Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Waste Accumulation)

Stakeholder: American Chemical Society Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 90 

to 270 days for laboratories

Comment: BACKGROUND: Unlike most other generators, laboratories generate very small 

quantities of many types of waste. Multiple shipments and the requisite handling of small 

quantities are expensive and hazardous. Department of Transportation regulations require separate 

shipments of certain materials, which further multiplies the number of waste shipments from 

laboratories. Accumulation of larger waste quantities enables cost-effective pollution prevention 

and more efficient waste shipments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set 

precedents by allowing flexibility for longer accumulation times up to 270 days to achieve specific 

policy goals. As part of the Common Sense Initiative, the EPA created a rule encouraging metals 

recovery in the Metal Finishing Industry. This final rule is intended to minimize economic barriers 

to recycling waste water treatment sludge while continuing to protect human health and the 

environment. EPA allows generators of F006 waste up to 270 to accumulate F006 waste without a 

hazardous waste storage permit or interim status, provided that these generators meet certain 

conditions. The additional time allows generators to accumulate sufficient quantities of waste for 

pollution prevention and cost-effective waste shipments.

Laboratories generate many wastes in small quantities. For example, waste solvents are generated 

in most laboratories. One pollution prevention option for waste solvents is on-site purification. 

Unfortunately, many laboratories can't generate a sufficient quantity of solvent in the 90-day time 

period to economically justify on-site purification. Off-site recycling is also an option. However, 

most facilities require 55 gallon drum quantities. Longer accumulation times would allow better 

justification for on-site

PROPOSAL: ACS endorses the concept that generator storage time frames be extended from 90 

to 270 days for laboratories. This will allow additional opportunities for pollution prevention and 

more efficient and cost-effective waste shipments. The added accumulation time will continue to 

protect human health and the environment.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 90 

to 180 days for LQGs

Comment: RCRA regulations should allow generators, including large quantity generators, to 

accumulate hazardous waste on-site for up to 180 Days without a permit and without having 

interim status.

Discussion. EPA requests comment on waste accumulation times for both large and small quantity

generators. Regulations at 40 CFR 262 allow large quantity hazardous waste generators up to 90 

days to accumulate waste on site without a permit for storage. However, there are recent cases 

where EPA has extended the 90 day accumulation time to 180 days: (1) generators of F006 wastes, 

40 CFR 262.34(i); and (2) for members of EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track 

Program, 40 CFR 262.34(j).
The longer accumulation period would improve the RCRA hazardous waste program in 

several ways: reduce handling of waste and transport of partial loads, thereby reducing the 

cost of hazardous waste management; provide needed turnaround time for waste pending 

analyses where transport and disposal decisions depend on analytical outcome; and allow 

additional logistical time for waste generated in remote locations and large ship off-load 

events for Navy vessels returning from deployment. It is not our intent to retain routinely 

generated waste for longer periods of time, but rather to accommodate more of the variable, 

non-routine episodes within our mature waste management programs, while minimizing the added 

cost for expedited analysis, handling, and administration that provide no additional protection of 

human health and the environment.

Recommendation. Allow large quantity hazardous waste generators the option of accumulating 

wastes for up to 180 days.

Stakeholder: Novozymes NA Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 180 

to 360 days for PT SQG members

Comment: Suggestion regarding RCRA requirements for EPA Performance Track. 

Program members who are RCRA Small Quantity Generators: I would like to suggest allowing 

Small Quantity Generators be allowed to store wastes for 360 days. All other labeling, storage and 

inspection requirements would still remain the same.

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial 

Association

Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for 

LQGs to 1 year

Comment: OPTIMIZATION OF STORAGE TIME OF WASTE AT A GENERATOR 

FACILITY: The Agency should modify the 90-day limit for the storage of waste at a large 

quantity generator facility. In many cases, this is not enough time to allow the generator to 

accumulate a full truckload of material. As a result, the generator pays a premium for disposal. In 

addition, the carrier who transports the material must make several trips to the Treatment, Storage 

and Disposal Facility (TSDF). This means more truck traffic per unit shipped, more vehicle 

exhaust emissions (a particularly difficult burden in the Northeast) and extra manifests to be 

tracked throughout the system. It would be preferable to allow large quantity generator 

facilities to store materials for up to a year, if the facilities has accumulated less than a full 

truckload of waste (i.e., approximately 20,000 kg). The same consideration for accumulation 

time and quantity should be extended to small quantity generators.

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for 

LQGs to 180 days and 1 year for SQGs
Comment: TVA encourages EPA to extend the onsite accumulation timeframes for Large 

Quantity Generators and Small Quantity Generators. We believe that an extension of onsite 

accumulation time to 180 days for LQG and 365 days for SQG would be sufficient to allow greater 

disposal option flexibility while maintaining adequate environmental protection. Additionally, 

with this extension EPA should delete the regulation which allows for SQGs that are greater than 

200 miles from their TSDF to store for an additional 90 days. The extension proposed above would 

continue to be within the one-year land disposal prohibition, and provide generators with 

necessary time to negotiate treatment and disposal contracts. The additional accumulation time 

would allow generators to “bulk” waste shipments for cost savings while not endangering human 

health or the environment.

Stakeholder: Conoco Phillips Topic: Harmonize waste accumulation times with 

Universal Waste rule

Comment: Waste Accumulation Times: ConocoPhillips Company believes that EPA should 

reevaluate the specified waste accumulation times for generators (especially Small Quantity

Generators). The length of time that a small quantity generator is allowed to accumulate hazardous 

wastes should be harmonized with the accumulation times for Universal Wastes. As long as the 

total amount of accumulated hazardous waste does not exceed the current threshold of 6000 

kilograms, an accumulation time of 1 year should be allowed. This is especially important for 

generators that must transport hazardous wastes long distances for treatment and/or disposal. 

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Use twelve month rolling average to 

determine regulatory status

Comment: Generator Classification. Current regulations require generators to make a 

monthly determination of the amount of waste generated, but do not provide a specific 

mechanism for making such a determination. Presumably, each generator is required to either 

weigh their waste material at the beginning and end of each month or to estimate volumes and 

convert to weight by using an estimated specific gravity of the waste material. American 

recommends that generators be allowed to determine the amount of hazardous wastes they 

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

using such a method, if a CESQG or SQG generates hazardous wastes in a quantity slightly 

exceeding the monthly “limit” for that respective generator classification in a given month, 

the generator would not be “penalized” (i.e. reclassified upwards to the next generator or 

SQG consistently generates more than the regulatory limit each month, this will be reflected 

in the rolling averages and that entity’s generator status will properly be elevated to the next 
level. American believes this is a more equitable approach. This approach will also encourage 

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

materials on a yearly basis without being reclassified based solely on the decision to dispose 

of a unusually large amount of material during a single month. Such an approach would also 

go a long way towards eliminating the uncertainty as to which portions of the generator regulations 

apply to episodic generators. Currently there is considerable confusion caused when a 

generator frequently shifts between status as a SQG and LQG. In such circumstances, the 

obligations for reporting, training, contingency planning, etc. are simply unclear. Such confusion 

needs to be eliminated from the regulations and industry needs to be provided with clear guidelines 

and predictable outcomes.

Stakeholder: Dominion Power Topic: Allow generators to accumulate 

characteristic hazardous waste based upon volume 

instead of time 

Comment: EPA should allow generators to accumulate characteristic hazardous waste based upon 

volume instead of time without the need to obtain a TSD permit for low volume tanks. The current 

regulation requires a generator to empty a tank every 90 days, because of the 90-day restraint 

codified at 40 CFR 262.34 (a)(1)(4), Accumulation Time. For low volume tanks, this requirement 

is burdensome, without added environmental benefit. We suggest EPA allow for a longer 

accumulation time, without requiring a permit, for low volume wastes (5000 gallons) managed in 

tanks, and that are otherwise managed according to the regulations. The generator will continue to 

protect the environment............. 

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for LQGs 

to 180 days 

Comment: SOCMA Supports Streamlined Accumulation Requirements. SOCMA supports 

modification of the current regulations to allow large quantity hazardous waste generators 

up to 180 days (or up to 270 days if the generator must transport its waste, or offer its waste 

for transportation, a distance of 200 miles or more) to accumulate hazardous waste without 

a RCRA permit or interim status. SOCMA is hopeful that this change will result in increased 

recycling opportunities especially for the batch chemical manufacturing industry. At the very

least, this will allow facilities opportunities to recycle more secondary materials if given additional 

time. Additionally, and of equal importance to SOCMA members, this would allow smaller 

businesses to accumulate enough waste to make transportation to waste management facilities 

more cost effective. In many cases, there is not enough time to allow the generator to accumulate a 

full truckload of material. As a result, the generator pays a premium for disposal. In addition, the 

carrier who transports the material must make more trips to transport these materials to off-site 

treatment, storage and disposal facilities. These extra trips mean more truck traffic per unit 

shipped, more vehicle exhaust emissions (a particularly difficult burden in the Northeast) and extra 

manifests to be tracked throughout the system. It would be preferable to allow large quantity 

generator facilities to store materials for up to a year, if the facilities have accumulated less than a 

full truckload of waste (i.e., approximately 20,000 kg). The same consideration for accumulation 

time and quantity should be extended to small quantity generators. There is precedent for this 
modification under EPA’s Performance Track Incentive Regulation.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Topic: Allow generator accumulation to be 

integrated with the one-year storage limit of 40 

CFR 268.50 

Comment: 262.34(a)(1): We suggest reconsideration of the continuing usefulness of the 

90-day accumulation limit. Could EPA consider extending this limit, as has already been 

done for F006 wastes and for Performance Track members, by utilizing secondary 

containment and adoption of an environmental management system? Consider allowing 

generator accumulation to be integrated with the one-year storage limit of 268.50 in the same way 

the TSCA one-year disposal requirement is divided between generator and disposer pursuant to 

761.65(a).

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for small 

businesses

Comment:.....Regarding waste accumulation times, longer accumulation times would be 

beneficial, especially for small businesses. Longer accumulation times would allow more 

efficient shipping and disposal. If the materials are being safely stored, extending the 

accumulation time should have no environmental effect other than the savings in transportation 

fuel. 

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Extend waste accumulation times to 180 

days for LQGs, or for facilities having EMS

Comment: LARGE QUANTITY GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS. Extend onsite hazardous 

waste accumulation timeframes. EPA should extend onsite hazardous waste accumulation 

timeframes at §262.34(a) for all large quantity generators from 90 days to 180 days. Or, 

alternatively, EPA should provide this extension to large quantity generators that have in place a 

certified environmental management system (e.g., ISO 14001).

Stakeholder: State of Texas Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for 

generators that exceed performance 

requirements.

Comment: The TCEQ recommends that waste accumulation times be extended for 

generators that exceed performance requirements. For example, if a generator in Texas has 

completed the Compliance Commitment Partnership with TCEQ’s Small Business Local 

Government Assistance Program annual waste inspection is waived by EPA and TCEQ. In 

addition, if these businesses are also small quantity generators (SQGs), they could be given 

extended hazardous waste accumulation times similar to the incentive already available for 

National Environmental Performance Track (NEPT) members. The TCEQ recommends that EPA 
consider requiring large quantity hazardous waste generators (LQGs) to prepare a source 

reduction/waste minimization plan to be maintained on-site by the

generator and available for review by state and federal regulators. Members of NEPT would be 

exempt from this requirement. 

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Topic: Extend waste accumulation times up to 1 

year so long as specified requirements met 

Comment: The GAC appreciates the need to set limits on the amount of time a generator can 

accumulate hazardous waste as defined in § 262.34. For the reasons stated below, GAC strongly 

recommends EPA consider allowing longer accumulation time periods. Ideally we 

recommend up to a year, as long as the generator stores the hazardous waste in containers 

or tanks located on pads and within containment systems that reduce the risks posed by an 

accidental release, and otherwise complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 262.

Allowing generators to accumulate waste across a longer period of time reduces the number 

of times waste is transported. In the printing industry most, if not all, hazardous waste is 

transported by over-the-road vehicles. Fewer trucks on the road equates into a reduction in the 

chance of accidents and consequently, a lower risk of spills, fires, explosions, etc. It also means 

less fuel usage and less tailpipe emissions.

Small quantity generators (SQGs) and conditionally exempt small quantity generators 

(CESQGs) bear an undue economic burden compared to large quantity generators (LQGs) 

relative to hazardous waste transportation and disposal costs. Most transporters and TSDFs 

offer reduced pricing for larger “hauls”. SQGs and CESQGs do not generate enough waste 

within the accumulation time period allowed by RCRA to realize pricing benefits. Extending

the amount of time they can accumulate waste affords them the opportunity to negotiate better 

pricing on the basis of larger volumes. Even LQGs may have recurring waste streams that are 

generated at a lower rate than other waste streams. Allowing the LQGs to accumulate hazardous 

waste up to a year will realize the same transportation benefits noted above. 

Stakeholder: US Postal Service Topic: Do not extend waste accumulation times

Comment: USPS does not see a benefit for extending the current 90-day LQG and 180-day 

SQG accumulation timeframe. In recent years, the Postal Service has aggressively pursued 

waste minimization opportunities and implemented process management techniques to reduce as 

many facilities as possible to CESQG and SQG status. USPS would therefore be largely 

unaffected by such a change. Regardless, the current structure poses no restrictive burden in 

effectively managing waste streams, as the accumulation time limits (especially the 180-day 

limit for SQG) are reasonable. 

NOTE: Footnotes not included.

Stakeholder: American Petroleum 

Institute (API) 

Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for 

“good performers”
Comment: The regulations (§262.34(a), (d) and (e)) provide for a 90, 180 and 270-day

accumulation times respectively. Waste accumulation times should be reviewed to determine if 

the imposition of these limits is needed in all cases. There are many instances where costs for 

handling wastes are substantially increased when shipments must be made solely due to an 

approaching accumulation time limit. API requests that more flexible regulatory accumulation 

time requirements are implemented, based on a track record of satisfactory compliance with 

RCRA standards. These “good performers” should be encouraged through more flexible 

compliance requirements whenever it is determined granting such flexibility provides no 

significant environmental risk. 

API is aware that EPA has taken a position regarding marking the accumulation start date on 

90-day accumulation tanks that is not required by the regulations. EPA stated in a June 2003 

RCRA Online Q&A that large quantity generators must also mark the start date on tanks. EPA 

supports this position by saying that is was their "intent" to require that, as evidenced by 1986 

preamble language (51 FR 10160; March 24, 1986), even though the regulatory language does not 

mirror this “intent.” EPA should not be telling generators that they have to follow preamble 

language that is not consistent with the regulation itself. In this particular case, there should be no 

requirement to mark the start date directly on a hazardous waste accumulation tank as long as the 

facility has a procedure in place for tracking the accumulation time (i.e., allow the generator to use 

a method that best fits the process and equipment setup). In fact, in the recent rulemaking 

providing an extended accumulation time incentive for Performance Track members (69 FR 

21754; April 22, 2004), EPA made it clear in the wording of §262.34(j)(6) that the 

accumulation start date is only required to be marked on containers, and not on tanks. In 

light of providing the over reaching guidance described above, API requests that EPA 

clarify the current requirements by appending §262.34(a)(2) with “This requirement is not 

applicable to accumulation tanks.”

Stakeholder: National Paint and 

Coatings Association (NPCA)

Topic: Extend waste accumulation times for LQGs

Comment: The current accumulation requirements under RCRA’s generator standards need to be 

updated and streamlined. First, NPCA supports allowing large quantity hazardous waste 

generators up to 180 days (or up to 270 days if the generator must transport its waste, or offer its 

waste for transportation, a distance of 200 miles or more) to accumulate hazardous waste without a 

RCRA permit or interim status. Currently, these generators are only allowed to store the waste for 

90 days. NPCA believes this change may result in increased recycling of generator waste, 

especially for batch process industries like the coatings manufacturing industry (since it allows the 

generator more time to work with all relevant parties to find ways to recycle unexpected waste 

streams generated as a result of a process upset, spill, natural disaster or outdated material). Many 

facilities are forced to dispose of waste that could have been recycled if given additional time. 

Furthermore, even if the waste is not destined for recycling the additional time may allow 

generators, especially smaller businesses, to accumulate enough waste to make transportation to 

waste management facilities more cost effective. There is precedence for this under EPA’s 

recently finalized Performance Track Incentive Regulation.
Stakeholder: National Paint and 

Coatings Association (NPCA)

Topic: Speculative accumulation

Comment:..... In addition, NPCA supports revision of the “speculative accumulation” 

requirements to provide more flexibility for recycling, especially for smaller businesses. 

Currently, if a facility accumulating the material cannot demonstrate that 75 percent or more of the 

material is recycled in a calendar year, commencing on January 1, then the material is deemed a 

waste and must be managed and disposed of under RCRA regulations.

NPCA suggests revising the standard to allow facilities to demonstrate usage over a longer period 

of time or over a rolling average period. For example, a facility that has demonstrated recycling 

activities under the speculative accumulation requirement for a certain period of time could be 

afforded an additional amount of time to demonstrate future recycling efforts. In the alternative, 

facilities could be afforded a rolling annual average period, instead of the period commencing on 

January 1, demonstrating that on a rolling average – 75 percent of the material was recycled within 

a year from the date of generation. Such options would be beneficial for small businesses where 

the current prescriptive regulations may not afford enough flexibility to cost justify recycling 

efforts or whose businesses are inherently cyclical, such as with a batch processing industry likethe 

paint and coatings.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers

Topic: EXTEND THE WASTE 

ACCUMULATION TIMES FROM 90 DAYS TO 

180 DAYS when EMSs in place

Comment: 1. EPA SHOULD EXTEND THE WASTE ACCUMULATION TIMES FROM 90 

DAYS TO 180 DAYS. The current 90-day accumulation time restriction for large quantity

generators as stated in 40 CFR 262.34 should be extended to 180 days. Due to increased industry

knowledge and experience with hazardous waste management processes and the voluntary

implementation of third-party verified environmental management systems (e.g., 1S014001), the 

90-day requirement is no longer necessary to prevent harm to human health and the environment.

In fact, EPA recently allowed for such an accumulation time extension under the Performance 

Track program (68 FR 21737 et seq.) in justifying this extension, EPA stated that: EPA believes 

that additional accumulation time will allow generators to accumulate enough waste to make 

transportation to waste management facilities more cost-effective and efficient for the generator. 

EPA also believes that additional accumulation time may result in environmental benefits related 

to the reduction in the movement and handling of hazardous waste on-site, as well as fewer off-site 

shipments. (69 FR 21746). The Alliance is in agreement with this assessment and urges the agency 

to adopt the 180- day extension.

Stakeholder: Department of the Navy Topic: Adopt Washington State policy 

addressing accumulation of waste pending 

analysis by amending hazardous waste 

accumulation time requirements
Comment: EPA requests comment on any state practices or regulations that could be adopted at 

the federal level. EPA should adopt Washington State policy addressing accumulation of waste 

pending analysis by amending hazardous waste accumulation time requirements to provide up to 

60 additional days for sampling and analysis of new solid waste streams (i.e., unknown wastes).

Discussion. Technical Information Memorandum, “TIM 82-5: Effective Date of the 90-Day

Storage (Accumulation) Requirement,” Washington State Department of Ecology, July 2000, 

clarifies the storage time requirements of the Washington Administrative Code 90-day storage 

limit (federal equivalent 40 CFR 262.34). 

As stated in the TIM, designating an “unknown” waste may take half the 90-day period allowed 

for a generator to accumulate the waste without a permit. The TIM provides a policy for unknown 

waste pending analysis as to when the 90-day on-site storage period begins for an “unknown,” 

when the generator must begin sampling and testing procedures for the purpose of designating the 

unknown waste, and waste management requirements in the interim while awaiting analytical 

results. Per the memorandum, the waste must be managed in a less than 90 day accumulation area, 

and must be labeled with the date of sampling

and the words, “Waste Pending Analysis.” On-site records document date of discovery; date 

samples were shipped to a testing facility; and testing facility name, address, and phone number. 

Further, the unknown waste pendinganalysis is not counted toward the generator’s monthly 

generation rate. Such an approach encourages generators to act in a diligent manner while 

avoiding the TSD permitting requirements that apply when the 90 day accumulation time limit is 

exceeded. Recommendation. Amend hazardous waste accumulation time requirements to 

provide up to 60 additional days for sampling and analysis of new solid waste streams (i.e., 

unknowns) that are managed in less than 90/180 day accumulation areas. 

19 commenters; 20 comments

NEW

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Waste counting

Comment: Exempt generators from including quantities against generator status for unknown 

wastes dumped on publicly accessible lands (e.g., drums that appear on shorelines, and items 

deposited in driveways of remote, unmanned facilities). This would improve and facilitate cleanup 

of dumped wastes by removing the penalty for “owning” a publicly accessible property. This 

would also speed the process of the waste removal thereby reducing the potential for 

environmental damage. 

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Topic: Waste counting

Comment: TVA recommends that EPA more clearly define the interpretation of waste 

counting rules, such as for onsite recycled material being counted one time per month 
regardless of the quantity recycled within the month. A waste counting matrix would be 

helpful. This could be published as a guidance document rather than written into the rules 

which would allow for more flexibility for the matrix to be updated.