Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781610912761 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Island Press |
| Publication date: | 04/22/2013 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 336 |
| File size: | 31 MB |
| Note: | This product may take a few minutes to download. |
About the Author
This publication was made possible by a two-year study of the hazardous waste industry by The Council on Economic Priorities, with Benjamin A. Goldman as project director, and James A. Hulme and Dr. Cameron Johnson as associate project directors.
The Council on Economic Priorities is a public service research organization, dedicated to accurate and impartial analysis of some of the most vital issues facing our country today. CEP is nonaligned, independent, and nonprofit.
Read an Excerpt
Hazardous Waste Management
Reducing the Risk
By Benjamin A. Goldman, James A. Hulme, Cameron Johnson
ISLAND PRESS
Copyright © 1986 Council on Economic PrioritiesAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-61091-276-1
CHAPTER 1
Busting the Shell Game: Where CEP Looked and What CEP Found
The fact is that industrial societies generate hazardous wastes. Another fact is that plenty of room for improvement remains in the industrial production processes and practices that reduce waste and reuse waste byproducts. The public must recognize the need for hazardous waste management facilities and work with industry and the regulators to ensure that these facilities are properly located, that they are optimally managed, and that they use the most appropriate technologies.
Moving hazardous wastes is not a final solution. In fact the policy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in most cases is to keep wastes where they are and to stabilize leaking sites rather than to move the wastes elsewhere. Nevertheless, beset by political pressures to get rid of toxic wastes quickly, many public officials still implement out-of-state, out-of-mind policies. Proper management of hazardous wastes means minimizing the risks to all of society, not shifting risks to other sectors.
This study by the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP) tracks a nationwide toxic "shell game" and provides practical help to arrest its continuation. The CEP study does some of the work that U.S. EPA should have been doing all along and points the way to an adequate method for screening operating hazardous waste facilities. By taking the time to look through hundreds of files at regional U.S. EPA and state offices and by evaluating them with an intensive comparative approach, CEP discovered much that is going unnoticed by state and local regulators.
The CEP study focuses on the eight publicly held commercial U.S. hazardous waste management companies that own and operate treatment and disposal facilities. The table on page 4 lists the companies in alphabetical order.
CEP estimates that these eight companies own one-fifth of the commercial hazardous waste management industry's active facilities and garner almost one-half of the industry's revenues. These eight major waste firms, if managed improperly, could adversely affect the health of many Americans. The hazardous waste management industry receives wastes from over 5000 industrial plants, and the number is growing by leaps and bounds.
Congress has strengthened the laws under which active hazardous waste facilities are regulated. Nevertheless, after visiting a number of active treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, CEP found that not only do generators not know which facilities are the best, but that U.S. EPA has not always selected the best facilities to receive wastes removed from Superfund sites (closed sites that endanger public health and the environment). Other facilities were better managed, better located, and better at using more advanced technologies than the facilities U.S. EPA selected. In fact, of the ten facilities CEP evaluated in detail, U.S. EPA chose the one that performed worst—CECOS International, Inc. in Williamsburg, Ohio—to receive Superfund wastes in more instances than any of the other nine facilities. Data from a house subcommittee survey indicate that almost half (46 percent) of the operating hazardous waste facilities U.S. EPA chose to receive wastes removed from Superfund sites (see chapter 3) may have contaminated ground water. Some of the chosen facilities may even be partially responsible for a share of the wastes they are being paid to clean up (see chapter 4). If the decision making of U.S. EPA has resulted in poor site selection, is it any wonder that companies in the private sector have also had difficulty selecting appropriate options for waste disposal?
A CHRONICLE OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND GROWING PAINS
CEP identifies a number of the factors that led to the gap that now exists between sound practices and many of those that are currently used in the hazardous waste management industry. Many factors arise from the fact that the industry is relatively new. It has expanded rapidly in response to environmental regulations promulgated over the past 5 years.
As the industry matures, however, the trend is toward improvement. Federal and state governments are developing guidelines for proper hazardous waste management; industry compliance, in turn, is also improving—but not always fast enough to respond to tightened regulations.
CEP's study discusses federal and state regulations that currently affect hazardous waste management, presents a guide to the technologies used to manage these wastes, and offers a profile of the strengths and weaknesses of specific companies. CEP's goal is to promote the proper management of hazardous wastes by highlighting regulatory strengths and deficiencies, by naming companies and facilities with the best performance records, by defining the most appropriate technologies, and by developing strategies for selecting hazardous waste management contractors.
THE REGULATORS: STATES AND REGIONAL EPAs
Unavailability of accurate, consistent, and thorough information about hazardous waste management companies and facilities poses a major obstacle to effective regulation. CEP finds that the regulators' abilities to gather and process data are deficient, and so are their abilities to communicate findings inside and outside government. CEP ratings reveal that Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas are the best at communicating information to the public; California, Idaho, New York, and Ohio are worst.
In terms of inspection and enforcement performance during fiscal year 1984, CEP ranks Maryland's hazardous waste regulatory program as the best. On average, Maryland inspected each major facility ten times and took seven enforcement actions against every serious violator. The scores of New Jersey and California, two states that produce large amounts of waste, are also excellent in this regard. Hawaii and Wyoming, on the other hand, receive the lowest marks because neither state inspected any major facilities during the fiscal year. The records of Louisiana and New York are also among the poorest in terms of site inspection and enforcement of regulations.
The performance of the ten U.S. EPA regional offices, which manage much of the information on the waste industry, also varies: Region 3 (the Mid-Atlantic States) does the best; Region 1 (New England), on the other hand, places last (see chapter 10).
EVALUATION METHODS
Appropriate methods for evaluating facilities and companies are hard to come by. CEP searched the literature of many relevant disciplines; sources ranged from chemical engineering models to actuarial models. The object was to find an easy-to-use, consistent, and relatively accurate method for comparing the risks and benefits of existing hazardous waste management facilities. CEP selected U.S. EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) as a starting point for developing an analytical tool to compare facilities on the bases of site, management, and technology (see chapters 6 and 8).
Events have supported the relevance of CEP screening procedures. The facility of Rollins Environmental Services (LA) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, scores poorly in terms of potential hazards posed by fugitive hazardous waste emissions and worker exposure, for example. Since our evaluation the state temporarily shut down the incinerator for those very reasons. CECOS International in Williamsburg, Ohio, scores poorly in terms of potential hazards associated with ground- and surface-water contamination; since then, Ohio closed the RCRA landfill because of inadequate ground water monitoring.
SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATIONS
The Companies
CEP evaluated the eight major commercial hazardous waste management firms and the facilities they control. CEP considered a number of significant criteria, including financial viability, compliance with environmental and occupational safety regulations, ground water monitoring, potential hazardous waste liabilities, technology, corporate and public relations, and our in-depth evaluations of selected facilities.
CEP's examination of each company as a whole reveals that the performance record of USPCI, a relatively little-known Oklahoma-based company, is the best of the eight companies. The examination rates California-based International Technology Corp. (IT), the second largest hazardous waste management firm, Environmental Systems Company and Rollins Environmental Services, two leading incineration firms, as above average. CEP concludes that the performances of Browning–Ferris Industries and Waste Management, the largest firm, reflect the average performance for the eight companies.
CEP rates American Ecology (AMEC), which began as a nuclear waste management firm, as a company with a below-average performance record. Conglomerate IU International, parent company of Envirosafe Services, receives the least desirable grades of the eight hazardous waste firms.
The leaders of the commercial hazardous waste management industry are working to overcome significant problems. If the performance record of these eight firms reflects the industry as a whole, CEP believes that four of the Big Eight are performing above the industry average, two are close to the norm, and two are below average.
The Facilities
The CEP study assigns low overall scores to CECOS International in Williamsburg, Ohio, Envirosafe Services of Idaho in Grandview, Idaho, and Texas Ecologists in Robstown, Texas. On the other hand U.S. Pollution Control's facility in Utah, Chemical Waste Management in Louisiana and Illinois, and CECOS International in New York receive high marks in their geographic regions.
Unfortunately, only one of the facilities in the study performs significantly better than the regulatory minimum. CEP believes the locations, the management, and the technology of all the facilities need to improve. The study does belie the popular belief that hazardous waste facilities are not making a sustained effort to improve, however. The facilities are improving, and the improvements are substantial.
WHO NEEDS INFORMATION ABOUT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT?
The Generators of Hazardous Waste. In the past the lack of comparative evaluations forced some generators of hazardous waste to rely on hearsay and the lowest bid to select waste management firms. Few generators have the resources to conduct in-depth environmental audits of the waste management facilities they use. The thousands of small- and medium-size companies that use commercial hazardous waste disposal firms now or will need to use them as more stringent laws come into effect will find that this study is essential. The study is a consumers' guide that will help companies minimize the significant environmental and legal risks posed by hazardous waste mismanagement.
Policy Makers. This book advises policy makers about regulatory deficiencies. By using a modified version of U.S. EPA's own methodology, the HRS, CEP has acted as an independent user and tester of the HRS. CEP concludes that the HRS overstates certain risks (air pollution, for example) and underestimates others (including direct contact and ground water contamination). CEP's critique of regulations and the ranking system have broad-reaching implications for policy making and implementation.
Community and National Organizations. Hundreds of community and national organizations focus on the hazardous waste management industry. CEP contacted many such organizations in the process of gathering and sharing information. These groups all desire a detailed and objective view of what is really happening to hazardous wastes. In the past a few theoretical and general works had been published, but CEP's study is one of the first extensive real-world investigations.
State and Local Governments. State and local governments face the need to select sites and contractors for hazardous waste facilities. CEP's critique should help them by pointing out the better companies, technologies, and facility evaluation methods.
Academics. Academics can use this book to verify their ideas with actual statistics. Students will find it a useful introduction to the multifaceted field of environmental management.
Investors. The waste management industry is rapidly changing and growing in response to increased regulation. Investors will find CEP's analysis of the long-term financial viability of these major publicly owned companies useful in identifying investment opportunities. This study could provide the basis for many appreciating investments.
THE BOTTOM LINE
An actively engaged public that commands prompt government response to citizen inquiries and complaints will be an important factor in improving the performance of hazardous waste management companies. Better enforcement of state and federal regulations will also help. Government regulation alone cannot solve the problems of environmental degradation, however. Companies must support the general intent of the law before they will comply with it.
CEP believes the market economy largely determines whether industry executes the intent of the law. CEP's study and others like it will inform companies about proper hazardous waste management. The response of informed companies and investors to the bottom line may ultimately be the catalyst that improves the standard of hazardous waste management in the United States. If generators begin to send their wastes only to those facilities that they believe pose the least liability, the marketplace could upgrade waste management practices. Commercial waste disposers will be forced either to improve their operations or to face stagnation and bankruptcy.
CHAPTER 2Recommendations: A Starting Point for Individual Perspectives
The subject of hazardous waste management comprises a bewildering mix of perspectives. Anyone who undertakes the task of learning about the developments, technology, and state of the industry may have trouble finding a starting point that reflects individual priorities. This following chapter is an overview of the most important recommendations that CEP reached while evaluating the hazardous waste management industry. These recommendations and the accompanying references to later chapters should help you find the information that is most relevant to your perspective. A review of the recommendations may also help readers who are unfamiliar with the industry to gain an overview of current concerns.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
For Generators
1. Be smart shoppers. The marginally higher short-term expense of the best waste management strategies and contractors is ultimately less costly than the liabilities for mismanaged wastes, as chapters 3 and 4 describe.
2. Consider wastes as carefully as raw materials; understand the physical and chemical properties of the waste.
3. Review waste-producing processes from beginning to end. At every step ask whether the process can be modified, controlled, or eliminated to decrease waste generation.
4. Implement the steps that chapter 5 describes to reduce waste generation, the hazard of wastes, and—possibly—overall costs:
* process modification, raw material substitution, waste segregation, and source separation
* reuse by recovery and recycling or waste exchange
* treatment for hazard elimination or reduction
* treatment for volume reduction
* land emplacement of residual waste in a secure facility.
5. After implementing every possible means of elimination, modification, and volume reduction, choose a hazardous waste management plan that balances long-term benefits and risks.
6. Use all available information, the expertise of trade associations, and, if necessary, the services of consultants to determine which hazardous waste contractor(s) and facility(ies) to use. Begin with chapters 7 and 9, which evaluate eight hazardous waste management firms and ten RCRA facilities. Chapter 9 cites the most and least desirable of ten facilities in three broad geographical areas.
7. Use chapter 6 as a starting point for reference to documents and analytical methods relevant to selecting a waste facility.
8. Join with other generators of similar wastes to obtain technical evaluations of facilities at reduced cost.
9. Find out if a contractor's financial problems affect operations, maintenance, and quality of operating personnel. Chapter 7 presents financial data and investigatory techniques.
10. Review the adequacy of the commercial waste manager's financial protection in case of accidents or other liabilities. Federal requirements are specific, and how well a company meets those requirements is an indication of financial stability and reliability.
11. CEP believes that the site of USPCI's Grassy Mountain facility in Clive, Utah, is the best of the ten facilities evaluated. If wastes can be treated with the processes available at the facility or can only be landfilled, and if transportation does not pose undue costs or risks, we recommend using this site.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Hazardous Waste Management by Benjamin A. Goldman, James A. Hulme, Cameron Johnson. Copyright © 1986 Council on Economic Priorities. Excerpted by permission of ISLAND PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Table of FiguresList of Tables
Foreword
Acknowledgments
About CEP
Abbreviations
CEP Findings
Chapter 1. Busting the Shell Game: Where CEP Looked and What CEP Found
Chapter 2. Recommendations: A Starting Point for Individual Perspectives
-Problems and Solutions
Chapter 3. Setting The Stage: Some Technical and Legal Background
Chapter 4. A New Industry: Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
Chapter 5. Hazardous Waste Management: Strategies and Technologies
Chapter 6. How To Choose: Tools for Evaluating Facilities
-Case Studies
Chapter 7. The Big Eight: Corporate Comparisons
Chapter 8. Picking A Winner: CEP Comparative Facility Evaluation Method
Chapter 9. Report Cards: Ten Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Chapter 10. Information Management: Ranking the Regulators
Appendix A: Evaluating a Hazardous Waste Facility
Appendix B: Federal Hazardous Waste Databases
Notes
Glossary
Index