Revision of the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act -- AB 1089 (Miller), Amended 7/21/97

SPONSOR: DTSC
CONTACT: Diane Richardson, Cal/EPA's Legislative Director at (916) 322-7315 or
Julie Hickman, Legislative Liaison, Department of Toxic Substances Control at (916) 322-2004

SUMMARY:

AB 1089 streamlines the reporting requirements of the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 and makes other necessary improvements to provide consistency and clarification for hazardous waste generators and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

BACKGROUND:

The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 (Act) (SB 14, Chapter 1218, Statutes of 1989) requires generators to examine their current hazardous waste generating processes for hazardous waste minimization opportunities and to develop plans for the implementation of workable alternatives. The goal of this law is to promote reduction of hazardous waste generated at the source by California manufacturers. Facilities generating more than 12,000 kilograms of hazardous waste annually or more than 12 kilograms of extremely hazardous waste annually are required to prepare four documents. The documents are the Source Reduction Evaluation Review and Plan (Plan), the Hazardous Waste Management Performance Report (Report) and their respective summaries. A progress report is also required to be prepared.

DTSC audits specific industries and evaluates their source reduction documents. DTSC compiles the most effective concepts for source reduction techniques, and then publishes and distributes these studies.

PROBLEM:

Existing law requires industry to prepare five separate documents that contain a certain amount of duplicative information. As a result, some of the required documents do not provide useful or unique source reduction information for either the hazardous waste generator or for DTSC. In addition, this duplication places an unnecessary burden on generators. There are other areas of SB 14 that should be amended in order to provide consistency and clarification for hazardous waste generators and DTSC, as well.

ANALYSIS:

The intent of AB 1089 is to respond to the experience gained from several years of implementation of the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989. The changes proposed in this bill are suggestions made by program staff who have years of experience performing generator facility inspections, reviewing industry audits and source reduction documents. Program staff feel that the proposed changes uphold the original intent of the Act.

AB 1089 proposes the following changes to the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989:

1. Eliminates or streamlines requirements for reports that are duplicative of other reports being submitted. Generators would continue to prepare the Source Reduction Evaluation Review and Plan (Plan) and the Hazardous Waste Management Performance Report (Report), but the respective Plan and Report summaries would no longer be required. Streamlines the requirements for DTSC's biennial progress report and clarifies the format, schedule and submittal requirements for the Generator Progress Report
2. Clarifies existing practice which defines that hazardous waste streams with annual quantities less than 600 kilograms, or extremely hazardous waste streams with annual quantities less than .6 kilograms for facilities covered by the Act are not to be considered a major" waste stream.
3. Clarifies that the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) have the same authority held by DTSC to implement the Act, including the authority to assess civil penalties upon generators who fail to submit source reduction plans.
4. Removes from the requirements of the Act any generator whose hazardous waste generating activity consists solely of receiving offsite hazardous wastes. This would clarify the existing practice of exempting offsite Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) from the requirement to prepare source reduction documents because it is not clearly stated in the Act.