Federal regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) require a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG) to maintain equipment and processes to prevent a hazardous waste emergency and to respond to it if one occurs. The regulations are found in the following SQG conditions for exemption:
40 CFR 262.16(b)(8) Preparedness and prevention
40 CFR 262.16(b)(9) Emergency procedures
This article is the ninth in a series that closely examines and explains these regulations.
The purpose of this article is to identify and explain: 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(iii) Ensure familiarity with emergency procedures at small quantity generator of hazardous waste. (more…)
It all started with a telephone conversation on 09.25.20 but spread into email correspondence (which I prefer). From the telephone conversation:
Person had a waste Butanol Solution recovered from a spill.
SDS indicated the following:
70-80% nonionic surfactant.
5-10% n-Butyl alcohol (CAS 71-36-3).
Flash point of 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
email correspondence began that same day:
I did receive the SDS on the butyl alcohol and it turns out it is a Butanol Solution with a flash point of 130 F. The chemical composition is 70-80% Nonionic Surfactant and 5-10% Butyl Alcohol (the kind that is on the U-list). Do you think this still meets the criteria for a U-listed waste for at this point? I realize it would receive a D001 and WA State Toxic WT02 for the liquid solution itself.
To be a P- or U-listed Haz Waste it must be pure or technical grade or the sole active ingredient in the solution. It does not seem to me that the U-listed material is the sole active ingredient in the solution so it would not be a U-listed Haz Waste.
The product would be a D001 but it is not certain that the recovered spilled material would still be below the fp. But it probably is.
I am not certain about the WT02 and its applicability. I would have to do more research.
Inquisitor’s reply even later that Friday night:
Thank you for responding back and on a Friday evening! I was thinking the same in that it would not fall under a U-listed waste since it was an ingredient in a solution at 10% maximum. Also appreciate the feedback on flash point for the recovered material. I did not consider that it may be above benchmarks so I think I will suggest testing to check.
I’ve got the state regs covered so no worries on that 😊.
If you like this article, please share it using any of the social media platforms identified at the bottom of this article.
You’ll look real smart recommending my articles!
Conclusion:
Determination of a P- or U-listed hazardous waste is a challenge due to all of the complex requirements of this listed hazardous waste. However, just because it is difficult to determine doesn’t mean you are not a generator of a P- or U-listed hazardous waste. Generators need to take extra care in situations like this one where spilled material is recovered. If you ever have questions about the hazardous waste determination, don’t hesitate to contact me.
A question from someone who had contacted me previously (12.03.20):
Hope you are doing well and enjoying the season so far 😊
I was hoping you could help me with another regulatory question regarding counting waste – or point me in the right direction. My question is about weekly inspections when a site becomes a SQG (200-2,200 lbs./mo.). Here’s the scenario:
A generator became a SQG in October when hazardous waste was generated in that month and weekly inspections have been conducted since that time while the waste has been on site. The weekly inspections will be stopped once the hazardous waste is shipped off which will be sometime this month (December). However a very small amount (less than 5 lbs) of new hazardous waste item was generated at the site today.
Does the small amount of new hazardous waste need to be included on the weekly inspection form with the other October waste items?
If so, once the October waste items are hauled off, would this new small December item need to have weekly inspections continued until it is shipped off?
Hopefully this is an easy answer for you. Thank you for your time and help!
Not sure of your hazardous waste generator category?
Thank you for contacting me. Please see below for an answer:
In the month of October you were a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG). I presume prior to that you were very small quantity generator (VSQG).
You are correct that for the month of October you must comply with SQG requirements for any hazardous waste generated in that month.
You must also comply with SQG requirements for that hazardous wastegenerated in October for as long as it remains on-site.
I presume in November & December you reverted back to VSQG category. Any Haz Waste generated in those months would be managed as a VSQG.
The small amount of hazardous waste generated in December while you were a VSQG is not subject to weekly inspection requirements since those are required for a SQG but not VSQG.
Currently the October hazardous waste is still on-site and the generator is still complying with SQG requirements. So my question is about the new hazardous waste. Does it need to be included with the October waste count and therefore required to have weekly inspections until it is shipped off?
The October waste has taken a long time to get profiled and ready for disposal which will be hauled off in a couple weeks. Once hauled off, the ship off date will be entered on the weekly inspection form and normally that would close it out. However, if the small amount of new waste that was generated today has to be included on the weekly inspections, then does that mean it has to continue inspections until it is shipped off?
I also responded back in your email below in red font.
I figured I better clarify:
I’ll clarify.
The site is an SQG for October.
Any waste generated in October must comply with SQG until it is shipped off-site. This includes weekly inspections.
Site was a VSQG for November and December. Any waste generated in Nov or Dec is subject to VSQG regulations.
The site is not a SQG in Nov & Dec unless it generated more than 100 kg of Haz Waste in either of those months.
The small amount of waste generated in Dec as VSQG is subject to VSQG regulations. This means no weekly inspection for the waste generated in Dec.
Waste generated in Oct while site was SQG is subject to SQG regulations for as long as it remains on-site.
The clarification helped but more assistance was necessary:
Okay great! I will wrap my head around this and re-look at it tomorrow. It makes sense. I could not find any regulation citation that points this out. Do you know where i could find that? No worries tonight of course! Thanks very much!
Depending on your type of business, you might be regulated under different rules at different times. If, for example, you generate less than 220 lbs (100 kg) of hazardous waste during the month of June, you would be considered a CESQG for June, and your June waste would be subject to the hazardous waste management requirements for CESQGs. If, in July, you generate between 220 and 2,200 lbs (100 kg to 1,000 kg) of hazardous waste, your generator status would change, and you would be considered an SQG for July. Your July waste would then be subject to the management requirements for SQGs. If you mix the wastes generated during June and July, the entire mixture would be subject to the more stringent SQG standards.
Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste
I think I got it now and just wanted to thank you for the sound guidance on this. It helped very much!
Take good care!
Conclusion:
The management of hazardous waste can be difficult enough when your generator category doesn’t change, but when it does, then things can get really difficult. Perhaps the easiest option is to comply with the requirements of the highest generator category, but if you can keep the wastes separate, you can manage them according to their applicable generator category.
A question from a waste generator in the great state of Texas back in November of 2020:
Hi, Daniel
I work in a privately own Petro chemical lab. We serve the public and many big Oil companies. We test crude oil and gases for composition mostly.
My question is we are should be listed as Non-industrial right?
Thanks!
My reply that same day:
Thank you for contacting me. Please see below.
Based on the regulations of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) and guidance provided by TCEQ I believe the waste you generate qualifies as Industrial. Please see below:
Industrial versus Nonindustrial Wastes: Industrial wastes result from (or are incidental to)operations of industry, manufacturing, mining, or agriculture—for example, wastes from power generation plants, manufacturing facilities, and laboratories serving an industry. Nonindustrial wastes, by contrast, come from sources such as schools, hospitals, churches, dry cleaners, most service stations, and laboratories serving the public.
Since you serve “big oil companies” as well as the general public, I believe your solid waste is subject to regulation as an industrial solid waste in Texas.
Federal regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) require a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG) to maintain equipment and processes to prevent a hazardous waste emergency and to respond to it if one occurs. The regulations are found in the following SQG conditions for exemption:
40 CFR 262.16(b)(8) Preparedness and prevention
40 CFR 262.16(b)(9) Emergency procedures
This article is the eighth in a series that closely examines and explains these regulations.
In the previous article in this series I addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(i) Emergency Coordinator for a Small Quantity Generator. That was the first of the Emergency Procedures requirements of §262.16(b)(9). This article is the second of those regulations.
The purpose of this article is to identify and explain: 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(ii) Post emergency information at small quantity generator of hazardous waste. (more…)
Federal regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) require a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG) to maintain equipment and processes to prevent a hazardous waste emergency and to respond to it if one occurs. The regulations are found in the following SQG conditions for exemption:
40 CFR 262.16(b)(8) Preparedness and prevention
40 CFR 262.16(b)(9) Emergency procedures
This article is the seventh in a series that closely examines and explains these regulations.
Hi there – I work for a LQG facility (large quantity generator of hazardous waste) that is moving into curtailment, so not actually “closing”. We will be moving into SQG status (small quantity generator of hazardous waste) by the end of the year and I would like to “close” our central accumulation areas so that we no longer need to do the weekly inspections. I live in WA State and as an LQG we do not have an operating record like you mentioned. (read: Closure of Hazardous Waste Accumulation Unit at Large Quantity Generator)
My question is this, do I just need to place a notice where I keep my current weekly CAA inspections stating that we are closing that CAA? Does that notice need to be sent to WA State Ecology? And these closure notices are not for individual SAA correct? I can just get rid of those as we start to dwindle production is what I have interpreted.
Thanks for any help!!!
Not sure of your hazardous waste generator category?
The requirement to document closure of CAA applies to an LQG and not an SQG. If you make the change in generator category before closing the CAA, the requirement will not be applicable.
You may wish to document the closure of the CAA regardless (I think it is a good idea).
The requirement to make a note in the operating record is confusing since only permitted hazardous waste TSDFs have operating records. In your case, it means you make a note in your company’s files where it can be located later.
There is no requirement in the Generator Improvements Rule to submit the notice to your state. I don’t think WA changed the rule when it was adopted, so you should not need to submit to WA. It might not hurt to check with them.
You are correct there is no notification requirement for the “closure” of SAAs (satellite accumulation area).
I hope this helps. Please contact me with any other questions.
Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste
For the notice that I will put with my inspections and perhaps send to the state, is there a template that I am supposed to use or do I just make one up myself?
My reply:
No template. Just a note for the operating record.
The regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow generators of hazardous waste to be exempt from many of the requirements applicable to a permitted or interim status treatment, storage, or disposal facility for hazardous waste (TSDF). To maintain this exemption, generators must comply with the regulations applicable to their generator category. One of those regulatory requirements for exemption is to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste containers at their facility.
The purpose of this article is to identify and describe the responsibilities of hazardous waste generators to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste containers in central accumulation areas.
Before we begin…
While the content of these regulations were not changed by the Generator Improvements Rule, their location was. Prior to the reorganization of USEPA regulations in the Generator Improvements Rule, the weekly inspection regulations were found at 40 CFR 265.174 referenced there by §262.34(b) for a large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG) and §262.34(d)(2) for a and small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG). After the Generator Improvements Rule the regulations are now found as indicated below:
40 CFR 262.16(b)(2)(iv) for SQG
40 CFR 262.17(a)(1)(v) for LQG
Not sure of your hazardous waste generator category?
The weekly inspections described in this article are required for both the large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG) at 40 CFR 262.17(a)(1)(v) and small quantity generator (SQG) at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(2)(iv). Weekly inspections are not required for a very small quantity generator of hazardous waste (VSQG). A VSQG may wish to consider some form of periodic inspections of its accumulated hazardous waste.
It is only hazardous waste that requires inspections. None of the following waste require inspections of any kind:
Universal waste
Used oil
Non-hazardous waste
This article will only address the inspection requirements for hazardous waste accumulated in containers. Other accumulation units at a hazardous waste generator: tanks, drip pads, and containment buildings, will not be addressed. A container is defined at 40 CFR 260.10 as: any portable device in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled. Thus it could include anything from a test tube to a 500-gallon portable tank to a 5,000-gallon tank mounted on a transport vehicle.
Weekly inspections are required only for hazardous waste containers in a central accumulation area (CAA). Hazardous waste containers in a satellite accumulation area (SAA) are not subject to inspection requirements.
Inspections. At least weekly, the small quantity generator must inspect central accumulation areas. The small quantity generator must look for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers caused by corrosion or other factors. See paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for remedial action required if deterioration or leaks are detected.
40 CFR 262.16(a)(1)(v) for LQG reads:
Inspections. At least weekly, the large quantity generator must inspect central accumulation areas. The large quantity generator must look for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers caused by corrosion or other factors. See paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section for remedial action required if deterioration or leaks are detected.
What is weekly?
USEPA does not define what its use of the term weekly means; it has left the clarification of its meaning to the individual states. However, based on my experience, it is safe to assume that this does not mean once per calendar week, but rather every seven days. In other words, if you complete a weekly inspection on Wednesday December 21st and the next week on Thursday December 29th, eight days separate the inspections and you may have committed a violation. (Completing the 2nd inspection or or before the 28th would be within seven days and be in compliance). Also, the regulations do not say anything about suspending the requirement during facility shut-downs (either planned or unplanned). Therefore, the weekly inspections must be completed even when you are shut-down for the holidays or maintenance if hazardous waste remains in a CAA.
Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste
The inspections are only to be of containers in a central accumulation area as the regulations clearly state. It does not apply to containers in a satellite accumulation area. The term central accumulation area was created by the Generator Improvements Rule as a matter of convenience by USEPA. It replaced a variety of other terms that had been used over the years. It simply refers to the area of the facility – LQG or SQG – where hazardous waste accumulates subject to the full regulations of the respective generator category. Read: FAQ: What is the central accumulation area?
What is the inspection looking for?
The sole purpose of the inspection is to look for:
Leaking containers.
Deterioration of containers caused by corrosion or other factors.
…and that’s it.
Weekly inspections can prevent situations like this
However, the following items may also be included in a weekly inspection of hazardous waste containers in a central accumulation area:
Wheels, if present, properly braked/chocked (remember: a 30,000 gallon rail tank car meets the definition of a container).
Containers located so as to minimize potential for puncture or release.
CAA pad, if present, free of chips, cracks, &etc.
Sump pump, if necessary, operative.
Check the date of initial accumulation to ensure sufficient time for on-site accumulation.
Also, the regulations of your state may be more stringent than those of the USEPA. It is possible state regulations may require some, or all, of the above recommendations; and may require even more.
What if leaks or deterioration are detected?
If leaks or deterioration of containers are detected during the weekly inspection, both SQG and LQG are referred to their respective remedial action regulations – §262.17(a)(1)(ii) for LQG and §262.16(b)(2)(i) for SQG. Response requirements are:
Immediately transfer the hazardous waste to a container in good condition.
Or…
Immediately manage the waste in some other way in compliance with the regulations of their generator category.
So, clearly the generator is required to immediately respond to correct leaking containers or signs of deterioration that may lead to a leak.
Interested in a Webinar that covers this topic, and more!
Is it necessary to document the inspection and keep a copy as a record?
Nope. Surprisingly, USEPA regulations do not require the weekly inspections to be documented nor does it have any recordkeeping requirements. However, it may be difficult to prove to an inspection (state or Federal) you are completing the inspections without some record to show for it. Therefore, as a best management practice it is recommended the LQG or SQG maintain a form that keeps a record of the following at a minimum:
Also, your state may be more stringent than USEPA regulations. It may require weekly inspections to be documented and may require even more than what is recommended above.
Conclusion:
Done weekly as required (some hazardous waste generators conduct bi-weekly inspections) and done correctly (don’t let it just be a “pencil-whipping exercise”) inspections of hazardous waste containers in a central accumulation area can help you to maintain compliance with the RCRA regulations at your facility.
I’ve come across some of your training online – quite informative – and was wondering if I could run a RCRA question past you. I have a client with some sodium-sulfur batteries that are no longer needed for their intended purpose. There are very few recyclers globally who can handle sodium-sulfur batteries and this is mainly due to the presence of sodium which is reactive and when thermally treated is detrimental to the refractory liner in the furnace.
We are exploring an option where we would reclaim the sodium from the cell, which can be used in, or to make, other products. In this case, would the company extracting the sodium require a TSDF permit? Based on the following logic, I would argue they are not a TSDF because the reclaimed sodium is not a hazardous waste. They would, however, be considered a waste generator with respect to the remainder of the battery:
In order for a waste to be a hazardous waste, it must first be considered a solid waste (40 CFR 261.3).
Sodium is a by-product of the chemical reaction in a sodium-sulfur battery – it is not present when produced at 0% SOC and is generated through chemical reaction when charging the battery and is consumed when discharging the battery. The process is not fully reversible so there is always some residual sodium present. For this scenario, where the sodium is desired to be extracted, it is more advantageous for the battery to not be discharged to 0% SOC.
According to 40 CFR 261.2, Table 1, by-products exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous waste (sodium is reactive – D003) are not considered solid wastes when reclaimed. Per US EPA interpretations (which I have seen leveraged in your training) an analogy to this situation is a thermometer being reclaimed for its mercury. Because mercury is a Commercial Chemical Product, per 40 CFR 261.2, Table 1, it is not solid waste and therefore cannot be a hazardous waste.
The act of extracting the sodium now makes the remainder of the cell waste and the generator (the entity who extracted the sodium) would need to classify it for its hazardous properties. Assuming it is hazardous, the generator would likely take advantage of the universal waste option for management and disposal.
If you have time and are willing, I would appreciate your feedback on the above.
Stay safe and well,
My reply seeking more information that same day:
Thank you for contacting me. Please see below.
Q1: Is the battery a solid waste?
Q2: If it is a solid waste, is it a hazardous waste?
After that is determined, we can proceed to Table 1:
Q3: What category of hazardous waste is it? (left-hand column of Table 1).
Q4: What type of recycling are you practicing? (top row of Table 1).
Please clarify my understanding on the first two bullet points.
Note: an image of 40 CFR 261.2 – Table 1 is included below:
Where I find the RCRA rules difficult is that there are two situations not one. There is the sodium and then there is the remainder of the battery. The questions do not allow this differentiation.
Q1: Is the battery a solid waste?
A1: Yes, because the battery will be recycled by reclamation.
Q2: If it is a solid waste, is it a hazardous waste?
A2: Yes, sodium possesses a hazardous characteristic – reactivity (D003)
After that is determined, we can proceed to Table 1:
Q3: What category of hazardous waste is it? (left-hand column of Table 1).
A3: The battery would be considered spent, the sodium would be considered a by product.
Q4: What type of recycling are you practicing? (top row of Table 1).
A4: Reclamation. The battery will be smelted to recover metals for use in making products. The sodium will be reclaimed in its current form and used to make other products.
My reply:
Please see below.
I agree that the battery is a solid waste. This is because it is being discarded. Recycling is a form of discarding.
The presence of sodium does not by itself make the battery a reactive hazardous waste. The battery – not the sodium – when spent would have to display the characteristic of Reactivity (D003). Let’s presume it is a D003 Reactive hazardous waste.
Table 1 contains some of the exclusions from regulation as a solid waste for materials that are recycled.
It may be that the battery is considered to be a spent secondary material. However, the sodium is not a waste that is a by-product. It is part of the battery.
If reclaiming, the reclaimed materials may be excluded from regulation as a solid waste and therefore cannot be a hazardous waste. This would mean the process of reclamation would not require a RCRA permit.
Any waste generated during reclamation would have to be managed by the generator of the waste, that is, the person conducting the reclamation.
Please contact me with any other questions.
Later that same day with two more questions:
Thanks for your assessment. I would like to discuss further if you are open to it. My two follow-up questions:
Given the scenario below would the entity reclaiming the sodium be considered a TSDF? Since it is not a hazardous waste I would assume not.
While I follow your point, an intact sodium-sulfur battery does not demonstrate the characteristic because the cells are hermetically sealed. There is no possibility of water intrusion and thus no reactivity concern. The battery will be intact when it first becomes solid waste (abandon or recycled) but at some point in the process will demonstrate the characteristic because the cells will be breached. So when does the hazardous characteristic need to be demonstrated to be considered hazardous waste? I would argue that most intact industrial batteries do not demonstrate a characteristic hazardous waste when intact, yet nearly all are managed as universal waste (which inherently implies it demonstrates a hazardous characteristic).
I had more answers:
Please see below.
If the battery is excluded from regulation as a solid waste then its recycling by reclamation would not require a RCRA permit.
You’re correct that the hazardous waste determination is made at the point of generation for the entire battery. If the battery contains a reactive element (sodium) it would likely be a D003 Reactive hazardous waste.
I am available all day (06.25.20) to discuss. Can we schedule a time?
Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste
Some more discussion took place over the phone (no transcripts available) but then another email on July 5th:
Daniel,
I hope you enjoyed the Independence Day holiday. I had a follow-up question on the definition of a commercial chemical product (CCP). RO 14012 states “For purposes of Section 261.2, CCP means all types of unused commercial products, whether chemicals or not.” The mercury thermometer example refers to new, off-spec thermometers. In my case, I have a used battery from which we will reclaim the sodium (which recall is produced through a chemical reaction during battery charging).
Through RO 14012, I found reference to an EPA memo which provides checklist to assist in evaluating whether CCPs are hazardous waste under the RCRA. In that memo, they state: “In the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations the term commercial chemical product generally refers to materials that would, under usual circumstances, be considered products and not wastes…”. It doesn’t specifically state ‘unused’ but rather “product”. I would argue that the reclaimed sodium from a used battery is useable product, which is also consistent with the definition of reclamation in 40 CFR 261.1(d).
I’ll submit this to state regulators but was curious of your opinion.
My reply July 06, 2020:
Please see below.
You are correct – and something I should have mentioned – that for the purposes of the recycling exclusions at 40 CFR 261.2 a commercial chemical product must be unused. The batteries you are considering are used and therefore are not eligible for inclusion with CCP as defined at 40 CFR 261.2.
Also, from McCoy Guidance: “Although Table 1 in 261.2(c) specifies ‘commercial chemical products listed in 40 CFR 261.33,’ EPA interprets the term to also include those products that are not listed in 261.33, but exhibit one or more characteristics of hazardous waste. [April 11, 1985; 50 FR 14219, RO 11713, 11726, 13356, 13490, 14883] So, a battery could be a CCP per 40 CFR 261.2 but only if unused.
I believe the USEPA memo you refer to confirms the requirement the CCP be unused, “…would…be considered products and not wastes…” If it does not state unused here, it clearly does elsewhere.
I don’t believe the status of the sodium in the battery or how it is recycled is any longer an issue. If the battery is not CCP per 40 CFR 261.2, it is not subject to the exclusion no matter how it is recycled.
Please contact me with any other questions.
If you like this article, please share it using any of the social media platforms identified at the bottom of this article.
You’ll look real smart recommending my articles!
No further communication after that – at least not yet.
It’s clear to see that knowledgeable persons can disagree about the exclusions from regulation in RCRA. In this situation I think the questioner did not fully understand that the hazardous waste determination – and thus any exclusions from regulation – begin at the point of generation. Subsequent treatment of a waste does not affect it’s eligibility for exclusions from regulation. But, perhaps, I wasn’t understanding his situation properly. It takes knowledge and careful research of the regulations to make a hazardous waste determination.
Handlers of hazardous waste have expressed to USEPA their concern with the customer interaction required to obtain the generator’s signature on the uniform hazardous waste manifest and requested that transporters be allowed to sign the name of the generator on the Manifest to maintain social distancing during the COVID-19 public health emergency. USEPA responded to this concern May 18, 2020 with a memorandum explaining a temporary policy to allow for transporter signature for the generator on the Manifest. This temporary policy was set to expire on August 31, 2020. However, on August 20, 2020 USEPA released another memorandum updating and revising this policy in light of some states experiencing an increase in COVID-19 cases following efforts to reopen.
The purpose of this article is to explain USEPA’s new temporary policy for obtaining the necessary signatures on the uniform hazardous waste manifest during the COVID-19 public health emergency as it was updated and revised by the USEPA memorandum of August 20, 2020.
