Skip to main content

The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989

BayBiotech.NET

The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 applies to large quantity generators that produce more than 12,000 kilograms (13.2 tons) of hazardous waste, or 12 kilograms (26 pounds) of extremely hazardous waste, in 1990 and every four years thereafter. The law requires the generator companies of such hazardous waste to:
• Conduct a source reduction evaluation of their facilities and prepare the following:

 Source Reduction Evaluation Review and Plan (Plan)

 Hazardous Waste Management Performance Report (Report)

 Summary Progress Report (SPR)

• Implement feasible methods for reducing the quantity and/or the hazardous characteristics of routinely generated hazardous waste.

The main purpose of requiring generators to review and implement source reduction practices is to reduce the quantity of hazardous waste generated in California and thereby to promote public health and safety and to improve environmental quality.
Such a source reduction can also help large quantity generators to become more efficient in their use of resources.
The Plan must also include a list of potential source reduction measures for major waste streams, and describe the efforts taken to evaluate these measures. Major waste streams are defined as those waste streams that exceed five percent of the total weight of routinely generated hazardous wastes. Such major waste streams can fall under one of three categories:

• Category A: hazardous wastes that are processed through an on-site wastewater treatment unit prior to discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or to receiving water under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

• Category B: all other hazardous wastes that is not processed in a wastewater treatment unit.

• Category C: all wastes that are classified as extremely hazardous wastes.

Please click here to understand more about The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Good Machine Learning Practices

BayBiotech.NET A joint effort by FDA,  United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada have developed guiding principles to help promote utilization of medical devices that are safe and effective and utilize artiificial intelligence and machine learning. To find out more details check out the link here!
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more