Local Enforcement Agency Correspondence

Comments on the Draft Economic Impact Study for the Waste Classification Revisions and the Proposed Special Waste Management Standards

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the June 17, 1998 version of the draft Economic Impact Study. We have reviewed the draft study and offer the following comments:

1. The study should look at all cost impacts, not just impacts to generators. This would include looking at impacts to the infrastructure, such as recyclers and treatment facilities. The study shows a net gain of $31 million a year to generators, but what is the net loss to facilities and handlers of hazardous waste?
2. The study should include the environmental cost benefit, not just the regulatory cost benefit.
3. The methodology may not be capturing all non-RCRA hazardous waste. It appears that the study only looks at waste in three hazardous waste landfills and then applies percentages to determine the rest of the tonnages for exported waste, recycled, treated, and stored waste. Is this approach truly representative of all the hazardous waste that would be affected by the regulatory changes?
4. The 1995 disposal data used to estimate nonhazardous waste tonnage subject to regulation should be replaced with the 1996 Board of Equalization (BOE) disposal data that has been modified by adding transformation and export waste. This has been calculated by Board staff at 35 million tons for 1996. This is a better number for purposes of this study. The 1995 disposal data does not include self-haul, nor construction and demolition waste. The 1990 base year waste categories should then be applied to the 35 million tons to determine tonnages for a specific category of waste in 1996. 
5. A more thorough explanation of how the shifts in nonhazardous wastes to special waste and fully hazardous waste were made should be provided. What waste characterization was used to identify, for example, hazardous levels of ash? The Board does not track this information. Where were the levels of constituents obtained and how were percentages assigned to these levels?
6. Under General Assumptions, page 6, #8, the statement is made that there are no cost or saving impacts based on net changes in treatment, storage, and recycling levels. However, within the hazardous waste category, special waste increases by 26%, which should result in reduced costs because of reduced management standards.
7. Under General Assumptions, page 6, #10, reference is made to "reported transfer station tonnage," this does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the report. More explanation is needed about this information and how it was used.
8. Under Waste Profile Sampling Assumptions, page 7, #l2, please list the five major in-state and out-of-state landfills. Also, what information was used to make the assumption for out-of-state landfills?
9. Under Waste Profile Sampling Assumptions, page 7, #13, what was the basis for the assumption that "out-of-state results are similar to in-state results." Wastes may be exported for reasons that if known would show that the results are skewed.
10. Under Hazardous Waste Assumptions, page 7, #15, this is a good question that should be answered. Are the profiles that are obtained from the three landfills representative of impacted hazardous waste? This needs to be answered.
11. Under Special Waste Assumptions, page 7, #19, it is stated that "variances can be obtained to send special waste to Class II facilities, though we do not believe the number of variances will increase measurably due to the significant potential environmental liability costs associated with a disposal at a Class II facility." Special waste is already being sent to Class II/III landfills via variances, why would this become a concern now? What is the liability concern? Also, the management standards proposed by DTSC do not limit special waste to Class II landfills. This waste could go to Class III depending on action of the RWQCB and the Board/LEA.
12. Under Non-Hazardous Waste Assumptions, page 8, #21, it is unclear what the purpose is of this assumption? Looking at nonhazardous waste currently disposed in Class I landfills only seems to indicate the difficulty in classifying waste or the difficulty in separating waste. It does not seem to serve as an indicator of anything else. 
13. Under Non-Hazardous Waste Assumptions, page 8, #22, it is stated that "estimated costs per ton for nonhazardous waste do not include testing costs." This is not a valid assumption, since nonhazardous waste (e.g., unique homogeneous industrial waste) is subject to testing requirements of the RWQCBs before disposal in Class II/III landfills.
14. Under Non-Hazardous Waste Assumptions, page 8, #23, the total 1995 nonhazardous tonnage has been escalated by two percent to approximate total 1996 nonhazardous tonnage. This is not a good approach and should be replaced with the 35 million tons identified by Board staff for 1996. Please see our 4^th comment above.
15. The chart on page 9 should be corrected to show hazardous waste being exported out-of-state.
16. The chart on page 10 should list the 12 landfills. It is unclear what landfills make-up the 12.
17. The footnotes c, d, and e for the chart on page 10 provide percentages. What is the basis for these percentages?
18. The chart on page 11 shows numbers for out-of-state (export). What is the basis for these numbers?
19. The chart on page 12 shows a series of costs per ton for nonhazardous waste activities. How were these numbers derived? The explanatory footnotes need to be expanded so that readers can follow the process used.
20. On page A-2, the first assumption is that special waste transporters do not have to be registered. We are recommending that they should be registered to provide adequate protection for human health, safety, and the environment.
21. On page A-2, the second assumption is that special waste will be disposed as hazardous waste. We don’t agree. Special waste is increasing by almost 60% and the pressure to dispose of this waste at other than Class I landfills will most likely encourage the issuance of more variances.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft economic impact study. If you have any questions, please call me at 341-6289, or Bobbie Garcia at 341-6291.

cc: Jan Radimsky, RSU Coordinator

Return to Letter | LEA Correspondence Home