Hazardous Waste Management                               DOWNLOAD PDF

Introduction
The industrialization of the United States has led to its prominent role in international markets and provided a high standard of living for its citizens. These successes have not occurred without costs, however, including dangers to the public health and the environment resulting from exposure to commercial, industrial, mining, agricultural, and consumer waste by-products. Our ability to prevent and control these waste streams, as well as to conserve and recover the hazardous and nonhazardous components associated with these wastes, is a key factor in the nation's ability to protect the public health and the environment. Issues impacting hazardous waste management must receive priority attention if these goals are to be met.

The engineering profession plays a key role in managing our nation's hazardous wastes. Engineers are leaders in developing the technology to prevent and minimize wastes generated by commercial and industrial processes. Engineers also are lead professionals in designing the methods and systems for reusing, recycling, treating, storing, disposing, and remediating waste.

Background and Objectives
Many national laws have been enacted that address hazardous waste management needs and objectives. Among them are laws specifically oriented to hazardous waste management, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA (HSWA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Other national laws, while not focused solely on hazardous waste, also impact its management. These include water resource protection, environmental restoration, toxic substances, and mining laws.

In 1976, Congress adopted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the primary national law for addressing production wastes (wastes generated in the course of ongoing activity or business). RCRA divides wastes into two basic classifications--"hazardous" and "solid." (As used in RCRA, the term "solid" does not necessarily refer to a waste's physical property, and thus the waste can also be a liquid or a contained gas.) RCRA defines a waste stream as hazardous if it exhibits one of four characteristics (corrosivity, ignitability, toxicity, or reactivity), or has been otherwise specifically "listed" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By-products are also considered to be hazardous if they are derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed hazardous waste (the "derived from" rule), or mixed with a nonhazardous solid waste (the "mixture" rule). RCRA hazardous wastes are stringently regulated under Subtitle C of the law, while nonhazardous wastes (such as municipal solid waste, medical, manufacturing, mining, oil, and gas wastes) are largely left to state and local control under Subtitle D.

Subtitle C establishes a comprehensive national "cradle-to-grave" program for regulating the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. This program includes a manifesting system to track wastes from their point of generation through their point of disposal, and a permitting system to control the operation of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRA allows states to assume the authority for operating the Subtitle C program. RCRA was amended in 1984 (by HSWA) to prohibit land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes and to establish a "corrective action" program that requires facilities subject to RCRA to remediate previous contamination.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly known as Superfund) was enacted in 1980 to address the remediation needs of abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. CERCLA establishes a removal action program to provide short-term responses to immediate hazardous waste threats. CERCLA also establishes a long-term remedial action program. CERCLA was modified in 1986 (by SARA) to tighten remediation standards and accelerate the remediation effort. Under this process, abandoned sites are identified, assessed, and ranked according to the site's potential risks to human health and the environment. Sites whose numeric ranking exceeds a cutoff are placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Once a site reaches the NPL, the project continues with a remedial investigation and feasibility study. Numerous remediation alternatives are evaluated using nine different criteria. A preferred alternative is announced for review and comment. Any modifications are incorporated into the final remedy selection, which is then announced in a Record of Decision. The actual remedy is then designed, implemented, and monitored.

CERCLA makes present and previous owners and operators of sites and generators or transporters of substances to such a site liable for the costs associated with site investigation and remediation. The EPA has implemented an "enforcement first" policy to recover costs associated with Superfund site investigation and remediation from these potentially responsible parties (PRPs). CERCLA also establishes a trust fund (the Hazardous Substances Superfund) to pay for site remediation when EPA is unable to identify a PRP who contributed to the waste stream. The superfund is generated by taxes on petroleum, listed hazardous chemicals, some imported substances, and corporate income.

Some federal facilities, particularly those operated by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), have been included on the NPL and are subject to CERCLA requirements. Other DOD and DOE facilities that have not been placed on the NPL still require hazardous waste remediation. These sites are managed by DOD's Defense Environmental Security Program and DOE's Environmental Management Program.

Other national laws affecting our nation's hazardous waste management policy include the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and numerous environmental restoration, federal land management, and mining laws.

At present, procedures have been established through professional and occupational licensing laws and voluntary certification programs for ensuring minimum competency of individuals engaged in hazardous waste assessment, design, remediation, and management activities.

The Problem Identified
It is impossible to account for the totality of sites that have been contaminated by hazardous wastes or the quantity of waste that has been disposed in an uncontrolled fashion in the past. Improper management or careless disposal of hazardous wastes poses a threat to human health and the environment. In many cases, the long-term health effects of hazardous waste exposure may not be fully realized, thus meriting precautionary activities. Improperly managed hazardous wastes also threaten ecosystems and limit future availability of our soil, air, groundwater, and surface water resources for meeting our agricultural, industrial, commercial, and dwelling needs.

The systems in place for managing these waste streams have been criticized from all sides. Some claim that current laws are not strict enough to sufficiently protect the public health and the environment. Others criticize these same laws for establishing rigid, uniform procedures for addressing situations that are unique to each hazardous waste site. Still others fault the pace of program implementation and remediation activities. Regulated parties cite duplication, inconsistencies and gaps between national and state laws and regulations. Others criticize current laws for unfairly exposing them to liability for hazardous wastes beyond their control. Furthermore, the process used to identify (define) hazardous wastes is fraught with controversy. As a result, different waste streams receive levels of attention that may be totally unrelated to the risk they pose to the public or the environment. Additionally, regulations such as the "mixture" and "derived from" rules may be bringing more waste streams under Subtitle C regulation than is necessary. Criticisms from all sides that the law applies unevenly to different waste streams erodes confidence in government, industry, and the technical community. These suspicions present considerable challenges to policymakers, regulated parties, and the public.

There are technical and economic limits to the management options available for managing hazardous wastes. For example, improper land disposal can lead to groundwater contamination and polluted runoff. Land disposal has also been criticized as economically flawed because it permanently takes land out of use for other purposes and contributes nothing to materials recovery. The potential energy use and air quality impacts of incineration cannot be ignored. The recycling of hazardous materials is not necessarily economical. And pollution prevention, while providing long-term payoffs, can be prohibitively expensive in the short term.

Even more generally, there are limits to scientific and engineering information and technology available for managing some wastes. The failure of the technical professions to communicate these limitations effectively to the public and policymakers leads to unrealistic expectations or improperly designed programs.

A shortage of trained professionals and technicians qualified in the management of hazardous wastes is likely to occur unless major environmental education efforts are undertaken. Furthermore, additional efforts to provide opportunities to engineers and others to acquire new skills to meet these environmental needs are necessary.

Efforts by government and the private sector to ensure the competency of individuals providing hazardous waste assessment, remediation, and management services conflict with state professional licensing laws.

Advocacy of NSPE
Because engineers are often charged with implementing laws governing hazardous wastes, and because their technical expertise is essential to the development of technically sound policies, the engineering profession must participate in the development of laws and regulations that affect hazardous waste management.

Guiding Principles
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) believes the management of hazardous waste by-products is critical to the future of our nation and the world. We advocate the development and implementation of a national hazardous waste management policy that addresses the public health, ecological, and commercial needs of the nation. A national hazardous waste management policy should:

• eliminate immediate threats to the public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment;
• provide long-term protection of the public health, safety, and welfare;
• encourage pollution prevention, including the reduction of hazardous wastes at the source;
• encourage the considerations of ecosystem impacts in developing and implementing hazardous waste management strategies;
• encourage the conservation of natural resources and the recovery of materials;
• represent a consensus among the public, regulated parties, and engineering and scientific professionals;
• provide for the assessment of risks to public health and the environment and the analysis of costs and benefits in determining management standards and priorities;
• promote scientific and engineering research and technology development to continuously improve hazardous waste management.

Hazardous Waste Management Goals
Limited financial and administrative resources require that problems be prioritized within an overall context of hazardous waste management goals. These goals should be based on a scientifically and technically sound evaluation of the risks that hazardous wastes pose to the public health and the environment. Needs should be evaluated systematically, and efforts should be targeted to areas where the largest need exists and where the most measurable effect can be achieved. This systematic evaluation should include consideration of whether appropriate levels of resources are being directed to each management option, and concurrently, whether limited resources have been properly distributed between production waste management and remedial waste management.

Systems Approach
The various components of a national hazardous waste management policy should be viewed as integrated units of a total system. Each component should be developed in the context of overall hazardous waste management goals.

Our national policy on hazardous waste management should be crafted with consideration of its impacts on other issues, and be consistent with policy objectives affecting other environmental media. As a result, goals and policies should be harmonized with other public health, environmental protection, natural resources, and commercial policies and goals. Furthermore, the benefits gained by investing in hazardous waste management should be measured against the benefits gained from the reduction of other environmental and public health risks. Resources should then be distributed according to those areas with the greatest demonstrated societal gain. Current laws in all of these areas should be reevaluated as necessary for compatibility with national hazardous waste management goals.

Implementation Principles
An effective plan for implementing the many components of a national hazardous waste management policy is required if we expect the goals of that policy to be achieved. The following principles should serve as a guide when developing the framework for such a policy:

• Implementation plans should be constructed with a preference toward pollution prevention. 
• Cost-benefit considerations should be factored into the evaluation of hazardous waste management options. Economic impacts on all affected parties, including the public at large, should be assessed. Indirect costs and non-economic benefits should also be considered.
• Scientifically and technically valid assessments for identifying wastes as hazardous and for determining the methods for managing them should be implemented.
• The technical and scientific basis (such as Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) standards, treatment guidance, or Best Management Practices (BMP) guidance) for regulatory programs should be developed by individuals competent in the understanding and application of engineering or science. 
• Compliance with program requirements should be obtained through performance-based standards rather than technology-based requirements. Performance-based standards allow for flexibility in addressing the problems unique to each waste stream. Permitting of hazardous waste management units should also be performance-based.
• All generators, transporters, or owners of hazardous waste pollution, including national, state, and local government entities, should be held to the same compliance standards and subject to the same enforcement practices.
• A range of options for implementing management programs should be fashioned, including encouragement and support for the private sector to voluntarily undertake management initiatives and rigorous enforcement procedures to address non-compliance situations.
• Implementation timetables should realistically take into account the actual scientific and technical information available for remedying the situation. Timetables should consider the financial and institutional capabilities of regulated parties to meet program requirements. Timetables should also allow adequate periods of time for the development of regulations and public comment.

Roles of Government
The roles of government agencies at the national, state, and local levels must be clearly delineated in the development and administration of hazardous waste management policy. Each unit should be entrusted with fulfilling its obligations. Unnecessary oversight by higher units of government should be eliminated. However, we recognize the need for preemption by a higher level of government if minimum national objectives are not achieved. While there is a clear national role for setting objectives for hazardous waste management, implementation and enforcement must be done on a site-specific level.

National Government Role--The national government should establish broad hazardous waste management goals and develop minimum standards for state, regional, and local government programs to implement and enforce those goals. Nationally-defined policies should encourage problem-solving on a site-specific basis, where practical. As a result, the national government should devote attention and resources to assisting state, regional, and local government in developing site-specific management strategies.

The national government should coordinate and provide funding for research, technical assistance, and public awareness activities in areas where the benefits or needs are clearly national in scope. The national government should also be prepared to manage hazardous waste remediation activities in cases where the project has a clear national strategic need, or when the benefit of such a project is truly national or international in scope.

State, Regional, and Local Government Role--Authority and responsibility for implementation and enforcement of hazardous waste management policies should be assigned to the lowest level of government that can effectively administer it. Some tasks currently assigned to the national government should be reassigned as appropriate to the state, regional, and local government levels. State government should be responsible for developing comprehensive hazardous waste management plans for the state, implementing national programs, and ensuring completion of national objectives. Local governments should play an administrative and planning role where appropriate.

Scientific and Technical Research
Under a systems approach, there should be greater attention to public health and ecological impacts of hazardous wastes. As a result, efforts should be targeted to document those wastes that pose a threat to the public health and the environment. Scientifically defensible hazardous waste identification and remediation programs require significant attention to improving knowledge and understanding of the toxicological and epidemiological effects of hazardous substances on humans and the environment.

We support adequately funded government-sponsored, university-based, and private sector research that furthers understanding of hazardous waste prevention, recycling, treatment, and disposal technologies and processes. A national hazardous waste management policy should encourage the development and application of experimental and innovative technologies that fill gaps in understanding. Barriers that inhibit or discourage "field" testing of these innovations should be eliminated.

An effective hazardous waste management strategy also must include practical post-implementation monitoring and assessment. Without a thorough evaluation of these innovative technologies and processes, their full benefits will not be captured.

We also recognize the opportunity to benefit from the experiences learned by other countries on prevention and control methods, and support activities that provide an exchange on the topic. The technical professions should seek out their counterparts in other countries to collaboratively find solutions to hazardous waste management needs.

Education and Training
Greater emphasis should be placed on educating the public and the commercial, agricultural, and industrial contributors about the consequences of and solutions to hazardous waste. Any public information program should emphasize the effect that hazardous materials have in maintaining our economic competitiveness and standard of living, the availability of methods for managing hazardous wastes, and the economic consequences of blocking effective management programs. The government, the private sector, NSPE, and other professional and technical associations should provide a range of formal and informal educational activities to transfer this information, including the development of curricula for use in classrooms, public awareness campaigns, and speakers bureaus. Pollution prevention, waste reduction, and resource conservation and recovery are among the themes that should be emphasized in these outreach efforts. To increase public understanding of the interconnection of hazardous waste management to other systems, these educational and outreach activities should emphasize the impact of hazardous waste management decisions on other policies and goals.

Attention should also be directed to supporting an education and training system adequate to ensure a stable supply of hazardous waste management professionals. An extensive educational program is necessary to prepare our future human resources to properly address issues related to the management of waste. Such a program should recognize the necessity of environmental education at all levels, from primary school to the graduate level.

Professional Regulation
Management of hazardous wastes requires the knowledge and skills of individuals educated and trained in science, engineering, technology, and the trades. Professional and occupational licensing laws and recognized private certification programs are appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the competency of individuals providing hazardous waste services.

The regulation of professional and occupational practice through licensure is an exercise of the constitutional power of the states to protect the public health, safety, and welfare -- the so-called "police powers." Accordingly, we oppose licensure or certification requirements at the national level for individuals engaged in hazardous waste site assessment, remediation, or management activities. National licensing laws in the hazardous waste field usurp the authority of state governments and conflict with the regulation of other professions and occupations.

We oppose national and state licensing laws and private certification programs that permit unqualified individuals to practice engineering, as governed by state law, without first obtaining a professional engineering license.

We also oppose national and state laws that require licensed professional engineers to obtain additional licenses or certificates in order to continue providing services that they are already authorized to provide under the PE statutes.

Private sector organizations that issue certifications should have their credentialing processes accredited by the National Organization for Competency Assurance or the Council of Engineering Specialty Boards. Accreditation assures the public, or a government agency that elects to use the certification as a measure of competency, that the certificant has met the minimum criteria expected of a legitimate credentialing process.

Identification of Hazardous Wastes
The protection of the public health and the environment must be the ultimate aim of a system for identifying a waste stream as hazardous. An identification process must ensure all waste streams that pose threats to the public health or the environment are sufficiently regulated while not inadvertently regulating waste streams that are not hazardous. Pressures from contributor and citizen groups that distract from this aim must be eliminated. The current identification process under RCRA, which contributes to these tensions, must be reformed.

We support the identification of hazardous wastes based on the presence of hazardous characteristics (corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, toxicity) in the waste. The list used to determine the presence of toxic constituents (for determining the "toxicity" characteristic) should include all chemicals with demonstratable adverse impacts on the public health or the environment. Such a process ensures that all hazardous waste streams are brought into Subtitle C regulation.

Recognizing that the reform outlined will not be implemented quickly, we urge, in the interim, the creation of a new process for removing those nonhazardous waste streams that have been inadvertently identified as hazardous by the "mixture" and "derived from" rules. Such wastes should be exempted if they contain toxic constituents in a quantity below established concentration limits. The concentration levels under such a system should be set according to health risks rather than a technology-based standard.

Hazardous Waste Management Options
Our national strategy for managing hazardous wastes should include a range of options. The elimination of pollution, including the reduction of the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes, should be the ultimate goal of any hazardous waste management strategy. Short of elimination, management plans should then favor reuse, recycling, treatment, and disposal, in that order. This management "hierarchy" should not be so rigid as to entail implementation of costly options when the public health and the environment could be sufficiently protected under a lesser option. Flexibility should be built into a hierarchy so as to allow the selection of a combination of the above solutions according to each situation.

Pollution Prevention--A major reduction in the resources dedicated to the management of hazardous wastes generated and disposed can be achieved by eliminating or reducing those hazardous constituents entering the waste stream in the first place. Pollution prevention includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, inventory control, or other activities that reduce the volume or toxicity of hazardous wastes. Pollution prevention has enormous benefits both to waste contributors and to the public. The public benefits because exposure to constituent- and taxpayer-funded toxic program costs are reduced. Waste contributors also benefit because the costs associated with treatment and disposal are decreased as the quantity of hazardous wastes is decreased. Pollution prevention will reduce costly and time-consuming compliance requirements associated with regulatory programs. Pollution prevention plans will decrease further costs associated with remedial action efforts. Pollution prevention also provides a vehicle for regulated parties to demonstrate their commitment to the protection of the public health and the environment.

In most cases, pollution prevention is preferable to other hazardous waste management methods (reuse, recycling, treatment, storage, or disposal) from a public health, ecological, and economic perspective. As a result, pollution prevention should be fully integrated into hazardous waste management implementation plans. Waste contributors should be required to incorporate reasonable pollution prevention technologies and strategies into their processes. The understanding of pollution prevention is still a growing field, and requirements should be flexible to account for these emerging methods and technologies.

We encourage a regulated system whereby dischargers are provided incentives to enact pollution prevention rather than penalties for inaction.

Significant resources should be devoted to educating waste generators about pollution prevention. These strategies will be successful only if attitudinal changes are fostered. In addition, contributors should be provided technical assistance so that they gain information and access to the available pollution prevention techniques and technologies.

Additionally, we advocate government-sponsored, university-based, and private sector research into pollution prevention research and technology development. Of particular importance, greater research and development into environmentally benign feedstocks and processes and the use of alternative materials should be supported.

One particularly effective tool for encouraging pollution prevention has been the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPCRA establishes procedures for 1) community-based emergency notification and planning, 2) public access to information about chemicals held on-site at facilities, through community right-to-know reporting requirements, and 3) public access to information about toxic releases from large manufacturing facilities reported through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The community right-to-know and TRI reporting requirements have succeeded in raising consciousness within industry of the toxics that are stored at and emitted from their facilities. The two reporting provisions have also expanded employee and public understanding of toxic chemicals and reduced their concerns. The TRI in particular has provided an incentive for facilities to set goals to reduce emissions because it is in their interest to demonstrate progress on waste reduction from year to year. However, federal facilities are exempt from the community right-to-know requirements and the TRI reporting requirements are currently limited only to a fraction of facilities that produce hazardous wastes.

Federal facilities should be subject to community right-to-know and TRI reporting requirements both because failure to do so reduces the public safety and because the national government must lead by example. A national security interest waiver process should be established to protect secret information. The TRI should be expanded to cover all classes of hazardous waste contributors that pose a risk to public health, both as a matter of good public safety and as a matter of equity. Insignificant risks should be exempted when lack of benefits are demonstrated. Considerable attention must be paid to determining the chemicals subject to TRI reporting to ensure that only those chemicals considered hazardous by the various environmental and toxic substances statutes are included. In no case do we support the addition of chemicals to the TRI unless they can be scientifically linked to public health or environment risks. Any modifications to the TRI should continue to recognize the proprietary rights of facilities. Expansion of the TRI is likely to require additional reporting requirements. We urge that all efforts be made to minimize this burden, particularly on the small-quantity contributors that an expanded TRI program is likely to bring in. An alternative to the reporting requirement, such as a periodic "spot checking" system, may prove to be the wiser course for obtaining compliance with these small contributors. The executive agencies charged with implementing reporting requirements should develop forms and instructions in a timely fashion if facilities are expected to meet deadlines.

We support proposals to require waste contributors to develop and implement pollution prevention plans. Such requirements should eventually be placed not only on EPCRA facilities, but also on facilities regulated by other environmental and toxic substances statutes. It is imperative that any pollution prevention requirements adopted in RCRA or other statutes be combined with similar requirements in other laws so as to spur the development of pollution prevention master plans. The national government and state governments should continue to take the lead in outlining broad goals of such pollution prevention plans, such as reducing the use of toxic chemicals, reducing the amount of waste generated, and increasing in-process recycling. Once these goals have been established, the government should not interfere with a facility's prerogative to determine the specific features of its pollution prevention plan. Such requirements should not impinge on the proprietary rights of regulated parties. However, some limited information may be required as an accountability mechanism. The government also has a role to play in supporting technical assistance to regulated parties to help them in understanding the requirements of pollution prevention laws. In addition, regulated parties, particularly small facilities, may need assistance in evaluating the technology and process changes necessary at their individual facility.

Reuse--Life cycle costing at the conceptual design phase of a project can reduce operations, maintenance, and waste disposal costs if a more complex process stressing feed material concentration and reuse is adopted as opposed to continued treatment and disposal. Recovery of the hazardous constituents of wastes is consistent with the goals of resource conservation and recovery and should be encouraged. Recovery reduces the volume of waste and also lowers costs resulting from purchase of new materials.

Recycling--Regeneration of feedstocks from process waste streams is more complex and expensive than simple reuse. However, the benefits of reduced volume and lowered costs are still present. Technical, economic, and regulatory barriers that inhibit recycling should be removed. Greater research and development of recycling technologies and processes should be conducted to improve recovery rates and lower costs. Markets for recycled hazardous wastes should be developed and tax incentives to encourage recycling should be implemented. The RCRA statute should be clarified to resolve the differing interpretations over whether or not the statute currently regulates recyclable materials as hazardous wastes. We believe that implementation of a hazardous waste identification process as outlined above would assist in resolving whether a recyclable material would be considered hazardous.

Treatment--Even though greater attention and resources are likely to be devoted to pollution prevention and recycling in the future, the hazardous waste management hierarchy must continue to place a high priority on treating hazardous wastes. Continued research and development into new treatment technologies and processes is essential not only for managing those production wastes that can not be prevented or recycled but, more importantly, for addressing the treatment needs of remedial wastes.

We support incineration as a safe treatment method that is particularly useful for reducing waste volume and toxicity. Because of the high costs associated with constructing high-level hazardous waste incinerators, it is not likely that the private sector will construct facilities of this type. However, the U.S. Department of the Army is constructing incinerators for destroying the nation's chemical weapons stockpile. The government should consider turning these facilities over to private sector ownership and management once their military purpose has been achieved, rather than decommissioning them as is the current plan.

Disposal--Despite the technical feasibility of using disposal methods as an option for managing hazardous wastes, this option evokes the most emotional reaction from communities and is the least supported of the hazardous waste management options. Vocal opposition to siting disposal units in the community is only one of the reasons why disposal options fall low on the hazardous waste management hierarchy. Because of the powerful and visible role that the public plays in hazardous waste disposal decisions, they must be treated as partners in the decision-making process and fully educated on the issues. If the public is not included in the decision-making process from the outset, they will continue to remain skeptical of industry intentions and technological stability of the site. Engineers must play a key role in this education effort by articulating these technical issues to the public.

While land disposal is not the ideal hazardous waste management option for many wastes, in some cases, such as inorganic substances and treatment residuals, land disposal units are the only option for managing some waste streams. As a result, continued land disposal of hazardous wastes must be permitted. Siting decisions must be based on the technical merits of a location, including the geologic, hydrologic, and geographic characteristics.

Pretreatment of wastes prior to disposal, and storage methods such as leachate collection systems, liners, and the solidification of liquids, should continue to be required in order to eliminate threats of toxic release.

Hazardous Waste Emergency Response
Action plans and reporting procedures for managing and controlling accidental releases of hazardous substances should be more broadly established in advance of the release. Threats to the public safety and health and to the environment can be minimized through advance planning and adequate training of emergency response personnel, facility operators, transportation suppliers, and public officials. If an emergency release occurs, it must be reported immediately. The public also has the right to receive accurate and timely information, and a mechanism should be established in advance to provide that notification.

Hazardous Waste Remediation
The ultimate aim of remedial hazardous waste management programs should be the permanent reduction in the toxicity, volume, and mobility of the waste. In some cases, however, technology is unavailable to meet this aim, or the costs of doing so are prohibitive. Recognizing these limitations, a hazardous waste remediation system must also provide for the speedy removal of immediate health and ecological threats and the containment of hazardous wastes. Removal actions should be a high priority on all hazardous waste sites. Once the removal action has been completed, the site should be assessed to determine the extent that further remediation will be required.

Designation of Sites--The system for ranking the level of hazard presented by a site should be based on an assessment of risks to the public health and the environment.

Because large uncertainties or even absolute gaps exist in the information needed to make an accurate quantitative assessment of human health and ecological risks, several risk assessment methodologies have been established. Some of them overestimate the actual risk of exposure by using hypothetical situations in their modeling. Reliance on an overly protective assessment alone leads to expensive and time-consuming remedial actions that may achieve little, if any, additional protection than could have been achieved using an actual situation in the model. On the other hand, providing risks based only on "likely" occurrences may be more restrictive than the public desires. Therefore, we advocate the use of a risk assessment methodology that presents a range of risk information to policymakers and the public upon which to base public policy. Engineers and others must make every effort to communicate the methodologies and benefits of risk assessment to the public and policymakers.

Any site that meets hazardous ranking criteria should be included under the jurisdiction of remediation laws.

Remedy Selection--Limited resources and gaps in scientific, engineering, and technical information constrain our ability to provide a uniform type of remediation at all sites. Thus, a flexible system that allows PRPs, the public, and design professionals to choose from an array of remedies should be established. The central criteria of remedy selection should be whether it reduces the hazard of the site below the level determined to be harmful to humans or to the environment.

The national government should develop uniform remediation standards to serve as a basis for guiding the selection of a remedy specific to each site. These standards should be based on a scientific and technical evaluation of the appropriate level of treatment required for the land's intended use and its impact on intended groundwater and surface water uses. Standards should not be set so that they require the use of a BDAT. Instead, remediation standards should be performance-based in order to encourage application of technological alternatives.

Acceleration of Remediation--Complaints that site remediation under the corrective action and Superfund programs is proceeding too slowly must be addressed if we are to ensure that health and environmental risks are reduced and public confidence in hazardous waste management programs is restored. Among the improvements that can be made to accelerate site remediation are the following:

• Reduce the time required to complete risk assessment and remedy selection processes. Every effort should be made to merge the numerous studies required for removal and remedial actions so that any duplication of labor is eliminated. The scientific defensibility of such processes should not be compromised by forcing them to proceed more quickly than is prudent. The technical professions must explain to the public and policymakers the processes and time lines at the outset so as to eliminate unwarranted pressures to accelerate remediation. 
• Maintain updated records in one central agency to facilitate information exchange on remediation selection. Access to such information will reduce the needless repetition involved in remedy selection.
• Remove barriers to voluntary remediation of hazardous sites, including those not listed on the NPL. Mechanisms established by statute and regulation that allow PRPs to conduct remedial actions on their own volition should be fully utilized. Additionally, PRPs should be allowed to conduct their own initial assessments of the site in a manner consistent with established procedures. Sites that PRPs are willing to remediate voluntarily should not be listed on the NPL unless the remediation objectives that have been agreed to fail to be met. 

Voluntary remediation is critical to the economic redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites, known as "brownfields." Voluntary site remediation also benefits the public because health and ecological risks are reduced sooner than if action is delayed until the NPL determination process is concluded. In addition, voluntary remediation reduces government expenditures by tapping private sector resources, rather than the superfund or state and local coffers to pay remediation costs.

The private sector may be willing to voluntarily remediate sites if it reduces delays in economic development. In exchange for their willingness to voluntarily proceed with site remediation and their adherence to remediation standards, developers of sites not listed on the NPL and their lenders should be immunized from future Superfund liability as PRPs should that site nevertheless be listed on the NPL at a future date.

Contract Management--Federal agencies that contract with the private sector for hazardous waste remediation should have strong management and oversight and controls in place to ensure that public funds are spent on their designated purposes. On the other hand, the private sector has a right to expect clear instructions for managing these funds and receiving reimbursement for their services. The current contract management system is complex, resulting in misunderstandings or disagreements over the law. To prevent future confusion, acquisition regulations should be strengthened to provide clear definitions of allowable costs, indirect costs, and fees. Definitions of scope and allowable costs should be set for each project. Agencies should establish clear auditing procedures.

The private sector must use prudent and ethical judgement when expending public funds. Regulatory agencies should investigate allegations of illegal use of funds. The reputations of private sector contractors and government agencies suffer when accusations of mismanagement are bantered about without any effort to provide systematic corrections.

Owner/Operator Liability--CERCLA's "enforcement first" policy has reduced expenditures from the Hazardous Substance Superfund by shifting expenditures to PRPs. While CERCLA's liability standard has successfully diverted costs directly from taxpayers, the strict, joint, and several liability standard has resulted in unfairness in cost assignment. This liability standard assigns responsibility without regard to care or negligence. As a result, any PRP, including minor contributors, can be assessed for the total cost of remediating a contaminated site. Correspondingly, this system encourages major contributors to seek out other PRPs to assist in covering costs. As a result of the strict, joint, and several liability standard, litigation has dramatically increased, and PRP funds have been diverted from remediation activities expenditures to legal expenditures.

We support changes to the liability standard so that waste generators, transporters, owners, and operators would become liable only for the costs associated with the percentage of contamination or hazard they contributed to a site. Furthermore, PRPs should not be saddled with the burden of discovering other PRPs over whose actions they had no responsibility or control. In situations where other PRPs cannot be identified as a contributor to the identified waste, the remaining costs should be covered by the Superfund. Such an approach not only establishes fairness for regulated parties, but also distributes among the public the costs associated with consumer demand for commercial and industrial goods whose production generated the waste.

In the absence of systemic change to the liability standard, we do not support special exemptions from the current standard for select groups. Such special treatment is unfair to other PRPs who could also have legitimate reasons for seeking an exemption but are nevertheless trapped in the liability quagmire. CERCLA's liability standard makes no differentiation between "innocent" and "malicious" contributors, and thus arguments from municipalities that they are "innocent" contributors because they had no mechanism to separate hazardous materials from household wastes is an insufficient justification for exemption. Further use of de minimis and de micromis settlements, which are permitted under SARA, should be used to address municipality contentions that the amount of hazardous waste contained in municipal solid waste is of a small quantity.

The complaints from municipalities and other de minimis contributors, as well as PRPs, highlight the need to adjust or overhaul the mechanism for funding remediation under CERCLA.

Remediation Contractor Liability--The government and PRPs rely on engineers and others to investigate, design, and perform remediation activities. Without adequate protection from liability exposure, however, these individuals and firms may be unwilling to participate in site remediation. This results in a reduced number of professionals available to provide remedial action services, causing delays in site remediation. Fears of unlimited liability also hamper the use of innovative and alternative technologies for site remediation by design professionals who are justifiably hesitant under such circumstances to test an innovative technology that may not succeed. While the private sector generally would prefer commercial insurance for addressing their liability exposure resulting from response actions, this is expensive and difficult to obtain. Until fair and affordable insurance is readily available, the national government should provide adequate indemnification for contractors and their employees providing remediation services.

Indemnification provisions provided by CERCLA, RCRA, and DOD and DOE environmental restoration programs are not uniform or are nonexistent. Interim rules under CERCLA provide unlimited indemnification to remediation contractors, but the proposed final rule would erode some of this protection. The private sector has yet to obtain any indemnification at facilities covered by RCRA or DOD's restoration program.

Private sector contractors and their employees providing remedial design, construction, and other remediation services are third parties in hazardous waste remediation and should not be exposed to strict, joint, or several liability for their work related to remedial actions. Instead, their liability standard should be based on fault or negligence; i.e., they should not be burdened beyond the liability they incur from gross negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification should be provided for liability of contractors and their employees to the extent not covered by insurance, without limits to the amount or type of indemnification. Furthermore, remedial action contractors (RACs) should be held liable solely for their negligent work pertaining to site remediation, not to other actions at the site (i.e. not consider RACs to be owners, operators, or transporters).

Remedial action contractors and their employees should be released from liability incurred as a result of the introduction of innovative technologies to remediation sites under the same negligence standard. Direct indemnification should also be provided for subcontractors and their employees.

A national statute of repose that permits claims to be brought against a RAC only for a limited period of time should be enacted.

We urge adoption of a national negligence standard for third-party RACs for the liability arising under national or state laws to ensure that risks and liabilities are addressed uniformly throughout all national and state programs managing hazardous waste remedial actions. In the interim, we urge that each federal agency managing hazardous waste remediation establish an indemnification standard consistent with our recommendations above.

Government agencies and their employees acting as RACs should be held to the same standard of liability.

When a disposal facility accepts waste from a hazardous waste remediation project, and when such facility is approved by the appropriate regulatory agency, those individuals, engineers, and contractors involved in design, construction, maintenance, operation, and ownership should be indemnified as set forth above for activities involving the remediation project.

Government Facilities
As the owner and operator of facilities that generate, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes, the government must manage these wastes in a manner protective of the public health and the environment. Just as private parties, states, and localities are expected by the national government to cover the operating and remediation costs of hazardous waste remediation on facilities under their control, so should the national government assume this responsibility for its own facilities. We urge the Administration and Congress to allocate and appropriate sufficient resources to meet this requirement. However, as more federal sites are brought into the remediation process and costs escalate, policymakers and the public may have to set priorities as to the level and breadth of site remediation.

Hazardous waste sites on federal facilities present opportunities to experiment with innovative treatment, storage, and disposal technologies of wastes without concern from third parties of liability exposure. The national government should develop research and development programs that allow their properties to become "laboratories" while also accomplishing their remediation task.

Base Closures--The economies of communities with military facilities scheduled for closure depend on their conversion to other productive uses. The government should not shirk from its responsibility for ensuring that the transferred property is free of hazardous waste risks. Provisions in CERCLA that prohibit the national government from selling to private parties contaminated federal property until all remedial action has been completed meet this requirement. We believe that the amendments to CERCLA that attempt to eliminate delays in transferring the uncontaminated portions of the federal property have been appropriate, as have been allowances for the transfer of portions of federal property after remedies are operational, but before long-term remediation has been completed. We encourage prompt implementation of these provisions.

Federal Facility Compliance with RCRA--Federal facilities should be required to comply with all federal, state, and local hazardous waste and other environmental laws in the same manner and to the same extent as any other regulated party. We support recent amendments to RCRA that have made clear the waiver of sovereign immunity. EPA and the states should be allowed to assess fines, penalties, and administrative orders against the national government for failure to comply with the requirements of RCRA. EPA and the states must have such enforcement powers if they are to ensure the safety and health of the public.

To avoid the need for resorting to these enforcement mechanisms, we urge federal agencies to voluntarily accept the responsibility for compliance with RCRA. We encourage EPA, the states, and other federal agencies to continue to develop and utilize mechanisms for dispute resolution, compliance orders, and schedules.

Liability Exposure for Government-Employed Engineers--Because EPA and the states cannot file a suit against the national government for RCRA violations, individual government employees may become more likely targets of lawsuits. We support implementation of RCRA provisions waiving sovereign immunity of federal agencies from fines and penalties to remedy this inequity. Also, legislation should be enacted that includes an authorization for federal agencies to provide their employees with legal counsel in the case of state criminal proceedings, and to reimburse employees for the cost of defending themselves in federal criminal proceedings when the action was performed within the scope of the employee's duties and without willful and wanton misconduct. In the absence of delegating specific authority to each of the federal agencies, we urge the U.S. Department of Justice to use its existing authority to issue guidelines providing for the legal representation/reimbursement of expenses incurred by federal employees in criminal proceedings.

Mixed Waste
The management of waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous substances (known as mixed waste) presents a unique set of technical problems. Mixed wastes are a large problem at DOE weapons production facilities and national laboratories as well as at medical facilities. Technologies and processes do exist for separating some hazardous and nuclear wastes. However, further research is required to expand treatment and separation options. Treatment, storage, and disposal standards developed for the management of mixed waste must address both the hazardous and radioactive properties of the waste. If the radioactive and hazardous wastes cannot be separated, then the mixed waste should take on the identification of the greater health risk and be disposed of accordingly.

Regulatory barriers impede the management of mixed waste. Overlapping authority between EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be resolved. RCRA's prohibition against waste storage in the absence of adequate disposal capacity must be relaxed for mixed waste, as there is little treatment or disposal capability.

Impact on Other Issues
The development of a hazardous waste management policy that protects the public health and the environment will undoubtedly affect a number of other policy areas, particularly those related to the environment and economic productivity. Protection of the public health and the environment will affect land use, industrial and commercial practices, and communities.

The enormous costs associated with a national hazardous waste management policy will require a full evaluation and societal consensus on the priority of reducing risks caused by our production and remedial wastes vis a vis reducing risks caused by other situations.

While radioactive waste is hazardous, that category is regulated separately from other hazardous wastes. Accordingly, that subject merits attention if we are to address hazardous waste issues in their totality.

A hazardous waste management policy for the United States encompasses a large number of issues. This position statement addresses only those issues that we have reviewed from a professional society standpoint. We encourage the utilization of the expertise within the engineering, scientific, and the hazardous waste management community to address the entirety of hazardous waste management issues.