**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Waste Consolidation)**  Stakeholder: Nav y Department Topic: **Consolidation of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste**  **at a Second Facility Owned by the Generator**  **Comment: Consolidation of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste at a**  **Second Facility Owned by the Generator Comment.**  Allow small and large quantity generator facilities the option of accepting waste from other generating facilities, particularl y conditionally exempt small quantity generator facilities, under the same corporate management or ownership. **Discussion.** The Navy operates multiple small facilities, such as office buildings, small industrial shops, and laboratories, separate from our main installations. These facilities are sometimes in close proximity

to a main base, but cannot be considered “onsite” because they are separated by

public roads. Other small facilities are located remotely , such as observation stations, pumping stations, or training areas. Many t imes personnel are not permanentl y stationed at these facilities, and are onl y present for short periods of time throughout the ye ar. These facilities ty picall y generate very

small quantities of waste and are conditionally exempt small quantity

g enerators (CESQGs). In accordance with 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3) and 40 CFR 261.5(g)(3), a CESQG may either treat or dispose of acute hazardous waste and/or hazardous waste in an onsite facility o r ensure delivery t o an off

- site treatment, storage or disposal facility (T SDF). The TSDF may in this case be a municipal solid waste landfill. We suggest that a cost effective way to meet the goals of RCRA would be t o allow small and large quantity generators the option of accepting hazardous waste generated at CESQG faciliti es under the same corporate management or ownership, and to manage these wastes along with their hazardous wastes generated on

- site. The 90 or 180

- The standards for management of used oil at 40 CFR 279.32 provide an example similar to that of consolidatin g hazardous wastes. The used oil standards allow for aggregation at one facility the used oil generated at sites owned or operated b y the same owner or operator. A second example of consolidating hazardous wastes is EPA’s “Project XL Rulemaking for New Yor k State Public Utilities; Hazardous Waste Management Sy stems; Final Rule,” July 12, 1999, 64 FR 37623, which allows participating New York State Utilities to consolidate hazardous waste, which they

generate at remote locations, at designated Utility

- owned central collection facilities for up to 90 day s. The California Health and Safety Code Sections 25110.10, 25121.3, and 25163.3 also allow for CESQG hazardous waste generated during remote field operations (e.g., periodic maintenance activities) to be transported by the generator in labeled DOT containers to his off

- site consolidation point without a manifest and without transporter registration. Waste from the remote site is considered to have been generated at the consolidation site o n the day it arrives.**Recommendation** . Allow generators to aggregate hazardous wastes from CESQG facilities at

other small or large quantity hazardous waste generator facilities under the same ownership or corporate management. Consider whether consolidation of wastes should be allowed from one generator facility t o another under the same corporate management or ownership, irrespective of generator status. Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Provide regulatory relief for the

transportation of small quantities of hazardous waste generated at remote locations Comment: Provide regulatory relief for the transportation of small quantities of hazardous waste generated at remote locations ( e.g., communication building on a mountain, transmission structures on rights

- of

- way , and small non

- staffed substation s) to an intra

- company facility where secure storage and pickup by a permitted hazardous waste transporter is feasible. No EPA ID should be required for remote locations under the conditions outlined in item one above. Relaxed requirements should be provi ded for a once

- per rolling

- 12

- month generation event. Hazardous waste generation frequency greater than this should trigger the requirements to obtain an EPA ID. Stakeholder: Utility

Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Topic: **Allow For Utility Intra -**  **C om**  **pany Waste Consolidation**  Comment: **EPA Should Complete Its Initiative To Tailor the Generator Regulations To Allow For Utility Intra**  **- Company Waste Consolidation.**  EPA’s generator reform initiative provides the ideal opportunity for the Agency

to reinitiate and finalize its earlier efforts to **tailor RCRA’s generator program to allow for**  **t he intra**  **- company consolidation of hazardous**  **wastes by electric and gas utiliti es (collectively “utilities”).**  **T his is an effort that EPA and**  **USWAG worked**  **closely together**  **on several**  **years ago**  **when the**  **Agency was**  **poised to**  **issue a**  **proposed rule that would have conformed RCRA’s generator rules to more realistically reflect the true fu**  **nction and nature of utility intra -**  **company waste consolidation operations. In short, the concept would have allowed utilities to consolidate intra**  **- company hazardous**  **wastes from remote off**

**- site utility locations (**  **e.g. , utility manholes) at a company**  **- owned**  **utility central collection facility (“UCCF”) without the need for the UCCF to obtain a RCRA**  **storage permit. The reasoning behind this initiative was EPA’s realization that utility waste consolidation**  **operations do not fall within the typical paradigm of a RCRA hazardous waste generator** 

**– i.e.**  **, a single facility generating hazardous wastes that are shipped directly to a TSDF. Rather, generating and providing electricity and gas services to commercial and residential**  **customers requires a widely dispersed ge neration and distribution system including, among**  **other things, power plants, substations, utility access vaults ( e.g.**  **, manholes), transmission lines (both gas and electric), gas pipelines, utility poles, and service centers, all of which are**  **distributed o ver a utility’s respective service area**  . Under a literal reading of EPA’s current hazardous waste rules, when these man y diverse and often remote sites generate hazardouswaste, they are viewed as distinct and separate hazardous waste generators and are re quired, among other things, to (1) obtain a separate I.D. number, (2) compl y with the full panoply of EPA’s hazardous waste manifest and land ban notification requirements for each off

- site shipment of waste, and (3) transport such wastes directly to a ful ly permitted or interim status treatment, storage or disposal (“TSD”) facility. This regulatory

regime frustrates the ability of utilities to cost effectivel y consolidate wastes from intra

- company

remote locations at a company

- owned UCCF, before shipping the wastes to a commercial TSD facility

. U SWAG has long advocated that this result is unnecessarily burdensome, wasteful of private and public resources, and environmentall y counter
- productive because it results in more shipments of hazardous wastes on pu blic roadway s and hinders the ability of electric utilities to consolidate wastes for purposes of cost

- effective recycling. **Indeed, under the federal PCB regulatory program, EPA has long authorized the intra**  **- company consolidation of PCBs wastes by utiliti**  **es –**  **which, like RCRA hazardous wastes, are generated throughout a company’s transmission and distribution system** 

**– without converting the central collection facility to a “commercial storer of PCB waste.”**  **See definition of “Commercial storer of PCB waste**  **” at 40 C.F.R. § 761.3 (“Storage of one**  **company’s PCB waste by a related company is not considered commercial storage.”). See**  **definition of “Commercial storer of PCB waste” at 40 C.F.R. § 761.3 (“Storage of one**  **company’s PCB waste by a related company is not considered commercial**  **storage.”).**

................................... As discussed below, there are compelling reasons for the RCRA program to follow suit. **EPA’s New York XL Rule Underscores the Need for a Similar Rule Of National Applicabili**  **ty. EPA’s earlier efforts to develop an intra**  **- company consolidation rule for**  **utility wastes was correctly predicated on the realization that allowing utilities to consolidate intra**  **- company wastes at a UCCF would greatly facilitate the efficient and**  **environ mentally sound management of such wastes, while decreasing the environmental**  **risks associated with the large number of individual waste shipments from remote sites to commercial TSDFs** 

. T his national effort, however, was temporaril y curtailed pending EPA’s issuance of the New York State XLrule, which addressed this same issue, albeit only for utilities in New York under the auspices of the limited parameters of EPA’s XL program. 6 4 Fed. Reg. 37624 (July

12, 1999) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 262.90). In short, that rule allows hazardous wastes generated at a utility ’s remote locations to be consolidated without a RCRA permit for up to 90 day s at a UCCF, so long as the applicable 90

- day generator accumulation conditions are met at the UCCF. Id . at § 262.90(b) (1). **The rule also requires, among other things, that UCCFs only receive hazardous wastes from the company’s remote locations and that specified shipments of hazardous wastes**  **(greater than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste) from remote sites to a UCCF comp ly with**  **applicable hazardous waste manifest and DOT transportation requirements. Id**  **. at §§**  **262.90(b)(3) & (9). O**  **nly the UCCF is required to obtain an EPA I.D. number (as opposed to each individual remote location), and the UCCF’s biennial report is allowe**  **d to include the hazardous wastes received from remote locations.**  **Id . at §§**  **262.90(b)(5) & (8). The New York State XL rule properly recognizes that consolidation of utility** 

**intra -**  **company wastes from remote locations at a utility -**  **owned UCCF is an integral component of a utility’s hazardous waste generation function.**  **T he rule, therefore,**  **appropriately encompasses this consolidation practice within the confines of RCRA’s generator program, as opposed to regulating the UCCF as a distinct and wholly unrelated**  **TSDF.** The compelling policy

reasons behind the New York State XL rule are, of course, applicable to utilities across the country , and EPA’s generator reform initiative is the perfect forum for resolving this long

- standing issue at the federal level. A lthough several states have taken the initiative to allow intra

- company hazardous waste consolidation where they can, the states are not able to provide the uniform, across

- the

- board solution that is needed. A s the New York XL rule illustrates, literal appl ication of the RCRA rules to these practices is akin to trying to place a square peg in a round hole; it does not work and reform is needed...... **The Agency also acknowledged that allowing for the intra -**  **com pany consolidation of utility**  **wastes “will enhanc e the protection of public health and the environment by facilitating**  **and requiring the more immediate removal of hazardous waste that is difficult to properly secure at remote locations to staffed and secure UCCFs.”**  **Id .**  In addition, by

allowing for this ty pe of consolidation, “the number of vehicle trips that must be made to the often

- distant TSDF” is minimized, and associated “emissions from mobile sources are reduced, as well as vehicular fuel consumption and the possibility of an accident involving a vehicle transporting this waste.” Id. In addition to the environmental benefits, there are corresponding efficiencies for utilities and state agencies. A gain, as EPA explained: **Utilities should realize considerable savings in direct costs through effici**  **encies in transportation by consolidating hazardous waste.** Reducing the number of trips made to often

- remote TSDFs by waste
- transporting vehicles also reduces mobile source emissions. E limination of the need to complete biennial reports should bring about a very significant reduction in paperwork and savings in time and labor, both for Utilities and environmental regulatory group agencies, who can then redirect such resources to other environmental needs. **EPA Has Established The Legal Basis for a Utility Consolidation Rule Falling**  **Within the Realm of “Generator” Activities. As EPA correctly reasoned in**  **promulgating and then later successfully d**  **ef ending**  **the New York State XL rule, the intra**  **- company consolidation of hazardous wastes by utilities is “incidental to [a] utility’s**  **operations as a generator**  **of hazardous waste” and it is well within EPA’s statutory discretion to characterize such consolidation**  **activities as “generator” activities, as opposed to subjecting UCCFs consolidating such wastes to RCRA’s TSDF permit requirements.**  See EPA Brief in Atlantic States Legal Foundation v. EPA , No. 99

- 1409 (D.C. Cir.) at 20

- 21 (relevant portions of EPA’s brief in that case are attached hereto); see also 64 Fed. Reg. at 37630 (it is “inappropriate to require” a utility central collection point for such wastes to obtain a storage permit “ because it [the central collection point ] is not acting as a TSDF ”) (emphasi s added). EPA elaborated on this point by noting that the “creation of a special rule to address the uniquecircumstances faced b y utilities is well within the discretion that RCRA gives EPA to determine

which activities are incident to generatio n, and which require a TSD permit.” E PA Br. at 20. The XL rule represented “an exercise of the discretion that the statute gives to the Agency to determine the bounds of the generator and TSD categories.” Id . at 20

- 21. E PA’s brief also reiterated the underl yi ng basis for a consolidation rule targeted to utilities: Most hazardous waste is generated at industrial or commercial facilities that are staffed and have the capability to appropriatel y manage accumulated wastes. T he general RCRA rules are well suited to such facilities. H owever, the remote locations operated b y utilities present a very different situation, and the [XL ] rule under review is an attempt by

the Agency

to create a regulatory regime suited to the unusual, if not unique, circumstances faced b y utilities. Because the New York State XL rule was promulgated in the context of the broader EPA XL program, **certain elements of that rule obviously are not appropriate for inclusion in a rule of national applicability.**  **I nstead, the core elements**  **of the New York XL rule**

**– those that**  **were directed to remedy the fundamental inconsistencies with applying RCRA’s existing rules to utility intra**  **- company waste consolidation practices** 

**– should serve as the cornerstone**  **for a rule of national applicability.** These would include, for example, the threshold and fundamental principle that utilities can consolidate hazardous wastes generated at remote locations without a RCRA permit for up to 90 days at a UCCF (40 C.F.R. § 262.90(b)(1)). In addition, as EPA has recognized for the intra

- company consolidation of PCB wastes under TSCA (see 40 C.F.R. § 761.207(a)), USWAG does not believe that such consolidation practices should trigger RCRA’s manifest requirements, but that a more streamlined intra

- company tracking sy stem better serves such intra

- company transfers. U SWAG looks forward to working with EPA in the development of a national rule allowing utilities to consolidate intra

- company wastes at UCCFs. 3 commenters; 3 comments New Stakeholder: American Chemical Societ y Topic: Definition of "on

- site" Comment: BACKGROUND: EPA requires that hazardous waste generators have an EPA identification number. Many campuses (i.e., academic and research) are made up of contiguous properties transected b y public roads. Under the current definition, campuses are often deemed multiple sites and are required to obtain different EPA ID numbers for various portions of campus. This prevents the consolidation of wastes from the entire facility , resulting in inefficiency in pack aging, duplication of storage requirements, and significantl y increased paperwork and costs. PROPOSAL : We recommend a change to the definition of "on

- site" in 40 CFR 260.10 be made to allow a single EPA Identification number for a facility with contiguous property
.