Hazardous Waste: EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste 
That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations 
(16-DEC-05, GAO-06-99). 					 
                                                                 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for	 
regulating hazardous wastes (such as mercury) under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA,		 
mercury-containing hazardous waste must meet specific treatment  
standards before land disposal. But, certain difficult to manage 
waste due, in part, to its large particle size, can follow	 
alternate "debris" standards that provide diverse treatment	 
options. This report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to
track the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris  
and the quantity of this waste, (2) the extent to which EPA,	 
states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of
mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as 
debris, and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to	 
monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements
for mercury-contaminated debris.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-99						        
    ACCNO:   A43397						        
  TITLE:     Hazardous Waste: EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of       
Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of Using the	 
Debris Regulations						 
     DATE:   12/16/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Hazardous substances				 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Land management					 
	     Pollution control					 
	     Standards						 
	     Waste disposal					 
	     Waste management					 
	     Waste treatment					 
	     Mercury						 
	     EPA RCRAInfo System				 
	     National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste		 
	     Report						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-99

     

     * Report to Congressional Requesters
          * December 2005
     * HAZARDOUS WASTE
          * EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be
            Treated and Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
               * Debris Regulatory Framework
               * EPA's Reporting Requirements
          * EPA Tracks the Quantity of Mercury-Containing Waste Through Its
            RCRAInfo Data System, but the Information It Collects on Debris
            May Be Incomplete
          * EPA, States, and Industry Do Not Share a Common Understanding of
            the Types of Mercury-Containing Waste That Can Be Treated and
            Disposed of as Debris
          * Programs Are in Place to Monitor All Types of Hazardous Waste,
            Including Mercury-Contaminated Debris
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments
     * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * Data on Mercury-Contaminated Debris
          * Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation
          * Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treatment and Disposal
     * State Officials' Responses to GAO's Survey on Mercury-Containing Waste
       Treatment and Disposal
     * Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Responses to GAO's Survey on
       Mercury- Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2005

HAZARDOUS WASTE

EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and
Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations

Contents

Tables

Figures

December 16, 2005Letter

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert Chairman Committee on Science House of
Representatives

The Honorable Gil Gutknecht House of Representatives

Mercury is a toxic element used in numerous products (such as thermometers
and dental amalgam) and industrial processes (such as chlorine
production). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if
mercury is released into the environment, it could pose a risk to human
health. For example, consuming mercury-contaminated fish can cause
neurological disorders in children.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management
of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, EPA may authorize a state to implement its
own hazardous waste management program in lieu of the federal RCRA
program, so long as the state program is at least as stringent. In
addition, hazardous waste must generally be treated to reduce its toxicity
or mobility, so that threats to human health and the environment are
minimized, before it can be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill.1

The treatment standards for wastes containing mercury (mercury-specific
standards) are based on the level of mercury concentration in the waste.
Wastes containing more than 260 milligrams per kilogram of total mercury
(high mercury-containing waste) must generally undergo retorting-a process
that heats the waste to separate and recover the mercury from the rest of
the waste-or incineration, if the waste includes organic (e.g.,
carbon-based) material. Wastes containing less than 260 milligrams per
kilogram of total mercury (low mercury-containing waste), must have their
toxicity reduced to specified numerical levels,  which can generally be
met

by stabilization (a process that involves mixing the hazardous waste with
a chemical bonding material, such as Portland cement).2

In 1992, EPA developed alternative treatment standards for hazardous waste
debris-the debris treatment standards-because the physical characteristics
of debris make it difficult to meet the treatment standards for the waste
contaminating the debris.3 Specifically, EPA defines debris as a solid
material exceeding a 60 millimeter particle size (roughly the size of a
tennis ball) that is intended for land disposal and that is a manufactured
object, plant or animal matter, or natural geologic material. The
alternative debris treatment standards do not apply to certain items
specifically excluded from the debris definition or to waste types that
have their own alternative treatment standards, such as contaminated soil.
Hazardous debris, such as mercury-contaminated debris, must be treated
prior to land disposal under either the hazardous waste treatment standard
applicable to the waste contaminating the debris, or in accordance with
the alternative treatment standards for hazardous debris, which, according
to EPA, are also generally more cost-effective to use.

Thus, mercury-contaminated hazardous waste debris (such as bricks, pipes,
ruptured metal drums, or large chunks of concrete) may either be treated
according to (a) the mercury-specific treatment standards described above
(including retorting for high-mercury containing hazardous waste), or (b)
stabilization or encapsulation (fully enclosing the hazardous waste in
another material, such as a high-density plastic container), regardless of
the mercury concentration level.4 In 2003, EPA issued guidance to states
that, among other things, clarified the types of waste that are eligible
for treatment and disposal under the alternative treatment standards for
debris. EPA recently reported that it has not found any evidence that
there is a significant environmental problem associated

with the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris under its
current rules.5

Most businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste are
required under RCRA to report on their hazardous waste activities
biennially to their states, which, in turn, submit information to EPA. EPA
compiles and summarizes the data on the amount of hazardous waste
generated, treated, and disposed of in a biennial report, which is
information collected and stored in EPA's RCRAInfo data system. EPA's most
recent biennial Hazardous Waste Report for 2003 was released in April
2005.

Our report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track the
treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of
mercury-contaminated debris that is disposed of, (2) the extent to which
EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of
mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris,
and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance
with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated
debris.

To address these objectives, we analyzed 2001 and 2003 information from
EPA's RCRAInfo database, which contains the state-provided data from
businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. We
assessed the reliability of the data and found that they were sufficiently
reliable for our use. In addition, we surveyed the 50 states and the
District of Columbia and the 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills in
the United States to gather information on, among other things, states'
and hazardous waste landfills' current practices for treating and
disposing of certain mercury-containing wastes using EPA's alternative
treatment standards for debris and any violations involving
mercury-containing waste. We obtained a list of state contact officials
for hazardous waste from the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials and the Environmental Council of the States. We
confirmed with each official, that he or she was the appropriate state
official to complete our survey on mercury-contaminated debris or obtained
the name of another official and confirmed with that official. We obtained
the list of hazardous waste landfill operators from EPA and confirmed that
each was the appropriate individual to complete our survey on
mercury-contaminated debris. Before distributing the surveys, we conducted
pretests with officials in 7 states and operators of 2 hazardous waste
landfills to ensure the validity of the questions; we modified the surveys
in response to their comments. We also conducted follow-up interviews with
the state officials who reported violations with treating and disposing of
mercury-containing wastes, including mercury-contaminated debris, to
discuss the nature of these violations and the corrective actions taken.
We reviewed EPA's requirements and policies governing the treatment and
disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and EPA documents related to the
agency's rationale for developing the alternative treatment standards for
debris. We discussed the effectiveness of these requirements and policies
for protecting human health and the environment with EPA officials,
representatives from hazardous waste landfills, businesses that retort
mercury-contaminated debris, and environmental organizations. We performed
our work between March 2005 and November 2005, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards, which included an
assessment of data reliability and internal controls. Appendix I provides
a detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

Results in Brief

EPA uses the biennial Hazardous Waste Report, which is based on RCRAInfo
data, to track the information that states report on the treatment and
disposal of all types of hazardous waste, including mercury- contaminated
debris. According to EPA's data, businesses treated and disposed of about
38.2 million metric tons of hazardous wastes in 2003. About 3.1 million
metric tons (about 8.2 percent) of the total quantity of hazardous waste
contained mercury. Mercury-contaminated debris constituted about 12,000
metric tons-or about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about
0.03 percent of all hazardous waste, according to RCRAInfo data. However,
EPA's data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete because
reporting on the physical form of the waste (such as the portion that was
debris) in the biennial Hazardous Waste Report is optional. According to
our analysis, in about 9 percent of the reported instances in which
businesses treated and disposed of mercury-containing waste in 2003,
businesses did not submit the optional information on the physical form of
the waste. These instances accounted for less than 1 percent of the total
quantity of mercury-containing waste treated and disposed of in 2003. If a
portion of a business's mercury-containing waste was treated and disposed
of as debris, that portion was unknown to the state and, hence, not
reported to EPA. In addition, EPA's data on mercury-contaminated debris
may not be accurate. EPA's debris reporting category for its biennial data
collection does not provide a complete list of debris items, and debris
items can be reported in other categories. For example, ruptured metal
drums are typically considered to be debris, but are not included in the
list of items in EPA's debris category description in the biennial
Hazardous Waste Report instructions and there is a separate "metal drum"
category. As a result, businesses may have reported ruptured metal drums
in the debris category or in the metal drum category, which does not
include debris. EPA said that it intended the debris category to capture
information on all waste identified as hazardous waste debris.

The 48 states, the District of Columbia, and 14 commercial hazardous waste
landfill operators that responded to our survey do not share a common
understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste that EPA allows to
be treated and disposed of as debris. Consequently, businesses may be
treating and disposing of items as debris even though these items may not
meet EPA's definition of debris. In response to our survey, officials in
21 states and operators of 6 commercial hazardous waste landfills
inaccurately identified one or more nondebris mercury-containing wastes as
being debris. For example, some states' officials and hazardous waste
landfill operators told us that they would apply the alternative treatment
standards for debris to intact mercury-containing devices, such as
regulators and thermometers. However, these intact devices are excluded
from the definition of debris under the debris regulations and may contain
high levels of mercury. Although EPA provided guidance in 2003 on when the
alternative treatment standards for debris can be used, our survey results
suggest that the guidance may not be sufficiently clear. Any confusion
about what is or is not debris is particularly problematic if high
mercury-containing waste is not treated and disposed of properly. Because
states and industry may not share EPA's understanding of debris, EPA
cannot be certain that businesses that manage mercury-containing waste are
appropriately using the alternative treatment standards for debris. When
we discussed these findings with EPA, officials agreed that clarifying
guidance may be warranted.

EPA and states have certain controls in place to monitor compliance with
the hazardous waste debris regulations by businesses that generate, treat,
and dispose of hazardous waste. EPA's hazardous waste manifest system
tracks the transportation of all hazardous waste, including
mercury-contaminated debris, from its generation to its disposal. The key
component of this system is the uniform hazardous waste manifest, which is
a form prepared by all businesses that generate, transport, treat, or
otherwise take physical custody of the waste. The manifest contains
information on the type and quantity of the waste being transported,
instructions for handling the waste, and signature lines for all parties
involved in the disposal process. Once the waste reaches its final
destination, a signed copy of the manifest is returned to the business
that generated the waste. In addition to the manifest, businesses that
handle hazardous waste must notify the next party that receives the waste
how the waste must be treated to meet the treatment standard or if it can
be disposed of without treatment. EPA and state enforcement programs also
provide oversight and compliance monitoring with the alternative treatment
standards for debris. Oversight inspections have resulted in enforcement
actions, such as fines and imprisonment for violations. Lastly, EPA and
most states have hotlines that afford citizens the opportunity to report
possible violations of the hazardous waste treatment and disposal
regulations.

We are making recommendations to EPA to (1) clarify and better describe
the types of waste that can and cannot be reported under the "debris"
category and (2) conduct further outreach to communicate to states and
hazardous waste landfills the types of mercury-containing wastes that can
be treated and disposed of according to the alternative treatment
standards for debris.

In oral comments on a draft of this report, EPA agreed with our
recommendations and provided technical comments, which we incorporated
into the report as appropriate.

Background

Mercury is a naturally occurring toxic metallic substance that exists as a
liquid or vapor in its elemental form and can be a solid or liquid in its
compound form. Elemental mercury is used in producing chlorine liquid and
caustic soda, in extracting gold from ore or materials that contain gold,
and in thermometers, barometers, and electrical switches.  Silver-colored
dental fillings (known as dental amalgam) typically contain about 50
percent metallic mercury. 

Mercury forms inorganic compounds when combined with elements such as
chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen. Inorganic mercury compounds are used in
fungicides, skin-lightening creams, topical antiseptic or disinfectant
agents, antibacterials, preservatives in some prescription and
over-the-counter medicines, coloring paints, and tattoo dyes.  In
combination with carbon, mercury forms organic compounds, the most common
of which is methylmercury, which can build up in certain edible freshwater
and saltwater fish and marine mammals.

In recent years, mercury use has declined as the availability of
nonmercury-based materials has been developed. For example, the large
lamps that light parking lots used to be made with mercury, but are
increasingly being made without it. Also, the Mercury-Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 severely restricted the
mercury content in batteries sold after the act's enactment date of May
13, 1996. Today, the predominant uses of mercury are for the production of
chlorine-related products, the amalgam used in dental fillings, and wiring
devices that carry electrical current. As figure 1 shows, mercury use in
the United States generally declined between 1980 and 1997, according to
the U.S. Geological Survey, which compiled those data until 1997.

Figure 1: Use of Mercury in U.S. Products, 1980 to 1997

Note: Data were not available for 1992.

aFor 1980 and 1994 to 1997, the "other" category also includes data on
mercury use that the reporting businesses deemed to be confidential
business information.

Debris Regulatory Framework

Debris contaminated with mercury can come from various sources-often from
a cleanup effort (such as a mercury spill) or demolition of a
mercury-contaminated building (such as a laboratory). It can also include
structural steel, glass, wooden pallets, cloth, and ruptured containers
and devices. When debris contains hazardous amounts of mercury or other
hazardous wastes, the hazardous waste debris must be treated to address
each of the hazardous wastes.

The debris definition excludes the following materials:

o any material for which a specific treatment standard is provided in 40
C.F.R. Part 268, Subpart D (namely lead acid batteries, cadmium batteries,
and radioactive lead solids);

o process residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment
of waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and

o intact containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that
retain at least 75 percent of their original volume.

A mixture of debris and other material (such as soil or sludge) is subject
to the hazardous waste debris regulations if the mixture is comprised
primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection. Figure 2
provides a general description of categories of waste that EPA typically
classifies as debris and that could be contaminated with mercury.

Figure 2: General Categories of Debris That Could Be Contaminated with
Mercury

Mercury-contaminated debris (such as bricks, pipes, ruptured metal drums,
or large chunks of concrete) may either be treated according to (a) the
mercury-specific standards described above (primarily including retorting

for high-mercury containing waste), or (b) encapsulated or stabilized,  6
regardless of the mercury concentration level. If managed using the
mercury-specific standards, the waste or residue from the retorting
process must have their toxicity reduced to specified numerical levels
before it can be land disposed.7 Waste managed according to the
alternative treatment standards for hazardous debris does not generally
have to be tested before it is land disposed because, according to EPA,
obtaining a representative sample is often impractical. In addition, the
leach test, which requires grinding as part of the test procedure, may not
be appropriate for certain debris treatment technologies, such as
encapsulation, since the grinding step would defeat the protective
mechanism of the treatment technology.

According to EPA officials, the agency encourages businesses that generate
mercury-contaminated debris to remove the mercury contaminated material
from the debris-a process referred to as source separation. Also,
according to EPA and industry, there are some debris items (such as debris
contaminated with mixtures of mercury and organic chemicals) that remain
difficult to retort; as such, the debris regulations are needed to ensure
that such debris is treated and disposed of properly. Table 1 summarizes
EPA's debris regulations and definitions of debris.

Table 1: EPA's Debris Regulations and Definitions

                                        

      Code of Federal                        Description                      
Regulations (C.F.R.)  
Debris regulations at In 1992, EPA promulgated the final debris            
40 C.F.R. 268.45      regulations, which established alternative treatment 
                         standards for hazardous debris, regardless of        
                         concentration level. The regulations provide several 
                         treatment options for mercury-contaminated debris,   
                         including stabilization and encapsulation.           
Debris defined at 40  Debris means solid material exceeding a              
C.F.R. 268.2 (g)      60-millimeter particle size that is intended for     
                         disposal and that is: A manufactured object; or      
                         plant or animal matter; or natural geologic          
                         material. The following materials are not debris:    
                         any material for which a specific treatment standard 
                         is provided in Subpart D, Part 268, namely lead acid 
                         batteries, cadmium batteries, and radioactive lead   
                         solids; process residuals such as smelter slag and   
                         residues from the treatment of waste, wastewater,    
                         sludges, or air emission residues; and intact        
                         containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured  
                         and that retain at least 75 percent of their         
                         original volume. A mixture of debris that has not    
                         been treated to the standards provided by S: 268.45  
                         and other material is subject to regulation as       
                         debris if the mixture is comprised primarily of      
                         debris, by volume, based on visual inspection.       
Hazardous debris      Hazardous debris means debris that contains a        
defined at 40 C.F.R.  hazardous waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261 of   
268.2 (h)             this chapter, or that exhibits a characteristic of   
                         hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of Part 261  
                         of this chapter. Any deliberate mixing of prohibited 
                         hazardous waste with debris that changes its         
                         treatment classification (i.e., from waste to        
                         hazardous debris) is not allowed under the dilution  
                         prohibition in S: 268.3.                             

Source: 40 C.F.R. Part 268.

In 1999, EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to conduct a
comprehensive review of the RCRA hazardous waste treatment regulations for
mercury-containing wastes. EPA had identified mercury as one of the more
persistent toxic chemicals regulated under RCRA. EPA stated that potential
revisions, if any, would be based on the comments that it received and
data obtained from ongoing studies and other sources. Among other issues,
EPA requested comments on whether to (1) allow alternative treatment
options to retorting for high mercury-containing waste and (2) require
retorting for high mercury-containing waste that meets the definition of
debris.

With respect to allowing alternative treatment options to retorting for
high mercury-containing waste, EPA made available data to the public in
2003 on two studies that assessed the feasibility of land disposal for
elemental mercury and for difficult-to-treat high mercury-containing waste
that had been treated by stabilization. From these studies, EPA concluded
that treatment by stabilization may not result in a waste that is stable
under some hazardous waste landfill conditions. According to EPA
officials, the agency was concerned about using stabilization for
elemental mercury in certain landfill conditions where leaching was more
likely to occur. EPA did not change the existing hazardous waste
regulations for mercury-containing waste.8

With respect to requiring that high mercury-containing waste that meets
the definition of debris be retorted, all of the comments that EPA
received, except one, expressed the view that EPA should not modify the
alternative treatment standards for debris to require the retorting of
debris with high concentration levels of mercury because debris is not
always amenable to retorting and because the alternative treatment
standards for debris provide needed flexibility to manage
difficult-to-treat wastes.9 EPA did not modify the debris regulations.

In 2003, EPA collaborated with the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials and the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association to discuss potential mismanagement of
mercury-contaminated debris.10 Based on those discussions, EPA issued a
debris memorandum in October 2003 to state waste managers that provided
guidance for managing mercury-contaminated debris.11 In that guidance
memorandum, EPA sought to clarify the types of waste that are eligible for
treatment under the alternative treatment standards for debris, provide
information on the improved capabilities of mercury "retorters" to accept
and recover mercury from debris-like waste, and describe how to meet the
performance standards for several debris treatment technologies. In a May
2004 follow-up letter, the Administrator of EPA stated that EPA had not
found any evidence that there is a significant environmental problem
associated with the management of mercury-contaminated debris under EPA's
current rules.

Figure 3 shows that mercury-containing waste comes from industrial and
nonindustrial sources. EPA requires the collection of data on hazardous
waste activities from industrial sources, but not from nonindustrial
sources. Nonindustrial sources generate mercury-containing waste, such as
household thermometers and dental amalgam, which may, if not recycled, be
generally disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.12

Figure 3: Treatment and Disposal of Mercury-Containing Waste

aCertain treated hazardous waste and debris that do not exhibit any
hazardous characteristic (such as toxicity) after treatment may be
disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill.

Under RCRA, hazardous waste landfills and businesses that retort
mercury-contaminated debris must meet federal standards designed to
protect public health and the environment. Among other standards,
hazardous waste landfills must meet minimum technological requirements,
including double composite liners, a leachate collection and removal
system, and a leak detection system, as well as provide for groundwater
monitoring. In addition, hazardous waste landfills may not operate without
a RCRA permit. Landfills must also meet other more stringent state
requirements, if any, which often include on-site state inspectors and
additional groundwater monitoring wells. According to EPA's RCRAInfo data,
there are 19 commercial hazardous waste landfills in the United States,
most of which accept mercury-containing waste.13 Facilities that retort
mercury-contaminated debris may only retort wastes below specified organic
concentration limits or above specified heating values. In addition, the
facilities must comply with waste sampling and analysis requirements. As
of 2005, four companies reported that they operate seven facilities that
retort mercury-contaminated debris.14 Figure 4 show the locations of the
19 commercial hazardous waste landfills and seven retorting facilities in
the United States.

Figure 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfills and Mercury Retorting
Facilities, as of April 2005

EPA's Reporting Requirements

Every 2 years, EPA compiles and summarizes data on the amount of hazardous
waste generated, treated, and disposed of. For this biennial report, EPA
requires businesses to submit information to the states on each waste
generated, treated, and/or disposed of. Among other things, businesses
report on the type of hazardous constituent(s) present in the waste, the
process (such as chlorine production) or activity (such as demolition)
that generated the hazardous waste, and the treatment or disposal method
used in managing the hazardous waste. EPA also requests, but does not
require, that businesses submit certain additional information about the
waste, including the portion of the waste that is debris. EPA maintains
the data in its RCRAInfo database. The states conduct data reliability
assessments (such as checking for missing values, out-of-range values in
each field, and inconsistencies and errors in the data) before entering
the information into RCRAInfo; EPA also conducts data reliability
assessments of RCRAInfo data.

EPA Tracks the Quantity of Mercury-Containing Waste Through Its RCRAInfo
Data System, but the Information It Collects on Debris May Be Incomplete

EPA uses its RCRAInfo database, which began in 1999, to maintain data on
hazardous waste submitted by states. According to EPA officials, RCRAInfo
was designed specifically to track national trends of hazardous waste
generation, treatment, and disposal.15 In 1991, EPA began producing its
biennial reports, and it began collecting data on debris as a separate
category of physical form in 2001. EPA's most recent biennial hazardous
waste report, for the 2003 reporting cycle, was released in April 2005.

According to RCRAInfo data, in 2003, mercury-contaminated debris
constituted about 12,000 metric tons of the mercury-containing waste;
about 0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent
of all hazardous waste in 2003.16 Table 2 summarizes RCRAInfo's data on
the total quantities of the hazardous waste, mercury-containing waste, and
mercury-contaminated debris treated and disposed of in 2001 and 2003.
Appendix II provides more information on mercury-contaminated debris, such
as the types of businesses and industry processes that generated the
debris and the total quantity of debris that was generated, treated, and
disposed of in each state.

Table 2: Total Quantity of Hazardous Waste, Mercury-Containing Waste, and
Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, 2001 and 2003

                                        

     Weight in metric tons                                       
                                   2001    Percent of       2003   Percent of 
                                            hazardous               hazardous 
                                                waste                   waste 
Hazardous wastea          41,210,698           n/a 38,188,449          n/a 
Mercury-containing wasteb  1,124,900          2.73  3,145,726         8.24 
Mercury-contaminated          10,484          0.03     12,029         0.03 
debrisc                                                       

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

Note: According to EPA, businesses concerned about potential liability
that are unsure about which hazardous materials are in their waste may
report multiple hazardous contaminants in order to protect themselves from
reporting violations.

aThese data (also reported in EPA's 2001 and 2003 biennial reports)
exclude wastes that were stored and transferred with no treatment or
recovery or disposal.

bThese data include waste that contains any mercury waste code. See
appendix I for details.

cThese data include waste that contains any mercury waste code and were
reported under EPA's debris reporting category. See appendix I for
details.

RCRAInfo data on mercury-contaminated debris may be incomplete. EPA does
not require businesses to report to their states on the physical form of
the waste, including the portion of their mercury-containing waste that
they treated and disposed of as debris. Since reporting the physical form
of the waste is optional, the portion of a state's mercury-containing
waste that was treated and disposed of as debris is not known for
businesses that did not submit such information. Our analysis of the 2003
RCRAInfo data showed that businesses did not report the optional
information on the physical form of the waste in about 9 percent of the
instances in which mercury-containing waste was treated and disposed of.
These instances accounted for less than 1 percent of the total quantity of
mercury-containing waste (10,011 metric tons of the 3,145,726 metric tons
of mercury-containing waste). If businesses did not report the optional
debris information to states, then the states could not report it to EPA.
Businesses that did not submit optional information may have managed a
portion of the waste as debris or they may have managed none of this waste
as debris.

In 2001, the first year businesses reported on debris, RCRAInfo data
showed that businesses did not submit the optional information on the
physical form of a waste (including debris) in about 14 percent of
instances when they treated and disposed of mercury-containing waste.
Specifically, these instances accounted for about 4.5 percent of the total
quantity of mercury-containing waste treated and disposed of (about 51,179
metric tons of the 1,124,900 metric tons of mercury-containing waste).

Furthermore, EPA's biennially collected data on debris may be reported
incorrectly. The directions EPA gave states and businesses for reporting
data was ambiguous. EPA had a "debris" category in the Hazardous Waste
Report instructions, but it did not provide a complete list of debris
items. For example, ruptured metal drums are typically considered debris,
but are not included in the list of items in the debris category
description and there is a separate "metal drum" category. Thus, if
businesses were reporting ruptured metal drums, they might report ruptured
drums in the debris category or in the metal drums category. EPA told us
that it intended businesses to use the debris category to report all waste
identified as hazardous waste debris.

EPA, States, and Industry Do Not Share a Common Understanding of the Types
of Mercury-Containing Waste That Can Be Treated and Disposed of as Debris

Businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of mercury-containing waste
are unclear about the types of mercury-containing waste items that can be
treated and disposed of as debris. In response to our survey, officials in
21 states and 6 hazardous waste landfill operators identified one or more
items as debris that do not typically meet EPA's debris definition. For
example, state officials frequently identified intact fluorescent light
bulbs, soil, and intact containers (other than batteries), that include
intact devices such as regulators and thermometers, which may contain high
levels of mercury, as being subject to the alternative treatment standards
for debris.17 Intact containers (which are excluded from the definition of
debris) and the other items (which do not fit the definition of debris)
must be treated in accordance with RCRA's mercury-specific hazardous waste
treatment standards. In addition, although EPA's definition of debris
states that "debris means solid material exceeding a 60 millimeter
particle size," officials in 3 states classified ruptured devices and
batteries with particle size less than 60 millimeters as debris. These
ruptured mercury-containing items may be high mercury-containing waste,
which would require retorting. However, if these items were managed
according to the alternative treatment standards for debris, they could be
encapsulated or stabilized and then disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill. EPA prohibits this treatment and disposal method for high
mercury-containing waste, which must generally be retorted; the residual
that remains must meet a leach test standard before it can be land
disposed. Figure 5 lists the mercury-containing wastes that would
typically not be eligible for treatment and disposal using the alternative
treatment standards for debris.

Figure 5: Mercury-Containing Wastes That EPA Typically Does Not Classify
as Debris

aOlder automobiles may contain convenience light switches under the hood
and in the trunk that contain mercury. Mercury-containing automobile
switches are no longer being used in automobiles manufactured in the
United States.

bA lab pack is typically a steel or fiber drum that contains small
containers of compatible waste surrounded by absorbent materials, such as
vermiculite, to cushion the containers and to absorb any spilled or leaked
waste.

Table 3 summarizes the views of the state officials we surveyed on whether
they would classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes as debris.
The wastes listed in table 3 would not typically meet EPA's definition of
debris. However, as the table shows, officials in several states
identified nondebris items as being debris, and officials in 21 states
reported that they would treat and dispose of at least one item listed in
the table as debris although the item would not typically meet EPA's
definition of debris. Appendix III summarizes the state officials'
responses to our survey on mercury-containing waste treatment and disposal
practices.

Table 3: State Officials' Views Concerning Wastes That Do Not Typically
Meet EPA's Debris Definition

                                        

    Mercury-containing      Number of     Number of   Number of     Number of 
          waste           respondents   respondents respondents   respondents 
                        that classify          that   that were that believed 
                             waste as    classified   uncertain      that the 
                        being subject      waste as                  waste is 
                        to the debris being subject                   neither 
                            standards        to the                 hazardous 
                                          hazardous                debris nor 
                                              waste                 hazardous 
                                          standards                     waste 
Intact drums with at             3            37           3             0 
least 75 percent of                                          
their original                                               
volume                                                       
Intact fluorescent              11            31           1             5 
light bulbs                                                  
Ruptured fluorescent             8            37           2             0 
light bulbsa                                                 
Intact batteries                 4            33           2             3 
Ruptured batteries               3            35           4             0 
with particle size                                           
less than or equal                                           
to 60 millimeters                                            
Other intact devices             8            31           2             5 
(for example,                                                
thermometer,                                                 
regulator)                                                   
Other ruptured                   3            37           2             0 
devices with                                                 
particle size less                                           
than or equal to 60                                          
millimeters                                                  
Process residuals                3            39           2             0 
Soil                             8            36           2             1 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

Note: We received responses from 48 states and the District of Columbia,
but not everyone provided responses to each waste item. Rows cannot be
totaled because respondents could check as many standards as they believed
applied.

aAccording to EPA, ruptured fluorescent light bulbs would be debris if the
ruptured pieces exceeded 60 millimeters.

In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 3, our survey also
asked about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey results,
only one state's official considered as debris these three items that EPA
would also typically consider to be debris. Officials in 9 other states
reported that they classify all of the items on our list as hazardous
waste and did not classify any of these items as debris. For example,
ruptured drums and ruptured devices were wastes that these states
typically classified as hazardous waste, but which EPA classifies as
debris.

Four of the 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill operators that
responded to our survey identified intact fluorescent light bulbs as
debris and 3 of the 14 identified intact devices as debris. These items
would generally be considered intact containers and therefore be
specifically excluded from EPA's debris definition. The landfill operators
responded correctly about particle size requirements for debris. None of
the landfill operators identified intact drums as debris.

Table 4 summarizes the landfill operators' views on whether they would
classify certain types of mercury-containing wastes as debris. The wastes
listed in table 4 would not typically meet EPA's definition of debris.
However, as the table shows, some landfill operators identified nondebris
items as being debris, and 6 landfill operators reported that they would
treat and dispose of at least one item listed in the table as debris
although the item would not typically meet EPA's definition of debris.
Appendix IV summarizes the commercial hazardous waste landfill operators'
responses to our survey on mercury-containing waste treatment and disposal
practices.

Table 4: Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Views Concerning
Wastes That Do Not Typically Meet EPA's Debris Definition

                                        

     Mercury-containing           Number of        Number of        Number of 
            waste          respondents that respondents that respondents that 
                               stated waste     stated waste   were uncertain 
                           could be treated     could not be    whether waste 
                            and disposed of      treated and could be treated 
                                with debris disposed of with  and disposed of 
                                  standards debris standards      with debris 
                                                                    standards 
Intact drums with at                   0               12                1 
least 75 percent of                                       
their original volume                                     
Intact fluorescent                     4               10                0 
light bulbs                                               
Ruptured fluorescent                   2               11                1 
light bulbsa                                              
Intact batteries                       1               11                2 
Ruptured batteries with                0               13                1 
particle size less than                                   
or equal to 60                                            
millimeters                                               
Other intact devices                   3               11                0 
(for example,                                             
thermometer, regulator)                                   
Other ruptured devices                 0               13                1 
with particle size less                                   
than or equal to 60                                       
millimeters                                               
Process residuals                      1               13                0 
Soil                                   1               13                0 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

Note: We received responses from 14 commercial hazardous waste landfill
operators that covered 15 commercial hazardous waste landfills. For one
item, 13 of the 14 respondents provided a response; 1 respondent chose not
to answer this question.

aAccording to EPA, ruptured fluorescent light bulbs would be debris if the
ruptured pieces exceeded 60 millimeters.

In addition to these nondebris items listed in table 4, our survey also
asked about three debris items: ruptured drums, ruptured batteries with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters, and other ruptured devices with
particle size exceeding 60 millimeters. According to our survey results,
only one landfill considered as debris these three items that EPA would
also typically consider to be debris. Furthermore, while EPA allows
certain mercury-containing waste to be managed as debris, the commercial
hazardous waste landfill operators were sometimes stricter in what they
allowed. Specifically,

o two landfill operators do not allow any mercury-containing waste that we
listed in our survey to be managed as debris;

o two other landfill operators only allow one mercury item (ruptured drums
or ruptured batteries with particle size exceeding 60 millimeters) to be
treated and disposed of according to the alternative treatment standards
for debris; and

o two landfill operators send debris with high levels of mercury (i.e.,
greater than 260 milligrams per kilogram) to retorting facilities,
including one who reported receiving mercury-containing waste
inappropriately labeled as debris, which they sent to a retorting facility
for treatment.

While our survey results show that officials in many states and most
landfill operators have a good understanding of the debris rule, there are
some instances in which states and landfill operators identified items as
debris that would not typically meet EPA's debris definition. Since the
2001 Hazardous Waste Report cycle, there is a separate category called
"debris" and businesses that determine that their waste is "debris" will
naturally use the debris category to report their debris data. However, as
discussed earlier, there is confusion about the debris category and more
wastes have been reported as debris than EPA considers to be debris.

With respect to treatment methods that have been used for debris, EPA's
RCRAInfo data showed considerable differences between the 2001 and 2003
cycles. For this analysis, we used the data reported for debris
contaminated only with mercury. We did not use data for debris that
contained mercury and other hazardous constituents because the method used
to treat the mercury was not readily discernable from the RCRAInfo data.
As shown in table 5, in 2001, businesses that generated mercury-only
contaminated debris treated most of the debris by metals recovery such as
retorting; in 2003, most of the debris was treated by encapsulation or
stabilization before land disposal. Most of that 2003 debris that was
encapsulated or stabilized before land disposal came from one facility.

Table 5: Quantity of Mercury-Only Contaminated Debris Reported by
Treatment Method, 2001 and 2003

                                        

Weight                                                                 
  in                                                                   
metric                                                                 
 tons                                                                  
          Metals Incineration Encapsulation Stabilization         Land Othera Total 
        recovery                                           disposal of        
         such as                                            previously        
       retorting                                          encapsulated        
                                                                    or        
                                                            stabilized        
                                                              material        
2001         279           33             6             0          123      1   442 
2003         361           28            <1             1        1,101      5 1,496 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

aThe "other" category includes treatment methods such as energy recovery.

EPA officials were surprised to learn from us that most debris was not
coming from hazardous material spill sites or cleanup sites that typically
have on-site state or federal oversight in treatment and disposal
decisions. According to our analysis of RCRAInfo's 2003 data, debris was
generated as follows:

o about 25 percent from ongoing routine processes, such as replacing pipes
at a chlorine plant;

o about 41 percent from intermittent events, such as demolishing a
production plant;

o about 17 percent from EPA or state-managed sites, such as hazardous
material spills or cleanup efforts; and

o about 16 percent from pollution control and waste management process
residuals.

Although businesses determine how to manage the majority of
mercury-contaminated debris, EPA officials told us they believe that
treatment and disposal decisions were made appropriately because of the
multiple oversight mechanisms in place. They specifically cited the
hazardous waste manifest system and the EPA and state inspection and
enforcement programs, discussed below. In addition, they noted that in
order to comply with RCRA, hazardous waste landfill operators must, among
other things, obtain a RCRA permit and develop a waste analysis plan that
documents the procedures the operator will follow to ensure the facility
only handles waste it is permitted to and to ensure proper waste disposal.
They also noted that hazardous waste landfills must meet minimum
technological requirements, including double composite liners, a leachate
collection and removal system, and a leak detection system.

Programs Are in Place to Monitor All Types of Hazardous Waste, Including
Mercury-Contaminated Debris

EPA and the states oversee compliance with treatment and disposal
requirements for mercury-contaminated debris as part of their efforts to
monitor multiple types of hazardous waste. We identified four mechanisms
that monitor compliance with hazardous waste regulations, including the
debris regulations.

First, to ensure hazardous waste is properly managed, EPA established a
tracking system to monitor hazardous waste from its generation to its
disposal.18 The critical component of this system is the uniform hazardous
waste manifest, which is a form prepared by all businesses that generate,
transport, or offer for transport, hazardous waste for off-site treatment,
recycling, storage, or disposal. The manifest contains information on the
type and quantity of the waste being transported, instructions for
handling the waste, and signature lines for all parties involved in the
disposal process. Each party that handles the waste signs the manifest and
retains a copy for themselves. Once the waste reaches its destination, the
receiving facility returns a signed copy of the manifest to the business
that generated the waste, confirming that the waste has been received by
the designated facility. Each of these documents must generally be
retained for 3 years.

Second, EPA requires businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of
hazardous waste to retain certain other records for 3 years. Businesses
that generate hazardous waste must send a notification with the initial
shipment of every waste. The information that the notification must
include varies according to the status of the waste. Facilities that treat
hazardous waste are required to send similar notifications along with
shipment of the treated wastes to facilities that dispose of hazardous
waste. A certification normally accompanies this notification stating that
the waste meets its treatment standards and may be land disposed.
Facilities that dispose of hazardous waste are the final link in the waste
management chain. As a result, these facilities have to test the waste
residue that they receive to ensure that it meets the treatment standards.

Third, EPA and states' hazardous waste enforcement programs periodically
monitor compliance with EPA regulations, primarily through oversight
inspections of facilities and enforcement actions (such as fines and
imprisonment) to correct violations.19 As part of its oversight, EPA
provides compliance assistance and incentive programs to encourage
businesses to "self-police" and voluntarily discover, disclose, and
correct violations of RCRA requirements. In response to our survey, 29
states reported violations related to the treatment and disposal of
mercury-containing waste during the past 5 years. Generally, the states
discovered the violations during inspections, and most of the violations
concerned the treatment and disposal of mercury-containing lamps, such as
fluorescent light bulbs. We confirmed in our followup conversations with
these states that very few of their reported violations were related to
the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris. In one
instance, however, a state agency fined a university $18,000 for hazardous
waste violations, such as inappropriately disposing of
mercury-contaminated debris. The university had failed to sample a
building for mercury contamination before renovating it, and mercury was
discovered in several areas after the demolition debris from the
renovation had been removed.

Lastly, EPA and many states provide citizens with telephone hotlines, Web
sites, and forms to file complaints or report potential hazardous waste
violations. Some states that responded to our survey stated that some
mercury-containing waste violations were reported by citizens' tips.

Conclusions

We recognize that EPA developed the debris regulations to manage waste
that could not be readily addressed with the existing RCRA regulations.
With respect to mercury-contaminated debris, EPA has assessed the
potential environmental risks and determined that the debris standards can
be used for mercury-containing waste that meets the debris definition. EPA
also provided a guidance memorandum to states intended to clarify the
types of wastes that can be managed using the debris standards. However,
our analysis showed that states and industry in some instances considered
items to be debris that typically do not meet EPA's definition of debris.
As a result, EPA's information on debris may not be entirely accurate. We
believe EPA would have better information on debris in RCRAInfo if EPA
would clarify and provide a better description of the types of waste that
should and should not be reported in the debris category in the
instructions for submitting biennial data.

In addition, we recognize that mercury-contaminated debris represents a
very small portion of the hazardous waste that is treated and disposed of
annually in the United States. However, we are concerned that officials in
several states and operators of some commercial hazardous waste landfills
that responded to our survey reported that in some instances they would
consider items to be debris that typically do not meet EPA's definition of
debris. EPA's debris definition specifically excludes some of these items.
Thus, some waste items might be disposed of inappropriately and in a more
risky manner. EPA did not consider the impact of states and industry
misunderstanding the debris standards when it examined the use of the
debris regulations for high mercury-containing waste. Since there is
apparent confusion about what constitutes debris, we believe that EPA
should begin an outreach effort to communicate and clarify the types of
mercury-containing hazardous wastes that can be treated and disposed of
using the debris treatment standards.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that the businesses that generate, treat, and dispose of
hazardous waste are properly managing and reducing the risk of their
mercury-containing waste, we are making the following two recommendations
to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:

o clarify and better describe the types of waste that can and cannot be
reported under the "debris" reporting category and include the definition
of debris in the instructions for the Hazardous Waste Report and

o conduct further outreach to communicate to states and hazardous waste
landfills the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and
disposed of according to the alternative treatment standards for debris.

Agency Comments

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. In
oral comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations. EPA
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and other
interested officials. We will also provide copies to others upon request.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or at [email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who contributed to this report are
listed in appendix V.

John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix I

The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the mechanisms that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to track the treatment and
disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity of
mercury-contaminated debris that is disposed of, (2) the extent to which
EPA, states, and industry share a common understanding of the types of
mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of as debris,
and (3) EPA and state controls that are in place to monitor compliance
with EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated
debris.

For the purpose of this report, we used the following terms:

o businesses that generate mercury-containing waste-includes private
companies and government and university facilities and laboratories;

o mercury-containing waste-includes hazardous waste that contained any of
the six mercury waste codes: (1) D009-mercury; (2) K071-brine purification
muds from the mercury cell process in chlorine, in which separately
prepurified brine is not used; (3) K106-wastewater treatment sludge from
the mercury cell process in chlorine production; (4) P065-mercury
fulminate; (5) P092-phenylmercury acetate; and/or (6) U151-mercury; and

o mercury-contaminated debris-includes mercury-containing waste and was
reported under EPA's debris reporting category.

To determine the mechanisms that are used to track the treatment and
disposal of mercury-contaminated debris, we reviewed EPA documents and
reports (such as EPA's biennial hazardous waste reports) and EPA
regulations and policies. We also interviewed officials at EPA, Ohio's
Environmental Protection Agency, the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials, the Environmental Council of the States,
the Environmental Technology Council, and the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association. In addition, we met with officials from the
departments of Defense and of Energy to discuss the types of
mercury-contaminated debris that they generate. To identify the quantity
of the hazardous waste that is disposed of as mercury-contaminated debris,
we obtained RCRAInfo hazardous waste data for the 2001 and 2003 reporting
cycles. We assessed the reliability of the data and found that they were
sufficiently reliable for our use. We also developed a survey to gather
information from the 50 states and the District of Columbia on, among
other things, their treatment and disposal practices for
mercury-contaminated debris and whether they collected data more
frequently than required by EPA's biennial hazardous waste reports.

To determine the extent to which EPA, states, and industry share a common
understanding of the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be
treated and disposed of as hazardous debris, we used two surveys to gather
information on, among other things, states' and hazardous waste landfills'
current practices for treating and disposing of certain mercury-containing
wastes using EPA's alternative treatment standards for debris. We surveyed
the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We obtained a list of state
hazardous waste officials from the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials and the Environmental Council of the
States. We confirmed with each state official, that he or she was the
appropriate state official to complete our survey on mercury-contaminated
debris or obtained the name of another official and confirmed with that
official. In addition, we surveyed businesses that treat and dispose of
mercury-containing waste. We included in this survey, the 19 U.S.
commercial hazardous waste landfills identified by EPA. We obtained the
list of hazardous waste landfills by using 2001 and 2003 information from
EPA's RCRAInfo Permit Module. We confirmed with each landfill operator
that he or she was the appropriate individual to complete our survey on
mercury-contaminated debris. We did not survey federal and private
facilities that could also treat and dispose of this waste and facilities
that primarily retort mercury-containing waste, such as fluorescent light
bulbs.

Before distributing the surveys, we conducted pretests of the questions
with officials who would be responding to the surveys in order to ensure
the validity of the survey questions. For the state survey, we conducted
pretests with seven states (Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, New
Hampshire, Montana, and Delaware) located in six EPA regions. For the
landfill survey, we conducted pretests with commercial hazardous waste
landfill operators in Texas and New York. As part of each pretest, we
interviewed the respondents after they had filled out a survey to ensure
that the questions were clear, unambiguous, and unbiased and that
completing the survey would not place an undue burden on the officials
completing it. On the basis of the feedback from the pretests, we modified
the questions, as appropriate. For the state survey, we received responses
from 48 states and the District of Columbia. We did not receive responses
from Alaska and Iowa because EPA has not provided these states with the
authority to implement RCRA requirements, and EPA has the lead for all
RCRA activities in these states. We received responses from 14 hazardous
waste landfill operators in 7 companies that manage 15 of the 19
landfills. Two companies that manage four landfills chose not to
participate in our survey. We also interviewed officials at EPA, Ohio's
Environmental Protection Agency, the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials, the Environmental Technology Council,
the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association, the Chlorine
Institute, and the four companies that retort mercury-contaminated debris.
Our interviews included questions about the types of mercury-containing
wastes that they classify as mercury-contaminated debris.

To determine the controls that are in place to monitor compliance with
EPA's treatment and disposal requirements for mercury-contaminated debris,
we conducted follow-up interviews with officials in 29 states (Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin) that had identified violations in the treatment and disposal of
mercury-containing waste. Our interviews included questions about the type
of mercury-containing waste involved in the violations that they reported,
the type of business or industry that committed the violation, the way the
violations were uncovered, and the type of enforcement actions taken. We
also conducted Internet searches on mercury-containing waste violations
and reviewed EPA's requirements and policies for treating and disposing of
mercury-contaminated debris and EPA documents related to the development
of the debris regulations, such as Federal Register notices. We discussed
the effectiveness of these requirements and policies for protecting human
health and the environment with officials at EPA, representatives from
hazardous waste landfills, Ohio's Environmental Protection Agency, the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the
Environmental Technology Council, the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association, the Chlorine Institute, and the four companies
that retort mercury-contaminated debris.

We performed our work between March 2005 and November 2005, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards, which included an
assessment of data reliability and internal controls.

Data on Mercury-Contaminated Debris Appendix II

Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation

Figure 6: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by State, 2001

Figure 7: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by State, 2003

Table 6: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by Industry Type, 2001

                                        

                          Weight in metric tons                         
Remediation and waste management services                            4,454 
Manufacturing, such as textiles                                      1,055 
Wholesale trade, such as mining products                               713 
Manufacturing, such as metals                                          523 
Mining, such as gold ore mining                                        464 
Utilities, such as electric power generation and removing water        380 
supply and sewage system equipment                                   
Other, such as health care and government activities                   439 
Total                                                                8,028 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

Table 7: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Generation, by Industry Type, 2003

                                        

                          Weight in metric tons                         
Manufacturing, such as textiles                                      1,766 
Remediation and waste management services                              914 
Manufacturing, such as metals                                          400 
Educational services, such as colleges and universities                269 
Utilities, such as power generation and replacing water supply and     255 
sewage system equipment                                              
Government activities                                                  177 
Other, such as gold ore mining and wholesale trade of mining           185 
products                                                             
Total                                                                3,966 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

Table 8: Type of Process or Activity That Generated Mercury-Contaminated
Debris, 2001

                                        

                          Weight in metric tons                         
Wastes from ongoing production and service processes (waste from     4,006 
general day to day manufacturing, production, or maintenance         
activities)                                                          
Remediation of past contamination                                    1,529 
Other intermittent events or processes (except waste from ongoing    1,073 
production and service processes)                                    
Pollution control and waste management process residuals               560 
Spills and accidental releases                                         855 
Hazardous waste received from a foreign country                          6 
Total                                                                8,029 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

Table 9: Type of Process or Activity That Generated Mercury-Contaminated
Debris, 2003

                                        

                          Weight in metric tons                         
Other intermittent events or processes (except waste from ongoing    1,639 
production and service processes)                                    
Wastes from ongoing production and service processes (waste from     1,001 
general day to day manufacturing, production, or maintenance         
activities)                                                          
Pollution control and waste management process residuals               634 
Remediation of past contamination                                      526 
Spills and accidental releases                                         165 
Total                                                                3,965 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's RCRAInfo data.

Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treatment and Disposal

Figure 8: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, by State,
2001

Figure 9: Mercury-Contaminated Debris Treated and Disposed of, by State,
2003

State Officials' Responses to GAO's Survey on Mercury-Containing Waste
Treatment and Disposal Appendix III

Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators' Responses to GAO's Survey on
Mercury-Containing Waste Treatment and Disposal Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Appendix V

John B. Stephenson (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]

In addition to the individual named above, J. Erin Lansburgh, Assistant
Director; Diana Cheng; Anthony Fernandez; Richard P. Johnson; Jessica
Marfurt; Lynn Musser; George Quinn; Kim Raheb; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman;
and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.

(360569)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-99 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-99 , a report to congressional requesters

December 2005

HAZARDOUS WASTE

EPA Needs to Clarify the Types of Mercury Waste That Can Be Treated and
Disposed of Using the Debris Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating
hazardous wastes (such as mercury) under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, mercury-containing hazardous waste must
meet specific treatment standards before land disposal. But, certain
difficult to manage waste due, in part, to its large particle size, can
follow alternate "debris" standards that provide diverse treatment
options. This report examines (1) the mechanisms that EPA uses to track
the treatment and disposal of mercury-contaminated debris and the quantity
of this waste, (2) the extent to which EPA, states, and industry share a
common understanding of the types of mercury-containing wastes that can be
treated and disposed of as debris, and (3) EPA and state controls that are
in place to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal
requirements for mercury-contaminated debris.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EPA (1) clarify and better describe the types of waste
that can and cannot be reported under the "debris" reporting category and
(2) conduct further outreach to communicate the types of
mercury-containing wastes that can be treated and disposed of according to
the alternative treatment standards for debris. In oral comments on a
draft of this report, EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

EPA uses its RCRAInfo database to maintain information on all hazardous
waste, including mercury-contaminated debris. EPA reported that in 2003,
mercury-contaminated debris constituted about 12,000 metric tons-or about
0.4 percent of all mercury-containing waste and about 0.03 percent of all
hazardous waste. However, EPA's data on mercury-contaminated debris may be
incomplete. Reporting on the physical form of the waste (debris is one of
many physical forms) is optional, and businesses did not submit this
optional information in about 9 percent of instances when they reported
treating and disposing of mercury-containing waste in 2003. In addition,
EPA's reporting category for debris does not provide a complete list of
items that EPA considers to be debris, and debris can be reported in other
categories.

The 48 states and the District of Columbia and the 14 commercial hazardous
waste landfill operators that responded to our survey do not share a
common understanding of the types of mercury-containing waste that EPA
allows to be treated and disposed of as debris. For example, in their
responses, officials in 21 states and operators of 6 commercial hazardous
waste landfills identified as debris waste that is explicitly not debris,
such as intact devices containing mercury, and may have used the debris
regulations for such waste. Consequently, EPA cannot be certain that
businesses are appropriately managing their mercury-containing waste as
debris.

EPA's mandatory waste tracking and documentation requirements serve as
controls to monitor compliance with EPA's treatment and disposal
requirements for mercury-contaminated debris. EPA and state oversight
inspections and enforcement programs provide additional compliance
monitoring with the alternative treatment standards for debris.

Percentage of Hazardous Waste with Mercury and the Portion of the
Mercury-Containing Waste That Was Debris in 2003
*** End of document. ***