BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT, SUBTITLE C
This document (ras. 19*+1.1) provides background information
and support for EPA's hazardous waste regulations
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
April 1980
-------
« J277•i0"
R£?OKT DCC'JMENTATION , '• no. ; 2.
PAGE! r 1 f !
Z. Actt-jpon No.
PHI 181471'
Tin. .rvj sot!t.« Regulatory Analysis of the Resource conservation
and Recovery Act, Subtitle C
l"Tprfl 1980
6-
7. A»jthor(^
8. PtHorminf R«p'.. So
T9TM-
9. Pe^oTn.ng Or£anix®fic«i N#fr%« *r>c Adores*
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Solid Waste
10. rf"Of©ct/T«»k/Wo'te Un/t No.
31. CwTtract(C) or Gn»r*to*onf»g Njm* an<> AAJtss
same as above
i
IZ- Typ« of Re pet & Peri-^d Co^.TC
Indefinite
14,
IS* Notes |
i.i. dim.r. is>: wor-,1 -'T'nis r.ccu:rs?rt is one cf a series providing support for regulations
issued by the U.S. Ervircr.nsr.t*! Protection Agency (EPA) under"Subtitle C of the P.esc-rcc
Conservation end Recovery Act (RCHA). Ins regulations represent the initial effort for
nationwide; control of hazardous waste frox, point of generation, through • transportation,
treatment, and storage, ic poirt ultimate disposal.
The purpose of this analysis is not to raise issues amply discussed in the Preambles
i accompanying the regulations. Rather, it summarizes the alternatives considered and
selected for the regulations and the impacts of the regulations.
\\
\
s
\
17. Oocumea! A*safy*i* a. Dv«mp4on
b. Id«ntifier5/0>fn Ended T«mi
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations
Hazardous waste regulatory analysis
e. C0SA7I Held/Group
i
-
19. Security CUu ffh>» P»;>vT)
21. No. of P»g*^
i
20, S*cun:y CiJ~J (Thli Psa»)
22. Pnti
(Se* ANSV-.U9.lfi)
S^« MWjCtKMM O
/» A\»—
^ OrriOHAL FORM 272
(Fo^r^'ly NTlS-35)
C*p»ftmorTt yt Comr-ifXi
-------
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Alternatives Considered and Selected 5
a. General Alternatives 6
Types of Regulation 7
Stringency Levels 9
Phasing 11
b. Hazardous Waste Definition 14
Characteristics and Lists 14
Exclusions 17
c. Generators 21
d. Transporters 22
e. Facilities 25
f. Notification 30
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 32
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 38
a. Benefits 38
b. Costs 42
RESOURCE IMPACT 52
REPORTS IMPACT 54
EVALUATION PLAN 60
-------
INTRODUCTION
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"
or "the Act"), creates a regulatory framework to control hazardous
waste, now and in the future. These rules and those promulgated
under the authority of Sections 3002, 3003, 3005, and 3006
of the Act are required to implement the hazardous waste
management program.
EPA has information on 400 cases of the harmful con-
sequences of inadequate hazardous waste management. These
cases include incidences of surface water and ground-water
contamination, direct contact poisoning, various forms of
air pollution, and damage from fires and explosions. Nationwide,
half of all drinking water is supplied from ground-water
sources and in some areas contamination of ground-water resources
currently poses a threat to public health. EPA studies of a
number of generating industries in 1975 showed that approximately
90% of the potentially hazardous waste generated by those
industries was managed by practices which were not adequate
for protection of human health and the environment.
Recently, EPA established a program to deal with the ret-
rospective problem of uncontrolled hazardous waste facilities
(i.e., those which are inactive, abandoned, and causing problems).
1
-------
EPA believes that about 50,000 facilities have accepted
hazardous waste for disposal in the past. Of these, EPA
estimates that perhaps 2,000 have the potential for some
degree of impact on human health and the environment, and
that about 100 of that number currently present a significant
potential threat to man and the environment. The latter facil-
ities are under investigation by Federal and State authorities.
This Subtitle is designed to regulate hazardous waste man-
agement using a pathways approach. This approach regulates
the path and destination of any waste found to be hazardous
without particular attention to any particular industry. It is
basically different from that used to regulate air and water
pollution where pollutants sources are more easily identified
and where specific standards can be written and adjusted for
each industry.
part 261 of the FCRA Subtitle C regulations provides a
definition of hazardous waste by establishing general character-
istics and, where possible, test protocols for ignitible,
corrosive, reactive, and toxic waste, and by listing specific
hazardous wastes. This rule thereby defines the scope of the
regulatory program. EPA estimates that about 10 percent by
weight of all industrial waste is brought into the hazardous
waste control program by this definition.
Subtitle C requires that standards be established for gen-
erators (Part 262), transporters {Part 263), and the owners and
operators of facilities which treat, store, or dispose of
2
-------
hazardous waste (Parts 264 and 265). The link that will make
these separate standards a system of hazardous waste control
is the manifest system that is required by Section 3002 of RCRA.
The manifest system will make possible tracking of individual
waste loads from the generator to the ultimate destination of
the hazardous waste.
RCRA specifies that the owners and operators of facilities
which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste obtain a
permit, whether these activities take place at the site of
waste generation or off-site at another facility. Generators
who store hazardous waste on-site for less than 90 days prior
to shipment off-site, or who do not treat or dispose of
hazardous waste on-site, and transporters do not need permits.
Parts 122 and 124 of the Subtitle C regulation series specify
the administrative procedures for application for, and issuance,
denial, and revocation of, hazardous waste facility permits.
These regulations are part of EPA's Consolidated Permit Program
which is being promulgated separately.
As a result of numerous comments subsequent to the proposal
of RCRA Section 3004 regulations in December 1978, the Agency
has concluded that more study and analysis will be required
to develop and support many of the national "technical" standards
which will prescribe the design and construction of facilities.
The Agency has chosen therefore to promulgate the regulations
covering waste management facilities on a phased basis.
Phase T includes primarily the requirements which are incumbent
3
-------
upon facilities during the interim status period (between the
effective date of the regulations and final action on a permit),
plus most of the administrative requirements for permitted
facilities. Since the general technical standards will be
lacking, it will not be possible to grant permits until
Phase II of the regulations for waste management facilities
are issued later this year.
It is EPA's responsibility under RCRA Subtitle C to develop
through these standards and the manifest and permit system a
comprehensive national system of hazardous waste control. This
system is intended by Congress to be implemented through the
States where States have programs which are equivalent to the
Federal program. For this purpose, EPA is developing guidelines
for judging the equivalency of State programs (Part 123) and
for allocating grant funds to State programs (Part 35). Imple-
mentation of the hazardous waste program through the States
effectively increases the resources available and should result
in better protection of human health and the environment.
In addition to the rules described above, EPA has issued a
Federal Register Notice (45 FR 39: 12746-12754) describing
the requirements for Preliminary NTotification under Section
3010 of the Act, and providing a form for such notification
which may be used to satisfy those requirements. EPA estimates
that about 72,000 hazardous waste generators, transporters,
and facility owners or operators must notify EPA of their
activities. Use of the EPA notification form will provide a
4
-------
uniform format for data suitable for computer processing.
This Regulatory Analysis covers not only the regulations
promulgated in this action (i.e., 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 265),
but also two previously promulgated regulations, i.e., the
requirements for generators under Part 263, and the notification
procedure under Section 3010 of RCRA. The general status
standards for facilities (Part 264) will be covered by a separate
analysis which will accompany the Phase II regulations.
The purpose of this Regulatory Analysis is not to raise
issues amply discussed in the Preambles accompanying the regula-
tions. Rather, this analysis will summarize the regulatory
alternatives considered and selected for the RCRA Subtitle C
regulations and the impacts of the regulations. Readers desiring
additional information are urged to refer to the appropriate
Preambles or Background Documents, or to the Environmental
and Economic Impact Analyses which are available at EPA Regional
libraries and at the EPA headquarters library, Room 2404(M), Water-
side Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. This
regulatory analysis coupled with the many supporting documents
complies with the requirements of Executive Order No. 12044.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND SELECTED
A number of regulatory alternatives for Subtitle C are
creneral in nature and cut across the entire program. Others
are specific to a particular regulation. The general alterna-
tives are discussed first followed by major alternatives for
specific regulations in turn.
5
-------
a. General Alternatives
In formulating the Subtitle C program, EPA was faced with
general regulatory structure options respecting the types of
regulations to write, the level of stringency of these regula-
tions, and timing and phasing of the program elements.
As mentioned earlier in the preamble, the standards for
hazardous waste management facilities will be phased to allow
EPA more time to gather support data and information for many
of the more controversial and complex of the national technical
requirements. Phase I is promulgated in this action. The
Phase II regulations will be promulgated later this year.
These regulations will contain a great deal of flexibility
for the Regional Administrator to use his judgment in deciding
the environmental adequacy of a facility. They will be suffic-
iently comprehensive to allow the permitting process to
commence but will not contain many of the specific technical
requirements which the Agency hopes to promulgate over the
next several years (Phase III) as more information is developed.
Many of the general alternatives discussed below more
fully relate to the Phases II and III programs. However, since
they also relate to the regulations under Sections 3001, 3002,
and 3003, and, to a limited extent, to the interim status stan-
dards of 3004, they will be discussed here for completeness
and clarity.
6
-------
Types of Regulation
A major issue was whether to write general performance
standards, based on ambient or emission levels for air, water,
and land media, or to be more explicit by writing engineering
design and operation standards. The former provide flexibility
and tend to encourage technical innovation. The latter provide
specific guidance to facility operators and permit writers, and
are easier to enforce.
After substantial Agency analysis and public comment on
this issue, EPA has concluded that it will be a long time before
it can write and rely completely upon regulations which set out
the concentrations and total amounts of hazardous substances
which can be emitted from a facility. This is because the
nation's toxicologists have not yet developed (and are not
likely to develop in the near future) the acceptable limits for
human ingestion and inhalation of the exceedingly large number
and variety of hazardous constituents in industrial waste.
On the other hand, it is difficult to write specific
design and operating standards which make sense for all types
of facilities, handling many different kinds and quantities of
waste in widely varying circumstances of location, rainfall,
hydrology, and population density. Further, it is EPA's belief
that technological innovation should be encouraged in this
new program.
In the three phases of the regulations for hazardous waste
management facilities, the Agency intends to strike a balance
7
-------
between the two types of standards, incorporating the best fea-
tures of both. The interim status standards consist primarily
of administrative and operating requirements based on good
management practice. They are specific but largely nontechnical,
i.e., they do not radically affect facility design.
It is intended that later regulatory actions (Phases II
and III) will contain a set of "operational performance stand-
ards" which will consist of descriptions of the parameters to
be achieved to assure protection of health and the environment.
"Operational" performance standards specify emission limits or
results of operations which, if met, the Agency believes will
provide an adequate margin of protection to human health and
the environment. They are not directly keyed to any pre-
determined acceptable level of human exposure, which, as was
previously discussed, cannot be done at present. They may
ultimately include such performance standards as destruction
efficiencies for incinerators and discharge limits to soil,
ground water, and surface waters. They will, however, be
implemented to a major degree based on the judgment of the
Agency's permitting staff as to how well a given facility
meets or will meet the performance requirements.
Over a period of years, as support data are accumulated,
the Agency will issue additional explicit design and other
technical standards for facilities. Many of these engineering
design and operation standards will contain allowable variances
in recognition of the many different possible circumstances of
8
-------
hazardous waste management nationwide. The operational perform-
ance standards which will already be in place, will provide a
basis for gauging equivalency of proposed variances. Further,
EPA believes this regulatory structure will allow technological
innovation.
Stringency Levels
A large number of concenters on the proposed rules sug-
gested that the level of stringency for a particular standard
should vary with the degree or class of hazard of the waste,
or that specific standards of variable stringency should be
written for each industrial category or source of waste. An-
other group of commenters felt that less stringent requirements
should apply to existing facilities than to new ones.
After substantial analysis of the degree of hazard issue,
the Agency has concluded that the potential for damage to man
and the environment depends on the management circumstances of
a waste as well as on the intrinsic properties of the waste,
that these two factors cannot be divorced, and that it is mis-
management of the waste which presents the greater problem.
Yet, the Agency recognizes that, it is not always necessary to
apply the most stringent standards necessary for on type of
waste, to all waste types in all management situations.
Consequently, in the Phase I rules the Agency has develop-
ed specific management requirements for a few classes of
hazardous waste (e.g., ignitible, reactive, and incompatible
waste) which require different or more stringent control in
9
-------
certain types of facilities. However, no distinction as to
intrinsic degree of hazard is made in the definition of hazardous
waste or within or between the classes of waste. The Agency
expects to expand the use of the class of hazard system in the
Phases II and III regulations.
To date, environmental regulations generally have been
written on an industry-specific basis. RCRA requires that
standards be written for generators, transporters, treaters,
storers, and disposers of hazardous waste, but provide no
specific direction to vary those standards by type of
generator. The development of industry-specific standards
was nevertheless considered in the design of the Subtitle C
program.
In the course of this consideration, it was determined
that most waste classified as hazardous requires similar man-
agement techniques. This is true not only for the financial
and administrative requirements of the program, but also with
respect to performance, design, and operating standards for
treatment, storage and disposal facilities. However, it was
also determined that some waste can be handled with differing
facility design and operating standards or differing admin-
istrative requirements, and still be handled so as to provide
adequate environmental and human health safeguards. Thus,
these regulations have not been designed on an industry-by-
industry basis. The rules provide general standards applicable
to all waste for transportation, treatment, storage, and
10
-------
disposal, but include specific conditions for many of the
treatment, storage, and disposal regulations by which the
requirement is waived or modified.
The proposed rules made no distinction between new and
existing facilities. The Agency now believes, as a result of
recent Congressional action, that Congress intends that such
distinctions may be made, particularly for existing surface
impoundments which are part of wastewater treatment systems
built to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. These
distinctions are not particularly relevant to the interim
status regulations. However, the Agency intends to specify
different requirements for new versus existing wastewater
treatment surface impoundments during Phases II and III, provided
owners or operators of exisiting facilities can show via
ground-water monitoring that their facilities are not leaking
statistically significant amounts of hazardous waste constituents
into ground-water supplies.
Phasing
As mentioned earlier, the Agency adopted a three phase ap-
proach to promulgating the Section 3004 regulations for treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities. The decision was made
to allow the Agency additional time to gather data for the
technical requirements governing how facilities will be designed
and run. Because it delays implementation of the full status
program there are other results. The additional time should
allow for a smoother transition from a largely unregulated
11
-------
industry to a fully regulated state. Manpower needs and costs
will be spread over a longer period, reducing the impacts on
both the regulatory agencies (State and EPA) and the regulated
community. There will be additional time for the Agency to
explain the regulatory program and for industry to gear up a
compliance program. This should greatly reduce the confusion
that often surrounds the implementation of a new regulatory
program. There are also some disadvantages. It can be argued
that every delay comes at a cost to human health and the environ-
ment. However, the Agency believes that these modest delays
will have no significant impact since industry will be moving
to comply with the interim status regulations which will
provide significant improvement over current practices. Also,
insofar as the delay leads to better regulations and smoother
implementation, it may actually speed overall compliance by
reducing lost motion and implementation delays due to confusion,
and perhaps may result in less time consuming litigation.
A number of other phasing options were explored. One
method of phasing is to use a classification of degree of
hazard to regulate the most hazardous waste first and to gradu-
ally include less hazardous waste. However, it was determined
that degree of hazard is a function of the state of the waste
in its management cycle as well as the intrinsic properties of
the waste, and that it is mismanagement of the waste which
presents the greater problem. Priority action on permit appli-
cations can more accurately reflect the phasing that is desirable.
12
-------
Phasing can also be done by industry grouping, or by
including the generators of the largest quantities first and
gradually including generators of successively smaller waste
streams in the regulatory system. Aside from a few exceptions,
the Agency will at first regulate only generators of more than
1000 kg of hazardous waste per month. However, the Agency
believes that 100 kg is the more appropriate level and intends
to expand application of the regulatory programs to all generators
producing more than 100 kg per month within the next two to
five years. This issue is discussed further under the discussion
of "exclusions."
With regard to phasing by industry grouping, the Agency
lacks the data and methodology to determine which industry
wastes pose the greatest hazards and thus should be regulated
first. In the absence of such a rating system, the choice
between industries would be on a random basis with attendant
equity problems. One of the advantages of phasing by industry
is that it allows development of specific standards for each
industry. However, the Agency has found that the management
methods useful with wastes from one industry do not vary
qreatly from those used for wastes from another. Thus, by and
large, EPA has not found it useful to develop industry specific
regulations.
Priority action on permit applications is another phasing
option which the Agency intends to use. The Agency will balance
the apparent hazard associated with the wastes and the apparent
-------
suitability of the facility against other factors such as the
past records of owners or operators, the availability of
alternative waste management facilities, the available Agency
resources, and other program priorities (enforcement, etc.)
in prioritizing permit applications. This phasing approach
has the added advantage of flexibilitly to accomodate changes
in Agency priorities and resources,
b. Hazardous Waste Definition
Characteristics and Lists
Section 3001 mandates that two mechanisms must be used
for determining which wastes are hazardous and thus must be
managed in accordance with the Subtitle C regulations. The
first is a set of characteristics which define a waste as
hazardous, and the second is a list of particular hazardous
wastes.
Two criteria were used to select appropriate character-
istics by which to define hazardous waste. First, a solid waste
possessing that characteristic must meet the statutory defin-
ition of hazardous waste as stated in Section 1004(5) of RCRA.
Second, the characteristic must be defined in terms of one or
more physical, chemical, toxic, radioactive, infectious or
other properties for which test methods are reasonably within
the performance capability and capacity of generators of solid
waste (or reasonably determinable by generators of solid waste
through knowledge about their waste).
14
-------
The following candidate characteristics were developed:
(1) Ignitability
(2) Corrosiveness
(3) Reactivity
(4) Toxicity
(5) Radioactivity
(6) Infectiousness
For each of the characteristics above, several alterna-
tives were considered. The Agency could have adopted each
as a means of identifying hazardous waste, adopted some of
the characteristics and limited the scope of their applica-
tion, deferred adopting any characteristics pending further
study or used certain characteristics solely to assist in
development of hazardous waste lists.
Adoption of a characteristic as a means of identifying
hazardous waste requires a generator to determine whether his
waste exhibits that characteristic which often entails testing
(40 CFR 262.11). Adopting a characteristic in a limited form
reduces the amount of testing required since the scope of its
application has been limited. Using a characteristic solely
for listing purposes removes the burden of testing from the
generators, unless the generator wishes to prove that a
particular waste stream is not hazardous. In this case he
could test his waste to show that it differs fundamentally
from the other wastes in the listed category. Deferring
adoption of a characteristic pending further study results in
-------
the acquisition of additional information to determine the
appropriateness of that characteristic for hazardous waste
de f in it ion.
Ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and limited
toxicity were selected as characteristics to define hazardous
waste for the proposed as well as final regulation because
they represent readily identifiable hazards which pose an
obvious threat to human health and the environment and are
likely to be exhibited by a number of wastes. Wastes may be
listed where the Agency has information that they meet these
characteristics but a waste meeting these characteristics is
hazardous even if not listed. Also, for listinq purposes,
the Agency is utilizing an acute toxicity criterion and an
expanded toxicity criterion which includes consideration of
several other factors. Among the other factors that are
considered for the listings are: the quantities of the waste
generated; the potential damage to human health and the environ-
ment that may result from improper management of the waste;
and the nature and severity of damage to human health and the
environment that has previously resulted from improper manage-
ment of the waste. The criterion for listing infectious waste
has been deferred pending completion of additional study. It
should be noted that delisting procedures are provided so that
a generator nay show that a listed waste from an individual
facility is nonhazardous.
16
-------
Exclusions
One of the major issues in the development of the regula-
tions is the exclusion of wastes from the waste management
system. Wastes such as domestic sewage, industrial waste
water point source discharges, irrigation return flows, and
radioactive wastes regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 are excluded by the statutory definition of solid waste.
A second group of wastes is excluded from the regulatory
definition of hazardous waste because the Agency believes that
it is not the intent of Congress to regulate these as hazardous
wastes. This group includes the following:
o Household garbage and refuse, and residuals from
recycling garbage and refuse
o Agricultural wastes (crop and logging wastes)
o Animal wastes returned to the soil as fertilizer
or soil conditioners
o Mining overburden
o I_n situ mining wastes
Another major issue is the regulation of hazardous wastes
destined for use, re-use, reclamation or recovery. Since one
of the purposes of RCRA is to promote resource recovery, many
commenters felt that special consideration should be given
to recovery of hazardous wastes as a means of fostering that
activity. The basic options available to the Agency were
(1) no controls over hazardous waste destined for recovery,
(2) limited controls either on transportation (manifest) or
17
-------
the use or recovery activity (limited requirements), or
(3) full coverage. The Agency believes it is worthwhile to
foster recovery of hazardous wastes on the grounds that, if
recovered, the wastes no longer exist and are thus not avail-
able to be troublesome through future years. Also, recovery
extends disposal capcaity and usually reduces net energy use.
On the other hand, without any controls, these wastes can and
do get "lost", spilled, and mismanaged in the transportation
link, or can be inadequately managed at the recovery facility.
The Agency is still considering this difficult issue and
undertaking further study. In the interim, wastes which have
been listed as hazardous but which are recovered will be
subject to all of regulatory controls (manifest, recordkeeping
and reporting, packaging, storage, etc.) except for the regu-
lations affecting treatment processes. In the case of a listed
waste burned in a boiler, the waste would have to be manifested
if shipped offsite and any storage facilities would require a
permit. The boiler itself would not be regulated. Additional
regulations covering recycled wastes may be forthcoming.
Another major issue involves the lower limit to be placed
on hazardous waste volumes to be controlled. There are several
reasons for setting a lower limit on the amount of waste which
triggers the Subtitle C regulatory controls. While there is
some evidence of damage due to small quantities of hazardous
waste, most damage cases studied by EPA involve medium to large
quantities. Further, there is some evidence that co-disposal
18
-------
of small quantities of hazardous waste with municipal solid
waste in well designed and operated solid waste facilities,
is in most respects, as environmentally acceptable as disposal
of such quantities at a hazardous waste facility. In addition,
exclusion from control of producers of small amounts of hazardous
waste would eliminate the paperwork burdens of transport mani-
fests, reporting, and recordkeeping on hundreds of thousands
of producers. The limited EPA and State resources available
could not effectively regulate this number of additional gener-
ators, and thus this exclusion frees scarce resources to concen-
trate on generators of larger amounts of waste who, according
to EPA studies, produce most of the total amount of hazardous
waste.
Thus, the Agency considered establishing an exclusion based
on the amount of hazardous waste produced in a given time period.
Establishing the cutoff for the exclusion necessitated consid-
erations of both the environmental benefit and administrative
burden and cost.
Several cutoff levels were considered: 27 lbs, 100 kg,
250 kg, and 1000 kg of hazardous waste produced and disposed
of per month. To put these levels into perspective, 100 kg
(about 220 lbs) amounts to roughly one-half of a 55-gallon
drum, while 1000 kg can be contained in about five 55-gallon
drums. At the 100 kg level, about 74 percent of the
manufacturing generators (SIC 20-39) would be excluded but
19
-------
99.8 percent of all hazardous waste would still be covered.
At the 1000 kg level, the percentage of generators excluded
would be increased to 91 percent, and the portion of hazardous
waste covered would be reduced to 99.0 percent.
The Agency proposed a small quantity generator cutoff
level of 100 kg/month, and still believes this to be the proper
level, based on a reasonable tradeoff of quantity of waste
versus number of generators exempted, for effective protection
of human health and the environment. Also, the Agency knows of
few damage incidents involving less than 100 kg quantities.
However, neither the Agency nor the St?tes (for those States
which will conduct the hazardous waste program) have adequate
resources to administer a program involving the number of
generators who would be brought into the system at the 100
kg/month level. Therefore, the initial program being promulgated
at this time will adopt a cutoff level of 1000 kg/month for
most hazardous wastes; the Agency intends to reduce this level
to 100 kg/month in two to five years after this promulgation.
This general small quantity exemption level is being
lowered for certain commercial products (and their containers
or spill clean-up residues) if discarded, and for listed
hazardous wastes whose constituents have been shown to cause
major environmental problems even in very small quantities.
20
-------
c. Generators
Other than for the "exclusions" issue, the regulatory op-
tions available to the Agency which involved generators of
wastes, centered primarily on the 90 day storage provision, on
the form and structure of the manifest system, and on record-
keeping and reporting.
Virtually every generator of hazardous wastes stores
wastes on-site long enough to accumulate an economical volume
either for off-site shipment or for treatment or disposal.
The Agency determined, however, that most generators store
hazardous waste for less than 90 days and that this very short
term storage which is normally conducted in tanks and drums,
presents little hazard to human health and the environment.
Also, the Agency recognizes the stated Congressional intent
that the program not interfere with the generators' production
process. As a result, the Agency chose to exempt generators
accumulating hazardous wastes on-site for less than 90 days for
subsequent shipment off-site from the requirement to obtain a
permit.
Section 3002(b) of RCRA requires EPA to establish such
standards for reporting as the Administrator deems necessary
to protect human health and the environment. Three major
alternatives were considered for generator reporting: (1) a
quarterly summary of all hazardous waste generated; (2) an
annual waste summary with the additional requirement that
manifests not returned to a generator within 45 days be reported
21
-------
immediately; and (3) the same annual summary, but manifest
exceptions to be reported quarterly.
EPA believes the annual hazardous waste summary with the
45-day exception reporting requirement provides the optimum
combination of long term information on waste generation and
movement coupled with short term notification of missing ship-
ments. The generator reporting standard chosen therefore
requires all generators to provide annual summaries of hazard-
ous wastes handled and an exception report if manifests are
not returned within 45 days after waste shipment. The exception
report must also include a summary of the generator's efforts
to determine what happened to the errant shipment,
d. Transporters
Section 3003 of RCRA requires that EPA establish regula-
tions which control the transportation of hazardous waste. The
primary issue centered on the proper relationship between EPA
requirements and the Department of Transportation's authority.
Some of the issues included structuring EPA's manifest require-
ment to account for existing DOT shipping document practices,
additional safety provisions, a permit program for haulers,
minimum insurance coverage for spills, and reporting requirements
in the event of a spill. Major alternatives to each of these
issues are discussed below.
The Agency determined that the role of DOT in the RCRA
transporter regulation structure should be as great as possible.
Transporters perceive DOT as the regulatory authority, and
22
-------
DOT's resources and expertise in this area surpass EPA's.
Therefore, independent EPA regulations would be counterproduc-
tive. An alternative would be for EPA to produce no RCRA
regulations. DOT's program for the transportation of "hazard-
ous material" would cover the bulk of "hazardous waste" as de-
fined in Section 3001. As a suboption, EPA also considered
adopting DOT regulations which would result in enforcement
powers for both agencies and extension of the coverage of the
regulations to intrastate commerce. Another alternative was
to influence DOT to make its regulations compatible with RCRA
before EPA adopted them. In those instances where the Agency
found DOT authority lacking, EPA could write supplemental
regulations to add flexibility. EPA adoption of the DOT
regulations would allow transportation experts to handle the
problems directly and would reduce confusion. In light of
these considerations, EPA and DOT developed consistent regula-
tions which build on the existing DOT hazardous materials
rules. In essence, EPA and DOT chose the last option. EPA's
rules incorporate DOT's regulations and include additional
requirements in those instances where there is no authority
under DOT's legislation.
As required by the Statute, the Agency is establishing a
manifest requirement for transporters to reflect the "cradle-
to-grave" hazardous waste control concept. The two options
were to require detailed information on a specific manifest
form which must accompany the waste at all times, or to use
-------
the existing DOT shipping paper information and format. The
first option would provide for close control and perhaps the
ability for somewhat tighter enforcement. The second option
would reduce the burden on the transporters and would provide
the minimum amount of data needed to fulfill the manifest's
objectives. The Agency has chosen to adopt a slightly modified
version of the existing DOT shipping paper concept. Specifi-
cally, a hazardous waste manifest will consist of the information
currently required on DOT shipping papers with minimal additions.
No new form is required. The Agency believes that the require-
ment that generators submit an exception report immediately
when a manifest becomes lost will provide close control and
sufficiently tight enforcement.
The Agency considered establishing a permit program for
haulers of hazardous waste but has been unable to determine any
compelling need for it. The Agency believes the RCRA regula-
tions and associated penalties counter any economic benefit to
be gained by a transporter who operates irresponsibly. Thus,
registration and control via, a permit program would yield
no substantial benefits in the Agency's view.
EPA considered requiring that transporters of hazardous
waste have adequate insurance in the event of a spill. Many
transporters have such coverage now, and to that extent, addi-
tional regulation may be unnecessary. Due to a lack of informa-
tion the Agency chose to study the issue. Tf it is determined
that spill insurance should be required, EPA will write such
regulations.
24
-------
Lastly, EPA considered the issue of spill reporting.
Requiring the transporter to report hazardous waste spills
through the existing DOT reporting mechanisms, provides
significant environmental protection and expands EPA's informa-
tion base. Therefore, this requirement is included in the
final rules,
e. Facilities
Section 3005 of RCRA requires the establishment of a per-
mit program for hazardous waste facilities. Section 3004 es-
tablishes the standards on which the permits will be based.
However, regulations for Section 3005 and the State authori-
zation program under Section 3006 are being integrated with
the NPDES and UIC programs under 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and
124. These regulations are being promulgated separately.
Therefore, the bulk of this discussion will focus on alter-
natives considered under Section 3004 or, more specifically,
the interim status standards for treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Several of the major issues associated
with the facility regulations were dealt with earlier under
"general alternatives". Among these were the questions of
what type of standards to write for facilities, and several
questions concerning phasing and stringency levels. These
will not be discussed again here.
The question of how to regulate inactive hazardous waste
management sites was a major issue considered in the development
of the program. RCRA is written in the present tense and its
25
-------
regulatory scheme is organized in a way which seems to contemplate
coverage only of those facilities which continue to operate
after the effective date of the regulations. Thus, the Section
3004 standards and the Section 3005 permitting procedures are
not directed at inactive facilities. EPA has decided to use
the imminent hazard powers of Section 7003 to act in instances
where a threat to public health or the environment is presented
by an inactive site. Congress also has under consideration
a bill which would set up a fund which could be used to locate
and cleanup any inactive problem sites.
Development of workable regulations for the control of
emissions from volatile wastes has been especially difficult.
The Agency considered the following general alternatives:
(1) no control of volatile emissions, (2) prohibiting emissions
from wastes with a true vapor pressure greater than 78mm Hg at
25°C., or (3) control of volatile wastes on a case by case basis.
Based on technical concerns about the adequacy of a vapor pres-
sure definition of volatile hazardous wastes, and the unavaila-
bility of an alternative definition, the Agency has chosen not
to control emissions from volatile wastes directly for now.
The Agency will continue efforts to develop a generic defini-
tion of volatile hazardous waste and an associated test method.
The Agency also may regulate known problem volatile wastes on
case-by-case basis.
A related issue involves the Agency's proposed rules lim-
iting storage of wastes to closed tanks and containers because
26
-------
of the potential for emissions from volatile wastes. Many
coranenters pointed out that this regulation was inconsistent
with those for treatment or disposal operations. These
comnenters also pointed out the impracticality of requiring
everything to be stored in tanks and drums. The Agency
developed its policy in this matter based on its interoreta-
tions of the RCRA definitions of "storage" and "disposal".
The RCRA definition of disposal seemed to allow some escape
of pollutants to the environment while storage seemed to require
zero discharge. Upon reanalysis, the Agency concluded that
the important distinction between a storage and disposal fa-
cility, is the intent of the owner or operator to remove wastes
at closure. For depending upon the answer to this question,
the closure and financial requirements regulations will change.
As a result of this reanalysis, the Agency will allow storage
in most types of facilities and accept limited air emissions.
Financial requirements for hazardous waste management fa-
cilities are required by Section 3004(6) of RCRA. This Section
calls for requirements respecting ownership, continuity of
operation, and financial responsibility for hazardous waste
management facilities as may be necessary or desirable. Four
areas of financial requirements were identified: funds to
assure site closure, funds to assure post-closure site monitor-
ing and maintenance, provision for third party liability
coverage and funding of remedial action both during the life
of the site and after closure. Requirements for post-closure
27
-------
monitoring and maintenance, and post-closure liability and
remedial action pertain only to disposal facilities because no
"hazardous waste will remain at treatment or storage facilities
after proper closure.
The major choices facing EPA for each of these areas were
whether to set requirements leading to private arrangements;
to seek additional legislative authority to establish a govern-
ment administered fund; or to defer and conduct further studies
before rulemaking.
There are precedents for requiring a facility to obtain
assurance of funds to accomplish proper closure. Strip-mining
operations, for example, are required to set aside sufficient
funds before operation to assure site restoration. In response
to comments on the proposed regulations, EPA determined that
deposit in a trust fund of all of the money needed to close a
facility, on the effective date of the regulations, placed an
unacceptable burden on the regulated community. As a result,
EPA is now proposing that facilities take up to 20 years or
until closure, whichever occurs first, to accumulate all of
the funds for closure. Additionally, the Agency considered a
number of alternative financial mechanisms to a trust to
provide the necessary assurance and reduce the economic impact.
EPA believes surety bonds and letters-of-credit will provide
adequate assurance. Also, the Agency developed an assets
test as a variance mechanism available to large, secure firms.
However, since the Agency is not used to dealing with financial
28
-------
mechanisms, and the subject is extremely complex, EPA has
decided to repropose these regulations to allow the public,
the regulated community, and the financial institutions who
will provide coverage, an opportunity to comment on the
regulations.
Similar alternative mechanisms are envisioned for assuring
funds for post-closure care. These are also being reproposed.
The Agency has decided not to require site-life liability
coverage for non-sudden incidents for treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities during the interim status period. This
decision resulted from an Agency finding that the most common
mechanism for this coverage, liability insurance, might often
only be available in conjunction with the granting of a permit.
Permits are not granted as part of the interim status activities.
The Agency intends to promulgate regulations in Phase II requiring
liability coverage during site operations as a condition of
permitting. Many facilities already have such insurance for
sudden events. The Agency is reproposing an interim status
requirement that all facilities have liability coverage for
sudden accidents during the life of the site.
The Agency has been unable to identify a viable mechanism
to assure funds to cover third party liability claims and
pay for any necessary remedial action (cleanup) after closure.
The costs for cleanup and to settle suits have run into the
multi-millions of dollars in certain cases in the past. While
the RCRA regulatory program will reduce the incidence and
29
-------
severity of these problems, mistakes and miscalculations may
occasionally occur. Insurance firms generally will not cover
such eventualities because of the open ended nature of the
risk. It is also not possible to establish individual trust
funds sufficiently large to cover the possible needs. Congress
is considering legislation which would establish a national
fund, into which all permitted facilities would pay, for liability
and remedial action indemnification after the facility has been
properly closed,
f. Notification
Section 3010 requires all generators, transporters, and
facility operators to notify the Administrator of their haz-
ardous waste management activities. The Agency was faced with
the option of whether or not to publish regulations under this
section. It was decided that, since RCRA is specific in its
requirements, additional regulations were not necessary.
Yet, a need existed to alert a large group of persons to these
notification requirements to clarify specific requirements,
and to standardize data formats. As a result the Agency
published a notice of the requirements in the Federal Register.
Two additional issues were dealt with: the degree of
flexibility in notification reporting procedures and the level
of confidentiality to be maintained by the Agency.
A regorous approach to the notification procedure ques-
tion would require each person to test his waste and submit
detailed analytical data. The Agency decided to request, on
30
-------
a standard form, the minimum amount of information required
by the statute. Therefore, for Section 3010 notification
purposes testing is not necessarily required to prove
whether or not a waste is hazardous. Much of the hazardous
waste is listed in the Part 261 regulations, and a simple
declaration that the person handles a waste with the character-
istics included in Part 261 will suffice if it is not listed.
The Agency believes that these procedures will enable persons
to fulfill their statutory obligation under Section 3010 at
a reasonable cost. The option of allowing the States to be
notified in lieu of the Agency was rejected because of questions
surrounding the legality of the proposed regulation's concept
of Limited Interim Authorization. This concept would have allowed
EPA to authorize States to conduct notification activities before
the effective date of authorization under Section 3006(c).
Provisions for confidentiality of notification data would
protect trade secrets but would make it more difficult for the
public to obtain a clear identification of hazard levels. In
order to balance those concerns, EPA has established a confi-
dentiality procedure which puts the burden on the notifier to
demonstrate the need for confidentiality if the public requests
access to data. The Agency's confidentiality procedures comply
with the Freedom of Information Act and are contained in 40
CFR Part 2.
31
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) accompanied
the proposed regulations in December 1978. That analysis was
based on the proposed general status requirements and thus
was not totally relevant to these interim status regulations.
Additionally, the universe of wastes controlled and several
important provisions of the generator and facility regulations
have changed since the proposed regulations.
As a result, the Agency has completed an EIS covering the
interim status standards for facilities (Part 265) plus those
regulations being issued pursuant to §§3001, 3002 and 3003.
This EIS is available for review in the EPA regional office
libraries and in the EPA headquarters library, Rm. 2404(M),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Because of the lead time necessary to produce the analysis,
the EIS is based on a preliminary draft of these final regula-
tions. Thus, it does not correspond to regulatory changes made
later in the process. The Agency is evaluating the effect of
these changes on the final EIS.
Another EIS will accompany promulgation of the Phase II
facility regulations later this year. This EIS will evaluate
the impact of the general regulatory program, including the
permitting function, and will be widely available. It is
expected that this latter document will be added to, revised,
32
-------
and updated as the Phase III facility standards are promulgated,
and the hazardous waste lists and Part 261 are expanded.
As with other environmental regulations, the environmental
impacts are clearly favorable - that is the purpose of the
regulatory program. However, a problem exists in attempting to
to quantify the enviromental and human health improvements -
particularly in terms of dollars. This is so because it is
difficult to measure the changes affecting human health and
the environment in many cases and difficult to place a value on
benefits such as a reduced incidence of cancer. The next
section of this analysis addresses the economic benefits which
accrue from avoiding the substantial costs of cleaning up
hazardous waste facilities which are improperly designed and
managed. But these estimates do not include the avoidance of
costs of health problems (spontaneous abortions, nervous
disorders, higher cancer incidence, etc.) which often go along
with problem waste sites. Nor do such estimates normally include
avoiding the costs of damage to fish and wildlife populations.
These costs are not normally quantifiable but are real nonetheless.
These regulations, and those to be promulgated in later
phases, will improve the environment and reduce the negative impact
of hazardous waste management on human health in a variety of ways.
Following is a brief list of some of the many expected improvements:
(1) Ground-water pollution from leaching of toxic
pollutants from improperly designed and managed
landfills will be reduced.
33
-------
(2) Poisoning and injury due to direct contact by children
and others with randomly dumped wastes will be reduced.
(3) Pollution of surface waters from hazardous wastes
stored or disposed in fields and on riverbanks will
be reduced.
(4) Illicit dumping of wastes in farm fields, wooded areas,
along roadsides, and in ditches and streams will be
reduced.
(5) Emission of toxic gases from improperly run
incinerators will be reduced.
(6) Accidents, mistakes, and malfunctions at hazardous
waste management facilities, which could affect
people near the site, will be reduced in number and
in severity, due to monitoring and inspection require-
ments and required emergency equipment.
(7) Contingency plans will spell out emergency response
procedures to ensure rapid and effective action to
minimize any danger to off-site residents and the
environment.
(8) Facilities will be decontaminated or otherwise
secured at closure to reduce the possibility of future
human health or environmental impact.
The Agency believes these improvements will be substantial
and noticeable. They are not, however, quantifiable since records
of past practices and problems have been almost nonexistent and
the degree to which the benefits will be realized is open to some
conjecture.
34
-------
In addition to what is expected to be a major reduction
in the human health and environmental impacts associated with
hazardous waste management activities, there will be some
secondary social and resource impacts associated with the regula-
tory program. These are summarized in the following paragraphs.
One of the major economic impacts of the regulatory program
is likely to be some plant closings and job losses in a few
segments of some industrial categories (see the next section of
this analysis). This may have some secondary social impacts as a
result of the relocation of some of the affected workers and their
families. This is likely to happen only in communities or areas
where plants being closed constituted the primary source of
employment.
On the other hand, the new requirements for hazardous waste
management will likely result in the need for additional workers
to track the hazardous wastes; to transport the wastes; and to
store, treat, or dispose of the wastes at both off-site and on-site
facilities. Additional workers will also be required for facility
construction and modifications, and to administer and enforce the
regulations at both the State and Federal levels (see the resource
estimates later in this analysis). Some population shifts could
occur if the required number of workers is not available where
needed, particularly where treatment or disposal sites are located
in rural or undeveloped areas. Any shifts in population are
expected to be relatively small on a national or State scale,
although there may be localized instances of a relatively large
influx of workers.
-------
In the short-term, an increased public awareness of problems
that have been associated with improper management of hazardous
wastes, in the past accompanied by the public notice and parti-
cipation aspects of this regulatory program, will probably add to
the opposition to local siting of hazardous waste management
facilities which has been on the increase in recent years anyway.
However, in the long-term, promulgation of the regulations coupled
with vigorous enforcement, increased public participation in the
facility siting process, and specific demonstrations that wastes
can be adequately managed and that the regulatory program is
effective in ensuring adequate management, should serve to lessen
such opposition and lead to less difficulty in siting facilities.
The potential for the degradation of both ground water and
surface water will be reduced, as previously mentioned. To the
extent that degradation of water quality has or would have
resulted in a decreased supply of surface water or ground water
being available to consumers for use, there will be an additional
supply of water available and a reduction in treatment costs,
and fewer restrictions on the productive use of these water
supplies.
As discussed later in this analysis, the new regulations
will increase the cost of hazardous waste management. As a
result, the regulations provide an incentive for generators to
modify processes to enable increased recycling of hazardous wastes
generated by specific processes, and to alter the nature of the
wastes generated to lessen their hazardousness. .Such changes
36
-------
will be waste stream and process-specific. Additionally, since
the regulations strongly discourage placing ignitable wastes in
landfills, landfarms, and surface impoundments, an incentive
will exist for increased incineration of such wastes, with the
possibility of energy recovery.
Although as a result of the regulatory program, more
land must be dedicated for hazardous waste management, a net
benefit in land use impacts is expected. Random, illicit, and
haphazard disposal will be reduced and ultimately eliminated
with a corresponding reduction in the destruction of land use
values. Also, the regulations are expected to reduce the
generation of wastes and lead to increased recycling and treat-
ment of wastes which, in the longer term, will reduce the amount
of land necessary for disposal.
A modest facility modification and construction program will
be needed to bring existing facilities into compliance with
regulations. Construction of new facilities will also be necessary
to replace inadequate ones and provide additional capacity. This
will result in increased energy use. Increased energy use will also
result from a few of the changes in storage, treatment, and disposal
operations mandated by the regulations (e.g., incinerators must be
preheated using auxiliary fuel before adding wastes). The expected
increase in resource recovery will also likely require the input of
additional energy. However, energy savings from increased energy
recovery, from elimination of the need for subsequent treatment or
disposal of wastes, and from substitution of recycled products for
virgin products, should result in a net energy savings due to
resource recovery operations.
37
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
a. Benefits
In the economic sphere, there are both costs and benefits
associated with this regulatory program. A previous discussion
centered on the substantial direct benefits to human health
and the environment expected from the regulatory program.
But what of the expected impact on the economy? In addition
to the non-quantifiable economic benefits expected from
decreases in human health problems and in pollution of our air,
land,and water, EPA expects an improvement in economic efficiency
and equity, and substantial direct savings from avoiding cleanup
costs in the future.
An economy functions efficiently and equitably when the
price of goods produced in the society reflects the actual
social and private costs of production. Until now, in most
places firms could dispose of wastes in environmentally unsafe
ways at costs substantially less than for adequate disposal.
Thus, the price of goods often did not reflect the full social
costs of production.
Pre-RCRA management practices were inequitable because costs
of hazardous waste disposal often fell randomly on individuals
affected by improper management or on the public at large through
the need to use tax revenues to clean up inadequate facilities.
It would be more equitable, for the costs of adequate hazardous
waste management to fall on the consumers and producers of the
products which generate the hazardous wastes.
38
-------
There are many examples of these inequities. At the Love
Canal, in New York, a chemical company disposed of about 20,000
tons of waste. Some 30 years later, the waste chemicals were
found seeping into the basements of houses and surfacing in their
back yards. These residents have paid heavily for inadequate
disposal practices through health effects such as increased
spontaneous abortions and decreases in birth weight of babies.
There is some evidence of increased cancer levels and birth defects
as well. The Federal and State governments have spent millions
of dollars of tax revenues to clean up the area and relocate the
residents. NTearby residents have suffered losses in property
values. None of these things would have been necessary had the
generator paid for environmentally safe disposal.
At Hopewell, Virginia, a firm producing pesticides used the
town's municipal sewage system, which discharged into the James
River, for disposal of toxic residues. The firm also inadequately
stored waste at their production site which led to contamination
of the area. They were therefore able to reduce the price of
their product by the few cents per pound that adequate disposal
and storage would have cost. As a result of pesticide contamination,
the James River has been closed to most fishing for several years.
Some fishermen who earned a living from the James River were forced
to find new work. These fishermen paid for waste disposal in lost
jobs. More equitably, the people who produced and who used the
insecticides should have paid for proper disposal of the wastes.
39
-------
In a number of instances hazardous waste has contaminated
drinking water wells. People using the wells have suffered
from health effects, and in many cases have paid to have new
wells drilled into uncontaminated aquifers or to bring in
piped water from distant treatment plants. In these cases,
the well users have paid, rather than the generators and
consumers.
Pre-RCRA disposal practices were also inefficient.
Because the price of goods did not reflect the cost of adequate
management of the wastes produced as part of the manufacturing
process, these goods were priced too low relative to other goods.
Because prices were lower than the true social cost of producing
the product, consumers were able to buy more of these goods than
they would have if proper waste management costs were included
in the product price. Thus, companies manufactured and sold
more of these products and manufactured more hazardous waste
than was economically efficient. These products were thus placed
at an unfair advantage over competitive products which generated
no hazardous waste. Furthermore, since companies did not have to
either pay the cost of proper waste management or pass it along to
customers, there were no incentives to find technology and process
changes to lessen the quantity of hazardous waste generated or to
recover the wastes as a useful material. Additionally, companies
who wished to adequately manage their wastes were put at a
competitive disadvantage in doing so since they bore costs which
their competitors did not.
40
-------
The RCRA Subtitle C Regulations will ensure that those
generating the hazardous wastes pay appropriately for their
safe management. Some of this cost will be passed on to
consumers, while some will be borne by the generator. in
either case, the economy will be more efficient and equitable,
since those receiving the benefits will also pay the costs, and
prices will serve as an efficient allocator of resources.
In recent years, with increasing frequency, society has
been forced to properly dispose of waste that were previously
disposed of haphazardly. The best recent example of this is
Love Canal. The diagnosis of a severe health hazard in the
area, caused society to take remedial action. The price tag
to the State and Federal governments is expected to be about
S36 million for cleanup, relocating residents, health and
environmental testing services, and other expenses associated
with the disaster. Thus society is spending about $1800 per
ton, in its effort to cleanup waste improperly disposed of
and more will be spent before the area is returned to normal.
Further, the $1800 per ton excludes human health costs and
suffering, which might easily outweigh monetized cost. Given
that average disposal costs after RCRA will be only around
$80 per ton, it clearly pays to do the job right in the first
place.
Given that damages often take decades to be recognized,
we may be paying dearly for past waste mismanagement, for many
years to come. Further, without the regulatory program, we
41
-------
would continue to develop new problem sites. Ultimately,
cleanup of all of these sites could escalate into the billions
of dollars annually,
b. Costs
While it is more equitable for the generating industry and
the consumers of products from that industry to bear the cost of
proper hazardous waste management, a regulatory program which
causes this to happen over a relatively short period, will increase
the costs of producing products which generate such wastes. Some
industry sectors, because of foreign competition or other factors,
may not be able to raise prices enough to offset the increased costs,
resulting in a profit squeeze. In the most extreme cases, personnel
layoffs and plant closings may result.
To analyze the potential for these impacts, FPA has performed
an economic impact analysis. Copies of the analysis are available
for review in the EPA regional office libraries and in the EPA
headquarters library, Rm. 2404(M), Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Only a draft of the Economic Impact
Analysis is currently available in those locations. Because of
the substantial lead time necessary (about 3 months) to determine
the impacts, and the fact that substantive changes were made to
the regulations late in the process, the draft unavoidably does not
correspond totally to the promulgated regulations in several areas.
In most instances, the alterations have led to cost reductions.
For instance, a number of changes which would greatly reduce the
amount of waste covered by the regulations have not been factored
42
-------
into the analysis. Also the financial requirements have been
deferred in the regulations but are still covered in the
economic impact study. On the other hand, control of under-
ground injection has been added to the regulations, but it is
not covered in the EIA. The Agency will reestimate these impacts
based on the promulgated regulations, and plans to issue a summary
in several months. This summary will be published by the National
Technical Information Service of the Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Va.
The Economic Impact Analysis studied parts of 22 industies.^)
These are listed in Table 2. Nearly all of these are manufacturing
industries; however, not all manufacturing industries were studied.
There are other industries which generate hazardous wastes but the
data base available is not sufficient to fully characterize them.
The Agency chose those sectors where wastes covered by the regula-
tions were most likely to occur and on which data were available
for analysis. Based on 1978 data, in aggregate, the industries
which were studied account for 29,000 of the expected 67,000
hazardous waste generators affected by these regulations. It is
estimated that they produced 13.7 million metric tons of hazardous
waste. These generators had sales of about $300 billion and
their value added was over $100 billion.
Note; (1) Actually the Agency is studying an additional industry,
metals mining, which is not included in this summary.
The calculations had not been completed and there are
major questions as to whether significant quantities
of waste from this industry will prove hazardous.
43
-------
For the industry sample that EPA studied, the interim
status regulations will cost about S510 million per year on
an annualized basis. This is an incremental cost, over and above
what firms currently pay for waste management. Of this annualized
cost, about 50% is for surface impoundments.
EPA computes costs on an annualized basis because actual
outlays during interim status will vary from year to year. For
example, some one-time compliance costs occur immediately, while
large outlays for closing the various facilities might not occur
for 20 years or more, depending on the facility life. To smooth
this uneven flow, EPA computes an annualized cost by annualizing
the present value of capital expenditures and initial outlays and
adding this amount to the recurring operating and maintenance
costs.
Recurring annual costs are $430 million(l) per year. Capital
costs are $200 million^!) and initial costs are $110 million.
Annualized, these costs are less than 0.2 percent of the
value of sales of the affected industries. This percentage will
decline over time because of the amortization of initial capital
expenses.
Note: (1) The annualization factor applied to both capital and
initial costs is .27 which is predicated on a high
inflation rate. The annualized capital and initial
costs are in nominal dollars.
44
-------
The cost for interim status can be put in perspective
by comparing it to the cost of the RCRA regulations proposed
on December 18, 1978. The draft economic impact analysis
estimated an annualized incremental cost of $861 million for
complying with the proposed regulations. It should be noted
that the draft economic impact analysis did not include surface
impoundments. Also the draft was based on the full regulatory
program, not on the more limited interim status regulations
promulgated here.
The incremental, annualized costs of the regulations for
interim status can also be displayed by type of activity which
would be necessary to comply. This distribution appears in
Table 1. The incremental compliance costs for the industries
studied appear in Table 2.
45
-------
Table 1
Distribution of RCFA Costs by Type of Requirement1
Annualized Incremental Cost Percent
Compliance Activity (Millions of Dollars) of Total Cost
Closure/Post-Closure S303.3 59%
Treatment and Disposal 56.8 11
Monitoring/Testing 67.5 13
Administration 28.7 6
Contingency Planning 23.2 5
Recordkeeping/Reporting 15.2 3
^raining 15.8 3
Total S510
1/ Detail does not add to total due to independent rounding.
46
-------
T^ble 2
Distribution of RCRA Costs by Industry
Industry
Annualized, Incremental Cost
{Millions of Dollars)
Percent of
Total Cost
1.
/Agricultural Services
7.3
1,4
2.
Battery Manufacture
4.3
0.8
3.
Chemical Warehouses
(1)
0.0
4.
Drum Reconditioning
0.7
0.1
5.
Electronic Components
9.7
1.9
6.
Electroplating
80.7
15.8
7.
Explosives
7.6
1.5
8.
Ferrous Metals
40.7
8.0
9.
Inorganic Chemicals*
49.8
9.8
10.
Leather
11.0
2.3
11.
Nbn-Ferrous Metals
64.2
12.6
12.
Organic Chemicals*
13.3
2.6
13.
Paint Manufacture
4.4
0.9
14.
Pesticides Manufacture
84.1
16.5
15.
Petroleum Refining
48.2
9.5
16.
Petroleum Rerefining
1.4
0.3
17.
Pharmaceuticals
7.0
1.4
18.
Plastics and Synthetics
35.0
6.9
19.
Rubber
6.1
1.2
20.
Special Machinery
4.6
0.9
21.
Textiles
23.3
4.6
22.
Wood Preserving
5.8
1.1
Note: */ EPA was unable to analyze all segments of these industries. For inorganics
the Agency looked at chrome pigments, titaniun dioxide, sodium dischrcmate,
boric acid, phosphorus penta sulfide, phosphorus trichloride, and chlorine.
EPA examined ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride monomer, chlorcmethanes,
perchloroethylene, aerylonitrile, chlorobenzene, benzylchloride, epichlori-
hydrin, ethanolomines and furfural for the organic chemical industry.
-------
The draft Economic Impact Analysis, which accompanied the
December 18, 1978 proposed regulations qualitatively discussed
the potential economic impacts of complying with the proposed
regulations. As a result of these preliminary findings the Agency
performed quantitatve analyses of six industries using an early
draft of these final regulations, covering textile manufacturing,
leather tanning, nonferrous smelting and refining, inorganic
chemicals (chrome pigments, titanium dioxide, sodium dichromate,
and chlorine), organic chemicals (ethylene dichloride and vinyl
chloride monomer, chloromethanes and perchloroethylene, and
acrylonitrile), and electroplating. These analyses were based on
applying basic capital budgeting techniques to model plant
representations of the industries. The projected impacts are shown
in Table 3.
48
-------
Table 3
Summary of Projected Economic Impacts of the RCRA
Interim Status Standards on Selected Industries
Industry
Organic Chemicals
Nonferrous Smelting
& Refining;
Secondary Lead
Primary Zinc
Inorganic Chemicals:
Sodium Dichromate
Titanium Dioxide
Textiles:
Woven Fabric Finishing
Felted Fabric Processing
Plants Generating
Hazardous Waste(#)
45
252
64
6
95
3
13
1166
336
19
Potential
Closures(#)
0
2
1
1
3
1
2
10
8
2
Potential
Job Losses
500-1500
15
500-1,500
607
45
562
740
414
326
Possible
Possible Price Production
Increase (%) Loss (%)
0
<1
<1
0.7 - l.l
<1
Not available
Not available
0
0
0
0
<1
<1
0.7 - 1.4
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
8.0
Leather Tanning:
Cattlehide Nonchrome
Sheep (no beamhouse)
271
16
29
11
6
5
795
695
100
<1
1-3
0
1
<1
6.3
Electroplating:
Job Shops
Total
2, 336
4, 165
60
86
1 ,680
5, 322
6.6
2.5
49
-------
EPA also performed qualitative impact analyses for 17
other industries. Preliminary data indicate that only portions
of a few of these other industries may suffer substantial adverse
impacts from complying with the regulations. These firms are
in the explosives, pesticides, petroleum rerefining, and some
organics, plastics, and pharmaceutical industry sectors.
The Agency conducted a supplemental study specifically to
assess the potential costs of compliance with the surface
impoundment regulations during the interim status period. This
study covers all industries with impoundments.
The study identified the costs of compliance with the surface
impoundment requirements assuming there were no other waste control
options. In the real world, some firms would have options and
would switch waste management techniques. It includes operating
and administrative requirements, ground-water monitoring, remedial
action provisions, and requirements for closure and post-closure
care.
Costs for compliance range from a low figure of $60 million
per year to a high of S900 million per year, depending on
assumptions about site life and how many and what size impoundments
will contain regulated hazardous wastes. As mentioned previously,
the cost of the surface impoundment requirements to the industries
studied in the main economic impact analysis is $285 million.
The Agency made a major assumption for this analysis that
sites with impoundment surface areas greater than 150 acres would
close at 25 million dollars, although strict use of its closure
50
-------
cost equation showed a substantially higher cost. EPA based
this assumption on: (1) the uncertainty in the data base for
the size of large impoundments and their actual receipt of
hazardous waste and (2) the belief that industry would most
often provide acceptable closure plans that would be cheaper
than the conservative closure approach used to develop the
cost equation. If EPA had strictly applied the equation,
and if many of the very large impoundments in fact contain
hazardous wastes, then the approximate annual cost would have
been considerably higher. The $285 million cost included for
the industries covered in the main economic impact analysis,
has not been restrained by the 25 million dollar limitation.
51
-------
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Agency, in accordance with Executive Order 12044,
has prepared an Operations Resource Impact Analysis. This
analysis identifies the key activities and associated expendi-
tures necessary to implement and administer the hazardous
waste management program established by these regulations. A
copy of this document is available for review at the EPA
regional office libraries and at the EPA headquarters library.
Room 2404{M), Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
The Resource Impact Analysis provides the Agency's best
estimate of both State and EPA resource needs for implementing
the full RCRA Subtitle C program, the requirements for which
the Agency plans to promulgate in Phase II later this year.
The analysis, is, therefore, not directly applicable to the
interim status regulations; only a portion of the total
estimated resources will be needed during the interim status
period. However, since the interim status program is expected
to exist by itself for such a limited time, governmental agencies
must gear up now to manage the expected full program when the
regulations are promulgated for that program (in about six
months). Thus, development of resource estimates to manage
only the interim status program would not be useful.
The analysis provides resource estimates of the following
key activities necessary to implement EPA's hazardous waste
52
-------
program: administering the program, monitoring the manifest
system to track wastes from generation to disposal, processing
permits for hazardous waste management facilities, and assuring
compliance with RCRA and the regulations.
The analysis concentrates on State resource needs, since
Congress intended for States to implement the hazardous waste
program after they are authorized by EPA. EPA will implement
the program only in unauthorized States. These estimates are
based on a preliminary estimate that 35 States will seek and
be granted authorization to carry out the program. Any change
in this number will shift the State/EPA ratio of resources.
The Agency's resource estimates indicate that over a six-year
period through fiscal year 1985, 15,300 workyears of effort
(a workyear is the equivalent of one person working full-time
for one year) will be required by State governments to initially
implement a program substantially equivalent to the Federal
program, and to eventually implement a fully equivalent State
program. Over this same six-year time period, EPA will need
to devote about 2,200 workyears of effort to implement the
hazardous waste program in unauthorized States and conduct
oversight activities in authorized States. These estimates
referenced below represent the State and EPA resource require-
ments necessary to launch and implement a responsible hazardous
waste program.
53
-------
Table 4
STATE/EPA RESOURCE ESTIMATES (Workyears)
FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 Total
States 700 1300 2600 3700 3500 3500 15,300
EPA 100 500 500 500 300 300 2,200
Total Workyears 800 1800 3100 4200 3800 3800 17,500
RESOURCE ESTIMATE OF FOUR MAJOR ACTIVITIES (Workyears)
Activity FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 Total
Administration
500
800
700
1000
600
600
4200
Manifest
—
200
200
200
200
200
1000
Permitting
—
500
1800
2500
2500
2500
9800
Compliance
300
300
400
500
500
500
2500
Total Workyears
800
1800
3100
4200
3800
3800
17,500
Source: U.S. FPA Operations Resource Impact Analysis, April 1980
REPORTS IMPACTS
This discussion covers the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of RCRA Sections 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3010. The
estimates include essentially all of the paperwork requirements
associated with these Sections, even some items such as develop-
ment of inspections plans, which are not traditionally thought
of as recordkeeping and reporting activities. In the Economic
Impact Analysis report, costs of these other activities are
included with the appropriate technical activity and are not
tallied under the recordkeeping and reporting activity. This
will account for some discrepancies between the Report Impacts
Analysis data and data from other reports discussed in this
Regulatory Analysis. Because of the lead time necessary to
produce this analysis, it does not reflect the changes made to
the regulations late in the process. The Agency is continuing
54
-------
to analyze the effects of these changes. The Reports Impacts
Analysis may be viewed at the EPA regional office libraries
and at the EPA headquarters library, Room 2404(M), Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
For the proposed regulations, the universe of persons and
organizations potentially affected by recordkeeping and reporting
requirements was estimated at 762,000. However, the change in
the small quantity exemption for generators from 100 kg/mo. to
1000 kg/mo. in the final regulations is largely responsible for
greatly reducing the size of the regulated community to 72,000.
The following is EPA's estimate of the universe of those affected
26,400
67,000
5, 000
72,000
Note: (1) The numbers are not additive because a substantial
percentage of the waste management facilities are owned by
generators.
55
by the Subtitle C regulations promulgated today.
Table 5
REGULATED COMMUNITY ^
- Number of Waste Management Facilities
Surface Impoundments 7,000
Land Disposal and Treatment 4,500
Incinerators 1,500
Storage Facilities 13,400
- Generators
- Transporters
- Notifiers
-------
The estimated paperwork effort required by the Section
3002 and 3003 proposed regulations was 1,120,000 hours (S16.5
million) per year. These estimates covered only 17 of the 23
waste-generating industries. EPA estimates the total annual
paperwork effort involved in the final Section 3002 and 3003
regulations to be 842,000 hours ($10.2 million). These data
also include costs associated with the Department of Transpor-
tation regulations which are being issued to complement the
EPA manifest requirements. Much of the reduction in paperwork
effort from the proposed to the final rules results from the
the reduction in the number of generators affected by the
regulations.
EPA's initial estimate (based on the 1978 proposal)
of the paperwork effort under Section 3004 regulations came
to 2,400,000 hours ($28.8 million) per year plus initial
(one-time) efforts of 2,870,000 hours ($58.8 million). The
paperwork effort required by the Section 3004 interim status
regulations is expected to be 2,322,000 hours ($29.2 million)
or just over $1100 per facility per year. The changes from
the proposed regulations are minimal, resulting from the cumulative
effects of a number of regulatory changes. There has, however,
been a substantial decrease in the initial or one-time costs
of about 50 percent to 1,424,000 hours ($32.2 million). This
comes to about $1200 for the average facility. The reduction
from the proposed regulation occurs in large measure from an
Agency decision to defer and repropose the financial requirements
56
-------
for interim status. It is expected that these regulations
will be promulgated later this year and will require a
significant paperwork effort.
These estimates were derived using conservative assumptions
and should be viewed as an upper cost limit, but more precise
information on the universe of facilities and the amount of
waste covered cannot be known until the notification and
annual reporting functions are implemented. See Table 6 on
the following page for more details on the paperwork effort
and cost of individual activities of the various Subtitle C
sections.
In developing its regulations, EPA has carefully
reviewed paperwork requirements to minimize, consistent with
the Act, reporting burdens imposed on the public. This review,
together with careful consideration of comments from the public,
has led to reductions in reporting requirements as a result
of:
• exemptions for certain wastes and for small
volumes of waste,
° eliminating duplicative requirements of other
Federal agencies and State governments,
° eliminating non-essential requirements, and
' simplifying requirements
Nevertheless, the RCRA reporting requirements remain sub-
stantial. The RCRA regulatory program was meant by Congress
57
-------
to provide control over hazardous waste management. And,
unfortunately, exercising control in an effective and eauitabl
manner requires that substantial information be collected and
analyzed. In developing these regulations, the Agency has
attempted to pare these requirements to the bare minimum.
However, since RCRA is a new program, EPA plans to carefully
review the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in light
of practical experience over the next several years and may be
able to implement further reductions in paperwork requirements
-------
Table 6
REPORTING IMPACTS RCRA
Section
3002
3003
3004
3010
Requirement
Impact
1.
2.
3.
4.
Waste documentation
Manifest management
EPA
DOT
Annual report
Exception report
Hours
Dollars
TOTAL 53002
Manifest Management
1. Annual report
2. Manifest management
3. Monitoring plans
4. Operating records
5. Waste analysis,
inspection, con-
tingency plans
6. Closure/Post-Closure
plans
One-Time
87,000
87,000
TOTAL §3004
Notification
TOTAL
289,000
879,000
256,000
1,424,000
116,000
1,627,000
Annual
395,000
168,000
88,000
17,000
174,000
320,000
386,000
1,616,000
One-Time
1,600,000
Annual
4,010,000
2,020,000
1,720,000
400,000
668,000 1,600,000 8,150,000
6,190,000
20,770,000
5,230,000
2,080,000
4,900,000
3,100,000
21,230,000
2,322,000 32,190,000 29,230,000
2,720,000
3,164,000 36,510,000 39,460,000
59
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
In response to Executive Order 12044, Improving Government
Regulations, EPA is developing evaluation plans for all new
significant regulations. The RCRA Evaluation Plan described
here represents a substantial Agency initiative to develop
comprehensive plans for its regulations.
The purpose of the evaluation plan is to test how effective
a regulation is in achieving its defined goals and to determine
whether modifications are needed to achieve those goals.
Accordingly, the plan provides a framework for clarifying and
testing expectations, identifying problems, and deciding what
revisions are needed in the program to improve its effective-
ness and minimize the regulatory burden. The plan provides
measures for evaluating the regulations and prescribes a
schedule for periodic collection and analysis of data needed
to evaluate and manage the program. The Evaluation Plan
is available for review in the EPA headquarters library,
Room 2402(M), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The evaluation plan, like the regulations themselves
will be modified as time goes on to respond to changing informa-
tion, needs. The plan anticipates that those information needs
will vary over time, and the specific issues now viewed as
crucial in evaluating the program's effectiveness may change
as EPA gains experience with the regulations and makes revisions
reflecting that experience.
60
-------
Three basic types of questions are involved in evaluating
a regulatory program:
• Is the regulatory program operating as
planned—in the case of Subtitle C of RCRA,
such questions are: Have identification
numbers and permits been issued to waste
handlers? Have States been authorized,
etc?
° Does the regulatory program trigger the
desired industry response—for example,
has industry complied with regulations
issued under Subtitle C of RCRA?
° Do adopted industry management practices
adequately resolve the original problem—
in this case, has the program reduced damage
to the environment and public health from
hazardous wastes?
To answer these questions, the Agency will focus on three
aspects of the RCRA Subtitle C program--the implementation of
regulatory processes, industry response to those processes,
and the impact of government and industry actions on the flow
of hazardous wastes into the environment. The Agency will
also examine the assumptions and expectations linking these
three aspects of the program.
The Agency has developed initial evaluation designs for
each of the major components of the hazardous waste program.
61
-------
Each provides a framework for assessing EPA and State progress
in implementing the program. To date, 11 major components
have been distinguished for evaluation and management purposes.
They include eight "process" components and three "technical"
components:
Procedural or "Process" Components
o Notification and Identification Process
o Manifest System
o Facility Permitting
o Public Education and Involvement
o Recordkeeping and Reporting
o Enforcement
o State Authorization
o Development and revision of regulations
Technical Components
o Lists and characteristics of HW identified
o Interim status standards
o General status standards
Each specific evaluation component includes the
following:
o A description of the implementation steps and
measures
o A description of the expected outcomes and measures
o For each measure, an identification of data source,
reporting schedule, assessment of collection and
reporting responsibility, comparisons to be made,
and uses of information
-------
When implemented, these analyses will cover such topics
as:
o whether planned activities are occurring at expected
levels, on programmed schedules, and with allocated
resources;
o whether there are backlogs in issuing identification
numbers or facility permits;
o the extent of State authorization and any problems
encountered in attaining State authorization;
o the level of enforcement and follow-up on complaints
and information submitted to EPA; and
o other EPA and State actions required for the hazardous
waste management process to function.
The results of these analyses may lead, among other things, to
modifications in the regulations to improve effectiveness or
efficiency, to a change in enforcement priorities, or to changes
in procedures for managing the permitting process.
The plan provides EPA with a means of isolating implement-
ation problems and for establishing a baseline for assessing
the cost and effectiveness of the regulatory components.
63
------- |