BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 686
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 686 (Quirk) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT : Hazardous Waste Treatment
SUMMARY : Allows the use of hazardous waste as cogeneration
fuel without a hazardous waste treatment permit. Specifically,
this bill :
Exempts from California hazardous waste permitting requirements
pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities that use specified waste
material for cogeneration fuels provided that the pharmaceutical
manufacturer meets the following requirements:
1)Complies with the standards for Comparable Fuel Exclusion
(CFE) under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA);
2)Is in compliance the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's good
manufacturing practices;
3)Is constructed to contain all liquid spills form
pharmaceutical manufacturing and from the cogeneration units.
4)The operator provides classroom instruction or on-the-job
training for emergency response;
5)Provides a public notification prior to operation specifying
that the facility is burning a fuel excluded under the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ; and
6)Submit a notice of compliance to the Department of Toxic
Substance control (DTSC), the local air district, and where
required the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), any person who owns or operates a facility where
hazardous waste is treated, stored, or disposed is required to
have a RCRA hazardous waste permit issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
AB 686
Page 2
2)Requires any person who stores, treats or disposes of
hazardous waste as described in the Hazardous Waste Control
Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) must
obtain a permit or a grant of authorization from DTSC.
3)Requires DTSC to regulate onsite hazardous waste treatment
operations under the "tiered permit" system which was adopted
in 1992. The system, which has no federal equivalent, is made
up of four tiers: conditionally authorized, permit-by-rule,
standardized permit, and conditionally exempt, which are
characterized by increasingly stringent regulation,
respectively. A given treatment process is assigned to a tier
based on statutory criteria that are believed to be indicative
of the potential hazards associated with various types of
treatment operations, therefore, the greater the perceived
hazard, the higher the tier.
4)Exempts waste water demineralizers from California hazardous
waste permitting requirements to the extent the process
involves elementary neutralization of corrosive or toxic
wastes.
5)Exempts a pharmaceutical manufacturer's neutralization
activities from specific laws applying to hazardous waste
facilities, including requirements to operate in accordance
with hazardous waste facility permit. Requires a
pharmaceutical manufacturer to satisfy specified conditions
for pharmaceutical neutralization.
FISCAL EFFECT : Not Known
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the bill . According to the author, "The federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) excludes a
narrow range of materials that qualify as "comparable fuels"
from the definition of solid waste, allowing these fuels to be
used to produce energy without requiring a Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facility (TSDF) permit. For example, acetone,
which is a common by-product of the pharmaceutical
manufacturing process, is a candidate for this exclusion
because it has a heating value and viscosity in the range
required by the federal exclusion. Furthermore, it qualifies
on the basis of meeting all of the constituent concentration
AB 686
Page 3
limits specified in the federal exclusion.
Although this material would qualify as a comparable fuel
under the RCRA exclusion, California has not incorporated the
same exclusion into its Hazardous Waste Control Law.
Therefore, under current California law, facilities that would
otherwise be authorized to use manufacturing by-products as a
fuel source for CHP would first need to obtain a hazardous
waste treatment permit from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control. The cost, administrative burden and timeframes
involved in procuring and maintaining this permit would render
these projects infeasible. "
This bill is sponsored by the American Pacific Fine Chemicals
a company in Rancho Cordova, Ca. The company manufactures
pharmaceutical ingredients and registered intermediates sold
to the pharmaceutical industry. According to American Pacific
Fine Chemicals Company generates approximately 1,000 gallons
of acetone hazardous waste per day, which they propose to burn
in a cogeneration facility at their site. The facility
currently relies on natural gas and propane to operate the
heat and steam facility.
2)Under Federal RCRA there is Comparable Fuel Exclusion (CFE )
hazardous waste-derived fuels were excluded from the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste if they meet
specification levels comparable to fossil fuels for
concentrations of hazardous constituents and for physical
properties that affect burning. The exclusion applies to the
comparable fuel from the point it is generated and is claimed
by the person generating the comparable fuel. Under the
provisions of RCRA generators of the comparable fuel must
comply with sampling and analysis, notification and
certification, and record keeping requirements. The exclusion
applies to liquid hazardous waste-derived fuels and synthesis
gas derived from hazardous waste.
3)California may have more stringent standards than federal law .
The state implementation of Federal RCRA requires that the
state program be at least as stringent as the federal program.
It is allowed to adopt more stringent standards. In the case
of CFE, DTSC has the authority to adopt this exemption from
permitting for the combustion of hazardous waste, but to date
they have not done so. California has not adopted the
AB 686
Page 4
Comparable Fuel Exclusion (CFE) for hazardous waste facilities
while that option is available under current law.
4)Existing California law allows for hazards waste treatment
permits . Pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities must
currently receive DTSC hazardous waste permits for treatment
or storage of hazardous waste, including those proposed to the
burned under the provisions of AB 686. According to DTSC the
sponsors of this proposed legislation have the option of
seeking a hazardous waste treatment facility permit for the
treatment of the hazardous waste at the manufacturing site.
To date, no proposed permit has been submitted by American
Pacific Fine Chemicals or other pharmaceutical manufactures.
5)Question on permit approval and enforcement. The proposal
would exempt the management of a wide range of hazardous waste
from permitting requirements with no review or enforcement
authority. As drafted, AB 686 exempts a wide range of
hazardous waste from any regulation by the DTSC and instead
leaves only local air district permitting authority.
The language of the bill requires the manufacturer to certify
that they are in compliance with federal law. Unlike a permit
that requires approval by DTSC with review, conditions, and
specified enforcement, the bill provides an exemption with
little approval or review process.
6)This goes beyond the cogeneration facility permits . The
proposed act would exempt CFE waste from not only treatment
permits but DTSC storage permitting requirements that would
apply to any waste held more than 90 days.
7)Arguments in support . Supporters of the bill include BayBio,
an association of northern California life science companies
who argue that "AB 686 "harmonizes the state's hazardous waste
law with the RCRA to facilitate CHP projects in the
pharmaceutical manufacturing space will increase Californian's
global competitiveness in this sector. AB 686's requirements
of strict fuel quality specifications and conformation to
applicable local, state, and federal environmental protection
regulations assure that any CHP projects would not only be
environmentally safe, but would also assist in reducing
California's greenhouse gas emission."
8)Augments in opposition : According to a coalition of
AB 686
Page 5
environmental and recycling organizations in opposition to
this bill, "Incineration has been shown to release dioxins,
mercury, lead, carbon dioxide, and other harmful pollutants
into the air, soil and water. Dioxins are among the most
carcinogenic substances known to humankind. Current law would
require the facility to be permitted by DTSC. AB 686 will
shift oversight authority to local jurisdictions that often do
not have the resources or expertise to evaluate whether
facilities are employing the most appropriate environmental
protections or proposing new technologies that meet
California's environmental standards. DTSC has that
experience and will ensure the highest level of protection for
communities."
9)Suggested committee amendments. The goal of the author is to
find regulatory actions that would allow the pharmaceutical
manufacturing facilities to avoid off-site shipments of
hazardous waste and provide potential reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions form the manufacturing facilities. The bill, as
currently drafted, leaves the regulation of the waste material
in an uncertain state by exempting facilities from regulations
rather that providing a modification to the excising DTSC
regulatory structure.
The committee may wish to direct the responsible state
agencies to report to the legislature on the likely statutory
or non-statutory actions that may be taken to address any of
the unique manufacturing and waste management issues
associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing. Among the issue
which the committee may seek DTSC reviews are:
a) Consideration of actions to reduce the production of
hazardous waste pharmaceutical manufacturing;
b) Actions to incentivizing greenhouse gas emissions
reductions through increased energy efficiency.
c) Recommended permit conditions for on-site waste
management within a manufacturing facility recognizing the
AB 686
Page 6
unique federal and state requirements for pharmaceutical
manufacturing.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support:
American Pacific Fine Chemicals (sponsor)
Bay Bio
Burns & McDonnell
LPP Combustion
Solar Turbines
Opposition:
Clean Water Action
Environment California
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Northern California Recycling Association
Planning & Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965