--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Environmental Justice Analysis
                    of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

                                 June 30, 2011

                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
                             Washington D.C. 20460

Executive Summary

To achieve the goals of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, EPA must consider environmental justice when developing a regulation.  Because decisions involving a regulation must be informed by a consideration of a number of different issues, an environmental justice analysis is one of several analyses the Agency uses when developing regulations.  The environmental justice analysis may be qualitative and/or quantitative and is designed to provide the appropriate information on disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations to decision-makers.  To the extent an environmental justice analysis reveals potential disproportionately high adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations, this result can affect how EPA uses its policy discretion in pursuing specific regulatory options or engaging the public in the implementation of regulations.

In October 2008, EPA published the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) final rule which, among other things, sought to increase the levels of hazardous secondary materials recycling.[,]   Recycling hazardous secondary materials fulfills two goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by reducing the consumption of raw materials and by reducing the volume of waste materials that must be treated and disposed. Recycling can mean less air, water, and soil pollution caused by extracting, refining, and processing of raw materials.  However, the goals of resource conservation and waste reduction must never occur at the expense of one of the other fundamental goal of RCRA:  protecting human health and the environment from hazardous waste management.

The 2008 DSW final rule revised the definition of solid waste under RCRA for certain types of hazardous secondary materials being recycled.  The hazardous secondary materials recycled under the DSW final rule would no longer be regulated as hazardous waste, as long as certain conditions were met.  The intended effect of the DSW rule was to encourage safe recycling of hazardous secondary material and answer long-standing questions about the RCRA definition of solid waste.

In January 2009, the Sierra Club submitted an administrative petition requesting EPA revoke the DSW rule.  The petition raised a number of issues questioning the protectiveness of the rule, particularly for minority and low-income communities.  In June 2009, EPA held a public meeting asking for comment on the issues raised in the petition. Many of the commenters echoed Sierra Club's concern about potential disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income communities from the rule, and the adequacy of EPA's analysis of the potential for these impacts under the 2008 DSW final rule. Under the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA determined that the conditions of the rule would prevent any increase in risk, and therefore there would be no disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities.  However, the 2008 analysis did not take into account whether the conditions of the rule would operate as effectively in the real world as the more detailed requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

In response to comments by Sierra Club and other stakeholders, EPA committed to producing an expanded analysis of the potential disproportionate impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule.  A draft methodology for the analysis was shared with the public in January 2010, and three public roundtable discussions were held to discuss the draft methodology.  EPA considered the comments raised in those discussions and conducted the new analysis.

The methodology for the DSW environmental justice analysis consists of six steps:

                         Summary of DSW EJ Methodology

Step 1:  Hazard characterization

Includes two phases:  (1) identifying potential hazards that could pose risks to human health and the environment from the recycling of hazardous secondary materials, including accidental releases of hazardous constituents and (2) analyzing the likelihood of such hazards occurring under the requirements of the DSW exclusions as compared to the pre-2008 DSW hazardous waste regulations.
Step 2:	Identification of potentially affected communities
Modeling the locations of facilities (including potential new facilities) that are likely to choose to take advantage of the 2008 DSW final rule.
Step 3:	Demographics of potentially affected communities
Mapping the location of the facilities modeled in Step 2 and identifying the demographics (e.g., minority population and income level) of the surrounding communities.
Step 4: Identifying other factors that affect vulnerability in  potentially affected communities
Identifying important vulnerability factors. These include factors that may increase the likelihood of "damages" (i.e., release of contamination to any environmental media or abandoned materials that require cleanup, injury to a person such as a worker or resident, or damage to property such as a fire), such as the likelihood that a facility is sited within a community, or the likelihood of health risks in the event of releases. Examples include the presence of other pollution sources and any information about the public health of the surrounding population.
Step 5: Information synthesis: assessment of disproportional impact
Synthesizing all the information to characterize whether the DSW rule will facilitate the occurrence of any adverse impacts and whether some population groups (e.g., minority or low income populations) would be overrepresented in the impacted communities.
Step 6: Identification of potential preventive and mitigation strategies
Identifying potential strategies to prevent non-compliance and releases to the environment and also strategies to mitigate any impacts identified under Step 5.

The draft environmental justice analysis of the DSW rule was peer reviewed, and then revised based on peer review comments.  The next steps will be to obtain public comments on the revised draft analysis as part of a new proposal requesting comment on further revisions to the definition of solid waste.   Below is a summary of findings from the revised draft analysis.

Finding 1:  Hazardous Secondary Material Recycling Does Pose Significant Potential Hazards

The first step of the DSW environmental justice analysis methodology is hazard characterization, which includes both identifying the potential hazards that discarded hazardous secondary materials recycling could pose to human health and the environment, and evaluating the likelihood of such hazards resulting in increased risk under the 2008 DSW final rule. EPA conducted the first part of the hazard assessment, identifying the potential hazards that discarded hazardous secondary materials recycling could pose to human health and the environment, independent of any presumption or consideration of health and safety or regulatory controls.  In the second part of the hazard assessment, EPA considered such controls in conjunction with the hazards identified in the first part to assess the likelihood of such hazards resulting in increased risk.

Hazardous secondary materials sent to recycling are physically and chemically similar, if not identical, to many of the hazardous wastes sent for treatment and disposal.  The most commonly recycled hazardous secondary materials are spent solvents and electric arc furnace dust (which is recycled to reclaim metals).  Spent solvents present particular management challenges associated with storage of liquids containing volatile organic chemicals and include both halogenated and non-halogenated organic chemicals, which represent a broad range of chemicals and associated hazards.  Electric arc furnace dust is usually in a solid state and presents a different management challenges, including storage in waste piles and the potential for wind-blown dust, and can contain high concentrations of toxic metals.

These two classes of hazardous secondary materials (as well as other hazardous secondary materials that are recycled) can pose risks via a wide variety of exposure routes and include a range of potential adverse health effects, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, and a potential for acute impacts such as fire and explosions for certain types of hazardous secondary materials, such as solvents.

Finding 2: Possibility of Hazards from Hazardous Secondary Materials Recycling Adversely Impacting Human Health and the Environment is Increased under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

The second part of the hazard characterization step  -- determining whether these hazards could result in increased risk to human health and the environment  -- is a complex issue because of the interactions between how the regulations are written and how they are implemented.  Under the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA presumed that the conditions of the rule would prevent any increase in risk.  In particular, the condition that the hazardous secondary materials be "contained" was intended to address this issue, because if the material is not released to the environment, then there would be no increased exposure, and therefore no increased risk.

However, what the 2008 analysis failed to take into account was whether the conditions of the rule  -- including the "contained" standard  -- would operate as effectively in the real world as the more detailed requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.  One of the most common criticisms of the January 2010 draft environmental justice methodology was that it glossed over some of the important protections of the hazardous waste regulations, particularly public participation requirements, which were not considered under the 2008 DSW final rule.

A more detailed comparative analysis of the regulatory requirements under the 2008 DSW final rule with the hazardous waste regulations reveals potentially significant gaps in environmental protection under the 2008 DSW final rule.  Examples of these gaps include the absence of measures to ensure compliance, incentives to accumulate larger volumes of hazardous secondary materials, the potential for increased releases such as during storage and transportation of waste, the lack of prescriptive standards for waste storage and containment, potential issues associated with the interstate transport of HSM for recycling, and reduction in access to information and the opportunity for public participation.  The specific gaps vary depending on the baseline scenario and the post-DSW scenario being considered, and in some cases, there is also a potential for increased benefits, primarily from resource conservation and from reduced transportation distances.

            Summary of Potential Impacts of the 2008 DSW Final Rule
                      Under Different Recycling Scenarios
                           Hazardous Waste Baseline

                                 DSW Practices
                         Summary of Potential Impacts
         Scenario 1:  Generator continues current recycling practices
Generator recycles material onsite under hazardous waste regulations

Generator recycles material onsite under generator-controlled exclusion
Potential  increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures
Generator sends material offsite for recycling to RCRA-permitted facility under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a  RCRA-permitted facility under transfer-based exclusion
Potential  increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures

No change in risk at recycling facility.
Generator exports material under hazardous waste regulations for recycling in another country

Generator exports material under the transfer-based exclusion for recycling in another country
Potential increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

No change in risk at recycling facility.
  Scenario 2:  Generator switches from off-site disposal to on-site recycling
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for  treatment followed by landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator recycles material onsite under generator-controlled exclusion
Potential  increased risk to human health and the environment at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures

Potential  reduced transportation risk due to switch from off-site disposal to on-site recycling

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding existing off-site treatment/disposal facilities.

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling and reduction of miles traveled.

 Scenario 3: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling
                      under the control of the generator
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for  treatment followed by landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility that it controls under generator-controlled exclusion
Potential increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased risk in communities surrounding generator off-site recycling facilities

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling and reduction of miles traveled (if distance to reclamation facilities is closer).

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding existing off-site treatment/disposal facilities.
Scenario 4: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling at RCRA-permitted facility
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for treatment followed by landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a  RCRA-permitted facility under transfer-based exclusion
Potential  increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling and reduction of miles traveled (if distance to reclamation facilities is closer).

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling.

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding existing off-site treatment/disposal facilities.

Scenario 5: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling at a U.S. facility without a RCRA permit
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for treatment followed by landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under transfer-based exclusion
Potential increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased risk at recycler due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling.

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding existing off-site treatment/disposal facilities.
Scenario 6: Generator switches from off-site disposal to exporting for recycling
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for treatment followed by landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator exports material under the transfer-based exclusion for recycling in another country
Potential increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased risk at recycler due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased resource conservation benefits due to switch from disposal to recycling.

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding existing off-site treatment/disposal facilities.
Scenario 7: Generator switches from off-site recycling at a facility without a permit to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule
Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a  facility under generator-controlled exclusion, or

Generator exports material under the transfer-based exclusion for recycling in another country, or

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a RCRA permitted facility under transfer-based exclusion, or

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under transfer-based exclusion.

Potential increased risk at generator due to longer accumulation times, greater quantities, lack of explicit preventative measures.

Potential increased risk at new recycler due to longer accumulation times, and greater quantities accumulated.

Potential reduced risk at new recycler due to "contained" standard, legitimacy condition and (for the transfer-based exclusions) reasonable efforts audit and financial assurance conditions.

Potential reduced risk in communities surrounding previously used off-site recycling facility.
Scenario 8:  Generator switches from off-site recycling at a RCRA-permitted facility or exporting waste for recycling to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule
Generator sends material offsite for recycling to RCRA-permitted facility under hazardous waste regulations or exporting waste for recycling in another country

Generator reclaims material onsite under generator-controlled exclusion, or

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility that it controls under generator-controlled exclusion, or

Generator sends material offsite for recycling at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under transfer-based exclusion, or

Generator exports material under the transfer-based exclusion for recycling in another country
 Same as corresponding scenarios 2  -  6, but with no resource conservation benefits.

Finding 3:  Many of the Communities Potentially Impacted by this Increase in Risk of Adverse Impacts are Minority and Low-Income Communities, and in Some Cases the Populations Potentially Impacted are Disproportionately Minority and/or Low Income

The second and third steps of the DSW environmental justice analysis methodology together help determine whether the potential adverse impacts detailed above are likely to occur disproportionately in minority and low-income communities.

The second step of the methodology identified facilities that can represent the facilities that are likely to take advantage of the 2008 DSW final rule.  These facilities are grouped into four different categories:
   1.  Facilities that have already notified EPA that they will be managing hazardous secondary materials under the 2008 DSW final rule (hereafter referred to as "notification facilities");
   2.  Facilities in EPA's An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials, many of which operated under exclusions or reduced regulations (hereafter referred to as "damage case facilities");
   3. Hazardous waste facilities that are likely to recycle under the rule, including hazardous waste generators producing more than a truckload (25 tons) of recyclable hazardous secondary materials annually, and hazardous waste recyclers (hereafter referred to as "hazardous waste facilities"); and

   4. Facilities currently recycling non-hazardous industrial waste (e.g., antifreeze) that could most easily switch or expand to recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule (hereafter referred to as non-hazardous industrial waste facilities").

The third step characterized the demographics of the communities within a three kilometer radius around these facilities, and determined whether they were disproportionately minority or low-income compared to the nation as a whole, and compared to the population in the state.  Disproportionality was evaluated both at the community and at the population level.

For the community-level analysis, the question is whether the communities in a facility category had a higher or lower percentage of minority and/or low-income population as compared to the comparison population (i.e., national or state population).  In general, some communities will have a higher percentage than the comparison population and some will have a lower percentage.   As long at these differences have a regular distribution, they would not indicate disproportionate impact.  However, if the number of communities with a higher percentage of minority and/or low-income population is greater than that of the comparison populations, then there is a potential for disproportionate impact. The higher the average difference between the potentially affected communities and the comparison group, the greater the potential disproportionality.

In the chart below, the only category that consistently demonstrates the potential for disproportionate impact are the damage case facilities.  For both the national and the state comparison populations, more than 50% of the damage case facilities are located in communities with minority and low-income populations that have a higher representation than the comparison populations.  In addition, the average difference in these cases (i.e., the average amount that the damage case facilities have a higher-than-average percentage of minorities or low-income populations) ranges from 6-8%.

        Community-Level Analysis of Potential Disproportionate Impacts
            of 2008 DSW Rule to Minority and Low-Income Communities
         Highlighted Values Indicate Potential Disproportionate Impact

National Comparison
% communities with higher minority representation
(average difference)
National Comparison
% communities with higher low-income representation
(average difference)
State Comparison
% communities with higher minority representation
(average difference)
State
Comparison
% communities with higher low-income representation
(average difference)
Notification Facilities
(40 total)
                                     7.5%
                                   (-20.7%)
                                     32.5%
                                    (-2.0%)
                                  50.0% (IA)
                                    (3.1%)
                                  20.0% (NJ)
                                   (-11.0%)
                                  31.3% (PA)
                                    (-2.3%)
                                  64.0% (IA)
                                    (1.7%)
                                    0% (NJ)
                                    (-3.7%)
                                   50% (PA)
                                    (2.6%)
Damage Case Facilities
(217 total)
                                      53%
                                    (8.2%)
                                      65%
                                    (5.9%)
                                     55.8%
                                    (8.2%)
                                      69%
                                    (6.7%)
Hazardous Waste Facilities
(2,677 total)
                                      42%
                                    (0.9%)
                                      48%
                                    (1.5%)
                                     47.9%
                                    (4.0%)
                                     50.6%
                                    (1.8%)
Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities
(25 total)
                                      36%
                                    (-5.0%)
                                      40%
                                    (-0.5%)
                                      36%
                                   (-2.55%)
                                      44%
                                    (-0.3%)

The population-level analysis examines the demographics of the total potentially affected population as compared to the total comparison population to determine (1) whether there is a substantially greater probability of members in a population group of concern (minority or low-income) being present as compared to members of the comparison population, and (2) whether members of the population group of concern comprised a substantially greater proportion of the potentially affected population than the comparison populations.  These two comparisons are referred to as (1) the Affected Population Ratio, and (2) the Demographic Ratio.  In both cases, if the ratio is greater than 1.0, then there is a potential for disproportionate impact to the population of concern, and the larger the ratio, the greater the disproportionality.

       Population-Level Analysis of Potential Disproportionate Impacts
            of 2008 DSW Rule to Minority and Low-Income Communities
Highlighted Values Indicate Potential Disproportionate Impact to Population of Concern
           All Results Statistically Significant (p-value <0.05)

National Comparison
Minority Population

Affected Population Ratio

Demographic Ratio
National Comparison
Low-Income Population

Affected Population Ratio

Demographic Ratio
State
Comparison
Minority Population

Affected Population Ratio

Demographic Ratio
State
Comparison
Low-Income Population

Affected Population Ratio

Demographic Ratio
Notification Facilities
(40 total)
                                     0.70

                                     0.76
                                     1.05

                                     1.04
                                   1.80 (IA)
                                   1.76 (IA)

                                   1.02 (NJ)
                                   1.01 (NJ)

                                   1.46 (PA)
                                   1.47 (PA)
                                   1.34 (IA)
                                   1.32 (IA)

                                   0.64 (NJ)
                                   0.65 (NJ)

                                   1.74 (PA)
                                   1.63 (PA)
Damage Case Facilities
(217 total)
                                     2.87

                                     1.86
                                     1.98

                                     1.80
                                     2.59

                                     1.64
                                     2.04

                                     1.90
Hazardous Waste Facilities
(2,677 total)
                                     1.90

                                     1.80
                                     1.39

                                     1.50
                                     1.94

                                     2.04
                                     1.47

                                     1.83
Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities
(25 total)
                                     1.19

                                     1.12
                                     1.16

                                     1.14
                                     1.34

                                     1.20
                                     1.17

                                     1.15

The population-level analysis shows a greater incidence of potential disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations than the community-level analysis.  For the population-level analysis, the potential for disproportionate impact (i.e., ratios greater than one) occur under all categories, while the community-level analysis exhibits the potential for disproportionate impact only in the damage case facility category.  This difference can occur when the population of those communities that do have a greater percentage of minority or low-income individuals also have a significantly higher total population that those communities that do not.   In other words, for all categories of facilities except the damage case facilities, the facilities of concern do not appear to be disproportionately located in minority or low-income communities, but the facilities that are located in minority and low-income communities have the potential to impact much larger populations than those which are not, resulting in an overall potential disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations as a whole.

Finding 4:   Underlying Vulnerabilities Traditionally Associated with Minority and Low-Income Communities Pose the Potential to Exacerbate Potential Adverse Impacts of the DSW Rule

 In addition to considering the potential for the 2008 DSW final rule to result in adverse impacts that disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities, the DSW EJ analysis also considers other factors that could affect the impacts of the rule, based on categories from EPA's interim guidance on incorporating environmental justice into rulemaking. These factors are described under five broad categories: (1) susceptible populations, (2) multiple and cumulative effects, (3) unique exposure pathways, (4) ability to participate in the decision-making process, and (5) physical infrastructure. All of these factors have the potential to exacerbate the potential for adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities, but two of these factors are of particular concern to the 2008 DSW final rule: ability to participate in the decision-making process, and multiple and cumulative effects.

Ability to Participate in the Decision-Making Process

A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in decision-making which may impact them.  Certain groups may not have historically participated in decision-making because of economic (e.g., income), social (e.g., language barriers, education levels, distrust of government), and infrastructural reasons (e.g., access to public transportation).  In addition, community organizations representing such groups may face higher barriers to participation than government or private sector entities.  For example, taking advantage of existing public participation mandates may require a significant investment of community resources or volunteer effort, while government and private sector entities may have more resources or paid staff to perform these functions.  A critical concern is whether, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community as well as the requirements, conditions, and parameters by which such activities must operate (e.g., permit conditions).  Under the 2008 DSW final rule, facilities claiming an exclusion must submit an initial and biennial notification to EPA or the state, providing general facility information and describing hazardous secondary material types and activities under the exclusion.

However, under the 2008 DSW final rule this information is not made directly available to potentially affected communities, and facilities and regulators are not required to solicit or consider community input into the decision-making process as is the case with RCRA permitted facilities.  Thus by removing the RCRA permitting requirement for facilities that manage excluded hazardous secondary materials, the 2008 DSW final rule also removed one of the key provisions for allowing communities to participate in the regulatory process (at least as it concerns the management of the hazardous secondary materials excluded under the rule).  Communities with lower participation levels may experience greater adverse impacts from environmental decision-making because their input has not been considered fully, particularly if competing interests are set forth more effectively.  This effect is most likely to occur in communities that have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process.

Multiple and Cumulative Effects

Minority, low-income, and indigenous communities that have been affected by multiple pollution sources may be at risk for increased health consequences.  Potential sources of pollution can include, for example, industrial facilities, landfills, transportation-related air emissions, poor housing conditions (e.g., lead-based paint), leaking underground tanks, pesticides, and incompatible land uses.  In particular, releases of contaminants that may occur over long periods of time, such as leaking septic tanks or underground storage tanks, may be less likely to be diagnosed quickly, and tend to be addressed more slowly, and thus pose a higher health risk, in low income communities.

An analysis of the cumulative effects from multiple stressors can provide a more complete evaluation of a population's health risks from pollutants.  For example, an analysis of discrete stressors and effects on a population might conclude that nearby pollution sources are within regulatory limits; however, an analysis of cumulative effects might determine that a person's collective exposure to a contaminant from multiple sources exceeds a health-based limit.

An examination of the facilities that have notified under the 2008 DSW final rule shows that multiple environmental hazards are a potential concern for communities around these facilities.  All have multiple facilities reporting to EPA, either under RCRA, the Clean Air Act (CAA), or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA - also known as Superfund) within a three-kilometer radius of the facility.  Twenty-six of the forty facilities had communities with cancer rates greater than the 80th percentile, and twenty-seven showed a greater than the 80th percentile in neurological hazard rates.  Twenty-seven facilities also had no hospital facilities within the three kilometer area.

Finding 5:  There are Potential Preventative and Mitigative Steps that EPA Could Explore to Address the Potential Adverse Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Communities

The sixth and final step of the DSW environmental justice analysis is to identify potential strategies to prevent non-compliance and releases to the environment and to mitigate potential adverse impacts that have been identified in the analysis.

1. Regulatory Changes

Regulatory changes to the 2008 DSW final rule were made according to EPA's authority under RCRA to regulate discarded material. As discussed in the preamble to the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA used the concept of discard as the central organizing idea behind the October 2008 revisions to the definition of solid waste.

As stated in RCRA section 1004(27), "solid waste" is defined as "... any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material...resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural activities." In exercising its discretion in the 2008 DSW final rule to define what constitutes "discard" for hazardous secondary materials reclamation in the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA included an explanation of how each provision of the final rule relates to discard (73 FR 64676 - 64679).

While the concept of discard also is the central organizing principle in this proposed rule since EPA only has authority under RCRA to regulate materials that have been discarded, the Federal Register notice announcing the June 2009 public meeting identified areas or opportunities to revise the 2008 DSW final rule in ways that could increase environmental protection, including in environmental justice communities, while still appropriately defining when a hazardous secondary material being reclaimed is a solid waste and subject to hazardous waste regulation (74 FR 25202).

The purpose of the new 2011 DSW proposal is to provide notice and the opportunity to comment on potential regulatory revisions to address the potential for adverse impacts to human health and the environment from discarded material, including disproportionate impacts to minority and low income communities.

In particular, the proposed withdrawal of the transfer-based exclusion and its replacement with an alternative Subtitle C standard would be one way of addressing the concerns regarding third-party recyclers, including the impact of longer accumulation times, the lack of preventative measures under the containment standard, the lack of public participation requirements, the lack of RCRA air standards, and concerns regarding certain transportation issues. In addition, the proposed codification of the "contained" standard would be one way of addressing the lack of preventative measures and the lack of RCRA air standards under the generator-controlled exclusion. Proposed additional recordkeeping requirements for speculative accumulation and legitimacy would help ensure that hazardous secondary material is being legitimately recycled and not simply discarded through over-accumulation and abandonment, and recordkeeping under the tolling and same-company provisions will help ensure that the hazardous secondary materials meet their intended destinations.

2. Implementation Measures

In addition to considering regulatory changes to address potential adverse impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA can take steps in implementing the 2008 DSW rule that would help mitigate any potential adverse impacts. These steps include closely monitoring the facilities notifying under the 2008 DSW final rule, making information about the DSW facilities available to the public, and working with the states and EPA Regions to ensure they have the information they need to ensure compliance with the provisions of the rule, and making available to the public information about the facilities that have notified. EPA has begun this process for the states and territories currently operating under the 2008 DSW final rule and plans to continue these efforts in order to help prevent potential adverse impacts at the same time that revisions to the rule are under consideration.

                               Table of Contents

1	Introduction	1
1.1	Background	1
1.2	EPA Response to Peer Review Comments	2
1.2.1	Immediate revisions that have already been incorporated into this document	4
1.2.2	Revisions deferred until after the public comments are received.	4
1.2.3	Revisions EPA does not agree with or otherwise not intend to pursue	5
1.2.4	Comments that EPA has determined are not applicable	5
	1.3 Purpose and Organization of Document	6
2	Hazard Characterization	7
2.1	Overview of Scenarios under the DSW Exclusion	7
2.2	General Hazards Associated with Hazardous Secondary Material	13
2.2.1	Types and Quantities of Hazardous Secondary Materials	13
2.2.2	Hazardous Properties of HSMs:  Solvents and Electric Arc Furnace Dust	15
2.2.3	Media, Exposure Route, and Health Effects Hazard Associated with Recycling of HSM	16
2.2.4	Hazards Associated with Recycling of HSM	22
2.3	Regulatory Comparison - Summary of Comparative Results by Facility Type and Scenario	29
2.4	Summary of Comparative Results by Facility Type and Scenario	37
2.5	Likelihood of Hazards under Scenarios	46
2.5.1	Potentially Increased Hazards under DSW Exclusions	46
2.5.2	Potential Reductions and Transfers of Hazards by Facility Type and Scenario	68
2.5.3	Other Impacts	70
3	Identification of Potentially Affected Communities	74
3.1	Facilities that Have Already Notified EPA that They Will Be Managing Hazardous Secondary Materials under the 2008 DSW Final Rule (40 CFR § 260.42)	74
3.2	Facilities Currently Generating or Managing Hazardous Secondary Materials that May Choose to Operate under the DSW Rule	75
3.2.1	Facilities Currently Managing Recyclable Hazardous Wastes	75
3.2.2	Facilities Currently Generating Recyclable Hazardous Wastes	78
3.2.3	Facilities Currently Generating or Managing Hazardous Wastes that May Choose to Operate under the DSW Rule	80
3.3	Facilities Not Currently Generating or Managing Hazardous Secondary Materials  that May Choose to Reclaim them  under the 2008 DSW Final Rule	81
4	Analysis of Demographics of Potentially Affected Communities	82
4.1	Demographic Data Sources	82
4.2	Methodology	84
4.2.1	Selection of EJ Characteristics for Analysis	84
4.2.2	Areal Apportionment Method	84
4.2.3	Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Affected Population versus Comparison Population	85
4.2.4	Statistical Analysis	86
4.3	Statistical Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Affected Population versus Comparison Population	86
4.4	Results of Demographic Analysis	88
4.4.1	Notification Facilities	89
4.4.2	Damage Case Facilities	96
4.4.3	Hazardous Waste Facilities	99
4.4.4	Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities	105
5	Other Factors that Affect Vulnerability in Communities	108
5.1	Overview of Factors that Affect Vulnerability	108
5.1.1	Susceptible Populations	108
5.1.2	Multiple and Cumulative Effects	108
5.1.3	Unique Exposure Pathways	110
5.1.4	Ability to Participate in Decision-Making Process	110
5.1.5	Physical Infrastructure	111
5.2	Summary of Analysis of Factors that Affect Vulnerability for 40 Notification Facilities	112
6	Conclusions	117
6.1	Information Synthesis: Assessment of Disproportionate Impact	117
6.1.1	Hazardous Secondary Material Recycling Does Pose Significant Potential Hazards	117
6.1.2	Possibility of Hazards from Hazardous Secondary Materials Recycling Adversely Impacting Human Health and the Environment Is Increased under the 2008 DSW Final Rule	117
6.1.3	Many of the Communities Potentially Impacted by this Potential Increase in Risk of Adverse Impacts are Minority and Low-Income Communities, and in Some Cases the Populations Potentially Impacted Are Disproportionately Minority and/or Low Income	130
6.1.4	Underlying Vulnerabilities Traditionally Associated with Minority and Low-Income Communities Pose the Potential to Exacerbate Potential Adverse Impacts of the DSW Rule	133
6.2	Potential Preventative and Mitigative Steps that EPA Could Explore to Address the Potential Adverse Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Communities	135
6.2.1	Regulatory Changes	135
6.2.2	Implementation Measures	136

Attachment A. Comparison of Regulatory Requirements under DSW to RCRA and Other Federal Regulations	A-1
Attachment B. Waste and Facility Classification Methodology	B-1
Attachment C. Waste Code Group Methodology	C-1
Attachment D. Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Hazardous Wastes	D-1
Attachment E. Statistical Calculations	E-2
Attachment F. Acronyms and Abbreviations..........................................................................F-1
Attachment G. Glossary............................................................................................................G-1

                                List of Tables

Table 1.1.  Summary of DSW EJ Methodology	2
Table 2.1.  Scenarios under Baseline and DSW Exclusions	7
Table 2.2.  Summary of Potential Hazards	20
Table 2.3.  Key Differences in Regulatory Requirements Between Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWRs) and DSW Exclusions by Scenario	35
Table 2.4.  Potential Incremental Hazards under DSW Rule: Generators	51
Table 2.5.  Potential Incremental Hazards under DSW Rule: Transporters	55
Table 2.6.  Potential Incremental Hazards under DSW Rule: Intermediate and Reclamation Facilities	62
Table 2.7.  Potential Reduction in Hazards under DSW Rule	69
Table 4.1.  Data Source Files from the 2000 U.S. Census Used for the DSW EJ Analysis	80
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	88
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Notification Facilities	88
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Iowa Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	89
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule Iowa Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Notification Facilities	89
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  New Jersey Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	90
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule New Jersey Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Notification Facilities	90
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Pennsylvania Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	91
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule Pennsylvania Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Notification Facilities	91
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Urban Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	92
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance (Urban) for Notification Facilities	92
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Rural Demographic Comparison for Notification Facilities	93
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  DSW Rule National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance (Rural) for Notification Facilities	93
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison for Damage Case Facilities	95
Table <IP_ADDRESS>  DSW Rule National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical  Significance for Damage Case Facilities	95
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  State Demographic Comparison for Damage Case Facilities	96
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison for Hazardous Waste Facilities	98
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Hazardous Waste Facilities	98
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  State Demographic Comparison for Hazardous Waste Facilities	99
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Urban Demographic Comparison for Hazardous Waste Facilities	100
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  Rural Demographic Comparison for Hazardous Waste Facilities	101
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison for Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities	103
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  National Demographic Comparison Analysis of Statistical Significance for Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities	103
Table <IP_ADDRESS>.  State Demographic Comparison for Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Facilities	104
Table 5.1.  Other Factors that Affect Vulnerability in Communities Affected By Recycling Notification Facilities	111
Table A-1.  Comparison of Federal Regulations Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and Generators of  Hazardous Secondary Materials under DSW Generator-Controlled Exclusion	A-14
Table A-2.  Comparison of Federal Regulations Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and Generators of	A-41
Table A-3.  Comparison of Federal Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Waste Storage Facilities and Hazardous Secondary Material Intermediate and Reclamation Facilities under DSW Transfer-Based Exclusion	A-64

Introduction
Background
On October 30, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final revisions to the definition of solid waste that excludes certain hazardous secondary materials from regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (73 FR 64663).  Specifically, EPA amended 40 CFR Part 261 to provide that hazardous secondary materials (HSMs) reclaimed under the control of the generator are not solid wastes if specified requirements are met.  EPA also amended Part 261 to provide that HSMs that are generated and then transferred to another person for the purpose of reclamation, including exports, are not solid waste, provided that specified conditions are met.  In addition, EPA finalized other amendments to address particular issues (e.g., established standards in Part 260 to enable a person to apply to EPA for a formal determination that a HSM is not discarded (i.e., non-waste) and therefore not a solid waste).
On January 29, 2009, the Sierra Club submitted an administrative petition to EPA requesting that the definition of solid waste (DSW) rule be repealed.  The petition argues that the revised regulations are unlawful and that they increase threats to public health and the environment without producing compensatory benefits and, therefore, should be repealed.  In addition, the petition disagrees with the Agency's findings that the rule would have no adverse environmental impacts, including no adverse impact to minority or low-income communities.
Under the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA determined that the conditions of the rule would prevent any increase in risk, and therefore there would be no disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities.  However, the 2008 analysis did not take into account whether the conditions of the rule would operate as effectively in the real world as the more detailed requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.  One of the most common criticisms of the January 2010 draft environmental justice methodology was that it glossed over some of the important protections of the hazardous waste regulations, particularly public participation requirements.
After receiving the petition and communicating with stakeholders, EPA committed to conducting an expanded analysis of the environmental justice (EJ) impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule.  This draft analysis is presented in this document.
      4.2 Overview of Approach
The Agency published the Draft Environmental Justice Methodology for the Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule, which lays out a general approach for analyzing EJ issues under the 2008 DSW final rule, in January of 2010.  EPA modified the methodology through interaction with the general public and other stakeholders.  The methodology also adheres to existing Federal and EPA-specific guidance on how to incorporate EJ into the Agency's process for developing regulations and how to conduct analyses that incorporate EJ considerations.  This includes, in particular, EPA's Action Development Process and Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action.  The methodology includes six steps, as described in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1.  Summary of DSW EJ Methodology
               Overview of DSW Environmental Justice Methodology
Step 1:  Hazard characterization

Includes two phases:  (1) identifying potential hazards that could pose risks to human health and the environment from the recycling of hazardous secondary materials, including sudden and non-sudden accidental releases of hazardous constituents and (2) analyzing the likelihood of such hazards occurring under the requirements of the DSW exclusions as compared to the pre-2008 DSW hazardous waste regulations.
Step 2:	 Identification of potentially affected communities
Modeling the locations of facilities (including potential new facilities) that are likely to choose to take advantage of the DSW rule.
Step 3:	 Demographics of potentially affected communities
Mapping the location of the facilities modeled in Step 2 and identifying the demographics (e.g., minority population and income level) of the surrounding communities.
Step 4:  Identifying other factors that affect vulnerability in  potentially affected communities
Identifying important vulnerability factors. These include factors that may increase the likelihood of "damages" (i.e., release of contamination to any environmental media or abandoned materials that require cleanup, injury to a person such as a worker or resident, or damage to property such as a fire), such as the likelihood that a facility is sited within a community, or the likelihood of health risks in the event of releases. Examples include the presence of other pollution sources and any information and data about the public health of the surrounding population.
Step 5:  Information synthesis: assessment of disproportional impact
Synthesizing all the information to characterize whether the DSW rule will facilitate the occurrence of any adverse impacts and whether some population groups (e.g., minority or low income populations) would be overrepresented in the impacted communities.
Step 6:  Identification of potential preventive and mitigation strategies
Identifying potential strategies to prevent non-compliance and releases to the environment and also strategies to mitigate any impacts identified under Step 5.
This document describes the approach and results of Steps 1 through 5.  The draft analyses and results presented in this report will be used to inform the identification of potential preventive and mitigation strategies under Step 6.

EPA Response to Peer Review Comments

From December 2010 to January 2011, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor, organized and facilitated an independent letter peer review of  EPA's Preliminary Draft Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule Environmental Justice Analysis, following the guidelines in EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition (http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/).
In the first stage of this process, ERG searched for and identified qualified candidates who, collectively, met the following technical selection criteria provided by EPA and who had no conflict of interest in performing the review:
   * Knowledge, expertise, and experience with conducting Environmental Justice analyses
   * Familiarity with RCRA
   * Expertise in statistics
   * Familiarity with EPA's Solid Waste Rule
After EPA confirmed that the credentials of the pool of candidate reviewers proposed by ERG fulfilled EPA's selection criteria, ERG then selected three experts from this pool to conduct the review:
   * Dr. Dorothy M. Daley, University of Kansas
   * Dr. Deeohn Ferris, Sustainable Community Development Group, Inc.
   * Dr. Diane S. Henshel, Henshel EnviroComm Consulting and Indiana University
ERG provided the reviewers with a charge prepared by EPA, which asked for their individual comments on the various aspects of the document, and with review instructions prepared by ERG. Reviewers were also provided with EPA's Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, as well as a link to EPA's web site (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/rulemaking.htm) for additional background information.
Reviewers then worked independently over a four-week period to prepare individual written comments, which they submitted to ERG. ERG checked the reviewers' written comments to ensure that each reviewer had provided a substantive response to each charge question within their area of expertise. ERG did not edit the reviewers' comments in any way, but did format reviewers' comments as needed for consistency in this final peer review summary report.
In general, the reviewers thought that the Draft Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule Environmental Justice Analysis adequately reviews, presents, analyzes, and summarizes the available data.

All reviewers offered suggestions for improving the readability of the document, including adding a glossary and list of abbreviations and acronyms, making the transition from different sections more clear, and better explaining the figures. Two of the three reviewers said that the potential regulatory scenarios were plausible. The third reviewer noted that the "unlikely" scenario of a generator switching from managing hazardous secondary material within the United States to exporting it for recycling under the DSW rule was not necessarily unlikely and thought that the potential impacts in foreign countries should be discussed. The reviewer also offered two additional scenarios for EPA to consider: (1) a generator that consistently functions in violation of the regulations and (2) a generator that goes out of business after accumulating hazardous secondary materials.

One reviewer noted that the document did not include any discussion or analysis of the implications of each assumption for total exposure and estimated changes in risk values for the potential environmental justice communities. Another reviewer suggested taking the example situations and quantifying the potential impact on the neighboring community.

The reviewers offered suggestions for improvements, but generally agreed with EPA's analysis of demographics of potentially affected communities. Two reviewers said that comparing potentially affected areas to non-affected areas would be useful. Two reviewers said that comparing host metropolitan areas for facilities would be useful. One reviewer suggested that at least one other stressor, such as TRI facilities or road density, should be added to the analysis. One reviewer suggested assessing the environmental justice impacts of the baseline (RCRA's approach to recycling and disposal).

EPA's initial response to each of the peer review comments can be found in Appendix H to this document.   EPA's responses fall into four general categories:
   1. Immediate revisions that have already been incorporated into this document.
   2. Decisions deferred until after the public comments are received.
   3. Revisions EPA does not agree with or otherwise not intend to pursue.
   4. Comments that are "not applicable" either because they are  general comments not requiring a response, or because they are comments pertaining to the 2008 DSW final rule rather on the analysis
If the public would like to commit on how EPA addressed the peer review comment or on what additional analyses EPA should perform, these commits should be submitted to docket number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742 as part of the comments on the upcoming proposal.  Information on how to submit comments can be found at www.regulations.gov or in the Federal Register notice for the new 2011 DSW proposal.

Immediate revisions that have already been incorporated into this document

The majority of revisions that have already been incorporated into this document are editorial and formatting changes to improve consistency and readability.  Other changes include clarifications of terms and analytic approaches to make the analysis more transparent.  For a full list of revisions that have done in response to peer review comments, see Attachment H.

Revisions deferred until after the public comments are received.
In many cases, EPA has deferred a decision on making a suggested revision until the Agency receives public comments on the new proposal.   EPA's decision to defer these changes is based on a consideration of the need to use resources efficiently and the need to incorporate public comments into the development of the environmental justice analysis.

Most of the deferred revisions are ones that would affect the demographic analysis presented in Chapter 4 of this report.  Because reviewers generally agreed with EPA approach to this analysis, EPA has determined that it is adequate for the purposes of obtaining public comment.    In order to make efficient use of resources, EPA plans to make all adjustments to the analysis at the same time (responding to both peer review and public comments).   Examples of adjustments EPA will consider include:

   * Perform the demographic analysis using different radius lengths besides 3 kilometers
   * Use twice the poverty level, instead of the poverty level, to designate "low income" populations
   * Consider other toxic stressors, such as TRI facilities, in a cluster analysis
   * Consider additional damage cases in the analysis
For a full list of revisions that EPA has deferred until after EPA receives public comment can be found in Attachment H.

Revisions EPA does not agree with or otherwise not intend to pursue

In a few cases, EPA does not plan to make revisions in response to comment either because the Agency does not agree with the comment, or because the Agency has already determined that such a revision is not feasible giving the timeframe and resources available.  Examples of such revisions include:

   * Perform a separate baseline analysis of environmental justice impacts of RCRA Subtitle C.   EPA did not pursue this because the regulatory comparison between hazardous waste regulations and the 2008 DSW rule already includes a qualitative discussion of the baseline impacts at hazardous waste, since the discussion includes the benefits of the 2008 DSW rule (which would mirror the "impacts" of hazardous waste regulations).  In addition, hazardous waste facilities are one of the categories in the demographic analysis. To address this comment, EPA added discussion to make this clearer.

   * Perform a quantitative risk analysis at an "example" DSW facility.  EPA did not pursue this because it would be too difficult to pick "example" scenarios that would cover the range of possibilities, and the analysis would be too sensitive to potential bias in upfront assumptions.

   * Verify the coordinates of the DSW facilities using Global Positioning System (GPS)  EPA did not pursue this because it is not feasible giving the time and resources available.  EPA addressed this comment by noting the potential inaccuracies in the facility addresses.
For a full list of revisions that EPA does not intend to pursue can be found in Attachment H.

Comments that EPA has determined are not applicable

In some cases EPA has determined a comment is not applicable because either it is a general statement that does not require a response, or because it is a comment that is more specific to the 2008 DSW final rule than to the analysis itself.  For a full list of comments that EPA has determined are not applicable, see Attachment H.

      4.2 Purpose and Organization of Document
This report presents EPA's draft analysis of EJ issues under the 2008 DSW final rule, which has been performed in accordance with the DSW EJ Analysis Methodology presented in Table 1.1.  The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the hazards associated with HSMs when generated and managed under the 2008 DSW final rule.  It first describes the types, quantities, and health hazards associated with HSMs and the types of hazards (e.g., releases) that could occur at generator, transporter, and intermediate, and reclaimer facilities managing such materials.  It then presents a qualitative analysis that compares the control of these hazards under the 2008 DSW final rule to the hazardous waste regulations (i.e., baseline).  The chapter examines all reasonably likely scenarios in which HSMs may potentially be generated, transported, and reclaimed under the baseline and 2008 DSW final rule, and qualitatively assesses their potential impacts and hazards respectively, and identifies potential incremental hazards and hazard reduction the 2008 DSW final rule.
Chapter 3 identifies those facilities that already have claimed the DSW exclusion (i.e., facilities that have submitted a notification to EPA or the state), and that may be likely to manage waste under the DSW exclusion.  EPA believes that facilities most likely to claim the exclusion are those that are currently generating or reclaiming their HSM under the existing hazardous waste regulations.  In addition, some facilities currently recycling non-hazardous industrial waste that is similar in character and/or composition to HSMs have equipment and processes that may be easily adapted to recycling HSMs, and therefore may be likely to begin recycling HSMs under the DSW exclusion.
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of demographic data about the communities surrounding the facilities identified in Chapter 3.  EPA performed the analysis by examining the demographics of the community surrounding each facility, including race, income level, and children under five years old.  EPA then compared the demographics of each community to those at the national and state levels, and by urban and rural communities, to identify communities that may potentially have EJ concerns.
Chapter 5 describes other factors that could affect the vulnerability of communities, such as populations susceptible to DSW hazards, multiple and cumulative effects of releases and contamination, and unique exposure pathways.
Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusions from the EJ draft analysis described in this report.

Types of Exclusions Established by October 2008 DSW Final Rule
   *    Generator-Controlled Exclusion (GCE) - Materials that are generated and transferred to another company for legitimate reclamation under specific conditions;
   *    Transfer-Based Exclusion (TBE) - Materials that are generated and legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator (i.e., generated and reclaimed on-site, by the same company, or under "tolling" agreements); and
   *    Petition-Based Exclusion (PBE)- Materials that EPA or an authorized state determines to be non-wastes through a case-by-case petition process.

Hazard CharacterizationOverview of Scenarios under the DSW Exclusion
This section describes the scenarios that EPA used to identify and analyze the hazards associated with managing HSM under the hazardous waste regulations (the baseline) and DSW exclusions.  Generators, transporters, and intermediate and reclamation facilities may manage HSMs in several different ways both under existing hazardous waste regulations, referred to as the baseline, and under the 2008 DSW exclusions.  Each scenario represents a different combination (or set of combinations) of baseline and DSW practices.  The baseline practices reflect ways that generators and facilities are managing HSMs under the existing hazardous waste regulations (i.e., before they claim an exclusion).  The DSW practices reflect ways that these same generators and facilities are managing, or might manage, HSMs after they claim an exclusion under the 2008 DSW final rule.
EPA developed these scenarios based on input from EPA staff with expertise in hazardous waste generation, recycling, and the provisions of the DSW rule. EPA first reviewed the current state of generation of recyclable hazardous wastes and management practices for those waste, including on-site and off-site storage, transportation, treatment, disposal, and recycling.  For off-site recycling, EPA considered recycling in both domestic and foreign facilities.  EPA then analyzed each provision of the DSW rule and identified how it might impact generation and management practices.  This analysis included reviewing comments on the proposed rule and comments submitted during the litigation process as well as the judgment of EPA staff.  EPA then grouped the possible changes in hazardous waste generation and management resulting from the rule into 8 scenarios based on observed similarities.
Under the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA promulgated three types of conditional exclusions from the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for persons who generate or reclaim HSMs.  These are described in the box to the right.  EPA established different requirements for each type of exclusion.  These different requirements are expected to affect how each type of generator/facility modifies its generation and management of HSMs based on the type of exclusion claimed.  The scenarios below were developed based on the expected impacts of the Generator-Controlled Exclusion (GCE) and Transfer-Based Exclusion (TBE), and each scenario describes whether it is applicable to facilities operating under the GCE, TBE, or both.  Petition-Based Exclusions are not considered in this analysis because they are granted on a case-by-case basis, and the exact nature of such exclusions cannot be determined until petitions are granted.  At the time this report was prepared, no petitions for a non-waste exclusion under the 2008 DSW rule had been submitted.  The type of exclusion claimed under each scenario is used in Section 2.4 of this report to help compare the regulatory framework between hazardous waste regulations and the 2008 DSW final rule.
For each scenario, EPA also considered whether the facility is permitted under RCRA, and the descriptions below identify the potential RCRA-permit status of the facility.  The RCRA permit status of facilities under each scenario is used in Section 2.4 of this report to help compare the regulatory framework between the hazardous waste regulations and the 2008 DSW final rule.
EPA has identified the following eight scenarios that it considers likely to occur.  Note that EPA identified additional potential scenarios, but deemed them unlikely to occur.  These scenarios are briefly described at the end of this section, but are not addressed further in this document.
Scenario 1:  Generator continues current recycling practices under GCE or TBE.  This scenario involves a generator that has been reclaiming its HSM under the hazardous waste regulations, and opts to continue these practices under either the GCE or TBE.  This could include, for example, a generator that reclaims onsite under the baseline and claims the GCE to continue reclaiming onsite, or a generator that exports its HSM under the baseline and claims the TBE to continue exporting the HSM.
Scenario 2:  Generator switches from off-site treatment/disposal to on-site reclamation.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an off-site Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility (TSDF) for treatment then /disposal under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to reclaim that HSM onsite under the GCE.
Scenario 3:  Generator switches from off-site treatment/disposal to off-site recycling under the control of the generator.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an offsite TSDF for treatment followed by /disposal under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM to an offsite facility that it controls for reclamation under the GCE.
Scenario 4:  Generator switches from off-site treatment/disposal to off-site recycling at a RCRA-permitted facility.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an offsite TSDF for treatment followed by /disposal under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM to an offsite RCRA-permitted TSDF for reclamation under the TBE.
Scenario 5:  Generator switches from off-site treatment/disposal to off-site recycling at a U.S. facility without a RCRA permit.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an offsite TSDF for treatment followed by disposal under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM to an offsite facility in the United States without a RCRA permit for reclamation under the TBE.
Scenario 6:  Generator switches from off-site disposal to exporting for recycling.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an offsite TSDF for disposal under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM to for recycling to a facility outside the United States for reclamation under the TBE.
Scenario 7:  Generator switches from off-site recycling at a facility without a permit  to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM for reclamation to an offsite TSDF in the United States without a RCRA permit under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to have the hazardous secondary material reclaimed at a different type of facility under the TBE.  This could include, for example, a generator that ships HSM offsite for reclamation at a TSDF in the United States without a RCRA permit in the baseline, but changes its practice to ship the HSM offsite for reclamation at a RCRA permitted facility under the TBE, or changes its practice to export the HSM for reclamation at a recycling facility outside the U.S. under the TBE.
Scenario 8:  Generator switches from off-site recycling at a RCRA-permitted facility or exporting waste for reclamation to another country to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule.  This scenario involves a generator that has been shipping its HSM to an offsite RCRA-permitted TSDF or exporting it to a foreign reclamation facility under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to have the HSM l reclaimed at a different type of facility under the GCE or TBE.  This could include, for example, a generator that HSM changes its practice to reclaim the hazardous secondary material onsite or at an offsite facility (without a permit) under its control, and claims the GCE.  The generator may also choose to ship its HSM offsite for reclamation at either a recycling facility in the United States without a RCRA permit or a reclamation facility outside the United States and claim the TBE.  Similarly, a generator that exports HSM for reclamation at a reclamation facility outside the United States in the baseline, may change its practice to reclaim the HSM onsite or at an offsite facility under its control, and claim the GCE.  The generator may also choose to ship its HSM offsite for reclamation at either a RCRA-permitted TSDF or a recycling facility in the United States without a RCRA permit and claim the TBE.
Unlikely Scenarios:  As mentioned above, EPA identified additional potential scenarios that it deemed unlikely to occur. These unlikely scenarios include:
A generator that has been reclaiming HSMs onsite under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM to an offsite facility that it controls for reclamation under the GCE.  EPA believes this scenario is unlikely because switching from on-site recycling to off-site recycling is likely to result in additional transportation costs.  Generators that make this type of change are unlikely to do so as a result of the 2008 DSW final rule.
A generator that has been reclaiming HSMs  onsite under the hazardous waste regulations, but opts to ship that HSM  to an offsite RCRA-permitted TSDF, an offsite recycling facility  in the United States without a RCRA permit, or a reclamation facility  outside the United States for reclamation under the TBE.  EPA believes this scenario is unlikely because switching from on-site recycling to off-site recycling is likely to result in additional transportation costs.  Generators that make this type of change are unlikely to do so as a result of the 2008 DSW final rule.
 Both of these unlikely scenarios are based largely on the assumption that transportation costs would discourage generators from switching from on-site to off-site reclamation under the exclusions.  Although HSM under the exclusions is no longer a hazardous waste, it likely would still qualify as a DOT hazardous material and be subject to transportation requirements similar to those applicable to hazardous waste.  Because of this, EPA assumes that, in general, generators under the exclusions face the same general level of transportation costs as under the baseline, and therefore are unlikely to find a financial benefit to switching to off-site reclamation.
 In addition, other factors may also discourage these generators from switching to off-site reclamation.  EPA assumes that generators currently reclaiming HSM on site have invested time and resources to purchase and operate reclamation equipment.  The costs and inconvenience of shutting down such operations and dismantling and removing the equipment could be a disincentive to switching to off-site reclamation.  In addition, some generators' reclamation activities and equipment may be highly integrated into their manufacturing or other processes, such that a change in HSM management would be infeasible or impractical.  For example, some generators may be operating distillation units and feeding the distillate back into production processes as a key ingredient.  Further, some generators may have pre-existing agreements to receive HSM from off-site sources for reclamation or to supply the reclaimed HSM to third parties.
 EPA recognizes that these assumptions may not apply to all generators performing reclamation on site.  EPA acknowledges that, in some instances, generators may have sufficient incentive to switch to off-site reclamation.  For example, if the cost of off-site reclamation is low enough, these lower costs could offset the additional costs of transportation and other costs associated with switching to off-site reclamation, and provide the generator with an incentive to switch to off-site reclamation.
Table 2.1.  Scenarios under Baseline and DSW Exclusions
                                   Baseline

                                 DSW Practices
         Scenario 1:  Generator continues current recycling practices
Generator reclaims material onsite under hazardous waste regulations

Generator reclaims material onsite under GCE
Generator sends material offsite for reclamation to RCRA-permitted facility under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a  RCRA-permitted facility under TBE
Generator exports material under hazardous waste regulations for reclamation in another country

Generator exports material under the TBE for reclamation in another country
 Scenario 2:  Generator switches from off-site disposal to on-site reclamation
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for incineration or landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator reclaims material onsite under GCE
Scenario 3: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling under the control of the generator
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for incineration or landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility that it controls under GCE
Scenario 4: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling at a RCRA-permitted facility
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for incineration or landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a  RCRA-permitted facility under TBE
Scenario 5: Generator switches from off-site disposal to off-site recycling at a U.S. facility without a RCRA permit
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for incineration or landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under TBE
Scenario 6: Generator switches from off-site disposal to exporting for recycling
Generator sends material offsite to a RCRA permitted facility for incineration or landfilling under hazardous waste regulations

Generator exports material under the TBE for reclamation in another country
Scenario 7: Generator switches from off-site recycling at a facility without a permit to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule
Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under hazardous waste regulations

   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a  facility under GCE, or
   *  Generator exports material under the TBE for reclamation in another country, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a RCRA permitted facility under TBE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under TBE
Scenario 8:  Generator switches from off-site recycling at a RCRA-permitted facility or exporting waste for recycling to another type of recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule
Generator sends material offsite for reclamation to RCRA-permitted facility under hazardous waste regulations

   *  Generator reclaims material onsite under GCE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility that it controls under GCE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under TBE, or
   *  Generator exports material under the TBE for reclamation in another country
Generator exports material under hazardous waste regulations for reclamation in another country

   *  Generator reclaims material onsite under GCE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at facility under GCE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a RCRA permitted facility under TBE, or
   *  Generator sends material offsite for reclamation at a facility in the United States without a RCRA permit under TBE
General Hazards Associated with Hazardous Secondary Material
This section describes the general hazards associated with HSMs when managed by recycling.  In this section, EPA presents the potential hazards associated with HSMs independent of health and safety and regulatory controls that might be placed on HSMs.  Communities in which generation, transportation, or reclamation of HSM under the DSW rule is conducted may be at risk of exposure to the hazards associated with HSM.  Section 2.2.1 identifies the types, quantities, and properties of HSM that are generated and reclaimed nationally and describes their chemical and physical properties.  Because of the wide variety of HSMs that may be recycled, not all of them are addressed in this section.  Section 2.2.1 also identifies the types of HSMs that are the focus of this section, and provides the reasoning behind why these materials were selected based on their quantities and properties.
Section 2.2.2 contains a description of the hazards associated with selected HSMs based on their properties.  While this section focuses on the hazards associated with these HSMs, the EJ analysis presented in this report covers all HSMs that may be recycled under the DSW exclusions.
Section 2.2.3 describes the processes associated with the generation, storage, and recycling of the selected HSMs, and how those processes can result in potential hazards to human health and the environment.
Types and Quantities of Hazardous Secondary Materials
This section describes the types, quantities, and properties of HSMs.  evaluated  It identifies the types and quantities of HSMs  generated, and using that information, identifies two specific HSMs  that are the selected as the focus of this report -- spent solvents and electric arc furnace dust.   It also describes the quantities and characteristics of these two wastes that resulted in their selection as a focus of this report.
For the selected wastes, Section 2.2.2 describes their properties, including the potential human health and environmental hazards they pose, contamination pathways, and human health effects.
            Types and Quantities of Hazardous Secondary Material
Each year, many types of hazardous waste are recycled, each possessing distinct quantities and properties.  In 2007, the most recent year for which comprehensive information about the generation and management of hazardous waste is available, over 370 types of hazardous waste codes contained in 40 CFR 261 were recycled.  These waste codes include a wide variety of materials, including aqueous streams, referred to as wastewaters, streams that contain organic liquids, or physically solid materials, referred to as nonwastewaters.  These materials also include a wide variety of wastes from manufacturing and other processes, and they contain many different chemicals, including halogenated organic compounds, nonhalogenated organic compounds, metals, and other contaminants.
In 2007, about 16,000 facilities generated 32.3 million tons of hazardous waste.  Of this, some 2 million tons were recycled.  Figure 1 shows the waste codes associated with the largest amounts of recycled hazardous wastes in 2007 were electric arc furnace dust and spent solvents.

EPA's An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated With Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials (hereafter referred to as the Environmental Problems Study; U.S. EPA, 2007) contains information about environmental damage cases and the types of potential hazards from the mismanagement of HSMs.  The most common types of secondary materials associated with the damage cases evaluated in the Environmental Problems Study were scrap metals (17%), used oil (15%) solvents (14%) and non-ferrous metals (13%).
EPA selected two materials, solvents and electric arc furnace dust, as a focus of this report because they represent a relatively large amount of HSMs that would be eligible for exclusion under the 2008 DSW final rule, as well as represent a variety of characteristics of HSMs, as described below.
Specifically, solvent wastes were selected as a focus of this report because of their prevalence in the damage cases documented in the Environmental Problems Study, the large amount of solvents currently recycled, and the potential hazards posed by solvents.  The potential hazards posed by solvents are discussed in the Section 2.2.2.  In addition, solvents that are recycled are typically in a liquid state, and usually contain volatile organic chemicals, which present particular management challenges associated with the storage of liquids and fugitive air emissions.  Solvents also include both halogenated and nonhalogenated organic chemicals, which represent a broad range of chemicals and associated hazards.
Electric arc furnace dust is a focus of this report because it was the most commonly recycled material in 2007.  In addition, selecting electric arc furnace dust complements the selection of solvent wastes because these two types of HSMs represent a variety of characteristics of HSMs.  Electric arc furnace dust is usually in a solid state and presents different management challenges than liquid solvents.  For example, electric arc furnace dust may be stored in waste piles, while solvents are generally stored in tanks or drums.  Electric arc furnace dust is also often present as a dust, which presents hazards associated with wind-blown dust.  In addition, this HSM contains metals, a class of potential contaminants that is generally considered to pose hazards different from the organic chemicals found in solvents.  By selecting solvents and electric arc furnace dust, this report can assess a variety of potential hazards and management challenges.  The potential hazards associated with solvents and electric arc furnace dust and their recycling are discussed further below.
Other secondary materials associated with damage cases, including scrap metals and used oil, are not a focus of this report because they are already covered by exclusions or special management standards and their regulation and management are not expected to be significantly impacted by the 2008 DSW final rule.  Non-ferrous metals are not a focus because they are less prevalent in the damage cases than solvents, and are not currently recycled in the quantities similar to electric arc furnace dust.   In addition, some HSM containing non-ferrous metals, such as mercury lamps and mercury-containing equipment, are also covered under the Universal Waste regulations, which facilitate the environmentally sound collection and proper recycling or treatment of these wastes.  The management of hazardous wastes already subject to the Universal Waste standards is not expected to be impacted by the 2008 DSW final rule as wastes subject to full hazardous waste regulatory controls prior to the DSW rule promulgation.  Lead-acid batteries are similarly not a focus of this report because they are also subject to the Universal Waste standards.
Hazardous Properties of HSMs:  Solvents and Electric Arc Furnace Dust
This section provides an overview of the hazardous properties of the two HSMs that are the focus of this study: solvents and electric arc furnace dust.  It discusses the media, exposure routes, and health effects to understand the hazardous properties of these HSMs and how they can impact human health and the environment.  It then presents an overview of the health effects associated with solvents and electric arc furnace dust, including the specific health effects associated with selected chemicals they contain, including whether they are expected to present a fire or explosion hazard.
The chemicals used as solvents can generally be classified into two broad groups: halogenated volatile organics and nonhalogenated volatile organics.  The chemicals within these groups tend to share similar characteristics, manufacturing processes, uses, and health effects.  Because these groups contain a variety of chemicals, this report identifies a single chemical from each group that is generally representative of the characteristics and health effects of the group, and describes the specific health effects for them.  More detailed information about the health effects for other solvent chemicals can be found in other sources, such as EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/ and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry website (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ ).
For electric arc furnace dust, the health effects are expected to be related to the toxic metals it contains.  40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VII, "Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste," indicates that electric arc furnace dust is listed as hazardous because of lead, hexavalent chromium and cadmium.  This report describes the health effects associated with each of these metals.
Other hazardous properties of other secondary materials commonly associated with damage cases, such as scrap metals, used oil, non-ferrous metals, mercury lamps and mercury-containing equipment, and lead-acid batteries are not a focus of this report because they are already covered by exclusions or special management standards when recycled, and their management is not expected to be impacted by the 2008 DSW final rule.
Media, Exposure Route, and Health Effects Hazard Associated with Recycling of HSM
Exposure Routes by Media

Contaminated Soil:
   * Dermal (skin contact with contaminated soil)
   * Oral (ingestion of contaminated soil)
   * Inhalation (volatilization of contaminants from soil)
   * Eye (windblown dust, volatilization of contaminants from soil)

Contaminated Air:
   * Inhalation
   * Eye

Contaminated Water:
   * Oral (ingestion of contaminated water)
   * Dermal (skin contact with contaminated water)
   * Inhalation (volatilization of contaminants from water)
   * Eye (volatilization of contaminants from water)

Toxic wastes are characterized using risk assessment; therefore this section uses terminology that is common in risk assessment.  A risk assessment usually begins with hazard identification, which is the process of determining whether exposure to a chemical agent can cause an increase in the incidence of a particular adverse health effect (e.g., cancer, birth defects) and whether the adverse health effect is likely to occur in humans. Exposure assessment includes the identification of which media, such as soil, air, or water, might come into contact with humans or other receptors.  The media affects the exposure routes, such as inhalation or skin contact, that should be considered.  The exposure route affects the type of symptoms the exposed person or other receptor experiences.  For example, contamination in air could result in inhalation exposures that have respiratory effects, while contamination in water could result in ingestions that have gastrointestinal effects.  For each example hazard within a category, the most prevalent exposure media are discussed below, as well as the health effects associated with different exposure routes.  The media, exposure routes, and health effects are important to determining the extent to which recycling under the DSW rule impacts the communities in which HSM generation, transportation, and reclamation occur.Exposure Media (air, water, and soil) - Accidents and improper handling of HSMs have the potential to contaminate water, air, and soil.  Of the recycling related damage cases, soil and groundwater contamination events accounted for 77% of cases, surface water contamination accounted for 17% of cases, and releases to the air accounted for 11% cases.
Exposure Route - Exposure routes include inhalation, dermal (skin), eye, and ingestion (oral).  The frequency and duration of potential exposure are also an important consideration.  For example, acute exposures are short term, high dose exposures, while chronic exposures are long term, lower dose exposures.
Health Effects  -  Ignitable and reactive wastes pose physical hazards, such as explosion and fire which have the potential to directly cause bodily harm.  Explosions and fire can also create exposure pathways for chemical exposures and sources of environmental contamination.  For example, toxic fumes from a fire can have effects on a population nearby and toxic releases from the event can result in longer term lower level exposures that may be related to chronic effects.
Toxic wastes also can cause other types of adverse human health effects which EPA breaks into two broad categories: cancer and non-cancer.  The non-cancer health effects can be classified according to what biological system or organ is affected; for example, developmental, reproductive, neurological, immune system, circulatory system, liver, gastrointestinal, or other effects.  Health effects can also have clinical descriptions, such as blurred vision, nausea, and headache.  In general the sometimes extensive list of clinical symptoms can be grouped based on what biological system is being affected to cause the symptom set.
Solvents
Solvents may contaminate soil or groundwater from leaks, spills or other releases.  Because they tend to be volatile, they also are likely to be released to the air by advection and dispersion into the atmosphere.  Solvents may cause exposure by all of the routes considered in this report, including inhalation, dermal (skin), eye, and ingestion (oral).  Solvent chemicals may have both acute and chronic health effects, and may be ignitable or explosive, presenting fire hazards.
Examples of Halogenated Solvents Uses:
* Brake cleaners
* Dry cleaning
* Food processing
* Household cleaners
* Metal cleaning
* Synthesis of other chemicals
* Water repellants
* Silicone lubricants
* Spot removers

Solvents can generally be divided between halogenated and non-halogenated based on their use and potential hazards.  For halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, the sections below describe the chemicals typically contained in them, and the hazards associated with an example that is representative of the type of solvent.
            Halogenated Solvents
Agents - Halogenated solvents used in degreasing include: tetrachloroethylene (PERC), trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons.
Dry cleaning solvents and brake cleaners include halogenated solvents, such as: tetrachloroethylene (PERC), trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and chlorobenzene.
Example agent - tetrachloroethylene (PERC).
Environmental Fate  -  Tetrachloroethylene is volatile and releases can be airborne.  When released into the subsurface, it may contaminate soil and groundwater.  Releases to surface soil and water may also volatilize resulting in releases to the atmosphere.  Soil and water bacteria will break it down slowly, so in soil and subsurface water, it may last for months to years.  When released into the atmosphere, it may be moderately degraded by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals.
Environmental Toxicity  -  Based on fish studies, tetrachloroethylene is expected to be toxic to aquatic life.  It does bioaccumulate in fish to a limited extent. Chronic and acute effects on plants, birds, or land animals have not been determined, but appear to be low.
Acute Exposure Human Health Effects  -
Inhalation  -  Irritating to the upper respiratory tract. Giddiness, headache, intoxication, nausea and vomiting may follow the inhalation of large amounts, while massive amounts can cause breathing arrest, liver and kidney damage, and death. Concentrations of 600 parts per million (ppm) and more can affect the central nervous system after a few minutes.
Ingestion  -  Not highly toxic by this route because of low water solubility. Used as an oral dosage for hookworm (1 to 4 ml).  Causes abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dizziness.
Skin Contact  -  Causes irritation to the skin. Symptoms include redness, itching, and pain. May be absorbed through the skin with possible systemic effects.
Eye Contact  -  Causes irritation, redness, and pain.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions  -  Persons with pre-existing skin disorders or eye problems or impaired liver or kidney function may be more susceptible to the effects of this substance. The use of alcoholic beverages enhances the toxic effects.
Chronic exposure human health effects  -  May cause liver, kidney or central nervous system damage after repeated or prolonged exposures.  Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on animal studies.
Fire - Not considered to be a fire hazard, but becomes hazardous in a fire situation because of vapor generation and possible degradation to phosgene (highly toxic) and hydrogen chloride (corrosive). Vapors are heavier than air and collect in low-lying areas.
Explosion - Not considered an explosive hazard. Containers may explode, however, when involved in a fire.
            Non-Halogenated Solvents
Agents- Paint thinners include: acetone, xylene, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl, ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexane, and methanol.
Carburetor dip cleaner includes: cresols, cresylic acid, and nitrobenzene.
Lacquer thinners include: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane.
Example agent - benzene. Environmental Fate  -  When released to the soil or water, benzene will rapidly begin to volatilize.  However, benzene also migrates in soil and in groundwater.  Its airborne levels can be reduced by rain or water spray.  Benzene in the atmosphere will photo-degrade with a calculated half-life of 13.4 days.  This is accelerated in polluted atmospheres containing nitrogen or sulfur oxides.  By-products include phenol, nitrophenols, nitrobenzene, formic acid, and peroxyacetyl nitrate. It is a "precursor" hydrocarbon leading to the formation of photochemical smog.  Benzene biodegrades in soils and ground waters (half-life 16-28 days) under aerobic conditions.  Limited degradation occurs under anaerobic conditions.
Environmental Toxicity  -  Benzene has high acute toxic effects on aquatic life. Long-term effects on marine life can mean shortened lifespan, reproductive problems, lower fertility and changes in appearance or behavior. It can cause death in plants and roots and damage to the leaves of many agricultural crops.
Acute exposure human health effects
   * Inhalation  -  Excessive inhalation may result in heartbeat irregularities and adverse central nervous system effects, including headache, sleepiness, dizziness, nausea, loss of coordination, and in extreme conditions, coma and/or death. Additional adverse inhalation effects may also include long-term damage to the blood forming system, kidney and liver damage, and/or cancer (leukemia).
Ingestion  -  Ingestion of benzene may result in adverse central nervous system effects, including headache, sleepiness, dizziness, nausea, loss of coordination, and in extreme conditions, coma and/or death.  Ingestion may also cause kidney and liver damage and blood disorders.  Small amounts, if aspirated into the lungs, may cause mild to severe pulmonary injury.
Skin  -  Benzene may be rapidly absorbed through the skin.  Prolonged and/or repeated skin contact may cause mild to severe irritation/dermatitis and chemical blistering.  Prolonged contact may also cause skin sensitization and secondary skin infections.
Eye  -  Contact with liquid and high concentrations of vapors are irritating to the eyes.
Chronic exposure human health effects  -  Long-term exposure has been associated with certain types of leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consider benzene to be a human carcinogen.  EPA has classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen for all routes.  Chronic exposures have been reported to cause bone marrow abnormalities and adverse blood effects, including anemia. Progressive deterioration of the hematopoietic function expressed as a decrease in absolute lymphocyte count is the most sensitive indicator of benzene exposure.  Benzene also may cause fetotoxicity and teratogenicity. Chromosomal aberrations have been noted in animal tests.
Fire and container explosion hazards are serious when benzene is exposed to heat or flame. Vapor is heavier than air and may spread long distances. Distant ignition and flashback are possible.  Flammable liquid and vapor can accumulate static charge which can form an ignitable vapor-air mixture in a storage tank. Benzene will float on water and may travel to distant locations and/or spread fire.
Electric arc furnace dust
Agents- Electric arc furnace dust is comprised of a variety of metals, including iron, cadmium, zinc, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, lead, silicone, manga -  -  - nese, copper, chromium, and aluminum.  This review focuses on electric arc furnace dust generally, as well as the hazards of hexavalent chromium, lead, and cadmium because these are the constituents for which electric arc furnace dust was listed as a hazardous waste.  The specific composition of electric arc furnace dust varies depending upon the type of material production from which it was generated (e.g., carbon steel or stainless steel manufacturing) and furnace additives.
Environmental Fate[8]  -  Based on its various constituents, electric arc furnace dust is expected to be hazardous to the environment, and toxic to fish, animals, and plants.  It is also likely to persist in the environment for a long time, due to the insoluble and non-biodegradable nature of the toxic metals it contains.  Individual constituents (e.g., cadmium) may bioaccumulate in organisms via dissolved metal in the water column or through consumption of prey containing bioaccumulated metals.
Acute exposure human health effects
   * Inhalation  -  Respiratory tract irritation and/or sensitization (development of an allergy or sensitivity to a substance) may occur from acute inhalation exposure.
   * Ingestion  -  Though ingestion is unlikely, it can lead to abdominal pain, vomiting, fever, and diarrhea.  Ingestion of large amounts can also elevate lead levels in the body; however, most health effects occur only after prolonged exposure to lead (see below).
   * Eye  -  Electric arc furnace dust can cause irritation or inflammation of the eye; rubbing the eye upon exposure can damage the cornea.
   * Dermal  -  Electric arc furnace dust can cause irritation, skin lesions, and/or allergic reactions of the skin.
Chronic exposure human health effects  -  Excessive, repeated exposure to electric arc furnace dust may cause allergic sensitization in the form of dermatitis and asthma, lung inflammation and damage (e.g., pneumonia, bronchitis, and siderosis [chronic inflammation of the lung]), nasal perforation and nasal cavity damage, eye inflammation, permanent central nervous system damage, kidney damage, liver damage, gout (inflammation of the joints), and lead poisoning.  The carcinogenicity of electric arc furnace dust as a whole has not been determined, though hexavalent chromium may cause cancer.  Furthermore, a study by Garaj-Vrhovac et al. indicates that electric arc furnace dust can cause DNA damage.
Fire  -  Electric arc furnace dust is not flammable.
Explosion[11]  -  Accumulation of dust can lead to explosion if near an ignition source.
Hexavalent Chromium  -  Inhalation: Chronic exposure via inhalation to hexavalent chromium may develop asthma or other respiratory problems, such as coughing, wheezing, chronic sneezing, bronchitis, and nasal perforation (holes).  Intermediate and chronic occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium may cause death due to noncancerous respiratory disease.  Occupational (work) exposure to hexavalent chromium can cause abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, most likely due to ingestion from breathing through the mouth.  Workers exposed to hexavalent chromium have experienced severe liver effects, such as cirrhosis.  Eye exposure to aerosols or dusts may cause eye effects, such as conjunctivitis (inflammation of the inner membrane of the eyelids).  High-level acute exposure to hexavalent chromium may lead to dizziness, headache, and weakness.  Workers exposed to hexavalent chromium have experienced changes in hormones and complications during pregnancy.  Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium may also cause respiratory system cancers, primarily in the bronchi and nose.
Ingestion: Ingestion of hexavalent chromium may lead to death.  Subjects who died of oral exposure experienced various symptoms, including respiratory effects, such as severe bronchitis and pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), cardiopulmonary effects, such as lowered blood pressure and heart rate, and gastrointestinal effects, such as nausea and vomiting.  Acute ingestion may also affect the blood, leading to effects, such as anemia.  Kidney damage and liver damage (evidenced by symptoms, such as jaundice) may occur upon acute, high-level oral exposure.  In humans, evidence of cancer from oral exposure is mixed, while hexavalent chromium has caused cancer in animals.  Chronic dermal exposure may lead to ulcerated skin, dermatitis, and burns.
Lead  -  Generally, the toxicity of lead does not depend on the route of exposure (e.g., inhalation or ingestion).  Chronic exposure to high levels of lead may cause cerebrovascular disease, increased blood pressure and other cardiovascular problems, gastrointestinal effects, anemia (a blood disorder with symptoms, such as weakness and fatigue), dental caries (cavities) in children, kidney effects, lowered IQ and other neurotoxic effects (e.g., dizziness, memory loss), and hormonal effects.
Cadmium  -  Inhalation: Short-term, high-level inhalation exposure to cadmium can cause death in humans several days after exposure, ultimately caused by respiratory failure or other respiratory disease.  In general, inhalation exposure to large amounts of cadmium causes extreme respiratory irritation, which initially may begin with mild irritation of throat and mucous membranes, but up to 10 hours later becomes more severe with flu-like symptoms, such as chills and cough.  Several days later, symptoms include wheezing, persistent cough, malaise, anorexia, nausea, and abdominal pain.  The initial flu-like symptoms do not occur with a low-level, chronic exposure to cadmium.  However, chronic inhalation exposure over years can lead to decreases in lung function, emphysema and dyspnea (shortness of breath), or possibly death.  Lung function may recover after time, if exposure is removed.  There is some evidence that bones may be affected (e.g., through the development of osteoporosis) after chronic exposure to cadmium.  Cadmium is strongly linked to kidney effects when exposure levels are high, while there is weak evidence that cadmium can affect the immune system.  Animal studies show that inhaled cadmium can affect the offspring of exposed mothers by lowering their body weight, their ability to survive, and their neurobehavioral function (e.g., motor activity).  Long-term exposure to cadmium may cause cancer, most likely in the lung.
Ingestion: Ingesting large quantities of cadmium can cause death.  High oral cadmium exposure has been associated with cardiovascular effects, such as heart attack and high blood pressure.  Human and animal studies show that large ingested amounts of cadmium cause gastrointestinal disturbances, such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.  Cadmium ingestion can cause anemia if dietary iron intake is low.  Oral exposure is also associated with bone and kidney effects and neurological effects, such as lowered IQ.  Reproductive effects similar to those seen after inhalation exposure may occur, but information on effects in offspring of orally-exposed animals/humans is limited.   Most cancer studies have not found an increase in cancer among people or animals exposure orally to cadmium.  Cadmium has been shown to cause DNA damage.
Hazards Associated with Recycling of HSM
This section describes some of the general activities that facilities commonly perform in handling HSMs, as well as some of the potential exposure media that may be associated with them.  These hazards may impact the communities in which these facilities are located.  The facilities described in this section include:
Generators of HSM
Transporters of HSM
Intermediate and reclamation facilities of HSM
Note that the descriptions in this section are intended to be general and do not capture all of the different handling practices and hazards that may occur at a given site.
This section also uses the hazard information from Section 2.2.2 to identify potential hazards associated with the activities identified in this section. These hazards are being considered independently of any regulation to mitigate the potential effects of these hazards.  Regulatory considerations are discussed in Section 2.3.
Potential hazards for solvents and electric arc furnace dust (K061) are summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2.  Summary of Potential Hazards
                                 Facility Type
                                      HSM
                                     Fire
                                   Explosion
                                     Soil
                                     Water
                                      Air
                          Particulate Wind Dispersal
                           Residues from Reclamation
Generators
Solvents

Electric Arc Furnace Dust

Transporters
Solvents

Electric Arc Furnace Dust

Intermediate/ reclamation facilities
Solvents

Electric Arc Furnace Dust

            Generators
            Activities
A generator may generate HSM from a variety of activities, such as manufacturing, processing, cleaning, degreasing, and service industries.  Figure 1 above shows the most commonly recycled HSMs.  Generators may temporarily accumulate HSM at or near the point of generation (e.g., in containers) before transferring them to another location on-site (e.g., to centralized accumulation), or they may be transferred to another location on-site immediately after it is generated.  HSM may be transferred on-site using manual equipment (e.g., a hand trolley or cart), machinery (e.g., forklift or truck), or piping, tanks and other interconnected equipment or means of conveyance.
At centralized accumulation areas on-site, HSM may be held in containers, tanks, or other units.  Various operations also are performed (e.g., opening and closing containers to add HSM, filling tanks using piping or portable equipment).  Periodically, off-site transporters will collect the HSM for offsite transportation.  Some generators do not operate centralized accumulation areas; rather, the off-site transporter collects the HSM at or near the point of generation.
Some generators reclaim their HSM on-site.  For solvents, distillation is the process used most frequently to recycle spent solvents.  The process separates chemicals by the addition of heat, which causes the more volatile compounds, typically the solvent to be recovered, to vaporize.  The vaporized solvent is then condensed back into liquid and reused.  This process results in a residue that may contain solvents or other chemicals and may require subsequent management as a hazardous waste.   Systems used for on-site distillation may include fixed or mobile trailer systems brought to the facility by a vendor.
When electric arc furnace dust is recycled on-site, the recycling typically consists of collecting electric arc furnace emissions in a bag filter, conveying dust to a hopper, physically processing it by briquetting and feeding it back into the electric arc furnace that generated the waste.  Prior to recycling, it may be stored in bins, drums, other containers, or waste piles.
            Potential Hazards
Following are possible hazards associated with the generator activities described above for solvents and electric arc furnace dust:
Solvents
Fires and explosions.  Solvent wastes, especially non-halogenated solvents are often highly flammable, and can ignite to create fires and explosions.  Because solvents also tend to be volatile, air emissions may ignite to cause fires and explosions if ignited, resulting in injury or property damage.  Fires and explosions may also evolve other toxic or hazardous gasses.
Volatile organic air emissions during accumulation and transportation on-site.  Under certain conditions, solvents held in tanks or containers could volatilize and escape to the atmosphere through open container lids, uncovered tanks, leaks (e.g., from valves and pumps) and vents, container breathing (a process that can cause air containing solvents to move out of a container or tank as the air in a container expands and contracts due to changes temperature), and waste transfer.
Wind dispersal of particulate matter during accumulation and transportation on-site.  Wind dispersal can occur if the HSM is in the form of a dust or small, dry particles, adequate controls are not in place, and certain climatic conditions prevail (e.g., strong wind gusts).  Soil or other solid media contaminated with solvents may be susceptible to wind dispersal.
Soil, groundwater, and air contamination from liquid releases during accumulation and transportation on site.  During accumulation, a number of factors could lead to a release, such as tank overflows or overtopping; leaks from damaged or deteriorated containers or tanks; complete failure of tank or container integrity; and run on/run off from the storage area.  During transfer, releases could include spills, overflows, and leaks from human error or deterioration of transport equipment (e.g., leaking pipes).  Solvent wastes are susceptible to such releases since they are commonly in la liquid state.
Air emissions from reclamation.  The solvent reclamation processes described above use the addition of heat to accomplish desired chemical reactions (e.g., vaporization of organics, melting of metals).  These processes can produce air emissions from various locations, such as stacks, equipment leaks, and vents.
Residues from on-site reclamation.  The reclamation processes described above could result in a hazardous waste that requires further treatment before land disposal in accordance with RCRA Subtitle C.
Electric Arc Furnace Dust
Fires and explosions.  Accumulation of dust can lead to an explosion if near an ignition source.
Wind dispersal of particulate matter during accumulation and transportation on site.  Wind dispersal can occur if the HSM is in the form of a dust or small, dry particles, adequate controls are not in place, and certain climatic conditions prevail (e.g., strong wind gusts). Electric arc furnace dust in particular might be susceptible to wind dispersal during accumulation or transfer, since it is often present in dust form, and may be stored in uncovered waste piles.
Soil and groundwater contamination can occur.  During transfer, spills due to human error or deterioration of transport equipment.
            Transporters
            Activities
HSM may be shipped off-site by a variety of modes (e.g., highway, rail, water).  The most prevalent is by highway using a wide variety of trucks (e.g., vacuum trucks or trailers, pump tankers, vans, dump trucks, tractor trailers).  A transporter may pick up loads from multiple generators (i.e., less than truck load shipments) or it may pick up a full truckload from a single generator.  During a shipment, a transporter may perform various activities, such as consolidating, re-routing or transferring shipments.
            Potential Hazards
Following are possible hazards associated with the transportation activities described above for solvents and electric arc furnace dust:
General (both solvents and electric arc furnace dust)
Vehicle air emissions.  Transportation vehicles emit pollution as a result of combustion of fuel and fuel evaporation.  Primary air pollutants include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.  These pollutants can lead to adverse health effects in children and adults and worsen environmental problems (e.g., increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).
Traffic accidents.  Accidents involving trucks containing HSM may result in releases of the HSM.  This can result in contamination of soil and water, air emissions, fires, and explosions.  In addition, accidents during the transport of HSM may cause fatalities, injuries and property damage even if the HSM is not released.
Traffic congestion and noise.  Transportation vehicles can contribute to increased levels of traffic congestion and noise along the transportation route.  These effects can worsen the quality of life of people working or residing nearby.
Solvents
Fires and explosions.  Solvent wastes are often flammable, and can ignite to create fires and explosions.  Because solvent HSM also tends to be volatile, air emissions may cause fires and explosions if ignited, causing injury or property damage.  Fires and explosions may also evolve other toxic or hazardous gasses.
Volatile air emissions.  During loading, unloading, and transport, volatile air emissions may escape from valves, pumps, hoses, tank trucks, drums, and other containers.  Under certain conditions, solvents held in tank trucks or drums could volatilize and escape to the atmosphere through open container lids, uncovered tanks, leaks and vents, container breathing (a process that can cause air containing solvents to move out of a container or tank as the air in a container expands and contracts due to changes in temperature), and container filling (as the air in a container is displaced by the liquid added to the container).  Under some conditions, volatile air emissions may ignite to cause fires and explosions.
 Electric Arc Furnace Dust
Fires and explosions.  Accumulation of dust can lead to explosion if near an ignition source.
Air emissions of metals.  During the electric arc furnace dust recycling process, the high temperatures used may cause volatile metals, such as lead and zinc to volatilize and be emitted in the flue gas from the facility.
Wind dispersal of particulate matter during loading and transportation.  Wind dispersal can occur if the HSM is in the form of a dust or small, dry particles, adequate controls are not in place, and certain climatic conditions prevail (e.g., strong wind gusts). Electric arc furnace dust in particular might be susceptible to wind dispersal during loading or transfer, since it is often present in dust form.
      Intermediate and Reclamation Facilities
            Activities
Intermediate and reclamation facilities periodically receive HSM from off-site sources.  The HSM may be placed in storage units at the facility until it is ready for reclamation or transfer to a reclamation facility.  Facilities may store the HSM in containers, tanks, waste piles, or other units in accordance with applicable regulations.
In addition, processing of the HSM may be performed before reclamation. This may include, for example, aggregation/consolidation of the HSM to facilitate the reclamation process, filtration of other physical processes to remove impurities, or other processing steps.  This may be performed in tanks, containers or other equipment.  HSM may be transported from on-site storage and processing units to the reclamation unit using machinery (e.g., trucks) or pipes, tanks, and other equipment.
For solvents, distillation is the process used most frequently to recycle spent solvents.  The process separates chemicals by the addition of heat, which causes the more volatile compounds, typically the solvent to be recovered, to vaporize.  The vaporized solvent is then condensed back into liquid and reused.  This process results in a residue that may contain solvents or other chemicals and may require subsequent management as a hazardous waste.
Off-site management of electric arc furnace dust is most frequently conducted using processes to separate and recover metals, such as High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR).  In the HTMR process, electric arc furnace dust is mixed with coal or coke, the mixture is pelletized, and heated in a furnace to reduce iron and nickel oxides.  The resulting material is then fed to an electric arc furnace, where volatile metals, such as lead and zinc are removed from the flue gas, and metal and slag are separated and removed.
            Potential Hazards
The hazards for off-site recycling facilities are generally the same as those for on-site recycling processes, which are described above in Section 3.2.1.
Solvents
Fires and explosions.  Solvent wastes are often flammable, and can ignite to create fires and explosions.  Because solvent HSM also tends to be volatile, air emissions may cause fires and explosions if ignited, causing injury or property damage.  Fires and explosions may also evolve other toxic or hazardous gasses.
Volatile organic air emissions during accumulation and transportation on-site.   Under certain conditions, solvents held in tanks or containers could volatilize and escape to the atmosphere through open container lids, uncovered tanks, leaks and vents, container breathing (a process that can cause air containing solvents to move out of a container or tank as the air in a container expands and contracts due to changes in temperature), and container filling (as the air in a container is displaced by liquid added to the container).  Under some conditions, volatile air emissions may ignite to cause fires and explosions.
Wind dispersal of particulate matter during accumulation and transportation on-site.  Wind dispersal can occur if the HSM is in the form of a dust or small, dry particles, adequate controls are not in place, and certain climatic conditions prevail (e.g., strong wind gusts). Soil or other solid media contaminated with solvents may be susceptible to wind dispersal.