Todd Houts, University of Missouri, Proposed Changes to RCRA, Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements, Missouri Hazardous Waste Seminar, November 5, 2015

1. Proposed Changes to RCRA
Todd Houts
Director, EHS
University of Missouri

2. 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

3. Generator Status # of Facilities Total HW
Generated (tons)
% ofTotal 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

4.  EPA is proposing to change CESQG toVSGQ
 Very Small Quantity Generator
 “Exempt” may be a misleading word
 This presentation uses current CESQG term
for clarity and consistency

6.  Consolidation of CESQGWaste at LQGs
 Episodic Generation
 Labeling
 SatelliteAccumulation Areas
 Hazardous Waste Determinations

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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)

10.  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

11.  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

12.  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 “HazardousWaste” “words that
describe the waste”

13.  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

14.  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

15.  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

16.  For labs one of the…

17.  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?

18.  Currently require documentationWHEN
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

19.  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

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

22.  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

23.  Types/Amounts of hazardous waste
 Maps of site and surrounding area
 Water supply location
 Identify on-site notification systems available
 Emergency contact

24.  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

25.  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

26.  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

27.  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

28.  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

30.  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

31.  Failure to comply with an exemption
condition would result in loss of exemption.
 EPA says (80 FR 57934): “…they would be
considered an operatingTSDF with a permit
and/or in violation of the storage facility operating
standards…”

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