Proposed Changes to RCRA

Todd Houts Director, EHS University of Missouri

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

For labs one of the…

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

Emergency Planning and Preparedness Reporting Waiver to 50-foot Requirement Closure

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…”

Todd Houts Director, EHS University of Missouri houtst@missouri.edu