**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Episodic Generation)**  Stakeholder: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Topic: **Provide reduced regulatory requirem ents** 

**Comment: IV. Tailored Regulations Are Necessary For Episodic Generator Events.**  A s the Agency is well aw are, the regulatory compliance problems associated with so

- called “ episodic ” generators have long plagued the regulated community and EPA and RCRA

- authorized state environmental agencies. In fact, at the EPA public meeting in Washin gton, D.C. this Spring regarding the generator rulemaking initiative, a state regulator from Florida wa s first to raise the practical compliance problems associated with episodic generator events and the need for a practical solution to these sporadic hazardous w aste generation episodes. There w as near unanimous support on this point by other attendees at the meeting. While there is no defined term of an “ episodic generator, ” the concept involves entities who, only on occasion and often unexpectedly, gene rate hazardous wastes in quantities large enough to trigger RCRA ’ s regulatory requirements for either small quantity generators ( “ SQGs ” ) or large quantity generators ( “ LQGs ” ) ( i.e. , either greater than 100 kilograms of non

- acutely hazardous waste per month for a SQG or greater than 1,000 kilograms of non - acutely hazardous waste per month for a LQG). For example, if an entity that is generally a conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( “ CESQG ” ) ( i.e. , generates less than 100 kilograms of hazardous was te in a month) happens to generate 100 kg of waste in any given mo nth (say, for example, as a result of a one

- time accidental spill of a commercial chemical product), such entity wo uld immediately be classified for that particular month as an SQG. This cl assification would automatically and immediately subject such entity to the regulations applicable to any other SQG, including, among others, obtaining an EPA identification number (40 C.F.R. § 262.12(a)), storing the regulated hazardous waste in complianc e with specified storage standards ( id . at § 262.34(d)(2

- 3)), complying with standards for preparedness and prevention ( id

. at § 262.34(d)(4)), and implementing contingency plans, emergency procedures, and personnel training requirements ( id . at § 262.34(d )(5)). This is the case even if for every other month of the year the entity qualifies as a CESQG and its annual hazardous w aste generation is much less than the 1,200 kg annually allowed (100 kg per mo nth) for CESQGs. This scenario is even more problematic if, in the above example, the spill event thrusts the CESQG into LQG status ( i.e. , more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste are generated as a result of the one

- tim e spill event). In this case, the entity would immediately be expected to comply wi th additional storage standards ( id . at §§ 265.176 & 265.178), prepare a w

ritten contingency plan ( id . at § 265.50 et seq .), have in place formalized personnel training programs ( id. at § 265.16), and file biennial reports ( id . at § 262.41). Obviously, th e above scenarios present impractical and unnecessary compliance dilemmas. First, any unplanned episodic generator event that thrusts a CESQG into SQG or LQG status, or an SQG into LQG status, places the generator into an immediate non

- com pliance scenario . This is because, in most cases, the entity will not have the procedures and plans in place applicable to the elevated generator category into which it unexpectedly finds itself. To expect entities to have SQG and LQG requirements in place in the event of a spill would, as a practical matter, require virtually all entities to operate as either an SQG or LQG because most entities at least have the potential for a spill event that would exceed one of these regulatory thresholds. Obviously, this is not a p ractical alternative. Second, because the elevated generator status is only temporary, it often makes no sense for the entity to scramble to put the necessary procedures and plans in place because, by the time such requirements are met, the wa ste most lik ely

w ill have been transported off

- site and the facility will have reverted back to its normal status as a CESQG or SQG. This latter problem is also applicable in those circumstances where there may be a planned episodic event

– such as the four

- to five

- year cycles where utilities generate w astes from cleaning of boiler tubes. Here, a utility may be a LQG for one month out of a five

- year cycle, while remaining a CESQG for the remainder of the five

- year cycle. In these circumstances, it does not seem pra ctical or necessary for the utility to comply with therequirements applicable to entities that routinely and normally operate as LQGs.

**To address the regulatory and practical problems associated with episodic generation events, EPA should provide reduced**  **regulatory requirements tailored to the episodic and temporary nature of such circumstances. For example, in the case of an unplanned generation event** 

**– e.g.**  **, a fire or spill**

**– the m**  **ost practical steps for the generator to take is to immediately notify l**  **ocal regulators and provide facility -**  **specific contact inform**  **ation. This would allow regulators to respond, if necessary, and provide a m eans for**  **regulators to confirm the episodic nature of the generation event. In lieu of requiring preparation of a**  **faci lity**  **- wide contingency plan or implementation of formal training programs, an episodic generator could**  **prepare a short -**  **term contingency plan, as necessary, focusing on the episodic event itself and imple**  **ment any em**  **ergency response measures called for under pre**  **- existing facility response plans (**  **e.g. , SPPC, Oil Discharge**  **Contingency Plan, Hom eland Security Plans, etc.).**  **In terms of m anagem**  **ent standards, the hazardous waste could be placed in tanks or containers meeting perform**  **ance -**  **based standards and label/m a**  **rking requirem ents similar to those applicable to units used to**  **manage “**  **universal wastes ”**  **under 40 C.F.R. Part 273 ( e.g.,**  **non -**  **leaking, structurally sound units that are com** **patible with the waste and lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or dam age that could**  **cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions, and labeled/or marked with the term**  **“ hazardous waste**  **” ). The facility also**  **would notify EPA or authorized State in a specified period of tim e (**  **e.g. , within 30 days) confirming that it has**  **reverted back to its original generator status. The above tailored standards also could be used in the case of**  **planned, episodic events, such as hazardous wastes generated during boilers cleanings that occur once every several years.**  Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: List specific requirements Comment: The specific requirements for episodic generators need to be listed. Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Allow for episodic hazardous w aste generation when the change in generator status is due to constructio n, demolition, or site remediation work. **Comment.** EPA requests comment on improvements to generator requirements where episodes of waste generation result in changes to generator status from month to month. We believe EPA should allow for episodic hazard ous wa ste generation at Small Quantity Generator(SQG) and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) facilities, without triggering Large Quantity Generator (LQG) requirements, when the change in generator status is due to construction, demoliti on, or site remediation work. **Discussion.** Hazardous waste management and disposal requirements differ depending on the quantity of waste generated in any given calendar month and one ’ s generator status. For example, ................. How ever, if a construc tion, demolition, or site remediation project results in greater than 100kg/mo waste generation at a CESQG facility, the facility is subject to the full LQG requirements for that month, including RCRA contingency planning, em ploy ee training, and biennial r eporting, and is out of compliance until the full requirements are met. EPA addressed episodic generation in the preamble of the SQG final rulemaking, stating that, “ If the generator stores separately that waste generated during a month in which less than 1000kg of hazardous waste is generated from wa ste generated during a month in which more than 1000kg is generated, the former is subject to reduced [SQG] requirements, while the latter is subject to full [LQG] regulation. Therefore, generators who expect t o periodically exceed the 1000kg/mo cutoff for the reduced requirements should be prepared to ship their waste off

- site if they wish to avoid being subject to full regulation. ” (51 FR 10154) At facilities such as military reserve centers with CESQG status, projects are occasionally performed that cause a short duration increase in the amount of hazardous wa ste generated at the site

– - excavation of an underground fuel tank and disposal of the residual fuel in the tank, for example. A project of this kind wou ld typically be performed by contract, and the hazardous wastes generated as part of the removal would be managed under the contract. Under these circumstances it is difficult to re - train CESQG employees, provide for appropriate contingency planning, or en force temporary policy changes for personnel not associated with the tank removal work, even if only for the duration of the project until the facilityreverts to its former status as a CESQG.

The other option, to immediately ship waste off

- site, is not a lw ays practical either. It does not allow for a pollution prevention approach or recycling to divert waste from landfills where some degree of staging is required, such as segregation of salvageable materials from solid waste and hazardous w aste during dec onstruction/demolition projects at CESQG facilities. **Recommendation** . We recommend EPA codify episodic hazardous w aste generation requirements to allow for episodes of construction, demolition, or site remediation activities at SQG and CESQG facilities with out triggering large quantity generator requirements for w astes unrelated to the episodic event. Specific regulatory changes would include:

- Adding a definition for “ episodic hazardous waste generator ” and
“ episodic generation ” at 40 CFR 260.10.

- Providi ng for an exception in determining generator status for episodic wa ste generation in 40 CFR 261.5.

- Provide an exception to biennial reporting for episodically generated wa stes. Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Exclude spills from calculations Comment: E **pisodic Generators** . Under current regulations, if a CESQG or SQG exceeds the generation or accumulation rates in a particular month, the generator is subject to the higher level of regulation at that time. This means, for example, that a small quantity generator that generates more than 1,000 kg of hazardous w aste in one mo nth is subject to the hazardous waste regulations applicable to a large quantity generator during that month. **Generators most often exceed their limits for episodes such as equipment maintenance during shut down,**  **facility cleanup, or spill cleanup. It is not practical to expect such a generator to be in full compliance with the large quantity generator regulations for a brief period of tim**  **e. This would entail preparing a written conti**  **ngency plan, training plan, and conducting annual training.** We recommend the following to address episodic generation events: 1. We recommend that spills and other hazardous wastes generated as a result of emergency incidents or emergency response be ex cluded from having to be counted toward generator status. Such wastes could be required to be managed by all generators in accordance with the container standards applicable to LQGs while being collected onsite, and to be shipped offsite to an authorized f acility within 90 days without imposing any additional generator standards. This would be protective of the environment without imposing undue burden on the generator in terms of additional paperwork requirements. Excluding spills from counting toward gene rator status is also important for spills that occur at locations that don ’ t typically generate hazardous waste. Upon having a spill, such a site would currently be immediately subject to, and therefore immediately out of compliance with, hazardous wa ste r egulations. Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Calculate hazardous waste monthly generation rates based on the average quantity generated over a 12 month period Comment: 2. We also suggest that generators be allow ed to calculate hazardous waste monthly g eneration rates based on the average quantity generated over a 12 month period to determine the status of the site. Limits regarding maximum allowable hazardous w aste quantities onsite would rem ain the same (i.e., 1,000 kg for CESQGs and 6,000 kg for SQGs) . This would allow generators to account for episodic events such as cleanout activities during plant shutdown or routine maintenance activities in their calculation of generator status. By maintaining the limits regarding the maximum allowable hazardous waste quantities onsite at any one time, this option does not present any increase in the potential hazards to the environment. For example, under current regulations, a SQG could generate 900 kilograms every month and accumulate up to 6,000 kilograms onsit e at any one time. Under the proposed scenario, a SQG may generate 5,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in one month (and much less during other months), but the amount on site would still not exceed 6,000 kilograms. It is not reasonable to impose additional requirements on one generator because a waste is generated all at once rather than continuously during theyear. In addition, under the current regulatory requirements, it is difficult for generators to track the amount of waste

generated each month. In o rder to do this accurately, some type of inventory must be maintained. This would be made easier by allowing generators to average the amount of waste generated during one year. Stakeholder: Anonymous Small R&D Facility Topic: Notification to EPA for e pisodic w aste generation events, such as “ clean up days ” **Comment:** As mentioned in the “ Examples of Potential Areas of Discussion ” for the “ Generator Initiative Draft Agenda, ” a more efficient method of determining generator status during episodic waste g eneration events such as a
“ clean up ” day

is needed. EPA is requested to consider the possibility of providing generators with a mechanism of notifying the appropriate state agency or, if applicable, EPA of episodic w aste generation events. Such notificati on of an episodic event would allow the generator to exclude hazardous waste generated by the event from the monthly generator status determination. Waste generation totals would still be captured on Annual Waste Summaries or Biennial Waste Summaries. Gene rators taking advantage of this notification and exclusion would assume the burden of proving that the event was indeed episodic. The notification would require the generator to describe the episodic event and document the amount of hazardous waste generat ed. In addition, the generator would be required to enter mo nthly hazardous wa ste generation totals over the 12

- month period leading up to the month in which the episodic event occurred. Hazardous w aste generated during the month with the episodic event wo uld be required to exceed the average monthly waste generation over the preceding 12

- mo nth period by a percentage (25% or 50% are suggested for consideration) in order for the event to qualify for the exclusion. Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Examples of improvements for generator relief
Comment: Current generator standards do not provide for short duration, episodic events which now trigger brief, tem porary changes in generator status. Below are three examples of improvements that wo uld provide relief for generators during episodic w aste generating events. a. Requirements for training and preparation of plans associated with a change in generator status should be w aived for accidental (unscheduled) episodic generation (fire, spill, et c.). This waste generation could be documented via letter submitted with the biennial or annual report. b. Reduce contingency plan and training requirements for planned episodic events (outages, facility upgrades, etc.). For example, a recent outage involv ed a site becoming a large quantity generator for four hours during the calendar year. This status change required many hours of contingency plan preparation, training of emergency coordinators, etc., for an event which lasted an extremely short period of time and during which plan implementation was not necessary. c. Provide relief for generators that exceed the threshold of their current generator status when a generating episode (of short duration) under the current regulations requires the generator to mo ve to the next higher status. Example: a sm all quantity generator removes post

- shelf life inventory from a warehouse and must dispose of the inventory. This activity may trigger the Large Quantity Generator requirements yet it lasts for a brief period of time, typically less than t wo days. If a rolling average of a generator ’ s monthly status for a 12

- mo nth period were used, then these sites wo uld decrease their compliance costs associated with these kinds of activities.
Stakeholder: Electronic Industrie s Alliance (EIA) Topic: Provide flexibility; i.e., calculate hazardous waste mo nthly generation rates based on the average quantity generated over a 12 month period Comment: **III. LQG Requirements Should Not be Triggered for SQGs by Episodic Increases Above the LQG**  **Thresholds** In guidance EPA has stated that “ any [hazardous] w aste that is generated during a calendar month in which the 1,000

- kg/mo. cutoff is exceeded is subject to full regulation until it is removed from the generator ’ s site. ” 51 Fed. Reg . 10153

- 54 (1986). EIA believes that episodic increases in the amount of hazardous waste generation should not change a facility ’ s designation from SQG to LQG. A SQG could exceed the 1,000

- kg. threshold as the result of a large lab pack, a process change that results in excess materials suddenly becoming waste, a maintenanceevent, or similar types of non

- routine activities. To make the SQG comply with LQG requirements, even for just

those wastes generated during the month when the generation exceeds 1,000

- kg/mo., unnecessarily complicates hazardous waste management and generally forces facilities that may from time to time exceed LQG thresholds to manage their wastes as a LQG, even if those requirements technically do not apply most of the time. The move fr om SQG to LQG entails a much higher degree of regulation (e.g., training, shorter accumulation times, etc.) and more extensive reporting requirements (i.e., biennial reporting, contingency plans, etc.). **EIA believes that EPA should am**  **end the hazardous wast e generator regulations to provide some type of allowance for facilities which only**  **occasionally generate m ore than 1,000 kg of waste per month (e.g. once per rolling 12 m**  **onth averaging period).** 
Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: List specific requir ements Comment: Requirements applicable to the **episodic generator** should be spelled out.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: **Exempt non -**  **routine hazardous waste generation from** **consideration in determining waste generator status.** Comment: **GENERATOR STATUS CH ANGES.**  Under the current regulations, if a facility with a typical hazardous waste generation rate of 700 kilograms/month generates 1100 kilograms of hazardous w aste during a mo nth, the facility must comply with the large quantity generator (LQG) requirem ents. Those requirements include preparing a RCRA Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan, training, documentation, biennial reporting, etc. Many of these requirements are costly and resource intensive to implement, an d, on a short

- term basis, have little to no environmental benefit. **In many cases, these intermittent increases in hazardous waste generation are due to non**  **- routine activities, such as a lead**  **- paint abatem**  **ent project, tank cleanout or rem edial action.**  **We propose that EPA exempt non -**  **routine hazardous waste generation from** **consideration in determ ining**  **waste generator status. Or, alternatively, specify that generator status should only change if non -**  **routine (i.e., non**  **- production related) hazardous waste generation at a sm**  **all quantity generator (SGQ) site has exceeded**  **LQG thresholds for three or m ore consecutive m**  **onths.** If increases in waste generation continue for less than three consecutive months the facility should retain its SQG status.
Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition Topic: Provide flexibil ity

- one experience per year **Comment: CESQGs and SQGs should be allowed at least one experience a year to generate waste above the applicable threshold for their status without being reclassified into the next higher generator category.**  There are instan ces where more waste than “ typical ” is generated due to non

- recurring events such as construction, remodeling, equipment overhauls, cleaning, etc. It seems unnecessary and burdensome on small and medium sized companies to reclassify them to a higher catego ry when other than a one

- time event they continue to generate waste at a rate of their former classification. **Recognition of episodic generation by these sm all generators would encourage facilities to rem**  **ove the unused product, i.e., hazardous waste, from**  **their facilities in a timely m anner.**  Allowing for an approach of this nature also provides for additional environmental protection as it will actually encourage businesses to remove hazardous materials in a timely fashion.
Stakeholder: US Postal Service Topic: Provide flexibility Comment: Under the current requirements a facility may be subjected to different generator standards at different times depending on its generation rate in a given calendar month. Thus, a CESQG or SQG that exceeds its month ly generation quantity limit is forced to comply with all of the provisions for a larger generator category while theexcess waste remains on site. **Although the Agency m aintains this policy, it has not issued guidance as to how a** 

**facility can practically comply with the m**  **ore burdensome SQG or LQG requirements. EPA also has not specified a timeframe in which a facility is expected to comply with the m**  **ore stringent requirements. In mo**  **st instances, a facility will have returned to its original generator ca tegory by the time it has**  **ma de the**  **changes necessary to com ply with the m**  **ore stringent requirements. EPA should allow CESQGs and SQGs to periodically exceed their generation limits without triggering the**  **more burdensome SQG or LQG require ments when the ex**  **ceedence is due to construction/demolition, spill response, remediation, and/or yearly m**  **aintenance activities** . Such activities are typically performed under contract and the excess waste generated only remains on site for a short duration. **It is unreason able to expect a**  **SQG to comply with all LQG require ments** 

**– including contingency planning, employee training, and**  **biennial reporting**

**– for a short duration.**  Similarly, a CESQG cannot reasonably be expected to fulfill SQG or LQG requirements

– including ma nifesting, identification numbers, and land disposal restrictions ( “ LDR” )

– for an increase in hazardous waste generation due to scenarios discussed above. **EPA should consider allowing a CESQG or SQG to exceed its m onthly generation allowance for two to**  **four months per year without notifying the regulatory authority or com** **plying with m ore stringent generator**  **requirements as long as certain conditions, including recordkeeping, were satisfied. A yearly aggregate generation quantity lim**  **it and storage lim its**  **, which are based on current regulations, could be established as one condition. For exam** **ple: CESQGs may generate no more than 12 kilograms of acutely hazardous or 1,200 kilograms of hazardous waste per year, store no more than 1 kilogram** **of acutely hazar dous waste or**  **1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste on site, and store wastes on site for no longer than one year.** Similarly, SQGs may generate no more than 12 kilograms of acutely hazardous or 12,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per year, store no more than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste and 6,000 kilograms hazardous w aste on site, and store w aste for no longer than 180 days. **Alternatively, EPA m ay also consider a grace period for SQGs and CESQGs that generate waste in excess of**  **their regulatory th resholds in a given m**  **onth.** Specifically, the Agency could allow episodic generators one mo nth to appropriately manage the excess waste by either treating or disposing of the waste in an on

- site facility or ensuring delivery to an off

- site treatment, stora ge or disposal facility, which is permitted under the applicable generator regulations. If the episodic generator appropriately manages its excess waste within the one

- month grace period, it would not be forced to comply with the more stringent generator r egulations and could maintain its original generator status. **For either approach, episodic generators would need to docum ent the date(s) the generation quantity lim**  **it was exceeded, how the waste was subsequently m**  **anaged, and when the waste was transported off site.**  The generator should not be required to notify the regulatory authority, but rather to maintain a record of each exceedence for three years. Such a change would not only reduce the administrative burden on the generator, but also the regulatory authority. Should EPA pursue the yearly aggregate approach, the on

- site record would also need to verify that the yearly generation aggregate was not exceeded for that calendar year. Stakeholder: National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) Topi c: Provide flexibility
Comment: Currently, rare episodic events

– where the volume of hazardous waste generated in any month fluctuates

– results in CESQG and SQG generators having to classify as LQG ’ sand be burdened by the LQG requirements including contingency plans, training, and inspections. **Episodic events might include process upset, spill, or natural disaster. To reduce burden EPA should consider allowing a 30 day lim**  **it to dispose of hazardous waste created in an episodic event or, if needed, reque**  **st that the adm inistrator extend the hazardous waste**  **storage tim e limit for cause.** 
Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Provide flexibilityComment: **2. EPA SHOULD STREAMLINE THE EPISODIC GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS.** Currently,

a facility ’ s generator status must be evaluated monthly (40 CFR 262.34(d)). Some “ episodic generators ” that are norm ally conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) or small quantity generators (SQG) generate enough hazardous waste once or twice per year to push them into large quantity generator (LQG) status. In practice, this forces episodic generators to comply with administratively burdensome contingency pian and training requirements, as well as submission of a Biennial Report for a period of time as short as one month. **EPA should revise the generator status language to exclude from LQG status those generators who generate**  **less than: (1) 12,000kg per calendar year; or (2) 1,000 kg/m onth. This would eliminate burdensome RCRA**  **contingency plans and trai ning requirements currently applicable to episodic generators.** 
Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Provide flexibility

- allow calculation on an average monthly basis

Comment: **2. Generator Classification. Current regulations require generators to m ak** **e a monthly determination of the am**  **ount of waste generated, but do not provide a specific m echanism for m**  **aking such a determination.**  Presumably, each generator is required to either w eigh their w aste material at the beginning and end of each month or to estimate volumes and convert to w eight by using an estimated specific gravity of the waste material. **Am erican recomme**  **nds that generators be allowed to determ ine the amount of hazardous wastes**  **they generate on an average monthly basis, such as through a twe lve m**  **onth rolling average. By using such a method, if a CESQG or SQG generates hazardous wastes in a quantity slightly exceeding the m**  **onthly “**  **limit ”**  **for that respective generator classification in a given m onth, the generator would not be**  **“ penalized**  **” (**  **i.e. reclassified upwards to the next generator or SQG consistently generates m**  **ore than the regulatory lim it each**  **month, this will be reflected in the rolling averages and that entity ’**  **s generator status will properly be elevated to the next level.**  American bel ieves this is a more equitable approach. **This approach will also encourage generators to**  **“ clean**  **- out**  **” their facilities of expired shelf**  **- life m**  **aterials or unwanted materials on a yearly basis without being reclassified based solely on the decision to dispose**  **of a unusually large am ount of m**  **aterial during a single month.**  Such an approach would also go a long way towards eliminating the uncertainty as to which portions of the generator regulations apply to **episodic generators. Currently there is considerable co nfusion**  **caused when a generator frequently shifts between status as a SQG and LQG** . In such circumstances, the obligations for reporting, training, contingency planning, etc. are simply unclear. Such confusion needs to be eliminated from the regulations and industry needs to be provided with clear guidelines and predictable outcomes. 14 commenters, 15 comments **New:**
**Stakeholder:** Rutgers University Topic: Acutely HW for CESQGs and SQGs **Comment:** Current regulation states, that a CESQG or SQG will be requ ired to comply with all the LQG requirements if they generate > 2.2 pounds of acutely hazardous w aste (P

- Listed) in one month (40 CFR 261.5 (e)). These increased requirements include having a contingency plan and completing a biennial hazardous waste report. **The generator program would be improved if the generator status lim**  **it for acutely hazardous (P -**  **listed) waste is increased or eliminated for CESQG and SQG research stations, research laboratories and research farms,**  **since many common laboratory chem icals**  **are P -**  **Listed substances.** The following benefits wo uld be achieved if this limit were increases or eliminated: (See RCRA

- 2003

- 0008 for additional information.)