Hazardous Waste Minimization Practices in Tennessee

The minimization of hazardous waste generation as well as the proper treatment and disposal of generated waste has great importance for the protection of present and future human health and the environment. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of waste minimization practices carried out by Tennessee waste generators since September 1985, This was accompl i shed methodologically through survey research of 1 arge Tennessee waste generators. The total population of large generators was categorized in three stratified groupings, based on the quantity of hazardous waste produced. During the period between August 12, 1987, and October 7 , 1987, two mailings and telephone reminders produced a 68.4% response rate from 266 waste generators. Data analyses included nonparametric statistical analysis of ordinal level data. In general, Tennessee generators have a positive attitude toward waste minimization. They have begun to implement or have fully implemented various waste minimization practices; especially a) improvements in housekeeping, b) changes in process equipment or techno:ogy, and c9 creating awareness o f opportunities. Overall, Tennessee generators, categorized on the basis o f waste generated, did not differ in their survey responses. There were few statistically significant differences in waste minimization imp1 ementat ion levels. Two minimization practices "changes in process equipment or technology" and "on-site treatment" were positively associated with generator waste output. While Tennessee waste generators have a generally favorable view of waste minimization, they characterized their efforts to date as producing just "moderate" results. There seems to be the potential, therefore, for further act i vi ty . INTRODUCTION There are 225 million metric tons of hazardous waste produced each year In the Unites States falling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (1). There are numerous land burial sites throughout the states where hazardous wastes are buried for disposal purposes. As the Inventory of hazardous materials grows, the need for disposal sites will increase proportionally. Unless a1 ternative methods of disposal can be used and the amount o f hazardous wastes kept to a possible minimum, the public's insecure attitude toward hazardous waste disposal will continue, The public health effects in areas surrounding hazardous waste sites are uncertain and highly controversial (2 . , 3., 4., 5., 6.). Measurement and evaluation methods are relatively new and not uniformly agreed upon. Though evidence might not be conclusive, some people who are exposed to various chemicals at these sites report physical and psychological maladies. In some cases, they claim damage and successfully obtain compensation (7 . , 8.). Congress passed RCRA in 1976 to track hazardous wastes and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as Superfund in 1980 to respond to spills and other releases of hazardous materials that may threaten human health or the environment from present and deserted dump sites (9 . , 10.). RCRA has been amended three times and CERCLA once to further resolve hazardous waste disposal/management problems. The most recent (November 1984) RCRA amendments passed by Congress were written in the language of regulations, with specific deadlines for required actions (11.). Hence the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) i s forced to abide by these deadlines. The amendments among others, eliminated small generator exemptions (hence included those who generate 100 to 1000 kg waste per month), barred liquid wastes from landfills, and provided a time table for the banning of other categories of hazardous wastes from landfills. One o f the amendments, which, in part, is the foundation for this study, dealt with waste minimization. This regulation required generators of waste by September 1, 1985, to certify on the shipping manifest (the shipping paper) that: 1. The generator has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree determined by the generator to be economical ly pract i cab1 e; and 2. The proposed method of treatment, storage, or disposal is currently available to the generator which minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the environment. In addition: 1. Once every two years, a report describing the facility's waste minimization efforts and actual amounts reduced, needs to be submitted to the EPA; and 2. Permits needed for on-si?e treztment, storage, arid disposal o f waste must include the Waste Minimization Program. The regulatory nature of this amendment is unusual. It did not authorize EPA to interfere, investigate, or audit the processes used to minimize waste or to set certain standards or numerical reduction goals that generators were to achieve; rather it left method and standards to the generator's discretion as long as the method chosen was "economically practicable" and "available." Although generators commit themselves to waste reduction by signing the certificate, compliance is in good faith. Under this amendment EPA was to prepare a report to Congress by November 1986, detailing compliance levels and recommendations for further advancing the waste min imizat ion e f f o r t . The five-volume document €PA issued i n 1986 t o s a t i s f y t h i s requirement recommended (12. , 13., 14.):