- Links on this page
- Introduction
- The Military Munitions Rule and contiguous property
- “Almost but not quite” contiguous—no problem for the military, big problem for us
- The ten day transfer limit
- Conclusions
Accessibility note: Linked documents in .pdf format are accompanied by an
HTML text version.
Use Adobe Reader to read the .pdf document.
Introduction
RCRA rules are incompatible with geographic decentralization and create unnecessary paperwork burdens for many institutions. The original RCRA rules only allowed transportation across public roads that separated contiguous property. A vehicle transporting hazardous waste could not travel along a public road without complying fully with manifest and DOT requirements, even along a road bordered by the same facility on both sides.
In 1997, in response to requests from the military, EPA adopted the “Military Munitions Rule,” a series of modifications and new regulations described in detail at 62 FR 6621—6657(12 Feb 1997) | [text version]. One of the changes applied to everyone who transports hazardous waste and allows travel along public roads that either pass through or are bordered by contiguous property.
The new rule was a good solution for the military, which needed to transport materials on large military bases that are divided or bordered by public highways. However, as with many RCRA rules, the Military Munitions Rule is a poor fit for colleges and universities, especially those in urban areas. For example, in what has become known in some circles as the “Seven-Eleven Problem,” a store on the corner of a block otherwise owned by a university creates a violation of the rule. The following diagram illustrates the problem:
In addition, many universities are growing and fixed campus boundaries are forcing activities into vacant locations in the surrounding community. The Military Munitions Rule does not permit any separation of contiguous property, no matter how small. Thus, the needs of a facility close to the main campus but not contiguous with it are treated the same as a facility several hundred miles away. In addition, waste brought to a 90 day storage facility from a non-contiguous location, regardless of distance, must be shipped out within ten days.
The professional association CSHEMA[1] has expressed its concern about multiple RCRA ID numbers applied to contiguous properties. Unfortunately, CSHEMA has not addressed two closely related concerns. These are the requirements for waste transportation from nearby but non-contiguous property and the ten day storage limit on waste entering a 90 day facility from a facility with a different RCRA ID number.
The Military Munitions Rule and contiguous property
CSHEMA currently recommends that the definition of on-site be changed to the following:
“‘On site’ means the same or geographically contiguous property, under the control of the same person, which may be divided by public or private right of ways. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a right of way, which the owner controls, and to which the public does not have access is also considered ‘on site property.”[2]
CSHEMA also recommends that all contiguous property receive the same RCRA generator number.
The Military Munitions Rule has dealt with the contiguous property problem in the same way proposed in the CSHEMA comment except that it does not address the generator number issue:
“[40 CFR]262.20(f) The requirements of this subpart and [40 CFR]262.32(b) do not apply to the transport of hazardous wastes on a public or private right-of-way within or along the border of contiguous property under the control of the same person, even if such contiguous property is divided by a public or private right-of-way. Notwithstanding 40 CFR 263.10(a), the generator or transporter must comply with the requirements for transporters set forth in 40 CFR 263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a discharge of hazardous waste on a public or private right-of-way.”
And from the EPA Fact Sheet on the rule:
“Lastly, the rule exempts all generators and transporters, not just the military, from the RCRA manifest for transportation of hazardous waste on public or private right-of-ways on or along the border of contiguous properties under the control of the same person, regardless of whether the contiguous properties are divided by right-of-ways.”
Within this limited framework, all that is needed to deal firmly with multiple ID numbers is to add a provision to the regulations that all facilities under the same local administrative control that are served by the same central hazardous waste facility shall share one Generator ID number. EPA weakly supports this approach in the preamble to the Military Munitions Rule | [text version] [3] but also cites possible exceptions and the policy flexibility exercised by individual states.
Iowa State University (Region 7 and no state program) uses this rule to transport waste from their veterinary school and negotiated successfully with the Region 7 office to give them a single ID number.
For more information and full texts, see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/military/index.htm
“Almost but not quite” contiguous
Requiring the same generator number for contiguous facilities as defined by the Military Munitions Rule fails to address an important problem. A much larger problem lies with urban campuses where buildings may be separated by a block or by a mile or two. This problem will get worse as campuses expand past their borders and are forced to leapfrog in the community. For example, University of Wisconsin service to the State Laboratory of Hygiene has been forcibly limited by an off-campus move as has service to a medical research facility on the grounds of a former hospital. The medical school is now constructing research facilities on the Research Park campus creating a third remote site. None of these sites are Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators. The CSHEMA comment and the Military Munitions Rule don’t deal with this problem at all.
This is a situation that cries out for a performance oriented approach to regulation. Here is a rationale and a suggested regulatory approach that reforms waste transportation and uses combined services to leverage the generator number:
The objectives of this piece of regulatory reform are to restructure the Military Munitions Rule to meet its current objectives with greater flexibility and no compromise of safety. A reasonable statement of objectives for the current rule is:
- Eliminate unnecessary paperwork when trained people transport hazardous waste locally and “not in commerce” under conditions that assure the waste will reach an appropriate destination.
- Assure that trained assistance is available in case of emergency during local transportation
- Discourage small, nearby facilities controlled by a large quantity generator from qualifying as conditionally exempt small quantity generators and largely deregulating their wastes.
- Allow nearby facilities under control of the same management to use a single 90 day storage facility.
Important differences between transportation by college/university facility staff and transportation in commerce are that facility workers are knowledgeable about their cargo and trained in emergency procedures. In addition, assistance is nearby and their typical cargo is well under 1,000 lbs. In contrast, transporters in commerce have limited knowledge about their cargo, may be hundreds of miles from expert assistance and carrying a cargo of 350,000 lbs or more.
All of the above objectives can be accomplished by controls based on travel time and distance from expert assistance instead of physical adjacency.
In the discussion of comments on the Military Munitions Rule, EPA rejected expanding the definition of on-site to include non-contiguous properties unless the properties are connected by a road that is not open to the public “given the increased possibility that the public could come in contact with the waste should a discharge occur under this scenario and the generator would no longer have control over bordering property.” The agency also expressed concern about the impact a change in the definition of “on site” might have on other regulations. To examine the agency’s concern about increased possibility of public contact, consider the availability of assistance on military bases under the current rule.
We are used to thinking of college campuses as fairly large, but they are very small compared to military bases. Figures 1–4 show map cuts of several military bases. As the scales show, current rules will permit these bases to transport hazardous waste without a manifest over more than twenty miles of public roads, including local roads and interstate highways, between the point of generation and a central hazardous waste facility where EH&S assistance would be available in case of emergency. Even at the speed of emergency vehicles, the time for assistance to arrive after being called could be as much as thirty minutes under good traffic conditions.
A performance oriented regulation that stays within currently permissible limits of risk might state that a manifest is not required if transportation is by RCRA-trained workers and within n minutes travel distance from a centralized HW facility, say n = 30. To help assure rapid assistance, the outside of the vehicle should be placarded with contact phone numbers and according to DOT rules to inform emergency responders. Assistance from the central facility must be available at all times during transportation. A bill of lading listing hazard classes and approximate quantities on board should accompany the vehicle. Of course, the facilities being served must be under the same EH&S authority as the hazardous waste service organization.
To avoid problems with the 10 day transfer station limit under this reform, all facilities served by the 90 day facility should be required to operate under the same generator number as the central facility that services them. This also prevents the nearby facilities from escaping regulation if they otherwise qualify as Conditionally Exempt or Small Quantity Generators.
A regulation along these lines can be enforced as easily as the present rule. A travel distance of n minutes can be interpreted prima facie as a travel distance from the central waste facility based on actual measurements, or simply as a radius drawn on a map. Staffing patterns and contact information should be required to show the availability of assistance.
This change would also benefit environmental protection by reducing the number of chemical waste storage areas scattered in the community and by discouraging fragmentation of facilities to reduce or avoid RCRA regulation.
The ten day transfer limit
A second piece of the present regulatory puzzle that needs to be addressed is the 10 day limit for storage by a 90 day facility of waste from another generator. If this limit were modified, waste could be manifested from nearby facilities, even if the Military Munitions Rule were not changed. In addition, this would allow 90 day facilities to accept small amounts of waste from local K–12 schools without fear of administrative repercussions if the school exceeded the limits for a conditionally exempt small quantity generator.
EPA has an initiative underway to clean up K–12 schools, so there is a common cause that might encourage this reform.
For example, some of the University of Wisconsin System schools are paying 25 percent of their hazardous waste payments in contractor mobilization charges. If the 10 day limit were removed, UW System staff could reduce or eliminate the mobilization cost on small quantities of waste and pass substantial savings to the campuses.
A conservative regulatory approach would be a rule that allows 90 day LQG storage facilities that are part of a generator facility to accept waste in any quantity from facilities that are under the same administrative and EH&S control without triggering the 10 day limit. Requiring the non-contiguous facilities to be served by the same 90 day facility and to be under the same EH&S control means that the rule change will not apply to transporter-operated transfer facilities, preserving the intent of the present rule. In addition, a 90 day facility can accept waste from schools or public agencies in amounts up to 20 percent of their annual waste amount.
This approach allows the 90 day facility to provide full service within its organization. The limit on waste from other organizations is a safeguard to prevent outside needs from overwhelming the 90 day facility while allowing it to serve the community, if it wishes to do so. Transportation may be manifested or not, depending on distance or other changes in the Military Munitions Rule.
Conclusions
Changing the Military Munitions Rule and the ten day transfer station limit can greatly simplify chemical waste handling for many colleges and universities. The change will also benefit regulators by discouraging organizations from subdividing themselves to avoid RCRA regulation and by centralizing hazardous waste management at larger sites that are easier to inspect. The key changes needed are:
- Allow sites that are nearby, but not contiguous with a site having a 90 day storage facility and under the same ownership, to move waste to the 90 day facility without a manifest provided that personnel, documentation and vehicles meet certain safety conditions.
- Allow a 90 day storage facility to accept, with restrictions, waste from non-contiguous sites without triggering the ten day storage limit.
- Restrict the above privileges to incoming wastes from sites that are under the same ownership and sites that are owned by school districts or government agencies.
The changes will reduce chemical waste accumulations at nearby facilities and allow Environmental Health and Safety units to provide a higher standard of service to customers. Furthermore, the proposed changes will allow 90 day facilities to provide an important service to their local school districts and other community assets if they so desire.
