1 / 68

Biennial Report Update Procedures - Submitting Replacement Data

This document provides procedures for submitting replacement data for the National Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. It includes instructions for adding, changing, and deleting data, as well as information on the Biennial Report Addendum Report.

fgarcia
Télécharger la présentation

Biennial Report Update Procedures - Submitting Replacement Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biennial Report RCRAInfo 2008 National Users Conference Page 1 of __

  2. Procedure for Submitting Replacement Data Lori Furr, OSW Changes to Site ID Form Paula Canter, OH & Jack Griffith, FL Reporting of Lab Wastes Jessica Biegelson, OSW New BR Analyses Laura Lopez, OSW BR & Priority Chemicals Tammie Owen, OSW Q &A Jim O’Leary, OSW AGENDA

  3. Procedure for Submitting BR Replacement Data Lori Furr, OSW

  4. Biennial Report Update Procedures • Schemas • RCRAINFO_BR – contains static data used to produce the National Hazardous Waste Biennial Report • RCRAINFO_WA – contains biennial report data (which may have been updated) • Available for cycles 2001 – 2007 • Revisions to 2001-2005 cycles must meet the 2005 cycle requirements • Revisions to 2007 cycle must meet the 2007 cycle requirements Page 4 of 6

  5. Biennial Report Update Procedures (cont.) • Add or change data • Must submit a complete set of BR files for handler to add/change • Notes must be provided in the Notes field of the SI1 file • SI1 Record in control file must contain “P” (Partial) in column 33 Page 5 of 6

  6. Biennial Report Update Procedures (cont.) • Delete data • Will delete all BR data for that handler in the specified cycle • Must submit SI1 file with Handler ID and Notes field • SI1 Record in control file must contain “D” (Delete) in column 33 Page 6 of 6

  7. Biennial Report Update Procedures (cont.) • Biennial Report Addendum Report • Updated quarterly • Shows additions, changes, and deletions to BR data for cycles 2001 – 2007 • Posted on http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/??? Page 7 of 6

  8. 2009 Biennial Report Schedule (draft) • Print 2009 Instructions and Forms – November 2009 • Distribute 2009 Instructions and Forms to States – November/December 2009 • Upload 2009 BR Data into RCRAInfo – April 2010 • Preliminary Data Due – June 1, 2010 • Produce the 2009 Preliminary National Hazardous Waste Biennial Report – July 6, 2010 • Conduct Data Quality Reviews – June-September 2010 • Final Data Due – October 5, 2010 • Publish 2009 National Hazardous Waste Biennial Report – December 14, 2010 Page 8 of 6

  9. 2009 Biennial Report Site Identification Form Changes Change Management Waste Analysis Group (WAG)

  10. Problem: Federal Site ID form only collects current generator status at time of certification Implementers must determine and report to US EPA whether a site was a LQG during the reporting year by the Y/N value of the Include in National Report flag.

  11. Not always easy to know May be a one-time or short-term LQG Current status may be non-LQG but that doesn’t mean they weren’t a LQG in the report year. Potentially a LQG can be any site reporting more than 2200 P total for the year (or 2.2 P for Acute Waste). Filers don’t read instructions – text on the form doesn’t reflect our interpretation.

  12. Issues in changing the form Not all implementers have generator definitions equivalent to the federal A few states have broader LQG definitions Where to place it on the form Terminology TSD facilities also need to be flagged for National Report inclusion

  13. Recommendation process WAG submitted a recommendation paper to the Coordination Group (CG) CG approved and OSW-AIB sent out the paper for national review with two wording options for proposal #2. WAG received 21 responses with the majority supporting Option 1 wording for change #2.

  14. Change #1: Under Reason for Submittal = HW Report, add indented check box line with the following text: Site was a TSD facility or generator of > 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, >1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or >100 kg of acute hazardous waste spill cleanup in any single calendar month in the report year (or State equivalent LQG regulations)

  15. Site ID Form Changes Reason for Submittal addition

  16. Change #2: Change wording on form for Item 10, Type of Regulated Waste Activity: Mark “Yes” or “No” for all current (as of the date of submitting the form) activities; complete any additional boxes as instructed.

  17. Site ID Form Changes Item 10 Type of Regulated Waste Activity

  18. Instructions Instructions were changed accordingly to explain the added text.

  19. Other Site ID Changes Subpart K rule: add notification of opting into or withdrawing from this program for laboratories owned by eligible academic entities. Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rule – adding notification and quantity info for Hazardous Secondary Material (HSM) handlers. These rules have to be picked up by the state for them to be effective in the state. They are optional.

  20. V5 includes Site ID changes V5 is scheduled to be implemented in spring 2010. The capability to enter the new Subpart K and DSW notification elements in RCRAInfo may not occur until then. May take many months for a state to adopt the new optional rules.

  21. Software issues Work with your BR software vendor on the BR-related Site ID changes. If your state plans to adopt the Subpart K or DSW rules and you have state-specific forms, you will need to work on form changes. If you are a translator state you also will have software changes.

  22. NOTE! • There are some USITS enhancement requests that if adopted, would impact the BR file specs but not the federal Site ID form itself: • Contact title • Contact-specific address fields • Increase length of certification title field • Stay tuned to see if there are any file spec changes.

  23. Contact Information Jack Griffith, Florida DEP john.griffith@dep.state.fl.us (850) 245-8748 Paula Canter, Ohio EPA paula.canter@epa.state.oh.us (614) 644-2923

  24. Biennial Reporting for Laboratory Hazardous Wastes National RCRAInfo Conference Jessica Biegelson EPA Office of Solid Waste December 2-5th, 2008

  25. Background • Alternative set of regulations for managing HW in laboratories owned by eligible academic entities • Eligible Academic Entities are: • Colleges and Universities (C/U) • Teaching Hospitals that are either owned by or have a formal written affiliation with a C/U • Non-profit Research Institutes that are either owned by or have a formal written affiliation with a C/U

  26. Background • Variations in reporting laboratory hazardous waste and laboratory clean-outs • We’d like to: • Measure the success of this rulemaking in encouraging laboratory clean-outs • More accurately measure laboratory hazardous waste

  27. Routinely Generated Laboratory Hazardous Waste • GM form of the BR: • Use the Source Code G22 (Laboratory analytical wastes (used chemicals from laboratory operations)) • When not applicable, use the comment field (when provided by the State) to indicate the hazardous waste originated in a laboratory • Where applicable use the Form Codes: • W001 (Lab packs from any source not containing acute hazardous waste) and • W004 (Lab packs from any source containing acute hazardous waste)

  28. Laboratory Clean-out Hazardous Wastes: • GM Form of the BR: • Use of the Source Code G11, for discarding off-specification or out-of-date chemicals or products (assuming the clean-out chemicals are unused) • Use the comment section of a State’s GM form where applicable to indicate that the HW is from a Subpart K laboratory clean-out

  29. Contact Info for OSW Labs Team Jessica Biegelson Biegelson.Jessica@epa.gov 703-308-0026 Kristin Fitzgerald Fitzgerald.Kristin@epa.gov 703-308-8286 Trisha Mercer Mercer.Patricia@epa.gov 703-308-8408 Labs Rule Website: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/generation/labwaste/index.htm

  30. Hazardous Waste Generation and Management: Status and Trends December 2nd-5th, 2008

  31. Background • Since 1981, EPA has been collecting information onhazardous waste generation and management • For reporting year 1989, the Agency began to collectHazardous Waste Report data in partnership withthe States through the FOCUS Biennial ReportingSystem (BRS) • Over the years, the Agency has taken steps to improvethe BR data collection process, which include makingchanges to the BR data collection forms • The most significant changes to the BR data collection processtook place in 2001 as a result of the Waste Information Needs (WIN)/Informed initiative • Now that the BR data collection process is more stable, the Agency is in a better position to conduct more in-depth analyses on hazardous generation and management • For reporting year 2007, EPA is supplementing the National Report with several innovative analyses of hazardous waste generation and management over the years 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007

  32. Purpose of Analyses • The new BR data analyses: • Provide a more in-depth look at hazardous waste generation and management in the U.S. over four reporting cycles • Look for clues that help explain why we see theyear-to-year trends • Serve as a resource to identify and target program activities to achieve waste reduction and recycling goals • Help us assess how close we are to our RCRA 2020 Vision (http://epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/pubs/vision.htm)

  33. Analytical Methodology Step 1 Compile Waste Stream Data Step 2 Classify Waste Streams as “Wastewaters” or “Nonwastewaters” Step 3 Classify Waste Streams as “Production Process Waste,” “Clean-Up Waste,” or “Treatment Residual” Step 4 Assign a Waste Code to Waste Streams Represented by Multiple EPA Waste Codes Step 5 Conduct Analyses • Analyses are based on the BR data originally used in the development of the National Reports • Methodologies for generation and management consist of same 5 key steps, but rely on different BR form data • Detailed methodology will be sent with the new analyses

  34. Analytical Methodology (cont.) • Step 1 - Compile Waste Stream Data • This step consists of three sub-steps: • Identifying facilities to be included in the National Report • Identifying waste streams to be included in the National Report • Eliminating double counting of wastes

  35. Analytical Methodology (cont.) • Step 2 - Classify Waste Streams as “Wastewaters”or “Nonwastewaters” • Allow us to focus some ofthe analyses onnonwastewaters, which areoften the wastes that end upin landfills or are sent toincineration • Algorithm • Waste streams represented byselected BR form codes andmanagement method codes areclassified as “wastewaters” • All remaining waste streams areclassified as “nonwastewaters”

  36. Analytical Methodology (cont.) • Step 3 - Classify Waste Streams as “Production Process Waste,”“Clean-Up Waste,” or “Treatment Residual” • Allow us to focus some of our analyses on “production process wastes,” where potential opportunities for direct waste minimization are the greatest • Production process wastes • Waste streams generated by production and serviceprocesses, based on reported BR source codes • Excludes waste streams generated by facilities inNAICS code 562 (Waste Management andRemediation Services) • Excludes waste streams represented by EPAwaste code F039 (leachates) • Clean-up wastes • Waste streams generated by spills, accidentalreleases, and remediation of past contamination,based on reported BR source codes • Includes waste streams generated by any industryor represented by any EPA waste code • Treatment residuals • Waste streams generated by hazardous waste management processes, based on reported BR source codes • Includes waste streams generated by facilities in NAICS code 562 as well as other industries • Includes waste streams represented by waste code F039 as well as other EPA waste codes

  37. Analytical Methodology (cont.) • Step 4 - Assign a Waste Code to Waste Streams Represented by Multiple EPA Waste Codes • For each waste stream, assess the need for a waste code grouping; single codes remain as the code reported • Single, mutually exclusivehazardous waste code assignedto waste streams • Used to avoid double counting ofwaste quantities for waste streamswith multiple EPA waste codes • Assigned based on the mostspecific EPA waste coderepresenting the waste streams,based on the following hierarchy: • Single waste codes • Lab pack (LABP) • F039 • K waste codes • F waste codes • U waste codes • P waste codes • D waste codes

  38. Analytical Methodology (cont.) • Step 5 – Conduct Analyses • Examine data for inconsistencies • Identify data outliers • Identify reporting issues • Conduct QAQC • Apply knowledge to information retrieved from the data system (RCRA regulations, economic conditions, waste stream characteristics, etc.) • Develop the wisdom necessary to support decision making and evaluate the RCRA program

  39. Types of Analyses • Changes in Hazardous Waste Generation and Management Over Time • Hazardous waste generation • Hazardous waste management • Targeting Specific Aspects of Hazardous Waste Generation and Management Over Time • Industries that generate the most waste • Waste types that are generated the most

  40. Examples of Analyses

  41. Hazardous Waste Generators in 2005 Data Source: GM Form (Sections 1 and 2) of 2005 Biennial Report

  42. Offsite Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in 2005:Incineration, Landfill, Underground Injection

  43. Offsite Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in 2005:Metals, Solvents, and Energy Recovery

  44. Industries that Sent Offsite for Management the Largest Quantities of Production Process Nonwastewaters, 2001-2005 2003 2001 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing, 501,802 Tons (99 Generators) Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 564,733 Tons (102 Generators) Remaining 240 Industries, 856,235 Tons (9,646 Generators) Remaining 215 Industries 846,721 Tons (8,149 Generators) Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, 232,299 Tons (175 Generators) Basic Chemical Manufacturing 291,572 Tons (471 Generators) Basic Chemical Manufacturing 218,670 Tons (496 Generators) Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing 141,277 Tons (282 Generators) Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 164,998 Tons (180 Generators) Steel Product Manufacturing from Purchased Steel, 118,131 Tons (107 Generators) Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing 150,570 Tons (144 Generators) Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing, 137,170 Tons (280 Generators) Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 812,542 Tons (99 Generators) 2005 Remaining 215 Industries 768,817 Tons (7,542 Generators) Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing 286,655 Tons (127 Generators) Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing 115,715 Tons (294 Generators) Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 129,954 Tons (168 Generators) Basic ChemicalManufacturing 267,190 Tons (481 Generators)

  45. Production Process Nonwastewaters Generated by theIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry:Top 4 Waste Types Sent Offsite for Management in 2005

  46. Production Process Nonwastewaters Generated by theIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry:Management of Top 2 Waste Types Sent Offsite for Management in 2005

  47. Production Process Nonwastewaters Generated by theIron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry:Management of Next 2 Waste Types Sent Offsite for Management in 2005

More Related