Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Episodic Generation)

Stakeholder: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

(USWAG)

Topic: Provide reduced regulatory requirements 

Comment: IV. Tailored Regulations Are Necessary For Episodic Generator Events. As the Agency is well 

aware, 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 Washington, D.C. this Spring regarding the generator rulemaking initiative, a state regulator from Florida 

was first to raise the practical compliance problems associated with episodic generator events and the need for a 

practical solution to these sporadic hazardous waste generation episodes. There was 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, generate 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 waste in a month) happens to generate 100 kg of waste in any given 

month (say, for example, as a result of a one-time accidental spill of a commercial chemical product), such entity 

would immediately be classified for that particular month as an SQG. This classification 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 compliance 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 waste generation is much less than the 1,200 kg annually allowed (100 kg per 

month) 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-time spill event). 

In this case, the entity would immediately be expected to comply with additional storage standards (id. at §§ 265.176 

& 265.178), prepare a written 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, the 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-compliance 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 practical 

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 

waste most likely will 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 wastes 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 practical or necessary for the utility to comply with the 
requirements 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 most 

practical steps for the generator to take is to immediately notify local regulators and provide facility-specific 

contact information. This would allow regulators to respond, if necessary, and provide a means for 

regulators to confirm the episodic nature of the generation event. In lieu of requiring preparation of a 

facility-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 implement any 

emergency response measures called for under pre-existing facility response plans (e.g., SPPC, Oil Discharge 

Contingency Plan, Homeland Security Plans, etc.).

In terms of management standards, the hazardous waste could be placed in tanks or containers meeting 

performance-based standards and label/marking requirements 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 

compatible with the waste and lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage 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 time (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 waste generation when 

the change in generator status is due to construction, 

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 hazardous 

waste 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, demolition, 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, ................. However, if a 

construction, 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, 

employee training, and biennial reporting, 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 

waste 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 to 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 

waste 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 would 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 enforce temporary policy changes for 

personnel not associated with the tank removal work, even if only for the duration of the project until the facility 
reverts to its former status as a CESQG.

The other option, to immediately ship waste off-site, is not always 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 waste during deconstruction/demolition 

projects at CESQG facilities.

Recommendation. We recommend EPA codify episodic hazardous waste generation requirements to allow for 

episodes of construction, demolition, or site remediation activities at SQG and CESQG facilities without triggering 

large quantity generator requirements for wastes 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.

- Providing for an exception in determining generator status for episodic

waste generation in 40 CFR 261.5.

- Provide an exception to biennial reporting for episodically generated

wastes.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Exclude spills from calculations

Comment: Episodic 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 waste in one 

month 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 time. This would entail preparing a written 

contingency 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 excluded 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 facility 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 generator 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 

waste regulations.

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 allowed to calculate hazardous waste monthly generation rates 

based on the average quantity generated over a 12 month period to determine the status of the site. Limits regarding 

maximum allowable hazardous waste quantities onsite would remain 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 onsite 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 the 
year. In addition, under the current regulatory requirements, it is difficult for generators to track the amount of waste 

generated each month. In order 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 episodic waste 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 generation 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 waste generation events. Such notification 

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. Generators 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 generated. In addition, the generator would be required to enter 

monthly hazardous waste generation totals over the 12-month period leading up to the month in which the episodic 

event occurred. Hazardous waste generated during the month with the episodic event would be required to exceed 

the average monthly waste generation over the preceding 12-month 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, 

temporary changes in generator status. Below are three examples of improvements that would provide relief for 

generators during episodic waste generating events.

a. Requirements for training and preparation of plans associated with a change in generator status should be waived 

for accidental (unscheduled) episodic generation (fire, spill, etc.). 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 involved 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 move to the next higher status. Example: a 

small 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 two days. If a rolling average of a generator’s monthly status for a 12-month period were used, then these sites 

would decrease their compliance costs associated with these kinds of activities.

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Provide flexibility; i.e., calculate hazardous waste 

monthly 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] waste 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 maintenance 
event, 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 from

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 

amend the hazardous waste generator regulations to provide some type of allowance for facilities which only 

occasionally generate more than 1,000 kg of waste per month (e.g. once per rolling 12 month averaging 

period).

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: List specific requirements

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 CHANGES. Under the current regulations, if a facility with a typical 

hazardous waste generation rate of 700 kilograms/month generates 1100 kilograms of hazardous waste during a 

month, the facility must comply with the large quantity generator (LQG) requirements. 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 abatement project, tank cleanout or remedial action.

We propose that EPA exempt non-routine hazardous waste generation from consideration in determining 

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 small quantity generator (SGQ) site has exceeded 

LQG thresholds for three or more consecutive months. 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 flexibility - 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 instances 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 category 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 small generators would encourage facilities to remove the unused 

product, i.e., hazardous waste, from their facilities in a timely manner. 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 monthly 

generation quantity limit is forced to comply with all of the provisions for a larger generator category while the 
excess waste remains on site. Although the Agency maintains this policy, it has not issued guidance as to how a 

facility can practically comply with the more burdensome SQG or LQG requirements. EPA also has not 

specified a timeframe in which a facility is expected to comply with the more stringent requirements. In 

most instances, a facility will have returned to its original generator category by the time it has made the 

changes necessary to comply with the more stringent requirements.

EPA should allow CESQGs and SQGs to periodically exceed their generation limits without triggering the 

more burdensome SQG or LQG requirements when the exceedence is due to construction/demolition, spill 

response, remediation, and/or yearly maintenance activities. Such activities are typically performed under 

contract and the excess waste generated only remains on site for a short duration. It is unreasonable to expect a 

SQG to comply with all LQG requirements – 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 manifesting, 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 monthly generation allowance for two to four 

months per year without notifying the regulatory authority or complying with more stringent generator 

requirements as long as certain conditions, including recordkeeping, were satisfied. A yearly aggregate 

generation quantity limit and storage limits, which are based on current regulations, could be established as 

one condition. For example: 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 hazardous 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 waste on site, and 

store waste for no longer than 180 days. 

Alternatively, EPA may also consider a grace period for SQGs and CESQGs that generate waste in excess of 

their regulatory thresholds in a given month. Specifically, the Agency could allow episodic generators one 

month 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, storage 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 regulations and could maintain its 

original generator status.

For either approach, episodic generators would need to document the date(s) the generation quantity limit 

was exceeded, how the waste was subsequently managed, 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) 

Topic: 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 limit to dispose of hazardous 

waste created in an episodic event or, if needed, request that the administrator extend the hazardous waste 

storage time limit for cause.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Provide flexibility
Comment: 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 

normally 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/month. This would eliminate burdensome RCRA 

contingency plans and training 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 make a monthly 

determination of the amount of waste generated, but do not provide a specific mechanism for making such a 

determination. Presumably, each generator is required to either weigh their waste material at the beginning and end 

of each month or to estimate volumes and convert to weight by using an estimated specific gravity of the waste 

material. American recommends that generators be allowed to determine the amount of hazardous wastes 

they generate on an average monthly basis, such as through a twelve month rolling average. By using such a 

method, if a CESQG or SQG generates hazardous wastes in a quantity slightly exceeding the monthly “limit”

for that respective generator classification in a given month, the generator would not be “penalized” (i.e.

reclassified upwards to the next generator or SQG consistently generates more than the regulatory limit 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 believes this is a more equitable approach. This approach will also encourage 

generators to “clean-out” their facilities of expired shelf-life materials or unwanted materials on a yearly 

basis without being reclassified based solely on the decision to dispose of a unusually large amount of material 

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 confusion 

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 required to comply with all the LQG 

requirements if they generate > 2.2 pounds of acutely hazardous waste (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 limit 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 chemicals are P-Listed substances. The following benefits would be achieved if 

this limit were increases or eliminated: (See RCRA-2003-0008 for additional information.)