tials, and in the general absence of pressures to do otherwise, one realizes why the more environmentally acceptable methods are seldom utilized. Available technology cannot compete economically with the cheaper disposal alternatives. Clearly, there are substantial economic incentives for industry not to use adequate hazardous waste treatment and disposal methods. Should a generator elect to process his hazardous wastes in an environmentally acceptable manner, a basic decision must be made whether the particular waste stream should be processed on-site or off-site at some regional treatment facility, such as existing commercial waste processing plants. The cost analysis of this problem, as it applies to a number of commonly occurring industrial waste streams, was conducted by means of a mathematical model that produced "economic decision maps." 42 Typical examples are attached in Appendix E. An analysis of the decision maps indicates that cost factors generally favor off-site treatment and disposal of industrial hazardous wastes with the exception of dilute aqueous toxic metal streams. Other factors, such as the impact of pending water effluent standards and transportation problems, may alter this judgment. Summary EPA's findings relative to the current handling of hazardous wastes can be summed up as follows: 1. Current treatment and disposal practices are inadequate and cause unnecessary hazards to all life forms. 2. Techniques for safe and environmentally sound treatment and disposal of most hazardous wastes have been developed. Adaptation and transfer of existing technology, and development of new methods, is required in some cases. It is possible to retain hazardous wastes for which treatment/disposal methods are unavailable in long-term storage until their chemical conversion to harmless compounds or their reuse in industrial practice becomes feasible. 3. There are substantial economic incentives for industry not to use environmentally adequate treatment and disposal methods. Such methods are substantially more expensive than current inadequate practices, and in a climate of permissive legislation or total absence of legislation, competitive economic forces result in least-cost disposal regardless of the environmental consequences. 4. A small industry has emerged to treat and dispose of hazardous and other industrial wastes. This industry is not currently operating at capacity because its services are being utilized only by a few clients that are concerned about the environment, or have no cheaper disposal alternatives, or sometimes find themselves forced to use such services because of environmental regulations. This industry, however, has the capability to expand to meet demands engendered by future Federal or State actions. It is evident that a need exists for bringing about environmentally acceptable and safe treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. The next section will discuss the need for a regulatory program in order to achieve this goal. Section 3 THE CASE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS The previous section has shown the potential for public health and environmental damages from mismanagement of hazardous wastes and the lack of economic incentives for proper management. There is a strong precedent for Federal regulation when health damage is at issue. Regulation is used because the other conceptual alternative, massive economic incentives, does not ensure compliance. Some forms of regulation, however, may embody certain types of economic incentives. Federal and State statutes have attempted to regulate and control various parts of the problem, but there has never been an attempt to regulate hazardous waste management in a comprehensive manner. The following discusses legislative precedents regarding hazardous wastes and illustrates a legislative gap in the regulation of land disposal of hazardous wastes. Existing Authorities for Hazardous Waste Management A large body of Federal and State law exists today which exerts a significant but peripheral impact on the land disposal of hazardous waste. The following discussion reviews existing laws and assesses their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Federal Control Statutes. Thirteen Federal statutes have varying degrees of direct impact on the management of hazardous wastes. Four additional Federal statutes are either indirectly or potentially applicable to hazardous wastes. The Clean Air Act, as amended, and the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act will be discussed in some detail later in this section. The other statutes and their impact on the treatment, storage, transportation, and handling of hazardous wastes may be summarized as follows: 1. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970.43 Section 212 of the Resource Recovery Act directs the Administrator of EPA to study the feasibility of a system of national disposal sites for hazardous wastes. The Act authorizes no regulatory activities, however. 2. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.44 This statute authorizes the Atomic Energy Commission to manage radioactive wastes generated in fission reactions both by the AEC and private industry. High-level radioactive wastes from weapons and reactor programs are controlled directly by the AEC at its facilities; commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes are generally disposed of at facilities licensed and controlled by the States. Naturally occurring materials, such as uranium mill tailings and radium, and radioisotopes produced by cyclotrons are not subject to regulation under the Act. There is room for improvement at the radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities, but by comparison with other hazardous wastes, high-level radioactive waste management is well regulated. 3-7. The Department of Transportation is responsible for administering five statutes which affect the transport of hazardous wastes. The oldest of these, the Transportation of Explosives Act 45 prohibits the knowing unregulated transport of explosives, radioactive materials, etiologic (disease-causing) agents and other dangerous articles in interstate commerce unless the public interest requires expedited movement or such transport involves "no appreciable danger to persons or property." Supplementing this law is the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1970,46 a non-regulatory statute which authorizes the Secretary of DOT to evaluate hazards associated with hazardous materials transport, establish a central accident reporting system, and recommend improved hazardous materials transport controls. The Safety Regulation of Civil Aeronautics Act 47 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to establish air transportation standards "necessary to provide adequately for national security and safety in air commerce." The Hazardous Cargo Act 48 places regulatory controls on the water transport of explosives or dangerous substances, authorizing the U.S. Coast Guard to publish regulations on packing, marking, labeling, containerization, and certification of such substances, The Federal Hazardous Sub stances Labeling Act 49 authorizes the DOT Secretary to identify hazardous substance and prohibits the transport of such substances if their containers have been misbranded or the labels removed. The Act authorizes the seizure of misbranded hazardous substances and requires the courts to direct the ultimate disposition of such seized substances. 8. The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 50 requires the Administrator of EPA to establish procedures and regulations for the disposal or storage of packages, containers, and excess amounts of pesticides. EPA is also required to "accept at convenient locations for safe disposal" those pesticides whose registration is suspended to prevent an imminent hazard and later canceled, if the pesticide owner so requests.51 9. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 52 prohibits the transport from the United States for the purpose of ocean dumping any radiological, chemical or biological warfare agents, high-level radioactive wastes, or (except as authorized by Federal permit) any other material. In granting permits for ocean dumping, the EPA Administrator must consider "appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including landbased alternatives, and the probable impact of [such use] upon considerations affecting the public interest." 53 10-11. The Clean Air Act 54 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,55 examined in detail later in this section, provide extensive control authority over the incineration and water disposal of certain hazardous wastes. 12. The Poison Packaging Prevention Act 56 authorizes the Secretary of HEW to establish special packaging standards for hazardous household substances whenever it can be shown that serious personal injury or illness to children can result from handling, using or ingesting such substances. Hazardous household substances already identified in regulations include oven cleaners, cigarette and charcoal lighter fluids, liquids containing turpentine and methyl alcohol, and economic poisons (pesticides). 13. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 57 prohibits the adultera tion and misbranding of certain consumer items and requires the disposal by destruction or sale of any items seized under the Act. 14. The first of the Federal statutes which have a general, nonregulatory impact on the management of hazardous wastes is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).58 Sec. 101(b) of NEPA requires the Federal Government to "use all practicable means" to attain the widest range of beneficial uses without degrading the environment or risking health or safety. In order to ensure that the environmental policies expressed in Sec. 101 are effectively carried out, Sec. 102 (2) (C) requires all agencies of the Federal Government to prepare detailed environmental impact statements for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." All Federal hazardous waste management activities thus clearly fall within NEPA's ambit. 15. The Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization Acts of 1969 and 1970 59 prohibit the use of Federal funds for the transportation, open air testing, or disposal of any lethal chemical or biological warfare agent in the United States except under certain conditions requiring prior determination of the effect on national security, hazards to public health and safety, and practicability of detoxification prior to disposal. 16. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,60 in declaring it a national policy to preserve and protect the resources of the Nation's coastal zone, recognizes waste disposal as a "competing demand" on coastal zone lands which has caused "serious environmental losses." Because applicants for Federal coastal zone management grants must define "permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone," an applicant's failure to regulate hazardous waste disposal within such area so that it qualifies as a "permissible use" can serve as a basis for denying program funds under the Act. 17. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 61 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory standards to protect the occupational safety and health of all employers and employees of businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Sec. 6(b) (5) deals specifically with toxic materials and other harmful agents, requiring the Secretary to "set the standard which most adequately assures . . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or financial capacity" from regular exposure to such hazards. Employees of hazardous waste generators, and treatment and/or disposal facilities, engaged in interstate commerce thus are clearly entitled to the Act's protection. It should be noted that standards issued under the Act can directly impact some phases of hazardous waste management. For example, the OSHA-enforced asbestos regulation requires that certain wastes be packaged for disposal. State Control Statutes. At least 25 jurisdictions have enacted legislation or published regulations which control hazardous waste |