Presented By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
and
The States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
March 1988
-------
presented to:
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Governor Steve Cowper,
State of Alaska
Alaska State Legislature
Governor Cecil D. Andrus,
State of Idaho
Idaho State Legislature
Governor Neil Goldschmidt,
State of Oregon
Oregon State Legislature
Governor Booth Gardner,
State of Washington
Washington State Legislature
presented by:
Robie G. Russell,
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Fred Hansen, Director
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Dennis D. Kelso, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Kenneth D. Brooks, Administrator
Idaho Division of Environment
Andrea Beatty Riniker, Director
Washington Department of Ecology
March 1988
-------
IO ST 4
I w
0
l• 4 o’
REPLY TO
AITNOF S0-125
Dear Reader:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
March 14, 1988
We are pleased to present the final report on the two symposia held last
year concerning the future of comprehensive hazardous waste management for the
Pacific Northwest. In this report, you will find a description of the process
used to bring regional leaders together to discuss the current waste
management system and the findings and conclusions we have drawn from this
interaction and our own research. A set of recommendations, focusing in
particular on how to enhance regional coordination on hazardous waste issues,
is Included as well.
We hope that you find this summary document useful. A comprehensive
hazardous waste management system for the Pacific Northwest is definitely
warranted and development of the right mix of environmentally sound waste
management options, including waste reduction, is an achievable goal. We look
forward to working together with you as we develop regional approaches to
hazardous waste management for the Pacific Northwest.
Fred Hansen, Director
Oregon Deptartment of
Environmental Quality
Steering Committee Co-Chair
iid ea Beatty Riniker, Director
Washington Dept. of Ecology
EPA Regional Administrator,
Steering Committee Co-Chair
/ enneth D. Brooks Adminis r tor
Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality
I.
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I Joint Letter of Introduction From EPA Regional Administrator and
Four State Environmental Directors.
ES—i Executive Summary of Final Report
R—i Final Report: Findings and Recommendations
Append ices
Appendix I: State Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Requirement
(Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, [ SARA], Section
104 [ k])
11—1 AppendIx II: Regional Hazardous Waste Steering Committee Roster
1 11—1 Appendix III: April and October Symposia Attendance Breakdown
IV—1 Appendix IV: Executive Summary. Hazardous Waste Management in the
Northwest: A Status Report . August, 1987. Dr. Lee W. Stokes.
V— I Appendix V: October 20, 1987 Legislative Roundtabie Participants
VI—l Summary of Comments From Symposia Evaluation Questionnaires
VII—l April and October Symposium Agendas
VIII—l Data/Capacity, Waste Reduction, and Siting Efforts: State Program
Highlights
ii
-------
TABLE PAGE
Table 1 Registered Generator Status, Region 10 States. 1985
(Numbers)
Table 2 Catergories of Major Generators, Region 10 States. 1985
(Numbers)
Table 3 CharacterIzation of Hazardous Wastes, Region 10 States.
l 85 (Tons)
Table 4 Reported Disposition of Hazardous Wastes Generated in
Region 10 States. 1985 (Tons)
Table 5 Import and Export of Hazardous Waste, Region 10 States.
1985
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Export of Hazardous Waste,
Export of Hazardous Waste,
Export of Hazardous Waste,
Export of Hazardous Waste,
Commercial Hazardous Waste
Commercial Hazardous Waste
1985, Washington
1985, Oregon
1985, Idaho
1985, Alaska
Landfill Capacity, Oregon
Landfill Capacity, Idaho
LIST OF TABLES
R—2 1
R—2 1
R—2 2
R—23
R—2 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
R- 25
R—2 6
R—2 7
R- 28
R—29
R—2 9
ill
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINAL REPORT
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report Is the product of a dialogue begun a year ago among officials
In government, In private industry and in environmental groups Interested in
improving the the management of hazardous wastes in Washington, Idaho, Oregon
and Alaska, the four states that make up the Pacific Northwest regional
jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The findings
and recommendations in the report come from efforts of the past year,
particularly from two regional symposia and concurrent research about
hazardous waste management practices and issues in the Pacific Northwest.
BACKGROUND :
EPA and the four Pacific Northwest states joined together to assess
current and future issues and explore the opportunities associated with
hazardous waste management in the Pacific Northwest. Regional leaders wanted
to know how successful state and national efforts have been in developing an
overall system to regulate current waste practices and reduce the generation
of hazardous waste by integrating waste reduction practices into industrial
production. Individual hazardous waste management components are frequently
shaped by different laws and advocated by different constituencies and can
work against one another if not coordinated within a broader policy context.
Other necessities reinforced policy—makers’ desires to assess the
adequacy of comprehensive hazardous waste management within the Pacific
Northwest. The U.S. Congress recognized the Importance of building an overall
hazardous waste management system when it reauthorized the Superfund statute
In 1986. Each state must now provide assurances that it has access to
treatment and disposal capacity sufficient to handle the hazardous wastes
expected to be generated within the state for the next twenty years. Failure
to do so by late 1989 can result in loss of federal Superfund cleanup money.
PROCESS :
The U.S. EPA, Region 10 proposed this regional analysis of the hazardous
waste Issue. EPA, in conjunction with the four states, hosted two policy
level symposia in 1987 to discern If a regional undertaking was desirable and
feasible. These symposia, based on input from a select Steering Committee,
were directed to key leaders and decision—makers in local, state, and federal
government, Industry and environmental groups. The symposia brought together
over 700 elected officials, industry leaders and entrepreneurs, environmental
and civic activists and government regulators. The symposia exposed these
leaders to experiences from around the country, shedding new light on the
three primary issues which determine how development of a comprehensive waste
system should be addressed: data/capacity assessment, waste reduction, and
siting of new facilities.
ES— 1
-------
ISSUES AND FINDINGS:
Data/Capacity :
Research results and symposia discussions focused on some basic questions
associated with the Pacific Northwest’s current hazardous wastestream: How
much waste, of what type, is being generated? How and where Is It being
treated or disposed of? Such Information is needed to accurately evaluate the
current adequacy and availability of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
capacity, to assess waste reduction opportunities and target the technical
assistance to foster It, and to determine the nature and extent of interstate
movement of our hazardous waste from generation to disposal. Following are
some of the key findings related to data and treatment and disposal capacity:
• Interstate movement and management is a major feature of the
Pacific Northwest’s hazardous waste system. Of the approximately
225,000 tons of waste generated in the Region in 1985, almost forty
percent were treated or disposed of in another Northwest state.
• Current hazardous waste land disposal capacity in the region
appears to be sufficient for Pacific Northwest generators for the
life of current landfill permits (10 years) and beyond, If new
permits are applied for and reissued.
• Commercial off—site hazardous waste incineration capacity does not
currently exist in the region, and more research Is necessary to
determine what sized market area would have to be served to support
a commercial off—site Incinerator in the Pacific Northwest.
• Further analysis of the Pacific Northwest hazardous wastestream Is
needed. More compatible data management systems among the states
and EPA are needed to readily access and compare data on current
waste generation and management capacity, and to better estimate
capacity projections.
Waste reduction :
Waste reduction must be a key element of any progressive hazardous waste
management system. The symposia explored opportunities for and barriers to
greater reliance upon waste reduction. They included presentations on the
role of public policy and private initiative in successfully reducing
hazardous waste volumes and toxiclties. Strategies of action for waste
reduction at the local, state and federal level were also discussed.
Following are some of the key findings from the symposia and research efforts:
• Public sector waste reduction efforts within the four states and
EPA have been limited to date, but the pace and breadth of effort
Is Increasing. Government can and should do more to foster waste
reduction.
• Regional coordination and economies of scale can Improve assistance
ES—2
-------
to Industry, especially given the limited resources currently
available to develop waste reduction programs.
• While individual industrial leaders have achieved some impressive
waste reduction results, waste reduction efforts do not appear to
be a regular element of the hazardous waste management practices of
the majority of generators (particularly small generators). Ways
must be found to accomplish this.
Siting of New Capacity :
Most efforts nationwide to site hazardous waste facilities involve
private developers initiating proposals and then seeking authorization from
local, state, and federal authorities. However, the regulatory processes
designed to make decisions on land use suitability and regulatory sufficiency
of such proposals invariably become involved in other issues, including the
question of facility “need”. Facility “need” is quickly linked to how
aggressively waste reduction is being pursued by an industry or region. Other
issues must be addressed as well, including how to balance public and
comercial benefits with local risks and impacts. Symposia presentations
documented some of the experiences of private and public developers and state
siting authorities in dealing with these kinds of issues. Findings included
the following:
• Siting new hazardous waste management capacity is clearly
controversial. Determining facility “need” and the process of
selecting and then involving host communities in the development
and operation of the facility are the two main issues of concern.
• Regional cooperation In researching market size for Pacific
Northwest treatment or disposal facilities, and in keeping states
abreast of each others’ siting related efforts, would be beneficial.
• New capacity is viewed by many as a “last resort”. Before gaining
support for the siting of new capacity, it may be necessary to
demonstrate progress In waste reduction efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Based on these findings, a set of recommendations has been developed
which can move efforts forward over the next few years (Recommendations are
discussed more fully in the body of the report, at pages R—14 to R-.19).
1. ESTABLISH A PACIFIC NORTHWEST HAZARDOUS WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL :
The four states and EPA should establish a Pacific Northwest Regional
Hazardous Waste Advisory Council. This Council can assure that attention is
given to the goal of developing a comprehensive regional waste management
system where practicable; promote regional coordination and cooperation on
individual system elements; provide a vehicle for continued dialogue and
education among interested parties on major issues; and focus attention on the
ES—3
-------
resources needed to produce system results acceptable to all user groups
—— regulatory agencies, industry, legislative bodies, and the public.
2. DEVELOP A WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGY :
Waste reduction programs should be initiated at the federal, state, and
local level. The federal level should focus on policy development, research,
technical assistance and financial assistance to states. The state level
should concentrate on exploiting regional economies of scale In program
development, and provide technical assistance, in—plant and demonstration
projects, and financial incentives to generators. Local urlsdictions should
be particularly responsive to small quantity, small business and household
generators, who also need help in proper disposal as well as In waste
reduction. Industry should be Involved in these program development efforts,
and should work with regulatory agencies to assure the fullest Integration of
waste reduction activities into ongoing pollution control efforts. All
parties should provide education to the public on the benefits of and limits
to waste reduction.
3. PERFORM ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL WASTESTREAM :
Additional data analysis should be performed to refine our understanding
of the Pacific Northwest hazardous wastestream. This data analysis should
enable the states to estimate reliably their treatment and disposal capacity
needs, and to characterize the wastestreams that are amenable to waste
reduction.
4. IMPROVE NORTHWEST HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS :
Systems should be developed, and data gathered in a way that produces
compatible information among the four states. This would enable states to
report and analyze information in a more consistent fashion, yielding useful
information about the nature, movement and disposition of Pacific Northwest
wastes, without unduly burdening industry.
CONCLUSION
More than two billion dollars a year are currently spent in this nation
to rectify the damage from past hazardous waste handling. The recommendations
in this report will cost a modest amount of money to implement. The States
and EPA Region 10 are preparing a funding proposal to allow for start up of
the Regional Council, continue data analysis efforts, support state efforts to
meet the Superfund hazardous waste capacity assurance requirement, and
increase waste reduction efforts and coordination.
There Is a widespread desire to improve hazardous waste management In the
Pacific Northwest. The efforts of 1987, coupled with a common vision and
commitment to comprehensive hazardous waste management, will help future
endeavors to solve these Important dilemmas.
ES—4
-------
FINAL REPORT: FIMDIM6S AN RECOM EN ATIONS
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND
The national scheme for managing hazardous waste has undergone major
changes in the past four years. In the 1984 amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress declared that reliance upon
land disposal for management of untreated hazardous wastes must be
diminished. A series of land disposal restrictions were imposed which require
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to either ban land disposa1 of
entire classes of hazardous wastes or establish pre—disposal treatment
standards for them.
In 1986 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) was amended by the Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA also Included provisions of major
significance for the waste management options utilized as the nation cleaned
up its existing hazardous waste sites. Since Congress did not want to see new
Superfund sites created, it clearly made permanent on—site remedies the
preferred alternatives for cleanups at existing Superfund sites. Congress
wanted to prevent the creation of new Superfund sites by merely moving cleanup
wastes off existing problem sites to soon—to—be problem sites.
In Section 104(k) of SARA. Congress has made another statement about
hazardous waste management. Called the “SARA capacity certification
requirement,” it requires states to certify to EPA by October 1989 that they
have sufficient treatment, storage or disposal capacity adequate to handle all
hazardous wastes expected to be generated within the state over the next
twenty years. States failing to provide adequate assurances to EPA could lose
access to federal Superfund cleanup monies. (This SARA provision Is Included
at Appendix I.)
While Congress was wrestling with these Issues, each of the four Region 10
states (Alaska. Idaho. Oregon. and Washington) has been attempting to resolve
hazardous waste management issues within their own statutory and regulatory
frames of reference. For Instance, Washington has established a priority
waste management scheme, with source reduction as the preferred choice and
land disposal only as a final resort. Oregon has developed Its own waste
reduction program; Alaska has Initiated RCRA assumption program development;
and Idaho has adopted an ambitious hazardous waste management policy plan.
All four states have also enacted statutes that regulate the siting of
hazardous waste management facilities, thus implementing their own individual
siting processes. Community concern about the siting of commercial hazardous
waste management facilities was growing as well, and the relationship of waste
reduction efforts to the need for additional commercial waste management
capacity was becoming a more important issue.
R— 1
-------
The states and EPA, Region 10, became concerned about the practical
implications of the various new federal requirements and about events
occurring within each of the states. A number of major questions regarding
our Individual state and collective “regional” hazardous waste management
system began to coalesce, including:
• How would RCRA’s new land disposal restrictions affect hazardous
waste management capacity In the Northwest’ Are major hazardous
waste treatment and/or disposal capacity shortfalls Imminent because
of these requirements, and what steps are necessary to effectively
address this issue’
The restriction on land disposal of solvents and dioxins began on
November 8, 1986, and this would be only the first of such
restrictions which would ultimately affect treatment or disposal of
nearly all EPA regulated hazardous wastes. Commercial off—site
hazardous waste land disposal facilities do exist in two states In
the Northwest: however, In general, off—site commercial treatment
capacity is limited, and off—site commercial Incineration capacity is
currently nonexistent In the four states.
• Hazardous waste management practices would need to change because of
the new federal requirements, but do we have adequate management
alternatives, and what are their respective roles? How much can we
rely upon waste reduction practices (source reduction and recycling)
to reduce the need for treatment and disposal capacity? What Is the
appropriate priority of incineration within the scheme of hazardous
waste management options? Is commercial incineration capacity In the
Pacific Northwest necessary, and if so, for what market of
generators’ If commercial Incineration capacity Is needed, what
processes best ensure that host community concerns and state or
regional benefits will be balanced?
A commercial hazardous waste incineration permit application has been
submitted in Washington State, and another project has been
proposed. The impact of waste reduction activities on the need for
incineration capacity, and convnunity participation in siting new
facilities because of the perceived risk from such facilities, have
become significant Issues which demand attention.
• What are the regional aspects of hazardous waste management facing
the states, industry and the public in the Pacific Northwest? In
what areas and in what manner could Interstate coordination and
cooperation help the states Individually and collectively address
these issues? What information is needed about the Pacific Northwest
hazardous wastestream to help assess both the extent to which a
“regional” problem exists, and any subsequent need for Interstate or
regional cooperation? What role could the regional office of EPA
play in supporting development of the appropriate hazardous waste
management options in the Northwest? Could EPA assist the states in
addressing the SARA capacity certification requirement or In
promotIng waste reduction activities?
R—2
-------
2. REGIONAL EFFORTS THROUGH 1987
The Directors of the State environmental agencies of Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, and the Regional Administrator of EPA routinely meet to
discuss Issues of mutual Interest. Since hazardous waste Issues appeared ripe
for significant regional cooperation, the Regional Administrator Invited the
four state directors to discuss the potential for a regional approach. As a
result, a regional effort was intended in January, 1987 to bring together the
regional leaders in the field to ascertain where we were headed, and what we
needed to do In order to effectively address our waste management concerns.
The results of this effort are briefly outlined below, with findings and
recommendations following.
The Use of Symposia and Establishment of a Steering Committee .
The states and EPA decided to sponsor two symposia, one In Spring and one
in Fall, 1987. The two symposia had as a basic goal the education of public
and private sector leaders who were responsible for the policies and choices
being made about the current and future hazardous waste management system in
their state, locality or organization.
A four—state select Steering Committee was established to oversee the
symposia. It was composed of sixteen members and co—chaired by the EPA
Regional Administrator, Robie C. Russell, and the Director of the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Fred Hansen. The broad—based membership
included representation from business, universities, non—profit organizations,
environment/public interest groups, the private bar, and state and local
elected officials. The members were instrumental in establishing the key
themes of the symposia, and gave freely of their time to improve the quality
of the program’s events. (The Steering Committee roster Is Included at
Appendix II.)
Both symposia were policy—oriented, intended for a specific audience of
public and private decision and opinion—makers. The symposia did not dwell on
the intricacies or difficulties of implementing existing law but focused,
instead, on broader policy questions. The goal was to enlarge the common
level of understanding about Northwest waste management issues among this
leadership group, and to solicit Input on what we needed to know and do to
move forward. (A breakdown of the type of attendee representation at each
symposium is at Appendix III.)
We wanted to learn If our targeted audience believed the current efforts
mandated by RCRA, CERCLA and state law to correct past practices and change
current ones would be successful in developing an economically affordable and
environmentally acceptable waste management system for the Pacific Northwest.
If these efforts did not appear to be generating adequate solution in a timely
manner, we wanted to identify what combination of public policy and private
sector responses would be needed to bridge the gap.
R— 3
-------
The first symposium was largely educational In nature, relying primarily
on experiences and expertise from other parts of the country. Research and
analysis was conducted in the interim based on the results of the first
symposium. The second symposium focused on specific Pacific Northwest issues
and solicited recommendations on a future course of action.
Four Key Themes: Data, Waste Reduction, Siting and Regional Cooperation .
It Is hardly surprising that these were the issues around which the
symposia’s research and agendas developed. They are among the prominent
public and private hazardous waste policy endeavors In each state, and they
are explicitly related to In—state or regional efforts to address the SARA
capacity certification requirement. Each is briefly discussed below.
• Data/Capacity Assessment : Development of appropriate hazardous waste
management solutions requires sound supportive data and information.
Each of the states and EPA have data reporting and management
systems, yet little of these data Is organized to enable easy
compilation and analysis of the broader regional picture. Several
questions surfaced in Steering Committee discussions. What do
current data suggest about the characteristics of the region’s
hazardous waste generation and waste management capacity picture? Is
the right mix of capacity options for our current and future
wastestream available or being developed? Do the current data
systems enable us to look comprehensively at the true nature of our
hazardous waste market place? Are we in a position to effectively
address the data requirements of the SARA capacity certification
requirement? How can we get the states and EPA to share Information
more effectively?
• Hazardous Waste Reduction : Public sector waste reduction programs
exist at the state level in two of our four states. Local or
non—profit efforts are underway In several states and there are
numerous Industry and federal facility waste reduction programs
throughout the region. Yet, state programs, and federal support for
state programs in particular, are In their Infancy, and little
factual Information Is known about the “success stories” various
generators have to offer. The public wants greater reliance placed
upon waste reduction efforts, since the demand for successful waste
reduction programs surfaces whenever siting proposals are presented.
While Industry is increasingly adopting waste reduction practices, it
is concerned about a possible trend toward mandatory waste
reduction. Industry also believes that Inadequate Incentives exist
to spur waste reduction efforts.
EPA, the states, the environmental community and Industry share a
common Interest In pursuing responsible waste reduction efforts.
Waste reduction clearly has to be a central component of any
comprehensive waste management effort. Again, the Steering Committee
raised pertinent questions: What can we learn from others states’
experiences, given that the Northwest states do not yet have
R—4
-------
well—developed waste reduction programs’ What are the key elements
of a waste reduction program and how does government ensure greater
reliance is placed upon waste reduction by Industry? What
responsibility do government, interest groups, and the private sector
have to provide the education and financial support needed to
facilitate waste reduction research and implementation?
• Siting : Siting of existing and especially new hazardous waste
management capacity has become a controversial undertaking.
Discussion and education about siting Issues, including the risk
posed by the facilities and public participation in the decision
process, are essential, and could be particularly useful if conducted
outside the normal heat of battle over any Individual proposal. We
could also benefit from the experiences of other states and
countries. Do we need any new capacity and If so, what type Is
needed and where should it be located 1 For what sized market should
any needed facilities be built: each state, the region or some
larger market? Do our Individual state rules and siting processes
square with the marketplace dynamics which our wastestream follows?
What are the crucial elements of an effective siting process’
• Regional Coordination and Cooperation : Each of the four states is
confronting these waste management questions within Its own frame of
reference. However, little effort had been put into investigating
the interstate nature of our Pacific Northwest wastestream. The
Steering Committee suggested that we identify interest in regional
coordination; see what issues were logical candidates for such
efforts; and consider the formal arrangements necessary to promote
this cooperation. The questions specifically addressed were: Where
do wastes go for treatment or disposal and how similar are the
physical characteristics of each state’s wastestream? What economies
of scale could be achieved through regional coordination on data
analysis or waste reduction service delivery? How would regional
policy cooperation on capacity assessment, waste reduction and siting
enhance the development and use of appropriate hazardous waste
management options?
Symposia—Related Research :
The states, EPA and the Steering Committee identified a number of areas
where research and issue papers could provide important background information
and frame issues for the symposia. A few efforts were particularly Important:
• A six—month study of the current regional wastestream and hazardous
waste management practices in the Pacific Northwest was undertaken by
Dr. Lee Stokes. This was the first regional analysis of its kind
conducted In the United States. Its purpose was to: (a)
characterize the current situation (volumes and types of wastes,
management practices, interstate movement of wastes, etc.); (b)
identify future wastestream and management capacity plans and needs,
in part to prepare the states to address the SARA 20—year capacity
assurance requirement; and (C) suggest how the current data systems
R- 5
-------
might be Improved to characterize future needs and enable cross—state
exchange and analysis of data. The report’s results were delivered
during the October symposium. (A copy of the report’s Executive
Summary Is at Appendix IV.)
• A White Paper was prepared for the first symposium which described
the various components of a comprehensive hazardous waste management
system, and put the role of the symposia into context for the
attendees.
• A research packet was prepared for the second symposium. Included
were: summaries and tables Identifying the current waste reduction,
data management and siting activities and approaches of the four
states; an issue paper on the Importance of waste reduction in any
comprehensive waste management system; and a second White Paper with
regional data, waste reduction, and siting—related recommendations
for attendees to consider.
Participation In the Symposia :
About 750 people attended the two conferences, attesting to the Importance
of these Issues to our regional hazardous waste leadership. Of particular
note was the interest shown by state and local elected officials. The
Legislative Roundtable, held at the second symposium, Included about 20
legislators from all four states, the four state environmental directors and
the EPA regional administrator. (A list of Roundtable participants Is at
Appendix V). A number of issues were touched upon during the two hour
session: How to deal with the interstate nature of the hazardous waste
management “market” within the context of Individual state siting processes
and political pressures; how, as a result, the states might coordinate
siting—related issues; opportunities for Interstate cooperation In waste
reduction; and the desirability and possible function of some regional
advisory body or council to continue Interstate dialogue. The RoundtabIe
endorsed the idea of a regional advisory body. Considerable discussion
Involved what was the right mix of financial Incentives (taxes, fees, rewards)
to move hazardous waste management systems In a direction consistent with
priority waste management schemes, especially waste reduction.
The second symposium also featured small group discussions to solicit
recommendations from attendees on ideas for future action. Participants
appreciated the opportunity to share views with their peers and colleagues.
The findings outlined in the next section and the symposia evaluation form
summaries (at Appendix VI) reflect the attendees’ observations about what
direction we should head. The comments evidenced a desire to fashion
sensible, achievable solutions, and to promote Interstate coordination,
particularly In the areas of waste reduction and capacity assessment.
The high level of interest and enthusiasm of the symposia’s participants
was in large part due to the quality of speakers and panelists. Nationally
prominent people In waste reduction, treatment and disposal, capacity
assessment, and siting spoke at the first symposium. These speakers Included
directors of two of the leading state waste reduction programs (California and
R- 6
-------
North Carolina); the author of an analysis for the U.S. Congress on national
hazardous waste management infrastructure needs; the head of the consortium of
state hazardous waste siting agencies; and the operating manager for the group
building a comprehensive hazardous waste management facility, including an
Incinerator, for the State of Arizona. The second symposium reflected the
local and regional expertise in the Pacific Northwest, including
representatives from some of the region’s major commercial hazardous waste
treatment and disposal firms; the chairs of Washington’s Solid Waste Advisory
Committee and of Idaho’s Emergency Response Committee: and representatives of
large and small industries who are Innovators in waste reduction practices.
Keynote speaker for the conference was Lee Thomas, Administrator of EPA. (A
copy of the agenda for both symposia Is Included at Appendix VII).
B. FINDINGS
The two symposia and related research highlighted both the current situation
In hazardous waste management in each state and the need for continued
regional dialogue and cooperation. The findings of the regional effort to
date are summarized below. (The status of state programs In each of these
areas is listed at Appendix VIII).
1. DATA/CAPACITY ASSESSMENT:
Background .
Dr. Stokes’ survey focused primarily on the existing data sources for
hazardous wastes generated in the Pacific Northwest in 1985. (He also did a
limited survey of public electric power utilities regarding PCB waste
management practices.) The data came mainly from state and federal regulatory
programs; hence they only reflect those wastes which are reported upon in
compliance with state or federal law. Since only 1985 data is analyzed, the
reader is urged to view the numbers presented below not as absolutes, but as
indicative of a level of magnitude of waste generation. The waste management
practices and waste movements revealed by the data should be seen in relation
to each other, as well, rather than as fixed numbers for specific capacity
assessment purposes. In particular, the volumes of Superfund and other
cleanup wastes, small quantity generator wastes and unregulated household
wastes used by Dr. Stokes must be seen as rough estimates at best, and not
precise formulations. Analysis of additional years of reporting data would
give a better Indication of the range of reliability associated with the gross
data, and this point Is addressed In the recommendations section.
Waste Generation .
A total of 228,910 tons of hazardous waste was reported to have been
generated in 1985: 1,609 tons (O.1X,) in Alaska, 2 O24 tons (0.91.) In Idaho,
26,813 tons (11.71.) in Oregon, and 198,464 tons (86.71) in Washington (See
Table 1. The Tables and Figures cited in this section of the report are
R-7
-------
included at the end of this report, on pages R—21 to R—29). Eight hundred and
eighty—two major generators produced reportable quantities of hazardous waste
in 1985: 23 In Alaska, 30 in Idaho, 206 in Oregon, and 623 in Washington.
Small quantity generators reported producing an additional 11,000—12,000 tons
of waste, while it is estimated very roughly that 30,000—60,000 tons of
unregulated hazardous waste from households were disposed of primarily in
public solid waste landfills. The major generators represent most elements of
industrial and community activities in the region, including manufacturing,
trade, services, government, military, transportation, mining (include oil
extraction) and electrical utilities. Manufacturing companies (504; 577.) and
trade, services and governmental organizations (253; 297.) dominated the list
of major sources in 1985 (Table 2). The manufacturing category Included a
large number of metalworking companies (126; 14.27.); other categories most
frequently represented were chemical (69; 7.87.), wood products (56; 6.37.),
electronics (68; 7.71.), and transportation equipment (43; 4.91.).
Haste Characterization .
About 700 specific chemicals have been listed by EPA as hazardous when
present in waste materials. Various other waste components, when present In
sufficient concentration, will produce hazardous characteristics. EPA and the
RegIon 10 state agencies have described specific waste sources and waste
types which are regulated in addition to the EPA—listed chemicals. Thus, the
total number of chemical elements, compounds, and designated waste types
reached well over 1,000. One hundred sixty—five of those specific waste types
were generated in Region 10 In 1985. Washington reported wastes with 103
separate substances of waste types, 36 of which were present in amounts of one
ton or more. Oregon’s total was 62, of which 52 reached a ton or more.
Ninety—four substances or waste types were produced In Idaho, but only 26 were
present in the amount of one ton or more. In Alaska, 36 waste types were
identIfied, 21 amounting to a ton or more.
Overall, the Region 10 hazardous wastestreams consist mainly of solid and
semi—solid inorganic materials which are fairly stable chemically and are
amendable to relatively uncomplicated management options. However, a small,
but very significant organic fraction also occurs in various physical forms
and sometimes is mixed with inorganics, including metals, presenting a complex
management problem (See Table 3).
Waste Disposition .
On—site storage (for over 90 days) accounted for 107,000 tons of waste In
the region In 1985, and 75,000 tons were stored off—site. The predominant
storage method (by weight) was waste piles. Nearly 10,000 tons of waste
received on—site treatment; 49,000 tons were treated off—site. On—site
disposal of 63,000 tons of waste occurred while 77,000 tons were disposed at
off—site facilities. Over 100,000 tons of Region 10 wastes were landfllled;
45,000 tons were Impounded as a treatment process or final disposal; and 1,111
tons of waste were injected Into deep wells in Alaska (See Table 4).
R—8
-------
Interstate Movement of Waste .
The Pacific Northwest has a mobile 1 regional hazardous wastestream,
whereby wastes destined for commercial off—site treatment, storage or disposal
cross state lines with regularity and in significant volumes. Region 10
states regularly ship waste to one another and to facilities in other states
for treatment and disposal. Waste is also Imported into the region for
disposal. Nearly 10,000 tons of waste were exported from the region in 1985,
while 3694 tons were imported; thus, the region was a net exporter of
hazardous waste. Alaska exported 107. of its waste to other Region 10 states
and 407. to states outside the region. Idaho exported one—half of its waste to
Oregon and Washington and 387. to states outside the region, but also imported
twice as much waste for disposal as was exported. Oregon exported over
one—third of its waste (9,000 tons, with 5,500 tons going to Washington and
3,500 tons exported out of the region), but imported nearly 66,000 tons for
disposal, most of which came from Washington. Washington exported 62,000 tons
to Oregon, 2,700 tons to Idaho, and 5,000 tons to states outside the region,
and imported 6,000 tons of waste for treatment (See Table 5 and Figures 1—4).
Capacity Assessment :
Oregon and Idaho received large volumes of wastes from the other states
because a privately—owned commercial off—site hazardous waste landfill is
located within each state. Research indicates that based on projected fill
rates, sufficient capacity exists in these two landfills for the life of their
permits (up to 10 years) and beyond, (if new permits are submitted and
approved) to handle at least Region 10 generators’ land disposal needs (See
Figures 5 and 6). Off and on—site storage capacity also appears adequate
based upon review of permit applications and actual use figures.
No off—site commercial incinerator capacity exists in the region at this
time. One project has applied for a permit within Washington State. Another
Washington based project Is In the site selection phase. Including
contaminated soils, and projecting cleanup waste volumes, up to 60,000 tons of
hazardous wastes per year might be available for incineration, though it Is
not known If this is the optimum treatment method for all these wastes. The
developers of the two Incinerator projects have each indicated that Region 10
wastes alone would support only one incinerator. (The two proposed Washington
incinerator projects Include a landfill as part of their operation, as well,
thus adding to the region’s landfill capacity if either project receives
approval.) Most materials from the Pacific Northwest which are Incinerated
now go to Illinois, Arkansas, or Texas. There are approximately twelve other
incinerator proposals pending In EPA Regions 8 and Region 9 (which, along with
Region 10, make up the thirteen western States), indicating that the picture
for Incineration capacity closer to Pacific Northwest generators may soon
change.
Estimates of other treatment capacity are based upon review of existing
facilities, requested permit applications, and some reflection about the range
of wastes potentially affected If the proposed land bans Indeed go into
effect, hence requiring those wastes to receive treatment prior to disposal.
Excess capacity (relative to projected waste generation) for neutralization of
liquid corrosives with or without metals will be available If permits are
R- 9
-------
issued for facilities existing or proposed in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
No deficiencies are apparent in the systems available to handle oils, solvents
and cyanide, although the existing facilities are located mostly in
Washington. While some capacity to chemically treat organics exists, little
was learned about the scope of those capabilities during this assessment.
The crucial questions regarding treatment, storage or disposal capacity in
the Pacific Northwest thus appear to be: (1) What volume of incineration
capacity Is needed by the region’s generators, and is It to be developed
in—region? and, (2) Are there sufficient treatment options — especially for
inorganic metal bearing wastes — so that only treated or otherwise neutralized
and solidified wastes eventually receive land disposal?
Management Information Needs .
Even as this capacity analysis sheds great light on the existing Northwest
wastestream, Dr. Stokes’ study also highlights the deficiencies in the current
data systems of EPA and the four states. The states In Region 10 currently
collect, process, and use data differently. This is due to the different
universe of hazardous waste regulated by each state In the region; state
priorities and needs; and the financial resources devoted by each state for
data programs. In addition, most of the state and federal waste reporting
forms focus primarily on an individual company’s waste generation and are not
designed for assessing or projecting regional capacity.
Dr. Stokes concluded that due to the regional nature of the wastestream In
the Northwest, data should be collected by states and EPA by methods and at a
level of detail that are compatible, so that a dynamic regional analysis of
the wastestream can be conducted. An adequate understanding of the
wastestream would entail knowing accurately the origin, type, volume, and
ultimate disposition both by location and method of treatment or disposal.
2. WASTE REDUCTION .
Most Information on the applicability of waste reduction techniques on the
Pacific Northwest wastestream is anecdotal, and is not organized
systematically. Yet one Is still struck by the varied practices and dramatic
results reported by those businesses and government agencies in the Pacific
Northwest which shared experiences about waste reduction practices they have
initiated. Those efforts are successfully reducing regulatory costs,
affording superior environmental protection, and providing an attractive
alternative to waste treatment or disposal options. Almost as striking Is the
historic lack of emphasis on promotion of or requirement for waste reduction
within state and federal environmental agencies. For example, federal funding
for state and local waste reduction programs has been virtually nonexistent
until recently. The states of the Pacific Northwest and EPA Region 10 are
beginning to break out of this pattern. Two states — Oregon and Washington —
are on the verge of launching comprehensive waste reduction programs, and
Idaho and Alaska are continuing to support pilot projects: all with some
federal assistance. Such programs can Include hotlines, technical
clearinghouses, In—plant technical assistance, demonstration projects,
financial assistance, and public recognition and education programs.
R- 10
-------
Significant barriers to further reliance upon waste reduction still exist
in both industry and government. These Include a lack of understanding of the
benefits from waste reduction, lack of information about available technical
options, lack of technical expertise and capital to Implement new production
processes, and a historical emphasis in environmental law on pollution control
and treatment, rather than pollution elimination. These barriers can be
successfully eliminated, but only with a consistent and persistent
collaboration among industry, government and public interest groups.
How far waste reduction can go in eliminating the need for TSD capacity is
hotly debated. It is clear that the economics of waste disposal is crucial in
shifting attention towards waste reduction activities as a cost effective
alternative. On the one hand, some have argued that the complexity of the
RCRA permitting process for treatment and disposal facilities and the
increasing cost of disposal from land bans, etc., are designed to force
Implementation of waste reduction practices. Others contend, however, that
RCRA, by requiring generators to comply with various administrative
requirements (which may not result In readily apparent benefits to the
environment), shifts scarce resources away from researching and implementing
waste reduction measures. The fact of the matter Is that for a variety of
reasons, disposal costs are increasing and waste reduction efforts are
becoming more attractive and more frequently pursued. Whether or not the
aggressive Implementation of waste reduction practices throughout industry,
and on all applicable wastestreams will significantly reduce the overall need
for specific types of treatment or disposal capacity is still an open
question. Factors such as costs, rates of economic growth, market area served
by the facilities, economies of scale for operation, etc.. all will have a
bearing on this vital question.
Several findings can be drawn about the nature of waste reduction In the
Pacific Northwest:
• A comprehensive waste reduction program Is essential for the
development of an overall waste management system. Waste reduction
may provide superior environmental protection, reduce future
liability, decrease on—going disposal costs and needs, and build
public confidence in addressing crucial siting questions.
• Industry interest groups, and government must work together to
develop, implement and promote waste reduction programs If they are
to be effective with the broad base of waste generators, and not just
the most progressive industries.
• Waste reduction efforts must be designed to result In a net decrease
In the threat to the environment, and not merely transfer pollutants
from one media to another (I.e., from air to water), nor reduce the
volume of waste while concentrating Its toxicity.
• Due to the relatively small number of generators In most of our
states and the basic similarities of the region’s wastestream, the
potential benefits from economies of scale justify consideration of a
regional program to help foster waste reduction.
R— 11
-------
• Many waste reduction and in—plant recycling efforts do not conflict
with existing regulatory laws, such as RCRA. Source reduction
modifications do not even need regulatory approval prior to
Implementation. However, generators must be able to determine
quickly if a given proposal must go through the traditional (and
often lengthy) permit review process.
• Data collection which documents the results of waste reduction
programs Is a long term need, and should be Integrated into the
efforts to improve understanding of the region’s overall waste
stream.
3. SITING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Siting—related Issues are perhaps the most difficult about which to draw
firm conclusions. Fundamentally, there is no “correct” siting process, and no
formula exists for generating the “right” answer on any given proposal. Since
federal law required all existing treatment storage and disposal facilities to
apply for permits or close down, there are now approximately 150 RCRA
treatment, storage or disposal facility permit applications pending In Region
10. The primary, though by no means exclusive, public concerns about siting
are associated with large, commercial off—site facilities. The symposia
presented a full range of Issues and options associated with siting
strategies. However, three issues were particularly relevant:
Need :
Is the facility needed, and if so by what market of generators? Although
there Is no apparent enthusiasm for publicly—owned or operated facilities in
Region 10, there is an overall reluctance to let the marketplace alone
determine the number of facilities sited here. Many are concerned that the
Pacific Northwest might treat or dispose of significant quantities of wastes
from outside the region if large commercial facilities are permitted in the
region. Transportation issues assume great significance In this regard. Both
Oregon and Idaho law make reference to regional wastestreams as the sole
market source for new facilities. Hence, the question of need for a facility
Is Intimately linked to the determination of the area which the facility is
designed or allowed to serve.
Equity :
How are local or regional concerns about impacts from a proposed facility
balanced with the economic benefits to be derived by the owner and the general
public from the facility? Local siting opposition often stems from a state’s
or developer’s approach to this question. A broader equity Issue exists among
states. Is It fair for one state to be the disposal site for other states’
waste? For example, Washington State’s generators produce the vast majority
of wastes which go to the Oregon and Idaho landfills (and in a similar vein
Washington receives the low level radioactive wastes from these — and other —
states.) One strategy to obtain equity among states is to require through
federal law that each state take care of its own capacity needs unless It
reaches an understanding with another state to accommodate its wastes. This
is the intent of the SARA capacity certification requirement discussed
previously.
R— 12
-------
Citizen Participation :
How can local citizens and communities meaningfully participate in siting
proposals and subsequent regulatory decisions? All four states have different
approaches to this question. Techniques such as formal negotiation, impact
mitigation, and financial compensation are being used more frequently around
the country in an attempt to obtain agreements with local governments and
residents that allow projects to receive local endorsement. Although no one
process “works” in all cases, experience shows that projects which treated
communities, developers and regulatory agencies as equals fared better than
others. The Arizona and Alberta, Canada case studies presented at the
symposia support this conclusion.
Two final observations regarding siting are pertinent. First, due to the
dynamic regional nature of the wastestream in the Pacific Northwest, actions
In one state regarding siting capacity can have significant impact on another
state’s generators. For example, if market boundaries for existing facilities
were somehow constrained to stay within the resident state, the existing
wastestream flow would be severely disrupted. This reality, along with the
SARA capacity certification requirement, will cause Pacific Northwest states
to document their Interdependence for disposal capacity, and to share
perspectives on siting processes and/or specific proposals. Second, the need
to handle household wastes and other smaller unregulated quantities of
hazardous wastes properly will pose siting and system delivery Issues for
local and state governments. Protection of the environmental integrity of
public landfills is a growing concern. At a minimum, transfer stations, with
reliable pickup schedules and storage requirements, appear necessary to enable
state and local governments to meet this waste disposal and public health
challenge.
4. REGIONAL COORDINATION
Continued regional coordination, cooperation and dialogue are clearly needed
and welcomed, as demonstrated by the enthusiasm and comments from symposia
attendees. The legislators participating in the Roundtable requested ft. The
Interdependence of the region due to the nature of our wastestream, and the
economies of scale that could be achieved on projects such as waste reduction,
data analysis, and SARA capacity certification, justify it. The historic
benefits to the Pacific Northwest from regional cooperation on other issues,
such as low level nuclear waste disposal and hydroelectric power planning,
suggest a similar approach for addressing interstate hazardous waste concerns
in the region. The difficulties associated with siting new capacity anywhere
and the concerns over the market boundaries for such facilities demand it.
In the next section of this report, we list the recommendations resulting from
the symposia and address the question of what Is the proper way to achieve
this regional coordination.
R— 13
-------
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based upon the input from conference
speakers and attendees, the Steering Committee, and the State and EPA
personnel working in the hazardous waste field. They are designed to
demonstrate what can be done in the short—term (next nine months) and the
mid—term (one to two years) to Improve development of a comprehensive
hazardous waste management system for the Northwest. We anticipate that
appropriate long term objectives and tasks will be generated by the process
Itself In the coming years. The term “hazardous waste management system” Is
used to convey the scope implied by the sum of wastestream data system, waste
reduction, waste recycling, waste treatment and destruction, and waste
disposal efforts. A comprehensive hazardous waste management system would
achieve adequate environmental protection either by eliminating wastes In the
first place or by recycling, treating, destroying, or disposing of them
properly.
Our recommendations were developed with the following questions in mind:
• What general Improvements or modifications should be considered for
the current data, waste reduction or siting efforts?
• How will pending national EPA Initiatives affect us and how can the
Pacific Northwest best influence national policy?
• What regional effort, cooperation or coordination (If any) can foster
economies of scale, improve service delivery, or elevate the policy
debate on waste management Issues?
• What additional resources or funding would be necessary to Implement
the recommendations?
1. ESTABLISH A REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
The four states and EPA should establish a Pacific Northwest Regional
Hazardous Waste Advisory Council. This Council should assure that attention
is given to the goal of developing a comprehensive regional waste management
system where practicable; promote regional coordination and cooperation on
Individual system elements; provide a vehicle for continued dialogue and
education among interested parties on major issues; and focus attention on the
resources needed to produce system results acceptable to all user groups:
regulatory agencies, industry, legislative bodies, and the public.
Purpose : Almost all attendees, Including elected officials, believed that
the symposia afforded a beneficial opportunity for people to get together,
hear each other’s viewpoints, and exchange Ideas or build common ground on
major issues or concerns. Institutionalizing this opportunity under a
regional advisory body could be of great benefit In future. Most attendees
also wanted to see action on the pressing questions facing the Pacific
Northwest, be it in waste reduction, capacity assessment or the possible
siting of new facilities. There was no recommendation, nor do we see a need,
for a regional decision—making body that becomes another level of government
before such action can occur. Rather, the Regional Advisory Council could
R— 14
-------
focus attention on the issue of system development; identify trends in waste
management of interest to all parties; stimulate research and education so
that decisions made by other parties and in other forums are well Informed;
and promote regional coordination and cooperation in those areas where It is
practicable and efficient to do so.
Structure : The Regional Advisory Council should be large enough to assure
an adequate representation of the broad range of interests In each state, and
small enough to be an efficient body. We recommend that each state and EPA
have up to four representatives on the body, with an additional chair and
vice—chair being appointed, one from Washington and one from Oregon. The
state appointees should be selected by the governors of each state, and the
EPA appointees selected by the Regional Administrator. This type of body
would function well, and would enable the Regional Advisory Council to have a
mix of state and local elected officials, Indian tribal and industry
representatives, environmentalists, federal facility operators, and others
necessary to promote effective, broad—based dialogue. This type of
representation is necessary so that the Regional Advisory Council is able to
represent all perspectives, and tackle the full range of Issues surrounding
hazardous waste management.
Function : The Council could have at least five functions In the next few
years:
a. Waste Reduction : The Council could promote waste reduction
opportunities at all levels of government and with Industry. As
regional coordination Is established, In particular, the council
could endorse or co—sponsor training and educational workshops or
conferences with trade associations, universities, government, and
others. The Council could advise on the roles government, interest
groups, and the private sector should take to gain wider usage of
waste reduction practices.
b. SARA Capacity Assurances : Each state must provide such
assurances by October, 1989. Interstate analyses, agreements, and
assurances will be necessary to do so successfully in the Pacific
Northwest. States will be required to describe their existing and
future wastestream; project current or anticipated capacity needs in
relation to existing treatment and disposal capabilities (seen In
light of waste reduction programs); and provide for the development
of new capacity, if shortfalls are anticipated. The Regional
Advisory Council could advise the states on the development of these
interstate analyses, agreements and assurances. In particular, the
Council could assist In the question of market boundaries that make
sense for assuring adequate commercial facilities for this region’s
generators, while not attracting Inappropriate volumes of
out—of—region waste for treatment or disposal here. The Council
could act as an “early warning system” If capacity shortfalls can be
anticipated in the region, and advise decision—makers on options to
avoid this “gridlock.”
R— 15
-------
c. Research : The Council could recommend research efforts to EPA,
the states, trade associations, and universities, that are designed
to gain a better understanding of the Pacific Northwest wastestream,
and to assist in elucidating the policy alternatives facing
decision—makers as they develop the optional mix of hazardous waste
management options. Examples of the research could be the data needs
described In 2 above; financial and other Incentives/disincentives
appropriate for generators to promote waste reduction; transportation
Issues surrounding commercial off—site facilities; or barriers to
Innovative waste reduction or waste treatment options.
d. Forum for Dialogue : The Council could provide the forum for
continued dialogue on regional waste management issues. Each state
has mechanisms for fostering such dialogue concerning the development
of waste management policy within each state. What Is needed is a
similar opportunity for regional issues and concerns to be
discussed. For example, the Council could host periodic symposia
similar to the ones just held In order to update the targeted
audience on policy trends and to get a reassessment of our overall
progress In system development. Similarly, the Council could develop
out—reach task forces with local government, industry groups,
environmentalists or other Interest groups to focus on specific
Issues, be they data survey Instruments, waste transportation issues
or waste reduction workshops. The meetings of the Council would
establish periodic Information sharing and opportunities for dialogue
among elected officials, Industry, environmental groups and
regulators on a routine basis.
e. Perspective on Federal Law : Symposia participants described a
full range of topics to within which a common ground can exist:
waste reduction, use of data, and effective siting procedures. Most
participants also described some aspect of federal law which was
extremely frustrating to them, or which thwarted their perceived
policy goal of the overall legislation. A strong national regulatory
program which tracks and monitors the proper handling, treatment and
storage of hazardous wastes is necessary to assure progress In
hazardous waste management. The Regional Advisory Council could be a
voice if aspects of federal law are contradictory to our common goal
of system development in the Pacific Northwest. These insights could
be useful to EPA and to the Congress as such laws as RCRA, CERCLA and
TSCA are reauthorized.
R—l 6
-------
2. DEVELOP A WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGY
Waste reduction programs should be Initiated at the federal, ctate. and local
level. The federal effort should focus on policy development, research,
technica
assistance and financial assistance to states. The states should
concentrate on exploiting regional economies of scale in program development
and prov de technical assistance, in—plant and demonstration projects, and
financia
- ncentives to generators. Local jurisdictions should be
particular y responsive to small quantity, small business and household
generators, who also need help I
n proper disposal as well as In waste
nvolved in these program development efforts,
reduction. Industry should be i
and should work with regulatory agencies to assure the fullest Integration of
waste reduction activities into on—going pollution control efforts. All
parties should provide education to the public on the benefits of and limits
to waste reduction.
Short—Term :
a. Based on current knowledge of the wastestream, government should
target selected wastestreams (including both large and small generators)
for Imedlate reduction assistance through clearinghouse Information,
workshops, In—plant assistance, corporate task force projects, and other
appropriate activity. As the results of research referred to In 3(d)
below come In, these strategies can be refined. Waste reduction Is
happening now and can continue to expand. Targeting waste streams can
focus scarce resources, provide documented successes more quickly, and
harness Industry’s cooperation in working with firms most In need of
assistance or most reluctant to Improve.
b. The State and EPA should meet to ascertain how regional coordination
can improve the efficiency of service delivery In waste reduction. A
regional resource center, shared newsletters, hotlines, conferences,
workshops and awards for progress may be examples of ways to spread
resources further and promote broader educational efforts.
c. EPA RCRA or state siting authorities should establish a fast track
review process for determining how reuse, recycling, and In—plant
modifications that promote waste reduction can be accommodated or
expedited under existing law.
Mid—Term :
d. Sponsor local government workshops within the region to demonstrate
and share ways that local and state governments can and have Improved
waste handling and waste reduction programs for small generators and
household wastes. Anchorage, Alaska In particular provides an Innovative
model for how Improvements to the local solid waste system can Incorporate
proper hazardous waste handling, disposal and reduction practices in a
routine manner.
R— 17
-------
e. Work with universities to establish training programs and degree
programs that educate and place students In waste reduction technical
careers. The availability of trained personnel within engineering and
scientific disciplines makes it significantly easier for Industry to
Integrate waste reduction Into ongoing management objectives.
f. Research the feasibility of establishing a “materials exchange system”
for the Northwest. A material waste exchange Is a clearinghouse in which
potential users of selected chemicals or metals are put In touch with
generators whose waste contains those chemicals or metals. Users may be
able to pick up source materials more cheaply, while generators may avoid
disposal costs by marketing a now useful product. The environment can
benefit from such exchanges because the previous waste materials are kept
In productive use rather than being discharged as waste. A number of
hurdles must be cleared if the Pacific Northwest is to establish a
materials exchange system, most notably liability questions.
3. PERFORM ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL WASTESTREAM
Additional data analysis should be performed to continue improving our
understanding of the Pacific Northwest waste stream. This data analysis
should enable the states to reliably estimate their treatment and disposal
capacity needs, and to characterize the wastestreams that are amenable to
waste reduction.
Short Term :
a. Develop a survey method that Identifies the primary generators of
specific waste streams (such as heavy metals or Incinerables) and their
future waste reduction and disposal plans. Since it is likely that a
small number of generators accounts for a relatively large percentage of
any one wastestream, such a method could get a good handle on future
capacity needs and trends.
b. Work cooperatively with the current Oregon and Idaho landfill
companies and the proposed Washington incinerator projects to see how much
of their waste volume is currently or is anticipated to be out—of—region
wastes. In determining capacity needs for the region, it will be
important to understand the market forces that are shaping the capacity
demands for this region’s private sector facilities.
c. Repeat the data analysis exercise performed by Dr. Stokes when the
1987 biennial report data are available. A second year of this kind of
data analysis can give a more reliable picture of Northwest waste streams,
and give better estimates of the likely ranges associated with various
waste generation and capacity projections.
d. Characterize the wastestream “types” that exist in the Northwest In
order to target specific wastestreams for waste reduction technical
assistance programs (see 2(a) above).
R— 18
-------
Mid—Term :
e. If the short term research indicates Its utility, expand the
boundaries of the regional wastestream analysis to include other states or
Canadian provinces. The actual “regional wastestream’ should not be
artificially constrained to the four states of EPA Region 10, If the data
show it to be otherwise.
f. Improve the modeling capabilities to predict future wastestream
generation, including site cleanup waste, small quantity generator waste,
and the Impact of waste reduction. The SARA capacity certification
requires a 20 year capacity estimate, even though most observers believe
such projections are not reliable at this time. Better modelling will be
necessary to increase the accuracy of any estimates.
4. IMPROVE PACIFIC NORTHWEST HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS:
Systems should be developed and data gathered In a way that produces
compatible Information among the four states. This would enable states to
report and analyze information In a more consistent fashion, yielding useful
Information about the nature, movement and disposition of Pacific Northwest
wastes, without unduly burdening industry.
Short term :
a. The four States and EPA should convene to ascertain if and how the
data needs of each entity can be combined in a compatible fashion.
Potential changes to the data system that are contemplated should be
discussed thoroughly with industry and public interest groups prior to
Implementation.
b. The four states should continue their close scrutiny of and
participation in the national data revisions underway. These include
EPA’s biennial reporting requirements; EPA’s national hazardous waste data
base; EPA’s fledgling waste minimization reporting effort; and the
development of data requirements for the SARA capacity certification
process.
Mid—term :
c. The states and EPA should develop procedures for the regular reporting
of data region—wide, as well as state—by—state; routine verification of
source data for accuracy; and periodic assessment of data utility for
possible simplification and Improvement of the reporting system.
d. Systematic ways of measuring the progress of waste reduction efforts
should be developed. Since this is not yet a mandatory reporting
requirement, careful development of the reporting instrument Is necessary
and will require working with industry and public Interest groups so that
the resulting system meets the needs of all user groups.
R—l 9
-------
0. CONCLUSION
This nation Is currently spending well over two billion dollars a year
rectifying the damage resulting from the way hazardous wastes were once
handled. The recommendations In this report will cost a modest amount of
money to Implement. The States and EPA Region 10 have prepared proposals for
federal funds which will enable us to start up the Regional Council, to
continue the data analyses effort, and to begin waste reduction coordination.
These funds pale In the face of the Northwest’s share of the two billion
dollar yearly bill for past mistakes.
There Is a widespread conviction that the way hazardous wastes are managed
must continue to improve. To do so, less waste must be generated in the first
place, and better treatment and disposal facilities must be available for the
remainder. Difficult decisions await us all, and it will take a common vision
for comprehensive waste management to become a reality. We believe we can
meet this challenge. If we do so, hazardous waste management has a positive
future In the Northwest, and ultimately a far less expensive one.
R-20
-------
Table 1
REGISTERED GENERATOR STATUS, REGION 10, 1985 (NUMBER)
Souive
Hazaldous Waite Management to the tke’thwest: A St. We Repoit
Dr. Lao W Sokes, August 1987
Table 2
GENERATORS, REGION 10, 1985 (NUMBER)
Source
AK
ID
OR
WA REGION 10
Manufacturing
1
25
43
69
Chemicals
Metalworking
1
45
80
126
ElectronIcs
3
35
30
68
Wood Products
1
32
23
56
Prim. Sec. Metals
12
21
33
Petroleum Ref.
3
1
8
12
Transport Eqp.
43
43
Misc. Mfg.
3
2
92
97
Subtotal
3
9
152
340
504
Trade, Services, Govt.
8
10
41
194
253
Transportation
5
7
12
41
65
Military
4
45
49
Mining
3
1
3
7
Electric Utilities
3
1
4
Subtotal
20
21
54
283
378
Total
23
30
206
623
882
Haza,doue Waste Management hi the t ’thwest: A Status R.poM
Dr. Lee W. Stokes, August1987
AK
ID
OR
WA
Total
1.
Major Generator
23
30
206
623
882
33
Small Quantity
Generator
14
58
80*
188
340
13
No Waste
61
163
250*
452
926
34
Exempt
18
43
75*
138
274
10
No Response
195
195
7
Closed or Sold
35
5
10*
22
72
3
Total
151
299
621
1618
2689
100
* Estimated
•
CATEGORIES OF MAJOR
R- 21
-------
Table 3
CHARACTERIZATION OF HAZARDOUS HASTE. REGION 10,
1985 (TONS) 1
Major Waste Types
AK
ID
OR
WA
Metals
594
256
4314
28106
F ’,
I ” )
Non—Chlorinated Solvents
30
62
675
8272
Chlorinated Solvents
42
74
2041
3228
Other Halogenated Organics
3
928
23
Misc. Organics
Ignitables (N.O.S.) 2
178
674
24
61
734
3040
282
2872
Corrosives
8
296
5683
14643
Reactives
1
11
270
148
PestIcides 3
3190
Electroplating Sludges (CN)
15049
Petroleum Residuals
6677
Steel Emission Control Dust
6342
Steel Spent Pickle Liquor
4516
Aluminum Coating Sludges
633
Misc. Inorganics
1624
92
Washinqton Req. Wastes
406
340
20
14
REGION 10
33270
9039
5385
954
1260
6653
20630
430
4622
18683
6748
9340
4631
667
2249
1026
3294
37
2998
115
34
68
465
104,349
104,349
- 1609 2024 26813
198,464
228,910
1. NPDES Wastewaters not included
2. Not otherwise specified
3. Including wood preservatives
Source
Hazardous Wast. Nanag.m.nt In th Nmthwst: A Status R.po,t
Dr. Lee W. Stokes. August t987
-------
Table 4
REPORTED DISPOSITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED
IN REGION 10, 1985, TONS
Method of Handling AK ID OR WA TOTAL!’ 2
In—State Storage
Container 112 70 2369 6917 9468
Tank 43 3580 6426 10049
Pile 148,729 148,729
Impoundment 112 6150 6272
Other 9 9
Subtotal 234 113 5949 168,231 174,527
In—State Treatment
Tank 5 60 354,021 354,086
Impoundment 4022 4022
Thermal 2437 2437
Other 11 379 1927 2317
Subtotal 5 71 4401 358,385 362,862
In—State Disposal
Injection Well 1111 1111
Landfill 230 7055 39474 46759
Land Appl. 1445 1445
Impoundment 28982 28982
Other 1
Subtotal 1111 230 7055 69902 79298
Shipped out of State 790 1810 9097 70094 81791
Total 2140 2224 26502 666.612 697,478
1. Does not Include PCB’s
2. Includes 316,249T of wastewater which Is treated and
discharged under NPDES permit, directly or through POTW’s.
R- 23 Source: f h Ui A
-------
Table 5
IMPORT AND EXPORT OF HAZARDOUS W STE
REGION 10 STATES, 1985, TONS 1
AK ID OR - WA REGION 10
Shipped to :
Alaska 0 0 0 0
Idaho 16 143 2692 2855
Oregon 101 608 62405 63114
Washington 32 443 5506 5981
Shipped Out
of Region 10 641 759 3448 5031 9879
Total Export 790 1810 9097 70128
Imported from :
Alaska 16 101 32
Idaho 0 608 443
Oregon 0 143 5506
Washington 0 2692 62405
Imported from
Outside Region 10 0 934 0 0 934
Total Import 0 3738 63213 5981
Net Import ( 790)2 1973 54116 (64147) (8945 )
1. Does not I nc 1 ude PCBS Waat Uan.g.m.nt th m. ,fhwit: A Stat R.pott
Dr. Lae W. Stakes. August f 7
2. C ) = negative Value
R- 24
-------
Figure 1
Export of Hazardous Waste, 1985, Washington
Tons Generatd: 1,
Tons Exportd:
U,
AK.
WA.
OR.
ID.
Sou,co -________________________________
Hazardous Waste Management In the ?iotffi west: A Status Report
Dr. Leo W Stokes, August 1987
-------
Figure 2
Export of Hazardous Waste, 1985, Oregon
Tons Generated: a,813
Ton. Exported: 9,OS7
C ..
AK.
WA.
OR.
ID.
Source
Hazardous Waste Management In the Northwest: A Status RepoM
Or Lee W Stokes. August 1987
-------
Sowc..
Hazardous Waste Management In the Nosthwst: A Status R.pc,t
Dr. Lee W. Stokes. August 1987
Figure 3
p Export of Hazardous Waste, 1985, Idaho
Tons Generated: 2, 4
Tons Exported: 1810
I ’)
AK.
WA.
OR.
ID.
75.
-------
Figure 4
Export of Hazardous Waste, 1985, Alaska
Tons Generated: 1,609
Tons Exported: 790
AK.
WA.
1,609
OR.
scwc.
Hazardous Wails Management In the Northwest: A Status Report
Dr. Lee W Stokes. AUgUSt 7987
-------
Figure 5
Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfill Capacity, Oregon
Figure 6
Commercial
acute.:
HawdOac Weat• Man.g.m.nt In tM No thwept: A atus Ripest
R-29 Dr. Lee W. Stokes. August 1987
Site Capacity
(Current Permit Application)
1996
0
U. 0
U
1990
A um 40% Caeaaty Loss Due to Covec
Hazardous Waste Landfill Capacity, Idaho
Site Capacity
(Total Remaining Space - Site Lifetime)
0
0
U.
S
U
At Rate of Fill Projected by ES!
(117, Cu Yd/Yr)
• 1985 Actual Fill Approximatety 25,000 Cubic Yards
1986 Actual Fill Approximat y 35,000 Cubic Yards
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX I
STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE CAPACI1 ASSURANCE REQUIREMENT:
SARA 104(k)
-------
APPENDIX I
STATE CAPACITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENT
Section 104(k) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA):
(9)Siting. — Effective 3 years after the enactment of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
the President shall not provide any remedial actions pursuant
to this section unless the State in which the release occurs
first enters into a contract or cooperative agreement with the
President providing assurances deemed adequate by the President
that the State will assure the availability of hazardous waste
treatment or disposal facilities which —
(A) have adequate capacity for the destruction, treatment, or
secure disposition of all hazardous wastes that are reasonable
expected to be generated within the State during the 20—year
period following the date of such contract or cooperative
agreement and to be disposed of, treated, or destroyed,
(B) are within the State or outside the State in accordance
with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority,
(C) are acceptable to the President, and
(D) are in compliance with the requirements of subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
1—1
-------
APPEM I II
RE6IONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE ROSTER
-------
APPENDIX II
REGIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE ROSTER
CO-CHAIRS
Robie G. Russell
Regional Administrator
EPA, Region 10
Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp
Alaska State Senate
Larry Weiss
Executive Director
Alaska Health Project
Joan Cloonan
Assistant General Counsel
JR Simplot Company
Bill Saul, Dean
College of Engineering
Jonathan Ater
Attorney—at—Law
Lindsay, Hart, Neil, & Weigler
Portland, Oregon
Cheryl Coodley
Assistant Attorney General
Oregon Department of Justice
Gil Omenn, Dean
School of Public Health and
Community Medicine
University of Washington
Nell Standal, General Manager
Boeing Services Division
The Boeing Company
Seattle, Washington
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
Fred Hansen, Director
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Mayor Tony Knowles
City of Anchorage
Senator Denton Darrington
Idaho State Senator
Frank Deaver, Director
Corporate Environmental Services
Tektronix, Inc.
Beaverton, Oregon
Jean Meddaugh
Oregon Environmental Council
WASHINGTON
Representative Jolene Unsoeld
Washington State House of
Representatives
Pam Crocker-Davis
Legislative Coordinator
National Audubon Society
Olympia, Washington
Dick Ford, Managing Partner
Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman
Seattle, Washington
11—1
-------
APPENDIX III
APRIL AND UCTUBER SYMPOSIA ATTENDANCE BREAKDOWN
-------
APPENDIX III
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
April 28, 29, 1987 Conference Attendance Breakdown
Conferee Categories AK ID OR WA Other TOTAL
State Elected & Appointed Officials 1 1 6 1 9
Staff to Elected Officials 1 9 10
Local Elected & Appointed Officials — 3 3 4 — 10
State Agencies 3 2 9 23 1 38
Local Government Agencies 3 2 — 29 — 34
Federal Agencies (Inc. 1 Congressional Staff) 2 4 5 39 2 52
‘ ‘ Attorneys 1 6 7 — 15
Industry 7 14 13 49 6 89
CommercIal 4 4 7 22 37
Consultants 3 — 2 28 33
Nonprofit/Environmental Organizations 2 2 3 11 19
Academia/Research 1 5 6
Media 1 1 2
Tribes 2 2
Category Undetermined 2 2
TOTALS 25 34 51 236 10 356
-------
APPENDIX III
A POSITIVE FUTURE: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWESI
October 19, 20, & 21, 1987 Conference Attendance Breakdown
Carefree Categories AK ID OR WA Other TOTAL
State Elected OfficIals 3 5 8 5 21
Staff to State Elected OfficIals 1 — 8 9
Local Government Elected Officials 1 1 — 4 — 6
State Agencies 2 4 12 22 2 42
Local Government Agencies 1 3 16 20
— Federal Agencies: EPA 1 — 36 5 42
Other 1 1 3 5 1 11
Attorneys — 2 3 1 — 12
Industry 7 7 11 31 2 58
Commercial 2 2 3 15 3 25
Consultants 3 1 4 33 2 43
Nonprofit/Environmental OrganIzations 3 3 3 5 14
Academic/Research 2 10 2 14
Tribes 1 1
Category Undertermined 2 1 3
TOTALS 25 31 47 200 19 321
-------
APPENDIX I V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HA1ARDUUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NORTHWEST: A STATUS REPORT
Dr. Lee W. Stokes
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NORTHWEST
A STATUS REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUGUST, 1987
Hazardous waste management data are collected and analyzed independently
and in somewhat disparate fashion by the Region 10 offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the pollution control agencies of the
northwest states. Accurate and comprehensive Information regarding hazardous
waste generation and management will be needed soon If the Industries and
governmental entities of the region are to establish a coordinated planning
program capable of identifying cost—effective means of compliance with new
statutory mandates. One Important aspect of the emerging regulatory program
Is the requirement that states demonstrate by 1989 that disposal capacity will
be available for all hazardous wastes expected to be generated In the next 20
years. Certification to that effect will be necessary If a state is to remain
eligible for remedial action funding through the provisions of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
An assessment of the status of hazardous waste and PCB waste control
programs in Region 10 was conducted In an attempt to characterize the
materials and current handling methods and to consolidate waste management
data from the four states (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington). The nature and
effectiveness of the data collection systems were also examined.
Hazardous Waste Generation
The most recent biennial reports (1985) and other documents were reviewed
so that sources and amounts of waste regulated pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and companion state laws could be determined.
Eight hundred eighty—two major generators produced reportable quantities of
hazardous waste during 1985 (Alaska, 23; Idaho, 30; Oregon, 206; WashIngton,
623). Fifty—seven percent of the generators were manufacturing plants and 297.
were trade, services or governmental organizations.
The Region 10 major generators reported 228,910 tons of hazardous waste,
exclusive of PCBs. Washington contributed 198,464 tons (86.77.); Oregon
26,813 tons (11.77.); Idaho, 2024 tons (0.9%); and Alaska, 1609 tons (0.77.).
Small quantity generators produced an additional 11,000—12,000 tons of waste,
and 30,000—60,000 tons of unregulated hazardous waste from households were
sent mostly to public solid waste landfills.
Manufacturing industries accounted for 867. of the waste, the largest
fraction (37.57.) comIng from primary and secondary metals processors. Stone
and clay products Industries produced 15.3% of the waste, transportation
equipment manufacturers 10.3%, and the electronics companies 4.57.. Only about
two percent of the waste came from cleanup of contaminated sites in 1985 (In
1984, the figure was nearly 20%).
Almost one—half of the wastes were those regulated only by the State of
Washington (104,349 tons, 46%), such as cement kiln dust, furnace black dross
and potllnlng from the aluminum Industry, boiler fly—ash from the wood
products industry and fluxing salts from magnesium reduction. The dominant
RCRA—regulated wastes were metals (14%), corrosives (97.), electroplating
sludge (87.), steel emission dust (4%) and non—chlorinated solvents (4%).
‘v-i
-------
Disposition of Hazardous Waste
The Region 10 states ship waste to one another and to facilities in other
states for treatment and disposal. Waste is also Imported to the region for
disposal. Nearly 10,000 tons of waste were exported from the region in 1985,
while 3694 tons were imported; thus, the region was a net exporter of
hazardous waste. Alaska exported 107. of its waste to other Region 10 states
and 401. to states outside the region. Idaho exported one—half of its waste to
Oregon and Washington and 381. to states outside the region, but also imported
twice as much waste for disposal as was exported. Oregon exported over
one—half of its waste (15,000 tons), but imported nearly 66,000 tons for
disposal, most of which came from Washington.
Region 10 wastes are often subjected to a series of reportable management
processes; the reports of each management practice result in double or triple
counting of some wastes, and therefore the generator and facility reports
cannot be easily reconciled. Imported wastes cannot be specifically tracked
‘either. Thus, the waste facility reports document the handling of
substantially more waste than is generated in a given year.
On—site storage (for over 90 days) accounted for 107,000 tons of waste in
the region in 1985 and 15,000 tons were stored off—site. The predominant
storage method (by weight) was waste piles. Nearly 10,000 tons of waste
received on—site treatment and 49,000 tons were treated off—site. On—site
disposal of 63,000 tons of waste was accomplished, while 77,000 tons were
disposed of at off—site facilities. Over 100,000 tons of Region 10 wastes
were landfilled and 45,000 tons were impounded as a treatment process or final
disposal; 1111 tons of waste were deep well injected in Alaska.
PCBs
Wastes containing polychlorlnated biphenyls were considered separately
since they are regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act rather than as
RCRA hazardous wastes. A limited special survey of electrical utilities and
other waste generators provided new Insight regarding PCB waste generation in
Region 10. Concentrated PCB waste oils (greater than 500 ppm PCB) were
apparently generated In an amount falling within the range of 450—550 tons in
1985. Mineral oil wastes with PCB concentrations from 50—500 ppm may have
totaled 1200-1600 tons.
Disposal of waste transformer carcasses was estimated to amount to
2000—4000 tons. PCB—contaminted soil, debris and miscellaneous equipment
constituted 2000—3000 tons of waste. The generation of high concentration PCB
oil wastes in Region 10 Is expected to increase slightly until 1988, remain
fairly constant until 1991, and then decline precipitously due to several
regulatory factors. The lesser—contaminated mineral oils, mostly present In
long—lived transformers, will remain in the waste stream in slowly declining
amounts for 15—30 years. PCBs are no longer being manufactured and have not
been distributed in commerce for some time; however, remedial action projects,
particularly in Alaska, will generate PCB wastes for 10 years or more.
IV- 2
-------
Projected Hazardous Waste Generation
Several elusive factors affecting the future generation of hazardous
waste In the region were crudely estimated as part of this assessment.
Economic growth, waste reduction practices, PCB equipment phaseouts and
implementation of remedial action (site cleanup) programs were projected to
produce a small net increase in waste generation over the 1985 level during
the next 20 years. The routinely generated wastes (non—cleanup) are expected
to decrease somewhat in the next 15 years due to waste reduction programs, but
ultimately Increase from the 1985 base amount as a result of Industrial
growth; however, the projection of other quite different scenarios could be
easily justified.
Hazardous Waste Management Technology
The Region 10 hazardous waste streams were generally analyzed in terms of
the applicability of alternative technology because of the impending limited
national ban on landfilling of wastes. One hundred twenty—six thousand tons
of Region 10 RCRA—regulated wastes (based on 1985 data) will be considered for
landfill ban by 1990 through the EPA regulatory process. less than half of
that waste Is being landfllled now (other than Washington—regulated waste).
Including contaminated soils, up to 60,000 tons of hazardous waste per
year might be amenable to incineration; however, two—thirds of that waste
would probably require fuel—assisted burning due to low potential heat
content. Wastes to be landfilled could increase or decrease depending on
economic factors arising from the treatment standards (most not yet
established) associated with the landfill ban statute. Increased recycling
and treatment of some categories of waste are probable. However, alternatives
to landfllling will not be readily available for some wastes, and the
stabilization and encapsulation processes which might be applied to those
wastes would substantially increase their volume prior to landfilling.
Waste Management Capacity
A review of waste management facility permit applications revealed a
potential regional on—site capacity for waste storage to be nearly 280,000
tons, far more space than actually occupied in 1985. On—site treatment
facilities would handle over 30,000 tons of waste per year, other than dilute
aqueous wastes which can be treated in very large volumes. Proposed on—site
incinerator capacity totals 4700 tons per year. Permit applications for
on—site disposal reflect facilities capable of handling three trillion tons of
- wastewater per year by injection well (Alaska only), 57,000 tons by landfill
or land application, and 34,000 tons by impoundment.
Existing and proposed off—site storage facilities would provide space for
250,000 tons of waste, mostly in piles and impoundments. Various off—site
treatment facilities could handle up to 400,000 tons of aqueous inorganic
wastes, solvents, toxic anions and oily wastes. No commercial Incinerators
exist in Region 10. One formal permit application has been filed for
construction of an incinerator which would burn up to 50,000 tons of waste per
year, and plans for a similar (competing ‘) project have been informally
announced.
IV—3
-------
Off—site landfill capacity as proposed for 10—year RCRA permits would be
about five million tons. The lifetime of the Idaho commercial landfill is
estimated by the company to be exactly 20 years (2007); such a rate of fill
would require the annual intake of waste in volumes 4—5 times as great as in
1985.
The Oregon commercial landfill would be full in 18 years (2005) at the
rate of fill experienced in 1985; in 12 years (1999) at the 1986 rate of fill;
and in 9 years (1996) at the rate of fill anticipated by the company.
However, note that the company owns much more land adjacent to the existing
facility which could be developed as landfill. The actual permit proposals
beyond the next 10 years cannot be anticipated.
Problems/Recommendations
Several problems were encountered when using the various hazardous waste
management data systems. Most of those problems relate to the unfamiliarity
of some generators with the reporting requirements and formats, the narrow
scope of required data, unsophisticated reporting systems in some states, poor
coordination of data collection processes in the region and the absence of a
suitable central data repository.
It is recommended that a regional or national hazardous waste data
management system be developed with the following features:
1. A single report form to be used by all states (or as the core of any
state—developed form) to collect data both from hazardous waste
generators and waste management facilities.
2. Surveys conducted at least annually and summary reports issued without
great lag time.
3. Clearly—stated reporting requirements, particularly with regard to
definitions of reportable wastes (for example, under what circumstances
are volumes of wastewaters reportable prior to treatment? Conversely,
when are treatment residuals reportable as newly generated wastes?)
4. An annual determination of the regulatory status of .fl potential
generators.
5. Verification of all generator and facility—reported data by state
agencies and EPA (staff augmentation required).
6. CharacterIzation of wastes in terms of physical form and all relevant
chemical components (within the limits of practical analysis) through
use of a more complex coding system.
7. TrackIng of wastes throughout the country and reporting of treatment and
ultimate disposal of those wastes to the regulatory agency in the state
of origin.
8. The capability to account for stored wastes at the beginning as well as
at the end of a reporting period.
IV-4
-------
9. More detailed description of waste treatment processes through a more
complex coding system.
10. The capability to compare the volumes of various wastes on an annual
basis and to determine the degree to which each generic means of waste
reduction is employed by each category of industry.
11. The capability to determine the remaining permitted capacity of landfills
on an annual basis and the practical throughput capacity of treatment
facilities.
12. The entry of all core data into a commonly accessible automated system.
It is further recommended that the Region 10 states, individually or
collectively, conduct Intensive studies of waste management capacity and waste
reduction potential as soon as practicable. The advice and assistance of the
waste generating Industries and waste management businesses should be
solicited to assure success of the investigations.
IV- 5
-------
APPENDIX V
OCTOBER 20, 1987 LE6ISLAIIVE ROUNDIABLE PARTICIPANTS
-------
APPENDIX V
October 20. 1987 LEGISLATIVE ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS
Alaska Participants
Representative Sam Cotten Representative Curt Menard
Alaska House of Representatives Alaska House of Representatives
Dennis Kelso, Coninissloner
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC)
Idaho Partlcioants
Representative Mary Ellen Lloyd Cheryl Koshuta. Chief
Idaho House of Representatives Hazardous Waste Materials Bureau
Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare
Oregon Particloants
Senator Andy Anderson Fred Hansen. Director
Oregon State Senator Dept. of Environmental Quality
Representative Ron Cease Representative Mike Kopetski
Oregon House of Representatives Oregon House of Representatives
Senator Joyce Cohen Representative Mike McCracken
Oregon State Senator Oregon House of Representatives
Representative Wayne Fawbush Representative Nancy Peterson
Oregon House of Representatives Oregon House of Representatives
Senator Jeannete Hamby Representative Bob Pickard
Oregon State Senator Oregon House of Representatives
Washinaton Particloants
Senator Mike Kreidler Representative Jolene Unsoeld
Washington State Senator Washington House of Representatives
Andrea Riniker, Director Senator Al Williams
Washington Dept. of Ecology Washington State Senator
Representative Nancy Rust
Washington House of Representatives
British Columbia Reorecentative
Earle Anthony. Assistant Deputy Minister
Ministry of Environment and Parks
EPA Reaion 10 ParticIpants
Robfe Russell Bill Ross
Regional A nin1strator Consultant
v-I
-------
APPENDIX VI
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SYMPOSIA EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FORMS:
April 28/29 Hazardous Waste Capacity Symposium
General Observations from Conference :
1. Credible and useful framework with which to address the Issues (waste
reduction, capacity, and how to go about the siting process). Generally
Impressed with mix of attendees.
2. Widespread belief that current hazardous waste management capacity is
inadequate (particularly by industry and public sector employees —— and
to a large extent by elected officials).
3. Waste reduction efforts must be pursued more vigorously. Many wanted
to know how much we can reduce hazardous wastes.
4. Generally expressed interest in “regional” solutions and efforts,
addressing such topics as the waste stream/capacity issue, policy level
and financial support of waste reduction, EPA technical and financial
assistance.
5. Interest in regional political process to lead to gubenatorial
endorsement for working on the issue(s).
Comments on Format and Organization of Follow—up Session :
1. Target certain issues and attempt to make some progress in dealing
with them In the Northwest.
2. Make it more interactive —— via small group sessions on specific
topics. Use groups to float some ideas/recommendations.
3. More reports on success stories requested by elected officials.
4. Would like larger percentage of “public Interest” representation ——
including more elected officials.
Suggested Topics for Fall Conference :
1. Waste Reduction :
• More success stories —— industries in this region
• Discussion of type approaches useful to foster reduction efforts
in the Northwest (regulatory, technical assistance/voluntary)
• How much can we realistically expect reduction to contribute?
• Federal solid waste defInitIons/regulations —— do they result in
encouraging waste reduction?
• What about Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) and reduction?
Report on waste reduction and recycling.
VI-l
-------
S MMARY OF EVALUATION FORMS:
April 28/29 Hazardous Waste Capacity Symposium (Cont)
2. Regional/State Waste Stream Data and TSD Capacity :
• What do the numbers tell us?
• Need credible capacity effort as way to help get by the waste
reduction vs. siting gridlock.
• What is the relationship between regional political lines and the
nature of the hazardous waste ISO market?
3. SIting New Capacity :
• Regional siting efforts —— does it make sense and how would we
begin to address in the Northwest?
• Trade—off: siting and permitting a facility vs. risk of
transportation.
• Other regions’ experiences with siting —— more on case studies
looking at particular types of issues (e.g., siting approach,
technologies, risk, public involvement).
• Public and private roles in siting (selection, ownership and
operation).
4. SitIng and Public Involvement :
• Environmentalist panel: successful scenarios in siting.
Building involvement and trust.
• Use of mitigation and compensation in siting facilities.
• Innovative dispute resolution techniques.
5. UncertaInty and Risk :
• Risks and benefits of on—site vs. off—site commercial treatment.
• Health risks of incineration.
• Innovative technologies: do we allow higher level of risk?
• Risk of not having capacity
6. Treatment and Destruction Issues :
• Economics of hazardous waste incineration (facility size,
mobile vs. fixed, liability, public/private questions).
• Most promising technologies and ways to regionalize.
VI-2
-------
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FORMS:
April 28/29 Hazardous Waste Capacity Symposium (Cont)
7. Interstate and Regional Efforts :
• What are the legal, economic and political barriers to Regional
hazardous waste management approaches?
• Exploration of regional approaches (e.g., waste exchange,
waste reduction efforts).
• What are the priority areas for regional hazardous waste
management efforts?
VI -3
-------
EVALUATION FORM SUMMARIES
OCTOBER 19 — 21 AZARUOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYMPOSIUM
General Observations From Conference :
(1) Legislative Roundtable very informative. Need more of this to
better educate elected officials about activities in all
Northwest states.
(2) Small group discussion sessions were very useful, but could
have been longer. Participants would have liked advance
notice about the topics of dRcusslon so they could both
prepare and express preferences about the group in which they
would participate.
(3) Generally good coverage of issues, except for transportation
which merited more prominence.
(4) Inadequate participation by Tribal and Federal Facilities.
These groups should figure more prominently in follow—up
efforts.
(5) Regional Advisory Group or Council strongly endorsed, provided
it has appropriate focus. It’s Important to step back
evaluate how to make all the facets of waste management fit
together.
General Comments for Follow—up Activities
(1) Important to get the media Involved and educated. They are
important players.
(2) Keep conference attendees Informed about subsequent regional
efforts.
(3) Time to get specific in focus——an action plan is essential.
perhaps consider small task forces to develop (Ideas on waste
reduction, public participation, waste exchanges etc.).
(4) Government needs to be more proactive on waste reduction,
figuring out it’s role and providing clearer incentives.
VI —4
-------
Specific Comments :
(1) Waste Reduction :
• Better education for and communication with small
business and small quantity generators.
• Greater EPA leadership role In waste reduction,
supporting state and Industry activities. Information
and training are key Items.
• More research and development Incentives needed for
waste reduction (and treatment, too).
• Can the federal government shift its regulatory
orientation to support waste reduction, recycling,
etc.’ How proactive should regulatory agencies be?
(2) Data/Capacity :
• Improve data without getting preoccupied about precise
numbers —— uncertainty Is Inherent in data.
• Refine Information on long term hazardous waste
management needs. Develop more serious scheme to
project future waste stream/waste management capacity.
• Develop new capacity with flexibility in mind. Relate
new capacity to waste reduction needs.
• Information requirements for the regulated community
seem to grow endlessly, and yet it Is usually the case
that the the kind of data useful for state and regional
choices Is not developed. Let’s begin to rationalize
these requirements, and perhaps assemble a regional
public/private data group to improve governmental data
without overtaxing industry.
(3) SitIng and Public Participation :
• Link siting to good waste reduction programs.
• There are different perceptions of risk regarding siting
(control uncertainty, etc.,). Need to follow—up on
this, discussing implications and how to resolve issues.
(4) Cross — Issue Linkages :
• Tax and financial incentives are very sensitive Items.
Make sure we send out signals consistant with steps we
wish to encourage.
• Need more emphasis on how to make the hazardous waste
management system work on the local level. Might have
part of a model in the Anchorage program, but need to
get the Information out so we don’t “reinvent the wheel”.
VI -5
-------
APPENDIX VII
APRIL AND OCTOBER SYMPOSIUM A ENUAS
-------
APPENDIX VI!
Announcing A Symposium
for
Public and Private Sector
Decision and Opinion Makers
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNmES:
MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE
IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
SEA1TLE, WASHINGTON
April 28 and 29,1987
Seattle Sheraton Hotel
Co-sponsors:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
&
The States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Cooperator:
In5titute for Environmental Studies,
University of Washington
VIZ-i
-------
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES:
Managing Hazardous Waste in the Pacific Northwest
SCOPE:
Recent federal legislation has dramatically curtailed current hazardous
waste disposal practices. Hazardous waste legislation has directed
attention away from land disposal. Recent Superfund legislation has
similarly shifted priorities toward permanent on-site treatment remedies.
This has accelerated industry waste reduction research and development
efforts already underway. State and local governments are grappling
with the question of how to consider new, environmentally appropriate
disposal capacity. Public attention to these efforts is more visible and
focused. A common framework with which to discuss and debate the
range of hazardous waste management alternatives needed in the Pacific
Northwest is cntical.
PURPOSEi
The overall goal is to assist decision-makers as they address the
challenge of providing alternative methods and policies to replace those
which are inadequate or which become illegal. Two symposia are
planned to assist with this. The purpose of the April conference in
Seattle is to educate key leaders in the Pacific Northwest about the main
issues surrounding hazardous waste management and to explore what
we need to know in the Pacific Northwest in order to make responsible
hazardous waste management decisions. Presentations of the
experiences of national experts will be interwoven with regional
perspectives. The second symposium will be shaped. in part, by
condusions drawn from the first one. It will identify obstacles to and
opportunities for the development of appropriate options for the Pacific
Northwest.
WHO SHOULD AT ENTh
Leaders and key staff from the local, state and federal elected officials;
industry; organized environmental community; the environmental law
community; the media; and regulatory agencies should plan to attend.
QUESTIONS & IDEAS
to be explored in April 28 and 29 Symposium include.
• How will land bans affect the cost of disposal?
• Will regulatory constraints prevent new capacity if it is needed?
• How can states encourage industries to minimize wastes?
• How much can be expected from waste reduction?
• What siting strategies are most effective?
‘How should government or industry respond to the public’s need for
information and participation regarding a siting proposal and its
attendant risks?
‘Beginning to explore regional/interstate cooperation in the Pacific
Northwest.
SYMPOSIUM STEERING COMMITIEE CO-DIRECrORS;
Robie G. Russell, Fred Hansen,
Administrator, Region 10, U.S. Director, Oregon Department
Environmental Protection Agency of Environmental Quality
VlI-2
-------
AGENDA Tuesday, April 28, 1987
8:00a.m. SIGN-IN.
Metropolitan Ballroom, 3rd floor,
Seattle Sheraton. 1400 Sixth Avenue
8:40 WELCOME. Conference Moderator Bill Ross
8:45 KEYNOTE. Hazardous Waste Management Robie G. Russell,
Issues in the Northwest Regional Administrator
Region 10, US EPA
9:15 Panel: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL Dennis Kelso, Alaska
DIRECTORS. Current approaches and Ken Brooks, Idaho
efforts of the four states Fred Hansen, Oregon
Andrea Riniker,
Washington
10:30 BREAK.
10:45 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR Thomas Devine,
WASTE STREAM. The national outlook for EPA Headquaiters
hazardous waste management practices by
the Director, Office of Policy, Office of
Solid Waste & Emergency Response.
11:30 PROSPECTS FOR WASTE
MINIMIZATION: Innovative state efforts
and private sector initiatives. Case studies.
Pollution Prevention Pays Roger Schecter,
Duector, North Carolina’s
Waste Reduction Program
12:15 p.m. LUNCH. (on your own)
1:45 PROSPECTS FOR WASTE
MINIMIZATION. (continued)
Encouraging Reduction and David Leu,
Understanding its Limits. Chief, Alternative
Technology Section,
California Dept. of Health
2:30 Reducing Costs and Dealing Cliff Bast,
With What’s Left. Corporate Environmental
Manager, Hewlett-
Packard, California
3:15 BREAK
3:30 Panel: PERSPECTIVES ON David Wigglesworth,
THE NORTHWEST WASTE The Healthl’roject.
MANAGEMENT SCENE. Anchorage, Alaska
Moderator: Fred Hansen, Earl Weeks,
nJntal lity
Bob Gilbert,
Chair, Hazardous Waste
Committee, Association of
Oregon Industries
Terry Novak,
Oty 1anagez Spokane,
Washington
5:00 WRAP-UP. Bill ROSS
5.30-7:00 RECEPTION — NO-HOST BAR
VII-3
-------
AGENDA Wednesday, April 29, 1987
8:00 a.m. SIGN-IN.
Metropolitan Ballroom, 3rd floor,
Seattle Sheraton.
8:45 WELCOME. Andrea Riniker,
Director, Washington
Department of Ecology
9:00 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CAPACiTY Ken Rubin
QUESTION. The relationship between Apogee Research,
market forces and regulatory constraints Bethesda, Maryland
in creating supply/demand for destruction
and disposal capacity.
10:00 BREAK.
10:15 NEW SITES: HOW TO GET THERE Richard Gimello,
IF WE NEED TO. Different Approaches to Executive Director, New
Siting Capacity. Jersey Hazardous Waste
Siting Coinnussion
11:00 SITING CASE STUDIES
Resource Conservation and Jarrell Southall,
Environmental Protection — Contract Administrator.
The Arizona Experience ENSCO, Arizona
11:45p.m.LUNCHEON ADDRESS Hon. Cecil D. Andrus,
Governor of Idaho
1:15 SITING CASE STUDIES (continued)
Learning from Failwe — Joan Gardner
The Massachusetts Experience. Executive Director,
Massachusetts Hazardous
Waste Facility Site Safety
Council
2:00 Panel: SITING—PUBLIC
PERCEPTION, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION AND
RISK COMMUNICATION.
Moderator Frances Chapman, Gil Omenn,
Community Relations coordinator, Dean, School of Public
Region 10, EPA Health and Cornniurüty
Medicine. University of
Washington
Winston Goering,
Mayor. Nampa, Idaho
Patti Epler,
Anchorage Daily News,
Alaska
3:30 BREAK
3:45 WHAT DO WE STILL
NEED TO KNOW?
PaneL/Audience Interaction about Questions
and Possible Directions.
Moderator: Robie G. Russell, Tony Knowles,
Administrator, Region 10, US EPA Mayor, Anchorage, Alaska
(invited)
Lack Peterson,
Director, Idaho Mining
Association, and Chair,
Idaho Hazardous Waste
Management Planning
Committee
VII-4
-------
WHAT DO WE STILL John C. Beatty, Jr.,
NEED TO KNOW? (continued) Chair, Ore3on Hazardous
Waste Advisory
Committee
Pam Crocker-Davis,
Washington State
Representative,
National Audubon
Society
5:00 ADJOURN
REGISTRATION:
The fee for the symposium includes one speaker luncheon and
program materials. To register, please fill out the registration form
below and send to Hazardous Waste Management Symposium,
Institute for Environmental Studies, FM-12, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
if you are unable to attend, a refund of the registration fee, less
$20.00 for handling, will be made if requested by April 27, 1987.
For more information please contact:
Polly Dyer
Continuing Environmental Studies Director
JES, UW, (206) 543-1812.
a — a a . — a • a a a . — a a • — a — a — • — a — a — a — . — a —
REGISTRATION FORM
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT — April 28-29, 1987
Registration Fee $50.00 $____.—
Endose check payable to: University of Washington
(U.S. funds only)
Purchase Order No. or Requisition No.
Billing Address:
Complete and return with fee to:
Hazardous Waste Management Symposium
Institute for Environmental Studies
200 Engineering Annex, FM-12
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Name
Agency/CompanylOrganization
Position
Address
City Zip
Daytime Phone(
VII -5
-------
A Symposium
for
Government, Business, and Public Leaders
A POSITIVE FUTURE:
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
in the
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Seattle, Washington
October 19, 20, & 21, 1987
Seattle Sheraton Hotel
Co-sponsors:
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
and
The States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
Cooperator:
Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Washington
VI1—6
-------
A POSITIVE FUTURE:
Hazardous Waste Management in the Pacific
Northwest
BACKGROUND:
This past April. the states of Alaska. Idaho. Oregon and Washington. and t.LS. EPA,
R gi n 10. hosted a symposium for key opinion and decision-makers to assess
current ciforts to develop a comprehensive hazardous waste management system for
the Pacific Northwest. The response was compelling and the message clear - North-
west leaders are committed to development of appropriate alternatives, although
important issues must be addressed as we put them in place. Dau•gathermg efforts
are insutficient to provide adequate data to decision-makers on a region-wide basis.
Capacity assessment efforts .utd siting procedures are largely untested throughout the
region. Waste reduction efforts are under way in many large and small businesses.
but public policy could be better focused to provide incentives for reduction efforts.
It is n essary to continue the dialogue on these and other imonant issues as we
develop a comprehensive hazardous waste management system for the Pacific
Northwest.
PURPOSE:
This second symposium is designed to focus attention of key leaders on current
regional data, waste reduction and siting efforts, and to solicit input on appropriate
future actions. Leaders from indusuy. government, and public-interest groups will
share their views on the status of the region’s hazardous waite-swewn and manage-
ment options. A White Paper is being prepared to stimulate discussion on future
actions attendees will be asked to consider and comment upon these and ocher
perspectives presented during the symposium. The Regional Adminisbatcr of
Region 10, EPA. and the four State Directors will then prepare a report for the four
Governors and Stare Legislatures and the Adminisuator of EPA outlining state and
regional actions that should be initiated by the public and private sectors.
WHO SHOULD ATrEND:
Key public/private sector, public and environmental interest brganizations, attorneys-
at-Law, and media lenders and decision-makers interested in helping to fornulate
these recommendations for action.
TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 19-21 SYMPOSIUM
INCLUDE:
• The cinrent data and capacity picture in the Pacific Northwest.
• How national EPA initiatives MU affect efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
• What processes work best on siting-related decisions and how risk is best
approached from the local citizens’ perspective.
• Waste reduction successes to date in the Northwest and the main elements
of a waste reduction model tailored to meet the needs of the Pacific North-
west.
• What on-going regional coordination is needed as part of future efforts.
SYMPOSiUM STEERING COMMITTEE CO-DIRECTORS:
Robie 0. Russell, Adminisuator, Fred Hansen, Director,
Region 10, U.S. Environmental Oregon Department
Protection Agency of Environmental Quality
VII-7
-------
AGENDA Monday 1 October 19, 1987
Morning REGISTRATION: Grand Ballroom. 2nd floor.
7:30.8:45 Shaaion Hotel. 1400 Siath Avenue
&45 WELCOME BIll Ross, Moderator. Ross
& Assoc iates. WA
8.55 OPEN 4G REMARKS: Ta1 ng The Neat Roble G. Russell,
Steps in he Northwest Admnistraior, Region 10.
U.S. EPA
9:10 KEYNOTE Lee Nt Thom..:
Admimsiraroy, U.S. EPA
9:45 BREAK
10:00 UNDERSTANDING OUR WASTE STREAM AND
ASSESSING CAPACITY NEEDS: Th VItal Role cl Good Data
INThODtJCTION: Richud Ford, Moderator.
Preston. Thorpimsesi WA
10 25 THE CURRENT NORTHWEST DATA Lee Stokes, Bourn Ste.
AND CAPACITY PICTURE University
11:25 STATE CAPACITY CERTIFICATION: MlcBeel Taind, O cc of
The SARA Capacity Requfrnnag Cmss . .Mcdia Analysis,
OSWER. US. EPA
12:00 LUNCH On yow own
A
1:30 VIEWS FROM THE INSIDE. Northwest Torn Korpakkt
P spectives on How Generation. Analysis. Hewle -Pack d, ID
end Use of Hazardous Waste Data Helps the Betty Tabbuti, Washington
Don-Maker Enviomnenta Cowinil
Pattick Wick.,
Envisonmagal Resource
Manigemeni NW. WA
3:00 BREAK
3:15 S NG DECISIONS: Current Issues In the Pacific Northwest.
INThODUCTION Ken Brooks, Director. Div.
of Environment. Idaho Dept.
of Health n Welfare
STTTh(G AND THE COMMUNITY:
Tedtnology. Risk Perception, end Effectave
Community Dialogue
• Emerging Teclinologica Gaynar Dawsorn, ICF
Technologies, Inc., WA
• Community Perception of Risk Michael Elliot,
SE Negotiation Netwo&
Georgia Inst. of Technology
• The Role of Community Involveineat Alice Sborett, Triangle
Associates, WA
5:15 WRAP-UP BIll Ross
5:30- RECEPTION: No-Host Bar, Cimar Room
7:00pm (35th floor. Sheraton Hotel)
VU-B
-------
Tuesday,
October 20, 1987
Morning
7:30.&30
REGL5TRATION: Coffee and Pssaies
830
WELCOME
Andrea RInIker, Director.
Washington Stain Dept. of
Ecology
8:45 SITING DECISIONS: CurTent Issues In the Pacific Noithwesf (cont.)
THE BUSINESS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE Gerald Smedes, Rabm o. WA
MANAGEMENT: How the Market Paul Abernathy, Chnn-Wuic
Approeches Whati Needed and Where M.nsgcmav SSl, CA
David L. Rodge, Farirosde
Modaan Frank Deaver, Teknoiia, OR Sevices, Inc. of Idaho
Roger Nehnn ECOS, WA
Ales Crc ., Reidel Environ.
tnaizal TCCIaiO IOgt . , OR
1O 2O BREAK
10i5 AN !N.DEPI11 LOOK AT ISSUES - David MoraN, MeetU el
SITING AND EQUITY: Aunc. CA
A Systems Ap xoach
1120 RESPONDERS Pea Croc er .Dav , N ”nal
Wha s Ha ,enrng ni NW an Sithtg - Audithon Soelety, WA
Where Were H’’wl . WILU We Get Thor.? Jack Pet...., Idala
1200 LUNCHEON ADDRESS Gruel Biflrocun TEA
130 MAKING YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM Jim Sweeney 1 Solid West.
WORK FOR THE HOUSEHOLD AND Services Dept. Anchnrige. AK
SMALL BUSINESS GENERATOR:
The Anchorage Example
WASTE REDUCTION: Th Future Is Now
WASTE REDUCflON IS HAPPENING IN Klnt.n Olde burg,
THE NORThWEST: Congreulotul Office of
ft Makes Good Dollars ad Sense Technology Msesnnair
Kirk Thomson,
INTRODUCIION The Boeing Company. WA
Moderator Fred Hansen, Director John Harlan, Intel Corp OR
Oregon Dept. of Enviomnentel Quality George KeUy, One Hour
Fireweed Dry Cleanest
AnChOTI 1 O, AK
33 0 BREAK
3:45 THE REMAINING BARRIERS: Joan Cloonan, iR Simplet, ID
Can Business arid Govermnent Get a
Handle on Them?
4:30 KEY ELEMENTS: a Waste Reduction Model Fred Hansen
for the Pacific Northwest
500 WRAP.UP 3W Rc.
vII—9
-------
Tuesday
Evening Session
730
LEGISLATIVE ROU’NDTABLE: A Look At
‘v hats Happorung and Whats Feasible
Legislator,, State & Prov.
Dir, and Regional Admin.
Wednesday, October 21, 1987
Morning
8:00.8:30 Coffee and Pastries
8:30 WELCOME Dennis Kelso,
Commissioner, Alaska
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
8:50 FIJI1JRE DIRECTIONS: Neat Steps for the
Pacific Northwest
Small Group Sessions. Par ticipant
Analyses of Conference IrJonnauon and
White Paper
10:30 BREAK
10:45 Brief Report(s) on Small Group Discussion
Sessions
12:00 CLOSING REMARKS RoWe C. RueD
12:15 ADJOURN
REGISTRATION: The symposium fee of S85.O0 includes one hindiecu. coffee/pun
b’eaks I ce materials, and the post-conference report. To regkter, please fill out the
form below and mail to ZES, 17W as shown. If you are unable to attend or send a substitute, a
refund of the iegimtion fee, less 520.00 for handling, will be made if written requeat is
received by October 15. 1987.
HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS: Please make your own; mention this sympvelum.
Sheraton H aI. 1400 Sixth, Seattle (206/621-9000): Special c .se rate, $75 single or
double, (plus 12.9% tax), pa nighL
Crowne Plaza Hotel. Sixth & Seneca, Seattle (206/464-1980): Special goversenent raze for
government employees with ID
MORE INFORMATION: PoUy Dyer. Cont. Environ. Ethic. Dir., IES. UW (206/543-1812)
REGISTRATiON FORM Hazardous Waste Management October 19, 20, & 21. 1987
Registiation Fee $85.00 $______
Neme
Ag m icy ---i 1 r— -jIOrganizasion
Poii t i
A ess
City ___________________________State Zip
Daytime Phone ( _________________________________
Enclose check (U.S. funds only) made out to L t rtiveisity of Washington or Purchase Order
(No. ) or Requistion (No._________________________
Billing Address
Return to: Hazardous Waste Management Symposium; Institute for Environmental Studies;
200 Engineering Annex, FM-12; University of Washington; Seattle, WA 98195
VI 1-10
-------
APPENDIX VIII
DATA/CAPACITY, WASTE RED C1ION AND SITING EFFORTS:
State Program igh1ights
-------
APPENDIX VIII
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to provide a backdrop for
discussions at the October 19-21, 1987 Symposium, “A Positive
Future Hazardous Waste Management in the Pacific Northwest.”
Providing a legislative and regulatory background may help
participants with discussions regarding current hazardous waste
management efforts in the region. It will also hopefully help
focus attention on areas for future action.
This paper highlights elements of the data/capacity, waste
reduction and siting legislation, regulations and processes in
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
It includes a narrative discussion of data/capacity, waste
reduction and siting efforts as well as two figures, one on siting
and one on waste reduction. Several points are worth noting:
(1) The two figures (Figures 1 and 2) describe state efforts
highlighting distinctive features of the state programs. For
instance, EPA regulations do not address siting process and states
have their own siting requirements.
(2) Although highlighting state-level activities (legisla-
tive, regulatory), the figures do not cover efforts underway at
the local level. For instance, the Alaska Health Project’s Waste
Reduction Assistance Program, discussed in the narrative, is not
identified in Figure 1. The purpose of the figures is to provide
a comparison of state-level activities and to highlight the basic
legislative and regulatory structures in place.
(3) Neither the narrative nor the figures presume to be
comprehensive in their treatment of all data, waste reduction or
siting issues. Rather, they attempt to highlight information most
likely to be of use to the decision-makers wrestling with issues
addressed at the symposium.
(4) No figure was prepared for data capacity, in large part
because there is not an extensive statutory and regulatory frame-
work for this at the state level. This should not suggest the
data/capacity issue is less significant than siting and waste
reduction, however.
SUMMARY OF DATA/CAPACITY STATUS IN THE REGION
Of the four states in Region 10 Washington and Oregon are
authorized to conduct the RCRA hazardous waste program and cur-
rently regulate a greater universe of hazardous waste than that
required by EPA. Alaska and Idaho have hazardous waste regula-
tions in effect but have not yet received authorization for the
hazardous waste program from the EPA.
VIII-1
-------
Current federal regulations require generators and treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities to submit biennial reports
covering facility activities for each even numbered year. This
report includes information on the types and volumes of waste
generated, treated, stored or disposed of during the year. In
authorized states this information is submitted to the state
agency and then reported to EPA. In non-authorized states, the
reports are submitted directly to the EPA. In addition, states
may collect and maintain additional generator and TSD data, either
in more detail or on a more frequent basis, than currently
required by EPA. Alaska is currently the only state not maintain-
ing a special data base for generators and TSDs. Washington and
Oregon have computerized this data, while Idaho has not. Only
Washington collects any kind of TSD capacity information such as
end of year storage capacity and only Washington has done any kind
of waste generation forecast models. Finally, with regard to
waste minimization all Region 10 states, except Alaska, have some
sort of a waste minimization strategy in place and both Oregon and
Washington are developing waste minimization regulations or
policies.
The EPA is currently in the process of addressing a number of
inadequacies and inconsistencies in its current hazardous waste
data management system. The new system being developed (titled
RCRIS) may be operational in FY 89 and all Region 10 states plan
to adopt the system if its current inadequacies are corrected and
funding levels to operate the system are sufficient. The system
as presently designed will be able to collect current data
information from a variety of sources including state data.
Whether it has the ability to adequately assess capacity has yet
to be determined.
SUMMARY OF WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION
Alaska
The Department of Environmental Conservation currently has no
formal program in existence to promote waste reduction in the
state. Initial planning efforts to establish a state waste
reduction program have begun. Lack of explicit statutory direc-
tion and funding are the principal reasons for not having a
program.
The Alaska Health Project (AEP) currently operates a Waste
Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP) which provides information and
technical assistance and conducts on-site audits for the small
business community. WRAP is a pilot project that was designed and
implemented under an EPA Region 10 grant. AEP recently received
additional federal assistance from Region 10 to continue the WRAP
program during the 1988 federal fiscal year. AHP also operates
the small business Hazardous Materials Management Project (}IMMP)
VIII-2
-------
which provides education outreach and research on waste reduction
and hazardous materials. A manual is being developed under HMMP
to promote waste reduction in Alaskan small businesses. The Small
Business Development Center is assisting AHP in disseminating
various HMMP information materials to small businesses in Alaska.
HrvIMP is a three-year project funded by a private foundation. AHP
is a private non-profit organization located in Anchorage, Alaska.
Idaho
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare currently has no
formal program in existence to promote waste reduction in the
state. Idaho recently adopted a state hazardous waste management
plan which was mandated by the State Hazardous Waste Facility
Siting Act of 1985. One of the goals included in the plan is to
encourage recycling, reuse, reduction, recovery and treatment of
hazardous wastes. The Governor has publicly committed to imple-
ment it vigorously, including its emphasis on waste reduction. A
total of 2 ETEs was appropriated in SFY 88 to begin implementing
the overall plan.
Oregon
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
recently prepared a hazardous waste reduction plan to guide
implementation of its newly established waste reduction program.
Oregon’s waste reduction program includes source reduction and
recycling. When fully implemented, the program will have the
following components: (1) information outreach; (2) education/
technical assistance; (3) research grants; and (4) financial
assistance. Although most elements of the program will be
administered by ODEQ, the technical on-site assistance component
of the program (waste reduction audits) will be conducted by a
nonregulatory agency or trade association. The ODEQ program is
currently funded by the state general fund at a level of 1.5 FTEs
for the next biennium. Additional staff persons (up to a total of
5 FTEs) are expected to be hired in the future. ODEQ recently
sponsored a conference on waste reduction in conjunction with the
Association of Oregon Industries and American Electronics
Association on August 18, 1987.
Washington
The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) currently
provides technical assistance on a limited basis to industry
concerning hazardous waste management and recycling. While
considerable planning efforts have been conducted concerning the
design and implementation of a state waste reduction program,
primarily as a result of Substitute Senate Bill (SHB 4245) which
established waste reduction as the top priority for managing
hazardous waste in Washington, a waste reduction program has not
VII 1—3
-------
been established to date. Lack of resources are the principal
reason for not having a program.
SITING
Alaska
Alaska’s statute was passed in 198]. and draft regulations
were proposed in March 1987. The statute requires the state to
evaluate and select potential sites for hazardous waste manage-
inent. The regulations require the applicant of any proposed
hazardous waste facility to notify the public of its intent, and
specifically to obtain a written agreement with the borough or
municipal government describing how the applicant will monitor
operations both on-site and off-site; respond to on-site accidents
and emergencies; assure safe transportation of wastes to the site;
and mitigate for decreases in property values and address condi-
tions that adversely affect agriculture or natural resources.
Also, Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) may
appoint an advisory committee to assure that there is a forum for
citizen comments on the application. Such a committee must
prepare a report summarizing citizen concerns and how the appli-
cant will address the concerns. This report may substitute for
the agreement with the local government mentioned above.
If adopted, Alaska’s regulations would establish setback
requirements so that no hazardous waste facility be located in a
critical habitat area, state game refuge, state game sanctuary,
state range area, national wildlife refuges, national monuments,
national parks, designated wild and scenic rivers, critical
groundwater management areas, sole source aquifers, or high risk
area from seismic, volcanic, steep inclines, floods, tsunamis,
The applicant is required to submit a risk assessment and
classify the assessment as to “safe” (10-’), “intrinsically
unsafe” (10-i), or “safe with provisions” (10-’). The applicant
is required to demonstrate financial responsibility (using Federal
regulations) and document any previous compliance history. There
are additional requirements for proposed hazardous waste incin-
erators including, for example, one year of ambient air quality
data and a projection of expected air quality after the facility
is built.
The regulations require the applicant to submit specific
geotechnical and hydrologic information and, for land facility and
underground injection well applicants, to make certain demon-
strations regarding the safety of geologic and hydrologic
conditions.
VIII-4
-------
Idaho
Idaho’s statute was passed in February 1985, and requires a
hazardous waste management planning commission, consisting of 17
people representing diverse geographic areas of the state and
specified by statute as to representation, to develop a hazardous
waste siting management plan. The plan is required to provide for
geographic distribution of treatment, storage or disposal (TSD)
facilities and may instruct Idaho’s Department of Health and
Welfare (IDHW), and Idaho’s Department of Water Resources and
Transportation to conduct studies of waste inventory, waste
practices, needs, incentives for cooperation, and alternative
methods for treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.
A plan has been developed and was adopted by the Legislature
in March 1987. It directs IDEW to conduct educational programs
regarding the public’s responsibility for generating hazardous
waste, to investigate procedures to establish household hazardous
waste collection, segregation, treatment, and disposal, and
directs local government to establish community information
committees in the city or county where a new facility is proposed.
In the area of alternative technologies, the plan directs the
Idaho Legislature to evaluate tax incentives, foster research and
development programs, and by directive to IDHW, limit land dis-
posal of wastes that are amenable to alternative technologies, and
make processing alternative technology permit applications a high
priority.
The plan suggests encouraging communication among states
surrounding Idaho regarding siting and suggests that the state
designate specific routes, favoring interstates and major highways
for the transportation of hazardous waste. The plan notes that
local government approval should be required regarding the
designation of non-state highways for hazardous waste transport.
The plan suggests that the Legislature either give fee
authority to local city and county governments or establish a
development fee as a permit condition to offset impacts of a
hazardous waste management facility. The plan reinforces the
concept of privately owned or operated facilities (as opposed to
publicly owned or operated) and suggests the IDHW encourage the
development of receiving, transfer, and storage facilities for
small quantity generators. The plan states that the licensing
procedure should be better coordinated with state and federal
permitting processes.
With regard to insurance, the plan suggests that the Idaho
Legislature implement mechanisms for affordable environmental
impairment insurance, such as tort law reform, state insurance
fund, or regulatory control of insurance rates. The plan recom-
mends that the state establish a state trust fund for post-closure
VIII-5
-------
cleanup of abandoned sites and for emergency cleanup purposes, and
that adequate funding be provided for state departments for
hazardous waste management.
The plan also sets forth siting criteria which are identified
as numerous hydrogeologica]. and demographic characteristics, and
suggests the Legislature establish incineration siting criteria.
Finally, the plan also suggests the Legislature adopt legislation
to allow state control of PCB waste disposal consistent with the
federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
With regard to licensing new facilities, Idaho’s statute
requires that a 10 member site review panel with representation
from the state and the public be established to receive public
input early in the permitting process and to approve, deny, or add
provisions to the siting license to mitigate public concerns.
The statute provides for state-preemption of local govern-
ment. The statute also provides for district court review of
property loss claims, if these claims are brought not later then
nine months after approval of the permit application.
Oregon
Oregon’s statute was passed in June 1985 and regulations were
adopted in Spring 1986. The regulations specify a three step
permitting procedure which require the applicant (a) to request
and obtain authority to proceed, (b) submit and obtain a land-use
compatibility statement from local government and state, and
(C) to submit an application and obtain a permit.
An interesting component to Oregon’s process is the require-
ment of the applicant to provide information to allow the Oregon
Department of Environment Quality (ODEQ) to make a finding that
there is a “need” for the facility. “Need” is defined by the
regulations as (1) lack of adequate current treatment or disposal
capacity to handle hazardous waste or PCB generated by Oregon
companies, (2) the proposed facility’s operation would result in a
higher level of protection of the public health and safety or
environment, or (3) the proposed facility’s operation will sig-
nificantly lower treatment or disposal costs to Oregon companies,
excluding transportation costs within states that are parties to
the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management. In addition, to establish “need,” the proposed
facility must significantly add to the range of hazardous waste or
PCB management technologies already employed at a permitted
treatment or disposal facility in states that are parties to the
Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management. Notwithstanding the “need determination,” ODEQ may
deny a permit, if ODEQ finds the capacity at other facilities
negates the need for a particular facility in Oregon.
VIII-6
-------
The regulations contain specific requirements regarding
appropriate facility size (to match projected need), and they
require best available technology. The regulations also contain
setback requirements, and requirements to use a Groundwater
Quality Protection Evaluation Matrix as a screen for locating
proposed facilities. The applicant must demonstrate financial
capability as specified in the regulations, and compliance history
as defined in the regulations. The regulations contain specific
land-use findings for local government to consider.
Community participation is highlighted in the regulations,
with the requirements that the Director of ODEQ appoint a com-
mittee of citizens composed at least partly by residents living
near to or along transportation routes to, the proposed facility
site, and part by nominees of local government. The committee is
charged with providing a forum for citizens’ concerns and for
preparing a report summarizing the concerns and the manner in
which the company is addressing the concerns. The regulations
also recommend that local government and the applicant consider
negotiating an agreement appropriate for the potential impact.
Mitigation possibilities such as special monitoring both on and
off-site, for example, are mentioned in the regulations.
Washington
Washington’s statute was passed in July 1985. It requires
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to develop a state
hazardous waste management plan to include waste generating
forecasts, capacity needs assessment, methods for promoting the
hazardous waste management priorities set forth by statute
(minimization of hazardous waste, for example), and citizen
involvement. Ecology expects the plan to be completed by June
1988.
The statute established state preemption authority for
disposal and incineration facilities, while also providing a key
role for local governments in hazardous waste management and in
citizen proponent negotiations (discussed below). Specifically,
local governments are required to develop local hazardous waste
management plans, and to designate local land use zones for
storage and treatment facilities. One million dollars in grants
are available to assist local governments in accomplishing these
objectives and the state is required to develop guidelines to
assist local governments in this endeavor.
The statute also requires Ecology to promulgate siting
standards. Ecology issued interim siting standards in January
1987, and expects final standards to be issued by the end of the
calendar year. The law lists fourteen factors that may be con-
sidered in establishing siting standards (such as geology, trans-
portation, etc.).
VIII—7
-------
The statute also contains provisions concerning citizen
proponent negotiation. The state has hired two professional
mediators/negotiators to aid in preparing a guidance report on
citizen proponent negotiation. The report will be designed to aid
users ( e.g. , citizens, developer, and local government) on how
citizen proponent negotiation may work. The report should be
available by fall. Ecology is authorized by statute to issue
regulations on negotiation processes and to spend money on it.
Ecology is also intended to serve as an information clearinghouse
on the subject.
VIII-8
-------
FIGURE 1. WASTE REDUCTION
State
Why Program
Established
Emphasis
On Waste
Placed
Reduction
Source
Reduction
Recycll.ng/
Re-use
Economic
Incentives
Public Information
Programs
Alaska
No program cur-
No indication
No formal statutory
No formal program. No formal program. No formal
program.
rently exists,
given,
or regulatory plan.
Idaho To reduce the ex- Listed as one Recently adopted Recent legislation Hazardous Waste The idaho Hazardous
pense to both indus- among many haz- legislation lists lists recycling Management Plan Waste Management
try and society. ardous waste man- source reduction as and reuse as impor- provides that the plan calls for pub-
The Idaho Hazardous agement options one of several tant parts of an legislature should ltc hazardous waste
Waste Management in State Siting facets of an over- overall waste man- consider tax workshops, pam—
Plan which was re- Act and Hazardous all waste manage- agement plan. credits and tax phiets, videos and
cently adopted by Waste Management ment plan. free bonds for slides produced in
the legislature has Plan, construction of laymen’s terms,
as its mission to alternative tech- educational semi-
provide for the nology facilities. mars and TV and
safe and effective radio features.
management of haz- This public informa-
ardous wastes. The tion is directed
committee which toward the overall
formulated the plan plan, not specif-
was organized ically at waste
pursuant to reduction.
— I.C. § 39-5805.
-------
FICIJRE 1 (Cont.) WASTE REDUCTION
State
Why Program
Established
Emphasis Placed
On Waste Reduction
Source
Reduction
Recycling!
Re-use
Economic
Incentives
Public Information
Programs
Oregon
In hazardous waste
The statutes and
Hazardous Waste
Mentioned as a
DEQ’s report does
No formal program
statutes has
regulations do not
Management kegula-
priority in Hazard-
not specifically
within statutes or
prtority over other
hazardous waste
indicate the rela-
tive importance of
tions mention
source reduction,
ous Waste Manage-
ment Regs., but
provide for eco-
nomic incentives,
regulations, but
DEQ’s Hazardous
management
waste reduction
but do not give a
more fully des-
but does call for
Waste Reduction
practices. Specific
vis-a-vis other
apecific detaiLed
cribed in DEQ’s
financial assis-
Program plan calls
reasons for waste
management options,
plan. The Hazard-
Hazardous Waste
tance.
for a quarterly
reduction (as listed
in Oregon Revised
but DEQ’s report
indicates that
ous Waste Reduction
Program Plan pre-
Reduction Plan
Program.
newsletter, produc-
tion and distribu-
Statutes 466 et
Oregon considers
pared by Oregon DEQ
tion of waste re-
seq., and DEQ’s
waste reduction a
has source reduc-
duction informs-
Hazardous Waste
top priority.
tion as a goal to
tion, a waste
Reduction Program
be achieved by in-
reduction reference
Plan) include: more
put substitution,
library, and a
efficient use of re-
product reformuta-
toll-free hotline.
sources, a decrease
tion, product pro-
DEQ implementation
in waste management
cess redesign and
of the information/
.
,—.
r
and regulatory cow-
pliance costs, re-
duction of waste-
water treatment
improved operation
and maintenance,
education component
of the program plan
officially began in
July, 1987.
costs and a reduc-
tion in the risks
to public health.
Washington
No program currently
exists. Study was
Nimiber one priority
in legislative
Waste Management
priorities
Mentioned as a
priority in statute,
Not specifically
authorized by
No formal program as yet,
although the statute
mandated by RCW
declaration. See
established by
but no specific
statute, but DOE’s
authorizes a hazardous
10.105.150,
70.105.160, and
RCW 70.105.150(1)
(a).
statute. Hazardous
waste section of the
regulations have
been adopted. Hsz-
plan calls for
higher land
waste hotline and
provides that DOE must
10.105.170. DOE
Dept. of Ecology
ardous waste section
disposal fees so
implement a plan or pro-
published a
published a
of the Dept. of
that generators
gram to provide informs-
comprehensive re-
comprehensive re-
Ecology has pub-
will have more
tion and education about
port on July 1,
port in July 1986
lished report which
economic
hazardous waste. DOE’s
1986, but its pro-
covering both
lists recycling and
motivation to
plan calls for a consult-
visions have not yet
policy and technical
re-use as viable
change their waste
ative business outreach
been adopted as
waste reduction
waste management
nanagement
program, an information
statutes or
plans.
options.
practices to a
waste exchange, technical
regulations.
more environ-
mentally sound/
preferred method.
workshops, education and
information assistance,
an sward program, and a
technical resource
center. DOE currently
provides technical
assistance on a limited
basis to industry con-
cerning hazardous waste
management and recycling.
-------
FIGURE 1 (Cont.) WASTE REDUCTION
State
Educational/Tech-
nical Assistance
Research
Financial
Grants!
Assis-
tance
Alaska
No formal program
No formal
program
currently exists
in existence.
Idaho No formal program The Hazardous Waste
as yet, but the Management Plan in-
Idaho Hazardous dicates that Idaho
Waste Management Universities should
Plan lists educa- pursue alternative
tional and techni- waste management
cal assistance as technologies, but
goals, makes no specific
provision for
research grants.
‘C
‘ -I
—a
-------
FIGURE 1 (Cont.) WASTE REDUCTION
Statute authorizes
program which Oregon
DEQ has included in
its Hazardous Waste
Reduction Program.
This program calls
for on-site hazard-
ous waste reduction
assistance, waste
reduction seminars
and a waste ex-
change.
DEQ’s report pro-
vides for creation
of a hazardous
Waste Reduction
Loan fund for loans
to small and medium
sized facilities
for industrial pro-
cess improvements
that reduce wastes
generated at the
source.
No formal program as
yet, although the
statute authorizes
DOE to provide
consultative
services and tech-
nical assistance.
DOE’ a comprehensive
plan calls for
technical workshops,
a consultative serv-
ice for businesses
and a technical re-
source center.
No formal program
in existence,
although, DOE’s
report calls for
attractive fi-
nancing through
municipal bonds
(which are already
specifically autho-
rized under RCW
39.84 e
loans and grants.
These incentives
are part of a
broader incentive
program for overall
hazardous waste
management and
are not specif 1.-
cally directed
toward waste
reduction.
Oregon
State Educationalllech-
Research
Grants!
nical Assistance Financial
Assis-
tance
Washington
-------
FIGURE 2. SITING IN REGION 10 STATES
State
StatutoryfRegula-
tory Schedules
and Authority
Applicability of
Siting Rules!
Regulations
Determination of
Need
Regulatory
Preemption
Permitting
Procedures
Community
Participation/
Negotiation
Alaska
Draft regula-
Including Owner!
Not formal part
No formal
Has a preap-
(1) Committee may
tion issued
Operator of a
of process now,
preemption.
plication
be appointed by the
March 31, 1987,
hazardous waste
State has
procedure which
Dept. of Environ-
have had full
management facility
conducted a
requires, among
mental Conserva-
public comment
and have been
which is: (1) a new
TSD facility, (2) a
waste stream
analysis.
other things:
1. published
tion. Composed of
residents living
issued pur-
suant to
authority of
Alaska Statute
(AS) 46.03, et
Class I underground
injection well, (3)
required by EPA to
obtain a permit, (4)
modified to include
notice of the
proposed project,
2. notification of
the local govern-
ment, and
near or along trans-
portation routes,
persons appointed
by local govern-
ment, and other
seq. They are
scheduled for
additional hazardous
waste disposal or in-
3. a written
agreement with
persons with
technical skill.
adoption on
cineration capacity.
the local govern-
Committee prepares
December 15,
ment.
written report
1987, and are
The actual ap-
summarizing citizen
currently out
plication requires
concerns and
for public
written proof of
measures operator
,
comment,
compliance with
the preapplication
procedures, aerial
has taken, or will
take, to address
them. (2) Community
‘
-
C..)
maps of the pro-
posed site, and a
written summary of
citizens concerns
and responses
participation
required before a
person formally
submits an
application for a
hazardous waste
management facility
permit.
Idaho
The legislature
Persons who con-
No formal process.
No formal
Hazardous Waste
The statute requires
adopted the Has-
struct, expand,
preemption, but
Facilities Sitting
establishment of a
ardous Waste Fa-
enlarge or alter
local government
Act requires an
10 member site
cility Siting
commercial haz-
cannot
application
review panel with
Act, Idaho Code
(IC), 39-5801 in
1985. That act
ardous waste dis-
posal, treatment or
storage facilities
categorically bar
construction of a
hazardous waste
containing the name
and address of the
applicant, location
representation from
the state and public
in order to receive
largely in-
or any on-site
treatment and
of the facility,
public input early
structe the de-
land disposal fa-
disposal facility,
certain hydro-
in the process and
partment of
cilities of cer-
geologic and
to approve, deny, or
Health and Wel-
tam categories
engineering data,
add provisions to
fare to proirnil-
of waste must
risks from trans-
the siting license
gate a more corn-
preheneive Haz-
first obtain a
siting license.
portation, infor-
mation on the site’s
to mitigate public
concerns.
ardous Waste
Owner or operator
impact on community
Managenent Plan,
must obtain such a
health. Other
The plan was
license,
procedures are
adopted in March,
delineated
1987.
throughout the
matrix.
-------
FIGURE 2. (Cont.) SITING IN REGION 10 STATES
State
Statutory/Regula-
tory Schedules
and Authority
Applicability of
Siting Rules!
Regulations
Determination of
Need
Regulatory
Preemption
Permitting
Procedures
Community
Participation/
Negotiation
Oregon
‘—‘
•
‘
Siting provisions
contained in
Oregon Adminis-
tration Rules,
Chapter 340,
Division 120,
adopted March,
1986.
All hazardous waste
and PCB treatment
and disposal
facilities. Most
regulations apply to
the following: (1)
New off-site
treatment and
disposal facil-
ities for hazardous
waste and PCB. (2)
New hazardous waste
and PCB land
disposal facilities
located on—site,
Applicant must
provide implementa-
tion allowing DEQ
to make a determina-
tion there is a
“need” for a
facility. A
facility is
“needed” if: there
is a lack of
current treatment
/disposal capacity
to handle Oregon
generated wastes,
or it will result
in a higher level
of protection to
health and environ-
ment, or savings in
treatment/disposal
costs for Oregon
companies.
None specifically
provided for,
3-step permitting
process:
1. submit a re-
quest for and ob-
tam Authorization
to Proceed from
DEQ.
2. Submit a re-
quest for and ob—
tam a land use
compatibility
statement from
local government,
3. Submit an ap—
plication for and
obtain a trea nent
or disposal permit
from DEQ.
to resolve con-
Committee of resi-
dents, partly ap-
pointed by local
government, liv-
ing near to or
along transporta-
tion routes par-
ticipates in
siting decision
considering such
issues as special
monitoring for
community health
risks, road im-
provements,
changes in pro-
perty values and
developing a plan
flicts and dis-
agreements be-
tween the com-
munity and the
operator.
Washington
1984-85 Revisions
to state law estab-
lished waste manage-
nient priorities,
capacity study,
siting standards,
local programs,
Citizen Proponent
Negotiations
(CPN), preemption
and private sector
role. Interim
siting standards
for dispoaal/incin-
eration facilities
are in place as
are guidelines for
local government
programs (zoning,
grants). Final
siting standards
and CPN are under
development,
Interim siting
standards apply to
owners and operators
of landfills, incin-
erators, land
treatment facil-
ities, surface Us-
poundmenta which
will be closed as
a landfill and
waste piles to be
closed as land-
fills (preempted
facilities) which
are required to ob-
tam interim or
final status per-
nuts under
WAC 173-303-805/806.
No formal “need”
determination is
provided for,
although Department
is required to
develop a hazardous
waste management
plan including:
waste generation
forecasts, capacity
needs assessment,
and methods to
implement the
statutory waste
management
priorities.
State preemption
authority to
approve, deny or
regulate disposal
and incineration
facilities,
although key roles
are provided for
local governments
in hazardous waste
management and
citizen proponent
negotiations.
Owners and opera-
tors applying for
a final facility
permit must corn-
plete, sign and
submit that ap-
plication to DOE.
The information
required includes
such information
as certain tech-
nical data, design
drawings and en-
gineering studies,
a general descrip-
tton of the facil-
ity, and a des-
cription of
security pro—
cedures.
Environmental
requirements must
also be met.
Negotiation, media-
tion and other
conflict resolution
methods are encour-
aged when siting
disputes occur.
Ecology is now
designing a process
for (CPN). Public
hearings are
required when a
draft permit and
environmental
assessment is
issued.
-------
FIGURE 2. (Cont.) SITING IN REGION 1.0 STATES
State
Sizing
Restrictions/
Waste Exclusion
Public or
Private
Ownership
Land Use Compat-
ability Showing
ilitigation of
Potential Risks
Host Community
Impact/Property
Risk Assessment
Response to
Emergencies
Alaska
None.
Both public
and private
ownership
contemplated by
hazardous waste
facility siting
provisions,
Application must
include aerial
photographs, and
must demonstrate
that the hazardous
waste will not
escape the site
for 1000 years and
will not make con-
tact with the
nearest freshwater
acquifer for 1000
years. Several
geologic and seis-
mic reports must
also be submitted
Applicant must
obtain a written
agreement with
municipal or borough
government which
describes how the
facility will meet
specified operating
criteria necessary
for protection of
public health and
the environment,
In addition to
those require-
ments listed
elsewhere,
applicants are
required to
obtain an
agreement with
local govern-
ment describing
how owner/
operator will
mitigate for
changes in
property values
near facility,
Applicant for
permit of all
hazardous waste
management
facilitfes
(except storage)
must submit
a report identi-
fying risk
facility poses
to public on a
scale running
from safe
i10 6 risk) to
intrinsically
unsafe
Contained in permit-
ting procedure.
Owner/Operator
describes how the
facility will re-
spond to on-site
emergencies and
assure safe
transportation.
showing contain-
ment qualities of
(1o risk).
See also Fed.
‘ ‘
chosen site.
Certain locations
Reg. Vol. 51,
No. 185, Wed.,
.
are excluded from
consideration
(special habitats,
ports, monuments
and wetlands).
Sept. 24, 1986.
Idaho
None, but Haz-
The Hazardous
No specific regula-
Siting license ap-
An owner of real
Application must
No specific
ardous Waste
Waste Manage-
tions but statute
plication must
property who is
address risks
provisions.
Management Plan
ment Plan
indicates that en-
give information
adversely affected
from trans-
provide that the
encourages
gineering and
showing that harm
by a facility may
portation and
Dept. of Health
Private owner-
hydrology inforina-
to scenic, his-
be compensated by
information on
and Welfare
should consider
ship, though
both public
tion must be con-
tamed in the
toric, cultural,
and recreational
the facility
owner/operator
site impact
on community
placing restric-
and private
Siting License
values and risk
in an amount
health. License
tions on the types
of wastes accept-
ownership were
apparently con-
Application,
of accidents dur-
ing transport will
equal to his
loss,
conditions
can be added
ed for disposal
templated.
not be substantial
to address
and treatment
or can be mitt-
these concerns.
based inpart on
gated.
measures taken by
other states. Land
disposal ban re-
strictions in
place for sol-
vents, dioxins,
and California
list.
-------
FIGURE 2. (Cont.) SITING IN REGION 10 STATES
State
Sizing
Restrictionsl
Waste Exclusion
Public or
Private
Ownership
Land Use Compat-
ability Showing
Mitigation of
Potential Risks
Host Community
impact/Property
Risk Assessment
Response to
Emergencies
Oregon
Facility must have
Both public
Applicant must
Regulations recoin-
DEQ recommends
No specific
Owner/Operator
capacity, in con-
and private
obtain local land
mend local govern-
that the local
provisions,
required to
Junction with
other facilities,
ownership
contemplated
use approval.
Also, off-site
ment and the applic-
ant consider negotia-
government and the
applicant consider
operate an emer-
gency response
to treat or
dispose of waste
by siting
provisions,
facilities must be
at least 3 miles
tions to mitigate
impact,
negotiating an
agreement which
team responsible
for responding to
generated over
the next 10 years
at a minimum in
from larger popula-
tion areas (10,000
people or greater).
addresses the fa-
duty’s potential
impact on property
spills within 50
miles of the
facility.
Oregon, and, at a
Facilities must be
values near the
maximum, for
one mile from
site.
wastes from the
schools, churches,
B NW compact
states. If
commercial centers,
parks, scenic view
facility is larger
sites, resorts,
than what is need-
etc. Provision also
.
ed in Oregon,
owner/operator
contains locational
restrictions based
‘‘
must show addit-
ional size is
on ecology,
geology, and
,
needed to make
the facility
seismology
considerations.
economically
feasible.
Washington
(1) Extremely
The most recent
Several require-
No specific provi-
No specific provi-
No specific pro-
Owner/operator re-
hazardous wastes
siting provie-
ments relating to
sions, but several
nions in Interim
visions, but risk
quired to pay in-
cannot be land-
filled (70 RCW
105.050)
ions establish
primary private
sector role in
topographical and
geologic considera-
tions such as die-
provisions in Draft
Location Standards
address minimizing
Siting Standards
or Draft Location
Standards. These
assessment impli-
ci tly included
through the Draft
creased cost for
fire, hospital and
other public fa-
(2) Land die-
providing waste
tance from aqui-
potential risks
issues are an
Locational Stan-
cilities. Roads
posal regula-
management
fers, fault lines,
associated with
integral part of
dards.
leading to facil-
tions are
services,
unstable slopes,
hazardous waste
CPN which are
ity will be made
being drafted,
coasts, surface
waters, and areas
where the soil has
subsided. Die-
tance of public
institutions,
parks, and other
high density popu-
lation areas is
also a factor in
siting decision.
facilities,
under develop-
ment.
safer to trucks
carrying waste and
increased auto
traffic.
------- |