The optimum control scheme will depend upon the nature of the regulatory program, but Federal or State control of storage and land disposal sites is clearly implied in any case. On balance, EPA believes that, with the possible exception noted above, the preferred approach to system implementation is to allow the private sector system to evolve under appropriate regulatory controls, to monitor closely this evolution, and to take remedial governmental action if necessary in the future. Section 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings Under the authority of Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as amended), the Environmental Protection Agency has carried out a study of the hazardous waste management practices of industrial, government, and other institutions in the United States. The key findings of this study are presented in this section. Current management practices have adverse effects. Hazardous waste management practices in the United States are generally inadequate. With some exceptions, wastes are disposed of on the land without adequate controls and safeguards. This situation results in actual and potential damage to the environment and endangers public health and safety. ... ... Causes are economics and absence of legislative control. The causes of inadequate hazardous waste management are two-fold. First, costs of treating such wastes for hazard elimination and of disposing of them in a controlled manner are high. Second, legislation which mandates adequate treatment and disposal of such wastes is absent or limited in scope. The consequence is that generators of hazardous wastes can use low-cost but environmentally unacceptable methods of handling these residues. ... .. Authorities for radioactive wastes are adequate. Under the authority of The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the management of radioactive wastes is placed under control. While the actual implementation of the act may be improved, the legislative tools for accomplishing such an end exist. ...Air and water pollution control authorities are adequate. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 provide the necessary authorities for the regulation of the emission of hazardous compounds and materials to the air and to surface waters from point sources. Legislative controls over hazardous waste land disposal are inadequate. The legislative authorities available for the control of hazardous waste deposition on land—and the consequent migration of such wastes into the air and water media from land-are not sufficient to result in properly controlled disposal. This legislative gap literally invites the use of land as the ultimate sink for materials removed from air and water. ...Land protection regulation is needed. In order to close the last available uncontrolled sink for the dumping of hazardous waste materials and thus to safeguard the public and the environment, it is necessary to place legislative control over the disposal of hazardous wastes. In the absence of such control, cost considerations and the competitive posture of most generators of waste will continue to result in dangerous and harmful practices with both short range and long term adverse consequences. ... The technology for hazardous waste management generally is adequate. A wide array of treatment and disposal options is available for management of most hazardous wastes. The technology is in use today, but the use is not widespread because of economic barriers in the absence of legislation. Transfer and adaptation of existing technology to hazardous waste management may be necessary in some cases. Treatment technology for some hazardous wastes is not available (e.g., arsenic trioxide, arsenities and arsenates of copper, lead, sodium, zinc, and potassium). Additional research and development is required as the national program evolves. However, safe and controlled storage of such wastes is possible now until treatment and disposal technology is developed. A private hazardous waste management industry exists. A small service industry has emerged in the last decade offering waste treatment services to industry and other institutions. This industry is operating below capacity because its services are high in cost relative to other disposal options open to generators. The industry is judged capable of expanding over time to accept most of the Nation's hazardous wastes. ... Hazardous waste management system costs are significant. Estimates made by EPA indicate that investments of about $940 million and operating costs (including capital recovery) of about $620 million per year will be required to implement a nationwide hazardous waste management system which combines on-site (point of generation) treatment of some wastes, off-site (central facility) treatment for hazard elimination and recovery, and secure land disposal of residues which remain hazardous after treatment. ... The private sector appears capable of responding to a regulatory program. Indications are that private capital will be available for the creation of capacity and that generators of waste will be able to bear the costs of management under new and more exacting rules. Private sector response to a demand created by a regulatory program cannot be well defined, however, and the characteristics of the resulting hazardous waste management system cannot be definitely prescribed. Uncertainties inherent in a private sector system include availability of capital for facility construction and operation in a timely manner for all regions of the Nation, adequacy of facility locations relative to waste generators such as to minimize environmental hazard and maximize use, reasonableness of facility use charges in relation to cost of services, long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities, i.e., that such facilities will be adequately secured for the life of the waste, irrespective of economic pressures on private site operators. Several alternatives for government action are available if such actions are subsequently determined to be required. If capital flow were very slow and adverse environmental effects were resulting from the investment rate, financial assistance would be possible in indirect forms such as loans, loan guarantees or investment credits, or direct forms such as construction grants. If facility location or user charge problems arose, the Government could impose a franchise system with territorial limits and user charge rate controls. Long term care of hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities could be assured by mandating use of Federal or State land for such facilities. Recommendations Based on the above, it is recommended that... Congress enact National legislation mandating safe and The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed such legislation to Congress, embodying the conclusions of studies carried out under Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973 calls for authority to regulate the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. A copy of the proposed Act is presented in Appendix G. The key provisions of the proposed legislation are the following: (1) Authority to designate hazardous wastes by EPA. (2) Authority to regulate treatment/disposal of selected waste categories by the Federal Government at the discretion of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (3) Authority for the setting of Federal treatment/disposal standards for designated waste categories. (4) State implementation of the regulatory program subject to Federal standards in most cases. (5) Authority for coordination and conduct of research, surveys, development and public education. EPA believes that no further Government intervention is appropriate at this time. It is EPA's intention to carry on its studies and analyses; and EPA may make further recommendations based on these continuing analyses. REFERENCES 1. Swift, W. H., Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites. v. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-06-0762. [Richland, Wash.], Battelle Memorial Institute, Mar. 1, 1973. p. III-63. (Unpublished data.) 2. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Public Law 92–532, 92d Cong., H.R. 9727. Washington, Oct. 23, 1972. 12 p. 3. Smith, D. D., and R. P. Brown. Ocean disposal of barge-delivered liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, p. 10. 4. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v. 2, p. IV-D-1 to IV-D-42. 5. Ottinger, R. S. Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. v. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-03-0089. [Redondo Beach, Calif.], TRW Systems Group, Inc., June 1973. (Unpublished data.) 6. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc. A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects and disposal methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-03-0032. [Bethesda, Md.], June 30, 1972. 3 v. 7. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, 15 v. 8. Lackey, L. L., S. R. Steward, and T. O. Jacobs. Public attitudes toward hazardous waste disposal facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-03-0156. [Columbus, Ga.], Human Resources Research Organization, Feb. 1973. (Unpublished data.) 9. Funkhouser, J. T. Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at national disposal sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No. 68-01-0556. [Cambridge, Mass.], Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1973. 2 v. (Unpublished data.) 10. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, 2 v. 11. Christensen, H. E., ed. Toxic substances annual list, 1971. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publication DHEW (HSM) 72-10260. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 512 p. 12. Council on Environmental Quality. Toxic substances. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1971. p. 2. 13. U.S. Congress. Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973. 93d Cong., 1st sess., U.S. Senate, S.1086, introduced Mar. 6, 1973, U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.4873, introduced Feb. 27, 1973. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aug. 1970, p. 107. 14. Swift, Feasibility study for the development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v. 1, p. III-2. 15. Environmental quality; the first annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality together with the President's message to Congress. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1970. p. 107. 16. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2. 17. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2. 18. Mahler, H. R., and E. H. Cordes. Biological chemistry. New York, Harper & Row, 1966. 872 p. 19. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2. 20. Johnson, O., Pesticides '72, Chemical Week, 110 (25):33–48, 53-66, June 21, 1972; 111(4):17-46, July 26, 1972. 21. Jansen, L. L., Estimate of container number by size, type, and formulations involved. In Proceedings; National Working Conference on Pesticides, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md., June 30-July 1, 1970. p. 27–30. [Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. as PB 197 145.] 22. Jansen, Estimate of container number by size, type, and formulations, involved, p. 27-28. 23. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous wastes, v. 14, p. 199. 24. Swift, Feasibility study for development of a system of hazardous waste national disposal sites, v. 1, p. V-1 to V-218. 25. Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., A study of hazardous waste materials, hazardous effects and disposal methods, v. 1, p. A-II-1 to A-II-22. 26. Proceedings; American Hospital Association [Institute on Hospital Solid Waste Management], Chicago, May 18-20, 1972. v. 3. 27. Personal communication. Chemical Biological Warfare Office, U.S. Army Material Command, Washington. 28. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 8. 29. U.S. Tariff Commission. Synthetic organic chemicals; United States production and sales, [1954-1970]. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. [15 v.] 30. Commissioner Ray stresses positive understanding. Hanford News (Hanford, Wash.), p. 5, Oct. 27, 1972. 31. Ottinger, Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste, v. 2, p. 5. 32. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 2. 33. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 9. 34. Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic substances, p. 9. 35. Committee on Toxicology. Toxicological reports. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1971. 219 p. |