Satellite Accumulation 

Stakeholder: Northeastern University Topic: Work with States on consistency of interpretations 

(3-Day Rule)

Comment: Satellite Accumulation. The federal requirements of up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste and up to 1 

quart of acutely hazardous waste in a satellite accumulation area before it has to be removed within three days, is 

generally reasonable. However, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any full container (of any size) must 

be removed from the satellite accumulation area within three days. This state specific requirement is an 

extreme burden (both in costs and resources) to colleges and universities in Massachusetts. The net result is a 

constant movement of chemicals from laboratories throughout the campus (no opportunity for an efficient 

scheduling). This constant movement of chemicals to meet the Massachusetts “three day rule” is certainly less 

protective of the environment (constant movement of chemicals equals increased risk). Courts have continually 

reaffirmed the states rights to implement more stringent requirements for various federal regulations including 

RCRA. I would encourage EPA to develop a mechanism for them to work with the states to address problematic 

areas that develop because of state specific requirements. While the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection appears unwilling to address the problems with the “three day rule” for colleges and universities at this 

time, EPA could assist by working with states on these problematic areas, including encouraging some performance 

requirements in RCRA or changing “the three day rule” to 30 days for a laboratory setting.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Clarify 40 CFR 262.34(c) - Spec. Accumulation to 

promote consistency

Comment: Satellite Accumulation Area Requirements

Comment. We believe EPA should provide additional amplification and clarification within 40 CFR 262.34(c) to 

address satellite accumulation area requirements, thereby promoting consistent application.

Discussion. Satellite accumulation offers invaluable flexibility and simplicity for waste that is initially accumulated 

in small amounts prior to consolidation in centralized accumulation areas. The satellite accumulation provisions at 

40 CFR 262.34(c) allow generators to accumulate as much as 55gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely 

hazardous waste listed in §261.33(e) in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially 

accumulate, which is under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste, without a permit or 

interim status and without complying with the 90 day accumulation time limit of 40 CFR 262.34(a).

Unfortunately, state regulators have come to apply differing interpretations of the basic wording in 262.34(c). For 

example, some regulators allow only one container and one waste type at a satellite accumulation area, while others 

(Washington, California, and Maine) allow 55 gallons of satellite accumulation of each waste stream from a process 

in one or more accumulation areas. Our understanding of EPA’s rule is that more than one waste type may be 

accumulated in a satellite accumulation area, up to an aggregate total of 55 gallons per area, and that no 

accumulation time limit applies. Other jurisdictions, such as Washington D.C., do not allow satellite

accumulation at all. To not allow for satellite accumulation requires that hazardous waste be moved to a centralized 

storage States often have different, and sometimes impractical, interpretations of the phrase, “at or near any point of 

generation where wastes initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator of the process generating 

the waste.” Some prescribe the number of linear feet between the process and an accumulation point within the 

immediate work area, others require “line of sight” such that through a doorway or around a corner is not 

permissible. At one facility, solvent wastes were accumulated near the work a rea in a secure location outside the 

building where the waste was generated (for safety reasons). These wastes were accumulated in a small building 

designed to safely contain flammable wastes. This same scenario is addressed in EPA memo of January 13, 1988, 

RCRA Online Number: 11317, and in guidance from states such as Ohio EPA, DHWM-008, NOV 1994, where it 

was determined the regulatory definition had been met. Considerations for safety, security, work area traffic patterns 

and physical features are cited from the preamble of both the proposed and final rule in support of this 

determination, yet inspectors remain unsure.

Considering our high turnover of personnel, training to all these various andsundry interpretations is exceedingly 

difficult and precludes the use of off - the- shelf or standardized training that could be delivered over the internet,
resulting in an inefficient use of resources.

Recommendation. The intent and benefits of satellite accumulation are thoroughly discussed in 49 FR 49568 and 

have been proven over time. We urge EPA to codify a common understanding of satellite accumulation and to work 

with their State partners and the District of Columbia toward applying consistent standards.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Accumulation Time

Comment: Revise 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) to read as follows:

40 CFR 262.34 Accumulation time.

* * * * *

(c) Satellite Accumulation.

(1) A generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste per waste stream, or one quart of acutely 

hazardous waste listed in §261.33(e), in containers at or near any point of generation where waste initially 

accumulates, as defined in Section 260.10. The satellite accumulation area shall be as close as practical to the point 

of generation considering safety, security, and other site-specific considerations. The satellite accumulation area 

must be under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste or provisions must be in place to 

preclude unauthorized addition of waste, tampering, or theft of waste. Satellite accumulation is allowed without a 

permit or interim status and without complying with paragraph (a) of this section for any length of time provided 

that the generator:

(i) * * *

* * *

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify terms “at or near,” “under the control,” and 

“operator of the process.”

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(c). The following phrases should be defined: “at or near,” “under the control,” and 

“operator of the process.” These terms are vague and allow for significant leeway in interpretation. In particular, the 

phrase “at or near” is often interpreted as, at a minimum, in the same room as the process generating the waste. 

There may be situations where waste is generated in a small room where there is not enough space within the room 

for a 55-gallon satellite accumulation container, or where it may be safer (due to ignition sources, for example) to 

collect the waste near the process, but outside the room where it is generated. We recommend clarification of 

whether satellite accumulation containers may be located in a separate room from the process generating the waste 

and still meet the criteria for being “at or near” the generation process. 

We recommend that the amount of waste in each satellite accumulation area be limited to 55 gallons per waste type. 

Currently, if two or more different types of waste are generated at one process, the satellite accumulation area is 

limited to a total of 55 gallons for all waste types combined. Because of the cost of shipping containers smaller than 

55 gallons, most hazardous wastes are shipped in 55-gallon containers when shipped in non-bulk packages. If the 

wastes are accumulated in 20-gallon containers to comply with the 55-gallon total limit for the satellite 

accumulation area, then when the containers are full, they must either be shipped at a higher cost per gallon than 

when shipped in 55-gallon drums or the waste must be transferred from the 20-gallon containers into 55-gallon 

drums. This increased handling significantly increases the potential for employee exposure to the waste and for the 

waste

In the September 30, 1998 Federal Register (63 FR52181), EPA granted authorization to the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts for their satellite accumulation regulation, stating that the Massachusetts program subjects satellite 

accumulation areas to more stringent requirements than would be required under the federal rule, such as aisle space 

requirements and weekly inspections, thus the state regulation was determined to be overall equivalent to the federal 

regulation. Even without requirements on a federal level for aisle space and weekly inspections, we recommend that 

This paragraph does not require that employees working in satellite accumulation areas be trained. It would seem to 

present great potential risk for all personnel involved with hazardous waste not to be trained to ensure that the tasks 

they are responsible for are performed in accordance with applicable regulations. Employees in satellite 

accumulation areas would likely only need training on how to properly manage the container, what types of waste 

can go into the container, whom to call when the container is full, and whom to call if there is an incident involving
the container. It also seems that this paragraph does not require wastes in satellite accumulation containers to be 

addressed in hazardous waste contingency plans. If they are not currently required to be included, it would seem to 

be of environmental benefit to require that such containers be included in written contingency plans. 

We recommend that this regulation include clarifying language as to whether the 90-day or 180-day limit begins for 

a satellite accumulation container when the container becomes full or when the container is moved to the 90-day or 

180-day accumulation area.

Stakeholder: Anonymous - Small R&D Facility Topic: Concept of a “Centralized Satellite Accumulation 

Area.”

Comment: As written, 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) is primarily applicable to manufacturing facilities in which appropriate 

areas for locating 55-gallon drums typically exist. However, locating 55-gallon Satellite Accumulation drums in 

laboratory areas is impractical and would result in noncompliance with hazardous materials storage codes (OSHA, 

NFPA, etc.). The usage of smaller Satellite Accumulation containers inside laboratories is practical and, with 

reasonable precautions, compliant with storage codes. However, transferring the contents of smaller Satellite 

Accumulation containers to 55-gallon Satellite Accumulation drums located immediately outside laboratory 

areas is precluded by a February 1999 RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Report (EPA530-R-99-005b, SUB9224-99-002). In addition, transferring the contents of smaller Satellite Accumulation containers to 55-gallon drums 

in an Accumulation Area effectively “starts the clock” on these drums. Unless waste generation activities result in 

sufficient volume to fill the Accumulation Area drum before the 90/180 day limit, the generator effectively is forced 

to dispose of partially full drums.

As an alternative, EPA is requested to consider the concept of a “Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area.” Present 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) would still apply. However, a provision would be added to allow

maintaining 55-gallon drums for multiple waste streams in the Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area. An 

additional provision would allow transfers from smaller work area Satellite Accumulation containers to the drums 

contained in the Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area. Generators taking advantage of this option would be 

restricted on the maximum size (5- gallons is suggested) and total container volume of Satellite Accumulation in a 

work area (10-gallons is suggested). Logs completed at the end of each month documenting waste weight in each 

work area Satellite Accumulation container and in each Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area drum would allow 

for determination of generator status. Extension of the weekly container inspection requirement (40 CFR 265.174) to 

drums in the Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area would also be in order.

Due to the possibility of having to confirm experimental or analytical results and the often “one of a kind” materials 

resulting from R&D activities, extended storage times for samples, etc. are typical. In addition, despite controls, 

reagent purchases may exceed project needs also resulting in extended storage times for these materials. We have

found the most effective means of dealing with excessive sample and reagent storage is to schedule a “clean up”

day. However, depending upon the volume of materials designated for disposal, a “clean up” day may result in a 

bump in generator status from a Small Quantity Generator...........

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Clarify 55 gallon limit

Comment: Regulations for accumulation areas could use some improvement. The concept is good and provides for 

flexibility within a generator’s facility, however, in reality the practice has been strapped by interpretations at the 

state level. For example, the 55 gallon limitation per accumulation area is good in concept, but the problem lies 

when one accumulation area is located in close proximity to another accumulation area. Regulators tend to think that 

physical proximity infers “accumulation area.” Provide verbiage to acknowledge that the 55 gallon limit for 

accumulation areas is not additive and is not a “physical” parameter but rather a conceptual parameter.
Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: “At or near any point of generation” should be rethought

Comment: “At or near any point of generation” should be re-thought to include a “universal waste” concept. The 

premise should be that some wastes are truly generated across a site (universally), not always at a specific point. 

This concept was the basis for promulgating the Universal Waste regulations. Some wastes are generated 

ubiquitously across a physical site and generators would benefit from a regulatory concept which accounts for these 

kinds of wastes.

Stakeholder: Conoco Phillips Topic: Provide flexibility in defining SAA

Comment: Satellite Accumulation and other Container Requirements: 

ConocoPhillips Company often encounters issues relating to management of hazardous waste in containers, 

especially those located in satellite accumulation areas (SAA). Throughout the U.S., there are varying 

interpretations of what constitutes a “closed” container and the meanings of “under control of the operator”

and “at or near any point of generation”. Although the March 17, 2004 OSWER guidance (titled “Frequently 

Asked Questions Regarding Satellite Accumulation Areas”) addressed some important issues, others still remain.

For Satellite Accumulation Areas, ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA allow a generator to 

consider the overall responsibilities of the operator. For example, if the operator is generating hazardous 

waste throughout a particular building or area (e.g., laboratory or production line), then a centralized 

satellite accumulation area should be allowed. Additionally, EPA should adjust satellite accumulation 

requirements to reflect that “under control of the operator” could include accumulation in areas where access 

was controlled. In addition, some states allow wastes to be moved from a SAA to a pickup/staging area for a 

limited period of time before it is transferred to a <90-day storage area.

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Revise and clearly define SAA requirements. 

Comment: Satellite Accumulation. Unfortunately, many states have interpreted the Satellite Accumulation 

regulations in different ways. This has placed a financial burden on stakeholders trying to determine and comply

with each state’s “interpretation”. American believes that much of this confusion can be eliminated and the 

protection of human health and the environment enhanced by EPA revising and clearly defining the 

requirements. The major issue confronting the regulated community stems from the limitation on the amount 

of waste that can be stored at a satellite accumulation area (“SAA”). The regulations only allow for a generator 

to accumulate up to 55 gallons of waste at a satellite accumulation area. A problem arises when there is more than 

one waste stream collected in a particular area (which is usually the case with most industrial processes). (See 

footnote 1 below.) The regulations in their current form could be interpreted in such a manner that if a generator had 

a satellite area in which four 55- gallons drums were present to accumulate four different waste streams, the 

generator would need to ensure that the total accumulation of waste in the four drums did not exceed 55 gallons. In 

other words, the generator would essentially need to ensure that each drum did not contain greater than 13.75 

gallons. At such time as any drum exceeded 13.75 gallons, the generator would have to remove one or more of these 

partially full drums to the central accumulation area (90-day storage pad) and consolidate the materials into bulk 

containers for shipment off-site. This obviously results in inefficiency and extra handling of hazardous wastes (for 

purposes of consolidation) and increases the risk of mishandling the material at the central accumulation area when 

consolidating the wastes for shipment.

1 Unfortunately, according to EPA, the “Agency did not anticipate that generators would accumulate multiple 

hazardous wastes/containers in an SAA.”

American believes that EPA should revise the regulations to specifically state that generators may accumulate up to 
119 gallons of each waste stream (See footnote 2 below.) in a separate container at or near the point of generation. 

This would achieve two goals: (1) allow the collection of reasonable amounts of hazardous waste at the point of 

generation, and (2) minimize the handling (transfer) of hazardous wastes among containers for shipment. This would 

substantially reduce the need for handling and transfer of hazardous wastes between containers, as the containers 

could be completely filled at the satellite area and then sealed and shipped to the treatment and disposal facility, 

thereby reducing the overall risk posed by the waste.

2 EPA & DOT have defined the difference between a bulk container and a non-bulk container. A non-bulk package 

is a single container less than 119 gallons (450 L) capacity or weighing less than 1000 pounds.

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Flexible Satellite Accumulation Standards for 

Laboratories Needed

Comment: Flexible Satellite Accumulation Standards for Laboratories Needed. As we are sure that EPA staff 

observed during site tours of SOCMA members in 2003, laboratories can vary significantly in size, complexity, 

types of work being performed, and level of automation. As a practical matter, laboratories have a range of activities 

and experiments under way, some of which continue for significant periods of time. During ongoing lab work, 

materials are often generated and set aside in discrete amounts that may or may not be able to be reused. In addition, 

depending upon the project at hand, a variety of laboratory containers may be used to hold these materials 

temporarily while work is ongoing. EPA should acknowledge that some flexibility is needed in the laboratory 

setting. In this context, the material being held during ongoing laboratory activities should be viewed as still being 

part of the lab equivalent of the “production process.” Practical recognition is needed of how flexibility may be the

key to integrating the satellite accumulation concept into a laboratory setting. There is also confusion regarding the 

amount of waste that may be accumulated in laboratories. One laboratory could be a fairly small room with just a 

few people working on a single project, while another may easily house more than a dozen employees working on a 

wide variety of projects. The waste streams may not be compatible, so labs tend to employ a fairly large number of 

relatively small containers to collect the different wastes. This is a sound waste management practice. 

SOCMA believes that laboratories (and the regulated community generally) would benefit from further discussion 

of how to implement the satellite accumulation provisions in various “real world” settings. In addition, SOCMA 

recommends that EPA issue guidance acknowledging that accumulation limits in each laboratory should be based 

upon the specific types of waste streams being generated, recognizing that combining certain types of waste streams 

may be hazardous or may complicate subsequent management of the resulting mixture. 

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Clarify that 262.34(c) is for SAA’s only

Comment: • Satellite Accumulation: For clarity, Rule 40CFR262.34(c) should be headed explicitly as the “Satellite 

Accumulation In Containers” rule. 

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Clarify “at or near” the point of generation 

Comment: The requirement that waste must be accumulated “at or near” the point ofgeneration in 262.34(c)(1) 

needs to be further explained. A great deal of confusion exists now over what the term “near” means. A common 

interpretation, based on the fact that the area must be “under the control of the operator,” is that the satellite 

accumulation point must be within view of the operator. For flammable wastes, this often either conflicts with fire

codes because the flammable waste is required to be kept close to possible sources of ignition or subjects the 

generator to the additional expense of purchasing fire proof cabinets when the satellite accumulation point could

easily be moved to an area away from the ignition sources and controlled by other means (i.e., a locking bung on a 

drum or cap on a tank).
Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Clarify SQGs can use the satellite accumulation 

rules of 262.34(c)

Comment: Rule 262.34(d) should state explicitly that SQGs can use the satellite accumulation rules of 262.34(c).

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Reconsider capacity limits for SA of 55 gallons or 1 

quart of acute HW

Comment: 262.34(c)(1): We suggest reconsidering the capacity limits for satellite accumulation of 55 gallons or 

one quart of acutely hazardous waste. Many wastes are low-hazard waste streams and accumulation of more 

than this quantity should be considered. Perhaps provision of secondary containment for satellite 

accumulation areas accumulating in excess of 55 gallons (or one quart of acutely hazardous waste) could be 

considered along with a quantity limit such as 110 gallons or two quarts of acutely hazardous waste. 

Alternatively, the requirement to remove the excess over 55 gallons within three working days, found at 

262.34(c)(2), could be extended to 30 days with a cap of 110 gallons per satellite area. Compare the Project XL 

requirements at 262.104(d).

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: The definition of “at or near” is not clear

Comment: 262.34(c)(1): The definition of “at or near” is not clear. The question of proper location of satellite 

accumulation areas is frequently raised during regulatory inspections. We are not suggesting that EPA specify a 

location or distance requirement. However, some sort of consistent guidance on this point would be extremely 

helpful in order to help generators work with individual inspectors. Another issue raised by this requirement is

the compliant accumulation of flammable or reactive materials that must be stored in accordance with the Uniform 

Fire Code. It is not always possible to have UFC-compliant accumulation “at or near” the point of generation. 

Consider allowing exceptions to this requirement that accommodate the safety requirements for 

storage/accumulation imposed by other applicable regulations.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: The definition of “under control of the operator of the 

process” is problematical

Comment: 262.34(c)(1): The definition of “under control of the operator of the process” is problematical. “Control”

has been subject to inspector interpretation in the past. For instance, some interpretations indicate that locking 

devices are the only adequate way to meet this requirement, since the operator is not always physically present to 

control the container. Restricting building access was determined to be insufficient. This interpretation implies that 

the term “operator of the process” is very narrowly defined as a specific process operations person. This definition 

of the “operator” of the process may raise compliance issues in the field. For instance, research associates or 

students working under the general supervision of the lead researcher may actually be generating the waste. Such 

support staff may be rotated in and out of the project and may not be fully cognizant of the entire process. This 

knowledge deficiency can be interpreted by inspectors as failure to control the accumulation containers.

This interpretation is not consistent with EPA’s definitions of “generator”, “person”, or “operator” in 40 CFR 

260.10, or with EPA guidance7. While it is reasonable to expect staff members to exercise care in managing their 

wastes, it seems less obvious that each satellite area container must be actively protected from all other generator 

staff when the individual responsible for the process is not present. We encourage EPA to clarify what their 

expectations are with regard to this requirement.

As part of this clarification, EPA should also consider expanding this provision to allow for waste containers to be 

“secured at all times” in lieu of being under the operator’s direct control. This provision is provided in the 

corresponding State of Washington regulations and guidance8 and provides significant flexibility, though it does 
not address the problem described in the two previous paragraphs. Advantages of this approach include the ability 

for maintenance workers to bring waste items such as rags, lubricants, and lamps back to a central accumulation 

point (such as a shop or dispatch center) rather than establish individual accumulation areas at the individual point of 

generation. This approach would also enable the safe accumulation of wastes subject to Uniform Fire Code 

and other similar requirements, as suggested in our comments at 262.34(c)(1) concerning “at or near”.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Consider allowing the use of intermediate collection 

containers to collect small quantities of waste 

Comment: 262.34(c)(1): EPA policy is that transfers of waste between satellite accumulation areas is unacceptable.9 

Laboratories, for example, should sometimes be allowed to accumulate waste for short periods in an intermediate or 

receiving container before placing such waste in a SAA container without considering this to be “two-stage” satellite 

accumulation. Such accumulation may take place because either (1) the piece of equipment contains a small, built-in 

accumulation container, or (2) the construction of the experimental apparatus precludes the use of a standard 

accumulation container. We recommend that EPA consider allowing the use of intermediate collection 

containers to collect small quantities of waste for placement in satellite accumulation area containers. These 

might be referred to as “day use containers” in order to emphasize the short-term nature of waste collection in such 

containers.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: (3-Day Rule)

Comment: 262.34(c)(2): The requirement to remove excess waste from a satellite area within three days can 

pose problems in the laboratory setting. Two types of difficulties can arise. Since pickups are usually performed 

weekly on Thursdays at PNNL (specifically because of this time limit), any pick-up call that occurs on Monday or 

Friday requires a special pickup to be performed. This requires rescheduling of facility, support, research, and 

transportation staff to make the pickup in a timely manner. The more significant difficulty is that any pickup call 

made on Friday must be done on Monday, as Saturday and Sunday are not scheduled workdays for waste 

management staff. This may not allow for adequate planning time for the pickup, and requires special efforts (e.g. 

overtime) if Monday is a holiday. We note that an EPA letter10 authorized one state to word this requirement 

as “three working days”, and we would encourage EPA to adopt this wording into 40 CFR 262.34. Another 

option would be to adopt, at least for laboratories, the provisions of EPA’s Project XL for Northeastern 

universities found at 262.104(c), allowing 30 days for removal as long as no more than 55 additional gallons of 

waste (or one additional quart of acutely hazardous waste) were accumulated in the intervening time.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Treatment in SAAs

Comment: We encourage EPA to consider extending the provisions for treatment by generator to treatment in 

satellite accumulation areas, rather than deferring the decision to individual states. If EPA deems it necessary, 

compliance with appropriate 90-day accumulation area provisions could be required for SAAs where treatment by 

generator is taking place. EPA should adopt provisions to encourage electronic recordkeeping on the part of 

generators. In addition to the electronic manifesting proposal currently being considered by EPA, potential 

recordkeeping should extend to submittal and retention of process knowledge documentation and generator

identification number filings via electronic media. 

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Topic: Clarify SQGs can use the satellite accumulation 

rules of 262.34(c)

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) should include a reference to paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 262.34. Currently, there is 

not a clear mechanism to tie small quantity generators to the satellite accumulation requirements. By referencing 40 

CFR 262.34(c), the small quantity generator requirements would be directly linked to the satellite accumulation 
requirements.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: Clarify “at or near the point of generation”

Comment: Satellite Accumulation: - The requirement that waste must be accumulated “at or near” the point of 

generation and “under the control of the operator” in 262.34(c)(1) needs further explanation. A great deal of 

confusion exists now over what the term “near” means. A common interpretation by both regulatory personnel and 

the regulated industries, based on the fact that the area must be “under the control of the operator,” is that the 

satellite accumulation point must be within view of the operator. For flammable wastes, this often either conflicts 

with fire codes because the flammable waste is required to be kept close to possible sources of ignition or subjects 

the generator to the additional expense of purchasing fire proof cabinets when the satellite accumulation point could 

easily be moved to an area away from the ignition sources and controlled by other means (i.e., a locking bung on a 

drum or cap on a tank). 

ADEM recommends that the language “at or near the point of generation” be replaced with “at a location easily and 

quickly accessible to the operator of the process generating the waste.” Such a change would allow the generator 

more leeway to place an individual satellite accumulation while still accomplishing the purpose of reducing the 

amount of handling the waste undergoes prior to reaching the satellite accumulation point.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: Clarify SQGs can use the satellite accumulation 

rules of 262.34(c)

Comment: SQG access to the satellite accumulation rules – Currently the regulations are unclear as to whether 

SQGs (262.34(d) & (e)) can take advantage of the satellite accumulation rules found at 262.34(c). Based on the fact 

that ADEM personnel have accompanied USEPA personnel on joint inspections at SQGs that used satellite 

accumulation containers and the issue was never raised, it appears that the USEPA has no objections to this practice. 

In addition, if SQGs are not allowed to use satellite accumulation it raises questions of consistency (i.e., the SQGs 

are actually being held to a more stringent waste handling and training requirement than LQGs) and safety (i.e., the 

SQG may be accumulating larger amounts of a flammable waste near processes that could serve as a possible source 

of ignition). To resolve this issue, ADEM recommends that 262.34(d) be changed to explicitly allow SQGs to take 

advantage of the satellite accumulation rules at 262.34(c).

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance Topic: Provide for flexibility - Amend the regulations to 

clarify that operators may place hazardous waste generated 

in a clean room environment in rooms throughout the 

factory area where the waste is generated without triggering 

the central accumulation requirements

Comment: II. Satellite Accumulation Requirements Should be Made More Flexible to Allow for Unique 

Accumulation Issues. Under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c), “[a] generator may accumulate...hazardous waste...at or near 

any point of generation where the wastes initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator of the 

process generating the waste.”.While the electronics industry strongly supports the concept of satellite 

accumulation, because of limited guidance and variance between State agencies, there is some uncertainty 

about what waste accumulation arrangements meet this requirement. Waste accumulation areas are sometimes 

strictly defined as within the same room. Such an interpretation is wasteful of space, containers and labor without 

environmental benefit. In the electronics industry, because of the clean room environment, traditional methods of 

satellite accumulation have the potential to disrupt the manufacturing process. This is because egress into and out of 

the clean room must be controlled to limit the potential for contamination to the clean room. Operators of tools in 
the clean room that generate the hazardous waste often cannot easily leave the clean room to move the waste to a 

central accumulation area. This is because operators in these areas often are required to use smocks, gloves, safety 

glasses, or even a complete “bunny suit” that covers all parts of their body. This protective clothing often is 

expensive (because it often must be cleaned after each use) and time-consuming to put on and take off. For the same 

reasons, hazardous waste technicians cannot be entering the clean room to collect the hazardous waste. Such 

collection also is hampered by limited space, interruption to manufacturing processes, and increased potential for 

contamination of the manufacturing area. Clean room space is very expensive and, as a result all available space is 

highly utilized. In addition, operators and facilities personnel who conduct regular equipment wipe downs also need 

easy access to these containers.

EIA recommends that EPA amend the regulations to clarify that operators may place hazardous waste 

generated in a clean room environment in rooms throughout the factory area where the waste is generated 

without triggering the central accumulation requirements. The factory area could include “gray space,” which 

may or may not be held to the same standard of cleanliness as the clean room. These “gray space” areas allow for 

additional foot traffic and utilization of less costly space with no additional environmental impact. The “gray space”

areas may involve “pass through” areas used to transport chemicals into and out of a “clean room” environment or 

equipment cleaning or similar manufacturing support activities. These areas in the factory or “gray space” can be 

accessed by hazardous waste technicians who are able to remove the waste from these “gray space” areas to a 

central accumulation area at regular intervals (e.g., every three days) without interrupting manufacturing operations. 

In some cases, when small work areas are involved, a shared waste container, particularly a specialized one, may be 

more efficient and more easily inspected, labeled and emptied than many very small satellite containers. 

EIA believes that EPA should issue guidance, or amend the hazardous waste regulations to clarify that 

placement of hazardous waste in a room or area within the factory where the operator generates the waste 

that is accessible by hazardous waste technicians is still within the definition of a satellite accumulation area. 

If EPA is unwilling amend the definition of satellite accumulation to allow such flexibility, EIA recommends that 

EPA specify a maximum distance that clearly would delineate what constitutes “under the control of the 

operator.”

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance Topic: Allow a site to maintain a small chemical cabinet or 

similar type of unit in a central location where building 

occupants can drop-off small quantities of waste (up to a 55 

gallon cumulative limit)

Comment: EIA also believes that EPA needs to address a separate satellite accumulation issue involving small 

quantities of hazardous waste generated infrequently and/or in multiple discrete locations throughout a 

facility. For these small quantities of waste, EIA believes that EPA should allow for some type of building-wide 

satellite accumulation. Examples of wastes that fit into this category include fluorescent bulbs, batteries, and aerosol 

cans. In many cases, it impractical to place multiple satellite accumulation areas throughout a building for these 

types of waste or to require a generator to immediately move them to a final accumulation area that may be located 

in a completely separate building. EIA believes that EPA should allow a site to maintain a small chemical cabinet or 

similar type of unit in a central location where building occupants can drop-off small quantities of waste (up to a 55 

gallon cumulative limit)

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Incorporating the terminology “satellite 

accumulation” and “satellite accumulation area” into the 

regulations

Comment: 262.34(c)(1) - PhRMA recommends that EPA consider incorporating the terminology “satellite 

accumulation” and “satellite accumulation area” into the regulations, since those terms have become universally 

used throughout the industry and by the agency. The definition of a satellite accumulation area (SAA) is focused on 

“closeness” to the point of generation, which inherently requires a large number of satellite accumulation areas at 

many generator facilities. PhRMA also recommends that EPA allow a generator to consider the overall 
responsibilities of the operator. For example, if the operator is generating hazardous waste throughout a particular 

building or area (e.g., laboratory or production line), then a centralized satellite accumulation area should be 

allowed. The “under control of the operator” should be more significant than the point of generation.

Also, PhRMA recommends that EPA clarify the extent of an SAA such as they did in the March 17, 2004 letter, 

“FAQ about SAAs”, especially number 11, which states, “However, a single SAA may have multiple points of 

generation. Movement or consolidation of hazardous waste within an SAA is permissible as long as it remains at or 

near the point of generation and under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste.” This 

interpretation allows a laboratory to be designated as one SAA with a “pick-up point” in the lab for the various small 

lab waste containers. Also, to build on the “under the control of the operator” sentence above, PhRMA recommends 

that EPA clarify that “line of sight” is not necessary, as some State inspectors have interpreted.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Transfer of wastes from SAAs to pickup/staging area 

for a limited period of time before it is transferred to a 90-

day or permitted storage area.

Comment: There are many contradicting EPA headquarter’s, regional office’s, and state’s interpretations of various 

sections of the RCRA regulations. While there are inherent issues with the contradictions, the regulated community 

nonetheless relies on these interpretations. PhRMA urges that EPA recognize this history of interpretations that 

have been relied on in specific circumstances, while at the same time developing a process to promote consistency 

for future interpretations. 

One area in particular that merits a consistency review between state and federal hazardous waste regulations and 

interpretations is in the area of satellite accumulation and large quantity generator status. An example is where some 

states allow wastes to be moved from a SAA to a pickup/staging area for a limited period of time before it is 

transferred to a 90-day or permitted storage area. PhRMA understands that EPA has an initiative underway to 

address generator issues for academic and research institutions. PhRMA previously submitted comments on this 

topic so we will not reiterate them here but we strongly encourage EPA to continue with this improvement effort.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements

Comment: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements. The satellite accumulation regulations were 

designed to be flexible in allowing small quantities of hazardous waste to be accumulated without many of the 

generator accumulation standards. However, this flexibility has created confusion and varying interpretations 

that can diminish or preclude the flexibility that the satellite accumulation standards were designed to offer. 

Additionally, varying state interpretations complicate company-wide compliance efforts and make it difficult to 

establish consistent management programs. At a minimum, EPA should clarify the following terms/phrases: 1) 

at or near any point of generation, 2) where wastes initially accumulate, and 3) which is under the control of 

the operator of the process. Here are some examples where the satellite accumulation standards should be 

applicable, but arguably may not be depending on interpretation. In a printing plant, waste ink and solvents may be 

collected in a pan under the printing press, transferred into a bucket, and immediately poured into a 55-gallon drum. 

In this scenario, the phrase “where wastes initially accumulate” may limit the facility’s ability to transfer the waste 

ink/solvent from the pan, to the bucket and into the drum, and still manage the waste in the 55-gallon drum under the 

satellite accumulation requirements. Similarly, if a laboratory collects waste solvent in a beaker and then 

immediately pours it into a 10-gallon drum, the 10-gallon drum should be able to qualify as a satellite accumulation 

container, but may not under certain interpretations.

These questions and others are often answered differently in different states. This makes it impossible for 

companies with facilities in a variety of states and EPA Regions to develop clear and consistent management 

standards for use across the company. This also leads to re-work, additional potential for noncompliance and 

administrative waste at regulated facilities. To remedy this, EPA should establish uniform interpretations for federal 

regulatory language. Of course, states may impose more stringent requirements.
Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Expand public outreach and education regarding 

satellite accumulation

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that EPA expand public outreach and education regarding satellite accumulation 

areas and electronic waste (computers, etc.). Additionally, for electronic wastes EPA should consider some sort of 

conditional exemption from the definition of solid waste if they are recycled, or make them a universal waste. 

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements

Comment: § 262.34 allows a generator to accumulate “as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of 

acutely hazardous waste listed in §261.33(e) in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially 

accumulate, which is under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste...”. The GAC 

recommends EPA clarify what is meant by “near any point of generation” and “under the control of the 

operator” as it has been the experience of the printing industry that various federal and state agency 

inspectors have different interpretations of this requirement.

Some inspectors have stated that the satellite container must be in constant view of a person in the immediate 

vicinity of the process generating the waste, the distance of which is actually prescribed in some states (e.g. the 

container must be in view of a press employee and located within a few feet of the printing press). Others indicate 

that the container can be moved out of site so long as it remains on the property of the generator where it is still 

considered “under the control of the operator.” Our experience suggests that the satellite accumulation area is 

typically near the point of generation where a drum is kept until it is full at which time it is moved to the hazardous 

waste accumulation area. However, there are circumstances where a raw material is used intermittently and the 

process generates relatively small amounts of waste (less than 55 gallons). Under these circumstances the GAC 

encourages EPA to allow a partially full container to be moved to a remote location on a temporary basis and then 

returned to the press when the raw material is back in use without losing its status as a “satellite” container. 

Furthermore, agency inspectors commonly interpret § 262.34 to mean only one 55- gallon container of hazardous 

waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste can be located in a satellite accumulation area. However, member 

companies advise us inspectors have allowed aggregate storage of 55-gallon satellite containers so long as each 

container holds a different waste stream. The GAC recommends EPA provide clarification on this matter and 

moreover, encourages EPA to allow the latter situation where more than one container can be located in a satellite 

accumulation area so long as each container holds a different waste stream. By way of example, printers may use a 

few different cleaning compounds at any one location. The cleaning compounds may be hazardous because of the 

characteristic of ignitability, but one or both may be ultimately destined for recycling so long as they are not mixed 

together (e.g. blanket wash and roller wash). The same holds true in the case of some ignitable inks and ignitable 

cleaners – one or both are recyclable, but only if kept segregated. Not allowing more than one (1) 55-gallon 

container invites “cross contamination” and defeats the goal of recycling. 

Stakeholder: US Postal Service Topic: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements

through guidance

Comment: The current satellite accumulation provisions in 40 C.F.R. §262.34(c) provide necessary flexibility for 

waste that is generated in small amounts at employee workstations and later consolidated at central accumulation 

areas. However, states often have different interpretations of this provision, and facilities can misinterpret the 

substantive requirements for containers located in satellite accumulation areas and the ability to subsequently 

consolidate waste in central storage areas. EPA should consider issuing additional guidance, including several 

situational examples, of how it interprets “at or near any point of generation where wastes initially 

accumulate” and “under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste” to resolve 

interpretive differences. 
Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute (API) Topic: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements 

- incorporate the terminology “satellite accumulation”

and “satellite accumulation area” into the regulations

Comment: In this section there is a need to more clearly identify generator responsibilities and options. While 

§262.34(c)(1) addresses what is commonly known as a satellite accumulation area (SAA), the options and 

requirements for accumulating waste are not clear to many generators. While there was recognition of a distinction 

between “satellite accumulation” and “accumulation” in 49 FR 49568 on December 20, 1984, ambiguities remain. 

Requirements apply to the SAA as well as to the “containers” within the SAA; it is possible to rewrite these 

requirements to more clearly identify the options for accumulation.

Examples of ambiguities include regulatory phrases such as “at or near” and “under the control” related to 

SAA. Also the “closed while adding or removing waste” language has been interpreted in some instances in a 

manner that is impractical. There are also cases, such as in laboratories, where wastes would most efficiently and 

safely be handled by going from one satellite accumulation area to another before the 55-gallon/1-quart limit is 

reached. For instance, in a laboratory small amounts of a discarded solvent (not an acutely hazardous waste) are 

generated throughout a shift. The container kept the laboratory is placed in a SAA, then that container would have to 

remain in the laboratory until moved to a destination such as a 90-day area, a permitted storage area or off-site 

within 3-days of reaching the 55-gallon limit.

If there were several laboratories in a laboratory building, then each room would have a 55-gallon drum for this 

discarded solvent. Alternatively, the laboratory technician could walk to a central area (at or near the point of 

generation, and under the control of the laboratory personnel) and discard small amounts of solvent into a common 

55-gallon drum. The first option is not practical as having a 55-gallon drum in each room would create space and 

safety concerns. Walking each small amount of discarded solvent to a central SAA would be time consuming and 

take the technician away from his work, potentially creating a safety concern.

A practical approach is to place a small container to collect the small amounts of spent solvent in each laboratory. 

Then, at the end of a shift, the small container can be transferred into a 55-gallon drum in the central SAA. If the 

location in the laboratory where the small container is interpreted to be an SAA, this practical and safe operating 

practice may not conform to current satellite accumulation requirements.

API requests EPA consider incorporating the terminology “satellite accumulation” and “satellite 

accumulation area” into the regulations, since those terms have become universally used throughout the 

industry and by the Agency. The definition of a satellite accumulation area is focused on “closeness” to the point 

of generation, which inherently requires a large number of satellite accumulation areas at many generator facilities 

as referenced in the laboratory example. If operations personnel are generating hazardous waste throughout a 

particular building (e.g., laboratory or operating area), then a centralized satellite accumulation area should be 

allowed. The “under control of the operator” should be more significant than the “closeness’ to the point of 

generation.

Stakeholder: Utility Solid Waste Activities 

Group

(USWAG)

Topic: Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements 

Comment: III. EPA Should Clarify Several Issues Regarding The Availability Of The Satellite Accumulation 

Area Rule. Like many others in the regulated community, USWAG believes that the “satellite accumulation 

area” (“SAA”) rule is a critical component of the RCRA generator program. This provision provides a practical and 

common sense regulatory option for thousands of RCRA generators to accumulate small amounts of hazardous 

waste “at or near any point of generation” in an environmentally sound manner. 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c)(1). Two 

decades later, EPA’s reasoning still holds true, and USWAG respectfully submits that the SAA rule is one of the 

successful generator regulations that warrants EPA’s continued strong support. Without this common sense and 
environmentally sound management option, strict compliance with RCRA’s generator regulations would be virtually 

impossible and, in many cases, less protective, as frequent shipments of extremely small volumes of waste would be 

required to be moved immediately upon generation to a centralized storage location.

With that being said, a common compliance issue that arises under the SAA rule is determining when an SAA 

is “at or near any point of generation.” ..............

 USWAG is concerned that any attempt to further refine this key regulatory phrase would unavoidably 

result in excluding otherwise suitable SAA locations. Therefore, EPA should not attempt to further amend or 

clarify the phrase “at or near any point of generation” in the SAA rule, but rather allow the regulated 

community, in conjunction with their respective regulatory agencies as necessary, to determine the 

applicability of this concept to any particular generator accumulation area on a case-by-case basis.

USWAG believes, however, that there are other issues associated with the SAA rule that could benefit from

further clarification. We discuss these below.

A. EPA Should Clarify That There Is No Bar To Distinct Satellite Accumulation Areas Being 

Located Adjacent To One Another. One compliance issue that often arises concerns whether two 

containers that are directly adjacent can each be legitimate and distinct SAAs. While USWAG 

believes that this clearly can be the case, confirmation of this position is warranted.

EPA has indicated that no “bright line” test exists for determining whether single or separate SAAs exist for a 

given location, stating:

It’s not possible in a memo for the Agency to delineate for all situations what constitutes a single SAA 

versus what constitutes separate SAAs. The regulations state that a generator may accumulate hazardous 

waste “in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially accumulate, which is under 

the control of the operator of the process generating the waste.”

Memorandum on Frequently Asked Questions about Satellite Accumulation Areas from Robert Springer, Director, 

Office of Solid Waste, to RCRA Directors, EPA Regions 1-10 (March 17, 2004). While EPA has not directly 

addressed this issue, a RCRA-authorized state, Tennessee, has evaluated directly the issue concerning the required 

proximity between SAAs. In finding that legitimate SAAs can be side-by-side, the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”) determined that SAAs “are normally used to manage one waste 

generated by an individual industrial process,” and nothing in the regulation otherwise limits the proximity 

between SAAs. Memorandum from Mike Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, State of 

Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, (March 16, 2004) (emphasis added).

In reaching this finding, TDEC examined EPA Region 4 guidance on the allowable proximity between SAAs and 

found that Region 4 considers “that the determination on whether or not adjacent satellite accumulation areas are 

two distinct satellite accumulation areas should be made on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 3. TDEC set forth four 

criteria that, if met, would qualify adjacent containers as distinct SAAs:

If the generator is able to substantiate that (1) each container was (2) at or near their respective point of 

generation, and (3) they are placed where wastes initially accumulated from those respective points of 

generation, and (4) they are both under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste, then 

we would say that both containers are considered to be in separate satellite accumulation areas. 

USWAG recommends that EPA clarify that there is no bar on legitimate and distinct SAAs being located adjacent to 

one another. USWAG is particularly concerned that, without this clarification, enforcement personnel agencies may 

incorrectly presume that two adjacent containers cannot qualify as distinct SAAs even if the above conditions are 

met. USWAG is concerned that given the confusion that prompted the request to TDEC, there are other generators 

and regulatory agencies who are equally confused about the required proximity between SAAs. Therefore, 

clarification, consistent with that of the State of Tennessee, is warranted.

B. EPA Should Allow Facilities To Maintain A Single Satellite Accumulation Area For Hazardous Wastes 

That Are Generated Throughout A Facility. USWAG recommends that EPA codify the concept expressed in 

an earlier EPA interpretive letter regarding the appropriateness of locating an SAA in a central location for 
similar wastes generated at widely-dispersed locations throughout a facility. This could include, for example, 

the removal and replacement of small mercury-containing switches or other mercury-containing devices from 

equipment (e.g., lighting fixtures) that are located in literally hundreds of different locations throughout a facility. 

Requiring individual SAAs to be located “at or near” the points of generation in the case of these widely generated 

and common wastes is not practical and would result in the unwieldy scenario of potentially hundreds of SAAs 

throughout a facility with each SAA holding only a de minimis amount of hazardous waste.

EPA recognized the impracticality of this scenario in an earlier letter concerning the centralized accumulation of 

“universal waste” type1hazardous wastes, wherein the Agency explained that an SAA for such commonly generated 

wastes could include a “specific” and centralized collection point. EPA explained that “for like wastes generated 

from many individual locations (e.g., nickel-cadmium batteries), we would interpret the at or near the point of 

generation . . . language to include a specific satellite area designated by the generator that facilitates the 

accumulation of this material . . . .” See attached letter from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, to 

D. B. Redington, Director, Regulatory Management, Monsanto Company (Feb. 23, 1993). 

USWAG believes the concept expressed in the “Lowrance” letter makes eminent sense and suggests that EPA 

either codify this concept in the SAA rule or expressly reiterate this principle in the preamble to any final rule that 

evolves from this rulemaking initiative. This will help ensure that RCRA-authorized states and generators across the 

country are appropriately aware of this practical application of the SAA rule. 

C. EPA Should Clarify That An SAA Can Change Locations As The “Point of Generation” Moves.USWAG

requests that EPA clarify that a single SAA can change locations if the point of generation of the waste being 

collected within the SAA also changes locations. This type of scenario can occur in a setting where a generator is 

engaged in a single project within a facility that requires moving from location to location resulting in the generation 

of small amounts of hazardous waste at each individual location.

An example of this scenario is a lead-based paint abatement project where abatement staff move from tank to 

tank engaging in lead paint removal from various tanks. In these circumstances, it is common for the lead 

paint chips removed from a particular tank to be placed in an SAA container and for the same container to 

be moved from one tank to another tank as part of the common lead abatement project. During this process, 

the container is being managed in accordance with applicable SAA requirements (e.g., labeled “hazardous 

waste”) and if the paint chips in the container ever exceed the SAA 55-gallon limit, the container is moved to 

the requisite centralized accumulation area. 

USWAG believes that the use of a single container in the above circumstances is fully consistent with the SAA 

rule, as the container is being used to collect the wastes “at or near the point” of generation and all operative 

conditions of the SAA rule are being met. Any other interpretation would result in the impractical scenario of 

having to transport de minimis amount of waste accumulated at each particular tank directly to a centralized 

collection area. USWAG appreciates that this is a rather unique scenario and generally only would be applicable in 

circumstances where the SAA container is collecting the same waste from multiple locations involved in a common 

project at a single facility. Nevertheless, confirmation of this SAA practice would be useful. 

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Revise regulations to provide more consistent, 

defined nomenclature for hazardous waste accumulation and 

storage areas.

Comment: Nomenclature. American suggests that EPA’s hazardous waste management regulations be revised to 

provide more consistent, defined nomenclature for hazardous waste accumulation and storage areas. For example, 

some stakeholders may use the term “Satellite Accumulation Areas” to identify those areas in which waste is 

accumulated at or near the point of generation (in accordance with 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1)) Other stakeholders may 

refer to these areas by different names. Once waste drums become full they are moved from the “satellite 

 
accumulation area” to a central area to be stored while awaiting transportation to a TSDF. This central location is 

often referred to by such terms as the “Central Accumulation Area”, “the 90-day pad”, “the back pad”, “the storage 

area “or “consolidation area”..

EPA has clearly differentiated these two areas with respect to their regulatory requirements, but has not clearly 

“named” these two areas under its regulations. American suggests that EPA clearly define these two areas in 40 CFR 

260.10. One recommendation is to call the area where the waste is accumulated at or near the point of 

generation the “Satellite Accumulation Area” and the central area in which 90 day or 180 day accumulation 

takes place the “Central Accumulation Area.”

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Clarify under the control of the operator 

generating the waste”

Comment: The intent of the satellite container rule is to allow SQG’s and LQG’s sufficient time to fill drums before 

moving them to the 90- or 180-day storage areas. FDEP supports this aim. At the same time, the regulations should 

require that generator employees who use the satellite accumulation containers be trained. 

The requirement that the satellite container be “under the control of the operator generating the waste” should be 

clarified, because several individuals may be generating the same waste placed in one satellite accumulation 

container. At many military bases one custodian of a particular drum authorizes several individuals to dispose of 

certain waste streams into a specific satellite drum, yet the custodian isn’t involved in the generation of the waste.

Stakeholder: NPCA Topic: simplification of the requirements of the 

satellite accumulation standards

Second, NPCA supports simplification of the requirements of the satellite accumulation standards. Currently, 

generators can have an unlimited amount of satellite accumulation sites around a facility and as long as they are 

labeled properly and storage and container requirements are followed – a generator may accumulate as much as 55 

gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of acutely hazardous waste) at those sites. The purpose of

this provision is to provide workers with satellite sites throughout the facility where wastes are generated to initially 

accumulate such thereby eliminating disruption in the production process and providing for worker safety. However, 

due to the 55 gallon limit, facility attempting to simplify the process and combine the amount of satellite 

accumulation areas around the plant may quickly trip the limit and start the 90 day

accumulation clock running as well as other consolidation area requirements. This provides a disincentive to 

streamline operations and limit the number of hazardous waste satellite sites, when this may be in the best interests 

of worker safety and cost management.

Providing the option of longer accumulation times (180/270 days instead of 90 days), and/or eliminating or 

increasing the threshold limit for satellite accumulation sites would solve this problem. In addition, another possible 

solution is to allow facilities to accumulate multiple (different) waste streams in one satellite area and that each 

stream would have a 55 gallon limit before being required to move to an accumulation area (within 3 days). At least 

one state – Ohio has clarified that this is an acceptable practice.

Stakeholder: EIA Topic: Issue guidance or amend its regulations to allow 

generators to delay counting waste generated at satellite 

accumulation points

Comment: Another problem with satellite accumulation is the quantification of waste accumulated during a calendar 

month. When there are multiple satellite accumulation points within a facility it can be difficult to accurately 

quantify the amount or waste generated from month to month. EIA recommends that EPA issue guidance or amend 

its regulations to allow generators to delay counting waste generated at satellite accumulation points until it is 

moved to the final accumulation area. EIA also recommends that EPA allow sites that send materials to precious 

metals recovery to exempt that waste from being counted towards the site’s monthly waste accumulation totals. 
There is no reason for treating materials being recycled for their precious metal content to be treated differently than 

other recycled materials (e.g., scrap metal). 

24 commenters; 36 comments

New 

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Consistent Nomenclature

Already have above.

Comment: American suggests that EPA’s hazardous waste management regulations be revised to provide more 

consistent, defined nomenclature for hazardous waste accumulation and storage areas. For example, some 

stakeholders may use the term “Satellite Accumulation Areas” to identify those areas in which waste is accumulated 

at or near the point of generation (in accordance with 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1)) Other stakeholders may refer to these 

areas by different names. Once waste drums become full they are moved from the “satellite accumulation area” to a 

central area to be stored while awaiting transportation to a TSDF. This central location is often referred to by such 

terms as the “Central Accumulation Area”, “the 90-day pad”, “the back pad”, “the storage area “or “consolidation 

area”..

EPA has clearly differentiated these two areas with respect to their regulatory requirements, but has not clearly 

“named” these two areas under its regulations. American suggests that EPA clearly define these two areas in 40 CFR 

260.10. One recommendation is to call the area where the waste is accumulated at or near the point of generation the 

“Satellite Accumulation Area” and the central area in which 90 day or 180 day accumulation takes place the 

“Central Accumulation Area.”