EPA recently released two new proposed regulatory changes, one relating to pharmaceuticals, one relating to hazardous waste generation and determination. From my reading, the pharmaceuticals rule is targeted to health care facilities, and would not have a big impact for most NAHMMA members, more information on it can be found here. The rule changes addressing hazardous waste generation could be of interest to those who work with CESQGs in any way- in fact a big terminology change is proposed, they would no longer be referred to as CESQGs, but would be called VSQGs, or Very Small Quantity Generators, as is currently the case in Minnesota. The proposal also contains a number of other regulatory changes that would affect CESQGs/VSQGs, which I have summarized below. I skimmed over the sections impacting SQGs and LGQs, if your work involves these generators you might want to take a look at how the proposed changes impact them.
Complete details on the proposal can be found here. From my reading I don't see anything that creates a serious impact that NAHMMA should comment on, but please comment below if you feel otherwise. Note that some states may already address these issues in their own EPA-approved state-run programs, and they will need to sort out how the proposed rules affect their state-specific requirements. Proposed changes relating to CESQGs include:
* Generators That Temporarily Change Generator Category as a Result of an Episodic Event. This section imposes significant new requirements on CESQGs if they from time to time exceed CESGQ generation thresholds.
* Clarification of the impact on generator status of generating quantities of acute hazardous wastes vs. non-acute hazardous waste vs. spill cleanup residues.
* Clarification and rules relating to mixing of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
* Allowing CESQGs To Send Hazardous Waste to LQGs Under the Control of the Same Person.
* Clarification of the process for conducting a hazardous waste determination, including a new requirement for maintaining records as long as the generator is in business- they are not currently proposing to apply this requirement to VSQGs, but are asking for input on the effect it would have on them.
* The proposal also includes a significant reorganization of the relevant sections of 40CFR258-265, with detailed "crosswalking" of the old & new organization.
Please join in the conversation if you have thoughts about these proposed regulations.