REGULATORY FOCUS
Disposal of liquid hazardous waste
Michael R. Deland
In one of her most controversial decisions thus far, EPA Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch recently stayed for 90 days (until May 26, 1982) the ban prohibiting the disposal in landfills of most containerized liquid waste or waste containing free liquid. At the same time, the agency proposed relaxing the existing regulations to allow up to 25% of a landfill's capacity to be used to store "free liquids." Lifting the ban, which had been in effect since Nov. 19, 1981, allows companies to immediately dispose of wastes that have been accumulating since that time. Opposition to these actions was swift and created an unusual alliance of environmentalists, industry groups, and states, while giving EPA's critics in Congress another reason to voice concern. Rep. James Florio (D-N.J.) charged that "the actions are the personification of willful disregard for the protection of public health and the environment." EPA's rationale EPA's Feb. 26,1982, Federal Register proposal was keyed to an argument made by both the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA). They asserted that in the absence of any test protocol, EPA's existing regulations legally banned landfilling "one drop" of free liquid. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance, all containers would have to be opened and inspected prior to landfilling. This would increase cost substantially, and could create safety and environmental hazards because of the ignitability, volatility, or toxicity of many of the wastes. 0013-936X/82/0916-0225A$01.25/0
The trade organizations further argue that certain types of wastes are not suitable for incineration and that currently there is not adequate incineration capacity. EPA unquestionably exacerbated the present problem by pledging to interested parties in Nov. 6, 1981, that it would promulgate a rule-making proposal "by or before Nov. 19" and at the same time suspend the compliance date for 90 days or until finalization of the proposed rulemaking, whichever occurred first. After patiently storing wastes since November, industry is only partially consoled by EPA's selecting the stance it advocated. Ironically, while both NSWMA and CMA support stringent landfill design standards including liners and leachate collection systems, the EPA proposal makes no mention of such safety features. It is also ironic that the agency is promoting the use of landfills at a time when its own funded research and the consensus reached at the Eighth Annual EPA Symposium on "Land Disposal, Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste" reveals that traditional liner materials such as clay are not as effective for liquid organic wastes as once thought, and that synthetic liners have a limited life and are therefore of questionable usefulness. The opposition United against EPA are various groups not normally noted for sharing a common cause. Environmentalists, represented by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), feel that "landfilling is the least desirable method of addressing hazardous waste," and the EPA proposals are a "giant step backward." Among other documentation, EDF sites a recent study of four modern landfills in New Jersey. They were all double-lined with clay or polyvinyl chloride, were all meeting regulatory standards, and were all leaking. The Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC), composed of many of the country's largest and most sophisticated waste disposal firms, argues that adequate incineration capacity does exist and that incineration
© 1981 American Chemical Society
is more environmentally acceptable than landfilling. In addition, HWTC and EDF allege that since EPA did not give notice of the suspension of the ban, it not only violated the mandate and notice section of the statute (RCRA), but also the Administrative Procedure Act. Numerous states also have joined the fray. For example, the attorney general of New York believes that EPA's 25% proposal is absurd. New York had a 15% rule in the mid 1970s, now has a 10% rule, and currently is working toward a 5% rule, eventually phasing out. Across the continent, California has taken the initiative to ban selected high priority wastes from landfills, both because landfills are undesirable and because such action will stimulate the development and implementation of viable, cost-effective disposal alternatives. EPA's options EPA clearly did not anticipate the public outcry precipitated by its February proposal. Last month, it held a public hearing in an attempt to diffuse some of the criticism and solicit suggestions on its course of action. Among its options are: to leave the suspension in place until May 26, 1982; to stay the suspension, thereby again prohibiting the disposal of certain liquid in landfills; or to publish its February 25 proposal in "interim final" form. While the substantive portions of EPA's proposal are certainly subject to criticism, the "90-day gap" has prompted the most concern. However, on that issue the parties do not appear far apart. CMA has intimated that it would not oppose a reinstitution of the ban if EPA would commit itself to publishing regulations within a reasonable time. Even on the underlying issue of the long-term viability of landfills, there seems to be room for compromise. What remains to be seen is whether EPA has the inclination and the ability to assume a leadership role it has thus far shunned. Deland writes this monthly column and is employed by ERT, Concord, Mass. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 4, 1982
225A
