Shanahan, Matt, Burns & McDonnell, RCRA Update Proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Rule, MECC, 2016, Overland Park

1. RCRA Updates:
Proposed Hazardous Waste
Generator Rule
Matt Shanahan, CHMM
2016

2. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976
Originally conceived as a law
addressing municipal trash
disposal, Subtitle C of RCRA was
included to give the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) the authority to regulate
hazardous waste. This includes
the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste. RCRA and
Generators.
RCRA and Generators

3. ►Hazardous Waste Generator Program evaluated –
2004
►Hazardous Waste Determination Program
evaluation – 2013
►Hazardous Waste Generator Proposed Rule -
2015
3
History of the Proposed Rule

4. ► Reorganize the regulations to make them more user friendly
and enable improved compliance
► Provide greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to
manage waste in a cost-effective manner
► Strengthen environmental protection by addressing identified
gaps in the regulations
► Clarify certain components of the hazardous waste generator
program to address ambiguities and foster improved
compliance
Goals of the Proposed Rule

5. ► CESQGs shipping to LQGs
► CESQGs shipping to LQGs
► Waste Determinations
► Episodic Generation
► Emergency Planning
► Increased Labeling
► Closure Requirements
Key Proposed Changes

6. ► CESQG’s and LQG’s must be under the control of the
same person
► CESQG to be called VSQG
► Eliminate RCRA permit requirement to accept CESQG’s
waste
► Additional option for CESQG’s to manage their waste
► Increased training and documentation
CESQGs shipping to LQGs

7. ► 2013 evaluation revealed high non-compliance rate (34% of
waste determinations incorrect)
► CESQG facilities in Kansas (21% non-compliant)
Proposed Improvements
► Waste determinations must be made at point of generation
► Document non-hazardous waste determinations (17 states
already require this)
► Hazardous Waste Determination Decision Tool (Web-based?)
7
Waste Determination

8. ► Only allowed once a year
► Would not change current generator status
► Would not have to complete biennial requirement
► Notification of planned and unplanned events
► Labeling requirement for accumulation of episodic waste
(“Episodic Hazardous Waste”, Contents, Hazard, Date)
► 45 days from initiation and completion of episodic event
Episodic Generation for VSQG’s and SQG’s

9. ► Only applicable to LQG’s and SQG’s
► Require generators to make arrangements with local
LEPC’s first
► Clearer language on what/where emergency equipment
is required
► NEW LQG’s to submit executive summary to LEPC rather
than full Contingency plans
Emergency Planning and Preparedness

10. ► Applicable to SQG’s, LQG’s and Transporters
► Marking containers with hazardous waste codes
► During accumulation and pre-transport
► Container labels must indicate the hazards of the
contents of the containers (DOT, NFPA, “ignitable”)
► Updated CAA and SAA
Labeling Changes

11. Comparison Table
Label Requirement Current CAA Proposed CAA Current SAA Proposed SAA
Words “Hazardous
Waste”
Yes Yes Yes, or
identification of
contents
Yes
Identification of
Contents
No Yes Yes, or “Hazardous
Waste”
Yes
Identification of
Hazards
No Yes No Yes
Waste Codes No Prior to shipment No No
Accumulation Start
Date
Yes Yes At excess
accumulation
At excess
accumulation

12. ► Require closure as landfill for when LQG’s accumulating
in containers fail to clean close
► Notification to EPA or authorized state 30 days prior to
closing an accumulation area (container, tank)
► or within 90 days after closure of unit or facility
Closure Requirements

13. More stringent:
► Documenting hazardous waste determinations
► SQG re-notification
► Identifying risks of wastes being accumulated & labeling
► Notification of closure
► Executive summary for contingency plans
Less stringent
► CESQG consolidation
► Episodic generation
► Waiver from 50-foot rule
Stringency of Proposed Rule

14. EPA Considers certain proposed provisions to be more
stringent than current regulations
► More stringent regulations – all states will be required to adopt
the final rule
► Less stringent regulations – states may but are not required to
adopt federal regulations
No final authorization on base State RCRA program
► Will be effective in these states on the effective date for the final
rule, even before the state adopts it State Adoption
State Adoption

15. ► Rule signed on Aug. 31, 2015
► Publication in Federal Register –Sep. 25 2015
► Public comment period-60 days (ended 12/24/2015)
► EPA reviews public comments and commences work on final
rule
► Effective date/State adoption & authorization
Rule Process & Schedule

16. Questions?
mshanahan@burnsmcd.com
(816) 349-6646