**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 Comm onwealth of Massachusetts, any full container (of any size) m**  **ust be rem**  **oved 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 th e 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 requi rem ents. 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, incl uding 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 A ccumulation 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 acc umulation 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, s om e 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 poi nt 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, othe rs require “ line of sight ” such that through a doorw ay or around a corner is not permissible. At one facility, solvent wastes were accumulated near the w ork a rea in a secure location outside the building where the waste was generated (for safety reasons). These w astes 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, wh ere it wa s 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 inspec tors rem ain 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 w aste per w aste stream, or one quart of acutely hazardous waste listed in § 261.33(e), in containers at or near any point of generation where waste initial ly 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 sour ces, 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 m eet 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 pr ocess, 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 wa stes 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 drum s. This increased handling significantly increases the potential for employee exposure to the w aste and for the wa ste In the September 30, 1998 Federal Registe r (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 w eekly 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, w hat 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 involvingthe 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. How ever, 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 storag e codes. **However, transferring the contents of sm aller 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, SUB**  **** **9224 -**  **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. ” Pr esent requirements contained in 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) w ould 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 wo uld allow for determination of generator status. Extension of the weekly container inspection requirement (40 CFR 265.174) to drum s in the Centralized Satellite Accumulation Area would also be in order. Due to the possibility of having to confirm expe rimental 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 r esult in a bum p 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 prov ides 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 no t a “physical ” param eter but rather a conceptual parameter.Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: “ At or near any point of generation ” should be re

thought Comment: “ At or near any point of generation ” should be re

- thought to include a “ uni versal w aste ” concept. The premise should be that some wastes are truly generated across a site (universally), not always at a specific point. This concept w as the basis for promulgating the Universal Waste regulations. Some wastes are generated ubiquitous ly 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 R equirements: 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 Accum ulation 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 ”**  **coul d include accumulation in areas where access**  **was controlled**

. **In addition, some states allow wastes to be m oved 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 Airl ines 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 ”

. **Am erican believes that much of this confusion can be eliminated and the**  **protection of hum an health and the environment enhanced by EPA revising and clearly defining the**  **requirements. The**  **ma**

**jor issue confronting the regulated community stems from the limitation on the am**  **ount 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 w aste at a satellite accumulation area. **A problem arises when there is m ore than**  **one waste stream collected in a particular area (which is usually the case with m**  **ost 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 wo rds, 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 ac cumulation 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 mishandli ng 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 beli eves that EPA should revise the regulations to specifically state that generators may accumulate up to119 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) al low 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 hazard ous w astes 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 differe nce betw een a bulk container and a non

- bulk container. A non

- bulk package is a single container less than 119 gallons (450 L) capacity or w eighing less than 1000 pounds.

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: **Flexible Satellite Accumulation Standards for Laboratorie**  **s 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, ty pes of work being performed , and level of automation. As a practical matter, laboratories have a range of activities and experiments under w ay, 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 tem porarily while work is ongoing. EPA should acknowledge that some flexibility is neede d 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 wa stes. 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 “ Satel lite 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 vie w 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 lim** **its for satellite accumulation of 55 gallons or one quart of acutely hazardous waste. Many wastes are low**  **- hazard waste stream**  **s and accumulation of m ore**  **than this quantity should be considered. Perh aps provision of secondary containm**  **ent for satellite accumulation areas accumulating in excess of 55 gallons (or one quart of acutely hazardous waste) could be**  **considered along with a quantity lim it such as 110 gallons or two quarts of acutely hazardous wa**  **ste.** 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).

Stake holder: 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 re gulatory 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 r aised 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 alw ays possible to have UFC

- com pliant accumulation “ at or near ” the point of generation. Cons ider 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 alw ays physically present to control the container. Restricting building access was determined to be insufficient. This interpretation implies that the term “ op erator 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 supe rvision 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 wa stes, 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 re gard to this requirement. As part of this clarification, EPA should also consider expanding this provision to allow for w aste containers to be
“ secured at all times ” in lieu of being under the operator ’ s direct control. This provision is provided in the c orresponding **State of Washington** regulations and guidance8 and provides significant flexibility, though it doesnot address the problem described in the two previous paragraphs. Advantages of this approach include the ability

for maintenance workers to bri ng 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 require**  **me nts, 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 colle ction containers to collect small quantities of waste Comment: 262.34(c)(1): EPA policy is that transfers of waste betw een satellite accumulation areas is unacceptable.9 Laboratories, for example, should sometimes be allow ed 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 interm ediate collection**  **containers to collect sm all quantitie**  **s 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 rem ove excess waste from** **a satellite area within three days can pose problems in the laboratory setting.**  Two ty pes 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 time ly 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 requir es 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 a dopt, 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 m ore than 55 additional gallons of**  **waste (or one additional quart of acutely hazardous waste) were accum**  **ulated in the intervening tim e.** 
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, r ather 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 encou rage electronic recordkeeping on the part of**  **generators. In addition to the electronic m anifesting 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 m**  **edia.**

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 26 2.34. 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 accumulationrequirements.

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

- The requirement that wa ste 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 ignit ion 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 mo re leewa y 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). B ased 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 SQG s are not allow ed 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 o f 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).

Stakehold er: 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 Require ments Should be Made More Flexible to Allow for Unique**  **Accumulation Issues.** Under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c), “ [a] generator may accumulate

... hazardous w aste
... 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 guidan**  **ce and variance between State agencies, there is some uncertainty about what waste accum**  **ulation arrangem ents**  **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 inthe clean room that generate the hazardous waste often cannot easily leave the clean room to move the waste to a

central accumulatio n 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 af ter 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 w aste. Such collection also is hampered by limited space, interruption to manufacturing pr ocesses, 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 am end the regulations to clarify that operators m**  **ay place hazardous waste generated in a clean room** **environment in rooms throughout the factory area where the waste is generated without**  **triggering the central accum ulation 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 o f 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. T hese 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 manufa cturing operations. In some cases, when small work areas are involved, a shared w aste container, particularly a specialized one, may be mo re efficient and more easily inspected, labeled and emptied than many very small satellite containers. **EIA believes that EPA should issue guidance, or am**  **end 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 wit**  **hin 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 c**  **ontrol 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 gall on cumulative limit) Comment: **EIA also believes that EPA needs to address a separate satellite accum ulation issue involving small**  **quantities of hazardous waste generated infrequently and/or in multiple discrete locations throughout a facility.**  For these sm all 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 pl ace multiple satellite accumulation areas throughout a building for these ty pes 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 all ow 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 accumulati on areas at many generator facilities. PhRMA also recommends that EPA allow a generator to consider the overallresponsibilities of the operator. For example, if the operator is generating hazardous waste throughout a particular

building or area (e.g., l aboratory or production line), then a centralized satellite accumulation area should be allow ed. 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, “ How ever, 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 w aste 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 pic kup/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 regulati ons. 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 w aste 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 w e 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 dim**  **inish 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 accum**  **ulate, 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 print ing 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 w astes initially accumulate ” ma y 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 im possible 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 o f 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 t o 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 proces s generating the waste ...”

. **The GAC recommends EPA clarify what is m**  **eant 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 di fferent interpretations of this requirement.**  Som e inspectors have stated that the satellite container must be in constant vie w 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 consid ered “under the control of the operator. ” Our experience suggests that the satellite accumulation area is ty pically near the point of generation where a drum is kept until it is full at which time it is moved to the hazardous wa ste accumulation area. Howev er, 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 contai ner of hazardous wa ste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste can be located in a satellite accumulation area. How ever, 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 mo reover, 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 w aste stream. By wa y 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 recyc ling so long as they are not mixed together (e.g. blanket wash and roller w ash). 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

- gall on 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 wa ste that is generated in small amounts at employee workstations and later consolidated at central accumulation areas. How ever, states often have different interpretations of this provision, and facilities c an 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 Instit ute (API) Topic: **Clarify satellite accumulation area requirements**

- **incorporate the term inology**  **“ satellite accumulation**  **” and**  **“ satellite accumulation area**  **” into the regulations**  Comment: **In this section there is a need to m ore clearly identify generato**  **r 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 distinctio n betw een “ 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 m**  **ore clearly ident ify 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 labo ratory 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 rem ain in the laboratory until moved to a destination suc h 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, th e laboratory technician could w alk 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 5 5

- 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 appro ach 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 sm all 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 term inology**  **“ satellite accumulation**  **” and**  **“ satellite**  **accumul ation area**  **” into the regulations, since those terms have becom**  **e 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 l arge 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 centraliz ed satellite accumulation area should be allow ed. 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 accumu lation 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 ” ) rul e 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 wa ste “ at or near any point of generation ” in an envi ronmentally 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 andenvironmentally sound management option, strict compliance with RCRA ’ s generator regulations would be virtually

im possible and, in many cases, less protective, as frequent shipments of extremely small volumes of waste would be requir ed 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 determ ining when an SAA**  **is “**  **at or near any point of generation. ”** 

.............. **USWAG is con cerned that any attem** **pt to further refine this key regulatory phrase would unavoidably result in excluding otherwise suitable SAA locations**  . Therefore, **EPA should not attempt to further am end 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 determ**  **ine the applicability of this concept to any particular generator accumulation area on a case**  **- by**  **- case basis** 

. USWAG belie ves, 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 On e 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 const itutes separate SAAs. The regulations state that a generator may accumulate hazardous wa ste “ in containers at or near any point of generation where w astes 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 norm ally us**  **ed to manage one waste generated by an individual industrial process**  , ” and nothing in the regulation otherwise limits the proximity betw een SAAs. Memorandum from Mike Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, State of Tennessee, Department of E nvironment 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 satel lite 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 w as (2) at or near their respective point of generation, and (3) they are placed w here wastes initially accumulated from those respective points of generation, and (4) they are both under the control of the operator of the proces s 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. U SWAG 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 co nfusion 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. EP A 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 appropriate ness 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 d evices 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 co mmo n 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 ” ty

pe 1 hazardous wastes, wherein the Agency explained that an SAA for such commonly generated wa stes could include a “ specific ” and centralized collection point. EPA explained that “ fo r like wastes generated from many individual locations (e.g., nickel

- cadmium batteries), w e would interpret the at or near the point of generation

. . . language to include a specific satellite area designated by the generator that facilitates the accumulati on of this material

. . . . ” See attached letter from Sylvia K. Low rance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, to D. B. Redington, Director, Regulatory Management, Monsanto Company (Feb. 23, 1993). USWAG believes the concept expressed in the “ Lo wr ance ” lett er m akes 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**  **” Mo**  **ves.USWAG requests that EPA clarify that a single SAA can cha**  **nge 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 w aste at each individual location. **An example of this scenario is a lead -**  **based paint abatement project where abatem ent staff m**  **ove from tank to**  **tank engaging in lead paint rem oval from**  **various tanks. In these circumstances, it is common for the lead paint chips re**  **mo ved from a particular tank to be placed in an SAA container and for the sam**  **e container to be m**  **oved 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 require ments (**  **e.g. , labeled**  **“ hazardous**  **waste ”**  **) and if the paint chips in the container ever exceed the SAA 55 -**  **gallon lim it, the container is m**  **oved to the requisite cent**  **ralized 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 con**  **ditions 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 th at 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 wa ste management regulations be revised to provide more consistent, defined nomenclature for hazardous waste accumulation and storage areas. For example, som e stakeholders may use the term “ Satellite Accumulation Areas ” to identify those areas in which wa ste 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 “ satelliteaccumulation 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 differenti ated 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 accum**  **ulated at or near the point of generation the**  **“ Satellite Accumulation Area**  **” and the central area in which 90 day or 180 day accum**  **ulation takes place the**  **“ Central Accumulation Area.**  **”**
Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Clarify **under th e 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 mo ving them to the 90

- or 180

- day storage areas. FDEP supports this aim. At the same tim e, 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 sev eral 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, y et 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 w aste) at those sites. The purpose of this provision is to provide w orkers with satellite sites throughout the facility where wastes are generated to initially accumulate such thereby eliminating disrup tion 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 w ell 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 a nd 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 qu antification of waste accumulated during a calendar mo nth. When there are multiple satellite accumulation points within a facility it can be difficult to accurately quantify the amount or w aste generated from month to month. EIA recommends that EPA issue g uidance or amend its regulations to allow

generators to delay counting waste generated at satellite accumulation points until it is mo ved to the final accumulation area. EIA also recommends that EPA allow sites that send materials to precious metals recove ry

to exempt that w aste 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 me tal). 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 wa ste 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 w aste 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 locat ion is often referred to by such term s 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 A ccumulation Area ” and the central area in which 90 day or 180 day accumulation takes place the
“ Central Accumulation Area. ”