*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 1 of 527

EO12866_DSW 2050-AG62 FINAL Preamble_20141110

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742; FRL-9728-5-OSWER]

RIN 2050-AG62

Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or the Agency) is publishing 

a final rule that revises several recycling-related provisions associated with the definition 

of solid waste used to determine hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The purpose of these revisions is to 

ensure that the hazardous secondary materials recycling regulations, as implemented, 

encourage reclamation in a way that does not result in increased risk to human health and 

the environment from discarded hazardous secondary material.

DATES: This final rule is effective on [Insert date 180 days after publication in the 

Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPAHQ-RCRA-2010-0742. All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 

Deleted: 20140211

Deleted: , 261,

Deleted: 266
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 527

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson 

Clinton Building West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566-1744 and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0276.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Atagi, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 

5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington 

DC 20460, at (703) 308-8672, (atagi.tracy@epa.gov) or Amanda Kohler, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., 

Washington DC 20460, at (703) 347-8975, (kohler.amanda@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

Entities potentially affected by today's action include over 5,000 industrial 

facilities in 634 industries (at the 6-digit North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code level) that generate or recycle hazardous secondary materials (HSM). 

Most of these 634 industries have relatively few entities that are potentially affected. The 

top-5 economic sectors (at the 2-digit NAICS code level) with the largest number of 

Deleted: OSWER

Deleted: EPA

Deleted: OSWER

Deleted: atagi.tracy@epa.gov)

Deleted: upwards of
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 527

potentially affected entities are as follows: (1) 41% in NAICS code 33—the

manufacturing sector, which consists of metals, metal products, machinery, computer & 

electronics, electrical equipment, transportation equipment, furniture, and miscellaneous 

manufacturing subsectors, (2) 23% in NAICS code 32—the manufacturing sector, which

consists of wood products, paper, printing, petroleum & coal products, chemicals plastics 

& rubber products, and nonmetallic mineral products manufacturing subsectors, (3) 3.0% 

in NAICS code 92—the public administration sector, (4) 2.9% in NAICS code 61—the

educational services sector, and (5) 2.8% in NAICS code 54—the professional, scientific 

and technical services sector. 

Information on the estimated future economic impacts of today’s action is 

presented in section XXI of this notice, as well as in the RIA available in the docket for 

today’s action.

Preamble Outline

I. Statutory Authority

II. Which Revisions to the Regulations is EPA Finalizing?

III. History of the Definition of Solid Waste

IV. When Will the Final Rule Become Effective?

V. Revisions to the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials That are 

Legitimately Reclaimed Under the Control of the Generator

VI. Verified Recycler Exclusion Replacing the Exclusion for Hazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Transferred for the Purpose of Reclamation 

VII. Remanufacturing Exclusion

Deleted: ,

Deleted: ,

Deleted: Replacement of

Deleted: with Alternative Subtitle C Standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 527

VIII. Revisions to the Definition of Legitimacy and Prohibition of Sham Recycling

IX. Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

X. Effect on Facilities Currently Operating Under Solid Waste Exclusions

XI. Effect on Spent Petroleum Catalysts

XII. Effect on CERCLA

XIII. General Comments on the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the Definition of 

Solid Waste

XIV. Major Comments on the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials 

Legitimately Reclaimed Under the Control of the Generator and 

Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation

XV. Major Comments on the Replacement of the Exclusion for Hazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Transferred for the Purpose of Reclamation

XVI. Major Comments on the Remanufacturing Exclusion

XVII. Major Comments on Legitimacy

XVIII. Major Comments on the Revisions to Solid Waste Variances And Non-Waste 

Determinations

XIX. Major Comments on the Proposed Revisions to Pre-2008 Recycling 

Exclusions

XX. State Authorization

XXI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

I. Statutory Authority

Deleted: with Alternative Subtitle C 

Standards

Deleted: To
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 527

These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 

3002, 3003, 3004, 3007, 3010, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as 

amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended 

by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6921, 

6922, 6923, and 6924. This statute is commonly referred to as “RCRA.” 

II. Which Revisions to the Regulations is EPA Finalizing?

In today’s rule, EPA is revising a number of provisions related to the definition of 

solid waste as it applies to the regulation of hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA 

(42 U.S.C. 6921 through 6939(e)). These revisions affect certain types of hazardous 

secondary materials that are currently conditionally excluded from the definition of solid 

waste when reclaimed. These exclusions were promulgated in October 2008 (73 FR 

64688, October 30, 2008) and were intended to encourage the recovery and reuse of 

valuable resources as an alternative to land disposal or incineration, while at the same 

time maintaining protection of human health and the environment. In response to 

concerns raised by stakeholders about potential increases in risks to human health and the 

environment from hazardous secondary materials, today’s rule revises the 2008 DSW 

final rule in order to ensure that the rule, as implemented, encourages reclamation in a 

way that protects human health and the environment from the mismanagement of 

hazardous secondary materials. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 527

The six major regulatory areas are summarized below.

1

The intent of this 

summary is to give a brief overview of the actions EPA is taking today. More detailed 

discussions, including the Agency’s rationale for the changes, are found in later sections

of this preamble.

A. Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Legitimately Reclaimed 

Under the Control of the Generator

Under today’s final rule, EPA is retaining the exclusion for hazardous secondary 

materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator (“generatorcontrolled exclusion”), with certain revisions from the 2008 DSW final rule. These 

revisions include (1) adding a codified definition of “contained,” (2) adding

recordkeeping requirements for same-company and toll manufacturing reclamation, (3) 

making notification a condition of the exclusion, (4) adding a requirement to document 

that recycling under the exclusion is legitimate, and (5) adding emergency preparedness 

and response conditions. In addition, we have amended the speculative accumulation 

provisions to add a recordkeeping requirement. This requirement applies to all persons 

subject to speculative accumulation.

The generator-controlled exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)) excludes certain 

hazardous secondary materials (i.e., listed sludges, listed by-products, and spent 

materials) from the definition of solid waste if they are generated and legitimately 

reclaimed within the United States or its territories under the control of the generator. 

 

1 Any provisions promulgated in the 2008 DSW rule that are not addressed in this final rule remain in 

effect. 

Deleted: discussed

Deleted: and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 527

Specifically, hazardous secondary materials are excluded if (1) the reclamation process 

meets the definition of legitimate recycling under 40 CFR 260.43; (2) the materials are

not speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) (including a new 

recordkeeping requirement, being finalized today); (3) they meet the notification 

condition under 40 CFR 260.42; (4) they are managed in a unit that meets the new 

definition of “contained” in 40 CFR 260.10, which specifies that storage units must be in 

good condition, properly labeled, do not hold incompatible materials, and address 

potential risks of fires or explosions; and (5) the generator satisfies certain emergency 

preparedness and response conditions. Further discussion of the generator-controlled 

exclusion can be found in section V of this preamble.

B. Verified Recycler Exclusion Replacing the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary 

Materials that are Transferred for the Purpose of Legitimate Reclamation 

EPA is replacing the exclusions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous 

secondary materials that are transferred from the generator to other persons for the 

purpose of reclamation with an exclusion for hazardous secondary materials sent for 

reclamation to a verified recycler. By this change, EPA intends to promote safe and 

sustainable reclamation of these materials. Under this new exclusion, generators who 

want to recycle their hazardous secondary materials without having them become 

hazardous wastes must send their materials to either a RCRA-permitted reclamation 

facility or to a verified recycler of hazardous secondary materials who has obtained a 

solid waste variance from EPA or the authorized state. In order to obtain a variance from 

EPA or the authorized state, the recycler must (1) demonstrate their recycling is 

Deleted: , and

Deleted: .

Deleted: Replacement of

Deleted: with Alternative Subtitle C Standards

Deleted: exclusion

Deleted: alternative Subtitle C regulation

Deleted: recyclable

Deleted: Under these alternative requirements, the 

hazardous recyclable materials must be managed 

according to the current RCRA Subtitle C 

requirements, including manifesting and Subtitle C 

permits for storage, except that generators may 

accumulate hazardous recyclable materials for up to 

a year without a RCRA permit if the generator

notifies EPA or an authorized state that they will be 

implementing the alternative Subtitle C 

requirements, as well as make advance arrangements 

for legitimate reclamation and documents those 

arrangements in a reclamation plan. Further 

discussion of the replacement of the transfer-based 

exclusion with alternative Subtitle C standards
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 527

legitimate; (2) have financial assurance in place to properly manage the hazardous 

secondary material when the facility closes; (3) not be subject to a formal enforcement 

action in the previous three years and not be classified as a significant non-complier 

under RCRA Subtitle C, or must provide credible evidence that the facility will manage 

the hazardous secondary materials properly; (4) have the proper equipment and trained

personnel, and meet emergency preparedness and response conditions to safely recycle 

the material; (5) manage the residuals from recycling properly; and (6) take steps to 

protect nearby communities and reduce risk of potential unpermitted releases of the 

hazardous secondary material to the environment (i.e., releases that are not covered by a 

permit (such as a permit to discharge to water or air). Further discussion of the 

replacement of the transfer-based exclusion with the verified recycler exclusion can be 

found in section VI of this preamble.

C. Remanufacturing Exclusion

EPA is also finalizing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for certain 

higher-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of 

extending the useful life of the solvent by remanufacturing the spent solvent back into the 

commercial grade solvent. This remanufacturing exclusion will help promote sustainable 

materials management by extending the productive use of these materials, which reduces 

the need for raw materials used and the environmental impacts associated with 

production of these materials. In addition, EPA is also making clear that a rulemaking 

petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 can be submitted for adding other higher-value 

hazardous secondary materials that are destined to be remanufactured into similarly 

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 527

higher-value products. Further discussion of this exclusion can be found in section VII of 

this preamble.

D. Prohibition of Sham Recycling and Revisions to the Definition of Legitimacy 

In this final rulemaking, EPA is codifying in its regulations at 40 CFR 261.2(g)

the long-standing policy that hazardous secondary materials found to be sham recycled 

are discarded and solid wastes, thereby prohibiting materials that are sham recycled from 

being excluded from the definition of solid waste. 

In addition, EPA has changed the definition of legitimate recycling in § 260.43 to 

make clear that all four factors identified in § 260.43 must be met, but also to provide 

some flexibility in determining legitimacy for certain types of recycling. In particular, in 

cases where there is no analogous product made from raw materials, EPA has clarified 

that the product of recycling is still a legitimate product when it meets widely recognized 

commodity standards (e.g., commodity-grade scrap metal) or when the hazardous 

secondary material is recycled back into the production process from which it was 

generated (e.g., closed-loop recycling). In addition, for cases in which the product of the 

recycling process has levels of hazardous constituents that are not comparable to 

analogous products, the revised legitimacy standard includes a process that allows the 

facility to document and certify that the recycling is still legitimate, keep such 

documentation at the facility, and send a notification to the regulatory authority to that 

effect. Further discussion of legitimacy can be found in section VIII of this preamble.

E. Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

Deleted: the requirement that all recycling must be 

legitimate by adding a prohibition on sham recycling 

to 

Deleted: ). 

Deleted: is

Deleted: when
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 527

Today’s rule finalizes revisions to the solid waste variances and non-waste 

determinations found in 40 CFR 260.30–260.34 in order to ensure protection of human 

health and the environment and foster greater consistency on the part of implementing 

agencies. Revisions include (1) requiring facilities to send a notice to the Administrator 

(or State Director, if the state is authorized) and potentially re-apply for a variance in the 

event of a change in circumstances that affects how a hazardous secondary material 

meets the criteria upon which a solid waste variance has been based; (2) establishing a 

fixed term not to exceed ten years for variance and non-waste determinations, at the end 

of which facilities must re-apply for a variance or non-waste determination, (3) requiring 

facilities to re-notify every two years with updated information; (4) revising the criteria 

for the partial reclamation variance to clarify when the variance applies and to require, 

among other things, that all the criteria for this variance must be met; and (5) for the nonwaste determinations in 40 CFR 260.34, requiring that petitioners demonstrate why the 

existing solid waste exclusions would not apply to their hazardous secondary materials. 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed change to designate the Regional Administrator as the 

EPA recipient of petitions for all variances and non-waste determinations. Further 

discussion of these revisions can be found in section IX of this preamble. 

F. Deferral on Revisions to Pre-2008 Recycling Exclusions
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 527

EPA is not finalizing revisions to the pre-2008 recycling exclusions and 

exemptions to include the contained standard or to require notification.2EPA is instead 

deferring action until EPA can more adequately address commenters’ concerns. For 

further discussion, see section X for more information.

III. History of the Definition of Solid Waste

A. Background

RCRA gives EPA the authority to regulate hazardous wastes (see RCRA sections 

3001–3004). The original statutory designation of the subtitle for the hazardous waste 

program was Subtitle C and the national hazardous waste program is referred to as the 

RCRA Subtitle C program. Subtitle C is codified at 42 USC 6921 through 6939f. Subtitle 

C regulations are found at 40 CFR parts 260 through 279. Hazardous wastes are those 

that, because of their quantity, concentration, physical, or chemical characteristics, may 

(1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious 

irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or (2) pose a substantial present or 

potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, 

transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed (see RCRA section 1004(5)). 

Hazardous wastes are a subset of solid wastes. 

Materials that are not solid wastes are not subject to regulation as hazardous 

wastes under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the definition of solid waste plays a key role in 

defining the scope of EPA’s authorities under Subtitle C of RCRA. The statute defines 

 

2

EPA requested comment on adding these requirements to a list of 32 existing recycling exclusions in the 

2011 proposed rule (76 FR 44139, July 22, 2011).

Deleted: , e.g.,

Deleted: or 

Deleted: , or infectious

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 527

“solid waste” as “...any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water 

supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material... 

resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from 

community activities...” (RCRA section 1004 (27) (emphasis added)). 

Since 1980, EPA has interpreted “solid waste” under its Subtitle C regulations to 

encompass both materials that are destined for final, permanent treatment and placement 

in disposal units, as well as certain materials that are destined for recycling (see 45 FR 

33090–95, May 19, 1980; 50 FR 604–656, January 4, 1985 (see in particular pages 616–

618)). EPA has offered three arguments in support of this interpretation:

 The statute and the legislative history suggest that Congress expected EPA to 

regulate certain materials that are destined for recycling as solid and hazardous 

wastes (see 45 FR 33091, citing numerous sections of the statute and U.S. 

Brewers’ Association v. EPA, 600 F. 2d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1979); 48 FR 14502–04, 

April 3, 1983; and 50 FR 616–618, January 4, 1985).

 Hazardous secondary materials stored or transported prior to recycling have the 

potential to present the same types of threats to human health and the environment 

as hazardous wastes stored or transported prior to disposal. In fact, EPA has found 

that recycling operations have accounted for a number of significant damage 

incidents. For example, hazardous secondary materials destined for recycling 

were involved in one-third of the first 60 filings under RCRA’s imminent and 

substantial endangerment authority and in 20 of the initial 160 hazardous material 

sites listed for potential clean up under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Deleted: :
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 527

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (48 FR 14474, April 4, 

1983). Congress also cited some damage cases which involve recycling (H.R. 

Rep. 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17, 18, 22). Additional data (i.e., 

information on damage incidents occurring after 1982) included in the rulemaking 

docket for today’s rule corroborate the fact that recycling operations can and have 

resulted in significant damage incidents. 

 Excluding all hazardous secondary materials destined for recycling would allow 

materials to move in and out of the hazardous waste management system 

depending on what any person handling the hazardous secondary materials 

intended to do with them, which is inconsistent with the RCRA mandate to track 

hazardous wastes and control them from “cradle to grave.” 

Hence, RCRA confers on EPA the authority to regulate discarded hazardous 

secondary materials even if they are destined for recycling and may be beneficially 

reused. The Agency has therefore developed in part 261 of 40 CFR a definition of “solid 

waste” for Subtitle C regulatory purposes. (Note: This definition is narrower than the 

definition of “solid waste” for RCRA endangerment and information-gathering 

authorities. (See 40 CFR 261.1(b)). Also Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s Association v.

Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1315 (2d Cir.1993) holds that EPA’s use of a 

narrower and more specific definition of solid waste for Subtitle C purposes is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. (See also Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 

F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998).))

Deleted: ).

Deleted: ).)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 527

EPA has consistently asserted that hazardous secondary materials are not 

excluded from regulation as solid wastes merely because of a claim that they will be 

recycled. EPA has consistently considered hazardous secondary materials intended for 

“sham recycling” (i.e., disposal performed in the guise of recycling) to be discarded and, 

hence, to be solid wastes for Subtitle C purposes (see 45 FR 33093, May 19, 1980; 50 FR 

638–639, January 4, 1985). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has agreed 

that materials undergoing sham recycling are discarded and, consequently, are solid 

wastes under RCRA (see American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 58–59 (D.C.

Cir. 2000)).

B. A Series of D.C. Circuit Court Decisions on the Definition of Solid Waste

Because the interpretation of what constitutes a solid waste is the foundation of 

the hazardous waste regulatory program, there has been quite a bit of litigation over the 

meaning of “solid waste” under Subtitle C of RCRA. Specifically, industries representing 

mining and oil refining interests challenged EPA’s January 1985 regulatory definition of 

solid waste. In 1987, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA exceeded its authority “in seeking to 

bring materials that are not discarded or otherwise disposed of within the compass of 

‘waste’” (American Mining Congress v. EPA (“AMC I”), 824 F.2d 1177, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 

1987)). The Court held that certain materials EPA was seeking to regulate were not 

“discarded materials” under RCRA section 1004(27). The Court also held that Congress 

used the term “discarded” in its ordinary sense, to mean “disposed of” or “abandoned” 

(824 F.2d at 1188–89). The Court further held that the term “discarded materials” could 

not include materials “destined for beneficial reuse or recycling in a continuous process 

Deleted: of the

Deleted: “...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 527

by the generating industry itself (because they) are not yet part of the waste disposal 

problem” (824 F.2d at 1190). The Court held that Congress had directly spoken to this 

issue, so that EPA’s definition was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. 

NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (824 F.2d at 1183, 1189–90, 1193). 

At the same time, the Court held that recycled materials could be regulated as 

discarded materials. The Court mentioned at least two examples of recycled materials 

that may be regulated as wastes, noting that used oil can be considered a solid waste (824 

F.3d at 1187 (fn 14)). Also, the Court suggested that materials disposed of and recycled 

as part of a waste management program may be regulated as solid wastes (824 F. 2d at 

1179). 

Subsequent decisions by the D.C. Circuit also indicate that some materials 

destined for recycling may be considered “discarded.” In particular, the Court held that 

emission control dust from steelmaking operations listed as hazardous waste “K061” is a 

solid waste, even when sent to a metals reclamation facility, at least where that is the 

treatment method required under EPA’s land disposal restrictions program (American 

Petroleum Institute v. EPA (“API I”), 906 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). In addition, the 

Court held that it is reasonable for EPA to consider as discarded (and solid wastes) listed 

wastes managed in units that are in part wastewater treatment units, especially where it is 

not clear that the industry actually reuses the materials (AMC II, 907 F. 2d 1179 (D.C. 

Cir. 1990)). 

It also is worth noting that two other Circuits also have held that EPA may 

regulate as solid wastes under RCRA at least some materials destined for reclamation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 527

rather than final discard. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that 

“[i]t is unnecessary to read into the term ‘discarded’ a congressional intent that the waste 

in question must finally and forever be discarded” (U.S. v. ILCO, 996 F.2d 1126, 1132 

(Eleventh Cir. 1993) (finding that used lead batteries sent to a reclaimer have been 

“discarded once” by the entity that sent the battery to the reclaimer)). In addition, the 

Fourth Circuit found that slag held on the ground untouched for six months before sale 

for use as road bed could be a solid waste (Owen Electric Steel Co. v. EPA, 37 F.3d 146, 

150 (4th Cir. 1994)). 

In 1998, EPA promulgated a rule in which EPA regulated hazardous secondary 

materials recycled by reclamation within the mineral processing industry, the “LDR 

Phase IV rule” (63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998), under Subtitle C of RCRA. In that rule, 

EPA promulgated a conditional exclusion for all types of mineral processing hazardous 

secondary materials destined for reclamation. As a condition of the exclusion, EPA 

prohibited the land-based storage of these mineral processing secondary materials prior to 

reclamation because it considered hazardous secondary materials from the mineral 

processing industry that were stored on the land to be solid wastes (63 FR 28581, May 

26, 1998). The conditional exclusion decreased regulation over spent materials stored 

prior to reclamation, but increased regulation over by-products and sludges that exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic and that are stored prior to reclamation. EPA noted that the 

statute does not authorize it to regulate “materials that are destined for immediate reuse in 

another phase of the industry’s ongoing production process.” EPA, however, took the 

position that hazardous secondary materials that are removed from a production process 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 527

for storage are not “immediately reused,” and therefore are “discarded” (63 FR 28580, 

May 26, 1998). 

The mining industry challenged the rule, and the D.C. Circuit vacated the 

provisions that expanded EPA regulation over characteristic by-products and sludges 

destined for reclamation (Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA (“ABR”), 208 F.3d 

1047 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The Court held that it had already resolved this issue in its 

opinion in AMC I, where it found that “Congress unambiguously expressed its intent that 

‘solid waste’ (and therefore EPA’s regulatory authority) be limited to materials that are 

‘discarded’ by virtue of being disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away” (208 F.2d at 

1051). The Court also did not find that storage before reclamation automatically makes 

materials discarded. Rather, it repeated that materials reused within an ongoing industrial 

process are neither disposed of nor abandoned (208 F.3d at 1051–52) and that “at least 

some of the secondary material EPA seeks to regulate as solid waste (in the mineral 

processing rule) is destined for reuse as part of a continuous industrial process and thus is 

not abandoned or thrown away” (208 F.3d at 1056). It explained that the intervening API 

I and AMC II decisions had not narrowed the holding in AMC I (208 F.3d at 1054–1056). 

In its most recent opinion dealing with the definition of solid waste, Safe Food 

and Fertilizer v. EPA (“Safe Food”), 350 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the D.C. Circuit 

upheld an EPA rule that excludes from the definition of solid waste hazardous secondary 

materials used to make zinc fertilizers, and the fertilizers themselves, as long as the 

hazardous secondary materials meet certain handling, storage, and reporting conditions 

and the resulting fertilizers have concentration levels for lead, arsenic, mercury, 

Deleted: “...

Deleted: “... 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 527

cadmium, chromium, and dioxins that fall below specified thresholds (Final Rule, “Zinc 

Fertilizers Made From Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials” (“Fertilizer Rule”), 67 

FR 48393, July 24, 2002). EPA determined that if these conditions are met, the hazardous 

secondary materials used to make such fertilizer have not been discarded. The conditions 

also apply to a number of recycled materials not produced in the fertilizer production 

industry, including certain zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials, such as brass 

foundry dusts.

EPA’s reasoning was that market participants, consistent with the EPA-required 

conditions in the rule, would treat the excluded materials more like valuable products 

than like negatively-valued wastes and, thus, would manage them in ways inconsistent 

with discard. In addition, the fertilizers derived from these recycled feedstocks are 

chemically indistinguishable from analogous commercial products made from raw 

materials (350 F.3d at 1269). The Court held that EPA’s explanation that market 

participants manage materials in ways inconsistent with discard, and the fact that the 

levels of contaminants in the recycled fertilizers were “identical” to the fertilizers made 

with virgin raw materials (also called “the identity principle”) as reasonable. The Court 

also held that this interpretation of “discard” was reasonable and consistent with the 

statutory purpose. The Court noted that the identity principle was defensible because the 

differences in health and environmental risks between the two types of fertilizers are so 

slight as to be substantively meaningless. 

In addition, the Court stated that it “need not consider whether a material could be 

classified as a non-discard exclusively on the basis of the market-participation theory” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 527

(350 F.3d at 1269). The Court only determined that the combination of market 

participants’ treatment of the materials, EPA-required management standards, and the 

“identity principle” constitutes a reasonable set of tools to establish that the recycled 

hazardous secondary materials and fertilizers are not discarded. 

C. October 2003 Proposal to Revise the Definition of Solid Waste

Prompted by concerns articulated in various Court opinions decided up to that 

point, in October 2003, EPA proposed a rule which defined those circumstances under 

which hazardous secondary materials would be excluded from RCRA’s hazardous waste 

regulations because they are generated and reclaimed in a continuous process within the 

same industry. In addition, the Agency also clarified in a regulatory context the concept 

of “legitimate recycling,” which has been a key component of RCRA’s regulatory 

program for hazardous material recycling, but which up to that point, had been 

implemented without specific regulatory criteria (68 FR 61558, October 28, 2003).

In response to the October 2003 DSW proposal, a number of commenters 

criticized the Agency for not having conducted a study of the potential impacts of the 

proposed regulatory changes. These commenters expressed the general concern that 

deregulating hazardous secondary materials that are reclaimed in the manner proposed 

could result in the mismanagement of these materials and could create new cases of 

environmental damage that would require remedial action under federal or state 

authorities. Some of the commenters further cited a number of examples of 

environmental damage that were attributed to hazardous secondary material recycling, 

including sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 527

Other commenters to the 2003 DSW proposal expressed the view that the great 

majority of these cases of recycling-related environmental problems occurred before 

RCRA, CERCLA, or other environmental programs were established in the early 1980s. 

These commenters argued that these environmental programs—most notably, RCRA's 

hazardous waste regulations and the liability provisions of CERCLA—have created 

strong incentives for proper management of recyclable hazardous secondary materials 

and recycling residuals. Several commenters further noted that, because of these 

developments, industrial recycling practices have changed substantially since the early 

1980s and present day generators and recyclers are much better environmental stewards 

than in the pre-RCRA/-CERCLA era. Thus, they argued that cases of “historical” 

recycling-related environmental damage are not particularly relevant when modifying the 

current RCRA hazardous waste regulations for hazardous secondary materials recycling. 

D. Recycling Studies

In light of these comments on the 2003 DSW proposal, and in deliberating on 

how to proceed with the rulemaking effort, the Agency decided that additional 

information on hazardous secondary material recycling would benefit its regulatory 

decision-making and would provide stakeholders with a clearer picture of the hazardous 

secondary material recycling industry in this country. Accordingly, the Agency examined 

three issues that we believed were of particular importance to revising the definition of 

solid waste:

 How do responsible generators and recyclers of hazardous secondary materials 

ensure that recycling is done in an environmentally safe manner?

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 527

 To what extent have hazardous secondary material recycling practices resulted in 

environmental problems since enactment of major waste management statutes, 

and why?

 Are there certain economic forces or incentives specific to hazardous secondary 

material recycling that can explain why environmental problems can sometimes 

originate from such recycling activities? 

Reports documenting these studies are available in the docket for the 2008 DSW 

final rule under the following titles:

 An Assessment of Good Current Practices for Recycling of Hazardous Secondary 

Materials (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0354 ) (“study of successful recycling”)

 An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated With Recycling of 

Hazardous Secondary Materials (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0355) 

(“environmental problems study”)

 A Study of Potential Effects of Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous 

Secondary Materials Intended for Recycling (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0358) 

(“market forces study”)

In the study of successful recycling, EPA found that responsible recycling 

practices used by generators and recyclers to manage hazardous secondary materials fall 

into two general categories. The first category includes the audit activities and inquiries 

performed by a generator of a hazardous secondary material to determine whether the 

entity to which it is sending such material is equipped to manage it responsibly without 

the risk of releases or other environmental damage. These recycling and waste audits of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 527

other companies’ facilities are common to those generators that responsibly recycle in the 

hazardous secondary materials market. The second category of responsible recycling 

practices consists of the control practices that ensure responsible management of any 

given shipment of hazardous secondary material, such as the contracts under which the 

transaction takes place and the tracking systems that can inform a generator that its 

hazardous secondary material has been properly managed.

The goal of the environmental problems study was to identify and characterize 

environmental problems associated with some types of hazardous secondary material 

recycling that are relevant for the purpose of this rulemaking effort. To address 

commenters’ concerns that historic damages are irrelevant to current practices because 

environmental programs (post-RCRA and -CERCLA implementation) have created 

strong incentives for proper management of recyclable hazardous secondary materials, 

EPA only included cases where damages occurred after 1982. The study identifies 208 

cases in which environmental damages of some kind occurred from some type of 

recycling activity and that otherwise fit the scope of the study.3

The Agency has determined that the occurrence of certain types of environmental 

problems associated with post-1982 recycling practices shows that discard has occurred. 

 

3 EPA initially identified over 800 potential damage cases, most of which were not included in the analysis 

because (1) the damages occurred before 1982, (2) the damages were not caused by recycling, or (3) there 

was not enough information to determine when the damages occurred or whether recycling contributed to 

the damages. The cases EPA considered, but did not include, were listed in an appendix to the report to 

allow the public to comment on whether additional cases should be included in the analysis. As a result of 

public comment to the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA has updated the damage case information using the same 

methodology, resulting in a total of 250 damage cases as of 2012. EPA has determined that the new 

damage case information is consistent with the damage cases previously cited in the study.

Deleted: that are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 527

In particular, instances where hazardous secondary materials were abandoned (e.g., in 

warehouses) and which required removal, oversight by a government agency and the 

expenditure of public funds clearly demonstrate that the hazardous secondary material 

was discarded. Of the 208 damage cases presented in the original damage case study, 69 

cases (33%) involve abandoned materials. The relatively high incidence of abandoned 

materials likely reflects the fact that bankruptcies or other types of business failures were 

associated with 138 (66%) of the cases. 

In addition, the pattern of environmental damages that resulted from the 

mismanagement of recyclable materials (including contamination of soils, groundwater, 

surface water and air) is a strong indication that the hazardous secondary materials were 

generally not managed as valuable commodities and were discarded. Of the 208 damage 

cases presented in the original damage case study, 81 cases (40%) primarily resulted from 

the mismanagement of recyclable hazardous secondary materials, while mismanagement 

of recycling residuals was the primary cause in 71 cases (34%). Often, in the case of 

mismanagement of recycling residuals, reclamation processes generated residuals in 

which the toxic components of the recycled materials were separated from the non-toxic 

components, and these portions of the hazardous secondary material were then 

mismanaged and discarded. Examples of this include a number of drum reconditioning 

facilities, where large numbers of used drums were cleaned out to remove small amounts 

of remaining product, such as solvent, and these wastes were then improperly stored or 

disposed, while the drums were reused or recycled.

Deleted: overseen
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 527

The market forces study used accepted economic theory to describe how various 

market incentives can influence a firm’s decision-making process when recycling 

hazardous secondary materials. This study helps explain some of the possible 

fundamental economic drivers of both successful and unsuccessful recycling practices.

As pointed out by some commenters to the 2003 DSW proposed rule, the 

economic forces shaping the behavior of firms that recycle hazardous secondary 

materials are often different from those at play in manufacturing processes using virgin 

materials. The market forces study used economic theory to provide information on how 

certain characteristics can influence three different recycling models to encourage or 

discourage an optimal outcome. The three recycling models examined were (1) 

commercial recycling, where the primary business of the firm is the recycling of 

hazardous secondary materials that are accepted from off-site industrial sources (which 

usually pay a fee); (2) industrial intra-company recycling, where firms generate 

hazardous secondary materials as by-products of their main production processes and 

recycle the hazardous secondary materials for sale or for their own reuse in production; 

and (3) industrial inter-company recycling, where firms either use or recycle hazardous 

secondary materials obtained from other firms, with the objective of reducing the cost of 

their production inputs. The report also looked at how the outcome from each model is 

potentially affected by three market characteristics: (1) the value of the recycled product, 

(2) the price stability of recycling output or inputs, and (3) the net worth of the firm.

An individual firm’s decision-making is based on many factors and extrapolating 

a firm’s likely behavior from a few factors could be an over-simplification. However, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 527

when used in conjunction with other information, the economic theory can be quite 

illuminating. For example, according to the market forces study, industrial intra- and 

inter-company recyclers have more flexibility in adjusting to unstable recycling markets 

(e.g., during price fluctuations, these companies can more easily switch from recycling to 

disposal or from recycled inputs to virgin inputs). Therefore, they would be expected to 

be less likely to have environmental problems from over-accumulated materials. 

On the other hand, in certain types of commercial recycling, the product has low 

value, the prices are unstable, and/or the firm has a low net worth. Facilities in these 

situations can be more susceptible to environmental problems from the overaccumulation or mishandling of hazardous secondary materials, especially when 

compared to recycling by a well-capitalized firm that yields a product with high value. In 

short, commercial recyclers depend on revenue from two sources: (1) accepting 

hazardous secondary materials for recycling, and (2) selling the recycled product. When 

recycled product prices fall, commercial recyclers rely on profits from accepting 

hazardous waste, which can result in over-accumulation, mismanagement, sham 

recycling, and abandonment of hazardous secondary materials. Further, because these 

facilities often have little capital at risk, they can go bankrupt leaving environmental 

damages behind. These predicted outcomes appear to be supported by the results of the 

environmental problems study, which showed the vast majority of environmental 

damages—approximately 94%—occur at off-site commercial recyclers. 

However, as shown by the study of successful recycling, generators who could

otherwise bear a large liability from poorly-managed recycling at other companies have 

Deleted: i

Deleted: ii
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 527

addressed this issue by carefully examining the recyclers to which they send their 

hazardous secondary materials, such as through audits to ensure that they are technically 

and financially capable of performing the recycling. In addition, we have seen that 

successful recyclers (both commercial and industrial) have often taken advantage of 

mechanisms, such as long-term contracts to help stabilize price fluctuations, allowing 

recyclers to plan their operations more effectively. 

Further discussion of the recycling studies, including the methodology and 

limitations of the studies, can be found in the March 2007 DSW supplemental proposal 

(72 FR 14178–83) and the October 2008 DSW final rule (73 FR 64673–74), and the 

studies themselves can be found in the docket for the 2008 DSW final rule (EPA-HQRCRA-2002-0031-0355). 

E. March 2007 Supplemental Proposal to Revise the Definition of Solid Waste

In March 2007, EPA published a supplemental proposal that provided the public 

the opportunity to comment on these studies. The Agency also re-structured the proposed 

rule and proposed (1) two exclusions for hazardous secondary materials recycled under 

the control of the generator (one exclusion would apply to hazardous secondary materials 

managed in non-land-based units, and the other exclusion would apply to hazardous 

secondary materials managed in land-based units) and (2) an exclusion for hazardous 

secondary materials transferred to another party for reclamation. The Agency also 

proposed a non-waste determination petition process, and re-proposed the legitimacy 

criteria, with certain modifications (72 FR 14172, March 26, 2007).

Deleted: ),

Deleted: )
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 527

For the exclusions of hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control 

of the generator, EPA described three circumstances under which we believed that 

discard does not take place and where the potential for environmental releases is low. The 

three situations involve hazardous secondary materials that are generated and legitimately 

reclaimed at the generating facility, legitimately reclaimed at a different facility within 

the same company, or legitimately reclaimed through a tolling arrangement. Under all 

three circumstances, the hazardous secondary materials must be generated and reclaimed 

within the United States or its territories. Because the hazardous secondary material 

generator in these situations still retains control of the hazardous secondary materials, 

finds value in them, and intends to use them, EPA proposed to exclude these materials 

from the definition of solid waste and, thus, from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA, 

provided the reclamation is legitimate and the hazardous secondary materials are 

contained and not speculatively accumulated. In addition, EPA proposed that facilities 

generating and reclaiming hazardous secondary materials under the control of the 

generator must submit notification to their regulatory authority.

For the exclusion of hazardous secondary materials transferred to another party 

for reclamation (referred to as the transfer-based exclusion), the Agency proposed 

conditions that, when met, would indicate that these hazardous secondary materials were 

not discarded. Specifically, the generator would need to make reasonable efforts, a form 

of due diligence, to determine that its hazardous secondary materials would be properly 

and legitimately recycled (and that the hazardous secondary material would not be 

discarded). Another condition would require the reclamation facility to have adequate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 527

financial assurance (thus demonstrating that the hazardous secondary material would not 

be abandoned). In addition, EPA proposed that both the generator and reclaimer would be 

required to maintain shipping records (to demonstrate that the hazardous secondary 

material was sent for reclamation and was received by the reclaimer). Furthermore, the 

reclaimer would be subject to additional storage and residual management standards (to 

address the instances of discard observed at off-site reclamation facilities in the damage 

cases). Finally, facilities operating under the transfer-based exclusion must also submit 

notification to their regulatory authority.

In addition, the 2007 DSW supplemental proposal included a case-by-case nonwaste determination petition process that would allow applicants to receive a formal 

determination from EPA that their hazardous secondary materials were not discarded and 

therefore were not solid wastes. The case-by-case petition process would allow EPA or 

the authorized state to take into account the particular fact pattern of the recycling and to 

determine that the hazardous secondary materials in question were not solid wastes. The 

petition process for the non-waste determination was the same as that for the variances 

from the definition of solid waste found at 40 CFR 260.31. 

Finally, EPA proposed a definition of legitimate recycling that restructured the 

legitimacy factors originally proposed in October 2003. The proposed legitimacy factors 

would be used to determine that the recycling of hazardous secondary materials is not a 

“sham” and thus, does not constitute discard.

F. October 2008 Final Rule to Revise the Definition of Solid Waste
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 527

In October 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule largely as proposed in March 

2007, with some revisions and clarifications, including (1) clarifying that hazardous 

secondary materials held at a transfer facility for less than 10 days are considered to be in 

transport (and therefore such transfer facilities are not considered to be storing the 

hazardous secondary materials for the purpose of the DSW exclusion), (2) allowing the 

use of intermediate facilities that store hazardous secondary materials for more than 10 

days under the transfer-based exclusion, provided the facilities comply with the same 

conditions applicable to reclamation facilities, (3) codifying financial assurance language 

in 40 CFR 261 subpart H for the transfer-based exclusion applicable to intermediate and 

reclamation facilities without RCRA permits, (4) requiring facilities operating under the 

generator-controlled and/or the transfer-based exclusion to notify their regulatory 

authority prior to operating under the exclusion and every other year thereafter, and (5) 

making legitimacy a condition of the exclusions and the non-waste determinations in that 

rule, but not finalizing the legitimacy language for all recycling activities. 

G. Section 7004 Petition Submitted by the Sierra Club and Industry Response

On January 29, 2009, the Sierra Club submitted an administrative petition under 

RCRA section 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6974(a), to the Administrator of EPA requesting that 

the Agency repeal the October 2008 revisions to the definition of solid waste rule and 

stay the implementation of the rule.

The administrative petition was submitted at the same time that the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) and Sierra Club filed judicial Petitions for Review under RCRA 

section 7006(a), 42 U.S.C. 6976(a) challenging the rule in the United States Court of 

Deleted: 4
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 527

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). These cases, designated as 

Docket Nos. 09-1038 and 1041, respectively, are currently before the D.C. Circuit.4

The Sierra Club petition argued that the revised regulations are unlawful and that 

they increase threats to public health and the environment without producing 

compensatory benefits and, therefore, should be repealed. Among other things, the 

petition singled out the lack of regulatory definitions for key conditions of the rule and 

disagreed with the Agency’s findings that the rule would have no adverse environmental 

impacts, including the finding there would be no adverse impact to environmental justice 

communities or children’s health.

On March 6, 2009, a coalition of industry associations (“industry coalition”) 

submitted a letter to the Administrator of EPA in response to the Sierra Club petition. 

This letter requested that EPA deny Sierra Club's petition on the grounds that the 2008 

DSW final rule comports with court cases construing the scope of the definition of solid 

waste under RCRA, and that the 2008 DSW final rule achieves significant economic and 

conservation benefits, while imposing significant controls on the hazardous secondary 

material recycling industry that are fully protective of the environment. The letter also 

responds to each of the specific points raised by Sierra Club in its petition.

 

4

In its lawsuit, API claimed that EPA had improperly decided that certain petroleum catalysts, when 

recycled are hazardous wastes. See 73 FR 64714 for EPA’s decision to defer a decision on the eligibility of 

those catalysts for the 2008 DSW final rule. API argued, among other things, that these catalysts should be 

treated the same as other materials that were receiving the transfer-based exclusion. API’s challenge 

proceeded to briefing and argument before the Court of Appeals. By order of June 8, 2012, the Court 

reconsidered and decided to hold API’s challenge in abeyance until EPA issued this rule in final form. 

Since EPA is removing the transfer-based exclusion and making spent petroleum catalysts eligible for the 

generator-controlled and verified recycler exclusions, API’s challenge that the Agency failed to treat the 

catalysts as other excluded materials is now moot. See section XI below for further discussion on the effect 

of this rule on spent petroleum catalysts. 

Deleted: exclusion
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 527

H. June 2009 Public Meeting and the Draft DSW Environmental Justice Analysis 

Methodology 

In response to Sierra Club’s administrative petition and the industry coalition’s 

letter to the Administrator of EPA, a May 27, 2009, Federal Register notice (74 FR 

25200) was issued describing possible actions and optional paths forward, as well as 

announcing a public meeting on June 30, 2009, to allow the public and interested 

stakeholders the opportunity to provide input to the decision-making process. 

In the May 27, 2009, Federal Register notice announcing the public meeting, EPA 

described the scope of possible actions, which is governed by the concept of “discard.” 

As stated in RCRA section 1004(27), “solid waste” is defined as “any garbage, refuse, 

sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control 

facility and other discarded material....resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and 

agricultural activities.” The May 2009 public meeting notice said that 

[b]ecause the final revisions to the definition of solid waste are closely 

tied to EPA's interpretation of the concept of “discard,” EPA does not 

plan to repeal the rule in whole or stay its implementation. Such an 

action could result in hazardous secondary materials that are not 

discarded being regulated as hazardous waste. In particular, EPA does 

not expect to repeal either the exclusion for hazardous secondary 

materials reclaimed under the control of the generator or the non-waste 

determination petition process. However, EPA believes there may be 

other opportunities to revise or clarify the definition of solid waste 

Deleted: “...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 527

rule, particularly with respect to the definition of legitimacy and the 

transfer-based exclusion, in ways that could improve implementation 

and enforcement of the provisions, thus increase environmental 

protection, while still appropriately defining when a hazardous 

secondary material being reclaimed is a solid waste and subject to 

hazardous waste regulation. (74 FR 25203).

Thirty-three people spoke at the public meeting and approximately 4,000 written 

comments were received, of which the majority were from private citizens who wrote in 

via a mass email campaign to repeal the rule. The remaining comments came from state 

and local governments (17), companies that generate hazardous secondary materials that 

are recycled (i.e., the generating industry) (28), the waste management/recycling industry 

(15), environmental, public health and community organizations (12), and academics (2).

Comments from the generating industry were uniformly in favor of denying the Sierra 

Club petition to repeal the rule, citing legal issues and the protectiveness of the rule’s 

conditions. Environmental and community organizations, on the other hand, were 

uniformly in favor of repealing the rule, expressing concerns over the protectiveness, 

enforceability, and environmental justice and children’s health impacts of the rule. Waste 

management/recycling industry comments were split, with hazardous waste recyclers 

generally advocating that EPA retain and improve the rule with more stringent standards. 

Other waste management industry comments, particularly those from companies 

representing landfills and incinerators, were in favor of repealing the rule. State 

comments expressed concerns about implementing the rule, particularly given the 

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 527

economic climate, and generally were in favor of repealing or significantly revising the 

transfer-based exclusion. A copy of the public meeting transcript and the comments 

submitted in response to the public meeting notice are available in the docket for the 

public meeting (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315).

Many of the commenters (including those at the public meeting and those who 

responded with written comments) expressed strong concerns that the Agency did not 

adequately address environmental justice in the rulemaking. In response to the concerns 

over the environmental justice analysis, EPA committed to perform a more rigorous and 

thorough analysis of the environmental justice impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule. On 

January 15, 2010, EPA released for public input a draft methodology for conducting the 

DSW Environmental Justice Analysis. The draft methodology was presented to the 

National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) and discussed at three 

public roundtable meetings, and was used to develop the draft environmental justice 

analysis for the DSW rulemaking.

I. Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club

1. Overview of Settlement Agreement

On September 7, 2010, EPA signed a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club 

under which the Sierra Club agreed to withdraw their administrative petition and EPA 

agreed to (1) prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking to be signed no later than June 30, 

2011,5 which would address, at a minimum, the issues raised in the Sierra Club’s 

 

5

The proposed rulemaking was signed by the Administrator of EPA on June 30, 2011. 

Deleted: :
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 527

administrative petition and (2) take final administrative action concerning the notice of 

proposed rulemaking to be signed no later than December 31, 2012. The settlement 

agreement did not specify the outcome of the final rule or what regulatory changes EPA 

would propose. The settlement agreement was approved by the court on January 11, 

2011. Although EPA was unable to make the settlement agreement deadline for a final 

administrative action, today’s rule does address all issues raised in Sierra Club’s 

administrative petition, including the four issues discussed in the May 27, 2009, public 

meeting Federal Register notice (74 FR 25200). Specifically, the four issues in the 

settlement agreement are (1) the definition of “contained” (which includes the issue of 

defining “significant releases”) (addressed in section V of this preamble), (2) notification 

before operating under the exclusion (also addressed in section V of this preamble), (3) 

the definition of “legitimacy” (addressed in section VIII of this preamble) and (4) the 

transfer-based exclusion (addressed in section VI of this preamble). Other issues 

presented in the administrative petition are discussed below.

2. Request to Immediately Stay the Implementation of and Revoke the 2008 DSW Rule

The Sierra Club’s administrative petition included a request to immediately stay 

and revoke the 2008 DSW final rule. To support this request, the petition asserted that the 

damage case study demonstrates that hazardous waste recycling has caused substantial 

harm to health and the environment and that the 2008 DSW final rule increases the 

likelihood of greater future harm. The petition also asserted that the 2008 DSW final rule 

does not account for the possibility that unstable recycling markets or financial conditions 

increase the risk of hazardous waste abandonment. In addition, the petition asserted that 

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 527

the 2008 DSW final rule will not substantially increase recycling and that the economic 

benefits are few and will only accrue to deregulated industries. Furthermore, the petition 

claimed that there would be job losses in the hazardous waste treatment industry and 

increased worker health problems as a result of the rule. 

EPA addressed Sierra Club’s request to revoke the 2008 DSW final rule in whole 

and stay its implementation in the May 27, 2009, public meeting notice, which continues 

to reflect EPA’s current thinking. In that notice, EPA stated at 74 FR 25202:

The scope of possible changes to the definition of solid waste is 

governed by the concept of “discard.” As discussed in the preamble to the 

DSW final rule, EPA used the concept of discard as the central organizing 

idea behind the October 2008 revisions to the definition of solid waste. As 

stated in RCRA section 1004(27), ‘‘solid waste’’ is defined as “... any 

garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply 

treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material ...resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural 

activities” (emphasis added). Therefore, in the context of the DSW final 

rule, a key issue relates to the circumstances under which a hazardous 

secondary material that is recycled by reclamation is or is not discarded 

(73 FR 64675). In exercising its discretion in the DSW final rule to define 

what constitutes “discard” for hazardous secondary materials reclamation, 

EPA included an explanation of how each provision of the final rule 

relates to discard (73 FR 64676–64679). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 527

For example, in the DSW final rule, EPA determined that if the 

generator maintains control over the recycled hazardous secondary 

material and if the material is legitimately recycled under the standards 

established in the final rule and not speculatively accumulated within the 

meaning of EPA’s regulations, then the hazardous secondary material is 

not discarded. This is because the hazardous secondary material is being 

treated as a valuable commodity rather than as a waste. By maintaining 

control over, and potential liability for, the reclamation process, the 

generator ensures that the hazardous secondary materials are not 

discarded. (See 73 FR 64676.)

Because the final revisions to the definition of solid waste are 

closely tied to EPA’s interpretation of the concept of “discard,” EPA does 

not plan to repeal the rule in whole or stay its implementation. Such an 

action could result in hazardous secondary materials that are not discarded 

being regulated as hazardous wastes. In particular, EPA does not expect to 

repeal either the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed 

under the control of the generator or the non-waste determination petition 

process.

Today’s final rule includes several changes to the generator-controlled exclusion 

and to the non-waste determination petition process, but, for the reasons stated above, 

EPA did not stay the rule and is not withdrawing either provision.

3. Adequacy of EPA’s Analyses
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 527

Finally, the Sierra Club’s petition asserted that EPA’s conclusion that the 2008 

DSW final rule would have no adverse environmental impacts, and therefore would have 

no disproportional adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities, is 

unsupported by the administrative record. In response to these comments and similar 

comments by other stakeholders at the June 2009 public meeting, EPA committed to 

producing an expanded analysis of the potential disproportionate impacts of the 2008 

DSW final rule. A draft methodology for the analysis was shared with the public in 

January 2010, and three public roundtable discussions were held to discuss the draft 

methodology and were addressed in the development of the draft DSW environmental 

justice analysis.6

J. Draft DSW Environmental Justice Analysis

As part of the development of the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA conducted a revised 

environmental justice analysis, following the methodology discussed with stakeholders 

during the 2010 roundtable discussions. The purpose of the draft DSW environmental 

justice analysis was two-fold. First, the analysis represents a systematic examination of 

the potential for an increase in adverse impacts under the 2008 DSW final rule 

(considered independently from which communities might be impacted). Second, the 

analysis includes a demographic assessment, characterizing the extent any potential 

adverse impacts are likely to affect minority and/or low-income communities. The results 

of this analysis were intended to inform EPA’s decision-making on which regulatory 

 

6 U.S. EPA. Draft Environmental Justice Methodology for the Definition of Solid Waste Rule, January 

2010, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/ej.htm.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 527

options to pursue, within the scope of the Agency’s authority to regulate hazardous 

waste.

The results of the draft DSW environmental justice analysis demonstrate that 

hazardous secondary material recycling can pose significant potential hazards to human 

health and the environment, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the potential for 

hazards from hazardous secondary materials recycling adversely impacting human health 

and the environment could increase under the 2008 DSW final rule. Of particular concern 

are (1) the absence of required measures (e.g., weekly inspections, training, contingency 

plans) at hazardous secondary materials reclaimers to prevent problems (e.g., spills, fires, 

explosions), (2) the incentives to accumulate larger volumes of hazardous secondary 

materials due to longer storage time limits, and (3) the reduction in access to information 

and opportunity for public participation.

Moreover, the analysis demonstrates that some of the communities potentially 

impacted are minority and low-income communities, and in most cases, the populations 

potentially impacted are disproportionately minority and/or low income. In particular, the 

population-level analysis shows a statistically significant potential disproportionate 

impact to minority and low-income populations. In addition, underlying vulnerabilities 

traditionally associated with minority and low-income communities can pose the 

potential to exacerbate potential adverse impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule. The ability 

of communities to participate in the decision-making process and the potential for 

multiple and cumulative effects are of particular concern.

Deleted: , etc.)

Deleted: , etc.),
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 527

The analysis has undergone peer review, and the draft environmental justice 

analysis and peer review comments were presented for public comment as part of the 

supporting documentation for the 2011 DSW proposal.

K. July 2011 Proposal to Revise the Definition of Solid Waste 

On July 22, 2011, EPA published a proposal to revise the definition of solid 

waste. Comments were requested, and the comment period was extended until October 

20, 2011. In September 2011, EPA held two public meetings to accept public comment 

on the proposal in Philadelphia, PA and in Chicago, IL. The goal of the 2011 DSW 

proposal was to re-examine the 2008 DSW final rule to determine if any changes are 

needed to ensure that the rule, as implemented, protects human health and the 

environment from the mismanagement of hazardous secondary materials, while at the 

same time promote sustainability by encouraging the reclamation of such materials. The 

proposed rule consisted of six possible actions, which are summarized below.

1. Revisions to the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials Reclaimed Under the 

Control of the Generator

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to retain the exclusion for hazardous 

secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator found at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23), with certain revisions. Proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW rule generatorcontrolled exclusion include (1) adding a regulatory definition of “contained,” (2) making 

notification a condition of the exclusion, (3) adding a recordkeeping requirement for 

speculative accumulation, and (4) adding a recordkeeping requirement for reclamation 

under toll manufacturing agreements. In addition, EPA requested comment on other ways 

Deleted: once 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 527

to strengthen the generator-controlled exclusion in order to protect human health and the 

environment.

2. Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Transferred For The Purpose 

of Reclamation

EPA proposed to replace the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are 

transferred from the generator to other persons for the purpose of reclamation found at 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(24) and(25) with an alternative Subtitle C regulatory scheme. EPA’s 

analyses of potential hazards posed by the 2008 DSW rule indicate that, when 

implemented, the transfer-based exclusion may adversely impact human health and the 

environment from hazardous secondary materials that may become discarded, and that 

minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately affected by these 

impacts.

Under the proposed alternative Subtitle C requirements, the hazardous recyclable 

materials would be managed in accordance with the current RCRA Subtitle C 

requirements, including manifesting and hazardous waste permits for storage. However, 

an exception to these proposed requirements would allow generators to accumulate 

hazardous recyclable materials for up to a year without a RCRA permit if they make 

advance arrangements for legitimate reclamation and document those arrangements in a 

reclamation plan.

EPA also requested comment on alternative approaches that would address the 

concerns regarding the potential risk under the transfer-based exclusion to human health 

Deleted: must
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 527

and the environment from discarded hazardous secondary material, such as including 

additional conditions.

3. Remanufacturing Exclusion

In addition, EPA requested comment on an exclusion from the definition of solid 

waste for certain types of higher-value solvents sent for remanufacturing into similarly 

higher-value products. Further, the action requested comment on a petition process for 

adding other higher-value hazardous secondary materials that are destined to be 

remanufactured into similarly higher-value products.

4. Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Legitimacy 

EPA also proposed revisions to the definition of legitimacy found at 40 CFR 

260.43 for the purpose of distinguishing genuine recycling from “sham recycling.” 

Proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW final rule legitimacy definition include (1) applying 

the codified “legitimacy” definition to all hazardous secondary material recycling 

activities; (2) making all legitimacy factors mandatory, with a petition process for those 

instances that a factor is not met even when the recycling is legitimate; and (3) requiring 

documentation of legitimacy. 

5. Proposed Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

EPA also proposed revisions to the case-by-case solid waste variances and nonwaste determinations found at 40 CFR 260.30–260.34 in order to ensure protection of 

human health and the environment and foster greater consistency among the 

implementing agencies. Proposed revisions affect both the non-waste determinations 

from the 2008 DSW final rule and pre-2008 existing variances. Specific proposed 

Deleted: –
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 527

revisions include (1) requiring facilities which were granted a variance to re-apply for the 

variance in the event of a change in circumstances that affects how that hazardous 

secondary material meets the criteria for the variance; (2) requiring facilities to re-notify 

every two years with updated information; (3) revising the criteria for the partial 

reclamation variance to clarify when the variance applies and to require, among other 

things, that all the criteria for this variance must be met; (4) revising the criteria for the 

non-waste determination in 40 CFR 260.34 to require that petitioners demonstrate why 

the existing solid waste exclusions would not apply to their hazardous secondary 

materials; and (5) designating the Regional Administrator as the EPA recipient of 

petitions for variances and non-waste determinations. 

6. Request for Comment on Revisions to Other Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions 

Finally, EPA requested comment on revisions that would affect other (pre-2008) 

solid waste exclusions and hazardous waste exemptions for recyclable materials. These 

possible revisions include (1) recordkeeping for speculative accumulation as applicable; 

(2) requiring facilities to re-notify every two years with updated information on their 

operating status under the various exclusions and exemptions; and (3) containment 

standards for excluded hazardous secondary materials.

IV. When Will the Final Rule Become Effective?

This final rule is effective on [Insert date 180 days after publication in the 

Federal Register.]

V. Revisions to the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are 

Legitimately Reclaimed Under the Control of the Generator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 527

In today’s final rule, EPA is retaining and revising the conditional exclusion from 

the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) for those hazardous secondary 

materials that are legitimately reclaimed within the United States or its territories under

the control of the generator. Revisions to the generator-controlled exclusion include (1) 

adding a codified definition of “contained;” (2) adding recordkeeping requirements for 

same company and toll manufacturing reclamation; (3) making notification a condition of 

the exclusion; (4) adding a requirement to document that recycling under the exclusion is 

legitimate; and (5) adding emergency preparedness and response conditions. In addition, 

we have amended the speculative accumulation provisions to add a recordkeeping 

requirement. A discussion of the public comments on the July 2011 DSW proposal and 

the Agency’s responses can be found in section XIV of this preamble and the full 

response to comment document in the docket for this rulemaking. 

A. Scope of the Exclusion

The definition of “hazardous secondary material generated and reclaimed under 

the control of the generator” is found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) for both land-based and 

non-land-based units, since the requirements for both types of units are the same. A landbased unit is defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as an area where hazardous secondary materials 

are placed in or on the land before recycling, but this definition does not include landbased production units. Examples of land-based units include surface impoundments and 

piles. Examples of non-land-based units include tanks, containers, and containment 

buildings. 

Deleted: ,”

Deleted: ,

Deleted: , and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 527

Hazardous secondary materials are considered “under the control of the 

generator” under the following circumstances:

 they are generated and then reclaimed at the generating facility; or

 they are generated and reclaimed at different facilities, if the generator certifies

that the hazardous secondary materials are sent either to a facility controlled by 

the generator or to a facility under common control with the generator, and that 

either the generator or the reclaimer has acknowledged responsibility for the safe 

management of the hazardous secondary materials. In addition, the generating and 

receiving facilities must maintain at their facilities for no less than three years 

records of hazardous secondary materials sent or received under this exclusion. 

The records must contain the name of the transporter, the date of the shipment, 

and the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary material shipped or 

received. The requirements may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., 

financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic 

confirmations); or

 they are generated and reclaimed pursuant to a written agreement between a 

tolling contractor and toll manufacturer, if the tolling contractor certifies that it 

has entered into a tolling contract with a toll manufacturer and that the tolling 

contractor retains ownership of, and responsibility for, the hazardous secondary 

materials generated during the course of the manufacture, including any releases 

of hazardous secondary materials that occur during the manufacturing process. 

The tolling contractor and the toll manufacturer must maintain at their facilities 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 527

for no less than three years records of hazardous secondary materials sent or 

received under this exclusion. The records must contain the name of the 

transporter, the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of the hazardous 

secondary material shipped or received. The requirements may be satisfied by 

routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT 

shipping papers, or electronic confirmations). 

Materials subject to material-specific management conditions under the other 

exclusions of 40 CFR 261.4(a) when reclaimed and spent lead-acid batteries are not 

eligible for the generator-controlled exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23). 

In addition, materials managed under the generator-controlled exclusion at 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(23) must be contained, may not be speculatively accumulated, and are 

subject to a notification provision and documentation of legitimacy determinations, 

which must be maintained on site. Furthermore, the generator must satisfy certain 

emergency preparedness and response conditions. These conditions and any changes 

from the 2008 DSW final rule are explained below.

B. EPA’s Rationale for Retaining and Revising the Generator-Controlled Exclusion 

In the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA determined that if the generator maintains 

control over the recycled hazardous secondary material, the material is legitimately 

recycled under the conditions of the exclusion, and the material is not speculatively 

accumulated within the meaning of EPA’s regulations, then the hazardous secondary 

material is not discarded. Under these circumstances, the hazardous secondary material is 

being treated as a valuable commodity rather than as a waste. By maintaining control 

Deleted: of

Deleted: exclusions of

Deleted: maintenance on-site

Deleted: (With Revisions)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 527

over, and potential liability for, the recycling process, the generator ensures that the 

hazardous secondary materials are not discarded (see ABR 208 F.3d 1051 (“Rather than 

throwing these materials [destined for recycling] away, the producers saves them; rather 

than abandoning them, the producer reuses them.”)) (73 FR 64676-7).

In today’s final rule, EPA reaffirms its determination that when a generator 

legitimately recycles hazardous secondary materials under its control under the 

conditions of the exclusion, the generator has not abandoned the material and has every 

opportunity and incentive to maintain oversight of, and responsibility for, the hazardous 

secondary material that is reclaimed. 

EPA is however making several revisions to the generator-controlled exclusion, 

the rationale for each of which is explained below.

1. Contained Definition

Under the generator-controlled exclusion, hazardous secondary materials must be 

contained pursuant to the definition in 40 CFR 260.10, regardless of whether they are 

stored in land-based units or non-land-based units. Under that definition, a hazardous 

secondary material is contained if it is managed in a unit that meets the following criteria: 

(1) the unit is in good condition, with no leaks or other continuing or intermittent 

unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the environment, and is 

designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary material, to prevent releases of the 

hazardous secondary materials to the environment. Unpermitted releases are releases that 

are not covered by a permit (such as a permit to discharge to water or air) and may 

include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, 

Deleted: .”)

Deleted: Such releases
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 527

releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, fugitive air emissions, and 

catastrophic unit failures; (2) the unit is properly labeled or otherwise has a system (such 

as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the unit; and (3) 

the unit holds hazardous secondary materials that are compatible with other hazardous 

secondary materials placed in the unit and is compatible with the materials used to 

construct the unit and addresses any potential risks of fires or explosions. Hazardous 

secondary materials in units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 

265 are presumptively contained.

The codification of these regulatory criteria will help regulatory authorities and 

facilities operating under the exclusion to determine whether a unit adequately controls 

the movement of hazardous secondary materials. The contained standard is a key 

provision for determining that a hazardous secondary material is not discarded. 

Hazardous secondary materials that are not contained and are instead released to the 

environment are not destined for recycling and are clearly discarded.

In today’s final rule, EPA is retaining the “contained” condition based on the 

rationale that hazardous secondary materials released to the environment are not destined 

for recycling and are clearly discarded, but is adding a regulatory definition of contained 

to make it easier for implementing agencies and the regulatory community to determine 

that a material is contained. In the preamble to the 2008 DSW final rule (73 FR 64681), 

the Agency stated that a hazardous secondary material is “contained” if it is placed in a 

unit that controls the movement of the hazardous secondary materials out of the unit and 

into the environment. However, EPA did not provide more specific guidance on how an 

Deleted: does not hold incompatible

Deleted: part

Deleted: same rationale used in the 2008 DSW 

final rule
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 527

implementing agency or the regulated community would determine if a unit did 

adequately control the movement of hazardous secondary materials and meet the 

contained standard.

As EPA noted in the 2011 DSW proposal and as reflected in many of the public 

comments, of particular concern is the lack of preventative measures in the contained 

standard in the 2008 DSW final rule. This is noted as a major regulatory gap in EPA’s 

assessment of the potential for adverse impacts from the 2008 DSW final rule, including 

adverse impacts to minority and low income communities. Given that the contained 

standard is one of the major requirements for determining that hazardous secondary 

materials reclaimed under the generator-controlled exclusion are not discarded, this lack 

of specificity could undermine the exclusion. That is, if the primary or only way to 

determine that the hazardous secondary material is not contained is to wait until it is 

released to the environment, then the 2008 DSW final rule increases the likelihood of 

discard for these materials. 

The Agency therefore is adding a regulatory definition of “contained” that 

resolves this uncertainty without sacrificing the flexibility that would allow the 

implementing authority to take into account a wide variety of case-specific circumstances 

when necessary. This definition specifies factors which, if met, demonstrate that the 

hazardous secondary materials in a unit are handled as valuable raw materials, 

intermediates, or products and thus are not being discarded. We note that the elements of 

the contained definition are all measures that are used to prevent releases and ensure 

operation and maintenance of the storage unit in the same manner as a production unit. 

Deleted: lack
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 527

If these criteria were not met, the materials remaining in the unit would be 

considered solid and hazardous wastes and the unit would be subject to the appropriate 

hazardous waste regulations.

Also, to clarify the regulatory status of units from which releases have occurred, 

the Agency is also adding to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) the following language: (1) a 

hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste 

unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of reclamation; and (2) hazardous 

secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing or intermittent 

unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary material to the environment is discarded 

and a solid waste. 

2. Notification as a Condition

Under today’s rule, generators, reclaimers, tolling contractors, and toll 

manufacturers operating under the generator-controlled exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) 

are required to submit a notification prior to operating under these exclusions and by 

March 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter to their regulatory authority. Facilities 

must also notify their regulatory authority within 30 days of stopping management of 

hazardous secondary materials under the rule. The notification provisions are found at 40 

CFR 260.42. 

The substance of the notification provisions is essentially the same as that under 

the 2008 DSW final rule. However, under today’s rule, such notification is a condition of 

the exclusion rather than a requirement. At issue here are not the specifics of the 

notification in 40 CFR 260.42, but rather the consequences an entity would face for 

Deleted: of
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 527

failing to notify. Thus, if notification is a requirement under the authority of RCRA 

section 3007 (as specified under the 2008 DSW final rule), it means that failure to notify 

would constitute a violation of the notification regulations. On the other hand, if 

notification is a condition of the exclusion, it means failure to notify would potentially 

result in the loss of the exclusion for the hazardous secondary materials (i.e., the 

hazardous secondary materials may become solid and hazardous wastes and subject to 

full Subtitle C regulation). 

EPA is finalizing the notification provision as a condition of the generatorcontrolled exclusion because it is the only formal indication of a facility's intent to 

reclaim a hazardous secondary material under the conditional exclusion rather than to

discard it. For example, if during an inspection of a large quantity generator of hazardous 

waste, EPA were to discover a hazardous secondary material that had been stored on-site 

for more than 90 days without a RCRA permit (an act that would typically be a violation 

of the hazardous waste regulations), a previously filed notification would be an indication 

that the facility was planning to reclaim the hazardous secondary material under the 

conditions of the exclusion. Absent such a notification, it would be difficult for the 

facility to justify its true intentions for the hazardous secondary material. Failure to meet 

the notification provision would be a strong indication that the facility either did not 

intend to comply with or was unaware of the provisions of the exclusion, since it failed to 

comply with the first step for claiming the exclusion. In both cases, the lack of 

notification shows that the hazardous secondary material may be discarded. Making 

notification a condition of the rule would further discourage facilities from trying to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 527

evade enforcement by not notifying because the costs of not notifying could be 

significantly higher than if notification remains a requirement. Finally, notification is 

important for informing regulators and the public about hazardous secondary materials 

activity and, without such notification, regulators are unable to effectively monitor 

compliance. This notification condition will keep regulators and the public informed 

about hazardous secondary materials activity and will enable effective compliance 

monitoring. 

3. Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation

Under today’s rule, all persons subject to the speculative accumulation 

requirements at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) (including, but not limited to, persons operating 

under the generator-controlled exclusion at § 261.4(a)(23)) must place materials subject 

to those requirements in a storage unit with a label indicating the first date that the 

material began to be accumulated. If placing a label on the storage unit is not practicable, 

the accumulation period must be documented through an inventory log or other 

appropriate method. This provision will allow inspectors and other regulatory authorities 

to quickly ascertain how long a facility has been storing an excluded hazardous 

secondary material, and, therefore, whether that facility is in compliance with the 

accumulation time limits of § 261.1(c)(8).

EPA notes that the speculative accumulation provision only applies to persons 

who are accumulating hazardous secondary materials. Processes involving hazardous 

secondary materials being returned to the original process via pipes are not considered to 

Deleted: of

Deleted: §

Deleted: of
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 527

accumulate hazardous secondary materials and thus the speculative accumulation 

provision (and recordkeeping therein) would not apply to these scenarios.

4. Other Recordkeeping

Today’s exclusion for tolling and “same-company” recycling requires

recordkeeping for shipments sent and received under the exclusion. The records must 

contain the name of the transporter, the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of

hazardous secondary material shipped or received. These records may consist of normal 

business records. Such recordkeeping will facilitate enforcement of the exclusion and will 

allow tracking of hazardous secondary materials to ensure that these materials remain 

under the control of the generator and are not discarded. 

5. Documentation of Legitimacy Determinations

Persons performing the recycling of hazardous secondary materials under the 

generator-controlled exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) must maintain documentation of 

their legitimacy determination on-site. Documentation must be a written description of 

how the recycling meets all four factors in 40 CFR 260.43(a), except as otherwise noted 

in 40 CFR 260.43(d). Documentation must be maintained for three years after the 

recycling operation has ceased.

The Agency has determined that requiring documentation under the generatorcontrolled exclusion to demonstrate that the hazardous secondary materials are 

legitimately recycled and not discarded is appropriate because this exclusion is generic 

and can be used by a wide variety of industries recycling any of a number of hazardous 

secondary materials.

Deleted: within
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 527

6. Emergency Preparedness and Response

Many of the environmental and human health damages identified by the 

environmental problems study were caused by fires and explosions and the lack of 

specific requirements to prevent and respond to such problems is a significant gap in the 

2008 DSW exclusion.

7

 Fires and explosions at industrial recyclers can threaten the lives 

and health of both facility employees and the general public and can cause lasting 

damage to the local environment. Recent catastrophic chemical accidents in the United 

States, such as the 2013 fire and explosion in West, Texas, that killed 15 people, the 2010 

explosion and fire at Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes, Washington, that killed seven 

employees, and the 2012 Chevron Refinery hydrocarbon fire in Richmond, California,

that affected 15,000 people in the surrounding area, highlight the need for continued 

improvement in a number of areas related to chemical facility safety. To address these 

concerns, the President issued Executive Order 13650—Improving Chemical Facility 

Safety and Security (EO) on August 1, 2013. The EO directed the Department of 

Homeland Security, EPA, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, the 

Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation to identify ways to 

improve operational coordination with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners; enhance 

federal agency coordination and information sharing; modernize policies, regulations, 

 

7 Taken together, leaks, spills, fires, explosions, or other accidents caused environmental damage at 19% of 

the 250 environmental damage sites. U.S. EPA “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated 

with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials (Updated)” December 2012.

Deleted: VI. Replacement of
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 527

and standards to enhance safety and security in chemical facilities; and work with 

stakeholders to identify best practices to reduce safety and security risks in the production 

and storage of potentially harmful chemicals. 

EPA finds that planning and preparing for an emergency demonstrates a 

generator’s intent to not only protect human health and the environment but to reduce 

potential loss of valuable hazardous secondary materials. In the absence of such 

requirements, hazardous secondary materials pose a greater risk of being released and 

discarded to the environment. 

Therefore, EPA is adding a condition to the generator-controlled exclusion that 

generators must follow certain emergency preparedness and response regulations, found 

in 40 CFR part 261 subpart M, which are dependent on the amount of hazardous 

secondary material the generator accumulates on site at any time. Under the final rule, 

generators that accumulate less than or equal to 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material 

on site must meet regulations like the emergency preparedness and response regulations 

currently required for small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Generators that 

accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material on site must meet 

regulations like the emergency preparedness regulations currently required for large 

quantity generators of hazardous waste. EPA chose to set the threshold at 6,000 kg based 

on the current hazardous waste generator regulations, which require generators that 

accumulate greater than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste on site to comply with large 

quantity generator regulations, including emergency preparedness and response 

regulations. EPA finds that generators that accumulate greater amounts of hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 527

secondary material on site inherently pose greater risk to human health and the 

environment from a potential release caused by a fire or explosion and thus it is more 

appropriate for these generators to take additional steps to prepare for such events. 

Specifically, EPA is requiring that generators that accumulate less than or equal to 

6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material on site comply with the emergency 

preparedness and response requirements equivalent to those in part 265 subpart C, which 

discuss maintaining appropriate emergency equipment on site, having access to alarm 

systems, maintaining needed aisle space, and making arrangements with local emergency 

authorities. A generator must also have a designated emergency coordinator who must 

respond to emergencies and must post certain information next to the telephone in the 

event of an emergency. 

For generators that accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary 

material on site, EPA is requiring that generators comply with requirements equivalent to 

those in part 265 subparts C and D, which includes all the requirements already discussed 

above for those accumulating less than or equal to 6,000 kg, as well as requiring a 

contingency plan and sharing the plan with local emergency responders. EPA 

recommends that the contingency plan be based on the National Response Team’s 

Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance (One Plan), discussed in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28642). Under the One Plan Guidance, the generator can develop 

one contingency plan that meets all the regulatory standards for the various statutory and 

regulatory provisions for contingency planning, such as EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention 

Regulation or Risk Management Programs regulations, the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 527

Facility Response Plan regulations, OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and 

Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulations, and several others. 

EPA has determined that adding these emergency preparedness and response 

conditions to the generator-controlled exclusion meets the goals of the Chemical Safety 

EO and also will ensure that those facilities managing hazardous secondary material 

under the exclusion will be doing so in a manner that allows them to safely recycle the 

hazardous secondary material and limit loss of materials that are supposed to be recycled 

into the environment. These provisions are the common-sense steps that a facility that 

manages hazardous materials should take to reduce risk to their workers and the public. 

Additionally, EPA has determined that structuring the emergency preparedness and 

response conditions of the generator-controlled exclusion after the existing hazardous 

waste requirements serves to reduce burden on generators, as generators are likely 

already familiar and complying with this regulations. 

VI. Verified Recycler Exclusion Replacing the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Transferred for the Purpose of Reclamation 

Based on comments received and further assessment, EPA has decided to replace

the 2008 DSW exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred for the 

purpose of legitimate reclamation (i.e., the transfer-based exclusion) with an exclusion 

for hazardous secondary materials sent for reclamation at a verified recycler (i.e., the 

verified recycler exclusion). The verified recycler exclusion is being finalized instead of 

the proposed Subtitle C alternative recycling standards because EPA has determined that 

such an exclusion will address the regulatory gaps identified in the 2008 DSW rule in a 

Deleted: with Alternative Subtitle C Standards

Deleted: EPA is replacing the

Deleted: with an alternative Subtitle C standard. 

EPA has determined that such a standard is more 

appropriate for hazardous secondary materials 

because the Agency has determined, as explained in 

more detail in section VI.B. below, that (1) absent 

specific conditions, transfers of hazardous secondary 

materials to third-party reclaimers generally involve 

discard and (2) the conditions of the 2008 DSW final 

rule have serious regulatory gaps that could create a 

potentially unacceptable likelihood of adverse effects 

to human health and the environment from such 

discarded material.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 527

way that appropriately identifies hazardous secondary materials that will be legitimately 

recycled and not discarded. Based on the evidence from states currently implementing the 

transfer-based exclusion, hazardous secondary materials transferred to another party for 

recycling can be legitimately recycled and not discarded, provided that there is a 

mechanism for adequate oversight at the recycling facility. Subtitle C regulation of this 

activity is unnecessary and would result in EPA regulating as hazardous waste some 

materials that have not been discarded. By adding the condition of requiring the recycler 

to obtain a solid waste variance or have a RCRA permit, EPA is addressing the potential 

for future discard while allowing the legitimate recycling activities that are already 

occurring to continue. (A discussion of the public comments on the July 2011 proposal 

and the Agency’s responses can be found in section XV of this preamble and the full 

response to comment document is in the docket for this rulemaking.)

A. Summary of Transfer-Based Exclusion

The 2008 exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred for the 

purpose of legitimate reclamation, which EPA is withdrawing today and replacing with 

the verified recycler exclusion, applied to hazardous secondary materials (i.e., spent 

materials, listed sludges, and listed by-products) that are generated and subsequently 

transferred to a different person or company for the purpose of reclamation. This 

exclusion was found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25).

8

 

8

40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) is the primary transfer-based exclusion and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) contains the export 

requirements for the transfer-based exclusion.

Deleted: the

Deleted: alternative Subtitle C standards for 

hazardous recyclable materials

Deleted: ),
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 527

General conditions for hazardous secondary material generators, reclaimers, and 

intermediate facilities9under this exclusion included the following:

 entities must submit a notification prior to operating under the exclusion 

and by March 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter reporting types 

and quantities of hazardous secondary materials being reclaimed, and

 hazardous secondary materials managed at such facilities must not be 

speculatively accumulated as defined in § 261.1(c)(8) and must be 

legitimately reclaimed as specified in § 260.43.

Conditions applicable to generators of hazardous secondary materials included the 

following:

 containment of such hazardous secondary materials, 

 reasonable efforts, a form of due diligence, to ensure that the intermediate 

facility or reclaimer intends to properly manage and legitimately recycle 

the hazardous secondary material, and 

 retention of records of off-site shipments for three years. 

Conditions applicable to intermediate facilities and reclaimers included the following:

 containment of hazardous secondary materials, 

 transmittal of confirmations of receipt to generators, 

 retention of records for hazardous secondary materials received and sent 

off-site, 

 

9

Intermediate facilities are those facilities that do not reclaim hazardous secondary materials, but store 

them for more than 10 days.

Deleted: requirements

Deleted: include

Deleted: they

Deleted: include

Deleted: include:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 527

 financial assurance equivalent to that required of hazardous waste 

facilities, and 

 (for reclaimers) proper management of any residuals generated from the 

reclamation activities. 

In addition, for any hazardous secondary materials excluded under 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) generated and then exported to another country for reclamation, the exporter 

must notify and obtain consent from the receiving country and file an annual report per 

40 CFR 261.4(a)(25). 

B. EPA’s Rationale for Requiring Conditions for Transfers of Hazardous Secondary 

Materials Sent for Reclamation

In the 2008 DSW rule, EPA determined that, absent specific conditions, it is 

reasonable to conclude that transfers of hazardous secondary materials to third-party 

recyclers generally involve discard except for instances where EPA has evaluated and 

promulgated a case-specific exclusion that a hazardous secondary material is not a solid 

waste. Generators of hazardous secondary materials who do not reclaim these materials 

themselves often ship these materials to a commercial facility or another manufacturer for 

reclamation in order to avoid the costs of disposing of the material. Because of the low 

commercial value and the high potential liability associated with most types of hazardous 

secondary materials (i.e., spent materials and listed hazardous waste by-products and 

sludges), generators will typically pay the reclamation facility to accept these hazardous 

secondary materials or receive a salvage fee that only partially offsets the cost of 

transporting and managing them. In such situations, the generator has relinquished 

Deleted: Replacing the Transfer-Based Exclusion

Deleted: The first part of the Agency’s rationale 

for replacing the transfer-based exclusion is based on 

the fact that EPA has already
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 527

control of the hazardous secondary materials and the entity receiving such materials may 

not have the same incentives to manage them as a useful product. (Note that this 

determination is unchanged from the 2008 DSW final rule; see 73 FR 64675.)

Evidence of hazardous secondary materials not being managed as a valuable

product is shown in the results of the environmental problems study, found in the docket 

of the 2008 DSW final rule. Of the 208 damage cases discussed in the 2008 DSW final 

rule, 195 (or approximately 94%) were from reclamation activities of off-site third-party 

recyclers, with clear instances of discard resulting in risk to human health and the 

environment, including cases of large-scale soil and ground water contamination with 

remediation costs in some instances in the tens of millions of dollars (73 FR 64673).

In addition, the market forces study in the docket for the 2008 DSW final rule 

supports the conclusion that the pattern of discard at off-site third-party reclaimers is a 

result of inherent differences between commercial recycling and normal manufacturing. 

As opposed to manufacturing, where the cost of raw materials or intermediates (or inputs) 

is greater than zero and revenue is generated primarily from the sale of the output, 

hazardous secondary materials recycling can involve generating revenue primarily from 

the receipt of the hazardous secondary materials. Recyclers of hazardous secondary 

materials in this situation thus respond differently than traditional manufacturers to 

economic forces and incentives, accumulating more inputs (hazardous secondary 

materials) than can be processed (reclaimed). In addition, commercial recyclers have less 

flexibility than in-house recyclers in changing how they manage their hazardous 

secondary materials (e.g., during price fluctuations, in-house recyclers can more easily 

Deleted: useful
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 527

switch from recycling to disposal or from recycled inputs to virgin inputs, while 

commercial recyclers cannot switch to disposal without obtaining a RCRA permit) (73 

FR 64674). In other words, third-party recyclers have economic incentives to accumulate 

waste beyond their ability to deal with it. 

C. Regulatory Gaps in the 2008 DSW Rule

The 2008 DSW final rule attempted to address this pattern of adverse impacts to 

human health and the environment from hazardous secondary materials transferred to a 

third party for recycling by setting conditions for the transfer-based exclusion. The intent 

of these conditions was to define when transfers to third-party recyclers would not result 

in discard. The link between each of the conditions and their ability to prevent discard is 

discussed in detail in the 2008 DSW final rule preamble at 73 FR 64675–79. 

However, EPA failed to take into account how the conditions of the 2008 transferbased exclusion would work when actually implemented. EPA’s analysis of the 2008 

DSW final rule was based on the assumption that DSW conditions would be 

implemented to the same degree as Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, without 

taking into consideration whether the 2008 DSW rule would provide EPA and the 

authorized states the ability for the same level of oversight as the fully applicable Subtitle 

C hazardous waste regulations, which leads to the second part of EPA’s rationale for its 

2011 proposal to replace the transfer-based exclusion with an alternative Subtitle C 

regulatory scheme. 

Before excluding hazardous secondary materials that have already been 

determined to be hazardous wastes when discarded, the Agency needs adequate assurance 

Deleted: replacing
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 527

that the conditional exclusion will not result in discarded hazardous materials posing 

significant risks to human health and the environment (e.g., fires/explosion, soil and 

water contamination, air emissions, and abandoned hazardous secondary materials). 

Because EPA has already evaluated these hazardous secondary materials (for example, 

during a hazardous waste listing determination) and determined them to be solid and 

hazardous wastes when discarded, the Agency must be able to reasonably expect that 

hazardous secondary materials managed under a conditional exclusion will not be 

discarded. 

Over the years, EPA has developed many such conditional exclusions (found in 

40 CFR 261.4(a)). In each of these cases, EPA did so by examining the specific 

hazardous secondary material or the specific recycling practice, or both, before making a 

determination that the hazardous secondary material is not solid waste. However, unlike 

these types of specific transfer-based exclusions from the definition of solid waste, the 

2008 transfer-based exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) did not focus on the 

chemical or physical properties of any particular type of hazardous secondary material or 

on how it is typically managed. Instead, the transfer-based exclusion is broadly applicable 

to a wide range of hazardous spent materials and listed by-products and sludges. Thus, 

while other solid waste exclusions were developed based on EPA’s knowledge of the 

specific hazardous secondary materials, the industries generating them, or the current 

recycling management practice for those hazardous secondary materials, the 2008 DSW 

transfer-based exclusion relied entirely on the conditions that were developed by EPA 

operating as the Agency anticipates they should. The conditions themselves were 

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 527

developed in a reasoned manner,10 but without evidence that they would work as intended 

(i.e., would not result in significant risk to human health and the environment from 

discarded materials). 

However, the conditions for the transfer-based exclusion in the 2008 DSW final 

rule lack several important implementation provisions that the Subtitle C requirements 

for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities provide. These provisions ensure a greater 

level of oversight, which ensures that EPA or the state has reviewed a facility’s planned 

operations before management begins and which allows public participation in the 

environmental decision-making process, thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance 

and decreasing the potential for risk to human health and the environment from discarded 

hazardous secondary material. EPA has performed a detailed regulatory comparison of 

the 2008 DSW final rule with the fully applicable Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, 

identifying significant differences that could lead to the potential for an increased 

likelihood of environmental and public health hazards, including fires/explosion, soil and 

water contamination, air emissions, and abandoned hazardous secondary materials.11

D. Rationale for the Verified Recycler Exclusion

Based on this reconsideration of the DSW transfer-based exclusion conditions, 

EPA has determined that hazardous secondary materials transferred off-site to third party 

reclaimers for the purpose of legitimate reclamation are most appropriately covered under

 

10 See Chapter 11, Regulatory Impact Analysis: EPA's 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial 

Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0602.

11 See Chapter 2 and Attachment A of EPA’s Environmental Justice Analysis of the Definition of Solid 

Waste Rule, available in the docket for today’s rule.

Deleted: of

Deleted: Subtitle C requirements

Deleted: Most important of these is the permit 

requirement under RCRA section 3005, which 

ensures that EPA or the state has reviewed a 

facility’s planned operations before waste 

management begins and which allows public 

participation in the environmental decision-making 

process under RCRA section 7004. Subtitle C 

requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities also include a statutory provision that such 

facilities be inspected every two years under RCRA 

section 3008(e). Finally, the detailed regulatory 

standards for hazardous waste management help 

ensure that both the regulatory authority and the 

regulated community have the specific information 

they need to comply in such a way that meets EPA’s 

expectations when the rule was promulgated. 

Deleted: regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. The
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 527

a system that allows for oversight and public participation prior to the start of operations 

to help ensure that (1) the hazardous secondary material will be legitimately reclaimed 

and not discarded and (2) the potential risk of releases from the facility impacting the 

surrounding community will be minimized. The need for such additional oversight and 

public participation is demonstrated by (1) evidence of past damage cases leading to 

significant risk to human health and the environment from hazardous secondary materials 

originally intended for recycling and (2) the underlying perverse incentives of the 

recycling market to over-accumulate such hazardous secondary materials intended for 

recycling, resulting in discard of the material,. In other words, the transfer-based 

exclusion can exacerbate financial incentives for small and/or inexperienced businesses 

to take in more hazardous secondary materials than they actually can use, mishandle it, 

and even go out of business, as shown by the fact that bankruptcies or other types of 

business failures were associated with 66% of the recycling damage cases, resulting in 

multi-million dollar cleanups.

At the same time, as EPA noted in the 2011 DSW proposal and as was echoed in 

the public comments, EPA has also carefully monitored the implementation of the 2008 

DSW final rule since it came into effect in December 2008, and to date, no environmental 

problems have been reported by states related to 2008 transfer-based exclusion. As of 

April 2014, a total of 65 facilities are operating under the transfer-based exclusion, 56 of 

Deleted: , demonstrates the need to regulate these 

hazardous secondary materials as hazardous waste, 

unless there is specific information about a 

hazardous secondary material or reclamation practice 

that demonstrates discard is not occurring.

Deleted: EPA is therefore withdrawing the 

transfer-based exclusion found in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) and (25). ¶

C. Other Opportunities for Excluding
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 527

which are generators transferring off-site and 7 which are reclamation facilities.12 All 

seven reclamation facilities are RCRA permitted. Of the 56 generators operating under 

the transfer-based exclusion, 32 generators appear to have either started or substantially 

increased their recycling as a result of the 2008 DSW exclusions. These include 

generators that had previously reported in their 2007, 2009, or 2011 biennial report that 

they sent their solvents off site for fuel blending, and then notified that they are sending 

their spent solvents for reclamation under the 2008 DSW final rule. In addition, in at least 

five cases, facilities have switched from sending spent pickle liquor to landfilling or deep

well injection to recycling under the 2008 DSW rule. In total, the 2008 DSW 

notifications document that over 57,000 tons of hazardous secondary material were 

reclaimed under the 2008 DSW rule during 2011.13

In addition, it should be noted that the Department of Environmental Protection 

for the State of Pennsylvania (PA DEP), where 27 of the 65 facilities operating under the 

transfer-based exclusion are located, commented strongly in favor of keeping the 

transfer-based exclusion: “PA DEP has experienced no compliance problems or issues of 

any nature with those generators or reclamation facilities operating under this conditional 

exclusion, known as the transfer-based exclusion. In addition, under the transfer-based 

exclusion, large quantities of hazardous solvents have been diverted to reclamation and 

 

12 Some of these facilities are also managing hazardous secondary materials under the generator-controlled 

exclusion.

13 U.S. EPA, EPA’s Evaluation of Data Collected from Notifications Submitted under the 2008 

Definition of Solid Waste Exclusions, April 11, 2014.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 527

reuse rather than being burned for energy recovery, resulting in greater resource 

conservation.”14 

Given that the transfer-based exclusion has been achieving its intended purpose of 

encourage safe, legitimate recycling, withdrawing the transfer-based exclusion and 

replacing it with RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements is unnecessary and 

would result in hazardous secondary material that is currently being legitimately recycled 

and not discarded being regulated as hazardous waste. Because Subtitle C regulation 

would be more stringent that the current exclusion, if EPA were to finalize the alternative 

Subtitle C standards, Pennsylvania (and other states that have adopted the 2008 DSW 

rule) would have to regulate this material as hazardous waste, despite the fact that 

according to the state it is currently being legitimately recycled and not discarded.

However, it is important to note that the comments from PA DEP went on to 

recommend that the transfer-based exclusion be limited to RCRA-permitted facilities. 

Because all recycling under the transfer-based exclusion has been (to date) performed at 

RCRA-permitted facilities, EPA is unable to extrapolate what would happen at facilities 

without RCRA Subtitle C permits if the transfer-based exclusion were fully implemented. 

Given the evidence of past damage cases leading to significant risk to human health and 

the environment from hazardous secondary materials originally intended for recycling 

and the underlying perverse incentives of the recycling market to over-accumulate such 

 

14Comment to the docket from Vincent J. Brisini, Acting Deputy Secretary for Waste, Air, 

Radiation and Remediation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, October 20, 

2011 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742-0271).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 527

hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling, resulting in discard of the material, 

additional oversight of recycling beyond the self-implementing measures of the transferbased exclusion is needed to ensure that the hazardous secondary material is legitimately 

recycled and not discarded. 

To address this issue, EPA is requiring as a condition of the new verified recycler 

exclusion that generators must send their hazardous secondary materials to a RCRApermitted recycler or intermediate facility15 or to a verified hazardous secondary materials 

recycler or intermediate facility who has obtained a solid waste variance from EPA or the 

authorized state using the procedures found in 40 CFR 260.33. The verified recycler 

exclusion uses the solid waste variance procedure to determine if a facility will properly 

manage the hazardous secondary materials as commodities and legitimately recycle 

rather than discard them. The variance addresses the same criteria currently required for 

the reasonable efforts environmental audit under the 2008 transfer-based exclusion (see 

discussion below). However, the variance process would allow EPA or the authorized 

state to evaluate the facility before it begins recycling hazardous secondary materials and 

would also give the affected community the opportunity to provide input prior to a 

decision as to whether the variance should be granted, thus addressing a major regulatory 

gap in the transfer-based exclusion that could result in significant risk to human health 

and the environment from discarded hazardous secondary material.

 

15 Intermediate facilities are those facilities that do not reclaim hazardous secondary materials, but store 

them for more than 10 days.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 527

In addition, as described below, the verified recycler exclusion retains those 

conditions from the 2008 transfer-based exclusion that EPA determined are necessary to 

properly identify hazardous secondary material that is legitimately recycled and not 

discarded, and also includes the new conditions that apply to the generator-controlled 

exclusion being finalized today. 

EPA expects that all facilities that are currently recycling hazardous secondary 

materials under the 2008 transfer-based exclusion will be able to continue to recycle 

these materials under the verified recycler exclusion, because all recycling under the 

transfer-based exclusion is being done at RCRA-permitted facilities, which also qualify 

for the verified recycler exclusion. Moreover, the additional conditions of the verified 

recycler exclusion address the regulatory gaps EPA identified in the 2011 DSW proposal 

that could have resulted in significant risk to human health and the environment from 

discarded material, if the 2008 DSW had been fully implemented to include facilities 

without RCRA permits or other regulatory oversight prior to beginning recycling.

Finally, EPA notes that facilities managing excluded hazardous secondary 

materials under the verified recycling exclusion are still potentially subject to RCRA 

enforcement actions if they fail to meet the conditions of the exclusion. Persons that 

handle these hazardous secondary materials are responsible for maintaining the exclusion 

by ensuring that the conditions are met. If the hazardous secondary materials are not 

managed pursuant to these restrictions, they are not excluded. They would then be 

considered solid and hazardous wastes if they were listed or they exhibited a hazardous 

waste characteristic for RCRA Subtitle C purposes.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 527

E. Conditions of the Verified Recycler Exclusion

The conditions discussed below describe EPA’s evaluation of each of the 

conditions under the 2008 transfer-based exclusion that EPA is retaining in the verified 

recycler exclusion, as well as the additional conditions EPA has determined are necessary 

to address the regulatory gaps identified in the transfer-based exclusion in order to ensure 

that the verified recycler exclusion identifies hazardous secondary materials that are 

legitimately recycled and not discarded. By including these conditions, EPA is 

identifying those hazardous secondary materials that will be legitimately recycled and not 

discarded.

1. Provisions Applicable to the Hazardous Secondary Materials Generator, the

Reclamation Facility, and any Intermediate Facility

Prohibition on speculative accumulation. As a condition of the verified recycler

exclusion, hazardous secondary materials cannot be speculatively accumulated (40 CFR 

261.1(c)(8)) at the hazardous secondary material generator, reclamation facility, or 

intermediate facility. Restrictions on speculative accumulation have been an important 

element of the RCRA hazardous waste recycling regulations since they were promulgated 

on January 4, 1985. According to this regulatory provision, hazardous secondary 

materials are accumulated speculatively if the person accumulating them cannot show 

that the material is potentially recyclable. Further, the person accumulating the hazardous 

secondary material must show that during a calendar year (beginning January 1) the 

amount of such material that is recycled or transferred to a different site for recycling is at 

least 75% by weight or volume of the amount of the hazardous secondary material 

Deleted: Transferred for

Deleted: While EPA is withdrawing the transferbased exclusion in today’s rule, EPA continues to 

believe that some specific types of hazardous 

secondary materials are more like valuable 

commodities than solid wastes, and the act of 

transferring them to a third-party does not 

automatically involve discard. Many of the

exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a) are for these types of 

hazardous secondary materials, and, as discussed in 

section VII of this preamble, EPA is finalizing a 

remanufacturing exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste for certain higher-value solvents whose 

management is more like manufacturing than waste 

management, and may in the future develop 

additional exclusions for these types of materials. ¶

In addition, companies can use the non-waste 

determination process under 40 CFR 260.34(c) as a 

case-specific administrative petition process for 

determining that additional hazardous secondary 

materials are indistinguishable from products and 

therefore are not waste. In the Safe Food decision, 

the Court stated, “[n]obody questions that virgin . . . 

feedstocks are products rather than wastes. Once one 

accepts that premise, it seems eminently reasonable 

to treat [recycled] materials that are indistinguishable 

in the relevant respects as products as well” (350 

F.3d at 1269). In Safe Food, the court accepted 

EPA’s determination that the “relevant respects” 

were that “market participants treat the...materials 

more like valuable products rather than like 

negatively-valued wastes managing them in ways 

inconsistent with discard, and that the fertilizers

derived from these recycled feedstocks are 

chemically indistinguishable from analogous 

commercial products made from virgin materials.” 

Id. As a result, EPA recognized in the 2008 DSW 

final rule, and continues to believe today, that there 

may be other instances that would benefit from a 

non-waste determination (73 FR 64679). Thus, EPA 

encourages companies to use the non-waste 

determination process for hazardous secondary 

materials indistinguishable in all relevant aspects 

from a product or intermediate.¶

D. Purpose
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 527

present at the beginning of the period. It is also the same prohibition that is being 

promulgated today for the generator-controlled exclusions. 

Furthermore, under today’s rule, all persons subject to the speculative 

accumulation requirements at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) (including, but not limited to, persons 

operating under the verified recycler exclusion at § 261.4(a)(24)) must place materials 

subject to those requirements in a storage unit with a label indicating the first date that the 

material began to be accumulated. If placing a label on the storage unit is not practicable, 

the accumulation period must be documented through an inventory log or other 

appropriate method.

This provision will allow inspectors and other regulatory authorities to quickly 

ascertain how long a facility has been storing an excluded hazardous secondary material, 

and, therefore, whether that facility is in compliance with the accumulation time limits of 

§ 261.1(c)(8).This provision is being retained in the verified recycler exclusion to ensure 

that the hazardous secondary materials will be recycled rather than discarded through 

speculative accumulation and abandonment.

Notification. Under today’s verified recycler exclusion, as a condition of the exclusion,

hazardous secondary material generators, reclaimers, and intermediate facilities must

send a notification prior to operating under this exclusion and by March 1 of each evennumbered year thereafter to the EPA Regional Administrator using EPA form 8700-12. 

In states authorized by EPA to administer the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 

program, notifications may be sent to the State Director. The notice must include the 

following:

Deleted: Alternative Subtitle C Regulatory 

Standards for Hazardous Recyclable Materials ¶

As discussed above, after examining the potential 

adverse impacts to human health and the 

environment from discarded hazardous secondary 

materials transferred to a third party for reclamation, 

EPA is replacing the transfer-based exclusion with 

an alternative regulatory scheme for hazardous 

recyclable materials transferred from the generator to 

other persons for the purpose of reclamation.

Specifically, EPA is finalizing alternative hazardous 

waste standards under 40 CFR part 266 subpart D for 

generators of hazardous recyclable materials sent to 

a third party for reclamation. “Hazardous recyclable 

materials” are defined as

Deleted: waste being reclaimed. These alternative 

standards are designed to be as protective as the 

current hazardous waste standards, but tailored to the 

specific circumstances faced by generators of 

hazardous waste who want to

Deleted: their hazardous secondary materials to a 

third-party reclaimer, but decide not to do so because 

they cannot accumulate enough hazardous waste 

during the generator accumulation time limits to 

make such recycling economically viable.¶

Under these alternative standards, the hazardous 

recyclable material would be subject to all applicable 

hazardous waste regulations (i.e., accumulated in 

Subtitle C storage units, transported under a 

hazardous waste manifest, sent to a RCRA-permitted 

facility or a facility operating under 40 CFR 

261.6(c)(2)), except for allowing a longer 

accumulation time frame. In particular, in order to 

allow generators time to accumulate enough 

hazardous recyclable material to make reclamation 

more economical, the alternative regulatory 

standards would allow hazardous recyclable 

materials to be accumulated up to one year without a 

RCRA permit or interim status (although the 

hazardous waste generator standards would continue 

to apply). ¶

In addition, to guard against the risks of overaccumulation and possible abandonment of 

hazardous recyclable materials, before 

Deleted: the alternative standard, a generator must 

send a one-time notification 

Deleted: (or the State Director, if the state is 

authorized)16. In addition, before operating under the 

alternative standard, the generator must contact the 

reclaimer in advance and make arrangements for the 

reclamation, as well as develop a reclamation plan 

that provides details of where the hazardous 

recyclable material will be sent for reclamation, a 

short description of the reclamation process, and the 

estimated volume of hazardous secondary materials 

to be reclaimed. ¶

E. Part 266 Standards for the Management of 

Hazardous Recyclable Material¶ ...

Deleted: Form

Deleted: On the notification form, generators are

required to list each third-party facility to which they 

send hazardous secondary materials for reclamation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 527

 The name, address, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the facility; 

 The name and telephone number of a contact person; 

 The NAICS code of the facility;

 The exclusion under which the hazardous secondary materials will be managed;

 When the facility expects to begin managing the hazardous secondary materials in 

accordance with the exclusion;

 A list of hazardous secondary materials that will be managed according to the 

exclusion (reported as the EPA hazardous waste numbers that would apply if the 

hazardous secondary materials were managed as hazardous waste); 

 For each hazardous secondary material, whether the material, or any portion 

thereof, will be managed in a land-based unit;

 The quantity of each hazardous secondary material to be managed annually; and

 The certification (included in EPA form 8700-12) signed and dated by an 

authorized representative of the facility.

If a facility has submitted a notification, but then subsequently stops managing 

hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the exclusion, the facility must renotify the Regional Administrator within 30 days using the same EPA Form 8700-12. We 

consider a facility to have ‘stopped’ managing hazardous secondary materials when a 

facility no longer generates, manages and/or reclaims hazardous secondary materials 

under the exclusion and does not expect to manage any amount of hazardous secondary 

material under the exclusion for at least one year. Of course, a facility could certainly 

Deleted: 2. Reclamation Plan¶

Prior to operating under the alternative standard, 

generators are required to make and document 

advance arrangements for reclamation. These 

advance arrangements must be documented in a 

reclamation plan that (1) describes the hazardous 

recyclable material(s) and identifies the reclamation 

facility or facilities where the material will be sent, 

(2) includes written confirmation from the 

reclamation facility or facilities that they are able to 

reclaim the hazardous recyclable material, (3) 

documents the amount of hazardous recyclable 

material expected in each shipment and the 

anticipated frequency of shipments, and (4) 

documents that the reclamation is legitimate per 40 

CFR 260.43. The purpose of the reclamation plan is 

to ensure that the hazardous secondary materials will 

be recycled legitimately and not over-accumulated 

and abandoned. The reclamation plan must be kept 

on-site for at least three years from the date the 

generator ceases to operate under the alternative 

standards. The generator may include more than one 

reclamation facility in a reclamation plan, but must 

have a written confirmation from each reclamation 

facility.¶

3. Management Standards¶

Generators operating under the alternative 

standards are able to accumulate hazardous 

recyclable materials on-site for up to one year 

without a RCRA permit or without having interim 

status, provided they comply with the applicable 

generator requirements in 40 CFR part 262 for onsite management of hazardous wastes for large 

quantity or small quantity generators, with the 

following exceptions:

17 ¶

(a) While accumulated on-site, each container and 

tank is labeled or marked clearly with the 

accumulation start date and the words “hazardous 

recyclable material,” or, if labeled “hazardous 

waste” the contents are otherwise indicated as being 

managed under the alternative hazardous recyclable 

material standards.¶

(b) As noted, the allowed accumulation period will 

be extended up to one year for all generators, rather 

than 90 or 180 days, respectively.18¶

(c) The quantity of hazardous recyclable material 

accumulated on-site at a small quantity generator 

never exceeds 6,000 kilograms. If the total quantity 

accumulated on-site does exceed 6,000 kilograms, 

the hazardous recyclable materials generator must 

comply with the large quantity generator 

management standards, as described in 40 CFR 

262.34(a). The 6,000 kilogram upper limit is 

consistent with the standards for small quantity 

generators under 262.34(d)(1) and helps ensure that 

the generator is not over-accumulating the material 

without adequate storage requirements, personnel 

training, contingency planning and emergency 

procedures being followed. ¶

4. Transportation ¶

Before transporting hazardous recyclable materials 

or offering hazardous recyclable materials for 

transportation off-site, a hazardous recyclable 

material generator ¶

must meet all the applicable pre-transportation 

requirements for hazardous waste generators under 

...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 527

choose to begin managing hazardous secondary materials again and would simply have to 

submit a notification in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42. 

This notification condition is the same as the notification condition for the 

generator-controlled exclusion and is an indication that the facility is planning to 

legitimately recycle the hazardous secondary materials and not discard them. As with the 

generator-controlled exclusion, EPA is finalizing the notification provision as a condition 

of the transfer-based exclusion because it is the only formal indication of a facility's 

intent to reclaim a hazardous secondary material under the conditional exclusion rather 

than to discard it. For further discussion on the notification, including examples of when 

a facility must re-notify that it has stopped managing hazardous secondary materials, see 

section V.B.2 of today’s preamble. 

Hazardous secondary materials must be contained. Another condition of the verified 

recycler exclusion applicable to hazardous secondary material generators, reclamation 

facilities, and intermediate facilities is that the hazardous secondary materials must be 

contained in their management units. This provision is the same as the restriction that is 

being promulgated for the generator-controlled exclusion and helps ensure that the 

hazardous secondary material remains in the management unit until it is ready to be 

recycled and is not discarded. Hazardous secondary materials released to the environment 

from any unit are discarded and would be subject to the hazardous waste regulations, 

unless they are immediately cleaned up. Hazardous secondary materials remaining in a 

unit that experiences a release may also be considered discarded in certain cases. For 

further discussion on the containment provisions, see section V.B.1 of today’s preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 527

Emergency preparedness and response. As discussed above under the generatorcontrolled exclusion, one important cause of environmental and human health damages 

identified by the environmental problems study is fires, explosions, and accidents, with 

19% of the environmental damage cases being associated with leaks, spills, fires, 

explosions, or other accidents, and the lack of conditions to address these problems is a 

significant regulatory gap in the 2008 DSW exclusions. In addition, the President recently 

released an Executive Order to address these types of concerns (EO 13650—Improving 

Chemical Facility Safety and Security). EPA finds that planning and preparing for an 

emergency demonstrates a generator’s intent to not only protect human health and the 

environment, but also to reduce potential loss of valuable hazardous secondary materials. 

In the absence of such requirements, hazardous secondary materials pose a greater risk of 

being released and discarded to the environment. 

Therefore, EPA is requiring that generators must follow certain emergency 

preparedness and response regulations under the verified recycler exclusion. These 

regulations are found in 40 CFR part 261 subpart M and are dependent on the amount of 

hazardous secondary material the generator accumulates on site at any time.19 Under the 

final rule, generators that accumulate less than or equal to 6,000 kg of hazardous 

secondary material on site must meet regulations like the emergency preparedness and 

 

19 Intermediate facilities and reclamation facilities must also follow emergency prepared and response 

regulations, either through the requirement of their RCRA permit or through the criteria that must be met to 

obtain a verified recycler variance under 40 CFR 260.31(d).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 527

response regulations currently required for small quantity generators of hazardous waste. 

Generators that accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material on site 

must meet regulations like the emergency preparedness and response regulations 

currently required for large quantity generators of hazardous waste. EPA chose to set the 

threshold at 6,000 kg based on the current hazardous waste generator regulations, which 

require generators that accumulate greater than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste on site to 

comply with large quantity generator regulations, including emergency preparedness and 

response regulations. EPA finds that generators that accumulate greater amounts of 

hazardous secondary material on site inherently pose greater risk to human health and the 

environment from a potential release caused by a fire or explosion and thus it is more 

appropriate for these generators to take additional steps to prepare for such events.

Specifically, EPA is requiring that generators that accumulate less than or equal to 

6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material on site comply with the emergency 

preparedness and response requirements equivalent to those in part 265 subpart C, which 

discuss maintaining appropriate emergency equipment on site, having access to alarm 

systems, maintaining needed aisle space, and making arrangements with local emergency 

authorities. A generator must also have a designated emergency coordinator who must 

respond to emergencies and must post certain information next to the telephone in the 

event of an emergency. 

For generators that accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary 

material on site, EPA is requiring that they comply with requirements equivalent to those 

in part 265 subparts C and D, which includes all the requirements already discussed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 527

above for those accumulating less than or equal to 6,000 kg, as well as requiring a 

contingency plan and sharing the plan with local emergency responders. EPA 

recommends that the contingency plan be based on the National Response Team’s 

Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance (One Plan), discussed in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28642). Under the One Plan Guidance, the generator can develop 

one contingency plan that meets all the regulatory standards for the various statutory and 

regulatory provisions for contingency planning, such as EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention 

Regulation or Risk Management Programs regulations, the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) 

Facility Response Plan regulations, OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and 

Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulations, and several others. 

EPA has determined that adding these emergency preparedness and response 

conditions meets the goals of the Chemical Safety EO and also will ensure that those 

facilities managing hazardous secondary material under the exclusion will be doing so in 

a manner that allows them to safely recycle the hazardous secondary material and limit 

loss into the environment of materials that are supposed to be recycled. These provisions 

are the common-sense steps that a facility that manages hazardous materials should take 

to reduce risk to their workers and the public. Additionally, structuring the emergency 

preparedness and response conditions of the verified recycler exclusion after the existing 

hazardous waste requirements serves to reduce burden on generators, as generators are 

already familiar and complying with this regulations.

Exclusion is limited to recycling performed within the United States. Because the verified 

recycler exclusion requires that hazardous secondary materials are sent to a verified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 527

reclamation facility (or facilities) that has been granted either a RCRA permit or interim 

status that addresses the hazardous secondary material or has received a variance from 

EPA or the authorized state, this exclusion is limited to recycling performed within the 

United States or its territories. Because hazardous secondary materials that are exported 

for recycling passes out of the regulatory control of the federal government, it is not 

possible to verify whether the foreign reclaimer will safely and legitimately recycle the 

hazardous secondary material and not discard it. 

2. Provisions Applicable to the Hazardous Secondary Material Generator

Transport to a Verified Recycler. The hazardous secondary material generator must

transport hazardous secondary materials to a verified reclamation facility (or facilities) 

within the United States or its territories. A verified reclamation facility is a facility that 

has been granted a variance by EPA or an authorized state under § 260.31(d) or a 

reclamation facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is 

addressed under a RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards. If the hazardous 

secondary material will be passing through an intermediate facility, the intermediate 

facility must have been granted a variance under § 260.31(d) or the management of the 

hazardous secondary materials at that facility must be addressed under a RCRA Part B 

permit or interim status standards. The hazardous secondary material generator must also 

make contractual arrangements with the intermediate facility to ensure that the 

intermediate facility sends the hazardous secondary material to the verified reclamation 

facility identified by the hazardous secondary material generator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 527

Note that in the case of a permitted facility the management of the hazardous 

secondary materials must be addressed under the RCRA part B permit or interim status 

standards. In other words, if the permit standards do not extend to the hazardous 

secondary materials being reclaimed, then the reclamation or intermediate facility is 

required to either modify the permit to cover those materials or obtain a solid waste 

variance from EPA or the authorized state before operating under the exclusion.

This condition addresses the major regulatory gap in the transfer-based exclusion 

of lack of oversight and public participation for hazardous secondary material recycling 

facilities that do not have RCRA permits. Given the evidence of past damage cases 

leading to significant risk to human health and the environment from hazardous 

secondary materials originally intended for recycling and the underlying perverse 

incentives of the recycling market to over-accumulate such hazardous secondary 

materials intended for recycling, resulting in discard of the material, additional oversight

of recycling beyond the self-implementing measures of the transfer-based exclusion are 

needed to ensure that the hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled and not 

discarded. 

This condition replaces the self-implementing “reasonable efforts” environmental 

audits of the recycling facility required under the 2008 transfer-based exclusion. EPA has 

determined that it more appropriate for the state or EPA to make the determination that a 

facility can safely and legitimately recycle hazardous secondary material. While EPA has 

found that many large companies do conduct environmental audits of recycling facilities, 

many smaller generators would not have the technical expertise or resources to conduct 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 527

such an effort.20 In addition, it is more efficient for the EPA or the authorized state to 

perform one evaluation of a recycler via the permit or variance process rather than have 

multiple evaluations of a recycler conducted by each generator using that recycler.

Recordkeeping. EPA is requiring hazardous secondary material generators to maintain at 

the generating facility certain records that document off-site shipments of hazardous 

secondary materials for a period of three years. Specifically, for each shipment of 

hazardous secondary material, the generator must maintain documentation of when the 

shipment occurred, who the transporter was, the name and address of the reclaimer(s) 

and, if applicable, each intermediate facility, and the type and quantity of the hazardous 

secondary materials in the shipment. This recordkeeping requirement may be fulfilled by 

ordinary business records, such as bills of lading.

In addition, hazardous secondary material generators are required to maintain 

confirmations of receipt from each reclaimer and intermediate facility for all off-site 

shipments of hazardous secondary materials in order to verify that the hazardous 

secondary materials reached their intended destination and were not discarded. These 

receipts must be maintained at the generating facility for a period of three years. 

Specifically, the hazardous secondary material generator must maintain documentation of 

receipt that includes the name and address of the reclaimer or intermediate facility, the 

type and quantity of hazardous secondary materials received, and the date which the 

hazardous secondary materials were received. The Agency is not requiring a specific 

 

20 An Assessment of Good Current Practices for Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials (EPA-HQRCRA-2002-0031-0354).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 527

template or format for confirmations of receipt and anticipates that routine business 

records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of Department of Transportation 

(DOT) shipping papers, electronic confirmations of receipt) could contain the appropriate 

information sufficient for meeting this requirement.

We recognize that, in some cases, reclamation of a hazardous secondary material 

may involve more than one reclamation step. In these cases, the recordkeeping condition 

under the terms of the exclusion applies for each reclaimer and intermediate facility, 

regardless of how many reclamation steps were involved. For example, if a hazardous 

secondary material generator shipped hazardous secondary materials to one reclaimer for 

partial reclamation and then arranged for the partially-reclaimed material to be 

subsequently sent to another reclaimer for ‘final’ reclamation, the generator must 

maintain confirmations of receipt from each reclaimer involved in the reclamation 

process. 

The recordkeeping requirements are the same as those in the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion and Agency continues to believe that the recordkeeping requirements in 

today’s rule comprise the minimum information needed to enable effective oversight to 

ensure the hazardous secondary materials were sent for reclamation and were not 

discarded.

3. Provisions Applicable to the Transportation of Hazardous Secondary Materials

Hazardous secondary materials may be stored for up to 10 days at a transfer 

facility and still be considered in transit. However, if the facility stores the hazardous 

secondary materials for more than 10 days, then it would be considered an intermediate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 527

facility and subject to the conditions in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(vi). While at the transfer 

facility, the hazardous secondary materials must continue to meet all applicable DOT 

standards. Hazardous secondary materials may be consolidated for shipping, but cannot 

be intermingled in a way that would constitute waste management. This provision is 

unchanged from the 2008 transfer-based exclusion and describes the intersection of the 

RCRA and DOT requirements for these shipments.

4. Provisions Applicable to the Reclamation Facility and any Intermediate Facilities

Recordkeeping. Reclaimers and intermediate facilities who operate under the verified 

recycler exclusion must maintain certain records, similar to the records we are requiring 

for hazardous secondary material generators. Specifically, reclaimers and intermediate 

facilities must maintain at their facilities for a period of three years records of all 

shipments of hazardous secondary materials that were received at the facility and, if 

applicable, records of all shipments of hazardous secondary materials sent off-site from 

the facility. For hazardous secondary materials received at the reclamation and 

intermediate facility, such records must document the name and address of the hazardous 

secondary material generator, the type and quantity of hazardous secondary materials 

received at the facility, any intermediate facilities that managed the hazardous secondary 

materials, the name of the transporter that brought the hazardous secondary materials to 

the facility, and the date such materials were received at the facility. 

For hazardous secondary materials that, after being received by the reclaimer or 

intermediate facility, are subsequently sent off-site for further reclamation, reclaimers and 

intermediate facilities must document the name and address of the hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 527

material generator, when the shipment occurred, who the transporter was, the name and 

address of the subsequent reclaimer and, if applicable, each subsequent intermediate 

facility, and the type and quantity of hazardous secondary materials in the shipment. This 

recordkeeping requirement may be fulfilled by ordinary business records, such as bills of 

lading.

Reclaimers and intermediate facilities must also send confirmations of receipt to 

the hazardous secondary material generator for all off-site shipments of hazardous 

secondary materials received at the facility in order to verify for the hazardous secondary 

material generator that their materials reached the intended destination and were not 

discarded. Specifically, the reclaimer (or each reclaimer, when more than one reclamation 

step is required) and, if applicable, each intermediate facility, must send documentation 

of receipt to the hazardous secondary material generator that includes the name and 

address of the reclaimer or intermediate facility, the type and quantity of the hazardous 

secondary materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were 

received. The Agency is not requiring a specific template or format for confirmations of 

receipt and anticipates that routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of 

lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, electronic confirmations of receipt) could contain 

the appropriate information sufficient for meeting this requirement.

In addition, reclaimers and intermediate facilities must also meet the 

recordkeeping requirements under financial assurance discussed below in this section.

Storage of Hazardous Secondary Materials. In addition to the condition that the 

hazardous secondary materials must be contained (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(A)), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 527

reclamation facilities and intermediate facilities must also manage the hazardous 

secondary materials in a manner that is at least as protective as that employed for the 

analogous raw material, where there is an analogous raw material. Where there is no 

analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be contained. 

An "analogous raw material" is a material for which a hazardous secondary 

material substitutes and which serves the same function and has similar physical and 

chemical properties as the hazardous secondary material. A raw material that has 

significantly different physical or chemical properties would not be considered analogous 

even if it serves the same function. For example, a metal-bearing ore might serve the 

same function as a metal-bearing air pollution control dust, but because the physical 

properties of the dust would make it more susceptible to wind dispersal, the two would 

not be considered analogous. Similarly, hazardous secondary materials with high levels 

of toxic volatile chemicals would not be considered analogous to a raw material that does 

not have these volatile chemicals or that has only minimal levels of volatile chemicals. 

Storage conditions for reclamation facilities and intermediate facilities that operate under 

today's exclusion demonstrate that the materials are not discarded, but instead are treated 

valuable commodities which would be used and not lost to the environment. 

This condition is the same as the parallel condition in the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion and is based on the fact that the great majority of damage cases documented in 

the environmental problems study occurred at commercial reclamation and intermediate 

storage facilities, and mismanagement of hazardous secondary materials was found to be 

a cause of environmental problems in approximately 40% of the incidents. Accordingly, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 527

EPA has determined that this condition for storage is necessary and appropriate for 

reclamation facilities and intermediate facilities that take advantage of this exclusion to 

show that storage of these materials is not just another way of disposing of them. In 

addition, it will establish an expectation for the owner/operators of such facilities that 

they must manage hazardous secondary materials in a manner at least as protective as 

they would an analogous raw material and in such a way that materials would not be 

released into the environment. 

Management of recycling residuals. Another condition of the verified recycler exclusion 

is that any residuals that are generated from the reclamation processes must be managed 

in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If any residuals 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, or 

themselves are listed hazardous wastes, they are hazardous wastes (if discarded) and must 

be managed according to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.

This condition is the same as the parallel condition in the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion and the purpose of this condition is to clarify the regulatory status of these 

waste materials and to emphasize in explicit terms that residuals that are generated from 

the reclamation of hazardous secondary materials must be managed properly so that the 

reclamation operation does not become another way of avoiding waste management and 

simply becomes another way of discarding unwanted material. The study of recent (i.e., 

post-CERCLA and post-RCRA) recycling-related environmental problems revealed that 

mismanagement of residuals was the cause of such problems in one-third of the incidents 

that were documented. Some common examples of these mismanaged residuals were 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 527

acids and casings from the processing of lead-acid batteries, solvents and other liquids 

generated from cleaning drums at drum reconditioning facilities, and PCBs and other oils 

generated from disassembled transformers. In many of these damage incidents, the 

residuals were simply disposed of on-site with little regard for the environmental 

consequences of such mismanagement or possible CERCLA liabilities associated with 

cleanup of these releases. By making proper management of the recycling residuals a 

condition of the exclusion, EPA ensures that the reclamation operation is not just another 

way of discarding hazardous constituents. This has the added benefit of ensuring that the 

reclamation operation does not pose a significant risk to human health and the 

environment.

Financial Assurance. The financial assurance condition is another condition that is the 

same as the parallel condition in the transfer-based exclusion. By obtaining financial 

assurance, the reclamation or intermediate facility is making a direct demonstration that it 

will not abandon the hazardous secondary materials, it will properly decontaminate 

equipment, and it will clean up any unacceptable releases, even if events beyond its 

control make its operations uneconomical. Moreover, financial assurance also addresses 

the correlation of the financial health of a reclamation or intermediate facility with the 

absence of discard. In essence, financial assurance will help demonstrate that the 

reclamation facility or intermediate facility owner/operators who would operate under the 

terms of this exclusion are financially sound and will not discard the hazardous secondary 

materials, or if the facility faces financial difficulties, that funds would have been set 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 527

aside to address any issues and, therefore, these costs will not be imposed on the U.S. 

taxpayer. 

The financial assurance requirement has been retained in 40 CFR part 261 subpart 

H because the substance of the requirement is unchanged from the financial assurance 

requirement for the 2008 DSW transfer-based exclusion. However, the financial 

assurance condition is now one of the criteria that is evaluated under the verified recycler 

solid waste variance, allowing the state or EPA to verify that the financial assurance 

obtained by the reclamation facility or intermediate facility is sufficient and accessible (in 

contrast, the financial assurance condition in the 2008 DSW transfer-based exclusion was 

self-implementing and not subject to review by EPA or the authorized state prior to the 

facility beginning operation).

A detailed discussion of the 40 CFR part 261 subpart H financial assurance 

provisions can be found in the 2008 DSW final rule at 73 FR 64692-8, October 30, 2008. 

Verification of the Recycler. As discussed earlier, the condition requiring verification of 

the recycler is the one of the major differences between the transfer-based exclusion and 

the verified recycler exclusion and addresses the major regulatory gap in the transferbased exclusion of lack of oversight and public participation for hazardous secondary 

material recycling facilities that do not have RCRA permits. The reclaimer and 

intermediate facility must have been granted a solid waste variance by EPA or an 

authorized state under § 260.31(d) or must have a RCRA Part B permit or interim status 

standards that address the management of the hazardous secondary materials. An 

intermediate or reclamation facility may apply for a solid waste variance to accept 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 527

hazardous secondary materials by addressing the substantive criteria of the “reasonable 

efforts” condition that had previously applied to the hazardous secondary material 

generator under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(B). In addition, the variance must address the 

potential for risk to proximate populations from unpermitted releases of the hazardous 

secondary material to the environment. 

Specifically, to qualify for the solid waste variance, the facility must address the 

following criteria:

(1) The intermediate or reclamation facility must demonstrate that the reclamation 

process for the hazardous secondary materials is legitimate pursuant to § 260.43; 

(2) The intermediate or reclamation facility must satisfy the financial assurance 

condition in § 261.4(a)(24)(vi)(F); 

(3) The intermediate or reclamation facility must not be subject to a formal 

enforcement action in the previous three years and must not be classified as a significant 

non-complier under RCRA Subtitle C, or must provide credible evidence that the facility 

will manage the hazardous secondary materials properly. Credible evidence may include 

a demonstration that the facility has taken remedial steps to address the violations and 

prevent future violations, or that the violations are not relevant to the proper management 

of the hazardous secondary materials;

(4) The intermediate or reclamation facility must have the equipment and trained 

personnel to safely manage the hazardous secondary material and must meet emergency 

preparedness and response requirements; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 527

(5) If residuals are generated from the reclamation of the excluded hazardous 

secondary materials, the reclamation facility must have the permits required (if any) to 

manage the residuals, have a contract with an appropriately permitted facility to dispose 

of the residuals, or present credible evidence that the residuals will be managed in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment; and 

(6) The intermediate or reclamation facility must address the potential for risk to 

proximate populations from unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary material to 

the environment (including releases that are not covered by a permit, such as a permit to 

discharge to water or air, and may include, but are not limited to, potential releases 

through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, windblown dust, fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit failures), and must include 

consideration of potential cumulative risks from other nearby potential stressors.

The rationale for each of these criteria is discussed below.

Criterion (1) is based on the first reasonable efforts question in the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion and focuses on whether the reclamation facility receiving hazardous secondary 

materials from a generator legitimately recycles such materials. Determining whether a 

recycling operation is legitimate is a fundamental basis for establishing that a generator’s 

hazardous secondary materials will not be discarded. For further discussion of legitimate 

recycling, see section VIII.

Criterion (2) is based on the second reasonable efforts question in the 2008 

transfer-based exclusion and addresses whether the facility has the necessary financial 

assurance to cover the costs of managing any hazardous secondary materials that remain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 527

if the facility closes. If a facility was found to have failed to meet the condition to have 

financial assurance, then it also would have failed to show a good faith effort towards 

demonstrating that it intends to recycle the hazardous secondary materials (or, in the case 

of the intermediate facility, properly store the hazardous secondary material) and not

discard them. Note that the second reasonable efforts question also required the generator 

to verify that the regulatory authority had been notified by the recycler under the 2008 

transfer-based exclusion, but under the verified recycler exclusion, the state or EPA can 

verify that directly, thus, it is not included here.

Criterion (3) is based on the third reasonable efforts question in the transfer-based 

exclusion and focuses on the compliance history of the recycler or the intermediate 

facility (to the extent that the hazardous secondary material generator uses an 

intermediate facility). The language of this requirement has been simplified from the 

corresponding reasonable efforts question because the information is submitted to the 

regulatory agency who already has access to the pertinent enforcement information, 

rather than obtained by the generator who would need to rely on publically-available data 

This criterion requires that the facility must either not be subject to a formal enforcement 

action in the previous three years and not be classified as a significant non-complier 

under RCRA Subtitle C, or must provide credible evidence that the facility will manage 

the hazardous secondary materials properly. 

“Formal enforcement” is a written document that mandates compliance and/or 

initiates a criminal, civil or administrative process, with or without appeal rights before a 

trial of fact that results in an enforceable agreement or order and an appropriate sanction. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 527

For EPA, formal enforcement action is a referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for the 

commencement of a criminal or civil action in the appropriate U.S. District Court, or the 

filing of an administrative complaint, or the issuance of an order, requiring compliance 

and a sanction. For states, formal enforcement action is a referral to the state’s Attorney 

General for the commencement of a criminal, civil or administrative action in the 

appropriate forum, or the filing of an administrative complaint, or the issuance of an 

order, requiring compliance and a sanction. “Significant non-complier” is a defined term 

in EPA’s Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy and means the violators 

have caused actual exposure or a substantial likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste or 

hazardous waste constituents; are chronic or recalcitrant violators; or deviate substantially 

from the terms of a permit, order, agreement, or from the RCRA statutory or regulatory 

requirements. In evaluating whether there has been actual or likely exposure to hazardous 

waste or hazardous waste constituents, EPA and the states consider both the 

environmental and human health concerns, including the potential exposure of workers to 

hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. For both terms, see EPA’s Hazardous 

Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy (Dec. 2003) at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/finalerp1203.pdf. 

While a facility being designated as a significant non-complier and/or the subject 

of a formal enforcement action does not automatically mean that the facility would not 

reclaim the hazardous secondary materials properly, it does raise questions that we 

believe the facility requesting the variance should address. That is, if any formal 

enforcement actions were taken against the facility in the previous three years for such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 527

non-compliance and the facility was alleged to be a significant non-complier, the facility

must adequately explain how it has resolved any issues or how the reclamation facility 

will properly manage the hazardous secondary materials to avoid future violations and/or 

enforcement actions.

Criterion (4) is based on the fourth reasonable efforts question from the 2008 

transfer-based exclusion and addresses the technical capability of the recycler or 

intermediate facility, the most basic requirement for ensuring proper and legitimate 

recycling of hazardous secondary materials. If a reclamation or intermediate facility was 

found to have no equipment or inadequate equipment for storing the hazardous secondary 

material or was found to have personnel who have not been trained for reclaiming the 

hazardous secondary materials, it raises serious questions as to whether the facility would 

properly manage such materials and avoid discarding them to the environment. This 

criterion also includes the addition of verifying that the facility meets the new emergency 

preparedness and response condition discussed earlier.

Criterion (5) is based on the fifth reasonable efforts question in the 2008 transferbased exclusion and addresses another major cause of environmental problems from 

recycling hazardous secondary materials: the management of residuals. This criterion

relates to discard through the concept that a generator or reclaimer may actually be 

discarding hazardous secondary materials through the release of residuals from the 

recycling process. While the product made from recycling may be a legitimate product, 

the whole recycling process could be considered discard if hazardous constituents from 

the recycled hazardous secondary materials are released to the environment. Roughly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 527

one-third of the damage cases documented in EPA’s environmental problems study were 

caused by mismanagement of the residuals from recycling. To address criterion (5), the 

petitioner would need to demonstrate that the reclamation facility has practices in place to 

ensure that residuals are managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the 

environment and according to applicable federal or state standards. 

Criterion (6) is a new standard not included in the 2008 transfer-based exclusion 

and is a case-specific performance-based criterion that addresses the risk to proximate 

populations from unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary material to the 

environment (including releases that are not covered by a permit, such as a permit to 

discharge to water or air, and may include, but are not limited to, potential releases 

through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, windblown dust, fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit failures), and must include 

consideration of potential cumulative risks from other nearby potential stressors. The 

purpose of this criterion is to specifically address the differences in the preventative 

measures between a RCRA-permitted facility as compared to a facility managing 

excluded hazardous secondary material, including the lack of prescriptive standards for

storage and containment (including air emissions standards). In addition, this criterion 

would address the finding that many of the populations likely to be proximate to 

hazardous secondary materials recycling facilities are subject to multiple environmental 

stressors, including other industrial facilities, landfills, transportation-related air 

emissions, poor housing conditions (e.g., lead-based paint), leaking underground tanks, 

pesticides, and incompatible land uses. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 527

The steps the petitioner would take to address this criterion would depend on 

case-specific circumstances. For example, a facility that is recycling a hazardous 

secondary material that is not particularly mobile in the environment (e.g., a non-liquid 

material that does not pose a risk of wind-blown dust) and is not located near population 

centers would simply need to document these facts in order to meet this criterion. On the 

other hand, a facility recycling a hazardous secondary material that is volatile, ignitable, 

or otherwise has a high potential to adversely impact nearby populations in case of a 

release would need to document the specific steps taken to prevent releases. EPA 

recommends that the petitioner engage the potentially affected community in developing 

this document to ensure that they have addressed the concerns expressed by the 

community.

E. Procedure for Obtaining a Verified Recycler Solid Waste Variance

The process for obtaining a verified recycler solid waste variance is the same as 

that for the other solid waste variances found in 40 CFR 260.30. In order to obtain a 

variance, a facility that manages hazardous secondary materials that would otherwise be 

regulated under 40 CFR part 261 as either a solid waste or a hazardous waste must apply 

to the Administrator or the authorized state per the procedures described in 40 CFR 

260.33, which EPA is amending today to apply to verified recyclers and intermediate 

facilities. The application must address the relevant criteria discussed in detail above. The 

Administrator or authorized state will evaluate the submission and issue a draft notice 

tentatively granting or denying the application. Notification of this tentative decision will 

be provided by newspaper advertisement or radio broadcast in the locality where the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 527

facility is located. The Administrator or authorized state will accept comment on the

tentative decision for 30 days and may also hold a public hearing. The Administrator or 

authorized state will issue a final decision after receipt of comments and after the hearing 

(if held). If the application is denied, the facility may still pursue a solid waste variance or 

exclusion (for example, one of the solid waste variances under 40 CFR 260.30 or solid 

waste exclusions under 40 CFR 261.4). (Note that today’s rule includes several 

modifications to the variances procedure in 40 CFR 260.33, which would also apply in 

this case. For further discussion see Section IX of today’s preamble).

F. Termination of the Exclusion

As with the generator-controlled exclusion (and the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion), units managing hazardous secondary materials excluded under the verified 

recycler exclusion are not subject to the closure regulations in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 

subpart G. However, when the use of these units is ultimately discontinued, owners and 

operators of reclamation facilities and intermediate facilities must manage any remaining 

hazardous secondary materials, including any residues that are not reclaimed, as 

hazardous waste and remove or decontaminate contaminated containment system 

components, equipment structures, and soils. These hazardous secondary materials and 

residues, if no longer intended for reclamation, would also no longer be eligible for the 

exclusion (which only applies to hazardous secondary materials that are reclaimed). 

Failure to remove these materials within a reasonable time frame after operations cease 

could cause the facility to become subject to the full Subtitle C requirements if the 

Agency determines that reclamation is no longer feasible. While this final rule does not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 527

set a specific time frame for these activities, they typically should be completed within 

the time frames established for analogous activities. For example, the requirements for 

product tanks under 40 CFR 261.4(c) allow 90 days for removal of hazardous material 

after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing. This time frame should serve as a 

guideline for regulators in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether owners and 

operators of reclamation facilities and intermediate facilities have completed these 

activities within a reasonable time frame. In any event, these hazardous secondary 

materials remain subject to the speculative accumulation restrictions in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(8), which includes both a time limitation of recycling 75% of the hazardous 

secondary material within a year and a requirement that the facility be able to show there 

is a feasible means of recycling the hazardous secondary material.

VII. Remanufacturing Exclusion

Today, EPA is also finalizing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 

higher-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of 

extending the useful life of the original solvent product by keeping such materials in 

commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product provided that 

certain conditions are met. For the purpose of this preamble discussion, EPA is defining 

this process as “remanufacturing.” Remanufacturing that conforms to these conditions 

would not involve discard, and therefore the hazardous secondary materials would not be 

regulated as solid waste. As with all recycling-related exclusions and exemptions, such 

excluded hazardous secondary materials would also need to be recycled legitimately. (A 

discussion of the public comments on the July 2011 proposal and the Agency’s responses 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 527

can be found in section XVI of this preamble and the full response to comment document 

is in the docket for the rulemaking.) 

A. Purpose of the Remanufacturing Exclusion

In finalizing this conditional exclusion, EPA’s objective is to encourage 

sustainable materials management by identifying specific types of transfers of hazardous 

secondary materials to third parties, that under appropriate conditions, do not involve 

discard and can result in extending the useful life of a commercial-grade chemical. 

Remanufacturing these higher-value hazardous secondary materials can have a 

significantly lower environmental impact than manufacturing these chemicals for a onetime use and then transferring them for disposal. Thus, remanufacturing allows the 

hazardous secondary material product to be used again, lowering their life-cycle 

environmental impacts significantly.

Specifically, EPA has determined that, under appropriate conditions, the potential 

for discard in inter-company remanufacturing transfers for certain higher-value spent 

solvents would be low because they will be incorporated into the manufacturing process 

rather than accumulated or disposed of. Once these solvents are remanufactured to 

commercial grade, they can be used as replacements for virgin commercial grade 

solvents. The economic incentive for a company receiving the spent solvents would be to 

sell or directly use (avoiding purchase of virgin product) the remanufactured solvent 

products to realize an economic value. The company sending these higher-value spent 

solvents for remanufacturing is expected to have little economic incentive to pay the 

receiving company more than a nominal amount of money, since it would already be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 527

transferring something of intrinsic market value (materials that can be easily 

remanufactured for profit). So, unlike the RCRA-permitted waste handler which can 

charge a considerable fee for receiving discarded waste, the company receiving these 

higher-value spent solvents for remanufacturing is expected to realize most of its profit 

from the sale or use of the remanufactured solvents.

Once remanufacturing processes are in place, EPA expects that solvent 

remanufacturers would be competitive with other solvent manufacturers even in the event 

of a downturn in the sizable chemical market. Companies would also have the flexibility 

to redirect remanufacturing capacity to manufacturing should it ever make economic 

sense to do so, leaving little economic reason to accumulate unsold or unused 

remanufactured solvents. 

B. Scope and Applicability

1. Designated Solvents

The conditional exclusion for remanufacturing applies to hazardous spent solvents 

that are currently regulated as hazardous wastes because their recycling involves 

reclamation. Only the following 18 spent solvents are eligible for the remanufacturing 

exclusion: toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, nhexane, cyclohexane, methyl tert-butyl ether, acetonitrile, chloroform, chloromethane, 

dichloromethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, NN-dimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, nbutyl alcohol, ethanol, and/or methanol. 

These 18 solvents are used in large volumes as chemical manufacturing aids, 

chemical processing aids, and chemical formulation aids (generally referred to as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 527

“processing aids” for the purpose of this rule). The processing aid solvents assist in the

reaction, extraction, purification, and blending of ingredients and reactive products, but 

are not themselves reacted. These processing aid solvents, once used, can then be 

remanufactured to commercial grade again. These higher-value solvents were selected 

because there are existing markets for all these solvents to be remanufactured to serve 

similar purposes to those of the original commercial-grade materials. 

Note that, as explained below, these hazardous spent solvents are only eligible if 

they are remanufactured to serve certain types of chemical functions, and if their 

originating use was of a specific type. This restriction limits the exclusion to higher-value 

materials and processes that resemble manufacturing rather than waste management.

Hazardous spent solvents are particularly appropriate for the remanufacturing 

exclusion because they are derived from a non-renewable resource (petroleum), and they 

are manufactured in the industrial chemicals sector, which, according to EPA’s report on 

sustainable materials management, ranks third overall as far as direct adverse overall 

impact to the environment.21

In addition, remanufacturing these spent solvents represents an opportunity for 

risk reduction. Risk is a function of hazard and exposure, and, from a hazard perspective, 

all of these chemicals have suspected or recognized hazardous health effects associated 

 

21U.S. EPA. 2020 Vision Report: Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead, Table 1, page 25. 

.www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/pubs/vision.htm. The other top ranked sectors are electric services (#1) 

and cotton production (#2).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 527

with their manufacture, processing, and use.22 Although EPA and industry have been 

working to find substitutes for the more hazardous of these solvents, or find ways to use 

less of them, this has not yet been fully achieved. 23,24 With respect to the pharmaceutical 

sector in particular, complex chemical processes already registered with the Food and

Drug Administration are involved, and EPA has found this a very challenging area to 

address.

In addition, some of these solvents are building block and primary intermediate 

chemicals, making them difficult to replace. Until lower-risk substitutes for these 

solvents are found, it is appropriate from a health risk standpoint to minimize the volume 

of solvents manufactured and to limit exposure to those already manufactured. This is the

intention of the remanufacturing exclusion.

The exclusion can reduce exposure to these solvents in three ways. First, the 

exclusion would extend the useful life of existing solvents, which would reduce the 

health risks associated with their manufacture by slowing the rate at which they are 

manufactured. Second, the exclusion would reduce exposure to solvents already 

manufactured by reducing the fuel blending of spent solvents. That is, remanufacturing a 

spent solvent will eliminate the need for blending it with another spent solvent to satisfy 

the fuel-ratio requirements of incinerators and cement kilns. This, in turn, will reduce the 

fugitive emissions associated with unloading and loading containers of volatile solvents 

 

22 Allen, D., Shonnard, D, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, 

Risk Concepts, chapter 2, pgs 35-62, Austin, S., US EPA Editor, Published by Prentice-Hall, 2001.

23 For information on U.S. EPA’s Green Chemistry Program, see http://www.epa.gov/gcc/.

24 Information on the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute’s Pharmaceutical 

Roundtable is available via the ACS website http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content.

Deleted: /
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 527

at fuel-blending facilities.25 Third and finally, the exclusion can reduce the potential 

exposure from any transportation incidents, since it is likely that spent solvents can be 

transported shorter distances for remanufacturing purposes than they can for disposal 

purposes.

26

2. Chemical Functions

After remanufacturing, the continuing use of the solvent is limited to reacting, 

extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the process lines 

associated with these functions), or using them as ingredients in a product in the 

pharmaceutical, organic chemical, plastics and resins manufacturing sectors, or the paint 

and coatings sector. Furthermore, the continuing use of the solvent, after 

remanufacturing, cannot involve cleaning or degreasing oil, grease, or similar material 

from textiles, glassware, metal surfaces, or other articles. 

EPA has selected these chemical functions because the remanufactured chemical 

product should serve a similar functional purpose as the original commercial-grade 

material so that it can substitute for virgin product, since it is this substitution that 

displaces some manufacturing of virgin product and fosters a system where the original 

solvent remains in commerce and is not discarded. In these functions, the solvents do not 

get contaminated by substances, such as inks and greases that are difficult to separate, but

 

25 All solvents are volatile, and virtually all spent solvents must go through the fuel-blending process prior 

to disposal (U.S. EPA, Selection of Industry Sectors, Chemicals and Functions in the Remanufacturing 

Exclusion, June 2011).

26 Id. 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: can not

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 527

only get mixed with pure product ingredients, from which they can be separated readily 

in a commercially feasible manner.

Furthermore, manufacturing and processing operations can be more easily 

controlled in terms of exposure and releases, whereas the spent solvents from 

downstream uses, such as degreasing and cleaning operations are of inherently lowervalue and these downstream operations result in more widespread exposure and releases 

and a higher potential for discard.

In addition, more environmental benefits will be obtained by maximizing the 

number of times a chemical product can be used at high-purity grade as an aid to 

chemical manufacturing and processing, before it is used for at lower-purity as a cleaner 

or degreaser. While it is possible to extend the product life of a used chemical as a 

cleaner/degreaser, it takes significantly less energy to bring solvents used as chemical 

manufacturing aids back to commercial grade than to bring solvents used as cleaners and 

degreasers back to lower grade functionality, making remanufacturing of the higher-value 

solvents more economically feasible. 

3. Manufacturing Sectors 

The remanufacturing exclusion is limited to companies whose primary business is 

manufacturing, rather than waste management, as indicated by particular NAICS codes. 

Four manufacturing sectors are eligible for the remanufacturing exclusion: 

pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), basic organic chemical manufacturing 

(NAICS 325199), plastics and resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and the paints and 

coatings manufacturing sectors (NAICS 325510). Manufacturers within these four sectors 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 527

all use one or more of the 18 identified solvents as chemical manufacturing, processing, 

and formulation aids in high volumes. Based on the Toxics Release Inventory 

information, these four sectors are also closely associated with the chemical functions 

identified in the exclusion and currently use a high volume of the solvents for the 

functional purposes included in this exclusion.27

EPA is limiting the remanufacturing exclusion to companies whose business is 

primarily manufacturing because the nature of the exclusion relies on the fact that the 

eligible spent solvents are indistinguishable from a risk perspective from the virgin 

chemicals that manufacturers in these sectors are already accustomed to handling—no 

special equipment and personal training beyond what the facility already has would be 

needed. Chemical manufacturers in these sectors are also subject to the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) standards that cover the 

management of these chemicals.

C. Conditions

Facilities operating under the remanufacturing exclusions must meet the 

following conditions.

1. Notification

Hazardous secondary material generators and remanufacturers must submit a 

notification prior to operating under the exclusion and by March 1 of each evennumbered year thereafter using EPA form 8700-12 to the EPA Regional Administrator or 

 

27 U.S. EPA, Selection of Industry Sectors, Chemicals and Functions in the Remanufacturing Exclusion, 

June 2011.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 527

the State Director, in an authorized state. Additionally, these facilities would have to 

notify within 30 days of stopping management of hazardous secondary materials under 

the exclusion. 

The intent of the notification condition is to provide basic information to the 

regulatory agencies about who will be managing the hazardous secondary spent solvents 

under the remanufacturing exclusion. The specific information included in the 

notification —that is, the information on EPA form 8700-12—enables regulatory 

agencies to monitor compliance and to ensure that the hazardous secondary spent 

solvents are managed in accordance with the exclusion and not discarded.28

2. Remanufacturing Plan

A key issue for the remanufacturing exclusion is how the facilities operating 

under the exclusion would demonstrate that they meet the requirements (e.g., that the 

hazardous spent solvents, functions, and manufacturing sectors are those identified in the 

exclusion). A straightforward solution is requiring a remanufacturing plan to be prepared 

and maintained by both the hazardous secondary material generator and remanufacturer 

that includes information on the types and expected annual quantities of excluded spent 

solvents, the processes and industry sectors that generate the spent solvents, and the 

specific uses and industry sectors—for the remanufactured solvents.

The hazardous secondary material generator is also required to make 

arrangements with the remanufacturer to jointly develop this plan and to verify the 

 

28 As with the generator-controlled exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), notification is a condition of the 

remanufacturing exclusion. See section XIV.F for further discussion.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 527

appropriateness of the hazardous spent solvents for the remanufacturing process before 

claiming the exclusion, thus helping ensure that the hazardous spent solvents will be 

remanufactured and not discarded.

Finally, to help ensure that the remanufacturer is a legitimate remanufacturer, the 

plan must include a certification from the remanufacturer stating “on behalf of [insert 

remanufacturer facility name], I certify that this facility is a remanufacturer under the 

pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), basic organic chemical manufacturing 

(NAICS 325199), plastics and resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and/or the paints 

and coatings manufacturing sectors (NAICS 325510), and will accept the spent solvent(s) 

for the sole purpose of remanufacturing into commercial-grade solvent(s) that will be 

used for reacting, extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the 

process lines associated with these functions) or for use as product ingredients. I also 

certify that the remanufacturing equipment, vents, and tanks are equipped with and are 

operating air emission controls in compliance with CAA regulations under 40 CFR part 

60, part 61 or part 63,29 or, absent such CAA standards for the particular operation or 

piece of equipment covered by the remanufacturing exclusion, are in compliance with the 

appropriate standards in 40 CFR part 261 subparts AA (vents), BB (equipment) and CC 

(tank storage).” 

One of the issues raised in the comments was concern that the remanufacturing 

plan would stifle competitiveness by locking the generator into a single remanufacturer 

 

29 This condition is parallel to the provisions found at 40 CFR 264.1030(e) for AA, 40 CFR 264.1064(m) 

for BB, and 40 CFR 264.1080(7) for CC.

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 527

for their hazardous spent solvents. That was not the Agency’s intention, and EPA would 

like to clarify that the remanufacturing plan can be updated any time to reflect a new 

remanufacturer without triggering a re-notification requirement on the part of the 

generator. (If the new remanufacturer has not notified before, then he would need to do 

so under the exclusion.) As long as the remanufacturing plan that is kept on-site reflects 

the current practices, including making sure that there is a remanufacturer that will accept 

the hazardous spent solvents, the generator would be in compliance with this condition.

3. Record of Shipments and Confirmation of Receipts

Under the remanufacturing exclusion, generators and remanufacturers need to 

maintain at the facility records of shipments of hazardous spent solvents for a period of 

three years. Specifically, for each shipment of hazardous spent solvent, the generator and 

remanufacturer need to maintain documentation of when the shipment occurred, who the 

transporter was, and the type and quantity of the hazardous spent solvent in the shipment. 

This recordkeeping requirement may be fulfilled by ordinary business records, such as 

bills of lading.

In addition, generators must maintain confirmations of receipt for all off-site 

shipments of hazardous spent solvent in order to verify that the hazardous spent solvent 

reached their intended destination and were not discarded. These receipts must be 

maintained at the facility for a period of three years from when they were created. 

Specifically, the documentation of receipt would include the name and address of the 

remanufacturer, and the type and quantity of hazardous spent solvents and date that the 

hazardous spent solvents were received. The Agency is not requiring a specific template 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 527

or format for confirmation of receipt since routine business records (e.g., financial 

records, bills of lading, and electronic confirmation of receipt) would contain the 

appropriate information sufficient for meeting this requirement. 

This provision is necessary so all parties responsible for the excluded hazardous 

spent solvent would be able to demonstrate that the materials were in fact sent for 

remanufacturing and arrived at the intended facility and were not discarded in transit.

4. Management in Tanks and Containers

Basic good management practices dictate that solvents, whether virgin or spent, 

are best stored in tanks or containers that possess inherent controls to address issues, such 

as volatile air emissions, leaks, and fires or explosions. Solvents present particular 

management challenges associated with the storage of liquids containing volatile organic 

chemicals and include both halogenated and non-halogenated organic chemicals, which 

represent a broad range of chemicals and associated hazards. 

By focusing on higher-value spent solvents going to remanufacturing, the 

remanufacturing exclusion reduces the chance of mismanagement of the spent solvents. 

However, given the history of spent solvent mismanagement, as demonstrated in the 

damage cases found in environmental problems study, EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to make an explicit condition that spent solvents excluded under the 

remanufacturing exclusion be stored prior to remanufacturing in tanks or containers that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 527

are labeled and that meet technical standards that will ensure the hazardous spent solvents 

will go to remanufacturing and will not be discarded via leaks, spills or explosions.30

For ease of implementation, EPA is establishing explicit tank and container 

standards in 40 CFR part 261 subparts I and J. These technical standards are the same as 

those found in 40 CFR part 264 subparts I and J, except that the part 261 subparts I and J

specify that the material is “hazardous secondary material” rather than hazardous waste,

omit references to RCRA permitting requirements, and include other minor conforming 

changes, as discussed below. Although the 40 CFR part 264 tank and container standards 

were developed for hazardous wastes, an analysis of the full set of technical requirements 

under subparts I and J shows that they are comparable to product storage standards, 

including regulations promulgated under OSHA, DOT, and industry standards.31 In 

addition to being comparable to product storage standards, technical standards that mirror

subparts I and J of 40 CFR part 264 have the benefit of being technical standards that the 

regulated community is familiar with, and are designed to prevent the spent solvents from 

being discarded through leaks or explosions. 

During remanufacturing and storage prior to remanufacturing, good management 

practices also include effective controls of hazardous air emissions. Under the 

remanufacturing exclusion, this is ensured by requiring that the remanufacturer certifies, 

as part of the remanufacturing plan, that the remanufacturing equipment, vents, and tanks 

are equipped with and are operating air emission controls in compliance with CAA 

 

30U.S. EPA, An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary 

Materials (Updated), December 2012.

31 U.S EPA Equivalent Containment Standards for the Remanufacturing Exclusion, June 2011.

Deleted: they

Deleted: and

Deleted: have been removed
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 527

regulations under 40 CFR part 60, part 61 or part 63.32 Absent such CAA standards for 

the particular operation or piece of equipment covered by the remanufacturing exclusion, 

then the appropriate standards in 40 CFR part 261 subparts AA (vents), BB (equipment) 

and CC (tank storage), which are equivalent to the technical standards found in 40 CFR 

part 264 and 265 subparts AA, BB, and CC, would apply.

The air emission requirements on remanufacturing equipment, vents, and tanks 

will ensure that the remanufactured solvents do not become discarded through fires and 

explosions, guard against the volatilization of hazardous spent solvents, and protect 

workers, handlers and transporters from spent solvent emissions. EPA notes that most 

manufacturers in the pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), basic organic 

chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins manufacturing (NAICS 

325211), and the paints and coatings manufacturing sectors (NAICS 325510) will already 

have their solvent management practices covered under the CAA regulations, but for any 

remanufacturer that is not covered under CAA, 40 CFR part 261 subparts AA, BB, and 

CC will ensure that they meet good management practices appropriate for solvent 

management.

In modifying the tank and container standards and the air emission standards to 

apply specifically to solvents being remanufactured under the remanufacturing exclusion, 

EPA has made other minor conforming regulatory changes to 40 CFR part 261. These 

changes include (1) reserving certain subparts, such as subparts K though Z, in order to 

 

32 This condition is parallel to the provisions found at 40 CFR 264.1030(e) for subpart AA, 40 CFR 

264.1064(m) for subpart BB, and 40 CFR 264.1080(7) for subpart CC. Deleted: (`
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 527

maintain the same numbering as is found in part 264 for the tank and container standards 

and the air emission standards, (2) codifying 40 CFR 261.197 to address termination of 

the remanufacturing exclusion (rather than closure, as is required in part 264), and (3) 

deleting references to the uniform hazardous waste manifest in 40 CFR 261.1086 because 

manifest requirements are not applicable under the remanufacturing exclusion. 

5. Prohibition on Speculative Accumulation

In addition to the other conditions, hazardous spent solvents under the 

remanufacturing exclusion are subject to the speculative accumulation restrictions in 40 

CFR 261.1(c)(8). Speculative accumulation ensures that the hazardous spent solvents are 

remanufactured and not discarded.

D. Closure of Tank Units 

Units managing excluded hazardous spent solvent are not subject to the closure 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 subpart G. However, when the use of these units 

is ultimately discontinued, all owners and operators must manage any remaining 

hazardous spent solvents that are not remanufactured as hazardous waste and remove or 

decontaminate all hazardous residues and contaminated containment system components, 

equipment structures, and soils. These hazardous spent solvents and residues, if no longer 

intended for remanufacturing, would also no longer be eligible for the exclusion (which 

only applies to materials that will be remanufactured) and would therefore be hazardous 

waste. These systems would be subject to the requirements for product tanks under 40 

CFR 261.4(c), which allow 90 days for removal of hazardous material after the unit 

ceases to be operated for manufacturing.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 527

E. Petition Process for Additional Remanufacturing Exclusions

As EPA noted in the 2011 DSW proposal, it is possible that other hazardous 

secondary materials, industry sectors, and/or functional uses beyond those being finalized 

today may also be suitable candidates for the remanufacturing exclusion if they involve 

the transfer of a higher-value hazardous secondary material from one manufacturer to 

another, for the purpose of remanufacturing a material with significant commercial value. 

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA requested comment on whether to also include a 

specific petition process, similar to 40 CFR 260.20, where petitioners may apply to EPA 

to request a hazardous secondary material, industry sector, and/or functional use be added 

to the exclusion.

After reviewing the comments, EPA has determined that a separate rulemaking 

petition process is not necessary and that the current process in 40 CFR 260.20, including 

the administrative procedure for processing the petition would be the best vehicle for 

addressing additional hazardous secondary materials, industry sectors, and/or functional 

uses to the remanufacturing exclusion. Given the variety of hazardous secondary 

materials, manufacturing processes, and markets for potential remanufactured materials, a 

general process gives the most flexibility for petitioners to submit information on 

potential excluded materials.

In addition, the Agency would like to encourage the research, development, and 

demonstration of innovative recycling processes that could be used to recover highervalue hazardous secondary materials. Therefore EPA encourages companies to explore 

using the existing regulatory flexibilities, such as treatability study exemptions in 40 CFR 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 527

261.4(e) and (f) and research development and demonstration permits allowed under 40 

CFR 270.65, to assess and develop recycling technologies to facilitate remanufacturing of 

higher-value materials.

In submitting a rulemaking petition under 40 CFR 260.20, petitioners must 

include (1) the petitioner’s name and address, (2) a statement of the petitioner’s interest 

in the proposed action, (3) a description of the proposed action, including (where 

appropriate) suggested regulatory language, and (4) a statement of the need and 

justification for the proposed action, including any supporting tests, studies, and other 

information. With respect to the fourth factor, EPA would encourage petitioners to 

provide any information they believe demonstrates that their hazardous secondary 

material is suited for a solid waste exclusion under the remanufacturing exclusion. Below 

are some considerations that may assist petitioners in developing their petitions; however, 

these are guidelines only and should not constrain suggested rulemaking revisions if the 

petitioner otherwise has information that the hazardous secondary material should be 

excluded from regulation.

(1) Is the hazardous secondary material generated from a manufacturing process 

that results in minimal contamination, and does the hazardous nature of the hazardous 

secondary material stem chiefly from the inherent nature of the commercial product that 

is to be recovered, and not from any contamination?

For example, the remanufacturing exclusion being promulgated today is focused 

on materials that originated from using commercial grade solvents for reacting, 

extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the process lines 

Deleted: develop
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 527

associated with these functions) in the pharmaceutical manufacturing, organic chemical 

manufacturing, plastics and resins manufacturing, or paint and coatings sector. As a 

result, the solvents in question are only lightly contaminated, chiefly with other 

commercial-grade chemicals or minor impurities. Moreover, because the hazardous 

nature of the material stems from the recycled product (or at least a significant portion of 

the recycled product) and not from the contamination, the remanufacturing exclusion 

helps reduce overall risk by keeping hazardous chemicals in commerce, rather than 

discarding them.

(2) Does the hazardous secondary material present a similar risk profile as an 

analogous raw material or product and require no special storage or handling beyond 

what is normally used for the analogous raw material or product?

For example, the spent solvents eligible for the remanufacturing exclusion present 

the same risk profile as solvent products. The same tanks, containers, and transportation 

standards that are used for solvent products also work for the spent solvents intended for 

remanufacturing.

(3) Is there any special equipment or personnel training required for the 

remanufacturing of the material or for the management of the residuals?

For example, under the remanufacturing exclusion being promulgated today, the 

same distillation columns used to manufacture solvents from raw materials can be used to 

remanufacture spent solvents. The still bottoms generated from both processes can be 

managed in a similar fashion.

Deleted: Are

Deleted: no

Deleted: residual
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 527

(4) Is the market for the remanufactured product stable enough to ensure that 

neither the hazardous secondary material nor the remanufactured products are overaccumulated?

For example, the remanufacturing exclusion being promulgated today focuses on 

solvents that are known to be widely used in a variety of industries for the purposes 

described.

VIII. Revisions to the Definition of Legitimacy and Prohibition of Sham Recycling

EPA has a long-standing policy that all recycling of hazardous secondary 

materials must be legitimate, including both excluded recycling and the recycling of 

regulated hazardous wastes. The legitimacy provision in today's final rule is designed to 

distinguish between real recycling activities—legitimate recycling—and “sham” 

recycling, an activity undertaken by an entity to avoid the requirements of managing a 

hazardous secondary material as a hazardous waste. Because of the economic advantages 

in managing hazardous secondary materials as recycled materials rather than as 

hazardous wastes, there is an incentive for some handlers to claim they are recycling 

when, in fact, they are conducting waste treatment and/or disposal.

In this final rulemaking, EPA is codifying in its regulations the requirement that 

all recycling must be legitimate by adding a prohibition on sham recycling to 40 CFR 

261.2(g). In addition, EPA has changed the definition of legitimate recycling in § 260.43. 

The new definition specifies four factors that must be met for recycling to be legitimate. 

However, it also provides new ways that a facility can show that it meets factors 3 and 4 

of the legitimacy standard. 

Deleted: is
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 527

The four legitimacy factors are as follows:

 Factor 1: Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that 

provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product or 

intermediate of the recycling process.

 Factor 2: The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate.

 Factor 3: The generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous secondary 

material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control.

 Factor 4: The product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate 

product or intermediate.

A. Background

Under the RCRA Subtitle C definition of solid waste, many existing hazardous 

secondary materials are not solid wastes and, thus, are not subject to RCRA's cradle to 

grave management system if they are recycled. The basic idea behind this construct is 

that recycling of such materials often more closely resembles normal industrial 

manufacturing than waste management. However, since there can be significant cost 

savings from managing hazardous secondary materials outside the RCRA Subtitle C 

regulatory system, some handlers may claim that they are recycling, when, in fact, they 

are conducting waste treatment and/or disposal in the guise of recycling. For example, a 

facility whose primary business was mixing electric arc furnace dust (K061) with 

agricultural lime for sale as a micronutrient lost its customers and could not sell its 

product, but continued to accept K061 even though there was no prospect of it being used 

to produce a product. To guard against practices like these, EPA has long articulated the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 527

need to distinguish between “legitimate” (i.e., true) recycling and “sham” (i.e., fake) 

recycling, beginning with the preamble to the 1985 regulations that established the 

definition of solid waste (50 FR 638, January 4, 1985).

The prohibition on sham recycling being finalized in this rulemaking is consistent 

with the Agency's longstanding policy and interpretation of legitimate recycling that has 

been expressed in those earlier preamble discussions and policy statements. The January

4, 1985, preamble to the definition of solid waste regulations established EPA's concept 

of legitimacy and described several indicators of sham recycling. A similar discussion 

that addressed legitimacy as it pertains to burning hazardous secondary materials for 

energy recovery was presented in the preamble to the January 8, 1988, proposed 

amendments to the definition of solid waste (53 FR 522).

On April 26, 1989, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) issued a memorandum that 

consolidated preamble statements concerning legitimate recycling that had been 

articulated previously into a list of criteria to be considered in evaluating legitimacy 

[OSWER directive 9441.1989(19)]. This memorandum, known to many as the 

“Lowrance Memo,” has been a primary source of guidance for the regulated community 

and for implementing agencies in distinguishing between legitimate and sham recycling 

for many years. The October 2003 and March 2007 DSW proposals and the October 

2008 DSW final rule also all include extensive discussions of EPA’s legitimacy policy. 

In the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA promulgated a codified legitimacy requirement 

for the specific exclusions in that rulemaking. Today’s final rule expands that legitimacy 

requirement to all hazardous secondary material recycling, as the Agency proposed to do 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 527

in the July 22, 2011, proposal (76 FR 44094). Section VIII.B discusses these final 

legitimacy provisions and describes the requirements. Section VIII.C discusses the 

changes EPA made from the proposed regulations. A discussion of the public comments 

on the July 2011 proposal and Agency responses can be found in section XVII of this 

preamble and the full response to comment document is in the docket for the rulemaking.

B. Legitimate Recycling Provisions Being Finalized

This section discusses the rationale and the requirements being finalized in this 

rulemaking for ensuring that all recycling of hazardous secondary material is legitimate.

1. Legitimacy for All Recycling

In today’s final rule, EPA is retaining its long-standing policy that all recycling of 

hazardous secondary materials must be legitimate. If a facility is engaged in sham 

recycling, this, by definition, is not real recycling and that hazardous secondary material 

is being discarded and is a solid waste. Today, we are codifying that the legitimate 

recycling provision applies to all hazardous secondary materials that are excluded or 

exempted from Subtitle C regulation because they are recycled and that it also applies to 

recyclable hazardous wastes that remain subject to the hazardous waste regulations. 

However, instead of changing the language of each recycling exclusion or exemption to 

include the requirement as we proposed in the 2011 DSW proposal, we have instead 

added language in § 261.2(g) that specifically prohibits sham recycling to ensure that all 

recycling, including recycling under the pre-2008 exclusions is legitimate (i.e., real 

recycling). We have also determined that documentation of legitimacy is not necessary or 

Deleted: XVIII

Deleted: discussed
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 527

required for the pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions, except in the rare case 

where the recycling is legitimate, but does not meet factor 4.

EPA has determined that the four legitimacy factors being codified in 40 CFR 

260.43 are substantively the same as the existing legitimacy policy. These factors are a 

simplification and clarification of the policy statements in the 1989 Lowrance Memo and 

in various DSW Federal Register notices. This policy is well understood throughout the

regulated community and among the state implementing agencies. By providing one 

standard of legitimacy for all recycling, the Agency expects there will be more clarity, 

consistency, and predictability for making legitimate recycling determinations. Having

one standard in the regulations will also lead to increased knowledge and understanding 

of the basic requirement that any recycling must be legitimate, leading to better 

implementation and enforcement of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

In developing the codified legitimacy language, we did not intend to raise 

questions about the status of general legitimacy determinations that underlie existing 

exclusions from the definition of solid waste (e.g., the solid waste exclusions in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)), or about case-specific determinations that have already been made by EPA or 

the states. Current exclusions and other prior solid waste determinations or variances that 

are based on the hazardous secondary material being legitimately recycled, including 

determinations made in letters of interpretation and inspection reports, remain in effect.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns with the application of the codified 

legitimacy factors to these existing waste-specific and industry specific exclusions. In 

particular, as we noted in the October 2003 DSW proposal and the March 2007 DSW 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 527

supplemental proposal, EPA has examined in depth a number of waste-specific and 

industry-specific recycling activities and has promulgated specific regulatory exclusions 

or provisions that address the legitimacy of these practices in much more specific terms 

than the general legitimacy factors as described in 40 CFR 260.43.

EPA expects that the vast majority of recycling being performed under these 

existing exclusions is currently being undertaken conscientiously and would be 

considered legitimate under the new legitimacy provision with no further action required 

on the part of the company. If a company is meeting the conditions of its exclusion while 

managing the hazardous secondary material responsibly and using it to make a legitimate 

product, that company would not have to change any of its existing business practices or 

otherwise take action to show that its recycling meets the legitimacy factors. EPA is not 

requiring documentation of compliance with the four legitimacy factors, except in the 

case where the recycling does not meet factor 4 on its face, but the facility believes that 

its recycling operation is nonetheless legitimate. Many of the measures the companies 

take in order to meet the terms of the conditional exclusions or to follow best

management practices are the same actions that indicate that a recycling process is 

legitimate. These measures and business practices were generally evaluated as part of the 

original legitimacy determination by the agency, and therefore employment of those or 

similar practices indicated legitimate recycling as addressed by the original legitimacy 

determinations.

One example is the regulation for zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous 

secondary materials. If the hazardous secondary material recycled under the exclusion Deleted: In
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 527

contains recoverable amounts of zinc, which provides a useful contribution to the 

recycled product (factor 1) and results in a valuable product, i.e., zinc micronutrient 

fertilizer (factor 2), EPA would consider these legitimacy factors to be met. In addition, 

under the exclusion, the generator and recycler must manage the zinc-containing 

hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity (factor 3), that is, in compliance 

with 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(B): Store the excluded secondary material in tanks, containers, or 

buildings that are constructed and maintained in a way that prevents releases of the 

secondary materials into the environment. At a minimum, any building used for this 

purpose must be an engineered structure made of non-earthen materials that provide 

structural support, and must have a floor, walls and a roof that prevent wind dispersal and 

contact with rainwater. Tanks used for this purpose must be structurally sound and, if 

outdoors, must have roofs or covers that prevent contact with wind and rain. Containers 

used for this purpose must be kept closed except when it is necessary to add or remove 

material, and must be in sound condition. Containers that are stored outdoors must be 

managed within storage areas that: (1) have containment structures or systems 

sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills and accumulated precipitation; and (2) 

provide for effective drainage and removal of leaks, spills and accumulated precipitation; 

and (3) prevent run-on into the containment system. Finally, in the zinc fertilizer 

regulation, among the requirements established by EPA are specific numerical limits on 

five heavy metal contaminants and dioxins in the zinc fertilizer product at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(21). If the zinc fertilizer product meets these concentrations, the product would Deleted: Other examples are
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 527

meet factor 4 (assuming other hazardous secondary contaminants have not been added to 

the product).

Another example is shredded circuit boards excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(14). 

Shredded circuit boards that contain recoverable metals that provide a useful contribution 

to the product of the recycling process (factor 1) and go to a recycling process that

produces a valuable metal product (factor 2) would meet these legitimacy factors. In 

addition, under the exclusion, the shredded circuit boards must be stored in containers 

sufficient to prevent a release to the environment prior to recovery (factor 3) and must be 

free of mercury switches, mercury relays and nickel-cadmium and lithium batteries

(factor 4).

Another example is hazardous secondary materials recycled in a “closed-loop” 

production process under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8). Under this exclusion, the hazardous 

secondary material is reused within the production process from which it came, thus

providing a useful contribution to the product (factor 1) and also producing a valuable 

product or intermediate (factor 2) (assuming that the production process is, by definition,

producing a product). Since the closed-loop exclusion requires tank storage and that the 

entire process through completion of reclamation is closed by being entirely connected 

with pipes and other comparable enclosed means of conveyance, this management would 

be considered to meet factor 3, management of the hazardous secondary material as a 

valuable commodity. The product of this type of recycling process would be comparable 

to a legitimate product or intermediate because the hazardous secondary materials being 

Deleted: ), which

Deleted: , and comparable fuels excluded 

Deleted: 16),
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 527

recycled are returned to the original process from which they were generated to be reused 

(factor 4).

Another example is spent wood preserving solutions and wastewaters that have 

been reclaimed and reused onsite in the production process for their original intended 

purpose under § 261.4(a)(9). Reclaimed wood preservatives that are used to treat wood 

would be making a useful contribution to the product (factor 1) and would produce a 

valuable product (factor 2). The conditions of the exclusion include a requirement that 

they are managed to prevent releases, and include specific standards for drip pads that 

manage the material (factor 3). The product of this type of recycling process would be 

comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate because the hazardous secondary 

materials being recycled are returned to the original process from which they were 

generated to be reused (factor 4).

Another example is the long-standing exclusion for excluded scrap metal 

(processed scrap metal, unprocessed home scrap metal, and unprocessed prompt scrap 

metal) being recycled (40 CFR 261.4(a)(13)). Excluded scrap metal that contains 

recoverable metals would provide a useful contribution to the product of the recycling 

process (factor 1) and, as long as the recycling process produces a valuable metal product 

(factor 2), the recycling would meet the first two legitimacy factors. If the recycler uses 

appropriate handling and good management practices to store and manage the excluded 

scrap metal to prevent releases of hazardous secondary materials to the environment, the 

recycler would generally meet factor 3 for managing the scrap metal as a valuable 

commodity. 

Deleted: must meet 

Deleted: levels for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 527

EPA notes that managing scrap metal as a valuable commodity can include 

situations where it is stored on the ground. Scrap metal stored on the ground is subject to 

occasional precipitation runoff that consists essentially of water, with trace amounts of 

hazardous constituents. As long as the hazardous secondary material itself is not swept 

away by the runoff, this transport via precipitation runoff would not generally be a 

concern. However, if metal dust, debris and pieces of scrap metal were released into the 

environment, for example, by metal falling into a waterway (as has happened in one 

damage case documented by EPA), this would not be considered managed as a valuable 

commodity. Finally, as long as the recovered metal meets widely-recognized commodity 

standards/specifications for the metal product, factor 4 would be satisfied. 

The conditions developed for the recycling exclusions in § 261.4(a) were found to 

be necessary under material-specific rulemakings that determined when the particular 

hazardous secondary material in question is not a solid waste. When EPA originally made 

the decision that these materials are not solid waste, the Agency took into account the 

relevant factors about the hazardous secondary materials, including how the material was 

managed and what toxic chemicals were present.

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA explicitly did not reopen comment on any 

substantive provisions of the previous recycling exclusions or exemptions and facilities 

with pre-2008 exclusions can generally follow the normal good business practices that 

were considered when the exclusions were granted and still be considered to be 

legitimate recycling. If the facility is complying with the terms of the exclusion and 

following industry best practices to engage in legitimate recycling activity, this would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 527

generally not raise questions as to its legitimacy. All these examples support EPA’s 

determination that most current recycling under existing exclusions is legitimate, and that 

companies complying with the conditions of exclusions would generally not need to take 

action to show that their recycling meets the legitimacy factors.

However, at the same time, these material-specific exclusions from the definition 

of solid waste do not negate the basic requirement that the hazardous secondary material 

must be legitimately recycled. Recycling that is not legitimate is not recycling at all, but 

rather “sham recycling”—discard in the guise of recycling. Regarding the existing 

exclusions in the regulations, EPA acknowledges that, in establishing a specific 

exclusion, we have already determined in the rulemaking record that the specific 

recycling practice is excluded from the definition of solid waste provided all the 

conditions of the rule are met. However, the Agency has always enforced its rules on the 

basis that any recycling must be legitimate (See U.S. v. Self, 2 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (10th Cir. 

1993); U.S. v Marine Shale Processors, 81 F. 3d 1361, 1366 (5th Cir. 1996): Marine 

Shale Processors v. EPA, 81 F. 3d 1371, 1381-83 (5th Cir. 1996)). This is meant to 

prevent a company from claiming to be operating under an existing exclusion and simply 

using that as a way to avoid full RCRA Subtitle C regulation.

For example, under EPA’s historic guidance, a facility could not plausibly claim 

the zinc fertilizer product exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(21) for a hazardous secondary 

material that contained absolutely no or minimal levels of zinc, even if all the conditions 

of the zinc fertilizer exclusion were met. The exclusion was developed to encourage 

legitimate recycling of zinc-containing hazardous secondary materials and the legitimacy 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 527

provision prevents hazardous waste from being discarded into purported fertilizer in the 

name of recycling when the hazardous secondary material provides no recognizable 

benefit to the product. 

Similarly, if a facility accepted zinc-containing hazardous waste, claiming to 

make zinc fertilizer, but failed to produce a product that was actually sold or was 

otherwise valuable, such a process would not be legitimate recycling in the historic 

legitimacy guidance, even if the management conditions and the constituent levels in the 

zinc fertilizer exclusion were met. The consequences of the latter example are illustrated 

in one of the damage cases in the environmental problems study. A facility whose 

primary business was mixing electric arc furnace dust (K061) with agricultural lime for 

sale as a micronutrient lost its customers and could not sell its product. However, the 

facility continued to accept K061, and, after approximately seven months, the facility had 

accepted over 60,000 tons of this hazardous waste and stored it on the ground in piles up 

to 30 feet high, with no prospect of it being used to produce a product and, thus, 

legitimately recycled. While the initial recycling of the K061 hazardous waste was 

legitimate, when the facility failed to produce a product that was actually sold, the K061 

could no longer be considered legitimately recycled. Even if the recycler were to claim 

that the material may be recycled at some point in the future, the material was being 

speculatively accumulated and thus, a solid and hazardous waste at that point.

In summary, all hazardous secondary materials recycling and hazardous waste 

recycling, whether such recycling remains under hazardous waste regulations or is 

excluded from the definition of solid waste, must be legitimate. This has been our long-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 527

standing policy and it is well known throughout the regulated community and the 

implementing state regulatory agencies. To reinforce that concept and make it clear in the 

regulations, we are today codifying our policy that hazardous secondary materials being 

sham recycled are discarded and thus, are solid waste. To do this, EPA has decided to 

codify the following statement in § 261.2 (the definition of solid waste) instead of adding 

a reference to legitimacy in each of the recycling exclusions and exemptions (as was 

suggested in the proposed rule): “A hazardous secondary material found to be sham 

recycled is considered discarded and a solid waste. Sham recycling is recycling that is not 

legitimate recycling as defined in § 260.43.”

For persons interested in an in-depth analysis of the evolution of EPA’s concept 

of legitimate recycling from policy and preamble statements to regulations, EPA 

provided this analysis in the 2008 DSW final rule that described how the promulgated 

legitimacy factors compare to the previous primary guidance on legitimacy and the 

Lowrance Memo. EPA continues to maintain that the legitimate recycling provision is 

substantively the same as existing policy because we developed the legitimacy factors in 

40 CFR 260.43 by closely examining the questions and sub-questions in the Lowrance 

Memo and in the Federal Register preambles and converting them into four more direct 

factors. For a detailed explanation of how each of the four factors is derived from the 

Lowrance Memo and other existing policy statements, see 73 FR 64708 –64710, October 

30, 2008.

2. All Factors Mandatory
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 527

The structure of the legitimacy standard codified in the 2008 DSW final rule 

(specifically for the exclusions promulgated in that rulemaking) had two parts. The first 

part included a requirement that hazardous secondary materials being recycled must 

provide a useful contribution to the recycling process or to the product of the recycling 

process and a requirement that the product of the recycling process must be valuable. At 

the time, EPA considered those two factors to make up the core of legitimacy and, 

therefore, a process that did not conform to them could not be a legitimate recycling 

process, but would be considered sham recycling. The second part of legitimacy in the 

2008 DSW final rule included two factors that must be considered, but not necessarily 

met, when a recycler is making a legitimacy determination. In this final rule, the Agency 

is changing the structure and the application of the legitimate recycling provision so that 

all four factors are written as mandatory requirements that must be met, except as 

otherwise noted. The Agency has determined that this action will improve the 

effectiveness and protectiveness of the legitimacy provision. The Agency’s experience 

with implementing the legitimate recycling structure finalized in the 2008 DSW final rule 

has led us to this realization. Even though we stressed the importance of considering each 

factor in the 2008 DSW final rule, some stakeholders continue to be under the mistaken 

impression that the factors defined as “to be considered” were actually optional and could 

be ignored. We made it clear in the 2008 DSW final rule that failing to meet a “nonmandatory” factor could, in some cases, be enough to determine that a recycling process 

is not legitimate. We did not intend for the “to-be-considered” factors to be less important 

and thus, have determined that the only way to correct this perception and give these 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 527

factors the proper weight is to make them requirements that must be met, except as 

otherwise noted, on equal footing with the other legitimacy factors.

However, to address concerns raised, both factor 3 (managed as a valuable 

commodity) and factor 4 (products must have comparable levels of hazardous 

constituents) have been revised from the 2008 DSW final rule to add flexibility to address 

situations where the recycling is legitimate, but the specific situation might not meet the 

legitimacy factor . For example, under factor 3, we proposed and are finalizing the 

following language to more closely reflect the intent of the provision: “Where there is an 

analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material, must be managed, at a 

minimum, in a manner consistent with the management of the raw material or in an 

equally protective manner.” Thus, a generator or recycler would meet this factor if their 

hazardous secondary material is stored in a different manner than the analogous raw 

material, as long as that storage is as protective as the way the analogous raw material is 

stored.

Under factor 4, we have also added more explanation and flexibility for situations 

where there is no analogous product to compare to the product made from hazardous 

secondary materials. For example, in some cases, the Agency will consider a product of a 

recycling process that meets widely-recognized commodity standards/specifications, such 

as scrap metal, to meet factor 4. Within factor 4, the Agency is also creating a provision 

for hazardous secondary materials that are recycled by being returned to the original 

process from which they were generated, such as in a closed-loop recycling process, to 

Deleted: original

Deleted: as proposed
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 527

meet the factor. The specific changes to factor 3 and factor 4 are described in greater 

detail below. 

In making all legitimacy factors mandatory requirements, the first sentence of the 

regulatory language of both factors was revised to indicate that these factors must be met. 

For factor 3, the first sentence now reads as follows: “The generator and the recycler 

must manage the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under 

their control.” For factor 4, the first sentence now reads as follows: “The product of the 

recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate.”

In the 2011 DSW proposal, we proposed a petition process for facilities that 

believe their recycling is legitimate despite not meeting one or both of these two factors.

After review and consideration of the public comment on this issue, the Agency has 

decided that instead of a petition process, facilities that do not meet factor 4 and yet are 

still legitimately recycling must notify the Regional Administrator (or State Director, if 

the state is authorized) and keep documentation and a certification in their files 

explaining how the recycling is still legitimate.33 See section VIII.B.6 below for a full 

discussion of the documentation and notification process under factor 4.

3. Factor 1: Useful Contribution—§ 260.43(a)(1)

(1) Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous 

secondary material that provides a useful contribution to 

 

33 As noted above, and as described in more detail in Section VIII.B.6, products of a recycling process that 

meet widely-recognized commodity standards/specifications and hazardous secondary materials that are 

recycled by being returned to the original process from which they were generated are considered to meet 

factor 4 of the legitimacy standard. 

Deleted: .”
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 527

the recycling process or to a product or intermediate of the 

recycling process. The hazardous secondary material 

provides a useful contribution if it:

(i) Contributes valuable ingredients to a product or 

intermediate; or

(ii) Replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling process; 

or

(iii) Is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in the 

recycling process; or

(iv) Is recovered or regenerated by the recycling process; 

or

(v) Is used as an effective substitute for a commercial 

product.

This factor expresses the principle that hazardous secondary materials must 

contribute value to the recycling process. Providing a useful contribution is an essential 

element to legitimate recycling because real or legitimate recycling is not occurring if the 

hazardous secondary material being added or recovered does not add to the process. This 

factor is intended to prevent the practice of adding a hazardous secondary material to a 

recycling process simply as a means of disposing of it, or recovering only small amounts 

of a constituent, which EPA would consider sham recycling.

Paragraphs (i) through (v) of § 260.43(a)(1) list five ways that a hazardous 

secondary material can provide a useful contribution: (i) contributing valuable ingredients 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 527

to a product or intermediate; (ii) replacing a catalyst or carrier in the recycling process; 

(iii) providing a valuable constituent to be recovered; (iv) being regenerated; or (v) being 

used as an effective substitute for a commercial product. Any one of these can 

demonstrate that the hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution.

An important note in applying this factor is that not every constituent or 

component of the hazardous secondary material has to make a contribution to the 

recycling activity to meet the useful contribution factor. For example, a legitimate 

recycling operation involving precious metals might not recover all of the components of 

the hazardous secondary material, but would recover precious metals with sufficient 

value to consider the recycling process legitimate. In addition, the recycling activity does 

not have to involve the hazardous component of the hazardous secondary materials if the 

value of the contribution of the non-hazardous component justifies the recycling activity. 

One example of this factor from an existing exemption is where hazardous secondary 

materials containing large amounts of zinc, a non-hazardous component, are recycled into 

zinc micronutrient fertilizers. However, in cases where the hazardous component is not 

being used or recycled, the Agency stresses that the recycler is responsible for the proper

management of any hazardous residuals of the recycling process.

In a situation where more than one hazardous secondary material is used in a 

single recycling process and the hazardous secondary materials are mixed or blended as a 

part of the process, each hazardous secondary material would need to satisfy the useful 

contribution factor. This requirement prevents situations where a worthless hazardous 

secondary material could be mixed with valuable and useful hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 527

materials in an attempt to disguise and dispose of it. In addition, a situation in which 

hazardous secondary materials that can be useful to a process, but are added to that 

process in much greater amounts than needed to make the end-product or to otherwise 

provide its useful contribution, would also be sham recycling.

Another way the usefulness of the hazardous secondary material's contribution 

could be demonstrated is by looking at the efficiency of the material's use in the recycling 

process—that is, how much of the constituent in a hazardous secondary material is 

actually being used. As an example, if there is a constituent in the hazardous secondary 

material that could add value to the recycling process, but, due to process design, most of 

it is not being recovered, but is being disposed of in the residuals, this would be a 

possible indicator of not meeting this factor and thus, could be sham recycling. However, 

this consideration must take the actual process being considered into account as there are 

certainly recycling scenarios where a low recovery rate could still be legitimate. For 

example, under an existing exclusion, if the concentration in a metal-bearing hazardous 

secondary material is low (e.g., 2-4%) and a recycling process was able to recover a large 

percentage of the target metal, this factor could be met and the recycling may be 

legitimate (depending on the outcome of the analysis of the other legitimacy factors).

When evaluating a hazardous secondary material’s useful contribution, the 

process can be compared to typical industry recovery rates from raw materials to 

determine if the recycling process is reasonably efficient. This method should involve an 

examination of the overall process, not just a single step of the process. For example, if 

one step in the process recovers a small percentage of the constituent, but the overall 

Deleted: %‒
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 527

process recovers a much larger percentage, the Agency would consider the overall 

efficiency of the recycling process in determining whether hazardous secondary materials 

are providing a useful contribution.

4. Factor 2: Valuable Product or Intermediate—§ 260.43(a)(2)

The recycling process must produce a valuable product or 

intermediate. The product or intermediate is valuable if it 

is: (i) sold to a third party or (ii) used by the recycler or the 

generator as an effective substitute for a commercial 

product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial 

process.

This factor expresses the principle that the product or intermediate coming out of 

the recycling process should be a material of value, either to a third party who buys it 

from the recycler, or to the generator or recycler itself, who can use it as a substitute for 

another material that it would otherwise have to buy or obtain for its industrial process. 

Legitimate recycling is not occurring if the product or intermediate from the process is 

not of use to anyone and, therefore, is not a real product. This factor is intended to 

prevent the practice of running a hazardous secondary material through an industrial 

production process to make something just for the purpose of avoiding the costs of 

hazardous waste management, rather than for the purpose of using the product or 

intermediate of the recycling activity. Such a practice would be sham recycling.

For the purpose of this factor, a recyclable product may be considered “valuable” 

if it can be shown to have either economic value or intrinsic value to the end user. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 527

Evaluations of “valuable” for the purpose of this factor should be done on a case-by-case 

basis, but one way to determine that the recycling process yields a valuable product 

would be if the product of the recycling process is sold to a third party. This transaction 

could include money changing hands or, in other circumstances, may involve trade or 

barter. A recycler that has not yet arranged for the sale of its product to a third party 

could establish value by demonstrating that it can replace another product or intermediate 

that is available in the marketplace. A product of the recycling process may be sold at a 

loss in some circumstances, but the recycler should be able to demonstrate how the 

product is clearly valuable to the purchaser.

EPA also knows that many recycling processes produce outputs that are not sold 

or traded to another party, but are instead used by the generator or recycler. A product of 

the recycling process may be used as a feedstock in a manufacturing process, but have no 

established monetary value in the marketplace. Such recycled products or intermediates 

would be considered to have intrinsic value, though it might be less straightforward in 

this situation to demonstrate value if it is necessary to do so. Demonstrations of intrinsic 

value could involve showing that the product of the recycling process or intermediate 

replaces an alternative product that would otherwise have to be purchased or could 

involve a showing that the product of the recycling process or intermediate meets specific 

product specifications or specific industry standards. Another approach could be to 

compare the product or intermediate's physical and chemical properties or efficacy for 

certain uses with those of comparable products or intermediates made from raw 

materials.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 527

Some recycling processes may consist of multiple steps that may occur at separate 

facilities. In some cases, each processing step will yield a valuable product or 

intermediate, such as when a metal-bearing hazardous secondary material is processed to 

reclaim a precious metal and is then put through another process to reclaim a different 

mineral. When each step in the process yields a valuable product or intermediate that is 

salable or usable in that form, the recycling activity would conform to this factor.

Like the other factors, this factor should be examined and evaluated on a case-bycase basis looking at the specific facts of a recycling activity. If, for instance, a recycling 

activity produces a product or intermediate that is used by the recycler itself, but does not 

serve any purpose and is just being used so that the product or intermediate appears 

valuable, that would be an indicator of sham recycling. An example of this would be a 

recycler that reclaims a hazardous secondary material and then uses that material to make 

blocks or building materials for which it has no market and then “uses” those building 

materials to make a warehouse in which it stores the remainder of the building materials 

that it is unable to sell.

5. Factor 3: Managed as a Valuable Commodity—§ 260.43(a)(3)

The generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous 

secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is 

under their control. Where there is an analogous raw 

material, the hazardous secondary material must be 

managed, at a minimum, in a manner consistent with the 

management of the raw material or in an equally protective 

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 527

manner. Where there is no analogous raw material, the 

hazardous secondary material must be contained. 

Hazardous secondary materials that are released to the 

environment and are not recovered immediately are 

discarded.

This factor expresses the principle that hazardous secondary materials being 

recycled should be managed in the same manner as other valuable materials. This factor 

requires those making a legitimacy determination to look at how the hazardous secondary 

material is managed before it enters the recycling process. In EPA's view, a recycler will 

value hazardous secondary materials that provide an important contribution to its process 

or product and, therefore, will manage those hazardous secondary materials in a manner 

consistent with how it manages a valuable feedstock. If, on the other hand, the recycler 

does not manage the hazardous secondary materials as it would a valuable feedstock, the 

hazardous secondary materials might not be recycled, but rather released into the 

environment and discarded, thereby indicating sham recycling.

This factor may be particularly important in the case where a recycler has been 

paid by a generator to take its materials as a result of the economic incentives in the 

hazardous secondary materials market. By looking at the management of the hazardous 

secondary material before it enters the recycler's process, the entity making the 

legitimacy determination can tell that a material being managed like an analogous raw 

material is, in fact, valued by the recycler. If the hazardous secondary material is not 

being managed like a valuable raw material because it is uncontrolled or is being 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 527

released, that indicates that the fee the recycler obtains for taking the hazardous 

secondary material may be its only value to that recycler. If the fee received were the 

only value to the recycler, it could mean that discard was taking place.

This factor addresses the management of hazardous secondary materials in two 

distinct situations. The first situation is when a hazardous secondary material is 

analogous to a raw material which it is replacing in the process. In this case, the 

hazardous secondary material should be managed prior to recycling similarly to the way 

the analogous raw materials are managed in the course of normal manufacturing, or in an 

equally protective manner. 

EPA expects that all parties handling hazardous secondary materials destined for 

recycling—generators, transporters, intermediate facilities and reclamation facilities—

will handle them in generally the same manner in which valuable raw materials would 

otherwise be handled if used in the process. “Analogous raw material” is a raw material 

for which the hazardous secondary material substitutes and which serves the same 

function and has similar physical and chemical properties as the hazardous secondary 

material.

EPA proposed and is finalizing an addition to the language of this factor as 

compared to the 2008 DSW final rule to include the words “or in an equally protective 

manner.” This change means that a recycling process would meet this factor if the 

hazardous secondary material is stored in a different manner than the analogous raw 

material as long as that storage was as protective as the way the analogous raw material 

was stored. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 527

For example, a hazardous secondary material in powder form that is shipped in a 

woven super sack in good condition (i.e., that does not leak or spill) and stored in an 

indoor containment area would be considered managed “in an equally protective manner” 

as an analogous raw material that is shipped and stored in drums. 

In addition, managing a hazardous secondary material in a manner consistent with 

the management of an analogous raw material can include situations where the raw 

material and the hazardous secondary material (e.g., scrap metal) are both stored on the 

ground. 

The second situation the factor addresses is the case where there is no analogous 

raw material that the hazardous secondary material is replacing. This could be either 

because the process is designed around a particular hazardous secondary material—that 

is, the hazardous secondary material is not replacing anything—or it could be because of 

physical or chemical differences between the hazardous secondary material and the raw 

material that are too significant for them to be considered “analogous.”

Hazardous secondary materials that have significantly different physical or 

chemical properties when compared to the raw material would not be considered 

analogous even if they serve the same function because it may not be appropriate to 

manage them in the same way. In this situation, the hazardous secondary material would 

have to be contained for this factor to be met. The term “contained” as discussed in 

section V of this preamble, means that the unit in which the material is stored is in good 

condition, with no leaks or releases to the environment, and that the unit is designed to 

prevent such releases. In addition, to meet the contained standard, the unit must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 527

labeled or have a system to identify the hazardous secondary material in it and must not 

hold incompatible materials or pose a risk of fires. Hazardous secondary materials in 

units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 are presumed to 

be contained. Land-based units can meet the definition of contained.

The requirement that a hazardous secondary material be contained when there is 

no analogous raw material to compare it to is consistent with the idea that normal 

manufacturing would ensure that the valuable material inputs are managed properly, 

rather than allow them to be released into the environment.

An example of when this provision would be used would be if a manufacturer 

decided to replace a dry raw material in its process with a liquid having the same 

constituents. It would not be sufficient, nor would it make sense, for the liquid to be 

managed in supersacks, like a dry material might. Instead, the liquid would have to be 

contained (for example, in a tank or container).

An important part of this factor is the statement in the regulatory text clarifying 

that hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are not 

recovered immediately are discarded. Valuable feedstocks or products should not be 

allowed to escape into the environment through poor management and this factor clarifies 

that those hazardous secondary materials that are released (and are not immediately 

recovered) are clearly discarded and a solid waste. Either a large release or ongoing 

releases of smaller amounts could indicate that, in general, the hazardous secondary 

material is not being managed as a valuable product, which could indicate sham 

recycling. Hazardous secondary materials that are immediately recovered before they 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 527

disperse into the environment—air, soil, or water—and are reintroduced in the recycling 

process are not discarded. This determination on factor 3 must be made on a case-by-case 

basis, however.

In EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule, this factor was one of the two factors that was “to 

be considered” rather than one of the two mandatory factors because EPA believed that 

there may be some situations in which this factor was not met, but the recycling was still 

legitimate. With the addition of the language clarifying that the materials can be managed 

in a different way than the analogous raw material as long as that management system is 

equally protective, EPA has determined that there is no reason that a facility that is 

legitimately using a hazardous secondary material that has value to them in a recycling 

process would not meet this factor. EPA's intent with this factor is that hazardous 

secondary materials are managed in the same manner as materials that have been 

purchased or obtained at some cost, as raw materials are. Just as it is good business 

practice to ensure that raw materials enter the manufacturing process rather than being 

spilled or released, we would expect hazardous secondary materials to be managed 

effectively and efficiently in order that their full value to the manufacturing process 

would be realized.

6. Factor 4: Comparison of Toxics in the Product—§ 260.43(a)(4)

The product of the recycling process must be comparable to 

a legitimate product or intermediate:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 527

(i) Where there is an analogous product or intermediate, the 

product of the recycling process is comparable to a 

legitimate product or intermediate if: 

(A) The product of the recycling process does not exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic (as defined in part 261 subpart C) 

that analogous products do not exhibit, and 

(B) The concentrations of any hazardous constituents found 

in Appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter that are in the 

product or intermediate are at levels that are comparable to 

or lower than those found in analogous products or at levels 

that meet widely-recognized commodity standards and 

specifications, in the case where the commodity standards

and specifications include levels that specifically address 

those hazardous constituents. 

(ii) Where there is no analogous product, the product of the 

recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or 

intermediate if: 

(A) The product of the recycling process is a commodity 

that meets widely recognized commodity standards and 

specifications (e.g., commodity specification grades for 

common metals), or
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 527

(B) The hazardous secondary materials being recycled are 

returned to the original process or processes from which 

they were generated to be reused (e.g., closed loop 

recycling). 

(iii) If the product of the recycling process has levels of 

hazardous constituents that are not comparable to or unable 

to be compared to a legitimate product or intermediate per 

subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of this paragraph, the recycling still 

may be shown to be legitimate, if it meets the requirements 

specified below. The person performing the recycling must 

conduct the necessary assessment and prepare 

documentation showing why the recycling is, in fact, still 

legitimate. The recycling can be shown to be legitimate 

based on lack of exposure from toxics in the product, lack 

of the bioavailability of the toxics in the product, or other 

relevant considerations which show that the recycled 

product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents 

that pose a significant human health or environmental risk. 

The documentation must include a certification statement 

that the recycling is legitimate and must be maintained onsite for three years after the recycling operation has ceased. 

The person performing the recycling must notify the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 527

Regional Administrator of this activity using EPA Form 

8700-12. 

This factor requires that those making a legitimacy determination look at the 

concentrations of the hazardous constituents found in the product made from hazardous 

secondary materials and, except where otherwise specified, compare them to the 

concentrations of hazardous constituents in analogous products. A product that contains 

high levels of hazardous constituents that originate in a hazardous secondary material 

feedstock could indicate that the recycler incorporated hazardous constituents into the 

final product when they were not needed to make that product effective as a way to avoid 

proper disposal of that material, which would be sham recycling. This factor, therefore, is 

designed to determine when toxics that are “along for the ride” are discarded in a final 

product and the hazardous secondary material is not being legitimately recycled.

As proposed, factor 4 was unsatisfactory to many of the stakeholders of this 

rulemaking. Many representatives from the industrial sector argued that they would not 

be able to meet factor 4 or would not be able to easily know if they met factor 4. EPA had 

expected that a small number of facilities would have this concern and had proposed a 

petition process to address this problem, but many commenters argued that petitions 

would take a long time to be processed, creating uncertainty in the industrial sector, and 

that a petition process would be a drain on state and industry resources. 

As a result of comments received on the proposal, EPA has made some revisions 

to this factor to ensure that long-standing legitimate recycling processes will still be 

considered legitimate under this factor. The requirements that are being promulgated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 527

today are described in full below and include different requirements for when there is an 

analogous product and when there is not, provisions for using widely-recognized 

commodity standards and specifications to meet this factor, a provision to address 

recycling that includes hazardous secondary materials being put back into the process 

from which they came, and a documentation, certification and notification process for 

facilities that cannot meet these requirements, but still believe their recycling is 

legitimate. A full description of how the requirement being finalized differs from what 

was proposed in the 2011 DSW proposal can be found in section VIII.C.3 of the 

preamble.

In addition to these changes, EPA has also retained the proposed language of this 

factor that states that the concentrations of hazardous constituents in the product of the 

recycling process must be “comparable to” or lower than those found in analogous 

products. This is a change from the 2008 DSW final rule, which used language stating 

that the concentrations of hazardous constituents should not be “significantly higher” 

than concentrations in analogous products. 

Factor 4 starts with the statement that the product of the recycling process made 

from hazardous secondary materials must be comparable to a legitimate product or 

intermediate. It is important to note that the comparison that EPA is requiring here 

involves the product that comes out of a recycling process. That is, a recycler will 

ordinarily compare the product of the recycling process to an analogous product made of 

raw materials. For example, if a recycling process produces paint, the levels of hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 527

constituents in the paint will be compared with the levels of the same constituents found 

in similar paint made from virgin raw materials.

However, a recycler is also allowed to perform this evaluation by comparing the 

hazardous constituents in the hazardous secondary material feedstock with those in an 

analogous raw material feedstock. If the hazardous secondary material feedstock contains 

concentrations of hazardous constituents that are comparable to or lower than the 

concentrations in the raw material feedstock, then the end product of the recycling 

process would not contain excess hazardous constituents “along for the ride” either. This 

method of showing that the product meets factor 4 is acceptable. There may be cases in 

which it is easier to compare feedstocks than it is to compare products because the 

recycler knows that the hazardous secondary material is very similar in profile to the raw 

material. A comparison of feedstocks may also be easier in cases where the recycler 

creates an intermediate which is later processed again and may end up in two or more 

products, when there is no analogous product, or when production of the product of the 

recycling process has not yet begun. Note, however, that EPA is allowing other ways to 

make the comparable demonstration in cases where there is no analogous product, as 

described below in section VIII.B.6.b. 

a. Factor 4 when there is an analogous product. Paragraph 260.43(a)(4)(i) describes how 

a facility can meet factor 4 when the recycled product can be compared to an analogous 

product that is made without the use of hazardous secondary material as a feedstock. 

First, the product of the recycling process cannot exhibit any of the hazardous 

characteristics that analogous products do not exhibit. Most issues associated with “toxics 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 527

along for the ride” involve the presence of hazardous constituents rather than the 

characteristics of hazardous waste. It is possible, however, that the use of hazardous 

secondary materials as an ingredient could cause a product to exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic, such as corrosivity, that is not exhibited by analogous products. 

The hazardous characteristics are found in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C and are 

used to identify those materials that are hazardous wastes, but that EPA has not 

specifically listed in part 261 subpart D. The characteristics are ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity. The toxicity characteristic includes a list of 40 contaminants and 

the levels at which the material would be considered hazardous waste when tested using 

the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. If a product produced with hazardous 

secondary material exhibited a characteristic of hazardous waste that an analogous 

product did not exhibit, this would be an indication that sham recycling could be 

occurring as a significant hazardous constituent or characteristic would be in the product 

only as a result of the recycling of the hazardous secondary material. This requirement is 

in § 260.43(a)(4)(i)(A). In most cases, a recycler will be familiar enough with the 

material it is producing to be able to easily determine whether it would meet any of these 

characteristics, but if there are any questions, the methods for testing for the 

characteristics are found in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C. 

In addition to this requirement, the product of the recycling process must also 

meet § 260.43(a)(4)(i)(B). This paragraph can be met in two ways. The first way is if the 

concentrations of any hazardous constituent (as defined by Appendix VIII to part 261) 

that is in the recycled product is comparable to or lower than those found in analogous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 527

products. This provision is what EPA proposed in the 2011 DSW proposal, which

included a discussion of how meeting product specifications could indicate that a 

recycling process is legitimate, as well as a request for comments on how EPA should 

determine what “comparable” levels of hazardous constituents are when determining the 

legitimacy of a recycling process. In response to comments received on this point, EPA 

has added to this paragraph that the product of the recycling process would be 

comparable if it meets widely-recognized commodity standards that include levels that 

specifically address the hazardous constituents that are in the product. 

As stated above, the first part of § 260.43(a)(4)(i)(B) is similar to the provision 

that EPA proposed in the 2011 DSW proposal. In this provision, EPA has decided to 

finalize language replacing the terms “significant” and “significantly elevated,” which 

were promulgated in the 2008 DSW final rule, with the phrase “comparable to or lower” 

because it more clearly reflects the intent of this factor. “Comparable to or lower than” 

means that any contaminants present in the product made from hazardous secondary 

materials are present at levels at or lower than the levels contained in an analogous 

product, or if higher, would be within a small acceptable range. This language is 

consistent with the Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid 

Wastes final rule (76 FR 15456, March 21, 2011). However, we are not changing the 

basic meaning of this factor. Operationally, the terms “comparable” and “not significant” 

or “not significantly elevated” are the same for hazardous secondary materials recycling 

and the examples the Agency provided in the 2008 DSW final rule preamble that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 527

explained how the Agency envisions this factor working are still appropriate. Those 

examples are repeated here.

 If paint made from reclaimed solvent contains significant amounts of 

cadmium, but the same type of paint made from virgin raw materials does 

not contain cadmium, it could indicate that the cadmium serves no useful 

purpose and is being passed though the recycling process and discarded in 

the product. Thus, the levels of cadmium would not be considered 

“comparable” and the paint would fail this legitimacy factor, unless the 

recycler can conduct the necessary analysis and prepare documentation 

stating why the recycling is still legitimate. In addition, the recycler would 

need to certify and provide notice to the implementing agency of this 

activity.

 If a lead-bearing hazardous secondary material was reclaimed and then 

that material was used as an ingredient in making ceramic tiles and the 

amount of lead in the tiles was significantly higher than the amount of lead 

found in similar tiles made from virgin raw materials, the recycler should 

look more closely at the factors to determine the overall legitimacy of the 

process. The significantly higher levels of lead may indicate that the 

recycled product is not comparable to an analogous product and, thus, the 

recycling process is really a sham. Alternatively, the recycler may be able 

to demonstrate the recycling is still legitimate even though it does not 

contain lead at comparable levels by, for example, showing the toxics are 

Deleted: .

Deleted: meet factor 4
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 527

not bioavailable. If this is the case, the recycler would need to document 

the analysis and certify the legitimacy of the recycling practice, as well as 

provide notice to the implementing agency. 

 If zinc galvanizing metal made from hazardous secondary materials that 

are reclaimed contains 500 parts per million (ppm) of lead, while the same 

zinc product made from raw materials typically contains 475 ppm, the 

levels would be considered comparable since they are within a small 

acceptable range and, thus, the product would meet this factor. If, on the 

other hand, the lead levels in the zinc product made from reclaimed 

hazardous secondary materials were considerably higher, these levels may 

not be comparable, and would require the recycler to look more closely at 

this factor since it may indicate that the product was being used to illegally 

dispose of the lead and that the activity is sham recycling, unless the 

recycler can conduct the necessary assessment and prepare documentation 

stating why the recycling is still legitimate. In addition, the recycler would 

need to certify and provide notice to the implementing agency of this 

activity. 

 If a “virgin” solvent contains no detectable amounts of barium, while 

spent solvent that has been reclaimed contains a minimal amount of

barium (e.g., 1 ppm), this difference would likely be considered 

comparable. 

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 527

The second part of § 260.43(a)(4)(i)(B) relies not on a comparison of levels of 

hazardous constituents between a product of the recycling process and an analogous 

product, but on the product of the recycling process meeting widely-recognized 

commodity standards and specifications. In this case, meeting a widely-recognized 

standard and specification would indicate that the recycling is legitimate if that standard 

and specification includes levels for the hazardous constituents that are found in the 

product of the recycling process. 

EPA decided that using a product’s ability to meet product specifications as an 

indicator of legitimate recycling would make the determination of legitimate recycling 

straight-forward in many cases where the product of the recycling is clearly a commodity 

in wide use in commerce. Although not spelled out in the regulatory language used in the 

2008 DSW final rule, consideration of whether the product of a recycling process meets 

quality specifications has been part of the legitimacy determination since the Lowrance 

Memo in 1989, which included several questions to this effect as part of its determination 

of whether there is a guaranteed market for the product (i.e., Are there industry 

recognized product specifications for the product? Is it listed in industry news letters? Is 

the reclaimed product a recognized commodity?). Including this provision on product 

specifications as part of this final rulemaking will limit uncertainty from recyclers about 

whether their processes are legitimate. 

However, despite the value of product standards, EPA did not want to state that 

meeting any product specification was an indicator of legitimacy because any recycler 

could design its own specification and point to that as a way to circumvent the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 527

requirement. Therefore, this requirement requires that the commodity standards being 

met be widely-recognized. By “widely-recognized commodity standard,” EPA means a 

standard that is used throughout an industry to describe a certain product and that is 

widely-available to anyone producing the product. A specific example of such a widelyrecognized standard agency would be ASTM International, which has standards covering 

a wide variety of manufactured goods.34 However, for specialty batch chemical 

manufacturers or other types of specialty manufacturing where widely-recognized 

commodity standards are not available, customer specifications would be sufficient.

In addition, for this part of factor 4, the commodity standards and specifications 

being referenced must specifically address those hazardous constituents that may be 

different between the analogous product and the product generated from using the 

hazardous secondary material in the recycling process. EPA is making this explicit in the 

regulations to avoid a situation in which a product from a process that is recycling 

hazardous secondary materials meets a widely-recognized product specification, but does 

not include any levels for the hazardous constituents that are in the hazardous secondary 

material. A product specification could have been developed without any thought that the 

feedstock for that product might include some hazardous constituents that could be toxic 

to human health and the environment and, therefore, not include them. We are concerned 

with the potential that the analogous product could be substituted with the recycled 

 

34 ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 

develops and delivers international voluntary consensus standards. Its web site states that 12,000 ASTM 

standards are used around the world to improve product quality, enhance safety, facilitate market access 

and trade, and build consumer confidence. http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/aboutASTM.html
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 527

product without full disclosure of potential toxics that may be in the recycled product. 

Using a standard or specification that does not address the hazardous constituents of 

concern to demonstrate meeting factor 4 of the legitimacy requirements where there is an 

analogous product would ignore the primary concern of this factor and would allow 

elevated levels of toxics from the hazardous secondary material into the final product.

b. Factor 4 when there is no analogous product. Commenters on EPA’s 2011 DSW 

proposal expressed concern that, in many cases of hazardous secondary materials 

recycling, there may not be an analogous product with which a facility can compare the 

product of the recycling process. Commenters described recycling processes that were 

designed to use a specific hazardous secondary material to make a useful product and 

processes that always incorporated a hazardous secondary material back into the 

generating process during manufacturing. Paragraph 260.43(a)(4)(ii) describes how a 

facility can meet factor 4 in these situations. 

EPA had not previously identified a separate methodology for meeting factor 4 in 

the situation where there is no analogous product, but the support in the comments in 

response to EPA’s request for input on the use of product specifications made it clear that 

this approach could be effective in the case where there is no analogous product. 

Therefore, EPA is stating in § 260.43(a)(4)(ii)(A) that a product of the recycling process 

is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate when “the product of the recycling 

process is a commodity that meets widely-recognized commodity standards and 

specifications.” EPA gives the example in the regulatory text of commodity specification 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 527

grades for common metals, which would be relevant to scrap metal recyclers, among 

other metal recyclers.

As stated above for paragraph (A), EPA decided that using a product’s ability to 

meet product standards and specifications as an indicator of legitimate recycling would 

make the determination of legitimate recycling more straight-forward in many cases 

where the product of the recycling is clearly a commodity in wide use in commerce. This 

would limit uncertainty from recyclers about whether their processes are legitimate. 

However, despite the value of product standards and specifications, EPA did not 

want to state that meeting any product standard or specification was an indicator of 

legitimacy because any recycler could design its own specification and point to that as a 

way to circumvent the requirement. Therefore, this requirement requires that the 

commodity standards and specifications being met be widely-recognized. By “widelyrecognized commodity standard and specification,” EPA means a standard or 

specification that is used throughout an industry to describe a certain product and that is 

widely-available to anyone producing the product. A specific example of such a widelyrecognized standard agency would be ASTM International, which has standards covering 

a wide variety of manufactured goods. Note, for this part of factor 4, the commodity 

standard or specification must be widely recognized, but would not necessarily address a 

specific hazardous constituent, since there is no analogous product to compare it to. EPA 

has determined that recycled products that do not have analogous products can “stand 

alone” in that they are not substitutes for virgin products and thus, either succeed or fail 

based on their inherent characteristics, including any hazardous constituents contained 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 527

therein. Therefore, EPA has determined that market forces appropriately dictate whether 

these types of recycled products meet the technical provisions of factor 4.

EPA also wanted to address the situation in which a manufacturing process 

produces a hazardous secondary material that is then recycled back into the process from 

which they were generated. In some cases, the product is always manufactured using this 

kind of feedback loop and, therefore, there is no analogous product with which it can be 

compared. EPA has included in today’s final rule a provision that states that when 

“hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or 

processes from which there were generated to be reused, the product of the recycling 

process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate.” That is, in those 

situations, the recycling process meets factor 4.

Recycling that takes place under EPA’s closed loop recycling exclusion at §

261.4(a)(8) would be an example of manufacturing that would consistently include the 

hazardous secondary material being returned to the original process from which it was

generated and that would meet the legitimacy factors being discussed here. Another 

situation about which commenters expressed concern was mineral processing to produce 

primary metals, because these processes always include materials looping back into the 

process to ensure that all the valuable metals that can be extracted from the ore are being 

collected for use. For example, in precious metals production, hazardous secondary 

materials from various stages in the process contain concentrations of both precious 

metals and hazardous constituents that are higher than concentrations in ore. The 

concentrations of hazardous constituents and precious metals in these hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 527

secondary materials vary depending on the makeup of the ore from which they came. In 

order to glean the most valuable product from processing the ore, these hazardous 

secondary materials are routinely put back into the production units that process the 

virgin materials and are put through the process again. Commenters from the precious 

metals industry argued in their comments that they consider this legitimate recycling of 

secondary materials (that may be hazardous) and that because of the variation in the 

makeup of the materials going back into the process, determining whether factor 4 has 

been met would be difficult. Thus, EPA has determined that the recycling process in 

these situations—that is, in which the hazardous secondary material is returned to the 

original production process, or the processes from which it was generated—would meet 

factor 4.

EPA has determined that recycling hazardous secondary materials in this manner 

is not a concern as far as “toxics along for the ride” are concerned because the hazardous 

secondary materials came out of the very same process and contain the same hazardous 

constituents that are already in the manufacturing process. These hazardous constituents 

originated in the raw materials of the process that are being used with or without the 

recycling loop. Prohibiting the recycling of hazardous secondary materials in these 

situations because of factor 4 would not be changing the amount or nature of hazardous 

constituents in the product that comes out of the manufacturing process. In addition, that 

kind of prohibition would be misguided from a resource conservation perspective 

because it could limit the recycling of these materials back into a process, which leads to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 527

a more efficient process and therefore conserves the use of raw materials in 

manufacturing.

c. Documentation, certification and notice process for factor 4. EPA designed the 

provisions above to make it more clear how a material can meet factor 4. In addition, they 

provide additional flexibility to this factor, where it makes environmental and economic 

sense. These added provisions address most of the comments that EPA received stating 

that a particular sector or industry would have trouble meeting factor 4. 

EPA recognizes, however, that despite these changes, there may still be instances 

where recycling is legitimate, but is unable to meet the technical provisions of factor 4 as 

it is written because the product of the recycling process has levels that are not 

comparable to analogous products or because the product of the recycling process cannot 

be compared to an analogous product, but does not fit under § 260.43(a)(4)(ii).35

It is critical that the legitimacy regulations be flexible enough to allow for 

situations like this, particularly with the regulations applying to all recycling. In this final 

rulemaking, EPA has replaced the petition process that it proposed in the 2011 DSW 

proposal with a documentation, certification and notice process for factor 4. 

Specifically, when a recycling facility has determined that it must take advantage 

of the documentation, certification and notice process, either because the product of the 

recycling process has levels that are not comparable to analogous products or because the 

product of the recycling process cannot be compared to an analogous product (and §

 

35 Note that a recycling facility can also compare the hazardous constituents in the hazardous secondary 

material to an analogous feedstock, if that approach works better for a particular recycling process. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 527

260.43(a)(4)(ii) does not apply), it must determine that its recycling process is legitimate 

despite the levels of hazardous constituents in the product. The regulatory text for this 

provision explains that in doing this analysis, the facility making the determination can 

consider “lack of exposure from toxics in the product, lack of the bioavailability of the 

toxics in the product, or other relevant considerations which show that the recycled 

product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents that pose a significant human 

health or environmental risk.”

A consideration of lack of exposure from the toxics in a product would involve an 

assessment of the process to determine if the hazardous constituents are likely to come 

into contact with humans or the environment in a way that will harm them. For example, 

a product that is more of an intermediate in a recycling process and stays within an 

industrial setting where it is contained and where everyone coming into contact with it is 

familiar with any hazards that it poses could be considered a candidate for this 

certification because there is limited exposure to human health and the environment from 

the product. A consumer product, on the other hand, that will be leaving an industrial 

setting and entering the market where certain hazardous constituents may not be expected 

and may not have limited exposure to human health and the environment is unlikely to be 

eligible for this exception to factor 4. 

For example, as previously explained in the 2008 DSW final rule and the 2011 

DSW proposed rule, EPA has determined that the reuse of lead contaminated foundry 

sands may or may not be legitimate, depending on the use. The use and reuse of foundry 

sands for mold making in a facility's sand loop using a non-thermal reclamation process 

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 527

under normal industry practices has been found to be legitimate because the sand is part 

of an industrial process where there is little chance of the hazardous constituents being 

released into the environment or causing damage to human health and the environment 

when it is kept inside, because there is lead throughout the foundry's process, and because 

there is a clear value to reusing the sand, even though the levels of hazardous constituents 

in the sands may not be comparable to the analogous product. However, in the case of 

lead contaminated foundry sand used as children's play sand, the same high levels of lead 

would disqualify this use from being considered legitimate recycling.

An assessment of lack of the bioavailability of toxics in the product could be a 

more complicated analysis that would examine whether the hazardous constituents in the 

final product are bound up with the other constituents in such a way that they would not 

be released when coming into contact with humans or the environment over the lifetime 

of the product. Although this would be a sophisticated assessment, a facility wishing to 

perform this kind of analysis to inform a legitimacy determination under this certification 

process can do so. 

EPA has included the phrase “other relevant considerations which show that the 

recycled product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents that pose a significant 

human health or environmental risk” in the regulation to account for other situations that 

may arise. An example that was submitted in the comments to the proposal that could be 

an “other relevant consideration” in making this determination is when the reclaimed 

product contains compounds that are not in analogous products, but the products exhibit 

similar physical and chemical risk profiles and therefore are not posing an increased risk. 

Deleted: analysis

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 527

There may be other considerations regarding factor 4 like these that could also be 

relevant to the legitimacy of a recycling process; however, the Agency thinks these are 

limited. 

After determining that its process is still legitimate, the recycling facility would 

prepare documentation explaining its assessment. This should take the form of a 

description of the process in question and an explanation of the analysis performed to 

determine legitimacy, including any relevant diagrams and flow charts, as well as any 

relevant sampling data. In addition, the documentation must include a certification 

statement that states that recycling is legitimate and that is signed by the responsible 

official at the recycling facility. The language for the certification is not mandated in the 

regulations, but an acceptable example would be “I certify that the hazardous secondary 

recycling process described in these pages is a legitimate recycling process.” 

The documentation and certification of legitimate recycling would have to be 

maintained or available on-site for as long as the recycling process is operating at the site 

and for three years after the recycling operation has ceased.

In addition to preparing and maintaining this documentation, the recycling facility 

would notify its Regional Administrator (or State Director, in authorized states) that it is 

taking advantage of this provision by reporting the type of hazardous secondary material 

and the recycling process being used to produce a product with elevated levels of 

hazardous constituents (or a product that has no widely-known commodity standards for 

the hazardous constituents) through EPA Form 8700-12, otherwise known as the Site ID 

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 527

form.36 When a facility documents, certifies, and submits notice under factor 4, it is 

addressing factor 4 for the purposes of the introductory language of § 260.43, which 

requires that all requirements of the paragraph be addressed.

EPA has decided to finalize this self-implementing certification process rather 

than the proposed petition process to reduce burden on facilities who are taking 

advantage of this provision, as well as on the regulatory agencies implementing the 

regulations. Because this requirement for documentation and a certification that must be 

maintained on-site does not include an approval process, facilities do not have to wait for 

any decisions from their implementing agencies about whether their recycling is 

legitimate. 

However, the notification aspect of the legitimacy regulations being finalized 

today adds some limited, but important, oversight to a process that would otherwise be 

taking place out of sight of the regulating agencies all together, that is, the decision that a 

recycling process that does not meet factor 4 is still legitimate. The notification gives 

EPA and the authorized states information about which recycling facilities are producing 

products from recycled hazardous secondary materials that have elevated levels of 

hazardous constituents when compared to non-recycled products (or are producing 

recycled products that have no non-recycled analogue and no widely recognized 

commodity specifications). This notification facilitates oversight and inspections of the 

 

36 EPA will revise EPA form 8700-12 to incorporate this notification. In the interim, persons may notify 

using the “Comments” box on the form.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 527

recycling facility concerning the legitimacy of the recycling process, allowing EPA and 

authorized states to continue to use existing authorities to determine whether the 

recycling is legitimate.

EPA has chosen this approach because it maintains the self-implementing nature 

of the regulations, while providing enough information to EPA and the authorized states 

to gather the necessary information. In these ways, this approach addresses the main 

concerns raised by the stakeholders in the comments to this rulemaking. 

A facility that claims to be operating a recycling process that is legitimate under 

this provision could be subject to an enforcement action if the Agency determines that the 

recycling is sham. As always, a facility with questions about the regulated status of its 

hazardous secondary material can contact its implementing agency for assistance in 

making a waste determination.

C. Changes from the Proposal

1. Prohibition of Sham Recycling

In today’s final rule, EPA is codifying the requirement that all hazardous 

secondary material recycling must be legitimate. However, instead of amending the text 

of each recycling exemption and exclusion, we are instead codifying a provision in §

261.2(g) that states that any hazardous secondary material found to be sham recycled is 

discarded and thus, a solid waste. This more clearly reflects our intent and our longstanding policy that only those facilities truly recycling should be eligible for an 

exclusion based on recycling the hazardous secondary materials. We did not intend to 

cause facilities that are legitimately recycling to revisit their practices or for state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 527

agencies to revisit past legitimacy determinations. However, we do want to make clear 

that sham recycling is not real recycling and thus, any hazardous secondary material 

being sham recycled is a solid and potentially a hazardous waste. By making a clear 

statement in the definition of solid waste, the Agency is placing the appropriate emphasis 

on this issue, that is, that sham recycling is discard. 

2. Documentation

When the Agency codified the legitimacy standard in the 2008 DSW final rule, 

we did not require specific documentation regarding the legitimacy determination, 

although the regulatory language stated that persons claiming to be excluded from 

hazardous waste regulation because they are engaged in reclamation must be able to 

demonstrate that the recycling is legitimate. In the 2011 DSW proposal, we proposed to 

require that persons who perform recycling include documentation in their paperwork to 

explain how their hazardous secondary materials are legitimately recycled. 

After reviewing the public comments, we have decided that, as a general matter, 

documentation of legitimacy is not necessary for most hazardous secondary materials 

recycling. Instead, we will continue to rely on the current provision in § 261.2(f) that 

requires respondents to demonstrate that the material is not a waste. Section 261.2(f) 

requires persons claiming that materials are not solid waste or are conditionally exempt 

from RCRA Subtitle C regulation to provide appropriate documentation of these claims.

However, we are finalizing two exceptions to the general case where 

documentation of legitimate recycling is not required. The first is that we are finalizing a

requirement for facilities reclaiming hazardous secondary materials under the control of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 527

the generator, that is, any facility claiming the exclusion at § 261.4(a)(23), to document 

the legitimacy of the reclamation process. We have determined that it is important for 

those facilities to document the legitimacy of their recycling process, given the wide 

variety of hazardous secondary materials and industrial processes that can claim to be 

operating under the generator-controlled exclusion with relatively few conditions. After 

implementing the DSW exclusions in several states since its promulgation in October 

2008, we have determined that documentation of legitimacy for this particular exclusion 

is important in ensuring compliance and will make oversight and enforcement more 

effective. We are therefore requiring that persons who perform reclamation under the 

control of the generator to include documentation and explain how their hazardous 

secondary materials are legitimately reclaimed. We expect this documentation to be a 

narrative description, which could include photographs or other illustrations or process 

diagrams of how the reclamation of their hazardous secondary materials meets the 

legitimacy factors. Reclaimers of hazardous secondary materials will need to maintain 

this documentation on-site where the reclamation occurs for the duration of the 

reclamation operations and for three years after the reclamation operations cease. Written 

documentation will provide an easily available explanation of the facility’s rationale for 

the legitimacy of its process that is available to the implementing agency on regular 

inspections or as part of compliance assistance.

The other exception where documentation is required is for those facilities whose 

product made from recycled hazardous secondary materials does not meet factor 4, but 

would still be considered a legitimately recycled product. Those facilities would need to 

Deleted: the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 527

maintain documentation as to why, in fact, the recycling is still legitimate as it relates to 

factor 4. For a more detailed explanation of that documentation requirement, refer to 

section VIII.B.6 above.

3. Factor 4

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA’s proposed factor 4 contained two main 

requirements to ensure that hazardous constituents were not “along for the ride” and 

being discarded in a final product under the guise of recycling. The proposed regulation 

stated that the product of the recycling process would have to have concentrations of 

hazardous constituents that are at levels comparable to or lower than those found in 

analogous products. In addition, the proposal stated that the product of the recycling 

process could not exhibit a hazardous characteristic that analogous products did not also 

exhibit. 

37 EPA recognized that there would be some legitimate recycling operations that 

may not meet this requirement, and so proposed to address this situation through a 

petition process in which a facility that did not meet factor 4 could petition its 

implementing agency, whether that be a state environmental agency or an EPA Region, 

and get agreement from that agency that its operations were legitimate.

Although this approach would provide a way for operations that are legitimate, 

but don’t meet factor 4 to still operate, commenters from both the industrial sector, as 

well as from state regulatory agencies, commented that this approach was not ideal. 

 

37 The language in the proposed regulatory text for this paragraph mistakenly included an “or” instead of an 

“and” between these two requirements of factor 4 although the preamble discussion on page 76 FR 44124, 

column 2, correctly used “and.” Several commenters pointed this error out to the Agency in their 

comments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 527

Commenters from industry suggested that there would be more petitioners under this 

provision than EPA had anticipated because certain large sectors of industry would likely 

be uncertain about whether their recycling would meet the factor as written and would be 

compelled to petition their implementing agencies. Commenters provided some real 

world examples to illustrate their concerns with factor 4 that EPA closely examined when 

redrafting the language for this provision.

Commenters also were concerned that the petition process itself might take too 

long if the implementing agencies receive petitions from many facilities and that the 

response time might end up being very lengthy. Several of the states that could be 

responsible for replying to these petitions also commented that they were not in favor of a 

petition process because the resources that would be required to respond to the petitions 

are not available in the state program offices. 

EPA made several changes to factor 4 in response to these comments and has 

determined that factor 4, as we are finalizing it today, better addresses the wide variety of 

industrial recycling processes. There are four main changes to the final language of factor 

4 as compared to the 2011 DSW proposed regulation.

First, instead of the two basic proposed provisions that depend on a comparison 

with an analogous product, factor 4 as finalized acknowledges that sometimes there is no 

analogous product available for a comparison. Subparagraph (i) covers how a recycling 

process meets the factor if there is an analogous product whereas subparagraph (ii), 

which was not part of the proposed regulatory language, covers how a product with no 

analogous product can meet factor 4. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 527

Secondly, the finalized regulatory language has provisions for how widelyrecognized industry standards and specifications can be used to meet factor 4. EPA took 

comment on the usefulness of specifications for evaluating hazardous constituents in the 

product and has determined that as long as the standards and specifications being relied 

upon are widely recognized industry wide standards and specifications for a product (and 

in the case of (i), that they address the hazardous constituents in question), meeting them 

would be appropriate to show that hazardous constituents are not being discarded under 

the guise of recycling. This should make determinations regarding factor 4 simpler for a 

wide range of industries producing common industrial commodities. EPA did not intend 

to interfere with long-standing legitimate recycling in these industries and this addition to

the regulatory language should clarify for those industries that when they are meeting the 

extensive commodity standards and specifications for their products, they meet factor 4 

as well. 

The third change is the addition under § 260.43(a)(4)(ii)(B) of language that states 

that hazardous secondary materials that are being recycled by being returned to the 

original process(es) from which they were generated meet factor 4. In closed loop 

recycling and in several other kinds of recycling, such as in mining and mineral 

processing, hazardous secondary materials generated from an industrial process are 

regularly returned to that same process to remove more of the valuable constituent from 

them. The hazardous constituents in the secondary material are no different than what is 

already in the process and returning them makes the entire manufacturing process more 

efficient since it requires fewer raw materials. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 527

EPA has stated in the past that it would not consider this practice a concern from 

the perspective of factor 4 because the comparison in question is supposed to be between 

final products, but it was clear from the comments to the proposal that this question was 

still a concern to many facilities. When adding subparagraph (ii) for situations where 

there is no analogous product for a comparison, EPA also added this language to make it 

clear that processes in which the hazardous secondary materials are returned to the 

original process do meet factor 4. 

Collectively, these changes to the language of factor 4 are an improvement from 

EPA’s 2011 proposal as the changes clarify when factor 4 is met for a wide variety of 

industrial processes. Furthermore, a generator can use its knowledge of the materials it 

uses and of the recycling process to make legitimacy determinations under factor 4. Thus, 

testing would be rarely required for a recycler to meet this factor because it would only 

be necessary when the product of the recycling does not meet widely-recognized 

specifications, is not an in-process material, and when the recycler does not sufficiently 

know what is in their final product to make a determination using generator knowledge.

Finally, EPA has changed proposed factor 4 to require any facility that does not 

meet the technical provisions of this factor and yet is still legitimately recycling to 

document, certify, and provide notice that even though the recycling process does not 

meet the technical provisions of this factor, the recycling process is nevertheless 

legitimate. This requirement replaces the proposed petition process. The comments EPA 

received on the petition process expressed concern that the process would be expensive 

for facilities who wanted to take advantage of it and would place too much of a burden on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 527

implementing agencies. Comments also argued that EPA’s estimate of the number of 

facilities that would be likely to submit petitions was overly conservative. Although the 

changes to factor 4 described here will address the concerns of many of the facilities who 

stated that they would have to submit a petition, the Agency also determined that a selfimplementing process to allow those recyclers to address factor 4 would be more in 

keeping with the existing policy on legitimacy. 

The certification process requires that a facility go through the same thought 

process and assessment about hazardous constituents that are incorporated into the final 

product that would have been required by the petition process (and that is currently 

consistent with the Agency’s legitimacy policy in the Lowrance Memo). However, 

instead of having to submit a petition to an implementing agency when the process is 

legitimate despite not meeting the technical provisions of factor 4, the facility can 

document and certify the assessment that it has done and submit a notification on the Site 

ID form. This is a minimal burden, particularly as the Site ID form is a form that many of 

these facilities are already submitting to EPA for other reasons. In addition, these 

facilities are not left waiting for a response from an agency as they may have had to 

under the proposed petition procedure. 

All in all, these changes to factor 4 will make this part of the legitimacy 

requirement consistent with the current policy in the Lowrance Memo and Federal 

Register preamble discussions and allow for all four legitimacy factors to be requirements 

that must be met without adversely affecting existing legitimate recycling.

IX. Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

Deleted: for

Deleted: that could not meet

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 527

The Agency is finalizing today several modifications to the regulation of solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations at 40 CFR 260.31(c), 40 CFR 260.33, and 

40 CFR 260.34 to ensure protection of human health and the environment and foster 

greater consistency on the part of implementing agencies. These final revisions include:

(1) Revise 40 CFR 260.33(c) to require facilities to send a notice to the 

Administrator (or the State Director, if the state is authorized) in the event of a change in 

circumstances that affects how a hazardous secondary material meets the relevant criteria 

upon which a variance or non-waste determination has been based. The Administrator 

may issue a determination that the hazardous secondary material continues to meet the 

relevant criteria of the variance or non-waste determination or may require the facility to 

re-apply for the variance or non-waste determination; 

(2) Include a provision at 40 CFR 260.33(d) that variances and non-waste 

determinations shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed ten years. No later than 

six months prior to the end of this term, facilities must re-apply if they want to maintain 

the variance or non-waste determination; 

(3) Include a provision at 40 CFR 260.33(e) stating that facilities receiving a 

variance or non-waste determination must provide notification as required by 40 CFR 

260.42;

(4) Revise the criteria for the partial reclamation variance in 40 CFR 260.31(c) to 

clarify when the variance applies and to require, among other things, that the all criteria 

for this variance must met; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 527

(5) Revise the criteria for the non-waste determination in 40 CFR 260.34 to 

require that petitioners explain or demonstrate why their hazardous secondary materials 

cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing DSW exclusions under 40 CFR 

261.2 or 261.4.

A discussion of the public comments on the 2011 DSW proposal and Agency 

responses can be found in section XVIII of this preamble and the full response to 

comment document is in the docket for the rulemaking. 

A. Revisions to Procedures for Variances and Non-Waste Determinations in 40 CFR 

260.33

Under the current regulatory framework, 40 CFR 260.30 provides the 

Administrator with the authority to grant a variance from the definition of solid waste or 

a non-waste determination on a case-by-case basis if the hazardous secondary materials 

are recycled in a particular manner. The practical effect of both the solid waste variances 

and the non-waste determinations is the same; once a petition is granted by EPA, or the 

authorized state, the hazardous secondary material is not regulated as a solid or hazardous 

waste. The procedures for these variances and non-waste determinations are found in 40 

CFR 260.33.

In today’s rule, EPA is finalizing three changes to 40 CFR 260.33. First, EPA is 

requiring in 40 CFR 260.33(c) that facilities send a notice to the Administrator (or the 

State Director, if the state is authorized) in the event of a change in circumstances that 

affect how a hazardous secondary material meets the relevant criteria upon which a 

variance or non-waste determination has been based. Second, EPA is establishing in 40 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 169 of 527

CFR 260.33(d) an effective term limit of ten years for variances and non-waste 

determinations unless the petitioner re-applies to the Agency to have the variance or nonwaste determination renewed. Third, EPA is requiring in 40 CFR 260.33(e) that facilities 

re-notify every two years under 40 CFR 260.42.

1. Requirement that an Applicant Send Notice in the Event the Material No Longer Meets 

the Relevant Criteria

EPA is modifying 40 CFR 260.33(c) to require, in the event of a change in 

circumstances that affects how a hazardous secondary material meets the relevant criteria 

contained in 40 CFR 260.31, 260.32, or 260.34 upon which a variance or non-waste 

determination has been based, the applicant must send a description of the change in 

circumstances to the Administrator (or the State Director, if the state is authorized). The 

Administrator then may issue a determination that the hazardous secondary material 

continues to meet the relevant criteria of the variance or non-waste determination or may 

require the facility to re-apply for the variance or non-waste determination.

The requirement that the hazardous secondary materials must continue to meet the 

relevant criteria of a solid waste variance or non-waste determination is inherent in the 

regulations. Failure to meet the criteria could indicate that the hazardous secondary 

materials are discarded and a solid waste and would trigger the need to re-examine the 

circumstances of the recycling. EPA is codifying this change to 40 CFR 260.33(c) to 

ensure that if there are changes that may impact how the hazardous secondary material 

meets the relevant criteria, that such changes be considered by the regulatory authority to 

ensure that those criteria continue to be met. This requirement will ensure clarity and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 527

consistency by providing an administrative procedure for reconsidering a variance or 

non-waste determination in the event that the hazardous secondary material no longer 

meets the relative criteria. 

In some cases, a full re-application for a variance or non-waste determination may 

not be necessary. Under today’s final rule, in the event of a change, the facility must send 

a description of the change in circumstances to the regulatory authority and it is the 

regulatory authority that will determine whether the facility must re-apply for a variance 

or non-waste determination. This change in procedure allows the regulatory authority to 

avoid spending unnecessary resources re-reviewing petitions where the change in 

circumstances is found to be of no consequence to the original variance or non-waste 

determination the regulatory authority has granted.

2. Term Limit on Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

EPA is adding a provision to 40 CFR 260.33(d) that solid waste variances and 

non-waste determinations shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed ten years. No 

later than six months prior to the end of this term, facilities must re-apply for a variance 

or non-waste determination if they want to maintain the variance or non-waste 

determination. A facility may continue to operate under an expired variance or non-waste 

determination if they have submitted an application for a new variance or non-waste 

determination six months prior to the end of the term limit and have not yet received a 

final decision on that application from their regulatory authority.

Variances and non-waste determinations are granted based on the case-by-case 

circumstances of a particular hazardous secondary material being recycled. Many of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 527

variance and non-waste determination criteria specifically consider factors such as, the 

manner in which the hazardous secondary material is recycled, the market factors of the 

recycling process, the value of the hazardous secondary material, and contractual 

arrangements. However, these factors do not remain static and, instead, tend to change 

and evolve over time. It is therefore prudent that regulatory authorities periodically 

review these case-by-case situations to ensure that the hazardous secondary material 

continues to meet the criteria of the variance or non-waste determination.

Variances and non-waste determinations are granted for a fixed term not to 

exceed ten years from the date the facility is granted a variance or non-waste 

determination. If, for example, due to a change in circumstances, a facility is required to 

re-apply for a variance or non-waste determination within the 10-year time limit of its 

initial petition, then an automatic re-application would not be initiated until ten years 

after its second variance or non-waste determination is granted, unless otherwise 

specified by the regulatory authority. Additionally, regulators may stipulate time limits of 

less than 10 years, if warranted.

3. Re-notification Requirement

EPA is adding a provision to 40 CFR 260.33(e) to require facilities receiving 

variances or non-waste determinations to send a notification of this activity prior to 

operating under the regulatory provision and by March 1 of each even-numbered year 

thereafter to the Regional Administrator (or State Director, if the state is authorized) 

using EPA Form 8700-12 in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42. Additionally, these 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 527

facilities must notify within 30 days of stopping management of hazardous secondary 

materials under the variance or non-waste determination. 

The intent of the notification is to enable variances and non-waste determinations 

to be tracked nationally and over time, which facilitates state-to-state consistency in 

determinations. Additionally, notifications enable effective oversight of facilities 

receiving variances and non-waste determinations because it provides regulatory 

authorities with a mechanism for receiving regularly updated information (such as 

information regarding quantities of hazardous secondary materials managed under the 

determination). Additionally, this information can be used to identify facilities which 

may have undergone changes to their reclamation process significant enough to trigger a 

review of the determination under 40 CFR 260.33(c). 

EPA finds that the notification requirement under 40 CFR 260.42 has worked 

well in enabling regulatory authorities to monitor compliance of facilities operating under 

the 2008 DSW final rule. Regulatory authorities receive information on the name and 

location of the facilities operating under the exclusion and the types and quantities of 

hazardous secondary materials the facility is managing, which allows the regulatory 

authority to prioritize inspections, as well as create a list of facilities that would benefit 

from training and compliance assistance on the rule. Additionally, notification has 

allowed regulatory authorities to identify problems so as to intervene early to prevent 

potential mismanagement. EPA is convinced of the value of the notification provision in 

ensuring proper implementation of its rules. Therefore, notification for variances and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 527

non-waste determinations will increase transparency and oversight of facilities receiving 

a variance or non-waste determination.

B. Revisions to Partial Reclamation Variance in 40 CFR 260.30(c)

The “partial reclamation” variance in 40 CFR 260.30(c) applies to hazardous 

secondary materials that have been reclaimed, but must be reclaimed further before the 

materials are completely recovered (i.e., “partial reclamation”). In turn, 40 CFR 

260.31(c) provides the specific standards that a partially-reclaimed material must meet in 

order to be eligible for a variance from classification from solid waste. 

In this final rule, EPA is revising the partial reclamation variance provision of 40 

CFR 260.31(c) to clarify when partially-reclaimed materials are not solid waste because 

they are commodity-like. The objectives of the revisions are to clarify the regulatory 

language, foster consistent application of the variance criteria, and emphasize that the 

variance should be granted only when partial reclamation has produced a commodity-like 

material. EPA’s modifications to 40 CFR 260.31(c) include: (1) revising the introductory 

text to clarify when the variance applies; (2) revising the introductory text to require that 

all of the decision criteria must be met; (3) revising the language of all of the decision 

criteria to provide greater clarity; and (4) eliminating the sixth criterion, “other relevant 

factors.”

1. Purpose of Revisions to Partial Reclamation Variance

When the partial reclamation variance was promulgated in 1985, EPA’s original 

intent was to provide a mechanism for determining if a hazardous secondary material had 

undergone sufficient reclamation (a type of processing) to produce a material that was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 527

more like a commodity than a solid waste. The variance would be applicable if the 

material was commodity-like, even though some further reclamation was required before 

the material became a commercial product. EPA intended that the variance would be 

applied at the point that the commodity-like material was produced. After that point, the 

material would be managed as a commodity rather than as a solid and hazardous waste. 

Prior to the point that partial reclamation produced a commodity-like material, the 

material would have to be managed as a hazardous waste.

However, EPA has become aware that authorized states across the country have 

applied the variance provision differently in similar circumstances. These differences 

may be due to: (1) the wide discretion allowed to the regulatory authority to weigh any or 

all of the decision criteria in any way it sees fit; (2) lack of clarity in the decision criteria 

themselves; or (3) the general sixth criterion “other relevant factors.”

As a result, variances have been granted under 40 CFR 260.31(c) for some 

materials that are not commodity-like. Therefore, EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

variance criteria to address the inconsistency among authorized states, remove 

ambiguities, and clearly convey the intent of the partial reclamation variance that only 

partially reclaimed hazardous secondary materials that have produced commodity-like 

materials are eligible for a variance from classification as solid waste. Consistent and 

appropriate application of the partial reclamation variance is necessary so that the 

hazardous waste program provides the level of protection of human health and the 

environment required by the RCRA statute in all communities in all areas of the country.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 527

An illustration of how the revised variance provision would be applied to a 

commonly reclaimed hazardous waste example is included in the “Background 

Document: Providing Context – The Example of F006 Electroplating Sludges,”38 which 

is included in the docket for this rulemaking. This document includes a detailed 

description of how the revised variance provision would be used to make determinations 

about whether a variance would be appropriate for the listed hazardous waste F006 

(wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) at various steps in the 

reclamation process.

2. Revisions to Introductory Text of 40 CFR 260.31(c)

EPA revised the introductory text of 40 CFR 260.31(c) to clarify when a partial 

reclamation variance is applicable and to identify what factors must be used to make a 

determination that a partially-reclaimed material is commodity-like. The revised text 

states:

The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from classifying as a solid 

waste those hazardous secondary materials that have been partially reclaimed, but 

must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed, if the partial reclamation 

has produced a commodity-like material. A determination that a partiallyreclaimed material for which the variance is sought is commodity-like will be 

based on whether the hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled as 

 

38 Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742-0016.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 527

specified in § 260.43 of this part and on whether all of the following decision 

criteria are satisfied: 

As noted above, the revised text replaces the word “reclaimed” with “partially-reclaimed” 

and clarifies that the variance is applicable at the point that partial reclamation “has 

produced a commodity-like material.” These changes clarify and reflect EPA’s intent that 

the variance applies only after partial reclamation has produced a commodity-like 

material and does not apply prior to producing a commodity-like material. 

To make a determination that a partially-reclaimed material is commodity-like, 

EPA revised the introductory text to require that such a determination will be based on 

whether the hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled and whether all the 

decision criteria are satisfied.

3. Revisions to Criteria for Partial Reclamation Variance 

Each criterion under 40 CFR 260.31(c) has been revised to begin with the word 

“whether” to require that the regulatory authority must make a yes or no determination as 

to whether the material meets each criterion. In addition, each criterion has been revised 

to clarify and incorporate the characteristics of a commodity-like material.

The first criterion in 40 CFR 260.31(c)(1) asks whether the degree of partial 

reclamation the material has undergone is substantial as demonstrated by using a partial 

reclamation process other than the process that generated the hazardous waste. By using a 

partial reclamation process other than the process that generated the hazardous waste, the 

more likely that the material will be commodity-like. Changes from the original language 

of the criterion include (1) replacing the general word “processing” with the words 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 527

“partial reclamation”; and (2) removing from the criterion ambiguity that could lead a 

regulatory authority to apply the variance after the initial partial reclamation process 

when a commodity-like material is not produced until completion of further reclamation

The second criterion in 40 CFR 261.31(c)(2) asks whether the partially-reclaimed 

material has sufficient economic value that it will be purchased for further reclamation. 

Changes from the original language of the criteria include: (1) adding the word “partially-

” before the word “reclaimed” to clarify that the criterion applies to the partiallyreclaimed material, not the fully-reclaimed material produced later in the process; and (2) 

revising the wording to reflect the fundamental characteristic that a commodity-like 

material has sufficient economic value that it will be purchased for further reclamation. 

EPA notes that the value of a material produced at a later stage of reclamation cannot be 

used to justify a variance for the partially-reclaimed material produced earlier in the 

process. In other words, the criterion must be applied to the “partially-reclaimed” 

material at the specific point in the reclamation process where application of the variance 

is requested. Evidence to support this criterion may include sales information; demand 

for the materials; and business contracts, such as contracts specifying quantities of 

material sold, details of the transaction, and the effective price paid for the partiallyreclaimed material by purchasers. The price paid for the partially-reclaimed material 

should be calculated after subtracting transportation costs and any other goods or services 

rendered in exchange for the material purchased.

The third criterion in 40 CFR 260.31(c)(3) asks whether the partially-reclaimed 

material is a viable substitute for a product or intermediate produced from virgin or raw 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 527

materials and which is used in subsequent production steps. Changes from the original 

language of the criteria include (1) adding the word “partially-” before the word 

“reclaimed” to clarify that the criterion applies to the partially-reclaimed material, not the 

fully-reclaimed material produced later in the process; and (2) replacing the phrase “is 

like an analogous raw material” with the phrase “is a viable substitute for a product or 

intermediate produced from virgin or raw materials which is used in subsequent 

production steps.” This revision is intended to demonstrate that a partially-reclaimed, 

commodity-like material is one that will be used as a viable substitute for a product or 

intermediate in production. Evidence to support this criterion would include a comparison 

of the physical and chemical characteristics of the partially-reclaimed material being 

considered for the variance to those of products or intermediates produced from virgin 

raw materials.

The fourth criterion in 40 CFR 260.31(c)(4) asks whether there is a market for the 

partially-reclaimed material as demonstrated by known customer(s) who are further 

reclaiming the material (e.g., records of sales and/or contracts and evidence of subsequent 

use, such as bills of lading). Changes from the original language of the criteria include (1) 

adding the word “partially-” before the word “reclaimed” to clarify that the criterion 

applies to the partially-reclaimed material, not the fully-reclaimed material produced later 

in the process; (2) deleting the word “guaranteed” since markets are often unpredictable; 

(3) deleting the word “end” prior to the word “market” since the partially-reclaimed 

material could be sold to another reclaimer before it is sold to a final manufacturer or 

final reclaimer; and (4) adding the phrase, “as demonstrated by known customer(s) who 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 527

are further reclaiming the material (e.g. record of sales and/or contracts, and evidence of 

subsequent use, such as bills of lading),” to clarify how a facility may demonstrate a 

market for the partially-reclaimed material. Additionally, this change ensures that the 

partially-reclaimed material is being shipped for further reclamation rather than being 

potentially stockpiled by the partial reclaimer. Evidence to support this criterion may 

include the material’s value as an input to a production process; traditional usage of 

quantities of the partially-reclaimed material; and the likely stability of markets for the 

material. A market for further reclaimed material produced at a later stage of reclamation 

cannot be used to justify a variance for a partially-reclaimed material. For example, if a 

facility requests a variance for an incoming partially-reclaimed hazardous waste, the 

market that would have to be evaluated is the market for the incoming partially-reclaimed 

hazardous waste itself, not the final product. 

The fifth criterion in 40 CFR 260.31(c)(5) asks whether the partially-reclaimed 

material is handled to minimize loss. Changes from the original language of the criteria 

includes adding the word “partially-” before the word “reclaimed” to clarify that the 

criterion applies to the partially-reclaimed material, not the fully-reclaimed material

produced later in the process. Specifically, this criterion requires evaluation of how the 

partially-reclaimed material is handled before it is further reclaimed. Handling a partiallyreclaimed material to minimize loss indicates that the material is commodity-like. 

Generally, persons handling hazardous secondary materials with little or no economic

value do not have the same incentives to minimize loss as persons handling commodities. 

The management of materials produced at later stages of the reclamation process is not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 527

relevant to whether the partially-reclaimed material is eligible for a variance. Evidence to 

support this criterion may include documentation of facility procedures used to minimize 

loss (e.g., inspections, training) and storage and management equipment designed to 

minimize loss.

Finally, in today’s final rule, EPA is removing the sixth criterion in 40 CFR 

260.31(c)(6), which allowed the regulatory authority to consider other relevant factors

when deciding whether a partially-reclaimed materials is commodity-like. When the 

partial reclamation variance was promulgated in 1985, EPA believed that this criterion 

could help determine whether a material is commodity-like. However, based on 

experience with the variance provision, EPA has learned that this criterion may have 

contributed to different determinations of whether the same partially-reclaimed material 

is commodity-like. Accordingly, EPA has determined that the appropriate and complete 

set of criteria to consider when determining whether a partially-reclaimed material is 

commodity-like are criteria (1)–(5).

C. Revisions to Non-Waste Determinations Found in 40 CFR 260.34

In today’s final rule, EPA is adding a criterion to non-waste determinations in 40 

CFR 260.34 that require facilities applying for a non-waste determination to explain or 

demonstrate why they cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing DSW 

exclusions under 40 CFR 261.2 or 261.4.39 Commenters to the 2009 DSW public meeting 

notice have argued that the non-waste determinations may be burdensome to states, and 

 

39 The two types of non-waste determinations are (1) a determination for hazardous secondary materials 

reclaimed in a continuous industrial process and (2) a determination for hazardous secondary materials that 

are indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or intermediate.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 527

thus, requiring applicants to formally consider and explain why they are not eligible for 

an existing DSW exclusion will reduce the burden on states in two ways: (1) it requires 

facilities to consider existing exclusions and standards first, before pursuing a non-waste 

determination, which can, in turn, lead to facilities discovering that their intended 

recycling fits under an existing exclusion and therefore a non-waste determination 

petition is not needed; and (2) this criterion informs the regulatory authority why a 

facility believes it cannot meet an existing exclusion, which is likely to be the regulatory 

authority’s first question before evaluating a non-waste determination petition. Petitioners 

also would be allowed to seek a non-waste determination if they could demonstrate that 

they should not have to meet the conditions of another exclusion, but rather should be 

allowed to operate under a non-waste determination with fewer or different conditions. 

However, if EPA or the authorized state determines that an applicant may, in fact, use an 

existing solid waste exclusion under 40 CFR 261.2 or 261.4, this may be grounds for 

denying a non-waste determination on the basis that regulatory relief has already been 

provided. 

X. Effect on Facilities Currently Operating Under Solid Waste Exclusions

A. Effect on Pre-2008 Solid Waste Exclusions

The final rule does not supersede any of the pre-2008 solid waste exclusions or 

other prior solid waste determinations or variances, including determinations made in 

letters of interpretation and inspection reports. If a hazardous secondary material has been 

determined not to be a solid waste for whatever reason, such a determination remains in 

effect, unless the authorized state decides to revisit the regulatory determination under
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 527

their current authority. In addition, if a hazardous secondary material has been excluded 

from hazardous waste regulations—for example, under the Bevill exclusion in 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(7)—the regulatory status of that material will not be affected by today’s rule.

However, there are two revisions to the regulations that, while they do not directly 

affect the regulatory status of excluded hazardous secondary materials, may impact 

facilities’ responsibilities under an existing exclusion. These two revisions are (1) a new 

recordkeeping requirement for speculative accumulation; and (2) a documentation, 

certification, and notification requirement for recycling processes which are legitimate 

despite having levels of hazardous constituents that are not comparable to or unable to be 

compared to a legitimate product. These requirements must be met by the effective date 

of the rule, which is [insert date 180 days after publication in the Federal Register].

1. Revised Speculative Accumulation Requirement

Under the revised speculative accumulation requirement in § 261.1(c)(8), all 

persons subject to the speculative accumulation requirements (for example, persons 

reclaiming characteristic by-products and sludges under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) and persons 

reclaiming hazardous secondary materials under a definition of solid waste exclusion 

under 40 CFR 261.4(a), such as the sulfuric acid exclusion at § 261.4(a)(7) or the 

generator-controlled exclusion at § 261.4(a)(23)) must label their storage unit(s) by 

indicating the first date that the material began to be accumulated. If placing a label on 

the storage unit is not practicable, the accumulation period must be documented through 

an inventory log or other appropriate method.

2. Prohibition of Sham Recycling and Definition of Legitimate Recycling
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 527

The codification of the prohibition of sham recycling (§ 261.2(g)), and the 

definition of legitimate recycling (§ 260.43) being finalized today will not impose any 

new requirements on persons recycling under the pre-2008 recycling exclusions, except 

in the case where the product of the recycling process (1) has levels of hazardous 

constituents that are not comparable to or lower than those in a legitimate product (i.e., 

are significantly elevated) or (2) is unable to be compared to a legitimate product and the 

product of the recycling process is not a widely recognized commodity (e.g., scrap metal) 

and is not returned to the original production process (e.g., closed loop recycling).

In this case, the person performing the recycling must conduct the necessary 

analysis and prepare documentation stating why the recycling is still legitimate. Persons 

may consider exposure from toxics in the product, the bioavailability of the toxics in the 

product, and other relevant considerations which show that the recycled product does not 

contain levels of hazardous constituents that pose a significant human health or 

environmental risk. The documentation must include a certification statement that the 

recycling is legitimate and must be maintained on-site. The person performing the 

recycling must also notify his Regional Administrator (or State Director, if the state is 

authorized) of this activity using EPA Form 8700-12.

B. Effect on Facilities Operating Under the 2008 Solid Waste Exclusions

Deleted: and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 527

1. Facilities Operating Under Generator-Controlled Exclusion (40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(ii) or 

261.4(a)(23))40

Because today’s rule includes more stringent standards for the generatorcontrolled exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), facilities that are currently managing 

hazardous secondary materials under these provisions must ensure they are complying 

with the more stringent standards by the effective date of the rule, which is [insert date 

180 days after publication in the Federal Register] (or in an authorized state, by the 

effective date in that state). The new provisions include (1) complying with the regulatory 

definition of “contained” found in 40 CFR 260.10; (2) maintaining shipping records for 

reclamation under same-company and toll manufacturing agreements; (3) (for the person 

performing the recycling) documenting how the recycling meets all four factors of the 

legitimacy definition in 40 CFR 260.43,

42 and (4) meeting the new emergency 

preparedness and response conditions.

Under the new regulatory definition of contained, a hazardous secondary material 

is contained if it is managed in a unit (which can include a land-based unit such as a pile) 

that meets the following criteria: (1) the unit is in good condition, with no leaks or other 

continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to 

 

40 Today’s rule consolidates the 2008 generator-controlled exclusion at 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(ii) and 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23) into one exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23).

42 As part of the requirement of meeting 40 CFR 260.43, if the product of recycling contains levels of 

hazardous constituents that are not comparable to or are unable to be compared to a legitimate product, the 

person performing the recycling must document, certify and notify the appropriate Regional Administrator 

of why the recycling is still legitimate. Where there is no analogous product made from virgin materials, 

the product of the recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate if the product of 

the recycling process is a commodity that meets widely recognized commodity standards and 

specifications, or the hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or 

processes from which they were generated to be reused.

Deleted: requirements

Deleted: requirements

Deleted: and 

Deleted: .

41
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 527

the environment, and is designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary material, to 

prevent releases of the hazardous secondary material to the environment. Unpermitted

releases are releases that are not covered by a permit (such as a permit to discharge to 

water or air) and may include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by 

precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, fugitive air 

emissions, and catastrophic unit failures; (2) the unit is properly labeled or otherwise has 

a system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the 

unit; and (3) the unit holds hazardous secondary materials that are compatible with other 

hazardous secondary materials placed in the unit and is compatible with the materials 

used to construct the unit and addresses any potential risks of fires or explosions. 

Hazardous secondary materials in units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

part 264 or 265 (e.g., tanks and containers) are presumptively contained.

Under the new requirements to document shipments for reclamation performed 

under the same-company and toll manufacturing provisions of the generator-controlled 

exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), generating and receiving facilities must maintain 

records of hazardous secondary materials sent or received under this exclusion at their 

facilities for no less than three years. The records must contain the name of the 

transporter, the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of the hazardous 

secondary material shipped or received. The requirements may be satisfied by routine 

business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, 

or electronic confirmations).

Deleted: Such releases

Deleted: does not hold incompatible
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 527

Persons performing the recycling of hazardous secondary materials under the 

generator-controlled exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) must also maintain documentation 

of their legitimacy determination on-site. Documentation must be a written description of 

how the recycling meets all four factors in 40 CFR 260.43(a). Documentation must be 

maintained for three years after the recycling operation has ceased.

The Agency is not requiring any particular format for the documentation of 

legitimacy; however, we expect that the recycler would have written documentation 

describing the recycling process and how it meets each legitimacy factor. For example:

 Useful contribution legitimacy factor—the recycler would document how 

the hazardous secondary material(s) provides a useful contribution to the 

recycling process or to the product or intermediate of the recycling 

process. The regulatory text for this factor provides five ways in which a 

useful contribution can be achieved. The recycler would need to document 

how the hazardous secondary material(s) add value and/or are useful to the 

recycling process in one or more of these ways: (i) contributing valuable 

ingredients to a product or intermediate; (ii) replacing a catalyst or carrier 

in the recycling process; (iii) providing a valuable constituent to be 

recovered; (iv) being regenerated; or (v) being used as an effective 

substitute for a commercial product. For example, if the hazardous 

secondary material is a source of a valuable constituent, such as a precious 

metal, the document would explain the specific precious metal(s) 

recovered and their value to the process.

Deleted: Finally, persons
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 527

 Valuable product or intermediate legitimacy factor—the recycler would 

explain how the product or intermediate made from hazardous secondary 

material is valuable, either in a monetary sense or through its intrinsic 

value. If the product made from hazardous secondary material is sold, the 

documentation of sale could be proof of the value of the material to a third 

party. Such documentation could be in the form of a selection of receipts 

or contracts and agreements that establish the terms of the sale or 

transaction. A recycler that has not yet arranged for the sale also could 

demonstrate value by showing that the product or intermediate can replace 

another product or intermediate that is available in the marketplace. 

Demonstrating intrinsic value may be less straightforward than 

demonstrating the value of products that are sold in the marketplace, but 

could involve an explanation of the industrial process that shows how the 

product of the recycling process or intermediate replaces an alternative 

product that would otherwise have to be purchased. 

 Managed as a valuable commodity legitimacy factor—the recycler would 

include a description of how the hazardous secondary material is managed 

and explain how this management is similar or provides equivalent 

protection to the management of an analogous raw material. That is, the 

documentation would describe how the hazardous secondary material is 

stored and handled prior to being inserted into the recycling process. 

Where there is no analogous raw material, the recycler would explain how 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 527

the management of the hazardous secondary material ensures that the 

material is contained as discussed in 40 CFR 260.10.

Comparison of comparability of the product of recycling to a legitimate product 

factor—the recycler would include any data or information that shows that (1) the levels 

of hazardous constituents in the product are comparable to or lower than those found in 

analogous products, or are comparable to levels that meet widely-recognized commodity 

standards (in the case where the commodity standards include levels that specifically 

address those hazardous constituents), or (2) if there is no analogous product, that the 

product meets widely recognized commodity standards, or that hazardous secondary 

materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from which they 

were generated to be reused. If the product of the recycling process has levels of 

hazardous constituents that are not comparable to or unable to be compared to a 

legitimate product, but the recycling is still legitimate, the person performing the 

recycling must conduct the necessary analysis and prepare documentation stating why the 

recycling is, in fact, still legitimate. Persons can consider exposure from toxics in the 

product, the bioavailability of the toxics in the product, and other relevant considerations 

which show that the recycled product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents 

that pose a significant human health or environmental risk. The documentation must 

include a certification statement that the recycling is legitimate and must be maintained 

on-site. In addition, the person performing the recycling must notify his Regional 

Administrator (or the State Director, if the state is authorized) of this activity using EPA 

Form 8700-12.

Deleted: and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 527

Finally, under the new standards for emergency preparedness and response found 

in 40 CFR part 261 subpart M, generators that accumulate less than or equal to 6,000 kg 

of hazardous secondary material on site must comply with the emergency preparedness 

and response requirements equivalent to those in part 265 subpart C, which discuss 

maintaining appropriate emergency equipment on site, having access to alarm systems, 

maintaining needed aisle space, and making arrangements with local emergency 

authorities. A generator must also have a designated emergency coordinator who must 

respond to emergencies and must post certain information next to the telephone in the 

event of an emergency. For generators that accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous 

secondary material on site, EPA is requiring that generators comply with requirements 

equivalent to those in part 265 subparts C and D, which includes all the requirements 

already discussed above for those accumulating less than or equal to 6,000 kg, as well as 

requiring a contingency plan and sharing the plan with local emergency responders.

2. Facilities Operating Under Transfer-based Exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) or (25))

Because today’s rule replaces the transfer-based exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) 

and (25) with a verified recycler exclusion, facilities that are currently managing 

hazardous secondary materials under the transfer-based exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) 

must meet the terms of the verified recycler exclusion by the effective date of the rule, 

which is [insert date 180 days after publication in the Federal Register] (or in an 

authorized state, by the effective date in that state). That is, facilities operating under the 

transfer-based exclusion who wish to continue operating under the verified recycler 

exclusion must send in a new notification form and meet the additional conditions in the 

Deleted: ),

Deleted: these provisions

Deleted: cease operating under the
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 527

verified recycler exclusion, including the emergency preparedness and response 

condition. In addition, any reclamation facility or intermediate facility that does not have 

a RCRA permit or is not operating under interim status must stop managing the 

hazardous secondary material under the transfer-based exclusion until they apply for and 

receive a variance from either EPA or the authorized state under the verified recycling 

exclusion. (As of February 2014, there were no facilities without a RCRA Subtitle C 

permit recycling under the transfer-based exclusion, so EPA does not expect this impact 

to occur).

Because the verified recycler exclusion is limited to recycling in the United 

States, facilities exporting hazardous secondary material under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) must 

cease operating under this exclusion by the effective date of the rule. The facility must 

notify his Regional Administrator (or State Director, if the state is authorized) using EPA 

Form 8700-12 that they have stopped managing hazardous secondary materials under the 

exclusion in accordance with 40 CFR 260.42(b). Facilities must submit this notification 

within 30 days of stopping management of hazardous secondary materials under this

exclusion. Note that facilities that manage hazardous secondary materials under both the 

export exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) and the transfer-based exclusion at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) and/or and the generator-controlled exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) would 

not notify that they have stopped managing hazardous secondary materials, but would 

instead update their notification to make it clear they are no longer using the export

exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25).

XI. Effect on Spent Petroleum Catalysts

Deleted: the

Deleted: :

Deleted: transfer-based

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 527

In the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA deferred the question of whether spent 

petroleum catalysts should be eligible for the exclusions pending further consideration of 

the pyrophoric properties of the spent petroleum catalysts (73 FR 64714). EPA noted that 

the Agency was planning to propose—in a separate rulemaking from the 2008 DSW final 

rule—an amendment to its hazardous waste regulations to conditionally exclude from the 

definition of solid waste spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts generated in the 

petroleum refining industry when these hazardous secondary materials are reclaimed. 

Spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts generated in the petroleum refining 

industry are routinely recycled by regenerating the catalyst so that it may be used again as 

a catalyst. When regeneration is no longer possible, these spent catalysts are either treated 

and disposed of as listed hazardous wastes or sent to RCRA-permitted reclamation 

facilities, where metals, such as vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, and nickel are reclaimed 

from the spent catalysts. EPA originally added spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining 

catalysts (waste codes K171 and K172) to the list of RCRA hazardous wastes found in 40 

CFR 261.31 on the basis of toxicity (i.e., these materials were shown to pose 

unacceptable risk to human health and the environment when mismanaged) (63 FR 

42110, August 6, 1998). In addition, EPA based its decision to list these materials as 

hazardous due to the fact that these spent catalysts can at times exhibit pyrophoric 

properties (i.e., can ignite spontaneously in contact with air). 

It was largely because of these pyrophoric properties that the spent petroleum 

catalysts exhibit that EPA deferred the question of whether spent petroleum catalysts 

should be included in the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. While spent petroleum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 527

catalysts can be a valuable source of recoverable metals, the risk of these hazardous 

secondary materials spontaneously igniting when in contact with air is not a property that 

most metal recyclers would be expected to address, and thus, present additional risks that 

are not presented by other types of metal-bearing hazardous secondary materials and 

therefore may be most appropriately managed as hazardous waste when recycled. 

Under today’s final rule, EPA has added a regulatory definition of the “contained” 

standard as it applied to the generator controlled exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)) and to 

the verified recycler exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)). This new definition includes a 

requirement to address the risk of fires and explosions. This provision addresses the 

pyrophoric properties of the spent petroleum catalysts (as well as other types of 

ignitibility or reactivity) for the purposes of the generator-controlled exclusion and the 

verified recycler exclusion. Therefore, EPA has revised the generator-controlled 

exclusion to allow spent petroleum catalysts to be eligible for that exclusion, and is also 

allowing spent petroleum catalysts to be eligible for the verified recycler exclusion.

XII. Effect on CERCLA 

A primary purpose of today’s final rule is to encourage the safe, beneficial 

reclamation of hazardous secondary materials. In 1999, Congress enacted the Superfund 

Recycling Equity Act (SREA), explicitly defining those hazardous substance recycling 

activities that may be exempted from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (CERCLA section 127). Today’s 

final rule does not change the universe of recycling activities that could be exempted 

from CERCLA liability pursuant to CERCLA section 127. Today’s final rule only 

Deleted: Under today’s final rule, EPA is 

replacing the transfer-based exclusion with an 

alternative Subtitle C regulatory approach, which has 

rendered moot the question of the eligibility of spent 

petroleum catalyst for a solid waste exclusion when 

transferred to another company for reclamation.43 ¶

However, EPA also

Deleted: ).

Deleted: .

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 527

changes the definition of solid waste for purposes of the RCRA Subtitle C requirements. 

The final rule also does not limit or otherwise affect EPA’s ability to pursue potentially 

responsible persons under section 107 of CERCLA for releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances.

XIII. General Comments on the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Solid 

Waste 

EPA received hundreds of comments on the July 2011 DSW proposal, most of 

which were quite detailed and raised multiple issues. Below is an overview of some of 

the major comments on general aspects of the proposals and a summary of EPA’s 

responses to those comments. For a complete discussion of all the comments and EPA’s 

responses to those comments, please see 2014 Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste 

Final Rule Response to Comment Document found in the docket for today’s rulemaking.

A. EPA’s Legal Authority to Regulate Hazardous Waste Recycling

Comments: EPA’s Authority

EPA received many comments that asserted that EPA has no authority to regulate 

legitimate recycling, because commenters believe that hazardous secondary materials 

sent for recycling are not discarded and therefore, are not solid wastes. The comments 

state that EPA has misread the intent of Congress, citing previous court cases, noting the 

“analysis of the statute reveals clear Congressional intent to extend EPA’s authority only 

to materials that are truly discarded, disposed of, thrown away, or abandoned” (AMC I, 

824 F2d. at 1190). They go on to argue that materials being recycled do not fall into one 

of these enumerated activities.

Deleted: 2012
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 527

Specifically, many of the comments cite the ABR decision (which in turn cites 

earlier court decisions), where the court noted that EPA’s authority is “limited to 

materials that are ‘discarded’ by virtue of being disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away” 

and that “[s]econdary materials destined for recycling are obviously not of that sort. 

Rather than throwing them away, the producer saves them, rather than abandoning them, 

the producer reuses them” (ABR 208 F.3d at 1051). The court also noted that “To say that 

when something is saved it is thrown away is an extraordinary distortion of the English 

language” (Id. at 1053). 

Many commenters took issue with EPA’s decision to withdraw the transfer-based 

exclusion. These comments criticize EPA's rationale that “subsequent activities are more 

likely to involve discard, given that the generator has relinquished control of the 

hazardous secondary material” (72 FR 14178). In particular, commenters cited Safe Food 

and Fertilizer, stating that the D.C. Circuit addressed an argument by the petitioners in 

the case that “material that is transferred to another firm or industry for subsequent 

recycling” is discarded and subject to RCRA regulation. 350 F.3d 1263, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 

2003). The court said:

[W]e have never said that RCRA compels the conclusion that material destined 

for recycling in another industry is necessarily ‘discarded.’ .... Although ordinary 

language seems inconsistent with treating immediate reuse within an industry’s 

ongoing industrial process as a ‘discard’ ... the converse is not true. As firms 

have ample reasons to avoid complete vertical integration ... firm-to-firm 

Deleted: )..
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 527

transfers are hardly good indicia of a ‘discard’ as the term is ordinarily 

understood.” Id.

EPA’s Response: EPA’s Authority

EPA disagrees with the comments that Congress did not intend to give EPA the 

authority to regulate hazardous waste recycling. As EPA noted in the July 2011 DSW 

proposal, the RCRA statute and the legislative history suggest that Congress expected 

EPA to regulate as solid and hazardous wastes certain materials that are destined for 

recycling (see 76 FR 44097, citing numerous sections of the statute and U.S. Brewers’ 

Association v. EPA, 600 F. 2d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1979); 48 FR 14502–04, April 3, 1983; and

50 FR 616–618). Moreover, the case law discussed above clearly shows instances where 

EPA properly regulated the recycling of solid and hazardous wastes. 

EPA also disagrees with comments that EPA cannot consider the fact that the 

generator has relinquished control of the hazardous secondary material (along with other 

factors that indicate discard) in deciding to withdraw the transfer-based exclusion. EPA’s 

authority to regulate such transfers is clear: as the Court noted in Safe Food, “materials 

destined for future recycling by another industry may be considered ‘discarded’; the 

statutory definition does not preclude application of RCRA to such materials if they can 

reasonably be considered part of the waste disposal problem” (350 F.3d at 1268).

EPA’s record for today’s rulemaking demonstrates that third-party recycling of 

hazardous secondary materials has been and continues to be part of the waste disposal 

problem. As noted in the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA has already evaluated these 

hazardous secondary materials (for example, during a hazardous waste listing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 527

determination) and determined them to be solid and hazardous wastes. (76 FR 44109)

Therefore, a conditional exclusion must reasonably be expected not to result in the 

excluded hazardous secondary material being discarded. Of the 250 damage cases 

evaluated in the 2012 environmental problems study, 229 (or approximately 92%) were 

from reclamation activities of off-site third-party recyclers, with clear instances of discard 

resulting in risk to human health and the environment, including cases of large-scale soil 

and ground water contamination with remediation costs in some instances in the tens of 

millions of dollars.

44

In addition, the market forces study in the docket for the 2008 DSW final rule 

supports the conclusion that the pattern of discard at off-site, third-party reclaimers is a 

result of inherent differences between commercial recycling and normal manufacturing. 

As opposed to manufacturing, where the cost of raw materials or intermediates (or inputs) 

is greater than zero and revenue is generated primarily from the sale of the output, 

hazardous secondary materials recycling can involve generating revenue primarily from 

the receipt of the hazardous secondary materials. Recyclers of hazardous secondary 

materials in this situation may thus respond differently from traditional manufacturers to 

economic forces and incentives, accumulating more inputs (hazardous secondary 

materials) than can be processed (reclaimed). In addition, commercial third-party 

recyclers have less flexibility than in-house recyclers in changing how they manage their 

hazardous secondary materials (e.g., during price fluctuations, in-house recyclers can 

 

44 U.S. EPA An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary 

Materials (Updated) December 2012.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 527

more easily switch from recycling to disposal or from recycled inputs to virgin inputs, 

while commercial third-party recyclers cannot switch to disposal without obtaining a 

RCRA permit) (73 FR 64674).

B. Supporting Record

Comments: Environmental Problems Study

Many commenters raised issues with EPA’s use of the environmental problems 

study as part of the record for today’s rule.45 Some commenters argued that EPA should 

not use 1982 as the cut-off year for investigating “relatively recent” damage cases. These 

commenters said that, given that the first major set of Subtitle C regulations were 

promulgated in 1980, going back to 1982 unfairly and inappropriately stacks the deck in 

favor of finding a higher number of damage cases because it took many years for 

companies to figure out who was subject to the RCRA Subtitle C regulations. 

Additionally, these commenters noted that the vast majority of damage cases began 

operation prior to 1982 and thus contamination on these sites was likely the result of 

historic poor management during a period of little to no oversight. Commenters believed 

that the early 1990s would be a more appropriate cut-off date than 1982. One of the 

commenters also argued that the damage cases are not reliable, either from a lack of 

information, because they reflect outdated and inapplicable management practices, or 

have been greatly mischaracterized and should not be used to support any of the proposed 

changes to the DSW rule. 

 

45 An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated With Recycling of Hazardous Secondary 

Materials (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0355).

Deleted: regulatory 

Deleted: )
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 527

Other commenters argued that the large majority of damage cases identified by 

EPA were caused by either a lack of knowledge of RCRA, blatant disregard for the law, 

or unavoidable accidents. These commenters noted that many of the damage cases 

involved civil or criminal violations, indicating that the problem was non-compliance 

with the regulations, not from a lack of regulations. 

Another commenter disagreed with EPA’s negative portrayal of the waste 

management industry and argued that EPA should have conducted more research to 

obtain an understanding of the necessary and positive role of the hazardous waste 

management industry. 

EPA’s Response: Environmental Problems Study

The Agency maintains that the scope of the environmental problems study is 

appropriate for the purpose of the DSW rulemaking effort. Specifically, we continue to 

find that 1982 is an appropriate cut-off year for the damage case study as it best reflects 

the point where companies became aware of their responsibilities and liabilities for safe 

management of their hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling.46 While the 

CERCLA statute and the initial RCRA hazardous waste regulations became effective in 

1980, there was an initial “phase in” period during which industry and other affected 

entities began to change their practices with regard to hazardous material recycling, and 

during which federal and state agencies were developing guidelines and procedures for 

implementing these new authorities. Thus, we deliberately did not include a number of 

 

46 We would note, however, that even if EPA changed the date to the 1990’s, EPA still identified dozens of 

damage cases, and thus, changing the cut-off date, as some commenters suggest, would not impact the 

study’s overall findings. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 527

recycling damage cases that occurred during the early 1980s that appeared to have been 

caused by companies and individuals who were not cognizant of their new 

responsibilities and potential liabilities under RCRA and CERCLA. 

As to the issue that there are facilities in the report that began operations prior to 

1982, we agree that the facilities themselves may have begun operating earlier than the 

timeframe. However, the methodology for the analysis only includes facilities where the 

recycling operations occurred after 1982, and the environmental damages associated with 

those operations occurred after 1982. As a result, more than 600 damage cases were 

removed from consideration, leaving only those cases that EPA was confident have a 

clear link between post-1982 recycling practices and environmental damage. 

Of the damage cases that met our criteria, we agree that for certain types of 

damage, such as groundwater or soil contamination, determining when exactly the 

damage occurred and which property owner caused the damage is difficult. However, in 

general, the damage cases include multiple types of damage and certain damage, such as 

abandonment of materials or observed violations of proper storage and containment, can 

be easily attributed to current facility owners and to post-1982 activities. For example, 

Alco Pacific, a lead recycling facility may have started operations in 1954, but it was 

1990 when the company abandoned 98 drums and left over 1,300 cubic yards of leadcontaminated rubber debris and sand with no containment to prevent dispersal from wind 

or rainwater. Additionally, it was 1989 when Myers Drum, a drum reconditioning 

facility, was found to be storing 95% of their 20,000 drums on their side and that spillage, 

sump overflows, and structural failures were observed. In 1986, Continental Steel, which 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 527

manufactured wire and rod products from scrap metal, abandoned their facility leaving 

220 drums of product material and 50 containers of lead-cadmium batteries on-site. 

These damages occurred well after RCRA and CERCLA became effective. 

Regarding the lack of information in some of its damage cases, as EPA stated in 

its 2007 environmental problem study, many of the cases that were investigated were 

well documented. This was the case, for example, for many of the Superfund National 

Priority List (NPL) sites. However, in many other cases, it was not possible given the 

limitations of the study to document all facts. Often, there was considerable technical 

information as to the nature and extent of the contamination at the site, but relatively little 

information regarding the activities and circumstances that originally caused it. For some 

of the sites, we were able to collect only very basic information. However, for each site 

that was identified in the environmental problems study, we had sufficient information to 

determine that the damage resulted from recycling operations. Thus, we continue to 

maintain that the environmental problems study is appropriate to use in the development 

of the final rule.

EPA also disagrees with the commenter who argued that the environmental 

problems study only demonstrates non-compliance of existing regulations and therefore 

does not justify the promulgation of tighter requirements under today’s final rule. On the 

contrary, the frequency of the damage cases, including violations of regulations 

demonstrates the need for greater, not less, oversight.

Furthermore, as part of a separate analysis, EPA has considered whether recycling 

of hazardous secondary materials under the 2008 DSW final rule could result in increased 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 527

risk to human health and the environment and determined it is a complex issue because of 

the interactions between how the regulations are written and how they are implemented. 

Under the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA presumed that the conditions of the rule would 

prevent any increase in risk. However, what the 2008 DSW analysis failed to take into 

account was whether the conditions of the rule would operate as effectively in the real 

world as the more detailed requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. 

A more detailed comparative analysis of the regulatory requirements under the 

2008 DSW final rule with the hazardous waste regulations reveals potentially significant 

gaps in environmental protection under the 2008 DSW final rule. Examples of these gaps 

include the absence of measures to ensure compliance, incentives to accumulate larger 

volumes of hazardous secondary materials, the potential for increased releases, such as 

during storage and transportation of the hazardous secondary materials, the lack of 

prescriptive standards for storage and containment, potential issues associated with the 

interstate transport of hazardous secondary materials for recycling, and reduction in 

access to information and the opportunity for public participation. RCRA is a 

preventative statute and by design seeks to prevent damage before it occurs; relying 

solely on enforcement without addressing the root causes of the damage could needlessly 

increase the frequency, severity, and cost of damage cases. Therefore, EPA has chosen to 

finalize the changes to the 2008 DSW final rule being promulgated today.

Finally, EPA disagrees with comments stating we have not considered the 

positive role of the hazardous waste management industry. In development of the DSW 

rulemakings, the Agency specifically conducted a study of successful recycling that 

Deleted: promulgated today 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 527

examined how responsible generators and recyclers of hazardous secondary materials 

ensures that recycling is done in an environmentally safe manner.47 However, as EPA 

noted in the 2008 DSW final rule, the successful recycling study indicates that many 

responsible generators examine the recycler's technical capabilities, business viability, 

environmental track record, and other relevant questions before sending hazardous 

secondary materials for recycling. Currently, these recycler audits, which can be thought 

of as a form of environmental “due diligence,” are in essence a precaution to minimize 

the prospect of incurring CERCLA liability in the event that the recycling, or lack 

thereof, results in the release of material to the environment. However, the fact that these 

companies are willing to incur the expense of auditing recyclers as a business practice is 

of itself a marketplace affirmation that sending hazardous secondary materials to other 

companies for recycling involves some degree of risk. (73 FR 64683)

Comments: Correlation of Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory Exclusions, 

Exemptions or Alternative Standards

Although at least one commenter supported the analysis titled “Correlation of 

Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory Exclusions, Exemptions, or Alternative 

Standards,”48 which is included in the docket for this rulemaking. However, most 

commenters argued that this analysis was flawed and that EPA should gather information 

in a more responsible manner, such as with an information collection request (ICR). 

 

47 U.S. EPA, An Assessment of Good Current Practices for Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials, 

November 2006 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0354).

48 Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742-0010.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 527

Many commenters pointed out that EPA only identified seven exclusions that 

were “likely” correlated to some damage cases, yet EPA in its 2011 DSW proposal 

considered adding requirements to 32 exclusions. These commenters argued that this 

record was insufficient for justifying additional conditions.

Some commenters also took issue with how EPA assigned regulatory exclusions 

to certain damage cases. For example, a few commenters said that none of the five 

damage cases correlated to precious metals involved recycling of in-process secondary 

materials as part of precious metals mining and primary mineral processing, but rather 

involved off-site entities that were attempting to recover precious metals from 

photographic film, circuit boards, and other secondary materials generated by industry.

One commenter said that EPA identifies 35 cases that allegedly involve spent 

batteries; however, two of these involve non-lead batteries and thus are irrelevant and a 

third involves printed circuit boards. This commenter goes on to say that, of the 

remaining 32 lead-acid battery-related facilities for which EPA has identified known 

dates of operation, none began business operations after the 1982 and 1985 adoption of 

the RCRA regulations that control lead-acid battery collection and recycling. This 

commenter believed that the primary contamination at these sites almost certainly predated RCRA and thus EPA cannot use these cases to support changes to 40 CFR 266.80. 

Another commenter said that none of the environmental damage associated with 52 

damage cases could be shown to be the result of companies “likely” operating under the 

261.4(a)(13) scrap metal exclusion and/or the 261.6(a)(3)(ii) scrap metal recycling 

exemption. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 527

A few commenters argued that EPA has not compared the number of damage 

cases to the total number of recyclers and thus we do not know what percentage of all 

facilities the damage cases represent. Another commenter noted that the 132 damage 

cases that EPA correlated to the pre-2008 recycling exclusions makes up only 2.5% of 

the 5,321 facilities that EPA estimates are using the exclusions (a total number which this 

commenter believes EPA underestimates).

EPA’s Response: Correlation of Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory Exclusions, 

Exemptions or Alternative Standards

The goal of EPA’s analysis to correlate damage cases with existing exclusions 

was to assess whether certain hazardous secondary material recycling exclusions, 

exemptions, or alternate standards are adequately protecting human health and the 

environment. Because the majority of exclusions, exemptions, and alternative standards 

do not include notification requirements, EPA does not have precise data regarding which 

and how many facilities are recycling hazardous secondary materials under reduced 

regulation. This lack of data hinders EPA’s ability to collect information regarding what 

regulations a specific facility was operating under when damage occurred. Because this 

information is limited, the Agency had developed a methodology that correlates the type 

of hazardous secondary materials identified in the damage cases to regulations that likely 

governed the management of the hazardous secondary material. EPA used this 

methodology to identify patterns related to the types of hazardous secondary material 

involved in damage cases and whether those materials were likely to be managed under 

an exclusion, exemption, or alternate standard.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 527

EPA understands commenters’ concerns regarding the limitations of this analysis, 

including that EPA could only correlate with confidence 7 of the 32 recycling exclusions 

to damage cases in its environmental problems study. This result is more a lack of 

precision in the data and less that some recycling exclusions have no damage cases. For 

example, because notification is not required for these exclusions, we can only 

conservatively identify damage case correlations where the type of hazardous secondary 

material very clearly matches to an exclusion (e.g., scrap metal). We lack information to 

make inferences for broadly applicable exclusions, (e.g., use/reuse) or for broadly defined 

hazardous secondary materials (e.g., metal-bearing wastes). Therefore, by virtue of some 

exclusions’ broad applicability, we were unable to correlate them to specific damage 

cases. Additionally, due to the lack of data, it is difficult to analyze current trends in 

damage cases, and thus even more difficult to accurately project what the number of 

future damage cases might be under different scenarios. However, although it is difficult 

to assign specific damage cases to certain exclusions, we note that in the environmental 

problems study only nine of the damage cases were operating under a RCRA permit at 

the time of damage. Thus, EPA can generally conclude that the majority of the damage 

cases at third party recyclers were operating outside of RCRA, inferring these facilities 

were either operating illegally or operating under an exclusion, exemption, or alternate 

standard, or no standard.

Regarding other comments on the analysis, including comments on specific 

damage case-to-exclusion pairings and on comparing the number of damage cases to the 

total number of affected entities, EPA agrees with commenters that more information is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 527

needed prior to taking final action on specific conditions of the pre-2008 recycling 

provisions. EPA finds it may need to consider each exclusion in terms of evaluating 

specific regulatory gaps and whether additional conditions are needed to ensure 

protection of human health and the environment. Therefore, we are not finalizing specific 

conditions for the pre-2008 recycling provisions in today’s rule and are instead deferring 

action until EPA can more adequately address commenters’ concerns, including 

comments on the record. Before the Agency would take any such action, the Agency 

would provide the regulated community, as well as other stakeholders the opportunity for 

notice and comment.

XIV. Major Comments on the Exclusion for Hazardous Secondary Materials 

Legitimately Reclaimed Under the Control of the Generator and Recordkeeping for 

Speculative Accumulation

A. Proposed Changes to 2008 Final Rule

In its July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed or solicited comment on certain 

changes to the 2008 DSW exclusion from the definition of solid waste for hazardous 

secondary materials legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator. The first 

change was adding a regulatory definition of “contained” for units storing hazardous 

secondary materials. The definition included factors which, if met, would demonstrate 

that the unit was contained. Under the proposal, a storage unit is contained if it is in good 

condition, with no leaks or other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases of the 

hazardous secondary material to the environment, and is designed, as appropriate for the 

hazardous secondary materials to prevent releases of hazardous secondary material to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 527

environment. Such releases may include, but are not limited to, releases through surface 

transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, 

fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit failures. The unit must also be properly 

labeled or otherwise have a system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous 

secondary materials in the unit. Finally, the unit must not hold incompatible materials and 

must address any potential risks of fires or explosions. The definition also stated that 

hazardous secondary materials stored in units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 

CFR parts 264 or 265 are considered to be contained. 

The second change concerned new recordkeeping requirements for speculative 

accumulation, “same-company” recycling, and recycling under certain tolling 

arrangements. With respect to speculative accumulation, EPA proposed to require 

generators and reclaimers operating under the generator-controlled exclusion to post 

accumulation start dates to allow inspectors and other regulatory authorities to quickly 

ascertain how long hazardous secondary materials had been in storage. If placing a label 

on the storage unit is not practicable, the first date that the excluded hazardous secondary 

material began to be accumulated must be entered in an inventory log. We also solicited 

comment on whether to add the proposed recordkeeping requirement to the general 

speculative accumulation provision at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8), thereby extending the 

requirement to all recyclers subject to that provision. We also proposed a recordkeeping 

requirement for tolling contractors and toll manufacturers operating under the tolling 

exclusion, which would require maintaining records of hazardous secondary materials 

sent or received pursuant to the tolling contract. We also solicited comment on whether to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 527

add a similar recordkeeping requirement to generators and reclaimers operating under the

“same-company” exclusion. 

The third change concerned making notification a condition rather than a 

requirement of the exclusions. In addition, we proposed two structural changes. These 

were (1) placing the requirements for land-based units and non-land-based units in one 

regulatory provision (40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)), since the requirements for both types of 

units are the same; and (2) placing most definitions applicable to the generator-controlled 

exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) (together with the requirements) instead of in 40 CFR 

260.10.

Comments: Authority for Proposed Changes 

Many commenters supported all or some of these changes, either as proposed or 

with suggested modifications. Their comments are discussed below in reference to the 

specific changes that the Agency proposed. Some commenters, however, stated that EPA 

did not have the authority to impose conditions (particularly the “contained” standard) on 

hazardous secondary materials recycled under the control of the generator. These 

commenters generally believed that materials recycled under these exclusions are not 

discarded, and that EPA provided no new evidence that would justify the proposed 

changes. According to these commenters, the proposed changes are tantamount to 

treating the materials as wastes instead of valuable commodities, and are inconsistent 

with the ABR decision. One commenter noted that generators already have incentives to 

prevent releases of hazardous secondary materials because of potential liability, corporate 

values of stewardship and environmental responsibility, and public relations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 527

EPA’s Response: Authority for Proposed Changes

The Agency has determined that the conditions proposed in our July 2011 DSW 

proposal are needed in order to ensure that the exclusion operates as intended and does

not result in discarded hazardous secondary material posing significant risk to human 

health and the environment. We agree that generators and reclaimers operating under the 

generator-controlled exclusion have incentives to ensure that the hazardous secondary 

materials are safely managed. Nevertheless, the conditions we proposed are needed to 

ensure that the generator-controlled exclusion will correctly function to exclude only 

hazardous secondary material that is not discarded.

Specifically, the proposed “contained” requirement is a key provision for 

determining whether a hazardous secondary material is being managed as a valuable 

commodity. Such materials that are not contained and are instead released to the 

environment are not destined for recycling and are clearly discarded. The proposed 

definition specifies factors which, if met, demonstrate that the hazardous secondary 

materials in a unit are handled as valuable raw materials, intermediates, or products and 

thus are not discarded. We note that the criteria in proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i) are 

all performance measures, as opposed to specific technical standards, suggested by 

commenters in response to the June 2009 public meeting on the 2008 DSW final rule. 

These criteria also exemplify practices discussed in the preamble to the 2008 DSW final 

rule regarding containment of hazardous secondary materials, such as ways to prevent 

releases and operation and maintenance of the storage unit in the same manner as a 

production unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 527

The proposed recordkeeping requirement for speculative accumulation (which 

would require posting of accumulation start dates on the storage unit or in an inventory 

log) would allow inspectors and other regulatory authorities to quickly ascertain how 

long a facility has been storing an excluded hazardous secondary material, and whether 

the storage time exceeds existing limits under 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). If such limits have 

been exceeded, the material would be discarded. The proposed recordkeeping 

requirement for the tolling exclusion (which would require records of shipments sent and 

received under tolling contracts) would also aid regulatory agencies in determining if 

tolling contractors and manufacturers are in compliance with the requirements for the 

exclusion and whether the hazardous secondary materials in question have been properly 

accounted for. A similar requirement to keep records of shipments sent and received 

under “same-company” recycling (for which the Agency solicited comment in the July 

2011 DSW proposal) would serve the same purpose. Finally, submitting a notification to 

EPA is the only formal indication of a facility’s prospective intent to reclaim a hazardous 

secondary material under this exclusion. For these reasons, EPA has determined that its 

proposed changes to the generator-controlled exclusion are necessary to demonstrate that 

hazardous secondary materials have not been discarded. The changes are therefore within 

the Agency’s RCRA authority. 

Comments: Scope of Proposed Changes 

One commenter noted that the proposed rule would allow lead-acid battery 

recyclers to operate under the generator-controlled exclusion instead of the requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 527

in 40 CFR 266.80(b). This commenter believed that the latter requirements, specifically 

tailored to battery recyclers, are more appropriate for these facilities.

EPA’s Response: Scope of Proposed Changes

In response to this comment, it was not the Agency’s intent that spent lead-acid 

batteries be managed under the generator-controlled exclusion. The 2008 DSW final rule 

contained a provision (40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)(iv)) stating that spent lead-acid batteries were 

not eligible for the generator-controlled exclusion (nor were materials subject to materialspecific standards under 261.4(a) or the listed hazardous wastes K171 or K172). The 

omission of this provision from the July 2011 DSW proposal as related to spent lead-acid 

batteries and material-specific standards was inadvertent, and EPA is therefore retaining 

it in this final rule (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(ii)(E)). However, for reasons discussed in 

section XI of this preamble, listed hazardous wastes K171 and K172 should be eligible 

for the generator-controlled exclusion; therefore, we are not including those wastes in this 

provision.

Comments: Exports

Another commenter noted that the text of proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)(B) 

could initially be read to suggest that hazardous secondary materials may be transferred 

to a location outside the United States or its territories as long as the foreign receiving 

facility is under the control of the generator. It is not until one reads proposed 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23)(ii)(A) that the reader learns that the receiving facility must be in the United 

States or its territories. This commenter suggested revising the introductory text of 40 

Deleted: 11
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 212 of 527

CFR 261.4(a)(23) to refer to recycling within the United States or its territories and 

deleting the subsequent condition. 

EPA’s Response: Exports

EPA agrees with this commenter who suggested modifying the introductory text 

of the generator-controlled exclusion to include a reference to the requirement that 

hazardous secondary materials legitimately reclaimed under the exclusions must be 

recycled within the United States or its territories. We have therefore revised 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23) to read as follows: “Hazardous secondary material generated and 

legitimately reclaimed within the United States or its territories and under the control of 

the generator, provided that the material complies with paragraphs (a)(23)(i) and (ii) of 

this section.” We have also deleted the condition in proposed CFR 261.4(a)(23)(ii)(A) 

and renumbered the following subparagraphs. 

B. Exclusion for Materials Recycled On-site

Comments: On-site Exclusion

In the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA promulgated an exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste for hazardous secondary materials that are generated and legitimately 

reclaimed at the generating facility. In the July 2011 DSW proposal, the Agency did not 

propose any changes to the scope of this exclusion. Commenters on the proposal 

generally supported excluding on-site recycling from the definition of solid waste, stating 

that such recycling did not involve discard and was not likely to pose environmental 

risks. However, one commenter argued that the exclusion for hazardous secondary 

materials recycled under the control of the generator was too broad and should be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 527

narrowed to materials recycled under a “continuous industrial process,” i.e., recycled in 

the same process of which they are a byproduct, by the same generator, and at the same 

generating facility. If the exclusion was narrowed to this extent, it would preclude “samecompany” or tolling recycling from being eligible for the exclusions. It would 

presumably also preclude certain types of on-site recycling that might involve different 

processes from being excluded under the definition of solid waste.

EPA’s Response: On-site Exclusion

EPA has determined that if hazardous secondary materials are generated and 

legitimately reclaimed at the generating facility (as well as a facility within the same 

company) under the conditions specified in today’s rule, these materials have not been 

discarded. We do not agree with the comment that the exclusion should be limited to 

recycling of hazardous secondary materials under a “continuous industrial process,” i.e., 

it takes place in the same process of which the materials are a byproduct, by the same 

generator and at the same generating facility. If hazardous secondary materials are 

recycled on-site at the generating facility using different processes, this circumstance 

does not mean that the generator has relinquished control of the materials or that they 

have been discarded. We are therefore finalizing this provision as proposed at 40 CFR 

261.4(23)(i)(A). 

C. Exclusion for Materials Recycled by the Same Company

In the 2008 DSW final rule, EPA promulgated an exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste for hazardous secondary materials that were generated and legitimately 

reclaimed off-site by the same “person” as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, if the generator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 527

performed one of two certifications. Under the first certification, the generating facility 

certified that it controlled the reclaiming facility; under the second certification, the 

generating facility certified that it was under common control with the reclaiming facility. 

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, the Agency solicited comment on whether to add a 

recordkeeping requirement to this exclusion that would require both the generating and 

reclaiming facilities to retain records for no less than three years of all hazardous 

secondary material shipped under the exclusion. The records would have to contain 

information which could be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, 

bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations). There was 

general support for this condition from those commenters who addressed it. 

Comments: Same-Company Exclusion

Some commenters supported this exclusion. They believed that generators using 

the exclusion have strong incentives to ensure that hazardous secondary materials are not 

discarded by maintaining control over, and potential liability for, the reclamation process. 

However, other commenters believed that any off-site transport of hazardous secondary 

materials involved environmental risks that should be addressed by (at the least) requiring 

a hazardous waste manifest or by subjecting “same-company” off-site recycling to the 

proposed alternative Subtitle C standards for hazardous secondary materials that are 

transferred for the purpose of reclamation. Some commenters said that when hazardous 

secondary materials are transported off-site, the generator has little de facto control over 

such materials. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 527

One commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)(B) omitted the

alternative certification for same-company recycling that occurs when the generating 

facility and the reclaiming facility are under common control. This certification was 

included in the 2008 DSW final rule.

EPA’s Response: Same-Company Exclusion

The Agency continues to find that same-company recycling does not involve 

discard since it occurs under the control of the generator. Such control means that both 

the generating facility and the reclamation facility are familiar with the hazardous 

secondary materials and the company would be ultimately liable for any mismanagement 

of the hazardous secondary materials. Under these circumstances, the incentive to avoid 

such mismanagement would be sufficiently strong to greatly reduce the risks of transport, 

thus rendering unnecessary the use of the hazardous waste manifest or requiring the 

hazardous secondary materials to be reclaimed under the verified recycling exclusion.

However, as noted above, the Agency solicited comment in its July 2011 DSW proposal 

on a recordkeeping requirement that would require both the generating and reclaiming 

facilities to retain records for no less than three years of all hazardous secondary material 

shipped under the exclusion. The records would have to contain the name of the 

transporter, the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of the hazardous 

secondary material shipped or received under the exclusion. This requirement could be 

satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of 

DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations). Such a provision would facilitate 

enforcement of the same-company exclusion and would allow tracking of all hazardous 

Deleted: alternative Subtitle C standards.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 527

secondary materials recycled under the exclusion to ensure that such materials were 

properly accounted for. EPA agrees with the commenters who supported this requirement 

and finds that adding this recordkeeping requirement to the same-company exclusion is 

sufficient to address any risks involved in off-site transport of hazardous secondary 

materials. We are therefore finalizing the same company exclusion to include this 

requirement (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)(B)). 

The Agency also agrees with the commenter who suggested that the alternative 

certification for facilities under common control that was included in the 2008 DSW final 

rule should be added to the exclusion. The omission of this provision from the July 2011 

DSW proposal was inadvertent and the Agency will therefore simply retain the 

alternative certification in the regulations (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)(B)).

D. Tolling Exclusion

In its July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to add a recordkeeping 

requirement to the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials legitimately reclaimed 

under certain contractual tolling arrangements. Specifically, we proposed to require the 

tolling contractor to maintain at its facility for no less than three years records of all 

hazardous secondary materials received pursuant to the written contract with the tolling 

manufacturer. It would also require the tolling manufacturer to maintain at its facility for 

no less than three years records of materials shipped pursuant to its written contract with 

the tolling contractor. In both cases, the records must contain the name of the transporter, 

the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary material 

shipped or received pursuant to the written contract. These requirements may be satisfied 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 527

by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT 

shipping papers, or electronic confirmations). EPA solicited comment on whether the 

proposed requirement would make the exclusion easier to enforce. We also solicited 

comment on whether the tolling exclusion should be retained or eliminated. We noted 

that no facilities appeared to be operating under the tolling exclusion as of the date of the 

proposed rule, and that the definitions and certifications involved in this exclusion were 

complicated. However, we also noted that if the tolling exclusion were eliminated, the 

tolling contractor conducting the reclamation might need to obtain a RCRA storage 

permit. This necessity could discourage recycling under tolling arrangements and prevent 

sustainable reclamation practices. 

Comments: Tolling Exclusion

Those commenters who addressed the proposed recordkeeping requirement 

generally supported it, but many commenters believed that the tolling exclusion should 

be eliminated and that tolling should be regulated under EPA’s proposed alternative 

Subtitle C regulatory standards for hazardous recyclable materials. Another commenter 

argued that if the Agency retained the tolling exclusion, we should require use of the 

hazardous waste manifest, financial assurance, and other Subtitle C requirements. Some 

of these commenters emphasized the absence of utilization of the tolling exclusion and 

said that federal regulations should address activities of national importance. One 

commenter noted that the exclusion could result in an inefficient use of enforcement 

resources as regulators would have to be trained and familiar with a regulatory concept 

with which they are not familiar. Another commenter argued that the assumption of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 527

liability for mismanagement by the tolling contractor was unlikely and could result in 

litigation. Other commenters emphasized environmental concerns with the tolling 

exclusion. These commenters doubted that recycling under tolling arrangements was 

actually under the “control” of the tolling contractor, given that a different corporate 

entity at a different physical location operates the production process. Some commenters 

raised similar concerns with the risks involved in off-site transportation of hazardous 

secondary materials that were raised in connection with “same-company” recycling. 

Some commenters, on the other hand, urged EPA to retain the exclusion for 

tolling contracts. These commenters argued that hazardous secondary materials 

legitimately reclaimed under the tolling exclusion are managed as valuable products and 

not discarded. They also said that utilization of the exclusion could increase with time, 

particularly if more states picked up EPA’s revisions to the definition of solid waste and 

if regulatory uncertainty were avoided. One commenter noted that the economic 

incentives under tolling contracts are such that there is no incentive for discard, since the 

tolling manufacturer is paid when it returns the hazardous secondary material to the 

contractor. Some commenters indicated that eliminating the tolling exclusion, by 

requiring tolling contractors to obtain RCRA storage permits, would operate as a severe 

disincentive to reclamation under tolling arrangements. 

EPA’s Response: Tolling Exclusion

EPA generally agrees with the commenters who supported retention of the tolling 

exclusion. We find that hazardous secondary materials are not discarded if they are 

legitimately reclaimed under the conditions specified in our tolling exclusion, particularly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 527

since participants in tolling contracts have strong incentives to handle such materials as 

valuable commodities rather than mismanage them. We also have determined that the 

conditions of the generator-controlled tolling exclusion, including the recordkeeping 

requirement for hazardous secondary materials sent and received under tolling contracts, 

are sufficient to prevent discard, thus rendering unnecessary the use of the hazardous 

waste manifest or other RCRA permit requirements for reclaimers. We have also 

concluded that retention or elimination of this exclusion should not depend on how 

frequently the exclusion is currently utilized, because determining frequency of 

utilization in the future is necessarily speculative. Additional states could pick up EPA’s 

revisions to the definition of solid waste, and tolling arrangements could become more 

common due to increases in certain kinds of manufacturing or other technological 

developments. Regulatory authorities would then become more familiar with 

implementation of the provision. We are also concerned that eliminating the tolling 

exclusion could discourage the reclamation of valuable hazardous secondary materials 

that might otherwise be destroyed by incineration. This result would be inconsistent with 

our goal of encouraging the sustainable management of hazardous secondary materials. 

For these reasons, we are retaining the tolling exclusion in this final rule and finalizing 

the proposed recordkeeping requirement for this exclusion (see 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23)(i)(C)). 

E. The Contained Standard

In its July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed a regulatory definition of the 

contained standard. Under this proposed definition, a unit storing hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 527

materials is “contained” if it is in good condition, with no leaks or other continuing or 

intermittent unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the 

environment, and is designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary materials, to 

prevent releases of hazardous secondary materials to the environment. Such releases may 

include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, 

releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, fugitive air emissions, and 

catastrophic unit failures. The unit must also be properly labeled or otherwise have a 

system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the 

unit. Finally, the unit must not hold incompatible materials and must address any 

potential risks of fires or explosions. Hazardous secondary materials stored in units that 

meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 are considered to be 

contained. 

In addition, the Agency also proposed placing the requirements for land-based 

units and non-land-based units in one regulatory provision (40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)), since 

the requirements for both types of units are the same. To clarify the regulatory status of 

units from which releases have occurred, the Agency also proposed a provision stating 

that: (1) a hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a 

solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of reclamation and (2) 

hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing or 

intermittent releases of the hazardous secondary material to the environment is discarded 

and a solid waste. 

Comments: Codification of the Contained Standard
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 527

Many commenters (particularly states) supported the codification of the contained

standard. Under the 2008 DSW final rule, these commenters argued the only definitive 

way to determine whether a material was contained was an evaluation after a release had 

already occurred. They believed that codifying a definition of “contained” would make it 

easier for regulatory authorities and the regulated community to decide whether a unit 

meets the standard. Some commenters, however, believed that a regulatory definition of 

“contained” was not needed because the concept of what is contained was self-evident: to 

the extent clarification is needed, it could be provided in guidance. 

EPA’s Response: Codification of the Contained Standard

EPA agrees with those commenters who argued that codification of the contained

standard is desirable. Based on comments and inquiries received from regulatory 

authorities and the regulated community after promulgation of the 2008 DSW final rule, 

we have determined that merely requiring that a unit be “contained” (without providing a 

regulatory definition) does not give regulatory certainty about how to comply with the 

standard. The number of comments and inquiries to this effect would seem to refute the 

idea that the concept of contained is self-evident. It was never the Agency’s intent that 

violation of the standard could be addressed only after a significant release and 

subsequent environmental damage had occurred. More detailed regulatory criteria, such 

as those proposed in our July 2011 DSW proposal, will help all affected parties determine 

whether a unit adequately controls the movement of hazardous secondary materials. Such 

determinations will be of great benefit to regulatory authorities and to facilities operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 527

under the generator-controlled exclusion. We are therefore retaining the codification of 

contained in this final rule.

Comments: Land-Based Storage

Some commenters believed that storage in land-based units should be prohibited 

completely under the generator-controlled exclusion. Other commenters supported 

allowing land-based units, but only if the Agency required periodic inspections, 

groundwater monitoring, or other measures. Other commenters emphasized that the 

Agency had no jurisdiction over land-based production units, and requested that EPA 

clarify in the preamble that we do not regulate such units. 

EPA’s Response: Land-Based Storage 

EPA does not agree that land-based units should be categorically prohibited under 

the generator-controlled exclusion. We have determined that hazardous secondary 

materials, if they are stored in land-based units that meet the conditions specified in 

today’s rule, have not been discarded. That is, if they are legitimately reclaimed as 

specified in today’s rule, if they are contained and not speculatively accumulated, and if 

they have submitted the required notification, they are being managed as valuable 

commodities, rather than wastes. Indeed, the ABR decision expressed criticism of EPA 

for prohibiting any land placement, even “for a few minutes”. 208 F.3rd at 1051. EPA 

interprets the court’s discussion as a warning to the Agency to examine all factors, not 

just one (e.g., land placement), when deciding whether a material is a waste. For the same 

reason, we do not find that it is necessary or appropriate to require groundwater 

monitoring, inspections at specified intervals, or other Subtitle C controls for hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 527

secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator 

under these conditions, even for land-based units. These hazardous secondary materials 

are being managed under the control of the generator; by maintaining control over, and 

potential liability for, the hazardous secondary materials and the reclamation process, the 

generator ensures that such materials have not been discarded. We also note that the 

definition of “land-based unit” in 40 CFR 260.10 means an area where hazardous 

secondary materials are placed in or on the land before recycling, but the definition 

explicitly excludes land-based production units. Examples of land-based units include 

surface impoundments and piles. 

Comments: Requirements for Non-Land-Based Units

Some commenters believed that the proposed standard was still too imprecise, or 

not sufficiently protective. These commenters generally suggested that EPA require 

storage units to meet the standards of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1), or parts 264 or 265 for tanks, 

containers, or containment buildings. Some of these commenters argued that since 

hazardous secondary materials sent for reclamation were identical in composition to 

analogous materials sent for disposal, the storage standards should be the same for both 

disposal and recycling. Another commenter noted that EPA was considering tank 

standards for solvents under the proposed remanufacturing exclusion, and said that 

standards at least as stringent should be considered for other hazardous secondary 

materials sent for reclamation. Commenters also emphasized the ease of enforceability 

and implementation of standards with which the regulatory authorities and the regulated 

community are already familiar.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 527

EPA’s Response: Requirements for Non-Land-Based Units

In response to those commenters who suggested Subtitle C requirements for nonland-based units (such as tanks, containers and containment buildings) that store 

hazardous secondary materials under the generator-controlled exclusion, the Agency also 

finds that imposing these requirements is unnecessary for such materials meeting the 

conditions of the exclusion promulgated today. EPA is aware that implementation of 

program requirements would be simpler if units storing hazardous waste and those 

storing hazardous secondary materials were subject to the same requirements, and we are 

also aware that the chemical composition of hazardous secondary materials sent for 

disposal can be similar to that of hazardous secondary materials sent for legitimate 

recycling. Nevertheless, hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed 

under the control of the generator have not been discarded, and such materials have value 

that provides generators with strong incentives to maintain safe management and 

handling. Imposing the Subtitle C requirements on these hazardous secondary materials 

could discourage legitimate reclamation, encourage disposal, and would be inconsistent 

with EPA’s goal of fostering sustainable materials management. In response to the 

commenter who suggested that such requirements should be imposed because the Agency 

was considering them for the remanufacturing exclusion, we note that the generatorcontrolled exclusion covers a wide variety of hazardous secondary materials, rather than 

the solvents covered by the remanufacturing exclusion, for which tanks or container 

standards are appropriate for reasons described in section VII of this preamble. 

Comments: Releases
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 527

Some commenters believed that the proposed regulatory definition of “contained” 

constituted a “no-leak” standard (including storm water runoff or fugitive air emissions) 

and that even a single release that was immediately recovered could lead to the hazardous 

secondary material remaining in the unit being considered discarded and a solid waste. 

Other commenters, however, said that all units will suffer a release at some point and that 

it would be unreasonable to categorically classify any release of whatever nature as 

discard. 

In the preamble to the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA stated that certain units may be 

subject to occasional precipitation runoff that consists essentially of water, with trace 

amounts of hazardous constituents. The Agency noted that as long as such runoff does 

not contain hazardous secondary materials (e.g., it is essentially rainwater with trace 

amounts of metals), it would not be considered a “release of a hazardous secondary 

material.” On the other hand, if the hazardous secondary material itself is swept away by 

the runoff (e.g., if the hazardous secondary material consists of fine particulate matter, 

such as electric arc furnace dust), this transport via precipitation runoff could be 

considered a “release of a hazardous secondary material” and that pile may not be 

considered contained. Some commenters argued that even trace amounts of hazardous 

substances (such as through stormwater runoff) should be considered illegal releases 

from storage units. One of these commenters objected to our regulatory definition partly 

because it would allow releases that were not “continuing” or “intermittent.” 

Another commenter, however, argued that the existence of stormwater runoff 

(regulated under the Clean Water Act) or fugitive air emissions and dust (regulated under 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 527

the Clean Air Act) does not mean that materials are not being managed as a valuable 

commodity and so cannot be used to justify a determination that a hazardous secondary 

material is subject to the fully applicable Subtitle C RCRA requirements. This 

interpretation would amount to an illegal expansion of RCRA authority, according to the 

commenter. The commenter also noted that EPA’s distinction between runoff containing 

hazardous constituents and runoff containing the waste itself was irrelevant and that EPA 

should return to the “significant release” standard of the 2008 DSW final rule. Another 

commenter suggested that the Agency specify what concentration of hazardous secondary 

material would need to be detected to constitute a release. 

EPA’s Response: Releases

EPA does not agree with those commenters who argued that the proposed 

definition of “contained” imposed a strict, categorical, and impracticable “no leaks” 

standard, either for land-based units or non-land-based units. We note that the language 

of the proposed definition reads that the unit must be in good condition, “with no leaks or 

other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases of hazardous secondary materials to 

the environment...” (emphasis added). This language clearly does not mean that any 

single release of whatever nature would automatically place the hazardous secondary 

materials remaining in the unit under Subtitle C regulation. In fact, we agree with those 

commenters who argue that most units will suffer a release at some point and that it 

would be unreasonable to categorically classify any release of whatever nature as discard. 

Nor does EPA agree with those commenters who appeared to believe that any 

release should lead to loss of the generator-controlled exclusion and full regulation under 

Deleted: all

Deleted: (or virtually all units)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 527

RCRA Subtitle C. A single release that is quickly cleaned up would not generally affect 

the regulatory status of the hazardous secondary materials still contained in the unit. For 

example, sometimes a hazardous secondary material may escape from primary 

containment and may be captured by secondary containment or some other mechanism 

that would prevent the hazardous secondary materials from being released to the 

environment or would allow immediate recovery of the materials. In that case, the unit 

would not be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and the hazardous 

secondary materials in the unit would still be excluded from the definition of solid waste, 

even though any such materials that had been released and not immediately recovered 

would be considered discarded.

With respect to precipitation runoff, the Agency does not agree with those 

commenters who said that even trace amounts of hazardous substances (such as through 

stormwater runoff) should be considered illegal releases from storage units. Some units 

are inevitably subject to occasional precipitation runoff that consists essentially of water, 

with trace amounts of hazardous constituents. As long as the hazardous secondary 

material itself is not swept away by the runoff, this transport via precipitation runoff 

would not be a release of such a material and the unit could be considered contained. A 

contrary interpretation could place all such units under Subtitle C regulation and 

eliminate their eligibility for the generator-controlled exclusion, which is not the 

Agency’s intent. EPA has determined that hazardous secondary materials placed in such 

units that are destined for legitimate recycling have not been discarded if they meet the 

conditions of these exclusions. EPA also agrees with the commenter who said that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 228 of 527

existence of stormwater runoff (regulated under the Clean Water Act) and fugitive air 

emissions and dust (regulated under the Clean Air Act) does not automatically mean that 

materials are not being managed as a valuable commodity. 

EPA also does not agree with the commenter who suggested that the Agency 

should return to the “significance” criterion for determining whether a release has 

occurred (in part to distinguish between runoff containing hazardous constituents and 

runoff containing the hazardous secondary material itself). The Agency does not agree 

that using this criterion, without further definition, would clarify this distinction. We also 

do not find that it is practicable to establish a concentration of hazardous secondary 

materials that could be used to determine whether a release has occurred, since such 

appropriate concentrations would vary for different materials and a single concentration 

limit would not be flexible enough to allow an accurate determination of “contained” for 

the wide variety of hazardous secondary materials. 

Comments: Other “Contained” Issues

A few commenters suggested that EPA establish a petition process or a sitespecific variance for facilities to demonstrate the appropriateness of site-specific 

alternative storage standards for their units (including land-based units). Some 

commenters believed that our reference to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 meant that units 

were required to comply with those provisions. One of these commenters suggested that 

we specify that units meeting the requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 are 

“presumptively” contained. Other commenters said that the proposed definition of 

“contained” seemed more appropriate for hazardous secondary materials in flowable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 527

form, but not for solid materials such as scrap metal, for which a container is not 

necessarily needed. One of these commenters suggested that we clarify that a “unit” may 

include a designated location.

A few commenters suggested editorial revisions to the definition of contained. 

One commenter said that EPA should clarify this provision to better indicate that the unit 

must not contain materials that are incompatible with the other wastes or materials placed 

in the unit or the materials of construction that comprise the unit. Another commenter 

said the examples of release should include soil contamination because contamination 

should not be allowed to pass through the soil to the groundwater before it is considered a 

release. Two commenters said the proposed text at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(ii)(B) uses the 

word “recycling” in place of “reclamation” and omits the phrase “or intermittent 

unpermitted,” which does not comport with the preamble language.

EPA’s Response: Other “Contained” Issues 

In response to those commenters who suggested a mechanism (such as a petition 

process or variance) to provide alternative or site-specific containment requirements for 

certain facilities, such a mechanism is unnecessary because the definition of “contained’ 

in today’s rule establishes minimum requirements that all units storing hazardous 

secondary materials should be able to meet. We have designed the “contained” criteria to 

be flexible enough to cover a wide range of units. 

In response to comments that suggested the reference to 40 CFR parts 264 and 

265 means that units were required to comply with those provisions, EPA did not intend 

to imply that meeting such standards was required. In response to the commenter who 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 527

suggested stating that units meeting the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 

265 are “presumptively” contained, EPA agrees that this language better reflects EPA’s 

intent than the proposed language and is changing the proposed definition of “contained” 

accordingly. However, we do not agree with the commenter who suggested adding that 

solid hazardous secondary materials may be stored in “designated locations.” We have 

determined that our definition of “contained” (which includes land-based units) is 

sufficiently flexible to cover solid material, such as scrap metal or furnace bricks which 

are not stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings. We have also made clear in 

the preamble the circumstances under which such materials could be considered 

“contained.” 

For the reasons stated above, EPA is finalizing the definition of “contained” as 

proposed, but replacing the statement that “hazardous secondary materials meeting the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 are considered to be contained” with 

“hazardous secondary materials that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 

264 or 265 are presumptively contained” (see 40 CFR 260.10). 

EPA agrees with commenters who suggested editorial changes to the definition of 

contained and has incorporated these changes into today’s rule. 

F. Notification as a Condition

In the July 2011 proposal, EPA proposed to make the notification requirement in 

40 CFR 260.42 a condition, rather than a requirement, of the generator-controlled 

exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23). At issue are the consequences an entity would face for 

failing to notify. Thus, notification as a requirement of the exclusion means that failure to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 527

notify would constitute a violation of the notification regulations. On the other hand, 

notification as a condition of the exclusion means failure to notify could potentially result 

in the loss of the exclusion for the hazardous secondary materials (i.e., the hazardous 

secondary materials would become solid and hazardous wastes and subject to full Subtitle 

C requirements). EPA also requested comment on whether notification should be a 

condition of the remanufacturing exclusion and of the pre-2008 recycling exclusions. 

(For EPA’s response to comments for notification as a condition of the pre-2008 

recycling exclusions, see section XVIII.)

Comments: Notification as a Condition

Commenters were split on this issue. Many commenters supported EPA’s 

proposed change to make notification a condition of the exclusion. These commenters 

argued that notification as a condition would decrease the incentives for a facility to 

evade enforcement by not notifying. A few commenters agreed that states would use 

enforcement discretion to distinguish between facilities that failed to notify due to an 

inadvertent oversight or from a blatant disregard for the requirement. One commenter 

urged EPA to clarify that a facility submitting a notification does not need to wait for any 

response from the implementing agency prior to using exclusion.

On the other hand, many commenters did not support this proposed change and 

argued that notification should remain a requirement of the exclusion, as it is currently. 

These commenters argued that notification, or the absence thereof, is not indicative of 

discard and that the information of who is using the exclusion should not impact the 

determination of whether a material is discarded. Some commenters argued that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 527

enforcement discretion is not exercised in a consistent and reasonable manner and that 

the proposed change would subject generators who are legitimately recycling their 

hazardous secondary materials to undue severe enforcement consequences. Other 

commenters argued that there are innocent reasons why a facility would not notify, for 

example, because of confusion surrounding the point when a virgin material becomes a 

secondary material. Still other commenters believed that it is highly unrealistic to believe 

that any facility operating under the provisions would intentionally fail to notify EPA in 

an attempt to evade enforcement. Other commenters argued that there is already 

sufficient incentive to notify because facilities’ would already incur significant penalties 

under RCRA 3007 for failing to notify. Additionally, one commenter noted that making 

notification a condition of the exclusion differs from how other paperwork violations are 

treated.

EPA’s Response: Notification as a Condition

EPA agrees with commenters who supported making notification a condition of 

the exclusion. The notification provision is the only formal indication of a facility’s intent 

to reclaim a hazardous secondary material under the conditional exclusion. For example, 

if during an inspection of a large quantity generator of hazardous waste, EPA were to 

discover a hazardous secondary material that had been stored on-site for more than 90 

days without a RCRA permit (an act that would typically be a violation of the hazardous 

waste regulations), a previously filed notification would be an indication that the facility 

was planning to reclaim the hazardous secondary material under the conditions of the 

exclusion. Absent such notification, it would be difficult for the facility to justify its true 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 527

intentions for the hazardous secondary material. Failure to meet the notification provision 

is a strong indication that the facility either did not intend to comply with or was unaware 

of the provisions of the exclusion. In both cases, the lack of notification could indicate 

that the hazardous secondary material was being mismanaged. 

EPA agrees with commenters that making notification a condition of the rule 

would further discourage facilities from trying to evade enforcement by not notifying 

because, under the final rule, the costs and consequences of not notifying are significantly 

higher than if notification remains a requirement. Notification is essential to keep 

regulators and the public informed about hazardous secondary materials activity and to 

enable effective compliance monitoring. Making notification a condition provides states 

and EPA the ability to properly enforce those that intentionally fail to notify in order to 

evade enforcement, while leaving the flexibility to tailor enforcement appropriately in 

those cases involving an unintentional oversight. Therefore, EPA is making the 

notification provision in 40 CFR 260.42 a condition of the generator-controlled exclusion 

in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), as well as a condition of the remanufacturing exclusion in 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(27).

In response to opposing comments, EPA does not agree that failing to notify is 

not indicative of discard. As noted, notification serves as a formal declaration that a 

facility is not managing a hazardous waste but, rather, an excluded hazardous secondary 

material under the conditions of the exclusion. Notification, thus, documents the 

generator’s decision to not discard its hazardous secondary materials, which is the 

inherent first step in any exclusion from the definition of solid waste. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 527

EPA also does not agree that the notification condition would be inappropriately 

enforced. EPA notes that notification as a condition subjects only those generators who 

failed to notify to enforcement consequences; generators who submit notifications as 

required, and meet the conditions of the final rule exclusions, would not face enforcement 

consequences. EPA does not find this to be unduly burdensome to the regulated 

community. 

EPA also finds that the commenter’s example of an innocent reason for failing to 

notify (because of confusion surrounding the point when a virgin material becomes a 

secondary material) as further reason to strengthen the notification provision. That is, in 

order to comply with the final rule, a generator must know which hazardous secondary 

materials are being managed according to the specific conditions of the exclusion. In 

other words, a generator has to make a choice to manage hazardous secondary materials 

under the conditions of the rule before they are considered “excluded.” (Notification, in 

fact, clearly documents this choice.) Therefore, EPA finds it difficult to believe that a 

generator could innocently fail to notify under the final rule because the generator is 

unclear about when a virgin material becomes a hazardous secondary material that it 

must manage under the exclusion. These ambiguities must be resolved prior to the facility 

availing itself of the exclusion.

EPA also disagrees with commenters that argued it is highly unrealistic to believe 

that any facility operating under the provisions would intentionally fail to notify EPA, as 

well as commenters that argued that sufficient incentives to notify already exist. We note 

that there is likely an economic incentive for some facilities to fail to notify and simply 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 527

consider the paperwork violation as a cost of doing business. Where an economic 

incentive exists, EPA maintains that regulation is appropriate in order to adequately 

discourage undesirable behavior. 

Finally, although notification as a condition may differ from how other paperwork 

requirements are applied in the hazardous waste regulations, it does not differ from how 

other paperwork requirements are applied in conditional exclusions from the definition of 

solid waste. For example, notification is a condition of the zinc fertilizer exclusion in 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(20). Additionally, EPA confirms that the conditional exclusions at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(23) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(27) are self-implementing and thus facilities do not 

need to wait for any response from the implementing agency prior to using exclusion.

G. Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to amend the generator-controlled 

exclusion to require persons operating under the exclusion to place a label on the storage 

unit indicating the first date that the excluded hazardous secondary material began to be 

accumulated. In cases where placing a label on the storage unit is not practicable (e.g., if 

the hazardous secondary materials are stored in a surface impoundment), we proposed as 

an alternative to require persons operating under the generator-controlled exclusion to 

document in an inventory log the first date that the excluded hazardous secondary 

material began to be accumulated. EPA noted that enforcement personnel had suggested 

that ease of enforcement would be greatly facilitated if persons subject to the speculative 

accumulation requirement were required to post a start date for the accumulation. In this 

way, inspectors and other regulatory authorities could quickly ascertain how long a 

Deleted: ) and the comparable fuels rule in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(16).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 527

facility has been storing an excluded hazardous secondary material, and, therefore, 

whether that facility was in compliance with the applicable storage time. The Agency 

also noted that placing labels on storage units or entering accumulation start dates in 

inventory logs is likely to be already part of normal business operations at many 

facilities. For this reason, the proposed requirement would not be unduly burdensome and 

would provide a greater degree of clarity both to the regulated community and to 

regulatory authorities who need to determine whether excluded hazardous secondary 

materials meet the speculative accumulation limits. 

Since the same arguments for tracking accumulation start dates could be made 

more broadly for all recycling subject to the speculative accumulation limits, EPA also 

requested comment on whether to add this recordkeeping requirement to the speculative 

accumulation provision in 40 CFR 261.1(c)( 8) itself. The Agency did not propose or 

solicit comment on changing the substantive requirements of the speculative 

accumulation provision, such as the time allowed for storage or the amount that is 

required to be recycled within a calendar year.

Comments: Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation

Many commenters, particularly states, supported the proposed recordkeeping 

requirement and also supported extending the requirement to all persons currently subject 

to the speculative accumulation requirements at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). These commenters 

generally believed that posting accumulation start dates (or using some other mechanism, 

such as an inventory log) provides assurance both to generators and inspectors that the 

generator in question is in compliance with the speculative accumulation provision, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 527

that the proposed requirement would not be burdensome to the regulated community. 

One commenter supported requiring accumulation start dates to be posted in storage areas 

within a specified number of feet from the storage unit, since reference to logs distant 

from storage units could make enforcement difficult. Facilities that prefer a centrally 

located log could maintain such a “master” log in addition to the record maintained near 

the actual storage unit, this commenter suggested. 

Some commenters, however, opposed the proposed recordkeeping provision for 

speculative accumulation, either for the generator-controlled exclusion or for other 

persons subject to 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). Some of these commenters argued that 40 CFR 

261.2(f) already requires respondents in enforcement actions who are claiming that a 

material is not a solid waste to demonstrate that they meet the terms of an exclusion or 

exemption, by, among other things, providing appropriate documentation. Some 

commenters apparently believed that the proposed requirement would mandate sending a 

notification to EPA, or posting the quantity of the hazardous secondary material and the 

precise time it was generated, or posting “finish” dates, as well as “start” dates for 

accumulation. In addition, some commenters expressed concern about the potential 

difficulty of posting accumulation start dates for hazardous secondary materials that are 

recycled rapidly in continuous processes with little or no prior storage.

EPA’s Response: Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation

After evaluating the comments received, EPA has concluded that the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements for speculative accumulation provide considerable benefits 

to both regulatory authorities and the regulated community and that the burden on the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 527

regulated community will be minimal. Posting accumulation start dates (or using another 

mechanism, such as an inventory log) is a simple and effective way to provide useful 

information about likely compliance with the speculative accumulation provision, and 

that the cost to facilities does not outweigh this benefit. We also find that all of the 

reasons for adopting this requirement for the generator-controlled exclusion apply equally 

to the question of whether to adopt it for all persons subject to 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). In 

response to the commenter who supported also requiring the posting of accumulation 

start dates in storage areas within a specified number of feet from the storage unit, EPA is 

not convinced that such a requirement would be necessary for all facilities, and the 

appropriate distance from the storage unit might also vary for different facilities. We are 

therefore not adopting this requirement. 

In response to those commenters who argued that the proposed recordkeeping 

requirement is redundant with § 261.2(f), we note that that provision applies to 

respondents in enforcement actions and does not provide specific guidance on how to 

determine compliance with the speculative accumulation provisions in the case of routine 

inspections. We therefore do not agree that the proposed recordkeeping requirement is 

redundant with 40 CFR 261.2(f). Today’s revision to the speculative accumulation 

provision at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) does not entail submitting notifications to EPA, posting 

the quantity of the hazardous secondary material and the time it was generated, or posting 

finish dates. The final definition of “contained” specifies that a unit must be properly 

labeled or otherwise have a system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous 

secondary materials in the unit. Neither such a label nor the posting of an accumulation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 527

start date requires detailed information. In response to the commenters who were 

concerned about hazardous secondary materials that were continuously recycled without 

prior storage, we agree with those commenters and are revising the proposed 

recordkeeping requirement to allow “other appropriate methods” to be used to document 

the accumulation period.

For the reasons given above, EPA is amending 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) to require that 

all persons subject to that provision must place materials in a storage unit with a label 

indicating the first date that the excluded hazardous secondary material began to be 

accumulated. If placing a label on the storage unit is not practicable, the accumulation 

period must be documented through an inventory log or other appropriate method.

XV. Major Comments on the Replacement of the Exclusion for Hazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Transferred for the Purpose of Reclamation

Summary of Comments: Replacement of the Transfer-Based Exclusion with the 

Alternative Subtitle C recycling standards

Environmental and community organizations, as well as many state commenters,

supported withdrawing the transfer-based exclusion because this would remove the 

possibility of hazardous secondary materials being sent to unpermitted reclaimers without 

a manifest. These commenters agreed with EPA’s rationale that transfers of most types of 

hazardous secondary materials to other companies for reclamation involve discard, and 

that the 2008 DSW transfer-based exclusion could result in adverse impacts to human 

health and the environment from discarded material. Commenters noted that, prior to 

reclamation occurring, hazardous secondary materials have limited inherent value. Some 

Deleted: A. Withdrawal

Deleted: the Transfer-Based Exclusion¶

Deleted: Withdrawal
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 527

commenters in particular were concerned about how the transfer-based exclusion made 

the generator responsible for verifying the safety and legitimacy of the recycler’s 

operations, when most generators would not have the expertise to make such a 

determination. One commenter examined the compliance history of the facilities 

currently operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions and noted that a large percentage 

have been the subject of enforcement actions in the past five years, and many have been 

subject to clean-up authorities under either RCRA or CERCLA for past contamination.

Most states supported the alternative hazardous waste standards as a replacement 

for the transfer-based exclusion as an approach that would help encourage recycling, 

while maintaining protection of human health and the environment. States generally 

supported the longer accumulation period, but some state commenters suggested 

replacing it with the speculative accumulation limits. Finally, while, as noted above,

environmental groups supported removing the transfer-based exclusion because of the 

potential hazards from third-party recycling, they did not support the alternative standards 

because they believed that the longer accumulation times would not be as protective as 

full Subtitle C regulation. 

In contrast, most industry commenters and a few states opposed replacing the 

transfer-based exclusion with alternative hazardous waste standards. These commenters 

argued that the withdrawal would significantly hinder reclamation and therefore, the 

lifecycle environmental benefits from recycling, contrary to the resource conservation 

goals of RCRA. One commenter reported that retaining the generator-controlled 

exclusion but not allowing off-site transfers limits generator flexibility if, due to 

Deleted: ¶

Commenters also noted that, unlike hazardous waste 

recyclers, recyclers under the 2008 DSW transferbased exclusion would not be subject to routine 

inspections that are required for hazardous waste 

treatment, storage and disposal facilities under the 

RCRA statute.

Deleted: ,

Deleted: , and that the alternative standards would 

not provide any meaningful relief. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 241 of 527

unforeseen circumstances (e.g., equipment malfunctions), the generator is not able to 

recycle on-site. Several industry commenters opposed the alternative standards, saying

that the added compliance requirements (e.g., the reclamation plan) are likely to outweigh 

any benefit provided by the relaxed accumulation time limits. Two commenters 

suggested that EPA apply the alternative standards to the reclamation facility, but reduce 

the requirements that apply to the generator, given that the majority of the damage cases 

occurred at the recycling facility. 

Commenters also argued that EPA’s record does not support repealing the 

transfer-based exclusion, stating that EPA did not present any new data that the 2008 

DSW transfer-based exclusion would cause environmental harm and noting that the 2011 

DSW proposal stated that facilities currently operating under the exclusion do not appear 

to have any problems from hazardous materials recycling. Comments included 

discussions of the conditions of the 2008 DSW transfer-based exclusion and why such 

conditions would be adequate to protect human health and the environment, and 

suggested if EPA was concerned about the conditions, the solution would be to 

strengthen the conditions, not withdraw the exclusion. In particular, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees 27 of the 65 facilities operating 

under the transfer-based exclusion, commented strongly in favor of keeping the transferbased exclusion and suggested that EPA add a condition that recyclers have a RCRA 

Subtitle C permit. 

EPA’s Response: EPA agrees with those comments stating that the 2008 transfer-based 

exclusion could result in adverse impacts to human health and the environment from 

Deleted: EPA’s Response: Withdrawal of the 

Transfer-Based Exclusion¶

EPA agrees with those commenters that support the 

withdrawal of the transfer-based exclusion. As 

discussed in section VI of this preamble, the first 

part of the Agency’s rationale for replacing the 

transfer-based exclusion is that, absent specific 

conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that transfers 

of hazardous secondary materials to third-party 

recyclers generally involve discard, except for 

instances where EPA has promulgated a casespecific exclusion that a hazardous secondary 

material is not a solid waste. ¶

While EPA agrees with commenters who say that the 

act of transfer is not, in itself, an indication of

discard, in the case where EPA has affirmatively 

determined a hazardous secondary material to be a 

hazardous waste (which is the case for all hazardous 

secondary materials that are eligible for the transferbased exclusion), the fact that the hazardous 

secondary material may be recycled in the future 

does not change the “hazardous” nature of the 

material prior to recycling. Because EPA has already 

evaluated these hazardous secondary materials (for 

example, during a hazardous waste listing 

determination) and determined them to be solid and 

hazardous wastes, a conditional exclusion must be 

reasonably expected not to result in the excluded 

hazardous secondary material being discarded. The 

hazardous secondary material still presents the same 

chemical and physical risks during transport and 

storage, and the perverse economic incentives for 

over-accumulation and abandonment of hazardous 

waste are unchanged. The results of the damage case 

analysis demonstrate that off-site transfers of 

hazardous secondary materials to third party 

recycling facilities are linked with abandonment and 

other types of waste management problems resulting 

from discarded material.¶

This leads to the second part of EPA’s rationale for 

replacing the transfer-based exclusion. Over the 

years, EPA has developed many such conditional 

exclusions (found in 40 CFR 261.4(a)). In each of 

these cases, EPA did so by examining the specific 

hazardous secondary material, or the specific 

recycling practice, or both, before making a 

determination that they are not a “solid waste.” 

However, unlike these types of specific transferbased exclusions from the definition of solid waste 

(found in 40 CFR 261.4(a)), the 2008 DSW transferbased exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) did 

not focus on the chemical or physical properties of 

any particular type of hazardous secondary material, 

or on how it is typically managed. Instead, the 

transfer-based exclusion is broadly applicable to a 

wide range of hazardous spent materials and listed 

by-products and sludges. Thus, while other solid 

waste exclusions were developed based on EPA’s 

knowledge of the specific hazardous secondary 

materials, the industries generating them, or the 

current recycling management practice for those 

hazardous secondary materials, the 2008 DSW 

transfer-based exclusion relied entirely on the 

conditions that were developed by EPA operating as 

the Agency anticipates they should. The conditions 

themselves were developed in a reasoned manner,49

...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 527

discarded material, but disagrees that all off-site transfers for reclamation requires 

Subtitle C hazardous waste regulation, because imposing Subtitle C hazardous waste 

regulation would result in regulating hazardous secondary material that is currently being 

legitimately recycled and not discarded as hazardous waste. Instead, EPA agrees with 

those commenters that support retaining an exclusion from the definition of solid waste 

for off-site recycling with additional conditions which will address the potential for 

discard happening in the future. 

As discussed in more detail in Section VI of this preamble, EPA has identified 

several regulatory gaps in the 2008 transfer-based exclusion that could result in 

significant risk to human health and the environment from discarded material. 

Specifically, the conditions for the transfer-based exclusion for recyclers lack the ability 

to provide oversight before management begins and do not allow public participation in

the environmental decision-making process, thereby decreasing the likelihood of 

compliance and increasing the potential for risk to human health and the environment 

from discarded hazardous secondary material. The evidence of past damage cases at 

third-party recycling facilities leading to significant risk to human health and the 

environment from hazardous secondary materials originally intended for recycling and 

the underlying perverse incentives of the recycling market to over-accumulate such 

hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling, resulting in discard of the material,

demonstrates the need for such additional oversight and public participation. In other 

words, the transfer-based exclusion can exacerbate financial incentives for small and/or 

inexperienced businesses to take in more hazardous secondary materials than they 

Deleted: materials). ¶

However

Deleted: in the 2008 DSW final rule

Deleted: several important implementation 

provisions that the Subtitle C requirements for 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 

Deleted: . These provisions ensure a greater level 

of

Deleted: of

Deleted: Subtitle C requirements

Deleted: increasing

Deleted: decreasing

Deleted: Most important of these is the permit 

requirement under RCRA section 3005, which 

ensures that EPA or the state has reviewed a 

facility’s planned operations before operations begin 

and which allows public participation in the 

environmental decision-making process under 

RCRA section 7004. Subtitle C requirements for 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities also 

include a statutory provision that such facilities be 

inspected every two years under RCRA section 

3008(e). Finally, the detailed regulatory standards 

for hazardous waste management help ensure that 

both the regulatory authority and the regulated 

community have the specific information they need 

to comply in such a way that meets EPA’s 

expectations when the rule was promulgated. EPA 

has performed a detailed regulatory comparison of 

the 2008 DSW final rule with the fully applicable 

Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, identifying 

Deleted: differences that could lead to the potential 

for an increased likelihood of environmental and 

public health hazards, including fires/explosion, soil 

and water contamination, air emissions, and 

abandoned hazardous secondary materials.50 ¶

Based on this reconsideration of the 2008 DSW 

transfer-based exclusion conditions, EPA has 

determined that hazardous secondary materials 

transferred off-site to third party reclaimers for the 

purpose of legitimate reclamation are most 

appropriately regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. 

While EPA agrees with commenters who note that 

the facilities operating under the DSW exclusions do 

not appear to have experienced environmental 

problems

Deleted: to date, we would note that all off-site 

third party reclamation facilities that are currently 

operating under the 2008 DSW transfer-based 

exclusion are RCRA permitted facilities. We would 

also note that the limited timeframe and sample size 

means that this information cannot be used as an 

assurance that problems will not occur in the future, 

given the nature of the hazardous secondary 

materials in question.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 527

actually can use, mishandle it, and even go out of business, as shown by the fact that 

bankruptcies or other types of business failures were associated with 66% of the 

recycling damage cases, resulting in multi-million dollar cleanups.

At the same time, as EPA noted in the 2011 DSW proposal and as was echoed in 

the public comments, EPA has also carefully monitored the implementation of the 2008 

DSW final rule since it came into effect in December 2008, and to date, no environmental 

problems have been reported at facilities claiming the DSW exclusions. As of April 2014, 

a total of 65 facilities are operating under the transfer-based exclusion, 56 of which are 

generators transferring off-site and 7 which are reclamation facilities.51 All seven 

reclamation facilities are RCRA permitted. (There are no reclaimers without a Subtitle C 

permit currently operating under the transfer-based exclusion). Of the 56 generators 

operating under the transfer-based exclusion, 32 generators appear to have either started 

or substantially increased their recycling as a result of the 2008 DSW exclusions. These 

include generators that had previously reported in their 2007, 2009, or 2011 biennial 

report that they sent their solvents offsite for fuel blending, and then notified that they are 

sending their spent solvents for reclamation under the 2008 DSW final rule. In addition, 

in at least five cases, facilities have switched from sending spent pickle liquor to 

landfilling or deep well injection to recycling under the 2008 DSW rule. In total, the 2008 

DSW notifications document that over 57,000 tons of hazardous secondary material were 

 

51 Some of these facilities are also managing hazardous secondary materials under the generator-controlled 

exclusion.

Deleted: EPA did consider alternative approaches 

to strengthen the conditions of the transfer-based 

exclusion. However, no conditional exclusion would 

be able to match the level of oversight provided by 

the RCRA hazardous waste permit system, which 

can only apply to hazardous waste facilities.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 527

reclaimed under the 2008 DSW rule during 2011.52 In addition, the fact that the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), which oversees 27 of 

the 65 facilities operating under the transfer-based exclusion, commented strongly in 

favor of keeping the transfer-based exclusion, supports the idea that an exclusion for offsite reclamation can be safely implemented. At the same time, given that the transferbased exclusion has been achieving its intended purpose of encourage safe, legitimate 

recycling, withdrawing the transfer-based exclusion and replacing it with RCRA Subtitle 

C hazardous waste requirements is unnecessary and would result in hazardous secondary 

material that is currently being legitimately recycled and not discarded being regulated as 

hazardous waste. Because Subtitle C regulation would be more stringent that the current 

exclusion, if EPA were to finalize the alternative Subtitle C standards, Pennsylvania (and 

other states that have adopted the 2008 DSW rule) would have to change their programs 

and regulate this material as hazardous waste, despite the fact that it is currently being 

legitimately recycled and not discarded.

However, the fact that the comments from PA DEP went on to recommend that 

the transfer-based exclusion be limited to RCRA-permitted recycling facilities also 

supports EPA’s determination that the self-implementing measures of the transfer-based 

exclusion have the potential to result in significant risk to human health and the 

environment. Because all recycling under the transfer-based exclusion has been (to date) 

performed at RCRA permitted facilities, EPA is unable to extrapolate what would happen 

 

52 U.S. EPA, EPA’s Evaluation of Data Collected from Notifications Submitted under the 2008 

Definition of Solid Waste Exclusions, April 11, 2014.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 527

at facilities without a RCRA Subtitle C permit if the transfer-based exclusion were fully 

implemented. Given the evidence of past damage cases leading to significant risk to 

human health and the environment from hazardous secondary materials originally 

intended for recycling and the underlying perverse incentives of the recycling market to 

over-accumulate such hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling, resulting in 

discard of the material, additional oversight of recycling beyond the selfimplementing measures of the transfer-based exclusion are needed to ensure that the 

hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled and not discarded. 

EPA is therefore replacing the transfer-based exclusion currently found in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) and (25) with the verified recycler exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24). This 

replacement strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging the safe and legitimate 

recycling of hazardous secondary materials and allowing the appropriate oversight to 

ensure the exclusion works as intended. It also addresses the issue of allowing a generator 

flexibility to recycle on site or off site as circumstances require (as long as the generator 

notifies under both the generator-controlled exclusion and the verified recycler 

exclusion). As discussed in section VI. D of the preamble, the verified recycler exclusion 

retains the conditions from the transfer-based exclusion that were intended to help 

identify hazardous secondary material that is legitimate recycled and not discarded, and 

adds conditions that address the regulatory gaps identified in the 2011 DSW proposal. 

XVI. Major Comments on the Remanufacturing Exclusion

A. List of Eligible Solvents

Deleted: regulating these types of hazardous 

secondary materials under Subtitle C is the most 

appropriate regulatory approach. EPA is therefore 

withdrawing the transfer-based exclusion found in 

40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25). ¶

B. Alternative Subtitle C Standards for Hazardous 

Recyclable Materials¶

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed 

alternative regulatory standards for hazardous 

recyclable materials. Unlike the 2008 DSW transferbased exclusion, these materials would remain 

hazardous waste and subject to most Subtitle C 

requirements (including hazardous waste manifests, 

and storage permits prior to recycling). However, 

EPA also proposed that the alternative standards 

would include three changes from the existing 

Subtitle C requirements: (1) notification, upfront 

reclamation plan and certification, (2) alternative

labeling - “hazardous recyclable material” instead of 

“hazardous waste,” and (3) a year-long accumulation 

period for the generator (instead 90- or 180-days) 

prior to needing a storage permit. The 2011 DSW 

proposal also requested comment on additional 

changes to the alternative standards to help 

encourage recycling. ¶

...

Deleted: advance of any third-party transfers is an 

unnecessary regulatory burden and were concerned 

that such a plan would be anti-competitive and 

prevent them from switching recyclers if needed.¶

EPA Response: Reclamation Plan¶

EPA agrees with comments supporting the 

reclamation plan, and disagrees with comments 

stating that such a plan is unnecessary and overly 

burdensome. The reclamation plan is an important

provision that is needed to ensure that the longer 

accumulation timeframe does not result in hazardous 

secondary materials being over-accumulated and 

...

Deleted: this provision, and the hazardous 

secondary materials will still need to meet the 

generator standards for tanks and containers, 

personnel training, contingency planning and 

emergency procedures. EPA does not agree with 

using the “speculative accumulation” limit in lieu of 

a one-year limit, because the speculative 

accumulation requirement in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) is 

specific for materials that are not solid wastes and 

explicitly does not apply to hazardous wastes.¶

EPA also agrees with those comments that argue that 

the “two shipment” volume limit would be difficult 

...

Deleted: in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) and that 

including such a provision in the alternative 

standards could help encourage recycling.

Deleted: Other commenters, however, noted that 

the hazardous recyclable materials managed under 

the alternative Subtitle C standards are still 

hazardous wastes and that the generator status (i.e., 

SQG vs. LQG) determines the level of reporting, 

personnel training, contingency planning and 

emergency procedures a facility would need to 

comply with.¶

EPA’s Response: Generator Status¶

EPA agrees with those comments that support 

counting the hazardous recyclable materials towards 

the generator status. As commenters noted, the 

...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 527

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA requested comments on excluding 18 spent 

solvents when they are remanufactured back into higher value commercial-grade solvents 

under the conditions of the exclusion. The solvents were: toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, n-hexane, cyclohexane, methyl tert-butyl ether, 

acetonitrile, chloroform, chloromethane, dichloromethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, N,Ndimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, n-butyl alcohol, ethanol, and methanol. EPA chose 

these 18 spent solvent chemicals to limit the exclusion to higher-value materials and 

processes that resemble manufacturing more than waste management. EPA also 

requested comment on whether there are other solvents, chemicals or other types of 

hazardous secondary materials that should be included in the remanufacturing exclusion. 

In particular, EPA requested comments on opportunities for remanufacturing other types 

of non-renewable hazardous secondary materials, such as metal catalysts or other types of 

metal-bearing hazardous secondary materials. 

Comments: List of Eligible Solvents

Many commenters supported the current list of spent solvents and did not support 

expanding the list in any way. These commenters cautioned against expanding the list of 

chemicals until EPA could determine the effectiveness of this exclusion. Several other 

comments did not focus on adding solvents or other hazardous secondary materials, but 

focused on the toxicity or market structure of the 18 listed spent solvents. One 

commenter questioned the claim of “higher-value” for chloroform, chloromethane, ethyl 

benzene, xylene, methanol and MTBE. Another commenter stated they no longer use 

many of the 18 listed spent solvents because the solvents are defined as a toxic substance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 527

and a hazardous air pollutant under other environmental statutes. The commenter 

continued by saying that members of their association now use more “environmentally 

friendly” solvents. 

The remaining commenters discussed adding solvents or other hazardous 

secondary materials. Some commenters suggested expanding the solvent list to include 

benzene, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, or all solvents used in reactors, extractors, purifiers 

or blending equipment in pharmaceutical, organic, chemical, or plastics and resins 

manufacturing. Finally other commenters suggested adding additional hazardous 

secondary materials that were not solvents. The hazardous secondary materials suggested 

for addition were metal-bearing hazardous secondary material, F006 and spent 

hydroprocessing catalysts.

EPA’s Response: List of Eligible Solvents

EPA agrees with those commenters who supported the remanufacturing exclusion 

and limiting it to the list of 18 spent solvents, at least at this point in time. EPA 

determined that these 18 spent solvents are good candidates for remanufacturing because 

they are used in large volumes as processing aids and because there are existing markets 

for all these solvents to be remanufactured to serve similar purposes to those of the 

original commercial-grade materials. EPA does not agree with comments that suggested 

adding chemicals to the list, but did not provide specific data or information that would 

lead the Agency to add these chemicals to the list at this point in time. While EPA may 

expand the list of eligible hazardous secondary materials for the remanufacturing 

exclusion based on additional data (see section VII of this preamble), the currently 

Deleted: suggested 

Deleted: re-manufactured

Deleted: ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 527

available information only supports the inclusion of the proposed list of 18 spent 

solvents.

EPA disagrees with those commenters who did not support including many of the 

identified solvents on the list because of their toxicity. In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA 

acknowledged that the eligible solvents have suspected or recognized hazardous health 

effects associated with their manufacture, processing, and use.54 Although EPA and 

industry have been working to find substitutes for the more hazardous of these solvents, 

or find ways to use less of them, this has not yet been widely achieved.55,56 With respect 

to the pharmaceutical sector in particular, complex chemical processes already registered 

with the Food and Drug Administration are involved, and EPA has found this a very 

challenging area to address in terms of chemical substitution and process changes. In 

addition, some of these solvents are building blocks and primary intermediate chemicals, 

making them difficult to replace. Until lower-risk substitutes for these solvents are found, 

it is helpful from a health risk standpoint to minimize the volume of solvents 

manufactured and to limit exposure to those already manufactured. This is something that 

the remanufacturing exclusion can achieve.

B. List of Eligible Industry Sectors

Under the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA identified the operations of four 

manufacturing sectors as candidates for the remanufacturing exclusion. The eligible 

 

54 Allen, D., Shonnard, D, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, 

Risk Concepts, chapter 2, pgs 35-62, Austin, S., US EPA Editor, Published by Prentice-Hall, 2001.

55 For information on U.S. EPA’s Green Chemistry Program, see http://www.epa.gov/gcc/.

56 Information on the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute’s Pharmaceutical 

Roundtable is available via the ACS website http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content.

Deleted: .

Deleted: re-manufacturing

Deleted: /
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 527

sectors were pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), basic organic chemical 

manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and 

the paints and coatings manufacturing sector (NAICS 325510). These four sectors were 

selected because their primary business is manufacturing rather than waste management. 

Furthermore, these sectors are closely associated with the chemical functions identified in 

the remanufacturing exclusion and currently use a high volume of the solvents identified 

for the functional purposes included in this exclusion. EPA also asked for comment on 

whether there were other industry sectors that should be included in the remanufacturing 

exclusion.

Comments: List of Eligible Industry Sectors

Several commenters suggested specific industries for EPA to add to the 

remanufacturing exclusion. The suggested industries were K061 recyclers, the biofuels 

sector, recyclers with a part B permit like Safety-Kleen, petroleum refineries (NAICS 

324110), petrochemical manufacturers (NAICS 325110), synthetic rubber manufacturers 

(NAICS 325212), fiber glass manufacturers, and electronic manufacturers. K061 

recyclers and the biofuels sector were suggested due to their active markets and potential 

impacts on the environment if hazardous secondary materials were managed improperly. 

Companies, such as Safety-Kleen, with a part B permit, were suggested because these 

recyclers encourage sustainable materials management through remanufacturing. 

Petroleum refineries (NAICS 324110), petrochemical manufacturers (NAICS 325110) 

and synthetic rubber manufacturers (NAICS 325212) were suggested due to their 

significant generation of spent solvents. The commenter believed these industry sectors’ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 250 of 527

spent solvents should be eligible just like the solvents from the proposed industry sectors. 

Another commenter suggested adding fiber glass manufacturers because they operate 

refractory recycling programs and refractories are higher-value hazardous secondary 

materials. Finally, the electronics sector was recommended for its recycling of precious 

metals.

EPA’s Response: List of Eligible Industry Sectors

EPA acknowledges that the industry sectors that were nominated for inclusion in 

the remanufacturing exclusion participate in recycling activities; however, these sectors’ 

recycling activities do not include the types of practices or functions that were within the

scope of the remanufacturing exclusion. Under the remanufacturing exclusion, a 

manufacturer may send their hazardous secondary material to another manufacturer, from 

one of the permissible industry sectors, provided that the remanufacturer uses the 

hazardous secondary material in one of the four permissible functions. The commenters 

all suggested industries that send their hazardous secondary materials to a third party, 

who is not necessarily a manufacturer, but a facility that would recover the solvent or

other hazardous secondary material and who would then sell the recycled product to 

another person.

As discussed in the market forces study, it is generally in the best interest of 

commercial third party recyclers to maximize the amount of hazardous secondary 

material they can accept to increase profits. This market structure creates a perverse 

market incentive to over-accumulate hazardous secondary materials, which can result in 

discard, which the remanufacturing exclusion seeks to avoid. In contrast, the market 

Deleted: solvent

Deleted: resulting
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 527

forces study shows that facilities engaged in industrial intra-company recycling, where 

companies generate hazardous secondary materials as by-products of their main 

production processes and recycle the hazardous secondary materials used in production, 

have more flexibility in waste management decisions than a commercial recycler does. 

When a commercial recycler’s primary or entire income is from accepting hazardous 

secondary materials for recycling and selling recycled products, there is no economic 

alternative if the market crashes to stay in business unless the company can afford the 

cost of a hazardous waste management permit and the cost of becoming a hazardous 

waste disposal facility. Remanufacturers, on the other hand, as a type of intra-industry 

recycler, profit primarily from the sale of their product and can switch their inputs 

between raw materials and hazardous secondary materials if market conditions shift.

It is also not clear that the suggested industry sectors will know what function 

their hazardous secondary materials will be used for after remanufacturing. As discussed 

previously, the remanufacturing exclusion encourages higher-value materials to be 

remanufactured and then used in high-value processes again. Furthermore, this exclusion 

focuses on the functions of aiding chemical manufacturing and processing because the 

solvents performing these functions retain their original physical and chemical properties. 

In these functions, the solvents are not contaminated by substances, such as inks and 

greases, which are difficult to separate, but only mixed with pure product ingredients, 

from which they can be separated readily in a commercially feasible manner. 

Unfortunately, the suggested industry sectors provided by commenters do not appear to 

coincide with the intent of remanufacturing hazardous secondary materials that retain 

Deleted: use

Deleted: for it to stop recycling and continue

Deleted: it

Deleted: having
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 527

their original physical and chemical properties. Therefore, these additional sectors will 

not be included in the remanufacturing exclusion.

However, EPA notes that these sectors would be eligible to participate in the 

verified recycler exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)) if they meet the conditions of that 

exclusion.

C. Regulatory Language

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA did not specifically include regulatory 

language for the remanufacturing exclusion, but EPA did include a streamlined version of 

the scope, applicability and conditions of the exclusion followed by a very detailed 

explanation of the exclusion that included the reasoning for each condition. 

Comments: Regulatory Language

Many commenters said they were unable to comment on the remanufacturing 

exclusion because there was no regulatory language included in the proposal. Almost all 

commenters supported the concept of the remanufacturing exclusion, but requested that 

EPA re-propose the remanufacturing exclusion in a separate rulemaking with regulatory 

text, so commenters could accurately comment on the exclusion.

EPA’s Response: Regulatory Language

The preamble language discussing the remanufacturing exclusion contained 

adequate detail and information to allow comment on the proposed remanufacturing 

exclusion. In the July 2011 DSW proposal, the remanufacturing exclusion was presented 

in a narrative form that closely resembles the regulatory language being finalized today. 

The proposed rule also included a large amount of detail on the scope, applicability, and 

Deleted: scope, applicability and conditions of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 527

conditions of the remanufacturing exclusion. The proposal laid out exactly what solvents, 

industry sectors, and chemical functions were permissible in the remanufacturing 

exclusion. The proposal then clearly stated what was required for the notification, 

remanufacturing plan, records of shipments and confirmations of receipts, tanks and 

container management standards and the speculative accumulation requirement. EPA has 

determined that between the narrative and detailed explanation of the remanufacturing 

exclusion, commenters were provided more than enough information to comment on the 

remanufacturing exclusion, and thus, we are finalizing it in today’s final rule.

XVII. Major Comments on Legitimacy

A. Codifying Legitimacy for All Recycling

Comments: Codification of Legitimacy

Comments from industry across the board (including waste management 

companies) vehemently opposed codifying the legitimacy provision at § 260.43 for the 

pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions, arguing that this action, combined with 

making factor 3 and factor 4 mandatory, is a drastic change in policy and likely will end 

much of the current recycling that is occurring under RCRA. Industry commenters 

argued that this would be a huge administrative burden with little environmental benefit 

and that recycling has been taking place under these exclusions largely without problems 

for many years. Some industry commenters expressed their opinion that the codified 

legitimacy factors are significantly different than EPA's existing legitimacy policy and 

therefore, the legitimacy analysis that would have to be undertaken is not substantively 

the same. Other commenters opined that applying the codified legitimacy standard to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 527

pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions would function as a disincentive to recycling by 

adding paperwork burden and increasing compliance difficulties, especially for 

generators who would be exposed to potential RCRA enforcement due to subsequent 

noncompliance by the recycler. One commenter stated that inspectors could miss the 

more obvious cases of sham recycling because Agency resources would be expended in 

reviewing the large amount of required documentation and inspecting the more 

frequently used pre-existing exclusions, such as the use/reuse exclusion in 261.2(e) and 

the closed loop recycling exclusion in 261.4(a)(8) to the detriment of investigating other 

potentially more problematic recycling. 

Many of the specific industry commenters on this issue were scrap metal recyclers 

who argued that although they have been legitimately recycling for decades, expecting 

them to prove that their recycling operations were legitimate for the first time would be 

prohibitively expensive, time-consuming and unworkable. The scrap metal recycling 

industry had particular issues with factor 4 as drafted in the 2011 DSW proposal and had 

many questions on how to do the comparable demonstration. 

With respect to the states, a number of states were supportive of codifying one 

legitimacy standard for all hazardous secondary material recycling activities. They

argued that codifying the legitimacy provision would give industry and states a definitive 

standard to evaluate recycling and that industries operating under the pre-2008 recycling 

exclusions and exemptions should not have any problems documenting compliance with 

the legitimate recycling provision of § 260.43, if their recycling is truly legitimate. On the 

other hand, a number of states, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Deleted: of the 

Deleted: that
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 527

Management Officials (ASTSWMO), and the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ 

Association (NEWMOA) all expressed concerns over applying the codified legitimacy 

standard to certain long-standing recycling exclusions, including lead-acid batteries, 

circuit boards, scrap metal, and closed loop recycling, with one state arguing that this 

additional regulatory burden was not necessary for the 2008 pre-existing exclusions and 

exemptions.

Several environmental and community organizations supported codification of the 

legitimate recycling provision for all hazardous secondary materials recycling, but did not 

provide a detailed explanation of their position. In addition, whereas one environmental 

organization acknowledged that EPA did not solicit comment on the elimination of these 

exclusions, this organization stated that they believed a re-examination of all of the 

exclusions by the Agency, including the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions should be 

conducted as soon as possible. 

EPA’s Response: Codification of Legitimacy

In response to the many comments that were submitted, the Agency is making a 

number of changes to the 2011 DSW proposal. Specifically, EPA is codifying a general 

statement in § 261.2(g) that makes it clear that a hazardous secondary material found to 

be sham recycled is discarded and thus, is a solid waste. However, we are not codifying a 

reference to the legitimacy provisions at 40 CFR 260.43 in each of the pre-2008 recycling 

exclusions/exemptions, as we proposed to do in the 2011 DSW proposal. On further 

reflection, we have determined that the sham recycling prohibition in § 261.2(g) more 

clearly defines the Agency's view on legitimate recycling and the pre-2008 recycling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 527

exclusions and exemptions. We also agree with those commenters who pointed out that 

we generally looked at the legitimacy of the recycling activity when we promulgated the 

material-specific or industry-specific exclusions and, therefore, we are not requiring 

facilities to revisit past legitimacy determinations. However, by codifying a prohibition 

on sham recycling that applies to all hazardous secondary materials being recycled, we 

are confirming that we expect anyone operating under a recycling exclusion or exemption 

to do so legitimately. (As we discuss later in this section and in section VIII, the Agency 

also has made a number of other revisions to the legitimacy standard to address the 

concerns raised in the comments.)

Comments: Effect on Existing Legitimacy Determinations 

Many industry commenters argued that EPA or the states have already made 

legitimate recycling determinations for their specific recyclable materials. Some 

commenters also noted that EPA considered legitimacy at the time their material-specific 

exclusion was promulgated and had already made legitimacy determinations for those 

recyclable materials (e.g., the zinc fertilizer exclusion, precious metal exclusion, etc.). 

These commenters also argued that as part of rulemaking for the material-specific 

exclusions, the Agency had determined what conditions were necessary to ensure 

legitimacy. Some argued that overlaying the general legitimacy factors on the 2008 preexisting conditional exclusions and exemptions is unnecessary and duplicative and would 

create significant disincentives to recycling.

EPA’s Response: Effect on Current Legitimacy Determinations
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 527

In response to the concerns expressed that the codified legitimacy factors would 

lead to practices previously considered legitimate now being considered sham operations, 

in general, the Agency is clarifying that it does not intend for the current recycling 

legitimacy determinations to change due to the codification of the legitimacy factors. We 

consider the factors we are finalizing today to be consistent with the criteria in the 

Lowrance Memo and previous preamble statements on legitimate recycling. Therefore, 

we generally do not anticipate that implementing agencies will revisit past legitimacy 

determinations. If recycling was considered legitimate under the Lowrance Memo, its 

status should not change as a result of today’s rule. To make its intent more clear, the 

Agency is codifying a prohibition against sham recycling in § 261.2(g) instead of adding 

a provision in each of the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions referring to the legitimacy 

provision in § 260.43. This codification will give implementing agencies a clear 

regulatory statement that can be used to enforce against sham recyclers, yet not require 

the vast majority of recyclers that are performing legitimate recycling under the pre-2008 

exclusions and exemptions to revisit previously-made legitimacy determinations. 

Any existing legitimate recycling determination should not change due to the 

codification of the legitimacy factors. In addition, examples that were provided in the 

public comments helped inform our decision-making and led us to revise factor 4 

significantly to address this issue. The final regulatory text is consistent with the preexisting legitimacy guidance and the manner in which legitimacy determinations have 

been made by the EPA Regions and authorized states. Thus, we do not expect 

implementing agencies to revisit past legitimacy determinations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 527

Regarding the existing exclusions and exemptions in the regulations, EPA 

acknowledges that, in establishing a specific exclusion or exemption, we have already 

determined in the rulemaking record that the specific recycling practice is excluded from 

the definition of solid waste provided all the conditions of the rule are met. However, the 

Agency has always enforced its rules on the basis that any recycling must be legitimate 

(See U.S. v. Self, 2 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (10th Cir. 1993); U.S. v Marine Shale Processors, 81 

F. 3d 1361, 1366 (5th Cir. 1996); Marine Shale Processors v. EPA, 81 F. 3d 1371, 1381-

83 (5th Cir. 1996)). This is meant to prevent a company from claiming to be operating 

under an existing exclusion or exemption and simply using that as a way to avoid full 

RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Thus, since EPA is not modifying the existing exclusions

and exemptions, there is no change regarding legitimacy determinations, except that the 

factors are now codified. A company’s ability to claim a recycling exclusion or 

exemption has always depended on the recycling being legitimate. 

B. Making All Four Legitimacy Factors Mandatory

Comments: Mandatory Factors

For the most part, states commenting on this part of the proposal supported all the 

legitimacy factors being mandatory (the exceptions being Tennessee and Louisiana), 

although several states went on to say that they either opposed the petition process or are 

concerned about it for the following reasons: (1) the resources necessary for addressing 

incoming petitions, (2) the possibility of using the petition process as a potential 

backdoor out of legitimacy, and/or (3) the potential for the petition process to lead to 

inconsistencies among states on legitimacy determinations. Most states have supported 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 527

making all four factors mandatory in past proposals and continue to do so here, arguing 

that codifying the legitimacy factors in the rule (instead of only in rule preamble and in 

policy documents) will provide clearer instruction to the regulated community and will 

strengthen the ability of state programs to enforce the criteria in situations where 

recycling is not legitimate. This, the states claim, will reduce the potential risk to human 

health and the environment from mismanagement of hazardous secondary materials and 

from elevated concentrations of contaminants in recycled products. They also argue that 

making all four factors mandatory will remove a serious flaw in the enforceability of 

legitimacy. Other commenters noted that requiring all four legitimacy factors to be met is 

critical to ensure reclamation is being conducted at a qualified facility and to minimize 

the potential for creation of future damage cases. Most states found it hard to conceive of 

a legitimate recycler that would not be able to satisfy all four factors.

Although some commenters representing the hazardous waste recycling industry 

did support making all the factors mandatory, the majority of industry commenters did 

not support this provision. Those commenters who did support a requirement that all four 

factors be met argued that this structure would be fairer and more enforceable. On the 

other hand, many of the commenters that argued against making all factors mandatory 

stated that this would discourage much of the current recycling and would be too hard to 

meet. Commenters particularly singled out factor 4 (toxics along for the ride) as 

problematic for implementation. Specifically, we got comments from multiple members 

of the mining and mineral processing industry arguing that factor 4 is not applicable to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 527

their industry and from scrap metal recyclers asking how factor 4 would apply at their 

facilities. 

Many commenters also argued that the petition process was not an adequate 

mechanism for those processes that do not meet all four factors because there will be too 

many petitions for the states and EPA to be able to process and because shutting down 

recycling operations during the time spent waiting for petitions to be processed would be 

very expensive and wasteful. 

Another important consideration is what the Agency has learned since 

implementing the 2008 DSW final rule, which finalized the legitimacy factors as a 

condition of the generator-controlled and transfer-based exclusions, with two factors that 

are mandatory and two factors that must be considered. Since that rule became effective, 

the Agency has become aware of a misconception regarding the “to be considered” 

factors. It has become clear that some industry stakeholders believe those factors to be 

less important, stating that they are optional or even can be ignored. This was not the 

Agency’s intention at all. The Agency tried to make it clear that they must be considered 

and could, in fact, indicate sham recycling on their own. However, through public 

comment and stakeholder meetings, we have repeatedly heard that industry views these 

factors as optional.

Another argument against making all the factors mandatory requirements is that 

the overall determination is made on a case-by-case basis, which is often facility-specific, 

and not all legitimate recycling can fit into such a rigid system. Commenters argue that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 527

making all four factors mandatory removes the flexibility necessary for the broad 

universe of hazardous secondary materials being recycled. 

EPA's Response: Mandatory Factors

After much consideration and review of the public comments, the Agency has 

decided to make all four legitimacy factors mandatory with adjustments to the factors 

themselves to account for the variability and diversity of legitimate hazardous secondary 

material recycling. As explained above in sections VIII.B.5 and VIII.B.6, we have 

adjusted the regulatory language of factor 4 to build in more flexibility for meeting this 

factor,57 but are also making it clear in the regulatory language that it is important that 

each factor be met, except as otherwise noted.58 Since finalizing the legitimacy factors in 

the 2008 DSW final rule, our experience with implementation has made us realize the 

importance of requiring all factors be met. Even though we stressed the importance of 

considering each factor in the 2008 DSW final rule, many of the stakeholders are under 

the misimpression that the factors that were to be considered could actually be ignored. 

We did not mean to give the impression that factor 3 and factor 4 were optional and thus, 

have decided that the best way to give the proper weight to these factors is to make them 

mandatory with additional flexibility to address the various recycling scenarios. 

 

57 In addition, we are also finalizing in the regulatory language the additional flexibility that was proposed 

in factor 3 to the legitimacy provision. 

58 As we discuss in Section VIII.B.6.c, the Agency has included a self-implementing process that would 

allow the person performing the recycling to document, certify, and notify the appropriate Regional 

Administrator that even though the hazardous secondary material does not meet factor 4, the recycling is 

still considered legitimate. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 527

In addition, instead of a petition process for those legitimate recycling scenarios 

that don’t meet factor 4, we are finalizing a documentation, certification, and notification 

process. We continue to find that legitimacy determinations are best made on a case-bycase basis, which has always been the case, with the facts of a specific recycling situation 

in hand. If a person has any questions as to the legitimacy of a particular recycling 

activity, he can always approach the appropriate regulatory agency for assistance in 

making a legitimacy determination.

C. Documentation of Legitimate Recycling

When the Agency codified the legitimacy standard in the 2008 DSW final rule, 

we did not require specific documentation regarding the legitimate recycling 

determination. In the 2011 DSW proposal, in addition to proposing that the legitimacy 

standard apply to all hazardous secondary material recycling and that all four legitimacy 

factors must be met, EPA proposed a new documentation requirement for persons 

performing the recycling. We proposed that the recyclers include a narrative description 

of how their hazardous secondary materials are legitimately recycled and that this 

documentation be maintained on-site for the duration of the recycling operations and for 

three years after the recycling operations cease. However, as explained above in section

VIII.C.2, we are only finalizing the requirement to document a legitimate recycling 

determination for those recyclers operating under the generator-controlled exclusion and 

for those recyclers that are legitimately recycling, but do not meet factor 4—that is, they 

must document why the recycling operation is legitimate even if they do not meet factor 

4.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 527

Comments: Documentation

ASTSWMO, NEWMOA, and most other states supported requiring 

documentation of legitimate recycling for both the generator and recycler (with 

exceptions noted in their comments about certain long-standing recycling exclusions and 

exemptions, including lead-acid batteries, circuit boards, scrap metal, and closed loop 

recycling). Most state environmental agencies cited the ability to implement and enforce 

the RCRA recycling program as the primary reason why documentation is needed. 

However, a few states did not support requiring documentation for any of the pre-2008 

recycling exclusions and exemptions. One state agreed that some documentation may be 

necessary for inspections, but also stated that common business records would likely 

suffice in most cases. An environmental organization coalition suggested we provide a 

consistent format and require documentation of both generators and recyclers. Industry 

generally opposed the documentation requirement and felt that it would pose significant 

practical challenges, especially for factor 4. Some industry commenters felt that “upfront” documentation is not necessary since EPA can rely on § 261.2(f) for 

documentation. Other commenters argued that for companies that rely heavily on the 

existing exclusions and exemptions, it would be easy to inadvertently miss documenting 

every instance (i.e., closed loop recycling) and the consequences could be severe. In fact, 

one industry association argued that documentation may actually cause more noncompliance due to the huge administrative burden, especially for large facilities that 

utilize many of the recycling exclusions and that the voluminous paperwork could result 

in inspectors missing more obvious sham recycling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 527

Other commenters objected to any recordkeeping requirements documenting that 

a recycling activity is legitimate, arguing the policy is not new so, therefore, no new 

documentation should be required. They argued that since EPA already believes most 

recycling is legitimate, requiring documentation for all recycling is overly burdensome, 

expensive, and not necessary. Some industry commenters argued that EPA offered no 

evidence in the record that documenting the legitimacy of a recycling practice would 

have any additional environmental benefit. A few commenters asserted that requiring 

documentation for all recycling might actually cause more non-compliance, especially for 

the more frequently used recycling exclusions, such as the use/reuse and closed-loop 

recycling exclusions.

Finally, there was ample confusion in the comments on who would be required to 

put together and provide the documentation. The Agency proposed that the requirement 

would apply to the “persons performing the recycling.” That is, if the generator sent his 

hazardous secondary materials off-site to a recycler, then the recycler would be the one 

responsible for maintaining the documentation. If, on the other hand, the generator 

recycled his hazardous secondary materials on-site, then the generator would be 

responsible for documenting that the recycling activity was legitimate. However, some 

commenters still expressed confusion over who would be responsible for the 

documentation.

EPA's Response: Documentation

As discussed previously, the Agency has determined that, for purposes of the 

existing pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions, documentation is not required, 

Deleted: If

Deleted: If
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 527

unless the facility has determined it is legitimately recycling, but does not meet Factor 4. 

In the vast majority of cases, recycling under the existing exclusions is legitimate and 

documentation is not necessary. The Agency has previously acknowledged the legitimacy 

of these recycling practices when it first promulgated the material-specific and industryspecific exclusions and exemptions, when at that time it took into consideration the 

legitimacy of the recycling practices. After review of the public comment, the Agency 

has determined that routine documentation of legitimacy is an unnecessary burden for 

persons legitimately recycling under the pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions.

However, the Agency is requiring documentation on legitimacy determinations 

under two circumstances: (1) persons operating under the generator-controlled exclusion 

originally finalized in the 2008 DSW final rule, and (2) persons legitimately recycling 

under any recycling exclusion or exemption where the hazardous constituents in the 

recycled products are not comparable or are unable to be compared to those in analogous 

products (unless the recycled product meets widely recognized commodity specifications 

or the hazardous secondary material is returned to the production process). In these cases, 

the persons recycling would be required to keep documentation of the legitimacy of their 

recycling.

Specifically, the Agency has determined that requiring documentation under the 

generator-controlled exclusion is appropriate because this exclusion is generic and can be 

used by a wide variety of industries recycling any of a number of hazardous secondary 

materials. In addition, as explained above in section VIII.B.6.c, the Agency has also 

determined that documentation is necessary for those rare cases of legitimate recycling 

Deleted: from the definition of solid waste

Deleted: The
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 527

that has significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents in the recycled product than 

in an analogous product, or has no analogous product, has no widely-recognized 

commodity specifications for the recycled product, and is not returned to the production 

process. In those cases, due to the self-implementing nature of the legitimacy 

determinations, it is important that the recycler perform the proper assessment and 

document how the recycling is still legitimate.

Finally we would note that 40 CFR 261.2(f) applies whenever a person is 

claiming that a hazardous secondary material is not a solid waste, which oftentimes is 

because the material is being recycled. Section 261.2(f) states that, in the context of an 

enforcement action to implement Subtitle C of RCRA, a person claiming that a material 

is not a solid waste or is conditionally exempt from regulation is responsible for showing 

that they meet the terms of the exclusion or exemption and must provide appropriate 

documentation to show why they are eligible. For the legitimacy requirement finalized 

today, under § 261.2(f), in the event of an enforcement action, persons claiming that their 

recycling activity is legitimate would have the burden to provide documentation showing 

how the recycling meets all four factors, except as otherwise noted. That is, they would 

need to show how the recyclable hazardous secondary materials provide a useful 

contribution to the recycling process and are stored as valuable commodities, and how the 

product of the recycling activity is valuable and comparable to a legitimate product. 

D. Factor 3: Language and Implementation

Comments: Factor 3 

Deleted: analysis
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 527

Many commenters supported the regulatory language revisions to factor 3, 

particularly the following additional italicized language: “Where there is an analogous 

raw material, the hazardous secondary material, must be managed, at a minimum, in a 

manner consistent with the management of the raw material or in an equally protective 

manner.” Some commenters argued, however, that the real change to factor 3 was the 

proposed revision to the contained standard because the second part of factor 3 reads: 

“Where there is no analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be 

contained.” These commenters expressed concern that by making factor 3 mandatory and 

by revising the contained definition, the Agency was in effect making factor 3 more 

stringent.

EPA’s Response: Factor 3

The Agency disagrees with the comments that the revised contained standard is 

more stringent and thus, results in a more stringent factor 3. First, as noted by the 

commenters, the contained standard only applies in cases where there is no analogous 

raw material to compare the management of the hazardous secondary material to. More 

importantly, however, as explained in more detail is section V, while the revised 

contained standard is more clear and more definitive, it is not more stringent, but is 

consistent with the contained standard previously discussed and described in the 

preamble to the 2008 DSW final rule. Thus, EPA finds that overall the revisions to factor 

3 are reasonable and consistent with the Agency’s previous positions on legitimacy. 

Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the regulatory language for factor 3 as proposed and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 527

has determined the added flexibility will allow existing legitimate recycling to continue 

without any negative impact on environmental protection.

E. Factor 4: Language and Implementation

In the 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to change the wording within the 

regulatory language for factor 4 from ‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘significantly elevated’’ to 

‘‘comparable to or lower than’’ and explained that this language more clearly reflects the 

intent of this factor. In addition to this language change, other proposed changes to the 

legitimacy provision impact the design and implementation of factor 4. The proposal to 

make all four legitimacy factors mandatory led many commenters to discuss specific 

concerns they had about factor 4 and what problems they would have meeting the factor 

as it was proposed. In this section, EPA examines some of those comments, as well as 

provides the Agency’s responses and the changes that were made to the proposal in this 

final rule to make factor 4 more workable. 

In concert with many of the comments about the difficulties of meeting the 

proposed factor 4, EPA also received many comments about its proposed petition process 

for when a recycling process does not meet either factor 3 or factor 4. EPA is thus, also 

addressing those comments in this section of the preamble because the documentation, 

certification and notification process that will be replacing the proposed petition process 

is found within factor 4 of the legitimacy provision. 

Comments: “Comparable” 

EPA’s proposal to change the language within factor 4 that describes the 

comparison of levels of contaminants between products made from recycling of 

Deleted: believes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 527

hazardous secondary materials and products using raw materials was supported by most 

of the states that commented on factor 4 and opposed by many of the industry 

commenters. The states that supported the change stated that the term “comparable” is 

better because it is more specific, though several of these commenters also asked for 

further guidance on the language. 

Industry commenters who opposed this change to factor 4 stated that there was 

not a good reason in the preamble for the change in the language and that they do not 

think that “comparable” means the same thing as “not significantly higher,” arguing that 

if the terms mean the same thing there was no reason for EPA to change them. Several 

commenters argued that this change in language makes the factor more stringent and/or 

less flexible. 

EPA’s Response: “Comparable” 

EPA is finalizing the proposed language in this factor and using the term 

“comparable” in discussing levels of hazardous constituents. This term means any 

contaminants present in the product made from hazardous secondary materials are 

present at levels comparable to or lower than the levels in the analogous product, 

although levels can be slightly higher than those found in the analogous product, but must 

be within a small acceptable range. This change in language is not a change from its 

long-standing policy and it is also consistent with the legitimacy provisions in the 

Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes final rule (76 

FR 15456, March 21, 2011). 

Deleted: started

Deleted: then
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 527

In response to comments requesting further guidance and those that state that this 

language change is making factor 4 too stringent, first we have repeated in section VIII of 

the preamble the examples that we included in the 2008 DSW final rule which explains 

how the Agency envisions this factor working. Moreover, the additional changes that it 

made to factor 4 in this final rule, describing several situations under which a product of a 

recycling process would be considered comparable to a legitimate product or 

intermediate, address both these concerns. As EPA determined in previous rulemakings, 

promulgating an exact numerical cut-off for what would be considered “comparable” is 

not practicable for the legitimacy provision because it applies to a wide variety of 

recycling scenarios. EPA may provide future guidance on the application of this 

provision if needed.

Comments: Uncertainty About Compliance

Many of the comments that EPA received from industry regarding factor 4 stated 

that facilities are concerned about this factor, particularly if it were to become mandatory, 

because it would be difficult to determine if a given recycling process is in compliance. 

Many of these commenters stated the high cost of testing for 40 CFR part 261 Appendix 

VIII constituents as one of their concerns. 

EPA’s Response: Uncertainty About Compliance

First, we are reiterating in this final rule that testing of the recycled product is 

generally not required under factor 4 of legitimacy. A generator can use its knowledge of 

the materials it uses and of the recycling process to make legitimacy determinations, 

although they may choose to test if they are uncertain if the product from their hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 527

secondary materials contains elevated levels of hazardous constituents when compared to 

non-recycled products. In addition, factor 4 as finalized today presents no greater 

compliance issues than it would under the 2008 DSW final rule, because under the 2008 

legitimacy definition, a facility still had to consider the hazardous constituents in 

Appendix VIII of part 261 in determining whether factor 4 is met, and be able to 

demonstrate why recycling was still legitimate even if it was not met. Furthermore, as we 

have noted elsewhere, we have made certain revisions to factor 4, in response to 

comments, for facilities to determine that they are in compliance with this factor. 

Specifically, the provisions in § 260.43(a)(4) state that products that meet widely 

recognized commodity standards and specifications would be considered comparable and 

meet factor 4 and hazardous secondary materials that are recycled back into the original 

generating process would be considered comparable and also meet factor 4, which is 

intended to make compliance with factor 4 simpler across many of the industries in which 

much industrial recycling takes place.

Comments: No Analogous Product to Compare

Many of the comments regarding factor 4, including many of the examples that 

were sent in to describe the difficulties of complying with factor 4, described recycling 

situations in which there is no analogous product and argued that it would be very 

difficult to meet the proposed factor 4 in a situation where there is no analogous product.

EPA’s Response: No Analogous Product to Compare

After examining the comments submitted, including the examples provided, EPA 

agrees with the commenters that the design of proposed factor 4 did not adequately take 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 527

into consideration recycling scenarios that either always includes some form of recycled 

hazardous secondary material or that would be considered closed loop recycling. As a 

result of these comments, EPA modified the structure of factor 4 to include provisions 

specifically for the situation where there are no analogous products, (found in § 

260.43(a)(4)(ii)). The finalized provisions state that when there is no analogous product, 

the product of the recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate 

when the product is a commodity meeting widely recognized commodity standards and 

specifications or when the hazardous secondary materials being recycling are returned to 

the original process or processes from which they were generated. 

This change to factor 4 provides the necessary flexibility to those persons who 

recycle hazardous secondary materials for which there is not an analogous product for 

comparison. However, EPA has also included a documentation, certification, and notice 

provision for cases that do not fit these two scenarios. Under this provision, the recycler 

can perform an assessment of the hazardous secondary material and still determine that 

its recycling is legitimate despite not meeting factor 4. This finding must be documented 

and certified by a responsible facility official and a copy kept on-site for as long as the 

recycling continues, and for 3 years after the recycling operations cease. Also, a notice of 

this finding must be sent to the appropriate Regional Administrator (or State Director, in 

an authorized state), using the Site ID form. 

Comments: Petition Process

As stated above in this section, many commenters argued that the petition process 

was not an adequate mechanism for relief for those processes that do not meet all four 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 527

factors and therefore, they opposed the proposed petition process. They argued that there 

would be too many petitions for the states and EPA to process efficiently, which could 

result in shutting down recycling operations during the time spent waiting for petitions to 

be processed, which would be very expensive and wasteful. States were particularly 

concerned about the amount of resources that would be needed to process the incoming 

petitions. 

EPA’s Response: Petition Process

In response to the arguments presented by the commenters in opposition to the 

petition process and the concerns with how implementation of the petition process could 

impact recycling, EPA is not finalizing the petition process in this final rule. Instead, 

EPA has made two changes to its proposal to account for the situations that the petition 

process was meant to cover. The first is the additional provisions in factor 4 (already 

discussed above in this section) that describe the specific situations in which EPA 

considers a product of a recycling process to be comparable to an analogous product or 

intermediate. The second is the documentation, certification, and notice provision for 

products that have levels of hazardous constituents that are not comparable to or lower 

than an analogous product or intermediate or that are unable to be compared, but which 

are not covered by the new provisions. 

Under the documentation, certification, and notice process, a recycler must 

determine that its recycling is still legitimate despite the levels of hazardous constituents 

in the recycled product not being comparable to those in an analogous product or 

intermediate. This determination can take into account exposure of toxics in the product, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 527

bioavailability of toxics in the product or other relevant considerations that show the 

recycled product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents that pose a risk to 

human health or the environment. The facility then must prepare documentation 

explaining its assessment and include a certification that the recycling is legitimate. In 

addition, the facility would need to notify the appropriate Regional Administrator (or 

State Director, in an authorized state) of this finding.

This provision is a less burdensome process for both recyclers and the states 

implementing the RCRA program because it maintains the self-implementing nature of 

the legitimacy requirement. However, because facilities will still have to provide notice 

to the regulatory agency, it also allows implementing agencies to perform oversight and 

inspections of recycling facilities if they are concerned about the legitimacy of a specific 

recycling process. 

XVIII. Major Comments on Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste 

Determinations 

In the July 2011 DSW proposed rule, EPA proposed several modifications to the 

existing regulations for solid waste variances and non-waste determinations in 40 CFR 

260.31(c), 40 CFR 260.33 and 40 CFR 260.34 to ensure protection of human health and 

the environment and foster greater consistency on the part of implementing agencies.

A. Requiring Facilities to Re-Apply for a Variance or Non-Waste Determination

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 260.33(c) to 

require facilities to re-apply for a variance in the event of a change in circumstances that 

affects how a material meets the criteria upon which a solid waste variance has been 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 527

based, as is currently required for non-waste determinations. Additionally, EPA requested 

comment on whether to require variances and non-waste determinations to be renewed 

periodically, and, if so, what time period would be appropriate (e.g., two or five years as 

suggested in the preamble to the 2011 July DSW proposal). 

Comments: Re-Apply for a Variance in the Event of a Change

The majority of commenters supported EPA’s proposed change to require 

facilities to re-apply for a variance in the event of change in circumstances that affects 

how a hazardous secondary material meets the criteria upon which a solid waste variance 

has been based. The commenters believe the change promoted clarity and consistency in 

the regulations and that it made sense to ensure the hazardous secondary materials 

continued to meet the conditions of the exclusion over time. Other commenters, however, 

while supporting such a provision, urged EPA to require a re-certification rather than a 

full application process so as to reduce the burden on states and the regulated community. 

A few commenters disagreed with this provision, as they argued that

administrative authorities already use discretion to review changes in circumstances. 

EPA’s Response: Re-Apply for a Variance in the Event of a Change

EPA agrees with the majority of commenters that finalizing a requirement to 

require facilities to take action in the event of a change in circumstances will ensure the 

hazardous secondary material remains eligible for a variance and continues to meet the 

variance criteria over time. EPA also agrees with those commenters that suggested ways 

to reduce the administrative burden on states and the regulated community. Therefore, in 

today’s final rule, EPA is requiring that, in the event of a change, the facility must send a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 527

description of the change to the regulatory authority and the regulatory authority will 

determine whether the facility must re-apply for a variance. This change in procedure 

allows both the regulatory authority and regulated community to avoid spending 

unnecessary resources where the change in circumstances is found to be of no 

consequence to the original variance that the regulatory authority has granted. EPA notes 

that re-applying for a variance should be less burdensome than the initial application 

because a facility would only have to update its original application.

EPA disagrees with those commenters who opposed this change on the basis that 

regulatory authorities already use discretion to review changes in circumstances. First, 

the changes that EPA made to the final rule would not automatically require a person to 

re-apply for the variance, but make the regulatory authority aware of the change so that 

an informed decision could be made as to whether the variance is still appropriate. 

Moreover, relying on case-by-case discretion to require notice in the event of a change

could allow certain hazardous secondary materials to remain excluded from regulation 

under Subtitle C of RCRA, even though based on the changed circumstances, the 

variance is no longer appropriate, and could present a risk to human health and the 

environment. It would also contradict the Agency’s goal to foster greater consistency on 

the part of implementing agencies.

Comments: Periodic Renewal of Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

A number of commenters did not support requiring periodic renewals of variances 

and non-waste determinations. Commenters opposed this change because of the 

additional burden on both the states and the regulated community and the fact that this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 527

would not be needed if EPA finalized its proposed change to require a renewal or 

recertification in the event of a change. Additionally, some commenters argued that the 

administrative authority already has discretion to set renewal timeframes as a condition of 

the variance. One commenter argued that facilities make significant business investments 

based on regulatory certainty and, thus, if variances are subject to repeal, this may 

prevent investment in recycling activities.

A few commenters, however, supported a renewal requirement and argued that 

reapplying in the event of a change is not the same as a periodic renewal. This 

commenter argued that the requirement to re-apply in the event of a change relies almost 

entirely on the facility to self-report on a change in circumstances, of which the facility 

may have an economic incentive not to do. Other commenters suggested that generators 

“re-certify,” rather than re-apply, on an annual or biennial basis that they continue to 

meet the conditions of a variance or non-waste determination in order to reduce 

administrative burden. 

EPA’s Response: Periodic Renewal of Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

EPA agrees with the commenters that supported a renewal requirement for solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations. Variances and non-waste determinations 

are granted based on case-specific circumstances of a particular hazardous secondary 

material being recycled. Many of the variance and non-waste determination criteria 

specifically consider factors such as, the manner in which the hazardous secondary 

material is recycled, the market factors of the recycling process, the value of the 

hazardous secondary material, and contractual arrangements. However, these factors are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 278 of 527

not static and, instead, change and evolve over time. It is therefore prudent that regulatory 

authorities periodically review these case-specific situations to ensure that the hazardous 

secondary material continues to meet the criteria of the variance or non-waste 

determination. Therefore, EPA is adding a provision to 40 CFR 260.33(d) that solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations shall be effective for a fixed term not to 

exceed 10 years, which is the same term limit for RCRA hazardous waste permits under 

40 CFR 270.50(a). 

EPA is establishing a time limit of 10 years (rather than two or five years, as 

suggested in the July 2011 proposal) considering the need to provide regulatory certainty 

to support business investment, as well as the fact that 10 years is the same as the 

duration of RCRA permits under 40 CFR 270.50(a). The 10 year time frame also ensures 

that renewals occur regularly enough in order to evaluate significant changes in recycling 

processes, technologies, and market factors that may affect the terms of a variance or 

non-waste determination.

EPA disagrees with those commenters who argued that periodic renewals would 

not be needed if EPA finalized the proposed change to require notice in the event of a 

change in circumstances that affect how a hazardous secondary material meets the 

conditions of a variance or, as currently required for a non-waste determination. As one 

commenter noted, the requirement to provide notice in the event of a change relies on a 

facility self-reporting that change and thus, this requirement may not be consistently 

implemented. A periodic time limit, in this case 10 years, however, triggers a re-review 

of the circumstances without relying on self-reporting by the facility. Furthermore, EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 527

disagrees with commenters who opposed this change on the basis that regulatory 

authorities already use discretion to review changes in circumstances. (See response to 

this comment in EPA’s Response to “Re-Apply for a Variance in the Event of a Change.) 

Regarding the commenter that argued that periodic renewals would disrupt business 

investment, EPA finds that a time limit of ten years (rather than two or five years, as 

suggested in the July 2011 proposal) is a sufficient amount of time to provide regulatory 

certainty to support business investment, given that ten years is the same as the duration 

of RCRA permits.

B. Requiring Notification for Facilities Operating Under Variances and Non-Waste 

Determinations

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to add a provision under 40 CFR 

260.33 stating that facilities receiving a variance or non-waste determination must 

provide notification as required under 40 CFR 260.42. This would require facilities to 

send a notification prior to operating under the regulatory provision and by March 1 of 

each even-numbered year thereafter to the EPA or the State Director, if the state was 

authorized, using EPA Form 8700-12.

Comments: Requiring Notification for Facilities Operating Under Variances and NonWaste Determinations

Commenters were split on this issue. Many commenters supported requiring 

facilities receiving a solid waste variance or non-waste determination to submit 

notifications in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42. These commenters believed that the 

notification would provide updated information about a facility’s activities and would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 527

enable better compliance monitoring. These commenters also agreed that notification 

would improve transparency, because the notifications could be available online.

However, many commenters opposed requiring facilities that receive a variance 

from being a solid waste or non-waste determination to submit notifications. These 

commenters argued that the act of applying for and receiving a variance or non-waste 

determination constitutes adequate notification for regulatory authorities. These 

commenters also argued that notification would increase the burden on facilities and was 

not necessary if EPA finalized its proposal to require facilities to re-apply in the event of 

a change.

EPA’s Response: Requiring Notification for Facilities Operating Under Variances and 

Non-Waste Determinations

Although EPA recognizes the arguments both for and against notification, EPA 

agrees with those commenters who support notification in order to enable better 

compliance monitoring and to improve transparency. Therefore, EPA is finalizing a 

requirement in 40 CFR 260.33(e) that facilities receiving a variance or non-waste 

determination must provide notification as required by 40 CFR 260.42. 

This requirement serves to meet EPA’s goal to foster greater consistency on the 

part of implementing agencies and to help ensure the proper implementation of the solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations. The intent of the notification is to enable 

variances and non-waste determinations to be tracked nationally and over time, which 

facilitates state-to-state consistency in determinations. Additionally, notification enables 

effective oversight of facilities receiving solid waste variances and non-waste 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 527

determinations because it provides regulatory authorities with a mechanism for receiving 

regularly updated information (such as information regarding quantities of hazardous 

secondary materials managed under the determination). Furthermore, this information 

can be used to identify facilities which may have undergone changes to their reclamation 

process significant enough to trigger a review of the determination under 40 CFR 

260.33(c). 

EPA does not agree that the solid waste variance or non-waste determination 

application itself constitutes adequate notification. Currently, individual facility 

applications are not tracked nationally and there exist no consolidated list of facilities 

operating under a solid waste variance or non-waste determination. Notification, using 

EPA Form 8700-12, ensures that standard information regarding facilities receiving solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations can be collected, stored, and used to 

enable compliance monitoring and to foster consistency in implementing the regulations. 

We also do not agree that the notification requirement is duplicative of the 

requirement to send notice in the event of a change because the two requirements serve 

different purposes and require different information. In the event of a change, facilities’ 

must send a description of the change in circumstances to EPA or the authorized state, 

who then make an evaluation as to whether a facility should re-apply for a solid waste 

variance or non-waste determination. Under 40 CFR 260.42, facilities submit 

information, such as type and quantity of hazardous secondary material being managed, 

using EPA Form 8700-12, which enables the information to be entered into EPA’s 

database where it can be accessed by both EPA and state regulatory authorities. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 282 of 527

Furthermore, EPA does not agree that notification using EPA Form 8700-12 

poses an undue burden. The form is relatively simple to complete and is currently being 

used for facilities excluded from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23). 

Additionally, EPA is currently developing an electronic submission process, which will 

further reduce reporting burden.

C. Revisions to the Partial Reclamation Variance

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to revise the partial reclamation 

variance provision of 40 CFR 260.31(c) to clarify when partially-reclaimed materials are 

not solid waste because they are commodity-like. Specifically, EPA proposed to: (1) 

revise the introductory text to clarify when the variance applies; (2) revise the 

introductory text to require that all of the decision criteria must be met; (3) revise the 

language of all of the decision criteria; and (4) eliminate the sixth criterion, that is, “other 

relevant factors.”

Comments: General Comments on Proposed Changes to Partial Reclamation Variance

Many commenters supported EPA’s proposed changes to the partial reclamation 

variance. In fact, two of these commenters argued that existing variances that do not meet 

the new criteria should be rescinded or revised.

A few commenters, however, did not support the proposed changes. These 

commenters argued that EPA does not have the record to support its finding that states 

are inconsistently and incorrectly applying the partial reclamation variance criteria and 

that variances granted by the states are not protective of human health and the 

environment. Additionally, one commenter argued that EPA provided no documentation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 283 of 527

for public review to substantiate how EPA intended the variance criteria to apply when it 

promulgated the variance in 1985. Another commenter argued that the proposed changes 

will restrict recycling.

EPA’s Response: General Comments on Proposed Changes to Partial Reclamation 

Variance

EPA agrees with commenters who supported the proposed changes. Not finalizing 

the proposed revisions to the partial reclamation variance would only result in a 

continuation of inconsistency among state determinations, which in some cases, allow 

partially-reclaimed materials to be excluded from the definition of solid waste when they 

are clearly not commodity-like, but rather hazardous wastes. EPA notes, however, that 

the final changes to the partial reclamation variance criteria only apply to facilities 

receiving variances after the effective date of today’s rule. The changes are not 

retroactive and thus would not apply to facilities currently operating under existing partial 

reclamation variances, unless and until the facility’s variance came up for renewal. Thus, 

the Agency does not agree with those commenters who suggested that any variance that 

does not meet the revised criteria should be rescinded or revised immediately. 

EPA estimates that the states have granted between 15 to 20 partial reclamation 

variances, including variances granted in Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. EPA itself has also issued a partial reclamation 

variance to World Resource Company (WRC) in Arizona. (See list of partial reclamation 

variances issues by the states in today’s docket.) Some of the partial reclamation 

variances were granted as the Agency intended and have required RCRA Part B storage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 527

and treatment permits for the incoming hazardous waste material. Other states, however, 

have issued partial reclamation variances which contradict the intention of the partial 

reclamation variance. For example, EPA publicly expressed its disagreement in a 

November 18, 2010, letter to Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management 

(IDEM) concerning the tentative approval of a facility’s request for a partial reclamation 

variance, a copy of which is found in today’s docket. In our letter, we made clear that we 

did not believe IDEM should grant a partial reclamation variance to incoming hazardous 

wastes that were not “sufficiently commodity-like to qualify for the variance.”

EPA also disagrees with commenters who argued that EPA’s record does not 

provide adequate basis for how the Agency intended the partial reclamation variance to 

operate. In the preamble to the 1985 DSW final rule (January 4, 1985; 50 FR 655), the 

Agency made clear that incoming materials to a partial reclamation facility were 

hazardous wastes and that the facility processing these incoming materials must obtain 

appropriate RCRA Part B storage and treatment permits. (Furthermore, these facilities are 

also subject to biennial reporting under 40 CFR 264.75.) Additionally, the Agency points 

to the partial reclamation variance it issued to WRC on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52617) 

as a public example of the how the Agency intended for the partial reclamation variance 

to be implemented. In this case, the Agency’s partial reclamation variance to WRC for 

the partial reclamation of F006 electroplating sludges required WRC to obtain RCRA 

Part B storage and treatment permits for the incoming hazardous waste. 

In addition, EPA disagrees that the final rule changes will unnecessarily restrict 

recycling. Today’s changes clarify how the partial reclamation variance has always been
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 527

intended to operate; thus, any recycling that is consequentially restricted from the 

variance as a result of the changes was never intended to be excluded from hazardous 

waste requirements. EPA maintains that hazardous waste must be managed under 

appropriate hazardous waste requirements in order to ensure protection of human health 

and the environment.

Comments: Revisions to Introductory Text 

Most commenters supported the proposed changes to the introductory text, 

including requiring that all criteria must be met and requiring compliance with the 

legitimacy criteria in 40 CFR 260.43. One commenter, while supporting the proposed 

changes said that EPA should define vague words such as “commodity-like,” “sufficient 

economic value,” and “substantial.” Another commenter said that commodity-like 

partially-reclaimed material must be marketable to the general public, that is, it must be a 

material that could be marketed to more than one facility. 

Some commenters did not agree that all the criteria must be met. One commenter 

argued that this conflicts with EPA’s 1985 preamble in which EPA said the Regional 

Administrator can weigh factors and may rely on any or all of them to reach a decision. 

Additionally, the WRC variance that EPA issued acknowledged that the partial 

reclamation steps being performed were “not elaborate.” However, the partial 

reclamation involved by WRC was sufficiently substantial to produce a commodity-like 

material as verified by contracts, sales, and subsequent management of the commoditylike material. Other commenters believed EPA’s proposed changes to the introductory 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 286 of 527

text imposed prescriptive conditions which conflict with the intent of the variance by 

restricting the administrative authority’s decision-making discretion.

EPA’s Response: Revisions to Introductory Text

EPA agrees with those commenters who supported the proposed changes to the 

introductory text, including requiring that all criteria must be met and requiring 

compliance with the legitimacy factors in 40 CFR 260.43. In response to the one 

commenter who believed that certain terms are vague, it is EPA’s intent with this final 

rule to clarify how the partial reclamation variance should be applied. Although, specific 

definitions would be difficult to promulgate given the broad applicability of the terms, 

EPA notes that today’s preamble discussion along with today’s regulatory revisions to the 

variance criteria serve to better define how EPA is using these terms in the partial 

reclamation variance, particularly when a material becomes commodity-like. For 

example, EPA notes in its preamble that criteria 2-5 define the fundamental 

characteristics that indicate whether a partially-reclaimed material is “commodity-like.” 

Regarding comments that argued against requiring all criteria to be met, EPA has 

determined that in order to reduce the inconsistency in state-to-state partial reclamation 

variances, the criteria must be made more prescriptive. Balancing the factors, as was 

EPA’s original direction in 1985, has resulted in subjective interpretations that differ

across states and which, in some cases, do not align with the original intent of the partial 

reclamation variance. EPA finds that requiring all criteria to be met is a more effective 

framework for determining when a partially-reclaimed material is commodity-like and 

therefore not a solid waste.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 287 of 527

Comments: General Comments on Revisions to Variance Criteria

Many commenters supported the changes to the criteria of the partial reclamation 

variance. However, a few commenters disagreed with inserting the word “whether” at the 

beginning of each criterion because it implied the criterion was more prescriptive. A few 

commenters also argued that EPA’s proposed insertion of the word “partially” before 

“reclaimed” disregards the fact that EPA has acknowledged that more than one 

processing step may be necessary before the inherent value of a usable product is 

recovered.

EPA’s Response: General Comments on Revisions to Variance Criteria

EPA agrees with the many commenters that supported the proposed changes to 

the variance criteria. Regarding EPA’s proposed insertion of the word “whether” in each 

criterion, the intent of this change is to make the criteria more prescriptive in order to 

reduce the inconsistency of partial reclamation variance determinations. EPA also 

disagrees that adding the word “partially” in front of “reclaimed” disregards the fact that 

EPA has acknowledged that more than one processing step may be necessary before the 

inherent value of a usable product is recovered. EPA recognizes that reclamation of 

hazardous secondary materials may involve multiple steps and hazardous waste may be 

recycled in any number of steps in accordance with the hazardous waste regulations. 

However, EPA maintains that a variance from the definition of solid waste is appropriate 

only for partially-reclaimed material that is commodity-like, as demonstrated by 

satisfaction of the partial reclamation criteria.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 288 of 527

Comments: Proposed Criterion (1)—Whether the Degree of Partial Reclamation the 

Material has Undergone is Substantial

For the first proposed criterion, two commenters argued that EPA’s use of “partial 

reclamation” in place of “processing” did not provide additional clarification. Another 

commenter stated the criterion should state EPA’s intent on 76 FR 44129 and read 

“whether the degree of partial reclamation the material has undergone is substantial and 

the material produced is not the original hazardous waste.” Other commenters were 

concerned regarding the term “substantial,” because it is subjective and needs a better 

definition. These commenters argued that EPA has not provided a standard regarding 

when a material is “no longer the original hazardous waste.”

EPA’s Response: Proposed Criterion (1)—Whether the Degree of Partial Reclamation the 

Material has Undergone is Substantial

EPA disagrees with those commenters who argued that EPA’s use of “partial 

reclamation” in place of “processing” did not provide additional clarification. The term 

“processing” is a broad, general term that can refer to a number of processes, such as the 

process used to generate the hazardous waste. However, the intention of the partial 

reclamation variance is to evaluate, specifically, the degree of partial reclamation and 

therefore it makes sense to use “partial reclamation” in criterion 1. Additionally, this 

revised language for the first criterion conforms to the revised changes in the introductory 

text of the partial reclamation variance. 

EPA agrees with commenters that adding a clarifying statement to criterion (1) is 

helpful and has added “as demonstrated by using a partial reclamation process other than
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 289 of 527

the process that generated the hazardous waste” after “substantial.” We believe this 

language clarifies (and responds to the comment regarding the term “substantial”) that the 

process used to generate the hazardous waste (such as dewatering of sludge) would not be 

considered “substantial” under this criterion. Therefore, by emphasizing that the partial 

reclamation process must be substantial in the first criterion, the Agency is reiterating that 

the material produced by the partial reclamation process must be commodity-like as 

supported by also meeting criteria (2)-(5). 

Under the final rule, EPA is finalizing the first criterion to read: “Whether the 

degree of partial reclamation the material has undergone is substantial as demonstrated by 

using a partial reclamation process other than the process that generated the hazardous 

waste.”

Comments: Proposed Criterion (2)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material has 

Sufficient Economic Value that it Will be Purchased for Final Reclamation

For the second proposed criterion, one commenter supported EPA’s emphasis in 

the preamble on the existence of contracts for the sale of the partially-reclaimed material. 

This commenter argued that such emphasis is important to ensure that partial reclaimers 

do not accumulate significant quantities of material without assurance that a willing 

buyer actually exists. This commenter stated that an example of excess accumulation risk 

is shown by the variance recently granted by IDEM to the facility, ShoreMet, in which 

the variance was granted on the basis that a market for the partially-reclaimed material 

would exist solely because other reclaimers had sold fully-reclaimed F006 (wastewater 

treatment sludges from electroplating operations) and F019 (wastewater treatment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 290 of 527

sludges from aluminum coating processes). This commenter argued that such an analysis 

does not ensure that ShoreMet can market its partially-reclaimed material. 

Another commenter argued that reclamation may involve more than one 

processing step and that the proposed changes to this criterion limit the administrative 

authority’s ability to consider the value of the partially-reclaimed material and the usable 

end products. This commenter also argued that the term “value” in 40 CFR 260.43 means 

sold to a third party or used as an effective substitute, which may not apply here. Still 

another commenter noted the F006 reclamation guidance59 allows the use of theoretical 

“on paper” value of precious metals present, despite that substantial processing might be 

needed before those precious metals realize market value.

EPA’s Response: Proposed Criterion (2)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material has 

Sufficient Economic Value that it Will be Purchased for Final Reclamation

EPA agrees with the commenter that supported EPA’s emphasis in the preamble 

on the existence of contracts for the sale of the partially-reclaimed material as 

demonstrating the second criterion is being met.

As we have stated previously, the partial reclamation variance is for those 

hazardous secondary materials that have been partially-reclaimed but, must be reclaimed 

further, as long as the partial reclamation has produced a commodity-like material. That 

is, if the partially-reclaimed material is being purchased for further reclamation, the 

Agency considers the partially-reclaimed material to have sufficient economic value, 

 

59 US EPA, “Background Document: Providing Context – The Example of F006 Electroplating Sludges,” 

June 2011. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0742-0016.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 291 of 527

regardless of how each party calculates the value to be paid. Evidence to support this 

criterion may include sales information; demand for the materials; and business contracts, 

such as contracts specifying quantities of material sold, details of the transaction, and the 

effective price paid for the partially reclaimed material by purchasers (i.e., after 

subtracting transportation costs and any other goods or services rendered in exchange for 

the material purchased). 

EPA is making one change to the proposed second criterion. As noted above, 

EPA understands that reclamation of hazardous waste may involve multiple steps and 

thus EPA finds it is more appropriate to ensure that the partially-reclaimed material is 

purchased for “further reclamation” rather than “final reclamation” to allow for processes 

that use more than one reclamation step in processing the partially-reclaimed material. 

Therefore, the final second criterion in today’s rule reads: “Whether the partiallyreclaimed material has sufficient economic value that it will be purchased for further 

reclamation.”

Comments: Proposed Criterion (3)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material is a 

Viable Substitute for a Product or Intermediate Produced from Virgin or Raw Materials 

which Feeds Subsequent Production Steps

For the third criterion, one commenter disagreed with the proposed wording 

change because it restricts the authority’s ability to consider the benefit provided by 

subsequent processing of the partially-reclaimed material and directs the authority only to 

consider whether it is immediately a substitute or product before further processing. 

Another commenter suggested replacing the phrase “which feed subsequent production 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 292 of 527

steps” with the phrase “that is used in a subsequent manufacturing process” to be more 

clear. Still another commenter suggested that this criterion should state more plainly that 

“it is a substitute for ingredients, intermediates, or commercially available virgin/raw 

materials.” 

EPA’s Response: Proposed Criterion (3)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material is a 

Viable Substitute for a Product or Intermediate Produced from Virgin or Raw Materials 

which Feeds Subsequent Production Steps

EPA maintains that the partial reclamation variance is for those materials that 

have been partially-reclaimed, but must be reclaimed further, as long as the partial 

reclamation has produced a commodity-like material. Thus, whether or not a material is 

produced at a later stage of reclamation as a viable substitute for a product or 

intermediate is not relevant in determining whether a partially-reclaimed material 

produced earlier is commodity-like.

EPA agrees with the commenter who suggested replacing the phrase “which feed 

subsequent production steps,” with the commenters suggested wording, with certain 

modifications, in order to improve clarity. Therefore, the Agency is modifying this 

criterion to read, “whether the partially-reclaimed material is a viable substitute for a 

product or intermediate produced from virgin or raw materials, which is used in 

subsequent production steps.” With this clarification, the Agency is making clear that, 

while multiple steps may be involved in producing a commodity-like material, it is only 

when the partially-reclaimed material is a viable substitute for a product or intermediate 

is it considered “commodity-like.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 293 of 527

EPA is not making the suggested change to state that the partially-reclaimed 

material “is a substitute for ingredients, intermediates, or commercially available 

virgin/raw materials” because EPA is concerned that this language may introduce 

confusion in distinguishing between when a partially-reclaimed material is “commoditylike” as compared to raw or virgin material that would need to undergo substantial 

processing before meeting this definition. Therefore, EPA is maintaining the proposed 

language to read “is a viable substitute for a product or intermediate produced from virgin 

or raw materials.”

Comments: Proposed Criterion (4)—Whether There is a Guaranteed Market for the 

Partially-Reclaimed Material

For the fourth proposed criterion, whether there is a guaranteed market for the 

partially-reclaimed material, a few commenters argued that EPA is not specific enough to 

meet its objective and suggested that the criterion should read “whether there is a 

guaranteed and secure long-term market for the partially-reclaimed material.” These 

commenters also stated that EPA should include in the final rule more empirical and 

measurable ways to define this concept, for example including markets with consistent 

positive profit margins for a minimum of ten years. 

EPA’s Response: Proposed Criterion (4)—Whether There is a Guaranteed Market for the 

Partially-Reclaimed Material

EPA agrees that clarity is needed and has modified the fourth criterion to include 

examples of how a market for the partially-reclaimed material can be demonstrated. The 

fourth criterion now reads, “whether there is a market for the partially-reclaimed material 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 294 of 527

as demonstrated by known customer(s) who are further reclaiming the material (e.g. 

record of sales and/or contracts, and evidence of subsequent use, such as bills of lading).” 

In response to the commenter who urged EPA to include more empirical and measurable 

ways to define this concept, the Agency has determined that examination of the contracts, 

record of sales, and bills of lading between the partial reclaimer and its customers will 

provide adequate evidence of whether this criterion is satisfied.

Comments: Proposed Criterion (5)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material is 

Handled to Minimize Loss

For the fifth proposed criterion, one commenter argued that “minimize loss” 

should be better defined and that, at a minimum, the partially-reclaimed material should 

meet the “contained” standard for hazardous secondary materials and be managed exactly 

like any other commodity.

EPA’s Response: Proposed Criterion (5)—Whether the Partially-Reclaimed Material is 

Handled to Minimize Loss 

EPA does not find that the phrase “minimize loss” needs to be better defined. As 

we have discussed elsewhere and in the preamble to the 2011 July DSW proposal, 

evidence to support this criterion may include documentation of facility procedures used 

to minimize loss (e.g., inspections, training) and storage and management equipment 

designed to minimize loss. Additionally, under today’s final rule, partially-reclaimed 

materials must meet the legitimate recycling standard in 40 CFR 260.43, which requires 

that the hazardous secondary materials be managed as a valuable commodity. This 

criterion explains that, where there is an analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 295 of 527

materials must be managed, at a minimum, in a manner consistent with the management 

of the raw material or in an equally protective manner. Where there is no analogous raw 

material, the hazardous secondary material should be contained, as defined in 40 CFR 

260.10.

Comments: Revision to Eliminate Sixth Criterion

Many commenters supported EPA’s proposal to eliminate the sixth criterion 

concerning other relevant factors. One commenter stated that criterion six has been and is 

currently being used as a primary basis for granting partial reclamation variances for 

hazardous secondary materials, and has led to the creation of unfair and illegal 

advantages for some reclaimers. 

A few commenters, however, disagreed with the proposed change. One 

commenter argued that removing criterion six conflicts with the intent of the partial 

reclamation variance by restricting the administrative authority’s discretion. Other 

commenters argued that the overall situation should be considered and that an applicant’s 

history of compliance would be an “other relevant factor” that should be considered when 

evaluating an application for a partial reclamation variance.

EPA’s Response: Revision to Eliminate Sixth Criterion

EPA agrees with those commenters that supported the elimination of the sixth 

criterion. The sixth criterion has resulted in subjective interpretations which have led, in 

the Agency’s view, to incorrect application of the partial reclamation variance and 

therefore, EPA is removing it from the list of criteria. We do not agree with the 

commenter who argued that removing this criterion would restrict the administrative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 296 of 527

authority’s discretion. For example, EPA agrees with those commenters who said that an 

applicant’s history of compliance could be considered as part of a partial reclamation 

variance determination. However, rather than requiring that compliance be considered 

under a sixth criterion, EPA notes that compliance would likely be a factor in 

determining how the facility is meeting the legitimate recycling factors in 40 CFR 260.43 

and the partial reclamation variance criteria (1)-(5). For example, regulatory compliance 

could be used regarding whether the partially-reclaimed material is handled to minimize 

loss. 

D. Revision to the Criteria for Non-Waste Determinations to Require Petitioners to 

Demonstrate Why Their Material Cannot Meet an Existing Exclusion

EPA proposed to revise the criteria for the non-waste determination in 40 CFR 

260.34 to require that petitioners explain or demonstrate why their hazardous secondary 

materials cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing DSW exclusions under 40 

CFR 261.2 or 40 CFR 261.4.

Comments: Non-Waste Determination Criteria to Require Petitioners to Demonstrate 

Why Their Material Cannot Meet an Existing Exclusion

Many commenters agreed with this proposed change. These commenters noted 

that, as a practical matter, it would seem facilities seeking such a determination would 

have already evaluated the existing exclusions and thus, requiring this information should 

not be overly burdensome.

A few commenters, however, disagreed with this proposed change. One 

commenter argued that petitioners will be unwilling to provide justification at the risk of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 297 of 527

disqualification of an accepted exclusion in another state or EPA region for the same 

process. Another commenter noted that there may be legitimate reasons where the use of 

an exclusion might be too close to call and the facility wants greater comfort in a 

determination. A third commenter argued it is unreasonable for EPA to place the burden 

of interpreting EPA’s regulations on those who are regulated prior to consenting to 

review a request for a non-waste determination. 

EPA’s Response: Non-Waste Determination Criteria to Require Petitioners to 

Demonstrate Why Their Material Cannot Meet an Existing Exclusion

EPA agrees with those commenters who supported this proposed change to 

require that petitioners explain or demonstrate why their hazardous secondary materials 

cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing DSW exclusions under 40 CFR 

261.2 or 40 CFR 261.4. EPA agrees that this type of evaluation should already have been 

conducted by facilities that are formally petitioning the state or EPA for a non-waste 

determination. This provision provides the regulatory authority with the information it 

needs, while helping to reduce the number of applications because facilities will be 

forced to evaluate whether an existing self-implementing exclusion may be used.

EPA does not agree with the opposing arguments presented by the commenters as 

a basis for not finalizing the proposed change. These arguments, including that a facility 

may want more comfort in a determination and that EPA shouldn’t put the burden on 

facilities to interpret regulations, are precisely why EPA and authorized states would 

benefit from receiving an explanation or demonstration from the facility why they cannot 

or should not have to meet an existing exclusion. This information would enable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 298 of 527

regulatory authorities to review and resolve questions regarding whether a non-waste 

determination may be warranted. Additionally, EPA does not find convincing the 

argument that a facility may be unwilling to provide justification at the risk of 

disqualification of an accepted exclusion in another state or EPA region. In fact, by 

finalizing this change, EPA is fostering greater consistency in state-to-state 

interpretations.

E. Designation of the Regional Administrator as the EPA Recipient of Petitions for 

Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA proposed to change the word 

“Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30, 260.31, 260.32, 260.33, 

and 260.34. Due to the case-specific nature of the variances and non-waste 

determinations, EPA believed that these decisions may be better made by the Regional 

Administrator.

Comments: Designation of the Regional Administrator as the EPA Recipient of Petitions 

for Variance and Non-Waste Determinations

Most of the comments on this issue opposed the proposed change arguing that 

there are significant differences in regional interpretations just as there are differences in 

state interpretations and that the change will lead to increased inconsistency in the 

implementation of variances and non-waste determinations. Other commenters urged 

EPA to clarify that petitions for solid waste variances and non-waste determinations may 

be sent to Directors of authorized states, just as the petition process works currently. 

These commenters argued that states are delegated by EPA to administer the hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 299 of 527

waste regulations and, therefore, states have a role in reviewing solid waste variance and 

non-waste determination petitions.

Only a few commenters supported the proposed change.

EPA’s Response: Designation of the Regional Administrator as the EPA Recipient of 

Petitions for Variance and Non-Waste Determinations

EPA recognizes the commenters’ concerns who argued that designating the 

Regional Administrator, rather than the Administrator, as the person responsible for 

evaluating such petitions and deciding whether to grant a solid waste variance or a nonwaste determination may increase inconsistency by virtue of there being ten Regional 

Administrators as compared to the one Administrator. Because the Agency is striving for 

as much consistency as possible, we have decided not to finalize this proposed change. 

We would also note that the rule does not change in any way the delegation of authority 

to states authorized to administer the hazardous waste regulations and thus, authorized 

states that have adopted these provisions may continue to evaluate and decide whether to 

grant a solid waste variance or a non-waste determination, as they do currently.

F. Requirement to Share Copies of Variances and Non-Waste Determinations

In the July 2011 DSW proposal, EPA requested comment on whether to require 

states to share copies of any solid waste variance and non-waste determination petitions 

and the tentative decisions with EPA for review and comment in order to encourage 

collaboration and national consistency. Formalizing collaboration would have the benefit 

of reinforcing existing working relationships between EPA and the states.

Comments: Requirement to Share Copies of Variances and Non-Waste Determinations
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 300 of 527

A number of comments did not support a requirement for states to share copies of 

solid waste variance and non-waste determination petitions with EPA for comment. 

These commenters argued that another layer of bureaucracy would delay the process. 

One commenter was concerned with protecting a company’s confidential business 

information. Another commenter argued that EPA has not made an adequate case for the 

need for national approvals and that there may be legitimate reasons for arriving at 

different conclusions, for different variance petitions. 

Some commenters, however, supported EPA’s efforts to collect solid waste 

variance and non-waste determination decisions and to share the information with other 

states. 

EPA’s Response: Requirement to Share Copies of Variances and Non-Waste 

Determinations

EPA recognizes commenters’ concerns who argued that requiring states to share 

copies of solid waste variance and non-waste determination petitions with EPA for 

review and comment would likely increase the duration of the petition process. 

Therefore, EPA is not codifying this requirement in the final rule. EPA, however, will 

likely continue to work with the states in order to increase state-to-state consistency in 

such determinations and may pursue non-regulatory efforts to collect and share solid 

waste variances and non-waste determinations as part of implementing the final rule.

XIX. Major Comments on the Proposed Revisions to Pre-2008 Recycling Exclusions 

In the 2011 DSW proposed rule, EPA considered whether additional requirements 

should be codified for recycling exclusions and exemptions that EPA promulgated prior 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 301 of 527

to the 2008 DSW final rule. Specifically, EPA requested comment on codifying the 

legitimate recycling standard in 40 CFR 260.43, the contained standard in 40 CFR 

260.10, and the notification provision in 40 CFR 260.42 for 32 regulatory provisions that 

exclude or exempt certain types of recycling from full Subtitle C regulations.60

However, EPA explicitly did not reopen comment on any substantive provisions 

of the regulatory exclusions or exemptions. The inclusion of requirements for legitimacy, 

containment, and notification were strictly meant as means to better enforce the 

regulations.

The request for comment stemmed from EPA’s analysis of a report it developed 

as part of the DSW rulemaking, “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated 

with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials” (environmental problems study), 

which analyzed 218 recycling damage cases.61 The goal of the environmental problems 

study was to identify and characterize environmental problems that have been attributed 

to hazardous secondary material recycling activities. EPA then used the findings from 

this study to craft a number of conditions for the 2008 DSW final rule, which were 

specifically designed to target the major causes of damage and thus help define “discard” 

 

60 EPA also proposed additional recordkeeping requirements in the speculative accumulation standard in 40 

CFR 261.1(c)(8). See section XIV for responses to these comments.

61 The original environmental problems study, published January 11, 2007, reviewed 208 damage cases. 

Based on information submitted by commenters to the 2007 DSW supplemental proposed rule, EPA 

reviewed an additional ten recycling damage cases in an addendum to the environmental problems study, 

published July 14, 2008. A second addendum was published in June 2011. As part of this DSW final rule, 

EPA updated the environmental problems study to combine all of the information compiled from the 2007 

study, the 2008 and 2011 addenda, and new information collected by EPA since June 2011. This 2012 

updated study includes information on 250 damage cases and can be found in the docket for today’s rule.

Deleted: 2012
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 302 of 527

of hazardous secondary materials. These conditions, however, were applied only to the 

2008 DSW exclusions. 

As part of the “Environmental Justice Analysis of the Definition of Solid Waste 

Rule” (EJ analysis), EPA reviewed and analyzed each damage case in the environmental 

problems study and determined the regulatory provision that likely, or potentially, 

governed the management of the hazardous secondary materials.62 This analysis was 

based on the type of hazardous secondary material and the date of the damage case 

related to the effective date of the regulatory provision. From this analysis, EPA had 

concluded that over half of the damage cases in the environmental problems study were 

associated with hazardous secondary materials that were likely excluded or exempted 

from Subtitle C regulation under an existing (pre-2008) regulatory provision.63 For 

example, EPA reported in the 2011 DSW proposed rule that 52 damage cases (23%) are 

associated with scrap metal that is likely excluded under § 261.4(a)(13) and/or § 

261.6(a)(3)(ii), while drum reconditioning accounted for 23 damage cases (10%), in 

which the residuals are likely excluded under 40 CFR 261.7. Additionally, 35 damage 

cases (16%) were associated with batteries that are likely managed under 40 CFR 273.2 

and/or 40 CFR part 266 subpart G. Based on these results, and given that many of the 

pre-2008 recycling exclusions do not directly specify conditions that are necessary to 

 

62 U.S. EPA Correlation of Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory Exclusions, Exemptions or 

Alternative Standards.

63 The determination that the hazardous secondary materials were “likely” associated with pre-2008 

recycling exclusions and exemptions was based on the waste description and the fact that most recyclers 

did not appear to have a RCRA permit. EPA did not specifically verify if the damage case facility was 

operating under an exclusion or exemption.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 303 of 527

ensure discard is not occurring, we concluded that these provisions may not be 

adequately enforceable in order to protect human health and the environment. Thus, in 

the 2011 DSW proposal, we requested comment on whether EPA should codify 

additional conditions for these recycling exclusions.

Many comments in response to EPA’s request for comment on whether the 

Agency should codify additional conditions to the pre-2008 recycling provisions were 

unfavorable, although a number of comments indicated support for the codification.

Comments: Potential Impact of Additional Requirements

Industry commenters, and scrap metal recyclers in particular, strongly opposed 

adding conditions, arguing that the additional conditions will pose an undue burden on 

businesses without any environmental benefit and will discourage recycling. For 

example, commenters argued that scrap metal recyclers go to great lengths to ensure that 

they do not handle hazardous waste. These commenters said that, if EPA were to add 

conditions to the scrap metal exclusion, a scrap metal recycler would be required to 

obtain additional insurance, local licenses, training, new inspection procedures, lawyers, 

and consultants in order to maintain compliance and to prepare for an inadvertent loss of 

the exclusion, which would make it a handler of hazardous waste. Commenters argued 

that many scrap metal businesses are small and family-owned and cannot afford these 

new requirements and thus, these regulations will severely affect business and jobs.

Many commenters also argued that the contained standard is not necessary or 

practical and would be expensive. Commenters believed that the one-size-fits-all 

approach that EPA requested comment on fails to reflect EPA’s recognition over the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 304 of 527

years of the need to tailor any conditions for regulatory exclusions to the specific 

characteristics of the recycling activities. For example, one commenter argued that the 

contained standard is redundant for the spent wood preservatives exclusion under 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(9), which already requires facilities to manage solutions and wastewater “to 

prevent release to either land or groundwater or both” and to construct recycling units so 

“prior to reuse they can be visually or otherwise determined to prevent such release.” 

This commenter also noted that drip pads must comply with 40 CFR part 265 subpart W. 

Other commenters noted that applying the contained standard to lead-acid batteries is 

inappropriate and unnecessary because EPA, on several occasions, has recognized that 

individual lead-acid batteries qualify as “containers,” citing a November 17, 1989, memo 

from Sylvia Lowrance (RO 13339). Furthermore, these commenters argued that the 

contained standard duplicates § 266.80(b).

Regarding notification, many commenters did not support adding notification to 

the pre-2008 exclusions. These commenters argued that the EPA Form 8700-12 (Site 

Identification Form) and, in particular the Addendum to the Site Identification Form, 

which is used to notify under 40 CFR 260.42, is too burdensome for facilities operating 

under a pre-2008 exemption/exclusion. For example, the Addendum requires facilities to 

list their hazardous secondary materials using EPA hazardous waste codes. In some 

cases, particularly for scrap metal recyclers, facilities would be required to determine 

which secondary material would be considered a hazardous secondary material, which 

may involve extensive testing in order to determine which hazardous waste code to report 

on the form. Additionally, the Addendum also requires facilities to report quantities of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 305 of 527

hazardous secondary material managed under the exclusions, but commenters explained 

that facilities operating under a pre-2008 exclusion have not generally determined which 

secondary material would be considered a hazardous secondary material, and therefore, 

any quantity estimates, which are required on the Addendum, would not be reliable for 

programmatic decisions. Moreover, commenters argued that notification would be 

difficult for facilities with multiple excluded processes. For example, one commenter 

explained that one facility in Tennessee has more than a hundred closed-loop recycling 

processes and thus it would be extremely onerous to report each process on a notification.

Commenters also argued that it is difficult to estimate the number of facilities 

operating under the exclusions and thus the impact on the state implementers of the 

notification program is uncertain. For example, notification would impact all forms of 

scrap metal handling (junk yards, scrap dealers, steel-makers), generators and handlers 

managing lead-acid batteries (vehicle repair facilities, retailers) and precious metals 

destined for reclamation (x-ray facilities, dentists, vets, jewelers). These commenters 

argued that most states are already under resource constraints and will be unable to cope 

with the tens of thousands of new forms that would need processing if EPA were to 

codify notification as a condition of the exclusions. Some state commenters suggested 

ways to reduce the burden on states, including not requiring periodic notifications on the 

same day that biennial reports are due and by implementing a process whereby 

notifications could be submitted electronically. Commenters also noted that the renotification requirement for excluded facilities would be more stringent than what is 

currently required for hazardous waste small quantity generators.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 306 of 527

EPA’s Response: Potential Impact of Additional Requirements

EPA did not believe at the time of the proposal that the additional requirements —

meeting the legitimate recycling standard, the contained standard, and the notification

requirement—would present an undue burden on facilities. As discussed in more detail 

below, this is because EPA considers certain requirements, like legitimate recycling and 

containment, inherent in the definition of solid waste recycling exclusions and assumes 

that the regulated community already meets these standards. Notification was considered 

to be a simple reporting requirement that would pose minimal additional burden.

However, upon reviewing the comments, EPA has determined that more study is 

needed before taking action. Therefore, EPA is not making any changes to the language 

of the 32 recycling exclusions and exemptions at this time. In the case of the legitimacy 

provision, EPA is instead codifying a general prohibition against sham recycling. In the 

case of the contained standard and notification requirement, EPA is deferring any action 

until further study is conducted. EPA’s response to comments regarding burden 

implications of each of the provisions is discussed in more detail below.

(1) Legitimacy. With respect to legitimacy, it has been EPA’s long-standing 

policy that all recycling of hazardous secondary materials must be legitimate. If a facility 

is engaged in sham recycling, this, by definition, is not real recycling and that material is 

being discarded. Additionally, EPA considers the four legitimacy factors codified in 40 

CFR 260.43 to be substantively the same as the existing legitimacy policy, which has 

been articulated in the 1989 Lowrance Memo and in various DSW Federal Register 

notices. 

Deleted: theses

Deleted: there is a high potential for unintended 

consequences for finalizing these additional 

requirements to the pre-2008 existing recycling 

exclusions and exemptions and that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 307 of 527

In proposing to codify the legitimate recycling standard for all exclusions, we did 

not intend to raise questions about the status of general legitimacy determinations that 

underlie these existing exclusions from the definition of solid waste, or about casespecific determinations that have already been made by EPA or the states. As noted in the 

comments, EPA generally considered the legitimacy of the recycling process when the 

original determinations were promulgated, and the Agency did not intend to force 

companies to have to reexamine long standing legitimate recycling practices. Therefore 

EPA is not revising the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions to include a legitimacy 

requirement.

However, as discussed in section VIII, these material-specific exclusions from the 

definition of solid waste do not negate the basic requirement that the hazardous 

secondary material must be legitimately recycled. Therefore, EPA is codifying a general 

statement in § 261.2(g) that makes it clear that a hazardous secondary material found to 

be sham recycled is discarded and thus, is a solid waste. By codifying a prohibition on 

sham recycling that applies to all hazardous secondary materials being recycled, we are 

confirming that we expect anyone operating under a recycling exclusion or exemption to 

be doing so legitimately. EPA finds that this will give implementing agencies a clear 

regulatory statement that can be used to enforce against sham recyclers, yet not require 

the vast majority of recyclers that are performing legitimate recycling under the pre-2008 

exclusions and exemptions to revisit previously-made legitimacy determinations. 

Additionally, the Agency has, based on the public comments, made adjustments 

to the legitimacy factors to build in more flexibility for meeting each factor and thus, ease 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 308 of 527

the use of the standard. For example, EPA has modified factor 4 to rely on widelyrecognized commodity standards and specifications in the case where there is no 

analogous product as a way of recognizing industry standards that ensure their products 

are legitimate. EPA gives the example in the regulatory text of commodity specification 

grades for common metals, which would be relevant to scrap metal recyclers, among 

other metal recyclers. EPA has also included a provision that states that when “hazardous 

secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from 

which they were generated to be reused, the product of the recycling process is 

comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate,” and thus would meet factor 4. This 

revision addresses concerns regarding the closed loop exemption at § 261.4(a)(8), as well 

as mineral processing to produce primary metals, because these processes always include 

materials looping back into the process to ensure that all the valuable metals that can be 

extracted from the ore are being collected for use.

For more information and responses to comments on legitimacy, please see 

section XVII in today’s preamble.

(2) Contained. With respect to the contained standard, EPA has long determined 

that hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are not 

destined for recycling are clearly discarded. Based on the environmental problems study, 

the results of which showed mismanagement of hazardous secondary materials as one of 

the major causes of damage, EPA requested comment in the 2011 DSW proposed rule on 

applying the proposed contained standard to all hazardous secondary materials. EPA 

assumes that the vast majority of recycling facilities “contain” their hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 309 of 527

materials and thus would already meet the contained standard. Therefore, EPA assumed 

that the contained standard would not present any additional burden to the regulated 

community, especially since the contained standard is “performance-based” and provides 

much flexibility, but could be used to enforce against those facilities that were 

mismanaging their materials.

However, as the commenters’ noted, EPA has already promulgated certain 

management standards for some exclusions based on the case-specific characteristics of 

the hazardous secondary material or recycling process (e.g., drip pads used to manage 

wastewaters and/or spent wood preserving solutions under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9)). Thus, 

EPA understands that simply applying the contained standard wholesale across the 32 

recycling provisions, may not be the most efficient or effective course of action as EPA 

would not be considering how the contained standard would work within each specific 

exclusion and its existing conditions. Therefore, EPA is deferring action on applying the 

contained standard to the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions until we can more 

adequately address commenters’ concerns.

(3) Notification. With respect to notification, EPA’s intent was to provide basic 

information to regulatory authorities in order to enable adequate compliance monitoring 

of the exclusions. EPA had requested comment on requiring notification under 40 CFR 

260.42 using the Site ID Form (EPA Form 8700-12), which is the same provision used 

for the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. Given that this form is familiar to the regulated 

community, we had not considered this requirement to pose an undue burden.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 310 of 527

However, based on comments we received, we understand that using the same 

notification requirement developed for hazardous secondary materials that were recently 

excluded in 2008 presents challenges when used for hazardous secondary materials that 

have been excluded for many decades. For example, the notification provision in 40 CFR 

260.42 requires information on types of hazardous secondary materials (using hazardous 

waste codes) and quantities of these materials. However, as noted by commenters, this is 

difficult, for example, for scrap metal recyclers, because these facilities currently do not 

distinguish between non-hazardous scrap metal and scrap metal that would be hazardous 

waste were it not for the exclusion. Requiring notification in this instance may infer that 

scrap metal recyclers would be required to extensively test their hazardous secondary 

material in order to determine if the scrap metal was hazardous, and therefore excluded, 

and to determine which hazardous waste code to report on the form. Additionally, the 

notification presents challenges for facilities with numerous closed-loop recycling 

processes because the form would require these facilities to specifically list each process. 

We also understand commenters’ concerns regarding the burden on states that must 

review and process these forms. Because the majority of the pre-2008 exclusions and 

exemptions do not include notification requirements, EPA does not have precise data 

regarding how many facilities are recycling hazardous secondary materials under these 

exclusions and exemptions. This lack of data hinders EPA’s ability to more precisely 

estimate the burden on states and whether such a requirement would be environmentally 

beneficial. Therefore, EPA is deferring action on applying notification to the pre-2008 

exclusions and exemptions until we can more adequately address commenters’ concerns.

Deleted: who
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 311 of 527

Comments: EPA’s Authority to Add Requirements to Pre-2008 Exclusions

Commenters stated that EPA lacks jurisdiction to add requirements to materials 

that are not solid wastes and, if EPA is changing its position on the waste status of these 

materials, the Agency must provide a reasoned explanation for disregarding facts and 

circumstances that underlay the prior policy. Some commenters argued that EPA had 

evaluated each of the hazardous secondary materials at the time it promulgated the 

exclusions and thus, EPA must demonstrate why management in compliance with the 

existing conditions constitutes discard. 

EPA’s Response: EPA’s Authority to Add Requirements to Pre-2008 Exclusions

EPA disagrees with comments that argue that EPA does not have the authority to 

require conditions for hazardous secondary materials being recycled. As noted in the 

Background section of this preamble, in the Safe Food court case, the DC Circuit upheld 

an EPA rule that excludes from the definition of solid waste hazardous secondary 

materials used to make zinc fertilizers, and the fertilizers themselves, as long as the 

recycled materials meet certain handling, storage, and reporting conditions and the 

resulting fertilizers have concentration levels for certain hazardous constituents that fall 

below specified thresholds. It is therefore within EPA’s discretion to determine 

conditions under which a hazardous secondary material is not being discarded and thus 

may be excluded from hazardous waste regulation.

However, EPA agrees that more information is needed before determining 

whether adding requirements to the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions is needed to 

make them more enforceable. EPA’s request for comment on this issue was based on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 312 of 527

conclusions drawn from the environmental problems study, which evaluated over 200 

damage cases, and the Correlation of Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory 

Exclusions, Exemptions or Alternative Standards, which analyzed which damage cases 

were likely operating under a pre-2008 exclusion and exemption. From these studies, 

EPA concluded that over half of the damage cases were likely operating under an existing 

exclusion and exemption. However, EPA did not examine the specific underlying causes 

of the damage cases (whether they were based on the lack of oversight of the pre-2008 

exclusions and exemptions or on other causes). Thus EPA has decided that additional 

information is needed to determine whether additional regulatory action is needed, or 

whether the problems should be addressed through some other method, such as outreach 

and compliance assistance.

Comments: Record Support

Many commenters argued that EPA’s record does not support this regulatory 

change and that EPA failed to conduct a thorough analysis. For example, commenters 

argued that EPA’s record needs to show that significant environmental problems have 

been caused by a meaningful number of facilities operating in compliance with the pre2008 exclusions and exemptions. These commenters noted that many of the damage 

cases involve civil or criminal violations, indicating that the problem was noncompliance with the regulations, not from a lack of regulations. Thus, these commenters 

believed that EPA already has sufficient authority to enforce against bad actors. 

Additionally, EPA’s own analysis only links damage cases to just seven exclusions, yet 

EPA is considering adding conditions to 32 exclusions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 313 of 527

EPA’s Response: Record Support

EPA disagrees with comments that argue that since the environmental problems 

study includes cases with civil or criminal violations, this demonstrates existing 

regulations are adequately enforceable. On the contrary, the frequency of violations in the 

damage cases may demonstrate the need for greater, not less, oversight, particularly in the 

case of sham recycling, where discard via over-accumulation of material can become a 

major problem before the Agency can take action.

For example, in one of the damage cases, a facility whose primary business was 

mixing electric arc furnace dust (K061) with agricultural lime for sale as a micronutrient 

lost its customers and could not sell its product. However, the facility continued to accept 

K061, and, after approximately seven months, the facility had accepted over 60,000 tons 

of this hazardous waste and stored it on the ground in piles up to 30 feet high, with no 

prospect of it being used to produce a product and, thus, legitimately recycled. While the 

initial recycling of the K061 hazardous waste was legitimate, when the facility failed to 

produce a product that was actually sold, the K061 could no longer be considered 

legitimately recycled, resulting in significant risk to human health and the environment 

from discarded material. Therefore EPA is codifying a general probation against sham 

recycling, in order to prevent such cases from occurring.

However, in the case of containment and notification, EPA agrees with 

commenters and has determined that additional information about the underlying causes 

of the damage cases would be useful to determine whether additional regulatory action is 

Deleted: believes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 314 of 527

needed, or whether the problems should be addressed through some other method, such 

as outreach and compliance assistance.

EPA also understands commenters’ concerns regarding the limitations of the 

correlation analysis, including the fact that EPA could only correlate with confidence 7 of 

the 32 recycling exclusions and exemptions to damage cases in its environmental 

problems study. The analysis was hampered by a lack of precision in the data. For 

example, because notification is not required for the majority of pre-2008 exclusions and 

exemptions, we can only conservatively identify damage case correlations where the type 

of hazardous secondary material very clearly matches to an exclusion (e.g., scrap metal). 

We lack information to make inferences for broadly applicable exclusions, (e.g., 

use/reuse) or for broadly defined hazardous secondary materials (e.g., metal-bearing 

wastes). Therefore, by virtue of some exclusions’ broad applicability, we were unable to 

correlate them to specific damage cases. 

Although it is difficult to assign specific damage cases to certain exclusions, we 

note that in the environmental problems study only nine of the damage cases were 

operating under a RCRA permit at the time of damage. Thus, EPA can generally 

conclude that the majority of the damage cases were operating outside of RCRA, 

inferring these facilities were either operating illegally or likely operating under an 

exclusion, exemption, alternate standard, or no standard at all. In the case of containment 

and notification, EPA has determined that additional information about the underlying 

causes of the damage cases would be useful to determine whether additional regulatory 

Deleted: believes
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 315 of 527

action is needed, or whether the problems should be addressed through some other 

method, such as outreach and compliance assistance.

Comments: Time to Comment

Industry commenters argued that they did not have adequate time to comment. 

Further, they had no forewarning of the changes EPA was considering before the 

proposal was issued. EPA’s request for comment did not involve prior discussions with 

stakeholders, as is typical when developing proposed rules. Moreover, this issue was not 

part of the 2008 DSW final rulemaking, Sierra Club’s petition, or part of EPA’s 

settlement agreement with the Sierra Club. Many commenters urged EPA to meet with 

industry representatives in order to better understand industry practices. 

Commenters also argued that if EPA codified a notification as a condition of the 

exclusions, thousands of facilities would be at risk of losing the exclusion due to failure 

to notify, which could result in civil fines and solid waste management fees for the 

facility. These commenters stated that notification as a condition in this instance presents 

acute risks to facilities operating under an exclusion, because, up to this point, these 

facilities have not been required to comply with the RCRA hazardous waste 

requirements. Thus, commenters said many facilities may fail to notify simply because 

they were unaware the regulations had changed.

EPA’s Response: Time to Comment

EPA understands commenters that argued they did not have adequate time to 

comment on applying the contained standard and notification for pre-2008 recycling 

exclusions and exemptions. Contrary to the legitimate recycling standard, which has been 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 316 of 527

EPA’s long-standing policy and has been articulated in the 1989 Lowrance memo and 

various Federal Register notices, EPA had not previously indicated it was considering the 

contained standard and notification for pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions prior to the 

2011 DSW proposal. Although the 2011 proposed rule provided an opportunity for public 

comment, EPA understands commenters’ concerns, with notification in particular, as 

these provisions would impact thousands of businesses, many of which may not be 

closely following DSW rulemaking activity. EPA agrees that a more inclusive approach 

to a potential rulemaking that involves stakeholders in upfront discussions would likely 

result in gainful information, more effective strategies for addressing issues, and better 

communication with the regulated community.

Comments: Support for Adding Requirements to Existing Exclusions

Some commenters, including environmental organizations, supported adding 

conditions to the pre-2008 exclusions and exemptions, arguing that EPA must adopt the 

regulatory conditions, including the legitimacy standard in light of the risks posed by the 

32 recycling exclusions and the historical pattern of environmental contamination at 

facilities that are exempt from RCRA. These commenters believed that the prevention of 

one damage case every two years would more than offset the compliance costs. Some 

state commenters also supported adding conditions to the pre-2008 exclusions and 

exemptions, although some argued that EPA should exempt certain types of hazardous 

secondary materials, like scrap metal, spent lead-acid batteries, closed-loop recycling, 

and printed circuit boards, from the requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 317 of 527

Other commenters supported adding notification to the pre-2008 recycling 

provisions. These commenters argued that states may not be aware of excluded activities 

unless they are occurring at facilities that are otherwise regulated or are the subject of a 

citizen complaint. These commenters said that notifications would allow states to 

periodically evaluate these facilities to ensure they are meeting the terms of the exclusion 

and that, while the initial burden on states might be quite heavy, the long-term benefit of 

knowing where these facilities are justifies this burden.

EPA’s Response: Support for Adding Requirements to Existing Exclusions

EPA acknowledges commenters who support additional requirements for the pre2008 exclusions and exemptions in order to avoid potential damage cases and protect 

human health and the environment. However, based on the comments received, the EPA 

has determined that it does not have enough information to determine if adding 

requirements to the existing pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions would be the 

most effective method for addressing the damage cases or whether a more targeted 

approach would be more appropriate.

Regarding legitimacy, in lieu of adding a legitimacy requirement to the specific 

recycling exclusions, EPA is instead codifying a general statement in § 261.2(g) that 

makes it clear that a hazardous secondary material found to be sham recycled is discarded 

and thus, is a solid waste. EPA finds that this will give implementing agencies a clear 

regulatory statement that can be used to enforce against sham recyclers, yet not require 

the vast majority of recyclers that are performing legitimate recycling under the pre-2008 

exclusions and exemptions to revisit previously-made legitimacy determinations. EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 318 of 527

also notes that today’s final legitimacy standard includes modifications that address 

implementation concerns for certain hazardous secondary materials and processes, such 

as scrap metal and closed-loop recycling. For more information on these modifications, 

please see the other sections on legitimacy in this preamble.

Regarding the contained standard and notification, for reasons stated above, the 

Agency is deferring action on applying the contained standard and notification to the pre2008 exclusions and exemptions in order to consider how best to implement these 

conditions in the context of the case-specific circumstances of the regulatory provisions.

XX. State Authorization 

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to 

administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in lieu of the federal 

program, and to issue and enforce permits in the state. A state may receive authorization 

by following the approval process described in 40 CFR 271.21 (see 40 CFR part 271 for 

the overall standards and requirements for authorization). EPA continues to have 

independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 

3013, and 7003. An authorized state also continues to have independent authority to bring 

enforcement actions under state law.

After a state receives initial authorization, new federal requirements 

promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives 

authorization for equivalent state requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 319 of 527

(42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated pursuant to 

HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in 

unauthorized states. As such, EPA carries out the HSWA requirements and prohibitions 

in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those 

requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so. 

Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts 

federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the existing federal 

requirements.RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent 

than those in the federal program (see also 40 FR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states 

are not required to adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are 

considered less stringent than previous federal regulations or that narrow the scope of the 

RCRA program and Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations would continue to apply in 

those states.

B. Effect on State Authorization of Final Rule

The regulations finalized in today’s notice are not promulgated under the 

authority of HSWA. Thus, the standards will be applicable on the effective date only in 

those states that do not have final authorization of their base RCRA programs. Moreover, 

authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates 

federal regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than the authorized state 

regulations. For those changes that are less stringent, states are not required to modify 

their program. This is a result of section 3009 of RCRA, which allows states to impose 

more stringent regulations than the federal program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 320 of 527

The revisions to the definition of solid waste being finalized today are more 

stringent than those promulgated under the 2008 DSW final rule, so those states which 

have adopted the 2008 DSW final rule would be required to modify their programs.

However, when compared to the federal program that was in place when the 2008 DSW 

final rule was finalized, many of today's revisions would be considered less stringent 

(e.g., the revised generator-controlled exclusion, the verified recycler exclusion, and the 

remanufacturing exclusion). Therefore, authorized states that have not adopted the 2008 

DSW final rule are not required to modify their programs to adopt these exclusions and 

the federally authorized state hazardous waste regulations applying the full subtitle C 

requirements will continue to apply in those states. As noted in footnote 58 of the 

proposed rule, final decisions regarding whether a state rule is more stringent under 40 

CFR 271.1(i)(1) or broader in scope than the federal program under 40 CFR 271.1(i)(2) 

are made when the Agency authorizes state programs. However, the revisions to the 

definition of legitimacy and the prohibition of sham recycling, as discussed in section

VIII of the preamble, are more stringent than the current federal hazardous waste 

program because they codify implicit requirements that have been largely implemented 

through guidance. Also, the additional recordkeeping requirement in the speculative 

accumulation provision in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8), as discussed in section V of the preamble, 

is also more stringent than the current federal hazardous waste program. Finally, the 

changes to the standards and criteria for variances from classification as a solid waste 

discussed in section IX are more stringent than the current federal hazardous waste 

Deleted: ) or are neither more nor less stringent 

(i.e., the alternative Subtitle C regulations for 

reclaimed hazardous recyclable materials

Deleted: C.F.R.

Deleted: C.F.R.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 321 of 527

program. In these cases, all authorized states will be required to modify their programs to 

adopt equivalent, consistent and no less stringent requirements. 

XXI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

“significant regulatory action” because it is likely to “raise novel legal or policy issues”

under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This analysis is contained in EPA’s background document for 

today’s action titled “Regulatory Impact Analysis” (RIA). A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized here. EPA 

estimates that the 2014 DSW rule will result in a future annual costs savings of $1.0 to 

$2.0 million per year, depending on discount rate used, as compared to a baseline of full 

implementation of the 2008 DSW rule. This cost savings is based on the assumption that 

same number of states would adopt the 2014 DSW rule as would adopt the 2008 DSW 

rule. However, because the 2014 DSW rule addresses many of the concerns states raised 

about the 2008 DSW rule, there is a potential that more states would adopt it, thus 

Deleted: (

Deleted: .

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 322 of 527

increasing the upper bound of annual cost savings to $17.5 million to $59 million per 

year.

In addition to estimating the cost savings of today’s action, the RIA also provides 

qualitative (i.e., non-monetized) descriptions of three categories of expected future 

benefits for today’s action consisting of: (1) reduction in future environmental damages 

associated with industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials; (2) improved 

industry environmental compliance; (3) indirect legal & financial benefits to industry 

consisting of reduced liability, less uncertainty for regulated entities, and lower legal and 

financial credit costs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (Information Collection Request)

The information collection requirements in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The 

information collection request has been updated since the July 22 proposed rule to reflect 

the final rule requirements and to respond to public comments.

Several information requirements established for this action are voluntary to the 

extent that the conditional exclusions being finalized today are voluntary and represent an 

overall reduction in burden, as compared with the alternative information requirements 

associated with managing hazardous secondary materials as hazardous waste. The 

information requirements help ensure that: (1) entities operating under today’s rule are 

held accountable to the applicable requirements; and (2) inspectors can verify compliance 

with the conditions of today’s rule when needed. 

Deleted: Based on the impact estimates presented 

in the RIA, EPA does not expect that today’s action 

will be “economically significant” because the 

estimated annualized cost for compliance with 

today’s final rule revisions to the DSW exclusions is 

much less than the $100 million annual effect 

threshold of Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. The RIA estimates the future annualized 

cost savings of $15 million to $37 million as 

compared to full RCRA hazardous regulation of this 

material, depending on state adoption rate. This 

estimated cost saving is slightly higher than the 

RIA’s revised estimate for the potential future 

annualized cost savings for the 2008 DSW final rule 

of $9 million to $33 million, resulting in a potential 

net savings of $4 million to $6 million per year. ¶

Cost savings estimates are based on a range of state 

adoption assumptions for both the 2008 DSW and 

the 2014 DSW rule. The upper bound assumption 

for 2008 DSW rule is 31 states and territories 

implementing the rule, which accounts for the likely 

lower state adoption rate of the rule, given state 

comments on the 2007 DSW proposal, the 2009 

DSW public meeting notice and the 2011 DSW 

proposal. Taken together, these three sets of state 

comments indicate that at least 25 states (of the 56 

states and territories) particularly oppose the 2008 

DSW rule’s offsite recycling transfer-based 

exclusion, and therefore would not adopt it, thereby 

severely reducing any potential future industry cost 

savings from hypothetical implementation of the 

2008 DSW final rule. In contrast, EPA anticipates 

that adoption of the 2014 DSW rule is more

analogous to adoption of EPA’s Universal Waste 

rule, which similarly reduced requirements for 

generators while keeping off-site management under 

RCRA Subtitle C permitting. The Universal waste 

rule has been adopted (or is being implemented 

federally) by all of the states and territories, 64 and 

therefore an upper bound of adoption rate 

assumption of 56 states and territories is reasonable 

for the 2014 DSW rule. ¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 323 of 527

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) a small business based on small size standards defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 for 27 NAICS 

codes with the largest number of affected entities; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s final rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are 

primarily small businesses in the manufacturing sector (i.e., NAICS codes 32 and 33). 

We have determined that the average annual impact on small businesses is estimated to 

be significantly less than 1% of annual business sales for all small entities.

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of 

Deleted: EPA estimates the total annual burden to 

respondents under the new paperwork requirements 

as a result of the final rule changes to be 34,822

hours, and $105,117in operation and maintenance 

costs ($2,453,936, including labor costs), 

respectively. Burden and costs continuing from ICR 

#2310.02 (OMB #2050-0202) include 1,045 hours 

and $190 in operation and maintenance costs 

($75,244, including labor costs), respectively. The 

total annual burden and operation and maintenance 

costs are estimated at 35,867 hours and $105,307 or 

107,601 hours and $315,922 over three years.¶

EPA estimates that the 2014 final revisions to the 

DSW rule will also affect other related ICRs,

65

changing their annual burden and costs to 2,292

hours and $8,838 in operation and maintenance costs 

($154,822, including labor costs), respectively. The 

total annual respondent burden and cost as a result of 

the rule, including impacts to associated ICRs, would 

be 37,113 hours and $113,955 operation and 

maintenance costs ($2,608,758, including labor 

costs), respectively.¶

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 

is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the 

OMB control number for the approved information 

collection requirements contained in this final rule.¶

Deleted: The highest impact as a percentage of 

sales is estimated at 0.24% of annual sales. The total 

number of small businesses impacted at this level is 

estimated at 28 small entities, which represent 2.6%

of the 1,064 small entities which could be impacted 

by today’s action.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 324 of 527

this rule on small entities. Comments were requested, and the comment period was 

extended once until October 20, 2011. In September 2011, EPA held two public meetings 

to accept public comment on the proposal in Philadelphia, PA and in Chicago, IL.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. EPA’s RIA for today’s action estimates the maximum

state government share of future direct costs for complying with today’s action is $0.3

million per year. No impacts are expected for local or Tribal governments. Because these 

direct costs are well below the $100 million annual direct cost threshold, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because 

it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 

The RIA estimates that the state government share of future annualized direct 

costs is $0.3 million per year. No added costs are expected for local or tribal 

Deleted: 1.2

Deleted: 1.2
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 325 of 527

governments. Because these direct costs are well below the $25 million Federalism test 

threshold, EPA concludes that Executive Order 13132 does not apply to today’s action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government 

provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 

regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will 

neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt 

tribal law. Under the RCRA statute, the federal government implements hazardous waste 

regulations directly in Indian Country. Thus, the changes to the hazardous waste 

regulations promulgated today would not impose any direct costs on tribal governments. 

In addition, currently there are no facilities operating on land controlled by tribal 

governments, but if such facilities did locate in such areas, then this action could have 

tribal implications, to the extent that the rule is intended to address potential adverse 

impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing this 

regulation to ensure they had an opportunity for meaningful and timely input into its 

development. Specifically, tribal representatives participated in the public meetings EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 326 of 527

held on the draft environmental justice methodology and noted that the Bureau of Census 

data used as the basis for the demographic analysis may undercount indigenous 

populations. EPA also sent a consultation letter to all federally recognized tribes 

requesting a consultation on the 2011 DSW proposal and held a tribes-only live webinar 

on August 11, 2011 to allow tribal official the opportunity to ask questions and offer 

input into the proposed rule. EPA did not receive formal comments from tribal officials 

during the consultation process.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is 

not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not 

believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained 

in the “Hazardous Characterization of the DSW Rulemaking” (Volume II of the DSW 

Environmental Justice Analysis) in the docket for today’s rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA does not expect today’s final rule 

to adversely affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 327 of 527

On the contrary, EPA expects that at least two elements of today’s final rule may 

provide future annual energy savings by (a) inducing under today’s solvent 

remanufacturing exclusion larger future annual quantities of industrial processing 

solvents which get recycled rather than disposed (i.e., incinerated) thereby reducing the 

relatively higher lifecycle energy and other lifecycle resource impacts associated with 

manufacturing virgin solvents, and (b) inducing more state governments to adopt the 

other DSW exclusions which are revised under today’s final rule, thereby generally 

stimulating other types of industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials (HSM), 

which EPA also expects may reduce adverse lifecycle impacts on the economy and 

environment compared to the lifecycle impacts of producing virgin materials for which 

larger future annual quantities of recycled HSM may substitute. Thus, Executive Order 

13211 does not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 

decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

Deleted: re-manufacturing
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 328 of 527

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider 

the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part 

of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. The purpose 

of this final rule is to revise the 2008 DSW final rule in such a way that reduces potential 

adverse impacts, including potential disproportionate impacts to minority and low-impact 

communities. For further information on the potential for disproportionate impacts to 

minority and low-income populations, see the DSW Environmental Justice Analysis in the 

docket for today’s rule.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 329 of 527

rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which 

includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be

effective on [Insert date 180 days after publication in the Federal Register].

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential 

business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Solid waste.

Dated: 

__________________________________

Deleted: 40 CFR Part 266¶

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, 

Recycling.¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 330 of 527

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 331 of 527

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–6927, 6930, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939 and 

6974.

Subpart B—Definitions

 2. Section 260.10 is amended as follows:

a. Remove the definitions of “Hazardous secondary material generated and

reclaimed under the control of the generator.”

b. Add in alphabetical order the definitions of “Contained,” and “Remanufacturing” 

to read as follows:

§ 260.10 Definitions

* * * * *

Contained means held in a unit (including a land-based unit as defined in this subpart) 

that meets the following criteria:

(1) The unit is in good condition, with no leaks or other continuing or intermittent 

unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the environment, and is 

designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary materials, to prevent releases of 

hazardous secondary materials to the environment. Unpermitted releases are releases that 

are not covered by a permit (such as a permit to discharge to water or air) and may 

include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, 

Deleted: ”

Deleted: “Reclaimed

Deleted: ”.

Deleted: “Hazardous recyclable material” 

Deleted: * * * * 

Deleted: Such releases
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 332 of 527

releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, fugitive air emissions, and 

catastrophic unit failures;

(2) The unit is properly labeled or otherwise has a system (such as a log) to 

immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the unit; and

(3) The unit holds hazardous secondary materials that are compatible with other 

hazardous secondary materials placed in the unit and is compatible with the materials 

used to construct the unit and addresses any potential risks of fires or explosions.

(4) Hazardous secondary materials in units that meet the applicable requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 are presumptively contained. 

* * * * *

Remanufacturing means processing a higher-value hazardous secondary material in order 

to manufacture a product that serves a similar functional purpose as the original 

commercial-grade material. For the purpose of this definition, a hazardous secondary 

material is considered higher-value if it was generated from the use of a commercialgrade material in a manufacturing process and can be remanufactured into a similar 

commercial-grade material.

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Rulemaking Petitions

 3. Section 260.30 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 260.30 Non-waste determinations and variances from classification as a solid 

waste. 

* * * * * 

Deleted: does not hold incompatible

Deleted: * * * 

Deleted: Hazardous recyclable material means a 

hazardous waste that will be transferred from a 

generator to another person for reclamation and is 

managed under the alternative standards of 40 CFR 

part 266, subpart D.¶

* * * * * ¶

Deleted: re-manufactured

Deleted: * * * 

Deleted: 3.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 333 of 527

(f) Hazardous secondary materials that are transferred for reclamation under § 

261.4(a)(24) and are managed at a verified reclamation facility or intermediate facility 

where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a 

RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards.

 4. Section 260.31 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d) to 

read as follows:

§ 260.31 Standards and criteria for variances from classification as a solid waste.

* * * * *

(c) The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from classifying as a 

solid waste those hazardous secondary materials that have been partially reclaimed, but 

must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed, if the partial reclamation has 

produced a commodity-like material. A determination that a partially-reclaimed material 

for which the variance is sought is commodity-like will be based on whether the 

hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled as specified in § 260.43 of this part 

and on whether all of the following decision criteria are satisfied:

(1) Whether the degree of partial reclamation the material has undergone is 

substantial as demonstrated by using a partial reclamation process other than the process 

that generated the hazardous waste;

(2) Whether the partially-reclaimed material has sufficient economic value that it 

will be purchased for further reclamation; 

Deleted: * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 334 of 527

(3) Whether the partially-reclaimed material is a viable substitute for a product or 

intermediate produced from virgin or raw materials which is used in subsequent 

production steps;

(4) Whether there is a market for the partially-reclaimed material as demonstrated

by known customer(s) who are further reclaiming the material (e.g., records of sales

and/or contracts and evidence of subsequent use, such as bills of lading);

(5) Whether the partially-reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss.

(d) The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from classifying as a 

solid waste those hazardous secondary materials that are transferred for reclamation 

under § 261.4(a)(24) and are managed at a verified reclamation facility or intermediate 

facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed 

under a RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards. The Administrator's decision 

will be based on the following criteria: 

(1) The reclamation facility or intermediate facility must demonstrate that the 

reclamation process for the hazardous secondary materials is legitimate pursuant to § 

260.43; 

(2) The reclamation facility or intermediate facility must satisfy the financial 

assurance condition in § 261.4(a)(24)(vi)(F); 

(3) The reclamation facility or intermediate facility must not be subject to a 

formal enforcement action in the previous three years and not be classified as a 

significant non-complier under RCRA Subtitle C, or must provide credible evidence that 

the facility will manage the hazardous secondary materials properly.

Deleted: 4
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 335 of 527

Credible evidence may include a demonstration that the facility has taken remedial steps 

to address the violations and prevent future violations, or that the violations are not 

relevant to the proper management of the hazardous secondary materials;

(4) The intermediate or reclamation facility must have the equipment and trained 

personnel needed to safely manage the hazardous secondary material and must meet 

emergency preparedness and response requirements under 40 CFR part 261 subpart M; 

(5) If residuals are generated from the reclamation of the excluded hazardous 

secondary materials, the reclamation facility must have the permits required (if any) to 

manage the residuals, have a contract with an appropriately permitted facility to dispose 

of the residuals or present credible evidence that the residuals will be managed in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment, and 

(6) The intermediate or reclamation facility must address the potential for risk to 

proximate populations from unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary material to 

the environment ( i.e., releases that are not covered by a permit, such as a permit to 

discharge to water or air), which may include, but are not limited to, potential releases 

through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, windblown dust, fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit failures), and must include 

consideration of potential cumulative risks from other nearby potential stressors.

 5. Section 260.33 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and by adding paragraphs (d) 

and (e) to read as follows:

§ 260.33 Procedures for variances from classification as a solid waste, for variances 

to be classified as a boiler, or for non-waste determinations.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 336 of 527

* * * * *

(c) In the event of a change in circumstances that affect how a hazardous 

secondary material meets the relevant criteria contained in § 260.31, § 260.32, or §

260.34 upon which a variance or non-waste determination has been based, the applicant 

must send a description of the change in circumstances to the Administrator. The 

Administrator may issue a determination that the hazardous secondary material continues 

to meet the relevant criteria of the variance or non-waste determination or may require 

the facility to re-apply for the variance or non-waste determination.(d) Variances and 

non-waste determinations shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed ten years. No 

later than six months prior to the end of this term, facilities must re-apply for a variance 

or non-waste determination. If a facility re-applies for a variance or non-waste 

determination within six months, the facility may continue to operate under an expired 

variance or non-waste determination until receiving a decision on their re-application 

from the Administrator.(e) Facilities receiving a variance or non-waste determination 

must provide notification as required by § 260.42 of this chapter. 

 6. Section 260.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(5) to read as 

follows:

§ 260.34 Standards and criteria for non-waste determinations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Deleted: * * * * 

Deleted: .¶

(

Deleted: .¶

(

Deleted: 5

Deleted: * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 337 of 527

(4) Other relevant factors that demonstrate the hazardous secondary material is 

not discarded, including why the hazardous secondary material cannot meet, or should 

not have to meet, the conditions of an exclusion under § 261.2 or § 261.4 of this chapter.

(c) * * *

(5) Other relevant factors that demonstrate the hazardous secondary material is 

not discarded, including why the hazardous secondary material cannot meet, or should 

not have to meet, the conditions of an exclusion under § 261.2 or § 261.4 of this chapter.

 7. Section 260.42 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text , (a)(4) 

through (a)(9)and (b) and by removing paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:

§ 260.42 Notification requirement for hazardous secondary materials. 

(a) Facilities managing hazardous secondary materials under §§ 260.30, 

261.4(a)(23), 261.4(a)(24), or 261.4(a)(27) must send a notification prior to operating 

under the regulatory provision and by March 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter to 

the Regional Administrator using EPA Form 8700-12 that includes the following 

information:

* * * 

(4) The regulation under which the hazardous secondary materials will be 

managed;

(5) When the facility began or expects to begin managing the hazardous 

secondary materials in accordance with the regulation;

Deleted: 6

Deleted: * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 338 of 527

(6) A list of hazardous secondary materials that will be managed according to the 

regulation (reported as the EPA hazardous waste numbers that would apply if the 

hazardous secondary materials were managed as hazardous wastes); 

(7) For each hazardous secondary material, whether the hazardous secondary 

material, or any portion thereof, will be managed in a land-based unit;

(8) The quantity of each hazardous secondary material to be managed annually; 

and

(9) The certification (included in EPA Form 8700-12) signed and dated by an 

authorized representative of the facility.

(b) If a facility managing hazardous secondary materials has submitted a 

notification, but then subsequently stops managing hazardous secondary materials in 

accordance with the regulation(s) listed above, the facility must notify the Regional 

Administrator within thirty (30) days using EPA Form 8700-12. For purposes of this 

section, a facility has stopped managing hazardous secondary materials if the facility no 

longer generates, manages and/or reclaims hazardous secondary materials under the 

regulation(s) above and does not expect to manage any amount of hazardous secondary 

materials for at least 1 year.

 8. Section 260.43 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) and 

by removing paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 260.43 Legitimate recycling of hazardous secondary materials.

(a) Recycling of hazardous secondary materials for the purpose of the exclusions 

or exemptions from the hazardous waste regulations must be legitimate. Hazardous 

Deleted: 7. 

Deleted: or alternate regulatory standards
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 339 of 527

secondary material that is not legitimately recycled is discarded material and is a solid 

waste. In determining if their recycling is legitimate, persons must address all the 

requirements of this paragraph.

(1) Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that 

provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product or intermediate of 

the recycling process. The hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution if 

it:

(i) Contributes valuable ingredients to a product or intermediate; or

(ii) Replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling process; or

(iii) Is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in the recycling process; or

(iv) Is recovered or regenerated by the recycling process; or

(v) Is used as an effective substitute for a commercial product.

(2) The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate. The 

product or intermediate is valuable if it is:

(i) Sold to a third party; or

(ii) Used by the recycler or the generator as an effective substitute for a 

commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process.

(3) The generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous secondary material 

as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. Where there is an analogous raw 

material, the hazardous secondary material must be managed, at a minimum, in a manner 

consistent with the management of the raw material or in an equally protective manner.

Where there is no analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 340 of 527

contained. Hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are 

not recovered immediately are discarded.

(4) The product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate 

product or intermediate:

(i) Where there is an analogous product or intermediate, the product of the 

recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate if: 

(A) The product of the recycling process does not exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic (as defined in part 261 subpart C) that analogous products do not exhibit, 

and 

(B) The concentrations of any hazardous constituents found in appendix VIII of 

part 261 of this chapter that are in the product or intermediate are at levels that are 

comparable to or lower than those found in analogous products or at levels that meet 

widely-recognized commodity standards and specifications, in the case where the 

commodity standards and specifications include levels that specifically address those 

hazardous constituents. 

(ii) Where there is no analogous product, the product of the recycling process is 

comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate if: 

(A) The product of the recycling process is a commodity that meets widely 

recognized commodity standards and specifications (e.g., commodity specification grades 

for common metals), or
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 341 of 527

(B) The hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original 

process or processes from which they were generated to be reused (e.g., closed loop 

recycling). 

(iii) If the product of the recycling process has levels of hazardous constituents 

that are not comparable to or unable to be compared to a legitimate product or 

intermediate per subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of this paragraph, the recycling still may be 

shown to be legitimate, if it meets the requirements specified below. The person 

performing the recycling must conduct the necessary assessment and prepare 

documentation showing why the recycling is, in fact, still legitimate. The recycling can 

be shown to be legitimate based on lack of exposure from toxics in the product, lack of

the bioavailability of the toxics in the product, or other relevant considerations which 

show that the recycled product does not contain levels of hazardous constituents that pose 

a significant human health or environmental risk. The documentation must include a 

certification statement that the recycling is legitimate and must be maintained on-site for 

three years after the recycling operation has ceased. The person performing the recycling 

must notify the Regional Administrator of this activity using EPA Form 8700-12. 

* * * * *

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

 9. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

Subpart A—General

Deleted: * * * * 

Deleted: 8
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 342 of 527

 10. Section 261.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(8) to read as 

follows:

§ 261.1 Purpose and Scope

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) A material is “reclaimed” if it is processed to recover a usable product, or if it 

is regenerated. Examples are recovery of lead values from spent batteries and 

regeneration of spent solvents. In addition, for purposes of § 261.4(a)(23) and (24),

smelting, melting and refining furnaces are considered to be solely engaged in metals 

reclamation if the metal recovery from the hazardous secondary materials meets the same 

requirements as those specified for metals recovery from hazardous waste found in §

266.100(d)(1)-(3) of this chapter, and if the residuals meet the requirements specified in §

266.112 of this chapter.

* * * 

(8) A material is “accumulated speculatively” if it is accumulated before being 

recycled. A material is not accumulated speculatively, however, if the person 

accumulating it can show that the material is potentially recyclable and has a feasible 

means of being recycled; and that – during the calendar year (commencing on January 1) 

– the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, 

equals at least 75 percent by weight or volume of the amount of that material 

accumulated at the beginning of the period. Materials must be placed in a storage unit 

with a label indicating the first date that the material began to be accumulated. If placing 

Deleted: 9

Deleted: * * * * 

Deleted: *****¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 343 of 527

a label on the storage unit is not practicable, the accumulation period must be 

documented through an inventory log or other appropriate method. In calculating the 

percentage of turnover, the 75 percent requirement is to be applied to each material of the 

same type (e.g., slags from a single smelting process) that is recycled in the same way 

(i.e., from which the same material is recovered or that is used in the same way). 

Materials accumulating in units that would be exempt from regulation under § 261.4(c) 

are not to be included in making the calculation. Materials that are already defined as

solid wastes also are not to be included in making the calculation. Materials are no longer 

in this category once they are removed from accumulation for recycling, however. 

 11. Section 261.2 is amended as follows:

a. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(ii);

b. Revise paragraph (b)(3);

c. Add paragraph (b)(4);

d. Revise paragraph (c)(3);

e. Revise Table 1 in paragraph (c)(4);

f. Revise the introductory text to paragraph (e)(1);

g. Add paragraph (g).

The text is revised to read as follows:

§ 261.2 Definition of Solid Waste

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

Deleted: 10

Deleted: * * * 

Deleted: ***
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 344 of 527

(3) Accumulated, stored, or treated (but not recycled) before or in lieu of being 

abandoned by being disposed of, burned or incinerated; or(4) Sham recycled, as 

explained in paragraph (g) of this section.

* * * * * 

(c) * * *

(3) Reclaimed. Materials noted with a “–“ in column 3 of Table 1 are not solid 

wastes when reclaimed. Materials noted with an “*” in column 3 of Table 1 are solid 

wastes when reclaimed unless they meet the requirements of §§ 261.4(a)(17), or 

261.4(a)(23), 261.4(a)(24), or 261.4(a)(27).

(4) * * * 

Table 1

Use constituting 

disposal 

(§ 261.2(c)(1))

Energy 

recovery/ fuel 

(§ 261.2(c)(2))

Reclamation 

(§ 261.2(c)(3)), 

except as 

provided in 

§§ 261.4(a)(17), 

261.4(a)(23),

261.4(a)(24) or 

261.4(a)(27).

Speculative 

accumulation 

(§ 261.2(c)(4))

1 2 3 4

Spent Materials (*) (*) (*) (*)

Sludges (listed in 

40 CFR Part 

261.31 or 261.32)

(*) (*) (*) (*)

Sludges exhibiting 

a characteristic of 

hazardous waste

(*) (*) ---- (*)

By-products (listed 

in 40 CFR 261.31 

or 261.32)

(*) (*) (*) (*)

Deleted: (4) Sham recycled, as explained in 

paragraph (g) of this section.¶

*****¶

Deleted: * * * 

Deleted: (§

Deleted: (§

Deleted: (

Deleted: §

Deleted: §

Deleted: §

Deleted: (§
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 345 of 527

By-products 

exhibiting a 

characteristic of 

hazardous waste

(*) (*) ---- (*)

Commercial 

chemical products 

listed in 40 CFR 

261.33

(*) (*) ---- ----

Scrap metal that is 

not excluded under 

40 CFR 

261.4(a)(13)

(*) (*) (*) (*)

Note: The terms “spent materials,” “sludges,” “by-products,” and “scrap metal” and 

“processed scrap metal” are defined in § 261.1.

* * * * * 

(e) Materials that are not solid waste when recycled. (1) Materials are not solid 

wastes when they can be shown to be legitimately recycled as specified in § 260.43 by 

being:

* * * * *

(g) Sham recycling. A hazardous secondary material found to be sham recycled is 

considered discarded and a solid waste. Sham recycling is recycling that is not legitimate 

recycling as defined in § 260.43.

 12. Section 261.4 is amended as follows: 

a. Republish the introductory text of paragraph (a);

b. Revise paragraph (a)(23);

c. Revise paragraph (a)(24);

d. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(25);

Deleted: *****¶

Deleted: * * * 

Deleted: 11

Deleted: paragraphs (a)(24) and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 346 of 527

e. Add paragraph (a)(27).

The text is revised to read as follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

(a) Materials which are not solid wastes. The following materials are not solid 

wastes for the purpose of this part:

* * * * *

(23) Hazardous secondary material generated and legitimately reclaimed within 

the United States or its territories and under the control of the generator, provided that the 

material complies with paragraphs (a)(23)(i) and (ii) of this section: 

(i)(A) The hazardous secondary material is generated and reclaimed at the 

generating facility (for purposes of this definition, generating facility means all 

contiguous property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the hazardous secondary 

material generator); or

(B) the hazardous secondary material is generated and reclaimed at different 

facilities, if the reclaiming facility is controlled by the generator or if both the generating 

facility and the reclaiming facility are controlled by a person as defined in § 260.10 of 

this chapter, and if the generator provides one of the following certifications: “on behalf 

of [insert generator facility name], I certify that this facility will send the indicated 

hazardous secondary material to [insert reclaimer facility name], which is controlled by 

[insert generator facility name] and that [insert name of either facility] has acknowledged 

full responsibility for the safe management of the hazardous secondary material,” or “on 

behalf of [insert generator facility name], I certify that this facility will send the indicated 

Deleted: * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 347 of 527

hazardous secondary material to [insert reclaimer facility name], that both facilities are 

under common control, and that [insert name of either facility] has acknowledged full 

responsibility for the safe management of the hazardous secondary material.” For 

purposes of this paragraph, “control” means the power to direct the policies of the 

facility, whether by the ownership of stock, voting rights, or otherwise, except that 

contractors who operate facilities on behalf of a different person as defined in § 260.10 

shall not be deemed to “control” such facilities. The generating and receiving facilities 

must both maintain at their facilities for no less than three years records of hazardous 

secondary materials sent or received under this exclusion. In both cases, the records must 

contain the name of the transporter, the date of the shipment, and the type and quantity of 

the hazardous secondary material shipped or received under the exclusion. These 

requirements may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of 

lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations); or

(C) The hazardous secondary material is generated pursuant to a written contract 

between a tolling contractor and a toll manufacturer and is reclaimed by the tolling 

contractor, if the tolling contractor certifies the following: “On behalf of [insert tolling 

contractor name], I certify that [insert tolling contractor name] has a written contract with 

[insert toll manufacturer name] to manufacture [insert name of product or intermediate] 

which is made from specified unused materials, and that [insert tolling contractor name] 

will reclaim the hazardous secondary materials generated during this manufacture. On 

behalf of [insert tolling contractor name], I also certify that [insert tolling contractor 

name] retains ownership of, and responsibility for, the hazardous secondary materials that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 348 of 527

are generated during the course of the manufacture, including any releases of hazardous 

secondary materials that occur during the manufacturing process”. The tolling contractor 

must maintain at its facility for no less than three years records of hazardous secondary 

materials received pursuant to its written contract with the tolling manufacturer, and the 

tolling manufacturer must maintain at its facility for no less than three years records of 

hazardous secondary materials shipped pursuant to its written contract with the tolling 

contractor. In both cases, the records must contain the name of the transporter, the date of 

the shipment, and the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary material shipped or 

received pursuant to the written contract. These requirements may be satisfied by routine 

business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, 

or electronic confirmations). For purposes of this paragraph, tolling contractor means a 

person who arranges for the production of a product or intermediate made from specified 

unused materials through a written contract with a toll manufacturer. Toll manufacturer 

means a person who produces a product or intermediate made from specified unused 

materials pursuant to a written contract with a tolling contractor. 

(ii) (A) The hazardous secondary material is contained as defined in § 260.10 of 

this chapter. A hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded

and a solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of reclamation. 

Hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing or 

intermittent unpermitted releases is discarded and a solid waste. 

(B) The hazardous secondary material is not speculatively accumulated, as 

defined in § 261.1(c)(8).

Deleted: recycling
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 349 of 527

(C) Notice is provided as required by § 260.42 of this chapter.

(D) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management 

conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent leadacid battery (see § 266.80 and § 273.2 of this chapter). 

(E) Persons performing the recycling of hazardous secondary materials under this 

exclusion must maintain documentation of their legitimacy determination on-site. 

Documentation must be a written description of how the recycling meets all four factors 

in § 260.43(a). Documentation must be maintained for three years after the recycling 

operation has ceased.

(F) The emergency preparedness and response requirements found in subpart M 

of this part are met. 

(24) Hazardous secondary material that is generated and then transferred to a 

verified reclamation facility for the purpose of reclamation is not a solid waste, provided 

that:

(i) The material is not speculatively accumulated, as defined in § 261.1(c)(8);

(ii) The material is not handled by any person or facility other than the hazardous 

secondary material generator, the transporter, an intermediate facility or a reclaimer, and, 

while in transport, is not stored for more than 10 days at a transfer facility, as defined in 

§260.10 of this chapter, and is packaged according to applicable Department of 

Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, and 179 while in transport;

Deleted: (24) [Reserved]¶

(25) [Reserved]¶

* * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 350 of 527

(iii) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management 

conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent leadacid battery (see §§ 266.80 and 273.2 of this chapter); 

(iv) The reclamation of the material is legitimate, as specified under § 260.43 of 

this chapter;

(v) The hazardous secondary material generator satisfies all of the following 

conditions:

(A) The material must be contained as defined in § 260.10. A hazardous 

secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste unless it is 

immediately recovered for the purpose of recycling. Hazardous secondary material 

managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing releases is discarded and a solid waste.

(B) The hazardous secondary material generator must arrange for transport of 

hazardous secondary materials to a verified reclamation facility (or facilities) in the 

United States. A verified reclamation facility is a facility that has been granted a variance 

under § 260.31(d), or a reclamation facility where the management of the hazardous 

secondary materials is addressed under a RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards. 

If the hazardous secondary material will be passing through an intermediate facility, the 

intermediate facility must have been granted a variance under § 260.31(d) or the 

management of the hazardous secondary materials at that facility must be addressed 

under a RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards, and the hazardous secondary 

material generator must make contractual arrangements with the intermediate facility to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 351 of 527

ensure that the hazardous secondary material is sent to the reclamation facility identified 

by the hazardous secondary material generator.

(C) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating 

facility for no less than three (3) years records of all off-site shipments of hazardous 

secondary materials. For each shipment, these records must, at a minimum, contain the 

following information:

( 1 ) Name of the transporter and date of the shipment;

( 2 ) Name and address of each reclaimer and, if applicable, the name and address 

of each intermediate facility to which the hazardous secondary material was sent;

( 3 ) The type and quantity of hazardous secondary material in the shipment.

(D) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating 

facility for no less than three (3) years confirmations of receipt from each reclaimer and, 

if applicable, each intermediate facility for all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary 

materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the reclaimer 

(or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary materials 

received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. This 

requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of 

lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations of receipt); 

(E) The hazardous secondary material generator must comply with the emergency 

preparedness and response conditions in subpart M of this part. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 352 of 527

(vi) Reclaimers of hazardous secondary material excluded from regulation under 

this exclusion and intermediate facilities as defined in §260.10 of this chapter satisfy all 

of the following conditions:

(A) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must maintain at its facility for no less 

than three (3) years records of all shipments of hazardous secondary material that were 

received at the facility and, if applicable, for all shipments of hazardous secondary 

materials that were received and subsequently sent off-site from the facility for further 

reclamation. For each shipment, these records must at a minimum contain the following 

information:

( 1 ) Name of the transporter and date of the shipment;

( 2 ) Name and address of the hazardous secondary material generator and, if 

applicable, the name and address of the reclaimer or intermediate facility which the 

hazardous secondary materials were received from;

( 3 ) The type and quantity of hazardous secondary material in the shipment; and

( 4 ) For hazardous secondary materials that, after being received by the reclaimer 

or intermediate facility, were subsequently transferred off-site for further reclamation, the 

name and address of the (subsequent) reclaimer and, if applicable, the name and address 

of each intermediate facility to which the hazardous secondary material was sent.

(B) The intermediate facility must send the hazardous secondary material to the 

reclaimer(s) designated by the hazardous secondary materials generator.

(C) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must send to the hazardous secondary 

material generator confirmations of receipt for all off-site shipments of hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 353 of 527

secondary materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the 

reclaimer (or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary 

materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. 

This requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, 

bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations of receipt).

(D) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must manage the hazardous secondary 

material in a manner that is at least as protective as that employed for analogous raw 

material and must be contained. An “analogous raw material” is a raw material for which 

a hazardous secondary material is a substitute and serves the same function and has 

similar physical and chemical properties as the hazardous secondary material.

(E) Any residuals that are generated from reclamation processes will be managed 

in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If any residuals 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, or if they 

themselves are specifically listed in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, such residuals are 

hazardous wastes and must be managed in accordance with the applicable requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.

(F) The reclaimer and intermediate facility have financial assurance as required 

under subpart H of 40 CFR part 261, 

(G) The reclaimer and intermediate facility have been granted a variance under 

§260.31(d) or have a RCRA Part B permit or interim status standards that address the 

management of the hazardous secondary materials; and
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 354 of 527

(vii) All persons claiming the exclusion under this paragraph (a)(24) of this 

section provide notification as required under § 260.42 of this chapter .

(25) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(27) Hazardous secondary material that is generated and then transferred to 

another person for the purpose of remanufacturing is not a solid waste, provided that:

(i) The hazardous secondary material consists of one or more of the following 

spent solvents: toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, nhexane, cyclohexane, methyl tert-butyl ether, acetonitrile, chloroform, chloromethane, 

dichloromethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, NN-dimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, nbutyl alcohol, ethanol, and/or methanol;

(ii) The hazardous secondary material originated from using one or more of the

solvents listed in paragraph (27)(i) of this section in a commercial grade for reacting, 

extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the process lines 

associated with these functions) in the pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), 

basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins 

manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and/or the paints and coatings manufacturing sectors 

(NAICS 325510).

(iii) The hazardous secondary material generator sends the hazardous secondary 

material spent solvents listed in paragraph (27)(i) of this section to a remanufacturer in

the pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), basic organic chemical 

Deleted: ethanol,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 355 of 527

manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), 

and/or the paints and coatings manufacturing sectors (NAICS 325510).

(iv) After remanufacturing one or more of the solvents listed in paragraph (27)(i) 

of this section, the use of the remanufactured solvent shall be limited to reacting, 

extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the process lines 

associated with these functions) in the pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), 

basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins 

manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and the paints and coatings manufacturing sectors 

(NAICS 325510) or to using them as ingredients in a product. These allowed uses 

correspond to chemical functional uses enumerated under the Chemical Data Reporting

Rule of the Toxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR Parts 704, 710–711), including 

Industrial Function Codes U015 (solvents consumed in a reaction to produce other 

chemicals) and U030 (solvents become part of the mixture);

(v) After remanufacturing one or more of the solvents listed in paragraph (27)(i) 

of this section, the use of the remanufactured solvent does not involve cleaning or 

degreasing oil, grease, or similar material from textiles, glassware, metal surfaces, or 

other articles. (These disallowed continuing uses correspond to chemical functional uses 

in Industrial Function Code U029 under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule of the Toxics 

Substances Control Act.); and

(vi) Both the hazardous secondary material generator and the remanufacturer

must:

Deleted: re-manufacturer
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 356 of 527

A. Notify EPA or the State Director, if the state is authorized for the program, and 

update the notification every two years per 40 CFR 260.42; 

B. Develop and maintain an up-to-date remanufacturing plan which identifies: (1) 

the name, address and EPA ID number of the generator(s) and the remanufacturer(s), (2) 

the types and estimated annual volumes of spent solvents to be remanufactured, (3) the 

processes and industry sectors that generate the spent solvents, (4) the specific uses and 

industry sectors for the remanufactured solvents, and (5) a certification from the 

remanufacturer stating “on behalf of [insert remanufacturer facility name], I certify that 

this facility is a remanufacturer under pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), 

basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics and resins 

manufacturing (NAICS 325211), and/or the paints and coatings manufacturing sectors 

(NAICS 325510), and will accept the spent solvent(s) for the sole purpose of 

remanufacturing into commercial-grade solvent(s) that will be used for reacting, 

extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals (or for rinsing out the process lines 

associated with these functions) or for use as product ingredient(s). I also certify that the

remanufacturing equipment, vents, and tanks are equipped with and are operating air 

emission controls in compliance with the appropriate Clean Air Act regulations under 40 

CFR Part 60, Part 61 or Part 63, or, absent such Clean Air Act standards for the particular 

operation or piece of equipment covered by the remanufacturing exclusion, are in 

compliance with the appropriate standards in 40 CFR part 261 subparts AA (vents), BB 

(equipment) and CC (tank storage),”; 

Deleted: re-manufacturing

Deleted: re-manufactured

Deleted: re-manufactured

Deleted: 266
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 357 of 527

C. Maintain records of shipments and confirmations of receipts for a period of 

three years from the dates of the shipments;

D. Prior to remanufacturing, store the hazardous spent solvents in tanks or 

containers that meet technical standards found in subparts I and J of 40 CFR part 261, 

with the tanks and containers being labeled or otherwise having an immediately available 

record of the material being stored; 

E. During remanufacturing, and during storage of the hazardous secondary 

materials prior to remanufacturing, the remanufacturer certifies that the remanufacturing 

equipment, vents, and tanks are equipped with and are operating air emission controls in 

compliance with the appropriate Clean Air Act regulations under 40 CFR Part 60, Part 61 

or Part 63; or, absent such Clean Air Act standards for the particular operation or piece of 

equipment covered by the remanufacturing exclusion, are in compliance with the 

appropriate standards in 40 CFR part 261 subparts AA (vents), BB (equipment) and CC 

(tank storage); and

F. Meet the requirements prohibiting speculative accumulation per 40 CFR 

261.1(c)(8).

 13. Part 261 is amended by adding Subparts I and J to read as follows:

Subpart I—Use and Management of Containers

§ 261.170 Applicability.

The regulations in this subpart apply to hazardous secondary materials excluded under 

the remanufacturing exclusion at § 261.4(a)(27) and stored in containers.

§ 261.171 Condition of containers.

Deleted: re-manufacturing

Deleted: re-manufacturing

Deleted: re-manufacturing

Deleted: <#>12. Section 261.6(a)(2) is amended 

by adding paragraph (v) to read as follows:¶

§ 261.6 Requirements for recyclable materials.¶

<#>* * *¶

(2) * * *¶

(v) Hazardous recyclable materials transferred to 

another person for reclamation. (40 CFR part 266, 

subpart D).¶

Subpart H—Financial Requirements for 

Management of Excluded Hazardous Secondary 

Materials¶

<#>13. Part 261 is amended by removing and 

reserving Subpart H (261.140 through 261.151).¶

Subpart H [Reserved]¶

14.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 358 of 527

If a container holding hazardous secondary material is not in good condition (e.g., severe 

rusting, apparent structural defects) or if it begins to leak, the hazardous secondary 

material must be transferred from this container to a container that is in good condition or 

managed in some other way that complies with the requirements of this part.

§ 261.172 Compatibility of hazardous secondary materials with containers.

The container must be made of or lined with materials which will not react with, and are 

otherwise compatible with, the hazardous secondary material to be stored, so that the 

ability of the container to contain the material is not impaired.

§ 261.173 Management of containers.

(a) A container holding hazardous secondary material must always be closed 

during storage, except when it is necessary to add or remove the hazardous secondary 

material.

(b) A container holding hazardous secondary material must not be opened, 

handled, or stored in a manner which may rupture the container or cause it to leak.

§ 261.175 Containment.

(a) Container storage areas must have a containment system that is designed and 

operated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) A containment system must be designed and operated as follows:

(1) A base must underlie the containers which is free of cracks or gaps and is 

sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills, and accumulated precipitation until the 

collected material is detected and removed;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 359 of 527

(2) The base must be sloped or the containment system must be otherwise 

designed and operated to drain and remove liquids resulting from leaks, spills, or 

precipitation, unless the containers are elevated or are otherwise protected from contact 

with accumulated liquids;

(3) The containment system must have sufficient capacity to contain 10% of the 

volume of containers or the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater.

(4) Run-on into the containment system must be prevented unless the collection 

system has sufficient excess capacity in addition to that required in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section to contain any run-on which might enter the system; and

(5) Spilled or leaked material and accumulated precipitation must be removed 

from the sump or collection area in as timely a manner as is necessary to prevent 

overflow of the collection system.

§ 261.176 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive hazardous secondary 

material.

Containers holding ignitable or reactive hazardous secondary material must be located at 

least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property line.

§ 261.177 Special requirements for incompatible materials.

(a) Incompatible materials must not be placed in the same container.

(b) Hazardous secondary material must not be placed in an unwashed container 

that previously held an incompatible material.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 360 of 527

(c) A storage container holding a hazardous secondary material that is 

incompatible with any other materials stored nearby must be separated from the other 

materials or protected from them by means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device.

§ 261.179 Air emission standards.

The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

shall manage all hazardous secondary material placed in a container in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of subparts AA, BB, and CC of this part.

Subpart J—Tank Systems

§ 261.190 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to tank systems for storing or treating 

hazardous secondary material excluded under the remanufacturing exclusion at §

261.4(a)(27).

(b) Tank systems, including sumps, as defined in § 260.10, that serve as part of a 

secondary containment system to collect or contain releases of hazardous secondary 

materials are exempted from the requirements in § 261.193(a).

§ 261.191 Assessment of existing tank system's integrity.

(a) Tank systems must meet the secondary containment requirements of §

261.193, or the remanufacturer or other person that handles the hazardous secondary 

material must determine that the tank system is not leaking or is unfit for use. Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a written assessment reviewed and certified by a 

qualified Professional Engineer must be kept on file at the remanufacturer’s facility or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 361 of 527

other facility that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material that attests to the tank 

system's integrity.

(b) This assessment must determine that the tank system is adequately designed 

and has sufficient structural strength and compatibility with the material(s) to be stored or 

treated, to ensure that it will not collapse, rupture, or fail. At a minimum, this assessment 

must consider the following:

(1) Design standard(s), if available, according to which the tank and ancillary 

equipment were constructed;

(2) Hazardous characteristics of the material(s) that have been and will be 

handled;

(3) Existing corrosion protection measures;

(4) Documented age of the tank system, if available (otherwise, an estimate of the 

age); and

(5) Results of a leak test, internal inspection, or other tank integrity examination 

such that:

(i) For non-enterable underground tanks, the assessment must include a leak test 

that is capable of taking into account the effects of temperature variations, tank end 

deflection, vapor pockets, and high water table effects, and

(ii) For other than non-enterable underground tanks and for ancillary equipment, 

this assessment must include either a leak test, as described above, or other integrity 

examination that is certified by a qualified Professional Engineer that addresses cracks, 

leaks, corrosion, and erosion.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 362 of 527

[Note: The practices described in the American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication, 

Guide for Inspection of Refinery Equipment, Chapter XIII, “Atmospheric and LowPressure Storage Tanks,” 4th edition, 1981, may be used, where applicable, as guidelines 

in conducting other than a leak test.]

(c) If, as a result of the assessment conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of 

this section, a tank system is found to be leaking or unfit for use, the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material must comply with the 

requirements of § 261.196.

§ 261.192 [Reserved]

§ 261.193 Containment and detection of releases.

(a) Secondary containment systems must be:

(1) Designed, installed, and operated to prevent any migration of materials or 

accumulated liquid out of the system to the soil, ground water, or surface water at any 

time during the use of the tank system; and

(2) Capable of detecting and collecting releases and accumulated liquids until the 

collected material is removed.

(b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, secondary 

containment systems must be at a minimum:

(1) Constructed of or lined with materials that are compatible with the materials(s) 

to be placed in the tank system and must have sufficient strength and thickness to prevent 

failure owing to pressure gradients (including static head and external hydrological 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 363 of 527

forces), physical contact with the material to which it is exposed, climatic conditions, and 

the stress of daily operation (including stresses from nearby vehicular traffic).

(2) Placed on a foundation or base capable of providing support to the secondary 

containment system, resistance to pressure gradients above and below the system, and 

capable of preventing failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift;

(3) Provided with a leak-detection system that is designed and operated so that it 

will detect the failure of either the primary or secondary containment structure or the 

presence of any release of hazardous secondary material or accumulated liquid in the 

secondary containment system at the earliest practicable time; and

(4) Sloped or otherwise designed or operated to drain and remove liquids resulting 

from leaks, spills, or precipitation. Spilled or leaked material and accumulated 

precipitation must be removed from the secondary containment system within 24 hours, 

or in as timely a manner as is possible to prevent harm to human health and the 

environment.

[Note: If the collected material is a hazardous waste under part 261 of this chapter, it is 

subject to management as a hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable 

requirements of parts 262 through 265, 266, and 268 of this chapter. If the collected 

material is discharged through a point source to waters of the United States, it is subject 

to the requirements of sections 301, 304, and 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. If 

discharged to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), it is subject to the 

requirements of section 307 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. If the collected material 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 364 of 527

is released to the environment, it may be subject to the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 302.]

(c) Secondary containment for tanks must include one or more of the following 

devices:

(1) A liner (external to the tank);

(2) A vault; or

(3) A double-walled tank

(d) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, 

secondary containment systems must satisfy the following requirements:

(1) External liner systems must be:

(i) Designed or operated to contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank 

within its boundary;

(ii) Designed or operated to prevent run-on or infiltration of precipitation into the 

secondary containment system unless the collection system has sufficient excess capacity 

to contain run-on or infiltration. Such additional capacity must be sufficient to contain 

precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.

(iii) Free of cracks or gaps; and

(iv) Designed and installed to surround the tank completely and to cover all 

surrounding earth likely to come into contact with the material if the material is released 

from the tank(s) (i.e., capable of preventing lateral as well as vertical migration of the 

material).

(2) Vault systems must be:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 365 of 527

(i) Designed or operated to contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank 

within its boundary;

(ii) Designed or operated to prevent run-on or infiltration of precipitation into the 

secondary containment system unless the collection system has sufficient excess capacity 

to contain run-on or infiltration. Such additional capacity must be sufficient to contain 

precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event;

(iii) Constructed with chemical-resistant water stops in place at all joints (if any);

(iv) Provided with an impermeable interior coating or lining that is compatible 

with the stored material and that will prevent migration of material into the concrete;

(v) Provided with a means to protect against the formation of and ignition of 

vapors within the vault, if the material being stored or treated is ignitable or reactive; and

(vi) Provided with an exterior moisture barrier or be otherwise designed or 

operated to prevent migration of moisture into the vault if the vault is subject to hydraulic 

pressure.

(3) Double-walled tanks must be:

(i) Designed as an integral structure (i.e., an inner tank completely enveloped 

within an outer shell) so that any release from the inner tank is contained by the outer 

shell;

(ii) Protected, if constructed of metal, from both corrosion of the primary tank 

interior and of the external surface of the outer shell; and

(iii) Provided with a built-in continuous leak detection system capable of 

detecting a release within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 366 of 527

[Note: The provisions outlined in the Steel Tank Institute's (STI) “Standard for Dual 

Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks” may be used as guidelines for aspects of the 

design of underground steel double-walled tanks.]

(e) [Reserved]

(f) Ancillary equipment must be provided with secondary containment (e.g., 

trench, jacketing, double-walled piping) that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section except for:

(1) Aboveground piping (exclusive of flanges, joints, valves, and other 

connections) that are visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis;

(2) Welded flanges, welded joints, and welded connections that are visually 

inspected for leaks on a daily basis;

(3) Sealless or magnetic coupling pumps and sealless valves that are visually 

inspected for leaks on a daily basis; and

(4) Pressurized aboveground piping systems with automatic shut-off devices (e.g., 

excess flow check valves, flow metering shutdown devices, loss of pressure actuated 

shut-off devices) that are visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis.

§ 261.194 General operating requirements.

(a) Hazardous secondary materials or treatment reagents must not be placed in a 

tank system if they could cause the tank, its ancillary equipment, or the containment 

system to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 367 of 527

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material must use appropriate controls and practices to prevent spills and 

overflows from tank or containment systems. These include at a minimum:

(1) Spill prevention controls (e.g., check valves, dry disconnect couplings);

(2) Overfill prevention controls (e.g., level sensing devices, high level alarms, 

automatic feed cutoff, or bypass to a standby tank); and

(3) Maintenance of sufficient freeboard in uncovered tanks to prevent overtopping 

by wave or wind action or by precipitation.

(c) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material must comply with the requirements of § 261.196 of this subpart if a 

leak or spill occurs in the tank system.

§ 261.195 [Reserved]

§ 261.196 Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit-for-use tank 

systems.

A tank system or secondary containment system from which there has been a leak or 

spill, or which is unfit for use, must be removed from service immediately, and the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

must satisfy the following requirements:

(a) Cessation of use; prevent flow or addition of materials. The remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material must immediately stop 

the flow of hazardous secondary material into the tank system or secondary containment 

system and inspect the system to determine the cause of the release.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 368 of 527

(b) Removal of material from tank system or secondary containment system. (1) If 

the release was from the tank system, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material must, within 24 hours after detection of the leak 

or, if the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material demonstrates that it is not possible, at the earliest practicable time, remove as 

much of the material as is necessary to prevent further release of hazardous secondary 

material to the environment and to allow inspection and repair of the tank system to be 

performed.

(2) If the material released was to a secondary containment system, all released 

materials must be removed within 24 hours or in as timely a manner as is possible to 

prevent harm to human health and the environment.

(c) Containment of visible releases to the environment. The remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material must immediately 

conduct a visual inspection of the release and, based upon that inspection:

(1) Prevent further migration of the leak or spill to soils or surface water; and

(2) Remove, and properly dispose of, any visible contamination of the soil or 

surface water.

(d) Notifications, reports. (1) Any release to the environment, except as provided 

in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, must be reported to the Regional Administrator within 

24 hours of its detection. If the release has been reported pursuant to 40 CFR part 302, 

that report will satisfy this requirement.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 369 of 527

(2) A leak or spill of hazardous secondary material is exempted from the 

requirements of this paragraph if it is:

(i) Less than or equal to a quantity of 1 pound, and

(ii) Immediately contained and cleaned up.

(3) Within 30 days of detection of a release to the environment, a report 

containing the following information must be submitted to the Regional Administrator:

(i) Likely route of migration of the release;

(ii) Characteristics of the surrounding soil (soil composition, geology, 

hydrogeology, climate);

(iii) Results of any monitoring or sampling conducted in connection with the 

release (if available). If sampling or monitoring data relating to the release are not 

available within 30 days, these data must be submitted to the Regional Administrator as 

soon as they become available.

(iv) Proximity to downgradient drinking water, surface water, and populated 

areas; and

(v) Description of response actions taken or planned.

(e) Provision of secondary containment, repair, or closure. (1) Unless the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section, the tank system 

must cease to operate under the remanufacturing exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(27).

(2) If the cause of the release was a spill that has not damaged the integrity of the 

system, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 370 of 527

material may return the system to service as soon as the released material is removed and 

repairs, if necessary, are made.

(3) If the cause of the release was a leak from the primary tank system into the 

secondary containment system, the system must be repaired prior to returning the tank 

system to service.

(4) If the source of the release was a leak to the environment from a component of 

a tank system without secondary containment, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material must provide the component of the 

system from which the leak occurred with secondary containment that satisfies the 

requirements of § 261.193 before it can be returned to service, unless the source of the 

leak is an aboveground portion of a tank system that can be inspected visually. If the 

source is an aboveground component that can be inspected visually, the component must 

be repaired and may be returned to service without secondary containment as long as the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this section are satisfied. Additionally, if a leak has 

occurred in any portion of a tank system component that is not readily accessible for 

visual inspection (e.g., the bottom of an inground or onground tank), the entire 

component must be provided with secondary containment in accordance with § 261.193 

of this subpart prior to being returned to use.

(f) Certification of major repairs. If the remanufacturer or other person that stores 

or treats the hazardous secondary material has repaired a tank system in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section, and the repair has been extensive ( e.g., installation of an 

internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or secondary containment vessel), 

Deleted: . ,
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 371 of 527

the tank system must not be returned to service unless the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material has obtained a certification by a 

qualified Professional Engineer that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous 

secondary materials without release for the intended life of the system. This certification 

must be kept on file at the facility and maintained until closure of the facility.

[Note: The Regional Administrator may, on the basis of any information received that 

there is or has been a release of hazardous secondary material or hazardous constituents 

into the environment, issue an order under RCRA section 7003(a) requiring corrective 

action or such other response as deemed necessary to protect human health or the 

environment.]

[Note: 40 CFR part 302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National 

Response Center of certain releases.]

§ 261.197 Termination of remanufacturing exclusion.

(a) Hazardous secondary material stored in units more than 90 days after the unit 

ceases to operate under the remanufacturing exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(27) or 

otherwise ceases to be operated for manufacturing, or for storage of a product or a raw 

material, then becomes subject to regulation as hazardous waste under parts 261 through 

266, 268, 270, 271 and 124 of this chapter, as applicable.

§ 261.198 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive materials.

(a) Ignitable or reactive material must not be placed in tank systems, unless the 

material is stored or treated in such a way that it is protected from any material or 

conditions that may cause the material to ignite or react.

Deleted: materials
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 372 of 527

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats hazardous secondary 

material which is ignitable or reactive must store or treat the hazardous secondary 

material in a tank that is in compliance with the requirements for the maintenance of 

protective distances between the material management area and any public ways, streets, 

alleys, or an adjoining property line that can be built upon as required in Tables 2–1 

through 2–6 of the National Fire Protection Association's “Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids Code,” (1977 or 1981), (incorporated by reference, see § 260.11).

§ 261.199 Special requirements for incompatible materials.

(a) Incompatible materials must not be placed in the same tank system.

(b) Hazardous secondary material must not be placed in a tank system that has not 

been decontaminated and that previously held an incompatible material.

§ 261.200 Air emission standards.

The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

shall manage all hazardous secondary material placed in a tank in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of subparts AA, BB, and CC of this part.

 14. Part 261 is amended by adding and reserving Subparts K–Z.

Subparts K-Z [Reserved]

 15. Part 261 is amended by adding Subparts AA, BB, and CC to read as follows:

Subpart AA—Air Emission Standards for Process Vents

§ 261.1030 Applicability

The regulations in this subpart apply to process vents associated with distillation, 

fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or stream stripping 

Deleted: 15

Deleted: 16
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 373 of 527

operations that manage hazardous secondary materials excluded under the 

remanufacturing exclusion at § 261.4(a)(27) with concentrations of at least 10 ppmw, 

unless the process vents are equipped with operating air emission controls in accordance 

with the requirements of an applicable Clean Air Act regulation codified under 40 CFR 

part 60, part 61, or part 63.

§ 261.1031 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and parts 260–266.

Air stripping operation is a desorption operation employed to transfer one or more 

volatile components from a liquid mixture into a gas (air) either with or without the 

application of heat to the liquid. Packed towers, spray towers, and bubble-cap, sieve, or 

valve-type plate towers are among the process configurations used for contacting the air 

and a liquid.

Bottoms receiver means a container or tank used to receive and collect the heavier 

bottoms fractions of the distillation feed stream that remain in the liquid phase.

Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and that is 

composed of piping, connections, and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport 

gas or vapor from a piece or pieces of equipment to a control device.

Condenser means a heat-transfer device that reduces a thermodynamic fluid from its 

vapor phase to its liquid phase.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 374 of 527

Connector means flanged, screwed, welded, or other joined fittings used to connect two 

pipelines or a pipeline and a piece of equipment. For the purposes of reporting and 

recordkeeping, connector means flanged fittings that are not covered by insulation or 

other materials that prevent location of the fittings.

Continuous recorder means a data-recording device recording an instantaneous data 

value at least once every 15 minutes.

Control device means an enclosed combustion device, vapor recovery system, or flare. 

Any device the primary function of which is the recovery or capture of solvents or other 

organics for use, reuse, or sale (e.g., a primary condenser on a solvent recovery unit) is 

not a control device.

Control device shutdown means the cessation of operation of a control device for any 

purpose.

Distillate receiver means a container or tank used to receive and collect liquid material 

(condensed) from the overhead condenser of a distillation unit and from which the 

condensed liquid is pumped to larger storage tanks or other process units.

Distillation operation means an operation, either batch or continuous, separating one or 

more feed stream(s) into two or more exit streams, each exit stream having component 

concentrations different from those in the feed stream(s). The separation is achieved by 

the redistribution of the components between the liquid and vapor phase as they approach 

equilibrium within the distillation unit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 375 of 527

Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in series with a bleed 

valve or line that can vent the line between the two block valves.

Equipment means each valve, pump, compressor, pressure relief device, sampling 

connection system, open-ended valve or line, or flange or other connector, and any 

control devices or systems required by this subpart.

Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler occupied by the 

flame envelope.

Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is present in a vent stream.

First attempt at repair means to take rapid action for the purpose of stopping or reducing 

leakage of organic material to the atmosphere using best practices.

Fractionation operation means a distillation operation or method used to separate a 

mixture of several volatile components of different boiling points in successive stages, 

each stage removing from the mixture some proportion of one of the components.

Hazardous secondary material management unit shutdown means a work practice or 

operational procedure that stops operation of a hazardous secondary material 

management unit or part of a hazardous secondary material management unit. An 

unscheduled work practice or operational procedure that stops operation of a hazardous 

secondary material management unit or part of a hazardous secondary material 

management unit for less than 24 hours is not a hazardous secondary material 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 376 of 527

management unit shutdown. The use of spare equipment and technically feasible 

bypassing of equipment without stopping operation are not hazardous secondary material 

management unit shutdowns.

Hot well means a container for collecting condensate as in a steam condenser serving a 

vacuum-jet or steam-jet ejector.

In gas/vapor service means that the piece of equipment contains or contacts a hazardous 

secondary material stream that is in the gaseous state at operating conditions.

In heavy liquid service means that the piece of equipment is not in gas/vapor service or in 

light liquid service.

In light liquid service means that the piece of equipment contains or contacts a material 

stream where the vapor pressure of one or more of the organic components in the stream 

is greater than 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 °C, the total concentration of the pure organic 

components having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 °C is equal 

to or greater than 20 percent by weight, and the fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.

In situ sampling systems means nonextractive samplers or in-line samplers.

In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at an internal pressure that is at 

least 5 kPa below ambient pressure.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 377 of 527

Malfunction means any sudden failure of a control device or a hazardous secondary 

material management unit or failure of a hazardous secondary material management unit 

to operate in a normal or usual manner, so that organic emissions are increased.

Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except pressure relief valves, having one side 

of the valve seat in contact with hazardous secondary material and one side open to the 

atmosphere, either directly or through open piping.

Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the system pressure 

being greater than the set pressure of the pressure relief device.

Process heater means a device that transfers heat liberated by burning fuel to fluids 

contained in tubes, including all fluids except water that are heated to produce steam.

Process vent means any open-ended pipe or stack that is vented to the atmosphere either 

directly, through a vacuum-producing system, or through a tank (e.g., distillate receiver, 

condenser, bottoms receiver, surge control tank, separator tank, or hot well) associated 

with hazardous secondary material distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, 

solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operations.

Repaired means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to eliminate a leak.

Sampling connection system means an assembly of equipment within a process or 

material management unit used during periods of representative operation to take samples 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 378 of 527

of the process or material fluid. Equipment used to take non-routine grab samples is not 

considered a sampling connection system.

Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the change in a physical 

quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.

Separator tank means a device used for separation of two immiscible liquids.

Solvent extraction operation means an operation or method of separation in which a solid 

or solution is contacted with a liquid solvent (the two being mutually insoluble) to 

preferentially dissolve and transfer one or more components into the solvent.

Startup means the setting in operation of a hazardous secondary material management 

unit or control device for any purpose.

Steam stripping operation means a distillation operation in which vaporization of the 

volatile constituents of a liquid mixture takes place by the introduction of steam directly 

into the charge.

Surge control tank means a large-sized pipe or storage reservoir sufficient to contain the 

surging liquid discharge of the process tank to which it is connected.

Thin-film evaporation operation means a distillation operation that employs a heating 

surface consisting of a large diameter tube that may be either straight or tapered, 

horizontal or vertical. Liquid is spread on the tube wall by a rotating assembly of blades 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 379 of 527

that maintain a close clearance from the wall or actually ride on the film of liquid on the 

wall.

Vapor incinerator means any enclosed combustion device that is used for destroying 

organic compounds and does not extract energy in the form of steam or process heat.

Vented means discharged through an opening, typically an open-ended pipe or stack, 

allowing the passage of a stream of liquids, gases, or fumes into the atmosphere. The 

passage of liquids, gases, or fumes is caused by mechanical means such as compressors 

or vacuum-producing systems or by process-related means such as evaporation produced 

by heating and not caused by tank loading and unloading (working losses) or by natural 

means such as diurnal temperature changes.

§ 261.1032 Standards: Process vents.

(a) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats hazardous secondary 

materials in hazardous secondary material management units with process vents 

associated with distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air 

or steam stripping operations managing hazardous secondary material with organic 

concentrations of at least 10 ppmw shall either:

(1) Reduce total organic emissions from all affected process vents at the facility 

below 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or

(2) Reduce, by use of a control device, total organic emissions from all affected 

process vents at the facility by 95 weight percent.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 380 of 527

(b) If the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material installs a closed-vent system and control device to comply with the 

provisions of paragraph (a) of this section the closed-vent system and control device must 

meet the requirements of § 261.1033.

(c) Determinations of vent emissions and emission reductions or total organic 

compound concentrations achieved by add-on control devices may be based on 

engineering calculations or performance tests. If performance tests are used to determine 

vent emissions, emission reductions, or total organic compound concentrations achieved 

by add-on control devices, the performance tests must conform with the requirements of 

§ 261.1034(c).

(d) When a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material and the Regional Administrator do not agree on determinations of 

vent emissions and/or emission reductions or total organic compound concentrations 

achieved by add-on control devices based on engineering calculations, the procedures in 

§ 261.1034(c) shall be used to resolve the disagreement.

§ 261.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

(a)(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary materials in hazardous secondary material management units using closed-vent 

systems and control devices used to comply with provisions of this part shall comply with 

the provisions of this section.

(2) [Reserved]
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 381 of 527

(b) A control device involving vapor recovery (e.g., a condenser or adsorber) shall 

be designed and operated to recover the organic vapors vented to it with an efficiency of 

95 weight percent or greater unless the total organic emission limits of § 261.1032(a)(1) 

for all affected process vents can be attained at an efficiency less than 95 weight percent.

(c) An enclosed combustion device (e.g., a vapor incinerator, boiler, or process 

heater) shall be designed and operated to reduce the organic emissions vented to it by 95 

weight percent or greater; to achieve a total organic compound concentration of 20 ppmv, 

expressed as the sum of the actual compounds, not carbon equivalents, on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen; or to provide a minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds at 

a minimum temperature of 760 °C. If a boiler or process heater is used as the control 

device, then the vent stream shall be introduced into the flame zone of the boiler or 

process heater.

(d)(1) A flare shall be designed for and operated with no visible emissions as 

determined by the methods specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, except for 

periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours.

(2) A flare shall be operated with a flame present at all times, as determined by 

the methods specified in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(3) A flare shall be used only if the net heating value of the gas being combusted 

is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf) or greater if the flare is steam-assisted or air-assisted; or if 

the net heating value of the gas being combusted is 7.45 MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater 

if the flare is nonassisted. The net heating value of the gas being combusted shall be 

determined by the methods specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 382 of 527

(4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted flare shall be designed for and operated 

with an exit velocity, as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section, less than 18.3 m/s (60 ft/s), except as provided in paragraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (iii) 

of this section.

(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted flare designed for and operated with an exit 

velocity, as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, equal 

to or greater than 18.3 m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed if the net 

heating value of the gas being combusted is greater than 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf).

(iii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted flare designed for and operated with an exit 

velocity, as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, less 

than the velocity, Vmax, as determined by the method specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section and less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.

(5) An air-assisted flare shall be designed and operated with an exit velocity less 

than the velocity, Vmax, as determined by the method specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this 

section.

(6) A flare used to comply with this section shall be steam-assisted, air-assisted, 

or nonassisted.

(e)(1) Reference Method 22 in 40 CFR part 60 shall be used to determine the 

compliance of a flare with the visible emission provisions of this subpart. The 

observation period is 2 hours and shall be used according to Method 22.

(2) The net heating value of the gas being combusted in a flare shall be calculated 

using the following equation:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 383 of 527

where:

HT=Net heating value of the sample, MJ/scm; where the net enthalpy per mole of offgas 

is based on combustion at 25 °C and 760 mm Hg, but the standard temperature for 

determining the volume corresponding to 1 mol is 20 °C;

K=Constant, 1.74×10−7(1/ppm) (g mol/scm) (MJ/kcal) where standard temperature for (g 

mol/scm) is 20 °C;

Ci=Concentration of sample component i in ppm on a wet basis, as measured for organics 

by Reference Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogen and carbon 

monoxide by ASTM D 1946–82 (incorporated by reference as specified in § 260.11); and

Hi=Net heat of combustion of sample component i, kcal/9 mol at 25 °C and 760 mm Hg. 

The heats of combustion may be determined using ASTM D 2382–83 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 260.11) if published values are not available or cannot be 

calculated.

(3) The actual exit velocity of a flare shall be determined by dividing the 

volumetric flow rate (in units of standard temperature and pressure), as determined by 

Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D in 40 CFR part 60 as appropriate, by the 

unobstructed (free) cross-sectional area of the flare tip.

(4) The maximum allowed velocity in m/s, Vmax, for a flare complying with 

paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shall be determined by the following equation:

Log10(Vmax)=(HT+28.8)/31.7

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 384 of 527

where:

28.8=Constant,

31.7=Constant,

HT=The net heating value as determined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

(5) The maximum allowed velocity in m/s, Vmax, for an air-assisted flare shall be 

determined by the following equation:

Vmax=8.706+0.7084 (HT)

where:

8.706=Constant,

0.7084=Constant,

HT=The net heating value as determined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

(f) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall monitor and inspect each control device required to comply with 

this section to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the control device by 

implementing the following requirements:

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 

specifications a flow indicator that provides a record of vent stream flow from each 

affected process vent to the control device at least once every hour. The flow indicator 

sensor shall be installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to the control 

device inlet but before the point at which the vent streams are combined.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 385 of 527

(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 

specifications a device to continuously monitor control device operation as specified 

below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, a temperature monitoring device equipped 

with a continuous recorder. The device shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the 

temperature being monitored in °C or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. The temperature 

sensor shall be installed at a location in the combustion chamber downstream of the 

combustion zone.

(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, a temperature monitoring device equipped 

with a continuous recorder. The device shall be capable of monitoring temperature at two 

locations and have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in °C or 

±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. One temperature sensor shall be installed in the vent 

stream at the nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed inlet and a second temperature 

sensor shall be installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed 

outlet.

(iii) For a flare, a heat sensing monitoring device equipped with a continuous 

recorder that indicates the continuous ignition of the pilot flame.

(iv) For a boiler or process heater having a design heat input capacity less than 44 

MW, a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The device 

shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in °C or ±0.5 

°C, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor shall be installed at a location in the 

furnace downstream of the combustion zone.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 386 of 527

(v) For a boiler or process heater having a design heat input capacity greater than 

or equal to 44 MW, a monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to measure 

a parameter(s) that indicates good combustion operating practices are being used.

(vi) For a condenser, either:

(A) A monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to measure the 

concentration level of the organic compounds in the exhaust vent stream from the 

condenser, or

(B) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The 

device shall be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of ±1 percent of the 

temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius (°C) or ±0.5 °C, whichever is greater. 

The temperature sensor shall be installed at a location in the exhaust vent stream from the 

condenser exit (i.e., product side).

(vii) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed directly in 

the control device such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber, either:

(A) A monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to measure the 

concentration level of the organic compounds in the exhaust vent stream from the carbon 

bed, or

(B) A monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to measure a 

parameter that indicates the carbon bed is regenerated on a regular, predetermined time 

cycle.

(3) Inspect the readings from each monitoring device required by paragraphs 

(f)(1) and (2) of this section at least once each operating day to check control device 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 387 of 527

operation and, if necessary, immediately implement the corrective measures necessary to 

ensure the control device operates in compliance with the requirements of this section.

(g) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats hazardous secondary 

material in a hazardous secondary material management unit using a carbon adsorption 

system such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber that regenerates the carbon bed directly 

onsite in the control device shall replace the existing carbon in the control device with 

fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined time interval that is no longer than the carbon 

service life established as a requirement of § 261.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).

(h) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats hazardous secondary 

material in a hazardous secondary material management unit using a carbon adsorption 

system such as a carbon canister that does not regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in 

the control device shall replace the existing carbon in the control device with fresh carbon 

on a regular basis by using one of the following procedures:

(1) Monitor the concentration level of the organic compounds in the exhaust vent 

stream from the carbon adsorption system on a regular schedule, and replace the existing 

carbon with fresh carbon immediately when carbon breakthrough is indicated. The 

monitoring frequency shall be daily or at an interval no greater than 20 percent of the 

time required to consume the total carbon working capacity established as a requirement 

of § 261.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G), whichever is longer.

(2) Replace the existing carbon with fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined time 

interval that is less than the design carbon replacement interval established as a 

requirement of § 261.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 388 of 527

(i) An alternative operational or process parameter may be monitored if it can be 

demonstrated that another parameter will ensure that the control device is operated in 

conformance with these standards and the control device's design specifications.

(j) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats hazardous secondary 

material at an affected facility seeking to comply with the provisions of this part by using 

a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, flare, 

boiler, process heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption system is required to develop 

documentation including sufficient information to describe the control device operation 

and identify the process parameter or parameters that indicate proper operation and 

maintenance of the control device.

(k) A closed-vent system shall meet either of the following design requirements:

(1) A closed-vent system shall be designed to operate with no detectable 

emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppmv above 

background as determined by the procedure in § 261.1034(b) of this subpart, and by 

visual inspections; or

(2) A closed-vent system shall be designed to operate at a pressure below 

atmospheric pressure. The system shall be equipped with at least one pressure gauge or 

other pressure measurement device that can be read from a readily accessible location to 

verify that negative pressure is being maintained in the closed-vent system when the 

control device is operating.

(l) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall monitor and inspect each closed-vent system required to comply 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 389 of 527

with this section to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the closed-vent system 

by implementing the following requirements:

(1) Each closed-vent system that is used to comply with paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section shall be inspected and monitored in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) An initial leak detection monitoring of the closed-vent system shall be 

conducted by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material on or before the date that the system becomes subject to this section. 

The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

shall monitor the closed-vent system components and connections using the procedures 

specified in § 261.1034(b) of this subpart to demonstrate that the closed-vent system 

operates with no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 

500 ppmv above background.

(ii) After initial leak detection monitoring required in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this 

section, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall inspect and monitor the closed-vent system as follows:

(A) Closed-vent system joints, seams, or other connections that are permanently 

or semi-permanently sealed (e.g., a welded joint between two sections of hard piping or a 

bolted and gasketed ducting flange) shall be visually inspected at least once per year to 

check for defects that could result in air pollutant emissions. The remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall monitor a component 

or connection using the procedures specified in § 261.1034(b) of this subpart to 

demonstrate that it operates with no detectable emissions following any time the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 390 of 527

component is repaired or replaced (e.g., a section of damaged hard piping is replaced 

with new hard piping) or the connection is unsealed (e.g., a flange is unbolted).

(B) Closed-vent system components or connections other than those specified in 

paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(A) of this section shall be monitored annually and at other times as 

requested by the Regional Administrator, except as provided for in paragraph (o) of this 

section, using the procedures specified in § 261.1034(b) of this subpart to demonstrate 

that the components or connections operate with no detectable emissions.

(iii) In the event that a defect or leak is detected, the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect or leak 

in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this section.

(iv) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection and monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements specified in § 261.1035 of this subpart.

(2) Each closed-vent system that is used to comply with paragraph (k)(2) of this 

section shall be inspected and monitored in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) The closed-vent system shall be visually inspected by the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to check for defects 

that could result in air pollutant emissions. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible 

cracks, holes, or gaps in ductwork or piping or loose connections.

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform an initial inspection of the closed-vent system on or 

before the date that the system becomes subject to this section. Thereafter, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 391 of 527

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

perform the inspections at least once every year.

(iii) In the event that a defect or leak is detected, the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in 

accordance with the requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this section.

(iv) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection and monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements specified in § 261.1035 of this subpart.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall repair all detected defects as follows:

(i) Detectable emissions, as indicated by visual inspection, or by an instrument 

reading greater than 500 ppmv above background, shall be controlled as soon as 

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the emission is detected, except as 

provided for in paragraph (l)(3)(iii) of this section.

(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after the 

emission is detected.

(iii) Delay of repair of a closed-vent system for which leaks have been detected is 

allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown, or if the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

determines that emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater than the 

fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of repair. Repair of such equipment shall be 

completed by the end of the next process unit shutdown.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 392 of 527

(iv) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the defect repair in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1035 of this subpart.

(m) Closed-vent systems and control devices used to comply with provisions of 

this subpart shall be operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them.

(n) The owner or operator using a carbon adsorption system to control air 

pollutant emissions shall document that all carbon that is a hazardous waste and that is 

removed from the control device is managed in one of the following manners, regardless 

of the average volatile organic concentration of the carbon:

(1) Regenerated or reactivated in a thermal treatment unit that meets one of the 

following:

(i) The owner or operator of the unit has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR 

part 270 which implements the requirements of subpart X of this part; or

(ii) The unit is equipped with and operating air emission controls in accordance 

with the applicable requirements of subparts AA and CC of either this part or of 40 CFR 

part 265; or

(iii) The unit is equipped with and operating air emission controls in accordance 

with a national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 

CFR part 63.

(2) Incinerated in a hazardous waste incinerator for which the owner or operator 

either:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 393 of 527

(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 which implements the 

requirements of subpart O of this part; or

(ii) Has designed and operates the incinerator in accordance with the interim 

status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, subpart O.

(3) Burned in a boiler or industrial furnace for which the owner or operator either:

(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 which implements the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or

(ii) Has designed and operates the boiler or industrial furnace in accordance with 

the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.

(o) Any components of a closed-vent system that are designated, as described in §

261.1035(c)(9) of this subpart, as unsafe to monitor are exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this section if:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material in a hazardous secondary material management unit using a closedvent system determines that the components of the closed-vent system are unsafe to 

monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a 

consequence of complying with paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this section; and

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material in a hazardous secondary material management unit using a closedvent system adheres to a written plan that requires monitoring the closed-vent system 

components using the procedure specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B) of this section as 

frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 394 of 527

§ 261.1034 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the test 

methods and procedural requirements provided in this section.

(b) When a closed-vent system is tested for compliance with no detectable 

emissions, as required in § 261.1033(l) of this subpart, the test shall comply with the 

following requirements:

(1) Monitoring shall comply with Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.

(2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Reference 

Method 21.

(3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use by the 

procedures specified in Reference Method 21.

(4) Calibration gases shall be:

(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air).

(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of approximately, 

but less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane.

(5) The background level shall be determined as set forth in Reference Method 

21.

(6) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak interfaces as 

close to the interface as possible as described in Reference Method 21.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 395 of 527

(7) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration indicated by 

the instrument and the background level is compared with 500 ppm for determining 

compliance.

(c) Performance tests to determine compliance with § 261.1032(a) and with the 

total organic compound concentration limit of § 261.1033(c) shall comply with the 

following:

(1) Performance tests to determine total organic compound concentrations and 

mass flow rates entering and exiting control devices shall be conducted and data reduced 

in accordance with the following reference methods and calculation procedures:

(i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.

(ii) Method 18 or Method 25A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for organic 

content. If Method 25A is used, the organic HAP used as the calibration gas must be the 

single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of the emissions. The use 

of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the high-level calibration gas is at least 

20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration gas when the 

instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive scale.

(iii) Each performance test shall consist of three separate runs; each run conducted 

for at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the hazardous secondary material 

management unit is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to 

occur. For the purpose of determining total organic compound concentrations and mass 

flow rates, the average of results of all runs shall apply. The average shall be computed 

on a time-weighted basis.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 396 of 527

(iv) Total organic mass flow rates shall be determined by the following equation:

(A) For sources utilizing Method 18.

Where:

Eh= Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h;

Q2sd= Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by 

Method 2, dscm/h;

n = Number of organic compounds in the vent gas;

Ci= Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, of compound i in the vent gas, as 

determined by Method 18;

MWi= Molecular weight of organic compound i in the vent gas, kg/kg-mol;

0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-mol/m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg);

10−6 = Conversion from ppm

(B) For sources utilizing Method 25A.

Eh= (Q)(C)(MW)(0.0416)(10−6 )

Where:

Eh= Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h;

Q = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device, as determined by 

Method 2, dscm/h;

C = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, as determined by Method 25A;

MW = Molecular weight of propane, 44;

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 397 of 527

0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-mol/m3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg);

10−6 = Conversion from ppm.

(v) The annual total organic emission rate shall be determined by the following equation:

EA=(Eh)(H)

where:

EA=Total organic mass emission rate, kg/y;

Eh=Total organic mass flow rate for the process vent, kg/h;

H=Total annual hours of operations for the affected unit, h.

(vi) Total organic emissions from all affected process vents at the facility shall be 

determined by summing the hourly total organic mass emission rates (Ehas determined in 

paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section) and by summing the annual total organic mass 

emission rates (EA, as determined in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section) for all affected 

process vents at the facility.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall record such process information as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of the performance tests. Operations during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the purpose 

of a performance test.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material at an affected facility shall provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 398 of 527

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section.

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(4) For the purpose of making compliance determinations, the time-weighted 

average of the results of the three runs shall apply. In the event that a sample is 

accidentally lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued 

because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, 

extreme meteorological conditions, or other circumstances beyond the remanufacturer’s 

or other person’s that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material control, 

compliance may, upon the Regional Administrator's approval, be determined using the 

average of the results of the two other runs.

(d) To show that a process vent associated with a hazardous secondary material 

distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam 

stripping operation is not subject to the requirements of this subpart, the remanufacturer 

or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material must make an initial 

determination that the time-weighted, annual average total organic concentration of the 

material managed by the hazardous secondary material management unit is less than 10 

ppmw using one of the following two methods:

(1) Direct measurement of the organic concentration of the material using the 

following procedures:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 399 of 527

(i) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material must take a minimum of four grab samples of material for each 

material stream managed in the affected unit under process conditions expected to cause 

the maximum material organic concentration.

(ii) For material generated onsite, the grab samples must be collected at a point 

before the material is exposed to the atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe or other 

closed system that is used to transfer the material after generation to the first affected 

distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam 

stripping operation. For material generated offsite, the grab samples must be collected at 

the inlet to the first material management unit that receives the material provided the 

material has been transferred to the facility in a closed system such as a tank truck and 

the material is not diluted or mixed with other material.

(iii) Each sample shall be analyzed and the total organic concentration of the 

sample shall be computed using Method 9060A (incorporated by reference under 40 CFR 

260.11) of “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,” 

EPA Publication SW–846, or analyzed for its individual organic constituents.

(iv) The arithmetic mean of the results of the analyses of the four samples shall 

apply for each material stream managed in the unit in determining the time-weighted, 

annual average total organic concentration of the material. The time-weighted average is 

to be calculated using the annual quantity of each material stream processed and the mean 

organic concentration of each material stream managed in the unit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 400 of 527

(2) Using knowledge of the material to determine that its total organic 

concentration is less than 10 ppmw. Documentation of the material determination is 

required. Examples of documentation that shall be used to support a determination under 

this provision include production process information documenting that no organic 

compounds are used, information that the material is generated by a process that is 

identical to a process at the same or another facility that has previously been 

demonstrated by direct measurement to generate a material stream having a total organic 

content less than 10 ppmw, or prior speciation analysis results on the same material 

stream where it can also be documented that no process changes have occurred since that 

analysis that could affect the material total organic concentration.

(e) The determination that distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, 

solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operations manage hazardous secondary 

materials with time-weighted, annual average total organic concentrations less than 10 

ppmw shall be made as follows:

(1) By the effective date that the facility becomes subject to the provisions of this 

subpart or by the date when the material is first managed in a hazardous secondary 

material management unit, whichever is later, and

(2) For continuously generated material, annually, or

(3) Whenever there is a change in the material being managed or a change in the 

process that generates or treats the material.

(f) When a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material and the Regional Administrator do not agree on whether a distillation, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 401 of 527

fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or steam stripping operation 

manages a hazardous secondary material with organic concentrations of at least 10 ppmw 

based on knowledge of the material, the dispute may be resolved by using direct 

measurement as specified at paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

§ 261.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a)(1) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements of this section.

(2) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material of more than one hazardous secondary material management unit subject to the 

provisions of this subpart may comply with the recordkeeping requirements for these 

hazardous secondary material management units in one recordkeeping system if the 

system identifies each record by each hazardous secondary material management unit.

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material must keep the following records on-site: 

(1) For facilities that comply with the provisions of § 261.1033(a)(2), an 

implementation schedule that includes dates by which the closed-vent system and control 

device will be installed and in operation. The schedule must also include a rationale of 

why the installation cannot be completed at an earlier date. The implementation schedule 

must be kept on-site at the facility by the effective date that the facility becomes subject 

to the provisions of this subpart.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 402 of 527

(2) Up-to-date documentation of compliance with the process vent standards in §

261.1032, including:

(i) Information and data identifying all affected process vents, annual throughput 

and operating hours of each affected unit, estimated emission rates for each affected vent 

and for the overall facility (i.e., the total emissions for all affected vents at the facility), 

and the approximate location within the facility of each affected unit (e.g., identify the 

hazardous secondary material management units on a facility plot plan).

(ii) Information and data supporting determinations of vent emissions and 

emission reductions achieved by add-on control devices based on engineering 

calculations or source tests. For the purpose of determining compliance, determinations 

of vent emissions and emission reductions must be made using operating parameter 

values (e.g., temperatures, flow rates, or vent stream organic compounds and 

concentrations) that represent the conditions that result in maximum organic emissions, 

such as when the hazardous secondary material management unit is operating at the 

highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. If the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material takes any action (e.g., 

managing a material of different composition or increasing operating hours of affected 

hazardous secondary material management units) that would result in an increase in total 

organic emissions from affected process vents at the facility, then a new determination is 

required.

(3) Where a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material chooses to use test data to determine the organic removal efficiency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 403 of 527

or total organic compound concentration achieved by the control device, a performance 

test plan must be developed and include:

(i) A description of how it is determined that the planned test is going to be 

conducted when the hazardous secondary material management unit is operating at the 

highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. This shall include the 

estimated or design flow rate and organic content of each vent stream and define the 

acceptable operating ranges of key process and control device parameters during the test 

program.

(ii) A detailed engineering description of the closed-vent system and control 

device including:

(A) Manufacturer's name and model number of control device.

(B) Type of control device.

(C) Dimensions of the control device.

(D) Capacity.

(E) Construction materials.

(iii) A detailed description of sampling and monitoring procedures, including 

sampling and monitoring locations in the system, the equipment to be used, sampling and 

monitoring frequency, and planned analytical procedures for sample analysis.

(4) Documentation of compliance with § 261.1033 shall include the following 

information:

(i) A list of all information references and sources used in preparing the 

documentation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 404 of 527

(ii) Records, including the dates, of each compliance test required by §

261.1033(k).

(iii) If engineering calculations are used, a design analysis, specifications, 

drawings, schematics, and piping and instrumentation diagrams based on the appropriate 

sections of “APTI Course 415: Control of Gaseous Emissions” (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 260.11) or other engineering texts acceptable to the Regional 

Administrator that present basic control device design information. Documentation 

provided by the control device manufacturer or vendor that describes the control device 

design in accordance with paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4)(iii)(G) of this section 

may be used to comply with this requirement. The design analysis shall address the vent 

stream characteristics and control device operation parameters as specified below.

(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design analysis shall consider the vent 

stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate. The design analysis shall 

also establish the design minimum and average temperature in the combustion zone and 

the combustion zone residence time.

(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design analysis shall consider the vent 

stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate. The design analysis shall 

also establish the design minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet 

and outlet.

(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design analysis shall consider the vent 

stream composition, constituent concentrations, and flow rate. The design analysis shall 

also establish the design minimum and average flame zone temperatures, combustion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 405 of 527

zone residence time, and description of method and location where the vent stream is 

introduced into the combustion zone.

(D) For a flare, the design analysis shall consider the vent stream composition, 

constituent concentrations, and flow rate. The design analysis shall also consider the 

requirements specified in § 261.1033(d).

(E) For a condenser, the design analysis shall consider the vent stream 

composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature. 

The design analysis shall also establish the design outlet organic compound concentration 

level, design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and design 

average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet.

(F) For a carbon adsorption system such as a fixed-bed adsorber that regenerates 

the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, the design analysis shall consider the 

vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative humidity, and 

temperature. The design analysis shall also establish the design exhaust vent stream 

organic compound concentration level, number and capacity of carbon beds, type and 

working capacity of activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total steam flow over 

the period of each complete carbon bed regeneration cycle, duration of the carbon bed 

steaming and cooling/drying cycles, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, 

design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon.

(G) For a carbon adsorption system such as a carbon canister that does not 

regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, the design analysis shall 

consider the vent stream composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 406 of 527

humidity, and temperature. The design analysis shall also establish the design outlet 

organic concentration level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of 

activated carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval based on 

the total carbon working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.

(iv) A statement signed and dated by the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material certifying that the operating parameters 

used in the design analysis reasonably represent the conditions that exist when the 

hazardous secondary material management unit is or would be operating at the highest 

load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur.

(v) A statement signed and dated by the remanufacturer or other person that stores 

or treats the hazardous secondary material certifying that the control device is designed to 

operate at an efficiency of 95 percent or greater unless the total organic concentration 

limit of § 261.1032(a) is achieved at an efficiency less than 95 weight percent or the total 

organic emission limits of § 261.1032(a) for affected process vents at the facility can be 

attained by a control device involving vapor recovery at an efficiency less than 95 weight 

percent. A statement provided by the control device manufacturer or vendor certifying 

that the control equipment meets the design specifications may be used to comply with 

this requirement.

(vi) If performance tests are used to demonstrate compliance, all test results.

(c) Design documentation and monitoring, operating, and inspection information 

for each closed-vent system and control device required to comply with the provisions of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 407 of 527

this part shall be recorded and kept up-to-date at the facility. The information shall 

include:

(1) Description and date of each modification that is made to the closed-vent

system or control device design.

(2) Identification of operating parameter, description of monitoring device, and 

diagram of monitoring sensor location or locations used to comply with § 261.1033 (f)(1) 

and (f)(2).

(3) Monitoring, operating, and inspection information required by paragraphs (f) 

through (k) of § 261.1033.

(4) Date, time, and duration of each period that occurs while the control device is 

operating when any monitored parameter exceeds the value established in the control 

device design analysis as specified below:

(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator designed to operate with a minimum residence 

time of 0.50 second at a minimum temperature of 760 °C, period when the combustion 

temperature is below 760 °C.

(ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator designed to operate with an organic emission 

reduction efficiency of 95 weight percent or greater, period when the combustion zone 

temperature is more than 28 °C below the design average combustion zone temperature 

established as a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section.

(iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, period when:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 408 of 527

(A) Temperature of the vent stream at the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 °C 

below the average temperature of the inlet vent stream established as a requirement of 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section, or

(B) Temperature difference across the catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of the 

design average temperature difference established as a requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) For a boiler or process heater, period when:

(A) Flame zone temperature is more than 28 °C below the design average flame 

zone temperature established as a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of this section, 

or

(B) Position changes where the vent stream is introduced to the combustion zone 

from the location established as a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of this section.

(v) For a flare, period when the pilot flame is not ignited.

(vi) For a condenser that complies with § 261.1033(f)(2)(vi)(A), period when the 

organic compound concentration level or readings of organic compounds in the exhaust 

vent stream from the condenser are more than 20 percent greater than the design outlet 

organic compound concentration level established as a requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.

(vii) For a condenser that complies with § 261.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B), period when:

(A) Temperature of the exhaust vent stream from the condenser is more than 6 °C 

above the design average exhaust vent stream temperature established as a requirement of 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section; or
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 409 of 527

(B) Temperature of the coolant fluid exiting the condenser is more than 6 °C 

above the design average coolant fluid temperature at the condenser outlet established as 

a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E) of this section.

(viii) For a carbon adsorption system such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber that regenerates 

the carbon bed directly on-site in the control device and complies with §

261.1033(f)(2)(vii)(A), period when the organic compound concentration level or 

readings of organic compounds in the exhaust vent stream from the carbon bed are more 

than 20 percent greater than the design exhaust vent stream organic compound 

concentration level established as a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) of this section.

(ix) For a carbon adsorption system such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber that 

regenerates the carbon bed directly on-site in the control device and complies with §

261.1033(f)(2)(vii)(B), period when the vent stream continues to flow through the control 

device beyond the predetermined carbon bed regeneration time established as a 

requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) of this section.

(5) Explanation for each period recorded under paragraph (4) of the cause for 

control device operating parameter exceeding the design value and the measures 

implemented to correct the control device operation.

(6) For a carbon adsorption system operated subject to requirements specified in §

261.1033(g) or § 261.1033(h)(2), date when existing carbon in the control device is 

replaced with fresh carbon.

(7) For a carbon adsorption system operated subject to requirements specified in §

261.1033(h)(1), a log that records:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 410 of 527

(i) Date and time when control device is monitored for carbon breakthrough and 

the monitoring device reading.

(ii) Date when existing carbon in the control device is replaced with fresh carbon.

(8) Date of each control device startup and shutdown.

(9) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material designating any components of a closed-vent system as unsafe to monitor 

pursuant to § 261.1033(o) of this subpart shall record in a log that is kept at the facility

the identification of closed-vent system components that are designated as unsafe to 

monitor in accordance with the requirements of § 261.1033(o) of this subpart, an 

explanation for each closed-vent system component stating why the closed-vent system 

component is unsafe to monitor, and the plan for monitoring each closed-vent system 

component.

(10) When each leak is detected as specified in § 261.1033(l) of this subpart, the 

following information shall be recorded:

(i) The instrument identification number, the closed-vent system component 

identification number, and the operator name, initials, or identification number.

(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt to repair the leak.

(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.

(iv) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A after it is successfully repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.

(v) “Repair delayed” and the reason for the delay if a leak is not repaired within 

15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 411 of 527

(A) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material may develop a written procedure that identifies the conditions that 

justify a delay of repair. In such cases, reasons for delay of repair may be documented by 

citing the relevant sections of the written procedure.

(B) If delay of repair was caused by depletion of stocked parts, there must be 

documentation that the spare parts were sufficiently stocked on-site before depletion and 

the reason for depletion.

(d) Records of the monitoring, operating, and inspection information required by 

paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(10) of this section shall be maintained by the owner or 

operator for at least 3 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, or record.

(e) For a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor 

incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption system, the 

Regional Administrator will specify the appropriate recordkeeping requirements.

(f) Up-to-date information and data used to determine whether or not a process 

vent is subject to the requirements in § 261.1032 including supporting documentation as 

required by § 261.1034(d)(2) when application of the knowledge of the nature of the 

hazardous secondary material stream or the process by which it was produced is used, 

shall be recorded in a log that is kept at the facility.

§§ 261.1036-261.1049 [Reserved]

Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

§ 261.1050 Applicability.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 412 of 527

(a) The regulations in this subpart apply to equipment that contains hazardous 

secondary materials excluded under the remanufacturing exclusion at § 261.4(a)(27), 

unless the equipment operations are subject to the requirements of an applicable Clean 

Air Act regulation codified under 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63.

§ 261.1051 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms shall have the meaning given them in § 261.1031, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and 40 CFR parts 260–266.

§ 261.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.

(a)(1) Each pump in light liquid service shall be monitored monthly to detect 

leaks by the methods specified in § 261.1063(b), except as provided in paragraphs (d), 

(e), and (f) of this section.

(2) Each pump in light liquid service shall be checked by visual inspection each 

calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal.

(b)(1) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected.

(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal, a leak is 

detected.

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in § 261.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g., tightening the packing gland) shall be made no 

later than five calendar days after each leak is detected.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 413 of 527

(d) Each pump equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section, provided the following requirements are met:

(1) Each dual mechanical seal system must be:

(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times greater than the 

pump stuffing box pressure, or

(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is connected by a 

closed-vent system to a control device that complies with the requirements of § 261.1060, 

or

(iii) Equipped with a system that purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous 

secondary material stream with no detectable emissions to the atmosphere.

(2) The barrier fluid system must not be a hazardous secondary material with 

organic concentrations 10 percent or greater by weight.

(3) Each barrier fluid system must be equipped with a sensor that will detect 

failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.

(4) Each pump must be checked by visual inspection, each calendar week, for 

indications of liquids dripping from the pump seals.

(5)(i) Each sensor as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section must be checked 

daily or be equipped with an audible alarm that must be checked monthly to ensure that it 

is functioning properly.

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material must determine, based on design considerations and operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 414 of 527

experience, a criterion that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both.

(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal or the sensor 

indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both based on the criterion 

determined in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak is detected.

(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in § 261.1059.

(iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g., relapping the seal) shall be made no later than 

five calendar days after each leak is detected.

(e) Any pump that is designated, as described in § 261.1064(g)(2), for no 

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 

background, is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this 

section if the pump meets the following requirements:

(1) Must have no externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing.

(2) Must operate with no detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm above background as measured by the methods specified in 

§ 261.1063(c).

(3) Must be tested for compliance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section initially 

upon designation, annually, and at other times as requested by the Regional 

Administrator.

(f) If any pump is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and 

transporting any leakage from the seal or seals to a control device that complies with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 415 of 527

requirements of § 261.1060, it is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(e) of this section.

§ 261.1053 Standards: Compressors.

(a) Each compressor shall be equipped with a seal system that includes a barrier 

fluid system and that prevents leakage of total organic emissions to the atmosphere, 

except as provided in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.

(b) Each compressor seal system as required in paragraph (a) of this section shall 

be:

(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times greater than the 

compressor stuffing box pressure, or

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid system that is connected by a closed-vent system 

to a control device that complies with the requirements of § 261.1060, or

(3) Equipped with a system that purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous 

secondary material stream with no detectable emissions to atmosphere.

(c) The barrier fluid must not be a hazardous secondary material with organic 

concentrations 10 percent or greater by weight.

(d) Each barrier fluid system as described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section shall be equipped with a sensor that will detect failure of the seal system, barrier 

fluid system, or both.

(e)(1) Each sensor as required in paragraph (d) of this section shall be checked 

daily or shall be equipped with an audible alarm that must be checked monthly to ensure 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 416 of 527

that it is functioning properly unless the compressor is located within the boundary of an 

unmanned plant site, in which case the sensor must be checked daily.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall determine, based on design considerations and operating 

experience, a criterion that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both.

(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both based on the criterion determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a leak is 

detected.

(g)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in § 261.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g., tightening the packing gland) shall be made no 

later than 5 calendar days after each leak is detected.

(h) A compressor is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section if it is equipped with a closed-vent system capable of capturing and 

transporting any leakage from the seal to a control device that complies with the 

requirements of § 261.1060, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section.

(i) Any compressor that is designated, as described in § 261.1064(g)(2), for no 

detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 

background is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section 

if the compressor:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 417 of 527

(1) Is determined to be operating with no detectable emissions, as indicated by an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, as measured by the method 

specified in § 261.1063(c).

(2) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section initially upon 

designation, annually, and at other times as requested by the Regional Administrator.

§ 261.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service.

(a) Except during pressure releases, each pressure relief device in gas/vapor 

service shall be operated with no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument 

reading of less than 500 ppm above background, as measured by the method specified in 

§ 261.1063(c).

(b)(1) After each pressure release, the pressure relief device shall be returned to a 

condition of no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 

500 ppm above background, as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 calendar days after 

each pressure release, except as provided in § 261.1059.

(2) No later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release, the pressure relief 

device shall be monitored to confirm the condition of no detectable emissions, as 

indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, as measured 

by the method specified in § 261.1063(c).

(c) Any pressure relief device that is equipped with a closed-vent system capable 

of capturing and transporting leakage from the pressure relief device to a control device 

as described in § 261.1060 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 418 of 527

§ 261.1055 Standards: Sampling connection systems.

(a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a closed-purge, 

closed-loop, or closed-vent system. This system shall collect the sample purge for return 

to the process or for routing to the appropriate treatment system. Gases displaced during 

filling of the sample container are not required to be collected or captured.

(b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as required in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall meet one of the following requirements:

(1) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line;

(2) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid; or

(3) Be designed and operated to capture and transport all the purged process fluid 

to a material management unit that complies with the applicable requirements of §

261.1084 through § 264.1086 of this subpart or a control device that complies with the 

requirements of § 261.1060 of this subpart.

(c) In-situ sampling systems and sampling systems without purges are exempt 

from the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

§ 261.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.

(a)(1) Each open-ended valve or line shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, 

plug, or a second valve.

(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall seal the open end at all times 

except during operations requiring hazardous secondary material stream flow through the 

open-ended valve or line.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 419 of 527

(b) Each open-ended valve or line equipped with a second valve shall be operated 

in a manner such that the valve on the hazardous secondary material stream end is closed 

before the second valve is closed.

(c) When a double block and bleed system is being used, the bleed valve or line 

may remain open during operations that require venting the line between the block valves 

but shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section at all other times.

§ 261.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.

(a) Each valve in gas/vapor or light liquid service shall be monitored monthly to 

detect leaks by the methods specified in § 261.1063(b) and shall comply with paragraphs 

(b) through (e) of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this 

section, and §§ 261.1061 and 261.1062.

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected.

(c)(1) Any valve for which a leak is not detected for two successive months may 

be monitored the first month of every succeeding quarter, beginning with the next 

quarter, until a leak is detected.

(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall be monitored monthly until a leak is not 

detected for two successive months,

(d)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, except as provided in § 261.1059.

(2) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after each 

leak is detected.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 420 of 527

(e) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the following best 

practices where practicable:

(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.

(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.

(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.

(4) Injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.

(f) Any valve that is designated, as described in § 261.1064(g)(2), for no 

detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above 

background, is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the valve:

(1) Has no external actuating mechanism in contact with the hazardous secondary 

material stream.

(2) Is operated with emissions less than 500 ppm above background as determined 

by the method specified in § 261.1063(c).

(3) Is tested for compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section initially upon 

designation, annually, and at other times as requested by the Regional Administrator.

(g) Any valve that is designated, as described in § 261.1064(h)(1), as an unsafeto-monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material determines that the valve is unsafe to monitor because monitoring 

personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with 

paragraph (a) of this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 421 of 527

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material adheres to a written plan that requires monitoring of the valve as 

frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor times.

(h) Any valve that is designated, as described in § 261.1064(h)(2), as a difficultto-monitor valve is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material determines that the valve cannot be monitored without elevating the 

monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a support surface.

(2) The hazardous secondary material management unit within which the valve is 

located was in operation before [insert date of publication in the Federal Register].

(3) The owner or operator of the valve follows a written plan that requires 

monitoring of the valve at least once per calendar year.

§ 261.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in heavy liquid service, pressure relief 

devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and flanges and other connectors.

(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices in light 

liquid or heavy liquid service, and flanges and other connectors shall be monitored within 

five days by the method specified in § 261.1063(b) if evidence of a potential leak is 

found by visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection method.

(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected.

(c)(1) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not 

later than 15 calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in § 261.1059.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 422 of 527

(2) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after 

each leak is detected.

(d) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the best practices 

described under § 261.1057(e).

(e) Any connector that is inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramic-lined (e.g., 

porcelain, glass, or glass-lined) is exempt from the monitoring requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section and from the recordkeeping requirements of § 261.1064 of this subpart.

§ 261.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.

(a) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected will be 

allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a hazardous secondary material 

management unit shutdown. In such a case, repair of this equipment shall occur before 

the end of the next hazardous secondary material management unit shutdown.

(b) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected will be 

allowed for equipment that is isolated from the hazardous secondary material 

management unit and that does not continue to contain or contact hazardous secondary 

material with organic concentrations at least 10 percent by weight.

(c) Delay of repair for valves will be allowed if:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material determines that emissions of purged material resulting from 

immediate repair are greater than the emissions likely to result from delay of repair.

(2) When repair procedures are effected, the purged material is collected and 

destroyed or recovered in a control device complying with § 261.1060.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 423 of 527

(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be allowed if:

(1) Repair requires the use of a dual mechanical seal system that includes a barrier 

fluid system.

(2) Repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after 

the leak was detected.

(e) Delay of repair beyond a hazardous secondary material management unit 

shutdown will be allowed for a valve if valve assembly replacement is necessary during 

the hazardous secondary material management unit shutdown, valve assembly supplies 

have been depleted, and valve assembly supplies had been sufficiently stocked before the 

supplies were depleted. Delay of repair beyond the next hazardous secondary material 

management unit shutdown will not be allowed unless the next hazardous secondary 

material management unit shutdown occurs sooner than 6 months after the first hazardous 

secondary material management unit shutdown.

§ 261.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

(a) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material in a hazardous secondary material management units using closedvent systems and control devices subject to this subpart shall comply with the provisions 

of § 261.1033 of this part.

(b)(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material at an existing facility who cannot install a closed-vent system and 

control device to comply with the provisions of this subpart on the effective date that the 

facility becomes subject to the provisions of this subpart must prepare an implementation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 424 of 527

schedule that includes dates by which the closed-vent system and control device will be 

installed and in operation. The controls must be installed as soon as possible, but the 

implementation schedule may allow up to 30 months after the effective date that the 

facility becomes subject to this subpart for installation and startup.

(2) Any unit that begins operation after [insert date 180 days after publication 

in the Federal Register] and is subject to the provisions of this subpart when operation 

begins, must comply with the rules immediately (i.e., must have control devices installed 

and operating on startup of the affected unit); the 30-month implementation schedule 

does not apply.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material at any facility in existence on the effective date of a statutory or 

regulatory amendment that renders the facility subject to this subpart shall comply with 

all requirements of this subpart as soon as practicable but no later than 30 months after 

the amendment's effective date. When control equipment required by this subpart cannot

be installed and begin operation by the effective date of the amendment, the facility 

owner or operator shall prepare an implementation schedule that includes the following 

information: Specific calendar dates for award of contracts or issuance of purchase orders 

for the control equipment, initiation of on-site installation of the control equipment, 

completion of the control equipment installation, and performance of any testing to 

demonstrate that the installed equipment meets the applicable standards of this subpart. 

The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

shall keep a copy of the implementation schedule at the facility. 

Deleted: can not
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 425 of 527

(4) Remanufacturers or other persons that store or treat the hazardous secondary 

materials at facilities and units that become newly subject to the requirements of this 

subpart after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], due to an action other 

than those described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section must comply with all applicable 

requirements immediately (i.e., must have control devices installed and operating on the 

date the facility or unit becomes subject to this subpart; the 30-month implementation 

schedule does not apply).

§ 261.1061 Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid 

service: percentage of valves allowed to leak.

(a) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material subject to the requirements of § 261.1057 may elect to have all valves within a 

hazardous secondary material management unit comply with an alternative standard that 

allows no greater than 2 percent of the valves to leak.

(b) The following requirements shall be met if a remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material decides to comply with the 

alternative standard of allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:

(1) A performance test as specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be 

conducted initially upon designation, annually, and at other times requested by the 

Regional Administrator.

(2) If a valve leak is detected, it shall be repaired in accordance with §

261.1057(d) and (e).

(c) Performance tests shall be conducted in the following manner:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 426 of 527

(1) All valves subject to the requirements in § 261.1057 within the hazardous 

secondary material management unit shall be monitored within 1 week by the methods 

specified in § 261.1063(b).

(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is 

detected.

(3) The leak percentage shall be determined by dividing the number of valves 

subject to the requirements in § 261.1057 for which leaks are detected by the total 

number of valves subject to the requirements in § 261.1057 within the hazardous 

secondary material management unit.

§ 261.1062 Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid 

service: skip period leak detection and repair.

(a) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material subject to the requirements of § 261.1057 may elect for all valves within a 

hazardous secondary material management unit to comply with one of the alternative 

work practices specified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.

(b)(1) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall comply with the requirements for valves, as described in §

261.1057, except as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.

(2) After two consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percentage of 

valves leaking equal to or less than two percent, a remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material may begin to skip one of the quarterly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 427 of 527

leak detection periods (i.e., monitor for leaks once every six months) for the valves 

subject to the requirements in § 261.1057 of this subpart.

(3) After five consecutive quarterly leak detection periods with the percentage of 

valves leaking equal to or less than two percent, a remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material may begin to skip three of the quarterly 

leak detection periods (i.e., monitor for leaks once every year) for the valves subject to 

the requirements in § 261.1057 of this subpart.

(4) If the percentage of valves leaking is greater than two percent, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

monitor monthly in compliance with the requirements in § 261.1057, but may again elect 

to use this section after meeting the requirements of § 261.1057(c)(1).

§ 261.1063 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the test 

methods and procedures requirements provided in this section.

(b) Leak detection monitoring, as required in §§ 261.1052–261.1062, shall 

comply with the following requirements:

(1) Monitoring shall comply with Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.

(2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Reference 

Method 21.

(3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use by the 

procedures specified in Reference Method 21.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 428 of 527

(4) Calibration gases shall be:

(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air).

(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of approximately, 

but less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane.

(5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak interfaces as 

close to the interface as possible as described in Reference Method 21.

(c) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable emissions, as 

required in §§ 261.1052(e), 261.1053(i), 261.1054, and 261.1057(f), the test shall comply 

with the following requirements:

(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section shall apply.

(2) The background level shall be determined as set forth in Reference Method 

21.

(3) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak interfaces as 

close to the interface as possible as described in Reference Method 21.

(4) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration indicated by 

the instrument and the background level is compared with 500 ppm for determining 

compliance.

(d) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material must determine, for each piece of equipment, whether the equipment contains or 

contacts a hazardous secondary material with organic concentration that equals or 

exceeds 10 percent by weight using the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 429 of 527

(1) Methods described in ASTM Methods D 2267–88, E 169–87, E 168–88, E 

260–85 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11);

(2) Method 9060A (incorporated by reference under 40 CFR 260.11) of “Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,” EPA Publication SW–846, for computing total 

organic concentration of the sample, or analyzed for its individual organic constituents; 

or

(3) Application of the knowledge of the nature of the hazardous secondary 

material stream or the process by which it was produced. Documentation of a material 

determination by knowledge is required. Examples of documentation that shall be used to 

support a determination under this provision include production process information 

documenting that no organic compounds are used, information that the material is 

generated by a process that is identical to a process at the same or another facility that has 

previously been demonstrated by direct measurement to have a total organic content less 

than 10 percent, or prior speciation analysis results on the same material stream where it 

can also be documented that no process changes have occurred since that analysis that 

could affect the material total organic concentration.

(e) If a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material determines that a piece of equipment contains or contacts a hazardous 

secondary material with organic concentrations at least 10 percent by weight, the 

determination can be revised only after following the procedures in paragraph (d)(1) or 

(d)(2) of this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 430 of 527

(f) When a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material and the Regional Administrator do not agree on whether a piece of 

equipment contains or contacts a hazardous secondary material with organic 

concentrations at least 10 percent by weight, the procedures in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) 

of this section can be used to resolve the dispute.

(g) Samples used in determining the percent organic content shall be 

representative of the highest total organic content hazardous secondary material that is 

expected to be contained in or contact the equipment.

(h) To determine if pumps or valves are in light liquid service, the vapor pressures 

of constituents may be obtained from standard reference texts or may be determined by 

ASTM D–2879–86 (incorporated by reference under § 260.11).

(i) Performance tests to determine if a control device achieves 95 weight percent 

organic emission reduction shall comply with the procedures of § 261.1034(c)(1) through 

(c)(4).

§ 261.1064 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a)(1) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements of this section.

(2) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material in more than one hazardous secondary material management unit subject to the 

provisions of this subpart may comply with the recordkeeping requirements for these 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 431 of 527

hazardous secondary material management units in one recordkeeping system if the 

system identifies each record by each hazardous secondary material management unit.

(b) Remanufacturer’s and other person’s that store or treat the hazardous 

secondary material must record and keep the following information at the facility:

(1) For each piece of equipment to which subpart BB of part 261 applies:

(i) Equipment identification number and hazardous secondary material 

management unit identification.

(ii) Approximate locations within the facility (e.g., identify the hazardous 

secondary material management unit on a facility plot plan).

(iii) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump or pipeline valve).

(iv) Percent-by-weight total organics in the hazardous secondary material stream 

at the equipment.

(v) Hazardous secondary material state at the equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or 

liquid).

(vi) Method of compliance with the standard (e.g., “monthly leak detection and 

repair” or “equipped with dual mechanical seals”).

(2) For facilities that comply with the provisions of § 261.1033(a)(2), an 

implementation schedule as specified in § 261.1033(a)(2).

(3) Where a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material chooses to use test data to demonstrate the organic removal efficiency 

or total organic compound concentration achieved by the control device, a performance 

test plan as specified in § 261.1035(b)(3).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 432 of 527

(4) Documentation of compliance with § 261.1060, including the detailed design 

documentation or performance test results specified in § 261.1035(b)(4).

(c) When each leak is detected as specified in §§ 261.1052, 261.1053, 261.1057, 

and 261.1058, the following requirements apply:

(1) A weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked with the equipment 

identification number, the date evidence of a potential leak was found in accordance with 

§ 261.1058(a), and the date the leak was detected, shall be attached to the leaking 

equipment.

(2) The identification on equipment, except on a valve, may be removed after it 

has been repaired.

(3) The identification on a valve may be removed after it has been monitored for 

two successive months as specified in § 261.1057(c) and no leak has been detected 

during those two months.

(d) When each leak is detected as specified in §§ 261.1052, 261.1053, 261.1057, 

and 261.1058, the following information shall be recorded in an inspection log and shall 

be kept at the facility:

(1) The instrument and operator identification numbers and the equipment 

identification number.

(2) The date evidence of a potential leak was found in accordance with §

261.1058(a).

(3) The date the leak was detected and the dates of each attempt to repair the leak.

(4) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 433 of 527

(5) “Above 10,000” if the maximum instrument reading measured by the methods 

specified in § 261.1063(b) after each repair attempt is equal to or greater than 10,000 

ppm.

(6) “Repair delayed” and the reason for the delay if a leak is not repaired within 

15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.

(7) Documentation supporting the delay of repair of a valve in compliance with §

261.1059(c).

(8) The signature of the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material (or designate) whose decision it was that repair could not 

be effected without a hazardous secondary material management unit shutdown.

(9) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak is not repaired 

within 15 calendar days.

(10) The date of successful repair of the leak.

(e) Design documentation and monitoring, operating, and inspection information 

for each closed-vent system and control device required to comply with the provisions of 

§ 261.1060 shall be recorded and kept up-to-date at the facility as specified in §

261.1035(c). Design documentation is specified in § 261.1035(c)(1) and (c)(2) and 

monitoring, operating, and inspection information in § 261.1035(c)(3) through (c)(8).

(f) For a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor 

incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption system, the 

Regional Administrator will specify the appropriate recordkeeping requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 434 of 527

(g) The following information pertaining to all equipment subject to the 

requirements in §§ 261.1052 through 261.1060 shall be recorded in a log that is kept at 

the facility:

(1) A list of identification numbers for equipment (except welded fittings) subject 

to the requirements of this subpart.

(2)(i) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material elects to designate for 

no detectable emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background, under the provisions of §§ 261.1052(e), 261.1053(i), and 261.1057(f).

(ii) The designation of this equipment as subject to the requirements of §§

261.1052(e), 261.1053(i), or 261.1057(f) shall be signed by the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material. 

(3) A list of equipment identification numbers for pressure relief devices required 

to comply with § 261.1054(a).

(4)(i) The dates of each compliance test required in §§ 261.1052(e), 261.1053(i), 

261.1054, and 261.1057(f).

(ii) The background level measured during each compliance test.

(iii) The maximum instrument reading measured at the equipment during each 

compliance test.

(5) A list of identification numbers for equipment in vacuum service.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 435 of 527

(6) Identification, either by list or location (area or group) of equipment that 

contains or contacts hazardous secondary material with an organic concentration of at 

least 10 percent by weight for less than 300 hours per calendar year.

(h) The following information pertaining to all valves subject to the requirements 

of § 261.1057 (g) and (h) shall be recorded in a log that is kept at the facility:

(1) A list of identification numbers for valves that are designated as unsafe to 

monitor, an explanation for each valve stating why the valve is unsafe to monitor, and the 

plan for monitoring each valve.

(2) A list of identification numbers for valves that are designated as difficult to 

monitor, an explanation for each valve stating why the valve is difficult to monitor, and 

the planned schedule for monitoring each valve.

(i) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is kept at the facility 

for valves complying with § 261.1062:

(1) A schedule of monitoring.

(2) The percent of valves found leaking during each monitoring period.

(j) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is kept at in the 

facility:

(1) Criteria required in § 261.1052(d)(5)(ii) and § 261.1053(e)(2) and an 

explanation of the design criteria.

(2) Any changes to these criteria and the reasons for the changes.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 436 of 527

(k) The following information shall be recorded in a log that is kept at the facility 

for use in determining exemptions as provided in the applicability section of this subpart 

and other specific subparts:

(1) An analysis determining the design capacity of the hazardous secondary 

material management unit.

(2) A statement listing the hazardous secondary material influent to and effluent 

from each hazardous secondary material management unit subject to the requirements in 

§§ 261.1052 through 261.1060 and an analysis determining whether these hazardous 

secondary materials are heavy liquids.

(3) An up-to-date analysis and the supporting information and data used to 

determine whether or not equipment is subject to the requirements in §§ 261.1052 

through 261.1060. The record shall include supporting documentation as required by §

261.1063(d)(3) when application of the knowledge of the nature of the hazardous 

secondary material stream or the process by which it was produced is used. If the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

takes any action (e.g., changing the process that produced the material) that could result 

in an increase in the total organic content of the material contained in or contacted by 

equipment determined not to be subject to the requirements in §§ 261.1052 through 

261.1060, then a new determination is required.

(l) Records of the equipment leak information required by paragraph (d) of this 

section and the operating information required by paragraph (e) of this section need be 

kept only three years.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 437 of 527

(m) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material at a facility with equipment that is subject to this subpart and to 

regulations at 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63 may elect to determine compliance with 

this subpart either by documentation pursuant to § 261.1064 of this subpart, or by 

documentation of compliance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63 

pursuant to the relevant provisions of the regulations at 40 part 60, part 61, or part 63. 

The documentation of compliance under regulations at 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 

63 shall be kept with or made readily available at the facility.

§§ 261.1065–261.1079 [Reserved]

Subpart CC—Air Emission Standards for Tanks and Containers

§ 261.1080 Applicability.

(a) The regulations in this subpart apply to tanks and containers that contain 

hazardous secondary materials excluded under the remanufacturing exclusion at § 

261.4(a)(27), unless the tanks and containers are equipped with and operating air 

emission controls in accordance with the requirements of an applicable Clean Air Act 

regulations codified under 40 CFR part 60, part 61, or part 63.

§ 261.1081 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them 

in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and parts 260 through 266 of this 

chapter.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 438 of 527

Average volatile organic concentration or average VO concentration means the massweighted average volatile organic concentration of a hazardous secondary material as 

determined in accordance with the requirements of § 261.1084 of this subpart.

Closure device means a cap, hatch, lid, plug, seal, valve, or other type of fitting that 

blocks an opening in a cover such that when the device is secured in the closed position it 

prevents or reduces air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Closure devices include 

devices that are detachable from the cover (e.g., a sampling port cap), manually operated 

(e.g., a hinged access lid or hatch), or automatically operated (e.g., a spring-loaded 

pressure relief valve).

Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that completely covers the 

space between the edge of the floating roof and the wall of a tank. A continuous seal may 

be a vapor-mounted seal, liquid-mounted seal, or metallic shoe seal. A continuous seal 

may be constructed of fastened segments so as to form a continuous seal.

Cover means a device that provides a continuous barrier over the hazardous secondary 

material managed in a unit to prevent or reduce air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. 

A cover may have openings (such as access hatches, sampling ports, gauge wells) that are 

necessary for operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the unit on which the 

cover is used. A cover may be a separate piece of equipment which can be detached and 

removed from the unit or a cover may be formed by structural features permanently 

integrated into the design of the unit.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 439 of 527

Empty hazardous secondary material container means: (1) a container from which all 

hazardous secondary materials have been removed that can be removed using the 

practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container, e.g., 

pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and no more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue 

remain on the bottom of the container or inner liner, (2) a container that is less than or 

equal to 119 gallons in size and no more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of 

the container remains in the container or inner liner, or (3) a container that is greater than 

119 gallons in size and no more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the 

container remains in the container or inner liner.

Enclosure means a structure that surrounds a tank or container, captures organic vapors 

emitted from the tank or container, and vents the captured vapors through a closed-vent 

system to a control device.

External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck type cover that rests on the 

surface of the material managed in a tank with no fixed roof.

Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a unit in a stationary position and does not 

move with fluctuations in the level of the material managed in the unit.

Floating membrane cover means a cover consisting of a synthetic flexible membrane 

material that rests upon and is supported by the hazardous secondary material being 

managed in a surface impoundment.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 440 of 527

Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon single deck, or internal 

floating cover which rests upon and is supported by the material being contained, and is 

equipped with a continuous seal.

Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly installed in 

accordance with relevant standards and good engineering practices.

In light material service means the container is used to manage a material for which both 

of the following conditions apply: The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic 

constituents in the material is greater than 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 °C; and the total 

concentration of the pure organic constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 

kPa at 20 °C is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight.

Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the material surface (but not 

necessarily in complete contact with it) inside a tank that has a fixed roof.

Liquid-mounted seal means a foam or liquid-filled primary seal mounted in contact with 

the hazardous secondary material between the tank wall and the floating roof 

continuously around the circumference of the tank.

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 441 of 527

Maximum organic vapor pressure means the sum of the individual organic constituent 

partial pressures exerted by the material contained in a tank, at the maximum vapor 

pressure-causing conditions (i.e., temperature, agitation, pH effects of combining 

materials, etc.) reasonably expected to occur in the tank. For the purpose of this subpart, 

maximum organic vapor pressure is determined using the procedures specified in §

261.1084(c) of this subpart.

Metallic shoe seal means a continuous seal that is constructed of metal sheets which are 

held vertically against the wall of the tank by springs, weighted levers, or other 

mechanisms and is connected to the floating roof by braces or other means. A flexible 

coated fabric (envelope) spans the annular space between the metal sheet and the floating 

roof.

No detectable organic emissions means no escape of organics to the atmosphere as 

determined using the procedure specified in § 261.1084(d) of this subpart.

Point of material origination means as follows:

(1) When the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material is the generator of the hazardous secondary material, the point of material 

origination means the point where a material produced by a system, process, or material 

management unit is determined to be a hazardous secondary material excluded under §

261.4(a)(27).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 442 of 527

[Note: In this case, this term is being used in a manner similar to the use of the term 

“point of generation” in air standards established under authority of the Clean Air Act in 

40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.]

(2) When the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material is not the generator of the hazardous secondary material, point of material 

origination means the point where the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats 

the hazardous secondary material accepts delivery or takes possession of the hazardous 

secondary material.

Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief valve, frangible disc, 

fusible plug, or any other type of device which functions exclusively to prevent physical 

damage or permanent deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by 

venting gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions resulting 

from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the purpose of this subpart, a 

safety device is not used for routine venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace 

underneath a cover such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in this vapor 

headspace in response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A safety 

device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal operations and open only 

when the internal pressure, or another relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold 

setting applicable to the air emission control equipment as determined by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations, fire protection and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 443 of 527

prevention codes, standard engineering codes and practices, or other requirements for the 

safe handling of flammable, ignitable, explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.

Single-seal system means a floating roof having one continuous seal. This seal may be 

vapor-mounted, liquid-mounted, or a metallic shoe seal.

Vapor-mounted seal means a continuous seal that is mounted such that there is a vapor 

space between the hazardous secondary material in the unit and the bottom of the seal.

Volatile organic concentration or VO concentration means the fraction by weight of the 

volatile organic compounds contained in a hazardous secondary material expressed in 

terms of parts per million (ppmw) as determined by direct measurement or by knowledge 

of the material in accordance with the requirements of § 261.1084 of this subpart. For the 

purpose of determining the VO concentration of a hazardous secondary material, organic 

compounds with a Henry's law constant value of at least 0.1 mole-fraction-in-the-gasphase/mole-fraction-in the liquid-phase (0.1 Y/X) (which can also be expressed as 

1.8×10−6atmospheres/gram-mole/m3) at 25 degrees Celsius must be included. 

Material determination means performing all applicable procedures in accordance with 

the requirements of § 261.1084 of this subpart to determine whether a hazardous 

secondary material meets standards specified in this subpart. Examples of a material 

determination include performing the procedures in accordance with the requirements of 

§ 261.1084 of this subpart to determine the average VO concentration of a hazardous 

secondary material at the point of material origination; the average VO concentration of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 444 of 527

hazardous secondary material at the point of material treatment and comparing the results 

to the exit concentration limit specified for the process used to treat the hazardous 

secondary material; the organic reduction efficiency and the organic biodegradation 

efficiency for a biological process used to treat a hazardous secondary material and 

comparing the results to the applicable standards; or the maximum volatile organic vapor 

pressure for a hazardous secondary material in a tank and comparing the results to the 

applicable standards.

§ 261.1082 Standards: General.

(a) This section applies to the management of hazardous secondary material in 

tanks and containers subject to this subpart.

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from each hazardous secondary 

material management unit in accordance with standards specified in §§ 261.1084 through 

261.1087 of this subpart, as applicable to the hazardous secondary material management 

unit, except as provided for in paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) A tank or container is exempt from standards specified in §§ 261.1084 through 

261.1087 of this subpart, as applicable, provided that the hazardous secondary material 

management unit is a tank or container for which all hazardous secondary material 

entering the unit has an average VO concentration at the point of material origination of 

less than 500 parts per million by weight (ppmw). The average VO concentration shall be 

determined using the procedures specified in § 261.1083(a) of this subpart. The 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 445 of 527

review and update, as necessary, this determination at least once every 12 months 

following the date of the initial determination for the hazardous secondary material 

streams entering the unit.

§ 261.1083 Material determination procedures.

(a) Material determination procedure to determine average volatile organic (VO) 

concentration of a hazardous secondary material at the point of material origination.

(1) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall determine the average VO concentration at the point of material origination 

for each hazardous secondary material placed in a hazardous secondary material 

management unit exempted under the provisions of § 261.1082(c)(1) of this subpart from 

using air emission controls in accordance with standards specified in §§ 261.1084 

through 261.1087 of this subpart, as applicable to the hazardous secondary material 

management unit.

(i) An initial determination of the average VO concentration of the material 

stream shall be made before the first time any portion of the material in the hazardous 

secondary material stream is placed in a hazardous secondary material management unit 

exempted under the provisions of § 261.1082(c)(1) of this subpart from using air 

emission controls, and thereafter an initial determination of the average VO concentration 

of the material stream shall be made for each averaging period that a hazardous 

secondary material is managed in the unit; and

(ii) Perform a new material determination whenever changes to the source 

generating the material stream are reasonably likely to cause the average VO 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 446 of 527

concentration of the hazardous secondary material to increase to a level that is equal to or 

greater than the applicable VO concentration limits specified in § 261.1082 of this 

subpart.

(2) For a material determination that is required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, the average VO concentration of a hazardous secondary material at the point of 

material origination shall be determined using either direct measurement as specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section or by knowledge as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section.

(3) Direct measurement to determine average VO concentration of a hazardous 

secondary material at the point of material origination.

(i) Identification. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or teats the 

hazardous secondary material shall identify and record in a log that is kept at the facility 

the point of material origination for the hazardous secondary material.

(ii) Sampling. Samples of the hazardous secondary material stream shall be 

collected at the point of material origination in a manner such that volatilization of 

organics contained in the material and in the subsequent sample is minimized and an 

adequately representative sample is collected and maintained for analysis by the selected 

method.

(A) The averaging period to be used for determining the average VO 

concentration for the hazardous secondary material stream on a mass-weighted average 

basis shall be designated and recorded. The averaging period can represent any time 

interval that the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 447 of 527

secondary material determines is appropriate for the hazardous secondary material stream 

but shall not exceed 1 year.

(B) A sufficient number of samples, but no less than four samples, shall be 

collected and analyzed for a hazardous secondary material determination. All of the 

samples for a given material determination shall be collected within a one-hour period. 

The average of the four or more sample results constitutes a material determination for 

the material stream. One or more material determinations may be required to represent 

the complete range of material compositions and quantities that occur during the entire 

averaging period due to normal variations in the operating conditions for the source or 

process generating the hazardous secondary material stream. Examples of such normal 

variations are seasonal variations in material quantity or fluctuations in ambient 

temperature.

(C) All samples shall be collected and handled in accordance with written 

procedures prepared by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material and documented in a site sampling plan. This plan shall 

describe the procedure by which representative samples of the hazardous secondary 

material stream are collected such that a minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the 

sample collection and handling process, and by which sample integrity is maintained. A 

copy of the written sampling plan shall be maintained at the facility. An example of 

acceptable sample collection and handling procedures for a total volatile organic 

constituent concentration may be found in Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 448 of 527

(D) Sufficient information, as specified in the “site sampling plan” required under 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, shall be prepared and recorded to document the 

material quantity represented by the samples and, as applicable, the operating conditions 

for the source or process generating the hazardous secondary material represented by the 

samples.

(iii) Analysis. Each collected sample shall be prepared and analyzed in accordance 

with Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A for the total concentration of volatile 

organic constituents, or using one or more methods when the individual organic 

compound concentrations are identified and summed and the summed material 

concentration accounts for and reflects all organic compounds in the material with 

Henry's law constant values at least 0.1 mole-fraction-in-the-gas-phase/mole-fraction-inthe-liquid-phase (0.1 Y/X) [which can also be expressed as 1.8 × 10−6atmospheres/grammole/m3

] at 25 degrees Celsius. At the discretion of the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material, the test data obtained may be 

adjusted by any appropriate method to discount any contribution to the total volatile 

organic concentration that is a result of including a compound with a Henry's law 

constant value of less than 0.1 Y/X at 25 degrees Celsius. To adjust these data, the 

measured concentration of each individual chemical constituent contained in the material 

is multiplied by the appropriate constituent-specific adjustment factor (fm25D). If the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material 

elects to adjust the test data, the adjustment must be made to all individual chemical 

constituents with a Henry's law constant value greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/X at 25 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 449 of 527

degrees Celsius contained in the material. Constituent-specific adjustment factors (fm25D) 

can be obtained by contacting the Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Other test methods 

may be used if they meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this 

section and provided the requirement to reflect all organic compounds in the material 

with Henry's law constant values greater than or equal to 0.1 Y/X [which can also be 

expressed as 1.8 × 10−6atmospheres/gram-mole/m3] at 25 degrees Celsius, is met.

(A) Any EPA standard method that has been validated in accordance with “Alternative 

Validation Procedure for EPA Waste and Wastewater Methods,” 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix D.

(B) Any other analysis method that has been validated in accordance with the 

procedures specified in Section 5.1 or Section 5.3, and the corresponding calculations in 

Section 6.1 or Section 6.3, of Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The data are 

acceptable if they meet the criteria specified in Section 6.1.5 or Section 6.3.3 of Method 

301. If correction is required under section 6.3.3 of Method 301, the data are acceptable if 

the correction factor is within the range 0.7 to 1.30. Other sections of Method 301 are not 

required.

(iv) Calculations.

(A) The average VO concentration (C) on a mass-weighted basis shall be 

calculated by using the results for all material determinations conducted in accordance 

with paragraphs (a)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section and the following equation:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 450 of 527

where:

C= Average VO concentration of the hazardous secondary material at the point of 

material origination on a mass-weighted basis, ppmw.

i = Individual material determination “i” of the hazardous secondary material.

n = Total number of material determinations of the hazardous secondary material 

conducted for the averaging period (not to exceed 1 year).

Qi= Mass quantity of hazardous secondary material stream represented by Ci, kg/hr.

QT= Total mass quantity of hazardous secondary material during the averaging period, 

kg/hr.

Ci= Measured VO concentration of material determination “i” as determined in 

accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section (i.e. the average 

of the four or more samples specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section), ppmw.

(B) For the purpose of determining Ci, for individual material samples analyzed in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall account for VO concentrations 

determined to be below the limit of detection of the analytical method by using the 

following VO concentration:

(1) If Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for the analysis, onehalf the blank value determined in the method at section 4.4 of Method 25D in 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A.

Deleted: ¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 451 of 527

(2) If any other analytical method is used, one-half the sum of the limits of 

detection established for each organic constituent in the material that has a Henry's law 

constant values at least 0.1 mole-fraction-in-the-gas-phase/mole-fraction-in-the-liquidphase (0.1 Y/X) [which can also be expressed as 1.8×10−6atmospheres/gram-mole/m3

] at 

25 degrees Celsius.

(4) Use of knowledge by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats 

the hazardous secondary material to determine average VO concentration of a hazardous 

secondary material at the point of material origination.

(i) Documentation shall be prepared that presents the information used as the 

basis for the knowledge by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material of the hazardous secondary material stream's average VO 

concentration. Examples of information that may be used as the basis for knowledge 

include: Material balances for the source or process generating the hazardous secondary 

material stream; constituent-specific chemical test data for the hazardous secondary 

material stream from previous testing that are still applicable to the current material 

stream; previous test data for other locations managing the same type of material stream; 

or other knowledge based on information included in shipping papers or material 

certification notices.

(ii) If test data are used as the basis for knowledge, then the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall document the test 

method, sampling protocol, and the means by which sampling variability and analytical 

variability are accounted for in the determination of the average VO concentration. For 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 452 of 527

example, a remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material may use organic concentration test data for the hazardous secondary material 

stream that are validated in accordance with Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A 

as the basis for knowledge of the material.

(iii) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using chemical constituent-specific concentration test data as the basis 

for knowledge of the hazardous secondary material may adjust the test data to the 

corresponding average VO concentration value which would have been obtained had the 

material samples been analyzed using Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. To 

adjust these data, the measured concentration for each individual chemical constituent 

contained in the material is multiplied by the appropriate constituent-specific adjustment 

factor (fm25D).

(iv) In the event that the Regional Administrator and the remanufacture or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material disagree on a determination 

of the average VO concentration for a hazardous secondary material stream using 

knowledge, then the results from a determination of average VO concentration using 

direct measurement as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be used to 

establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. The Regional 

Administrator may perform or request that the remanufacturer or other person that stores 

or treats the hazardous secondary material perform this determination using direct 

measurement. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material may choose one or more appropriate methods to analyze each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 453 of 527

collected sample in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this 

section.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Procedure to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure of a hazardous 

secondary material in a tank.

(1) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall determine the maximum organic vapor pressure for each hazardous 

secondary material placed in a tank using Tank Level 1 controls in accordance with 

standards specified in § 261.1084(c) of this subpart.

(2) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall use either direct measurement as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section or knowledge of the waste as specified by paragraph (c)(4) of this section to 

determine the maximum organic vapor pressure which is representative of the hazardous 

secondary material composition stored or treated in the tank.

(3) Direct measurement to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure of a 

hazardous secondary material.

(i) Sampling. A sufficient number of samples shall be collected to be 

representative of the hazardous secondary material contained in the tank. All samples 

shall be collected and handled in accordance with written procedures prepared by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material and 

documented in a site sampling plan. This plan shall describe the procedure by which 

representative samples of the hazardous secondary material are collected such that a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 454 of 527

minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and handling process 

and by which sample integrity is maintained. A copy of the written sampling plan shall be 

maintained at the facility. An example of acceptable sample collection and handling 

procedures may be found in Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

(ii) Analysis. Any appropriate one of the following methods may be used to 

analyze the samples and compute the maximum organic vapor pressure of the hazardous 

secondary material: 

(A) Method 25E in 40 CFR part 60 appendix A;

(B) Methods described in American Petroleum Institute Publication 2517, Third 

Edition, February 1989, “Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,” 

(incorporated by reference—refer to § 260.11 of this chapter);

(C) Methods obtained from standard reference texts;

(D) ASTM Method 2879–92 (incorporated by reference—refer to § 260.11 of this 

chapter); and

(E) Any other method approved by the Regional Administrator.

(4) Use of knowledge to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure of the 

hazardous secondary material. Documentation shall be prepared and recorded that 

presents the information used as the basis for the knowledge by the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material that the maximum 

organic vapor pressure of the hazardous secondary material is less than the maximum 

vapor pressure limit listed in § 261.1085(b)(1)(i) of this subpart for the applicable tank 

design capacity category. An example of information that may be used is documentation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 455 of 527

that the hazardous secondary material is generated by a process for which at other 

locations it previously has been determined by direct measurement that the hazardous 

secondary material’s waste maximum organic vapor pressure is less than the maximum 

vapor pressure limit for the appropriate tank design capacity category.

(d) Procedure for determining no detectable organic emissions for the purpose of 

complying with this subpart:

(1) The test shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Each potential leak interface (i.e., a location 

where organic vapor leakage could occur) on the cover and associated closure devices 

shall be checked. Potential leak interfaces that are associated with covers and closure 

devices include, but are not limited to: the interface of the cover and its foundation 

mounting; the periphery of any opening on the cover and its associated closure device; 

and the sealing seat interface on a spring-loaded pressure relief valve.

(2) The test shall be performed when the unit contains a hazardous secondary 

material having an organic concentration representative of the range of concentrations for 

the hazardous secondary material expected to be managed in the unit. During the test, the 

cover and closure devices shall be secured in the closed position.

(3) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument response factor criteria in section 

3.1.2(a) of Method 21 shall be for the average composition of the organic constituents in 

the hazardous secondary material placed in the hazardous secondary management unit, 

not for each individual organic constituent.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 456 of 527

(4) The detection instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use 

by the procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

(5) Calibration gases shall be as follows:

(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppmv hydrocarbon in air), and

(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of approximately, 

but less than, 10,000 ppmv methane or n-hexane.

(6) The background level shall be determined according to the procedures in 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

(7) Each potential leak interface shall be checked by traversing the instrument 

probe around the potential leak interface as close to the interface as possible, as described 

in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. In the case when the configuration of the 

cover or closure device prevents a complete traverse of the interface, all accessible 

portions of the interface shall be sampled. In the case when the configuration of the 

closure device prevents any sampling at the interface and the device is equipped with an 

enclosed extension or horn (e.g., some pressure relief devices), the instrument probe inlet 

shall be placed at approximately the center of the exhaust area to the atmosphere.

(8) The arithmetic difference between the maximum organic concentration 

indicated by the instrument and the background level shall be compared with the value of 

500 ppmv except when monitoring a seal around a rotating shaft that passes through a 

cover opening, in which case the comparison shall be as specified in paragraph (d)(9) of 

this section. If the difference is less than 500 ppmv, then the potential leak interface is 

determined to operate with no detectable organic emissions.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 457 of 527

(9) For the seals around a rotating shaft that passes through a cover opening, the 

arithmetic difference between the maximum organic concentration indicated by the 

instrument and the background level shall be compared with the value of 10,000 ppmw. 

If the difference is less than 10,000 ppmw, then the potential leak interface is determined 

to operate with no detectable organic emissions.

§ 261.1084 Standards: Tanks.

(a) The provisions of this section apply to the control of air pollutant emissions 

from tanks for which § 261.1082(b) of this subpart references the use of this section for 

such air emission control.

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from each tank subject to this

section in accordance with the following requirements as applicable:

(1) For a tank that manages hazardous secondary material that meets all of the 

conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

control air pollutant emissions from the tank in accordance with the Tank Level 1 

controls specified in paragraph (c) of this section or the Tank Level 2 controls specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section.

(i) The hazardous secondary material in the tank has a maximum organic vapor 

pressure which is less than the maximum organic vapor pressure limit for the tank's 

design capacity category as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 458 of 527

(A) For a tank design capacity equal to or greater than 151 m3, the maximum 

organic vapor pressure limit for the tank is 5.2 kPa.

(B) For a tank design capacity equal to or greater than 75 m3but less than 151 

m

3

, the maximum organic vapor pressure limit for the tank is 27.6 kPa.

(C) For a tank design capacity less than 75 m3, the maximum organic vapor 

pressure limit for the tank is 76.6 kPa.

(ii) The hazardous secondary material in the tank is not heated by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to a 

temperature that is greater than the temperature at which the maximum organic vapor 

pressure of the hazardous secondary material is determined for the purpose of complying 

with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.

(2) For a tank that manages hazardous secondary material that does not meet all of 

the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

control air pollutant emissions from the tank by using Tank Level 2 controls in 

accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. An example of tanks 

required to use Tank Level 2 controls is a tank for which the hazardous secondary 

material in the tank has a maximum organic vapor pressure that is equal to or greater than 

the maximum organic vapor pressure limit for the tank's design capacity category as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 459 of 527

(c) Remanufacturers or other persons that store or treats the hazardous secondary 

material controlling air pollutant emissions from a tank using Tank Level 1 controls shall 

meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats that hazardous 

secondary material shall determine the maximum organic vapor pressure for a hazardous 

secondary material to be managed in the tank using Tank Level 1 controls before the first 

time the hazardous secondary material is placed in the tank. The maximum organic vapor 

pressure shall be determined using the procedures specified in § 261.1083(c) of this 

subpart. Thereafter, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform a new determination whenever changes to the 

hazardous secondary material managed in the tank could potentially cause the maximum 

organic vapor pressure to increase to a level that is equal to or greater than the maximum 

organic vapor pressure limit for the tank design capacity category specified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) of this section, as applicable to the tank.

(2) The tank shall be equipped with a fixed roof designed to meet the following 

specifications:

(i) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be designed to form a continuous 

barrier over the entire surface area of the hazardous secondary material in the tank. The 

fixed roof may be a separate cover installed on the tank (e.g., a removable cover mounted 

on an open-top tank) or may be an integral part of the tank structural design (e.g., a 

horizontal cylindrical tank equipped with a hatch).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 460 of 527

(ii) The fixed roof shall be installed in a manner such that there are no visible 

cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces between roof section joints or between the 

interface of the roof edge and the tank wall.

(iii) Each opening in the fixed roof, and any manifold system associated with the 

fixed roof, shall be either:

(A) Equipped with a closure device designed to operate such that when the 

closure device is secured in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or 

other open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the 

closure device; or

(B) Connected by a closed-vent system that is vented to a control device. The 

control device shall remove or destroy organics in the vent stream, and shall be operating 

whenever hazardous secondary material is managed in the tank, except as provided for in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) During periods when it is necessary to provide access to the tank for 

performing the activities of paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section, venting of the 

vapor headspace underneath the fixed roof to the control device is not required, opening 

of closure devices is allowed, and removal of the fixed roof is allowed. Following 

completion of the activity, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed 

position or reinstall the cover, as applicable, and resume operation of the control device.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 461 of 527

(2) During periods of routine inspection, maintenance, or other activities needed 

for normal operations, and for removal of accumulated sludge or other residues from the 

bottom of the tank.

(iv) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be made of suitable materials that 

will minimize exposure of the hazardous secondary material to the atmosphere, to the 

extent practical, and will maintain the integrity of the fixed roof and closure devices 

throughout their intended service life. Factors to be considered when selecting the 

materials for and designing the fixed roof and closure devices shall include: organic 

vapor permeability, the effects of any contact with the hazardous secondary material or 

its vapors managed in the tank; the effects of outdoor exposure to wind, moisture, and 

sunlight; and the operating practices used for the tank on which the fixed roof is installed.

(3) Whenever a hazardous secondary material is in the tank, the fixed roof shall 

be installed with each closure device secured in the closed position except as follows:

(i) Opening of closure devices or removal of the fixed roof is allowed at the 

following times:

(A) To provide access to the tank for performing routine inspection, maintenance,

or other activities needed for normal operations. Examples of such activities include 

those times when a worker needs to open a port to sample the liquid in the tank, or when 

a worker needs to open a hatch to maintain or repair equipment. Following completion of 

the activity, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed position or 

reinstall the cover, as applicable, to the tank.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 462 of 527

(B) To remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom of tank.

(ii) Opening of a spring-loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, 

or similar type of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere is allowed during 

normal operations for the purpose of maintaining the tank internal pressure in accordance 

with the tank design specifications. The device shall be designed to operate with no 

detectable organic emissions when the device is secured in the closed position. The 

settings at which the device opens shall be established such that the device remains in the 

closed position whenever the tank internal pressure is within the internal pressure 

operating range determined by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material based on the tank manufacturer recommendations, 

applicable regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard engineering codes 

and practices, or other requirements for the safe handling of flammable, ignitable, 

explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials. Examples of normal operating conditions that 

may require these devices to open are during those times when the tank internal pressure 

exceeds the internal pressure operating range for the tank as a result of loading operations 

or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.

(iii) Opening of a safety device, as defined in § 261.1081, is allowed at any time 

conditions require doing so to avoid an unsafe condition.

(4) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect the air emission control equipment in accordance with 

the following requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 463 of 527

(i) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be visually inspected by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to 

check for defects that could result in air pollutant emissions. Defects include, but are not 

limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or between the roof and the 

tank wall; broken, cracked, or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; 

and broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure devices.

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform an initial inspection of the fixed roof and its closure 

devices on or before the date that the tank becomes subject to this section. Thereafter, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

perform the inspections at least once every year except under the special conditions 

provided for in paragraph (l) of this section.

(iii) In the event that a defect is detected, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.

(iv) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1089(b) of this subpart.

(d) Remanufacturers or other persons that store or treat the hazardous secondary 

material controlling air pollutant emissions from a tank using Tank Level 2 controls shall 

use one of the following tanks:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 464 of 527

(1) A fixed-roof tank equipped with an internal floating roof in accordance with 

the requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this section;

(2) A tank equipped with an external floating roof in accordance with the 

requirements specified in paragraph (f) of this section;

(3) A tank vented through a closed-vent system to a control device in accordance 

with the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of this section;

(4) A pressure tank designed and operated in accordance with the requirements 

specified in paragraph (h) of this section; or

(5) A tank located inside an enclosure that is vented through a closed-vent system 

to an enclosed combustion control device in accordance with the requirements specified 

in paragraph (i) of this section.

(e) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who controls air pollutant emissions from a tank using a fixed roof 

with an internal floating roof shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(3) of this section.

(1) The tank shall be equipped with a fixed roof and an internal floating roof in 

accordance with the following requirements:

(i) The internal floating roof shall be designed to float on the liquid surface except 

when the floating roof must be supported by the leg supports.

(ii) The internal floating roof shall be equipped with a continuous seal between 

the wall of the tank and the floating roof edge that meets either of the following 

requirements:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 465 of 527

(A) A single continuous seal that is either a liquid-mounted seal or a metallic shoe 

seal, as defined in § 261.1081; or

(B) Two continuous seals mounted one above the other. The lower seal may be a 

vapor-mounted seal.

(iii) The internal floating roof shall meet the following specifications:

(A) Each opening in a noncontact internal floating roof except for automatic 

bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and the rim space vents is to provide a projection 

below the liquid surface.

(B) Each opening in the internal floating roof shall be equipped with a gasketed 

cover or a gasketed lid except for leg sleeves, automatic bleeder vents, rim space vents, 

column wells, ladder wells, sample wells, and stub drains.

(C) Each penetration of the internal floating roof for the purpose of sampling shall 

have a slit fabric cover that covers at least 90 percent of the opening.

(D) Each automatic bleeder vent and rim space vent shall be gasketed.

(E) Each penetration of the internal floating roof that allows for passage of a 

ladder shall have a gasketed sliding cover.

(F) Each penetration of the internal floating roof that allows for passage of a 

column supporting the fixed roof shall have a flexible fabric sleeve seal or a gasketed 

sliding cover.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall operate the tank in accordance with the following requirements:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 466 of 527

(i) When the floating roof is resting on the leg supports, the process of filling, 

emptying, or refilling shall be continuous and shall be completed as soon as practical.

(ii) Automatic bleeder vents are to be set closed at all times when the roof is 

floating, except when the roof is being floated off or is being landed on the leg supports.

(iii) Prior to filling the tank, each cover, access hatch, gauge float well or lid on 

any opening in the internal floating roof shall be bolted or fastened closed (i.e., no visible 

gaps). Rim space vents are to be set to open only when the internal floating roof is not 

floating or when the pressure beneath the rim exceeds the manufacturer's recommended 

setting.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect the internal floating roof in accordance with the 

procedures specified as follows:

(i) The floating roof and its closure devices shall be visually inspected by the 

remanufacture or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to 

check for defects that could result in air pollutant emissions. Defects include, but are not 

limited to: The internal floating roof is not floating on the surface of the liquid inside the 

tank; liquid has accumulated on top of the internal floating roof; any portion of the roof 

seals have detached from the roof rim; holes, tears, or other openings are visible in the 

seal fabric; the gaskets no longer close off the hazardous secondary material surface from 

the atmosphere; or the slotted membrane has more than 10 percent open area.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 467 of 527

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect the internal floating roof components as follows except 

as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section:

(A) Visually inspect the internal floating roof components through openings on 

the fixed-roof (e.g., manholes and roof hatches) at least once every 12 months after initial 

fill, and

(B) Visually inspect the internal floating roof, primary seal, secondary seal (if one 

is in service), gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve seals (if any) each time the tank is 

emptied and degassed and at least every 10 years.

(iii) As an alternative to performing the inspections specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii) of this section for an internal floating roof equipped with two continuous seals 

mounted one above the other, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material may visually inspect the internal floating roof, primary and 

secondary seals, gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve seals (if any) each time the tank 

is emptied and degassed and at least every five years.

(iv) Prior to each inspection required by paragraph (e)(3)(ii) or (e)(3)(iii) of this 

section, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall notify the Regional Administrator in advance of each inspection to provide 

the Regional Administrator with the opportunity to have an observer present during the 

inspection. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall notify the Regional Administrator of the date and location of the 

inspection as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 468 of 527

(A) Prior to each visual inspection of an internal floating roof in a tank that has 

been emptied and degassed, written notification shall be prepared and sent by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material so 

that it is received by the Regional Administrator at least 30 calendar days before refilling 

the tank except when an inspection is not planned as provided for in paragraph 

(e)(3)(iv)(B) of this section.

(B) When a visual inspection is not planned and the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material could not have known about 

the inspection 30 calendar days before refilling the tank, the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall notify the Regional 

Administrator as soon as possible, but no later than seven calendar days before refilling 

of the tank. This notification may be made by telephone and immediately followed by a 

written explanation for why the inspection is unplanned. Alternatively, written 

notification, including the explanation for the unplanned inspection, may be sent so that it 

is received by the Regional Administrator at least seven calendar days before refilling the 

tank.

(v) In the event that a defect is detected, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.

(vi) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1089(b) of this subpart.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 469 of 527

(4) Safety devices, as defined in § 261.1081, may be installed and operated as 

necessary on any tank complying with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.

(f) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who controls air pollutant emissions from a tank using an external 

floating roof shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of 

this section.

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall design the external floating roof in accordance with the 

following requirements:

(i) The external floating roof shall be designed to float on the liquid surface 

except when the floating roof must be supported by the leg supports.

(ii) The floating roof shall be equipped with two continuous seals, one above the 

other, between the wall of the tank and the roof edge. The lower seal is referred to as the 

primary seal, and the upper seal is referred to as the secondary seal.

(A) The primary seal shall be a liquid-mounted seal or a metallic shoe seal, as defined in 

40 CFR 261.1081. The total area of the gaps between the tank wall and the primary seal 

shall not exceed 212 square centimeters (cm2) per meter of tank diameter, and the width 

of any portion of these gaps shall not exceed 3.8 centimeters (cm). If a metallic shoe seal 

is used for the primary seal, the metallic shoe seal shall be designed so that one end 

extends into the liquid in the tank and the other end extends a vertical distance of at least 

61 centimeters above the liquid surface.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 470 of 527

(B) The secondary seal shall be mounted above the primary seal and cover the 

annular space between the floating roof and the wall of the tank. The total area of the 

gaps between the tank wall and the secondary seal shall not exceed 21.2 square 

centimeters (cm2) per meter of tank diameter, and the width of any portion of these gaps 

shall not exceed 1.3 centimeters (cm).

(iii) The external floating roof shall meet the following specifications:

(A) Except for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and rim space 

vents, each opening in a noncontact external floating roof shall provide a projection 

below the liquid surface.

(B) Except for automatic bleeder vents, rim space vents, roof drains, and leg 

sleeves, each opening in the roof shall be equipped with a gasketed cover, seal, or lid.

(C) Each access hatch and each gauge float well shall be equipped with a cover 

designed to be bolted or fastened when the cover is secured in the closed position.

(D) Each automatic bleeder vent and each rim space vent shall be equipped with a 

gasket.

(E) Each roof drain that empties into the liquid managed in the tank shall be 

equipped with a slotted membrane fabric cover that covers at least 90 percent of the area 

of the opening.

(F) Each unslotted and slotted guide pole well shall be equipped with a gasketed 

sliding cover or a flexible fabric sleeve seal.

(G) Each unslotted guide pole shall be equipped with a gasketed cap on the end of 

the pole.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 471 of 527

(H) Each slotted guide pole shall be equipped with a gasketed float or other 

device which closes off the liquid surface from the atmosphere.

(I) Each gauge hatch and each sample well shall be equipped with a gasketed 

cover.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall operate the tank in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) When the floating roof is resting on the leg supports, the process of filling, 

emptying, or refilling shall be continuous and shall be completed as soon as practical.

(ii) Except for automatic bleeder vents, rim space vents, roof drains, and leg 

sleeves, each opening in the roof shall be secured and maintained in a closed position at 

all times except when the closure device must be open for access.

(iii) Covers on each access hatch and each gauge float well shall be bolted or 

fastened when secured in the closed position.

(iv) Automatic bleeder vents shall be set closed at all times when the roof is 

floating, except when the roof is being floated off or is being landed on the leg supports.

(v) Rim space vents shall be set to open only at those times that the roof is being 

floated off the roof leg supports or when the pressure beneath the rim seal exceeds the 

manufacturer's recommended setting.

(vi) The cap on the end of each unslotted guide pole shall be secured in the closed 

position at all times except when measuring the level or collecting samples of the liquid 

in the tank.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 472 of 527

(vii) The cover on each gauge hatch or sample well shall be secured in the closed

position at all times except when the hatch or well must be opened for access.

(viii) Both the primary seal and the secondary seal shall completely cover the 

annular space between the external floating roof and the wall of the tank in a continuous 

fashion except during inspections.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect the external floating roof in accordance with the 

procedures specified as follows:

(i) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall measure the external floating roof seal gaps in accordance with 

the following requirements:

(A) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform measurements of gaps between the tank wall and the 

primary seal within 60 calendar days after initial operation of the tank following 

installation of the floating roof and, thereafter, at least once every 5 years.

(B) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform measurements of gaps between the tank wall and the 

secondary seal within 60 calendar days after initial operation of the tank following 

installation of the floating roof and, thereafter, at least once every year.

(C) If a tank ceases to hold hazardous secondary material for a period of 1 year or 

more, subsequent introduction of hazardous secondary material into the tank shall be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 473 of 527

considered an initial operation for the purposes of paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) and (f)(3)(i)(B) 

of this section.

(D) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall determine the total surface area of gaps in the primary seal and 

in the secondary seal individually using the following procedure:

(1) The seal gap measurements shall be performed at one or more floating roof 

levels when the roof is floating off the roof supports.

(2) Seal gaps, if any, shall be measured around the entire perimeter of the floating 

roof in each place where a 0.32-centimeter (cm) diameter uniform probe passes freely 

(without forcing or binding against the seal) between the seal and the wall of the tank and 

measure the circumferential distance of each such location.

(3) For a seal gap measured under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the gap surface 

area shall be determined by using probes of various widths to measure accurately the 

actual distance from the tank wall to the seal and multiplying each such width by its 

respective circumferential distance.

(4) The total gap area shall be calculated by adding the gap surface areas 

determined for each identified gap location for the primary seal and the secondary seal 

individually, and then dividing the sum for each seal type by the nominal diameter of the 

tank. These total gap areas for the primary seal and secondary seal are then compared to 

the respective standards for the seal type as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this 

section.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 474 of 527

(E) In the event that the seal gap measurements do not conform to the 

specifications in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.

(F) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1089(b) of this subpart.

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall visually inspect the external floating roof in accordance with the 

following requirements:

(A) The floating roof and its closure devices shall be visually inspected by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to 

check for defects that could result in air pollutant emissions. Defects include, but are not 

limited to: Holes, tears, or other openings in the rim seal or seal fabric of the floating 

roof; a rim seal detached from the floating roof; all or a portion of the floating roof deck 

being submerged below the surface of the liquid in the tank; broken, cracked, or 

otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing hatches, 

access covers, caps, or other closure devices.

(B) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform an initial inspection of the external floating roof and its 

closure devices on or before the date that the tank becomes subject to this section. 

Thereafter, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 475 of 527

secondary material shall perform the inspections at least once every year except for the 

special conditions provided for in paragraph (l) of this section.

(C) In the event that a defect is detected, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.

(D) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1089(b) of this subpart.

(iii) Prior to each inspection required by paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this 

section, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall notify the Regional Administrator in advance of each inspection to provide 

the Regional Administrator with the opportunity to have an observer present during the 

inspection. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall notify the Regional Administrator of the date and location of the 

inspection as follows:

(A) Prior to each inspection to measure external floating roof seal gaps as 

required under paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, written notification shall be prepared 

and sent by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material so that it is received by the Regional Administrator at least 30 

calendar days before the date the measurements are scheduled to be performed.

(B) Prior to each visual inspection of an external floating roof in a tank that has 

been emptied and degassed, written notification shall be prepared and sent by the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 476 of 527

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material so 

that it is received by the Regional Administrator at least 30 calendar days before refilling 

the tank except when an inspection is not planned as provided for in paragraph 

(f)(3)(iii)(C) of this section.

(C) When a visual inspection is not planned and the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material could not have known about 

the inspection 30 calendar days before refilling the tank, the owner or operator shall 

notify the Regional Administrator as soon as possible, but no later than seven calendar 

days before refilling of the tank. This notification may be made by telephone and 

immediately followed by a written explanation for why the inspection is unplanned. 

Alternatively, written notification, including the explanation for the unplanned 

inspection, may be sent so that it is received by the Regional Administrator at least seven

calendar days before refilling the tank.

(4) Safety devices, as defined in § 261.1081, may be installed and operated as 

necessary on any tank complying with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.

(g) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who controls air pollutant emissions from a tank by venting the tank 

to a control device shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(g)(3) of this section.

(1) The tank shall be covered by a fixed roof and vented directly through a closedvent system to a control device in accordance with the following requirements:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 477 of 527

(i) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be designed to form a continuous 

barrier over the entire surface area of the liquid in the tank.

(ii) Each opening in the fixed roof not vented to the control device shall be 

equipped with a closure device. If the pressure in the vapor headspace underneath the 

fixed roof is less than atmospheric pressure when the control device is operating, the 

closure devices shall be designed to operate such that when the closure device is secured 

in the closed position there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces in the 

closure device or between the perimeter of the cover opening and the closure device. If 

the pressure in the vapor headspace underneath the fixed roof is equal to or greater than 

atmospheric pressure when the control device is operating, the closure device shall be 

designed to operate with no detectable organic emissions.

(iii) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be made of suitable materials that 

will minimize exposure of the hazardous secondary material to the atmosphere, to the 

extent practical, and will maintain the integrity of the fixed roof and closure devices 

throughout their intended service life. Factors to be considered when selecting the 

materials for and designing the fixed roof and closure devices shall include: organic 

vapor permeability, the effects of any contact with the liquid and its vapor managed in the 

tank; the effects of outdoor exposure to wind, moisture, and sunlight; and the operating 

practices used for the tank on which the fixed roof is installed.

(iv) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of § 261.1087 of this subpart.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 478 of 527

(2) Whenever a hazardous secondary material is in the tank, the fixed roof shall 

be installed with each closure device secured in the closed position and the vapor 

headspace underneath the fixed roof vented to the control device except as follows:

(i) Venting to the control device is not required, and opening of closure devices or 

removal of the fixed roof is allowed at the following times:

(A) To provide access to the tank for performing routine inspection, maintenance, 

or other activities needed for normal operations. Examples of such activities include 

those times when a worker needs to open a port to sample liquid in the tank, or when a 

worker needs to open a hatch to maintain or repair equipment. Following completion of 

the activity, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed position or 

reinstall the cover, as applicable, to the tank.

(B) To remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom of a tank.

(ii) Opening of a safety device, as defined in § 261.1081, is allowed at any time 

conditions require doing so to avoid an unsafe condition.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect and monitor the air emission control equipment in 

accordance with the following procedures:

(i) The fixed roof and its closure devices shall be visually inspected by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material to 

check for defects that could result in air pollutant emissions. Defects include, but are not 

limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or between the roof and the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 479 of 527

tank wall; broken, cracked, or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; 

and broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure devices.

(ii) The closed-vent system and control device shall be inspected and monitored 

by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material in accordance with the procedures specified in § 261.1087 of this subpart.

(iii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform an initial inspection of the air emission control 

equipment on or before the date that the tank becomes subject to this section. Thereafter, 

the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

shall perform the inspections at least once every year except for the special conditions 

provided for in paragraph (l) of this section.

(iv) In the event that a defect is detected, the remanufacture or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.

(v) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain a record of the inspection in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1089(b) of this subpart.

(h) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who controls air pollutant emissions by using a pressure tank shall 

meet the following requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 480 of 527

(1) The tank shall be designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of 

compression of the vapor headspace in the tank during filling of the tank to its design 

capacity.

(2) All tank openings shall be equipped with closure devices designed to operate 

with no detectable organic emissions as determined using the procedure specified in §

261.1083(d) of this subpart.

(3) Whenever a hazardous secondary material is in the tank, the tank shall be 

operated as a closed system that does not vent to the atmosphere except under either or 

the following conditions as specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this section.

(i) At those times when opening of a safety device, as defined in § 261.1081 of this 

subpart, is required to avoid an unsafe condition.

(ii) At those times when purging of inerts from the tank is required and the purge 

stream is routed to a closed-vent system and control device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of § 261.1087 of this subpart.

(i) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who controls air pollutant emissions by using an enclosure vented 

through a closed-vent system to an enclosed combustion control device shall meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section.

(1) The tank shall be located inside an enclosure. The enclosure shall be designed 

and operated in accordance with the criteria for a permanent total enclosure as specified 

in “Procedure T—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total 

Enclosure” under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B. The enclosure may have permanent or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 481 of 527

temporary openings to allow worker access; passage of material into or out of the 

enclosure by conveyor, vehicles, or other mechanical means; entry of permanent 

mechanical or electrical equipment; or direct airflow into the enclosure. The 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

perform the verification procedure for the enclosure as specified in Section 5.0 to 

“Procedure T—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total 

Enclosure” initially when the enclosure is first installed and, thereafter, annually.

(2) The enclosure shall be vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed 

combustion control device that is designed and operated in accordance with the standards 

for either a vapor incinerator, boiler, or process heater specified in § 261.1087 of this 

subpart.

(3) Safety devices, as defined in § 261.1081, may be installed and operated as 

necessary on any enclosure, closed-vent system, or control device used to comply with 

the requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this section.

(4) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect and monitor the closed-vent system and control device as 

specified in § 261.1087 of this subpart.

(j) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall transfer hazardous secondary material to a tank subject to this 

section in accordance with the following requirements:

(1) Transfer of hazardous secondary material, except as provided in paragraph 

(j)(2) of this section, to the tank from another tank subject to this section shall be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 482 of 527

conducted using continuous hard-piping or another closed system that does not allow 

exposure of the hazardous secondary material to the atmosphere. For the purpose of 

complying with this provision, an individual drain system is considered to be a closed 

system when it meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RR—National 

Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems.

(2) The requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this section do not apply when 

transferring a hazardous secondary material to the tank under any of the following 

conditions:

(i) The hazardous secondary material meets the average VO concentration 

conditions specified in § 261.1082(c)(1) of this subpart at the point of material 

origination.

(ii) The hazardous secondary material has been treated by an organic destruction 

or removal process to meet the requirements in § 261.1082(c)(2) of this subpart.

(iii) The hazardous secondary material meets the requirements of § 261.1082(c)(4) of this 

subpart.

(k) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall repair each defect detected during an inspection performed in 

accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(4), (e)(3), (f)(3), or (g)(3) of this 

section as follows:

(1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall make first efforts at repair of the defect no later than 5 calendar 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 483 of 527

days after detection, and repair shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than 45 

calendar days after detection except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.

(2) Repair of a defect may be delayed beyond 45 calendar days if the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

determines that repair of the defect requires emptying or temporary removal from service 

of the tank and no alternative tank capacity is available at the site to accept the hazardous 

secondary material normally managed in the tank. In this case, the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall repair the defect 

the next time the process or unit that is generating the hazardous secondary material 

managed in the tank stops operation. Repair of the defect shall be completed before the 

process or unit resumes operation.

(l) Following the initial inspection and monitoring of the cover as required by the 

applicable provisions of this subpart, subsequent inspection and monitoring may be 

performed at intervals longer than 1 year under the following special conditions:

(1) In the case when inspecting or monitoring the cover would expose a worker to 

dangerous, hazardous, or other unsafe conditions, then the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material may designate a cover as an “unsafe 

to inspect and monitor cover” and comply with all of the following requirements:

(i) Prepare a written explanation for the cover stating the reasons why the cover is 

unsafe to visually inspect or to monitor, if required.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 484 of 527

(ii) Develop and implement a written plan and schedule to inspect and monitor the 

cover, using the procedures specified in the applicable section of this subpart, as 

frequently as practicable during those times when a worker can safely access the cover.

(2) In the case when a tank is buried partially or entirely underground, a remanufacturer 

or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material is required to 

inspect and monitor, as required by the applicable provisions of this section, only those 

portions of the tank cover and those connections to the tank (e.g., fill ports, access 

hatches, gauge wells, etc.) that are located on or above the ground surface.

§ 261.1085 [Reserved]§ 261.1086 Standards: Containers.

(a) The provisions of this section apply to the control of air pollutant emissions 

from containers for which § 261.1082(b) of this subpart references the use of this section 

for such air emission control.

(b) General requirements. (1) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from each 

container subject to this section in accordance with the following requirements, as 

applicable to the container.

(i) For a container having a design capacity greater than 0.1 m3and less than or 

equal to 0.46 m3, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from the container in accordance 

with the Container Level 1 standards specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(ii) For a container having a design capacity greater than 0.46 m3that is not in 

light material service, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

Deleted: ]

Deleted: § 261.1086 Standards: Containers.¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 485 of 527

hazardous secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from the container in 

accordance with the Container Level 1 standards specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section.

(iii) For a container having a design capacity greater than 0.46 m3that is in light 

material service, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall control air pollutant emissions from the container in accordance 

with the Container Level 2 standards specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Container Level 1 standards. (1) A container using Container Level 1 controls 

is one of the following:

(i) A container that meets the applicable U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) regulations on packaging hazardous materials for transportation as specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section.

(ii) A container equipped with a cover and closure devices that form a continuous 

barrier over the container openings such that when the cover and closure devices are 

secured in the closed position there are no visible holes, gaps, or other open spaces into 

the interior of the container. The cover may be a separate cover installed on the container 

(e.g., a lid on a drum or a suitably secured tarp on a roll-off box) or may be an integral 

part of the container structural design (e.g., a “portable tank” or bulk cargo container 

equipped with a screw-type cap).

(iii) An open-top container in which an organic-vapor suppressing barrier is 

placed on or over the hazardous secondary material in the container such that no 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 486 of 527

hazardous secondary material is exposed to the atmosphere. One example of such a 

barrier is application of a suitable organic-vapor suppressing foam.

(2) A container used to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(iii) 

of this section shall be equipped with covers and closure devices, as applicable to the 

container, that are composed of suitable materials to minimize exposure of the hazardous 

secondary material to the atmosphere and to maintain the equipment integrity, for as long 

as the container is in service. Factors to be considered in selecting the materials of 

construction and designing the cover and closure devices shall include: organic vapor 

permeability; the effects of contact with the hazardous secondary material or its vapor 

managed in the container; the effects of outdoor exposure of the closure device or cover 

material to wind, moisture, and sunlight; and the operating practices for which the 

container is intended to be used.

(3) Whenever a hazardous secondary material is in a container using Container 

Level 1 controls, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall install all covers and closure devices for the container, as 

applicable to the container, and secure and maintain each closure device in the closed 

position except as follows:

(i) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed for the purpose of adding 

hazardous secondary material or other material to the container as follows:

(A) In the case when the container is filled to the intended final level in one 

continuous operation, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure devices in the closed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 487 of 527

position and install the covers, as applicable to the container, upon conclusion of the 

filling operation.

(B) In the case when discrete quantities or batches of material intermittently are 

added to the container over a period of time, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure 

devices in the closed position and install covers, as applicable to the container, upon 

either the container being filled to the intended final level; the completion of a batch 

loading after which no additional material will be added to the container within 15 

minutes; the person performing the loading operation leaving the immediate vicinity of 

the container; or the shutdown of the process generating the hazardous secondary 

material being added to the container, whichever condition occurs first.

(ii) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed for the purpose of removing 

hazardous secondary material from the container as follows:

(A) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section, an empty 

hazardous secondary material container may be open to the atmosphere at any time (i.e., 

covers and closure devices on such a container are not required to be secured in the 

closed position).

(B) In the case when discrete quantities or batches of material are removed from 

the container, but the container is not an empty hazardous secondary material container, 

the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

shall promptly secure the closure devices in the closed position and install covers, as 

applicable to the container, upon the completion of a batch removal after which no 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 488 of 527

additional material will be removed from the container within 15 minutes or the person 

performing the unloading operation leaves the immediate vicinity of the container, 

whichever condition occurs first.

(iii) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed when access inside the 

container is needed to perform routine activities other than transfer of hazardous 

secondary material. Examples of such activities include those times when a worker needs 

to open a port to measure the depth of or sample the material in the container, or when a 

worker needs to open a manhole hatch to access equipment inside the container. 

Following completion of the activity, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure device in the 

closed position or reinstall the cover, as applicable to the container.

(iv) Opening of a spring-loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, 

or similar type of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere is allowed during 

normal operations for the purpose of maintaining the internal pressure of the container in 

accordance with the container design specifications. The device shall be designed to 

operate with no detectable organic emissions when the device is secured in the closed 

position. The settings at which the device opens shall be established such that the device 

remains in the closed position whenever the internal pressure of the container is within 

the internal pressure operating range determined by the remanufacturer or other persons 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material based on container manufacturer 

recommendations, applicable regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard 

engineering codes and practices, or other requirements for the safe handling of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 489 of 527

flammable, ignitable, explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials. Examples of normal 

operating conditions that may require these devices to open are during those times when 

the internal pressure of the container exceeds the internal pressure operating range for the 

container as a result of loading operations or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.

(v) Opening of a safety device, as defined in 40 CFR 261.1081, is allowed at any 

time conditions require doing so to avoid an unsafe condition.

(4) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using containers with Container Level 1 controls shall inspect the 

containers and their covers and closure devices as follows:

(i) In the case when a hazardous secondary material already is in the container at 

the time the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material first accepts possession of the container at the facility and the container is not 

emptied within 24 hours after the container is accepted at the facility (i.e., is not an empty 

hazardous secondary material container) the remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material shall visually inspect the container and its cover 

and closure devices to check for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces into the 

interior of the container when the cover and closure devices are secured in the closed 

position. The container visual inspection shall be conducted on or before the date that the 

container is accepted at the facility (i.e., the date the container becomes subject to the 

subpart CC container standards). 

(ii) In the case when a container used for managing hazardous secondary material 

remains at the facility for a period of 1 year or more, the remanufacturer or other person 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 490 of 527

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall visually inspect the container 

and its cover and closure devices initially and thereafter, at least once every 12 months, to 

check for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces into the interior of the 

container when the cover and closure devices are secured in the closed position. If a 

defect is detected, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section.

(iii) When a defect is detected for the container, cover, or closure devices, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

make first efforts at repair of the defect no later than 24 hours after detection and repair 

shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than 5 calendar days after detection. If 

repair of a defect cannot be completed within 5 calendar days, then the hazardous 

secondary material shall be removed from the container and the container shall not be 

used to manage hazardous secondary material until the defect is repaired.

(5) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall maintain at the facility a copy of the procedure used to 

determine that containers with capacity of 0.46 m3or greater, which do not meet 

applicable DOT regulations as specified in paragraph (f) of this section, are not managing 

hazardous secondary material in light material service.

(d) Container Level 2 standards. (1) A container using Container Level 2 controls 

is one of the following:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 491 of 527

(i) A container that meets the applicable U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) regulations on packaging hazardous materials for transportation as specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section.

(ii) A container that operates with no detectable organic emissions as defined in §

261.1081 and determined in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of 

this section.

(iii) A container that has been demonstrated within the preceding 12 months to be 

vapor-tight by using 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 27 in accordance with the 

procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section.

(2) Transfer of hazardous secondary material in or out of a container using 

Container Level 2 controls shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize exposure 

of the hazardous secondary material to the atmosphere, to the extent practical, 

considering the physical properties of the hazardous secondary material and good 

engineering and safety practices for handling flammable, ignitable, explosive, reactive, or 

other hazardous materials. Examples of container loading procedures that the EPA 

considers to meet the requirements of this paragraph include using any one of the 

following: a submerged-fill pipe or other submerged-fill method to load liquids into the 

container; a vapor-balancing system or a vapor-recovery system to collect and control the 

vapors displaced from the container during filling operations; or a fitted opening in the 

top of a container through which the hazardous secondary material is filled and 

subsequently purging the transfer line before removing it from the container opening.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 492 of 527

(3) Whenever a hazardous secondary material is in a container using Container 

Level 2 controls, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall install all covers and closure devices for the container, and 

secure and maintain each closure device in the closed position except as follows:

(i) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed for the purpose of adding 

hazardous secondary material or other material to the container as follows:

(A) In the case when the container is filled to the intended final level in one 

continuous operation, the remanufacture or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure devices in the closed 

position and install the covers, as applicable to the container, upon conclusion of the 

filling operation.

(B) In the case when discrete quantities or batches of material intermittently are 

added to the container over a period of time, the remanufacturer or other person that 

stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall promptly secure the closure 

devices in the closed position and install covers, as applicable to the container, upon 

either the container being filled to the intended final level; the completion of a batch 

loading after which no additional material will be added to the container within 15 

minutes; the person performing the loading operation leaving the immediate vicinity of 

the container; or the shutdown of the process generating the material being added to the 

container, whichever condition occurs first.

(ii) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed for the purpose of removing 

hazardous secondary material from the container as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 493 of 527

(A) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section, an empty 

hazardous secondary material container may be open to the atmosphere at any time (i.e., 

covers and closure devices are not required to be secured in the closed position on an 

empty container).

(B) In the case when discrete quantities or batches of material are removed from 

the container, but the container is not an empty hazardous secondary materials container, 

the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material

shall promptly secure the closure devices in the closed position and install covers, as 

applicable to the container, upon the completion of a batch removal after which no 

additional material will be removed from the container within 15 minutes or the person 

performing the unloading operation leaves the immediate vicinity of the container, 

whichever condition occurs first.

(iii) Opening of a closure device or cover is allowed when access inside the 

container is needed to perform routine activities other than transfer of hazardous 

secondary material.

Examples of such activities include those times when a worker needs to open a port to 

measure the depth of or sample the material in the container, or when a worker needs to 

open a manhole hatch to access equipment inside the container. Following completion of 

the activity, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall promptly secure the closure device in the closed position or 

reinstall the cover, as applicable to the container.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 494 of 527

(iv) Opening of a spring-loaded, pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, 

or similar type of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere is allowed during 

normal operations for the purpose of maintaining the internal pressure of the container in 

accordance with the container design specifications. The device shall be designed to 

operate with no detectable organic emission when the device is secured in the closed 

position. The settings at which the device opens shall be established such that the device 

remains in the closed position whenever the internal pressure of the container is within 

the internal pressure operating range determined by the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material based on container manufacturer 

recommendations, applicable regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard 

engineering codes and practices, or other requirements for the safe handling of 

flammable, ignitable, explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials. Examples of normal 

operating conditions that may require these devices to open are during those times when 

the internal pressure of the container exceeds the internal pressure operating range for the 

container as a result of loading operations or diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations.

(v) Opening of a safety device, as defined in § 261.1081, is allowed at any time 

conditions require doing so to avoid an unsafe condition.

(4) The remanufacture or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using containers with Container Level 2 controls shall inspect the 

containers and their covers and closure devices as follows:

(i) In the case when a hazardous secondary material already is in the container at 

the time the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 495 of 527

material first accepts possession of the container at the facility and the container is not 

emptied within 24 hours after the container is accepted at the facility (i.e., is not an empty 

hazardous secondary material container), the remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material shall visually inspect the container and its cover 

and closure devices to check for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces into the 

interior of the container when the cover and closure devices are secured in the closed 

position. The container visual inspection shall be conducted on or before the date that the 

container is accepted at the facility (i.e., the date the container becomes subject to the 

subpart CC container standards).

(ii) In the case when a container used for managing hazardous secondary material 

remains at the facility for a period of 1 year or more, the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall visually inspect the container 

and its cover and closure devices initially and thereafter, at least once every 12 months, to 

check for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces into the interior of the 

container when the cover and closure devices are secured in the closed position. If a 

defect is detected, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall repair the defect in accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section.

(iii) When a defect is detected for the container, cover, or closure devices, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

make first efforts at repair of the defect no later than 24 hours after detection, and repair 

shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than 5 calendar days after detection. If 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 496 of 527

repair of a defect cannot be completed within 5 calendar days, then the hazardous 

secondary material shall be removed from the container and the container shall not be 

used to manage hazardous secondary material until the defect is repaired.

(e) Container Level 3 standards. (1) A container using Container Level 3 controls 

is one of the following:

(i) A container that is vented directly through a closed-vent system to a control 

device in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

(ii) A container that is vented inside an enclosure which is exhausted through a 

closed-vent system to a control device in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall meet the following requirements, as applicable to the type of air 

emission control equipment selected by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material:

(i) The container enclosure shall be designed and operated in accordance with the 

criteria for a permanent total enclosure as specified in “Procedure T—Criteria for and 

Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure” under 40 CFR 52.741, 

appendix B. The enclosure may have permanent or temporary openings to allow worker 

access; passage of containers through the enclosure by conveyor or other mechanical

means; entry of permanent mechanical or electrical equipment; or direct airflow into the 

enclosure. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall perform the verification procedure for the enclosure as specified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 497 of 527

in Section 5.0 to “Procedure T—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or 

Temporary Total Enclosure” initially when the enclosure is first installed and, thereafter, 

annually.

(ii) The closed-vent system and control device shall be designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of § 261.1087 of this subpart.

(3) Safety devices, as defined in § 261.1081, may be installed and operated as 

necessary on any container, enclosure, closed-vent system, or control device used to 

comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(4) Remanufacturers or other persons that store or treat the hazardous secondary 

material using Container Level 3 controls in accordance with the provisions of this 

subpart shall inspect and monitor the closed-vent systems and control devices as specified 

in § 261.1087 of this subpart.

(5) Remanufacturers or other persons that store or treat the hazardous secondary 

material that use Container Level 3 controls in accordance with the provisions of this 

subpart shall prepare and maintain the records specified in § 261.1089(d) of this subpart.

(6) Transfer of hazardous secondary material in or out of a container using 

Container Level 3 controls shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize exposure 

of the hazardous secondary material to the atmosphere, to the extent practical, 

considering the physical properties of the hazardous secondary material and good 

engineering and safety practices for handling flammable, ignitable, explosive, reactive, or 

other hazardous materials. Examples of container loading procedures that the EPA 

considers to meet the requirements of this paragraph include using any one of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 498 of 527

following: a submerged-fill pipe or other submerged-fill method to load liquids into the 

container; a vapor-balancing system or a vapor-recovery system to collect and control the 

vapors displaced from the container during filling operations; or a fitted opening in the 

top of a container through which the hazardous secondary material is filled and 

subsequently purging the transfer line before removing it from the container opening.

(f) For the purpose of compliance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(i) of this 

section, containers shall be used that meet the applicable U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regulations on packaging hazardous materials for transportation as 

follows:

(1) The container meets the applicable requirements specified in 49 CFR part 

178—Specifications for Packaging or 49 CFR part 179—Specifications for Tank Cars.

(2) Hazardous secondary material is managed in the container in accordance with 

the applicable requirements specified in 49 CFR part 107, subpart B—Special Permits; 

49 CFR part 172—Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials 

Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and 

Security Plans; 49 CFR part 173—Shippers—General Requirements for Shipments and 

Packaging; and 49 CFR part 180—Continuing Qualification and Maintenance of 

Packagings.

(3) For the purpose of complying with this subpart, no exceptions to the 49 CFR 

part 178 or part 179 regulations are allowed.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 499 of 527

(g) To determine compliance with the no detectable organic emissions 

requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the procedure specified in §

261.1083(d) of this subpart shall be used.

(1) Each potential leak interface (i.e., a location where organic vapor leakage 

could occur) on the container, its cover, and associated closure devices, as applicable to 

the container, shall be checked. Potential leak interfaces that are associated with 

containers include, but are not limited to: the interface of the cover rim and the container 

wall; the periphery of any opening on the container or container cover and its associated 

closure device; and the sealing seat interface on a spring-loaded pressure-relief valve.

(2) The test shall be performed when the container is filled with a material having 

a volatile organic concentration representative of the range of volatile organic 

concentrations for the hazardous secondary materials expected to be managed in this type 

of container. During the test, the container cover and closure devices shall be secured in 

the closed position.

(h) Procedure for determining a container to be vapor-tight using Method 27 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A for the purpose of complying with paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this 

section.

(1) The test shall be performed in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A of this chapter.

(2) A pressure measurement device shall be used that has a precision of ±2.5 mm 

water and that is capable of measuring above the pressure at which the container is to be 

tested for vapor tightness.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 500 of 527

(3) If the test results determined by Method 27 indicate that the container sustains 

a pressure change less than or equal to 750 Pascals within 5 minutes after it is pressurized 

to a minimum of 4,500 Pascals, then the container is determined to be vapor-tight.

§ 261.1087 Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

(a) This section applies to each closed-vent system and control device installed 

and operated by the remanufacturer or other person who stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material to control air emissions in accordance with standards of this subpart.

(b) The closed-vent system shall meet the following requirements:

(1) The closed-vent system shall route the gases, vapors, and fumes emitted from 

the hazardous secondary material in the hazardous secondary material management unit 

to a control device that meets the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) The closed-vent system shall be designed and operated in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1033(k) of this part.

(3) In the case when the closed-vent system includes bypass devices that could be 

used to divert the gas or vapor stream to the atmosphere before entering the control 

device, each bypass device shall be equipped with either a flow indicator as specified in 

paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section or a seal or locking device as specified in paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section. For the purpose of complying with this paragraph, low leg 

drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, spring loaded 

pressure relief valves, and other fittings used for safety purposes are not considered to be 

bypass devices.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 501 of 527

(i) If a flow indicator is used to comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 

indicator shall be installed at the inlet to the bypass line used to divert gases and vapors 

from the closed-vent system to the atmosphere at a point upstream of the control device 

inlet. For this paragraph, a flow indicator means a device which indicates the presence of 

either gas or vapor flow in the bypass line.

(ii) If a seal or locking device is used to comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the device shall be placed on the mechanism by which the bypass device position 

is controlled (e.g., valve handle, damper lever) when the bypass device is in the closed 

position such that the bypass device cannot be opened without breaking the seal or 

removing the lock. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, a car-seal or 

a lock-and-key configuration valve. The remanufacturer or other person that stores or 

treats the hazardous secondary material shall visually inspect the seal or closure 

mechanism at least once every month to verify that the bypass mechanism is maintained 

in the closed position.

(4) The closed-vent system shall be inspected and monitored by the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material in 

accordance with the procedure specified in § 261.1033(l).

(c) The control device shall meet the following requirements:

(1) The control device shall be one of the following devices:

(i) A control device designed and operated to reduce the total organic content of 

the inlet vapor stream vented to the control device by at least 95 percent by weight;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 502 of 527

(ii) An enclosed combustion device designed and operated in accordance with the 

requirements of § 261.1033(c) of this part; or

(iii) A flare designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of §

261.1033(d) of this part.

(2) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material who elects to use a closed-vent system and control device to comply 

with the requirements of this section shall comply with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vi) of this section.

(i) Periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device, during which the 

control device does not meet the specifications of paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section, as applicable, shall not exceed 240 hours per year.

(ii) The specifications and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section for control devices do not apply during periods of planned 

routine maintenance.

(iii) The specifications and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section for control devices do not apply during a control device system 

malfunction.

(iv) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section (i.e., planned routine maintenance of a control device, during 

which the control device does not meet the specifications of paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 503 of 527

(c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as applicable, shall not exceed 240 hours per year) 

by recording the information specified in § 261.1089(e)(1)(v) of this subpart.

(v) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall correct control device system malfunctions as soon as 

practicable after their occurrence in order to minimize excess emissions of air pollutants.

(vi) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall operate the closed-vent system such that gases, vapors, or fumes 

are not actively vented to the control device during periods of planned maintenance or 

control device system malfunction (i.e., periods when the control device is not operating 

or not operating normally) except in cases when it is necessary to vent the gases, vapors, 

and/or fumes to avoid an unsafe condition or to implement malfunction corrective actions 

or planned maintenance actions.

(3) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using a carbon adsorption system to comply with paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section shall operate and maintain the control device in accordance with the 

following requirements:

(i) Following the initial startup of the control device, all activated carbon in the 

control device shall be replaced with fresh carbon on a regular basis in accordance with 

the requirements of §§ 261.1033(g) or 261.1033(h) of this part.

(ii) All carbon that is hazardous waste and that is removed from the control device 

shall be managed in accordance with the requirements of § 261.1033(n), regardless of the 

average volatile organic concentration of the carbon.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 504 of 527

(4) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material using a control device other than a thermal vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, 

process heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption system to comply with paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section shall operate and maintain the control device in accordance with the 

requirements of § 261.1033(j) of this part.

(5) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall demonstrate that a control device achieves the performance 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section as follows:

(i) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall demonstrate using either a performance test as specified in paragraph 

(c)(5)(iii) of this section or a design analysis as specified in paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this 

section the performance of each control device except for the following:

(A) A flare;

(B) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts 

or greater;

(C) A boiler or process heater into which the vent stream is introduced with the 

primary fuel;

(ii) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall demonstrate the performance of each flare in accordance with the 

requirements specified in § 261.1033(e).

(iii) For a performance test conducted to meet the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) of this section, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 505 of 527

hazardous secondary material shall use the test methods and procedures specified in §

261.1034(c)(1) through (c)(4).

(iv) For a design analysis conducted to meet the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) of this section, the design analysis shall meet the requirements specified in §

261.1035(b)(4)(iii).

(v) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall demonstrate that a carbon adsorption system achieves the 

performance requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section based on the total quantity 

of organics vented to the atmosphere from all carbon adsorption system equipment that is 

used for organic adsorption, organic desorption or carbon regeneration, organic recovery, 

and carbon disposal.

(6) If the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material and the Regional Administrator do not agree on a demonstration of 

control device performance using a design analysis then the disagreement shall be 

resolved using the results of a performance test performed by the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section. The Regional Administrator may 

choose to have an authorized representative observe the performance test.

(7) The closed-vent system and control device shall be inspected and monitored 

by the remanufacture or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material in accordance with the procedures specified in §§ 261.1033(f)(2) and 

261.1033(l). The readings from each monitoring device required by § 261.1033(f)(2)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 506 of 527

shall be inspected at least once each operating day to check control device operation. Any 

necessary corrective measures shall be immediately implemented to ensure the control 

device is operated in compliance with the requirements of this section.

§ 261.1088 Inspection and monitoring requirements.

(a) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall inspect and monitor air emission control equipment used to 

comply with this subpart in accordance with the applicable requirements specified in §§ 

261.1084 through 261.1087 of this subpart.

(b) The remanufacture or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material shall develop and implement a written plan and schedule to perform 

the inspections and monitoring required by paragraph (a) of this section. The 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

keep the plan and schedule at the facility.

§ 261.1089 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material subject to requirements of this subpart shall record and maintain the 

information specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section, as applicable to the 

facility. Except for air emission control equipment design documentation and information 

required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section, records required by this section shall be 

maintained at the facility for a minimum of 3 years. Air emission control equipment 

design documentation shall be maintained at the facility until the air emission control 

equipment is replaced or otherwise no longer in service. Information required by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 507 of 527

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section shall be maintained at the facility for as long as the 

hazardous secondary material management unit is not using air emission controls 

specified in §§ 261.1084 through 261.1087 of this subpart in accordance with the 

conditions specified in §§ 261.1080(d) or 261.1080(b)(7) of this subpart, respectively.

(b) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using a tank with air emission controls in accordance with the 

requirements of § 261.1084 of this subpart shall prepare and maintain records for the tank 

that include the following information:

(1) For each tank using air emission controls in accordance with the requirements 

of § 261.1084 of this subpart, the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the 

hazardous secondary material shall record:

(i) A tank identification number (or other unique identification description as 

selected by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material).

(ii) A record for each inspection required by § 261.1084 of this subpart that 

includes the following information:

(A) Date inspection was conducted.

(B) For each defect detected during the inspection: The location of the defect, a 

description of the defect, the date of detection, and corrective action taken to repair the 

defect. In the event that repair of the defect is delayed in accordance with the 

requirements of § 261.1084 of this subpart, the remanufacturer or other person that stores 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 508 of 527

or treats the hazardous secondary material shall also record the reason for the delay and 

the date that completion of repair of the defect is expected.

(2) In addition to the information required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall 

record the following information, as applicable to the tank:

(i) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using a fixed roof to comply with the Tank Level 1 control 

requirements specified in § 261.1084(c) of this subpart shall prepare and maintain records 

for each determination for the maximum organic vapor pressure of the hazardous 

secondary material in the tank performed in accordance with the requirements of §

261.1084(c) of this subpart. The records shall include the date and time the samples were 

collected, the analysis method used, and the analysis results.

(ii) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using an internal floating roof to comply with the Tank Level 2 

control requirements specified in § 261.1084(e) of this subpart shall prepare and maintain 

documentation describing the floating roof design.

(iii) Remanufacturer or other persons that store or treat the hazardous secondary 

material using an external floating roof to comply with the Tank Level 2 control 

requirements specified in § 261.1084(f) of this subpart shall prepare and maintain the 

following records:

(A) Documentation describing the floating roof design and the dimensions of the 

tank.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 509 of 527

(B) Records for each seal gap inspection required by § 261.1084(f)(3) of this 

subpart describing the results of the seal gap measurements. The records shall include the 

date that the measurements were performed, the raw data obtained for the measurements, 

and the calculations of the total gap surface area. In the event that the seal gap 

measurements do not conform to the specifications in § 261.1084(f)(1) of this subpart, 

the records shall include a description of the repairs that were made, the date the repairs 

were made, and the date the tank was emptied, if necessary.

(iv) Each remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using an enclosure to comply with the Tank Level 2 control 

requirements specified in § 261.1084(i) of this subpart shall prepare and maintain the 

following records:

(A) Records for the most recent set of calculations and measurements performed 

by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material to verify that the enclosure meets the criteria of a permanent total enclosure as 

specified in “Procedure T—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary 

Total Enclosure” under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.

(B) Records required for the closed-vent system and control device in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using containers with Container Level 3 air emission controls in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 510 of 527

accordance with the requirements of § 261.1086 of this subpart shall prepare and 

maintain records that include the following information:

(1) Records for the most recent set of calculations and measurements performed 

by the remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material to verify that the enclosure meets the criteria of a permanent total enclosure as 

specified in “Procedure T—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary 

Total Enclosure” under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.

(2) Records required for the closed-vent system and control device in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.

(e) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using a closed-vent system and control device in accordance with the 

requirements of § 261.1087 of this subpart shall prepare and maintain records that include 

the following information:

(1) Documentation for the closed-vent system and control device that includes:

(i) Certification that is signed and dated by the remanufacturer or other person 

that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material stating that the control device is 

designed to operate at the performance level documented by a design analysis as 

specified in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section or by performance tests as specified in 

paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section when the tank or container is or would be operating at 

capacity or the highest level reasonably expected to occur.

(ii) If a design analysis is used, then design documentation as specified in §

261.1035(b)(4). The documentation shall include information prepared by the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 511 of 527

remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material or 

provided by the control device manufacturer or vendor that describes the control device 

design in accordance with § 261.1035(b)(4)(iii) and certification by the remanufacturer or 

other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material that the control 

equipment meets the applicable specifications.

(iii) If performance tests are used, then a performance test plan as specified in §

261.1035(b)(3) and all test results.

(iv) Information as required by §§ 261.1035(c)(1) and 261.1035(c)(2), as 

applicable.

(v) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall record, on a semiannual basis, the information specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(v)(A) and (e)(1)(v)(B) of this section for those planned routine maintenance 

operations that would require the control device not to meet the requirements of §

261.1087(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this subpart, as applicable.

(A) A description of the planned routine maintenance that is anticipated to be 

performed for the control device during the next 6-month period. This description shall 

include the type of maintenance necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and 

lengths of maintenance periods.

(B) A description of the planned routine maintenance that was performed for the 

control device during the previous 6-month period. This description shall include the type 

of maintenance performed and the total number of hours during those 6 months that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 512 of 527

control device did not meet the requirements of § 261.1087(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), or 

(c)(1)(iii) of this subpart, as applicable, due to planned routine maintenance.

(vi) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material shall record the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through 

(e)(1)(vi)(C) of this section for those unexpected control device system malfunctions that 

would require the control device not to meet the requirements of § 261.1087(c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this subpart, as applicable.

(A) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the control device 

system.

(B) The duration of each period during a malfunction when gases, vapors, or 

fumes are vented from the hazardous secondary material management unit through the 

closed-vent system to the control device while the control device is not properly 

functioning.

(C) Actions taken during periods of malfunction to restore a malfunctioning 

control device to its normal or usual manner of operation.

(vii) Records of the management of carbon removed from a carbon adsorption system 

conducted in accordance with § 261.1087(c)(3)(ii) of this subpart.

(f) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material using a tank or container exempted under the hazardous secondary 

material organic concentration conditions specified in § 261.1082(c)(1) or §§

261.1082(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vi) of this subpart, shall prepare and maintain at the 

facility records documenting the information used for each material determination (e.g., 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 513 of 527

test results, measurements, calculations, and other documentation). If analysis results for 

material samples are used for the material determination, then the remanufacturer or other 

person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary material shall record the date, time, 

and location that each material sample is collected in accordance with applicable 

requirements of § 261.1083 of this subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(g) A remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous secondary 

material designating a cover as “unsafe to inspect and monitor” pursuant to §§ 

261.1084(l) or 261.1085(g) of this subpart shall record and keep at facility the following 

information: the identification numbers for hazardous secondary material management 

units with covers that are designated as “unsafe to inspect and monitor,” the explanation 

for each cover stating why the cover is unsafe to inspect and monitor, and the plan and 

schedule for inspecting and monitoring each cover.

(h) The remanufacturer or other person that stores or treats the hazardous 

secondary material that is subject to this subpart and to the control device standards in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, may elect to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable sections of this subpart by documentation either pursuant 

to this subpart, or pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart V, to the extent that the documentation required by 40 CFR parts 60 or 

61 duplicates the documentation required by this section.

§ 261.1090 [Reserved]

 Subpart M is added as follows.

Deleted: PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS 

WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

FACILITIES ¶

17. The authority citation for part 266 continues to 

read

Deleted: : 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 514 of 527

Part 261 Subpart M—Emergency Preparedness and Response for Management of 

Excluded Hazardous Secondary Materials

§ 261.2000 Applicability

The requirements of this subpart apply to those areas of an entity managing 

hazardous secondary materials excluded under §§ 261.4(a)(23) and/or 261.4(a)(24) where 

hazardous secondary materials are generated or accumulated on site. 

(a) A generator of hazardous secondary material, or an intermediate or 

reclamation facility operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d), that 

accumulates 6000 kg or less of hazardous secondary material at any time must comply 

with § 261.2010 and § 261.2011.

(b) A generator of hazardous secondary material, or an intermediate or 

reclamation facility operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) that 

accumulates more than 6000 kg of hazardous secondary material at any time must 

comply with § 261.2010 and § 261.2020.

§ 261.2010 Preparedness and Prevention

(a) Maintenance and operation of facility. Facilities generating or accumulating 

hazardous secondary material must be maintained and operated to minimize the 

possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of 

hazardous secondary materials or hazardous secondary material constituents to air, soil, 

or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment.

(b) Required equipment. All facilities generating or accumulating hazardous secondary 

material must be equipped with the following, unless none of the hazards posed by 

Deleted: Authority: 42 U.S.C 1006, 2002(a), 

3001–3009, 3014, 3017, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 

6922, 6924–6927, 6934, and 6937.¶

18. 

Deleted: 266 is amended by adding Subpart D to 

read as follows: ¶

Deleted: D—

Deleted: Recyclable

Deleted: 266.30

Deleted: .

Deleted: (a) 

Deleted: regulations

Deleted: recyclable

Deleted: that will be transferred to another person 

to be reclaimed as defined in § 261.1(c)(4). ¶

(b) A hazardous recyclable material generator may, 

in lieu of the accumulation times required

Deleted: § 262.34, accumulate hazardous 

recyclable material on-site for 1 year or less without 

a permit or without having interim status, provided 

that:¶

(1) The hazardous recyclable material generator 

provides notification using EPA Form 8700-12. ¶

(2) The hazardous recyclable material generator 

makes

Deleted: documents advance arrangements for 

reclamation prior to operating under this subpart in a 

reclamation plan that: (i) describes the hazardous 

recyclable material(s) and identifies the reclamation 

facility or facilities 

Deleted: the material will be sent, (ii) includes 

written confirmation from each facility that they are 

able to reclaim the hazardous recyclable material,

(iii) documents the amount of hazardous recyclable 

material expected in each shipment and the 

anticipated frequency of shipments, and (iv) 

documents that the reclamation is legitimate per §

260.43;¶

(3) While hazardous recyclable

Deleted: being

Deleted: -site, each container and tank is labeled or 

marked clearly with the words, “Hazardous 

recyclable material,” or, if labeled “hazardous 

waste” the contents are otherwise indicated as being 

managed under the alternative hazardous recyclable 

material standards.

Deleted: (4) Based on the total monthly quantity of 

hazardous waste generated at its site (including 

hazardous recyclable material), the hazardous 

recyclable material generator complies as applicable 

with all generator requirements under 40 CFR part 

262, except that the accumulation time limits in § 

262.34 are extended up to 1 year for the hazardous 

recyclable material for all generators, and except that 

tanks and containers containing hazardous recyclable 

material need not be labeled as containing 

...
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 515 of 527

hazardous secondary material handled at the facility could require a particular kind of 

equipment specified below:

(1) An internal communications or alarm system capable of providing immediate 

emergency instruction (voice or signal) to facility personnel;

(2) A device, such as a telephone (immediately available at the scene of 

operations) or a hand-held two-way radio, capable of summoning emergency assistance 

from local police departments, fire departments, or state or local emergency response 

teams;

(3) Portable fire extinguishers, fire control equipment (including special 

extinguishing equipment, such as that using foam, inert gas, or dry chemicals), spill 

control equipment, and decontamination equipment; and

(4) Water at adequate volume and pressure to supply water hose streams, or foam 

producing equipment, or automatic sprinklers, or water spray systems.

(c) Testing and maintenance of equipment. All facility communications or alarm systems, 

fire protection equipment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment, 

where required, must be tested and maintained as necessary to assure its proper operation 

in time of emergency.

(d) Access to communications or alarm system.

(1) Whenever hazardous secondary material is being poured, mixed, spread, or 

otherwise handled, all personnel involved in the operation must have immediate access to 

an internal alarm or emergency communication device, either directly or through visual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 516 of 527

or voice contact with another employee, unless such a device is not required under § 

261.252.

(2) If there is ever just one employee on the premises while the facility is operating, 

he must have immediate access to a device, such as a telephone (immediately available at 

the scene of operation) or a hand-held two-way radio, capable of summoning external 

emergency assistance, unless such a device is not required under § 261.252.

(e) Required aisle space. The hazardous secondary material generator or intermediate or 

reclamation facility operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must 

maintain aisle space to allow the unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection 

equipment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment to any area of 

facility operation in an emergency, unless aisle space is not needed for any of these

purposes.

(f) Arrangements with local authorities.

(1) The hazardous secondary material generator or an intermediate or reclamation 

facility operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must attempt to 

make the following arrangements, as appropriate for the type of waste handled at his 

facility and the potential need for the services of these organizations:

(i) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments, and emergency response 

teams with the layout of the facility, properties of hazardous secondary material handled 

at the facility and associated hazards, places where facility personnel would normally be 

working, entrances to roads inside the facility, and possible evacuation routes;
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 517 of 527

(ii) Where more than one police and fire department might respond to an emergency, 

agreements designating primary emergency authority to a specific police and a specific 

fire department, and agreements with any others to provide support to the primary 

emergency authority;

(iii) Agreements with state emergency response teams, emergency response 

contractors, and equipment suppliers; and

(iv) Arrangements to familiarize local hospitals with the properties of hazardous 

waste handled at the facility and the types of injuries or illnesses which could result from 

fires, explosions, or releases at the facility.

(2) Where state or local authorities decline to enter into such arrangements, the 

hazardous secondary material generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility 

operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must document the refusal 

in the operating record.

§ 261.2011 Emergency Procedures for Facilities Generating or Accumulating of 

6000 kg or Less of Hazardous Secondary Material

A generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a verified recycler 

variance under § 260.31(d) that generates or accumulates 6000 kg or less of hazardous 

secondary material must comply with the following requirements:

(a) At all times there must be at least one employee either on the premises or on call 

(i.e., available to respond to an emergency by reaching the facility within a short period 

of time) with the responsibility for coordinating all emergency response measures 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section. This employee is the emergency coordinator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 518 of 527

(b) The generator or intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a verified 

recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must post the following information next to the 

telephone:

(1) The name and telephone number of the emergency coordinator;

(2) Location of fire extinguishers and spill control material, and, if present, fire 

alarm; and

(3) The telephone number of the fire department, unless the facility has a direct 

alarm.

(c) The generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a 

verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must ensure that all employees are 

thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to 

their responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies;

(d) The emergency coordinator or his designee must respond to any emergencies 

that arise. The applicable responses are as follows:

(1) In the event of a fire, call the fire department or attempt to extinguish it using a 

fire extinguisher;

(2) In the event of a spill, contain the flow of hazardous waste to the extent possible, 

and as soon as is practicable, clean up the hazardous waste and any contaminated 

materials or soil;

(3) In the event of a fire, explosion, or other release which could threaten human 

health outside the facility or when the generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility 

operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) has knowledge that a spill 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 519 of 527

has reached surface water, the generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility 

operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) must immediately notify 

the National Response Center (using their 24-hour toll free number 800/424-8802). The 

report must include the following information:

(i) The name, address, and U.S. EPA Identification Number of the facility;

(ii) Date, time, and type of incident (e.g., spill or fire);

(iii) Quantity and type of hazardous waste involved in the incident;

(iv) Extent of injuries, if any; and

(v) Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered materials, if any.

§ 261.2020 Contingency Planning and Emergency Procedures for Facilities 

Generating or Accumulating More than 6000 kg of Hazardous Secondary Material

A generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a verified recycler 

variance under § 260.31(d) that generates or accumulates more than 6000 kg of 

hazardous secondary material must comply with the following requirements:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 520 of 527

(a) Purpose and implementation of contingency plan.

(1) Each generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a 

verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) that accumulates more than 6000 kg of 

hazardous secondary material must have a contingency plan for his facility. The 

contingency plan must be designed to minimize hazards to human health or the 

environment from fires, explosions, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of 

hazardous secondary material or hazardous secondary material constituents to air, soil, or 

surface water.

(2) The provisions of the plan must be carried out immediately whenever there is a 

fire, explosion, or release of hazardous secondary material or hazardous secondary 

material constituents which could threaten human health or the environment.

(b) Content of contingency plan.

(1) The contingency plan must describe the actions facility personnel must take to 

comply with paragraphs (a) and (f) in response to fires, explosions, or any unplanned 

sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous secondary material or hazardous secondary 

material constituents to air, soil, or surface water at the facility.

(2) If the generator or an intermediate or reclamation facility operating under a 

verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) accumulating more than 6000 kg of 

hazardous secondary material has already prepared a Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with part 112 of this chapter, or some other 

emergency or contingency plan, he need only amend that plan to incorporate hazardous 

waste management provisions that are sufficient to comply with the requirements of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 521 of 527

part. The hazardous secondary material generator or an intermediate or reclamation 

facility operating under a verified recycler variance under § 260.31(d) may develop one 

contingency plan which meets all regulatory requirements. EPA recommends that the 

plan be based on the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance 

(“One Plan”). When modifications are made to non-RCRA provisions in an integrated 

contingency plan, the changes do not trigger the need for a RCRA permit modification.

(3) The plan must describe arrangements agreed to by local police departments, fire 

departments, hospitals, contractors, and State and local emergency response teams to 

coordinate emergency services, pursuant to § 262.2010(f).

(4) The plan must list names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and home) of all 

persons qualified to act as emergency coordinator (see paragraph (e)), and this list must 

be kept up to date. Where more than one person is listed, one must be named as primary 

emergency coordinator and others must be listed in the order in which they will assume 

responsibility as alternates.

(5) The plan must include a list of all emergency equipment at the facility (such as 

fire extinguishing systems, spill control equipment, communications and alarm systems 

(internal and external), and decontamination equipment), where this equipment is 

required. This list must be kept up to date. In addition, the plan must include the location 

and a physical description of each item on the list, and a brief outline of its capabilities.

(6) The plan must include an evacuation plan for facility personnel where there is a 

possibility that evacuation could be necessary. This plan must describe signal(s) to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 522 of 527

used to begin evacuation, evacuation routes, and alternate evacuation routes (in cases 

where the primary routes could be blocked by releases of hazardous waste or fires).

(c) Copies of contingency plan. A copy of the contingency plan and all 

revisions to the plan must be:

(1) Maintained at the facility; and

(2) Submitted to all local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and State 

and local emergency response teams that may be called upon to provide emergency 

services.

(d) Amendment of contingency plan. The contingency plan must be 

reviewed, and immediately amended, if necessary, whenever:

(1) Applicable regulations are revised;

(2) The plan fails in an emergency;

(3) The facility changes—in its design, construction, operation, maintenance, or 

other circumstances—in a way that materially increases the potential for fires, 

explosions, or releases of hazardous secondary material or hazardous secondary material 

constituents, or changes the response necessary in an emergency;

(4) The list of emergency coordinators changes; or

(5) The list of emergency equipment changes.

(e) Emergency coordinator. At all times, there must be at least one employee 

either on the facility premises or on call (i.e., available to respond to an emergency by 

reaching the facility within a short period of time) with the responsibility for coordinating 

all emergency response measures. This emergency coordinator must be thoroughly 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 523 of 527

familiar with all aspects of the facility's contingency plan, all operations and activities at 

the facility, the location and characteristics of waste handled, the location of all records 

within the facility, and the facility layout. In addition, this person must have the authority 

to commit the resources needed to carry out the contingency plan. The emergency 

coordinator's responsibilities are more fully spelled out in paragraph (f). Applicable 

responsibilities for the emergency coordinator vary, depending on factors such as type 

and variety of hazardous secondary material(s) handled by the facility, and type and 

complexity of the facility.

(f) Emergency procedures.

(1) Whenever there is an imminent or actual emergency situation, the emergency 

coordinator (or his designee when the emergency coordinator is on call) must 

immediately:

(i) Activate internal facility alarms or communication systems, where applicable, to 

notify all facility personnel; and

(ii) Notify appropriate State or local agencies with designated response roles if their 

help is needed.

(2) Whenever there is a release, fire, or explosion, the emergency coordinator must 

immediately identify the character, exact source, amount, and areal extent of any released 

materials. He may do this by observation or review of facility records or manifests and, if 

necessary, by chemical analysis.

(3) Concurrently, the emergency coordinator must assess possible hazards to human 

health or the environment that may result from the release, fire, or explosion. This 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 524 of 527

assessment must consider both direct and indirect effects of the release, fire, or explosion 

(e.g., the effects of any toxic, irritating, or asphyxiating gases that are generated, or the 

effects of any hazardous surface water run-offs from water or chemical agents used to 

control fire and heat-induced explosions).

(4) If the emergency coordinator determines that the facility has had a release, fire, 

or explosion which could threaten human health, or the environment, outside the facility, 

he must report his findings as follows:

(i) If his assessment indicates that evacuation of local areas may be advisable, he 

must immediately notify appropriate local authorities. He must be available to help 

appropriate officials decide whether local areas should be evacuated; and

(ii) He must immediately notify either the government official designated as the onscene coordinator for that geographical area, or the National Response Center (using their 

24-hour toll free number 800/424-8802). The report must include:

(A) Name and telephone number of reporter;

(B) Name and address of facility;

(C) Time and type of incident (e.g., release, fire);

(D) Name and quantity of material(s) involved, to the extent known;

(E) The extent of injuries, if any; and

(F) The possible hazards to human health, or the environment, outside the facility.

(5) During an emergency, the emergency coordinator must take all reasonable 

measures necessary to ensure that fires, explosions, and releases do not occur, recur, or 

spread to other hazardous secondary material at the facility. These measures must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 525 of 527

include, where applicable, stopping processes and operations, collecting and containing 

released material, and removing or isolating containers.

(6) If the facility stops operations in response to a fire, explosion or release, the 

emergency coordinator must monitor for leaks, pressure buildup, gas generation, or 

ruptures in valves, pipes, or other equipment, wherever this is appropriate.

(7) Immediately after an emergency, the emergency coordinator must provide for 

treating, storing, or disposing of recovered secondary material, contaminated soil or 

surface water, or any other material that results from a release, fire, or explosion at the 

facility. Unless the hazardous secondary material generator can demonstrate, in 

accordance with §261.3(c) or (d) of this chapter, that the recovered material is not a 

hazardous waste, the owner or operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must 

manage it in accordance with all applicable requirements of parts 262, 263, and 265 of 

this chapter.

(8) The emergency coordinator must ensure that, in the affected area(s) of the 

facility:

(i) No secondary material that may be incompatible with the released material is

treated, stored, or disposed of until cleanup procedures are completed; and

(ii) All emergency equipment listed in the contingency plan is cleaned and fit for its 

intended use before operations are resumed.

(9) The hazardous secondary material generator must note in the operating record 

the time, date, and details of any incident that requires implementing the contingency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 526 of 527

plan. Within 15 days after the incident, he must submit a written report on the incident to 

the Regional Administrator. The report must include:

(i) Name, address, and telephone number of the hazardous secondary material 

generator;

(ii) Name, address, and telephone number of the facility;

(iii) Date, time, and type of incident (e.g., fire, explosion);

(iv) Name and quantity of material(s) involved;

(v) The extent of injuries, if any;

(vi) An assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or the 

environment, where this is applicable; and

(vii) Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered material that resulted from the 

incident.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft Redlined Version-- Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 527 of 527