Hazardous Waste
EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations Gao ID: GAO-06-99 December 16, 2005The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating hazardous wastes (such as mercury) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, mercury-containing hazardous waste must meet specific treatment standards before land disposal. But, certain difficult to manage waste due, in part, to its large particle size, can follow alternate "debris" standards that provide diverse treatment options. This report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of this waste, (2) the extent to which EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris, and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated debris.
EPA uses its RCRAInfo database to maintain information on all hazardous waste, including mercury-contaminated debris. EPA reported that in 2003, mercury-contaminated debris constituted about 12,000 metric tons--or about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent of all hazardous waste. However, EPA's data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete. Reporting on the physical form of the waste (debris is one of many physical forms) is optional, and businesses did not submit this optional information in about 9 percent of instances when they reported treating and disposing of mercury-containing waste in 2003. In addition, EPA's reporting category for debris does not provide a complete list of items that EPA considers to be debris, and debris can be reported in other categories. The 48 states and the District of Columbia and the 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill operators that responded to our survey do not share a common understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste that EPA allows to be treated and disposed of as debris. For example, in their responses, officials in 21 states and operators of 6 commercial hazardous waste landfills identified as debris waste that is explicitly not debris, such as intact devices containing mercury, and may have used the debris regulations for such waste. Consequently, EPA cannot be certain that businesses are appropriately managing their mercury-containing waste as debris. EPA's mandatory waste tracking and documentation requirements serve as controls to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated debris. EPA and state oversight inspections and enforcement programs provide additional compliance monitoring with the alternative treatment standards for debris.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-99, Hazardous Waste: EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-99
entitled 'Hazardous Waste: EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury
Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations'
which was released on January 18, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
December 2005:
Hazardous Waste:
EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and
Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-99]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-99, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating
hazardous wastes (such as mercury) under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, mercury-containing hazardous waste
must meet specific treatment standards before land disposal. But,
certain difficult to manage waste due, in part, to its large particle
size, can follow alternate ’debris“ standards that provide diverse
treatment options. This report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA
uses to track the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris
and the quantity of this waste, (2) the extent to which EPA, states,
and industry share a common understanding of the types of mercury-
containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris, and
(3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance with
EPA‘s treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated
debris.
What GAO Found:
EPA uses its RCRAInfo database to maintain information on all hazardous
waste, including mercury-contaminated debris. EPA reported that in
2003, mercury-contaminated debris constituted about 12,000 metric
tons”or about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about
0.03 percent of all hazardous waste. However, EPA‘s data on mercury-
contaminated debris may be incomplete. Reporting on the physical form
of the waste (debris is one of many physical forms) is optional, and
businesses did not submit this optional information in about 9 percent
of instances when they reported treating and disposing of mercury-
containing waste in 2003. In addition, EPA‘s reporting category for
debris does not provide a complete list of items that EPA considers to
be debris, and debris can be reported in other categories.
The 48 states and the District of Columbia and the 14 commercial
hazardous waste landfill operators that responded to our survey do not
share a common understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste
that EPA allows to be treated and disposed of as debris. For example,
in their responses, officials in 21 states and operators of 6
commercial hazardous waste landfills identified as debris waste that is
explicitly not debris, such as intact devices containing mercury, and
may have used the debris regulations for such waste. Consequently, EPA
cannot be certain that businesses are appropriately managing their
mercury-containing waste as debris.
EPA‘s mandatory waste tracking and documentation requirements serve as
controls to monitor compliance with EPA‘s treatment and disposal
requirements for mercury-contaminated debris. EPA and state oversight
inspections and enforcement programs provide additional compliance
monitoring with the alternative treatment standards for debris.
Percentage of Hazardous Waste with Mercury and the Portion of the
Mercury-Containing Waste That Was Debris in 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EPA (1) clarify and better describe the types of
waste that can and cannot be reported under the ’debris“ reporting
category and (2) conduct further outreach to communicate the types of
mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of according
to the alternative treatment standards for debris. In oral comments on
a draft of this report, EPA agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-99.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
EPA Tracks the Quantity of Mercury-Containing Waste Through Its
RCRAInfo Data System, but the Information It Collects on Debris May Be
Incomplete:
EPA, States, and Industry Do Not Share a Common Understanding of the
Types of Mercury-Containing Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of
as Debris:
Programs Are in Place to Monitor All Types of Hazardous Waste,
Including Mercury-Contaminated Debris:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Data on Mercury-Contaminated Debris:
Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation:
Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treatment and Disposal:
Appendix III: State Officials' Responses to GAO's Survey on Mercury-
Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal:
Appendix IV: Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Responses to GAO's
Survey on Mercury-Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: EPA's Debris Regulations and Definitions:
Table 2: Total Quantity of Hazardous Waste, Mercury-Containing Waste,
and Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, 2001 and 2003:
Table 3: State Officials' Views Concerning Wastes That Do Not Typically
Meet EPA's Debris Definition:
Table 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Views
Concerning Wastes That Do Not Typically Meet EPA's Debris Definition:
Table 5: Quantity of Mercury-Only Contaminated Debris Reported by
Treatment Method, 2001 and 2003:
Table 6: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by Industry Type,
2001:
Table 7: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by Industry Type,
2003:
Table 8: Type of Process or Activity That Generated Mercury-
Contaminated Debris, 2001:
Table 9: Type of Process or Activity That Generated Mercury-
Contaminated Debris, 2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: Use of Mercury in U.S. Products, 1980 to 1997:
Figure 2: General Categories of Debris That Could Be Contaminated with
Mercury:
Figure 3: Treatment and Disposal of Mercury-Containing Waste:
Figure 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfills and Mercury Retorting
Facilities, as of April 2005:
Figure 5: Mercury-Containing Wastes That EPA Typically Does Not
Classify as Debris:
Figure 6: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by State, 2001:
Figure 7: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by State, 2003:
Figure 8: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, by
State, 2001:
Figure 9: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, by
State, 2003:
Abbreviations:
C.F.R.: Code of Federal Regulations:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
Letter December 16, 2005:
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert:
Chairman:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Gil Gutknecht:
House of Representatives:
Mercury is a toxic element used in numerous products (such as
thermometers and dental amalgam) and industrial processes (such as
chlorine production). According to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), if mercury is released into the environment, it could pose a
risk to human health. For example, consuming mercury-contaminated fish
can cause neurological disorders in children.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the
management of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, EPA may authorize a state to
implement its own hazardous waste management program in lieu of the
federal RCRA program, so long as the state program is at least as
stringent. In addition, hazardous waste must generally be treated to
reduce its toxicity or mobility, so that threats to human health and
the environment are minimized, before it can be disposed of in a
hazardous waste landfill.[Footnote 1]
The treatment standards for wastes containing mercury (mercury-specific
standards) are based on the level of mercury concentration in the
waste. Wastes containing more than 260 milligrams per kilogram of total
mercury (high mercury-containing waste) must generally undergo
retorting--a process that heats the waste to separate and recover the
mercury from the rest of the waste--or incineration, if the waste
includes organic (e.g., carbon-based) material. Wastes containing less
than 260 milligrams per kilogram of total mercury (low mercury-
containing waste), must have their toxicity reduced to specified
numerical levels,which can generally be met by stabilization (a process
that involves mixing the hazardous waste with a chemical bonding
material, such as Portland cement).[Footnote 2]
In 1992, EPA developed alternative treatment standards for hazardous
waste debris--the debris treatment standards--because the physical
characteristics of debris make it difficult to meet the treatment
standards for the waste contaminating the debris.[Footnote 3]
Specifically, EPA defines debris as a solid material exceeding a 60
millimeter particle size (roughly the size of a tennis ball) that is
intended for land disposal and that is a manufactured object, plant or
animal matter, or natural geologic material. The alternative debris
treatment standards do not apply to certain items specifically excluded
from the debris definition or to waste types that have their own
alternative treatment standards, such as contaminated soil. Hazardous
debris, such as mercury-contaminated debris, must be treated prior to
land disposal under either the hazardous waste treatment standard
applicable to the waste contaminating the debris, or in accordance with
the alternative treatment standards for hazardous debris, which,
according to EPA, are also generally more cost-effective to use.
Thus, mercury-contaminated hazardous waste debris (such as bricks,
pipes, ruptured metal drums, or large chunks of concrete) may either be
treated according to (a) the mercury-specific treatment standards
described above (including retorting for high-mercury containing
hazardous waste), or (b) stabilization or encapsulation (fully
enclosing the hazardous waste in another material, such as a high-
density plastic container), regardless of the mercury concentration
level.[Footnote 4] In 2003, EPA issued guidance to states that, among
other things, clarified the types of waste that are eligible for
treatment and disposal under the alternative treatment standards for
debris. EPA recently reported that it has not found any evidence that
there is a significant environmental problem associated with the
treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris under its current
rules.[Footnote 5]
Most businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste
are required under RCRA to report on their hazardous waste activities
biennially to their states, which, in turn, submit information to EPA.
EPA compiles and summarizes the data on the amount of hazardous waste
generated, treated, and disposed of in a biennial report, which is
information collected and stored in EPA's RCRAInfo data system. EPA's
most recent biennial Hazardous Waste Report for 2003 was released in
April 2005.
Our report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track the
treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity
of mercury-contaminated debris that is disposed of, (2) the extent to
which EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the
types of mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of
as debris, and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor
compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-
contaminated debris.
To address these objectives, we analyzed 2001 and 2003 information from
EPA's RCRAInfo database, which contains the state-provided data from
businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. We
assessed the reliability of the data and found that they were
sufficiently reliable for our use. In addition, we surveyed the 50
states and the District of Columbia and the 19 commercial hazardous
waste landfills in the United States to gather information on, among
other things, states' and hazardous waste landfills' current practices
for treating and disposing of certain mercury-containing wastes using
EPA's alternative treatment standards for debris and any violations
involving mercury-containing waste. We obtained a list of state contact
officials for hazardous waste from the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and the Environmental
Council of the States. We confirmed with each official, that he or she
was the appropriate state official to complete our survey on mercury-
contaminated debris or obtained the name of another official and
confirmed with that official. We obtained the list of hazardous waste
landfill operators from EPA and confirmed that each was the appropriate
individual to complete our survey on mercury-contaminated debris.
Before distributing the surveys, we conducted pretests with officials
in 7 states and operators of 2 hazardous waste landfills to ensure the
validity of the questions; we modified the surveys in response to their
comments. We also conducted follow-up interviews with the state
officials who reported violations with treating and disposing of
mercury-containing wastes, including mercury-contaminated debris, to
discuss the nature of these violations and the corrective actions
taken. We reviewed EPA's requirements and policies governing the
treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and EPA documents
related to the agency's rationale for developing the alternative
treatment standards for debris. We discussed the effectiveness of these
requirements and policies for protecting human health and the
environment with EPA officials, representatives from hazardous waste
landfills, businesses that retort mercury-contaminated debris, and
environmental organizations. We performed our work between March 2005
and November 2005, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, which included an assessment of data reliability
and internal controls. Appendix I provides a detailed description of
our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
EPA uses the biennial Hazardous Waste Report, which is based on
RCRAInfo data, to track the information that states report on the
treatment and disposal of all types of hazardous waste, including
mercury-contaminated debris. According to EPA's data, businesses
treated and disposed of about 38.2 million metric tons of hazardous
wastes in 2003. About 3.1 million metric tons (about 8.2 percent) of
the total quantity of hazardous waste contained mercury. Mercury-
contaminated debris constituted about 12,000 metric tons--or about 0.4
percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent of all
hazardous waste, according to RCRAInfo data. However, EPA's data on
mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete because reporting on the
physical form of the waste (such as the portion that was debris) in the
biennial Hazardous Waste Report is optional. According to our analysis,
in about 9 percent of the reported instances in which businesses
treated and disposed of mercury-containing waste in 2003, businesses
did not submit the optional information on the physical form of the
waste. These instances accounted for less than 1 percent of the total
quantity of mercury-containing waste treated and disposed of in 2003.
If a portion of a business's mercury-containing waste was treated and
disposed of as debris, that portion was unknown to the state and,
hence, not reported to EPA. In addition, EPA's data on mercury-
contaminated debris may not be accurate. EPA's debris reporting
category for its biennial data collection does not provide a complete
list of debris items, and debris items can be reported in other
categories. For example, ruptured metal drums are typically considered
to be debris, but are not included in the list of items in EPA's debris
category description in the biennial Hazardous Waste Report
instructions and there is a separate "metal drum" category. As a
result, businesses may have reported ruptured metal drums in the debris
category or in the metal drum category, which does not include debris.
EPA said that it intended the debris category to capture information on
all waste identified as hazardous waste debris.
The 48 states, the District of Columbia, and 14 commercial hazardous
waste landfill operators that responded to our survey do not share a
common understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste that EPA
allows to be treated and disposed of as debris. Consequently,
businesses may be treating and disposing of items as debris even though
these items may not meet EPA's definition of debris. In response to our
survey, officials in 21 states and operators of 6 commercial hazardous
waste landfills inaccurately identified one or more nondebris mercury-
containing wastes as being debris. For example, some states' officials
and hazardous waste landfill operators told us that they would apply
the alternative treatment standards for debris to intact mercury-
containing devices, such as regulators and thermometers. However, these
intact devices are excluded from the definition of debris under the
debris regulations and may contain high levels of mercury. Although EPA
provided guidance in 2003 on when the alternative treatment standards
for debris can be used, our survey results suggest that the guidance
may not be sufficiently clear. Any confusion about what is or is not
debris is particularly problematic if high mercury-containing waste is
not treated and disposed of properly. Because states and industry may
not share EPA's understanding of debris, EPA cannot be certain that
businesses that manage mercury-containing waste are appropriately using
the alternative treatment standards for debris. When we discussed these
findings with EPA, officials agreed that clarifying guidance may be
warranted.
EPA and states have certain controls in place to monitor compliance
with the hazardous waste debris regulations by businesses that
generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. EPA's hazardous waste
manifest system tracks the transportation of all hazardous waste,
including mercury-contaminated debris, from its generation to its
disposal. The key component of this system is the uniform hazardous
waste manifest, which is a form prepared by all businesses that
generate, transport, treat, or otherwise take physical custody of the
waste. The manifest contains information on the type and quantity of
the waste being transported, instructions for handling the waste, and
signature lines for all parties involved in the disposal process. Once
the waste reaches its final destination, a signed copy of the manifest
is returned to the business that generated the waste. In addition to
the manifest, businesses that handle hazardous waste must notify the
next party that receives the waste how the waste must be treated to
meet the treatment standard or if it can be disposed of without
treatment. EPA and state enforcement programs also provide oversight
and compliance monitoring with the alternative treatment standards for
debris. Oversight inspections have resulted in enforcement actions,
such as fines and imprisonment for violations. Lastly, EPA and most
states have hotlines that afford citizens the opportunity to report
possible violations of the hazardous waste treatment and disposal
regulations.
We are making recommendations to EPA to (1) clarify and better describe
the types of waste that can and cannot be reported under the "debris"
category and (2) conduct further outreach to communicate to states and
hazardous waste landfills the types of mercury-containing wastes that
can be treated and disposed of according to the alternative treatment
standards for debris.
In oral comments on a draft of this report, EPA agreed with our
recommendations and provided technical comments, which we incorporated
into the report as appropriate.
Background:
Mercury is a naturally occurring toxic metallic substance that exists
as a liquid or vapor in its elemental form and can be a solid or liquid
in its compound form. Elemental mercury is used in producing chlorine
liquid and caustic soda, in extracting gold from ore or materials that
contain gold, and in thermometers, barometers, and electrical switches.
Silver-colored dental fillings (known as dental amalgam) typically
contain about 50 percent metallic mercury.:
Mercury forms inorganic compounds when combined with elements such as
chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen. Inorganic mercury compounds are used in
fungicides, skin-lightening creams, topical antiseptic or disinfectant
agents, antibacterials, preservatives in some prescription and over-
the-counter medicines, coloring paints, and tattoo dyes. In combination
with carbon, mercury forms organic compounds, the most common of which
is methylmercury, which can build up in certain edible freshwater and
saltwater fish and marine mammals.
In recent years, mercury use has declined as the availability of
nonmercury-based materials has been developed. For example, the large
lamps that light parking lots used to be made with mercury, but are
increasingly being made without it. Also, the Mercury-Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 severely restricted the
mercury content in batteries sold after the act's enactment date of May
13, 1996. Today, the predominant uses of mercury are for the production
of chlorine-related products, the amalgam used in dental fillings, and
wiring devices that carry electrical current. As figure 1 shows,
mercury use in the United States generally declined between 1980 and
1997, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which compiled those
data until 1997.
Figure 1: Use of Mercury in U.S. Products, 1980 to 1997:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data were not available for 1992.
[A] For 1980 and 1994 to 1997, the "other" category also includes data
on mercury use that the reporting businesses deemed to be confidential
business information.
[End of figure]
Debris Regulatory Framework:
Debris contaminated with mercury can come from various sources--often
from a cleanup effort (such as a mercury spill) or demolition of a
mercury-contaminated building (such as a laboratory). It can also
include structural steel, glass, wooden pallets, cloth, and ruptured
containers and devices. When debris contains hazardous amounts of
mercury or other hazardous wastes, the hazardous waste debris must be
treated to address each of the hazardous wastes.
The debris definition excludes the following materials:
* any material for which a specific treatment standard is provided in
40 C.F.R. Part 268, Subpart D (namely lead acid batteries, cadmium
batteries, and radioactive lead solids);
* process residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the
treatment of waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and:
* intact containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that
retain at least 75 percent of their original volume.
A mixture of debris and other material (such as soil or sludge) is
subject to the hazardous waste debris regulations if the mixture is
comprised primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection.
Figure 2 provides a general description of categories of waste that EPA
typically classifies as debris and that could be contaminated with
mercury.
Figure 2: General Categories of Debris That Could Be Contaminated with
Mercury:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Mercury-contaminated debris (such as bricks, pipes, ruptured metal
drums, or large chunks of concrete) may either be treated according to
(a) the mercury-specific standards described above (primarily including
retorting:
for high-mercury containing waste), or (b) encapsulated or
stabilized,[Footnote 6] regardless of the mercury concentration level.
If managed using the mercury-specific standards, the waste or residue
from the retorting process must have their toxicity reduced to
specified numerical levels before it can be land disposed.[Footnote 7]
Waste managed according to the alternative treatment standards for
hazardous debris does not generally have to be tested before it is land
disposed because, according to EPA, obtaining a representative sample
is often impractical. In addition, the leach test, which requires
grinding as part of the test procedure, may not be appropriate for
certain debris treatment technologies, such as encapsulation, since the
grinding step would defeat the protective mechanism of the treatment
technology.
According to EPA officials, the agency encourages businesses that
generate mercury-contaminated debris to remove the mercury contaminated
material from the debris--a process referred to as source separation.
Also, according to EPA and industry, there are some debris items (such
as debris contaminated with mixtures of mercury and organic chemicals)
that remain difficult to retort; as such, the debris regulations are
needed to ensure that such debris is treated and disposed of properly.
Table 1 summarizes EPA's debris regulations and definitions of debris.
Table 1: EPA's Debris Regulations and Definitions:
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Debris regulations at 40 C.F.R.
268.45;
Description: In 1992, EPA promulgated the final debris regulations,
which established alternative treatment standards for hazardous debris,
regardless of concentration level. The regulations provide several
treatment options for mercury-contaminated debris, including
stabilization and encapsulation.
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Debris defined at 40 C.F.R. 268.2
(g);
Description: Debris means solid material exceeding a 60-millimeter
particle size that is intended for disposal and that is: A manufactured
object; or plant or animal matter; or natural geologic material. The
following materials are not debris: any material for which a specific
treatment standard is provided in Subpart D, Part 268, namely lead acid
batteries, cadmium batteries, and radioactive lead solids; process
residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment of
waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and intact
containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that retain at
least 75 percent of their original volume. A mixture of debris that has
not been treated to the standards provided by § 268.45 and other
material is subject to regulation as debris if the mixture is comprised
primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection.
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Hazardous debris defined at 40
C.F.R. 268.2 (h);
Description: Hazardous debris means debris that contains a hazardous
waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261 of this chapter, or that exhibits
a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part 261
of this chapter. Any deliberate mixing of prohibited hazardous waste
with debris that changes its treatment classification (i.e., from waste
to hazardous debris) is not allowed under the dilution prohibition in §
268.3.
Source: 40 C.F.R. Part 268.
[End of table]
In 1999, EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to conduct
a comprehensive review of the RCRA hazardous waste treatment
regulations for mercury-containing wastes. EPA had identified mercury
as one of the more persistent toxic chemicals regulated under RCRA. EPA
stated that potential revisions, if any, would be based on the comments
that it received and data obtained from ongoing studies and other
sources. Among other issues, EPA requested comments on whether to (1)
allow alternative treatment options to retorting for high mercury-
containing waste and (2) require retorting for high mercury-containing
waste that meets the definition of debris.
With respect to allowing alternative treatment options to retorting for
high mercury-containing waste, EPA made available data to the public in
2003 on two studies that assessed the feasibility of land disposal for
elemental mercury and for difficult-to-treat high mercury-containing
waste that had been treated by stabilization. From these studies, EPA
concluded that treatment by stabilization may not result in a waste
that is stable under some hazardous waste landfill conditions.
According to EPA officials, the agency was concerned about using
stabilization for elemental mercury in certain landfill conditions
where leaching was more likely to occur. EPA did not change the
existing hazardous waste regulations for mercury-containing
waste.[Footnote 8]
With respect to requiring that high mercury-containing waste that meets
the definition of debris be retorted, all of the comments that EPA
received, except one, expressed the view that EPA should not modify the
alternative treatment standards for debris to require the retorting of
debris with high concentration levels of mercury because debris is not
always amenable to retorting and because the alternative treatment
standards for debris provide needed flexibility to manage difficult-to-
treat wastes.[Footnote 9] EPA did not modify the debris regulations.
In 2003, EPA collaborated with the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials and the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association to discuss potential mismanagement of mercury-
contaminated debris.[Footnote 10] Based on those discussions, EPA
issued a debris memorandum in October 2003 to state waste managers that
provided guidance for managing mercury-contaminated debris.[Footnote
11] In that guidance memorandum, EPA sought to clarify the types of
waste that are eligible for treatment under the alternative treatment
standards for debris, provide information on the improved capabilities
of mercury "retorters" to accept and recover mercury from debris-like
waste, and describe how to meet the performance standards for several
debris treatment technologies. In a May 2004 follow-up letter, the
Administrator of EPA stated that EPA had not found any evidence that
there is a significant environmental problem associated with the
management of mercury-contaminated debris under EPA's current rules.
Figure 3 shows that mercury-containing waste comes from industrial and
nonindustrial sources. EPA requires the collection of data on hazardous
waste activities from industrial sources, but not from nonindustrial
sources. Nonindustrial sources generate mercury-containing waste, such
as household thermometers and dental amalgam, which may, if not
recycled, be generally disposed of in municipal solid waste
landfills.[Footnote 12]
Figure 3: Treatment and Disposal of Mercury-Containing Waste:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Certain treated hazardous waste and debris that do not exhibit any
hazardous characteristic (such as toxicity) after treatment may be
disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill.
[End of figure]
Under RCRA, hazardous waste landfills and businesses that retort
mercury-contaminated debris must meet federal standards designed to
protect public health and the environment. Among other standards,
hazardous waste landfills must meet minimum technological requirements,
including double composite liners, a leachate collection and removal
system, and a leak detection system, as well as provide for groundwater
monitoring. In addition, hazardous waste landfills may not operate
without a RCRA permit. Landfills must also meet other more stringent
state requirements, if any, which often include on-site state
inspectors and additional groundwater monitoring wells. According to
EPA's RCRAInfo data, there are 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills
in the United States, most of which accept mercury-containing
waste.[Footnote 13] Facilities that retort mercury-contaminated debris
may only retort wastes below specified organic concentration limits or
above specified heating values. In addition, the facilities must comply
with waste sampling and analysis requirements. As of 2005, four
companies reported that they operate seven facilities that retort
mercury-contaminated debris.[Footnote 14] Figure 4 show the locations
of the 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills and seven retorting
facilities in the United States.
Figure 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfills and Mercury Retorting
Facilities, as of April 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
EPA's Reporting Requirements:
Every 2 years, EPA compiles and summarizes data on the amount of
hazardous waste generated, treated, and disposed of. For this biennial
report, EPA requires businesses to submit information to the states on
each waste generated, treated, and/or disposed of. Among other things,
businesses report on the type of hazardous constituent(s) present in
the waste, the process (such as chlorine production) or activity (such
as demolition) that generated the hazardous waste, and the treatment or
disposal method used in managing the hazardous waste. EPA also
requests, but does not require, that businesses submit certain
additional information about the waste, including the portion of the
waste that is debris. EPA maintains the data in its RCRAInfo database.
The states conduct data reliability assessments (such as checking for
missing values, out-of-range values in each field, and inconsistencies
and errors in the data) before entering the information into RCRAInfo;
EPA also conducts data reliability assessments of RCRAInfo data.
EPA Tracks the Quantity of Mercury-Containing Waste Through Its
RCRAInfo Data System, but the Information It Collects on Debris May Be
Incomplete:
EPA uses its RCRAInfo database, which began in 1999, to maintain data
on hazardous waste submitted by states. According to EPA officials,
RCRAInfo was designed specifically to track national trends of
hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal.[Footnote 15] In
1991, EPA began producing its biennial reports, and it began collecting
data on debris as a separate category of physical form in 2001. EPA's
most recent biennial hazardous waste report, for the 2003 reporting
cycle, was released in April 2005.
According to RCRAInfo data, in 2003, mercury-contaminated debris
constituted about 12,000 metric tons of the mercury-containing waste;
about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03
percent of all hazardous waste in 2003.[Footnote 16] Table 2 summarizes
RCRAInfo's data on the total quantities of the hazardous waste, mercury-
containing waste, and mercury-contaminated debris treated and disposed
of in 2001 and 2003. Appendix II provides more information on mercury-
contaminated debris, such as the types of businesses and industry
processes that generated the debris and the total quantity of debris
that was generated, treated, and disposed of in each state.
Table 2: Total Quantity of Hazardous Waste, Mercury-Containing Waste,
and Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, 2001 and 2003:
Weight in metric tons.
Hazardous waste[A];
2001: 41,210,698;
Percent of hazardous waste: n/a;
2003: 38,188,449;
Percent of hazardous waste: n/a.
Mercury-containing waste[B];
2001: 1,124,900;
Percent of hazardous waste: 2.73;
2003: 3,145,726;
Percent of hazardous waste: 8.24.
Mercury-contaminated debris[C];
2001: 10,484;
Percent of hazardous waste: 0.03;
2003: 12,029;
Percent of hazardous waste: 0.03.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.
Note: According to EPA, businesses concerned about potential liability
that are unsure about which hazardous materials are in their waste may
report multiple hazardous contaminants in order to protect themselves
from reporting violations.
[A] These data (also reported in EPA's 2001 and 2003 biennial reports)
exclude wastes that were stored and transferred with no treatment or
recovery or disposal.
[B] These data include waste that contains any mercury waste code. See
appendix I for details.
[C] These data include waste that contains any mercury waste code and
were reported under EPA's debris reporting category. See appendix I for
details.
[End of table]
RCRAInfo data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete. EPA
does not require businesses to report to their states on the physical
form of the waste, including the portion of their mercury-containing
waste that they treated and disposed of as debris. Since reporting the
physical form of the waste is optional, the portion of a state's
mercury-containing waste that was treated and disposed of as debris is
not known for businesses that did not submit such information. Our
analysis of the 2003 RCRAInfo data showed that businesses did not
report the optional information on the physical form of the waste in
about 9 percent of the instances in which mercury-containing waste was
treated and disposed of. These instances accounted for less than 1
percent of the total quantity of mercury-containing waste (10,011
metric tons of the 3,145,726 metric tons of mercury-containing waste).
If businesses did not report the optional debris information to states,
then the states could not report it to EPA. Businesses that did not
submit optional information may have managed a portion of the waste as
debris or they may have managed none of this waste as debris.
In 2001, the first year businesses reported on debris, RCRAInfo data
showed that businesses did not submit the optional information on the
physical form of a waste (including debris) in about 14 percent of
instances when they treated and disposed of mercury-containing waste.
Specifically, these instances accounted for about 4.5 percent of the
total quantity of mercury-containing waste treated and disposed of
(about 51,179 metric tons of the 1,124,900 metric tons of mercury-
containing waste).
Furthermore, EPA's biennially collected data on debris may be reported
incorrectly. The directions EPA gave states and businesses for
reporting data was ambiguous. EPA had a "debris" category in the
Hazardous Waste Report instructions, but it did not provide a complete
list of debris items. For example, ruptured metal drums are typically
considered debris, but are not included in the list of items in the
debris category description and there is a separate "metal drum"
category. Thus, if businesses were reporting ruptured metal drums, they
might report ruptured drums in the debris category or in the metal
drums category. EPA told us that it intended businesses to use the
debris category to report all waste identified as hazardous waste
debris.
EPA, States, and Industry Do Not Share a Common Understanding of the
Types of Mercury-Containing Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of
as Debris:
Businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of mercury-containing
waste are unclear about the types of mercury-containing waste items
that can be treated and disposed of as debris. In response to our
survey, officials in 21 states and 6 hazardous waste landfill operators
identified one or more items as debris that do not typically meet EPA's
debris definition. For example, state officials frequently identified
intact fluorescent light bulbs, soil, and intact containers (other than
batteries), that include intact devices such as regulators and
thermometers, which may contain high levels of mercury, as being
subject to the alternative treatment standards for debris.[Footnote 17]
Intact containers (which are excluded from the definition of debris)
and the other items (which do not fit the definition of debris) must be
treated in accordance with RCRA's mercury-specific hazardous waste
treatment standards. In addition, although EPA's definition of debris
states that "debris means solid material exceeding a 60 millimeter
particle size," officials in 3 states classified ruptured devices and
batteries with particle size less than 60 millimeters as debris. These
ruptured mercury-containing items may be high mercury-containing waste,
which would require retorting. However, if these items were managed
according to the alternative treatment standards for debris, they could
be encapsulated or stabilized and then disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill. EPA prohibits this treatment and disposal method for high
mercury-containing waste, which must generally be retorted; the
residual that remains must meet a leach test standard before it can be
land disposed. Figure 5 lists the mercury-containing wastes that would
typically not be eligible for treatment and disposal using the
alternative treatment standards for debris.
Figure 5: Mercury-Containing Wastes That EPA Typically Does Not
Classify as Debris:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Older automobiles may contain convenience light switches under the
hood and in the trunk that contain mercury. Mercury-containing
automobile switches are no longer being used in automobiles
manufactured in the United States.
[B] A lab pack is typically a steel or fiber drum that contains small
containers of compatible waste surrounded by absorbent materials, such
as vermiculite, to cushion the containers and to absorb any spilled or
leaked waste.
[End of figure]
Table 3 summarizes the views of the state officials we surveyed on
whether they would classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes
as debris. The wastes listed in table 3 would not typically meet EPA's
definition of debris. However, as the table shows, officials in several
states identified nondebris items as being debris, and officials in 21
states reported that they would treat and dispose of at least one item
listed in the table as debris although the item would not typically
meet EPA's definition of debris. Appendix III summarizes the state
officials' responses to our survey on mercury-containing waste
treatment and disposal practices.
Table 3: State Officials' Views Concerning Wastes That Do Not Typically
Meet EPA's Debris Definition:
Mercury-containing waste: Intact drums with at least 75 percent of
their original volume;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 3;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 37;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 3;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Intact fluorescent light bulbs;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 11;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 31;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 1;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 5.
Mercury-containing waste: Ruptured fluorescent light bulbs[A];
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 8;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 37;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Intact batteries;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 4;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 33;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 3.
Mercury-containing waste: Ruptured batteries with particle size less
than or equal to 60 millimeters;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 3;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 35;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 4;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Other intact devices (for example,
thermometer, regulator);
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 8;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 31;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 5.
Mercury-containing waste: Other ruptured devices with particle size
less than or equal to 60 millimeters;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 3;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 37;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Process residuals;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 3;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 39;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Soil;
Number of respondents that classify waste as being subject to the
debris standards: 8;
Number of respondents that classified waste as being subject to the
hazardous waste standards: 36;
Number of respondents that were uncertain: 2;
Number of respondents that believed that the waste is neither hazardous
debris nor hazardous waste: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: We received responses from 48 states and the District of
Columbia, but not everyone provided responses to each waste item. Rows
cannot be totaled because respondents could check as many standards as
they believed applied.
[A] According to EPA, ruptured fluorescent light bulbs would be debris
if the ruptured pieces exceeded 60 millimeters.
[End of table]
In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 3, our survey also
asked about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey
results, only one state's official considered as debris these three
items that EPA would also typically consider to be debris. Officials in
9 other states reported that they classify all of the items on our list
as hazardous waste and did not classify any of these items as debris.
For example, ruptured drums and ruptured devices were wastes that these
states typically classified as hazardous waste, but which EPA
classifies as debris.
Four of the 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill operators that
responded to our survey identified intact fluorescent light bulbs as
debris and 3 of the 14 identified intact devices as debris. These items
would generally be considered intact containers and therefore be
specifically excluded from EPA's debris definition. The landfill
operators responded correctly about particle size requirements for
debris. None of the landfill operators identified intact drums as
debris.
Table 4 summarizes the landfill operators' views on whether they would
classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes as debris. The
wastes listed in table 4 would not typically meet EPA's definition of
debris. However, as the table shows, some landfill operators identified
nondebris items as being debris, and 6 landfill operators reported that
they would treat and dispose of at least one item listed in the table
as debris although the item would not typically meet EPA's definition
of debris. Appendix IV summarizes the commercial hazardous waste
landfill operators' responses to our survey on mercury-containing waste
treatment and disposal practices.
Table 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Views
Concerning Wastes That Do Not Typically Meet EPA's Debris Definition:
Mercury-containing waste: Intact drums with at least 75 percent of
their original volume;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 0;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 12;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 1.
Mercury-containing waste: Intact fluorescent light bulbs;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 4;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 10;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Ruptured fluorescent light bulbs[A];
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 2;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 11;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 1.
Mercury-containing waste: Intact batteries;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 1;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 11;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 2.
Mercury-containing waste: Ruptured batteries with particle size less
than or equal to 60 millimeters;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 0;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 13;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 1.
Mercury-containing waste: Other intact devices (for example,
thermometer, regulator);
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 3;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 11;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Other ruptured devices with particle size
less than or equal to 60 millimeters;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 0;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 13;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 1.
Mercury-containing waste: Process residuals;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 1;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 13;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 0.
Mercury-containing waste: Soil;
Number of respondents that stated waste could be treated and disposed
of with debris standards: 1;
Number of respondents that stated waste could not be treated and
disposed of with debris standards: 13;
Number of respondents that were uncertain whether waste could be
treated and disposed of with debris standards: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: We received responses from 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill
operators that covered 15 commercial hazardous waste landfills. For one
item, 13 of the 14 respondents provided a response; 1 respondent chose
not to answer this question.
[A] According to EPA, ruptured fluorescent light bulbs would be debris
if the ruptured pieces exceeded 60 millimeters.
[End of table]
In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 4, our survey also
asked about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey
results, only one landfill considered as debris these three items that
EPA would also typically consider to be debris. Furthermore, while EPA
allows certain mercury-containing waste to be managed as debris, the
commercial hazardous waste landfill operators were sometimes stricter
in what they allowed. Specifically,
* two landfill operators do not allow any mercury-containing waste that
we listed in our survey to be managed as debris;
* two other landfill operators only allow one mercury item (ruptured
drums or ruptured batteries with particle size exceeding 60
millimeters) to be treated and disposed of according to the alternative
treatment standards for debris; and:
* two landfill operators send debris with high levels of mercury (i.e.,
greater than 260 milligrams per kilogram) to retorting facilities,
including one who reported receiving mercury-containing waste
inappropriately labeled as debris, which they sent to a retorting
facility for treatment.
While our survey results show that officials in many states and most
landfill operators have a good understanding of the debris rule, there
are some instances in which states and landfill operators identified
items as debris that would not typically meet EPA's debris definition.
Since the 2001 Hazardous Waste Report cycle, there is a separate
category called "debris" and businesses that determine that their waste
is "debris" will naturally use the debris category to report their
debris data. However, as discussed earlier, there is confusion about
the debris category and more wastes have been reported as debris than
EPA considers to be debris.
With respect to treatment methods that have been used for debris, EPA's
RCRAInfo data showed considerable differences between the 2001 and 2003
cycles. For this analysis, we used the data reported for debris
contaminated only with mercury. We did not use data for debris that
contained mercury and other hazardous constituents because the method
used to treat the mercury was not readily discernable from the RCRAInfo
data. As shown in table 5, in 2001, businesses that generated mercury-
only contaminated debris treated most of the debris by metals recovery
such as retorting; in 2003, most of the debris was treated by
encapsulation or stabilization before land disposal. Most of that 2003
debris that was encapsulated or stabilized before land disposal came
from one facility.
Table 5: Quantity of Mercury-Only Contaminated Debris Reported by
Treatment Method, 2001 and 2003:
Weight in metric tons.
2001;
Metals recovery such as retorting: 279;
Incineration: 33;
Encapsulation: 6;
Stabilization: 0;
Land disposal of previously encapsulated or stabilized material: 123;
Other[A]: 1;
Total: 442.
2003;
Metals recovery such as retorting: 361;
Incineration: 28;
Encapsulation:
