The United States' hazardous waste regulatory program.

“Brownfields” in the environmental context is one of those modest success stories that come out of the environmental regulatory arena from time to time. The Brownfields Initiative is important enough that, in her recent resignation, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christine Todd-Whitman wrote that “our success in enacting long-overdue brownfields legislation is already accelerating the reclamation of abandoned parcels of land in hundreds of communities across America”. For years, critics have hammered away at the wasteful, ponderous, and punitive features of two federal laws, the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and its so-called “Superfund” program, which deals with abandoned contaminated facilities, and the 1976 Resource Conservation and Regulation Act (RCRA), which regulates hazardous waste operations and sites. Begun informally in 1995, the EPA's “Brownfields Initiative” (www.epa.gov/brownfields) allowed innovative compromises to be made between those laudable but burdensome laws, and the reality of returning industrial sites to beneficial use relatively quickly. A “brownfields site” is defined as any real property whose expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence (or potential presence) of a hazardous substance, solid waste, pollutant, or contaminant. These are often abandoned industrial properties and other areas that suffered from lack of attention and no hope of redevelopment. The EPA estimates that between 500 000 and one million brownfields sites are spread across the US. Generally there is no responsible person to remediate the property, so it has to be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up by someone who is not potentially liable for cleaning it up, pursuant to some sort of arrangement with the EPA or an appropriate state or local agency. The program has received general bipartisan support both in Congress and at state level, has helped spur the redevelopment of properties that might still be festering, and has fostered inner-city restoration and renewal projects. It has also added thousands of jobs to new businesses which once steered clear of contaminated real estate, the associated difficulty of cleaning it up, and the draconian laws that might have held them liable if they took on the task. Some 40 states have now developed voluntary programs that are cleaning up hundreds of brownfield sites. In 2002, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act became law. It codifies many of EPA's policies regarding brownfields and provides assessment grants for community planning and the investigation of potential sites. Grants are awarded through a competitive system that ranks proposals. The law also created revolving loan grants for brownfields cleanups and job training grants for those living in such areas. Importantly, it provided certain legal exceptions from the Superfund law for innocent and adjacent landowners, prospective purchasers, and others agreeing to undertake remediation of contaminated properties. The legislation also applies to former hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Finally, the law promises to streamline required cleanups and the revitalization of urban areas which heretofore remained abandoned. In addition, certain tax incentives now exist to spur cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields in distressed urban and rural areas. The EPA began the RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative in 1998, encouraging the remediation of some lower priority hazardous waste sites that needed cleaning up. A potential RCRA Brownfields site is a RCRA facility, or portion of such a facility, that is not in full use, where there is redevelopment potential, and where reuse or redevelopment is slowed due to real or perceived concerns about actual or potential contamination, liability, and RCRA requirements. The Brownfields program has been accompanied by a national realization that voluntary cleanups, which bring contaminants down to reasonable levels rather than zero, are the wiser, easier, and more practical course. To that degree, the Brownfields Initiative has been a nationwide success. Still, much could be done to improve it further. Financing and grants are still limited and red tape clogs projects in some states. Nevertheless, “the greenfields that we used to roam,” in the words of the folk group The Brothers Four, are now visible alongside new businesses and new opportunities unimaginable a quarter of a century ago. Douglass Rohrman

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is a multifaceted approach to the management of both solid and hazardous waste. The focus of this research is on the RCRA mandated proposed regulations for the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities. This research is an analysis of the interactions among hazardous waste disposal facilities, energy supply technologies and land use issues. This study addresses the impact of RCRA hazardous waste regulations in a descriptive and exploratory manner. A literature and legislative review, interviews and letters of inquiry were synthesized to identify the relationship between RCRA hazardous waste regulations and the siting of selected energy supply technologies. The results of this synthesis were used to determine if and how RCRA influences national land use issues. It was found that the interaction between RCRA and the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities required by energy supply technologies will impact national land use issues. All energy supply technologies reviewed generate hazardous waste. The siting of industrial functions such as energy supply facilities and hazardous waste disposal facilities will influence future development patterns. The micro-level impacts from the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities will produce a ripple effect on land use with successive buffer zones developing around the facilities due to the interactive growth of the land use sectors.

Within the confines of the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant are both active and inactive hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. These solid waste management units (SWMUs) are subject to assessment by the US Environmental Protections Agency, as required by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This document is the site-specific RFI plan for Tank 2064-U and contains historical information, operational information, and sampling data for this tank. The potential for release of contamination through the various media and potential receptors is addressed. A sampling and analysis plan is proposed to determine the extent, if any, of contaminant releases to the surrounding environment. Included are health, safety, quality assurance, and quality control procedures to be followed when implementing the sampling plan. 4 figs., 4 tabs.

Hanford Site interim-status groundwater monitoring projects are conducted as either background, indicator parameter evaluation, or groundwater quality assessment monitoring programs as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); and Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, as amended (40 CFR 265). Compliance with the 40 CFR 265 regulations is required by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303. Long-term laboratory contracts were approved on October 22, 1991. DataChem Laboratories of Salt Lake City, Utah, performs the hazardous chemicals analyses for the Hanford Site. Analyses for coliform bacteria are performed by Columbia/Biomedical Laboratories and for dioxin by TMS Analytical Services, Inc. International Technology Analytical Services Richland, Washington performs the radiochemical analyses. This quarterly report contains data that were received prior to March 8, 1993. This report may contain not only data from the October through December quarter but also data from earlier sampling events that were not previously reported.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed regulations that would require corrective action (e.g., soil excavation and groundwater removal and treatment) at municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). This paper presents an overview of the proposed corrective action regulations, and discusses their relationship to proposed or existing closure and post‐closure care regulations. The paper then presents estimated corrective action cost curves for various MSWLF scenarios defined by landfill area, average waste thickness, and the presence or absence of a clay liner. The paper finally illustrates the economic benefits of sound closure and postclosure care by comparing estimated costs of corrective action to estimated costs of closure and postclosure care at MSWLFs.

EPA soon expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulrakiking (NPRM) in the Federal Register concerning amendments to the ground-water nunitaring requirements Ear land-based hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) that are regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)- TfcRi.-notice will propose amendments to the list of ground-water monitoring constituents for TSDFs, Appendix IX to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Fart 264, (“Appendix IX”), and require that certain procedures be used in the design, installation, and operation of ground-water monitoring systems at TSDFs. The proposed changes to Appendix IX include the addition of a required list of detection monitoringj analytes (Appendix IX-A), the deletion or addition of several Appendix IX compounds due to analytical considerations, and a site-specific variance from the annual Appendix DC analysis requirement during compliance monitoring. The proposed standards for ground-water monitoring procedures will, be specified in revisions to Chapter Eleven of the U.S. EPA document SW-846, “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,” (Third Edition), or more generally referred to as “Chapter Eleven of SW-846.” Chapter Eleven of SW-846 specifies requirements concerning the characterization of site hydrogeology, placement of detection monitoring wells, monitoring well design and construction, and ground-water sampling and analysis programs. All hydrogeologic investigations and monitoring activities must comply with the methods and procedures required in Chapter Eleven of SW-846. The proposed requirements in Chapter Eleven of SW-846 represent EPA's establishment of qualitative:-, data quality objectives (DQOs) for the RCRA ground-water monitoring program. At the same time, EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV) is in the process of evaluating the efficacy of establishing quantitative DQOs for ground-water monitoring system performance. If appropriate, quantitative DQOs would allow EPA to determine the minmum number and location of monitoring wells required to achieve a specified probability of leak detection. This paper will summarize some of the methods that have been investigated to establish quantitative DQOs for RCRA ground-water monitoring.

In an effort to protect the environment and to reduce liabilities associated with hazardous wastes, a Waste Management Program was developed to eliminate and minimize the hazardous wastes generated in exploration and production operations. This involved field visits to operating locations and disposal facilities. The program reviewed the types of hazardous wastes generated by operating locations and exploration activities. Methods to eliminate and reduce hazardous waste production were implemented. Training for all personnel associated with waste management was provided. The program also required a knowledge of the regulations that govern solid and hazardous waste disposal. The Waste Management Program resulted in an overall reduction of hazardous wastes by 93% over a period of six years. This program demonstrates that in reducing the volumes of hazardous wastes, we not only reduce the liability, but we also have the added benefit of reducing waste disposal costs. The following discussion of the Waste Management Program includes topics on the methods for hazardous waste elimination, product substitution, minimization, and recycling. Specific examples include solvent distillation, painting operations, and batteries. Introduction The liability associated with the disposal of hazardous wastes is significant. P. 673^

Conservation and Recovely Act (RCRA) relative to the selection of

Approval of federal, state and local permits and approvals is expected no later than 1982, at which time construction is scheduled to commence. Plant commissioning and start-up are scheduled for July 1985. Operations will continue for a period of two years, when Paraho will consider four options. These include continued operation at 10,000 BPSD, increased operations at a commercial rate of 30,000 BPSD, maintenance as a research facility, or decommissioning and abandonment. The retort facility will be designed to produce 10,520 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of shale oil. The mine will be designed to produce 19,700 tons per stream day (TPSD) of raw shale. The net raw water demand is approximately 423 gallons per minute (gpm) and is to be obtained from the White River. All wastewater and contaminated runoff will be treated and re-used or evaporated. Gaseous and particulate emissions will be controlled through the use of best available control technology (BACT). Processed shale, including retorted shale and raw shale fines, will be disposed of on-site. An impervious retaining structure and an impervious lining will be incorporated in the processed shale disposal area design so that the risk of leachates reaching the ground water will be minimal. The disposal area will be monitored to provide needed design information for future commercial-size projects. Any wastes determined to be hazardous or toxic will be disposed of at an approved hazardous waste storage and disposal facility. Approximately 700 workers will be required during plant operations. Plans for dismantling the facility have been developed in the event that option is chosen upon completion of the operation program.

Under the ``Derived-from`` rule, solid waste that is generated from the treatment, storage or disposal of a hazardous waste is itself classified as a hazardous waste. Therefore, residues resulting from treatment, storage or disposal activities including materials such as sludges, ash emission control dusts, leachate, or spill residues are considered hazardous wastes (with certain exceptions discussed below). This provision is based on the premise that any residues from treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste will contain hazardous constituents [40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)]. It should be noted that a December, 1991 court ruling remanded both the ``Mixture`` rule (see ref. 1) and the ``Derived-from`` rule to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the grounds that EPA did not allow for public comment on these rules prior to promulgation. On March 3, 1992 EPA reinstated the rules on an interim basis, and is currently developing a revised regulatory scheme for hazardous waste classification (see ref. 2).

Comprehensive study on incineration-based disposal of hazardous gas and liquid wastes from used lubricating oil refineries

The development of hazardous waste disposal facilities in Hong Kong dates back only 10 years. Disposal ordinances first came in 1981, and codes of practice did not come until 1988. At present certain hazardous wastes that can be attenuated or fixed in domestic waste are buried (co-disposed) in active landfills. Wastes unsuitable for such disposal must first be treated, stored or, in the case of PCBs, exported to a country that has facilities for complete destruction of the waste. A chemical waste treatment centre including a high temperature incinerator, is to be constructed in 1991 and 1992, with a small incinerator capable of handling infectious wastes eventually being added. Additional landfill capacity will also be required to cope with non-treatable wastes and residues from the above facilities. Consideration is being given to the possibility of importing hazardous wastes for destruction in the high temperature incinerator as a source of income for the future. For linguistic reasons hazardous wastes are called chemical wastes, a term which is more readily translated into Cantonese.

Solid waste management is now acknowledged as one of the major environmental issues of our times. It remains a challenge for developed countries and is an exponentially growing problem for developing countries. The last four decades are marked by several incidents highlighting problems with solid and hazardous waste management across the world. 1. Trans-boundary shipments of hazardous and solid waste have received world-wide attention and media headlines. Infamous examples include Khian Sea which started its journey from Philadelphia in 1986 and Mobro which started its journey from New York in 1987; two US barges or ships with cargoes of municipal solid waste that went from one country to another looking for a port to dump their wastes. The Mobro went all the way to Belize and brought its cargo back to Brooklyn, New York for incineration and landfilling. Many speculate that Khian Sea dumped its cargo somewhere in the Indian Ocean in 1988. 2. Most recently, a fire started on 27 January 2016 in India’s oldest and largest open dumping site, Deonar in Mumbai, and was visible in satellite images (shown in Fig. 1.1). It continued for several days leading to complaints of air pollution and closure of schools for 2 days. The massive fire was attributed to the buildup of methane gas in the open dump where the waste had reached heights of more than 30 m. Fires in this dumping site have been recurrent making living conditions in the surrounding areas extremely difficult. 3. Many sources have identified poor solid waste management as one of the major contributing factors to the spread of plague in Surat, India in 1994. Incidents like these led to promulgation of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules in India in 2000. 4. Several industrial sites all around the world remain unusable or a toxic nuisance for their neighbours due to improper handling and management of hazardous wastes on-site. One of the earliest and most cited examples in the USA includes Love Canal, Niagara Falls, New York, where toxic waste was dumped through the 1920s and got national attention only in 1976–1978. The Superfund program (under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA for ensuring proper disposal of solid and hazardous waste) was initiated in 1980 in the USA and was the government’s response for remediating and rehabilitating such contaminated industrial sites.

An integer goal programming model for hazardous waste treatment and disposal

Treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes in Western Europe