: “ ‘ 1 ;f ’f9 ’ :: - ‘ ‘ : :.. : : ‘ “
_ _ T4JPZ ,
r t ’’ ’ a /
Mad$sas s 4
£auw aIais Solid Wa n4
‘1 tmagencv R.won,. .r.’:. - .. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ..
:w ?JJ tv : jt F7 (V 4 Zt? ; ,i .Jt 1: :Y ” ’ -‘? . ‘:
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: (901O.O0
z# . t 4 t
It ‘- f •: . “ . : • , . -C’ ’.A t - ‘ ‘ - -
fILE: issurancé”of Hazarddus Waste Capacity: Guidance
to State Officials “
C r a
APPROVAL DATE: üecirther 29, 1088
EEThEA: 1988 H :
F C
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office ‘of Solid Waste and Ernergenc’
1 -‘ n5e, Cross-Media Staff .
E IFINAL - -
ODRAFT
I. \ ; ‘ ling 0MB apprbnl ‘
STATUS: Pending AA-OSWER approval
irireview &/or ‘comment -
development or circulating
REFERENCE nts) headqua r e
-
- . -“ : ---- - ‘rtM . l . a . “ ‘ . - -
- “- ;-e. , - - -
1 .
- - - , “ : . -
-
—‘C - — 1
a ) - -
• - , - . - - .4 . --- - - . - - - -
- ‘ - - -. H;’
- . :
• . .. • • • - - ‘ • • .. ; - .
- - ?-. ,e.- -,
I .L 7
4RECTIVE L IREC TIVE, -A
— t - ” — - 3 - •t4#4it
‘ 1 çt.aT’ ) ± i — -. —. £ -- -r a
4— 4t
, . — — ?.__ 4 -4 -‘
- - - ‘ _ aa ,:,ti.

-------
United States Environmentat Protection Agency 1. Number
E1PA OSW © O © j qnin
—
— 2. OriQinator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code lOffice Telephone Code
T. Michael Taimi OS-lb Cross-Media Analysis 475-9829
3. Title
Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to State Officials
4. Summary of Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
Document will serve to assist States in fulifilling the
requirements of CER LA
104(c) (9)
5. Keywords
Capacity; Assurance; Guidance
6iDoes This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
No Yes
What directjve (number, title)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
X No Yes What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A — Signed by ANDAA B —Signed by Office Director C —For Review & Com 0 lnDev opr
La Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? • .No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Johns ie Webster j.,.j L L-.__
10. NameandlitleofApproving al
U &e
11289 .
J. Winston Porter, AA/OSWER
Date
12—29—88
EPA Form 131 5-Il (Rev, 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
0
SW 0
0 WE
.
.
VE
IIF IIECT VE

ECTIIVE II1F
ECTIIVE

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Soiid Waste and
Emergency Response
OSWER Directive
Number 9010.00
December 1988
EPA
Assurance of
Hazardous Waste Capacity
G u I d a h ce to State Off I cia is
Assistance in fulfilling the.
requirements of CERCLA 104(c)(9 )

-------
OSWER DIR. # 9010.00
Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity:
Guidance to State Officials
Assistance in Fulfilling
the Requiremencsof CERCLA l04(c)(9)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 1988

-------
1
1
2
4
11
11
12
13
15
15
15
16
18
18
21
• . 39
• • 39
• . 39
• • 41
• . 43
• • 45
Table of Contents
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CAPACITY ASSURANCE PROCESS
A. Langua e of the Statutory Provision
B. L gis1ative Histpry of the Provision
C. Provisions of Section 104(c)(9 )
Chapter II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBIe1ITTING CAPACITY ASSURANCE
DOCUMENTS AND INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS
A. Submission of Materials to EPA
B. EPA Administrative Assistance
C. EPA Technical Assistance
Chapter III. REPORTING THE STATUS OF GENERATION. IMPORTS,
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
A. pose
B. General Instructions
C. Reportin Waste Generation(Deniand )
D. ReportingWaste Manazement (Supply )
E. Instructions For All Tables
F. Definitions Section
Chapter IV. STATE WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES . . •
A. Purpose
B. General Instructions
Form I: LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Form II WASTE MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS
Form III: DESCRIPTIONS OF PROGRAM
PLANNING
EXPORTS, AND
C. Definitions Section
54
Chapter V. PROJECTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND THE DEMAND FOR
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY •
ii
58

-------
A. Purpose 58
B. General Instructions . 59
C. Projecting Recurrent Waste Generation From Industrial Sources . . . 60
D.. Incorporating The Effects of Waste Minimization . 62
E. Incorporating the Effects of Regulatory Changes On Waste
Generation 63
F. jection of Non-Recurrent And One-Time Only Waste Generation . . 64
G. Total Projected Demand 66
H. Calculating Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Needs 66
Chapter VI. DOCU1IENTING STATE PLANS FOR INCREASING IN-STATE CAPACITY . . 67
A. Purpose 67
B. General Instructions 67
Form I: GENERAL SITING DESCRIPTION . . . 69
Form II: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT. PLANS 73
Form III: MILESTONES and STATE REVIEW 77
C. Definitions Section 79
iii

-------
List of Tables
Table 111-1. Sununary of In-State Generation by Waste Type in Baseyear
(1987) . . . . . . . 28
Table 111-2. Summary of Waste Quantities Exported in Baseyear (1987) by
SARA Management Category and Importing State (tons/year) 29
Table 111-3. Summary of Waste Quantities Imported in Baseyear (1987) by
SARA Management Category and Exporting State (tons/year) 30
Table 111-4. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed In-State by Waste Type and
SARA Management Categories for All Facilities 31
Table III-4A. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed In-State by Waste Type and
SARA Management Categories for Captive Facilities 32
Table III-4B. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed In-State by Waste Type and
SARA Management Categories for Commercial Facilities 33
Table III-4C. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed In-State by Waste Type and
SARA Management Categories for Onsite Facilities 34
Table 111-5. Comparison of Maximum Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
with Utilized Capacity for all TSDs 35
Table III-5A. Comparison of Maximum Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
with, Utilized Capacity for Captive Facilities 36
Table III-5B. Comparison of Maximum Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
with Utilized Capacity for Commercial Facilities 37
Table III-5C. Comparison of Maximum Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
with Utilized Capacity for Onsite Facilities 38
Table IV. Summary of Estimated Reductions of all Generated Wastes due to
Waste Miminjzation 57
iv

-------
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CAPACITY ASSURANCE PROCESS
This document supplies guidance to state officials on providing assurances
required by Section l0 4 (c)(9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended ( “CERCL.A” or “Superfund”). This
section of CERCLA requires states in which remedial actions may be taken to
provide assurances, prior to EPA taking or funding such actions, of the
availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which have
adequate capacity to manage the hazardous wastes expected to be generated within
the state over twenty years. These assurances must be provided in a contract
or cooperative agreement entered into between the state and the Administrator.
After October 17, 1989, no Superfund remedial actions can be provided unless the
state first enters into such a contract or cooperative agreement providing
assurances that the Administrator deems adequate.
This Guidance Document reflects EPA’s current understanding of the
statutory requirements and describes how EPA currently suggests that states
implement these requirements. In addition, the guidance provides substantial
information to states, including suggested language for the contracts and
cooperative agreements to be signed, instructions on the preparation of state
Capacity Assurance Plans (CAPs) that can form a basis for the assurances, and
a model for the interstate agreements or regional agreement or authority
required when addressing access to capacity in other states.
A. Language of the Statutory Provision
Section 104(c) (9) of CERCLA provides:
“Siting. - - Effective 3 years after 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 reasonably 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

-------
B. Legislative History of the Provision
When enacting Section l04(c)(9) of CERCLA, Congress was concerned that
certain states, because of political pressures and public opposition, were not
able to create and to permit sufficient facilities within their borders to treat
and securely dispose of (or manage) the amounts of wastes produced in those
states.
Superfund money should not be spent in States that are taking insufficient
steps to avoid the creation of future Superfund sites. Pressures from
local citizens place the political system in an extremely vulnerable
position. Local officials have to respond to the fears of local citizens.
The broader social need for safe hazardous waste management facilities
often has not been strongly represented in the siting process. A common
result has been that facilities have not been sited, and there has been
no significant increase in hazardous waste capacity over the past several
years. . . . Unfortunately, when RCRA was first passed, Congress failed
to anticipate the intensity of public opposition to new and expanded waste
management facilities. While everyone wants hazardous waste managed
safely, hardly anyone wishes it managed near them. This is the NIMBY
syndrome (not in my backyard). Yet, if the [ Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)] and Superfund programs are to work -- if public
health and the environment are to be protected - - the necessary sites must
be made available.
S. Rep. No. 11, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., at 22, 23 (1985). Congress believed that
sme states were not moving aggressively to create facilities needed to manage
hazardous wastes and that this inaction could lead to the creation of additional
Superfund sites, even though some wastes might be managed at facilities
available in other states. This problem would be exacerbated if the costs of
interstate waste management were to rise or if states were to take actions that
directly or indirectly impeded interstate waste movement. Although any
hazardous waste management facilities created would be regulated in an
environmentally safe manner under RCRA, existing statutory and regulatory
authorities did not adequately address the need to develop and to assure access
to such facilities within and among the various states.
Congress therefore required, as a condition for EPA taking or providing
funding for CERCLA remedial actions, that states provide assurances that
capacity to manage the wastes generated within their borders would exist and
would be available for twenty years from the date that such actions occurred.
[ E]ffective three years after enactment, a State shall not receive
Superfund money for remedial actions unless the State provides assurances
that there will be adequate capacity and access to facilities in
compliance with the hazardous waste regulatory program under subtitle C
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act for the treatment or disposal of all that
state’s hazardous wastes for the next twenty years.
Id. at 21. These assurances must address “all hazardous wastes generated within
the state, not only Superfund wastes generated by response or remedial actions
undertaken within the State.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 962, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 194
2

-------
(1986). Through the development of state policies and siting programs, states
could plan for the rational, short-term use of existing facilities as well as
for the long-term availability of facilities. Id. at 22. In this way, wastes
generated within the state would be assured of access to permitted facilities
that would properly manage the waste, reducing the likelihood that additional
Superfund sites would develop.
Congress modeled the assurance language of Section l04(c)(9) after the
language of Section 104(c)(3). Section 104(c)(3) requires, as a condition for
providing remedial actions, that states provide assurances that a particular
disposal site will be available for the waste generated in the remedial action,
that the state will pay for future operation and maintenance of the site, and
that the state will share the costs of taking the action. Congress placed the
requirement to provide assurances of the availability of capacity for twenty
years on states generating the waste, rather than on states possessing
management capacity (i.e. , receiving wastes generated within the state and in
other states). Congress did not, however, require the provision or development
of needed capacity within the state that generated the hazardous waste. L .
Instead, Congress provided that generating states could assure access to
management capacity available outside of the state through interstate agreements
or regional agreements or authorities. Such agreements could include interstate
compacts guaranteeing a generating (or “exporting”) state access to facilities
in another (or “importing”) state, contracts with private facilities, and state
or local ownership and operation of facilities. Id. (In fact, all states
import and export some quantities of waste; all states desiring remedial action
funds qualify for exporting state status, as well as for importing state status
in regard to other exporting •states.)
Congress required exporting states to provide assurances and to obtain
interstate agreements, because political pressures encourage states to export
their wastes to other states rather than to create available capacity, either
through reducing the generation of hazardous wastes within the state or through
siting new management facilities. By requiring (as a condition for remedial
actions) agreements between states regarding future access to available
interstate capacity, Congress counterbalanced these political pressures in
exporting states with the political pressures in importing states that might
oppose continued receipt of such exports. An importing state might refuse to
enter into an agreement with an exporting state, requiring the exporting state
to create available capacity through waste reduction or through siting new
facilities, or to enter into an agreement with another importing state to manage
these wastes. In either case, access to the additional capacity needed to
manage the wastes would be assured.
The statutory provision also addresses an additional aspect of the public
opposition to siting: public opposition to the creation and permitting of
facilities that manage wastes generated in other states is greater than
opposition to facilities designed to manage wastes generated within the same
State or locality. By requiring that generating states provide the assurances
of access to capacity for their own wastes, Congress placed responsibility on
the states most able to create and to permit additional capacity. Although
Congress recognized that some states already had accepted the difficult
political task of siting facilities needed to manage the hazardous wastes
3

-------
generated by industry within those states, Congress did not dictate a single
means for achieving the task, such as establishing siting approval boards,
preempting local zoning, or authorizing state ownership or operation. Instead,
Congress indicated that the states “must provide assurances that their
legislative program can work and will be used.” . at 23.
Congress did, however, provide guidance for states in developing
successful siting programs that would provide the assurances that creation of
and access to capacity would occur. Siting programs should recognize three “key
principles”: sound technical analyses of sites selected for facilities; public
participation in and education during the process of facility planning, site
selection, and site approval; and insulating decisionmaking from local veto
powers exercised on the basis of community political considerations. at 23-
24.
C. Provisions of Section l04(c)(9 )
There are essentially six features to the provisions of Section 104(c) (9),
each of which is described in greater detail below. First, the section becomes
effective three years after enactment, or on October 17, 1989. Second, the
Administrator cannot provide any remedial actions pursuant to Section 104 after
that date unless specific assurances first are provided. Third, the state in
which the release occurs must provide these assurances in a contract or
cooperative agreement entered into with the Administrator. Fourth, the
assurances provided must be deemed adequate by the Administrator. Fifth, the
state must assure the availability of treatment or disposal facilities that:
are in compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA; are acceptable to the President; and
have adequate capacity. to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of all hazardous
wastes reasonably projected to be generated within the state for twenty years.
Finally, availability of facilities that are outside the state must be assured
in accordance with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority.
1. Effective Date
EPA cannot enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with states to
provide remedial actions after October 17, 1989 unless the assurances required
under Section 104(c)(9) are provided. Contracts and cooperative agreements
entered into prior to October 17, 1989 need not be revised to provide these
assurances.
2. Remedial Actions
EPA cannot provide remedial actions pursuant to Section 104 after October
17, 1989 unless, the assurances are provided. EPA currently believes that
providing remedial actions refers to construction activities pursuant to an
approved remedy. .
3. Contract or Cooperative Agreement Providing Assurance
EPA normally provides remedial actions within states through State
Superfund Contracts and through Cooperative Agreements. These agreements are
used to obtain the assurances required by the statute in a federal-lead remedial

-------
action or to obtain these assurances and to provide funds to the state for a
state-lead remedial action.
Section 104(c) (9) contemplates that states will enter into such contracts
and cooperative agreements with the Administrator, which will provide specific
assurances regarding the availability of facilities for twenty years from the
date of signature. Congress did not provide specific language regarding these
assurances, but did require that the Administrator deem the assurances adequate.
As a result, EPA has provided the following language that can be included in the
contract or cooperative agreement and that will provide assurances. EPA will
evaluate the adequacy of any assurances on a case-by-case basis.
Pursuant to Section 104(c)(9) of CERCLA, the State is required to assure
the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which
have adequate capacity for the destruction, treatment, or secure
disposition of all hazardous wastes that are reasonably expected to be
generated within the State during the twenty-year period following the
date of this agreement. The State has submitted to EPA its plans for
assuring access to facilities within the State and/or outside the State
in accordance with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or
authority, and has committed in writing to taking the actions described
in these planning documents. These documents and the written commitment
are incorporated by reference into this agreement. The State’s commitment
to taking these actions constitutes the assurance required by Section
104(c)(9).
This language reflects the Administrator’s current understanding of the
legislative intent, described in detail below, that states must understand what
wastes will be generated within their state and must plan to assure, the
availability of facilities to manage those wastes, within the state and/or
outside the state in accordance with an. interstate’ agreement or regional
agreement or authority. The assurances provided in the contract or cooperative
agreement, therefore, are based upon the state’s commitment to taking the
actions necessary to provide access to facilities pursuant to its planning
documents and in accordance. with its interstate agreements. These commitments
can be included in the interstate agreement document suggested below. ‘ EPA can
enforce the commitments incorporated by reference into the contracts or
cooperative agreements through the EPA assistance regulations, including 40
C.F.R. Part 31.
4, 5, and 6. Adequacy of Assurances. Nature of the Assurances, and
Interstate Agreements or Regional Agreements or Authorities
Section l04(c)(9) requires that the. assurances of availability of
facilities be deemed adequate by the Administrator. The legislative history to
the section provides little guidance regarding how the Administrator is to
exercise this substantial discretion when implementing this provision of the
statute. Based upon the analysis of the statutory language and legislative
history, however, EPA has provided in this Guidance Document factors to consider
when providing assurances.
5

-------
Again, the Administrator cannot enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements unless the assurances are deemed adequate, and refusal to enter into
such a contract or cooperative agreement is one means for the Administrator to
express an evaluation of adequacy. The contracts or cooperative agreements must
address all hazardous waste generated within the state for twenty years, and
must assure availability of access to facilities that are in compliance with
Subtitle C of RCRA, acceptable to the President, have adequate capacity to
destroy, treat, or dispose of the generated wastes, and, if outside the state,
are in accordance with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or
authority.
a. Understanding of the System
Section l04(c)(9)(A) requires states to assure availability of facilities
for wastes that are “reasonably expected to be generated within the state during
the 20-year period . . . .“ Further, Congress recognized that effective siting
programs should provide sound technical analyses of potential sites and include
up-front planning for development of facilities. To be able to assure
availability of capacity for twenty years, states should understand what wastes
will be generated and should plan what facilities will be available to manage
these wastes.
To understand waste generation, states should understand the effects of
waste minimization in reducing the need for access to treatment, destruction,
and disposal facilities. In the 1984 Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Amendments
to RCRA, Congress expressed a clear preference for reducing or eliminating the
generation of hazardous waste over managing such wastes at treatment, storage,
or disposal facilities.
The Congress hereby declares that,wherever feasible, the generation of
hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as
possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored
or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human
health and the environment.
RCRA Section 1003(b), 42 U.S.C. Section 6902(b).
Waste reduction can yield significant benefits to states by reducing the
pressure on capacity, slowing the increase in waste management costs, reducing
liability, and improving the quality of human health and the environment. EPA
believes that, in general, preventing waste generation is easier to achieve than
siting and permitting of facilities to manage wastes that are generated. Thus,
plans for management of future waste generation may be more credible when they
contain sound analyses of and provisions for waste minimization than when they
contain only analyses of siting and permitting of management facilities. EPA
expects that states will include waste minimization analyses when describing
future waste management, regardless of whether capacity shortfalls are
proj ected ;
Planning for twenty years of waste generation is not a simple task,
particularly when the states will not, in most cases, own the wastes or directly
control their generation or disposition. This Guidance Document therefore
provides for use by states a system for analyzing existing data on waste
6

-------
generation and capacity use, and for projecting waste generation within the
state, including the effects of waste reduction or elimination, and disposition
of these wastes, including the export of wastes to facilities in other states.
The data and projection system is designed to address .ll hazardous wastes
generated within the state, including wastes that are difficult to project or
wastes generated on a non-recurrent basis, after taking into account the effects
of future regulatory actions and waste minimization efforts. The system also
is designed to address availability of Subtitle C facilities and to distinguish
between capacity that is commercially available and capacity that is only
available to facility owners (“captive” or “onsite” capacity). The system also
will account for reduction of capacity at available facilities by wastes other
than the hazardous wastes projected to be generated within the state, including
imported wastes.
The system does not at this time address any criteria of acceptability to
the Administrator. EPA believes that, if employed properly, this system can
provide states with a reasonable understanding of the wastes projected to be
generated within their borders for twenty years, and can provide a framework
which will form a basis for assuring the availability of capacity to manage
those wastes. EPA recognizes that long-term projections will be less accurate
than short-term projections. This system is provided solely as guidance for
states, which should exercise their judgement when conducting planning and
analyses regarding sources of data and methods of data evaluation and
projection.
In addition, technical and administrative assistance has been and will
continue to be made available to states, through the EPA regional offices, to
address planning and interstate dialogue. EPA anticipates that every two years,
as better data become available through the Biennial Report administered under
RCRA and as information about effects of planning activities undertaken is
obtained, states using this system will update their plans.
b. Provision of a Plan
Once a state understands the quantities of waste for which the state must
assure the availability of facilities, after taking into account waste
minimization efforts, and has analyzed the availability and capacity of
facilities within the state to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of these
quantities, the state will know whether additional facilities, whether within
the state or outside the state, need to be made available to manage these
quantities. The state can then take additional steps to reduce or eliminate the
quantities of waste to be generated, can plan for the creation and permitting
of needed capacity, or can enter into interstate agreements or regional
agreements or authorities to assure access to out-of-state facilities (which is
discussed below). Again, twenty-year planning is no simple exercise,
particularly when addressing such complicated and politically sensitive issues
as permitting new facilities to manage hazardous wastes or removing
disincentives to development of waste-reducing technologies.
This Guidance Document therefore provides for use by states planning
information that can address access to facilities and the need to create and to
7

-------
permit new facilities if access to additional capacity is needed. This planning
information builds upon the understanding of waste generation and projected
availability of capacity that the state may develop by using the data and
projections system contained in the Guidance Document. It also accounts fo r the
potential effects of additional waste minimization and export activities.
Once a state has evaluated the capacity that it will need to create within
the state to manage its wastes, after considering waste minimization and
obtaining interstate agreement, the state can evaluate its abilities to site and
to permit facilities that will provide this capacity, in cooperation with
industry and with the public. In evaluating these abilities, the state should
consider regulatory, economic, and other impediments to creating needed capacity
that may exist or may develop during the relevant period. Examples of such
impediments might include local veto powers over siting of facilities, tax
policies, siting or permitting processes that do not set a time limit for
decisioninaking, capital costs of constructing certain treatment methods that
cannot economically be recovered, etc.
C. Interstate Agreements
Section 104(c)(9)(B) requires that assurances relying upon the
availability of facilities outside the state must be in accordance with an
interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority. Congress did not
•require one particular form of interstate agreement, but contemplated that
states would address the problems attendant upon exporting such wastes through
these agreements. Interstate agreements would demonstrate that states were
working cooperatively to create or to assure access to facilities, rather than
bowing to political pressures to export or to restrict the import of wastes
expected to be generated. Cooperative planning for future waste management thus
would help to avoid creation of Superfund sitei among these states.
States can provide their assurances by demonstrating agreement with other
states regarding cooperative planning actions. This should include reasonable
agreement on applicable interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities.
Thus, states should agree on baseyear and projected exports and imports between
and among states and that “captive” and/or “commercial” capacity will exist or
will be created and permitted to manage those waste flows.
One form of interstate agreement is provided below. This agreement can
demonstrate agreement on interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities,
when submitted to EPA accompanied by planning information that can be compared
with similar submissions from other states. Projected export and import
quantities and availability of capacity to manage those quantities must
correspond in the planning information submitted by states for this agreement
to demonstrate “interstate agreement.” States may choose to enter into
agreements to assure access to facilities in bilateral or multilateral documents
signed between or among states. Clearly, such agreements will reflect
substantial interstate dialogue regarding actual and projected waste flows.
Further, discussions among states are likely to raise distributional and equity
concerns.
8

-------
The agreement provided below àan also serve as the document providing the
state’s commitment to undertake the activities described in its planning
information. EPA anticipates that this agreement would be signed every two
years, as the state updates its data and planning documents.
9

-------
INTERSTATE AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 104(c)(9) of Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended; and
In recognition of the fact that this State generates, manages, exports,
and imports hazardous wastes as described in the accompanying data, projection,
and planning documents; and
In accordance with and reliance upon similar cornnhjtrnents and documentation
provided by other State governments:
The (insert title of the State, Commonwealth, or Territory] hereby agrees
to and commits that
1. The government of this [ State, Commonwealth, or Territory]
understands, has projected, and has planned for the hazardous waste generation
and management practices to be undertaken within this State, as documented in
the accompanying planning documents, which are incorporated by reference here,
and
2. The government of this [ State, Commonwealth, or Territory] hereby
commits to carry out the activities described in these incorporated planning
documents.
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to affect the existing
obligations of the States in a manner that would subject this agreement to the
purview of Article I, Clause 3, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
S signature I
[ Governor or Authorized Designee]
10

-------
Chapter II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING CAPACITY ASSURANCE PI4NNING DOCUMENTS
AND INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS
A. Submission of Materials to EPA
All materials supporting the assurances should be transmitted to EPA for
review. An original and ten (10) copies of these materials (collectively
referred to as “capacity assurances plans,” or “CAPs”) should be sent to the
address appearing below.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Mail Code OS-ilO
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTN: Capacity Assurance Plan Enclosed
CAPs should be collated into a single document consisting of four discrete
subparts, and should be accompanied by any relevant interstate agreement and
transmitted with a cover letter. EPA expects that the Governor of each state
will submit the CAP for that state to EPA on or before October 17, 1989. A
suggested transmittal letter appears below.
Dear Administrator:
Section 104(c)(9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, requires as a condition
for providing remedial actions that states assure the availability
of tr eatment and disposal facilities that have the capacity to
treat, destroy, or securely dispose of the wastes generated within
their borders for twenty years. The accompanying materials provide
a basis for you to evaluate the assurances of the [ State,
Commonwealth, Territory], to be contained in a contract or
cooperative agreement that will incorporate these materials by
reference.
The attached planning documents demonstrate that:
o the [ State, Commonwealth, Territory] understands and has
documented and projected for twenty years the generation of
hazardous wastes within the borders of the (State,
Commonwealth, Territory], and understands and has documented
and projected the disposition of these wastes, including
export of these wastes to other states; and
o the [ State, Commonwealth, Territory] has considered and
described the effects of waste minimization on such generation
and has distinguished the availability of any commercial,
• captive, and onsite facilities; and
11

-------
o the (State, Commonwealth, Territory] has developed plans that
assure access to facilities that will be needed to treat,
destroy, or securely dispose of these wastes, including plans
to create and tó permit new or expanded facilities, and has
described regulations, economic considerations, and other
impediments to achieving these plans.
Because this (State, Commonwealth, Territory], in providing the
required assurances, will rely upon facilities that are located in
other states, the accompanying materials include an interstate
agreement, as required by Section 104(c)(9)(B). This document
reflects agreement with other states regarding access to needed
facilities and commits this [ State, Commonwealth, Territory] to
taking the actions described in the planning materials.
I hereby transmit these materials, which will form the basis for
the assurances required of this [ State, Commonwealth, Territory]
under Section 104(c)(9).
Sincerely yours,
(Governor]
[ State, Commonwealth, Territory]
The four subparts of the CAP, described in successive chapters •below,
should contain the following information:
1) information describing in detail past (baseyear) waste generation
and treatment, destruction, and/or disposal capacity available at
facilities within and/or outside the state;
2) documentation of any waste minimization efforts that exist or will
be undertaken by the state and/or industry withinthe state, and detailed
information regarding how any waste minimization efforts will be taken
into account in the projections of waste generation;
3) projections of generation and of available capacity at facilities
within and/or outside the state to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of
wastes, including assessment of capacity shortfalls; and
4) descriptions of plans to create and to permit facilities if access
to additional facilities may be needed, and descriptions of regulatory,
economic, or other barriers that might prevent or impede the creation and
permitting described in the previous section.
B. EPA Administrative Assistance
Through the regional offices, EPA will provide administrative assistance
to states, to assist in preparation of their planning materials and to foster
12

-------
interstate communication and cooperation. Such assistance will include
convening interstate and regional workgroups, acting as a facilitator, and
providing access to regional import and export data and to data manipulation
services. This support already is available in all EPA regions. Severaistate
pilot projects also have been completed, the results of which will be made
available to all states to aid states in preparing their materials.
C. EPA Technical Assistance
In order for a state to provide assurances, it should understand the
treatment and/or disposal practices for hazardous waste generated within its
borders. EPA recognizes that an adequate analysis requires substantial
technical information and expertise in managing data. EPA also realizes that
states will .vary in the sophistication of their data management systems and that
states currently use different data collection and management systems. To help
states to complete the CAPs described below, EPA has provided three forms of
technical assistance. First, EPA will distribute a Technical Reference Manual
( “TRM”) , which will describe methods for manipulating existing data into the
formats described below.
The TRM describes methods for converting data derived from biennial
reports (and detailed according to 700 RCRA waste codes) into information, in
seventeen (17) generation categories. The TRM also will provide methods for
associating the seventeen generation categories to fifteen (15) treatment
categories. Finally, the TR .M will provide methods for converting available
capacity data (to be supplied by EPA) into the management categories. (The
capacity data will be provided to states under separate cover, and will include
descriptions of facility status, i.e., commercial, captive, or onsite.)
The TRM contains information on: (1) Output Formats (presenting the
output formats that can be used in each state’s CAP); (2) High Option
Methodology (converting data reported in the “new “ Biennial Report format into
the output formats); (3) Low Option Methodology (converting data reported in the
“old” Biennial Report format into output formats); (4) SARA Waste Types
(converting EPA waste code and constituent concentration information provided
in Biennial Report into SARA waste types); (5) SARA Management Categories
(classifying treatment, recovery, and disposal systems according to seventeen
management categories); (6) Management Capacity Data (explaining capacity data
needed for the CAPs and data to be provided by EPA in the State Reports); and
(7) Comparisons (comparing current utilization rates for each. management
category with the current maximum capacity for each management category).
EPA plans to provide to states individualized reports describing hazardous
waste management capacity in that state based on the Agency’s recent Treatment,
Storage., Disposal, and Recycling (TSDR) Survey. This data will assist states
in reporting consistent and relatively accurate baseline information on waste
management capacity. Recognizing that the TSDR survey is for 1986, states are
encouraged to check these data for acc uracy prior to use’ in baseyear
calculations. Any corrections should be documented with a simple narrative
discussion of changes. Data on capacity available in later years can be used
to check projections from baseyear data.
13

-------
EPA also will provide to states computer software that can facilitate
performing calculations described in the ThM. These programs will be designed
to use a common software. system. States with computerized processing of
Biennial Report data should ensure that their Biennial Report data are arranged
in a standard format consistent with the specifications of the Biennial Report
Data System (BIRDS). Once state data are so arranged, these states can use
software provided by EPA for preparing tables.
14

-------
Chapter III. REPOR.TINC ThE STATUS OF GENERATION, INPORTS, EXPORTS, AND
MANAGENENT CAPACITY
A. PurDose
This chapter asks each state to demonstrate an understanding of its
hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal system. A strong technical
knowledge of the state’s hazardous waste management and tracking information
systems, including data needed to meet federal reporting requirements, is
required. The key data, from which further analyses and projections will be
developed, are:
o The type and quantity of hazardous waste generated within the state
from continuous industrial processes as well as one-time events,
such as tibatchit cleanups and RCRA and CERCLA corrective actions.
o The type and quantity of hazardous waste shipped out-of-state.
o The type and quantity of hazardous waste received from other states.
o The facilities available within the state to treat, destroy, or
securely dispose of hazardous waste and other wastes that consume
such capacity.
The information developed in this chapter will serve as a baseline for
analyzing current and future waste generation and disposal patterns. For
example, information developed on the unused capacity available at in-state
facilities will be useful when assessing future capacity needs. Similarly,
patterns of waste imports and exports can be used to project future behavior.
B. General Instructions
This chapter provides guidance to states reporting information on current
waste generation, handling, and disposition. Persons responsible for compiling
this information should consult the separate Technical Reference Manual for more
detailed instructions on sources of data, data manipulation, and translation of
raw data into the reporting formats provided in this chapter.
The following tables should be completed for inclusion in the Capacity
Assurance Plan (CAP):
o Table 111-1 , summarizing baseyear in-state generation according to
17 broad groupings or categories of hazardous waste.
o Table 111-2 , reporting waste exports by state and management
practice.
o Table 111-3 , reporting waste imports by state and management
practice.
o Table 111-4 , reporting total demand on in-State waste management
facilities. State generated waste less exports plus imports is
15

-------
presented by hazardous waste type and SARA management category.
Tables III-4A, B, and C divide the demand by captive, commercial,
and on-site TSD faáilities.
o Table 111-5 , compares maximum baseyear hazardous waste management
capacity with hazardous waste management demand or capacity utilized
to develop baseyear available capacity values by management
category. Tables III-5A, B, and C separate total management
capacity by captive, commercial, and on-site TSD facilities.
More detailed calculations from which these tables are compiled such as
•those used to calculate generation status (i.e., primary/secondary and
recurrent/one-time) against capacity or subsets of these tables need not be
submitted, but should be retained as EPA may wish to review these materials.
The individual or individuals responsible for completing this chapter
should be thoroughly familiar with both state and federal hazardous waste
reporting systems. In almost all states, these individuals will be part of the
state’s hazardous waste program office. In some states, the hazardous waste
program will be distinct from the state’s equivalent to EPA’s Superfund program.
In these states, the state’s equivalent and/or the.EPA regional Superfund office
should be consulted to obtain information concerning site cleanups.
C. Reporting Waste Generation (Demand )
1. Biennial Report Data
Most states now report the generation of hazardous waste by EPA waste
code. More than 700 waste codes comprise •EPA’s list of regulated industrial
wastes. For purposes of capacity assurance planning, all waste streams should
be grouped into seventeen waste groups (hereinafter referred to as “SARA waste
types”.) These codes were designed to permit the attribution of a treatment,
destruction, or disposal method (also described according to generic type) to
the waste generated. Because these codes represent aggregated data, they may
not reflect the particular management option selected for a particular waste
stream.
States using the new 1987 Biennial Report forms should use the appropriate
tables and procedures described n the Technical Reference Manual to convert
from EPA waste codes into SARA waste types. This conversion method employs data
on waste stream characteristics in conjunction with EPA waste code designations,
to perform a relatively precise mapping.
States using the old Biennial Report forms should use a different set of
• tables and procedures presented in the Technical Reference Manual to convert EPA
waste codes into the SARA waste types. Because less is known about the waste
stream characteristics, these conversions are less precise. The procedures
include use of a default profile of waste characteristics based on national data
and professional judgement. •
16

-------
2. Waste Streams To Be Reported
Waste streams to be reported include, but are not limited to, hazardous
wastes generated and handled through: Superfund and other corrective action
authorities; onsite NPDES processes; onsite treatment and discharge to municipal
treatment works; direct discharge to publicly owned treatment works without
treatment; onsite recycling; and treatment, recycling, and disposal in regulated
and permitted units. Waste streams that do not need to be reported as federal
hazardous waste include other hazardous wastes (such as wastes considered
hazardous by the state that would not be hazardous under federal regulations
appearing at 40 CFR Part 261, see the definitions section at the end of this
chapter, and Superfund hazardous substances that are not hazardous wastes) and
non-hazardous waste streams. These streams must be evaluated, however, to the
extent that they have used or will use Subtitle C capacity and thus have reduced
or will reduce the capacity available to manage federal hazardous wastes. Table
111-5 reflects the accounting for these quantities.
3. Sources of Data To Report Waste Generation
States may use the 1987 Biennial Report or the equivalent data elements
collected in state reports to estimate 1987 calendar year generation by SARA
waste types. Equivalent sources of data include state surveys of generators,
facility inventories, state-modified Biennial Report forms, and waste manifest
reports.
4. Estab1jshjn A Baseyear
The EPA requests that states use 1987 as the baseyear to report waste
generation. However, if a state has more accurate data for 1985 or 1986 and
judges that these data more precisely represent waste generation in their state
(because, for example, the state spent considerable resources to collect and
analyze that data), they should present these figures and identify the alternate
baseyear. In order to compare generation data with capacity data, and to
demonstrate agreement with other states’ data, projections, and plans, however,
states may need to estimate or project waste generation and available capacity
to 1987 even if the data was obtained for a different baseyear. Adjustments
made between years should be documented.
5. Units to Report Waste Generation
All waste quantities should be reported in tons (short tons) per year.
Waste expressed in volumetric terms, such as gallons, should be multiplied by
the density of the waste in question (tons per gallon, for example) to yield the
most accurate conversion into tons. Those states using the new Biennial Report
forms will find density information for each waste stream in form GM of Package
B, Section III, Question D. In the absence of exact density characteristics,
states •may use default values presented in the Technical Reference Manual to
convert from volume into tons.
17

-------
D. Reporting Waste Management (Supply )
To the extent possible, States should use in-state data to develop
hazardous waste management and capacity information. To assist states in
confirmation of this data or where this data does not exist, EPA is prepared to
make available data based on the TSDR survey that analyzes 1986 capacity. The
1986 data from the TSDR survey will consist of non-confidential business
information that summarizes capacity at TSDR facilities. States may also obtain
a fuller, more complete set of the confidential business information by
following procedures required for clearance. There are clear advantages to
states obtaining clearance for confidential business information, because a
number of commercial facilities have claimed information to be confidential and
because confidential business information clearance will likely be required for
states that wish, to obtain a complete perspective of national hazardous waste
capacity. EPA recognizes that the capacity dataset from the TSDR survey has
been developed for 1986, which is not the baseyear (1987) and expects that
states will adjust the TSDR data as app opriate.
E. Instructions For All Tables
1. Generation of Waste
States should describe waste quantities for each of the SARA waste types
in each of the tables described below. The Technical Reference Manual describes
analytical methodologies used to complete each table from raw data. These
conversions include a high option (for use with “new” Biennial Report data) and
a low option (for use with “old” Biennial Report data), which can be combined
if state data is not capable of supporting the high option for, all data
manipulations.
a.’ Instructions For Table Ill-I Table Ill-i ,asks states to
summarize total in-state generation of one-tIme and recurrent streams of
hazardous waste. Recurrent wastes include both primary and secondary streams
attributable to on-going industrial activity. One-time wastes include those
that result from isolated events such as equipment cleaning or decommissioning,
site cleanup, or disposal of off-specification products. States using’ the new
Biennial Report forms will possess a data set that separates recurrent from
one-time waste generation. States using the old Biennial Report forms, which do
not directly support such an analysis, should estimate one-time generation to
the best of their ability.
Total generation is comprised of’ primary ‘generation (waste by-products of
manufacturing processes and hazardous waste generated by the treatment of
nonhazardous waste) and secondary generation (waste by-products of hazardous
waste treatment processes). States that employ EPA ’s capacity assurance
software will be able to further to sort one-time and recurrent hazardous waste
streams by primary and secondary generation.
b. Instructions for Table 111-2 : Table 111-2 summarizes the
waste exported by management category and state.
18

-------
- c. Instructions for Table 111-3 : Table 111-3 summarizes waste
imported by management category and state. Further, states should note that
Tables 111-2 and 111-3 allow direct comparisons of plans submitted by other
states, and thus will assist states in achieving import and export flow and
capacity agreement.
d. Table 111-4 : Table 111-4 provides the linkage between waste
type and SARA management categories. This linkage is based upon state based
information or the defaults provided in the Technical Reference Manual . Tables
III-4A through III-4C repeat this linkage for captive, commercial and onsite
TSDFs, respectively.
2. Waste Management (Supply )
a. Table 111-5 : This table includes grand total in-state capacity for
waste management. This information is subdivided in Tables III-5A, B, and C by
captive, commercial, and on-site TSD facilities. -
The data elements in these tables include the maximum capacity that was
available at the -beginning of the baseyear (1987), the capacity that was used
by federal hazardous, other hazardous, and non-hazardous waste during the
baseyear (1987), and the unused capacity or remaining capacity that was
available for use in the baseyear (1987). States should note that capacity may
be described in two ways:. total capacity available over time (such as the
volume of a landfill); and capacity available in a given year (such as the
possible throughput for an incinerator).
This table provides a common starting point from which all states can work
when producing their 1987 baseline. States should note that the irtformation
provided from the TSDR survey includes as captive capacity limited access
commercial facilities. States should understand that limited access facilities
should be evaluated to determine whether they should be considered captive
facilities for purposes of projecting demands for capacity. These facilities
may not be capable of providing capacity for demand similar to other commercial
facilities. States should also recognize that the TSDR Survey information will
no contain capacity data for non-TSDR capacity (see below for definition).
States may wish to compare their 1987 utilization values derived from
their generation and management data with the 1986 utilization data from the
TSDR Survey data set.
b. Instructions for III-5A thrp gh III-5C : Tables 5A through 5C are the
central tables in the development of a state’s CAP. Table III-5A should
describe only waste quantities managed at captive facilities. Table III-5B
should describe only waste quantities managed at commercial facilities. Table
111-SC should describe only waste quantities managed at in-state onsite
facilities.
The purpose of these comparisons is to enable states to identify
potential limitations on available capacity by determining how much unused
capacity existed during the baseyear. States should provide for use of
facilities by generators of federal hazardous waste, other hazardous, and
19

-------
nonhazardous waste when calculating the available management capacity. States
should consult the Technical Reference Manual for additional information on
making the comparisons of maximum capacity with utilization.
Finally, states should recognize that commercial status of facilities is•
hierarchical. Demand for onsite and captive facilities should not result in
capacity shortfalls (revealed by a negative value in the available capacity
column). Instead, such negative quantities will merely add to the demand for
commercial capacity and thus should revise or should be added in a separate
table with the commercial table to reflect true commercial demand, use and
available capacity. It is for this reason that separate analyses are provided.
20

-------
F. Definitions Section
Captive Manazement Facili y . A facility that manages waste generated
under the same ownership at a different location. [ This differs from the
definition used in the EPA provided state report data, which includes as captive
those facilities that manage wastes from a limited number •of generators.]
Commercial Management Facilj y . A facility that manages waste generated
at a different location not under the same ownership.
Commercial Status . The appropriate disposition for a waste based upon
management at a particular type of facility. Facilities include commercial,
captive, and onsite facilities (collectively referred to as all treatment,
storage, disposal and recovery (or all-TSDR), and non-TSDR facilities.
Commercial status categories help keep track of where generated wastes are
capable of being managed.
Egui’valent State Data . This phrase refers to common state data, derived
from official surveys or manifests, that use the RCRA waste codes to report
generation and capacity information. This da.ta is similar to that collected
under the old Biennial Report.
Exempt Processes . Included in onsite and non-TSDR management, exempt
processes refer to processes that are exempt from regulation under RCRA. Exempt
processes can represent substantial capacity for treatment and for secure
disposition of hazardous wastes.
Federal Hazardous Waste . Waste regulated as hazardous within the state
that are hazardous wastes under 40 CFR part 261.
Generation Status . The type of waste generated, by the general form of
activity producing the waste. Generation status includes primary recurrent,
secondary recurrent, primary one-time, and secondary one-time waste.
Maximum Capacity . The maximum amount of waste that can undergo treatment,
disposal, or recovery that a unit or facility can manage within a single
reporting year, given all physical restrictions and permit conditions and legal
restrictions.
New Biennial Report . This refers to the revised EPA reporting system,
issued for the 1987 reporting cycle. New information required by the 1987
Biennial Report includes data on waste stream constituents, details on a state’s
waste minimization activities, and facility capacity information.
Non-hazardous wastes . Wastes that are not federal or other hazardous
wastes.
Non-TSDR Management Facility . A “facility” that manages waste where no
permitted or interim status treatments storage, or disposal occurs. Non-TSDR
capacity represents only exempt processes.
21

-------
Old Biennial Ret ort . This refers to the current official EPA reporting
system, last used by all states in 1985. Data requested from the states
included quantities of waste generated and amounts of waste treated, stored, or
disposed. The same data are still required for the 1987 reporting cycle as
minimum requirements.
Onsite Management Facility . A facility that manages wastes generated
under the same ownership at the same site where permitted or interim status
treatment, storage, or disposal occur. Onsite capacity can include exempt
processes at permitted or interim status facilities.
One-time Generation . The generation of hazardous waste that results from
non-recurrent events, such as Superfund cleanups or other corrective actions,
equipment or decommissioning, disposal of off-specification products, etc.
Other Hazardous Waste . Wastes that are considered hazardous within the
state but that would not be hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Part 261. Other
hazardous wastes can include Superfund hazardous substances that are not federal
hazardous wastes, PCB wastes, wastes regulated by a state hazardous waste
program that is broader in scope than the federal program, etc.
Primary Generation . The generation of hazardous waste from production
processes or from treatment of northazardous waste.
Recurrent Generation . The generation of hazardous waste from continuous
or frequently occurring processes or events, such as industrial production
processes.
Remaining Capacity . The amount of unused capacity that could have been
used during a year. It represents, for any given year, the.maximum capacity
available at the start of the year minus the capacity utilized during the year,
i.e., unused capacity.
SARA Management Categories . SARA management categories were created to
cover the full range of hazardous waste management practices in the country.
Fuel blending is not covered in the SARA management categories because this
capacity is believed to be adequate or easily developed and because blended
fuels are accounted for by incineration, energy recovery and other practices.
Storage s not covered in the SARA management categories because it does not
provide for treatment, destruction, or secure disposition of wastes. The type
of system used to manage a hazardous waste is the basis for classifying waste
volumes under particular SARA management categories. The SARA management
categories are defined as follows:
1. Metals Recovery - Any system used to recover metals from a hazardous
waste stream for reuse. Systems found under this category include:
o Secondary smelting
o Retorting
o Electrolytic metals recovery
o Ion exchange
o Reverse osmosis
22

-------
o Acid leaching
o Other metals recovery
2. Solvent Recovery - Any system used to recover solvents from a
hazardous waste stream for reuse. Systems found under this category
include:
o Fractionation/distillation
o Thin film evaporation
o Solvent extraction
o Phase separation
o Other solvent recovery
3. Other Recovery - Any system used to reclaim Constituents from a
waste stream for reuse that does not fall under the above-mentioned
categories. This is the catchall recovery category. Systems found
under this category include:
o Nonsolvent organic recovery
o Acid regeneration
4. Incineration - Liquids - Any system used to destroy liquid hazardous
• waste streams by combustion. Systems found under this category
include:
- o Liquid injection incinerators
o Rotary kilns with liquid injection
o . Two-stage incinerators
o Fixed hearth incinerators
o Multiple hearth incinerators
o Fluidized bed, incinerators
o Pyrolytic destructors
5. Incineration - sludzes/solids - Any system used to destroy sludges
and/or solid hazardous wastes by combustion. Systems found under
this category include:
o Rotary kilns
o Two-stage incinerators
o ‘ . Fixed hearth incinerators
o. Multiple hearth incinerators
o Fluidized bed incinerators
o Infrared incinerators
o Pyrolytic destructors
6. Enerzy Recovery - Any system that burns hazardous waste for its fuel
value. Note that this category does not distinguish between liquids
and sludges/solids as does incineration. Capacity- to burn liquids
in kilns dominates this category at the national level because
sludges/solids are not often burned in kilns and because industrial
furnaces and boilers burn at comparatively lower volumes. Systems
found under this category include:
23

-------
o Cement, aggregate, and asphalt kilns
o Blast furnaces
o Coke ovens
o Sulfur recovery furnaces
o Smelting furnaces
o Other industrial furnaces
o Industrial boilers
o Other reuse-as-fuel units
7. Aqueous Inorganic Treatment - Any system used to remove or destroy
inorganic constituents from an aqueous hazardous waste stream. Note
that this category does not include neutralization (pH control).
Neutralization is categorized under “other treatment” to prevent its
large capacity from dominating over the capacity of systems such as
chemical precipitation. Systems found under this category include:
o Chromium reduction
o Chemical precipitation
o Cyanide oxidation
o General oxidation
o Ion exchange
o Reverse osmosis
o Other aqueous inorganic treatment
8. Aqueous Organic Treatment - Any system used to remove or destroy
Organic constituents from an aqueous waste stream. Systems found
under this category include:
o Biological treatment
o Carbon adsorption
o Air stripping
o Steam stripping
o Wet air oxidation
o Other aqueous organic treatment
9. Other Treatment - Any system used to treat hazardous waste streams
that does not fall under categories 1 through 8, 10, and 11. This
is the catchall treatment category. Any “other treatment” processes
that are part of a wastewater treatment system treating hazardous
waste do not fall under this category. Such sludge treatment
capacity is included in the treatment system capacity reported under
categories I through 8, 10, and 11. Neutralization capacity is
expected to dominate this category. Systems found under this
category include:
o Neutralization
o Settling/clarification
o Equalization
o Denitrification
o Gas incineration
o Other treatment
24

-------
10. Sludge Treatment - Any system used to treat hazardous waste sludges
except stabilization. Any sludge treatment processes that are part
of a wastewater treatment system treating hazardous waste do not
fall under this category. Such sludge treatment capacity is
included in the aqueous treatment system capacity reported under
categories 7 and 8. Only systems that tre•atment sludges generated
from nonhazardous waste treatment and “stand-alone t ’ processes are
included in this category. Systems found under this category
include:
o Sludge dewatering
o Addition of excess lime or caustic to increase alkalinity
o Absorption/adsorption to render nonhiquid
11. Stabilization - Any system that chemically or physically reduces the
mobility of hazardous constituents by binding the hazardous
constituents into a solid mass with low permeability that resist
leaching. This does not include addition of adsorbates to render
a waste stream nonliquid or lime/caustic addition to increase
alkalinity (refer to Category 10). Systems found under this
category include:
o Cement-based stabilization
o Pozzolanic-based stabilization
o Asphaltic stabilization
o Thermo-plastic stabilization
o Other stabilization
12. Land Treatment - Also called land application or land farming. This
management. practice is considered to be land disposal under the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
13. Landfill - Also includes surface impoundments closed as landfills
(disposal impoundments).
14. Deep Well Injection - A type of underground injection beneath the
deepest stratum containing an underground source of drinking water
defined in the regulations pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
as Class I wells (40 CFR Section l44.6A). This management practice
is considered to be land disposal under HSWA.
15. Other Disposal - Used as a catchall category for disposal operations
such as ocean duxnpingor depositing wastes. in salt mines.
SARA Waste Types . These are broad waste groupings designed for
aggregation of hazardous waste quantities. The 17 waste types are to be used
to classify waste by physical/chemical form and hazardous constituents. The
SARA waste types are defined as follows:
25

-------
1. Contaminated Sand. Soil, and Clay (not to include spent filter
media) - Waste that is primarily soil contaminated with hazardous
waste.
2. Halogenated Solvents - Any liquid waste (a “liquid” contains less
than 3 percent total suspended solids) that contains an organic
constituent in the F00i-F005 definitions, has greater than 90
percent organic content, as well as greater than 0.1 percent halogen
content (halogen content refers to organic halogen content as
opposed to inorganic halogen salts such as sodium chloride). To be
included in this category are solvents whose halogen content has not
been determined.
3. Nonhalogenated Solvent - Any liquid waste that contains an organic
constituent. in the FOOl-F005 definitions, has greater than 90
percent organic content, and less than 0.1 percent halogen content.
4. Halogenated Organic Liquids - Any liquid waste that does not contain
a constituent listed in the FOOl-F005 definition, has greater than
90 percent organic content, and greater than 0.1 percent halogen
content.
5. Nonhalogenated Organic Liquids - Any liquid waste that does not
contain a constituent in the FOOl-F005 definitions, has greater than
90 percent organic content, and contains less than 0.1 percent
halogen content.
6. Org anic Liquids. Unspecified - Any liquid waste for which nothing
is known except that its organic content is though to be greater
than 90 percent.
7. Mixed Organic/Inorganic Liquids - Any liquid waste that has an
organic content between 1 and 90 percent (regardless of halogen or
solvent concentration).
8. Inorganic Liquids With Organic - Any liquid waste that has an
organic concentration up to 1 percent, but no metals exceeding 1
ppm.
9. Inorganic Liquids With Metals - Any inorganic liquid waste that
contains RCRA-regulated metals in excess of 1 ppm, and not thought
to contain any organic beyond trace amounts.
10. Inorganic Liquids; NEC - Any inorganic liquid with either unknown
constituents, reactive constituents such as cyanide or sulfide, or
both metals in excess of 1 ppm and organic up to 1 percent.
11. Halp enated Organic S1u ges/Solids - Any waste that has greater than
3 percent total suspended solids, is greater than 90 percent organic
compound, and has greater than 0.1 percent halogen content.
12. Nonhalogenated Organic Sludges/Solids - Any waste that has greater
than 3 percent total suspended solids is greater than 90 percent
organic compound, and has less than 0.1 percent halogen content.
26

-------
13. Organic Sludges/Solids. Unst,ecified - Any waste for which nothing
is known except that it is believed to have greater than 3 percent
total suspended solids and to have 90 percent or greater organic
Content.
14. Mixed Organic/Inorganic Sludges/Solids - Any waste with greater than
3 percent total suspended solids and with an organic content of
between 1 percent and 90 percent.
15. Inorganic Slu4ges/Solids With Metals - Any waste with at least 3
percent total suspended solids, at least 10 ppm or RCRA-regulated
metals, and not thought to contain organic beyond trace amounts.
16. Inorganic Sludges/Solids. NEC - Any waste with, total suspended
solids of 3 percent or greater and other characteristics are
nknown, reactive due to cyanide or sulfide, or contains both metals
in excess of 10 ppm and organic up to 1 percent.
17. Other Wastes Any waste that is explosive or highly reactive,
contaminated with dioxins, hazardous . and mixed with PCBs or
radioactive waste, lab packs, or containerized gases. Also, state
hazardous waste that is not, already covered under RCRA and any. waste
where not enough characteristics are known to place it in any of
the NEC categories.
Secondary Generation . The generation of hazardous waste from the
management of hazardous waste (i.e., a residual from hazardous waste
management).
System . One or more processes used together to treat, recycle, or dispose
of a waste stream.
Utilized Capacity . The actual amount of waste managed by a treatment,
storage, disposal, or recovery system within a single year.
27

-------
TabLe Ill-i. Stmmary of In-State Generation by Waste Type In Baseyear (1987) (Tons/Year)
.
Waste type
Recurrent
Generation
One-time
Generation
TotaL
Generation
1.
Contaminated Soil
2.
Halogenated Solvents
3.
Nonhatogenated SoLvents
4.
HaLogenated Organic Liquids
5.
6.
NonhaLogenated Organic Liquids
Organic Liquids, NEC
7.
t4ixed Organic/Inorganic
Liquids
8.
Hatogenated Organic
Sot ids/SLudges
10.
Nonhatogenated Organic
Solids/Sludges
11.
Organic Solids/SLudges, NEC
12.
13.
Inorganic Liquids with 1 Netals
Inorganic Liquids, NEC
14.
Inorganic Solids/Sludges
15.
with Metals
Inorganic Solids/SLudges,, NEC 1
.
16.
4i ed Inorganic/Organic
17.
Solids/SLudges 1
Other Wastes, NEC
TOTAL
1 Not
elsewhere èlassifled.

-------
Tab’e 111—2. Su mary f Waste Quantities Exported in Baseyear (1987)
by SARA Managem Category and Importing State (tons/year)
Importing State

-------
Table 111—3. Summary of Waste Quantities Imported in Baseyear (1987)
by SARA Management Category and Exporting State (tons/year)
____________________ ____ ____ SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
I .
0
II
Exporting State I
_____________ __ __ 6 1 1 .1 I F I.
Total

-------
Table 111—4.. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed In—SLate by Waste rrype
and SARA Management Categories for A]II1 Facilities
___ SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
•1 1i
WASTETYP [ S
Contaminated soil
Hologenated solvents
_ Nonhalogena(ed solvents
Halogenated orqanic liquids
Nonhologenoted organic liquids
_ Organic liquids, NEC
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids
Inorganic liquids with orgonics
Inorganic liquids with metals
Inorganic liquids, NEC
Halogenoted organic sludges/solids
Nonhologenated organic sludges/solids
Organic sIud es/solids, NEC
Mixed oraanic/inorganjc sludaes/solit ls
Inorganic sludoes/solicjs with metals
Inorganic sludges/solids,
NEC
.
Other
wastes,N [ C
TOTAL
—

-------
Table IH—4A. Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed lEn—State by Waste Type
and SARA Management Categories at Captive Facilities
SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
WASTE TYPES
I
I
I
f

I
8

•.i
I
I
.11
.
f
g
II
0
I
I
J
j
I
i
Contaminated soil
.
HaIo enated solvents
Nonhalogenoted solvents
•_Hologenoted_organic_liquids
Nonhaloqenated organic liquids
Organic liquids. NEC
.—
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids
.
Inorganic liquids with organics
—
Inorganic liquids with metals
Inorganic liquids. NEC
Halogenated_organic_sludges/solids
Nonhologenated_organic sludges/solids
Organic sludges/solids. NEC
Mixed_organic/inorganic_sludges/solids
Inorganic_sludges/solids_with_metals
Ino(gonic sludges/solids, NEC
Other wastes. NEC
..
.
TOTAL .
—-. .———

-------
TaWe ffl—4B. B seyear (1987) in—State Waste Managed by Waste Type
and SARA Management Categoriles at Commeirc a1 FacililUes
S
ARA
.
.
f
J
:

!
MANA
r

GEM

I

ENT C

I
ATEC


ORIE

S
••
j
.

z
ft
‘M
órganics
—
sludges/solids
sludges/solids
NEC

—
-

-
sIudg / olids
with metals
NEC
_
Holoqenoted organic liquids
Nonhcjlooeno(ed organic “••
Organic liquids. NEC
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids
‘.3
(.3

-------
Table ]IH—4C. ]Baseyear (1987) Waste Managed un—State by Waste Type
and SARA Management Categories at Onsiite Facilities
SARA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
WASTE TYPES
I
I
I
rI
.
ii
‘
I
ii
.
i
I
t

I I
t
I
Contaminated soil
Halogenated solvents
Nónhologenoted solvents
Halogenated organic liquids
Nonhaloqenated_organic_liquids
Organic liquids. NEC
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids
Inorganic liquids with organics
Inorganic liquids with metals
.
Inorganic liquids. NEC
Halogenated_organic_sludges/solids
.
Nonhologenated organic sludges/solids
Organic sludges/solids. NEC
Mixed organic/inorganic sludges/solids
Inorganic sludges/solids with metals
.
Inorganic sludges/solids. NEC
.
Other wastes. NEC
-
TOTAL
I

-------
TabLe 111-5. Comparison of Maxinn,sm Hazardous Waste Management Capacity with Utilized Capacity for all TSDs
Baseyear
.
SARA
Management
(1987)
Ma iinium
FederaL
Bas
eyear
Other
(1987)
Management
Demand
Category
Capacity
•
Hazardous
•
Hazardous
.
Nonhazardous
Total
Remaining
Capacity
Metals recovery
Solvents recovery
Other recovery
Incineration liquids
Incineration sollds/
• sludges
Energy recovery
Aqueous inorganic
treatment
Aqueous organic
treatment
Other treatment
Sludge treatment
Stabilization
Land treatment
Landfill
Deepwell injection
Other disposal

-------
Table Ifl-5A. Comparison of Ma,dmum Hazardous lSaste Management Capacity with Utilized Capacity for Captive Facilities
SARA Management
Saseyear
(1987)
Ma, imum
Baseyear
(1987)
Management
.
Demand
Remaining
Federal
Other
Category
Capacity
Hazardous
Hazardous
Nonhazardous Total
Capacity
MetaLs recovery
Solvents recovery
Other recovery
Incineration liquids
Incineration otids/
sLudges
Energy recovery
Aqueous inorganic
treatment
Aqueous organic
treatment
Other treatment
Sludge treatment
Stabilization
Land treatment
LandfiLl
Deepwe(L Injection
Other disposal

-------
Table Ill-SB. Comparison of 1a lmum Hazardous Waste I4anagement Capacity with Utilized Capacity for Conunercial Facilities
Baseyear
SARA Ilanagement
(1987)
4a , liman
.
Federal
Baseyear (1987)
Ilanagement Demand
Category
Capacity
Hazardous
Hazardous
Nonhazardous
Total
Remaining
Capacity
4etaLs recovery
Solvents recovery
Other recovery
Incineration liquids
Incineration sot lds/
sludges
Energy recovery
Aqueous inorganic
treatment
Aqueous organic
treatment
Other treatment
Sludge treatment
Stabilization
Land treatment
Landfill
Deepwett Injection
Other disposal
.

-------
TabLe IU-5C. Comparison of a inu ua hazardous Waste 1anagement Capacity tdth Utilized Capacity for Onsite Facilities
Baseyear
SARA 2anagement
(1987)
4a zimuin
Baseyear j1987)
Man qement Demand
flemalning
Federal.
Other
Category
Capacity
Hazardous
Hazardous
Wonhazardous
Total.
Capacity
4etats recovery
SoLvents recovery
Other recovery
incineration liquids
incineration soLlds/
sludges
Energy recovery
Aqueous inorganic
treatment
Aqueous organic
treatment
Other treatment
SLudge treatment
StabiLization
Land treatment
Landfill
DeepweL( injection
Other disposal.

-------
Chapter IV. STATE WASTE NINI2 ’ IZATION ACTIVITIES
A. Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to obtain information on each state’s use
of waste minimization in the capacity assurance process. (For the definition
of waste minimization, see the definitions section at the end of the chapter.)
The Agency believes a waste minimization program is a key step toward sound
hazardous waste management, and that states should vigorously pursue waste
minimization when addressing waste management. States may not be aware of
existing waste minimization activities being conducted by industry, and may wish
to claim waste reductions from such activities when addressing projected
generation. Again, EPA believes that management plans that include waste
minimization analyses may be more credible than plans lacking such analyses,
and the Agency expects all plans to address waste reduction and elimination.
States should supply information on any legislative authority that exists
for current or potential waste minimization efforts. This information can be
provided by completing Form I. States that analyze and project that waste
minimization will reduce generation, and thus will assist in assuring the
availability of adequate management capacity for generated wastes, should supply
documentation on ongoing and planned waste minimization efforts. These states
should describe the overall strategy of their programs, and how they have
accounted for waste minimization in their waste generation projections.
B. General Instructions
All states should complete Form I, which Is described below.
Form I: Lezislative Authori y . This form requests information on the
present legislative authority for a waste minimization program, its
structure, funding, staffing, and any anticipated legislative or
programmatic changes.
States using waste minimization to assure availability of capacity should
also complete Forms II and III, and should explain and document the quantitative
adjustments that will be made to the projections of demand (which are described
in Chapter V). EPA expects state plans to include this information, including
effects of minimization that will result even without encouragement from active
state waste reduction programs. In explaining these adjustments, states should
assess whether their adjustments may duplicate waste minimization effects
already included in the economic projection factors employed. Table IV-I is a
summary table of waste minimization effects anticipated for the projection
years. This table summarizes the detailed analyses of adjustments to
projections. (A glossary of the terms used to describe the waste minimization
program components is contained in the Definitions Section at the end of the
chapter.)
Form II: Waste Minimization Analysis . This form requests detailed
information on the anticipated effect of state and industrial waste
reduction efforts, the technical bases for the estimates, and measures. of
effectiveness.
39

-------
Form III: Description of Program . This form requests detailed
information on the elements of the state’s waste reduction program.
In completing the forms described above, states should consider the
following:
1) the reliability of the waste minimization estimates (e.g., an
assessment of the bases for the estimates);
2) the adequacy of the resources within the states that are committed to
implementing its.waste minimization strategy, and whether these resources
can achieve the quantities of reduction projected; and
3) the existence and feasibility of a plan to implement waste reduction
activities within the state.
40

-------
Form I: LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
All states should fill out this form. States should copy and complete the
form and include it and any additional necessary documentation. Please attach
additional information if more space is needed to answer any question.
Name of Respondent _____________________________________
Telephone Number _____________________________________
Address ___________________________________
1. Does legislative authority exist to implement a waste minimization program
in your state? If authority exists through general broad authority,
please answer yes and cite the authority if known.
Yes No
la. If yes, what are the titles of the legislation and when was it
enacted?
lb. Is future legislation anticipated, and when does the state plan to
have it enacted?
2. Indicate which of the following waste minimization program components are
specifically in use or authorized in your state:
In Use - Authorized
______ Technical Assistance
______ Economic Incentives
_____ Waste Exchange
______ Research and Development
Regulatory Requirements
______ Education
41

-------
All programs are authorized under a broad
legislative enactment
Other _________________________________
3. In your state, are there any pending statutes, or regulations relating to
waste minimization that are expected to be enacted within the next two
years?
Yes No
3a. Please briefly describe the anticipated changes and their expected
impacts on waste minimization in your state.
4. What administrative agency or agencies implement(s) your state’s waste
minimization program (list all applicable agencies and the waste
minimization component they are responsible for).
Agency Component
5. What is the amount of funding received from the following sources (in
thousands of dollars) for your waste minimization program?
___________ General revenues
Dedicated taxes (e.g., waste end, feedstock)
Tipping fees
Federal Grants
Other ___________________________________________________
6. Please estimate the number of person-years of staff supported by the state
working on waste minimization.
State professionals on staff
Consultants
Other ______________________
42

-------
Form II: WASTE I 1ININIZATION ANALYSIS
States that incorporate waste minimization estimates in their capacity
projections should complete this form. States should copy and complete the form
and include it and any additional necessary documentation (in particular, tables
of quantitative estimates for each year in which waste will be minimized and
thus less capacity will be •used as a result). Please attach additional
information if more space is needed to answer any question.
Name of Respondent ___________________________________
Telephone Number _____________________________________
Address _________________________________
1. Please estimate the amount of waste expected to be reduced (in tons) by
waste minimization for each of the SARA waste types for projection years.
1989, 1995, and 2009. These estimates should be easy to incorporate into
your waste projections and should build on the analyses aescribed in
Chapter III. They should not include anticipated changes in production
rates, but should show only those reductions based on waste minimization
efforts. States should explain how they have avoided duplication of
reductio’ns (from waste minimization) that already may be included in
e’conomic projection factors. Please summarize these estimates, in Table
IV-l. [ Waste minimization projections for intermediate years used to
evaluate capacity utilization need not be included].
2. Please briefly describe the basis of your technical estimates. A list of
bibliographic references and a short narrative describing how they were
used is sufficient. Examples of appropriate material that might be used
to develop waste minimization estimates include:
o State surveys of waste generation trends.
o Waste minimization plans prepared by industry in your state (Please
describe or include these plans).
Reports from Advisory Councils, on the potential effects of waste
minimization for the state.
Reports from Federal Agencies and Trade and Technical Associations
estimating trends in waste minimization applicable to the’ industries
in your state.
43

-------
Engineering studies and analysis of potential waste stream changes
applicable to industries in your state.
Programs Conducted by non-state agencies such as non-profit
organiza j 0 5 that affect the industries in your state. -
3. How do you measure the effectiveness of your program (such as by checking
whether estimates were realized)? Please elaborate on your method.
— No other measures besides that obtained from EPA ’s Biennial Report
_____ Number of information requests handled
_____ Number of industries/plants Participating
_ Savings to industry (cost ratios)
— Change in waste quantity generated
— Change in ratios of waste generated per unit product
_____ Other
4. How will you acquire this information?
By examining waste minimization program records
By Conducting industry surveys
_____ New EPA Biennial Report
By examining state regulatory files
_____ Other
5. Briefly describe your corlununication strategy with the industrial
community.
6. In addition to your waste reduction estimates, are there any other
activities in your state (announced programs by one or more key industries
to reduce waste, pending legislation or regulatio 5 component
implementation schedule) that might be useful in evaluating your waste
minimization projections
ate — ACtj jty
44

-------
Form III: DESCRIPTIONS OF PROGRAM
States that incorporate waste minimization estimates in their capacity
projections should complete this form. This section requests information on the
specific components of your waste minimization program described in Form I,
Question 2. Please complete the sections that are applicable to your state
program. Questions on different waste minimization components are presented
separately so that they may be distributed to different program officials if
necessary. States should copy and complete the form and include it and any
additional documentation. Please attach additional information if more space
is needed to answer any question.
Form III includes the following:
Ill-a Technical Assistance
Ill-b Economic Incentives
Ill-c Waste Exchange
III-d Research and Development
III-e Regulatory Requirements
Ill-f Education
Respondents to each set of questions in this form should attach their name
and telephone number should additional information be required.
Name of Respondent __________________________________
Telephone Number
Address __________________________________
1. Please indicate the approximate emphasis that your state places on the
following waste minimization components as a percent of your waste
minimization budget.
Approximate
Percent
Component of Budget
Technical Assistance
Economic Incentives
Waste Exchange
Research and Development
Regulatory Requirements
Education
Other
Total 100%
45

-------
Ill-a TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
1. Indicate which of the following Technical A sistance components are
currently in use or proposed for use .in your waste minimization program.
Technical Assistance
On-going Proposed
(Date Anticipated)
_________ Onsite assistance
Information clearinghouse/Library
Technical workshops
Feasibility studies
Other ____________________________
2. For Technical Assistance, please provide the following information for
existing programs or proposed programs:
2a. Describe the specific target of the Technical Assistance program
(e.g., waste streams, industry categories, or both).
2b. Why did you choose to implement this program?
2c. What problems to implementing the Technical Assistance program do
you anticipate or have you experienced?
2d. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce
through Technical Assistance? (Please provide
quantities and dates that correspond to the
analyses in Form II, Question 1.]
46

-------
Ill-b ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
1. Indicate which of the following Economic Incentives components are
currently in use or proposed for use in your waste minimization program.
Economic Incentives
Qp go pg Proposed
(Date Anticipated).
Awards/matching grants
Taxes/Fees (e.g., waste-end, front-end, point-of-
use)
Low-interest loans
Tax credits
Other ____________________________
2. For Economic Incentives, please provide the following information for
existing or proposed programs:
2a. Indicate the number of grants provided in the baseyear as part of
this component.
2b. What is the current (or projected) annual budget for grants provided
in your waste minimization program as part of Economic Incentives
(in thousands of dollars)?
2c. If taxes or fees are imposed, describe the tax ($ per ton, for
example) and the amount of revenues generated by the tax in the most
recent state fiscal year.
2d. Why did you choose to implement this program?
2e. How effective have each of your economic incentives been in
minimizing wastes?
47

-------
2f. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce
through economic incentives? [ Please provide
quantities and dates that correspond to the analyses
in Form II, Question 1.]
48

-------
Ill-c WASTE EXCHANGE
1. Indicate which of the following Waste Exchange components are currently
in use or proposed for use in your waste minimization program.
Waste Exchange
On-going Proposed
(Date Anticipated)
State-promoted
State-managed
State-financed
Regional or multi-state effort
Other _____________________________
2. For Waste Exchange, please provide the following information for existing
programs or proposed programs:
2a. What is the current (or projected) annual contribution to the Waste
Exchange (in thousands of dollars) that you participate in?
2b. What is the name of the Waste Exchange that you participate in?
2c. Which states participate in this Waste Exchange (Please list)?
2d. Describe the specific target of the Waste Exchange program (e.g.,
waste streams, industry categories, or both).
2e. Why did you choose to implement this program?
2f. What problems to implementing the Waste Exchange program do you
anticipate or have you experienced?
49

-------
2g. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce through waste
exchange? [ Please provide quantities and dates that correspond to
the analyses in Form I I, Question 1.1
50

-------
III-d RESEARCH and DEVELOPXENT
1. Indicate which of the following Research and Development components are
currently in use or proposed for use in your waste minimization program.
Research and Development
On-zoing Proposed
(Date Anticipated)
________ Options development/feasibility studies
Pilot scale or demonstration projects
________ Economic or policy analysis
Manuals for audits or technology implementation
Other ____________________________
2. For Research and Development, please provide the following information for
existing programs or proposed programs:
2a. What is the current (or projected) annual budget for Research and
Development (in thousands of dollars)?
2b. Describe the specific target of the Research and Development program
(e.g., waste streams, industry categories, or both).
2c. Why did(you choose to implement this program?
2d. What problems to implementing the Research and Development program
do you anticipate or have you experienced?
2e. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce
through research and development? (Please provide
quantities and dates that correspond to the analyses in
Form II, Question 1.]
51

-------
III-e REGUlATORY REQUIRENENTS
1. Indicate which of the following Regulatory Requirement components are
currently in use or proposed for use in your waste minimization program.
Rezulatory Requirements
On-going Proposed
(Date Anticipated)
_________ Reporting requirements
________ Reduction standards
Design or operating standards (e.g., required
chemical substitutions)
Management standards (e.g., mandatory waste
reduction audits, listing on waste exchanges)
Other _____________________________
2. For Regulatory Requirements, please provide the following information for
existing programs or proposed programs:
2a. Describe the specific target of the Regulatory Requirements program
(e.g., waste streams, industry categories, or both).
2b. Why did you choose to implement this program?
2c. What problems to implementing the Regulatory Requirements program
do you anticipate or have you experienced?
2d. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce
through regulatory requirements? [ Please provide
quantities and dates that correspond to the analyses
in Form II, Question 1.]
52

-------
Ill-f EDUCATION
1. Indicate which of the following Education components are currently in use
or proposed for use in your waste minimization program.
Education
On-gping Proiosed
(Dated Anticipated)
_______ Governor’s or other award programs
_______ Public education (e.g., seminars, workshops,
pamphlets)
Outreach
Feasibility studies
Other ____________________________
2. For education, please provide the following information for existing
programs or proposed programs:
2a. Describe thespecific target of the education program (e.g., waste
streams, industry categories, or both).
2b. Why did you choose to implement this program?
2c. What problems to implementing the education program do you
anticipate or have you experienced?
2d. What quantities of waste to you expect to reduce
through education? [ Please provide
quantities and dates that correspond to the analyses
in Form II, Question 1.]
53

-------
C. Definitions Section
Economic incentives
1. Awards/Matchlnz Grants . Direct payments from the state to hazardous
waste generators or others engaged in waste minimization activities. May be
structured to encourage various types of waste minimization activities, to
assist specific types of firms, or to focus on particular waste streams.
2. Taxes/Fees . A means by which states create an economic incentive
for waste minimization. Front-end taxes can be imposed at or near the beginning
of the commercial chain of production, throughout the distribution network, and
at the point of consumption of selected chemicals and substances. Waste-end
taxes may be levied on the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or
disposal of wastes.
3. Low-Interest Loans . Financial assistance that enables firms to
reduce the cost of financing investments in processes and technologies that
reduce wastes. Usually directed to both small and mid-sized hazardous waste
generators who may be unable to obtain commercial credit at an affordable price.
4. Tax Credits . A direct reduction in the tax liability of the firm,
generally rewarding only capital investments.
Education
1. Governor’s or Other Award Programs . A low-cost means to recognize
and honor companies and institutions that have demonstrated outstanding
achievement in hazardous waste management.
2. Public Education/Outreach . Promotional activities designed to keep
the public informed of the need for a commitment to hazardous waste
minimization. Targeted in general to citizen groups, trade associations, and
professional organizations.
ç,ycling . The use or reuse of a waste as an effective substitute for a
commercial product, or as an ingredient or feedstock in an industrial process.
It also refers to the reclamation of useful constituent fractions within a waste
material or removal of contaminants from a waste to allow it to be reused. As
used here, recycling implies use, reuse, or reclamation of a waste either on
site or off site after it is generated by a particular process.
Regulatory requirements
1. ReDorting Requirements . Requests by the government for generator
information sufficient to determine the effectiveness of waste minimization
programs. In some cases the companies involved in waste minimization are
required to submit their plan as a part of a permit application to the
regulating authority for an evaluation of adequacy.
54

-------
2. Reduction Standards . Specific targets for reduction over time in
the quantity and/or toxicity of certain waste streams.
3. Desig or Operating .Standards . Limitations or criteria applied to
process design and manufacturing operations, usually specific to particular
industries and/or waste streams, to minimize, waste generation.
4. Man, gement Standards . Directed to encourage waste minimization.
Includes good management practice standards, which may include mandatory audits
or listing of wastes on a waste exchange.
Research and development . Involves applied hazardous waste research,
development, and demonstration projects and may include feasibility studies,
pilot- and bench-scale demonstration projects, and economic and policy analyses.
Usually funded by government and in some cases the private sector, these
projects are typically undertaken by universities and other academic
institutions.•
Source reduction . The reduction or elimination of waste at the source,
usually within a process; Source reduction measures include process
modifications, feedstock substitutions, improvements in feedstock purity,
housekeeping and management practices, increases in the efficiency of machinery,
and recycling within a process. Source reduction implies any action that
reduces the amount of waste exiting from a process.
Technical assistance
1. . Onsite Assistance . Comprehensive technical assistance to aid
industry in reducing the volume or toxicity of wastes generated. May include
consultation on industrial and waste management practices and waste minimization
options.
2. Information Clearinghouse/Library . A data base (electronic or
hardcopy) made available to managers involved in waste minimization.
Clearinghouses provide access to documents, references, and telephone
assistance.
3. Technical Workshops . Information dissemination programs designed
to keep industry and others up-to-date on waste minimization programs,
technology, and activities, and on appropriate regulatory information.
4. Feasibility Studies . Technical assistance, provided off-site,
consisting of general process analyses and engineering studies. May be based
on information gathered from similar industries or previous onsite technical
assistance. Project results are usually helpful in solving, select
manufacturing or institutional problems.
Waste exchanges . Waste generated by one company are provided or sold to
another company that can use the waste material in their operation. Recipient
companies usually use the waste untreated or subject it to a minimal amount of
treatment prior to reuse.
55

-------
Waste minimization . The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous
waste that is generated or subsequently treated, stored, or disposed. Waste
minimization includes any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken by
a generator that results in: (1) the reduction of total volume or quantity of
hazardous waste; (2) the reduction of toxicity of hazardous waste; or (3) both,
as long as the reduction is consistent with the goal of minimizing present and
future threats to human health and the environment. (In some circumstances,
waste minimization may not reduce the demand for treatment, destruction, or
disposal capacity, e.g., when treatment generates larger volumes of less toxic,
but still hazardous, waste that also must be securely disposed.]
56

-------
Table gV-1. Summary of Estimated Reductions of alt Generated tIastes due to tiaste 4iminization (tons)
(as calculated in projection section)
.
jection
Years
tiaste
Types
1989
1995
2009
1.
Contaminated Soil
2.
Hatogenatcd Solvents
3.
Northatogenated SoLvents
4.
Hatogenated Organic Uqulds
5.
6.
Northatogenated Organic Liquids
Organic Liquids NECa
.
7.
V1ixe Organic/Inorganic Liquids
8.
Halogenated Organic Solids/Sludges
10.
Nonhatogenated Organic
11.
Solids/Sludges
Organic Solids/Sludges 0 NECa
12.
13.
InorganIc Liquids with Metals
Inorganic Liquids, NECa
14.
15.
Inorganic Solids/Sludges with Metals
Inorganic Solids/Sludges, NECa
.
.
16.
17.
Mixed Inorganic/organic Solids/SLudges
Other Wastes, NECa
TOTAL
.
aNEC_NO Elsewhere

-------
Chapter V. PROJECTING HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND THE DEMAND FOR MANAGEMENT
CAPAC ITY
A. Purpose
This chapter outlines procedures for states to use when projecting
hazardous waste generation and the demand it represents for waste management
capacity. Projected demand is then compared to projected capacities for each
of the waste management categories presented in Chapter III. The result is an
estimate of projected capacity needs for each waste management category. It is
expected that tables similar to Tables 111-1 through 111-5 will be completed for
each of the projection years.
States should project waste generated within their borders in 1989, 1995,
and 2009. The 1989 projection year corresponds to the current waste management
situation and to the next biennial reporting year. The 1995 projection will
present a near-term estimate of demand for waste management after most of the
current hazardous waste regulations, the land disposal restrictions in
particular, take effect. The law specifies that states assure adequate waste
management capacity for 20 years,.hence the projection of year 2009 values.
(States may also need to project intermediate years to account for exports and
for reductions in capacity of facilities during the intervening periods).
The methods contained in this chapter reflect procedures commonly used to
project waste generation. The Agency recognizes the inherent uncertainty of
projections and the limitations of all procedures. For this reason, the Agency
does not endorse any one system; for consistency, however, states are expected
to choose the approach discussed at the outset of each of the fbllowing
sections. States that do not use this approach should explain their use of
alternative projection methods. In any event, all projections should adhere to
the following general guidelines:
o Projections should take into account economic expansion or
contraction and its effect on the quantity of waste generated by
sources within the state.
o Projections of waste minimization, based on the documentation
described in Chapter IV, should be accounted for, but not should not
duplicate the economic effects.
o Projections should account for non-recurrent wastes (from equipment
decommissioning or replacement, materials or product disposal,
materials or product spills, closure actions, remedial or corrective
actions, or other non-routine sources) as well as waste generated
from continuous, industrial processes; projections also should
account for differences between primary and secondary generation.
o Projections should address the potential effect of regulatory change
on future waste generation and management options.
EPA recognizes that each aspect of these guidelines represents a difficult
exercise in projecting uncertainfuture quantities. Nevertheless, states should
58

-------
make their best efforts to account for all relevant considerations and to
document all assumptions that inform their analyses.
B. General Instructions
For each of the projection years, states should summarize their
projections of waste quantities using the same series of tables used in Chapter
III. Once waste generation projections have been finalized, adjustments for
imports and exports should be made. The resultant volumes of waste should then
be distributed as demand to on-site and off-site facilities.
The following sections of Chapter V provide general instructions on
projecting waste from- continuous industrial processes using common economic
indicators and procedures; and projecting waste generated intermittently (i.e.,
one-time generation), such as that resulting from RCRA and CERCLA cleanups.
States should coordinate their efforts with other state offices responsible for
projecting and/or tracking state industrial activity or revenues. Waste
generation should be based on the same economic forecast information used to
project general business activity in the state or region; if different
information is used, the reasons for such use should be thoroughly documented.
In projecting economic effects, states should address and document the
following: -
o the underlying economic assumptions used in the projections reflect
existing or official projections of state- economic activity unless
- - otherwise and substantially justified by the state; -
o the projections- account for all waste producing -industries and
possible changes in the economic behavior of these industries;
o the projections account for non-recurrent wastes (e.g., CERCLA or
RCRA remedial or corrective actions); -
o the projections correctly incorporate and do not duplicate the
predicted effects of waste minimization; - -
o the projections document all assumptions regarding waste imports and
- - exports; and -- -
o the projection methodology chosen does not vary from that used by
other states unless reasons for such variation are documented and
justified; comparability of projection methods is important in
establishing meaningful interstate dialogue on the issue of future
- - waste flows between and among states and or the availability of
capacity to manage those flows.
Many states will have the capabilities to provide detailed estimates of
future waste generation amounts and their demand for management capacity.
States that lack such capabilities are encouraged to develop their analytic
abilities, as meaningful dialogue between states on the issue of export and
import quantities and on availability of capacity of facilities is extremely
important for providing assurances and for the development of interstate
59

-------
agreements. A dialogue based on poor or inconsistent projections is unlikely
to generate meaningful agreement.
Projections should show that the state has considered all relevant factors
and is not in conflict with other official state policy on economic development.
EPA recognizes that projections made for year 20 will be far less certain than
those made over the short term.
C. Projecting Recurrent Waste Generation From Industrial Sources
Using 1987 generation as a baseline, states should estimate expected
generation for projection years solely on the basis of economic changes.
States should then make adjustments to these estimates to account for the
expected effects of waste minimization as described in Chapter IV. Finally,
states should adjust their projections to account for the effects of regulatory
actions on the demand for waste management capacity.
1. Projecting Waste Generation Based on Economic Expansion or
Contraction
Economic change is a combination of two measures: changes in economic base
(reflected by the basic composition of the region’s industry, including new
entrants and closures) and changes in industrial output (defined as the total
value of goods and services from current industrial production). The Agency
does not expect states to forecast changes in their economic base, unless such
changes are likely or are projected in official state economic development
documents. Announ ed plant closures or start-ups of key industries are examples
of likely changes. Absent such information, states should assume that the set
of industries responsible for generating the majority of the state’s hazardous
waste in the baseyear will exist over the projection period.
The states should account •for the effects of economic forces specific to
each state and, ideally, to those industries currently responsible for the
majority of waste generated. This involves two steps. First, states should
compile a list of those industries that are responsible for generating the waste
in their state. For states using EPA’s new Biennial Report forms, these data
are available in Form IC, Section IV (SIC code identification) and either GM or
CS (waste quantities).
Second, the waste generation characteristics of these industries should
be normalized to some indicator of economic output (discussed subsequently).
Projections of the same economic indicator (or growth factors) then can be used
to project waste from the industrial category in question. For states in which
a waste category is dominated by the generation of a single industry (or by a
few industries having similar growth potential), the growth factor of this
industry (or industries) may be applied to the waste category as appropriate.
• Ideally, industrial activity should be forecast for each 4-digit SIC
(Standard Industrial Classification) code industry responsible for any
generation of a state’s total waste volume. There are about 450 4-digit SIC
industries represented. in the Office of Management and Budget’s Standard
Industrial Classification system. While the mix of waste generating industries
60

-------
will vary from state to state, most states should find that less than 100
4-digit SIC industries will account for 95 percent to 99 percent of total state
generation. In many states, particularly the smaller ones, the majority of
hazardous waste quantities will be attributable to perhaps 20 industry groups.
Economic projections at the 4-digit SIC code level of detail may provide
the most accurate basis for projecting changes in future waste quantities
attributable to economic change. Many states, however, may not currently
possess sophisticated projection models capable of traáking changes at this
level of detail. States should therefore provide the most detailed analyses
currently possible, and develop their analytic abilities to be able to perform
more sophisticated analyses in the future.
2. Factors for Prpjection
Actual records of the number of product units, such as manufactured tons
of steel or barrels of oil, are the most certain measures of industrial output
because they capture, by definition, actual manufacturing activity within the
plant. Using these measures to project future output in 70 to 100 industries,
however, would likely exceed the current capabilities of state projection
models. States should therefore rely upon growth in production employment, for
which the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes projections by industry, unless
and until their models are capable of projecting by manufacturing activity.
States may also project economic changes using the following indicators,
specific to •a target group of 4-digit SIC industries, which are less precise
than changes in production employment- or units of manufactures: total
employment; production employment; value added by manufacture; value of
shipments; and personal income from manufacturing (wages). Because a consistent
projection method is essential if comparisons between state estimates are to be
meaningful, states should use methods consistent with other states with which
they have agreements.
When considering alternatives to manufacturing units or changes to
production employment, states should recognize that their alternatives are not
equally sensitive and may not be appropriate for the states’ data base. Value
of shipments, for example, is routinely reported in national aggregate
statistics and •at the individual plant level. But this measure does not
distinguish between manufacturing and inventories as the source of shipments.
Waste generation would be overestimated if waste was normalized to data that
represented shipments from inventories instead of production, since actual
production levels (and hence waste) in that year would be lower than shipments
would indicate. In addition, the double counting associated with
cross-shipments in value of shipments data may account for overestimates of
plant activity.
Total employment also is routinely reported in national statistics and by
individual plants, but changes in employment can misrepresent manufacturing
activity if management and production employment change at different rates. In
addition, waste generation estimates based on employment will be significantly
overestimated if a company headquarters, representing largely management as•
61

-------
opposed to production labor, constitutes a significant share of total employment
within a given SIC code.
Value added closely parallels manufacturing activity because this measure
avoids the problem of inventories associated with value of shipments data: These
data are more limited, however, at the national level and they are rarely
reported by individual manufacturing establishments.
Personal income from manufacturing, or simply wages, is another good
overall indicator of plant activity. Estimates of personal income from
manufacturing are available in national aggregate form, by 4-digit SIC code, and
by state.
While production employment is an input, measure of manufacturing and not
an output measure, it remains a good overall indicator insofar as it parallels
manufacturing activity and is generally available at the 4-digit SIC code level
regionally. It is important to account for changes in labor productivity,
however, in projections of waste generation as a function of production
employment. As industries automate and/or initiate waste minimization
activities, the ratio of waste per production employee may change, leading to
over- or under-estimates of future waste production if these adjustments are
overlooked. In general, as labor productivity increases (the output per
production employee rises), more waste will be created per employee in future
years than in the baseline year.
3. Sources of Data
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census) and the U.S.
Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) collect and publish historical
data on value of shipments, value added, total employment, production employment
and income from manufacturing at the 4-digit SIC code level, by state or by
county. At a minimum, all states can use these data to project future trends
based on trends over the past five years. Alternatively, the Bureau of
Industrial Economics prepares similar projections for groups of 4-digit SIC
industries for the nation as a whole in its annual publication, U.S. Industrial
Outlook . States can adopt these national projections or may use and document
state-specific data. The Bureau of the Census publication, County Business
Patterns , provides a source of historical data on employment and sales, by
industry and by county. Projections of personal income from manufacturing by
SIC code and state through the year 2000 are available through the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Similar projections at the state level may be available
from state agencies responsible for employment or labor trends.
Typically, a state Economic Development Office or Office of the Governor
responsible for revenue projections will prepare its own forecast of industry
growth. These projections may be incorporated directly into capacity assurance
proj ections.
D. IncorporatingThe Effects of Waste Minimization
States may project the reduction of demand for waste management capacity
as a result of waste minimization activities. Plans for implementing and
62

-------
accounting for such activities should be documented in Chapter IV. In that
chapter, states must identify two key parameters of their waste reduction
adjustments: (1) amount of reductions by waste type, and (2) a schedule over
which these reductions are expected to take place. In this chapter, states
should show how the factors developed in Chapter IV have been incorporated in
their projections (including capacity utilization in between the projection
years 1989, 1995, and 2009).
The most straightforward approach is to adjust the expected waste
quantities generated in a target year by the quantity expected to be reduced
through waste reduction, after assuring that the expected quantities do not
already reflect waste minimization efforts. A narrative explanation of how
waste reduction factors were applied should be included to support projections.
E. Incori oratinz the Effects of Rezulatory Chanzes On Waste Generation
EPA anticipates that changes in regulations over the projection period
will affect both waste quantities (i.e., the demand for waste management
capacity) and the allowable alternatives for management. Both are expected to
affect a state’s ability to assure adequate capacity. This section discusses
the extent to which states should include the effects of regulatory changes on
projections of waste generation. A subsequent section addresses the effects of
regulatory changes on capacity supply and on the allowable matching of waste
types to management categories. Regulatory effects on waste generation also
should he documented separately in a narrative statement.
Because of the uncertainty in projecting these effects over a 20-year
period, EPA expects the states to account for regulatory changes to the maximum
extent feasible. To promote consistency among states, the Agency has published
and can make available to the states its Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for
many rules promulgated under authority of RCRA and CERCI. .A, as they become
available. The RIA will describe likely quantitative effects on. waste
generation and consequent demand for management technologies. The following is
a list of rules that EPA expects to have an impact on capacity assurance, and
for which publication of an RIA or other economic analysis is expected by
October 1, 1989:
Land Disposal Restrictions. Should affect virtually all listed and
characteristic wastes and, by extension, all industries generating them.
Expected •to shift the management of certain waste streams away from land
disposal and toward incineration and other treatment options. Also expected to
stimulate waste reduction. Treatment standards must be promulgated by May 8,
1990.
New Listings. Should expand the number of waste streams under regulation;
three new wood preserving and one new wood surface protection waste streams will
be proposed in December of 1988, including wastewater streams, process residual
streams; drippage and spent formulation streams, one new waste stream from
petroleum refining to be added in 1988.
63

-------
States should estimate the additions (or deletions) to regulated -waste
volumes attributable to the above rules and should document any additional
regulatory effects considered.
F. Projection of Non-Recurrent And One-Time Only Waste Generation
Non-recurrent waste generation can result from periodic industrial
operations (e.g., boiler and other process unit maintenance) and RCRA and CERCLA
corrective actions and cleanups. Wastes generated from these sources, although
potentially significant, are much more difficult to project than waste from
continuous industrial processes. EPA recognizes that data for projecting the
generation of one-time waste are generally less available and less reliable than
data on recurrent waste generation. Further, failure to separate one-time from
recurrent generation may lead to over-projection of waste generation.
This section describes methods that states may use to make such
projections, given the limited data ources. At a minimum, states should
estimate federal hazardous waste produced from the following classes of
activities: site remedial actions (from federal Superfund and state clean-ups);
corrective actions at RCRA facilities; underground storage tank cleanup; and
site remediation as a result of real estate transfer statutes.
1. Site Remedial Actions
For many Superfund sites, estimates of the quantities of contaminated site
wastes (soils and groundwater) that may require off-site treatment and disposal
are available in Records of Decision (RODs). Where RODs have not yet been
prepared, more limited information regarding quantities likely to be encountered
at Superfund sites may be available in Remedial Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, or Hazard Ranking System listings. These documents are available for
-review in EPA’s 10 regional offices. The annual volume of wastes to be removed
from these sites is largely a function of the extent of contamination (and hence
of the decision to ship waste off-site or handle it onsite) and rate of
expenditures for site cleanup activities. EPA recognizes that these estimates
will be highly uncertain, especially for those sites without approved RODs or
for state cleanup sites without comparable documentation.
Where data permit, states should prepare a list of all federal and state
Superfund sites for- which reliable estimates of the quantity to be handled are
available and estimate a time interval over which actual remedial work will be
áompleted. Such estimates may best be made by the state Superfund office or the
EPA regional Superfund coordinator. For each site,- states should prepare a list
of the contaminants that predominate and match them as closely as possible to
one (or more) of the SARA waste types. Much of this information should be
available in site investigation and decision documents referenced above.
States should then estimate the quantity of Superfund waste expected to
be handled off-site at in-state facilities versus that quantity to be exported.
Superfund site-generated hazardous waste shipped off-site must be manifested
like any other waste stream regulated under RCRA. An analysis of current waste
- manifests may be used to project future in-state handling from exported
Superfund waste. States making this estimate should be fully document all
64

-------
estimates, including descriptions of procedures and explanations of assumptions.
2. RCRA Corrective Action Sites At RCRA Facilities
States should assemble the following information:
(1) From the regional EPA office or the state RCRA permitting office
(depending on whether the state is authorized), compile a list of
potential RCRA sites that will require corrective action (be sure
to include corrective action as a condition of obtaining a Part B
permit. plus corrective action as a condition of closure or of orders
issued under authority of RCRA Section 3008(h) or a state
equivalent). Inmost cases, states will be unable to estimate waste
quantities or waste volumes to be removed unless a Corrective
Measures Study (CMS) has been prepared. The Agency recognizes that
as relatively few corrective action sites have progressed to the CMS
stage (several years may elapse before a potential site has been
fully evaluated), states may be limited in their ability to
incorporate the effects of RCRA corrective action into their
analyses. In the absence of these data, states should assume that
a proportion of RCRA facilities will require corrective action and
document that assumption to the best of their ability.
(2) Estimate the amount and timing of expected on-site management demand
and off-site demand using methods described abáve for Superfund site
estimates.
(3) Estimate the proportion of off-site waste expected to be shipped to
in-state facilities and that shipped out of state using information
on waste manifest forms. In the absence of a historical record of
shipments from RCRA corrective action sites, the states should
assume that all removed material will be shipped to in-state
facilities, if they currently exist and have capacity during the
relevant period to manage the waste type projected to be generated.
Otherwise assume that the waste will be exported and account for it
in agreements, or project a shortfall.
3. Underground Storage Tanks
Corrective action requirements for releases from tanks containing
petroleum or hazardous substances are similar to other corrective action
requirements, even though underground storage tanks are regulated separately.
Visibly contaminated soils must be removed. If residual contamination of
groundwater or surrounding soils persists, additional cleanup is necessary.
Actual levels of cleanup are determined on the basis of site-specific
envirot iental risks and potential exposure. States should include estimates of
hazardous waste quantities likely to be generated as a result of underground
storage tank remediation. The types of data needed to support these estimates
include:
0 Inventory of tanks subject to regulation
65

-------
o Statistics on leakage rates, preferably by type of tank
o Characterization of tank inventory by contents (gasoline, solvents,
other organics, inorganics)
o Field estimates of extent of contamination. If these data are
available, states should estimate quantities and timing of demand
for waste management services using methods similar to those
presented for estimating Superfund demand.
Lacking data, states should estimate amounts and document their assumptions.
4. Site Remediation from Real Estate Transaction Laws
If applicable, states should include estimates of hazardous waste
generated from site remediation pursuant to state real estate transfer statutes
(i.e., New Jersey’s environmental statute) based on trends in past rates of
generation. If such data are unavailable, states should estimate amounts and
document their assumptions.
G. Total Projected Demand
States should provide the sum of all demand based upon hazardous waste
generation in tables similar to those used in Chapter III. These quantities
represent the total projected demand for waste management capacity distributed
by SARA waste management category. The demand should consider waste
minimization and regulatory and economic changes, and should be adjusted for
imports and exports. The analyses of capacity demand should not violate any
regulatory requirements anticipated to exist for the projection year (e.g..,
untreated liquids and sludges will not be directly land disposed after 1995, and
thus should not be attributed to land disposal demand).
States also should estimate the demand for Subtitle C capacity imposed by
non-hazardous waste and other hazardous waste. (As indicated earlier, states
may obtain capacity information for non-hazardous waste in 1986 from the TSDR
Survey data). States should document in a separate narrative assumptions
regarding the level of demand for Subtitle C capacity projected for these
wastes. States can use the previously described projection methodologies for
projecting and documenting demand posed by other hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes.
H. Calculating Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Needs
Using the same techniques as outlined in Chapter III, tables should be
prepared presenting maximum capacity; utilized capacity for federal hazardous,
other hazardous, and nonhazardous waste; and the projeci..ed available capacity
(i.e., net balance) • These tables should be prepared for each of the projection
years with the projected available capacity (i.e., net balance) figure
representing the capacity excess or shortfall used for the plan developed
pursuant to Chapter VI. .
66

-------
Chapter VI. DOCUMENTING STATE PLANS FOR INCREASING IN-STATE CAPACITY
A. Puryose
Chapter V of the Guidance Document summarizes the projected need for
hazardous waste management capacity over the next twenty years, after taking
into account waste minimization efforts and waste exports. Because the CAP
addresses a 20-year period, states may not have adequate capacity in place today
to handle all the hazardous waste generated over the next 20 years, making it
necessary for states to document their procedures to assure access to needed
facilities. States that show available capacity for the projection years need
not present plans for addressing capacity shortfalls, as there are no
shortfalls. Such states may describe emergency plans, however, to address
situations where their calculations turn out to be erroneous.
States that show a shortfall of management capacity for the projection
years shotild describe their procedures for facility siting, permitting, and
expansion in Chapter VI and should commit to creating and permitting specific
quantities and types of additional capacity through either new or expanded
facilities in the state. These descriptions should include the dates of
important interim and final siting milestones, such as site designation, permit
submission, permit approval, construction start, and facility operation. States
should analyze and discuss their regulations, policies, and procedures, as well
as economic .and other considerations, that may assist or may prevent or impede
achievement of these milestones. States also should discuss how they will
overcome any impediments.
Alternatively, states may be able to obtain agreement with other states
(and to document such agreement) to manage these additional waste quantities by
exporting the wastes, or the states may commit to additional waste minimization
activities. In all cases, states must thoroughly document how the state will
assure access to facilities for these wastes. States then can sign written
commitments, providing assurances to EPA, that the state will undertake these
documented activities.
B. General Instructions
States should respond to the questions contained in the attached forms.
States should copy and complete the appropriate forms. Additional documentation
should be included as needed. Creation of additional capacity should be
documented fully and should address the shortfalls identified in Chapter V.
All states should complete Form I, “General Siting Description.” This
form requests general information on state regulations and procedures that can
facilitate or impede the development of new hazardous waste capacity. It covers
such items as the state’s general siting process, preemption and override
authorities of local and state governments, and laws that restrict the
operation, location or configuration of a facility. (A glossary of the terms
used in this chapter is contained in the definition section at the end of the
chapter.)
67

-------
States that project a capacity shortfall in any projection year, after
taking into account waste minimization and waste exports,. also should complete
Forms II and III. Form II, “Capacity Development Plans,” requests a more
detailed description of topics covered under Form I. Form III, “Milestones and
State Review,” describes the state’s plan to meet its shortfall, to which the
state will commit.
Impediments to achieving the milestones include, but are not limited to,
the following:
o a state siting process that is subject to local zoning or other
regulatory powers that are likely to be exercised and cannot be
preempted or overruled by the state; these factors may prevent
siting or permitting in anticipated locations.
o The absence of a siting program having clearly defined steps and
procedures (including ample opportunities for public review and
comment) and the absence of clear time limits for permit review,
comment, and approval or denial; these factors may lead to strong
public opposition or to delay.
o The enactment of legislation or promulgation of regulations that may
prevent particular facilities from operating economically or at all
(such as placing limits on facility size, type of waste allowed at
the facility, or outright prohibition of particular waste management
facilities or activities) if those limitations preclude creation or
permitting of the capacity that the state has committed to develop
• (this would include limitations that may be agreed to by the
facility developer and the host àommunity as part of siting
negotiation process).
68

-------
Form I: GENERAL SITING DESCRIPTION
All states should fill out this form. States should copy and complete the
form and include it and any additional needed documentation. Please attach
additional information if more space is needed to answer any question.
Name of Respondent __________________________________
Telephone Number ___________________________________
Address __________________________________
1. Does your state have a formal hazardous waste management facility siting
process in addition to the RCRA permitting process?
Yes _____ No?
If Yes,
la. What are the titles of the legislative authorities and when were
they enacted?
2. Does your state have a siting agency that is distinct from the RCRA
regulatory agency?
_____ Yes _____No?
If Yes,
2a. What are the titles of the legislative authorities and when were
they enacted?
3. Please describe (in a brief narrative) the procedure used to review
facility applications, select sites (if applicable), review permits, and
provide public comment. Please indicate the time required to complete
majOr steps, such, as the time required between permit application and
approval/denial. Include an explanation of the appeals process available
to the siting applicant, the host community, and siting opponents. (Where
applicable, please note how a particular activity differs for expansion
of existing facilities compared to siting of new facilities. If the
69

-------
process is significantly different for new sitings and expansions, please
prepare two separate descriptions-.)
3a. If possible, please construct a flowchart showing the major steps
of the siting process as described in your narrative. Where known,
indicate the time necessary for an application to proceed through
each required step.
4. Please describe (in a brief narrative) the outcome of siting applications
since 1986.
5. The following questions address basic laws and rules that may affect the
siting or expansion of new facilities. When answering the following
questions, please note the relevant law or rule (if applicable) and
briefly describe any special circumstances or constraints that apply.
5a. Do local governments in your state have the authority to approve
RCRA permits?
Yes No?
If yes, please list the applicable regulation or authority.
5b. Do local governments in your state have the power to prohibit
- facility siting by the use of zoning ordinances?
Yes No?
If yes, please list the applicable regulation or authority. -
5c. Does your state have the power to override local zoning authority
and/or preempt local zoning powers?
Yes _____ No?
If yes, please list the applicable regulation or authority.
5d. Does your state have the power to override and/or preempt any ot ier
local authorities that could prohibit or restrict capacity
development?
_____ Yes No?
If yes, please list the applicable regulation or authority.
70

-------
• Se. Are there state restrictions on the size or number of new or
expanded facilities?
Yes No?
If yes, please list the applicable regulation or authority.
5f. Does the state allow facilities to be built that have greater
capacity than that needed to treat in-state waste?
Yes No?
If no, please list the applicable regulation or authority.
6. The following pertain to • laws and regulations that affect interstate
transportation of hazardous waste.
6a. Does your state assess a fee on the generation of hazardous waste?
Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
6b. Does your state assess a fee for the treatment or disposal of
hazardous waste?
_____ Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
6c. Does your state have the power to establish differential fees on
waste that is imported for treatment and/or disposal?
_____ Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
6d. Are any limits placed on the size of the differential fee?
Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
6e. Do local or county governments have the power to establish
differential fees on waste that is treated and/or disposed of in
their jurisdiction?
_____ Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
71.

-------
Figure 1. Siting Process Flowchart
(See Form I, uestio7l 3a.)
A potential applicant contacts State Siting procedures are initiated when Host community notified by State Agency
Agency for Information on the siting facility permit application is submitted of facility proposal
process by applicant
—
Informational Public Hearing held by State
Agency in the host community to
disseminate materials and receive
comments
Applicant submits materials required by
agency (permit forms, financial disclosure
statement, environmental impact analysis)
Materials are made available to the host
community and interested parties
—
Comments received from host community
and interested parties are submitted to
State Agency and applicant
Inadequate materials are returned for
additional work and resubnission by
the applicant
Applicant submits completed materials
and forms to State Agency
—
State Agency completes review and issues
a draft permit which initiates Adjudicatory
Public Hearing
Draft permit is distributed to host
co munity and Interested parties before
adjudicatory Public Hearing
Adjudicatory Public Hearing is held and
testimony received from applicant, state
agencies and interested parties
$tate Agency makes final decision, if
approved, a permit is issued

-------
Form II: CAPACITY DEVELOPHENT PLANS
States that project a capacity shortfall in any projection year should
complete this form. States should copy and complete the form and include it and
any additional needed documentation. Please attach additional information if
more space is needed to answer any question.
Name of Respondent
Telephone Number __________________________________
Address _________________________________
1. How much new commercial facility capacity will be needed to meet the
shortfall anticipated for hazardous waste management capacity? [ See
Chapter V.]
2. How does your State intend to develop new in-state capacity to address
these shortfalls? (Please refer to the detailed description of procedures
and milestones in Form III.]
By siting new facilities
Through the expansion of existing facilities
_______________ Both
______________ Other, please explain
3. If you intend to meet new capacity needs by increasing waste exports
beyond the 1987 levels, please explain why. Please indicate whether such
plans are based on management planning efforts with other states,
industries increasing exports to captive facilities, any environmental or
economic considerations that restrict development of in-state capacity,
or projections of current patterns.
3a. Are you participating in a multi-state hazardous waste management
planning effort?
Yes No?
3b. Please list the participating states.
73

-------
4. Does your state have siting criteria?
_____ Yes _____ No?
If Yes, please attach information describing your siting criteria and
their regulatory status.
5. Are any of the following methods used in your state to select sites or
encourage site development (check all that apply)?
_____ State selection of specific site
_____ State purchase of specific site
______ State inventory of suitable sites
_____ Private nomination of site
Local nominatiOn of site
Permit fast tracking
_____ Other, please list:
6. How is the public allowed to participate in the siting process in order
to affect the siting decision?
_____ Adjudicatory public hearings
_____ Informational public hearings
_____ Local advisory committee
_____ Local representatives on siting board
_____ Other, please explain
74

-------
7. If financial assistance provided to the local community to allow it to
review the siting application and conduct an environmental or health
assessment?
_____ Yes No?
If yes,
7a. Who supplies the funds?
State
Siting applicant
_____ Other, please explain __________________________________
7b. What is the maximum amount of funding a community may receive?
$_________
7c. Are there any restrictions on the use of the funds?
_____ Yes _____ No?
If yes, what are they?
8. Does your state use negotiation in its siting process?
Yes _____ No?
If yes, please explain.
9. Are dispute resolution procedures used in your State to settle differences
on siting issues?
Yes No?
If yes, please explain.
75

-------
10. Is compensation to host communities used in your State?
_____ Yes _____ No?
If yes, please explain.
lOa. Who is responsible for providing the compensation?
_____ The site developer
_____ The State
_____ Other, please explain
lOb. What type(s) of compensation is used?
_____ Cash payments
_____ Fees based on waste management activities
______ Insurance
_____ Emergency training and equipment
_____ Operating concessions
_____ Other, please list:
11. Is your State authorized to build and/or operate a hazardous waste
management facility?
_____ Yes _____ No?
If yes, please explain (also please •indicate if you presently own or
operate any facilities).
76

-------
Form III: NILESTONES and STATE REVIEW
Those states that have projected.a shortfall for 1989 or 1995 should
complete this form. States should copy and complete the form and include it
and any additional needed documentation. Please copy this form if more space
is needed to describe your State’s milestones.
Name of Respondent __________________________________
Telephone Number __________________________________
Address _________________________________
1. States should complete a schedule of capacity development milestones for
each type of management capacity needed. These milestones should reflect
key decision dates for different types of capacity. It is not necessary
to list specific facilities by name or location, only to describe the type
and amount of capacity to be created (or expanded) and permitted by a
given date. States should also include milestones for approval of RCRA
Part B permits for established facilities now operating under interim
status.
The schedule of interim milestones can include any steps in the State
siting process that would indicate the development of needed capacity.
For example, states with developed programs could define their milestones
by specifying dates by which the following activities should be completed:
o Enter in a multi-state hazardous waste planning effort.
o Designation of candidate sites.
o Letter of intent to develop a facility from a private party (or
equivalent commitment from a public entity).
0 Identification of host community.
o Permit submission.
o Draft permit approval.
0 Final permit approval.
a Construction start.
States without a formal siting program also should report the above
activities. However, they also may indicate important milestone dates for
77

-------
developing their own siting program. This would include activities such
as the following:
o Passage of siting legislation.
o Establishment of statewide siting criteria.
o Creation of a state board or authority.
o Development of siting regulations.
States are not restricted to the program elements suggested here, but are
encouraged to achieve a substantial degree of specificity in defining
milestones in order to provide credible assurances. States should clearly
define the quantitative milestones that will provide access to needed
capacity.
2. What are the likely measures your State will take if you do not meet an
anticipated milestone? Please be specific about your emergency plans.
78

-------
C. Definitions Section
judicatory Hear g. , This is a hearing to gather evidence and arrive at
a decision on a proposed facility. Interested parties present evidence to
influence the final decision and are generally subject to cross examination as
part of the process. Based on evaluation of the evidence presented, the hearing
examiner rules on the suitability of the proposed facility (granting or denying
a permit) or makes a recommendation to the permitting authority on whether or
not the facility should be approved.
Compensation . This includes services and payments made to a host
community and other affected communities to help allay burdens imposed by their
proximity to a hazardous waste management facility. Compensation can be cash
payments (for example, a given payment per ton processed) or provided in kind
(for example, free clean-up of public hazardous waste spills, company
maintenance of access roads,etc.).
Facility Expansion . This is any increase in capacity of an existing
hazardous waste facility. This can refer to construction of plant additions or
substitution of new equipment for older equipment with a concomitant ability to
handle greater volumes of waste.
Informational Hearing . This is a public hearing for dissemination of
information and airing of opinions on a proposed facility. Representatives of
all interested parties can make presentations and discuss areas of concern;
evidence is collected and turned over to permitting authorities for
consideration; the hearing officer presides and ensures proper procedure but
does not rule on the proposed facility.
Milestone . This is a tas1 or achievement to be accomplished by a specific
time. Milestones can be stated quantitatively, such as tons of incineration
capacity in operation by a certain date, or can be described as qualitative
interim measures, such as implementation of certain defined pràcedures in a
state siting program by a specified date.
Mitigation . These are measures implemented to minimize the impact of a
hazardous waste facility on the surrounding population and the environment.
Whereas compensation is meant to balance burdens, mitigation is intended to
reduce the burdens carried by host and nearby communities. Mitigation includes
restrictions on operating hours and procedures, limitations on types and volumes
of waste accepted, stricter engineering specifications, and construction of
additional safety features.
gotiation . This consists of mediated and nonmediated interactions
between the proponent of a specific hazardous waste management facility and
representatives of the host community and other communities that are likely to
be affected by the proposed facility. Negotiation can entail clarification and
resolution of issues and concerns, development of alternatives, and
specification of compensation and mitigation measures accepted by both parties.
Override . The State has the authority to overrule a decision made, at a
lower level of government. With regard to hazardous waste management, the local

-------
jurisdiction first evaluates the case and makes a decision; this decision can
then be appealed to the higher authority which has the right to overturn the
decision. —
Preenrntion . The State has limited the authority of local-or county
government to make decisions in a particular area. That is, the state
substitutes its authority for local or county authority in a specified policy
area so that a decision formerly left to a lower level of government can only
be made at a higher level of government, less sensitive to local preferences.
Shortfall . A shortfall is any commercial capacity need projected after
taking into account waste minimization, exports, and available non-TSDR, onsite,
captive, and commercial capacity. By definition, a shortfall can only be
addressed by capacity development within the state, by reducing demand for
capacity through an aggressive waste minimization program, or by finding
capacity available pursuant to an interstate agreement in another state.
Siting Application . This is a request for state agency approval of a
specific hazardous waste facility on a designated site. Application contains
engineering specifications of the facility, description of wastes and technical
processes, information on the developer, as well as environmental and geological
description of the site and surrounding area.
Siting Criteria . These are constraints and guidelines specified by each
state for evaluating the suitability of individual sites proposed for hazardous
waste management facilities. These criteria can include outright prohibitions
against siting acilicies in certain environments (for example, in 100 year
floodplains) or can be more general and list the variables that should be taken
into consideration in evaluating proposed sites (for example, population density
and evacuation plans).
Sitinz Process . This encompasses all elements of screening and evaluation
involved in gaining approval for a specific hazardous waste facility at a
specifiä site. The process includes site selection (when required), application
for the various required state, national, and local permits, review of those
applications by the appropriate government agencies in accordance with criteria
previously specified, hearings, other forms of public involvement where
applicable (local advisory committees, negotiation), submission and review of
application amendments and revisions, and final decision (approval or denial of
the application).
80

-------