Colorado's Hazardous Waste Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Self-Certification Program

• Author: Joe Schieffelin, Kathryn Stewart, Amy Williams, Christen Lara, and Amanda Howard
• Pages: 259-300

259

Chapter 9:

Colorado’s Hazardous

Waste Small Quantity

Generator (SQG) Self-

Certification Program

Joe Schieffelin, Kathryn Stewart, Amy Williams ,

Christen Lara, and Amanda Howard*

Since 2007, Colorado’s Hazardous Waste Program has implemented

a self-certication program for Small Quantity Generators (SQGs)

of ha zardous waste. Each year, Hazardous Waste Program sta send

self-certication packets to a ll SQG facilities. Included in each packet is a

comprehensive compliance checklist that covers all standard haza rdous

waste regulatory requirements for SQGs. In addition, an instruction booklet

is included that gives item-by-item g uidance on how each checklist ques-

tion should be evaluated and completed by facility sta. Once complete, the

checklist must be returned to the Hazardous Waste Program.

Upon receiving the completed checklists from the regulated facilities,

Hazardous Waste Program sta perform randomly chosen follow-up inspec-

tions using the very same check list completed by the facilities. e goal is to

perform enough follow-up inspections to ensure SQG universe compliance

rates can be assessed with 90% statistical condence and no more than a

10% margin of error. e results of the Ha zardous Waste Program’s inspec-

tions are used to c alculate compliance rates for each checklist question and

for the entire SQG sector.

As a result of self-certication, compliance rates across the SQG sector

have dramatically improved. is has been supported by a rigorous statistical

evaluation. In 2008, only 32% of the SQGs were in compliance with 100%

of the regulatory requirements. In 2009 and 2010, this compliance rate had

* Joe Schieelin, Kathryn Stewart, and Amy Williams work for the Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. Christen Lara and

Amanda Howard work for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Center for

Health and Environmental Information and Statistics.

260 Next Generation Environmental Compliance and Enforcement

increased to 53% and 62%, respectively. By 2011, the compliance rate had

increased to 84%. Compliance rates have also shown strong improvement

across each regulatory requirement. For instance, in 20 08, 10 of 29 require-

ments on the checklist had noncompliance rates greater than 10%. By 2011,

no requirements had a noncompliance rate exceeding 10%. e Hazardous

Waste Program believes t his improvement is due to 1) the self-certication

forcing annual re-familia rization of facility sta with the regulatory require-

ments; 2) clear and easy-to-understand explanations of what compliance

“looks like” in the accompanying instruction booklet; and 3) a regulatory

requirement that each facility must complete and submit the self-certica-

tion checklist.

is program has been successful for several reasons. e most impor-

tant reason is our regulatory requirement for returning the self-certication

checklist. is requirement ensures essentially universal pa rticipation and

universal exposure to the training on, and familiarization with, regulatory

compliance. Second, the SQG sector was relatively large and had a low

inspection penetration. is meant that the sector had not been inuenced

much by our previous regulatory eorts and was ripe for compliance improve-

ments. Next, all members of t he SQG sector are subject to a consistent set

of compliance requirements (i.e., requirements that do not vary from facility

to facility).  is means that all facilities a re certifying to the same require-

ments. In contrast, a permitting progra m, where permit requirements may

vary from facility to facilit y, might not be as amenable to a self-certication

program. Another reason for our success was the care, planning, and ground-

work that was invested before the program was initiated. Much of this work

was outreach to individual facilities. Also, the program logistics and goals

were carefully planned. Lastly, the Hazardous Waste Program constantly

monitored the program for 100% participation rates, inspection consistency,

and data quality.

I. Introduction

Beginning in 2007, the Hazardous Waste Progra m within the Hazardous

Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Depa rtment

of Public Health and Environment began the Small Quantity Generator

self-certication program. Small Quantity Generators, or SQGs, generate

between 100 and 1000 kg of hazardous waste each month. Generators of

more than 1000 kg/month are called Large Quantity Generators, or LQGs.

Conversely, generators of less than 100 k g/month are called Conditionally

Colorado’s Hazardous Waste SQG Self-Certif‌ication Program 261

Exempt Small Quantity Generators, or CESQGs. In Colorado, there are

about 115 LQGs, 600 SQGs, and thousands of CESQGs.

e Hazardous Waste Program has only 5.6 full-time-equivalent hazard-

ous waste inspectors who must not only inspect the generators listed above,

but also inspect permitted and closed hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities (TSDs), complaints, priority industry sectors, and

facilities potentially regu lated but not in our database. is group of inspec-

tors performs about 350 inspections each year in the following categories:

Table 9.1

Facility Type

Sector

Size

Approx. number

of inspections

performed/year

% Coverage/

year

TSDs (1) 25 25 100%

LQGs (1) 115 40 35%

SQGs 600 80 12%

Complaints 75 75 100%

Facilities not notif‌ied 50 50 100%

Priority Industry Sectors

(2)

400 75 19%

(1) These numbers of inspections in these categories is mandated by EPA

(2) Includes 350 dry cleaners also covered by an identical self-certif‌ication program

As this table indicates, the Hazardous Waste Program is getting good

inspection coverage at TSDs and LQGs. And the compliance rates in both

of these sectors are very high because of 1) the deterrence of frequent inspec-

tions, and 2) the fact that these facilities tend to be large and sophisticated,

with adequate compliance budgets, extensive sta training, and corporate

intolerance of noncompliance.

e weak link in our inspection program was SQGs. At a 12% per year

inspection coverage, even with no repeat inspections, Hazardous Waste Pro-

gram sta would only inspect these facilities every eight years. at is simply

not enough to improve compliance rates. is is a large universe of facilities

that tend to be small and unsophisticated, with small numbers of employees.

We have found that the typical SQG does not spend much on training, ha s

a high rate of sta turnover, and most employees must multitask—the “envi-

ronmental” g uy also covers health and sa fety, or something else equally or

more unrelated, in addition to environmental compliance. e 12% inspec-