[Sqg-program] EPA Moves To Clarify Hazardous Waste Rules, Opening Door To Controversy

[Perrigan, Glen]

EPA Moves To Clarify Hazardous Waste Rules, Opening Door To Controversy
Posted: January 20, 2012

EPA has launched a broad new rulemaking to clarify and consolidate its regulations for hazardous waste generators, a move that one industry source says could make it easier for some companies to comply with disparate requirements, but which also could open the door to controversial policy changes.

"Any one of these items could flip people out or upset states," depending on what EPA ultimately proposes, the industry source says.

According to EPA's Action Initiation List (AIL) for November, which the agency posted to its website earlier this month, EPA is looking to consolidate parts 261-265 of its hazardous waste generator regulatory program under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), while also clarifying some policy issues.

"This rule would make several changes to the hazardous waste generator regulatory program to improve its clarity and effectiveness," EPA says in the AIL.

The proposed version of the rule, which the agency says could take more than a year to develop before it is released for public comment, could impact a slew of RCRA issues, including under what circumstances a facility is considered a generator of large quantities of hazardous waste and thus subject to full regulation, and when it is considered a generator of "acute" hazardous waste, according to the AIL. EPA is also considering addressing closure requirements for large quantity generators, the AIL says.

In clarifying the circumstances under which a facility is considered a generator of large quantities of hazardous waste, the agency could address concerns that smaller facilities that would otherwise be regulated under a less stringent category can sometimes be classified as large generators even if they only produced enough waste to be considered a large generator for one month, the industry source says. Under current EPA policy, such facilities are classified as large generators that must comply with the relevant requirements for the entire calendar year, the industry source says.

One way EPA could address this concern is by exempting so-called "episodic" generators of large quantities of hazardous waste from some of the requirements that large generators must normally comply with, the industry source says. For example, a facility that only produces enough waste to be considered a large generator for one month out of a calendar year could be exempted from having to submit an emergency contingency plan to its local emergency response officials, but still be required to comply with other rules, such as the requirement that it dispose its waste within 90 days, the industry source says.

Similarly, EPA could provide some regulatory relief by clarifying when a facility is considered a generator of "acute" hazardous waste, which is waste that is considered to present a significant hazard regardless of how it is managed, such as those wastes that can produce fatal exposures even at low doses, the industry source says. Facilities that produce more than one pound of acute hazardous waste are subject to more stringent requirements -- in some cases even if they cross the one pound threshold for only a relatively short period of time, the source says.

States' Differing Requirements

Industry's main concern with these issues is that, like most RCRA requirements, they are usually implemented by state environmental agencies, and different states will sometimes interpret EPA's requirements differently, the industry source says. For that reason, clarification from the agency could be helpful, the source says.

For most items EPA is reviewing as part of this rulemaking, the industry source "suspect[s] EPA isn't going to say anything it hasn't said already," but rather the agency will likely clarify existing policy. However, because they affect so many industries, proposed rules under RCRA typically prompt a large number of public comments, and this rulemaking could inadvertently create controversy, the source says.

For example, another issue EPA is considering clarifying under the rulemaking is what sort of identifying markers are required to be placed on tanks used to store hazardous waste, the source notes. Typically, hazardous waste generators have not marked tanks as thoroughly as hazardous waste drums, the source says. If EPA were to clarify that tanks are subject to the same marking requirements as drums, it could face industry opposition, the source adds.



Source: InsideEPAnews 1/20/12


Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from the department by clicking on this link. DEP Customer Survey<http://survey.dep.state.fl.us/?refemail=Glen.Perrigan@dep.state.fl.us>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/sqg-program/attachments/20120120/2fbe84c2/attachment.htm