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 

Identification 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 subject 

to regulation. “Site” is not defined in the 40 CFR 260.10. Hazardous waste is occasionally 

generated at unstaffed, temporary, and/or remote field locations such as the following:

· Natural gas condensate (D018) generated during work on a gas line along a public road

· Waste generated from remediation activities

· Waste generated from construction activities

· Waste generated by 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 generated, 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. In this case, the issuance of temporary EPA 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 by an authorized state).

In the case of utility-type 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 be managed in a 

manner that is more compliant, and therefore more protective of the environment, if they could be 

managed by the contractor at the contractor’s site.

Stakeholder: Private Citizen - Rolf Hill Topic: Issuance 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 necessarily represent the views of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Background: Since I left EPA in 1989, I have worked at the Drug Enforcement 

Administration(DEA) as part of the clandestine drug laboratory cleanup program (the 
program). The environmental part of 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 required to comply 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 by law enforcement with the Standards for Generators (and other 

parts of the hazardous waste management regulations) is based on the act of law enforcement 

seizing a clandestine drug laboratory as 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 day of the year and any time of the day, 

and the time of generation is generally 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 

special 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 years 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 particular, 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 issuance 

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 days-a-week. Others will only issue EPA ID Numbers during normal working 

hours. Since clandestine drug laboratory 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 (possibly two or three days later for weekend
seizures) 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 by the 

ineffective 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 be exacerbated by three-day

holiday weekends. 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 specialized 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 generators 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 likely to 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 by the specialized/authorized user when needed and 

dependent on the user providing a copy of the Generator Notification Form, EPA Form 8700-12, 

within 72 hours of activation. (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 seizure 

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, some 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 nationally 

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 measured 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 Numbers 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 Quantity 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 for 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 

Administrator 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.) by the deadline established in paragraph (b) with a hardcopy 

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) Issuance 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 type of renotification requirement in 40 CFR 262.12 for 

generators when their generator status changes ( i.e., when they cease 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. Currently, there is no such requirement which has 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 location, changes addresses due to a 911 initiative in the area, etc., 40CFR262 does not 

specify whether the generator must submit a new notification. This is particularly 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, particularly SQGs, will leave hazardous waste on-site, which creates not 

only violations of the storage requirements of 40CFR265, 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 yearly requirement.

The text of the Alabama 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 classifications should notify for the higher classification (i.e., if

a facility typically 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 system would result in more accurate databases of generators, 

which benefits not only the planning and accountability efforts of environmental agencies, but also 

the portions of the regulated community that rely 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 citizen 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 changes 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 another 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 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." State regulations/instructions often contain similar 

uncertainties. 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 cycle for hazardous waste 

generator notifications. Paper and electronic files of generators who do not renew their 

notification at the five-year interval should be archived after notice and confirmation. In addition, 

TSDFs, transporters and hazardous waste brokers 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 preprinted “CESQG generator number” on manifests supplied to customers that 

are not conditionally 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-year notification cycle for generators, re-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 waste 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 contiguous property as delivery vehicle maintenance facilities. Although 

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. As 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 evaluated separately. The 

regulatory burden is increased for both facilities despite the fact that the hazardous wastes – and all 

other aspects of the facility’s operations – are managed separately.
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 identification number. Given the fact that co-located 

facilities manage and maintain separate documentation for their waste streams, it is practical for 

the regulatory authority to monitor them separately. As part of this provision, co-located facilities 

operating as separate generators would be prohibited from commingling their wastes. Similar to 

its recent proposal, EPA may consider using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or North 

American Industrial Classification System (“NAICS”) codes to delineate facilities 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." State regulations/instructions often contain similar 

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 Allow 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 generally 

assigned to entities based on the street location or address of the generator. During construction 

or maintenance operations at a particular site, however, there can be multiple “generators” at one 

location (e.g., separate contractors engaged in distinct activities that may each generate 

hazardous waste). Requiring each of these individual activities to operate under a single 

generator ID number when they are truly independent 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 purposes of determining the site’s 

generator status. In addition, sharing a RCRA generator ID number for two entities that are 
truly distinct can cause complicated commercial and regulatory disputes between the entities.

USWAG believes that the process for issuing 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. This could be done, for example, 

through the issuance of a separate, temporary 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 concern to many generators across the country and therefore 

warrants a practical solution at the federal level.

9 commenters; 9 comments