From: Ellen M. Sweet <ems325**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Comment on burdensome hazardous waste rule changes
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:32:48 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: CY1PR04MB1832A8C19B97065A974F35559AE10**At_Symbol_Here**



Hi Everyone,

Submissions of comments to the EPA proposed rule changes to the Hazardous Waste Generator Rules is fast approaching. Comments are due December 24th.

For those who have been looking into these, some very important issues have surfaced for those who generate waste in laboratories. This is especially important for those who do not have Subpart K as an option, which allows relief from the additional documentation requirements. Some specifics:!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0001


Hazardous waste determination at the point of generation


The EPA does intend this to mean that the full determination (minus waste codes) needs to happen at the point of generation.

·        This was not written with laboratories in mind.

·        If we don’t like it, we should be opting into Subpart K, which gives relief from this requirement.

·        If we have ideas for a better solution, offer it.


Documentation of hazardous waste determination

·        We will need to have documentation of non-hazardous solid waste streams, explaining why it is not a hazardous waste. 

·        It was not written with laboratories in mind.

·        If we don’t like it, we should be opting into Subpart K, which gives relief from this requirement

·        If we have ideas for a better solution, offer it.



Episodic Generation affecting generator status

·        The way it is written, episodic generation means that the activity creating the waste is complete within 45 days with the possibility of a 30-day extension. Some have suggested a 90-day extension so that it might cover remediation projects. 

·        EPA did not intend it for remediation projects.

·        EPA expects that if this is for a lab cleanout, it is going to be infrequent, not every year.  If we are doing such a cleanout every year, then we are a large quantity generator.

·        Subpart K does allow for annual episodic generation.


Extension on comments

·        EPA will NOT extend the comment deadline beyond December 24.


EPA expects us to opt into Subpart K. But, there are issues with this rule and is likely one of the reasons why it hasn’t been fully adopted across the country. There are burdensome labeling requirements; although this would be less than what is in proposed rule, and it is not allowed for all laboratories.


What you can do:


1)     Offer the EPA suggestions so that Subpart K is not the only option.

2)     Comment on the issues with Subpart K so that it is a good option; not just the lesser of two evils. This includes requesting that it be expanded to include non-academic labs.

3)     Engage with your state to opt into Subpart K, which is intended to be used by laboratories whereas the rest of the RCRA rules were meant, and will continue to be, for industry.!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0001


ACS comments have been submitted. Yale, CSHEMA, University of Missouri, and several others are commenting. We implore others to do so by the December 24th deadline so that we can make the RCRA rules make sense for those us working in labs.




Ellen Sweet

Laboratory Ventilation Specialist

Department of Environmental Health and Safety

Cornell University



Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.