Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative

Background Meeting

November 22, 2004
2

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
3

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 
4

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 
5

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 
6

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?

 
7

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
8

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.
9

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 
10

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
11

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
12

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) 

 
13

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.
14

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.
15

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
16

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