Banning land disposal of hazardous wastes
Richard M. Dowd The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conscrvation and Recovery Act and the implementing regulations proposed by EPA in the Jan. 14, 1986. FivImil Rqisrer are designed to prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes irriless the €PA administrator finds that land disposal of certain wastes is “protective of human health and the environment.” One of the more significant departures from previous statutes governing waste disposal is that the new law unambiguously shifts the burden of proof tn disposers and generators of hazardous wastes. The statute makes it clear that unless EPA has strong evidence to the contrary-and that evidence must be provided by an interested party in a petition to the agency-any type of land disposal of the untreated wastes must be hanned. EPA has two primary responsibilities: first. to promulgate exceptions to the statutory prohibitions in the form of treatment standards that will ensure minimization of long-term and shortterm threats to human health and the environment, and second, to grant exceptions from the statutory prohibitions through approval of petitions denionstrating that continued land disposal of specific wastes is “protective of human health and the environment.” In establishing the treatment standards for exceptions to the ban, EPA may set maximum concentrations for the chemical constituents either in the leachate or in the waste itself. Alternatively. it can establish specified treatment methods to be applied to wastes instead of or prior to land disposal. 0015936X18610920-0327$015010
EPA has made it clear that it prefers to adopt the concentration route. using “screening levels.” that is. levels of measurement at which action must be taken. If a technology is unavailable. a waste that in itself meets the screening levels-for example, contaminated soil from Superfund cleanups-will be deemed to protect human health and the environment. Upcoming decisions The statute’s philosophy of imposing total bans if EPA and interested petitioners have not acted hy certain dates imposes treniendoos burdens on the agency and on waste disposers and generators. Over the coming five years. agency officials must arrive at a number of decisions: They must decide by Nov. 8, 1986. whether it is necessary to prohibit treatment or require alternative treatment for spent solvents and dioxinand furan-containing wastes. including 23 hazardous constituents. They must decide by July 8. 1987, whether to ban landfill disposal of wastes on the “California list,‘’ which includes liquids with chlorinated solvents and eight metals. By Aug. 8. 1988. they must rule on disposal of specified process wastes, including approximately 1 I O specific hazardous waste constituents, They must decide hy June 8, 1989, on 22 specified process wastes and 125 hazardous constituents. Finally. hy May 8. 1990. agency officials must decide on 13 specified process wastes and approximately 100 hazartlous waste constitutents. Each of these decisions will require an enormou? amount of work. Budgetary constraints Agency staff levels have not risen to meet this statutory requirement, and the current budgetary cliniate does not encourage hope for increased resources. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts may lead to as much as a 25% reduction in available resources in fiscal year 1987. more in 1988 and 1989.
1986 Amencan Chemlcal Soclely
If EPA fails to set standards for specific wastes. in the form of alternative technologies or of standard screening levels, the statutory prohihitions take effect. €PA can make decisions regarding exemptions or extensions only for a series of legislatively explicit reasons, including the finding of a lack of alternative technologies. Extensions or exemptions cannot he based simply on the fact that the agency was unable to coniplcte its work by the deadlines.
T h e petition The petition is the only forum for consideration of site-specific information. To ensure that the data in a petition have a reasonable degree of scientific certainty-enabling the Waste to be disposed of on land-EPA has identified four categories of information that must he presented: the exposure potential, through fate and transport: a population analysis. which is required if the constituent concentration at the point of exposure will exceed EPAs standards: toxicological data on site conditions: and the leachate concentration. For this information. EPA will require a substantial quality assurance and quality control (QA-QC) program that the petitioner must certify to undertake. Such programs can include audits of data collection and even independent monitoring and modeling of the site. Although many QA-QC procedures are straightforward-for example, analytical quality control-others. such as data collection quality control. are in their infancy. If the data cast doubt on the approvability of the petition. EPA will reject the petition at that stage. All of these steps add time to petition preparation. thus reducing the amount of time available for review and making efficient petition approval a difficult task. Riclfiird M. Dowif, PIi. D., is if Washingfon. D. C., ronsulranf f o Envimninmral Resenrdi & 7idinolo,qy, lnr. Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 20. No. 4. 1985 327
