**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (**  **Treatment) Stakeholder:**  American Chemical Society Topic: Treatment of Hazardous Waste in Laboratories Comment: 3. Treatment of Hazardous Waste in Laboratories BACKGROUND: In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) in which the following national policy was stated: The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that c annot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the environm ent should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. On - site treatment of hazardous wastes in a safe manner by knowledgeable staff would allow laboratories to contribute significantl y to Congress's state d goals for recycling and treating wastes whose generation cannot be prevented. Unfortunately , current regulations promulgated pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) onl y allow the following treatment processes without a permit: elem entary neutralization and treatment in accumulation containers. In July 2003 the Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society (ACS) issued the following statement: **The American Chemical Society recommends that legislation, rulemaking, and guidance allow qualified laboratory personnel to treat small quantities of hazardous waste without a**  **permit.** The ACS supports the U.S. EPA's efforts to identify and resolve some of the unique problems and inefficiencies imposed on laboratories by the prescriptive RCRA hazardous waste management regulations. These regulations were designed for the larger, more homogeneous waste streams typically generated b y industry. They were not designed to support effective and efficient management of laboratory waste streams, wh ich. Laboratory operations are not scaled down versions of industrial processes. Laboratory activities are diverse and vary from day to day , producing wastes that typically are composed of smaller quantities of a much larger number of different chemicals, which are containerized at the point of generation. **PROPOSAL:** While suitable treatment technologies exist for processing many laboratory

wastes on site, the process for obtaining and maintaining an appropriate RCRA permit under current regulations is far too onerous and expensive for most laboratory facilities. The ACS recommends that the U.S. EPA amend current regulations to exempt treatment b y the generator of small quantities of laboratory

wastes from the definition of "treatment" or allow such treatment through a "permit by

rule" or other regulatory

process. Such changes to current RCRA requirements will allow laboratories to betterachieve Congress's goals of waste minimization, recycling and hazard reduction. On - site treatment of laboratory wastes can significantly

reduce volumes of waste transferred to off - site facilities for disposal, reducing risks to human health and the environment from releases during transportation and disposal. Even if off - site disposal is ultimately required, treatment canreduce hazard levels and handling risks. Treatment of some laboratory waste streams can allow subsequent recycling or reuse of materials that otherwise would have to be disposed. Laboratories meet the two primary re quirements for safe and effective on - site treatment of small quantities of hazardous wastes: Availability

of qualified personnel with the appropriate scientific training, chemical expertise, technical skills, and knowledge of the waste streams, and Availa bility of proper facilities and equipment. L aboratory waste treatment should be allowed in two areas: in satellite accumulation areas near where wastes are generated and in central accumulation areas. The following types of conditions could be imposed on l aboratory treatment to ensure that treatment procedures are safe and protective of the environment and that the ability to treat wastes is not abused: Limit the batch size for treatment - e.g. 5 gallons/20 Kg or less per batch Limit the monthly treatment v olume - e.g. 50 gallons/100 Kg or less per month Stakeholder: Linden Industrial Association Topic: Clarify DEFINITION OF TREATMENT Comment: **DEFINITION OF TREATMENT:** The definition of what constitutes treatment should be narrowed **so as to n ot prevent**  the types of waste minimization efforts referred to in **1.** above. Inaddition, specific operations associated with beneficial reuse, recycling or reclamation of materials at a waste generating facility should not be classified as waste treatment (distillation, filtration, etc.). Stakeholder: Pacific NW **National Laboratory**  Topic: Clarify DEFINITION OF TREATMENT

- articulating the salient points in existing guidance Comment: **262.34: The Treatment by Generator (TBG) program has been very effective in**  **reducing hazardous waste generators’ dependence on offsite treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) facilities**  . This also enables generators to reduce the hazards of their waste at the generation site and reduces the quantity and hazard of wa ste transported over public highway s. **We encourage EPA to continue this program**  , and to consider articulating the salient points in existing guidance within the regulations to assure broad and consistent implementation by eligible generators. Stakeholder : State of Alabama Topic: Clarify DEFINITION OF TREATMENT

- in containers Comment: **Changes are needed to clarify specific regulations:** Generator Treatment: - **262.34 should state explicitly whether generators are allowed to treat in**  **c ontainers.**  Infac t, ADEM believes that this “interpretation - by- analogy” of 262.34 isconfusing, encourages generators t o handle waste in a manner that was not anticipated when the

RCRA was originall y adopted, and sometimes results in situations that make enforcement of th e permit requirements of 40CFR265 difficult. Rather than following this approach, ADEM has consistently

maintained that generators should not, as a general rule, treat hazardous waste onsite without a permit. Instead, ADEM has created specific exemptions f rom permitting in Chapter 335 - 14 - 8 of the Division 14 of the ADEM Administrative Code, which is the State of Alabama’s equivalent to 40CFR270, for certain common types of treatment. The regulatory language used b y ADEM to do so is as follows: 2. Specific exclusions. The following persons are among those who are not required to obtain a AHWMMA permit: (  ) (viii) Generators treating on - site generated hazardous wastes by evaporation in tanks or containers provided that: (I) The generator complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 335 - 14 - 3, (II) Such treatment does not result in the emission or discharge of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents into the environment in excess of any standard(s) promulgated by the D epartment or the Environmental Protection Agency , (III) With respect to treatment, the generator complies with the applicable requirements of Rules 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(5), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(6), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(7), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(8), 335 - 14 - 5 - .03, 335 - 14 - 5 - .04, 335 - 14 - 5 - .0 7(2), 335 - 14 - 5 - .07(5), 335 - 14 - 5 - .09 and 335 - 14 - 5 - .10, (IV) Such treatment minimizes the amount of hazardous wastes which are subsequently g enerated, treated, and/or disposed, and (V) The generator provides the Department with written notice of intent to treat such hazardous wastes on or before the effective date of 335 - 14 - 8 - .01 or at least 60 days prior to the initiation of waste treatment, which ever date occurs last. This noticemust provide documentation of compliance with the requirements of 335 - 14 - 8 - .01 (1)(c)2.(viii)(II), (III), and (IV), and must be maintained for the life of the facility and be available for inspection; (  ) (x) Generators treating on - site generated hazardous wastes in tanks or containers b y phys ical or mechanical processes (e.g., compa cting rags, crushing fluorescent lamps) solely f or the purpose of reducing the bulk volume of the waste which must be subsequently managed as a hazardous waste provided that: (I) The generator complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3 35 - 14 - 3; (II) The treatment process does not result in a change in the chemical composition of the waste(s) treated; (III) No mixing of different waste streams occurs; (IV) No free liquids are included in the waste(s) to be treated or generated by the tre atment process; (V) The potential for ignition and/or reaction of the waste during treatment and/or as the result of treatment does not exist; (VI) The treatment reduces the volume of hazardous waste which must be subsequently managed; (VII) Such treatment does not result in the emission or discharge of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents into the environment in excess of any standard(s) promulgated by the Department or the Environmental Protection Agency ; (VIII) With respect to treatment, the generator complies with the applicable requirements of Rules335 - 14 - 5 - .02(5), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(6), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(7), 335 - 14 - 5 - .02(8), 335 - 14 - 5 - .03, 335 - 14 - 5 - .04,

335 - 14 - 5 - .07(2), 335 - 14 - 5 - .07(5), 335 - 14 - 5 - .09, 335 - 14 - 5 - .10; and (IX) The generator provides the Department with written notice of intent to treat such hazardous wastes on or before the effective date of 335 - 14 - 8 - .01 or at least 60 days prior to the initiation of waste treatment, whichever date occurs last. This notice must provide documentation of complian ce with the requirements of 335 - 14 - 8 - .01(1)(c)2.(x)(II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI), (VII), and (VIII), and must be maintained for the life of the facility and be available for inspection. Stakeholder: P hRMA Topic: Incorporate into regulations guidance a ssociated with treatment in containers Comment: 265 Subparts I and J

– EPA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can conduct treatment in tanks and containers in less than 90 - day storage areas. PhRMA recommends that EPA incorporate this into the regulations. Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Clarify typ es of treatment allowed without a permit Comment: Requirements for on - site treatment and disposal: 262.10(c). 262.10(c) has misled a number o f generators who assume that they may dispose of h azardous waste on - site without a permit, or may treat hazardous waste by burning or fuel blending. The section should state explicitly what ty pes of treatment in tanks andcontainers are allowed without a p ermit, and should state “This section does not exempt a generator who treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste on - site from the applicable standards and permit requirements set forth in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266,268 and 270.” Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Rename Subpart C Comment: 262 Subpart C

– Pre Transport Requirements. **This subpart should**  **be re -**  **named, as**  **it also covers requirements for storage prior to on site treatment or disposal. FDEP suggests**  **“Storage (or Accumulation) and Treatment Requirements.”** Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute (API) Topic: Incorporat e into regulations guidance associated with treatment in containers Comment: EPA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can conduct treatment in tanks and containers in less than 90 - day storage areas. **API recommends that EPA incorporate th is**  **guidance into the regulations.**Possibly

new comment: **Stakeholder:** State of North Carolina **Topic:** Clarify types of treatment allowed without a permit **Comment:** 40 CFR 262 regulations should provide a list of allowable treatment activities (e.g. on - site distillation) that can be performed in the containers and tanks at satellite accumulation areas and in the 90 - day

or 180 - day

storage area of a generator’s facility. Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Reconsider the whole subject of hazardous waste treatment when “treatment” is in place for purposes of facilitating reuse of a spent material Comment: The GAC strongl y encourages EPA to reconsider the whole subject of hazardous waste treatment when “treatment” is in place for purposes of facilitating reuse of a spent material. All printers regardless of size use ink and cleaning compounds. The spent materials are generall y considered hazardous due to the characteristic of ignitability . A company should be allowed to “treat” a waste, including thermal treatment, without having to secure a permit or interim status when the waste is destined for reu se on site. EPA has already partiall y set the stage for this recommendation b y allowing SQGs the opportunity to “treat waste on site in accumulation tanks or containers without a permit or interim status provided that they comply with applicable provisions in 40 CFR 262.34 and the treatment is not thermal treatment (Guidance Memo

– Small Quantity Generator Treatment in Tanks dated 8/1/2003). GAC recognizes an opportunity already exists for generators to recycle waste materials when the process is closed lo oped and part of the primary manufacturing process. However, these restrictions make recycling infeasible in a typical printing plant. The most common materials available for recycling are cleaning compounds however the nature of manual cleaning doesn’t lend itself to a “closed loop” process. And, the most common method of recycling is distillation, a process that is thermal and “open loop” in nature. Consequently , printers either dispose of their cleaning compounds off

- site, often at cement kilns for fuels blending, or send the cleaning compounds to an off

- site treatment facility

where the cleaning compounds are distilled and returned to the printer for reuse on site. In practice, these restrictions discourage recycling and are counterproductive to good env ironmental management. Introducing an element of flexibility that allows generators to treat hazardous wastes on s ite in an “open loop” process where the entire life cycle of the process occurs on site should be a practice encouraged b y the Agency. **Treat ment and reuse on site reduces the risk of an over**  **- the**  **- road**  **spill, reduces fuel use and emissions associated with transportation, reduces energy needed to manufacture new raw materials replacing the spent material, and can be economically**  **advantageous.** 9 commenters; 10 comments