**RCRA Identification and Renotification**

Stakeholder: **ESS Group?** Topic: Temporary IDs
Comment: **40 CFR 262.12** . 40 CFR 262.12 requires that a generator must not treat, store, dispose of, transport or offer for transportation hazardous waste without having obtained and EPA Id entification number. 40 CFR 260.10 defines “generator” as any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become s ubject to regulation. **“Site” is not defined in the 40 CFR 260.10.** Hazardous waste is occasionall y generated at unstaffed, temporary , and/or remote field locations such as the following: · Natural gas condensate (D018) generated during wor k on a gas line along a public road · Waste generated from remediation activities · Waste generated from construction activities · Waste generated b y service contractors at non

- industrial facilities · Utility personnel generate hazardous waste as a result of work performed in a manhole along a public road. Unless these sites are CESQGs, they must obtain an EPA ID number and are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 262. **Provisions should be made on a federal level, as they have in many states, to allow for**  **the assignment of temporary EPA ID numbers** when wastes must be shipped for disposal from unstaffed locations. In the case of field

- generated wastes and wastes generated by service contractors who do not own or operate the site where the waste is generat ed, we recommend that the regulations be revised to allow contractors, under certain conditions, to self

- transport waste to a central location, such as the contractor’s site, where the waste would be required to be managed as if it was generated at the main site. Inthis case, the issuance of temporary E PA ID numbers would not be necessary . 40 CFR 261.5 does not currently

allow waste generated at a CESQG site to be transported to a generator site (unless allowed b y an authorized state). In the case of uti lity

- ty

pe situations, most have sites that generate waste on a regular basis and already have EPA ID numbers. In many cases, utility employees perform work at field locations and may generate small quantities of hazardous waste. These wastes would likely b e managed in a manner that is more compliant, and therefore more protective of the environment, if they could be managed b y the contractor at the contractor’s site.
Stakeholder: Private Citizen

- Rolf Hill Topic: I ssuance of Generator ID Numbers to law enforcement for “sites of generation” that exceed the Small Quantity

Generator (SQG) exemption level.
Comment: **Disclaimer:** These comments are my personal views on the referenced docket and do not necessaril y represent the views of the Drug Enforcement Administration. **Background:** Since Ileft EPA in 1989, Ihave worked at the Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) as part of the **clandestine drug laboratory cleanup program (the program)**  . The environmental part o f the program provides qualified emergency response contractors to field agents (federal, state and local) who have seized a clandestine drug laboratory and the associated chemicals and contaminated apparatus. As part of the program, the contractors are re quired to compl y with applicable regulations regarding the proper characterization, packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of seized chemicals and contaminated apparatus that is to be removed from the site

. One of the basic premises of the program uses the definition of a generator (40 CFR 260.10) to define law enforcement as the generator of waste seized at the clandestine drug laboratory : “A generator is a person, by site, whose act or processes hazardous waste identified or listed in part 261 of this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation.” (emphasis added) Compliance b y law enforcement with the Standards for Generators (and other parts of the hazardo us waste management regulations) is based on the act of law enforcement seizing a clandestine drug laboratory a s the action that “first causes the hazardous waste to become subject to regulation.” (One could argue that the perpetrator is not the generator since he did not intend on the seized chemicals being waste. One could also argue that the perpetrator is the generator for that portion of the seized chemical that was already used in the illicit process. In either event, the program requires the DEA contractor to remove and properly manage all seized chemicals and contaminated apparatus “as if it was a hazardous waste.”) The seizure of clandestine drug laboratories can occur any d ay of the year and any time of the day , and the time of generation is generall y not known well in advance; unlike “industrial generators” whose generation is, for the most part, scheduled as part of the manufacturing process. **As a**  **result, some of the requirements for generators in 40 CFR 262 do not take into consideration the**  **spe cial circumstances associated with the seizure of clandestine drug laboratories.**  I can say without hesitation that when the Standards for Generators were first developed, the special circumstances surrounding the seizure of a clandestine drug laboratory were not considered! Having said that, I would also like to say that the Standards for Generators has stood the test of time, but that a review after twenty ye ars is certainly a positive step to improve the program, foster a pollution prevention stewardship and reduce compliance costs. **Comments:** My

comments focus on one area of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that affect how periodic, episodic, or random generators are affected by strict interpretation of the existing regulations. **In partic ular, my comments focus on the issuance of**  **Generator ID Numbers to law enforcement for “sites of generation” that exceed the Small Quantity Generator (SQG) exemption level.**  **Issuance of EPA ID Numbers:** Over the past 15 years, it has become apparent that the i ssuance of Generator ID Numbers by the various states is a patchwork of procedures. In light of my experience at DEA (and in this era of national uneasiness) a standard procedure for obtaining Interim EPA ID Numbers for “one

- time sites of generation” should be considered. Recent experience has indicated that some authorized states have the ability to issue EPA ID Numbers 24 hours

- a - day , seven day s - a - week. Others will only issue EPA ID Numbers during normal working hours. Since clandestine drug laborato ry seizures are not conducted based on state offices being open 24 hours

- a - day , there are some circumstances where a law enforcement agency, faced with a large clandestine drug laboratory , could exceed the SQG exemption level and might have to wait until the next business day (possibl y two or three days later for weekendseizures) to legally move a shipment of hazardous waste from a clandestine drug laboratory

. Officer safety , site security and effective use of resources are among the issues caused b y the i neffective issuance of EPA ID Numbers. For example, a seizure that occurs on a Friday evening could result in a 2 1⁄2 day delay in moving the seized chemicals and contaminated apparatus if the state in which the seizure occurred only issued EPA ID Numbers during normal working hours. This would b e exacerbated b y three

- day holiday w eekends. Even if the seizure occurred during the weekday, the law enforcement officers, many paid by state and local agencies, would be required to provide security for hazardous waste removal contract personnel through the night until the state office opened the next morning. **The burden on these law enforcement agencies could be avoided if a standard procedure were**  **adopted nationally that would allow for immediate or expedited issuance of EPA ID Numbers under these speci**  **alized circumstances.** At least one state, California, has pre

- established EPA ID Numbers to be used by any emergency responder in a particular county . This could be problematic if various responders used the same county

- specific, emergency response EPA ID Number. It could also be problematic if the total amount of wastes “generated” using that number exceeded the SQG exemption limit, causing the need to submit a Biennial Report. (I believe California may have recognized this issue and exempted such generat ors from filing an otherwise meaningless Biennial Report.) If states cannot justify providing a “24/7” EPA ID Number issuing service, one alternative that could work would be a national procedure to provide law enforcement, and perhaps certain other emergency responders or their contractors, a block of “temporary” or “one

- time” Interim EPA ID Numbers for sites of generation that are not likel y t o ever require a number again ( e.g. , truck spills, train wrecks and clandestine drug laboratory seizures). These numbers could be issued in blocks of ten, as an example, and would only be activated b y the specialized/authorized user when needed **and** dependent on the user providing a cop y of the Generator Notification Form, EPA Form 8700

- 12, within 72 hours of activatio n. (Other activation times and the size of the block of numbers might be considered to balance compliance costs with program effectiveness.) (It should be noted that issuance of EPA ID Numbers cannot be accomplished before a clandestine drug laboratory s ei zure occurs for security

reasons.) One other issue to be addressed under this alternative is to whom the ID Numbers should be issued. Given the nature of the RCRA program to delegate authority to states with a substantially equivalent program, so me states may be reluctant to issue a block of number to a federal agency ( e.g., DEA or Office of Homeland Security) located in Washington, DC, where a nationall y coordinated effort is in place. For national consistency, however, a centralized program should result in a more efficient and cost effective program. Some states would argue that issuance of EPA ID Numbers to an entity outside their jurisdiction would compromise their inspection program. I question whether this is a “real” inspection issue when m easured against the administrative nature of any potential “offense.” If the federal agency failed to comply

with the administrative requirement to file an EPA 8700

- 12 within the required time allotted, the state could restrict issuance of future blocks of numbers. Below is proposed regulatory language to be inserted in the appropriate place in 40 CFR Part 262: **Potential Regulatory Language:** * * ***(a)** If an authorized state agency does not issues EPA ID Numbers 24 hours

- per - day ,blocks of Interim EPA ID Numb ers shall be issued in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) below to federal, state, or local government agencies for use in emergency response activities when those activities cause the generation of hazardous waste in excess of the established Small Qu antity Generator exemption level; **(b)** Any Interim EPA ID Number used from the block of numbers issued under paragraph (a) shall be activated with the EPA Regional Administrator or authorized state agency with jurisdiction over the emergency response site f or which the number was issued within 72 hours of use of that number; **(c)** Activation of the EPA Number issued from the block of Interim EPA ID Numbers issued under paragraph (a) shall consist of submitting a completed EPA Form 8700

- 12 to the EPA Regional A dministrator or authorized state agency with jurisdiction over the emergency response site for which the number was issued. The form shall be sent electronically ( e.g. , facsimile, scanned document attached to e

- mail, etc. ) b y the deadline established in paragraph (b) with a hardcop y mailed to the appropriate agency ; anticipated monthly

need, and the on

- going size of the block of numbers may increase or decrease to ensure Interim EPA ID Numbers are available for regulated emergency responses; **(e)** Replacement of activated Interim EPA ID Numbers shall occur as needed to ensure Interim EPA ID Numbers are available for regulated emergency response; **(d)** The size of the initial block of numbers shall be a function of the documented or anticipated monthly need, and the on

- going size of the block of numbers may increase or decrease to ensure Interim EPA ID Numbers are available for regulated emergency responses; **(e)** Replacement of activated Interim EPA ID Numbers shall occur as needed to ensure Interim EPA ID Numbers are available for regulated emergency response; **(f)** Is suance of replacement Interim EPA ID Numbers may be suspended until activation requirements of paragraph (b) are completed; and **(g)** Biennial Report requirements shall not apply to emergency

response activities performed at sites of generation for which an Interim EPA ID Number was used.
Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Renotification requirement Comment: There should be some ty pe of renotification requirement in 40 CFR 262.12 for generators when their generator status changes ( i.e., when they c ease operating, change location, etc.) This is one way

to improve the accuracy

of our data bases used to identify handlers and to provide public information. Currentl y, there is no such requirement which h as resulted in outdated, incorrect data.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: **Notification changes when status, etc. change** Comment: Notification changes are needed

– Currently , when a generator’s status changes, it

changes l ocation, chang es addresses due to a 911 initiative in the area, etc., 40CFR262 does not specify whether the generator must submit a new notification. This is particularl y true when the generator ceases to operate altogether. As a result, it is enormously difficult to maintain accurate data bases for the public and for accurate handler universes. Worse, ADEM has sometimes found that closing generators, particularl y SQGs, will leave hazardous waste on

- site, which creates not only violations of the storage requirements of 4 0CFR265, but can create a situation that poses a serious threat to human health and the environment. The State of Alabama has addressed this by changing the notification requirements from a one

- time requirement to a ye arly requirement. The text of the Ala

bama requirement is as follows: (4) Annual Submission of ADEM Form 8700

- 12, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity and Certifications of Waste Management. (a) A generator must submit a correct and complete ADEM Form 8700

- 12 including all appropriate attachment pages and fees) reflecting current waste activities to the Department annually

according to the following schedule. The Department must receive the ADEM Form 8700

- 12 (including all appropriate attachment pages and fees) no later than the 15th day of the specified month. (Table displaying example not included) (b) In order to eliminate the need for multiple Notifications during the reporting year, facilities which anticipate periodically switching between generator classificatio ns should notify for the higher classification (i.e., if a facility typi call y operates as small quantity generator, but anticipates being a large quantity

generator for any

period during the year, they should notify

as a large quantity

generator);

 **ADEM realizes that a requirement as detailed as the foregoing would not be easily**  **implemented as a national standard, but believes that the advantages of implementing such an approach are many.**  Such a sy stem would result in more accurate databases of generators , which benefits not only

the planning and accountability e fforts of environmental agencies, but also the portions of the regulated community that rel y on these data bases for activities such as emergency

response planning, environmental assessments, etc. In addition, it would allow environmental agencies to take a more proactive role in ensuring that closed sites do not pose a hazard while they are still new rather than waiting till the agency happens across the site later or is drawn to the site by

a citi zen complaint. **At a minimum, the notification requirement should be changed to require that generators renotify whenever a change in the operation of the**  **facility results in a significant change in the nature (i.e., the waste codes) of the hazardous wastes**  **produced at the facility, the amount (i.e., a change in generator status) of the hazardous**  **wastes produced**  **at the**  **facility, or**  **when the**  **accuracy of**  **the information provided**  **by the facility on the 8700**
**- 12 changes (i.e., the ownership of the facility change**  **s or the facility closes). ADEM also recommends that a “closing notification” be required when a**  **facility ceases hazardous waste operations at the location given on the 8700**
**- 12, whether this**  **is due to efficient waste minimization, the facility moving to an other location, or the facility**  **ceasing operation altogether.**Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: **Notification changes when status, etc. change**

Comment: 262.12

- **The regulations describe the requirement to submit Form 8700**
**- 12 to**  **obtain an EPA identification number, but they are silent on any requirement to submit subsequent Form 8700** 
**- 12 notifications when changes occur, or to update information**  **provided in the orig inal submission.**  The instructions for Form 8700

- 12 note certain circumstances when subsequent notifications "should" be submitted, or are "recommended," but it is not clear when they

are actually "required." S tate regulations/instructions often contain similar uncertainti es. **PhRMA recommends that EPA clarify in 262.12 if, and when, subsequent Form 8700** 
**- 12 notifications are required.**  Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: **Renotification every 5**
**- Years** 
Comment: Notification: 262.12. **Florida proposes a five**
**- year cy**  **cle for hazardous waste generator notifications.**  Paper and electronic files of generators who do not renew their notification at the five

- ye ar interval should be archived after notice and confirmation. **In addition,**  **TSDFs, transporters and hazardous waste b rokers should be required to report any**  **generator that claims to be conditionally exempt but ships more than 1,000 kg of waste at any one time, or more than 1,200 kg of waste in a single calendar year.**  TSDFs have been known to supply

a p reprinted “CESQG g enerator number” on manifests supplied to customers that are not conditionall y exempt in order to accept over 1000 kg of their waste at one time, or more than 100 kg per month over the course of the year. **TSDFs, transporters,**  **and hazardous**  **waste brokers**  **should also be required to check to make sure that the EPA facility ID number provided by the generator is valid prior to accepting waste. EPA’s Envirofacts warehouse**  **makes this simple.** Since FDEP proposes a five

- ye ar notification cycle for generators, **r e**  **- notification would**  **present an opportunity to describe and certify waste minimization efforts. In addition, EPA**  **could recognize compliance with EMS protocols as equivalent to a waste minimization certification. Incentives should be offered to encourage w**  **aste minimization, especially for SQGs and CESQGs.** 
Stakeholder: US Postal Service Topic: **Co**
**- located/co** 
**- owned facilities**  Comment: The Postal Service maintains large mail processing/distribution facilities that are often co - located on the same contiguou s property as delivery vehicle maintenance facilities. A lthough the vehicle maintenance and processing/distribution facilities have different wastes, functions, managers and mailing addresses, authorized states may classify both facilities under one RCRA generator identification number due to common ownership. A s a result, both facilities must aggregate their monthly

waste generation quantities as a single hazardous waste generator and often jointly

trigger a larger generator category than had they

been e valuated separatel y. The regulatory

b urden is increased for both facilities despite the fact that the hazardous wastes

– and all other aspects of the facility ’s operations

– are managed separatel y.**The Agency should instruct authorized states to allow co**  **- located/co** 
**- owned facilities, which** 

**have separate buildings with distinct business processes, management and accounting practices, to be individual generators for the purposes of calculating monthly waste**  **generation quantities and obtaining an identifica tion number** 

. G iven the fact that co

- located facilities manage and maintain separate documentation for their waste streams, it is practical for the regulatory

a uthority to monitor them separately

. A s part of this provision, co - located facilities operating as separate generators would be prohibited from commingling their wastes. S imilar to its recent proposal, EPA may consider using Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) or North American Industrial Classification Sy stem (“NAICS”) codes to delineate faci lities with separate business processes that are located on contiguous property. Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute Topic: **Method needed for a generator to identify when an identification number is no longer needed.**  Comment: The regulations (§ 262.12(b)) describe the requirement to submit Form 8700

- 12 to obtain an EPA identification number, but they are silent on any requirement to submit subsequent Form 8700

- 12 notifications when changes occur, or to update information provided in the original submission. **The instructions for Form 8700**
**- 12 note certain circumstances when**  **subsequent notifications "should" be submitted, or are "recommended," but it is not clear when they are actually "required."**  **S tate regulations/instructions often contain simila**  **r uncertainties.**  Also regarding notifications, there are cases when a generator number has been obtained by

an operator for a facility , such as a warehouse, which after a period of time is no longer needed due to a change in use or owner. **API requests EPA include a method for a generator**  **to identify that an identification number is no longer needed.**

Stakeholder: Utility

Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Topic: **Multiple**
**- Generator ID Numbers For a Single**  **Facility**
Comment: VI

. **EPA Should All ow for Multiple** 
**- Generator ID Numbers For a Single Facility.**  An issue related to the episodic generator matter (see issue IV above) involves the practical problems that arise regarding the issuance of generator identification (“ID”) numbers. See 40 C.F.R. § 262.12. Under the current regulatory regime, generator ID numbers are generall y assigned to entities based on the street location or address of the generator. D uring construction or maintenance operations at a particular site, however, there can be mul tiple “generators” at one location ( e.g. , separate contractors engaged in distinct activities that may e ach generate hazardous waste). Requiring each of these individual activities to operate under a single generator ID number when they are trul y independ ent operations causes practical and regulatory complications. For example, a facility

that normally

operates as a small quantity hazardous waste generator may

unexpectedly

find itself thrust into large quantity generator status if a contractor engaged in a one - time maintenance event at the site generates hazardous waste and is required to use the facility ’s existing generator ID number. In these circumstances, the site owner/operator is burdened with the contractor’s waste generator activities for purpose s of determining the site’s generator status. In addition, sharing a RCRA generator ID number for two entities that aretruly

distinct can cause complicated commercial and regulatory disputes between the entities. **USWAG believes that the process for issu ing RCRA generator ID numbers should**  **be flexible enough to accommodate separate and distinct ID numbers when there are truly one or more generators operating at the same location.**  **T his could be done, for example,**  **through the issuance of a separate, tempor ary ID number for an on** 
**- site contractor at a**  **location that already has a pre**
**- existing generator ID number.**  While USWAG appreciates that some RCRA authorized states attempt to address these circumstances on a case

- by

- case basis, this issue is of general co ncern to many generators across the country and therefore warrants a practical solution at the federal level. 9 commenters; 9 comments