Search

New Issues for Hazardous Waste Recycling

Posted on 7/26/2011 by James Griffin

The EPA is proposing further amendments to the hazardous waste regulations in order to encourage the recycling of hazardous secondary materials while protecting low-income and minority communities from pollution. This proposal would limit the opportunities for waste generators to exclude hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling from the hazardous waste regulations. This proposal also introduces significant new requirements for all existing recycling exclusions.
 
You may remember that the EPA expanded the range of exclusions for hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling just a few years ago, so why is the Agency restricting recycling just three years later?
 
In October 2008 (73 FR 64668), the EPA issued a new final rule to revise the definition of solid waste and to provide significant relief from regulation for hazardous secondary materials intended for reclamation. Very soon after the 2008 rule was issued, the Sierra Club and others sued the EPA on the grounds that the new rule could lead to mishandled hazardous materials that would create a disproportionate environmental impact on poor and minority communities. In 2010, the Sierra Club agreed to drop its suit if the EPA did a new environmental justice analysis and issued new revised rules by December 31, 2012.
 
This proposal is the Agency’s first step towards issuing new rules by the end of the year. The EPA will be accepting public comments on the proposal until September 20, 2011 at regulations.gov and at all the other usual places under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742 .
 
What Changes Is the EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing changes in the definition of solid waste and other hazardous waste recycling regulations in three main areas: the transfer–based exclusion, generator reclamation, and legitimacy. The proposal also includes miscellaneous conforming amendments and a request for comment on remanufacturing high–value materials.
 
Transfer–Based Reclamation
 
In the 2008 rule, the EPA excluded from the hazardous waste regulations hazardous secondary materials that were transferred from the generator to another party for reclamation. [40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)] Because the EPA’s research has shown that transfer based recycling more often led to mishandled wastes, the EPA is withdrawing the transfer–based exclusion and replacing it with an alternative set of regulations.

Under the new proposal, any hazardous secondary materials intended for reclamation by someone other than the generator must be stored, manifested, and otherwise managed as hazardous waste. The one exception is that generators may accumulate these materials for up to one year, as long as they make advance arrangements to legitimately reclaim the materials and keep appropriate documentation.
 
The EPA is also considering setting an upper limit on the amount of hazardous secondary materials a generator may accumulate under this provision. However, the proposal did not include any specific quantity.
 
Generator Reclamation
 
The 2008 rule also excluded from RCRA regulation hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator. [40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)] Because materials reclaimed by the generator have a much better environmental track record than transferred wastes, the EPA is proposing only a few changes to this area, but they are significant.
 
Containment
 
The original rule required that hazardous secondary materials intended for reclamation be “contained” by the generator, but provided no regulatory definition of ’containment.’ After receiving comments from State regulators and the waste–generating community on the difficulty of implementing such an undefined standard, the EPA has added an official regulatory definition of what it means to be “contained” and clarified that hazardous secondary materials that are not contained are to be discarded hazardous wastes.
 
Notification
 
Under the 2008 version of the rule, generators reclaiming hazardous secondary materials are required to notify the EPA or local authorities every other year; however, failure to notify does not invalidate the exclusion. This means that any hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling are excluded from regulation as hazardous waste whether or not the generator notified the EPA.
 
Because of the possibility of perverse incentives and regulatory confusion, the EPA is proposing instead to make notification a condition of the exclusion. In other words, generators of hazardous secondary materials must continue to manage their materials as hazardous waste until they notify the EPA of their intent to reclaim. A failure to notify would itself invalidate the exclusion, and any reclamation done without a notification would be considered unpermitted waste treatment.
 
Legitimacy
 
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compels the EPA to protect the environment from the dangers of mishandled hazardous waste and to encourage recycling of solid, industrial, and hazardous wastes. Ever since the RCRA regulations were first promulgated in the 1980s, the EPA has struggled to balance these mandates.
 
Many waste generators, when confronted with the full cost of complying with the hazardous waste regulations, have attempted to avoid the EPA by spuriously claiming their materials are exempt recyclables when in fact they are treating or discarding hazardous waste. For years, the EPA has attempted to encourage ’legitimate’ recycling of hazardous and other solid wastes, while preventing ’sham’ recycling (disposal disguised as recycling). But, the Agency had never introduced a regulatory definition of legitimacy until the 2008 final rule.
 
The July 22nd proposal would revise the legitimacy criteria to:
 
  • Create a tougher standard,
  • Mandate documentation for any excluded recycling activity, and
  • Extend the revised legitimacy criteria to all existing recycling exclusions.
 
Other Provisions
 
Now that the EPA has settled on an official definition of legitimate recycling and procedures for handling recyclable hazardous materials, the Agency would like to extend these new requirements to all of the existing recycling exclusions. This means that the containment, biennial notification, and legitimacy criteria would apply to anyone who is already recycling scrap metal, drums, batteries, ethanol, or any other hazardous waste under an existing exclusion [40 CFR 261.2, 261.3, 261.4, 261.6, 261.7, Part 266].
 
As part of the proposal, the EPA would also like to revise the procedures for hazardous waste de–listings and other variances in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C.
 

Tags: hazardous, RCRA, recycling, waste

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

This training broke down the regulations in an easy-to-understand manner and made them less overwhelming. I now feel I have the knowledge to make more informed decisions.

Amanda Oswald

Shipping Professional

The instructor was great, explaining complex topics in terms that were easily understandable and answering questions clearly and thoroughly.

Brittany Holm

Lab Supervisor

Convenient; I can train when I want, where I want.

Barry Cook

Hazmat Shipping Professional

These are the best commercial course references I have seen (10+ years). Great job!

Ed Grzybowski

EHS & Facility Engineer

This is the best RCRA training I've experienced! I will be visiting Lion training again.

Cynthia L. Logsdon

Principal Environmental Engineer

The instructor was very knowledgeable and provided pertinent information above and beyond the questions that were asked.

Johnny Barton

Logistics Coordinator

Lion is my preferred trainer for hazmat and DOT.

Jim Jani

Environmental Coordinator

We have a very busy work schedule and using Lion enables us to take the course at our own time. It makes it easy for me to schedule my employees' training.

Timothy Mertes

Hazmat Shipping Professional

Lion is at the top of the industry in compliance training. Course content and structure are updated frequently to make annual re-training enjoyable. I like that Lion has experts that I can contact for 1 year after the training.

Caroline Froning

Plant Chemist

I really enjoyed this training. Even after years on both sides of the comprehension coin, I find myself still learning! The quality of the delivery exceeded much of the training I have received in the past.

Neil Ozonur

Safety Officer

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Decrease spill, release, and injury risk and increase savings with these "source reduction" strategies to prevent unused chemicals from becoming regulated as hazardous waste.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.