Conference Call with the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) Re: Hazardous Waste Generator Standards March 14, 2013 Participants: Ross Bunnell, Sanitary

Engineer, Connecticut DEEP, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance , Waste Engineering & Enforcement Division David Metz, Associate, Industrial Economics (IEc)
1. Q: What does Connecticut require facilities to do to document their waste determinations? A: [Submitted via E

- mail on March 13, 2013] By way of clarification, I should note that our regulations don’t explicitly require the maintenance of documentation for “negative determinations.” However, there are several aspects of our hazardous waste regs and our implementation of them that basically ac hieve the same end result. More specifically : 1.) We incorporate the federal language at 40 CFR 262.11 which states that “A person who generates a solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, must determine if that waste is a hazardous waste...” For man y years, w e have interpreted this language to appl y to ANY solid waste, even if it is ultimately determined not to be hazardous. For example, in penalty actions for violations of hazardous waste determination requirements, we do not consider it an excuse if one or more of the determinations turned out non

- hazardous. Instead, in such penalty actions, we will assess penalties for all wastes in which the generator failed to determine if the waste is hazardous, or failed to fully determine all the EPA waste codes for which the waste is hazardous. 2.) We incorporate the federal provision at 40 CFR 262.40(c) which say s that “A generator must keep a copy records of any

test results, waste anal ys es, or other determinations made in accordance with §262.11 for at least three years from the date that the waste was last sent to on

- site or off

- site treatment, storage, or disposal.” We interpret this to mean that if a generator uses testing or analy sis to perform either a positive or negative waste determination, they must retain records of such testing or anal ys is and be able to supply them to us during an inspection. 3.) Our regulations modify the federal language in 40 CFR 262.11 to require that hazardous waste determinations be repeated annually
.4.) Our regulations also modify th e federal language in 40 CFR 262.11(c)(2) to require that an y generator using “knowledge of process” to satisfy hazardous waste determination requirements be “able to demonstrate clearl y how he applied knowledge of the waste in making the determination” (i n other words, be able to document the basis for the knowledge of process

- based determination). As a result of the above, when our inspectors perform inspections, they expect to see documentation supporting hazardous waste determinations for each solid w aste generated at the facilit y, regardless of whether or not is was determined to be hazardous. For low

risk wastes, such as ordinary solid waste generated in individual employee trash receptacles, we will not expect much more than confirmation that the c ompany effectivel y keeps potentially hazardous wastes (e.g., aerosol cans and small container of chemical products) out of that waste stream. (We actuall y look in trash dumpsters to confirm this.) However for other, more industrial

- ty pe wastes, we will s pecifically expect to see test results or properl y - documented “knowledge of process” information. This would include commonly

- overlooked wastes such as used absorbents, buffing and grinding dusts, rags/wipers, waste gasoline, spent antifreeze, filters, paint

related wastes (e.g., paint overspray , used PPE, etc.), old/overstock unused or abandoned chemicals/products, and wastewaters treated in evaporators. If we find that a generator has not performed a determination on such a waste stream, or has not done so fully

or properl y, we will cite it as a violation, and issue them a Notice of Violation or pursue other enforcement action to require them to correct the violation.
2. Q: How do facilities make waste determinations? A: This process varies waste stream b y waste stream. Facilities may use testing (e.g., TCLP) or demonstrate “knowledge of process” (e.g., past sampling data for the same raw materials, material safety data sheet (MSDS), product constituent information). Knowledge of process is most commonly u sed to identify

hazardous waste streams. Connecticut DEEP expresses caution about the limitations of knowledge of process determinations

—these are best used by larger, more sophisticated facilities (LQGs) with dedicated environmental staff. It also discourages facilities from using MSDS to make negative determinations because manufacturers may not reliabl y report some materials whose concentrations are below 1 percent, but that would cause a sample to fail a TCLP anal ys is. Additional information is available at: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2718&q=325422&deepNav_GID=1967 and http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2718&q=434308&deepNav_GID=1967
. Connecticut has a three

- tiered industrial waste management s ys tem. Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a

- 454 pre
- dates RCRA and is broader in scope than RCRA in that itregulates no n - hazardous waste (“Connecticut regulated wastes”). These requirements are

less stringent than RCRA, but more stringent that other states (e.g., buffing dust). 3. Q: Based on your experience, can you estimate the percentage of non

- hazardous waste versus haz ardous waste determinations? A: This varies greatly

by facility . Some industries are overwhelmingl y non - hazardous (e.g., nuts and bolts manufacturing with no cleaning processes). Other industries are overwhelmingly

hazardous (e.g., stainless steel, brass, chrome plating, an ything lead

based). Some indicators of hazardous waste include strong acids, caus tics, lead, and parts cleaning. 4. Q: How do facilities report closures (either entire facility or individual unit closures)? Can you estimate the approximate annual number of closures? A: Notification of closure is not currentl y required. State closure requirements have been expanded to apply

to LQGs and SQGs. Connecticut is also proposing a notification process for closures. Currently , inspectors will ask if any RCRA units have been closed when they

do facility

inspections. Identifying closures may be self

- implementing process because they

are reported (or not reported) through the maintenance of EPA identification numbers, wh ich track generator status changes.

Follow

- up items : 1) Ross will look into data on the number of generator status changes observed each ye ar. ( replied on March 15, 2013 ) 2) Ross will provide some sample inspection records to IEc that document waste streams d eterminations.