Select Page

Another change the EPA would like to comment on is whether the minimum water content should be increased above 50% “to reduce the likelihood that an [n]. The excluded [waste] would be able to maintain incineration or otherwise contribute to a lasting fire. Of course, this would limit the exclusion and broaden the definition of flammable hazardous waste, the scope depending on the level of the revised minimum. However, changes to the definitions of flammable liquids were not the only changes to the EPA guidelines. Changes have also been made to the way testing is conducted. Another possible change the EPA is seeking comment on is whether a “minimum alcohol content” should be added to the exclusion “to better address potential waste streams primarily from their alcoholic constituents.” Again, such a change would significantly limit the exclusion and expand the definition of flammable hazardous waste. The extent of the change would depend on the level at which the minimum could be set. The EPA has proposed a new provision stating that “multiphase mixtures” are flammable if “any liquid phase” in the waste meets the criteria for a flammable liquid (e.g., a flash point below 60°C (140°F)) or if “any non-liquid phase” meets the criteria for a flammable non-liquid (i.e., is capable of frictional fire). absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited, it burns so strongly and persistently that a hazard occurs). See 84 Reg. Fed., 12.552 (proposed for consolidation in 40 C.F.R.

§ 261.21(a)(5)). The agency says this proposal would codify existing guidelines that “a producer [or] laboratory should separate a sample [of waste] into all its different solid and/or liquid phases, to the extent possible, and analyze each individually. determine if this phase has flammability characteristics. Id., p. 12,547. According to the EPO, this separate sharing and testing approach should be used even if a waste “first . A post-generation phase, but later in the course of normal management, it splits into two or more phases. Virtually all states have their own hazardous waste regulatory programs and have been authorized by the EPA to implement substantial portions of those programs instead of the corresponding portions of the federal RCRA program. In the preamble to the proposal, EPA acknowledges that the proposed changes to the flammability characteristic, once completed, would not take effect in those authorized states until the states adopt the changes. The agency added that since the proposed changes are “neither stricter nor less stringent than existing testing methods,” states would not be required to adopt the changes.

See 84 Reg. Fed., p. 12-550. (A) The substance meets the definition of an explosive in Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 as defined in section 261.23(a)(8), in which case it must be classified as an explosive. The biggest change introduced by the EPA in 2020 is the definition of flammable fluids. In 2019, the EPA raised concerns about the aqueous solution component of the guidelines. The parameters of aqueous solutions are too wide and should be reduced in the interest of protecting public health and environmental safety. EPA is also seeking comments on whether the exclusion should be limited to certain types of alcohol and not to all alcohols (i.e., organic substances with a functional hydroxyl group (-OH). Id., p. 12,547. Such a change would significantly limit the exclusion and broaden the definition of flammable hazardous waste – perhaps significantly, depending on which alcohols would remain in the exclusion. See 40 C.F.R., Part 261, Subpart C.

The flammability property indicates that the following categories of solid waste are considered hazardous waste: Beveridge & Diamond`s Waste & Recycling practice assists clients from various industry sectors with the resolution of solid and hazardous waste regulatory issues under the RCRA, its government counterparts, international treaties, and the laws and regulations of countries around the world. We regularly assist our clients in classifying their waste as hazardous or non-hazardous, determining whether materials are primarily waste, and assessing the potential applicability of regulatory exclusions or exemptions. We have acted as lead counsel in numerous cases challenging significant portions of the EPA`s definition of solid and hazardous waste under the CJRA and defending companies in related enforcement actions. For more information, please contact the author. (b) A solid waste with the flammability characteristic shall be EPA number for hazardous waste D001. The EPA is proposing to allow the use of additional test methods to determine flash points of liquids under the flammability characteristic. The new alternative methods have been developed specifically for complex waste matrices and include new technologies such as mercury-free temperature measuring devices, electric spark ignition sources (instead of flame ignition sources) and automated instrumentation. EPA notes that older methods currently set out in regulations can still be used, although this may change in the future. The Agency does not address how wastes are classified when the results of different test methods are different, perhaps because it does not imagine that this happens very frequently. This proposal raises a number of potentially important issues that are not addressed in the proposed rule or its preamble.

First, the proposal does not define `multiphase mixtures`. The preamble states that “multiphase wastes . are wastes separated into two or more phases due to a difference in density (e.g. oil/water) or physical form (e.g. solid/liquid). See 84 Reg. Fed. at 12,547. However, it is not clear what degree of separation is necessary to trigger this classification and whether the waste should be able to carry out such sorting on its own. For example, what if an item consisting primarily of solids in which a small amount of liquid is firmly embedded (for example, a capacitor with a dielectric liquid or a small battery with an electrolyte), a multiphase mixture, or a solid? And even if it were considered a multiphase mix, would separation after the wording of the preamble be considered “impractical”, so that the article could still be tested as such? The EPA explains that its proposal is only intended to clarify existing regulations and create flexibility for the use of modern test methods, which did not exist when the flammability characteristic was first enacted in 1980. While most of the proposed changes appear to be technical in nature, two aspects of the proposal could be more substantial and significantly expand the hazardous waste universe of the CJRA: Finally, EPA is seeking comments on whether it should add language to its main guidance manual for solid waste assessment (commonly referred to as SW-846) indicating that the final route for determining: if a waste contains liquids which, according to the flash point test for flammable liquids (and possibly the separate test for corrosive liquids), is to determine whether the wastes release liquids when subjected to a pressure filtration test. See 84 Reg. Fed., p.

12-548. CEPOL`s guidelines on this issue have been inconsistent over the years. Although the agency was published in a Federal Register notice dated 13. January 1995 took the position that the pressure filtration test should be used for these purposes, see 60 Fed. 3089, less than two weeks later, the EPA stated that the correct method was a less aggressive paint filter fluid test that relies on gravity rather than pressure to determine whether fluids are present. See letter from David Bussard, Director, Characterization and Evaluation Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, to Charles D. Duthler, ICI Composites, Inc. (January 26, 1995) (CJRA Online #11935) (“The color filter test is the method of determining whether a free liquid is present to determine flammability”). If the EPA specifies the use of the pressure filtration test in SW-846, it could result in more waste being classified as flammable hazardous waste. The EPA has proposed a number of other changes to flammability characteristics under the CJRA. Most of these other changes appear to be technical in nature, although some may have less substantial effects.