PB81-218968
Socioeconomic Analysis of Hazardous
Waste Management Alternatives
Methodology and Demonstration
Denver Research Inst., CO
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab
Cincinnati, OH
Jul 81
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
•
-------
EPA-600/5-81-001
July 1981
PB81-218968
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES: METHODOLOGY AND DEMONSTRATION
by
Graham C. Taylor
Industrial Economics Division
University of Denver Research Institute
Denver, Colorado 80208
Grant No. R804661
Project Officer
Oscar W. Albrecht
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
TEIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM TEE BEST COPY FURNISEED US BY
TEE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED TEAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN TEE INTEREST 0? MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/S-81-OQ1
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
ORD Report
218966
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Socioeconomic Analysis Of Hazardous Waste Management
Alternatives: Methodology And Demonstration
6 REPORT DATE
July 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
17. AUTHOR(S)
Graham C. Taylor
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Economics Division
University of Denver Research Institute
Denver, Colorado 80208
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT-NO.
73D1C
II. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant « R804661
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Oscar W. Albrecht
S13/684-4319
16 ABSTRACT
A methodology for analyzing economic and social effects of alternatives in
hazardous waste management is presented and demonstrated. The approach includes the
use of environmental threat scenarios and evaluation of effects on and responses
by parties-at-interest. The methodology is demonstrated by a case study of alterna-
tive approaches to hazardous waste management for Oregon.
The report organizes, summarizes, and provides extensive information on hazardous
waste management techniques. Research on risk preferences and its relationship to
decision-making is reviewed, and appendices on methods for valuing various effects
(such as environmental impacts).public attitudes toward environmental issues, and
intergenerational discounting are included. The report constitutes a useful manual
for hazardous waste management personnel and policymakers involved in environmental
quality management.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Gioup
G DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Not restricted
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report I
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
275
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Font 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to
the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of otr natural
environment. The complexity of the environment and the interplay between its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is the first necessary step, in problem -solu-
tion; it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new'
and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater
and the solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and
community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking-water supplies, and
to minimize the adverse economic, social, health and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research and
provides a vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
The report describes and demonstrates a methodology for the analysis of
the complex socioeconomic problems associated with hazardous waste manage-
ment. It should be of wide value to both researchers and decisionmakers who
are concerned with hazardous wastes.
Francis T. Mayo,-DIRECTOR
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report develops' and presents a methodology for analyzing the
economic and social effects of alternative approaches to hazardous waste
management. The techniques of economic analysis that have been developed for
conventional pollutants are not always appropriate or feasible for hazardous
wastes, and thus a new approach is desirable. The approach proposed involves
(1) the generation of a series of environmental threat scenarios that might
arise from the use of various hazardous waste management techniques, and (2)
identification of parties-at-interest to these techniques. By examining how
the parties-at-interest are affected by alternative approaches to hazardous
waste management, it is possible to make decisions based on economics that
recognize sociological factors.
This approach is applied in a generalized manner to tne various tech-
niques that can be used to manage hazardous wastes, and the methodology is
demonstrated in two management decision situations. One example analyzes
alternative techniques that could be applied to a single waste stream, the
second is a case study of alternative approaches to hazardous waste -nanage-
ment for Oregon. These cases demonstrate that though the methodology
simplifies the decisionmaker's task, the ultimate decision depends on the
degree of risk aversion favored and may involve subjective elements.
The report organizes, summarizes, and provides references to extensive
data on various hazardous waste management techniques and their associated
risks. It includes appendices on the methods that may be used to value the
various effects (such as environmental impacts) of waste management tech-
niques, on public attitudes toward environmental issues and on methods of
handling effects that extend over a long period of time. This includes a
pragmatic solution to the problem of intergenerational discounting. Research
on risk-taking and its relationship to decisionmaking is also reviewed. The
report should constitute a useful handbook for hazardous waste management
personnel and for many others who are involved in environmental decision-
making.
This work .was supported in.part by Grant No. R804661 awarded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to the Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colorado. This report was submitted in fulfillment of this grant which
extended from November 1976 to April 1979. Work was completed as of
September 1979.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword 111
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables ix
Acknowledgements xi
Section 1. Introduction . . .• , - 1
Research Objectives '. • 1
Scope 2
Organization of the Report 3
Section 2. Conclusions and Recommendations 4
Summary of Findings ...' • 4
Applications of the Methodology 6
Recommendations for Further Research 6
Section 3. Overview of Hazardous Waste Management 8
Unique Aspects of Hazardous Waste Management 8
The Nature of Hazardous Wastes 10
Techniques for the Management of Hazardous Wastes 18
Legislative Background of Hazardous Waste Regulation
in the United States 18
Previous Research on Hazardous Waste Management 22
Section 4. Economic and Social Aspects of
Hazardous Waste Management 27
Cost-Benefit and Risk-Benefit Analysis for
Environmental Problems 27
Threats That May Arise From Hazardous Wastes 31
Economic and Social Effects of Hazardous
Waste Management Techniques 33
The Parties-at-interest in Hazardous Waste Management 38
The Socioeconomic Interaction Process 43
-------
Section 5. General Methodology for Analysis of Hazardous
Waste Management Alternatives 52
Introduction 52
Theoretical Considerations 53
Use of Threat Scenarios 58
Prerequisite Information for Analysis 51
The Analytical Framework 67
Aids to Decisiormaking 74
Section 6. Application of the Methodology to a
Single Waste Stream 78
Introduction 78
The Problem 73
Threat Scenarios 79
Analysis of the Alternatives 80
Oecisionmaking 82
Section 7. Case Study of Hazardous Waste Management in Oregon .... 36
Introduction 86
Prerequisite Information and Decisions 90
Application of Analytical Framework 98
Decisionmaking 121
Appendix:Development of Certain Threat Scenarios 128
References 134
Appendix A. Hazardous Waste Management Techniques 148
Techniques Involving Waste Stream Changes 148
Resource Recovery 149
Waste Treatment 149
Storage and Disposal Techniques 152
References 159
Appendix B. Environmental Threats Associated with
Hazardous Waste Management Techniques 164
The Nature of Hazardous Waste Threats 164
Probabilities That Threats Will Occur . . . 179
References. 185
Appendix C. Valuation of the Effects of Hazardous
Waste Management Techniques 190
Control Costs 190
Valuation of Environmental Impacts 194
References 208
vi
-------
Appendix D. Public Attitudes Toward.Environmental Issues 214
Introduction 214
Public Concern for the Environment 215
Attitudes and Behavior of Specified Parties 222
The Economics of Pollution Abatement 230
References 233
Appendix E. Factors Influencing Discount Rates for
Environmental Projects 240
Introduction 240
The Social Discount Rate 240
Adjustment of the Discount Rate for Risk 2<*1
Intergenerational Effects 242
Objections to Discounting " 243
Application to Hazardous Waste Management 244
References 247
Appendix F. Risk and Decisionmaking 249
Aspects of Risk 249
Decisionmaking Under Uncertainty, and Risk Aversion 251
Risk and Society 253
References 258
vn
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Routes by which hazardous wastes can affect the environment . 11
2 The Battelle hazardous waste decision model 15
3 Conventional economic approach to pollution control 29
4 Morphological map of environmental threats 34
5 Interaction model for hazardous waste management 44
6 Model for pollution toleration 50
7 Process for assessing damages associated with
hazardous waste management 59
8 The geography of Oregon 87
9 Approaches for hazardous waste management in Oregon 99
B-l Process for estimating damages caused by spills
(sulfuric acid) into water 169
B-2 Contamination of groundwater by waste disposal practices. . . 175
B-3 Frequency of property damage resulting from natural
and man-caused events 181
B-4 Frequency of fatalities due to man-caused events 182
B-5 Frequency of fatalities due'to natural events 182
F-l Utility of wealth for a risk-averse individual 251
F-2 Determinants of acceptable risks as indicated by
revealed and expressed preferences 257
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Hazardous Materials Classification Criteria 13
2 Techniques for the Management of Hazardous Wastes 19
3 Potentially Hazardous Wastes Generated in the United States . 24
4 Environmental Threats in Hazardous Waste Management 32
5 Major Threats That May Occur in Hazardous Waste Management. . 35
6 Environmental Threats, Costs, and Parties-at-interest for
Hazardous Waste Management Techniques 41
7 Matrix of Effects on the Parties-at-interest 71
8 Summary of the Methodology 77
9 Analysis of Five Alternative Waste Disposal Plans 81
10 Comparison of Three Selected Waste Disposal Plans 33
11 Employment by Industry in Oregon and the United States. ... 88
12 Generation and Disposal of Potentially Hazardous Wastes
in Oregon 91
13 Oregon Firms That May Generate Hazardous Wastes 94
14 Projected Data on Future Hazardous Waste Generation in
Oregon Under the Status-quo Approach 101
15 Threats Associated With Three Approaches to Hazardous
Waste Management 108
16 Descriptions of Principal Threats 109
17 Summary of Approaches Ill
18 Generator's Costs for Alternative Approaches 112
ix
-------
19 Impacts of Different Hazardous Waste Management
Approaches on the Parties-at-interest 115
20 Comparison of Five Hazardous Waste Management Approaches. . . 119
21 Comparison of Two Hazardous Waste Management Approaches . . . 125
22 Theoretical Average Concentrations of Ions From
Heavy Metals Wastes at Portland, and Relevant Standards . . 129
A-l Currently Available Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal Processes 150
B-l Selected Transport Accident Statistics 156
B-2 Summary of Pollution-caused Fish Kills for the United
Sates, 1960-1975 170
B-3 Extent of Fish Kill Damage 171
B-4 Analysis of 1970 Fish Kill Data 171
B-5 Mechanisms Involved in Damage Incidents by Disposal Metnod. . 173
B-6 Summary of Data on 42 Municipal and 18 Industrial
Landfill Contamination Cases 177
B-7 Sample Components of Release Sequence Probabilities
for Geologic Disposal 184
C-l Estimated Cots of Some Disposal Techniques 191
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the encouragement and assistance of
Oscar Albrecht, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency project officer. His
support during the research program and his interest in the results of the
study were particularly gratifying.
It is not feasible to list all of the persons who provided -nformation.
or assistance for this study, but the author wishes to thank the following
persons who made important contributions'.• -Or: Roger-'Bo 1 ton,- professor of-
economics, Williams College, Massachusetts, was involved in this research
from its inception, provided extensive advice, and reviewed most of the draft
material. Dr. Fred Bromfeld, supervisor, Hazardous Waste 'Secfon, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, gave considerable assistance with the
case study data, reviewed Section 7, and helped me obtain an understanding of
the practicalities of hazardous waste management. Dr. Robert Anderson of the
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., reviewed Sections 4 and 5 and
the material in Appendices C and E. -Dr. Paul Slovic of Decision Research,
Eugene, Oregon, discussed •his research-and reviewed Appendix F. Dr. Stan
Albrecht, associate professor of sociology, Brigham Young University,
reviewed Appendix D.
Members of the staff of both the Office of Research Services, Colorado
School of Mines, and the Industrial Economics Division, University of Denver-
Research Institute, provided valuable support services. Ms. Nanci
Avitable functioned efficiently and cheerfully as my research assistant and
coauthored Appendix 0, and Ms. Jeanne Vannoy helped edit the final report.
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
For years, the Love Canal in upstate New York had been used as a dumping
ground for chemical wastes. This had been done legally, accorcing to the
practices of the 1940's and 1950's. Recently, serious pollution problems
became apparent when trees died, pools-of bubbling liquids appealed in low-
lying backyards, and fumes permeated basements: Evidence of miscarriages and
birth defects was reported,' the State -Health Commissioner urged immediate
evacuation of pregnant women and young children, and homes in the area became
virtually unsaleable (Anon., 1978a). The problem attracted.international
attention when it became the -subject of an article in .The- Economist after
President Carter declared the Love Canal a disaster area in August' 1978
(Anon., 1978C).
The incident described above is not an isolated one. Although estimates
vary widely, one authoritative source (Anon., 1978a) reports that more than
1,000 disposal sites comparable to the Love Canal may exist in the United
States. The management of hazardous wastes has been of growing concern to
environmental agencies for some time. In December 1977, the Council on
Environmental Quality stated:
The problem of hazardous waste has grown to serious propor-
tions in recent years for several reasons: as a nation, we are-
increasing our consumption of all materials, including hazardous
materials; several toxic substances have been banned from use, and
existing stocks are "thrown away";.and as air and water pollution
controls increase, hazardous waste residues result.
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1977:45)
Incidents such as that of the Love Canal and the Keypore tragedy at
Hopewell, Virginia, in 1976 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1977) are,
however, likely, to intensify the pressure for public involvement in environ-
mental management decisions,'1 and for careful consideration of- public
attitudes in these decisions. Indeed,- when discussing the nuclear power
issue, a recent engineering journal editorial stated that "The need to pay
constant attention to public attitudes may well become a faature of all
engineers' lives." (Anon., 1978b:333)
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of the research was to develop and demonstrate a
methodology for the analysis of hazardous waste management problems that is
-------
based on economics but is cognizant of sociological factors. The .nethodology
was expected to take the form of an analytical framework that could be
adapted by decisionmakers to suit a particular problem or situation. The
research was expected to throw some light on the attitudes of the public and
special interest groups toward hazardous waste management alternatives, and
toward taking environmental risks. It was also expected to provide some
generalized analysis of the costs and risks associated with the various
techniques (i.e., technical options) for hazardous waste management.
This report is timely because it provides environmental decisionmakers
with a methodology for the analysis of hazardous waste problems that can
respond to societal concerns and reflect public attitudes. The methodology
is designed to permit the identification of costs and other effects associ-
ated with alternative approaches to hazardous waste management. It
encourages a decisionmaker to consider attitudes and equity as na assesses
trade-offs among alternatives. As exemplified by incidents such as tne Love
Canal disaster, the effects that may arise from some hazardous waste disposal
practices are often ill-defined or virtually unknown. The methodology
encourages a decisionmaker to identify possible environmental threats and to
evaluate the costs of different degrees of risk aversion.
SCOPE
This report deals only with wastes and their management. It does not
address the broader question of curtailing the economic activity that gen-
erates such waste. The research was oriented toward industrial process
wastes as opposed to special wastes such as hospital wastes, pesticide con-
tainers, U.S. Department of Defense wastes, sewage sludge, and mine tailings.
(The latter two wastes are not normally considered hazardous.) The research
specifically excludes radioactive wastes, although research on radioactive
waste disposal was reviewed for its applicability to nonradioactive wastes.
Note, however, that the evaluation methodology could be applied to any
category of waste.
The methodology is intended to be used to evaluate alternative
approaches to hazardous waste management on a local or regional basis, but it
could also be used to evaluate specific problems on a national basis (e.g.,
the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB's]). The role of the method-
ology is that of an aid to decisionmaking and value judgments are required to
choose between alternatives.
The potential utility of this report goes far beyond the applications
mentioned above. The methodology itself could be -adapted to decisionmaking
for a wide range of environmental problems. The compilations of data in
Appendices A and B should be useful to those concerned with the management of
hazardous wastes at many levels, and Appendices C through F should be of
value to a variety of persons concerned with environmental issues.
One important caveat is in order. Much of the work described herein,
and especially that relating to the case study in Section 7, was performed in
1977. Since then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
developed hazardous waste regulations under the 1976 Resource Conservation
-------
and Recovery Act CRCRA). Some of the details .in.thjs report do ridt reflect
the impact of these regulations, dnd some of the waste management techniques
discussed may not be permissible under the new law. However, the scope of
this study is not restricted to situations or substances regulated under the
RCRA. It is intended to assist hazardous waste management decisionmaking
under a variety of circumstances, including those that might not be covered
by regulations (e.g., wastes that are not defined as hazardous under present
Federal regulations). The methodology could also be applied to evaluating
possible alternatives to existing regulations.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The report has two main aspects. First, Sections 1 through 5 analyze
the special features of hazardous waste management, describe the decision-
making methodology and discuss applications. Second, 'Sections 6 and 7
demonstrate the methodology in two different situations. Appendix _A_
describes hazardous waste management techniques, and Appendix°B discusses the'
environmental threats that may'be1 associated'vith-those techniques. Appendix
C describes the methods that may be used to value environmental effects, and
Appendix 0 reviews surveys of attitudes towards the environment. Appendix E
discusses the discounting of environmental effects, and Appendix F presents-
material on the role of- risk1 in -decisionmaking.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The management of hazardous wastes has certain features that frcm tne
economist's viewpoint differentiate it from that of other wastes or pollu-
tants. A basic characteristic of a hazardous waste is that it posas far
stronger ' threats to man or the environment than a nonhazardous waste.
Because of the strength of these threats, waste management techniques that
may be acceptable for nonhazardous wastes, such as using the assimilative
properties of the environment, are not suitable for hazardous wastes, and
techniques that are intended to minimize the exposure of these wastes to the
environment must-generally be used. Consequently, when analyzing potential
damages from hazardous wastes, the economist or decisionmaker is largely
concerned with threats or risks (e.g., from the failure of waste management
techniques) rather than with predictable environmental impact's.
Many 'hazardous wastes are nondegradable or persistent in the environ-
ment. Environmental effects may thus be irreversible, and it could be
necessary to consider management techniques that provide for the perpetual
care of these wastes.
Some hazardous wastes are biologically magnified or have cumulative
effects on organisms. Waste stream compositions are subject to substantial
variation, and when the wastes contain multiple components, antagonistic and
synergistic effects can occur. Although most of these characteristics may
also be found in nonhazardous wastes, they are particularly significant in
hazardous waste management analysis, as they make it difficult to determine
the precise nature of the threats that are posed by hazardous wastes.
Because of the special characteristics of hazardous wastes, traditional
approaches-to the economic analysis of pollution cqntro'l will o.ften be inap-
propriate, and comprehensive cost-benefit or • risk-benefit studies may be
neither feasible nor warranted for many, hazardous .waste problems. Instead,
the author proposes a methodology for the analysis of hazardous waste manage-
ment alternatives that is comparatively simple to apply and that has modest
data requirements. At the same time, the methodology encourages a decision-
maker to examine the sociological aspects of a situation and to evaluate the
cost and effects of varying degrees of risk aversion. Since the methodology
builds on a cost-benefit foundation, it could also be used to supplement a
cost-benefit study to take into account those effects that are difficult to
quantify.
-------
Determining control costs for hazardous waste management presents no
special problems; the major analytical difficulty lies in the uncertainties
associated with damage functions. Conventional analysis of environmental
damages starts by determining pollutant emissions, evaluates exposures and
consequent effects on organisms, and then attempts to place a dollar value on
these effects. Instead, a central feature of the methodology presented in
this report is the use of environmental threat scenarios. Each scenario is a
hypothetical chain of events which results from some initiating event (such
as an accident or exceptional weather conditions) and leads to an adverse
environmental impact (such as contaminated drinking water). Thes.e scenarios
could be derived from modeling studies, but they can also be based on
previous experience, public fears, or assumptions of the worst possible
consequences. Some of the effects of these threat scenarios may readily be
valued using well established techniques, but others may prove difficult to
translate into dollars. However, the mere description'of plausible threat
scenarios is valuable because it helps to identify the parties-at-interest.
which are groups, firms, etc., that are affected in a common manner oy some
hazardous waste management alternative.
Identification of parties-at-interest is another key feature of the
methodology, as it helps a decisionmaker to recognize differing attitudes and
viewpoints on hazardous waste management. It also encourages him to consider
equity, since it highlights the distribution of favorable and unfavorable
effects. The methodology uses a simple conceptual model of the 'socioeconomic
interaction process that focuses on the effects that hazardous waste manage-
ment techniques will have on the parties-at-interest and their responses to
these effects. These responses will in turn influence the set of outcomes
that result from a specified approach to hazardous waste management. The
report includes some broad indications of the likely attitudes and behavior
of the parties-at-interest, derived from hazardous waste management practi-
tioners and the literature. A decisionmaker should be able to supplement
these data with his perceptions of any specific situations. The local
viewpoint may be important, because responses of the parties-at-interest to
environmental threats will depend on their perceptions of those threats,
irrespective of the true probabilities and magnitudes.
Because hazardous waste management decisions involve value judgments, a
decisionmaker must usually make the final choice among alternatives,
examining them against the agency's objectives and deciding on preferred
trade-offs. However, some alternatives can be eliminated because they are
dominated by others, such as where both quantifiable and nonquantifiable
costs are higher for one alternative than another, and the nature and distri-
bution of the costs is similar for both. Ultimately, the critical aspect of
decisionmaking will usually be to decide on an appropriate degree of risk
aversion. Research on risk evaluation, i.e., determination of the accept-
ability of risks to society, has provided some useful background information
on the public's perceptions of risk. However, this research cannot at
present provide the specific guidance that a decisionmaker would need to
choose between hazardous waste management alternatives. Deciding on an
appropriate degree of risk aversion remains his most difficult problem.
-------
APPLICATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY
The research described here is believed to meet the needs of analysts
and decisionmakers for a simple methodology that can analyze a variety of
hazardous waste management problems. The methodology is adaptable to
specific situations, is firmly based on economic principles, and recognizes
the sociological factors involved. When necessary, it can be used with
comparatively limited information, but it can exploit.more sophisticated data
when these are available. Ultimately, however, it requires a decisionmaker
to choose between screened alternatives.
The methodology has been demonstrated by application to two widely
differing situations. In a hypothetical case (Section 6), a decisionmaker is
required to choose between alternative techniques for the disposal of a
single high-volume waste stream. In this example, analysis concentrates on
the costs and threats associated with the various disposal techniques and the
attitudes of the parties-at-interest to these techniques.
The second demonstration (Section 7) involves a case study of hazardous
waste management in Oregon. Though this study would not be sufficiently
detailed or comprehensive to provide definitive planning guidance to Oregon
environmental agencies, the usefulness of the methodology should be evident
from this wide-ranging analysis. In contrast to the first demonstration,
simplification of the data to facilitate analysis is an important part of the
procedure, and the use of scoring to weight the divergent interests and
attitudes of the parties-at-interest is illustrated.
Both demonstrations show how the decisionmaker's task can be simplified.
In the first case some options can be eliminated because they are dominated
by others; in the Oregon case study, certain waste management approaches are
eliminated through a series of paired comparisons. However, in neither case
is the final decision clear-cut. In both cases, the decisionmaker must
decide on an appropriate degree of risk aversion, and in the Oregon case, he
must also subjectively balance several different considerations before he can
come to a conclusion.
These two demonstrations illustrate both the width of possible applica-
tions and the potential value of the methodology as an aid to decisionmaking.
'Other potential applications include analysis of alternatives for the
treatment or disposal of a particular type of waste (e.g., PCB's) at the
regional or' national level, and as an aid to comparing the nontechnical
aspects of promising new disposal techniques with existing ones. Parts of
the methodology could be of assistance in conducting a technology assessment
on a new treatment or disposal technique. Furthermore, the methodology could
be extended to assist in a wide variety of decisionmaking situations where
costs and benefits cannot readily be compared and where sociological
considerations are important.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The methodology has been demonstrated usi-ng comparatively simple
examples. In practice, it should be capable of dealing with more complex
-------
situations; thus It should be tested and, if necessary, developed to fulfill
a decisionmaker's needs under more complex circumstances. In particular, two
of the links in the socioeconomic interaction model require further analysis.
One linkage is between a policymaker's objectives and the approaches (i.e.,
strategies) that may be used to control hazardous wastes, and the other is
between the approaches and the physical techniques that are actually
employed. The latter is particularly important, since the use of nonregula-
tory policy elements such as incentives, subsidies, and penalties has been
extensively analyzed in the literature, but their application to practical
hazardous waste management situations needs further investigation.
The EPA's documentation and analysis of hazardous waste incidents is
helpful in developing the threat scenarios used by this methodology, and it
is recommended that this work be continued. (The threat scenarios developed
in the demonstrations presented in this study benefited significantly from
data on damage incidents collected and published by EPA..) In addition, it*
would be valuable if modeling studies (e.g., of leachate movenent from
landfills) included typical results for commonly encountered situations as an
aid to the generation of threat scenarios.
Research on risk evaluation, and in particular on the psychometric
expressed preference method (see Appendix F), is promising and should now be
developed to provide more specific guidance for common environmental
decisions.
-------
SECTION 3
OVERVIEW OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
UNIQUE ASPECTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
As a first step toward developing a methodology for analysis of
hazardous waste management alternatives, an economist must determne -hat is
special about hazardous wastes (i.e., how does the management of tnese wastes
differ from that of other wastes or pollutants). A clear-cut answer to this
question is difficult to find, but the definition of hazardous waste provides
some indications of its special characteristics. The hazardous wasta
definition used for this study classifies any waste as hazardous if it
. . . [poses] a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or living organisms because such wastes are nonaegradaole or
persistent in nature or because they can be biologically macnvied,
or oecause they can be lethal, or because they may otnerwise cajse
or tend to cause detrimental cumulative effects. [Emphasis added.]
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b:3)
This definition is based on the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act
of 1973. This statute was not enacted and was replaced by Subtitle C of the
1976 RCRA. Though the definition used in that Act is basically similar, it
is slightly narrower and less illuminating for the purposes of analysis.
Several distinguishing characteristics relevant to economic analysis,
and in particular to the potential damages associated with hazardous wastes,
emerge from this definition. First, a hazardous waste can pose a substantial
or strong threat to man or the environment.Thisstatementsuggeststnat
hazardous wastes need more careful management than inert wastes or conven-
tional pollutants, such as an organic waste that creates a biological oxygen
demand (BOO). For example, when an organic waste is discharged into a river,
the level of dissolved oxygen below the discharge point will fall as bacteria
degrade the waste. However, little harm is done to the river, wnich will
essentially return to normal downstream provided the BOD of the waste does
not cause oxygen to fall to a level where fish are threatened, and arovidea-
nutrients released from the waste do not cause eutrophication (Freeman,
Haveman, and Kneese, 1973). This example illustrates a management technique
that may be acceptable for conventional pollutants (i.e., using the natural
environment, particularly air and surface waters, to assimilate the waste,
while accepting some local degradation). In contrast, for a hazardous waste
the potential for damage may be so great or the environment may have so
little assimilative capacity that uncontrolled discharge to the environment
may be unacceptable.
8
-------
Second, hazardous waste management will be more concerned with threats
or risks as opposed to readily anticipated environmental impacts"!177
for example, a paper mill discharges an organic waste to a river, the level
of dissolved oxygen in the water will fall as previously described. The
effect of discharging this waste to the river can be comparatively well
predicted, and waste management decisions will be based, in part, on these
effects. On the other hand, if a heavy metal waste is injected into a saline
aquifer as a means of disposal, the intention is that the waste wll remain
in the aquifer and thereby cause no harm to the environment. One must,
however, be concerned about threats that may arise from the use of this
disposal method. For example, the saline aquifer may be interconnected with
an aquifer used as a source of freshwater, which could become contaminated.
Unlike the comparatively predictable effects from nonhazardous waste manage-
ment techniques, it is usually difficult to estimate the probability that a
hazardous waste threat will materialize, or to predict the magnitude or cost
of the potential damage.
Third, hazardous wastes are often persistent or nondegradabla. This
quality is significant because (1) effects may be irreversible, and (2) time
scales of *'nterest can span more than one generation. Injecting a heavy
metal waste into an aquifer may be essentially irreversible. Should the
aquifer later be needed as a water or mineral resource, or be found to be
interconnected with a freshwater source, decontamination mighc not be
feasible. (In practice there are degrees of reversibility and irreversibil-
ity, and some irreversible changes are more significant than others. See
Fisher and Krutilla, 1974.) Irreversibility can also introduce "option
value" and associated concepts that relate to the benefits of avoiding fore-
closure of future courses of action, or options. Furthermore, when the
decisions of today affect future generations, it raises the difficult problem
of whether or not it is appropriate to discount to reflect a reduced present
value of costs that occur in the future. These two topics are discussed
later.
Fourth, hazardous wastes include those that are biologically magnified
or have cumulative effects. Biological magnification (or bioconcsntration)
is the ability of organisms to accumulate chemical contaminants to levels
that are higher than those in their food sources. Such magnification can
occur at several stages in the food chain, with the possible result that a
contaminant that is present in insignificant concentrations at the lower end
of the food chain could concentrate to toxic or lethal levels higher in the
chain (Van Hook, 1978). An effect is cumulative when the impact on the
organism depends on the entire history of exposure to the contaminant, rather
than depending only on the immediate exposure. The difficulties of esti-
mating damages due to exposure are compounded when bioconcentration or
cumulative effects are present. However, this problem is not unique to
hazardous wastes, as pollutants that are not normally regarded as hazardous
may also have cumulative effects (such as that of urban air pollution on
human health [Lave and Seskin, 1970]).
A final characteristic of hazardous wastes (one that is not apparent
from the definition) is that the composition of wastes can vary substan-
tially, not only because of different sources, but also from day to day for a
given source. This factor complicates treatment to reduce the hazard and can
-------
inhibit resource recovery activities. Furthermore, it may mean that the
degree of hazard posed by the waste is not well defined. Again, this
characteristic is not unique to hazardous wastes.
To summarize, hazardous wastes are characterized by strong potential
adverse effects, and their management may involve irreversible decisions and
intergenerational time scales. The threats that these wastes pose to man and
the environment are often difficult to specify because insufficient informa-
tion is available. Waste composition variability, biological magnification,
and cumulative effects compound the problem.
THE NATURE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
The two basic aspects of a hazardous waste are (1) that it is an
unwanted material, and (2) that the material has hazardous properties.
Wastes and the Environment
As Ayres and Kneese. (1969) have pointed out, except for increases in
inventory, all materials that enter the economy end up as wastes (or
residuals, as they are commonly termed in the literature of environmental
economics). The inputs to the economic system are fuels, foods, and raw
materials, and these inputs are partly converted to final products and partly
discarded as process residuals. After the final products have fulfilled
their role, they too are discarded. Whereas final consumption products
provide services to man, wastes usually provide disservices. They either
consume resources to achieve disposal without environmental degradation, or
they may cause pollution that results in such effects as fish kills,
increased difficulty in water treatment, reduced public health, etc. (Ayres
and Kneese, 1969).
Figure 1 illustrates the routes by which wastes can affect the
environment. It also shows that there are several stages or points at which
wastes can be controlled, as follows:
1. The waste stream from the manufacturing process can be changed
to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes;
2. Some waste streams can be treated to reduce the hazard;
3. The initial disposition of the wastes in the environment can
be controlled;
4. Subsequent interchange among environmental media can be
•restricted;
5. Interaction between the wastes and living receptors (i.e.,
organisms that may be affected by the wastes) can be
controlled;
6. If the wastes have reached some living receptors, waste
migration to other receptors, especially man, can be
controlled.
10
-------
WASTE GENERATION
AND DISCHARGE
WASTE DISPOSITION AND I RECEPTORS AND
TRANSPORT IN THE [ENVIRONMENTAl EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENT I
MAN
©
'NON-HUMAN
] LIFE
RESOURCE RECOVERY
Figure 1. Routes by which hazardous wastes can affect the environment.
(The numbers refer to points at which control can be exercised.)
Different waste disposal techniques provide varying degrees of control.
For example, ocean dumping provides no control of marine life exposure to the
wastes (i.e., no control at point 5 in Figure 1). On occasions such dumping
has lead to the need to ban fishing and shellfish harvesting and to impound
fish because of the danger to health posed by human consumption of contamin-
ated marine life (Council on Environmental Quality, 1970). These actions
constitute control at the last possible stage (i.e., point 6 of Figure 1).
In contrast, disposal of wastes in deep mines should give rise to very little
waste migration to air and water (i.e., good control at point 4). [f, how-
ever, groundwater were to become contaminated as a result of mine disposal,
it is unlikely that the groundwater would be used for irrigation or as a
drinking water supply because of the depth of the aquifer. Thus in addition
to control at point 4, mine disposal provides control at point 5.
11
-------
Whereas society's primary concern is to control the extent to which
living organisms are exposed to hazardous wastes, in practice this can be
achieved indirectly by control ling at points 1 through 4 as well as by direct
control at point 5. However, there may be some wastes, especially those that
are generated on an irregular basis (such as off-specification batches of
products, cleanup wastes, discarded laboratory chemicals, etc.) for wnich
control at point 1, and in some cases at point 2, is not feasible. This
underscores the importance of controlling waste disposition in the environ-
ment (point 3), even though the strategy of control at earlier stages nas
been deemed to be more desirable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1976a).
Hazardous Attributes
According to Kohan (1975), hazardous substances generally fall into one
or more of the following categories: Toxic to human and/or lower life forms,
radioactive, flammable, reactive, explosive, oxidizing, irritating, geneti-
cally active, strongly sensitizing, and/or subject to bioconcentration.
Though all classification systems reviewed by Kohan include toxicity as one
criterion for designating a material as hazardous, there is considerable
variation among different systems with respect to the choice of other
attributes that can render a material hazardous. This variation may, in
part, stem from the differing use orientations of the classification systems,
and also from overlap between attributes. For example, flammable and
explosive wastes are generally toxic, and many radioactive and some biolog-
ical wastes are also toxic (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b). A
comparison of some of these classification systems is provided in Taole 1.
The problem of deciding what makes a material hazardous is not, of
course, restricted to the attributes to be considered, but also encompasses
the potential magnitude or severity of the effect. While some materials are
universally 'regarded as hazardous, there is a gray area in which authorities
will disagree as to whether or not a material should be classified as
hazardous. In many cases, the problem is compounded by inadequate data about
the potential effects of the material on man and the environment.
The term hazardous may be regarded as having two connotations, one of
which relates to the intrinsic properties of the waste itself, i.e., the
amount of damage that it is capable of rendering to man or the environment.
The second relates to extrinsic factors, such as the degree of exposure to
the hazard, e.g., the quantities and circumstances surrounding the exposure
(Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1974, Vol.1).
•This discussion focuses on the intrinsic properties, but it will be noted
that the quantity of waste (an extrinsic factor) is included in several of
the systems' summarized in Table 1.
Approaches for identifying hazardous materials fall into two general
categories:
1. Specific rules or decision models for determining whether or
not a material is hazardous;
12
-------
TABLE 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA*
Criteria
System
Title 15, U.S. Code, Sec. 1261
CPSC-Title 16, CFR, Part 1500
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
OOT-Title 49, CFR, Parts 100-199
Pesticides-Title 40, CFR, Part 162
Ocean Dumping-Title 40, CFR, Part 227
NOISH-Toxic Substances List
Drinking Water Standards
FWPCA Sec. 304 (a)(l)
Sec. 307 (a)
Sec. 311 (b)(2)(A)
Clean Air Act-Sec. 112
California State List
National Academy of Sciences
TRW Systems Group
Battell e Memorial Institute [N.W.]
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc.
Oept. of the Army
Dept. of the Navy
National Cancer Institute
^—
Oi
u
1^*
0)
o
'o
u
•r™
X
o
1—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ra
£-
0)
+J
>> ro
<-> =
*^~ ^">
i— 01 O> *J C1
•— > > — c
.3 ••-•!- > —
! 2 o IJ •£
S i— S- U TS
ro C. i- ro —
•— x o o x
U. LLI U Of O
X X
X X
XXX X
X
XXX
X X
XXX
XX XX
XX X
X X X X X
s- c
01 0
N •!—
•f™ ^J
«J 03
01 -i- I-
> ^ -»J
•i- 01 C
4-> J-J Ul 1>
u c u
TO ^ ^n cz
o -J c o
•r- •>- O U
•a s- t. o
m s- -J •—
Q£ I— i 1/1 C3
XXX
XXX
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
XX X
X
X
re iiiugcnic
(0
»_
^
ijO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Source: Kohan, 1975:2.
13
-------
2. Listings of materials deemed to be hazardous (the pure-
compound approach).
There are difficulties associated with both approaches. The decision-
model approach involves specifying levels of hazardous attributes, sucn as
flash point, degree of toxicity, etc. A major problem is that it is not easy
to decide upon the criteria to be used. As Flinn, Thomas and Bishop (1974)
point out, most classification systems in use are deficient in that they
focus on acute effects to the neglect of chronic effects, have a limited
domain of concern, and are not designed to handle degradation products and
synergistic effects when one material mixes with another.
The resources required for testing waste streams could be considerable,
especially with respect to toxicity and genetic effects. Estimates of costs
ranging up to £750,000 for animal toxicity testing of a single chemical have
been suggested (Portney, 1978). Furthermore, variations in the composition
of a given hazardous waste stream could make it difficult to obtain a
representative sample.
Enormous resources could also be required to evaluate hazardous
materials using the pure-compound approach. Flinn, Thomas anc! Bishop (1974)
indicate that a quarter of a million chemical entities may be identified each
year, and that several hundred are introduced into commercial use annually.
The pure-compound approach also raises the problem of defining the concen-
tration at which the presence of a given substance renders a waste stream
hazardous. Furthermore, extrapolation from laboratory animal studies to
effects on man is fraught with difficulties (Rail, 1975). These problems are
compounded by the observation that low concentrations of some elements may be
essential to certain forms of life, whereas higher concentrations may be
toxic or lethal (Venugopal and Luckey, 1975). In addition, the approach does
not allow for synergistic or antagonistic effects that may occur when mix-
tures of chemicals are present in a single waste stream.
Williamson (1975) includes a detailed discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of a number of versions of these two general approaches, and
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (1974, Vol.1)
comprehensively discusses the attributes that could make a waste hazardous.
Of various hazardous waste decision models, the Battelle model (Battelle
Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1974, Vol.1) is probably
the best known. This model was included in the Report to Congress:
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes (U.'S. Environmental Protection Agency,1974b)
and is illustrated in Figure 2. While the usual purpose of decision models
of this type is to provide a yes/no answer, some designate two degrees of
hazard—for example, "dangerous" and "extremely hazardous" (Mehlhaff, Cook
and Knudson, 1977). In addition, some models have been designed to produce a
hazard rating or ranking. Klee (1976) has reviewed three such models and
points out that because each represents a different evaluator's utility
function, the correlation between results obtained from each model is poor.
14
-------
WASTE
STREAM
DOES WASTE CONTAIN
RADIOACTIVE CONSTITUENTS
> virc LEVELS?
NO
IS WASTE SUBJECT TO
BIOCONCENTHATIONI
IS WASTE FLAMMABILITV
IN MFPA CATEGORY a
NO
IS WASTE REACTIVITY
IN NFPA CATEGORY 47
DOES WASTE HAVE AN ORAL
LDIU < SOmg/kg'
IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICITV
200 oprn AS GAS OR WIST'
LC,. < 2 mg/hur AS OUST?
, , NO
IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION
TOXICITV LO,n < 200ftig/kg?
NO
IS WASTE DERMAL IRRITATION
REACTION < GRADE 8'
, , NO
DOES WASTE HAVE AQUATIC
96 hr TLm < I 000
NO
DOES WASTE CAUSE
GENETIC CHANGES'
NO
OTHER WASTES
'ES
YES
Y.ES.
YES
YES
»ES
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Figure 2. The Battelle hazardous waste decision model.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b:57.
15
-------
Categories of Hazardous Waste
There are numerous ways of classifying wastes into generic groups.
Bases include:
1. Hazardous attributes;
2. Material or chemical classifications (metals, organics,
inorganics, etc.);
3. State of matter (gas, liquid, sludge/slurry, solid);
4. Geographic occurrence;
5. Industrial origin (e.g., either Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation [SIC] or process origin);
6. Amenability to different forms of resource recovery, treatment
and/or disposal;
7. Control by existing and/or proposed regulation;
8. The nature or significance of 'the threats that they pose to
the environment.
Although similar to classification by hazardous attributes, the last
approach (8) takes into account the waste's interaction with the environment
(e.g., the ease with which it can be biodegraded, transported and/or changed
to other forms by natural processes). It might also take account of the
background level of the material in the environment.
With some classification schemes, there may- be difficulties in alloca-
ting wastes to specific categories because of overlap problems—for example,
if classified by hazardous -attributes, a. waste might- be both 'toxic and
flammable, or if classified by chemical composition, a waste might be basi-
cally organic but with low concentrations of heavy metals that cause it to be
hazardous.
In practice, hybrid classification systems are often used; for example,
Berkowitz, March, and Home (1975) classify all industrial wastes (including,
but not limited to, hazardous wastes), into 29 general waste streams based
largely on the states of matter and. the materials present or chemical .com-
position. These same authors also• propose a• hierarchical classification
system that has 21 dimensions, including such items as geographic and SIC
origins, onsite treatment received, mode of transport to disposal, hazardous
attributes, and properties related to recyclability and decomposibility
(Berkowitz, March and Hprne, 1975). In contrast, Perna (1977) suggests the
use of only eight basic categories, one of which is "hazardous wastes."
In dealing with hazardous wastes, it may sometimes be useful to
distinguish between wastes from different sources, as follows:
1. Industrial process wastes;
IS
-------
2. Radioactive wastes;
3. Hospital wastes (pathological);
4. Chemical laboratory wastes;
5. Surplus pesticides and pesticide containers;
6. Obsolete explosives;
7. Chemical and biological warfare wastes;
8. Other special wastes.
These distinctions are made on the grounds of the aoproaches that nay-be
used to control the disposition of the wastes. Each type of waste may call
for a different control method. For example, radioactive wastes are already
subject to different regulations than chemical wastes, wh'ile regulations'
developed to deal with large quantities of industrial process wastes might be
very cumbersome if applied to small quantities of laboratory wastes or.empty
pesticide containers.
Although post-consumer wastes undoubtedly contain hazardous components
on occasions, they are not usually regarded as a source of hazardous waste.
In contrast, mill tailings can have concentrations of heavy metals that.are
in excess of background levels and could therefore pose a hazard (Midwest
Research Institute, 1975). However, because of the large quantities of
materials involved, there are few feasible management alternatives for such
wastes and hence they were not specifically considered in this study.
Treatable and Nontreatable Wastes
Although much general analysis can apply to all hazardous wastes, there
is one hazardous waste classification that can usefully be employed in
general policy or planning studies—whether a waste is "treatable" or not. A
treatable waste can readily be detoxified or rendered harmless by physical,
chemical, or biological means; whereas a nontreatable waste cannot readily be
detoxified. For example, waste sulfuric acid and phenol-contaminated waste-
water may qualify as hazardous wastes under various classification schemes.
However, sulfuric acid may be neutralized by reaction with a low-cost, widely
available alkali such as lime, and phenol is readily biodegradable at low
concentrations (Rosfjord, Trattner, and Cheremisinoff, 1976). • Thus these
"treatable" wastes may usually be simply and inexpensively rendered harmless.
In contrast, the toxic properties of a heavy metal are fundamental to
that element, and the waste cannot be treated to render it harmless. Hence
if a waste contains heavy metals in significant quantities, it is necessary
to find ways to prevent the release of these elements if the environment is
to be protected. (This could, for example, be achieved by physical contain-
ment or by insuring that the waste remains in a highly insoluble form.)
However, a "nontreatable" waste of this type remains a permanent threat, and
17
-------
must be considered a candidate for perpetual care, requiring continuing
monitoring to insure that its disposal has not affected the environment.
This is an important distinction from a "treatable" waste.
Inevitably, there is a zone of uncertainty or overlap between the two
categories. For example, PCB's exhibit serious chronic toxicity, are subject
to bioaccumulation, and are highly .persistent'in the environment (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 1976b). However, as syntnetic organic
compounds, they are capable of degradation to a harmless form by incinera-
tion. Unfortunately, the required incineration parameters (high temperature
and long dwell time) are such that effective thermal degradation is very
costly, especially compared with simple treatments of the type discussed
above. Hence waste PCB's do not readily fit into either the "nontreatable"
or "treatable" category, as they are technically treatable, yet economic
considerations may result in their not being treated. For this waste, the
most viable alternative might be some form of perpetual care.
TECHNIQUES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
The term "technique" is used -in this report .to denote a technical means
of changing, treating, or disposing of a hazardous waste. The term is
restricted to direct physical activities and does not imply anything about
its economic or social effects - or the policies that might encourage or
discourage the use of that technique.
The techniques that are available fall into four groups, as follows:
I. Techniques that change the composition or magnitude of the
waste stream itself;
2. Techniques that recover values (materials or energy) from a
given waste stream;
3. Techniques that treat the waste stream in order to render it
less harmful;
4. Techniques that store or dispose of the waste.
A waste may be sequentially subjected to more than one technique; for
example, a disposal technique may be preceded by some form of treatment. The
term "disposal" (or sometimes "ultimate disposal") is commonly used to denote
removal' qf the waste from the immediate •location, of generation to some other
location where, it is put into"permanent 'storage' (as in a landfill), diluted
or dispersed (as may occur in ocean dumping). The available techniques are
listed in Table 2 and are described in Appendix A.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
In the past decade, significant advances have been made in legislative
controls of most of the major sources of environmental degradation.
18
-------
TABLE 2. TECHNIQUES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES*
Technique
Change in waste streams:
Process change
Source reduction
Waste separation
Resource recovery:
Materials recovery
Energy recovery
Treatment to reduce hazard:
Physical treatment
Chemical treatment
Biological treatment
Thermal treatment
Encapsulation
Storage or disposal:
Land application
Landfill ing
Mine disposal
Lagooning
Deep well injection
Ocean dumping
Engineered storage
Space disposal
Comment
To generate wastes that
are less hazardous
To generate less hazardous
waste
To separate hazardous *aste
from nonhazaraous waste
Location!
Onsite
Ons He
Usually
onsite
On/offsite
On/offsite
On/offsite ^
On/offsite I Variety of processes
On/offsite \ available (see Table A.I.)
On/offsite J
To immobilize wastes
Usually
offsite
On/offsite
Usually
offsite
On/offsite
On/offsite
Offsite
Usually
offsite
Offsite
For storage, liquid volume
reduction by evaporation;
may also involve treatment
Liquids only
* Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b;
Kovalick, 1975, Appendix A; and other sources.
T Location at which technique is used, relative to site of waste generation.
19
-------
Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1970 (PL 91-604) established a system of
air quality and emissions standards that has resulted in marked reduction of
pollutants discharged into the air. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
passed in 1972 (PL 92-500), instituted a similar system for controlling
effluents passing into the Nation's watercourses. Both of these statutes
include provisions designed to prevent hazardous pollutants from oeing dumped
into the respective environmental media with which they are concerned.
Hazardous air pollutants are controlled by establishing stringent limitations
for stationary source emissions of designated pollutants (Arbuckle et al.,
1976). Discharges of hazardous or toxic pollutants into surface waters from
point sources are controlled in several different ways in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, but the basic concept is to establish limitations on
the amounts and types of these effluents. In some cases, standards of
performance are set for certain industries, while effluent standards for
hazardous pollutants are set in others (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974b).
Ocean dumping, commonly used in the past, has now been virtually
eliminated as a technique for the disposal of hazardous wastes (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977a). Under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532, as amended), the dumping of any radio-
logical waste is prohibited; and a permit is required before any other
material can be dumped. It is the policy of the Act to regulate all ocean
dumping and to prevent or strictly limit the ocean dumping of any material
that would adversely affect the marine environment (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977a). Also, in 1974, the United States ratified the
1972 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This convention prohibits the deliberate
ocean disposal of certain waste materials (which are additional to those
considered above) and requires that special care be taken in issuing permits
for other specified materials (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977e).
In addition to the legislation mentioned above, there are 13 other
Federal statutes that have some bearing on the treatment, storage, transpor-
tation, and handling of hazardous wastes (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974b). Much of this legislation applies to specific wastes or
categories of wastes (explosives, for example).
At the beginning of this decade, it was realized that (a) increasingly
stringent control of air and surface water pollution was diverting wastes to
various forms of land disposal that were largely uncontrolled, and that (b)
although some aspects of hazardous wastes 'were addressed piecemeal by a
variety of Federal and State statutes, some comprehensive control was needed.
These two forces prompted Congress to enact Section 212 of the Resource
Recovery Act of 1970 (PL 91-512), which directed EPA to undertake a study to
better identify the nature and scope of the hazardous waste problem, with
special orientation toward establishing a system of national disposal sites
for hazardous wastes. The resulting report, delivered to Congress in June
1973 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b), strongly emphasized the
need to regulate hazardous wastes in a comprehensive manner.
20
-------
The Initial legislation proposed subsequent to this report provided for
identification of hazardous wastes, establishment of standards for treatment
and disposal of such wastes, and establishment of guidelines for State pro-
grams for implementing such standards. It did not, however, propose a system
of Federally controlled national disposal sites. After several years of
deliberation, similar legislation was finally passed in October 1976 as
Subtitle C of the RCRA (PL 94-580). The objectives of this Subtitle are as
follows:
The basic thrust of the hazardous waste title, is to identify
what wastes are hazardous and in what quantities, qualities, and
concentrations and the methods of disposal which may make such
wastes hazardous. The title requires that the Administrator prom-
ulgate regulations applicable to generators. Such regulations
include recordkeeping, informing those that transport or dispose of
such hazardous waste of the characteristics of such waste and the
initiating of a manifest system so that the waste generated can be
traced to the site of ultimate disposal. . . .
Regulations are imposed on transporters of hazardous waste.
Most important is the initiation of a manifest system so that the
hazardous waste can be traced from the generator to a facility that
has an approved permit. . . .
Other regulations required to be promulgated relate to those
who treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste. Such regulations
are to consist of compliance with the manifest system, record-
keeping requirements and inspections.
The Administrator is also empowered to recommend methods of
treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste,andthe
operation of such facilities, to assist the operators in safely
handling such hazardous waste.
Finally, those who store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste
are required to receive a permit either from the Administrator or
from the appropriate state agency authorized by the Administrator
to grant such a permit. . . . [Emphasis added.]
(U.S. House of Representatives, 1976:6,7)
Prior to the passage of the RCRA, only a limited number of States had
comprehensive hazardous waste legislation (Lehman, 1976), although at least
25 had legislation or regulations that provided some control (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1974b). EPA is currently promulgating regulations
that will insure adequate management throughout the United States. These
regulations are designed to provide cradle-to-grave control of hazardous
wastes. The basic management philosophy is to control the disposition of
hazardous wastes, and to provide adequate environmental protection without
specifying the technologies that must be used. One of the most difficult
problems has been to define hazardous waste. The regulations specify that
certain materials are hazardous, whereas tests are utilized to determine the
status of some waste streams.
21
-------
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Prior to 1970, when Congress passed Section 212 of the Resource Recovery
Act, little attention had been paid to the. problems of hazardous wastes,
although the risks and procedures -Involved In the transportation of hazardous
materials had been studied (Smith, 1976). Following the 1970 Resource
Recovery Act, EPA commissioned a number of wide-ranging research studies.
In an initial study, Booz-Allen Applied Research Inc. (1972) compiled a
candidate list of hazardous materials and attempted to assess the nature and
magnitude of the problem. This was followed by an in-depth study, which
included developing profile reports (summarizing quantities generated and
hazardous properties) on over 500 potentially hazardous materials and
analyses of a variety of treatment and disposal techniques that might be used
in hazardous waste management (Ottinger et al., 1973). All of this work was
predisposed toward the concept of a system of national disposal sites for
hazardous waste, and another EPA-sppnsored study examined alternative
approaches to the use of such disposal' sites. Three basic approaches were
considered: Onsite waste processing Cive., treatment and/or disposal of the
waste at the location where it is generated), offsite processing at some
regional hazardous waste facility, and a combination of onsite pretreatment
and offsite treatment and disposal. This study examined the process
economics and other considerations associated with these alternatives for a
number of common waste streams that were regarded as strongly hazardous and
concluded that most should be processed at national disposal sites (Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1973). Meanwhile, in Program for the Management of Hazardous
Wastes. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (1974)
estimated the quantities of hazardous waste generated in the United States
and made a detailed examination of the feasibility of a system of national
disposal sites, including conceptual designs, etc.
The results of this series of studies were integrated into the Report to
Congress: Disposal of Hazardous Wastes (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974b).Tn this report EPA concluded that for the most part,
hazardous wastes were disposed of using low-cost methods, that did not provide
adequate'environmental protection. The technology to adequately manage most
hazardous wastes was found to be available, but adequate management is often
costly. Hence the waste generators frequently have an economic incentive for
inadequate management.
The Report to Congress: Disposal of Hazardous Wastes indicated that
about 9 million tonnes (10 million short tons) of nonradioactive hazardous
wastes were being generated annually in the United States, increasing at 5 to
10 percent per year. About 90 percent of these wastes were in liquid form,
the remainder being solids, sludges, and slurries. (Emissions of hazardous
materials to the air were not considered in these studies as such emissions
were already controlled under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1970.) About 60 percent of the wastes were organic materials. Virtually all
of these wastes were industrial process wastes, and practically all of them
were toxic (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b).
22
-------
Subsequently, EPA commissioned detailed studies on the 14 industries
that were believed to contribute the bulk of all hazardous process wastes
(Abrams, Guinan, and Derkics, 1976; Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1976; Battelle-
Columbus Laboratories, 1976; Foster D. Snell, Inc., 1976a; Gruber and
Ghassemi, 1975; Jacobs Engineering Co., Inc., 1976; McCandless at al., 1975;
Leonard et al., 1975; SCS Engineers, Inc., 1976; Shaver et al., 1975; Swain,
1976; WAPORA, Inc., 1976, 1977a, 1977b). Each of these studies characterized
the structure of the industry, estimated the total process wastes generated
(both at the time of the study and in the future), identified the portion of
the waste that was considered to be potentially hazardous, determined the
disposal methods currently in use, and estimated direct control costs for
various levels of treatment and disposal technology. The results of these
studies, which are summarized in Table 3, showed that these industries gener-
ated nearly 29 million tonnes (32 million short tons) of hazardous waste in
1974. This is expected to increase to 38 million tonnes (42 million short
tons) by 1983, largely because of residues from additional air and water
pollution controls. A pervasive problem with this research has been that of
defining a hazardous waste. In each of the 14 industries studied, the. con-
tractor chose the definition employed, which was not necessarily consistent
with that used for the Report to Congress: Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b).The estimates in the latter
report of 9 million tonnes (10 million short tons) of wastes considered
potentially hazardous were generated using the Battelle hazardous waste
decision model (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b). However, the
problem of determining how much hazardous waste is generated is .not
restricted to the choice of criteria. In addition, waste stream magnitudes
and concentrations of constituents are uncertain or subject to variation, and
the toxicity and genetic effects of- the components may be ill-defined,
especially in the presence of other components. Consequently, the difference
(a factor of three) between the two totals is not unreasonable.
For some industries, additional studies have been completed en alterna-
tive control technologies that might be employed and on the economic effects
(e.g., changes in product prices and plant closings) of possible hazardous
waste management regulations (e.g., Versar, Inc., 1977; Williams et al.,
1976). Another study examined the structure and capacity of the independent
hazardous waste management industry. In 1975, this was found to consist of
about 95 firms operating 110 facilities. Annual capacity was determined to
be about 7.3 million tonnes (wet basis), but only about half that, capacity
was being used (Foster 0. Snell, 1976b; also see Farb and Ward, 1975).
Comparison of these data with those for total generation of hazardous wastes
(Table 3) supports EPA findings that most industries dispose of their
hazardous waste locally to the land and that only a small proportion of this
waste is handled in a manner that EPA regards as environmentally adequate
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b).
Other Federal research has included the collection and analysis of data
on hazardous waste incidents (situations in which significant environmental
degradation or damage to health or life has occurred), and numerous support-
ing studies have been conducted on hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technologies. This research is discussed in Appendices A and B.
23
-------
TABLE 3. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES GENERATED
IN THE UNITED STATES*
Quantity of waste generated
(million tonnes per year)
197*
1983
Industry category
Dry
Wet
Dry
'.vet
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Batteries
Inorganic chemicals
Organic chemicals, pesticides
and explosives
Electroplating
Paint and allied products
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals
Primary metals smelting
and refining
Textile dyeing and finishing
Leather tanning
Special machinery
Electronic components
Rubber and plastics
Waste oil re-refining
Total
0.005
2.000
2.150
0.909
0.075
0.625
0.062
4.454
0.048
0.045
0.102
0.026
0.205
0.057
10.763
0.010
3.400
6.360
5.276
0.096
1.757
0.065
8.335
1.770
0.146
0.153
0.036
0.785
0.057
28.755
0.105
2.800
3.300
1. 751
0.105
0.811
0.104
5.536
0.179
0.068
0.157
0.050
0.299
0.1-ki
15.909
0.209
4.300
12.565
5.ISC
0.145
1.S88
0.108
10.-il3
0.715
:.:i*
0.209
0.1C8
1.20*
O.l-i-i
38.089
* Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b:14.
Public input to hazardous waste management decisionmaking was solicited
via four public meetings on hazardous waste management held in Decemoer 1975
(Corson, 1976). EPA has prepared a synopsis of these meetings (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1976c), and Edelman et al. (1976) have analyzed the
issues that were raised. In addition, meetings were held early in 1977 in
each of the 10 EPA regions on implementation of the RCRA (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977d). An early study attempted to gauge likely
attitudes of the public toward the national disposal site concept (Lackey,
Jacobs and Stewart, 1973), and is discussed'later.
Other Research
EPA has encouraged the States to conduct hazardous waste generation and
disposal surveys as a preliminary stage toward formulating hazardous waste
management plans. Various EPA publications directed toward these ends are
available (Porter, 1975, 1976; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b).
Although a number of statewide and some regional and local surveys have been
initiated, several have met with only limited success because of poor
24
-------
response from the generating firms. This difficulty has been compounded by
the absence of an accepted and easily applied definition of hazardous waste.
On the other hand, California has obtained excellent responses using a care-
fully designed and strongly followed-up survey technique on a county basis
(Sanders, 1977).
General Findings on Previous Hazardous Waste Research
The author has concluded that the following generalizations may be made
about previous hazardous waste research:
1. It has emphasized process wastes (as opposed to post-consumer
or post-industrial wastes) and has not to any significant
extent considered hazardous emissions to the atmosphere:
2. It has emphasized toxic and radioactive wastes (as opposed to
flammable wastes, for example);
3. It has been demonstrated that precise and comprehensive
definition of hazardous waste is difficult and subject to
disagreement among authorities;
4. It has had a technological emphasis and has not to any great
extent attempted to consider public attitudes toward waste
management alternatives;
5. It has been oriented toward end-of-pipe solutions, and much of
it was predisposed toward the national disposal site concept;
6. It has largely been conducted on an industry-by-industry,
waste-by-waste basis and has shown that virtually every
industry has a number of unique features with respect to
hazardous waste management;
7. It has made evaluations largely in terms of direct control and
disposal process economics and has generally not evaluated any
indirect costs (such as environmental costs) or social
impacts, nor has it considered the implications of differing
attitudes toward risk-taking;
8. Its philosophy of equity has been, "Let the pollJter-pc.y.";
9. The studies have used generalized analysis and have tended to
specify what their authors regard as the best solution, rather
than dealing with specific problems and displaying the pros
and cons of alternative solutions.
This summary of previous research on hazardous wastes is not intended as
criticism, but is presented to identify gaps in our knowledge and pitfalls to
be avoided. Again, it must be emphasized that these are general findings to
which there may be certain exceptions.
25
-------
Thus to date, economic analysis has not addressed the problem of
selecting socially optimal hazardous waste management policies, except in an
extremely general way (Talley and Albrecht, 1974). No significant attempt
has been made to apply the techniques of cost-benefit or risk-benefit
analysis to hazardous waste management. And though decisionmakers have not
been insensitive to public attitudes, no ways have been found to factor them
systematically into" the process of hazardous waste policy selection. This
report represents a step toward rectifying these omissions.
26
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
COST-BENEFIT AND RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS
Established Applications
Techniques of cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis are well developed,
and have already been applied to several classes of environmental problems.*
For example, cost-benefit analysis has been applied to air and rfater pollu-
tion control programs (Peskin and Seskin, 1975), while risk-benefit analyst's
has been used to compare alternative means of generating electric power
(Barrager, Judd, and North, 1976).
Cost-benefit analysis is usually used to determine whether or not -a
project or an activity should be undertaken, which requires that the total
benefits conferred should exceed the total costs involved. At the same time,
cost-benefit analysis frequently involves determining the optimum scale of
activity, i.e., the project scope at which the net benefit (total benefits
less total costs) is maximized. Analysis of this type could be appropriate
to deciding whether or not to create a park or to preserve a natural environ-
ment as a wilderness area.
* In cost-benefit analysis, all the costs of a proposed actiort, including
social and environmental costs, are summed and compared with the benefits
arising from the action. Since costs and especially benefits, can involve
effects (such as environmental changes) for which there is. no established
marketplace, values for effects must frequently be imputed from 'Other
indicators. (This is discussed with reference to hazardous wastes in
Appendix C.) The distinction between cost-benefit and risk-benefit
analysis is not clear-cut. The term "risk-benefit analysis" is often
applied to a category of cost-benefit analysis in which risks to life and
health are an important component of the costs (e.g., National Academy of
Engineering, 1972). It would not be applied to an analysis in which the
risks were purely economic (e.g., where there is construction cost
uncertainty or where there is doubt about the magnitude af the project
benefits). Some authors dealing with risks to life retain the term "cost-
benefit analysis" (e.g., National Academy of Sciences, 1977), whereas
others use the term "cost-risk-benefit analysis" to suggest that the costs
include both conventional costs and risk-related ones (e.g., U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, 1974).
27
-------
In a pollution control analysis, however, the analyst's terms of
reference do not usually permit questioning the desirability of the economic
activity that generates the pollutant, .In many cases the activity is already
in existence. Hence analysis considers only costs associated with pollution,
and the conventional economic approach to pollution control becomes tnat of
determining the optimum level of pollution and devising a policy that results
in that level. Conceptually (but not in practice) this process is straight-
forward and involves controlling the discharge of the pollutant to the level
that minimizes the total cost (i.e., Ql in Figure 3). In this case it is
implicity assumed that overall, the benefits of the activity outweigh the
costs.
Risk-benefit analysis can examine whether or not an activity tnat
involves risk should be undertaken or allowed. It could, for axamole, oe
used to decide whether or not a particular toxic substance should be used in
a given application (Provenzano, 1973). This involves comparing the benefits
of such use with the risks incurred. In some risk-benefit analyses, however,
the net benefit of the activity is assumed to be positive, and the analysis
is used to compare alternative ways of achieving the objective. For example,
in assessing alternative means of generating electric power, the exoected
numbers of accidents in mining and transportation have been estimated and
have been expressed as a cost (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 197J-). The
effects of air pollution (e.g., sulfur dioxide) on health and property could
also be included in the same way, although in practice there are najor diffi-
culties involved in predicting the effect of airborne pollution on nuoian
health (Sagan, 1972; Goldstein, 1975).. The probability and results of
accidents could also be estimated, as in the Rasmussen report on major
accidents in nuclear power plants (Rasmussen, 1975).
Most risk-benefit assessments use expected values to describe the risks.
By assigning probabilities and economic values to the risks, an expected
value of total damage or cost can be obtained, and the least cost means of
achieving a specified objective can thereby be determined. Alternatively,
the expected value approach can allow the optimum level of exposure to risk
(e.g., radiation exposure from mammography [National Academy of Sciences,
1977]) to be determined in a manner that is analogous to Figure 3. This is
comparatively simple where large numbers of individuals are exposed to risks
that are statistically well defined, but the approach does not allow for a
decisionmaker's aversion to risk-taking which could be particularly important
where there are low probability risks with major consequences (e.g., nuclear
power plant disasters). (One solution to this difficulty would be to specify
a decisionmaker's utility function to build in a degree of risk aversion—see
Appendix F.)
Tihansky and Kibby (1974) make a conceptual extension of the expected
value approach by introducing confidence intervals and comment that a risk-
averse decisionmaker might base his decisions on values that are displaced
from the means. For example, if asked to approve the manufacture of a toxic
substance, he might choose the upper decile for damage costs and the lower
decile for benefits. Of course, the difficulty with this approach is to
determine all the necessary data.
28
-------
INCREASING POLLUTION
(DECREASING ENVIRONMENTAL Q'UALITY)
Figure 3. Conventional economic approach to pollution control.
Though the basic approach in cost-benefit and risk-benefit analyses is
to express all effects in terms of a common measuring rod (the dollar),
studies rarely succeed in placing dollar values on .a]J the. environmental
effects. Some authors have endeavored to make up for omissions by listing
predictable impacts, such as annual quantities of effluents and wastes
requiring disposal. The difficulties- that may be encountered in attempting
to perform a comprehensive cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis are dis-
cussed by Fischhoff (1977) in an excellent critique of the techniques.
29
-------
Application to Hazardous Waste Management
From an analytical viewpoint, there are significant differences between
the types of pollutants and risks discussed above, and those associated with
most hazardous waste problems. The conventional economic approach to coT'u-
tion control (Figure 3) arrives at a least cost solution by changing the
control measures used so that the quantity of pollutant released to trie
environment varies. This approach assumes a single pollutant (or inaex of
pollution, such as BOO) as the independent variable (the abscissa in Figure
3). Except in cases such as waste treatment for a single industry, hazarccus
waste management techniques (landfilling, for example) usually involve many
different wastes that may have1 different hazardous attributes. Henca, in
many cases, a variable representing the magnitude of a pollution threat would
be difficult to generate. In the absence of a suitable index, analysis would
have to be undertaken on a waste-by-waste basis and would need to consider
interactions between wastes. This would require numerous data that would
rarely be available, and the problem would be complicated by the variaoi"ity
in composition of many hazardous wastes.
Further difficulties arise with the damage function. It may not be
desirable to use an expected value or similar measure of damage cost. There
are two arguments against use of an expected value; risk aversion has already
been mentioned, and the second is that the public perception of a risk rcay be
more important than its true probability and magnitude. These issues ars
discussed later.
However, even if expected values are used, compare what would ce
involved in making a hazardous waste risk-benefit analysis with a risk-
benefit analysis of alternative means of generating electric power (e.g.,
Barrager, Judd, and North, 1976; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974). Most
generation of electric power uses a limited number of comparatively uniform
technologies (e.g., coal, oil, gas and certain nuclear fuel cycles). Like-
wise, the fuel extraction technologies are of limited diversity, and most
have been established for a sufficient length of time to provide good data on
risks such as occupational injuries and adequate data on potential
environmental damages such as acid mine drainage. The uniformity of the
technologies and the magnitude of the resources that might be committed to
them, together with the availability of comparatively good data, can warrant
expenditure of considerable effort to make comparative risk-benefit analyses.
For example, the Rasmussen (1975) study of accident risks in two types of
nuclear power plants cost some $4 million.
In contrast to the electric power situation, hazardous wastes are highly
diverse, and while some of the treatment and disposal technologies are com-
paratively uniform, the environmental conditions associated with disposal
techniques (such as precipitation, soil and aquifer properties) are highly
variable. Hence, the threats that hazardous wastes pose to man and the
environment can vary considerably with the circumstances. It will frequently
be difficult to predict the probability of their occurrence, and it may also
be hard to project the damage if a threat does materialize. This diversity
implies that even if feasible to comprehensively and accurately characterize
the threats that might arise from hazardous waste management alternatives
would often take considerable resources.
30
-------
Though detailed analysis (such as is used in conventional cost-benefit
and risk-benefit analyses) may be possible and justified for some hazardous
waste problems, there will be many for which it is not. This may occur
because the necessary data cannot realistically be generated, cr because the
effort that would be required would be out of proportion to the scope of the
problem (as measured by the worst case damage potential, or the cost of
achieving a high level of control). What is needed is a me:hodology for
evaluating hazardous waste management alternatives that recognizes the
principles of risk-benefit analysis but that is simple to apply and does not
require extensive data. This study attempts to provide a suitable method-
ology. A key component of the approach proposed is the identification of
threats and the use of threat scenarios to describe the possible adverse
consequences of hazardous waste management techniques.
THREATS THAT MAY ARISE FROM HAZARDOUS WASTES
In the analysis of hazardous waste management alternatives, the damage
or risk component can be regarded as a series of different threats of adverse
events that may arise from the use of various control techniques. The term
"threat" is used because, in most cases, there is some probability (not
necessarily known) of the specified event occurring. It may occur soon,
later, or never; and if the threat does materialize, the magnitude of the
effect may also be uncertain. For example, there is a threat that a lagoon
containing hazardous waste may overflow because of exceptional rainfall. The
timing and the size of the spill (and hence its effects) cannot be forecast,
although in this case they could quite readily be expressed in probaoilistic
terms.
Identification of Threats
A threat is always present, but for the threat to materialize, some sort
of initiating event is required. Many initiating events are well-defined
specific incidents such as an industrial accident or an unlikely environ-
mental occurrence (e.g., an earthquake) that can trigger a threat mechanism.
However, a threat may also arise from inadequate design or poor practice,
such as the operation of a landfill in such a way as to provide no environ-
mental protection from hazardous leachates. A broad (as opposed.to detailed)
list of initiating events is given in Table 4, which also lists threat
mechanisms and outcomes.
Threat mechanisms define the nature of the threat itself, and may be
sequential or hierarchical (for example, fire could lead to explosion, or
vice versa). Outcomes are the end results of threats. A threat may not
always carry through to result in an observable or measurable adverse out-
come, such as poisoning of some life forms. However, even where there is no
outcome of this type, there may well be a loss of some potential options.
For example, a toxic leachate could contaminate an aquifer that is used as a
drinking water source. In this case, the outcome would probably be
poisoning, and alternate water supplies would be needed. If, however, the
aquifer (or at least the part that was contaminated) was not used for any
sort of water supply, no poisoning would result, but the option o~ using the
aquifer as a freshwater source would be lost unless decontamination were
31
-------
TABLE 4. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS IN HAZARDOUS V/ASTE MANAGEMENT
Initiating events:
Geologic event (e.g., earthquake, erosion, change in aquifer,
meteorite impact)
Climatic event (e.g., unusual storm, flood, lightning, etc.)
In-plant accident
Transport accident
Sabotage
Operational failure or error (man caused)
Inadequate design or poor practice (including corrosion)
Threat mechanisms:
Spillage
Overflow
Containment failure
Leaching
Unintentional or unwanted mixing
Unintentional or unwanted contact
Fire
Explosion
Ground movement or shock waves
Unintentional or unwanted emissions (to air)
Odor
Vector
Bioconcentration
Outcomes:
Destruction of life (man, fauna, flora)
Destruction of real property
Poisoning
Modification of an ecosystem (by changing balance of species)
Olfactory insult
Loss of option(s)
Note: Aesthetic degradation has not been listed as a specific outcome as it
is an aspect of other outcomes
possible. Similarly, an area of barren ground could be contaminated by a
spill without causing destruction of life, but the contamination could
preclude various future uses.
By combining initiating events, threat mechanisms and outcomes, a series
of possible threats can be developed. For example, inadequate landfill
design results in a leachate containment failure, which causes contamination
32
-------
of groundwater (by mixing), which leads 'to 1-ivestock poisoning. Numerous
such threats could be identified, depending on the degree of comprehensive-
ness required. Thus in the example above, the leachate damage could lead to
chronic or acute poisoning of flora, fauna, man, etc.
Figure 4 presents a morphological map that demonstrates in a general way
how a threat evolves from some initiating event to some physical outcome. In
Figure 4 the threats mapped do not extend beyond initial outcomes; thus
subsequent outcomes such as bioconcentration and spread of poisoning via
vector or the food chain are not included. Although the map presented in
Figure 4 is not fully detailed, it can be seen that there are numerous ways
in which threats could develop. Thus for practical purposes it will be
necessary to limit the number of threats that are considered.
Common Threats in Hazardous Waste Management
Table 5 identifies some of the more important categories of 'threat that
may occur in hazardous waste management and indicates the waste management
techniques that are likely to pose these threats. Threat mechanisns are more
fully discussed in Appendix B, which also includes data on the probabilities
of some initiating events.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Classification of Effects
Use of various hazardous waste management techniques results in economic
and social effects. The effects may occur either as a direct result of the
waste management techniques used, or they may occur via environmental
impacts. For hazardous wastes, many environmental impacts will taka the form
of threats as opposed to readily predictable impacts. Analysis of waste
management problems usually identifies two major categories of economic and
social effects—control costs and damages. This is consistent with the
cost-benefit approach to pollution control discussed earlier. Though actual
benefits (as opposed to damages averted) may sometimes arise from the use of
waste management techniques (as with resource recovery), these can be
accounted for by credits against control costs.
The term "damage costs" has been replaced by "environmental costs" and
"social impacts" for two reasons. First, the term "damage costs" does not
take account of differing viewpoints. If, for example, a waste management
scheme involves the construction of a dam on a river, moving water recrea-
tionists (e.g., kayakers) will perceive this as a damaging effect, but still
water recreationists (e.g., water-skiers) will perceive it as a benefit.
Second, although most authorities agree that it is conceptually possible to
attribute a dollar value to any effect (see Appendix C), the practical dif-
ficulties can be overwhelming (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 1974). Hence some effects may be more appropriately described
than given a dollar value.
In this report, the term "environmental costs" is used to describe the
direct results of the environmental threats already discussed, translated as
33
-------
INITIATING EVENTSh-
- THREAT MECHANISMS •
-| OUTCOMES
DESTRUCTION
OF PROPERTY
UNINTEN
TIONAL
MIXING
GROUND
MOVEMENT,
OR SHOCK
WAVES
DESTRUCTION
OPERATIONAL
UNINTENTIONAL
OR UNWANTED
CONTACT
MODIFICATION
GEOLOGIC
EVENT
OF ECOSYSTEM
NINTENTIONAL
OR UNWANTED
MIXING
CLIMATIC
EVENT
INADEQUATE
DESIGN, OR
POOR
PRACTICE
ODOR
OLFACTORY
INSULT
Figure 4. Morphological map of environmental
-------
TABLE 5. MAJOR THREATS THAT MAY OCCUR IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Threat category
Hazardous waste management technique
to which threat may apply
CJ
in
1. In-plant accident (spill, fire, explosion) leading
to acute poisoning, destruction of property, etc.
2. Systematic in-plant exposure resulting in chronic
poisoning of workers
3. Waste handling accident (spill, fire, explosion)
during waste collection or disposal operations,
leading to acute poisoning, destruction of property,
etc.
4. Transportation accident leading to acute poisoning,
destruction of property, water pollution, etc.
5. Failure of treatment process resulting in waste
that retains hazardous properties or acquires new
hazardous attributes
6. Groundwater contamination via leachate
7. Surface or groundwater contamination by failure
of containment
8. Surface water contamination via runoff or
indirectly from seepage of polluted groundwater
9. Modification of marine ecosystem by presence of
waste
10. Direct groundwater contamination by presence
of waste
All
All
All
Wherever waste is transported
from site of generation
Any treatment process
Lagoon ing, land application,
landfilling, mine disposal,
possibly engineered storage
Lagooning, landfilling, mine
disposal, engineered
storage
Lagooning, land application,
landfilling
Ocean (lumping
Deep well injection
-------
far as practicable Into economic terms. "Social Impacts" Is used to describe
all remaining effects, including those that are essentially psychological.
Thus in general, environmental costs arise from the threat of physical envi-
ronmental degradation leading to some specific potential economic loss.
Social impacts, on the other hand, need not involve any physical damage, are
more likely to involve differing viewpoints, and will more frequently defy
quantification in dollar terms. This terminology was chosen for convenience
and may not coincide with that used by other sources. Furthermore, in some
cases, allocation to an environmental cost or a social impact may be
arbitrary. Nevertheless, maintaining this division may help to ensure that
all possible effects are considered.
Exclusion of Secondary Effects
This study does not generally address secondary effects, v/hicn n tne
economic context are multiplier effects that reflect the fact that one
person's expenditures constitute another's income. Secondary benefits are
usually disregarded in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis because
under conditions of full employment of resources, the resources used in
secondary activities would be employed elsewhere in equivalently productive
activities (Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974). Clearly, this argument is not
always valid. Regional economists who are faced with a contracting economy
and immobile factors of production (or conversely with a boom-town situation
and shortages) may be vitally interested in economic multiplier effects; and
such effects could be important in some hazardous waste management decisions.
However, the author supports the view expressed by Maass (1966) that only
where secondary effects (such as income redistribution) are made a part of
project objectives (and thereby cease to be secondary), should they be
included in evaluations. Hence in this analysis the costs considered are
restricted to those conventionally used in assessing economic efficiency,
except that environmental externalities (sometimes called "spillovers") will,
of course, be included.
Types of Control Costs
Control costs associated with any approach to hazardous waste management
may include the following:
1. Generator's costs, or those incurred by the firm that gen-
erates or may generate the hazardous waste. These include the
costs of treatment, transport, and disposal of the waste,
which may be performed by the firm itself or by its
contractors. They 'also include the generator's relevant
administrative, legal, and research and development costs.
2. Administrative costs, or administrative and enforcement costs
incurred by governments or by any other body that oversees or
monitors hazardous waste management.
36
-------
3. Social control costs, or costs that reflect the differences
betweenthedollar costs actually incurred by the waste
generator for various services, and the true cost to society
of these services. Such costs might arise, for example, where
a government provides a waste disposal facility free or at a
subsidized charge. (These costs do not include an accounting
of external environmental costs, which are covered elsewhere.)
In general, all control costs can quite readily be expressed in dollar
terms, although for some there can be problems in deciding on the most
appropriate method of valuation. For example, should a landfill site be
valued at historic cost, at replacement cost, or at opportunity cost with the
land used for another purpose? If the latter, what use (e.g., fanning or
housing) should be the basis of valuation? Control costs are discussed in
more detail in Appendix C.
Types of Environmental Costs and Social Impacts
Several sources provide broad discussions of the evaluation of environ-
mental damage, including both environmental costs and social impacts, as
defined in this study (Maler and Wyzga, 1976; Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 1974; Saunders, 1976; Bishop and Cicchetti,
1975). In general, empirical studies that involve pervasive pollutants (air
pollution and radiation) appear to be the most advanced, possibly because the
sources and receptors are comparatively easy to identify. During this
research, no studies were found that addressed the empirical valuation of
damages associated with solid or liquid hazardous wastes in a cost-benefit or
risk-benefit framework, and only one was found that did so for hazardous
emissions to air (Moll et al., 1975). Talley and Albrecht (1974) have made a
preliminary analysis of the economics of hazardous waste control in wiich the
emphasis was theoretical, and at the other end of the scale, individual
waste-related damage incidents have been investigated (see Appendix 8).
Although a systematic analysis of the various environmental and social
impacts of hazardous waste control techniques has not been made, the types of
damage that may occur and many of the effects are common to other aspects of
environmental and cost-benefit,analyses. Hence methods of valuation may be
derived from these sources.
The environmental impacts that most frequently arise from the -use of
hazardous waste management techniques can conveniently be divided into five
categories for valuation purposes:
1. Destruction of,, or.damage to man-made structures;
2. Damage to human life and health;
3. Destruction of, or damage to animals, vegetation and land
ecosystems, and kills of fish and other aquatic life in
surface waters (including the impacts of ocean dumping);
37
-------
4. Changes in property values;
5. Aesthetic factors and option values.
The first three categories (which mainly lead to environmental costs)
relate to the physical impacts that can arise from the threat mechanisms. An
additional physical impact, the modification of climate, can arise frcm many
sources (Saunders, 1976), but is unlikely to be significant in hazardous
waste management.
Changes in property values may reflect actual damages (usually noise or
air pollution), or they may be essentially psychological in origin,
reflecting aesthetic factors. Thus changes in property values can constitute
environmental cost; and/or social impacts, as defined here.
The final category is intended to cover all remaining social
(i.e., those that do not involve direct economic costs). It includes the
aesthetic value of the environment, the existence value that stems from the
knowledge that something exists or is being conserved, and option values
associated with risk aversion and uncertainty.
Note that a single environmental impact can give rise to ^lore than one
of the above categories of effect. For example, persistent po". ". ution of a
river could cause fish kills, changes in adjacent property values, and a
reduction in tne aesthetic appeal of the river to bystanders. Thus the
distinctions drawn above among the five categories of effects stem largely
from the methods, described in Appendix C, that can be used for valuation.
Since there can be overlaps between the categories (e.g., between damage to
property, property value, and aesthetic value) care must be taken to avoid
double counting when evaluating costs and impacts.
THE PARTIES-AT- INTEREST IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Concept of Parti es-at- Interest
In analyzing the effects of using a hazardous waste management technique
or an approach to hazardous waste control, the viewpoint of man is of
ultimate concern; i.e., What effects does the use of a given approach or
technique have on mankind? As has been shown, these effects can range from
those that are direct and straightforward, such as dollar costs actually
incurred in waste disposal, to those that are highly indirect, as for example
the value that many individuals -place on the preservation of a natural
undisturbed ecosystem, which causes them to associate a cost with the
modification of that system by the introduction of waste materials. Corre-
spondingly, the distribution of these effects can vary from those that affect
a single firm to those that impinge upon the general public.
This research is oriented toward the needs of decisionmakers who may
have multiple criteria, including social and political goals, for the
acceptability of a hazardous waste management plan. Hence in this study,
recognition of different viewpoints and a means of taking account of social
interactions is desirable. This can be achieved by grouping individuals into
38
-------
parties-at-interest. Each party-at-interest constitutes a class or group of
individuals or enterprises that can reasonably be expected to have a common
interest and viewpoint on the outcome of any particular plan or policy
alternative (Gilmore et al., 1971; also see Royston and Perkowski, 1S75).
For manageability, the parties-at-interest must be limited to those that
are quite strongly affected by one or more of the alternatives being
evaluated. Clearly, the grouping of numerous individual viewpoints and
attitudes into a limited number of parties-at-interest constitutes something
of a blunt instrument. However, it does permit the sociological aspects of
alternative plans or policies to be considered, and by being able to observe
the distribution of effects among different parties-at-interest, it provides
a useful foundation for considering equity.
Identification of Parties-at-interest in Hazardous Waste Management
The parties-at-interest in hazardous waste management may be determined
from the effects that might arise from the use of the various control
techniques. These effects fall into two general categories: Effects Csuch.
as control costs) that arise directly from the use of a hazardous waste
management technique, and effects that arise via environmental impacts.- • Note
that an environmental impact need not actually occur to be real from the
viewpoint of the analysis. Both very unlikely threats and completely
imaginary effects may be of importance. For example, residents near a pro-
posed landfill may fear that their property values would be depressed by the
proximity of the landfill. Even if this fear ultimately proves to be
incorrect, it is a real fear to the residents, who will therefore respond to
it in some way, and hence it is an effect to be considered.
Some economic effects, and hence parties-at-interest, arise indirectly.
For example, in considering the effects of using different hazardous waste
management techniques within a given industry, all the firms that use a
particular hazardous waste generating process could constitute one party-at-
interest; firms using another process that does not generate a hazardous
waste could constitute a different party-at-interest. In this case, the
effect would occur through changes in the competitive situation within the
industry reflecting different hazardous waste disposal costs to the firms,
and leading to changes in production costs.
The parties-at-interest in a given hazardous waste management situation
may be deduced by examining the-effects of every technique that,miglv: be used
to manage the wastes (including no change from present practice), 'olitical
officials and administrators in environmentally oriented government agencies
are also included, as they will want to minimize dissension among their
constituencies and facilitate effective administration.
Examination of the approaches that can be used to place a value on the
effects (Appendix C) may be helpful in identifying parties-at-interest.
Gilmore et al. (1971) list four groups of parties-at-interest, as follows:
1. Parties internal to the affected industry (e.g. owners, stock-
holders, management, employees and their unions);
39
-------
2. Suppliers and customers of an affected Industry (e.g., venders
of materials and services, including financing, insurance, and
intermediate and final consumers);
1. Government (at different levels and in different roles,
including legislators, executors, adjudicators, taxers,
regulators, and those concerned with economic stability,
social welfare, and national security);
4. Affected bystanders (e.g., those concerned with resources,
wildlife, recreation potential, and aesthetic effects, and
investors, employees, residents, and other property owners).
Gilmore et al. included parties-at-interest associated with secondary
economic effects (suppliers and customers of an affected industry). As
already indicated, the methodology proposed in this study follows the
commonly accepted approach of not evaluating secondary effects. However, in
cases where secondary economic effects are particularly significant, these
could lead to some important parties-at-interest. Consideration of these
parties-at-interest may help in understanding the sociology of the situation,
even if the associated secondary economic effects are not directly included
in any cost-benefit calculations.
Costs and Parties-at-Interest for Hazardous Waste Management Techniques
Table 6 summarizes the most important environmental threats, costs (and
impacts), and parties-at-interest associated with hazardous waste management
techniques. In specific situations, additional threats, costs and parties-
at-interest may be important. Table 6 also includes disposal to the sewer
and to surface waterways. Though these would not normally be options legally
available to the hazardous waste generator, they are of interest since they
might be used illicitly or for wastes that unexpectedly remained hazardous
after some form of treatment.
Certain costs and parties-at-interest are present for every available
technique. For example, the firms generating the waste will always have some
disposal costs, and their managers and workers will always be parties-at-
interest. This does not imply that the costs or the posture of the firm will
be the same for each technique. Similarly, it can be assumed that local
government and environmental .agencies will be interested in every technique
that might be used. The term "local," in this context, means having juris-
diction over the location at which the technique is employed, hence different
local officials may be parties-at-interest to different techniques. Similar
considerations apply every time the term "local" is used (e.g., local
residents, local property owners, etc.). These parties-at-interest are the
individuals that are close enough to the location of the technique under
consideration to potentially be affected by it.
The potential for freshwater contamination occurs with many of the
techniques, giving rise to associated costs. Where water contamination costs
are listed in Table 6, these costs can include the contamination of water
supplies (from surface or groundwater sources) for human or agricultural use,
40
-------
TABLE 6 ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS. COSTS. AND PARTIES-AT-INTEREST FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Technique
All techniques
All techniques
Involving
offslte
activities
Change In
wiste
streams*
Resource
recovery
Treatment to
reduce
hazard
-Physical
-Chemical
•Biological
-Thenul
-Encapsulation
Land application
EnvlronMnlal threats
Suireplillous dumping or
accldentdl discharge to
land, sewer, or waterway
lii-plant accidents mvolvfng
fire or explosion
Acute and chronic poisoning
Suirepttlious dumping
Accidental spillage
(to land or water)
IrealKnt may fall
leaving waste still
hazardous (most
likely with biological
treatment)
Air pollution
Crop take-up of toxic
sle«nts
Soil sterilization
teaching/ nip-off
Odor
Pailies-at-interetl
Waste generators-
managemcnl.
Waste genorators-
workers.
Competing firms using
different process,
Waste disposal Industry,
local political officials.
Local environmental
officials,
Water supply authorities,
Environmentalist*
Waste transporters,
Residents along transport
corridors
Secondary materials
Industry >
Secondary materials
industry.
Virgin materials
suppliers
Fishermen (where effluent
is discharged)
Chemical suppliers
Lotal lesldenls/woikeis
local property owners
Farmers
local water supply users
Residenls/woiLeis/
properly owners
adjacent to land
F I shermen
Major costs, etc
Capital and operating
costs for waste
disposal (internal
costs to generator)
lianspoit cost
Additional capital and
operating costs for
necctsaiy processes,
less value of any
resources recovered
Aesthetics
Poisoning via food
chain
Water contamination
Conmenls
Hay facilitate
lesourco recovery
Resource recovery
may have adverse
effect on energy
usage
Increased energy
usage likely
Possibility ul
energy lecovciy
Any null I ems. etc ,
present way enhance
crop growth
The lhre«u,
•ml co&u lUtnUMeU turn lM» point on are In aUdilluu lu ihu^e
*bu«ef
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
ro
Technique
Laodfllling
Nine disposal
Environmental threats
Leaching/ run-off
Odor
Vectors?
Leakage to grounowaler
Part les-at- interest
Local water supply use is
Local residents/workers/
property owners
Fishermen
Holders of adjacent
•inera) rights
Hajoi coils, etc
Water contamination
Aesthetics
Gi ounduater conldiin
Ldgouning teaching
(for storage Overflow
or evaporation) Odor and air pollution
Deep well
injection
Ocean duping
Engineered
storage
Space disposal
Discharge to
sewei
Discharge to
waterway
Groundwater contamination
Land movement and
consequent property dapage
Modification of marine
ecosystem
Containment failure
Contamination of space
Launch tdiluie consequences
Waste uy destroy biological
treatment colonies
Waste may cause sewage
iludye lo become ha/ardous
Slugs of waste may overload
system
Waste may destroy
aquatic life
Residents/workers/
property owners
adjacent lo site
Local water supply users
Fowl hunters
Farmers?
Authorities concerned
with resource usage
Local residents/properly
owners
Scientists
Ocean fishermen
Ocean recreationallsts
Coastal iecreation-
related industry
Local residents/workers/
property owners
Scientists
Other nations, national
politicians
Local residents
local water supply users/
Scientists
Other nations, national
politicians
Sewer authorities
I isheiiwn
Other water useis
Local lecredliun-ieldlcd
industry
Re!* Idtinls/hur km s/|n uperty
uuners adjacent lu
waterway
local walei supply u..eis/
Silinlltts?
Wattir contdmlndtiun
Aesthetics
Groundudtur contamination
Property damage
Reduced or Inedible
fish catch
Reduced tourist income
Aesthetics
Possible International
political strife
Maintenance after
disposal is completed
Water contamination
International political
strife
Unknown scientific costs
Malfunction of sewage
woiks and consequent
damage
Aesthetics
Reduced n*cioatloiul
o|>poi tunnies
Comments
Need to consider
opportunity cost
of land
Need lo consider
opportunity cost
of mine
Need to consider
opporlunily cost
of land
fhere may be an
opportunity cost to
using the aquifer
Requites purpeliidl
muniloring and
maintenance
These two actions die
nut normally leyiti-
mdle hdtaidous wdste
mandgemenl techni-
ques, but die in-
cluded here becdtise
a treatment piocess
••iy fall lesullnuj in
a hazardous el fluent,
01 they may be used
coveilly
-------
and the pollution of other surface waters. The cost, involved in 'tha first
case can include installing replacement sources of drinking and agricultural
water, corrosion and materials damage costs (to pipes and appliances), fore-
going the use of water or continuing to use the contaminated water and
accepting lower crop yields and values (for agricultural irrigation), and
aesthetic costs. (Persons who use their own well water may consider it
aesthetically more satisfying than piped water, and hence suffer an aesthetic
cost if they are forced to obtain water from public systems.) The costs
associated with the pollution of surface sources not used for water supply
can include fish kills, devalued recreational opportunities, environmental
aesthetic costs, and loss of future options.
Cleanup or mitigation costs could be involved where there is any form of
contamination. These costs can be particularly expensive for groundwater
sources which cannot feasibly be treated after withdrawal. In this avent,
normal procedure is to counterpump wells drilled to intersect the plume of
contaminated water, and then to- dispose of this water. Even this procedure
is not always entirely successful (U.S. -Environmental Projection Agency,
1977c; Miller, 1974).
THE SOCIOECONOMIC INTERACTION PROCESS
The Interaction Model
This section presents a simple conceptual model of the interactions
between the technical (i.e., physical) aspects and the economic and social
aspects of hazardous waste management. The purpose of the model is to
enhance understanding of the relationships between hazardous waste management
policy, what physically happens to the wastes, and the effects that this has
on society. The model forms the basis of the evaluation procedure described
in Section 5, and is inevitably a compromise between the desire for
simplicity in analysis, and the complexities that may be encountered in
real-life situations.
The model is illustrated in Figure 5. It is divided into three
sections, or levels: The policy level, the technical level, and the socio-
economic level. The policy level is concerned with the philosopny of how
hazardous wastes are to be managed. Decisions at the policy level are
largely responsible for determining what goes on at the technical level.
which deals with what physically happens to the wastes and to the environ-
raent. In turn, actions at the technical level have effects at the
socioeconomic level (i.e., on society). There is feedback from the socio-
economic level to the policy level through the technical level.
The elements in the model and the linkages between the elements---are
briefly described below. Most of these elements are discussed in more.detail
elsewhere.
Policy Objectives—
Policy objecti
considered to be an exogenous input to the model (see Section 5).
Policy objectives, dealing with normative (judgmental) issues, are
b<
43
-------
POLICY
LEVEL
POLICY \
OBJECTIVES/
\
APPROACHES
to hazardous
waste management
TECHNIQUES
for the management
of hazardous waste
OUTCOMES
(what physically
happens)
PHYSICAL
Oft TECHNICAL
LEVEL
WASTE
DISPOSITION
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
(threats, etc.)
ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL EFFECTS
of techniques
RESPONSES
of the parties-
at - interest
5OCJOECONOM/C
LEVEL
PARTIES-
AT-INTEREST
(those affected) /
COSTS & IMPACTS
- control costs
- environmental costs
- social impacts
Figure 5. Interaction model for hazardous waste management.
44
-------
Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management—
The approaches to hazardous waste management represent strategies for
the control of hazardous waste that are consistent with the policy ob'jiec-
tives. Approaches may favor the use of certain techniques (see Section 5).
Techniques for the Control of Hazardous Waste--
Techniques are the physical methods (e.g., treatment, landfilling) that
may be used to manage or control hazardous waste (see Section 3 and Appendix
A). They may include environmentally unacceptable techniques, such as sur-
reptitious dumping. The use of a given technique results directly in control
costs (one of the economic and social effects) and also causes or has the
potential to cause environmental impacts.
Environmental Impacts--
Environmental impacts are the physical effects, or potential effects,
that could arise from the use of various- hazardous waste- management tech-
niques. They occur largely in the form of threats (discussed early in this
section and in Appendix B). In addition, pervasive effects--that rebate-to•
resource use may be of interest. Thus although the economic aspects of
energy or materials consumption attributable to the use of a technique are
accounted for within the control costs (including any credits for resource
recovery), these topics may be of specific interest and call for individual
treatment. The same argument applies to land use, which is another aspect of
resource use. Note that if the emphasis is on conservation of resources,
some base case will be needed for comparison.
Economic and Social Effects of the Technique—
The economic and social effects are the effects that the techniques have
on man. These effects give rise to costs and impacts (i.e., control costs,
environmental costs, and social impacts, discussed earlier in this section).
In addition, man may have a special interest in certain aspects of resource
use, as discussed above.
The Parties-at-Interest—
The economic and social effects •will affect, different groups of
individuals or enterprises in different ways. Each group that.Is relatively
homogeneous in terms of its interests and attitudes and in the'way that it> i-s.•
affected by the economic, and social effects of the techniques constitutes, a
party-at-interest (as discussed earlier in this section).
Responses of the Parti es-at-Interest—
The various parties-at-interest will respond to the economic and social
effects in ways that will be determined by their interests and attitudes.
Their responses could include opposing or supporting a scheme or policy,
choosing a waste disposal technique, changing business activities, moving to
another location to avoid an adverse effect, etc. (Responses are discussed
later in this section.)
Outcomes—
The outcomes represent what physically happens in terms of hazardous
waste management, allowing for all the interactions and linkages that exist
in practice. Thus prediction of outcomes involves determining what is likely
45
-------
to happen to the various hazardous wastes. I.e., how much will be disoosed of
by each technique, and the extent to which waste generation will change as
the result of using any particular approach to hazardous waste management.
The outcomes also include the environmental effects that occur or are
threatened.
There is feedback from the outcomes to the approaches to hazardous .vasta
management. When a decisionmaker predicts or observes the outcomes that
result from a given approach to hazardous waste management, he may wisn to
modify that approach to change the outcomes and the associated economic costs
and social impacts. (Outcomes and the complete interaction process are
discussed in Section 5.)
Attitudes Toward Hazardous Wastes and Their Management
To be able to predict responses of the parties-at-interest and ^.anca to
determine likely outcomes of approaches to hazardous waste management, it
would be desirable to know something about the attitudes that individuals
have toward hazardous wastes and the environment.
Only one study has specifically addressed public attitudes toward haz-
ardous waste management facilities. This extensive study surveyed 2;th a
random sample and selected influential respondents (e.g., newspaper editors)
in 10 U.S. counties that were considered feasible locations for national
disposal sites (Lackey, Jacobs, and Stewart, 1973). The study reported gen-
erally favorable attitudes toward the national disposal sits conceot and
location of such a site in all counties surveyed. These favorable attitudes
appeared to relate to the beliefs that a disposal site would conserve
material resources and result in a strong local economy (i.e., provide
employment) (Lackey, Jacobs, and Stewart, 1973). However, during the testing
of the questionnaire, it was found that the term "disposal" had negative
connotations for the respondents, and accordingly national disposal sites
were described as "regional processing facilities" in the survey instrument
(Lackey, Jacobs, and Stewart, 1973). This situation does raise the question
as to whether or not the respondents really understood what they were being
asked. If not, the attitudes reported by Lackey, Jacobs, and Stewart might
change when the issue becomes clearer.
It was initially hoped that a study of attitudes toward nuclear power
(and nuclear wastes) and toward hazardous waste generating industries (such
as the chemical industry) would provide useful information on attitudes
toward hazardous wastes. The intention was to use the chemical industry as a
proxy for a hazardous waste management facility and to draw parallels oetween
nuclear power, with its radioactive waste disposal problem, and nonradio-
a'ctive hazardous waste disposal. Other than for nuclear power, little
relevant material on attitudes toward waste generating industries was found
during this research.
Though there have been many attitudinal studies relating to nuclear
power (several of which have included the question of nuclear wastes), it was
concluded that attitudes toward nuclear power would be of very limited value
in predicting attitudes toward nonradioactive hazardous wastes and their
46
-------
management. This is because several studies have suggested that the public
associates the possible discharge of radioactivity from nuclear power plants
and wastes with the effect of nuclear weapons (Pahner, 1976; Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc., 1976; Rappeport and Labaw, 1975; Slovic and Fischhoff, in
press). Though hazardous wastes comprising obsolete chemical warfare and
ordnance materials could to some extent pose an analogous type of thre.it, in
general, reactions to nuclear facilities appear too extreme to be appropriate
for nonnuclear hazardous wastes. However, one finding about nuclear power
plants may be applicable to some hazardous waste management facilities:
Familiarity can evidently breed acceptance. Those living near a nuclear
reactor perceived it as safer than those living farther away (Maderthaner et
al., 1975; also see Klein, 1978). (However, it is possible that this finding
may reflect an element of self selection, with those who are concerned about
the risks tending to move away from nuclear power plant sites.)
As a result of the paucity of data that could provide specific guidance
on attitudes toward hazardous wastes, a broad survey of research on attitudes
to the environment was undertaken. This survey provided some general
guidance on the attitudes and priorities of the general public and some
special interest groups (i.e., parties-at-interest) toward pollution pro-
blems, and it is summarized in Appendix D. Based on these findings, the
EPA-sponsored meetings on hazardous waste management (see Corson, 1976; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c; Edelman et al., 1976), and the
material discussed above, the following list presents some generalizations
about the likely attitudes and behavior of various parties-at-interest.
1. Firms desire to minimize their internal costs, including
management costs.
2. Wastes are a nuisance to manufacturing firms, which in most
cases will not devote much effort to their disposal unless
disposal represents a significant cost to them, or unless
there is a significant risk of public opposition to the firm
or its products because of its waste disposal practices.
3. In selecting a waste disposal technique, firms will tend to
favor those that enable them to dispose of the responsibility
for the waste along with the waste.
4. Large firms are the most likely to be environmentally
responsible, as they have high public visibility. SmaTer
firms are more variable in their concern for the environment.
5. Workers are concerned with their own physical safety and with
security of employment. Often, however, the latter outweighs
the former in determining their actions.
6. Local government and environmental officials prefer to adopt
policies that minimize the risk of adverse incidents (i.e.,
they are strongly risk averse).
47
-------
7. Wastes are politically negative, and local politicians prefer
them to go elsewhere.
8. Residents are concerned with property values. They fear that
nearby waste processing or disposal sites will depress
property values.
9. Residents are generally uneasy about wastes. They often
object strenuously to wastes from another jurisdiction,
especially another State.
10. Residents have some interest in local employment, tax base,
etc.; but the strength of this interest tends to depend on the
employment history in the area. Local politicians and
businessmen often have strong interests in these areas.
11. Environmentalists wish to minimize all environmental risks ana
tend to resist change, with only limited concern for costs.
12. Environmentalists exhibit high existence values (see
Appendix C), and may claim that no compensation would be great
enough to justify some adverse environmental impacts.
13. The public has become cautious about new technologies,
especially those that they do not understand. Establisned
technologies are more acceptable (hence, the chemical industry
is less threatening than nuclear power). Public credulity
toward scientific expertise is declining.
14. In some cases, those close to a facility that is perceived to
be hazardous are less concerned about it than those that are
somewhat farther away.
15. The public favors conservation and recycling. Most (but not
all) accept the need to dispose of some wastes. However, few
individuals are prepared to go to great lengths to promota
their ideals.
Responses of the Parties-at-Interest
The responses of the parties-at-interest are very closely related to the
economic and social effects that arise from the use of the various hazardous
waste control techniques. Although human behavior is not always predictable,
it may be possible and useful to identify likely responses of the parties-
at-interest to the various economic and social effects that they experience.
The views expressed in this section are based on the material discussed
above, the author's experiences with manufacturing industries, and from
discussions with individuals who are involved with hazardous waste management
in the western and northwestern United States.
48
-------
Responses to Positive Effects—
Many of the impacts that would be regarded as positive (i.e.,
beneficial) by the parties-at-interest are comparatively weak and are
unlikely to elicit an active response. For example, assume that it is pro-
posed that one class of firm be required to use a costly process to dispose
of its hazardous waste (a strong negative impact on these generators).
Competing firms that use a different process that does not generate hazardous
waste will perceive a mild positive impact (since the competitive situation
will be changed in their favor). However, these competing firms are likely
to be passive in taking advantage of this situation and probably would not
publicly support the proposal, partly out of fear that they might be next to
be so regulated. On the other hand, the hazardous waste generators are
likely to protest the proposal (on the grounds that it will weaken their
competitive position) and probably will exert whatever pressure that they can
to get it modified. This type of behavior was recently demonstrated in the
U.S. steel industry. Several plants had difficulty in meeting air and water
effluent standards and asked that variances be permitted on the grounds of
economic hardship. On the other hand* -firms whose plants had little
difficulty in meeting these•• standards remained comparatively quiet on the
subject.
Perhaps the only category of positive impact that is likely to trigger a
strong response is that of an impact on an environmentalist. Environmental-
ists tend to support actions that they perceive as positive by interaction at
public meetings-and through the political process.
Responses to Changes in Generator's Costs--
Any change in generator's costs for hazardous waste disposal must either
be absorbed by the firm or reflected in product prices, or both. If the
change is an increase, internal absorption will reduce the firm's earnings
and weaken its position in the capital market to the ultimate detriment of
the shareholders; whereas an increase in product price will reduce unit
sales, depending on the price elasticity of demand. If the long-run elastic-
ity is known and the firm is assumed to be a profit maximizer, it is
theoretically possible to determine the extent to which the firm can pass a
cost increase on to its customers. However, some manufacturing firms
(primarily those that make nondifferentiated products) have little control
over the prices that they receive for their products, and even where this is
not the case, pricing decisions are not always made on the basis of maxi-
mizing, profit (Kotler, 1967; Backman, 1965). Indeed, some marketing
authorities claim that, manufacturing costs are one -of the last factors
considered when selecting a consumer product price (Oxenfeldt, 1960). Hence,
prediction of- a firm's .response to a change in costs-may-not be an,easy'
matter.
Fortunately, it appears that the costs of adequate hazardous waste
management are often a small proportion (about 1 percent) of the value of
shipments (U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency, 1974b). Hence in many
cases, it may be possible to neglect the effect, even though small changes
probably have an effect on pricing in the long run. Where changes in
hazardous waste management costs could represent a significant proportion of
the product price, an examination of the pricing structure of the revel ant
industry would be desirable to establish likely behavior.
49
-------
Response to Negative Impacts--
The category of impact that appears to be the most likely to evoke an
active response is that of a negative impact via an environmental threat.
Responses are likely to include local opposition to the siting and operation
of most hazardous waste management facilities, but avoidance actions (e.g.,
moving to another house) are only likely when the threats become realities.
Nizard and Tournon (1974) have developed a simple model (Figure 5) th?t
predicts the circumstances under which an individual will tolerate pollution
and those under which he will be predisposed to respond against it. Local
residents, etc. frequently object to chemical landfills. This can extend to
lagoons and some hazardous waste storage facilities (see Appendix C). Under
some circumstances resource recovery facilities could benefit from the
positive connotations associated with the concept of resource recovery, but
this could easily be degraded by negative experiences. Alternatively, a
resource recovery operation might merely be regarded as a regular manufac-
turing plant.
• Lessening of perception,-*—
which not only is no longer
useful for the individual
but could be disturbing
YES-
Neutral perception
of the phenomenon
Putting a high value
on the activity —"•
I
NO
Awareness of risk
or disamenity ——
YES
I
Feeling of helplessness— YES
NO
I
Negative effects
of possible action ~~
TOLERATION OF
-t» THE POLLUTION
NO
YES
NO
I
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS PROMOTING
ACTION BY THE INDIVIDUAL TO PROTECT
HIS ENVIRONMENT
Figure 6. Model for pollution toleration.
50
-------
Environmentalists usually respond vigorously to perceived threats and
are likely to be joined by other groups strongly affected by threats (e.g.,
fishermen, where there is a threat to surface water quality). In addition to
political actions, these parties-at-interest may use the judicial process to
delay or halt projects. Responses of local administrative officials, etc.
are likely to be more subdued and could include such tactics as negation by
delay. There have, however, been a number of recent moves by political
officials to prevent the disposal of particularly tnreatening wastes
(obsolete nerve gas and radioactive wastes, for example) within their juris-
dictions and even to prevent the movement of such wastes across them.
Again, when and if the threats materialize, fishermen, tourists, etc.
will avoid polluted areas, and even if there is no official pronouncement on
the matter, the public may reduce their consumption of suspect fish and game.
(Some pollutants such as phenols and certain heavy metals give fish a bad
taste or smell [Cannon, 1974].)
51
-------
SECTION 5
GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
This section outlines a methodology that may be used by a decisionmaker
to evaluate the effects of alternative approaches to managing hazardous
wastes. The methodology involves three phases, as follows:
1. Obtaining prerequisite information;
2. Applying the analytical framework;
3. Decisionmaking.
Before the procedures and techniques for conducting these three phases
are described, this section explains the objectives and some of the philos-
ophy behind the methodology, and it introduces some aspects of economic
theory that may be relevant to the analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of the methodology is to provide a framework for
the analysis of hazardous waste problems that is based on economics and that
is cognizant of social factors. The methodology is intended (1) to assist a
decisionmaker to systematically examine the various alternative approaches to
controlling hazardous wastes, (2) to determine the nature, and as far as
possible, the magnitude of the various effects that can occur, and (3) to
thereby make informed and balanced hazardous waste management decisions.
The methodology is referred to as a "framework for analysis" because it
provides structure and methodology for analysis, but it does not attempt to
determine an optimum solution. Choice between alternatives remains the
prerogative of the decisionmaker, who can make his own trade-offs and intro-
duce whatever degree of risk aversion he favors. Indeed, the conceal of an
optimum solution (in the mathematical sense) is of limited value in hazardous
waste decisionmaking, since where there are both economic and social consid-
erations, decisions are considered "normative," i.e., they involve value
judgments. Such judgments are necessary because the various impacts fall
upon different parties-at-interest, thereby introducing questions of equity.
There is also the question of risk. Different persons will have various
attitudes toward risk-taking and hence will require different benefits to
offset a given risk. Though an optimum solution could be determined if rules
for decisionmaking were specified, in this methodology, the decisionmaker is
encouraged to develop his own criteria on a case-by-case basis. Another
feature of this approach is that although it is possible to place dollar
52
-------
values on changes in environmental features, the available techniques and
data do not generally permit these valuations to be made with much confi-
dence, and hence once again, judgments are likely to be necessary.
Thus situations encountered in hazardous waste management call for a
systematic analysis of the various possibilities in such a way as to provide
a decisionmaker with information about the trade-offs between the various
alternatives. The decisionmaker can then use his own norms or critana, or
those he believes are representative of agency policy, to select an approach
that satisfies whatever policy objectives may exist. This methodology
attempts to provide a decisionmaker with the information that is needed to
make decisions of the type outlined above. Though it was developed as an aid
to making decisions about the management of hazardous industrial wastes on a
regional or local basis, it could quite readily be adapted to special cate-
gories of hazardous waste or to specific industries, possibly on a national
basis.
The methodology is not appropriate to determining whether or not a
particular substance should be manufactured or to what extent it should be
used (e.g., the use of PCB's). The latter problem has been addressed by
other studies (e.g., Kennedy et al., 1976; National Academy of Sciences,
1977; Moll et al., 1975). The distinction is that the cost-benefit or risk-
benefit studies mentioned above examine the cradle-to-grave costs and
benefits of using a particular material, whereas this study essentially
addresses only the problem 'of dealing with hazardous wastes. once those
wastes have been created.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Some concepts from economic theory are difficult to apply in practice or
are subject to debate, but they provide useful insights for hazardous waste
management decisionmakers, and for this reason are discussed here. These
concepts are Pareto optimality and market failures, and the handling of
intertemporal effects.
Pareto Optimality and Market Failures
The Pareto Criteria—
The concept of Pareto optimality constitutes the apogee of planning
goals in welfare economics.* Although it is unrealistic to expect a real
economic system to be Pareto optimal, the concept is worth examining, as it
provides useful guidance for decisionmaking.
* Welfare economics has been described as ". . . the theory of how and by
what criteria economists and policy-makers make or ought to make their
choices between alternative policies and between good and bad institutions"
(Arrow and Scitovsky, 1969:1). Consequently, hazardous waste decision-
making by public officials falls within its purview.
53
-------
The basis of Pareto optimality is that a situation is optimal (or
"efficient") when no one can be made better off without at least one person
being made worse off!Herfindahland Kneese provide a useful discussion of
Pareto optimality and show that it implies the following:
1. Efficiency in production: It is impossible in an optimum to
increase the production of one good without decreasing the
production of at least one other good;
2. Efficiency in distribution: It is impossible in an optimum to
redistribute the goods among the consumers, so that one con-
sumer is better off while no other consumer is worse off;
3. Allocation of resources in accordance with consumer prefer-
ences. (Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974:41,42)
It can be shown that there is no unique Pareto optimum, as an optimum
depends on the initial conditions (Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974). Since
arrival at an optimum may be too much to expect in practice, projects can be
examined for Pareto improvements, which occur if some economic change makes
one or more persons better off without making any worse off (Mishan, 1971a).
Because of the difficulties inherent in arriving at a Pareto optimum or
making a Pareto improvement within a real economic system, the concepts of a
potential Pareto optimum and a potential Pareto improvement are often substi-
tuted as planning goals or tools.A situation is said to be potentially
Pareto optimum if it can be transformed to Pareto optimality merely by making
economic transfers between individuals—that is, that gainers be able to more
than compensate losers (Mishan, 1971a). The acceptability of any given
distribution of costs, benefits, income, etc. is considered separately, and
this aspect is termed "equity" in this methodology.
The Problem of Market Failures--
It can be shown that perfect competition and its associated marginal
cost pricing leads to Pareto optimal conditions. However, there may be
circumstances in which major divergences from this situation occur, and these
are termed "market failures." The failure that comes readily to mind is that
of monopoly, as it is well known that where a monopoly exists, it is in the
monopolist's interest to price goods at a level that is higher than the
marginal cost of production. Thus where both monopoly and competition exist,
to arrive at an optimal solution, it would be necessary to replace monopo-
listic prices by those based on marginal costs.
A particularly difficult problem arises where the monopoly is what is
termed a "natural monopoly," in which long-run average costs decrease with
increased output. In this case, the monopolist could not use marginal cost
pricing unless he were given a subsidy, as the marginal cost would be below
the average cost, and the monopoly would be incapable of recovering all its
costs. This situation occurs where there are economies of scale over the
entire range of output that is of potential interest. Many public services,
such as sewage disposal and electricity supply, can be natural monopolies,
54
-------
and monopoly situations (both natural and otherwise) could well arise with
some techniques for hazardous waste disposal. For example, high temperature
incineration facilities suitable for hazardous waste might fall in this
category, as they are comparatively capital intensive, and unless there were
particularly large volumes of waste generated in one location, a high temper-
ature incinerator would be likely to establish a monopoly within a zone of
influence determined by transport costs.
Landfills constitute a rather interesting situation, because to some
extent, their operation resembles the mining of a mineral deposit. Because
of the finite capacity of a landfill, and because the land after filling is
worth less than the land before filling, the variable costs should include an
element of depletion to allow for the consumption of a resource (i.e., the
space for disposal). Even so, there seems to be no reason why marginal costs
should rise with the volume of waste handled for most chemical landfills. As
a result, both their pricing and behavior are likely to reflect elements of
monopoly. Since fixed costs'(e.g., licensing, 'environmental monitoring, and
security) can be comparatively high, marginal and average costs could differ
significantly.
The second important area of market failure is where prices do. not
reflect externalities. Free use of environmental resources, such a's the
pollution assimilation capabilities of a river, provides a classic exanple of
an externality (or "spillover effect," as it is sometimes called). If the
waste generator does not pay for the use of the environment (which is a cost
to society, since some individuals are damaged by a degraded environment),
his production costs (known as.his "internal costs") will be lower than the
true costs, and consequently he will produce more of the good 4:ha*n is
societally efficient (i.e., Pareto optimal). Furthermore, under these cir-
cumstances, there is no incentive for efficient use of the environment; since
it is free to the generator, he will theoretically use whatever quantity it
takes to minimize his unit production cost. (For a detailed analysis, see
Barnett and Morse, 1963.) Since the environment generally has a limited
restorative or treatment capacity, this can lead to a "commons situation"
(Hardin, 1968), in which such capacity,is overloaded because no individual-
user has sufficient incentive to reduce use.
A key part of the methodology described in this report is to identify.
and, if possible, evaluate such externalities. Furthermore, -some approaches
to hazardous waste management may invo.lve the use .of .economic incentive.
means, such as user charges' and effluent fees,.-that internalize'these'e'xter-
nalities. (Externalities can also be internalized by specific pollution
control laws and the general laws of liability. See Anderson et al.,.1977,)
However, the question that is pertinent here is: What adjustments, if any,
should be made to data where there are uncompensated market failures? There
is some debate about the extent to which "shadow prices" should be used in
cost-benefit analysis, where such prices are nonmarket prices--for example,
prices based on marginal costs and benefits that fully reflect externalities
(McKean, 1968). The differences between shadow and market prices will affect
quantities of products and wastes produced (Freeman, Haveman, anc Kneese,
1973). While shadow prices may be necessary to evaluate Pareto optimal
conditions, the problem is that once one adjustment is made to one price,
55
-------
then output, consumption of other products, other prices, etc. will also
change. In short, something of a chain reaction will be set off. Arriving
at an optimum solution under these conditions is usually a complex task
(Lipsey and Lancaster, 1956; Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974; Mishan, 1971a).
The analyst or decisionmaker has two interests when he identifies a
market failure: First, what should he do if he has control over pricing, and
second, how should he conduct his evaluations if he does not have that con-
trol? The pragmatic answer to the first question is that where he can
control prices (through some policy means), it is probably more efficient to
move towards marginal cost pricing, even though this is not employed in other
sectors of the economy (see Price, 1977; Bohm, 1973). In the second case,
the analyst should be cautious about substituting shadow prices for market
prices in evaluations, unless the market failure is clearly a najor one. The
literature provides some support for this -viewpoint (see McKean, 1963), and
in addition a project is more likely to be accepted by the various parties
concerned if the analysis is straightforward and readily comprehensible. Of
course, external costs (such as environmental costs) should be included in
the evaluation, which will partly correct the deviations from optimal
conditions, and the analyst can also seek strategies that endeavor to
eliminate market failures.
Ultimately, however, one should not lose sight of the fact that most
analyses involve making changes from an existing situation. Provided that
the new situation represents a potential Pareto improvement, society has
gained and hence the analyst need not be too inhibited by the comolexitiss of
trying to find an optimum solution. (For more detailed treatments of these
topics, see Mishan, 1971a,b; Scitovsky, 1951; Arrow and Scitovsky, 1969;
Price, 1977;"Bohm, 1973; Chase, 1968).
Intertemporal Considerations
It is very widely accepted that the discounted cash flow (DCF) approach
is an appropriate technique for evaluating the economics of business projects
where income and expenditures do not coincide in time. The approach is based
on the concept that future income is less valuable than present income and,
correspondingly, that future costs are less onerous than current costs, since
in the intervening period the capital could be invested in some other way.
Thus the discount rate chosen for any evaluation should be related to the
opportunity cost of capital. This argument does not presuppose the existence
of inflation, and is therefore applicable to costs and revenues expressed in
constant dol.l.ars. In the event that under conditions of inflation with costs
expressed in current dollars,'the discount rate would need -to be increased.
(For further information on this topic, see Taylor, 1964; Merrett and Sykes,
1963; Stermole, 1974.)
The Social Discount Rate—
The basic concept of discounting can be applied to cost-benefit or
cost-effectiveness studies of public investments but some difficulties can
arise over the choice of an appropriate discount rate. There are two major
aspects to these difficulties: (1) The question of the use of a social
56
-------
discount rate, which is lower than the business rate, and (2) whether or not
the discount rate should be raised to reflect risk. Arguments for and
against the use of a social discount rate are summarized in Appendix E. The
key argument favoring the use of business discount rates is that if lower
rates are used for public projects, capital will incorrectly be diverted from
the private to the public sector, reducing overall economic efficiency.
There are several countervailing arguments, but they all amount to the
assertion that a low public discount rate is necessary to insure the appro-
priate mix of public and private sector projects. A business project that
carries a strong risk of failure must usually offer a higher expected rate of
return than one that is essentially risk free. However, when a project that
involves risk or uncertainty is proposed for the public sector, there are
some arguments against raising the discount rate to allow for risk.
Analysis of the literature suggests that the appropriateness of using a
social discount rate depends on the nature of the project involved, and
though arguments for using a risk-free discount rate predominate, there could
be circumstances where a risk premium is appropriate for public projects. To
a large extent, the solution.depends.on the degree of competition with the
private sector. For example, evaluation of the perpetual care costs of
storing long-lived wastes might use a low social discount rate, while evalua-
tion of a project to install an incinerator as an alternative to a landfill
might use a high-risk commercial rate, as this has the nature of a normal
business decision.
Intergenerational Effects—
Up to this point, the -discussion has been appropriate 'to actions and
projects with a time span of a decade or two, since they revolve -around
decisions from the viewpoint of the present generation. However, where a
longer time span is involved, the viewpoint of future generations should also
be considered. This is particularly relevant for projects that '-esult in
irreversible changes—which may arise from any project that involves modifi-
cation of the natural environment, the use or disposition of norrenewable
resources, or even construction.
When irtergenerational effects are"present, the arguments for the use of
a low social discount rate become stronger, and some arguments against any
discounting have been advanced. The main objection to discounting is that
events (such as genetic changes) that may happen far into the future are so
heavily discounted that they are virtually, disregarded in conventional
analysis. Thus society may be making Failstian bargains that provide-short-
term advantages but that could be bitterly regretted by'future generations.
This subject is discussed in detail in Appendix E, where a pragmatic solution
to the problem is suggested.
This study proposes discounting over a normal project life of approxi-
mately one generation-, but- -no further discounting of effects that occur
beyond that period (i.e., the discount factor is held constant fcr any year
that is beyond one generation from project inception). This solution is
attractive because it simulates conventional business decisionmaking pro-
cedures over normal project lives (which rarely exceed two or three decades,
i.e., one generation), but it avoids excessive discounting of the very
57
-------
distant future. Some justifications for this approach are advanced in
Appendix E. Note, however, that with this procedure, it is only possible to
use lump sum valuations of threats (e.g., a one-shot cleanup cost, raolaca-
ment cost, etc.) if the period of evaluation is infinite. Any annual cost
continuing for an infinite period (such as maintenance cost for perpetual
care) will have an infinite present value if it is not continuously
discounted. Thus where no lump sum equivalent can be found to real ace a
continuing cost, the planning horizon must be limited or conventional
discounting must be employed.
The Optimum Timing of Projects--
A substantial body of literature deals with the optimum timing of
projects. For example, it can be shown that the time profile of the strsam
of benefits or income can be such that net present value is maximized ay
delaying project inception (see Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974). This situation
could apply to some pollution abatement projects because the annual benefits
(which are damages averted) increase rapidly or abruptly during the project
life. For example, it might pay to delay the construction of an affluent
treatment plant because the quantity of effluent or its potential for
environmental damage is expected to increase in the future.
Another situation in which delay can be beneficial *r whers ;nere is
uncertainty about the magnitude of future benefits, and where delay sennits
additional data to be obtained. This benefit of reducing uncertainty can be
regarded as an option value (see Appendix C), and could b9 particular:.-
significant in hazardous waste management where the irreversible impacts of
the use of a particular technique are not well defined. In this event, it
could be an advantage to society to delay taking an essentially irreversible
action (such as deep well injection of a waste) until further researcn and
analysis of the impacts of this action can be completed. During the inter-
vening period, it would be necessary to use a management technique (such as
engineered storage) that has a low potential for adverse impact (both in
terms of.1ow .expected impact and limited uncertainty about the impacts) but
is unsuitable as a long-term solution because of high cost or some other
reason (such as limited capacity).
USE OF THREAT SCENARIOS
The most difficult part of any economic analysis of pollution control
problems, is almost invariably that of determining damages. According to
Fisher and Peterson (1976),' there are four stages in the assessment of
damages from conventional pollution sources, as shown in the upper part of
Figure 7. -Starting with a specified emission or waste discharge, the amoient
conditions and the physical effects must be determined before the dollar
damage costs can be estimated. Again, note that there will be effects that
are difficult to quantify in dollar terms. To extend the Fisher and Peterson
model to hazardous wastes, it is necessary to add one preliminary stage:
Identification of the possible threat mechanisms. This stage is necessary
because the nature of most hazardous waste management problems is such that
the management techniques used present a variety of threats of adverse envi-
ronmental impacts, whereas conventional pollution control analysis usually
centers on the effects of a known waste stream discharged to a specified
environment.
58
-------
APPROACH FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS
EMISSIONS
(e.g. , m of
row sewage to river)
AMBIENT
CONDITIONS
(ppm of dissolved oxygen)
EFFECTS
(thousands of dead
fish, etc.)
DOLLAR
COSTS
(value of dead fish, etc.)
en
u»
THREAT
MECHANISM
(e.g., injected wastes infiltrate
freshwater aquifer)
THREAT
SCENARIO
(thousands of wells
contaminated over
specified area)
COSTS &
IMPACTS
(cost of replacement
water supply, health damage)
ADAPTATION TO HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS
Figure 7. Process for assessing damages associated wiUrhazardous waste management.
-------
In principle, it is possible to model environmental impacts and hence
arrive at dollar values for the damages attributable to the use of any tech-
nique, using willingness-to-pay where necessary. In practice, however, this
can be a far from simple procedure and could require considerable resourcas.
For each technique, it might be necessary to consider several threat mecnan-
isms, while each mechanism could probably cause impacts with a variety of
magnitudes, depending, for example, on ambient conditions, toaste stream
variability could further compound the number of cases to be considered IP
the physical modeling. Hence assuming adequate data were availaole, the
dollar damages would ideally be expressed, not as a point estimate, but as a
probability distribution of costs. The ways in which these costs would fall
on the various parties-at-interest could also vary from situation to
situation. Furthermore, as shown in Appendix F, the way in which individuals
perceive a risk or threat may be more important in determining tneir
responses than the actual magnitudes and dollar sums associated witr: that
threat.
The sheer complexity and the fact that the probabilistic approach out-
lined above fails to recognize perceptions of threats are good reasons why
this approach may not be an appropriate tool for many hazardous waste
decisions. The problem of perception could be partly overcome by modeling
the physical effects and then asking the parties-at-interest how they xould
respond to these threats. However, this approach would not overcome the
difficulty (so apparent with nuclear power) that the public may not trust
experts' assessments of threats. Furthermore, under most circumstances nany
of the necessary data are unavailable and those that are available are fuzzy.
To generate the missing data and refine those that are available could be a
major task, requiring a level of effort that is simply not available or that
is beyond that justified either by the nature of the decision to be made or
by the sophistication of the available techniques for modeling and valuing
effects. Even where this probabilistic approach is conscientiously followed
through in detail, there are numerous possible sources of error and bias
(Slovic and Fischhoff, in press).
An objective of this research was to develop an analytical methodology
that does not involve detailed analysis and that does not require extensive
data. A central concept of the proposed methodology is 'to replace the first
three stages of the conventional damage model (emissions, ambient conditions,
and effects) by a threat scenario, as illustrated in the lower part of Figure
7. The scenario describes what might typically happen in the event that any
specified threat should become a reality. Where appropriate, more than one
scenario could be used to cover different"'threat mechanisms or different
outcomes arising from a given mechanism.
Judgment will be necessary to limit the number of scenarios that are
considered. As shown in Section 4, there are usually numerous possible
threats. The analyst should pick those that appear to be comparatively
likely, those that (as far as is known) could have particularly disastrous
consequences, and those with which the general public or certain parties-at-
interest are especially concerned. In practice (as illustrated in Section
6), reducing the number of scenarios to manageable proportions may not be as
difficult as it appears at first sight, since in a given situation, there may
be a consensus on the threats that are significant.
60
-------
Though merely qualitative descriptions of 'threats would be useful,
typical quantitative data should be suggested when possible. These would
reflect judgments based on the results of modeling studies, actual experience
with that type of threat, or worst case assumptions. Where site-suecific
modeling of threats is not feasible, the analyst may be able to adapt some of
the available analyses or case studies of hazardous waste damage incidents to
meet his needs (see Appendix B).
A major difficulty with the use of typical threats taken from actual
experience elsewhere will be to choose a magnitude or scope for the impact
that is appropriate to the types and quantities of wastes concerned and to
the local circumstances (e.g., geohydrologic conditions). However, simple
worst case assumptions could be useful to place limits on some impacts. For
example, in evaluating the effect of landfill leaching, the assumption could
be made that after many years, a steady state is achieved in whi:h the
leachate contains the same quantities of- nondegradable toxic "elements that.
enter the landfill and that this leachate enters the local river system
without attenuation. If the streamflow is known, the average concentration'
of toxic elements in the river could be calculated, and the effect on aquatic
life could be predicted. Another approach to the same,problem would be to
assume that any leachate was normally highly attenuated (e.g., by ion'
exchange) before it left the vicinity of the landfill, but to estimate a
cleanup cost represented by the cost of installing and pumping a sufficient
number of interceptor wells to contain the leachate should it become
necessary.
Though admittedly simplistic, the threat scenario approach overcomes or
avoids many of the difficulties associated with the more detailed proba-
bilistic approach. It can accommodate whatever data are available, but
perhaps its most attractive feature is that it recognizes the sociological
dimensions of a decision situation. Threat scenarios can be constructed to
reflect or include actual public perceptions and concerns. The attitudes and
behavior of parties-at-interest can be predicted, and decisions can take
these factors into account. In many respects, the absence of accurate
qualitative data need not. be. of undue concern, the decisionmaker is largely
interested in the reactions of individuals 'to the threats from hazardous
waste management alternatives. In many cases these are likely to reflect
what has happened in the past, even if the circumstances are different.- ••For
example, individuals tend to rely on recent experience when making judgments
on the probability and..maximum (expected) magnitude of an event, such-as a-
flood. (See Slovic, Kunreuther, and White, 1974; .Slovic, Fischhoff, and
Lichtenstein, 1976; and Slovic and Fischhoff, in press.) Thus the mere
identification of threats is-an important part of this methodology, even if
the magnitudes of the threat impacts and the probabilities of their occur-
rence are ill-defined.
PREREQUISITE INFORMATION FOR ANALYSIS
Obtaining prerequisite information is the first phase in applying the
methodology. Four steps must be taken to provide the inputs necessary for
analysis:
61
-------
(1) Define the scope of the study in terms of both the type of
waste and the geographic area to be considered;
(2) Obtain an inventory of the existing hazardous waste situation,
including both generation and disposal;
(3) Determine how the hazardous wastes are currently controlled
within the study area;
(4) Ascertain policy objectives for hazardous waste control.
These steps are discussed in the following subsections.
Defining the Scope of the Study
The first step in collecting input for analysis is deciding on the scope
of the study. The geographic scope is usually dictated by the terms of
reference of the study and is likely to correspond to a political division or
unit such as a State or a planning region. If any choice is possible, it is
desirable that the area chosen be geographically isolated. Otherwise, wastes
crossing the study area boundaries could complicate analysis. For example,
where two separate political units share a major metropolitan araa, tnere
could be difficulties if the two units adopted significantly diffarent
hazardous waste management policies, possibly leading to waste transfers
between the units that would be unlikely to promote overall economic
efficiency.
Two aspects of waste type need to be considered. The source-related
categories of waste, and within these categories, the choice of a definition
of hazardous waste. Although this study is oriented toward industrial
(process) wastes, the general methodology could be adapted to cover a wide
range of potentially hazardous wastes. Since these wastes tend to have
different characteristics (largely in terms of type of generator and
frequency of generation, also with regard to degree of exposure 10 the
hazard), they may ideally require different management policies. For
example, it is unlikely that exactly the same approach toward waste manage-
ment would be ideal for large recurrent quantities of industrial process
wastes, occasional obsolete laboratory chemicals, and empty pesticide
containers. Because of these differences, it may be desirable to limit the
scope of any study to insure that the wastes considered exhibit some degree
of homogeneity, or alternatively to consider different approaches for
different wastes. Furthermore, the agency conducting the study may not have,
or may not wish to exercise control over certain categories of wastes (e.g.,
Department of Defense wastes). Some categories of waste may already be
adequately controlled (this could be the case for radioactive wastes), and
therefore additional study would be unnecessary. Hence some limitation of
the scope of the study will probably be necessary. (The major source-related
categories of potentially hazardous wastes were listed in Section 3.)
Within the source-related categories of waste, there remains the problem
of deciding which wastes are hazardous. Where a definition is not mandated
it is practical to start off with a broad working definition and narrow it
62
-------
down as the study data are analyzed. However, certain marginally hazardous
wastes could be eliminated at the outset if it would be impractical to
regulate them in the same way as the other hazardous wastes. Waste oil
(other than perhaps that from the oil refining and re-refining industries) is
a good example of such a waste. The use of oils in the engineering
industries is so widespread that it is difficult to control their disposal in
small quantities. In view of the comparatively limited threat that waste oil
poses to the environment, it is often omitted from hazardous waste studies
(Stradley, Dawson, and Cone, 1975).
Of course, in addition to studies that cover all hazardous wastes,
studies can be conducted on the wastes of a single industry (e.g., pesticide
manufacture) or on the disposal of a particular waste (such as PC3's) or
wastes containing a particular element (mecury, for example). For single
industry studies, the industry can be defined by its SIC number (Statistical
Policy Division, Executive Office of the President, 1974). This approach
works well for some industries such as the basic process industries [e.g.,
copper smelting), but care must be exercised when dealing with diverse
industries (such as electronics) that can appear under many different SIC
numbers.
For studies that deal with a particular waste or element, the main
problem will be to define the concentration or quantity that qualifies a?
hazardous. For example, even in the absence of industrial sources, sewage
sludge usually contains low concentrations of some heavy metals that
originate from plumbing fixtures. (Personal communication, W.L. Ross, Denver
Research Institute, Denver, Colorado, September 1977.) However, though
sewage sludge is not without its disposal problems, this sludge would not
usually be regarded as a hazardous waste. The solution to this type of
problem is to establish cutoff concentrations and/or quantities.
Taking Inventory of the Existing Hazardous Waste Situation
Before any economic analysis can be performed, it is necessary to obtain
a general picture of the existing hazardous waste situation within the study
area. The information required depends on the precise objectives of the
study, but in most cases it would be appropriate to obtain the following
data:
1. Sources of wastes (SIC categories and locations);
2. Types of wastes;
3. Annual quantities;
4. Current dispositions of wastes.
EPA has published a guide to conducting hazardous waste surveys (Porter,
1975), but a more detailed appreciation of what might be involved could be
obtained by reviewing one of the State or industry surveys (depending on the
orientation of the study).
63
-------
The critical aspect of any hazardous waste survey lies in the way in
which the assessment of waste generation is approached. There are three
principal approaches that can be used: '
1. Attempt to inventory all hazardous waste sources;
2. Sample hazardous waste sources and extrapolate to estimate
total study area waste on the basis of industrial employment,
physical output, or value added within SIC categories;
3. Use waste generation factors (e.g., tonnes/year per employee
for a given SIC category) obtained from national studies,
together with study area employment, physical output, or value
added by SIC category to estimate total study area wasta
generation.
Clearly, the first method is the most accurate, but it has rarely been
used because of the high cost. To date, it has only been feasible wnere
there were a limited number of firms involved, as in certain industry studies
and some State and regional studies. For example, this approach was adopted
for some sectors in the study of hazardous waste practices in the nonferrous
smelting industries (Leonard et al., 1975), and it was attempted by 33-telle
Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories in their study of naiara-
ous waste management in EPA Region X (Stradley, Dawson, and Cone, 1975). In
the future, under Section-3002 of PL 94-580, data should be available for ail
generators of such wastes as are deemed hazardous under Section 3G01 of that
law. However, data would not be available for wastes that were not deemed
hazardous under the above law, and hence studies that addressed other wastes
would still need to collect information. Note that even with a general study
at the State level, for example, it would be virtually impossible to inven-
tory every organization that might occasionally have small quantities of
hazardous wastes.
The second approach (extrapolating from a sample), has been by far the
most frequently used to date. For example, this approach was used in a study
of hazardous wastes in Massachusetts (Fennelly et al. , 1976) and in a study
of hazardous waste management in the pharmaceutical industry (Arthur D.
Little, Inc. ,.1976). A common method is to attempt to obtain data from all
the major generators and then to assume that the smaller ones produce the
same proportion of waste per unit of physical output (process industries
producing a single major output) per employee or (less commonly) per value
added do.llar. The disadvantage to this method is that it implies that the
process technology used in the smaller firms is similar to that in the large
firms. Since small firms are rarely miniature versions of large firms, this
assumption can lead to significant error. A further drawback to this method
is that unless there are additional independent data, the disposition of
wastes from the smaller firms will be unknown.
The third approach (use of waste generation factors) is inexpensive but
is liable to be of questionable accuracy, because in addition to the defi-
ciencies noted above, it does not take account of regional differences in
technology or (for the per employee and value added versions) of differences
64
-------
in labor productivity, etc. A hazardous waste generation study for the Twin
Cities area, Minnesota, used this approach in part (Barr Engineering Co.,
1973).
A fourth approach, that is something of a hybrid between all three
approaches, involves the development of a series of model plants. These
plants would be of different sizes and would use different processes. Hence
any particular industry structure could be simulated by specifying an expro-
priate mix of model plants. For example, largely because of the paucity of
survey data, this approach was adopted in the study of hazardous waste
management in the electroplating and metal finishing industries (Battelie-
Columbus Laboratories, 1976).
While collecting data on the quantities and types of wastes generated in
the study area, it is also convenient to collect data on existing disposi-
tion. However, to some extent, an independent check on wastes with",n the
study area can be made by obtaining data on wastes being sent for various
forms of disposal (e.g., landfilling at licensed sites') and resoi/r'ce
recovery. These data will not reveal the extent of uncontrolled waste
disposal or storage at a manufacturer's site, so this approach cannot be
substituted for some sort of study of waste generation. However, waste
disposal data can provide a supplementary source of information about
hazardous waste generation (e.g., by identifying hazardous waste generators
in unexpected SIC categories) and can permit checks on the quantity estimates
of some firms.
Many waste surveys also include estimates of future waste generation.
This can be particularly significant when new air and water pollution
controls are expected to lead to additional wastes for disposal (e.g.,
scrubber and water treatment sludges) or where process technology is under-
going change. Estimates are available for the solid wastes expected to be
generated as a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, ,and the
Clean Air Act of 1970 (Stone et al., 1974). However, the available waste
disposal options (and their costs) may influence the quantities of wastes
that are generated, so prediction of future waste generation will be con-
sidered later in the analysis.
Determining How Hazardous Wastes Are Currently Controlled
The existing situation or status quo of hazardous waste generation and
disposition makes a useful base case against which to measure changes that
might result from various alternative approaches. Hence.it is also necessary
to determine how hazardous wastes in the study area are controlled.
In addition to explicit controls, such as mandating ultimate disposal of
certain wastes at a chemical landfill or other approved facility, there may
be indirect controls that must be identified. For example, regular landfills
in the study area might be prohibited or restricted in accepting industrial
wastes. Even if these restrictions were not scrupulously adhered to (as may
well be the case in practice), the effect would be to divert most hazardous
wastes to alternative forms of disposal or to land disposal within another
65
-------
jurisdiction that does not have such restrictions. It is therefore necessary
to examine rules and regulations, licensing requirements and practices in
order to seek out indirect ways in which hazardous wastes are controlled.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (PL 91-604) and the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) are ubiquitous examoles of
such indirect controls, which, although not specifically directed toward
hazardous waste (other than Section 112 of PL 91-604), nevertheless 'lave a
major impact on hazardous waste management. Several other Federal laws can
have generally minor impacts (see Section 3), and in addition, there will be
many State (and sometimes local) laws and ordinances that also exert indirect
influence. An important feature of much of this legislation is that it is
not the actual statutes, but the administrative proscriptions and decisions
that are important (Haskell and Price, 1973). Hence to establisn flow
hazardous wastes are controlled under the status quo, it is iiioortant to
examine these administrative decisions and their enforcement.
Ascertaining Policy Objectives
The final prerequisite is to ascertain the policy objectives that will
govern the approach that is adopted to control hazardous wastes. Policy
objectives generally deal with normative issues, and it is not infrequent
that optimization of a given approach, or choice between approaches, dill
require trade-offs between achievement of different objectives. The goal of
economic efficiency in the allocation of resources (i.e., striving toward a
potential Pareto optimum) is usually assumed without question (Haveman ana
Weisbrod, 1975; Planning Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat, 1975), even
though it may not be achievable in practice. Other policy objectives nignt
cover the following topics:
1. What is regarded as equitable, and the extent to which depar-
tures from an equitable situation can be tolerated;
2. The extent to which policies should reflect risk aversion;
3. Preferences for the use of taxation and economic incentives as
policy tools;
4. The degree to which government should proscribe and regulate,
as opposed to relying on market forces backed up by the
judicial process for determining liability questions;
5.
The degree of autonomy permitted to relevant individual juris-
dictions, agencies, etc.
Some policy objectives may not be specifically stated, but they will con-
stitute a tradition of that agency, or they may reflect the mores of that
society.
When policy objectives (including implied objectives) are not suf-
ficiently detailed or complete, it is probably best to apply the methodology
to the evaluation of various feasible alternative approaches, and then
highlight policy implications along with other information required for
66
-------
declsionmaking. It may also be found that It is not possible to- devise
approaches that satisfy all the policy objectives. For example, it may not
be feasible to achieve economic efficiency as a result of uncorrectable
market failures, or there may be trade-offs between the efficiency and equity
that can be attained. In this case, the most expeditious procedure would be
to consider a variety of approaches that look as though they may come reason-
ably close to meeting the objectives. When the outcomes of using these
approaches have been determined, any shortfalls in meeting objectives can be
identified and brought to the decisionmakers1 attention.
THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Applying the analytical framework is the second phase in the use of the
methodology. The sequential steps involved in applying the analytical frame-
work are as follows:
(1) Develop alternative approaches for hazardous waste management.
For each approach under consideration:
(2) Allocate wastes to techniques;
(3) Develop threat scenarios, list other impacts;
(4) Determine economic and social effects;
(5) Determine impacts on the parties-at-interest;
(6) Project responses of the parties-at-interest;
(7) Predict physical outcomes;
(8) Enumerate costs and impacts;
(9) Reiterate Steps 2 through 8 as required.
Each step is discussed below. Because these steps closely follow the inter-
action model (Figure 5) discussed in Section 4, there is some overlap with
that discussion. However, in Section 4 the orientation was behavioral,
whereas that which follows is intended to provide practical guidance.
Development of Alternative Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management (Step 1)
Each approach represents an alternative general philosophy or actual
strategy for managing hazardous waste 'that is broadly consistent with the
policy objectives. For example, one approach could be to reqjire all
hazardous wastes either to be detoxified or to be disposed of in a chemical
landfill. Another example could be an incentive approach to encourage
disposal at chemical landfills by subsidizing their operation. 'Different
definitions of hazardous waste and what constitutes detoxification, or dif-
ferent levels of subsidy would be considered as falling within one approach.
Thus an approach is a general strategy rather than a detailed plan.
67
-------
In the author's terminology, approaches may be either positive or
negative and specific or influencing. A positive approach directs actions
toward a solution or form of management, whereas a negative approach directs
action away from something. In the case of specific approaches, requirements
are spelled out; thus a specific positive approach would mandate something,
such as the use of a particular pollution control technology. Conversely a
specific negative approach would ban something, such as the use of a
particular means of waste disposal. On the other hand, influencing
approaches attempt to encourage or discourage an action (e.g., by using
economic incentives) as opposed to mandating something. This distinction is
important when the linkage between approaches to hazardous waste management
and techniques for the control of hazardous waste is examined.
In most situations, it will be appropriate to include the status quo as
a base case, even though it may prove difficult to define the approach that
it represents. The principal advantage of using a base case is that the
effects and outcomes of the various approaches can be expressed as cnanges
with respect to this case, and it is often easier to determine changes in
some parameter, as opposed to calculating absolute values. For example, it
can be very difficult to determine the total magnitude of the consumers'
surplus, whereas the size of a small change can often be estimated with
comparative ease. Aesthetic and existence values must be evaluated in terms
of changes (see Appendix C). The status quo is often a gooa starting point,
as people are familiar with it and are largely concerned with changes from
the existing situation. However, in some circumstances, a base case other
than the status quo might be appropriate. This could occur when some major
new development (such as a change in the law, a major new waste-generating
plant, or a new disposal facility) is already underway. In these situations,
the base case would need to reflect such developments.
Allocation of Wastes to Techniques (Step 2)
As a preliminary action, it is necessary to determine which waste
management techniques should be considered (see Appendix A). Techniques can
be ruled out for a variety of reasons, including local infeasibility (e.g.,
lagooning for evaporation in wet climates), technical infeasibility (e.g.,
biological treatment when there are no biodegradable wastes), conflict with
policy or objectives (e.g., the use of ocean dumping), and excessive cost
(e.g., space disposal for most wastes). Clearly, one has to be careful about
eliminating disposal techniques on economic grounds before economic analysis
has been conducted. However, there may be some situations in which one
technique has a very high control cost and appears to provide no offsetting
advantages over a technique that has a much lower control cost. If the
parties-at-interest are similar for both, then it would be reasonable to
eliminate the technique with the higher control cost.
The next action is to try to predict which techniques will be used to
control what wastes. Each approach will have a different influence on the
techniques that are used. In the case of a specific positive approach the
linkage will be direct—that is, the technique(s) will be mandated. However,
in all other cases, including those that represent combinations of the types
of approach, the linkage is indirect. For an influencing approach the dis-
68
-------
positions of wastes are steered toward or away from certain control tech-
niques, but all feasible techniques are still theoretically availaole. In
the case of a specific negative approach, the available options ar» reduced
by the elimination of one or more techniques, but other factors determine
which techniques are used for what wastes. These factors are the nomal
economic forces in which a firm generally minimizes its own (internal) costs,
tempered by the desire to minimize managerial effort (which is really a cost
to the firm). This is equivalent to minimizing generator's cost (see
Appendix C) and will cause firms to favor the use of certain disposal tech-
niques. However, the techniques that are actually used will be influenced by
the actions of the various parties-at-interest, and the desires of the firms
to avoid risk. Because outcomes have yet to be predicted at this stage in
the evaluation process, only a tentative allocation of wastes to tacnmques
can be made.
A difficulty arises when waste stream changes and treatment techniques
(as opposed to disposal techniques) are being considered. For the common
regional situation where a wide variety of wastes are produced by many gener-
ators, it will not be feasible to examine changes that may occur on most' of
the generators' sites. Changes in the opportunities for and costs of
disposal techniques could cause generators to change waste streams and
treatment methods. In this event, some broad assumptions about such changes
will have to be made, or such changes disregarded (as already not 3d, waste
disposal costs are usually only a small portion of product value, which
suggests that onsite operations may not be very sensitive to offsite disposal
costs). However, where there are major regional industries producing sub-
stantial quantities of reasonably homogeneous wastes (e.g., petroleum
refining in Texas), further investigation would clearly be warranted.
Development of Threat Scenarios. Etc. (Step 3)
The identification and description of threats has been discussed in
Section 4 and Appendix B, and the philosophy of using threat scenarios was
expounded earlier in this section. To proceed with the analysis, it is
necessary to identify one or more threats for each technique being consid-
ered. In many cases, it will be possible to establish that, for a given
technique, one threat is of far greater import than all others. In this
event, that threat scenario should be developed as fully as possible, and
other less significant threats can merely be identified. However, an
attractive feature of the methodology is that it provides a flexible frame-
work for analysis that can readily accommodate inputs from a variety of
sources. Waste management personnel, for example, may generate the threat
scenarios that they consider to be the most relevant to a given situation.
If, however, it becomes apparent that the public is largely concerned with
some other threat, an appropriate scenario can be added without disrupting or
contradicting the previous work.
The quantitative data used to describe threat scenarios should probably
be kept simple. For example, means, modes and possibly ranges can be used
rather than probability distributions for effects. More detailed data may be
appropriate when the waste management alternatives have been narrowed down to
two or three options.
69
-------
Environmental impacts of hazardous waste management techniques other
than those that arise through threats can also be listed. These impacts are
all related to resource use (i.e., energy consumption, materials, and land
use). Though this aspect of environmental impact is accounted for via the
cost mechanisms (for example, the control cost for land disposal includes the
cost of land and energy used), there are many who consider that the market
prices for some resources, such as energy, may not reflect their true values
to society. Hence there is frequently additional interest in resourca use,
and for this reason, identification of these data is helpful.
Determination of Economic and Social Effects (Step 4)
This process, which leads to the evaluation of some of the costs and
impacts (see Figure 5) was discussed in Section 4. Effects should oe
evaluated for each of the techniques involved in any approacn being consid-
ered.
Determination of the Impacts on the Parties-at-Interest (Step 5)
Determination of the economic and social effects leads directly to
determination of the parties-at-intereTt!Section 4 provides some generali-
zations about attitudes and benavior of the parti es-at-int?r-?st. Tr,ase data
can be' used- to examine the nature and degree of impact that a vas:a
management technique may have on a party-at-interest.
Though predicting individual responses of the parties-at-intarast (tne
next step) may be important, a general analysis of the impacts of the use of
the various techniques on the parties-at-interest can be a powerful tool when
it comes to comparing the effects of the use of different techniques, and
hence, alternative aproaches. Table 7 presents a matrix of the parties-at-
interest for each major technique and suggests the nature of the effect that
use of the technique has on each party-at-interest. This is a generalized
matrix and in any specific situation the effects could differ from those
indicated in Table 7, and there could be additional parties-at-interest. Note
that where a reference level was necessary to determine the nature of the
impact, each technique has been compared with temporary storage at the gener-
ator's site. Although not an acceptable long-term solution, this situation
represents a common starting point. In other situations, the status quo or a
base case could be used as a reference level.
It may be useful to examine a few of the entries in Table 7 to under-
stand how judgments about the nature of the effects were made. Consider, for
example, a technique involving chemical treatment to reduce hazard potential.
Management of the firm generating the waste will have mixed views about the
technique (+-), as it is likely to be comparatively costly; but treatment
should reduce the risk of an adverse incident. The firm's workers are likely
to favor treatment (+) because it probably makes their job safer. The effect
on the waste disposal and transport industries will depend on the process
streams following treatment (+-); they may have safer wastes to dispose of
(+), or there may be no waste requiring offsite disposal (-). Local officials
are likely to favor chemical treatment because of the reduced risk of an
environmental incident (+), but water supply authorities might be concerned
70
-------
TABLE 7. MATRIX OF EFFECTS ON THE PARTIES-AT-INTEREST
Party-at-interest
Nature of effects are:
|++|Favorable
r+~| Somewhat favorable
rr—I Mixed, or depends on
L-^-1 circumstances
I- | Somewhat adverse
|--| Adverse
t significant
Hazardous waste control
technique
Other
parties-at-interest
Change in waste stream
Resource' recovery
Treatment - physical
- chemical
- biological
- thermal
- encapsulation
Land application
Landfill - secure
- ordinary
Mine disposal
Lagoon ing
Deep well Injection
Ocean dumping
Engineered storage
Space disposal
* ,
[Discharge to sev/er
Discharge to waterway
+-
+-
.
+-
-
+
+-
•f
-
+-
+
+
-
•—
+
•• +
+-
•»•
+-
+-
+
+
^
+.
+
+-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+-
t-
+-
+
t
+-
++
-
•H
-
-
+
t
-
--
.
+-
-
-
+
+-
+4
+
0
t-
+t
t-
+-
—
+-
+-
.
-
++
+
++
+-
++
+-
+
-
•f
—
++
+
.
-
-
-
_
-
+.
—
-
+-
-
-
+
+
•f-
+-
+
.
+
.
++
-
-
+-
-
-
+
+
+-
+-
++•
+-
+
-
++
-.
--
+-
-
-
.
-
-
—
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
t-
+
+-
+-
-
h
+
-
+
-
•f
.
+
t
44
-
-
•*•-
-
-
+-
+-
+-
-
.
-
--
-
+
++
+
+
+-
.+-
++
-
+
-
+-f
-.
-
--
+-
--
-
-
--
-
-
.
+
r +-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Virgin material supplier
Chemical suppliers
Farmers
Adjacent mineral intcres
Fowl hunters, farmers
Other nations, politicia
Other nations, pollticia
Sewer authorities
Other water rccreationis
-------
over the possible discharge of an undesirable effluent to a river that
constitutes part of a water supply (-). Though water supply authorities ana
environmentalists are likely to have definite views on most techniques, tne
perception of threats and benefits from chemical treatment may be remote to
most local residents (no entry in Taole 7). Thermal treatment, on the otner
hand, which could cause the deterioration of local air quality, .iiigr.t ca
viewed negatively by many residents and property owners (-), and a tacr.niaje
such as lagooning might pose a discernible threat to local water supply users
(-).
In identifying and evaluating impacts in Table 7, each party-at-interest
was assumed to represent only one viewpoint. But any individual could fall
into more than one category of party-at-interest; for example, one person
could be a local resident, property owner, worker and environmental is*. In
Table 7, the attitudes of the parties-at-interest are "pure;" cor axamole,
business management is assumed to adopt only those attitudes characteristic
of firms (see Section 4). In the event that the chief executive of a firm
happened to be a strong environmentalist, that particular firm would probably
exhibit some mixed behavior. However, this is not allowed for in Taole 7,
where the impacts on waste generators-management and environmentalists ara
maintained separately.
To. apply the parties-at-interest matrix to a specific situafion, it
might sometimes be more appropriate to conduct the analysis in tarns of
approaches (which could encompass more than one technique), rasper than
techniques.
Projection of Responses of the Parties-at-Interest (Step 6)
Attitudes that predispose the parties-at-interest toward certain
responses were discussed in Section 4, along with some likely responses.
Responses include a variety of actions, ranging from raising the price
of a product to cover increased hazardous waste management costs, to public
protest about potential adverse effects. Individual responses can, to an
extent, be predicted from a knowledge of the situation and the parties-at-
interest. In evaluating approaches, it is useful to note possible responses,
even if these are not certain. Some responses are in the nature of threats--
for example, requirement of costly disposal techniques increases the threat
of illicit disposal (dumping) of wastes.
Prediction of Physical Outcomes (Step 7)
The physical outcomes include the waste dispositions and some of the
responses of the parties-at-interest (such as householders moving to avoid
threats or actual pollution, or fishermen avoiding depleted fisheries).
Waste dispositions (including the nondisposal options such as process change
and resource recovery) are largely determined by the initial allocation of
wastes to techniques, described under Step 2. If there were no socioeconomic
interaction (or policy level feedback), simple cost minimization should
determine the ways in which the firms choose to distribute their wastes among
the available techniques. However, the responses of the parties-at-interest
72
-------
may also affect the outcomes. For example, some parties-at-interest might
oppose the use of certain techniques, and their actions might thereby render
them unavailable to the waste generators or cause them to become less
attractive than others because of this opposition. For these reasons, waste
dispositions other than those based on minimization of a generator's ccst may
be chosen.
At this stage, it is also appropriate to consider how the quantities of
wastes will change in the future. Although data on the price elasticity of
demand for industrial waste disposal services are rare, it can be expected
that the quantities generated will exhibit some response to price, as
increased disposal costs will encourage in-plant treatment, volume reduction,
and resource recovery. Known plans for new plants or expansions of existing
ones can be factored in at this stage, but it should be noted that, waste
generators will probably use state-of-the-art technology, and in some cases
will replace less advanced systems. Hence even if economic activity in the
study area is expected to grow, the quantities of wastes • requiring disposal
may not increase at the same rate.
Environmental threats can also be listed as outcomes. Of course, only
those that materialize constitute actual physical outcomes, but it dees ,not
seem appropriate to segregate definite (though ill-defined) outcomes such as
those of ocean dumping from those such as lagoon overflow that are proba-
bilistic in nature. All are possible outcomes, but few if any are clearly
defined.
Enumeration of Costs and Impacts (Step 8)1
Once the waste dispositions are determined, it is possible to list all
the costs associated with that particular approach to hazardous waste nanage-
ment. These include the generators' costs that are associated directly with
the disposition of the wastes, and the other costs of control (i.e., the
administrative and social control costs).
In addition to these costs, there may be some definite environmental
costs or social impacts that can be specified, such as changes, in property
values and noise insult to residents along a road leading to a landfill. As
discussed in Section 4, the dividing line between environmental costs and
social impacts is not clearcut and is based largely on the feasibility of
quantifying costs.
Many of the environmental costs and social impacts arising "rom1 an"
approach to hazardous waste management will be associated with threats.
These should be listed as part of each threat scenario, which should also
include an estimate of the probability of the threat's occurrence (if a
realistic estimate can.be .made).
Though all costs should be specified in constant dollars without
allowing for future inflation, they should-also be discounted using whatever
rate or approach is chosen (as discussed earlier in this section). Where
threats are concerned, it will normally involve choosing a time at which the
threat is assumed to materialize. Where .a process such as leacning is
73
-------
involved, it may be possible to use engineering judgment to decide the
earliest likely time that a threat may materialize. Where events are com-
pletely random, the analyst will be forced to use some arbitrary assumotion
such as halfway through the planning period, or at the end of one generation.
If the recommended approach of not discounting beyond one generation is
employed, threat materialization at the end of one generation is in -nany
respects an attractive choice, since if it occurs afterwards, the actual time
of materialization will not affect the discounted values.
Reiteration of Procedure (Step 9)
Once the above procedure has been carried out and the physical outcomes,
costs, and impacts associated with any approach are predicted, thera is
feedback to the policy level. An analyst can examine the results for eacn
approach, can test them against the policy objectives, and can iioai*"y tne
approaches to improve the results. In this way, he can optinn'za the results
within a given approach by making one or more iterations of the evaluation
procedure (Steps 2 through 8). For example, the analyst could chance the
number and location of landfills to arrive at a least-cost land disoosal
solution, or he could change the levels of taxes or subsidies to ennanca
effectiveness or correct the equity of a situation. Once optimization of
each approach is reasonably complete, the decisionmaker is in a DOS••v;on to
compare the results of different approaches. However, sometimes it :iay ae
necessary to design a new or hybrid approach.
AIDS TO DECISIONMAKING
Decisionmaking is the third phase in applying the methodology, and
involves five steps as follows:
1. Array the alternatives;
2. Eliminate approaches that are dominated by others;
3. Check each approach against policy objectives;
4. Examine trade-offs between known costs and threats;
5. Select an approach, using an appropriate degree of risk
aversion.
The decisionmaking phase is illustrated in Sections 6 and 7. However, some
aspects of decisionmaking are discussed below.
Arraying the Alternatives
Once the framework described above has been applied to each approach
being considered, the decisionmaker must choose among approaches or develop
new ones. Cost-benefit and risk-benefit analyses usually seek to reduce all
effects to dollar terms so that the alternative that has the greatest net
present value can be selected. A simple refinement would be to choose only
among those alternatives that also passed certain other tests, such as equity
74
-------
and-government cost criteria. Although the methodology presented-here draws
strongly on the techniques of cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis,
reducing all data to dollar terms suppresses too much information for envi-
ronmental planning.
There have been a variety of approaches proposed for systematizing the
decisionmaking process where there are complex considerations such as
multiple objectives. Some tend toward the use of a utility-based approach,
often in conjunction with event trees to cope with alternative outcomes
(e.g., Bell, Keeney and Raiffa, 1977; Wendt and Vlek, 1975; Fishburn, 1964;
and Schlaifer, 1967). This does, however, involve selecting a utility
function which then essentially represents part of the policy objectives of
the agency or decisionmaker. The use of simple scales (both ordinal and
cardinal) for achievement with respect to a number of objectives, and ranking
systems that combine such scales is commonly used in marketing ard in cor-
porate planning and could be useful here. Sewell (1973) discusses a variety
of evaluation techniques that have been used for resource-oriented problems.
The approach proposed here is to use a balance sheet format which sets
out for each approach the costs and threats, their effects on the parties-at-
interest, possible responses of the latter, and the physical outcomes. 'The
decisionmaker is then in a position to select his own trade-offs between the
approaches. If maintaining the status quo is used as a base case, wnatever
approach is chosen should represent an improvement (at least by the decision-
maker's measuring rod). This is equivalent to requiring that a project
assessed by traditional cost-benefit techniques has a benefit/cost ratio
greater than unity.
Some methods that may be used to handle the data and present them to the
decisionmaker are illustrated in Sections 6 and 7 of this report, which also
discuss considerations that may be involved in making trade-off decisions.
An illustration of the selection of trade-offs to achieve differing objec-
tives (in the context of water supply planning) is included in M'lliken and
Taylor (in press).
Dominant Approaches
There may be some situations in which one approach can be eliminated
from further consideration because it is subordinate to another. Consider,
for example, two projects, A and B, that are designed to achieve the same
objective (e.g., disposal of wastes). If the net monetary control costs of A
exceed those of B and the environmental costs of A clearly exceed those of B
(even though the environmental costs are not quantified), then approach B is
said to dominate approach A, as A is higher on both types of cost. Hence,
assuming -that the only factors that enter into the comparison of the two
projects are the control costs and the environmental costs, approach A can be
discarded. Analysis for dominance can be a useful way of eliminating
approaches without needing to fully .evaluate some of the costs (Fisher-and
Peterson, 1976).
75
-------
Risk Aversion
The role of risk in decisionmaking is discussed in Appendix F.
Virtually everyone—firms, the public, decisionmakers, politicians, etc.—is
risk averse to some degree. The decisionmaker needs to reflect an appro-
priate degree of risk aversion in his choice among alternatives. In making
this choice, he will generally have to trade-off added costs against reduced
probabilities that environmental threats will materialize. The added costs
will usually be known with comparative certainty, whereas the threats .-nay be
quite ill-defined. An additional complication is that known costs nay be
borne by one party-at-interest, while the risks may fall on another.
A decisionmaker should remember that if individuals feel threatened,
even if the threat does not materialize, then their welfare is reduced (i.e.,
feeling threatened is a cost). On the other hand, it is probably not reason-
able—even if feasible—to achieve a situation that is virtually risk free,
since it is likely that in many cases, the marginal cost of risk reduction
'increases as the level of risk is reduced (Tihansky and Kibby, 1974).
The role of risk aversion and the nature of risk-related decisions in
waste management are illustrated in Sections 6 and 7. Though Appendix F
contains useful background information on public attitudes toward risk-
taking, it does not offer much specific guidance on the degree of risk
aversion that should be incorporated into environmental decisions. Hence
with the present state of knowledge, selection of an appropriate degree of
risk aversion remains the responsibility of the decisionmaker, wno must
subjectively incorporate public feelings into his judgment.
Equity
Equity is a normative facet of economics. For example, one viewpoint on
equity is that potential beneficiaries should pay to obtain that benefit. An
alternative approach is that cleanup costs should be borne directly by those
who cause the environmental degradation. Yet another view is that unless
there are exceptionally powerful arguments in favor of the action it is
unreasonable to drastically change business competition by banning (or
rendering highly costly) a particular industrial process, for example. These
three viewpoints of equity could easily be in conflict, calling for judgment
on the equitability of the various outcomes arising from alternative
approaches to waste management.
The identification of the parties-at-interest is particularly useful in
this respect, as it is comparatively easy to compare the effects of alterna-
tive approaches on each of the parties-at-interest. By examining the ways in
which costs and impacts fall on different parties-at-interest, the decision-
maker can evaluate the acceptability of the results. He can also devise
strategies to render a given approach equitable by finding a way to shift
some of the costs and impacts from one party-at-interest to another. For
example, examination of the alternatives for the disposal of a particular
waste might lead to the conclusion that economic efficiency would be achieved
by discharging this waste to a landfill, but that this could render the water
unsafe to drink in a limited number of wells. To make this solution
76
-------
equitable, the waste generator could be made to pay for the cost of .in-stall-
ing and operating an alternative water supply, possibly together with an
additional payment to compensate the well owners for a loss of aesthetic
value caused by changing from their well water to the alternative supply.
Summary of the Methodology
The complete procedure involved in defining the scope of the study,
applying the analytical framework, and deciding among alternatives is
summarized in Table 8.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGY
PHASE I. OBTAIN PREREQUISITE INFORMATION
1. Define scope of study;
a. Geographic area;
b. Types of wastes;'
2. Inventory existing waste situation;
3. Determine how wastes are currently controlled;
4. Ascertain policy objectives.
PHASE II. APPLY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
1. Develop alternative approaches for hazardous waste
management. (Consider the status-quo as a base case.)
For each approach under consideration:
2. Allocate wastes to techniques;
3. Develop threat scenarios, list other
impacts (resource use);
4. Determine economic and social effects;
5. Determine impacts on the parties-at-interest;
6. Project responses of the parties-at-interest;
7. Predict physical outcomes, including future wastes; .
8. Enumerate costs and impacts (discount as appropriate);
9. Reiterate Steps 2 through 8 until results for each
approach have been optimized.
PHASE III. MAKE DECISIONS
1. Array alternatives;
2. Eliminate approaches that are dominated by others;
3. Check approaches against policy objectives (e.g., for
equity);
4. Examine trade-offs between known costs and threats;
5. Select an approach, using an appropriate level of
risk aversion.
77
-------
SECTION 6
APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY TO A SINGLE WASTE STREAM
INTRODUCTION.
This section provides a simple example of the use of the methodology
described in Section 5. This example considers only a single waste stream,
and hence much of Phase I of the methodology (obtaining prerequisite informa-
tion for analysis) is inapplicable, as Phase I is oriented toward ccmoiete
studies of hazardous waste management within a specified area. The example
concentrates on applying the analytical framework (Phase II) and on illus-
trating the decisionmaking process (Phase III)- Though the examola is
hypothetical, it was inspired by the situation in Oregon analyzed in Sscvion
7. Familiarity with Section 7 is not necessary to follow this section.
THE PROBLEM
An agency responsible for hazardous waste management receives an apoli-
cation from a firm that wishes to dispose of a hazardous waste oy deep well
injection. The agency has no policy or regulations that specifically ban the
use of deep well injection, but any technique used for hazardous waste
disposal requires agency approval.
The waste will come from a new process that is assumed to have a 20-year
technological life. The process will generate 250,000 m3 per year of an
aqueous-waste .containing 50 parts per million (ppm) of nondegraaable toxic
elements (e.g., heavy metals). The firm proposes to dispose of this waste by
injecting it into a saline aquifer some 600 m below their premises. They
estimate that this will cost them $50,000 per year (including capital
charges) over the 20-year life span.
The first step is to investigate the technically feasible alternatives.
These are found to be as follows!
1, The waste stream can be reduced to 25,000 m3 per year with a
corresponding increase in the concentration of toxic elements
at a cost of $20,000 per year to the firm.
2. The waste stream can be treated to provide an effluent that is
acceptable to the municipal sewer. Treatment results in 250
m3 per year of a toxic sludge. The cost of treatment plus
effluent charges would be $115,000 per year.
78
-------
3. There are two landfills that could accept either the liquid
waste from alternative 1 or the sludge from alternative 2.
The local landfill is a public sanitary landfill located
immediately adjacent to a river 50 km from the generating fir-n.
Rainfall in this region is much greater than either open can
evaporation or potential evapotranspiration. This landfill charges
$3.00 per m3 for any waste.
The secure landfill is a chemical landfill located in a dry
zone (rainfall is much less than evaporation or evapotranspira-
tion), 360 km from the generating firm. The gate fee is $30.00 per
m3 for the sludge and $20.00 per m3 for the liquid.
Transportation to either landfill would be by truck, at a cost
for either sludge or liquid of $7.00 per m3 to the local landfill,
and $22.00 per m3 to the secure landfill.
4. Other techniques for dealing with the waste (such as resource
recovery or ocean dumping) are not feasible.
Hence there are five technically feasible disposal plans, as follows:
A. Deep well injection on the firm's premises.
B. Sludge sent to the local landfill.
C. Concentrated liquid waste sent to the local landfill.
D. Sludge sent to the secure landfill:
E. Concentrated liquid waste sent to the secure landfill.
THREAT SCENARIOS
The next step is to develop likely threat scenarios, at leas" one for
each disposal plan. In-plant accidents under any plan are expected to have
approximately similar impacts and hence do not have to be evaluated. The
following scenarios represent the major threats identified, •
Threat Scenario I: Water Contamination From Deep Well Injection'
This scenario applies only to Disposal Plan A. Drinking water is
obtained from numerous wells that penetrate a shallow aquifer in the vicinity
of the generating firm. This aquifer may become contaminated as a result of
some unanticipated interconnection with the deep saline aquifer. The proba-
bility of this cannot be determined. If contamination occurs, corrective
action could be taken by providing temporary water supplies to the local
residents and by drilling several additional wells into the saline aquifer
and counterpumping to reverse the migration of the waste. The total cost of
this cleanup operation, including some hospitalization costs, is estimated to
be some $2.4 million, which would be considerably less costly than providing
a permanent new water supply to the local residents.
79
-------
Threat-Scenario II: Leaching From the Local Landfill
This scenario applies only to Disposal Plans B and C. If the concen-
trated liquid waste were discharged to the local landfill, it could be
assumed that the entire waste would quickly infiltrate the river, because of
the, wet conditions and absence of leachate barriers at the landfill. If the
sludge were deposited at this landfill, an appreciable proportion of the
toxic elements would probably be retained, especially in the earlier years;
but the above assumption could be used as the worst case. Either sludge or
liquid^waste contributes 12.5 tonnes of toxic elements per year. The river
has a'mean flow of 200 m3/s, implying a toxic element concentration of two
parts per billion (ppb) if the waste were uniformly diluted. However, local
concentrations are expected to be higher.
The river supports an important salmon fishery, and experts value a
typical year's fishing at $800,000, excluding indirect effects such as
tourist dollars brought into the region by the fishery. The experts expect
the onset of high fish mortality to occur at toxic element concentrations
somewhere between 20 and 100 ppb, but they are reluctant to say what impact
two ppb would have on the salmon because of the effect variability with
duration of exposure, alkalinity, and the presence of other elements. They
point out, however, that there is some evidence that fish 3void sublethal
concentrations of toxic elements; hence the waste could conceivably ruin tne
fishery by discouraging the salmon from returning to spawn.
Threat Scenario III: Transport Accidents
This scenario is applicable to Disposal Plans B through E. Statistics
indicate that 50 accidents involving waste spills can be expected per billion
kilometers traveled by truck in the region. The cleanup cost associated with
a typical accident is estimated to be $10,000. Serious injuries and deaths
directly attributable to the properties of the waste are expected to be
negligible.
Threat Scenario IV: Flash Flood at the Secure Landfill
This scenario is applicable only to Disposal Plans D and E. The most
likely threat from the secure landfill is contaminated runoff from a flash
flood. Such a flood is expected to occur less than once per hundred years,
.and damage along the flood path directly attributable to the toxic elements
is expected to be minimal. Leaching problems are highly unlikely because of
the dry. climate and the-extreme depth to usable aquifers.
ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Table 9 presents a comparison of the alternative plans. Only the gener-
ator's cost portions of control costs have been evaluated, as other costs are
not expected to differ significantly between alternatives. The net present
value of the control costs has been calculated by discounting at 10 percent
per year. (The Office of Management and Budget recommends the use of 10
80
-------
TABLE 9. ANALYSIS OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS
Control costs:
Generator's annual costs:
Ons ite operations
Transport
Gate fees
Deep well
injection
Plan A
$ 50,000
Local
Plan B
(sludge)
$ 115,000
1,750
750
landfill
Plan C
(liquid)
$ 20,000
175,000
75,000
Secure
Plan D
(sludge)
$ 115,000
5,500
7,500
landfill
Plan E
(liquid)
$ 20,000
550,000
500,000
Total
$ 50,000 $ 117,500 $ 270,000 $ 128,000 $1,070,000
00
Present value of generator's
total cost (20 years' cost
disco.unted at 10 percent1
4>er year) $ 426,000
$1,000,300 $2,298,000 $1,089,700 $9,109,500
Other control costs
(Administration and monitoring) ND*
Environmental impacts
Resource use ND
In-plant accidents NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
'NO
•NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
* Not significantly different.
-------
percent per year as the opportunity cost of capital [Executive Office of the
President, 1972].)
As soon as the control costs are evaluated, it is possible to ernr'nate
Plans C and E because these plans are dominated by 8 and D, rescecfively.
Consider Plan B versus Plan C. The control costs for B are 5117,500 ser year
versus $270,000 per year for C, and detailed evaluation is not necassary to
show that the potential environmental damages from B are also less than from
C. There is less possibility for release of toxic elements from the sludge
(Plan B) than from the concentrated liquid (Plan C); and Plan B requires less
transportation than Plan C, which should result in fewer accidents. Thus
Plan B is clearly preferable to Plan C as both the quantified costs (the
generator's costs) and the nonquantified costs (the potential for environ-
mental damage) are lower for Plan B than Plan C. Similar arguments aooly to
Plan 0 versus Plan E. This approach cannot, however, be used to compare PUn
A with any other plan, as the environmental threat from Plan A is quite
different from those of all other plans. This reduces the number of plans to
be evaluated to three (A, B, and D).
The next step is to examine the threats associated with each plan and to
determine the nature of the effects of each plan on the parties-at-intsrest.
Table 10 compares the major effects for the three plans. From tr,-'s analysis
the expected attitudes of the parties-at-interest can be projected, ana these
are also summarized in Table 10.
The parties-at-interest most strongly affected in this example include
the water supply authority, and to a lesser extent the water users near the
plant, who would be concerned about the threat from deep well injection
(Threat Scenario I). Fish experts would oppose Plan B, although fishermen and
fish-related industry might perceive only a weak threat. Fishing interests
might, however, have an unexpected ally. If Plan A were prohibited, the
generating firm itself could well prefer Plan 0 over Plan B. Though the firm
will strongly favor Plan A because of its low cost, the annual cost of Plan D
is only $10,500 greater than Plan B, and if the firm opted for B, it would
receive adverse publicity if the fish threat (Scenario II) materialized. In
contrast, the firm might enhance its reputation as a responsible environ-
mental citizen if it sent its waste to the secure landfill under Plan D. In
this case a great deal is at stake (an $800,000 per year fishery and the
firm's image) for only a small net benefit ($10,500 per year in reduced
costs). Although the probability of the fish threat materializing is
unknown, the firm would not have to be very risk averse to prefer Plan D to
Plan B. -Note that all parties perceive negative, impacts for Plan B, which
confirms the general unattractiveness of this plan.
DECISIONMAKING
If Plan B is dropped from further consideration, the remaining choice is
between Plans A and 0 and involves reduced control costs and greater damage
potential if A is preferred to D. If Plan A is selected, the present value
of the control costs discounted over the 20-year project is $663,700 less
than for Plan 0 (i.e., $426,000 versus $1,089,700). On the other hand, Plan
A poses the threat of water contamination (Threat Scenario I) with its
82
-------
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF THREE SELECTED WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS
Plan A Plan B Plan D
Deep well Injection Sludge to local landfill Sludge to secure landfill
85
Present value of gener-
atr's total cost:
Major threat scenarios: I:
$ 426,000
Water supplies con-
taminated
Mitigation cost:
$2,400,000, plus
cost of changing
plan (There is some
risk that the miti-
gation measures
might be un-
successful)
Probability: not
estimated
Other economic effects
Effect on parties-at-interest*
Generating firm's management
Local water supply users
Water supply authority
Fish experts
Fishermen, fish-related
industry
Environmentalists
$ 1,000,300
II: Salmon fishery at
risk
Direct value:
$800,000 per year
Indirect effects
locally important
Probabi1i ty: not
estimated
III. Transport accident
Cleanup cost:
$10,000
Probability:
2x10 Vyear
Product prices
slightly higher
than with Plan A
-1+
$ 1,089,700
III: Transport accident
Cleanup cost:
$10,000
Probability:
1.4xlO"4/year
IV. Contamination via
flash flood
Damage potential
minimal
Probability:
10 Vyear
Product prices
slightly higher
than with Plan A
* Key to attitudes: ", favorable;
not significant.
somewhat favorable; -, somewhat adverse; --, adverse; (blank),
-------
cleanup costs and the need to find an alternative waste disposal method if
deep well injection does contaminate the water supply. The threats from
transport accidents (Scenario III) and from flash floods at the secure land-
fill (Scenario IV) appear to t>e so minor that they can be neglected.
Nevertheless, it was important to recognize them and demonstrate (or obtain
consensus judgment) that they could be disregarded.
If Plan A were adopted, and problems with the deep well scheme developed
after five years, the additional costs of taking the corrective action
described under Threat Scenario I and switching to Plan 0 for the next 15
years would have a present value of $1,895,000 when discounted at 10 percent
per year. (Note that it was necessary to select a time at which the threat
is assumed to materialize in order to be able to calculate a present value.)
Thus, assuming that the mitigating measures prove successful and that the
data above completely and accurately represent the choice, the economic
question becomes: Is it worth risking an unknown probability of future costs
that have a present value of $1,895,000 to save certain future costs that
have a present value of $663,700? If the decisionmaker disregards equity and
is not risk averse, he will favor Plan A when its expected value is lower
than that of Plan 0. This will occur if the probability of water contamina-
tion (Threat Scenario I) is less than 35 percent (i.e., S663.700 -r
$1,895,000).
A 35 percent probability that contamination will occur seems quite high.
There is no known reason why contamination should occur, so on this basis, a
decisionmaker who is not unduly risk averse would probably favor the deep
well injection plan. However, he must consider some other factors before
making a final judgment.
First, there is a slight possiblity that if water contamination occurs,
the mitigating measure of drilling additional wells and counterpumping to
reverse waste migration might be unsuccessful. In this event, a new water
supply would have to be piped in at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
Although this possibility is not formally analyzed, its existence will
encourage the decisionmaker to be risk averse.
Second, the decisionmaker should consider equity. If he favors Plan A
over Plan D., the waste-generating firm will gain economically, but the local
residents will be at risk. However, should the threat of contamination
materialize, the water supply authority could bring a suit for damages
against the generating firm. Hence although at first sight Plan A is inequi-
table because benefits and risks accrue to different parties-at-interest,
there is a"mechanism that might be capable of redressing this inequity. Note
that benefits to the firm will ultimately be returned to society through
lower prices or higher net income, so a decisionmaker who takes the societal
view will not necessarily oppose a plan that benefits a firm while putting
the public at risk.
Finally, the decisionmaker must consider the less tangible factors. Are
the local residents and environmentalists highly disturbed about the waste
injection proposal? If so, they will be subjected to psychological damages
not accounted for in the dollar costs discussed above. How important is the
84
-------
option value associated with not contaminating the saline aquifer? Are there
any other factors that have not been considered? Public hearings could be
used to gauge the strength of local feelings and concerns.
Even if a decisionmaker does not consider the personal risk of making a
choice that is later perceived to be a poor one, the issues are ccmolex.
Excessive risk aversion will reduce society's welfare just as excessive risk
proneness will. Each decisionmaker must formulate his own trade-offs among
the various factors. However, it is hoped that by systematically laying out
and analyzing the principal features involved in the alternatives, the
decisionmaker1 s task can be made easier. He must, however, still make the
decision.
85
-------
SECTION 7
CASE STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN OREGON
INTRODUCTION
Rationale Behind the Choice of Oregon
The methodology described earlier could be applied to several categories
of problems. Those considered for a case study included:
1. A study of a complete local or regional situation;
2. Analysis oriented toward a specific industry;
3. A study of a specific material that may be pr-esant in
hazardous wastes;
4. A study of a specific means of disposal and altarr.atv/es to
this.
The topic chosen was a study of alternatives for hazardous waste
management in the State of Oregon. There were two principal reasons for this
choice. First, EPA suggested that the methodology be demonstrated by
application to a State, as this would be most useful when the RCRA was imple-
mented. Second, Oregon had good information on hazardous waste generated and
disposed of in the State, which provided the necessary data bass. In
addition, the hazardous waste situation in Oregon is not so complex as to
present an intractable example, but the presence of some regional wastes and
climatic differences within the State provide an interesting analysis.
Some Characteristics of Oregon
Oregon has a total area of 251,000 km2, and divides naturally into three
major parts separated by two mountain ranges. The coastal area is separated
from the Willamette Valley and southwestern valleys (of the Rogue and Klamath
Rivers) by the Coast Range, while the High Plateau of eastern Oregon is
separated from the Willamette Valley and the southwestern valleys by the
Cascade Mountains (see Figure 8). The coastal area and Coast Range are
comparatively wet (e.g., 150 to 255 cm of precipitation per year), while much
of the Willamette Valley and southwestern valleys receive 102 cm per year or
less. Beyond the Cascades, most of eastern Oregon is dry, with large areas
averaging less than 30 cm per year (Sternes, 1967).
86
-------
S3
__L
(JALIt'OiiNlA
Figure 8. The geography of Oregon
-------
In 1975, Oregon's population was approximately 2.23 million persons.
Much of the State's population lives in the Willamette Valley, including the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) of Eugene-Springfield ana
Salem," together with the Portland metropolitan area, which is st tr.e con-
fluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. The 1975 copulation of
Oregon's portion of the Portland SMSA was 0.94 million, and the State tcta'i
for the three SMSA's was 1.38 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977).
Most of the remainder of the population lives along the coast, along -.he
Columbia River, and in the southwestern valleys. Industrial (manufacturing)
activity largely correlates with population, being particularly strong i-n the
Willamette Valley.
The main communication routes are east-west along the Columbia River.
which forms much of the State's northern boundary, ana north-south along the
Willamette River and southwestern valleys. The distriogtion of Doou'.at-.on
and the transport corridors results in the economic isolation of Oregon from
the adjacent States of Idaho and Nevada, and in part from California, riow-
ever, there is substantial interaction with the State of Washington, as the
Willamette Valley transport corridor extends north in Washington to the
Seattle area, and Vancouver (Washington) is the major city immediately across
the Columbia River from Portland.
The 1970 census of population revealed that civilian employment in
Oregon totaled 788,500, or 37.7 percent of the population, distrioutad by
industry as shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN OREGON
AND THE UNITED STATES*
Percent of total employment
Industry
Agriculture, forestry & fisheries
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, communications &
other public utilities
Wholesale & retail trade
Various services
Industry not reported
Oregon
5.3
0.2
5.4
20.4
6.8
20.9
36.1
4.9
100.0
United States
3.5
0.8
5.5
24.4
6.4
18.9
34.4
6.1
100.0
* Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1973. (Data
relate to employed persons aged 14 years and over.)
If employment for Oregon is compared to that for the entire United States, it
will be seen that Oregon has a lower proportion of its work force engaged in
manufacturing and mining, a significantly higher proportion in agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries, and somewhat more in trade and services.
88
-------
The methodology described in Section 5 will now be applied to a study of
hazardous waste management alternatives in Oregon, insofar as possible fol-
lowing the procedure outlined in Table 8.
Hazardous Wastes in Oregon
Three major sources of data about hazardous wastes in Oregon .vere
available: A survey conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) in 1972 and 1973, a study conducted by Battelle Memorial
Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (Battelle) in 1975, and data on
wastes actually shipped to a chemical waste disposal facility near Arlington,
Oregon.
The survey conducted by the Oregon OEQ (State of Oregon, 1974) identi-
fied major Oregon producers of wastes that were subjectively judged -:o be
potentially hazardous. Total hazardous waste generation in Oregon was in
most cases estimated by extrapolation on the basis of employment in- each.
industrial category.
The study conducted by Battelle (Stradley, Dawson, and Cone,..1375)
'endeavored to identify all significant generators of hazardous was.tei-wTthi.n.
EPA Region X (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska). As far as possible,
this study used the Battelle hazardous waste decision model (-see Figure 2) or
the inclusion of a waste component on the EPA proposed list of nonremovable
hazardous substances (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a) as its
criteria for identifying hazardous wastes.
Data were available on wastes actually shipped to the secure disposal
facility operated by Chem Nuclear Systems, Inc., near Arlington, Oregon.
(Arlington is located in Gilliam County, adjacent to the Columbia River—see
Figure 8.) This facility, which includes a chemical landfill and "neutraliza-
tion/evaporation lagoons, commenced regular operation in May 1976 and is
currently the only chemical landfill in Oregon. Its geographic location is
such that it is likely to receive almost all the Oregon-generated wastes that
are disposed of in a secure disposal facility. For the period covered by the.
data used in this study (1975-77), the only categories of nonradicractive
hazardous waste that were legally required to be disposed of at a chemical
landfill were pesticide wastes and PCB's.* Hence most Oregon-originated
wastes that were sent to Arlington were -not specifically required to be
disposed of in that way. However, all.wastes that are sent to Arlington are-
subject to Oregon DEQ permit..
* The Oregon statutes that related to "environmentally hazardous wastes"
(Oregon Revised Statutes [ORS] 459.410-459.690, first enacted in 1971)-
required such wastes, to be designated by the Oregon DEQ. Until May 1979,.
only waste pesticides, pesticide manufacturing residues, and PCB's had been
so designated. (Personal and telephone.interviews, F. Bromfeld, Oregon'
DEQ, Portland, Oregon, March 9, 1977; April 17, 1979.) Subsequently, in
May 1979, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission adopted a comprehen-
sive set of criteria for establishing wastes as hazardous (Oregon
Administrative Rules [OAR] 63-100 to 63-135).
89
-------
PREREQUISITE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS
Scope of the Study
Geographic Area—
The geographic area of the case study was taken as the State of >3gon.
This choice is convenient because the State is a complete political unit, and
because its industrialized area (the Willamette Valley) is isolated from the
industrialized areas of all adjacent States except Washington.
Types of Wastes-
Industrial process wastes were the primary category considered, but
waste laboratory chemicals and unwanted pesticides were also included, ~he
case study excluded radioactive wastes, mining wastes, pesticide conta-i.-ars.
and hospital wastes. Apart from the possibility of some reactive (axa'icsi ,-e;
wastes at the Umatilla Army Depot (these wastes would not fall Linear CEQ
control) no special wastes were known to exist in the area.
Inventory of Existing Waste Situation
Quantities and Types of Wastes Generated—
Table 12 presents data derived from the Battelle study ui.-
Dawson, and Cone, 1975). The data, which were collected in mia-1375,
believed by the authors of that study to amount virtually to a census of a"
potential' hazardous waste generators in Oregon. (Personal intarviaj,
G. Dawson and J, McNeese, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, Washington, April 25, 1977.) The data took account
of the earlier survey by the Oregon DEQ (State of Oregon, 1974). However,
the' data in Table 12 cannot be compared directly with those published by
Stradley, Dawson, and Cone (1975) because of slightly differing coverages
(e.g., wastes recycled within a plant were excluded from Taole 12). Since
then, in 1978-79, the Oregon DEQ has conducted another survey, but the
results of that survey were not available in time to be used in this case
study.
In Table 12, hazardous wastes have been divided by the author into five
categories: Pesticides, heavy metals, solvents and oils, phenols, and other
chemicals. In practice, a given waste often fell into more than one of tnese
categories. When this occurred, the waste was attributed to the first
category that was represented by more than trace quantities. The sequence is
intended'to be crudely hierarchial in terms of the threat or potential for
damage that the waste category is capable of causing. Clearly, even if only
intrinsic factors (i.e., the hazardous properties of the waste itself, not
the potential magnitude of effects) are considered, a rigorous hierachy
cannot be established, as this would depend on the actual materials involved
and their concentrations. This is particularly true for the catch-all
category of "other chemicals," although the bulk of this material does not
appear to be very hazardous. Much of this material arises from the primary
aluminum manufacturing industry and is spent potliners (carbon) contaminated
with fluoride and cyanide, and a calcium fluoride sludge. Most of the rest
is lime sludge.
90
-------
TABLE 12. GENERATION AND DISPOSAL OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES IN OREGON*?
Amount of waste (m3 per year)
Heavy Solvents Other
Item Pesticides metals and oils Phenols chemicals Total
Waste generated by industrial
Pesticides and
wood treating 995
Resin & glue
Paints & inks
Other chemicals
Batteries
(lead-acid)
Electroplating
Electronics, etc.
Metals manufacture
Miscellaneous -
Total 995
category:
-
-
-
-
109
74
1,723
517
155
2,578
-
26
113
'474
-
-
2
-
143
758
-
1,112
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,112
-
-
42
1,3-12
-
-
-
10,796
4
12,154
995
1,128
155
1,786
109
74
1,725
11,313
302
17', 597
Waste disposed by method:
Onsite
Landfill
Storage
Lagoon
Sewer
Local landfill
Secure disposal
(chemical landfill)
Resource recovery
Hauler/unknown
Total
-
23
.492
-
-
441
-
39
995
1,310
464
22
7
78
-
622
75
2,578
-
24
-
-
20
-
669
45
758
34
358
10
-
-
20
690
-
1,112
1
2,307
4,149
2
33
-
5,552
10
12,154
1,345
3,176
4,673
9
131
461
7,633
169
17,597
* Source: Adapted from Stradley, Dawson, and Cone, 1975 (including
unpublished data sheets prepared in conjunction with the report).
t These data were developed using criteria for hazard potential different
from those employed by the Oregon DEQ. Only wastes generated on a regular
basis are included.
91
-------
Industries have been grouped into nine categories in Table 12, partly on
the basis of the types of wastes generated, and partly on the basis of indus-
trial similarity. The first two categories, pesticide manufacture and wood
treating, and resin and glue manufacture, were chosen to include all regular
generators of waste pesticides and phenols, respectively. In addition to the
categories of wastes listed above, small quantities of PC3's require dis-
posal, but as they are not generated on a regular basis they were excluded
from Table 12. Oregon regulations require that small quantities of PCS's and
contained PCB's be disposed of in a chemical landfill, i.e., at the Arlington
disposal facility, whereas bulk PCB's are currently being stored (for even-
tual incineration) or sent out of state. (Telephone interview, F. Blomfeld,
Oregon 0£Q, Portland, Oregon, August 23, 1979.)
Table 12 also shows the 1975 disposition of these wastes. Wastes that
were recycled within a plant have been excluded, as well as regular effluents
legitimately discharged under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) or the sewer regulations in effect at the time of the study.
There was no deep well injection or ocean dumping. Note that a comparatively
high proportion of the wastes (43 percent) was being subjected to resource
recovery. Two main factors account for this. First, over half this material
was spent potlinings sent from an Oregon .aluminum plant to a plant in v/ash-
ington (operated by the same company) for cryolite recovery. Even if tm's
major waste stream is subtracted, 20 percent of all Oregon Hazardous waste
(originating from 32 firms) was still being sent for resource recovery.
The relatively high proportion of resource-recovered wastes (although
not strictly comparable, the U.S. proportion is 1.7 percent [U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977b]) appears to relate to the presence of a
resource recovery infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. This in part
probably reflects the ecological consciousness of the area. In 1975-77,
Oregon had an oil re-refiner in Portland and three solvent reclaimers (two in
Portland, and one in Eugene), plus a number of wax recyclers in Portland.
Although there was no longer a secondary lead smelter in Oregon (the nearest
was in Seattle, Washington), there was one Portland firm specializing in lead
recovery,. primarily serving the lead-acid battery manufacturers. Perhaps
more significantly, however, there were two specialist resource recovery
firms in Seattle, Washington, that accepted a wide variety of materials for
processing (Stradley, Oawson, and Cone, 1975). In addition to materials that
are frequently reclaimed (such as solvents), these firms have found uses for
wastes that generally are not considered attractive candidates for resource
recovery, such as certain metal finishing wastes (see Battelie-Columbus
Laboratories, 1976; Grumpier, 1977).
Table 12 shows that only 461 m3 per year of wastes were being sent for
secure disposal. At the time that these data were collected, there were no
chemical landfills operating in either Oregon or Washington. The nearest
secure disposal site was the Wes Con, Inc., facility at Grand View in south-
western Idaho, some 740 km from Portland. This site provides permanent
storage of wastes in abandoned missile silos (see Ghassemi and Quinlivan,
1975). Since that time, Chem Nuclear Systems, Inc., opened their secure
disposal facility near Arlington, Oregon, about 225 km by road from Portland.
Consequently, it is not surprising that by 1977 greater quantities were being
sent to Arlington. The permit data have enabled one-shot shipments to
92
-------
Arlington to be separated from recurring shipments. Permit data show that
recurring wastes from Oregon are expected to total 6,450 m3 per year, broken
down as follows:
Pesticides 1,047
Heavy metals 1,148
Solvents and oils 422
Phenols 1,679
Other chemicals 2,154
The actual total for September 1975 through August 1977 was 3,687 m3 (one-
shot shipments for this period were 285 m3). The Arlington site commenced
regular operation in May 1976, and the period September 1976 through August
1977 was the latest full year for which data were available wnen this
analysis was conducted. Elimination of data from the first few months of
operation should have reduced the impact of wastes being taken from storage-.
One feature of particular interest 'is that the recurring wastes to be
shipped to Arlington are produced by 38 firms, only 15 of which were
identified by Battelle as producing hazardous wastes. (These 15 firms do,
however, generate the bulk of the recurring wastes that are being shipped'to
Arlington; permit data show that they expect to produce 4,474 m3 per year.)
This apparent discrepancy may be in part attributed to hazardous waste clas-
sification criteria. In some cases a waste that is being sent to Arlington
may have been classified .as nonhazardous by Battelle. On the other hand,
several of the firms involved were from SIC categories that might not be
expected to produce hazardous wastes--(e.g., a manufacturer of fireplaces).
Any comparison of the permit data with the shipments data must be made
with caution, because of the comparatively short period involved (one year)
and the fact that some of the permits were issued during the period for which
the data were collected. Analysis of data on a permit-by-permit basis showed
that though some of the permit quantity projections were accurately realized,
in several cases there were discrepancies as large as- a- factor of two,in
either direction, while in a few cases the discrepancies were much larger.
On the other hand, the permit quantities tended to be larger (often -by a
factor of two to four) "than the Battelle data for the same waste stream. No
shipments had been received from nine firms expecting to produce 919 m3 per
year. In the case of one major stream of waste acid, this was, probably-
because of the use of an alternative method of. disposal; in some of the
others it. may have been that the quantities of wastes that had ac:rued were
comparatively small and had yet to be shipped.
Statistics on Firms Generating Hazardous Wastes--
Table 13 provides some data on the number of firms identified by
Battelle as -generating hazardous or probably hazardous wastes. The industry
categories are the same as those used in Table 12, and Table 13 lists the
SIC's of the firms identified by Battelle. Of the 94 firms, six electro-
platers did not generate a hazardous waste as such but had hazardous elements
in their effluents. Increasingly stringent sewer regulations are expected to
force these firms and some others to treat their effluents, resulting in
additional heavy metals sludges. The quantities in Table 12 only reflect
93
-------
TABLE 13. OREGON FIRMS THAT MAY GENERATE HAZARDOUS WASTES
Industrial category
Pesticides and wood
treating
Resin and glue
manufacturers
Paints and inks
Other chemicals
Batteries
Electroplating
Electronics, etc.
Metals manufacturers
Miscellaneous
Total
Total , excluding
SIC's
included3
2491, 2879
2821, 2865
2869, 2891
2851, 2893
2813, 2818
2892, 2992.
3691
3471
3661, 3679
3825.
3312, 3324
3334, 3339
3341, 3361
3398
2231, 2253
2711, 3111
3231, 3412
3425, 3429
3433, 3479
3482, 3612
3629, 3743
9711
miscellaneous
No. of firms
identified by
Battell e
studyb
9
8
14
6
9
18d
4
8
18
94
76
No. of firms
in Dirsc'orv
of Orsson
Manufacturers0
16
17
23
5
3
27
^ •*
J. /
27
197
337
140
SIC's of firms included in Table 12 that generate potentially hazardous
. wastes.
Based on Stradley, Oawson, and Cone, 1975 (including unpublished data
sheets prepared in conjunction with the report).
Number of firms having listed SIC(s) as primary SIC in Directory of Oregon
. Manufacturers (State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development, 1976).
Twelve firms generate hazardous wastes, but an additional six firms have
hazardous elements in their effluents (see text).
94
-------
data from 68 firms. Twenty additional firms generated hazardous wastes, but
the amounts were not determined. However, in most cases the quantity is
thought to be small, and hence inclusion of these missing data would probably
not cause major changes in Table 12. The magnitudes of the wastes (excluding
effluents) from the 68 firms form a typical Pareto distribution, as fellows:
The five largest generators produce 75 percent of the waste, the 10 largest
generators produce 89 percent of the waste, and the 20 largest generators
produce 97 percent of the waste. (Note that a firm may have more than one
waste stream.) Of course these quantities give little indication of the
damage potential of these wastes, but the data do suggest that it may be
reasonable to simplify analysis by concentrating on the larger waste streams.
Table 13 shows that if the numbers of firms identified by Battene as
generating potentially hazardous wastes are compared to the total numoers of
firms in the same SIC designations, in most cases there are significantly
more firms in Oregon than those identified by Battelle. In many cases this
may reflect differences in manufacturing processes, but it could also be that
the smaller firms are more reluctant to admit that they generate hazardous
wastes. In the case of the "miscellaneous" category, the huge difference, in
figures is largely accounted for by SIC 2711 (Newspapers: Publisning,
Publishing and Printing), as Battelle only identified one generator of
hazardous waste from a total of 123 firms.
It is interesting to note that of the 14 broad categories of industry
identified byyEPA as generating most of the potentially hazardous waste in
the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b, see Taole 3),
only petroleum refining (SIC 2911) is absent from Table 13. Naturally
however, the relative" proportions of these industries do not mirror the
aggregate of the United States and not all the subcategories of the 14 major
categories are represented.
The geographic distribution of the firms listed in Table .3 is as
follows:
*•
Portland SMSA (Oregon counties only) 66
Remaining Willamette Valley 19
Coos County (coast) 1
Jackson and Josephine Counties (south). ... 5
Eastern Oregon 3
Total 94
These data confirm the importance of the greater Portland area and the
Willamette Valley as the industrial areas of Oregon. They also simplify the
analysis, since there is only one large-scale generator of hazardous waste
(an aluminum plant in Wasco County) outside the Willamette Valley.
Future Waste Generation—
At this stage, a preliminary estimate of future changes in hazardous
waste generation can be made (this estimate may require modification after
the approaches to hazardous waste management have been selected). Heavy
metals wastes are expected to increase from 2,578 m3 to about 3,600 m3 per
year, partly because of increasingly stringent sewer regulations. (Estimate
95
-------
by L.W. .Rass, Denver Research Institute, Denver, Colorado, based on analysis
of effluent data and chemicals used by the waste generating firms.) Other-
wise, substantial increases do not seem particularly likely. The largest
generator of hazardous wastes" in Oregon, the primary aluminum industry, is
unlikely to expand its activities in the region because its economics are
being unfavorably affected by the loss of low-cost power. Oregon generally
tends to attract clean industries that generate comparatively small
quantities of hazardous wastes (e.g., electronics). In cases where new
plants have replaced older ones, waste generation has frequently been
reduced. The finding that for several industrial sectors, hazardous waste
generation in Oregon appeared to have decreased between studies in 1972/73
(State of Oregon, 1974) and 1975 (Stradley, Dawson, and Cone, 1975) tends to
support the view that waste generation is unlikely to exhibit substantial
growth in the future.
This conclusion is reinforced by examining the national projections of
hazardous waste generation for the 14 major industrial groups shown in Table
3, only three of which are projected to have aggregate increases in hazardous
waste generation that exceed 100 percent between 1974 and 1983. The three
industrial groups with large increases are battery manufacture (2,000 percent
increase in hazardous wastes), textile dyeing and finishing (373 percent
increase) and waste oil re-refining (253 percent increase). Increases in
hazardous wastes from the battery industry appear to stem from ennanced water
pollution controls. (Note that the consultants' figures on hazardous waste
generation from battery manufacture [McCandless et al., 1975] and textile
dyeing and finishing [Abrams, Guinan, and Derkics, 1976] are higher than
those of EPA used in Table 3 [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b],
possibly because the Agency may have reelassifled some waste streams as
nonhazardous.) For Oregon an increase in hazardous waste from the battery
industry has been incorporated in the estimate of increased heavy metals
wastes. (This estimate assumes that there is no major change in the struc-
ture of the industry.) In the case of firms involved in textile dyeing and
finishing, the Battalia data show only very small quantities of potentially
hazardous wastes being generated, so a significant increase (in absolute
terms) in the wastes from this Oregon industry seems unlikely. For waste oil
re-refining, the increase is expected to stem largely from increased produc-
tion, with newer plants replacing many of the old ones (Swain, 1976).
Oregon's oil re-refiner produces comparatively small quantities of hazardous
wastes, and so speculation as to the future of this industry in Oregon would
not be very important.
On the other hand, the Oregon DEQ took a subset of the industry cate-
gories investigated in 1972 and reevaluated their waste generation in 1978.
For these industries, wastes that might be hazardous increased 105 percent,
from approximately 11,300 to 23,200 m3. (Telephone interview, F. Bromfeld,
Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon, April 17, 1979.) These data may be misleading,
however. At the time of the first OEQ survey (and also the Battelle survey),
there was no chemical landfill in Oregon, and only pesticide wastes were
required by law to be disposed of (in Oregon) in a secure disposal site.
Out-of-state disposal alternatives were unattractive (see Stradley, Dawson,
and Cone, 1975) and hence the generators had an incentive to minimize the
quantities of wastes actually generated,, or at least the quantities to which
96
-------
they admitted. In contrast, there is an incentive to the* generators to
overstate the quantities on the DEQ permit applications, since they would
need to reapply if the quantity was found to have been significantly under-
stated. This effect may have carried over to the DEQ survey in 1978, giving
rise to the apoarent increase. A second factor that may have resulted in
increased quantity estimates is the more extensive use of offsite disposal
(e.g., sending a waste to Arlington, as opposed to storing or disposing of it
onsite). Where disposal took place on a firm's premises, the firm may not
have been particularly well aware of the quantities of wastes actually
generated, whereas when a waste is shipped offsite, the firm would become
much more conscious of the quantities involved.
Control of Hazardous Wastes in Oregon
Oregon first enacted a statute to control hazardous wastes-in 1971 (ORS
459.410 through 459.690). The effect of the statute was to designate waste
pesticides and pesticide manufacturing residues as "environmentally hazardous
wastes," and to make provision for industrial process wastes to be classified
as hazardous by the Environmental Quality Commission after notice and public
hearings (ORS 459.410). In 1977, PCB's were also designated as hazardous,
but no other process wastes were classified as hazardous under this scheme
until 1979. Oregon law prohibits the disposal of a hazardous waste within
the State, except at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site (ORS 459.510).
The Arlington chemical landfill is the only licensed site in Oregon, and as
already mentioned, it is believed to receive virtually all of Oregon's
hazardous wastes that are sent for secure disposal. Very small quantities of
Oregon wastes are disposed of in Wes Con's facility in Idaho, and Arlington
receives substantial quantities of wastes from Washington and occasional
wastes from British Columbia. (Personal interview, F. Bromfeld, Oregon DEQ,
Portland, Oregon, March 9, 1977.) Officials have no knowledge of any regular
hazardous waste movements between Oregon and California (Personal communica-
tion, 0. Storm, California Department of Health, Berkeley, California,
September 19, 1977), and because of the location of the Oregon hazardous
waste generators there is no reason to expect Oregon wastes to be disposed of
in Nevada.
Under the pre-1979 rules, all wastes not designated or officially clas-
sified as hazardous were controlled by indirect methods. Industrial wastes
are not officially allowed to be disposed of in sanitary landfills, without
DEQ permission. The DEQ normally refused permission to dispose of heavy
metals and highly oily wastes in sanitary landfills. However, some.marginal
industrial wastes from the greater Portland area were'Channeled to the city's
St. Johns landfill adjacent to the Columbia Slough in Portland. (Personal
interview, C. Gray, Oregon OEQ, Portland, Oregon, March 11, 1977.) Some
industrial wastes originating outside the Portland area went to other public
landfills. (Personal interview, W. Dana, Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon,
April 17, 1977.) It was generally felt that industry had cooperated well by,
for example, storing materials while awaiting a suitable method of resource
recovery, treatment, or disposal, and by sending some wastes that were not
really hazardous to the Arlington secure disposal facility.
97
-------
Policy Objectives
The Oregon DEQ has established objectives (State of Oregon, Department
of Environmental Quality, 1978) for its solid waste program (which includes
hazardous waste management), as follows:
1. To minimize the generation of and maximize recovery of
resources from solid waste;
2. To provide for environmentally acceptable collection,
transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid wasta;
3. To develop positive public attitudes, awareness, and actions
that maximize citizen involvement in solid waste management;
4. To develop and implement a continuing process for solid waste
management planning;
5. To maximize the effectiveness of agency resources to
accomplish solid waste management programs;
6. To achieve a reasonable balance between environment, energy,
natural resources, and economic considerations.
These general objectives are supplemented by specific goals, such as one for
1979, which was to increase the annual amount of industrial hazaraous waste
recycled or recovered by 100 percent over that of 1977. None of the specific
goals addresses objective 6, which calls for the most difficult decisions
from the planning viewpoint.
APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Development of Alternative Approaches for Hazardous Waste Management
Before discussing possible approaches to hazardous waste management in
Oregon, a major caveat is necessary. The discussion of hazaraous waste
management alternatives in this chapter must not be taken to imply that the
alternatives would be legal under either Oregon law or the provisions of the
RCRA (PL 94-580). The analysis is presented both to illustrate the metho-
dology .and to demonstrate what might be involved if different approaches were
employed. Discussion of an approach does not constitute an endorsement of
that approach—as already stressed, this is the prerogative of the appro-
priate decisi comakers. Furthermore, a far more detailed analysis than that
presented here would be necessary to develop a complete hazardous waste
management policy for Oregon. "
Figure 9 provides an overview of four possible approaches to hazardous
waste management in Oregon and links these approaches to the waste management
techniques that may be involved. The four approaches are arranged, from top
to bottom, in increasing comprehensiveness and complexity of regulation.
Depending on precisely how the approaches are specified, this could also
correspond to an increasing degree of risk aversion on a decisionmaker1s
part, or to increasing anticipated environmental quality.
98
-------
APPROACHES
TECHNIQUES
MARKET FORCES
STATUS QUO
REGULATION BY
'PATHWAYS'
REGULATION BY
INDUSTRY (S.I.C.)
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT *
OCEAN
DUMPING
DEEP WELL
INJECTION
LAND
DISPOSAL
ADDITIONAL
RESOURCE RECOVERY
WASTE STREAM
CHANGES
* Treatment Includes Incineration.
i
Figure 9. Approaches for hazardous waste management in Oregon.
-------
The market-forces approach would essentially allow waste generators to
decide what to do with their wastes. This would open up the possibilities of
ocean dumping and deep well injection and might cause changes in *asta
streams and resource recovery (the latter relationships are shown dashed in
Figure 9).
The status-quo approach, i.e., continuation of the pre-1979 accrcac.' ts
hazardous waste management: in Oregon, is used as a base case. The emonasis
in-the status-quo approach is on responsible land disposal.
The status-quo describes the situation in Oregon in 1977, and uses
1975-77 data. At that time, hazardous waste management in Oregon was in
transition from a form of market-forces approach toward regulation by path-
ways. When the May 1979 rules are'fully implemented, Oregon will be js^'ng a
regulation-bypathways approach, but this approach will not be identical to
the regulation-by-pathways approach considered in this study.
The approach of regulation-by-pathways is intended to correspond to the
approach that EPA is adopting under tne RCRA. The concept is to control
rigorously the paths that the wastes can take, but not to mandate any soecial
forms of treatment technology, etc. The general effect of this accroach
would be to enhance the security of land disposal with respect to tne status-
quo. Economic forces could tend to cause changes in wasta straams and
increase resource recovery.
If wastes were subject to regulation-by-industry (SIC), it could involve
specifying the control or treatment technology, and/or the means of disaosal
for each industrial category. This approach could be arranged to give a
higher or lower expected level of environmental quality than regulation-oy-
pathways, depending on the levels of treatment required and the wastes
encompassed. However, as will be shown, it is the most complex in terms of
the degree of regulation.
In the analysis that follows (i.e. , Steps 2 through 8 in the Application
.Of the Analytical Framework phase of the methodology outlined in Section
5--see Table 8), the market-forces and the regulation-by-pathways aporoaches
will be discussed together and compared with the status-quo approach. The
regulation-by-industry (SIC) approach is quite different and will be treated
separately following the other cases.
Allocation of Wastes to Techniques
Status-Quo Approach—
Although Table 12 provides one set of data-on hazardous waste generation
in Oregon, as already indicated there are other conflicting data on
quantities and disposal methods. In addition, even under the status-quo
approach, future waste streams will differ, because of increasing stringency
of sewer and NPDES discharge regulations, opening of new firms and closing of
old ones, and process changes. For these reasons, projected data on the
status-quo approach, given in Table 14, will be used for the evaluation.
These data in part reflect the larger quantities (compared to the Battelle
data) permitted for disposal at Arlington. However, allowance has been made
100
-------
TABLE 14. PROJECTED DATA ON FUTURE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
IN OREGON UNDER THE STATUS-QUO APPROACH*
Cubic Meters Per Year
Disposition
Onsite landfill
Ons ite lagoon
Local landfill
Secure disposal!
Resource recovery
Total
Heavy
Pesticides metals
1,800
500
200
600 1,000
- 600
1,100 3,600
Solvents
and oils
-
•
100
300
700
. ; 1,100
Phenols
300
200
1
1,500
700
2,000
Other
chemicals
2,300
200
100
1,500
5.600
9,700
Total
4,400
900
400
4,900
6.900
17,500
•
* Source: Author's estimates, based on all available data. Data are applicable to the eary 1980's,
see text. (Note that criteria for designating waste as hazardous are not the same as those that
would be applied under 1979 Oregon law.)
t At Arlington waste disposal site.
-------
for overstatement of quantities on the permit applications, and it has also
been assumed that some of these materials would not qualify as hazardous
under the Battelle hazardous waste decision model and should therefore be
excluded. The data reflect the author's views on the likely disposition of
the anticipated increase in heavy metals wastes, and they allow for the
planned elimination of the large quantity of fluoride-bearing sludge that is
presently lagooned. In addition, the data have been simplified by disregard-
ing minor combinations of waste type and disposition. Since potentially
hazardous waste volumes are expected to remain more or less static once the
effect of more stringent sewer (and NPOES) regulations have taken effect, no
specific year has been associated with Table 14. The data should oe most
realistic in the early 1980's.
The simplification of data required to project Table 14 should not oe
regarded as a drastic step. Policy development and analysis shoula not be
allowed to be unduly sensitive to basic assumptions, unless these are excep-
tionally well established. Hence it is perfectly appropriate to won* with
approximate or simplified data and to test the sensitivity of policy
implications to these data assumptions.
Market-Forces Approach--
It will be assumed that pesticide wastes continue to be cijposed of at a
chemical landfill, except for some very dilute wastes (wash waters) that are
lagooned. Battelle only identified one waste stream of significant size in
this category. The waste is so dilute that it is not considered to con-
stitute a significant hazard, and for this reason the Oregon OEQ has not
required that it be sent to Arlington. (Telephone interview, E. Chiong,
Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon, June 5, 1979.) (For pesticide wastes this
represents no change from the status-quo approach.)
Possibilities for ocean disposal — In terms of cost, barge disposal might
be an attractive proposition for high-volume wastes from the greater Portland
area or along the Columbia River. Mixing of lower volume wastes from
different sources to provide full loads could be dangerous ana has not been
considered. The smallest sized barge used for bulk ocean dumping has a
capacity of about 900 tonnes (Smith and Brown, 1971). There appear to be no
more than four nonsolid hazardous waste streams that exceed this quantity in
a year and although they all originate from the greater Portland area, the
total annual volume (3,800 m3 or approximately 4,800 tonnes) would almost
undoubtedly be too small (even if a few other waste generators joined in) to
support the operation of a specially constructed disposal barge during even a
part of the year. Furthermore, three of these wastes are comparatively dense
sludges that could make disposal from tank barges difficult if not impos-
sible. It would probably be some 200 km to the nearest feasible dumping
ground in the Pacific Ocean, which would likely place the cost at the high
end of the usual range (see Table C-l). Under the status-quo, most of the
3,800 m3 of waste is being disposed of at low cost to the generator (by
resource recovery, and in one case by neutralization with a waste stream from
a nearby firm), and hence even in the absence of restrictions on ocean
dumping, this solution would have very limited appeal to firms in Oregon.
102
-------
• The only other high-volume wastes are solid (spent potliners) and have
good resource recovery potential. The high cost of ocean disposal for solid
materials would render this option uneconomic for these wastes.
Possibilities for deep well injection—Since deep wells are compara-
tivelycapitalintensive,they are only suitable for high-volume liquid
wastes. For the United States, the average volume of industrial waste
injected per well is in excess of 200,000 m3 per year (Reeder et al., 1977).
Wells that take less than 10,000 m3 per year are uncommon (Donaldson, 1972).
However, the entire volume of hazardous waste generated in Oregon is only
17,500 m3 per year (Table 14), and most of it is solid or sludges. The
largest single liquid waste stream that is a potential candidate for deep
well injection is only about 500 m3 per year.
In the Willamette Valley there are permeable beds containing saline*
water which are separated by generally low-permeability marine deposits from
the alluvial aquifers that are used extensively for potable'water throughout
the valley. Any waste injection well in the Willamette Valley Would nedd to
be a minimum of 600 m deep, depending on location. (Personal interview, W.
Bartholomew, Oregon Water Resources Department, Salem, Oregon, October 7,
1977.) Naturally, the costs would depend on the location -and waste type
(which affect pretreatment and construction materials). However, -the 1977
capital cost of an 800-m deep, .low-injection-volume well would probably be at
least $170,000. Thus if amortized at 10 percent per year, the capital.-charge-
would be at least $17,000 per' year. In addition, operating costs would be
about $2,000 per year, for a total of at-least $19,000 per year. This figure
would barely change if the waste quantity were increased from 500 m3 per year
to 5,000 m3 per year. (Based on data from L. Reeder, Louis R. Reeder and
Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, August 24, 1979.)
Five hundred m3 of waste could be trucked from the Willamette Valley and
disposed of.at Arlington for about $20,000 per year. • (The typical gate fee
at Arlington is $22 to $27 per tonne, depending on'-the "waste. [Personal
interview, P. Wicks, .Chem Nuclear .Systems, Incv,' 'Portland, 'Oregon.;
March 9, 1977.] The charge fo'r transporting* a hazardous waste to Arlington
in a ful'ly loaded truck costs about $16 per tonne from.Portland, more from
Willamette Valley. [Personal interview, B. Larsen, Widing Transportation,
Inc., Portland, Oregon, April 28, 1977.] The cost estimate is based on a
specific gravity of 1.0 for an injectable waste.) Disposal at Arlington is.
one of the lowest risk and highest cost disposal alternatives.. Less costly
disposal methods might be feasible for many of the wastes, but in any event
deep well injection appears unattractive, since its cost .is similar to that
of disposal at Arlington.
The potential for deep well injection of waste streams from new firms or
processes is less clear. Faced with a high-volume waste, there might be the
alternative of treating the waste and discharging it to a sewer or surface
waters, or using deep well injection. An example of this type was analyzed
in Section 6, and for the hypothetical data used, there was a clear genera-
tor's cost advantage to deep well -injection. There are presently no deep
•103
-------
waste disposal wells in Oregon. The practice is against State policy and it
would be opposed by the Oregon Water Resources Department, although it nas
not been totally outlawed. (Personal interview, W. Bartholomew, Oregon Water
Resources Department, Salem, Oregon, October 7, 1977.) It does not appear
that any firm has seriously pursued the possibility, although at least one
has considered it. Hence deep well injection from new processes would need
to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Possibilities for land disposal--Land disposal is already extensively
used in the status-quo approach, and the main possibility under a market-
forces approach would be the use of less costly land disposal. The principal
option would be to use local sanitary landfills instead of the Arlington
disposal facility.
Since under the market-forces approach, disposal costs may be decraasea
with respect to the status-quo approach, the question of increased waste
generation arises. Data on the price elasticity of demand for waste disposal
services are, not surprisingly, rare, and it would require an analysis of
each significant individual firm's operations to make any useful predictions.
However, it can be expected that even in the long-run, demand would be com-
paratively inelastic. Data on reduction of BOD in response to sewer cnarges
suggest a price elasticity of less than unity (Elliott and Sjagraves, 1972;
also see Elliott, 1973; Seagraves, 1973) and it is comparatively easy to
reduce BOD loadings in effluents. By contrast, changes in tne .nagnituae of
some waste streams could be very difficult to effect, and as alreacy noted,
the cost of waste disposal is frequently a small proportion of product value,
which tends to lead to inelastic demand. Since data on increased waste
generation are not available, this aspect has been neglected.
Resource recovery—The potential for less costly land disposal than in
the status-quo approach could reduce resource recovery. However, the largest
waste stream going for resource recovery is spent potliners from an aluminum
manufacturer, and it is to the company's advantage to practice cryolite
recovery on this material, even if the disposal cost were zero. Another
significant waste stream, lead metal and oxide wastes (largely from the
battery manufacturing industry), falls into a similar position, as is the
case with solvents that are reclaimed and a calcium hydroxide sludge that is
used by another industry. Examination of the Battelle data suggested that
the only likely significant change would be land disposal of a phenol-
contaminated calcium carbonate sludge that was sent out of State for lime
recovery. It was found that this change had already occurred, as the sludge
was being shipped to Arlington.
Regulation-by-Pathways Approach—
The basis or the regulation-by-pathways approach is to require all
hazardous wastes actually needing disposal to be disposed of in an environ-
mentally secure manner broadly consistent with the provisions of the RCRA.
The only feasible option available for waste disposal (as opposed to treat-
ment or resource recovery) is secure land disposal (incineration is
considered to be a treatment process) .
104
-------
Land disposal--Three variations of the regulation-by-pathways approach
will be considered. In Scheme I, all hazardous wastes requiring disposal
would go to the Arlington facility. In Scheme II, generators would be
allowed to construct secure landfills (and lagoons) for disposal of their own
wastes. Scheme III includes a public chemical landfill in the Willamette
Valley, as well as private secure landfills. There are no abandoned mines
suitable for mine disposal in Oregon, so this possibility was not considered.
The feasibility of the various options is strongly influenced by the
Oregon climate. Most of the Willamette Valley receives an average o'r about
100 cm of precipitation per year, largely during the winter (Sternes, 1967).
Although there is a deficit in the summer, potential evapotranspiration is
less than this (Oregon State University, 1963). Data on open pan evaporation
in Oregon are sparse, but those that are available (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 1976; Sternes, "1967) suggest that an evaporation
lagoon could not reliably be used in the-Wi11araette Valley.•-Hence if lagoons
are lined with an impervious barrier to protect the groundwater, they will
not constitute a form of disposal—only short term storage.' In contrast,
Arlington averages 23 on of annual precipitation (Sternes, 1967), far less
than potential evapotranspiration or open pan evaporation. Since it is not
possible to get much closer to the Willamette Valley without leaving Oregon's
dry zone, there seems little alternative to disposal of dilute aqueous wastes
from the Valley at Arlington.
If pesticide wastes, solvents and oils, and wastes that are subject to
resource recovery are excluded, sludges and solid wastes from the Willamette
Valley total some 6,000 m3 per year. Under Scheme III, the latter could be
disposed of in a chemical landfill within the Valley. To provide adequate
safeguards against water contamination, any such landfill would need to be
lined and to have a leachate collection system. Residues from leachate
treatment might have to be sent to Arlington.
The waste generators in southwest Oregon would probably have to send
their wastes to the Willamette Valley chemical landfill proposed above or to
Arlington. Waste generators in eastern Oregon would probably use Arlington,
but the cost of this would probably cause the aluminum producer in Wasco
County (the only large-volume waste generator in eastern .Oregon) either to
subject its spent potliners to resource recovery, or (under Schemes II and
III) to find a local disposal site that could meet the requirements for water
protection. (The existing storage/disposal.. site is very close to 'the
Columbia River, and would be difficult to upgrade adequately.) This firm
already has plans to eliminate its flouride-bearing sludge by a change in
scrubber technology.
Under Scheme II, it appears unlikely that any other firm would construct
its own secure disposal facility. Not only are there no really large waste
streams requiring disposal (the largest is 1,200 m3 per year), but in
addition, all the candidate waste streams originate from wet areas. This
would preclude local disposal of liquids and would make construction of
secure landfills for solids and sludges a costly project.
105
-------
Waste stream changes, additional treatment and resource recovery-
The increased costs of disposal under the regulation-by-pathways approach
would prSbably cause some process changes (to reduce waste) and Increased
resource recovery. However, the extent of this is difficult to predict.
Some wastes might be capable of treatment to render them nonhazaraous. For
example, phenols are a significant regional waste. The Battelle data
indicate that there are eight producers of potentially hazardous phenolic
wastes, and permit data show that seven firms regularly expect to ship
phenolic wastes to Arlington. (Only three of these firms are coincident with
the Battelle list, suggesting that there may be quite a large number of
generators of phenolic wastes.) Though there are few options for handling
concentrated phenolic wastes except land disposal, biological treatment is
feasible at comparatively low cost when the concentration of phenol is low
(Rosfjord, Trattner, and Cheremisinoff, 1976). The Battalle and Arlington
permit data do not indicate that there are any regular high-volume, low-
concentration phenolic waste streams, but if there are, there might be
possibilities for treatment of such wastes in conjunction with hardboard and
particle board plants (especially in southwest Oregon, where these industries
are concentrated).
Another possibility would be to incinerate certain wastes (e.g.,
solvents, oily wastes and other combustible materials, and also some wastes
that are hazardous because of molecular structure as opposed to the presence
of hazardous elements). This category could encompass pesticice wastes
presently sent to Arlington, and it could include PCB's (at higher cost) if
the incinerator had appropriate characteristics. Table 14 shows that there
is only a minor quantity (400 m3 per year) of solvents and oils that are not
already subject to resource recovery, and even the total volume of pesticide
wastes (which largely originate in the Willamette Valley) is comparatively
small (1,100 m3 per year) in relation to common incinerator capacities (see
Powers, 1976). Few other wastes would be appropriate for incineration.
Costs for incineration vary extremely widely, depending on the waste stream
quantities and characteristics. For example, Scurlock et al. (1975) quote
$0.25 to $65 per m3 for liquid injection incineration and S22 to S44 per
tonne for fluidized bed incineration of sludges. Although not specifically
stated, these data tend to assume that the waste stream has a significant
calorific value. Hence the dilute aqueous pesticide wastes would be at the
top end of the cost range. The upper end of this range is comparable to the
cost of transporting a waste from the Willamette Valley and disposing of it
at Arlington (approximately $48 per tonne, or $48 to S76 per m3).
Thus largely because of the small volume of appropriate waste, incinera-
tion would not appear to be an economically attractive proposition in Oregon.
This tentative finding is confirmed by a report that Chem Nuclear Systems,
Inc., performed a more detailed investigation and concluded that installation
of an appropriate incinerator would not be profitable in the Pacific North-
west at that time. (Telephone interview, F. Bromfeld, Oregon DEQ, Portland,
Oregon, April 17, 1979.)
106
-------
Development of Threat1 Scenarios
To proceed with the application of the analytical framework, threat
scenarios are needed for all treatment, transport, and disposal tecnm'cues
that might vary from one approach to another. Although there may be some
variation in the threats associated with onsite waste treatment (as opposed
to disposal), lack of data precludes analysis of this possibility. However,
disregarding treatment threats, it is still appropriate to develop scenarios
for threats under the status-quo approach since some of these threats may be
eliminated or reduced with alternative approaches to hazardous waste manage-
ment.
Table 15 identifies some of the most important threats associated with
the various techniques that may be used under the three approacnes to hazard-
ous waste management being considered. (Refer to Figure 9 for the approach-.
technique relationships.).. The threats specifically -associated with deep well
injection, ocean dumping and 'incineration (Threats H., I, and 1)-are not o-f
immediate interest because the techniques with which they are associated are
unlikely to be used under any approach. Table 16 provides more details of
the relevant threats. Tnese are -.till, however, only threat descriptions:
quantitative data for a given threat generally depends on the approach, since
quantities of wastes, disposal locations, etc., will vary with the approach.
Within the constraints of.this .research, it was not feasible to develop fully
all the possible threat scenarios. However, at the end of this section, some
have been developed in sufficient detail to illustrate possible method-
ologies, and limited details on others are included.
It is worth examining the status-quo to see if any threats appear to
have materialized. No reliable data could be obtained on industrial
accidents involving hazardous wastes in Oregon, and no serious adverse
effects on water quality from land disposal have been detected. There have,
however, been a number of fish kills arising from various causes. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife is aware of seven pollution-caused incidents
in 1975, and 19 in 1976. Total numbers of fish killed are unknown, but they
were in excess of 12,000 in 1975 and were probably of the order of 54,000 in
1976. (Data supplied by G. MacLeod, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Portland, Oregon, October 5, 1977.) Most of these kills-were caused acciden-
tally and probably did not involve hazardous wastes (as opposed to hazardous
materials). There was one apparent case of illicit hazardous waste dumping.
These data suggest that few threats - involving hazardous wastes actually
materialize under the status-quo-approach.- -
Now that the wastes have been allocated to disposal -techniques and the
threat scenarios have been developed, the key implications of each approach
are summarized in Table 17 to assist the reader in following the subsequent
discussion.
Determination of Economic and Social Effects
The most significant economic and social effects are the control costs,
and the effects of the threats arising from different disposal methods.
107
-------
TABLE 15. THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH THREE APPROACHES TO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Approach and technique
Threat
Comments
o
00
All approaches
Status-quo
Local landfill ing and
lagooning (not secure)
Secure land disposal
(at Arlington)
Resource recovery
Market-forces
Threats A through G plus:
Deep well injection
Ocean dumping
Regulation-by-pathways
Threats A,B,D,E,F,G plus:
Secure local landfill ing
and lagooning
Waste stream changes
Incineration
A. Transport accidents
B. Illicit dumping
C. Leaching
D. Overflow
E. Odor
F. Washout
G. Not identified
H. Water resource
contamination
Changes in resource recovery would
probably change in-plant accidents
Technique unlikely to be used
I. Reduction of ocean- Technique unlikely to be used
related recreation
and industries
J. Liner failure
K. Not identified
L. Air polluLion
Would probably affect in-plcint
accidents
lochniquo unlikely to be used
-------
TABLE 16. DESCRIPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL THREATS
Threat description
Applicability
Comments
A. Transport accidents
Mechanism: Accidents to truck
involving loss of cargo.
Outcomes: Cleanup requirements,
possible damage to life
and health.
B. Illicit dumping
Mechanism: Dumping on land or to
surface waters.
Outcomes: Destruction of vegeta-
tion, poisoning of livestock,
and possibly man (via crops?).
Aesthetic damages.
All approaches
All approaches
Virtually all Oregon hazardous waste is
transported by truck. Very little is
flammable/explosive. Event probability
is proportional to distance (see
Table B-l).
The incentive for illicit dumping is
least under the market-forces approach,
and greatest under the more costly reg-.
t.l at ion-by-pathways approach. However,
opportunities should be diminished
under regulation-by-pathways.
C. Leaching from local'landfills and Status-quo approach Th'is threat.is difficult to quantify
lagoons
Mechanism: Leaching from unlined
landfills and lagoons.
Outcomes: Surface and groundwater
contamination leading to fish
kills, unsafe drinking water,
and aesthetic damages.
D. Overflow from lagoons '] '
Mechanism: Exceptional precipita-
tion or flood causes lagoon to
overflow.
Outcomes: Damage to adjacent
crops, structures, etc. Cleanup
costs.
Market-forces
approach
because the large numbers of sites
involved, each with different wastes
and hydrologic conditions.
All approaches
(but few lagoons
under regulation-
by-pat hways ,
since only E.
Oregon is
suitable)
This threat is difficult to quantify
because of the variety of climatic and
hydrologic conditions, as well as the
variety of wastes that might be
involved
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Threat description
Applicability
Comments
E. Odor from lagoons and landfills
Mechanism: Perceptible odor from
lagoon or open landfill operation.
Outcomes: Aesthetic degradation,
possible reduction in property
values.
F. Washout of Arlington secure land
disposal site
Mechanism: Exceptional precipita-
tion causes washout or excessive
leaching of trench and lagoon
contents at Arlington waste dis-
posal site.
Outcomes: Contamination of some
local rangeland and possibly a
few wells.
J. Liner failure at secure local
landfill
Mechanism: Liner at local landfill
in wet region of state fails, and
leachate is not contained.
Outcomes: Local waste contamination
leading to fish kills and unsafe
drinking water.
All approaches
Problem largely arises with organic
wastes (e.g., pesticides).
All approaches
Location of site makes washout very
unlikely. Leaching problems are
even less probable.
Regulation-by- Extent of threat is less than that of
pathways approach C, as failure should be detected by
(Scheme III only) monitoring wells before much damage
is done.
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF APPROACHES
Approach
Waste dispositions
Principal threats
Status-quo
Market-forces
Regu1a ti on-by-pathways:
Scheme I
Scheme II
Scheme III
L-and disposal
Greater use of local
landfills than under
status-quo
All wastes to Arlington
secure disposal site
Wastes to Arlington,
or generator's
secure landfill
Same as Scheme II,
but western Oregon
• solids and sludges
sent to chemical
landfill in-the'
Willamette Valley
Leaching from local land-
fills and overflow from
lagoons leading to fish
kills, etc.
As above, but more severe
Washout of disposal site
(unl'ikely)
As above . .
Same as above, plus
Willamette Valley
chemical landfill liner
failure, leading to
limited fish kills, etc.'
Since (with the minor exception of transport accidents) expected values of
damages from threats will not.be used, the threats will be considered later
with regard to their impacts on the parties-at-interest. Control costs are
discussed below.
Generators' Costs-- " • • ...
It is not possible to determine accurately the costs of hazardous waste
disposal under the status-quo approach, as onsite disposal costs are unknown.
In many cases, these are likely to be minimal, and a cost of $1 per m3 has
arbitrarily been assumed for all onsite disposal. Another problem arises
with the transport cost and value of materials being sent for resource
recovery. However, since this is not expected to change significantly, these
costs have not been evaluated. If the cost of local landfill disposal, is $13
per m3 and the cost..of .disposal at Arlington is $53-per m3, then the annual
generators' cost for the status-quo approach would be $270,200. Details.of
the calculations are provided -in Table 18, which compares the five schemes
and approaches.
Under the market-forces approach, the annual cost would drop to 598,200.
This assumes that only pesticide wastes continue to be sent to Arlington for
111
-------
TABLE 18. GENERATOR'S COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES'
Disposition
Approach
Market- forces
Quantity m3
Annual cost $
Onsite
disposal
5,300h
5,300°
Local
landfill
4,700
61,100C
Secure
disposal
at Arlington
600.
31,300°
Total
10,500
93.200
Status-quo
Quantity m3
Annual cost $
5,300b
5,300°
400r
5,200C
4,900.
259,700°
::,5co
270.200
Regulation-by-
pathways
Scheme I
Quant i-ty-m3
Annual cost $
Scheme II
Quantity m3
Annual cost $
Secure land-
fill in the
Willamette
Valley
Local secure
landfill
(spent
potliners)
0
0
2,300f
34,500r
Secure disposal
at Arlinctin
10,600.
536,500t
8,300.
439,900°
13,600
525,500
10,500
47d.400
Scheme III
Quantity m3
Annual cost $
6,000n
150.0009
2,300f
34,500r
2,300,
121,900a
10,600
205. -100
Srecon
1 Quantities fro* Table 14. data excludt wastes snipped for resource recovery
Assuring II per »J Insufficient data were available for an accurate estimate
Based on S5 per in3 gate fee. plus S8 per n3 for transport in average of SO vn. assuming a iptcif'c anv'.t 3f 1 '
Sources Derived from .1975 average U S sanitary landfilling cost of $3 59 oer tonne (Booz-Al'en arc Hum tan. 1975)
Transport tariff data supplied Dy B Larsen, Widinj Transportation. Inc , Portland, Oregon. April 23, 1977
Based on J30 per it3 gate fee plus J23 per m3 for transport an average of 300 lot, assuring a 5oecif'C
of 1.2 Sources, Disposal fee from personal interview, P Wicks, Chen Nuclear SyUtM. Inc . »ort!and.
March 9. 1977 Transport tariff data as In c
* Based on 8.300 m3 at $53 per of (as in d), plus 2,300 m3 of spent not liner waste at S30 per ir1 gate fee olus J12
for transport 80 km, assuming a specific gravity of 1.5 Sources As in d
SIS per m3 used for illustration Insufficient data were available to estimate this cost
' Based on $13 per «J disposal fee and S12 per m3 for transport an average distance of 120 km, assuming 3 specific
gravity of 1.2 Sources Transport tariff data as in c Disposal cost based on the cost of two Hectare 'anafill
of this type constructed in Cowhu County, Washington, for use with snredded winicipal refuse Conditions it this
site should be similar to those in the Portland area The 1976 capital cost was J6 36 per m3 of capacity (Teltpnone
interview, M Kennedy. CH,M Hill. Portland. Oregon. October 19. 1977) The average 1975 landfill ooerating cost
of S3 15 per r1 (Booz-Allen and Hamilton, 1976) has been suostantially increased to cover additional costs or Handling
hazardous wastes and leachate treatment
112
-------
disposal and that all other chemically landfilled wastes are sent tc local
landfills.
I.f,,.under Scheme I of the regulation-by-pathways approach, all wastes
that are not resource-recovered go to Arlington, then the annual generators'
cost would rise to $536,500. This figure is based on 8,300 m3 of wastes at
$53, and 2,300 m3 of spent potliner waste at $42 per m3. However, this cast
for spent potliner disposal would almost undoubtedly prompt the company
concerned to negotiate a special contract for disposal at Arlington, or,
under Scheme II or III, to either find a local site that could satisfy the
various safeguards, or recycle the material. If secure local disposal could
be accomplished for $15 per m3, then the generators' cost would be recuced to
$474,400 for Scheme II of the regulation-by-pathways approach.
Recycling of the spent potliner waste, might occur under any of the
regulation-by-pathways schemes. In the past, part of this waste was recycled
at another aluminum producer's facility in Washington. However, this
producer is no longer able to take the waste for recycling, and under status-
quo conditions, the company has not found it economic to construct its own
recycling facility. The possibility of building a regional 'Dotliner
recycling and cryolite recovery plant to service several aluminum companies
has been discussed, but the anti-trust regulations are considered to be a
possible barrier to this action.
Under Scheme III of 'the regulation-by-pathways approach, there is the
option of disposing of'G.'OOO m3 per year of sludges and solid wastes from the
Willamette Valley in.a. landfill with a-liner and leachate'collection system
located somewhere in the Valley. If disposal cost is $25 per m3, including
leachate treatment, then the generators' costs would be reduced by a further
$168,000 to $306,400 per year.
Administrative Costs—
Under the status-quo approach, the Oregon DEQ employed two professionals
specifically to deal with hazardous waste issues. Allowing for support
services and overheads, this cost can be taken as $100,000 per year. Under
the market-forces approach, it might be claimed that no administrative costs
would be involved, but the DEQ would probably retain one professional as an
adviser ($50,000 per year). Since the regulation-by-pathways approach is
broadly equivalent to operation under RCRA conditions, the same projected
staffing, i.e., the equivalent of seven full-time professionals at a cost of
approximately $300,000 per year can be assumed. (Telephone interview,
F. Bromfeld, Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon, June 12, 1979.)
These are only the more obvious administrative costs; many other oersons
(such as Department of Fish and Wildlife employees) might have minor involve-
ment with hazardous wastes, but this cost cannot realistically be evaluated
and is probably subject to very little variation between the different-
approaches.
Social Control Costs--
No social control costs have been identified. Although the fees at
certain landfills may not reflect full cost, the use of an average rate
113
-------
avoids this issue. There is also the possibility that the Chem Nuclear fees
could ref-lect monopoly power. However, these fees are somewhat constrained
by competition with other treatment, resource recovery, and disposal alterna-
tives (such as the Wes Con disposal facility in Idaho). In view of the
extensive front-end costs associated with establishment of the Arlington
site, the present fees do not appear to be unreasonably high. Indeed, one of
the Oregon DEQ's concerns has been that if the volume of wastes shipped to
Arlington fell off too much after the initial backlog of stored wastes had
been accepted, Chem Nuclear might not find it economic to continue to operate
the disposal site. (Personal interview, F. Bromfeld, Oregon OEQ, Portland,
Oregon, March 9, 1977.) This would be a real possibility under the market-
forces approach, and ideally the costs of secure disposal should be adjusted
to reflect economies of scale.
Other Effects--
Under the three approaches considered, no significant change in resource
recovery is anticipated unless cryolite is recovered from the spent pot-
liners. (Such recovery would be particularly desirable, as the United States
currently imports 82 percent of its fluorine needs [U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1979].) Because of varying truck haulage
distances, there are very minor differences in energy consumption among the
approaches. All approaches will require about the same area of land for
disposal, but the opportunity cost of using this land is higher for the
approaches that stress disposal in the fertile and partly urbanized
Willamette Valley, as opposed to use of rangeland at Arlington or other arid
locations.
Determination of Impacts and Responses of Parties-at-interest
Although the impacts on the parties-at-interest and their responses are
conceptually separate, in practice they may often conveniently be considered
together. Determination of the impact involves analyzing how the party-at-
interest would be affected by a waste management technique or approach,
whereas the party-at-interest1s response relates to any action taken as a
result of the impact. However, at the broad level of analysis employed here,
these two steps have been merged into one that emphasizes the likely
attitudes of each party-at-interest. This approach is useful in a planning
or policy study, since it provides an indication of where opposition or
support for specific plans is likely to be encountered.
Since all approaches emphasize land disposal, and several possible
techniques (ocean dumping, deep well injection, and incineration) are
unlikely to be used, it is appropriate in this case to consider the reactions
of the parties-at-interest to different approaches (philosophies or
strategies) as opposed to different techniques (specific technical waste
management methods). In Table 19, the author's judgment of the impacts of
each approach on the major parties-at-interest has been shown using a seven
point (-3 through +3) scale. A weighting factor (1 through 5) for the
significance of the parties-at-interest is also included, so that it is
possible to compare scores for each approach. Since approaches (not tech-
niques) are being compared, it was considered inappropriate to include the
environmental management agency (i.e., the Oregon DEQ). In many respects the
114
-------
TABLE 19. IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
APPROACHES ON THE PARTIES-AT-INTEREST
u
o
u
re
Li-
ra
c
*J
^
O)
41
* Party- at- interest
3 Major generators of hazardous
wastes
2 Minor generators of hazardous
wastes
1 Competing firms (different •
process)
1 Waste transport sector
1 Firms generating wastes
deemed to be nonhazardous
2 Operators of sanitary land-
fills
3 Residents/land owners adjacent
to sanitary landfills
2 Operator(s) of secure -disposal
facilities .....
2 Residents/land owners adjacent
to Willamette Valley chemica-1.
landfill
1 Resource recovery interests
2 Water supply officials
2 Anglers
2 Environmentalists
5 General public
Composite score
Waste management approach
U)
>— >> c;
>— i >—i '— *J
01
0)
u
o
<*-
1
o>
.*
• u'
re
' 2
2
-1
-1
1
2
-2
-3
. *
-2
-3
-2
-3
. -1
-22
o
a-
i
in
3
f»
re
«/>
I
0
0
0
0
0
-1
1
*
-i
-i
-i
-2
0
-7
o
^
U U)
C
in ui o
>» re 4-*
re 3 a
£ »™~ •F*'
4-) r™ i™~
re. re u
-3
-3
1
••
2
2
-1
0 •
3
-
'*
2
3
2
3
1
17
CJ (A
£ O
j= re
U UI U>
to ai o
i t-> a.
u> 01 en
^i (9 'H '
re 3 T3
2
JT r- a
rtj (O O
A. v^ N
-^
-3
1
1 '
2
-1
•
• c
2
,.
»
1
2
2
2
1
15
si
-H .J C
1-1 ai re
HI S •—
re
a> r- i—
f^™ (O
— 0
«• jB -r—
U S
<*o o) w
l = -C
U) •!— U
3*1 ^
re s >»
S •—
-:1
-1
1
1
2
-1
0 .
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
6
Not applicable
115
-------
impact on the agency would be some composite of the impacts on the other
parties-at-interest, since the agency must respond to all the parties-at-
interest.
Waste generators would favor the market-forces approach as it provides
them with the greatest flexibility and minimizes their costs. Conversely.
they will dislike the three regulation-by-pathways approaches because of the
higher costs involved. Firms generating large quantities of wastes (in this
case, an aluminum producer was the only firm specifically identified) will
find a pathways approach that permits them to establish their own chemical
landfills (Scheme II) more attractive than one that does not (Scneme I),
whereas smaller generators will be unaffected by this variation. The effect
on competing firms is weak, but an interesting situation arises *ith fims
whose wastes are deemed not to be hazardous under the pathways aporoacr.es.
Instead of being in an ill-defined situation under the status-quo acoroacn,
they will be relieved by an official decision on tne status of their wastes.
While sanitary landfill operators would in many cases prefer to receive
more wastes under the market-forces approach, local residents may feel
threatened by these industrial wastes. Conversely, under the ?atnways
approaches, the landfill operators will receive less waste, b-ju the residents
will feel more comfortable. The reaction of the chemical landfill
operator(s) will depend on the quantities of wastes anticipated.
Despite the prediction that in general there will be Tittle change in
resource recovery among approaches, the resource recovery industry will favor
the more strict approaches, since the potential for resource recovery will be
increased. Water supply officials, environmentalists, and anglers will
distrust the market-forces approach because of its threats to water quality
and will prefer the pathways approaches, which reduce these threats.
The general public has been included as a party-at-interest. The impact
on the public is only weak, but concerned and informed citizens can be
expected to prefer the more environmentally secure approaches, especially as
the resulting higher costs to generators appear unlikely to have a signifi-
cant negative impact on local economies.
Although potentially useful, the development of a composite score, as
illustrated in Table 19, is highly subjective, especially when it comes to
assigning weights to the parties-at-interest. This will be discussed later.
Several possible parties-at-interest have been omitted from Table 19,
either on the grounds that impacts on them hardly change between approaches,
or that they are too weak to justify inclusion. For example, residents/land
owners adjacent to the Arlington disposal site have not been included because
the nearest dwelling is 2 km from the disposal area and because any changes
in the quantities of wastes received will have little impact on the owners of
the rangeland adjoining the site.
116
-------
Prediction of Outcomes
Waste Dispositions—
In this case study, the prediction of waste dispositions is very simple,
and was largely determined when wastes were allocated to techniques.
Under the market-forces approach, most nonpesticide wastes would be
landfilled onsite or sent to local landfills, although a few generators would
probably still prefer to send wastes to the Arlington disposal site for
reasons of environmental consciousness. (Additional costs arising from this
possibility have not been included in the evaluation of the market-forces
approach.) The latter might include generators of only small Quantities of
wastes to whom the extra cost was not significant, and major firms that had a
high public profile. Firms that were particularly anxious to disoose of
responsibility for a waste might be more inclined to use public landfills
(possibly through waste hauler services) rather than onsite disposal. How-
ever, the concept that a waste generator can rid itself of responsibility for
a waste by simply paying another organization to take it away is now being
challenged (Taubman, 1979). Use of disposal techniques such as ocean dumping
and deep well injection appear unlikely, though the latter might be attrac-
tive to some new plants. There might be some reduction in resource recovery
where high shipping costs (e.g., to Seattle, Washington) are involved.
Under the regulation-by-pathways schemes, all wastes deemed to be
hazardous would be required to be disposed of in chemical landfills or the
Arlington facility. This approach would undoubtedly prompt the aluminum
producer that is not practicing resource recovery on spent potliners to
reexamine the economics of this, and it could encourage other firms to modify
their waste streams and increase resource recovery. The extent of increased
recovery cannot be predicted. If a chemical landfill for solid wastes and
sludges was established in the Willamette Valley, it would divert most of
these wastes from Arlington, other than those generated in eastern Oregon.
The only significant solid/sludge waste in eastern Oregon is the spent pot-
liners discussed above. If this waste was not subjected to resource
recovery, the firm would probably examine the feasibility of establishing a
local landfill that complied with the chemical landfill regulations under
Scheme II.
Because of higher disposal costs, an increased level of illicit dumping
would be expected under the regulation-by-pathways schemes than under the
status-quo approach. However, the registration of generators and the use of
a manifest system should reduce the opportunities for illicit dumping. Under
the market-forces approach, dumping might decrease from the existing low
level.
Opposition to Approaches--
Si nee there appear to be few hazardous waste-related problems under the
status-quo approach (such as threats materializing), it seems unlikely that a
change in approach would produce very strong reactions, except from any
organization very adversely affected. A change to the market-forces approach
could be put into effect by an administrative decision to allow local
landfills (primarily in the Willamette Valley) to accept more industrial
117
-------
wastes, and this change of policy could be implemented in stages providing an
opportunity to gauge public and interest group reactions.
Those most likely to be concerned about the adverse effects that could
arise from the market-forces approach would be the water supply officials,
anglers, and environmentalists; but residents adjacent to landfills and even
the general public could become concerned if the change in approach received
"scare" publicity. Though the water supply officials would probably indicate
their concern by administrative actions, the other parties-at-interest might
mount organized public protests. Although adversely affected, it is unlikely
that waste haulers and the resource recovery industry would voice opposition
to the market-forces approach, but the impact on the Arlington waste disposal
operation would be so strong that the operator would doubtless lobby against
the approach. While waste generators would prefer the market-forces
approach, they are more likely'to address the disposal of specific wastas of
interest on a case-by-case basis than to come out strongly in favor of the
approach per se.
By contrast, the main opposition to the regulation-by-pathways approach
would come from the generators of hazardous wastes, who would object to the
increased costs involved. The weight of these objections would be -educed as
requirements were made less costly (e.g., Scheme III as oppr-bed to Scneme I).
While virtually all the other parties-at-interest will favor the pathways
schemes over the status-quo approach, only environmentalists are likely fo
voice their views publicly. There would probably be opposition to a
Willamette Valley chemical landfill (Scheme III) from local residents/
property owners, and less support from many of the parties-at-interest for
this scheme than for Schemes I or II.
Enumeration of Costs and Impacts
The final step in applying the analytical framework is to collect and
summarize the data already generated. In some cases, it would be appropriate
to prepare a synopsis for each approach and then to compare approaches—the
first step of the decisionmaking phase of the methodology. In this case
study, however, these two steps have been combined to produce Table 20.
As soon as the comparison is attempted, a difficulty arises with the
threat scenarios. Unlike the case presented in Section 6, where each tech-
nique has its own scenario, most of the threat scenarios apply to all five
.schemes or approaches. Clearly, the intensity of the threat (in terms of the
magnitude of the effect or the probability of occurrence) varies between
approaches. But except for transport accidents, the descriptions and
quantification of the threats presented at the end of this section are not
sufficiently detailed to be able to differentiate between approaches.
Fortunately, it is comparatively easy to rank the intensity of a given threat
as a function of the approach, and this ranking has been included in Table
20. This ranking is possible because threat intensity generally increases
with quantities of waste. Ranking the different threats as they apply to a
given approach might also be a useful adjunct to decisionmaking, but it has
not been attempted, as (in the absence of detailed data and the use of
118
-------
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF FIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Control Costs (dollars per year):
Generators' costs3
Administrative costs
Total Control Costs
Threat Scenarios:
A. • Transport accidents
B.. Illicit dumping
C. Leaching from local land-
fills and lagoons
0. Lagoon overflow
E. Odor problems
F. Arlington site washout
J. Liner failure at Willamette
Valley chemical landfill
Other Effects:
Transportation distance
(thousands of km)
Ranking in terms of incentive
for resource recovery
Parti es-at- i nterest
composite impact score
Market-forces
"
$ 98,200
50,000
$ 148,200 ;
5
5
1
1
1 .
5
•
*
40
5
-22
Status-Quo
$ 270,200
100,000
• $ 370,200
4
4
2
2
2
4
"B
*
120
4
;
-7
Approach
Regulation by pathways
Scheme III
$ 306,400
300,000
$ 606,400
3
3
*
3
3
3
1
116
3
6
Scheme II
$ 474,400 $
300.000
$ 774,400 $
2
1
A
3
4
2
*
203
2
15
Scheme I
536,500
300,000
836,500
1
1
*
3
4
1
*
214
1
17
* Not applicable. '
Cv/»l nHi nn malAkvi&lc caitt* ff\v+ v*aes\nv»r*a v*e*f*f\\m**\t / I a L' <*n ac im i 4 nr»ni si** v*/\c c ^iM\v*nu/*hac ^
L. LAI. i uu i »iy ma ic i i a i 3 3d* y |ui P6SOUrC6 TCCOVery \ laitcu a a un i i ui in o
Ranked by significance across approaches; 1 = most significant, 5
-------
expected values) It would Involve subjective valuations because of trie
differing natures of the threats.
Section 5 suggests that some iteration may be desirable to optimiza tna
results within an approach. For example, under Scheme III of the regula^ion-
by-pathways approach, the possibility of using more than one cr.enical
landfill in the Willamette Valley could be examined; under the market-forces
approach different wastes and alternative dump sites might be considered *or
ocean dumping. However, the data presented in Table 20 and the precading
sections do reflect some informal iteration during data development, and
further iterations are not justified for this case study.
Regulation by Industry (SIC)
It would be conceptually possible to devise an approach to wasta raanage-
ment in Oregon that would establish separate regulations for eacn inc'jstry
(SIC classification) producing hazardous wastes. This could be a similar
approach to that used for controlling discharges to water under tha raderal
Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), in which the technology to be used
for effluent treatment is specified for each industrial sector. Hov/evar,
even at the national level, this has proved to be an immensely complex jncer-
"taking, and at tne State level, it would involve administrative costs that
would almost certainly be out of proportion to the benefits gained cy tra
added sophistication of the approach (compared with regulation-Dy-paf.way:
for example)'.
One attraction of a regulation-by-industry (SIC) approach lias in the
possibility of specifying a treatment technology or disposal method that is
matched to the characteristics of the waste stream, ideally reaching an
optimum trade-off between cost and risk (an optimum trade-off could only be
determined if a degree of risk aversion was specified). However, the dis-
advantage of the approach is the number of industrial categories that would
need to be considered. As Table 13 shows, 39 4-digit SIC categories were
identified by Battelle as including hazardous waste generators. However,
Battelle identified only 96 hazardous waste generating firms from a total of
337 listed in the Directory of Oregon Manufacturers (State of Oregon,
Department of Economic Development, 19/6).In addition to the SIC's listed
in Table 13, other SIC's undoubtedly generate hazardous wastes. For example,
many engineering firms have electroplating operations that produce heavy
metals wastes, and hence a wide variety of other SIC's could be involved.
One method of solving the .SIC problem would be to mandate treatment or
disposal methods for wastes from specified processes as opposed to SIC's.
However, even if this were done, the sheer number of processes to be dealt
with would make this a major undertaking if the approach were to encompass
all hazardous wastes. Some check would need to be made on virtually every
manufacturing firm (the Directory of Oregon Manufacturers lists approximately
4,600 establishments) and a number of utilities, service companies, and
government agencies as well. Furthermore, this approach would only deal
effectively with wastes that were generated on a regular basis, primarily
process wastes. As noted in Section 3, some hazardous wastes arise from
accidents, cleanup operations, off-specification products, and discarded
120
-------
laboratory chemicals. None of these fit well into an approach'that involves
control on the basis of the processes used. Thus without formal analysis, it
appears that an attempt to regulate all hazardous wastes on an industry-by-
industry basis at the State level would not be feasible (let alone cost-
effective) in view of the immense administrative effort that would be
involved.
Another variation of this general approach would be to regulate only
selected industries. Two regional industries are obvious candidates—the
primary aluminum industry, and the timber products industries that produce
phenolic wastes. Two waste streams from the aluminum industry (spent pot-
liners and a calcium fluoride sludge) account for 58 percent of the total
hazardous waste in Table 12. The phenolic wastes are significant because
they are a major category of waste in the Pacific Northwest, but they are
uncommon in other parts of the United States, with the result that they have
received little attention in waste management research. (All generators of
phenolic wastes identified in Table 12 are resin and glue manufacturers, but
it is known that other timber products industries, such as plywood manufac-
turers, also produce phenolic wastes. One hazardous waste practices study
[Gruber and Ghassemi, 1975] deals with some of the SIC's included in Table
13, but does not discuss phenolic waste streams to any significant extent.)
If either the primary aluminum industry or the timber products
industries were regulated by mandating treatment or disposal technology, the
question of equity would arise: Is it fair"that there should be special
regulations for certain industries, .while others are only subject to some
more general-regulations? In practice, .the ability to specially r&gulate
these industries could be exercised under the status-quo approach by
officially designating the aluminum industry wastes and phenols as hazardous
wastes. This would have the effect of requiring the wastes to be sent to a
licensed secure disposal site if they were disposed of in Oregon. There is,
however, an important distinction between these two alternatives. W:th the
regulation-by-industry approach, the waste generator might have littla or no
latitude in deciding what to do with his waste (e.g., if a specific treatment
technology was required), whereas under the status-quo approach, the waste
generator would only have to use a specified technology if he wished to
dispose of the waste. Based on the above discussion, no version of the
reguTation-by-industry approach appears to be attractive for the situation in
Oregon, and the approach has therefore been discarded.
DECISIONMAKING •
Array Alternatives and Eliminate Approaches Dominated by'Others'
In this case study, none of the six schemes or •approaches is dominated
by any other (see Section 5), and hence none can be eliminated in this way.
But the regulation-by-industry approach is too cumbersome (or too inequitable
if only a few industries are regulated) to be used in Oregon. This reduces
the approaches under active consideration to those listed in Table 20.
121
-------
Comparison of Results of Approaches With Policy Objectives
None of the approaches is clearly in conflict with the Oregon DEQ's
policy objectives (see Policy Objectives earlier in this section), since
these are largely framed in nonspecific terms. However, the objective of
achieving a reasonable balance between environment, energy, natural resources
and economic considerations clearly requires a subjective decision, wnich
could vary considerably between individual decisionmakers.
The OEQ objectives consider energy use. Since incineration is not
involved under any of the approaches, the main variation in energy use will
be in transportation. It is estimated that (disregarding the wastes sent for
resource recovery) the market-forces approach would consume 22 m3 of diesel
fuel per year, compared to 116 m3 »under the regulation-by-pathways (Scheme I)
approach. (Based on an average fuel consumption of 0.54 liters per kilometer
for heavy trucks without return loads [telephone interview, L. Fisnback,
Widing Transportation, Inc., Portland, Oregon, June 22, 1979].) The dif-
ference between these two extreme energy consumptions would, if produced as
heating oil, heat approximately 32 typical single family Oregon homes (based
on data from J. Fand, Oregon Department of Energy, Salem, Oregon,
August 23, 1979). Of course the cost of the fuel has been induced in the
generators' costs.
Examination of Trade-offs Between Known Costs and Threats
It is important to recognize that any comparisons involving threats must
be subjective since different individuals (both decisionmakers and parties-
at-interest) are liable to perceive and compare threats in different ways.
Therefore, each decisionmaker must draw his own conclusions from the trade-
off analysis, and may disagree with the discussion that follows.
In general, the intensities of Threats A, B, and E (transport accidents,
illicit dumping, and odor) appear to be minor compared to C or J (landfill
leaching and landfill liner failure). The intensity of Threat D (overflow
from lagoons) is probably more site-specific than any other, and will depend
on the location and construction of the lagoons. But in general this threat
appears to be less significant than C (leaching) with which it is usually
associated. By using these assumptions to reduce the number of threats
considered, a series of comparisons among the various approaches can now be
made.
Market-forces versus Status-quo—
Changing from the status-quo to the market-forces approach reduces
control costs by $222,000 per year (see Table 20). The major offsetting
damage potential is the increased risk of water pollution from landfill
leachate (Threat C) and to a lesser extent from lagoon overflow (Threat 0).
As shown at the end of this section the value of fishing at risk is about
$9.8 million per year. To convert this to a single sum, assume that the
problem arises after ten years and persists for five years. The present
value of the economic loss would be $14.32 million after discounting at 10
percent per year. This may be compared with a known saving of $1.36 million,
i.e., the present value of $222,000 discounted at 10 percent for the ten
years before the problem developed.
122
-------
One problem with this comparison is that Threat C, water pollution from
leachate, could arise under the status-quo approach. However, it is clearly
a far less intense threat as few industrial wastes reach nonsecure landfills.
This could be handled by assigning a threat intensity under the status-quo
of, say, 10 percent of the value under the market-forces approach, and treat-
ing this as reducing the net present value of the damage potential from
$14.32 to $12.89 million.
Since more wastes are sent to Arlington under the status-quo than under
the market-forces approach, the consequences of Threat F (site washout.) could
be more severe under the latter approach. However, it is considered that
this threat is unimportant by comparison to that of leaching from nonsecure
landfills, and can be disregarded. Hence the main elements in the comparison
are a threat involving an economic loss of S12.9 million, compared to a
saving of at least $1.36 million if the market-forces approach is preferred
to the status-quo. A choice between these two approaches will be dependent
on a decisionmaker's perception of Threat C, and his desire for risk
aversion.
Regulation-by-pathways Scheme I versus Scheme II--
Under Schemes I and II of the regulation-by-pathways approach the
threats from leaching and lagoon overflow (Threats C and D) should be
eliminated. Although Scheme I provides slightly more control, Scheme II
reduces generators' costs by $62,100 per year (see Table 20) and is more
equitable since the generators are given some latitude over the disposal of
their wastes. Even though it appears that only one generator is 'ikely to
exercise the option to develop his own secure disposal site, the existence of
this choice should make the approach appear more reasonable to many parties
who might be concerned about the monopoly power that a sole disposal site
could exercise. The threats from these two schemes appear to be quite minor.
Both washout of the Arlington disposal facility (Threat F) and transport
accidents involving cargo loss (Threat A) are expected to occur less than
once every 100 years, and would probably cause comparatively minor damage.
The probability and effects of leaching or washout of a disposal site for
spent potliners (under Scheme II) would depend on the site, but assessment of
the risk is simplified by the fact that only two hazardous components,
cyanide and fluorine, should be present. Hence Scheme II is preferred to
Scheme I of the regulation-by-pathways approach.
Regulation-by-Pathways Scheme II versus Status-quo—
Adoption of Scheme II of the regulation-by-pathways approach instead of
the status-quo approach would increase control costs by $404,200 per year
(see Table 20). Of this, $200,000 is increased administrative costs which
include the operation of a manifest system; hence illicit dumping should not
increase. Offsetting the increased control costs is the virtual elimination
of Threats C and 0 (leaching and lagoon overflow). However, under the
status-quo approach, these threats are already quite minor (and do not appear
to have materialized to date). For example, if as in the previous section,
only 10 percent of the full impact of Threat C is considered to apply to the
status-quo approach, then the present value of this threat only amounts to
$1.43 million, based on the same assumptions about timing. In contrast, the
present value of the increase in the control costs is $2.48 million, so if a
123
-------
declslonmaker were to accept these dollar values and timing assumptions, he
should logically prefer the status-quo approach j_f these were the only
factors that he considered. Risk aversion is not a factor because the
reduction.in control costs is greater than the damage cost should the threat
materialize—and in practice it may not materialize. Of course, a decision-
maker might wish to make a more comprehensive analysis and take other factors
into account.
Regulation-by-pathways Scheme III versus Scheme II—
Scheme III of the regulation-by-pathways approach was developed partly
because it was evident that Schemes I and II would be substantially more
costly than the status-quo approach, and that they might not offer commensu-
rate environmental advantages. The major threat from Scheme III is a liner
failure at the secure landfill in the Willamette Valley (Threat J). It is
shown (at the end of this chapter) that should this occur, the cost of
countermeasures is expected be about $200,000, plus a small threat (taken as
$100,000 per year) to local fishing. In addition, illicit dumping might be
reduced in comparison to Schemes I or II. (While a manifest system should
virtually eliminate illicit dumping of regularly generated waste streams,
wastes that do not occur on a regular basis are still liable to be dumped.)
Making the same timing assumptions about threat materialization as above, the
present value of the reduction in control costs between Scheme II and Scheme
III of the regulation-by-pathways approach is SI.03 million whereas the
present value of threat materialization would be only $0.22 million. Changes
in other threats between these two alternatives should be minor, so again vf
these data were considered accurate, and no other factors were taken into
account, a logical decisionmaker should prefer Scheme III to Scheme II (or
Scheme I) of the regulation-by-pathways approach.
Regulation-by-pathways Scheme III versus Status-quo—
Under Scheme III of the regulation-by-pathways approach, annual control
costs are $236,200 greater than under the status-quo approach (see Table 20),
but of this difference, $200,000 is increased administrative cost. If all
threats other than D and J (landfill leaching and secure landfill liner
failure) are disregarded as minor, then using the data already developed,
adoption of Scheme III of the regulation-by-pathways approach instead of the
status-quo approach would raise the present value of ten years' control costs
by $1.45 million, against a reduced present value of threat materialization
of $1.21 million. Although on the basis of these data alone a logical
•decisionmaker. should prefer the status-quo to Scheme III of the regulation-
by-pathways approach, the numbers are sufficiently close to warrant further
investigation. This is particularly important because two quite different
approaches are being compared, as opposed to divisions of a single approach
(e.g., Scheme II vs. Scheme III of regulation-by-pathways). . With a compar-
ison of schemes, many of the factors involved may remain constant or similar
(e.g., the nature of a threat remains the same but its intensity changes).
This implies that these comparisons should be subject to less uncertainty
than those associated with two fundamentally different approaches.
In the above comparison of the status-quo and Scheme III of regulation-
by-pathways approaches, in addition to the uncertainty surrounding the threat
124
-------
scenarios, several factors were not considered. A major one is that the
benefits of spending an additional 5200,000 per year of administrative ccsts
(which will support a manifest system and enhanced waste classification work)
are only indirectly incorporated into the foregoing analysis. If part of
this additional cost were disregarded in the analysis (on the basis that it
provided separate benefits), Scheme III of the regulation-by-pathways
approach might be preferable to the status-quo approach. Hence a broader
analysis that considers additional factors is needed to choose between these
two approaches.
Selection of an Approach
Based on the foregoing discussion, the critical decision in this case
study appears to lie in choosing between the status-quo approach and Scheme
III of the regulation-by-pathways approach. However, others might disagree
with this. For example, an environmentalist might argue that damage to
wildlife and aesthetic losses arising from water quality degradation would be
beyond valuation, and that such threats should be minimized regardless of
cost. This would lead him to favor Scheme I of the regulation-by-pathways
approach, or some more stringent approach. In contrast, an industrialist
might favor the market-forces approach, but the version of this approach used
here is unlikely to attract much additional support. One way to take account
of these differing viewpoints is to examine the composite impact score from
the parties-at-interest analysis in Table 18. As already notad, such an
analysis is highly subjective, but subjective elements are unavoidable at
this stage in applying the methodology. Table 18 shows that the approaches
that result in a greater anticipated level of environmental protection score
higher on the parties-at-interest impact analysis, because most parties-at-
interest favor such schemes. (Note that the absolute score is not
particularly important--it is relative scores that provide insight.) Scheme
III of the regulation-by-pathways approach scores 6, compared to -7 for the
status-quo approach. (However, Scheme II of the regulation-by-pathways
approach scores 15, which might justify its further examination, even though
Scheme III appeared to be clearly preferable when relative control costs and
threats were compared.) The decisionmaker can gauge the significance of
these differences by comparing them to the entire range of scores, i.e., -22
through 17.
Table 21 provides a summary of key aspects of the two approaches being
compared. The present values of 30 years' control costs have been included
as representing the costs involved over the entire project life (i.e., 30
years has been taken as planning horizon). If the threats did not material-
ize until the end of that period their present values would be about 15
percent of the values shown in Table 21. If the recommendation that threat
values should not be discounted beyond one generation is adopted, these
values would also represent the minumum present values that should be
assigned to threat materialization. Use of the 30-year data instead of the
10-year data minimizes the weight given to the threat scenarios.
How the decisionmaker weighs the many factors involved in choosing
between these alternatives is (in absence of any specific agency policy
guidance) up to him, and the decision should be tested to see how sensitive
125
-------
TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF TWO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Item
Approach
Status-quo
Regulation-by-pathways Scheme III
NJ
en
tontroi^Costs:
Generators' annual costs
Annual administrative costs
Total
Present value of total control
costs over 10 years discounted
at 10% per year
Present value of total control
costs over 30 years discounted
at 10% per year
Threat Scenarios
Major threat scenario:
At risk
Dollar estimate
Additional risks
$ 270,200
100.000
$ 370,200
$ 2,274,700
$ 3,489,800
Leaching from local land-
fills and lagoons
Partial loss of fishing
valued in total at $9.8
million per year
Aesthetic damages
10% loss of fishing
($980,000 per year)
from years 11 through 15
Present value=$l,432,100
Contaminant concentrations
might locally become high
enough to render v^ll water
unsafe. It threat occurs,
cost of providing alterna-
tive water supply would
be involved
$ 306,400
300.000
$ 606,400
$ 3,726,100
$ 5,716,500
Liner failure at secure land-
fill in Willamette Valley
Minor loss of fishing valued
in total at $9.8 million
per year
Aesthetic damages
Counterpuming cost of
$200,000 in year 11
Fishing loss of $100,000 in
years 11 through 15
Present value=$223,200
Contaminant concentrations
might locally become high
enough to render welI water
unsafe. Less likely than
under status-quo approach
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 21. (Continued)
Item
Approach
Status-quo
Regulation-by-pathways Scheme III
Other threat scenarios:
A. Transport accidents
B. Illicit dumping
C. Leaching from land-
fills, etc.
0. Lagoon overflow
E. Odor problems
F. Arlington site washout
Other Effects
M . Resource recovery
Energy use: diesel fuel
consumption in transportation
Composite score for impact on
parties-at-interest
Very minor threat
No significant difference
anticipated
See above
Judged a minor threat com-
pared to threat C
Can be controlled to be
a minor threat
Very minor threat
Little difference in
incentive
65 m3
-7
Very minor threat
No significant difference
anticipated
Judged a very minor threat
Judged a very minor threat
Can be controlled to be
a minor threat
Very minor threat
Little difference in
incentive
63 m3
6
. Excluding wastes shipped for resource recovery.
Incentive is reduced for Willamette Valley solids and sludges and increased for other wastes.
Range for five approaches evaluated -22 to +17.
-------
it is to the various assumptions, particularly those like the threat
scenarios that are somewhat arbitrary or based on inadequate data. However,
it is hoped that use of this methodology will assist a decisionmaker to ma KG
better decisions. In this particular case, it has demonstrated that the use
of a secure landfill in the Willamette Valley should be worth further
detailed examination. Under the RCRA only regulation-by-pathways approaches
would be permissible, but Scheme III should be feasible and could prove
attractive in comparison to Schemes I or II.
APPENDIX: DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN THREAT SCENARIOS
Scenario A - Transport Accidents
As far as is known, no hazardous waste is transported in Oregon by rail
or barge. Table B-l quotes a national accident rate of 17 events per billion
kilometers for tank trucks involving cargo loss. There is no reason to
assume that this rate is not characteristic of carriers in Oregon, and it
will be assumed that it also applies to trucks carrying solid wastes (usually
in the form of 208-liter [55-gallon] drums).
Though all accidents involve costs (which should be covered by insurance
and thus reflected in the haulage rates), only where there .s a soil] are
costs imposed that specifically relate to hazardous wastes. If it is assumed
that the average load is 25 m3, in the worst case situation (in which all the
10,600 m3 of nonresource-recovered wastes included in Table 14 are assumed to
be trucked an average of 300 km) the accident frequency will be 2.2 x 10"3
events per year. Since the variation among approaches would be less than
this, and since in many cases the damage would be largely restricted to
cleanup costs for toxic materials (only $25,000 per accident even at $1,000
per m3 of cargo), transport accidents can be largely ignored in the analysis.
Scenario C - Leaching from Local Landfills and Lagoons
The worst leaching would occur under the market-forces approach, as
(apart from pesticides) local disposal in unlined landfills is expected to
increase. The most potent contaminants to be found in the non-pesticide
wastes are probably heavy metals. Other wastes that might go to these land-
fills contain biodegradable materials (e.g., phenols), materials that are
hazardous by virtue of their pH, and solvents and oils that present a fire
and explosion threat.
All known firms with wastes that contain heavy metals are in the
Willamette Valley. From the Battelle data, it is estimated that the 1,956 m3
of these wastes shown in Table 12 that are not subject to resource recovery
contribute approximately 135 tonnes of heavy metal ions. If allowance is
made for increasing effluent standards, this is expected to rise to 150
tonnes, considering only those firms for which effluent data were available.
When allowance is made for waste streams for which there were insufficient
data, the total quantity of heavy metal ions is expected to be about 205
tonnes. The approximate proportions (percent by weight) of the various metal
ions (excluding wastes subjected to resource recovery) is as follows:
128
-------
Chromium 42.3%
Copper 28.6
Zinc.
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Others (includes barium, silver, gold).
Total
22.8
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.3
ISO*
This estimate is based on the Battelle data, assuming that the ion content in
the wastes for which insufficient data were available is the same as in the
known waste streams.
The mean annual discharge of the Willamette River at its mouth at Port-
land has been estimated to oe 1,077 nrVs, and the corresponding flow at Salem
is 752 mVs. The mean annual flow of the Columbia River at Portland has been
estimated to be about 6,958 mVs (Orem, 1968). If 205 tonnes per year of
metal ions, composed as shown above, were leached into the Willamette or
Columbia Rivers in the vicinity of Portland, the expected average concentra-
tions of metal ions are shown in Table 22. This table also includes the
quality standards for the river waters and for potable water supply.
TABLE 22. THEORETICAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF IONS FROM HEAVY
METALS WASTES AT PORTLAND. AND RELEVANT STANDARDS (ppj)
Calculated concentrations
from heavy metals wastes
Drinking
Oregon
water quality water quality
Ion
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Cadmi urn
Lead
Others
Total
standard3
50
1,000
5,000
d
10
50
-
•
standard
50
5
100
d
10
50
-
555 •
Willamette
River
2.55
1.73
1.38
0.21
0.09
0.06
0. 02"
OS
Columbia
River
0.39
0.27
0.22
0.03
0.01
0.01
e
57^3
Standard for domestic water supplies (Source: U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1976d).
Standards for Multnomah Channel (Columbia River) and Main Stem Willamette
River (OAR 41-045).
Based on 205 tonnes of heavy metal ions distributed as given in the text.
River flow data are also given in the text.
Not quoted.
<0.01 ppb.
129
-------
Even for the Willamette River, the concentrations are at least an order of
magnitude below the quality standards established for potable water, so this
risk has not been analyzed. The possibility of higher concentrations affect-
ing water supplies should be borne in mind when considering this threat.
The effects that the metals might have on fish and other aquatic life
vary widely with circumstances and species.* Salmonids--the fish of pre-
eminent concern in Oregon—are among the most sensitive, although bioac-
cumulation is not a problem as it is with shellfish. The concentration at
which the presence of metal ions affects fish depends on the water's hardness
and alkalinity. The effects depend on the type of ion (e.g., hexavalent
versus trivalent chromium) and on the conjunctive presence of ions. For
example, cadmium and copper, and zinc and copper have more severe affects in
conjunction than individually. The effects of concern are not restricted to
the levels for acute or chronic mortality. Fish may sense lower concantra-
tions and avoid the area. This may preclude anadromous fish (such as many
species of salmonids) from returning to their spawning grounds—thereby
decimating the fishery.
For chromium, fish mortality effects may occur at 20 ppb, but they do
not usually become apparent until higher concentrations. Some research with
very high concentrations (5,000 ppb) has not resulted ir nortality.
Hexavalent chromium is generally more toxic than the trivalent form, and
invertebrates are frequently more sensitive than vertebrates. With cooper,
sublethal effects are observed at 5 ppb, and fish mortality may occur at 10
to 20 ppb. Mortality for zinc is not observed below 100 ppb; and for nickel,
chronic effects (via eggs) occur at 700 ppb. Cadmium can be lethal to fish
at as low as 1 ppb, but this rises to 9 ppb in hard water. Fish mortality
occurs at 300 to 600 ppb for lead.
If these lethal concentrations are compared with those given in Table 22
for the Willamette River, it will be seen that the metals that are most
likely to cause problems are chromium and copper. Although they are close
with respect to copper, the concentrations do not exceed the Oregon water
quality standards for that location. (These standards are presumably
intended to protect both aquatic and human life.) However, it must be remem-
bered that the concentrations given in Table 22 are additional to preexisting
levels.
Evaluating the actual risk is difficult. In practice, most of the
metals enter the landfill in a relatively insoluble form (e.g., hydroxide
sludges), but they could be released, depending on pH. If they are released,
concentrations could be attenuated by ion-exchange with the intervening
soils. On the other hand, Elzy et al. (1974) (also see Elzy and Linostrom,
* This section is based on personal discussions with H. Lorz, Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife, and G. Chapman, EPA, at the EPA Western Fish
Toxicology Station, Corvallis, Oregon on October 4, 1977. The discussion
was specific to the conditions and species of relevance to Oregon. (Also
see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976d; Van Hook, 1978; National
Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, 1972.)
130
-------
1976) have modelled the release of leachates from landfills, using a case
study, of a landfill on Brown's IsVa'nd adjacent to the Willamette River near
Salem, Oregon. They showed that the release of elements would occur in
pulses, which could reach quite high concentrations. The pulses relate to
precipitation and water table height at the landfill. Unfortunately it is
not feasible to simply extrapolate Elzy et al.'s results to simulate concen-
trations at Portland, as behavior is nonlinear except at low concentrations.
However, the complete computer model could be rerun to provide a ;nore
accurate prediction of the concentrations that might occur in Oregon's rivers
if various wastes were deposited in specified landfills. (Personal inter-
view, T. Lindstrom, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon,
October 3, 1977.) It must also be remembered that flow rates in the rivers
vary considerably throughout the year and from year to year.
Without far more extensive analysis, it is difficult to determine
whether or not the concentrations of heavy metals that, might leech from.
landfills in the Willamette Valley could affect aquatic life in the
Willamette River. It certainly appears-'possible that concentrations :oulB-be •
high enough to affect parts of the river system. Concentrations in the
Columbia should be lower, and the Oregon DEQ's practice of directing marginal
wastes to the St. Johns landfill (which must leach into the Columoia River)
rather than to other landfills further, up the Willamette Valley appears to
be wise. The city of Portland has tested the water near to the St. Johns
landfill, but.apart from chlorides and iron, could not detect any elevated
levels of contaminants such as heavy metals. (Personal interview,. ..H,..
Edwards, L. Brownson and D. Steiner, Office of'the City Engineer, Portland,
Oregon, April 27, 1977.) It would also be., useful to compare the likely
increases in heavy metals concentrations in the Willamette and Columbia
Rivers with existing levels. .This step was not taken, because although there
are numerous water quality data for these rivers, these particular parameters
are not yet regularly monitored (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974c;
State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, 1976a, 1976b). Most
data that do exist on heavy metals in these rivers relate to those in the
bottom sediments, as opposed to dissolved heavy metals that would affect
fish. (Telephone interview, S. McKenzie, U.S. Geological. Survey, Portland,
Oregon, August 23, 1979. However, se'e J. Rinella and.S. McKenzia, 1977.)
By determining the value of fishing on the Willamette River system, one
could obtain an indication of the cost of the potential threat from waste
disposal. In one way, this estimate might overstate the damage, as some
anglers would move to other rivers. However, there would also be aesthetic
damages and. secondary effects such as reductions in the populations of
raptors that are dependent on the fish. Given sufficient resources, it might
be possible to come up with dollar estimates for most of these effacts. But
for the present purpose, it is probably satisfactory to concentrate on the
direct effect on the fishery. . • • • .
Good data are available on the numbers of anadromous fish that "run" the
Columbia, Willamette, and other Oregon' rivers, and estimates far fishing
effort are available. In 1977, it was estimated that anglers spent 246,148
angler-days fishing for salmon and steelhead on the Willamette River system.
Most of this fishing was by boat on the lower portion of the river in the
131'
-------
greater Portland area. (Telephone interview, D. Swartz, Oregon Oeoartment of
Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, May 8, 1979. Data largely based on
Lowry, 1978.) An angler-day of this type of fishing is valued at 330.30
(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1977) for a total annual value of
$7.6 million. It can be assumed that all this fishing is at risk, because
the salmonids would be deterred from returning to any part of the Vn'llamette
to spawn. In addition to salmon and steel head fishing, anotnar 921,197
angler-days are expended on other types of fish, predominantly trout.
Although some of these fish are anadromous, for simplicity it will be assumed
that all are resident and that a landfill would only threaten the lower
Willamette (below Oregon City). In this event, only 216,280 angler-days
worth $2.2 million would be at risk, for a total of $9.8 million, (""he 32.2
million is based on $10.60 for resident trout and $8.82 for most other game
fish [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1977].) In practice, it 'vouid
be most unlikely that all the fish that live in or pass througn the lower
Willamette would be killed, so some fishing would continue, making tne 59.8
million per year a limiting (high) estimate of the direct effect. However,
as already noted, aesthetic and secondary effects have not been included in
this evaluation.
If landfills that accepted toxic materials were located higher LH the
Willamette Valley (e.g., at Eugene/Springfield), more fishing :oulc be at
risk depending on the distribution of contaminant concentrations in tne river
system. Based on the predeeding data, the total annual value of '-'smng on
the entire Willamette River system is $17.2 million, but fishing over tne
entire system would not be destroyed, since there would be some resident fish
on sections unaffected by landfills.
Scenario 0 - Overflow from Lagoons
Since lagooning for evaporation is feasible only in eastern Oregon, the
potential for lagooning is limited. In Table 12, the bulk of the material
that is lagooned (3,817 m3 per year) is a calcium fluoride sludge that the
firm already has plans to eliminate. Much of the remainder (492 m3 per year)
is a very dilute pesticide waste (wash water) from a pesticide femulator in
the Portland area. This probably poses a leaching threat as well as an
overflow threat, because if leaching did not occur, the lagoon would be
expected to fill up. But as a result of the very low concentrations
involved, the Oregon DEQ has not required the waste to be disposed of at
Arlington (telephone interview, E. Chiong, Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon,
June 5, 1979), and so it can be assumed that the overflow threat is perceived
as being relatively minor. Other lagoons involve only small annual quanti-
ties of wastes. Hence without further analysis, it is possible to argue that
the magnitude of the overflow threat is far less than that of leaching.
However, without knowing more details of the lagoons, it is not possible to
assess the threat probability.
Scenario E - Odor from Lagoons and Landfills
This problem is not, of course, peculiar to hazardous wastes, but it has
been included because it is frequently the trigger for citizen complaints.
At the lowest level, the problem is aesthetic and no permanent damage is
done, but it could have an adverse effect on the value of properties adjacent
132
-------
to the relevant disposal site. As far as is known, none of Oregon's
hazardous wastes give rise to extensive air pollution capable of causing
significant physiological damage to living organisms or physical damage to
structures.
Scenario F - Washout of Arlington Secure Land Disposal Site
A geologist's report on the Arlington site (Newcomb and Deacon, 1971)
evaluates the possibility of water contamination arising from various causes
(e.g., leaching, major flood, volcanic activity, landslides, faulting and
earthquakes). The actual disposal site includes a natural closed depression
(some 18 m deep) used for the lagooning operations, but the disposal trenches
are on higher ground. The report shows that the depth to usable groundwater
in a confined aquifer of Columbia River basalt group at the Arlington site is
152 m. The report concludes that because of the low rainfall (average of 25
cm per year) and high evaporation demand (average of 160 cm per year), water
is generally not transmitted downwards, and what does escape is absorbed
locally and does not threaten the basalt aquifer. The report states that the
possibility of operations being affected by landslides, faulting, earth-
quakes, ash falls and lava flows from volcanic activities are each less than
one event in 10,000 years. It also states that the site is so well protected
that a regional catastrophe (such as the blocking of the Columbia drainage)
would be necessary to flood th'e site, which should occur less than once in
10,000 years.
Though these findings suggest that the threat potential from the
Arlington site is very low, the greatest threat would still appear to be some
sort of precipitation-induced event, such as washout of the disposal trenches
or excessive leaching following a very exceptional storm. There are two
wells within 2 km of the site, and these, together with some of the range-
land, could conceivably be affected. If so, the use of this land could be
lost for several years, and the wells might have to be extended to a lower
aquifer. As a first approximation, the costs involved are estimated to be
$100,000, being largely well redevelopment.
Scenario 0 - Liner Failure at Secure Local Landfill
If a secure landfill was constructed in the Willamette Valley, a liner
would be necessary to protect the groundwater. If this liner failed, failure
would be detected by monitoring wells and suitable countermeasures taken.
These could include covering the landfill surface with an impervious material
to prevent water ingress, and1 the drilling and pumping of interceptor wells.
Even so, some of the leachate could escape, but the quantity would be compar-
atively small. Assuming some ten interceptor wells were drilled to a depth
of 30 m, the cost of the countermeasures might be $200,000 (based on data
from L. Reeder, Louis R. Reeder . and Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
August 24, 1979). The value of fishing threatened would be far less than
that of Scenario C—perhaps $100,000 per year for five years.
A further risk is that the contamination might travel sufficiently far
to affect some wells, in which event an alternative water supp'y would be
required. However, because of the use of monitoring wells, damage to health
should be avoided.
133
-------
REFERENCES
Abrams, E.F., O.K. Guinan, and D. Derkics. Assessment of Industrial Hazard-
ous Waste Practices, Textiles Industry. SW-125c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1976. 275pp. [NTIS:PB258953]
Anderson, F.R., A.V. Kneese, P.O. Reed, R.B. Stevenson, and S. Taylor.
Environmental Improvement Through Economic Incentives. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1977. 207 pp.
Anon. "A Nightmare in Niagara." Time. 112(7):46, 1978a.
Anon. "Focus: In the Pubic Eye." Electronics and Power, 24(5):333, 1978b.
Anon. "Love Turned Sour." The Economist. 268(7041):30,31, r»78c.
Arbuckle, J.G., M.A. James, M.L. Miller, andT.F.P. Sullivan. Environmental
Law Handbook. Government Institutes, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1976. 423
PP-
Arrow, K.J., and T. Scitovsky, eds. Readings in Welfare Economics. Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1969. 740 pp.
Arthur 0. Little, Inc. Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous Wastes at
National Disposal Sites.2 volumes.EPA/530/SW-46c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , 1973. [NTIS:PB225164, PB237264]
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Pharmaceutical Industry; Hazardous Waste Generation,
Treatment, and Disposal. SW-508, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976. 190 pp.
Ayres, R.U., and A.V. Kneese. "Production, Consumption, and Externalities."
American Economic Review, 59(3):282-297, 1969.
Backman, J. "Pricing." In: Science in Marketing, G. Schwartz, ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1965. pp. 250-280.
Barnett, H.J., and C. Morse. Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural
Resource Availability. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Maryland, 1963. 304 pp.
Barr Engineering Co. Hazardous Waste Generation: Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. Barr Engineering Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1973.
134
-------
Barfager, S.M., B.R.' Judd, and D.W. North. The Economic and Social 'Co-its of
Coal and Nuclear Electric Generation; A FrameworK for Assessment and
Illustrative Calculations for the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975. 138pp.
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices; Electroplating and Metal Finishing I nous trie's"! 3Vl-136c,
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1976. [NTIS:
PB264394]
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Program for
the Management of Hazardous Wastes. 2 volumes. EPA-530/SW54c, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C. , 1974. [NTIS:
PB233630/1]
Bell, D.E., R.L. Keeney,'and H: Raiffa. Conflicting Objectives in Decisions.
John-Wiley and Sons,. New,York, New York, 1977. 452 pp.
Berkowitz, J.B., F. March, and R. Home. Industrial Solid Waste Classifica-
tion Systems. EPA-670/2-75-024, U.S!EnvironmentalProtection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 412 pp.
Bishop, J., and C. Cicchetti. "Some Institutional and Conceptual Thoughts oh'
the Measurement of Indirect and Intangible Benefits and Costs.'1 In:
Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy, H.M. Pesfcin and E.P.
Seskin, eds.The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975. pp. 105-126.
Bohm, P. Social Efficiency: A Concise Introduction to Welfare Economics.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1973.167 pp.
Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Cost Estimating Handbook for Transfer,
Shredding and Sanitary Landfill ing of Solid Waste. SW-124c, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. ,"1976. 83 pp. [NTIS:
PB256444]
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. A Study of Hazardous -Waste. Materials,
Hazardous- Effects and Disposal Methods.Volumes 2 4 3.EPA-673/2-73-15
and 16. -U.S. Environmental Protection-Agency, Cincinnati,- Ohio, 1972.
[NTIS:PB221466/7]
Cannon, J.S. Environmental Steel: Pollution i'n the Iron and Steel Industry,
J.M. Halloran, ed.Praeger Publishers, New York, New York, 1974.535
PP.
Chase, S»B.... Jr., ed. Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. The Brook-
ings Institution, Washington, 0.C., .1968.. 283 pp. ~
Cook, T.D., ed. Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications.
Memoir 18, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 1972.
135
-------
Corson, A.S., ed. Proceedings: 1975 Public Meetings on Hazardous Waste
Management. 2 volumes. SW-9p, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976. 1750 pp.
Council on Environmental Quality. Ocean Dumping: A National Policy. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970. 45 pp.
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: The Eighth Annual
Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , 1977. 475
pp.
Grumpier, E.P., Jr. Management of Metal-Finishing Sludge. SW-561, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , 1977. 65 po. I'NTIS:
PB263946]
Donaldson, E.C. "Injection Wells and Operations Today." In: Underground
Waste Management and Environmental Implications, T.D. Cook, acT Memoir
18, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklanoma,
1972. pp. 24-46.
Edelman, A., D. Huber, A. Kohan, J. Kooyoomjian, C. Metcalf, C.
Shannon, and R. Testani. Hazardous Waste Management: I.-.e
From Discussions at Four Public Meetings. December 1975. i.v-st-i. o.i.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
Elliott, R.D. "Economic Study of the Effect of Municipal Sewer Surcharges on
Industrial Wastes and Water Usage." Water Resources Resaarcn, 9(5):
1121-1131, 1973.
Elliott, R.D. , and J.A. Seagraves. The Effects of Sewer Surcharges on the
Level of Industrial Wastes and the Use of Water by Industry, rtaoort
No"! 7"0~i North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute, Raleigh,
North Carolina, 1972. 53pp.- [NTIS:PB213267]
Elzy, E. , and F.T. Lindstrom. "Model of the Movement of Hazardous Waste
Chemicals for Sanitary Landfill Sites." In: Proceedings of the Con-
ference on Environmental Modeling and Simulation, W.R. Ott, ea. £?A-
600/9-76-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1976. pp. 609-613.
Elzy, E. ,, F.T. Lindstrom, L. Boersma, R. Sweet, and P. Wicks. "Model of the
Movement of Hazardous Waste Chemicals In and From a Landfill Site." In:
Disposal of Environmentally Hazardous Wastes, Oregon State University
Environmental Health Sciences Center Task Force on Environmentally
hazardous Wastes, Con/all is, Oregon, 1974. pp. 111-201.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. "Sub-
ject: Discount Rates to be Used in Evaluating Time-Distributed Costs
and Benefits." Circular No. A-94 (Revised), Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, D.C., 1972. 6 pp.
136
-------
Farb, 0., and S.D. Ward. Information About Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities. EPA/5307 SW-145, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 138 pp.
Fennelly, P.P., M.A. Chillingworth, P.O. Spawn, and M.I. Bornsteir. The
Generation and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes in Massachusetts. GCA-TR-
76-29-G,GCA Corporation,GCA/TecJinology Division, Bedford, Majsacfiu-
setts, 1976. 127 pp.
Fischhoff, B. "Cost Benefit Analysis and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."
Policy Sciences. 8(2):177-202, 1977.
Fishburn, P.C. Decision and Value Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, New York, 1964. 469 pp.
Fisher, A.C., and J.V. Krutilla. "Valuing Long Run Ecological Conseauences
and Irreversibilities." Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment. 1(2):96-108, 1974. • • •
Fisher, A.C., and F.M. Peterson. "The Environment in Economics: A Survey,"
Journal of Economic Literature. 14(1):1-33, 1976.
Flinn, J.E., T.J. Thomas, and M.D. Bishop.. Identification Systems TO*- Selec-
ting Chemicals or Chemical Classes as.Candidates for Evaluation.EPA-
560/1-74-001, U.S. -Environmental Protection Agency.,. .Washington", D.C,,
1974. 153 pp. [NTIS:PB238196] " ' .
Foster D. Snell, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices.
Rubber and Plastics Industry.3 volumes.Contract No. 68-01-31S4, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976a. [Draft.]
Foster 0. Snell, Inc. Potential for Capacity Creation in the Hazardous
Waste Management Service Industry.SW-12/c, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976b.
Freeman, A.M. Ill, R.H. Haveman, and A.V. Kneese. The Economics of Environ-
mental Policy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1973.
198 pp.
Ghassemi, M., and S. Quinlivan. A Study of Selected -Landfills' Designed as
Pesticide Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-114c, U.S. -Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975. 140pp. [NTIS:PB250717]
Gilmore, J.S., W.M. Beaney, P.I. Bortz, M.K. Duff, and T.D. Nevens. Environ-
mental Policy Analysis; Public Po-licy Intervention in Inter-Industry
Flows of Goods and Services to .Reduce Pollution. NSF Grant GI-11,
Denver Research Institute, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, 1971.
150 pp.
137
-------
Goldstein, B.D. "Assessment of the Health Effects of Stationary Source
Fossil Fuel Combustion Products." In: Risk Benefit Methodology and
Application: Some Papers Presented at the Engineering Foundation 'vork-
shop, September 22-26. 1975, Asilomar, California, 0. Okrent, ea.
UCLA-ENG-7598, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of
California, Los Angeles, California, 1975. pp. 103-116.
Gruber, G.I., and M. Ghassemi. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Organic Chemicals, Pesticides and Explosives Industries.
SW-118c, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Hardin, G. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science. 162(3859):1243-1248,
1968.
Haskell, E.H., and V.S. Price. State Environmental Management: Case Studies
of Nine States. Praeger Publishers, New York, New York, 1973. 310 pp.
Haveman, R.H., and B.A. Weisbrod. "The Concept of Benefits in Cost-Benefit
Analysis: With Emphasis on Water Pollution Control Activities." In:
Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy, H.M. Peskin and E.P.
Seskin, eds. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975. pr>. 37-66.
Herfindahl, O.C., and A.V. Kneese. Economic Theory of Natural Resources.
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columous, Ohio, 197*1. .115 po
Jacobs Engineering Co., Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices, Petroleum Refining.SW-129c, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. [NTIS:PB259097]
Kennedy, R., R. Lowrey, A. Bernstein, and F. Rueter. A Benefit-Cost System
for Chemical Pesticides. EPA 540/9-76/001, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C. , 1976, 322 pp. [NTIS:PB250988]
Klee, A.J. "Models for Evaluation of Hazardous Wastes." Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, 102(EE1) 111-125, February 1976.
Klein, F.C. "Friendly Reaction: Nuclear Power Plant, Clean and Quiet, Wins
Approval of Neighbors" Wall St. Journal. Jan. 16th, 1978, pp. 1,27.
Kohan, A.M. A Summary of Hazardous Substance Classification Systems. EPA/
530/SW-171, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1975. 59 pp.
Kotler, P. Marketing Management; Analysis, Planning and Control. Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967. 640 pp.
Kovalick, W.W. (Chairman) Report of the Non-Sewage Sludge/Residuals Work
Group. 2 volumes. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1975. [Draft]
138
-------
Lackey, L.L., T.O: Jacobs, and S.R. Stewart. ••Public .Attitudes Toward
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities. EPA-670/2-73-086,U.S.E"nviron-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. 195 pp. [NFIS:PB
223638]
Lave, L.B., and E.P. Seskin. "Air Pollution and Human Health." Science,
169(3947):723-733, 1970.
Lehman, J.P. "Status of Legislation, Grants and Proposed Hazardous Waste
Regulations." Journal of Environmental Health. 39(2):83-86, 1976.
Leonard, R.P., R.C. Ziegler, W.R. Brown, J.Y. Yag, and H.G. Reif. Assess-
ment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelt".nq and
Refining Industry!3 volumes.EPA/530/SW-145, U.S. Environmental Pro-
istry.
', 1975.
tection Agency, 1975. [NTIS:PB276172]
Lipsey, R.G., and K. Lancaster. "The General' Theory of Second Best." The
Review of Economic Studies. 24:11-32, 1956.
Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. A Second Survey of Public and Leadership
Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power Development In tne United States, toasco
Services Incorporated, New York, New York, November 1976.
Lowryj H. 1977 Oregon Anglers Survey. . Survey Research Center, Oregcn State
University, Con/all is, Oregon, September 1978.
Maass, A. "Benefit-Co'sf Analysis: Its Relevance to Public-Investment Deci-
sions." Quarterly Journal of Economics. 88(2):208-226, 1966.
Maderthaner, R., P. Pahner, G. Guttmann, and H.J. Otway. Perception of
Technological Risks: The Effect of Confrontation. RM-76-53, Inter-
national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
1976. 24 pp.
MSler, K.G., and R.E. Wyzga. Economic Measurement of Environmental Damage;
A Technical Handbook. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment, Paris, France, 1976. 151 pp.
McCandless, L.C., R. Wetzel/Ji Casaria, and K. Slimak. . Assessment cf Indus- '
trial Hazardous Waste Practices, Storage and Primary Batteries
IndustrierEPS530/SW-102C, U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.. 258pp. GNTIS:PB241204]
McKean, R.N. "The Use of Shadow Prices." In: Problems in Public Expendi-
ture Analysis. S.B. Chase, Jr., ed. The Brookings Institution,
Washington, D.C.,.1968. pp; 33-77.
Mehlhaff, L.C., T. Cook, and J. Knudson. "A'Quantitative Approach to Clas-
sification of Hazardous Waste." In: Proceedings "df a National--Con-
ference about Hazardous Waste Management, E.B. Workman, ed.vector and
Waste Management Section, California State Department.of. Health, Sacra-
mento, California, 1978. pp. 267-272.
' 139
-------
Merrett, A.J., and A. Sykes. The Finance and Analysis of Capital Projects.
Longmans Green and Co. Ltd., London, England, 1963. 564 pp.
Midwest Research Institute. A Study of Waste Generation. Treatment and
Disposal in the Metals Mining Industry. Volume 1. SW-132c, Li.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975. [NTIS-PB251052]
Miller, D.W. "Decontaminate Water Before It Gets Into the Ground." 'tetar
and Sewage Works. 121(6):51-53, 1974.
Milliken, J.G., and G.C. Taylor. Metropolitan Water Management, 'i/atar
Resources Monograph Series #6, American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D.C., in press.
Mishan, E.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Introduction. Praeger Puolisners,
New York, New York, 1971a. 374 pp.
Mishan, E.J. "The Postwar Literature on Externalities: An Interpretative
Essay." Journal of Economic Literature, 9(1):1-28, 1971b.
•Moll, K.D., S. Baum, E. Capener, F.W. Dresch, and R.M. Wright, "azardous
Wastes: A Risk-Benefit Framework Applied to Cadmi :„ and Ass'^stos.
EPA-600/5-77-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, '.vasnington,
D.C.,1977. 263pp. [NTIS:PB257951]
National Academy of Engineering. Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decis^'an
ing.
PP-
Making. The National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1372.
165 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. Considerations of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis
for Activities Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives.
ETA520/4-77-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washi ngton,
D.C., 1977. 199 pp.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering. Water Quality
Criteria 1972, A Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972. 594 pp.[NTIS:
PB236199]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climatologies! Data, Annual
Summary: Oregon. 1976. Volume 82, Number 13. Environmental Data
Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C., 1976.
Newcomb, R.C., and R.J. Deacon. Geological and Subsurface Investigations:
Proposed Arlington Disposal Site, Gilliam County, Oregon. Shannon and
Wilson, Inc., Portland, Oregon, 1971.
Nizard, L. , and J. Tournon. "Social Perception and Social Demands in En-
vironmental Matters." In: Environmental Damage Costs, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 1974. pp.
305-330.
140
-------
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Manual for Fish Management. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, 1977. pp. 157-192.
Oregon State University. Temperature and the Water Balance for Oregon
Weather Stations. SpecialReport150,AgriculturalExperimental
Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1963.
Orem, H.M. Discharge in the Lower Columbia River Basin, 1928-1965. Geolog-
ical Survey Circular 550, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
1968. 128 pp.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ed. Environmental
Damage Costs. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Pans, France, 1974. 332 pp.
Ott, W.R., ed. Proceedings of the EPA Conference on Environmental Modeling
and Si'mulatiofTEPA 600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1976. 861 pp.
Ottinger, R.S., J.L. Blumenthal, D.F. DalPorto, G.I. Gruber, M.J. Santy, and
C.C. Shih. Recommended Methods of Reduction. Neutralization. Recovery,
or Disposal of Hazardous Waste.16 volumes.EPA/670/2-73-053, O.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. [NTIS:
PB224579 - Set]
Oxenfeldt, A.R. "Multi-Stage Approach to Pricing." Harvard Business Review,
38(4):125-133, 1960.
Panner, P.O. A Psychological Perspective of the Nuclear Energy Controversy.
RM-75-67, InternationalInstitute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxen-
burg, Austria, 1976. 27 pp.
Perna, A.J. "Industrial Solid and Liquid Waste Handling and Disposal.11
Pollution Engineering. 9(1):148-151, 1977. ....
Peskin,- H.M., and E.P. Seskin, eds. -Cost-Benefit Analysis.and Water Pollu-
tion Policy. The Urban Institute, Washington, Q.C., 1975. 384 pp~.
Planning Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat. Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide.
Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1976, 80 pp.
Porter, C.H. State Program Implementation Guide: Hazardous Waste Surveys.
EPA/530/SW-160, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati..Ohio,
1975. 42 pp.
Porter, C.H. State Program Implementation Guide: Hazardous Waste Trans-
portation Control. EPA/530/SW-512.U.S.Environmental3rotection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 39 pp.
Portney, P.R. "Toxic Substance Policy and the Protection of Human Health."
In: Current Issues in U.S. Environmental Policy. P.R. Portney, ed. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1978. 222 pp.
141
-------
Powers, P.W. How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and Industrial Wastes.
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1976. 508 pp.
Price, C.M. Welfare Economics in Theory and Practice. The Maonillan Press
Ltd., London, England, 1977. 183 pp.
Provenzano, G. "Risk-Benefit Analysis and the Economics of Heavy Metals
Control." In: Proceedings of the Conference on Heavy Metals in the
Aquatic Environment. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 1973.
pp. 339-346.
Rail, D.P. "Extrapolating Environmental Toxicology, Costs and Benefits of
Being Right and Wrong." A paper presented at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science Meeting in New York, New York, January
26-31, 1975. [Draft]
Rappeport, M., and P. Labaw. Public Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Energy
Conservation: Detailed Tabulations by U.S. Population and Population
Segments.Waves 28 and 29.FEA/D-76/252, Federal Energy Aaimnistra-
tion, Washington, D.C., 1975. 42 pp. [NTIS:PB254592]
Rasmussen, N.C., director. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessn-'nt of Accident
Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, O.C., 1975. 207 pp. [NTIS:PB248201]
Reeder, L.R., J.H. Cobbs, J.W. Field, Jr., W.O. Finley, S.C. Vokurka, and
B.N. Rolfe. Review and Assessment of Deep-Well Injection of Hazardous
Waste. VolumeIEPA-600/2-77-029a,U.S.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 215 pp.
Rinella, J., and S. McKenzie. Elutriation Study of Willamette River Bottom
Material and Willamette-Columbia River Water. Open File Report 78-28,
U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon, 1977.
Rosfjord, R.E., R.B. Trattner, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. "Phenols: A Water
Pollution Control Assessment." Water and Sewage Works, 123(3):96-99,
1976.
Royston, M.G., and J.C. Perkowski. "Determination of the Priorities of
'Actors' in the Framework of Environmental Management." Environmental
Conservation. 2(2):137-144, 1975.
Sagan, L.A. "Human Costs of Nuclear Power." Science. 177(4048):487-493,
1972.
Sanders, G.R. "California's Hazardous Waste Management Program: VIII.
Survey of Hazardous Waste Production." In: Proceedings of a National
Conference About Hazardous Waste Management, E.B. Workman, ea. Sector
and Waste Management Section,California State Department of Health,
Sacramento, California, 1978. pp. 84-85.
142
-------
Saunders, P.J.W. The Estimation of Pollution Damage. Manchester University
Press, Manchester, England, 1976.136 pp.
Schlaifer, R. Analysis of Decisions Under Uncertainty. Preliminary edition,
2 volumes.McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1967.
Scitovsky, T. Welfare and Competition: The Economics of a Fully Enroloyed
Economy. Ricnard D. Irwin, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1951. 473 pp.
SCS Engineers, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry.SW-131c,U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. 367 pp. [NTIS:PB251018]
Scurlock, A.C., A.W. Lindsey, T. Fields, Jr., and D.R. Huber. Incineration
in Hazardous Waste Management. EPA/530/SW-141, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975. 108pp..
Seagraves, J.A. "Industrial .Waste Charges."' ftmen'can Society, of Civil
Engineers. Journal of-the Environmental Engineering Division. 99(££6-):
873-881, 1973. . • •••••
Sewell, W.R.D. "Broadening the Approach to Evaluation in-Resources Manage-
ment Decision-Making." Journal of .-Environmental Management. 1:33-60,
1973.
Shaver, R.G., L.C. Parker, .E^F, Rissman,. Ol... Slimak,.-and,-.R.C.' Smith. • As--•
sessment of Industrial Hazardous -Waste- -Practices;'Inorganic Chemicals'
Industry.EPA/530/SW-104c,U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975. [NTIS:PB244832].-
Slovic, P., and B. Fischhoff. "How Safe is Safe Enough? Determinants of
Perceived and Acceptable Risk." In: The Management of Nuclear Wastes,
L. Gould and C.A. Walker, eds. Yale University Press, in press.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S, Lichtenstein. "Cognitive Processes and
Societal Risk Taking." In: Cognition and Social Behavior, J.S. Carroll
and J.Wi Payne, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, -Potomac, Maryland,
1976. pp. 165-184. - ...
Slovic, P., H. Kunreuther, and G.F. White. "Decision 'Processes, Rationality,
and Adjustment to Natural Hazards." . In: Natural Hazards: Local,
National and Global. G.F. White, ed. Oxford University Press, New York,
New York, 1974. pp. 187-205.
Smith, D.D., and R.P. Brown. Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid'and
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities.SW-19c, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C..,. 1971. 128 pp.
Smith, M.F., ed. Hazardous Materials Transportation: • Part 1. General.'Studies
(Bibliography^. ..NTIS/PS-76/0331,NationalTechnical Information.
Service, Springfield,. Virginia, 1976.
143
-------
State of Oregon. Hazardous Waste Management Planning: 1972-73. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, 1974.
State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development. Directory of Manufac-
turers. 1976-1977. Department of Economic Development, Port", and,
Oregon, 1976. 324 pp.
State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality. Proposed Watar Qu
Management Plan for North Coast-Lower Columbia River Basin. Cecartment
of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, 1976a.
State of Oregon, Department of Environmental. Quality. Proposed Watar Cua'Jty
Management Plan for Willamette River Basin. Department of Envivcnmenta1
Quality, Portland, Oregon, 1976b.
State of Oregon," Department of Environmental Quality. Goals and Qtracv'vas.
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon, 1373.
Statistical Policy Division, Executive Office of the President, Offica of
Management and Budget. Standard Industrial Classification Marua'. 1972.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Stermole, F.J. Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision '-isthods. Invest-
ment Evaluations Corporation, Golden, Colorado, 1974.
Sternes, G.L. Climates of the States: Oregon. U.S. Government 'renting
Office, Washington, D.C. , 1967. 27 pp.
Stone, R. , and D.E. Brown. Forecasts of the Effects of Air and Water Pollu-
tion Controls on Solid Waste Generation. EPA/670/2- 74-035o, u.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati , Ohio, 1974. 330 pp.
[NTIS:PB238219]
Stradley, M.W. , G.W. Dawson, and B.W. Cone. An Evaluation of the Status of
Hazardous Waste Management in Region X" EPA 910/9-76-024, u.s. ;nvi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, 1975. 202 pp.
Swain, J.W. , Jr. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Management ?"ac-
tices: Petroleum Rerefining Industry Study (SIC 2992). SW-144c, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. 112 pp.
[NTIS:PB272267]
Szego, G.D. The U. S. Energy Problem. InterTechnology Corporation,
Warrenton, Virginia, 1971.
Talley, R.J., and O.W. Albrecht. "Preliminary Economic Analysis of Hazardous
Waste Control." In-house research project, Program Element IDA312, ROAP
OIADC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
79 pp.
Taubman, P. "U.S. Prepares to Sue Hooker Corp. on Dumping of Hazardous
Wastes." New York Times. May 21, 1979, 1, B-3.
144
-------
Taylor, G.A. Managerial and Engineering Economy: Economic Decision-Making.
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1964. 504 pp.
The Science and Public Policy Program. Energy Alternatives: A Comcarative
Analysis. Chapter 13 "Energy Consumption."University of Oklanoma,
Norman, Oklahoma, 1975.
Tihansky, D.P., and H.V. Kibby. "A Cost-Risk-Benefit Analysis of Toxic
Substances." Journal of Environmental Systems. 4(2):117-134, 1974.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alter-
native Sources of Electrical Energy.WASH-1224,U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Population Reports, Population Esti'-
Mates. Bureau of the Census Series P-26, No. 76-37, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, O.C., 1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Popula-
tion. Volume 1: Characteristics of the Population. Parts 1 (Sec. 2)
and 39. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. "U.S. Net Import Reliance
of Selected Minerals and Metals as a Percent of Consumption in 1973."
Minerals and Materials/A Monthly Survey. May 1979, p. 9. '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Designation and Determination -of
Removability of Hazardous Substances from Water: Proposed Rules."
Federal Register. 39(164):30466-30471, 1974a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.' Report to Congress: Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes. SW-115, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b.
120 pp. . ..
U.S. Environmental Protection 'Agency.' National Water Quality Inventory.
EPA-440/9-74-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1974C. 315 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Effective Hazardous Waste Management
(Non-Radioactive): A Position Statement." Federal Register. 41(161):
35050-35051, 1976a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Containing
Wastes: Disposal Procedures." Federal Register, 41(64):14134-14136,
1976b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Synopsis of Public Meetings on
Hazardous Waste Management. U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
Washington, D.C., 1976c.55 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976d. 270 pp.
145
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ocean Dumping in the United States--
1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Decision-Makers Guide for
Hazardous Waste Management. SW-612, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977b. 109 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Report to Congress: Waste
Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water. EPA/570/9-77-001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977c. 531 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transcript: Regional Public Meetings
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.SW-20p (series),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Revisions to Ocean Dumping
Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1977e.
U.S. House of Representatives. Report to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives on H.R. 1-U96. Report
No. 94-1491, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wasningtor, O.C., 1976.
Van Hook, R.I. Transportation and Transformation Pathways of Hazardous
Chemicals From Solid Waste Disposal. Publication No. 1131, Environ-
mentalSciencesDivision,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1978.
Venugopal, B., and T.D. Luckey. "Toxicology of Non-Radioactive Heavy Metals
and Their Salts." In: Heavy Metal Toxicity, Safety and Hormoloqy, T.D.
Luckey, B. Venugopal, and 0. Hutcheson, eds. Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1975. pp. 4-73.
Versar, Inc. Alternatives for Hazardous Waste Management in the Inorganic
Chemicals Industry. SW-149c, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1977. 288pp. [NTIS:PB274565]
WAPORA, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Paint
and Allied Products Industry Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations,
and Factory Application of Coatings. SW-119c, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1976.310 pp.[NTIS:PB251669]
WAPORA, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Electronic
Components Manufacturing Industry.SW-140c, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Wasnington, D.C., 1977a. 207 pp. [NTIS:PB265532]
WAPORA, Inc. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Special
Machinery Manufacturing IndustrieT!SW-141c, U.S.Environmental Pro-
tection agency, Washington, D.C. 1977b. 328 pp. [NTIS:PB265981]
Wendt, D., and C. Vlek, eds. Utility, Probability, and Human Decision
Making. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1975.426
PP-
146
-------
Williams, R., R. Shame 1, K. Hallock, B. Stangle.^'and S. Blair. '••'EgionciinJc
Assessment of Potential Hazardous Waste Control Guidelines for the
Inorganic Chemicals Industry^EPA/530/SW-134c,U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1976. 320 pp.
Williamson, S.J. A Comprehensive Survey of -Hazardous". Waste Geherafon in
Oklahoma. Ph7D~!Dissertation,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,
Michigan, 1975. 349 pp.
.147
-------
APPENDIX A
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
This appendix describes the techniques (listed in Table 2 of the ?ain
text) that may be used for the control (including disposal) of "acarpous
wastes.
TECHNIQUES INVOLVING WASTE STREAM CHANGES
Process Change
In 'process change, the industrial process that generates the waste is
changed. Substitution of a different process will normally "2suU -'n genera-
tion of a different waste. The new waste could be inherently less nazsrdoLS
or nonhazardous, or it could be generated in smaller quantities than aer'3'"'
An example of process change is the replacement of the mercury call oy a
diaphragm-cell for chlorine production. It appears that this changeover (aT
new capacity is expected to use diaphragm cells) has been caused entirely by
the problems associated with wastes and emissions from the mercury cell
(Saxton and Kramer, 1974).
It is not necessary to substitute a new process to change the waste
streams. In some cases, process modifications such as changing the operating
conditions or adding process steps (including pollution control devices)
could cause the composition of the wastes to change, or could simoly change
the volume or concentration of the waste stream (Saxton and Kramer, 1974).
Source Reduction
With source reduction, the basic composition of a waste stream remains
unchanged (except perhaps for .concentration), but the quantity of the waste
is reduced. This may be achieved by process modification (including the more
efficient use of materials), by changes in the quality of the material
inputs, or by improving procedures to reduce production spoilage, etc.
(Saxton and Kramer, 1974; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b).
Waste Separation
Waste separation involves segregating waste streams to isolate those
wastes that are hazardous from those that are not, or to keep apart wastes
with different hazardous properties. In the former case, the objective is to
reduce the quality of hazardous waste to be handled. In the latter case, it
is presupposed that the mixed waste is more difficult or costly to treat or
148.
-------
dispose of than the same total volume of waste made up of several streams,
each of which contains a smaller number of constituents. This supposition is
not universally valid, as there could be antagonistic reaction between two
waste streams (such as neutralization), or economies of scale could outweigh
any added complexities of treating or disposing of mixed wastes.
RESOURCE RECOVERY
In resource recovery, the magnitude and composition .of the waste stream
is unchanged, but some of the materials or the energy content of tne stream
is recovered and put to beneficial use.
Materials Recovery
Recovery of materials is often carried out in conjunction with various
treatment processes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). It does
not necessarily achieve total, recovery of all materials present in the waste
stream. In many cases, only the more valuable or readily isolated constitu-
ents are recovered.
Energy Recovery
As an alternative to materials recovery, where the waste stream has a
significant calorific value, energy recovery may be practiced. This usually
involves burning the waste'in some type of incinerator that is equipped with
a heat exchanger to enable the heat to be captured and put to use.
WASTE TREATMENT •"
There are numerous treatment processes that may. be used to render wastes
less hazardous. Table A-l lists some of the processes that have been identi-
fied as being appropriate to the treatment of hazardous wastes. Details of
these and other treatment processes are provided in Ottinger.et al. (1973,
Vols. 3 and 4).- Many treatment processes are specific to a limited range of
waste types, and for this reason they are not di-scussed here. ' ' '
Treatment processes do not eliminate the waste stream, but by separating
out harmless components from those that are hazardous, some processes may
significantly reduce the quantities of hazardous wastes that ultimately
require disposal. Volume reduction by the evaporation of water or the pre-
cipitation of a hazardous sludge leaving a nonhazardous effluent are examples
of such treatments. Some wastes can be rendered nonhazardous- by treatment
(e.g., neutralization of sulfuric acid with lime), whereas in other cases,
the treatment may be a preliminary step toward disposal (e.g., a change of
chemical form to reduce the waste's mobility or toxicity). Encapsulation,
described below, is invariably followed by a storage or disposal process.
Encapsulation
Where a waste is not readily amenable to a detoxification treatment, it
may be desirable to immobilize • it in some way so that control can more
readily be maintained over it. Encapsulation is often used to prevent (or at
149
-------
TABLE A-l. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES*
in
o
Process
Physical treatment:
Carbon sorption
Dialysis
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculati on/settling
Reverse osmosis
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment:
Calcination
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
Thermal treatment:
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Detonation
Biological treatment:
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling filters
Soil application
Functions
performed
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR,
VR
VR,
De
De
VR,
De
VR,
De,
Di
De
De
De
De
De
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se, De
Se
De
Di
Types
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
3,
3,
6,
3
3
3
3
3
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
4.
5,
8
of
4,
3,
3,
5
3,
3,
4,
3,
5
3,
3,
3,
3,
6
6,
waste
5
4
4, 6
4, 5
4, 5
6
4
4, 5
4
4
4, 5
7, 8
Forms
of waste
L, G
L
L
L
L, G
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
S, L. G
S, L, G
S, L, G
L
L
L
L
L, S
Resource recovery
capability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
* Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19741).
Functions: VR, volume reduction; Se, separation; De, detoxification; and Di, disposal.
Waste types: 1, inorganic chemical without heavy metals; 2, inonjanic chemical with heavy metals;
3, organic chemical without heavy metals; 4, organic cheinkal with heavy me-Lais; 5, radiological;
6, biological; 7, flammable; and 8, explosive.
c Waste forms for which process is feasible: S, solid; 1, liquid; and G, yas.
-------
le'as't severely retard) leaching and consequent contamination of groimdwater.
The technique is commonly applied to low-level radioactive wastes* (Ottinger
et al., 1973, Vol.4). Hazardous wastes may be encapsulated by mixing the
waste with concrete, asphalt and various plastics (such as polyethylene or
polyurethane) (Fields and Lindsey, 1975). Encapsulation in glass has been
proposed for high-level nuclear wastes (Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1977). Often, for convenience, the waste and encapsulating
medium are solidified in a steel drum, and it is sometimes possible to use
off-specification resins as the encapsulating medium. The resulting mixture
is typically 60 percent (by weight) of waste when mixed with a resin, but
only 25 percent waste when encapsulated in cement (Ottinger et al., 1973,
Vol.4).
One encapsulation technique, recently developed specifically for hazard-
ous chemical wastes, agglomerates the waste in polybutadiene and then jackets
the agglomerate in a thin layer of polyethylene. The attraction of this
technique is that the waste can constitute '94 'to -96 percent ofthe agglomer-
ate; nevertheless, the process is still costly, (Wiles and Lubowitz, 1976). .
•'.«..
Incineration
There are three hazardous-waste management techniques that fall on the
borderline between treatment and disposal. "These are i'ntineration, land
application, and lagooning. .(The latter two are discussed later under
Storage and Disposal Techniques.) ••••-. - .
Incineration has wide potential application to hazardous.wastes. I-t is
a controlled process that uses combustion to convert the waste to a less
bulky, less toxic, or less noxious material. The principal products..of
incineration are carbon dioxide, water, and ash; but products of primary
concern (because of th'eir deleterious effects) are compounds containing
sulfur, nitrogen, and halogens. Where the combustion products from an incin-
eration process contain undesirable compounds, secondary treatment such as
afterburning, scrubbing, or filtration is re-quired to lower concentrations to
acceptable levels for atmospheric release (Ottinger et al., 1973, Vol.3).
Thus incineration largely converts the waste to a harmless gaseous form,
usually leaving only •comparatively small quantities • 6f ash and scrubber
sludge that.require disposal. ....
There are many di f f erent' types" 6'f " i nci nerators that can be usred on
industrial wastes, and different types of incinerators can handle solid,
liquid, or gaseous wastes. Ottinger et al. -(-1973, Vol.3) and Powers (1976)
* In radioactive waste management, the term "high-level" is applied to wastes
in which there is significant heat generation arising from radyoactive
decay; low-level wastes are-those in which this effect is not significant.
It is interesting to note that Federal regulations require the conversion
of commercial high-level liquid wastes to a stable solid form preparatory
to terminal storage (Energy Resources Council, 1976).
151
-------
provide detailed descriptions of the various types, and Scurlock et al.
(1975) specifically discuss incineration for hazardous waste management.
There are four technical characteristics that affect waste incineration
(Ottinger et al., 1973, Vol.3). The first is combustibility, i.e., a measure
of the ease with which a waste can be oxidized in a combustion environment.
The next two are dwell or residence time in the combustor, and the flame
temperature. These parameters affect the degree of combustion. The fourth
is the turbulence present in the reaction zone of the incinerator, which is
required to-insure sufficient mixing of the air and the waste fuel.
Turbulence and dwell time are determined by the incinerator design, but
for a given incinerator, flame temperature can be varied within certain
limits. It thus follows that different incinerators will be more or lass
appropriate to the treatment of different wastes. Though high temperature
capability incinerators with long dwell times would usually be capable of
adequately treating wastes that need only low temperatures and short dwell
times, such incinerators are more costly to build and operate than low tem-
perature incinerators. Hence economic as well as technical factors influence
the appropriateness of a given incinerator design for treating different
wastes.
Clearly it is a prerequisite of incineration that the total naterials
stream entering the incinerator has sufficient calorific value to ac.nieve the
desired dwell time and temperature. If the waste cannot fulfill this
requirement,' it "can be supplemented with a fuel. However, where the calo-
rific value of the waste stream is itself sufficiently high, it is possible
to recover energy from the waste via a heat exchanger and hence generate
power, process steam, or use the surplus energy in some other useful way.
Among the most attractive candidates for incineration are organic wastes
(including many pesticides) that are hazardous because of the structure of
the molecule (for example, synthetic organics such as RGB's), rather than
those that are.hazardous because of some elements contained in the molecule
(e.g., wastes containing heavy metals). Incineration may be attractive for
the disposal of many ordnance wastes and for some inorganic wastes (Ottinger
et al., 1973, Vol.1). Powers (1976) and Scurlock et al. (1975) provide lists
of materials that may be suitable for incineration, both largely based on
Ottinger et al.
A very specialized form of incineration is that of incineration at sea
using purpose-designed ships (see subsequent section on ocean dumping).
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
Land Application
Land application involves spreading or spraying of wastes over large
areas of land. This technique is often used for certain nonhazardous wastes
such as wastewater (Stewart, 1973; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975), sewage sludge, animal and food processing wastes, and certain
industrial wastes where the waste contains materials (nutrients or soil
152
-------
conditioners) that, should enhance crop growth (Loehr, 1977; U.S.' Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977b). Land application is sometimes used for
some biodegradable hazardous wastes, primarily oil-related wastes* (Snyder,
Rice, and Skujins, 1976; Tinnan, 1978; Lofy, 1977). The EPA is investigating
the effectiveness of land application for other industrial sludges
(Schomaker, 1976). Naturally, land application should be used only wnere
there is careful control of access to the land and of its future use, and it
is inappropriate for any waste that contains appreciable quantities of non-
biodegradable hazardous components.
Landfill ing
The term landfill ing will be used to denote any type of land buna! of
wastes close to the surface (as opposed to engineered storage, mine disposal,
and deep well injection).The technique is commonly used-to dispose of jnany
types of solid wastes and sludges, but it is also used to dispose of liquids.
(which are usually poured onto the more solid components). There is an
extensive body of literature on landfill disposal of hazardous wastes (e.g-.,
Fields and Lindsey, 1975; Fuller, 1976; Ghassemi and Quinlivan, 1975), and on
the physical effects that may arise from landfilling (e.g., Geyer, 1972;
Fungaroli, 1971; Genetelli and Cirello, 1976; Hill and Zipp, 1974; Banerji,
1977; Garland and Mosher, 1975; Pavoni, Hagerty, and Lee, 1972; and Schultz,
1978). The following material is based on these and other sources.
Types of Landfills—
Open dumps—The least sophisticated form of land disposal is fie open
dump, in which a waste is simply deposited on the ground and left. Clearly,
the open dump is an inappropriate means for disposing of any hazardous waste;
it would only be acceptable (aesthetics aside) for inert wastes such as some
demolition debris.
Sanitary 11andfi11s—The sanitary landfill (e.g., California Class II
landfill [California State Water Resources Control Board, 1976]) provides for
some environmental protection from the wastes. In a sanitary landfill, the
wastes are compacted to the smallest practicable volume and covered, usually
daily, with earth. These procedures minimize problems with blowing litter
and with disease transmitting vectors (animals and insects): Waste compac-
tion and a cellular construction of the s-anitary landfill also reduce the
possibility of fire and of its spread should one occur (U.S. Environmental.
Protection Agency, 1976a). Microbial decomposition of-wastes.results in the
generation of gases (principally methane and carbon dioxide) that are
generally regarded as a problem, but there have been some successful methane
recovery projects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a).
The hydrologic conditions at a landfill are of great importance.
Groundwater or infiltrating surface water moving through solid waste can
produce "leachate," a solution containing dissolved and finely suspended
solid matter and microbial waste products. The composition of the leachate
Waste petroleum oil has been regarded as hazardous by some authors and as
nonhazardous by others. (See Jacobs Engineering Co., 1976.)
' 153
-------
naturally depends on the waste composition and also on the physical,
chemical, and biological activities within the fill. Leaching can be mini-
mized by landfill designs that restrict the ingress of surface watar, but
some authorities hold that generation of some leachate is inevitable (Brunner
and Keller, 1972).
Where annual precipitation is low compared with potential evapotranspir-
ation, over the course of a year actual evapotranspiration may balancs
infiltration, resulting in zero net percolation and hence negligible longrun
leachate production (Fenn, Hanley, and DeGeare, 1975). This situation is
characteristic of Southern California (Fenn, Hanley and DeGeare, 1975), where
large quantities of liquid wastes are routinely injected into landfills
apparently without producing leachate (Tinnan, 1978). Nevertheless, even in
arid areas where leaching is expected to be negligible, a gooa landfill
design will attempt to restrict the potential environmental damage that could
be caused by a leachate. In areas with less favorable climates (e.g.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida) (Fenn, Hanley, and DeGeare, 1975),
where leachate production is inevitable (unless of course the surface or
near-surface of the landfill is rendered impervious), some means of isolating
the leachate from groundwater is essential to provide complete environmental
protection.
Chemical landfills—The chemical landfill (e.g., California Class I
landfill [California State Water Resources Control Board, 1975]) is designed
to accept industrial wastes that may include hazardous wastes. In a chemical
landfill particular attention is paid to minimizing the potential for
leachate contamination of water sources. Thus, a chemical landfill snould be
designed so that any surface water runoff is collected and treated, and so
that there is virtually no chance that leachate will percolate into any
aquifer.
Isolation of Landfill Contents from the Environment--
Three principal means are available to minimize the probability that
landfill leachate can contaminate groundwater: Geologic isolation, landfill
liners, and leachate collection systems. Note that in this report, the term
"leachate" will be used to denote any aqueous-based liquid that may emanate
from a landfill or lagoon. Thus, leachate may be generated either by the
interaction of environmental water (precipitation, surface water or ground-
water) with an essentially solid waste as described above, or it may be the
aqueous component of a liquid or semi-liquid waste that is sufficiently
mobile to be able to leave the landfill or lagoon. With regard to ground-
water contamination, the primary concern is protection of usable aquifers,
not of small lenses of perched groundwater that are not significant as
potential water supply sources.
Geologic isolation—Geologic isolation involves selecting the landfill
(or lagoon) site such that there is no natural hydrologic interconnection
between the fill and aquifer. This condition may be fulfilled if the perme-
ability of the soil or rock that separates the landfill from any aquifer is
sufficiently low (i.e., essentially zero). This approach is favored by the
California Class I landfill regulations, which specify geologic isolation for
vertical water movement, but which permit liners to control lateral movement.
154
-------
A modification of .this approach is found in arid areas, where natural
leachate generation (i.e., that resulting from the infiltration of external
sources of water) plus any liquid emanating from the waste, is expected to be
slight. In this case, provided the vertical distance to groundwater is
sufficiently large, there is less concern over the permeability of the inter-
vening strata on the assumption that the total quantity of leachate generated
will be insufficiently great to percolate down to the groundwater.
Many soils have the capacity to attenuate leachates that pass through
them or to render these leachates less hazardous (see Roulier, 1977;
Farquhar, 1977; Schultz, 1978). This can be regarded as a form of treatment,
but if the mechanism is that of ion exchange (as opposed to microoial
action), the treatment capacity, although often very large, will not be
unlimited, since there is no regeneration mechanism.
Landfill liners—Liners are usually composed of either a layer of ifflper-
vious soil (such as clay), asphalt, of a polymeric membrane (Haxo, Haxo and
White, 1977; Geswein, 1975). They may be used to replace 6r supplement
geologic isolation to provide separation fronTgroundwater. For example,•• a
liner could be used to provide a seal over a faulted or fissurec zone'of an
otherwise impervious stratum, or it could be used to control the lateral
movement of leachate where geologic isolation is effective in the vertical
direction. Liner materials could also be used to cap a completed landfill to
prevent the ingress of surface and nearrsurface waters. There is one impor-
tant difference between, complete geologic isolation and the use of a liner;
because of the comparative thinness of a liner, in most cases it is probably
only a matter of time (in the context of perpetual care) before the leachate
penetrates the liner.
Leachate collection systems—Where significant leachate production is
expected, something must be done with the leachate. Leachate collection
systems can be used to divert the leachate into treatment or holding tanks.
Even if a collection system does not collect all the leachate, the quantity
that is available to threaten aquifers is reduced, leading to a potentially
more secure operation. Collection systems often are .made up of a porous
medium (e.g., loam or gravel) that permits the leachate to migrate into
headers for collection and treatment.. The porous medium is placed on top of
a liner or other impervious layer (Fields and Lindsey, 1975). Of course, the
collected leachate will usually constitute an additional hazardous waste that
must • be appropriately managed (e.g., by precipitating -a slucge that is
returned to some form of land disposal);
Mine Disposal
Disposal of hazardous wastes in underground mines has been proposed for
both radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. The attraction of the approach
lies in the high degree of environmental protection that can be provided by
such storage because of the impermeability and geological stability of the
candidate formations. ..The material of greatest interest is salt (.both bedded
and domed formations), followed by gypsum and potash. Shale, limestone, and
granite formations have also-been considered.(Stone et al., 1975). The most
widely accepted concept .is to place the solidified containerized wastes in
155
-------
disused room and pillar salt mines (Kown et al., 1977). This means of
disposal has substantially greater direct economic costs than landfill ing,
especially if it is necessary to construct a mine for this purpose rather
than to adapt an abandoned mine. A special feature of this approacn is that
provision can be made for future retrieval of the wastes.
Lagooning
Lagooning involves placing liquid wastes in open ponds and may incorpo-
rate some of the chemical or biological treatment processes listed in Table
A-l, such as biological oxidation by means of aerated lagoons or oxidation
ponds (Ottinger et al., 1973, Vol.4). Where the evaporation rate is suffi-
ciently high" (i.e., where open-pan evaporation significantly exceeds
precipitation), lagooning really constitutes a treatment process for volume
reduction. In other cases, it is more appropriately regarded as a storage
technique. In either case, quantities of sludges and/or solids will
ultimately require disposal.
Since the contents of a lagoon are at least part liquid, protection of
the groundwater below and adjacent to the lagoon is of particular signifi-
cance. The techniques that can be used to achieve this have already been
discussed under landfill ing. It is also important to insure tr.it the iagoon
does not overflow and thereby contaminate surface waters, and ^nat birds are
protected by being discouraged from landing on the surface.
Deep Well Injection
Deep well injection involves disposing of liquid wastes by pumping them
into deep wells, whereby the wastes become contained within the interstices
of the rock. This procedure has been used for decades to dispose of oil
field brines, and it is an accepted means of disposal for such wastes (Reeder
et al., 1977). WAPORA has catalogued all the wells used for injection of
industrial wastes (excluding oil field brines) in the United States (WAPORA,
Inc. , 1974). Over half the wells have been constructed in Texas and
Louisiana, and 68 percent serve SIC 28 and 29 (chemical and allied products
and petroleum refining industries).
The term "deep well" may be something of a misnomer, as the concept
merely involves disposing of the waste in formations that are below usable
aquifers. Nevertheless, 90 percent of the 278 U.S. wells used for injecting
industrial and municipal wastes identified by WAPORA, Inc. (1974) were more
than 305.m .deep.
In virtually all deep wells used for industrial waste disposal, wastes
are injected into sands, sandstones, or carbonates (WAPORA, Inc., 1974).
Suitable strata almost invariably contain saline groundwater, hence injected
wastes will displace and/or mix with this groundwater. Because any solid
matter will plug the host rock pores, it follows that only filtered liquids
that are compatible with the host fluid (i.e., do not form precipitates) can
be injected. Rock fracturing to increase permeability is feasible under
certain circumstances (Reeder et al., 1977). There is an extensive body of
literature on deep well waste injection (Rima, Chase, and Meyers, 1971; Cook,
1972), and the topic has been well summarized by Warner and Orcutt (1973).
156
-------
Ocean Dumping
Ocean dumping has been a common means of disposal of unwanted naterials
for centuries (Miller, 1973). Although the quantities involved have been
dominated by dredge spoils, significant quantities of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes were dumped in the 1960's, together with smaller Quantities
of construction and demolition debris, solid waste, explosives, and radio-
active wastes (Council on Environmental Quality, 1970).
The intent of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 is to strictly limit the ocean dumping of any material that could
adversely affect the marine environment (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977a); and in recent years, the quantities of industrial wastes that
have been dumped off the U.S. coast have declined significantly.
The three basic techniques for the ocean disposal of wastes are:
1. Bulk disposal of liquid or sludge/slurry wastes ising
specially constructed barges;
2. Scuttling vessels filled with wastes (usually obsolete
munitions);
3. The sinking at sea of containerized wastes (e.g., in 0.2 m3
[55-gal] drums) that are carried as deck cargo on merchant
vessels.
Depending on the details of the techniques and the waste involved, the
ocean may be used as a reacting or neutralizing medium, as a diluent, as a
cushioning medium (for detonated explosives), or for protective isolation
(Ottinger et al., 1973, Vol.3). In general, ocean dumping sites avoid
estuarine locations, and though some barged disposal takes, pi ace in compara-
tively shallow water, containerized wastes and vessels are scutt'ed in the
deep sea (Smith and Brown, 1971). . "
The type of waste strongly affects its physical disposition. Hazardous
wastes that would float are clearly unacceptable for ocean disposal. Wastes
that are considerably denser than seawater fall to the ocean floor, and any
dispersion that occurs will be through ocean bottom processes. Most aqueous-
based wastes, on the other hand, have densities similar to seawater and can
diffuse widely (Ocean Disposal Study Steering Committee, 1976). Clark et al.
(1971) review these physical diffusion processes and also discuss disposal
economics.
A variety of data on the practice and impacts of ocean disposal may be
found in the literature (Council on Environmental Quality, 1970; Ocean
Disposal Study Steering Committee, 1976; Smith and Brown, 1971; Reed, 1975;
Interstate Electronics Corporation, 1973).
Incinerator ships can be considered as a special case of ocean dumping.
While the objective of incineration is to thermally degrade the hazardous
material, it is almost inevitable that- a small proportion of the waste will
157
-------
escape degradation. Furthermore, the products of degradation may themselves
be hazardous and require some form of disposal. Thus by conducting incinera-
tion at sea, the wastes emitted from the incinerator are widely dispersed,
which may be more environmentally acceptable than using similar incineration
equipment on land. The technique has been in use in Europe since 1963
(Powers, 1976).
Incineration of U.S. organochlorine wastes has been conducted on an
experimental basis in the Gulf of Mexico using the Dutch incinerator ship M/T
Vulcanus. The incinerators achieved upwards of 99.9 percent oxidation of the
wastes, and the resulting emissions (which included hydrogen chloride) were
discharged to the atmosphere without scrubbing (Wastler et al., 1975). Had a
similar operation been performed on land, scrubbing would doubtless have been
required to provide environmental protection from the hydrogen chloride (see,
Maritime Administration, no date).
Engineered Storage
As already indicated, most forms of disposal amount to storage, as it is
not possible to eliminate matter. However, the tern "engineered storage11 is
usually reserved for placement of wastes into manmade structures (as opcosed
to burial in the ground, for example).
This technique has been advocated largely for high-level raaioactive
wastes and for other wastes for which no satisfactory alternative means or
disposal exists. The intention is that the wastes are stored under very
carefully controlled conditions until a safe means of disposal can be found;
for this reason, provision for easy retrieval must be an integral part of the
design (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974).
Other Techniques
Disposal into space has been proposed for certain radioactive wastes and
represents a unique concept. As far as the author is aware, it has not been
considered for nonnuclear wastes, doubtless because of its extremely high
direct cost, which is in excess of $2,000 per kg of waste including con-
tainers (Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, IS76).
All other techniques that have been proposed appear to constitute sub-
categories or special cases of those discussed above. For example, thermal
treatment can be split into four principal subcategories, which are (in
descending order of control maintained over the waste and its decomposition
products): Pyrolysis, incineration, open burning, and detonation. At least
some of these subcategories are capable of further division, as already
illustrated for incineration. Even ice sheet disposal, which has been pro-
posed for some radioactive wastes (Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, 1976), can be regarded as a special case of land
disposal, since many of its features and potential threats to the environment
are similar to the more conventional forms of land disposal already
discussed.
158
-------
REFERENCES
Banerji, S.K., ed. Management of Gas and Leachate in Landfills. EPA-600/
9-77-026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, :.977.
288 pp.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Alta-iatives
for Managing Wastes From Reactors and Post-Fission Operations in the
LWR Fuel Cycle. Volume 4: Alternatives for Waste Isolation and
Disposal. ERDA-76-43, Energy Research and Development Administration,
1976.
Brunner, D.R. and D.J. Keller. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation.
SW-65ts, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972.
59 pp.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Waste .Discharge Require-
ments for Nonsewerable Waste Disposal to Land: . Disposal Site Design
and Operation Information. California State Water Resources Control
Board, Sacramento, California, 1976. 60 pp. ' • • • ""
Clark, B.D. , W.F. Rittal, D.J. Baumgartner, and K.V. Byram. The Barged
Ocean Disposal of Wastes: A.Review of Current Practice and Methods of
Evaluation"! U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, 0regon,
1971. 119 pp. [NTIS: PB204868]'
Cook, T.D., ed. Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications..
Memoir 18, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists,Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 1972. •• •
Council on Environmental Quality. Ocean Dumping: A National Policy. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970.45 pp.
Energy Research and Development Administration.. Alternatives for Lonq-Term
Management of Defense High-Level - Radioactive Waste, Savannan River
Plant, Aiken. South Carolina.Volume 1.ERDA 77-42/1, Energy Research
and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Energy Resources Council. Management of Commercial Radioactive Nuclear
Wastes: A Status ReporTFEA/A-76/295, FederalEnergy Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C., 1976. 18 pp.
Farquhar, G.J. "Leachate Treatment by Soil Methods." In: Management of
Gas and Leachate in Landfills. S.K. Banerji, ed. EPA-600/9-77-026,
U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.
pp. 187-207.
Fenn, D.G., K.J. Hanley, and T.V. DeGeare. Use of the Water Ba.lance
Method, for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal
Sites. EPA/530/SW-168. U.S. Environmental Protect!on.Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1975. 40 pp.
159
-------
Fields., T. , Jr., and A.W. Lindsey. Landfill Disposal of Hazardous Wastes:
.A Review of Literature and Known Approaches. EPA/530/SW-165, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 36 pp.
Fuller, W.H., ed. Residual Management by " Land' Disposal':-- Proceedings of
the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium.EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 280pp. ,.....-.-•
FungaroTi A. A. Pollution of Subsurface Water by Sanitary Landfills.
3 volumes. SW-12RG, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RocKviila,
Maryland, 1971.
Garland^ -G.-A. , •• and D.C. Mosher. "Leachate 'Effects of Improper Land
Disposal." Waste Age, 5(ll):42-48. 19.75.
Genetelli, E.'JT,' and J.Cirello, eds. Gas ..and Leachate From Landfills: For-
mation, Collection and Treatment. EPA/600/9-76-004., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati,.Ohio, ,1976. 196 pp.
Geswein., A.J. Liners For Land Disposal Sites: An Assessment. EPA/530/
.W--137,. .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 66 pp.
Geyer, \J; A.: - Landfill Decomposition Gases. An Annotated Bibliography. SW-
72-T-i;"-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
36 pip,: [NTIS: PB213487]
Ghassemi, M. , and S. Quinlivan. A Study of Selected • Landfills Designed
as Pesticide Disposal Sites.EPA/530/SW-114c, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975. 140 pp. [NTIS: PB250717]
Haxo, H.E., Jr., R.S. Haxo, and R.M. White. Liner Materials Exposed to
Hazardous and Toxic Sludges: First Interim Report. EPA-oOO/2-77-081,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 73 pp.
Hill D.M,, and R. Zipp. Ground Water Quality and Solid Waste Management:
'A Selective .Bibliography. State of California, The Resources Agency,
Department of Water Resources, Central District, 1974. 59 pp.
Interstate Electronics Corporation. Bibliography on Ocean Waste Disposal.
Contract- No, 68i-01-0796,. . .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Was;hington, D.C. ,1973..
Jacobs Engineering Co. , Inc.' ' Assessment of Industrial'::''Hazardous Waste
Practices-. Petroleum Refining. SW-129c, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 19/6. [NTIS: PB259097]
Kown, B.T., R.A. Stenzel, J.A. Hepper, J.D. Ruby, and R.T. Milligan. Cost
Assessment for the Emplacement of Hazardous Materials in a Salt Mine.
£f>A-600/2-77-21b,U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency,Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1977. 128 pp.
160
-------
Loehr, R.C., ed. Land as a Waste Management Alternative: Proceedings
of the 1976 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference.Ann Aroor
Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977.810 pp.
Lofy, R.J. "Petroleum Refinery Solid Waste Disposal Practices." In:
Proceedings of a National Conference about Hazardous Waste Management,
E.B. Workman, ed. Vector and Waste Management Section, California State
Department of Health, Sacramento, California, 1978. pp. 161-165.
Maritime Administration. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Chemical
Waste Incinerator Ship Project (Volume 1 of 2 - Environmental Analysis
and Appendices I, II and III). MA-EIS-7302-76-08D, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C., no date. 236 pp. [NTIS: PB246727]
Miller, H.C. "Ocean Dumping—Prelude and Fugue." Journal of '^ar;tims Law
and Commerce. 5(1):51-75, 1973.
Ocean Disposal Study Steering Committee. Disposal in the Marine Environment:
An Oceanographic Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., 1976. 85 pp.
Ottinger, R.S., J.L. Blumenthal, D.F. DalPorto, G.I. Gruber, M.J. Santy, and
C.C. Shih. Recommended Methods of Reduction. Neutralization. Recovery,
or Disposal of Hazardous Waste. 16 volumes. EPA-670-2-73-353, U.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. [NTIS:
PB224579-Set]
Pavoni, J.L., D.J. Hagerty, and R.E. Lee. "Environmental Impact Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Disposal in Land." Water Resources Bulletin. 8(6):
1091-1107, 1972.
Powers, P.W. How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and Industrial Wastes. Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1976.508 pp.
Reed, A.W. Ocean Waste Disposal Practices. Noyes Data Corporation, Park
Ridge, New Jersey, 1975. 346 pp.
Reeder, L.R., J.H. Cobbs, J.W. Field, Jr., W.D. Finley, S.C. vokurka, and
B.N. Rolfe. Review and Assessment of Deep-Well Injection of Hazardous
Waste. Volume^TEPA-500/2-77-029a,U.S.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 215 pp.
Rima, D.R., E.B. Chase, and B.M. Myers. Subsurface Waste Disposal by^Means
of Wells—A Selective Annotated Bibliography. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 2020, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1971. 309 pp.
Roulier, M.H. "Attenuation of Leachate Pollutants by Soils." In: Management
of Gas and Leachate in Landfills. S.K. Banerji, ed. EPA-600/9-7/-026,
U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. pp.
127-138.
161
-------
Saxton, J.C. , and M. Kramer. Industrial Chemicals Solid Waste Generation:
The Significance of Process Change, Resource Recovery, and Improved
Disposal.EPA-670/2-74-078,U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974. 154pp.
Schomaker, N.B. "Current Research on Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes." In:
Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazardous
Waste Research Symposium, W.H. Fuller, ed. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. pp. 1-13.
Schultz, D.W., ed. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Research Symposium.EPA-600/9-78-016,U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Scurlock, A.C., A.W. Lindsey, T. Fields, Jr., and O.R. Huber. Incineration
in Hazardous Waste Management. EPA/530/SW-141, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975.108 pp.
Smith, D.D., and R.P. Brown. Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities. SW-19c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971. 128 pp.
Snyder, H.J., Jr., G.B. Rice, and J.J. Skujins. "Disposal of Waste Oil Re-
refining Residues by Land Farming." In: Residual Management by Land
Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste Researcn Symposium, W.n."
Fuller,ecTEPA-600/9-76-015,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. pp. 195-205.
Stewart, J.M., ed. Proceedings: Workshop on Land Disposal of Wastewaters.
Water ResourcesResearchInstitute,Report No. 91,UNC-WRRI-73-91,
University of North Carolina, Water Resources Research Institute, 1973.
118 pp.
Stone, R.B., P.L. Aamodt, M.R. Engler, and P. Madden. Evaluation of
Hazardous Wastes Emplacement in Mined Openings. EPA-600/2-75-040, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 568 pp. [NTIS:
PB250701]
Tinnan, L.M. "Methods Presently Used to Treat and Dispose of Hazardous
Wastes in Southern California: IV. Methods Used in Southern
California." In: Proceedings of a National Conference about
Hazardous Waste Management, E.B. Workman, ed. Vector and Waste Manage-
ment Section, California State Department of Health, Sacramento,
California, 1978. pp. 45-46.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes. SW-115, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
120 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Land Application
Systems. EPA-430/9-75-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. , 1975. 204 pp.
162
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.. Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste
Management. SW-500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a.
158 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Effective Hazardous Waste Managenent
(Non-Radioactive): A Position Statement." Federal Register, 41(161):
35050-35051, 1976b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ocean Dumping in the United Statas—
1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., lS77a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Report to Congress: Waste Dis-
posal Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water.£PA-570/9-77-001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wasnington, D.C., lS77b. 531 op.
WAPORA, Inc. Compilation of Industrial' and Municipal -Injection Wells in
the United States. Volume I. EPA-520/9-74-020, O7 Environmental
Protection Agency, 1974.
Warner, O.L., and D.H, Orcutt. "Industrial Wastewater-Injection Veils in
United States—Status of Use and Regulation, 1973." In: . Preprints of
papers presented at. the Second International Symposium on Undargrotmd
Waste Management and Artificial Recharge. Volume 2. J., Braunstein, ed.
The George Banta Company, Inc., Menasha, Wisconsin, 1973. pp. 637-697.
Wastler, T.A., C.K. Offutt, C.K. Fitzsimmons, and P.E. Oes Rosiers. Disposal
of Organochlorine Wastes by Incineration"at Sea. EPA-430/9-75-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1975. 238 pp.
Wiles, C.C., and H.R. Labowitz. "A Polymeric Cementing and Encapsulating
Process for Managing Hazardous Waste." In: Residual Management by
Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium.
VOT Ful 1 er, icT EPA-600/9-76-015, Ol Environmental Protecti on
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. pp. 139-150.
163
-------
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
This appendix discusses some of the more important threats to ian. and
the environment associated with hazardous waste management techniques.
THE NATURE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE THREATS
This section characterizes environmental threats posed by hazardous
waste management techniques, commencing with threats that are applicaole to
many techniques, followed by the threats that are more specific in nature.
In some cases, models or numerical data are available arc can be used to
provide estimates of the magnitude of the impacts, while in others, only
descriptive scenarios are feasible. (Ott [1976] provides mucn information c:
environmental modeling techniques.) Probabilities that threats will occ^r
are largely discussed later in this appendix, and the economic implications
of the threats are discussed in Appendix C.
In-pi ant Accidents and Other Events
Within the manufacturing plant that generates the waste, a threat of
some sort of accident or operational failure exists regardless of the waste
management technique employed, unless all hazardous wastes are eliminated.
However, the probability of occurrence and potential consequences may change
with different control techniques. In an' assessment of hazardous waste
management alternatives (as opposed, for example, to examining the total
costs and benefits of using a particular substance or manufacturing a
particular product), it is only differential effects between alternative
approaches that are of interest. Thus where a given waste (type, form, and
quantity) is generated and shipped out of the plant without treatment for
disposal or resource recovery, >the probability and consequences of in-plant,
waste-related accidents should be constant. However, where the waste stream
itself changes—arising from process change or in-plant resource recovery
operations—the probability, nature and consequence of in-plant accidents may
vary. Likewise, the probability of in-plant accidents may change if the
waste is subjected to an onsite treatment process before disposal.
The location (on or off the manufacturing site) of final disposal need
not affect the frequency of occurrence of in-plant accidents, as accidents
and other events associated with onsite disposal can be regarded as disposal
threats rather than in-plant accidents. However, wastes are often stored
before disposal—sometimes for long periods while waiting for an appropriate
164
-------
disposal method to be developed—and accidents arising from such storage can
conveniently be included with in-plant accidents.
Though it is not difficult to generate scenarios for in-plant accidents
associated with hazardous wastes, statistical data on such accidents are not
generally available. The problem is that official industrial accident data
(e.g., data on occupational illness and injury at manufacturing plants IU.S.
Department of Labor, 1976]) do not usually differentiate beween those involv-
ing wastes and those involving other materials. Data are available on
accidents and illnesses arising in SIC 495, Sanitary Services, which rould
encompass various disposal techniques (U.S. Department of Labor, 1976).
However, these data are likely to be dominated by accidents in sewage works
and in regular refuse collection. Buckley and Wiener (1978) have collected
numerous data from insurance loss records, newspaper reports, and other
sources that provide a useful indication of the causes and size distribution
of hazardous material spills; but in many cases, it is not known whether"or
not the material was a waste.
Possible in-plant accident scenarios that can directly affect man will
largely be related to spills and emission of materials that can cause acute
human poisoning by absorption through the skin or inhalation (Munn, 1975).
Poor plant practices could also result in systematic exposure leading to
chronic poisoning. Chronic poisoning from industrial chemicals is considered
by some authors to be a far greater threat to workers than acute poisoning
(Munn, 1975), but statistical data are sparse, as in many cases it is dif-
ficult to relate chronic illnesses to industrial exposure. (Some clear-cut
exceptions—such as black lung disease and asbestosis—arise where a
substantial industrial sector is exposed to a single disease-causing
material.)
Environmental damage and indirect threats to man could arise from fail-
ure or overflow of storage tanks, operating lagoons, containment dikes, and
sumps, which could result in destruction of vegetation and a variety of
surface and groundwater pollution problems. Where wastes are flammable or
highly reactive, fires and explosions could occur. Methodologies for calcu-
lating the physical effects and probabilities of many of these incidents for
specific materials are presented by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1975).
Transportation Accidents
Comparatively good data are available on the nature and frequency of
transportation accidents. Many of these specifically address hazardous
materials (Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, 1970; National Academy of Sciences,
1976; Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1974; Jones et a]., 1973). Typical hazardous
material spill frequency and size data are given in Table B-l. Unfortu-
nately, the accident probability Statistics show considerable diversity,
depending on source and coverage.
Some authors emphasize the likely outcome of transportation accidents
(Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1975; Jones et al., 1973; Angell and Kalelkar,
1974), sometimes indirectly via studies of the control of hazardous material
spills (Dawson, Shuckrow, and Swift, 1970; Anon., 1974). The emphasis in
165
-------
TABLE B-l. SELECTED TRANSPORT ACCIDENT STATISTICS
Events per billion kilometers
Source and type of cargo Truck
Arthur D. Little. Inc.a
Hazardous chemicals
Flammable liquids
Corrosive liquids
Tank trucks (involving .
cargo loss) 17
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton6
Hazardous materials
(projections to 1980) 1,119
Rail
144^
186C
20
Water (barge)
261b
0.68/106
tonne-km
Jones et al.
Hazardous materials
Autos, all accidents
Arthur D. Little, Inc.^
l,057g
2,140-12,500
22'
8-ir
12'
a Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1975:29,30.
Typical large capacities are up to 1,816 tonnes (2,000 short tons).
Average spill size is approximately 48,450 liters.
c For 1965-70.
For 1968-72. Typical tank capacities range from 22,700 to 37,850 liters
(6,000 to 10,000 gal). The average spill size is about 11,350 liters.
6 Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, 1970:15.
f Jones et al., 1973:99-102.
9 Based on FHA data for large carriers.
For 1960-68; data may be conservative.
1 Based on a variety of sources. (It is claimed that vehicle size does not
affect accident frequency.)
j Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1973, Vol.11:111.
I/
For tank trucks.
For railroad cars, based on data from Association of American Railroads and
Federal Railroad Administration.
166
-------
most of these studies is on damage to human life and to property, 'especially
through the mechanisms of fire and explosion.
Very few authors attempt to analyze the impact of transportation
accidents on flora or fauna (nonhuman). In a paper that addresses choices in
risk situations via the determination of a decisionmaker's utility functions,
Kalelkar, Partridge, and Brooks (1974) use a 13-point scale to indicate the
severity of land-based environmental impacts that are expected to arise from
typical accidents during the transportation of specified hazardous materials.
This scale, which is used in conjunction with the area affected, is as
follows:
1. No effect;
2. Residual surface accumulation of harmless material such as sjgar or
grain;
3. Aesthetic pollution (odor-vapors);
4. Residual surface accumulation of removable material such as oil
(requires more costly measures of abatement);
5. Persistent leaf damage (spotting, • discoloration), but foliage
remains edible for wildlife;
6. Persistent leaf damage (loss of foliage), but new growth in follow-
ing year;
7. Foliage remains poisonous to animals (indirect cause of some deaths
upon ingestion);
8. Animals become more susceptible to predators because o": direct
exposure to chemicals and a resulting physical debilitation;
9. Death to most smaller animals (consumers);
10. Short term (one season) loss of producers (fol-iage) with nigration
of specific consumers (those who eat the specific producer), but
eventual reforestation;
11. Death to producer (vegetation) and migration of consumer (animals);
12. Death to consumers and producers;
13. Sterilization of total environment (decomposers, consumers,
producers) with no potential for reforestation or immigration of
species. (Kalelkar, Partridge-, -and Brooks, 1974:340)
Spills Into Water
Dawson and co-workers have addressed the problem of spills of hazardous
materials (from both transportation accidents and stationary sources) that
167
-------
reach surface watercourses (Dawson, Stradley, and Shuckrow, 1975, Vols.II and
IV; Dawson and Stradley, 1975). Their approach determines the proportion of
annual production of each material of interest that is spilled, and follows
this through to provide an estimate of spills that result in "substantial
damage" to aquatic systems. The estimates of damage are based on simple
modeling of the dilution and transport processes, and they employ toxico-
logical data for typical fish receptors (Dawson and Stradley, 1975). Figure
B-l illustrates this process for sulfuric acid; however, the proportion of
production spilled (0.0025 percent) is believed to be typical of many
hazardous materials (Dawson and Stradley, 1975), and the distribution among
the four categories of spills and the proportions of these spills that reach
the water are in fact based on aggregate data (Dawson and Stradley, 1375).
However, the proportion of the material spilled that causes substantial
damage is expected to depend on the material. Note that the data shown in
Figure B-l appear to mask the importance of stationary sources in causing
aquatic damage. Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 present fish kill data from the
past decade. Of kills attributed to industrial releases and transport
accidents, only 8 percent of the game fish and 28 percent of all fisn were
killed as a result of transport accidents (Table B-4).
Treatment Process Failures
One class of threat arises from the possibility that a */aste may be
subjected to some treatment process (e.g., detoxification, neutralization,
immobilization), but that the treatment process does not work as iitsnded.
The result could be a waste that was more hazardous than anticipated. The
variability in composition of waste streams makes this a real possibility,
although it does not appear to be a problem that has attracted much
attention.
Some treatment processes are comparatively straightforward and easily
checked. For example, simple acid/base neutralization is controlled by
checking pH, so only a measurement error is likely to lead to an environ-
mental threat. On the other hand, biological processes are sensitive to
waste composition (Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Labora-
tories, 1974) and where used, they might be rendered inoperative by the
presence of undetected materials in the waste stream. Worse, inorganic
mercury, which is comparatively nontoxic in monovalent form (Venugopal and
Luckey, 1975), may be converted to the highly toxic methyl mercury (organic
form) by anae.robic bacterial action (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974); hence it is not inconceivable that under adverse conditions, a waste
containing traces of mercury could become more hazardous after treatment.
A more typical treatment threat scenario than that discussed above would
be the failure of an incinerator to achieve the dwell time or temperature
necessary to fully degrade the waste. This might arise because the incinera-
tion parameters necessary to degrade the waste of interest are not adequately
known. The scrubber system could also fail. Though it is possible to make
measurements to detect virtually any of the failures that can be envisaged,
in practice, such measurements may not be made, or defective equipment may
not be shut down.
168
-------
1
Stationary
Sources
43%
1
.001075%
1
Sprlls Reaching
Water
59%
1
.000634%
1
L
i
Trucking
19%
.000475%
I
Spills Reaching
Water
42%
I
.000200%
I
I
Spills into'
Lakes 18%
1
.000204%
1
Substantial .
Damage
100%
"I
.000204%
I
PRODUCTION
1
Spills
1
_ .0025% _
1
.001136%
1
J
1
Rail
26%
1
.000650%
1
Spills Reaching
Water
15%
1
.000098%
1
1
Spills into
Rivers 82%
1
.000932%
1
Substantial
Damage
. 58%
1
.000540%
J
I
Barging
12%
I
.000300%
I
Spills Reaching
Water
68%
I
.000204%
|
.000744%
Total
Figure B-l. Process for estimating damages caused by
spills (sulfuric acid) into water.
Source: Dawspn and Stradley, 1975:25. Reproduced by permission of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
169
-------
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTION-CAUSED FISH KILLS FOR THE UNITED STATES. 1960-1975*
I860-
NunM ol Sum
(•ipoiicfeng
NuntUf of fflpolk
Rtp»ll mtail IIM IWIiMi
oiitnUM
low ituoiwd iiuiil*» ol
blHUM
AMKgtlutOlkll'
Ldrgtu k« wpulM
Nun** ol lipnud
noOMUkloi 4«ch
pouoiltuo oinriHVi
Inouuul
MunCipH*
Tiantporlaiian
dm*
UIIU1UWII
lOUl ItpOflt
NunM ol inaun ami bsn
KrilKl Dy »u« gfM^MIg
1 OOOUUOoi mum
100 OUO 10 1000 000
10 000 10 100000
1000 10 10 000
oniouo
No nil ripurud klf ACNjafil
Avtitgo aurwan ol KM tfl
Itayl .
38
289
151
6105 000
2925
5 OUO 000
No
ft
von*
3
15
64
68
138
79
103
24
0
a
so
289
No
bin
IIM
K»»|
50
053
031
Oil
002
295
1901
45
413
2G5
I49IOOOU
6535
5387000
NO
"""
4
5
45
107
104
148
74
169
52
0
58
60
413
No
bin
bofu)
065
IDS
034
003
464
1962
37
421
246
44U01 000
5710
J 180 000
51
209
33
1
47
80
421
No
NO tin
"l iro
I'! 69
38 101
89 OX
108 003
175
259
19bJ
38
442
304
b9J/OUI
7775
4000000
64
199
60
17
27
55
442
No
No blh
IB (rfU
lOHh feunkj
I 20
12 $68
54 182
134 041
103 003
138
318
ltk.4
40
590
4/0
n 914 an
5490
/ 1187 000
131
193
120
26
17
103
590
No
No bhll
ie (ml
UUflh ian»|
.1 U
59 165
167 049
424 007
120
444
IWd
44
625
540
12 140000
4310
J 000 000
114
244
125
27
23
92
625
No
No bin
ie |nu
pate wn»l
,* 4.4
63 142
402 059
235 007
105
257
I9ob
4b
532
45J
9614000
5620
88
195
87
27
30
97
534
Nu
No bin
i> |nu
K»I> •"-'
23 546
58 153
185 055
185 005
79
2/1
I9b/
4U
454
364
11491000
6460
b 549 000
U/
91
21
35
11
454
Nil
NO bgi
10 |nu
U0i» bum
1 65
7 2Cu
49 IS«
143 046
164 005
90
1J4
.*»
44
54.'
469
15UI5UUO
6015
4049009
77
1/7
122
39
104
No
Nu L&h
II! (IMlt
Kin. '.on,,
J b 1
JO 744
64 1 79
153 048
2V) 006
73
49D
1969
4;>
594
494
41 IbbOOO
5860
45547000
ll/
19!)
84
32
tl
12!)
5U4
Nu
No bui
l« IIM
,0,1 kuni
4 151
9 3 15
01 206
165 052
23} 006
104
Jll
ID/0
45
635
56J
42 490 OUO
6412
3240000
108
213
120
28
28
138
6J5
No
NU bin
ie (nu
H*H iulll
5114
26 744
91 273
198 062
443 007
72
J45
19/1
40
060
75>J
7J 6/0 OUO
6154
5500000
114
231
52
64
060
No
No Mi
III (Mill
|»l> Ml.,)
2b bJO
26 637
124 333
2U Olio
315 010
101
JJ5
19/2
50
760
637
I/ 71/000
46J9
2942000
113
189
167
56
72
163
760
No
NO tm
IXMI» fcona!
47 "Si
81 260
416 062
3b7 009
63
340
197J
50
749
70J
37114000
S527
10 0110 000
161
196
146
65
56
125
74U
NO
NO hkh
it (mil
poib bonil
b 2953
19 465
88 2 74
251 061
339 009
46
274
19/4
50
721
we
19054 000
6532
47112000
145
168
169
40
74
I2S
721
No
No bin
n (IM
pals lent)
b 107 b
20 7 1
I1O 36
167 06
325 01
73
J58
1975
50
624
543
Ib III 210
3679
10000000
118
122
90
47
78
169
624
No
No bill
i, (ml
IJUH! KMH)
3 1200
9 187
86 1 62
173 057
293 007
II
218
• Ckxiwl MM fcLiana i«pun» ol 100 000 blk
of m» n bung U»«»UIUIIM
' ffccabng tytum « wka to hiu w mount ol
1960
1 Minup* apMjiMnt nckijf tutuc puwti gwwdng IUIKVII
* Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977a:4,5.
-------
TABLE B-3. EXTENT OF FISH KILL DAMAGE*
Item 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
RIVER
Number of
reports 189
Miles of
stream 1,204
LAKES AND
RESERVOIRS
Number of
reports 25
Acres
affected 1,407
•240 259 271 339 292 ?51 219 264 356 487
1,686 1,448 2,203 1,440 1,300 989 1,039 1,565 2,358 1,865
50 25 49 57 38 46 33 37 98 111
5,907 2,581 5,644 '12,637 4,630 21,504 1,996 2,400 6,068 33,168
* Source: . Dawson, Stradley, and Shuckrow, 1975, Vol.IV:92. (Data are only for reports where extent
of damage was included.)
TABLE B-4. ANALYSIS OF 1970 FISH KILL DATA*
Source
Game fish killed
% • Non-game fish killed
.Agricultural pesticides.
and fertilizers 264,391
'Industrial 3,250,252
Transportation 284,782
Other 177.482
Total 3,976,907
7
82
7
100%
1,149,472
6; 569,241
3,616,348
307.75'J
11,642,820
10
56
31
3
100%
Source: Dawson, Stradley, and Shuckrow, 1975, Vol.IV:93.
-------
Threats from Land-based Disposal
Because waste disposal to land (both legitimate and covert) is a very
diverse and common disposal approach, there are more data on the threats thai
can arise from this approach than from other techniques. EPA has collected
and analyzed data on damage incidents that have arisen from land disposal of
industrial wastes (Lazar, 1975/76; Lazar, 1975; Lazar, Testani, and Giles,
1976). Detailed descriptions of some of these incidents have also been
published (Ghassemi, 1976; Shuster, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a, 1975o,
1976; Carter et al., 1975).
Lazar (1975/76) has found six major routes of environmental transport
through which the land disposal (including lagooning, land application,
landfill ing, and dumping) of hazardous waste can result in damage, as
follows:
1. Groundwater contamination via leachate;
2. Surface water contamination via runoff;
3. Air pollution via open burning, evaporation, sub1-'nation ana wind
erosion;
4. Poisoning through direct contact;
5. Poisoning via the food chain;
6. Fire and explosion.
Table B-5 provides a matrix of transport mechanism versus disposal
method for 421 damage cases arising from the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. It will be noted that groundwater and surface water contamination
are the two most prevalent transport mechanisms and that most incidents of
direct contact poisoning arise from the category "other land disposal," i.e.,
"haphazard disposal on vacant properties, on farm land, spray irrigation,
etc." (Lazar, Testani, and Giles, 1976). the mechanism of "poisoning through
the food chain" is not represented in Table B-5, largely because of the
difficulty of tracing some such incidents back to a specific source and also
because one of the other identified transport mechanisms will normally be
involved, in the contamination of the lower order(s) in the food chain.
However, some such incidents and potential incidents have been identified
-(Lazar, -19.75/76).
Mechanisms of Water Contamination—
The mechanisms by which surface waters and groundwater can become con-
taminated from land disposal are of great interest in view of the frequency
of such pollution events.
Surface waters—As noted earlier in this appendix, Dawson and co-workers
have developed simple models for predicting the impact of spills that reach
surface waters. In addition to spills from transportation and in-plant
172
-------
TABLE B-5. MECHANISMS INVOLVED IN DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY DISPOSAL METHOD'
to
Damage mechanism
Number of cases
Groundwater,
259 cases
Surface water,
170 cases
Air,
17 cases
Fires, explosions,
14 cases
Direct contact poisoning,
52 cases
Wells affected,0
140 cases
Surface
Impoundments
89 cases
57
42
3
0
1
32
Disposal
Landfills,
Dumps
99 cases
64
49
5
11
6
28
method and number of cases
Other land Storage
disposal of wastes
203 cases 15 cases
117 10
71 0
9 0
3 0
40 5
74 4
Smel tings,
slag, mine
tailings
15 cases
11
8
0
0
0
2
Source: Lazar, Testani, and Giles, 1976:4. The data refer to 421 cases associated with land dis-
posal of industrial wastes. The numbers in the matrix add up to more than 421 because several
damage incidents involved more than one damage mechanism.
Haphazard disposal on vacant properties, on farm land, spray irrigation, etc.
c Not included as a damage mechanism.
-------
accidents, surface waters can become contaminated by the overflowing of
lagoons as a result of exceptional climatic conditions (e.g., flash floods,
100-year floods, etc.) and the failure of dams, etc., due to poor design or
earthquake damage.
It is a feature of all surface water pollution mechanisms that the
contamination occurs rapidly, and that in most cases, dilution and dispersion
mechanisms limit the extent of the damage. This is borne out by the fish
kill data presented in Tables 8-2 and B-3, which show that the average kill
duration is about three days, and that on the average, only a few miles of
river are affected. Lakes which have comparatively small inflows and out-
flows constitute an exception to these remarks; the duration of polluting
incidents may be long, as the dilution mechanisms are slow (Dawson and
Stradley, 1975). Where pollutants reach estuaries, their physical behavior
is complex, and their fate is highly variable (Dawson, Stradley, and
Shuckrow, 1975, Vol.11).
Groundwater—Figure B-2 illustrates the processes by which groundwater
can become contaminated. Percolation or leakage of leachates (including
direct seepage of lagoon contents) into water-table (unconfined) aquifers
constitutes the major threat. In contrast to surface water pollution, this
process may take years or decades to become apparent. First, true leacning
(of soluble and suspended materials derived from the solid portion of a
waste) is a slow and often (depending on climatic conditions) intermittent
process. Second, groundwater moves comparatively slowly, flow rates for most
aquifers range from meters per day to meters per year (a few feet per day to
a few feet per year [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b]), and the
average residence time of groundwater in an aquifer is of the order of 200
years (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b).
These long time-constants are attested to both by theoretical (modeling)
studies (Fenn, Hanley, and OeGeare, 1975; Konikow, 1977; Schultz, 1978; Elzy
et al., 1974 [also see Elzy and Lindstrom, 1976]) and by numerous case
studies of incidents involving leachates (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977b, 1976, 1975a, 1975b; Shuster, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c; Konikow,
1977; Walker, 1973). These studies also show that leachate contamination of
groundwater is usually fairly restricted in its area! extent at any one time*
but that the leachate frequently forms a plume or slug that travels in the
direction of groundwater flow, often with little mixing. Naturally,
individual details vary considerably, depending on the quantity and type of
wastes involved, the climatic conditions at the disposal site, and the char-
acteristics of the aquifer, including its ability to attenuate the waste by
reacting with it.
* One of the larger recorded areas of contamination—approximately 3,000
hectares of severe pollution and 8,000 hectares over which traces of
pollution could be detected—arose from discharge of several years of
pesticide wastes to unlined evaporation ponds at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, Colorado (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975b). The
wastes contained a very high chloride concentration which enabled the
extent of the contamination to be readily monitored (Konikow, 1977).
174
-------
PRECIPITATION
Y PUMPING WELL
, DUMP
0* REFUSE PILE
DISCHARGE
OR
INJECTION
rATi* ruiLt fl
r
-------
Table B-6 provides detailed data on 60 cases of groundwater contamina-
tion from landfills and dumps in the northeastern United States. Nota that
the mean annual potential evapotranspiration in this area is less t.^an near
annual precipitation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b), a condi-
tion that encourages leaching from landfills.
Deep well injection—The primary threat from deep well injection ''s tne
contamination of a usable aquifer; but contamination of other valuable
resources and adverse chemical reactions are possible (Warner and Crcutt,
1973). In addition, there are two known instances where deep well injection
has stimulated earthquakes (Raleigh, 1972).
There are several mechanisms by which aquifers could oecome
contaminated:
1. Lateral travel of injected waste to a region of freshwater in tne
same aquifer;
2. Escape of waste into a freshwater aquifer through some failure of
the injection well casing or through some nearby deep de~'l ciiat is
not adequately cased or plugged;
3. Vertical escape of the waste from the injection zone through
confining beds that are inadequate because of high primary
permeability, solution channels, joints, faults, or induced
fractures;
4. Indirect contamination whereby injection of the waste displaces
saline water into a freshwater aquifer (Warner and Orcutt, 1973).
Note that deep well injection will inevitably cause some modification of
the local groundwater system. If this technique is to be used, the
management objective should be to insure that whatever modification takes
place does not have unanticipated effects. Again, the question of maintain-
ing options arises. Saline water (usually defined as water containing 1,000
mg/1 or more of dissolved solids) has traditionally been regarded as a
nuisance and is only used where no other source is available. However, as
Nace (1973) has pointed out, advances in desalting technology are changing
saline water into an extensive resource, and potential alternative uses
should be considered before wastes are injected into a saline aquifer.
The behavior of wastes injected into deep saline aquifers has been
modelled by many authors. Recent publications on this topic include a review
by Reeder et al. (1977) and a model developed for the U.S. Geological Survey
(INTERCOM? Research Development and Engineering, Inc., 1976).
Environmental Impacts from Ocean Dumping
Unlike the threat posed by a possible accident, it can be stated with
certainty that ocean dumping will have some effect on the marine environment.
There will inev-itably be some local contamination because of the mixing of
176
-------
TABLE B-6. SUMMARY OF DATA ON 42 MUNICIPAL AND 18
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL CONTAMINATION CASES*
Findings
Type of landfill
Municipal Industrial
Assessment of principal damage
Contamination of aquifer only 9
Water supply well(s) affected 16
Contamination of surface water 17
Principal aquifer affected
Unconsolidated deposits 33
Sedimentary rocks • 7
Crystalline rocks 2
Type of pollutant observed
General contamination 37
Toxic substances 5
Observed distance traveled by pollutant
Less than 30 m (100 ft) 6
30 to 305 m (100 to 1,000 ft) . 8
More than 305 m (1,000 ft) - 11
Unknown or unreported 17
Maximum observed depth penetrated by pollutant
Less than 9 m (30 ft) 11
9 to 30 m (30 to 100 ft) 11
More than 30 m (100 ft) 5
Unknown or unreported 15
Action taken regarding source of contamination
Landfill abandoned 5
Landfill removed " ' 1
Containment or treatment of leachate 10
No known action • • 26
Action taken regarding groundwater resource
Water supply well(s) abandoned • 4
Groundwater monitoring program established 12
No known action 26
Litigation
Litigation involved 8
No known action taken 34
8
9
1
11
3
4
4
14
0
4
2
12
3
3
2
10
6
2
2
8
5
2
11
5
13
* Source: Miller, DeLuca, and Tessier, 1974.
177
-------
the waste and the surrounding seawater (although if the wastes are contain-
erized, the most serious contamination may be delayed until corrosion has
breached the containers); hence the critical question becomes: Will this
effect be localized or dispersed, and what impact will it have on the marine
ecosystem?
The dispersion and transport processes that determine the physical fate
of a dumped waste are comparatively well understood, and given sufficient
input data, they are in many situations capable of being modelled (Ocean
Disposal Study Steering Committee, 1976). However, even if the immediate
physical fate of the dumped material can be predicted, this is only the
beginning of the waste's effect on the ecosystem. Complex chemical inter-
actions can occur between the waste and the seawater (Ocean Disposal Study
Steering Committee, 1976), and most authorities agree that our understanding
of the processes that determine the biological impact is very limited.
In a very broad study on ocean pollution, the National Academy of
Sciences recently stated that:
The greatest uncertainty in assessing the impact of ocean
pollutants is the scarcity of data on their chronic toxicity. . . .
Even if good experimental data were available on sublethal
toxic effects of individual chemicals on representative species, it
would be difficult to deduce effects on marine ecosystems.
(National Academy of Sciences, 1975:6,7)
Nor is definitive information likely to be forthcoming in the near
future. Another National Academy of Sciences study specifically directed
towards waste disposal in the marine environment stated that:
Once the assimilative capacity of a site and the limits on the
rate of input of wastes are known, limiting conditions on waste
composition, waste treatment, and waste dispersion or containment
can be derived and a variety of designs to meet those conditions
can be proposed. The necessary information for this is not now
available, nor is it likely to be available in the near future.
(Ocean Disposal Study Steering Committee, 1976:30)
In the absence of a detailed understanding of the interaction of wastes
and the marine ecosystem, a case-study approach could be used to provide a
very general impression of the possible impacts. Though most of the ocean
disposal studies cited in Appendix A include descriptions of some of the
observed environmental impacts of ocean disposal, very few specific data have
been collected. Smith and Brown summarize the results of nine case studies
on industrial wastes (Smith and Brown, 1971), and the two National Academy of
Sciences studies catalog environmental impacts that have been attributed to
ocean disposal (Ocean Disposal Study Steering Committee, 1976) and the known
effects of some chemicals on ocean life (National Academy of Sciences, 1975).
178
-------
PROBABILITIES THAT THREATS WILL OCCUR
General Discussion
The previous section has described categories of threat scenarios that
may arise in hazardous waste management. For transportation accidents and
for spills into water, some data that relate to the probability of occurrence
of such threats were included. However, the emphasis has been on identifying
the character of the threat, and this step alone is of value in analyzing
hazardous waste problems, as social behavior may be influenced by the lature
of the threat without much reference to its probability. Nevertheless, it
would be useful to know more about the probabilities that threats will accur,
as these data would be an integral part of any complete cost-benefit or
risk-benefit analysis.
The initiating event (see Figure 4 in the main text) is usually the key
to determining the probability that a threat will occur, although the threat
mechanisms determine the outcomes, and hence affect the probability of any
specific outcome. Some initiating events, i.e., those associated with ocean
clumping and deliberate discharge to sewer or waterway, are not probabilistic
in nature, while others such as sabotage and the effects of inadequate design
or poor practice are inappropriate for a probabilistic approach. 3n the
other hand, geologic and climatic events are amenable to probabilistic
analysis, as are various forms of accidents.
The probabilities of most geologic and climatic initiating events will
be site-specific, and analysis of the more common climatic events is already
a routine operation. For example, landfill sites in California are evaluated
with respect to the 100-year flood level and the precipitation from a
10-year, 24-hour storm (California State Water Resources Control Board,
1976). Note that virtually every initiating event is capable of occurring at
various magnitudes. Taken over a long time span, the larger or stronger
events almost invariably occur less frequently than smaller or weaker ones
(e.g., a 500-year flood level will be higher than a 100-year flood level,
strong earthquakes are less frequent than weak ones). Hence some judgment
will be necessary as to the critical magnitude of an initiating event, based
on the simplifying assumption that initiating events that are smallar than
the critical magnitude will not lead to any adverse outcome.
There has been some research on predicting the probabilities and out-
comes of less likely initiating events. Much of this work has stemmed from
analysis of the safety of various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle
(Rasmussen, 1975), and in particular from the disposal of high-level radio-
active wastes (Schneider and Platt, 1974, Vol.1; Energy Research and
Development Administration, 1977; Claiborne and Gera, 1974). While this work
has generally attempted to follow through the possible consequences of
various initiating events by means of event trees, it was largely concerned
with the danger from radioactivity; so the data are not generally useful for
nonradioactive hazardous wastes. Deonigi (1974) provides a useful summary
(with the emphasis on safety aspects) of the general methodology that has
been developed for evaluating radioactive waste management concepts, and a
related article by Burkholder et al. (1976) concentrates on the fate of
radioactive wastes that are leached from geologic storage (mine disposal).
179
-------
The data on the probabilities of various uncommon events and their
outcomes that have been collected for evaluating the safety of nuclear-
related activities are available in two forms: (1) Estimates of the
probabilities of initiating events of sufficient magnitude to cause waste
release from a specified form of disposal (usually mine disposal) and some-
times at a specified location, and (2) trade-off relationships between the
frequency of occurrence of these events and the damages caused (property
damage dollars and human fatalities) for the entire United States. The
second form, which is available for both natural and man-caused events (see
Figures B-3, B-4, and B-5), cannot be used directly for assessing the proo-
abilities of critical magnitude initiating events, but it is a useful way to
assess the relative importance of different events.
Uncommon Natural Initiating Events
Many of the threats to the more secure techniques for hazardous wasta
disposal will be initiated by unlikely climatic and geologic events. Since
the time scale of interest may extend to perpetual care, not only sudden
initiating events (such as earthquakes), but also gradual ones (sucn as
erosion) could be of potential interest. Other than meteorite impact, wnich
is regarded as a random process (Claiborne and Gera, 1974), the probabilities
of all natural initiating events will be site-dependent to ^ lessar or
greater extent, varying either with the general location (e.g., for earth-
quake) or with the specific details of the site (e.g., for flood). Various
events are discussed below.
Earthquake—Seismic activity varies considerably within the United
States. Schneider and Platt (1974) use a threshold level of IX on the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which would result in the following
effects:
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well
designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial
buildings with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. (Coffman
and von Hake, 1972:4-7; quoted in Schneider and Platt, 1974).
Schneider and Platt (1974) calculate that the probability of an earth-
quake of at least this intensity striking a typical east coast site in the
United States is about 2x10 5 per year, while for a random point in
California, the probability would be some 2xlO"2 per year. Clearly, better
estimates of probability could be derived for specific sites. The risk from
earthquakes would probably most affect storage structures, treatment
facilities, and lagoons. The impact on wastes in the solid phase (in
landfills or mines) would probably occur via changed water levels and paths.
Faulting and cracking—Faulting is considered to be the most likely
aspect of tectonic activity (other than earthquake) that could interfere with
waste disposal (Schneider and Platt, 1974). Faulting or cracking would most
likely affect water paths and would be of particular importance for deep well
injection, as it might cause saline aquifers to become connected to fresh-
water aquifers. Fault activities vary considerably within the United States,
180
-------
10°
10
10°
10
10'
Property Damage(Dollars)
Notes: 1- Property damage due to auto accidents is not included because data
are not available for low probability events. Auto accidents cause
about $15 billion damage each year.
2. Approximate uncertainties for nuclear events are estimated to be
represented by factors of 1/5 and 2 on consequence magnitudes and
by factors of 1/5 and 5 on probabilities.
3. For natural and man caused occurrences the uncertainty in prob-
ability of largest recorded consequence magnitude is estimated to
be represented by factors of 1/20 and 5. Smaller magnitudes have
less uncertainty.
Figure B-3.
Source: Rasmussen, 1975:A3.
Frequency of property- damage resulting from natural and
man-caused events.
181
-------
1/100
1/1000
1/10.000.000*
-I—I—+—
* I. i
^\"«J
1/10.000-j r- ,-V^
i /100.000 -\ >v \MTS-i-—
^ -mn Nuclear
1/1.000.000
100
1000 10.000 100.000 1.000.000
Fatiilitius
1/10 000.000
10
100 1000 10000 100.000 1.000.000
Fatalities
Figure B-4. Frequency of fatalities due
to man-caused events.
Note: Fatalities due to auto accidents are
not shown because data are not available.
Auto accidents cause about 50,000 fatali-
ties per year.
Figure B-5. Frequency of fatalities due
to natural events.
Source: Rasmussen, 1975:A2.
Source: Rasiiiussen, 1975.
-------
but as an example, one estimate places the probability that a new fault will
intersect an 8 km2 waste depository in the Delaware Basin, New Mexico, as
4x10 li per year (Claiborne and Gera, 1974). On the other hand, a study
relating to Aiken, South Carolina, states that there is insufficient know-
ledge of the mechanisms to estimate the probability that a small crack will
traverse a stratum (Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977).
Volcanic activity--Several authors consider that the probability of
volcanic activity (in an area not currently active) is extremely low, but
none care to estimate that probability (Schneider and Platt, 1974; Energy
Research and Development Administration, 1977; Claiborne and Gera, 1974).
Erosion—The average rate of erosion for the entire United Sta<:as is a
few centimeters per thousand years, while maximum rates are of the order of
meters per thousand years (Claiborne and Gera, 1974). However, as Schneider
and Platt point out, in"the arid and-semi arid areas-of the United States,
river channel erosion can occasionally be rapid (e.g., of the orcer of a
meter per decade), and cliffs (e.g., at the edges of mesas) can also retreat
rapidly (Schneider and Platt, 1974). In arid areas, the flash floods
associated with cloudbursts do not occur in well defined channels and can
transport large quantities of material, possibly causing changes in drainage
patterns (Schneider and Platt, 1974).
Erosion could primarily affect the long-term security of landfills, and
the potential impact of flash floods and landslides on-lagoons should also be
considered when analyzing, the siting of any land disposal facilities. The
possibilities of glacial action and changes in sea level or the development
of a lake have also been considered for the perpetual care of radioactive
wastes (Schneider and Platt, 1974).
Development of an aquifer—Schneider and Platt (1974) include an inter-
esting tentative estimate of the probability that an aquifer wil" develop
where none currently exists, and that water will penetrate a mine disposal
site (also see Deonigi, 1974). These data are presented in Table B-7. The
probability that the water will penetrate the disposal tunnel and cavity is
based on-tunnel ing and natural gas storage experiences (Schneider and Platt,.
1974). The development of an aquifer could affect all forms of land
disposal. •• • ...
Hurricanes and tornadoesr-The strong winds associated With hurricanes
and tornadoes would primarily affect surface structures (e..g.t engineered-
storage) and could transport the contents of lagoons. Structure design to
withstand the forces of high velocity winds is a normal engineering
procedure.
The potential for damage from tornadoes has been evaluated wr:h respect
to nuclear power plants (see Rasmussen, 1975). The average incidence of a
tornado at a nuclear power plant site has been calculated to be 5x10 4 per
year, but only 1 percent of these tornadoes are expected to exceed the design
criteria (Rasmussen, 1975).
183
-------
TABLE B-7. SAMPLE COMPONENTS OF RELEASE SEQUENCE
PROBABILITIES • FQ.R GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL*
Aquifer develops- in the
region where one did
•not exist previously
Wa.ter finds path into
disposal site
Water flow cannot be
control-led by man
Water is flowing
Cumulative,.release
probabi.l ,ity.- -in- the
time given;
Probability of waste release
Fai lure event
•During
operational'- •
period
During 1,000
years
During
1,000,000
years
10~8. .,10>.to 10~4 10'r-tolO"1
10~4 to.10"2 -10~4 to 10"2 . ' 10"4 to 10"2
1
1
1
1
4 to lQ~io "' 10"10 to 10"6 • 10.".s to 10."3
* Source: Schneider and PIatt, 1974:1.17.
Meteorite impact—The probability of .the impact of large meteorites is
-•low ^CTaiborne and Gera indicate that the probability of a meteor of mass in
excess of ~2xl07 ' kg striking'the'earth is about 10 13 per-km2-per year. A
meteorite of the above size would'make a crater.,of about 1 km in-diameter and
300 m deep (Claiborne and Gera^ 1-974). Schneider and Platt-(1974) quota_data
suggesting that the .probability, of a meteorite .being capable of forming a
crater ..more, than 400 m deep is. 10 21-per km2 per year. Such craters could
threaten-any form of land- disposaT. Smaller meteorites are more common, and
-the probabiTity::of. a meteorite; :in the:.10-tonne .range; striking a large surface
•'builUtng .has been, estimated to .-be Tess:,than 10 .I0. per year. Even so, this
'appears "to^be" an event that can be neglected'in comparison with many other
uncontrollable risks. .,
Uncommon Man-caused Initiating Events
Aircraft impacts—The effects of an aircraft crash (including possible
fuel combustion) have been investigated for nuclear power plants and waste
processing facilities and for the transport of nuclear materials (Rasmussen,
1975; Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977). The risk from
aircraft during surface transport is very small compared to other types of
184
-------
transport accidents, but due to the large quantities of energy that might be
involved, this risk is of interest for materials (such as high-level radio-
active materials) that are containerized securely enough to resist soill age
in most accidents. The probability of a potentially damaging air crash at a
reactor location in the United States, that is_more than five miles from any
airport has been estimated to be 10"6 to 10"8 per year (Rasmussen, 1975).
Sabotage--Several authors have attempted to estimate the probability
that facilities containing radioactive wastes will be sabotaged (Energy
Research and Development Administration, 1977; Schneider and Platt, 1974;
Claiborne and Gera, 1974). They conclude that the probability is low because
there are more attractive targets for saboteurs. On the other hand, the
security taken at any facility where sabotage could lead to disastrous
consequences will reflect the attractiveness of the target, which will tend
to even out the probabilities between different targets. Nevertheless, most
techniques for the ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes would not appear to
be particularly vulnerable to sabotage, but treatment facilities and
engineered storage could be. Given a reasonable level of security at
hazardous waste management facilities, it is difficult to predict the prob-
ability of a successful sabotage attempt without knowing more about the local
political climate and alternative targets at the time.
REFERENCES
Angel 1, G.R., and A.S. Kalelkar. llThe Cost of Relative Spill Hazards Associ-
ated With the Modal Transport of Hazardous Materials." In: Control of
Hazardous Material Spills. Proceedings of the 1974 National_ Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Anon, ed. American Institute of
ChemicalEngineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San
Francisco, California, August 25-28, 1974. pp. 90-98.
Anon. ed. Control of Hazardous Material Spills. Proceedings of the 1974
NatipnaT Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills.American
Institute of Chemical Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, San Francisco, California, August 25-28, 1974. 387 pp.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous Wastes
at National Disposal Sites.Volume II.EPA/530/SW-46c-2, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. [NTIS: PB237264]
Arthur D. Little, Inc. A Modal Economic and Safety Analysis of the Transpor-
tation of Hazardous Substances in Bulk. COM7411058, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Maritime Administration, 1974.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Safety Considerations in Siting Housing Projects.
Contract No. H-2178R Modification 1, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington,
D.C., 1975. 124pp. [NTIS: PB253786]
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Program for the
Management of Hazardous Wastes. Volume I. EPA-530/SW54c-l, U.S. Envi-
ronmentalProtection .Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974. 403pp. [NTIS:
PB233630]
185
-------
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. An Appraisal of the Problem of the Handling,
Transportation, and Disposal of Toxic and Other Hazardous Materials.
Contract No. 05-00033, Environmental Quality Council, Washington, D.C. ,
1970. 180 pp. [NTIS: PB236599]
Buckley, J.L., and S.A. Wiener. Hazardous Material Spills: A Documentation
and Analysis of Historical Data.EPA-600/2-78-066,U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Burkholder, H.C., M.O. Cloninger, D.A. Baker, and G. Jansen. "Incentives for
Partitioning High-Level Waste." Nuclear Technology. 31(November):
202-217, 1976.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Waste Discharge Requirements
for Nonsewerable Waste Disposal to Land: Disposal Site Design and Oper-
ation Information. California State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento, California, 1976. 60 pp.
Carter, C.D., R.D. Kimbrough, J.A. Liddle, R.E. Cline, M.M. Zack, Jr., W.F.
Barthel, R.E. Koehler, and P.E. Phillips. "Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin:
An Accidental Poisoning Episode in Horse Arenas." Science. 188(4189):
738-740, 1975.
Claiborne, H.C., and F. Gera. Potential Containment Failure Mechanisms and
Their Consequences at a RadioactiveWasteRepositoryin Bedded Sait
in New Mexico"! ORNL-TM-4639, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1974.
Coffman, J.L., and C.A. von Hake. United States Earthquakes. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Silver Spring, Maryland, 1972.
Dawson, G.W., and M.W. Stradley. "A Methodology for Quantifying the Environ-
mental Risks From Spills of Hazardous Material." A paper presented at
the AIChE Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, September 8, 1975. 35 pp.
Dawson, G.W., A.J. Shuckrow, and W.H. Swift. Control of Spillage of Hazard-
ous Polluting Substances. 15090FOZ 10/70, Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1970.
Dawson, G.W., M.W. Stradley, and A.J. Shuckrow. Determination of Harmful
Quantities and Rates of Penalty for Hazardous Substances. Volumes II,
III. IV.EPA-440/9-75-005, U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
Deonigi, D.E. "Evaluation Methodology of Waste Management Concepts." Nuclear
Technology. 24(3):331-338, 1974.
Elzy, E., and F.T. Lindstrom. "Model of the Movement of Hazardous Waste
Chemicals for Sanitary Landfill Sites." In: Proceedings of the Con-
ference on Environmental Modeling and Simulation, W.R. Qtt, ed. EPA-600/
9-76-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976.
pp. 609-613.
186
-------
Elzy, E., F.T. Lindstrom, L. Boersma, R. Sweet, and P. Wicks. "Model of the
Movement of Hazardous Waste Chemicals In and From a Landfill Site." In:
Disposal of Environmentally Hazardous Wastes. Oregon State Un'versity
Environmental Health Sciences Center Task Force on Environrientally
Hazardous Wastes, Corvallis, Oregon, 1974. pp. 111-201.
Energy Research and Development Administration. Alternatives for Long-Term
Management of Defense High-level Radioactive Waste, Savannai •River
Plant. Aiken. South Carolina. Volume 1. ERDA, 77-42/1, Energy Research
and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Fenn, D.G., K.J. Hanley, and T.V. OeGeare. Use of the Water Balance Method
for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites.
EPA/530/SW-168, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1975. 40 pp.
Ghassemi, M. Analysis of a Land Disposal Damage Incident Involving Hazard-
ous Waste Materials, Dover Township, New Jersey. 'Contract Nc. 68-01-
2956, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976.
127 pp.
INTERCOM? Resource Development and Engineering, Inc. A Model for Calculat-
ing Effects of Liquid Waste Disposal in Deep Saline Aquifers. Pa*-c_I--
Development.Water-ResourcesInvestigations76-61,U.S.Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia, 1976.
Jones, G.P., et al. Risk Analysis in Hazardous Materials Transportation.
Volume I. Contract No. DOT OS 20114, Department of Transportation,
1973. 297 pp.
Kalelkar, A.S., L.J. Partridge, and R.E. Brooks, Jr. "Decision Analysis in
Hazardous Material Transportation.". In:. Control of Hazardous Material
Spills. Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference on Control
of Hazardous Material Spills.Anon. ed.American Institute of Chemical
Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.,. San Francisco,
California, August 25-28, 1974. pp. 336-344.
Konikow, L.F. Modeling Chloride Movement in the Alluvial AquiFer at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado.Water-Supply Paper 2044, U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey, Washington, D.C., 1977. 48 pp.
Lazar, E.G. "Damage Incidents From Improper Land Disposal." Journal of
Hazardous Materials. 1:157-164, 1975/76.
Lazar, E.C. "Summary of Damage Incidents From Improper Land Disposal." A
paper presented at the National Conference on Management and Disposal of
Residues from the Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters, Washincton, D.C.,
1975. 16 pp.
Lazar, E.C., R. Testani, and A.B. Giles. "The Potential for National Health
and Environmental Damages from Industrial Residue Disposal." A paper
presented at the National Conference on Disposal of Residues on Land,
St. Louis, Missouri, September 15, 1976. 21 pp.
187
-------
Miller, D.W., F.A. DeLuca, and T.L. Tessier. Ground Water Contamination in
~the Northeast States. EPA 660/2-74-056, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Munn, A. "Health Hazards to Workers from Industrial Chemicals." Chemical
Society (London) Reviews, 4(l):82-89, 1975.
Nace, R.L. "Problems of Underground Storage of Wastes." Journal of Research
of U.S. Geological Survey. 1(6):719-723, 1973.
National Academy of Sciences. Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , 1975. 458 pp.
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Hazardous Materials, Analysis of
Risk in the Water Transportation of Hazardous Materials. COT-CG-
41680-A, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1976. 118 pp.
Ocean Disposal Study Steering Committee. Disposal in the Marine Environment:
An Oceanographic Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., 1976. 85 pp.
Ott, W.R., ed. Proceedings of the EPA Conference on Environmental Modeling
and Simulation.EPA 600/9-76-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, O.C., 1976. 861pp.
Rasmussen, N.C., director. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident
Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1975.207 pp.[NTIS: PB248201]
Raleigh, C.B. "Earthquakes and Fluid Injection." In: Underground Waste
Management and Environmental Implications, T.D. Cook, ed., Memoir 18,
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1972.
pp. 273-279.
Reeder, L.R., J.H. Cobbs, J.W. Field, Jr., W.O. Finley, S.C. Vokurka, and
B.N. Rolfe. Review and Assessment of Deep-Well Injection of Hazardous
Waste. Volume I.£PA600/2-77-019a,U.S.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 215 pp.
Schneider, K.J., and A.M. Platt, eds. High-level Radioactive Waste Manage-
ment Alternatives. 4 volumes. BNWL-1900, Battelle N.W. Laboratories,
Richland, Washington, 1974.
Schultz, D.W., ed. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Research Symposium.EPA-600/9-78-016, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Shuster, K.A. Leachate Damage Assessment: Case Study of the Fox Valley
Solid Waste Disposal Site in Aurora. Illinois. EPA/530/SW-514. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976a. 41 pp.
188
-------
Shuster, K.A. Leachate Damage Assessment: Case Study of the Peoples Avenue
Solid Waste Disposal Site in Rockford. Illinois. EPA/530/SW/517. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976b. 33 pp.
Shuster, K.A. Leachate Damage Assessment: Case Study of the Sayville Solid
Waste Disposal Site In Is lip (Long Island). New York. EPA/530/SW-509,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976c. 25pp.
Smith, D.D., and R.P. Brown. Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities.SW-19c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1971. 128 pp.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Injuries
and Illness in the United States by Industry. 1974. Bulletin 1332, U.S.
Department or" Labor, Wasnington, O.C., 1976. 147 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes. SW-115, U.S.' EnvironmentalProtection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1974. 120 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage
Reports. EPA/530/SW-151, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975a. 12 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage
Reports. Document No. 2. EPA/530/SW-151.2, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975b. 16 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage
Reports. Document No. 3. EPA/530/SW-151.3, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 17 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fish Kills Caused by Pollution in
1975: Sixteenth Report. EPA-440/9-77-004, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977a. 88 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Report to Congress: Waste Dis-
posal Practices and Their Effects~on Ground Water.EPA-570/9-77-001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977b. 531pp.
Venugopal, B., and T.D. Luckey. "Toxicology of Non-Radioactive Heavy Metals
and Their Salts." In: Heavy Metal Toxicity. Safety and Hornology. T.D.
Luckey, B. Venugopal, and D. Hutcheson, eds.Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1975. pp. 4-73.
Walker, W.H. "Where Have All the Toxic Chemicals Gone?" Ground Water.
11(2):11-20, 1973.
Warner, D.L., and D.H. Orcutt. "Industrial Wastewater-Injection Wells in the
United States—Status of Use and Regulation, 1973." Proceedings: Second
International Symposium on Underground Waste Management and Artificial
Recharge. Volume 2., J. Braunstein, ed. The George Banta Company,
Inc., Menasha, Wisconsin, 1973. pp. 687-697.
189
-------
APPENDIX C
VALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
This appendix discusses the nature of control costs and indicates how
some of the common environmental impacts can be valued.
CONTROL COSTS
Generator's Costs
Generator's costs Include all costs that the generator of a waste incurs
specifically in dealing with its waste disposal problem. Gen°.-ator's costs
are the only costs that are internal to a firm, and therefore, according to
classical microeconomic theory, they are the only costs that a firm is
assumed to consider in its decisionmaking.
Generator's costs include any costs incurred by the generating firm to
reduce the generation of hazardous waste, as well as those involved in waste
separation, treatment, and disposal. They should include legal costs and
taxes directly applicable to the waste handling and disposal operations
(e.g., property taxes on relevant facilities or equipment), but not those
that cannot readily be attributed to waste handling or disposal (e.g., income
taxes). If the waste is subjected to any form of resource recovery, a credit
for the value of the materials recovered (based on the cost of an alternative
supply of that quality of material in that location) should be included, even
if no market transaction is involved. Where a waste is consigned to another
firm for treatment, transport, and/or disposal, the charges for these
services are part of the generator's costs.
Generator's costs are comparatively easy to determine for a given waste
and location. Hazardous waste management costs have been determined for
various industries and for various methods of treatment and disposal.
However, many of these data are highly location-specific or waste-stream-
specific and are scattered throughout the literature. A- few have been
collated. For example, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories (1974, Vol.II) provides costs for some widely applicable treat-
ment modules; and Talley and Albrecht (1974) provide a comparison of costs
for some disposal techniques, (Table C-l). An EPA-sponsored study to update
and collate cost data for a wide range of hazardous waste treatment and
disposal techniques has just been completed (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, in progress).
190
-------
TABLE C-l. ESTIMATED COSTS OF SOME DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES*
Technique
Estimated costs
Range
Average
"Normalized"
LAND BURIAL TECHNIQUES
: Conventional sanitary landfill
Near-surface land burial
containerized wastes
Sludge encapsulation and
burial
Operating experience of
one company
Polymer encapsulation
Cement encapsulation
Asphalt
Deep burial
ENGINEERED STORAGE
DEEP WELL INJECTION
OCEAN DISPOSAL
Bulk
Containerized
$1.98-$4.74/tonne
$3.30/tonne
$26.50/m3
$7.80-$31.80/m3
$26.40/m3
• $66.10/m3
$35.20/tonne
$11.30-$33.90/m3
$106-$177/m3
$0.13-$0.53/m3
$0.66-$10.50/tonne . $1.87/tonne
$5.50-$143.OO/tonne $26.40/tonne
$0.99/m3
$26.50/m3
$7.80-$31.80/m3
$27.20/m3
$66.00/m3
$42.40/m3
$11.30-$33.90/m3
$106-$177/m3
$0.13-$0.53/m3
$1.87/m3
$26.40/m3
* Source:. Talley and Albrecht, 1974. (Data were converted from U.S. customary units.)
-------
A major problem that may be encountered In attempting to determine
generator's costs for planning purposes is the variability of such costs with
local conditions, even if the level of environmental protection is not con-
currently varied. Although disposal costs (for a given technique) are not,
in general, sensitive to the precise composition of the wastes involved,
treatment costs can vary considerably. For example, Arthur 0. Little, Inc.
(1973, Vol.1) showed a variation in total operating costs from 0.3 to 15.6
cents per liter (1973 data) for treatment of various wastes containing heavy
metals. (These wastes were dilute heavy metals, concentrated heavy metals,
and organics with heavy metals. Data excluded sludge disposal costs and were
for waste stream volumes typical of large-sized industrial plants.)
Furthermore, major economies "for scale are possible. Arthur 0. Little, Inc.
(1973, Vols.I and II) assumed an exponent of -0.4 in the average unit
processing cost/throughput relationship for all treatment processes consid-
ered. (The"term "processing cost" appears to refer to labor and capital
related costs only, and to exclude chemicals and utilities which were taken
as constant unit, costs.)
Disposal costs will, however, depend on geologic and climatic factors,
such as the depth and injection-pressure needed for deep well injection, the
suitability of'the location for evaporation ponds, and the relative ease with
which secure (chemical) landfills can be constructed. Talley and Albrecnt's
'data (Table C-l) are based on a single source of data for each tecnnique, and
'yet typically they show variations of 2:1"to 4:1, with a far larger range for
ocean disposal. This varies "according to geographical area, type of waste,
distance [from port] to the disposal area and annual volume of wastes
handled" (Smith and Brown, 1971).
Administrative Costs
Administrative costs include the costs of planning, promulgating regula-
tions, monitoring compliance, and prosecuting noncompliance with regulations,
studying incidents and problems, and advising industry. These costs will be
incurred by various levels of government and by watchdog bodies that are
concerned with environmental quality. Research and development costs should
not be included unless they are integrally associated with a particular
approach to hazardous waste control.
It is often difficult to derive precise data on the administrative costs
•involved, in a. .particular program area, because of multiple coverage by many
government departments. For example, a legal department or a laboratory will
probably'handle'the work.of many program areas and will not be restricted to
hazardous 'wastes. Fortunately, the analyst is primarily interested in
changes in administrative costs as the approaches to hazardous waste control
are varied, and these can more readily be estimated by assessing the cost of
employing the additional staff directly needed to implement programs,
together with an allowance for support'from service departments, consultants,
etc. •••••
Few empirical data have been published on administrative costs, and
those that have are generally broad in coverage. For example, 1977 Federal
192
-------
expenditures for standard setting and enforcement in relation to al_^ pol-
lution control activities were estimated to be $422 million (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1976). However, it is widely held that administrative
costs can vary substantially with different regulatory approaches. The
National Academy of Sciences (1975) highlighted this variability, and sug-
gested that the magnitude of regulatory administrative costs should be
considered in selecting an appropriate regulatory action. Also, in assessing
the potential efficacy of alternative institutional approaches to the manage-
ment of hazardous wastes, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories (1974, Vol.1) gave Federal cost a weighting of one-seventh in
deriving an effectiveness ranking. Administrative costs can be expected to
increase as the extent of regulation is increased (as opposed to achieving
objectives by use of market forces) and as the degree of environmental pro-
tection or quality is increased.
Although crude, an approach that is sometimes adopted is to take admin-
istrative costs as a fixed proportion of some other major cost. For example,
Moll et al. (1977) suggested that administrative and enforcement costs
incurred by governments for pollution control activities might amount to 10
percent of the annualized costs of the relevant industrial pollution
controls.
Effluent fees or fines for the violation of standards may be used to
internalize costs external to a firm and can thereby affect its behavior.
However, because fines and effluent charges are only transfer payments bet-
ween different categories of control costs, any contribution that they make
to overall economic efficiency must be by means of changes in pollution
control activities. In work oriented toward the control of fly ash emissions
from power plants. Downing and Watson have analyzed the effect of an agency's
enforcement activities on a firm's projected behavior under the assumption of
cost minimization (Downing and Watson, 1974, 1977; Watson and Downing, 1976).
They compared the effects of effluent fees with standards and fines, and they
examined the effects of using different compliance tests and numbers of
inspections, as well as different levels of fines and effluent fees. One
conclusion was that for the parameters involved in the .fly ash control situa-
tion, a firm's optimum strategy would involve frequent violation of standards
(Watson and Downing, 1976). In recent work, Downing and Kimball (no date)
examined the pollution control behavior adopted by firms in a number of
industries and found that the firms appear to be controlling pollution to a
greater degree than would be implied by a- cost minimization strategy.
Although Downing and Kimball examined a-number of possible explanations, they
were unable to satisfactorily explain the observed behavior.-
Social Control Costs
The category of "social control "costs" is introduced to eaten hidden or
intentional subsidies provided to enterprises that have to dispose of
hazardous waste. For example, to encourage adequate disposal of wastes,
governments might elect to provide landfill services at no cost, or at a cost
below that which would be justified on an economic basis. This would con-
stitute an intentional subsidy that should be taken into account when
comparing the total costs of alternative disposal techniques. A more subtle
193
-------
subsidy—and one that may not be restricted to services provided by
governments—can occur where the opportunity cost or the replacement cost of
a facility (such as a landfill) is higher than the historic cost or account-
ing cost. For example, even in the absence of inflation, an accounting cost
could readily understate the capital component of landfill costs. Often, the
land employed was obtained at low cost; but with the growth of the community
that it serves, both the opportunity cost reflecting the value of the land in
alternative uses, and the cost of replacing the facility with another that is
functionally equivalent would be far higher than the historic cost. Govern-
ment charters may preclude landfill operation in such a way as to make a book
profit, and individual firms often base their charges on historic costs, not
recognizing the need to consider opportunity costs or to plan for facility
replacement.
Social control costs—both deliberate and unintentional—can arise with
most hazardous waste management techniques. Highway users, for example, may
not pay the full cost of providing and maintaining the highway system. Where
this type of cost exists, it is important that its presence is recognized and
that it is included in the evaluation if it is a significant factor. In
cost-benefit analysis, a "shadow price" is sometimes used to reflect the true
cost of a transaction, as opposed to the actual money cost, if any. This is
equivalent to adding the social control cost to the generator's cost.
Social control costs are external to the waste generator, who will
therefore not take them into account in his decisionmaking. However, such
costs might deliberately be incurred for some techniques to steer generators'
decisions toward ones that are efficient from a societal viewpoint (i.e.,
when all costs and damages are considered).
VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section discusses the valuation of environmental impacts that may
arise from hazardous wastes. Some economic theory that may be used in such
valuations is presented followed by discussion on the valuation of commonly
encountered categories of impact. These categories have been organized
largely on the basis of the valuation techniques that might be used, and a
given waste management technique may result in impacts in more than one
category.
Theoretical Considerations
Wi 11 i ngness-to-Pay—
The valuation of environmental impacts is frequently more difficult than
the valuation of control costs, as there are no established markets for many
effects (e.g., a change in water quality). Although some authorities con-
sider that monetary values should not be assigned to certain effects
(Tihansky, 1975), in principle it is almost invariably possible to impute a
value from some sort of willingness-to-pay survey or equivalent measure.
This involves asking affected consumers how much they would be willing to pay
to receive a specified benefit, even though it might be impossible or unfea-
sible to collect such payments. Because it is often difficult to develop a
willingness-to-pay survey that is not subject to bias, willingness-to-pay is
frequently imputed from some observed behavior.
194
-------
The term "willingness-to-pay" is frequently used to encompass two
separate concepts that can lead to quite different results under certain
circumstances. Thus there is a distinction between an individual's
wi11ingness-to-oay to obtain increased utility, and the compensation that an
individual would demand to accept a reduction in utility (Freeman, 1978).
(The term ''wi11ingness-to-pay" is commonly employed to encompass either
measure, except where the distinction is important.) If an individual's
marginal utility of income is approximately constant (as where the changes
are very small compared to total income) the two measures can be :aken as
equivalent (Freeman, 1978). However, in some circumstances, the distinction
can be important, as willingness-to-pay is limited by an individual's income,
whereas compensation demands are not. Consequently some individuals may
indicate that they would not accept certain situations at any level of com-
pensation (Prato, 1974). Thus the compensation that an individual would
require to accept a reduction in his life expectancy or to undertake, an
activity that carries a given chance of death could be far greater than the
payment that he would be prepared or able to make to increase his life
expectancy by a similar -amount, or to avoid an activity that has the same
chance of death (Hirshleifer, Bergstrom and Rappaport, 1974).
The measurement of willingness-to-pay for environmental improvement is
difficult, as individuals can have strong incentives for concealing their
true preferences (MSler and Wyzga, 1976). Thus in responding to a question-
naire or in a bidding game, it is in the interest of those responding to
overstate their willingness-to-pay if their responses carry no financial
obligations. If the amount they will actually pay is essentially independent
of their responses, they are.likely to promote the perceived improvement in
the quality of the environment'to the maximum extent possible-by. exaggerating
their responses. On the other hand, if there is a direct individual
financial obligation associated with the responses, it is in the interest of
an individual to understate his response in the hope that other persons will
bear the brunt of improvement costs. (This is an example of the "free-rider"
problem that can arise with public goods.) In the context of valuation of
amenity benefits, Maler and Wyzga (1976) suggest ways in which it may be
possible to
-------
to pay for the benefit. If pollution reduces the attractiveness of
recreational opportunities in the park, then the demand curve will be lower,
and the cost of that pollution (as far as its effect on the park is
concerned) will be the reduction in the consumers' surplus.
Where the distinction between willingness-to-pay to obtain a procuct or
service and the compensation required to forego it is significant, there ara
two different measures of the consumers' surplus. The compensating
variation measures the consumers' surplus in the former case, ana the
equivalent variation measures it for opportunities foregone. For a normal
(as opposed to inferior) good, the compensating variation is smaller than the
area under the demand curve, which in turn is smaller than the equivalent
variation. However, where income effects are negligible, the three measures
coincide. In practice, although goods having zero income effect are
uncommon, the effect is often sufficiently small for the area under tr.e
demand curve to be used with acceptable accuracy in many cost-oenefit
analyses (Mishan, 1971a).
Unfortunately, analysis of environmental problems is complicated oy the
fact that consumers can be highly emotional about giving up their ngnts,
with the result that the two measures are not equivalent. This s^cuation
was, for example, found to pertain to waterfowl hunting (Browr and Hai-,,iack,
1972) and to the public's stated views about changes in air quality :n tns
Four Corners area where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah T.eet (RandaT,
Ives, and Eastman, cited in Prato, 1974). Because of the a-f:iculty of
designing survey instruments that elucidate genuine responses to willingness-
to-pay questions (and especially those that relate to compensation required),
there may be considerable uncertainty about the true magnitude of a
consumers' surplus.
Destruction and Damage to Manmade Property
Destruction and damage to manmade property can be a comparatively easy
category of environmental damage to value. If some replacement of the
damaged item is required, then replacement cost will provide a suitable
method of valuation where the replacement is functionally equivalent to the
damaged item. Though in many cases this can be assessed on the basis of the
cost of a similar item (less an allowance for depreciation where appro-
priate), there will be situations where direct replacement is inappropriate.
For example, where wells are irreversibly contaminated, the damage cost
should include the cost of providing an alternate water supply. Provision of
an alternate water supply from a different source is likely to be far more
costly than drilling a direct replacement for the original well.
On the other hand, there could be circumstances in which the appropriate
replacement cost was less than that of replacing the damaged item with a
direct equivalent. Due to changing technology, the direct reolacement of
some structures (e.g., a fire-damaged barn) with a physically identical
structure could be more costly than replacement with a functionally equiv-
alent structure of different design. Of course, replacement of damaged
property with something that is functionally equivalent but physically dif-
ferent could also cause a social impact by changing the aesthetic value
associated with the property.
196
-------
In other cases, because of changing demand or technology, replacement
would be inappropriate, as there might be some better means of utilizing the
resources or solving the problem. For example, if an abandoned mine that was
being used for hazardous waste disposal were destroyed by an explosion, it
would be inappropriate to calculate the cost of replacing the mine, since
some completely different disposal technique would probably be adopted.
However, in this case, a "value in use" could be attributed to the mine,
probably based on the costs of an alternative waste disposal technique.
Damage to Human Life and Health
Loss of Human Life--
The valuation of human life has recently been discussed by Hirsnleifer,
Bergstrom, and Rappaport (1974), Zeckhauser (1975), and Linnerooth (1S76,
1975a,b). Linnerooth (1976) identifies six approaches, as follows:
1. The human-capital approach: Each life is valued according to
the discounted future earnings of the beneficiary;
2. The insurance approach: Each life is valued on the basis of
individual life insurance decisions;
3. The court-decided compensation approach: Here information
from court awards for fatal accidents or diseases is used to
value each life;
4. The implicit-value approach: • Each life is valued according to
values implicit in past decisions affecting human mortality;
5. The portfolio approach: Changes in mortality risk are
compared with the entire portfolio of risks assumed by
society;
6. The utility, or wi11ingness-to-pay approach: This approach
values risk reduction by the public s preferences or willing-
ness to pay for this reduction.
The human-capital approach is probably the best known and widely used,
although it has been criticized on the grounds that it values livelihood and
not lives (Linnerooth, 1976). Within this approach, there is an important
subdivision between the gross value version, which evaluates an individual's
lifetime earnings, and the net value version, which only considers the
economic loss that would be suffered by others should that individual die,
(i.e., it excludes his consumption or maintenance cost) (Linnerooth, 1975b).
Despite this significant philosophical distinction (as an individual's con-
sumption is likely to be a large portion of his earnings), values derived by
both versions of the approach have clustered around $200,000 (in 1953 to 1974
dollars) (Linnerooth, 1975b).
The next three approaches (2, 3, and 4) have not received as much atten-
tion as that of the human-capital approach and can lead to a wide range of
results. For example, life valuations derived from the implicit-value
197
-------
approach have ranged from $9,000 to $9 million (Linnerooth, 1976). On the
other hand, there is evidence that court-decided compensation is related to
the human-capital approach, as court awards for loss of life are frequently
based on the expected future earnings of the deceased.
A major difficulty associated with all of the first four approaches is
that they can lead to the conclusion that for some sectors of society, lives
have no value. These sectors are non-wageworkers (e.g., homemakers and
retired persons) and persons with no dependents (for the insurance approach).
Although there are ways to circumvent this problem, it does point up the
inadequacy of these approaches.
The last two approaches (5 and 6) are of particular interest for risk-
benefit analyses as they express mortality risk in probabilistic terms, as
opposed to dealing with ex ante identifiable persons. Thus they are
considered appropriate to decisions where life expectancy or the probaoility
of death is altered (Linnerooth, 1976, 1975b), as is the case with hazardous
waste management decisions.
By far the most widely known example of the portfolio approach is the
work of Starr (1969, 1972), who drew the important distinction between risks
undertaken voluntarily and those that are involuntary. This approacn has
been criticized by several authors (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein,
1976; Linnerooth, 1975b; Mishan, 1971b), essentially on the grounds that thp
sociopolitical decisionmaking process reflected in these data does not reveal
the true public preference for risk-benefit trade-offs. (This topic is
discussed in more detail in Appendix F.)
The willingness-to-pay approach is advocated by some authors as the only
conceptually valid way of valuing life—i.e., by basing the valuations on
utility (Mishan, 1971b; Schelling, 1968). The approach is potentially
capable of recognizing nonlinearities in the risk-benefit trade-off relation-
ship, but it is fraught with difficulties in use." There have been a few
questionnaire-type surveys (see Linnerooth, 1975b), and Thaler and Rosen
(1973) have attempted to use the "risk premium" associated with the
remuneration for hazardous jobs to obtain a value of life. Once again, both
survey and risk premium results suggest a value of life in the region of
$200,000 (based on small increases in mortality).
* For example, an individual might accept a 0.1 percent decrease in survival
probability to receive $200. If this applied to many individuals, it would
lead to an ex post life valuation of $200,000. However, the same individ-
ual might require a million dollars to accept a 50 percent reduction in
survival probability (leading to an ex post life valuation of $2 million),
and he would probably be unwilling to accept any compensation—however
great—in exchange for certain death. Thus in this example the ex ante
risk-benefit trade-off relationship is nonlinear (see Hirshleifer,
Bergstrom, and Rappaport, 1974).
198
-------
Damage to Human Health—
The valuation of sickness and accidents appears to have received less
attention than loss of life. Most valuations appear to be based on the
human-capital approach, plus an allowance for medical expenses. This
approach is, of course, implicit in Workman's Compensation and other
insurance schemes, and such data could be used as a measure of work-related
damages to life and health.
Values of lost workdays derived from the human-capital approach do not
include an allowance for pain and suffering. This factor (together with
allowances for medical expenses) is often present in court-awarded injury
compensation. In some empirical studies, an allowance for pain and suffering
has been included as a proportion of the other costs of accidents and illness
(e.g., 25 percent of monetary costs [Garwood and Newby, cited by Tihansky,
1976]), but in most studies no explicit allowance has been made.
The National Academy of Sciences (1977) recently used $50 per working
day as the lost income that would result from a disability. They .argued that
the nonworking population was included indirectly in their calculations by
means of resource transfers. Unfortunately, this study did not estimate the
associated reduction in medical costs that would result from reduced dis-
abilities, nor did it make an allowance for pain and suffering. Several
other authors have also used the $50 per lost workday figure (e.g., Brewer,
1976; Hub et al., 1973). However, Hub et al. (1973) restrict the valuation
of accidents to those that are "external" to the risky situation to avoid
double counting (i.e, they assume that the labor cost for a worker exposed to
health risks reflects at least some of the costs of these risks). This is
the same concept as the wage risk premium mentioned above.
The distinction between internal and external risk-bearers is important.
It implies that if the risk premium correctly reflects the additional risks
undertaken, it is unnecessary to evaluate .the risk to life and limb of
workers normally involved with hazardous waste management activities, and
only involuntary risks to bystanders need be considered. .Thus part of the
wages paid to an operator at a hazardous waste disposal facility should, in
theory, reflect the higher level of job-related risk over that of a similar
job dealing with nonhazardous materials. While the risk premium may be
reasonably accurate in an occupation like underground .coal mining where there
is a history of accidents and illness (e.g., black lung disease) known to the
workers (see Otway and Cohen, 1975), it is less likely to reflect accurately
the risk in a hazardous waste management facility, because the risks will in
most cases be poorly defined.
Involuntary risks to bystanders' lives and health can arise in many ways
from hazardous waste management activities. For example, the risk incurred
by individuals along waste transport routes are involuntary, as are those
that arise from undetected contamination of water supplies or foodstuffs due
to waste leaching or overflow.
199
-------
Damage or Destruction to Animals, Vegetation and Land Ecosystems
Commercial Crops and Livestock--
Commercial crops could be damaged or destroyed by overflow from lagoons
or treatment facilities, and could be affected by airborne pollution from
nearby hazardous waste facilities. Land application could affect subsequent
crops on the same site, while animals could eat or drink contaminated
materials.
It is probably reasonable to assume that agricultural products face a
market of pure competition. In this event, destruction of commercial crops
and stock animals can readily be valued at market prices, although savings
that arise from not needing to harvest and market the crop or products could
be subtracted if significant. Cleanup costs should be included where neces-
sary, and adequate allowance should be made for long-lived effects, such as
reduced crop yield or the need to plant less valuable crops in future years.
Valuation of Wildlife, Etc.-
Although damage to land-based ecosystems from hazardous waste spills and
severe air pollution is likely to be quite localized, the damage potential to
aquatic systems is probably one of the more important environmental impacts
that can arise from hazardous wastes (see Appendix B). Methods of valuing
wildlife and associated ecosystems, both land and aquatic, largely amount to
the valuation of recreation opportunities in natural surroundings. Recrea-
tion might include hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating, etc. In
addition, there may be an "option value" associated with the preservation of
natural environments, which will be discussed later.
Ashton, Wykstra, and Nobe (1974) discuss six recognized approaches to
the valuation of non-market supplied recreational opportunities. Although
some of these approaches are seriously flawed, they are included here because
the reader may find them in use and should therefore be able to recognize
them and understand their limitations. They are as follows:
1. The expenditure method: Measures the value of recreation in
terms of the total direct private expenditures on recreation;
2. The gross-national-product method: An attempt to measure the
contribution of recreation to GNP;
3. The consumers'-surplus method: Determines the willingness of
individualstopayforvarious quantities of recreation;
4. The cost method: Uses the cost of supplying recreational
facilitiesas a measure of the benefits derived therefrom;
5. The market-value method: Is based on fees charged at private
resorts as a proxy for the value of public-supplied
facilities;
6. The monopoly-revenue method: Relies on the estimated revenue
that would be obtained by a nondiscriminating monopolist
owning a recreation site as a measure of the benefits.
200
-------
The most Important approaches are the expenditures method and the
consumers'-surplus method. The expenditure method is simple to app'y and is
widely used; Ashton, Wykstra, and Nobe (1974) cite a variety of studies that
have resulted in valuations of $3.89 to $28 per recreation day (in 1952 to
1966 dollars). One approach to the consumers'-surplus method is to ask
consumers what they are willing to pay for the recreational opportunities.
While attractive theoretically, as already indicated, this approach is
fraught with practical difficulties. Alternatively, in both the consumers'-
surplus and monopoly-revenue methods, travel distances, and hence differen-
tial travel costs can be used to impute a value (or rent) for rec-eaiional
opportunities.
The cost method is conceptually unsound and is rarely used nowadays; but
its successor, the market-value method, is difficult to apply in sractice.
The appropriate version of the gross-national-product method involves tracing
the contributions to regional or national income that arise from tha "screa-
tional activities of interest. Thus this method includes secondary effects
and would be inconsistent with other valuations used in this study. Note,
however, that each method discussed here is not merely a different way of
arriving at the same result, but it is in fact a different measure of the
value of recreation. Fortunately, the consumer-surplus and monopoly-revenue
methods generally give results that are similar in magnitude to those
obtained by the expenditure method (see Ashton, Wykstra and Nobe, 1974), so
that the significant philosophical differences need not cause too many prob-
lems in practice.
Other useful discussions on the valuation of recreation may be found in
Clawson (1972), Clawson and Knetsch (1966), Krutilla and Fisher (1975),
Krutilla (1972), Edwards et al. (1976), and Pearse (1968). Most work has
concentrated on the valuation of a recreation-day, as this is most readily
measured. However, in many situations it may be desirable to be able to
value individual species (this is particularly useful for fish as it permits
fish kill data to be used). For game animals (known as "consumative" or
"harvested" species), it is common to deduce an average animal value from the
number of hunter-days (often estimated from license data), the average expend-
iture or some other measure of the value of a hunter-day, and the number of
animals harvested (Ashton, Wykstra, and Nobe, 1974). Valuations yielded by
this procedure have been used within a cost-benefit analysis framework to
determine the cost of destroying areas of wildlife habitat, based on the
number of animals that the habitat would support (Norman et al., no date).
Unfortunately, the average animal-value approach has some serous draw-
backs. First, for the purpose of evaluating any specific wildlife kill, a
marginal value should ideally be used. Second, it values animals as though
they were harvested and does not take account of the need to propagate the
species for future years. Finally, it cannot be applied to nonharvested
species.
There have been some attempts to overcome these difficulties. Brown and
Hammack (1972) have developed a questionnaire-based methodology (applied to
migratory waterfowl) to derive a marginal value for game animals that recog-
nizes the variability of hunting success and the effort of constraints such
201
-------
as the bag limit. Inevitably, a major difficulty associated with determina-
tion of marginal rather than average values is the more complex data
requirements; this is probably why most analysts use average values.
The need to propagate the species is usually taken into account by
valuing breeding areas or young in terms of the yield to harvestable adults
and the value of these adults. For example, Brown and Hammack (1972) derive
a valuation for nesting areas based on survival probabilities and hunting
yields, while the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1977) has developed
similar methods for valuing spawning gravel and brood fish in anadromous
fisheries. This approach does not take account of changed competition for
food, or the effects of reduced populations on hunting activities and
yields; but to attempt to do so would indeed be a profound undertaking.
Valuation of nonharvested wildlife presents greater difficulties.
Though similar methodologies to those used for arriving at the value of a
hunter-day can be used to determine the value of a recreation-day, the valua-
tion of specific species is very difficult. As far as the author is aware,
nonharvestable species valuation has only been attempted once (Norman et al.,
no date) and in this case, the values were derived by reviewing the harvest-
able values and making subjective comparisons. Thus in this case, the value
of a harvested black bear was established at $6,400; the vali-e of a grizzly
bear (which is not harvested) was subjectively set at $20,000 on the basis of
comparison with the black bear. (Telephone interview, R.L. Norman. Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado, November 21, 1977.)
Fish and Other Aquatic Life Kills in Surface Waters
Damage to Noncommercial Fishing, Etc.--
The considerations that apply to the valuation of noncommercial fishing
and to water-related recreation have already been discussed under the
valuation of wildlife, etc.
Damage to Commercial Fishing-
While land-based crop and animal losses can reasonably be valued at
market prices, valuation of lost commercial fishing is more difficult, as in
this case, resources are primarily expended in harvesting the fish (as
opposed to raising the crops or animals) and therefore, it would be possible
to arrive at a zero valuation for reduced fishing yield, if the resources
could be employed in alternative uses that were equally productive. In
practice, the resources are likely to be immobile, except in the very long
run,* and Brown et al. (1976) concluded that the benefits of increased yields
Gordon (1972) argues that the operation of a typical competitive fishery is
such as to yield no net economic rent, and that some fishing grounds may be
exploited at a level of negative marginal productivity. He states that
fisherman are one of the least mobile of occupational groups and they will
work for less than the "going wage." Bromley (1969) confirms the low
mobility of resources and argues that some of the unique features of the
commercial fishing industry justify the observed labor immobility on
grounds of social efficiency. Much additional information on the economics
of fisheries may be found in Peterson and Fisher's (1977) survey of the
economics of extractive resources.
202
-------
could be valued at market prices to the fishermen plus an increase in the
consumers' surplus. The change in the consumers' surplus arose because the
demand for fish (salmonids in this case) was assumed to be local, and an
increased catch would cause a decrease in price.
Similar arguments could be applied to decreases in yield due to
hazardous waste incidents, but unless the incident was such as to have a
substantial effect on the local catch, the decrease in the consumers' surplus
could be neglected. If the physical effects were permanent, the loss to
society could probably be restricted to several years or at the most to one
generation, as fishing resources would not be immobile forever.
The Impacts of Ocean Dumping--
Valuation of the environmental impacts of ocean dumping is made diffi-
cult by the diversity of possible effects (see Appendix B). It may, however,
be useful to identify and value the activities that are at risk from ocean
dumping. These include commercial and sport fishing, ocean recreation oppor-
tunities (skin diving, swimming, etc.), and general tourism. The valuation
of fishing and recreation has already been discussed; tourism is most
commonly valued in terms of its commercial impact by using tourists' expendi-
tures as a base. Because tourists' expenditures are usually assumed to be
exogenous to the area, secondary (multiplier) effects are commonly included.
In general, this study disregards such effects, but the local impact of
multiplier effects probably should be noted when lost tourism'is considered.
Some estimates of economic damages from actual hazardous materials and
oil spills are available. For example, cleanup costs for oil spills have
ranged from $0.13 to $4 per liter (Enk, 1974). However, available estimates
have rarely, if ever, attempted to evaluate all costs.
Changes in Property Values
The concept that pollution will affect land values and that land or
property values can thereby be used as- some measure of the public's percep-
tion of pollution has received much attention from environmental economists.
Unfortunately, analysis of empirical data is far from simple and has met.with
only limited success (Fisher and Peterson, 1976). Most attention has been
paid to the impact of air pollution on property values, it being argu&d that
property value differentials provide an indication of individual-willingness-
to-pay to reduce pollution. The theoretical underpinning and the practical
problems associated with the use of .land .rents or-property values..-as a
measure of external effects are described by Schmalensee et al. (1975).
However, there remains some debate as to exactly what can be inferred about
pollution from property value-data (see Polinsky and Shave!1, 1975).
The results of several empirical.,studies, of air pollution on property
values are discussed by Waddell (1974). .An indication of the magnitude of
the effect is provided by Waddell's conclusion that an increase of 0.1 mg
S03/100 cm2 per day (which would represent a doubling of the background rate
for sulfation in the U.S.) would decrease residential property values by $100
to $600.
203
-------
Tihansky (1975) cites some studies that attempted to relate property
values to water pollution. Unfortunately none of these studies provided
clear-cut results that could be helpful in evaluating hazardous waste manage-
ment problems.
Schmalensee et al. (1975) endeavored to assess the impact of sanitary
landfills on residential property values. In a study of values of
residential property adjacent to four sanitary landfills in Los Angeles
County, they found a general lack of significant detrimental environmental
effects. In one case truck noise associated with the fill had a negative
effect on property values, but both proximity and view of the fill had
positive effects, presumably because of the anticipated transformation of the
fill to a recreational site. Note, however, that these results related to
well operated sanitary landfills, where air and water pollution were not
problems.
Except perhaps where there is severe air pollution, it appears that
changes in property values are quite local. For sanitary landfills, the
effects do not appear to extend beyond one or two miles (see Schmalensse et
al., 1975). Thus this aspect of the adverse impacts of hazardous waste
management techniques can be minimized by locating any site well away from
residential >and other susceptible properties. As landfills ^.sed for the
disposal of hazardous waste are unlikely to be converted to recreational
sites, increases in property values would not be anticipated.
Though property values may reflect actual physical pollution, they may
also reflect psychological influences. The fear that property values may be
reduced is frequently encountered when landfill sites are being considered,
and local citizens will often oppose the establishment of a landfill for this
reason (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976). Despite the safeguards
used in a well operated chemical landfill or other waste management facility,
the situation may be exacerbated when it comes to hazardous waste operations,
reflecting a greater degree of perceived threat. The author is aware of two
instances in which industrial waste disposal sites were closed as a result of
public pressure. While incidents of this type are complex, it does appear
that concern about property values was involved in both cases.*
* The Antioch, California, landfill and lagooning facility operated by a
subsidiary of Industrial Tank Company was closed as a result of public
pressure after a housing subdivision was built adjacent to it. The
residents of the subdivision complained of air pollution but continued to
press for closure after the lagoons had been filled in and cappe:. The
same company operates two other treatment and disposal sites in the San
Francisco Bay area, but after strongly contested public hearings, the firm
was unable to secure a land use permit for a proposed site near Brentwood,
California. (Personal interview, C.G. Schwarzer, California Department of
Health, Berkeley, California, February 7, 1977.) To avoid a repetition of
the Antioch situation, the company has obtained control of a buffer zone of
several thousand acres (used for agricultural purposes) around its 280-acre
204
-------
Changes in property values are of particular importance with respect to
equity since changes that are caused by a hazardous waste activity can in
part be regarded as transfer payments. (These transfer payments would be
between those whose property values had fallen and those whose property
values had risen; and, to the extent that the price changes did not reflect
changes, in utility between a seller and a buyer of a property.) In addition
to these transfer payments, there is the overall external effect of the
hazardous waste management activity on the welfare of the householders. An
adverse impact will, in aggregate, reduce the utility of the properties to
the householders, thereby decreasing welfare.
To summarize: One can be reasonably sure that some hazardous waste
management techniques will—like many industrial activities—affect the value
of adjacent properties. These changes in value are indicative of external
effects associated with the hazardous waste management activities, but they
only provide a true measure of the external effects under ve-y limited
circumstances (Schmalensee et al., 1975; also see Fisher and Peterson, 1976).
In practice, changes in property values are largely important with respect to
equity.
Aesthetic Factors and Option Values
This category of effects is included to cover individuals' values that
do not normally enter the marketplace. The effects are highly indirect; an
individual does not necessarily have to observe the environmental feature of
interest to possess these values. They may conveniently be divided into
aesthetic value, existence value, and two types of option value. There are
no zero levels of aesthetic and existence values, so for these factors, costs
must be expressed in terms of differences. Option values, however, do have
zero levels, and hence it is possible to use absolute values if desired.
Aesthetics may enter into the valuation of most of the environmental
effects already discussed—for example, property values and the willingness-
to-pay for recreation opportunities partly reflect aesthetic considerations.
However, there may be situations where-only -aesthetic values are involved,
such as the attractiveness of a river with clear water as opposed to turbid
water, and the discussion here, is intended to cover those situations.
Benica, California, site. (Personal interview, F. Balisteri, Pacific
Disposal Systems, Inc., Martinez, California, February 3> 1977.)
Another industrial waste disposal site near Pasco, Washington,
operated by Resource Recovery Corporation was closed after the Franklin
County Commissioners refused to renew its land use permit. The company has
attempted to establish operations elsewhere in eastern Washington but has
met with opposition to its proposals (Stradley, Dawson, and Cone, 1975).
The Pasco site closure occurred after a newspaper had suggested that its
handling of the herbicide 2,4-0 could threaten local grape crops. However,
it was later demonstrated that no such physical damage had occurred.
(Personal interview, T. Cook et al., Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Washington, March 8, 1977.)
205
-------
Since changes in these nonmarket values between different hazardous
waste vmanagement schemes are difficult to measure, the analyst may in some
cases simply wish to identify these costs rather than place a dollar value on
them. However, there are techniques that can permit values to be assigned to
these costs, and these are discussed below.
Aesthetic Value—
The aesthetic value of concern here is what might be termed "environ-
mental aesthetics," as opposed to the aesthetics of art, design, city
planning, etc. Thus it is the value that an individual places en the
physical environment to reflect that individual's taste and desire for
beauty, and for natural surroundings, etc.
No direct costs can be associated with most changes that offend or
please a person's environmental aesthetic values. Virtually the only «ay of
placing a dollar figure on this type of aesthetic value would be some measure
of willingness-to-pay, derived either directly from questionnaires or bidding
games, or indirectly from studies of human behavior such as the travel
studies used to value recreation benefits.
Some authorities propose the use of a Delphi technique to estimate
aesthetic damages (Kennedy et al., 1976; CONSAD Research Corporation, 1975;
Maler and Wyzga, 1976). Delphi techniques are widely used in technological
forecasting and to some extent in technology assessment. The method involves
the use of a panel of experts who, through a controlled interactive process,
attempt 'to reach consensus in answering certain questions that usually
involve prediction. For more details of the Delphi method, see Linstone and
Turoff (1975). Though the Delphi method might have some promise for identi-
fying different aesthetic considerations, the use of the opinions of a panel
of experts as a surrogate for those of the public is questionable.
Existence Value-
In addition to the aesthetic value of the environment to an observer of
that environment, there may be an existence value associated with the
environment. This is the value that some' persons place on knowing that
something exists, even if they never expect to see it or benefit from it
(Fisher and Peterson, 1976). This value is largely associated with major
irreplaceable features of the environment (e.g., the Grand Canyon) and with
rare or endangered species. Existence value can include the possible
-scientific benefits from preserving a -species, an ecosystem or a natural
feature, and also includes an aesthetic aspect that values diversity, etc.
A good example of existence value was provided by one of the comments on
the Environmental Impact Statement for the prototype Federal oil shale
leasing program. It appeared to come from an old man in Ohio, who evidently
did not want some of the canyons in the vicinity of the oil shale formations
destroyed by depositing spent shale in them. He said, "I have never seen a
canyon, let alone those in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. . . . please do not
destroy the beauty of what God put there ... if it cost more to keep the
land and animals I would rather spend the extra money" (Burn's, 1973).
206
-------
Another illustration of existence value was the drive to preserve the
only known habitat of the snail darter on the Little Tennessee Rive'", which
halted a major dam project (Cook, Cook, and Grove, 1977). In this case, some
individuals believed that the preservation of this species was worth more
than the tens of millions of dollars irretrievably committed to the dam
project. Note, however, that in this case, the costs of preserving the snail
darter would not fall on those advocating preservation. This is akin to
demanding compensation for an environmental change, whereas the first example
illustrates genuine willingness-to-pay.
Determination of existence values again involves attempting to ascertain
the individual's willingness-to-pay to preserve that existence, which is
probably even more difficult to accomplish than determining aesthetic values.
Nevertheless, confrontations such as the dispute over the snail darter
illustrate the very high existence values that some people attribute to rare
environmental features. •
Option Values--
Option value refers to the benefits of keeping an option available.
Like existence value, it is only relevant to irreversible actions t!iat fore-
close some future use of the feature of interest. The best known example is
probably Krutilla's analysis of the benefits of. maintaining Hell's Canyon-(on
the Oregon-Idaho border) in its natural state (Krutilla and Fishe", 1975).-
Key aspects of the analysis are that a decision to dam the Snake River in
Hell's Canyon would be irreversible, and that in the future the value of the
recreational benefits conferred by maintaining the river in its natural state
is likely to increase, whereas technological advance (-in alternative'power
sources) is likely to reduce the real value of hydroelectric power generated
by the dam(s). Thus in this case, the-implications of technical change are
said to be "asymmetric" (because the supply of wilderness areas cannot be
increased) (Krutilla, 1967), and maintaining a natural environment is
expected to make an important contribution to man's future welfare.
There has been some debate as to exactly what option value "epresents
and how it differs from the consumers1' surplus. It is .generally held.-that
option value can take two forms: One (often called "option demand") that
represents a risk aversion premium associated with uncertain future demand.
(and which is. in addition 'to consumers' -surplus'), whereas the other reflects
the benefit of not undertaking an irreversible project while society waits
for improved information about the -benefits of alternative- uses of our
resources (usually the environment) (Fisher and Peterson, 1976). It is this
second form of option value that has potentially important implications for
hazardous waste management. As Arrow and Fisher (1974) point out, where a
pollutant is nondegradable (and may therefore have irreversible effects), any
decision about its discharge to the environment should take into account the
option value associated with delaying any action until more data about its
effects and about alternatives are obtained. This option value must be
balanced against any increased costs associated with the delay.
General —
While it is easy to postulate existence, values and option demand, a
pervasive difficulty with such nonuser effects is to determine the number of
207
-------
people who hold these values. These numbers can be very large--for example,
the Alaska pipeline issue must have been known to a large proportion of the
U.S. population, and hence even if only a small percentage of those people
were concerned about the potential damage to the environment, the nonuser
benefits-of environmental preservation could have been substantial (see
Bishop and Cicchetti, 1975).
Another aspect of aesthetic values, existence values, and option demand
arising from risk aversion that should be mentioned Is that values are likely
to vary substantially among individuals. It is even possible to postulate
changes 'that would provide a positive aesthetic benefit to some individuals
and a negative one to others. Consider, for example, the choice between
leaving land as a wilderness and farming it. Some people may prefer wilder-
ness because they see farming as the introduction of a nonnatural ecological
monoculture. Others may prefer to see the land farmed, associating faming
with a satisfying, traditional way of life. While individuals may place
differing valuations on market-traded goods (giving rise to the consumers'
surplus), in most instances the variation is probably larger with nonmarket-
traded goods, e.g., recreational oppportunities. If the results of
willingness-to-pay surveys on improving the environment can be trustad, this
variation.can be very large (several orders of magnitude) for aestnefic and
existence values. (See Appendix D.)
This variation in individuals' values raises some difficult questions
•for decisicomakers. These questions essentially revolve around equity. For
example, to' what extent is it reasonable to provide or deny very large
.benefits to a'few individuals, when the benefits to most others are small? A
similar problem arises where the individual's true willingness-to-pay (or to
take avoiding action) is limited by a low discretionary income. If this low
willingness-to-pay is accepted at its face value, we may be making the
judgment that society should value the welfare of that person less than that
of an affluent person. This type of implication should be considered when
alternative policy approaches are evaluated.
REFERENCES
Arrow, K.J., and A.C. Fisher. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and
Irreversibility." Quarterly Journal of Economics. 88(2):312-319, 1974.
Arthur D.- Little, Inc. Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous Wastes
at National" Disposal Sites.2 volumes.EPA/530/SW-46c, U.S. Environ-
mefltal Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1973. [NTIS: PB225164,
PB237264]
Ashton, P.M., R.A. Wykstra, and K.C. Nobe. Optimum Supplies of Recreation
Days Under Conditions of Uncertainty: A Case Study Application to Wild-
life Resources.Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Ft.
Collins, Colorado, 1974. 98 pp.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Program for the
Management of Hazardous Wastes. 2 volumes. EPA-530/SW-54C, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974. [NTIS:
PB233630/1]
208
-------
Bishop, J., and C. Cicchetti. "Some Institutional and Conceptual Thoughts on
the Measurement of Indirect and Intangible Benefits and Costs." In:
Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy, H.M. Peskin and
E.P. Seskin,edTTTheUrbanInstitute,Washington, D.C., 1975.
pp. 105-126.
Brewer, S.T. "Quantification and Comparison of External Cost of Nuclear and
Fossil Electrical Power Systems." In: Energy and the Envronment:
Cost-Benefit Analysis. R.A. Karam, and K.Z. Morgan,eds.Pergamon
Press, New York, New York, 1976. pp. 506-530.
Bromley, D.W. Economic Efficiency in Common Property Natural Resojrce Use:
A Case Study of the Ocean Fishery. Working Paper No. 28, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Division of Economic Research, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1969. 174 pp.
Brown, G.M., Jr., and J. Hammack. "A Preliminary Investigation of the
Economics of Migratory Waterfowl." In: Natural Environments: Studies
in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. J~Krutilla, ed.The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1972. pp. 171-204.
Brown, W.G., D.N. Larson, R.S. Johnson, and R.J. Wahle. Improved Economic
Evaluation of Commercially and Sport-Caught Salmon and Steel head of the
Columbia River. Special Report 463, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1976. 33 pp.
Burn's, T. "Letter No. 90." In: Final Environmental Statement for the
Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program.Volume V.U.S. Department of the
Interior. (TT Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.
Clawson, M. "Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor
Recreation." Paper presented at a meeting of the Taylor-Hiboard Club,
University of Wisconsin, January 13, 1959. Resources for the Future
Reprint #10. Washington, D.C., 1972. 10pp.
Clawson, M., and J.L. Knetsch. The Economics of Outdoor Recre&tion. The
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1966.348 pp.
CONSAD Research Corporation. Cost/Benefit Techniques for Hazardous
Materials. Toxic Substances, Solid Waste Control.ContractRbT
68-01-3116, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1975. 383 pp.
Cook. S.G., C. Cook, and D. Grove. "What They Didn't Tell You About the
Snail Darter and the Dam." National Parks and Conservation Magazine.
51(5):10-13, 1977. '
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality - 1976: Seventh
Annual Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976.
398 pp.
209
-------
Downing, P.B., and J.N. Kimball. Enforcing Environmental Regulations. Work-
ing Paper No. CE-77-3-3, Department of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, no date. 50 pp.
Downing, P.B., and W.D. Watson, Jr. "Economic Considerations in Enforcing
Environmental Controls." Advances in Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 7. J.N. Pitts, Jr. and R.L. Metcalf, eds. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1977. pp. 423-514.
Downing, P.B., and W.D. Watson, Jr. "The Economics of Enforcing Air Pollu-
tion Controls." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
1:219-236, 1974.
Edwards, J.A., K.C. Gibbs, L.J. Guedry, and H.H. Stoevener. The Demand
for Non-Unique Outdoor Recreational Services: Methodological Issues.
Technical Bulletin #133, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon Stats
University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1976. 60 pp.
Enk, G.A. "The Social Impacts of Hazardous Materials Spills." In: Control
of Hazardous Materials Spills: Proceedings of the 1974 National Confer-
ence on Control of Hazardous Material Spills. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protecticn Agency, San
Francisco, California, August 25-28, 1974. pp. 143-148.
Fisher, A.C., and F.M. Peterson. "The Environment in Economics: A Survey."
Journal of Economic Literature. 14(1):1-33, 1976.
Freeman, A.M., III. "Benefits of Pollution Control." In: Critical Review
of Estimating Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control. A. hershaft.'
ed. EPA 600/5-78-014, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
O.C., 1978.
Garwood, F., and R.F. Newby. "Use of Chi-squared Distribution for Comparing
Accident Frequencies." In: Road Research. Proceedings of the Symposium
on the Use of Statistical Methods in the Analysis of Road Aceicents.
Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1969.
Gordon, H.S. "The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource: The
Fishery." In: Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings,
D. Dorfman, and N.S. Dorfman, eds. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., New
York, New York, 1972. pp. 88-99.
Hirshleifer, J., T. Bergstrom, and E. Rappaport. Applying Cost-Benefit
Concepts to Projects Which Alter Human Mortality. UCLA-ENG-7^78, School
of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los
Angeles, California, 1974.
Hub, K.A., J.C. Asbury, W.A. Buehring, P.F. Gast, R.A. Schlenker, J.T.
Weil Is, K. P. DuBois, and J.L. Gardner. Social Costs for Alternate Means
of Electrical Power Generation for 1980 and 1990. 4 volumes.
ANL-8093,Argonne NationalLaboratories,Illinois,1973. 1050 pp.
210
-------
Kennedy, R., R. Lowrey, A. Bernstein, and F. Rueter. A Benefit-Cost System
for Chemical Pesticides. EPA 540/9-76/001, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, O.C., 1976. 322pp. [NTIS: PB250988]
Krutilla, J.V. "Conservation Reconsidered." American Economic Review,
57(4):777-786, 1967.
Krutilla, J.V. , ed. Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and
Applied Analysis. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Maryland, 1972.362 pp.
Krutilla, J.V., and A.C. Fisher. The Economics of Natural Environments:
Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources"The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1975. 214 pp.
Linnerooth, J. 'A Critique of Recent Modelling Efforts to Determine ~:he Value'
of Human LifT!RM-75-67,International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, I975a. 51 pp.
Linnerooth, J. The Evaluation of Life-Saving; A Survey. RR-75-21, Inter-
national Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
1975b. 31 pp.
Linnerooth, J. "Methods for Evaluating Mortality Risk." Futures. 8(4):293-
304, 1976.
Linstone, H.A., and M. Turoff, eds. The Delphi Method: . Techniques and
Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Massachusetts,
Applli
19757
Maler, K.G., and R.E. Wyzga. Economic Measurement of Environmental Damage; A
Technical Handbook. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, Paris, France, 1976. 151 pp. • . • -
Mishan, E.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Introduction. Praeger Pjblishers*
New York, New York, 1971a. 374 pp.
Mishan, E.J. "Evaluation of Life antf Limb: A Theoretical Approach." Journal
of Political Economy. 19(4):687-705, 1971b. • ~~
Moll, K., S. Baum, E. Capener, F.W.. Dresch,. and R"M. Wright. Hazardous
Wastes: A Risk-Benefit Framework Applied to Cadmium and Asbestos.
EPA-600/5-77-002,U71TEnvironmental ProtectionAgency,Washington,
O.C., 1977. 268pp. [NTIS: PB257951]
National Academy of Sciences. Considerations of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis
for Activities Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives.
EPA 520/4-77-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977"199 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. Decision Making for Regulating. Chemicals in
the Environment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, O.C., 1975.
242 pp.
' *
211
-------
Norman, R.L , L.A. Roper, P.O. Olson, and R.L. Evans. Using Wildlife Values
in Benefit/Cost Analysis and Mitigation of Wildlife Losses. Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, no date. 21 pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Economic Data Used by Fishery
Biologists." In: Manual for Fish Management. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, 1977:pp. 168-192.
Otway, H.J., and J.J. Cohen. Revealed Preferences: Comments on the Starr
Benefit-Risk Relationships"! RM-75-5, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975. 17 pp.
Pearse, P.H. "A New Approach to the Evaluation of Non-Priced Recreational
Resources.-"- Land Economics, 44(l):87-99, 1968.
Peterson, F..M., and A.C. Fisher. "The Exploitation of Extractive Resourcas:
A Survey." The Economic Journal. 87(348):681-721, 1977.
Polinsky, A.M.', and S. Shavel.l. "The Air Pollution and Property Value
Debate." The Review of Economics and Statistics. 57(1):100-104, 1975.
•Prato, A.A. "Internalizing Environmental Externalities of Erargy Resourca
Developments." In: Economics of Natural Resource Develccnent ^n tha
West.. Human Resources and-Natural Resources Committees or' ins .vestarn
Agricultural Economics Research Council, 1974. pp. 51-67.
Randall, A., B.C. Ives, and C. Eastman. Benefits of Abating Aestnetic Envi-
ronmental Damage from the Four Corners Power Plant. Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 618, New Mexico State University, Fruitland,
New Mexico, 1974.
Schmalensee, R., R. Ramanathan, W. Ramm, and D. Smallwood. Measuring
External Effects of Solid Waste Management. EPA-600/5-75-010, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , 1975. 448 pp.
Schelling, T.C. "The Life You Save May Be Your Own." In: Problems in
Public Expenditure Analysis. S.B. Chase, Jr., ed. The BrooKings
Institution, Washington, D.C., 1968. pp. 127-176.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S, Lichtenstein. "Cognitive" Processes and
Societal -Risk Taking." In: Cognition and Social Behavior. J.S.Carroll
and J.W. Payne, eds.- .Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Potomac, Maryland,
1976. pp. 165-184.
Smith, D.D., and R.P. Brown. Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities. SW-19c, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971. 128 pp.
Starr, C. "Benefit-Cost Studies in Sociotechnical Systems." In: Perspec-
tives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making. National Academy of Engineering,
Washington, D.C. , 1972. pp. 17-42.
212
-------
Starr, C. "Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk: What is Our Society
Willing to Pay for Safety?" Science. 165(3899):1232-1238, 1969.
Stradley, M.W., G.W. Dawson, and B.W. Cone. An Evaluation of the Status of
Hazardous Waste Management in Region X. EPA 910/9-76-024, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington, 1975. 202 pp.
Talley, R.J., and O.W. Albrecht. "Preliminary Economic Analysis of Hazardous
Waste Control." In-house research project, Program Element IDA312, ROAP
OIAOC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.
79 pp.
Thaler, R., and R. Rosen. Estimating the Value of Saving a Life: Evidence
from the Labor Market. Preliminary report for the Conference on
Research in Income and Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Inc., New York, New York, 1973.
Tihansky, O.P. "A Survey of Empirical. Benefit Studies." In: Cost-Benefit
Analysis and Water Pollution Policy, H.M. Peskin, and E.P. Seskin, eds.
The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975. pp. 127-172.
Tihansky, D.P. "A Conceptual Framework for Risk-Benefit Assessments of
Hazardous Materials Transport." In: Proceedings of the Fourth Inter-
national Symposium on Transport of.Hazardous Cargoes by Sea and Inland
Waterways. CG-D-24-76, Department -of Transportation, Washington, O.C.,
1975. pp. 103-112.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 'Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste
Management. SW-500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976 158 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Treatment/Disposal Alternatives for Hazardous Wastes." Contract No.
68-03-2754 (awarded to SCS Engineers), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, in progress.-
Waddell, T.E. The Economic Damages of Air Pollution. EFA-600/5-74-012, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1974. 167 pp.
Watson, W.D., Jr., and P.B. Downing. "Enforcement of Environmental Standards
and the Central Limit Theorem." Journal- of the American Statistical
Association. 71(335):567-574, 1976.
Zeckhauser, R. "Procedures for Valuing Lives." Public Policy. 24(4):
419-464, 1975.
213
-------
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES*
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this literature survey was to obtain a broad under-
standing of the likely attitudes and behavior of the various parties-at-
interest toward situations involved in hazardous waste management. As only
one study (Lackey, Jacobs, and Stewart, 1973--see Section 4) has specifically
addressed attitudes toward hazardous waste management facilities, a broader
scope was necessary. Initially, it was hoped that a study of attitudes
toward nuclear power and associated wastes, and toward hazardous waste-
generating industries such as the chemical industry would prove fruitful.
The intention was to use the chemical industry as a proxy for a hazardous
waste management facility and to draw parallels between nuclear power, with
its radioactive waste disposal problem, and nonnuclear hazardous waste
disposal. However, it appears that there is very little relevant material on
attitudes toward waste-generating industries other than nuclear power.
Though there have been many attitudinal studies relating to nuclear
power (several of which have addressed the question of nuclear waste
disposal), it was concluded that attitudes toward nuclear power would be of
very limited value in predicting attitudes towards hazardous wastes, and
their management. This is because it appears that the public associates the
possible discharge of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and wastes with
the effect of nuclear weapons (Pahner, 1976; Louis Harris and Associates,
Inc., 1976; Rappeport and Labaw, 1975; Slovic and Fischhoff, no date). While
hazardous wastes comprising obsolete chemical warfare and ordnance materials
could to some extent pose an analogous type of threat, in general reactions
to nuclear facilities appear to be far too extreme to apply to nonnuclear
hazardous wastes. Only a very small proportion of hazardous waste would be
as combustible as petroleum (which the public appears to readily accept in
the form of gasoline), while few would approach the toxicity of materials
stored on the premises of a pesticide formulator.
Because the approaches discussed above were unfruitful, the survey was
widened to encompass attitudes toward environmental issues in general.
Knowledge of such attitudes is useful, as hazardous waste management involves
making decisions about the environment—for example, attitudes favoring
preservation of natural environments could be expected to correlate
This appendix is based on material prepared by Ms. N.S. Avitable.
214
-------
with disapproval of ocean dumping. Widening the scope of the survey
introduced some difficulties, and caution must be used in interpreting the
reported results. Many of the studies used extremely broad or imprecisely
worded questions, and consequently it is hard to distinguish between ccncern
about pollution and concern about the environment (which is a broader issue,
including resource use, etc.)- Unfortunately, the term "pollution" is often
used to describe environmental conditions having "unfavorable quality" (Swan,
1973), which suggests that respondents may have considered only the aesthetic
or cosmetic side of an issue and not concerned themselves with health or
safety aspects. Another difficulty is that quality of the environment may be
equated with quality of life (White, 1966). Milbrath's (1975) conclusion
that perceptions of environmental quality incorporate views other than those
on the natural environment reinforces this concern. Lowenthal (1966), com-
menting on White's (1966) paper mentions some other pitfalls that nay
influence findings, as follows. Some people are not always able to present
their feelings articulately. Others consider that their environmental pref-
erences should not be subject to scrutiny. Also, people have variable
attention spans, which influences what they learn about a situation; thus
their opinions may be based on incomplete or erroneous knowledge. Finally,
the values inferred from a study are dependent on how the respondents are
asked to express them (Dillman and Christenson, 1972).
Perhaps inevitably there are numerous differences among the results of
the various surveys reviewed. In addition to geographic and demographic
variations between the populations sampled,* the wording of the questions and
the timing of surveys doubtless influenced the responses. Thus the results
reported here can probably be used to provide broad indications of views on
the environment, but would be inappropriate if fine detail were required.
This appendix attempts to. group material by subject .category to facili-
tate easy reference. However, because of varying objectives and the frequent
broad nature of individual studies, this often results in a given study being
mentioned several times, while the allocation-of data to a particular topic
is occasionally somewhat arbitrary.
PUBLIC CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Development of Environmental Concern
Concern about the environment is not a recent development. Problems of
manmade pollution date back to Roman times (Sewell and Foster, 1971), and
conservationists such as James Fenimore Cooper and John James Audubon were
active in the early nineteenth century (McEvoy, 1973; Albrecht, 1975;
Morrison, Hornback, and Warner, 1972). In the early 1950's, certain dramatic
events such as the Donora, Pennsylvania, and the London, England, air pollu-
tion deaths caused widespread awareness of the dangers of pollution. By the
late 1950's, some air and water pollution-abatement programs were
* Except where indicated otherwise, all the surveys discussed in this
appendix attempted to draw representative samples from the local
populations.
215
-------
Instigated, but these did not receive widespread public support. However, by
the late 1960's, the public had become sufficiently concerned about pollution
t$-exert pressure to have something done, and the turnaround in the Nixon
'Wrtfinlstrati on's environmental policies has been credited to public opinion
(Trop and Roos, 1971).
Heberlein (1972) implies that this sudden growth in environmental con-
tarn might be attributed to the moral turbulence of the 1960's and a
resulting shift from economics to ethics as a basis for decisionmaking,
together with the universal appeal of the environment. This may nave caused
p'edple to begin to feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.
An alternative explanation is that this concern developed as a response to
the rapid visible deterioration of the environment (Koenig, 1975). This view
is supported by McEvoy (1973), who relates enhanced environmental concern zo
increased contact with nature (through such activities as camping, etc.),
which provided a contrast between relatively unspoiled surroundings and man's
generally deteriorating environment. In the early 1970's, interest in the
environment was accelerated when the mass media found that it made good copy,
particularly as dramatized by "doomsday sayers" such as Barry Commoner,
Rachel Carson, and Dennis Meadows (Sewell and Foster, 1971; Downs, 1972;
Swan, 1973; Albrecht, 1975). One result was that it became fashionable to be
environmentally concerned (Swan, 1973; Morrison, 1973; Means, ._372; Koenig,
1975).
The consensus view of studies conducted in the mid-1970's is that the
environment was perceived as being worse at the time of the studies than it
had been at any time in the past (Milbrath, 1977, 1975; Althoff, Greig and
Stuckey, 1973; Brunner, Gravengaard and Bennett, 1973). Results of one study
suggested that recent decay had been most evident to persons in metropolitan
areas with populations of more than one million (Joseph M. Viladas Company,
1973). Although many respondents expected the environment to improve in the
future, there was pessimism about the degree of improvement and the time
needed to achieve it (e.g., Milbrath, 1977, 1975; Brunner, Gravengaard, and
Bennett, 1973).
Factors Influencing Environmental Concern
Concern for the environment is not felt by everybody, and the degree of
concern varies among those who are concerned. This may stem from man's
relationship with the environment. Historically, it has been necessary for
tnan to master the environment merely to survive, let alone prosper (McEvoy,
1973; Albrecht, 1975, 1972). The technology that has helped man do this and
that has given him many conveniences has at the same time created pollution
(Heberlein, 1972; Swan, 1973). According to Brunner, Gravengaard, and
Bennett (1973), it is man's continued desire for the benefits of affluence
that has made pollution such a problem. This may have made it hard for many
to become more than mildly concerned about environmental conditions. Concern
may also be lessened by man's ability to adapt to adverse conditions (Dubos,
1956; Swan, 1973). Means (1972) claims that there are four factors that keep
man from changing traditional attitudes (i.e., pro-technology and pro-growth
attitudes), and that limit concern. They are: (1) The relationship to
216
-------
nature is assessed in quantitative terms, not qualitative ones, (2) popula-
tion growth is seen as good for the economy, (3) the present trend toward
urban existence separates man from the land and associates him with economic
growth, and (4) social mobility further separates man from nature.
The spectrum of attitudes that the public exhibits towards the environ-
ment reflects differences between individuals (Maloney and Slovonsky, 1971;
Costantini and Hanf, 1972). Concern for the environment is related to
attitudes which are a function of such factors as an individual's percep-
tions, values, priorities and aspirations (Swan, 1973; White, 1966; Albrecht,
1975; Groves and Kahalas, 1975; Klee, 1973). White (1966) identifies four
attitude formation factors: The decision situation, the individual's
experience with the environment, his perception of his role, and his compe-
tence in dealing with its complexity. Munton and Brady (1970, cited by
Albrecht, 1975) consider that education is an important factor in attitude
development, since it is necessary to be taught what is good and what is; bad.
Attitudes are also influenced by needs. According to Mas low, man must
first satisfy his physical needs (e.g., food, shelter) before he will become
concerned about other needs (e.g., safety, the environment) (Albrecht, 1975;
Swan, 1973). This may explain the lack of environmental concern exhibited by
people in low socioeconomic groups (Swan, 1973).
The Role of the Mass Media
The mass media can affect an individual's knowledge, as they constitute
a source of environmental information (Milbrath, 1975). It was shown by
McEvoy (1973) that in the period 1953-69, when there was a growing concern
over environmental problems by the public, there was not only an increase in
the number of environmental articles (by a factor of 4.7), but a tripling of
the number of magazines carrying such articles. McEvoy's review of a study
by Russell (1970) indicated that most of this increase was in articles
dealing with the urban environment. Munton and Brady (1970) noted a dramatic
increase between 1964 and 1969 in the number of letters-to-the-editor of the
New York Times on environmental problems. These authors also demonstrated a
similarincrease in the coverage devoted to environmental matters by the
New York Times, and they concluded that public concern was at least partly
explained by the attention given to environmental matters by the mass media
(Munton and Brady, 1970).
O'Riordan (1971a) found a high degree of awareness regarding a sewage
disposal issue in his study. He attributed this to the influence of the
local newspaper, as more than 65 percent of his interviewees said it was
their most important source of information. On the other hand, data in one
of Milbrath's (1975) surveys indicated that the public perceived themselves
to be poorly informed about environmental problems.
The amount of space given by the media to a topic depends on how news-
worthy it is felt to be. In a basically rural state (Kansas) the environment
was not seen as particularly newsworthy (Althoff, Greig, and Stuckey, 1973),
even though a majority of media managers felt it was a real problem. On the
other hand, Maloney and Slovonsky's (1971) survey of editors in areas with
217
-------
high air pollution found the environment to be an important news item mainly
because pollution was a serious problem that affected everyone and that had
become a political issue. Although pollution is seen as a local proolem,
only the larger newspapers obtain most of their information from local and
state governmental agencies. The smaller ones rely on the wire services, a
fact which influences the nature of their coverage (Maloney and Slovonsky,
1971).
No matter how newsworthy the environment is felt to be, Maloney and
Slovonsky (1971) indicate that the effect of coverage depends on audience
predisposition, and that interpersonal relationships contribute most to the
shaping of public opinion. This view is supported by the work of Sharma,
Kivlin and Fliegel (1975). Respondents in their sample indicated that they
did not use information from the local newspaper to influence their opinions
about local pollution. In some instances, the news media may add to existing
anxiety by its enthusiastic coverage of an issue. For example, media bom-
bardment heightened the controversy over radiation in the early 1960's.
Who Is to Blame for Pollution?
The public does not attribute pollution to any one preeminent cause,
although industry is often rated as a major source. Respondents taheve that
the blame can be shared by the public, emphasis on growth, and a lack of
planning (Erskine, 1972a; Milbrath, 1975, 1977; National Analysts Inc., 1972;
Langowski and Sigler [Belden #2 study],* 1971; Murch, 1971; Dunlap, 1975).
The results of various studies indicate that different groups emphasize
different sources. Analysis of data presented by Milbrath (1975), found the
public to give the highest mean-cause ratings to industry and its own care-
lessness (first and second) out of several possible causes. In contrast,
community leaders rated lack of long-term planning and high consumption as
causing the greatest amount of pollution. Dunlap (1975) found that
Democratic and liberal students blamed emphasis on growth, while Republicans
and conservatives blamed society's habits and desires. This may be indica-
tive of the nonbusiness versus business emphasis of the groups, although it
could be two ways of saying the same thing. The response frequencies from
the 1970 Opinion Research Corporation survey (cited by Erskine, 1972a)t
showed the chemical and oil industries receiving the greatest amount of
blame. Yet, closer inspection of the data indicates that people put most of
the blame on what is familiar. For example, people in urban areas blame
industry and automobile emissions, while those in rural areas blame dust and
insecticides. Finally, 45 percent of the respondents to a 1972 Harris poll
* Langowski and Sigler abstracted data from several surveys, most of which
were unpublished.
t Erskine reproduces data from various surveys, and does not provide specific
citations for these surveys.
218
-------
said pollution was the biggest problem created by science (Erskine, I.972a).
However, Taviss (1972) found that opinion was divided over the inevitability
of technology causing pollution.
How Can Improvement Be Effected?
Questions about how the environment can be improved are usually multiple
response questions, and there is often no consensus solution. In one study
(Murch, 1971), almost half the respondents either skipped the ques;ion or
said that they could not decide. A frequent response has been to suggest
government control at some level—local, state or Federal (Althoff, Greig,
and Stuckey, 1973; National Analysts, Inc., 1972; Langowski and Sigler, 1971;
Milbrath, 1975). Other suggestions have included controlling auto exhausts
and industrial wastes (Erskine, 1972a) by individual effort (National
Analysts, Inc., 1972; Koenig, 1975; Langowski and Sigler [Belden #1 study],
1971) and through advanced technology (LaPorte and Metlay, 1975).
A majority of the Democrats and liberals in Dunlap's (1975) student
sample felt that a significant change would be needed in our sociopolitical
structure for environmental improvement to occur. The Republicans, moderates
and conservatives felt that a solution could be obtained within the present
system. Dunlap and Gale (1974, cited by Albrecht, 1975) suggest that this is
because the Republicans are business oriented, and are therefore not likely
to want government intervention or control. The need for sociopolitical
change also appears to be favored by many environmentalists (Morrison, 1973).
Environmental planning with public involvement was an acceptable
solution to a majority of Milbrath1s (1977) respondents. However, -ndustri-
alists were split equally between public involvement and leaving planning to
the specialists. When the public was asked if it still wished to have
planning as opposed to certain freedoms (e.g., to do what they wish on their
own property), the percentage in favor of planning decreased slightly. Those
in areas not expected to experience .economic, growth ana1 low income whites
were most likely to favor freedom. Environmentalists and developers,
however, were-uncompromising in their views.
For another group sampled by Milbrath (1975), pollution elimination (air
and water), obtaining adequate energy supplies, educating the puolic, and
land use planning were at the top of the priorities list for improving the
environment. Individuals' perceptions of the adequacy of present efforts in
solving the problem affect their estimates of the future kind and level of
effort needed to obtain results. Most of those in rural areas appeared to be
satisfied with present efforts, whereas most of those in industrial areas
found them inadequate. Community leaders tended to see existing efforts to
be more effective than did the general public, but it was suggested that this
might be because they themselves were usually involved in these efforts and
thus were more aware of progress. Of all the solutions suggested, more of
the public were willing to rely on technology than were the leaders, and a
majority of both groups saw a need for some social change (Milbrath, 1975).
There appear to be no well defined attitudes regarding the amount of
enforcement needed to make environmental policies effective (Joseph M.
Viladas Company, 1973). The results indicated that strict enforcement is
219
-------
more likely to be favored by those who are the most concarned about the
problem, those living in metropolitan areas, and those seeing their environ-
ment as least good. Also, the more a person was willing to pay to reduce
pollution, the greater the enforcement he desired. However, the researcners
concluded that where people were faced with the facts, they first balanced
the cost of pollution abatement against its benefits and then took a stand.
The Relationship Between Concern and Action
Attitudes are not directly related to action; they may only establish a
predisposition to behave in a particular manner (Otway and Fishbein, 1975;
White, 1966). The action that an individual takes regarding a problem
depends on the concern he has about the problem and its priority in his life,
and on what he feels he can do (Swan, 1973; Costantini and Hanf, 1972).
Responses to risk situations depend on how the individuals interpret the
potential perils (real or imagined) and the benefits, if any (Maderthaner et
al., 1976). For example, one person may fear that the nearby location of a
chemical landfill could 'lead to his death from some accident, whereas his
neighbor may see the landfill as a source of employment. Pahner (1976) in a
paper discussing societal responses to technological change (primarily
nuclear power) concluded that individuals learn to construct and ocrciive
their environment in such a way as to reduce their anxiety. Ivaryboay needs
to feel secure, and when anxiety is intense enough, action results.
Although the operation of the National Environmental Policy Act calls
for citizen input to environmental decisions (Smith, 1973), this has not "ed
to significant public participation in many situations. A common pattern is
that a first decision is made with little public input, even though a special
interest group may have been responsible for the pressure that led to the
decision. This is then followed by some kind of action because people do not
like the decision (O'Riordan, 1971a). Milbrath (1977) feels this lack of
participation may be a result of inadequate media emphasis and the fact that
people do not have a sustained interest in the issue.
In 1972, Downs demonstrated how the environment fits into the "issue-
attention cycle" that the public appears to follow on domestic problems. He
suggested that interest intensity would decline as the public realized how
.difficult, and especially how costly, it would be to solve environmental
problems (Downs, 1972; also see Sewell and Foster, 1971). However, Downs
noted that once a problem has been prominent, it can easily recapture atten-
tion. This is not inconsistent with Mitchell's (1978) claim that the
environment is an enduring concern.
Although most of those interviewed by Murch (1971) said they would
consider the pollution issue when voting for candidates for public office,
action on environmental issues is usually initiated by special interest
groups who attempt to influence decisionmakers or others who can have an
impact on decisions (O'Riordan, 1971a). Draper (1973) implies that action
groups emerge because people feel remote and their voices can only be heard
in this manner. In meetings held regarding sanitary landfills, Klee (1973)
found that the percentage of the public attending was higher for those in
rural areas than urban areas. Similar turnout levels were found for urban
220
-------
ethnic and working-class areas. Objections were usually raised by ad hoc
groups.
Studies of individuals involved in environmental activities have found
that such people were more knowledgeable about the environment and less
optimistic about what could be done than those who were relatively inactive
(Levenson, 1974; Milbrath, 1975). Those involved also had a higher level of
education, more complex belief structures, were more aware of and concerned
about the problem, and felt it to be more serious and in urgent need of a
solution than others (Milbrath, 1975). Milbrath's study found that most of
the activities in which individuals said they participated were of a personal
rather than political nature. Generally, people in his sample felt a higher
level of responsibility to engage in such behavior than they actually did,
but they were less inclined to feel a need to participate in politically
oriented activities than personal ones.
Trigg et al. (1976) studied the anti-pollution behavior of "internals"
(those who believe their rewards are dependent on themselves) and "externals"
(those who believe their rewards are dependent on outside forces). They
found that optimistic internals had the highest mean number of anti-pollution
activities and optimistic externals the lowest. The two pessimistic groups
were in the middle, with an equal mean number of activities.
In some cases, environmental intervention has led to positive results.
For example, Commonwealth Edison's (Illinois) stepped-up program to c'ean the
air (Maloney and Slovonsky, 1971), and the prevention of a West Virginia firm
from disposing of their chemical wastes in Louisiana (Mackay, 1976). There
has also been a shift in the burden of proof requirements from those environ-
mentally concerned to the proponents of development (Goldman, 1973). Thus it
is now the developers who have to show that a project will not cause unac-
ceptable environmental degradation, whereas previously the converse was true.
In other cases, however, public concern has accomplished little. The
Reserve Mining case has received much attention, but while protest action
started in 1969 (Carlson, 1975), the problem has only recently been resolved.
In 1978, the Reserve Mining Company obtained the necessary permits to use
land disposal for its asbestos-bearing taconite tailings, scheculed to
commence in 1980. (Telephone interview, A. Samuel, Reserve Mining Company,
Silver Bay, Minnesota, August 7, 1978.) Carlson concluded that the concerns
of the citizens (over the quality of their drinking water) had difficulty in
competing with economic considerations. She implied that the Reserve Mining
Company was using delaying tactics in the hope that the public would tire of
the issue and to delay any costly remedial actions such as land disposal
(Carlson, 1975). In a similar situation, although concerned about sewage
seeping into a local lake, most of O'Riordan's (1971a) sample had not
bothered to become involved in any action that could change the situation, as
they felt that they would not be able to influence the political system.
Furthermore, it appears that people do not necessarily take avoiding or
mitigating action, even where the appropriate action (at least as a
precaution) is obvious. Data from a pilot study done in Duluth, Minnesota,
on people's attitudes and behavior regarding asbestos fibers in their drink-
ing water (originating from the Reserve Mining Company's taconite tailings)
221
-------
were not encouraging. The vast majority still appeared to be using this
water for everything (Franz, 1976).
ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR OF SPECIFIED PARTIES
The General Public
Level of Concern—'
Concern over the environment varies from none to a great deal, while the
public's perception of pollution as a problem ranges from little or none to
very serious. When asked about the most important problem facing the United
States today, pollution generally is ranked behind such areas as the state of
the economy and crime; i.e., it is not the top priority (Koenig, 1975;
Brunner, Gravengaard, and Bennett, 1973; National Analysts, Inc., 1972;
Milbrath, 1975; Dillman and Christenson, 1972; Erskine, 1972b; Mltcnell,
1978; Trop and Roos, 1971; Joseph M. Viladas Company, 1973). Between 1965
and 1970, public opinion polls such as those conducted by Harris, showed a
dramatic increase in concern over the problems of air and water pollution
(Erskine, 1972b). A review of polls from 1970 to about 1977 by Mitchell
(1978) found that although there was an increase in "very serious" as a
response to questions about the seriousness of the pollution problem, there
was a decrease in the proportion of those responding "pollution" to the
open-ended question of "What are the important problems that we are faced
with today?"
Concern about pollution does not necessarily correlate with the levels
of pollution experienced. Ludwig, Morgan, and McCullen (1970) analyzed
survey data and found that concern for such things as air pollution had risen
in a broad sample of urban areas, although the levels of common pollutants
had declined. This has been attributed, at least in part, to the attention
being given by the mass media to pollution (Albrecht, 1975).
Relationship Between Concern and Demographic Characteristics, Etc.--
The perceived seriousness and concern felt about pollution and the
environment has been studied in relationship to various demographic and
personality characteristics. There is a consensus that high levels of both
perceived seriousness and concern are exhibited by the young, those with high
incomes, those with a high level of education (usually some college and
above), and those who are classified as professional (white collar) workers
(Winham, 1972; Brunner, Gravengaard, and Bennett, 1973; National Analysts,
Inc., 1972; Trop and Roos, 1971; Langowski and Sigler, 1971; Joseph M.
Viladas Company, 1973; Tognacci et al., 1972).
There also appears to be a rural/urban dimension (Althoff, Greig, and
Stuckey, 1973; Erskine, 1972b; Milbrath, 1975). The greatest concern is
exhibited by those in large metropolitan cities (Sigler, 1973; Trop ana Roos,
1971; Langowski and Sigler, 1971; Joseph M. Viladas Company, 1973). A review
of the polls presented by Erskine (1972b) showed the following patterns: The
most concern or awareness was in suburban areas, followed by the core cities,
then serai rural areas, with the least being shown in rural areas. This
pattern was consistent, no matter how the interview questions were phrased.
However, at least one study (Koenig, 1975) did not find this dimension. The
222
-------
rural/urban dimension may actually reflect some obvious differences between
rural and urban dwellers. Rural people are most likely to be directly or
indirectly dependent on natural resource industries (including agriculture)
for their livelihoods, and to be exposed to lower levels of pollution than
urban dwellers. According to a recent analysis by Tremblay and Ounlap
(1978), this hypothesis is supported by study data which show that the urban/
rural dimension cannot be accounted for by age, income or educational
differences.
Some evidence supports a regional factor. Erskine's (1972b) poll review
found that peopTe in the South were consistently low in their concern and
awareness responses. Trop and Roos (1971) feel that this is due to the fact
that there is little industry in the South, and that these people have a
tradition of States rights.
Dillman and Christenson (1975) studied the association between concern
about pollution, the extent to which various types of corrective actions were
desired (e.g., more government spending), and the actual level of air pollu-
tion. The results showed that the higher the pollution level the greater was
the concern, as did the analysis of Tremblay and Dunlap (1978). Dillman and
Christenson (1975) also found weak correlations between concern .and
activities desired, but correlations between these variables and demographic
and community identification characteristics were inconclusive. These
findings led Dill man and Christenson to suggest that people 'accommodate to
pollution.
People tend to view pollution as being worse elsewhere than at home
(Murch, 1971; Milbrath, 1975; Langowski and Sigler, 1971; Treirblay and
Dunlap, 1978), although Winham (1972) found that Hamilton, Ontario, residents
rightly perceived the pollution problem to be worse in their own community
than in other parts of Canada. Murch1s (1971) respondents not only did not
believe that pollution was as bad a problem in their city (Durham, North
Carolina) as elsewhere, they also perceived it as less severe in their neigh-
borhoods than in the rest of the city. Murch attributed this to the media's
concentration on national environmental problems and not local ores. This
tendency by residents to discount local pollution (unless the problem is
really bad) was analyzed by Milbrath (1975), who suggested that many people
live as close as they can to their ideal locale. Consequently, they find it
difficult to perceive that where they are living is worse than anywhere else.
There is some indication that an individual's view of pollution in his com-
munity is correlated with whether or not he is an established-resident, which
tends to confirm Milbrath's suggestion above. Sharma, Kivlin, and Fliegel
(1975) found that longtime residents in their study did not view the problem
as seriously as others. Murch1s (1971) more committed residents (e.g., those
owning homes) also tended to most underestimate the problem.
Perceptions also tend to be based on what individuals are used to. This
is illustrated by the rating given to drinking water by citizens in two
neighboring Georgia towns using water from the same stream. Citizens from
one town found the water satisfactory while the other group of citizens found
it unsatisfactory. The unsatisfied residents sometimes received water from
an alternative source with a less pronounced taste, whereas the satisfied
223
-------
group only drew water from the source branded as obnoxious by the displeased
citizens (White, 1966).
Political ideology has also been found to have some influence on views
on the environment. In general, the more liberal a person is, tne more
concerned he seems to be (Koenig, 1975; Tognacci et al , 1972; Dunlao, 1975;
Dunlap and Gale, 1972). Ounlap's (1975) study of students at the University
of- Oregon found that liberals not only saw pollution as being more serious
than did the conservatives, but also expressed greater interest in environ-
mental issues, gave greater approval to associated movements, and were :nore
likely to have been involved in some kind of environmentally related action.
Other Factors in Environmental Concern —
There are conflicting findings on the relationship between tne ^ncaTi
shown and an individual's understanding of the environment. Swan (1573)
found no relation between concern and knowledge, and Milbrath (1975) found
that though over 90 percent of those sampled had some environmental concern,
a majority had no environmental knowledge, or knowledge that was only s^ner-
ficial. Other work in this area by Trigg et al. (1976) found 'ntarnals
'(i.e., those who believe they can have some effect on outcome) to
-------
concept but were less opposed to sewage treatment than less alienated
individuals. He also found that anemic people tend to evaluate the terra
"sewage treatment" negatively.
In a longitudinal study, Oonohue, Olien, and Tichenor (1974) surveyed
the residents in four Michigan communities (Duluth, Ely, Silver Bay and Grand
Rapids) in 1970 and again 18 months later in 1972. They found that accurate
knowledge on three local environmental issues had decreased, as well as had
the support for the belief that technology could solve the problems. People
were turning their attention to the (adverse) consequences of control of
environmental quality and were more likely to believe that the issues had
been given too much attention. Residents felt that the burden of resolving
the environmental problem had shifted from the individual to th = firms
involved and to public agencies, and in three of the four communities there
was reduced willingness to pay additional taxes. The investigators conceded
that attitudes are affected by community structure and issue remoteness.
Large communities tend to be more concerned and more willing to accept neces-
sary controls than small ones, which are faced with a trade-off involving
development values.
Attitudes to Specific Environmental Issues--
Some research has been done on attitudes toward certain specific envi-
ronmental issues. In one such study, Salcedo et al. (1971) investigated
attitudes toward the pesticide industry. They found what they called a
rural/urban dimension, but examination of the results indicates that
"agriculture/non-agnculture" might be a better description, as farmers
possessed more positive attitudes towards the pesticide industry tian city
and town dwellers.
Langpwski and Sigler's (1971) survey of studies found that as distance
to a sanitary landfill decreased, the percentage of people with negative
attitudes increased. Klee's (1973) review of several EPA studies -about
sanitary landfills showed that the nature of opposition to landfills is
influenced by community social status. Low social status communities -are-
worried about becoming a "run-down community," whereas those with higher
status are primarily concerned with nuisance and, to a lesser extent,
property values. Twenty sanitary landfill siting proposals were rev-ewed and
protest was found to be strongly correlated with visibility. In turn, the
success/failure of the proposal was found to be related to protest and
location (in or out of the community it was meant to serve). Seven of 15
protested and all nonprotested proposals were successful. However, only one
of seven outside proposals was successful. Communities do not want to be
garbage dumps for others. In another study reviewed by Klee, it was found
that there was a low general level of awareness about solid waste disposal
activities, although awareness increased when controversy was present. Low
awareness of the nature of environmentally adequate waste disposal activities
may explain why negative attitudes to waste appear to be transferred to
related correction proposals, such as sanitary landfills.
Summary—
O'Riordan (1971b) discusses public involvement in environmental issues,
and lists a number of factors that inhibit the clear expression and political
225
-------
articulation of public preferences about the desired quality of the
environment. This list, which is reproduced below, points up many of the
aspects already discussed.
(a) People rarely act until they are directly affected and
threatened;
(b) People rarely help each other unless they are bound by a
common cause or faced with a common threat;
(c) People become tolerant of gradually worsening situations and
are able to develop a number of defensive social psychological
and behavioral mechanisms which help them to accept or avoid
the full intensity of the deteriorating environmental impact;
(d) People are environmental gamblers discounting heavily any
future uncertainties for the transitory pleasures of immediata
gains;
(e) People are schizophrenic with regard to the environment
because they are usually unaware of the delicate interactions
linking the various environmental subsystems, and will pollute
on the one hand and yet demand increased environmental quality
on the other;
(f) People are confronted with all sorts of personal and community
problems in life and always delay the difficul*- decisions
hoping that when they have to be faced, solutions will be
easier to find and decisions easier to make. Thus people tend
to leave the most complex decisions to the politicians and the
experts, yet are surprised and not infrequently annoyed when
they do not always come up with the right answers in the
absence of a clear expression of public desires;
(g) People play a variety of roles in their economic, social and
political lives, and frequently a number of these roles
conflict simultaneously. This tends to distort the rational
reasoning process and may lead to an inconsistency of attitude
toward environmental phenomena. For example, the president of
a large paper mill polluting a river may also be a director of
a local community organization pressing for an off-river
swimming pool to protect his children from a possible health
hazard. We see here clearly the conflict of values and
resulting inconsistent actions of an individual who is playing
simultaneous roles as a private entrepreneur and as a socially
concerned citizen. (O'Riordan, 1971b:101)
Leaders
Leaders are those people who are probably in a better position than the
general public to have an impact on environmental decisionmaking and on the
environment itself. They include businessmen, politicians, and industrial-
ists. Some researchers have put environmentalists in this group, but they
will be treated separately in this appendix.
Like the general public, leaders tend not to see the environment as the
main problem facing the nation. Miller's (1972) survey found them more
concerned with such issues as race relations, unemployment and poverty.
226
-------
Sofranko and Bridgeland (1975) theorize that leaders (e.g., mayors, who
downplay environmental problems) do so because they feel they need to main-
tain a good community image.
There is not always agreement between leaders and the general sublic.
Although there was some basic consensus on water quality issues and causes,
and need for environmental planning, Milbrath (1977) found the two grouos to
rank the remaining water problems and related causes differently, with the
public being more pessimistic about regional (Niagara Frontier in New York)
water quality than the leaders. In another survey carried out in the same
area, Milbrath (1975) found leaders to be more aware of "the environmental
problem" and able to see the problem more as a long-range threat than the
public. Leaders in urban areas saw the environment as being worse than
perceived by the general public, while the reverse was found in rural areas.
In two studies, Milbrath asked leaders how they thought the general
public would respond to certain questions, and compared their estimates with
those actually received. In one of the studies, although not generally
accurate, elected leaders were found to be fairly good in predicting which
government body should be responsible for water quality, that the government
should do some environmental planning, and that people prefer freedom to
planning (Milbrath, 1977). In the second, the leaders were correct in pre-
dicting that the public saw pollution as a component of the environmental
problem, that they put the blame on industry, and that they prefer economic
growth and jobs to control. However,- the leaders did not think the public
would perceive the environmental problem to be as serious as they did, and
they incorrectly predicted them to desire better gas mileage over clean air
(Milbrath, 1975). Milbrath inferred that leaders' estimates of the public's
views might be based on media presentations. There was also some indication
of self-consciousness on the part of the leaders, as they thought that the
public would find ineffective government to be an important cause of the
environmental problem, whereas the public had a low mean rating on this item
(Milbrath, 1975). Jensen and Stormes (1971, cited by..Klee, 1973) el so found
that officials were not very accurate in their perceptions of citizens'
rankings of reasons for objecting to sanitary landfills.
Costantini and Hanf (1972) surveyed only those who could have an impact
on decisionmaking in the Lake Tahoe area, and determined a .score on a scale
that they developed for environmental concern. This score was found to be
positively related to the sense of urgency felt for the area's proolems, the
amount of response action an individual would support, the importance placed
on the issue of environmental degradation, and the level of education. The
environmental score correlated negatively with the emphasis placed on the
area's environmental problems and with length of residence. Those in the
high concern group rated the urgency of quality problems (e.g., deforesta-
tion) greater than that of practical problems (e.g., .traffic congestion),
were pessimistic about the environmental future, and tended to be profes-
sionals or government officials (particularly Federal). They also tended to
have no faith in local government, to value rural life, to have great
aesthetic appreciation, and to be critical of technology. Those in the low
concern group saw practical problems as more urgent, tended to perceive the
environment in functional or utilitarian terms, were more lively to be
227
-------
businessmen or local government officials, and were more likely to have
conservative political views. There was no correlation with socioeconomic
status, possibly because the sample was almost exclusively middleclass.
Respondents who defined the environment in natural terms saw the Lake Tahoe
area as being mpre polluted than those who keyed onto health hazard aspects.
The apparent lack of concern by local officials was cited as the reason wny
people had turned to outside help for.their environmental problems.
Carter et al.'s (1974) national survey of city (population > 10,000) and
county (population > 50,000) governments included the following findings.
There was no consensus on a definition of environment; the two levels of
government rated problems differently as to their severity, but the more
severely a problem was seen, the more likely it was that something would oe
done to correct it. A regional and urban/rural dimension was also detectaa,
with the environment being rated the most important problem in the West, and
in the suburbs followed by the core cities.
Environmentalists
Environmentalists, or "protectionists" as they are sometimes caned
(Milbrath, 1975), can be characterized as generally having higher leve's of
education, income, and occupational status than the gene V populace
(Albrecht, 1975; Morrison, Hornback, and Warner, 1972; Milorath. 1975;
Morrison, 1973). They tend to live in newer, better kept homes in better
neighborhoods and to like an outdoor lifestyle (Milbrath, 1975). It has been
suggested that their education allows these people the conceptual tools with
which to better comprehend environmental problems, and that their higher
.levels of income not only make them economically independent of industries
that might conflict with the environment, but gives them the leisure to
cultivate aesthetic values and be environmentally involved (Albrecht, 1972,
1975); Morrison, Hornback, and Warner, 1972; Morrison, 1973). Morrison,
Hornback and Warner (1972) found that their sample of environmentalists
contained a large number of young persons, which they attributed to general
student activism and to the students' instructors being part of the elite
(leader) group described above.
Responses of protectionists in Milbrath's (1975) survey indicated that
they believed environmental quality to be low and that they saw the environ-
ment as not just one issue, but as an interrelated set of problems. They saw
the causes of the problem as basically economic and social in origin (e.g.,
high consumption, lack of planning). They were more likely to blame technol-
ogy and to be more pessimistic about future improvement. Environmentalists
tend to be anti-growth (Milbrath, 1977; Albrecht, 1972). One Milbrath (1977)
study found that though environmentalists believed that community rule was
preferable to individual rule and strongly favored planning, they thought it
should be at a regional rather than local level. A majority believed that we
can have both jobs and a clean environment, and that money (e.g., from taxes)
should be spent on environmental improvement. Milbrath (1977) found that
environmentalists were not at all close in predicting the attitude of the
general public on matters of planning versus freedom, on a jobs vs environ-
ment compromise, and on the growth issue. In fact, they appeared to perceive
the public as holding almost exactly opposite views to their own!
228
-------
All environmentalists are not alike (Morrison, Hornback, and Warner,
1972), probably because of individual value preferences. Schnaiberg (1971,
cited by Albrecht, 1975) has classified them into four groups. The first
group (which he calls "cosmetologists") is made up of those who deal only
with the by-products of consumption, and are rather superficial in their
outlook. They relate well to activities like anti-littering campaign and
tend to be well liked by the pollution generators. The second group is'the
"meliorists," who focus largely on consumption-related activities and
resource recovery. Schnaiberg calls the third group "reformists." This
group perceives the relationships between consumption and production and
environmental decay and is more knowledgeable about the physical/biological
processes involved. Reformists attempt to influence decisionmaking, and
instead of focusing on litter and recycling, they are likely to oppose auto
pollution, dam construction, nuclear power facilities, etc. Finally, there
are the "radicals," who aim at a total restructuring of the. social and
economic system. Radicals do not separata environmental problems from the
corporate or industrial state, and its attendant inequalities (Schnaiberg,
1971, cited in Albrecht, 1975). Thougn this range in orientation of environ-
mentalists is very wide, implying a wide range of tactics, Gale (1972) argues
that to date most action has been within the confines of middle-class
politics, such as lobbying, petitions, and court suits. (These are the
tactics of the reformists, who probably have the greatest potential to
influence hazardous waste management decisions. Consequently reformists are
emphasized when the behavior of environmentalists is discussed in the main
text of this report.)
The dramatic growth in membership in environmental organizations that
occurred in the late 1960's (McEvoy, 1973) has slowed somewhat. One reason
is a shift in concern of many such groups from recreational interests to
general environmental quality issues (Faich and Gale, 1971, cited by
Albrecht, 1975) and to problems of resource depletion (Morrison, 1973). In
some cases, this has put recreationalists at odds with preservationists
(Albrecht, 1975). Another reason is that it has become apparent to many that
some costs will be necessary to reach their goals. Although some expendi-
tures will only be incurred over the short term, they may be substantial in
dollar magnitude; other costs may be incurred in terms of lost personal
freedoms and the added social complexity inherent with new laws. Along with
this shift in focus has come a shift in strategy—from participation (e.g.,
Earth Day) to power (to coerce change) (Morrison, Hornback, and Warner,
1972).
Growth-oriented Groups
It is not surprising that the anti-growth attitudes of the protec-
tionists have engendered the formation of opposition groups sometimes called
"growthists" (Albrecht, 1972). These opposition groups comprise both
specific interests threatened by environmental action and disadvantaged
groups (e.g., blacks, working class) who hope that continued growth will help
them overcome their current status (Morrison, 1973; Buttel, 1978}. It is
interesting to note that Milbrath (1977) found that it was not irdustrial-
ists, but developers who were more likely to favor growth.
229
-------
These growth-oriented groups have mounted counterattacks of two kinds.
The first is that of implying that the environmental movement is part of a
larger conspiracy (i.e., communism). The second uses scare tactics such as
implying that job loss is inevitable if certain pollution prevention policies
are instituted (Albrecht, 1972). The classic economy/environment trade-off
provides good examples of the development of growthist groups. When environ-
mentalists were successful in blocking power plant construction in the
economically depressed Southwest, a pro-growth movement developed. These
people were willing to take chances with the environment to obtain the
economic benefits that would come from the construction and operation of
these plants (Albrecht, 1972).
Industry
Not only has industry received a great amount of blame for pollution, it
has also been accused by some of not doing very much about it (Erskine,
1972a; Althoff, Greig and Stuckey, 1973). In response, corporations have
included accounts of what they are doing to protect the environment or return
it to its natural state in their annual reports and advertisements (see Fry
and Hock, 1976).
Industry, according to a 1970 survey of "Fortune 500" c:inpany executives
(Diamond, 1970), was worried that under public pressure (they do not feel
that environmentalists represent the public), government will set standards
that could hurt it financially. However, these executives were not inher-
ently opposed to Federal regulation of activities and indicated that they
would particularly like to see programs instituted that include tax
incentives. They felt that any action taken should be on an industry-wide
basis so that competition would be maintained. Some executives, mostly those
in the South or with transportation utilities, would prefer regulation by
local governments. Although a substantial number of large firms had budgeted
for anti-pollution activities, their executives said that pollution control
was not a top priority problem.
THE ECONOMICS OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT
It is evident that all actions to improve the environment will cost
something. The cost may be a conventional economic cost, or it may only be a
cost in terms of time and inconvenience. Some surveys have asked who should
take responsibility for reducing pollution. Langowski and Sigler's (1971)
review found that people felt financial responsibility rested primarily on
industry. This finding receives some support from Eastman, Randall, and
Hoffer (1974/75). Their survey in the Four Corners Region (which has a
number of power plants and mining operations) found that Indians living on
reservations felt that financial responsibility lay with the producers and
users. Many of these respondents were not users of electricity. A majority
of nonreservation residents and tourist/recreationists felt that the respon-
sibility lay with a combination of electricity users, producers, local
residents, and recreationists.
230
-------
Many survey respondents favored more government spending on pollution
abatement. Others felt a combination of all three parties Involved-
Industry, government, and consumers—should be responsible (Erskine, 1972b;
Mitchell, 1978; Dillman and Christenson, 1972, 1975).
Vlilllngness-to-Pay for Pollution Abatement
Most people are willing to pay some amount for environmental improve-
ment, even if they do not feel a responsibility to do so (Eastman, Randall
and Hoffer, 1974/75; Milbrath, 1975). Since 1965 there has been an increase
in this proportion, and by 1971 they represented more than 50 percent of
those polled (Erskine, 1972b). During this same period of time (1965-1971)
there was a drop in the number of people willing to allow tax incentiv/es for
industry (Erskine, 1972a).
Willingness-to-pay may be in the form of higher electric bill-; or 'a
higher fee for use of recreational facilities (Eastman, Randall, and Hoffer,
1974/75). In some cases, an increase in taxes seems to be an acceptable
means of providing necessary pollution control funds (O'Riordan, 1971a;
Milbrath, 1977; Murch, 1971). However, some would prefer higher prices
(Joseph M. Viladas Company, 1973; Mitchell, 1978), and others would accept
more regulation (Milbrath, 1977).
Of course, not everybody wishes to increase his out-of-pocket expenses
to improve environmental quality. Some would prefer to take personal action,
such as to carpool or source-separate wastes. For example, 90 percent of the
housewives interviewed by National Analysts, -Inc. (1972) said they would
perform in-home source separation of wastes rather than pay even a minimal
fee to have this done by the municipality. It should, however, be noted that
intentions do not always translate into action. Although this sample of
housewives was concerned about the solid waste problem, it turned out that
very few had actually done anything about it (National Analysts, Inc., 1972).
This sort of discrepancy had been noted elsewhere. In the Erunner,
Gravengaard and Bennett (1973) study in Toledo, Ohio, 61 percent of the
respondents said that they would be prepared to use unleaded gas, and 41
percent said that they would ride the bus to reduce pollution. But only 24
and 23 percent, respectively, showed any sign of acting on these intentions.
The dollar sums that individuals are willing to pay to abate pollution
or to protect the environment vary widely. For example, Milbrath (1975)
found that about half of-his respondents-were not prepared to pay any.hing to
protect the environment. Other responses ranged up to $415 per month, with
about 20 percent of the respondents prepared to give up more than $25'per
month. In a 1973 nationwide study, the Joseph M. Viladas- Company (1973)
found that the average amount volunteered to reduce auto pollution was a
capital expenditure of $62 per car and an operating expenditure of $27 per
year. Jo reduce air pollution from electric power plants, people volunteered
to pay an average increase of 22 percent (or $3.84) in their monthy elec-
tricity bill. They were also prepared to pay $37.43 per year to eliminate
water pollution from food processing and an extra 15 percent to recycle solid
waste. O'Riordan1s (1971a) respondents were prepared to pay a 12 percent
increase in local taxes to prevent the seepage of sewage into a local lake.
231
-------
Those with the highest incomes and the greatest concern are generally
willing to pay the most to insure environmental quality (Joseph M. Viladas
Company, 1973; Milbrath, 1975; Auld, 1974). One study found the amount to be
strongly affected by the interaction of income and concern (Joseph M. Viladas
Company, 1973). The amount has also been found to be directly related to
socioeconomic status and the degree of understanding of the environmental
problem, its ramifications, and potential solutions. More whites than
blacks, more males than females, and more of those active in environmental
groups than not were willing to pay something (Milbrath, 1975). Other
factors found to affect willingness-to-pay were awareness of the EPA (Joseph
M. Viladas Company, 1973), level of education (particularly in industrial
settings) (Auld, 1974) and perception of the seriousness of the problem
(Murch, 1971). Auld (1974), found that the sum that an individual was will-
ing to pay was inversely related to age. However, the Joseph M. Viladas
Company (1973) found that the young and the old were prepared to spend the
most, which they attributed to the fact that these people are on the low
commitments parts of the "life cycle of family spending." In one study, the
sum was found not to be related to proximity to pollution (Auld, 1974). In
all the studies reviewed, data suggest that people are most willing to pay an
amount of money that will not significantly reduce their standard of living.
The rural/urban and regional dimensions again appeared in analysis of
data regarding the amounts people were willing to pay. Evidence indicates
that people in the South and in small towns and rural areas are willing to
pay slightly less than those in other areas (Erskine, 1972b). However, one
of Milbrath's (1975) studies found those in rural areas willing to pay more
than those living in cities, suburbs, and towns.
Trade-offs with Business and Growth
Costs of protecting the environment could also be in the form of a
decline in economic growth or a loss of jobs. The proportion of those in
favor of closing a polluting plant is low (particularly in the industrial
East) when a job loss is associated with such an action (Erskine, 1972a).
One study found that unless there was some kind of government assistance for
those losing jobs to find new employment, people had difficulty deciding that
a plant should be shut down (Joseph M. Viladas Company, 1973). They con-
cluded that lack of contact with such a situation would make it hard for
people to give a valid answer to this type of question. Thus it is easy for
somebody to be in favor of closing a plant when the consequences will not
affect them, but it is hard for an individual to support such an action if he
will himself suffer an economic loss as a result. A recent review by
Mitchell (1978) illustrates this difficulty. Though 42 percent of the
respondents to a survey favored jobs and 29 percent said it was more impor-
tant to reduce pollution, 18 percent said both were important. However, most
of those interviewed by Milbrath (1977) felt that improvement of the environ-
ment would create jobs, thus no economic trade-off would be necessary. In
his other survey, he found 43 percent in favor of jobs and 25 percent
preferring environmental protection, the remainder being undecided or seeing
no trade-off as necessary (Milbrath, 1975).
232
-------
In a survey of residents in a community where the closure of a water-
polluting meat packing plant was likely, Sharma, Kivlin, ana Fliegel (1975)
found a low oositive correlation between intolerance of water aolluticn and a
desire to have the plant closed. Forty-two percent of tnose surveyed were
willing to close the plant, and these people were found to have unfivorable
(disapproving) attitudes toward pollution, to ciscuss it more, and to nave
white collar occuoations. Noticeably few young people rfere in favor of tne
closure. This, the authors theorized, was due to the fact that tl-ey were
mostly short-time residents looking for work.
The public preferred economic growth to environmental protection in two
studies (Milbrath, 1975; Winham, 1972), but the results were reversed in
another (Milbrath, 1S77). Growth was strongly favored cy uroan slacks, and
protection was favored by rural oeople (Milbrath, 1977). Buttel (15~:) Jound
only a modest correlation between welfare-state liberalism and support for
economic growth among his working-class'respondents. From this he sosculated
(by implication) that .environmentalists may be able to convinca this group
that economic growth is not a prereauisita to achieve their aspira;ions of
wealth redistribution, thereby persuading them to shift tneir support 'to
environmental protection. Interestingly, many leaders saw no neea for an
environment/growth trade-off (Milbrath, 1975). V/innam (1972) found that
those in favor of growth were less likely to see pollution as a prcolem and
were not concerned about aoatement costs. On a slightly different note,
Murch's (1971) respondents felt that one way to protect the environment was
not to bring in any polluting industry.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S.L. "Environmental Social Movements and Counter-Movements: An
Overview and an Illustration." Journal of Voluntary Action pesgarch.
l(0ctober):2-ll, 1972.
Albrecht, S.L. "The Environment as a Social Problem." In: Soc-ial Problems
as Social Movements, A.L. Mauss, ed. J.3. Lippincott Company, .New rork,
New York, 1975.pp. 556-605.
Althoff, P., W.H. Greig, and F. Stuckey. "Environmental Pollution Control
Attitudes of Media Managers in Kansas." JournaliSiii Quarterly, 50(4):
666-672, 1973.
Auld, D.A.L. "Willingness to Pay for Pollution Abatement: • A Case Study."
Alternatives. 3(1):34-36, 1974.
Brunner, J.A., P. Gravengaard, and G. Bennett. Pollution in the Local
Community: Citizen Attitudes and Willingness to .Make Personal
Sacrifices in Abatement. Occasional Paper No. 23. Business Research
Center, College of Business Administration, The University of Toledo,
Toledo, Ohio, 1973. 50 pp.
Buttel, F.H. "Economic Growth and the Welfare State: Implications for the
Future of Environmental ism." Social Science Quarterly, 58(4):692-699,
1978.
233
-------
Carlson, K.T. "The People's Lake." Environment. 17(2):16-20,25,26, 1975.
Carter, S., M. Frost, C. Rubin, and L. Sumek. Environmental Management and
Local Government. EPA-600/5-73-016, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 390 pp. [NTIS: PB232955]
Costantini, E., and K. Hanf. "Environmental Concern and Lake Tahoe: A Study
of Elite Perceptions, Backgrounds, and Attitudes." Environment and
Behavior. 4(2):209-242, 1972.
Diamond, R.S. "What Business Thinks. The Fortune 500-Yankelovich Survey."
Fortune. 81(2):118,119,171,172, 1970.
Dillman, O.A., and J.A. Christenson. "The Public Value for Pollution Con-
trol." In: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment,
W.R. Burch, N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor, eds. Harper ana Row,
Publishers, New York, New York, 1972. pp. 237-255.
Dillman, D.A., and J.A. Christenson. "The Public Value for Air Pollution
Control: A Needed Change of Emphasis in Opinion Studies." Cornell
Journal of Social Relations. 10(l):73-95, 1975.
Donohue, G.A., C.N. Olien, and P.J.Tichenor. "Communities, Pollution, and
Fight for Survival." Journal of Environmental Education. 6(1):29-37,
1974.
Downs, A. "Up and Down with Ecology—The 'Issue-Attention Cycle."' The
Public Interest. No. 28:38-50, 1972.
Draper, D. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Exchange
Bibliography #396, Council of Planning Librarians, Monticello, Illinois,
1973. 28 pp.
Dubos, R. "Promises and Hazards of Man's Adaptability." In: Environmental
Quality in a Growing Economy, H. Jarrett, ed. The Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1966. pp. 23-39.
Dunlap, R.E. "The Impact of Political Orientation on Environmental Attitudes
and Actions." Environment and Behavior, 7(4):428-454, 1975.
Dunlap, R.E., and R.P. Gale. "Party Membership and Environmental Politics: A
Legislative Roll Call Analysis." Social Science Quarterly, 55(December):
4, 1974.
Dunlap, R.E., and R.P. Gale. "Politics and Ecology: A Political Profile of
Student Eco-Activists." Youth and Society. 3(June):379-397, 1972.
Dunlap, R.E., and R.B. Hefferman. "Outdoor Recreation and Environmental
Concern: An Empirical Examination." Rural Sociology. 40(1):18-30,
1975.
234
-------
Eastman, C., A. Randall, and P.L. Hoffer. "How Much to Abate Pollution?"
Public Opinion Quarterly. 38(4):574-584, 1974/75.
Erskine, H. "The Polls: Pollution and Industry." .Public Opinion Quarterly.
36(2):263-280, 1972a.
Erskine, H. "The Polls: Pollution and its Costs." Public Opinion Quarterly,
36(1):120-135, 1972b.
Faich, R.G., and R.P. Gale. "The Environmental Movement: From Recreation to
Politics." Pacific Sociological Review. 14(July):270-287, 1971.
Franz, R.E., Jr. Public Behavior and Attitudes in Response to Reported
Hazardous Drinking Water - A Feasibility Study.EPA-600/1-76-026, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 55 pp. [NTIS:
PB257981]
Fry, F.L., and R.J. Hock. "Who Claims Corporate Responsibility? The Biggest
and the Worst." Business and Society Review, No. 18:62-65, 1976.
Gale, R.P. "From Sit-In to Hike-In: " A Comparison of the Civil Rights and-
Environmental Movements." In: Social Behavior, Natural Resources,
and the Environment. W.R. Burch.'N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L Taylor, etis.
Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, New York, 1972. pp. 230-305.
Goldman, C.R. "Environmental Impact and Water Development." In: Environ-
mental Quality and Water Development. C.R. Goldman, J. McEvoy, III, and
P.J. Richerson, eds. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco^
California, 1973. pp. 1-11.
Groves, D.L, and H. Kahalas. "Values: Assimilation and Accommodation."
Cornell Journal of Social Relations. 10(1):111-137, 1975.
Heberlein, T.A. "The Land Eth'ic Real'ized: Some Social Psychological Expla-
nations for Changing Environmental Attitudes." Journal of Social
Issues. 28(4):79-87, 1972.
Jensen, B.T., and J.M. Stormes. A Psychometric Study of Attitude Factors
and Problems of Solid Waste. Contract No. CPE 69-107, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1971.
Joseph M. Viladas Company. The American People and Their Environment-1973.
A Study of National Opinion and Attitudes About Environmental Problems
and Their Solution for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Volume I.OfA-EPA 68-01-0905,U.S.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. [NTIS: PB227020].
Klee, A.J. • "Attitude -Concepts and Applications to Solid Waste Management."
U.S. Environmental Protection'Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. 39pp.
.' (Also see Klee,. A.J.. .."Aspects of-Sampling Attitudes Towards Soltd-Warste
Problems." In:' Statistical 'and Mathematical Aspects of Pollution
Problems. J.W. Pratt,e
-------
Koem'g, D.J. "Additional Research on Environmental Activism." Environment
and Behavior. 7(4):472-485, 1975.
Lackey, L.L., T.O. Jacobs, and S.R. Stewart. Public Attitudes Toward
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities. EPA-670/2-73-086, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. 195 pp. [NTIS:
PB223638]
Langowski, A., and J. Sigler. Citizen Attitudes Toward the Environment:
An Appraisal of the Research.IIEQ-40.004,Illinois Institute for
EnvironmentalQuality,Chicago, Illinois, 1971. 69 pp. rNTIS:
PB214190]
LaPorte, T.R., and D. Metlay. "Technology Observed: Attitudes of a dary
Public." Science. 188(4184):121-127, 1975.
Levenson, H. "Ecological Knowledge and Perception of Environmental Modifi-
ability." American Psychologist. 29(4):274-275, 1974.
Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. A Second Survey of Public and Leadership
Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power Development in tne Urn tea Statac A
study conducted for Ebasco Services Incorporated, NewTT"*. Ne
-------
Means, R. L. "Public Opinion and Planned Changes in Social Behavior: Ttie "
Ecological Crisis." In: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the
Environment. W.R. Burch, N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L. Taylor, eas. Harper
and Row, Puclishers, New York, New York, 1972. pp. 203-213.
Milbrath, L.W. Environmental Beliefs: A Tale of Two Counties. Social
Science Research Institute ana Social Science Measurement Center, State
University of New York, Buffalo, New York, 1975. 136 pp.
Milbrath, L.W. An Extra Dimension of Representation in Water Quality
Planning: A Survey Study of Erie and Niagara Counties, New York. 1976.
Environmental Studies Center, State University of New York, Buffalo, New
York, 1977. 50 pp.
Miller, D. "The Allocation of Priorities to Urban and Environmental Problems
by Powerful Leaders and Organizations." In: Social Behavior. Natural
Resources, and the Environment, -W.R. Burch, N.H. Cheek, Jr., and L.
Taylor, eds. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, New York, 1972.
pp. 306-331.
Mitchell, R.C. "Environment: An Enduring Concern." Resources. No. 57:1-2,
20-21, 1978.
Morrison, O.E. "The Environmental Movement: Conflict Dynamics." Journal.
of Voluntary Action Research, 2(Spring)': 74-85, 1973.
• .
Morrison, O.E., K.E. Hornback, and W.K. Warner. "The Environmental Movement:
Some Preliminary Observations and Predictions." In: Social Behavior.
Natural Resources, and the Environment, W.R. Burch, N.H. Cheek, Jr., and
L. Taylor, eds. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, New York, 1972.
pp. 259-279.
Munton, D., and L. Brady. American Public Opinion and Envi-onmental
Pollution. The Behavioral Science.Laboratory Research Report, Umver-
sity of Ohio, 1970.
Murch, A.W. "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution." Public Opinion
Quarterly. 35(1):100-106, 1971.
National Analysts, Inc. Metropolitan Housewives' Attitudes Toward Solid
Waste Disposal. EPA-R5-72-003, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. , 1972. 90 pp.
O'Riordan, T. "Public Opinion and Environmental Quality: A Reappraisal."
Environment and Behavior. 3(2):191-214, 1971a.
O'Riordan, T. "Towards a Strategy of Public Involvement." In: Perceptions
and Attitudes in Resources Management. W.R.D. Sewell and I. Burton, eds.
Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1971b. pp. 99-110.
Orr, R.H. "The Additive and Interactive Effects of Powerlessness .and Anomie
in Predicting Opposition to Pollution Control." Rural Sociology, 39(4):
471-486, 1974.
237
-------
Otway, H.J., and M. Fishbein. The Determinants of Attitude Formation: An
Application to Nuclear Power. RM-76-80, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1976. 31 pp.
Pahner, P.O. A Psychological Perspective of the Nuclear Energy Controversy.
RM-76-67,InternationalInstituteforAppliedSystemsAnalysis,
Laxenburg, Austria, 1976. 27 pp.
Rappeport, M., and P. Labaw. Public Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Energy
Conservation: Detailed Tabulations by U.S. Population and Population
Segments. Waves 28 and 29.FEA/D-76/252, Federal Energy Administra-
tion, Washington, O.C., 1975. 42 pp. [NTIS: PB254592]
Russell, C. The Evolution of the Nature Magazine: A Case Study of Three
Publications: Outdoor America. National Audubon, American Forests,
1954-1969. M.A. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1970.
Salcedo, R.N., H. Read, J.F. Evans, and A.C. Kong. "Rural-Urban Perspectives
of the Pesticide Industry." Rural Sociology. 36(4):554-562, 1971.
Schnaiberg, A. "Politics, Participation and Pollution: T^a 'Environmental
Movement.1" Mimeographed, Northwestern University, 1971.
Sewell, W.R.D., and H.D. Foster. "Environmental Revival: Promise and Per-
formance." Environment and Behavior, 3(2):123-134, 1971.
Sharma, N.C., J.E. Kivlin, and F.C. Fliegel. "Environmental Pollution: Is
There Enough Public Concern to Lead to Action?" Environment and
Behavior. 7(4):455-471, 1975.
Sigler, J. Attitudes of Illinois Citizens Toward Solid Waste and the
Environment.IIEQ-73-6,Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality,
Chicago, Illinois, 1973. 140 pp. [NTIS: PB223457]
Slovic, P., and B. Fischhoff. "How Safe is Safe Enough? Determinants of
Perceived and Acceptable Risk." Draft chapter in: The Management of
Nuclear Wastes, L. Gould and C.A. Walker, eds. Yale University Press
(no date).39~pp.
Smith, W.J.J. Environmental Policy and Impact Analysis: Origins. Evolution.
and Implications for Government, Business, and the Courts. The Confer-
ence Board, Inc., New York, New York, 1973.
Sofranko, A.J., and W.M. Bridgeland. "Agreement and Disagreement on Environ-
mental Issues Among Community Leaders." Cornell Journal of Social
Relations. 10(1):151-162, 1975.
Swan, J.A. "Psychological Response to the Environment." In: Environmental
Quality and Water Development. C.R. Goldman, J. McEvoy, III and P.J.
Richerson, eds. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California,
1973. pp. 95-110.
238
-------
Taviss, I. "A Survey of Popular Attitudes Toward Technology." Technology
and Culture. 13(4):606-621, 1972.
Tognacci, L.N., R.H. Wei gel, M.F. Wideen, and D.T.A. Vernon. "Environmental
Quality: How Universal is Public Concern." Environment and Behavior,
4(2):73-86, 1972.
Tremblay, K.R., and R.E. Dunlap. "Rural-Urban Residence and Concern with
Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension." Rural Sociology,
43(3):474-491, 1978.
Trigg, L.J., 0. Perlman, R.P. Perry, and M.P. Janisse. "Anti-Pollution
Behavior: A Function of Perceived Outcome and Locus of Control." Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 8(2):307-313, 1976.
Trop, C., and L. L. Roos, Jr. "Public Opinion and the Environment." In:
The Politics of Ecosuicide, L. L. Roos, Jr., ed. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., New York, New York, 1971. pp. 52-63.
White, G.F. "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes." In: Environmental
Quality in a Growing Economy, H. Jarrett, ed. The Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1966. pp. 105-127.
Winham, G. "Attitudes on Pollution and Growth in Hamilton, or 'There's an'
Awful Lot of Talk These Days About Ecology.1" Canadian Journal of
Political. Science. 5(3):389-401, 1972.
239
-------
APPENDIX E
FACTORS INFLUENCING DISCOUNT RATES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION
This appendix discusses tne selection of a discount rate for puonc
projects, presenting the arguments for and against the use of a soc-ial dis-
count rate that is lower than the rate of discount used to assess private
sector projects. The discussion also addresses the question of whether or
not the discount rate used on social projects should be raised to ra^'lact
risk. (In this context, i.e., capital markets, the tern "risk" ^s usac to
denote any uncertainty.)
Where a project can have irreversible effects that extend beyond •:•'
generation, the choice of a discount rate becomes more complex, and the whai:^
concept of discounting has been questioned. This appenaix discusses chese
issues and develops a pragmatic solution to the problem.
THE SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATE
If for the moment one disregards the question of risk and considers
risk-free projects, there are two principal opposing views on the use of a
social discount rate that is lower than the business rate. On one hand, it
is argued that private market decisions generally favor the short term and do
not make sufficient provision for the future, leading to a rate of consump-
tion that is too high (Krutilla and Fisher, 1975). Hence a lower or "social"
discount rate is proposed in order to adjust private preferences for
consumption versus investment or conservation (as expressed in the private
discount rate) to a time preference that is deemed appropriate for society as
a whole (Marglin, 1963). The requirement for a lower discount rate to stimu-
late social projects (as opposed to private projects) stems from the long
time scales over which some social projects operate (e.g., water resource
developments) and the pattern of expenditures and benefits (which are
equivalent to income). This pattern usually involves heavy expenditures in
the early years of a project with benefits, usually small in the early years,
that continue for a long time.
Another argument for a low social interest rate relates to positive
•externalities. Therefore, capital put to public use often has a higher
social rate of return than the same capital put to private use. Hence it is
claimed that a lower discount rate is needed to stimulate social projects
(U.S. Congress, Senate, 1974; Musgrave and Musgrave, 1976). Clearly, the
240
-------
extent of any 'externalities depends on where the boundary for evaluation of
the project is drawn. However, as Arrow and Kurz (1970) point out, the
benefits of cleaner water, for example, may be so widely dispersed tiat it
would be impracticable to devise a way of charging for these benefits, and
correspondingly it would probably be difficult to value the benefits.
On the other hand, it is argued that the correct discount rate is the
opportunity cost of capital based on the returns when the project resources
are put to alternative uses. Thus it is claimed that to use a low social
rate of discount on public projects will divert capital from the private
sector to the public sector, leading to a distribution of investment that is
not optimally efficient (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1976). In a real world
situation, further complications are introduced by the distorting effects of
corporate income taxes. Some authors consider that the appropriate social
discount rate is the before-tax return in the private sector (Baumol, 1963).
However, others argue that the relevant discount rate for use on social
projects could be either the before-tax or the after-tax private sector
return, depending on whether the funds are diverted from investment or
consumption (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1976). In addition, there are a number
of ways of adjusting the investment criteria when social and private discount
rates diverge. Discussion of these topics is beyond the scope of this
appendix, and the reader is referred to the literature (see Herfindahl and
Kneese, 1974; Mishan, 1971; Oasgupta, Sen, and Marglin, 1972; Krutilla and
Fisher, 1975).
ADJUSTMENT OF THE DISCOUNT RATE FOR RISK
In assessing business projects, it is a common practice to raise the
discount rate (or the minimum acceptable rate of return) in order to allow
for uncertainty associated with the project. Uncertainty can arise from
numerous factors such as the magnitudes of the expenditures and revenues, the
timing and duration of the phases of the project as well as the possibility
of "catastrophic" events—a major uninsured accident, for example. Corre-
spondingly, it is assumed that an investor will demand a higher rate of
return (expressed as an expected value) from what is perceived to be a risky
project than from a safe one. Thus investment criteria will refect the
investor's risk aversion by including a risk premium in the discount rate.
Similar arguments can be applied to public projects, and some authors
hold -that public projects should be assessed in exactly the same way as
private projects to avoid the capital diversion effect already mentioned.
The alternative contention is that public investment criteria should not
include a risk premium. Several arguments can lead to this position,
including claims that the private capital markets are so imperfect that they
give no useful information about the individual's risk preferences, and that
many of the risks in the private sector (such as moral risks) do not exist in
the public sector (Arrow and Lind, 1970). However, there are three major
arguments for a risk-free approach. The first is that governments 'nvest in
a great number of diverse projects, which enable them to pool risks to a far
greater extent than the individual investor (i.e., a government acts as its
own insurer). Second, a government distributes the risk associated with any
one project over such a wide range of individuals that the total cost of
241
-------
risk-bearing is insignificant. The third argument is that the state is more
than a mere collection of individuals and has an existence and interests
apart from its individual members; government policy therefore need not
reflect the risk aversion of individual preferences (Arrow and Lind. 1970).
Again, the reader is referred to the literature for more details of this
debate (see Herfindahl and Kneese, 1974; Mishan, 1971; Dasgupta, Sen, ana
Marglin, 1972; Krutilla and Fisher, 1975).
INTERGENERATIONAL EFFECTS
The preceding discussion on the choice of a discount rate used arguments
that are appropriate to the viewpoint of the present generation. However,
where a longer time span is involved, society should also consider the view-
point of future generations. This is particularly important for any projects
that could or do result in (1) irreversible changes, such as moaifications to
the natural environment, or (2) the use or disposition of nonrenewaole
resources. Construction (e.g., of a dam or landfill) is irreversible when it
causes environmental changes. Thus almost any effect that persists for more
than one generation could be regarded as irreversible.
Two of the arguments already presented for a low social discount rate
are particularly appropriate when intergenerational effects ar^> considered.
These are: (1) The view that society is more than a collection of individuals
and hence does not have to be risk averse, and, more important (2) the view
that market decisions stress present consumption to the detriment of conser-
vation. (Page [1977] provides, in the context of resource conservation, an
excellent and extensive discussion of the implications of the various
approaches to the choice of a discount rate.) Though the second argument can
be applied directly (in assessing the benefits of resource recovery), the
general view that one generation should not unduly mortgage another's
activities in return for immediate benefits is applicable to the management
of any "nontreatable" waste.
Krutilla and Fisher (1975) have analyzed some intergenerational problems
and conclude that where there is less than perfect altruism, the overall
optimum use of a limited resource will not be achieved, because of the
inability of different generations to bargain with each other. Consequently,
each generation will optimize the use of resources from its own viewooint,
and each succeeding generation will wish to revise the plan to provide it
with the maximum utility available from the remaining resources. Of partic-
ular interest is the case where an option demand (see Appendix C) increases
with time, and a project that is justified (using the potential Pareto
criterion) at t=0, may cease to be justified when evaluated at t=i^ (t^O) as
a result of the increasing benefits of maintaining the status quo. Further-
more, the magnitude of the benefits (viewed from t=tit or later) of not
undertaking the project could be sufficient to permit the compensation of
early beneficiaries of the project and still satisfy the potential Pareto
criterion. Thus where an irreversible action is contemplated, some addi-
tional test of efficiency is required if society is to aspire to altruism.
This test, attributed to Scitovsky, is discussed in Krutilla and Fisher
(1975). (Anderson [1978] also provides a useful discussion, from the view-
point of resource conservation, of intergenerational effects with more
emphasis on distributional considerations.)
242
-------
OBJECTIONS TO DISCOUNTING
In the above discussion, the concept of discounting was not an issue,
although Krutilla and Fisher (1975) show (in the context of the consumption
of a fixed resource stock) that to achieve altruism, the discount rate must
be uniform between generations. However, several authors (concerned with
empirical cost-benefit analyses) have questioned the concept of discounting
on the grounds that it unreasonably penalizes future generations, or even the
later welfare of the present generation. The problem is that with any con-
ventional rate of discount, even a low social rate, the future is sc heavily
discounted that after a few decades, distant events can be disregarded in
virtually every case. This is no great problem for a conventional project
(such as the construction of an incinerator), where technological oosoles-
cence is expected to limit the project's useful life by a couple of decades;
but it can present difficulties where human life or the environment are
involved.
This issue has been pointed up by a National Academy of Sciences
committee as follows:
There have been long-standing debates as to the appropriate-
ness of applying a discount rate to effects on future generations,.
since any positive rate of discount will directly discriminate in
favor of choices that involve bad impacts on later generations but
not on earlier ones. Again by way of example, if the discount rate
were 5 percent, 100 cases of toxic poisoning 75 years from now
would be equivalent to about 3 cases today; or 1 case today would
be valued the same as 1,730 cases occurring in 200 years, or tne
same as the current world population (more than 3 billion cases) in
450 years. Clearly, intergenerational effects of these magnitudes
are ethically unacceptable; yet they might be made to appear
acceptable if the traditional social rate of discount concept were
used to discount future costs to compare with present benefits.
Some other method of ethically weighting intergenerational.
incidence of effects must-be devised,
(National Academy of Sciences, 1975:177)
The committee also noted that there is as yet no generally accepted
method for weighting the intergenerational incidence 'of benefits and costs.
Another National Academy of Sciences (1977) committee also indicated
that it had problems with discounting with respect to the-valuation of .lives
exposed to radiation and proposed that: ... .
Weighting factors"should be applied to those terms which may
be undervalued by market place economics. Typically, these are
likely to include the terms which have a component which involves
people not able to take part in the decision-making process. The
values of the weighting factors have to be established by society
in general, whether through the political process, public survey,
or other means. (National Academy of Sciences, 1977:69,70)
243
-------
Sociologists have, however, developed some alternatives to the utility
approach inherent in discounting. Thus if the present generation desires to
minimize the regret of future generations as to the present generation's
choices, then the appropriate social rate of discount is zero~i.e., all
generations are valued equally over a finite planning horizon (Scnulze,
1974). Rawls (1971) argues that society should focus attention on maximizing
the welfare of the poorest individual. This approach has been developed by
Solow (1974) and Phelps and Riley (1978), but their arguments concentrate on
the consumption of nonrenewable resources, and although they are interesting,
they cannot be applied directly to hazardous waste management problems (also
see Page, 1977). Epp et al. (1977) suggest the use of a zero discount rate
for cost-benefit analysis of pesticide use, although they do not justify the
proposal.
APPLICATION TO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
General
The use of discounting in empirical studies involving intergenerational
effects is clearly problematical. However, in a mixed economy, the complete
abandonment of the discounting concept for public decisions could c^ll for
some difficult and perhaps unsatisfactory second best ana, j-'s,^ as dis-
counting is implicit in virtually all business decisions. Discounting is
clearly not a topic upon which wide agreement will readily be "eached, yer
some solution must be adopted to proceed with any numerate analysis. The
author will therefore offer some pragmatic suggestions and arguments that
could be appropriate to the particular characteristics of V.ontreatable"
hazardous wastes. Note that many decisions relating to treatable wastes are
reversible (assuming that costs sunk in physical facilities are disregarded)
and only involve a conventional time scale as opposed to an intergenerational
one. Hence in these cases, the only problem is the choice between a social
and a market discount rate.
Intergenerational Discounting
Where intergenerational effects are possible (e.g., effects that stem
from environmental threats), two approaches could be employed: (1) not to
discount the effects of threats, or (2) not to further discount the effects
of any threats that occur after one generation. In the second approacn, the
intention is that all costs and impacts that occur during a normal (single
generation) project life are discounted in the usual way, but that no effect
is further discounted if it occurs past this time. Both approaches nave the
added practical attraction that they eliminate or reduce the problems
associated with deciding upon the time at which a threat is assumed to
materialize. It is difficult to predict the time at which a threat that
arises from hazardous waste disposal (as opposed to treatment, etc.) might
become a reality. It is true, for example, that given sufficient
* If the social and business discount rates diverge, tnen this will cause
deviations from Pareto optional conditions (see Section 5) with the result
that any optimum reached will be what economists refer to as a "second
best" condition.
244
-------
precipitation and 'geohydrologic data, the emergence and movement of a
leachate from some form of land disposal could be predicted. In practice,
however, adequate data are not likely to be available—and the greatest
threats may come from unanticipated sources such as an unrecognized inter-
connection between two aquifers. Effects may be cumulative and may not
become apparent until seme (probably ill-defined) threshold level is massed.
Where the threat relates to an irregular or random process (such as an
uncommon natural event), the timing cannot be predicted, although of course
it might be possible to derive an expected value. Mence use of the
methodology is simplified if threat timing does not affect the results.
Rationale for Not Discounting
While neither of the two approaches suggested above can be ricorcusly
justified (unless one accepts the minimum regret criterion mentioned
earlier), arguments in their favor can be put forward. First, little is
known about man's future uses of the environment, and especially those to
which it may be put after two or three decades (i.e., one generation later).
Society may need to employ some resources that are currently unused and
little valued. For example: When might we need to extract either freshwater
or minerals from a saline aquifer? When may we need and be ready to farm the
ocean? When may we need to use the land where a landfill is presently
located? An allowance for the unknowns can be made by placing some form of
option value on them, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that i':s value
increases with time. This increase would stem from the increasing relative
scarcity of the fixed supply of environmental resources in comparison to
nan's growing real wealth. Thus the further into the future that one looks,
the higher are likely to be the opportunity costs associated with irrevers-
ible decisions. Put another way, the materialization of a threat (such as
contamination of an aquifer that might be the only low-cost water supply
available to meet future increased demand) may prove to be increasingly
costly as one moves further into the future (and alternative water sources
are put to other uses, raising the cost of the next feasible supply).
The increasing opportunity cost hypothesized above could be regarded as
balancing the discounting effect, leading to an argument for not discounting
when the impacts of these threats are expressed in today's values. The
drawback to this argument is that there is no particular reason why the
discount rate should become zero, i.e., that the two effects should exactly
balance. The appropriate rate (i.e., that which would be determined with
hindsight after the events have occurred) might turn out to be a low positive
rate, zero, or even a negative discount rate (i.e., a growth rate). But this
information is not available, and 'a zero rate has the attraction of
simplicity.
Rationale for Discounting Over One Generation Only
The concept of discounting over a "normal" project life, but thereafter
holding the discount factor constant (i.e., not continuing to discount) has
an even stronger pragmatic attraction. The lives of many industrial projects
are limited by technological obsolescence, either directly via the process
technology used, or indirectly through changes in the marketplace.
245
-------
Consequently, industrial project lives are usually taken as one and a half,
two, or at the most three decades.* Technologies pass through a succession
of phases as they move from basic research or concept development to
commercial use. Technologies that are likely to be used in the next decade
or so will generally be well advanced along this progression and hence
comparatively easy to identify. By contrast, some of the technologies that
will be important after three decades, for example, may not yet be conceived,
or they may be in the very early stages of development making technological
predictions over this time scale most uncertain (Taylor, 1978).
Thus it can be argued that current valuations of resources will probably
reflect their utility over the next decade or so with reasonable accuracy,
but that beyond this period, uncertainty becomes so great that some resources
could be seriously undervalued. (Corresoondingly, some resources currently
in use may be of little value by that time.) Discounting during tne first
generation (say 20 or 30 years, which is about the same duration as a normal
project life) but not continuing to discount environmental effects thereafter
is equivalent to postulating an impact or opportunity cost that starts to
rise when the period of high uncertainty is reached at the end of the conven-
tional project life. A major attraction of the approach, however, is tiKat it
simulates tne normal industrial decisionmaking procedures (which in -lost
cases do not consider times beyond one generation), yet it doe~ -ot overly
discount the very distant future.
Conclusion
These two proposed alternative approaches for handling intergenerational
effects will lead to present values for these effects or threats that differ
by up to one order of magnitude. (For example, by ratios of 3.4:1, and
10.8:1 for discount rates of 5 and 10 percent respectively, over a period of
25 years.) Since estimates of the magnitudes (and, if used, of the proba-
bilities) of environmental threats are likely only to be order-of-magnitude
estimates, the difference need not be of great concern. The author finds the
arguments for the second approach (i.e., discounting during the first
generation, but not thereafter) particularly appealing, but the first
approach (not discounting at all) has the advantage of simplicity.
Both approaches could be difficult to apply in some circumstances. If
the period of evaluation is infinite, any cost that continues for an
indefinite period will have an infinite present value, unless discounting is
employed. This presents no problem where a lump-sum valuation of an effect
is possible (e.g., a one-shot valuation of some damage, such as a cleanuo or
replacement cost); but where some continuing cost is involved (such as the
maintenance cost for perpetual care, or a loss of existence value), the
evaluation or planning horizon would have to be limited if discounting were
not used.
* Of course, it is also true that at the high rates of discount commonly used
to evaluate industrial projects, the contribution to net present value made
by any cash flow beyond this point is often very limited. This reduces the
importance of accurately predicting the technological life of a project.
246
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, R.C. Evaluation of Economic Benefits of Resource Consecution
Through Recycling. EPA-600/5- 78-015, U.S. Environmental Prooac^i on
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 51 pp.
Arrow, K.J. , and M. Kurz. Public Investment, The Rate of Return, and j
Fiscal Policy. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Mary lane 1970.
246 pp.
Arrow, K.J., and R.C. Lind. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public
Investment Decisions." American Economic Review, 60(3): 364-363. 1370.
Baumol , W.J. "On the Social Rate of Discount." American Economic 3av>w.
58(4): 788-802, 1968.
Dasgupta, P., A. Sen, and S. Marglin. Guidelines for Project Eva'uation.
United Nations, New York, New York, 1972. 399 pp.
Epp, D.J., F.R. Tellefsen, G.A. Shute, R.M. Bear, and K.P. Wilkinson. Icenti-
ficatipn and Specification of Inputs for Benefit-Cost Modeling of
Pesticide Use. EPA-600/5-77-012, U.S. Environmental Protection /Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1977. 154 pp.
Herfindahl, O.'C. , and A.V. Kneese. Economic Theory of Natural Resources.
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1974. 415 pp.
Krutilla, J.V. , and A.C. Fisher. The Economics of Natural Environments:
Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources. Tre Jonns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1975. 214 pp.
Marglin, S.A. "The Social Rate of Discount and the Optimal Rate of Invest-
ment." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 77(1): 95-111, 1963.
Mishan, E.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Introduction. Praeger Publishers,
New York, New York, 1971. 374 pp.
Musgrave, R.A. , and P.B. Musgrave. Public Finance in Theory and Practice.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1976. 796 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. Decision Making for Regulating Chemicals in
the Environment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, O.C. , 1975.
242 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. Considerations of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis
for Activities Invo1vinq"Tonizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives.
IPA 520/4-77-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Was n i ngton ,
D.C., 1977. 199 pp.
Page, T. Conservation and Economic Efficiency: An .Approach to Materials
Policy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1977.
286 pp.
247
-------
Phelps, E.S., and J.G. Riley. "Rawlsian Growth: Dynamic Programming of
Capital and Wealth for Intergeneration 'Maximin1 Justice." Review of
Economic Studies. 45(139):103-120, 1978.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. The Bel knap Press, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971. 600 pp.
Schulze, W. "Social Welfare Functions for the Future." American Economist.
18(1):70-81, 1974.
Solow, R.M. "Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources." Review of
Economic Studies, Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resourcas,
1974. pp. 29-45.
Taylor, G.C. Methodologies for Characterising Technologies. EA-320. ~^e
Electric Power Research Institute. Pi!o Alto, California, 1973. 1-3 ?o.
U.S. Congress, Senate. Evaluation of Techniques for Cost-Bene^'t •Va'ys-Js
of Water Pollution Control Programs and Policies, Document No. 33-132.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
248
-------
APPENDIX F
RISK AND DECISIONMAKING
Considerations of risk appear in several places in this study. The
purpose of this appendix is to interrelate the various aspects of ris'<, to
provide limited further information about some of these aspects, and to
provide the interested reader with an entry to the wealth of risk-related
literature that may be relevant to decisionmaking about hazardous wastes.
ASPECTS OF RISK
The term "risk" has different implications to different people. Rowe,
in a broad discussion of many aspects of risk, defines risk as
. . . the potential for realization of unwanted negative con-
sequences of an event or combination of events to individual groups
of people or to physical and biological systems.
(Rowe, 1975:1)
Risk only becomes relevant when it affects decisionmaking, and all
decisionmaking involves some element of risk, even if the potential negative
consequences of a decision are as simple as failing to maximize utility or
satisfaction in a choice between two competing products. However, r'sk does
not play a significant role in every decision, and hence only a limited
proportion of decisions would be perceived by a decisionmaker as being risk
related. It is possible to classify decisionmaking on the basis of whether
the viewpoint used is predominantly personal, economic, or societal.
Risk taking in personal decisions might involve social behavior, such as
the acceptability of drug taking to peer groups; or it might relate to an
individual's well-being or safety, such as a decision to risk the conse-
quences of swimming in polluted water. Note that risks-are taken voluntarily
as a result of personal decisions. ' • . .
Many business decisions involve .predominantly economic risks. Tie basic
uncertainty need not be economic; it could, for example, be a question of the
ability of the firm's management to adequately control a venture, or it may
be that a project involves an unproven technology. However, to the Business
firm, the ultimate consequences of an unsatisfactory performance TI these
areas will be measured in economic terms. The upwards adjustment of a
required rate of return to reflect the perceived riskiness of a project is
one way in which decisionmakers allow for economic risks.
249
-------
Another important aspect of economic risk-taking is insurance decisions.
Insurance spreads over many individuals the risk of adverse economic conse-
quences from what is usually a comparatively unlikely event. The basis of
insurance is that many individuals (or organizations) prefer to pay a premium
(which is in excess of the expected value of the loss due to the transaction
costs involved) rather than risk the chance of serious economic consequences
should specified events occur. These events are usually those over whicn the
insured has little or no control, for example, automobile accidents (little
control) or natural disasters such as floods (no control). The fact that
individuals will pay a premium to obtain insurance illustrates a widely
observed phenomenon—that many people are risk averse, and prefer to minimize
the potential for adverse consequences. However, individuals oftan exhibit
risk proneness in some decisions; for example, research has shown that
individuals frequently do not carry insurance against high-loss, low-
probability events (discussed later in this appendix).
Where risks have the potential to affect large numbers of persons, they
become societal risks. However, perhaps the most important aspect of
societal risk is that the risks are largely incurred involuntarily. The
distinction between voluntary and involuntary risks appears to be of prac-
tical as well as philosophical significance, as it appears that, for a given
economic benefit, the public is willing to accept voluntary risks tnat are
greater than involuntary risks (discussed later in this appendix).
Another key feature of societal risks is that individuals can make
decisions that affect many others. In some cases these decisions are made by
persons who (implicitly or explicitly) represent the public, but in others
they are made by individuals in the light of their own specific interests.
In the latter case, society often finds a way to constrain or control the
decisions so that the public interest is not unduly damaged; for example,
certain methods of disposing of hazardous waste might be prohibited by law as
being too harmful to the environment.
There are many situations in which decisions are not purely personal,
economic or societal; in some cases all three facets can be present. For
example, if an individual decides to transport some obsolete and potentially
dangerous explosives over the public highways, this could be viewed as a
personal risk-taking decision. However, it also has societal implications
via the risks to bystanders, and economic implications to the individual
transporting the explosives, to his dependents, and to society (by way of
road use costs, etc.).
Many risks have a technological element, even though the threat-
initiating event may be natural. It may be that the technology itself is not
completely reliable or understood (e.g., weather modification), that the
man-technology combination is not secure (e.g., is a nuclear power station
completely fail-safe?), or that technology is used to mitigate or minimize
the effects of natural risks (e.g., design of buildings to resist
earthquakes).
Many risk data for specific technologies, e.g., transport accident
statistics, are readily available. Some of these that are applicable to
hazardous waste management are presented in Appendix 8 on environmental
250
-------
threats. A problem sometimes encountered is the quantification of risk where
historic data are unavailable or inadequate. One approach proposed to remedy
this deficiency uses envelope curves to describe risk-consequence relation-
ships (Kastenberg, McKone, and Okrent, 1976; Okrent and Whipple, 1977; Starr,
1972).
Recently there has been much research on the risks that complex techno-
logical systems pose to mankind, the preeminent example being electric power
generation from nuclear or other fuels. (For example, see Okrent, 1975;
Starr, Greenfield, and Hausknecht, 1972; Rasmussen, 1975; U.S. Atonrc Energy
Commission, 1974; Barrager, Judd, and North, 1976.) An associated develop-
ment has been the growing use of technology assessments. While the objective
of a technology assessment is to evaluate all the effects of the use of a
technology, including direct costs and benefits, the emphasis is on long
range consequences and side effects (National Academy of Engineering, 1972).
Consequently, technology assessment is closely associated with risk
evaluation. Technology assessments have been performed in such areas as
precipitation augmentation (Weisbecker, 1974), transport of liquified natural
gas and oil, and nuclear proliferation and safety (U.S. Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment, 1977). ' •
DECISIONMAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY, AND RISK AVERSION
It is widely held that most individuals are risk averse. In the context
of economics, this follows from the assumption that the marginal utility of
wealth decreases as an individual's wealth increases, i.e., it is of the form
shown in Figure F-l.
UTILITY +
WEALTH
Figure F-l. Utility of wealth for a risk-averse individual.
(Source: Slovic et al., 1977:238.)
Consider a decisionmaker faced with a situation where he' has a choice
between (A) a certain $1 million payoff and (B) a probability p=0.5 of a $2
million payoff together with a p=0.5 of a zero payoff. If the. decisionmaker
is indifferent between choices (A) and (B), he is "risk neutral" since the
251-
-------
expected value of choice (B) is $1 million, i.e., the same as (A). If he
prefers (A) to (B), he is termed "risk averse"; however, should he prefer (3)
to (A), he is considered "risk prone." Similar arguments apply to expendi-
tures and losses of utility. A risk-averse decisionmaker might, for example,
prefer to spend $1 million to avoid a potential waste problem rather than
face a 90-percent probability of needing no expenditures together with a
10-percent probability of having to spend $10 million to contain the problem.
The above statements do not provide any information about the extent of
the risk aversion (or risk preference) that a decisionmaker exhibits. This
could be measured by determining the expected value of the uncertain situa-
tion at which the decisionmaker was indifferent between this and the certain
outcome. To extend the waste containment example above, a decisionmaker who
will spend $2 million to avert the specified risk is risk averse; a aecision-
maker who will spend $3 million to avert the same risk is more risk averse.
Maurer (1977) discusses ways of characterizing the extent of risk aversion
and discusses some common empirical risk tolerance functions that can be used
to quantify risk aversion.
Though individuals may exhibit risk-prone behavior in some situations,
human behavior is generally characterized by risk aversion for monetary risks
(Maurer, 1977). Consequently, some authors have suggested that ..Here choices
can be couched in purely economic terms, a specified degree of risk aversion
can be built into the decisionmaking process (Okrent and Whipple, 1977). The
concept includes the suggestion that we should be less risk averse in
decisions concerning essential services (for example, in deciding to have a
public electricity supply) than in peripheral services that are not particu-
larly beneficial to society or where an almost equivalent function could be
performed by alternative low-risk means (for example, substitutes for the use
of PCB's in transformers).
The above discussion of risk aversion dealt with comparatively straight-
forward choices that are primarily economic in nature. Utility theory has
traditionally been used to provide a theoretical basis for decisionmaking
under uncertainty. It also facilitates the analysis of problems in which it
is difficult to place a monetary value on some outcomes. (For example, see
Von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1953; Ellsberg, 1961; Keeler and Zeckhauser,
1969; Fishburn, 1964, 1965; Raiffa, 1968; Fischer, 1975.)
Research on insurance and gambling decisions has developed empirical
data about an individual's behavior when faced with a variety of uncertain
s-ituations, many of which are somewhat complex (Slovic, 1972a; Slovic and
Lichtenstein, 1968; Slovic et al., 1977). If the individual is assumed to
make logical decisions on the basis of utility, some of these findings can be
surprising. For example, it appears that people are less inclined to insure
against low-probability, high-loss events than high-probability, low-loss
risks. This could be construed as implying risk-prone behavior, but an
alternative explanation could be that there is a threshold level of
probability for a damaging event below which individuals do not consider it
worth carrying insurance (Slovic et al., 1977). Extending this result and
drawing on other work, Slovic et al., conclude that when dealing with
insurance against risks from natural hazards, there are many social and
252
-------
psychological factors that bear on an individual's decison (Slovic et al.,
1977; Slovic, Kunreuther, and White, 1974; Kunreuther and Slovic, 1978).
Because utility theory alone is not entirely satisfactory for explaining
observed behavior, an alternative psychology-based approach, now termed
"bounded rationality," has been proposed (Simon, 1956, 1959). Bounded
rationality postulates that individuals do not think probabilistically and
that they try to avoid the necessity of directly facing uncertainty in
decisionmaking (Slovic, Kunreuther, and White, 1974). It is assumed that an
individual's cognitive limitations force him to construct a simplified model
of the world, and that the decisionmaking goal becomes "satisficing" (i.e.,
finding an acceptable solution) rather than optimizing. There is empirical
evidence that the way in which individuals process information is central to
their decisionmaking procedures, which supports models of the bounded
rationality type (Slovic, Kunreuther, and White, 1974; Slovic, 1972b; "versky
and Kahneman, 1974; Fischhoff, 1976).
It appears that there is a tendency for economic decisions made by
groups to be more risky than by individuals, and that the risk-taking levels
of some individuals increase following group discussion (Clark, 1971, Kogan
and Wallach, 1967; also see Slovic, 1972b). This phenomenon has been called
"risky shift." However, it is a complex subject, and groups will make less
risky decisions under some circumstances (Cartwright, 1973);
RISK AND SOCIETY'
One'of th'e most difficult tasks with which a decisionmaker can be faced
is the need to decide on-a level of risk for society to bear. (A decision-
maker will have a personal risk aversion [related to the perceptions of
others as to how well he has performed his job] that may not coincide with
the level of risk aversion that is optimal for society. But this personal
factor is disregarded in the following discussion.) The dilemma of choosing
between comparative safety together with low cost-effectiveness versus
greater risks but higher effectiveness—provided nothing goes wrong--has
spawned article titles such as "How Safe is Safe Enough?"* (Fischhoff et al.,
1976; Slovic and Fischhoff, in press), and "Balanced Risk: An Approach to
Reconciling Man's Need with his Environment" (Wiggins,- 1975). Ideally, one
would like to be able to optimize the level of risk to which the public is
exposed, but it is not an easy task to determine what the public really
wants, the difficulty being greatly compounded by the "fuiz.iness" of the data
(see Shinohara, 1976).
Otway and Pahner, who addressed, risks in-the context of technological
systems, see risk on a series of levels:
1. Physical, biological risks to man and the environment;
2. The perception of these risks by individuals;
* It appears that Starr (1969) was the first author to specifically pose the
now well-known question "How Safe is Safe Enough?"
253
-------
3. The potential risk to the psychological well-being of
individuals based upon these perceptions;
4. The risks to social structures and cultural values as
influenced by the collective psychological states of
individuals.
(Otway and Pahner, 1975:123)
Otway uses the term "risk assessment" to describe the process of incor-
porating social values into risk-related, societal decisions (Otway, 1977;
Otway and Pahner, 1976; Otway, 1975). Risk assessment is seen as consisting
of two major components: Risk estimationandFTsk evaluation. Risk
estimation involves identifying and quantifying the risks associated with a
particular option; that is, it is the largely technical side of risk assess-
ment. Some material on risk estimation has been presented in Appendix B.
•Risk evaluation involves determining the acceptability of these risks to
'society (Otway and Pahner, 1976; Slovic and Fischhoff, in press).
There are two principal approaches to risk evaluation (Fischhoff et al.,
1976):
1. The revealed preference method;
2. The expressed preference method.
The basis of the revealed preference method is the assumotion that
through trial and error society has arrived at a satisfactory balance between
the risks and benefits connected with any activity. Past economic risk and
benefit data may therefore be used to reveal patterns of acceptable risk-
benefit trade-offs. Acceptable risk for a new technology is considered to be
that level of safety associated with ongoing activities having similar
benefit to society (Fischhoff et al., 1976).
The "expressed preference" method, which has also been called the
"controlled experiment" method (Otway and Pahner, 1976) and the "psychometric
survey" (Fischhoff et al., 1976; Okrent and Whipple, 1977) depends on using a
survey or questionnaire to find individual responses to risk or specific risk
attributes (Okrent and Whipple, 1977).
Starr (1976, 1972, 1969) is the best known proponent of the revealed
preference approach. He essentially compared risk of death with a valuation
of the benefits received by the individual from the relevant activity. In
most cases, benefits were valued by assuming that they were equal to the
average expenditures by an individual on that activity. This analysis led
Starr to the following conclusions:
. . . (i) The indications are that the public is willing to accept
'voluntary1 risks roughly 1000 times greater than 'involuntary'
risks, (ii) The statistical risk of death from disease appears to
be a psychological yardstick for establishing the level of accepta-
bility of other risks, (iii) The acceptability of risk appears to
be crudely proportional to the third power of the benefits (real or
imagined). (iv) The social acceptance of risk is directly
254
-------
influenced by public awareness of the benefits of an activity, as
determined by advertising, usefulness, and the number of people
participating. . . . (Starr, 1969:1237)
The principal criticism of this approach is that the actual risk levels
are not known to the public, and hence judgments will be based on perceived
risks rather than actual risks.* The literature presents several other
criticisms of the revealed preference approach, including the argument that
the sociopolitical decisionmaking process does not reveal the true public
preference for benefit-risk trade-offs, that revealed preferences do not
differentiate between what is best and what is traditionally acceptable, and
that they illustrate past values, not current ones (Okrent and Whippla, 1977;
Linnerooth, 1975; Fischhoff et al., 1976). Also, Lave (1972) argues that
Starr's distinction between voluntary and involuntary exposure is explained
by the "public good" nature of the involuntary exposure situations,. In a
public situation, a large number of persons are exposed to the hazard,
thereby reducing the acceptable per person risk in comparison with that for
an individual activity.
In addition to the conceptual difficulties associated with the revealed
preference approach, Starr's quantitative findings are also s'ubject to doubt.
Otway and Cohen (1975). have , reanalyzed Starr's data, and show that the
results are excessively .sensitive to the assumptions made and to the way in
which the data are handled. They conclude that simple mathematical relation-
ships, of the type suggested by Starr are unlikely (Otway and Cohen, 1975).
In particular, Otway and Cohen did not replicate Starr's well known ratio of
1,000:1 .for the required- benefits from risks undertaken..involuntarily as
opposed to voluntarily. Some recent unpublished work has suggested that a
3:1 ratio may be more appropriate. (Personal communication, P. Slovic,
Decision Research, Eugene; Oregon, September 5, 1978.)
The expressed preference approach has been the subject of investigation
by workers at Decision Research (Fischhoff et al., 1976; Slovic and
Fischhoff, in press; Slovic, 1978) and by Otway and others (Otway, 1975,
1977; Otway and Pahner, 1976). However, this approach has not, as yet, been
widely applied. The principal disadvantage is that it measures attitudes,
not behavior, and that it is difficult to project attitudes to behavior
(Otway and Pahner, 1976; Okrent and Whipple, 1977). . .
In one particularly interesting study, Fischhoff et al. (1976) examined
the way in which, for a given level -trf benefit, risk attributes affected the
* This criticism is supported by work that illustrates that public judgment
on the relative mortality risk from various causes (diseases, accidents,
etc.) is far from accurate (Lichtenstein et al., 1978; Slovic, Fischhoff,
and Lichtenstein, 1976). The biases in the responses were -attributed to
disproportionate 'exposure - to the various causes (due to variation in
coverage by the news media) and also to differences in -memorability or
imaginability of-various events (Lichtenstein et al.., 1978; Slovic and
Fischhoff, in press.).. .
255
-------
acceptability of a risk. Although this study was restricted to a sma'l
sample of members of the League of Women Voters and their spouses in Eugene,
Oregon, it confirmed Starr's general finding that risks undertaken volun-
tarily were more acceptable than nonvoluntary ones; it also found that the
accentability of risk increased where the risk was controllable, familiar,
known, and had immediate consequences. These results are illustrated in
Figure F-2 and have the effect of favoring low-technology activities over
high-technology activities (Fischhoff et al., 1976). In addition, the degree
to which an activity's risk was potentially catastrophic, dread, and likely
to be fatal also negatively influenced acceptability (Slovic, 1978).
Although the expressed preference approach reflects the public's views,
it has already been shown that these views are liable to be colored by
inaccurate ideas on the magnitude of risks, etc. One way to corract for this
would be to provide appropriate, accurate data to the respondents. Slovic
and Fischhoff (in press) provide a useful listing of the factors that can
cause both erroneous views and erroneous analysis in dealing with risk
estimates.
The two methods discussed above provide, in theory, means far deter-
mining optimum levels of risks acceptable to society. A method that i selves
aspects of both has been advocated by Rowe (1977), who propose that for any
given activity the risk levels inferred from historical data must be adjusted
according to the degree of the inequity caused by a specific action U-2.,
risks to those individuals who do not share the benefits) and the ability to
control each risk. Rowe suggested that greater inequity and lass control
should dictate lower permissible risks.
Another method of determining risk acceptability is to argue that a risk
that is reduced to well below the noise level should not be of significance.
Thus if a risk is far smaller than that posed by natural, unavoidable
hazards, it is claimed that it should be acceptably low* (Otway, 1975, 1977).
A variety of historic data have been collected on various risks that can be
used for this approach, many of which are included in the materials cited
above. In addition, Baldewicz et al. (1974) provide a fairly comprehensive
listing, and Tonnessen and Cohen (1977) provide data on naturally occurring
hazardous materials in deep geologic formations as perspective for the
relative hazard of burial of nuclear wastes. The disadvantage of this
"comparative" approach is that the public may not perceive the relevant risk
to be insignificantly low, and further, even if they did, they may not find
this argument acceptable.
* Note that while Rasmussen (1975) showed that the predicted nuclear power
risks were much lower than the risks from a variety of other manmade and
natural hazards, he did not make any judgment on the acceptability of
nuclear power risks.
256
-------
HICK
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW
HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW
B
LOW
BENEFIT
HIGH
LOW
BENEFIT HIGH
HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW
HIGH
ACCEPTABLE
RISK
LOW
LOW BENEFIT
HIGH
LOW BENEFIT HIGH
Figure F-2. Determinants of acceptable risks as indicated by revealed
and expressed preferences.
Source: Slovic, P. Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon.
257
-------
The widely observed and continuing opposition to nuclear power, desoita
a variety of assurances from the so-called experts, suggests thera ara seme
risks that much of the public simply does not want to accept.* AltJiougn seine
people consider that there can be unacceptable risks, the National Acaceiiy of
Engineering (1972) study on benefit-risk decisionmaking argues that 31' ris
-------
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, how Safe
is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Techno logical
Risks and Benefits.Report #76-1, Decision Research,Eugene, Oregon,
1976.29*'pp.[Also published in Policy Sciences. 9, 1973. pp.
127-152.]
Fishburh',. -P:C. Decision and Value Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Ir.c. , Mew
York, New York, 1964.469 pp...
Fishburn, P.C. Modern Utility Theory: 1940-1970. Technical Paper RAC-TP-
160, ResearchAnalysis Corporation,McLean, Virginia, 1965. 47 pp.
[NTIS: A0625047]
Kastenberg, W.E., T.E. McKone, and D. Okrent. On Risk Assessment :n the
Absence of Complete Data. UCLA-ENG-7677, SchoolofEngineering and
AppliedScience,University of .California, Los Angeles, California,
1976". 54 pp.
Keeler, E., and R. Zeckhauser. Another'.'Type of Risk Aversion.. RM-5996-PR,
The,Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1969'. 22~pp.
Kogan, ti., and M.A. Wallach. "Risk Taking as a Function of the Situation,
the Person, and the. Group." In: New" ' Directions .in- Psychology: III.
Hol-'t, Rinehart arid''Winston, Inc.., x New..York, New York, 1967. pp.
111-278. ' . ' • "... '.. '
••••••.
Kunreuther, H., and P. Slovic. "Economics',' PsychoTogy1,' and Protective
Behavior." The American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings, 68(2):
64-69, 1978. . . •
Lave, L.B. "Risk, Safety, and the Role of Government." In: Perspectives
on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, National Academy of Engineering, eds.
National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1972. pp. 96-108.
Lichtenstein, S., P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs.
Perceived Frequency of Lethal Events. Report if76-2, Decision Research,
Eugene, Oregon, 1978.82 pp.
Linnerooth, J. The Evaluation of Life-Saving: A Survey. RR-75-23, Inter-
national Institute for Applied -Systems7 Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
1975. 31 pp.
Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. A Second Survey of Public and Leadership
Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power Development in the Dm ted-States! Ebasco
•Services. Incorporated, New York, New York, 1976.
Maderthaner,. R., P. Pahner,. G. Guttmarin",'"and H.J. 'Otway.' Perception'of
Technological Risks: The Effect-of... Confrontat-i-cm:• .-RM-.76-53,. Inter-
national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
1976. 24 pp.
259
-------
Maurer, K.M. A Parametric Utility Comparison of Coal and Nuclear Electr^'ty
Generation. UCLA-ENG-7719, Scnool of Engineering ana Applied Science,
University 'of California, Los Angeles, California, 1977. 31 pp.
National Academy of Engineering, ed. Perspectives of Benefit-Risk Decision
Making. The National Academy of Engineering, Wasnington, O.C. ,
155 pp.
Okrent, D. , ed. Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application: Some
Presented at the Engineering Foundation Workshop. Seotemoer ZI-
26, 1975. Asilomar, Cali formal UCLA- ENG- 7598, Scnool of Engineering
and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California,
1975. 655 pp.
Okrent, D. , and C. Whipple. An Approach to Societal Risk Accaotanca Cr^a^a
and Risk Management. UCLA-ENG-7746, School of Engineering ana Apor'ea
Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California, 1977.
35 pp.
Otway, 4.J. Risk Assessment and Societal Choices. RM-75-2, International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 19~5. 23 op.
Otway, H.J. "The Status of Risk Assessment." A paper presented at the 10th
International TNO Conference on "Risk Analysis: Industry, Goverrment=
and Society," February 24-25, 1977. Rotterdam, Netherlands. 15+ pp.
Otway, H.J., and J.J. Cohen. Revealed Preferences: Comments on tha Starr
Benefit-Risk Relationship?! RM-75-5, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975.
Otway, H.J., and M. Fishbein. The Determinants of Attitude Formation: An
Application to Nuclear Power. RM-76-80, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1976. 31 pp.
Otway, H.J., and M. Fishbein. Public Attitudes and Decision Making.
RM- 77-54, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Laxenburg, Austria, 1977. 29 pp.
Otway, H.J., and P.O. Pahner. "Risk Assessment." Futures . Apri' 1976,
pp. 122-134.
Pahner,' P.O. "The Psychological Displacement of Anxiety: An Application to
Nuclear Energy." In: Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application: Some
Papers Presented at the Engineering Foundation Workshop, Septemoer 22-
26. 1975. Asilomar. California. D. Okrent. ed. UCLA- ENG- 7598, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles,
California, 1975. pp. 557-580.
Raiffa, H. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under
Uncertainty. Addi son-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968. 332 pp.
260
-------
Rasmussen, N.C. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks
in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DTE., 1975. 207 pp. [NTIS:
PB248201]
Rowe, W.D. An "Anatomy" of Risk. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, O.C., 1975. 221pp. [An updated and extended version of
this has been published as Rowe (1977)]
Rowe, W.D. An Anatomy of Risk. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York,
1977. 502 pp.
Shinohara, Y. Fuzzy Set Concepts for Risk Assessment. WP-76-2, Inter-
national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
1976. 25 pp.
Simon, H.A. "Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment."
Psychological Review. 63(2):129-138, 1956.
Simon, H.A. "Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral
Science." The American Economic Review, 49(3):253-283, 1959.
Slovic, P. "Information Processing Situation Specificity, and the Generality
of Risk-Taking Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
22(1):128-134, 1972a.
Slovic, P. "Psychological Study of Human Judgment: Implications for Invest-
ment Decision Making." Journal of Finance, 27(4):779-799, 1972b
Slovic, P. "Judgment, Choice and Societal Risk Taking." In: Judgment and
Decision in Public Policy Formation, K.R. Hammond, ed. Westview PressT
Boulder, Colorado, 1978. pp. 98-111.
Slovic, P., and B. Fischhoff. "How Safe is Safe Enough? Determinants of
Perceived and Acceptable Risk." In: The Management of Nuclear Wastes,
L. Gould and C.A. Walker, eds. Yale University Press, (in press).
Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein. "Relative Importance of Probabilities and
Payoffs in Risk Taking." Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph.
78(3, pt. 2):1-18, 1968.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. "Cognitive Processes and
Societal Risk Taking." In: Cognition and Social Behavior, J.S.
Carroll and J.W. Payne, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Potomac,
Maryland, 1976. pp. 165-184.
Slovic, P., H. Kunreuther, and G.F. White. "Decision Processes, Rationality,
and Adjustment to Natural Hazards." In: Natural Hazards: Local,
National and Global. G.F. White, ed. Oxford University Press, New York,
New York, 1974.pp. 187-205.
261
-------
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, S. Lichtenstein, B. Corn'gan, and B. Combs.
"Preference for Insuring Against Probable Small Losses: Insurance
Implications." The Journal of Risk and Insurance. 44(2):237-258, 1977.
Starr, C. "Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk: What is Our Society
Willing to Pay for Safety?" Scienca. 165(3899):1232-1238, 1959.
Starr, C. "Benefit-Cost Studies in Sociotechnical Systems." In: Perspec-
tives of Benefit Risk Decision Making, National Academy of Engineering,
eds. National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. , 1972.
pp. 17-42.
Starr, C. "General Philosophy of Risk-Benefit Analysis." In: Energy and
the Environment: A Risk-Benefit Approach, H. Ashley, R.L. Rudman =nc! C.
Whipple, eds. Pergamon Press, New York, New York, 1976. pp. 1-30.
Starr, C., M.A. Greenfield, and D.F. Hausknecht. "A Comparison of Public
Health Risks: Nuclear vs. Oil-Fired Power Plants." Nuclear News,
October 1972. pp. 37-45.
t
Tonnessen, K.A., and J.J. Cohen. Survey of Naturally Occurring Hazardous
Materials in Deep Geologic Formations: A Perspective 311 the Relative
Hazard of Deep Burial of Nuclear Wastes. UCRL-52199, Lawrenca Livermore
Laboratory,UniversityofCalifornia, Livermore, California, 1977.
15 pp.
Tversky, A., and 0. Kahneman. "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases." Science. 185(4157):1124-1131, 1974.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alter-
native Sources of Electrical Energy. WASH-1224, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. List of Publications,
OTA-P-58, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977.
20 pp.
Von Neumann, J., and 0. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1953. 661 pp.
Weisbecker, L.W. Snowpack. Cloud-Seeding, and the Colorado Rive**: A
Technology Assessment of Weather Modification. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1974. 102 pp.
Wiggins, J.H. "Balanced Risk: An Approach to Reconciling Man's Need with
His Environment." In: Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application: Some
Papers Presented at the Engineering Foundation Workshop, Septemoer 22-
26. 1975, Asilomar. California. D. Okrent. ed.UCLA-ENG-7598, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles,
California, 1975. pp. 521-555.
262
------- |