Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative

Background Meeting

November 22, 2004

Purpose of Briefing: To discuss findings from hazardous waste generator
initiative public meetings and ANPRM comments with Office Director, and
identify possible follow-on strategies for subsequent discussion.

Outline of Briefing

- Background

Goals of Initiative

Why Undertake this Initiative

Approach to Effort

- Findings

- Potential Strategies

- Next Steps

Goals of Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative 

Evaluate the current generator program, and based on the results of this
evaluation, design a program strategy that:

-	 fosters improved program effectiveness

-	 reduces compliance costs, where practicable

-	 fosters a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy

-	 fosters an improved relationship among EPA, States and regulated
community  

 

Why Did We Undertake This Initiative?

- Hazardous Waste generators are our biggest stakeholder group

- Over 130,000 generators with annual compliance cost of $640 million

- Current generator rules are, for the most part, over 20 years old

- We have never really conducted an in-depth evaluation of this program
since the rules were           issued

- We need to ensure this program is protecting the environment in an
efficient and effective manner 

Strategy:  A Three-Phased Approach

Phase 1:  Evaluate Program 

-	 Public Meetings to listen and understand concerns of stakeholders

-	 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM)  to solicit comments
on key components of program  

-		 Published April 22, 2004

-	    Comment period closed on July 21, 2004

-	    Received over 500 comments 

- Positive response to public meetings and ANPRM from key stakeholders

Phase 2: Develop Options for Program Improvement Strategy

Phase 3: Implement Program Improvement Strategy, if necessary and
desirable 

Emphasis of this Initiative: A broad review and evaluation of the
hazardous waste generator program designed to answer questions such as: 

- Is the program working effectively? Is environment being protected
from the mismanagement of hazardous wastes by generators?

- What areas of the program need improvement?

- Can the program be streamlined; i.e., eliminate any redundancies?

- Are there aspects of State programs EPA should review and evaluate?

- Are there innovations EPA should consider?

- Where and how can EPA’s compliance assistance activities be
improved?

- How can EPA better measure program success?

   

Scope of Public Meetings And ANPRM

- Rules for all categories of generators (large, small, conditionally
exempt) 

--	 Including rules associated with waste accumulation, waste
management, employee training, contingency management, emergency
response, and land disposal restrictions requirements for small and
large generators

- The Program Evaluation did not consider the following:  

-	 Definition of Solid Waste

-	 Definition of Hazardous Waste

-	 Hazardous Waste Manifest

-	 Export Rules

-	 Land Disposal Restrictions, except those requirements associated with
small and large quantity generators

Four Public Meetings Held During May, 2004

- Boston, Massachusetts		- Washington, DC

- Chicago, Illinois			- Seattle, Washington

Topics addressed in Public Meetings

- Program effectiveness

- Program improvements

-		 Program redundancies

-		 State Programs

-		 Compliance assistance

-		 Performance measures

-		 Pollution prevention and recycling

-		 Program priorities

- Meetings were dynamic and interactive. Participants were engaged. 

- Comments in public meetings and ANPRM constructive and far ranging in
each of the above topic areas.

We received over 500 comments from 55 organizations and individuals in
response to our ANPRM

- Respondents consisted of:

-		 2 Universities (Northeastern and Rutgers)

-		 9 States (NY, TX, FL, NC, MI, WY, GA, DE, AL) + ASTSWMO

-		 5 federal agencies (Postal Service, Army, Navy, DOE, TVA) 

-		 22 Private sector companies 

-		 12 Trade associations (e.g., CMA, API, SOCMA, USWAG)

-		 3 Private citizens

-		 1 State DOT agency (New York)  

- No environmental groups commented 

Findings and Observations from Public Meetings and ANPRM

- The RCRA hazardous waste generator program has made significant
improvements to the management of hazardous waste

-	 Less releases of hazardous waste to the environment 	

-	 Current program protective of  human health and the environment

-	 Infrastructure established to manage hazardous wastes more
protectively 

- Yet, important cost-effective improvements to the program can be
undertaken 

Industry wants HW Generator program brought into the 21st Century

Simplify the regulations to make them easy to understand

- Reorganize regulatory text to make more user-friendly (e.g., eliminate
cross-referencing) 

- Codify guidance into regulations, where applicable (e.g., treatment in
containers) 

Improve efficiency of program by clarifying ambiguities and removing
potential redundancies. Examples include:

- Employee training (e.g., clarifying precisely what is required)

- Contingency planning (e.g., simplify requirements, defer to local
authorities)

- Air emissions (e.g., RCRA vs. CAA requirements)

- Land disposal restrictions (e.g., clarifying when sampling vs.
generator knowledge can be used) 

Provide greater flexibility to generators in how they can comply with
requirements

- Episodic generation (e.g., allow generators to remain SQGs if waste
quantity thresholds exceeded infrequently) 

- Waste consolidation (e.g., allow wastes to be shipped from remote
locations to centralized location for better waste management)

- Waste accumulation times (e.g., allow generators to exceed 90 day
waste accumulation times provided waste managed safely) 

- Focus efforts on improving environmental results and creating
incentives for industry to go beyond regulations, including facilitation
of waste minimization opportunities

State comments generally similar to industry’s 

Major Themes:

 Reorganize/clarify the regulations 

-	 restructure the regulations to make more user friendly

-          eliminate cross-referencing 

Modify and/or clarify key components of generator regulations,
including:

- on-site treatment (e.g., codify in regulations)

- employee training (e.g., clarifying precisely what is required)

-	  satellite accumulation (e.g., clarifying “at or near the point of
generation”, etc)

- re-notification (e.g., periodic re-notification (5 years) to ensure
SQG facilities still exist)

- record-keeping (e.g., eliminating certain employee training records
such as job descriptions)

  

     Provide additional compliance assistance (technical support,
training and grants)

Address gaps in regulations (e.g., secondary containment for containers,
re-notification)      

  

Topics Receiving Greatest Number of Responses and Recommendations for
Change by Stakeholders

Clarifying our regulations – general consensus by large majority of
all types of stakeholders that existing regulations need to be:

-	 simplified 

-	 written more clearly; and 

-	 reorganized to eliminate confusion with cross referencing  

Container Standards – majority of comments from industry and States
focused on clarifying what constitutes a closed container, and what
types of treatment are allowed in containers.   

Tank Standards – wide range of comments - from implementing
performance-based system to simplifying rules for small above-ground
storage tank systems. Several comments from industry also focused on
reducing inspection frequencies.

    

Employee Training – Majority of industry comments focused on reducing
paperwork burden (employee training records, job descriptions, etc.) as
well as eliminating redundancy with other statutes with very similar
training (i.e., OSHA and DOT), or simply relying on internal management
systems; i.e., EMS’s. 

Topics Receiving Greatest Number of Most Responses  (Continued)

      

 – State comments more diverse. Included clarifying content and format
of HW generator training requirements, and eliminating hazardous waste
job titles and job descriptions, since they serve little purpose. 

  

Satellite Accumulation – most comments (i.e., industry, ASTSWMO and
other federal agencies) focused on revising and clarifying requirements
associated with such phrases as:  “at or near,” “under the control
of,” and “operator of the process,”  “55 gallon limitation in
accumulation areas.” 

Waste Accumulation – several industry commenters recommended extending
accumulation times from 90 to 180 days, if not longer. Texas also
recommended that accumulation times be extended only for facilities that
exceed performance requirements.

Contingency Planning and Emergency Response – wide range of comments -
from eliminating the contingency plan requirement to providing one-pager
of basic information to local authorities; i.e., storage capacity, etc.,
and reducing redundancy with other statutes, where applicable. 

Hazardous Waste Determinations – most comments (from industry)
centered on EPA clarifying when it is appropriate to use generator
knowledge instead of analytical sampling.



Potential Program Improvement Strategies - a range of options exist

1. Simplify and clarify regulations (Rewrite/reorganize existing
framework to make user-friendly)

2. Focus on developing and implementing  program strategy that measures
and monitors program effectiveness and environmental results

3. Focus on rule changes that improve program efficiency and
effectiveness; i.e., employee training, contingency planning, waste
accumulation, etc. 

4. Focus on compliance assistance for key industry sectors

5. Systematic overhaul of program (Options 1-4 in sequence)

6. Eclectic approach. Pick and choose among components found in Options
1-4.

7. Do not move forward with strategy at this time, but delay start
pending completion of other priority projects

Next Steps

- Present and discuss alternative program improvement strategies in
greater detail. Currently  scheduled for December 8, 2004

- Obtain management decision on potential program improvement strategy

- If subsequent action:

-		 Initiate development of detailed project plan with associated
milestones

-		 Discuss recommendations with Regions, OECA and ASTSWMO 

-		 Communicate strategy with other stakeholders

 PAGE  16 

