## 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 - o n 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 millio n - 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 effi cient and effective manner5

**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 co mments on key com ponents o f program - Published April 22, 2004 - Co mment 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 P**  **hase 3: Implement Program Improvem**  **ent Strategy, if necessary and desirable**6

**Em phasis 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? I s environment being protected from the mis manage me nt 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 re view 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 gene rators - 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 generators8

**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 Program s - Com

pliance assistance - Performance measures - Pollution prevention and recycling - Program priorities - **Meetings were dynam ic and interactive**  . Participants were engaged. - **Comments in public meetings and ANPRM c onstructive 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 com panies - 12 Trade associations (e.g., CMA, API, SOCMA, USWAG) - 3 Private citizens - 1 State DOT agency (New York) - No environmental groups commented10

**Findings and Observations from Public Meetings and ANPRM** - The RCRA hazardous waste generator program has made significant im provements 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 i mprovem**  **ents to the program can be undertaken**11

**Industry wan ts HW Generator program brought into the 21**  **st Century**  **Sim plify 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 applicabl e (e.g., treatment in containers) **Im prove efficiency of program** **by clarifying am biguities and rem**  **oving potential redundancies. Examples include:**  - Em ployee training (e.g., clarifying precisely what is required) - Contingency planning (e.g., sim plify requ ire ments, defer to local authorities) - Air emissions (e.g., RCRA vs. CAA requirements) - Land disposal restrictions (e.g., clarifying when sam pling vs. generator knowledge can be used) **Provide greater flexibility to generators in how they can comply wit h 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 manageme nt) - Waste accumulation times (e.g., allow generators to exceed 90 day waste accumulation times provided waste managed safely) - **Focus efforts on im proving environm**  **ental results and**  **creating incentives for industry to go beyond regulations, including fa**  **cilitation 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 - eli minate cross - referencing **Modify and/or clarify key components of generator regulations, including**  : - on - site treatment (e.g., codify in regulations) - em ployee training (e.g., clarifying precisely what is required) - satellite accumu lation (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 com pliance assistan**  **ce (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 r egulations**  – **general consensus by large majority of all types of stakeholders** that existing regulations need to be: - sim

plified - written more clearly; and - reorganized to eliminate confusion with cross referencing **Container Standards** – **ma jority**  **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 i mplementing **performance -**  **based system** to sim plifying r ules for small above - ground storage tank system s. Several comments from industry also focused on reducing inspection frequencies. **Em ployee Training**  – **Majority of industry comments focused on reducing paperwork burden** (employee training records, job de scriptions, etc.) as well as **eliminating redundancy** with other statutes with very similar training (i.e., OSHA and DOT), or sim ply **relying on internal management systems;**  i.e., EMS ’ s .14

**Topics Receiving Greatest Number of Most Responses (Continued)** 
**– State comments**  **mo re 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** – **mo st 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 Plann ing and Emergency Response**  – **wide range of comments** - from **eliminating the contingency plan requirement**  to **providing one -**  **pager of basic inform ation**  to local authorities; i.e., storage capacity, etc., **and reducing redundancy with other statutes** , where appli cable. **Hazardous Waste Determinations** – **mo st 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 im plementing program strategy that **measures and m onitors program**  **effectiveness and environmental results** 3. Focus on rule changes that improve **program efficiency and effectiveness**  ; i.e., em ployee training, contingency planning, waste accumulation, etc. 4 **.** Focus on **com pliance assistance**  for key industry sectors 5. **System atic 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 projects16

**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 reco mme ndations with Regions, OECA and ASTSWMO - Communicate strategy with other stakeholders