Hazardous Waste Determination – The Foundation for Waste Compliance

Posted on April 29, 2013 by William K. Graham, P.E., C.P.E.A.

Proper waste determinations are the foundation for waste compliance; failure to perform them properly can lead to cascading violations.  Generators commonly fail to document hazardous waste determinations from the point of generation for each solid waste stream (as required by 40 CFR 262.11).  This is a frequent citation in RCRA enforcement and observation during compliance audits.

USEPA has updated the 1994 version of Waste Analysis Plan Guidance. This guidance is helpful in understanding regulatory requirements and USEPA intent regard the obligation each solid waste generator has to document a hazardous waste determination.

One tool provided in the new guidance document is a checklist for evaluating waste determinations using acceptable knowledge (i.e. without having waste analysis).  Another consists of tips for using the Safety Data Sheet to support a waste determination.  Appendix F also provides a number of key considerations, including several that are important for generators.

Another issue that arises is whether the generator needs to document the waste determination.  Regulation and USEPA guidance make it plain that these must be documented, and reviewed annually or more often, with records kept for 3 years.  A CESQG especially needs to do this documentation because they rely on proper determinations to assure they stay below the 100 kilogram/month threshold and avoid additional regulatory burdens as a Small Quantity Generator.

For each solid waste stream, regulations require that the generator must determine if the waste is:

  1. Excluded from regulation under 40 CFR 261.4 as not a solid waste.
  2. Listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR part 261.
  3. Identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 with a hazard characteristic by:
    1. Testing the waste using standard or approved methods, or
    2. Applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used.
  4. Excluded or restricted under parts 261, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, and 273.

The Point of Generation is where the waste determination should be made, rather than after waste is moved to storage, exposed to the elements, or mixed with other materials.  Hazardous waste is not regulated until it exits the unit in which it was generated or remains within a shutdown unit for more than 90 days.

Basis for Determination – The generator should document waste determinations for each waste stream coming from each discrete equipment item and, if necessary, for each operating scenario such as normal, shutdown and cleanout.  Records must be kept of unit shutdowns to assure residuals are not stored for longer than 90 days.  For waste streams determined to be not hazardous, the regulatory citation and basis (such as acceptable knowledge or testing) should be documented, recorded and updated as needed. A good engineering practice would be to review and update waste determinations annually or more often if changes occur.

Acceptable Knowledge – The Waste Analysis Guidance document suggests that acceptable knowledge will be: as current as practicable, based on material balances; reviewed annually or when changes occur; and documented with appropriate records retained.

Safety Data Sheet (SDS) – The Waste Analysis Guidance document warns generators to confirm they are using the correct SDS and it is current. The SDS may mention the material is a RCRA waste if discarded or provide CAS numbers that can be compared to the listed wastes.  Properties may reveal the material would be characteristically hazardous (e.g. flash point, pH, reactive, toxic). The SDS should not be used if the waste is mixed, treated or chemically altered or as a substitute for laboratory analyses where appropriate.  SDS may not report all components and may not list hazardous components present in concentrations below 1 percent by weight.  The generator retains the burden to make a correct waste determination and the liability from improper disposal.

Codes for generator reporting need to be assigned for each hazardous waste stream. These codes describe the type of process or activity (Source), physical/chemical characteristics (Form) and type of hazardous waste management system (Management).

Key Considerations for Generators include:

  • Check State and local requirements which may be more stringent
  • Compile records of collective knowledge of wastes
  • Assure representative samples are analyzed using standard methods
  • Document acceptable knowledge in lieu of analysis
  • Support claims that secondary materials are not solid waste
  • Do not rely on single analysis for subsequent waste streams
  • Make new waste determination for each new point of generation
  • Process changes require a new waste determination
  • Periodically review and update waste determinations

 A copy of the new Waste Analysis Guidance can be downloaded from EPA’s website. Additional  information on related USEPA Guidance is available here. If you have any questions about RCRA Waste Determination requirements, please contact William K. Graham, P.E. at bgraham@cecinc.com or 630-541-0626.

Filed under: Environmental, Waste Management, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Navigating Muddy Waters – New Effluent Limitation Guidelines Will Impact 21,000 Construction Sites Annually

Posted on January 19, 2010 by Beth Chesson, CPESC, CPSWQ

On November 23, 2009, EPA released the final Construction & Development Effluent Limit Guidelines (C&D ELG).  The final C&D ELG will impact all construction sites disturbing more than one acre by imposing non-numeric effluent limitations.  More importantly, the C&D ELG will impose numeric effluent limits for the first time on all construction disturbing more than 10 acres within approximately 4 years.  Most construction sites will need to use Passive Treatment Systems (PTS) to achieve those limits rather than the typical erosion and sediment control measures currently in use.  EPA estimates as many as 21,000 construction sites annually would need to meet those numeric limit standards.

 In the past, sediment control practices have generally been designed based upon a rule of thumb.  Many states rely on 1800 ft3/acre of drainage (or disturbed acre), which doesn’t take into consideration the discharge quality.  In fact, a sediment control measure can have an 80% settling efficiency and still produce a turbid (muddy) discharge.  With this in mind, EPA has been struggling since early 2000 to establish a C&D ELG, with prodding from environmental groups. 

 In November 2008, EPA published a draft C&D ELG that set the ELG (turbidity) at 13 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) for sites that disturbed 30 acres or more, were located in areas of the country with high rainfall intensity, and located on soils that had at least 10% clay.  That incredibly low turbidity limit (13 NTUs) severely limited the stormwater treatment options to Active Treatment Systems (ATS) that, simply put, look and function like small waste water treatment plants.  EPA requested public comment on the draft rule and requested additional data on the cost benefit analysis, treatment feasibility, and other components.  Concerns mounted as those affected began questioning the draft rule, particularly the feasibility of achieving the 13 NTU discharge standard. 

 EPA published the final C&D ELG in November 2009 with major revisions based on the comments received.  EPA chose to greatly simplify the rule and increase the numeric standard.  Below is a summary of the final rule: 

  • All construction projects must install best practicable control technologies.
  • Sediment basins and other impoundments must be dewatered from the surface.
  • The ELG has been set at 280 NTUs.  This limit is a daily maximum average, based upon sampling for storms up to the 2 yr, 24 hr storm.  Discharges from storm events greater than the 2 yr, 24 hr are not required to meet the ELG.
  • Discharges from construction sites must meet an effluent limitation guideline as follows:
    • Within 18 months of the effective date of the rule (August 2011), sites disturbing 20 acres or more must meet the ELG.
    • Within 4 years of the effective date of the rule, sites disturbing 10 acres or more must meet the ELG.
    • For both scenarios above, the size limitations apply to “larger common plans of development” like subdivisions with multiple small lots.

 Each state will need to marry the final C&D ELG with their existing monitoring plans, which will be a huge task.  Additionally, EPA has noted that as each state’s construction stormwater permit comes up for renewal, these requirements must be inserted.  EPA is the permitting authority in four states.  Their general permit is due to expire in June 2011 and will be reissued with the ELG requirements in it at that time.  Interestingly, North Carolina’s permit was in the midst of renewal when the ELG rule was finalized, and EPA only allowed their permit to be renewed for 18 months (through August 2011).  After that date, the reissued permit must include the ELG requirements.

 As indicated earlier in this blog, PTS will generally be required to meet the numeric standard of 280 NTUs.  A PTS incorporates a flocculant with a standard construction site practice.  An example of a PTS is a jute-lined ditch that has been impregnated with polyacrylamide (PAM).   Design components that must be considered include mixing zones and settling zones.  At this point, we don’t have design tools that dictate the amount flocculant to be used on a site.  Flocculants and soils must be matched (not every flocculant works on every soil), and the applications tweaked in the field for peak performance.  Then the flocculant must be reapplied after rain events.

You can expect to have the ELG requirements inserted into the permit language if your state’s permit expires before August 2011.  If, however, your permit was reissued before the rule was finalized and without the ELG language in it, EPA could administratively open the permit to have the language inserted into it.  I suspect that between June 2011 (when EPA’s Construction General Stormwater permit expires) and August 2011 (the deadline to begin implementing the ELG) some permits may be administratively opened.  That option is certainly possible.

 If you have any questions about the C&D ELG, how it may impact an upcoming project, and how you can meet the numeric standard, contact Beth Chesson, CPESC, CPSWQ at bchesson@cecinc.com or 615-333-7797.

Filed under: Civil/Site, Waste Management, Water Resources | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Monitoring for MSW Landfills Begins January 1, 2010

Posted on December 23, 2009 by Ralph Hirshberg, P.E.

 

The U.S. EPA promulgated the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHG Rule) on October 30, 2009.  Sections applicable to Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills include various provisions of the general requirements (Subparts A, B and C) as well as Subpart HH which sets forth MSW Landfill compliance obligations.  The Rule becomes effective December 29, 2009 with key provisions of the GHG Rule, including obligations regarding data collection, beginning on January 1, 2010.

In general, the portions of the GHG Rule applicable to MSW landfills appears to have been crafted following the protocol for GHG accounting established by various international organizations including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  Several calculation methodologies and “verification” procedures included in the GHG Rule mimic those established by the UNFCCC and the associated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  As a result, the GHG Rule is not well coordinated with existing Clean Air Act (CAA) standards already applicable to MSW landfills. 

Although a convincing argument can be made that all of the data required by the GHG Rule could easily be gathered under existing CAA regulations within a reasonable degree of accuracy and repeatability and with no additional cost for affected landfill facilities, that approach is not acceptable under the GHG Rule.  In general, most MSW landfills currently fall short of minimum GHG Rule requirements for both landfill gas metering and sampling frequency.  CEC has developed an alternative strategic GHG compliance strategy to reduce the cost of complying with the GHG Rule.

In summary, two specific standards – 98.343(b)(1) and 98.343(b)(2) – are set forth in the GHG Rule for measurement of landfill gas volume and methane content.  For the purposes of this discussion, each standard is referred to by its paragraph designation, namely b(1) and b(2):

  •  Standard b(1) represents the most rigorous and costly compliance option, requiring considerable and costly upgrades in existing flow and methane measurement equipment for most MSW landfill facilities.  For compliance with standard b(1) “spec” metering equipment must conform to 40 CFR §98.344 and includes use of gas chromatographs for methane content determination and differential pressure meters for flow determination (various alternates/options are also available although costs are comparable).  Implementation of this standard would require upgrade of both flow and methane content measurement devices for most MSW Landfill facilities at an estimated cost of approximately $50,000 per facility.
  • Standard b(2) in comparison is less rigorous with respect to equipment specifications and costs, but potentially more labor intensive, requiring weekly monitoring of various gas flow and methane content parameters.  However, at least a portion of existing “non-spec” gas monitoring equipment (flow meters) can be utilized at most facilities.  This will result in lesser initial capital costs for equipment but may result in increased long-term costs (e.g., labor) if weekly manual monitoring is utilized.  However, if b(2) level monitoring is coupled with remote data collection, savings of long-term labor costs will be realized.  Based on the most cost efficient strategy evaluated by CEC under this standard, implementation costs are estimated at $25,000 per facility. 

CEC notes that landfills already equipped with flow and methane monitoring equipment meeting the “b(1)” or §98.344 specifications are obligated to use this equipment for data GHG emission calculations.  Section III.HH of the GHG Rule preamble as well as paragraphs b(1) and b(2) which set forth these requirements are listed as follows:

Preamble Section III.HH.  “We do require landfill gas collection systems already equipped with continuous monitoring systems to determine daily average flow and concentrations and to use these data in their gas recovery calculations.  For collection systems that do not have continuous gas monitors, weekly sampling is required.  Weekly monitoring provides an adequate number of samples to evaluate the variability and uncertainty associated with methane generation.”

§98.343 (b)(1).  “…If you continuously monitor the flow rate, CH4 concentration, temperature, pressure, and moisture content of the landfill gas that is collected and routed to a destruction device (before any treatment equipment) using a monitoring meter specifically for CH4 gas, as specified in § 98.344, you must use this monitoring system and calculate the quantity of CH4 recovered for destruction using Equation HH–4 of this section.  A fully integrated system that directly reports CH4 content requires no other calculation than summing the results of all monitoring periods for a given year.”.”

§98.343 (b)(2).  “If you do not continuously monitor according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must determine the flow rate, CH4 concentration, temperature, pressure, and moisture content of the landfill gas that is collected and routed to a destruction device (before any treatment equipment) at least weekly according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii) of this section…”

CEC would be pleased to provide a compliance summary for your facility.  Items to be evaluated include:

  • Does your landfill generate more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e?
  • Are you prepared to collect the required data from your landfill?
  • Have you cataloged all of your stationary sources of combustion?

Please call Ralph Hirshberg at CEC Greenhouse Gas Help Line 1-888-364-2324 or Email your questions to LFGHG.Help@CECinc.com.

Filed under: Environmental, Waste Management | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.