Hazardous Waste Forum
Questions and Answers
Please look at the "federal
rules 261.380 in 1968” and analyze if fuel is comparable to petroleum,
it should be used as fuel. This is already happening
at the federal level. Is this correct? (05/07)
Missouri has not picked up the federal exclusion for comparable fuels published in 1998 and found at 40 CFR 261.38 . That provision provides an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for materials that have physical characteristics similar to other substances used as fuels, such as petroleum. When the federal rule came out, Missouri was unable to determine the amount of hazardous waste generated in Missouri (or by whom) that could potentially qualify for the exclusion. This remains a challenge for determining the impact of adopting the rule. Missouri is willing to consider picking up the exclusion for comparable fuels if it can determine that providing an exclusion for the waste would not compromise our ability to maintain adequate oversight of hazardous waste generated, treated and stored in Missouri.
Please look at the exemption from solid waste for listed commercial chemical products being reclaimed in 40 CFR 261.2 . Missouri limits the exemption to only those materials that the original manufacturer can use, reuse or recycle in his/her manufacturing process. It is widely ignored by out-of-state companies. This potential fuel source is a significant source of revenue for some companies. Kansas allows conditionally exempt small quantity generators to accumulate the federal amount. Could be money to pick up. (10/07)
The department’s long-standing interpretation is that, fuels (such as gasoline, fuel oil, jet fuel, or diesel fuel) that can be directly used as fuel by the originating party or by a second party, is “fuel” and not solid waste, provided the material does not need reclamation and is not “reclaimed” before use. There are certain activities (gravity separation, oil water separator, and filtration) when done at the generator’s site do not constitute “reclamation”. Therefore, Missouri literally applies 40 CFR 261.2(d)(2)(B)(ii)-commercial chemical products listed in 261.33 are not solid wastes if they are themselves fuels and are legitimately used for their intended purpose (i.e., as fuel).
The department has sent letters to requestors on this subject stating that, for example: a mixture of unleaded gasoline and diesel that is drained from farm machinery and sent to a fuel blender for use as fuel (provided no reclamation or separation is necessary by the blender) is allowable under 40 CFR 261.2(d)(2)(B)(ii). Commercial chemical products listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are not solid wastes if they are themselves legitimate fuels used “as is.” As a product, the generator should be sure not to speculatively accumulate the material.
Here’s some information from the department’s Management of Petroleum Storage Tank Wastes --PUB2040 (09/06) 34 KB fact sheet. This fact sheet includes the use of material from an underground storage tank that is consistent with the interpretation noted above. Below are excerpts from that fact sheet with relevant portions underlined.
"…for wastes from inside petroleum storage tanks, some management options and alternatives to disposal exist. These are noted in the flowchart on page 6 and are explained below:
- Use or Recycle
Raw Product: If raw product is used for its intended purpose without interim processing, it is not a waste. Some processing of the waste may be necessary to recover product for use. A hazardous waste permit is required to treat hazardous waste. However, if option a, b, or c below is done at the generator’s location, no hazardous waste permit is needed:
a. Gravity separation.
b. Simple filtration to remove particulates (Note: The filter media may become hazardous waste).
c. Use of an oil/water separator (Note: The water may be hazardous waste).
After any of the activities described above, the recovered product may be resold if it meets Missouri Department of Agriculture fuel specifications; may be used in your own vehicles if you choose to do so; or it may be sent to a petroleum refinery or terminal if the refinery/terminal accepts it for use in the petroleum refining process. In addition, recovered product may be sent to a fuel blender provided that no further reclamation or separation is necessary by the blender. If it is necessary to store the water phase generated from the activities described above, the water should be stored in closed containers in good condition and be clearly marked “Petroleum Contaminated Water” until a hazardous waste determination can be made. If the wastewater is determined to be hazardous, it must be stored in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste rules and regulations until appropriately disposed or discharged. For information about managing the water phase, see management option numbers 2, 3, 4 or 6 (of the fact sheet)."
Although this is the department’s determination regarding how fuels may be legitimately used as fuels and not be considered solid waste, please note that other laws, regulations and standards may apply to the conveyance, storage and use of this fuel. People claiming that the material is fuel and those using it are responsible for assuring the material can be legitimately and safely used as fuel for its intended purpose and are responsible for compliance with laws, regulations and standards applicable to the fuel in question.
Contaminated Property Cleanups
Would the department meet with a property owner about a “no further action letter” for tank sites? (10/07)
Yes, the department wants to assure we work with property owners when it comes to issuing such letters.
Are cleanup decisions about a property frequently made without the input of the property owner? (10/07)
It happens more often for neighboring properties when contamination has migrated off the source property. We are working to ensure that, even for neighboring properties, the property owner is notified and given an opportunity for input regarding cleanup decisions. In this situation, it was unusual and an oversight that the owner of the source property was not contacted and asked for specific input regarding future land use. (Later clarified that this involved a tenant company. The company was responsible for removal of tanks. Neither the tenant nor the department contacted the property owner. The property owner wished that owner notification was a part of the decision making process because, in this instance, the owner felt the future use was residential whereas the tenant assumed it was non-residential). Through changes in the MRBCA guidance document, the Hazardous Waste Program's Tanks Section is attempting to ensure that property owners are always asked to provide input regarding land use determinations, both for source properties and effected off-site properties.
Department Information Technology Initiatives
Who thought open access to department records was a
good idea? There were several concerns relating to easy access of information
for terrorist groups. How is the department going to protect the stakeholders? (05/07)
The department is also working on eForms, database system upgrades and an Electronic Contact Management (ECM) system. ECM is an electronic filing cabinet of documents that will have the ability to capture information from a form and allow the public easy access to department documents.
Is this system is similar to the Arkansas system, where
you can see all kinds of correspondence? (05/07)
Yes, and all documents would be scanned in. Some documents would be held confidential and those that would be available are already open records. The department recognizes that security needs to be a primary consideration.
DOT Marking and Labeling Requirements
Can you look at DOT marking and labeling requirements for drums (40 CFR Part 262 Subpart C)? To our knowledge only two other states require DOT marking and labeling on drums during the entire on-site storage period (10 CSR 25-5.262(2)(C)1. ). Could placards be provided to meet standards? (10/07)
The department will review requirements, research with the State Emergency Management Agency, look at DOT drum labeling in regard to emergencies and give a report at a future forum. The department continues to welcome stakeholder input on the safety of the NFPA 704 diamond system as compared to current package marking and labeling.
Is the department planning anything on emerging contaminants
like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (e.g., pharmaceuticals,
hormones and endocrine disrupting compounds)? Some pharmaceuticals contain
hazardous waste. These wastes are showing up in water supplies. Is the department
looking at reverse distribution? (05/07)
The department is looking at pharmaceuticals and EPA is conducting a pilot program in Missouri regarding pharmaceutical take backs (only one of two programs in the country).
Electronic Scrap (E-scrap) Stakeholder Workgroup
How do the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Best Management Practices for computer recycling line up with Missouri E-cycling Standards - MOEST? (05/07)
They are both similar processes. Missouri’s best management practices are based on those of other states.
Ethanol Corrosivity in Tanks
Is Missouri concerned about the corrosivity of ethanol
to piping, above ground storage tanks and underground storage tanks? (05/07)
Yes. Missouri’s regulations at 10 CSR 20-10.032 require that tank owners and operators have underground storage tank systems that are made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored in the underground storage tank system. These regulations also list codes/standards for storing alcohol blends. These regulations are necessary because some materials used in conventional tank storage and dispensing systems can degrade and fail, causing a release if E85 is placed in the systems. These materials include, but are not limited to, soft unplated materials such as zinc, brass, copper, lead or aluminum; rubber or plastic gaskets; hoses; polyurethane; connectors; fiberglass piping adhesives; some elastomers or polymers used in flex piping; bushings; gaskets; meters; filters and materials made of cork. In general, tank system construction and equipment varies, so it is always a good idea for tank owners and operators to check with the equipment supplier or maintenance expert on compatibility questions.
Useful references on this topic can be found on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources's Ethanol Web page. One such guidance is Converting Existing Underground Storage Tank Systems to Ethanol Compatible. This guidance also references another useful guidance produced by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission entitled Health and Environmental Impacts of Adding Ethanol to Gasoline in the Northeast States, July 2001.
Hazardous Waste Funding
Do the projected balances for the Hazardous Waste Fund
take into account the removal of Environmental Emergency Response funding from the Hazardous Waste Fund? (05/07)
It does for fiscal year 2008 and 2009. The department is not sure whether EER funding will be removed from the Hazardous Waste Fund for fiscal year 2009. Even if it returns, the Hazardous Waste Fund is anticipated to have a negative balance in fiscal year 2009.
Will the Hazardous Waste Program need to request General Revenue yearly for Environmental Emergency Response funding? (10/07)
The department would have to request General Revenue again for fiscal year 2009 budget and then hope it will be a part of the core budget at some point. The Hazardous Waste Program would not be able to pay its expenses through fiscal year 2009 if Environmental Emergency Response activities were again supported by the Hazardous Waste Fund.
In the presentation there is a pie chart that illustrates
the Hazardous Waste Fund distribution of funds by agency. The chart shows that the Department
of Health and Senior Services receives 5 percent from the Hazardous Waste Fund.
How is that money spent? (05/07)
The Department of Health and Senior Services develops or reviews risk assessments for the program.
How many risk assessments does the Department
of Health and Senior Services perform annually? (05/07)
Each year, the Department of Health and Senior Services provides review and comment services to the Hazardous Waste Program on a variety of issues related to health assessments and hazardous substance exposures. In 2007, this included:
- Any Superfund site-related activities, including document reviews for sites such as Litton, Oak Grove Village, and Moberly Former Manufactured Gas Plant;
- 70 Revised Registry site assessments, with private drinking water sampling at 19 sites; and
- 86 private drinking water wells sampled.
Please refer to the letter and expenditures report the Department of Health and Senior Services sent to the Hazardous Waste Program if you would like more detail on the expenditures from the Hazardous Waste Fund budget categories for state fiscal year 2007.
In reference to a possible stakeholder workgroup for
the funding issues the program will be facing, will the department publicize
the public meetings? (05/07)
The department is still considering forming a stakeholder workgroup. If a workgroup is formed, the department intends to publicize this to invite all interested participatants.
Is the 13 percent shown on one of the graphs for the Office of Administration costs from the Hazardous Waste Fund historic or recent? (10/07)
The Office of Administration takes a transfer of each fund out of the Hazardous Waste Program’s balance for anything fee based. For example, Information Technology staff moved to the Office of Administration and some of the money moves with them for computer purchases and computer staff support.
What is the breakout for in-state and out-of-state generator fees? (10/07)
In-state for 2005 was $741,000 and for 2006 was $700,000.
Why are projections showing income down and expenditures going up? (10/07)
The increase is largely due to changes in the economy, higher costs for goods and fringe rates, which includes health care insurance for department staff.
Could the Hazardous Waste Program raise the amount for permits? (10/07)
Permit costs were typically not very large due to major permit reviews every ten years, except for modifications.
What about the time period for the battery fee? (10/07)
There is a sunset on the fee is 2011.
Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements
When a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) in Missouri accumulates more than 100 kg, it causes them to be regulated as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG). What is the spirit of the rule?(05/07)
The spirit of the rule is employee and public safety. The department’s inspection records indicate that those who generate or accumulate 100 kg in one month or at any one time have the same (and sometimes greater) potential for harm to human health and the environment as those generating larger amounts. Sites generating over 1,000 kg of hazardous waste must train their employees in recognizing problems associated with hazardous waste management. Federal CESQG waste is typically stored longer and with fewer safeguards for the public or employees. It should be noted that Kansas begins regulating at 25 kg for the same reasons. This change would also have a significant negative impact on the Hazardous Waste Program’s operating revenue that is already in serious decline. Without substituting fees from another area (which are not now available), Missouri is unable to make this regulation change at this time.
Many Missouri CESQGs often ship their hazardous wastes to states that allow CESQGs to store up to 2,200 pounds of waste before shipment (i.e., federal standards). A Missouri CESQG that stores 220 pounds must follow other hazardous waste requirements, including, but not limited to, using a licensed hazardous waste transporter and hazardous waste manifest for the shipment to the treatment, storage or disposal facility. Some transportation companies are taking advantage of this by transporting these wastes without manifesting and/or without asking the generator to register with the department’s Hazardous Waste Program as a SQG or large quantity generator (LQG). This potentially takes business away from other hazardous waste transportation companies that strive to follow Missouri regulations and laws. Most of the shipments are from SQGs who have not registered with the state.
In another instances, a company was observed violating the regulations by placing non-regulated waste labels on all hazardous waste that the company picks up as CESQG waste. Other companies may be placing non-regulated waste labels on 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste accumulating at generator locations. This violates regulations requiring identification of waste as hazardous and failure to register with the state.
Missouri might consider allowing the accumulation of up to a 55-gallon drum (or 682 pounds which is the DOT maximum for weight in a single non-bulk package) before regulating that site as a SQG. This would still be more stringent than federal regulations.
The Hazardous Waste Program has received manifests from out-of-state treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDs). These TSDs, by chance, use the manifest as a tracking document and send copies into the department. In this way, the Hazardous Waste Program could identify several Missouri companies that have shipped regulated quantities without registering with the department or using a hazardous waste manifest and has taken appropriate enforcement action. The Hazardous Waste Program contacted its sister agencies in adjoining states to ask if those states somehow recorded CESQG waste through their hazardous waste reporting in the hopes that we could identify Missouri CESQGs that shipped waste illegally. Unfortunately none of the states maintained a tracking system for this type of small shipment information.
In response to this concern, the Hazardous Waste Program has contacted its regional office inspectors to ask them to watch for sites that are generating and storing small quantities of hazardous waste without registering, and without use of hazardous waste transporters and the manifest system. The inspectors are to inform the Hazardous Waste Program about these sites for consideration of enforcement along with the transporter that advised the illegal shipment(s).
Another option the Hazardous Waste Program could consider would be to modify Missouri rules to be more stringent by mandating any hazardous waste shipment be accompanied by a manifest regardless of the amount. The second option may not be desirable as it would regulate more companies in an attempt to find those who are likely violating (and who would continue to violate) existing requirements. Each of these options would require regulatory changes and a regulatory impact report. The Hazardous Waste Program is willing to consider changes if protection of human health and the environment is not negatively impacted.
Hazardous Waste Inspections
Universities are inspected by EPA as a Large Quantity Generator and by the department as a Small Quantity Generator. Why is this happening? Who is inspecting whom and why this difference? (05/07)
The department is not aware of a situation where the same facility was inspected by EPA and the department, but would welcome stakeholder input on where this has occurred. Either EPA or the department can inspect a university. In recent years, EPA has inspected quite a few universities, with a particular interest in their laboratory operations. To avoid duplication of effort, EPA shares its planned inspection list with the department each year and each quarter. This information is used to eliminate inspection candidates when the department prepares its list of sites for inspection. EPA also shares, and the department distributes, any changes to the list that occur throughout the year.
It is possible that the department may inspect certain parts of a university facility (such as units undergoing closure), or for certain reasons (because the department must investigate a citizen concern). In cases where the department investigates a citizen concern, it may conduct a full inspection while at the facility. This is at the inspector’s discretion.
Regarding a university’s status, only the facility can change its previously declared generator status by submitting an amended registration form. Missouri typically inspects based on the generation rate that is observed during the inspection. For example, if a registered Large Quantity Generator is generating only a small amount of hazardous waste, and has not accumulated a large amount of hazardous waste, a Small Quantity Generator inspection checklist is used. EPA typically inspects based on the amount last reported by the facility on their biennial report. If the facility reported a large quantity shipped on the biennial report, it is likely EPA will inspect based on this status.
Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements
Could department prepare guidance on manifest requirements? (10/07)
A fact sheet is being prepared and the department welcomes questions regarding manifests so we can address those in the fact sheet.
Should net weight or some other measurement be recorded on a hazardous waste manifest? (10/07)
Yes, net weight is the measurement that should be recorded on the hazardous waste manifest. The definition of hazardous substance (49 CFR 171.8 ) states that the quantity of a hazardous substance is “in one package.” It stands to reason that the reportable quantities of a hazardous substance do not include the weight of the package because the package itself does not pose a risk/threat to the environment. Especially if you consider hazardous substances that have very low reportable quantities-in this case the container may end up weighing more than the actual substance. If for some reason a company’s common business practice entails using gross weight on their shipping papers, then they can delineate the quantities of hazardous substances by using one of the following examples under Item 9 (USDOT Description) on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
Example: 5 packages each containing 6-oz of material.
- 5 boxes, 30 oz., UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII, (6 oz. per box)
- 5 boxes, 6 oz. per box, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII, (30 oz. in total), or
- list it five separate times…
1 box, 6 oz, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII
1 box, 6 oz, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII
1 box, 6 oz, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII
1 box, 6 oz, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII
1 box, 6 oz, UN2464, Waste Beryllium Nitrate, 5.1, (6.1), PGII
Would the department say that currently, because the law remains in place, a variance through the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Commission would be required for relief from the requirement. (10/07)
Letter of Credit for Financial Assurance
There are difficulties with Missouri requiring a bank
located in Missouri to confirm a letter of credit from an out-of-state bank.
Missouri requires that letters of credit must be issued by a state or federally
chartered and regulated bank or trust association. However, if the issuing
institution is not located in Missouri, then a bank or trust association
located in Missouri must confirm the letter of credit and the confirmation
and letter of credit must be filed with the department. Can something be
done about this requirement? (05/07)
The department is reviewing this recommendation in the context of all financial assurance regulations and evaluating what changes may be needed. Because financial assurance is a national priority, Missouri is participating with other states, national organizations and EPA in evaluating all hazardous waste financial assurance regulations. The department will review this recommendation in the context of the national discussion of financial assurance and the changes that may be needed. To address this particular issue, the department has for several years accepted letters of credit from an out of state bank if that bank designates one of its branches located in Missouri for presentation of the letter of credit for payment. The department will work with stakeholders to address this concern if possible.
What is the state’s authority and what does Missouri statute state? (10/07)
The word “presentation” is in the Uniform Commercial Code under banking law.
If federal regulations can cover this adequately, would Missouri consider changing the regulation, and would Missouri accept requests for variances until the rule is changed? (10/07)
Since the last forum, a company has submitted a variance petition to the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Commission. The Permits Section is working with the department’s legal council and Attorney General’s Office to discuss amending the rule. The change in the regulation would be an amendment to 10 CSR 25-7.264(1)(H)(6). The rule making process will most likely take 13-15 months.
Missouri Environmental Covenants Act (MoECA)
Does Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action (MRBCA) meet Missouri Environmental Covenants Act (260.1000-1036, RSMo) standards? (10/07)
Does the department already have a mechanism in voluntary cleanup law and is it also in the regulations? (10/07)
Yes, the department uses restrictive covenants, but the restrictive covenants are not yet in regulation. MoECA will supersede the old one even though it isn’t in regulation.
If a current site is not closed by Jan. 1, then what might happen? (10/07)
The department is still working with sites to tailor the restrictive covenant so the new one will still work on these sites.
Missouri Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
How can a site be removed or downgraded on the Missouri
Registry of Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal
There are several ways a site that is on the registry can removed or downgraded. The owner of the site can conduct a cleanup through the Hazardous Waste Program's Brownfield/Voluntary Cleanup Program or Superfund Cooperative Program. In either case the HWP's oversight cost would be similar.
The language referring to removing or downgrading a site on the registry is 10 CSR 25-10.010(5) found on p. 3 titled Petitions for Deletion From the Registry, Change in Site Classification or Modification of Information. The site owner may petition the HWP to modify the site classification or remove the site from the registry. In this situation the site owner in most cases would conduct some additional investigation for new information about the site. The Hazardous Waste Program suggests that the owner coordinate with them in this process to assure all issues are addressed. Once a year, typically in September or October, a five member Site Assessment Committee meets to discuss Registry site classifications. Based on new information concerning health risk or contamination levels this committee can reclassify the site.
The Hazardous Waste Program has allowed sites to be removed from the registry when site owners have placed a restrictive covenant on the property to prohibit some land uses. Typically this would only be an option for a Class 3 or 4 site where cleanup actions have occurred and limited contamination remains in place.
Senate Bill 54 passed and the governor signed it on June 26, 2007. It contains language for the Missouri Environmental Covenants Act that allows a registry site to be removed. The owner would have to
2. ...petition the department to remove the site from the registry provided
(1) Corrective actions have addressed the contamination at the site in accordance with a department-approved risk-based corrective action plan;
(2) The department has issued a letter indicating that no further actions are required to address current risk from contaminants for the site; and
(3) An environmental covenant for the property that meets the requirements of sections 260.1000 to 260.1039 has been filed with the county recorder of deeds.
3. The department shall approve such a request unless the department determines that removal from the registry would result in significant current or future risk of harm to human health, public welfare, or the environment. In making such a determination, the department shall provide a written justification that considers the amount, toxicity, and persistence of any contaminants left in place and the stability of current site conditions. Any denial under this subsection may be appealed to the commission in the manner provided in section 260.460.
Could quarterly reports for large quantity generators be made semi-annual? (10/07)
The department agrees that this would be a good suggestion. The reason there is a quarterly reporting requirement for large quantity generators (LQGs) and treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDs) has been primarily so the department would be able to complete data entry of paper reports in a reasonable timeframe after the end of each reporting year. It would be impossible for the department to complete data entry on a full year’s reporting for all LQGs and TSDs in a timely manner if all the reports were received only twice a year. These reports are the basis for waste fee invoices that have a statutory payment due date of Jan. 1 following the end of the reporting year. We want to ensure we are able to create and mail the invoices well in advance of the deadline to allow sufficient time for those being billed to get payment requests through their own internal processes.
When generators and TSDs send their reports on electronic forms or by data transfer, it eliminates or greatly reduces the need for department staff to do data entry work on those reports. Use of electronic forms has not yet reached a point that we can reduce the reporting frequency. However, we are hopeful that the use of the electronic reporting option will continue to increase to a point that we can make certain reporting changes such as this suggestion.
Is hazardous waste personnel training required if the facility has only satellite areas and no other 90/180 hazardous waste storage? (10/07)
Hazardous waste regulations do not require training for personnel who manage only satellite accumulation areas. Large quantity generators must train personnel in handling/managing hazardous waste and the handling/management can encompass satellite accumulation areas. For operators that handle only satellite accumulation containers, hazardous waste regulations require only training for their responsibilities in managing the satellite containers.
In the transition from “process” to hazardous waste container, where is the line drawn? (10/07)
A container that is receiving waste from a manufacturing process and that is attached in some manner to the manufacturing device is not a satellite container but a part of the process. The department is clarifying in guidance how “bags” can be a part of the process and the movement from a process to a container.
Will the department be amending its guidance to clarify that that containers that are emptied within 24 hours are not considered satellite accumulation containers? (10/07)
The question refers to specific discretion the department has given to certain generators that were unable to meet certain satellite accumulation requirements. When this discretion is provided, it is site specific and conditional. If conditions change that allow conformance to regulations, the discretion may be withdrawn. After reviewing the generator’s written request and factors such as feasibility, safety, etc., the department agreed not to enforce the regulations regarding these unique situations. Discretion did not negate the violation, but allowed a department-approved management method for particular situations. Standards for management of satellite containers are located in existing Missouri hazardous waste regulations and guidance available in the Hazardous Waste Program’s Hazardous Waste Satellite Accumulation -- PUB2215 (05/07) 25 KB fact sheet. Additional guidance appears in the department’s archives to its Hazardous Waste Compliance Listserv, located at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/enf/SatAccum.htm.
Please look at satellite accumulation points in Subpart K. The department will need to clarify its interpretation because EPA has a different interpretation. (10/07)
The department has reviewed the proposed Subpart K and EPA’s documentation related to the proposed rule. The department’s comments appear in the EPA docket. The proposed rule may not become final until later in mid 2008 or 2009. Once the federal rule becomes final, Subpart K would not take effect in Missouri until the state adopts the rule following the rulemaking adoption process. Currently, department staff are reviewing comments on the proposed rule along with EPA’s supporting documentation to consider how best to respond when the rule becomes final. We are also reviewing comments from meeting participants on satellite accumulation in the context of Subpart K proposed language.
How many dates go on a satellite accumulation container? Is there a requirement to put a full date on the excess being accumulated (i.e. a “filled date” since it must be moved from the satellite area within 3 days of filling)? (10/07)
A new date is required on the container either when it is filled or when it is moved to the hazardous waste storage area. The “full date” is the generator accumulation start date.
Short-Term EPA Identification Numbers
Missouri needs a process that allows a facility to get
an EPA ID Number in a shorter amount of time. Facilities sometime run into
soil contamination when moving tanks. They need to analyze the soil and ship
it as hazardous waste, if appropriate. It can sometimes take several weeks
to get an EPA ID Number. Some facilities prefer to take the soil to a staging
facility and use that facility’s EPA ID Number to ship the waste. The
stakeholders recommended rewording this topic to restaging waste area. (05/07)
In the event described, facilities could call the department’s 800 number for emergency response and get an incident number. Then they could move the soil according to Environmental Emergency Response’s guidance and be in compliance with registration requirements.