UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 19, 2001
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-00-006
Dr. Morton Lippman, Interim Chair
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Hilary I. Inyang, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Calvin Chien, Chair
Waste Utilization Subcommittee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dear Dr. Lippman, Dr. Inyang and Dr. Chien:
Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2000 with recommendations on overcoming
barriers to waste utilization. We appreciate the independent assessment which the Environmental
Engineering Committee (EEC) of the Science Advisory Board has devoted to this effort. EPA agrees
with you that large scale waste utilization, when conducted in a manner that is protective of human
health and the environment, can offer substantial benefits and should be encouraged. In a number of
cases, our office has made major strides in responding to some of the issues you raised. However, we
appreciate your call for a more ambitious Agency program to encourage safe waste utilization. We will
keep your recommendations in mind when charting the future direction of the RCRA program. Indeed,
the Office of Solid Waste is addressing the same general themes in a draft of its RCRA Vision White
Paper, designed to look at the future of waste management.
We will attempt to discuss the points you raised in your commentary and describe efforts which
we are taking within our current legislative mandate to promote increased waste utilization.
A. Interpretation of Key Definitions that Impact upon Waste Utilization
We agree with the Committee that the federal definition of solid waste can be a barrier
expanding waste utilization efforts at some facilities. However it can also encourage materials
recovery. We continue to look for ways to balance the competing needs of facilitating
environmentally sound recycling of hazardous secondary materials and managing the risks posed
-------
by those materials. In 1994, we completed a two year study of metal recovery of hazardous wastes.
The study concluded that although RCRA Subtitle C regulation included both incentives and
disincentives to metal recovery, overall the program has been a substantial contributing factor to
increasing the recovery of metals over 1980 levels.
Over the last 6 years, the Agency has amended the definition of solid waste and accompanying
hazardous waste recycling requirements several times to encourage environmentally sound recovery.
Some examples include:
Universal Waste Rule for hazardous waste batteries & mercury-bearing thermostats.
This final rule eliminates most manifesting and interim storage permit requirements for
those wastes and seeks to encourage development of an infrastructure for their
collection. (May 11, 1995)
• Phase IV LDR mini-rule which excludes most scrap metal and conditionally excludes
shredded circuit boards sent for recycling (copper recovery, precious metal recovery)
from RCRA jurisdiction. (May 12, 1997)
• Phase IV LDR rule conditionally excludes recycled metal-bearing mineral processing
secondary materials from RCRA jurisdiction. This final rule simplifies conditions for
recycling and reduces regulatory barriers to recovering spent materials. (May 26,
1998)
• Petroleum refining listing rule which established exclusions for oil-bearing secondary
materials recovered and returned to the petroleum refining process (August 6, 1998)
Variance for partially-reclaimed F006 electroplating sludge wastes destined for metal
recovery. This proposed variance would allow increased smelting of electroplating
sludge for copper, nickel and precious metal concentrates. (December 9, 1999)
• Final rulemaking which extends the accumulation period from 90 tol 80 days for
generators of hazardous electroplating sludge waste who generate less than 60 tons per
year in order to encourage more cost-effective transportation to smelters. (March 8,
2000)
We are continuing to look at new ways to encourage environmentally sound recovery of
secondary materials. Some recent efforts include a proposed rule to conditionally exclude low
contaminant hazardous waste-derived zinc micro-nutrient fertilizers to encourage their use as well as
work on developing a regulatory proposal to encourage recovery of cathode ray tubes and mercury-
containing devices.
-------
We have also been working on initiatives designed to promote the continued beneficial use of
large volume waste streams. The Agency has recently made decisions on cement kiln dust (CKD) and
fossil fuel combustion (FFC) wastes. The decisions focused on whether these wastes, when disposed
or used for beneficial purposes, should be managed as hazardous wastes. For CKD, the Agency
decided that most beneficial uses do not need to be regulated as a hazardous waste. Similarly, EPA
decided that FFC wastes do not need to be managed as hazardous wastes, in part because EPA did
not want to place a stigma on beneficial uses. However, the Agency will develop non-hazardous waste
regulations for the approximately 90 million tons/year of coal combustion wastes disposed in surface
impoundments and landfills and also when these wastes are placed in mines. The regulatory standards
developed for minefilling will define those conditions that constitute protective approaches to the
beneficial use of coal combustion waste in mine reclamation.
Your analysis raised the concern that designation of a material as a hazardous waste limits its
marketability and acceptance as a legitimate commodity for reuse. Recently, we recognized this
concern and its particular impact on CKD and FFC residue utilization. In both cases, we are working
to establish a framework that will prevent the hazardous waste stigma from being attached to these
materials. While we share your concern for the "stigma" effect in many circumstances, we do note that
a number of wastes, despite being designated as hazardous, have had increased recovery rates over
1980 pre-RCRA levels including electroplating sludges and electric arc furnace dust.
Your letter also mentions the Agency's work on the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rulemaking (HWIR). The SAB was instrumental in conducting a review of an earlier model designed
for the purpose of estimating "exit levels". We agree that such exit levels will offer waste generators a
target to meet and provide a mechanism that will encourage waste minimization and possibly utilization.
Before the exit levels are finalized, OSW must first walk through an orderly scientific and technical
model development process. Based largely on the advice of the SAB, ORD and OSW have
developed a new integrated environmental fate and transport model called the 3MRA Model as the
tool for estimating "exit levels." The model currently evaluates the environmental release, transport, and
transformation of waste constituencies placed in any of 5 different waste management units. The model
also estimates the exposure and risk to potential human or ecological receptors. This model is currently
available to the public as a draft approach. The Agency expects to return to the SAB to seek their
review of 3MRA.
Our work in the HWIR and elsewhere demonstrate that there are potential risks to be
addressed when wastes (including "hazardous wastes") are used as products. We are also aware of
the challenges in estimating these risks. We agree that more work needs to be done in this area to
achieve the goal of encouraging beneficial waste utilization.
-------
B. Clarify Roles for Agency, States and Industry
We agree that the Agency can play an important role in providing technical support to States on
beneficial use issues. Given existing time and resource constraints, we are currently undertaking a
several collaborative efforts designed to promote the reuse of wastes generated in large volumes. For
example, we are working in partnership with the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (Sector
Strategies Division), the metal casting industry, States, the Department of Energy, and non-government
stakeholders to evaluate the beneficial reuse potential for non-hazardous foundry sands. It has been
estimated that foundries send 6-10 million tons of sand per year to landfills at an annual cost of $100-
$250 million. The industry goal is to achieve 75% "beneficial reuse" of this byproduct.
We are also providing support to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through
reviewing a document which will provide a framework for undertaking an environmental assessment of
reuse materials in road construction. We also participate on the Advisory Board of the Recycled
Materials Resource Center, an academic research and technical information center focused on reuse of
materials in highway construction.
C. Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
Our office agrees that it is important to work diligently to designate items containing recovered
materials in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG). OSW in the last five years has
designated guidelines for 49 new products made from recycled materials. The committee did not
appear to be aware of our efforts in this area so I would encourage committee members to explore
OSW's CPG web site for a thorough overview of our program and accomplishments:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/index.htm. As an example, we have designated
guidelines for cement and concrete containing coal fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag.
We have also designated guidelines for flowable fill containing foundry sands. We believe these
designations help create markets and greatly increase the utilization of these materials, especially in the
construction industries. We will continue to evaluate products that utilize materials of this nature for
future designation in the CPG.
OSW continues to serve as an EPA representative on the Workgroup to Streamline and
Improve Procurement Reporting, which was established by the White House Task Force on Recycling.
We agree with you that the current procurement process can hinder the purchase and reporting of
recycled-content products and that the procurement of CPG-designated items will be greatly enhanced
if the procurement process is made more efficient. We will continue to support the efforts of the
Workgroup to simplify and streamline the procurement process.
You should be aware that direct implementation of the procurement guidelines is a joint
function of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget and the
White House Task Force on Recycling, not EPA. We have helped staff the White House Task Force
on Recycling and have worked in collaboration with them in their development of outreach
-------
and educational materials aimed at increasing federal procurement of recycled products. We intend to
continue this support.
D. Collaboration with Industry to Provide Incentives and Market Infrastructure
The Agency believes that the current CPG program provides substantial federal support for
materials reuse. This program can be expanded as data establishing the safety of materials reuse in a
variety of settings are developed. Industry can play a key role in developing and disseminating data on
wastes they produce. We are committed to using these data in designating additional products through
our CPG program.
In the U.S., reuse of non-hazardous materials is economically viable on a national basis for a
limited number of material/reuse combinations (e.g., asphalt reuse), and others may be locally viable
depending on material supplies and disposal costs. Because of the State role in assessing non-
hazardous wastes for reuse, one of EPA's roles has been, in some cases, providing States the technical
support to make high quality, scientifically defensible beneficial use determinations. This is an area
where EPA may be able to provide greater leadership when resources permit.
OSW, through its Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) Program, has been working with
industry, States and environmental groups to help forge cooperative solutions to the way we produce,
reuse and recycle products. EPR recognizes that all actors in the product chain - from suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers, recyclers and the waste management community -
share responsibility for reducing the life cycle environmental impacts of products. The EPR program
has funded a number of projects and multi-stakeholder dialogues to foster government and public
awareness of this concept and to analyze and solve specific problems (e.g., improving markets for
engineered thermoplastics). The program also maintains a website. Current efforts are focused on
electronics, carpets, plastics and packaging.
We appreciate your comments that elements of the Jobs Through Recycling (JTR) program
were successful in developing markets for secondary materials. This program has been an effective
information sharing network between economic development and recycling communities. Although the
grant portion of this program is no longer being funded, three valuable resources are still in operation:
NetShare: a valuable archive of market development information and tips from the
JTRnet list serve;
• MarketShare: a collection of effective market development strategies used by JTR
grantees; and
JTR Success Stories: a series of fact sheets documenting the success of JTR
projects.
-------
E. Tracking and Publicizing Long Term Performance of Waste Utilization Projects
We agree with the EEC that a more focused approach should be undertaken to track and
publicize successful waste utilization initiatives. The suggestions you identified are helpful. Your
suggestion to have our office encourage the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
work with the Civil Engineering Research Foundation's Innovation Center to test recycled products and
help bring them to market makes sense. However, past efforts undertaken by the OSW and the White
House Task Force on Recycling to seek their assistance have not been successful. Currently, we are
not in a financial position to be able to fund demonstration projects in support of this area. However,
we have made effective use of communicating activities to promote waste utilization through case
studies, stakeholder dialogue meetings and Agency websites.
We recently worked with States to address the issue of public health concerns associated with
contaminants in waste derived fertilizers. Various hazardous and non-hazardous waste offer fertilizer
manufacturers a cost effective source of nutrients, micro-nutrients, and soil conditioning agents.
However, as highlighted in a series of well publicized circumstances, waste and the fertilizers derived
from them can contain heavy metals, dioxin and other contaminants. Substantial public concerns arise if
there is a suspicion that the country's food supply is being grown in soils that have been amended with
hazardous waste derived fertilizers. Several States raised concerns regarding the health impacts of
fertilizers; particularly those derived from wastes. The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and the Office of
Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances undertook a series of evaluations of the
contaminant content and health impact of fertilizers. This information was invaluable to the States who
found themselves grappling with a very concerned public and constituency groups. The information
continues to be a resource to the fertilizer industry, States and the public as they explore ways to ensure
that safe fertilizers are used for food production.
Also, the Agency is aware that the World Resource Institute is developing a database of
material flows from industrial economies. We have contributed to its funding and are following its
progress closely. We agree that it is of great potential benefit to the Agency on waste utilization
F. Implement Innovative Technology Development Programs for Large-Scale Utilization of
Waste Materials
EPA agrees with the Committee that innovative technology development programs are
critical to promote the large-scale utilization of waste materials. In 1994, EPA concluded in its
Report to Congress on the effect of environmental regulation on hazardous waste that RCRA
Subtitle C regulation may inhibit innovative metal recovery technologies. One case study in that
report suggested that existing RCRA regulatory provisions designed to encourage innovative t
echnology development such as research development and demonstration permits and regulatory
-------
exemptions for treatability studies may not be adequate to encourage innovative metal recovery
technology to occur at a faster rate.
Since that report, EPA has increased the daily mass limits for the treatability exemption from
250 kg per day to 10,000 kg per day of media contaminated with non-acute hazardous waste. Also,
we have recently solicited public comment in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on how the
land disposal restrictions (LDR) program can be used to encourage the use of innovative waste
technologies. The Agency intends to use this information to help change the LDR program to support
environmentally sound innovative technologies for waste utilization.
One example of where EPA has supported an innovative project is the RCRA brownfields pilot
in Blue Valley, Missouri. The Blue Valley area is located on the east side of Kansas City, Missouri
along the Blue River. When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredged the Blue River, the spoils
were used as fill material at the nearby corrective action site rather than being hauled a long distance for
disposal.
In addition, OSW's RCRA Vision White Paper (now under development) is aimed at
exploring the future landscape of waste and material management in the U.S. Among the tools and
strategies suggested in the Vision paper is the use of economic incentives to facilitate technological
development of waste management.
G. Develop Technical Guidance Manuals on Waste Utilization
The Agency has participated in the development of a FHWA-sponsored framework for
environmental assessment of reuse candidate materials. While not making technical recommendations,
the framework does describe a model administrative structure that may be useful to States in further
developing their beneficial use programs.
We have also supported efforts by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on
waste utilization initiatives. With OSW funding, NAHB has developed a series of handbooks and
"how-to" manuals on deconstruction techniques and techniques for utilizing construction and demolition
waste material.
The Agency is also examining and supporting research and development of a broader range of
waste leaching tests than have previously been used, in response to program need and concerns
expressed by SAB in an earlier commentary (Feb 1998). This work may lead to standardization of
leach testing approaches in non-landfill, reuse settings.
EPA agrees that the national guidance and/or regulatory framework the Committee has
suggested is a promising approach to achieving the goal of encouraging waste utilization. We also feel
that it is an ambitious recommendation likely to require significant coordination across different offices
within EPA and possibly other agencies. That said, we support the overall goal, and will keep EEC's
recommendations in mind as we chart the future direction of the RCRA program.
-------
Conclusion
Together with the States and municipal governments, we have put in place a system that we are
proud of in terms of its ability to deal with the waste being produced by our society. Although there are
many opportunities today to encourage beneficial reuse of secondary materials as the EEC suggests, we
see a continuing need for many of the regulations and enforcement tools to make this system work In
addition to striving to limit unsafe practices, we will continue to encourage reduction in the use of toxic
constituents. We also see a need for greater focus on some of the fundamental environmental drivers,
such as population and economic growth. The size of material flows continues to increase and continues
to impose increasing stress on the environment, even as we try to deal with those stresses by
encouraging ever more effective methods of waste recycling or reuse.
We see that effectively managing an ever growing volume of waste is in the long run not the
road to sustainable development. We will need to think more fundamentally and holistically than we do
now about the overall efficiency with which we use materials in our economy, and not just what we do
with waste. For this reason, your letter outlining recommendations on increasing waste utilization
efforts within the RCRA framework is especially timely.
Sincerely,
/S/
Timothy Fields
Assistant Administrator
------- |