Record Keeping and Burden Reduction

Stakeholder: American Chemical Society Topic: Eliminate the requirement for land 

disposal restriction notices and recordkeeping 

for all hazardous waste labpacks 

Comment: Elimination of generator requirements for land disposal restriction notifications 

on off-site shipments of laboratory waste.

BACKGROUND: 40CFR 268.7 lists substantial testing, tracking, and recordkeeping 

requirements for generators of hazardous waste... These requirements resulted from the 1984 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, which restricted the land disposal of hazardous wastes 

without pretreatment. With the initial shipment of a waste to each treatment or storage facility, the 

generator must send a one-time written notice to each treatment or storage facility receiving the 

waste, and also maintain a copy of this notice. The information required includes: the EPA 

Hazardous waste numbers, manifest number of each shipment, a list of all wastes subject to land 

disposal restrictions (LDRs), the applicable wastewater/nonwastewater category, waste analysis 

data (when available), and a certification. For industrial facilities with a few, large waste streams, 

this requirement is not burdensome; it does require the notification only with the initial shipment. 

For laboratory wastes, however, which consist largely of packaged reagents in labpacks, each and 

every shipment is considered to be "unique", and the notification must be made with every

shipment. While this information may have been useful during the phase-in process for LDR, at 

this point all treatment and storage facilities (TSDFs) are well aware of the requirements. In 

addition, the vast majority of all laboratory waste is shipped to interim storage facilities; the waste 

is then frequently repackaged, consolidated, and re-manifested to an ultimate disposal site. All 

TSDFs are now operating under Part B permits which clearly specify the wastes they can handle, 

and the re-manifesting process results in a duplication of the LDR notification process. The LDR 

process, from the laboratory waste generator perspective, results in a significantly higher cost, in 

that each vendor (often the accepting TSDF) has their own LDR notification form which must be 

completed for each

shipment. While it is the generator responsibility to make the notification, the difficulty in 

understanding and completing the forms (which frequently have up to three pages of instructions 

to follow) normally results in the vendor's representative completing the forms while the 

packaging crew waits.

Essentially no laboratory waste can be land disposed without pretreatment. The accepting TSDF is 

in every case well familiar with the requirements associated with proper treatment and/or disposal, 

and does not need the generator to tell them how to handle these wastes. This requirement 

discriminates against laboratories and should be eliminated.

PROPOSAL: Eliminate the requirement for land disposal restriction notices and recordkeeping 

for all hazardous waste labpacks - specifically, all packaged laboratory chemicals comingled 

according to hazard class in a labpack (as described in 49CFR 173.12(b) and in the 

"Environmental Management Guide for Small Laboratories", a 1998 EPA publication).

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: Eliminate the requirement for land disposal restriction notices and 

recordkeeping requirements for ALL hazardous waste shipments, as the information provided is 

duplicitous and no longer necessary.
Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Eliminate the generator requirement for job 

titles and descriptions

Comment: Eliminate the generator requirement for job titles and descriptions as part of 

recordkeeping (40 CFR 262.34)

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Allow compliance with the OSHA training 

programs as an alternative to compliance with 

RCRA training

Comment: SOCMA Urges RCRA Burden Reduction in Recordkeeping and Reporting. 

SOCMA generally supports efforts to reduce record keeping and notification requirements that 

have proven to be redundant or of little value to regulators. In this regard, SOCMA agrees with 

EPA’s prior statements that it is not necessary to require facilities to comply simultaneously 

with equivalent emergency response training programs under both the RCRA and OSHA 

programs. However, EPA needs to recognize that not all facilities and not all personnel are 

required to complete the OSHA training programs. Hence, it is very important to SOCMA 

members that EPA allow compliance with the OSHA training programs as an alternative to 

compliance with RCRA training, while still allowing facilities not subject to OSHA training 

the option of continuing with their current RCRA training programs.

Overall, SOCMA believes that the paperwork reduction and burden reduction steps embodied in 

the RCRA Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, along with others identified under this initiative, will 

be of direct benefit to both state and federal regulators, as well as to the regulated community. 

Discussions with SOCMA members have again confirmed that the points raised by SOCMA with 

respect to that Proposed Rule continue to be priorities that will be of significant benefit to SOCMA 

members. For smaller companies with limited staff and resources, even

small adjustments in the regulations can be quite significant in helping a facility balance a 

workload. Most importantly, these proposed changes can eliminate unproductive requirements and 

thereby enhance the ability of these companies to focus their resources on more useful 

environmental compliance and performance activities.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Recordkeeping for SQG training and 

inspections

Comment: SQG Recordkeeping:. Rule 262.34(d)(5)(iii) requires SQGs to ensure that all 

employees with

positions relevant to HW operations are trained in waste handling and emergency response. SQGs 

are not required to document the training. SQGs are not currently required to keep records of 

Exception Reports. 
Rule 262.44(a) exempts SQGs from complying with Rule 262.40(b) which requires generators to 

keep Exception Reports for 3 years. Rule 262.44(b) requires SQGs to comply with Rule 262.42(b), 

exception reporting, but there is no requirement in that rule to maintain records of Exception 

Reports. 

Recordkeeping and Inspections: The requirements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(2)] and LQGs 

[Rule 262.34(a)(1)(i)] reference 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart I, which requires generators to 

perform inspections of container storage areas (Rule 265.174). 

Rule 265.174 does not currently require a generator to keep records of inspections of container 

storage areas. The requirements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(3)] reference Rule 265.201, which 

requires SQGs to inspect tank systems [Rule 265.201(c)]. Rule 265.201(c) does not require these 

inspections to be documented.

Recordkeeping and Arrangements With Local Authorities:

- The requirements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(4)] and LQGs [Rule 262.34(a)(4)] reference 40 CFR 

Part 265, Subpart C, which requires that the generator make preparedness and prevention 

arrangements with local authorities (Rule 265.37). However, Rule 265.37 does not require the 

generator to document arrangements with local authorities, only rejections of such arrangements 

by the local authorities. Both arrangements should be required to document by some means (i.e., a 

certified letter requesting such arrangements, etc.).

- The requirements for LQGs [Rule 262.34(a)(4)] reference 40 CFR Part265, Subpart D, requires 

the generator to provide copies of the contingency plan to local authorities [Rule 265.53(c)]. 

However, Rule 265.53(b) does not require the generator to document provision of the 

contingency plan to local authorities. LQGs should be required to 

document provision of the contingency plan by some means (i.e., a certified letter accompanying 

the plan, response by local authorities)

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: Documentation of waste determinations -

non HW

Comment: 262.40(c): The requirement to maintain documentation of waste determinations is 

applied inconsistently in the field and interpreted variably by EPA in different documents.

The regulation itself indicates that records of any determination made pursuant to 262.11 must be 

retained. 262.11 indicates that determinations must be made for all solid waste. EPA guidance 

indicates that information on determinations must “clearly demonstrate that the 

information relied upon is sufficient to identify the waste accurately and completely.”11 

By contrast, 262.10 states that 40 CFR 262 applies to generators of hazardous waste. EPA 

has previously indicated that the requirement for recordkeeping for waste determinations 

only applies to hazardous waste.12 To the extent that EPA and the authorized states believe 

that the recordkeeping requirements apply to determinations that a waste is non-hazardous, 

the requirement is burdensome and is a prime candidate for reduction.
Stakeholder: Electronic Industries 

Alliance 

Topic: Recordkeeping changes to 40 C.F.R. §§ 

264.16 and 265.16

Comment: VII. Miscellaneous Issues (Recordkeeping, Reactivity, Metrics)

In addition to the issues noted above, EIA supports the recordkeeping changes to 40 C.F.R. §§ 

264.16 and 265.16 that EPA proposed last year. EIA believes that EPA should simplify RCRA 

requirements for recordkeeping of training. EIA supports the requirement to conduct annual 

refresher training and maintenance of those records for three years. However, EIA believes some 

of the details required are unnecessarily complex. For example, EIA does not believe it should be 

necessary to explain in the records why the hazardous waste handler is no longer in that job. It 

should be sufficient to document that the handler has been removed from that job. Similarly, EIA 

does not think it is necessary to track employees who do not make waste determinations, but are 

simply factory technicians who put waste into containers in satellite accumulation areas and/or 

move bags of waste within the factory into such satellite accumulation areas. These employees 

follow procedures and don’t make any hazardous waste determinations or move waste to central 

accumulation areas.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Necessity of the biennial report

Comment: 262.41 – The biennial report is an administrative burden on the regulated community. 

One PhRMA member company spends approximately 200 man-hours completing and submitting 

the report. PhRMA recommends that EPA reevaluate the necessity of the biennial report. 

If the information gathered by the biennial report is necessary, PhRMA suggests EPA find an 

easier way to collect it; perhaps the electronic manifest system that EPA is considering could 

provide the needed information.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Modifications to BR

Comment: 262.41(a)(5), (6), & (7) - For consistency with the Biennial Report form and 

instructions, PhRMA recommends that EPA delete the requirement in paragraph (5) to include the 

"DOT hazard class" for each hazardous waste shipped offsite, and remove paragraphs (6) & (7) 

entirely. The Biennial Report Form 8700-13A (Form GM) does not include spaces to record the 

DOT hazard class or the information required by paragraphs (6) & (7) and the reporting 

instructions do not describe any of that information as being required. There has been no 

demonstrated need to compile this information at the Federal or State level, nor has it been 

collected in any uniform manner in the past, therefore elimination of these data elements would 

appear to be an appropriate burden reduction opportunity resulting in no harm to human health or 

the environment.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Automate BR

Comment: Replace biennial reporting with automated reporting

EPA should eliminate the requirement at §262.41 for large quantity hazardous waste generators 
to prepare a biennial hazardous waste report. Instead, EPA should establish an automated 

system for tracking hazardous waste manifest information. The system should track the 

generator’s EPA Identification Number, the transporter’s EPA Identification Number, the waste 

description and waste codes, destination TSDF information, etc. Any additional information about 

the final disposition of the waste should be provided by the TSDF through the automated system.

8 commenters; 9 comments

New

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Paper work reduction

Comment: Consider elimination of biennial reporting requirements if no significant information is 

gained in the process (40 CFR 262.41)

Stakeholder: ConocoPhillips Topic: Promulgate the burden reduction rule

Comment: While EPA has been seeking to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on 

generators, its progress is excruciatingly slow. EPA should make every effort to promulgate, as 

quickly as possible, the existing burden reduction measures already under consideration.

Stakeholder: National Paint and 

Coatings Association (NPCA)

Topic: Burden Reduction

Re-examine and place in correct subject area.

Comment: EPA RCRA burden reduction initiatives should be finalized in order to provide 

facilities with decreased recordkeeping and reporting burdens and to eliminate requirements that 

are duplicative of other regulations. EPA has already proposed two such rulemakings and should 

work to finalize provisions contained therein.

As stated in NPCA’s comments on these proposals, EPA should finalize the elimination of 

unnecessary records documentation, such as employee job titles and descriptions from 

training logs and reducing the record retention polices for RCRA from the life of the facility 

to 3 years. In addition, EPA should eliminate duplicative RCRA mandates or provide for the 

option of complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in lieu of 

RCRA requirements. OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 

personnel training and contingency plan requirements are adequate to protect human 

health and the environment as envisioned by RCRA.

Similarly, NPCA urges EPA to consider reducing or eliminating the need for the current 

daily tank inspections under RCRA as well. Other regulations, such as the requirements 

under the Clean Water Act’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures, the Clean Air 
Act’s Risk Management Plan requirements and Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Requirements, as well as the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines all 

require various tank inspection requirements for the protection of human health and the 

environment and all have longer inspection time periods. Thus, RCRA inspection could be 

eliminated or at the very least adjusted to weekly or monthly without detrimental effect. Further, 

facilities that have implemented MACT equipment leak detection and repair programs should be 

given the option to extend these programs to include hazardous waste tanks to reduce burden 

associated with two separate (and most likely different) leak detection and repair programs.

Finally, facilities should be able to more easily petition EPA for less burdensome hazardous 

waste leak detection and repair requirements based on historic leak frequencies and site 

conditions (for example sensory leak detection as opposed to burdensome monitoring using 

instruments). 

Lastly, NPCA supports allowing the use of a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager to 

verify that treatment, storage and disposal units are functioning properly. This would 

eliminate the expense of hiring or contracting with a Professional Engineer. NPCA also 

supports the elimination of the “independent” requirement, since many of these facilities 

have staff on-site, whether Professional Engineers or Certified Hazardous Material 

Mangers, who are generally more familiar with the plant than outside consultants and thus 

in a better position to evaluate its operations and equipment.

12 comments