishing
(SIC 3111)
Halogenated solvents,
tars, still bottoms,
carbon filter aid
Spoiled paint or
lacquer batches and
wash solvents
Chlorinated hydrocarbon
liquid heavy ends
Other still bottoms
Coke fines
FCC catalyst
fines
Sludges and trimmings
Degreasing solvents;
cleaning or paint
solvents; fuel
Solvent recovery,
upgrading
Degreasing solvents
Fuel
Fuel
Catalyst recovery
Leather composites
160,000
14,000
247,000
1,600,000
13,000
117,000
12,000
-------
TABLE 5-18 (Concluded)
Industry
Waste
Potential value
for recovery or
recycling
Quantity as
generated (metric
tons/year)
01
Primary metals
(SIC 331)
Electroplating
(SIC 3471)
Special machinery
manufacturing
(SIC 355 & 357)
Primary batteries
(SIC 3692)
Total
Still pickle liquor
Degreaser sludges
6% sulfuric acid with
metals
Solvent recovery
Solvents, metals, oils, Recovery and reclamation
acids, and alkalis
Reject cells
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Metal recovery (17-70%
Zn, Hg, Pb, Cd)
Metal recovery (40% Cr)
3,500,000
105,000
73,000
1,200
25
5,800,000
Modified from Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976.
-------
from these industries (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976). It should also
be noted that an unknown portion of these wastes is currently being
recovered (see Appendix D).
Table 5-19 shows, for selected industrial processes in SIC Code
28 and selected organic chemical wastes from these processes, poten-
tial uses to which the wastes might be recycled. Again any such use
would be very dependent upon technical, economic, and environmental
considerations (Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976).
Reynolds, Smith and Hills (1977) examined the potential for
energy recovery from selected wastes from eight industries. The
industries were chosen based upon the following criteria: heating
value of their waste, annual volume of hazardous waste generated,
relative toxicity of hazardous components, and ability to use
o
recovered energy. Table 5-20 summarizes the industries selected and
the potentially hazardous waste streams studied. Table 5-21 shows
the total quantity of process related wastes (hazardous and non-
hazardous) from each industry, the total' quantity of hazardous
process waste included in the study, the estimated average heating
value of the waste streams studied, the maximum energy estimated to
be annually recoverable from the waste streams studied, and the esti-
mated annual fuel savings based upon this maximum energy recovery.
It should be noted that in determining the maximum recoverable
energy, it was assumed that the entire waste stream would be incin-
erated. Of the waste streams studied, those of the paints and
5-67
-------
TABLE 5-19
GENERATION AND POTENTIAL USE OF ORGANIC CHEMICAL WASTES*
Waatea Generated
Potential Dies
alb
co
-------
TABLE 5-20
INDUSTRIES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE TYPES STUDIED
FOR ENERGY RECOVERY POTENTIAL*
Industry
Types of hazardous wastes
considered
Organic chemicals
SIC 286
Distillation column bottom sludges,
evaporator, residues, filter
residues
Plastics
SIC 282
Pharmac euticaIs
SIC 283
Petroleum refining
SIC 291
Tires and inner tubes
SIC 301
Fabricated rubber products
SIC 306
Paints and allied coatings
SIC 285
Solvent reclaiming
Distillation column bottoms
Waste solvents (halogenated and
non-halogenated, organic chemical
residues, contaminated inerts
Tank bottoms, API separator sludges,
DAP sludges, slop oil emissions
Floor sweepings, air pollution
equipment dust
Air pollution equipment dust, floor
sweepings
Solvent recovery still bottoms,
waste solvents
Distillation column bottoms
^Reynolds, Smith and Hills, 1977.
5-69
-------
TABLE 5-21
ESTIMATED ANNUAL HASTE QUANTITIES AND TOTAL RECOVERABLE ENERGY*
Industry
(SIC code)
Organic Chemicals
(286)
Plastics (282)
Petroleum Refining
(291)
Tires & Inner
Tubes (301)
in Fabricated Rubber
^ Products (306)
O (Dry Process Only)
Paints & Allied
Coatings (285)
Solvent Reclaiming
(No SIC Code)
Pharmaceuticals
(283)
Total process
related wastes
(103 metric
tons) (1977)t
Wet
109004=
2335
1504
236
210
450
72
1910S
Total hazardous
wastes considered
(103 metric tons)
Wet
3430
1
758
223
210
14
72
66
Average
value**
KCal/Kg
3900
1
6010
7220
7410
8300
6940
6180
heating
Btu/lb
7040
11
10820
13000
13340
14940
12SOO
11120
Maximum total
recoverable
energy (1977)
KCalxlO12 BtuxlO12
8.05 31.9
11 «
2.73 10.8
0.97 3.8
0.93 3.7
0.11 0.44
0.30 1.20
0.25 1.0
Annual fuel
savings (103
equivalent
barrels of oil)
6700
1
2275
808
778
88
253
204
* Reynolds, Smith and Hills, 1977
t Includes hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
+ This Includes those streams which are diluted for hydraulic transport for deep well Injection or lagoonlng.
Practically all wastes streams (ca.98Z) are dry as discharged from the process.
§ This contains large Quantities of mycelllum which are non-hazardous.
1 Not deternlnable
** For purpose of comparison, bituminous coal has a higher heating value of approximately 6,200 KCal/kg (12,000 Btu/lb)
-------
allied coatings industry (SIC 283) had the highest estimated heating
value—8,300 KCal/kg (14,940 Btu/lb)—and those of the organic chemi-
cals industry (SIC 286) had the lowest estimated heating value—
3,900 KCal/kg (7,040 Btu/lb). These heating values can be compared
with an approximate higher heating value of 6,700 KCal/kg (12,000
Btu/lb) for bituminous coal.
The Reynolds, Smith and Hills study found that the organic
chemicals, plastic, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, paint, and
solvent reclaiming industries have considerable potential for
incineration with heat recovery. The study found that the tire and
fabricated rubber industries do not have a high potential due to the
fact that the hazardous waste from these industries consists
primarily of floor sweepings with a large ash content.
5.4.3 Constraints to Resource Conservation and Recovery. There
are several basic factors that have tended to limit the application
of resource conservation and recovery measures to waste in general
and to hazardous waste in particular. These factors include:
national policies favoring the use of virgin materials, economics,
technological considerations, and institutional constraints.
The Federal government has historically played a major role in
stimulating natural resource development. Special tax laws relating
to mining and forestry and Federal subsidies for raw materials
exploration, research, and development all have favored virgin raw
5-71
-------
materials and encouraged a materials-intensive economy. In addition,
a number of laws and agency policies have tended to discriminate
against recovered or recycled materials and waste reduction measures
(Office of Solid Waste, 1977b). Similarly, most state laws have
either tended to favor the use of virgin materials or not to have
encouraged the recovery and recycling of waste materials.
Economic factors affecting resource recovery and recycling
include both the cost of recovery and the cost of the transportation
required to bring the waste where needed, as well as the relation-
ship of recovery costs to disposal costs and to costs of virgin
materials. As indicated above, tax laws and subsidy policies have
tended to favor the use of virgin materials. Furthermore, due to the
nature of most waste, recovery costs have tended to be high compared
both to disposal costs under existing practices and to virgin
material costs, thus also favoring the use of virgin materials (see
Appendix F). Historically, environmental costs from inadequate
hazardous waste disposal practices have tended to be borne by society
in general or by third parties rather than by the waste generators
whose disposal practices have caused damages; as a result, such costs
have not generally been included in the economic decision process.
Furthermore, the very limited data on the location and quantities of
wastes available for recycling and on the specific characteristics
of the diverse waste materials have tended to limit markets for waste
recycling (Office of Solid Waste, 1977b; Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1976; Sittig, 1975).
5-72
-------
Development of technologies for the recovery and for the reuse
or recycling of waste materials have tended to lag behind the
development of technologies for utilizing virgin materials due to the
factors discussed above. Technologies for recovering and reusing
many waste materials are still in a conceptual stage or have not been
commerically demonstrated (Versar, Inc., 1977; Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1976; Sittig, 1975).
Institution factors include the general lack of industrial,
institutional, and public acceptance or encouragement of resource
recovery practices. For example, some generators hesitate to release
waste to others for recycling purposes for fear either of possible
injury to their reputation for quality or of legal liability for
incidents associated with the transfer (Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1976). Federal agency policies and standards have also tended to
discriminate against the use of recycled materials (Office of Solid
Waste, 1977b). There have also been few formalized programs by
industry to encourage resource recovery, especially with regard to
potentially hazardous waste. The National Ash Association, for
example, has a formalized program and has estimated that ash re-
cycling has risen to 20 percent from 12.3 percent in a recent 10-year
period (National Ash Association, 1977).
5-73
-------
6.0 QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED AND CONTROLLED
This chapter presents estimates of the quantities of hazardous
waste currently generated by both manufacturing and non-manufactur-
ing sectors, estimates of hazardous waste generation in 1980 and
1984, discussions of the magnitude of hazardous spills, and a discus-
sion of the amount of wastes currently under various aspects of state
control.
6.1 Current Hazardous Waste Generation
Estimation of the amount of hazardous wastes which is currently
generated in the United States is complicated by a lack of comprehen-
sive data. Data which are available are usually based on surveys
performed by many different groups with difference objectives who
consequently used varying definitions for hazardous wastes.
6.1.1 Manufacturing Industries. For the purpose of estimating
hazardous waste generation by the manufacturing industries at the
national level, data from the nine most consistent sources were used
to calculate generation factors for industry groups categorized by
the 2-digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes 20, 22-39.
The sources used represented data from eight states and one EPA
region:
• Illinois (Personal communication, S. Miller, Ohio Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977)
Kansas (State of Kansas, 1977)
Maryland (State of Maryland, 1977 and 1977a)
Massachusetts (Fennelly, et al., 1976)
Minnesota (Battelle, Pacific Northwest, 1977)
Mississippi (State of Mississippi, 1975)
6-1
-------
• Texas (Personal communication, J. Carmichael, Texas
Division of Solid Waste Management, 1977)
• Washington (State of Washington, 1974)
• EPA Region X (Stradley, et al., 1975)
The generation factors were derived based on the assumption that
the ratio of the amount of hazardous wastes generated by an industry
to the number of employees in that industry is approximately constant
among all establishments in each industry (as grouped at the 2-digit
SIC code level). The methodology used is presented in Appendix H,
along with a description of each data source and a discussion of the
assumptions and limitations. As discussed in Appendix H, inaccura-
cies may have resulted from inconsistencies in data sources, possible
biases in the coverage of industries, errors introduced in the state
surveys, over-generalization of industry groups, and from variations
in actual hazardous waste generation per employee within industry
groups. Nevertheless, it is felt that the computed generation fac-
tors represent the best presently available method of estimating the
total quantities of hazardous wastes generated by manufacturing
industries in the U.S. The generation factors were used with U.S.
census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977) to estimate the
amounts of hazardous wastes generated by each industry in each
EPA Region. Table 6-1 summarizes the estimates by SIC code.
Based on these estimates, the manufacturing industries generated
approximately 47.5 million metric tons of hazardous wastes during
1975. Approximately 60 percent of this, or about 28.7 million metric
tons, was generated by industries in SIC code 28 (Chemicals and
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY EPA REGION — 1975*
(1000 metric tons per year)
CO
Standard Industrial Classification
20 Food and kindred products
22 Textile oil! products
23 Apparel and other textile products
24 Limber and wood producta
25 Furniture and fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing and publishing
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum and coal produces
30 Rubber and misc. plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay and glass products
33 Primary metal Industries
34 Fabricated metal products
35 Machinery, except electrical
36 Electric and electronic equipment
37 Tranaportatlan equipment
38 Instruments and related products
39 Misc. manufacturing Industries
TOTAL1'
Percent of Total
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION
I
10
10
7.0
4.0
9.5
290
9.0
1.060
25
20
130
65
140
140
370
20
65
10
40
2.440
5
II
25
10
30
3.0
20
350
20
5.290
95
• 25
95
160
290
170
• 4SO
30
55
15
55
7.190
15
III
30
15
20
7.0
25
290
15
3,600
as
20
70
210
870
180
400
20
60
5.5
20
5,940
13
IV
45
100
40
20
75
530
15
5.920
50
35
90
• 230
350
180
420
25
80
4.0
35
8.240 .
17
V
70
3.5
10
10
50
760
30
5,770
160
75
120
350
1.520
700
1,830
55
350
IS
60
11,900
25
VI
30
2.5
10
8.0
15
200
8.0
3,270
330
15
35
120
190
150
350
10
60
2.0
15
4", 810
10
VII
25
0.5
4.0
2.5
7.5
120
8.5
1,230
45
10
85
60
110
85
290
9.0
60
2.0
10
2,170
5
VIII
9.0
<0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
10
3.0
170
30
2.0
8.5
35
75
20
80
1.5
10
1.5
6.0
470
1
IX
35
2.0
10
8.5
25
180
10
1.880
110
20
10
130
200
160
400
25
150
8.0
20
3,380
7
X
15
0.5
1.0
20
2.5
130
2.5
460
20
2.0
1.5
30
95
25
60
1.0
45
1.5
5.0
920
2
Total
290
140
130
80
240
2,870
130
28,700
950
220
640
1.390
3.830
1.800
4,650
200
940
65
270
47,500
of Total
0.5
0.5
0.5
<0.5
0.5
6
0.5
60
2
0.5
1.5
3
8
4
10
0.5
2
<0.5
0.5
Ranking
10
15
16
18
12
4
17
1
7
13
9
6
3
5
2
14
8
19
11
*Tbese numbers are estimated based upon the generation factors as derived in Appendix H.
^Totals may not balance due to rounding of numbers.
-------
Allied Products). The next largest generators were industries in SIC
codes 35 (Machinery, except Electrical), 33 (Primary Metal Indus-
tries), and 26 (Paper and Allied Products), with about ten, eight,
and six percent of the total U.S. generation, respectively.
Also indicated in Table 6-1, about 25 percent of the wastes are
generated in the six north-central states of EPA Region V, while the
'eight southeastern states of EPA Region IV account for about 17 per-
cent. Application of the generation factors to individual state
employment indicates that seven states account for approximately half
of the total U.S. generation. These states are in alphabetical
order:* California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania, and Texas. Following the national pattern, most (46 to 83
percent) of the hazardous wastes generated in these five states are
produced in SIC code 28, with industries in SIC codes 35 and 33 rank-
ing either second or third. These three industry groups account for
between 73 and 90 percent of the hazardous wastes" generated in each
of the five states.
6.1.2 Other Potentially Hazardous Wastes. In addition to the
manufacturing industries, there are numerous other sources generating
potentially hazardous waste. This section discusses various
non-manufacturing waste categories that have been identified by
previous studies as containing potentially hazardous waste and
*Since the generation factor approach relies to a large extent on
averaging over large areas, its accuracy decreases when applied to
smaller areas such as states. Therefore, individual estimates of
waste generation are not presented on a state-by-state basis.
6-4
-------
presents Che best available estimates on the quantity of potentially
hazardous waste generated within these waste categories.
It should be recognized that there is a wide variation in the
degree of hazard associated with the waste categories discussed in
this section and that this variation exists both among and within the
different waste categories. Data are incomplete with regard to both
the amount of waste generated within specific categories and the
protion of waste within each specific category that is associated
with any particular degree of hazard. It is not meant to be implied
that all the waste generated within each category discussed would be
identified as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C, nor even that all
categories would contain any waste identified as hazardous under
Subtitle C.
Categories of potentially hazardous waste from non-manufacturing
sources include non-industrial waste oils, hospital wastes,
agricultural wastes, household wastes, military wastes, fly ash, oil
well brines and muds, cement kiln dusts, dredge spoils, and phosphate
slimes. Additionally, administrative and other governmental agencies
often engage in activities such as research and demonstration proj-
ects and pest control, which produce significant amounts of hazardous
wastes.
Table 6-2 and the followng discussion present estimates of the
quantities of waste generated within each of the above categories
and, to the extent practical, estimates of the portion of the waste
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERATION OF NON-MANUFACTURING WASTES
IDENTIFIED AS INCLUDING POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE
Waste
Stream/Source
Volume*
(million metric tons)
Reference
Waste oils
Service stations
Hospitals
Pesticide containers
Households
U.S. Armed Forces
Coal ash - total
Fly ash
Bottom ash
Boiler slag
Oil brines
Drilling muds
Cement kiln dust
Dredge spoils
Corps of Engineers
Other
Phosphate slimes
Tailings and
beneficiatlon
Phosphoric acid
production
Administrative/government
2.5
1.3
.05t
1-2 +
.02 +
10.5 +
i
Not Avaiable
54
38
12
4
1.9
2.3
13
330-420
210
82
20-27
Not Available
Based on U.S. EPA, 1974
and U.S. D.O.C., 1977c
Battelle Columbus Labs,
1978
Battelle Columbus Labs,
1978;
Based on Singer et al.,
1973; and Kiefer, 1974
Trask, 1977
Based on person communica-
tion, Morris, OSW, 1977 and
U.S. D.O.C., 1977b.
Faber, 1976
OSWMP, 1977
Environmental Research Co.,
1978
Personal communication,
Portalnd Cement Aasoc., 1978
and U.S. EPA, 1973
Council of Environmental
Quality, 1975
American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1977
Personal communication,Palm,
G. F. Palm Assoc., 1978
Environmental Quality
Systems, 1976; and U.S.
EPA, 1974a
*Except as noted, it Is not yet known how much, if any, of the total quantity of
each waste generated may in fact be hazardous vaste. See text.
tlncludes only that portion of total waste estimated to be hazardous.
6-6
-------
within each category that is potentially hazardous. It should be
recognized, however, that the portion of waste actually meeting the
definition of hazardous waste under Subtitle C may be significantly
different.
The primary sources of non-industrial waste oils are from the
transportation industry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1974) estimates indicate that about 56 percent of the automotive and
aviation oils sold in 1972 were not consumed and hence became waste
oils. Applying this factor to the total U.S. 1975 automotive and
aviation oil sales (1.2 million gallons - U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1977c) yields an estimated waste oil generation of 2.5 million
metric tons per year. This is approximately twice the Battelle
Columbus Laboratories (1978) estimate of 1.3 million metric tons from
service stations alone.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978) estimates the annual 1977
hazardous waste generation from hospitals as 58,000 metric tons. If
the rapidly increasing volumes of disposable items are included, this
number could reach 1 to 2 million metric tons (based on data from
Singer et al., 1973; Kiefer, 1974).
The primary hazardous wastes associated with agricultural activ-
ities are used pesticide containers which still contain residual
amounts of pesticides. Based on information compiled by Trask
(1977), approximately 98 million pesticide containers (mostly bags)
were used in 1971 by 2.5 million farmers. The total container weight
6-7
-------
(empty) was estimated at 20,000 metric tons. Additionally, it was
estimated that 39 percent of the farmers using pesticides hired cus-
tom application services, and only 5 percent rinsed their containers.
Other estimates (Energy Resources Co., 1978) are that 25 to 40 mil-
lion small containers (made of glass, plastic, or metal) and 250,000
to 500,000 large containers (30 to 50 gallon steel drums) are used
annually.
Based on an estimated hazardous waste generation of 7.5 pounds
per/household per year (Personal communication, M. Morris, Office of
Solid Waste, 1977) and 1975 Census data (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1977b), hazardous waste generation by individual households could
reach 10.5 million metric tons per year. This figure may include
some of the waste automotive oils discussed above, plus various
cleaning fluids, caustics, pesticides, and miscellaneous chemicals.
The amounts of hazardous wastes generated by the U.S. Armed
Forces is unknown. However, the armed forces own and operate many of
their own supply and maintenance facilities, including munitions
plants, chemical production facilities, metal plating shops, and
foundries. The military services maintain large stockpiles of muni-
tions which must be periodically replaced due to deterioration.
Additionally, the military services store large quantities of unused
and retrograde chemicals, primarily pesticides, which no longer have
valid registration for use or have deteriorated. It can therefore be
expected that the amounts of hazardous wastes generated or stored by
6-8
-------
Che military are large and may approach the amounts produced by all
the manufacturing industries combined. Most of the services are
beginning to survey their hazardous waste generation as of the fall
of 1978.
Estimates of the 1975 U.S. coal ash production are on the order
of 38 million metric tons of fly ash, 12 million metric tons of bot-
tom ash, and 4.2 million metric tons of boiler slag (Faber, 1976). Of
these amounts, about 8.9 million metric tons (16.3 percent) was uti-
lized in secondary products, primarily in the cement and concrete,
and in the manufacture of lightweight aggregates (Faber, 1976). The
inclusion of many of the potentially toxic trace elements and other
constituents (e.g., complex organic compounds) originally contained
in the coal may result in the designation of at least some ash as
hazardous.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers either conducted or contracted
for the dredging of between 310 and 390 million cubic yards (330 to
420 million metric tons) of bottom materials per year during the
period 1970 through 1975 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1975).
Of this, at least 24.8 million cubic yards (29 million metric tons)
was considered contaminated (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977). An
additional estimated 200 million cubic yards (210 million metric
tons) are dredged annually by port authorities, municipalities, and
other government agencies (i.e., U.S. Navy and Coast Guard) (American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1977).
6-9
-------
Industry sources estimate that 120 million metric tons of
overburden and 82 million metric tons of tailings, clay, and mud ball
slimes (excluding overburden) are generated each year from phosphate
mining and beneficiation operations in Florida (the source of 78
percent of the phosphate rock mined in the U.S.) (Personal
communication, 6. Palm, Gordon F. Palm and Associates, 1978). In
addition, estimates of the annual gypsum slime waste generation from
phosphoric acid production range from 20 million metric tons per year
(Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., 1976) to about 27 million
metric tons per year (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a).
These wastes are generally radioactive, and contain fluorine and
trace contaminants. The gypsum slimes from acid production also
exhibit very low pH.
The amounts of hazardous wastes generated by non-military gov-
ernment agencies are not known. Typical potentially hazardous wastes
generated by such agencies include unused pesticides, empty pesticide
containers, waste oils and solvents, paint sludges, petroleum wastes,
laboratory wastes, expired and unusable medicines, pathological and
infectious wastes, and other miscellaneous chemical wastes. Bourns
et al. (1978) reported that non-military Federal agencies in Region
IX generate at least 5,000 metric tons/year (including 3,600 metric
tons of drilling muds), stating that the "quantities estimated prob-
ably are considerably less than those actually generated".
The wastes discussed in this section do not represent all of the
potentially hazardous non-manufacturing wastes generated in this
6-10
-------
country. Other sources include mining operations; construction com-
panies; dry cleaning plants; testing, research, and development labor-
atories; cleaning, disinfecting, and exterminating services;
retailers and wholesalers of drugs, chemicals, paints, solvents, and
other products; marinas; and others. Although data on generation
from these sources are sparse, it can be concluded that the total
amounts of potentially hazardous wastes from non-manufacturing
industries are very large (on the order of several hundred million
tons) and could greatly exceed the 50 million metric tons attributed
to the manufacturing industries.
6.2 Hazardous Waste Generators
U.S. Census data indicate that there were 313,000 establishments
engaged in the manufacturing industries in 1972 (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1976). SIC codes 27 (Printing and Publishing) and 35
(Machinery, except Electrical) contained the largest number of
establishments with about 40,000 each. SIC codes 24 (Lumber and Wood
Products) and 34 (Fabricated Metal Products.) accounted for 34,000 and
30,000 of the establishments, respectively. SIC code 28 (Chemicals
and Allied Products), the largest generators, ranked tenth in the
number of establishments with 11,000.
Figure 6-1 shows the cumulative size distribution of hazardous
waste genrators in the manufacturing industries. The horizontal axis
represents the annual waste generation of a single establishment, and
the vertical axis represents the percentage of establishments which
generate more than that value. Figure 6-2 shows the cumulative
6-11
-------
,
I I
I H-1
I N>
,*- 70|
81
M
| 60|
a
«_5Ql
ol 40 1
S[~~~
*l Snl
1 30|
20|
ra
,
V
V
r
*^,_
^
* Percent
annual §
—
o'f all ma
eneratlon
• i
J
nufacturii
amount gj
ig establishments exceeding
Lven on horizontal axis.
200
300
|400|
1500
! 600
700
800
| 900
110001
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PER ESTABLISHMENT]
| (IIETRIC TONS/YR))
"I
FIGURE 6-1
CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS 1975
-------
15
ICA
M
1001
_9PJ
LJOJ
7Q\
~5Q|
740|
!Zlg|
r?o|
101
I Pi
^'Percent of total hazardous wastes generated by all manufacturing establishments
exceeding annual generation amount given on horizontal axis.
'61
100
200
300
400
500
600
|700] |800 J |9pO
lOOOj
|HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PER ESTABLISHMENT|
[(METRIC TONS/YR)j
FIGURE 6-2
CUMULATIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISTRIBUTION 1975
-------
percentage of the total amount of hazardous wastes generated as
function of firm size (i.e., the fraction of total wastes generated
by all establishments exceeding a particular annual generation
value). These figures are plots of the output of the cycling option
of the phasing program as described in Appendix I. They were based
on the generation factors developed in Appendix H and on the U.S.
manufacturing establishment size distribution data published by the
U.S. Department of Commerce (1976 and 1977). Examination of the two
figures reveals that although less than three percent of the
manufacturing establishments generate more than 1,000 metric tons of
hazardous wastes per year, those establishments account for 78
percent of the total hazardous manufacturing wastes generated in the
U.S. Similarly, the 25 percent of the establishments which generate
more than 25 metric tons per year are responsible for about 98
percent of the total hazardous wastes. It should be noted that these
estimates are subject to several important assumptions, the implica-
tions of which are discussed in Appendices H and I. Additionally,
they do not account for the relative hazardousness of different waste
streams.
6.3 Estimation of Future Hazardous Waste Generation
1980 has been selected as the base year, and 1984 as the target
year for estimating the full impacts of implementation of the Sub-
title C regulations. Estimates of the rate of increase of hazardous
waste generation were developed using data presented in the Industry
6-14
-------
Studies (1975-1978) discussed in Chapter 5.* The total increase in
hazardous waste generation projected by these studies between 1974
and 1983 is 42 percent, or about 3.6 percent per year. Much of this
increase is attributed primarily to increased sludge volumes result-
ing from the more effective air and water pollution equipment being
brought on line in response to recent environmental legislation.
Many other factors also affect future hazardous waste generation, but
there are no reliable means of estimating their effects. These fac-
tors include changes in manufacturing processes, increased use of
coal and synthetic fuels, and growth in manufacturing industries in
general. Although different industries will be affected to different
degrees', the average rate of 3.6 percent per year has been applied to
all SIC groups in the absence of more complete data. The resulting
estimated annual hazardous waste generation from manufacturing indus-
tries is about 57 million metric tons in 1980 and 65 million metric
tons in 1984.
6.4 Hazardous Spills •
Spills of hazardous materials need to be handled as hazardous
wastes regardless of whether the spilled material was originally a
*The Industry Studies (1975-1978) are a set of studies of hazardous
waste generation in 13 major industrial segments. They were per-
formed by individual contractors using their own definitions for
hazardous wastes. As a result of the differences in definitions and
the incomplete coverage of potential waste sources, these studies
were not used in the development of the hazardous waste generation
factors. However, it was assumed that the rate of increase of haz-
ardous waste generation projected by the studies was applicable to
all hazardous manufacturing wastes as estimated using the generation
factor approach.
6—15
-------
waste or a valued product. In addition to the volume of material
spilled, a much larger volume of soil, water, and/or sorbent or other
cleanup material often also becomes contaminated. In most cases,
such contaminated materials must also be considered and handled as
hazardous wastes.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the responsiblity for documentation
of, and dealing with, hazardous spills is presently divided between
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All releases of hazardous
materials (as defined in 49 CFR 172) during the course of transporta-
tion must be reported to DOT's Hazardous Material Regulation Board.
All discharges of hazardous quantities of oil or hazardous substances
(as defined in 40 CFR 116 and 118) to navigable wastes must be
reported to the National or Regional Response Centers or to regional
offices of either EPA or USCG. Spills of materials not meeting the
definitions cited above, and spills which are not related to trans-
portation and which do not threaten the broadly interpreted "naviga-
ble waters" are not presently subject to reporting requirements.
Table 6-3 presents statistics on the spill incidents reported to
EPA during the one year period from February 1977 to February 1978.
Since the regulations listing hazardous wastes subject to reporting
requirements (40 CFR 116) were not promulgated until March 1978, the
non-oil wastes listed in the table were reported voluntarily. Of the
75 cases presented, 39 are either exclusively oil spills or are oil
6-16
-------
TABLE 6-3
EPA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SPILL FILE SUMMARY
(FEBRUARY 1977 - FEBRUARY 1978)*
wee ol
upoctad
Oeeurranca
} Fib 1977
3 Fib 1977
1 Fib 1977
3 Fib 1977
21 Mir 197!
21 lir 1971
21 «ar 197)
21 Bar 1977
29 KH 197)
30 Mir 197)
31 (Ur 197)
31 nr 197)
31 Mar 191)
1 Apr 1977
1 apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 197)
11 Apr 1977
11 Apr 1977
22 Apr 197)
19 Apt 1977
10 Mar 1977
13 B»7 1977
13 Mar 1977
19 IB? 1977
19 Mar 1977
19 Kay 1977
3 Jon 1977
3 Jim 1977
6 Jim 1977
10 Jin 1977
24 Jim 1977
26 JIB 1977
21 Jim 1977
1 Jill 1977
3 Jul 1977
2 oil
Oil
ou
Oil
ou
Sadlm aolflda
Cruda oil
Crudl oil
Anbrdroua uamu
Ethyl banini
n 6 oil
! atari, J Marl. 1.3.
dlnxollU, Mluaai.
xrlcna, aaEbylana
ehlarlda. hipciai. lia-
tmjl wiuu. Kweai,
•IHril tplrlei
Cndi oil
Oil ud chnluli
Oil "~* oollutlatl
lUpclu
Oil
n 6011
ra
Cnidi oil
OIUOCICT SpllUd
10,000 lloiii
2,000 Billons
114.000 gallon.
M6.000 MUon.
32.000 wUoii
131.100 Mllomt
39.000.000 « fct
210.000 (lUou
600.000 ullnu
ZS.ODO cani iludgi
3 5 com* (1.7 JO gll)
21.000 MllOU
20.510 (illou
OataM
20,000 iillnu
2,500 dnm
«2,000 flUou
2,000 lallani
2,000 lllloni
Onknon
Uoknovn
Uoknmn
3.1 too.
6,400-10.300 fallaaa
16.800 ullou
15.000 lllloni
Dakaoua
1,000 jiillou
Unknown
16,600 (lllou
9-10,000 vlloni oU
24-30.000 6>Uam
ehulcill
173.000 (.lloni
Cn»no«n
3,000 llllani
148.000-210.000 filloni
163 lallau
12.600 |>llou
UaEiruiy Spill
Uatimy
viunnjt
Uicirvir
WaEiruiy
UaEinnir
UiEinny
Vatiruir
Air
Vitinnjr
Uplmd
Upland
UEirvar
VaEinnr
Watinar
Alv
Ulcaiva;
tAiKirvay •
Vaunnr
WiEarvay
Uatlivir
Ulttrvar
•Ihunn; .
Itttiniir
UAanm
Uilaad
Uktanir.
HaEinny and air
Vatinny and air
VaEiniT
Uitarmj
UaEinar
VaEinaw
Oacanajr
Wacino;
UiEirvay
ViEirvaw
Upland
UaurMT
TTPI of Spill
Baria wnc aground
BeiElng pilot
6lrii iplll
Tanlar iplll
TuUr iplll
Tlnkir Mill
Caa wall blawuE
noldlns eiok • aiparator avitia
Lifaon onrllow
Sauaci traaEoaat dliehlria
Illlraad apUl
Flpallni braik
Flpallna braak
Illlraad iplll
lallraad aplll
-
Flpallni bnik
Barra iplll
Snip aplU
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
(tepanr apUl
Canpanr apUl
ripallaa braak
lallroad ipUl
Unknown
larta iplll
Oiinleal eonpiny dliclurai
Flpallni bruk
Scorata tank ipUl
Uioon aplll
Coapany aplll
larta aplll
Barja iplll
Canpin7 aplll
Flpillni iplll
Gaotraphlc Ueatlon
Partb Anbar. *U
waihlnjton, B.C.
Suzxirdi bay, HA
•Urcua Book. PA
Atlantic Ocaan
CuumUll Bay. Fl
laulilana/Taxaa
Oriean. Ohio
Oavtp. NT
LoalivUla, ST
tocUnfhu, 1C
Vincuri Blvir. CO
Bartln Couadr. n
locklojhaa. 1C
SinCoid, KC
Dllmar, HO
WnlEi Oak, TZ
nuidilpbla, PA
San Pranclaeo, CA
Capo San Martin, CO
Dal. Say. U
la; UUI, FL
Sav Martlni»llli. VA
Vmtiiri CiuatT, CA
Grant Couaty. OK
•Ullllllppl
aaltloota, NO
Hlaalaalppl Unr
Unolr. IK
Croekatt. IT
lirninvUli. BC
Ualrcoa, uv
Akron. OB
Torktan, TA
Clleoilav, LA
Brookwooa, AL
Stuart. 01
6-17
-------
TABLE 6-3 (Concluded)
fata of
lepartad
Occur raaca
6 Jul 1977
6 Jul 1977
6 Jul 1977
7 Jul 1977
11 Jul 1977
20 Jul 1977
21 Jul 1977
21 Jul 1977
21 Jul 1977
16 Aut 1977
16 Au| 1977
faterlal Splllad
Acidic ferric chlorlao
Cnidl oil
Oil
Acryllc/ityreae
polyaar aaulaloa
Bydrobraadc acid
HalacUm
Oil
Tricing
Crude oil
Xylaaa
Laeez
aisBialua eulfeta;
piradlchla nibaueae .
•ethyl uetato propa-
Quantity Splllad
100 lalloal
62,000
11,000 ullona
210.000 gallon!
10,000 pnunda
110 lalloai
20,000 aellona
9,000 lalloaa
60,000 aalloai
Ualuuwn
Unkeova
Uplud or
Uacenuy Spill
Uncanny
Waterway
Type of Spill
Coapuy iplll
Pipeline iplll
Upland ud waterway Coapuy iplll
Waterway
Coapuy iplll
GeoBrapbic Lecacloa
Port Waablaiton, WI
Dpihur County, IX
Rainay Pirk, n
Dartooutb. HA
Upland lad waterway Tank truck ipill kockwood, TB
Upland
Uecerway
Uecemy
Wetervey
Waterway
Uecerway
Plue creah
DaturU flood
Ducleir poMr plant epill
Pipeline bruk
It,,, .pill
Railroad epill
Shericaa, VT
Johnecon. PA
Plctaburi, PA
Anahela, CA
Mil. 161, IA
Hovi, HA
cauatic liquid; diaacund
alcohol
22 An| 1977
21 Sap 1977
21 Sip 1977
11 Oct 1977
2 Bo* 1977
4 Bo* 1977
10 low 1977
11 Bo* 1977
1 Dec 1977
7 Dae 1977
9 Dae 1977
11 Die 1977
1 Ju 197B
10 Ju 1971
11 Ju 1971
11 Ju 1971
16 Ju 1971
16 Ju 1971
19 Ju 1971
19 Jm 1971
26 Jm 1971
26 Ju 1971
26 Ju 1971
26 Jn 1971
10 Ju 1971
11 Ju 1971
11 Ju 1971
011
Hathychlor Unduit
endrla
Aaaonlua alcrate
FCB ud oil
Crude oil
alhydroue mala
Aerylaalda
nydrotu paroalda
Acrylonlcrlte
luieaa trichloride,
ethyl acetate. nltroBu
IUI! PCB
Sulfurtrloatte
Geaollaa; n fual oil
Caul Lea
Crude oil
Tetrahydrotaraa
Crude oil
Hechyl echyl kacau.
•catena, cauatlc mdi
Acacaluahyde
Aliened chancel.
HR 2 oil
ulehlonhydrln
Oil
Atryloaltrila. IPO
BE 6 Oil
liquid oiyim
•U.S. an*traaaaaul Protection Aeancy.
tAiaumlai all 9.1 cu ft af |U and 104
tauualRg 1 cm • SOO ealloae.
UakaaaD
Uakaoua
Uacarway
Uaterway
Unknown
Unknown
Oakaoua Upland ud uateney Railroad aplll
Unknown
21.000-126,000 Mllone
1,000 lalloaa
Oakann
5,000-4.000 ullma
ftduiewe
1,000-20,000 ullaai
Unknown
Oakeown
Hi ,000 eallooa
LQ.OOO galloai
12,600 lalloai
100 lallonl/ar
12.000.000 aallona
20,000 |«ll°n.
14,000 lallnai
110,000,000 j.llona
11,000 ullnai
20,000 jallon.
50,000 gallon.
Unknown
Oakaoun
Unknown
mtenay
Wateraay
Uatamay
Upland, waterway •
aad air
Waterway and Ur
Uacarway aad air
waterway
Upland |
Uecarwa, .
Air I
Uacenay
Uacarway ud air
Upland
Uplud
Waterway '
Uacerway
Uacerway
Wicerwey
Coop.ny mill
Coapuy mill
Tank truck mill
Railroad iplll
Tuk truck mill
Railroad epill
Railroad iplll
Company .pill
Pipeline epill
Coapuy iplll
urea epill
Coapuy iplll
Coapuy .pill
Railroad iplll
Tuker epill
Railroad epill
Railroad iplll
Lateon ipill
Upland ud waterway Coepuy Iplll
Upland
Waterway
Air
Waterway
Air and waterway
Railroad mill
Barea ipill
Railroad iplll
Barea aplll
Coapuy opinion ud iplll
Oil aad Special Hiterlala Control Dlvlalon, 1978c.
harrela of coadeaaate produced par (lay aecaoa to the air md the vacer. runecclvely
Ociu City, n>
B. Niaal Batch. PL
Kaeneiav, Ga
PUladeliala, PA
baaai City, HO
Alizudrla, VA
Peaaacelt. tl
t*er|rau, AL
Vuc Vlralala
rrmkfert, R
lo|tn TewaaUp, HI
Du*illa. II
Balclaori, Ml
Long lelaad. NT
BercŁord, RC
Danavllle, HI
Ohrleh>*ille, ni
lau Piulo. Ira.il
Rileceed. AL
Pond Iddy, PA
Palcaaoula. HS
Dreadea. HI
Paint Pleaaut, UV
Galwaicoa, IX
Lara, R
Portmeuth, BU
Moundertlle, u»
for 6 dm
6-18
-------
mixed with other hazardous substances. Although oil-related spills
represent 52 percent of the total for the year, this figure may be
unrepresentative due to the lack of a definition and, therefore, of
specific reporting requirements for hazardous substances during that
period. Data on volumes are presented to give some idea of the
quantities of materials spilled in individual incidents. Calculation
of the total volume of material spilled during the period would be
unrealistic due to the number of estimated ranges that were given and
due to the number of incidents reported where the spill volume was
not even estimated. For comparison purposes, however, the volumes of
reported spills range from 500 gallons to as much as 150 million
gallons, though only two spills exceed 1 million gallons and most
were less than 100 thousand gallons. Most of the reported incidents
involved spills to a body of water; however, it must be kept in mind
that the reporting of upland spills (not directly involving or
threatening U.S. waters) is not mandatory.
Tabl'e 6-4 shows all discharges recorded, by the USCG Pollution
Incident Reporting System (FIRS), primarily oil and hazardous dis-
charges reported to the National Resource Center, or other USGS and
EPA offices, but also includes releases subject to the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act, and other spills reported voluntarily
or collected from other sources. The PIRS file contains only those
discharges into, or which threaten, the waters of the United States.
Assuming a range of densities from six to ten pounds per gallon, the
6-19
-------
TABLE 6-4
TYPES OF DISCHARGES REPORTED FOR 1976 UNDER SECTION 311, PL 92-500*
Crude oil
Fuel oil
Gasoline
Other distillate fuel oil
Solvent
Diesel oil
Asphalt or residual fuel
oil
Animal or vegetable oil
Waste oil
Other oil
Liquid chemical
Other pollutant (sewage,
dredge spoil, chemical
wastes, etc.)
Natural substance
Other material
Unknown material
Total
Number of
incidents
2,667
909
658
251
34
2,063
132
93
1,217
2,636
296
130
94
146 .
1.329
12,655
% of
total
21.1
7.2
5.2
2.0
0.3
16.3
1.0
0.7
9.6
20.8
2.3
1.0
0.7
. 1.2
10.5
100.0
Volume in
gallons
4,990,691
9,780,886
764,168
462,140
95,317
1,100,133
4,982,195
94,513
131,377
724,294
2,110,048
6,468,940
6,468
2,120,386
20,274
33,851,830
% of
total
14.7
28.9
2.3
1.4
0.3
3.2
14.7
0.3
0.4
2.1
6.2
19.1
0.0
6.3
0.1
100.0
*U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, 1977.
6-20
-------
total weight of the spilled materials shown in the table amounts to
90 to 150 thousand metric tons. Table 6-4 includes the 7.5 million
gallon spill of fuel oil by the Argo Merchant, which accounts for 22
percent of the total volume of discharges during the year. Excluding
that single spill the largest category in terms of volume is "other
pollutant", including sewage, dredge spoil, and chemical wastes, with
6.5 million gallons (about 25 percent of the total volume excluding
the Argo Merchant spill). Much of the volume of spills such as that
reported in this table cannot be recovered and therefore could not be
placed in RCRA-approved disposal facilities. However, as discussed
above, in the cases in which removal of spills is possible, the
clean-up operations must usually remove a large volume of contami-
nated soil and water in addition to the original volume of spilled
material. This volume would greatly increase the amount of material
requiring disposal in RCRA-approved facilities.
Table 6-5 gives the distribution of spills by source category.
The largest category of spill sources was non-transportation related
facilities other than refineries, bulk storage, and production facil-
ities. These sources were responsible for 29 percent of the total
spill volume and 90 percent of the total non-oil spill volume.
Table 6-6 is included to illustrate the type of commodities
which were named most often in hazardous materials incident reports
as documented by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the period
from January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1975. This list does not imply
6-21
-------
TABLE 6-5
SOURCES OF DISCHARGES REPORTED FOR 1976 UNDER
SECTION 311,"PL 92-500*
Vessels
Dry cargo ships
Dry cargo barges
Tank ships
Tank barges
Combatant vessels
Other vessels
Total
Land vehicles
Sail vehicles
Highway vehicles
Other/unknown vehicles
Total
Non-transportat ion-related
facilities
Onshore refinery
Onshore bulk/storage
Onshore production
Offshore production
facilities
Other facilities
Total
Pipelines
Marine facilities
Onshore/offshore bulk
Cargo transfer
Onshore/offshore fueling
Onshore/offshore nonbulk
Cargo transfer
Other transportation
Related marine facility
Total
Land facilities
Misc. /unknown
Total
Number of
incidents
41
324
623
976
179
1.153
3,296
82
335
47
464
101
365
242
1,358
1.055
3,131
653
321
88
23
128
560
182
4.379
12,655
% of
total
0.3
2.6
4.9
7.7
1.4
9.1
26.0
0.6
2.6
0.4
3.6
0.8
2.9
1.9
10.7
8.3
24.6
5.2
2.5
0.7
0.2
1.0
4.4
1.4
34.6
100.0
Volume in
gallons
,
11,679
24,840
8,930,029
. 1,953,442
26,987
245.013
11,191,990
269 ,440
323,391
- 20.968
613,799
211,614
5,873,932
349 ,053
274,732
9.759.869
16,469,200
4,530,094'
333,712
21,708
15,643
5.787
376,850
442,730
227.167
33,851,830
% of
total
0.0
0.1
26.4
5.8
0.1
0.7
33.1
0.8
1.0
0.1
1.9
0.8
17.4
1.0
0.8
28.8
48.0
13.4
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.3
0.7
100.0
*U.S. Department of transportation, Coast Guard, 1977.
6-22
-------
TABLE 6-6
COMMODITIES NAMED MOST OFTEN IN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTS *
Section 172.5 Commodity
Paint and paint related compounds
Gasoline
Batteries and electrolyte fluid
Compounds, cleaning, liquid (Cor.)
Sulfuric acid
Cement, liquid, n.o.s.
Flammable liquids, n.o.s.
Hydrochloric acid
Corrosive liquids, n.o.s.
Insecticides, liquid (Poison B)
L.P.G.
Poisonous liquids, n.o.s. (Poison B)
Ink
Alcohol, n.o.s.
Acids, liquids, n.o.s.
Caustic soda liquid
Nitric acid
Resid solution
Anhydrous ammonia
Compounds, tree or weed kill (Poison B)
Compounds, cleaning, liquid (FL)
Total
Total of All Reports Received
Number of
Reports
(1971-1975)
6,590
4,243
3,593
2,194
1,081
903
844
825
714
422
395
364
355
337
316
304
265
240
222
215
211
24,633
32,000
Approximate % of
All 32,000 Reports
Received
20%
1%
11
7
34
3
2*5
2%
2*
Us
Us
1
1
1
1
1
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
0 3/4
77
100
*U.S. Department of Transportation,
Materials Transportation
Bureau, 1976
6-23
-------
a ranking of risk or hazard to Che public. For example, most of the
paint spills (comprising 20.5 percent of the total number of reports
recorded) were less than 5 gallon amounts, and most of the battery
acid spills (comprising 11 percent) were less than one quart amounts.
Many of the gasoline spills, however, (comprising 13.5 percent of the
total number of reports recorded) were of 100 gallons or more. This
table is intended to show only which commodities were reported most
often.
6.5 Hazardous Wastes Under State Control
As discussed in Chapter 2, existing state programs to control
hazardous waste range in scope from essentially non-existent to
highly comprehensive. Due to the variability in the degree of con-
trol and the uncertainties in estimating individual state generation,
the amount of hazardous waste presently under state control cannot be
estimated with confidence.
Table 6-7 shows, summarized from Chapter 2, the number of states
with selected legal mechanisms for allowing control of hazardous
wastes. As discussed in Chapter 2, the existence of enabling author-
ity provides the state with the formalized power to control a speci-
fic activity, while standards and regulations provide specific
requirements that are to be met. In most states that do not have
standards or regulations, the enabling authority is exercised on a
case-by-case basis.
Table 6-8 shows the status of state control in the seven states
which are estimated to generate about 50 percent of the potentially
6-24
-------
I-J
TABLE 6-7
SUMMARY - STATE CONTROL OVER HAZARDOUS WASTES
Permit
P* St
Generators!
Transporters
Storer§
Treateri
Disposers§
14
23
25
25
38
7
10
9
9
17
Manifest
P* St
25
25
21
23
25
10
11
7
10
12
Recordkeeping
P* St
23
23
18
22
34
8
12
6
8
15
Reporting
P* St
23
19
17
20
29
9
8
5
6
13
Inspection
P* St
22
18
23
24
39
6
5
5
7
15
*Number of states with provisional authority.
tNumber of states with regulatpry standards.
fControl of generators who store, treat, or dispose hazardous waste on-site.
iApplies to off-site storage, treatment, or disposal.
-------
TABLE 6-8
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL IN LARGE GENERATOR STATES*
State
State Legislation Applicable to:
Generatorst Transporters Storers
Treaters
Disposers
California
Illinois
(S):M,Rp,Rc,I (S):P,M,Rc,I (S):F,H,Rp, (S):P,M,Rp, (S):P,M,Rp,Rc,I
(P):P Re.I ' Re,I
(S):M,RP
(S):M,Rc,Rp (S):M,Rc.Rp (S):P,M,Rp.Rc,I
N>
New Jersey (P):M.Rc,Rp (P):M,Rc
New York
(P):P,M,Rc,Rp,I
(P):P (S):P
(P):Rc,Rp,I
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
(S):P
(P):M
(S):M,Rc,Rp,I
(S):P
(P):M
(S):M,Rc
(P):Rp
(S):P
(P):M
(S):P,M,Rp,
Re, I
-------
hazardous manufacturing wastes in the U.S. The trend is towards
manifest systems in these states, though only three of these seven
states are presently operating such a system under specific
regulation. Additionally, two of these states have essentially no
control over activities other than disposal, and another has only
enabling authority with no specific standards.
It should be emphasized that, as discussed in Chapter 2, both
the comprehensiveness of existing state standards and regulations,
and the degree to which they are enforced, vary widely from state to
state. Furthermore, only 16 states presently have officially defined
hazardous wastes by either criteria or listings. In summary, even
when considering the subjective nature of the data presented in
Tables 6-7 and 6-8, it may be concluded that at present, state
control of hazardous wastes is fragmented, and that, although some
states exert very good control, the potential for damage from
uncontrolled disposal of hazardous wastes is substantial, as shown by
the reported incidents summarized in Appendix J.
6-27
-------
7.0 IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE ACTION
This chapter addresses Che potential impacts, both beneficial
and adverse, that could result from implementation of the baseline
Subtitle C regulations. Two major types of impacts are analyzed:
primary impacts and secondary impacts. Primary impacts include those
effects that would be directly attributable to the implementation of
the baseline regulations. Secondary impacts include those effects
that would be indirectly attributable to the implementation of the
baseline regulations. In some cases, secondary impacts might not be
observed until years or even decades after implementation of the
regulations.
Where practical, potential impacts are analyzed for two separate
years: 1980, the year of expected implementation of the regulations,
and 1984, the year by which the full effects of the regulations are
expected to become established. For the reasons discussed in Section
7.1.2, it is anticipated that at least five years would be required
for such effects and resultant impacts to become fully established.
The impact analysis is, for the most part, both generic in scope
and conducted on a national level due to the extreme waste-specific,
process-specific, and site-specific nature of most impacts, and due
to the extensive data limitations previously indicated. Because most
available data relate to manufacturing industries, the emphasis of
the impact analysis is necessarily directed toward manufacturing
7-1
-------
industries. To Che extent the limited available data allow, impacts
are assessed quantitatively.
Over 300 reported incidents of damage from the improper manage-
ment of hazardous wastes were reviewed to assist in identifying the
potential for adverse impacts resulting from current hazardous waste
management practices. Appendix J briefly describes each of these
reported incidents. Table 7-1 summarizes the type and extent of the
adverse impacts that have been reported. From the way in which most
of the incidents have come to light, it is very likely that the vast
majority of such incidents go unreported, especially human health
incidents which may require many years of exposure and for which
direct causative relationships are difficult to trace or establish.
The reported incidents indicate that there is often a considerable
time interval between the occurrence of those events which lead to
damage and the time when the damage becomes evident. Since virtually
all of the reported incidents were discovered only after damage had
already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant potential
for many similar damage incidents to be detected in the future from
wastes that have already been improperly stored, treated, or
disposed.
It should be noted that a potentially large category of hazard-
ous wastes, termed 'special wastes,1 are only briefly addressed in
the impact analysis. 'Special wastes' include cement kiln dusts,
utility wastes, oil drilling muds/brines, phosphate rock mining and
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-1
NUMBER AND TYPES OF REPORTED INCIDENTS FROM THE
IMPROPER MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES*
Management
Method
Generation
Transport
Storage
Dumping
Landfill
Lagoon
Incineration
Resource
recovery
Other
treatment
TOTAL
Air
quality
impacts
1
6
5
5
1
4
2
2
5
31
Water
Duality
impact st
4
1
23
73
69
55
1
4
3
233
Soil
contami-
nation
-
-
2
4
3
2
-
-
1
12
Identifiable
public health
impacts
1
4
9
12
16
2
2
3
49
Drinking
water
contamination
-
1
9
25
27
19
1
2
-
84
Identifiable
biological
impacts
2
-
7
37
20
19
1
2
2
90
^Summary is based on approximately 300 reported incidents listed in Appendix J.
tIncludes drinking water contamination incidents.
-------
processing wastes, uranium mining wastes, and other mining wastes.
Any 'special wastes' identified as hazardous under the Subtitle C
regulations would be subject to a limited portion of the Subtitle C
storge, treatment, and disposal regulations (see Sections 7.1.2.3 and
7.1.2.4). As a result, it is not likely that there would be any
significant change in the current storage, treatment, or disposal
practices for such wastes. EPA is planning to promulgate Subtitle C
requirements specific to the management of 'special wastes'. An
additional environmental impact statement or supplementary statement
would be prepared for these 'special wastes', if warranted, at such
time.
7.1 Potential Primary Impacts
The potential primary impacts from implementation of the pro-
posed regulations are analyzed within the following areas:
• Hazardous wastes to be regulated;
• Changes to existing generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal practices and procedures;
• Administrative changes;
• Air impacts;
• Water impacts;
« Public health impacts.
In discussing the primary impacts of the proposed regulations,
especially air, water, and public health implications, a limited
number of incidents are used to illustrate the potential benefits of
the regulations. It should be noted that Appendix J contains many
7-4
-------
additional examples of adverse incidents that have occurred under
present hazardous waste management practices.
7.1.1 Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated. The Section 3001 regu-
lations (see Appendix B, Subpart A) define the wastes that are to be
considered hazardous and, thus, subject to the Subtitle C regula-
tions. Two mechanisms are provided for determining those wastes that
are hazardous: identifying characteristics and lists of specific
hazardous wastes and waste streams. The identifying characteristics
are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Wastes
which exhibit any of these characteristics, or which are listed,
would be considered hazardous and would have to be managed pursuant
to the Subtitle C regulations.
Chapter 6 contains estimates of potentially hazardous waste gen-
eration within manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. The
estimates for the manufacturing industries have been determined using
the generation factors described in Appendix H; the estimates for the
non-manufacturing industries have been developed as described in
Chapter 6. The quantity of wastes that would be identified as hazar-
/
dous under the Section 3001 regulations would, however, be less than
the quantities indicated as hazardous in Chapter 6 due to the pro-
posed definition of the Section 3001 toxicity characteristic. The
toxicity characteristic is to be based solely upon the EPA Primary
Drinking Water Standards and, as a result, many wastes that are po-
tentially hazardous due to other indicators of toxicity, especially
7-5
-------
organic wastes, would presently be excluded from regulations.*
However, many other such wastes are specifically included on the
lists of hazardous wastes and, thus, would be subject to the Subtitle
C regulations.
It is expected that the primary effect of the present toxicity
characteristic on manufacturing wastes would be to eliminate from
regulation a large portion of the potentially hazardous wastes pre-
viously estimated to be generated by industries within SIC Code 28
(Chemicals and Allied Products). EPA staff estimates are that about
35 percent of the potentially hazardous wastes previously estimated
to be generated within SIC Code 28 could be identified as hazardous
under the Subtitle C regulations. It is therefore estimated, based
upon Chapter 6, that approximately 35 million metric tons of manu-
facturing wastes could be identified as hazardous under the Section
3001 regulations in 1980, and that approximately 40 million metric
tons could be identified as hazardous in 1984. The distribution of
these regulated wastes among the manufacturing SIC Codes and EPA
Regions would be essentially that shown in Table 6-1, except that the
wastes in SIC Code 28 would be reduced by 65 percent.
*EPA is considering expanding the toxicity characteristic to bring a
greater number of these potentially hazardous wastes under the
regulations in the future and would prepare an additional environ-
mental impact statement or supplementary statement for the expanded
toxicity characteristic, if warranted, at such time. Specific
revisions are not known at this time. The "enhanced public health
and environmental protection alternative" assessed in Chapter 8
does, however, include an expanded toxicity characteristic.
7-6
-------
Only chose persons or Federal agencies who produce and dispose
of more Chan 100 kilograms (abouC 220 pounds) per monCh of wastes
identified as hazardous under Che Section 3001 regulacions would be
considered generators subject to the Subtitle C regulations. As
shown in Table 7-2, this generator limit of 100 kilograms per month
could exclude about 29,000 metric tons per year of hazardous manufac-
turing wastes from regulation. The excluded waste would be less than
0.1 percent of Che total hazardous manufacturing wastes. However,
about 26 percent of manufacturing establishments generating hazardous
wastes could be excluded.
For purposes of comparison, almost 350 million metric tons of
total manufacturing wastes (hazardous and non-hazardous) are estimat-
ed by EPA to be generated annually. Thus, over 10 percent of the
total manufacturing wastes would be regulated as hazardous wastes.
Over 60 percent of the manufacturing wastes idenCified as potentially
hazardous in Chapter 6 would be regulated.
In addition to manufacturing wastes, the identifying character-
istics and the lists would identify other wastes as hazardous. Sev-
eral large volume, non-manufacturing waste streams are specifically
listed as being hazardous. The listed waste streams include uranium
mining wastes, phosphate mining and processing wastes, and pesticide
containers that have not been triple rinsed. As discussed in Chapter
6, phosphate mining and processing wastes amount to about 220 million
tons annually (however, as discussed in Section 7.1.2, these wastes
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-2
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES
AND NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS EXCLUDED FROM
REGULATION AT A GENERATOR LIMIT OF 100 KG/MO
00
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National
total
Number of
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
5,270
13,200
7,180
14,900
14,200
7,090
3,760
2,110
9,750
3,820
81,420
Percent of total
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
23
25
25
33
21
. 29
26
33
26
34
i
26
Hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
(metric tons)
1,900
4,100
2,700
5,500
5,000
2,700
1,500
900
3,500
1,500
29,300
Percent of total
hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.1
-------
would be subject to a limited portion of the Subtitle C storage,
treatment, and disposal regulations).
Waste pesticide containers from persons engaged principally in
farming or solely in retail trade would not be subject to the
Subtitle C regulations. This exclusion, coupled with the unknown
portion of waste pesticide containers already included in the
estimates of manufacturing wastes, precludes any determination of the
quantity of waste pesticide containers that would be subject to the
regulations. The remainder would, however, be subject to the
requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act of 1972, as amended.
The identifying characteristics could result in the regulation
of such other large volume wastes as waste automotive oil, coal ash,
oil drilling muds and brines, cement kiln dusts, and dredge spoils.
Estimates of the annual production of these wastes are presented in
Chapter 6. The portion of such wastes that could be identified as
hazardous by the characteristics is not known.
7.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. Typical practices
and procedures used by generators, transporters, storers, treaters,
and disposers of hazardous wastes are discussed in Chapter 5. The
Subtitle C regulations would lead to a number of major changes in
these existing practices and procedures. The changes would primarily
7-9
-------
be caused by the enactment of more stringent environmental require-
ments than those that currently exist, resultant increases in treat-
ment and disposal costs, and specific procedural and operational
requirements imposed by the regulations. The intent of this section
is to indicate the scope of applicability of the Subtitle C regula-
tions and the major changes likely to occur in existing practices and
procedures as a result of the promulgation of the regulations.
It is anticipated that at least five years would be required for
the changes in existing practices and procedures to become fully
established. Several years would be required for hazardous waste
generators to become fully aware of the specific economic implica-
tions of the regulations, to assess the alternatives available to
them (e.g., process modification, increased recycling of hazardous
wastes, shifts in on-site and off-site treatment/disposal practices),
and to implement any changes. Due to resource constraints, several
years would also be required for EPA or authorized states to act upon
all permit applications and to issue permits to acceptable storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities. Facilities requiring modifica-
tions as a condition of their permits would then have up to three
years to complete such modifications. Furthermore, the necessary
integration and coordination of RCRA requirements with those of other
acts (e.g., Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Safe Drinking
7-10
-------
Water Act) requires that there be some delay in permit issuance. For
example, in those instances where a treater or disposer has a Nation-
al Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issuance of
the RCRA permit would be delayed until the time that the NPDES permit
is to be renewed. In addition, since very few states would currently
be qualified to attain full authorization, regulatory requirements in
those states granted interim authorization would be changed over
several years as the states become qualified for full authorization.
7.1.2.1 Generation. The regulations applicable to generators
(Section 3002 of Subtitle C) apply only to those persons or Federal
agencies, except households, who produce and dispose of more than 100
kilograms (about 220 pounds) per month of wastes identified as haz-
ardous under the Section 3001 regulations. Any person or Federal
agency producing and disposing of 100 kilograms or less per month
would not be required to comply with the generator regulations. Also
any generator engaged solely in retail trade or principally in farm-
ing would have to comply with the regulations only with regard to
waste automotive oil. However, any person may assume the generator's
total liability for compliance with the Subtitle C requirements with
regard to waste automotive oil. Generators excluded from compliance
with the Subtitle C regulations would, however, still be obligated to
dispose of their hazardous wastes in an acceptable manner, e.g., in a
landfill that meets RCRA Subtitle D criteria.
The Subtitle C regulations would result in procedural changes,
as described below, in the methods used by these regulated generators
7-11
-------
for tracking and reporting hazardous waste shipments and for prepar-
ing such shipments for transport. The regulations could also lead to
process changes that would allow increased resource conservation
and/or recovery of hazardous wastes.
Manifest. Under the Subtitle C regulations, every generator
would be required to provide a manifest for each off-site hazardous
waste shipment—intrastate, interstate, and international—sent to a
facility not owned by the generator and to file reports and keep
records on such shipments. Generators designating hazardous waste to
an off-site facility owned by the generator and located in the same
state as the generator would have to provide a manifest, but would
not have to comply with the reporting or recordkeeping requirements
(although the facility itself would be subject to reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under Section 3004); shipments to
generator-owned facilities in other states would have to comply with
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. On-site shipments
would not have to be manifested, but would have to be sent to
permitted on-site facilities and would have to be reported to
appropriate Federal or state authorities.* Appendix B, Subpart B
describes the required content of the manifest and reports. The
major purposes of the manifest would be to ensure that off-site
shipments of hazardous wastes are sent only to permitted storage,
treatment, or disposal facilities and to ensure that all such wastes
*0ff-site as used throughout this statement means any facility or
location not on a generator's property. On-site means any facility
or location on a generator's property.
7-12
-------
are actually delivered to the facility to which they are seat
(Appendix J describes numerous incidents from the indiscriminate
dumping of wastes in transit).
Currently, there are very limited mechanisms for tracking of
hazardous wastes. Based upon Tables 2-2 and 2-3, as of 1978 only 10
states have (or have proposed) standards for manifesting of hazardous
wastes by generators and only two other states have standards for
manifesting by transporters; an additional 14 states have (or have
proposed) enabling authority to enforce manifest requirements, but do
not have standards. Nine states have (or have proposed) reporting
standards applicable to generators; 15 others have (or have proposed)
enabling authority for enforcing reporting by generators. In addi-
tion, for the small portion of hazardous wastes that meet the Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) criteria of a hazardous material under
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 CFR 100-189), any in-
terstate or international'shipment of such wastes by common or con-
tract carriers must be accompanied by shipping papers prepared and
signed by the consignor (generator). In addition, over 30 states
have adopted, with or without modification, the DOT Hazardous Materi-
al Regulations and apply them to intrastate shipments by common and
contract carriers.
Due to these limited tracking mechanisms, generators, state
authorities, and Federal authorities, have little or no information
as to what currently happens to a large portion of the hazardous
wastes that are shipped off the generator's site; state and Federal
7-13
-------
authorities also have little or no information about what happens to
a considerable amount of the wastes that remain on the generator's
site for treatment or disposal. Furthermore, in states which do not
have manifesting or reporting requirements, the ultimate fate of the
wastes is not known for a very large portion of the wastes; for ex-
ample, in Kansas the disposal location is not known for almost 80
percent of the industrial wastes generated in the state and in
Massachusetts the disposal location is not known for about 65 percent
of the industrial wastes (see Table 5-14). Even in those states with
manifest and reporting standards, the disposal location is not always
known; for example, in Texas, the fate of about 20 percent of the
hazardous wastes is not known.
To remedy this, the Subtitle C regulations would make the gen-
erator responsible for determining where his hazardous wastes are to
be delivered when sent off-site and for identifying those shipments
that may not have been delivered to the designated destination. The
manifest (or the equivalent delivery document) would have to be
signed by authorized representatives of the generator, the trans-
porter, and the designated delivery facility; after the waste is de-
livered to the designated treatment, storage, or disposal facility,
the signed original of the manifest (or equivalent delivery document)
would have to be returned to the generator to verify that the waste
has been delivered. Generators would have to file quarterly reports
on all manifested shipments for which a signed manifest copy (or
equivalent delivery document) is not returned. In addition,
7-14
-------
generators designating wastes for off-site shipment would be required
to file annual reports based on the information in the manifests and
to keep a copy of each manifest for a period of three years. Genera-
tors who designate hazardous wastes for on-site treatment, storage,
or disposal would also have to file annual reports identifying the
types and quantities of wastes managed on-site.
Containerization and Labeling. Under the Subtitle C regula-
tions, the generator would also be required to containerize all
wastes for transport in accordance with the DOT regulations on pack-
aging under 49 CFR 173, 178, and 179. If no specific packaging is
required, the generator would have to place the hazardous wastes in a
package in accordance with the DOT regulations on standard require-
ments for all packages (49 CFR 173.24(a), (b), and (c)(2)-(9)). In
addition, the generator would have to label and placard each shipment
in accordance with DOT regulations on hazardous materials (49 CFR
172) and mark each package in accordance with DOT regulations on
marking (49 CFR 172.300) or with the EPA hazardous waste name (see
Appendix B, Subpart A, 250.14), as applicable. Each package must
also contain the manifest document number and the generator's
identification number.
The DOT regulations cited above currently apply only to inter-
state or foreign shipments by common or contract carriers or to
intrastate shipments by common or contract carriers in those states
which have adopted the DOT regulations. The Subtitle C regulations
would extend these DOT regulations to all hazardous waste shipments.
7-15
-------
Process Changes to Promote Resource Conservation and Recovery.
In addition to these procedural changes, the Subtitle C regulations
would have the potential to cause generators to modify processes that
generate hazardous wastes in order to increase resource conservation
and recovery. Since one major result of the regulations would be to
increase generator's costs and those costs associated with hazardous
waste transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal, generators
would potentially have an incentive to modify processes so as to
reduce and/or change the types and amounts of hazardous wastes gen-
erated by such processes and to enable the increased recycling of
hazardous wastes as process feedstocks. According to a recent study
on hazardous waste management, (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976), there
is currently a trend in hazardous waste producing industries to
recover, reuse, or recycle waste products that were once either
treated or dumped; the primary reasons being economics and public
relations.
As discussed in Section 5.4, the potential for process modifi-
cations to promote resource conservation and/or recovery would be
extremely waste stream and process specific and would depend upon
such factors as the economics of disposal, treatment, and transport;
the cost of raw materials and energy; the availability of markets for
and sources of recyclable hazardous wastes; and the availability both
of the necessary technology for specific resource conservation or
recovery applications and of environmentally adequate disposal meth-
ods. Due to the many complex interrelationships among these factors,
7-16
-------
the determination of specific process modifications and resultant
changes to waste streams that could occur as a result of promulgation
of the Subtitle C regulations is beyond the scope of the EIS.
7.1.2.2 Transport. The regulations applicable to transporters
(Section 3003 of Subtitle C) apply to any person or Federal agency
transporting, within the United States, hazardous wastes that require
a manifest under the generator regulations and also apply to any
transporter importing a shipment of hazardous wastes from abroad.
The transporter regulations do not apply to persons or Federal agen-
cies transporting hazardous wastes solely on the site of generation
or solely on the site of a permitted hazardous waste management
facility. While the transporter regulations do not apply to hazar-
dous waste shipments not requiring manifests, if any person or Fed-
eral agency consolidates for shipment and transports any quantity of
unmanifested hazardous wastes from more than one source, the entire
shipment would have to be delivered to a permitted facility and would
have to comply (for both interstate and intrastate shipments) with .
applicable DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100-189)
concerning shipping papers, labeling, marking, placarding, and trans-
portation. Data are not available to estimate the number of trans-
porters that would be affected by the tranporter regulations (see
Appendix E).
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would signifi-
cantly curtail the 'midnight dumping1 of hazardous wastes and would
likely result in changes in the handling of transportation-related
7-17
-------
spills, in the distances over which hazardous wastes are transported,
and in existing operational procedures and practices used for the
transport of hazardous wastes.
Midnight Dumping. There are numerous reported instances of
hazardous waste transporters dumping wastes surreptitiously rather
than delivering the wastes to an environmentally acceptable storage,
treatment, or disposal facility (see Appendix J). Because such il-
legal disposal often occurs at night, this practice has been termed
midnight dumping. Data are not available to quantify the total num-
ber of such incidents, nor the amount of wastes disposed annually
through midnight dumping; however, the following example illustrates
the potential magnitude of the problem. New Jersey shut down its
last legal land disposal site to chemical waste dumping nearly three
years ago. The site was handling about one million gallons of chemi-
cal wastes per week when it was eliminated. At this time it is not
known where most of the wastes that formerly went to such landfills
are currently being disposed, but there are reported incidents of
illegal disposal throughout New Jersey (Richards, 1978).
The manifest and reporting requirements discussed in Section
7.1.2.1 should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the practice
of midnight dumping. These requirements effectively transfer the
opportunity for midnight dumping from the transporter to the genera-
tor and, to a lesser degree, to the receiving facility. To the ex-
tent that generators manifest all off-site hazardous waste shipments
/
and truthfully indicate the type and quantity of hazardous waste
7-18
-------
being transported, midnight dumping should be nearly eliminated, pro-
viding the receiving facility accurately confirms the contents of
wastes delivered.
Spills. Section 2.3 indicates existing laws for the reporting,
prevention, and containment of transportation-related spills of haz-
ardous substances. Only those hazardous wastes and other spilled
materials which meet the definitions and criteria for hazardous
materials under the DOT Hazardous Materials Transportation Regula-
tions or which are specifically listed under Section 311 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended would come under these
existing spill regulations. The Hazardous Materials Transportation
Regulations require reporting, but not clean up or containment, of
transportation-related spills of hazardous materials. These require-
ments, however, apply only to interstate commerce or to intrastate
shipments in those states which have adopted the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Regulations.
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. applies
only to spills of the listed substances which threaten navigable
waters and which are into or upon the navigable waters of the U.S.,
adjoining shorelines, contiguous zones, or which may affect appli-
cable natural resources. Section 311 requires the reporting and
clean-up of such spills by the responsible party.
The Subtitle C regulations extend reporting and clean-up re-
quirements to all transportation-related spills of hazardous wastes
or hazardous materials which become hazardous wastes under Section
7-19
-------
3001 when spilled. In the case of a spill, transporters would have
to immediately telephone either the National Response Center (U.S.
Coast Guard) or the government official predesignated an the on-
scene coordinator, pursuant to 40 CFR 1510; a written report would
have to be filed within 15 days with the DOT Office of Hazardous
Materials Operations. The transporter would also have to clean up
all spilled hazardous waste or take such action as may be required by
Federal, state, or local agencies so as to ensure that the spilled
waste no longer presents a hazard to human health or the environment.
Transport Distances. The average distance over which hazardous
wastes are transported would likely increase as a result of the Sub-
title C regulations. This increase would result from several
factors. First, the portion of wastes being shipped to off-site
facilities for treatment and disposal, rather than remaining at
on-site facilities, would most likely increase as discussed in
Section 7.1.2.4. Second, all hazardous wastes would have to be
transported to permitted facilities, not just to any nearby disposal
site. Since it would not likely be economically or environmentally
practical to site permitted facilities near every generator, the
average distance wastes would have to be transported should increase.
Third, increases in disposal costs resulting from the proposed regu-
lations should increase the distance over which waste may be economi-
cally transported for resource recovery purposes.
According to a recent hazardous waste transport study (Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1978a), most hazardous waste transport is by truck with
7-20
-------
typical off-site transport distances ranging from 25 to 150 miles;
most of the surveyed firms reported transport distances of about 50
miles. However, based on the limited number of firms replying to
the survey, the study concluded that the reported truck transport
distances might not be representative of the industry as a whole.
Host hazardous wastes transported by rail or barge are reported to go
to reclamation or resource recovery facilities; transport distances
^
on-the-order of 1,000 or more miles are common for such shipments.
Data are not available to determine by how much typical transport
distances are likely to increase as a result of the Subtitle C
regulations.
Existing Practices and Procedures. The Subtitle C regulations
would modify existing practices that have in the past led to re-
leases of hazardous wastes during transport and would impose addi-
tional procedural requirements on transporters to enable easier
identification of both the transporter and the wastes being trans-
ported. For example, the regulations require that the transporter
not accept shipments of hazardous wastes unless such shipments are
accompanied by a manifest signed by the generator and are in con-
tainers which are not leaking or damaged and which are properly
labeled and marked. In addition, the transporter (and any other
subsequent transporter(s)) is to sign the manifest; insure that the
manifest (or equivalent delivery document) accompanies the shipment
at all times; placard and mark the transport vehicle; deliver the
entire quantity of hazardous wastes to permitted facilities; and keep
7-21
-------
a copy of the manifest (or delivery document) for at least 3 years.
If the transporter consolidates or mixes hazardous wastes from
different generators or seoarate wastes from the same generator, the
transporter would also have to comply with the generator regulations
if the consolidated mixture was no longer adequately identified by
the manifest.
Not all of the above requirements represent entirely new re-
quirements on all transporters. For example, as discussed in
Appendix E, most transporters presently keep delivery documents for
at least 3 years due to various Federal and state regulations. In
addition, common and contract carriers engaged in the interstate
transport of hazardous materials, as defined in the DOT Hazardous
Materials Transportation Regulations, have to comply with equivalent
•
placarding requirements and are not to accept shipments of hazardous
materials unless accompanied by shipping papers signed by the con-
signor (generator).
7.1.2.3 Storage. RCRA defines storage as the containment of
hazardous wastes, either on a temporary basis or for a period of
years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal. The regula-
tions applicable to storers (Section 3004 of Subtitle C) apply,
except as noted below, to all storage at off-site storage, treatment,
or disposal facilities and to all on-site storage by generators prior
to on-site treatment or disposal; the regulations do not apply to on-
site storage by generators who store their own wastes for less than
90 days prior to subsequent transport off-site, but do apply to any
7-22
-------
such on-site storage which lasts for 90 days or longer. Facilities
specifically excluded from complying with the storage regulations
include Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and ocean dumping
barges and vessels. In addition, facilities that store only 'special
wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have to comply only with
the General Facility Standards (e.g., manifest system, recordkeeping,
reporting—see Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43) and not with any other
storage regulations. All regulated facilities would require permits
under Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 7.1.3.5 contains estimates
of the number of potential permittees. Data are not available to
estimate the quantities of wastes that would be affected by the
storage regulations.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would result in
the elimination of current storage practices that lead to or become a
form of disposal and would result in changes in the current design
and operation of storage facilities.
Indefinite Storage. Currently there are few regulations, if
any, that limit the time that hazardous waste may be left in storage.
As a result, there are a number of reported incidents of hazardous
waste being placed in storage for indefinite periods of time,
sometimes in very large quantities (see Appendix J). In many such
instances, the wastes in storage are ultimately abandoned, rather
than being disposed in an acceptable manner, and are left to enter
the environment.
7-23
-------
Even when the wastes are not abandoned, overly long storage times
have resulted in weathering and/or corrosion of containers and
weathering of storage piles, causing the eventual release of the
stored wastes into the environment.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that would
eliminate the indefinite storage of hazardous wastes. At facility
close-out*, all hazardous wastes would have to be removed from all
storage and treatment operations, including surface impoundments that
do not meet the Subtitle C criteria for landfills, and would have to
be disposed as required by the regulations (see Section 7.1.2.4).
Facilities would have to post a bond that would be held until the
completion of both closure and post close-out care to ensure com-
pliance, t
Facility Design and Operation. The Subtitle C regulations would
prohibit or restrict existing storage practices that result either in
the discharge of hazardous wastes or in the storage of such wastes in
an environmentally unacceptable manner. For example, the regula-
tions require that storage operations be conducted in such a manner
that no discharge occurs and such that storage facilities be moni-
tored and inspected for the purpose of detecting any potential
*Close-out is the point in time at which facilities stop accepting
hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal.
tClosure is the series of actions to be completed within 3 years
following close-out during which a facility is to be secured
pursuant to Subtitle C regulations. Post close-out is the period
which need not exceed 20 years following closure during which
required monitoring and maintenance activities are to be conducted.
7-24
-------
discharge; Chat all storage areas be constructed so as to be capable
of containing any run-off or spills that occur, plus have sufficient
freeboard to allow for collection and containment of precipitation;
that storage areas be constructed of materials that are compatible
with the wastes to be contained; that incompatible wastes (see
Appendix D, Subpart D, Annex 4 for examples) not be mixed together;
and that facilities not be located on or near active fault zones or
in areas where they could be inundated by a 500-year flood. As indi-
cated by the reported incidences listed in Appendix J, such regula-
tions would necessitate many changes both in the design and in the
operation of hazardous waste storage facilities. Data are not avail-
able to estimate the number of facilities that would be affected, nor
to determine the specific changes that would be required for most
such facilities.
7.1.2.4 Treatment/Disposal. With the few specific exclusions
noted below, the regulations applicable to treaters and disposers
i
(Section 3004 of Subtitle C) apply to owners and operators of any
facility that treats and/or disposes any quantity of any waste
identified as hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations (Appendix
B, Subpart A), except those wastes listed as 'special wastes'. All
owners and operators of facilities that treat and/or dispose of
'special wastes', and no other hazardous waste, would have to comply
only with selected General Facility Standards of the treatment and
disposal regulations (see Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43).
7-25
-------
Certain disposal practices that are controlled under other
Federal acts are not regulated under the treatment and disposal
regulations of Subtitle C. These practices include underground
(deep-well) injection, ocean dumping, discharges to municipal sewer
systems, surfaces discharges under a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and all treatment and disposal
activities at Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). However, the
treatment and disposal regulations would apply to above ground stor-
age or treatment of hazardous wastes prior to underground injection,
on-shore facilities associated with ocean dumping activities, and
surface impoundments associated with NPDES permitted industrial
wastewater treatment facilities and hazardous sludges from such
facilities. All facilities regulated would require permits under
Section 3005 of Subtitle C. Section 7.1.3.5 contains estimates of
the number of potential permittees under the Subtitle C regulations.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would lead to the
closing or modifying, of many existing treatment/disposal facilities
and to significant changes in current treatment/disposal practices.
In addition, the regulations would likely affect the portion of
hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site and off-site.
Facility Closing or Modification. A major impact resulting from
the Subtitle C regulations would be the closing of those hazardous
waste management facilities (both off-site and on-site) that could
not or would not comply with the treatment/disposal requirements and
7-26
-------
the modification of other hazardous waste management facilities to
enable compliance with the requirements. Facilities requiring
modifications would have to make such modifications in accordance
with compliance schedules contained in permits issued to them under
the Section 3005 regulations. The modifications would have to be
made within 3 years from the original date of issuance of the
compliance schedule; for compliance schedules exceeding 6 months,
interim compliance requirements would also have to be met every 6
months.
Data are not available to estimate the number and type of
hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities that would have to
close down or be modified as a result of the proposed regulations.
However, based on the reported incidences in Appendix J and other
available data discussed below, it is expected that a very large
portion of existing facilities would require modification to be able
to comply with the treatment/disposal requirements. For example,
less than 10 percent of hazardous manufacturing wastes from 14 major
generating industries are estimated to have been treated/disposed in
an environmentally acceptable manner in recent years (see Table 5-7).
While some of this environmentally unacceptable treatment/disposal
could be made acceptable by the use of alternative treatment methods
instead of by facility modification, it is likely that the vast
majority of existing treatment/disposal facilities handling such
wastes would require modifications in order to comply with the
7-27
-------
treatment/disposal requirements. For example, of 80 estimated haz-
ardous waste management service industry landfills currently handling
some form of potentially hazardous waste, it is estimated that ap-
proximately 20 could meet secure landfill standards (Foster D. Snell,
Inc., 1976; Straus, 1977). Furthermore, according to the Industry
Studies (1975-1978), the vast majority of hazardous industrial wastes
that are disposed in landfills are disposed in general purpose land-
fills rather than secure landfills (see Appendix D). Additionally,
about 16,000 land disposal sites accepted municipal wastes in 1976;
most also received some industrial waste; it is estimated that only
about 100 had impermeable linings and only about 200 had leachate
collection systems (Waste Age, 1977). Appendix D discusses other
examples of facilities that could require modifications.
Changes in Current Treatment/Disposal Practices. Those existing
hazardous waste treatment/disposal practices that are environmentally
unacceptable according to the Subtitle C regulations would be pro-
hibited or restricted or would have to be modified; some practices
could be replaced by other, more environmentally acceptable, prac-
tices.
Existing practices that are likely to be prohibited or severely
restricted by the Subtitle C regulations include: open burning;
uncontrolled incineration; road application of untreated waste oil;
the use of landfills without leachate collection systems and ground-
water monitoring systems; the use of surface impoundments without
7-28
-------
leachate detection systems and groundwater monitoring systems;
landfarming of highly volatile wastes or wastes containing arsenic,
boron, molybdenum and/or selenium in concentrations greater than soil
background conditions; the location of landfills, surface impound-
ments, and landfarms within 150 meters (500 feet) of functioning
public or private water supplies or livestock water supplies; and the
mixing of incompatible wastes in surface impoundments and basins,
except for the purpose of treatment. In addition, the Subtitle C
regulations specifically prohibit such existing practices as open
dumping; the placing of reactive wastes, ignitable wastes, and highly
volatile wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, or basins; the
mixing of incompatible wastes in landfills and landfarms; the use of
waste application practices that allow the zone of incorporation of
landfarms to become anaerobic; and the use of continuous feed treat-
ment facilities without automatic waste feed cut-offs or by-pass
systems that are activated when a malfunction occurs.
The Subtitle C regulations also impose specific requirements for
the closure of treatment/disposal facilities. For example, at final
closure all disposal operations would have to be completed and all
wastes removed from treatment facilities and disposed in accordance
with the regulations. Hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues
would also have to be removed from all surface impoundments that do
not meet the standards for landfills and disposed according to the
regulations. Any contaminated soil-filter medium at landfarms would
7-29
-------
also have to be removed. Monitoring and maintenance care would have
to be provided for a period that need not exceed 20 years from
close-out.
For the most part, data are not available to enable an estimate
of the quantity of hazardous wastes currently treated/disposed by
each of the above practices, the number of off-site or on-site
treatment/disposal facilities that would be affected by such pro-
hibition or restrictions, nor any potential shift likely to occur in
the quantities of hazardous waste treated/disposed by various methods
as a result of the regulations. Specific changes would be dependent
upon such factors as treatment/disposal economics; waste characteris-
tics; adequacy of available pollution control devices; availability
and adequacy of alternative treatment/disposal methods; and site-
specific conditions such as climate, soil characteristics, and
groundwater characteristics.
As previously discussed, available data indicate that about 90
percent of the hazardous manufacturing wastes from 14 major generat-
ing industries are estimated to have been treated/disposed in an
environmentally unacceptable manner in recent years. For each method
used for treating/disposing of these wastes, the portion of the waste
estimated to have been treated/disposed in an environmentally unac-
ceptable manner using that method is as follows (see Table 5-7):
surface impoundment—over 99.9 percent; dumping and landfilling—
about 95 percent; incineration—about 65 percent; other (road appli-
cation, landfarming, deep-well injection)—almost 100 percent.
7-30
-------
Table 5-11 shows, for four of these 14 industries, the esti-
mated percentage of hazardous wastes treated/disposed by environmen-
tally inadequate methods in recent years. Between 95 and 100 percent
of the hazardous wastes were treated/disposed by such methods in
these industries. Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978) has esti-
mated, for selected hazardous waste streams from these 14 industries,
the percentage of the generating facilities in the industry that have
been using environmentally inadequate treatment/disposal methods in
recent years. For most of the hazardous waste streams reviewed, 70
percent or more of the facilities were estimated to have used
environmentally inadequate treatment/disposal methods.
Due to the enactment of more stringent Federal and state en-
vironmental regulations in the period since these 14 industries were
surveyed (1973-1975), it is likely that a somewhat greater portion of
hazardous waste is now being treated/disposed in an environmentally
acceptable manner in these industries. For analysis purposes, based
upon a hazardous industrial waste generation of about 40 million
metric tons in 1984, and assuming, as an upper limit, that 90 percent
of such wastes would continue to be treated/ disposed in an environ-
mentally inadequate manner without the promulgation of the Subtitle C
regulations, it is estimated that these regulations could result in
up to an additional 36 million metric tons of hazardous industrial
wastes being treated/disposed in an environmentally adequate manner
annually by 1984.
7-31
-------
Change in Hazardous Wastes Treated/Disposed On-site and Off-
site. The Subtitle C regulations would likely lead to changes in the
portion of hazardous wastes treated/disposed on-site by generators
and off-site by the waste management industry. Based upon the Indus-
try Studies (1975-1978), about 82 percent of all hazardous industrial
wastes are typically treated/disposed on-site by the generator; about
15 percent are treated/disposed off-site; about 3 percent are re-
claimed. The percentage treated/disposed on-site and off-site, how-
ever, varies widely from industry to industry (see Table 5-10).*
The trend in at least one industry is to increase the portion of
hazardous wastes being treated/disposed on-site. A study of hazard-
ous waste practices in the petroleum refining industry (Jacobs En-
gineering Company, 1976) indicated that on-site treatment/disposal
was expected to increase from 44 percent in 1974 to 73 percent by
1983; most of the change was expected to be due to increases in on-
site landfarming and landfilling. The major reasons reported to be
given by the industry (prior to the enactment of RCRA) for the poten-
tial increase in on-site treatment/disposal are as follows:
• The emerging stringent water and air emission requirements
dictate that increasing volumes of hazardous wastes may need
to be discharged to the land since land disposal is not as
stringently regulated at the present time;
*These percentages are based upon a survey of a limited number of
establishments within each manufacturing industry. According to the
Industry Studies, while the numbers for each industry are typical
of those establishments which replied to the survey, they may not be
representative of each industry as a whole.
7-32
-------
• The legal protection surrounding the use of private property
(as observed in a review of existing solid waste laws as they
apply to private on-site versus public off-site disposal)
sometimes allows industry to dispose of industrial wastes on
its own property without the necessity of permit, monitor-
ing, or supervision and control by regulatory agencies;
• The present trend is one of increasingly stringent require-
ments by regulatory agencies surrounding disposal of in-
dustrial wastes to outside municipal or private landfills;
• The closure of many dumps, lagoons, and sumps over the past
few years has seriously reduced the availability of nearby
disposal sites;
• The cost of transporting large volumes of wastes long dis-
tances to certified secure hazardous waste disposal sites
would bring about significant economic and price dislocations
to a segment of the industry and place certain refineries at
an immediate disadvantage.
The Subtitle C regulations would likely reverse, or signifi-
cantly reduce, such a trend to on-site treatment/disposal since the
regulations contain stringent requirements for the treatment/
disposal of hazardous wastes and apply these requirements equally to
on-site and off-site treatment/disposal. Thus, one of the primary
advantages given for on-site treatment/disposal—little or no
regulation—would be eliminated.
Several factors would affect the portion of hazardous wastes
treated/disposed on-site and off-site under Subtitle C. For the most
part, these factors would be very industry, waste stream, and site
specific and, as a result, it is not possible to accurately determine
the extent of any shift that could occur under the Subtitle C regu-
lations.
7-33
-------
Factors that would tend to increase the portion of wastes
treated/disposed off-site under the Subtitle C regulations are as
follows:
• An indeterminable portion of the existing on-site treatment/
disposal facilities would not be able to be modified to
comply with the Section 3004 requirements and would have to
/ cease operation;
• A portion of generators, especially small generators, who
currently dump or otherwise dispose wastes on-site in an en-
vironmentally inadequate manner would not be able to afford
permittable treatment/disposal facilities or would not want
to construct such facilities and would have to ship
wastes off-site;
• Certain existing practices would be prohibited or severely
restricted and a portion of those on-site facilities
employing such practices would likely send wastes off-site
instead of using alternative on-site practices;
• In some states off-site treatment/disposal currently tends to
be more stringently regulated than on-site disposal;
enactment and enforcement of stringent regulations applicable
both off-site and on-site treatment/disposal would tend to
make on-site treatment/disposal less advantageous;
• Off-site hazardous waste management facilities in EPA Region
IX have the highest capacity utilization rates in the U.S.
for every type of treatment/disposal practice due to strict
and uniform enforcement of treatment/disposal in the region
compared to most other regions and due to siting problems re-
sulting in restricted hazardous waste management capacity
(Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976).
Factors that could tend to limit any potential increase in the
portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site include:
• Public opposition to siting of off-site facilities;
• The inability to locate permittable off-site facilities
relative to generator needs and the inability to make
sufficient treatment/disposal capacity available at such
facilities;
7-34
-------
• Potential increases in volume reduction and in resource con-
servation and recovery practices as a result of Subtitle C
which could reduce the quantity of hazardous wastes requiring
disposal.
To quantify the potential shift in the portion of hazardous
waste disposed on-site and off-site, available state data were
reviewed to determine whether such shifts have occurred in states
that have enacted hazardous waste legislation and the extent of any
such shifts. As indicated in Section 5.3.6, only a few states have
accumulated, as of 1978, sufficient data to enable an estimation of
the portions of hazardous wastes generated within the state that are
being treated/disposed on-site versus off-site (see Table 5-14).
Comparable historical data are not available from these states to
enable a determination of any change in the portion of wastes
treated/disposed on-site and off-site following enactment of the
state's hazardous waste (or equivalent solid waste) legislation
(personal communication with representatives of the following state
agencies: California Department of Health, Vector Control Section,
1978; Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Solid Waste
Section, 1978; Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of
Land Pollution Control, 1978; Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Bureau of Environmental Sanitation, Solid Waste Section,
Hazardous Waste Unit, 1978; Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Environmental Health Administration, Division of Solid
Waste, 1978; Massachusetts Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, 1978;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Solid Waste,
7-35
-------
Hazardous Waste Section, 1978; Rhode Island Department of Health,
Division of Solid Waste Management, 1978; Texas Division of Solid
Waste Management, 1978).
In Illinois, on-site disposal is reported to be down and off-
site (including out-of-state) disposal up following enactment of the
state's solid waste legislation; the percentage change is not avail-
able (Personal Communication, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Land Pollution Control, 1978). In California,
the hazardous waste going off-site is not expected to decrease as a
result of the state's hazardous waste legislation (Personal communi-
cation, California Department of Health, Vector Control Section,
1978). Estimates of the direction of any other potential shifts are
not available from the other states.
Of those states listed in Table 5-14, Illinois and Texas cur-
rently have hazardous waste regulations closest to those that would
be promulgated under Subtitle C. In addition, the data for Illinois
and Texas in Table 5-14 are based upon the required reporting of
current practices; the data for all the other states are based upon
less recent, limited surveys directed toward determining existing
hazardous waste practices in each state and needed changes in the
state's hazardous waste regulation. Furthermore, Illinois and Texas
have permitted facilities both on-site and off-site while several of
the other states, e.g., Kansas and Rhode Island, do not have
7-36
-------
permitted off-site facilities (most wastes go out-of-state in such
instances).
For the reasons cited above, the Illinois and Texas data are
used, solely for analysis purposes, to provide an estimated range for
the portion of hazardous wastes that might be disposed off-site by
1984 under the Subtitle C regulations. It should be noted that these
data are being used as a surrogate to analyze potential impacts that
could occur from a shift in on-site and off-site disposal, should
such a shift occur, and not as a firm estimate of the magnitude of
any such shift.
Under this surrogate method, and assuming that the wastes whose
disposal location is unknown in these two states are disposed on-site
and off-site in the same ratio as those wastes whose disposal loca-
tion is known (see Table 5-14), about 25 percent of the hazardous
wastes in Illinois and about 13 percent of the hazardous wastes in
Texas are estimated to be disposed off-site. For 1984, a range of 13
to 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal of hazardous industrial
wastes is thus used to analyze the potential impacts that could occur
from probable shifts in off-site and on-site disposal under the
Subtitle C regulations. For 1980, it is assumed that 15 percent of
hazardous industrial wastes would continue to be treated/disposed
off-site. It should be noted that the range used for 1984 includes
both eventualities previously discussed—a slight decrease or a
7-37
-------
moderate increase in the portion of hazardous wastes currently esti-
mated to be shipped off-site for treatment/disposal.
7.1.3 Administrative Changes. Implementation of the Subtitle C
regulations would necessitate a widesweeping series of administrative
changes that would affect industry, state governments, and the
Federal government. Potential effects are assessed in the following
sections with regard to:
• State administration of programs;
• Overlapping Federal and state hazardous waste programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regula-
tions
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required to obtain
permits;
• Paperwork requirements under the regulations.
7.1.3.1 State Administration of Programs. As specified in
Section 3006 of RCRA, states are to be encouraged to apply to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for authorization to administer
and enforce their own hazardous waste program pursuant to Subtitle C.
There would be three different types of authorization for which
states could apply: full authorization, partial authorization, and
interim authorization.
Full authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazardous
waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle C.
According to RCRA, a state application for full authorization must be
7-38
-------
approved unless the state program is determined: not to be equi-
valent to the Federal program; not to be consistent with the Federal
program or with those programs authorized by EPA in other states; and
not to provide adequate enforcement of compliance with the require-
s
ments of Subtitle C.
To be considered equivalent, a state program would have to have
legislative authority, published criteria and standards, a permit
mechanism, a manifest system, identification of resources, inter-
agency delineation of responsibilities (if applicable), and public
participation. To be consistent, a state program would have to allow
for the free movement of hazardous wastes (e.g., no ban on the impor-
tation of hazardous wastes from other states) and would not be al-
lowed to have standards that are more stringent than necessary (e.g.,
standards designed to discriminate against out-of-state wastes).
Adequacy of enforcement would be judged on a state-by-state basis; no
quantifiable standards have been set.
Partial authorization would allow a state to administer and en-
force selected components of a hazardous waste regulatory program es-
tablished pursuant to Subtitle C.* EPA would retain responsibility
for the remaining components of the program. States would be con-
sidered for partial authorization only if state legislative authority
^Individual program components include a waste tracking system (mani-
fest system); control of treatment, storage, and disposal of hazar-
dous wastes through a permit system; conducting inspections and
taking samples; and regulations governing hazardous waste generators
and transporters and owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
7-39
-------
did not exist for all required program components. The state would
be expected to run those program components for which it had legis-
lative authority, providing the state program was enforceable, con-
sistent with, and equivalent to the Federal program. In all cases,
the combination of state and the Federal programs would have to meet
the requirements of a fully authorized program. Before granting
partial authorization, EPA would expect the state to agree to submit
proposed legislation to the state legislature so as to remedy the
deficiencies preventing full authorization. It is expected that
partial authorization would not be available during the two year
interim authorization period discussed below. Partial authorization
would be granted for a period not to exceed five years, but could be
renewed.
Interim authorization would allow a state to carry out a hazar-
dous waste program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle- C
for a period not to exceed twenty-four months, beginning on the date
six months after the date of promulgation of regulations under
Section 3001. The purpose of interim authorization is to allow the
state to make an orderly transition from its present program to a
program eligible for full authorization. To be eligible for interim
authorization, a state would have to have a hazardous waste program
pursuant to state law in existence prior to the the date 90 days
after the date of promulgation of regulations under Sections 3001 of
7-40
-------
Subtitle C. To achieve interim authorization, the state program
would have to be substantially equivalent to the Federal program and
would have to provide an Authorization Plan which describes the
addition or modifications necessary to qualify for full authorization
together with the schedule for such additions or modifications.
Substantial equivalency encompasses: legislative authority, iden-
t
tification of resources, a permit mechanism, surveillance and
enforcement, and public participation. Jn addition, the state would
have to agree with EPA on an oversight procedure which would allow
EPA to monitor the state's program to ascertain that the program was
being administered and enforced in accordance with RCRA.
To achieve full, partial, or interim authorization, a state
must have prior legislative authority to provide the necessary pro-
gram components. Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the
existing and proposed state hazardous waste legislation. As of 1978,
15 states have separate and specific laws governing the management of
hazardous wastes; another 10 states and one territory have proposed
hazardous waste legislation. Thirty-six states (including the
latter 10) and two territories have currently addressed hazardous
waste management as a separate section within their solid waste
legislation. The state programs vary widely with regard to such
factors as wastes controlled, published criteria and standards,
7-41
-------
on-site and off-site control of wastes, and importation bans.*
EPA staff estimates are that approximately 34 states and
territories could qualify for interim authorization under the
Subtitle C regulations. No states are believed to be currently able
to qualify for full authorization. No states would be able to
qualify for partial authorization before the end of the interim
authorization period.
7.1.4.2 Overlapping State Programs. Although RCRA encourages
states to administer their own authorized hazardous waste program in
lieu of the Federal program, states are not required to administer
such programs. If a states does not choose to administer a program
under Subtitle C of RCRA, there would be a Federally run program in
that state. RCRA, however, does not prohibit states without auth-
orized programs from enacting and enforcing their own more stringent
or non-consistent hazardous waste program to be run in the state in
addition to the Federal program.
At this time, it is not known if any state would run such a
program in addition to the Federal program or what regulations would
be promulgated under any such overlapping program. Such additional
*Six states currently have specific importation bans. These states
are Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont. In addition, Oklahoma has legislation equivalent to an
importation ban. Such bans preclude full authorization. A recent
U.S. Supreme Court decision (No. 77-404; June 23, 1978; City of
Philadelphia et al. v. New Jersey et al.) struck down New Jersey's
statutory importation ban. It is not clear how importation bans in
other states would be affected by this decision.
7-42
-------
state programs, if enacted, would have the potential for creating
various impacts. Some of the major potential problems that could
result from the enactment of overlapping Federal and state programs
are briefly illustrated below.
An overlapping state program would likely subject hazardous
waste generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers to
conflicting and/or duplicative requirements and regulations. For
example, storers, treaters, and disposers could be required to obtain
two permits, with potentially different requirements, before they
could construct or operate facilities. Generators could be required
to fill out two separate manifests for each off-site shipment or
could be required to manifest wastes that would not be considered
hazardous under the Federal program. Everyone generating or managing
hazardous wastes within such states could be required to prepare and
store two different sets of overlapping reports or to prepare and
store reports not required under the Federal program. Economic
dislocations could result to firms located within such states if the
more stringent standards significantly increased the firm's cost of
doing business relative to that of firms in other states. Under such
conditions some generators might choose to relocate to other states.
Increased transportation demands and distances could result if
more wastes had to be shipped further distances within the state or
to out-of-state facilities due to increased controls within the gen-
erating state, or if wastes formerly going to one state had to be
7-43
-------
shipped Co a more distant state due to enactment of import bans.
However, transportation demands and distances could also be reduced
in some states if increased controls or import bans in adjacent
states significantly reduced the amount of wastes being shipped out-
of-state. Localized shortfalls in storage, treatment, and disposal
capacity could result from or be exacerbated by stricter regulations
and import bans. In the short run, there could be increased
instances of illegal or less desirable disposal in states with such
capacity shortfalls. In the long run, there could be additional
waste treatment or process modifications.
Furthermore, while an overlapping state program would likely
afford increased protection to the residents of that state, it would
likely hinder the effectiveness of the Federal program on a national-
scale and could result in a reduced level of protection for residents
of other states. For example, importation bans or other regulations
hindering the free movement and/or disposal of wastes could result in
some hazardous wastes being managed in a less effective or less de-
sirable manner than would otherwise have occurred.
7.1.3.3 Number of Generators Required to Comply with the
Regulations. Potential hazardous waste generators within the scope
of this EIS are expected to fall within the following SIC Codes:
• Agriculture, forestry, fishing (SIC 07-09);
• Manufacturing (SIC 20-39);
• Transportation and public utilities (SIC 40-46, 49);
7-44
-------
• Wholesale trade (SIC 50-51);
• Retail trade (SIC 52, 54-55, 58-59);
• Services (SIC 72-73, 75-76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 88-89);
• Public administration (SIC 95-97).
Not all producers of hazardous wastes within these SIC Codes would be
required to comply with the Subtitle C regulations. Section 7.1.2.1
delineates those hazardous waste producers who would be considered
generators subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Available data generally relate to the manufacturing industries
and to selected other industry categories in which large numbers of
establishments are likely to produce hazardous wastes. These indus-
try categories are discussed below to illustrate the potential mag-
nitude of both the number of hazardous waste producers and the number
of generators required to comply with the regulations based on a
generator limit of 100 kilograms per month.
Magnitude of Potential Generators of Hazardous Wastes.
Manufacturing Industries. There are over 313,000 manufacturing
establishments in the United States (See Tables 7-3 and 7-4). While
every one of these manufacturing establishments is not likely to be a
potential producer of hazardous wastes, the limited data available
preclude an accurate determination of the number that are. An esti-
mate, solely for purposes of analysis, is made as described below.
A recent study (Fred C. Hart Associates, 1978) summarizes the
available data as to the number of establishments generating
7-45
-------
TABLE 7-3
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS BY 2-DIGIT SIC CODE*
Industry
Food and kindred products
Textile mill
Apparel and other textile
Lumber and wood
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Printing and publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastics
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electric and electronic equipment
Transportation equipment
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
SIC code
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-
Number of establishments
28,185
7,204
24,430
33,931
9,242
6,047
42,103
11,430
2,080
9,271
3,206
16,025
6,795
30,299
40,795
12,268
8,804
5,989
15,185
313,289
*Based on Appendix K.
7-46
-------
TABLE 7-4
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS BY EPA REGION*
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Number of Establishments'!"
23,258
52,302
28,213
45,729
68,994
24,360
14,322
6,619
38,126
11,366
*Based on Appendix K.
tSIC Codes 20, 22-39.
7-47
-------
hazardous wastes within major industrial groups. That study cautions
that the data provided on the number of hazardous waste producers can
only be regarded as tentative because the data are based on many dif-
ferent reports in which different criteria were used for identifying
hazardous wastes and hazardous waste generators. Table 7-5 shows the
manfacturing SIC Codes considered in that study and indicates, by EPA
Region, the estimated number of establishments and hazardous waste
producers within the selected SIC Codes. Based on Table 7-5, an esti-
mated 90 percent of the manufacturing establishments in the selected
manufacturing SIC Codes generate some hazardous wastes. Assuming
that this percentage holds for all manufacturing establishments,
based on Table 7-3, it is estimated that about 282,000 manufacturing
establishments produce some hazardous wastes.
Other Major Categories of Generators. Other than the manufac-
turing industries, industry categories in which there would likely be
large numbers of hazardous waste generators include, but are not
limited to, automotive service stations*, hospitals, medical labora-
tories, and research facilities.t It is estimated that there would
be up to 283,000 potential generators within these categories (see
Table 7-6).
*Automotive service stations include gasoline service stations,
general automotive repair operations, and motor vehicle dealers.
tAs discusssed in Section 7.1.2.1, any hazardous waste generator
engaged solely in retail trade or farming would be considered a
generator subject to the regulations only with regard to waste
automotive oil. It is expected that as a result of this exclusion,
there would be very few such generators subject to the regulations.
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-5
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS WITHIN
SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES BY EPA REGION*
Industry
Organic chenlcals, pesticides
and explosives
Ferrous metals
Electroplating
Job shops
Captive shops
Inorganic chemicals
Nonfcrrous metals
Textiles
Petroleum refining
Plastics naterials and
synthetics
Special machinery
Leather tanning
Paint and allied products
Contract-solvent recycling
Pharmaceuticals
Petroleum re-refining and
processing
Rubber
Electronic components
Batteries
TOTAL
SIC codes
2861. 2865. 2869.
2879. 2892
3312. 3313. 332.
3399
3471
N.A.t
2812, 2813, 2816
2819
333, 3341
22
2911
282
355. 357
3111
2851
N.A
N.A. t
2831. 2833. 2834
2992 + others
3011, 3021. 3031,
3041, 3069
367
3691. 3692
-
Number of
establishments
2.226
1.780
2,254
12,000
1,600
346
5,300
247
462
4,610
517
1.544
90
45 000
1,100
1.544
1,539
•
2,855
262
85,276
I
72
1
326
1,741
2
10
258
36
439
103
81
5
54
178
367
17
3,690
II
336
15
277
1,476
16
37
367
7
53
715
71
294
17
282
23
186
588
17
4.777
Number of
III IV
286 401
63 37
176 157
936 827
15 27
41 34
206 998
18 16
59 94
322 528
15 11
120 182
7 10
115 106
15 37
128 193
230 173
24 44
2,776 3,875
potentisl
V
388
59
861
4,584
21
91
71
35
99
990
42
393
generators in
VI VII
275 135
12 2
99 115
528 612
34 4
40 16
30 IS
80 13
55 8
192 147
4 5
118 77
23 7 4
215 68 81
37
495
524
52
8.980
23 15
82 47
132 78
24 18
1.803 1,392
EPA region
VIII
75
3
31
168
4
12
4
29
2
47
5
14
1
20
9
18
36
7
485
IX
198
12
163
863
9
45
49
37
54
538
15
221
13
143
33
187
694
41
3.315
X
60
10
49
265
6
20
9
12
2
130
6
44
3
16
14
25
33
13
717
Total
2,226
214
2.254
12.000
138
346
2,007
247
462
4,048
277
1.544
90
«nnn
t UUU
1.100
206
1,539
2,855
257
76.810
•Modified from Fred C. llart Associates. Inc., 1977.
tNot available. Captive shops are counted under the SIC Code of the parent
establishment.
-------
TABLE 7-6
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PRODUCERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES WITHIN SELECTED CATEGORIES
Category
Number of
potential producers
Service industry
Hospitals*
Medical laboratories*
Research facilities*
Sub-total
Retail industry
Automotive service stationst
Special wastes
Cement manufacturing^
Coal-fired utilities§
Oil drilling
Phosphate rock mining and processing
Uranium mining
Other mining
267,000
250-275H
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
*Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1977.
tModified from Fred C. Hart Associates estimates based upon
EPA staff estimates that only 90 percent of gasoline service
stations would produce hazardous wastes; the other 10 percent
are self-service stations which are not likely to produce
hazardous wastes.
fHolberger et al., 1978.
iPersonal communications, National Ash Association, 1978.
flThis is the total number of plants generating the special
waste. It is not known how many, if any, of these plants
would generate special waste that would be identified as
hazardous under the regulations.
7-50
-------
With regard to 'special wastes', up to about 375 cement manufac-
turing plants and coal-fired utilities could potentially be producers
of such wastes (see Table 7-6). Data are not available to estimate
the total number of these plants that could generate wastes that
would be identified as hazardous under the Subtitle C regulations.
Data are also not available' to estimate the number of potential pro-
ducers of other 'special wastes' that could be identified as hazard-
ous under the regulations; however, the number could be large. For
example, 10,000 to 20,000 oil wells have been drilled annually in
recent years with about 60 percent of these wells being successful
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976); however, the number of cur-
rently producing wells generating potentially hazardous brines and
muds is not known.
Number of Hazardous Waste Generators Required to Comply With the
Subtitle C Regulations. The generator regulations provide that
establishments producing and disposing of more than 100 kilograms per
month of wastes are to be identified as hazardous waste -generators
subject to regulation. Table 7-2 shows, by EPA Region, the esti-
mated number of manufacturing establishments producing less than 100
kilograms of hazardous wastes per month and the total amount of
hazardous wastes produced annually by such establishments. Over
81,000 manufacturing establishments could potentially be excluded
from complying with the regulations based upon a generator limit of
100 kilograms per month. While these establishments represent about
26 percent of all manufacturing establishments within the SIC Codes
7-51
-------
considered, they produce less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous
wastes produced by all manufacturing industries within these particu-
lar SIC Codes.
Based upon this information and a study by Fred C. Hart Asso-
ciates (1976), the total number of manufacturing establishments
generating hazardous wastes that potentially may not have to comply
with the generator regulations is estimated to range between 81,000
and 112,000. The total number that potentially may have to comply is
estimated to range between 201,000 and 232,000. The establishments
required to comply are estimated to generate over 99.9 percent of all
hazardous wastes produced by the manufacturing industries.
With regard to automotive service stations, EPA staff estimates
are that about 35 percent of all gasoline service stations would be
likely to generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous
wastes; thus, up to 210,000 automotive service stations could be
subject to the generator regulations. However, EPA staff estimates
are that approximately 75 percent of these automotive service
stations would use transfer of liability contracts to avoid having to
comply with the generator requirements. Thus, on the order of 50,000
automotive service stations could have to comply with the generator
regulations. In addition, up to about 16,100 hospitals, medical
laboratories, and research facilities could have to comply (see Table
7-6).
7-52
-------
Thus, there would potentially be on the order of 270,000 to
300,000 generators within these three categories who could be subject
to the generator regulations.
7.1.3.4 Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the
Regulations. Hazardous wastes are transported by highway, rail,
waterway, air, and pipeline, with the vast majority being transported
by truck (see Appendix E). Hazardous waste transporters include
hazardous waste generators, treaters, and disposers as well as estab-
lishments engaged solely in transport activities. According to a
recent study of the hazardous waste transport industry (Arthur D.
Little, 1978a), the number of firms currently transporting hazardous
wastes is unknown, both for the industry as a whole and for each of
its segments.
7.1.3.5 Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to
Obtain Permits. Sections 7.1.2.3 and 7.1.2.4 delineate those hazard-
ous waste storers, treaters, and disposers who would be required to
obtain permits. A study by Battelle Columbus Laboratories (1978)
attempted to estimate the number of potential permittees under the
regulations. Table 7-7 shows the Battelle Columbus Laboratories'
estimate of the number of potential permittees for the manufacturing
industries (for those industries listed in Table 7-5), Federal in-
stallations, hospitals, automotive service stations, and the existing
hazardous wastes management service industry. There are estimated to
7-53
-------
TABLE 7-7
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PERMITTEES*
Number of
Category potential permittees
Manufacturing industry
Electronic components 325
Electroplating and metal finishing
Job shops 744
Captive shops 4,000
Explosives 577
Inorganic chemicals 138
Leather tanning and finishing 30
Metals smelting and refining 549
Organic chemicals 845
Paint and allied products 235.
Pesticides 512
Petroleum refining 143
Petroleum re-refining 7
Pharmaceuticals 421
Plastics 462
Rubber products 65
Special machinery 781
Storage and primary batteries 52
Textiles 190
Miscellaneous 11,659
Sub-total 21,735
Government
Federal Installations 241
Service Industry
Hospitals 7,174
Hazardous waste management 110
Sub-total 7,284
Retail industry
Automotive service stations 0
Total 29.260
""•Modified from Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1978.
7-54
-------
be about 29,000 potential permittees within these groups. According
to that study, data are not available to estimate the number of
potential permittees within other categories.
With regard to treaters, storers, and disposers of 'special
wastes', there could be potentially a large number of permittees.
For example, in Wyoming alone there are about 10,000 lagoons used for
the disposal of oil drilling muds and brines. Data are not available
to estimate the portion of 'special wastes' that would be identified
as hazardous, nor the number of potential permittees managing such
hazardous 'special wastes'.
7.1.3.6 Paperwork Requirements Under the Regulations. The
Subtitle C regulations establish reporting and recordkeeping require-
ments for generators, transporters, storers,' treaters, and disposers
of hazardous wastes. Many of these reporting and recordkeeping re-
quirements would be in addition to existing requirements.
Generators would be required to prepare a manifest for each off-
site hazardous waste shipment, keep a copy of each manifest for 3
years, submit a quarterly report on manifested shipments for which
the signed original manifest (or delivery document) is not returned,
and submit an annual report based on the manifests or on wastes
managed on-site. Transporters would be required to keep a copy of
manifests (or delivery documents) for a perid of at least 3 years.
Owners/operators of permitted hazardous waste management facilities
(i.e., storers, treaters, and disposers) would be required to keep a
copy of each manifest (or delivery document) for 3 years and also to
7-55
-------
prepare and keep for 3 years records of specified operating
conditions, records of employee training, and records of groundwater
monitoring. In addition, each owner/operator would be required to
prepare and keep until facility closure a log containing: the
location and types of wastes disposed at the facility, required waste
analyses, required monitoring data, results of required visual
inspections, and records of any human health or environmental damage
caused by the facility. Each owner/operator would also be required
to submit both an annual report based upon manifests received during
the year and a quarterly report on groundwater and leachate moni-
toring, if applicable. Each owner/operator would also have to submit
a permit application and appropriate supplemental material. In
addition, within 90 days following promulgation of the Section 3001
regulations, all generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and
disposers would be required to notify the EPA Regional Adminis-
trator (or an authorized state) that they fall into one of these
categories.
Number of Manifests. Based on the assumptions stated in Section
7.1.4.1, it is estimated that there could be between 350,000 and
690,000 off-site shipments of hazardous industrial wastes annually by
1984, necessitating industrial generators to prepare between 350,000
and 690,000 manifests annually. An indeterminable number of mani-
fests could also have to be prepared by other generators. The aggre-
gated generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous
waste management facilities would each have to keep between 1.0 and
7-56
-------
2.1 million manifests in storage on an annual basis. Most transport-
ers currently keep at least 3 years worth of delivery documents in
storage due to various state and Federal requirements (see Appendix
E). To the extent that transporters use acceptable delivery docu-
ments in lieu of manifests or use manifests in lieu of existing
delivery documents, this recordkeeping requirement would not consti-
tute an additional burden on transporters. However, as indicated in
Chapter 2, most states do not require generators or hazardous waste
management facilities to prepare or retain records on hazardous waste
shipments and, as a result, much of such recordkeeping under Subtitle
C would represent an additional requirement.
Other Recordkeeping Requirements. Generators would also have to
keep records on wastes managed on-site to enable preparation of an-
nual reports. Each owner/operator of a permitted hazardous waste man-
agement facility would have to keep an operating log for the life of
the facility, plus 3 years worth of those records specified above.
Most of this recordkeeping would represent an additional requirement,
based upon existing state regulations.
Number of Recurring Reports. Approximately 270,000 to 300,000
annual reports could potentially be prepared by the previously iden-
tified generators, assuming that generators who dispose wastes both
on-site and off-site prepare one combined annual report for both
types of disposal. Permittees would have to prepare annual reports
only if they receive manifested wastes. Most of the potential
7-57
-------
permittees listed in Table 7-7 would be on-site facilities and would
not have to prepare additional annual reports. Hazardous waste man-
agement service industry facilities and Federal installations could
prepare about 350 additional annual reports. An indeterminable num-
ber of additional annual reports would also have to be prepared by
other generators and hazardous waste management facilities such as
generators or disposers of 'special wastes'.
Each permittee would also have to submit four monitoring reports
annually, if there was a potential for discharge to groundwater from
the facility. Based on Table 7-7, there could be up to 117,000 such
monitoring reports submitted annually.
Thus, there could be upwards of 387,000 to 417,000 reports pre-
pared and submitted annually by generators and hazardous waste man-
agement facilities. Most of these reports would represent additional
reporting requirements, based upon existing state regulations.
Number of Non-recurring Reports. The previously identified gen-
erators and permittees would have to file about 270,000 to 300,000
notifications under Section 3010 with EPA or authorized states. An
indeterminable number of transporter and other potential generators
and permittees would also have to file such notifications.
Transporters could potentially have to file between 140 and 270
spill reports annually, based upon Section 7.1.4.1. Permittees would
have to file an indeterminable number of incident reports annually.
The potential permittees identified in Table 7-7 would have to submit
approximately 29,000 permit applications and additional supplemental
7-58
-------
material. The permit application consists of two parts which may be
submitted separately or together. Most of these submittals would
represent additional requirements, based upon existing state regu-
lations.
7.1.4 Air Impacts. This section discusses potential impacts
that could occur with regard to air quality and climate as a result
of promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations.
7.1.4.1 Air Quality Impacts. Current hazardous waste genera-
tion, transport, and storage, treatment, and disposal practices in-
volve a variety of activities, each of which has the potential for
releasing air pollutants to the environment. The potential for the
release of air pollutants by each of these activities (e.g., land-
filling, incineration, containerization) would be affected in differ-
ent ways by the Subtitle C regulations. This section discusses
current sources of air pollutants from each of these activities,
incidents that have occurred from current practices, and the ways in
which the baseline regulations could affect potential air pollutant
releases from these sources and practices.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to the Generation of Hazardous
Waste. The Subtitle C regulations would apply only to those air
emissions, and resultant air quality impacts, that are produced by
activities occurring after the generation of hazardous wastes. The
regulations would not apply to those air emissions produced during
the generation of hazardous wastes, nor to those air emissions pro-
duced from the reuse of hazardous wastes as an integral part of
7-59
-------
subsequent process steps without intervening storage. Thus, the
Subtitle C regulations would not have a direct effect on air emis-
sions resulting from hazardous waste generation. However, to the
extent that the regulations change the economics of disposal or
treatment, and thus result in process modifications engineered to
recycle hazardous wastes or to reduce or alter the quantity and/or
types of hazardous waste generated, Subtitle C could indirectly
result in changes in process air emissions.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to Storage of Hazardous Wastes.
Current practices in the storage of hazardous wastes can lead to the
release of air pollutants in three major ways:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills, fires, explosions,
and other accidental releases of hazardous wastes and/ortheir
constituents;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes.
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would reduce, to vary-
ing degrees, the existing potential for release of air emissions from
each of these sources. In addition, any facility construction and/or
modification required by the Subtitle C regulations would affect
construction-related air emissions.
Fugitive emissions are currently likely to occur in a number of
ways. The loading or placing of hazardous wastes into storage con-
tainers, storage piles, or surface impoundments currently results in
the release of fugitive emissions containing the hazardous waste
7-60
-------
itself. For example, the loading of solid wastes, particularly fine
waste materials, onto open storage piles is likely to result in
particulate matter which contains hazardous waste constituents
becoming airborne in the vicinity of the loading area. The loading
of hazardous wastes containing volatile materials into tanks or other
containers is also likely to result in the escape of fugitive air
emissions. In both cases, the amounts of fugitive emissions emitted
is dependent upon the characteristics of the specific wastes being
stored, the degree of controls employed (e.g., dust or vapor recovery
systems), and the adequacy of maintenance operations, particularly
for pump seals, joints, flanges, and other equipment used with
volatile wastes.
A major current source of fugitive emissions is the escape of
air pollutants from hazardous wastes which have not been properly
covered or containerized during storage. Such wastes may be subject
to the release of particulate matter containing the hazardous waste
as a result of wind erosion. Volatile wastes stored in containers
without adequate controls are also a potential source of fugitive
emissions. The quantity of fugitive emissions produced is dependent
upon the volatility of the waste, the adequacy of the container and
its seals, and the effectiveness of any control equipment present.
Liquid wastes stored in surface impoundments and basins are also a
source of fugitive emissions due to evaporative losses and/or
volatilization of hazardous components.
7-61
-------
While data are not available Co estimate the magnitude of fugi-
tive emissions presently occurring from hazardous waste storage, the
following reported incidents illustrate the types of air quality
problems that have occurred under current practices (see Appendix J
for other incidents):
• Since 1867, asbestos product manufaturers have accumulated
nearly 2 million cubic yards of assorted industrial wastes in
open piles in a small Pennsylvania town. The original gen-
erator of the wastes went out of business in 1962. Since
then two other companies have been responsible for enlarging
the spoils piles. The air in the vicinity of the piles has
been observed to contain asbestos fibers due to wind erosion.
An air-monitoring program conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in October 1973 indicated ambient back-
ground levels of asbestos in the area to be 6 ng/m^. An
asbestos level of 9.6 ng/nr* was found at a playground near
the largest waste pile. Values obtained near active disposal
piles ranged from 114 to 1745 ng/m^ (Office of Solid Waste
Program, 1974a).
• A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals was storing
and disposing of toxic chemical wastes at two Louisiana
locations. At one of these sites, several thousand drums of
waste (some with and some without lids) were in storage.
Many of the drums were popping their lids and leaking; vis-
ible vapors were emanating from the area. The pine trees
beside the storage area were all killed as a result of this
leakage (Office of Solid Waste Programs, 1974a).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for such fugitive air emissions
from the storage of hazardous wastes. For example, the Section 3005
regulations would require that all owners/operators of hazardous
waste storage facilities, except storage facilities operated by
generators who store hazardous wastes for 90 days or less prior to
off-site treatment/disposal in an approved facility, obtain a permit
for such storage. To obtain and keep a permit, such storage
7-62
-------
facilities would have to comply with the Section 3004 storage regula-
tions. According to these regulations, hazardous waste storage op-
erations would have to be conducted in such a manner that no dis-
charge occurs; these storage operations would also have to be moni-
tored and inspected to detect any potential discharge. Hazardous
wastes which could release air emissions that could adversely affect
human health or the environment if stored in an open manner would be
required to be stored in tanks or other closed containers. Hazardous
wastes to which this requirement would apply include those which
could potentially release air contaminants in concentrations, measur-
ed at the surface of the storage area, exceeding the Threshold Limit
Values (TLV) listed in Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2. For example,
the asbestos-containing wastes previously discussed would likely have
to be stored in closed containers under the Subtitle C regulations
rather than placed in open piles.
Furthermore, the regulations require that containers used to
store hazardous wastes must not be opened, handled, or stored in any
manner which could rupture the container or cause it to leak. Wastes
in containers whose contents begin to leak would have to be recon-
tainerized. Also, storage containers and tanks would have to be con-
structed of materials, or contain a liner, which are compatible with
the wastes stored. These requirements would apply, for example, to
the hazardous wastes stored in leaking containers at the Louisiana
7-63
-------
storage site previously discussed. Under the Subtitle C regulations,
such wastes would have to be recontainerized and stored in another
manner less susceptible to leakage.
In addition, volatile wastes—those with a true vapor pressure
greater than 78 mm mercury at 25 C~would not be allowed to be stored
in surface impoundments or basins under the Subtitle C regulations.
Storage tanks with a capacity in excess of 19,000 liters (5,000 gal-
lons) would not be allowed to be vented directly to the atmosphere if
they contained such volatile wastes. Examples of listed hazardous
waste constituents (Appendix B, Subpart A, Paragraph 250.14(a)) which
have vapor pressures greater than that specified above and which have
also been identified in hazardous industrial waste streams (see
Appendix C) include: acrolein, benzene, chloroform, methyl bromide,
trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride (Perry et al., 1973). The
Louisiana landfill incident cited above illustrates one type of inci-
dent that has occurred from fugitive emissions from the storage of
volatile wastes.
Spills, fires, explosions, and other accidents represent a
second major source of potential air emissions from current hazard-
ous waste storage practices. Improper storage and mixing of incom-
patible wastes and the improper storage and handling of potentially
explosive or ignitable wastes have been major contributors to fires
and explosions in hazardous waste storage areas in the past. Incom-
patible wastes are those wastes unsuitable for commingling with
another waste or material because the commingling might result in:
7-64
-------
extreme heat or pressure generation; fire; explosion or violent reac-
tion; formation of substances which are shock-sensitive, friction-
sensitive, or otherwise have the potential of reacting violently;
formation of toxic dusts, mists, fumes, gases, or other chemicals;
volatilization of ignitable or toxic chemicals due to heat genera-
tion. Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 4 presents examples of potential-
ly incompatible wastes.
Volatile wastes and wastes composed of fine materials are those
most likely to release air contaminants emissions as a result of
storage accidents. In addition, ignitable wastes which catch fire as
a result of an accident are a further source of emissions. Fires
could also create and release additional hazardous air contaminants
not originally present in the hazardous waste itself (Appendix M
describes some of the emissions that could occur from the combustion
of hazardous wastes).
The following data illustrate the potential for such impacts
under current practices. In 1976 there were, from sources other than
transport activities, approximately 4,000 spills of hazardous materi-
als (not generally wastes) reported under Section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (see Section 6.4.). Over 1,300 of the
total reported spills (transportation and non-transportation related)
involved waste materials, primarily waste oil. In 1976 in Ohio there
were another 160 reported spills involving potential air pollution
problems (this includes spills of both hazardous wastes and nonwaste
materials from storage and transportation). Of the 160 reported
7-65
-------
spills, 39 involved hazardous air pollutants such as ammonia, chlo-
rine, acetone, hydrochloric acid, dimethoate, hexamethylene, para-
thion, vinyl chloride, propargyl alcohol, perchloroethylene, xylene,
butyl acrylate, titanium tetrachloride, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
hydrogen peroxide, ethyl ether, and nitric acid (State of Ohio,
1976).
The following incidents identify some of the types of accidents
that have occured with a potential for releasing air pollutants. Ad-
ditional examples of such incidents are discussed in the section on
treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes and in Appendix J.
• In 1973, a major chemical company in Virginia contracted with
a processing firm in Alabama to pick up, haul, and dispose
approximately 10,000 drums of aramite waste, containing 30 to
80 percent sulfuric acid. Most of the wastes were shipped in
208 liter (55-gallon) steel drums and 190 liter (50-gallon)
iber drums. The wastes brought to Alabama were never proces-
sed and remained in two open storage areas and in one en-
closed warehouse. Due to weathering, physical stress, and
the corrosive and harsh nature of the wastes, many of the
drums stored in the two open areas disintegrated and their
contents spread over the adjacent ground. In addition to
contamination of local waters (chemical analysis of samples
of drainage water from the storage site indicated very high
acidity and high concentrations of heavy metals), the storage
of waste at the three locations presented a great fire
hazard. On March 9 and 10, 1976, a fire broke out at the
site, and two firefighters became ill, presumably due to
inhalation of toxic fumes.
• At a land disposal site in Southern California, a tanker
unloaded a waste listed as "waste acid" into a subsurface,
bottomless tank through an open stack above the ground.
Shortly after the unloading operation commenced, yellowish-
brown clouds of nitrogen dioxide began to emanate from the
open stack. The reaction appeared to have subsided when the
discharging of the wastes ceased. However, an hour later,
additional nitrogen dioxide started to spew from the stack.
The emission was halted by filling the stack with soil.
7-66
-------
There were no reported injuries; however, there were many
complaints from nearby businesses, and a factory was
evacuated.
• The following incident while it did not involve wastes per
se, illustrates the potential for combustion of wastes due to
fire and the associated problems. In April 1971, a fire
occurred in the warehouse in Okanogen County, Washington,
where about 2 tons of pesticides were stored, including
guthion, parathion, endrin, dieldrin, DDT, and other chlori-
nated hydrocarbons. Nearly 50 tons of fertilizer were also
stored in the building. Toxic emissions from the burning of
these chemicals forced the evacuation of nearby residents.
Officials also feared the possibility of explosions caused by
the fertilizers. Nearly 2 million gallons of water were
required to extinguish the fire. Much of this water spilled
into the street and flowed through gutters and storm sewers
to the Okanogen River 1/2 mile away. Endrin at a level of
0.8 ppm was detected in the run-off into the river in early
April. Also, a city well about 500 feet from the fire site
showed a nitrate concentration of 34.4 ppm in early June.
Expectant mothers and small children were cautioned to avoid
drinking the city water for a period of 2 weeks after the
incident.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for fires, explosions, and other accidents at hazardous
waste storage facilities and the potential for impacts from any acci-
dents that do occur. For example, th.e Section 3004 regulations re-
quire that storage containers holding wastes that are incompatible
would have to be separated from each other or protected from each
other in order to prevent the wastes from mixing should the contain-
ers break or leak. Storage areas would have to be constructed to
contain any spills that might occur. Explosive, ignitable, or highly
reactive wastes (see Appendix B, Subpart A, Section 250.13) would not
be allowed to be stored in surface impoundments or basins.
7-67
-------
Incompatible wastes would not be allowed to be mixed in storage
basins, nor in surface impoundments except for treatment purposes.
One of the major causes of the mixing of incompatible wastes or
the improper storage of explosive, ignitable, or highly reactive
wastes has been the lack of accurate information about the waste
being provided to the waste handler (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, 1978a). The manifesting and labeling
requirements under Section 3002 would make such information more
readily available and would further reduce the potential for
accidents from the improper storage of such wastes.
In addition, owners/operators of storage facilities would have
to inspect storage areas daily for rust, corrosion, cracks, and
spills. Also, hazardous waste storage facilities would have to
prepare contingency plans to minimize human health or environmental
damage in the event of an accidental discharge of hazardous materials
to the surrounding air, surface, or subsurface environment (see
Appendix B, Subpart D, 250.43-4). To the extent that this latter re-
quirement and the spill containment requirement reduce the time
necessary to clean up spills or prevent additional accidental dis-
charges, there would be a reduction in air pollutants and resultant
impacts from any such accidental releases. Furthermore, other
reductions in fugitive emissions, as previously discussed, would
reduce the potential for fires and explosions from such emissions,
especially from volatile wastes.
7-68
-------
A third source of air emissions are current practices in which
hazardous wastes are placed in storage for indefinite periods of
time; in many such cases the hazardous wastes are ultimately abandon-
ed rather than being disposed. Such wastes may be stored in contain-
ers or may be stored in an open manner. Due to such factors as
weathering and/or corrosion, containers eventually rupture or leak,
releasing their contents to the environment. As discussed above,
volatile, flammable, or fine waste materials are the most likely
sources of air emissions following such releases. Also, any such
releases increase the potential for the mixing of incompatible wastes
with the resultant consequences described above. Wastes which were
not originally containerized would be subject to erosion and/or
volatilization during the time that they were in storage.
Several incidents have previously been cited illustrating the
potential problems from indefinite storage of hazardous wastes (i.e.,
asbestos storage piles in Pennsylvania and aramite waste in Alabama).
The following incident further illustrates the potential problem:
• In 1971, a major chemical company in New Jersey contracted
with an independent waste transporter to remove and dispose
of 55-gallon drums containing petrochemical wastes. The
wastes included acrylonitrile, acetone, epichlorohydrin, and
a number of other chemicals possessing toxic, flammable,
explosive, and oxidizing properties. A total of about 6,000
of these drums were hauled away and were to be disposed of at
a landfill. However, approximately 4,500 of the drums were
dumped by the transporter on a section of a former chicken
farm in Dover Township, New Jersey. The land had been leased
to the transporter under the assumption that he was in the
drum salvaging business and empty drums were to be stored
there. A few months later the owners detected unusual odors
emanating from the leased land and discovered thousands of
drums, many leaking, buried, and strewn about. In 1974, it
7-69
-------
was discovered chat an unknown portion of the Cohansey
Aquifer, a major groundwater table aquifer, had been con-
taminated by the wastes (State of Minnesota, 1977).
The proposed regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for air emissions that result from
the indefinite storage of hazardous wastes. The Section 3004 regula-
tions require that at facility close-out, all hazardous wastes would
have to be removed from storage operations and disposed as required
under Subtitle C. In addition, the manifest requirements under Sec-
tion 3002 would help to insure that wastes are delivered to permitted
facilities and not stored or abandoned in an environmentally unac-
ceptable manner. It should be noted that acceptable treatment/
disposal methods would not necessarily exist for every hazardous
waste (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of wastes that have required
engineered storage in recent years), and any such wastes could have
to be stored for indefinite periods until treatment/disposal methods
were developed. However, any such storage would have to be in com-
pliance with all the requirements previously discussed. Based upon
Appendix D, large quantities of industrial wastes are known to be
stored in surface impoundments; such storage quite often constitutes
disposal.
One other source of air pollutant generation common to all
hazardous waste management activities would be the construction of
necessary hazardous waste management facilities and related con-
junctive developments (e.g., roads, pipelines, power lines, reser-
voirs) . To the extent that the Subtitle C regulations result in
7-70
-------
modifications to or the construction of additional hazardous waste
storage, transportation, disposal, or treatment facilities, there
would be an increase in construction related air emissions. The
major emissions would include exhaust from motor vehicles, including
construction equipment, and fugitive dust raised by such construction
activities as grading, excavation, and movement of equipment.
Vehicle emissions during construction would consist primarily of
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. The emission
levels would be extremely site-dependent. The magnitude of fugitive
dust emissions would depend upon such factors as soil and terrain
characteristics, time of year, method of construction, size of the
area disturbed, and type of control measures utilized. Cowherd et
al. (1974) summarized the available information on emissions from
fugitive dust sources and found that while activity levels signifi-
cantly influence emission rates, the relationship cannot be
quantified.
Air Quality Impacts Relative to Transport of Hazardous Wastes.
Current practices in the transport of hazardous wastes have the
potential to release air emissions in three major ways:
• Though fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
7-71
-------
As discussed below, the Subtitle C regulations would affect, to
varying degrees, the potential for the release of air emissions from
each of these sources. In addition, construction related air emis-
sions could be affected by construction and/or modification of trans-
portation facilities as a result of the Subtitle C regulations.
There are several potential sources of fugitive emissions from
the transport of hazardous wastes. These include emissions released
during the loading and/or unloading of hazardous wastes that have not
been containerized or that have not been properly covered and/or
containerized for transport. Appendices D and E indicate that a
sizeable portion of hazardous wastes are typically transported
without being containerized. Potential sources and types of fugitive
emissions from the loading, unloading, and transport of hazardous
wastes would be very similar to those discussed under storage and are
not repeated here. In addition, solid hazardous wastes which are not
properly covered or containerized during transport would be subject
to wind erosion and would be a potential source of particulate matter
emissions. Such particulate matter would be composed of the hazard-
ous waste material itself.
Fugitive emissions during transport could result in adverse
impacts in the vicinity of the route of travel, as illustrated in the
following examples:
• A truck driver noticed that one of the drums he was hauling
through the village of Mundelein was leaking titanium tri-
chloride, a chemical that changes to an hydrocloric acid mist
on contact with the air. Fourteen people were hospitalized
7-72
-------
for exposure to the fumes. The four drums of chemicals were
neutralized and buried (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• In the San Francisco Bay Area, an attempt was made to recover
alkyl lead from organic lead wastes. The wastes were trans-
ported by truck to a recovery plant. Toll collectors on a
bridge along the truck route to the recovery plant became ill
as a result of vapors escaping from the transporting truck
(Office of Solid Waste Programs, 1974a).
The regulations contain provisions that should, to some degree,
reduce the potential for fugitive air emissions from the transport of
hazardous wastes. The Section 3002 regulations would require that
every generator containerize his hazardous wastes in accordance with
the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations on packaging under
49 CFR 173, 178, and 179. If no specific packaging is required, the
generator would have to place the hazardous waste in a package in
accordance with the DOT regulations on standard requirements for all
packages under 49 CFR 173.14(a), (b), and (c) (2-9). Since the DOT
regulations currently apply only to interstate shipments of hazardous
materials, the effect of the Section 3002 regulations would be to ex-
tend the DOT regulations to interstate shipments of hazardous wastes
that are not identified as DOT hazardous materials and to most intra-
state shipments of hazardous wastes (about 27 states have adopted the
DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations in toto or have similar regula-
tions; about twelve others have adopted parts of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations). According to a study by Arthur D. Little,
Inc. (1978a), about one-half of the hazardous wastes transporters
surveyed did not transport wastes across state borders.
7-73
-------
While the regulations do not contain specific provisions to
reduce fugitive air emissions from the loading and/or unloading of
uncontainerized wastes, nor from the placing of wastes in containers,
the air human health and environmental standard would reduce the
potential for the release of such emissions at permitted facilities.
A second major source of air emissions from hazardous waste
transport are accidents which result in spills or other releases of
hazardous wastes. The two most likely causes of such releases are
accidents involving the transport vehicle itself and explosions
occurring within the transport vehicle as the result of the mixing of
incompatible wastes. Once the waste material has been released,
those wastes which are relatively volatile or which are composed of
fine particles are most likely to become sources of air emissions.
In addition, wastes which are ignitable can catch fire following an
accident and become the source of additional air emissions. Such
combustion can create additional hazardous air contaminants not
originally present in the waste itself and would serve to disperse
those air pollutants generated.
The following incidents illustrate some of the types of air pol-
lutant problems that have occurred during hazardous waste transport:
• An industrial waste truck exploded in a truck bin on the Dan
Ryan Expressway in Chicago spewing barrels of flames over
cars and across all eight lanes of the roadway. The chemical
waste which exploded was believed to be sodium nitrate which
was part of the load being carried by the truck (Office of
Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b.).
• In Richmond, California, a hazardous waste hauler mixed a
liquid waste containing butyl acetate in xylene, with an
7-74
-------
etching waste containing sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and
hydrofluoric acid. A hydrolysis reaction took place. Pres-
sure was generated in the tank, and the safety relief valve
was blown off while the truck was travelling through a
residential area. A private residence was sprayed with the
hazardous mixture. No one was injured, but considerable
clean-up was required (DeVera et al., 1977).
The regulations contain provisions that should reduce the
potential for explosions and spills resulting from the mixing of
incompatible wastes during transport. The Section 3003 regulations
contain the requirement that the transporter must load and stow
hazardous wastes so that those which are incompatible would not come
into contact with each other. The Section 3002 requirement that
generators must label hazardous wastes and must furnish information
about the general chemical composition of each hazardous waste on the
manifest to be provided to the transporter would aid the transporter
in identifying incompatible hazardous wastes. To the extent that
transporters can increase the identification of incompatible wastes
during transport, there would be a reduction in air incidents from
the mixing of hazardous wastes during transport.
The baseline regulations do not contain provisions that would
directly reduce vehicular accidents, and subsequent spills, of
hazardous wastes during transport. However, the regulations do con-
tain provisions that would reduce the potential for air emissions
following such accidents and spills. The baseline regulations
require that the manifest provide either immediate response informa-
tion regarding what actions should be taken in an emergency situation
or a 24-hour telephone number for obtaining such information. The
7-7~5
-------
manifest would also aid in identifying the general chemical compo-
sition of the spilled hazardous waste. This information would likely
aid in cleaning up the spill. To the extent that the time for clean-
up is reduced, the potential for the release of air emissions would
be reduced. It should also be noted that any reduction in the mixing
of incompatible wastes would also result in a decrease in accidents
during hazardous waste transport and would result in fewer spills
generating air emissions. Based upon an estimated spill rate of one
transportation-related spill per 37,500 metric tons of hazardous
waste transport (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, 1978a) and 40 million metric tons of hazardous industrial
waste generation in 1984, it is estimated that under the Subtitle C
regulations these could be on the order of 140 spills annually with
13 percent off-site treatment/disposal and on the order of 270 spills
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal. Based upon a typical
transport vehicle size of '14.5 metric tons (Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
1978a), approximately 2000 to 4000 metric tons of hazardous wastes
could be involved in such spills. Data are not available to estimate
potential air emissions likely to be released by such activities.
The spill rate used above is based upon reported incidents from
the transport of hazardous materials which are predominantly not
wastes. Such hazardous materials are currently subject to essential-
ly the same containerization, labeling, and placarding regulations as
would be required for hazardous wastes under the Subtitle C regula-
tions. While the spill rate is a reasonable approximation of what
7-76"
-------
could happen under the Subtitle C regulations, it is not a reasonable
measure of what could happen without the Subtitle C regulations since
there would likely be a higher rate of spills due to improper con-
tainerization and to the mixing of incompatible wastes. Thus, the
reduction in the number of spills under the Subtitle C regulations
cannot be estimated using this spill rate.
Another major source of air pollutants from hazardous waste
transport are emissions from the transport vehicle itself. To the
extent that the regulations shift hazardous waste transportation
patterns, there would be a change in the total amount of vehicle
emissions from hazardous waste transport. At present, the relatively
high cost of long-distance transportation of hazardous wastes and the
lack of hazardous waste treatment and disposal regulations combine to
minimize the distances over which hazardous wastes are hauled. As
discussed in Section 7.1.2.2, the regulations would likely increase
transport distances involved in hazardous waste management.
Table 7-8 presents estimates of the potential magnitude of the
change that could occur in vehicular emissions in 1984 as a result of
promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations. The estimates are
presented for both 13 and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous
wastes in 1984 (see section 7.1.2.4). Since data are not available
to determine the average transport distances likely to occur in 1984
under the regulation, the potential change in emissions is estimated
for four possible transport distances.
7-77
-------
TABLE 7-8
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Change in emissions (metric
Average
Wastes round- trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
^ 200
i
00 500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Carbon monoxide
-160
880
4,000
9,100
. 780
2,800
8,700
18,600
Hydrocarbons
-20
140
630
1,500
120
440
1,400
3,000
Nitrogen
oxides
-110
640
2,900
6,600
540
2,000
6,300
13,500
tons)
Particulates
-10
40
180
410
40
120
390
840
Sulfur
oxides
-20
90
390
890
80
270
850
1,800
-------
The estimates in Table 7-8 are determined as follows. According
to the hazardous waste transportation study by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
(1978a), most hazardous wastes shipped off-site are currently trans-
ported by truck with typical reported transport distances of 50 miles
(100 miles round trip) and typical vehicle capacities of about 14.5
metric tons (18 tons). Typical on-site transport distances are about
two miles round trip. These typical transport distances are assumed
to be the baseline for estimating the changes in vehicular emissions.
The change in the quantity of hazardous wastes transported on-site
and off-site on an annual basis in 1984 is determined as discussed in
Section 7.2.5. The estimated change is a decrease of 0.8 million
metric tons in off-site shipments in the case of 13 percent off-site
treatment/disposal and an increase of 4.0 million metric tons in
off-site shipments in the case of 25 percent off-site treatment
disposal. The change in the number of off-site and on-site hazardous
waste shipments is determined based upon the typical vehicle capacity
of 14.5 metric tons. For each of the four selected 1984 transport
distances, the change in emissions is estimated based upon emission
factors for heavy duty, diesel-powered trucks (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977a).
For purposes of comparison, total U.S. emissions of carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides particulates, and sulfur
oxides were 85.7, 26.1, 22.0, 14.3, and 25.9 million metric tons,
respectively, in 1975. Total U.S. area emissions from heavy-duty
diesel powered vehicles in 1975 were 0.7, 0.2, 1.5, 0.1, and 0.2
7-79
-------
million metric Cons of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen ox-
ides, particulates, and sulfur oxides, respectively (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1978a). The emissions in Table 7-8 for the
1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/
disposal represent an increase of less than 0.06 percent in each of
the total U.S. emissions and of less than 3 percent in each of the
total U.S. area emissions from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
The emissions for the 100-mile round-trip distance with 13 percent
off-site treatment/disposal represent a decrease of less than 0.0005
percent in each of the total U.S. emissions and of less than 0.02
percent in each of the total U.S. area emissions from heavy-duty,
diesel-powered vehicles.
Air Quality Relative to Treatment/Disposal. The major sources
of air emissions from current hazardous waste treatment/disposal
practices are as follows:
• Fugitive emissions from land-based treatment/disposal
activities such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Emissions generated by explosions, fires, and other
accidents;
• Residuals from the combustion of hazardous wastes by
incineration or open burning;
• Fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
9 Fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.*
*These fugitive emissions are discussed under storage and are not
repeated in this section.
7-80
-------
The Subtitle C regulations would affect the potential for release of
air emissions from each of these sources as discussed below.
Such land-based activities for the treatment/disposal of hazard-
ous wastes as landfills, landfarms and surface impoundments currently
release air contaminants through several mechanisms. Activities
which result in soil disturbance, such as excavation, trenching,
covering, grading, and compaction, generate fugitive dust. The
magnitude of fugitive dust emissions depends upon such factors as
soil and terrain characteristics, time of year, type of equipment
utilized, size of the area disturbed, and type of control measures
employed. Vehicles and equipment used in land disposal are a further
source of emissions from such activities, as previously discussed.
Fugitive emissions also occur when the hazardous waste is initially
being deposited 'in the treatment/disposal site. Such fugitive
emissions usually consist of the waste and/or its constituents and
would be similar to those previously discussed under storage and
transportation.
Following placement of the waste in the treatment/disposal
site, gaseous materials that are potentially hazardous are often gen-
erated and released under current practices. Such emissions general-
ly result from volatilization, sublimation, chemical reaction, and/or
decomposition of the wastes. The rate of generation and release of
such gaseous materials is a function of many factors including the
nature, water content, and depth of any cover material; chemical
characteristics and composition of the waste materials; and
7-81
-------
temperatures in the treatment/disposal site and temperature of the
waste. With regard to volatilization, numerous instances of air
pollution problems have been reported under current practices, as
indicated below:
• An industrial solvent reprocessing firm in Maryland dumped
large quantities of volatile organic liquid wastes, con-
taining benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acetones, ketones,
mythelene chloride, and other solvents into a sand and gravel
quarry. The wastes, even though volatile, were often left
open in an evaporating pool before, being covered. Many of
the solvents contained in the waste were detected in signifi-
cant concentrations in the air in the vicinity of the quarry
(see Section 7.1.6, Public Health) (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• In July 1977 several truckloads of organohalides, amines, and
hydrocarbons were dumped by a waste disposal firm at a
disposal site near San Francisco, California. The wastes
were deposited in an evaporation pond, where they soon
floated to the top and began to evaporate. A visible and
odoriferous plume of white mist hovered over the area for
several hours, provoking nausea and other complaints from
residents downwind of the site. At least one building in
the area had to be evacuated (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Air quality problems from existing land disposal practices are
also associated with the products of chemical and microbial transfor-
mations. Chemical reactions from the mixing of incompatible wastes
have occurred on numerous instances and are described in the subse-
quent discussion of explosions, fires, and accidents. The disposal
of organic wastes can produce gases through the decomposition and
chemical reaction of the waste material. Gases produced usually
include methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and
oxygen. Most studies of gas generation through decomposition of
organic wastes have focused only on municipal solid wastes. Streng
7-82
-------
(1976) is studying the effects on gas production from the codisposal
of six industrial wastes with municipal solid wastes. Table 7-9
shows the gas composition data measured in the six industrial waste
test cells and one municipal solid waste test cell at the time of the
report. According to Streng, most of the study cells were progres-
sing from an anaerobic nonmethanation stage to the early phases of
methanation at the time of the report. However, the addition of re-
finery wastes to the municipal solid wastes appeared to have sped up
the decomposition of the municipal solid wastes and the resultant
production of methane. In a later report, Streng (1977) noted that
the test cell containing the mixture of the solvent based paint
sludge and municipal waste produced less than the theoretical minimum
amount of gas expected to have been generated, indicating that this
industrial waste exerted an adverse effect on gas production.
Migration of methane and other combustible gases resulting from
current landfill practices has caused explosions and other problems.
For example:
« A landfill in Deck Quarry, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
accepted municipal and industrial wastes until it closed in
1969. Two explosions and the contamination of residential
drinking water resulted from the generation of methane gas
and its migration through rock fractures. Residents have had
to evacuate their houses permanently (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• Migration of gases from a landfill containing household and
industrial wastes, along with sewage sludge, resulted in the
deaths of over 70 peach trees in Glassboro, New Jersey be-
tween 1971 and 1975. Combustible gases and carbon monoxide
were found along with low oxygen concentrations in the root
zones of the trees up to 24 meters (80 feet) from the land-
fill (Flower, 1976). Many similar cases, some with the
7-83
-------
TABLE 7-9
GAS COMPOSITION DATA*'
Study cell contents^ QŁ N2 City C0Ł H2
oo
Municipal solid waste only
Refinery sludge
Battery reproduction waste
Electroplating waste
Inorganic pigment waste
Chlorine production
brine sludge
Solvent based
paint sludge
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
29.9
26.4
22.3
16.4
2.9
16.6
47.0
0.0
17.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.9
69.2
56.1
76.5
81.9
96.9
83.3
41.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
*Streng, 1976.
tPercent of gas produced by volume.
^Contents In addition to municipal solid waste.
-------
potential for explosions affecting homes have also been re-
ported for municipal landfills (Flower et al., 1976, 1977;
DeGeare, 1976; James, 1977).
The Subtitle C regulations contain requirements that should re-
duce the potential for fugitive emissions from the land-based treat-
ment/disposal of hazardous wastes. For example, the Section 3005
regulations would require that all hazardous waste treatment/
disposal facilities obtain a permit before construction and opera-
tion. To obtain and keep a permit, treatment/disposal facilities
would have to comply with the applicable Section 3004 air regula-
tions.
The objective of the Section 3004 air regulations would be to
insure that treatment/disposal facilities are located, designed, con-
structed, and operated in a manner such that air emissions from such
facilities do not adversely affect human health or the environment.
The air regulations applicable to non-point emission sources (e.g.,
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments) would consist of two
sets of requirements: mandatory standards with which all facilities
must always comply and air human health and environmental standards
which would be applicable, on a case-by-case basis, only when there
is reason to believe (e.g., a third party challenge) that the manda-
tory standards are insufficient for human health and environmental
protection. If a facility is in compliance with all applicable man-
datory standards, it would be assumed to be in complaince with the
air human health and environmental standards; the burden of proof
7-85
-------
would be on the permitting authority to show that the facility was
actually in violation of the air human health and environmental
standard.
The air human health and environmental standard would require
that non-point sources of air emissions not contribute any listed air
contaminant (see Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2) to the atmosphere,
at the surface of the non-point source, in concentrations exceeding
the listed Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for that contaminant, nor con-
tribute two or more listed air contaminants in a manner which causes
the sum of the individual concentrations divided by the individual
TLV's to exceed unity. Examples of air contaminants from the pre-
viously discussed incidences to which the air human health and
environmental standard could apply include acetone, asbestos, ben-
zene, carbon monoxide, carbon tetrachloride, methane, and methylene
chloride. However, the application of this standard could occur only
after the standard was violated; it would not be a means to initially
prevent release of air contaminants in violation of the standard.
The mandatory standards discussed below would, however, prevent the
initial occurrence of most such incidents.
All facility owners/operators would have to obtain an analysis
of each type of waste to be treated/disposed for the purpose of iden-
tifying the principal hazardous components and characteristics of the
waste so as to enable the waste to be treated/disposed in compliance
with the Section 3004 requirements. All owners/operators would also
have to sample waste shipments or batches received to confirm that
7-86
-------
the contents match the previous analysis. Owners/operators of all
treatment/disposal facilities would also have to visually inspect the
facility daily to determine if there were any fugitive emissions.
Volatile wastes—those with a true vapor pressure greater than
78 mm mercury at 25 C—would not be allowed to be treated/disposed in
landfills, surface impoundments, or basins; such wastes could be
landfarmed only if the facility owner/operator could demonstrate, be-
fore landfarming the wastes, that the air human health and environ-
mental standard would not be violated. Examples of air contaminants
from the previously discussed incidents which have vapor pressures
greater than 78 mm mercury at 25 C and which could not be treated/
disposed under the Subtitle C regulations in the manner that caused
the indicated incidents include acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachlor-
ide, methylene chloride, and vinyl chloride.
With regard to wastes that are landfilled, a minimum of 0.15
meters (6 inches) of cover material would have to be applied daily on
active hazardous waste landfill cells. Cells which do not have addi-
tional wastes placed in them for at least one week would have to be
covered with 0.3 meters (12 inches) of material.* Where gases are
generated, a gas collection and control system would have to be in-
stalled in most instances to control the vertical and horizontal
escape of gases. At facility closure, a final cover of at least 0.15
^Different thicknesses or rates of application could be used if the
owner/operator could demonstrate that the air human health and envi-
ronmental standard would not be violated.
7-87
-------
meters of clay soil under a minimum cover of 0.45 meters (18 inches)
of soil would have to be provided.* The facility would also have
to be secured such that discharges of wastes harmful to human health
or the environment would not occur. These requirements would reduce
air emissions that occur under current landfill practices which often
do not employ such measures (see Appendix J).
For example, emissions of hexachlorobenzene wastes are reported
to be reduced from 317 kilograms per hectare per year when disposed
uncovered to 4.564 kg/ha/yr. when covered with 0.02 meters of soil
and to 0.07 kg/ha/yr. when covered with 1.2 meters of soil (Farmer et
al., 1976). Other studies, however, have indicated that even cover-
ing some wastes may,not completely prevent the release of air emis-
sions. A study by Markle et al. (1976) indicated background air
concentrations of about 0.1 to 0.3 ppm VCM exist at landfills where
PVC sludge has been disposed for several years. Peak concentrations
on the order of 1.0 ppm VCM were observed at normal breathing heights
as long as 24 hours after the PVC sludge deposits were covered. The
required gas collection and control system could remove such emis-
sions as well as volatile gases generated by waste decomposition,
including methane and carbon monoxide.
^Different thicknesses or rates of application could be used if the
owner/operator could demonstrate that the air human health and envi-
ronmental standard would not be violated.
7-88
-------
With regard to surface impoundments, the Subtitle C regulations
would require that there be no discharges to the ambient air unless
the facility owners can demonstrate, before treatment/disposal, that
any discharges would not violate the air human health and environmen-
tal standard. Furthermore, at the time of closure, all hazardous
wastes and waste residuals would have to be removed from surface
impoundments which do not meet the requirements for landfills. Also
after closure, surface impoundments would have to be secured such
that discharges of wastes harmful to health or the environment would
not occur.
It should be noted that the Subtitle C regulations do not cover
all types of potentially hazardous fugitive air emissions from land-
based treatment/disposal. The air human health and environmental
standards only apply to those emissions for which there are TLV's
listed in Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2. Other emissions which
could consist of the hazardous waste itself or various hazardous
constituents (e.g., trichloroethane) would not be subject to any
emission standards. There are also no specific requirements aimed at
reducing fugitive dust emissions from treatment/disposal activities
which result in soil disturbance.
Explosions, fires, and other accidents represent another major
source of air contaminants resulting from current hazardous waste
treatment/disposal practices. The primary causes of most such
explosions and fires have been the mixing of incompatible wastes and
7-89
-------
Che improper treatment/disposal of ignitable or reactive wastes.
Often wastes involved in such accidents are those whose identity or
nature were not known prior to treatment/disposal. Resultant fires
have led to the creation, release, and dispersion of additional air
pollutants which have threatened persons living or working in the
vicinity of the treatment/disposal facility. Appendix M describes
types of emissions that can result from the combustion of hazardous
wastes. A less obvious danger of fire occurring within an under-
ground storage or disposal cell is the possibility of destruction of
liners meant to protect groundwater. While this has not been docu-
mented, since most liner materials cannot withstand temperatures in
excess of 150 to 200 C (300 to 400 F) it is theoretically possible
(Office of Solid Wastes, 1977d).
Numerous instances of fires and explosions have been reported at
hazardous waste disposal areas. The incidents presented below illus-
trate some of these occurrences and the subsequent problems.
• At a sanitary landfill near Dundalk, Maryland, a 2,000-gallon
liquid industrial waste load containing iron sulfide, sodium
sulfide, sodium carbonate, and sodium thiosulfate, along with
smaller quantities of organic compounds was discharged into a
depression on top of an earth-covered area of the landfill.
When it reached eight to ten feet below the point of dis-
charge, the liquid started to bubble and fume blue smoke.
The smoke cloud quickly engulfed the truck driver and dis-
abled him. Several nearby workers rushed to his aid and were
also felled. During the clean-up operation, one of the coun-
ty firefighters also collapsed. All six of the injured were
hospitalized and treated for hydrogen sulfide poisoning. It
was not determined whether the generation of hydrogen sulfide
was due to the instability of the waste or the incompatibil-
ity of the waste with some of the landfill material (De Vera
et al., 1977).
7-90
-------
• At a dump in Contra Costa County, California, a large number
of drums containing solvents were deposited in a landfill.
In the immediate area were leaky containers of concentrated
mineral acids and several bags containing beryllium wastes in
dust form. The operators failed to cover the waste at the
end of the day. The acids reacted with the solvents during
the night, ignited them, and started a large chemical fire.
There was possible dispersion of potentially hazardous beryl-
lium dust (De Vera et al., 1977).
• In Los Angeles County, a tank truck emptied several thousand
gallons of cyanide waste onto refuse at a sanitary landfill.
Another truck subsequently deposited several thousand gallons
of acid waste at the same location. Reaction between the
acid and the cyanide evolved large amounts of toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas. A potential disaster was averted when a local
chlorine dealer was quickly called to oxidize the cyanide
with chlorine solution (De Vera et al., 1977).
• A load of empty pesticide containers was delivered to a dis-
posal site in Fresno County, California. Unknown to the site
operator, several full drums of an acetone-methanol mixture
were included in the load. When the load was compacted by
a bulldozer, the containerized waste ignited, engulfing the
bulldozer in flames. The ensuing fire involved dispersion of
pesticide wastes (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Division, 1978b).
• A disposal site in central California accepted a load of
solid dichromate salts and dumped it in a pit along with pes-
ticide formulations and empty pesticide containers. For sev-
eral days thereafter, small fires erupted in the pit due to
the oxidation of the pesticide .formulations by the dichro-
mate (De Vera et al., 1977).
• In October 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in an ex-
plosion at an industrial landfill in Edison Township, New
Jersey, as he was burying and compacting several 55-gallon
drums of unidentified chemical wastes. The victim died as a
result of burns covering approximately 85 percent of his body
(Lazar, 1975).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should, to a
large degree, reduce the potential for fires, explosions, and other
accidents at hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities. For
7-91
-------
example, one of the major causes of many such accidents has been the
lack of accurate information about the identity or nature of the
wastes being treated/disposed (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978a). The manifesting and labelling require-
ments under Section 3002 would make such information readily avail-
able. The requirement that facility owners/operators obtain an
analysis of each type of waste handled from every source (e.g.,
generator) would enable a prior determination of how the waste should
be treated/disposed. The requirement that the facility owner/opera-
tor sample shipments or batches received to confirm that the contents
match the initial analysis would reduce the possibility of improper
handling due to undetected changes in the waste composition. Fur-
thermore, the requirement for training of all personnel in hazardous
waste management procedures relevant to the facility operation would
make such employees less likely to handle or mix wastes in a manner
that could cause fires or explosions.
Incompatible wastes, both containerized and non-containerized,
would also have to be disposed in separate landfill cells. Landfarms
would have to be constructed and operated such that potentially in-
compatible wastes do not come in contact. Incompatible wastes would
not be allowed to be mixed in surface impoundments and basins, except
for treatment purposes, providing the treatment does not violate the
air human health and environmental standard. Furthermore, highly
reactive or ignitable wastes, as defined in Appendix B, Subpart A,
7-92
-------
would not be allowed to be disposed in landfills, surface impound-
ments, basins, or landfarms. Appendix B, Subpart 0, Annex 4 lists
examples of incompatible wastes. Appendix C describes potential
sources generating many of these potentially incompatible wastes.
Examples of wastes identified as potentially hazardous due to reac-
tivity or ignitability (see Appendix C, Subpart D, 250.14) which have
been disposed in landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments in
the past include slop oil emission solids and DAF sludge from petro-
leum refining (see Table D-7); semisolid wastes from toluene diisocy-
nate production (see Table D-5); and solvent and still bottom wastes
from the textile, paint, organic chemicals, special machinery manu-
facturing, and electronic components industries (see Tables 0-1, D-4,
D-5, D-14, and D-15).
Hazardous waste treatment/disposal facilities would have to
prepare contingency plans to minimize human health or environmental
damage in the event of an accidental discharge (see Appendix B, Sub-
part D, 250.43-4 for specific requirements). To the extent that the
contingency plan would reduce both the spread of the discharge with a
resultant reduction in the possible mixing of incompatible wastes and
the time required to stop and clean up the discharge, there would be
a reduction in the release of air contaminants and resultant impacts
from such accidental discharges.
The intentional combustion of hazardous waste as a method of
treatment, energy recovery, or disposal represents another major
source for the release of air emissions. The combustion of wastes
7-93
-------
typically occurs either as open burning or as controlled or uncon-
trolled incineration.
Open burning is defined under Subtitle C as the combustion of
any material without control of combustion air to maintain adequate
temperature for efficient combustion, containment of the combustion-
reaction in an enclosed device to provide sufficient residence time
and mixing for complete combustion, or emission of the gaseous com-
bustion products through a stack or vent adequate for both visual
monitoring and point source sampling. Open burning of hazardous
waste results in the uncontrolled release of hazardous gases and
particulate matter (see Appendix M for potential emissions from com-
bustion of hazardous wastes). In addition, open burning may result
in the release of smoke (i.e., particulate matter) which can inter-
fere with visibility. For example, smoke from open burning in a dump
resulted in a chain accident on the New Jersey Turnpike several years
ago (Lazar, 1975). Open burning is being phased out as a method of
most hazardous waste disposal due to implementation of the Clean Air
Act. It should be noted that open burning is currently used by the
military to dispose of explosive wastes which cannot be incinerated
or treated by other means (Shapira et al., 1978). Open burning is
currently the method most commonly used for such disposal (TRW, Inc.,
1976).
Incineration is defined by Subtitle C as an engineered process
using controlled flame combustion to thermally degrade materials
7-94
-------
(e.g., hazardous wastes). Devices normally used for incineration
include rotary kilns, fluidized beds, and liquid injectors (see
Appendix D). To the extent that incineration produces an ash or re-
sidue which is hazardous under Section 3001, incineration is a treat-
ment method (e.g., volume reduction) rather than a disposal method.
It is estimated that in the period from 1973 to 1975, over 15
percent of the hazardous wastes from 14 selected manufacturing indus-
tries were incinerated or open burned with over 60 percent of this
incineration and open burning being uncontrolled (Office of Solid
Waste, unpublished data). It should be noted that the percentage of
controlled incineration is likely to be higher now due to require-
ments of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Tables 5-8 and 5-9 show the
portion of hazardous wastes estimated to be incinerated by selected
manufacturing industries during this period. Data are not available
to estimate the quantity of air emission released by such incinera-
tion of hazardous wastes.
In addition to the release of potentially hazardous emissions,
incineration of volatile, flammable, or explosive wastes have led to
many instances of explosions and fires in the past:
• The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania incinerator, for example, has
experienced explosions in both 1972 and 1975 as a result of
the incineration of hazardous wastes (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Appendix M contains a detailed discussion of destruction effi-
ciencies achieved for the incineration of selected hazardous wastes,
potential air residuals from such incineration, and the nature of
7-95
-------
solid residuals produced by the incineration. Based upon this dis-
cussion, a vast number of different hazardous waste materials, rep-
resenting a broad spectrum of physical and chemical characteristics,
can be essentially destroyed or used for energy recovery by inciner-
ation. Generally speaking, organic materials are the prime candi-
dates for incineration. The amount of destruction of any specific
hazardous waste is dependent to a large extent on the relationship of
incineration temperature to dwell time (residence time in the incin-
erator) at that temperature and to a lesser extent on turbulence in
the combustion zone and the amount of excess oxygen available. The
higher the temperature used, the shorter the dwell time necessary to
achieve a given destruction ratio. As a general rule, the principal
components of most organic hazardous materials can be virtually com-
pletely destroyed at 1000 C (1830 F) with a dwell time of 2 seconds.
Many are destroyed at lower temperature/dwell time conditions; a few
require more rigorous conditions. However, the knowledge of specific
incineration criteria for individual wastes is very limited.
Very limited information is also available as to the fate of
hazardous waste constituents produced by the incineration. Most
studies of emissions from the incineration of hazardous wastes have
considered only the fate of the gross components of combustion, com-
ponents for which regulations have been promulgated, or components
for which historical data have been accumulated regarding harmful ef-
fects. Most studies have not given consideration to emissions which
7-96
-------
result from side reactions, such as the formation of polynuclear aro-
ma tics (PNA's) from the incineration of wastes containing chlorinated
hydrocarbons, nor to the constituents of particulate matter entrained
in stack gases. Also, little is known about the potential health
effects from long-term, low-level exposure to many of the gaseous and
particulate products of hazardous waste combustion.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for the release of air contaminants from the combustion
of hazardous wastes. As indicated, in recent years over 60 percent
of the hazardous wastes that were burned (either by incineration or
open burning) were burned in an uncontrolled manner. The Subtitle C
regulations would require the use of controls for almost all combus-
tion of hazardous wastes and would set standards for the release of
many air contaminants. Open burning of hazardous wastes would be
prohibited unless the facility owner/operator could demonstrate prior
to such open burning that the air human health and environmental
standard would not be violated. All facilities would also be re-
quired to comply with all applicable standards of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, in order to maintain their permits.
The regulations also would set specific standards for the incin-
eration of hazardous wastes. Incinerators used to thermally degrade
hazardous waste containing more than 0.5 percent halogens would be
required to be equipped with wet scrubbers capable of removing 99
percent of the halogens from the exhaust gases. Incinerators used to
7-97
-------
burn pesticide wastes or wastes which are hazardous due to toxicity
would be required to maintain greater than a 1000 C combustion zone
temperature, greater than 2 seconds retention, and greater than 2
percent excess oxygen during incineration. Such incinerators, except
for pathological incinerators, would also be required to be designed,
constructed, and operated to maintain a destruction efficiency of
99.99 percent of the principal toxic components of the pesticide or
toxic waste going into the incinerator. All incinerators would be
required to be operated at a combustion efficiency equal to or great-
er than 99.9 percent. All hazardous waste incinerators would also be
required to be operated in a manner that assures that emissions of
particulate matter do not exceed 270 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.12 grains per dry standard cubic foot) at zero excess
air. Compliance with this latter requirement could be achieved by
having particulate emissions that when corrected to 12 percent carbon
dioxide are le~ss than 180 milligrams per standard cubic meter (0.08
grains per dry standard cubic foot).
In addition, incinerators would have to be designed, construc-
ted, and operated such that fugitive emissions of unburned hazardous
waste and combustion products are controlled and such that waste feed
is automatically cut off if significant changes occur in flame, com-
bustion zone temperature, excess air, or scrubber water pressure.
Also, owners/operators of hazardous waste incinerators would be
required to conduct trial burns for each hazardous waste that is
7-98
-------
significantly different than any one previously demonstrated under
equivalent conditions. The trial burn would have to include: an
analysis of the exhaust gases for concentrations of the principal
hazardous components, hydrogen halides, carbon monoxide, carbon diox-
ide, excess oxygen, and total particulates; an analysis of the ash
residue and scrubber effluent for the principal hazardous components;
an identification of sources of fugitive emissions and their means of
control; a measurement of the combustion temperature; and a computa-
tion of residence time, combustion efficiency, destruction efficien-
cy, and scrubber efficiency in halogen removal.
Data are not available to estimate the extent to which the above
regulations would reduce the overall release of specific air emis-
sions from hazardous waste incineration. Any reduction would depend
upon such factors as changes in types and quantities of hazardous
wastes incinerated, changes in the types of incinerators utilized,
and changes in control devices employed. As previously indicated,
ignitable, volatile, and reactive wastes would, for the most part, be
prohibited from landfills, landfanns, and surface impoundments. It
is likely that a large portion of such wastes would be incinerated as
an alternative means of treatment/disposal under the Subtitle C regu-
lations. Such a shift would likely result in the increased release
of combustion products from these wastes, but would also reduce the
release of other emissions, such as particulates and volatile gases,
that would have occurred from land disposal of these wastes. There
7-99
-------
would also be other shifts in the types of methods used to treat/
dispose other wastes under Subtitle C regulations compared to current
practices. All such shifts could either enhance or reduce the poten-
tial for reductions in specific air emissions under the Subtitle C
regulations. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities could
lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of the
facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing facil-
ities could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the vicinity
of the facility and along transport routes. The net result could be
both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the total release of
many air contaminants from hazardous waste management and a localized
and/or nationwide increase in the release of other air contaminants.
This could cause both localized improvements in air quality and some
localized degradation of air quality; however all emissions and any
localized degradation would have to be in compliance with all applic-
able standards (e.g., Clean Air Act, OSHA Standards, RCRA Standards,
State Standards).
It should be noted that the incineration standards set limits
only for the destruction of the principal toxic components of the
waste feedstock and on the emission of halogens and total particu-
lates. As indicated in Appendix M, combustion of hazardous wastes
can also generate and release other combustion products such as cya-
nides, sulfur compounds, hydrochloric acid, trace metals, nitriles,
ammonia, pyrophosphates, cyanogen, polycyclic hydrocarbons,
7-100
-------
polynuclear aromatics, and other organics. While the regulations re-
quire that such combustion products from incineration be controlled,
no standards are set for such control. Thus, such combustion
products would still likely be released, but in quantities less than
those that would occur without the subtitle C regulations. Further-
more, there could be small releases of the hazardous waste and/or its
principal toxic components; up to 0.01 percent of the principal toxic
components originally present in the waste could be released. Little
is currently known about the potential for adverse health effects or
environmental effects from long-term, low-level exposure to such
potential emissions from hazardous waste combustion.
Appendix M also indicates that while 99.99 percent destruction
has been demonstrated for many hazardous wastes, such destruction ef-
ficiencies have not yet been reported to have been demonstrated for
most hazardous wastes. Furthermore, in spite of the impressive per-
formances of the incinerators reported in the literature in destroy-
ing hazardous wastes, it should be noted that most studies were per-
formed under extremely controlled conditions and only specific
products of combustion were sampled in many cases. Problems could
/
occur due to requirements for frequent maintenance and extensive
*For example, as indicated in Appendix M, hydrogen cyanide is
generated from the destruction of nitrogen-containing pesticides.
Temperatures much higher than those required for 99.999 percent de-
struction of the nitrogen-containing pesticide are needed for de-
struction of this hydrogen cyanide.
7-101
-------
operator education in order to ensure proper functioning. Mainte-
nance could be an especially serious problem since many wastes burned
in incinerators are either extremely caustic or produce caustic
products when burned.
Other types of hazardous waste treatment constitutes a further
source for the release of potential air contaminants. Such treatment
can be classified as biological treatment, physical treatment, or
chemical treatment (see Appendix D). Fugitive emissions represent a
major source of emissions from such treatment. The potential for the
release of fugitive emissions during treatment would be similar to
that previously discussed and is not repeated here. In addition,
some chemicals and/or reagents used in treatment processes are poten-
tial sources of fires and/or explosions if not properly stored and/or
handled. The combustion of fuel to provide steam or energy to treat-
ment processes is another source of emissions, primarily particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydro-
carbons. The burning of coal could also result in aldehydes and
trace elements being emitted. The following two incidents indicate
potential problems from hazardous waste treatment processes (other
incidents from treatment have been previously indicated):
• Organic lead waste from manufacturing processes for alkly
lead in the San Francisco Bay area had been disposed in ponds
at an industrial waste disposal site. Attempts to process
this waste for recovery resulted in alkyl lead intoxication
of plant employees in one case. In another instance, not
only were plant employees affected, but employees of firms in
the surrounding area were exposed to an airborne alkyl lead
vapor hazard. Toll collectors on a bridge along the truck
7-102
-------
route to the plant became ill from escaping vapors from
transport trucks (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a).
• The Air Compliance Division of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection closed down two organic solvents re-
covery operations in Southington, Connecticut due to air pol-
lution caused by incineration of the wastes. A similar oper-
ation in Beaver Falls, Connecticut was also closed due to air
pollution problems (Office of Solid Haste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978b).
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions that should reduce
the potential for fugitive emissions from hazardous waste treatment
processes. Most of these provisions and potential impacts have pre-
viously been discussed under storage, treatment, and disposal and are
not repeated here. Additional requirements include the need for the
treatment facility to demonstrate the capability to handle hazardous
wastes during facility or equipment breakdown and for all continuous
feed facilities to be equipped with an automatic waste feed cut-off
or by-pass system which is activated when a malfunction occurs. All
hazardous wastes would have to be analyzed prior to selection of a
treatment process to determine if the waste contains components or
contaminants which could cause the uncontrolled release of toxic
gases or fumes or which could form highly toxic components with
treatment chemicals or reagents. These requirements in conjunction
with the previously discussed requirements would reduce the potential
for air emissions from hazardous waste treatment. However, any
increased treatment occurring as a result of promulgation of the Sub-
title C regulations could offset the potential for such reductions to
7-103
-------
an unknown degree. There could also be other offsetting reductions
in the release of air emissions if the treatment reduced the quanti-
ty of wastes requiring disposal.
7.1.4.2 Climate. The potential effect of specific actions on
global, regional and local climates is not well understood at pres-
ent. As a result, very few conclusions can be drawn as to the effect
of various hazardous waste management related actions on the climate.
Furthermore, even for those potential impacts that can be identified,
the effect on climate conditions would be so site-dependent as to
preclude quantification. The following discussion describes poten-
tial changes that could result both from any construction of addi-
tional hazardous waste management facilities and from changes in
operational procedures as a result of the Subtitle.C regulations.
Average temperatures could be slightly increased in the vicinity
of a hazardous waste management facility as a result of both heat re-
leased from the facility and increased reflection of heat from
cleared and paved surfaces on the facility site. Heat would be re-
leased by incinerators, auxiliary boilers, and various treatment pro-
cesses. This heat would increase the temperature slightly in the
immediate vicinity of each facility. The heat would also cause local
convection currents, minor increased air turbulence, and slightly
greater instability in the immediate layer of air over the facility.
Low-level wind patterns in the facility area could be slightly
modified as a result of the facility structure and minor topographic
7-104
-------
changes. Wind speeds could be slightly decreased and air turbulence
increased. Aerodynamic effects of buildings could cause wake and
down-wash effects which could modify dispersion of low-level atmo-
spheric emissions. Any such effects would be very localized in
nature.
The creation of reservoirs and storage and treatment lagoons and
ponds would increase the surface area of water exposed to the atmo-
sphere and to solar radiation. This would cause increased evapora-
tion which could influence the microclimate of the surrounding area.
The significance of such changes is not well understood at present.
The precise role of airborne particulate matter and other aero-
sols emanating from hazardous waste management facilities with regard
to weather modifications cannot be determined completely. Their in-
fluence on the amount of short-wave solar radiation is well estab-
lished and has important implications both on a global scale
(Mitchell, 1971) and on a regional scale. In principbe, aerosol par-
ticles could also act as condensation nuclei and either enhance or
inhibit rainfall. A considerable body of knowledge regarding cloud
seeding has been built up over the past 25 to 30 years (Byer, 1974;
Elliott, 1974) and numerous precipitation management programs are in
progress, notably in the U.S., Australia, Israel, and the Soviet
Union.
While certain aspects of intentional weather modifications are
still regarded as controversial, it is generally recognized that
7-105
-------
artificial nucleation can be effective in producing increases or
redistributions of precipitation under very specific meteorological
conditions and through the use of appropriate techniques. A defini-
tive answer as to whether or not a local change in the concentration
of atmospheric aerosols resulting from dust or industrial emissions
would cause a significant change in precipitation patterns cannot be
given (Simpson and Dennis, 1974). A few instances of anomalous snow-
falls have been recorded; industrial and urban emissions are thought
to be instrumental in producing generally light snowfalls in these
cases (Landsberg, 1974). An increase in cloudiness due partly to the
aerosol condensation nuclei and partly to the heating effect of
cleared surface areas appears to be a more likely phenomenon than
persistent alterations in precipitation characteristics. No signif-
icant localized or regional impacts are anticipated from changes in
hazardous waste incineration.
The most frequently cited' factor associated with inadvertent
climate modification is the increasing carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere (Machta and Telgadas, 1974; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1970). The steady growth observed in carbon dioxide con-
centration is attributed to the rapidly increasing use of fossil
fuels since the turn of the century. Although the potential effects
of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperature and climate have
serious implications—the greenhouse effect through which the temper-
ature could increase—no significant localized or regional weather
effects from carbon dioxide emissions are anticipated from changes in
7-106
-------
hazardous waste incineration. This is due to Che relatively small
quantity of carbon dioxide expected to be produced from hazardous
waste incineration in relation to the production from other sources.
7.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. The primary mechanisms by which
surface water may be contaminated with hazardous wastes are spills
(including deliberate dumping); surface runoff from storage, treat-
ment, or disposal areas (including overflows from impoundments);
direct discharges from generating or treating facilities; and dis-
charge of groundwater contaminated by subsurface migration of pollu-
tions. Groundwater contamination can occur with almost any facet of
hazardous waste handling and disposal as now practiced. It may occur
due to infiltration of spilled materials or wastes stored on perme-
able surfaces, due to percolation of leachate or runoff which has
been in contact with wastes either in storage or in landfills, or due
to leakage or infiltration of fluids from poorly sealed waste impound-
ments.
These mechanisms may be generalized into three major pathways
through which contamination can occur: spills, other surface releas-
es (including runoff and direct discharges), and underground dis-
charges (primarily off-site movement of leachates). The following
sections discuss the effects of the Subtitle C regulations on these
pathways with respect to each of the steps in the hazardous waste
management sequence.
A general discussion of the effects of the combined regulations
on each pathway is followed by discussions of the effects of any
7-107
-------
specific parts of the regulations which further control one of the
individual hazardous waste management activities (e.g., transporta-
tion).
7.1.5.1 Spills. The Subtitle C regulations would potentially
result in a decrease in the number and size of hazardous waste
spills. This would occur primarily as a result of the requirements
for maintenance of adequate containerization, and indirectly, as a
result of the increased awareness of the waste hazard due to the
manifest system and labeling requirements. The regulations would
not, however, significantly affect the frequency of major vehicular
accidents during transport resulting in spillage (available data on
the number and volumes of hazardous spills are presented in Chapter
6).
It is expected that the effects of any spill which may occur
would be reduced as a result of the requirements for prompt reporting
of all spills to the National Response Center and for immediate
action to remove the spill in the most expedient manner. These pro-
visions would complement those developed under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act, and in effect, would extend the National Contingency
Flan to include upland spills as well as those into navigable waters.
One of the side-benefits of the regulations would be the quanti-
fication of the amounts of hazardous material spilled, a presently
unknown figure, which is important for planning the size and deploy-
ment of emergency response teams as well as for assessing the need
for more stringent transportation safety codes. At present it is
7-108
-------
estimated that there may be about 2,000 spills of hazardous sub-
stances, including wastes, per year (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977b).
Transportation. The effects discussed above would apply to all
segments of the hazardous waste management sequence. As indicated in
Section 7.1.2.1, the generator regulations (Section 3001) would fur-
ther reduce the likelihood of spills through the imposition of speci-
fic containerization requirements for the transport of hazardous
wastes. These requirements would reduce the likelihood of rupture
and spillage of wastes during shipment. Further, the transporter
regulations also prohibit transportation of containers of hazardous
wastes which are leaking or appear to be damaged, or the transport or
consolidation of incompatible wastes. However, any increases in the
quantity of waste being shipped off-site or in the average distance
over which hazardous wastes are transported could lead to an increase
in vehicular accidents. This would off-set some of the potential for
a reduction in spills. Increases in the quantity of wastes.transpor-
ted by barge would also increase the potential for marine accidents
and spills. Most hazardous wastes transported by barge are reported
to go to reclamation of resource recovery facilities (see Section
5.2.3.5) and, as such, would not be subject to the regulations.
The regulations could also prevent the types of incidents due to
vehicle cleaning, as indicated below:
• An insecticide (endrin) applicator ringed and cleaned his
truck into the Cuivre River at Moscow Mills, Missouri. As a
result, approximately 100,000 fish were killed, and the river
7-109
-------
was closed to fishing for one year by the Missouri Game and
Fish Commission (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a).
Storage and Disposal. Spillage or other unintentional releases
from storage and disposal facilities would be decreased due to the
requirements to maintain waste container integrity by recontaineriz-
ing the materials whenever their original container begins to fail.
Additionally, any spills occurring at a storage or disposal facility
would be contained at the site by dikes and impervious surfaces which
would prevent migration of the wastes until cleanup operations can be
completed.
7.1.5.2 Other Surface Releases. The regulations would signifi-
cantly decrease the number of, and environmental damage resulting
from, surface releases of hazardous wastes. Many parts of the regu-
lations apply. All generators of wastes designated as hazardous
would have to comply with all of the Subtitle C regulations. These
stipulate that all hazardous wastes designated for on-site or off-
site treatment, storage, or'disposal would have to be sent to a
permitted facility. The regulations would institute a manifest and
reporting system to enable tracking of wastes to ensure compliance.
All storage, treatment, and disposal facilities would have to use
diversion structures to prevent runoff from upland areas from flowing
onto active portions of the facilities. Further, such facilities
would have to confine all runoff or any other discharge to a point
source which complies with the regulations promulgated under the
Clean Water Act of 1977. The combined effects of these regulations
7-110
-------
would be to eliminate most non-point surface discharge of wastes
defined as hazardous. Specific effects of the various regulations
are discussed below.
Characteristics. Identification, and Listing. A large number of
hazardous wastes are either listed or fall under the characteristics
contained in the Section 3001 regulations. Many have been involved
in past damage incidents. The occurrence of such incidents would be
reduced as a result of the regulations. However, many other poten-
tially hazardous wastes are not listed and would not be included by
the characteristics. At present, numerous potentially toxic, carcin-
ogenic, or mutagenic organic chemicals would not be included by the
toxicity characteristic that is based entirely on EFA Primary Drink-
ing Water Standards. At present, Primary Drinking Water Standards
are promulgated for nine inorganic contaminants and six organic con-
taminants (all pesticides). -Although the number of contaminants
regulated under the Drinking Water Standards will probably increase
in the future, it is likely that many potentially hazardous wastes
would escape regulation under this characteristic. The Environment-
al Protection Agency plans to expand the toxicity characteristic at a
later time.
Generators. As mentioned above, generators of hazardous wastes
would not be allowed to dispose such wastes without also receiving a
permit as a disposal facility. However, there would be a few exemp-
tions to these regulations. Generators engaged solely in retail
trade or principally in farming would be regulated only with respect
7-111
-------
to waste automotive oil. Household wastes would be entirely exemp-
ted. Further, generators who generate less than 100 kilograms per
month of hazardous wastes would not be subject to regulation, but
would be expected to dispose their wastes in a responsible manner.
These exclusions would allow a small quantity of hazardous wastes to
escape regulation. However, it is expected that the regulations
issued by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA) of 1972 would control pesticide wastes from farmers;
and it is estimated that the 100 kilogram per month generation limit
would exclude less than 30,000 tons of hazardous industrial waste per
year annually by 1984, less than 0.1 percent of the total hazardous
industrial waste. Wastes from these excluded generators could be
disposed as a nonhazardous waste using current practices, could go
into sewer systems or any other allowable disposal area, and could
conceivably eventually contaminate surface waters. The impacts of
this'generation limit are difficult to define. However, it is likely
that the excluded wastes would continue to cause essentially the same
types of impacts as they currently are causing, modified by the Sub-
title C requirements. With proper disposal of the regulated wastes,
the total impact of hazardous wastes on surface waters should be sig-
nificantly reduced. Thus, although it is true that some unregulated
releases of hazardous wastes could continue to occur and that some
hazardous wastes may cause significant damage in any amount, such
occurrences would be much less frequent and, generally, less severe
than those which occur in the present uncontrolled case.
7-112
-------
Transportation. The transporter regulations would require that
transporters deliver all manifested hazardous wastes to a designated
permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility. In addition,
transporters could not transport containers which are leaking or
appear to be damaged. These requirements would eliminate willfull
dumping of hazardous wastes by transporters. A typical incident of
'midnight dumping1 which could be precluded by the proposed
regulations is as follows:
• In March 1972 a considerable amount of xylene was dumped into
a drainage ditch along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The liquid
waste flowed down the ditch, across a field, and into a
nearby stream causing a fish kill (Cartwright and Lindorff,
1976).
As discusssed previously, the Subtitle C regulations would re-
duce the likelihood of spills of hazardous wastes and their associ-
ated surface water contamination by extending the DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations to cover intrastate as well as interstate
transportation.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. The human health and environ-
mental standard for surface water would require that all facilities
be located, designed, constructed, and operated so that no discharges
from the facility violate the Water Quality Standards promulgated
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, or constitute a spill of
hazardous substances under Section 311 of that Act. As previously
indicated, more specific regulations (General Facility Standards)
would require the use of diversion structures to prevent surface run-
off from flowing onto the facility and the use of dikes or other
7-113
-------
contaminant structures to collect runoff originating on the facility.
All discharges from such facilities, including discharges from leach-
ate and/or runoff collection systems, would have to be confined to
point sources and must comply with the regulations promulgated under
the Clean Water Act. Further, siting limitations would restrict
facility siting on floodplains and in wetlands. Additionally, each
type of facility (storage, treatment, and five types of disposal
facilities—incineration, landfills, surface impoundments, basins,
and landfarms) would have to meet other standards which are discussed
in following sections.
These regulations would constitute a substantial improvement
over the present unregulated situation and should result in a signif-
icant decrease in the number of pollution incidents resulting from
hazardous waste storage and disposal. However, even though a dis-
charge may meet all presently promulgated standards (including those
under the Clean Hater Act), it could still decrease receiving water
quality up to the maximum allowable limit for each regulated constit-
uent. Since these limits were picked to ensure adequate protection
of the environment and human health, such an impact would likely be
minimal. In addition, there are many potentially hazardous constitu-
ents of these wastes for which no standards have yet been promul-
gated. This may be due to lack of adequate substantiation of
suspected human health effects, or to lack of information on toler-
able levels to ensure the absence of chronic health effects. It is
possible that some potentially harmful properties of other
7-114
-------
contaminants are not even suspected at this time. In this respect,
waste discharges could conceivably meet all applicable standards and
still contribute to environmental degradation with potential human
health effects. It must be emphasized, however, that such effects
are now occurring to a much greater degree without the controls that
would be instituted by the baseline regulations. In addition, where
the permitting agency is able to document such a threat, they could
stipulate additional permit requirements on the authority of the
human health and environmental standard.
The potential impacts of regulating the various types of facil-
ities are as follows:
Storage. The Subtitle C regulations would require that hazard-
ous waste storage operations be conducted, monitored, and inspected
in order to ensure that no discharge occurs. Specific requirements
include impervious construction and the use of diversion and contain-
ment structures, such as dikes or trenches, to prevent the release ,of
runoff or spills. Provisions are included requiring leakproof con-
struction of storage tanks and containers and for recontainerization
of leaking wastes. Records of the identity and location of all
stored wastes must be kept during the entire storage period. In
addition, the baseline regulations would require that all hazardous
waste facilities receive a permit and be subject to inspection at any
time to ensure that they were being properly maintained.
Since there are presently no requirements to report the loca-
tions or amounts of hazardous waste in storage, there is no way of
7-115
-------
quantifying even the existing pollution problems due to waste stor-
age, let alone the potential improvement due to the regulations. In
the current unregulated situation, hazardous waste may be stored in
drums, sacks, or even in piles or unlined ponds. The waste might be
housed in warehouses or sheds, or left in the open, occasionally cov-
ered with tarpaulins or other materials. In addition, hazardous
waste may be stored for extended periods of time because all avail-
able methods have been considered too expensive to be utilized with-
out the legal requirement to do so. As a result, water pollution
incidents from improper storage of hazardous wastes are common. A
typical incident that could have been prevented by the baseline reg-
ulations is described in EPA files:
• A herbicide manufacturer stored many tons of arsenic salt
wastes on his plant site in Wisconsin. As a result, both the
Menominee River and local groundwater have been contaminated
with water containing up to 1.0 ppm arsenic (The National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard is 0.05 ppm) and
sediment containing up to 35 ppm arsenic (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
Other incidents have occurred in which unregulated storage piles
have produced surface water contamination as a result of fires. The
following incident, while it did not involve wastes per se, illus-
trates the potential for surface water contamination due to combus-
tion of hazardous waste in storage:
• One and a half million gallons of water were used to extin-
guish a warehouse fire in Oroville, Washington where two tons
of various chlorinated pesticides and 50 tons of fertilizer
were stored. Much of the water flowed through storm sewers
to the Okanogen River, where 0.8 ppm endrin was detected.
7-116
-------
Elevated levels of nitrate and pesticides were also detected
in the groundwater (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, 1978b).
Incidents such as this would be addressed under the regulations
only if the warehouses contained waste, outdated, or off-specifica-
tion pesticides awaiting disposal.
Treatment. The specific regulations for treatment facilities
stipulate that all facilities must have the capability to safely
handle hazardous wastes in the event of an emergency or equipment
failure of any sort. Such capabilities include automatic cut-off or
by-pass systems on continuous feed processes, emergency transfer of
reaction vessel contents, and emergency storage capacity. Further,
all treatment chemicals, reagents, and wastes must be stored in com-
pliance with the regulations for storage; any basins used for treat-
ment must comply with the regulations for basins; and the entire
facility must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the human health and environmental standards. Any
wastes produced .from a treatment facility would also be subject to
the Subtitle C regulations. If such a waste is hazardous in accor-
dance with the characteristics or listing regulations, the treatment
facility would have to comply with all other standards promulgated
under Subtitle C, including initiating a manifest and ensuring proper
disposal. At the time of closure, all hazardous wastes and residuals
would have to be removed from treatment facilities and properly
disposed.
•7-117
-------
With one exception, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's)
would be exempted from compliance with the Subtitle C regulations.
The exception is that for the wastes received at POTW's by truck or
rail, the POTW would have to comply with reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. While sludges from POTW's would be exempt from the
Subtitle C regulations, the POTW's would still have to comply with
the regulations promulgated under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act.
Industries which discharge wastes into municipal sewer systems would
not need to comply with manifest requirements, but would have to meet
all applicable pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act, and
would have to obtain the approval of the municipal sewer system
authority. Application of these regulations could eliminate the
following type of incident:'
• In Louisville, Kentucky in March 1977, a wastewater treatment
plant was shut down after receiving large amounts of
hexachloro-cyclopentadiene and octachlorocyclopentene. Con-
centrations of "hexa" reached 47,000 ppm in sewer sediments,
and 32 plant employees experienced watering eyes, respiratory
ailments, or other ill effects due to the heavy vapors asso-
ciated with the contaminants. As a result, 105 million gal-
lons per day of raw sewage was discharged to the 'Ohio river
for more than two months. It was estimated that the total
diversion amounted to over 9 billion gallons of raw sewage
while clean up costs reached over $450,000 (State of
Minnesota, 1977).
Many similar, though less spectacular, incidents have also oc-
curred but would likely be avoided following implementation of the
baseline regulations. In such cases, wastes introduced to sewer sys-
tems often travel through municipal treatment plants without affect-
ing the plant and without being affected by treatment. These then
7-118
-------
flow out with the discharge and may cause fish kills or water supply
contamination downstream, as illustrated below:
• Two fish kills were noted in August and November 1975 in the
Crow River near Hutchinson, Minnesota. It was determined
that they were caused by cyanide levels as high as 0.31 mg/1
in the stream. The source was identified as the Hutchinson
wastewater treatment plant which received ferrocyanide from a
local industry. Ferrocyanide dissociates in the presence of
sunlight to release ionic cyanide which forms highly toxic
hydrocyanic acid. This dissociation process is accelerated
with decreasing pH; therefore, the fish kills were only
noticed during periods when the pH of the river or sewage
effluent was lower than normal (State of Minnesota, 1977).
Incineration. In terms of potential to cause water pollution,
disposal facilities using incinerators are essentially the same as
treatment facilities. Accordingly, the regulatory approach for pre-
vention of water contamination from the two types of facilities is
similar. Both are treated as temporary facilities which would have
to comply with storage regulations, treat any residuals in accordance
with the Subtitle C regulation, and remove all wastes at the time of
closure. Since incinerators have little direct impact on water qual-
ity, except possibly with regard to cooling water discharges, this
segment of the regulations would not likely constitute a significant
improvement over existing conditions. However, application of the
general facility standards (including the storage regulations) would
help eliminate incidents such as one reported by the State of Minne-
sota (1977), where sloppy housekeeping at a hazardous waste incinera-
tion facility resulted in a fire and in possible water contamination.
Landfills. Pertinent features of the Subtitle C regulations
applicable to surface water pollution from landfills include the
7-119
-------
requirement that landfills be located or designed, contracted, and
operated to prevent direct contact between the landfill and navi-
gable water, and that all active portions of landfills must be at
least 150 meters from any public, private, or livestock water supply.
The regulations also specify that diversion structures would have to
be constructed to prevent surface runoff from entering the landfill
and to collect all runoff originating on the landfill for treatment,
if necessary. The regulations would allow the use of one of several
designs. Where natural conditions allow, the bottom and sides of the
landfill would have to consist of at least three meters of natural
in-place soil exhibiting a permeability equal to or less than 1 x
lO"? cm/sec and which satisfies certain other plasticity, pH, com-
position, and grain size requirements. Such facilities would not
require a leachate collection system if it could be demonstrated that
liquids would not accumulate in the landfill to the extent that they
might be discharged to the surface in any manner or to the ground-
water in a manner that violates the groundwater human health and
environmental standard. Where naturally occuring soils do not meet
the above criteria, the regulations would require the use of either a
1.5 meter soil liner and a leachate collection system; or a one meter
soil liner, a 20 mil synthetic liner, a leachate collection system,
and a leachate detection system. Other designs would be acceptable
if it could be demonstrated that they could provide equivalent
containment. Further, all landfills would have to either include
leachate collection systems or demonstrate that liquids would not
7-120
-------
accumulate in Che landfill such that they may be discharged to the
surface in any manner (or to the groundwater in violation of the
groundwater human health and environmental standard). Upon closure,
the landfill would have to be graded such that water would not pool
over the landfill and such that erosion would be prevented.
These regulations should result in a significant decrease in
surface water contamination from landfills. Quantification of the
magnitude of the impact is not possible since neither the number nor
areal distribution of landfills receiving hazardous waste nor the mag-
nitude of environmental problems associated with them are known with
any degree of accuracy.* However, the Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs (1977) estimates that there are about 18,500 land
disposal sites in the United States which accept municipal wastes,
most of which also receive some industrial wastes. In addition, the
number of unauthorized and uncontrolled dumping grounds may reach
150,000 (TEMPO, 1973). Most of these were located without concern
for potential environmental contamination and, as a result, many of
them probably cause some degree of water pollution. Examples of sit-
uations which could be avoided are numerous. Many such incidents are
included in Appendix J. The following example illustrates a typical
incident which would likely be avoided as a result of implementation
of the baseline regulations:
*EPA is currently expecting to develop an inventory of industrial
landfills during the second year following the publication of its
hazardous waste disposal criteria (Office of Solid Waste, 1977a).
7-121
-------
• la 1974, an investigation sparked by the deaths of three head
of cattle near Byron, Illinois, discovered an abandoned dis-
posal area for many industrial wastes, including cyanides,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, petroleum products, acids, and
other wastes. Soil, surface water, and groundwater con-
tamination along with extensive damage to wildlife, aquatic
life, and local vegetation were documented. U.S. Drinking
Water Standards were violated by at least five constitutents
in surface water entering Rock Creek, 1.5 miles from the
site: arsenic, 60 ppb; cadmium, 340 ppb; chromium, 17,200
ppb; cyanide, 365,000 ppb; and phenols, 8 ppb (standards for
these contaminants are 50 ppb, 10 ppb, 50 ppb, 200 ppb, and 1
ppb, respectively) (State of Minnesota, 1977, Cartwright and
Lindorff, 1976; Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Division, 1978b).
Surface Impoundments. Pertinent features of the regulations
regarding surface water pollution from surface impoundments include a
mandate against any direct connection with navigable waters; a mini-
mum separation of 150 meters from any public, private or livestock
water supply; a requirement for impervious natural or artificial
liners and leachate detection systems; and a system of dikes which
would prevent seepage of wastes either vertically or horizontally.
Design parameters for the liner and dike systems are specified which
include minimum thicknesses and permeabilities of liners as well as
minimum freeboard and capacities of dikes. In addition, periodic
monitoring and inspections and rapid correction of any deterioration
are required. At the time of closure, all wastes must be removed,
unless the impoundment meets the criteria for, and is closed in
accordance with, the regulations for landfills.
As in the case of landfills, surface water contamination due to
failure of hazardous waste impoundments would be greatly reduced by
the implementation of these regulations. Quantification of the
7-122
-------
magnitude of the impact is not possible since neither the total
number of existing lagoons nor the number of leaking lagoons is
known.* It is currently estimated that there are a total of
100,000 industrial impoundments in the U.S. and that 1.7 trillion
gallons (6.4 billion cubic meters) per year of industrial wastewaters
(not necessarily hazardous) are pumped to oxidation ponds or lagoons
in the U.S. (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). It
has been further estimated that 100 billion gallons per year of the
wastes placed in the secondary treatment lagoons leak to the ground-
water (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). The total
leakage from all lagoons is unknown, but is probably significantly
larger. It is known, however, that numerous incidents have occurred.
Many of them are described in Appendix J. A typical incident,
described in EPA files, is as follows:
• A copper reclamation company located in a mid-Atlantic state
from 1965.to 1969 bought industrial wastes from other plants,
extracted the copper and stored the remaining liquids in ce-
ment lagoons. Three of the lagoons developed open seams and
leaked toxic pollutants into an adjacent creek, killing all
its aquatic life. After an injunction was issued requiring
the wastes to be treated, the company defaulted, leaving 3.5
million gallons of toxic wastes on the site. Heavy rains in
April, 1970 overflowed the lagoons into a tributary of the
Delaware River, forcing county officials to build a dike
around the area. The wastes were finally neutralized and
ocean dumped at the state's expense of $400,000 (Office of
Solid Wastes, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
*EPA is developing an assessment of surface impoundments and their
potential for contaminating water. The assessment will fulfill
EPA1s mandates under the Safe Water, Drinking Act and RCRA (Office of
Solid Waste, 1977a). —"
7-123
-------
Basins. The baseline regulations would define basins as uncov-
ered devices constructed of artificial materials, used to retain
wastes as part of a treatment process, usually with a capacity of
less than 100,000 gallons, e.g., open mixing tanks, clarifiers, and
open settling tanks. Such structures are generally temporary, and
operated in conjunction with other treatment facilities. The regula-
tions would require impermeable construction and mechanical integrity
sufficient to prevent discharge of wastes to navigable water; daily
monitoring or inspection, and immediate repair of any damages; and
removal of all waste upon final closure. As in the case of surface
i
impoundments, these regulations would result in a decrease in surface
water contamination compared to that occurring in the present unregu-
lated situation. Due to the lack of data on the number of basins in
use, the degree of the impact cannot be determined.
Landfarms. Pertinent sections of the baseline regulations con-
cerning the potential for water pollution from landfarms include the
prohibition against the use of landfaras for certain water soluble
toxic inorganics; the requirement that landfarms shall be located,
designed, constructed, and operated to prevent direct contact between
the treated area and navigable water; and a minimum separation of 150
meters between the treated area and any public, private, or livestock
water supply. Other requirements are that the potentials for stand-
ing water or erosion are both minimized and that waste application
shall not occur when the soil is saturated, or when its temperature
7-124
-------
is at or below 0 C. The general facility standards would further
require that all runoff from landfills be collected and confined to a
point source which is in compliance with the regulations promulgated
under the Clean Water Act.
Although the concept of landfarming has been applied to munici-
pal sludges for many years, experience with, and data on landfarming
of hazardous industrial sludges are sparse. The regulations contain
several provisions to reduce pollutant migration. They would limit
application of arsenic, boron, molybdenum, selenium, and volatile
wastes; require the use of fine grained soils consisting primarily of
silts and clays; require maintenance of a minimum pH of 6.5 and pre-
vention of anerobic conditions in the zone of incorporation; require
semi-annual soil monitoring; and restrict the growth of food chain
crops. While these requirements would certainly reduce water contam-
ination relative to existing uncontrolled disposal methods, the
regulations would not address rates of application; they would not
specifically require runoff monitoring; and they would not address
other toxic elements or organic wastes, some of which have caused
concern in land application facilities for municipal sludges.
Although it is true that most municipal sludge landfarming oper-
ations were oriented towards agricultural crop production, and that
under aerobic conditions and at a pH greater than 6.5, most toxic
inorganics are relatively insoluble, the potential for water
7-125
-------
degradation would still exist. (It should be noted that the trans-
formation of Cr+3 to Cr*6 is favored by oxidizing conditions and
high pH; and that CrOf, the predominant ionic form under those
conditions, was not adsorbed by the common clay minerals tested by
Griffin et al., [1976].) Additionally, the presence of acidic wastes
and wastes which exert high oxygen demands may make it difficult to
maintain the required pH and aerobic conditions, which could allow
dissolution of some previously precipitated toxic elements.
7.1.5.3 Underground Discharges. Groundwater pollution is pos-
sible in any situation in which hazardous wastes are placed in or on
the ground with a hydraulic connection to an aquifer. Such a hydrau-
lic connection consists of a permeable pathway from the wastes to an
aquifer. It may be composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels,
permeable bedrock such as some sandstones, or a system of fractures
or joints in the bulk rock. A more complete discussion of ground-
water and its contamination is contained in Appendix L.
There are no existing estimates of the amount of hazardous
wastes which presently contaminate groundwater. However, it is esti-
mated that there are about 18,500 land disposal sites in the United
States which accept municipal wastes, most of which also receive some
amount of industrial waste (Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, 1977). It is further estimated that these disposal areas
cover a total of approximately 500,000 acres and that they receive
approximately 135 million tons of refuse per year. Based on average
7-126
-------
infiltration rates, it is estimated that these sites generate a total
of 90 billion gallons of leachate per year (Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1977). In addition, the number of unauthorized
and/or otherwise unregulated dumping grounds in the U.S. may reach
150,000 (TEMPO, 1973). EPA is currently planning to inventory indus-
trial landfills beginning the second year following promulgation of
its hazardous waste regulations (Office of Solid Waste, 1977a).
It is estimated that there are a total of 100,000 industrial
impoundments in the U.S. (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1977). Data are insufficient to estimate the total volume of wastes
sent to all impoundments, but is has been estimated that secondary
treatment lagoons, such as oxidation ponds, receive 1,700 billion
gallons of industrial, though not necessarily hazardous, wastes per
year and leak 100 billion gallons (approximately 6 percent) (Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1977). Other types of surface
impoundments may contribute additional hazardous leachates.
Tables 7-10 and 7-11 summarize some of the hundreds of reported
incidents of groundwater contamination due to waste disposal in im-
poundments and in landfills. Table 7-10 summarizes incidents due to
leakage of wastewater from surface impoundments and lists the major
resultant pollutants, and Table 7-11 summarizes incidents due to
landfill leaching. The fact that Table 7-11 lists more municipal
landfills than industrial landfills is due to a lack of data regard-
ing the location and operation of industrial landfills and to the
7-127
-------
TABLE 7-10
ORIGINS AND POLLUTANTS IN 57 CASES OF GROUIfD WATER
CONTAMINATION IN THE NORTHEAST CAUSED BY LEAKAGE OF
WASTE WATER FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS *
Type of industry or activity
Number
of cases
Principal pollu-
tant (s) reported
Chemical
13
Metal processing and plating
Electronics
Laboratories (manufacturing
and processing)
Paper
Plastics
3
3
Ammonia
Barium
Chloride
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Organic chemicals
Phenol
Solvents
Sulfate
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phenol
Aluminum
Chloride
Fluoride
Iron
Solvent
Arsenic
Phenols
Radioactive
materials
Sulfate
Sulfate
Ammonia
Detergent
Fluoride
7-128
-------
TABLE 7-10 (Continued)
Type of industry or activity
Sewage treatment
Aircraft manufacturing
Food processing
Mining sand and gravel
Oil veil drilling
Oil refining
Battery and cable
Electrical utility
Highway construction
Mineral processing
Paint
Recycling
Steel
Textiles
Number
of cases
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Principal pollu-
tant (s) reported
Detergents
Hitrate
Chromium
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Chloride
Chloride
Oil
Oil
Acid
Lead
Iron
Manganese
Turbidity
Lithium
Chromium
Copper
Acid
Ammonia
Chloride
"Miller et al., 1974.
7-129
-------
TABLt 7-11
SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL" AND 18 INDUSTRIAL
COHIAMI3ATION CASES *
Type of landfill
Findings Munlelpalt Industrial
Assessment of principal damage
Concaoinacion aquifer only 9 8
Water supply well(s) affected 16 9
Contamination of surface water 17 1
Principal aquifer affected
Unconsolidated deposits 33 11
Sedimentary rocks 7 3
Crystalline rocks 2 4
Type of pollutant observed
General contamination 37 ' 4
Toxic substances 5 14
Observed distance traveled by pollutant
Less than 100 feet 6 0
100 to 1.000 feet 8 4
More than 1,000 feet 11 2
Unknown or unreported 17 12
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant
Less than 300 feet 11 3
30 to 100 Ceet 11 3
More than 100 feet 52
Unknown or unreported 15 10
Action taken regarding source of contamination
Landfill abandoned • 5 6
Landfill removed 1 2
Containment or treatment of leachate 10 2
Ho known action 26 8
Action taken regarding ground water resource
Water supply vell(s) abandoned 4 5
Ground water monitoring program established 12 2
Ho known action 26 11
Litigation
Litigation involved 8 5
Ho known action taken 34 13
*Miller ec al., 1974.
tMany of these municipal landfills also accept some industrial
sludges and liquids in addition to septic wastes and sewage sludges.
7-130
-------
comparatively large number of well documented studies of municipal
landfills. In fact, it is estimated that, at least in the northeast,
industrial landfills are far more abundant than municipal landfills
(Miller et al., 1974).
The fact that many currently operating landfills are leaking and
that this leakage may not be detected for significant periods of time
is amply illustrated by a recent study performed for EPA (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 1977c). The study selected 50 landfill
sites representing a variety of geohydrologic and climatic condi-
tions, disposal methods, and a wide range of industrial wastes. The
sites were a minimum of three years old, with no history of known or
suspected contamination. Four of the sites had some kind of leachate
control system. Thirty-two sites had existing monitoring systems.
Five others had water supply wells near enough to be used for moni-
toring. At sites where no monitoring system existed, or where the
existing system was not considered adequate, new wells were placed.
Each site was covered by several monitoring wells and at least one
background well. The results of sampling are summarized in Table
7-12. It was determined that at 43 sites definite migration of haz-
ardous constituents had occurred. The seven other sites were also
contaminated by hazardous materials, though it could not be shown
that their contamination was due to the disposal sites. At 26 sites,
hazardous inorganic constituents in water from one or more monitoring
wells exceeded the EPA drinking water limits. Only one of the four
7-131
-------
TABLE 7-12
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTE
LAND DISPOSAL SITES*
!l of Wells
Contaminant Which Exceeded
Background
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalc
Copper
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Lighc Volatile Organics
Heavy Volatile Organics
Halogenated Organics
Alkyl Benzenes
Benzene
Butyl Alcohol
Camphor '
Chlorinated Phenols
Cyanide
Hepcachlor
Methyl Ethyl ECetone
Napthalene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Tr ichlor oe thy lene
Toluene
Xylenes
5
29
12
15
19
5
2
18
3
28
13
13
9
21
2
2
1
1
2
20
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
6 of Wells
Above EPA
Drinking Water
Standards
3
3
3
t
2
1
t
4.
3
23
2
t
t
t
t
t
f
*
A
t
+
t
t
t
^
T
t
Max Cone.
Observed
(rng/1.)
S.8
3.8
420
0.22
2.8
0.0008
0.24
0.67
19
0.59
240
1000
0.59
0.006
Detected
Detected
Detected
Detected
0.003
14.0
Detected
Detected
Detected
0.002
0.3
Detected
Detected
'Complied from data presented in U.S. Environmental Progection Agency, 1977c.
This study examined 50 disposal sites using a total of 112 monitoring wells In
addition to background wells at each site. Eighty-six wells at 43 sites con-
tained one or more hazardous substances which were determined to have migrated
from the site. Wells at 26 sites contained hazardous Inorganic contaminants
which exceeded EPA Drinking Water Standards. The wells ranged from 10 to 1500
feet from the disposal sites.
NOTE: Three additional wells were contaminated by heavy metals, one with
light volatile organics, and one with halogenated organics; however, no back-
ground data was available Cor comparison.
•Not presently covered by EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.
7-132
-------
"controlled" landfills showed no contamination greater than back-
ground levels; one showed a slight increase in one constituent above
background levels; and the remaining two showed significant increases
of several contaminants. Both of the leaky controlled landfills had
design failures which allowed portions of the leachate to escape.
The conclusions reached by the study group were that:
• Groundwater contamination at industrial waste land disposal
sites is a common occurrence;
• Hazardous substances from industrial waste land disposal
sites are capable of migrating into and with groundwater;
• Few hydrogeologic environments are suitable for land disposal
of hazardous waste without some risk of groundwater
contamination;
• Continued development of programs for monitoring industrial
waste land disposal sites is necessary to protect groundwater
quality;
• Most old industrial waste disposal sites, both active and
abandoned, are located in geologic environments where
groundwater is particularly susceptible to contamination;
• Many waste disposal sites are located where the underlying
aquifer system can act as a pipeline for discharge of
hazardous substances to a surface water body;
• At sites presently monitored, the use of wells as an aid in
evaluating groundwater conditions is generally poor, due to
inadequacies with respect to one or more of the following
parameters:
—number of wells
—distance of wells from potential contamination source
—positioning of wells in relation to groundwater flow
—sealing against surface water contamination, or
inter-aquifer water exchange
—completion methods, such as development, maintenance, and
protection against vandalism;
7-133
-------
• At sites presently monitored, the sampling program is
generally poor due to inadequacies with respect to one or
more of the following parameters:
—obtaining a sample representative of aquifer water
—sample preparation
—frequency of sampling
—availability of background water-quality data
—selection of constituents to be analyzed
—availability of laboratories
—maintaining records in usable form.
These conclusions emphasize the care with which hazardous waste land-
fills must be located, constructed, and monitored.
With respect to surface releases, the Subtitle C regulations
would allow no surface or subsurface discharges of hazardous wastes
by generators, transporters, or storers. The specific regulations
applicable to storers would require impervious construction and mon-
itoring to ensure that no groundwater contamination occurs. Compli-
ance with these regulations would effectively eliminate contamination
of groundwater with the regulated hazardous wastes originating from
generators, transporters, and storers. Many of the incidents repor-
ted in Appendix J could be avoided under the regulations. The exis-
tence of the Section 3002 manifest system could make the following
type of incident highly unlikely to occur:
• In 1971 a major chemical company contracted with a trucker to
haul approximately 5,000 drums of petrochemical wastes, in-
cluding acrylonitrile, acetone, epichlorohydrin, and a number
of other toxic, flammable? explosive, and/or oxidizing chemi-
cals for disposal in a landfill. Instead, approximately
4,500 of the drums were transported to an abandoned chicken
farm in Dover Township, New Jersey where they were stock-
piled and subsequently dumped. Although the drums and some
contaminated soil were removed under court order in 1972, in
1974 it was discovered that a large but unknown portion of
the Cohansey Aquifer, a major regional aquifer, had become
7-134
-------
contaminated with petrochemicals, resulting in the condemning
of approximately 150 private wells. The cost of extending
public water supply into the area was about $300,000. More-
over, this incident resulted in adverse impact on local
building and development. The exact magnitude of the envi-
ronmental and economic damage has not yet been determined
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1976; State of
Minnesota, 1977).
The regulations for the other potential sources of groundwater
contamination (i.e., treatment and disposal facilities) are more
intricate. The groundwater human health and environmental standard
for the proposed treatment and disposal (Section 3004) regulations
states the objective that no facility shall degrade groundwater such
that Underground Drinking Water Sources (UDWS) anywhere off the
facility property would at any time be endangered. The proposed reg-
ulations would define UDWS as an aquifer which currently supplies a
public water system; has less than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved sol-
ids; or is designated as a UDWS by the Administrator of EPA after a
public hearing. The proposed regulations would consider a UDWS en-
dangered if operation of a facility caused the violation of a Nation-
al Primary Drinking Water regulation; made it necessary to treat or
increase treatment of the water for any present or future use; or, if
such practice could otherwise adversely affect the health of persons,
such as by adding a substance that would make the water unfit for hu-
man consumption.
The general facility standards for hazardous waste treatment and
disposal would require that discharges to groundwater not occur un-
less the facility owner/operator can demonstrate that the discharge
7-135
-------
will not violate the groundwater human health and environmental stan-
dard. Additional general standards would prohibit location of facil-
ities in the recharge area of sole source aquifers, would require
periodic groundwater monitoring for all facilities except landfarms,
and would require leachate monitoring for landfills and surface im-
poundments. Additional specific requirements that would affect each
type of disposal facility are discussed below.
Landfills. The proposed regulations for landfills would require
a minimum separation of 1.5 meters between the bottom of the liner or
natural barrier and the historical mean water table, unless the land-
fill owner or operator can demonstrate that no direct contact will
occur between the landfill and the water table. Further, the pro-
posed regulations would not allow disposal of bulk liquids or sludges
containing less than 20 percent solids; they would require a minimum
separation of 150 meters from any public, private, or livestock water
supply; and they would specify certain design characteristics, inclu-
ding minimum thicknesses, permeabilities, and other characteristics
of liner systems. Where natural geologic conditions permit, land-
fills would be allowed to use in-place soils (meeting certain thick-
ness, permeability and structural requirements) without a leachate
collection system. Otherwise, a leachate collection system would be
required. In some cases, a double liner system (one synthetic and
one soil liner), with a leachate collection system and a leachate de-
tection system would be required. Other designs would be acceptable
7-136
-------
if it could be demonstrated that they provide equivalent containment.
The choice of design would have to be approved before construction of
the facility began.
Successful implementation of these regulations would result in a
significant reduction in groundwater contamination caused by hazard-
ous waste landfills. As discussed at the beginning of this section,
the extent of the reduction cannot be quantified since the amount of
contamination presently occurring is unknown. However, many examples
of situations which could have been prevented by these regulations
are summarized in Appendix J. A prominent example of the effects of
no control is as follows:
• Between 1960 and 1968, a large landfill near Llangollen, in
New Castle County, Delaware, accepted industrial wastes of
unknown character and origin, in addition to residential and
commerical wastes. The wastes were placed in an abandoned
sand quarry underlain in part by a thin layer of sandy clay
which separated it from the unconsolidated Potomac Aquifer, a
major source of water supply for the area. It turned out
that the clay layer was absent beneath part of the site and
that some of the clay was excavated for cover material at the
landfill. Groundwater contamination was first noted in 1972
in a well 800 feet from the fill. The resulting investiga-
• tiorf discovered a large plume of contaminated groundwater
moving towards a well field producing 4 to 5 million gallons
per day (mgd) located about 5,000 feet from the hill. A mas-
sive pumping operation now removes 3 mgd from the aquifer,
while the well field is pumping at a reduced rate of 2 mgd,
the deficit made up by other sources at the County's expense.
Presently a dozen wells are pumping contaminated water to
create a cone of depression near the site, and 35 wells are
monitored monthly. So far, expenses have reached $800,000
for monitoring, pumping, and replacing water supplies. It is
expected that is will cost more than $20 million if the dump
must be moved, and that it will require 10 years to restore
full usage of the aquifer (Cartwright and Lindorff, 1976;
Garland and Mosher, 1975).
7-137
-------
Surface Impoundments. The regulations specific to surface im-
poundments would require the facility to be designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained such that no discharge to ground or surface
water would violate the respective human health and environmental
standards. Other requirements would prevent direct contact between
the impoundment and the water table; maintain a separation of 150
meters from any public, private or livestock water supply; and would
specify certain design parameters, including the minimum thickness
and characteristics of liner systems. Two types of design are cited,
though others could be acceptable if they provided equivalent con-
tainment. Where natural conditions allow, the bottom and sides of
the impoundment would consist of at least three meters of natural,
in-place, clay-rich soils having a maximum permeability of 10"'
0
cm/sec and certain structural characteristics.
A leachate monitoring system would also be required. Under
other conditions, the impoundment would require a double liner system
and a leachate detection system. The regulations would allow an
artificial liner meeting given specifications. If an impoundment
meets the landfill standards, the baseline regulations would allow
its closure as a landfill, providing all bulk liquids, semi-solids,
and sludges were solidified in accordance with the regulations.
Otherwise, the hazardous wastes would have to be removed at the time
of closure.
7-138
-------
Implementation of these regulations would significantly decrease
the occurrence of groundwater contamination by hazardous wastes. As
in the case of landfills, the extent of the decrease cannot be quan-
tified due to the lack of information on the extent of present con-
tamination by improperly located and operated impoundments. However,
as discussed in the beginning of this section, the problem is known
to be significant. Numerous incidents of contamination have been ob-
served, some of which are summarized in Appendix J. The following
example illustrates the potential magnitude of a single incident:
• An aircraft plant, operating in South Farmingdale on Long
Island during World War II, generated large quantities of
electroplating wastes containing chromium, cadmium, and
other metals. It has been estimated that 200,000 to 300,000
gallons per day of these wastes were discharged into unlined
disposal basins throughout the 1940"s. A treatment unit for
chromium was built in 1949, but discharge of cadmium and
other metals continued. The local groundwater occurs in
three unconsolidated aquifers resting on crystalline bedrock.
The uppermost aquifer consists of beds and lenses of fine-
to-coarse sand .and gravel and extends to within 15 feet of
the land surface. Groundwater contamination by chromium was
first noted in 1942 by the Nassau County Department of
Health. Extensive studies in 1962 indicated that a huge
plume of contaminated groundwater had been formed, measuring
up to 4,300 feet long, 1,000 feet wide, and extending from
the surface of the water table to depths of 50 to 70 feet
below the land surface. Maximum concentrations of both hexa-
valent chromium and cadmium were about 10 mg/1 in 1962.
(Hexavalent chromium had been measured as high as 40 mg/1 in
1949.) This huge contaminated plume cannot be removed or de-
toxified without massive efforts and will take many more
years of natural attentuation and dilution before it becomes
usable again. Meanwhile, it is still slowly moving, threat-
ening a nearby creek and other wells in the area (Tinlin,
1976; State of Minnesota, 1977.)
Landfarms. The regulations for landfarms would prohibit direct
contact with the water table; would require the use of fine grained
7-139
-------
silts and clays chosen to prevent vertical migration of the wastes
more than three times the depth of waste incorporation; would require
closing any caves, wells, or other direct connections to the subsur-
face environment; would require grading to prevent water from ponding
on the facility; would require maintenance of aerobic conditions and
a pH of 6.5; and would prohibit waste application when the soil is
saturated or frozen. With respect to surface waters, implementation
of these regulations would help reduce both ground and surface water
contamination by hazardous wastes. However, the regulations would
not require groundwater monitoring on the theory that any waste mi-
gration towards the groundwater would be detected by the required
semi-annual soil core analyses. Further, although the baseline reg-
ulations specify soil types and certain structural characteristics
(liquid limit greater than 30, and plasticity index greater than 15),
they do not specify permeability or compaction of the soils or re-
quire liners or other base preparation. While the soil 'types that
would be required are generally relatively impermeable and although
the regulations include the constraint that vertical migration of
hazardous constituents must not exceed three times the depth of waste
incorporation, the possibility of groundwater contamination would
still exist. Such contamination could occur due to variabilities in
soil permeability (e.g., due to the inclusion of local sandy zones
within the silts and clays) or due to variations in the thickness or
compaction of the soils. Additionally, although most toxic elements
7-140
-------
are relatively immobile at the required pH and in oxygen rich envi-
ronments, formation of the hexavalent form of chromium (Cr04=) is
favored under those conditions. Although the chrornate ion may be
precipitated by the presence of a few other metals (e.g., lead),
chromate is not adsorbed by two of the major clay minerals—the only
two tested by Griffin et al. (1976).
Other Treatment and Disposal Methods. Discharges to ground-
waters would be allowed from treatment facilities and basins, provid-
ing that such discharges would not violate the groundwater or surface
water human health and environmental standards. The regulations
would also require facility maintenance to avoid leaks and emergency
releases due to equipment malfunctions and would require compliance
with applicable standards for storage facilities or surface impound-
ments. These regulations would contribute to the reduction of water
contamination with hazardous wastes, though, as discussed previously,
quantification of the improvement is not possible.
The regulations do not specifically deal with underground injec-
tion or ocean disposal of hazardous wastes. It is anticipated that
these activities will be regulated by standards promulgated under the
authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act. This exclusion does not preclude use of
these techniques, and any storage or transportation of hazardous
wastes in conjunction with these activities would be subject to the
appropriate RCRA regulations.
7-141
-------
Taken collectively, the baseline regulations would eliminate
most of the pathways by which hazardous wastes presently contaminate
both surface water and groundwater. The regulations would, there-
fore, result in a substantial reduction in the number of incidents in
which such contamination occurs. However, a few pathways would re-
main, as discussed in the previous sections. The following incident
serves to point out the potential for contamination by hazardous
wastes which could escape regulation:
• In May 1972, a private commercial well was dug for a new
office of a small contractor in Ferham, Minnesota. Within
the same month, 5 of 13 employees became ill with gastroin-
testinal ailments. Six other employees also became ill with-
in the next 10 weeks, two requiring hospitalization including
one who lost the use of his legs for six months due to severe
neuropathy. After several weeks it was discovered that the
well was located 20 feet from a site where approximately 50
pounds of grasshopper bait had been buried between 1934 and
1936. The bait, which consisted of arsenic trioxide, bran,
sawdust, and molasses, had been buried at a depth of 7 feet,
while the affected well was 31 feet deep. Well samples con-
tained up to 21 ppm arsenic (U.S. Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards are 0.05 ppm). Soil samples contained up to
12,600 ppm of arsenic in the vicinity of the burial spot. To
date the affected well has been capped and an alternate water
supply obtained at a cost of about $300. Twelve nearby wells
are also monitored periodically to establish the threat to
the Perham municipal well field three-fourths of a mile away.
It has been estimated that removal of the contaminated soil
would cost up to $25,000 (Walker, 1973; Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1975a; Cartwright and Lindoroff, 1976;
State of Minnesota, 1977).
During two years only 50 pounds (about 23 kg) of wastes were
disposed, and 40 years later 11 people became seriously ill as a
result. The quantity of waste involved in this incident would easily
qualify for exclusion from the regulations under the generator limit
even if it was generated in one month. Wastes thus excluded was
7-142
-------
essentially unregulated, and may be disposed in conventional land-
fills, sewers, or by other less-controlled methods. As a result,
although incidents due to the disposal of large quantities of wastes
would be reduced by the regulations, the potential for incidents,
such as that which occurred at Perham, Minnesota, would still exist.
Disposal of small amounts of wastes does not necessarily result
in discrete identifiable incidents. Perhaps a more serious problem
^
is the widespread increase in non-specific environmental
contamination by hazardous substances which has been occurring across
the nation, as evidenced by the following example:
• In Hay 1975, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration halted an
interstate shipment of carp taken from Lake Pepin (located on
the Mississippi River on the border between Minnesota and
Wisconsin) by a commercial fisherman. About 20,000 pounds of
fish were destroyed when analysis revealed that some of the
fillets exceeded the FDA limit of 5 ppm PCB. At about the
same time, an Inter-Agency Task Force on PCB's was formed to
investigate PCB contamination in the Mississippi River.
Their results indicate variable concentrations of PCB in the
water; concentrations of up to 500 ppb in sediments in Spring
Lake and up to 1000 ppb in sediments in Lake Pepin; con-
centrations in individual fish ranging from 0.03 to 33 ppm;
and average concentrations for fish species ranging from 0.04
to-3.97 ppm, with the highest concentrations in white bass,
carp, and channel catfish. Significant damages have been
sustained by both commercial fishermen and mink farmers. The
task force concluded that the contamination was probably
caused by a large number of small inputs including municipal
wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges, re-
suspension of bottom sediments during dredging, leachate from
landfills, and fallout from the air after burning PCB con-
taminated materials (State of Minnesota, 1977).
Following successful implementation of the Subtitle C regula-
*
tions and associated regulations under FWPCA and other acts, the only
7-143
-------
unregulated sources of hazardous contaminants to surface waters would
be resuspension of bottom sediments; leachate from presently leaking
landfills or other dumps which are inactive when the regulations go
into effect, or are inadequately sealed following enactment; leachate
or other discharges from facilities receiving nonregulated wastes;
and spilled materials which escape clean-up attempts. Thus, although
several of the major sources of contamination would be eliminated,
V
situations like this one may continue to occur due in part to uncor-
rected existing problems (e.g., abandoned dumps and contaminated
river and harbor sediments), and in part to unregulated waste streams
(e.g., those from households and from generators not producing more
than 100 kilograms per month, and unlisted, potentially toxic
wastes).
The problem of dealing with existing sites which cannot be modi-
fied to qualify for a permit is not specifically addressed in the
regulations. These sites include marginal operations which may be
abandoned rather than complying with the closure procedures outlined
in the regulations. It is likely that these facilities cannot be
properly closed without removing all the waste materials and the con-
taminated soils from the site, as illustrated by the following ex-
ample:
• During the 1960's, chromium from a waste lagoon in New Jersey
contaminated several wells and a nearby stream. The contam-
ination continued for about 10 years before the problem was
recognized in 1970. By then, the total chromium concentra-
tion was 150 ppm at a well 700 feet from the lagoon. Since
then, the source of contamination has been eliminated, but
7-144
-------
the plume of polluted groundwater is still there. As a
result, a former municipal drinking water well is currently
used for industrial purposes only (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
In such cases, the regulations would provide the beneficial im-
pacts of identifying the unacceptable facilities and preventing their
continued use, although the procedures for preventing the on-going
pollution from wastes already in place at such sites are not clear.
An analogous situation is the problem of former disposal sites
which have already been abandoned. These sites may or may not even
have been recorded. Due to the often long time periods required for
groundwater contamination to progress to the point where it is iden-
tified, such sites have the potential for creating severe problems
over the next few years. This problem is particularly important in
light of the recent EPA study (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977c) reporting that at least 43 out of 50 randomly chosen landfills
which had never been suspected of leaking, were, in fact, contribu-
ting to groundwater contamination, with wells at 26 of the sites
exceeding U.S. Drinking Water Standards. The major impact of the
regulations would be to prevent the creation of such problems in the
future, though discoveries of groundwater pollution due to improper
hazardous waste disposal in the past would probably continue to occur
for some time to come.
7.1.6 Public Health Impacts. Inadequate hazardous waste man-
agement practices have frequently led to cases of injury to human
health. The two major pathways by which public health may be
7-145
-------
affected by hazardous wastes are direct contact (e.g., occupational
exposure) and secondary contact (through the media of contaminated
air, water, or soil). The severity of the potential impacts is
illustrated by the numerous incidents described in Appendix J. This
appendix documents 49 separate instances of traceable public health
effects, including deaths, and 84 instances of contamination of
drinking water, including major water supplies.
From the way in which most of the reported incidents have come
to light, it is very likely that the vast majority of such incidents
go unreported. Factors which contribute to under-reporting are the
long periods of exposure and/or gestation often required before
health effects are noted, the difficulties in establishing direct
causative relationships, and the synergistic effects of exposure to
pollutants from other sources in addition to hazardous wastes.
As discussed in Chapter 6, the quantities of potentially hazard-
ous waste generated are expected to increase both as a result of ex-
panding industrial outputs and the progressive implementation of air
and water pollution control programs, ocean dumping bans, and associ-
ated environmental legislation. Thus, in the absence of specific
regulations, inadequate hazardous waste management could be expected
to continue to result in numerous cases of potentially severe health
effects.
Further, as witnessed by the examples cited in Appendix J, there
is often a considerable time lag between the occurrence of a
7-146
-------
contamination event and the time at which its impact becomes evident.
Since virtually all the reported incidents were discovered only after
damage had already occurred, there is, nationally, a very significant
potential for many similar public health impacts to be detected from
wastes that have already been or currently are being improperly
transported, stored, treated, or disposed.
A major incident recently came to light which illustrates the
magnitude of the potential health effects which can occur in the ab-
sence of regulatory control. Although the incident was only recently
brought to national attention, its history dates back to 1947, when a
chemical company in Niagara Falls, New York used Love Canal as an
industrial toxic waste dump:
• Thousands of drums containing toxic chemicals were dropped >
or buried into the receding water of Love Canal and its
banks. The site was last used as an industrial dump in
1952. In 1953, the surrounding land was sold and a school
and homes were built on the site. During the construction
of the La Salle Expressway to the south of the original
landfill site, noxious fumes, corrosive waters, and oily
materials were encountered, according to State personnel and
local residents. When other locations within the 16-acre
site were also developed, drums were exposed during excava-
tion work allowing the release of noxious fumes and oily
liquids, causing several work stoppages. Noxious fumes and
hazardous liquid chemicals were also detected in various
storm sewers throughout the site. To date, land subsidence
in the grammar school playground, located over the actual
canal and landfill, occurs regularly. The subsidence holes
are periodically filled with soil. School personnel have
reported to the County Health Department that children have
received burns while handling waste phosphorus (Fred C. Hart
Associates, Inc., 1978). Organic contaminants have surfaced
over the fill of the canal and in residential backyards.
All through the 1970's, residents have experienced unpleas-
ant odors in their cellars, particularly after rains during
the summer. Basement sump pumps have also been affected by
oily liquids.
7-147
-------
In 1976, after six years of abnormally heavy rains, the canal
overflowed its underground banks and at least 82 different
compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, began percolat-
ing upward through the soil into backyards and basements of
the homes and school along the canal site. Air monitors
placed by the EPA in the basement of surrounding homes have
detected significant levels of benzene and 24 halogenated
organic compounds, with concentrations of total halogenated
organics ranging from 8 to almost 1800 micrograms per cubic
meter in seven locations (Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.,
1978).
The more common contaminants have been identified and mea-
sured in the analytical work done by several private con-
tractors. Several of the chemical compounds detected are
listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of
priority Toxic Substances, as established by the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council Consent Decree in 1976, and iden-
tified as potentially carcinogenic, teratogenic, and/or
mutagenic. Among the substances identified in samples of
ponded water by the Division of Laboratories and Research,
New York State Department of Health were trichlorophenol,
lindane, hexane, methyl cyclopentane, benzene, toluene,
chlorobenzene, benzychloride, dichlorobenzene, ortho-
dichlorotholuene, trichlorobenzene, and tetrachlorobenzene
(Fred. C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1978).
Although the site has not been used as an industrial dump in
over 25 years, the recent adverse effects to human health
have been numerous. Children and dogs have been burned while
playing in the fields, people have had the soles of their
shoes corroded through, backyard trees have been killed by
chemical action, gardens have been destroyed, fence posts
have been eaten away, and local residents have indicated that
many persons in the neighborhood have died of rectal, blood,
and breast cancer. New York State Department of Health
studies of the residents of the area indicate a prevalence of
problems in the areas of fetal malfunctions, miscarriages,
and liver disfunctions (Fred C. Hart Associates, 1978). In
the area to the south of the canal, four out of 24 children
were born with malfunctions. Malformations in the female
children included subcleft palate, deformed ears and teeth,
hearing defects, mental retardation, abnormalities of the
renal pelvis, and ureters with reflux. In the male children,
congenital deafness occurred.
7-148
-------
Data collected by the City of Niagara Falls identified 20
homes where wastes were volatilizing and infiltrating into
basements. Further investigation has indicated that an ad-
ditional 10 homes are also affected. According to Calspan
Corporation (1977b), extensive abatement measures will be
necessary to protect the health of the residents of these
homes. The recommendations include the installation of
sealed sump pumps, and the sealing of basement walls and
floors with an epoxy paint.
The specific causes of the health and safety hazards that
have occurred at Love Canal are numerous; however, the sub-
surface migration of hazardous pollutants continues to pose
the major problem. On June 21, 1978, an Emergency Health De-
claration under the State Public Health Law, Section 1303,
was issued for the Love Canal site. Further investigation on
this area is planned.
One of the major stated objectives of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act is to promote the protection of health and the envi-
ronment. Implementation of the baseline regulations would result in
the institution of a program of responsible hazardous waste manage-
ment which would decrease the incidence of uncontrolled releases of
hazardous wastes to the environment. This program is designed to
meet the above objective by limiting both direct and indirect public
exposure to hazardous wastes. Direct exposure would be reduced by
requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal in permitted facil-
ities with minimum separation distances from buildings, roads, and
water supplies; by facility personnel training requirements; and by
facility security requirements. Indirect exposure would be reduced
by limiting the movement of hazardous constituents of the wastes
through air, water, and soils, as discussed previously.
7-149
-------
The following sections briefly describe the public health im-
pacts of some of the specific sections of the regulations.
7.1.6.1 Generation. Except for incidents due to occupational
exposure, few health incidents have been documented as having
occurred during the generation stage of hazardous waste management.
Host health incidents are related to subsequent transport, storage,
treatment, or disposal.
Generators of hazardous wastes would not be permitted to dispose
of such wastes on-site without also receiving a permit as a disposal
facility and complying with the Section 3004 regulations. Further,
any on-site storage for 90 days or more would also require a storage
permit. As discussed previously, these requirements would effective-
ly reduce environmental contamination with hazardous wastes due to
illicit disposal activities or improper storage procedures by genera-
tors. However, as also discussed in previous sections, a small quan-
tity of potentially hazardous wastes would escape regulation due to
exemptions and exclusions for households, retailers, and farmers, and
due to the generator limit of 100 kilograms per month. Although it
is expected that regulations promulgated under other Acts would
partially control these wastes, the uncontrolled fractions could be
disposed as nonhazardous wastes using practices such as discharge to
sewer systems or any other conventional disposal method (though such
disposal would have to conform to regulations promulgated under
Section 4004 of RCRA). However, the reduced degree of control for
7-150
-------
this fraction could conceivably result in the eventual contamination
of some surface waters and in subsequent potential human exposure.
However, the effects of these exclusions would be much less harmful
to public health than those which occur now in the absence of any
hazardous waste regulations. Thus, although it is true that some
unregulated releases of hazardous wastes could continue to occur, and
that some hazardous wastes may cause significant damage in any
amount, such occurrences would be much less frequent, and generally
less severe than those which occur in the present, uncontrolled case.
7.1.6.2 Transport. The regulations regarding the transport of
hazardous wastes could be expected to favorably affect public health
by reducing the potential for incompatible wastes to be combined for
transport, by requiring use and maintenance of adequate containeriza-
tion, by extending the DOT regulations to specifically include intra-
state, international, and interstate transport of hazardous wastes,
and by providing for spill notification and abatement procedures.
These regulations would enhance the measure of protection afforded to
persons involved directly with the transport of a waste and to the
general public.
Without the promulgation of regulations for the transport of
hazardous wastes, incidents similar to those described in Appendix J
could be expected to continue to occur. One of the more serious cur-
rent problems associated with the transport of hazardous wastes is
that, in the absence of a manifest tracking system, willful dumping
7-151
-------
is very difficult to control. Such dumped material is frequently
placed in a location where environmental degradation can occur, with
resultant adverse public health effects. Both Sections 7.1.4 and
7.1.5 discuss the types of environmental degradation that can occur
in the absence of hazardous waste regulation during transport. The
institution of a manifest system would allow enforcement agencies to
relatively easily locate the responsible parties for any dumping in-
cidents involving hazardous wastes subject to these regulations.
These regulations, in combination with hazardous spill regulations to
be promulgated under the newly amended Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, would act as a deterrent to anyone contemplating such activ-
ities.
Any increase in the amount of hazardous wastes transported to
off-site facilities, or in the distance over which the wastes are
moved, would create a potential for increased health effects due to
hazardous spills from transport accidents. Although the containeri-
zation and other requirements would reduce spillage en route due to
leakage or poor packaging, the regulations would not significantly
affect accidents due to collisions or derailments.
7.1.6.3 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal. It is in this area
that the regulations would provide the most significant benefits to
public health. The Section 3004 regulations would effectively
insulate the public from regulated wastes by requiring all storage,
treatment, and disposal to be restricted to permitted facilities that
7-152
-------
would be designed and operated Co prevent harmful discharges. As in
the case with transporters, implementation of a manifest system and
periodic reporting requirements would facilitate tracking the wastes
to ensure that they are received at a permitted facility. The regu-
lations would require periodic inspections by facility personnel and
would give the Regional Administrator authority to perform additional
inspections to ensure that the facility does not violate its permit
conditions. Restrictions on siting, including a minimum separation
of 200 feet between the active portions of a facility and its proper-
ty line, and 500 feet between active portions of disposal facilities
and public, private, or livestock water supplies would further con-
tribute to the reduction of adverse public health effects. Rules for
segregating wastes within a facility and prohibiting the mixing of
incompatible wastes, as well as rules requiring employee training
programs for hazardous waste facility personnel, would reduce some of
the adverse health effects due to occupational exposure.
Public health would be further enhanced by the increased.pub lie
awareness of the potential dangers of hazardous wastes. The labeling
requirements for containers and transport vehicles used in connection
with hazardous waste and the public participation procedures which
4
would be required under the Subtitle C regulations, as well as other
related regulations, would act to reinforce the mounting publicity
given to the potential dangers associated with the improper
management of hazardous waste. Thus, though these regulations
7-153
-------
specifically exclude households, most retailers, and most farmers
from the requirements, the regulations may indirectly provide some
reduction of the harmful effects associated with wastes from these
generators as well. The following subsections discuss specific
public health benefits with respect to storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Storage. Although numerous reported incidents of environmental
contamination have resulted from improper storage of hazardous waste,
most reported incidents have not been directly identified as causing
adverse health effects. However, there have been several reported
cases of health effects due to occupational exposure. A typical
example of an occupationally-related incident from improper hand-
ling procedures at a storage facility is as follows:
t An employee was transferring two 5-gallon cans of waste vinyl
cyanide and water from a still to a supposedly empty waste
drum. As the employee rolled the drum to a storage area
across the road, it exploded. The exothermic reaction cata-
pulted the drum into a steel guard post, spraying the con-
tents, causing thermal and possible chemical burns to the em-
ployee (DeVera et al., 1977).
• In another incident 18 persons were exposed to deadly fumes
from a stored canister of rat fumigant. The stored canister
was leaking a mixture of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. At
least 21 persons were affected by the incident including
seven firemen who were hospitalized. Two of the firemen have
since retired with permanent disabilities. Among the effects
suffered from the gas incident are permanent lung damage to
two individuals, and possible brain damage to another (Office
of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
7-154
-------
As can be seen from these incidents, the lack of regulation over
the storage of hazardous wastes has resulted in impairment to the
health of many persons. Stored wastes have often been forgotten or
abandoned. The regulations for storage should significantly reduce
the possibility for stored wastes to be abandoned or forgotten for
extended periods of time. In compliance with the regulations, any
generator who stores hazardous wastes for a period exceeding 90 days,
and all off-site storage facilities would have to obtain a permit and
would be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As
discussed in Section 7.1.5, no discharges would be permitted from
storage facilities. Without these regulations, various occurrences
resulting in fires, explosions, the emission of toxic fumes or dusts,
and ground and surface water degradation due to reactions, corrosion,
or leaks have resulted. Each such unexpected occurrence would have
the potential to impact public health. See Section 7.1.4 for the
sources of emissions that may occur as a result of storage activities
and Section 7.1.5 for the related sources of water contamination that
may affect public health.
Treatment/Disposal. The most common method of treatment for
hazardous wastes involves the use of lagoons or stabilization ponds.
This method of treatment relies on the process of settling and evap-
oration. Prior to the implementation of regulations, wastes have
been treated in unlined ponds or lagoons, or in otherwise unaccept-
able containment- areas. Such treatment areas have frequently been
7-155
-------
subject Co seepage and subsequent groundwater contamination; overflow
or rupture, and subsequent surface water contamination; and/or air
emissions of potentially harmful volatile substances. The potential
for, and interactions between, these occurrences are discussed in
previous sections. Many such occurrences have considerable potential
for public health problems.
An example of the type of health effects which have occurred as
a result of both direct and indirect exposure to hazardous wastes
during unregulated treatment is as follows:
• A chemical company dumped chemical solvent wastes at a quarry
in Maryland between 1960 and 1974, often leaving the chemi-
cals open to evaporate before covering them up. Residents in
the quarry area as well as company employees had complained
of headaches, nausea and vomiting, chronic fatigue, weight
loss, and memory loss—classic symptoms of chemical fume ex-
posure. One doctor found that seven out of eight area resi-
dents he had examined had abnormalities of the liver and/ or
pancreatic functions. Another doctor found carbon tetra-
chloride, which is highly toxic to the liver and kidneys, in
the blood of three area residents. Cancer deaths from
lymphoma malignancies were found in the quarry area and among
employees to be 44 times higher than the national incidence.
The death rate was 2.2 times greater than that of the rest of
the county. The death rate due to cancer was seven times
greater than that for the county, the victims usually living
within direct proximity to the chemical plant. Among the
solvents dumped at the site were benzene, which is known to
damage blood-forming organs and to cause leukemia; carbon
tetrachloride, acetone, ketones, and methylene chloride.
Many of these substances, when measured, were found to be
present in abnormal amounts in the air at the site. The
company was ordered to cease dumping at the quarry in 1974,
and by 1975 had removed most of the wastes (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
The Subtitle C regulations would control such activities under
the requirements for surface impoundments and ponds. As discussed in
7-156
-------
the sections dealing with air and water impacts, the regulations
would significantly decrease the release of hazardous contaminants to
the environment from such facilities. Such decreases would result in
corresponding decreases in the adverse impacts of hazardous wastes on
public health.
Other forms of treatment addressed by the regulations include
incineration; landfarms (if wastes are removed at closure); and chem-
ical, physical, and biological treatment facilities. Except for
landfarms, each of these treatment methods is to be regulated in much
the same way. Each must comply with any other applicable regula-
tions, such as those for storage facilities and basins, and those
affecting facility siting, security, and personnel training; each
must manifest its wastes if they meet the Section 3001 regulations;
and each must remove all wastes at the time of facility closure.
The effects of these regulations on air, water, and soil contam-
ination are discussed elsewhere. Any decrease in the contamination
of these media would result in corresponding decrease in adverse im-
pacts on public health. Additionally, the regulations would directly
affect the health of facility personnel, through improvements in em-
ployee training, standards for facility design, requirements for doc-
umentation and verification of waste composition, and through the
requirements for the creation of emergency contingency plans to deal
quickly and knowledgeably with any accidents.
7-157
-------
Two graphic examples of occupationally-related incidents Chat
occurred during the treatment of hazardous wastes resulted in fatali-
ties which might have been avoided if the personnel were adequately
trained:
• Two youths were cleaning scale from a cyanide plating waste
tank at a treatment plant. When they were checked during the
afternoon, they were using their safety equipment, the cya-
nide level in the tank had been checked, there was positive
purge in the air lines, and work was progressing normally.
Later, both were found dead, the compressor for the purge had
been turned off, and the gas masks had been removed. Appar-
ently a cyanide pocket had been encountered (Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• Two men died as a result of fatal burns received at a metal
processing plant. One employee was working off an elevated
work platform while the other man was operating a forklift.
The resulting injuries were caused by contact with the ex-
treme temperatures of a hydrogen explosion and zirconium
fire. The explosion and fire were caused when zirconium
shavings, contaminated with oil and dirt, were dumped from an
unlined 55-gallon steel drum into an unlined steel hopper to
be scrubbed in water and detergent. Ignition of the shavings
through friction resulted in a violent explosion and fire
that engulfed the two workmen (State of Oregon, Accident Pre-
vention Division, 1975).
Landfarming may.be considered as a treatment (if the wastes are
removed during closure), or as ultimate disposal (the proposed regu-
lations would not require removal of the wastes if the landfarm can
be closed so that food chain crops could be grown on the treated area
without violating specified human consumption standards). In evalu-
ating the use of land application for hazardous wastes, consideration
must be given to the potential for offensive odor nuisances and pub-
lic health hazards that are peculiar to the use of spray irrigation
systems. Groundwater quality is a primary consideration; however,
7-158
-------
Che effect of aerosols, physical contact with the waste by the public
or facility employees, insects and rodents, isolation from the pub-
lic, stormwater runoff and erosion from the site, and contamination
of crops and potential for bioaccumulation, are all important effects
that are possible in any disposal method.
Odors generally result from the spraying of industrial waste-
water that has been inadequately treated or has not been treated at
all prior to land application or lagooning. The condition may be
compounded by excessive ponding at the irrigation site. Sludge ap-
plication to the land potentially poses a relatively more serious
odor problem if not handled properly. At this time almost all states
either prohibit or strictly regulate the use of this method of land
disposal in areas where crops are grown for human consumption (Was-
botten, 1976). Information on the causes of groundwater contamina-
tion, the resulting discharges to the environment, and on the impacts
of the regulations on such discharges can be found in Section 7.1.5.
To the extent that the regulations for landfarms would reduce the po-
tential for water contamination, they would also reduce the potential
for adverse public health effects.
Disposal. The types of ultimate disposal facilities addressed
in the proposed regulations are landfills, some surface impoundments,
and some landfarms. The public health effects of the regulations
concerning surface impoundments and landfarms are discussed above.
Additional requirements affecting public health include minimum
7-159
-------
separations from water supplies, maintenance of permanent records of
waste types and locations, restrictions on the types of wastes which
may be landfilled, application of daily cover on active cells, and
requirements for postclosure maintenance.
These regulations should effectively prevent the creation of
future health disasters such as that which occurred at Love Canal.
Additionally, the regulations should also contribute to an overall
decrease in exposure to low concentrations of hazardous substances
resulting from environmental dispersion of hazardous wastes.
Several sources of potentially adverse health effects would re-
main unaffected by these regulations. As previously discussed, some
potentially hazardous wastes would not be regulated under the Sub-
title C regulations. Further, EPA does not have the authority to
promulgate regulations concerning inactive and abandoned hazardous
waste disposal sites. From the incidents discussed in this chapter
and those presented in Appendix J, it is apparent that there may be
many hundreds of such sites scattered around the country, whose loca-
tions may not even be recorded. The potential for health disasters
caused by these sites is considerable.
However, in spite of these omissions, it is evident that the
regulations would result in substantial benefits to public health
through the reduction of both chronic and acute exposure to contamin-
ation resulting from improper handling and disposal of hazardous
wastes. The regulations have the potential to control and require
7-160
-------
Che safe disposal of nearly 40 million metric Cons of hazardous
wastes per year by 1984. In the absence of the regulations, these
wastes would have a significant potential to cause environmental deg-
radation and subsequent severe human health effects.
7.2 Potential Secondary Impacts
The potential secondary impacts from implementation of the base-
line regulations include impacts to the following areas:
• Physiography and soils;
• Biological environment;
• Social impacts;
• Hazardous waste management facility capacity;
• Land use;
• Water'usY;
• Resource conservation and recovery;
• Energy use;
• Special interest points.
7.2.1 Impacts to Physiography and Soils. The principal areas
of environmental concern pertaining to physiography and soils
include:
o Alterations of topography;
o Loss and physical disruption of soils;
o Soil contamination.
Physiography and soils are impacted by hazardous wastes in many
ways. In the existing unregulated situation, the major adverse
7-161
-------
effects resulting from the management of hazardous waste relate to
soil contamination through indiscriminate disposal. If the baseline
regulations are implemented, adverse effects to soils and physiogra-
phy would still occur, though their nature and severity would change.
For instance, soil contamination would still occur, but in more con-
trolled situations where the physical area affected is limited and
contaminants are retained at one location. Erosion of disposal sites
would be reduced, though physical disruption of the soils may in-
crease during construction of facilities.
As a result of the regulations, it can be anticipated that there
would be considerable effort made to upgrade and expand existing
process capacity and physical capacity and also to develop new
treatment and disposal facilities. The effects of such activities
would be site specific in nature and would have to be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. However, the types of potential impacts that
could result can be discussed generically in terms of facility
construction, facility operation, and facility closure.
7.2.1.1 Facility Modification and Construction. The
modification or construction of hazardous waste management facilities
would involve several types of effects on physiography and soils:
• Alteration of site topography;
• Alteration of off-site topography due to excavation of
materials for liners and soil barriers;
• Loss of soil through erosion;
7-162
-------
• Alteration of soil physical properties by disturbance and
compaction;
• Degradation of soil quality by pollutants generated by
construction vehicles, equipment, and materials.
Most of these impacts are inevitable consequences of construc-
tion operations in general and are thus not unique to hazardous waste
facilities. Any such impacts would be extremely site-dependent.
The Subtitle C regulations would require the use of natural or
artificial liners of specific thicknesses and structural characteris-
tics for landfarms and surface impoundments. Storage facilities and
basins would be required to use impermeable, continuous bases. All
facilities would have to have diversion structures capable of divert-
ing the runoff from a 24-hour, 25-year storm and would also have
to construct some means of containing any runoff from the site. Land-
farms would have to be graded such that their slope would be between
zero and 5 percent, and such that no ponding of water occurs. All of
these regulations would involve alteration of off-site and/or on-site
topography, and alterations of physical properties of the soil.
In most cases, the adverse environmental impacts of such actions
would be negligible. The most significant impacts would occur during
the construction of large landfills or surface impoundments which
cannot use the natural in-place soils as liners. A two acre landfill
not using a synthetic liner would require about 8,000 cubic yards of
silty clay soils for its liner, plus about 1,000 cubic yards of
*A storm of 24-hour duration whose frequency of occurrence is once
in 25 years.
7-163
-------
permeable materials for the leachate-drain layer. Additional soils
would be required for daily operation and closure. Surface impound-
ments would require a larger amount of clayey soil for construction
of dikes around the impoundments.
7.2.1.2 Facility Operation. Principal impacts on physiography
and soils that may result from the operation of hazardous waste
facilities include:
• Erosion, sedimentation, and other geomorphic processes;
• Soil contamination by hazardous materials during the course
of normal operations or as a result of accidental
discharges;
• Alteration of the physical properties of soils by equipment
usage and other operational maintenance activities;
• Induced geological instability (e.g., micro-earthquakes).
Soil contamination would be an especially important concern,
especially because soils are widely used as an ultimate sink for the
disposal of hazardous wastes (Davidson, et al., 1976). Numerous
instances of soil contamination by accidental discharges of hazardous
wastes have been documented. Many of the incidents of hazardous
waste impacts that are cited in the sections of this chapter dealing
with impacts to air, water, and the biological environment pertain to
soil and soil contamination and are not repeated here. Suffice it to
note that the soil contamination is a frequent result of current haz-
ardous waste management practices.
7-164
-------
The Subtitle C regulations that would specifically address
physiographic and soil aspects of facility operation include the
following:
• Groundwater and leachate monitoring systems are to be in-
stalled at all hazardous waste treatment, storage, and dispo-
sal facilities (except landfarms) that have a potential for
groundwater pollution;
• Soils of the treated area of landfarms are to be monitored
for vertical migration of the waste or its consituents;
• Landfills and landfarms are to be located, designed, con-
structed, and operated to prevent erosion, landslides, and
slumping;
• Landfarms are to be sloped at less than 5 percent to prevent
erosion, but greater than zero percent to prevent wastes or
water from ponding or standing;
• All earthern dikes used for surface impoundments are to have
an outside protective cover to minimize erosion by wind or
water.
• Contingency plans are required at treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to minimize adverse impacts of subsurface
discharges of hazardous materials;
• Soils contaminated by accidental discharges from hazardous
waste facilities are to be considered to be a hazardous waste
and are to be managed accordingly.
The regulations are expected to have the following impacts:
• A substantial reduction in the contamination of soils in
areas surrounding treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
owing to specific provisions pertaining to soils as well as
measures designed to prevent contamination of air and water
quality, including accident contingency plans;
• A substantial reduction in soil contamination resulting from
disposal of hazardous wastes at unauthorized and unsuitable
sites;
f A reduction in erosion, sedimentation, and landslides at
landfarms, landfills, lagoons, and ponds;
7-165
-------
a-.,1 V
• Substantial upgrading of the disposal of soils subject to
accidental exposure of hazardous wastes discharges from
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
7.2.1.3 Facility Closure. The impacts on physiography and
soils that would occur as a result of facility closure are similar to
those which would occur during construction. Basins, storage facili-
ties, treatment facilities, some surface impoundments, and some land-
farms would have to be emptied of hazardous wastes, including any
soils rendered hazardous during operations. The primary impacts that
these facilities would have on physiography would be due to the
requirement for filling the empty impoundments and resultant changes
in topography. The removal of wastes from these facilities could
increase the potential for impacts at the ultimate disposal site.
Landfills, some surface impoundments, and a few landfarms would
be the ultimate disposal sites for hazardous wastes. The minimum
final cover depth for a landfill would be 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of clay soil under a minimum cover of 45 centimeters (18 inches) of
soil capable of supporting indigenous vegetation. If deep-rooted
vegetation is to be planted on site, the minimum cover thickness
would be at least 1 meter (3 feet) of compacted soil. Surface
impoundments would have to be treated to render their solids content
greater than 20 percent, and then closed in accordance with the
requirements for landfills. It is probable that a very large volume
of soil would be needed to adequately cover and contain such a
semi-solid mixture of hazardous wastes. Landfarms would have to be
7-166
-------
closed such that food chain crops could be grown on the treated area
without resulting in human consumption of substances listed in the
EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards, or food additives banned by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since the landfarm design and
operation regulations would prevent waste migration from the site
(i.e., all wastes would remain at the site), meeting the closure
requirements without removing the wastes could be difficult. Closing
such a facility would probably (at a minimum) require burial with
sufficient soil to prevent the roots of the crops from ever reaching
the wastes. Additionally, a protective impermeable layer may be
necessary to prevent leaching of wastes by percolating irrigation
waters.
7.2.1.4 Transportation of Hazardous Wastes. Provision for the
extension of existing interstate safeguards to all intrastate trans-
port of hazardous wastes could reduce the relative frequency of
accidental spills and associated incidents of soil contamination.
Conversely, increases in the distances over which hazardous wastes
were to be transported could off-set some of this benefit. Manifest
requirements should eliminate most incidents of dumping and improper
disposal and their resultant impacts to soils. Contamination
incidents due to improper cleaning of vehicles could be greatly
reduced and improved spill contingency measures could reduce soil
exposure to hazardous wastes.
7-167
-------
7.2.2 Biological Impacts. This section addresses potential
impacts of the proposed regulations in terms of: 1) the welfare and
status of non-human biota, ecological systems, and habitats; 2) the
human amenities that are derived from these resources. The scope of
the section includes agricultural as well as natural systems.
Of particular importance from the perspective of biological
effects is the nature of hazards posed by waste materials to living
systems. Two relevant aspects are the hazardous nature of the mate-
rial in question, and the degree to which environmental systems may
be exposed to the hazard. The latter factor is dependent on the par-
ticular conditions under which hazardous materials are handled and
disposed. As shown in Table 7-13, intrinsic harmful properties of
hazardous wastes to living systems include: flammability, reac-
tivity, toxicity, bioconcentration, and genetic change.
An equally important consideration is the response of biological
and ecological systems to the stresses imposed by hazardous wastes
and their management. The specific responses would depend on the
amounts and types of hazardous materials involved, the modes by which
living systems were to be exposed, and other sources of environmental
stress, as well as the organisms involved. Because of the wide range
of materials and methods involved in hazardous waste management, and
of tolerances of different types of organisms, effects on living sys-
tems vary substantially and would be situation dependent. However,
as shown in Table 7-14, it is possible to generalize about the ways
7-168
-------
TABLE 7-13
PROPERTIES OF WASTES THAT ARE HAZARDOUS TO LIVING SYSTEMS*
Hazardous roperty
Types of wastes Involved
Hazards Co living aystens
Planmablllty
Contaminated solvents
Oils
Pesticides
Plastlclzers
Complex organic sludges
Off-apeclfleatlon chemicals
An acute and latent danger to organisms and habitats. Kill radii of 115 ft.
and 230 ft. may be associated with Ignition of 9,000 gal. and 30.000 gal.
tank cars of flammable liquid. Because of large volumes of wastes, danger
at disposal sites nay be greater than In transportation. Secondary fires
and detonations may occur. Plammablllty Is a hazard during all phases of
the hszardous waste cycle.
Reactivity
Explosive manufacturing
wastes
Contaminated Industrial
gases
Old ordinance
An acuta and latent danger to organisms snd habitats. Detonation may be
caused by thermal or mechanical shock, electrostatic charge or contact of
Incompatible materials. Kill radius la typically less than for comparable
volumes of flammable liquids. Detonation may result In secondary explosions
or fire. Eesctlvity may occur at all phaaes of the hazardous ussta cycle and
may pose a greater danger after disposal If sufficient amounts of reactive
material are accumulated.
T1
VO
Toxiclty
Toxic wastes may be derived
from any Industry. (Toxi-
clty may result from pure
compounds, combined effects
of more thsn one component
or combined action of two
Individually non-toxic
materials).
The capability to produce Injury upon contact with a suitable sice on or In
the body. Wastes may be acucely or chronically hazardous to plants or
animals. Phytoxlc tfsstes may reduce chlorophyl production, retard growth or
Interfere with specific chemlcsl processes when present In soil, atmosphere
or water. In mammals, acutely toxic wsates may cauae damage via Inhalation,
ingestIon, or skin contact. Chronic coxlclty may occur for materials that
are bloaccumulated or that cause cumulative Irreversible damage. In aquatic
organisms, toxlclty often results from the transfer of toxic materials across
ths gill membranes. Wstsr Is probsbly the most common vector, but atmospheric
emissions may be more readily dispersed. Direct contact Is the most easily
controlled route of exposure. Exposure of organisms to toxic subscsnces may
occur In all phases of the hazardous waste cycle.
Bloconcentratlon
Various elements and compounds
Including: cadmium, lead,
mercury, polychlorlnated
blphenyls, carbon tetra-
chlorlde
The hazard posed by materials that are concentrated In an Individual organism
or magnified at successive levels of the food chain until toxic concentrations
are reached. Threshold levels of toxicity often occur in vertebrates. Includ-
ing man, and may result in death. Bloconcentration generally occurs when a
contaminant is present in low ambient levels and is probably of greatest danger
following the disposal of waate materials.
Genetic Change
Potential
Dye plant wastes
Petroleum sludges
Carcinogenic, mutsgenlc or teratogenlc effects on organisms, as evidenced by
mltotlc or meiotic malfunction. Exposure is usually by direct and continuous
route.
*Bnttelle Psclfic Northwest Laboratories. 1973 .
-------
TABLE 7-14
GENERALIZED PATTERNS OF THE RESPONSE OF BIOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS TO INCREASED LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS*
Degree
of Stress
Response at Indicated level of organisation
Individual' "organism
Population
Specie*
Community
Moderate
-Son* metabolic end behav-
ioral Interference.
-Reduced competitive abi-
lity.
-Reduced realeteace to
paraeltee and predators.
-Reduced capacity for re-
production.
-Reduced competitive ab-
ility of most sensitive
Individuals.
-Some genetic selection
for more tolerant Indi-
viduals.
-Host sensitive popula-
tions undergoing selec-
tion for hardiest lndl->
vlduala. hence losing
genetic diversity.
-Most tolersnt popula- .'
tlons little affected.
-Noticeable shifts In re-
lative species abundance
as the aoat sensitive
species euffer reduction
in numbers while more
tolerant competitor ape-
clea remain the same or
Increase In abundance.
I
t-'
o
^-Individual under heavy
atreaa load.
-Survival not In Jeopardy.
Heavy but individual weakened
. and susceptible to para-
! sites, disease, and pred-
atlon.
f-Reproduetlon greatly
curtailed.
-Elimination of meet
sensitive Individuals.
-Incresse In more tol-
erant Individuals.
-Population level may
or may not be affected.
-Reduction In genetic
diversity.
-Most sensitive popula-
tions eliminated.
-Moat tolerant popula-
-tlena losing sensitive
Individuals, hence los-
ing genetic diversity.
-Significant shifts in
speclee composition aa
sensitive species sre el-
iminated and.hardy com-
petitors reaaln and often
Increase.
-New hardy species ma. .-.-
ter from elsewhere.
Severe
•-Severe metabolic and be-
havioral Interference.
-Individual aurvlval in
question.
l-Reproductlon no longer
' possible.
-Survival of only the
most tolerant- individ-
uals.
-Population level may
or aay not be reduced.
-Severe reduction in
genetic diversity.
-Only the hardiest indi-
viduals of the most tol-
erant populations still
survive.
-Great shifts in species
composition.
-Most species reduced or
eliminated.
-Bardy species may become
very sbundant.
-Total system greatly sim-
plified.
-Community metabolism
greatly modified.
-Stability severely reduced.
Total
Death
Elimination
Extinction
Collapse
'Darnell. 1976.
-------
in which living systems, from individual organisms Co biological com-
munities, would respond to various levels of environmental stress. A
moderate degree of stress, such as that which might be caused by air
emissions from a treatment/disposal site, could affect the behavior
•
of individual organisms, reduce the competitive ability of various
population segments and species, and ultimately lead to a shift in
species composition of the community. At the other end of the spec-
trum, extreme stress, as represented by the massive discharge of
toxic wastes into a stream, could result in the elimination of some
species along a large stretch of the affected stream (see Section
7.1.5.2 for examples of such incidents).
On the basis of available literature, present knowledge regard-
ing the effects of current non-radioactive hazardous waste management
practices on biological systems are based largely on scattered re-
ports of individual incidents rather than comprehensive surveys or
investigations. Moreover, available reports deal largely with acute
effects from direct exposure of organisms to high concentrations of
hazardous substances and rarely consider chronic effects resulting
from long-term exposure to low concentrations. The focus of most
reports has been directed to individual organisms or populations
rather than to communities or ecosystems.
Determination of hazardous waste effects is complicated by vari-
ous phenomena, including:
• Synergistic or antagonistic interactions between waste
constituents that could enhance or modify overall effects;
7-171
-------
• The importance of the physical and chemical form of the waste
on the mobility of toxic substances;
• The physical and chemical conditions of the receiving waters
(such as pH, existing oxygen demand and availability, and the
presence of ions rr materials which could immobilize toxic
substancesvby precipitation or adsorption or could combine
with them to increase their toxicity);
• Unpredictable nature of interactions between biological
systems (e.g., bacteria) and hazardous wastes such that the
end point is more dangerous than the original waste;
• Accumulation by mammals of persistent toxic substances such
that low ambient concentrations may be magnified in tissues
(Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1974a). It has
also been established that most pollutants are capable of
crossing the placenta of mammals; cross effects on features
have been demonstrated for high mercury and PCB exposure
(Susten and Raskin, 1976).
Despite limitations, the available information is sufficient to
establish that current hazardous waste management practices may pose
a substantial threat to biological systems. Appendix J and the pre-
vious sections of this analysis describe many incidents in which
improper management of hazardous wastes has resulted in damage to
ecological systems. Analysis of these incidents indicates that the
maj.or routes of hazardous waste transport to biological systems are
as follows (Lazar, 1975): groundwater contamination via leaching,
surface water contamination via runoff or spills, air pollution,
poisoning via direct contact, poisoning via the food chain, and fire
or explosion.
The potential effects of the proposed regulations on biological
species and processes can be perceived in terms of principal stages
of the hazardous waste cycle, discussed below:
7-175
-------
7.2.2.1 Generation. Improper handling or containerization of
hazardous wastes by generators could expose biological populations
and habitats to hazardous residuals. Such exposure may result in
death and injury to organisms, the dispersal of hazardous materials,
and the degradation of aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environ-
ments.
The Subtitle C regulations would require all generators of
hazardous wastes to treat, store, or dispose hazardous waste in a
permitted facility in accordance with the regulations. A manifest
and reporting system would be instituted to track the wastes and
ensure compliance. All generators designating wastes for transport
to an off-site facility must containerize that waste in accordance
with DOT hazardous materials transportation regulations in 49 CFR.
The generators managing wastes in on-site facilities must obtain a
permit under the Section 3005 regulations and must comply with the
standards under Section 3004.
These regulations would result in a decrease in the release of
hazardous wastes to the environment from generators covered by the
regulations. This decrease would result in reduced air, soil, and
water contamination as discussed earlier, and subsequently in reduced
exposure of biological systems. To the extent that some potentially
hazardous wastes would remain uncontrolled (see previous sections),
some adverse ecological impacts could continue to occur as they are
at present.
7-173
-------
7.2.2.2 Transportation. Principal biological considerations
associated with hazardous waste transportation include:
• Emissions from improperly containerized wastes that may .
degrade habitat values;
» Leakages and spillages of transported wastes that kill or
injure organisms, degrade habitats, and create odors and
other nuisances to organisms;
• Accidental large-scale discharges of hazardous wastes
resulting in fires and detonation;
• Vehicular emissions;
• Vehicular collisions with wild and domestic animals.
The regulations would require all transporters of hazardous
wastes to comply with the manifest system and to ship all hazardous
wastes to a permitted facility. They would require specific labeling
and containerization procedures, and prohibit the transport of leak-
ing or damaged containers. Further, the regulations would extend
certain DOT hazardous material regulations to intrastate transporta-
tion and would reinforce and expand hazardous spill notification
procedures established.by DOT and EPA through the National Response
Center.
As discussed previously, these regulations would have the poten-
tial for reducing air, water, and soil contamination from uncon-
trolled transportation of hazardous wastes. Additionally, the poten-
tial for hazardous spills caused by improper containerization during
transport would decrease. To the extent that these regulations would
7-174
-------
reduce air, water, and soil contamination, there would be a corres-
ponding reduction in ecological degradation and other associated
adverse biological impacts.
7.2.2.3 Storage. The principal hazards to biological systems
associated with hazardous wastes storage may result from:
• Aerial emissions and effluent seepages from improperly stored
wastes;
• Accidental spills, fires, and explosions of stored
hazardous wastes during handling.
The impacts resulting from such events would depend on the
nature and amounts of materials involved and on site specific charac-
teristics. The regulations would allow no discharge from any storage
facility. They would require periodic monitoring and inspection to
detect any potential discharges to air or water. They would require
construction of an impervious, continuous base for the storage facil-
ity and of sturdy, leak-proof tanks and containers. The regulations
would also require diversion of upland runoff and containment of run-
off and spills in the facility. With respect to water quality, these
regulations would reduce the potential for water pollution from regu-
lated hazardous waste storage facilities. Any reductions in water
pollution would result in a corresponding decreased potential for
adverse ecological and biological impacts.
7.2.2.4 Treatment. As with other phases of the hazardous waste
cycle, the potential effects of hazardous waste treatment facilities
on living systems would be site-specific and would depend on the
7-175
-------
types and amounts of materials handled, the processes employed, and
the ecological setting of the facility.
Any increased treatment of hazardous waste that could result
from the regulations should reduce the dangers associated with haz-
ardous waste disposal, but could increase those associated with the
treatment. Adverse effects that are principally associated with haz-
ardous waste treatment are:
• The substantial land requirements for lagooning and resultant
pre-emption of habitat and displacement of biological popula-
tions;
• Leachate and overflow problems for lagoons and ponds that are
improperly sited, constructed, or managed and resultant
impacts on aquatic systems;
• Air emissions from incinerators that may degrade habitats.
All hazardous waste treatment facilities would be subject to any
applicable section of the standards for hazardous waste storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities. To the extent that these regula-
tions would reduce or eliminate hazardous discharges from facilities
subject to regulation, adverse biological or other ecological effects
due to improperly conducted treatment operations would be reduced or
eliminated.
7.2.2.5 Disposal. The ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes
poses unique and substantial environmental problems. Major site-
specific problems associated with the handling and disposal of haz-
ardous wastes include:
7-176
-------
• Leachate contamination of surface and groundwaters resulting
in hazards to biota and ecological systems;
• Air pollution hazards to vegetation and fauna due to fugitive
emissions and uncontrolled or incomplete incineration;
• Exposure of environmental systems to hazardous materials due
to indiscriminate or illegal dumping of wastes because of
insufficient or expensive disposal facilities (Washington
State Department of Ecology, 1977).
Improper land disposal of hazardous wastes could result in a
wide range of effects depending on the types and amounts of wastes
involved, site characteristics, and facility safeguards. The princi-
pal single site-specific concern would likely be the contamination of
surface and groundwater systems, and resultant impacts on organisms
and communities, due to leaching of toxic effluents. In terms of
future changes, an increase in the number of facilities or in the
volume of wastes handled would be expected to increase the potential
for localized environmental problems while improvements in facility
safeguards and more stringent disposal standards would significantly
reduce the potential for adverse effects. It is recognized that haz-
ardous wastes by their nature pose a potential threat to the environ-
ment, during either short periods prior to their destruction or over
very long periods for those materials not subject to detoxification.
A universal impact of hazardous waste disposal facilities, re-
gardless of types of wastes or site environment, is their preemption
of land from other uses including habitat for natural and agricul-
tural biota. An EPA study has determined that land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes is increasing because of the implementation of air and
7-177
-------
water quality standards and legal limitations on other disposal meth-
ods such as ocean dumping (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
1974a). Legislation of particular importance in this regard includes
the Clean Air Act of 1973 as amended, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries of 1972, as amended. Thus, it is likely that terres-
trial biological systems may be subject to increasing potential
stress. This stress would be greater without the Subtitle C regula-
t ions.
The regulations would eliminate discharges from hazardous waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities to groundwater unless it
can be demonstrated that the discharge would not endanger an under-
ground drinking water source (UDWS). The regulations would require
that all waterborne effluents including runoff and leachates must be
confined to point sources, and that all point source discharges to
navigable waters must comply with the regulations of the Clean Water
Act. Since almost any aquifer which could be used as a water source
for wildlife would be classifed as a UDWS, and since navigable waters
is quite broadly defined, these regulations would greatly reduce the
occurrence of waterborne contamination of biological and other eco-
logical systems by hazardous wastes. One incident which is illustra-
tive of the type of impacts which could be avoided by these regula-
tions is as follows:
7-178
-------
• Near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, complex hazard-
ous wastes (consisting of by-products of pesticides, herbi-
cides, and chemical warfare agents) stored in unlined holding
ponds infiltrated a shallow water table aquifer and migrated
through groundwater. As a result, crops on 6.5 square miles
of farmland were damaged and water fowl were killed. Results
of the groundwater contamination were still evident 24 years
following the initial report of damage and 15 years after
remedial action was taken.
Additional regulations would require specific design parameters
for landfills, surface impoundments, and basins that would minimize
leakage and emphasize structural integrity. Monitoring, inspection,
reporting, and permit requirements would reinforce these regulations.
This group of regulations would decrease the potential for environ-
mental damage and adverse biological impacts from failure of inade-
quately designed and constructed containment structures. Two promi-
nent examples of the type of incident which have occurred in the
current unregulated situation are as follows:
• In Pennsylvania the rupture of refining waste lagoons near
the Allegheny River resulted in the death of approximately
4.5 million fish in one incident, and the death of about
450,000 fish along a 60-mile stretch in another incident (Of-
fice of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
1978b).
• A waste pond dike ruptured at a phosphoric acid plant at Fort
Meade, Florida, releasing 28 billion gallons of slime com-
posed of halides and phosphatic clays. The discharge contam-
inated the adjacent creek, the Peace River, and the estuary
of Charlotte Harbor. Extensive mortality of benthic biota
occurred, and no live aquatic organisms were found in the
Peace River up to 8 miles downstream of the adjacent creek
(Office of Hazardous Waste Management Programs, 1974a).
These latter wastes are specifically listed as hazardous under
the Section 3001 regulations, and are classifed as 'special wastes'
7-179
-------
under the Section 3004 regulations. Since the Section 3004 'special
waste1 standards for phosphate were not developed as of the time of
this document, their impact is uncertain. However, definition of
these wastes as hazardous and implementation of specific disposal
standards would certainly reduce the potential for adverse biological
impacts due to these wastes.
Other parts of the Section 3004 regulations would restrict open
burning of hazardous wastes and require compliance with the regula-
tions developed under the Clean Air Act. These provisions would
reduce the potential for adverse biological impacts caused by air
pollution. Additional requirements and permit restrictions would
prevent the growth of food chain crops where they may contact hazard-
ous wastes, and would require fencing around active portions of
facilities. Further, implementation of the manifest and facility
permitting system in general would result in a large decrease in un-
controlled open dumping of hazardous wastes. The combined effect of
these provisions would greatly reduce the potential biological
impacts caused by ingestion or other contact with hazardous wastes.
An example of the type of incident which could likely be avoided is
as follows:
• In September 1971, six or seven cows died from arsenic
poisoning, resulting from improper disposal of a cotton de-
foliant in a Texas City landfill. Approximately 100 boxes,
each containing four "empty" plastic containers holding a
small amount of residual arsenic, had been placed at the
landfill by a warehouseman of a chemical company. The graz-
ing cattle had entered the landfill from nearby pasture
lands.
7-180
-------
In summary, the baseline regulations for preventing or minimiz-
ing the degradation of air, surface waters, subsurface waters, soils,
and other physical features, could substantially reduce the stresses
imposed on living systems by current hazardous waste management prac-
tices. The implementation of such regulations would reduce the
direct exposure of biota and habitats to hazardous wastes. The over-
all benefits accrued would generally correspond to the amounts of
hazardous wastes brought under control, to the rate and uniformity at
which such control is implemented, and to the degree to which the
release of air, soil, and water residuals were reduced.
The regulations would result in the closing of some existing
environmentally inadequate hazardous waste storage, treatment, and
disposal facilities; the modification of other existing facilities;
and the construction of new facilities that would be in compliance
with the regulations. This would have the following types of
impacts:
• Biological systems that occur in the vicinity of existing
sites which would be closed could be subject to a reduced
level of risk if the site were closed in accordance with the
regulations;
• The construction of new hazardous waste facilities would
result in localized destruction and displacement of biota and
the temporary degradation of local habitats due to noise,
emissions, effluents, and other construction impacts;
• Any increased transportation of hazardous wastes would expose
biota and habitats along transportation routes to increased
outputs of vehicular emissions and increased road kills;
there could also be an increased frequency of spills as a
STOP TV- result of increased transport distances;
OfJ ~-l* .
7-181
-------
• The establishment of new hazardous waste facilities and the
expansion of existing suitable facilities could reduce the
habitat available to wild and domesticated biota by a
presently indeterminable amount; a shift from on-site to
off-site disposal could result in the placement of some new
facilities in largely remote and rural areas, and thus could
preempt habitats that support fish, wildlife, and other
natural biota in addition to exposing new communities to
hazardous waste management activities.
Although these regulations would afford a significant amount of
protection from contact with hazardous waste to the larger terres-
trial animals in the immediate vicinity of facilities and to biologi-
cal systems in a particular group of habitat types (e.g., critical
habitats of endangered species and wetlands), the baseline regula-
tions do not include any special provisions for the protection of
waterfowl that may be attracted to hazardous wastes surface impound-
ments. Thus, incidents such as that reported by Snyder et al.
(1976), in which migratory waterfowl were killed by alighting on
storage lagoons containing residues from a waste oil refinery plant,
could continue to occur.
Additionally, the regulations apply only to safeguards at the
facility site itself. No provisions are specified for the siting of
facilities in relation to many other land use or habitat types that
may be of value to wild or domesticated biota (e.g., prime agricul-
tural lands; upland wildlife habitats, habitats and ranges of state
designated rare and endangered species, areas in major migratory
routes, commercially valuable forests, unique plant communities,
etc.). It is likely, however, that permit application and review
procedures would provide a mechanism for considering such impacts
7-182
-------
prior Co facility approval. The regulations also make no specific
provision for compensation or mitigation of losses of habitat and
biota that may occur as a result of the installation or operation of
hazardous waste facilities or as a result of accidents that may
result during their operation.
7.2.3 Social Impacts. Two major types of impacts could occur
as a result of promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations: demo-
graphic changes and changes in existing social conditions.
7.2.3.1 Demographic Impacts. Potential sources of demographic
changes from the promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations include
closings or relocations of industrial plants; construction or modifi-
cation of hazardous waste management facilities; changes in opera-
tional requirements of hazardous waste management activities; and
administrative requirements for program management.
As indicated in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supple-
ment), promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations'would likely cause
some plant closings and job losses in a number of industrial segments
(e.g., textile industry, inorganic chemicals industry, organic chem-
icals industry, metals smelting and refining industry, electroplating
and metal finishing industry). Such plant closings and job losses
would have the potential to cause relocations of some of the affected
workers and their families. The nature and extent of any such relo-
S_CP . . cations and population shifts would be site-specific and dependent
Ofj TV : . . _
upon such factors as number of workers affected, local and national
7-183
-------
unemployment rates, number and types of jobs available, worker
skills, age of affected workers, and willingness of workers to relo-
cate. There would be a potential for large-scale out-migrations from
any communities or areas for which plants being closed constituted
the primary source of employment.
The Subtitle C regulations would result in modifications to
existing hazardous waste management facilities and the construction
of new facilities. Due to the small number of construction workers
who would be required at any individual facility, it is unlikely that
there would be a significant amount of relocations or population
shifts due to construction requirements. However, there could be
some localized instances of worker relocations, especially in the
case of facility construction in rural or undeveloped areas. Any
such relocations would likely be of a temporary nature.
Operational requirements for hazardous waste management under
the Subtitle C regulations would likely result in additional workers
being required to track the hazardous waste (due to the manifesting,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements), to transport the wastes
(in the case of increased off-site disposal), and to store, treat, or
dispose the wastes both off-site and on-site. Additional workers
would also be required to administer and enforce the regulations at
both the state and Federal levels.
Some population shifts could occur if the required number of
workers were not available where needed, particularly in the case of
7-184
-------
treatment/disposal sites being located in rural or undeveloped areas.
Any such shifts in population are expected to be relatively small on
a national scale; however, there could be localized instances of a
relatively large influx of workers, particularly for facilities
located near small towns or in rural areas.
Based upon a study of the hazardous waste management service
industry (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976), it is estimated that about
500 workers (including clerical and professional employees) are
required to handle a million metric tons of hazardous wastes per
year. Using this requirement as the minimum number of workers likely
to be required under the Subtitle C regulations,* it is estimated
that at least 20,000 such workers could be required by 1984 to handle
hazardous wastes. Approximately 2,600 to 5,000 of these workers
could be required at off-site facilities, and approximately 15,000 to
17,400 could be required at on-site facilities. Based upon Section
7.2.4, this would represent a decrease of 400 workers at off-site
facilities in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and an
increase of 2,000 workers at off-site facilities in the case of 25
percent off-site shipment (there would be equivalent, but opposite,
changes at on-site facilities). It should be noted that changes in
employment at off-site facilities would be more likely to cause
*This number does not include the additional workers that would
likely be needed to track the hazardous waste under the Subtitle C
regulations. Some additional operational employees could also be
required.
7-
-------
population shifts than changes at on-site facilities. In 1975
approximately 2,000 workers were employed off-site at hazardous waste
management service industry facilities (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976).
Data are not available as to the number of workers employed at
on-site facilities, nor to estimate the increase in the total number
of employees that would be required at all facilities under the
regulations.
7.2.3.2 Social Conditions. Impacts to existing social condi-
tions could result from changes in the siting and operation of haz-
ardous waste management facilities and from any population shifts
caused by the regulations.
The increased public health protection that would be derived
from the regulations would provide significant social benefits. Many
of the social costs related to the exposure of workers and the gener-
al public to hazardous wastes and their residuals under current prac-
tices would be reduced or eliminated. This exposure is known and/or
suspected to have caused numerous instances of adverse health ef-
fects, including death (see Section 7.1.6). Much of the individual
grief and suffering associated with such incidents, as well as the
resultant economic losses, would be reduced or eliminated.
The regulations, while not applying to household wastes, could
focus more public attention on the problems associated with the
improper treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes. This could result
in increased care in the disposal of hazardous household wastes and a
further reduction in public health impacts from such disposal. A few
7-186
-------
examples of health problems Chat have resulted from the improper dis-
posal of hazardous household wastes are presented in Appendix J.
This awareness could also result in more citizen pressure on authori-
ties to see that hazardous waste is properly managed and that gener-
ators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers comply with the
regulations•
On the other hand, an increased public awareness of problems
that have been associated with improper disposal of hazardous wastes
could add to opposition to local siting of hazardous waste management
facilities. Citizen reaction to the siting of hazardous waste facil-
ities has been mostly negative. A number of communities and states
have been unable to overcome citizen opposition in attempts to site
hazardous waste landfill or treatment facilities. Such opposition is
not usually centered upon specific data regarding the adequacy of the
proposed facility with respect to public health or the environment.
Rather, it is usually based upon reported incidents and the belief
that such incidents could not be prevented from reoccurring, regard-
less of the precautions to be taken. For example, residents in
Bordentown, New Jersey, have recently shown extremely strong opposi-
tion to the siting of a chemical waste landfill whose construction
specifications appear to be well in excess of specific requirements
under Subtitle C regulations (Waldron, 1978). This type of opposi-
tion represents an educational and attitudinal problem which solid
waste management officials could find to be a pivotal constraint and
7-187
-------
issue in the development of alternatives and solutions. Any inabil-
ity to effectively site or to provide necessary treatment or disposal
facilities would render other steps less effective in providing envi-
ronmentally adequate hazardous waste management (Office of Solid
Wastes, 1977a). However, promulgation of the regulations accompanied
by increased public awareness and participation in the facility sit-
ing process, and specific demonstrations that the objectives of the
regulations can be achieved, could also serve to lessen such opposi-
tion in the future and could lead to more effective siting of facil-
ities.
Other social impacts could also result from the expansion or
construction of hazardous waste management facilities and from any
increased off-site transport of hazardous wastes. The construction
and operation of new facilities would have aesthetic impacts and
could result in localized noise impacts. Construction of new facil-
ities, especially off-site facilities, and conjunctive developments
such as road construction would create new jobs, but would also rep-
resent an intrusion on the existing aesthetic environment. This
intrusion would consist of visual, auditory, and olfactory altera-
tions. Forms, colors, lines, textures, sounds, and smells could be
changed. The perception of these alterations would depend upon many
variables including the context in which the alteration appears, the
terrain masking the alteration, the distance from which the altera-
tion is viewed, the magnitude of the alteration, and the weather con-
ditions at the time of perception. Proper planning, while not able
7-188
-------
to eliminate these aesthetic and noise impacts, could make them less
perceptible.
Facility construction and operation, including the additional
truck traffic associated with new or expanded facilities, could
increase noise levels in the vicinity of such facilities, especially
in the case of off-site facilities, and also along transport routes.
Changes in noise levels would be extremely site-specific and would
depend upon such factors as existing noise levels in the area, type
of facility constructed, increase in'truck traffic, distance to
population centers, local topography, and local meteorological
conditions. Active portions of facilities would have to be located
at least 200 feet from the facility's property line under the
Subtitle C regulations. Any changes in off-site shipments of
hazardous wastes or in the distances such wastes are transported
would also change the potential for accidents from such transport.
Assuming that the average round trip haul distance would increase to
200 miles and that there would be 8.9 truck accidents per million
vehicle miles (National Safety Council, 1975), based upon Section
7.2.4 there could be about 270 additional vehicular accidents
annually in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and 850
additional accidents in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment.
The Subtitle C regulations do not contain specific provisions
for planning the siting of hazardous waste management facilities or
transportation routes. However, the Section 3005 permit application
review procedure, including the opportunity for public hearings on
7-189
-------
the permit application, would provide a means for consideration of
such factors at the state and local levels. Other Federal laws, such
as OSHA noise regulations, and state and local laws and ordinances
could also serve to mitigate potential noise and aesthetic impacts.
Implementation of the regulations could potentially have long-
term beneficial impacts through the establishment of a framework of
"equivalent" and "consistent" state programs. This could reduce the
likelihood for a state to implement importation bans or overly strict
standards directed towards preventing the entry of wastes into any
particular state. This could prevent states from becoming isolated
in terms of their ability to dispose of hazardous wastes. This con-
sistency between states could, in turn, reduce the potential for geo-
graphic shifts by industry to escape strict regulations. However, as
previously discussed, in the near term there could be individual
plant closings or relocations from the enactment of the regulations.
Any shifts in population that result from the Subtitle C regula-
tions would have the potential to cause social impacts. The magni-
tude of any such impacts would be site specific and would depend upon
such factors as the size of the shift relative to the size of the
existing population in affected areas, the rate of the shift, the
existing infrastructure in the affected areas, and the adequacy of
advanced planning.
Large, rapid, population outfluxes could be unavoidable within
some areas if the regulations caused industrial plant closings or
7-190
-------
relocations, especially if the plant were the primary source of
employment for the area. Such out-migration could have a deflation-
ary impact on the local area; however, the remaining residents could
also be hard-pressed to maintain existing public services and facili-
ties, and local tax rates could have to be increased. Unemployment
would increase in the retail and service sectors, and the number of
people requiring financial assistance programs would also likely
increase. Daily living patterns could be drastically changed for
many of the remaining residents. Stress would likely increase and
could lead to increases in mental and physical health problems.
Large, rapid, population influxes associated with relocation of
industrial plants or with construction of new hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities'could create inflation, social tensions, and a short-
age of housing and necessary infrastructure. Provision of necessary
services and facilities could result in increases in local tax rates.
Large, rapid, population influxes could also create tensions and-dis-
putes between the existing population and the newcomers, especially
if the existing residents were forced to modify their daily living
patterns to accommodate the changes in their environment. Increases
in crime and in mental health related problems (e.g., alcoholism,
drug abuse, child abuse, divorce) have at times accompanied large,
rapid, population influxes (Institute for Social Science Research,
1974). On the otherhand, any growth could also provide increased job
opportunities and an expanded local tax base in the long term.
7-191
-------
Population shifts need not necessarily result in adverse
impacts. Small shifts, which would be the more likely occurrence in
the case of construction or closure of hazardous waste management
facilities, could have beneficial impacts or no noticeable impacts.
For example, a small population influx could provide additional in-
come, tax revenues, and jobs in the local community without placing
any noticeable strains on the existing infrastructure or daily living
patterns. A small population decline could reduce any existing unem-
ployment and strains on public services and facilities without no-
ticeably affecting local income, tax revenues, employment, or daily
living patterns.
7.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity. There are
two measures of hazardous waste management capacity—process capacity
and physical capacity. Process capacity represents the throughput
capability of the hazardous waste management facility for handling
hazardous wastes (e.g., tons per day, gallons per year). Physical
capacity, on the other hand, represents the constraint imposed by the
facility site itself on the total amount of wastes that can ultimate-
ly be stored, treated, or disposed at the facility (e.g., landfilling
of a total of 100,000 metric tons to a depth of 5 meters over the
life of a landfill).
7.2.4.1 Process Capacity. The impact of the Subtitle C regula-
tions on the availability of sufficient on-site and off-site process
capacity is addressed below.
7-192
-------
Off-site Capacity. A recent study of the hazardous waste man-
agement service industry (Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976) indicated that
at the end of 1974, the process capacity for the industry as a whole
was nearly 7.3 million metric tons per year, with up to approximately
5.3 million metric tons being considered environmentally adequate.*
The study further estimated that the process capacity would expand to
8.2 million metric tons by the end of 1977, with up to about 6.2 mil-
lion metric tons being considered environmentally adequate. This
represents a 4.0 percent annual growth rate for total process capa-
city and a 5.5 percent annual growth rate for environmentally ade-
quate process capacity.
Assuming that the 4 percent annual growth rate for total process
capacity would continue between the end of 1977 and the start of 1984
if the Subtitle C regulations were not promulgated, it is estimated
that there would potentially be 8.9 and 10.4 million metric tons of
total process capacity at the start of 1980 and 1984, respectively.
Assuming that "environmentally adequate"; as defined in the
Foster D. Snell study, is compatible with the requirements of the
regulations and that the 5.5 percent annual growth rate of such
capacity would continue between the end of 1977 and the start of
*It should be noted that all capacity considered environmentally
adequate by the Foster D. Snell Study may not be considered
environmentally adequate under Subtitle C. Thus, the Foster D.
Snell numbers should be viewed only as an upper limit on
environmentally adequate capacity.
7-193
-------
1984, it is estimated that under the regulations there could poten-
tially be as much as 6.9 and 8.5 million metric tons of environ-
mentally adequate process capacity available »«• the start of 1980 and
1984, respectively.
Currently, about IS percent of all hazardous industrial wastes
are shipped off-site for treatment/disposal (see Table 5-10). For
purposes of analysis, it is assumed that any shift in off-site
treatment/disposal under the Subtitle C regulations would occur
gradually and that approximately 15 percent of the hazardous indus-
trial wastes would continue to be shipped off-site in 1980 (the first
year the regulations would be in effect). As discussed in Section
7.1.2.4, for 1984, the fifth year the regulations would be in effect,
a range of 13 to 25 percent off-site shipment for treatment/disposal
is assumed for analysis purposes.
Approximately 35 and 40 million metric tons of hazardous indus-
trial wastes could be generated annually in 1980 and 1984,
respectively. Thus, it is estimated that about 5.3 million metric
tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be shipped off-site in 1980
and that between 5.2 and 10.0 million tons could be shipped off-site
in 1984. This would represent no change in off-site shipments under
the Subtitle C regulations in 1980. The change in off-site shipments
in 1984 under the regulations would range between a decrease of 0.8
million metric tons and an increase of 4.0 million metric tons.
Assuming that treatment/disposal facilities would utilize on an
annual basis an average of about 90 percent of the available process
7-194
-------
capacity, approximately 6.2 and 7.7 million metric tons of the envi-
ronmentally adequate capacity could be utilized nationwide in 1980
and 1984, respectively. The estimated 6.2 million metric tons of
environmentally adequate capacity that could potentially be utilized
on a nationwide basis in 1980 would be sufficient to handle the
estimated 5.3 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes
shipped off-site. Even if there was no growth in environmentally
adequate capacity between 1977 and 1980, there would still
potentially be sufficient capacity on a nationwide basis in 1980.
The estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmentally ade-
quate capacity that could potentially be utilized on a nationwide
basis in 1984 would be sufficient to handle the estimated 5.2 million
metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site, assuming
13 percent off-site shipment. Again there would potentially be
sufficient capacity nationwide even if there was no growth in
capacity between 1977 and 1984.
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there would poten-
tially be a nationwide shortfall of 2.6 million metric tons of
environmentally adequate capacity for treating/disposing hazardous
/
manufacturing wastes in 1984.* Without any growth in environmentally
adequate capacity, this shortfall could be 4.9 million metric tons.
Shortfall in process capacity would first occur in 1984 in the former
*The actual shortfall would be 2.3 million metric tons. However,
with a utilization rate of 90 percent, 2.6 million metric tons of
capacity would be required.
7-195
-------
ON "SiS
case and in 1981 in the latter case. Based upon an average utiliz-
able facility capacity of 60,000 metric tons per year (Foster D.
Snell, Inc., 1976), approximately 45 additional off-site facilities
could be required to handle hazardous manufacturing wastes by 1984 in
the former case and approximately 80 additional off-site facilities
could be required in the latter case.
It should be noted that the estimated availability of necessary,
off-site, process capacity is based only on the treatment/disposal of
hazardous industrial wastes and on the nationwide availability of
this capacity. As indicated in Section 7.1.1, an indeterminable
quantity of other hazardous wastes would be generated and an unknown
portion of such wastes would be treated/disposed off-site and could
cause shortfalls in capacity. Furthermore, these estimates assume
that the available capacity would be of the type that is specifically
required (e.g., secure landfills, incinerators, surface impound-
ments). However, it is very likely that there could be national,
regional, statewide, or localized shortfalls of specific types of
capacity even in those cases where the total available capacity
appears to be more than adequate. Furthermore, since not all of the
available capacity would necessarily be sited where it is needed,
there could be localized shortfalls of process capacity even if the
total nationwide process capacity were sufficient. Localized
shortfalls could also result from public opposition to siting new
facilities or from public opposition which results in the closing of
7-196
-------
existing environmentally adequate facilities. Any shortfall in
on-site capacity as discussed below, could create localized short-
falls in off-site capacity. It should also be noted that if any
generators were to send potentially toxic wastes that would not be
considered hazardous under the Section 3001 regulations to permitted
facilities in order to obtain more secure treatment/disposal, there
would be an increased potential for localized shortfalls in off-site
capacity. The requirement that at the time of facility closure,
wastes must be removed from permitted surface impoundments that do
not meet Subtitle C landfill requirements and from some landfarms
could create or exacerbate any shortfalls. A recent report by the
U.S. General Accounting Office (1978) estimates that when Subtitle C
is implemented, 50 to 60 additional sites could be required
nationally for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
On-site Capacity. Data are not available to estimate if there
would be any potential shortfall in environmentally adequate,
on-site, hazardous waste management process capacity under the
Subtitle C regulations. Based upon the assumption stated above,
about 28.7 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes would
be treated/ disposed on-site in 1980 and between 28.8 and 33.6
million metric tons would be treated/disposed on-site in 1984*.
The remainder of the hazardous industrial wastes not treated or
disposed on-site or off-site would be recycled or sent to resource
recovery operations, both on-site and off-site.
7-197
-------
This would represent no change in 1980. The change in 1984 would
range between a decrease of 4.0 million metric tons and an increase
of 0.8 million metric tons. As indicated in Section 7.1.2.4, the
Subtitle C regulations would likely result in an indeterminable
decrease in existing on-site process capacity and, as a result, could
potentially cause shortfalls in on-site process capacity in both 1980
and 1984. The requirement that at the time of facility closure
wastes must be removed from permitted surface impoundments that do
not meet Subtitle C landfill standards could exacerbate any short-
falls, both on-site and off-site. Increased resource conservation and
recovery and use of more effi-cient processes would lessen the poten-
tial for on-site shortfalls.
7.2.4.2 Physical Capacity. Few data are available to estimate
the overall physical capacity of facilities to store, treat, or
dispose hazardous wastes. EPA recognizes the need for data on
physical capacity and will be conducting a series of inventories
toward that end. Under the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
an inventory of surface impoundments will be conducted. Under the
mandate of RCRA, an inventory of open dumps, solid waste landfills,
and sludge disposal sites will be conducted (Office of Solid Waste,
1977a).
Any increase in the use of on-site or off-site landfills would
accelerate the rate at which the physical capacity of such landfills
would be exhausted. Although the rate of exhaustion of such land-
fills cannot be determined, it is possible to estimate the change in
7-198
-------
Che necessary on-site and off-site landfill acreage between 1980 and
1984. Assuming that the shift in on-site and off-site disposal would
be apportioned equally over this period (e.g., 15 percent off-site
treatment/disposal in 1980, 17.5 percent in 1981, 20 percent in 1982,
..., 25 percent in 1984), there could be a total decrease of 1.9 mil-
lion metric tons in hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during
this period, assuming 13 percent shipment off-site in 1984, and there
could be a total increase of 9.3 million metric tons in hazardous
industrial wastes sent off-site, assuming 25 percent shipment
off-site in 1984.
Based upon Table 5-7, about 80 percent of hazardous industrial
wastes are disposed in landfills and surface impoundments. Since
wastes treated in surface impoundments would be required to be dis-
posed in landfills if the surface impoundments do not meet the
Subtitle C landfill standards and since approximately 99.9 percent of
hazardous wastes are placed in surface impoundments that are environ-
mentally inadequate (see Table 5-7), it is assumed, for purposes of
analysis, that up to 80 percent of hazardous industrial wastes would
ultimately be disposed by landfilling. Thus, there could be up to a
1.5 million metric ton decrease in off-site landfilling in the case
of 13 percent off-site shipment and up to a 7.5 million metric ton
increase in off-site landfilling in the case of 25 percent off-site
shipment.
Assuming an average waste density of 0.8 metric tons per cubic
meter and a landfill depth of 10 feet, one to two acres would be
' 7-199
-------
required for every 5,000 cubic meters of waste disposal (personal
communication, J. Schaum, EPA, 1978). Thus, up to 400 to 800 fewer
acres could be committed to off-site landfilling of hazardous
manufacturing wastes between 1980 and the end of 1984 in the case of
13 percent off-site shipment and up to 1900 to 3800 additional acres
could be committed to off-site landfilling of hazardous manufacturing
wastes between 1980 and the end of 1984 in the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there could be 160
to 320 fewer acres required off-site annually for landfills compared
to requirements without the regulations. In the latter case, after
1984 there could be an additional 1,800 to 1,600 acres required
off-site annually for landfills compared to total requirements with-
out the regulations. There could be commensurate changes in on-site
land requirements in each instance.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure, com-
mercial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting 1 to 3 fewer off-site secure landfills
by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment. In
this case, the equivalent of approximately one fewer off-site land-
fill could have to be sited annually after 1984. The land require-
ments would be equivalent to siting 7 to 14 additional off-site
secure landfills by the end of 1984 in the case of 25 percent
7-200
-------
off-site shipment. In this case, the equivalent of 3 to 6 additional
off-site landfills could have to be sited annually after 1984.
7.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus
on-site, would be required for environmentally adequate hazardous
waste management under the Subtitle C regulations than for hazardous
waste management under current practices. The additional land
necessary for environmentally adequate management of hazardous waste
would be required both for the construction of permitted facilities
necessary to meet any additional capacity shortfalls that could occur
under the Subtitle C regulations and for such conjunctive develop-
ments as construction of roads, power lines, and pipelines. However,
as indicated in Section 7.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment there would be fewer hazardous industrial wastes sent
off-site by 1984 under the Subtitle C regulations than under current
practices. Thus, while more total land would be required, there
could be less off-site land use and more on-site land use for hazar-
dous industrial waste in this case. In the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment, there would be more hazardous industrial wastes
sent off-site by 1984 under the Subtitle C regulations than under
current practices. Thus, there could be more off-site land use and
less on-site land use for hazardous industrial waste in this case.
Estimates of potential changes in off-site land requirements for
landfills (and commensurate changes in on-site land requirements) are
presented in Section 7.2.4.
7-201
-------
It should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited
on-site physical capacity and could result in increased pressure for
off-site facilities in the long term. Increases both in resource
conservation and recovery and in treatment practices resulting in
volume reduction (e.g., incineration) that occur as a result of the
Subtitle C regulations would have the potential for reducing land
requirements, both on-site and off-site, in the long term.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporari-
ly, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Some
agricultural, grazing, forest, recreational, and other lands could be
removed from their existing uses. The regulations would prohibit
facility construction, and thus not affect existing land uses, on
100-year flood plains, on or near active fault zones, in wetlands, in
critical habitat areas, or in recharge areas of sole source aquifers.
Following-closure of the hazardous waste management facility and
rehabilitation of the site according to the closure plans, the land
would be available for new or, in some cases, previously existing
uses. Sites at which hazardous wastes have not been removed would be
precluded from residential and agricultural uses, and may be pre-
cluded from some recreational and grazing uses following closure.
Any activity requiring excavation would be prohibited at sites where
wastes are not removed. Further, since the regulations would require
7-202
-------
records to be kept of the location and types of all hazardous wastes
remaining at the site, the potential for incidents such as occurred
at Love Canal in Niagra Falls, New York would be reduced. (This
incident is discussed in Section 7.1.6.)
To the extent that the regulations would prevent other lands
from being contaminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage, or
treatment under current practices and regulations, there would be a
potential for offsetting land use benefits. Sections 7.1.4, 7.1.5
and 7.2.1 describe the potential for the generation of air, water,
and land residuals which could affect existing land uses under cur-
rent practices and regulations. These sections also discuss the po-
tential for reducing these residuals under the baseline regulations.
In addition to land use changes brought about by facility
siting, operation, and closure, the baseline regulations could have
an impact on a few current land use practices associated with
potentially hazardous wastes. For example, landspreading of sludges
is specifically addressed in the regulations. The requirements that
landfarms be operated so as not to allow waste migration, and be
closed so that food chain crops could be grown on site would both
minimize the areal extent of contamination and would allow continued
productive use of the land after waste applications ceases. Another
example would be the regulation of road oiling for dust control.
This practice is not specifically addressed in the baseline regula-
tions, although numerous incidents of environmental contamination
7-203
-------
have occurred as a result of road oiling. (Some of these incidents
are described in other parts of this chapter and in Appendix J.) The
baseline regulations would require generators of over 100 kilograms
per month of waste automotive oils to comply with the regulations.
Additionally, hydraulic and cutting oil wastes are listed as
hazardous wastes, and other waste oils may be included under the
various criteria. Therefore, any waste oils which are considered
hazardous under the baseline regulations would have to be treated so
as to be rendered nonhazardous before being used for road oiling.
This procedure would reduce the environmental damage and resultant
adverse impacts to land use that have occurred due to unregulated
road oiling.
7.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The Subtitle C regulations would
affect water use in two ways—through a reduction in groundwater and
surface water contamination and through increased water demand by
expanded and new hazardous waste facilities. It is estimated that
almost one half of the population of the United States depends on
groundwater as a source of drinking water, and that over one third of
the nation is underlain by groundwater reservoirs capable of yielding
at least 75,000 gpd to an individual well (Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, 1977). It is further estimated that industrial
impoundments account for over 100 billion gallons of contaminant per
year to groundwater and that residential, commercial, and
institutional land disposal sites account for about 90 billion
7-204
-------
gallons of leachate Co groundwater annually (Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1977). It is apparent that the potential
dangers of uncontrolled disposal of hazardous wastes are a serious
problem. With the implementation of che regulations regarding
disposal and treatment of hazardous wastes, a significant reduction
in groundwater leachate should occur, thereby decreasing the
potential danger to private and public underground water supplies.
The potential for the degradation of both groundwater and sur-
face water would be reduced under the regulations. To the extent
that degradation of water quality would have resulted in a decreased
supply of surface water or groundwater being available to some or all
consumers in the water use area, there would be an additional supply
of groundwater or surface water potentially available to such consu-
mers and fewer restrictions on the productive use of such surface
water and groundwater supplies.
Implementation of the baseline regulations would necessitate
that some existing facilities currently accepting hazardous wastes be
upgraded in order to make them environmentally adequate, and that new
facilities be sited to minimize potential capacity shortfalls. New
facilities would be additional consumers of water for purposes such
as:
• Dust control;
• Soil compaction;
• Washing and cleaning of equipment and containers;
7-205
-------
• Biological treatment;
• Spill control;
• Laboratory requirements;
• Fire control and other emergencies;
• Site rehabilitation;
• Wet scrubbers for air pollution control;
• Miscellaneous uses, including cooling water.
Such demands would affect the water budget of the localities in
which the facilities were located to varying degrees depending upon
such factors as the type of facility sited, its water requirement,
and the potential water availability in the area. The additional
water requirement would be somewhat offset by the amount of water (if
k
any) that would have otherwise been used for the treatment/disposal
of these additional wastes under current practices and regulations.
7.2.7 Impacts to Resource Conservation and Recovery. As
discussed in Section 5.4.2, approximately 3 to 5 percent of hazardous
industrial wastes have been subject to resource recovery in recent
years with most efforts directed toward the recovery of solvents,
oils, metals, and energy. The Subtitle C regulations contain few
provisions directed specifically toward increasing the portion of
hazardous wastes that would be subject to resource conservation and
recovery efforts.
However, since one of the major impacts of the regulations would
be to increase generator's costs and the costs associated with
7-206
-------
hazardous waste transport, storage, treatment, and disposal, there
would be an incentive provided by the regulations for generators to
modify processes so as to enable increased recycling of hazardous
wastes as process feedstocks, to reduce the quantities of hazardous
wastes generated by specific processes, or to change the nature of
the wastes produced (e.g., to produce wastes that are less hazar-
dous). In addition, the Section 3004 regulations direct that where
practical, disposal of hazardous wastes would have to be avoided and
alternatives, such as resource recovery, reuse, or other methods of
recycling, would have to be employed. Furthermore, since the
regulations prohibit the placing of ignitable wastes in landfills,
landfarms, surface impoundments, and basins, the potential for
increased incineration of such wastes, with possible energy recovery,
would be greatly enhanced.
• As previously indicated, the potential for the implementation of
process modifications or other changes to promote resource conserva-
tion and/or recovery would be extremely waste stream and process
specific and would depend upon such factors as changes in the econo-
mics of disposal, treatment, and transport; the cost of raw materials
and energy; the availability of markets for and sources of recyclable
hazardous wastes; and the availability both of the necessary techno-
logy for specific resource conservation or recovery efforts and of
environmentally adequate disposal methods and capacity. Chapter 5
presents some examples of the potential for the increased resource
7-207
-------
recovery from and recycling of hazardous wastes. Due to the complex
interrelationships among the above factors, it is not possible to
determine the specific changes that could occur with regard to
resource conservation and recovery, nor the overall extent of any
such changes.
7.2.8 Energy Use Impacts. Promulgation of the Subtitle C
regulations could cause changes in energy use in the following areas:
hazardous waste management facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, hazardous waste resource conservation and
recovery, and energy production.
The facility modification and construction that would be neces-
sary under the regulations would result in increased energy use (see
Section 7.1.2). More energy would also be used for the construction
of new facilities under the regulations than would have otherwise
been needed due to requirements directed toward making these facili-
ties more environmentally secure (e.g., requirements for site prepa-
ration, landfill liners, diversion structures, monitoring systems,
pollution control equipment).
There would also be increased energy use resulting from required
changes in storage, treatment, and disposal operations under the reg-
ulations. For example, requirements for application of daily cover,
for higher incineration temperatures and longer retention times, for
increased removal of potential air contaminants, for periodic moni-
iTC?T . toring and analysis, for removal of wastes from surface impoundments
C,v TH S •' .
7-208
-------
at facility closure, and for post-closure care would all potentially
result in increased energy use. However, any increase in resource
conservation occurring under the regulations would reduce the quan-
tity of wastes that would have otherwise been stored, treated, or
disposed and could thus off-set the increase in energy use. Pre-
viously discussed changes in resource recovery would also lead to
other changes in energy use. While any increase in resource recovery
would likely require the initial input of additional energy, energy
savings could result from increased energy recovery; from further re-
ductions in wastes requiring storage, treatment, or disposal; and
from materials recovery and reuse. This could result in an overall
energy savings from resource recovery operations.
The changes in- energy use from the transport of hazardous wastes
would depend upon such factors as shifts in the portion of wastes
managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport distances.
Table 7-15 presents estimates of the magnitude of the potential
change in energy- use that could occur annually by 1984 from changes
in transport distances and shifts in off-site and on-site treatment/
disposal. Changes in transport distances are estimated as discussed
in Section 7.1.4.1; the change in energy use is estimated assuming
that trucks average 7.5 miles per gallon of fuel. The estimated an-
nual change in energy use ranges from a decrease equivalent to about
20,000 barrels of crude oil for an average 100-mile round-trip dis-
S-QP- tance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal to an increase
ON ~- '-
7-209
-------
TABLE 7-15
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
ro
Wastes
transported
off-site
13 percent
25 percent
Average
round-trip
distance
(miles)
100
200
500
1,000
100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
-0.7
4
18
42
4
13
37
86
Crude oil
equivalent*
(1,000 barrels)
-20
100
460
1,100
90
320
920
2,200
^Assumes 95 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
equivalent to about 2.2 million barrels of crude oil for an average
1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/
disposal.
The regulations could also potentially have an impact on energy
production. The Subtitle C requirements and resultant costs could
potentially result in the closure of or reduced production at some
energy producing operations (e.g., oil and gas drilling). Most such
operations would, however, be subject only to the 'special waste1 re-
quirements, not to the full set of Subtitle C regulations. The Sub-
title C regulations could also potentially lead some facilities to
change the fuels they use so as to reduce or eliminate the generation
of hazardous wastes. Any changes in fuel utilization could affect
current energy supply/demand relationships.
7.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. Special interest
points consist of natural, modified, or artificial features of the
environment that are'of special aesthetic, cultural, and recreational
•significance. Such features include archaeological and paleonto-
logical sites; cultural areas; historical sites; parks and recrea-
tional areas; scenic areas and other aesthetic resources; unique
geological formations; wilderness areas; wild and scenic rivers; and
wildlife refuges and other natural areas. The extent to which
current hazardous waste management practices may have resulted in
adverse impacts to such resources is not documented. However, the
types of incidents previously discussed would have had the potential
7-211
-------
STC? ' ;
C '
to cause adverse impacts, primarily through the release of air,
water, and soil contaminants that could disturb or degrade such
special interest points.
The Subtitle C regulations contain provisions which, while not
applying specifically to the protection of special interest points,
would provide indirect benefits to special interest points and to the
human enjoyment of such features. For example, restrictions on the
siting of hazardous waste management facilities in wetlands, perma-
frost areas, and critical habitats would reduce the potential for
adverse impacts to such areas. Furthermore, provisions that would
potentially reduce the release of air, water, and soil contaminants
from such facilities would reduce the potential for these contami-
nants to infringe upon special interest points located in the vicini-
ty of hazardous waste management facilities. Reductions in air,
water, and soil contaminants would also increase, or at least main-
tain, the opportunity for human enjoyment of such special interest
points. Requirements applicable-to the closure of facilities such as
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments would increase the
potential for revegetation of such facilities and would reduce the
potential for adverse aesthetic impacts.
To the extent that additional lands would be disturbed by
facility construction and operation and by conjunctive developments,
there would be an increased potential for infringement upon special
interest points. Construction of additional hazardous waste
7-212
-------
management facilities would represent an intrusion on the existing
aesthetic environment and could also result in the disturbance of
archeological or historical sites. The clearing of trees or other
vegetation could result in substantial alterations to the visual
characteristics of the site. Noise, dust, emissions, and other
disturbances associated with site preparation, facility construction
and operation, and hazardous waste transport could adversely effect
nearby special interest points and could discourage their use or
enjoyment. The perception of these alterations would depend upon
many variables, as discussed in Section 7.1.3. Proper planning,
while not able to eliminate these alterations, could make them less
discernible. The Subtitle C regulations do not contain specific
provisions for planning the siting of hazardous waste management
facilities or transportation routes with regards to special interest
points. However, the Section 3005 permit application review proce-
dure, including the opportunity for public hearings on the permit
application, would provide a means for consideration of such factors.
Other Federal laws, such as the Archeological and Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1974, and state and local laws and ordinances would also
serve to mitigate any potential impacts to special interest points.
7.3 Significant Uncertainties in the Impact Analysis
The impact analysis is subject to a number of significant
uncertainties. Limited data are currently available with regard to
o^ • " -
IT1 ; .
7-213
-------
STOP "
OX "<->•
both the generation and the management of hazardous wastes. Uncer-
tainties exist as to the types and quantities of hazardous wastes
generated by various sources, especially non-manufacturing sources.
Uncertainties also exist as to the number, distribution, capacity,
and adequacy of existing hazardous waste management facilities. Data
are sparse on the generation and release of specific hazardous air,
water, and soil contaminants by various storage, treatment, and
disposal methods. Data and methodologies are not available, for the
most part, for determining the movement, transformation, and ultimate
fate of most contaminants released to the environment. Human and
biological health effects which are a function of both the concentra-
tions of such contaminants and the duration of exposure are, there-
fore, uncertain. Dose-response data are not yet established for
determining health effects from many potentially hazardous contami-
nants. These limited data, coupled with the site, process, and waste
specific nature of most impacts, necessitates a qualitative assess-
ment. Estimates of the probable range of changes and worst-case
analyses have both been used to bound the magnitude of potential
impacts. The emphasis of the impact analysis has necessarily been
placed on hazardous manufacturing wastes, though large volumes of
some other hazardous wastes may also be generated.
Furthermore, uncertainties exist with regard to the adequacy of
existing technologies and methods for controlling the release of
environmental contaminants. The long-term effectiveness of landfill
7-214
-------
STC° " -
0\ T- i; .
and surface impoundment liners in preventing the discharge of leach-
ate and other water contaminants is uncertain. Over long periods of
time even materials such as clay and polymeric membranes, which are
usually considered inert, may react with leachate or waste components
and may fail or become more porous. Considerable research is cur-
rently underway to determine the long-term capabilities of various
liner materials. Also, while 99.99 percent destruction efficiencies
have been demonstrated for the incineration of many hazardous wastes,
such destruction efficiencies have not been demonstrated for most
hazardous wastes. Furthermore, in spite of the impressive perfor-
mances of the incinerators reported in the literature in destroying
hazardous wastes, most studies were performed under extremely con-
trolled conditions and only specific products of combustion were
sampled in many cases. Problems could occur due to requirements for
frequent maintenance and extensive operator education in order to
ensure proper functioning. Maintenance could be an especially
serious problem since many wastes burned in incinerators are either
extremely caustic or produce caustic products when burned.
7-215
-------
8.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Five reasonable alternatives to the baseline regulations have
been developed to bracket the overall objectives and the resultant
impacts anticipated from the regulations to be ultimately promulgated
under Subtitle C. Each of the five alternatives is assessed in this
section to the extent that it elicits changes in impacts relative to
those that would result from implementation of the baseline regu-
lations. Impacts of the alternatives that would be substantially the
same as those of the baseline regulations are not presented in order
to avoid duplication.
8.1 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the No Action
Alternative
As previously discussed, the No Action Alternative is defined as
meaning that no part of RCRA, including Subtitle C, is to be imple-
mented and that hazardous waste management would continue as current-
ly practiced, modified by any future state legislation developed
without Federal guidance. However, since implementation of RCRA is
mandated by an act of Congress, implementation of this alternative
would not be feasible without an additional act of Congress repealing
RCRA. The No Action Alternative, therefore, is not realistically
considered a viable alternative at the present time. The following
discussion briefly outlines some of the potential impacts which could
occur in the unlikely event that this alternative were followed.
8-1
-------
8.1.1 Primary Impacts. In the absence of a Federal hazardous
waste control program under RCRA, the primary means of controlling
hazardous waste management activities would be through programs
developed by individual states and through various sections of other
Federal laws, notably, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Air Act, as amended. Since
there would be no established mechanism to encourage states to enact
equivalent regulatory approaches and consistent means of control, it
is probable that the states would continue to take different regula-
tory approaches and to exert very different levels of control. Such
approaches would depend on the individual needs, the types and
amounts of waste generated, and the political climate in each state.
Approaches could range from essentially no control to regulations
more restrictive than the baseline Subtitle C regulations. Further-
more, state programs would remain subject to pressures for sending
most hazardous wastes to other states, for banning hazardous waste
shipments from other states, and for the enactment of more stringent
or less stringent regulations than neighboring states. Differences
in definitions and in criteria for characterizing hazardous wastes
would likely be a common occurrence. The present splintered and
uncoordinated development of hazardous waste control programs would
continue. This inconsistency of programs would result in the less
effective control of hazardous wastes and would allow the continued
occurrence of those types of incidents previously discussed.
8-2
-------
A detailed discussion of existing state regulations for selected
states that have promulgated hazardous waste programs is presented in
Appendix A. Many of the states currently manage hazardous waste
problems on a case-by-case basis. As of 1978, only 16 states have
specified criteria or lists for identifying hazardous waste. Most
states identify hazardous materials through broad or generalized
definitions. Also, only 17 states have (or have proposed) permit
system regulations specifically for the disposal of hazardous waste;
13 states have (or have proposed) standards or regulations for a man-
ifest program; 18 states have (or have proposed) recordkeeping or
reporting standards or regulations; 16 states have (or have proposed)
formalized inspection standards or regulations for some types of haz-
ardous waste facilities; and 13 states have (or have proposed) spe-
cific monitoring program standards or regulations with regard to
hazardous waste. Many states do, however, have the enabling author-
ity to control each of these activities; however, most of these
states have been waiting for Federal action before proceeding with
their own programs. Without such action, it is difficult to deter-
mine the outcome of pending waste management programs.
It is likely that on-site activities would continue to escape
regulation under many states laws. Existing regulations often apply
only to off-site facilities operated in a non-private capacity.
Without a Federal requirement for on-site control, a large portion of
waste managed on-site could continue to go unregulated. Regulation
8-3
-------
of hazardous wastes would likely continue to occur on a case-by-case
basis and, as a result, many wastes could continue to escape any con-
trol. Intrastate movement of hazardous wastes would likely continue
to be poorly controlled.
The present trend toward control of hazardous wastes is slowly
but steadily increasing as more states extend the limits of their
enabling authority to include hazardous waste management. It is not
possible to determine whether this trend would continue to occur
independent of the requirements and goals provided by Subtitle C.
National awareness of the hazardous waste problem is increasing as
more environmental problems occur due to the improper management of
hazardous waste However, individual states desiring to initiate
hazardous waste programs would not be able to use the Federal funding
authorized under the regulations. Depending on the extent of the
control needed, the financial requirements for effective program
implementation could be a substantial constraint to some states.
The impacts to air and water quality and to public health that
would occur as a result of this alternative would be a continuation
of those existing effects previously discussed. In many cases, even
strict control by a state could not protect that state from air or
water pollution originating in neighboring states. Incidents such as
those described in Chapter 7 would continue to occur, though state
regulations could produce local reductions. Large amounts of poorly
controlled or uncontrolled hazardous wastes could contaminate many
8-4
-------
water supplies, air sheds, and large areas of land in many scattered
locations. Public health effects from these materials could be
manifested in many ways. Of particular concern are the often
insidious effects of long-term, low-level exposure to toxic
materials; such effects often may not become apparent for many years.
8.1.2 Secondary Impacts. Current impacts to physiography and
soils, ecological systems, social conditions, land use, water use,
energy use, resource recovery, and special interest points would
continue to occur, though they could be mitigated by the enactment of
more stringent state regulations than those that currently exist. The
implementation of strict state controls would not necessarily protect
states from air and water contaminants originating in neighboring
states with less stringent regulations and from the secondary impacts
of such air and water contaminants. Incidents such as those
described in Chapter 7 would continue to occur, particulary in those
states that exert little control over hazardous wastes.
At present, most states do not have regulations or standards for
hazardous waste disposal sites or for disposing wastes in such sites.
As a result, even if a shortage of environmentally acceptable dispo-
sal sites actually exists, there could technically be no shortfall
since few states have requirements to use such sites. As additional
states develop strict disposal regulations, local shortfalls of envi-
ronmental adequate treatment, storage, and disposal capacity could
occur.
8-5
-------
Variations in the degree of control states exert over hazardous
wastes could also create a tendency for industries to relocate in
those states with the least stringent requirements. Other industries
might elect to ship their wastes to such states if treatment and dis-
posal costs in their own state were to be considered too high. This
could lead to increased incidents of environmental degradation and
potential public health problems in such states. Any widespread
implementation of import bans, if constitutional, could have severe
effects on states whose soils, climate, and geologic conditions are
generally unsuitable for secure waste disposal.
8.2 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the Phasing of
Generators Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts (rela-
tive to those of the baseline regulations) that would occur as a
result of promulgation of the regulations contained in the Phasing of
Generators Alternative. To avoid considerable duplication in the
presentation, potential impacts discussed in Chapter 7 that would not
be changed under this Alternative are not repeated. Only major
changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.2.1 Primary Impacts. The change in primary impacts that
could occur under this alternative are discussed below.
8.2.1.1 Hazardous Waste to be Regulated. The objective of this
alternative is to reduce the potential for overtaxing resources
(e.g., manpower, capital, disposal sites) beyond their capacity for
responding effectively to the baseline Subtitle C regulations. This
8-6
-------
would be accomplished by phasing in, over a five-year period from
1980 through 1984, the generators to be regulated (larger generators
first, then smaller generators), such that approximately twenty per-
cent of the total hazardous waste would be controlled during the
first year with an additional twenty percent being controlled each
subsequent year. This alternative would be implemented by changing
the generator limit defined in the baseline regulations. Under this
alternative, the generator limit would be quite large the first year,
and would be reduced each succeeding year, such that by the fifth
year it would be 100 kilograms per month. This procedure would
exclude those hazardous wastes that do not meet the generator limit
from compliance with the generator requirements, though certain
disposal requirements would still apply. Again, emphasis is placed
upon hazardous wastes generated by the manufacturing industries for
the purpose of analysis.
To develop phasing limits, data on hazardous waste generation
from the manufacturing industries have been analyzed to estimate
quantities of hazardous waste generated by SIC Code and by EPA
Region, as well as to estimate the number of generating firms.
Appendix H describes the methodology used for estimating the total
potentially hazardous waste generation in the manufacturing indus-
tries. Appendix I describes the computer program used to determine
the amounts of wastes and number of industries which would be con-
trolled in each year of the phasing alternative. As in the analysis
8-7
-------
of Che baseline regulations, this alternative is based on the assump-
tion that only about 35 percent of the estimated potentially hazard-
ous waste generated in SIC Code 28 would be subject to regulation,
due to the nature of the toxicity characteristic (see Section 7.1.1
for more detail).
Using these methods, the generator limit is determined for each
year of the five-year program. Then, using summary data from
Appendix K, the number of establishments and the EPA Region in which
they are located is determined. Tables 8-1 through 8-4 show the
distribution of the hazardous waste regulated in each year. Because
of assumptions and data limitations discussed in Appendices H and I,
Tables 8-1 through 8-4 do not present the specific quantities of
wastes or number of firms that would be subject to regulation during
each year of phasing, but only indicate the EPA Regions and SIC Codes
in which the regulated wastes are contained.
In order to bring 20 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1980, it is estimated that the genera-
tor limit would have to be set at 12,900 metric tons per year; all
establishments generating hazardous waste quantities greater than
approximately 1,075 metric tons per month would be regulated during
the first year. This could limit control efforts to SIC Codes 26
(Paper and Allied Products), 28 (Chemicals and Allied Products), 29
(Petroleum and Coal Products), and 33 (Primary Metal Industries), as
shown in Table 8-1. It is estimated that about 75 percent of the
8-8
-------
TABLE 8-1
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING HASTES DURING THE
FIRST YEAR OF PHASING (1980)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
oo
vo
I II III
26 X X
28 X X X
29 X
33 XX
IV
X
X
X
EPA
V
X
X
X
X
Region
VI VII VIII IX X
X X
XX XX
X X
X X X X
Totals
Wastes
(1000 metric
tons)
157
5170
263
1310
Number of
establishments
af fectedl-
c
f
c
d
Totals-
1000 156 964 1430 1570 1540 938 109 35 78 76 6890
metric
tons
Number of
establish- bdd d edaa aa
affectedt
*Based on a generator limit of 1075 metric tons/month, chosen, to Include approximately 20 percent of
the total estimated hazardous wastes (see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous
wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject to Subtitle C requirements
in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5;
b=6-10; c-11-25; d=26-50; e=51-100; f=101-250; g=251-1000; h=1001-2500; i«=2501 or more.
-------
.TABLE 8-2
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING
THE SECOND YEAR OF PHASING (1981)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
1°
I-1
o
SIC Code
26
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
EPA Reelon
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II III
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
IV
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIII IX X
X X
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
X
X X
Totals
Wastes (1000 metric tons)
947
8790
619
8
104
2790
165
1440
Number of establishments
af fectedt
f
6
e
a
d
g
e
f
Totals
1000
metric 552 2090 2380 2640 4090 1670 532 117 549 246 14,900
tons
Number of
establish- efffgfe c ed
ments ,.
affectedt
*Based on a generator limit of 303 metric tons/month, chosen to include approximately 40 percent of the total estimated hazardous
wastes (see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would
probably be subject to Subtitle C requirements in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5; b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50; e=51-100;
f°101-250; g=251-10001 g=1001-2500; 1=2501 or more.
-------
TABLE 8-3
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING THE
THIRD YEAR OF PHASING (1982)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
00
SIC Code
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
39
EPA Realon
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
Totals
Hastes (1000 metric tons)
9
2470
9960
898
9
360
360
3660
486
3000
803
6
Number of establishments
affectedt
e
g
h
f
a
f
f
g
f
8
f
b
Totals
1000
metric 1150 2890 3140 3550 6380 2240 934 205 1120 419
tons
Number
of gggghgf d ge
establish-
ments
affectedt
22000
*Based on a generator limit of 125 metric tons per month, chosen to Include approximately 60 percent of the total estimated hazardous wastes
(see Section 7.1.1). An "X" Indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject
to Subtitle C requirements In the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a-1-5; b=6-10; c-11-25; d=26-50; e=51-100;
f°101-250; g=251-1000; h-1001-2500; 1-2501 or more.
-------
TABLE 8-4
REGULATED HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES DURING THE
FOURTH YEAR OF PHASING (1983)* BY REGION AND SIC CODE
oo
I
SIC Code
20
22
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Totals
1000
metr tc
tons
Number of
establish-
ments
affectedt
EPA
Region
Totals
Wastes (1000 metric tons) Number of establishments
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1740
h
II
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3970
h
III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4080
h
IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4740
h
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8830
1
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2940
h
VII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1430
8
VIII
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
330
f
IX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1960
h
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S94
8
14
26
60
3.440
12,600
1.070
87
686
1.070
4.730
1,340
4.330
94
966
22
93
30.600
affectedt
d
e
f
h
i
8
f
g
h
h
h
i
f
g
c
f
i
*Based on a generator limit of 34 metric tons per month, chosen to include approximately 80 percent of the total estimated hazardous wastes
(see Section 7.1.1). An "X" indicates that at least some hazardous wastes generated in the appropriate SIC Code would probably be subject
to Subtitle C requirements in the corresponding region.
tThe number of establishments subject to Subtitle C requirements are presented as ranges: a=l-5; b=6-10; c=ll-25; d=26-50- e-51-100-
f=101-250; g=251-1000; h= 1001-2 500; 1-2501 or more.
-------
controlled wastes would be from SIC Code 28. All EPA Regions would
be involved to some extent; though, as indicated, Regions III, IV,
and V could generate about 65 percent of the regulated wastes.
Approximately 230 establishments could be regulated nationwide.
In order to bring 40 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1981, it is estimated that the
generator limit would have to be set at 3,630 metric tons per year;
all establishments generating quantities of hazardous waste greater
than approximately 303 metric tons per month would be regulated
during the second year. This could extend control efforts to SIC
Codes 31 (Leather and Leather Products), 32 (Stone, Clay, and Glass
Products), 34 (Fabricated Metal Products), and 35 (Machinery, Except
Electrical), as shown in Table 8-2. It is estimated that about 60
percent of the controlled wastes would originate in SIC Code 28.
Control efforts would be more pronounced in EPA Regions III, IV and
V, though their share would decrease to about 61 percent, with one-
half of that being in Region V. Approximately 1,500 establishments
could be regulated nationwide.
In order to bring 60 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1982, it is estimated that the gener-
ator limit would have to be set at 1,500 metric tons per year (125
metric tons per month). Control efforts could be further expanded to
industries in SIC Codes 25 (Furniture and Fixtures), 30 (Rubber and
Miscellaneous Plastic Products), 37 (Transportation Equipment), and
8-13
-------
39 (Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries), as shown in Table 8-3.
Wastes from SIC Code 28 would still predominate, contributing about
45 percent of the total. EPA Region V would contain about 29 percent
of the wastes, while Regions II, III, IV, and VI would each contain
between 10 and 16 percent. About 4,300 establishments could be
regulated nationwide.
In order to bring 80 percent of the manufacturing wastes that
are hazardous under control in 1983, it is estimated that the gen-
erator limit would have to be set at 410 metric tons per year (34
metric tons per month). This control effort could now expand to
cover portions of the hazardous wastes generated by establishments
in all SIC Codes except 23 (Apparel and Other Textile Products), 24
(Lumber and Wood Products), and 27 (Printing and Publishing), as
shown in Table 8-4. Again, SIC Code 28 would predominate, though its
share would be reduced to about 41 percent. Distribution among the
EPA Regions would remain essentially the same as in 1982, though an
additional 8.5 million metric tons would be controlled.
Approximately 15,500 establishments could be regulated nationwide.
In the fifth and final year of phasing, all hazardous waste
generators would be regulated except those producing 100 kilograms
or less per month. Table 1-1 presents the quantities of hazardous
wastes from manufacturing industries that would be phased into the
program in 1984, as well as the distribution of the regulated estab-
lishments. During this final year, industries in virtually every
8-14
-------
manufacturing SIC Code and each EPA Region would be involved in
regulatory actions. Approximately 232,000 manufacturing establish-
ments would be regulated.
The net effect of this alternative is that a total of about 74
million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be excluded
from regulation during the first four years following implementation
of the Subtitle C regulations. These wastes would represent about 50
percent of the total hazardous industrial wastes that could be regu-
lated under the baseline regulations during this period.
8.2.1.2 Changes to Existing Generation, Transport, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures. Since this alter-
native only reduces the number of generators who would be subject to
the generator regulations during the first four years following their
implementation, there would be few changes in the impacts previously
•
discussed. Those changes that do occur would be limited to the first
five years following implementation of the regulations. Longer-term
impacts would not change.
Generators who continue to produce a quantity of hazardous waste
exceeding the generator limit in all years would not be affected by
this alternative. Generators who produce a quantity of hazardous
waste that exceeds the generator limit of the baseline regulations,
but that does not exceed the generator limit of this alternative,
would be excluded from the generator regulations under this alterna-
tive. These excluded generators would not have to comply with the
8-15
-------
manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, or containerization require-
ments discussed in Section 7.1.2.1. However, as in the case of the
baseline regulations, these generators would still be required to
treat/dispose their wastes in a responsible manner.
The major options available to these generators would be
disposal in an approved sanitary landfill meeting RCRA Subtitle D
requirements (this would not be allowed for these generators under
the baseline regulations); treatment/disposal in a permitted off-site
facility; or treatment/disposal in a permitted on-site facility (al-
though the generating establishment would not be subject to the gen-
erator regulations, treatment/disposal of hazardous wastes on-site'
would still require permitting of the treatment/disposal facility,
unless the facility was an approved landfill meeting Subtitle D cri-
teria). It should be noted that without requirements for manifesting
and reporting of these wastes, there would be a greater potential for
generators not to comply with these disposal requirements and a les-
ser potential for determining whether generators complied. It is
therefore likely that additional wastes would be treated/disposed in
an environmentally unacceptable manner under this alternative.
There would be few changes in transport, storage, treatment, or
disposal practices under this alternative. Transporters would still
have to comply with all regulations for the transport of manifested
wastes; however, there would be fewer such manifested shipments.
Transport distances would likely decrease during the first four years
8-16
-------
since the excluded hazardous wastes could be sent to sanitary land-
fills which would likely be more abundant and situated closer than
off-site permitted facilities. To the extent generators would send
their wastes to Subtitle D landfills, there would potentially be a
lesser number of treatment/disposal facilities, primarily on-site
facilities, that would have to be modified during the first few years
following implementation of the regulations. However, to the extent
that generators reverted to on-site treatment/disposal when again
subject to the generator regulations, their facilities would have to
be modified as before. There would be no change in the requirements
for facilities that store, treat, or dispose hazardous wastes.
r
It should be noted that this alternative would allow most gener-
ators a longer time to familiarize themselves with the implications
of the regulations before being required to comply. They would have
a better opportunity to develop plans for compliance and be less sub-
ject to making quick decisions. Also, there would be an opportunity
to detect any unexpected problems that arise from the implementation
of the regulations and to make any necessary modifications in the
regulations before all generators were included.
8.2.1.3 Administrative Changes. A major benefit resulting from
this alternative would be the gradual expansion of administrative re-
quirements, rather than the abrupt imposition of such requirements.
Administrative requirements, primarily paperwork, would be reduced
during the first four years following implementation of the regula-
tions. The reduction in these administrative requirements could also
8-17
-------
encourage additional states to apply for interim or full authoriza-
tion.
The estimated change in the number of hazardous waste generators
who could be required to comply with the generator requirements is
shown in Tables 8-1 through 8-4. Based upon Che assumptions dis-
cussed in Section 7.1.3.6, it is estimated that industrial generators
could have to prepare a total of between 660,000 and 1.3 million
manifests during the period from 1980 to the start of 1984. This
represents about a SO percent reduction in the number of manifests
that would have to be prepared by industrial generators during this
period under the baseline regulations. During the first year, the
industrial generators could have to prepare 72,000 manifests, an 80
percent reduction.
During the first 6 years*, the aggregated generators,
transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste management
facilities could each have to keep a total of between 3.2 million and
5.2 million manifests in storage; this would represent over a 30
percent decrease in manifests in storage during this period. During
the first year, 72,000 manifests could have to be stored, an 80
percent reduction.
During the first four years, it is estimated that industrial
generators could have to prepare a total of about 22,000 annual
*Due to the requirement for three-year storage of manifests, the
impact of this alternative on the number of manifests in storage
would continue for the first six years.
8-18
-------
reports; this would represent over a 97 percent decrease in such
annual reports. During the first year, about 230 annual reports
could have to be prepared, a 99.9 percent reduction.
It is estimated that transporters could have to file a total of
between 280 and 400 spill reports during the first 4 years, a reduc-
tion of over 45 percent.
As previously discussed, there would be, at most, a small re-
duction in the number of permitted facilities during the first four
years. As a result, there could be a small reduction in the number
of most reports prepared by permittees. However, since the addi-
tional hazardous wastes that would not be subject to the generator
requirements under this alternative and would have to be sent to
approved sanitary landfills or to permitted facilities, there would
likely be an increase in the number of unmanifested shipments
received at permitted facilities. Consequently, permittees could
have to prepare an increased number of reports on the receipt of
unmanifested wastes. The increase in the length of the reporting
interval for such reports under this alternative would serve to
reduce the number of additional reports prepared.
8.2.1.4 Air and Water Impacts. To the extent that a total of
74 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes excluded from
the generator regulations under this alternative were not to be
managed in a manner equivalent to that required under the baseline
regulations, there would be an increased potential for the release of
air and water contaminants from these wastes. These air and water
8-19
-------
contaminants could be released as described in Sections 7.1.4.1 and
7.1.5, and could result in the types of incidents and impacts dis-
cussed in those sections. The release of air and water contaminants
could continue for many years following the disposal of such wastes.
3.2.1.5 Public Health Impacts. Changes in public health
effects would be directly related to changes in the release of air,
water, and soil contaminants. To the extent that increased releases
were to occur, there would be an increased potential for the types of
public health impacts discussed in Section 7.1.6 to continue to
occur. Chronic effects related to long-term, low-level exposure to
such contaminants could continue to occur for many years following
improper disposal of such wastes.
8.2.2 "Secondary Impacts. To the extent that a total of 74 mil-
lion metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes were not to be man-
aged in a manner equivalent to that required under the baseline regu-
lations, there would be an increased potential for additional soil
contamination, as described in Section 7.2.1. Changes in impacts to
the biological environment, to water use, to land use, and to special
interest points would be directly related to these changes in the re-
lease of air, water, and soil contaminants. To the extent that
increased releases were to occur, there would be an increased poten-
tial for the type of impacts discussed in Section 7.2 to continue to
occur. These impacts, especially biological and water use impacts,
could continue to occur for many years following improper disposal of
such wastes.
8-20
-------
There would be less potential for demographic changes during the
first four years due to reduced economic demands on generators that
would in turn reduce the potential for plant closings or relocation,
due to reduced demands for new hazardous waste management facility
capacity, and due to the reduced administrative requirements. How-
ever, demographic shifts that were just delayed during the first four
years could start to occur following the fourth year. The longer
transition period would, however, provide an increased opportunity
for planning and instituting measures to mitigate the potential
impacts of any population shifts. The longer transition period could
also reduce the potential for some plant closings by providing gener-
ators with an increased opportunity to evaluate alternatives avail-
able to them.
With regard to hazardous waste management facility capacity,
Section 7.2.4.1 indicates that under the baseline regulations there
would potentially be sufficient capacity on a nationwide basis for
managing hazardous industrial wastes during the first four years,
with one exception. In the case of no growth of existing environ-
mentally adequate capacity and 25 percent off-site shipment, there
could be a capacity shortfall by 1981, the second year of regulation.
Under this phasing alternative, the potential for such a capacity
shortfall could be delayed until 1983, the fourth year of regulation.
In addition, there would be a lesser potential for any shortfalls to
occur in all the other cases examined in Section 7.2.4.1.
8-21
-------
Furthermore, there would be increased time for planning the siting of
any new facilities that could be required.
8.3 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the Enhanced Public
Health and Environment Protection Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts
(relative to those of the baseline regulations) that could occur from
the promulgation of the regulations contained in the Enhanced Public
Health and Environmental Protection Alternative. To avoid
considerable duplication in the presentation, potential impacts that
would not be changed under this alternative are not repeated. Only
major changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.3.1 Primary Impacts. The major changes to primary impacts
that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative
are.discussed in the following sections:
• Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated;
• Changes to Existing Generation, Transportation, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures;
• Administrative Changes;
• Air Impacts;
• Water Impacts;
• Public Health Impacts.
8.3.1.1 Hazardous Waste to Be Regulated. Under this alterna-
tive, two additional hazardous waste characteristics would be added
to the Section 3001 regulations and the existing toxicity criteria
would be expanded so as to bring additional potentially hazardous
8-22
-------
wastes under regulation. It is expected that the expanded toxicity
characteristic would result in the regulation of most, if not all, of
the potentially hazardous organic wastes that would be excluded from
regulation under the baseline regulations, as discussed in Section
7.1.1. Additionally, this alternative would eliminate the 100
kilogram per month generator limit and the previously discussed
exclusion for generators engaged solely in farming or retail trade.
Thus, all generators of any amount of wastes considered hazardous
under the Section 3001 regulations (except household wastes) would
have to comply with all Subtitle C regulations.
Based upon the expanded toxicity characteristic and the proce-
dures described in Chapters 6 and 7 and Appendix H, it is estimated
that approximately 57 and 65 million metric tons of hazardous
manufacturing wastes would be controlled under this alternative in
1980 and 1984, respectively. The expanded criteria could also result
in the inclusion of potentially large volumes of non-manufacturing
wastes, such as those described in Section 6.1.2. The portion of
these wastes which would be identified as hazardous by the
characteristics is unknown, but could be quite large.
There could thus be a minimum of 22 and 25 million metric tons
of additional wastes declared hazardous and brought under regulatory
control with this alternative in 1980 and 1984, respectively, as com-
pared to the baseline regulations. This would represent about a 63
percent increase in the hazardous wastes controlled in both these
8-23
-------
years. The hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative would
represent about 16 and 19 percent, respectively, of the total annual
industrial solid waste stream currently estimated to be generated.
8.3.1.2 Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Practices. Additional changes to generation, transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal practices would be likely to occur
under this alternative due to the additional wastes being regulated;
due to the enactment of more stringent environmental requirements;
due to resultant increases in storage, treatment, and disposal costs;
and due to the imposition of additional procedural and operational
requirements.
Generation. Under this alternative, many additional generators
would be required to comply with the generator regulations. The ad-
ditional generators to be regulated include those previously ex-
cluded due to the generator limit of 100 kilograms per month, farmers
and retailers who only generate hazardous wastes other than waste
automotive oil, generators who only produce wastes that now meet the
expanded toxicity characteristic or the new infectious or radioactive
characteristics, and generators who only produce 'special wastes'.
Section 8.3.1.3 presents estimates of the number of additional gener-
ators to be regulated. These generators would be required to change
their existing practices and procedures (as indicated in Section
7.1.4.1) with regard to manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, con-
tainerization, and labeling. Furthermore, these generators and those
8-24
-------
generators previously regulated would both be subject to shorter
reporting intervals, as indicated in Table 4-2.
Due to further increases in costs to hazardous waste generators
and costs associated with hazardous waste transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal under this alternative, all regulated generators
would potentially have an increased incentive to further modify their
processes so as to reduce and/or change the types and amounts of
hazardous wastes generated and to enable the increased recycling of
hazardous wastes as process feedstocks.
Transport. Due to the additional wastes subject to the generator
regulations, additional transporters would likely have to comply with
the transporter regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.2. As a
result there would likely be fewer instances of midnight dumping and
spills from the transport of these additional wastes, as compared to
existing practices. However, any increases in the average distance
over which hazardous wastes are transported under this alternative
could lead to an increase in vehicular accidents. This would off-
set some of the potential for a reduction in spills.
The average distance over which hazardous wastes are trans-
ported would be likely to increase due to several factors. The more
stringent treatment and disposal requirements under this alternative
would likely further decrease both the amount of existing on-site and
off-site treatment/disposal capacity that could be permitted and the
number of sites acceptable for construction of new facilities. Any
such decreases in available facilities and sites would potentially
8-25
-------
lead to increased transport distances. Reductions in permittable on-
site treatment/disposal capacity could further result in additional
wastes being sent off-site for treatment/disposal. Increases in
treatment/disposal costs could also further increase the distance
over which wastes could be economically transported for resource
recovery purposes. However, increased on-site resource conservation
and recovery, as described above, could tend to reduce the quantity
of wastes sent off-site.
The elimination of the use of a delivery document in lieu of a
manifest would further affect existing transportation practices. The
use of specific delivery documents is now required under Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations for transporters engaged in
interstate commerce and under DOT regulations for the interstate
transport of hazardous materials; as previously indicated, some
states have also applied the DOT regulations to intrastate shipments
of hazardous materials. The requirement under this alternative that
all hazardous waste transporters use manifests, not delivery docu-
ments, could result in those transporters now being required to use
delivery documents to also carry a manifest.
Storage. Due to the additional generators and wastes regulated
under this alternative, additional storage facilities would likely
have to comply with the storage regulations discussed in Section
7.1.2.3. Some of these existing storage facilities would be required
to be modified or to close. Existing practices at most of these
storage facilities would also have to be changed as previously
8-26
-------
indicated. In addition, all regulated storage facilities would have
to comply with the additional requirements contained in Table 4-2.
As indicated in Section 7.1.2.3, data are not available to estimate
the number of facilities that would be affected, nor the quantities
of wastes that would be affected.
Treatment/Disposal. Due to the additional generators and
wastes regulated under this alternative, additional treatment/
disposal facilities would have to comply with the treatment/disposal
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.4. Types of facilities likely
to come under regulation under this alternative include those facil-
ities used exclusively for 'special wastes' and those facilities used
solely by farmers. Some of these facilities would be closed because
they could not comply with the regulations or could not be economic-
ally modified. Some previously regulated facilities that would be
permitted under the baseline regulations could be closed under this
alternative or could require additional modifications because of the
more stringent requirements. To the extent that existing on-site
facilities were closed, increased quantities of hazardous wastes
could be sent off-site; however, increased on-site resource conserva-
tion and recovery applications could off-set such a change.
Existing practices would have to be changed at most of the
additional facilities to be regulated under this alternative, as
indicated in Section 7.1.2.4. In addition, these additional facili-
ties as well as all previously regulated treatment/disposal
8-27
-------
facilities would now have to comply with the more stringent require-
ments contained in Table 4-2. Due to these more stringent require-
ments and due to the costs associated with them, there would also be
a potential for increases in the treatment of wastes for such pur-
poses as volume reduction, energy recovery, and resource recovery.
The regulation that the permitting authority could require poten-
tially recoverable wastes to be land disposed in a segregated manner
could further increase resource recovery from such wastes.
8.3.1.3 Administrative Changes. Several changes in the admin-
istration of the hazardous waste management program would result from
promulgation of the regulations within this alternative. These
regulations would affect:
• State administration of the program;
• Overlapping Federal and state programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regulations;
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required to obtain
permits;
• Paperwork requirements.
State Administration of the Program. It is likely that fewer
states would apply for authorization under this alternative because
expansion of both the quantity of hazardous wastes and the number of
generators, transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers being
regulated, plus the increases in reporting frequencies, would lead to
8-28
-------
increased administrative and manpower requirements for authorized
states.
Overlapping Federal and State Programs. Since Subtitle C prohi-
bits any state from enacting less stringent regulations than those in
the Federal program, the potential for overlapping Federal and state
programs would be reduced under this alternative. The more stringent
standards and increased amount of hazardous waste controlled under
this alternative would reduce the potential benefits to, and thus the
likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent, independent, haz-
ardous waste program. It is not possible at this time to estimate
the number of states, if any, that would wish to have their own inde-
pendent programs in addition to the Federal program under this
alternative.
Number of Generators Required to Comply with the Regulations.
As indicated in Section 8.3.1.2, there would be an increase in the
number of generators required to comply with the regulations. Under
the baseline regulations, approximately 270,000 to 300,000 generators
are identified as potentially having to comply with the regulations.
The elimination of the generator limit could result in up to an addi-
tional 81,000 manufacturing generators being required to comply (see
Section 7.1.3.3). The elimination of the generator limit and the
transfer of liability contract could result in up to an additional
217,000 automotive service stations being required to comply. The
elimination of the exclusion for farmers and retailers, coupled with
8-29
-------
the elimination of the generator limit and the transfer of liability
contract, could result in up to 1.5 million farmers (Trask, 1977) and
up to 42,000 dry cleaning facilities (Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
1978) being required to comply. An indeterminable number of other
generators (e.g., 'special waste generators' and other retailers)
could also be required to comply due to the expansion in the wastes
identified as hazardous as well as to the elimination of the other
provisions previously discussed. Thus, on the order of 2.2 million
generators within these identified categories could be required to
comply with the regulations under this alternative. This would
represent about a 700 percent increase in the number of generators
being regulated.
Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the Regulations.
The increased amounts of regulated hazardous wastes that would poten-
tially be transported off-site would likely result in an indetermin-
able increase in the number of transporters carrying hazardous
wastes.
Number of Storers, Treaters. and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. Since there are no permit exclusions under the baseline
regulations for storage, treatment, or disposal facilities that han-
dle only small quantities of hazardous wastes, all facilities stor-
ing, treating, or disposing hazardous wastes would be required to
obtain a permit under the baseline regulations with the exception of
those generators who store wastes for less than 90 days prior to
8-30
-------
off-site transport. With one exception the only additional permit-
tees under this alternative would be those facilities that handle
wastes that would not be classified as hazardous under the baseline
regulations, but that would be classified as hazardous under this
alternative. The exception is that the additional facilities that
could be needed to satisfy the potential capacity shortfall under
this alternative (see Section 8.3.2.4) would also require permits if
they were to be constructed. Based upon Section 8.3.2.4, approxi-
mately 120 additional facilities could require permits by 1984. How-
ever, to the extent that additional capacity would be added to exist-
ing facilities there would be a lesser number of such additional
permittees.
Paperwork Requirements. Based upon section 8.3.2.4, the indus-
trial generators could have to prepare between 580,000 and 1.1
million manifests annually by 1984. The aggregated generators,
transporters, and hazardous waste management facility owner/operators
could each have to keep between 1.7 million and 3.4 million mani-
fests in storage on an annual basis. This would represent over a 60
percent increase in both requirements as compared to the baseline
regulations. This increase would even be greater for any transpor-
ters who would now have to keep both a delivery document and a mani-
fest in storage. In addition, transporters would have to file a
total of between 220 and 440 spill reports annually—approximately a
60 percent increase.
8-31
-------
The additional 2.2 million identified generators would have to
prepare about 8.8 million quarterly reports on an annual basis; this
would be over a 2,800 percent increase in such annual reporting. As
indicated in Section 7.1.3.6, most potential permittees would be on-
site facilities and would not prepare additional quarterly reports
based on the manifests. Hazardous waste management service industry
facilities and Federal installations could, however, prepare about
1400 such reports—a 300 percent increase. The permittees identi-
fied in Section 7.1.3.5 could prepare up to 117,000 monitoring
reports annually; this would not represent any change. Thus, there
could be upwards of 8.9 million quarterly reports prepared annually
by generator, storers, treaters, and disposers—over a 2,100 percent
increase.
The identified generators and permittees would have to file over
2.2 million notifications under Section 3010—about a 700 percent in-
crease. Furthermore, since potential permittees would have to re-
new permits every 5 years rather than being issued one permit good
for the projected life of the facility as under the baseline regula-
tions, there could be up to a six-fold increase (in the case of a
30-year facility site life) in the paperwork associated with obtain-
ing permits. These potential permittees would also have to prepare
approximately 29,000 Supplemental Environmental Analyses as part of
the initial permit review procedure; these Supplemental Environmental
Analyses would not be required under the baseline regulations.
8-32
-------
8.3.1.4 Air Impacts.
Air Quality. The regulations under this alternative would have
the potential to cause further changes, primarily reductions, in air
emissions resulting from the generation, transport, storage, treat-
ment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the baseline
regulations.
Generation. As previously discussed, the baseline regulations
would not have a direct effect on potential air emissions resulting
from activities and processes generating hazardous wastes. However,
to the extent that the requirements under this alternative would
cause further changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or
disposal relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would
be a greater potential for generators to make process modifications
designed to further increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce
the quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated; any such
process modifications would likely lead to changes in air emissions
released by processes generating hazardous wastes. Furthermore, to
the extent that additional generators would be brought under control
of the program through the expanded definition of hazardous wastes
and the elimination of exclusions, the potential for such process
modifications and resultant changes in air emissions would be
increased.
Transport. As indicated in Section 7.1.4.1, there are three
major ways air contaminants are released by the transport of hazard-
ous wastes:
8-33
-------
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the
transport vehicle.
As discussed below, this alternative would affect, to varying
degrees, the potential for the release of air emissions from each of
these sources.
To the extent that the additional 25 million metric tons of
potentially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes)
brought under the regulations annually by 1984 would otherwise have
been improperly covered, sealed, containerized, or segregated during
any transport, the potential for the release of fugitive emissions by
such transport and from any resultant spills or explosions would be
reduced as described in Section 7.1.4.1. The following example il-
lustrates an incident that occurred from the transport of a hazardous
waste that would not likely be regulated under the baseline regula-
tions but which would likely be regulated under this alternative:
• In southern Louisiana, industrial wastes containing
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a relatively volatile material, were
transported over a period of time to municipal landfills in
uncovered trucks. High levels of HCB have since been
reported in the blood plasma of individuals along the route
of transport. In a sampling of 29 households along the truck
route, the average plasma level of HCB was 3.6 ppb, with a
high of 23 ppb. The average plasma level of HCB in a control
group was 0.5 ppb with a high of 1.8 ppb (Farmer et al.,
1976).
Both the total quantity of regulated hazardous wastes being
transported and the average distance over which such wastes are
8-34
-------
transported could increase under this alternative, as previously
indicated. Additional transport would result in increased vehicular
emissions and in an increased potential for vehicular accidents which
could further release air emissions. However, transport of hazardous
wastes in accordance with the regulations discussed above would
reduce the potential for spills and explosions from improper trans-
port and from resultant vehicular accidents. This would off-set some
of the potential for increased vehicular accidents to result from
increased transport distances. The changes in both the vehicular
emissions and emissions resulting from accidents would be dependent
upon such factors as the increase in travel distances, the change in
portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site, and the increase in
the amount of regulated wastes being transported.
Using the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, the potential change in vehicular air emissions from the
transport of the hazardous industrial waste regulated under this
alternative has been estimated for four possible transport distances
for both 13 and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous wastes in
1984*. Table 8-5 shows the change in vehicular emissions relative
to those of the baseline regulations (as presented in Table 7-8).
For example, for a 100-mile round-trip distance with 13 percent
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under the baseline regu-
lations there would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those
hazardous wastes that would not be regulated under the baseline
regulations, but which would be regulated under this alternative.
8-35
-------
TABLE 8-5
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR MISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
ADDITIONAL HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Wastes
transported
off -site
13 percent
25 percent
Average
round- trip
distance
(miles)
100
200
500
1,000
100
200
500
1,000
Change in emissions (metric
Carbon monoxide
-100
550
2,500
5,700
480
1,700
4,900
11,600
Hydrocarbons
-15
90
400
910
80
280
100
1,900
Nitrogen
oxides
-70
400
1,800
4,200
350
1,300
3,600
8,500
tons)
Particulates
-5
25
110
260
20
80
220
530
Sulfur
oxides
-10
50
240
560
50
170
480
1,100
-------
off-site treatment/disposal, the decrease in each air emission under
this alternative could be equal to about 60 percent of that which
could occur under the baseline regulations. For a 1,000-mile round-
trip distance with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal, the
increase in each air emission under this alternative could be equal
to about 60 percent of that which could occur under the baseline
regulations. In this latter case, the additional increase in each
air emission would be less 0.04 percent of the total U.S. emissions
of that air pollutant and less than 2 percent of the total U.S. area
emissions of that pollutant from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, there could be on the order of 220 to 440 transportation-
related hazardous wastes spills annually by 1984. As previously
discussed, it is not possible to estimate the number of spills that
would have occurred if the additional 25 million metric tons of
hazardous wastes were not regulated under this alternative.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. As discussed in Section
7.1.4.1, there are several major ways that air contaminants can be
released by current hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
practices:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through fugitive emissions from ground-based treatment/dis-
posal activities such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
8-37
-------
• Through emissions occurring as Che result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions generated by spills, fires, explosions, and
other accidents;
• Through the combustion of hazardous wastes by incineration or
open burning;
• Through fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Through fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.
This alternative would affect the potential for the release of air
emissions from each of these sources as discussed below.
The additional 25 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) estimated to be
brought under control of the regulations annually by 1984 would now
have to be stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the
Section 3004 regulations. Since, as previously discussed, most of
these wastes would otherwise have been stored, treated, or disposed
by methods that are not likely to be enviroraentally acceptable under
the Section 3004 regulations, the overall potential for the release
of hazardous air emissions from the management of such additional
wastes would be reduced as described in Section 7.1.4.1.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose these
additional wastes under this alternative compared to the unregulated
methods that would have been used under the baseline regulations.
Such shifts would change both the types and quantities of air
8-38
-------
emissions generated from the management of specific wastes. For
example, a shift from landfilling to incineration of a particular
waste would result in the increased release of combustion products
and the reduced release of particulate matter and/or volatile gases.
Such shifts^ could, to an indeterminable extent, either enhance or
reduce the potential for reductions in specific air emissions under
this alternative. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities
could lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of
the facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing
facilities could lead to reduced releases of air emissions in the
vicinity of the facility and along transport routes. The net result
could be both a localized and/or nationwide reduction in the re-
leases of many air contaminants from hazardous waste management and
a localized and/or nationwide increase in the total releases of other
air contaminants. Thus while there would most likely be improvements
in air quality due to this alternative, there could also be some lo-
calized degradation of air quality. All releases of air contaminants
and any localized degradation of air quality would, however, have to
be in compliance with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air
Act, OSHA standards, state standards, and Subtitle C standards).
The following two examples illustrate incidents that occurred
from the disposal of hazardous wastes that would not likely be
regulated under the baseline regulations but which would likely be
regulated under this alternative:
8-39
-------
• The hexachlorobenzene wastes, previously discussed under
transportation, were disposed in landfill items in southern
Louisiana; some of this relatively volatile waste was covered
following disposal, some was not. Soil and plant samples
taken near the landfill area showed a decreasing HCB content
as distance from the landfill increased. The HCB levels in
the plasma of landfill workers was reported to range from 2
to 345 ppb; the average level in a control was 0.5 ppb with a
high of 1.8 ppb.
• Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is retained in sludge wastes
produced during polyvinyl chloride (PVC) processing.
Following disposal, the gaseous VCM escapes from the sludge
if not removed before disposal. A study by Markle et al.
(1976) indicated background air concentrations of about 0.1
to 0.3 ppm VCM exist at landfills where PVC sludge has been
disposed for several years. Peak concentrations on the order
of 1.0 ppm VCM were observed at normal breathing heights as
long as 24 hours after the PVC sludge deposits were covered.
Other air samples collected in the vicinity of a New Jersey
landfill indicated that vinyl chloride was continuously
emitted from the landfill; vinyl chloride levels as high as
0.4 ppm were found in a residential area one mile from the
landfill (Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, 1978b.)
Additional requirements imposed by this alternative would
further reduce the potential for the release of air contaminants from
the management of both the additional 25 million metric tons of
hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative and the 40 million
metric tons also controlled under the baseline regulations. The
major impact would result from changing the application of the
Theshold Limit Values (TLV) from an air human health and environmen-
tal standard to a mandatory standard with which facilities must
always be in compliance, and the imposition of the TLV's as a maximum
8-40
-------
concentration not to be exceeded at any time rather than as a time-
weighted average not to be exceeded over an 8-hour day and 40-hour
week. To the extent that non-point source emissions, such as those
from landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage areas
(see section 7.1.4.1 for specific examples), would exceed the TLV's
under the baseline regulations there would be further reductions in
the release of air contaminants under this alternative.
The reduction in the maximum vapor pressure (from 78 mm mercury
at 25 C to 53 mm mercury at 25 C) of wastes that may be placed in
storage tanks vented directly to the atmosphere or treated/disposed
in landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, or basins would fur-
ther reduce the potential for the release of emissions from the
management of these volatile wastes, as described in Section 7.1.4.1.
Examples of wastes constituents which have a vapor pressure between
53 and 78 mm mercury at 25 C and which could be identified as hazar-
dous under the expanded Section 3001 lists and characteristics
include boron tribromide, 1,2-dichloropropane, methacrylonitrile, and
thiophene.
The requirement that owners/operators of inactive storage,
treatment, or disposal sites would have to comply with the Section
3004 regulations would reduce the potential for releases of air
emissions from wastes remaining in such inactive sites.
8-41
-------
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be modified or would have to be constructed
under this alternative (see Section 8.3.2.4), there would be an in-
crease in fugitive dust and vehicular emissions from such construc-
tion activities. These emissions would be extremely site dependent
as previously indicated.
Climate. Localized impacts to temperatures, humidities, and
low-level wind patterns could occur in those areas in which addi-
tional facilities were to be constructed and operated. Any such
effects would be expected to be extremely localized.
8.3.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. The regulations under this
alternative would have the potential to further decrease adverse
water quality impacts resulting from generation, storage, transport,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes as compared to the base-
line regulations.
Many of the potential changes to groundwater and surface water
impacts would occur in much the same manner as the potential changes
discussed under air quality. To avoid redundant discussions, such
changes are briefly summarized below rather than discussed in detail.
Following this summary, additional major changes are described.
Any process modifications designed to further reduce the
quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated or to increase
recycling of such wastes would likely lead to changes in water
8-42
-------
effluents produced by such processes, thus changing the potential for
groundwater and surface water contamination by such effluents. To
the extent that additional generators were to be brought under the
control of the program through the expanded definition of hazardous
wastes and the elimination of generator exclusions, the potential for
such process modifications would be increased.
Increases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would reduce the potential for
midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to ground-
water and surface water. However, increases in the average distance
over which wastes are transported would increase the potential for
vehicular accidents and could off-set some of the potential for a
reduction in spills. Increased transport distances would also result
in increased vehicular emissions and in an increased potential for
oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and heavy metals contained in
vehicular exhausts to be carried into waterways by run-off.
The major beneficial impacts to groundwater quality would result
from the elimination of the 'special waste1 standards for facilities
dealing with large volume wastes (e.g., phosphate slimes); from the
added requirement that inactive facilities must comply with the
Section 3001 regulations; from the lower permeability required for
soil liners for landfills and surface impoundments; and from the
8-43
-------
control of at Least an additional 25 million metric tons of poten-
tially hazardous wastes annually by 1984.
Under the baseline regulations there is a requirement that there
be no discharge from a hazardous waste storage, treatment, or
disposal facility to the groundwater, unless it can be demonstrated
that such discharge does not endanger Underground Drinking Water
Sources anywhere outside the facility's property. (Endangerment
means degradation such that the water exceeds a National Interim
Drinking Water Standard, or that it becomes necessary to treat the
water more than would otherwise have been necessary for any present
or future use.) This alternative would have the potential for
further reducing discharges of hazardous wastes to groundwater (and
thus degradation of groundwater} over and above those reductions
which would occur under the baseline regulations. This would result
both from further reductions in discharges from permitted facilities
and from an increase in the amount of wastes subject to regulation.
Section 7.1.5 describes the potential for reducing groundwater and
surface water impacts by control of these additional wastes.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
type of methods used to treat/dispose the additional wastes regulated
under this alternative compared to the unregulated methods used under
the baseline regulations. As previously discussed, such shifts could
result in localized changes in the release of specific water
8-44
-------
pollutants under this alternative compared to the proposed re-
gulations.
A number of incidents cited in Appendix J involve wastes which
might not be controlled under the baseline regulations, but which
would be controlled under this alternative. For instance, the inci-
dent of groundwater contamination by arsenic, discussed in Section
7.1.5, would escape control under the baseline regulations
due to the small quantities of waste involved (less than 100 kilo-
grams per month) and due to the fact that the waste was generated by
farmers. This alternative would eliminate both of those exclusions
and would require such wastes to be manifested and sent to a permit-
ted disposal facility.
8.3.1.6 Public Health Impacts. Under this alternative, the
potential for providing public health benefits would be increased
relative to that of the baseline regulations. Section 7.1.6
discusses public health under the baseline regulations.
In addition to the 40 million metric tons of potentially hazard-
ous manufacturing waste which would be controlled under the proposed
regulations, another 25 million metric tons would be brought under
control annually by 1984. Most of this increase would be attribut-
able to the additional toxic wastes that would now be considered haz-
ardous under the Section 3001 regulations. Part of the increase
would also be due to the inclusion of additional infectious wastes
and radioactive wastes. Based upon current practices, a large
8-45
-------
portion of these wastes would have been transported, stored, treated,
or disposal in a manner that would not be acceptable under this
alternative. Due to the inclusion of these wastes, there would be
less potential for the release of air, water, and soil contaminants
and for fires, explosions, spills, and other accidents. As a result,
there would be less of a potential for the occurrence of associated
public health incidents. Furthermore, the more stringent standards
for hazardous waste management under this alternative would reduce
the potential for release of contaminants and for the occurrence of
associated health problems from the management of those wastes
already controlled under the baseline regulations (see Sections
8.3.1.4, 8.3.1.5, and 8.3.2.1).
Although the characteristics and lists under the baseline
regulations identify many hazardous wastes, a number of other
potentially hazardous wastes would not be regulated. In particular,
many potentially toxic wastes which are suspected to be carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic substances are not specifically listed and
could be excluded from regulation.
The following examples illustrate health incidents that occurred
from the management of hazardous wastes that would not likely be
regulated under the baseline regulations, but which would likely be
regulated under this alternative:
• In southern Louisiana, industrial wastes containing
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) were transported in uncovered trucks
and left uncovered at landfills. In a sampling of residents
from 29 households situated along the transport route, the
8-46
-------
average plasma level of HCB was 3.6 ppb, with a high of 23
ppb. The range for Che landfill workers exposed to HCB was 2
to 345 ppb. In comparison, the average plasma HCB level in a
control group was 0.5 ppb, with a high of 1.8 ppb (Farmer et
al., 1976). HCB is considered to be a moderately toxic
substance. In cases where persons were exposed to HCB
through oral ingestion, over long periods, the health effects
observed included cases of permanent focal alopecia, corneal
opacity, atrophic hands, and hypertrichosis with dermal
lesians. Recovery usually followed termination of exposure,
but relapses were known to occur (Gosselin et al., 1977).
• As indicated in Section 8.3.1.4, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)
is retained in sludges produced during polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) processing. Landfilling of such sludges has resulted
in release of the VCM. In 1974 the deaths of four workers in
the polyvinyl chloride processing industry were believed to
be attributable to VCM exposure. Since that time, angiosar-
coma of the liver, a rare and fatal tumor, has been identi-
fied in at least 15 workers in U.S. PVC facilities. In
addition, other forms of cancer, certain nonmalignant liver
diseases, and acroosteolysis, a unique occupational disease,
have also been found in such workers (Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 1978b).
• In 1972 in Perham, Minnesota, 11 out of 13 persons using
a well that had been dug on a construction site exhibited
symptoms of arsenic poisoning. Five of the employees became
ill with gastrointestinal symptoms and others exhibited
symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.
Two persons required hospitalization and treatment, including
one victim who lost the use of his legs for about six months
due to severe neuropathy. After analysis, it was discovered
that the affected well contained arsenic concentrations of up
to 21 ppm. The drinking water standard for arsenic is 0.05
ppm. Human deaths have been reported in South Africa due to
water containing 12 ppm arsenic. The source of the contami-
nation was traced back to the mid-1930's when about 50 pounds
of excess grasshopper bait containing arsenic trioxide was
buried by farmers in the area (see Section 8.3.1.5) (State of
Minnesota, 1977).
Due to the small amount of wastes involved in this latter
incident and the fact that the wastes were generated by farmers, this
waste would not be controlled under the baseline regulations. It
should be noted that nature and persistence of arsenic is a health
8-47
-------
hazard in even small quantities. Other wastes that could constitute
a public health hazard in small quantities would also be brought
under regulation by this alternative.
8.3.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary im-
pacts (relative to the baseline regulations) that could occur as a
result of implementation of this alternative are discussed in the
following sections. These changes would result primarily from the
control annually by 1984 of an additional 25 million metric tons of
potentially hazardous industrial wastes plus other hazardous wastes;
the enactment of more stringent environmental requirements with
regard to storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and
further increases in hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal
costs.
8.3.2.1 Physiography and Soil Impacts. The major change in
impacts to physiography and soils under this alternative would result
from bringing an additional 25 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous manufacturing wastes under regulation annually by 1984;
from the elimination of exclusions for other hazardous waste genera-
tors (e.g., farmers and retailers); and from the enactment of more
stringent regulations for the storage, treatment, and disposal of
'special wastes' (e.g., utility wastes).
All such wastes would have to be stored, treated, and disposed
in accordance with the Section 3004 regulations. To the extent that
these wastes would otherwise have been stored, treated, or disposed
8-48
-------
by methods which would not be acceptable under the Section 3004
regulations, the potential for soil contamination would be reduced as
described in Section 7.2.1.
Disposal of the large volumes of 'special wastes' that could be
brought under control by this alternative could create a significant
demand for low permeability clays. Such a demand could be especially
significant in areas having a high density of such hazardous waste
generators, such as west-central Florida which produces over 200 mil-
lion metric tons of phosphate rock overburden and gypsum slimes from
phosphoric acid production (see Section 6.1.2). Local clay supplies
in such areas may not be sufficient to meet the demand. Even where
sufficient clays are available, their extraction would result in
severe alternation of local topography.
Increases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would reduce the potential for
midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to soils. How-
ever, increases in the average distance over which wastes are trans-
ported would increase the potential for vehicular accidents and could
off-set some of the potential for a reduction in spills. Increased
transport would also result in increased vehicular emissions and in
an increased potential for oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and
heavy metals contained in such emissions to be carried onto soils by
run-off.
An example of a soil contamination incident associated with
improper transportation and disposal of a waste that would likely be •
8-49
-------
regulated under this alternative, but not under the baseline regula-
tions, occurred in Louisiana in 1972. This incident, which resulted
in contamination of soil, area residents, vegetation, and beef cattle
in a 200 square-mile area, is discussed in Section 8.J.I.4.
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities would have to be constructed to handle the potential
increase in the shortfall of capacity (See Section 8.3.2.4), there
would be a potential for further impacts to soils and physiography.
Additional land and soils could also be disturbed by conjunctive
developments such as construction of roads, power lines, pipelines,
and housing. However, all these additional land requirements would
be offset to the extent that land would also be required for the
storage, treatment, and disposal of these additional wastes under
current practices. Potential impacts to soils and physiography from
construction would be essentially the same as those described in
Section 7.2.1.
8.3.2.2. Biological Impacts. Existing vegetation would be
destroyed on the additional lands disturbed by construction and
operation of hazardous waste management facilities and conjunctive
developments. Present plant succession would cease on such lands.
Following rehabilitation of the site after closure of the facility,
the plant community on the disturbed areas would likely differ in
species composition and diversity.
These construction and operational activities could also result
in the direct destruction of animal habitat. Some of this
8-50
-------
destruction would be permanent; other areas would be impacted only
temporarily and would, over a period of time, recover in value as a
habitat. However, the habitat and, consequently, the wildlife
species composition following such recovery might be different from
that which existed prior to disturbance of the area. In addition,
the direct destruction of some wildlife could also result from
activities which excavate, bury, overturn, clear, or grade large
areas of previously undisturbed terrestrial habitat. While direct
mortality would be rare to big game and other animals which have the
ability to flee, many small animals with limited ranges may be killed
by construction and operation activities. Operations which cause
additional dewatering of aquatic habitats would result in the death
of fishes, aquatic invertebrates, and amphibians in certain life
stages. Furthermore, any increase in transport distances would
increase the potential for road kills and, possibly, spills that
could disrupt aquatic ecosystems.
These potential adverse impacts from land disturbance would,
however, be offset by several potentially beneficial effects of the
regulations under this alternative. An additional 25 million metric
tons per year of potentially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other
hazardous wastes) would be brought under regulatory control annually
by 1984. Based on current practices, a large portion of these wastes
would have been stored, transported, treated, dumped, or disposed in
8-51
-------
a manner that would not be environmentally acceptable under this
alternative and would have had the potential to create the types of
impacts dicussed in Section 7.2.2. By bringing these additional
wastes under control of the program, the potential for such impacts
would be greatly reduced. It should be noted, however, that in
bringing these wastes under regulation, there could be shifts in the
methods used to treat/dispose the wastes as described in Section
8.3.1.4. The potential for beneficial impacts to the biological
environment would be modified to the extent of any such shift.
The following example illustrates an incident that occurred from
the disposal of a hazardous waste that might not be controlled under
the baseline regulations but which would likely be controlled under
this alternative:
o Waste oil containing dioxin was sprayed in horse arenas and
on an adjacent road in "Missouri for dust control. This
resulted in the death of six dogs, 12 cats, at least 63
horses, and a large number of birds, rodents, and other
animals, there were also 26 abortions and six birth
abnormalities among horses from this incident (Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975b).
For both the additional wastes to be regulated under this
alternative and for those wastes that would already be regulated
under the baseline regulations, the potential for water quality
impacts, and subsequent adverse impacts to both aquatic ecosystems
and wildlife using contaminated water supplies, would be further re-
duced by the requirements for the use of less permeable liners for
8-52
-------
landfills and surface impoundments. The potential for air quality
impacts, and subsequent adverse biological impacts, would be further
reduced as discussed in Section 8.3.1.4. Furthermore, the potential
for soil contaminant, and subsequent adverse impacts to biological
productivity, would be further decreased as discussed in Section
8.3.2.1.
The requirement for the preparation of a Supplementary Environ-
mental Analysis (SEA) as part of the permit process would provide an
additional means for mitigating or preventing adverse impacts to the
biological environment. The SEA would require that the permit appli-
cant analyze the impact of and methods proposed to comply with the
following federal statutes and regulations: the Endangered Species
Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
8.3.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Additional industrial plant closings
or relocations due to the increased costs under this alternative
could lead to additional populations shifts as described in Sec-
tion 7.2.3.1. In addition, there would be an increased need for
construction workers due to the increased facility modification and
construction under this alternative; there would be an increase in
the number of personnel required for hazardous wastes management
activities due to the additional operational requirements and the
8-53
-------
increase in wastes being regulated; and there would be an increase
in the number of personnel required to administer and enforce the
regulations due to the increase in both the quantity of hazardous
wastes and the number of generators, disposers, and permittees being
regulated. Additional population shifts could occur in response to
these increased personnel requirements as discussed in Section
7.2.3.1. Any such shifts would be expected to be small on a national
scale; however, there could be localized instances of a relatively
large influx of workers, particularly for hazardous waste management
facilities located near very small towns, or there could be localized
instances of a relatively large outflux of workers, especially in
a case where a plant being closed constituted the primary source of
employment in an area.
Based upon a minimum requirement of 500 workers to handle
(store, treat, or dispose) a million metric tons of waste per year,
it is estimated that at least 32,500 such workers could be required
nationally by 1984; this would represent over a 60 percent increase
in this requirement compared to the baseline regulations. Approxi-
mately 4,200 to 8,100 of these workers could be required at off-
site facilities; about 24,400 to 28,300 of these workers could be re-
quired at on-site facilities. This would represent over a 60 percent
increase at both types of facilities. To the extent that personnel
would still be required to manage these additional wastes even if
not regulated, there would be fewer new workers required nationally.
8-54
-------
Social Conditions. The increased public health benefits to be
derived from this alternative would provide increased social benefits
as discussed in Section 7.2.3.2. Reductions in chronic and acute
health effects would also reduce the social and economic costs asso-
ciated with such effects, e.g., increased mortality, birth defects,
lowered productivity, lost wages.
The increased potential for population shifts under this alter-
native would increase the impacts associated with such shifts. As
discussed in Section 7.2.3.2, any large, rapid, population influx
could cause inflation, strains on the existing infrastructure, social
tensions, changes in daily living patterns, and increased physical
and mental disorders. Any large, rapid, population out flux could
cause problems in maintaining the existing infrastructure, deflation,
additional unemployment, social stress, changes in daily living pat-
terns, and increased mental and physical health problems.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous
waste management facilities could be further exacerbated by the
increased requirements for such facilities under this alternative.
However, this opposition could be mitigated by the more stringent
environmental requirements under this alternative and by the
requirements for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental
Analysis as part of the permit review process and for permits to be
renewed every 5 years rather than not at all.
8-55
-------
Increases in Che necessary construction of hazardous waste
management facilities and in the off-site transport of hazardous
wastes could cause several adverse social effects. Aesthetic im-
pacts would occur from the construction of new facilities. Noise
levels would increase both in the vicinity of new facilities and
along access routes to such facilities. Any increased transport
of hazardous wastes would also increase the potential for vehicular
accidents. Based upon the methodology and assumptions discussed
in Section 7.2.3.2, it is estimated that there could be about 170
additional vehicular accidents annually in 1984 in the case of 13
percent off-site shipment and about 540 additional vehicular acci-
dents annually in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. This
would represent about a 63 percent increase in vehicular accidents
in both cases compared to the baseline regulations. The requirement
for the preparation of a Supplementary Environmental Analysis as part
of the permit process would provide an additional means under this
alternative for mitigating the above types of adverse impacts. The
Supplementary Environmental Analysis would require that the permit
applicant describe such factors as proposed access routes; the
promixity of the proposed site to populations centers; and the
methods to be used to minimize noise, dust, and odors associated with
the construction and operation of the proposed facility.
The requirement that inactive sites be required to comply with
the Section 3004 requirements would cause adverse social and economic
8-56
-------
impacts. People who own property that contains an inactive hazard-
ous waste disposal site could be required to comply with the Section
3004 regulations even if they brought the property after all disposal
activities had ceased at the site and were unaware of such former
activities. The need to comply with the Subtitle C regulations in
such cases would undoubtedly be tested in the courts.
8.3.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity.
Process Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
described in Section 7.2.4.1, it is estimated that about 8.6 million
metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes could be shipped off-site
for treatment/disposal in 1980 and that between 8.5 and 16.3 million
metric tons could be shipped off-site in 1984. This would represent
an increase of approximately 3.3 million metric tons of regulated
industrial wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site facili-
ties in 1980 and an increase of between 3.3 and 6.3 million metric
tons of regulated industrial wastes required to be sent to permitted
off-site facilities in 1984.
Based upon the estimate 6.2 million metric tons of environmen-
tally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized on a nation-
wide basis in 1980, there could potentially be a nationwide shortfall
of 2.7 million metric tons of off-site capacity for hazardous indus-
trial wastes in 1980.* Without any growth in environmentally
All estimates of shortfall are based upon a 90 percent utilization
rate for the additional capacity required. The indicated shortfall
is thus the difference between the quantity of wastes requiring
treatment disposal and the utilizable capacity, all divided by 0.9.
8-57
-------
adequate off-site capacity between 1977 and 1980, this nationwide
shortfall could be 4.2 million metric tons. It is estimated in
Section 7.2.4.1 that under the baseline regulations there could be
sufficient off-site capacity on a nationwide basis for hazardous
industrial wastes. Based upon a utilizable facility capacity of
60,000 metric tons per year, approximately 45 additional permitted
off-site facilities could be required for hazardous industrial wastes
in 1980 in the former case and approximately 70 additional permitted
off-site facilities could be required in the latter case.
Based upon the estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmen-
tally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized on a nation-
wide basis in 1984, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment there
could potentially be a shortfall of 0.9 million metric tons of envi-
ronmental adequate off-site capacity for hazardous industrial wastes
in 1984. Without any growth in environmentally adequate off-site
capacity between 1977 and 1984, this shortfall could be 3.2 million
metric tons. It is estimated in Section 7.2.4.1 that there could be
sufficient off-site capacity on a nationwide basis for the treatment
disposal of hazardous industrial wastes under the baseline regula-
tions in both instances. Since less off-site capacity would be
required in 1984 than in 1980 in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment, no additional permitted off-site facilities would be
required for hazardous industrial wastes in 1984.
8-58
-------
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there could poten-
tially be a nationwide shortfall of 9.6 million metric tons of envi-
ronmentally adequate off-site capacity for hazardous industrial
wastes in 1984. Without any growth in environmentally adequate
off-site capacity between 1977 and 1984, this shortfall could be 11.9
million metric tons. It is estimated in Section 7.2.4.1 that under
the baseline regulations there could be a nationwide shortfall of 2.6
million metric tons in the former case and a nationwide shortfall of
4.9 million metric tons in the latter case. Approximately 160 addi-
tional permitted off-site facilities could be required to handle
hazardous industrial wastes in 1984 in the former case and approxi-
mately 200 additional permitted off-site facilities in the latter
case. Based upon the estimated shortfall under the baseline regula-
tions, only 115 of the necessary permitted facilities would be attri-
butable to this alternative in the former case and only 120 would be
attributable to this alternative in the latter case.
Data are not available to estimate potential shortfalls in envi-
ronmentally adequate on-site process capacity. Industrial generators
could send 46.7 million metric tons of hazardous wastes to permitted
on-site treatment/disposal facilities in 1980 and between 46.8 and
54.6 million metric tons of hazardous wastes to permitted on-site
facilities in 1984.* This would represent an increase of
*The remainder of the hazardous waste not sent on-site or off-
site would be recycled or sent to resource recovery operations, both
on-site and off-site (see Table 5-10).
5-59
-------
approximately 18.0 million metric tons of regulated industrial wastes
required to be sent to permitted on-site facilities in 1980 and an
increase of between 18.0 and 21.0 million metric tons of regulated
industrial wastes required to be sent to permitted on-site facilities
in 1984. It should noted that more stringent treatment/disposal
requirements under this alternative would likely result in a decrease
in the existing on-site capacity. Any such decrease would further
increase any potential for a shortfall in on-site capacity.
Section 7.2.4.1 discusses other factors that could either lead
to shortfalls or that could exacerbate the size of the estimated
potential shortfall in both on-site and off-site process capacity,
especially on a localized basis. In addition to those factors, the
potentially large quantity of 'special wastes' that could be hazard-
ous would significantly exacerbate any shortfall. Also, the more
stingent requirement under this alternative could reduce the number
of sites at which facilities could be located.
Physical Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
discussed in Section 7.2.4.2, relative to the baseline regulations
there could be a further decrease of approximately 1.3 million metric
tons in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during
the period from 1980 through 1984, assuming 13 percent shipment off-
site in 1984, and there could be a further increase of 6.1 million
8-60
-------
metric Cons in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site
during this period, assuming 25 percent shipment off-site in 1984.*
Up to 250 to 500 fewer acres could thus be committed to off-
site landfilling of hazardous industrial wastes during this period in
the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and up to 1,200 to 2,400
additional acres could be committed to off-site landfilling of haz-
ardous industrial wastes during this period in the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there could be 100
to 200 fewer acres required off-site annually compared to total
requirements under the baseline regulations. In the latter case,
after 1984 there could be 500 to 1,000 additional acres required off-
site annually compared to the total requirements under the baseline
regulations. In all instances there could be commensurate change in
on-site land requirements.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure, com-
mercial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting one to two fewer off-site secure land-
fills by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment.
In this case, the equivalent of less than one fewer off-site secure
landfill could have to be sited annually after 1984 for hazardous
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under the baseline regula-
tions there would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those
hazardous wastes that would not be regulated under the baseline
regulations but which would be regulated under this alternative.
8-61
-------
industrial wastes. The land requirements would be equivalent to
siting five to nine additional off-site secure landfills by the end
of 1984 in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. In this case,
the equivalent of two to four additional off-site landfills could
have to be sited annually after 1984.
8.3.2.5 Land Use Impacts. More total land, off-site plus on-
site, would be required for environmentally adequate hazardous waste
management under this alternative than under the baseline regula-
tions. This additional land necessary for environmentally adequate
management of hazardous waste would be required both for the con-
struction of the permitted facilities needed for the storage, treat-
ment, and disposal of the additional hazardous wastes regulated under
this alternative and for such conjunctive developments as construc-
tion of roads, power lines, and pipelines. However, as indicated in
Section 8.3.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment there
would be fewer regulated hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site by
1984 under this alternative than there would be total hazardous
wastes sent off-site under the baseline regulations. Thus, while
more total land would be required under this alternative, in the case
of 13 percent off-site shipment there could be less off-site land use
and more on-site land use for hazardous industrial wastes. In the
*The total hazardous wastes consist of those wastes regulated under
the baseline regulations plus the additional wastes that would not
be regulated under the baseline regulations but which would be re-
gulated under this alternative.
8-62
-------
case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there would be more regulated
industrial wastes sent off-site by 1984 under this alternative than
there would be total hazardous wastes sent off-site under the
baseline regulations. Thus, there could be more off-site land use
and less on-site land use for hazardous industrial wastes in this
case. Estimates of potential changes in off-site land requirements
for landfills (and commensurate changes in on-site land requirements)
are presented in Section 8.3.2.4.
In should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited on-
site physical capacity and could result in increased pressures for
off-site facilities in the long term. However, additional increases
in resource conservation and recovery and in treatment practices
leading to volume reduction (e.g., incineration) under this alterna-
tive would also provide a greater potential for reducing total land
requirements, both on-site and off-site, in the long term.
Existing land uses would cease, either permanently or temporar-
ily, on all land converted to hazardous waste management uses. Some
agricultural, grazing, forest, recreational, and other lands could be
removed from their existing uses. Following closure of the hazardous
waste management facility and any rehabilitation of the site accord-
ing to the closure and post-closure care plans, the land would be
available for new or, in some cases, previously existing uses. Sites
8-63
-------
at which hazardous wastes have been disposed would be precluded fol-
lowing post-closure care from certain future uses (such as residen-
tial, recreational and grazing uses, and any activities requiring
excavation). To the extent that the regulations under this alterna-
tive would prevent other lands from being contaminated by improper
dumping, treatment, or disposal of the hazardous wastes not regulated
under the baseline regulations, there would be off-setting land use
benefits. Section 7.2.5 describes the types of land use benefits
that could occur.
8.3.2.6 Water Use Impacts. As previously discussed, the poten-
tial for the degradation of groundwater and surface water would be
further reduced under this alternative. To the extent that degrada-
tion of water quality would have resulted in a decreased supply of
surface water or groundwater being available to some or all consumers
in the water use area, there would be an additional supply of ground-
water or surface water potentially available to such consumers and
fewer restrictions on the productive use of such surface water and
groundwater supplies.
The additional on-site and off-site permitted hazardous waste
management facilities that could be required would be additional con-
sumers of the available water supply. This water could be required
for such purposes as dust control, soil compaction, biological treat-
ment, wet scrubbers for incinerators, and site rehabilitation. This
additional water requirement would be reduced to the extent that
8-64
-------
water would otherwise have been consumed in the management of the
additional wastes now regulated under this alternative.
8.3.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. The major changes
in resource conservation and recovery would result from bringing an
additional 25 million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes
under the Subtitle C regulations annually by 1984 and from further
increases in costs to hazardous waste generators and costs associated
with hazardous waste transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal
due to the more stringent requirements under this alternative. As
discussed in Section 7.2.7, these changes would provide increased
incentives for generators to modify processes so as to enable in-
creased recycling of hazardous waste as process feedstocks, to reduce
the quantities of hazardous wastes generated by specific processes,
or to change the nature of wastes produced. In addition the require-
ment that the permitting authority could require that wastes which
could be recoverable in the foreseeable future would have to be land
disposed in a segregated manner would increase the potential for
future resource recovery from such wastes. Chapter 5 presents
examples of the potential for increased resource recovery from and
recycling of hazardous wastes.
8.3.2.8 Energy Use. Energy use would be impacted under this
alternative by changes in facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, and resource conservation and recovery.
The additional facility modification and construction that would be
8-65
-------
necessary under this alternative would result in increased energy
use. The requirement for decreased permeability of landfill and
surface impoundment liners and for reduced non-point source air
emissions from these facilities would increase the energy use
required for construction of such facilities.
There would also be increased energy use associated with re-
quired changes in facility operation and closure. Management of the
additional 25 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes re-
gulated annually by this alternative would require increased energy
use as discussed in Section 7.2.8. The additional 20-year period
over which post-closure care could be required would increase the
energy use associated with such care. Additional energy could also
be required for control equipment used to insure that the non-point
source air emission standard was not violated.
Previously discussed changes in resource recovery would lead to
other changes in energy use. While any increase in resource recovery
would likely require the initial input of additional energy, there
could be a net savings in energy from recovery operations as dis-
cussed in Section 7.2.8.
The changes in energy use from the additional transport of haz-
ardous wastes would depend upon such factors as shifts in the portion
of wastes managed on-site and off-site and changes in transport dis-
tances. Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in
Section 7.2.8, Table 8-6 contains estimates of the magnitude of the
8-66
-------
TABLE 8-6
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
ADDITIONAL HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C^REGULATIONS
Average
Wastes round-trip
transported distance
off-site (miles)
13 percent 100
oo 200
CT>
•" 500
1,000
25 percent 100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
-0.5
3
11
26
2
8
23
54
Crude oil
equivalent *
(1,000 barrels)
-10
60
290
660
60
200
580
1,400
*Assumes 9.5 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
potential change in energy use (compared to that under the baseline
regulations) that could occur annually from changes in transport dis-
tances and shifts in off-site and on-site treatment disposal. The
estimated change in energy use under this alternative ranges from an
annual decrease equivalent to approximately 10,000 barrels of crude
oil for a 100 mile round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site
treatment/disposal to an annual increase equivalent to approximately
1.4 million barrels of crude oil for a 1,000-mile round-trip distance
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal.
There could also be further reductions in energy production due
to the increased costs associated with the management of wastes from
such activities and due to the elimination of the special regulations
for 'special wastes'; many 'special wastes' are generated by energy
production activities. There could also be increased changes in
fuels used by facilities, so as to reduce hazardous waste generation.
This could result in increased changes in energy supply/demand rela-
tionships.
8.3.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. To the extent that
unregulated treatment/disposal of the additional wastes brought under
control by this alternative would have disturbed, destroyed, or in-
truded upon special interest points, there would be a commensurate
reduction in such adverse effects as discussed in Section 7.2.9.
However, the additional lands, especially off-site lands, that would
be disturbed by the increased requirements for facility construction
and associated conjunctive developments under this alternative would
8-68
-------
increase the potential for the disturbance and/or destruction of such
special interest points as sites of aesthetic, archaeological, his-
torical, paleontogical, or recreational value.
The requirement for the preparation of a Supplementary Environ-
mental Analysis as part of the permit process would provide an ad-
ditional means for mitigating such adverse impacts. The SEA would
require the permit applicant to analyze the impact of and methods
proposed to comply within the following Federal statutes and pub-
lished regulations, if applicable: The Endangered Species Act; The
National Historic Preservation Act; The Historic Sites, Buildings,
and Antiquities Act; The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; and The
Coastal Zone Management Act.
8.4 Potential Change in Impacts Resulting from the Lesser Degree of
. Public Health and Environmental Protection Alternative
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts (rela-
tive to those of the baseline regulations) that could occur as a
result of promulgation of the regulations contained in the Lesser
Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection Alternative. To
avoid considerable duplication in the presentation, potential impacts
that would not be changed under this alternative are not repeated.
Only major changes in potential impacts are discussed.
8.4.1 Primary Impacts. The major changes to primary impacts
that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative
are discussed in the following sections:
8-69
-------
• Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated;
• Changes to Generation, Transportation, Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures;
• Administrative Changes;
• Air Impacts;
• Water Impacts;
• Public Health Impacts.
8.4.1.1 Hazardous Waste to be Regulated. Under this alterna-
tive, the toxicity characteristic and wastes whose listing is based
solely on toxicity or Administrator's judgment (AD) would be removed
from the Section 3001 regulations identifying hazardous wastes, and
'special wastes' (e.g., utility wastes and oil drilling muds and
brines) would be specifically excluded from regulation. Addition-
ally, this alternative would increase the generator limit from 100
kilograms per month to 1,000 kilograms per month. EPA staff esti-
mates are that eliminating the toxicity criteria and the wastes whose
listing is based upon toxicity would result in the exclusion of about
40 percent of those manufacturing wastes that would be regulated
under the baseline regulations. Further, the 'special wastes' and
some portion of the other large volume wastes discussed in Section
6.1.2 (e.g., utility fly ash and toxic dredge materials) which may
have been identified as hazardous under the baseline regulations,
would be excluded, either directly (e.g., fly ash) or through
elimination of the toxicity criteria (e.g., dredge materials).
8-70
-------
Based upon Che procedures described in Chapter 6 and 7 and Ap-
pendices H and I, it is estimated that approximately 20 and 24 mil-
lion metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes could be control-
led under this alternative in 1980 and 1984, respectively. These es-
timates include an adjustment for wastes that would not be regulated
due to the change in the generator limit. Table 8-7 shows the es-
timated quantity of hazardous manufacturing wastes and the number of
generating establishments that could be excluded from regulation
based upon a generator limit of 1,000 kilograms per month (due to the
reduction in wastes considered hazardous under this alternative, some
of these generators would also be excluded even without the increase
in the generator limit). In addition, an unknown portion of the
potentially hazardous non-manufacturing wastes discussed in Section
7.1.1 would also be excluded from regulation.
There could thus be a decrease of at least 14 and 16 million
metric tons in potentially hazardous wastes brought under regulatory
control in 1980 and 1984, respectively, as compared to the baseline
regulations. This would represent approximately a 40 percent de-
crease in regulated hazardous industrial wastes in both years. The
hazardous wastes controlled under this alternative would represent
about 6 and 7 percent, respectively, of the total annual industrial
solid waste stream (hazardous and non-hazardous) currently estimated
to be generated.
8-71
-------
TABLE 8-7
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS MANUFACTURING WASTES AND
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION AT A
GENERATOR LIMIT OF 1,000 KILOGRAMS PER MONTH
EPA
Region
I
II
III
« IV
to
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National
total
Number of
manufacturing
establishments
excluded
13,300
34,200
16 , 100
28 ,300
35,500
14,800
8,300
4,400
23,900
8,000
186,500
Percent of
total manufacturing
establishments
excluded
57
65
57
62
52
61
58
68
63
70
60
Hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
(1000 metric
tons/year)
28
68
32
50
70
29
17
10
50
17
371
Percent of total
hazardous
manufacturing
wastes excluded
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
2
2
2
<1
-------
8.4.1.2 Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Practices. Fewer changes to generation, transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal practices would be likely to occur
under this alternative due to the lesser amount of wastes being re-
gulated; due to the enactment of less stringent environmental re-
quirements; due to resultant reductions in storage, treatment, and
disposal costs; and due to the imposition of fewer procedural and
operational requirements.
Generation. Under this alternative, fewer generators would be
required to comply with the generator regulations. Those generators
specifically excluded from regulation under this alternative include:
those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kilogram per month of any
identified hazardous wastes; those who store hazardous wastes on-site
for 90 days to 1 year prior to off-site disposal; those who generate
only 'special wastes'; and those who generate only wastes identified
as toxic under the baseline characteristics and listings. Section
8.4.1.3 presents estimates of the number of generators to be excluded
from regulation. These generators would not be required to change
their existing practices and procedures (as indicated in Section
7.1.4.1) with regard to manifesting, reporting, recordkeeping, con-
tainerization, and labeling. In addition, those generators who would
still be regulated under this alternative would be subject to reduced
manifesting and reporting requirements, as indicated in Table 4-3.
8-73
-------
Furthermore, due to likely reductions under this alternative
both in costs to hazardous waste generators and costs associated with
hazardous waste transport, storage, treatment, and disposal relative
to those of the baseline regulations and in the number of regulated
generators, there would be a lesser incentive for generators to mod-
ify their processes so as to reduce and/or change the types and
amounts of hazardous wastes generated by the process and to enable
the increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks.
Transport. Due to the lesser quantity of wastes subject to the
generator regulations, fewer transporters would likely have to comply
with the transporter regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.2. There
would likely be increased instances of midnight dumping and of spills
from any transport of those additional wastes excluded from regula-
tion. Elimination of the requirement that generators report on haz-
ardous wastes not received at the designated facility would further
increase the potential for midnight dumping. Any decreases in the
average distance over which hazardous wastes are transported under
this alternative could lead to a decrease in vehicular accidents.
This would off-set some of the potential for an increase in spills.
The average distance over which hazardous wastes are transported
would be likely to decrease due to several factors. The less strin-
gent treatment and disposal requirements under this alternative would
likely increase both, the amount of existing on-site and off-site
8-74
-------
treatment/disposal capacity Chat could be permitted and the number of
sites acceptable for construction of new facilities. Any such in-
creases in available facilities and sites would potentially lead to
reduced transport distances. Furthermore, increases in permittable
on-site treatment/disposal capacity could result in fewer wastes
being sent off-site for treatment/disposal. Decreases in treatment/
disposal costs could also reduce the distance over which wastes could
be economically transported for resource recovery purposes. Elimina-
tion of the requirement that consolidated wastes not requiring a man-
ifest must be delivered to a permitted facility would likely de-
crease the average distance such wastes would be transported. How-
ever, any reduction in on-site resource conservation and recovery, as
described above, could tend to increase the quantity of wastes being
sent off-site.
The replacement of the baseline Section 3002 manifest require-
ments with a new manifest requirement that all shipments (inter-
state and intrastate) must be accompanied by shipping paper/bill of
lading which designates delivery to a permitted storage, treatment,
or disposal facility and which meets the requirements of the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations would further reduce changes to ex-
isting transport practices. The use of such delivery documents is
now required under Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations
for transporters engaged in interstate commerce and under DOT regu-
lations for the interstate transport of hazardous materials; as
8-75
-------
previously indicated, some states have also applied the DOT regu-
lations to intrastate shipments of hazardous materials. Thus, ex-
cept for the requirements that the shipping paper/bill of lading must
designate delivery to a permitted facility, those transporters now
required to prepare shipping papers/bills of lading would not have to
modify their existing practices. However, those transporters who
make intrastate shipments or who do not transport hazardous wastes
that are also identified as DOT hazardous materials would still have
to modify their practices. Similarly, the reduction in required re-
cordkeeping times would not likely affect those transporters current-
ly required to prepare shipping papers/ bills of lading since, as
indicated in Appendix E, most such transporters keep such records for
at least 3 years due to various existing requirements.
The elimination of the emergency spill requirements for notifi-
cation and clean up would also not affect transporters carrying in-
terstate and some intrastate shipments of hazardous wastes that are
also identified as DOT hazardous materials. Such transporters are
currently required to report and clean up such spills. Also, any
spill by any transporter that could threaten navigable waters or
which are into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
contiguous zones, or which may affect applicable natural resources
would still have to be reported and cleaned up under Section 311 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
8-76
-------
Storage. Due to the lesser number of generators and reduced
quantities of wastes regulated under this alternative, it is likely
that fewer storage facilities would have to comply with the storage
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.3. In addition, the increase
in the permit exclusion from 90 days to one year for generators who
store wastes on-site prior to off-site disposal would further reduce
the number of generators subject to the storage regulations.
As a result, fewer storage facilities could be required to be
modified or to be closed. Existing storages practices would not
have to be changed at facilities excluded from regulation under this
alternative. In addition, those storage facilities that would still
be regulated under this alternative would be subject to reduced con-
struction, operational, and closure requirements as indicated in
Table 4-3 and would have to make fewer changes to existing practices.
Treatment/Disposal. Due to the lesser number of generators and
reduced quantities of wastes regulated under this alternative, it is
likely that fewer treatment/disposal facilities would have to comply
with the treatment/disposal regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.4.
As a result, fewer facilities would be closed because they could not
comply with the regulations or could not be economically modified.
In addition, regulated facilities would be subject to the less strin-
gent requirements contained in Table 4-3. As a result, fewer regu-
lated facilities would be required to be modified; for those
facilities requiring modification, the changes would also likely be
8-77
-------
less extensive. Regulated facilities would also have to make fewer
changes in their existing operation and closure practices.
Due to these less stringent requirements and the reduced costs
associated with them, and due to fewer wastes and generators being
regulated, there would also be a lesser potential for treatment of
wastes for such purposes as volume reduction, energy recovery, and
resource recovery. Furthermore, to the extent that fewer existing
on-site facilities were closed and fewer wastes and generators were
regulated, there would be a potential for fewer wastes to be sent
off-site for treatment/disposal. However, reductions in on-site re-
source conservation and recovery practices, as described above, could
tend to off-set any change in wastes being sent off-site.
8.4.1.3 Administrative Changes. Several changes in the admin-
istration of the hazardous waste management program would result from
promulgation of the regulations under this alternative. These regu-
lations would affect:
• State administration of the program;
• Overlapping Federal and state programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regulations;
• Number of transporters required to comply with the
regulations;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required
to obtain permits;
• Paperwork requirements.
State Administration of the Program. Several factors would
increase the potential for states to apply for full, partial, or
8-78
-------
interim authorization under this alternative. Elimination of all
restrictions on granting of interim authorization, except the
Memorandum of Understanding, would make every state eligible to be
granted interim authorization. The elimination of restrictions on
granting full or partial authorization to states with more stringent
standards would also enable additional states, including the six with
importation bans identified in Section 7.1.1.3, to qualify for full
or partial authorization. In addition, reductions in the quantities
and types of wastes considered hazardous and the raising of the
generator limit would decrease the number of potential generators,
transporters, storers, treaters, and disposers that the state would
have to regulate. This, plus the reductions in reporting require-
ments, would lead to further reductions for administrative and
manpower requirements for authorized states and could increase the
willingness of states to apply for authorization.
However, the elimination of the toxicity characteristic could
off-set any potential for increased state authorization. If enough
states felt that the regulations were inadequate without the in-
clusion of toxic wastes, there could be an overall reduction in
authorized states under this alternative.
Overlapping Federal and State Programs. Since Subtitle C
prohibits any state from enacting less stringent regulations than
those in the Federal program, the potential for overlapping Federal
and state programs would be increased under this alternative. The
8-79
-------
less stringent standards and reduced amount of hazardous waste con-
trolled under this alternative would increase the potential benefits
to, and thus the likelihood of, a state enacting a more stringent,
independent, hazardous waste program. It is not possible at this
time to estimate the number of states, if any, that would wish to
have independent programs in addition to the Federal program under
this alternative.
Number of Generators Required to Comply With the Regulations.
As indicated in Section 8.4.1.2, there would be a decrease in the
number of generators required to comply with the regulations. Under
the baseline regulation, 270,000 to 300,000 generators are identified
as potentially having to comply with the regulations (see Section
7.1.3.3).
The increase in the generator limit could result in approximate-
ly 105,000 additional manufacturing generators being excluded from
compliance with the regulations (see Tables 7-2 and 8-7). The total
number of manufacturing generators excluded would represent about 60
percent of all manufacturing generators; however, they are estimated
to generate less than 1 percent of the total hazardous manufacturing
wastes. Some additional manufacturing generators could also be
excluded by the elimination of the toxicity characteristic and
listings, however data are not sufficient to estimate the number of
additional exclusions. EPA staff estimates are that most, if not
all, of the 50,000 automotive service stations and 5,800 research
8-80
-------
facilities that could be potential generators under the baseline re-
gulations could be excluded by the increased generator limit under
this alternative. An indeterminable number of other generators could
also be excluded. Thus, on the order of 110,000 to 140,000 genera-
tors within the categories identified could be required to comply
with the regulations under this alternative. This would represent
almost a 60 percent reduction in the number of generators being re-
gulated.
Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the Regulations.
The reduced of regulated hazardous wastes that would potentially be
transported off-site would likely result in a decrease in the number
of transporters carrying hazardous wastes. However, since the number
of such transporters under the baseline regulations is not known, it
is not possible to estimate the decrease that could occur under this
alternative.
Number of Storers, Treaters, and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. Since there are no permit exclusions under the baseline re-
gulations for storage, treatment, or disposal facilities that handle
only small quantities of hazardous wastes, all facilities storing,
treating, or disposing hazardous wastes would be required to obtain a
permit under the baseline regulation, with the exception of those
generators who store wastes for less than 90 days prior to off-site
transport. Thus, with one exception, the only facilities that would
be excluded from the requirements to obtain a permit under this
8-81
-------
alternative would be those facilities that handle only wastes that
would be classified as hazardous under the baseline regulations, but
that would not be classified as hazardous under this alternative.
The exception is that generators who store hazardous wastes between
91 days and one year would also be excluded under this alternative.
Data are not available to estimate the reduction in potential permit-
tees under this alternative.
Paperwork Requirements. Based upon the estimated number of off-
site shipments (see Section 8.4.2.4), the industrial generators could
have to prepare between 200,000 and 420,000 shipping papers/bills of
lading annually by 1984. This would represent about a 40 percent de-
crease in the number prepared under the baseline regulations. The
aggregated generators, transporters, and hazardous waste management
facility owner/operators could each have to keep a minimum of between
200,000 and 420,000 shipping papers/bills of lading in storage on an
annual basis. This would represent about an 80 percent decrease in
recordkeeping requirements as compared to the baseline regulations.
This decrease in both the number of new manifests prepared and stored
under this alternative would be even greater to the extent that
generators and transporters were able to use and store shipping
papers/bills of lading that would also have to be prepared and stored
under other existing regulations (see Section 8.4.1.2).
The 110,000 to 140,000 identified generators would have to pre-
pare 110,000 to 140,000 reports on an annual basis; this would
8-82
-------
represent nearly a 60 percent decrease in such annual reporting. As
indicated in Section 7.1.3.6, most potential permittees would be on-
site facilities and would not have to prepare additional annual re-
ports based on the manifests. Transporters would not have to prepare
any spill reports under this alternative as compared to between 140
and 270 under the baseline regulations; however, some transporters
would have to prepare spill reports to satisfy requirements under
other existing laws (see Section 8.4.1.2). The reduction in the
number of permittees is not determinable, but is expected to be small
as previously indicated. Due to the relatively small number of off-
site permittees (see Table 7-7) and due to the potentially small de-
crease in such permittees, any reduction in the number of annual re-
ports based upon manifested wastes to be prepared by such permittees
should also be small. There could, however, be a large decrease in
the number of monitoring reports prepared by permittees under this
alternative. Permittees would have to prepare such reports annually
rather than quarterly. There could be up to 117,000 such monitoring
reports under the baseline regulations. Using the number of poten-
tial permittees from the baseline regulations as an estimate of the
upper limit of the number under this alternative, there could be up
to 29,000 monitoring reports prepared annually under this alternative
— a reduction of at least 75 percent. Overall there could be a
total of 139,000 to 169,000 generator and permittee reports prepared
annually under this alternative — a reduction of about 60 percent.
8-83
-------
There would also be a slight decrease in the number of permit
applications prepared. The identified generators and permittees
could have to file on the order of between 110,000 and 140,000
notifications under Section 3010—a reduction of nearly 60 percent.
The likely reduction in the number of regulated transportees would
also reduce the number of transporters who would be required to file
notifications under Section 3010.
8.4.1.4 Air Impacts.
Air Quality. The regulations under this alternative would have
the potential to cause fewer changes in air emissions resulting from
the generation, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous wastes, as compared to the baseline regulations.
Generation. As previously discussed, the baseline regulations
would not have a direct effect on potential air emissions resulting
from activities and processes generating hazardous wastes. However,
to the extent that the requirements under this alternative would
cause less changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or
disposal relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would
be less of a potential for generators to make process modifications
designed to increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the quan-
tity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated; any such reductions
in process modifications under this alternative would likely lead to
fewer changes in air emissions released by processes generating
hazardous waste. Furthermore, with fewer generators being brought
8-84
-------
under control of Che program, Che potential for such process mod-
ifications and resultant changes in air emissions would be further
decreased.
Transport. As indicated in SecCion 7.1.4.1, Chere are Chree
major ways air contaminants are released by the transport of hazard-
ous wastes:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
As discussed below, this alternative would affect, to varying
degrees, the potential for the release of air emisions from each of
these sources.
By 1984, approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) would be
removed annually from regulations under this alternative as compared
to the baseline regulations. As a result, transport of these wastes
would not have to be in accordance with the Section 3002 containeri-
zation requirements or the Section 3003 transport requirements unless
the wastes were also identified as hazardous materials under the DOT
Hazardous Materials Transport Act.* Thus, to the extent that these
wastes would be containerized or transported using methods not
*In such a case, for all interstate transport and some intrastate
transport, these wastes would be subject to essentially the same
containerization and transport requirements as under Che baseline
regulations.
8-85
-------
acceptable under the baseline regulations, the potential for the re-
lease of fugitive emissions by such transport and from any resultant
spills or explosions would be increased under this alternative. Sec-
tion 7.1.4.1 discusses the potential for the release of air emissions
from unregulated transport practices. Furthermore, the elimination,
except as previously noted, of the requirement that transporters need
to report and clean up spills would further increase the potential
for air contaminants to be released from such spills under this
alternative. The elimination of spill response information from the
manifest could further increase the time for spill clean up and thus
increase the potential for the release of air contaminants.
Both the total quantity of regulated hazardous wastes being
transported and the average distance over which such wastes are
transported could decrease under this alternative, as previously
indicated. Any such reductions would lead to the release of fewer
vehicular emissions and to a reduced potential for vehicular acci-
dents to occur and to release air emissions. However, less transport
of hazardous waste in accordance with the regulations would increase
the potential for spills and explosions from improper transport and
from resultant vehicular accidents. This would off-set some of the
potential for fewer vehicular accidents to result from reduced trans-
port distances. The changes in both the vehicular emissions and
emissions resulting from accidents would be dependent upon such fac-
tors as the decrease in travel distances, the change in portion of
8-86
-------
hazardous wastes transported off-site, and the decrease in the amount
of regulated wastes being transported.
Using the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, the potential change in vehicular air emissions resulting
from the reduced transport of regulated hazardous industrial waste
has been estimated for four possible transport distances for both 13
and 25 percent off-site shipment of hazardous wastes in 1984. Table
8-8 shows the change in vehicular emissions relative to those of the
baseline regulations (see Table 7-8). For example, for a 100-mile
round-trip distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal,
there could be an increase in each vehicular air emission equal to
about 40 percent of that which could occur under the baseline regu-
lations. For a 1,000-mile round-trip distance with 25 percent
off-site treatment/disposal, there could be a decrease in each air
emission equal to about 40 percent of that which could occur under
the baseline regulations. In the former case, the increase in each
air emission would be less than one one-thousandth of a percent of
the total U.S. emission of that air pollutant and less than 0.007
percent of the total U.S. area emission of that pollutant from
heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles. In the latter case, the
decrease in each air emission would be less than 0.03 percent of the
total U.S. emission of that air pollutant and approximately 1 percent
of the total U.S. area emission of that pollutant from heavy-duty,
diesel-powered vehicles.
8-87
-------
TABLE 8-8
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT
OF LESS HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
Change in emissions (metric cons)
Wastes
transported
off-site
„ 13 percent
A,
oo
25 percent
Average
round-trip
distance
(miles)
100
200
500
1,000
100
200
500
1,000
Carbon monoxide
+ 60
-350
-1,600
-3,600
-310
-1,100
-3,200
-7,400
Hydrocarbons
+10
-55
-250
-580
-50
-180
-510
-1,200
Nitrogen
oxides
+45
-250
-1,200
-2,700
-230
-800
-2,300
-5,400
Particulates
+ 3
-15
-70
-170
-15
-50
-140
-340
Sulfur
oxides
+6
-35
-150
-360
-30
-110
-310
-730
-------
Based upon the methodology and assumptions described in Section
7.1.4.1, there could be on the order of 80 to 180 transportation-
related hazardous wastes spills annually by 1984 from the transport
of the regulated wastes. As previously discussed, it is not possible
to estimate the change in the number of spills that would occur from
the removal of 16 million metric tons of hazardous waste from
regulation by 1984.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. As discussed in Section
7.1.4.1, there are several major ways that air contaminants can be
released by current hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
practices:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through fugitive emissions from ground-based treatment/
disposal activities such as landfills, landfarms, and surface
impoundments;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions generated by spills, fires, explosions, and
other accidents;
• Through the combustion of hazardous wastes by incineration or
open burning;
• Through fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Through fugitive emissions from facility construction or
modification.
This alternative would affect the potential for the release of air
contaminants from each of these sources as discussed below.
8-89
-------
To Che extent that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal facili-
ties would have to be modified or would have to be constructed under
this alternative (see Section 8.4.2.4), there would be a decrease in
fugitive dust and vehicular emissions from such construction activi-
ties. Such emissions would be extremely site dependent.
By 1984, approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) would be
removed annually from regulation under this alternative as compared
to the baseline regulations. These hazardous wastes would not have
to be stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with the Section
3004 regulations. Since it is likely that most of these wastes would
not be managed by methods that are environmentally acceptable under
the Section 3004 regulations, the overall potential for the release
of air contaminants from the management of such wastes would be
increased under this alternative relative to the baseline regula-
tions. Section 7.1.4.1 discusses the potential for the release of
air contaminants from unregulated treatment, storage, and disposal
practices.
With regard to the estimated 24 million metric tons of poten-
tially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes) that
would still be regulated annually under this alternative in 1984, the
less stringent requirements under this alternative would have the
potential for increasing the release of air contaminants from the
8-90
-------
management of these wastes as compared to their management under the
baseline regulations. For example, many of the incineration require-
ments under the baseline regulations apply only to the incineration
of pesticide wastes or to wastes that are hazardous due to toxicity.
The proposed regulations require that such wastes be incinerated at
1,000 C with greater than 2 seconds retention time and greater than 2
percent excess oxygen and that the incineration achieve 99.99 percent
destruction of the principal toxic components of the wastes. Elimi-
nation of the toxicity characteristic under this alternative would
remove the incineration of almost all regulated wastes from compli-
ance with the above requirement.
Only pesticide wastes that are hazardous due to a characteristic
other than toxicity would still have to be incinerated under the
above operating conditions. The incineration would, however, have to
achieve a 99.9 percent destruction efficiency of the principal com-
ponents of the pesticide waste rather than a 99.99 percent destruc-
tion efficiency; thus, there could be up to a 900 percent increase in
the release of the principal components from the incineration of such
pesticide wastes (however, as indicated in Appendix M, incineration
under the conditions specified above can result in better than 99.99
percent destruction of the principal components of many pesticides).
Incineration of other wastes regulated under this alternative that
would have been identified as toxic under the baseline regulations
8-91
-------
(e.g., slop oil emission solids from petroleum refining — see Table
D-7) would also be removed from complying with the incineration
requirements noted above. Thus, under this alternative there would
be a much greater potential for incineration of these wastes to
release hazardous air contaminants.
Furthermore, the incineration of all regulated wastes would be
subject to less stringent requirements for combustion efficiencies
and for halogen removal under this alternative. Required combustion
efficiencies would be reduced from 99.9 percent to 99 percent;
required halogen removal efficiencies would be reduced from 99
percent to 90 percent. Thus, there could be up to a 900 percent
increase in the release of halogens and carbon monoxide under this
alternative. In addition, the reduced combustion efficiencies could
also result in the less complete destruction both of other combustion
products and of hazardous waste constituents with a resultant in-
crease in their release to the atmosphere. Thus, incineration under
this alternative would likely lead to locally higher ambient air
concentrations of many of the hazardous air contaminants generated by
the incineration. However, all emissions and resultant changes in
air quality would have to be in compliance with all applicable
requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards and state standards).
Other changes that would potentially increase the release of air
contaminants from wastes regulated under this alternative include the
removal of the prohibition against placing volatile wastes in
8-92
-------
landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, or storage tanks vented
directly to the atmosphere (see Section 7.1.4.1 for examples of
volatile hazardous wastes). To the extent that regulated volatile
wastes would be stored, treated, or disposed by such methods under
this alternative, there would be an increased release of air contami-
nants as described in Section 7.1.4.1. The application of the Thres-
hold Limit Values (TLV's) as a time-weighted average for a 24-hour
day rather than as a time-weighted average for an 8-hour day and a
40-hour week would allow increased emissions from such non-point
sources as landfills, landfarms, surface impoundments, and storage
areas. The reduction in the minimum distance that active portions of
facilities must be located from the facility boundary, coupled with
the above changes, would likely lead to increased ambient air
concentrations of hazardous emissions beyond the facility boundary.
Increases in the time interval for completing required training would
also increase the potential for personnel to improperly manage
hazardous wastes so as to cause fires, explosions, or other accidents
that could release air contaminants.
It should be noted, however, that there would likely be some
shift in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both
the regulated wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative compared to the methods that would have been used to
manage these wastes under the baseline regulations. For example, the
elimination of restrictions on the management of volatile wastes
could reduce the incineration of such wastes and increase their
8-93
-------
landfilling, relative to the baseline regulations. Such shifts would
change both the types and quantities of air emissions produced by the
management of specific wastes. For example, a shift from incinera-
tion to landfilling of a particular waste would potentially result in
a decrease in the release of combustion products and an increase in
the release of particulate matter and/or gases contained in the
waste. Such shifts could either enhance or reduce the potential for
this alternative to cause increases in the release of specific air
emissions in any given locality. All emissions and any localized
degradation of air quality would have to be in compliance with all
applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act standards, OSHA
standards, state standards).
Climate. Fewer hazardous waste management facilities would
potentially have to be constructed under this alternative than under
the baseline regulations. Thus, there would be fewer localized
impacts to temperatures, humidities, and low-level wind patterns from
such construction.
8.4.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. While the regulations under
this alternative would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to
water quality resulting from generation, storage, transport, treat-
ment and disposal of hazardous wastes, the potential reduction in
impacts would be significantly less than the potential reduction
which would result from implementation of the baseline regulations.
8-94
-------
Many of the potential changes to groundwater and surface water
impacts under this alternative would occur in much the same manner as
the potential changes discussed under air quality. To avoid redun-
dant discussions, such changes are briefly summarized below rather
than discussed in detail. Following this summary, additional major
changes are described.
Since generators would be less likely to make process modifi-
cations designed to increase recycling or to reduce the quantity
and/or types of hazardous wastes generated, this would lead to fewer
changes in water effluents produced by such processes and thus to
fewer changes in groundwater and surface water contamination by such
effluents. With fewer generators being brought under the control of
the program, the potential for such process modifications would be
further decreased. Furthermore, to the extent that this alternative
would bring less storage by generators under the Section 3004
regulations,* the potential for groundwater and surface water
contamination by spills and runoff from storage of these additional
wastes would be increased.
Decreases in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would increase the potential
both for midnight dumping and spills and resultant impacts to
groundwater and surface water quality. However, decreases in the
^Generators who store hazardous wastes for less than 1 year prior to
off-site shipment would not be required to obtain a permit under
this alternative; under the baseline regulations, this permit
exclusion would be limited to 90 days storage.
8-95
-------
average distance over which wastes are transported would decrease the
potential for vehicular accidents and could at least partially off-
set the potential for an increase in spills. The elimination, except
as previously noted, of the requirement that transporters need to
report and clean up spills and that manifests need to contain spill
information would further increase the potential for water quality
impacts to result from such spills under this alternative. Decreased
transport distances would also result in decreased vehicular emis-
sions and in a decreased potential for oil, grease, and the hydrocar-
bons and heavy metals contained in vehicular exhausts to be carried
into waterways by run-off.
One major change in water quality impacts would result from the
removal of 16 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation annually by 1984 under
this alternative as compared to the baseline regulations. These
potentially hazardous wastes would not have to be treated/disposed in
accordance with the Section 3004 regulations, though they could be
subject to applicable regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA and other
State and Federal legislation (e.g., the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act). Based on current practices, most of these
wastes would not be stored, treated, or disposed by methods which are
environmentally acceptable under the Section 3004 regulations. Thus,
the overall potential for groundwater and surface water degradation
would be increased. Section 7.1.5 describes the potential for
surface water and groundwater impacts from the treatment/disposal of
8-96
-------
such wastes under current practices and requirements. Many of the
incidents reported in that section involve toxic wastes which would
not be regulated under this alternative. These include all incidents
exclusively involving pesticides or heavy metals (e.g., the Moscow
Mills, Missouri endrin incident, and the groundwater contamination
incident involving chromium and cadmium from an aircraft plant in
South Farmindale, Long Island). Similar types of incidents would
also not be prevented by the regulations under this alternative.
Additional impacts to water quality could also result from the
enactment of less stringent regulations for the treatment/disposal of
the 24 million metric tons of potentially hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) that would still be under control of
the program annually. This alternative decreases the required
minimum distance between the active portions of facilities and water
supplies; allows the use of more permeable soil liners for surface
impoundments and landfills; limits groundwater monitoring require-
ments to facilities which have the potential to discharge to under-
ground drinking water sources; eliminates quarterly groundwater mon-
itoring while retaining the requirement for annual monitoring; and
decreases the time requirement for post close-out care. To the ex-
tent that more permeable liners would allow more rapid movement of
leachates and that less frequent monitoring would delay detection of
liner failure, there would be an increased potential for degradation
and contamination of groundwater and of surface waters recharged by
the groundwater. Similarly, the other changes would also increase
8-97
-------
the potential for undetected groundwater and surface water degra-
dation.
It should be noted, however, that there could be shifts in the
type of methods used to treat/dispose regulated wastes and wastes re-
moved from regulation under this alternative, compared to methods
used under the baseline regulations. As previously discussed, such
shifts could result in localized changes in the release of specific
water pollutants under this alternative, compared to the baseline re-
gulations.
8.4.1.6 Public Health Impacts. This alternative would have the
potential to reduce the public health benefits that would be derived
from the baseline regulations. The impacts to public health under
the baseline regulations are discussed in Section 7.1.6.
Approximately 16 million metric tons of potentially hazardous
industrial wastes would be removed from regulation annually by 1984
under this alternative as compared to the baseline regulations. This
decrease would primarily be attributable to the large quantity of
toxic substances that would be excluded from regulation. Based upon
current practices, a large portion of these wastes would potentially
be stored, transported, treated, and disposed in a manner that was
not environmentally acceptable under the regulations. Also through
the imposition of less stringent standards, there would be a greater
potential for the regulated wastes to release air, water, and soil
contaminants that could cause adverse public health impacts (see
8-98
-------
Sections 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5, and 8.4.2.1). The removal of all toxic
wastes from regulation would result in many wastes that are known or
suspected to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic being ex-
cluded from regulation. Of particular concern is the possibility for
the occurrence of additional disasters similiar to that of Love Canal
in Niagara, New Falls, New York (see Section 7.1.6). In that inci-
dent, an undeterminable quantity of toxic chemicals had been im-
properly disposed, homes had been built adjacent to the disposal
site, and numerous public health problems resulted.
An example of wastes containing potentially toxic substances,
such as cadmium or chromium compounds, that might not be regulated
under this alternative, but that could be controlled under the base-
line regulations is as follows:
• An aircraft plant in Nassau County, New York generated and
disposed large quantities of electroplating wastes containing
chromium, cadmium, and other metals during World War II.
An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 gallons per day of these
wasteswere discharged into unlined disposal pits throughout
the 1940's. Groundwater contamination by chromium was first
noted in 1942 by the Nassau County Department of Health.
Subsequent studies indicated that a Hugh plume of contami-
nated groundwater had been formed, extending from the surface
of the water table to depths of 50 to 70 feet below the sur-
face. In 1962, test wells revealed concentrations of hexava-
lent chromium up to 14 ppra, and concentrations of cadmium up
to 3.7 ppm. The contaminated plume cannot be removed or de-
toxified without massive efforts and will take many more
years of natural attentuation and dilution before it becomes
usuable again. Meanwhile, it is still slowly moving,
threatening a nearby creek and other wells in the area
(Tinlin, 1976; State of Minnesota, 1977).
For purposes of comparison with regard to this incident, the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for chromium is .01
8-99
-------
ppm and .05 ppm for cadmium, respectively. While the harmful effects
of this incident are believed to be limited to groundwater contamina-
tion, it is important to note that the incident which began in the
1940's continued for over two decades. Although hexavalent chromium
has been found to be toxic to some aquatic species, information on
its chronic effects to humans is limited almost entirely to data on
occupational health effects. Lung cancer, ulceration, and perfora-
tion of the nasal septum, and other respiratory complications and
skin effects have been observed (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976a). In 1941, it was reported that a group of 29 school
children experienced violent nausea after eating popsicles containing
13 to 15 ppm of cadmium (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976a).
8.4.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of this
alternative would result primarily from the removal of approximately
16 million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes (plus other
hazardous wastes) from regulation annually by 1984; the enactment of
less stringent environmental requirements with regard to storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and potentially lower
increases in storage, treatment, and disposal costs as a result of
these less stringent regulations.
8.4.2.1 Physiography and Soils Impacts. The major change in
impacts to physiography and soils would result from the elimination
8-100
-------
of 16 million metric tons per year of hazardous industrial wastes
(plus other hazardous wastes) from regulation. To the extent that
these wastes would be stored, transported, treated, or disposed by
methods which are not environmentally acceptable under the baseline
regulations, the potential for adverse impacts to soils would be
increased. Section 7.2.1 describes the types of impacts to soils
that could occur from such methods. The potential for adverse
impacts to soils would be further increased by allowing longer
storage of wastes by generators without requiring a permit.
Reductions in the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported
subject to the Subtitle C regulations would increase the potential
both for midnight dumping and spills and for resultant impacts to
soils. However, decreases in the average distance over which wastes
are transported would decrease the potential for vehicular accidents
and could off-set the potential for an increase in spills. Reduced
transport would also result in decreased vehicular emissions and in a
decreased potential for oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and heavy
metals contained in such emissions to be carried onto soils by
run-off.
To the extent, that fewer storage, treatment, or disposal facili-
ties would have to be constructed under this alternative due to a
potential reduction in the off-site process capacity shortfall (see
Section 8.4.2.4), there would be a lesser potential for physical
8-101
-------
impacts to soils and physiography. Allowing the use of more per-
meable soil liners would allow more disposal sites to use natural,
in-place soils, and would therefore reduce the demand for, and
impacts of off-site excavation of clays. Less land and soil would
also be disturbed by facility construction and by conjunctive devel-
opments such as construction of roads, power lines, pipelines, and
housing. However, these reduced land requirements would be off-set
to the extent that land would still be required for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of the wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative. Potential impacts to soils and physiography from
construction would be essentially the same as those described in
Section 7.2.1.
8.4.2.2 Biological Impacts. Land requirements for facility
construction and operation and for conjunctive developments would be
reduced under this alternative. As a result, the potential for
adverse impacts to flora, fauna, and ecological systems from land dis-
turbance would also be reduced. In addition, the reduction in the
transport of hazardous wastes could lead to a reduction in road
kills.
These potential benefits to the biological environment would,
however, be off-set by several other changes that could occur under
this alternative. Approximately 16 million metric tons of poten-
tially hazardous industrial wastes (plus other hazardous wastes)
8-102
-------
would be removed annually from regulation. Based upon current
practices, a large portion of these wastes would potentially be
stored, transported, treated, or disposed in a manner that was not
environmentally acceptable under the baseline regulations. To the
extent that these wastes were to be handled in such a manner, the
potential for adverse impacts to the biological environment would be
increased. Section 7.2.2 describes the types of impacts that could
occur from practices not regulated under Subtitle C.
It should be noted, however, that in removing these wastes from
regulation, there could be shifts in the methods used to treat/dis-
pose these wastes. This could result in localized changes in the
quantity of specific air, land, and water residuals generated by the
treatment/disposal of these wastes as described in Section 8.3.1.4.
The potential for increased adverse biological impacts from these
residuals would be modified to the extent of any such shifts.
For those hazardous wastes that would still be controlled under
this alternative, the potential for water quality impacts, and sub-
sequent adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems and to wildlife using
contaminated water supplies, would be increased by the use of more
permeable liners and by other changes discussed in Section 8.4.1.5.
The potential for air quality impacts, and subsequent adverse eco-
logical impacts, would be increased as discussed in Section 8.4.1.4.
Furthermore, the potential for impacts to soils, and subsequent
8-103
-------
adverse impacts to biological productivity, would be increased as
discussed in Section 8.4.2.1.
8.4.2.3 Social Impacts.
Demographic Impacts. Fewer industrial plant closings or reloca-
tions due to lesser increases in costs under this alternative could
lead to fewer population shifts as described in Section 7.2.3.1. In
addition, there would be a decrease in the number of construction
workers required due to the lesser amount of facility modification
and construction necessary under this alternative; there would be a
reduction in the number of personnel required for hazardous waste
management activities due to both the less stringent operational
requirements and the decrease in wastes being regulated; and there
would be a decrease in the number of personnel required to administer
and enforce the regulations due to reductions in both the quantity of
hazardous wastes and the number of generators, disposers, and permit-
tees being regulated. Fewer population shifts could also occur in
response to these reduced personnel requirements as discussed in
Section 7.2.3.1. Any such shifts would be expected to be small on a
national scale; however, there could still be localized instances of
relatively large influxes of workers, particularly for hazardous
waste management facilities located near very small towns, or of
relatively large outfluxes of workers, especially in the case where a
plant being closed constituted the primary source of employment in an
area. Based upon a minimum requirement of 500 workers to handle
8-104
-------
(store, treat, or dispose) a million metric tons of waste per year,
it is estimated that at least 12,000 such workers could be required
nationally by 1984; this would represent about a 40 percent decrease
in this requirement compared to the baseline regulations. About
1,500 to 3,000 of these workers could be required at off-site facili-
ties; about 9,000 to 10,500 of these workers could be required at
on-site facilities. This would represent about a 40 percent decrease
at both types of facilities. To the extent that pesonnel would still
be required to manage the wastes excluded from regulation under this
alternative, there would be a lesser reduction in the number of
workers required nationally.
Social Conditions. The lesser public health benefits to be
derived from this alternative relative to the baseline regulations
would provide fewer social benefits as discussed in Section 7.2.3.2.
Fewer reductions in chronic and acute health effects would also
result in an increase in the social and economic costs associated
with such effects, e.g., increased mortality, birth defects, lowered
productivity, lost wages.
A reduction in population shifts would decrease the potential
for impacts associated with such shifts. However, as discussed in
Section 7.2.3.2, any large, rapid, population influx could still
cause inflation, strains on the existing infrastructure, social
tensions, changes in daily living patterns, and increased physical
and mental disorders. Any large rapid, outflux could still cause
8-105
-------
problems in maintaining existing infrastructures, deflation, ad-
ditional unemployment, social stress, changes in daily living pat-
terns, and increased mental and physical health problems.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous
waste management facilities could be reduced by the need for fewer
facilities under this alternative. However, any opposition that oc-
curs could be exacerbated by the less stringent environmental re-
quirements for such facilities under this alternative.
Decreases in the construction of hazardous waste management
facilities and in the off-site transport of hazardous wastes could
result in several beneficial social effects. Reductions in facility
construction would eliminate the potential for noise impacts,
aesthetic impacts, land use impacts, water use impacts, and pressures
on existing infrastructures that could be associated with the facil-
ity. Any decrease in the transport of hazardous wastes would de-
crease the potential for vehicular accidents. Based upon the
methodology and assumptions discussed in Section 7.2.3.2, it is es-
timated that there could be approximately 110 fewer vehicular ac-
cidents annually in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment
and about 340 fewer vehicular accidents in the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment. This would represent about a 40 percent decrease
in vehicular accidents compared to the baseline regulations.
8-106
-------
8.4.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity.
Process Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
described in Section 7.2.4.1, it is estimated that approximately 3.0
million metric tons of regulated hazardous industrial wastes could be
shipped off-site for treatment/disposal in 1980 and that between 3.1
and 6.0 million metric tons could be shipped off-site in 1984. This
would represent a decrease of 2.3 million metric tons of regulated
industrial wastes required to be sent to permitted off-site
facilities in 1980 and a decrease of between 2.2 and 4.0 million
metric tons of regulated industrial wastes required to be sent to
permitted off-site facilities in 1984.
Based upon the estimated 6.2 million metric tons of environment-
ally adequate off-site capacity that could be utilized on a nation-
wide basis in 1980, there would potentially be sufficient capacity on
a nationwide basis to handle the estimated 3.0 million metric tons of
regulated hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site. Even if
there was no growth in environmentally adequate off-site capacity
between 1977 and 1980, there would still potentially be sufficient
capacity on a nationwide basis in 1980. Under the baseline regula-
tions there would also potentially be sufficient off-site capacity
available on a nationwide basis in 1980.
The estimated 7.7 million metric tons of environmentally ade-
quate off-site capacity that could be utilized in 1984 would be
sufficient on a nationwide basis to handle the estimated 3.1 million
8-107
-------
metric tons of regulated hazardous industrial wastes shipped off-site
in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment. Again there would
potentially be sufficient off-site capacity on a nationwide basis
even if there was no growth in capacity between 1977 and 1984. Under
the regulations there would also potentially be sufficient off-site
capacity available on a nationwide basis in 1984.
In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment, sufficient off-site
capacity would also potentially be available on a nationwide basis
for hazardous industrial wastes in 1984. However, without any growth
in environmentally adequate off-site capacity between 1977 and 1984,
there could potentially be a nationwide shortfall of almost 0.5 mil-
lion metric tons in 1984.* In this latter case, 1984 could be the
first year of shortfall. Based upon a utilizable facility capacity
of 60,000 metric tons per year, approximately eight additional off-
site facilities could be required to handle hazardous industrial
waste in 1984 in this latter case. It is estimated that under the
baseline regulations that there could be a nationwide shortfall of
2.6 million metric tons of capacity in 1984 in the former case and of
4.9 million metric tons in the latter case. Thus, approximately 45
fewer permitted off-site facilities could be required for hazardous
industrial waste under this alternative in the former case and 72
fewer permitted off-site facilities could be required in the latter
case, as compared to the baseline regulation.
*The actual shortfall would be 0.4 million metric tons; however, with
a utilization rate of 0.9, approximately 0.5 million metric tons of
capacity would be required.
8-108
-------
Data are not available to estimate the potential for shortfalls
in environmentally adequate on-site process capacity. Industrial
generators could treat/dispose approximately 16.4 million metric tons
of regulated hazardous industrial wastes on-site in 1980 and between
17.3 and 20.2 million metric tons of regulated hazardous industrial
wastes on-site in 1984.* This would represent a decrease of approxi-
mately 12.3 million metric tons of regulated industrial wastes
required to be sent to permitted on-site facilities in 1980 and a
decrease of between 11.5 and 13.4 million metric tons of regulated
wastes required to be sent to permitted on-site facilities in 1984.
It should be noted that less stringent treatment/disposal require-
ments under this alternative would likely result in an increase in
the existing on-site capacity. Any such increase would further
decrease any potential for a shortfall in necessary on-site capacity.
Section 7.2.4.1 discusses other factors that could either lead
to shortfalls or that could exacerbate the size of the estimated
potential shortfall in both on-site and off-site process capacity,
especially on a localized basis. Furthermore, the wastes removed
from regulation would still have to be treated/disposed, both on-site
and off-site. While such wastes could be treated/disposed in
non-permitted facilities, their management could increase the poten-
tial for an overall shortfall in available capacity; however, any
*The remainder of the waste not sent on-site or off-site would be
recycled or sent to resource recovery operations, both on-site and
off-site.
8-109
-------
resultant shortfall would be less than that under the baseline regu-
lations. The less stringent requirement under this alternative would
also increase the number of sites at which facilities could be loca-
ted.
Physical Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
discussed in Section 7.2.4.2, relative to the baseline regulations
there could be an increase of approximately 0.6 million metric tons
in the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during the
period from 1980 through 1984, assuming 13 percent shipment off-site
in 1984, and there could be a decrease of 4.3 million metric tons in
the total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site during this peri-
od, assuming 25 percent shipment off-site in 1984.*
Up to 120 to 240 additional acres could thus be committed to
off-site landfilling of hazardous industrial wastes during this per-
iod in the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and up to 860 to
1,700 fewer acres could be committed to off-site landfilling of
hazardous industrial wastes during this period in the case of 25
percent off-site shipment. In the former case, after 1984 there
could be 65 to 130 additional acres required off-site annually com-
pared to total requirements under the baseline regulations. In the
latter case, after 1984 there could be 320 to 640 fewer acres re-
quired off-site annually compared to the total requirements under the
*In this estimate, it is assumed that under this alternative there
would be 15 percent off-site shipment for those hazardous wastes
that would be regulated under the baseline regulations but which
would not be regulated under this alternative.
8-110
-------
baseline regulations. In all instances there could be commensurate
changes in on-site land requirements.
For purposes of comparison, based upon an average, secure com-
mecial landfill size of 270 acres (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, 1977), these land requirements
would be equivalent to siting about one additional off-site secure
landfill by the end of 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site ship-
ment. In this case, the equivalent of less than one additional off-
site secure landfill could have to be sited annually after 1984 for
hazardous industrial waste. The land requirements would be equiva-
lent to siting three to six fewer off-site secure landfills by the
end of 1984 in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. In this
case, the equivalent of one to two fewer off-site landfills could
have to be sited annually after 1984.
8.4.2.5 Land Use Impacts. Less total land, off-site plus.on-
site, would be required for the construction of any storage, treat-
ment, and disposal facilities needed under this alternative and for
such conjunctive developments as construction of roads, power lines,
and pipelines. Less additional land would be required since fewer
wastes would have to be sent to permitted facilities; the wastes re-
moved from regulation could use existing facilities or other facili-
ties that were not adequate under the baseline regulations. However,
as indicated in Section 8.4.2.4, in the case of 13 percent off-site
8-111
-------
shipment there would be more total hazardous industrial wastes (those
regulated plus those removed from regulation) sent off-site than
there would be in the similar case under the baseline regulations.
Thus, while less total land would be required, there could be more
off-site land use and less on-site land use for hazardous industrial
wastes in this case. In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment,
there would be less total hazardous industrial wastes sent off-site
than there would be in the similar case under the baseline regula-
tions and, thus, there could be less off-site land use and more
on-site land use for hazardous industrial wastes. Estimates of
potential change in off-site land requirements for landfills (and
commensurate changes in on-site land requirements) are presented in
Section 8.4.2.4. Existing land uses would not change on lands
excluded from hazardous waste management under this alternative;
however, there could be localized changes in land use from any
additional shifts to off-site management from on-site management or
to on-site management from off-site management as discussed above.
It should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited on-
site physical capacity and could result in increased pressures for
off-site facilities in the long term. Furthermore, the reduced
potential under this alternative for increases, both in resource
8-112
-------
conservation and recovery and in treatment practices leading to
volume reduction (e.g., incineration), would also provide a lesser
potential for reducing total land requirements, both on-site and
off-site, in the long term.
To the extent that the regulations under this alternative would
result in additional lands being contaminated by improper storage,
treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes, there would be off-
setting adverse impacts to existing land uses. Section 7.2.5 de-
scribes the types of impacts that could occur.
8.4.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The potential for the degradation
of groundwater and surface water quality would be increased under
this alternative as previously discussed. Increased degradation of
water quality would result in a decreased supply of surface water or
groundwater being available to some or all consumers in the water use
area and increased restrictions on the productive use of the water.
Since fewer hazardous waste management facilities could be re-
quired, less water would be required under this alternative for oper-
ation of such facilities. This reduced water requirement would, how-
ever, be off-set to the extent that water would still be consumed in
the management of the wastes removed from regulation.
8.4.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. The major changes
in resource conservation and recovery would result from excluding 16
million metric tons of hazardous manufacturing wastes from control
8-113
-------
under the Subtitle C regulations annually by 1984 and from the rela-
tively lower costs to hazardous waste generators and costs associa-
ted with hazardous waste transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal due to the less stringent requirements under this alterna-
tive. As discussed in Section 7.2.7, these changes would provide
less incentive for generators to modify processes so as to enable
increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks, to re-
duce the quantities of hazardous wastes generated by specific pro-
cesses, or to change the nature of wastes produced. Chapter 5
presents examples of the potential for increased resource recovery
from and recycling of hazardous wastes.
8.4.2.8 Energy Use. Energy use would be impacted under this
alternative by changes in facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, and resource conservation and recovery.
The lesser amount of facility modification and construction that
would be necessary would result in a decrease in energy use. Less
stringent requirements for soil liner permeabilities and for non-
point source air emission releases would further decrease the energy
use associated with facility construction.
There would also be less energy use associated with changes in
facility operation and closure under this alternative. Removal of 16
million metric tons of hazardous industrial wastes (plus other haz-
ardous wastes) from regulation annually by 1984 would reduce energy
8-114
-------
use as discussed in Section 7.2.8. The reduction in the post close-
out period from 20 years to 10 years would decrease the energy use
associated with post close-out care. Less energy would also be
required due to less stringent requirements for such activities as
incineration and leachate and groundwater monitoring.
Previously discussed changes in resource recovery would lead to
other changes in energy use. While any reduction in resource re-
covery would result in less energy being initially required for such
activities, there would be a lesser potential for net energy
savings from resource recovery activities.
The changes in energy use resulting from a reduction in the
transport of hazardous wastes would depend upon such factors as
shifts in the portion of wastes managed on-site and off-site and
changes in transport distances. Based upon the methodology and
assumptions described in Section 7.2.8, Table 8-9 presents estimates
of the magnitude of the potential change in energy use (compared to
that under the baseline regulations) that could occur annually from
changes in transport distances and shifts in off-site and on-site
treatment disposal. The estimated change in energy use under this
alternative ranges from a decrease equivalent to approximately
870,000 barrels of crude oil for a 1,000-mile round-trip distance
with 25 percent off-site treatment/disposal to an increase equivalent
to approximately 7,000 barrels of crude oil for a 100-mile round-trip
distance with 13 percent off-site treatment/disposal.
8-115
-------
TABLE 8-9
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN FUEL CONSUMPTION IN 1984 FROM TRANSPORT OF
LESS HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES UNDER SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS
oo
Wastes
transported
off-site
13 percent
25 percent
Average
round- trip
distance
(miles)
100
200
500
1,000
100
200
500
1,000
Change in fuel consumption
(million gallons)
+0.3
-2
-7
-17
-2
-5
-15
-35
Crude oil
equivalent *
(1,000 barrels)
+7
-40
-180
-420
-40
-130
-370
-870
^Assumes 95 percent efficiency in producing diesel fuel from crude oil.
-------
There could also be fewer reductions in energy production due to
the reduced costs associated with management of wastes from such
activities and due to the exclusion of 'special wastes' from regula-
tion; many special wastes are generated by energy production activi-
ties. There could also be fewer changes in fuels used by facilities.
This could result in reduced impacts to energy supply/demand rela-
tionships.
8.4.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. To the extent that
treatment/disposal of the wastes removed from regulation under this
alternative would disturb, destroy, or intrude upon special interest
points, there would be less of a reduction in adverse effects to such
special interest points as discussed in Section 7.2.9. However, to
the extent that fewer lands, especially off-site lands, would be dis-
turbed for facility construction and operation and for conjunctive
developments under this alternative, there would be a lesser poten-
tial for the disturbance and/or destruction of sites of aesthetic,
archaeological, historical, paleontological, or recreational value.
8.5 Potential Changes in Impacts Resulting from the Phase I Alterna-
tive
This section discusses the potential changes in impacts (rela-
tive to those of the baseline regulations) that could occur from the
promulgation of the regulations contained in the Phase I Alternative.
To avoid considerable duplication in the presentation, potential
impacts that would not be changed under this alternative are not
repeated. Only major changes in potential impacts are discussed.
T
8-117
-------
One of Che major changes under this alternative is the addition
of Interim Status Standards (see Table 4-4). The Interim Status
Standards represent the minimum requirements with which an existing
treatment, storage, or disposal facility must comply until admini-
strative disposition of the facility's permit application is made.
The Interim Status Standards would apply to all activities affecting
any hazardous waste handled at such a facility after the effective
date of the regulations. Under the baseline regulations existing
facilities would not be required to modify their present practices
until after being issued a permit.
8.5.1 Primary Impacts. The major changes to primary impacts
that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative
are discussed in the following sections:
• Hazardous Wastes to be Regulated;
• Changes to Existing Generation, Transporation, Storage, Treat-
ment, and Disposal Practices and Procedures;
• Administrative Changes;
• Air Impacts;
• Water Impacts;
• Public Health Impacts.
8.5.1.1 Hazardous Waste to be Regulated. Under this alterna-
tive several modifications would affect the quantity of waste that is
subject to Subtitle C requirements, as compared to the baseline
regulations. These modifications relate to the following:
• Generator limit;
8-118
-------
• Corrosivity characteristic;
• Toxicity characteristic;
• Listed wastes;
• Wastes that are re-used;
• 'Special wastes';
• Farm wastes;
• Retail wastes.
Each of the above would affect the quantity of waste subject to
the Subtitle C regulations in different ways. General effects are
discussed first. Specific changes with regard to the regulation of
manufacturing wastes, 'special wastes', and non-manufacturing wastes
are then summarized. Changes are quantified to the extent that data
permit; however, most of this discussion is necessarily qualitative.
EFA staff estimates are that the net effect of all the above modifi-
cations would likely be a slight decrease in the quantity of waste
regulated under this alternative, as compared to the baseline regula-
tions.
General Changes. The first five modifications listed above
would affect wastes generated by all sources (i.e., manufacturing
wastes, 'special wastes', and non-manufacturing wastes) and are
discussed in this section. Each of these modifications, except for
changes in listed wastes, would act to reduce the quantity of waste
subject to regulation. The last three modifications listed above
would relate only to the wastes specified and are discussed in
8-119
-------
subsequent sections. It should be noted that the overall effects of
the individual modifications would be somewhat duplicative in that
some of the same wastes would likely be excluded from regulation by
more than one modification.
Under the baseline regulations, the generator limit would be 100
kilograms per month. Under this alternative, the generator limit
would be raised to 1,000 kilograms per month during the first 2 to 5
years following implementation of the regulations. At the end of
this period, the generator limit would again be set at 100 kilograms
per month. During this initial period, almost all hazardous wastes
from each source generating a total of between 100 and 1,000 kilo-
grams of hazardous waste per month would be excluded from regulation.
Based on Sections 7.1.1 and 8.4.1.1, the net effect of this change is
estimated to be a slight reduction in the quantity of waste being
regulated. There would, however, be two categories of wastes which
would not be subject to this new generator limit. The first category
consists of those listed waste for which a separate, lower exclusion
limit is specified.* The second category consists of those wastes
which result from discarding any quantity of specified commercial
chemical products and manufacturing chemical intermediates,' from
discarding over 10 kilograms of containers and liners used for these
chemical products and intermediates, and from discarding over 100
*There are no such exclusion limits specified at this time, however.
tSee Section 4.5.
8-120
-------
kilograms of spill clean-up residues from these products and interme-
diates. Except for the spill clean-up residues, the portion of
hazardous waste that is generated from these products and intermedi-
ates at a rate in excess of the limits indicated above, but at a rate
of less than 100 kilograms per month, would constitute an additional
quantity of waste not previously controlled under the baseline reg-
ulations. The control of these two additional categories of wastes
would off-set some of the reduction in regulated waste that results
from raising the generator limit under this alternative.
Modifications to the characteristics for corrosivity and toxi-
city would also reduce, by an indeterminable amount, the quantity of
waste regulated under this alternative, as compared to the baseline
regulations. The pH limits for identifying an aqueous waste as a
corrosive waste would be narrowed. Wastes with a pH between 2 and 3,
or between 12 and 12.5, would not be regulated as a corrosive waste
under this alternative. The concentrations of contaminants in the
extract used to identify a waste as toxic waste would also be rais-
ed.* Wastes whose extract contains a concentration of any speci-
fied contaminant that is between 10 and 100 times its EPA Primary
*Under this alternative, wastes meeting the toxicity characteristic
are defined as Type I toxic wastes to distinguish them from other
wastes that are listed as toxic based on criteria other than this
toxicity characteristic (see Table 4-4). To be consistent with
other portions of the EIS, the Type I toxic waste is referred to as
toxic waste in this section, and the other listed toxic wastes are
referred to as general toxic wastes.
8-121
-------
Drinking Water Standard would not be regulated as a toxic waste under
this alternative.
Changes in the quantity of wastes to be regulated would also
result from modifications to the criteria for listing hazardous waste
and modifications to the lists themselves. The criterion of Admini-
strator's Judgment for listing wastes would be eliminated and
replaced by a set of specific criteria for listing waste. Little or
no change in the quantity of waste regulated is expected from this
change since it is essentially a formalization of the decision pro-
cess implicitly used under the baseline regulations.
The lists of hazardous wastes from specific and non-specific
sources and the list of infectious waste would all be modified under
this alternative. Wastes would be both added to and deleted from the
lists. Many of the additional wastes listed would be included based
upon the criteria of general toxicity (as opposed to the toxicity
characteristic) and, thus, would not have been controlled under the
baseline regulations. To the extent that any other wastes that are
added to the lists would previously have been hazardous under the
baseline characteristics, there would be essentially no change in the
quantity of such wastes being regulated. Similarly, to the extent
that any wastes deleted from the lists would still be hazardous under
the characteristics of this alternative, there would also be essen-
tially no change in the quantity of such wastes being regulated. The
net effect of these changes in listed wastes is estimated to be an
8-122
-------
increase in the quantity of such wastes being regulated under this
alternative, as compared to the baseline regulations.
With regard to waste materials that are both re-used and whose
re-use constitutes disposal (e.g., wastes incinerated for energy
recovery or re-used in road construction or as a soil conditioner),
there would be a significant reduction in the quantity of such wastes
regulated under this alternative. Under the baseline regulations,
specified waste oils and any other hazardous waste whose re-use con-
stitutes disposal would be subject to the regulations. Under this
alternative, only specified waste materials* that are used, re-
used, or stored for use or re-use would be subject to the regula-
tions. Waste materials that are not specified would be excluded from
regulation if used, re-used, or stored for use or re-use. Waste oil
used for purposes other than material recovery or energy recovery is
the only waste specified for regulation under this alternative.t
Examples of wastes which, if identified as hazardous, would be
excluded from regulation by this change include waste oils' and sol-
vents incinerated for energy recovery; coal ash used for road con-
struction, as a soil conditioner, and as a de-icing agent on roads;
cement kiln dust used for soil conditioning and road construction;
*Waste materials include by-products as well as wastes.
tit is anticipated that additional materials would be specified;
any such additional listing would off-set some of the reduction in
waste being regulated as a result of this modification.
8-123
-------
and iron and steel slags used for road construction, for landfilling,
and as railroad ballast.
Specific Changes.
Manufacturing Waste. Under the baseline regulations, it is
estimated that approximately 35 and 40 million metric tons of manu-
facturing waste could be subject to the Subtitle C regulations in
1980 and 1984, respectively. Except for the change in listed wastes,
each modification discussed above would tend to reduce the quantity
of manufacturing waste that is subject to regulation under this
alternative. While the specific impact of most of these modifica-
tions is not quantifiable, it is estimated that there would likely be
a net reduction in the quantity of manufacturing waste being con-
trolled, as compared to the baseline regulations.
The change in the generator limit could result in a small (i.e.,
less than 0.1%) decrease in the quantity of manufacturing waste regu-
lated during the first 2 to 5 years. Based upon Tables 7-2 and 8-7,
this change could result in approximately 340,000 metric tons of man-
ufacturing wastes being excluded from regulation during each of the
first 2 to 5 years. There would be a total reduction of between 0.7
and 1.7 million metric tons of manufacturing waste being regulated
during this period as a result of this change. However, some of this
reduction would be off-set by the increased control of specified com-
mercial chemical products and manufacturing chemical intermediates.
8-124
-------
Modification of the characteristics for corrosivity and toxicity
would also reduce, by an indeterminable amount, the quantity of manu-
facturing wastes being regulated. For example, some lime treated
sludges would be excluded by the change in the corrosivity character-
istic.
There would also be a significant reduction in the regulation of
those hazardous waste materials that are re-used in a manner consti-
tuting disposal. For example, approximately 30 million metric tons
of iron and steel slags were re-used in such a manner in 1976 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1979). Data are not available to
estimate the portion of such slags or any other re-used waste materi-
als (e.g., oils and solvents) that could be considered hazardous
under the regulations and that could, thus, be excluded from regula-
tion under this alternative.
Modifications to the listed wastes are estimated to result in a
net increase in manufacturing wastes that would be subject to the
regulations. For example, pesticide production wastes, PCB's and PCB
items, and additional organic chemical wastes would be added to the
hazardous waste lists. Cooling tower sludges, non-stabilized sewage
treatment sludges, and copper production slags would be deleted.
Special Waste. The baseline regulations specify six, large vol-
ume, 'special wastes' that, if identified as hazardous, would be
subject to a limited subset of the regulations. Under this alterna-
tive, all hazardous 'special wastes', except for uranium mining and
8-125
-------
phosphate rock mining, beneficiation, and processing wastes, would
now be subject to the full set of Subtitle C regulations.* The
uranium mining and phosphate mining, beneficiation, and processing
wastes would still be subject to a limited subset of the regulations,
though modified from the baseline regulations (see Table 4-4).
Changes in the generator limit and corrosivity and toxicity
characteristics and in the control of waste materials that are
re-used would reduce, by an indeterminable amount, the total quantity
of all 'special wastes' that are subject to regulation under this
alternative. For example, approximately 13 million metric tons of
coal ash were re-used in 1977 (The Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group and The Edison Electric Institute, 1979). Data are not avail-
able to estimate the portion of any coal ash or other re-used waste
materials that could be considered hazardous under the regulations
and that could thus be excluded from regulation under this alterna-
tive. An exclusion added for in-situ mining wastes would further
reduce the quantity of 'special waste1 being regulated. Changes in
listed wastes would not effect the quantity of 'special wastes' being
regulated.
The net effect would be an increase in 'special wastes' being
subject to the full set of regulations, but a decrease in the total
quantity of 'special wastes' being subject to any regulation.
*It should be noted that several bills are presently pending in
Congress to exempt, at least temporarily, most 'special wastes' from
any regulation under Subtitle C.
8-126
-------
Non-Manufacturing Waste. The net effect of this alternative is
estimated to be a reduction in the quantity of non-manufacturing
wastes being regulated, as compared to the baseline regulations.
The changes in the generator limit and the corrosivity and
toxicity characteristics and in the control of waste materials that
are re-used would reduce the quantity of non-manufacturing wastes
subject to regulation by an indeterminable amount.* The change in
listed wastes would also reduce the quantity of non-manufacturing
wastes regulated. The list of infectious wastes would be more speci-
fic, resulting in fewer wastes from hospitals, veterinary hospitals,
and medical and research laboratories being identified as hazardous.
Cooling tower sludges would also be deleted from the lists while
PCB's and PCB items would be added. Leachate from hazardous waste
disposal facilities would also be added to the list; however, it is
anticipated that most of this leachate would previously have been
identified as hazardous under the baseline regulations.
Other changes would result in less waste from commercial estab-
lishments being subject to regulation. Under the baseline regula-
tions waste automotive oil is the only waste from commercial estab-
lishments that would be subject to control. The waste'automotive oil
*A recent study (TRW, 1979) estimates that changing the generator
limit from 100 kilograms per month to 1,000 kilograms per month
could exclude about 15 percent of non-manufacturing wastes from
regulation. However, much of this non-manufacturing waste is
generated by commercial establishments and, as such, would already
have been excluded under the baseline regulations.
8-127
-------
from commercial establishments would be excluded from regulation
under this alternative. However, control of waste chemical commer-
cial products generated by commercial establishments would off-set
some of this reduction in the control of commercial waste.
Under the baseline regulations, persons engaged principally in
farming would be subject to the regulations only with regard to the
generation of waste automotive oil. Under this alternative, such
persons would be regulated with regard to all hazardous waste gener-
ated, except waste pesticides.* Consequently, there would be an
increase in the quantity of farm wastes regulated when the generator
limit is lowered to 100 kilograms per month. However, during the
initial 2 to 5 year period when the generator limit is raised to
1,000 kilograms per month, there likely would be a net reduction in
farm wastes regulated, as compared to the baseline regulations.
8.5.1.2 Changes to Generation, Transport, Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Practices. Changes to generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal practices would likely occur under this
alternative due to the changes in wastes being regulated; due to
implementation of the Interim Status Standards; due to revisions in
procedural and operational requirements; and due to resultant changes
in the cost of hazardous waste generation and in storage, treatment,
and disposal costs.
*Waste pesticide would be excluded from regulation provided it is
generated by the farmer's own use and is managed as specified in
Table 4-4.
8-128
-------
In general, there would be some significant differences between
those changes related to the management of hazardous 'special wastes'
and those changes related to the management of all other hazardous
wastes. These differences would be the result of the requirement
that most hazardous 'special wastes' comply with the full set of
Subtitle C standards under this alternative, rather than the limited
set of standards specified under the baseline regulations. All other
hazardous wastes are already required to comply with the full set of
regulations. As a result, the changes related to 'special wastes'
and the changes related to all other hazardous wastes are discussed
separately throughout this section.
Generation. There would be changes in those generators that are
required to comply with the generator regulations. A number of
generators would be excluded from regulation under this alternative.
These generators include those who, during the first 2 to 5 years,
generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month of almost any
identified hazardous waste; those who generate only wastes deleted
from the baseline hazardous waste lists; those who generate only
wastes no longer identified as hazardous under the revised corrosiv-
ity and toxicity characteristics; those who general only wastes that
are re-used in a manner constituting disposal; and those commercial
sources generating only waste automotive oil. A number of additional
generators would also be required to comply with the generator regu-
lations. These generators include those who generate only wastes
8-129
-------
added to the baseline hazardous waste lists; those who only import
hazardous wastes into the jurisdiction of the U.S.; those who gener-
ate only wastes from the specified commercial chemical products; and
those fanners who only generate hazardous waste other than automotive
oil or pesticides. Section 8.5.1.3 presents estimates of changes in
the number of generators to be regulated.
Those generators excluded from regulation under this alternative
would no longer be required to modify their existing practices and
procedures, as indicated in Section 7.1.4.1, with regard to manifest-
ing, reporting, recordkeeping, containerization, and labeling. Those
additional generators brought under regulatory control would, on the
other hand, be required to modify their existing practices and proce-
dures. Furthermore, all generators regulated under this alternative
would be subject to reduced manifest requirements and increased
reporting, recordkeeping, and waste accumulation requirements, as
indicated in Table 4-4. For example, generators who do not receive a
signed copy of the manifest from the designated permitted facility
within 35 days after acceptance by the initial transporter would have
to contact the transporter and/or designated facility to determine
the status of the movement.
Furthermore, with the exception of those generators of hazardous
'special wastes,1 there would be less of an incentive for generators
to modify their processes or activities so as to reduce and/or change
the types and amounts of hazardous wastes generated and to enable the
8-130
-------
increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks. This
would be the result of reductions under this alternative in costs to
such hazardous waste generators*; reductions in costs associated
with transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of these
wastes*; reductions in the number of generators being regulated;
and reductions in the quantity of wastes being regulated. Most gen-
erators of hazardous 'special wastes' would, however, have increased
costs for storing, treating, and disposing their wastes since the
wastes would be subject to the full set of regulations instead of a
limited portion. This could provide an increased incentive for some
of these generators to further modify their processes or operations
so as to reduce and/or change the types and amounts of hazardous
waste generated.
Transport. Changes in transport practices and procedures are
discussed first with regard to hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes.1 Changes related to the transport of hazardous 'special
wastes' are then addressed.
Due to expected reductions in the quantity of hazardous wastes,
other than 'special wastes', subject to the generator regulations,
fewer transporters would likely have to comply with the transporter
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.2. There would likely be
increased instances of midnight dumping and spills from transport of
those wastes excluded from regulation. The requirement that
*See the Economic Impact Analysis for Subtitle C, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
8-131
-------
transporters deliver the waste movement only to facilities designated
by the generator, along with the shorter interval for the reporting
of manifests not received from the designated facility would,
however, reduce the potential for any midnight dumping of regulated
wastes. Any decreases in the average distances over which these
regulated wastes are transported under this alternative could lead to
a decrease in vehicular accidents and in resultant spills. This
would off-set some of the increased potential for spills indicated
above. Elimination of the prohibition on transporters accepting
containers that are leaking or that appear damaged could slightly
increase the potential for spills; however, since the transporter
would be responsible for the waste during transport, it would not be
in the transporters interest to accept such containers.
The average distance over which hazardous wastes (other than
'special wastes') are transported would likely decrease due to
several factors. The requirements under this alternative would, to a
small extent, reduce the likelihood of on-site and off-site treat-
ment/disposal facility closure. However, the Interim-Status Stan-
dards could result in those facility closings that do occur taking
place sooner under this alternative than under the baseline regula-
tions. Any increase in available facility capacity would potentially
lead to reduced transport distances. Furthermore, increases in per-
mittable on-site treatment/disposal capacity could result in fewer
wastes being sent off-site. Decreases in treatment/disposal costs
could also reduce the distance over which wastes could be
8-132
-------
economically transported for resource recovery purposes. However,
any reductions in on-site resource conservation and recovery, as
described above, could tend to increase the quantity of waste being
sent off-site.
The replacement of the baseline requirements for spill notifica-
tion and reporting with requirements specified under Department of
Transportation regulations (49 CFR 171) and Coast Guard regulations
(33 CFR 153) would further reduce changes to some existing transport
practices. Interstate and some intrastate shipments of those hazard-
ous wastes that are also identified as DOT hazardous materials are
currently subject to these DOT regulations. Consequently, existing
spill notification and reporting practices would not have to be
modified in the case of spills of such wastes. Also, water (bulk
shipment) transporters are currently subject to the Coast Guard
Regulations for any spill that could threaten navigable waters; any
spill that is into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
contiguous zones; or any spill that may affect applicable natural
resources. Thus, these transporters would not have to modify their
existing spill notification procedures in the event of such spills.
The reporting requirement added under the baseline regulations for
spills by these transporters would also be eliminated under this
alternative.
Other changes would impose additional administrative require-
ments on transporters. Those transporters who ship hazardous waste
8-133
-------
out of the U.S. would be subject to additional reporting and record-
keeping requirements. Water (non-bulk shipment) transporters would
have to obtain signatures for intramodal transfers of hazardous
waste. All transporters would be required to obtain signatures
immediately upon delivery of the waste to the designated facility,
instead of within 5 days as allowed under the baseline regulations.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes,1 there would be a les-
ser quantity of such waste subject to regulation under this alterna-
tive. However, there could be a net increase in the quantity of
hazardous special wastes being sent off-site and, thus, in the number
of transporters of 'special wastes' who would be required to comply
with the transporter regulations previously discussed. Currently,
'special wastes' are typically managed at on-site facilities.
Imposition of the full set of Subtitle C regulations could result
in the closing of some of these on-site facilities; this could lead
to increased off-site shipments of hazardous 'special wastes.'
Increased off-site shipments could potentially result in increased
spills of such wastes and increased vehicular accidents.
Transport practices for those hazardous 'special wastes' already
shipped off-site under the baseline regulations would be modified in
a manner similar to that discussed above for hazardous wastes other
than 'special wastes.1
8-134
-------
Storage. Changes in storage practices and procedures are dis-
cussed first with regard to hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes.1 Changes related to the storage of hazardous 'special
wastes' are then addressed.
Due to anticipated reductions in both the number of generators
and the quantity of hazardous wastes (other than 'special wastes')
regulated under this alternative, it is likely that fewer storage
facilities handling such wastes would have to comply with the storage
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.3. As a result, fewer of
these facilities could be required to be modified or closed. Those
closings or modifications that do occur could, however, take place
sooner under this alternative due to the requirements of the Interim
Status Standards. Facilities excluded from regulation under this
alternative would not have to change existing storage practices.
However, for those facilities still regulated, compliance with the
Interim Status Standards could necessitate earlier implementation of
required changes to existing practices. Regulated facilities would
also have to comply with the modified requirements contained in Table
4-4.
With regard to hazardous 'special waste,' there would be a
lesser quantity of such wastes subject to regulation under this
alternative. Thus, fewer facilities storing these wastes would have
to comply with the storage requirements. However, for those facili-
ties still regulated, compliance with the full set of storage
requirements would likely lead to additional changes in existing
8-135
-------
practices, similar to chose discussed in Section 7.1.2.3, and to
additional modifications and closings. These facilities would also
have to implement some required changes sooner, in accordance with
the Interim Status Standards.
Treatment/Disposal. Changes in treatment/disposal practices are
discussed first with regard to hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes.1 Changes related to the treatment/disposal of hazardous
'special wastes' are then addressed.
Due to anticipated reductions in both the number of generators
and quantity of hazardous waste (other than 'special wastes') regu-
lated under this alternative, it is likely that fewer treatment/dis-
posal facilities would have to comply with the treatment/disposal
regulations discussed in Section 7.1.2.4. As a result, fewer facili-
ties would be closed because they could not comply with the regula-
tions or could not be economically modified. Those closings or
modifications that do occur could take place sooner, however, due to
the requirements of the Interim Status Standards. To the extent that
fewer on-site facilities were closed and fewer wastes and generators
were regulated, there would be a potential for fewer wastes to be
sent off-site for treatment/disposal. However, reductions in on-site
resource conservation and recovery practices, as described above,
could tend to off-set any such change in wastes being sent off-site.
Facilities excluded from regulations would not have to change
existing treatment/disposal practices. However, for those facilities
still regulated, compliance with the Interim Status Standards could
8-136
-------
necessitate the earlier implementation of some changes to existing
practices. In addition, regulated facilities would now also have to
comply with the other modified requirements contained in Table 4-4.
Some of these requirements would be more stringent than those of the
baseline regulations. For example, the period for post-closure care
would be increased from a period not to exceed 20 years to a period
of at least 30 years in most cases. Other requirements would be less
stringent. For example, all Human Health and Environmental Standards
and all requirements to comply with such standards would be elimi-
nated. And still other requirements would be essentially equivalent
to baseline requirements in their effect, but would be more flexible
in their application. For example, the requirement that the active
portion of a facility must be surrounded by a fence or barrier would
be replaced by several options for insuring equivalent site security.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes,1 there would be a les-
ser quantity of such waste subject to regulation under this alterna-
tive. Thus, fewer facilities treating/ disposing these wastes would
have to comply with the treatment/disposal regulations. However, for
those facilities still regulated, compliance with the full set of
treatment/disposal requirements would likely lead to additional
changes in existing practices, similar to those discussed in Section
7.1.2.4, and to additional facility modifications and closings.
These facilities would also have to implement some of these changes
sooner, in accordance with the Interim Status Standards. To the
extent that existing on-site facilities were closed, increased
8-137
-------
quantities of hazardous special wastes could be sent off-site. The
regulated facilities would also have to comply with the modified
requirements contained in Table 4-4.
8.5.1.3 Administrative Changes. Several changes in the admini-
stration of the hazardous waste management program would result from
promulgation of the regulations within this alternative. These regu-
lations would affect:
• State administration of the program;
• Overlapping Federal and state programs;
• Number of generators required to comply with the regulations;
• Number of transporters required to comply with the regula-
tions;
• Number of storers, treaters, and disposers required to obtain
permits;
• Paperwork requirements.
State Administration of the Program. It is likely that there
would be little change in the number of states applying for interim
and full authorization under this alternative. Reductions in both
the quantity of wastes being regulated and the number of generators,
storers, treaters, and disposers being regulated would lead to some
reduced administrative and manpower requirements for authorized
states and could increase the willingness of a few states to apply
for authorization. The revisions contained in Table 4-4 are based,
in part, upon public comments received on the proposed Subtitle C
requlations and as such could also increase the willingness of some
states to apply for authorization. However, those revisions include
8-138
-------
less stingent requirements, more stingent requirements, and equiva-
lent but more flexible requirements than those of the baseline regu-
lations. While these changes could make some states more willing to
apply for authorization, they could make some other states less
willing to apply.
Partial authorization would be eliminated. As a result, some
states that might have applied for partial authorization could
attempt to become eligible to qualify for full authorization. How-
ever, others could decide not to apply for either interim or full
authorization.
Overlapping Federal and State Programs. The elimination of par-
tial authorization could increase the potential for a few states to
enact one or more components of an independent, hazardous waste pro-
gram. However, the revised regulations under this alternative would
not be expected to significantly impact the number of states desiring
to enact their own independent programs. It is not possible at this
time to estimate the nuber of states, if any, that would wish to have
independent programs or program components in addition to the Federal
program under .this alternative.
Number of Generators Required to Comply With the Regulations.
As indicated in Section 8.5.1.2, there would likely be a net reduc-
tion in the total number of generators required to comply with the
regulations.
The increase in the generator limit could result in approxi-
mately 105,000 additional manufacturing generators being excluded
8-139
-------
from compliance with the regulations during the first 2 to 5 years
(see Tables 7-2 and 8-7). The total number of manufacturing genera-
tors excluded during this period would represent about 60 percent of
all manufacturing generators; however, they are estimated to generate
less than 1 percent of the total hazardous manufactuing wastes. On
balance, some additional manufacturing generators could also be ex-
cluded by the other changes discussed in Section 8.5.1.1, however
data are not sufficient to estimate the number of any such additional
exclusions.
Commercial facilities generating waste automotive oil would be
excluded from regulation under this alternative. As a result, ap-
proximately 50,000 automotive service stations, plus those persons
assuming liability for waste automotive oil generators, could be
excluded from regulation (see Section 7.1.3.3). About 5,800 research
faciliteies could be excluded during the first 2 to 5 years due to
the revision in the generator limits (see Section 8.4.1.3). An inde-
terminable number of other non-manufacturing generators would also be
affected. For example, additional numbers of farmers, hazardous
waste importers, and facilities generating wastes from commercial
chemical products would be required to comply with the regulations.
Other non-manufacturing generators would be excluded by changes in
the corrosivity and toxicity characteristics and in the listed
wastes. In addition, an indeterminable number of 'special waste1
generators would be excluded by the changes discussed in Section
8.5.1.1.
8-140
-------
Under the baseline regulations, approximately 270,000 to 300,000
generators are identified as potentially having to comply with the
regulations (see Section 7.1.3.3). Based upon the additional exclu-
sions discussed above, during the first 2 to 5 years, on the order of
110,000 to 140,000 identified generators could be required to comply
with the regulations under this alternative. This would represent
nearly a 60 percent reduction in identifiable generators. At the end
of this 2 to 5 year period, on the order of 220,000 to 250,000 iden-
tified generators could be required to comply. This would represent
over a 15 percent reduction. As discussed above, there would also be
an indeterminable reduction in the number of other generators who
would be required to comply with the regulations.
Number of Transporters Required to Comply with the Regulations.
The reduction in the amounts of regulated hazardous wastes (other
than 'special wastes') that would potentially be transported off-site
would likely result in an indeterminable decrease in the number of
transporters carrying these hazardous wastes. The increased amounts
of regulated 'special wastes' that could potentially be transported
off-site would likely result in an increase in the number of trans-
porters carrying these wastes.
Number of Storers, Treaters. and Disposers Required to Obtain
Permits. Since there are no permit exclusions under the baseline
regulations for storage, treatment, or disposal facilities that han-
dle only small quantities of hazardous wastes, all facilities storing
8-141
-------
treating, or disposing hazardous wastes would be required to obtain a
o
permit under the baseline regulations with the exception of genera-
tors who accumulate wastes on-site for less than 90 days prior to
off-site transport. Thus, the only facilities that would be entirely
excluded from the requirements to obtain a permit under this alterna-
tive would be those facilities that handle only those wastes that
would be classified as hazardous under the baseline regulations, but
that would not be classified as hazardous under this alternative. In
addition, facilities receiving wastes only from generators producing
between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes would
be excluded from the requirement to obtain a permit during the first
2 to 5 years of the program. The only additional facilities that
would be required to obtain a permit under this alternative would be
those facilities that handle wastes that would not be classified as
hazardous under the baseline regulations, but that would be classifi-
ed as hazardous under this alternative. On balance, the number of
facilities requiring permits is expected to be slightly reduced, as
compared to the baseline regulations. However, facilities managing
'special wastes' would now have to comply with the full set of treat-
ment, storage, and disposal regulations.
Paperwork Requirements. The information required on manifests
would be reduced under this alternative as indicated in Table 4-4.
Based upon the expected change in off-site shipments of hazardous
waste, generators of hazardous 'special wastes' could have to prepare
8-142
-------
additional manifests under this alternative. The aggregated gen-
erators, transporters, and hazardous waste management facility
owners/operators handling these wastes would also have to keep the
additional manifests in storage for 3 years. There would, however,
likely be a net reduction in the number of manifests that would be
prepared by generators of other hazardous wastes. The aggregated
generators, transporter, and hazardous waste management facility
owners/operators handling these latter wastes would also have to keep
fewer manifests in storage. The total number of manifests prepared
and stored would be less during the first 2 to 5 years than in the
following years.
The generators previously identified would have to prepare
110,000 to 140,000 reports on an annual basis during the first 2 to 5
years and 220,000 to 250,000 reports on annual basis therafter; this
would represent nearly a 60 percent decrease in annual reporting dur-
ing the first period and over a 15 percent decrease thereafter.
Generators would also be subject to additional recordkeeping and
reporting requirements under this alternative. Copies of annual
reports, exception reports, test results, waste analyses, and other
required records (see Table 4-4) would have to be retained for at
least 3 years. Following the first 2 to 5 year period, over 660,000
to 750,000 of each of these records could be kept in storage on an
annual basis. For international shipments, generators would have to
comply with the additional rporting requirements in Table 4-4 (e.g.,
notifying the Regional Administrator two weeks before the initial
8-143
-------
shipment to any foreign country in each year). However, these
generators would have to report on international shipments annually,
rather quartherly as under the baseline regulations. Generators who
designate hazardous waste for off-site management at a facility which
the generator owns and which is located in the same state in which
waste generation occurs would also be required to prepare annual
reports and exception reports and to retain copies of manifests under
this alternative, but not under the baseline regulations.
The generators previously identified would initially have to
file on the order of 110,000 to 140,000 notifications under Section
3010. This would represent nearly a 60 percent decrease in the
number of such notifications. At the end of the first 2 to 5 year
period, approximately 110,000 additional generators would have to
file such notifications. Overall, there would be about a 15 percent
reduction in the number of notifications filed by generators.
Transporters would have to prepare fewer spill reports under
this alternative since only those hazardous waste spills meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR 171 would have to be reported. Reportable
spills include those which result in a person being killed or receiv-
ing injuries requiring hospitalization and those resulting in a con-
tinuing danger to life, health, or the environment at the scene of
the incident.
Under this alternative, owners/operators of facilities treating,
storing, or disposing hazardous waste would be subject to revised
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the period after being
8-144
-------
issued a permit and to additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in the period before being issued a permit. Changes
related to reporting and recordkeeping by permitted facilities are
discussed first.
The total number of facilities requiring permits is not expected
to be significantly less under this alternative than under the base-
line regulations.* Any reduction in the number of annual reports
prepared by permittees would thus be relatively small under this
alternative. There could, however, be a large reduction in the num-
ber of monitoring reports prepared by permittees. After completing
one year of monitoring, permittees would have to submit all subse-
quent monitoring reports annually rather than quarterly; furthermore,
these monitoring reports would be submitted as part of the annual
report rather than as additional reports. Under the baseline regula-
tions there could be up to 117,000 such monitoring reports prepared
annually. Using the number of potential permittees from the baseline
regulations as an estimate of the upper limit of the number of
permittees under this alternative, there could be up to 29,000 moni-
toring reports prepared annually under this alternative once all
facilities have completed one year of monitoring. This would repre-
sent a reduction of at least 75 percent in such reports.
*However, for reasons discussed above, slightler fewer facilities
would be sujbect to the treatment, storage, and disposal regulations
under this alternative during the first 2 to 5 years than in the
following years. The total amount of reporting and recordkeeping
would thus be slightly less on an annual basis during these first 2
to 5 years than in the following years.
8-145
-------
Permittees would also be subject to revised recordkeeping
requirements under this alternative. Groundwater monitoring data
would have to be retained until closure of the facility rather than
for 3 years; in the case of disposal facilities, the monitoring data
would have to be kept throughout the entire post-closure period.
Inspection records would have to be retained for 3 years rather than
until facility closure. Training records for current employees would
have to be kept until closure of the facility rather than for 3
years. For former employees these records would have to be kept for
three years from the time of the employee's departure.
These facility owners/operators would also be subject to other
administrative requirements. For example, waste analysis, inspec-
tion, and post-closure plans would have to be prepared and submitted
with Part B of the permit applications. Outlines of programs for
both groundwater damage assessment and for groundwater corrective
action would also have to be prepared and submitted with the permit
application. Owners/operators of facilities receiving waste from
off-site would have to notify generators in writing that they have
the appropriate permit for and will accept delivery of the waste the
generator is shipping. Facility owners/operators would also have to
notify the Regional Administrator at least two weeks before the
expected date of arrival of hazardous waste shipments from foreign
sources.
Due to the expected reduction in the number of permittees, there
would be a slight decrease in the total number of notifications
8-146
-------
required to be filed by facility owners/operators under Section 3010
and in the number of permit applications prepared under this alter-
native. However, any reductions in permit applications would be
off-set by the requirement that permits be reviewed at least once
every 5 years rather than being issued for the projected life of the
facility. Consolidation of requirements for obtaining NPDES permits
under the Clean Water Act, UIC permits under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, Section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act, and facility
permits under RCRA would reduce the overall administrative
requirements associated with such permits.
Facility owners/operators would also be subject to additional
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the period before being
issued a permit. During this period, the owners/operators of exist-
ing facilities would be subject to the Interim Status reporting and
recordkeeping requirements indicated in Table 4-4. These Interim
Status requirements would essentially be identical to the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements applicable to permittees. Under the
baseline regulations, facility owners/operators would not be subject
to reporting or recordkeeping requirements until after being issued a
permit.
8.5.1.4 Air Impacts.
Air Quality. The regulations under this alternative would have
the potential to cause changes affecting the release of air
8-147
-------
contaminants resulting from the generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the
baseline regulations.
Generation. As previously discussed, the baseline regulations
would not have a direct effect on air emissions resulting from
activities and processes generating hazardous wastes. However, for
generators of hazardous wastes other than 'special wastes,1 to the
extent that the requirements under this alternative would cause les-
ser changes in the economics of storage, treatment, or disposal
relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would be less of
a potential for these generators to make process modifications
designed to increase hazardous waste recycling and to reduce the
quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated; any such reduc-
tions in process modifications under this alternative would likely
lead to fewer changes in air emissions released by processes generat-
ing hazardous waste. For generators of 'special wastes,1 to the
extent that the requirements under this alternative would cause fur-
ther increases in the economics of storage, treatment, or disposal
relative to those of the baseline regulations, there would be a
greater potential for generators of these wastes to make process or
operational modifications designed to reduce the quantity and/or
types of hazardous wastes generated; any such modifications could
lead to increased changes in air emissions released by processes
generating hazardous wastes. To the extent that fewer generators
would be brought under control of the program in both instances, the
8-148
-------
overall potential for any such process modifications and resultant
changes in the release of air emissions would be accordingly reduced.
Transport. As indicated in Section 7.1.4.1, there are three
major ways air contaminants are released by the transport of hazard-
ous wastes:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improperly covered,
sealed, or containerized wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from spills or other accidental
releases of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions resulting from the operation of the trans-
port vehicle.
As discussed below, this alternative would affect, to varying
degrees, the potential for the release of air emissions from each of
these sources.
. Less waste would likely be regulated under this alternative than
under the baseline regulations. As a result, transport of the wastes
removed from regulation would not have to be carried out in accord-
ance with the Section 3002 containerization requirements or the Sec-
tion 3003 transport requirements unless the wastes were also identi-
fied as hazardous materials under the DOT Hazardous Materials Trans-
port Act.* Thus, to the extent that these wastes would be contain-
erized or transported using methods not acceptable under the baseline
regulations, the potential for the release of fugitive emissions by
such transport and from any resultant spills or explosions would be
*In such a case, for all interstate transport and some intrastate
transport, the wastes would be subject to many of the same contain-
erization and transport requirements as under the baseline regula-
t ions.
8-149
-------
increased under this alternative. Section 7.1.4.1 discusses the
potential for the release of air emissions from unregulated transport
practices.
For those hazardous wastes other than 'special wastes,' both the
total quantity of regulated wastes being transported and the average
distance over which such wastes are transported could decrease under
this alternative, as previously indicated. Any such reductions would
lead to the release of fewer vehicular emissions and to a reduced
potential for vehicular accidents to occur and to release air emis-
sions. However, the elimination of spill response information from
manifests could increase the time for spill clean-up and thus in-
crease the potential for the release of air contaminants from such
spills. Elimination of the prohibition on transporters accepting
containers that are leaking or that appear damaged could also in-
crease the potential for spills or for the release of fugitive emis-
sions from the transport of regulated wastes; however, acceptance of
such containers would not be in the transporter's interest under the
Subtitle C regulations.
For hazardous 'special wastes' there could be an increase in the
quantity of regulated wastes being transported off-site under this
alternative. This would increase the potential for the transport of
such wastes to release fugitive emissions, to release vehicular emis-
sions, and to result in vehicular accidents causing spills. Particu-
late matter would likely be the major air contaminant released by
such spills. Any increased transport of 'special wastes' would,
8-150
-------
however, have to be in compliance with all Subtitle C generator and
transporter requirements.
For all wastes, the changes in fugitive emissions, vehicular
emissions, and emissions resulting from accidents and spills would be
dependent upon such factors as the change in travel distances, the
change in portion of hazardous wastes transported off-site, and the
change in the amount of regulated wastes being transported.
Storage, Treatment, and Disposal. As discussed in Section
7.1.4.1, there are several major ways that air contaminants can be
released by current hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
practices:
• Through fugitive emissions resulting from improper storage of
hazardous wastes;
• Through fugitive emissions from ground-based
treatment/disposal activities such as landfills, landfarms,
and surface impoundments;
• Through emissions occurring as the result of storage becoming
the ultimate form of disposal of hazardous wastes;
• Through emissions generated by spills, fires, explosions, and
other accidents;
• Through the combustion of hazardous wastes by incineration or
open burning;
• Through fugitive emissions from other treatment activities;
• Through fugitive emissions from facility construction or modi-
fication
This alternative would affect the potential for the release of
air contaminants from each of these sources in various ways as dis-
cussed below.
8-151
-------
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities for hazardous 'special wastes' would have to be modified
or constructed under this alternative, there would be an increase in
fugitive dust and vehicular emissions from such construction activi-
ties. To the extent that fewer facilities for other hazardous wastes
would have to be modified or constructed under this alternative (see
Section 8.5.2.4), there would be a decrease in fugitive dust and
vehicular emissions from such construction activities. Such emis-
sions would be extremely site dependent.
Less waste would likely be regulated under this alternative than
•under the baseline regulations. As a result, those hazardous wastes
excluded from regulation would not have to be stored, treated, or
disposed in accordance with the Section 3004 regulations. Since it
is likely that most of these wastes would not be managed by methods
that are environmentally acceptable under the Section 3004 regula-
tions, the overall potential for the release of air contaminants from
the management of such wastes would be increased under this alterna-
tive relative to the baseline regulations. Wastes that are incinera-
ted for energy recovery (e.g., waste solvents and oil) represent one
type of waste that would be excluded from regulation under this al-
ternative. Section 7.1.4.1 discusses the potential for the release
of air contaminants from unregulated treatment, storage, and disposal
practices.
8-152
-------
With regard to the hazardous waste that would still be regulated
under this alternative, the requirements under this alternative would
have to potential for affecting the release of air contaminants from
the management of these wastes in various ways. For example, most of
the 'special wastes' would now have to be stored, treated, or dis-
posed in accordance with the full set of Section 3004 requirements
rather than a limited portion of these requirements. Most of the
requirements applicable to these wastes under this baseline regula-
tions relate to general facility practices, such as reporting and
recordkeeping, visual inspections, post-closure care, and waste
analyses, rather than to specific treatment, storage, or disposal
practices. As such, they would have little effect on the release of
air contaminants from such wastes. By subjecting these wastes to the
full set of Section 3004 requirements, the overall potential for the
release of air contaminants from the management of these wastes would
be reduced in a manner similar to that described in Section 7.1.4.1
(with modifications as discussed below).
The Interim Status Standards would further reduce the potential
for the release of air emissions from the management of all wastes
regulated under this alternative. Existing facilities would not be
required to modify their current practices until after being issued a
permit, under the baseline regulations. Thus, in the period before
being issued a permit, it is likely that regulated wastes would
continue to be managed by methods that would not be environmentally
8-153
-------
acceptable under Che Interim Status Standards. Under this alterna-
tive, existing facilities would have to manage wastes in accordance
with the Interim Status Standards until they were issued a permit.
Provisions of the Interim Status Standards that should reduce the
potential for the release of air emissions during this period are
discussed below.
The Interim Status standards would require that facility
owners/operators inspect facilities for equipment malfunctions and
deterioration, operator errors, and spills which may be causing or
which may lead to the release of hazardous constituents to the air;
the Interim Status Standards would also require owners/operators to
make necessary repairs or take necessary remedial action. The
facilities would have to be maintained and operated so that the pos-
sibility of a discharge, fire, or explosion which could threaten the
environment or human health outside the facility is minimized.
Ignitable or reactive wastes would have to be separated and protected
from sources of ignition or reaction. Contingency plans would have
to be developed to minimize human health and environmental damage in
the event of an unplanned sudden or non-sudden discharge of hazardous
waste. During an emergency, the facility's emergency coordinator
would have to take all reasonable measures to ensure that fires and
explosions do not occur, re-occur, or spread and would have to
monitor for leaks, pressure buildups, gas generation, or ruptures if
the facility stops operations.
8-154
-------
In addition, ignitable, reactive, and/or incompatible wastes
would be prohibited from being placed in tanks, surface impoundments,
land treatment facilities, or landfills unless the waste both would
not generate heat, fumes, fires, or explosive reactions and would be
rendered non-ignitable or non-reactive by such activities. Ignitable
and/or reactive wastes could not be placed in waste piles unless the
above two conditions were met. Incompatible wastes would be prohi-
bited from being placed in the same container or pile, and containers
or piles holding incompatible wastes would have to be separated from
incompatible wastes in other piles, containers, or impoundments.
Furthermore, all wastes placed in piles would have to be covered or
otherwise managed so as to prevent wind dispersal.
Incinerators would have to be brought to steady state (normal)
conditions of operation before hazardous wastes were added so as to
insure adequate destruction of the waste and to minimize the release
of air contaminants. Wastes would have to be analyzed to establish
steady state operating conditions and to determine the types of pol-
lutants that might be emitted. The stack plume and existing instru-
ments which relate to combustion and emission control would have to
be monitored periodically to insure that the incinerator was operat-
ing properly. The complete incinerator and associated equipment
would have to be inspected at least daily for leaks, spills, and
fugitive emissions. Open burning would be prohibited for all wastes
except explosive wastes.
8-155
-------
Following the Interim Status period, other changes under this
alternative would further affect the potential for the release of air
emissions. With regard to equipment malfunctions or deterioration, a
requirement would be added for making repairs or taking other reme-
dial action on a timely basis so as to ensure that environmental or
human health hazards do not occur. A requirement would also be added
for contingency plans to include provisions for controlling spills.
To the extent that such provisions reduce the number of spills or the
time for spill clean-up, the potential for the release of air emis-
sions would be reduced.
The air human health and environmental standards would be elimi-
nated under this alternative. This would reduce the potential for
decreases in the release of air contaminants from non-point sources
(e.g., surface impoundments, landfills, storage areas) at permitted
facilities, as compared to the baseline regulations. The air human
health and environmental standard would have required that non-point
sources of air emissions not contribute any listed air contaminant
(see Appendix B, Subpart D, Annex 2) to the atmosphere, at the sur-
face of the non-point source, in concentrations exceeding the listed
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for that contaminant, nor contribute two
or more listed air contaminants in a manner which causes the sum of
the individual concentrations divided by the individual TLV's to
exceed unity. Examples of air contaminants to which the air human
health standards would apply and which have been identified in the
• reported incidents cited in Section 7.1.4.1 include acetone,
8-156
-------
asbestos, benzene, carbon monoxide, carbon tetrachloride, methane,
and methylene chloride. As discussed in Section 7.1.4.1, the air
human health and environmental standard would apply only after the
standard was violated; it would not be a means to initially prevent
the release of air contaminants. Thus, under this alternative, air
emissions from regulated wastes would be increased to the extent that
releases from non-point sources would exceed the limits indicated
above.
It should be noted that there would likely be some shift in the
types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both regulated
wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under this alternative
compared to the methods that would have been used to manage these
wastes under the baseline regulations. For example, the elimination
of air human health and environmental standards could reduce the
incineration of some wastes and increase their landfilling or treat-
ment in surface impoundments, relative to the baseline regulations.
Such shifts would change both the types and quantities of air emis-
sions produced by the management of specific wastes. For example, a
shift from incineration to landfilling of a particular waste would
potentially result in a decrease in the release of combustion pro-
ducts and an increase in the release of particulate matter and/or
gases contained in the waste. Such shifts could either enhance or
reduce the potential for this alternative to cause the indicated
increased or decreases in the release of specific air emissions in
8-157
-------
any given locality. Furthermore, the construction of new facilities
could lead to increased releases of air emissions in the vicinity of
the facility and along any transport routes. Closure of existing
facilities could lead to reduced releases of air emissions. All em-
issions and any localized degradation of air quality would have to be
in compliance with all applicable requirements (e.g., Clean Air Act
standards, OSHA standards, state standards).
Climate. To the extent that additional hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities would have to be constructed and operated for hazard-
ous 'special wastes' under this alternative, there could be increased
localized impacts to temperatures, humidities, and low-level wind
patterns from such construction. To the extent that fewer hazardous
waste management facilities would have to be constructed for other
hazardous wastes, there could be fewer localized impacts to tempera-
tures, humidities, and low-level wind patterns. Any such effects
would be expected to be extremely localized.
8.5.1.5 Water Quality Impacts. The regulations under this
alternative would have the potential to cause changes affecting the
release of water contaminants from the generation, transport, stor-
age, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as compared to the
baseline regulations. As discussed below, this would lead to instan-
ces of both incresed and reduced localized improvements in water
quality, as compared to the baseline regulations.
8-158
-------
Many of the potential changes to groundwater and surface water
impacts would occur in much the same manner as the potential changes
discussed under air quality. To avoid redundant discussions, such
changes are summarized below rather than discussed in detail. Other
major changes are described in more detail.
As indicated, generators of hazardous 'special wastes' would be
more likely to make process modifications designed to reduce the
quantity and/or types of hazardous wastes generated and to increase
recycling of such wastes. This would likely lead to increased
changes in any water effluents being produced by such processes and
thus to increased changes in any resultant groundwater and surface
water contamination. Generators of other hazardous wastes would be
less likely to make such process modifications. This would lead to
fewer changes in any water effluents produced by such processes and
thus to fewer changes in any resultant groundwater and surface water
contamination. To the extent that fewer generators would be brought
under control of the program in both instances, the overall potential
for any such process modifications and resultant changes in the re-
lease of water contaminants would be accordingly reduced.
For hazardous wastes other than 'special wastes', both the total
quantity of waste being transported subject to the Subtitle C regula-
tions and the average distance over which the wastes are transported
could decrease under this alternative. A decrease in the quantity of
such waste transported subject to the regulations would increase the
8-159
-------
potential both for midnight dumping and spills and for resultant im-
pacts to groundwater and surface water quality. Other changes dis-
cussed under air quality, such as the elimination of spill response
information from the manifest, could further increase both the poten-
tial for spills to occur and the time for clean-up of such spills,
thus increasing the potential for water quality degradation. How-
ever, any decrease in the average distance over which these wastes
are transported would decrease the potential for vehicular accidents
and for resultant spills. Reduced transport distances would also re-
sult in decreased vehicular emissions and in a decreased potential
for oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and heavy metals contained in
vehicular exhausts to be carried into waterways by run-off.
For hazardous 'special wastes', there could be an increase in
the quantity of regulated wastes being transported off-site. This
would increase the potential both for vehicular accidents to occur
and to cause spills and for oil, grease, and the hydrocarbons and
heavy metals contained in vehicular exhausts to be released and car-
ried into waterways. Other changes discussed above could further
increase the potential for water quality impacts. Any increased
transport of 'special wastes' would, however, have to be in compli-
ance with all Subtitle C generator and transporter requirements.
The hazardous wastes excluded from regulation under this
alternative would not have to be stored, treated, or disposed in ac-
cordance with the Section 3004 regulations, though they could be sub-
ject to applicable regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA and other
8-160
-------
State and Federal legislation (e.g., the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act). Wastes with a pH between 2 and 3 or between 12
and 12.5 and wastes whose extract contains any specified water con-
taminant in a concentration between 10 and 100 times its EPA Primary
Drinking Water Standards would be among those excluded. Based on
current practices, many of the wastes excluded from regulation would
not be stored, treated, or disposed by methods which are environmen-
tally acceptable under the Section 3004 regulations. Thus, the
potential for groundwater and surface water degradation from manage-
ment of these wastes would be increased relative to the baseline
regulations. Section 7.1.5 describes the potential for surface water
and groundwater impacts from the treatment/disposal of such wastes
under current practices and requirements.
With regard to the hazardous waste that would still be regula-
ted, the requirements under this alternative would have the potential
for affecting the release of water contaminants from the management
of these wastes in various ways. Some of the requirements would
result in an increase in the potential for the release of such
contaminants relative to the baseline regulations while others would
result in a decrease. Changes that could potentially have signific-
ant affects on the release of contaminants are discussed below.
To the extent that additional storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities for hazardous 'special wastes' would have to be modified
or constructed, there would be an increase in fugitive dust,
8-161
-------
vehicular emissions, and runoff from such construction activities.
To the extent that fewer facilities for other hazardous wastes would
have to be modified or constructed, there would be a decrease in
fugitive dust, vehicular emissions, and runoff. Such emissions would
be extremely site dependent.
Much hazardous 'special wastes' would now have to be stored,
treated, or disposed in accordance with the full set of Section 3004
requirements rather than just a limited portion of these require-
ments. By subjecting these wastes to the full set of Section 3004
requirements, the overall potential for the release of water contami-
nants from the management of these wastes would be reduced in a man-
ner similar to that described in Section 7.1.5 (with modifications as
discussed below).
The Interim Status Standards would further reduce the potential
for the release of water contaminants and for resultant water quality
impacts from the management of all wastes regulated under this alter-
native. As discussed under air quality, various requirements, such
as those for inspections, repairs, contingency plans, and emergency
procedures, would reduce the potential for spills and for other un-
planned suddent and non-suddent discharges, thus reducing the poten-
tial for water quality impacts.
In addition, the Interim Status Standards would require that
within one year after the effective data of the regulations that
owners/operators of surface impoundments, landfills, or land
8-162
-------
treatment facilities intall, maintain, and operate a groundwater mon-
itoring system. These owners/operators would also be required to
prepare an outline of and time estimate for completion of a ground-
water damage assessment program based on this monitoring.
The Interim Status Standards would also impose general require-
ments for controlling or containing spills and/or runoff from land-
fills, surface impoundments, tanks, waste piles, and land treatment
facilities. For example, surface impoundment would have to maintain
enough freeboard to prevent overtopping of the dike by overfilling,
wave action, or storm event. Restrictions would also be placed on
the management of wastes that could lead to the release of water
contaminants. For example, the restrictions discussed under air
quality on the management of incompatible, reactive, or ignitable
wastes-would reduce the potential for damage to storage, treatment,
or disposal areas and for resultant releases of water contaminants.
Additional restrictions related to preventing water quality impacts
include a prohibition on placing bulk liquid wastes in a landfill un-
less the landfill has a functioning liner and leachate collection and
removal system, the liner is chemically resistant to the waste, and
the collection and removal system has a capacity sufficient to remove
all leachate produced.
Following the Interim Status period, other changes under this
alternative would further reduce the potential for the release of
water contaminants and for the degradation of water quality. As
8-163
-------
discussed under air quality, these include requirements for making re-
pairs or taking remedial action on a timely basis and for adding pro-
visions to the contingency plan for controlling spills and unplanned
non-sudden dischages. In addition, facility owners/operators not
covered by the Interim Status Standards would be required to prepare
an outline of and time estimate for completion of a groundwater dam-
age assessment program. All owners/operators would also be required
to prepare an outline of and time estimate for completion of a
groundwater corrective action program to be implemented if the
groundwater damage assessment program indicates the need for such ac-
tion. Requirements would also be added for groundwater monitoring at
land treatment facilities and at some tanks; however, groundwater
monitoring would be eliminated at incineration facilities. The post-
closure care period and associated groundwater monitoring activities
would be extended from a time not to exceed 20 years to a period of
at least 30 years.
On the other hand, leachate monitoring requirments would be
eliminated under this alternative, and groundwater monitoring samples
would have to be analyzed for fewer parameters characterizing water
quality. Elimination of leachate monitoring would extend the time
before potential water quality problems could be detected and would
thus reduce the potential for the prevention of significant impacts
to water quality. However, other revisions incorporated under this
alternative would off-set much of the potential for an increase in
8-164
-------
significant water quality impacts. These include increases in the
minimum number of monitoring wells; revisions in the siting of mon-
itoring wells and in the frequency of sample collection and analysis;
and requirements for groundwater damage assessment programs and
groundwater corrective action programs. Reductions in the number of
water quality parameters being analyzed under this alternative would
increase the potential for some water quality problems to go undetec-
ted; however, in most instances the parameters still being analyzed
are considered to provide essentially the same level of protection as
those of the baseline regulations in detecting occurrences of ground-
water contamination.
The surface water and groundwater human health and environmental
standards would also be eliminated under this alternative. This
would reduce the potential for non-point preventing sources (e.g.,
surface impoundments, landfills, storage areas) at permitted
facilities from contributing to surface water and groundwater quality
degradation, as compared to the baseline regulations. However, as
discussed in Section 7.1.5, these human health and environmental
standards would not have applied until after either a release of
water contaminants or a reduction in groundwater or surface water
quality violated the standard; they would not have been a means for
initially preventing the release of water contaminants and subsequent
water quality degradation.
8-165
-------
The surface water human health and environmental standard would
have required that all facilities be located, designed, constructed
and operated in such a way that any surface or subsurface discharge
from the facility into waters of the United States does not at any
time cause a violation of Water Quality Standards promulgated or ap-
proved under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, or constitute a
spill of hazardous substances under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act. The groundwater hunan health and environmental standard would
have required that facilities be located, designed, constructed, and
operated in such a manner that they do not degrade any groundwater
such that an Underground Drinking Water Source anywhere outside the
facility property would at any time in the future be endangered**
Thus, under this alternative, water quality degradation would be
increased to the extent that releases from non-point sources exceed
the limits indicated above. However, any facility causing water
quality degradation in excess of the requirements of the Clean Water
Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act would still be subject to the
provisions of those acts.
As discussed under air quality, there would likely be some shift
in the types of methods used to store, treat, or dispose both regula-
ted wastes and the wastes excluded from regulation under this alter-
native compared to the methods that would have been used to manage
these wastes under the baseline regulations. Such shifts would
change the types and quantities of water contaminants produced by the
*See Section 7.1.5 for the defintion of endangerment.
8-166
-------
management of specific wastes and could at any locality either en-
hance the indicated potential for beneficial or adverse water quality
impacts. All effluents and any localized degradation of water qual-
ity would have co be in compliance with all applicable requirements
(e.g., Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, state standards).
8.5.1.6 Public Health Impacts. As discussed below, the regula-
tions under this alternative would have the potential for increasing
some of the public health benefits to be derived from the control of
hazardous wastes through the baseline regulations and would also have
the potential for reducing other public health benefits to be derived
from the baseline regulations. Section 7.1.6 discusses public health
impacts under the baseline regulations.
Slightly less total waste would likely be regulated under this
alternative than under the baseline regulations. As discussed in
Section 8.5.1.1, a lesser quantity of toxic, infectious, and corro-
sive wastes would be regulated. Those hazardous wastes excluded from
regulation would not have to be transported, stored, treated, or
disposed in accordance with the Subtitle C regulations. Based upon
current practices and reported incidents, it is likely that much of
this waste would not be managed by methods that were environmentally
acceptable under the regulations. Consequently, there would be a
greater potential for the release of air, water, and soil contami-
nants from the management of these wastes, as compared to the
baseline regulations (see Section 8.5.1.4, 8.5.1.5, and 8.5.2.1).
8-167
-------
There would also be a greater potential for the release of infectious
agents. As a result, there would be less of a potential for prevent-
ing the occurrence of public health impacts associated with such con-
taminants (See Section 7.1.6).
With regard to the hazardous waste that would still be regula-
ted, the requirements under this alternative would have the potential
for affecting the release of air, water, and soil contaminants from
the management of these wastes in various ways. Some of the require-
ments (e.g., elimination of human health and environmental standards)
would result in an increase in the potential for the release of such
contaminants relative to the baseline regulations while others (e.g.,
the Interim Status Standards) would result in a decrease, as discus-
sed in Sections 8.5.1.4, 8.5.1.5, and 8.5.2.1. Changes to public
health' impacts would be commensurate with such changes in the release
of air, water, and soil contaminants and infectious agents. These
would be both increased and reduced public health benefits to be
derived from the regulation of these wastes relative to the baseline
regulations.
Increased public health benefits could further be derived from
additional requirements imposed under this alternative. Facility
permits would be reviewed at least once every 5 years rather being
issued for the projected life of the facility as under the baseline
regulations. Owners/operators of facilities managing hazardous
wastes would have to turn over records of waste disposal locations to
8-168
-------
the local land authority upon closure of the facility. The owner of
the property on which a disposal facility is located would also be
required to record a notation on the property deed (or equivalent
instrument) to, in perpetuity, notify any potential purchaser both
that the land has been used to manage hazardous waste and that the
land is subject to use restrictions. These restrictions include
prohibitions against any use of the property that disturbs the integ-
rity of the final cover, liners, any other components of the contain-
ment system, and the monitoring system unless it can be demonstrated
that any such disturbance would not result in an increase in the
potential hazard to human health and the environment. These require-
ments could further help prevent future public health catastrophes
such as that which occurred at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York
(see Section 7.1.6).
Additional restrictions would be placed on the disposal of
hazardous uranium and phosphate surface mining and beneficiation
wastes. These wastes are identified as hazardous under the radio-
activity criteria of this alternative. Restrictions would be placed
on using these wastes as fill around or under habitable structures.
The wastes would also be prohibited from being incorporated into any
building materials that are of potential use for the construction of
habitable structures. Both uses take place in the current, unregula-
ted situation. These requirements would thus reduce the potential
8-169
-------
for such disposal of these wastes to cause adverse health impacts by
releasing radioactive emissions (radium 226 and its decay products)
into habitable areas and dwellings.
Elimination of the requirement that contingency plans must
include an outline of a program for familiarizing employees with em-
ergency procedures and for drills on these procedures could reduce
the potential for preventing public health impacts in the event of an
emergency situation at the facility; however, this would be off-set
by other, previously indicated changes in contingency plans. Elimi-
nation of the need to implement the contingency plan when there is a
discharge that threatens human health only within the facility, but
not outside the facility, would reduce the potential for preventing
adverse impacts to facility employees.
8.5.2 Secondary Impacts. The major changes in secondary
impacts (relative to the baseline regulations) that could occur as a
result of implementation of this alternative are discussed in the
following sections. These changes would result primarily from the
net reduction in the quantity of waste that would be subject to re-
gulation; the enactment of more stringent environmental requirements
with regard to the storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
wastes during the Interim Status period; the modification of some re-
quirements for managing wastes following the Interim Status period;
the enactment of more stringent requirements for tracking manifested
waste shipments; the enactment of more stringent environmental
8-170
-------
requirements with regard to the storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous 'special wastes'; and from modified costs to generators and
costs associated with hazardous waste transport, storage, treatment,
and disposal as a result of these revised requirements.
8.5.2.1 Physiography and Soil Impacts. The regulations under
this alternative would have the potential to cause changes affecting
physiography and soils, as compared to the baseline regulations.
These changes would lead to localized beneficial and adverse impacts
to physiography and soils, as compared to the baseline regulations.
The waste removed from regulation under this alternative (e.g.,
hazardous waste materials used as soil conditioners) would not have
to be transported, stored, treated, or disposed in accordance with
the Subtitle C regulations. Based upon current practices and re-
ported incidents, it is likely that much of this waste would not be
managed by methods that were environmentally acceptable under the re-
gulations. To the extent this occurs, the potential for preventing
adverse impacts to soils would be reduced relative to the baseline
regulations. Section 7.2.1 describes the types of impacts to soils
that could occur from such current methods and practices.
With regard to the hazardous waste regulated under this alterna-
tive, the requirements under this alternative would have the poten-
tial for affecting impacts to physiography and soils in various ways.
Changes that could potentially have significant effects are discussed
below.
8-171
-------
The revised requirements would affect the release of air and
water contaminants as described in Sections 8.5.1.4 and 8.5.1.5.
Changes in impacts to soils would be commensurate with the changes in
the release of such contaminants, as discussed in Section 7.2.1.
There would be localized instances of both increased and reduced soil
contamination, as compared to the baseline regulations.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes', more total land could
be required for waste management under this alternative than under
the baseline regulations. There would likely be more off-site land
use; there would be an indeterminable change in on-site land use (see
Section 8.5.2.5). Increased land requirements, especially off-site
requirements, would result in a greater potential for physical
impacts to occur to soils and physiography. Potential impacts from
increased facility construction would be essentially the same as
those described in Section 7.2.1.
Disposal of the large volumes of hazardous 'special wastes' that
could be brought under control of the full set of Section 3004 re-
quirements could create a significant demand for low permeability
clays. Such a demand could be especailly significant in areas having
a high density of such hazardous waste generators. Local clay sup-
plies in such areas may not be sufficient to meet the demand. Even
where sufficient clays are available, their extraction would result
in severe alternation of local topography.
8-172
-------
With regard to other hazardous waste, less total land, off-
site plus on-site, could be required for waste management under this
alternative than under the baseline regulations. In the case of 13
percent off-site shipment of hazardous manufacturing wastes, there
could be more off-site land use and less on-site land use. In the
case of 25 percent off-site shipment, there could be less off-site
land use and more off-site land use. Changes in impacts to soils and
physiography would be directly related to these changes in land re-
quirements; however, changes in off-site land use would likely cause
greater impacts than changes in on-site land use.
8.5.2.2 Biological Impacts. The regulations under this
alternative would have to potential for both increasing and reducing
some of the benefits to flora, fauna, and ecological systems that
would be derived from the control of hazardous waste through the
baseline regulations. Section 7.2.2 discusses biological impacts
that would occur under the baseline regulations.
Land requirements for facility construction and operation and
for conjunctive developments would be modified under this alternative
as summarized above. As a result, the potential for impacts to
flora, fauna, and ecological systems from land disturbance would be
accordingly modified.
Existing vegetation would be destroyed on additional lands dis-
turbed by construction and operation of hazardous waste management
facilities and conjunctive developments. Present plant succession
would .cease on such lands. Following rehabilitation of the site
8-173
-------
after closure of the facility, the plant community on the disturbed
areas would likely differ in species composition and diversity.
These construction and operational activities could also result in
the direct destruction of animal habitat. Some of this destruction
would be permanent; other areas would be impacted only temporarily
and would, over a period of time, recover in value as a habitat. How-
ever, the habitat and, consequently, the widlife species composition
following such recovery might be different from that which existed
prior to disturbance of the area. In addition, the direct destruc-
tion of some wildlife could also result from activities which
excavate, bury, overturn, clear, or grade large areas of previously
undisturbed terrestrial habitat. On lands excluded from hazardous
waste management activities under this alternative, flora, fauna, and
ecological systems would not be subject to such impacts, as compared
to the baseline regulations. In both cases, changes in off-site land
use would cause greater impacts than changes in on-site land use.
These modification to the biological environment would be off-
set by other changes that could occur under this alternative. Less
total waste would likely be regulated under this alternative than
under the baseline regulations. As discussed in Section 8.5.1.1, a
lesser quantity of toxic, infectious, and corrosive wastes would be
regulated. Those hazardous wastes excluded from regulation would not
have to be transported, stored, treated, or disposed in accordance
with the Subtitle C regulations. Based upon current practices and
reported incidents, it is likely that much of this wastes would not
8-174
-------
be managed by methods that were environmentally acceptable under the
regulations. Consequently, there would be a reduced potential rela-
tive to the baseline regulations for preventing the release of air,
water, and soil contaminants from the management of these wastes (see
Section 8.5.1.4, 8.5.1.5, and 8.5.2.1). There would also be a great-
er potential for the release of infectious agents. As a result,
there would be a reduced potential for preventing the occurrence of
biological impacts associated with such contaminants (see Section
7.2.2). In addition, previously indicated changes in the off-site
transport of hazardous wastes would lead to commensurate changes in
the number of animal road kills.
With regard to the hazardous waste that would still be regula-
ted, the requirements under this alternative would have the potential
for affecting the release of air, water and soil contaminants from
the management of these wastes in various ways. Some of the require-
ments (e.g., elimination of human health and environmental standards)
would result in an increase in the potential for the release of such
contaminants relative to the baseline regulations while others (e.g.,
the Interim Status Standards) would result in a decrease, as discus-
sed in Sections 8.5.1.4, 8.5.1.5, and 8.5.2.1. Changes in impacts to
bioloigcal systems would be commensurate with these changes in the
release of air, water, and soil contaminants and infectious agents.
These would be both increased and reduced benefits to the bioloigcal
environment to be derived from the regulation of these wastes
relative to the baseline regulations.
8-175
-------
It should be noted, however, that due to changes in wastes being
regulated and in requirements for management of regulated wastes,
there could be shifts in the methods used to treat/dispose the wastes
as described in Section 8.5.1.4. The potential for impacts to the
biological environment would be modified to the extent of any such
shift.
The bioloigcal environment could derive additional benefits from
the requirement that facility permits be reviewed at least once every
5 years rather being issued for the projected life of the facility as
under the baseline regulations. Elimination of the requirements that
contingency plans must include an outline of a program for
familiarizing employees with emergency procedures and for drills on
these procedures could increase the potential for biological impacts
to occur in the event of an emergency situation at the facility; how-
ever, this would be off-set by other indicated changes in contingency
plans. Elimination of the requirements that after closure, all
facilities must be secured such that any remaining hazardous wastes
cannot be contacted by animal life, would have little practical ef-
fect since the baseline regulations would not truly prvent burrowing
animals and animals foraging on plants in the site area from coming
into contact with such waste.
8.5.2.3 Social Impacts
Demographic Impacts. With regard to generators of hazardous
'special wastes,1 increased costs under this alternative could lead
to some additional closings or relocations of plants and operations,
8-176
-------
and this could lead to additional population shifts as described in
Section 7.2.3.1. With regard to generators of other hazardous
wastes, lesser increases in costs under this alternative could lead
to fewer plant closings or relocations, and this could lead to fewer
population shifts. Some closings could, however, occur earlier under
this alternative due to the requirements of the Interim Status
Standards.
In addition, there could be both an increase in the number of
construction workers needed at facilities managing hazardous 'special
wastes' due to any increased amount of facility modification and
construction and a decrease in the number of construction workers
required at facilities managing other hazardous wastes due to any
lesser amount of necessary facility modification and construction.
There could also be an increase in the number of personnel required
for hazardous wastes management activities at facilities managing
'special wastes' due to the more stringent operational requirements.
There could be a decrease in the number of personnel required for
hazardous waste management activities at facilities managing other
hazardous wastes due to decreases in the quantity of such wastes
being regulated. There could also be an overall decrease in the
number of personnel required to administer and enforce the regula-
tions due to reductions in both the quantity of hazardous wastes
being regulated and the number of generators, disposers, and
8-177
-------
permittees being regulated. Again, necessary personnel would likely
be needed earlier under this alternative due to the requirements of
the Interim Status Standards. Population shifts could occur in
response to changed personnel requirements as discussed in Section
7.2.3.1. Any such shifts would be expected to be small on a national
scale; however, there could still be localized instances of
relatively large influxes of workers, particularly for hazardous
waste management facilities located near very small towns, or of
relatively large outfluxes of workers, especially in the case where a
plant being closed constituted the primary source of employment in an
area.
Social Conditions. As discussed in Section 8.5.1.6, there would
be both increased and decreased public health benefits to be derived
from this alternative relative to the baseline regulations. The
indicated increases (decreases) in public health benefits would
accordingly provide increased (decreased) social benefits as dis-
cussed in Section 7.2.3.2. Resultant changes in chronic and acute
health effects would correspondingly modify the social and economic
costs associated with such effects, e.g., increased mortality, birth
defects, lowered productivity, lost wages.
The indicated changes in the potential for population shifts
would correspondingly modify the impacts associated with such shifts.
As discussed in 7.2.3.2, any large, rapid, population influx could
8-178
-------
cause inflation, strains on the existing infrastructure, social ten-
sions, changes in daily living patterns, and increased physical and
mental disorders. Any large, rapid, population outflux could cause
problems in maintaining the existing infrastructure, deflation, addi-
tional unemployment, social stress, changes in daily living patterns,
and increased mental and physical health problems.
Public opposition to the siting and construction of hazardous
waste management facilities could be reduced by the requirement for
permits to be reviewed at least once every 5 years rather than not at
all and by the increase in the period specified for post-closure
care. With regard to facilities managing hazardous wastes other than
'special waste,1 public opposition to such facilities could be
further reduced by the need for fewer of these facilities. With
regard to facilities managing hazardous 'special wastes,1 public
opposition to such facilites could be reduced by the more stringent
environmental requirements under this alternative. However, any
opposition that occurs could be exacerbated by possible increases in
requirements for such facilities. The additon of the Interim Status
Standards could also reduce opposition to some existing facilities.
Indicated changes in the contruction of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities and in the off-site transport of hazardous wastes
could modify other social effects. The indicated increases (decreas-
es) in facility contruction would increase (decrease) the potential
8-179
-------
for noise impacts, aesthetic impacts, land use impacts, water use
impacts, and pressures on existing infrastructures that could be
associated with such facilities. Indicated increases (decreases) in
the transport of hazardous wastes would increase (decrease) the
potential for vehicular accidents.
8.5.2.4 Hazardous Waste Management Facility Capacity.
Process Capacity. Less hazardous waste would be subject to Sub-
title C requirements under this alternative than under the baseline
regulations. However, increased quantities of hazardous 'special
wastes' and reduced quantities of other hazardous wastes could be
shipped off-site for treatment/disposal under this alternative.
As discussed in Section 7.2.4.1, under the baseline regulations
there would potentially be sufficient off-site capacity available on
a nationwide basis in 1980 to handle the regulated hazardous manufac-
turing wastes shipped off-site, both with and without growth in
existing capacity. Also, there would potentially be sufficient off-
site capacity on a nationwide basis in 1984 to handle the regulated
hazardous manufacturing wastes shipped off-site in the care of 13
percent off-site shipment, both with and without growth in existing
capacity. However, in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment in
1984, there would potentially be a nationwide shortfall of 2.6 mil-
lion metric tons of environmentally adequate capacity for treating/
disposing hazardous manufacturing wastes, based upon the specified
growth in existing capacity. Without any growth in existing
8-180
-------
environmentally adequate capacity, this shortfall could be 4.9 mil-
lion metric tons. As indicated, data are not available to extimate
any potential for shortfalls in environmentally adequate on-site pro-
cess capacity for regulated hazardous manufacturing wastes.
Consequently, under this alternative there would also poten-
tially be sufficient off-site capacity on a nationwide basis to
treat/dispose regulated hazardous manufacturing wastes shipped off-
site in 1980 and also in 1984 in the case of 13 percent off-site
shipment. In the case of 25 percent off-site shipment in 1984, there
would be a reduction in the potential shortfall in off-site capacity.
As a result, fewer permitted off-site facilities could be required in
this latter case under this alternative as compared to the baseline
regulations. Similarly, under this alternative there would also be
reductions in the potential for any shortfall in on-site capacity
necessary for treating/disposing regulated hazardous manufacturing
wastes.
With regard to hazardous 'special waste,' there would be an
increased potential for shortfalls in both environmentally adequate
on-site and off-site capacity in 1980 and 1984. The increased poten-
tial for shortfalls in on-site capacity would result from increased
facility closings due to requirement that facilities managing special
wastes comply with all Section 3004 requirements rather than a
limited portion of such requirements. The increased potential for
shortfalls in off-site capacity would result from likely increases in
3-181
-------
Che quantity of wastes being sent off-site; however, any increases in
off-site shipments would also off-set some of the potential for
increased shortfalls in on-site capacity.
Section 7.2.4.1 discusses other factors that could either lead
to shortfalls or exacerbate the size of any estimated shortfall in
both on-site and off-site process capacity, especially on a localized
basis. Furthermore, the wastes removed from regulation under this
alternative would still have to be treated/disposed, both on-site and
off-site. While such wastes could be treated/disposed in non-
permitted facilities, their management could increase the potential
for an overall shortfall in available capacity; however, any resul-
tant shortfall would be less than that under the baseline regula-
tions. The Interim Status Standards could also lead to earlier
closings of some facilities and thus increase the potential for
shortfalls during the first few years after implementations of the
Subtitle C regulations; however, the reduction in the generator limit
would act to off-set this.
Physical Capacity. Based upon the methodology and assumptions
disucssed in Section 7.2.4.2, relative to the baseline regulations
there could be an increase in the total (regulated plus uneregulated)
hazardous manufacturing wastes sent off-site during the period from
1980 through 1984, assuming 13 percent shipment off-site in 1984, and
there could be a decrease in the total hazardous manufacturing wastes
sent off-site during this period, assuming 25 percent shipment off-
site in 1984.
8-182
-------
Consequently, increased land area could be committed to off-site
management of hazardous manufacturing wastes during this period in
the case of 13 percent off-site shipment and less land area could be
committed to off-site management of hazardous manufacturing waste
during this period in the case of 25 percent off-site shipment. In
the former case, after 1984 there could be an increase in the land
area required off-site annually compared to total requirements under
the baseline regulations. In the latter case, after 1984 there could
be a decrease in the land area required off-site annually compared to
the total requirements under the baseline regulations. In all
instances there could be commensurate changes in on-site land
requirements.
8.5.2.5 Land Use Impacts. With regard to those hazardous
wastes other than 'special wastes,' less total land, off-site plus
on-site, would be required for the construction of any storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities needed under this alternative and
for such conjunctive developments as construction of roads, power
lines, and pipelines. Less additional land would be required since
fewer wastes would have to be sent to permitted facilities; the waste
removed from regulation could use existing facilities or other
facilities that were not adequate under the baseline regulations.
However, as indicated in Section 8.5.2.4, in the case of 13 percent
off-site shipment there would be more total hazardous manufacturing
wastes (those regulated plus those removed from regulation) sent
8-183
-------
off-site than there would be in the similar case under the baseline
regulations. Thus, while less total land would be required, there
could be more off-site land use and less on-site land use for hazard-
ous manufacturing wastes in this case. In the case of 25 percent
off-site shipment, there would be less total hazardous manufacturing
wastes sent off-site than there would be in the similar case under
the baseline regulations and, thus, there could be less off-site land
use and more on-site land use.
It should be noted that while shifts to on-site land use could
reduce off-site land requirements in the short term, such shifts
could also accelerate the exhaustion of the relatively limited on-
site physical capacity and could result in increased pressures for
off-site facilities in the long term. Furthermore, the reduced
potential under this alternative for increases both in resource con-
servation and recovery and in treatment practices leading to volume
reduction (e.g., incineration) of these hazardous wastes would also
provide a lesser potential for reducing total land requirements, both
on-site and off-site, in the long term.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes,' more total land could
be required under this alternative for the management of all (regu-
lated and unregulated) hazardous special wastes. While a lesser
quantity of hazardous special wastes would be regulated, more land
(on-site plus off-site) could be required for construction of the
permitted facilities necessary for the management of regulated wastes
under this alternative and for conjunctive developments. Those
8-184
-------
wastes removed from regulation could continue to use existing facili-
ties or other facilities that were not adequate under the baseline
regulations. There would likely be more off-site land use. Changes
in on-site land use would depend on changes in the portion of wastes
sent off-site and on changes in land requirements for individual
facilities managing wastes on-sites.
With regard to all hazardous wastes, existing land uses would
not change on lands excluded from hazardous waste management under
this alternative; however, there could be localized changes in land
use from any additional shifts to off-site management from on-site
management or to on-site management from off-site management. To the
extent that the management of wastes excluded from regulation under
this alternative would result in additional land being contaminated
through environmentally inadequate practices, there would be off-
setting adverse impacts to existing land uses. Section 7.2.5
describes the types of impacts that could occur.
Existing land uses would, however, cease, either permanently or
temporarily, on all land converted to hazardous waste management
uses. Following closure of hazardous waste management facilities and
any necessary post-closure care, the land used for the facility could
be available for new or, in some cases, previously existing uses.
However, this alternative eliminates the requirement that all facili-
ties must be designed such that the land is amenable to some accept-
able use so that perpetual isolation and care to maintain isolation
are not required. Thus, less land could be available for future
8-185
-------
use under this alternative than under the baseline regulations. On
the other hand, this alternative eliminates the prohibiton against
using sites at which hazardous wastes remain after closure (e.g.,
landfills) for rcoidential, agricultural, or other purposes which
disturb the integrity of the closed facility. All such uses would be
allowable under this alternative providing that it can be demon-
strated that any disturbances to the integrity of the final cover,
liner, any other components of the containment system, and the moni-
toring system would not result in an increase in the potential hazard
to human health or the potential for environmental contamination.
This alternative would also affect future use of the land by requir-
ing that the owner of the property on which a disposal facility is
located must record a notation on the property deed (or equivalent
instruments) that would in perpetuity notify any potential purchaser
both that the land has been used to manage hazardous waste and that
the land is subject to the use restrictions noted above.
8.5.2.6 Water Use Impacts. The potential for the degradation
of groundwater and surface water quality would be modified under this
alternative as indicated in Section 8.5.1.5. There would be instan-
ces of both reduced and increased localized improvements in water
quality, as compared to the baseline regulations. To the extent that
less degradation of water quality would result in an increased supply
of surface water or groundwater being available to all consumers in
the water use area, there would be an additional supply of ground-
water or surface water potentially available to such consumers and
8-186
-------
fewer restrictions on Che productive use of such surface water and
groundwater supplies. Localized instances of increased water quality
degradation would have the opposite impact.
Fewer permitted facilities would be required under this alterna-
tive for the management of hazardous wastes other than 'special
wastes.' Less water would thus be required for these permitted
facilities. Reductions in water use would, however, be off-set to
the extent that water would still be consumed in the management of
those wastes removed from regulation. Fewer permitted facilities
could also be required for the management of hazardous 'special
wastes.1 However, the more stringent requirements under this alter-
native could increase the quantity of water required by individual
facilities.
8-.5.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery. The major changes
in resource conservation and recovery would result from the previous-
ly indicated modifications in the wastes being regulated and in costs
to hazardous waste generators and costs associated with hazardous
waste transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. As discussed
in Section 8.5.1.2, these changes could provide an increased incen-
tive for some generators of hazardous 'special wastes' to further
modify their processes or operations so as to reduce and/or change
the types and quantities of hazardous wastes generated and to in-
crease the re-use of the wastes that were generated. However, these
changes would provide less of an incentive for generators of other
8-187
-------
hazardous wastes to modify processes or operations so as to enable
increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feedstocks, to
reduce the quantities of hazardous wastes generated by specific
processes or operations, or to change the nature of wastes produced.
Chapter 5 presents examples of the potential for increased resource
recovery from and recycling of hazardous wastes.
This alternative would provide a further incentive for all
generators to recycle, re-use, or recover hazardous waste materials.
All hazardous waste materials that are used, re-used, or processed
for energy recovery or that are stored for such purposes would be
excluded from regulation under this alternative,* but would be sub-
ject to Subtitle C requirements under the baseline regulations. For
example, waste oils or solvents incinerated for energy recovery would
not be-regulated. Similarly, all hazardous waste materials, except
waste oils, that are used or re-used in a manner constituting dispo-
sal or that are being stored for such purposes would be excluded from
regulation under this alternative.t For example, hazardous materi-
als used for road construction or as a soil conditioner or as a
de-icing agent on roads would not be regulated. Thus, generators
would have an increased incentive to use or re-use such wastes rather
than to dispose them.
*However, it should be noted that EPA is planning to list waste
materials that would still be regulated if used for such purposes.
is planning to list additional waste materials that would
still be regulated if used in such a manner.
8-188
-------
8.5.2.8 Energy Use. Energy use would be impacted under this
alternative by changes in facility construction, facility operation,
hazardous waste transport, resource conservation and recovery, and
energy production.
With regard to hazardous 'special wastes,1 the additional facil-
ity modification and construction that could be necessary for the
management of such wastes under this alternative would result in
increased energy use. More energy would also be used for the con-
struction of new facilities under this alternative due to the more
stringent requirements directed towards making these facilities more
environmentally secure. There would also be increased energy use
associated with the more stringent requirements for operation and
closure of these facilities, as discussed in Section 7.2.8. The
requirements of the Interim Status standards along with the addi-
tional 10-year period over which post-closure care could be required,
would further increase the energy use associated with such wastes.
Increase in energy use associated with any additional transport of
hazardous "special wastes" would depend upon such factors as shifts
in the portion of wastes managed on-site and off-site and changes in
transport distances. The reduction in the quantity of such wastes
being regulated would, however, off-set some of these increased in
energy use. Furthermore, indicated changes in resource recovery
activities could also lead to some net energy savings.
Many 'special waste1 generators are energy producers (e.g., oil
and gas drilling operations). Due to the more stringent requirements
8-189
-------
and increased costs associated with the management of these wastes,
there could potentially be reductions in energy production.
With regard to other hazardous wastes, the lesser amount of
facility modification and construction that would be necessary for
the management of such wastes would result in a decrease in energy
use. The reduction in the quantity of such wastes being regulated
would also reduce energy use associated with facility operations, as
discussed in Section 7.2.8. However, the requirements of the Interim
Status Standards along with the lengthened post-closure care period
could off-set some of this decrease in energy use. Reductions in
energy use could also result from any reductions in the average dis-
tance over which these wastes could be transported. Furthermore,
indicated changes in resource recovery and recycling activities could
lead to a lesser potential for net energy savings to result from such
activities.
8.5.2.9 Impacts to Special Interest Points. To the extent that
the requirements of the Interim Status Standards and the more strin-
gent regulation of hazardous 'special wastes' would reduce the dis-
turbance, destruction, or intrusion upon special interest points,
there would be a commensurate reduction in such adverse effects as
discussed in Section 7.2.9. However, the exclusion of additional
wastes from regulation under this alternative would reduce the poten-
tial for such beneficial effects.
8-190
-------
Any additional lands, especially off-site lands, that would be
disturbed by the requirements for facility construction and associ-
ated conjunctive developments under this alternative would increase
the pocential for the disturbance and/or destruction of such special
interest points as sites of aesthetic, archaeological, historical,
paleontogical, or recreational value. As indicated, more off-site
lands could be required for the management of hazardous 'special
wastes' while less off-site lands could be required for the manage-
ment of other hazardous wastes.
8-191
-------
9.0 MITIGATING MEASURES AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
In a sense, the Subtitle C regulations are themselves a miti-
gating measure acting to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of
uncontrolled storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. Although
these beneficial impacts are not discussed in this section, it is
recognized that they far outweigh any adverse environmental impacts
which may result from the regulations. The major adverse effects
which would result from the regulations would be economic. These are
discussed in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supplement). Most
non-economic, adverse, environmental impacts associated with these
regulations could be mitigated by making the corresponding portions
of the regulations more strict (i.e., increasing the number of wastes
defined as hazardous, decreasing the allowable permeability for soil
liners in landfills, etc.). Many of these types of changes are
addressed in the Alternatives Chapter, Section 8.3 (Greater Degree of
Protection) and Section 8.5 (Phase 1 Alternative). Any such reduc-
tion in adverse environmental effects would, however, be accompanied
by increased economic costs.
The major, non-economic adverse effects of these regulations
would primarily be the continuation of impacts presently occurring
and may be grouped into two categories. One group of impacts
involves the redistribution of hazardous wastes and their associated
environmental problems (which would be at least partially dimin-
ished). This would occur as existing treatment and disposal
9-1
-------
sices which do not meet Che sCandards (including many on-site
facilicies) close down and Che wastes are senC elsewhere. The second
group of impacts arise from areas not covered or specifically
excluded from Che regulations. Again, any adverse impacts resulting
from such exclusions would be continuations of existing impaccs and
would not be directly caused by the regulations.
9.1 Redistribution of Hazardous Wastes
When the regulations become effective, they could force the
closure of a large number of facilicies which currently accept
hazardous wastes. A recent EPA study (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977c) indicated that environmental contamination from
existing landfill sites may be more widespread than previously
realized. Out of 50 randomly chosen sites which had never before
been suspected of leaking and of which 32 were already being
monitored, 43 sices were determined to be causing local groundwater
degradation, 26 to such a degree that one or more EPA drinking water
standards were exceeded. Poor groundwater quality was noted in six
of the remaining sites, but could not be definitely linked to the
disposal operation. Closure of a large portion of existing disposal
sites, primarily on-site facilities, could create an immediate and
potentially severe shortfall of facility capacity. Since the total
capacity of all existing sites is not known, it is difficult to
determine the ultimate impact of this relocation of wastes. However,
it is essential that situations such as occurred in New Jersey do not
9-2
-------
recur on a national scale. Enactment of strict environmental
regulations in New Jersey forced the closure of the last legal land
disposal site for chemical wastes in 1976. Since then, the costs of
acceptable disposal methods have increased tremendously, and many
companies have been faced with the alternatives of paying much higher
treatment costs or using illegal disposal methods. The result has
been a series of indiscriminate dumping of hazardous wastes through-
out New Jersey and in neighboring states (Richards, 1978).
Such a situation may be mitigated by one method or a combination
of several methods. The one method, while temporary, would be to
delay the closing of unacceptable facilities until there were accept-
able alternative treatment, disposal, or storage methods for all of
the wastes presently going to each facility. This could be accom-
plished by delaying action on permit application by such facilities
for.several years. The advantage of such a strategy would be that,
since these sites already have large amounts of waste that must at
some point be cleaned up, it would not create any significant new
problems to continue using them for a short period of time. These
sites should be prohibited from accepting any wastes from new sources
and every effort should be made to relocate the wastes presently
going to the sites as quickly as possible, but the consequences of
immediately closing the site without providing acceptable alterna-
tives could lead to the creation of new problems in previously
uncontaminated areas.
9-3
-------
Volume reduction, resource recovery, and recycling of wastes are
other measures which would help mitigate the problems of finding more
disposal capacity. These are partially addressed in the regulations
by the mandate that "where practical, disposal of hazardous wastes
shall be avoided and alternatives such as resource recovery, reuse,
or other measures of recycling shall be employed." As a further
method of coping with the short-term shortfall of capacity, this
requirement could be extended to include treatment for volume
reduction.
A third measure to cope with the shortfall of capacity is to
provide assistance for the rapid expansion of existing facilities to
the greatest extent possible. Such assistance could take the form of
guaranteed loans, grants, large-scale demonstration projects, and
provision of technical expertise.
In addition, it would undoubtedly be necessary to site and
construct facilities in order to meet the increased demands for
treatment/disposal. This process could be greatly expedited by
effective cooperation between the permitting agencies (state or
Federal), waste generators, and disposers in order to compile and
evaluate information on needs, quantities and types of wastes
generated, available transportation, and location of suitable
disposal areas. Information and advice should be solicited from
the state geologic surveys, local offices of the Soil Conservation
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and other pertinent agencies
9-4
-------
early in the siting search. In addition, experience in states such
California, Illinois, and New Jersey has indicated that there is
substantial public resistance to the siting of new facilities, re-
sulting in long delays and considerable expense. It is possible that
a well-conceived public information program on both the national and
local levels could help alleviate this problem. Points that could be
emphasized are the required procedures to limit groundwater and air
pollution, the necessity of disposing of the waste in an acceptable
manner, and the physical and geologic conditions which make a par-
ticular location a suitable site. It might also be advisable to
prohibit the construction of new plants which would generate signifi-
cant quantities of hazardous wastes unless either an acceptable local
hazardous waste disposal facility has sufficient excess capacity to
handle the new wastes, or unless such a facility could and would be
constructed in conjunction with the new generator. This requirement
could help to off-set the public opposition to siting disposal
facilities by providing the economic benefits of additional local
employment and a larger tax base due to the presence of the generat-
ing facility. This requirement could also reduce transport
distances, result in lower costs, and reduce potential for spills
resulting from transport of hazardous wastes.
Relocation of waste shipments from existing environmentally
unacceptable disposal sites to acceptable sites may produce some
local impacts in the vicinity of the new sites. Since the
9-5
-------
regulations require strict compliance with all state and Federal laws
regarding air and water quality, these impacts should be relatively
minor. However, the creation of large facilities in remote areas (as
may be required by public opposition or by the location of suitable
geologic conditions) could result in the loss of potentially valuable
habitat, range lands, or prime agricultural lands. In addition, some
degree of socio-economic impact could occur as a result of the added
manpower and support facilities which may be required to construct
and operate the disposal facilities. The Integrated Economic Impact
Assessment of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory
Analysis Supplement) addresses the latter types of impacts; coordina-
tion of planning efforts with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
USDA Soil Conservation Service should help mitigate the former. An
increased potential for hazardous spills and vehicle emissions is
also expected to result due to the necessity to transport more wastes
off-site and to the probable longer distances to acceptable disposal
facilities. Air emissions may also result from the construction and
operation of new resource recovery facilities, though, again, these
emissions are required to be within all applicable air standards.
Impacts could occur to water quality as a result of discharges
of treated effluents from waste treatment facilities. Such discharg-
es would have to meet all applicable water quality standards includ-
ing those promulgated under the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500, as
amended), and under the various state laws, and would have to be
9-6
-------
approved by Che permitting agency. However, even though a discharge
meets all applicable standards, it could still reduce receiving water
quality up to the maximum allowable limit. Since this limit was
picked to ensure adequate protection of both environmental and human
health, such an impact should be minimal, though it may involve some
loss of value to local water users. However, there are many
potentially hazardous constituents of these wastes for which no
standards have yet been promulgated. This may be due to lack of
adequate substantiation of suspected human health effects, or to lack
of information on tolerable levels to ensure the absence of chronic
health effects. In addition, it is possible that some potentially
harmful properties of these wastes are not even suspected at this
time. In this respect, waste discharges could conceivably meet all
applicable standards and still contribute to environmental
degradation with potential human health effects. It should be
emphasized that such effects are now occurring to a much greater
degree without the controls which would be implemented by the
proposed regulations. They could be further mitigated by requiring
that all waste streams be sent to permitted treatment/disposal
facilities.
In spite of any local increase in impacts which might occur, the
net effect of the relocation of hazardous waste disposal operations
to acceptable facilities in other areas would produce a marked
decrease in the overall adverse environmental impact of the wastes.
9-7
-------
An additional group of adverse impacts would be associated with
increased paperwork requirements and the enlargement of the govern-
ment bureaucracy to deal with those regulations. It is estimated
that under the baseline regulations about 270,000 to 300,000
generators could be required to notify EPA following promulgation of
the regulations. An additional 29,000 facility permit applications
could also require processing. Further, monitoring reports and
annual summaries of receipts of manifested wastes could produce up to
400,000 reports per year. Manpower to deal with such requirements is
not presently available in either EPA, or in most state governments.
The regulations could therefore require the establishment of new
government jobs and procedures which could both increase the size and
unwieldiness of many bureaucratic systems and the size of government
payrolls. Reduced notification or reporting requirements would,
however, weaken the effectiveness of control over hazardous wastes.
9.2 Impacts Unaffected by the Regulations
9.2.1 • Siting. The baseline regulations prohibit locating
hazardous waste facilities on active fault zones, in wetlands, on
100-or 500-year flood plains, in the recharge zone of sole source
aquifers, or in the critical habitat areas of endangered species,
with certain exceptions. In addition, the regulations require that
landfills, surface impoundments, and landfarms be located, con-
structed, and operated so as to prevent landslides, slumping, and
erosion.
9-8
-------
However, other siting considerations that could have or that could
cause adverse impacts are not addressed. These include siting
facilities in areas prone to subsidence or to geothermal activity; in
areas on migration pathways or rangelands of important regional
(though not necessarily endangered) species; or in areas of prime
agricultural lands. Although formally increasing the permit review
process to include state geologic surveys, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and local soil conservation services may not be desirable
due to resultant increased paperwork and processing times, there
should be some means of ensuring coordination with these agencies in
order to assure that all potential problems have been considered.
The information requirements for permit applications could also be
expanded to include ecological data for the site area that identifies
any local migratory pathways and the occurrence of any browsing or
burrowing animals wh.ich could obtain access to the material stored or
disposed of at the site.
As discussed previously, i.t may -also be desirable to examine
siting considerations before beginning the construction of major new
facilities generating hazardous wastes. This should be studied in
light of both the local environmental impacts, as well as the
location and capacities of potential treatment/disposal facilities.
In any case, all siting of hazardous waste facilities would also
be subject to a number of additional constraints, besides those cited
in the regulations. These include restrictions promulgated under the
following laws protecting fish, wildlife, and natural resources:
9-9
-------
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C 669)
• Protection of Wild Horses and Burros (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340)
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742-754)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667)
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
1601-1610)
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347)
• Administration of National Wildlife Refuge System (16 U.S.C.
668)
• Open Space Land (42 U.S.C. 1500)
• Protection of Bald and Golden Eagles (16 U.S.C. 668)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287)
• Wilderness Act and Amendments (16 U.S.C. 11-31-1136; P.L.
93-662)
Other constraints would include national, state, and local forests,
parks, trails, and historic sites.
9.2.2 Transportation. The baseline regulations require that if
the waste meets the DOT definition and criteria for a hazardous
material (49 CFR 171.8 and 173), it must be handled in accordance
with-the provisions of applicable DOT regulations under 46 and 49
CFR. These regulations contain detailed requirements for the
construction, inspection, handling, and labeling of hazardous
materials and other containers. The baseline regulations for
hazardous wastes also specify that transporters must not transport
9-10
-------
containers which are leaking or appear to be damaged, and that leaks
which are discovered enroute be treated as emergency situations.
Except for the restrictions on accepting damaged containers,
there are no other provisions in the baseline regulations designed to
prevent spillage or other accidental releases during transport. This
could be alleviated by requiring studies to determine a route from
the generating site to the treatment/disposal site which presents the
least chance of an accident and which would involve the least amount
of damage to human health and the environment in general. Such
studies might prove especially useful if the total ton-miles of
hazardous waste transport increase.
9.2.3 Construction and Operation. The baseline regulations
mandate that landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments "shall be
located, or constructed and operated, so as to prevent landslides,
slumping or erosion." This requirement does not specifically include
the implementation of a sediment control plan during construction
activities, though the effective use of such a plan would mitigate
most physical impacts of construction. Requirements to minimize the
construction impact on wildlife would provide additional benefits.
Such plans may be required by state or local statutes.
Although the baseline regulations require that "facilities shall
have fencing completely surrounding all active portions of the
facility," they do not make provisions for securing the facilities
against small burrowing animals and birds. The case of waterfowl at
9-11
-------
ponds and lagoons may present particular problems. Burrowing animals
may be excluded by constructing fences which are buried several feet
in the soil, the exact depth determined by the types of animals which
might be present in the region. Solution of the problem of birds may
be more difficult, but may be attempted by growing non-palatable
vegetation such as Phragmites (Martin and Uhler, 1951) or pine trees
around the perimeters of the area. Intermittent noise makers may
also be used when necessary.
The baseline regulations would prohibit endangerment of
underground drinking water sources (UDWS). Such sources are defined
as those which currently supply a public water system; or an aquifer
with a total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/1; or an
aquifer otherwise designated as usable by the Administrator. It is
possible, especially in water-short areas, that some groundwaters
that are not classified UDWS may at some point be required for
salinity-tolerant industrial uses such as dust control, ash quench-
ing, or cooling purposes. Contamination of these waters with
hazardous wastes could prevent such use and require the use of
freshwater instead, possibly contributing to water shortages. This
occurrence could be avoided by extending the regulations to protect
all groundwaters. Alternately, the Administrator could limit
exemptions to this procedure to areas which are highly unlikely to
experience water shortages, or could designate all aquifers in
potential drought areas as UDWS.
9-12
-------
Adverse impacts could occur as a result of potentially hazardous
wastes which are not covered by the regulations* or which are pro-
duced by generators who produce less than the generator limit and are
thereby excluded from regulation. These wastes would be subject to
all other applicable state and Federal regulations, including the
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Subtitle D
of RCRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
others.
Any remaining impacts resulting from these wastes not subject to
the regulations could be further mitigated by specifically requiring
proper labeling and disposal of all potentially hazardous wastes
(while excluding generators producing less than 100 kilograms per
month from the paperwork and other requirements of the regulations).
9.2.4 Closure. One additional area not specifically covered in
the baseline regulations is the impact resulting from disposal sites
which already have been abandoned or which would be abandoned rather
than modified to meet the regulations. The Section 3004 regulations
would require that facility owners/operators close all portions of
their facilities which do not comply with the regulations. Such
closure is to be in accordance with the specified closure procedures.
However, most of the closure requirements are directed at new
*As discussed in Chapter 7, EPA is considering expanding the toxicity
criteria to regulate a greater number of potentially hazardous
wastes at a future time. An additional environmental statement or
supplementary statement would be prepared covering this change, if
warranted at that time.
9-13
-------
facilities and those existing facilities able to obtain permits;
previously abandoned facilities and those existing facilities which
could not be modified to obtain permits could not satisfy many of the
requirements (e.g., financial requirements, submission of closure
plans before beginning operations, certification of closure in
accordance with permit, and preparation of a survey plat showing
types of waste and their location at the site). While some owners of
these latter facilities could be located, there are no specific
provisions for insuring proper closure, for financing the cleanup and
closure, or even for locating previously abandoned facilities. While it
is EPA's intent that all hazardous waste facilities be closed in
accordance with the regulations, some abandoned facilities may have
to be satisfactorily closed using public funds.
Lastly, it should be repeated that the regulations themselves
are an important and potent mitigating measure. The administrating
agencies must ensure that the location, design, construction, moni-
toring, and closing of all facilities are all carefully planned and
that all provisions of the regulations are strictly followed and
enforced. This point is emphasized by the recent study (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c) which discovered that a large
percentage of sites which were presumably secure and already being
monitored were actually causing groundwater pollution.
9-14
-------
10.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The Subtitle C regulations may result in some localized adverse
impacts, though as discussed previously, such impacts would essen-
tially be continuations of adverse impacts which are already
occurring. On the other hand, the regulations would also result in a
significant overall reduction in the adverse impacts associated with
hazardous waste management and would thus provide for the significant
enhancement of the long term productivity of man's environment.
The major short-term adverse impacts would include economic
impacts, which are discussed in detail in the Integrated Economic
Impact Assessment (Regulatory Analysis Supplement), some localized
instances of environmental degradation, and possible increased public
opposition to the location of additional hazardous waste disposal
sites. These must be balanced against the benefits derived from
likely increases in resource recovery, improved air and water
quality, and reduced damages to environmental systems and human .
health.
The possible increase in resource recovery would contribute to
two beneficial effects. It would decrease the rate of depletion of
raw materials through increasing emphasis on the development of
separation technology and resource recovery. In addition, any
increased resource recovery could result in decreases in the amount
of waste generated, thereby extending the usable lifetimes of
disposal facilities.
10-1
-------
The control of hazardous wastes required by the regulations
would end many of the incidents of water quality degradation which
occur as a result of current disposal methods. Increases in water
quality would effectively increase the water potentially available
for various uses and should provide additional benefits through the
prevention of adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to
hazardous materials in drinking water supplies.
The permanent isolation of many of the harmful and persistent
waste products from man's industries would have many beneficial
effects on the environment and human health. As a result, bioaccumu-
lation of these materials in the food chain would be decreased, as
would many of the effects of chronic exposure to low levels of toxic
contaminants.
10-2
-------
11.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The requirements contained in the Subtitle C regulations would
result in the essentially irreversible or irretrievable commitments
of land, wastes, fuel, container materials, and clays, even though
many of these resources are also presently being irretrievably
committed by the haphazard methods currently employed in hazardous
waste disposal.
Land commitments are currently being made for hazardous waste
disposal. The regulations may cause a reduction in the number of
small scattered disposal sites and an increase in the number of larg-
er, more centrally located sites due in part to the economics
involved with providing a secure facility. However, the prohibitions
and restrictions on disposal of volatile, reactive, and ignitable
wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, and landfarms would also
necessitate either the upgrading or the construction of new
incinerators and other treatment facilities. Closure of any existing
facilities which could not be upgraded to meet the regulations and
the construction of necessary replacement facilities would create
additional demands for land and associated land use impacts.
Due to the requirements for the environmentally acceptable
operation and closure of disposal sites, the land used for disposal
would not actually be irretrievably lost to all uses. However, due
to the nature of the wastes, future uses would be restricted to
surface activities which do not require any excavation or other
disturbance of the wastes buried below.
11-1
-------
The wastes themselves represent a substantial quantity of poten-
tial resources, particularly in the case of heavy metals and other
inorganic materials. At the present time, technology is not avail-
able to economically recover many of these materials, but at some
point in the future such a procedure may become feasible. In that
case, some of the permanent disposal methods employed as a result of
this act could be regarded as irreversibly and irretrievably
committing wastes to ultimate disposal. The required records of
types and locations of wastes within landfills could, however, aid in
recovery efforts.
Any increased transport of wastes would result in greater fuel
consumption and the increased release of vehicular emissions, with
associated human health effects. Containerization of hazardous
wastes in landfills would result in the irretrievable loss of raw
materials.
Large amounts of clays would be required for the construction of
dikes and liners for landfills and surface impoundments. Additional
amounts would be required as cover material during the operation of
landfills and during closing procedures for landfills, landfarms, and
surface impoundments. Since these clays would ultimately be contami-
nated by adsorbed wastes, they would be essentially irreversibly lost
to future uses.
Fuels, electric power, lubricants, structural materials,
capital, and manpower resources used in the construction of necessary
-------
new facilities and in the modification of existing facilities could
be irretrievably lost to other uses. Additional capital and manpower
resources used in complying with the operational requirements of the
regulations, in administrating the regulations, and in enforcing the
regulations would also be irretrievably lost to other uses. Any
plant closings as a result of promulgation of the regulations would
likely be irreversible. Any resultant population shifts could cause
irreversible changes in daily living patterns in affected areas.
11-3
-------
12.0 DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
The notice of availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978.
Copies of the statement were sent to Federal, state, and local
agencies; environmental, health, and citizens groups; professional
associations; trade associations; and solid waste management
professional groups.
Information copies were made available at the 10 EPA Regional
Office libraries and at the EPA library reading room, Room 2404,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Single copies
were also furnished for review and comment upon request.
The 90-day review period expired officially on March 16, 1979.
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received
during this period from the following (no additional comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received after this
period)*:
• American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc.;
«
• United States Department of Commerce;
• Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service;
• The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and the Edison
Electric Institute;
• Mobil Oil Corporation;
*0ver 1,200 comments were also received on the proposed Subtitle C
regulations during this period. Those comments are addressed in the
background documents prepared for the Subtitle C regulations.
12-1
-------
• American Petroleum Institute;
• Dow Chemical U.S.A.
These seven comments were considered and responded to in the
preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The text of
these comments is presented in Appendix 0.
This chapter discusses the comments received on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, the environnmental issues raised
through those comments, and the resolution of the issues. Responses
to the environmental issues raised by each commenter are presented
below. Consideration of the comments and disposition of the issues
raised are reflected, in part, by the revised text in other sections
of the Environmental Impact Statement and, in part, by these point-
by-point responses.
12.1 Comment Responses
Sections 12.1.1 through 12.1.7 present the environmental issues
raised by each of the commenters and the resolution of these issues.
12.1.1 American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc.
Extension of Comment Period
Comment: The December 18, 1978 Federal Register notice states
that the economic, environmental, and regulatory impact analysis for
these proposed regulations is to be available for inspection on
January 8, 1979. We have just received a copy of this report, and we
are unable to review it in depth and prepare comments within the
present comment period.
12-2
-------
Response: Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed Subtitle C regulations were available at the ten U.S. EPA
regional offices and Headquarters on January 8, 1979, for the express
purpose of allowing the public ample time to review and comment on the
document prior to individual mailings.
12.1.2 United States Department of Commerce
12.1.2.1. Foreign Shipments
Comment; According to the Section 3002 differences discussed in
the Preface, generators who ship hazardous waste to a foreign country
are required to inform the foreign government. Are generators
required to inform foreign countries if the material is only in
transit through their country? (In the case of material being shipped
through the Panama Canal to be disposed of at sea, is the generator
required to notify Panama?)
Response: Generators who ship wastes to a foreign country will
be required to notify EPA in advance of the initial shipment in any
calendar year. EPA will then notify others as appropriate. With
regard to in transit shipments, generators must comply with national
and international laws, e.g., Panamanian Law. See the February 26,
1980, Federal Register. Part 262, for further information.
12.1.2.2 Long-Terra Land Capacity
Comment; Epic long-term capacity of land filling was not
addressed in Section 7.2.5. It is stated that "existing land uses
would cease, either permanently or temporarily, on all land converted
12-3
-------
to hazardous waste management uses. Some agricultural, grazing,
forest, recreational, and other lands could be removed from their
existing uses." With a hazardous waste production of 4.7 million
metric tons per year (Table 5-21), it seems that 1.3 square miles of
land could be filled with a 20-foot thick layer each year. Elsewhere
in the document and in recently-issued proposed regulations in the
Federal Register, EPA discusses total current volumes of hazardous
waste in the 35 million ton per year range, a figure that is expected
to grow rapidly in the next few decades. How many years can we
continue land filling on the scale this implies before the decrease in
available land through waste containment has a significant effect on
food production and other land uses?
Response; . The use of land for hazardous waste management is
just one of many factors that would affect the long-term availability
of land for both food production and other uses. Other factors that
would also affect long-term land availability and productivity include
economic growth, population growth, energy development, technologic
innovation, water availability, environmental pollution, and regula-
tory policies. Long-term land availability and productivity would
depend upon extremely complex interactions among these and other
factors and would have to be the subject of a comprehensive in-depth
study in its own right. At this time, it is not possible to determine
with any reasonable degree of accuracy how these interactions will
12-4
-------
resolve themselves and how they will thus affect long-term land
availability and productivity for specific uses.
The EIS discusses those land use impacts that are attributable to
promulgation of the Subtitle C regulations. Section 7.2.4.2 indicates
the changes in on-site and off-site land requirements that could re-
sult from the baseline regulations. Section 7.2.5 describes long-term
land use impacts that could result from these changes in land re-
quirements and from other changes likely to result from the baseline
regulations.
The DEIS does indicate that the regulations might result in
increased land use for the environmentally acceptable management of
hazardous waste. However, the primary reason behind additional lands
being required for hazardous waste management under the regulations is
the need to provide acceptable facilities for managing those wastes
that are currently being generated, but that are not being managed in
an environmentally acceptable manner. The DEIS notes that, to the ex-
tent that the regulations would prevent other lands .from being con-
taminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage, or treatment of
hazardous wastes under current practices and regulations, there would
be a potential for offsetting land use benefits. The DEIS also notes
in Section 7.1.2.1 that, due to increased costs associated with both
hazardous waste generation and management under the regulations,
generators would have an incentive to modify processes so as to reduce
the amounts of hazardous waste produced by their processes and so as
12-5
-------
to enable increased recycling of hazardous wastes as process feed-
stocks. To the extent that such modifications occur, less waste would
have to be disposed in the long-term. This would also potentially
provide offsetting land use benefits.
It should be noted that Table 5-21 does not indicate that
hazardous waste generation is 4.7 million metric tons per year. As
stated in the text, Table 5-21 shows the total quantity of hazardous
wastes contained in selected waste streams that were studied to
determine their potential for energy recovery.
12.1.2.3 Agricultural Use of Closed Sites
Comment; Section 7.2.5 of the Draft EIS states that "Sites at
which hazardous wastes have not been removed would be precluded from
residential and agricultural uses, and may be precluded from some re-
creational and grazing uses following closure." If the intent of
limiting the use to non-agricultural purposes is to keep highly per-
sistent molecules out of the food chain, it will not work due to wild
animals, insects, and birds foraging on plants in the site area. We •
recommend this concept be reviewed.
Response: This comment has been considered in the revision of
the proposed Subtitle C regulations. Modifications to post-closure
requirements (including stipulations on the future use of hazardous
waste sites) have been considered and are addressed in the Phase I
Alternative (See Sections 4.5 and 8.5).
12-6
-------
12.1.2.4 Probability of Marine Accidents
Comment: With regard to Section 5.2.3.5, an impact that is not
discussed is the possibility of a marine accident that would cause the
&
release of up to 1,500 tons of hazardous waste into the Mississippi
River or Gulf intercoastal waterways. A discussion of the probability
of it happening, similar to the discussion on page 7-190 (Section
7.2.3.2) for highway transportation, would be useful.
Response: Section 7.2.3.2 discusses the potential change in the
number of vehicular accidents that could result under the baseline
regulations from a change in the quantity of hazardous waste being
sent off-site by truck.
As indicated in Section 5.2.3.5, most hazardous waste material
transported by waterway is sent to a resource recovery facility.
Those waste materials sent to resource recovery facilities would not
be identified as a solid waste under the Subtitle C regulations and
would thus not be subject to the regulations.
The total quantity of hazardous waste.materials transported by
barge appears to be small, relative to highway transport. Data are
not, however, available to estimate the quantity of waste presently
transported by barge that could be subject to the regulations nor to
estimate the change in the quantity of such waste that would be
transported by barge under the baseline regulations. Consequently,
the potential change in the number of marine accidents that could
result under the baseline regulations cannot be estimated.
12-7
-------
Section 7.1.5.1 has however been expanded to include a generic
discussion of the potential for any changes in the quantity of
regulated waste being transported by barge to result in changes in
marine accidents. (It should be noted that Section 5.2.3.5 contains
background information, not the impact assessment.)
12.1.3 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service
12.1.3.1 Generator Limit
Comment: The EPA Standards, as proposed, would not apply to a
generator producing less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month. While this amount might not be considered significant for
some chemicals, 100 kilograms of radioactive material or infectious
material could present a substantial problem if proper handling,
storage, transportation, and disposal practices are not observed.
Response: This comment has been considered in the revision of
the proposed Subtitle C regulations. Section 7.1.6.1 discusses
potential impacts that could result from the exclusion of such wastes
from control under the baseline regulations. Sections 8.3 and 8.4
discuss the potential impacts that could result from alternative
generator limits.
12.1.3.2 Storage Without a Permit
Comment: The proposed standards would not apply to a generator
who stores hazardous wastes less than 90 days. Has the issue of
regulating all generators been considered since the improper storage,
L2-8
-------
handling, treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes may represent a
sustained threat to health irrespective of the time factors involved?
Response; This comment has been considered in the revision of
the proposed Subtitle C regulations. Under the proposed regulations,
those generators who accumulate wastes, prior to off-site disposal,
for less than 90 days without a permit are still required to comply
with the container standards specified in Section 3002. One addi-
tional requirement is being considered for on-site accumulation
without a permit and is addressed in the Phase I Alternative (see
Sections 4.5 and 8.5). Other changes with regard to the accumulation
of wastes without a permit in storage tanks are being considered and
will be addressed in the Phase II Alternative to be added in Part 2 of
the final Environmental Impact Statement.
12.1.3.3 Number of Generators
Comment: On page S-19 of the DEIS it is estimated that 430,000
to 460,000 generators would have to comply with hazardous waste
regulations. An indeterminant number of "special waste" generators
could also have to comply. These figures are inconsistent with the
statement noted on page 58946, column 3, of the December 18, 1978,
Federal Register. That reference estimates approximately 270,000
waste generating facilities. This discrepancy should be resolved
since the actual number of generators will have a drastic effect on
the estimates of paperwork required under this regulation, numbers of
12-9
-------
generators affected, and the potential health and safety impact on the
general population.
Response: The DEIS estimate of the number of generators required
to comply with the regulations has been revised downward. The
revision has been made to account for the effect of the waste
automotive oil transfer of liability contract on the number of
regulated generators.
12.1.3.4 Phasing of Generators
Comment: Using the figures in the Federal Register, it is
estimated that approximately 270,000 waste generating facilities and
10,000 transporteres will be regulated, although only about 30,000 of
that number will require treatment, storage, or disposal permits.
Generators would be phased over a 5-year period with the larger
producers brought into compliance first.
We do not agree with this philosophy and believe that through the
application of the regulations to everyone, many generators can
immediately b.e brought into "voluntary" compliance with little effort.
It is recognized that some firms may require time extensions to
achieve compliance, but this extension should be on a case-by-case
basis.
Response: The phasing of generators under the regulations is one
of many alternative approaches that were considered in the development
of the Subtitle C regulations. This alternative is analyzed in the
DEIS in Section 8.2, but was not included in the proposed Subtitle C
regulations.
12-10
-------
12.1.4 The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and The Edison
Electric Institute
12.1.4.1 Quantitative Estimates
Comment: The DEIS lacks quantitative estimates which measure
impact assessments in absolute terms. In this most crucial aspect of
an impact statement, the DEIS is seriously deficient because of the
lack of quantitative and specific data and information, especially in
key decision-making areas. Typically, when assessments are attempted
in the DEIS, they are presented on a comparative, qualitative basis,
presumably based on the judgment of EPA and their contractors. This
absence of quantitative, absolute data and information effectively
frustrates any attempt to distinguish clearly either absolute or
incremental effects or impacts of the proposed or alternative actions.
(See Appendix 0 for specific examples indicating the qualitative
nature of the impact assessment).
Response: As is indicated in the DEIS, extremely limited data
are currently available with regard to both the generation and the
management of hazardous waste. To the extent that the limited data
allow, impacts are assessed quantitatively in the DEIS. However,
while every effort has been made to make the analysis as quantitative
as possible, data limitations for the most part, necessitate a generic
and qualitative assessment of impacts. Section 7.3 indicates the
significant uncertainties present in the impact assessment.
Although the specific magnitude of impacts may not always be
known, the types of impacts that could occur (both beneficial and
12-11
-------
adverse) are identified. Also identified are the types of impacts
that may be significant, the types of impacts that cannot presently be
•
mitigated, and data gaps and uncertainties that need to be resolved.
These are some of the important environmental considerations with
regard to decision-making and program planning.
12.1.4.2 Incomplete Data Base
Comment; The value and meaningfulness of the qualitative as-
sessments are further weakened by the fact that they have been based
on a limited data base representative of only the manufacturing
industries. (See Appendix 0 for excerpts from the OEIS which outline
the limitations in the data base used to support impact assessments.)
The completeness of even that data base was called into question in
Section'7.1.3.3. While there would seem to be ample justification to
question the selection of the manufacturing industries data base as
the basis for impact assessments in the DEIS, this comment relates not
to the matter of data base selection, but to the inappropriateness of
the DEIS subjective/qualitative judgments (based an manufacturing
industry waste information) as applied to other industries' wastes.
The differences in waste characteristics and treatment and disposal
practices between industries and industrial groupings are extremely
significant. This was recognized to a great extent by EPA in estab-
lishing the "special wastes" category.
Notwithstanding the special waste categorization, the proposed
regulations do apply to and will have significant impacts on non-
12-12
-------
manufacturing industries. Yet, there has been no effort made to
evaluate just what the impacts will be for these industries and
whether or not the regulations are accordingly justified. This is a
serious deficiency in the DEIS which significantly limits its useful-
ness to support decision-making.
Response: It is agreed that the regulations would have signifi-
cant impacts on both manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries.
As indicated in Section 7.0, the emphasis of the impact analysis is
necessarily directed toward manufacturing industries because most
available data concerning hazardous waste generation and management
relate to manufacturing industries. Impacts from the regulation of
non-manufacturing industries are addressed to the extent that the
available data allow (see, for example, Sections 6.1.2, 7.1.3.3, and
7.1.3.6).
Due to the significant differences that exist in waste charac-
teristics and management practices among both the various manufactur-
ing and non-manufacturing industries, any detailed assessment of the
overall potential impact of the regulations on various manufacturing
and non-manufacturing industries would essentially require the prepa-
ration of an entire separate assessment for each and every industry.
Such an undertaking is not manageable within the scope of this Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement. Furthermore, the extensive data limita-
tions previously indicated (and reaffirmed by the public comments on
12-13
-------
the proposed regulations) along with the extreme waste-specific,
process-specific, and site-specific nature of most impacts would at
this time preclude the preparation of a meaningful comprehensive
assessment for most industries, and especially for non-manufacturing
industries. It should be noted that, for the most part, the major
impact of the regulations on industry would be economic in nature.
The major economic impacts of the regulations on various industries
are analyzed in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supplement), not in
the EIS.
12.1.4.3 Meaningfulness of Alternatives
Comment: We question the meaningfulness of EPA's alternatives
selection on two accounts. First, EPA does not provide any support or
foundation to demonstrate that the alternatives that were selected
actually do bracket the anticipated overall objectives and resultant
impacts. We believe that such a demonstration by EPA is in order.
Our basic contention in suggesting such a need is that unless the
"world" that is to be affected (in this case, by the proposed or
alternative regulations) is reasonably well known and defined, one
cannot reasonably assume that the appropriate "bracket" has been
established or that the resultant impacts have been bracketed. More
specifically, and as reviewed previously, EPA has stated that the
focus of its assessment has been with respect to manufacturing indus-
tries and that in many of these, the number of hazardous waste
12-14
-------
generators are not known. Alternatively stated, EPA has assessed the
impacts of the regulations (i.e., proposed and alternatives) based on
a "sample" of the "world" that will be impacted while it has demon-
strated no support that its "sample" is representative.
If it were discovered that the "sample" used by EPA in its an-
alysis was not representative, it is possible that the impacts such as
plant closings or community out-migration could become extremely
significant. Given that EPA has not quantified the absolute impacts
of each of its alternatives or quantified the incremental quantitative
impacts among the alternatives and the proposed action, the reviewer
has no reasonable way of accepting that the alternatives are meaning-
ful ones which truly bracket the impacts from "whatever set of re-
gulations that are ultimately promulgated. . . ."
Response; The latter part of the comment indicates that
variances in data would change the predicted impacts that could occur
under the alternatives analyzed and could thus invalidate EPA's selec-
tion of alternatives used to bracket anticipated impacts. Based upon
this, it appears that there is some confusion about the difference be-
tween the brackets (constraints) imposed by the set of alternatives
used for the assessment and the constraints imposed by the adequacy
and/or representativeness of the existing data base. This difference
is very important and needs to be addressed before responding to the
first part of the comment.
12-15
-------
The set of alternatives provides the framework for assessing
impacts by defining those wastes and activities that are excluded from
regulation and by defining those wastes and activities that are to be
regulated and the manner in which they are to be regulated. The set
of alternatives thus limits both the "world" that is to be affected by
the regulations and the types of impacts that can potentially occur
and be assessed within that world. This bracketing occurs independent
of data considerations and exists whether or not data is available to
assess impacts within these limits. While the adequacy and represen-
tativeness of the existing data base does, without question, affect
the reliability of the assessment of the set of alternatives, the data
base does not in any way affect those brackets (constraints) imposed
by the set of alternatives.
With regard to the issue that there is no support to demonstrate
that the set of alternatives truly brackets the impacts from the set
of regulations to be ultimately promulgated by EPA, it should first be
noted that during the development of the Subtitle C regulations numer-
ous issues have been reviewed by EPA and numerous regulatory options
have been considered for promulgation by EPA (see the Background
Documents for a discussion of the major issues raised and the major
regulatory options considered). For reasons discussed in response to
comment 12.1.4.4, it was not possible for the EIS to assess each and
every regulatory option considered; as a result, it was necessary to
12-16
-------
select and develop a manageable set of meaningful alternatives for an-
alysis purposes.
The various regulatory options considered reasonable for promul-
gation by EPA under the mandate of Subtitle C were used in selecting
such a set of alternatives. To insure that the set of alternatives
reasonably brackets the anticipated impacts from the regulations that
are ultimately to be promulgated, the regulatory options included in
the set of alternative were put at the limits at which they were con-
sidered for promulgation. For example, while EPA proposed a generator
limit of 100 kilogram per month, EPA also considered as reasonable
proposing a generator limit as high as 1,000 kilograms per month or
eliminating the generator limit entirely and regulating all hazardous
waste generators. The set of alternatives selected imposes generator
limits between zero and 1,000 kilograms per month and thus brackets
the regulatory options considered reasonable.
By setting the regulatory options at the limits considered for
promulgation, the set of alternatives thus .reasonably brackets the
regulations considered for promulgation and thus reasonably bracket
the impacts anticipated from these and intermediate regulations.
Obviously, if the regulations that are ultimately promulgated contain
options not previously considered by EPA, it is possible that not all
significant impacts would be bracketed; however, it is not possible to
anticipate such developments. As is discussed above, the validity of
12-17
-------
Che data base available for impact assessment does not in any way
affect the brackets imposed by threse alternatives.
It should be noted that a new alternative, the Phase I Alterna-
tive, has been added to enable the assessment of additional regulatory
options now being considered for promulgation as part of the Phase I
regulations. A second new alternative, the Phase II Alternative, is
to be added in part II of the final EIS so as to enable the asssess-
•
ment of additional regulatory options being considered for promul-
gation as part of the Phase II regulations.
12.1.4.4 Analysis of Each Regulatory Option
Comment; Second, we question the meaning fulness of the
alternatives since each alternative represents a combination of many
different regulatory mechanisms and controls. For example, the lesser
degree of control alternative involves elimination of the identifying
characteristics test of hazardousness, increasing the generator cutoff
to 1000 kg/month, and other changes. Similarly, enhanced degree of
control involves elimination of the special waste standards, no
generator cutoff, and expansion of the identifying characteristics ap-
plicability. Thus, when assessing the impact of an alternative, the
DEIS is presenting the combined impact of a number of regulatory op-
tions. By this method of evaluation, the importance/significance of
each of the regulatory options which make up a whole alternative is
lost. For example, if 90 percent of the benefits accruing from the
enhanced degree of control are achieved by eliminating the cutoff and
12-18
-------
very little benefit is achieved through expanding the identifying
characteristics test (at probably considerable additional cost and
inconvenience), these factors would be essential to the development of
meaningful and cost effective regulations. The alternatives as they
are presently structured do not allow for this type of regulatory op-
tion "sensitivity analysis."
The alternatives evaluation, in our opinion, should be structured
so as to test the impact of each regulatory option, in and of itself.
Thus, those options having real and significant benefits could be
identified and included in the final regulations. Conversely, those
options that have questionable or limited benefits but real and
significant costs could be excluded.
Response; First, it is not meaningful, nor even possible, to
assess a regulatory option by itself. A regulatory option takes on
meaning only in relation to the remainder of the regulations. For
example, a generator cutoff has no real meaning unless characteristics
for identifying hazardous waste are defined along with requirements
for managing of the waste to be regulated. Without defining a com-
plete set of regulations, it is not possible to fully assess the
impact of any regulatory option since the effects of excluded portions
of the regulations would not be taken into account. For example, if
landfill requirements, transport requirements, and/or reporting re-
quirements were not specified, it would not be possible to provide a
12-19
-------
complete or even accurate assessment of the environmental or economic
impacts of different generator cutoff limits.
Similarly, changes in other parts of the regulations would re-
sult in changes in the impacts from the various components of a
specific regulatory option. For example, the overall impacts of
generator cutoffs of zero or 1,000 kilograms per month would vary con-
siderably depending upon how toxic wastes were defined, depending upon
whether retailers and farmers were regulated or excluded from regu-
lation, and depending upon whether incinerator destruction efficien-
cies were required to be 99.9 or 99.99 percent. Thus, a truly ac-
curate assessment of each regulatory option, in and of itself, would
require both that an entire set of regulations be specified for the
assessment and that the regulatory option be assessed for all
variations of all other regulatory options. Furthermore, every as-
sessment of each regulatory option would have to include all the prim-
ary and secondary impacts addressed in the DEIS.
Second, a large number of different regulatory options have been
considered in the development of the Subtitle C regulations. See the
background documents prepared on the Subtitle C regulations by EPA for
a discussion of the major regulatory options considered. The back-
ground documents consider specific changes on a one-at-a-time basis.
As is discussed in Section 4.0, these regulatory options could be
structured into an enormous number of different sets of regulatory
alternatives. Consequently, for reasons discussed above, it would not
12-20
-------
be practical, nor even manageable, to attempt to provide a complete
assessment of each and every regulatory option. Thus, the only rea-
sonable approach was the development of a manageable set of meaning-
ful alternatives for assessment purposes. This is what was done.
12.1.4.5 Relative/Qualitative Nature of Alternatives Assessment
Comment: As was the case for the impact assessment of the pro-
posed regulations, the DEIS presents assessments of the impacts of the
alternatives which are for the most part qualitative in nature and
seriously deficient with respect to absolute/quantitative measures of
impacts. Because the alternatives are assessed in such a qualitative/
subjective fashion, the meaningfulness of the assessments cannot be
determined and the overall value of the evaluation of alternatives is
questionable.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that, in comparing
an alternative to the proposed regulations, the comparison is carried
out in relative terms. Thus, we are told that a particular alter-
native will have a greater or a lesser impact than the proposed
regulations without being told how much greater or how much lesser
that impact will be. Further, we are given no indication of how
significant or important this particular difference in impact is.
When this is viewed in light of the fact that we have not been
presented an assessment in quantitative terms of the impact of the
proposed regulations—to which we are comparing the alternative—the
value and credibility of the DEIS to support federal agency
l
12-21
-------
decision-making is open to significant doubt. (See Appendix 0 for
specific excerpts of qualitative analyses presented in the comment
letter.)
Response; As is indicated in the response to comment 12.1.4.1,
impacts are assessed quantitatively in the DEIS to the extent that the
limited data available allow. Data limitations, for the most part,
necessitate a generic and qualitative asessment of the impacts of both
the baseline regulations and the alternative.
Although the specific magnitude of changes in impacts may not
always be known, the evaluation of the alternatives identifies the
types of impacts (both beneficial and adverse) that could occur under
each alternative and relates them to the types of impacts that could
occur under the baseline regulations. Also identified are those types
of changes in impacts that may be significant, those types of impacts
that cannot presently be mitigated, and data gaps and uncertainties
that need to be resolved. These are some of the important environ-
mental considerations with regard to decision-making and program plan-
ning.
12.1.4.6 Relationship Between Waste Volume and Impact
Comment: In comparing the impacts of the proposed regulations to
those of the alternatives, and in fact, in assessing the impacts of
the alternatives, EPA's assessments often contained an underlying as-
sumption that degree of hazardousness was directly related to waste
volume. This is obviously an incorrect assumption; one, in fact, to
which EPA would certainly not subscribe. However, as a result of a
12-22
-------
Lack of information and a Lack of other avaiLabLe assessment means,
EPA often assessed the alternatives in terms of the volumes of wastes
generated. As a result of the inclusion of this incorrect assumption,
the results of EPA's analysis could be extremely misleading.
This point can best be demonstrated by the example of the as-
sessment of the phasing alternative. The phasing alternative con-
sisted of increasing the volume of waste under control at a rate of 20
percent per year, resulting in all wastes being subject to control
after an initial five year period. In assessing this particular
alternative, EPA's analysis was directed at the volume of waste under
control without giving consideration to the threat to public health,
welfare and the environment inherent in the waste, regardless of
volume.
Specifically, a "straight line" type of approach is implied in
the analyses. That is, if 20 percent of the total washes is managed,
then 20 percent of the ultimate benefit is achieved at 20 percent of
the cost. This is obviously an overly simplistic approach, and, in-
deed, may well ignore reality. For example, management of relatively
small wastes could yield far greater proportionate benefits if such
wates had high risks or high potential for environmental harm. Ulti-
mately, it may be possible to control less than the amount of wastes
currently expected by EPA with far less dislocation and greater
benefit.
We suggest that a more meaningful approach to analyzing this
alternative would entail focusing on' "threat" or "risk" potential of
12-23
-------
wastes and the step-wise management of those posing the greatest risk/
threat first and the least risk/threat last. In the analysis of such
an approach, the benefits/disadvantages that may accrue to society by
allowing monitoring of the results (i.e., actual cost/benefit) at the
end of years one through "n" could be assessed and allow for "re-
focus" of the regulations as a function of time.
Response: EPA agrees that the degree of hazard posed by vari-
ous wastes is not necessarily directly related to their relative waste
volumes. As discussed below, the impact assessment does not contain
the underlying assumption that the degree of hazard is directly rela-
ted to the waste volume.
With regard to the Phasing Alternative, Section 4.2 discusses
different methods by which phasing could be implemented and presents
the rationale for the selection of the phasing method analyzed in the
impact statement and for the elimination of other phasing options.
The method selected emphasizes a volume approach to phasing. A method
based upon a degree of hazard approach was also considered and deter-
mined not to be a reasonable alternative due to data limitations and
program management and enforcement problems. The elimination of this
method as an alternative in the impact statement does not, however,
imply that the impact assessment assumes that the degree of hazard is
directly related to waste volume.
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 present the rationale for the selection of
the Enhanced Public Health and Environmental Protection Alternative
12-24
-------
and the Lesser Degree of Public Health and Environmental Protection
Alternative. As discussed in response to comment 12.1.4.4, these
alternatives were developed to bracket the impacts of the regulations
ultimately promulgated by EPA. To this end, the Enchanced Protection
Alternative regulates all the waste already subject to the baseline
regulations plus other additional wastes. Similarly, the Lesser
Degree of Protection Alternative regulates only a portion of the total
waste already controlled under the baseline regulations.
The analysis of the Enhanced Protection Alternative does indicate
that the regulation of the additional waste would provide greater
protection than that afforded under the baseline regulations. How-
ever, this does not in any way imply that the analysis assumes that
the degree of hazard is directly related to the waste volume. Rather
the conclusion is based upon the fact that since this alternative
regulates all the waste already subject to the baseline regulation,
the regulation of the additional volume of waste, which contains both
highly hazardous and moderately hazardous waste, must necessarily
result in enhanced protection as compared to the baseline regulations.
Similarly, the analysis of the Lesser Degree of Protection Alter-
native does indicate that the regulation of a lesser quantity of waste
would provide less protection than that afforded under the baseline
regulations. Again, this does not in any way imply that the analysis
assumes that the degree of hazard is directly related to the waste
volume. Rather the conclusion is again based upon the fact that since
this alternative regulates only a portion of the waste already subject
12-25
-------
to the baseline regulations, the regulation of this lesser volume of
waste, which contains less highly hazardous and moderately hazardous
waste, must necessarily result in less protection than that provided
by the baseline regulations.
12.1.4.7 Overall/Comparative Assessment of Alternatives
Comment: The DEIS describes the proposed regulations and four
alternative sets of regulations. It presents an impact assessment
(albeit qualitative) for the proposed regulations and individual
assessments for each alternative relative to the proposed regulations.
There is, however, no overall/comparative assessment indicating, all
things considered, how the proposed regulations and the alternatives
"stack up" one against the other. This is in direct contradiction to
the EPA guidelines for impact statements on regulatory actions (see
Appendix 0) which require that "the reasons why the proposed action is
believed by the Agency to be the best course of action shall be
explained."
Obviously, EPA has decided that the proposed regulations, in an
overall sense, are preferred as compared to each of the alternatives.
However, the rationale for why the proposed regulations are preferred
is not presented. Each of the alternatives and the proposed regula-
tions are compared in specific areas. That is, the phasing alterna-
tive may require less paperwork than the proposed regulations and from
that standpoint is preferred. Similarly, the lesser degree of control
alternative will result in greater emissions of air, water and soil
contaminants and from that standpoint may be inferior to the proposed
12-26
-------
regulations. What is lacking, however, is an analysis combining the
positive and negative aspects of each of the alternatives in compari-
son to the proposed regulations and demonstrating the overall desira-
bility of the proposed regulations.
We feel that such an overall/comparative assessment considering
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits is required.
Since the DEIS does not include economic cost estimates (this informa-
tion is supposedly included in the Economic Impact Analysis which is
referenced), the least that the DEIS could do is to present an analy-
sis from the standpoint of the environmental and social considerations
which have been addressed. As it currently stands, we feel that the
document is inconclusive and does not present EPA's reasoning for its
selection of the proposed regulations.
Response:
The proposed and final regulations were prepared on the basis of
protecting human health and the environment. Likewise, alternatives
were established to emphasize the objects of RCRA and to be consistent
with the scope of actions feasible under RCRA. The overall/ compara-
tive assessment is addressed in the Regulatory Analysis prepared for
Subtitle C. Comments were sought to assist the Agency in establishing
the best of several options. For further information, see the Regula-
tory Analysis which is referenced in the preamble of the final regula-
t ions.
12-27
-------
12.1.4.8 Impact Assessment with Respect co Utility Industry
Wastes
Comment; The DEIS does not include, nor does it purport to
include, an impact assessment of the proposed regulations with respect
to utility industry wastes whether these wastes be high volume wastes
and included in the special wastes category or otherwise. The draft
impact statement does point out that certain utility wastes, because
of unique characteristics, have been included in the "special wastes"
category wherein (provided they are found to be hazardous under an
identifying characteristics test of Section 3001), they would only be
subject to some of the Subpart D requirements. No impact assessment
is, however, presented with respect to the impact of even those
limited requirements on the electric utility industry wastes which
fall under the special waste category (see Appendix 0 for specific ex-
amples). Moreover, no assessment is presented with respect to the
impact of the entire set of regulations on all other utility wastes
which are not included in the special waste category.
Response: A detailed assessment of the overall potential impact
of the regulations on various industries, such as the electric utility
industry, would essentially require the preparation of an entire sepa-
rate assessment for each and every industry. The extensive data
limitations previously indicated (and reaffirmed by the public com-
ments on the proposed regulations) along with the extreme waste-
specific, process-specific, and site-specific nature of most impacts
12-28
-------
would preclude Che preparation of a meaningful comprehensive assess-
ment for most, if not all, industries at this time. For the most
part, the major impact of the regulations on industry would be eco-
nomic in nature. The major economic impacts of the regulations on
various industries are analyzed in the Integrated Economic Impact As-
sessment of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Regulatory Analy-
sis Supplement).
12.1.4.9 Electric Utility Waste
Comment: Notwithstanding an admitted lack of information on the
electric utility industry and its wastes, the DEIS refers in numerous
instances to wastes resulting from the combustion of coal as "poten-
tially hazardous" (see Appendix 0 for examples of statement, presented
in Chapters 6 and 7). In reality, in accord with the regulations,
every waste is potentially hazardous until a specific determination
based on the Section 3001 testing procedures is made. Identification,
at this stage, of a particular waste as being potentially hazardous
(without any knowledge of whether or not it will be determined to be
hazardous or, if so, to what extent), is patently irresponsible.
Industries whose wastes have been identified and characterized as such
could suffer serious consequences purely from such a characterization.
Clearly, because of the obvious implications, it is incumbent upon EPA
to refrain from giving inappropriate and damaging "labels" to wastes
when, in fact, it is acting without factual data and information.
12-29
-------
Response: The intent of Chapter 6 is to present available data
with regard to various sources that have been previously identified as
potential generators of hazardous waste. It was not, however, meant
to be implied that all wastes generated by these sources would be
identified as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. Sections 6.1.2 and
7.1.3.3 have been modified to clarify this intent with regard to both
electric utility wastes and the other wastes discussed.
12.1.4.10 Reported Groundwater Contamination
Comment; Table 7-10 lists 57 cases of groundwater contamination
caused by leakage of wastewater from surface impoundments. One of
these 57 cases is reported as iron and manganese pollution from an
electric utility industry source. However, no detail or further in-
formation is given on the impact, if any, on public health or the en-
vironment. Moreoever, in referring to this particular table in the
DEIS, EPA refers to the table as presenting incidents of groundwater
contamination due to hazardous waste disposal. This is obviously in
conflict with the title of the table, "Origins and Pollutants in 57
Cases of Ground Water Contamination in the Northeast Caused by Leakage
of Waste Water from Surface Impoundments/' and certainly, without
presenting any further information, seems to be a rather careless use
of the characterization "hazardous."
Response: Table 7-10 is based upon a study of groundwater con-
tamination in the Northeast by Miller et al. This study is referenced
in Appendix N of the DEIS (Appendix P in the final EIS).
12-30
-------
It is agreed that sufficient data does not exist to determine
which of the wastes listed in Table 7-10 would be identified as haz-
ardous under Subtitle C. The text in Section 7.1.5.3 has been modi-
fied to eliminate identifying all wastes listed in Table 7-10 as
hazardous waste.
The intent of the table is to illustrate the potential for
ground-water contamination to occur from present unregulated
practices. Even though it is not possible to identify exactly which
wastes in the table would be considered hazardous under the
regulations, the table does indicate the likelihood of potentially
harmful leachate to be released from surface impoundments managing
hazardous wastes under current practices.
12.1.4.11 Recovery Potential
Comment; At a broader level, the DEIS has not considered recov-
ery and utilization potential of utility industry wastes or the extent
to which such potential may be foreclosed by the proposed regulations.
(A complete discussion of reuse and recovery is included in the over-
all comments on the Subtitle C regulations in the appendix entitled
"Summary Report on Large Volume Electric Utility Industry Solid Wastes
as a Resource for Recovery and Utilization.")
Response; As is discussed in response to comment 12.1.4.8, a
detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the regulations on
individual industries is beyond the scope of the EIS. Furthermore,
the limited data available (see Section 5.4) precludes the preparation
12-31
-------
of a meaningful assessment of changes in hazardous waste utilization
for most, if not all, industries (including the electric utility
industry) at this time.
With regard to the referenced Summary Report, the information
presented is much too general to be of use in assessing the impact of
the regulations on the utilization of utility waste. For example, the
data presented does not even allow a determination of which, if any,
of the utility waste being utilized for various purposes would be both
hazardous and subject to the regulations. It should be noted that the
Subtitle C regulations would apply only to a limited portion of the
waste materials that have a potential for utilization. For example,
waste materials that are recycled or recovered or whose re-use does
not constitute disposal would not be subject to the regulations. '
Wastes whose re-use constitutes disposal would be subject to the
regulations only if the wastes are hazardous under the Subtitle C
regulations.
12.1.4.12 Coal Consumption
Comment; In a similar vein, the DEIS has not considered the
impact of the regulations, vis-a-vis reduced coal consumption, on U.S.
plans to develop our coal reserves extensively in order to achieve
energy independence.
Response; The Subtitle C regulations are just one of many fac-
tors that could have an impact on U.S. coal development and consump-
tion. Other factors that would also affect coal development and
12-32
-------
consumption include Federal and state restrictions on the development
of certain specific coal reserves, manpower and equipment constraints,
water availability, economic growth, technologic innovation, energy
conservation, availability of alternative energy supplies, and
various other environmental regulations. Future coal development and
use would depend upon complex interactions among these and other
factors and would have to be the subject of a comprehensive in-depth
study in its own right. There have been many in-depth studies in
recent years that have attempted to project future coal consumption.
Due to the significant uncertainties associated with the above
factors, these studies have arrived at widely varying estimates of
future coal consumption. It is not possible to determine with any
reasonable degree of accuracy at this time the interrelationship of
the Subtitle C regulations and the future developmentof U.S. coal
resources.
To the extent practical, the discussions of energy use impact
(Sections 7.2.8, 8.3.2.8, and 8.4.2.8) have however been expanded to
address the potential for the regulations to impact energy production.
12.1.5 Mobil Oil Corporation
12.1.5.1 General Deficiencies
Comment: The Agency has not justified the regulations with
adequate supporting data and as a result, they have severely under-
estimated the impacts of the proposal. This has resulted in gross
deficiencies in the Agency's Environmental Impact and Regulatory
12-33
-------
Analyses. We support the detailed comments on this aspect submitted
by the American Petroleum Institute and the Manufacturing Chemists As-
sociation.
Response: The American Petroleum Institute's comments on the
DEIS are addressed in Section 12.1.6. The Manufacturing Chemists As-
sociation did not submit comments on the DEIS.
12.1.5.2 Degree of Hazard
Comment; The Agency has failed to differentiate the relative de-
grees of hazard posed by different types of wastes, has not assessed
the potential risk to the environment in setting stringent performance
standards, and has not addressed the risk to the environment in set-
ting a policy where almost all non-municipal waste materials will be
hazardous wastes. The overly broad definition of hazardous waste com-
bined with the stringent requirements for management will be coun-
terproductive and lead to the situation where compliance is impossible
because of the shortfall of approved facilities. Due to overloaded
facilities, there could be a greater risk to the environment.
Response: The DEIS assesses the potential impacts that could re-
sult from the baseline action (Section 7) and from two alternatives
structured to provide a greater degree (Section 8.3) and a lesser de-
gree (Section 8.4) of environmental protection. Due to differences in
the definition of hazardous waste among these three alternative
actions, each of the three alternative actions provides for the regu-
lation of significantly different quantities of hazardous waste. The
12-34
-------
assessment of these three alternative actions thus addresses the over-
all impacts that would result from the regulation of significantly
different quantities of hazardous waste, including changes in any
potential shortfall of hazardous waste management capacity. The Phase
I Alternative added in Part I of the final EIS provides a further as-
sessment of .the impacts from the regulation of different quantities of
hazardous waste.
Modifications to the technical standards for treatment, storage,
and disposal will be included in the Phase II regulations and will be
addressed in Part II of the final EIS.
12.1.5.3 Alternatives
Comment: The Agency's difficulties in meeting court mandated
promulgation dates are appreciated; however, no proposed regulation
should be promulgated without an adequate background in fact. A regu-
lation characterized in the introduction as extraordinarily complex,
difficult, and comprehensive, requires an adequate and complete envi-
ronmental impact statement which does not in our judgement exist for
the regulation as a whole and certainly not as related to major im-
pacts on oil drilling and production operations. The environmental
impact statement should be expanded to more completely evaluate
impacts of selected and alternate regulatory choices.
Response: The discussions of energy use impact (Sections 7.2.8,
8.3.2.8, and 8.4.2.8) have been expanded, to the extent practical, to
address the potential for the regulations to impact energy production.
•- . . 12-35
-------
A detailed assessment of the overall potential impact of the regula-
tions on various industries, such as the oil production industry,
would essentially require the preparation of an entire separate as-
sessment for each industry. The extensive data limitations pre-
viously indicated (and reaffirmed by the public comments on the pro-
posed regulations) along with the extreme waste-specific, process-
specific, and site-specific nature of most impacts would preclude the
preparation of a meaningful comprehensive assessment for most, if not
all, industries at this time. For the most part, the major impact of
the regulations on industry would be economic in nature. The major
economic impacts of the regulations on various industries are analyzed
in the Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Regulations (Regulatory Analysis Supplement).
The issue of the need for evaluation of selected and alternative
regulatory choices is addressed in the response to comment 12.1.4.4.
12.1.5.4 State Responsibilities
Comment; The impact analysis appears to inadequately assess
state resources and the ability of the states to implement the regu-
lation and assure costly continued compliance. In the case of oil
drilling and production, comprehensive regulations using alternate
proven approaches are already in place.
Response; The analysis of state resources and of the ability of
states to implement the regulations and assure continued compliance
12-36
-------
is a regulatory issue, not an environmental issue. As such, it is ad-
dressed in a separate document — "Operational Resource Impact Analy-
sis: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Subtitle C",
Final Report, March 1980. It should be noted that RCRA mandates that
states be authorized to carry out their own program in lieu of the
Federal program, provided that specified conditions are met. Authori-
zation would be granted by EPA only to those states that are in com-
pliance with all the specified requirements. EPA will evaluate all
applications for authorization to determine those states that are to
be granted authorization.
12.1.6 American Petroleum Institute
12.1.6.1 Contravention of NEPA's Mandate
Comment; The DEIS,-although deficient as to some of the NEPA - -
Section 102(2)(c) requirements, demonstrates that EPA's proposal will
violate NEPA Sections 101(b)(3) and (4) by imposing requirements which
will cause more harm than good. For example, the DEIS predicts that
there may be substantial shifts from on-site to off-site disposal.
Such shifts will result in greater hauling distances causing increased
air pollution and congestion in many areas.
The DEIS points to another impact of the proposed regulations
which is contrary to NEPA1a purposes of maintaining land for a variety
of uses; that is, "[mlore total land, off-site, plus on-site, would be
required for hazardous waste management under the Subtitle C regula-
tions than for hazardous waste management under current practices."
...12-37
-------
The DEIS explains that "[ejxisting land uses would cease, either per-
manently or temporarily, on all land converted to hazardous waste man-
agement uses. Some agricultural, grazing, forest, recreational, and
other lands could be removed from their existing uses."
Response: The DEIS indicates both the beneficial and the adverse
impacts that could result from promulgation of the Subtitle C re-
gulations. The DEIS does indicate that the regulations might result
in more hazardous waste being sent off-site and that the regulations
would result in increased land use for environmentally acceptable
management of hazardous waste. However, the primary reason behind any
additonal waste being sent off-site is that the waste was not being
managed on-site in an environmentally acceptable manner to begin with.
Furthermore, the primary reason behind additional land being required
for hazardous waste management under the regulations is the need to
provide acceptable facilities for managing those wastes that were not
previously being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The
DEIS notes that to the extent that the regulations would prevent other
lands from being contaminated by improper disposal, dumping, storage
or treatment of hazardous wastes under current practices and
regulations, there would be a potential for offsetting land use
benefits.
The DEIS complies with all the requirements specified in Section
102(2)(c) of NEPA. Section 102(2)(c) requires that environmental
impact statements analyze:
12-38
-------
• The environmental impact of the proposed action;
• Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented;
• Alternatives to the proposed action;
• The relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity;
• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented.
These points are all specifically addressed in the DEIS in Chapters 7,
9, 8, 10, and 11 respectively.
12.1.6.2 Costs and Benefits
Comment; The DEIS fails to assess whether benefits justify
costs. As an instrument to be used in the decision-making process,
the failure of the DEIS to address costs and benefits indicates that
EPA did not balance the "pros and cons" of the proposed program in
order to minimize environmental and economic disruptions. Further,
the failure to estimate costs and benefits makes the consideration of
alternatives to the proposed action impossible. The DEIS is particu-
larly deficient in its discussion of the alternatives it considered to
the proposed program. This glaring omission to balance costs with
benefits is not corrected by the Draft Economic Impact Analysis. As
explained in detail in Fart III of the American Petroleum Institute
comments, the Draft Economic Impact Analysis omits costs incurred by
several important segments of the petroleum industry.
12-39
-------
Response:
The intended purpose of the DEIS is to assess the impact of the
proposed Subtitle C regulations on human health and fhe environment.
The intended purpose of the Draft Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) is
to assess the cost impact of the proposed Subtitle C regulations. The
DEIA, which accompanied the December 18, 1978 proposed regulations,
qualitatively discussed the potential impacts of complying with these
regulations. There are large benefits from the regulation of hazard-
ous waste; however, many are extremely difficult to quantify. EPA has
not attempted to quantify the economic benefits from avoiding human
health damage. A chapter on benefits of the hazardous waste regula-
tory program, included as part of the Econmic Impact Analysis asso-
ciated with the final regulations, contains a generic discussion on
this subject.
12.1.7 Dow Chemical U.S.A.
12.1.7.1 Extension of Comment Period
Comment; The Dow Chemical Company respectfully petitions that
the due date for public comment on EPA's proposed regulations imple-
menting Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 proposed in the December 18, 1978 Federal Regis-
ter (43 Fed. Reg. 58946 et seq.), and now set to expire on March 16,
1979, be extended until at least 60 days after the proposal of all re-
gulations implementing Subtitle C. Although the regulations for
Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 were proposed on December 18, 1978, the
12-40
-------
background documents were not available for review until January 8,
1979, and published copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) were not available for distribution until early February. The
integrated permit regulations pursuant to Section 3005 of the RCRA
have not yet been proposed. Regulations for Sections 3003, 3006,
3010, and 4004 were previously proposed in mid-1978 before the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste described in proposed Section 3001 were
fully developed. This piece-meal proposal and promulgation has made
coherent overall assessment of the changes occurring among the indi-
vidual Sections of the regulations impossible.
Response:
EPA has provided the public with ample time for comment on the
draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Subtitle C
regulations. Although copies were not individually distributed until
February 1979, they were made available for review in the EPA regional
offices as well as Headquarters on January 8, 1979.
12-41
------- |