Chapter 17 Managing Hazardous Solid waste n waste site.ppt

Environment

1. Managing Hazardous Solid
Waste and Waste Sites
Chapter 17
© 2007 Thomson Learning/South-Western Callan and Thomas, Environmental Economics and Management, 4e.

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Restrictions
Source Reduction or Alternative Practice?
$ $
D=MSB=MPB
D=MSB=MPB
S=MPC
S’=MPC’
MSC
MSC’
a
b
c
L
0
L
1
d
e
f
MSC
S = MPC
D’=MSB’=MPB’
g
I
0
h
i
I
1
j
k
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. 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. 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. 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
Year CERCLIS
(cumulative)
NPL
(cumulative)
1980-90 33,371 1,236
1992 36,869 1,275
1994 39,099 1,360
1996 12,781* 1,210
1998 9,404 1,192
2000 9,297 1,226


*In 1995, over 24,000 sites were removed from the CERCLIS inventory as part of EPA’s 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. 21
Superfund Procedures
Response/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 > 28.50 out of 100 in the HRS,
it is placed on the NPL

22. 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. 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. 25
Emergency Planning
Title 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. 27
Assessing Superfund’s 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. 28
Two Major Flaws in Superfund
1.Poor information and reporting practices
An initial lack of awareness about the extent of the
problem
Inadequate knowledge of abatement technology

29. 29
Two Major Flaws in Superfund
2.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