Transcript Frank Ney - EPA RCRA Priorities

Frank Ney
RCRA Division
Coal Fly Ash Disaster in
Tennessee December 2008
3
TVA Kingston Plant
 Located on Watts Bar Reservoir (Emory
River), 3 miles upstream of confluence
of Clinch River and Tennessee River.
 14,000 tons coal consumed per day.
 1,000 cubic yards of fly ash generated
per day.
4
Dredge
5
December 22, 2008 Incident
 Catastrophic failure of Dredge Cell 2 and Dike C began at approximately 01:00 hrs
EST.
 Approximately 5.4M cubic yards (CYs) of ash released.
– Covered about 300 acres
– Damage to 40 homes
– Displaced 22 residents
– Gas line and power line rupture
– Road and rail line damage
 Estimated 3M cubic yards of total entered Emory River and its tributaries.
6
Looking south across failed dredge cell toward
power plant.
7
7
Looking west from vicinity of failed dike
up choked tributary
8
Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)Rule:
After the Kingston incident, EPA, in June 2010, coproposed 2 regulatory options under RCRA for
regulating Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs):
-one under Subtitle C (hazardous waste
regulations) and;
-one under Subtitle D (state solid waste
regulations).
Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)Rule:
 Under both regulatory options, the proposed
engineering requirements for landfills and surface
impoundments are virtually identical, such as,
composite liner and leachate collection systems,
ground water monitoring, structural stability
requirements, and fugitive dust controls. The options
differ primarily in enforcement and implementation.
 EPA also discussed a variant of the D Option, called
“D-Prime” allowing surface impoundments to
operate, even if unlined, until the end of their useful
life.
Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)Rule:
 Under any of the Options, EPA proposed to
maintain the Bevill exemption for CCRs that
are beneficially used, although the Agency
solicited comment on this, particularly with
respect to those CCRs that are beneficially
used in an un-encapsulsated form.
 Over 1,400 individuals testified during eight
public hearings. Over 450,000 comments
were received, with a significant number of
these coming from mass mailing campaigns.
Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)Rule:
 We have received nearly 13,000 submissions (over 2
million pages) that have “unique content”
requiring analysis.
 In October of 2011, and August 2013, the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) to
solicit comments on additional information
received that could inform approaches taken to
enhance the risk assessment and regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) that would support the final
rule.
Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)Rule:
 On April 12, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by
environmental groups, later joined by coal
ash recyclers.
 On January 29, 2014, the EPA agreed to
issue the final CCR Rule by December 19,
2014.
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 After many years, in 2008 EPA issued the
DSW final rule, which excluded from
hazardous waste regulations certain
hazardous secondary materials being
reclaimed if the generator met certain
conditions that were tailored to show the
recycling was legitimate and safe.
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 On January 29, 2009, the Sierra Club submitted a petition
under RCRA section 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6974(a) to the
Administrator of EPA requesting that the Agency repeal the
October 2008 revisions to the definition of solid waste rule and
stay implementation of the rule. The petition raised several
issues, including concerns that the 2008 DSW rule may pose
disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income
communities and concerns about the effectiveness and
protectiveness of the rule.
 After reviewing the petition, and holding a public meeting and
requesting written comments on the petition, the Agency
decided to respond to the petition with a proposal to revise the
DSW rule to address issues raised by the Sierra Club.
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 The rule’s purpose is to increase safe
recycling and to comport with court
decisions that stated that materials
reclaimed in a continuous process within
the same generating industry are not
discarded and are not a solid waste and
therefore not a hazardous waste.
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 Under the rule, for hazardous secondary materials
to be exempt from the definition of solid waste
several requirements must be met that ensure the
material is a valuable commodity and is managed
in a safe manner. The requirements differ
depending on whether the recycling is "Under the
Control of the Generator" (aka the "under control
of the generator" exclusion) or whether the
hazardous secondary materials are transferred to
another facility for reclamation (aka the "transfer
based" exclusion).
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 EPA published its proposed rule on July 22, 2011 (76 FR
44094), which proposed to replace the transfer-based
exclusion with alternative hazardous waste
requirements and also proposed modifications to the
generator-controlled exclusion.
 EPA also proposed to codify a definition of legitimate
recycling and make modifications to variances and nonwaste determinations under 40 CFR 260.30. EPA also
sought comment on an exclusion for certain solvents
being remanufactured and for adding certain
requirements (legitimacy, contained, and notification)
to a list of existing (pre-2008) exclusions.
Definition of Solid Waste Rule:
 The signature deadline was originally,
December 31, 2012, based on a court
approved settlement agreement with the
Sierra Club. EPA did not meet this deadline
but we hope to have the rule finalized this
year.
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial
Wipes
 In November 2003, EPA proposed to modify the RCRA
Regulations for management of solvent-contaminated
industrial wipes.
 The Wipes Rule conditionally exempts from the definition
of hazardous waste solvent-contaminated wipes being sent
to both landfills and non-landfills (e.g., laundries and
combustion) facilities.
 The Rule also proposed to conditionally exclude laundered
wipes from the definition of solid waste.
 The Contaminated Wipes Rule was finalized July 31, 2013.
E-Manifest Revisions
 The Hazardous Waste Electronic Establishment Act
was signed into law on 10/5/2012.
 It established the authority to collect fees, as well as
the development of an electronic submission fee.
 The Act requires that EPA issue regulations by October
5, 2013, that authorize the use of electronic manifests
in lieu of the current manifest form.
 On February, 2014, the EPA published the final rule.
Pharmaceuticals Proposed Rule
 This rule was originally an amendment to the universal
waste rule.
 The rule will facilitate pharmaceutical take-back programs.
With the new rule, the concerns raised by the public
comments regarding notification and tracking issues can
be more fully addressed as well as other hazardous waste
pharmaceutical management issues that are more specific
to healthcare facilities.
 This new proposed rulemaking will only pertain to those
pharmaceutical wastes that meet the current definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste and that are generated by
healthcare-related facilities.
Episodic Generators Rule
 Currently under development;
 The rule is intended to eliminate confusion
over the definition of episodic generation.
(like lab cleanouts)
UST(Underground Storage Tank)
Regulations Revisions
 The 1988 UST regulations are being revised to
incorporate the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
 The revisions will update outdated portions of the
regulations due to changes in technology since 1988.
 The revisions will also be updated and to make
targeted changes to improve implementation of the
regulations and to prevent UST releases.
UST Regulations Revisions
 Some of the revision will include adding
secondary containment requirements for new
and replaced tanks and piping; operating training
requirements, adding periodic operation and
maintenance requirements for UST systems;
adding new release prevention and detection
technologies, removing certain deferrals, and
updating state program approval requirements to
incorporate these changes.
 The EPA plans to promulgate these revisions this
year.
•
This National Initiative has a special emphasis on
mineral processing facilities that produce phosphoric
acid and phosphate compounds because a growing
body of evidence shows they cause widespread
environmental damage.
•
The object of the strategy is to reduce risk to human
health and the environment by achieving increased
compliance rates throughout the mineral processing
and mining sectors and by ensuring that existing and
potential harm are being appropriately addressed
through enforcement and compliance assistance.
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
and
Zinc Hazardous Waste used by Fertilizer
Recycling Facilities
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities: These facilities conduct
treatment of industrial solid waste from third-parties. Through recent
inspections, EPA has identified several such facilities that were grossly
mismanaging hazardous wastes, and treating and discharging these
wastes without permits. This area of concern will include a focus on
wastewater treatment units.
Zinc Hazardous Waste used by Fertilizer Recycling Facilities: EPA
supports the environmentally beneficial recycling of hazardous wastes
and secondary materials. However, sham recycling and recycling not
done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant
adverse impacts to human health and the environment. This area of
concern will include a focus on zinc fertilizer manufacturing that uses
hazardous waste in the production process.
Coordination with OSHA
 EPA Region 4 and OSHA have been
harnessing efforts to better identify
noncompliance at facilities across the
southeast. In FY2014, this effort will be
expanded to examine additional potential
targets from the OSHA national and
regional initiatives.