Md. Code Regs. 14.14.05.01

Current through Register Vol. 51, No. 24, December 2, 2024

Section 14.14.05.01 - Findings

A. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposition in 1981-1982. The Board finds that the total demand for hazardous waste treatment or disposal, during the period August 1, 1981 through July 31, 1982 was, in U.S. Short Tons of 2,000 pounds, as follows:

(1) Total generated in Maryland	286,000 Tons
(2) Total treated/disposed of on generator's property ("on-site")	-28,000
(3) Total Maryland off-site treatment/disposal needs	258,000 Tons
(4) Waste imported into Maryland Waste exported from Maryland	+79,000 -41,000
(5) Total "off-site" treatment or disposal in Maryland	296,000 Tons

B. Hazardous Waste Management Alternatives.

(1) Reduction, Recovery, and Reuse. The Board finds that the reduction of hazardous waste generated and the recovery, re-use, or exchange of hazardous waste are generally preferable to either the treatment or burial of hazardous wastes. The Board recognizes, however, that the waste generator, not the Board, is the key party in implementing reduction, recovery, or re-use. The Board can therefore only endorse and support reduction, recovery, and re-use practices and the implementation of policies or incentives that make them more likely to be employed. The Board notes that reduction, recovery, and re-use are likely to broaden in capability and improve in efficiency under encouraging regulatory and economic conditions, and that in the future less waste would then require treatment, or burial or other long-term storage.

(2) Treatment. The Board finds that total dependence on treatment, including aqueous treatment, incineration, or other techniques that reduce the hazard or volume of a waste, is not feasible at this time. The Board notes that some existing techniques are being improved and new techniques are being developed, and that in the future more wastes will be capable of being treated. The Board finds that treatment facilities to reduce the hazard or volume of residue or waste that would otherwise be buried are desirable additions to the options available in Maryland.

(3) Disposal. The Board finds that ultimate or indefinite disposal by burial or long-term storage of certain hazardous wastes, including residues from treatment processes, are the only feasible alternatives for many Maryland wastes even though burial is the means of disposition generally least preferred by the Board.

C. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Needs Projections.

(1) The Board finds that hazardous waste treatment and disposal needs depend upon the types and quantities generated as influenced by economic conditions, prices and availability of disposition services, and policies of state and federal governments.

(2) The Board notes the following facts concerning specific types and quantities:

(a) Overall changes in actual generation of hazardous waste since 1980 have been small since previous findings based on calendar year 1980. Significant increases in hazardous waste generation are unlikely. The quantity of hazardous waste generated per year is likely to decrease with time.

(b) On-site disposition is likely to continue in its present pattern. Waste now being treated or disposed of on-site is not likely to become a significant off-site demand. The large reduction in on-site disposition between calendar year 1980 and the August 1981 to July 1982 period was due largely to regulatory decisions that certain wastes were not hazardous. Shifts from on-site to off-site demand appears to be less than 10 percent of the total off-site demand.

(c) Most of the 41,000 tons of hazardous waste exported in 1981-1982 is likely to remain in the State if treatment or disposal facilities are available.

(d) Oils and solvents are sufficiently valuable that with few exceptions industry will return them to useful purposes. The recovery or use of oil and solvents as fuel may become subject to increased regulation in the future and more oils and solvents may require capacity in treatment facilities.

(e) The Board notes that the Maryland Environmental Service's Hawkins Point Hazardous Waste Landfill, assuming issuance of a new facility permit, is estimated to provide burial capacity for The Allied Corporation's hazardous waste for approximately 8 years. The Hawkins Point Landfill, assuming issuance of a new-facility permit and favorable circumstances, could provide burial capacity for the general industrial community's hazardous waste for approximately 10 years. Under unfavorable circumstances the capacity available to the general industrial community could be significantly less than 5 years.

(f) The Board finds that manifests recorded 79,000 tons imported in 1981-1982, and that this demand could continue or increase in the future.

(3) The Board finds that the following quantities and types of waste make up a reasonable estimate of the Maryland annual disposal demand. This estimate includes primary industrial generation, residues from waste treatment, shifts from on-site to off-site disposition, changes in disposition methods as a result of anticipated policy changes, and waste exported in 1981-1982 that was assumed to remain in the State in the future. The estimate does not include imported waste. The quantities and types of waste are:

(a) Wastes in which water is a major component, and which may be neutralized, detoxified, or otherwise treated: 87,000 tons;

(b) Wastes of primarily organic make-up which could be managed in a variety of ways, one of which may be incineration; 13,000 tons;

(c) Wastes which will not burn and are not otherwise amenable to treatment to eliminate their hazardous nature, for which secure land burial is the appropriate means of disposal: 169,000 tons.

D. Hazardous Waste Landfill Need.

(1) Total Landfill Capacity.

(a) Noting that some out-of-State hazardous waste and some non-hazardous waste may be received at a landfill, that the data base itself has inherent uncertainties, and that some flexibility is required, the Board hereby finds that the State's annual hazardous waste landfill disposal capacity need is 200,000 tons per year.

(b) The Board notes that landfill capacity is needed as the disposal method for those wastes of unreactive or undecomposable character for which alternative technology has not been developed or for which a treatment facility has not been built.

(c) It should also be noted that most waste treatment methods produce a waste which must be landfilled.

(2) Number of Landfills. The Board finds that a single landfill offers economy of scale but that multiple facilities offer price competition and an increased overall system reliability, which would permit the closing of one landfill without destroying the ability to dispose of waste safely. Multiple landfills will also reduce the impact on a single area. The Board, therefore, finds a need for a total of either two or three secure landfills in the State.

(3) Capacity of Individual Landfills. The Board finds that any general purpose hazardous waste landfill should have a total capacity of at least 5 years of the total Maryland hazardous waste generation designated for landfill, and should be designed for a yearly burial of at least 50 percent of Maryland hazardous waste generation suitable for landfill.

(4) Landfill to Meet Special Needs. The Board also recognizes that there may be a need for a smaller hazardous waste landfill in an area which is convenient to a single hazardous waste generator or group of hazardous waste generators and which meets their special disposal needs.

E. Incineration Need.

(1) The Board finds that incineration of certain, primarily organic, materials is an alternative to landfill disposal. The Board finds that incinerator capacity in Maryland is presently insufficient to treat the estimated 13,000 tons per year in the incinerable category generated in Maryland but that unused capacity is available a short distance away, in New Jersey and at other locations in the United States. The Board believes that incineration may offer net benefits in spite of the fact that only a small fraction of the waste is incinerable and that the cost of incineration is very high. The Board also finds that incineration is not entirely without risk. For treatment of some types of waste, incineration involves fewer short-term risks than alternative treatment methods, while burial involves irrevocable use of land and long-term risks. The Board notes that "incinerable" means that the substance can be decomposed by fire, not necessarily that the substance will support combustion.

(2) The Board finds that due to the high cost of incineration, alternative management techniques (reduction, re-use, exchange, innovative treatment) are likely to reduce the quantity of waste in the incinerable category. The Board also notes that without a categorical prohibition against disposing of incinerable wastes in landfills, a generator is free to choose between two very differently priced alternatives.

(3) The Board therefore finds, in view of the quantities and circumstances involved, that large-scale incinerator capacity is not crucial to the State's management needs in the immediate future. It appears unlikely that the market will attract the investment necessary to build a major incinerator as described in Regulation .02E.

F. Aqueous Treatment Facilities Need. The Board notes the existence of two facilities in Maryland capable of treating hazardous wastes of which water is a major component. The Board recognizes, however, that competition will provide economic benefits to hazardous waste generators, and that existing facilities may not provide all the services needed by Maryland generators. The Board finds that additional treatment capacity and capability is desirable.

G. Facility Location. The Board finds that most of the hazardous waste generated in Maryland originates in the Baltimore area, although nearly all areas of the State contribute some hazardous waste. The Board wishes to minimize, consistent with other considerations, the expense and risk to the general public of long distance transport of hazardous materials. Therefore the Board finds that the disposal needs will best be met through facilities whose location takes into account these concerns.

H. Special Needs. The Board finds that a role may exist for special purpose facilities capable of, for instance, consolidating small lots of solvent for recovery or small lots of waste for treatment, or for satisfying landfill needs as outlying locations and/or of magnitudes different from those determined above. Other treatment facilities (such as evaporation or stabilization) designed to reduce the hazard or volume of the waste to be landfilled represent a desirable addition to the available treatment/disposal options.

Md. Code Regs. 14.14.05.01