Managing Hazardous Solid Waste and Waste Sites

1
Managing Hazardous Solid Waste and Waste Sites

• Chapter 18

2
How Serious is the Problem?

• It is worldwide in scope, affecting both
  developed and developing nations
• In the US, annual hazardous waste generation is
  about 36.3 million tons per year or 0.13 tons per
  person
• Risks are nontrivial
• e.g., Love Canal

3
Overview of Recent Policy

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
  1976 (Subtitle C)
• Established cradle-to-grave management
  delegated nonhazardous waste control to states
• Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
  (reauthorized RCRA)
• Some shift toward waste reduction and improved
  treatment
• Strengthened standards

4
Overall Policy Approach (RCRA)

• Command-and-control
• Primary responsibility is at federal level (EPA)
• Emphasizes waste management more than source
  reduction (pollution prevention)

5
Components of Cradle-to-Grave Management System

• Identification of hazardous waste
• A waste is hazardous if it falls into one of two
  categories
• characteristic wastes have attributes posing
  substantial risk
• In the US, characteristics are ignitability,
  corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity
• listed wastes pre-identified by EPA as having
  met certain criteria, such as the presence of
  toxic or carcinogenic constituents.
• National manifest system for tracking
• Once wastes are ready for transport, generator
  must prepare a document, called a manifest, that
  identifies the hazardous material and all parties
  responsible for its movement

6
Components of Cradle-to-Grave Management System
(continued)

• Permit system
• This controls waste management for transport,
  storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
• Standards for TSDFs
• General regulatory standards apply to all types
  of TSDFs and control functions like inspections,
  emergency plans, and participation in the
  manifest program
• Technical regulatory standards outline
  procedures and equipment requirements for
  specific types of facilities

7
Evolving To Pollution Prevention

• 1984 amendments suggest some movement toward
  prevention and away from land disposal
• Land disposal of untreated hazardous waste is
  essentially prohibited

8
Economic Analysis of Policy
9
4 Elements of the Analysis

• Risk-based uniform rules of identification
• Benefit-based uniform standards
• Failures of the manifest system
• Market implications of the 1984 land restrictions

10
Risk-Based Uniform Identification

• Absence of risk-benefit analysis
• Risk-based -- no consideration for balancing risk
  with benefits of the material before it becomes
  waste
• Result allocative inefficiency
• All waste materials are controlled with same
  stringency regardless of their value to society
• Identification criteria are applied uniformly
• No adjustments allowed for degree of toxicity or
  for the amount of waste that poses a hazard
• Result allocative inefficiency
• Potential for underregulation of more toxic
  wastes and overregulation of less toxic wastes

11
Benefit-Based Uniform Standards

• Standards are benefit-based
• No cost considerations
• particularly problematic for long-term rulings
  such as post-closure procedures
• Result allocative inefficiency
• Standards applied uniformly
• No consideration for site-specific differences
• Result cost ineffectiveness

12
Failures of Manifest System

• Strict CAC ? no incentives
• Solely benefit-based
• No consideration for costs of administration,
  compliance, etc.
• Result allocative inefficiency
• Limited scope
• only 4 - 5 of U.S. hazardous waste are moved off
  site and therefore subject to manifest system
• High compliance costs
• Potential incentive to illegally dispose

13
Market Implications of 1984 Land Restrictions

• Landfilling had become predominant form of
  disposal because it was believed to be a lower
  cost alternative, due in part to scale economies
• Error was that external costs were ignored
• Policy response was 1984 land restrictions
• Land use restrictions raise MPC, reducing
  landfilling activity, which lowers external costs
  in that market
• Issue How is landfilling reduction achieved?
• If through source reduction, society gains
• If through alternative practice, such as
  incineration, the net effect is unclear because
  that practice adds external costs

14
Effect of Land RestrictionsSource Reduction or
Alternative Practice?
MSC


MSC
h
S MPC
c
SMPC
i
b
g
a
DMSBMPB
DMSBMPB
L0
I0
Land Disposal
Incineration
Unless the decline in external costs in the
landfilling market is larger than the increase
in external costs in the incineration market, the
land restrictions achieve no net decline in
external costs to society
15
Market-Based Policy
16
Waste-end Charge

• A fee in place at time of disposal based on the
  quantity of waste generated
• To achieve efficiency, the charge must be set
  equal to the MSC of hazardous waste services at
  the efficient output level to cover MPC of the
  waste facility plus MEC from associated pollution
  
• Real-world examples
• Australia, Austria, Belgium, and Finland charge a
  fee on hazardous waste
• 35 U.S. states charge a tax on hazardous waste

17
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

• Superfund

18
Overview of Policy

• Comprehensive Environmental Response,
  Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 1980
  (Superfund)
• Established CERCLIS, a national inventory of
  hazardous waste sites
• CERCLIS is used to identify the worst sites and
  place them on National Priorities List (NPL)
• Established a 1.6 billion fund to clean up and
  recover damage
• Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
  (SARA) 1986
• Reauthorized CERCLA
• Increased fund to 8.5 billion
• Mandated federal action on 375 sites within a
  5-year period promotes permanent clean-up

19
Overview of Policy (continued)

• Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
  Revitalization Act of 2001(known as Brownfields
  Act)
• Amends CERCLA
• Outlines exemptions from Superfund liability
• Authorizes grant funding of up to 200 million
  annually for assessment and abatement of
  brownfield sites
• Abandoned or underutilized properties that are
  less contaminated than Superfund sites, but
  redevelopment is complicated by (potential)
  presence of contamination

20
CERCLIS and NPL Sites
In 1995, over 24,000 sites were removed from the
CERCLIS inventory as part of EPAs Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative (aimed at
promoting redevelopment of these
sites.) Sources U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (April 2000), as cited by
Council on Environmental Quality (1998), p. 312,
table 8.9 and updated online U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (April 1997).
21
Superfund ProceduresResponse/Cleanup National
Contingency Plan (NCP)

• The substance release is identified and the
  National Response Center is notified
• Site is listed in CERCLIS
• EPA responds
• Removal Action to restore immediate control
• Remedial Action to achieve permanent solution
• Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
• If site gets a risk ranking gt 28.50 out of 100 in
  the HRS, it is placed on the NPL

22
Superfund Procedures (continued)Response/Cleanup
National Contingency Plan (NCP)

• Site is listed on the Construction Completion
  List (CCL) when
• all immediate threats are addressed
• all long-term threats are under control
• Site is deleted from the NPL when the EPA and the
  state jointly determine that no further remedial
  actions are needed

23
Steps in a Superfund Cleanup
Source U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (December 11, 2000).
24
Compensation and Liability

• EPA has authority to force those responsible to
  correct the problem and pay for damage
• The law identifies potentially responsible
  parties (PRPs) as
• Current or former owners or operators of a site
  and all parties involved in disposal, treatment,
  or transport of hazardous substances to site
• Economically, the intent is to internalize the
  externality

25
Emergency PlanningTitle III of SARA

• Public must be informed of production and release
  of hazardous substances according to Title III of
  SARA
• Each state sets up an emergency plan in the event
  of a hazardous release
• Various reports about hazardous substances are
  required by law
• Resulting data forms the Toxics Release Inventory
  (TRI) published annually by EPA

26
Analysis of Policy
27
Assessing Superfunds Performance

• CERCLA of 1980 was a national failure
• 1.6 billion cleaned up only 8 sites
• Slow progress removing NPL sites
• As of 2005, only 293 have officially been removed
  from the NPL
• Average cost of remedial action is 25 million
  per site
• Problem of how clean is clean
• Sites are brought to a uniform level of
  cleanliness
• Debate is whether this decision should be
  risk-based or benefit-cost based

28
Two Major Flaws in Superfund

• Poor information and reporting practices
• An initial lack of awareness about the extent of
  the problem
• Inadequate knowledge of abatement technology

29
Two Major Flaws in Superfund

• Absence of market incentives
• Feedstock taxes that financed Superfund were
  targeted to be revenue producing, not as an
  incentive to reduce use of hazardous materials
• Definition of PRPs liability is disincentive for
  individuals to come forward
• Strict liability a party is responsible even if
  negligence is not proven
• Joint and several liability single party is
  responsible for all damages even if contribution
  is minimal
• Outcome is resource misallocation from cleanup to
  litigation procedures