Mary Beth,

 

It is funny how old contentious topics re-emerge over time. Treatment in labs is one of them! Indeed, the knee-jerk reaction of many in EPA and corresponding state agencies is to say this is an illegal practice. In the ‘80s, ACS addressed this and other lab hazwaste issues by forming a Task force on Laboratory and Chemical Waste Management. The memorandum from Elizabeth Cotsworth is the result of ACS asking EPA to clarify this matter. Yes, labs can legally treat hazardous waste. This memorandum recognizes that laboratories have been safely treating waste on a very small scale in the manner you describe before and after RCRA’s promulgation. There are many other published waste treatment methods since it is safer to handle a stable material than a reactive by-product.

 

As others have pointed out, another option is to add a final treatment step to a laboratory procedure, which makes treatment “part of a process” and not within the RCRA treatment realm.

 

Nearly all U.S. labs have arranged ways to dispose of their hazardous waste. Except for institutions that have adopted Subpart K, the material becomes a waste when lab personnel designated it so and set it aside for pickup. Some institutions have dedicated waste collection staff, but the waste ends up being handled by a vendor who knows the rules. The vendor takes care of creating the hazardous waste profile, completing the LDR, documenting that treatment standards are met, and other paperwork requirements, etc.

 

I know of very few instances where treatment in labs became an enforcement issue, and these were usually the result of an overzealous and misinformed inspector.

 

This and many other lab hazwaste issues are thoroughly covered in the second edition (2012) of Laboratory Waste Management: A Guidebook by ACS Task Force on Laboratory and Chemical Waste Management.

 

I hope you find this helpful,

 

Pete Reinhardt

Retired Director of EHS, Yale University

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:47 AM Mary Beth Mulcahy <mulcahy.marybeth**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com> wrote:

All, 

I was talking to a friend who formerly worked at the EPA about quenching sodium metal at the end of a reaction and his initial response was, "you aren't allowed to do that, EPA doesn't let you treat waste like that." LIke all good friends, he dug into the issue and sent me this link, https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/files/14618.pdf, highlighting this paragraph (he acknowledged that his initial response was incorrect):

'If the waste is being treated on-site and the treatment residue is destined to be land disposed, the generator still has responsibilities under the land disposal restrictions (LDR) program.  The LDRs require that hazardous waste must be treated by a specified method or to a specified constituent concentration level before it (or its residue) may be placed in the land.  The generator must know the treatment standard applicable to his/her waste and either treat to meet the treatment standard or send it to a treater to do so.  Generators who treat waste on-site to remove a hazardous characteristic must prepare a waste analysis plan if treatment occurs in units that do not require a RCRA permit (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs, and 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) forSQGs).  In addition, there are some generator paperwork requirements associated with the LDRs(40 CFR268.7(a))."

 

As he said to me, "the devil is in the details," so whoever is doing the treatment must be treating it to a specified method and the person must know the treatment standard prior to treating the waste. This is probably why it is strongly discouraged (and he thought illegal).

My friend pointed out that this is only an issue if you are changing the haz waste profile of the material. If you say it is a metal and you treat it and still call it that same metal after treating, it gets disposed of the same way and it doesn't really matter. If you treat it and say it is now something else, then you can get into trouble. 

My thinking is that quenching the sodium is a safety issue first, that once dealt with, then renders the bi-products a waste issue, and that the sodium metal isn't yet waste until it is quenched. After quenching it (say using a procedure like the one described here, https://sites.chemengr.ucsb.edu/~ceweb/faculty/scott/Chemical%20SOPs/Sodium.pdf) you would then dispose of the by-products appropriately. 

So, I was curious what the DCHAS brain would say about this...when do you have to designate something (like sodium metal used in a distillation still) as waste? Do you define that point in time for your researchers? 

Mary Beth...not Koza, the other DCHAS Mary Beth ;)

 

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org