Overview of Key RCRA Initiatives. Flexible Packaging Association January 20, 2005

Transcription

1 Overview of Key RCRA Initiatives Flexible Packaging Association January 20, 2005

2 Focus of Presentation Definition of Solid Waste Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative Hazardous Waste Manifest Rulemaking

3 Background Defining waste has been a controversial issue for RCRA stakeholders. Proposed rule is a result of more than 10 years of work on the RCRA definition of solid waste, and a response to D.C. Circuit Court Decision in Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA Proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 28, Comment period ended on February 25, 2004.

4 Summary of Proposal The proposal has two major components: Regulatory exclusion for materials that are recycled in a continuous process within the generating industry. Codification of long-standing criteria used to determine whether recycling is legitimate.

5 Proposed Exclusion Proposal would exclude from regulation hazardous secondary materials that are generated and reclaimed in a continuous process within the same industry. Example: A spent solvent generated at a paint manufacturing plant and then shipped to another paint manufacturing plant for reclamation would not be a solid (or hazardous) waste.

6 Definition of Industry Industry defined using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (successor to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system). Proposed to use NAICS 4-digit 4 classification. Examples: Basic chemical manufacturing (3251); Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing (3254).

7 Definition of Continuous Process Materials must be transferred directly from generator to recycler (no brokers). Materials must be recycled within existing time limits for speculative accumulation (i.e., 75% of secondary materials must be recycled within a calendar year).

8 Notification Generators using the exclusion would need to provide one-time notification to the state or EPA. States strongly encouraged EPA to require notification to assist with implementation.

9 Broader Approach Requested comment on a broader, alternative regulatory exclusion. Alternative approach would provide an exclusion for all hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately recycled by being reclaimed.

10 Legitimacy Criteria All recycling of hazardous wastes or secondary materials must be legitimate Sham recycling is treatment or disposal disguised as recycling.

11 Legitimacy Criteria Criteria for determining legitimacy of recycling practices are currently in guidance, preamble statements States, other stakeholders have long argued for codification of legitimacy criteria More transparency/certainty, easier to enforce

12 Proposed Legitimacy Criteria 1. Materials must be managed as valuable commodities 2. Materials must provide useful contribution to product or recycling process 3. Recycling must produce valuable product 4. Products of recycling must not contain significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents than are in analogous products

13 Stakeholder Reaction As expected, reaction to proposal is mixed. Many contend proposal doesn t offer enough regulatory relief, while others say it gives away too much. Received comments on the proposed rule from approximately 200 organizations and individuals over 25 states and state organizations, waste generators, the waste management industry, and environmental groups.

14 Industry Reaction Industry generally prefers a more expansive, unconditional exclusion for any material that is legitimately reclaimed/recycled (i.e., even broader than the broad option outlined in the preamble). Some would support an exclusion with conditions. Alternatively, many industry commenters support intra-industry industry exclusion using 3-digit 3 NAICS codes, with follow-on on work to develop a broader approach.

15 State Reaction State reaction mixed Generally skeptical about unconditional exclusion; concerned about potential for mismanagement in absence of any regulatory controls. Most states prefer exclusion with conditions (e.g., recordkeeping, financial assurance, etc.) Most states support exclusion for on-site reclamation, either alone or combined with other regulatory options. Some states expressed general support for exclusion as proposed; a few of these could support the broader exclusion for legitimate recycling, with conditions.

16 Status Currently analyzing comments. Briefings for decision-making by senior management on directions for the final rule to follow. Rough estimate might be that EPA could finalize the rule in late Contacts: Charlotte Mooney ( ) Dave Fagan ( )

17 Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative - Goals Evaluate the current HW 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

18 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

19 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, Comment period closed on July 21, 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

20 Emphasis of this Initiative: A broad review 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?

21 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

22 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)

23 Industry wants HW Generator program brought into the 21st Century (Continued) 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

24 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)

25 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 Do not move forward with strategy at this time, but delay start pending completion of other priority projects

26 Next Steps 1. Conduct more detailed analysis of stakeholder comments. In particular, determine extent any changes can be made through issuance of guidance vs. rule development 2. As best as possible, determine the economic and environmental benefits and costs (quantitative or qualitative) of any proposed changes to existing regulations 3. Re Re-examine examine and/or identify new options in light of this additional information 4. Aiming for late-january to complete above analyses and brief OSW management 5. Contact: Jim O Leary ( )

27 Hazardous Waste Manifest - Background The proposed manifest rule was published in May, 2001 The proposal included two main components: - Revisions to the Hazardous Waste Manifest form (EPA Form ), - Proposal to enable electronic waste tracking (e-manifest) OSW decided in 2002 to split the rulemaking into two separate rulemakings tracks, so we could finalize the revised form as early as possible

28 Proposed Revisions to Manifest Form Included several elements aimed at reducing state-by by-state variability and standardizing the contents/format of the manifest form: - Eliminate all State optional data fields; - Designate all fields as mandatory, including waste codes and handling codes; - Adopt standard fields and procedures for tracking problem shipments (i.e., rejected wastes, container residues, and international shipments) - Standardize handling codes around RCRA Biennial Report Waste Management System Codes

29 Proposed Manifest Form Revisions (continued) The proposed rule also established a new role for EPA as the Manifest Registry, and established new manifest acquisition and distribution approaches; EPA would: - Require waste handlers, commercial form printers, or states to register with EPA to print and distribute blank manifest forms - Prescribe Federal printing specifications for the form to assure national uniformity.

30 Status of Manifest Form Revisions Final Rule should be signed by Administrator any day

31 Proposed Standards for E-manifestE Three elements: - Standard electronic formats( EDI and Web- based) - Electronic signature options (digital and digitized) - Computer security (data integrity, non- repudiation) The e-manifest e proposal assumed that EPA s role would be limited to setting electronic standards, while industries would voluntarily implement IT systems; and EPA would maintain current role w/ respect to manifests (i.e., no manifest forms or data collection by the Agency).

32 E-Manifest Stakeholder Input Conducted national Stakeholder Meeting in May, 2004 to gauge reaction to alternative approaches We presented straw approach with a centralized web-based based tracking application hosted on EPA s Central Data Exchange Key Messages from Stakeholder Meeting: Strong consensus for consistent, national system Sense that e-manifest e should be optional for users Keep it simple core manifest tracking and copy retention/distribution services are critical User consensus is cost should not be big barrier Users willing to pay fees to finance system build and O&M Fees OK if transparent and earmarked to manifest (not a tax ) IT vendor consensus that manifest could be attractive investment if user fees could be used for cost recovery

33 E-Manifest is All About Benefits Modest system investment leverages dramatic burden/cost savings ~ $1 billion over 10 years of operation (users, States) Modern shipment tracking services possible Why not the same level of tracking service for HW that we expect for books/parcels shipped by FedEx or UPS? Redundant Fed/State systems can be consolidated 24 States collect and track manifest data Two-yr manual process for collecting Biennial Report Overlapping trans-boundary waste shipment reporting Burdensome on-site record collections eliminated

34 Share-in in-savings Funding Approach Share-in in-savings contract appears to be most viable means for developing e-manifest e solution SIS authorized by E-Gov E Act of 2002 to fund IT solutions Premise: IT vendor builds system at its cost, then recovers costs and profit from savings that system generates Act defines savings to include enhanced revenues Lawyers say E-Gov E Act provides requisite authority for vendor or EPA to assess manifest service fees Improving delivery of manifest service is proper gov t purpose Baseline is measurable and IT solution will generate net benefits pool to reimburse contractor Because SIS contract offers EPA a feasible means for going forward, OSWER s AA decided recently to begin the SIS award process for e-manifest e system development

35 Status of E-Manifest E Effort Getting contracts in place Fall 2005 Complete system development -? Finalize rule -? Contact: Rich LaShier ( )