**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Waste Accumulation)** 
Stakeholder: American Chemical Society Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 90 to 270 day s **for laboratories**
**Comment: BACKGROUND:** Unlike most other generators, laboratories generate very small quantities of many

typ es 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

f or longer accumulation times up to 270 day s to achieve specific policy goals. As part of the Common Sense Initiative, the EPA created a rule encouraging metals recovery i n the Metal Finishing Industry

. This final rule is intended to minimize econom ic 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 examp le, waste solvents are generated in most laboratories. One pollution prevention option for waste solvents is on

- site purification. Unfortunatel y, many l aboratories **can't generate**  a sufficient quantity of solvent in the 90

- day t ime period to economicall y j u stify 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 day s 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: Nav y Department Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 90 to 180 day s for LQGs
**Comment:** RCRA regulations should allow generators, including large quantity generators, to accumulate hazardous waste on

- site for up to 180 Day s 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 day s to a ccumulate waste on site without a permit for storage. However, there are recent cases where EPA has extended the 90 day a ccumulation time to 180 day s: (1) generators of F006 wastes, 40 CFR 262.34(i); and (2) for members of EPA’s National Environmental Perf ormance 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; provi**  **de 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 routinel y 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 exp edited anal ys is, 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 day s.

Stak eholder: Novozy

mes NA Topic: Extend waste accumulation times from 180

to 360 day s for PT SQG members Comment: Suggestion regarding RCRA requirements for EPA Performance Track. Program members who are RCRA Small Quantity Generators: I would l ike 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: E xtend waste accumulation ti mes 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 pay s 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 mo re truck traffic per unit shipped, more vehicle exhaust emissions (a particularly difficult burden in the Northeast) and extra manifests to be tracked throughout the s ystem. **It would be preferable to allow large quantity generator facilities to store mater** **ials 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: Tennesse e Valley Authority Topic: E xtend waste accumulation times for

LQGs to 180 day s and 1 year for SQGsComment: 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 day s for LQG and 365 day s for SQG would be sufficient to allow greater disposal option flexibility while maintaining adequate environmental protection. Additionally , with this extension EPA should delete the re gulation which allows for SQGs that are greater than 200 miles from their TSDF to store for an additional 90 day s. The extension proposed above would continue to be within the one

- year land disposal prohibition, and provide generators with necessary time t o 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 th at a small quantity g enerator 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 kilogram s, 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 determin ation.**  Presumabl y, 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 b y using an estimated specific gravity of the waste material. **Am erican**  **recommends that ge nerators 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 b**  **e 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**  **ma terials 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

t owards eliminating th e uncertainty a s 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 simpl y unclear. Such confusion needs to be eliminated from the regulations and industry n eeds 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 day s, 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 L QGs to 180 day s **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 m aterials if given additional time. Ad ditionally, 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 t o accumulate a full truckload of material. As a result, the generator pay s 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 s ys tem. It would be preferable to allow large quantity generato r 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 generat ors. There is precedent for thismodification 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 containme**  **nt 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.**  Lo nger accumulation times would allow more efficient shipping and disposal. I f the materials are being safel y 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 day s for LQGs, or for facilities having EMS Comment: LARGE QUANTITY GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS. Extend onsite hazardous waste accumulation timeframes. E PA should extend onsite hazardous waste accumulation time frames at §262.34(a) for all large quantity generators from 90 day s to 180 day s. Or, alternativel y, EPA should provide this extension to large quantity generators that have in place a certified environmental management s ys tem (e.g., I SO 14001).
Stakehold er: State of Texas Topic: Extend **waste accumulation times for generators that exceed**  **p erformance**  **requirements.**
Comment: **The TCEQ recommends that waste accumulation times be extended for generators that exceed**  **p erformance 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 b y 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 EPAconsider requiring large quantity hazardous waste g enerators (LQGs) to prepare a source reduction/waste minimization plan to be maintained on

- site by the generator and available for review b y 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 ye ar 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 sy stems 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.** Ex tending 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 ye ar 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.** Inrecent years, the Postal Service has aggressivel y pursued waste minimization opportunities and implemented process management techniques to reduce as many facilities as possible to CESQG and SQG status. U SPS would therefore be largel y unaffected by

s uch a change. **Regardless, the**  **current structure**  **poses no**  **restrictive burden**  **in effectively managing waste streams, as the accumulation time limits (esp**  **ecially 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

. W aste accumulation times should be reviewed to determine if the imposition of these limits is needed in all cases. T here are many instances where costs for handling wastes are substantially incr eased when shipments must be made solely due to an approaching accumulation time limit. APIrequests 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. APIis aware that EPA has taken a position regarding marking the ac cumulation 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. E PA supports this position by

saying that is was their "intent" to require that, as evidenced b y 1986 preamble language (51 FR 10160; March 24, 1986), even though the regulatory language does not mirror this “intent.” E PA 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 h as 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**  **memb ers**  **(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.**  **I n**  **light of providing the over reaching guidance described above, API requests that EPA clarify the current requirements by app**  **ending §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 day s 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 onl y allowed to store the waste for 90 day s. NPCA believes this change may result in increased recycling of generator waste, especiall y f

or batch process industries like the coatings manufacturing industry ( since it allows the generator more time to work with all relevant parties to find way s to recycle unexpected waste streams generated as a result of a process upset, sp ill, 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, espec ially

smaller businesses, to accumulate enough waste to make transportation to waste management facilities more cost effective. There is precedence for this under EPA’s recentl y finalized Performance Track Incentive Regulation.Stakeholder: N ational 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

a ccumulating 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 p rescriptive regulations may not afford enough flexibility to cost just ify

recycling efforts or whose businesses are inherently c yclical, such as with a batch processing industry l ikethe paint and coatings.
**Stakeholder:** Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers **Topic:** EXTEND THE WASTE ACCUMULAT ION T IM ES FROM 90 DAYS TO 180 DAYS when EMSs in place
**Comment:** 1. EPA SHOULD EXTEND THE WASTE ACCUMULAT IO N 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 day s. Due to increased industry knowledge and experience with hazardous waste management processes and the voluntary implementation of third

- party verified environmental management s ys tems (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 Nav y **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 anal ys is by

amending hazardous waste accumulation time requirements to provide up to 60 additional day s for sampling and analy sis 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 Wash ington 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 analy sis 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 requirement s in the interim while awaiting anal yt ical 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 Anal ys is.” 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 pendinganal ys is is not counted toward the generator’s monthl y generation rate. S uch an approach encourages gene rators to act in a diligent manner while avoiding the TSD permitting requirements that apply when the 90 day

accumulation time limit is exceeded. R ecommendation. Amend hazardous waste accumulation time requirements to provide up to 60 additional days for sampling and anal ys is 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 driveway s of remote, unmanned facilities). This would improve and fac ilitate cleanup of dumped wastes b y removing the penalty for “owning” a publicl y accessible property. This would also speed the process of the waste removal thereb y reducing the potential for environmental damage.

**Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authorit** **y 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 r**  **ather than written into the rules which would allow for more**  **f lexibility for the**  **m atrix to be updated.**