UnttBd States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
irnewaney Rfspons*
Washington, O.C, 20460
08WER Drrsetive
Numbtr 9010,02
May 1993
Guidance For Capacity
Assurance Planning
Capacity Planning Pursuant to
CERCLA§104(c)(9)
f,. Printed on Recycled Pap
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Chapter 1. Overview of Capacity Assurance Planning
1.1 introduction , 1-1
CERCLA §104(c){9) 1-1
Nature of the Assurance Submittal 1-3
Previous CAPs , , 1-4
Objective of the 1993 CAP , , 1-7
Future CAPs 1-8
1.2 National Capacity Assurance Approach 1-10
Phase 1 1-10
National Aggregation of Demand and Capacity 1-13
Phase 2 . 1-15
Phase 3 , 1-16
Hazardous Waste Included in CAP , . . . , 1-16
The States' Assurance of Capacity ....,,, , 1-17
Public Participation , 1-18
1.3 CAP Submittal 1-19
Phase 1 CAP Submittal 1-19
Phase 2 CAP Submittal , . 1-20
Phase 3 CAP Submittal 1-21
1.4 CAP Review Process , 1-22
Review of the Phase 1 Data Submittal 1-22
Review of the Phase 2 CAP Submittal 1-25
Review of the Phase 3 CAP Submittal 1-27
Ongoing Review of Phase 2 and 3 Milestones , 1-28
Chapter 2. Phase 1: Baseyear
2.1. Introduction to Baseyear Data , 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Chapter Organization , 2-1
2.2 CAP Management Categories 2-2
Page i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section • Page
2.3 Baseyear Tables , 2-7
Transfer Facilities 2-7
Interstate Hazardous Waste Imports and Exports 2-10
International Hazardous Waste Imports and Exports 2-10
Mixed Hazardous/Radioactive Wastes 2-11
Demand on Capacity from Recurrent and One-time Waste in 1991 2-11
Baseyear Tables 2-11
Table 1. 1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site 2-12
Table 2. 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems ... 2-16
Table 3. 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial
Subtitle C Systems 2-26
Table 4. Maximum Operational In-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991 2-39
Chapter 3. Phase 1 -. Projections
3.1 Introduction to Phase 1 Projections 3-1
Introduction , 3-1
Baseline .....,..,...,. 3-1
1993 Projections , 3-4
1999 Projections 3-6
2013 Projections 3-7
3.2 Treatment Residuals .....* 3-9
Calculation of Residuals from Stabilization and Incineration 3-10
3.3 Accounting for Regulatory Change 3-12
Introduction 3-12
Land Disposal Restrictions 3-13
Regulatory Change Projection Method 3-16
3.4 Review Criteria for Projections 3-19
Chapter 4. Phases 2 and 3: Addressing Shortfalls
4.1 Introduction to Addressing Shortfalls . 4-1
Page ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
Introduction , 4-1
Identifying Phase 3 "Shortfall States" 4-3
Assigning Portions of Net National Shortfalls , 4-4
Illustration 4-5
4.2 Waste Minimization 4-9
Introduction 4-9
Review Criteria for Waste Minimization 4-11
Adequacy of State Waste Minimization Infrastructure 4-12
Targeting of Waste Reduction Activities 4-14
Generator Communication 4-15
Feasibility 4-17
Approaches for Estimating Future Waste Minimization 4-18
Presenting Results of Waste Minimization Estimates 4-21
Milestones 4-24
4.3 Development of New Hazardous Waste Capacity 4-25
4.4 Capacity Assurance Using "Interstate Agreements or Regional
Agreements or Authorities" 4-27
4.5 Milestones 4-30
Glossary Glossary-1
Appendix A. National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan
Excerpts , A-1
Appendix B. EPA Regional Contacts , B-1
Appendix C. CAP Tables C-1
Appendix D. Background Information on International Imports and Exports D-1
Appendix E. Conversion Factors E-1
Appendix F. Regulatory Change Projections
F.1 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule F-1
Page iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
Potential BIF Rule Data Sources , ..,.,.,...,. F-1
F.2 Future Regulatory Changes , F-3
LDRs for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes and Contaminated
Soil - Phase II , F-3
LDRs for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes - Phase lil F-3
Appendix 6. Waste Minimization
G.1 Approaches for Estimating Future Waste Minimization G-1
Generator Survey/Plan G-2
Engineering Literature Review G-3
Analysis of Historical Data G-6
Page iv
-------
LIST or EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Exhibit 1-1
Exhibit 1-2
Exhibit 2-1
Exhibit 2-2
Table 1
Exhibit 2-3
Table 2
Exhibit 2-4
Exhibit 2-5
Exhibit 2-6
Table 3
Exhibit 2-7
Exhibit 2-8
Exhibit 2-9
Table 4
Page
National Capacity Assurance Approach 1-11
CAP Review Process , 1-23
CAP Management Categories 2-4
Transfer Facility Information in Tables 2 and 3
Based on 1991 Biennial Report Forms
2-9
1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site (tons) ,,,,2-13, C-1
Flowchart for Table 1;
1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site 2-15
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems (tons) . , 2-17, C-2
Flowchart 1or 'Exports' Column of Table 2;
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems 2-19
Flowchart for 'Waste Generated and Managed in State' Column
of Table 2: 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems , 2-21
Flowchart for 'Imports' Column of Table 2:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems 2-24
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste" in Commercial Systems (tons) 2-27, C-3
Flowchart for 'Exports' Column of Table 3;
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems 2-29
Flowchart for 'Waste Generated and Managed in State' Column of Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems 2-34
Flowchart for 'Imports' Column of Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems 2-37
Maximum Operational In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management
Capacity - End of 1991 (tons) 2-40, C-4
Page v
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Exhibit Page
Exhibit 2-10 Flowchart for Table 4: Maximum In-state Operational Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991 , , , . 2-41
Table 5 Demand for Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity from
Recurrent Waste Expected to be Generated In State (tons) 3-3, C-5
Table 6 Expected Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management
Capacity (tons) , , 3-5, C-6
Exhibit 3-1 Wastes with Expired National Capacity Variances 3-15
Exhibit 3-2 Phase I Newly Listed Wastes 3-16
Exhibit 4-1 Shortfall Example 4-6
Exhibit 4-2 Hypothetical National Aggregation for a Five State "Country" 4-7
Exhibit 4-3 Relationship Between Approaches to Forecasting Future
Waste Minimization and EPA's Evaluation Criteria 4-19
Exhibit 4-4 Estimated Reduction in 1999 Demand for Commercial Hazardous
Waste Management Capacity Due to Waste Minimization (tons) 4-23
Exhibit D-1 Sample OWPE Annual Export Report D-2
Exhibit D-2 Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992 Hazardous Waste Exports ...... D-7
Exhibit E-1 Conversion Factors for Converting 1991 Biennial Report
Quantities to Short Tons E-1
Exhibit G-1 Usefulness of Statistical Analysis in Projecting Waste Minimization G-7
Page vi
-------
1. OVERVIEW OF CAPACITY
ASSURANCE PLANNING
-------
-------
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Guidance document advises states on how to assure adequate hazardous waste
treatment and disposal capacity for meeting the requirements of Section 104(c)(i) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, (CERCLA or
"Superfund") (42 U.S.C. §9604(c)(9)), as amended, by preparing 1993 hazardous waste
Capacity Assurance Plans (CAPs), It supersedes similar guidance documents issued in
December 1988 and April 1991, and should be used by states for the 1993 capacity
assurance planning process. States that have CAPs approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will be eligible to receive new Superfund remedial action funding.
The information collection activities for the 1993 Capacity Assurance Planning process have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 2050-
0099.
CERCLA §104(c) (9)
States prepare CAPs pursuant to CERCLA §104(c)(9). The statute requires that, prior
to the President providing funding for any remedial actions, a state must assure the
availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities that have adequate capacity to
manage the hazardous waste reasonably expected to be generated wrthin the state over 20
years. These assurances must be provided in a contract or cooperative agreement entered
into between that state and the President, After October 17,1989, no new Superfund
remedial actions may be funded using federal remedial action resources unless a state first
enters into such an agreement providing assurances that the President deems adequate.
The President has delegated the authority to determine adequacy to the EPA Administrator
(the Administrator).
Congress adopted CERCLA §104(c)(9) to oblige states to take responsibility for
making certain that there will be adequate and safe treatment or disposal for the wastes that
continue to be generated within their borders.
Provisions of CERCLA §104(c)(9)
There are six important aspects to Section 104(c)(9). First, it became effective on
October 17,1989, three years after enactment, Second, the Administrator cannot provide any
remedial action funding pursuant to Section 104 after that date unless specific assurances are
provided. Third, the state must assure the availability of facilities to treat, destroy, or securely
dispose of all hazardous waste reasonably projected to be generated within the state for 20
years and such facilities are in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Fourth, the state in which the funding is requested must provide these
assurances in a contract or cooperative agreement entered into with the Administrator. Fifth,
availability of facilities that are outside the state must be assured in accordance with an
interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority. Finally, the assurances provided
must be deemed adequate by the Administrator.
Page 1-1
-------
42 U.S.C. |W04(c)(8)
Siting. Effective 3 years after October 17, 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) nave 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 [42
U.S.C. §6921 et seq].
EPA's Implementation of CERCLA §104(c)(9)
EPA provides funding to the states for remedial actions through Superfund contracts
and cooperative agreements. Under Section 104(c)(9), the Administrator will enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements only with those states that provide assurances regarding
the availability of capacity for 20 years from the date of signature.
EPA's interpretation of the legislative intent of this provision is that states must
understand what waste will be generated within their borders and must plan to assure the
availability of capacity to manage this waste, either within the state 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 ensure the availability of adequate
management capacity pursuant to its planning documents and in accordance with its
interstate agreements. This document provides guidance on how states should prepare
CAPs, which EPA will review to determine whether adequate assurances are provided.
EPA does not intend for the CAP process to override or interfere with state
requirements or efforts to plan or provide for the management of wastes. Development of
new capacity may be in a state's best interest even if the assessment of national capacity
indicates that sufficient projected capacity will exist in the future. For instance, capacity
development may be necessary in a state for many reasons, including, to replace inefficient
technologies with safer and more effective innovative technologies, to decrease costs for in-
state industries, and to encourage business growth within a state. In addition, Subtitle C
management technologies are also used for the safe and secure disposal of large volumes of
other wastes not incorporated into EPA's capacity assessment such as those wastes
regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls) and many
industrial non-hazardous wastes; consequently, a state may desire the development of more
capacity than necessary to demonstrate adequate capacity assurance.
Page 1-2
-------
EPA Regulations
The statutory requirements for capacity assurance have been codified in the National
OH and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300,510{e)) {see Appendix A). In
the preamble to the rule-making, EPA stated that it would use the following criteria to
determine the adequacy of a state's assurance (55 Federal Register 8666, 8778, March 8,
1990):
(1) The plan submitted to EPA documenting hazardous waste capacity
availability;
(2) The state's written commitment to the plan; and
(3) The state's written commitment to implement any additional measures
EPA deems necessary to provide for adequate hazardous waste
capacity (e.g., the provisions of this Guidance document).
National Policy
Waste reduction can yield significant benefits to states by reducing projected
generation and its resulting 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 reducing waste generation through waste minimization efforts is preferable to
siting and permitting facilities to manage wastes that are generated, in the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA, Congress expressed a clear preference for reducing
or eliminating the generation of hazardous waste over managing such waste at treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities.
'The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States
that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or
eliminated as expeditiousfy 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."1
Waste minimization has been an important component of previous CAPs and EPA
encourages states to incorporate waste minimization into their 1993 CAPs and future CAPs.
Nature of the Assurance Submittal
Section 104(c)(9) requires that the assurance made by the state regarding availability
of sufficient hazardous waste capacity be deemed adequate by the Administrator. The
legislative history of the section provides little guidance regarding how the Administrator is to
exercise this discretion. Based on the statutory language and relevant legislative history,
however, EPA has provided guidance on how states should provide assurances.
42 U.S.C. §6902(b).
Page 1-3
-------
Again, the Administrator cannot enter into contracts or cooperative agreements unless
the assurances are deemed adequate. The contracts or cooperative agreements must
address hazardous waste generated within the state for 20 years and must assure the
availability of adequate capacity to manage this waste at facilities that are in compliance with
Subtitle C of RCRA, acceptable to the EPA Administrator, have adequate capacity to destroy,
treat, or dispose of the generated waste, and, if outside the state, are in accordance with an
interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority.
Assistance
EPA will continue to make technical and administrative assistance available to states
through the EPA Regional offices. Two hotlines are also available. The Biennial Reporting
System (BBS) hotline (1-800-876-0352) will provide technical assistance to help states
develop data tables. The RCRA/Superfund hotline (1-800-424-9346) can answer questions
regarding the CAP.
Previous CAPs
1989 CAP Guidance Document
Shortly after the amendment of CERCLA in 1986, EPA convened an internal workgroup
to oversee the implementation of the capacity assurance requirements. EPA also issued a
grant to the National Governors' Association (NGA) to develop a set of uniform and
consistent recommendations on what constitutes an adequate CAP. The NGA convened a
series of workgroups, comprised of 60 state officials from 38 states and representatives from
industrial and environmental groups, to develop guidance and, in May 1988, delivered its
guidance package to EPA,
With some revisions to the NGA guidance, EPA issued a Guidance document,
Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to State Officials (OSWER Directive
Number 9010.00 or the 1989 CAP Guidance document) in December 1988. That Guidance
document reflected EPA's understanding of the statutory requirements of CERCLA §104(c){9)
and suggested specific approaches and formats for state demonstrations of the availability of
future capacity.
The 1989 CAP Guidance document included instructions on preparing state CAPs and
model language for interstate or regional agreements for demonstrating future availability of
capacity in other states. The 1989 CAP Guidance document instructed states to submit CAPs
that:
• Described baseyear (1987) hazardous waste generation and
management, accounting for domestic imports and exports;
+ Projected future generation and management in 19B9, 1995, and 2009,
incorporating the impacts of economic change, waste minimization, and
new regulations;
Page 1-4
-------
The NGA Group also felt that the EPA did not review CAPs consistently, and that
enforcement ot the CAPs was not being taken seriously. In addition, the NGA Group believed
federal lawmakers did not fully understand the problems underlying the law. In particular, the
conflict between the states' inability to build new facilities and the only hammer in the statute
(i.e., penalize the state if needed capacity isn't developed) often left states subject to a
demanding and sometimes contentious process without resolution.
Recommendations
The NGA Group developed a number of recommendations for improving the capacity
assurance planning process in a document entitled: "Hazardous Waste Management in the
States: A Review of the Capacity Assurance Process." These include:
• Reduce the scope of data collection and analysts. The NGA Group
recommended that neither mixed hazardous/radioactive waste nor
waste managed in exempt processes should be included in CAP
reporting. In addition, the NGA Group recommended that results be
presented only by waste management category,
• Focus analysis on waste managed off site, thereby concentrating
CAPs on the commercial waste market, interstate waste shipments, and
large, off-site captive facilities. The NGA Group recommended that
states still report baseyear on-site waste management in a summary
fashion.
t Emphasize the first five years from the date of CAP submrttal for
projections. The NGA Group recommended that states conduct
realistic 5-year projections of hazardous waste management in
commercial facilities and thereafter hold projections constant to satisfy
the statutory 20-year planning requirement.
• Use the Biennial Report as the primary data source for CAPs. The
NGA Group believed that the lack of consistent data had made many
state-to-state comparisons of the 1989 CAP data difficult.
• Implement an enforcement policy that would make CAPs and
interstate agreements more meaningful. A majority of the states in
the NGA Group urged EPA to enforce the CAPs, using clear and
consistent criteria. In addition, these states recommended that EPA
withdraw approval of any CAP that is part of an invalid interstate
agreement, unless the state itself can certify that its own capacity is
adequate for current and future needs.
1992 CAPS
EPA modified requirements for the 1992 CAP In response to the states' concerns that
additional discussion was necessary before another quantitative assessment was conducted
on capacity. These requirements appeared in an April 15, 1992 Guidance document entitled
"Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to State Officials" (OSWER Directive
Page 1-6
-------
• Compared projected in-state demand against projected in-state capacity
in the projection years; and
• If the comparison identified shortfalls, presented negotiated interstate
(or regional) agreements, increased waste minimization efforts, and/or
commitments to increase in-state capacity sufficient to eliminate the
shortfalls.
Production of 1989 CAPs
Although each state had the sole responsibility for preparing its 1989 CAP, EPA
provided assistance and the states worked together throughout the CAP development
process. EPA's efforts to assist states stemmed largely from the realization that the data and
analysis required to prepare an adequate CAP would demand substantial technical and data
management expertise and that states varied in the level of expertise in this area. To assist
states in compiling and analyzing their data, EPA furnished the Technical Reference Manual
for Reporting the Current Status of Generation, Management Capacity, Imports and Exports
(January 1989) and state-specific reports of hazardous waste management capacity using the
results of the EPA's National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey).
During the 1989 capacity assurance planning process, some states organized into
multi-state or regional groups, while others attempted to demonstrate self-sufficiency. The
regional groups were formed largely because many states could not assure waste
management capacity solely by relying on in-state capacity and waste minimization; they
needed capacity in other states. States entered into preliminary regional agreement
discussions along EPA Regional lines in part because EPA contractor assistance was
available on an EPA Regional basis. Furthermore, states within EPA Regions often faced
similar waste management issues and, therefore, benefitted from each other's efforts and
hazardous waste planning experience.
Concerns About 1989 CAPs
In response to concerns about the 1989 CAP, EPA and NGA organized the CAP
Policy Development Group (the NGA Group), composed of state officials. The NGA Group
identified a number of issues with the 1989 CAPs and developed recommendations for
improving them for the 1993 cycle.
The NGA Group had mixed opinions about whether the CAP is an effective planning
tool. Most participants agreed that the regional groups formed to prepare the 1989 CAPs
provided useful forums for discussing waste management needs and plans. Many officials
also agreed that CAPs provide a useful picture of waste management nationwide. However,
they considered the CAPs themselves to be unrealistic as state plans. Many officials thought
that the states were developing better waste management plans through their own initiative
outside of the CAP process. Furthermore, they believed that the interstate agreements that
were reached to balance capacity and demand in 1989 did not necessarily reflect real waste
flows.
Page 1-5
-------
Number 9471,00-01 a). In 1992, states submitted their second CAP. In these plans, states
provided a qualitative report on the post-1989 CAP developments to EPA, including changes
in their hazardous waste management systems, new siting efforts, and new waste
minimization programs.
Objective of the 1993 CAP
Having reflected on the previous CAP submittals and evaluated resultant issues, EPA
has modified the capacity assurance planning process for the 1993 CAP. While the 1989
CAPs did meet the requirements of the law, the process did not necessarily encourage or
enhance ongoing and potential future waste minimization efforts or efficiently promote needed
capacity development.
For the 1993 CAP, the availability of national capacity will be the key determinant of
whether the states need to engage in further planning efforts. EPA believes that states can
meet the concerns expressed by Congress in CERCLA §104(c){9) by planning to meet future
capacity requirements for only those waste management technologies where there is
projected to be insufficient national capacity, EPA also believes that such a planning
approach will more closely reflect reality and foster cooperation among states to address real
capacity and siting challenges. Furthermore, in taking a national approach to capacity
assurance planning as outlined in this Guidance document, EPA believes It has significantly
reduced the amount of data collection and analyses required to satisfy the statute and,
consequently, the burden on states in preparing 1993 CAPs.
The national capacity approach comports with CERCLA §104(c)(9) and its legislative
history because it meets the goal of the adequate assurance of capacity for the destruction,
treatment, or secure disposition of all hazardous wastes generated within states. The statute
provides that the capacity may be within the state or outside the state, and Congress
recognized that multistate efforts may be appropriate to assure adequate capacity. The
national capacity approach achieves these objectives by developing policies and programs to
assess capacity on a national basis. By utilizing a national capacity approach, policies for the
best use of existing facilities can be developed nationwide in the short term, and if shortfalls
occur, policies can be utilized for the development of additional capacity where it is needed
most, without each state having to site unnecessary facilities. However, if additional facilities
must be sited, the states retain their responsibility to site such facilities. If a state fails to
adequately address any identified shortfall, remedial action funds will be withheld from the
state in accordance with CERCLA §104(c)(9).
EPA expects that by developing a multi-phase process for the 1993 CAPs it has
reduced the burden on states, in the initial phase, states will submit baseyear and
projections data. The baseyear is the most recent year for which Biennial Report data on
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste generation and management are available. For the 1993
CAPs, the baseyear will be 1991. Baseyear data are used in the CAPs to depict each state's
existing hazardous waste management system. Chapter 2 describes the methods and
formats states should use to calculate and present baseyear information for their CAPs.
Baseyear data are used, as the foundation for making projections of future hazardous
waste demand and capacity. States should make these projections to provide a foundation
Page 1 -7
-------
for the 20-year assurance of adequate hazardous waste management capacity. Baseyear
data and projections together provide a framework for EPA to evaluate each state's
demonstration that it has assured the availability of adequate hazardous waste management
capacity for the next 20 years. Chapter 3 of this Guidance document provides methods for
analyzing existing data on waste generation and capacity use and for projecting waste
generation within the state, including the effects of new regulations. Subsequent phases of
the 1993 CAPs will only address capacity in the shortfall management categories, if any exist.
In developing this new multi-phased approach for the 1993 capacity assurance
planning process, EPA incorporated the NGA Group's recommendations to the maximum
extent appropriate. In addition, EPA prepared a draft guidance document for public review
and comment (see 57 Federal Register 41496, September 10,1992); summarized and
prepared responses to the comments from states and others; and incorporated many of their
suggestions into this document.
Future CAPs
The capacity assurance planning process is a continuing planning effort. States are
expected to submit new CAPs on a regular basis to remain eligible for Superfund remedial
action funding. These CAPs should use new data collected in the most recent Biennial
Report (or equivalent data) to prepare baseyear descriptions and project future demand and
capacity. As the Biennial Report may be the best nationwide source of data on hazardous
waste demand and on management capacity, states shoulo continue to focus resources on
improving Biennial Report data collection, particularly when they are not preparing CAPs.
Those states using data sources equivalent to BRS should also continue to work on
improving data quality.
EPA believes the submittal of CAPs by states is appropriate, regardless of whether the
state expects to receive Superfund remedial action funds before the next CAP reporting cycle.
Given the dynamic nature of the hazardous waste universe, EPA believes that examining
trends in waste generation and management on a regular basis is necessary to plan
adequately for the future. Thus, EPA believes that new CAPs will be necessary to adequately
incorporate any changes. EPA currently plans to conduct the CAP process presented in this
Guidance every four years.
EPA also believes that failure on the part of any state to submit a CAP jeopardizes the
goal expressed by states and the NGA and endorsed by EPA of national consistency in the
capacity assurance planning process. If a state accepts funds from EPA to complete CAP-
related activities but does not submit a CAP, EPA will consider the state to have acted in bad
faith, and will not provide the state wrth future funding for CAP preparation.
CAP Maintenance
Finally, the statute requires that before Superfund remedial action funds are provided,
the state in which the release occurs must first enter into a contract or cooperative agreement
providing assurances of the availability of adequate hazardous waste treatment or disposal
capacity. EPA recognizes that state hazardous waste systems are dynamic and that factual
Page 1-8
-------
information and assumptions upon which a state's CAP Is based may change. Therefore,
before a contract or cooperative agreement is signed, the state must ensure that its CAP and
the commitments contained therein are current. This concept, known as CAP maintenance, is
important to ensure that CAP planning remains a dynamic process. States can demonstrate
that their CAPs and the commitments contained therein are current by meeting their
milestones for addressing shortfalls. Hence, states must assure that their milestones are
current before a contract or cooperative agreement is signed. States should meet at least
one milestone per year. Missed milestones could result in the denial of new remedial funding.
(See discussion on milestones in Chapter 4 of the Guidance,)
Page 1-9
-------
1.2 NATIONAL APPROACH TO CAPACITY ASSURANCE
PLANNING
States will use a three-phased approach for the 1993 CAP process to assure the
availability of adequate hazardous waste management capacity. The approach includes (1)
an initial national-level determination of shortfalls by management capacity; (2) if shortfalls
exist, waste minimization projections along with information concerning permitted but not
operational capacity and capacity with draft permits from states that have a demand
exceeding their supply of capacity in a shortfall management category; and (3) if shortfalls still
exist, further state planning by "shortfall states" to alleviate any remaining national shortfalls.
Exhibit 1 -1 illustrates the 1993 national capacity assurance approach, (See also Exhibit 1 -2.)
(As indicated earlier, EPA does not intend for this process to override or interfere with state
requirements or efforts to plan or provide for the management of wastes within that state.)
The national approach allocates existing commercial capacity among all states. In
previous CAPs, states negotiated interstate agreements to allocate existing capacity. This
process resulted in unrealistic "bartering" of existing capacity, For the 1993 CAP process,
EPA considers contracts between generators and commercial hazardous waste management
facilities, and, between states and commercial hazardous waste management facilities as
"interstate agreements or regional agreements or authorities." Interstate agreements among
the states will be used only rf shortfalls in any management category are identified. Thus, the
national approach seeks to address shortfalls through interstate agreements between states
to develop waste minimization plans or to develop new capacity and, consequently, removes
the "bartering" aspect from interstate agreements.
EPA will allow states to form groups and submit their CAPs on a collective basis. In a
collective submittal, each state's capacity and demand data should be presented in each of
the individual six CAP Tables as well as collective tables. The data and information presented
in the collective CAP submission should be submitted.according to the approach presented
in this Guidance document. In addition, if states wish their demand and capacity amounts to
be considered collective when EPA makes determinations about which states need to
address any identified shortfalls, the states should clearly document in the submission that it
is a collective submission.
Phase 1
The Phase 1 submittal will consist of baseyear (1991) data and projections of
commercial RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste capacity and demand from recurrent
hazardous waste generated in-state, These data and projections will be developed according
to the procedures described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Guidance, respectively. State
projections should account for the impact of new regulations based on methods presented in
Chapter 3. States will not be responsible for projecting one-time hazardous waste generation.
Rather, EPA will develop national one-time waste projections and will aggregate these
projections with state recurrent waste projections, as described in Exhibit 1-1. EPA will supply
Page 1-10
-------
Exhibit 1-1
National Capacity Assurance Approach
Phase 1 Submission
States submit:
«• Baceyear data
Projections
National Demand
* EPA aggregates state demand
protections by CAP Management
Category
* EPA reduces demand by 10%
to reflect waste minimization
* EPA adds one-trme
waste projections
National Aggregation
' EPA compares national
demand and capacity
i EPA identifies national
shortfalls by CAP Management
Category
National Capacity
> EPA aggregates state
capacity protections
using operational capacity by
CAP Management Category
Phase 2 Submission
* States with demand exceeding
supply in shortfall categories
submit:
<• Waste minimization plans
o Information on permitted
capacity that is not yet
operational or capacity that
has been issued a draft permit
Are
Nations)
Shortfalls
Prelected?
Adequate
Capacity
is Assured
Are
National
Shortfalls
Propcted?
Adequate
Capacity
is Assured
Phase 3 Submission
States responsible for
addressing shortfalls submit
capacity assurances based on:
o New or increased
waste minimization
• New capacity development
° Interstate agreements
concerning waste minimization
or new capacity
Adequate
Capacity
is Assured
Page 1-11
-------
one-time waste estimates to states because many states indicated that estimating one-time
wastes is very difficult and time consuming. In addition to addressing these state concerns,
EPA believes that by estimating one-time wastes for alS states, the projections will be
comparable. States will have the opportunity to review EPA's estimates.
In order to satisfy the statute, states must provide hazardous waste demand and
capacity supply estimates to assure the availability of capacity for the 20-year period
beginning on the date the Supertund remedial action contract or cooperative agreement is
signed. For the 1993 projection year, states may project waste generation and management
simiiar to that which occurred in 1991, as described in Chapter 3. EPA believes that 1991
hazardous waste demand and capacity data provide a reasonable approximation of a state's
waste management system at the time of CAP submission. (As noted earlier, however, before
a contract or cooperative agreement is signed, the state must ensure that its CAP and the
commitments contained therein are current.) States should then project hazardous waste
demand and capacity for 1999 and 2013 using the process outlined in this Guidance
document.
States should also include in their Phase 1 submittal a narrative description of current
and planned waste minimization programs, but should not incorporate the effect of these
programs into their projections. This data submittal can include information that may have
been included in a state's 1989 and 1992 CAP submrttals, e.g., information on any legislative
authority that exists for current or potential waste minimization efforts and a description of the
program. If information in these areas has not changed since submission of its 1989 and
1992 CAPs, a state can simply refer back to the appropriate CAP.
This information will be available to all interested parties, it should be useful for states
interested in starting or augmenting waste minimization programs, to see what others have
accomplished, and possibly to model future programs on state "success stories." Detailed
waste minimization analyses will be necessary only if a state needs to address shortfalls
during Phase 2 or 3 of the CAP process (see Chapter 4).
As stated earlier, the capacity assurance planning process is a continuing planning
effort. As such, before a state can plan for another 20 years, EPA believes that the state
should examine previous planning assumptions and factual information to see if they remain
valid today. Therefore, Phase 1 submittals should include a discussion that reflects an
understanding of significant changes between the last two CAPs (1989 and 1992} and the
1993 CAP. This discussion may be qualitative, focusing on general trends in a state's
hazardous waste management system.
Page 1-12
-------
National Aggregation of Demand and Capacity
After states deliver their Phase 1 submrttal, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) will
conduct a capacity assessment based on state submitted data to determine whether sufficient
hazardous waste management capacity exists nationwide for the 20th year, 2013. OSW will
identify any national shortfalls in management capacity on a management category-specific
basis. Shortfalls will be identified by comparing total projected national demand to the total
projected national capacity for each CAP Management Category. (See Chapter 2 for a
description of the CAP Management Categories.)
OSW will determine total national demand by CAP Management Category for 2013 by
taking the following steps:
(1) Aggregating state projected demand from recurrent waste;
(2) Reducing this sum by 10 percent to reflect and recognize ongoing
waste minimization efforts; and
(3) Adding estimates of demand on commercial hazardous waste
management capacity due to one-time waste generation.
While OSW aggregates the data, EPA Regional offices will review the Phase 1
submittal for accuracy and completeness. If an EPA Regional office determines that the data
contained in a CAP are either inaccurate or incomplete, the state will be notified and
requested to provide additional information. EPA is willing to work with the state to improve
and/or complete these data. If a state fails to provide the requested additional information by
the due date for the Phase 1 submission, however, the EPA Headquarters and Regional
offices will work together to obtain this additional information. K the Agency must complete
this additional information, the information will be considered final and not subject to
negotiation because completing the national aggregation in a timely manner requires the
Agency to have a final set of numbers early in the aggregation process.
In the event that any state does not deliver a Phase 1 CAP submittal, OSW will work
with the EPA Regional offices to develop demand and-capacity projections for these states so
that there will be no missing data for the national assessment. These projections will be
based on data from the Biennial Reporting System, RCRA Subtitle C permits, and other
sources of information. EPA, however, encourages states to prepare their own Phase 1
submittals because, as explained earlier, one of the main purposes of capacity assurance
planning is for states themselves to engage in a hazardous waste management planning
exercise. Also, it is important for states to realize that any Phase 1 submittals that are
developed by the Agency will be considered final and not subject to negotiation with the
states.
The 10 percent reduction listed in step 2 above will adjust national demand
projections for recurrent wastes to take into account both the ongoing waste minimization
activities described in the states' Phase 1 submittals and industry's efforts in this area,
irrespective of state activities. It is a conservative adjustment intended only to determine the
existence of national shortfalls or surpluses in hazardous waste management capacity. In
Phase 2 or 3, this 10 percent reduction will be applied only to wastes from states that do not
Page 1-13
-------
submit Phase 2 or Phase 3 waste minimization plans. Other states, which address shortfalls
in Phase 2 or 3 through waste minimization,planning resulting in waste reduction greater than
10 percent, should support their estimated reductions with adequate documentation, as
described in Chapter 4.
EPA will be responsible for providing an estimate of the future generation of one-time
wastes and will provide these estimates to each state for its review. States can work with
EPA to adjust these data if necessary. EPA will send its one-time waste estimates to the
highest ranking official of the state agency with the responsibility for preparing the 1 i93 CAP.
EPA's methodology for developing the one-time waste estimates will also be enclosed for
review. States should inform EPA whether they agree with the one-time waste estimates.
Responses should be forwarded to:
Chief
Capacity Programs Branch, OS-321W
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTN; Response to CAP One-time Waste Estimates Enclosed
If a state disagrees with EPA's estimates, it should include in its response to EPA its
own estimates of one-time waste generation and provide a detailed explanation of the
differences in the estimates. The Agency will work with the states submitting new one-time
waste information to develop an accurate projection of the one-time waste universe. If EPA
does not receive a response from the state, EPA will assume that the state agrees that EPA's
estimates are valid for the national aggregation.
Once the national aggregation demand has been calculated, QSW will determine the
maximum commercial capacity available nationwide by aggregating each state's maximum
capacity projected for 2013 by CAP Management Category. For Phase 1, EPA will aggregate
only existing operational capacity. OSW will work with EPA Regional offices and states to
ensure that all existing operational capacity has been counted and will adjust reported
capacity figures as necessary to make them more accurate. States will not be required to
demonstrate the capacity for hazardous wastes managed in on-site and captive facilities.
Rather, OSW will assume that the capacity needed to manage these hazardous wastes will
continue to be available in future years,
OSW will then compare projected national demand to total existing capacity by CAP
Management Category for the year 2013 to identify any national shortfalls. If, in its national
aggregation, EPA determines that there are no national shortfalls for any of the CAP
Management Categories, then all states will receive CAP approval. If the national aggregation
of projected demand and capacity identifies national shortfalls in any CAP Management
Category, each state that does not have sufficient in-state capacity to manage its wastes in
each shortfall CAP Management Category should prepare a Phase 2 CAP submrttal. States
that have sufficient in-state capacity in each management category will not be required to
prepare a Phase 2 submittal and will be eligible to have its CAP approved.
Page 1 -14
-------
ATTACHMENT: Public Participation
This attachment explains in greater detail why and how the Agency encourages public
involvement in the development of hazardous waste management plans.
One of the Agency's goals in developing the 1993 CAP approach has been to
involve the public regarding issues related to hazardous waste management practices and
the development of hazardous waste management plans. The Agency's experience has
shown that when the public, and in particular local citizens are involved early and often in
the decisionmaking for environmental programs, the programs can be enhanced, rather
than impeded.
To ensure adequate public participation in the CAP process, EPA encourages public
participation at both the national and state levels, EPA's activities will include publication
of Federal Register notices describing the results of the national assessment and the
identification of shortfall states and fact sheets containing similar information. Other EPA
programs related to CAP, such as the Superfund program, the RCRA-permttting process,
and the Biennial Reporting System, actively solicit public involvement in their program
development.
State policy makers are strongly encouraged to conduct outreach activities such as
distributing information, providing opportunities for public comment and holding open
meetings to discuss with ail concerned parties the results of their analyses of the state's
hazardous waste management system and proposed future activities reflected in
management plans. The Agency believes that public participation efforts at the state level
are most important when states are developing strategies related to hazardous waste
management capacity development. Hence, states should make every effort to inform
constituents about the proposed commitments within the Phase 3 portion of their CAPs,
Finally, the Agency recognizes that many states currently have their own
administrative processes that provide the public with the opportunity to be involved with
hazardous waste management planning, EPA is ready to work with the states to assist
them in these efforts.
Page 1-18A
-------
-------
Phase 2
If adequate capacity exists nationwide for all CAP Management Categories, EPA will
not require Phase 2 CAP submtttals from any state. If a national shortfall is projected for any
CAP Management Category, however, each state that does not have sufficient in-state
commercial capacity in the shortfall category should submit Phase 2 CAP projections. EPA
will notify states in writing of the need to submit Phase 2 CAP projections.
In Phase 2, states that have insufficient capacity in the identified shortfall management
category(ies) should project how waste minimization efforts will reduce the demand for
commercial capacity in the shortfall categories. In addition, the Phase 2 submission should
identify any additional Subtitle C commercial capacity in the shortfall categories, specifically
permitted capacity that is not yet operational and capacity for which a draft permit has been
issued. States should submit milestones for waste minimization projections and progress in
the operational status of permitted capacity or in permitting new capacity. If there is a
projected national shortfall, many, if not all, waste minimization milestones contained in the
1989 CAPs could become milestones in Phase 2 of the 1993 CAP,
States may also negotiate interstate agreements for collective waste minimization
plans and include these agreements in their projections. States participating in interstate
agreements for waste minimization will be responsible for meeting milestones and should
provide EPA with appropriate documentation as described in section 4.2. These agreements
are described in more detail in sections 4,2 and 4.4,
EPA Regional offices will track state milestones to determine state progress made in
eliminating shortfalls. These waste minimization projections and commercial capacity figures
should comply with the requirements described in Chapter 4 oi this Guidance document.
After receiving the Phase 2 information, EPA will apply the waste minimization and capacity
data to the shortfall amount for each shortfall CAP Management Category and will determine
whether shortfalls still remain in any CAP Management Categories.
The Agency encourages states with sufficient capacity in the identified shortfall
management category(ies) in Phase 2 to also submit information describing how their waste
minimization efforts will reduce the demand for commercial capacity in the shortfall categories.
The Agency encourages these states to also identify any additional Subtitle C commercial
capacity that is permitted but not yet operational and capacity for which a draft permit has
been issued. This information will provide the Agency with a more complete picture of the
waste minimization and siting efforts that are underway and, more importantly, may prevent
shortfalls from being identified in Phase 3, requiring unnecessary siting of new facilities.
States that prepare Phase 2 submtttals voluntarily should also establish milestones to
allow the Agency to track progress made in eliminating shortfalls. The Agency would like
these states to maintain their milestones, and therefore periodically update them to ensure
that the goals expressed are reasonable.
Page 1-15
-------
Phase 3
If adequate capacity exists nationwide for all CAP Management Categories after Phase
2, EPA will not request Phase 3 CAP submittals from any states. If national shortfalls are still
projected for any CAP Management Category, each state that EPA identifies as a "shortfall
state" for that category should address its portion of the national shortfall amount (see
Chapter 4). In Phase 3, a shortfall state is a state that meets both of the following criteria: (1)
its projected demand is greater than its projected supply in the shortfall category; and (2) its
projected aggregate demand for commercial incineration and land disposal is greater than its
projected supply of such capacity. EPA will notify states in writing of the need to prepare
Phase 3 submittais. States that are not identified by EPA as contributing to the shortfall will
not be requested to prepare a Phase 3 CAP submittal.
States can address shortfalls in Phase 3 through increased waste minimization,
development of new capacity, and/or interstate agreements. As in Phase 2, states
participating in interstate agreements for waste minimization will be responsible for meeting
individual state milestones and for providing EPA with appropriate waste minimization
documentation as described in section 4.2. The Phase 3 CAP submittal should address all
identified shortfalls and should provide milestones through which needed capacity will be
developed. If a state that has been identified as having to address a shortfall category in
Phase 3 fails to deliver an adequate Phase 3 CAP submission to EPA by the due date, then
new Superfund remedial action funding will be withheld from that state, Furthermore, if a
state does not progress toward eliminating its shortfalls and misses Phase 3 milestones, new
Superfund remedial action funds could be withheld. Milestones will be tracked by the EPA
Regional offices. If there is a projected national shortfall, many if not all siting milestones in
the 1989 CAPs could become milestones in Phase 3 of the 1993 CAP.
Hazardous Waste Included in CAP
The scope of 1993 CAPs has been changed somewhat from earlier CAPs to explicitly
exclude or include certain types of waste.
For the 1993 CAPs, states should report on the following types of waste:
* Subtitle C hazardous waste, including waste from federal facilities,
unless omitted below; and
• Non-RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste that is considered hazardous
under state regulations and is managed in hazardous waste
management systems.
For the baseyear, data should be presented for on-site, captive, and commercial facilities,
while only commercial facility data will be presented for projections.
For the 1993 CAPs, states do not have to report the generation and/or management of
the following types of wastes:
Page 1-16
-------
• Waste generated by small quantity generators (SQGs);
* Non-RCRA Subtitle C waste that may use Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity, except for waste considered hazardous under
state regulations that is managed in Subtitle C hazardous waste
management systems;
* Waste disposed through discharge to sewers or publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs);
t Waste disposed through direct discharge to surface waters under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES);
* Mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes; and
f Projections of one-time waste generation.
This Guidance document describes the minimum requirements that states should meet
to satisfy CERCLA §1Q4(c)(9). States should assure commercial capacity for all wastes
placing demand on commercial systems, as indicated in their CAP tables. States may, if they
desire, prepare CAPs that have a broader scope. For example, states that want to present
data for exempt management systems treating hazardous wastes and for management of
wastes not required to be presented in CAP tables have the option to do so for informational
purposes. States should provide EPA with this additional information in a separate table or
describe the additional data in the text of their CAPs.
EPA will determine if the 1993 CAPs are acceptable based on this Guidance, Letters
of self-certification and other partial CAP submittals which do not provide sufficient data will
be considered unacceptable and may put a state's remedial action funding in jeopardy.
The States' Assurance of Capacity
As stated earlier, when enacting CERCLA §104(c)(9), Congress did not provide
specific language regarding the nature of state capacity assurances; instead it required that
EPA deem the assurances adequate. The basis for evaluating a state's assurance includes;
* The Phase 1 submtttal;
* The national aggregation; and
4 The state's commitment to taking the actions necessary to ensure the
availability of adequate capacity pursuant to the Phase 2 and 3 CAP
submittals, if required.
Every time a state enters into a Supertund remedial action contract or cooperative
agreement, it must assure capacity. EPA will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the
adequacy of that assurance using the criteria just described. The following language should
appear in the contract or cooperative agreement:
Page 1-17
-------
The state has submitted its capacity assurance plan to EPA, EPA deemed this
capacity assurance plan adequate, pursuant to 40 CFR 35.6105(b}(3) and the
letter from [insert US EPA representative's name] to [insert state
representative's name] dated [insert date of approval letter]. The state hereby
assures the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities for
the next 20 years, following signature of this agreement, pursuant to CERCLA
§104(c){9),
Public Participation
Given the public's concern about the management of hazardous waste in their
communities, EPA encourages states to involve the public in the planning for the three
phases of the CAP submittal. EPA encourages state policy makers to hold open meetings to
discuss with all concerned parties the results of their analyses of the state's hazardous waste
management system. EPA is willing to work with the states to assist them in these efforts.
Page 1-18
-------
1.3. CAP SUBMITTAL
Phase 1 Submittal
The Phase 1 submittal should be collated into a single document entitled "1993
Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Plan for [State, Commonwealth, Territory]: Phase 1."
The highest ranking official of the state agency that is responsible for preparing the 1993 CAP
should deliver the Phase 1 submittal with a signed cover letter to the EPA Regional
Administrator by the due date. The original and one copy of these materials should be sent
to each state's EPA Regional office. Also send one copy to the following address for EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW);
Chief
Capacity Programs Branch, OS-321W
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTN: Phase 1 Capacity Assurance Submittal Enclosed
EPA has made available to each state a diskette containing the CAP table formats in
WordPerfect 5.1. Any State that has not obtained a diskette and would like one, can obtain
one from the above address. To increase the ease of aggregating the data, EPA requests
that states also submit their data on a 3W or 51/4" computer diskette to the above address for
OSW, A suggested transmittal letter for the Phase 1 submittal follows.
Dear Regional Administrator:
Section 104(c)(9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. |9604(c}(9}), requires as a condition for providing remedial action funding that states assure the
availability of treatment and disposal facilities thai have the capacity to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of the
waste reasonably expected to be generated within their borders for 20 years. The accompanying document
provides a basis for you to evaluate the assurances of [State, Commonwealth, Territory] to be contained in a
contract or cooperative agreement that will Incorporate this document by reference.
The attached Phase 1 document demonstrates that (State, Commonwealth, Territory] has described Its current
hazardous waste management system, including ongoing waste minimization program activities; has projected
the demand for commercial hazardous waste management capacity from recurrent hazardous waste generated
in [State, Commonwealth, Territory) for the next 20 years; and has projected the commercial hazardous waste
management capacity available within [State, Commonwealth, Territory] for the next 20 years. 1 certify that this
information is accurate, complete, and has been developed in good faith.
I hereby transmit this document, which, in addition to any Phase 2 and Phase 3 capacity assurance planning
documents that may be required to address shortfalls in national capacity, will form the basis for the assurances
required of [State, Commonwealth, Territory] under 42 U.S.C. |9604(c)(9).
Sincerely yours,
[Ranking Official]
[State Agency]
[State, Commonwealth, Territory]
Page 1 -19
-------
Phase 2 CAP Submittal
AH states that project a demand greater than their in-state operational capacity for a
CAP Management Category that EPA has identified as a national shortfall category should
prepare a Phase 2 CAP submittal. The Phase 2 CAP submtttal should be collated into a
single document entitled "1993 Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Plan for [State,
Commonwealth, Territory]: Phase 2." The Governor of each state (or his/her designee)
should deliver the Phase 2 CAP submitta! with a signed cover letter to the EPA Regional
Administrator. The original and one copy of these materials should be sent to each state's
EPA Regional office. Also send one copy to the following address for OSW:
Chief
Capacity Programs Branch, OS-321W
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTN; Phase 2 Capacity Assurance Plan Submittal Enclosed
A suggested transmittal letter for the Phase 2 CAP submittal follows:
Dear Regional Administrator:
Section 104(c){9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. §9604{c)(9)), requires as a condition for providing remedial action funding that states assure the
availability of treatment and disposal facilities that have the capacity to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of the
waste reasonably expected to be generated within their borders tor 20 years. In addition to a previously
submitted Phase 1 document, the accompanying Phase 2 document provides a basis for you to evaluate the
assurances of [State, Commonwealth, Territory] to be contained in a contract or cooperative agreement that will
incorporate these documents by reference.
The attached Phase 2 capacity assurance planning document demonstrates that, for the shortfall CAP
Management Categories identified by EPA, [State, Commonwealth, Territory] has described its waste
minimization projections along with information about capacity that is permitted but not operational and capacity
for which a draft permit has been issued. I certify that this information is accurate, complete, and has been
developed in good faith. In accordance with similar agreements on behalf of other state governments, I agree
to achieve the goals presented as milestones in the Phase 2 submission so that the national use and demand
for these hazardous waste management facilities will be reduced accordingly.
I hereby transmit this document, which, in addition to the Phase 1 document already submitted and any Phase 3
capacity assurance documents that may be required, will form the basis for the assurances required of [State,
Commonwealth, Territory] under 42 U.S.C. |9604{c)(9).
Sincerely yours,
[Governor or designee]
{State Agency]
{State, Commonwealth, Territory]
Page 1-20
-------
Phase 3 CAP Submfttal
Any state identified by EPA as a "shortfall" state after the Phase 2 reassessment of
national capacity should prepare a Phase 3 CAP submittal. The Phase 3 CAP submittai
should be collated into a single document entitled "1993 Hazardous Waste Capacity
Assurance Plan for [State, Commonwealth, Territory]: Phase 3," The Governor of each state
(or his/her designee) should deliver the Phase 3 CAP submittal with a signed cover letter to
the EPA Regional Administrator. The original and one copy of these materials should be sent
to each state's EPA Regional office. Also send one copy to the following address for OSW;
Chief
Capacity Programs Branch, OS-321W
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTN: Phase 3 Capacity Assurance Plan Submittal Enclosed
A suggested transrnittal letter for the Phase 3 CAP submittal follows;
Dear Regional Administrator;
Section 104(c)(9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. |9604(C)(9)), requires as a condition for providing remedial action funding that states assure the
availability of treatment and disposal facilities that have the capacity to treat, destroy, or securely dispose of the
waste reasonably expected to be generated within their borders for 20 years. In addition to previously
submitted Phase 1 and 2 documents, the accompanying Phase 3 document provides a basis for you to
evaluate the assurances of [State, Commonwealth, Territory] to be contained in a contract or cooperative
agreement that will incorporate tnese documents by reference.
The attached Phase 3 capacity assurance planning document demonstrates that [State, Commonwealth,
Territory] has addressed all shortfalls in capacity to which (State, Commonwealth, Territory) ts projected to
contribute demand over the next 20 years. In addition, I agree to achieve the goals presented as milestones in
the Phase 3 submission so that the national shortfall will be reduced accordingly,
I hereby transmit this document, which, in addition to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 documents already submitted,
will form the basis for the assurances required of [State, Commonwealth, Territory] under 42 U.S.C, §9604(c)(9).
Sincerely yours,
[Governor or designee)
{State Agency]
[State, Commonwealth, Territory]
Page 1 -21
-------
1.4 CAP REVIEW PROCESS
Both EPA Regional offices and EPA Headquarter's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) have
roles in the CAP review process, EPA Regional offices have detailed knowledge of the states
and their capacity assurance planning efforts. For this reason, EPA Regional Administrators
will be the primary decisionmakers in the CAP review process who will evaluate the accuracy
and completeness of CAP submittals. OSW will focus on national consistency, national
policy, and other CAP issues that cut across Regional boundaries, OSW will also have
primary responsibility for aggregating demand and capacity projections to identify any
shortfalls in national capacity. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the CAP review process.
Review of the Phase 1 Submittal
EPA will review the Phase 1 submittal in the following stages:
(1) Completeness review of Phase 1 submittal (Regions);
(2) Full review of Phase 1 submittal (Headquarters and Regions);
(3) National aggregation of projected demand and capacity (Headquarters);
(4) Phase 1 CAP consistency meeting (Headquarters and Regions); and
(5) Notification of shortfalls or approval (Headquarters and Regions).
Completeness Review of Phase 1 Submtttal
Regardless of a state's approval status for any previous CAP submittal (i.e., 1992 or
1989 CAP), the EPA Regional office for the state will review the Phase 1 submittal to see that
it contains all the components listed below:
S Transmitta! letter signed by the highest ranking official of the state
agency that is responsible for preparing the 1993 CAP;
S Baseyear 1991 description of the state's hazardous waste management
system, as described in Chapter 2 of this Guidance;
S Narrative description of current waste minimization program activities
(e.g., state, industry, trade association efforts);
/ Projections of the demand for commercial hazardous waste
management capacity from hazardous waste generated in the state in
1993, 1999, and 2013, as described in Chapter 3 of this Guidance; and
S Projections of the supply of commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity available within the state in 1993,1999, and
2013, as described in Chapter 3 of this Guidance,
Page 1-22
-------
Exhibit 1-2
CAP Review Process
Page 1 -23
-------
If the document is determined to be complete, the state wili be notified by EPA that its
CAP has been accepted. Under acceptance status, states will be considered to have met the
requirements for receiving new Superfund remedial action funding provided its previous CAP
submittals (1989 and 1992) are still approved. Any state that is scheduled to enter into an
agreement with EPA for new Superfund remedial action funding during the initial
completeness review period will be given priority for review of its Phase 1 submittal.
If the Phase 1 submittal does not contain the above components, the state will be
notified by its EPA Regional Administrator in writing, immediately upon discovery of the
incompleteness, that its CAP is not complete and what additional information needs to be
provided within a designated timeframe. If a state does not deliver a Phase 1 submittal by the
specified due date, the EPA Regional Administrator will formally acknowledge in a letter the
state's failure to deliver a Phase 1 submittal and will outline the consequences,
Full Review of Phase 1 Submittal
After the Phase 1 submittals have been reviewed for completeness, EPA Regional
offices will conduct a more thorough technical review of baseyear demand and capacity data
and projection year methods and results in accordance with the review criteria described in
Chapter 3, This evaluation will also include a review of each state's description of its ongoing
and planned waste minimization activities. QSW will assist EPA Regional offices, if necessary,
to review technical components of the submittal, EPA Regional offices will attempt to
reconcile any problems with a state's Phase 1 submittal by working directly and informally
with the state. Significant problems with or questions about the Phase 1 submittal will be
addressed in a GAP consistency meeting of EPA Regional CAP Coordinators, as described
later.
National Aggregation of Projected Demand and Capacity
While the EPA Regional offices complete the technical review of the Phase 1 submittal,
OSW will compile the data contained in these submittals and the results of EPA's national
study of one-time waste generation. Before aggregating these quantities, OSW will reduce
the projected demand for recurrent wastes by 10 percent to reflect assumed waste
minimization, This information will be used to determine if national shortfalls in commercial
hazardous waste management capacity are projected for 2013, If, during their technical
review of the Phase 1 submittal, EPA Regional offices identify any discrepancies with the data
submitted, they will notify OSW (and vice versa).
OSW will determine the maximum commercial capacity available nationwide by
aggregating each state's maximum capacity projected for 2013 by CAP Management
Category. To develop the most accurate portrayal of commercial capacity available
nationwide, OSW will work with EPA Regional offices and states to ensure that all capacity
has been counted, and will adjust national capacity figures as necessary. In the event that
any states do not deliver a Phase 1 submittal, OSW will work with EPA Regional offices to
develop demand and capacity projections for these states for the purposes of national
assessment. These projections will be based on data from the Biennial Reporting System,
RCRA Subtitle C permits, and other sources of information. OSW will then compare projected
national demand to maximum available capacity by CAP Management Category in 2013 to
identify any national shortfalls.
Page 1-24
-------
Phase 1 CAP Consistency Meeting
After EPA Regional offices have completed their technical review of the Phase 1
submittals and OSW has completed the national capacity assessment, OSW will arrange a
meeting of all EPA Regional CAP Coordinators to ensure that the CAPs have been evaluated
consistently. At this meeting, the Coordinators will discuss their concerns about the Phase 1
submittal with each other and OSW staff, and will recommend nationally consistent decisions
about how to address these concerns, The results of the national aggregation of projected
demand and capacity will also be presented and discussed during the CAP consistency
meeting. Individual states will be notified in writing after this meeting if there are any areas in
their Phase 1 submittal that need to be addressed. Failure to address these concerns could
result in withdrawal of the initial CAP acceptance and eligibility for new funding of remedial
actions.
Notification of Shortfalls or Approval
EPA will report the results of the national aggregation of projected demand and
capacity to the states, if this analysis does not identify national shortfalls for any CAP
Management Category, then all states will receive final CAP approval, if the analysis identifies
national shortfalls in any of the CAP Management Categories, EPA wil! notify those states that
should address the shortfall during Phase 2 (see method in Chapter 4). States that do not
have to address shortfalls do not have to submit a Phase 2 CAP submittal, and will have final
CAP approval. EPA's process for reviewing the Phase 2 CAP submittal is described below.
Review of the Phase 2 CAP Submittal
If the national aggregation of projected demand and supply of capacity identifies
national shortfalls in any CAP Management Category, EPA will identify those states that
generate wastes that are managed in the shortfall categories and do not have sufficient in-
state capacity for managing such wastes. These states should prepare Phase 2 CAP
submittals that address only shortfall CAP Management Categories in which the state does
not have sufficient capacity. States will be notified of projected shortfall management
categories identified by EPA.
The review process for the Phase 2 CAP submittal is similar to the review process for
the Phase 1 submittal. If a shortfall state does not deliver a Phase 2 CAP submittal, the state
will not be considered to have satisfied the requirements necessary for receiving new
Superfund remedial action funding, regardless of the state's approval status for any previous
CAP submittal (i.e., Phase 1 1993, 1992, or 1989 CAP). If a state has not delivered the Phase
2 CAP submrttal within 30 days of the due date, the EPA Regional Administrator wil! formally
acknowledge in a letter the state's failure to deliver a Phase 2 CAP submittal and will outline
the consequences. A state that delivers its Phase 2 submission within the required timeframe
will continue to be eligible to receive new Superfund remedial action funding, pending review
of the Phase 2 submission, provided that its Phase 1 submittal has been approved.
Page 1-25
-------
EPA will review the Phase 2 CAP submittal in the following stages:
(1) Review of compliance with any remaining Phase 1 concerns (Regions);
(2) Review of Phase 2 CAP submittal (Regions and Headquarters);
(3) Revised national aggregation of projected demand and capacity
(Headquarters);
(4) Phase 2 CAP consistency meeting (Headquarters and Regions); and
(5) Notification of approval/disapproval and identification of remaining
shortfalls and states that should submit Phase 3 CAPs (Headquarters
and Regions).
Review of Compliance wKh Remaining Phase 1 Concerns
Any issues raised concerning a state's Phase 1 submittal should be fully resolved
before the EPA Regional office will consider that state's Phase 2 submittal for technical
review, At the latest, states should deliver their revised Phase 1 submittal when the Phase 2
CAP is due,
Review of Phase 2 CAP Submittal
EPA Regional offices and OSW will review the methods used by a state for addressing
shortfalls in Phase 2 CAPs. EPA Regional offices and OSW will conduct this review in
accordance with the review criteria for waste minimization and development of new capacity
(i.e., capacity that is permitted capacity but not yet operational and capacity for which a draft
permit has been issued) as described in Chapter 4 of this Guidance. EPA Regional offices
will also review milestones submitted for waste minimization goals and permitted capacity
progress. OSW will assist EPA Regional offices, if necessary, to review more technical
components of the submittat (e.g., planned waste minimization efforts). EPA Regional offices
will attempt to reconcile any minor problems with a state's Phase 2 CAP submittal by working
directly and informally with the state. The Phase 2 CAP submittal will be discussed in a CAP
consistency meeting of EPA Regional CAP Coordinators and OSW, as described in a later
section.
Revised National Aggregation of Projected Demand and Capacity
While the EPA Regional offices complete the technical review of the Phase 2
submittals, OSW will compile the waste minimization projections, data pertaining to capacity
that is permitted but not yet operational, and data for capacity with draft permits contained in
these submittals. OSW will analyze the data to determine whether national shortfalls in
commercial hazardous waste management capacity are still projected for 2013. If, during the
technical review of the Phase 2 submittal, EPA Regional offices identify any discrepancies
with the data submitted, they will notify OSW (and vice versa),
OSW will determine a revised total national demand for shortfall categories by
subtracting the waste minimization projections from the total national demand estimated
Page 1 -26
-------
during the review of the Phase 1 submittal. These new waste minimization projections will be
used in place of the 10 percent reduction considered during Phase 1. For states that do not
prepare Phase 2 submittals, OSW will continue to assume a to percent reduction. OSW will
determine the revised maximum commercial capacity available nationwide in the shortfall CAP
Management Categories by adding the Phase 2 submittal on capacity that is permitted but
not yet operational or that has a draft permit to the Phase 1 submittal on operational capacity.
To develop the most accurate portrayal of commercial capacity available nationwide, OSW will
work with the EPA Regional offices and states to ensure that all capacity has been counted,
and will adjust national capacity figures as necessary.
In the event that any states do not deliver a Phase 2 submittal, OSW will work with
EPA Regional offices to develop capacity projections for these states for the purposes of the
national assessment. These projections will be based on data from RCRA permits and other
sources of information. OSW will then compare projected national demand after incorporation
of future waste minimization plans from states to adjusted maximum available capacity for the
shortfall CAP Management Categories in 2013. OSW will identify if national shortfalls still
exist. States that should submit a Phase 2 submittal but do not do so will be jeopardizing
their eligibility to receive new remedial action funding.
Phase 2 CAP Consistency Meeting
After EPA Regional offices and OSW have reviewed the Phase 2 CAP submittals and
OSW has completed the revised national capacity assessment, OSW will arrange a meeting of
all EPA Regional CAP Coordinators and OSW staff to ensure that the CAPs have been
evaluated consistently. At this meeting, the Coordinators and OSW will discuss the Phase 2
CAP projections and milestones and will recommend nationally consistent decisions
concerning the submittals. If necessary, technical experts will also attend the meeting to
address questions about the appropriateness of particular methods or assumptions used by
states in their Phase 2 CAP submittal.
Notification of Approval/Disapproval
EPA will report the results of the revised national aggregation of projected demand
and capacity to the states. If this analysis does not identify continuing shortfalls, then all
states that were required to submit Phase 2 will receive final CAP approval. If the analysis
identifies remaining national shortfalls, EPA will notify those states that should address the
shortfall during Phase 3. If a state's Phase 2 CAP submittal is not approved, EPA Regional
Administrators will notify states in writing of the requirements for the state to gain approval.
Failure to address these concerns could result in the denial of disbursement of new
Superfund remedial action funding.
Review of the Phase 3 CAP Submittal
If the national aggregation of projected demand and supply of capacity in Phase 2
identifies remaining national shortfalls in any CAP Management Category, EPA will identify
"shortfall states" according to the methodology presented in Chapter 4. Shortfall states
should assure adequate capacity for those CAP Management Categories through a Phase 3
CAP submittal. The Phase 3 CAP submittal should address only CAP Management
Page 1-27
-------
Categories for which the state has been identified as a shortfall state. The Phase 3 CAP
submittal will be due to EPA after EPA distributes a letter to the states with the results of the
national aggregation of projected demand and capacity from Phase 2 and with the
identification of shortfall states.
The review process for the Phase 3 CAP submittal is similar to the review process for
the Phase 2 submittal. H a shortfall state does not deliver a Phase 3 CAP submittal, the state
will not be considered to have satisfied the requirements necessary for receiving new
Supertund remedial action funding, regardless of the state's approval status for any previous
CAP submittat (i.e., Phase 2 1994, Phase 1 1993, 1992, or 1989 CAP). If a state has not
delivered the Phase 3 CAP submittal within 30 days of the due date, the EPA Regional
Administrator will formally acknowledge in a letter the state's failure to deliver a Phase 3 CAP
submittal and will outline the consequences. A state that delivers its Phase 3 submission
within the required timeframe will be continue to be eligible to receive new Superfund
remedial action funding, pending review of the Phase 3 submission, provided that its prior
CAP submittals have been approved.
EPA will review the Phase 3 CAP submittal in the following stages:
(1) Review of compliance with any remaining Phase 2 concerns (Regions);
(2) Review of Phase 3 CAP submittal (Headquarters and Regions);
(3) Phase 3 CAP consistency meeting (Headquarters and Regions); and
(4) Notification of approval/disapproval (Headquarters and Regions).
These stages are consistent with the corresponding stages for the Phase 2 submittal, as
described previously.
Ongoing Review of Phase 2 and 3 Milestones
An important part of the Phase 2 and 3 CAP submittals involves establishing
milestones, subject to approval by EPA Regional offices, to address shortfalls, as described in
Chapter 4 of this Guidance. EPA Regional offices will monitor the states' progress in
achieving these milestones. Failure to achieve the milestones may result in the withdrawal of
CAP approval and denial of disbursement of new Superfund remedial action funding unless
milestones are revised, as approved by EPA and discussed in Chapter 4. States with Phase
2 and 3 milestones will need to maintain their CAPs to ensure that milestones are being met
and are updated or revised, if necessary. States should maintain current information in CAPs
so that when capacity becomes available or unavailable and generation increases or
decreases substantially due to facility openings or closings, these capacity changes are
acknowledged and reported to the EPA Regions.
Page 1-28
-------
2. PHASE 1: BASEYEAR
-------
-------
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO BASEYEAR DATA
Introduction
This chapter provides guidance to states on reporting the demand for on-site, captive,
and commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste management systems in the baseyear (1991),
This chapter also provides guidance on reporting maximum operational capacity for
commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste management systems in the baseyear. Further
guidance is available, under separate cover, concerning how states can use data from the
Biennial Reporting System (BBS) and related software to help prepare the baseyear and
projection tables. (See USEPA, Using Tabtetalk To Prepare CAP Tables, October 1992).
The year 1991 is the baseyear for the 1993 CAPs because it is the most recent year
for which states have collected Biennial Report data, One of the areas that is most crucial to
the success of the capacity assurance planning process is the collection of accurate data.
As discussed in EPA's FY 92 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP), EPA is committed to the
Biennial Reporting process as the primary data collection too! for states' baseyear CAP data
requirements.1 For most states, 1991 Biennial Report databases will contain the data
necessary to prepare the baseyear tables.
Chapter Organization
The remainder of this chapter is organized into two main sections. Section 2.2
introduces the CAP Management Categories that are used in the tables to present the
baseyear picture of Subtitle C hazardous waste demand and capacity. Section 2.3 presents
the four required baseyear tables: (1) 1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On
Site; (2) 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems; (3) 1991 Management of
Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems; and (4) Maximum Operational In-state Commercial
Subtitle C Management Capacity - End of 1991. Section 2.3 also includes information on
transfer facilities, interstate and international hazardous waste imports and exports, mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes, and demand on capacity from recurrent and one-time wastes
in 1991.
1 States are not required, however, to use Biennial Report information as a source of information for
their CAPs.
Page 2-1
-------
2.2 CAP MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
States should provide capacity-related information for 14 CAP Management
Categories. Management categories were previously referred to as SARA Management
Categories in the 1989 CAP Technical Reference Manual. Because this terminology implies a
statutory definition, EPA has changed the terminology to "CAP" Management Category. The
CAP Management Categories are defined in terms of the 1991 Biennial Report System Type
codes that correspond to specific types ot waste management systems as reported on the
Waste Generation and Management (GM), Waste Received From Off Site (WR), and Waste
Treatment, Disposal, or Recycling Process Systems (PS) forms. Exhibit 2-1 presents each of
the 14 CAP Management Categories with the appropriate System Type codes and narrative
descriptions.
EPA developed the CAP Management Categories based on the following criteria:
• Each CAP Management Category is comprised of a number of waste
management technologies that are generally interchangeable for
managing broad types of wastes (e.g., organics, inorganics including
metals, and waste waters), based on treatment performance. This
provides states with the flexibility to identify and investigate alternative
management technologies within the CAP Management Category to
manage the waste if there is a shortfall in any specific technology. Also,
disaggregating systems into more specific and detailed CAP
Management Categories has limited value in identifying problematic
shortfalls and, consequently, the CAP Management Categories are
broadly defined rather than specific to particular technologies.
* CAP Management Categories take into account whether treatment
residuals are generated by the waste management technologies and
the type of treatment residuals that are generated. Shifts in the demand
among recovery or treatment categories that generate residuals may
result in changes in the quantity of waste managed in both the relevant
treatment or recovery CAP Management Categories and the
Stabilization and Landfill CAP Management Categories. Furthermore,
the linkage with residuals facilitates future demand projections and
analysis of capacity shortfalls. In particular, if a shortfall is projected for
landfill capacity, the state should investigate alternative recovery or
treatment technologies and waste minimization methods that generate
less treatment residuals to reduce the demand on landfills. Thus, states
will be encouraged to promote recovery technologies as alternatives to
conventional treatment and disposal technologies. For example, for
wastes generated within their borders that contain metals, a state could
promote metais recovery through waste minimization as an alternative
to stabilization followed by land disposal.
Page 2-2
-------
* CAP Management Categories are grouped by recovery, treatment, and
disposal technologies to reflect a preference for the waste management
hierarchy established by Congressional and EPA policy.
* Technologies for treating wastewater and the sludge resulting from
wastewater treatment generally are similar (i.e., comprised primarily o1
treatment tanks) and therefore are consolidated into the Hazardous
Wastewaters and Sludges Treatment CAP Management Category.
Facilities managing wastewaters and sludges generally have several
types of treatments (e.g., chemical oxidation and chemical precipitation).
Moreover, many wastewater treatments occur within the same tank,
such as cyanide oxidation followed by chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, settling, and sludge dewatering. If demand for a particular
type of wastewater or sludge treatment shifts, the facility usually can
readily modify its systems to account for changes in demand. For
example, wastewater treatment facilities can readily increase chrome
reduction by modifying or retrofitting the treatment system to use more
tanks.
t The Transfer/Storage CAP Management Category was created because
o1 the difficulties in determining the ultimate disposal of wastes exported
to transfer facilities. This category is applicable only for exported waste
presented in the baseyear tables.
Two Biennial Report System Type codes are not assigned to a CAP Management
Category: M135 Direct discharge to sewer/POTW (no prior treatment); and M136 Direct
discharge to surface water under NPDES (no prior treatment). Because these systems
manage wastes that are not defined as solid wastes (40 CFR 261.4(a)), they are outside of
the scope of the CAPs.
Three System Type codes (i.e., M049 Incineration - type unknown; M059 Energy
recovery - type unknown; and M137 Other disposal) are applicable to more than one CAP
Management Category; consequently, they are defined under all relevant categories. For
these System Type codes, states should use other Biennial Report data (e.g., Form codes)
and their knowledge of waste management systems available in state to determine the most
appropriate CAP Management Category. States should document the procedures and
assumptions used to determine the appropriate CAP Management Category in their Phase 1
CAP submittal.
Page 2-3
-------
Exhibit 2-1
CAP Management Categories
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
M011a
M012
M013
M014
M019
Inorganics Recovery
M031
MQ39
High temperature metals recovery
Retorting
Secondary smelting
Other metals recovery for reuse; e.g., ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, acid leaching
Metals recovery - type unknown
Acid regeneration
Other recovery - type unknown
Organics Recovery
M021
M022
M023
M024
M029
M032
Fractionatton/distlliation
Thin film evaporation
Solvent extraction
Other solvent recovery
Solvents recovery - type unknown
Other recovery; e.g., waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics
recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
M051
M059
Energy recovery - liquids
Energy recovery - type unknown
Energy Recovery - Sludges/Solids
M052
M053
M059
Energy recovery - sludges
Energy recovery - solids
Energy recovery - type unknown
a System Type codes as defined in: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991 Hazardous Waste
Report instructions and Forms. EPA Form 8700-13A/B (5-80) (Revised 08-91), OMB #2050-0024,
pp. 90-91.
Page 2-4
-------
Exhibit 2-1 (continued)
CAP Management Categories
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation
M111 Stabilization/chemical fixation using cementitious and/or
pozzolanic materials
M112 Other stabilization
M119 Stabilization - type unknown
Incineration - Liquids and Gases
M041 Incineration - liquids
M044 Incineration - gases
M049 Incineration - type unknown
Incineration * Sludges/Solids
M042 Incineration - sludges
M043 Incineration - solids
M049 Incineration - type unknown
Fuel Blending
M061 Fuel blending
Hazardous Waste waters and Sludges Treatment
M071 Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation
M072 Cyanide destruction followed by chemical precipitation
MQ73 Cyanide destruction only
M074 Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
M075 Chemical oxidation only
M076 Wet air oxidation
M077 Chemical precipitation
M07B Other aqueous inorganic treatment: e.g., ion exchange, reverse
osmosis
MQ79 Aqueous inorganic treatment - type unknown
M081 Biological treatment
M082 Carbon adsorption
M083 Air/steam stripping
MOB4 Wet air oxidation
M085 Other aqueous organic treatment
M089 Aqueous organic treatment - type unknown
M091 Chemical precipitation in combination with biological treatment
Page 2-5
-------
Exhibit 2-1 (continued)
CAP Management Categories
TREATMENT (continued)
M092
M093
M094
M099
Ml 01
M102
M103
M104
M109
M121
M122
M123
M124
M125
M129
Chemical precipitation in combination with carbon adsorption
Wet air oxidation
Other organic/inorganic treatment
Aqueous organic and inorganic treatment - type unknown
Sludge dewatering
Addition of excess lime
Absorption/adsorption
Solvent extraction
Sludge treatment - type unknown
Neutralization only
Evaporation only
Settling/clarification only
Phase separation (e.g., emuision breaking, filtration) only
Other treatment
Other treatment - type unknown
DISPOSAL
Landfill
M132
M133
M137
Landfill
Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)
Other disposal
Deepwell/Underground Injection
M134
M137
Deepwell/underground injection
Other disposal
Land Treatment/Farming
M131
M137
Land treatment/application/farming
Other disposal
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
M141
Transfer facility storage, waste was shipped off site with no on-site
treatment, disposal, or recycling (TDR) activity
Page 2-6
-------
2.3 BASEYEAR TABLES
As a component of its CAP, each state should demonstrate an understanding o1 its
current Subtitle C hazardous waste generation and management system by providing
information on the quantity of Subtitle C hazardous waste exported, imported, and generated
and managed in state. States are required to report on RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste, as
specified in Chapter 1, and non-RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste that is considered
hazardous under state regulations and is managed in hazardous waste management
systems. The CAP baseyear tables provide a framework for presenting this information.
States will use similar tables to report information on projections of future hazardous waste
generation and management. States should prepare four baseyear tables:
* Table 1: 1iS1 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site;
4 Table 2: 19i1 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems;
4 Table 3: 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial
Systems; and
* Table 4; Maximum Operational In-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991,
A copy of each table is provided in this section. Additional copies o1 the baseyear and
projection years tables are provided in Appendix C and on diskette. Along with the tables,
states should describe all assumptions and methods that were used to develop the
information in the tables, particularly if they differ from that presented in this Guidance
document.
Before the instructions for preparing baseyear fables are provided, the following five
topics are discussed: (1) transfer facilities; (2) interstate hazardous waste imports and
exports; (3) international hazardous waste imports and exports; (4) mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes; and (5) demand on capacity from recurrent and one-time
waste in 1991.
Transfer Facilities
Transfer facilities typically receive wastes and then ship these wastes to an off-site
waste treatment or recycling facility. Tracking wastes shipped through transfer facilities is
problematic for several reasons:
* Double counting occurs when wastes shipped by in-state transfer
facilities are included in the total quantity of waste both generated and
managed in state and in the total quantity of exported wastes. These
Page 2-7
-------
wastes are also reported by the facilities that originally generated the
wastes.
t Out-of-state wastes going to transfer facilities are erroneously included
as wastes generated in state when quantities shipped by in-state
transfer facilities are included in the total of wastes generated in state.
* Final management of wastes exported to transfer facilities is difficult to
determine, as these wastes may be aggregated at the transfer facility
with in-state generated waste and sent to one or more waste
management facilities.
• Waste shipped by transfer facilities includes wastes from LQGs and
SQGs.
To address these problems, states should use the following guidelines:
• For in-state generated waste, reallocate waste quantities shipped from
generators to transfer facilities to appropriate in-state CAP Management
Categories using Biennial Report forms, follow-up telephone calls, and
best professional judgement States should document and provide
rationale for any assumptions made. If a state has knowledge of waste
exported by a transfer facility, these waste quantities should be reported
as exports, rather than reallocated to in-state CAP Management
Categories.
4 Disregard waste quantities shipped by transfer facilities. These
quantities of waste are accounted for by the real location of wastes
shipped from generators to transfer facilities.
t Reallocate waste quantities imported from other states to transfer
facilities to appropriate in-state CAP Management Categories; the waste
quantities should be reported as imports to a CAP Management
Category.
* Report exports to transfer facilities located in other states in the
baseyear tables. However, states will reallocate these quantities to the
appropriate CAP Management Categories for projecting future demand
on capacity.
Using these guidelines, waste quantities that are imported by in-state transfer facilities
and subsequently exported for management in another state will be excluded from a state's
baseline demand. Exhibit 2-2 explains how the transfer facility guidelines affect the
information presented in Tables 2 and 3 for (1) exports, (2) waste generated and managed in
state, and (3) imports, based on 1991 Biennial Report forms.
Page 2-8
-------
Exhibit 2-2
Transfer Facility Information in Tables 2 and 3
Based on 1991 Biennial Report Forms
Exports (uses data from GM forms):
MI>I p Disregard shipments fay transfer facilities '
Report exports to transfer faoWes f GM2) QMg ,
GM2 * Report in-state shipments to transfer
laattities as exports, instead d reallocating •--_»_ _~t
STATE A to in-state management, if known that waste STATE A
was ultimately exported3
Waste Generated and Managed In State (uses data from GM forms):
"" I • Disregard shipments by transfer facilities - - - - • -----
T QM2 (QM2) «
f T± • Reallocate shipments to transfer facilities Q
G M (GM1) to in-state management, unless
GM1 knowledge of exports
STATE A STATE A
Imports (uses data from WR forms):
Reallocate imports to transfer facilities (WRt} j
to in-state management. Note in CAP if waste ,
Q I pfc T >» M was ultimately exported, but do not present Q • /y\ _^jut
WRi WR2 export quinttty in export column13 ^ ^ ' w-,
?
4
STATE A STATE A
Type of Facility:
G = Generator
T ~ Transfer Faclty
M s Waste Management Facility
1991 Biennial Report Form:
GM = GM Form
WR * WR Form
m BR Data
Reflected in CAP
a This step is conducted for the 'Waste Generated and Managed in State* column. The generator
submits a GM form for an in-state shipment to the in-state transfer facility, and if 1ne slate
has Knowledge that tw waste is ultimately exported, then this quantity is reported as exported,
b States use the exports and wastes generated and managed in state information for protections.
Consequently, states should not reflect imports to transfer facilities that are than exported in the
exports column as tnen they wilt be responsible for assuring capacity for these imports.
Page 2-6
-------
Interstate Hazardous Waste Imports and Exports
Baseyear tables should include information on hazardous waste Imported and
exported domestically for management in captive and commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management systems. For a variety of reasons, differences may exist between waste
quantities reported by importing and exporting states. Reconciliation of the differences is
important to ensure accurate data for EPA's national assessment of whether capacity
shortfalls exist. Thus, states are required to reconcile imports and exports as part of the data
quality check for the BRS, If states do identify large discrepancies, they should work with
their respective EPA Region to correct the discrepancies in the BRS National Oversight
database.
International Hazardous Waste Imports and Exports
Hazardous waste management facilities are required to report waste received from
foreign countries on WR forms of the 1991 Biennial Report. The instructions for identifying
foreign imports in the baseyear tables assume that states can distinguish imports from wastes
generated in state using EPA ID numbers found in Box D on Form WR. Some foreign
generators, however, may have headquarters or mailing addresses within the United States;
consequently, these generators may have in-state EPA ID numbers. If states are aware of
such cases, states should treat waste from these generators as imports rather than as waste
generated in state.
Access to foreign treatment, disposal, and recycling capacity is unknown due to the
uncertainty about continued availability; consequently, states cannot rely on this capacity for
purposes of their CAP and should include estimates for international exports in their CAP
tables. States should consider international exports in the same way as interstate exports for
the baseyear and for estimating demand on commercial capacity in the projection years.
States should determine how internationally exported wastes were ultimately managed in the
baseyear, according to CAP Management Categories, and report the quantities in the column
labelled 'Exports' in Table 3. States should assume that waste exported internationally is
managed in commercial systems unless the state has additional information about the
management facility. States may not have complete irtformation on international exports
because generators are not required to report on Biennial Report forms waste that was
exported out of the country (40 CFR 262.41 (b)). Generators who export their wastes to
foreign countries, however, are required to submit annual reports according to 40 CFR
262.53. These annual reports of hazardous waste exports are maintained by the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), and are hereafter referred to as the 1991 OWPE
Annual Export Reports. States should obtain these reports from their Regional CAP
Coordinator and use these reports to identify international exports.2 (A sample OWPE
Annual Export Report for one state is provided in Appendix D.) Detailed instructions for using
the 1991 OWPE Annual Export Reports to determine international exports are provided in the
instructions for producing Table 3.
2 EPA Headquarters has supplied the Regional CAP Coordinators with the 1991 OWPE Annual
Export Reports.
Page 2-10
-------
Mixed Hazardous/Radioactive Wastes
Adequate capacity does not currently exist for the treatment and disposal of mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes due to the technical difficulties involved in treating it and the
concerns about human exposure to radiation. Therefore, states are not required to report the
demand on capacity for these wastes in the baseyear or projection years, States can identify
mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes on the 1991 Biennial Report on Form GM, Section I,
Box I (i.e., the data element for RCRA-radioactive mixed waste). States should identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes in their 1991 Biennial Report databases and exclude these
wastes from the quantities reported in the baseyear and projections tables.
Demand on Capacity from Recurrent and One-time Waste in 1991
States are required to distinguish between recurrent and one-time wastes for wastes
generated within their borders that placed demand on commercial management capacity in
the baseyear. This distinction is necessary because states should project demand on
commercial capacity from only recurrent waste; EPA will estimate the future demand on
commercial capacity from one-time waste. States are not required to distinguish between
recurrent and one-time wastes for presenting the baseyear demand for on-site and captive
management capacity because demand for on-site and captive capacity will not be projected.
Baseyear Tables
The remainder of section 2.3 presents and describes the tour baseyear tables. For
each table, the following information is provided;
* Purpose of the table;
* Data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report necessary for producing
the table;
* Guidance for using the 1991 Biennial Report data elements to produce
the table;
4 Copy of the table; and
* Flowchart(s) summarizing the instructions for producing the table.
The tables present the CAP Management Categories and the type o1 quantitative
information that states should provide. If states do not need to provide quantitative
information for a particular CAP Management Category, the relevant space in the table is
shaded. For example, in Table 1 (1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site)
the space for Transfer/Storage is shaded because this CAP Management Category is not
relevant for wastes managed on site.
Throughout the discussion of the tables, data elements (e.g., unit of measure (UOM)
and density) and other terms (e.g., large quantity generators (LQGs)} used in the 1991
Page 2-11
-------
Biennial Report are referenced. These data elements and terms are presented on the
Biennial Report Identification and Certification (1C), Waste Generation and Management (GM),
Waste Received From Off Site (WR), and Waste Treatment, Disposal, and Recycling Process
Systems (PS) forms. States should refer to the 1ii1 Biennial Report Instructions and Forms
for a more detailed discussion of data elements and terms,3
Table 1. 1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site
Purpose, Table 1 presents demand for on-site management of hazardous waste by
CAP Management Category.4 Using this table, a state will show how much of its waste is
managed in systems on site.6 Table 1 represents management of hazardous wastes in
systems not available for captive or commercial use. Consequently, wastes that are
generated and managed on site in commercial systems, including residuals, should be
included in Tables 2 or 3 rather than Table 1 (i.e., off-site wastes stabilized and landfilled on
site at a commercial unit).
States are not required to demonstrate adequate capacity for hazardous wastes that
are managed in on-site systems. Rather, states can assume that the capacity needed to
manage hazardous wastes on site will continue to be available in future years. If a state has
knowledge of a specific event that will cause a significant shift from on-site to commercial
management, however, this shift should be considered in projections. For example, a
generator has notified the state of its intent to close its on-site landfill, ff the generator
continues to generate waste, demand will shift from on-site to commercial management
capacity and this shift should be considered in the projections.
Data Elements, Table 1 is based on the following data elements from the 1ii1
Biennial Report or equivalent data:
Form GM
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.i.l)
UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
Quantity Treated, Dispose'd or Recycled
On Site in 1991 (GM.II - On-site System)
System Type (GM.II - On-site System)
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms. EPA
Form 8700-13A/B (5-80) (Revised 08-91), OMB #2050-0024.
4 In Table 1, states are not required to distinguish between recurrent and one-time waste in the
demand for on-site capacity.
5 This table does not necessarily present a comprehensive baseyear picture of on-site management
because some facilities may not report in the Biennial Report waste managed on site in exempt processes.
in their Phase 1 submissions, states should discuss known caveats associated with this table.
Page 2-12
-------
Table 1:
1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY11
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT8
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
Waste Managed
On Site
,,
'
t '
'
Data may not be complete for these technologies because facilities are not
required to report in the 1991 Biennial Report waste managed in exempt processes.
Page 2-13
-------
Instructions. Exhibit 2-3 presents a flowchart for Table 1. Five steps are necessary to
produce this table. .
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element GM.I.I, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 1.
Step 2 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element GM.II.C and the conversion factors listed
In Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
data element GM.II,
Step 3 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories. Use the On-site System Type data element in GM.II
and the definitions of CAP Management Categories in Exhibit 2-1
to assign waste quantities to CAP Management Categories,
Step 4 Exclude quantities of wastes managed at commercial
systems. Use generators' PS forms and other state information
to determine the commercial status of the system and exclude
from Table 1 quantities of wastes managed at commercial
systems. These quantities should be presented in the "Wastes
Generated and Managed In-state" column of Table 3.
Step 5 Determine quantities managed on site for each CAP
Management Category. Sum the waste quantities by CAP
Management Category.
Page 2-14
-------
Exhibit 2-3
Flowchart for Table 1:
1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site
Data
Elements
« RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
• UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
» Quantity Managed (GM.II - On-site System)
» System Type (GM.lt - On-site System)
Translation
RCRA-radioactive
Mixed
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
System Type
PS Form Information
» To Assign CAP Management Category
—•*• To Exclude Wastes Managed in
Commercial Systems
Convert Quantity Managed to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of waste managed on site by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Tf
1991 Hazardous
and Man:
CAP
Management
Category
ibie 1
3 Waste Generated
aged On Site
Waste Managed
On Site
Page 2-15
-------
Table 2. 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems
Purpose, States should use Table 2 to present the demand placed on captive
management systems in 1991, divided into the following three columns: (1) waste exported
to captive systems; (2) waste both generated and managed within the state in captive
systems; and (3) waste imported for management in captive systems. This table summarizes
management by the commercial status of the system, rather than the commercial status of the
facility. This distinction is made because captive facilities can have on-site systems in
addition to the captive system(s). States should report management in captive systems
because significant captive capacity may exist and captive facilities may manage large
quantities of in-state and imported waste. Table 2 does not include the demand placed on
limited commercial capacity; this demand is included in Table 3,
In Table 2, states are not required to distinguish between demand on captive capacity
from recurrent and one-time wastes, because states will net be required to project wastes
managed in captive systems. As with on-site management, however, if a state is aware of a
specific event that would cause a significant shift from captive to commercial management,
this shift should be considered in the projections.
The 'Exports' column of Table 2 reports the quantity of hazardous waste that a state
exported to captive systems by CAP Management Category. States should quantify and
present baseyear exports to captive systems in order to:
4 Determine the quantity of waste generated in state that is exported;
4 Identify the quantity of waste that is exported due to the transfer of
wastes to a company's out-of-state captive facilities;
4 Assist in capacity assurance planning dialogues with other states; and
4 Demonstrate their understanding of their demand on captive capacity in
other states.
The 'Waste Generated and Managed in State' column identifies the quantity of
hazardous waste that remained in state for management in captive systems.
The 'Imports' column of Table 2 presents the quantity of hazardous waste that was
imported to a state's captive systems by CAP Management Category, States should quantify
and present baseyear imports to captive systems in order to:
4 Identify types of captive management capacity available in state to out-
of-state generators;
4 Assist in capacity assurance planning dialogues with other states;
4 Summarize how imported wastes were managed in 1991; and
4 Identify the quantity of waste being imported as a result of the location
of a company's captive facilities.
Page 2-16
-------
Table 2:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste In Captive Systems (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery -
Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids
and Gases
Incineration -
Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters
and Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
•'' '•'' ''-,- if
Exports •"
-.,:-•::.•.•>••-.•>•'
' ' ' Waits ' .'
'• Generated .
and Managed
Instate
'
Imports
Page 2-17
-------
The following sections contain the data elements and instructions for states to use in
determining the quantities to report in each of the columns in Table 2.
Data Elements For 'Exports' Column of Table 2. The 'Exports' column is based on
the following data elements from the 1i91 Biennial Report or equivalent data:
Form GM
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
EPA ID of Receiver (GM.1II.B)
Origin (GM.I.E)
Off-site Availability (GM.1II.D)
UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
Quantity Shipped (GM.IH.E)
System Type Shipped To (GM.III.C)
Instructions For 'Exports' Column,
steps for deriving exports for this column.
Exhibit 2-4 presents a flowchart of the seven
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element GM.I.I, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 2.
Step 2 identify interstate exports. Use the first two letters of the EPA
ID of Receiver (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of
the off-site source to which the waste was sent) from data
element GM.Ill.B to identify the waste quantities that represent
interstate exports.
Step 3 Disregard waste quantities exported by transfer facilities.
Use the Origin code data element GM.I.E to identify waste
shipped by transfer facilities. Disregard waste quantities with an
Origin code - 4 (the hazardous waste stream was received from
off site and was not recycled or treated on site). '
Step 4 Identify commercial status of facility. Use the Off-site
Availability code in data element GM.III.D; Code 2 indicates
management at captive facilities.6 Code 8 represents "Don't
Know"; wastes with this code should not be included in Table 2.
(These wastes should be included under commercial capacity in
Table 3.)
6 The Off-site Availability code is facility-specific rather than sysiem-specific; however, the commercial
availability of the facility as indicated by this code is most likely representative of the availability of the
primary treatment system.
Page 2-18
-------
Exhibit 2-4
Flowchart for 'Exports* Column of Table 2:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems
Data
Elements
« EPA ID of Receiver (GM.tll.B)
» Origin (GM.I.E)
• RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
* Off-site Availability (GM.Iil.D)
• UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
• Quantity Shipped (GM.IIi.E)
• System Type Shipped To (GM.IM.C)
Translation
EPA ID of Receiver
Origin
RCRA-radioactive
Mixed
Oti-site Availability
System Type
To Identify Exports
To Identify Shipments by Transfer
Facilities
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category
Convert Quantity Shipped to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of waste exported and managed in out-of-state captive
systems by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Table 2
19S1 Management of
Hazardous Waste
in Captive Systems
CAP
Management
Category
Page 2-19
-------
Step 5 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element GM.II.C and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Shipped data element GM.III.E.
Step 6 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories, Use the System Type Shipped To data element
GM.IIl.C and the definitions of CAP Management Categories in
Exhibit 2-1 to assign waste quantities to CAP Management
Categories,
Step 7 Determine quantities managed at captive facilities for each
CAP Management Category. Sum the waste quantities
managed at captive facilities by CAP Management Category and
place in the 'Exports' column of Table 2.
Data Elements for 'Waste Generated and Managed In State' Column of Table 2.
This column is based on the following data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report or
equivalent data:
Form GM
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (G.M.I.I)
EPA ID of Receiver (GM.III.B)
Origin (GM.I.E)
Off-site Availability (GM.Ill.D)
UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
Quantity Shipped {GM.III.E}
System Type Shipped To (GM.IH.C)
Instructions For 'Waste Generated and Managed In State' Column. Exhibit 2-5
presents a flowchart for deriving estimates for waste generated and managed in state. Eight
steps are required to derive the estimates for this column.
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element GM.I.I, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 2.
Step 2 Identify in-state shipments. Use the first two letters of the EPA
ID of Receiver (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of
the off-site source to which the waste was sent) from data
element GMJII.B to identify in-state shipments.
Page 2-20
-------
Exhibit 2-5
Flowchart for 'Waste Generated and Managed In State* Column of Table 2;
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems
Data
Elements
• EPA ID of Receiver (GM.III.B)
• Origin (GM.LE)
« RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
• OfiHSite Availability (GMJIi.D)
» UOM and Density (GMJI.C)
» System Type SNpped To (GM.Hl.CJ
« Quantity Shipped fGMJII.E}
Translation
EPA ID of Receiver
Origin
RCRA-racJbactivB
Mixed
Off-site Availability
System Type
To Identify In-State Generation
To Identify Shipments by Transfer
Facilities
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category and
Identify Shipments to Transfer Facilities
Convert Quantity Shipped to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of waste generated and managed tn in-state captive systems
by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Table 2
1191 Management ot
Hazardous Waste
in Captive Systems
Waste Generated and
Managed In State
CAP
Management
Category
Page 2-21
-------
Step 3 Disregard waste quantities shipped by transfer facilities. Use
the Origin code data element GM.I.E to identify waste shipped
by transfer facilities. Disregard waste quantities with an Origin
code = 4 {the hazardous waste stream was received from off
site and was not recycled or treated on site).
Step 4 identify commercial status of system. Use the Off-site
Availability code from data element GM.III.D; Code 2 indicates
management at captive facilities. Code 8 represents "Don't
Know"; wastes with this code should not be included in Table 2,
(These wastes should be included under commercial capacity in
Table 3.)
Step 5 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element GM.Il.C and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Shipped data element GM.III.E.
Step 6 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories. Use the System Type Shipped To data element
GM.III.C and the definitions of CAP Management Categories in
Exhibit 2-1 to assign waste quantities to CAP Management
Categories.
Step 7 Reallocate waste quantities shipped from generators to
transfer facilities, Use the GM form and best professional
judgment to reallocate waste quantities shipped to transfer
facilities to the appropriate CAP Management Categories. States
should document and provide rationale for any assumptions
made. GM forms with a System Type Shipped To = M141
(transfer facility storage, waste was shipped off site with no on-
site TDR activity) indicate waste quantities shipped from
generators to transfer facilities. If a state has knowledge that a
transfer facility exports waste, these waste quantities should be
allocated to the 'Exports' column of Table 2, rather than the
'Waste Generated and Managed In State' column.7
Step 8 Determine quantities managed in captive systems for each
CAP Management Category. Sum the waste quantities
managed in captive systems by CAP Management Category and
place in the 'Wastes Generated and Managed In State' column
of Table 2.
7 Reallocating known exports is necessary to avoid allocating waste quantities to in-state CAP
Management Categories that do not exist within the state.
Page 2-22
-------
Data Elements for 'Imports' Column of Table 2. This column is based on the
following data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report or equivalent data:
Form WR
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (WR.H)
Off-site Source EPA ID (WR.D)
UOM and Density (WR.F)
Quantity Received (WR.E)
System Type (WR.I)
Form PS
System Type (PS.I.B)
Commercial Capacity Availability (PS.II.F)
Instructions For 'Imports' Column. Exhibit 2-6 presents a flowchart for deriving
estimates for imports. Seven steps are required to derive the estimates for this column,
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element WR.H, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 2.
Step 2 Identify interstate Imports, Use the first two letters of the EPA
ID of Source (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of
the off-site source from which the waste was received) from data
element WR.D to identify imports.
Step 3 Identify commercial status of system. Use the System Type
(PS.I.i) and Commercial Capacity Availability code (PS.il.F) to
identify the commercial status of-the system; Code 2 indicates
management in captive systems. If this data element is missing,
use the best available information on commercial availability.
Step 4 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element WR,F and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Received data element WR.E.
Step 5 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories. Use the System Type data element WR.I and the
definitions of CAP Management Categories in Exhibit 2-1 to
assign waste quantities to CAP Management Categories.
Page 2-23
-------
Exhibit 2-6
Flowchart for 'Imports' Column of Table 2:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems
Data
Elements
EPA ID of Source (WR.D)
UOM and Density (WR.F)
Quantity Received (WR.E)
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (WR.H)
System Type (WR.l)
System Type (PS.I.B)
Commercial Capacity Availability {PS.Il.F)
Translation
Data
Manipulation
RCRA-radioactive
Mixed
EPA ID of Source
Commercial Capacity
Availability
System Type
• To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
• To Identify Imports
• To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category
and Identify Shipments to Transfer
Facilities
Convert Quantity Received to short tons using UOM and Density
Tally quantities of waste imported and managed in in-state captive systems
by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Table 2
1991 Management of
Hazardous Waste
in Captive Systems
CAP
Management
Category
Page 2-24
-------
Step 6 Reallocate waste quantities imported to transfer facilities.
Use the WR iorm and best professional judgement to reallocate
waste quantities imported to transfer facilities to the appropriate
CAP Management Categories, States should document and
provide rationale for any assumptions made. WR forms with a
System Type code = M141 (transfer facility storage, waste was
shipped off site with no on-srte TDR activity) indicate imports to
transfer facilities.8
Step 7 Determine quantities managed in captive systems for each
CAP Management Category. Sum the waste quantities
managed in captive systems by CAP Management Category and
place in the 'Imports' column of Table 2.
8 If states have knowledge that waste imported to transfer facilities was ultimately exported for
management, they should note this caveat in their CAP documentation.
Page 2-25
-------
Table 3. 1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems
Purpose, States should use Table 3 to present the demand placed on commercial
management systems in 1991, divided into five columns: (1) recurrent waste exported to
commercial systems; (2) one-time waste exported to commercial systems; (3) recurrent waste
generated and managed within the state in commercial systems; (4) one-time waste
generated and managed within the state in commercial systems; and (5) waste imported for
management in commercial systems. This table summarizes management by the commercial
status of the system, rather than the commercial status of the facility. This distinction is made
because commercial facilities can have captive and on-slte management systems in addition
to the commercially available system(s).
States need to distinguish between recurrent versus one-time waste for waste
generated within their borders that placed demand on commercial capacity in 1991 because
they are required to project demand on commercial capacity from only recurrent waste. EPA
wifl estimate the future demand on commercial capacity from one-time waste. States should
provide this information in Table 3 in the columns labelled 'Exports/Recurrent and One-time'
and 'Waste Generated and Managed In State/Recurrent and One-time.'
States are not required to distinguish between recurrent and one-time waste for
imports because states do not need to assure capacity for imported waste. (The distinction
is only relevant for the state that exported the waste.) In addition, imports cannot be
separated into recurrent and one-time waste using 1991 Biennial Report information.
The 'Exports' column of Table 3 reports the quantity of hazardous waste that a state
exported to commercial systems by CAP Management Category. States need to quantify and
present baseyear exports to commercial systems in order to:
* Determine the quantity of waste generated in state that is exported;
* Assist in capacity assurance planning dialogues with other states;
* Demonstrate their understanding of the demand for commercial
capacity in other states; and
f Demonstrate the states' understanding of demand on commercial
management capacity from recurrent versus one-time waste.
The 'Waste Generated and Managed In State' column identifies the quantity of
recurrent and one-time waste that remained in state for management in commercial systems,
Page 2-26
-------
Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery -
Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration -
: SIudp.es/Soiids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters
and Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
DeepweM/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/
Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
-Exports . • • •'-.
Recurrent
One-time
Waste Generated and .
Managed In State
Recurrent
One-itne ;
imports*
>
• ' ."
*
- • '. , ',•;'•
* . ^
a Imports cannot be divided into recurrent and one-time wastes due to limitations of information
provided on Bienniaf Report WR forms.
Page 2-27
-------
The Imports' column of Table 3 reports the quantity of hazardous waste that was
imported to a state's commercial systems by CAP Management Category. States need to
quantify and present baseyear imports to commercial systems in order to:
4 Identify types of commercial management capacity available in state to
out-of-state generators;
* Assist in capacity assurance planning dialogues with other states; and
4 Summarize how imported wastes were managed In 1991,9
The following sections contain the data elements and instructions for states to use in
determining the quantities to report in each of the columns in Table 3.
Data Elements For 'Exports' Column of Table 3. The 'Exports' column is based on
the following data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report or equivalent data:
Form GM
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
EPA ID of Receiver (GM.ilt.B)
Origin (GM.I.E)
Off-site Availability (GM.HI.D)
UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
Quantity Shipped (GM.III.E)
System Type Shipped To {GM.IH.C)
Instructions For 'Exports' Column. Exhibit 2-7 presents a flowchart for deriving
exports. Nine steps are required to produce this column.
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element GM.I.i, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 3.
Step 2 Identify interstate exports. Use the first two letters of the EPA
ID of Receiver (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of
the off-site source to which the waste was sent) from data
element GM.III.B to identify the waste quantities that represent
interstate exports.
9 The method for determining demand placed on commercial management capacity from imported
waste does not allow for the distinction between recurrent and one-time waste.
Page 2-28
-------
Exhibit 2-7
Flowchart for 'Exports' Column of Table 3;
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems
Data
Elements
» EPA ID oi Receiver
» Origin (GM.I.E)
« RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
« Off-site Availability (GM.HI.D)
• UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
* Quantity Shipped (GM.III.E)
» System Type Shipped To (GM.IIi.C)
Translation
RCRA-radioactive
Mixed
EPA ID of Receiver
Origin Code
OH-srte Availability
System Type
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
To Identify Exports
To Identify Shipments by Transfer
Facilities and Separate Recurrent
from One-time Wastes
To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category
Convert Quantity Shipped to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of recurrent and one-time wastes exported and managed in
out-of-stale commercial systems, including international exports, by CAP
Management Category
Presentation
Table 3
1991 Management of
Hazardous Waste
in Commercial Systems
CAP
Management
Category
Page 2-29
-------
Step 3 Disregard waste quantities exported by transfer facilities.
Use the Origin code data element GM.I.E to identify waste
shipped by transfer facilities. Disregard waste quantities with an
Origin code = 4 (the hazardous waste stream was received from
off site and was not recycled or treated on site).
Step 4 Identify commercial status of facility. Use the Off-site
Availability code in data element GM.Hl.D; Code 1 indicates
management at commercial facilities.10 Code 8 represents
"Don't Know"; include waste quantities with Code 8 in this table,
Step 5 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the DOM and
Density in data element GM.II.C and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Shipped data element GM.IU.E.
Step 6 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories, Use the System Type Shipped To data element
GM.III.C and the definitions of CAP Management Categories in
Exhibit 2-1 to assign waste quantities to CAP Management
Categories.
Step 7 Separate recurrent waste from one-time waste. Use the
Origin code data element GM.I.E to identify whether waste is
recurrent or one-time; Code 2 represents one-time wastes and
Codes 1, 3, and 5 represent recurrent wastes. 11 the code is
missing, assume the waste is recurrent and document in the
CAP the quantity assumed to be recurrent due to missing Origin
codes.
Step 8 Identify international exports. Use the guidelines provided in
the following section to determine the quantity of international
exports and add to the quantity of interstate exports.
Step 9 Determine quantities managed at commercial facilities for
each CAP Management Category. Sum recurrent and one-time
wastes by CAP Management Category separately, and place
quantities for commercial facilities in Table 3,
Data elements for determining international exports for 'Exports' Column
in Table 3. The two primary data sources for determining international exports are the 1991
OWPE Annual Export Reports and the 1991 Biennial Report. A sample OWPE Annual Report
for 1990 for one state is presented in Appendix D. States should use the following data
elements to determine international exports:
10 The Off-site Availability code is facility-specific rather than system-specific; however, the commercial
availability of the facility as indicated by this code is most likely representative of the availability of the
primary treatment system.
Page 2-30
-------
1991 OWPE Annual Export Forms
EPA ID and Name of Generator
EPA !D and Name of Receiver
Description of Waste
Unit of Measure (UOM)
Quantity Exported
1991 Biennial Report Forms
EPA ID of TSDR Facility (PS)
System Type (PS.I.B)
Instructions for including international exports in the 'Exports' Column of Tabte 3
Eight steps are necessary to derive estimates for international exports.
11
Step 1 Identify international exports. Obtain copies of the 1991
OWPE Annual Export Reports from the EPA Regional CAP
Coordinator. These reports should be used to identify quantities
of international exports.
Step 2 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. If the waste
description in the OWPE Annual Export Reports indicates that
the waste is a mixed hazardous/radioactive waste, exclude
quantities associated with this waste from international export
estimates.
Step 3 Disregard waste quantities exported by transfer facilities.
Disregard waste quantities shipped by transfer facilities to
foreign hazardous waste management facilities. Wastes shipped
from generators to transfer facilities are accounted for in the
'Waste Generated and Managed in State1 column. To consider
transfer facilities in international exports would result in double
counting of these waste quantities. Use the System Type code
in the PS form (PS.I.B) to identify transfer facilities. System Type
code M141 represents transfer facilities, tn the absence of the
PS form, states should use best professional judgement or
contact the facility to determine whether a facility is a transfer
facility. States should document and provide rationale for any
assumptions made.
Step 4 Identify commercial status of the system. The OWPE Annual
Export Reports do not indicate the commercial status of a
system. Consequently, states should use their knowledge of the
11 1991 OWPE Annual Export Reports track only RCRA hazardous wasies. Consequently, state-
designated hazardous wastes that are exported internationally are not included in the estimates for
international exports.
Page 2-31
-------
receiving facility to determine whether the management system is
commercial or captive. If the state has insufficient data, it can
identify the EPA identification numbers and names of the
generators exporting to a particular facility. Based upon the
names of both the generators and receivers, states may be able
to establish common ownership and thus its commercial status.
In the absence of clear information, though, states should
designate a receiving facility as commercial.
Step 5 Distinguish recurrent and one-time wastes. Use best
professional judgement to distinguish recurrent and one-time
wastes, An indicator of one-time wastes, for example, may be
the sudden appearance of an LOG shipping contaminated soil
and debris. Additional information may be found in the identity
of the exporter. For example, a real estate development
company or architectural firm is not typically involved in recurrent
generation. If insufficient data are available to determine whether
the waste is from a recurrent or one-time activity, state should
assume that the waste is recurrent. States should document
and provide rationale for any assumptions made.
Step 6 Convert waste quantities to short tons. The UOM may be
found in the OWPE Annual Export Reports. For the OWPE
Annual Export Report, six types of UOMs are used: T=short
tons, P=pounds, Y=cubic yards, K=kilograms, L=liters, and
G=gallons. Use the conversion factors provided in Appendix E
to convert to short tons. Use best professional judgement or
contact the facility to determine the density to use when
converting liters and gallons to short tons.
Step 7 Assign waste quantities to CAP Management Categories.
The system types used to manage the wastes are not indicated
on the OWPE Annual Export Reports. Appendix D presents the
foreign facilities receiving hazardous wastes for management
and the corresponding services offered, This list is not intended
to be comprehensive but rather is offered as a guide. Also
consider the waste descriptions and EPA waste codes in
examining potential management options. Use best professional
judgement in determining whether the management options
presented in Appendix D are appropriate for the waste. States
may assign the wastes to an alternate CAP Management
Category if they believe that those listed in Appendix D are
inappropriate. If a CAP Management Category other than that
provided in Appendix D is used, states should provide the
rationale for this designation.
Page 2-32
-------
Step 8 Determine quantities managed in commercial systems for
each CAP Management Category, Sum the quantities
managed in foreign commercial systems by CAP Management
Category for both recurrent and one-time wastes. Add these
quantities to the quantities of interstate exports.
Data Elements for 'Waste Generated and Managed In State' Column of Table 3.
This column is based on the following data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report or
equivalent data:
Form GM
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.I.I)
EPA ID of Receiver (QM.III.B)
Origin (GM.I.E)
Off-site Availability (GM.III.D)
DOM and Density (GM.ll.C)
Quantity Shipped (GM.IIi.E)
System Type Shipped To (GM.III.C)
instructions For 'Waste Generated and Managed In State' Column, Exhibit 2-8
presents a flowchart for deriving estimates for waste generated and managed in state. Nine
steps are required to produce this column.
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive Mixed code, data element GM.I.I, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates mixed
hazardous/radioactive waste; exclude wastes with Code 1 from
Table 3,
Step 2 Identify in-state shipments. Use the first two letters of the EPA
ID of Receiver (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of
the off-site source to which the waste was sent) from data
element GM.III.B to identify in-state shipments,
Step 3 Disregard waste quantities shipped by transfer facilities. Use
the Origin code, data element GM.I.E, to identify waste shipped
by transfer facilities. Disregard waste quantities with an Origin
Code = 4 (the hazardous waste stream was received from off
site and was not recycled or treated on site).
Step 4 identify commercial status of system. Use the Off-site
Availability code from data element GM.itl.D; Code 1 indicates
management at commercial facilities. Code 8 represents "Don't
Know"; include waste quantities with Code 8 in this table.
Page 2-33
-------
Exhibit 2-8
Flowchart for 'Waste Generated and Managed In State* Column of Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems
Data
Elements
« EPA ID of Receiver (GM.itl.B)
• Origin (GM.I.E)
* RCRA-radioactive Mixed (GM.l.t)
« Off-site Availability {GM.tll.D)
* UOM and Density (GM.II.C)
* System Type Shipped To (GM.IIl.C)
• Quantity Shipped (GM.III.E)
Translation
RGRA-radioaetive
Mixed
EPA ID of Receiver
Origin
Off-site Availability
System Type
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
To Identify In-State Generation
To Identify Shipments by Transfer
Facilities and Separate Recurrent from
One-time Wastes
To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category and
Identify Shipments to Transfer Facilities
Convert Quantity Shipped to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of recurrent and one-time waste generated and managed in
in-state commercial systems by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Table 3
1991 Management of
Hazardous Waste
in Commercial Systems
CAP
Management
Category
Waste Generated and
Managed In State
Page 2-34
-------
Step 5 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element GM.II.C and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Shipped data element GM.II1.E.
Step 6 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories. Use the System Type Shipped To data element
GM.IH.C and the definitions of CAP Management Categories in
Exhibit 2-1 to assign waste quantities to CAP Management
Categories,
Step 7 Reallocate waste quantities shipped from generators to
transfer facilities. Use the GM form and best professional
judgement to reallocate waste quantities shipped to transfer
facilities to the appropriate CAP Management Categories. GM
forms with a System Type Shipped To - M141 (transfer facility
storage, waste was shipped off site with no on-site TDR activity)
indicate waste quantities shipped from generators to transfer
facilities. If a state has knowledge that a transfer facility exports
waste, these waste quantities should be allocated to the
'Exports' column of Table 3, rather than the Waste Generated
and Managed In State1 column.12 States should document
and provide rationale for any assumptions made.
Step 8 Separate recurrent waste from one-time waste. Use the
Origin code, data element GM.l.E, to identity whether waste is
recurrent or one-time; Code 2 represents one-time wastes and
Codes 1, 3, and 5 represent recurrent wastes. If the code is
missing, assume the waste is recurrent and document in the
CAP the quantity assumed to be recurrent due to missing origin
codes,
Step 9 Determine quantities managed in commercial systems for
each CAP Management Category. Sum recurrent and one-time
wastes by CAP Management Category separately, and place
quantities for commercial systems in Table 3.
12 Reallocating known exports is necessary to avoid allocating waste quantities to in-state CAP
Management Categories that do not exist within the state.
Page 2-35
-------
Data Elements for 'Imports* Column of Table 3, This column is based on the
following data elements from the 1991 Biennial Report or equivalent data:
Form WR
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (WR.H)
Off-site Source EPA ID (WR.D)
UOM and Density (WR.F)
Quantity Received (WR.E)
System Type (WR.I)
Form PS
System Type (PS.I.B)
Commercial Capacity Availability (PS.H.F)
Instructions For 'Imports' Column, Exhibit 2-9 presents a flowchart tor deriving
estimates for imports. Since the WR form does not provide information to distinguish
between recurrent and one-time wastes, states do not need to separate imported wastes into
these categories. Seven steps are required to derive the estimates for this column;
Step 1 Exclude mixed hazardous/radioactive wastes. Use the RCRA-
radioactive mixed code, data element WR.H, to identify mixed
hazardous/radioactive wastes. Code 1 indicates wastes with
mixed hazardous radioactive wastes; exclude wastes with Code
1 from Table 3.
Step 2 Identify imports. Use the first two letters of the EPA ID of
Source (i.e., the twelve-digit EPA identification number of the off-
site source from which the waste was received) from data
element WR.D to identify imports.
Step 3 Identify commercial status of system. Use the System Type
(PS,IB) and the Commercial Capacity Availability code (PS.II.F)
to identify the commercial status of the system; Code 4 indicates
management in commercial systems. Code 3 represents limited
. commercial status; waste with Code 3 should be Included in this
table, rf this data element is missing, use the best available
information on commercial availability.
Step 4 Convert waste quantities to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element WR.F and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert to short tons the quantities reported in
the Quantity Received data element WR.E.
Page 2-36
-------
Exhibit 2-9
Flowchart for 'Imports* Column of Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Commercial Systems
Data
Elements
Off-site Source EPA ID (WR.D)
UOM and Density (WR.F)
Quantity Received (WR.E)
RCRA-radioactive Mixed (WR.H)
System Type (WR.l)
System Type (PS.I.B)
Commercial Capacity Availability (PS.II.F)
Translation
RCRA-radioactive
Mixed
EPA ID of Source
Commercial Capacity
Availability
System Type
To Exclude Mixed Hazardous/
Radioactive Wastes
To Identify Imports
To Identify Captive or Commercial
To Assign CAP Management Category
Convert Quantity Received to short tons using UOM and Density
Data
Manipulation
Tally quantities of waste imported and managed in in-state commercial
systems by CAP Management Category
Presentation
I
Table 3
1991 Management of
Hazardous Waste
in Commercial Systems
CAP
Management
Category
Page 2-37
-------
Step 5 Assign waste quantities to appropriate CAP Management
Categories. Use the System Type data element WR.I and the
definitions of CAP Management Categories in Exhibit 2-1 to
assign waste quantities to CAP Management Categories,
Step 6 Reallocate waste quantities imported to transfer facilities.
Use the WR form and best professional judgement to reallocate
waste quantities imported to transfer facilities to the appropriate
CAP Management Categories. States should document and
provide rationale for any assumptions made. WR forms with a
System Type code = M141 (transfer facility storage, waste was
shipped off site with no on-site TDR activity) indicate imports to
transfer facilities.13
Step 7 Determine quantities managed in commercial systems for
each CAP Management Category. Sum the waste quantities
managed in commercial systems by CAP Management Category
and place in the Imports' column of Table 3.
If stales have knowledge that waste imported to transfer facilities was ultimately exported for
management, they should note this caveat in their CAP documentation.
Page 2-38
-------
Table 4. Maximum Operational In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management
Capacity - End of 1991
Purpose. Table 4 summarizes the maximum operational in-state commercial
management capacity for RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wastes by CAP Management Category,
This table is derived using the PS form, It the PS form or certain data elements on the PS
form are not available, states should use their commercial facilities' Part B or Part A
applications or other state data. (States should include any interim status energy recovery
facilities.) If a state is aware of a system with an operational status that significantly affects
baseyear capacity, the state should note this status in its CAP documentation. However,
changes in operational status that will affect capacity after the end of 1991 will be reflected in
Table 6 (Expected Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management Capacity) and need
not be documented for Table 4. States should include Commercial Capacity for Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) into the appropriate energy recovery category.
States may also submit capacity data and information about commercial systems
exempt from Subtitle C requirements that accept RCRA hazardous wastes. This optional
information should be provided in a separate table or described in the text of the Phase 1
submission.
Data Elements, Table 4 is based on the following data elements from the 1991
Biennial Report or equivalent data:
PS Form
Maximum Operational RCRA Capacity (PS.Il.B)
Commercial Capacity Availability (PS.II.F)
Percent Capacity Commercially Available (PS.II.G)
UOM and Density (PS.II.A)
System Type (PS.I.B)
Instructions. Exhibit 2-10 presents a flowchart for Table 4. Five steps are necessary
to produce this table.
Step 1 Identify maximum operational Subtitle C capacity. Use the
Maximum Operational RCRA Capacity, data element PS.Il.B, to
identify maximum operational Subtitle C capacity for the system,
This data element also asks respondents for the Maximum
Operational Total Capacity of the system; however, Table 4
should include only Maximum Operational RCRA Capacity.
Step 2 Identify commercial status of system. Use the Commercial
Capacity Availability code from data element PS.II.F to identify
commercial systems; Code 4 indicates management in
commercial systems. For systems with Code 3 (the system is
available to a limited group of generators or facilities for
Page 2-39
-------
Table 4:
Maximum Operational in-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991 (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
S Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Maximum 'Operational :
In-state Commercial :
SubtftteC
Management Capacity '
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
:'<'• •' " ',•• ''."'' •
Page 2-40
-------
Exhibit 2-10
Flowchart for Table 4:
Maximum In-state Operational Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991
Data
Elements
Translation
Data
Manipulation
> Maximum Operational RCRA Capacity (PS.Ii.B)
' Commercial Capacity Availability (PS.II.F)
Percent Capacity Commercially Available (PS.Ii.G)
UOM and Density (PS.II.A)
• System Type (PS.I.B)
Commercial Capacity
Availability
Percent Capacity
Commercially Available
System Type
To Identity Commercial and Limited
Commercial Systems
To Identify Limited Commercial
Capacity
To Assign CAP Management Category
Convert Maximum Operational RCRA Capacit/ to short tons using UOM
and Density
Tally maximum in-state operational commercial Subtitle C management
capacity by CAP Management Category
Presentation
Ti
Max In- state Ope
Subtitle C Mngmnt
CAP
Management
Category
able 4
(rational Commercial
Capacity - End of 1991
Max Operational
Subtitle C Capacity
Page 2-41
-------
commercial hazardous waste management), identify the capacity
available for commercial management by using the percent
Commercially Available (PS.I1.G) or other state information. If the
Commercial Capacity Availability code is missing, states should
use other state information to identify the commercial status.
Step 3 Convert maximum capacity to short tons. Use the UOM and
Density in data element PS.H.A and the conversion factors listed
in Appendix E to convert maximum RCRA Subtitle C capacity to
short tons.
Step 4 Assign maximum operational Subtitle C capacity to
appropriate CAP Management Categories. Use the System
Type, data element PS.t.B, and the definitions oi CAP
Management Categories in Exhibit 2-1 to assign maximum
Subtitle C capacity to CAP Management Categories. The
Transfer/Storage Category should not be used for this table.
Step 5 Determine the maximum operational capacity for each CAP
Management Category. Sum the maximum operational in-state
Subtitle C management capacity by CAP Management Category.
Page 2-42
-------
3. PHASE 1: PROJECTIONS
-------
-------
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO PHASE 1 PROJECTIONS
Introduction
This chapter describes the methods EPA recommends that states use to project the
future need for commercial hazardous waste recovery, treatment, and disposal capacity.
During their review of the 1989 CAP process, states requested that EPA develop such
methods to ensure consistency among state projection approaches, EPA, however, will leave
the actual mechanics and details to each state's discretion.
States should estimate the demand for commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity from recurrent hazardous waste expected to be generated within their
borders in 1993, 1999, and 2013. States should also estimate the maximum commercial
Subtitle C hazardous waste management capacity expected to be available within their
borders in 1993, 1999, and 2013. These projections are explained in more detail in later
sections. The 1993 CAP projections focus on commercial capacity only because It is
generally expected that on-site and captive capacity will grow as needed to meet the demand
for such capacity. Focusing projections on commercial hazardous waste management
systems reduces the burden on states of making projections,
Projections should include the impact of EPA and state regulations that are finalized
before the end of the 1992 calendar year. However, for the 1993 CAP, states do not need to
adjust hazardous waste projections for the impacts of economic change. EPA made this
decision based on preliminary analyses that have shown that the effects of economic
changes on waste generation will be subsumed by the effects of new hazardous waste
regulations and waste minimization, EPA is, however, further investigating whether a
relationship exists between economic change and hazardous waste generation, and may
require adjustments of hazardous waste generation by projected economic change in future
CAPs.
Baseline
The previous chapter instructs states on how to compile baseyear data that describe
their hazardous waste management systems in 1991. This baseyear information should be
modified to produce the baseline recurrent demand and capacity data from which projections
are made.
Baseline Demand
Baseline demand should include the following types of waste:
t RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste generated in state in the baseyear;
Page 3-1
-------
* Treatment residuals generated from management of hazardous waste in
the baseyear (section 3.2 describes in detail how residuals should be
incorporated into the baseline); and
• Non-RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste that is considered hazardous
under state regulations and is managed in hazardous waste
management systems,
Baseline demand should not include the following types of waste:
* One-time wastes, as EPA will develop one-time waste estimates to be
used in assessing the adequacy of national capacity;
• Waste imported to the state in the baseyear, because projections
should include only waste reasonably expected to be generated in the
state in the baseyear;
• Waste generated by small quantity generators (SQGs);
• Non-Subtitle C hazardous waste that may use commercial Subtitle C
management capacity, except for waste considered hazardous under
state regulations;
• Waste disposed through discharge to a sewer/publicly owned treatment
works (POTW);
• Waste disposed through direct discharge to surface waters under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; or
• Mixed hazardous/radioactive waste.
To estimate the baseline recurrent demand for commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity, states should sum recurrent waste generated and managed in state in
the baseyear (Table 3) and recurrent waste exported in the baseyear (Table 3), by CAP
Management Category. After adjusting for treatment residuals (see section 3.2), this
information should be presented in the 'Baseline' column of Table 5; Demand for Commercial
Hazardous Waste Management Capacity from Recurrent Waste Expected to be Generated In
State. (Copies of the projection tables are provided in Appendix C and on a diskette.)
Page 3-2
-------
Tables:
Demand for Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
from Recurrent Waste Expected to be Generated In State (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organies Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
Baseline
Demand for Commercial Subtitle
C Management Capacity
1993
'; tt§0
mn
, .
, , "-'
/ * ' •
* • /
.'•' •
Page 3-3
-------
Baseline Capacity
Baseline capacity is the existing operational capacity located within a state's borders.
The baseyear capacity figures from Table 4 should be reflected in the 'Baseline' column of
Table 6, Adjustments for capacity that has become operational or closed since 1991 or that
is known to be slated for closure will be reflected in the 1993 projections. In addition,
projections from the baseline will reflect a depletion of non-renewable landfill capacity. Other
projected capacity amounts will be held constant.
1993 Projections
Demand and capacity estimates for 1993 are required since that is when states make
the assurance oi availability oi capacity for 20 years from the date these assurances are
made. Except as noted below, for 1993, states may hold both demand and capacity other
than landfill capacity constant from the baseline. Certainly, the data should be updated if the
state has knowledge of changes, especially new operational capacity, in either demand or
capacity between 1991 and 1993,
1993 Demand
To project the demand for commercial waste management capacity from recurrent
hazardous waste expected to be generated within their borders in 1993, states should follow
two steps.
Step 1. States should separate wastes that are affected by regulatory changes from
wastes that are not affected by regulatory changes. To make this separation states should
compile 1991 Biennial Report data by EPA Hazardous Waste code and separate waste codes
affected by regulatory change from other waste codes placing demand on commercial
capacity that are not affected by regulatory changes. States may need to adjust newly listed
waste quantities (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste codes F037 and F038) to reflect a full year's
worth of generation. The recommended regulatory change projection methods are given in
section 3.3.
Step 2. States should apportion 1993 demand by CAP Management Categories onto
Table 5. For wastes not affected by regulatory changes, states should apportion projected
demand to CAP Management Categories in the same proportions as in the baseline, except
where adjustments are needed. For example, states should not allocate demand on
management capacity to land treatment/farming, which is disallowed under the land disposal
restrictions, or to transfer/storage. Waste in these categories should be allocated to an
appropriate CAP Management Category using "best engineering judgment" and methods
provided in section 3.3. For instance, rf a state has reason to believe that management
practices will change from the baseline, it should adjust the allocation of wastes to CAP
Management Categories accordingly and describe the reason for these expected changes in
its CAP documentation. For wastes affected by regulatory changes, states should apportion
projected generation to CAP Management Categories based on the requirements of new
regulations and associated changes in hazardous waste management The recommended
regulatory change projection methods are given in section 3.3.
Page 3-4
-------
Table 8:
Expected Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Baseline
Maximum In-state Commercial
Subtitle C Management Capacity
1993
1999
20t3
Inoraanics Recovery
Oroanics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATME&TT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludaes/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwelt/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
-
,
i
Page 3-5
-------
The 1993 demand information should be presented in the '1993' column of Table 5:
Demand for Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity from Recurrent Waste
Expected to be Generated In State.
As noted in the discussion of the baseline demand, states wUI not be responsible for
estimating one-time waste generation. EPA will develop national estimates of one-time waste
generation that will be used in assessing the adequacy of national capacity.
1993 Capacity
To estimate the maximum available commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity expected to be available within their borders in 1993, states should
follow three steps.
Step 1. Add to the baseline capacity (i.e., operational commercial capacity figures
from Table 4) any commercial Subtitle C capacity that has or wilt become operational by the
end of 1993.
Step 2. Subtract from commercial landfill capacity the amount of capacity that is
estimated to be used between the end of 1991 and the start of 1993.
Step 3. Subtract from the commercial capacity figures any capacity that has closed
since 1991. The information from steps 1, 2, and 3 should be reflected in the '1993' column
of Table 6: Expected Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management Capacity.
If a state has any statutory limitations on the amount of waste a landfill can accept, it
should provide that information to EPA. EPA will use this information in its national capacity
assessment.
1999 Projections
States should project demand and capacity for 1999 to provide a reasonable basis to
assure 20 years of capacity. This projection year coincides with the cycle for Biennial
Reports, and is the furthest year out from the baseyear that will provide reasonable
projections. This date also provides a window for tracking milestones established in Phase 2
and 3 submittals. Milestones will be tracked by the Agency through the end of 1i99. For the
1993 CAP, the year 1999 will provide an ending point for milestones. Some time before 1999,
the Agency will ask for new CAP updates from states that will contain milestones for another
six year timeframe.
1999 Demand
To project the recurrent demand for commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity in 1999, states may assume that demand will be constant from 1993 to
1999. Thus, states may copy the information in the '1993* column to the '1999' column in
Table 5. As noted above, states will not be responsible for estimating one-time waste
generation.
Page 3-6
-------
1999 Capacity
To estimate the maximum available commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity expected to be available within their borders in 1999, states should
follow two steps. (By limiting projected capacity to only those facilities that have been
permitted and are operating by the time the Phase 1 submittal is prepared, states will avoid
the appearance of being prejudicial in its review of permit applications.)
Step 1. For all CAP Management Categories except commercial landfill capacity,
assume that capacity available in 1993 is available in 1999. However, if the state has
knowledge of significant changes that will diminish commercial capacity, such as closures,
states should reflect these changes in the 1999 capacity estimates. If the state knows of
changes that will increase available commercial capacity, such as on-site or captive facilities
coming on line and reducing the demand for commercial capacity, states should also note
these changes in their 1999 capacity estimates.
Step 2. Subtract from commercial landfill capacity available at the start of 1993, as
presented in the '1993' column of Table 6, the amount of such capacity that is expected to be
used between the start of 1993 and the start of 1999,
States can estimate the amount of commercial landfill capacity that is expected to be
used between the start of 1993 and the start of 1999 (i.e., end of 1998) using the following
equation, which assumes that the average demand over the six-year period is the average of
the 1993 demand and the 1999 demand;
Capacity Change = [6 x [(1993 demand + 1999 demand)/2]
For example, assume that a state projects a demand on landfill capacity of 100 tons in 1993
and 120 tons in 1999. In this case, the capacity change during the five year interval would
be:
Capacity Change = [6 x [(100 + 120)/2]
Capacity Change = 660 tons
If the demand in 1993 and 1999 are equal, the change in capacity would equal six times that
annual demand (held constant for each of the six years).
The change in capacity should be subtracted from the capacity figures in the '1993'
column of Table 6, which represent capacity at the start of 1993, and entered in the '1999'
column,
2013 Projections
Projections to the year 2013 will satisfy the requirement in CERCLA §104(c)(9) that
states should assure the availability of capacity for 20 years from the date capacity
assurances are made. For 2013, states may hold demand and non-landfill capacity estimates
constant from 1999, because detailed 20-year projections would be too inaccurate to provide
a reasonable picture of future hazardous waste management.
Page 3-7
-------
2013 Demand
Since states may assume the demand for commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity from hazardous waste expected to be generated within their borders in
2013 is constant from 1999, states may copy the information in the column for 1999 to the
column for 2013 in Table 5: Demand for Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
Capacity from Recurrent Waste Expected to be Generated In State.
2013 Capacity
For 2013, states can hold their maximum available commercial Subtitle C hazardous
waste management capacity constant from 1999, excluding commercial landfill capacity. To
project the decline in commercial landfill capacity from the start of 1999, as presented in the
'1999' column of Table 6, to the start of 2013, states should reduce their 1999 commercial
landfill capacity by 14 times their projected demand for commercial landfill in 1999. This
approach is simpler than the approach for 1999 because it reflects an assumption that the
demand on commercial landfill capacity will remain constant from 1999 to 2013. States
should copy the information for other types of commercial Subtitle C hazardous waste
management capacity in the column for 1999 to the column for 2013 in Table 6: Expected
Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C Management Capacity.
The remainder of this chapter is organized in three sections:
Section 3.2 Treatment Residuals;
Section 3.3 Regulatory Change Projections; and
Section 3.4 Review Criteria for Projections.
The regulatory change methods in this chapter do not include adjustments for the impact of
economic growth or decline on hazardous waste generation. States are not required to make
economic change projections because of the difficulty of making accurate projections.
Furthermore, the impact of economic change is difficult to separate from the impact of other
variables, such as waste minimization and regulatory change.
Page 3-8
-------
3.2 TREATMENT RESIDUALS
EPA is assigning the responsibility for projecting demand and assuring capacity for
secondary waste (i.e., treatment residuals) based on how the primary waste is treated.
* For three CAP Management Categories: Stabilization/Chemical Fixation,
Incineration - Liquids and Gases, and Incineration - Sludges/Solids, the
state with the primary waste generators will be responsible for the
residuals; and
* For the remaining CAP Management Categories, the state in which the
secondary waste is generated will be responsible for the residuals.
This approach has several benefits. First, allocating responsibility for residuals from
stabilization and incineration to the states with the primary generators is equitable. States
with stabilization and incineration capacity will not be forced to assure landfill capacity for the
residuals from imported waste. This allocation of responsibility effectively requires states with
the primary generator to be responsible for entire stabilization and incineration treatment
trains (cradle-to-grave management), regardless of whether ihe residuals were generated
within their borders.
Second, this approach will provide more effective waste minimization planning in the
event of a national shortfall in land disposal because opportunities for significant reductions
due to waste minimization are much greater at the point of primary generation, rather than the
point where residuals are generated. In particular, secondary generation states that are
"shortfall states" will not need to address these residuals, which typically would be addressed
by siting or interstate agreements. Instead, this approach will create an incentive to reduce
the amount of waste generated in the first place, which is most appropriately placed on states
in which the primary waste is generated.
Third, by restricting the primary generating state's responsibility to stabilization and
incineration residuals, the approach will avoid any difficulties in projecting out-of-state
residuals generation from the wide range of other management categories. Furthermore,
residuals from other CAP Management Categories, in certain instances, are exempt from
Subtitle C management provided they meet certain criteria. For example, slag residuals
generated by high temperature metals recovery would be excluded from Subtitle C disposal if
they achieve the generic exclusion levels.1
States are responsible for projecting demand and assuring capacity for residuals from
wastes imported for management by methods other than stabilization or incineration. Making
1 56 Federal Register 41164, August 19, 1991 (K061 rulemaking); 57 Federal Register 37194, August 18,
1992 (K062, F006 rulemakin|).
Page 3-9
-------
projections for these wastes does not require any special adjustments because the states'
baseline data include residuals generated by in-state management of imported wastes.
Calculating residuals from CAP Management Categories other than stabilization and
incineration would be much more difficult because the processes can vary and residual
generation in other CAP Management Categories is not as well documented as stabilization
and incineration.
The following text describes the approach for adjusting the baseyear data for residuals
from stabilization and incineration to create the baseline data.
Calculation of Residuals from Stabilization and Incineration
This section describes how states should estimate the quantities of residuals that will
be generated by recurrent wastes shipped out of state directly for stabilization or incineration.
These amounts should be included in a state's baseline demand for landfill capacity. This
section also describes how states should estimate the quantity of residuals from stabilizing
and incinerating imported wastes, which should be excluded from demand projections. This
adjustment is necessary to avoid double counting of residual wastes.
The calculations described in this section rely on import and export information from
Table 3 and multiplication factors described below. If a state uses different multiplication
factors, it should describe the rationale for its factors,
Capturing Residuals from Exported Wastes
Residuals from exported recurrent waste should be added to baseline demand
projections by using three steps.
Step 1. A state should identify from Table 3 the amount of its primary or in-state
generated secondary recurrent waste that was shipped out of state in 1991 for
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation, Incineration - Liquids and Gases, and Incineration -
Sludges/Solids.
Step 2. Unless a state can document more appropriate multipliers, the waste
quantities identified in step 1 should be multiplied as follows:
t Stabilization by 1.5 to represent a demand on commercial landfill
capacity;
* Incineration - Liquids and Gases by 0,15 to represent the demand on
landfill capacity; and
f Incineration - Solids/Sludges by 0.225 to represent the demand on
landfill capacity.
These factors, while not applicable to all waste streams that are stabilized or incinerated, are
reasonable mid-range assumptions or averages for planning purposes. They reflect analysis
Page 3-10
-------
of the residual generation from a variety of waste types using various technologies in each
CAP Management Category.
Step 3. The resulting demands on landfill capacity should be included within the
state's projected baseline demand in Table 5. Residuals resulting from one-time wastes will
be provided to the states by EPA and added to the baseyear and respective projection years
during the national aggregation.
Eliminating Residuals from Imported Wastes
The steps for eliminating residuals from imported wastes are the same as those
described above for adding residuals from exported wastes with three exceptions; (1) states
should use import rather than recurrent export data from Table 3; (2) states should subtract,
rather than add, the calculated demand by residuals on landfill capacity from their other
demand projections in Table 5; and (3) states need to differentiate between recurrent and
one-time wastes using information based on Form code rather than Origin code, as the WR
form of the 1991 Biennial Report does not have an Origin code.
Illustration
Using the Biennial Report or other information (e.g., knowledge of the importers),
states should divide imports into recurrent and one-time wastes. For example, states can
assume that all imports with Form codes for contaminated soils (i.e., B301-B302) and
contaminated debris (i.e., B002, B307-B311, and B406) are one-time wastes and that all other
wastes are recurrent. Assume, for purposes of illustration, that State A has identified in Table
3 the following import and export amounts:
Recurrent Exports Recurrent Imports
from State A to State A
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation 3,000 tons 1,500 tons
Incineration - Liquids and Gases 0 tons 4,000 tons
Incineration - Solids/Sludges 1,000 tons 4,000 tons
By accounting for recurrent exports, State A's demand on landfill capacity will increase by
4,725 tons: (3,000 tons of waste stabilized x 1.5) + (1,000 tons of solids/sludges incinerated
x 0,225). By accounting for imports, State A's demand on landfill capacity will decrease by
3,750 tons: (1,500 tons stabilized x 1.5) + (4,000 tons of liquids and gases incinerated x
0.15) + (4,000 tons of solids/sludges incinerated x 0.225), Thus, State A should reflect in
Table 5 an increased demand on landfill of 975 tons (4,725 - 3750) in its baseline demand for
landfill capacity.
Page 3-11
-------
3.3 ACCOUNTING FOR REGULATORY CHANGE
Introduction
CAP projections should incorporate recent regulatory changes whose impacts are not
reflected in the baseyear data (e.g., 1991 Biennial Report data). Because the effects of
proposed regulations that have not been finalized are difficult to predict, states are not
required to consider regulations that have not been promulgated by the time this Guidance is
issued. States should project the capacity implications for any changes in either state or
federal regulations. The only federal regulations that states should incorporate into future
demand, however, are the changes in the land disposal restrictions (LDRs), as described
below. Although not required, states are strongly urged to consider whether the Burning of
Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule and new RCRA waste listings,
other than F037 and F038 wastes, will affect their hazardous waste management system. (As
described in Regulatory Change Projection Method below, states should incorporate the
effects of F037 and F038 wastes in their CAP projections.)
States are responsible for considering the impacts of only the Phase I LDRs (57
Federal Register 37194, August 18, 1992) and expired LDR capacity variances for certain
wastes. These LDR regulations need to be included in the analysis since they were
promulgated before the issuance of this Guidance, but their full impact is not reflected in the
1991 Biennial Report data because they became effective after the start of 1991. These
regulations were chosen specifically because they may entail significant changes in Subtitle C
hazardous waste generation and management, as they require treatment of waste previously
sent directly to landfills.
The land disposal restrictions program is scheduled to promulgate two more
significant rulemakrngs. While the LDR treatment standards for the new toxicity characteristic
(TC) wastes (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste codes D018-D043) and mineral processing wastes
have not been promulgated, states should be aware that these are very large volume waste
streams. EPA hopes that states will use the 1993 CAP as an opportunity to anticipate how
these wastes might affect their treatment and disposal capacity.
States should also be aware of the continuing effects on hazardous waste
management of the Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule
and new RCRA Subtitle C waste listings (e.g., wood preserving wastes: F032, F034, and
F035). While the Guidance does not require states to account for the impact of the BIF rule
or these new listings, states may want to anticipate the effect that the regulations may have
on Subtitle C hazardous waste generation and management in their state. Appendix F
contains information on the BIF rule and Phase II and III LDR rulemakings. EPA is providing
this information to states to alert them to changes in regulations that will have to be reflected
in future CAPs.
Page 3-12
-------
The remainder of this section is organized in two parts:
(1) Background on land disposal restrictions; and
(2) Regulatory change projection method.
Land Disposal Restrictions
When making projections for their 1993 CAPs, states should account for certain land
disposal restrictions {LDRs) that will affect Subtitle C hazardous waste management between
1991, the year for which the most recent Biennial Report data were collected, and 2013,
Adjustments may be needed for the following two recent developments under the LDR
program:
(1) Expiration of national capacity variances granted for some wastes
restricted under the First, Second, and Third Third LDR rules; and
(2) Phase I LDRs for newly listed or identified wastes and contaminated
debris.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) restrict the land disposal2 of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wastes.
The land disposal of specified hazardous wastes is restricted unless (1) the wastes are
treated to a level or by a method specified by EPA, or (2) it has been demonstrated that there
will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the land disposal unit for as long as the
waste remains hazardous, LDR treatment standards specify either the technology that must
be used prior to land disposal or the constituent concentration levels that must be met prior
to land disposal,
1991 Biennial Report data should already account for treatment of hazardous wastes
subject to LDRs that became effective prior to 1991 (i.e., the Solvents and Dioxins, California
List, First Third, Second Third, and Third Third rules). 1991 Biennial Report data will not,
however, accurately reflect the future management of First, Second, and Third Third wastes
whose national capacity variances expired between January 1991 and May 1992 and
petroleum refining wastes that were listed as hazardous effective in May 19913 and were
restricted from land disposal as a result of the Phase I LDRs published on August 18, 1992.4
Regulatory change projections are necessary because the LDRs for these wastes are
not entirely reflected in the 1991 Biennial Report data. States are required to consider only
the wastes affected by the rulemakings that are specifically discussed in this Guidance.
2 For the purpose of the restrictions, HSWA defines land disposal to include any placement of
hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt
dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave {42 U.S.C. 6924(k)).
3 55 Federal Register 46354, November 2, 1990.
4 57 Federal Register 37194, August 18, 1992,
Page 3-13
-------
Projections of the future generation and management of contaminated soil and debris will be
accounted for through EPA's one-time waste estimates.
National Capacity Variances Under First, Second, and Third Third LDR Rules
The First, Second, and Third Third rules defined LDRs for hundreds of RCRA
hazardous wastes. Of these, 40 specific wastes were granted national capacity variances that
expired either June 8, 1991 or May 8, 1992.5 National capacity variances expired on June 8,
1991 for the underground injection of four specific First and Second Third wastes. These
wastes will require treatment meeting LDR standards by 20t 3, but the increased demand for
treatment capacity will not be fully reflected in baseline data. Exhibit 3-1 identifies 15 high-
volume waste streams with national capacity variances that expired on May 8, 1992. (States
do not have to consider relatively tow-volume waste streams in their CAP regulatory
projections.) In addition, Exhibit 3-1 shows the "best demonstrated available treatment"
(BOAT) for each waste and, in parentheses, the CAP Management Category to which the
treatment is assigned.
Phase I LDRs for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris
Published August 18, 1992, the Phase I LDR rule established treatment standard for
certain newly listed wastes and contaminated debris.6 Exhibit 3-2 identifies the proposed
best demonstrated available treatments for certain wastes that will be affected by these
restrictions. EPA promulgated a two-year national capacity variance for debris contaminated
with Phase I wastes because the treatment capacity available for contaminated debris is very
limited. This limitation is due to the very large quantities of debris contaminated with
previously listed wastes that will require treatment when earlier national capacity variances
expire. Projections of the future generation and management of contaminated soil and debris
will be accounted for through EPA's one-time waste estimates.
Of the newly listed wastes, LDRs for petroleum refinery wastes (F037 and F038) will
have the most significant effect on commercial hazardous waste management capacity.
Except for one facility in Arkansas that generates ethyiene dibromide wastes (K118), the only
Phase I wastes expected to require significant commercial treatment or recovery capacity are
petroleum wastes. Relatively low-volume Phase I waste streams, which are not listed in
Exhibit 3-2, do not have to be considered by states in their CAPs.
5 55 Federal Register 3912, January 31, 1991,
6 57 Federal Register 37194, August 18, 1992.
Page 3-14
-------
Exhibit 3-1
Wastes with Expired National Capacity Variances
EPA Hazardous
Waste Code
Description
Treatment Standard
Best Demonstrated Available Treatment (BOAT)
Source
O002D
0003b
D004C
D007e
D0ogb,c
F007C
F039
ib,c
K009C
KQ11, K013C
K011, K013b
K014
K0161
K0311
KOB4C
b,c
Corrosive wastewater and nonwastewater
Reactive sulfidi wastewaler and
nonwastewater
Arssntc nonwastewater
Chromium waslewater and nonwastewater
High mercury nonwastewater
Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from
electroplating operations
Multi-source leachate wastewaters and
nonwastewaters
Wastewater distillation bottoms from the
production of acetaldehyde from ethylene
Nonwastewater from acrylonltrile production
Wastewater from acrylonitrlle production
Wastewater and nonwastewater from
acrylonitrile production
Heavy ends or distillation residues from
carbon tetrachloride production
Salts from MSMA and cacodylic acid
production
Sludges from veterinary pharmaceutical
production from arsenic compounds
Deactivatfon to
remove corrosivity
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Technology-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentratton-based
Concentration-based
Oeactivation (wastewaler/sludge treatment8)
Deactivatton (wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Vitrification (stabilization/chemical fixation)
Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation
(wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Retorting (metals recovery)
Wet-air oxidation or alkaline chlorinatlon followed by
chemical precipitation (wastewater/sludge treatment8)
Biological treatment followed by chemical
precipitation (wastewater/sludge treatment") for
wastewaters or Incineration-sludges/solids followed
by stabilization (stabilization/chemical fixation) for
nonwastewaters
Steam-stripping followed by biological treatment
(wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Incineration - sludges/solids
Wet-air oxidation (wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Wet-air oxidation (wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Incineration - liquids for wastewaters or biological
treatment followed by wet-air oxidation for
nonwastewaters (wastewater/sludge treatment*)
Verification (stabilization/chemical fixation)
Vitrification (stabifaation/chemical fixation)
55 FJR 22520
55 FR 22520
55 FR 22520
55 FR 22520
55 FR 22520
54 FR 26594
55 FR 22520
54 FR 26594
54 FR 26594
55 FR 22520
55 FR 22520
53 FJR 31138
55 FR 22520
55 FB 22520
a Hazardous wastewaters and sludges treatment Received variance for deepwetl injected wastes. c Received variance for surface disposed wastes.
Page 3-15
-------
Exhibit 3-2
Phase I Newly Listed Wastes
EPA Hazardous
Waste Code
F037, F038
K118
Description
Petroleum refinery
waslBwatsr
Petroleum refinery
nonwastewater
Ethylene dibromidi
wastewater
Treatment Standards
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Concentration-based
Best Demonstrated Available
Treatment
Biological treatment and chemical
precipitation of metals
(waslewater/sludge treatment*)
Solvent extraction or thermal
desorption (waslewater and
sludge treatment8}, incineration of
organics, stabilization of metals
Incineration • liquids
Hazardous wastewaters and sludges treatment
Regulatory Change Projection Method
For hazardous wastes that will be affected by recent regulatory changes, baseline data
will not provide an accurate basis for projecting future waste generation and management.
States should consider generation and managemen* of wastes affected by regulatory
changes in their 1993 projections, EPA encourages all states, for the sake of national
consistency, to follow the basic analytic steps described below to assist in such projections.
In addition to using the Biennial Report as described below, states may want to gather
information for these projection steps by interviewing or surveying facilities that generate
and/or manage wastes affected by regulatory changes. Additionally, states may wish to
contact their EPA Regional CAP Coordinators to obtain the Background Documents for the
Phase I rule, which contain facility-specific waste generation information,
Step 1 Separate waste quantities affected by recent LDR
requirements from other projection data.
Step 2 Determine the quantity of these wastes generated in 1991.
Step 3 Identify how these wastes and their residuals will be
managed in 1993 and their demand on commercial capacity.
Step 1. Separate hazardous waste quantities (provided on 1991 Biennial Report
forms) that are affected by recent LDR requirements. These wastes should be separated so
that they are not counted twice in projections. Separate waste quantities that have the
following EPA Hazardous Waste codes in .combination, with System Type codes that indicate
disposal. Using Biennial Report Form GM identify waste streams with:
* EPA Hazardous Waste codes F037, F03B, F039, F007, K009, K011,
KD13, K014, K016, K118, D002, D003, D004, D007, D009, K031, and
K084 (GM.I.B); and
Page 3-16
-------
. * System Type codes M131, M132, M133, M134, and M137, which
Indicate disposal (GM.II or GM.III).
This approach assumes that only the waste streams that were disposed in 1991,
rather than treated, will need to be redistributed to treatment categories for projections.
The distinction between wastewaters and nonwastewaters should be maintained for
each waste code because these waste streams are subject to different treatment standards.
Using the Biennial Report, this distinction can be derived from the Form codes (GM.I.H) for
liquids (B101-B119, B201-B219), solids (B303-B306, B312-B319, B401-B405, B407-B409), and
Sludges (B501-B519, B601-B609).
Future generation and management of soil or debris contaminated with the above
wastes will be accounted for through EPA's one-time waste estimates. Soil and debris can be
segregated from other waste streams using Biennial Report Form codes B301-B302 for
contaminated soil and B002, B307-B311, and B406 for contaminated debris.
Step 2. Determine the quantity of these wastes generated at each facility in 1991.
For all wastes except petroleum refinery sludges (F037 and F03B), use quantities as reported
in GM.il for on-stte systems or GM.IIJ.E for commercial and captive facilities. Because
petroleum refinery wastes (F037 and F038) were listed as hazardous for only eight months
(i.e., two-thirds) of 1991, the 1991 Biennial Report data is likely to underestimate the annual
generation of these wastes. States therefore need to adjust 1991 generation of F037 and
F038 petroleum wastes to represent a full year's worth of generation. To estimate annual
F037 and F038 generation, states could multiply 1991 Bienniai Report generation quantities
by 1,5 or obtain facility-specific data from state sources.
Step 3. Identify the CAP Management Categories in which these wastes and their
residuals will be managed in 1993 and their demand on commercial capacity. First, to identify
the relevant CAP Management Categories, identify the LDR treatment standards that EPA has
specified for the waste.
* If EPA has promulgated a specific treatment technology as the LDR
standard, then generation in the projection year should be assigned to
that specific treatment method (e.g., retorting (metals recovery) should
be used to treat D009 nonwastewaters). States should use the
treatment method listed in Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2 for wastes that have a
specific technology as the treatment standard,
* If, however, EPA has promulgated concentration levels as the LDR
standard, then any technology capable of meeting the treatment
standard can be used to manage these wastes. EPA, however,
attempted to group technologies that can achieve similar levels of
performance into the same CAP Management Categories. States
should be aware that not all wastes can be recovered for technical
reasons; therefore if it is not known that the wastes can be recovered, it
should be assigned to a management category lower on the hierarchy
(i.e., incineration). States can assign wastes that have concentration
levels as the treatment standard either to the technology used as the
Page 3-17
-------
basis for that standard or to an alternative technology that meets the
standard. States should document assumptions and rationale used to
assign wastes to CAP management categories especially if the waste
management method was not the determined BOAT.
Second, estimate the generation of hazardous waste residuals from treatment of the
wastes that require incineration or stabilization to determine the impact on landfill capacity.
As described in section 3.2, states should multiply the quantities of primary or in-state
generated secondary wastes affected by recent LDR requirements by:
• 1.5 for wastes requiring Stabilization/Chemical Fixation;
* 0,15 for wastes requiring Incineration - Liquids and Gases; and
• 0.225 for wastes requiring Incineration - Sludges/Solids,
For example, ash resulting from combustion of F037 and requiring Subtitle C landfiliing is
approximately 22,5 percent (0.225) of the original F037 waste quantity.
Third, determine whether wastes, including residuals from incineration and
stabilization, will impose a demand on Subtitle C commercial capacity. States may either
assume that all the wastes will be managed in commercial facilities or determine whether
appropriate on-site or captive waste management capacity is available for managing particular
wastes, including residuals. If a state uses the latter approach end on-slte or captive capacity
is available, waste and residual quantities should be reflected in the 1993 demand on
commercial capacity only to the extent that the quantities exceed the available on-site or
captive capacity.
As a final step, states should add the waste quantities by CAP Management
Categories to other wastes that were not affected by regulatory change adjustments to get a
total demand for 1993.
Page 3-18
-------
3.4 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR PROJECTIONS
EPA is providing the following checklists to assist states in developing their
projections. EPA will also use these checklists as criteria to evaluate the reasonableness and
completeness of state projections,
1. Do the projections account for any significant changes in state regulations that
became effective after the start of 1991 ?
D Yes, projections have been adjusted for state regulatory changes. (Describe
the regulatory changes and adjustments.)
D No, such changes have not occurred.
D No, such changes have occurred but the projections have not been adjusted.
(Attach explanation.)
2. Have the baseyear data been adjusted to create a baseline?
Are the types of wastes included in the baseline consistent with the instructions on
pages 3-1 and 3-2?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
Does baseline demand exclude imports and include exports?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
3. Does the baseline demand incorporate adjustments for treatment residuals?
Have residuals from wastes exported for Stabilization/Chemical Fixation, Incineration -
Liquids and Gases, and Incineration - Solids/Sludges been included in the baseline?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
Have residuals from wastes imported for Stabilization/Chemical Fixation, Incineration -
Liquids and Gases, and Incineration - Solids/Sludges been excluded from the
baseline?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
Page 3-19
-------
Have residual multiplication factors of 1.5, 0.15, and 0.225 been used for
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation, Incineration - Uqulds and Gases, and Incineration -
Solids/Sludges, respectively?
D Yes,
D No. (Attach rationale for using other factors.)
Are residuals from other CAP Management Categories included in the baseline
demand?
. D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
4. Have demand and capacity been projected for 1993,1999, and 2013?
Does the projected 1993 demand reflect any changes other than for regulatory
change? (See question 5 on regulatory change.)
D Yes. (Attach explanation of the changes and the reasons for them.)
D No.
Is the projected 1999 demand the same as the 1993 demand?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation of the changes and the reasons for them.)
Is the projected 2013 demand the same as the 1999 demand?
D Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation of the changes and the reasons for them.)
Do the 1993, 1999, and 2013 capacity projections deplete landfill capacity using the
formulas described in section 3.1?
O Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
Is the projected capacity for all other CAP Management Categories constant for all
projection years?
D Yes.
D No, new capacity has become operational, (Identify the new capacity.)
D No, existing capacity has closed. (Identify the closed capacity.)
D No, existing capacity is scheduled to close. (Identify the capacity to be closed
and the reason for closure.)
D No, for other reasons, (Attach explanation.)
Page 3-20
-------
Does the state have any statutory limitations on the amount of waste a landfill can
accept?
O Yes.
D No. (Attach explanation.)
5, Do your 1993 projections account for the effect of expired national capacity
variances and Phase I LDRs on hazardous waste management?
D Yes, for both expired variances and Phase I LDRs. (Attach description of data
sources used to make projections.)
D No, projections for expired variances were not made. (Provide rationale
below.)
O No, projections for Phase I newly listed wastes were not made. (Provide
rationale below.)
Explain the rationale for excluding special LDR projections.
D There are no facilities in our state that generate wastes affected by expired LDR
capacity variances.
D There are no facilities in our state that generate newly listed wastes affected by
Phase I LDRs. (Stop here.)
D Our state has facilities that generate wastes that are addressed in the LDR
developments, but generation and management of these wastes is not
expected to change between 1991 and 2013 due to LDRs. (Attach explanation
and stop here.)
D Other rationale, (Attach explanation and stop here.)
6. The remaining questions focus on how your state conducted steps 2 and 3 of the
regulatory change projection method and the results that were obtained for the
LDRs.
Step Z Determine the quantity of these wastes generated in 1991, by EPA
Hazardous Waste code.
What quantity of wastes affected by LDRs do you estimate were generated in your
state in 1991? If 1991 was not used as the baseyear, report what baseyear was used.
Page 3-21
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Code
D002
D003
D004
D007
D009
F007
FQ37
F038
F039
K009
K01 1 - wastewater
K011 - Nonwasiewater
K013 - Waslewaler
K0t3 - Nonwastewater
K013
K014
K016
K031
K084
K118
Total
Quantity (tons)
What data source(s) were used to estimate this generation?
D 1991 Biennial Report forms,
D Other. (Attach citation and description.)
Step 3 Identify how and in what types of facilities these wastes and their
residuals will be managed in 1993.
What data sources were used to apportion future generation to specific CAP
Management Categories?
D BDATs identified in this Guidance,
D 1991 Biennial Report forms.
D Other. (Attach citation and description.)
Page 3-22
-------
What data sources were used to estimate the generation and management of
treatment residuals?
D 1991 Biennial Report forms.
D Other. (Attach citation and description.)
What data sources were used to apportion future generation to specific facility types?
D 1991 Biennial Report forms.
D Other, (Attach citation and description.)
Indicate in the table below how wastes that are affected by LDRs were allocated to
CAP Management Categories for 1993 projections. Indicate subtractions from a CAP
Management Category using parentheses.
CAP Management Category
Quantity (tons)
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery - Sludges/Solids
Stabilization/Chemical Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and Sludges Treatment
Landfill
Deapwetl/Undirground Injection
Page 3-23
-------
-------
4. PHASES 2 AND 3:
ADDRESSING SHORTFALLS
-------
-------
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO ADDRESSING SHORTFALLS
Introduction
After states deliver their Phase 1 submittals, EPA wilt aggregate demand and capacity
at the national level to determine if sufficient RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management
capacity exists nationwide for the 20-year projection period. As described in Chapter 1, EPA
will identify national shortfalls by comparing total projected national demand for a CAP
Management Category (for a given CAP Management Category, projected recurrent waste
demand minus 10 percent for waste minimization plus projected demand for one time waste
equals projected national demand) to the projected national capacity for that CAP
Management Category. If adequate capacity exists nationwide for all CAP Management
Categories, EPA will not require Phase 2 or 3 documentation from any state.
Phase 2
If national demand exceeds national capacity for any CAP Management Category, EPA
believes that a national shortfall may exist and will identify the states that should address the
potential shortfall in Phase 2 of the CAP process. EPA will identify all "shortfall categories"
and all states with demand exceeding supply in each of these categories. EPA will notify
these states by letter that they should submit Phase 2 CAP submissions. (States that do not
have to address any national shortfalls (i.e., states with sufficient capacity in each shortfall
category) will also be notified of this fact by letter,) These submissions should include the
following information for each shortfall category in which the state has a shortfall;
t Waste minimization plans for states submitting more than a 10 percent
waste minimization projection, including any interstate agreements for
collective waste minimization planning, as described in sections 4,2 and
4.4; and
* In-state commercial capacity that is permitted but not yet operational or
that has been issued a draft permit.
In addition, submissions should contain milestones by which waste minimization projections
will be achieved, nonoperational permitted capacity will become operational, and capacity
with a draft permit will be permitted. States submitting interstate agreements for collective
waste minimization plans will also be responsible for submitting and meeting individual state
milestones.
In Phase 2, states are not responsible for a specific amount of the shortfall, rather they
should provide EPA with information on new capacity, as described above, and a best
estimate of waste minimization efforts. The waste minimization estimates will be used by EPA
to develop a better indication of the amount of waste reduction that can be achieved through
waste minimization. EPA will apply the new waste minimization and capacity data to the
Page 4-1
-------
previous national aggregation, retaining the previous 10 percent waste minimization reduction
for states that do not prepare Phase 2 submissions and thereby revise the national
aggregation.
Phase 3
After receiving the Phase 2 submittals, EPA will reexamine each of the "shortfall
categories", taking into consideration the Phase 2 subrnrttals. If adequate capacity exists in
ail categories, Phase 3 submissions will not be required. If national shortfalls are stiil
projected for any CAP Management Category, EPA will identify those states that should
address the remaining shortfalls. These states are hereafter referred to as "shortfall states."
Shortfall states will be assigned a portion of the net shortfall based on their demand for the
CAP Management Category. A net shortfall in a CAP Management Category would be the
difference between;
* Projected national demand reduced by the waste minimization
projections from Phase 2; and
* Projected national capacity, including the capacity identified in Phase 2
that is permitted but not yet operating or that has a draft permit.
This number would reflect the projected lack of capacity in the nation for a particular CAP
Management Category. The methods EPA will use to identify shortfall states and to
determine the portion of the national shortfall that each shortfall state should address are
discussed later in this chapter.
EPA will identify shortfall states that should proceed to Phase 3 and notify these states
by letter. EPA's notification letter will also identify the portion of the national shortfall
arnount(s) for which the state should assure capacity. The procedure for apportioning each
state's share of the national shortfall amount is presented on page 4-4, After EPA receives
Phase 2 submittals, EPA will issue a report that identifies shortfall states and summarizes the
revised national capacity situation. States participating in Phase 2 that do not have to
address the shortfall (s) in Phase 3 will also be notified of this fact by letter.
Each shortfall state should deliver a Phase 3 CAP submittal that outlines the steps the
state will take to assure capacity for its portion of the national shortfall. In particular,
milestones should be submitted to EPA indicating time frames for the approach that the state
will take to assure capacity. States can address their portion of the national shortfall through:
+ increased waste minimization;
+ Interstate agreements concerning increased waste minimization
projections;
* Development of new capacity; and/or
* Interstate agreements concerning the development of new capacity.
Page 4-2
-------
Unlike the 1989 CAP process, the interstate agreements will not allocate existing
capacity among states because the shortfall determination indicates that existing capacity
cannot adequately address the projected demand for a CAP Management Category, Instead,
these interstate agreements should focus on the development of new capacity or waste
minimization efforts that exceed those submitted in Phase 2,
The Phase 2 and 3 CAP submittals should be accompanied by a letter from the
Governor, or his/her authorized designee, indicating the state's commitment to the activities
and milestones included in the Phase 2 and/or 3 CAP submittal. Suggested transmitted letters
are included in section 1.3. These submittals should be sent to the appropriate EPA Region .
for review and monitoring of milestones.
identifying Phase 3 "Shortfall States"
To identify those states required to submit Phase 3 CAPs, EPA will conduct two
evaluations using the results from the Phase 1 national supply and demand aggregation and
the Phase 2 submissions.
* First, EPA will examine each state's projected demand and commercial
capacity in 2013 for any CAP Management Category that has a national
shortfall. Any state whose demand is more than its commercial
capacity for a CAP Management Category will be considered a shortfall
state, unless it is exempted under the second evaluation. (This analysis
will later be referred to as evaluation #1.)
t Second, EPA will examine each state's aggregate projected demand
and commercial capacity for the year 2013 for three CAP Management
Categories that are costly and difficult to permit: (1) incineration of
liquids/gases, (2) incineration of sludges/solids, and (3) landfill. Any
state whose aggregate demand is less than its aggregate commercial
capacity for incineration and landfill will qualify for an exemption from
submitting Phase 3 documentation. (This analysis will later be referred
to as evaluation #2.)
Under the second evaluation, states that provide surplus combined incineration and
landfill capacity are exempt from addressing any other shortfalls in Phase 3. EPA has
included this exemption as a means of incorporating equity into the CAP process: both
incineration and landfill management are extremely controversial. In addition to the political
aspects associated with siting of incinerators and landfills, states incur substantial burdens in
the development of landfill or incineration facilities even though they generally do not design,
build, own, or operate the facilities. For example, states are responsible for carefully
evaluating proposed sites; reviewing and specifying proposed facility designs, operational
plans, and other permit conditions; and conducting compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities. The permitting process may be particularly intense and often requires many public
hearings, as well as public education and public outreach programs. These activities are
generally more intense tor incineration and landfill facilities than other types of capacity (e.g.,
stabilization, treatment in tanks, or fuel blending).
Page 4-3
-------
Although incinerators and landfills may be the most controversial CAP Management
Categories where equity arguments are involved, EPA does not want to de-emphasize the
importance of recovery technologies, which may reduce the burden on landfills and
incineration. EPA, however, is not exempting states with surplus recovery capacity from
Phase 3.
Each shortfall state should submit a Phase 3 CAP submittal that assures capacity for
its portion of the national shortfall through documentation (e.g., milestones) of projected in-
state capacity, increased waste minimization efforts, development of new capacity, and/or
interstate agreements.
Assigning Portions of National Shortfall Amounts
After incorporating the waste minimization reductions and new capacity data from
Phase 2 submissions, EPA will determine each shortfall state's portion of the projected
national shortfall amount (i.e., national demand minus national supply). These allocations will
be based on the shortfall state's proportionate contribution to the national shortfall amount
relative to the other shortfall states. Shortfall portions will be calculated in four steps.
4 First, EPA will calculate the national shortfall amount by subtracting the
total national demand from the total national supply for a shortfall
management category.
* Second, EPA will determine the aggregate net demand of shortfall
states by summing the net demand of all shortfall states. (Each state's
net demand is its individual shortfall, that is, its demand minus supply
after incorporating Phase 2 waste reductions and capacity changes.)
* Third, percentages will be calculated for each shortfall state by dividing
each state's net demand by the aggregate net demand for all shortfall
states,
f Fourth, EPA will determine the shortfall amount that each shortfall state
should address by multiplying the state's percentage by the national
shortfall amount.
Although it is theoretically possible that the national shortfall amount could exceed the
aggregate net demands oi shortfall states, in no case will a state be responsible for an
amount of the national shortfall exceeding Its net demand. This situation could arise when
states with a net demand (i.e., demand exceeding capacity) in a CAP Management Category
are not considered shortfall states because they have surplus combined landfill and
incineration capacity. For example, assume that in a three-state nation, state X has a net
demand or shortfall of 1,000 tons; state Y has a net demand of 1,000 tons; and state 2 has a
net supply or surplus of 500 tons. The national shortfall amount would be 1,500 tons. If state
Y has a surplus in combined landfill and incineration capacity, then only state X would be a
shortfall state. Without the stipulation, state X would be responsible for 100 percent of the
national shortfall amount of 1,500 tons, which exceeds its net demand of 1,000 tons. If this
Page 4-4
-------
scenario occurs, the Agency will reevaluate the methodology used to identify those states
that address the shortfall and submit Phase.3 information.
Illustration
This example illustrates how EPA will decide which states should address shortfalls
and how EPA will calculate the portion of the national shortfall that each shortfall state would
need to address. Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 present a hypothetical national aggregation after
Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been completed for a "country" consisting of five states. There is
a national shortfall in two CAP Management Categories; (1) incineration sludges/solids, and
(2) landfill.
Identifying "Shortfall States"
To determine which states should address the shortfall management categories, EPA
will first compare state capacity to state demand in the shortfall categories (evaluation #1),
See Exhibit 4-1 for demand and supply information. Next, during the second evaluation, EPA
will compare a state's aggregate landfill and incineration capacity versus its aggregate
demand for incineration and landfills. States with more aggregated demand than aggregated
capacity should address the shortfall. Those states that have excess shortfall management
capacity or excess of the combination of landfill and incineration management capacity, do
not have to address the shortfall. For this example, the results of such an aggregation are
presented in the exhibits.
States that should address the incineration shortfall are States C and D because they
have neither adequate incineration capacity (evaluation #1} nor enough combined landfill and
incineration capacity (evaluation #2) to meet their own demands. The landfill shortfall will be
addressed by States B, C, D, and E, since these states have neither adequate landfill capacity
nor excess combined landfill and incineration capacity.
Assigning Portions of National Shortfall Amounts to Shortfall States
After the shortfall states have been identified, EPA will assign to each shortfall state
the responsibility to assure capacity for a portion of the national shortfall amount. EPA will
make this assignment in four steps for each shortfall management category:
t Step 1 calculates the national shortfall amount. The total national
demand is subtracted from the total national supply for the management
category. Thus, shortfall states will address the national shortfall
amount, including the portion of the shortfall due to states that have
individual in-state shortfalls, but that were not identified as shortfall
states because they have a surplus in combined incineration and
landfill.
* Step 2 calculates the total net demand which only the shortfall states
place on the shortfall category. This step adds all the individual
shortfall amounts of the identified shortfall states.
Page 4-5
-------
Exhibit 4-1
Shortfall Example
CAP Management
Category
RECOVER*
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organise Recovery
Energy Recovery -
Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization &
Chemical Fixation
Incineration - Liquids
and Oases
Incineration -
Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaler
& Sludge Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell Underground
Injection
Slate A
Demand
-
100
0
100
200
100
600
400
500
0
1,000
Supply
'• -
100
0
100
100
0
1,600
600
0
0
1,000
State B
Demand
200
0
200
0
100
Supply
100
0
100
100
0
Slate C
Demand
Supply
Stale D
Demand
0
0
0
0
100
200
0
400
0
0
100
100
200
200
0
200
100
100
400
0
0
600
1,000
0
0
100
200
1,200
200
100
0
100
0
1,000
500
400
300
300
0
200
Supply
State E
Demand
Supply
Total
Demand
Supply
Shortfall
100
300
300
400
600
200
0
400
100
100
100
0
100
0
0
600
100
900
500
400
600
300
1,000
600
600
No
No
No
No
No
.
200
0
0
0
200
800
200
500
300
0
•
1,000
100
4,000
200
1,500
200
0
100
1,500
0
0
0
1,000
100
0
100
2,000
0
1.000
100
1.000
500
0
2.100
1,200
2,600
900
1,300
2,800
1,400
2,000
1,500
1,700
1,000
200
7,000
400
5,000
600
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Page 4-6
-------
Exhibit 4-2
Hypothetical National Aggregation for a Five State "Country"
State
A
B
C
D
E
Evaluation 1
Incineration
Sludges/Solids
Capacity
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
Landfill
Capacity
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Evaluation 2
Combination
Capacity
Incineration/
Landfill
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Identification of Shortfall
States
Need to
Address
Incineration
Shortfall
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
Heed to
Address
Landfill
Shortfall
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
* To calculate the proportion factor for a shortfall state, Step 3 divides the
state's net demand for the shortfall category by the total net demand of
the shortfall states from Step 2, Basically this calculation reveals the
percentage a shortfall state contributes to the aggregated net demand
on a CAP Management Category relative to other shortfall states,
t Finally, Step 4 determines each state's shortfall responsibility by
multiplying the proportion factor from Step 3 by the national shortfall
from Step 1.
Incineration Sludges/Solids Shortfall (example calculation)
Step 1 (National shortfall amount = 2,000 - 2,600 = (-J6QQ tons)
State
State C
State D
Step 2 Step 3
Net Demand Proportion
Amount Factor
1,200
300
1,200/1,500 = 0,8 or 80%
300/1,500 = 0.2 or 20%
Total Net 1,500
Demand From
Shortfall
States
Step 4
Portion of Shortfall
That Should Be Addressed
(0.8) (600) = 480 tons
(0.2)(600) = 120 tons
Page 4-7
-------
Landfill Shortfall (example calculation)
Step 1 (National shortfall amount = 5,000 - 7,000 = (-)2,000 tons)
State
Step 2 Step 3
Net Demand Proportion
Amount Factor
1,500
1,500
1,000
1,000
5,000
1,500/5,000 = 0.30 or 30%
1,500/5,000 = 0.30 or 30%
1,000/5,000 = 0.20 or 20%
1,000/5,000 = 0.20 or 20%
Step 4
Portion of Shortfall
That Should Be Addressed
(0.30}(2,000) = 600 tons
(0.30}{2,000) - 600 tons
(0.20)(2,000) = 400 tons
(0.20}(2,000) = 400 tons
State B
State C
State D
State E
Total Net
Demand
From Shortfall
States
For the incineration shortfall, State C would have to address BO percent of the national
shortfall amount and State D would have to address the remaining national shortfall amount,
or 20 percent. With a net shortfall of 600 tons, State C would have to address 480 tons and
State D would have to address 120 tons. For the landfill shortfall, State B and C would each
have to address 30 percent of the national shortfall; and State D and State E would each
have to address 20 percent. With a net shortfall of 2,000 tons, State B and C each would
have to address 600 tons while State D and State E would be responsible for 400 tons each.
Page 4-8
-------
4.2 WASTE MINIMIZATION
Introduction
When states address CAP Management Categories with projected shortfalls in
Phase 2, any state submitting a waste minimization projection greater than 10 percent should
provide EPA with waste minimization analyses to support its estimate. Waste minimization
analyses may also be conducted by states to address their individual shortfalls in Phase 3
CAP submittals. For Phase 3, as in Phase 2, states submitting projections of 10 percent or
less do not need to submit accompanying documentation with their estimates. For their
Phase 1 submittals, states should provide a narrative description of current and planned
waste minimization programs, but should not incorporate the effects of these programs into
their projections. This description should include information on any legislative authority that
exists for current or potential waste minimization efforts and a summary of the program. If
information in these areas has not changed since submission of its 1989 or 1992 CAP, a state
can simply refer back to the appropriate CAP. For both Phases 2 and 3, states may choose
to implement one or a combination of the approaches to project the effects of waste
minimization on waste management capacity described below. State submissions in both
Phases 2 and 3 will be evaluated by the criteria described later in thy section.
As a matter of EPA policy and federal statutory mandate,1 EPA encourages waste
minimization as a key step toward a sound and balanced waste management program. The
Pollution Prevention Act of 1 iiO reconfirmed EPA policy first established in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1i84 regarding an environmental protection hierarchy that
states:
"[Pjoflution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible;
pollution that can not be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally
safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a
last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner."2
For purposes of assuring adequate waste management capacity under Section
104(c)(9) of CERCLA, states are not required to project the effects of waste minimization
programs, unless national shortfalls are identified in Phase 1. Based on the statutory
language and corresponding EPA policy described above, EPA encourages states to target
waste minimization efforts as their primary way to address capacity shortfalls. Successful
1 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§13101-13109; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C,
§§6901-6992k.
2 42 U.S.C. §1301(b).
Page 4-9
-------
waste minimization programs can result in reduced need for siting new capacity or Joining an
interstate agreement, the two other ways a state can address capacity shortfalls.
*
For purposes of this Guidance, EPA has defined waste minimization as,
'The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that is generated or
subsequently treated, stored, or disposed. It 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."3
For clarification, burning for energy recovery, while it is a form of recycling, is not considered
waste minimization. Additionally, use of dilution to decrease the toxicity of hazardous waste
is not considered an acceptable form of waste minimization.
If nationwide shortfalls are identified in the national aggregation of supply and demand
in Phase 1, all states that do not have sufficient in-state capacity for the shortfall management
category will be responsible for forecasting, for their state, the effects of waste minimization in
1999 on demand for management capacity. States may wish to analyze the effects of waste
minimization for all types of waste generated by a wide range of industries, using an equally
wide range of processes. However, EPA will focus its evaluation only for those wastes that
contribute to national shortfalls in management capacity. Similarly, in Phase 3 EPA will
examine a state's projected increased waste minimization efforts only for wastes contributing
to a national shortfall category.
EPA is requesting that states project the effects of waste minimization on demand only
between 1993 and 1999. States should not incorporate additional effects of waste
minimization beyond 1999. As described in section 4.5, the 1993-1999 projection period is
the timeframe in which EPA will be tracking milestones established in the Phase 2 and Phase
3 submittals. The amount of waste minimization projected for 1999 will be held constant and
straightlined from 1999 to 2013.
The remainder of this section is organized into four subsections:
(1) Review Criteria for Waste Minimization;
(2) Approaches for Estimating Future Waste Minimization;
(3) Presenting Results of Waste Minimization Estimates; and
(4) Milestones.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms, EPA
Form 8700-13A/B (5-80) (Revised 08-91). In order lo be consistent with the data used for baseyear
calculations, the definition of waste minimization has been taken from the 1991 Hazardous Waste Report
Instructions and Forms (Biennial Report). This definition could be changed in the future due to changing
program needs or legislative mandates.
Page 4-10
-------
Review Criteria for Waste Minimization
Four criteria have been developed that, in aggregate, seek to ensure that EPA's need
for accuracy and fairness in evaluating whether waste minimization projections are reasonable
is balanced with the states' need for flexibility in applying analytical approaches to project
future waste minimization accomplishments. By specifying evaluation criteria before states
forecast the effects of waste minimization in their CAPs, EPA hopes to promote consistency in
the quality and detail of state projections and, in turn, EPA's review. The four waste
minimization review criteria are:
(1) Adequacy of State Waste Minimization Infrastructure;
(2) Targeting of Waste Reduction Activities;
(3) Generator Communication; and
(4) Feasibility.
Projections of the effect of waste minimization will be considered reasonable only if a
state addresses all four criteria in a manner that is consistent with projected levels of waste
minimization. While precise guidelines would be impractical, given the states' need for
flexibility, the level of detail in response to each criterion should increase in detail as the level
of projected waste minimization increases.
These criteria were chosen because they provide four perspectives on the
reasonableness of waste minimization projections. While each criterion alone is an indicator
of reasonableness, together the criteria are designed to work as an integrated system.
Designing the criteria in this manner provides EPA a standard of fairness and accuracy in
evaluating responses with each criterion carrying equal weight. Yet, it also allows states to
demonstrate reasonableness within the context of broader economic, regulatory, or other
forces at work within their states. EPA recognizes that states can and will emphasize
response in one or more criteria that best demonstrates the reasonableness of their
projections,
EPA expects that states will view the criteria in the following chronological order. In
the first criterion, a state will address the overall adequacy of its program. Targeting analysis
to specific industries, waste streams, and processes will narrow the scope of inquiry and
focus state resources on a smaller subset of generators. For these generators, the last two
criteria will work in concert -- demonstrating that targeted generators are participating in
waste minimization activities and that forecasts are technologically feasible and economically
attractive.
There are many ways to meet these criteria. EPA fully expects that states will
customize their responses to each criterion based partly on the industry, waste stream, and
process for which a waste minimization projection is made and partly on the method used to
make the projection. Examples of how states might meet each criterion are provided in the
following sections.
This Guidance asks states to stratify their responses to the criteria according to the
amount of projected reduction. Waste minimization in the amount from 0 to 10 percent
seems to occur at the generator level and all states will be given the 10 percent credit. The
Page 4-11
-------
first level to require EPA review, 11 to 20 percent, requires limited documentation. The
second level, 21 percent to 50 percent, asks states to respond somewhat more fully. The
third level, 51 percent and higher, asks states to document in greater detail, exactly how high
levels of waste minimization will be attained.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and corresponding EPA policy encourage the
implementation of waste minimization programs that will cause net decreases in releases to
the environment, taking all media into account. In recognition of this goal, the Generator
Communication criterion explicitly requests states to document that cross-media transfers will
be eliminated, where possible, or otherwise avoided or minimized. With respect to the other
criteria, EPA encourages states to take cross-media transfers into consideration.
Since the 1989 CAP submissions, 31 states have passed laws that target reductions in
waste generation, toxics use, and/or releases of toxic substances, such as those listed in the
Toxics Release Inventory. EPA has studied these state laws in drder to determine whether
they will affect preparation of waste minimization projections for the 1993 CAP. We have
found that most of these 31 state programs provide new sources of data, such as facility-level
plans, which may assist the states in projecting waste minimization. The usefulness of these
new forms of data varies widely, however, and in some cases the new state programs add
few, if any, data that could form the basis for waste minimization projections.
The new state programs allow the states to more easily address the criteria. For
example, descriptions of these new programs address the Adequacy of State Waste
Minimization Infrastructure criterion. This is not meant to imply that merely describing a
state's activities wilt satisfy the criteria. Whether a state meets the criteria will depend on
whether its waste minimization projections are judged to be reasonable.
Some of these 31 new state programs target reductions in the use or release of toxic
substances without an explicit emphasis on hazardous waste reduction. Some states have
questioned whether they will be able to address the waste minimization criteria if their state
programs are not targeted to waste reduction per se. A focus on toxic substances rather
than hazardous waste is not expected to limit a state's ability to address the criteria, because
these programs are likely to result in some hazardous waste reduction. A description of a
Toxics Use Reduction program, for example, is relevant to the Adequacy of State Waste
Minimization Infrastructure criterion.
Adequacy of State Waste Minimization infrastructure
One indicator of the likelihood of attaining estimated waste minimization projections is
the components of a state's waste minimization program. In order for EPA to evaluate waste
minimization projections with respect to this criterion, a state should address at least the
following questions:
* What types of activities are Included in the state's waste minimization
program?
• How are resources and staff now allocated among these various
activities?
Page 4-12
-------
• For those states that have statewide hazardous waste reduction goals
in place:
What is the relationship between.the CAP projections and
the state's goals? If the goals are not the same, is there
an explanation for the difference?
In addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 20 percent, but
are not more than 50 percent, states should address the following questions:
* What existing or planned systems does the state have to monitor
progress toward meeting waste minimization projections for targeted
waste streams, generators, or processes?
* For those states that have statewide hazardous waste reduction goats
in place;
Will waste minimization progress be measured the same
way for state and CAP purposes? tf not, please explain,
* Are state goais, in fact, being realized?
In addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 50 percent,
states should address the following question:
• Has the state demonstrated or does it have a mechanism in place to
show that state waste minimization program elements address and
respond to the needs of the generators whose wastes place a demand
on the state's shortfall management categories?
Discussion and Examples of Responses to this Criterion
Where states project from 10 to 20 percent waste reduction in 1999, simple
descriptions of waste minimization programs will be sufficient. States need not include
information already presented in their Phase 1 submittals. Included, for example, might be a
summary of the statutory authority under which the program operates, a description of each
program element, budget and staffing history of the program, a review of the past success of
each program element, and an explanation of why these activities are expected to result in
the levels of waste minimization forecasted. Where appropriate, states should demonstrate
that goals and accomplishments under their own waste management planning programs or
Toxics Use Reduction (TUB) strategies are consistent with their CAP forecasts o1 waste
minimization, Any inconsistencies should be explained.
EPA also recognizes, for example, that state waste minimization goats are written for
all waste generated within a state's boundaries, not necessarily for individual waste streams.
Under these circumstances, it may be necessary to explain how a state's broadly articulated
goal applies to reduction projections at the waste stream level.
Page 4-13
-------
Where CAP-forecasted waste minimization levels exceed 20 percent by 1999, states
should provide information on the methods they have or plan to put in place to measure
progress. Where facility-level waste reduction plans are available, for instance, states should
document the process by which they monitor key facilities' achievements of waste reduction,
EPA recognizes that some states have relatively new waste minimization and TUR goals in
place and may not have had time to evaluate progress in meeting these goals. When
responding to the last question under the medium level, please note if this fact is applicable
to your state.
Where waste reduction projections are higher than 50 percent, states should
demonstrate that certain elements of their waste reduction programs are designed to
implement waste reduction at facilities that generate waste streams for which national
shortfalls have been identified (shortfall wastes). Where a national shortfall in incineration
exists, for example, states could respond to this criterion by describing how their own
program activities respond to the needs of key facilities that generate incinerable wastes.
Examples could include on-site waste audits, capital assistance programs, informational
events such as workshops, or the facilitation of waste exchanges.
Targeting of Waste Reduction Activities
It is important that a state's waste minimization program be based on a full
understanding of its hazardous waste management system. With this knowledge, a state is
able to target its waste minimization efforts to address capacity shortfalls. In order for EPA to
evaluate waste minimization projections with respect to this criterion, a state should address
at least the first question below:
«• Has the state demonstrated or does it Have a mechanism in place to
show that existing sources of data are used to target elements of its
waste minimization program to (1) waste streams that place a demand
on shortfall management categories, (2) generators that are expected to
be generating those waste streams, and (3) processes used at targeted
facilities?
In addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 20 percent, but
are not more than 50 percent, states should address the following question:
* Has the state demonstrated or does it have a mechanism in place to
show how its communications strategy, including outreach materials, is
or will be targeted to waste streams, generators, and processes that
place a demand on shortfall management categories?
In addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 50 percent,
states should address the following questions:
f Has the state demonstrated that the following direct assistance or other
efforts, in addition to a communications strategy, are targeted to waste
streams, generators, and processes that place a demand on shortfall
management categories? Consider the following elements:
Page 4-14
-------
« On-site technical assistance (e.g., waste reduction audits);
* Workshops and/or conferences;
» Publications, grants/tax incentives, general technical assistance;
• Economic incentives to overcome barriers to waste reduction;
• Regulatory efforts; or
Others (please specify),
Discussion and Examples of Responses to this Criterion
EPA is aware that at least one state has used 1989 CAP data as a basis for targeting
capacity shortfalls through waste minimization. One particular state has targeted incinerable
wastes and, for the period from 1987 to 1992, expects to have a 40 percent reduction. Data
from EPA's 1986 Generator Survey indicate that, on a national basis, roughly BOO (of a total of
16,000) facilities generate 95 percent of the hazardous waste shipped off site. Based on this
information, EPA believes that most states will be able to target activities to a relatively small
number of generators. Some states, however, may prefer to work through relevant trade
associations.
States can use Biennial Report data and FOCUS software (or other database software
that can read Biennial Report data) to target generators that send wastes to a specific CAP
Management Category. For example, if a specific CAP Management Category or a set of
CAP Management Categories is identified for targeting, it is possible to sort Biennial Report
data to determine generators and the quantities o1 waste going to these categories by:
• EPA hazardous waste code;
* Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the waste stream
(e.g., printed circuit board manufacturing or primary aluminum
manufacturing);
* Form Code (e.g., aqueous waste with low solvents, spent carbon,
organic paint, or ink sludge);
• Source Code for the process associated with generation of the waste
(e.g., vapor degreasing, electroplating, or plastic forming); and
* EPA ID Number ot the generating facility.
Once states identify the generators of shortfall wastes, they can target waste
minimization activities to processes by contacting generators directly to identify such
processes and/or by using information on RCRA Part B permits, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, air permits, pre-manufacturing notices under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, or consent decrees.
Generator Communication
Estimated future levels of waste reduction will be more credible if generators
participate in the process of projecting them, EPA recognizes that the level of interaction with
Page 4-15
-------
generators will vary from state to state. Higher levels of waste reduction should be
accompanied by stronger generator commitment. States should document which, if any,
levels of communication have been established with generators by answering at least the
following question:
• Have generators been notified of state waste reduction projections?
Jn addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 20 percent, but
are not more than 50 percent, states should address the following question:
• Do generators whose wastes place a demand on shortfall management
categories agree with state waste reduction projections?
In addition to the above, where waste minimization projections exceed 50 percent,
states should address the following questions:
• Are the state's future waste reduction projections based on estimates
provided by those facilities that are principal generators of shortfall
wastes?
t Has the state provided documentation from the targeted generators
indicating that the proposed waste minimization activities are consistent
with EPA policy that cross-media transfers will be eliminated where
possible, or otherwise avoided or minimized?
Projections of future waste minimization will be more credible when accompanied by
documentation showing that generators' commitments to specific waste reduction targets are
consistent with projections made by states in their CAPs.
Discussion and Examples of Responses to this Criterion
States that choose to base their waste minimization forecasts on survey data solicited
from generators within their state meet this criterion, almost by definition. In such cases,
states should include in their CAP, a copy of the survey instrument used, several example
responses, and a summary table of all responses organized, perhaps by industry, type of
waste, and process.
States that do not conduct a full-scale survey of industry can stilt address this criterion
in a variety of ways. Regardless of the approaches used to project future waste minimization,
states may wish to have industry formally review and comment on state projections of both
timing and amount of reduction by industry and type of waste. Small focus groups of
targeted industrial representatives, for example, can be organized at relatively low cost to
review the forecasting approach used by the states and its results. Trade associations also
may be helpful in reviewing or generating forecasts. A brief report documenting the
comments of such a group responds to the first level of generator commitment, At higher
levels of projected reductions, states should document the extent to which relevant industries
agreed with state projections or provided the numbers themselves.
Page 4-16
-------
Feasibility
One of the indicsrtors of whether waste minimization projections are realistic is whether
they are technologically and economically attainable or attractive. This criterion addresses
whether the state, or the targeted generators via the state, have adequately explained the
techniques that, if applied, would result in waste reduction levels projected in the CAP. in
effect, this information would provide a basis to be used as a check against waste reduction
estimates. It is intended to be applied to targeted facilities at a minimum. Therefore, states
should address at least the following question for those CAP Management Categories in
which there are national shortfalls:
4 Has the state documented the techniques by which waste reduction
levels could be achieved (technologies, housekeeping, inventory control
measures, worker training, etc.)?
Where waste minimization projections exceed 20 percent, but are not more than 50
percent, states should address the following question, in addition to the above:
4 Has the state demonstrated an awareness of any economic, legal, or
institutional barriers that would prevent implementation of the
techniques in question?
Where waste minimization projections exceed 50 percent, states should further
address the following questions:
• Has the state documented that certain facilities have already adopted
the techniques in question?
* Has the state discussed adoption with key facility decision makers to
confirm that implementation is planned?
* Has the state implemented, or does it plan to implement, programs to
overcome barriers to implementation of the techniques in question?
Discussion and Examples of Responses to this Criterion
Abstracting case studies of successful waste reduction from the engineering literature
is perhaps the most rudimentary way to demonstrate that technology exists and has been
found to be economically achievable in the field, Some states will probably choose to make
such a demonstration.
Alternatively, where states establish a high level of generator communication (e.g.,
conducting surveys or focus groups), it should be relatively straightforward for industry to
provide documentation on the techniques they plan to use to attain forecasted levels of waste
minimization.
As forecasted levels of waste reduction increase, this criterion may be satisfied with a
demonstration of an understanding of the potential impediments to waste reduction. Where
they exist and are inconsistent with forecasted levels of reduction, states should further
Page 4-17
-------
demonstrate how they plan to overcome these barriers. Such information will be most
credible H it is developed for key, targeted generators. For example, states can examine
generators' facility-specific economic analyses to determine the extent to which economic
factors may be a barrier to waste reduction.
Approaches for Estimating Future Waste Minimization
States are free to use any method they choose to project the effects of waste
minimization on waste management capacity. Based on previous CAPs and analytical
approaches states currently use in their own waste minimization programs, three approaches
are common;
* Surveying industry about their future plans for waste reduction;
* Applying extracts from the engineering literature that document past
waste minimization accomplishments; and
• Conducting statistical and other analyses of trends in waste generation data.
In its review of these three approaches used in the 1989 CAPs, EPA has determined
that no single projection approach may be adequate to prepare reasonable projections and
to meet all four criteria. Please see Exhibit 4-3. It may be in a state's best Interest to
combine two or more types of analyses, depending on the level of waste .•nintmizatton
projected. The results of one approach can be used to check another. The remainder of this
section and the details found in Appendix G describe why a state might choose to combine
projection approaches.
Because some of the approaches described in this Guidance can require a significant
analytical effort and because often they offer economies of scale in analysis, groups of states
may find it attractive to collectively support a more substantial waste minimization analysis
than any single state might undertake on its own. For instance, EPA knows of at least one
instance where states in the Western Governors' Association (WGA) benefitted from
economies of scale by participating in collective CAP analysis.
Generator Surveys
A survey is, a systematic way to collect information about the characteristics of an
entire population by contacting and interviewing its members or a sample of all members of
that population, In this case, surveys would be used to gather information on the potential to
reduce generation of hazardous waste at the facility and process levels. Information is
collected using a survey instrument or questionnaire that includes explicit instructions and a
script or protocol of individual questions. Questions may be either open-ended (i.e., allowing
flexibility in responses) or closed-ended (i.e., drawing responses from among an exhaustive,
but finite group of choices), EPA has sample survey forms available upon request to any
state.
Page 4-18
-------
Exhibit 4-3
Relationship Between Approaches to Forecasting Future Waste Minimization
and EPA's Evaluation Criteria
Approaches
Generator Surveys
Engineering
Literature Reviews
Historical Data
Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Adequacy of State Waste
Minimization Infrastructure
May not provide any
Information about the
adequacy of a program
Provide no Information about
the adequacy of a program
May not provide any
information about the
adequacy of a program
Targeting of Waste
Reduction Activities
Collect information from a
targeted population of
generators
May provide limited
information to target waste
reduction opportunities
Can provide information to
target waste reduction
activities
Generator Communication
Useful for demonstrating
communication with generators
Do not provide a means of
communicating with generators,
but may make such
communication more informed
May require follow-up
communication with generators
Feasibility
Provide a good vehicle for
gathering Information on the
feasibility of waste reduction
Can provide adequate
Information on the feasibility of
waste reduction
Can provide Insights on the
potential for achieving waste
reduction; some types of data
analysis allow for
measurement only of past
successes
Page 4-19
-------
Generator surveys provide useful information for projection purposes because they
document, to the best of industry's ability, what generators themselves predict they can
accomplish in reducing waste generation. However, surveys can be expensive to implement,
especially for a large number of generators. Furthermore, critical to the usefulness of
generator survey results is a well-designed survey instrument, a statistically sound sampling
plan (or a census of key industries), and corroborating questions that provide a check on
generators' understanding of questions and presentation of answers.
Engineering Literature Reviews
A review of the engineering literature provides information on technological and
economic opportunities for certain industries to reduce certain types of wastes. This review
can be used to help verify the validity of waste reduction forecasts made for a particular
industry and waste stream. The estimates of waste minimization potential can serve as an
"upper bound" to evaluate whether a projected reduction is technologically and economically
feasible.
While a review of the engineering literature can provide a sense of what can be
achieved, it cannot provide the full range of information necessary to project waste reduction.
For instance, the review does not give any indication of whether and to what extent industry
has already adopted any of the documented mechanisms for reducing waste. Information
from the engineering literature may be best used to improve the understanding of facility-
specific information as it is gathered from other sources.
Historical Data Analysis
Analysis of past and current waste generation characteristics of generators may be
useful to help assess the future potential for individual generators (or industries as a whole) to
reduce waste. There are limitations with analyzing historical data, however. Without field
validation, it could be difficult to accurately project future waste minimization based on past
information. For example, a generator may have utilized all of the housekeeping and
inventory control techniques available to him to reduce hazardous waste generation at his
facility. These initiatives may have resulted in a 15 percent reduction in a given year, but are
not able to yield further waste reductions in the future, • Additionally, generators' abilities to
achieve further reductions could be affected by the availability of future funds and company
commitment to future waste reductions.
Nonetheless, analysis of historical data may prove to be a useful tool in the
development of future waste minimization estimates. There are many types of data analyses
for waste generation that principally fall under two categories: (1) comparison of waste
generating characteristics of similar facilities across industries (cross-sectional analysis}, and
(2) calculations of trends in waste reduction accomplishments at a single facility over the
period for which data are available (time-series analysis).
The first type of analysis has two components: (1) a statistical comparison of the
relative production efficiencies of apparently similar facilities producing similar products and
similar waste streams, but different rates of waste generation per unit of output, and (2) field
validation of the inferences drawn from the statistical comparison. An alternative approach to
the first step in this type of analysis would be a statistical comparison of production
Page 4-20
-------
efficiencies of apparently similar facilities to an idealized plant (with regard to waste
generation). Its usefulness as a too! to project future potential to reduce waste generation is
based on the assumption that some firms have already implemented waste minimization
efforts and others have not. Differences in waste generation characteristics between firms in
the same industry give some indication of unrealized opportunities for waste reduction.
The first step in analyzing differences among facilities is collecting the necessary raw
data on how much waste was produced by each firm in a baseyear, broken down by the type
of waste and industry. Sources of such data include the Biennial Report, state annual
generator surveys, manifest data, or other surveys. States will also need facility-levef output
data, which typically should be available from state sources of industrial economic
information, such as economic development commissions, bureaus of labor or economic
statistics, or state business councils.
In the second type of analysis, waste reduction potentials are evaluated using two or
more years of data for a particular facility. Essentially, waste reduction between the previous
year and the current year is calculated as the difference between what would have been
generated strictly on the basis of changes in production levels (assuming no changes in
process technology), and what was actually generated. However, not all facilities report this
type of information on forms GM and 1C of the Biennial Report.
Regardless of the approach, however, analysis of waste generation characteristics
using historical data can reveal insights about waste reduction potential. Analysis of historical
data, combined with field validation, may be the most feasible approach to estimate waste
reduction potential for a large number of facilities within a wide variety of industries. Results
of such analysis may be useful in conjunction with other projection techniques.
Exhibit 4-3 summarizes the relationship between approaches to forecasting future
waste minimization and EPA's evaluation criteria. In some cases, simply by choosing to
pursue one or more of these forecasting approaches and documenting how estimates were
made, states will already have much of the material to demonstrate that the criteria were met
(see the later section on "Presenting Results oi Waste Minimization Forecasts"). In other
cases -- particularly with respect to the adequacy criterion - states may have to prepare text
and related exhibits that go beyond the results of waste minimization forecasts.
Presenting Results of Waste Minimization Estimates
As mentioned above, waste minimization calculations will probably be conducted at
the waste stream, facility, and industry levels. For CAP purposes, results of such analyses
should be expressed in terms of their impacts on demand for waste CAP Management
Categories. In Phases 2 and 3, a state is only responsible for providing waste minimization
information for CAP Management Categories to which it has been identified by EPA as having
to address. In both Phases 2 and 3, states should present the results of their waste
minimization forecasts as depicted in Exhibit 4-4.
Thus, three documentation items should be included with both Phase 2 and 3 waste
minimization submissions: (1) documentation of the approaches used to forecast future
waste minimization for each CAP Management Category where there is an identified shortfall
Page 4-21
-------
(a description of this documentation appears below); (2) responses to the four evaluation
criteria described above in this section; and (3) a completed Exhibit 4-4,
States should document the approaches they use to forecast future waste
minimization for each CAP Management Category where there is an identified shortfall.
Documentation should include a general description of the approach, sources of data,
assumptions, sample calculations, and presentation of results at the level used to conduct the
analysis.
Where a state chooses to conduct a survey of generators, for example, documentation
should include the following:
* A copy of the survey form;
* A description of the sampling plan (if applicable) and why that plan was
chosen;
+ A sample survey response;
+ A description of the calculations used to aggregate survey responses
and represent results in terms of future waste reduction and their
impacts on demand for waste CAP Management Categories; and
• A list of the individual(s) responsible for conducting the survey and
analyzing survey responses,
A simitar level of detail should accompany any form of data analysis. States should
document the theory underlying the type of analysis performed; identify sources of data;
summarize how calculations were made; and present results in a form that is consistent with
the level of waste reduction forecasted. Regardless of the approach taken, waste
minimization results should be expressed in tons of reduced demand for each applicable CAP
Management Category as organized in Exhibit 4-4.
Page 4-22
-------
Exhibit 4-4
Estimated Reduction in 1999 Demand for Commercial Hazardous
Waste Management Capacity Due to Waste Minimization (tons)
(This table is to be used only in Phases 2 and 3.)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recoverv
Reduction in 1999 Demand
for Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity
I
I Inorqanics Recoverv I I
I Oraanics Recoverv I I
I Enerav Recoverv - Liquids I I
I Enerav Recoverv - Sludaes/Soiids I I
I TREATMENT
I. '••-, .:-.:. ->/ • .1
I Stabilization/Chemical Fixation I I
I Incineration - Liquids and Gases I I
I Incineration - Sludges/Solids I I
I Fuel Blendinq I I
Hazardous Wastewaters and Sludges
Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground Injection
Page 4-23
-------
Milestones
EPA plans to track the progress of reduction estimates made in the 1 i93 CAP through
the evaluation of annual milestones. States should specify milestones that EPA can use to
evaluate a state's effort toward implementing the strategy presented in the CAP for achieving
projected reduction in waste generation. Examples of such milestones include:
* Expansion of staff or budget to levels projected in the 1ii3 CAP;
* Addition of targeted programs;
* Evidence of meaningful communication with generators;
* Documentation that program efforts were conducted; or
• Evidence of progress based on analysis of information reported on
Forms 1C and GM of the Biennial Report (see Appendix G for a more
detailed discussion),
Page 4-24
-------
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HAZARDOUS WASTE CAPACITY
If shortfalls are identified in the national aggregation of supply and demand, EPA will
require those states that have demand greater than supply for the shortfall CAP Management
Categories to prepare Phase 2 submissions that include waste minimization plans and identify
capacity that is permitted, but not operational, or that has been issued a draft permit. If
shortfalls remain at the end of Phase 2, EPA suggests that states identified as having to
address the shortfall in Phase 3 attempt to assure capacity first through increased waste
minimization efforts. If, however, it is not possible to assure capacity through only waste
minimization, some states that contribute to national shortfalls may wish to site new treatment
and disposal facilities or expand existing facilities. In particular, those states that should
address a large portion of the national shortfall may choose this method. If a state chooses
this method of assurance, the state should, in its Phase 3 CAP submittal, document its
capacity development process and plans and establish specific milestones for creating new
capacity. Milestones should also be submitted for the development of capacity that has draft
permits issued but is not yet operational.
States that plan to develop new capacity to alleviate shortfalls should describe their
procedures for facility siting, permitting, and expansion. These states should commit to EPA
that they will develop specific quantities and types of additional capacity through either new
or expanded facilities in the state. This description should include dates for interim and final
capacity development, such as site designation, permit application submittal, draft or final
permit approval, construction start, and facility operation. These states should analyze and
discuss the selected aspects of their regulations, policies, and procedures, as well as
economic and other considerations that may assist or may prevent or impede achievement of
these milestones. These states also should discuss how they will overcome any impediments
to achieving these milestones. If information of this nature was presented in previous CAP
submittals, and it has not changed, the state may refer to the CAP submittat and not resubmtt
the same information,
A state or a group of states in an interstate agreement may be in a position in which
siting a management facility should be pursued in order to make an assurance of adequate
capacity. If so, states should develop a schedule of capacity development milestones to
cover capacity shortfalls. These milestones should reflect key dates for decisions and
activities that lead to the permitting of Subtitle C hazardous waste management capacity that
addresses the state's capacity shortfalls by December 30, 1i§9. It is not necessary to list
specific facilities by name or location; it is necessary only to describe the total capacity to be
created (or expanded) by a given date that will result in permitting of the new capacity by the
end of 1999. Examples of major milestones for the creation of new capacity include:
4 Public hearings;
4 Public outreach and education;
4 Designation of candidate sites;
4 Selection of a site;
Page 4-25
-------
t Permit application submtttal;
t Permit application revision, if necessary;
• Draft permit approval; and
• Final permit approval.
At least one major milestone per year, which covers one or more types of capacity
shortfalls, should be included. States are not restricted to the above milestones, but are
encouraged to achieve a substantial degree of specificity in defining milestones in order to
provide credible plans. States should clearly define the quantitative milestones that will
assure the availability of adequate capacity.
Some states have expressed concern that the designation of milestones may prejudice
the siting designation process. EPA is providing states with the flexibility to revise milestones
to reflect new schedules, as long as reasonable justification is provided before the milestone
date. This concept of maintenance is the responsibility of the state, EPA will consider any
missed milestones that have not been revised as grounds for withdrawing the availability of
future funding for Superfund remedial actions.
Page 4-26
-------
4.4 CAPACITY ASSURANCE USING "INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS
OR REGIONAL AGREEMENTS OR AUTHORITIES"
CERCLA §104{c)(9) requires that assurances relying upon the availability of facilities
outside the state be in accordance with an "interstate agreement or regional agreement or
authority," EPA believes that interstate agreements demonstrate that states are working
cooperatively to create or otherwise assure adequate capacity. The legislative history of
Section 104{c)(9) indicates that Congress anticipated that "interstate agreement" can be
interpreted to mean several different types of agreements. In particular, EPA has interpreted
"interstate agreement" to include agreements among states, agreements among states and
facilities in different states, or agreements among generators and facilities in different states,
Various types of interstate agreements may be appropriate for different phases of the
capacity analysis. The following types of interstate agreements may apply to different phases
of the CAP process:
4 Agreements between generators and hazardous waste commercial
treatment and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to manage wastes;
4 Agreements between states to collectively participate in waste
minimization planning;
4 Agreements between states and commercial hazardous waste TSDFs to
manage wastes; and
4 Agreements between states to collectively develop new capacity.
The first type of agreement, which would exist in the form of contracts between
generators and TSDFs, will be used to allocate existing capacity in all stages of the CAP. For
instance, when adequate national capacity exists to manage wastes for twenty years, EPA
believes that contracts between TSDFs and generators would suffice to assure capacity
nationwide. These contracts can be interpreted as interstate agreements because the
legislative history of CERCLA |104{c)(9) contemplates that interstate agreements include
agreements between private facilities in different states.
tf EPA determines that a shortfall exists for a management category, agreements that
allocate existing capacity will not adequately address ali future waste generation. Therefore in
Phase 2 and 3, states should consider agreements that address projected capacity shortfalls.
The latter types of agreements, listed above and discussed below, may be used by states to
address the future capacity needs. These agreements would not be used to allocate existing
capacity in Phase 1; however, since Phase 1 is limited to projections of capacity, assuming
no special new efforts by states to develop capacity.
Page 4-27
-------
In the second type of agreement, states could address shortfalls in Phases 2 and 3
through interstate agreements in which states agree to participate in collective waste
minimization planning. Collective plans may include pooling resources for an interstate
generator survey, for example, upon which various states could base waste minimization
forecasts. These agreements should include milestones to meet waste minimization
projections and appropriate waste minimization documentation as described in section 4,2.
Under Phase 3, states also have the option to enter into interstate agreements with states
who agree to increase waste minimization efforts beyond plans submitted in Phase 2.
The third example of an interstate agreement would be between a state and a private
TSDF to develop future capacity, CERCLA 104(c)(9) legislative history and a subsequent
judicial court opinion4 support the idea that a state can contract with a private TSDF inside
or outside of the particular state in order to assure capacity for its hazardous waste
generation. This type of agreement could be used in Phase 3 by a state that has been
identified as a shortfall state in order to assure the availability of new capacity.
The fourth example of an interstate agreement would document an agreement
between states to collectively develop new capacity. If EPA identifies that the national
shortfall(s) still remain and should be addressed in Phase 3, states contributing to the
national shortfall may decide to collectively develop new capacity to address shortfalls by
signing bilateral or multilateral documents concerning new capacity development.
When an agreement involves more than one state, the text of the interstate agreement
should specify whether each state is responsible for achieving individual milestones, or if the
states are collectively responsible for achieving milestones. This clarification will be important
if milestones are not met and EPA determines that sanctioning (i.e., denying new remedial
funding) is appropriate. If the interstate agreement specifies that states are responsible for
achieving individual milestones, EPA will sanction only those states in the interstate
agreement that have failed to meet their milestones. In this case, the interstate agreement
should provide EPA with individual milestones so that EPA can justify sanction
determinations. In cases where the interstate agreement specifies that the states have agreed
to be responsible for meeting the milestones collectively as an entity, EPA will deny new
remedial funding to all states if milestones are missed and it has been determined that
sanctioning is appropriate. States may also choose to have a combination of individual and
collective milestones; the Agency has no objections to such agreements, provided the
submittals specify which states are responsible for achieving which milestones.
States should also specify anticipated barriers to achieving collective goals as well as
methods to recognize and overcome the barriers. The interstate agreements in any phase
will be considered legal and binding contracts. Generally, interstate agreements that address
shortfalls should contain enough information to represent a solid commitment. The following
are suggested provisions of such interstate agreements:
* The states involved in the agreement;
* Overall objective of the agreement;
4 National Solid Waste Management Association i>. Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
910 F. 2d 713 (lllh Cir. 1990), modified, 924 F. 2d 1001, cert, denied 111 S. Ct. 2800 (1991).
Page 4-28
-------
• Responsibilities of participating states;
4 Duration of the agreement;
* Implementation of sanctions by EPA on:
• Individual state basis, and
* Collective group basis;
• Specific milestones and goals to be achieved such as:
• Percentage collective waste reduction within X years,
« Facility siting within X years, and
* New regulations or state programs within X years;
* Detailed plans to achieve stated goals, including provisions addressing
economic and political considerations; and
* Signatures of all parties involved in the agreement.
Page 4-29
-------
4.5 MILESTONES
States identified as having to address projected capacity shortfalls should include
milestones for each shortfall CAP Management Category in their Phase 2 and 3 CAP
submittafs designed to resolve those shortfalls. Milestones are necessary so that the Agency
can evaluate states' progress toward addressing shortfalls in CAP management categories so
that their CAP approval can be maintained,
A state plan to develop or enhance waste minimization targeted at generators in
shortfall management categories for Phase 2 should have milestones for actions needed to
achieve the program objectives. Also, in Phase 2 states should submit milestones for
capacity with draft permits issued by the state. H a shortfall state, in its Phase 3 submission,
is planning development of new waste management capacity or increasing waste
minimization efforts over those identified in Phase 2, the state plan should include milestones
for developing that capacity or increasing waste minimization. Milestones will be part of the
state's demonstration of its commitment to the capacity assurance plan, and will be used by
EPA to monitor implementation of the plan.
Since states will project capacity from 1993 to 1999, this projection period will provide
a window for tracking milestones established in Phase 2 and Phase 3 submittals. Specifically,
tor the 1993 CAPs, milestones will be tracked by the Agency through the end of 1999. Some
time before 1999, the Agency will ask states to provide new CAP updates that will contain
milestones for another six-year timeframe. Outstanding milestones from the 1995*1999 period
should be carried over in these updates.
If a state fails to meet the milestones agreed to in its plan, EPA will re-examine whether
the state's assurance as a whole is still adequate. If EPA deems the plan to be inadequate to
assure capacity, EPA will halt funding of new remedial actions in the state, EPA is not
requiring a state to demonstrate compliance with all milestones in order to show that
reasonable progress is being made to address its capacity shortfalls. Rather, EPA will
consider a state to be making progress toward alleviating its capacity shortfalls if it meets at
least one milestone per year. The requirement that states meet at least one milestone per
year does not relieve states of their responsibility to make progress on their other milestones;
EPA expects states to submit annual reports to EPA that describe their progress toward
meeting all of their milestones. Progress reports should be brief and emphasize the state's
efforts toward meeting milestones. Furthermore, before cooperative agreements for remedial
funds are signed, EPA also plans to evaluate milestones to ensure that the state CAP is
current and no milestones are delinquent.
As indicated earlier, EPA is providing states with the flexibility to revise milestones to
reflect new schedules so as to not prejudice the siting and permitting process. If a state
believes that it will miss a milestone, it should submit to EPA written documentation of its
attempts to meet the milestone, justification explaining why the state is going to miss the
milestone, and a revised schedule for achieving this and any remaining milestones. This
Page 4-30
-------
information should be submitted before the milestone is missed, or the Agency may consider
the CAP to be inadequate for assurance pursuant to CERCLA §104(c)(9). EPA will review the
justification along with the revised schedule and will agree to the new schedule provided the
explanation is reasonable and the state has made a good-faith effort to meet its milestones.
The procedure outlined above is not limited to individual states. States that pool both
resources and shortfalls may opt to meet the above milestone reporting requirements
collectively through an interstate agreement. The group of states should meet at least one
milestone per year to show that progress is being made toward addressing the shortfall. This
would be in lieu of each state in the agreement being required to meet an individual milestone
per year. It should be understood, however, that states that choose this option also share a
collective burden to assure that at least one milestone per year is achieved. If at least one
milestone is not met per year, each state in the interstate agreement will be held accountable.
States acting together in an interstate agreement are also expected to submit the annual
report to EPA, as described above, which tracks the agreement's progress towards meeting
all of its milestones. States collectively addressing shortfalls are encouraged to meet
regularly to discuss waste minimization and capacity development activities. These meetings
can also be documented in the annual report to EPA to show progress towards addressing
shortfalls.
Page 4-31
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
Available Capacity
Baseline
Baseyear
Biennial Report
CAP Management
Category
Capital Assistance
Program
Captive System
Captive Facility
The quantity of hazardous waste management capacity that was not
used during a given year (i.e., maximum capacity minus utilized
capacity).
The set of data used as a starting point for projecting future
hazardous waste generation and management. The baseline is
created by adjusting the baseyear data as described in Chapter 3.
The year for which hazardous waste generation and management
data are used to establish a baseline for projecting future hazardous
waste generation and management The year 1991 will be the
baseyear for 1993 CAPs,
A report that hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities are required to complete every two years.
The types of information requested in the Biennial Report on
hazardous waste include the quantity, nature, disposition, and the
efforts taken to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste,
A set of hazardous waste management processes that can be used
to manage a particular hazardous waste without loss of treatment
efficiency. The CAP Management Categories are based on the
codes used in the 1991 Biennial Report for describing specific types
of hazardous waste management systems. The four broad
groupings for the CAP Management Categories are (1) recovery, (2)
treatment, (3) disposal, and (4) transfer/storage. See Chapter 2 for
a complete discussion of the CAP Management Categories.
A program that provides assistance for either the acquisition of
capital or the reduction of capital costs through the use of
mechanisms such as loan guarantees, credit enhancements, and
tax incentives,
A system that has treatment, disposal, or recycling (TDR) capacity
available for hazardous waste received only from generators under
the same company ownership, but at a different location.
A facility that manages waste only from off-site generators owned by
the same company, and possibly waste generated on site.
Glossary-1
-------
Commercial Status
Commercial
System
Commercial Facility
The accessibility of a hazardous waste management system to
waste generators. The three types of hazardous waste
management systems are:
On-site Access is limited to waste generated on site.
Captive Access is limited to waste from generators under the
same company ownership.
Commercial Accessible to all waste generators,
A system that has treatment, disposal, or recycling (TOR) capacity
available to any hazardous waste generator. Also included in this
definition is limited commercial TDR capacity, which is available to a
limited number of generators.
A facility that manages waste from any generator, including off-site
generators not under the same company ownership, A commercial
facility may have captive and on-site systems in addition to the
commercial system(s), This definition includes limited commercial
facilities, which manage waste generated off-site by a limited
number of facilities.
Commercial RCRA
Subtitle C
Management
Capacity
Conditionally-
exempt Small
Quantity Generator
(CESQG)
Demand
The capacity of a commercial system available to manage RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste. The 1993 CAP projections focus on
the demand for and supply of this capacity,
A CESQG meets the following criteria every month:
(a) in every single month during 1991, the site generated no
more than 100 kg (220 Ibs) of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste, and no more than 1 kg (2.2 tbs) of RCRA Subtitle C
acute hazardous waste., and no more than 100 kg (220 Ibs}
of material from the cleanup of a spillage of RCRA Subtitle C
acute hazardous waste; and
(b) at any time during 1991, the site accumulated no more than
1,000 kg (2,200 Ibs) of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste,
and no more than 1 kg (2.2 Ibs) of RCRA Subtitle C acute
hazardous waste, and no more than 100 kg (220 Ibs) of
material from the cleanup of a spillage of RCRA Subtitle C
acute hazardous waste; and
(c) the site treated or disposed of the RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste in a manner consistent with regulatory
provisions.
The quantity of primary and secondary waste managed in treatment,
disposal, and recycling facilities in a given year.
Glossary-2
-------
Economic
Incentives
Equivalent Data
Exports
Facility Expansion
Generation
Generator Status
Imports
Inventory Control
Measures
Large Quantity
Generator (LOG)
Materials Recovery
Approaches based on economic or market forces that result in
some desired behavior; generally some reward for the desired
behavior or some penalty for undesirable behavior.
State data derived from official surveys or manifests that report
information similar to that collected in the 1 §91 Biennial Report.
Hazardous waste transported out of a state to another state or
country.
An increase in the hazardous waste management capacity of an
existing hazardous waste management facility. Facility expansions
include the construction of plant additions and the substitution of
new equipment for older equipment with a resultant ability to handle
greater volumes of waste.
The quantity of waste generated in a given year that is managed at
a treatment, disposal, or recycling facility.
The classification of a hazardous waste generator, as determined by
the quantity of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste generated in the
reporting year. The four possible generator types listed in the 1991
Biennial Report are large quantity generator (LOG), small quantity
generator (SQG), conditionally-exempt small quantity generator
(CESQG), and non-generator.
Hazardous waste transported into a state from another state or
country,
Reducing product storage in inventory to minimally acceptable
needs for near-term demand; substituting production for inventory
where possible to reduce potential for disposal of expired or
outdated product in inventory.
A site is a LOG if it met any of the following criteria:
(a) in one or more months during 1S91 the site generated 1,000
kg (2,200 Ibs) or more of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste;
or
(b) in one or more months during 1991, the site generated or
accumulated at any time, 1 kg (2,2 Ibs) of RCRA SubtitJe C
acute hazardous waste; or
(c) it any time, the site generated or accumulated more than
100 kg (220 Ibs) of spill cleanup material contaminated with
RCRA Subtitle C acute hazardous waste.
Recovery of materials, such as metals, in waste streams, either in
the original production process or in some other process.
Glossary-3
-------
Maximum Capacity
Milestone
Mixed Radioactive/
Hazardous Waste
National Shortfall
Amount
Non-RCRA Subtitle
C Hazardous
Waste
On-stte System
On-srte Technical
Assistance
The definition of the maximum capacity of a hazardous waste
treatment, disposal, or recycling unit depends on whether the unit is
a landfill or a flow system (i.e., not a landfill):
Landfill The quantity of hazardous and non-hazardous waste
that could enter the landfill over its remaining lifetime,
excluding quantities of non-waste materials used for
daily and final cover and assuming that future waste
is the same type as the waste disposed in the
baseyear (i.e., 1991).
Flow System The greatest quantity that could have entered the
system in one year assuming {1) no change in
equipment; (2) an unlimited supply of waste similar to
that managed in the baseyear; (3) willingness to add
possible additional shifts; (4) routine downtime; (5) no
impact from other systems that share the same unit;
and (6) permit and regulatory limits are not exceeded.
A task or achievement necessary to assure adequate capacity that
is scheduled to be accomplished by a specific time. (See Chapter 4
tor a complete discussion of milestones.)
Source material, special nuclear material, or by-product materials, as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that are
mixed with hazardous waste. By themselves, radioactive wastes are
not classified as hazardous waste under RCRA. If they are mixed
with RCRA hazardous waste, however, the material is controlled
under RCRA regulation and under Atomic Energy Act regulations.
EPA has jurisdiction over only the hazardous portion of mixed
radioactive hazardous waste.
The quantity by which the national demand for capacity in a CAP
Management Category exceeds the supply of commercial capacity
in that CAP Management Category for the projection year 2013.
A waste that is not a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste. Non-RCRA
Subtitle C-hazardous wastes include wastes that are considered
hazardous within the state, but that are not hazardous under 40
CFR Part 261.
A system that is only used to treat, dispose, or recycle hazardous
waste that is generated on-site.
Programs established to provide a range of technical advice,
assistance, and consultation at the actual plant,
Glossary^
-------
One-time Waste
Primary Waste
Product or Input
Substitution
Production
Efficiency
RCRA Subtitle C
Hazardous Waste
RCRA Subtitle C
Hazardous Waste
Stream
Any contaminated materials or treatment residuals (e.g., soils,
sludges, debris, and equipment) generated by any of the following
remediation or cleanup activities: (1) Superfund remedial actions;
(2) state remedial actions; (3) Superfund removal actions; (4)
corrective actions at RCRA hazardous waste management units; (5)
closures of RCRA hazardous waste management units; and (6)
other remediation activities, including those resulting from state and
private emergency removals, environmental audits, and property
transfers.
Hazardous waste generated directly from a production process or
from the treatment of a non-hazardous waste.
Changes in raw materials, either to different materials (e.g., water
instead of organic solvents) or materials with different specifications
(e.g., lower levels of contaminants).
A measure of how efficiently industrial processes convert inputs into
products, expressed as a ratio of input/product.
Waste defined as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261.
A RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste that may have more than one
EPA Hazardous Waste Code, but that originates from one or more
of the following sources: (1) a production process or service
activity; (2) equipment decommissioning; (3) a spill cleanup or other
remediation activity; (4) the management of a non-hazardous waste;
(5) an off-site generator (including waste received, but not treated or
recycled, and shipped off-site); and (6) the on-stte treatment,
disposal, or recycling of previously existing hazardous waste
stream(s) (i.e., residuals).
Waste generated from continuous and intermittent (e.g., leak
collection and oil changes) processes, such as industrial processes.
Recurrent hazardous waste includes alt hazardous waste other than
that derived from non-recurrent activities (see one-time waste).
Secondary Waste Hazardous waste generated from the management of primary waste.
Recurrent Waste
Glossary-5
-------
Small Quantity
Generator (SQG)
Standard industrial
Classification (SIC)
Code
Storage Facility
Transfer Facility
Treatment
Residuals
Unit of Product
Value Added
A SQG is defined by all the following criteria:
(a) in one or more months during 1991 the site generated more
than 100 kg (220 Ibs) of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste,
but in no month did the site: (1) generate 1,000 kg (2,200
Ibs) or more of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste, or (2)
generate 1 kg (2.2 Ibs) or more of RCRA Subtitle C acute
hazardous waste, or (3) generate more than 100 kg (220 Ibs)
or more of material from the cleanup of a spillage of RCRA
Subtitle C acute hazardous waste; and
(b) the site accumulated at any time during 1991 no more than 1
kg (2.2 Ibs) of RCRA Subtitle C acute hazardous waste and
no more than 100 kg (220 Ibs) of material from the cleanup
of a spillage of RCRA Subtitle C acute hazardous waste; and
(c) the site stored its RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wastes in
tanks or containers in a manner consistent with regulatory
provisions,
OR, the site is a Small Quantity Generator if, in 1991,
(a) the site met all other criteria for a Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generator (CESQG), but
(b) the site accumulated 1,000 kg (2,200 ibs) or more of RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste,
A four-digit coding system, developed by the U.S. Census Bureau
and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, that categorizes the
principal product or group of products produced or distributed, or
services rendered, at a site's physical location.
A facility used to store hazardous waste for a temporary period, at
the end of which the hazardous waste is treated, recycled, disposed
of, or stored elsewhere.
Any transportation related facility including loading docks, parking
areas, storage areas, and other similar areas where shipments of
hazardous waste are held during the normal course of
transportation.
Hazardous waste generated from the management of primary or
secondary waste.
Units of production such as tons of steel, barrels of oil, or numbers
of printed circuit boards manufactured over a certain period of time.
A measure of the difference between the value of a finished product
and the cost of the product inputs (e.g., raw materials) prior to any
further manufacture, processing, or assembly.
Glossary-6
-------
Waste Exchange
Waste Managed in
Exempt Processes
Waste
Management
Facility
Waste
Management
Process
Waste
Management
System
Worker Training
A method of management of wastes that involves the transfer of
wastes between businesses or facilities for recovery or to serve a
productive purpose.
Hazardous waste treated in units that are exempt from the RCRA
Subtitle C permitting requirements and might not be counted in the
1991 Biennial Report, (See, e.g., 40 CFR 261,4.) Exempt processes
include wastewater treatment units and elementary neutralization
units.
A location where hazardous waste is treated, disposed, stored, or
recycled. A facility may have fully permitted units, interim status
units, and/or exempt units. A generator is not referred to as a
"facility" unless it also treats, disposes, stores, or recycles
hazardous waste.
One or more units acting together to perform a single operation on
a hazardous waste stream.
One or more processes used together to treat, dispose, or recycle a
hazardous waste stream.
The training of employees in the proper use, maintenance, and
handling of toxic substances and hazardous wastes.
Glossary-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX A.
NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE CONTINGENCY PLAN
EXCERPTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX A. NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
CONTINGENCY PLAN EXCERPTS
The statutory requirements for capacity assurances have been codified in the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.510(0)),
Preamble to 40 CFR 300.510(e) Rulemaking
(55 Federal Register 8666, 8778)
40 CFR 300.510(e)
In mother change In this section, the
language in I 300.5lO(e] describing the
requirements for providing the waste
capacity assurance basbeefi revised to
codify language from CERCLA tection
104{e)f9) and lo reflect the paiuge of
the October if, 1989 date for
applicability of this assurance under
CERCLA section 104(c)f9). EPA
generally wiB me the following to
determine the adequacy of the state's
assurance: (1) The plan submitted to
EPA documenting the waste capacity
availability, (2) the state's written
commitment to Implement the plan, and
(3) the slate's written commitment to
implement any additional measures EPA
deems necessary to provide for
adequate waste capacity (ic* Assurance
of Haiardous Wast* Capacity
Guidance. OSWER Directive No, 8010.00
(December 1988) and OSWER Directive
No. ecirxDOa (October isw) j.
(e\(i) In accordance with CERCLA
section lCH(c)j9), EPA shall not provide
any remedial action pursuant to
CERCLA section 104 until the state in
which the release occurs enters into •
cooperative agreement or Superfund
state contract with EPA providing
assurances deemed adequate by EPA
that the state wilt assure the availability
of hazardous waste treatment or
disposal facilities which:
(i) Heve 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
cooperative agreement or Superfund
stale contract and to be destroyed
treated, or disposed;
(il) An within the state, or outside the
state in accordance with an interstate
agreement or regional agreement or
authority,
(iiil Are acceptable to EPA: and
(iv) Are in compliance with the
requirement* of Subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act
(2) This rule does not address whether
or not Indian tribes are states for
purposes of this paragraph (e).
Page A-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX B.
EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX B. EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS
An original and one copy of a state's Phase 1 submittal, and Phases 2 and 3 CAP
submittals, if necessary, should be delivered to EPA Regional offices on or before the due
dates for the Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 CAP submittals. The following is a list of
contact names, addresses, and phone numbers for the EPA Regions.
EPA Region Contact Name
Phone Number Fax Number
Address
Region
Region II
Region
Region V
David Lim
Adolpn Everett
Jeff Alper
Charlie Howard
Region IV Bob Reimer
Karen Lumino
Region VI Roger Hancock
Region VII Mary Clark
Carl Blomgren
(617)573-5776 {617)573-9662
(212) 264-8690 (212) 264-6155
(215) 597-9636 (215) 580-2013
(back-up fax:
(215) 597-7906)
(215) 597-6197
(404) 347-2234 (404) 347-5205
(312) 886-0981 (312) 353-6775
(214) 655-8542 (214) 655-6460
(913) 551-7738 (913) 551-7063
(913) 551-7680
EPA-Region I
RCRA Program (HPR-CAN1)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
EPA-Region II
Hazardous Waste Facilities
Branch (2AWM-HWF)
2i Federal Plaza-Room 1037
New York, NY 10278
EPA-Region III
Integrated Management Support
(3HW53)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
EPA-Region IV
Waste Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E,
Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA-Region V
Waste Management Division (H-
7J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
EPA-Region VI
Hazardous Waste Management
Division (6H-CO)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
EPA-Region Vti
WSTM/PSBR/IRMS
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Page B-1
-------
EPA Region Contact Name
Phone Number Fax Number
Address
Region VIII Marie Zanowiek
(303) 293-1065 (303) 293-1724
Region IX John Moody
(415) 744-2054 (415) 744-1044
Region X
Maureen Toelkes (206) 553-0758 (206) 553-0124
EPA-Region VIII
Waste Management Division
(8MWM-WM)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
EPA-Region IX
M-3-4
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
EPA-Region X
Waste Management Division
(HW-117)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Page B-2
-------
APPENDIX C.
CAP TABLES
-------
-------
Tablet:
1991 Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed On Site (tons)
:•';•• ,:"':", -:'-:•;'.-'•• •',:-;"•:-'. • :• :•••-:'• ••- •• .-•:• y:-'-'v>'." • .•-::•;";••:":•:•':•.•;''• '•":;" ".-:-,">:-,
'•, ;•:• -:•; ; ;•;-;.-• ••••:• :•.•, -:•>'•' •...,. ••.-:•:: :-:: ••• v. ,/•• .,•;-:•:: ;;• ••:.•.;."•",•;• .-,.;•• ;•'•'-;-:•..-'/-.••.•;-•.-'•-.'."•.<" .-.",•>;•
|^^^«SpM^^^i8i^l^
RECOVERY8
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT8
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludaes/Solids
Fuel Blendina
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
Wtie+a M4»nnrtnst
sjfiKjIllflSiw^iHiBiIwSPM^ft^sSi
lijiiitiiiii^iiiim
:-:-.:-:•: -.'.-/.v. v.-::.- •.-:-.•.'•., .;'.-:..-.•...•.-. :•.-:•:•::•:•.:••:•••'..-•::••.••• v:
::;f!i^S;jil?-if|:0::|||^
Z-^i*Mtf££pite&$'3M&%xS;.><%
M <••-;• :;^-v:v--« Sii •:¥ :;v v^r v;-:s::::; &;£.;;x£::
I
I
:•"';'•:• y:;';'v! ;:•£:•.;';: :v:':|.:; yi"^ v^/^x'X'ix'y:; •••:^:.:':::-:"r-: :'/'^^:
•'•-.:' ' , .': : .'•-. •': :>-::"'• •:' v' '•::-•:•'., -•':..-•"•:••:•••: .::;- x : . •'-'. .'- ' ' - ,; :':•'
Data may not be complete for these technologies because facilities are not
required to report in the 1991 Biennial Report waste managed in exempt processes.
Page C-1
-------
Table 2:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste in Captive Systems (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery -
Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration * Liquids
and Gases
Incineration -
Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters
and Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
. Exports
;ViW«Wt* : ' ,:
. Generated '
and Managed
instate
imports
Page C-2
-------
Table 3:
1991 Management of Hazardous Waste In Commercial Systems (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metais Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery -
Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration -
Sludges/Solids
Fue! Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters
and Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/
Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
•• . . •': . - --.' • '•;"„ .'^^ '• •
. • : ^ «ffKwt& _- ^ -\
• ""!
vKCUTMIC
1 One-time
• Waste
-------
Table 4;
Maximum Operational in-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity - End of 1991 (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inoroanics Recovery
Oraanics Recovery
Enerav Recovery - Liauids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration * Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Waste waters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
Maximum Operational
In-state Commercial
SubtftteC
Management Capacity
II
II
II
Page C-4
-------
Table 5:
Demand for Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
from Recurrent Waste Expected to be Generated in State (tons)
CAP Management Category
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
Inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwelt/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
Baseline
Demand for Commercial Subtitle
C Management Capacity
1993
19S9
2013
Page C-5
-------
Table 6:
Expected Maximum In-state Commercial Subtitle C
Management Capacity (tons)
:ieiMP:lia^^ x •
RECOVERY
Metals Recovery
inorganics Recovery
Organics Recovery
Energy Recovery - Liquids
Energy Recovery -
Sludges/Solids
TREATMENT
Stabilization/Chemical
Fixation
Incineration - Liquids and
Gases
Incineration - Sludges/Solids
Fuel Blending
Hazardous Wastewaters and
Sludges Treatment
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Deepwell/Underground
Injection
Land Treatment/Farming
TRANSFER/STORAGE
Transfer/Storage
illillllilill
Baseline "
il|li|iMiil|i::0^^^
SubtWeC Management Capacity
•••^^^-•^i
>:,;,;:,i|^ :,,::,::
"•""JBflri* 'K""'
:::««:<• j,:.-, '.--to.. 4y.»<:- ••::. ; :. ':-^,:\ ,f..4s.fi:i:.i. •:(•.-.., ..¥ •<•• '•?:• •'••••. •.•-•.* ••--,-. :•-.':•, x
ll§!ll::5iilllillii§i||p||;;i
••-• , • ,•;••- :-:-• :-• •>:-. • :••-' -•• •,•:•.•'•••:-:• :•••• •'-;;•:-; "• -' ;-:: v.-i •:•.-. •:•••.•"•:•••- •-:• -:•• '- ••••:-, •"-.•:•;•:•.• •*•••;••'• •.•-; ••;-•./.• ,-,'.--.--•• -- - • • -;
• . : .. . • .•:;-.•:-;•.••;-:••-;••' •.•';/•:•.•"•.•,"•:•.•,•:•.<;•.:; : :'-: :-:-.-: .' :*••'. .•:-,••.•:•; .•;;•:•:; .•;:•.>:-'.•-:•:•:•'•.•; ;•.-,•:•.',"•;-••. >•:-:•:.•:•:•,•;•:•;'-•" ' ; " :••": "•": . '•-"-•
':•.''".•'" •:'•'" .••:'.-;•:•,•;•.',-•• ,-,:;-:::';: r<'>;:;":':-":*i::-'v:- ':;->;:;:;-;:.';:;: ;V"::'"-'':''';o:">r':^;v::X't:>'':v,::::';:;-v:-y-x-;v :!::-;:;-::;::-:;'*;-:;:*:-'-x-'-<: • ••'••" •:< •' .• '•. .'•:''.'.< >"•>.'•
• ••'•'••' ':-:.-.'::'.'':''''•• ',•:•'•:••"'•'•.-:'..'"'.•''"• ''''•*':•: :'-':> '"'''•'•*• '"!•:•, ";<•. ':';-,-:' ,'•':-:':':-•':': :-'-\-'-.-:y ',*.•',•'. '."-••'.',••,',:• -r.-.-y .-":'. -.,-; - •;••'.•; : .- ,.-.;
Page C-6
-------
APPENDIX D.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS
Appendix D contains the following two items;
4 Sample Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
Annual Export Report; and
4 List of Foreign Treatment, Storage, Disposal or Recycling Facilities.
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report for One State for 1990
40 CFR 262,56 requires primary exporters of hazardous waste to file with the
Administrator, no later than March 1 of each year, a report summarizing the types, quantities,
frequency, and ultimate destination of all hazardous waste exported from the United States
during the previous calendar year. Such reports include the following:
4 EPA identification number, name, and mailing and site address of the
exporter;
4 The calendar year covered by the report;
4 The name and site address of each consignee; and
4 By consignee, tor each hazardous waste exported, a description of the
hazardous waste, the EPA hazardous waste number (from 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart C or D), DOT hazard class", the name and US EPA number
(where applicable) for each transporter used, the total amount of waste
shipped, and number of shipments pursuant to each notification.
A "primary exporter" means any person who is required to originate a shipping manifest, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart B or equivalent state provision that specifies a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility in a receiving country as the facility to which the
hazardous waste will be sent and any intermediary arranging for the export. Both small
quantity generators (SQGs) and large quantity generators (LQGs) are required to file OWPE
Annual Export Reports. States should obtain copies of their OWPE Annual Export Reports
through the Regional CAP Coordinator. Exhibit D-1 is a typical OWPE Annual Export Report
for one state.
Page D-1
-------
Exhibit D-1
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report
AMNPAL REPORTS FOR SELECT STATE: MM
POR 1900
GENERATOR I.D. ID. NNDOM43WHW
1EHERATOR MAME fLCCTRO CliCUITS, IMC.
ADDRESS O'SMEA INWSTIUAt f»MK
64 PRIMROSE DRIVT
LACON1A , m O424S
TRAMSPORTfft 1 1.0, NO, MTOOOOOOOOOO
TKAMSKNtTER 2 I.D. NO.
CONSIGNEE I.D. NO.
HASTE NO.
WASTE DESCRIPTION
EPA BASTE NO.
WANTITY
WYD98O7564t5
1
MO EXPORT
F006
.00 T
NO. OF SHIPWMTS 0
VfAR OF HCPOR7: •
TRA»§I>0«TER 1 MAM
TRAMSraftTER 2 HAfl
COK&1GM1E NAME
DOT HAZARD CLASS
0
C MKNOMf
t
STABLEX CAM
; CNBC
i. M
GENERATOR I.D. NO.. _.~^_ „
SENffelTQfi NAME : ELECYROPAC CO.. IMC.
ADDRESS
TMMSPOKTEft 1 I.D.
TRANSPORT!* 2 1.0,
OON5IQMEE f.D. ND.
MO.
NO.
HASTE ND. ;
HASTE DESCRIPTION
• f?A WASTE NO.
QtMMTm
ND. OF SHIPMENTS
•AD06217B800
VEAft OF REPORT: OO
TRANSPORTER 1 NAME:
TRAMSPOdtTER 2 NAME:
NAME ;
JET-UME SEHVICfS
STABLE* CANAM, IMC.
METAL HYDROXIDE SUfMGE
F006
4O.6O T
4
DOT HAZATO GLASS
OfNEMATOR I.P. MO.
GEICRATOR MAME
ADDRESS
TKAWSPORrtR f I.D. MO
TIWMSMRTfR 2 1.0- NO.
CONSIGNEE 1.0. NO.
WASTE MO, :
WASTE DESCRIPTION
MHC»e&467223 VfAJi Of REPORT:
ntANKLIN MOMFERROUS FOUNDRY. IMC. '
f> Q 80X 35
ciub Hiti noiAfr,
FRANKLIN. MM .03295
EPA HASTE MO.
an?
MAD06O0303S6
NYWW075641S
1
HA2AMKNIS SOLID MASTE
0008
18.1BO.OO P
f
CONSIGNEE
DOT HAZARD CLASS
JEFFREY OeOCAL CO.
STA8LEX CJttMM, IMC.
IMC,
Page D-2
-------
Exhibit D-1
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report (continued)
ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SELECT STATE:
FOR I960
GENERATOR I.D. NO.
GENERATOR
NNDOOI42747S
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
31 INDUSTRIAL PARK
HOOKSETT. NH 03106
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D. NO.
TRANSPORTER 2 I.D. NO.
CONSIGNEE I.D, HO.
HASTE NO. :
HASTE DESCRIPTION
EPA HASTE NO.
QUANTITY
NO. OF SHinCHTS
MAD064614136
NYD9B075641S
METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE
rooe
I64.S40.00 P
V
YEAR Of REPORT: SO
TRANSPORTER f MANE:
TRANSPORTER 2 I
CONSIGNEE NAME
DOT HAZARD CLASS
FRANKLIN EM¥»ONMENTAL SERVICES, INC,
STABLE* CANADA, INC.
GENERATOR I.D. NO.
GENERATOR NAME
ADDRESS
NHD001O91073
BEMERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
130 HAIN STKEET
SOMERSMDRTH, MM 03*78
TWUBTORTER 1 I.D. NO.
IANSTORTER 2 I.D. NO.
^MSIGNEE I.D. NO.
HASTE 110. :
VASTE DESCRIPTION
EPA HASTE NO.
QUANTITY
NO, OF SHIPMENTS
HTOOQQOOOOOO
YEAR OF REPORT: 90
TRANSPORTER 1
TRANSPORTER 2
CONSIGNEE NAME
METAL FINISHING MASTEIW.TER TREATMENT SLU
FO06 DOT HAZARD CLASS
ee.seo.oo P
STABLEX CANADA. INC.
GENERATOR I
6ENERATOR N
ADDRESS
TRANSPOftfER
TRANSPORTER
CONSIGNEE I
.0. NO.
AME
1 1-D
2 I.D.
.0. HO.
NHD991302S22
MADOO CORPORATION
HUDSON DIVISION
21 FLAGSTONE DRIVE
MJDSON, NH 03051
NO. MA0062170890
NO. MADoeooaoasc
HYD06075641S
YEAR OF REPORT:
"
TRANSPORTER 1 W
TRANSPORTER 2 W
CONSIGNEE NAME
90
IME: JET-UNE SE
*ME: JCFT1CY CW
: STABLE! CAN
HASTE NO. :
WASTE DESCRIPTION
EPA HASTE NO.
QUANTITY
NO. OF SHIPMENTS
IMC.
INC.
METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE
F006
141.00 Y
8
DOT HAZARD CLASS
Page D-3
-------
Exhibit D-1
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report (continued)
AMHML REPORTS
LECT STATE; l«
fifNIRATOR I-D HO.
GENERATOR NME
ADDRESS
TRANSftPRTfR 1 t.D
TRAKSPQRTW 2 I.Q.
CONSIGNEE 1.0 MO,
*MDCO TICK CXNTEIt
7 MANOR WMKVAV
SALM, NN 03079
MO,
HO.
WASTE NO. ;
WASTE DESCRIPTION
EM HASTE NO.
QUART nv
N6. OF SHIPMENTS
•*0062t 70*90
TOW OF ftfPOftl:
TMMMiPQftTEft 1
rHAMSPORTER 2
CONSI6«E NAME
SHW1CZS
IMC.
METAL
F006
17,073.00
1
StUDQES
DOT mam CLASS
I-D. NO,
GENERATOR NMME
_ YEAR OF RETORT: SO
HI1CHINP NAMUFACTWUMG CO. .INC.
OLD WILTON ROAD. P.O. BOK 2001
HiLftMD, m mem
CTNSrG«E£ I.D. 1C.
m,
m.
•AM31213SO3
WASTE NO. ;
MSTC DESCRIPTION
€PJk tfASTf MO.
OUAWTITY
MO. OF SHIPMENTS
CORROSIVE SOLID
125,820.00 P
TRA«S«RT£ft 2 I
COKSICMEC HAMC
HOT HA2ARO CLASS
StffFOLK
STIkBLEX
com
IMC.
IMC.
GENERATOR I.D, NO,
GENERATOR IMAC
ADDRESS
MHDOOO
TK*
NASHUA
44 FRANKLIN
MASHUA. NN 090S1
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D. ND.
TRANSPORTER £ I.D. NO,
CONSIGNEE 1-0 NO.
HASH MO
EPATWASTE MD
OOAKTITY
NO. OF
YEAR Of REPORT: 10
HlA«5l»ORTf» !
TRANSPORTER 2 NAME:
CONSIGNEE
StHFPOUC SERVICES. PC,
STABLE* CAHAOA. IK.
CHROBC HYDROXIDE SLUDOC
F006
1
3.00
DOT HAZARD OJkSS
Page D-4
-------
Exhibit D-1
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report (continued)
ANNUAL RETORTS TOR SELECT STATE; MM
FOR 1890
GCNtftATO* 1.0. «,
GnEMTO
MPMfSS
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D.
TRANSPORTER 2 I.D
CONSIGNEE I.D. NO.
WASTE MO
HASTE A_
CM WASTE NO.
: TtlEDYNt
; *>.©, aox ee
no LOMfLL ROAD
HUDSON, MH 030S1
MO.: MA0062179WO
MO.:
i NVD88D7SM1S
MO. OF SH1MKNTS
W1
78,380.00
SUOGE
P
VCM Of MTfCMT; 00
TR*MSJ>0!trER 2 NMK
OM51GMEE
sarviccs
STAffLDC CMMBft. DC.
DOT HAZARD CLASS
RATOft 1.0
iWT
ADDRESS
MO.: WHD073974651
; TERAOVHE CIRCUITS DIVISION
; 4 PiTTSBURGH AV| .
MJI aaasa.
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D, NO.
T«AR5*OrrC8 2 I .It. MD.
CWSIGMEC I.D, 110.
•ASTE MO
«ASTE DESCRIPTION
EPA WASTE MO,
NO. OP SHIPMENTS
M0D6217W8D
YfAR OF REPORT: 00
TRANSPORTER 1
TRANSPORTER f
CONSIGNEE HAK
JETHJME SERVICES
STABLCX CANADA, IMC.
METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE
FO06
125.720.00 P
4
DOT
CLASS
GENERATOR 1
GENERATOR M
ADDRESS
,D.
AME
MO.
;8J
rtS RKJULATOR/WEBSTCR
: SOUTH MAIN STREET '
YEA* OF Iff PORT: 00
VALVE •
*».t», mm 43i .
TRANSPORTER
TRANSPORTER
CONSIGNEE I
1
1
.0.
1.0.
I.D.
MO.
nu
NO.
MO.
UJKUN. MH O32S5
NMDOta012S01
NVD9807S6415
TRANSPORTER
TRANSPORTER
1 HAjg
CONSIGNEE MAM
LABRAWOC.
STAULEX CAM
VASTE MO. ;
MASTE DESCRIPTION
CM HASTE «0.
QUANTITY
MO. Of SHIPMENTS
IMC,
IMC,
LEAD CONTAMINATED FOUMDKY SAND
DOOB DOT HAZARD aASS
32.00 V
2
Page D-S
-------
Exhibit D-1
Sample OWPE Annual Export Report (continued)
ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SELECT STATE:
FOR 1900
GENERATOR 1.0. MO.
GENERATOR MMB
ADDRESS
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D. MO
TRANSPORTER 2 I.D. NO.
CONSrGMEE I.D. NO.
HASTE MO. :
HASTE DESCRIPTION
EM WASTE MO.
QUANTITY
NO. OF SHIPMENTS
MTTS RE6ULATOR/HEBSTIR VAiVt
SOUTH MAIN STREET
P.O. BOX 431
FRANKLIN, NH 03335
¥IAR OF «tK*T: SO
TRANSPORTER 1 MANE: SERVICES SANITAIRES aLAlWILLE. IMC
TRANSPORTER 2 MAME:
CONSIGNEE NAME :
STABLE* CANADA, IMC.
LEAD CONTAMINATED FOUNDRY SAND
BOOB DOT HAZARD CLASS
1,049.00 *
GENERATOR J.O. NO.
GENERATOR MANE
ADDRESS
NWJ962203838
Z-TECH CORPORATION
B DO* ROAD
BOW. NH 09304
TRANSPORTER 1 I.D. MO.
TRANSPORTER 2 I.D. NO.
CONSIGNEE I.D. NO.
•TASTE NO. :
MASTE DESCRIPTION
Ef»A HASTE NO,
QUANTITY
NO. Of SHIPMENTS
NTOOOOOOOOOO
NO EXPORT
0002
YEAR OP REPORT: BO
CONSIGNEE
STABLE! CAHiPA. IMC.
.00
DOT HAZARD CLASS : CORA
Page D-6
-------
Foreign Receiving Facilities and Waste Management Services
OWPE maintains a database of the Annual Export Reports. It has provided, for 1990-
1992, a list of the foreign receiving facilities and the waste management services available at
those facilities, Exhibit D-2 is not comprehensive and should be used only as a guide in
assigning CAP Management Categories.
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports1
Anachemia Solvents, Ltd.
3549 Mavis Road
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada L5C 1T7
Anachemia, Inc.
135 Richer
Vitle St, Pierre
Quebec, Canada
Breslube Division of Safety-Kleen
P.O. Box 130
Regional Road 17
Breslau, Ontario NOB1MO
Capper Pass & Sons, Ltd,
North Ferriby
North Humberside
England
Catalyst Recovery of Canada, Ltd.
2159 Brier Park Place, N.W,
Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 7E3
Cominco Metals
Division of Comicon Ltd.
Trail, British Columbia
Canada
Solvent Reclamation, Possible Hazardous
Waste Fuels Program
Transfer Facility
Waste Oil Re-Refinery
Secondary Lead Smelter, Metals Recovery
Reclaim Refinery Catalyst
Primary Ore Smelter
Information obtained from National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
Page D-7
-------
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports (continued)
Davy McGee
Bowesfieid Lane
Stockton-Qn-Tees
Cleveland TS18 3HA
England
Degussa Ag-Geschaftsbereich,
Edelmetall-Handel Und-Scheidung
Postface 1345 Rodenbachen Chaussee 4
D-6450 Hanau (Stadtteif Wolfgang)
Ekokem Ltd
P.O. Box 181, SF-11101
Rilhimaki, Finland
Euromet
Hyde House
The Hyde
Edgeware Road
London, England
Falconbridge Ltd,
Sudbury Operations
Sudbury, Ontario
Canada POM 1SO
Hevmet Metal Recovery
203 Durham Street
Port Colborne, Ontario
Falconbridge Ltd.
Sudbury Operations
Sudbury, Ontario
Canada POM 1 SO
Hevmet Recovery Limited
203 Durham Street
Port colborne, Ontario
Canada L3K FW1
Hevmet Recovery Limited
80 Davis Street
Port Colbourne, Ontario
Canada L3K 5W1
Metals Reclamation
Metals Reclamation
Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Metals Recovery
Primary Nickel Smelter
Physical/Chemical Treatment, Metals
Reclamation
Primary Nickel Smelter
Physical/Chemical Treatment, Metals
Reclamation
Physical/Chemical Treatment, Metals
Reclamation
Page D-8
-------
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports (continued)
Johnson Matthey PLC
Orchard Road, Royston
Hertfordshire SG8 5HE
England
L'Environment Eaglebrook Quebec Ltd
3405 Boulevard Maire-Victorin
Varennes, Quebec J3X 1T6
Canada
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Mercier)
1294 Blvd. Ste-Marguerite
Vilte Mercier, Quebec
Canada H6R 2L1
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Quebec)
C.P. 280, 5E Range
Thurso, Quebec
Canada JOX 3BO
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Quebec)
6785 Route 132
CP 5900
Ville St. Catherine, Quebec
Canada JOL 1EO
Laidlaw Environmental Services (Sarnia)
RR#1
Corunna, Ontario
Canada NON 4B1
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Ltd,
1B29 Altenport Road
P.O. Box 188
Thorold, Ontario
Canada L2V 3Y9
Metafeurop GMBH
Rammeisberger Str. 2,
P.O. Box 2330/2340
D-3380 Goslar, Germany
Precious Metals Reclamation
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Transfer
Station
Transfer Station
Transfer Station
Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Landfill,
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Lab Pack Incinerator, Repackaging of Lab
Packs for Transfer to Other TSDFs
Metals Recovery
Page D-9
-------
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports (continued)
Metaieurop GMBH
Rammelsberger Str. 2,
P.O. Box 2330/2340
D-3380 Goslar, Germany
Metaieurop, S.A,
Peripole 118 58
Rue Roger Salengro
94126 Fontenay-Sous-Bois CEDEX
France
Metaliurgie Hoboken Overpelt Co.
Adolf Greinerstraat 14
B2710 Hoboken, Belgium
MHO S.A.
Rue Dumarais 31 Broekstraat
Bruxelles, Belgium
NE Chemcat Corporation
4-1 Hamamatsucho 2-Chome
Minato-KU, Tokyo
Japan
NIFE AB
S-572-01
Oskarshamn, Sweden
Nippon Rate Metal, Inc.
1200 Nakayama OHO
Midort-KU, Yokohama
Japan
Noranda Minerals, Inc.
Division of Home & Chadbourne
150 Portelance
P.O. Box 4000
Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec
Noranda Mines
Mines Gaspe Division
Murdockville, Quebec
Canada
Metals Recovery
Metals Recovery
Precious Metals Recovery
Precious Metals Recovery
Metals Reclamation
Nickel-Cadmium Metals Reclamation
Precious Metals Reclamation
Primary Copper Smelter
Metals Reclamation
Page D-10
-------
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports (continued)
Nova PB Inc.
1200 Rue Gamier St.
Ville Ste-Catherine
Quebec, Canada JOL 130
Outokumpu Oy/Metallurgy Division
P.O. box26S.F. 67101
Kokkola, Finland
Secondary Lead Smelter
Quay Minerals, Ltd.
Flixborough
South Humberside
England
DN 158RT
S.NAM
Rue De La Garenne
Z.I. De Chesnes Tharabie
B.P. 733 - 38297 st Quentin Fallavier
Cedex - France
Saft Nife AB
S-572-01
Qskarshamn, Sweden
St. Lawrence Cement, Inc.
2391 Lakeshore Road West
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada L5J 1K1
Stablex Canada, Inc.
760 Industrial Blvd.
Btainville, Quebec
Canada J7C 3V4
Systech Environmental Corporation
P.O. Box 218, Lafarge Road
Ste, Constant, Quebec
Canada JOL 1X0
Ticor Technology Ltd
4623 Byrne Road
Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada U5J 3H6
Physical/Chemical Treatment, Metals
Reclamation
Metals Reclamation from Refractory Brick
Nickel/Cadmium Battery Processing,
Metals Reclamation
Nickel/Cadmium Metals Reclamation
Cement Manufacturer Using Hazardous
Waste Fuel
Chemical/Physical Treatment, Waste
Solidification, Landfill
Hazardous Waste Fuel Blender Transfer
Station
Thermal Treatment for Recovery of Paint
Pigment Components
Page D-11
-------
Exhibit D-2
Active Foreign Receivers For 1990-1992
Hazardous Waste Exports (continued)
Waith Aluminum
Moore Lane - Wath of Deorne
South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Zinc Nacional SA
Hidalgo Re 674
APDQ Postal #985
Monterrey, Neuvo Leon
Mexico
Metals Reclamation
Thermal Treatment of Emissions Control
Dust from Electric Arc Furnace at Steel
Mills for Recovery of Zinc Oxide, Cadmium
and Lead Sulfate
Page D-12
-------
APPENDIX E.
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
-------
APPENDIX E. CONVERSION FACTORS
Exhibit E-1 presents the conversion factors that should be used to convert the
quantities reported in the 1991 Biennial Report to short tons (i.e., English tons). Convert
quantities to short tons by multiplying the reported quantities by the appropriate conversion
factor. If the quantities provided in the Biennial Report are given as volumetric quantities, the
volume should be converted to weight using the provided density and then converted to short
tons,
Exhibit E-1
Conversion Factors for Converting 1991 Biennial Report
Quantities to Short Tons
Unit of Measure
Pound
Short ton (2,000 Ibs)
Kilogram
Metric ton (1 ,000 kgs)
Conversion Factor8
0.000500
1 .000000
0.001102
1.102311
8 Multiply quantity by conversion factor to convert to
short tons.
Example:
100,000 metric tons X 1.102311 short tons/metric tons = 110,231.1 short tons
Page E-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX F.
REGULATORY CHANGE
PROJECTIONS
-------
-------
F.1 BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES RULE
The Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) Rule set
emission levels for toxic metals, participate matter, chlorine, and hydrogen chloride and
removal efficiency requirements for toxic organics, dioxins, and furans. The BIF rule could
affect both the demand for and supply of hazardous waste management capacity.
By August 21, 1991, owners or operators must have submitted to EPA Regional or
state offices a certification of precompliance stating that, based on engineering judgment,
their units meet the requirements of the rule. H owners or operators did not meet this
deadline, they were required to stop all hazardous waste burning at the facility and
commence closure of the BIF. Owners or operators that certified precompliance had until
August 21, 1992 to conduct tests and install monitoring equipment to certify compliance with
full interim status requirements or request an extension.
Analysis conducted by EPA on how the BIF rule would affect treatment capacity
indicates that large BiFs already have or will install emissions control equipment that can
meet the requirements of the rule; therefore, they will likely continue burning hazardous
wastes. Smaller BIFs, however, may not be able to economically justify installing emissions
control equipment and would therefore stop burning hazardous wastes, (EPA, however, has
not estimated the recent or expected increase or decrease of BIF capacity for burning
hazardous wastes.) As a resutt of on-site and captive BIF closures, hazardous waste
management may shift to captive or commercial facilities.
Although EPA is not requiring it, states may want to evaluate the effect of the BIF rule
on Subtitle C hazardous waste management capacity and demand. In some states, there
may actually be significant increases in BIF capacity, which the state may want to include in
its projections of hazardous waste management capacity. BIF capacity should be counted in
the energy recovery CAP Management Category.
Potential BIF Rule Data Sources
States that decide to examine the impact of the BIF rule should consider using the
following data sources.
Facility Compliance Information
The BIF rule requires owners and operators of BIFs to meet new standards while
operating under interim status or when applying for or operating under a RCRA permit.
Certifications of precompliance and compliance must be submitted to EPA Regional or state
1 56 Federal Register 7134, February 21, 1991.
Page F-l
-------
offices by the established deadlines: August 1991 for precompliance, August 1992 for
compliance, or August 1993 for compliance, if a one-year extension is requested. These
certifications, used in conjunction with the information from the Biennial Report, will allow
states to determine which BIFs have closed, intend to close, or have recently come on line.
EPA and state enforcement offices may also have useful information on BIF compliance
status.
RCRA Information System Database (RCRIS). U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.
RCRIS is a national database for tracking facilities that handle hazardous wastes.
RCRIS contains data on facilities regulated under RCRA, some exempt sites, some closed
sites, as well as non-notifiers, which are sites that did not notify EPA of hazardous waste
activities, but which were discovered to be handling hazardous wastes. RCRIS contains
specific information on the type of facility, waste management processes, capacity, waste
handling, and quantities of waste handled. RCRIS tracks the facilities through their cycle of
activities (i.e., operating, closure, and post-closure care). In addition, it allows EPA Regions
and states to group facilities into industrial process categories, which allows authorities to
make generalizations about particular groups affected by the BIF rule. RCRIS also contains
data about enforcement activities at facilities, including records of facility reviews, on-site
inspections, violations, and any corrective actions.
Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Newly Listed Wastes and
Contaminated Debris to Support 40 CFR 268 Land Disposal Restrictions (Final
Rule) (Volume 1). U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. June 1992.
This background document provides general information on the rulemaking and
facility-specific hazardous waste generation and management information on newly listed
Phase I wastes other than petroleum refining wastes and contaminated debris. The
document includes a chapter on commercial treatment capacity that contains facility-specific
data on cement kiln and incinerator capacity.
Page F-2
-------
F.2 FUTURE REGULATORY CHANGES
This section contains information as of March 1993 on the Phase II and III land
disposal restrictions, EPA is providing this information to states to alert them to potential
changes in regulations that may have to be accounted for in future CAPs. States should note
that court rulings on litigation involving EPA regulations may affect the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) program and may lead to changes in the following information.
LDRs for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes and Contaminated Soil -
Phase II
Phase II LDRs would restrict the land disposal of the following wastes; (1) wastes that
have been recently identified as characteristically hazardous due to the presence of 25
organic constituents identified in the recent toxicity characteristic (TC) rule (D018-D043); (2)
coke and coke by-product wastes (K141-K148); (3) ehlorotoluene wastes (K149-K151); and
(4) soil contaminated with the above wastes,2 The rule may also modify existing standards
for soil contaminated with listed wastes.
EPA expects TC wastes and contaminated soils to be the most significant wastes for
the Phase II LDRs. (As already indicated, estimates for contaminated soils will be developed
by EPA.) The primary source of capacity-related data for TC wastes is the draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Background Information Documents being prepared for the TC
rulemaking. Based on currently available information, EPA estimates that 50,000 tons of TC
organic liquid wastes are generated annually; however, the amount of these wastes requiring
commercial treatment is uncertain. Approximately 2 million tons of sludges and slurries
exhibiting TC are generated annually. There is, however, uncertainty in how much of the total
sludge and slurry quantity exhibit TC for organic constituents (some of the sludges and
slurries may exhibit TC for inorganic constituents), and how much of these wastes require
commercial treatment. EPA is considering options for specifying treatment based on
technology type or concentration; therefore, the treatment technologies that will be used for
these TC wastes is uncertain at this time.
LDRs for Newly Identified and Listed Wastes - Phase HI
Phase III LDRs would restrict the land disposal of the following wastes: (1) wood
preserving wastes generated by the wood preserving industry (FQ32, F034, and F035); (2)
spent potliners removed from electrolytic cells at primary aluminum reduction facilities (K088);
- 56 Federal Register 55160, October 24, 1991.
Page F-3
-------
and (3) listed mineral processing wastes generated from the processing of ores and minerals
(K064, KQ65, K066, K090, and K091), H relisted. In Phase III, EPA will also develop treatment
standards for newly identified characteristic mineral processing wastes. Many of the waste
streams were considered special wastes by the generators and were assumed to be excluded
by RCRA Subtitle C requirements until EPA conducted a study of mineral processing wastes.
In 1989, EPA identified the mineral processing wastes that are excluded from Subtitle C
requirements. EPA believes that over 250 "newly identified" characteristic mineral processing
wastes are currently subject to Subtitle C requirements.3
Data on Phase III wastes are incomplete. EPA is currently collecting data on these
wastes from industry in preparation for the proposed LDR rule for Phase III wastes.
According to preliminary EPA analyses, about 635,000 tons of F032, F034, and F035 wastes
are generated annually. EPA is currently requesting information from industry to determine
the quantity of wood preserving wastes that will be affected by LDRs. Preliminary
assessments of treatment methods indicate that organic wood preserving wastes will likely
undergo thermal destruction prior to land disposal, and inorganic wood preserving wastes will
probably require recovery and stabilization as treatment.
EPA estimates that about 130,000 tons of spent potliners are generated every year.
Of this amount, about 105,000 tons will require treatment once the Phase III LDRs become
effective. Since spent potiiners are primarily large blocks of carbon containing fluoride and
cyanide, these wastes will most likely affect capacity requirements for thermal destruction
(e.g., incineration or fuel substitution).
EPA has also requested information on the generation and management of
characteristic and listed mineral processing wastes. These wastes are hazardous because
they contain toxic metals or are corrosive. EPA expects that treatment of mineral processing
wastewaters wilt affect capacity requirements for chemical precipitation, reverse osmosis,
cation exchange, and electrolysis technologies, while treatment of mineral processing
nonwastewaters will affect capacity requirements for stabilization, high temperature thermal
recovery, and hydrometallurgical technologies.
Ibid,
Page F-4
-------
APPENDIX G.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
-------
-------
G.1 APPROACHES FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE WASTE
MINIMIZATION
This section provides more detailed guidance on alternative approaches that states
can use to estimate future waste minimization efforts. EPA will evaluate states' forecasts as
discussed in Chapter 4 of this Guidance document. As introduced in Chapter 4, there are at
least three approaches that states may find helpful for developing estimates of the future
reduction in industrial generation of hazardous waste;
* Generator surveys;
• Engineering literature reviews; and
• Historical data.
These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, it may be in a state's best
interest to pursue more than one approach and to use the data from one source to verity
another.
Some of the approaches described in this Guidance may require a significant level of
effort to derive estimates. As a result, groups of slates may wish to work collectively in order
to support a more substantial waste minimization analysis than any single state might
undertake on its own. In addition, collective efforts among states may offer some economies
of scale for analysis.
Generator surveys provide information on what generators themselves predict they
can accomplish in reducing waste generation. When properly designed and executed,
generator surveys can provide reasonable estimates of the future potential to reduce waste
generation.
Engineering literature reviews can provide information on the potential for reducing
waste in a particular industry and process, but cannot confirm whether generators have yet
achieved any of this potential. Engineering literature reviews are often an important starting
point for any projection effort. They are useful to initiate an on-going dialogue with key
generators and form the basis for more robust approaches for estimating waste reduction
potential.
Analysis of historical data provides some insight into an industry's potential to
reduce waste, depending on the strength of the methodology, but the results should be
validated. As discussed in section 4.2, there are limitations with analysis of historical data.
Without field validation, it could be difficult to accurately project future waste minimization
based on past information. Data analysis also is relatively resource intensive, but can be
accomplished with existing sources of data, Data analysis may be the most feasible
Page G-1
-------
approach to estimate waste reduction potential for a large number of facilities within a wide
variety of industries.
These approaches, applied to varying degrees, provide a system for producing
reasonable projections of waste minimization.
Generator Survey/Plan
Many states have found that generators themselves may be reliable sources of
information on future levels of waste reduction. Critical to the usefulness of generator survey
results, however, are a well-structured survey instrument, a statistically sound sampling plan
(or a census of key industries), and corroborating questions that provide a check on the
generators' understanding of the questions and presentation of answers.
Description of Surveys
A survey is a systematic way to collect information about the characteristics of an
entire population by contacting and interviewing efther all of Its members or only a sample of
the members of that population. To estimate future waste minimization efforts, surveys could
be used to gather information on the potential to reduce generation of hazardous waste at
the facility and process levels.1 In cases where relatively few facilities generate the majority
of a state's waste, a survey can be designed and conducted to produce results similar to that
of a census. In fact, data from EPA's 1986 Generator Survey showed that 20 percent of all
facilities generate 80 percent or more of all waste, suggesting that this approach could be
appropriate for some states. Depending on the concentration of waste generation among
facilities in a particular state, it may be advantageous to contact only the largest generators
and use these results to develop a reliable projection of the future potential to reduce waste
statewide.
In cases where waste generation is more evenly distributed across a large number of
industries and facilities within industries, the survey design should incorporate statistically
valid sampling approaches to ensure that the sample results are representative of the target
population. This method requires some form of random sampling. If a random sample is
used, it is important that projections regarding the entire target population derived from these
data are statistically valid.
Information is collected using a survey instrument or questionnaire that includes
explicit instructions and a script or protocol of individual questions. Questions may be either
open-ended (i.e., allowing flexibility in response), or closed-ended (i.e., responses to be
drawn from among a finite group of choices). This structure makes the interview process
more efficient and increases the consistency and comparability of responses. The
questionnaire and its questions should be designed to render the respondent able and willing
to answer as completely and accurately as possible, minimize the burden on the respondent,
and ensure there is no misunderstanding about the meanings intended by either the
1 While process level knowledge is not strictly essential, it may be helpful if states wish to compare
survey results with information from other approaches (e.g. a review of engineering literature).
Page G-2
-------
interviewer or the respondent, Responses may be qualitative or quantitative, One advantage
of the sample survey is that quantitative projections or inferences about an entire population
can be based on the responses of a sample.
In the past, states have administered waste minimization surveys successfully using
three basic methods or a combination of these methods:
• Mail surveys with self-administered questionnaires;
* Telephone surveys using trained interviewers; and
• On-site visits using personal interview techniques.
One particularly effective combination is a mail survey with telephone follow-up.
Engineering Literature Review
A review of engineering literature provides information on technological and economic
opportunities for certain industries to reduce the generation of certain types of wastes.
Typically, the literature contains process-specific profiles that include the following types of
information:
• Description of the industry, process, and product, including a flow
diagram of the process;
• Descriptions of the waste reduction alternatives employed, including as
appropriate, discussions on process modification, product or input
substitution, materials recovery and recycling, and housekeeping
adjustments;
* Waste reduction potential for each of the above, in terms of the
expected percent reduction or tons reduced of specific EPA
waste-types;
* Description of the process or other engineering modifications necessary
to achieve reduction;
• Economics of waste reduction alternatives;
• Limitations and constraints on waste reduction alternatives;
t Applicability to other industries and processes; and
f References for additional information.
Page G-3
-------
Purpose of a Review of the Engineering Literature
A review of the engineering literature can help to verify the validity of waste reduction
forecasts made for a particular industry and waste stream. The engineering literature typically
provides case studies that detail what an exemplary facility achieved try implementing waste
minimization techniques. Such case studies usually provide a high estimate of the waste
reduction potential for the particular process and waste type. This estimate can serve as an
upper bound to evaluate whether a projected reduction is technologically and economically
feasible.
Limitations of a Review of the Engineering Literature
While a review of the engineering literature can suggest the potential for waste
reduction, it does not provide sufficient information to project waste reduction. For example,
a review of the engineering literature may not provide (1) facility-specific information for
facilities in a particular state, (2) data on waste reduction activities already being undertaken
by facilities in a particular state, or (3) information to assess the range of possible reductions
across an industry,
Facility Specific Information. While the engineering literature is specific in that it
often reports actual achievements of a specific process at a specific facility, the literature
provides only general guidance across an industry. Ranges of reductions are typically not
provided to account for the variations across different facilities in that industry. For this
reason, it would be inappropriate to use the information provided by the review alone to
judge the validity of industry-wide estimates of future waste reductions. Instead, information
provided by the review should be used as a basis to develop a dialogue with the facilities in
the state to better evaluate the validity of projections.
Basis for Making Projections. As noted above, literature profiles alone are
insufficient to project waste reduction at the state level. The information provided by the
review, taken alone, does not indicate whether and to what extent an industry has already
adopted waste reduction opportunities. If, for example, the literature suggests that a process
in a particular industry can achieve 90 percent reduction of a K047 waste stream over the
next five years, but many facilities in that industry have -already begun to use this process,
then the potential future reduction overall is well below 90 percent.
Again, the engineering literature provides an upper bound, which may be useful to
improve the understanding of facility-specific information as it is gathered from other sources.
Range of Possible Reduction Levels. The literature typically provides a high-end
estimate of potential waste minimization for an exemplary facility; therefore, the information
provided by the review of the engineering literature does not adequately characterize the
range in levels of reduction for all facilities in a particular industry. Facility-specific data may
be a more appropriate source of such information.
Sources for Engineering Literature
EPA has identified the following information sources for states gathering industry-level
engineering literature for evaluating the feasibility of waste minimization projections:
Page G-4
-------
National Source
EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Exchange
System (PIES) is a 24-hour computerized national
database containing literature and case studies for 4-digit
SIC industries.
Regional Sources
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
(HWRIC), a division of the Hiinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources, operates a user-friendly
computerized case study database (WRAS), which is in
the process of being merged with PIES;
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison houses the Great
Lakes Technical Resource Library (GLTRL), which uses
1NMAGIC library software as a personal computer (PC)
interface;
Northeast Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program
(NEMPP) provides pollution prevention information to the
public, industry representatives, and state officials
throughout the Northeast, NEMPP plans to make all of
the information in their clearinghouse available in a
section of PIES called the Northeast Mini-Exchange;
Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research
Center, is a non-profit public-private partnership
dedicated to the goal of furthering pollution prevention in
the Pacific Northwest. Currently, the Center has a limited
amount of literature on waste reduction potential, but is
actively seeking to expand its holdings through
cooperative alliances with other state and regional
sources of information, such as universities, state
technical assistance programs, and private industry; and
Waste Reduction Resource Center for the Southeast
(WRRC), housed in North Carolina, provides multimedia
waste reduction support for the eight states of U.S. EPA
Region IV. The Center has a collection of technical waste
reduction information from the national level, all 50 states,
and numerous private sources.
Page G-5
-------
Analysis of Historical Data
Taking into account the limitations discussed in section 4.2, analysis of past and
current waste generation characteristics of generators, combined with field validation, may be
useful to help assess the future potential for individual generators (or industries as a whole) to
reduce waste. There are many types of data analyses that can be designed to reveal insights
about waste reduction potential and may be most useful in conjunction with surveys or other
tools.
The following sections describe two alternative types of data analyses. The first is a
cross-sectional analysis that compares waste generating characteristics of similar facilities
across industries. The second is a time-series analysis that calculates trends in waste
reduction accomplishments at a single facility over a period of time using data from the
Biennial Report.
Cross-sectional Analysis
Cross-sectional analysis has two components: (1) a statistical comparison of the
relative production efficiencies of apparently similar facilities producing similar products and
similar waste streams, but different rates of waste generation per unit of product, and (2) field
validation of the inferences drawn from the statistical comparison. Its usefulness as a tool to
project future potential to reduce waste generation is based on the assumption that some
firms have already implemented waste minimization efforts and others have not. Differences
in waste generation characteristics among firms in the same hdustry may give some
indication of unrealized opportunities for waste reduction. The more efficient facilities provide
some indication of where others in the industry may reasonably be expected to be at some
time in the future.
The first step in analyzing differences between facilities is collecting the necessary raw
data on how much waste was produced by each firm in a base year, broken down by the
type of waste and industry. Sources of such data include the Biennial Report, state annual
generator surveys, manifest data, or other surveys. States will also need facility-level output
data, which typically must be added from state sources of industrial economic information,
such as economic development commissions, bureaus of labor or economic statistics, or
state business councils.
Of course, not all of the differences in waste generation characteristics at similar plants
are attributable to the prior adoption of waste reduction techniques. Other explanations could
include errors: (1) in reporting industrial category, (2) in rates of waste generation, and (3) in
identification of the type of waste. In addition, not all of the differences in unit waste
generation characteristics across similar plants can be counted as potential opportunity for
waste reduction. Even with favorable economics and ready access to information regarding
what technologies or techniques to use to reduce waste generation, some generators may
never make the needed changes.
The key to the ultimate usefulness of cross-sectional analysis as a tool for projecting
estimates of future waste minimization is the extent to which a state conducts follow-up
activities designed to evaluate how much of the statistical difference in waste generation
characteristics is attributable to potential waste reduction and how much of this potential can
Page G-6
-------
be realized. Even where statistical inferences regarding the relative efficiencies of two or
more plants are unclear, differences in unit waste generation characteristics provide states
with insights that may be useful in a targeted technical assistance program. For example,
states may be able to transfer information regarding waste reduction opportunities from the
more efficient facilities to the less efficient ones.
Cross-sectional analysis is more useful for some industries than for others. In certain
industries, for example, facility-level waste generation rates differ largely because some
facilities have already employed waste reduction techniques including changes in equipment,
processes, product design, choice of inputs, and housekeeping practices. To the extent that
facilities producing the most waste per unit of product are able to imitate the practices of
those facilities that produce the least waste per unit of product, statistical analysis of waste
generation rates allows states to observe differences in facilities. Exhibit G-1 compares
conditions under which cross-sectional analysis would and would not be useful in projecting
waste minimization.
Exhibit G-1
Usefulness of Statistical Analysis in Projecting Waste Minimization
Criterion
Number of Facilities in
the Specific Industry
Type of Waste
Nature of Product
Information Available
on Product Output
Number of Industries
Requiring Analysis
Indicates High Usefulness
More than Five
K, P, and U Waste Streams
Single-Product Industry
Actual Measures of Output of Product
Many {i.e., > 20)
Indicates Low Usefulness
Fewer than Five
0 and F Waste Streams
Multiple Products All Under Same SIC
Code
Only Indirect Indicators (e.g.,
Employment, Sales, and Value added)
Few (i.e., < 20)
The key component of the cross-sectional statistical approach is the comparison
across facilities of unit waste generation factors (i.e., units of waste per unit of product) for
each type of waste generated by the industry in question. While there are various ways to
conduct this analysis, the following steps illustrate one approach:
For each waste type in a given industry (so-called "industry-waste pairs"):
• Select data that exclude waste types with fewer than roughly five
facilities.
* Compute facility-level "R" factors (i.e., units of waste generated per
unit of product}.
• Rank facilities from lowest to highest R factor.
Page G-7
-------
* Segment facilities. Depending on the number of observations, divide
facilities into groups that represent a range in values, With five or more
facilities, quartiles - four groups with the same number of facilities in
each group - may be useful.
• Estimate potential for reductions under various scenarios. Assume
a range of scenarios for waste minimization. One such choice is low,
medium, and high, where facilities with high R factors pursue waste
reduction sufficiently over the planning period to attain lower R factors,
The choices of which facilities, how much waste reduction they achieve,
and over what period are somewhat arbitrary at this stage of the
planning process.
• Translate changes in R factors to tons of waste reduced and
aggregate at the industry level. Based on changes in the R factor at
each facility, add reductions in tons -- not tons per unit of product - to
find total tonnage reduction for the industry-waste pair as a whole.
• Validate projections with experts and literature. Adjust the results of
this statistical analysis based on estimates from industry experts and
engineering process analysis. Determine time period over which
reduction can reasonably be expected to take place. Focus groups of
industry experts may be useful to facilitate this field verification process.
• Incorporate validated results in re-estimates of potential waste
reduction for all applicable industry waste type pairs. Re-estimate
potential tons reduced for each industry waste type pair of Interest.
Time-Series Analysis of Biennial Report Form 1C and GM Data
Analysis of information reported on Forms 1C and GM of the Biennial Report,
combined with field validation, also may be useful for projections. These forms ask
generators to provide information regarding changes in production from the previous year to
the reporting year and the actual tons of waste generated in each year. For all generators
that complete these forms, waste reduction accomplishments could be estimated using the
following formula;
Percentage
Waste Reduced = (P x Q1992) - Q1993
p x Q1992
where P = Production Ratio = Units of Product
Between 1992/1993 Produced in 1993
Units of Product
Produced in 1992
Page G-B
-------
Q1992 = Tons of Waste Generated in 1992
Q1993 - Tons of Waste Generated in 1993
Waste reduction between the previous year and the reporting year is calculated as the
difference between what would have been generated strictly on the basis of changes in
production levels, assuming no changes in process technology, and what was actually
generated.
This approach requires less data and analysis than does the cross-sectional analysis,
Its usefulness, however, is directly related to whether a sufficient number of the generators
report the necessary information and whether the analytical results are validated in the field.
In addition, because this type of analysis considers only the changes made at a single facility
over time, it may be difficult to extrapolate results from that facility to the entire industry
without combining this analysis with other approaches. Time series analysis is quite useful,
however, for measuring progress in attaining waste reduction goals. Hence, time series
studies may be an appropriate method to demonstrate progress under the criteria.
Page G-9
-------
------- |