todd houts, university of missouri, proposed changes to rcra, hazardous waste generator...
Post on 22-Jan-2017
453 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A basic understanding of RCRA is assumed in this presentation.
On September, 25, 2015, EPA published a lengthy set of “improvements” to RCRA
A large portion is simply reorganization to make them more “user friendly”
But there are also significant changes proposed
Comment period ends Dec 24, 2015
Generator Status # of Facilities Total HW Generated (tons)
% of Total HW Generation
CESQGs 293,000-470,000 59,000-144,000 <1%
SQGs 46,000-60,000 70,000-152,000 <1%
LQGs 14,300 34,500,000 99%
Total 353,300-544,300 34,800,000 100%
Items to note:
Impact of new rules mostly benefits SQGs and CESQGs and mostly adds new rules to LQGs
My opinion: this is a “fix” for <1% HW generated and new burdens for the majority
EPA is proposing to change CESQG to VSGQ
Very Small Quantity Generator
“Exempt” may be a misleading word
This presentation uses current CESQG term for clarity and consistency
Consolidation of CESQG Waste at LQGs Episodic Generation Labeling Satellite Accumulation Areas Hazardous Waste Determinations
Benefits for user:
Can consolidate and ship from one location
Permit not required to accept from owned CESQGs
Benefits for EPA:
CESQG waste is managed under LQG restrictions
▪ More environmentally sound
Restrictions
CESQG and LQG must be “controlled” by same “person” (as defined in RCRA)
Requirements
Notify state of specific participation
Recordkeeping for these transfers (shipments)
Report under LQG Biennial Report
Note this is only a problem for CESQGs and SQGs (less than 1% of total HW generated)
Would allow once/calendar year event (can petition for a second) for planned event (clean out)
Requirements for all:
Notify EPA or state before planned event
45 days to complete event (30 day extension possible)
Additional Requirements for CESQG:
Obtain RCRA ID number
Use HW Manifest to ship episodic waste to facility
Label episodic containers
Identify an emergency coordinator
Maintain records re: episodic event
EPA concerned current labelling doesn’t require hazard communication (OSHA HazCom doesn’t apply to HW)
This is an intentional “loophole” (per EPA’s own design) as those dealing with HW have training not necessarily required for good material ▪ 29 states do not have state implementation of OSHA
leaving all state agencies out of compliance technically for good materials
▪ But we haven’t seemed to have needed to “solve” that lack of state OSHA-required labeling either
Would apply to SAA, CAA & Transfer facilites
Containers, tanks, drip pads, containment buildings
Require hazard label (options) Require “plain English” content labeling Note this essentially removes the “or” of SAA
[262.34(c)]
Label with “Hazardous Waste” “words that describe the waste”
Opinion on requiring more labeling than currently required (haz waste + plain English + hazard communication term):
Eerily similar to Missouri PML requirements to satisfy emergency responder’s concerns of a “problem” already solved by other requirements
Allows containers to remain open under limited circumstances
e.g., piranha waste (builds up pressure)
e.g., continuous flow waste from instrumentation
Add maximum weight (in addition to volume as defined Federally) at each SAA
Clarify “3 days” is calendar not working days
Circling back to labeling at SAA… Essentially would force some generators
from following SAA at point to generation to following hazcom Why? Because the “spent” solvents from one lab,
could be re-tasked as cleaning solvents elsewhere at the same generator
Forcing HWD to point of generation in complex organizations may lead to EPA losing areas they can inspect
EPA claims: “Generators consistently fail to make a correct hazardous waste determination leading to mismanagement of hazardous waste”
Then EPA goes on to say: “Non-compliance rates range from 10 to 30 percent”
So then… compliance ranges up to 90%?
And we need to fix it?
Currently require documentation WHEN determined to be HW, but not when you determine it is NOT HW
Proposal would require documentation of all evaluations (solid wastes in 40 CFR 261.2) regardless of the outcome
Spent materials, sludges, byproducts, discarded commercial chemical products
Discarded commercial chemical products and variable lab waste streams are the aforementioned elephant
The are more than 10 million chemical products and when concentration is considered – there are billions
Contingency Plans are lengthy Emergency responders may have difficulty
extracting most important information Change:
New LQGs must include executive summary as part of Contingency Plan
As proposed, existing LQGs are not required to add an executive summary
▪ Opinion: Emergency responders will expect from all
Types/Amounts of hazardous waste Maps of site and surrounding area Water supply location Identify on-site notification systems available Emergency contact
Acknowledges existence of LEPC (local emergency planning committees)
Requires submitting Contingency Plan (or Executive Summary for new LQGs) to LEPC
Clarifications: Only applies to areas where HW is accumulated
Removes requiring personal information in record
Acknowledge modern technology (i.e.: land line not required)
Allows contractors to clean up releases
EPA doesn’t know how many SQGs exist
No re-notification requirement
Many were one time generators (but still being counted)
Require SQGs to re-notify every two years
Provide electronic option
CFR regulations don’t match biennial report instructions
Solution:
Remove CFR instructions – refer to form instructions
Additional changes – minimal impact in Missouri due to state reporting requirements
Storing reactive or ignitable waste 50-feet from property line may not be possible in some areas, especially urban setting
Proposed: allow generator to seek a waiver from Fire Department if facility has taken precautions that don’t include 50-foot rule
LQGs accumulating in containers only that fail to achieve clean closure have no failsafe requirement
For those accumulating in tanks, drip pads and containment buildings currently require to be closed as a landfill if no clean closure
Expand the acute threshold to accommodate spill cleanup. The threshold becomes:
≤ 1 kg acute hazardous waste, and
≤ 100 kg residue or contaminated soil, water or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill… of any acute hazardous waste
Greater than either of these = LQG
Failure to comply with an exemption condition would result in loss of exemption.
EPA says (80 FR 57934): “…they would be considered an operating TSDF with a permit and/or in violation of the storage facility operating standards…”
top related