Manifesting Requirements on Hazardous Waste Generators

Executive Summary

#5100512

Purpose

Our audit focused on the manifest system. The purpose of our audit was to determine whether the manifest system established by EPA provides sufficient controls to assure that hazardous wastes arrive at permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).

Background

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a framework for the management of hazardous waste from "cradle to grave," that is, from generation to disposal. RCRA required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations to translate this framework into a program. EPA developed the manifest system under a mandate to assure that hazardous wastes shipped off site by generators arrive at RCRA permitted TSDFs.

If generators are not permitted to treat or dispose of hazardous wastes, they must ship their wastes off site under the manifest system. Manifested waste represents a small percentage of the nation's hazardous waste. However, it is a substantial volume, 12.7 million tons in fiscal 1991 according to EPA's 1991 Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report which contains information on the generation, management and final disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA.

Results-in-Brief

The manifest system, as implemented by EPA, is self-initiated and self-monitored by generators with only limited oversight by federal and state authorities. The system depends on the integrity of generators and incentives to properly manage hazardous waste. However, the high cost of proper hazardous waste management provides strong economic incentives for generators to bypass proper treatment and disposal.

In addition, federal and state authorities have limited resources for monitoring hazardous waste management and enforcing RCRA regulations. As a consequence, the level of effectiveness of the hazardous waste manifest system is unknown. Recent successful enforcement actions against generators indicate that serious problems exist. EPA should improve efforts to promote and measure proper management of hazardous waste by generators to assure that hazardous wastes arrive at permitted TSDFs. EPA also needs to continue and broaden efforts to fix several breaks that exist in the manifest system. The effectiveness and efficiency of inspections can be improved by limiting repeat inspections and reviewing the quality of inspection reports.

Principal Findings

We found that EPA needs to do more to promote and measure the level of generators' proper management of hazardous waste. Presently, the level of generators' proper management of hazardous waste is unknown, but it is known that there are substantial financial incentives to bypass proper treatment and disposal, and even well-known companies have pleaded guilty to criminal hazardous waste violations. Current efforts to develop performance measures for RCRA should give consideration to the issues of promoting and measuring proper hazardous waste management by generators.

We also found that the manifest system, as implemented, does not always provide generators, EPA, or the states with the means to track hazardous waste to its final destination. In addition, the hazardous waste notification process does not require sufficient information to identify generators when they move or go out of business. We found that the notification process also does not provide flexibility for companies which need identification numbers in case they generate hazardous waste in the future.

Federal and state inspections are essential to the Agency's ability to detect RCRA violations. However, due to limited resources only a small percentage of hazardous waste generators are inspected each year. We found that the Agency could make improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of inspections. We selected random samples of generator Compliance Evaluation Inspections from three states and two regions to determine the rates of repeat inspections on generators in compliance. Targeting inspections is complex due to statutory mandates, Agency initiatives, and local concerns. We excluded, from our samples, facilities falling under statutory mandates and Agency guidance to be inspected more often than every two years. For the facilities not excluded, up to 25 percent of the generator inspections in fiscal 1994 were performed on facilities that had been inspected in fiscal 1993 and found to be in compliance. Although there may have been valid reasons at the state and local level for conducting these repeat inspections, limited inspection resources need to be targeted as effectively as possible according to risk. We believe repeat inspections at compliant facilities need to be kept to a minimum.

Inspection reports are important documents for enforcement and as a record for subsequent inspections on the same facility. We found, in some of our samples, that the quality of inspection reports could be improved. We also found that the regulations do not require generators to sufficiently document hazardous waste determinations when testing is not used. Documentation by generators of their facility processes would help inspectors evaluate generator hazardous waste determinations more efficiently and effectively.

Recommendations

We recommend the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER):

-- Consider the development of measures to determine manifesting effectiveness.

-- Require that original generators and manifest numbers be referenced on any new manifests created for re-shipments of hazardous waste.

-- Ensure that transporters obtain generator consent before hazardous waste commingling occurs.

-- Ensure that generators are consulted when partial or full loads of hazardous waste are rejected or when hazardous wastes remain in "non-empty" containers.

-- Clearly state on the notification form and instructions that a new EPA hazardous waste identification number must be applied for when a facility changes location and that generators should notify EPA when they go out of business or otherwise cease being generators.

-- Allow "protective filing" for potential generators.

-- Require generators to document a description of their facility processes when using process knowledge.

We recommend the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA):

-- Issue guidance that regions assess the rate of repeat inspections at compliant facilities each year.

-- Issue guidance that regions sample and evaluate inspection reports on an annual basis for quality assurance/quality control.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

In their response to the OIG draft report, OSWER officials acknowledged that improvements need to be made to hazardous waste tracking, generator consent, and generator data in Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). However, OSWER officials expressed concerns about the paperwork burden of the current manifest system and additional paperwork necessitated by improvements to the system. We concur with the Agency's efforts to reduce paperwork. We are aware that the President's policy on "Reinventing Environmental Regulation" calls for a 25 percent reduction in paperwork. In assessing paperwork burdens created by the manifest system, it is necessary to keep in mind that the President's policy is to preserve essential data and only eliminate low-value requirements. We believe the manifest system provides essential data and is not a low-value requirement.

We evaluated each of our recommendations with respect to resources needed for implementation and paperwork burden. In our opinion, improvements in manifest tracking that we recommended would not generate additional paper. Our recommendation for cross-referencing manifests applies to paperwork requirements which already exist. Generator consent can be obtained, without additional paperwork, by inclusion in contracts between generators and transporters or TSDFs or through telephone calls. We believe our recommendation to reference original generators and manifest numbers on manifests created for re-shipments of hazardous waste by transporters and TSDFs should stand. If implemented, our recommendations will improve manifest tracking and generators' ability to control the disposition of wastes shipped off site.

The OSWER response to our recommendations to improve generator data stated that the OIG suggestions were helpful. However, they stated that the RCRA program recently began a Waste Information Needs (WIN) initiative. OSWER officials expect that the WIN initiative may identify new approaches that will improve the accuracy of generator data without requiring additional forms and paper reports to be submitted. We believe our recommendations provide cost-effective solutions and require no unnecessary paperwork. However, we will consider alternative solutions developed by the WIN initiative provided details and milestone dates for completion are established. Our recommendations to improve generator data must stand until we have evaluated alternatives presented by the Agency.

Our recommendation that notification instructions should clearly state that generators must renotify EPA when they change location is not an additional requirement on generators because the requirement already exists. However, this requirement to renotify is not clearly stated in the instructions. It only appears in a note to the line by line instructions for filling out the form. We maintain our recommendation that this requirement be clearly stated under the section on how to file. In addition, we continue to believe that it is not unreasonable to ask generators to notify when they go out of business or cease producing hazardous waste.

Our recommendation that the notification form include a place to indicate "protective filing," for facilities that want to notify and receive an identification number in case they generate hazardous waste in the future, does not require extra paperwork because protective filing is optional. Protective filers are currently listed in the data base as hazardous waste generators thus overstating the number of hazardous waste generators. If our recommendation is implemented, data for generator identification will be more accurate and inspection targeting will be more effective. Therefore, we maintain this recommendation.

OSWER officials did not disagree with our recommendation that generators document a description of their facility processes when using process knowledge for waste determination. However, they were concerned about the necessity for more specific guidance. We believe this recommendation should be implemented because it would provide valuable information for inspectors to evaluate waste determinations more efficiently and effectively. In addition, we believe this recommendation does not add a significant additional burden on generators since an owner or operator must already understand the facility processes.

OECA officials stated that we failed to control other parameters which might explain our finding that, in fiscal 1994, inspections were conducted on facilities that were found in compliance in fiscal 1994 and had also been inspected and found in compliance in fiscal 1993. We did control by eliminating federal, state, and local TSDFs from our samples and commercial facilities receiving CERCLA waste. We also acknowledged in our report that there may be valid reasons for inspecting facilities which were found in compliance in the previous year. Our position is that given limited resources for inspections, it might be a better use of resources to inspect facilities which have never had an inspection. Our results show there is a need to monitor the rate of repeat inspections, and we recommended a method for the regions to do this which does not require significant additional resources.

OECA officials asked us to reflect that most, if not all, states and regions have a quality review process in place to review inspection reports. Two of the four regions we visited did not receive most inspection reports and did not perform regular QA/QC for report quality. Our review of the inspection reports revealed that the QA/QC process could be improved. Our recommendation provides a cost-effective method for the regions to review inspection reports.

OECA officials also commented that renotifying each generator of the final disposition of hazardous waste residues after treatment would be an onerous burden for the TSDF. However, we did not recommend renotifying each generator of the final disposition of these residues. Our recommendation was that original generators and manifest numbers be cross-referenced on new manifests created for disposal. This process, we believe, would require few, if any, additional resources.

OECA officials stated that we were not clear on how many reports were examined, the report years, and the regions or states they were from. However, the draft report stated that we reviewed 252 inspection reports prepared in fiscal 1994. The appendices to the draft provided information on how many inspection reports were reviewed in each state or region. This information is included in the final audit report as well.

OECA officials asked us to discuss how the OIG reached the conclusion that there is a high inspector turnover rate. The OIG did not reach a conclusion on this issue. We explained in our draft that an official brought up the high turnover rate of inspectors as a reason why good quality inspection report narratives are important.

In response to some of the other Agency comments, we have added clarifications or supplemental text related to: exception reporting, hazardous materials, the scope of our audit, optional checklists, and documenting process knowledge.

Created November 15, 1996

Top of page