Hazardous And Solid Waste Amendments Research Articles

Environmental policy and the reduction of hazardous waste

Environmental policy encouraging hazardous waste reduction began in 1976 with an Environmental Protection Agency statement promoting source reduction as the preferred method of hazardous waste management. In 1984, Congress included a policy statement supporting waste reduction in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). However, the cornerstone of HSWA was the land disposal restrictions (LDRs)—a command and control policy prohibiting land disposal of untreated hazardous waste. Consideration of the hazardous waste generation decision in the aggregate would suggest that the price effect resulting from the LDR program and increased hazardous waste management prices in general would lead to source reduction. Although at the firm level there may be interdicting factors, statistical analysis of generation data for Tennessee support this hypothesis. Both the institution of the LDRs and waste management prices have significant negative effects on the level of generation. The analysis, however, reveals the existence of large industry and firm effects, indicating that the response to public policy may exhibit significant variance, especially at the individual generator level.

Environmental policy and the reduction of hazardous waste

Environmental policy encouraging hazardous waste reduction began in 1976 with an Environmental Protection Agency statement promoting source reduction as the preferred method of hazardous waste management. In 1984, Congress included a policy statement supporting waste reduction in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). However, the cornerstone of HSWA was the land disposal restrictions (LDRs)—a command and control policy prohibiting land disposal of untreated hazardous waste. Consideration of the hazardous waste generation decision in the aggregate would suggest that the price effect resulting from the LDR program and increased hazardous waste management prices in general would lead to source reduction. Although at the firm level there may be interdicting factors, statistical analysis of generation data for Tennessee support this hypothesis. Both the institution of the LDRs and waste management prices have significant negative effects on the level of generation. The analysis, however, reveals the existence of large industry and firm effects, indicating that the response to public policy may exhibit significant variance, especially at the individual generator level.

The corrective action management unit (CAMU) final rule and its impact on mixed waste management

AbstractThe Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) Final Rule has provided much‐needed relief from land disposal restrictions and new land disposal facility minimum technology compliance for any waste meeting the requirements of a “remediation waste” as part of a Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) Corrective Action project. This waiver allows hazardous waste and mixed waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to actively manage remediation wastes within CAMUs and between CAMUs during HSWA Corrective Action programs, without having to comply with land disposal restrictions and minimum technology requirements.

Understanding the RCRA corrective action process

AbstractThe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 specify “corrective action” requirements for protecting human health and the environment from environmental contamination at active hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRA and its corrective action requirements are designed to prevent the creation of new Superfund sites by regulating and remediating active facilities. The RCRA corrective action process has four basic components: the facility assessment, facility investigation, corrective measures study, and corrective measures implementation. This article presents an overview of the RCRA corrective action process and presents four case studies from three U.S. EPA regions.

Steam Stripping and Batch Distillation for the Removal and/or Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds from Industrial Wastes

One of the primary objectives of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is to encourage waste minimization through source reduction as well as recycle and recovery of valuable materials from hazardous wastes. The U.S. EPA has conducted pilot-scale investigations on different physical/chemical treatment and recovery technologies. Two of the technologies are steam stripping and batch distillation for removal and recovery of volatile organics. Pilot-scale steam stripping tests of 2-nitropropane indicated that the concentration in the wastewater can be lowered from 1000 mg/L to 0.93 mg/L, a 99.9 percent reduction, while a concentrated overhead stream (5300 mg/L) can be obtained for recycling (after additional purification). Different models for organic compound property estimation were reviewed and various computer programs were written and/or modified for process design on personal computers.

Managing petroleum refining wastes by thermal desorption

AbstractThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed regulations under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to restrict the land disposal of hazardous wastes. As a result of the regulations, all hazardous wastes to be placed on the land must meet treatment standards based on the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) identified for individual waste classifications.The Marathon Oil Company is currently evaluating innovative technologies for managing listed waste materials, with a focus on waste minimization and recycling. Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTeC) has conducted testing on wastewater treatment sludges from three Marathon refineries using a proprietary thermal desorption technology. The results from these tests have demonstrated that the technology has the ability to consistently meet BDAT treatment standards, while preferentially separating and condensing residual moisture and oils from the material.

Evaluation of Landfill‐Liner Designs

The effectiveness of landfill‐liner designs is evaluated in terms of the slope, drainage length, and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the lateral drainage layer, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil liner, and the fraction of the area under a synthetic liner where leakage is occurring. The evaluation is performed using Version 1 of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. The effectiveness is quantified by comparing the lateral drainage rate to the vertical percolation rate expressed as percentages of the total inflow. The two multiple‐liner systems specified in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) minimum technology guidance are shown to have different leakage‐detection characteristics. One system detects significant leakage before leakage percolates out of the landfill, whereas the other system detects leakage only after significant leakage percolates out of the landfill. Four other designs were also examined—two with single liners and two with double liners. The two HSWA designs detected leakage at lower synthetic‐liner‐leakage fractions, but all designs with composite liners were nearly equally effective in reducing leakage from landfills.

TCLP as a Measure of Treatment Effectiveness

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA require that EPA either ban the disposal of hazardous wastes to the land or ascertain that such wastes are acceptable for land disposal. The soil and debris associated with the clean up of Superfund sites also fall under these statutes and must be addressed. A significant part of the regulatory strategy adopted by EPA involved the determination of best demonstrated available technology for contaminated soils and debris. A series of soil treatment technologies that were considered as candidates for Superfund sites (physical, chemical, thermal solidification) were tested on a laboratory prepared feed sample and the waste product streams generated were processed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP chemicals and mechanism have been compared to some of the most severe leaching conditions experienced in the land disposal of hazardous wastes, and therefore the results of these tests should simulate the worst case situations. In this context, TCLP was studied as an indicator of treatment effectiveness, and may be one of the criteria employed to determine if a waste is banned or land disposed. This paper presents the TCLP data generated from five (5) different treatment technologies tested and helps to put the use of this technique into practical perspective.

Significance of Regulatory Constraints on the operation of Packerless Waste Injection Wells

Summary U.S. federal regulations for groundwater protection require all hazardous-waste disposal wells to be constructed so that casing leaks can be reliably monitored. Wells constructed with static-fluid seals instead of packers are incapable of meeting this requirement and are therefore not in compliance with the regulations. Introduction Though fluids (liquids) have been injected into the subsurface to recover minerals and to dispose of oilfield brine in the U.S. for many years, deep-well disposal has been an approved means of industrial waste management for only a few decades. This method now accounts for the subsurface disposal of increasingly large volumes of industrial liquid waste. If not property controlled, the injected waste could threaten the safety of our drinking water supplies. In the past, subsurface waste disposal was generally regulated by state programs, which varied widely in technical detail. The need for uniform standards for groundwater protection has been obvious for some time. In recognition of this need, the U.S. Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) in 1984. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations, which are a part of the HSWA, set minimum standards for the siting, construction, and operation of injection wells in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers this program directly or through the states to meet the Congressional mandate. UIC regulations require all injection wells to be constructed with tubing set in packers. This feature allows the well operator to use the tubing/casing annulus for monitoring well casing leaks that could endanger the safety of adjacent underground sources of drinking water (USDW's). As of 1984, only 80% of all hazardous-waste disposal (Class I) wells in the U.S. were completed with packers. The regulations permit the operation of packerless wells only if the operator can demonstrate that the mechanical integrity of these wells can be reliably monitored at a level comparable with that of the well with packer. The most common type of the packerless well currently approved by the EPA features a "static-fluid seal" in the annulus-i.e., annulus filled with a mineral oil, in place of the packer, which totally isolates the annulus from the injected waste. This paper examines the extent that the packerless well with the static- fluid seal is comparable with a conventional well with packer in providing reliable protection to groundwater. Considerations of theory and available operating-well data from the Great Lakes region facilities suggest that packerless wells do not meet applicable requirements and therefore do not comply with UIC regulations.

Technologies for the Recovery of Solvents from Hazardous Wastes

About 1.5 billion gallons of hazardous waste solvents were disposed of to the land in 1985. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 required that EPA prohibit the direct land disposal of these materials after November 8, 1986. Alternatives to direct land disposal include source reduction, destruction, treatment, and recovery. This paper describes several technologies that can be used to recover solvent materials from hazardous wastes. Such technologies include evaporation, distillation, solvent extraction, critical fluids processing, steam and air stripping, and carbon adsorption. Data from USEPA studies are presented on recovery efficiencies for several of the unit processes.

Recent changes in superfund policy and guidance: Alternative technology

AbstractEngineering practices applicable to Superfund sites, as viewed in the context of the institutional policies that guide them are discussed below. Past practice has relied heavily on land disposal of wastes removed from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act however, have caused land disposal to be the option of last choice. Indeed, the HWSA's general policy directives have established the overall environmental goal of drastically reducing dependence on land disposal for all forms of hazardous waste. As a result, a new set of waste treatment/disposal priorities has been implemented for Superfund site Remedial Actions. The first priority is reuse or recycling of waste, the second is waste destruction, and the third is waste immobilization. The paper outlines the steps for selecting waste treatment processes for Superfund sites and distinguishes between in situ and mobile technologies.