Managing Hazardous Solid Waste and Waste Sites Chapter 18 © 2007 Thomson...
-
Upload
benjamin-oneal -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Managing Hazardous Solid Waste and Waste Sites Chapter 18 © 2007 Thomson...
Managing Hazardous Solid Waste and Waste Sites
Chapter 18
© 2007 Thomson Learning/South-Western Thomas and Callan, Environmental Economics
2
How Serious is the Problem?
It is worldwide in scope, affecting both developed and developing nations
In the US, annual hazardous waste generation is about 36.3 million tons per year or 0.13 tons per person
Risks are nontrivial e.g., Love Canal
3
Overview of Recent Policy
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (Subtitle C)
Established ‘cradle-to-grave’ management; delegated nonhazardous waste control to states
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (reauthorized RCRA) Some shift toward waste reduction and improved
treatment Strengthened standards
4
Overall Policy Approach (RCRA)
Command-and-control Primary responsibility is at federal level (EPA) Emphasizes waste management more than
source reduction (pollution prevention)
5
Components of Cradle-to-Grave Management System
Identification of hazardous waste A waste is hazardous if it falls into one of two categories
characteristic wastes: have attributes posing substantial risk In the US, characteristics are: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
toxicity listed wastes: pre-identified by EPA as having met certain
criteria, such as the presence of toxic or carcinogenic constituents.
National manifest system for tracking Once wastes are ready for transport, generator must prepare a
document, called a manifest, that identifies the hazardous material and all parties responsible for its movement
6
Components of Cradle-to-Grave Management System (continued)
Permit system This controls waste management for transport,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
Standards for TSDFs General regulatory standards: apply to all types of TSDFs
and control functions like inspections, emergency plans, and participation in the manifest program
Technical regulatory standards: outline procedures and equipment requirements for specific types of facilities
7
Evolving To Pollution Prevention
1984 amendments suggest some movement toward prevention and away from land disposal
Land disposal of untreated hazardous waste is essentially prohibited
9
4 Elements of the Analysis
Risk-based uniform rules of identification Benefit-based uniform standards Failures of the manifest system Market implications of the 1984 land
restrictions
10
Risk-Based Uniform Identification
Absence of risk-benefit analysis Risk-based -- no consideration for balancing risk with
benefits of the material before it becomes waste Result: allocative inefficiency
All waste materials are controlled with same stringency regardless of their value to society
Identification criteria are applied uniformly No adjustments allowed for degree of toxicity or for the
amount of waste that poses a hazard Result: allocative inefficiency
Potential for underregulation of more toxic wastes and overregulation of less toxic wastes
11
Benefit-Based Uniform Standards
Standards are benefit-based No cost considerations
particularly problematic for long-term rulings such as post-closure procedures
Result: allocative inefficiency Standards applied uniformly
No consideration for site-specific differences Result: cost ineffectiveness
12
Failures of Manifest System
Strict CAC no incentives Solely benefit-based
No consideration for costs of administration, compliance, etc.
Result: allocative inefficiency Limited scope
only 4 - 5% of U.S. hazardous waste are moved off site and therefore subject to manifest system
High compliance costs Potential incentive to illegally dispose
13
Market Implications of 1984 Land Restrictions
Landfilling had become predominant form of disposal because it was believed to be a lower cost alternative, due in part to scale economies Error was that external costs were ignored Policy response was 1984 land restrictions
Land use restrictions raise MPC, reducing landfilling activity, which lowers external costs in that market
Issue: How is landfilling reduction achieved? If through source reduction, society gains If through alternative practice, such as incineration, the net
effect is unclear because that practice adds external costs
Effect of Land RestrictionsSource Reduction or Alternative Practice?
$ $
D=MSB=MPB D=MSB=MPB
S=MPC
S’=MPC’MSC
MSC’
ab
c
L0L1
d
e
f
MSC
S = MPC
D’=MSB’=MPB’g
I0
h
i
I1
j
k
Land Disposal Incineration
Unless the decline in external costs in the landfilling market is larger than the increase in external costs in the incineration market, the land restrictions achieve no net decline in external costs to society
16
Waste-end Charge
A fee in place at time of disposal based on the quantity of waste generated To achieve efficiency, the charge must be set equal to the
MSC of hazardous waste services at the efficient output level to cover MPC of the waste facility plus MEC from associated pollution
Real-world examples Australia, Austria, Belgium, and Finland charge a fee on
hazardous waste 35 U.S. states charge a tax on hazardous waste
18
Overview of Policy
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 1980 (Superfund) Established CERCLIS, a national inventory of hazardous waste sites
CERCLIS is used to identify the worst sites and place them on National Priorities List (NPL)
Established a $1.6 billion fund to clean up and recover damage Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 1986
Reauthorized CERCLA Increased fund to $8.5 billion Mandated federal action on 375 sites within a 5-year period;
promotes permanent clean-up
19
Overview of Policy (continued)
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001(known as Brownfields Act) Amends CERCLA Outlines exemptions from Superfund liability Authorizes grant funding of up to $200 million annually for
assessment and abatement of brownfield sites Abandoned or underutilized properties that are less
contaminated than Superfund sites, but redevelopment is complicated by (potential) presence of contamination
CERCLIS and NPL SitesYear CERCLIS
(cumulative) NPL
(cumulative) 1980-90 33,371 1,236
1992 36,869 1,275
1994 39,099 1,360
1996 12,781* 1,210
1998 9,404 1,192
2000 9,297 1,226
*In 1995, over 24,000 sites were removed from the CERCLIS inventory as part of EPA’s Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative (aimed at promoting redevelopment of these sites.)
Sources: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (April 2000), as cited by Council on Environmental Quality (1998), p. 312, table 8.9 and updated online; U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (April 1997).
21
Superfund ProceduresResponse/Cleanup: National Contingency Plan (NCP)
The substance release is identified and the National Response Center is notified
Site is listed in CERCLIS EPA responds
Removal Action: to restore immediate control Remedial Action: to achieve permanent solution
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) If site gets a risk ranking > 28.50 out of 100 in the HRS,
it is placed on the NPL
22
Superfund Procedures (continued)Response/Cleanup: National Contingency Plan (NCP)
Site is listed on the Construction Completion List (CCL) when: all immediate threats are addressed all long-term threats are under control
Site is deleted from the NPL when the EPA and the state jointly determine that no further remedial actions are needed
Steps in a Superfund Cleanup
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (December 11, 2000).
24
Compensation and Liability
EPA has authority to force those responsible to correct the problem and pay for damage
The law identifies potentially responsible parties (PRPs) as: Current or former owners or operators of a site
and all parties involved in disposal, treatment, or transport of hazardous substances to site
Economically, the intent is to internalize the externality
25
Emergency PlanningTitle III of SARA
Public must be informed of production and release of hazardous substances according to Title III of SARA Each state sets up an emergency plan in the
event of a hazardous release Various reports about hazardous substances
are required by law Resulting data forms the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) published annually by EPA
27
Assessing Superfund’s Performance
CERCLA of 1980 was a national failure $1.6 billion cleaned up only 8 sites
Slow progress removing NPL sites As of 2005, only 293 have officially been removed
from the NPL Average cost of remedial action is $25 million per site
Problem of “how clean is clean” Sites are brought to a uniform level of cleanliness Debate is whether this decision should be risk-based
or benefit-cost based
28
Two Major Flaws in Superfund
1. Poor information and reporting practices An initial lack of awareness about the extent of the
problem Inadequate knowledge of abatement technology
29
Two Major Flaws in Superfund
2. Absence of market incentives Feedstock taxes that financed Superfund were
targeted to be revenue producing, not as an incentive to reduce use of hazardous materials
Definition of PRPs’ liability is disincentive for individuals to come forward
Strict liability: a party is responsible even if negligence is not proven
Joint and several liability: single party is responsible for all damages even if contribution is minimal
Outcome is resource misallocation from cleanup to litigation procedures