Hazardous Waste Incinerators: EPA's and OSHA's Actions to Better Protect
Health and Safety Not Complete (Letter Report, 01/25/95, GAO/RCED-95-17).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became concerned about worker
safety at hazardous waste incinerators in 1990 because of the possible
health threat posed by waste-handling operations. As a result, EPA began
working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to
evaluate compliance with health and safety requirements at hazardous
waste incinerators.  A 1991 joint task force's report summarized the
results of inspections at 29 facilities and made recommendations to EPA
and OSHA designed to correct violations found during inspections,
educate the combustion industry, and prompt EPA to do research and
revise incinerator permits as necessary.  This report determines (1)
what the status of the task force report's recommendations is, (2) what
the results of later inspections and enforcement actions at the 29
facilities were, and (3) whether EPA or OSHA have taken other actions
beyond those recommended by the task force to better protect health and
safety at hazardous waste incinerators.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-17
     TITLE:  Hazardous Waste Incinerators: EPA's and OSHA's Actions to 
             Better Protect Health and Safety Not Complete
      DATE:  01/25/95
   SUBJECT:  Hazardous substances
             Waste disposal
             Industrial facilities
             Environmental monitoring
             Occupational safety
             Working conditions
             Compliance
             Safety standards
             Health hazards

             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
House of Representatives

January 1995

HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS -
EPA'S AND OSHA'S ACTIONS TO BETTER
PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY NOT
COMPLETE

GAO/RCED-95-17

Hazardous Waste Incinerators


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
  RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257938

January 25, 1995

The Honorable William F.  Clinger, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Government
 Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became concerned
about workers' safety at hazardous waste incinerators because of the
possibility that waste handling operations could pose a significant
health threat to employees.  As a result, EPA requested assistance
from and established a joint task force with the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) to evaluate compliance with relevant
health and safety requirements at hazardous waste incinerators.  The
task force's 1991 report summarized the results of inspections at 29
such facilities and made five recommendations to EPA and four to
OSHA.\1 These recommendations were intended as follow-through
measures to correct violations detected during the inspections,
educate the combustion industry, improve the coverage of inspections,
educate compliance officials, and prompt EPA to conduct research and
revise incinerators' permits as necessary. 

In response to your request for information on whether hazardous
waste incineration facilities are following federal health and safety
requirements, we determined (1) what the status of the task force
report's recommendations is, (2) what the results of subsequent
inspections and enforcement actions at the 29 facilities have been,
and (3) whether EPA or OSHA have taken other actions beyond those
recommended by the task force to better protect health and safety at
hazardous waste incineration facilities. 


--------------------
\1 Of the 29 facilities originally inspected, 8 facilities ceased
operating their incinerators.  Of the remaining 21 facilities, none
was specially constructed for the specific purpose of remediating
Superfund wastes--wastes from sites being cleaned up under the
Superfund program and administered by EPA.  Rather, 9 are private
facilities that only incinerate waste generated on-site, none of
which is Superfund waste, and 12 are commercial facilities that
accept waste generated off-site, some of which may be Superfund
waste. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

EPA and/or OSHA have fully implemented three of the task force's
recommendations:  EPA and OSHA have followed up on violations found
during the task force's inspections, EPA and OSHA have educated the
combustion industry, and EPA has taken additional steps to educate
compliance officials.  EPA has not fully implemented other
recommendations to (1) improve the coverage of EPA's inspections and
(2) conduct research on the use of certain operating equipment and
revise incineration facilities' permits, as necessary, to limit the
use of this equipment.  OSHA has not fully implemented the
recommendations that it (1) educate compliance officials and (2)
improve the coverage of its inspections. 

Subsequent to the task force's inspections, EPA and the states
inspected the facilities but did not detect the same pattern of
violations.  OSHA did not schedule further inspections for these
facilities because the agency judges the relative health and safety
risk of working at incineration facilities to be lower than the risk
of working in other types of industries.  Therefore, OSHA has
assigned incinerators a low priority for inspections. 

EPA and OSHA have taken several actions beyond those recommended by
the task force to protect health and safety at incineration
facilities.  However, one of these actions--OSHA's plan to require
facilities to have accredited training programs for workers who
handle hazardous waste--may not achieve its intended result because
OSHA does not have a viable plan to ensure that all hazardous waste
facilities submit their programs for accreditation. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) authorizes
EPA to set minimum operating requirements for hazardous waste
facilities to protect the public and the environment.  The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Department
of Labor, through OSHA, to establish standards to protect workers'
health and safety.  Under both statutes, states can be authorized to
inspect facilities, take enforcement action against facility
owners/operators, and assess penalties at facilities that fail to
meet states' federally approved RCRA or OSHA programs.  EPA has
authorized 46 states to implement their own RCRA programs, and OSHA
has authorized 23 states to implement their own OSHA programs.  The
federal government is responsible for implementing RCRA and OSHA
programs in the remaining states. 

According to EPA's general operating requirements for hazardous waste
facilities, workers must be trained to know the environmental
requirements that apply at their facility, and facilities must have
contingency plans and emergency procedures for accidents.  To ensure
facilities' compliance with regulatory or permit-related
requirements, EPA recommends that its regions or the states inspect
facilities annually.  Every other year, EPA recommends an in-depth
inspection lasting several days, rather than the annual 1-day
walk-through.  Facilities that accept Superfund waste must be
inspected within the 6-month period prior to receiving such waste. 
During inspections, EPA and the states complete checklists of items
to review while observing facilities' operations and reviewing
facilities' records and files. 

OSHA's health and safety regulations are intended to ensure that
employees can recognize and avoid unsafe conditions and are
instructed in the handling of any special equipment, among other
things.  At hazardous waste facilities, employees must receive
special hazardous material training.  To ensure compliance with
OSHA's regulatory requirements, federal or state OSHA inspectors
conduct either "programmed" (planned) inspections or "unprogrammed"
inspections to follow up on complaints, referrals, or accidents. 

The scheduling of federal programmed inspections is based on
industries' history of health or safety violations.  Facilities
within the types of industries that have a history of many violations
receive programmed inspections for health or safety by OSHA's field
offices.  OSHA also reserves some resources to conduct programmed
health inspections at randomly selected facilities having a history
of few health violations.  States may use different methods for
scheduling programmed inspections.  OSHA and the states conduct
unprogrammed inspections in response to complaints, referrals, and
accidents resulting in catastrophes or fatalities. 

According to an OSHA Office of Policy official, during fiscal year
1993, about half of the inspections were programmed, or targeted, as
a result of particular industries' violations.  The remainder of the
inspections were unprogrammed.  OSHA's inspections rely on
inspectors' observations as well as interviews with employees and
reviews of records. 

As of November 1994, 162 incinerators were operating in the United
States.  Of these, 141 had their final permits, which impose
facility-specific operating requirements.  The remaining 21 were
considered in interim status.  When an existing hazardous waste
facility first becomes subject to RCRA's requirements for permits, it
generally assumes "interim status" until its operator completes the
permit application process.  A facility under interim status is
allowed to continue operating under general operating requirements,
pending EPA's or the state's approval of the facility's final
permits. 

In May 1990, after local citizens and workers made complaints or
allegations about waste handling practices at an incinerator in North
Carolina, EPA requested that the Department of Health and Human
Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
evaluate health threats posed by the incinerator.  Although routine
RCRA inspections conducted while the facility operated from 1976
through 1989 had not detected or confirmed these allegations, ATSDR
concluded that waste handling operations at the facility had posed a
significant health threat to employees. 

In September 1990, at EPA's request, OSHA and EPA formed a task force
to evaluate compliance with health and safety requirements at 29
hazardous waste incinerators, including all commercial facilities
with final permits, all facilities under interim status, and all
incinerators burning Superfund waste.  The task force's May 1991
report summarized the results of these joint inspections.  In total,
EPA and OSHA detected 395 violations.  The task force's report made
five recommendations to EPA and four recommendations to OSHA to
improve the coverage of inspections and educate compliance officials
and industry, among other things. 


   EPA AND OSHA HAVE FULLY
   IMPLEMENTED SOME REPORT
   RECOMMENDATIONS BUT NOT OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Of the task force's recommendations, EPA and/or OSHA have fully
implemented three.  However, the agencies have not fully implemented
four other recommendations. 


      RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE
      BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

EPA's and OSHA's follow-up on violations.  On the basis of the 75
RCRA violations detected, EPA and the states initiated enforcement
actions and collected over $2 million in penalties.  The violations
detected include the facilities' failure to provide adequate
environmental training and inability to respond fully to emergencies. 
OSHA and the states also completed enforcement actions for the 320
OSHA violations and collected $44,000 in penalties.  The violations
detected include the facilities' failure to provide adequate
hazardous material training, conduct medical surveillance, or update
contingency plans for emergencies. 

EPA's and OSHA's education of industry.  EPA and OSHA conducted
outreach to the combustion industry to ensure the industry's
compliance with their regulations.  EPA and OSHA officials said they
jointly wrote to combustion industry representatives to emphasize the
importance of compliance with health and safety requirements.  EPA
also met with combustion industry representatives to tell them that
the task force had found significant health and safety violations
that needed to be addressed. 

EPA's education of compliance officials.  Following the
recommendation that EPA improve its regional and state officials'
knowledge about incineration, EPA developed a training program for
and designated combustion experts for conducting inspections in each
of the agency's 10 regional offices.  These combustion experts meet
regularly to discuss issues concerning hazardous waste incinerators
and other combustion facilities. 


      RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE
      NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

EPA's inspection coverage.  Although the task force's report
recommended that EPA adopt some of the task force's inspection
procedures so that EPA could better scrutinize industry's compliance
with the agency's regulations, EPA did not fully implement the
recommendation.  In particular, the task force's inspectors used a
new checklist that expanded the checklist used during EPA's routine
inspections.  This new checklist was designed to evaluate the
effectiveness and not just the presence of employee training
programs, contingency responses, and emergency plans.  Furthermore,
interviews of employees during the task force's inspections assessed
employees' knowledge of environmental requirements and employees'
ability to carry out contingency plans and emergency procedures.  But
in general, during routine inspections, EPA or the states only review
employers' records to ensure that employers have a training program
and that plans are on file. 

After the task force made its recommendations in December 1990, an
EPA Assistant Administrator sent a memo to regional administrators
asking that they distribute the task force's inspection checklist and
employee interview guide to their staff and the states.  EPA's
Technical Assistance Branch Chief also orally instructed regional
enforcement section chiefs to include items from the task force's
checklist in the regions' routine inspections.  In addition, EPA
included the new checklist in the agency's inspection training manual
and training courses. 

However, some of the EPA regions and states did not adopt the task
force's checklist as suggested or directed because, according to
regional compliance and enforcement officials, they were not aware of
headquarters' instructions.  Furthermore, according to an EPA
Technical Assistance Branch official, EPA headquarters did not follow
up to ensure that inspection procedures were changed because EPA
believed the changes would be made, since it included the checklist
in the training manual and training courses.  An EPA Technical
Assistance Branch Chief said that even if regions and states had
adopted the task force's checklist and interview guide, it would be
difficult for inspectors to duplicate the information obtained during
the task force's inspections because the inspections included both
EPA's and OSHA's interviews and were very focused.  However,
according to a regional inspector, while time is a factor during
inspections, interviews of employees could routinely be included in
all inspections, routine or in-depth, or on a case-by-case basis. 
These interviews would help confirm industry's compliance with EPA's
requirements and assess employees' knowledge of required duties. 

As a result of our work, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued a memorandum, dated
September 23, 1994, to Regional Administrators and other RCRA
officials requiring them to adopt the task force's inspection
protocol, which includes using the revised checklist and employee
guide, for workers' safety and health in regional RCRA Compliance
Evaluation inspections.  In addition, the memorandum requires that
regional inspectors refer these violations to regional OSHA
officials. 

EPA's research on the use of certain operating equipment and review
of permits.  EPA did not fully implement the recommendation that it
conduct research on the cause for and impact of using certain
operating equipment--automatic waste feed cutoffs and emergency
safety vents, or vent stacks--and that it reopen permits, as
necessary, to address the use of this equipment.  During the task
force's inspections, EPA observed the frequent use of automatic waste
feed cutoffs at about half of the 29 facilities and the frequent use
of vent stacks at 9 of these facilities.  Automatic waste feed
cutoffs prevent waste from entering the combustion chamber of an
incinerator when operating conditions fluctuate outside certain
parameters, such as those for temperature.  Vent stacks protect
workers and equipment by releasing gases when equipment malfunctions. 
While both are considered safety devices, EPA considers their
frequent use an indication of poor operating practices.  In
particular, the frequent use of waste feed cutoffs (1) may be a sign
of unsteady operation and (2) may cause the residue to be treated
less efficiently.  Furthermore, gases released through vent stacks
contain more hazardous particles than gases routed through the air
pollution control devices. 

In response to the recommendation, EPA conducted experiments at two
of its research incinerators.  However, because of funding and
equipment limitations, EPA's initial tests did not fully answer
questions about the effects of using waste feed cutoffs and vent
stacks.  EPA believed that states had taken steps to place controls
on the use of these devices at the facilities that the task force had
found to have the greatest number of cutoffs and releases.  Because
these tests were inconclusive and because EPA believed that states
had taken steps to control frequent usage, EPA did not review or
revise other permits to place controls on the use of this equipment
at the other facilities that the task force had found to have an
excessive number of cutoffs and releases.  For example, at one
facility that the task force found to have an excessive number of
waste feed cutoffs, no action has been taken.  State officials told
us they wanted to place controls on the use of waste feed cutoffs and
vent stacks at this facility, but because EPA's regulations do not
specifically address controls over this equipment, the use of any
such controls would have to be negotiated when the permit was
renewed.  In commenting on our report, EPA stated that its concern is
not with the use of automatic waste feed cutoffs per se, but with
facilities that may frequently use automatic waste feed cutoffs. 
This is especially true when facilities exceed their permits'
operating limits if the waste feed cutoffs occur while waste remains
in the system. 

EPA drafted a policy memorandum in 1992 to provide guidance to permit
writers so they could place proper controls on the use of waste feed
cutoffs and vent stacks in new permits and permits for facilities
requesting modifications.  EPA did not complete the draft memorandum
because of other priorities, such as the agency's need to work with
the regions and states on implementing the newly issued boiler and
industrial furnace regulations and focusing on site-specific
incinerator issues.  According to an official in the Permits and
State Programs Division, EPA did, however, revise its permit writers'
training to include guidance on controlling the use of waste feed
cutoffs and vent stacks.  However, according to a combustion expert
and Alternative Technology Section Chief, a policy memorandum would
further support regions' and states' efforts to place controls over
the use of waste feed cutoffs and vent stacks.  State officials
expressed a desire for such guidance. 

By December 1996, EPA plans to revise its 1981 regulations for
incinerators to, among other things, clarify that exceeding a
permit's operating parameters or bypassing the air pollution control
device violates the permit regardless of whether an automatic waste
feed cutoff occurs.  In the interim, 21 incinerators currently are
awaiting their final RCRA permits.  In May 1993, EPA placed a high
priority on issuing permits for existing combustion facilities that
do not have final permits.  While EPA does not anticipate that all of
these facilities will be granted permits by December 1996, it hopes
to make substantial progress. 

OSHA's education of compliance officials (inspection expertise). 
OSHA has not implemented the task force's recommendation that the
agency improve its inspection expertise.  According to an OSHA Office
of Policy Official, a memorandum of understanding entered into with
EPA's Office of Enforcement in 1990 might have resulted in improved
inspection expertise and knowledge of hazardous waste incinerators'
operations for OSHA.  This memorandum provides a framework for
exchanging information and technical and professional assistance,
conducting joint EPA-OSHA inspections, referring violations to each
agency, and coordinating compliance and enforcement information. 

According to an OSHA Office of Policy official, although the
memorandum was implemented, it did not result in improved inspection
expertise or increased knowledge.  A Senior Enforcement Counsel with
EPA told us that EPA's Office of Enforcement did not have oversight
responsibilities for inspection and enforcement activities at
hazardous waste facilities.  Furthermore, EPA's Office of Enforcement
did not provide information to EPA headquarters' compliance staff who
are responsible for directing EPA's regional compliance activities at
hazardous waste facilities, including inspection and
enforcement--which are conducted primarily at EPA's regional and
state levels.  Because EPA headquarters did not direct the regions to
coordinate their inspections of combustion facilities with OSHA and
the regions did not suggest that states coordinate their inspections
of combustion facilities with OSHA, the memorandum was not fully
carried out. 

However, in June 1994, EPA consolidated inspection and enforcement
responsibilities in the agency's new Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.  According to an EPA Senior Enforcement Counsel
official and an OSHA Office of Policy official, the consolidation of
the responsibility to develop policy and guidance for inspections and
enforcement actions within the new office will aid in carrying out
the purpose of the memorandum and therefore in meeting the intent of
the task force's recommendation.  Furthermore, in September 1994,
EPA's new Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance directed
regions to inform OSHA of any facilities found in violation of RCRA's
health and safety requirements, as required by the memorandum of
understanding. 

In commenting on our report, OSHA stated that it has trained 245
federal and state compliance officers at its Training Institute to
increase their knowledge of hazardous waste sites' operations.  We
recognize that OSHA does have a training program that disseminates
knowledge of hazardous waste site operations for its enforcement
officials and that this training program has continually been
improved.  However, our discussions with officials in OSHA's Training
Institute and OSHA's Directorate of Policy and Office of Field
Programs reveal that OSHA has not made any changes to the training
given to its enforcement officials as a result of the task force's
recommendations. 

OSHA's inspection coverage.  OSHA also has not implemented the
recommendation that the agency improve the coverage of its
inspections by specifically including hazardous waste incinerators on
its lists of programmed inspections.  The refuse systems industry,
which includes commercial hazardous waste incinerators, had a
priority ranking, in terms of relative risk when compared with other
industries, of 122 out of 324 in fiscal year 1991, and 150 out of 372
in fiscal year 1992.  Following the task force's report, OSHA
instructed that in fiscal years 1991 and 1992, any programmed
inspections conducted at facilities included in the refuse systems
industry be limited to two sectors of the industry--"Disposal and
Collection of Acid Waste" facilities and "Incinerator Operations"
facilities.  However, even though incinerators were given a higher
priority for being inspected within the refuse systems industry, the
refuse systems industry was not ranked sufficiently high enough, with
respect to relative risk, to result in any programmed inspections at
hazardous waste incinerators.  According to OSHA's Director of Data
Analysis, OSHA did not inspect incinerators under this initiative
because few of OSHA's federal or state offices have sufficient
resources to conduct health inspections at industries that are not
ranked in the top 100.  Following fiscal year 1992, OSHA no longer
restricted inspections of refuse systems industries to facilities
that dispose of or collect acid waste or that incinerate. 
Furthermore, in fiscal year 1993, the refuse industry's relative risk
fell to 220. 


   RESULTS OF SUBSEQUENT
   INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
   ACTIONS BY EPA AND OSHA AT
   FACILITIES INSPECTED BY THE
   TASK FORCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Since the task force made its inspections, EPA and/or OSHA, and
states have inspected 22 facilities that have operating
incinerators.\2 However, the types of inspections conducted after the
task force's inspections differed in scope from the task force's
inspections, and EPA, OSHA, and the states have not detected as many
or the same pattern of health or safety violations as did the task
force. 

Since 1990, EPA and the states conducted 108 inspections at the 22
facilities and detected 630 violations.  These inspections found a
wider range and variety of violations than the task force found. 
However, fewer violations have been detected in the categories that
the task force assessed, including personnel training, contingency
plans, and emergency response.  While EPA said that this may be due,
in part, to improvements in industry's training of its workers as a
result of the task force's inspections, as noted earlier, EPA's
inspections only determined whether training programs existed.  On
the other hand, the task force's inspections focused on the
effectiveness of training for the workers.  Furthermore, EPA's and
the states' subsequent inspections were broader in scope and looked
at all aspects of the facilities' operations.  As a result,
violations of a wider array of regulatory requirements were detected,
including those for the facilities' noncompliance with permits, the
management of containers, and incinerator operation requirements. 
These subsequent inspections and enforcement actions resulted in an
additional $4 million in collected penalties.  According to EPA and
state officials, all but one of the incineration facilities have
returned to compliance following these inspections.  (App.  I
contains additional information on the number and types of violations
detected during the task force's and subsequent inspections.)

OSHA and the states have conducted few health or safety inspections
since the task force's inspections, and those that have been
conducted were narrow in scope.  OSHA and the states have not
conducted any programmed health or safety inspections at the 22
operating incineration facilities since 1990 because the industries
were ranked as a low priority, and they were not randomly selected
for inspection.  For example, in fiscal year 1993, OSHA's relative
risk and priority ranking for commercial incinerators was 220 out of
the 381 industries ranked.  According to OSHA's Director of Data
Analysis, it is not surprising that OSHA has not scheduled any
programmed inspections at hazardous waste incinerators because of
their relatively low risk and because of the low probability of their
being randomly selected.  An OSHA Office of Policy official said that
OSHA prefers to target its resources at industries that OSHA views as
more dangerous to workers' health and safety, such as manufacturing
and construction industries. 

OSHA has, however, responded to eight complaints or referrals at five
incineration facilities and collected about $22,000 in penalties. 
According to our analysis of the violations that OSHA found after the
task force's inspections, none were violations detected by the task
force at those five facilities.  The violations have since been
resolved.  (App.  II includes a comparison of health and safety
violations detected during the task force's and subsequent
inspections.)


--------------------
\2 Of the 29 facilities originally inspected, 22 received subsequent
inspections.  The remaining seven incinerators ceased operations
prior to being reinspected.  One of the 22 facilities that was
subsequently inspected closed in 1991.  Currently, 21 of the 29
facilities have active incinerators. 


   EPA AND OSHA HAVE TAKEN OTHER
   ACTIONS BEYOND THOSE
   RECOMMENDED BY THE TASK FORCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In addition to those actions recommended by the task force's report,
EPA and OSHA have initiated other actions to protect health and
safety at incineration facilities.  EPA proposed a draft strategy for
issuing permits to remaining incineration, boiler, and industrial
furnace facilities under interim status and improving combustion
regulations and policies.  OSHA is planning to issue a regulation
requiring hazardous waste facilities, including incinerators, to have
accredited training programs for workers.  However, OSHA has no means
to ensure that all facilities submit programs and receive
accreditation. 

Partially in response to public concerns about incinerators and other
types of combustion facilities, in May 1993, EPA issued a draft
strategy for ensuring the safe and reliable combustion of hazardous
waste.  As part of that strategy, EPA designated the issuance of new
incinerators' permits a low priority for 18 months so it could focus
its resources on issuing permits for existing facilities under
interim status, including the 21 discussed previously.  In addition,
the strategy calls for incorporating dioxin emission standards in new
permits and incorporating more stringent controls over metals.\3 EPA
has directed regions to use the stricter operating standards as
guidance for writing and issuing new permits if permit writers
determine that these new standards are necessary to protect human
health and the environment.  EPA also targeted combustion facilities,
including a total of 10 incinerators and other hazardous waste
combustion facilities, for two separate enforcement initiatives in
September 1993 and February 1994.  These initiatives focused
primarily on hazardous waste combustion operations and resulted in
EPA- and state-assessed fines of over $9 million. 

As directed by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, OSHA is developing new standards and procedures for accrediting
training programs for workers at hazardous waste facilities,
including incinerators.  OSHA expects this requirement to become
final in December 1994.  OSHA intends that the proposed regulation
will result in workers' reduced exposure to hazardous substances and
thus will help prevent fatalities and illnesses.  Under the proposed
regulation, all employees working on-site and exposed to hazardous
substances and health or safety hazards will receive OSHA's
accredited training.  However, OSHA has no method to ensure that (1)
all hazardous waste facilities submit training programs for
accreditation and (2) all facilities' programs are accredited.  OSHA
and the states plan to rely on inspections to verify that facilities
are complying with the requirement. 

However, since 1990, OSHA and the states have conducted few
inspections at hazardous waste incineration facilities, and given the
relatively low risk that the agency assigns to incinerators, OSHA and
the states would only conduct inspections at incinerators if they
were randomly selected or in response to complaints, referrals, or
accidents.  EPA could be of assistance to OSHA to ensure that
facilities have accredited programs by, for example, (1) verifying,
during inspections by EPA and the states, whether training programs
have received accreditation from OSHA and, if not, informing OSHA and
(2) providing OSHA with EPA's hazardous waste facility identification
data, which would give OSHA an inventory of such facilities that OSHA
currently does not have.  OSHA could use such information to track
which facilities have not submitted training programs for
accreditation.  However, OSHA has not explored with EPA the ways in
which EPA could assist OSHA. 


--------------------
\3 Dioxins are highly toxic organic compounds. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

EPA and OSHA have generally followed up on the task force's
recommendations.  However, EPA has not fully implemented two key
recommendations that, in our view, could be undertaken relatively
easily.  In particular, some EPA regions and states have not adopted
the revised checklist and employee interview guide as requested by
EPA headquarters in December 1990, in part, because EPA did not
follow up to ensure that regions and states did so.  In response to
our work, EPA recently issued another memorandum that specifically
directs regions and states to adopt the task force's inspection
protocol, which includes the revised checklist and employee interview
guide.  If regions and states follow through and implement this
requirement, inspectors will be better able to determine not only
that employees have received the required training but also the
effectiveness of that training.  However, because EPA issued this
memorandum only recently, it is too soon to know if the regions and
states will follow the agency's directive. 

Furthermore, although some states took action to improve the
operations of facilities that made frequent use of automatic waste
feed cutoffs and vent stacks, EPA and the states did not revise
permits at other facilities that the task force also found were
frequently using this equipment.  However, in 1992, EPA drafted
guidance for permit writers to clarify the use of these operating
devices in new permits and permits for which modifications were being
requested, but it never completed the guidance.  While EPA plans to
revise regulations for incinerators that will clarify when this
operating equipment can be used, at the earliest these regulations
will not be completed until the end of 1996.  In the meantime, EPA
hopes to make substantial progress in issuing RCRA permits for 21
facilities under interim status.  Without guidance to include
controls on the use of automatic waste feed cutoffs and vent stacks,
some of these permits may not include these stricter operating
requirements. 

OSHA plans to make one substantive improvement, as required by the
1986 Superfund amendments act, to improve workers' health and safety
by accrediting hazardous waste training programs.  Under current
plans, however, the agency will have no way of knowing whether this
requirement is actually being met.  On the other hand, by working
with EPA, either through the memorandum of understanding or directly
with EPA staff, OSHA could explore what assistance EPA could provide
OSHA to determine compliance with its accreditation requirement. 
This assistance could include relying on EPA and states to identify,
through RCRA inspections, facilities failing to have OSHA-accredited
training programs and refer them to OSHA. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To ensure that EPA regions and states comply with EPA's directive to
adopt the task force's inspection protocol to assess the
effectiveness of training for workers, contingency plans, and
emergency preparedness, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA,
follow up, after an appropriate interval, to ensure that federal and
state inspectors include revised procedures in their inspections. 

To ensure that permit writers have the necessary guidance to place
controls on automatic waste feed cutoffs and emergency vent stacks
prior to EPA's issuance of revised regulations for incinerators in
1996, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, complete and issue
the agency's draft guidance relating to waste feed cutoffs and vent
stacks. 

To ensure that all hazardous waste facilities' training programs
receive accreditation, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor
direct the Administrator, OSHA, to work with EPA to develop a means
to ensure that all hazardous waste facility employers submit their
training programs to OSHA and receive required accreditation. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

EPA and OSHA provided us with written comments on a draft of this
report.  EPA noted that some EPA regions and some states did not
adopt or include the task force's inspection protocol, which includes
the revised checklist and employee interview guide, in their routine
inspections.  EPA also concurred with our finding that EPA needs to
provide guidance to permit writers on the use of automatic waste feed
cutoffs and vent stacks.  The agency plans to complete guidance and
has included it in EPA's fiscal year 1995 plans.  EPA's comments and
our responses are included in appendix III. 

OSHA generally disagreed that it did not fully respond to the task
force's recommendations that it improve its coverage of inspections
by including hazardous waste incinerators on its list of targeted
inspections and that it improve the inspection expertise of its
compliance officers.  While we recognize that OSHA took some actions
to carry out these recommendations, such actions neither resulted in
any programmed inspections of hazardous waste incinerators, thus
improving OSHA's coverage of inspections, nor improved inspection
expertise.  As discussed earlier, the memorandum of understanding
between OSHA and EPA was ineffective in improving the inspection
expertise of OSHA's inspection officers because no joint inspections
were conducted at incinerators as a result of the memorandum.  Also,
while OSHA has made changes to its education curriculum, none
resulted from the task force's report. 

Furthermore, OSHA stated that its current plans to improve workers'
health and safety by accrediting hazardous waste training programs
will be sufficient along with industry outreach to ensure that the
quality of employers' safety and health training programs will be
enhanced.  However, on the basis of our review of OSHA's methods of
selecting facilities for inspections and OSHA's history of performing
few inspections, we continue to believe that OSHA's current
procedures will not ensure the fulfillment of OSHA's stated intent
that all employees working on-site and exposed to hazardous
substances will receive OSHA's accredited training.  OSHA's working
with EPA could provide an opportunity for that assurance.  OSHA's
entire comments and our responses to them are provided in appendix
IV. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We conducted our review from October 1993 through December 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Our scope and methodology for conducting this work are discussed in
appendix V. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
make copies available to others on request. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection
 Issues


COMPARISON OF RCRA VIOLATIONS
DETECTED BY EPA AND STATES,
1990-93
=========================================================== Appendix I


Category
of
violatio
ns                    1990        1991        1992        1993           1991-93
--------  ----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------------
Personne                14           1           2           3                 6
 l
 trainin
 g
Continge                16           5           4           3                12
 ncy
 plans/
 emergen
 cy
 respons
 e
General                 12          40          33          32               105
 inspect
 ion
 require
 ments
Prepared                17          17           9          10                36
 ness
 and
 prevent
 ion
Operatio                11           0           3           5                 8
 nal
 procedu
 res
Incinera                 5           7           5          19                31
 tor
 require
 ments
Containe                 0          54          13          53               120
 r
 managem
 ent/
 storage
Waste                    0           4          10           9                23
 analysis
 plans
Incinera                 0          27       163\a           8               198
 tor
 permit
Land ban                 0           3           1           1                 5
Falsifyi                 0           6           0           0               6\b
 ng
 records
Other\c                  0          16          46          18                80
================================================================================
Total                   75         180         289         161               630
 violati
 ons
Total                   29          35          34          39               108
 inspect
 ions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Note:  In 1990, the joint task force detected RCRA violations at 21
of the 29 incineration facilities.  Since that time, 8 of the 29
incineration units have ceased operations.  Violations detected by
EPA and the states after 1990 include those from inspections at the
21 facilities that still have active incineration units and 1
facility that ceased operations in 1991.  According to EPA or state
officials, all but one of the incineration facilities have returned
to compliance following these inspections.  This particular facility
has historically had an excessive number of waste feed cutoffs and
vent stack releases.  The state has issued to the facility a stricter
permit limiting the use of this equipment, and facility operations
have improved. 

\a Over 150 of these 163 violations related to the use of vent stacks
at one facility because the state-issued RCRA incinerator permit
imposed limits on their use. 

\b These six violations occurred at one facility.  The state and the
facility agreed to shut down the facility and remove all waste until
a RCRA part B permit was issued. 

\c Violations were found in several areas including groundwater
monitoring, the condition of tanks, and compliance with former
enforcement actions. 

Source:  EPA and state environmental compliance and enforcement
officials. 


COMPARISON OF HEALTH AND SAFETY
VIOLATIONS FOUND BY OSHA AND
STATES, 1990-93
========================================================== Appendix II


Category
of
violatio
ns                    1990        1991        1992        1993           1991-93
--------  ----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------------
Health                 111           1           1           1                 3
 and
 safety
 trainin
 g
Continge                22           0           1           0                 1
 ncy
 plans
Workplac                19           1           1           3                 5
 e
 surveil
 lance
 and
 monitor
 ing
Potentia                20           2           0           6                 8
 l
 chemica
 l
 exposur
 e to
 workers
 during
 inciner
 ator
 operati
 ons and
 waste
 handlin
 g
 operati
 ons
General                148           5           0           5                10
 health
 and
 safety
================================================================================
Total                  320           9           3          15                27
 violati
 ons
Total                 59\a           4         1 3                             8
 inspect
 ions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Note:  In 1990, the joint task force detected OSHA violations at 26
of the 29 incineration facilities inspected.  Since 1990, 8 of the 29
incinerator units have ceased operating.  Since 1990, OSHA conducted
8 inspections at 5 facilities in response to complaints or referrals
at the remaining 21 incineration facilities. 

\a OSHA conducted both health and safety inspections during the joint
task force's inspections.  These are counted as separate inspections. 

Source:  OSHA and state health and safety inspection officials. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
========================================================== Appendix II

 See comment 1. 

 See comment 2. 

 See comment 3. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 See comment 4. 

 Reference to p.  8
now refers to p.  6. 

 See comment 5. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 Now on p.  1. 

 See comment 6. 

 Now on p.  3. 

 See comment 7. 

 Now on p.  5. 

 See comment 8. 

 Now on p.  5. 

 See comment 9. 

 Now on p.  5. 

 See comment 10. 

 Now on p.  5. 

 See comment 11. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 See comment 12. 

 Now on p.  6. 

 Now on p.  6. 

 See comment 13. 

 Now on p.  6. 

 See comment 14. 

 See comment 15. 

 Now on p.  7. 

 See comment 16. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 Now on p.  7. 

 See comment 17. 

 See comment 18. 

 Now on p.  7. 

 See comment 19. 

 Now on p.  7. 

 See comment 20. 

 See comment 21. 

 Now on p.  8. 

 See comment 22. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 Now on p.  10. 

 See comment 23. 

 Now on p.  11. 

 See comment 24. 

 Now on p.  11. 

 See comment 25. 

 Now on p.  12. 

 See comment 26. 

 Now on p.  12. 

 See comment 27. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 Now on p.  12. 

 See comment 28. 

 Now on p.  12. 

 See comment 29. 


The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) letter dated November 23, 1994. 


   GAO COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

1. We appreciate EPA's efforts to follow up on the task force
report's recommendations and believe that the report accurately
reflects actions taken by the agency, such as revising permit
writers' training to include improved approaches to control the use
of emergency safety vents and automatic waste feed cutoffs, thus
increasing permit writers' consciousness of this issue. 

2. We have revised the report to clarify that the report did not call
for revising all existing incinerator permits but, rather, only those
permits where revisions were viewed as necessary because of the high
number of safety vents and automatic waste feed cutoffs. 

3. We revised the report to reflect how EPA is addressing the use of
automatic waste feed cutoffs in permits, namely, that EPA is placing
controls over the use of waste feed cutoffs. 

4. We revised the report to reflect this information. 

5. We revised the report to include this information. 

6. We continue to believe that EPA did not fully implement the
recommended research because the recommendation was intended to
result in a determination of why waste feed cutoffs and stack vents
were used and their impact.  We agree that EPA conducted limited
tests, but we believe that these initial tests were not sufficient
and that limited resources have not allowed the agency to conduct
follow-up research to determine the cause and impact of using waste
feed cutoffs and stack vents. 

7. We revised the report to include this information. 

8. The report recognizes EPA's efforts to designate and train
combustion experts in each region under the caption entitled EPA's
Education of Compliance Officials. 

9. We revised the report to limit our discussion to EPA's actions
taken after the task force's inspections. 

10. We revised the report to include this information. 

11. We revised the report to include this information. 

12. We revised the report to include this information. 

13. We revised the report to include this information. 

14. We revised the report to reflect EPA's concerns regarding
operating conditions for using automatic waste feed cutoffs and stack
vents. 

15. We revised the report to clarify this information. 

16. The report recognizes that the task force's recommendation was
that EPA reopen permits, as necessary, to address the use of
automatic waste feed cutoffs and stack vents. 

17. We have revised the report to show that EPA's approach is not to
impose numerical limits on using waste feed cutoffs or vent stacks
but to write permit operating conditions so that the facility must
comply with operating conditions as long as waste is present in the
unit. 

18. We revised the report to reflect EPA's priorities in fiscal year
1992. 

19. We revised the report to include this information. 

20. We revised the report to clarify that the use of automatic waste
feed cutoffs is not in itself a violation. 

21. We revised the report to include this information. 

22. We have revised the report to reflect the activities of both
EPA's Office of Enforcement and OSHA under the memorandum.  We
continue to believe that the memorandum was not as successful as
intended on the basis of information stated in our report. 

23. We revised the report to include this information. 

24. We revised the report to include this information. 

25. We revised the report to include this information. 

26. We revised the report to include this information. 

27. We revised the report to include this information. 

28. We revised the report to include this information. 

29. We revised the report to include this information. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
========================================================== Appendix II

 See comment 1. 

 See comment 2. 



(See figure in printed edition.)

 See comment 3. 

 See comment 4. 


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Labor's letter
dated November 8, 1994. 


   GAO COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

1. We continue to believe that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has not implemented the task force's
recommendation to improve its coverage of inspections by including
hazardous waste incinerators on OSHA's lists of programmed
inspections.  The task force's recommendation was intended to make
sure that hazardous waste incineration facilities were targeted for
programmed inspections.  However, because of the manner in which OSHA
targets high-risk industries for programmed inspections, no
incinerators are inspected unless OSHA responds to a complaint, a
referral, or an accident.  We did not assess or evaluate what impact
OSHA's policy for targeting and inspecting high-risk industries has
on workers' health and safety and, as such, do not have a position on
this policy.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that OSHA's choice of
actions did not result in the implementation of the task force's
recommendation.  The only inspections that were performed were in
reaction to complaints or referrals.  Programmed inspections are
broad in scope and are separate from and above OSHA's inspections in
response to complaints, referrals, and fatalities/catastrophes, which
are more narrow in scope. 

2. We continue to believe that OSHA has not implemented the task
force's recommendation that OSHA improve its inspection expertise. 
We have revised the report to point out that we recognize that OSHA
does have a training program for its enforcement officials that
includes hazardous waste, and while improvements have been made to
this training program, none of these improvements were made as a
result of the task force's recommendation.  Our discussions with
officials in OSHA's Training Institute and OSHA's Directorate of
Policy and Office of Field Programs reveal that improvements in the
training program were not a result of the task force's
recommendation. 

3. While the 1990 memorandum of understanding between OSHA and the
EPA's Office of Enforcement may have the potential for enhancing
OSHA's inspection expertise, this memorandum did not result in any
such improvement because no joint OSHA-EPA inspections were conducted
at incinerators following the task force's inspections.  As discussed
in the report, EPA's Office of Enforcement did not have oversight
responsibilities for regional or state compliance activities at
hazardous waste incineration facilities.  Also, this office did not
provide information to EPA's compliance staff who were responsible
for directing EPA's regional and state compliance activities. 
Because EPA did not direct EPA regions, the regions did not suggest
that states coordinate with OSHA when inspecting combustion
facilities, and because no joint inspections occurred after 1990 the
memorandum was not fully carried out.  Thus, improvements in OSHA's
inspection expertise have yet to be demonstrated as a result of the
task force's recommendation or this memorandum. 

4. We continue to believe that OSHA has no means to ensure that all
hazardous waste facilities will have accredited worker training
programs.  It is the intent of OSHA's new training program standard
that all employees working on-site and exposed to hazardous
substances will receive OSHA's accredited training.  However, as we
pointed out, OSHA has no means of ensuring compliance, since (1) OSHA
and the states have conducted few inspections at hazardous waste
incineration facilities, (2) OSHA considers these facilities a low
risk in relation to other industries, and (3) OSHA and the states
would inspect these facilities only if they are randomly selected or
in response to complaints, referrals, or accidents.  Our
recommendation that OSHA work with EPA to develop a means of ensuring
that all hazardous waste facility employers submit their training
programs and receive accreditation could provide OSHA with a more
comprehensive means of determining compliance with OSHA's new
accreditation requirement. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix V

To review the status of implementing the task force report's
recommendations, we obtained documentation on EPA's follow-up
actions, education provided to industry, education provided to
compliance officials, inspection coverage, research about certain
operating equipment, and review of permits from the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Enforcement and Permits and
State Programs Divisions, Office of Research and Development, EPA,
and from industry combustion experts.  We also obtained documentation
on OSHA's follow-up actions, education provided to industry,
education provided to compliance officials, inspection coverage,
inspection priorities, and field office guidance from staff in OSHA's
Directorate of Policy, Office of Statistics and Office of Field
Programs. 

To determine the results of subsequent inspections and enforcement
actions at the 29 facilities we reviewed, we interviewed and obtained
documentation on the inspections conducted, violations detected,
enforcement actions, and penalties assessed and collected during
January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1993, from headquarters'
officials in EPA's RCRA Enforcement Division and OSHA's Office of
Policy and from cognizant regional and area office officials.  We
also interviewed and obtained data from state environmental officials
in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Texas and from state OSHA officials in Kentucky,
Michigan, and South Carolina. 

To determine other actions taken by EPA and OSHA to improve workers'
and the public's health and safety at hazardous waste incineration
facilities, we interviewed and obtained documentation on EPA's and
the states' enforcement actions and draft waste minimization and
combustion strategy, and OSHA's proposed policies and procedures for
Hazardous Waste Training Accreditation from (1) EPA's Office of
Permits and State Programs and RCRA Enforcement Divisions and (2)
OSHA's Directorate of Policy, Office of Health and Safety Standards
Program, Office of Field Programs, and Office of Statistics.  We
conducted our review from September 1993 through December 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES
AREA

David W.  Bennett, Evaluator
Richard P.  Johnson, Attorney
Gerald E.  Killian, Assistant Director
Marcia B.  McWreath, Evaluator-in-Charge
Rita F.  Oliver, Evaluator
James L.  Rose, Evaluator
Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director
