[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
UW-Madison RCRA Permit Comments, Part I
If you wish to comment, your letter and two copies must be postmarked
October 3rd. EPA also requests a copy on a clearly marked disk in
ASCII format.
If you wish, you would send a short letter in support of UW-Madison's
comments, below.
Please contact me for more information.
Peter A. Reinhardt
Assistant Director, Chemical & Environmental Safety University of
Wisconsin-Madison Safety Department 30 N. Murray St., Madison, WI
53115-2609 608/262-9735 FAX: 608/262-6767
peter.reinhardt@mail.admin.wisc.edu
..................................................................
2 October 1996
University of Wisconsin-Madison Comments
in support of EPA Permits Improvement Team's Recommendations
in the "Concept Paper on Environmental Permitting and Task Force
Recommendations." (61 FR 37744, July 19, 1996)
EPA RCRA Docket Number F-96-PT2A-FFFFF
RCRA Information Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5035W)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Environmental Protection Agency,
The University of Wisconsin-Madison (University) submits the following
comments in strong support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Permits Improvement Team's (PIT) recommendations in the "Concept
Paper on Environmental Permitting and Task Force Recommendations."
This letter is in response to EPA's request for comments published in
the 19 July 1996 Federal Register (61 FR 37744). On 11 September, EPA
extended the comment period until 3 October (61 FR 47931).
SUMMARY OF UW-MADISON COMMENTS
We very strongly support the following Task Force recommendations for
the RCRA Base Permit Program. We are very pleased that the
recommendations specifically address laboratories. These changes would
improve waste management efficiency, promote recycling, reuse and
reclamation, and reduce risks to health and the environment. A detailed
explanation of our comments follows this summary:
We support EPA's objective of making environmental permitting more
efficient and based on the permittee's performance.
We support EPA's recommendation to extend the generator storage time
frames from 90 to 270 days for laboratories as part of regulatory
re-invention.
We support EPA's recommendation for general (boilerplate) permits for
non-commercial storage, especially for laboratories.
We support EPA's recommendation for general permits for non-commercial
treatment, especially for laboratory waste.
We urge EPA to consider conditional exemptions for generator storage
of laboratory waste when there are no available commercial disposal
options and when short half-life mixed waste is held in an
NRC-approved decay-in-storage program. A conditional or de minimis
exemption should be provided for very small scale treatment of
laboratory waste.
We ask that EPA allow generators of laboratory waste to utilize any
new extensions, general permits and conditional exemptions at the
generator's accumulation or storage facility. To be truly beneficial,
these changes should pertain to laboratory waste and not limited to a
laboratory in which the waste is generated.
We urge EPA to take this opportunity to clarify or provide guidance to
allow treatment without a permit as part of a laboratory process, at
the end of an experiment, and in containers in satellite accumulation
areas. EPA also needs to clarify that radioactive decay of mixed waste
is not treatment.
SUPPORT FOR OVERALL PIT OBJECTIVES
The Task Force Recommendations, if adopted, would result in great
improvements in the environmental permitting process. We support EPA's
goal of shifting the focus of environmental permitting towards the
measurement and assurance of performance, while providing flexibility
as to how a permittee will meet performance standards. In other
government programs, performance-based regulation and permitting has
proven to be efficient and protective of health and the environment.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
performance-based Laboratory Standard has been remarkably successful.
This suggests that performance-based permitting may be the best way to
regulate other laboratory activities, such as the treatment and
storage of hazardous waste.
We wish to bring to EPA's attention a recent report, Prudent Practices
in the Laboratory: Handling and Disposal of Chemicals, prepared by the
National Research Council Committee on Prudent Practices for Handling,
Storage and Disposal of Chemicals in Laboratories. Several
recommendations in Prudent Practices support recommendations of EPA's
Permit Improvement Team and Alternatives to Individual Permits Task
Force. One Prudent Practices recommendation addresses PIT's overall
objectives:
The committee recommends that regulation directed to laboratories be
performance-based and be structured to take into account the unique
aspects and professional expertise within the laboratory.
This Prudent Practices recommendation is based on the observation
that, "In contrast to manufacturing facilities, laboratories generally
use small amounts of a large variety of chemicals, often in
frequently changing procedures; in addition , they are staffed by
highly training technical workers. As a consequence, overly
prescriptive regulation may not efficiently protect personnel and the
environment_a performance based system is often more effective, both
for the laboratories being regulated and for those regulatory agencies
concerned with health, safety and the environment."<1>
SUPPORT FOR EXTENDING GENERATOR STORAGE TIME FRAMES
We support the Alternatives to Individual Permits Task Force
recommendation:
Extend the generator storage time frames from 90 to 270 days for
laboratories as part of regulatory re-invention.
This provision would also allow laboratories to accumulate sufficient
quantities for cost-effective recycling, reuse and reclamation,
thereby reducing the amount of hazardous waste shipped off-site.
In addition, the 270 day limit would greatly improve the efficiency of
hazardous waste shipments from laboratories. In some circumstances, the
U.S. Department of Transportation requires that certain laboratory
wastes (e.g., those wastes classified as Poison Inhalation Hazards) be
shipped separately from other wastes. As a result, some large quantity
generators have had to ship twice each quarter to meet the 90 day
storage limit. Similarly, some types of laboratory wastes (such as
gases and mixed waste) are shipped separately to specialized treatment
and disposal facilities. Multiple quarterly shipments of very small
quantities is extremely inefficient.
A 270 day storage time frame would allow generators of mixed waste<2>
with half-lives less than 27 days to take advantage of on-site
decay-in-storage. For example, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
generally will permit a licensee to hold 32P (a radioactive isotope of
Phosphorus) waste for ten half lives (140 days), during which the
radioactivity is reduced one thousand fold. Mixed waste may then be
released for management as a hazardous waste. The benefits of
decay-in-storage for mixed waste are explained in more detail below.
SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING FOR NON-COMMERCIAL STORAGE
We are strongly in favor of alternatives to individual permits, and
support the Task Force recommendation:
OSW should establish a general permit boilerplate and promote the use
of general permits for non-commercial storage or treatment facilities,
including, for example, laboratories.
A general permit program for non-commercial storage of laboratory
waste would be tremendously beneficial. Under the current program of
individual permits, obtaining a RCRA permit is inordinately difficult
and costly for all but the largest of hazardous waste generators. As
described in the PIT Concept Paper, a general permit would be less
prescriptive and easier to prepare. Standardization on prototype
facilities would improve the efficiency of compliance programs.
EPA's RCRA permit program and its performance standards need to remain
flexible for the special needs or circumstances that may arise for
some non-commercial storage or treatment facilities. The new general
permit program should not preclude some degree of customization or, if
necessary, access to the individual permit program for non-commercial
facilities.
We are pleased that laboratories would be included in this
recommendation, but we know that non-laboratory waste management would
also benefit from a general permit program for non-commercial storage.
A general permit program would allow generators to expand the benefits
mentioned above for laboratory wastes held for 270 days. It would
allow accumulation of sufficient waste quantities for cost effective
recycling, reuse and reclamation. These activities can then take
advantage of the economies of scale.
Over the last fifteen years, disruptions and failures in the national
hazardous waste disposal market has occasionally forced generators to
store small quantities of hazardous waste beyond the time limit for
unpermitted facilities. These disruptions have been caused by legal
and economic changes. Laboratories are particularly susceptible to
market disruptions because they generate a great variety of wastes in
small quantities. These small quantities are often insufficient to
support a viable commercial treatment or disposal facility. Examples
of difficult-to-dispose-of wastes have included mercury salts,
experimental gases, wastes containing 2, 4, 5-T, and hazardous wastes
containing radioactive materials or biological agents. These disposal
problems have typically not been permanent, but have forced generators
to stockpile waste in satellite accumulation areas, violate their
storage time limit, or proceed with difficult and costly permitting
for very small waste quantities in their less-than-90 day facilities.
A general permit program would provide a more efficient and reasonable
alternative for these difficult-to-dispose-of wastes.
EPA's permit requirement for mixed waste storage presents a great
barrier to safe and efficient on-site decay, which reduces the wastes
radiological hazard. For mixed waste that is being stored for the
purposes of decay, EPA has already ruled that the Land Disposal
Restrictions' one year storage prohibition (RCRA ss. 3004(j)) does not
apply to mixed waste held pursuant to an NRC approved decay-in-storage
program during the period of decay.<3> A general permit program would
further encourage this safe method of minimizing mixed waste.
According to the PIT Concept Paper, the Alternatives to Individual
Permits Task Force considered conditional and de minimis exemptions to
RCRA permitting. We believe there are some instances in which
conditional and de minimis exemptions are justified.
Conditional Exemption for NRC DIS of Mixed Waste
Although a general permit program would be welcome for the storage of
short half-lived mixed waste, we urge EPA to consider a conditional
exemption from RCRA permitting for generator storage of short
half-life mixed waste that is held in an NRC-approved decay-in-storage
program. For many reasons, EPA should promote the storage of short
half-lived mixed waste. Decay-in-storage by generators reduces
occupational and environmental risks. After decay, transportation,
treatment and disposal all entail less risk. Non-radioactive hazardous
waste is much easier and less costly to dispose of than mixed waste.
Currently, the 90 day storage limit forces generators to ship such
waste as mixed waste.
The NRC closely regulates the storage of short half-lived mixed waste
held for decay. The NRC refers to storage for decay as
"decay-in-storage" (DIS). The specific conditions for decay-in-storage
are detailed in the institution's or firm's NRC license. DIS is
usually limited to half-lives of less than 65 days, although
half-lives up to 120 days are routinely approved by the NRC. When the
short half-lived radionuclides have decayed to background levels (the
length of time depends on the initial radioactivity level, but
typically is defined as a storage period of at least 10 half-lives),
the mixed waste is managed as a hazardous waste. After the decay
period, NRC licensees are required to survey the waste for external
radiation prior to releasing it to be managed as hazardous waste.<4>
As a result of these precautions, dual regulation by both the NRC and
EPA is unnecessary. Existing NRC DIS regulations sufficiently protect
health and the environment.
Prudent Practices supports such an exemption in their recommendation:
The committee recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency
encourage safe disposal of chemical-radioactive (mixed) waste
materials with short half-lives by excluding the decay-in-storage
period from the current 90-day limitation on storage of hazardous
waste.<5>
Conditional Exemption When No Disposal Options Exist
We urge EPA to consider a conditional exemption for generator storage
of small quantities of laboratory waste for which there are no
commercial treatment or disposal options. As explained above,
laboratories tend to generate small volumes of wastes with
characteristics that have no commercial outlet. For example, EPA has
documented that no commercial disposal facilities exist for certain
types of mixed waste.<6> As a result, some laboratory waste generators
have had to obtain expensive Part B permits to comply with EPA's
storage limitations for a small minority of their wastes, even though
a majority of their wastes were stored for less than 90 days.
Support for Alternative Permitting for Non-commercial Treatment
A general permit program for non-commercial treatment would also be
tremendously beneficial to laboratories and others who generate waste
in small quantities. By any measure, laboratory treatment of chemical
waste is a critical step in efficient waste management and minimizing
off-site waste shipments. For laboratories, treatment is desirable for
wastes that have no commercial disposal options. Because laboratory
treatment has been limited, many generators manage hazardous waste
inefficiently. In some cases, the restriction on laboratory treatment
may result in greater handling and transportation risks to health and
the environment. However, current EPA regulations inhibit these
benefits by requiring a detailed, lengthy and expensive RCRA Part B
Permit in order to treat hazardous waste.
An individual permit is not appropriate for laboratory treatment
because its very small scale and simplicity make laboratory treatment
inherently low risk. As referenced below, there are many accepted
laboratory procedures to reduce waste hazards.
Although EPA allows treatment in containers without a permit, this
allowance does not clearly cover all laboratory treatment activities.
This ambiguity has prevented EPA regions and states from allowing
laboratory treatment of chemical waste without a permit. A general
permit program for non-commercial treatment will help clarify these
issues.
Prudent Practices also supports easier and more efficient EPA
permitting for laboratory treatment. Prudent Practices notes that
"Pollution prevention and waste minimization have become major goals
of the U.S. industry and regulatory bodies. The technical expertise of
well-trained laboratory workers offer opportunities for waste
minimization through recycling, treatment of waste, and collection of
laboratory quantities of waste. Such treatment of laboratory waste
offers the possibility of substantially reducing the risks associated
with certain hazardous waste before sending it off-site." Prudent
Practices recommends:
The committee recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency
extend its permit-by-rule provisions to allow scientifically sound
treatment of waste generated in laboratories.<7>
As explained in the PIT report, a general permit and permit-by-rule
both are more efficient alternatives than the individual permits
currently required. The proposal for general permits for
non-commercial treatment in laboratories appears to be consistent with
the Prudent Practices recommendation.
Conditional or De Minimis Exemption for Very Small Scale Treatment
We urge EPA to consider a de minimis or conditional exemption for
treatment of very small quantities of laboratory waste. For example,
treatment of less than 1 kg of hazardous waste annually by a pharmacy
or high school laboratory could be considered de minimis and not
require a permit on the conditions that the treatment be performed by
a technically qualified individual according to chemical principles or
procedures given in an authoritative reference. Many authoritative
references describe safe and simple procedures for treatment of
laboratory waste.<8>
Laboratories and Laboratory Waste
We ask that EPA allow generators of laboratory waste to utilize any
new extensions, general permits and conditional or de minimis
exemptions at the generator's accumulation area or less-than-90 day
storage facility. To be truly beneficial, these changes should pertain
to all laboratory waste, regardless of location, and not limited to a
laboratory in which the waste is generated. For example, EPA
regulations currently allow satellite accumulation of up to 55 gallons
of hazardous waste in a laboratory with no time limit, so a general
permit for storage would be most useful for the generator's
less-than-90 day storage facility.
Currently, many generators extend their on-site storage periods by
utilizing satellite accumulation areas, but there are many
environmental benefits of central waste consolidation in a generator's
less-than-90 day storage facility. Central consolidation fosters
control of hazardous waste operations by specialized personnel who are
trained to prevent spills, releases or exposures. If these changes
apply to a generator's laboratory waste at a central area, they would
decrease the quantity of wastes and time wastes spend in intermediate
holding areas awaiting transport, allow waste generators to transport
wastes to more secure storage areas, and facilitate the building of
safer accumulation areas.