A presentation by David Shanks about RCRA for academic labs, retailers, and pharmacies. What can be learned for RCRA generators who are not in one of those sectors.

1. 2014 Missouri Hazardous Waste Seminar
Nov. 4, 2014
David Shanks, Boeing Policy Analysis
TAILORED RCRA GENERATOR
RULES
PAST EFFORTS AND FUTURE PLANS

2. 1980 Rules - Ideal Generator
•Drum or bulk quantities
•Steady production of consistent waste streams
•Treatment/disposal facilities available to accept all
wastes within 90 days

3. Labs Don’t Fit the RCRA Ideal
 Laboratories generate
 Numerous waste
streams
 Small quantities per lab
 Unknown characteristics
of created compounds
 Are stored reagents
 Needed for future use?
 Abandoned in place?
 Past usable shelf life?
 In unmarked containers?

4. Lab Issues with Standard Rules
 3 day limit on satellite
accumulation over 55
gal. or 1 quart for
acutely hazardous
waste
 Forces frequent, but
irregular removal from
numerous labs
 400 labs at University of
Vermont

5. More Lab Regulatory Issues
 In academic labs,
fragmented
departments and
student turnover:
 Limits depth of RCRA
training/experience and
 Inhibits awareness of
possible reuse or
recycling in another lab.

6. Early EPA Efforts for Labs
 June 2000
 EPA solicited academic labs to participate in
Project XL/Labs21 program to gather information
 2002
 EPA Report to Congress on Lab Waste
 April 2004
 EPA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) soliciting input on needed generator
rule changes (not just labs)

7. Laboratory Rulemaking
 May 23, 2006 Proposed Subpart K Rule
 “Alternative Requirement for Hazardous Waste
Determination and Accumulation of Unwanted
Material for Laboratories Located at
Colleges/Universities”
 Requires labeling sufficient to allow a fully RCRA-trained
person to assign correct waste code
 Follow written Laboratory Management Plan
 6 months max. accumulation time in lab-- under 55 gal/1 qt
 10 days to remove excess (55 gal or 1 qt.) from satellite
accumulation, rather than 3 days
 Special rules for central accumulation area and annual lab
cleanouts (up to 30 days allowed)

8. Laboratory Rulemaking
 Non-academic labs submitted comments
seeking coverage.
 Other than student turnover, industrial,
commercial, and (non-teaching) medical labs have
the same problems with RCRA rules as colleges.
 EPA allowed teaching hospital labs, but excluded all
others.
 Ohio EPA stated that the lab rule is a poor
substitute for addressing problems in the
accumulation rules for all generators.

9. Laboratory Rulemaking
 Final Subpart K rule published Dec. 1, 2008.
 In tailoring optional RCRA rules for labs, EPA
created substantial new and different
requirements
 University facility operations also generate non-lab
hazardous waste.
 Result: two sets of RCRA rules at the facility
 Adopted by Missouri Nov. 2011.
 Eleven years after EPA recognized the problem.
 Rate of opt-in by Missouri academic labs?

10. Retailers Don’t Fit RCRA
Industrial Generator Rules
Either

11. Retailers
Instead of re-examining
RCRA rules,
EPA and states
took an
Enforcement
First approach
to retailer
noncompliance
 Multi-million $ RCRA
penalties (along with CWA,
FIFRA, etc.)
 Wal-Mart
 Target
 CVS Pharmacy
 Costco
 Albertsons grocery chain
 Home Depot

12. Retailers’ Situation
 Products handled by retailers are seldom
“spent” materials that are obviously waste
 Containers damaged in handling
 Spill cleanup
 Customer returns: held for resale or “discarded”
not always clear
 Products in good condition, but not selling
 Stores often served by “reverse logistics centers”
 for decisions on whether product can still be sold,
returned to vendor, donated, recycled, or disposed.

13. Retailers’ Situation
 Chains may have thousands of locations in
multiple states
 but not thousands of RCRA compliance experts on
the ground to observe at each store
 state rule add-ons (MO, CA, WA, others) prevent
consistent corporate training courses
 Same problem as industrial generators who operate
in multiple states
 Boeing experience with a draft corporate training
 Developed in Puget Sound by persons accustomed to
Washington state rules
 Not just incomplete, but wrong for other states.

14. Retailers’ Situation
 Hundreds of thousands of employees and 3rd
party vendors handle merchandise
 Employees in US
 Wal-Mart- -1.4 million
 Target --350,000
 Seasonal temporary and part-time employees are
common in retail
 Even industrial facilities struggle to meet 100%
annual RCRA refresher training for full-time
permanent employees, due to Leaves of Absence
 For retailers, absence from one year to next is issue

15. 2012—EPA Recognizes a Problem
Some RCRA
generator
requirements
are a poor fit.
For example,
RCRA
presumption
that waste
codes will be
known by in-store
personnel.
 2012 Unified Agenda opened
rulemaking review project
regarding retailers and RCRA
 Carried forward in Spring and
Fall 2013 Unified Agendas

16. Next EPA Action?
 Feb. 14, 2014
 EPA Notice of Data Availability
 Invites comment on issues and challenges retailers
face complying with RCRA rules
 Retail associations submitted 41 page comment
letter
 Among others, seeks conditional exemption for
unsold or returned products managed in a reverse
distribution system.
 Most recent EPA Unified Agenda:
 “Next action undetermined”

17. Missouri Actions
 Draft MO rule revisions address some retailer
concerns with Missouri-unique rules
 “If a generator determines that labeling a
container with a capacity of less than one gallon is
not feasible, the generator shall affix the
appropriate label(s) to the locker, rack or other
device used to hold or accumulate such
container.”
 Eliminates requirement for DOT packaging during
entire storage period.

18. US Dept. of Transportation
 July 5, 2012. Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM)
 Solicited comment on reverse logistics
 August 11, 2014. Proposed Rule
 Define “reverse logistics”
 “Process of moving goods from their final destination for the
purpose of capturing value, recall, replacement, proper
disposal, or similar reason”
 Modify and reduce packaging, hazard communication,
and training requirements for reverse logistic shipments.
Define responsibilities.
 DOT rulemaking is ahead of EPA
 Both are needed

19. Pharmaceuticals Don’t Fit RCRA
Industrial Generator Rules
Either

20. RCRA Listed Pharmaceuticals
 5-10% of pharmaceuticals
are on P- or U- waste lists.
 Warfarin blood thinner,
nicotine patches, and
physostigmine are common
P-listed acute wastes
 Result of acute hazard?
 2.2 lb/month generation =
Large Quantity Generator
 Empty containers or packaging
are not RCRA-empty unless
triple rinsed (or equivalent).
Rinsate is hazardous by
mixture rule for listed wastes

21. P-listed Container Residues
 Is LQG status
determined by total
weight of containers
or weight of the
residues?
 Nov. 4, 2011 EPA
guidance says weight of
residues only
 States are free to
impose their own rules
or interpretation

22. EPA Recognized a Problem
 On Dec. 2, 2008, EPA proposed a Pharmaceutical
Universal Waste rule
 About 634,000 affected health care entities in US
 Assoc. of State & Territorial Solid Waste Mgt Officials
suggested simpler rules for safe handling &
incineration of all pharmaceuticals. EPA rejected.
 P- and U- listings do not keep up with new drug
introductions
 EPA withdrew its proposal in 2012.
 US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) proposed a new
rule on Dec. 21, 2012 on Disposal of Controlled
Substances.

23. DEA Adds Complexity
 DEA issued its final rule Sept. 9, 2014.
 Overlap of DEA-controlled and RCRA-hazardous
drugs is limited, but both rules apply
 DEA rule concerned with tracking of registrants to
control diversion of narcotics
 DEA defers to EPA on methods of destruction &
RCRA compliance
 Under DEA voluntary take-back provisions,
household donors might qualify for RCRA
household hazardous waste exemption

24. Further EPA Action
 Spring 2014 EPA Unified Agenda
 Projects a Dec. 2014 proposal to set Management
Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals (not
as Universal Waste)
 Focused on reverse distribution system
 While EPA tried to decide, Florida and Michigan
adopted Universal Waste standards for
hazardous pharmaceuticals:
 Storage longer than 90 days, and weight of
drugs/residues don’t count toward SQG/LQG status.
 Applicable only within state boundaries, however.

25. Lessons Learned
 Tailoring RCRA rules to non-industrial waste:
 May take a decade or more
 especially if EPA’s starting point is the text of
existing RCRA rules
 May result in tailored rules that address some
issues, but increase complexity
 Subpart K lab rules
 States may choose not to adopt, adopt only
slowly, opt for a Universal Waste approach, or
muddle through with guidance or enforcement
discretion