# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 51 Fed. Reg. 10145 1986

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed May 29 13:54:48 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

## Monday March 24. 1986 • m m m m m m m m m i m

m m m m m m m m m m m

m

m m

-- m

m mm

m

m

m m m m m m m m m 

### i

m m

m m

m mmmm

m mm m m m m m m m m m m m

m 

# Part II



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 270, and 271

Hazardous Waste: Generators of Hazardous Waste (100 to 1000 Kilograms Per Month), on Site Storage, etc.; Final Rule

40 CFR Part 262

Hazardous Waste: Generators of Hazardous Waste (100 to 1000 Kilograms Per Month), Waste Minimization; Proposed Rule

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10145 1986

### 16146 Federal lRegister /' Vol: 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 270,

and 271

[SWH-FRL-2969-2(b)]

Hazardous Waste Management System: General; Identificationand Listingof Hazardous Waste; Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste; Standards for Transporters of Hazardous Waste; EPA Administered Permit Programs; Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 1, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of1984 (HSWA), that would be applicable togenerators of between 100kg and 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendarmonth ("100-1000 kg/mo generators"). Based in large measure on the existing hazardous waste'regulatory program, the proposed rules represented the Agency's efforts to balance the statutory mandate to protect human health and the environment with the statutory directive to keep burdensome regulation ofsmall businesses to a minimum.

EPA is today promulgating final regulations for these generators which modify certain aspects ofthe proposal. These modifications relate to the "small quantity generator" provisions of §261.5 and the use ofthe multi-copy manifest in lieu ofthe proposed single copy system. Exemptions from exception and biennial reporting as well as from the manifest system for certain reclamation shipments and from certain ofthe requirements applicable to on-site accumulation have been retained in the final rules. The effect ofthis rule would be to subject generators ofbetween 100 kg and 1000kg ofhazardous waste in a calendar month to the hazardous waste regulatory program. DATES:EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 1986.

ComplianceDates:The Part 262 standards will'become applicable to 100-1000 kg/mo generators on September 22, 1986.

The Part 264 and 265 standards will become applicable to 100-1000 kg/mo generators treating, storing, ordisposing ofhazardous waste on-site using nonexempt management practices on March 24, 1987.

Foroff-site facilities managing wastes from 100-1000 kg/mo generators, the Part 264 or 265 standards will apply to the wastes from generators of100-1000 kg/mo on September 22, 1986.

For off-site facilities managing wastes exclusively from generators of less than 1000 kg/mo, the requirement to obtain interim status as a hazardous waste facility for wastes from 100-1000 kg/mo generators will become applicable on September 22, 1986.

Off-site facilities managing waste fromboth large quantity generators and generators 100-1000 kg/mo willneed to modify theirPart Apermit applications (as well as Part B ifalready submitted) by September 22, 1986 to reflect these newly regulated wastes from 100-1000 kg/mo generators. ADDRESSES: Thepublic docket for this rulemaking is located in Rm S-212-C, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. The RCRA Docket is available forviewing 8:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. As provided in40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged forcopying services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, (800) 424-9346, (in Washington, DC, call 382- 3000), the SmallBusiness Hotline, (800) 368-5888, or Robert Axelrad, (202) 382- 5218, Office ofSolid Waste (WH-562B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I.Authority I. Background and Summary ofFinal Rule

A. TheHazardous andSolid Waste

Amendments of1984 1.Codification Rule 2.Minimum Rulemaking Requirements 3.March 31, 1986 Hammer Provisions 4.August 1,1985 Proposal B.Summary ofFinalRule III.Response to Comments andAnaylsis of Issues A. EPA's Approach To Regulating 100-1000

kg/mo Hazardous Waste Generators B.Applicability Issues

1.Definition of "Small Quantity Generator" 2.Generator Category Determination

. a. Counting Amendment to section .261.5

b. Generators ofAcutely Hazardous Waste

c.Generators ofNon-Acutely Hazardous Waste in Quantities ofLess than100 kg/mo

d.Determination ofGenerator Status C.Part262 Generator Responsibilities

1.Notification and Identification Number Requirements-section 262.12 2.TheHazardous Waste Manifest System-Part 262, SubpartB

a. Number ofCopies andUse of Manifest

b. Manifest Exemption for Certain Reclamation Shipments

c.Waste Minimization 3.Recordkeeping and Reporting-Part 262,Subpart D

a. Recordkeeping-section 262.40 b.Exception Reports--section 262.42

c. Biennial Reports-section 262.41 4.On-site Accumulation-section 262.34

a. Time and Quantity Limitations b. Standards Applicable to On-site Accumulation i.Standards forPreparedness and Prevention-Part 265, Subpart C ii.Standards forContingency Plans, Emergency Procedures--Part 265, SubpartD,andPersonnel Training Requirements iii. Standards forAccumulation in
Containers-Part 265, Subpart I iv. Standards for On-site Accumulation in Tanks-Part 265, Subpart J 5.International Shipments D.Transportation Issues E.Part264/265 Facility Standard Issues 1.Activities Requiring Permits 2.Applicability ofPermitting Requirements to Recycled Wastes 3.Permit by Rule 4.Modifications to Part APermit Applications IV. Delayed Effective Dates ,V. Impact on Authorized States A.Applicability in Authorized States B.Effecton State Authorizations VI. CERCLA Impacts VII. Executive Order 12291-Regulatory Impact A.Estimates ofPerFirm Costs

1. Part262 Generator Standards 2.Transportation Costs 3.Treatment, Storage,and Disposal Costs

a.On-site Accumulation b.Treatment and Disposal B.

Estimates ofNationwide Incremental Cost Burden on Generators of100-1000 kg/mo C.Estimates ofthe Economic Impacts of

Today's Rule VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act IX.Paperwork Reduction Act X.List ofSubjects

1.Authority

These regulations are being promulgated under authority of section 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3010, 3015, 3017, and 3019, ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921, 6922,6924,6925,6926,6930,6935,6939, 6991, and 6993.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10146 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

I1 Background and Summary ofFinal 

### Rule

A. TheHazardousandSolidWaste Amendments of1984

On November 8,.1984, the President signed Pub. L. 98-616, titled The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These comprehensive amendments will have far-reaching ramifications for EPA's hazardous waste regulatory program and will impact a very large number of businesses in the United States.Further. Congress has established in these amendments ambitious schedules for the imposition ofthe requirements that EPA must promulgate.

With respect to regulation ofsmall quantity generators (i.e., generators of less than 1000 kg ofhazardous waste in

a calendar month) the HSWA added a

new subsection (d) to Section 3001 of RCRA designed tomodify EPA's current regulatory exemption ofwastes generated by small quantity generators fromfull Subtitle C regulation (40 CFR 261.5). Section 3001(d) directs EPA to. develop a comprehensive set of standards which will apply to hazardous
wastes produced by small quantily generators ofbetween 100 and 1000 kg ofhazardous wastein a calendar month ("generators of100-1000 kg/mo"). EPA is required to promulgate final standards

no later than March 31, 1986. Today's final rule satisfied this requirement. In addition, section 3001(d) imposes certain minimum requirements on these generators prior to that date and requires EPAto complete a number of studies before April 1987.

1.Codification Rule

On July 15, 1985, EPA published in the Federal Register a Final Rule which codified a number oflegislatively mandated provisions contained in the HSWA (see 50FR28702-28755, July 15, 1985). Among those provisions is the requirement ofsection 3001(d)(3) that effective 270 days from the date of enactment, all off-site shipments of hazardous waste fromgenerators of greater than 100 kgbut less than 1000 kg ofhazardous waste during a calendar month must be accompanied by a copy ofthe Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, signed by the generator, and containing the following information:

- The name and address ofthe generator ofthe waste; *The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)description ofthe waste, including theproper shipping
name, hazard class, and identification number (UN/NA);

- The number and type ofcontainers; 

### * The quantity ofwaste being transported; and

* The name and address of the facility designated to receive the waste.

The information required by this provision (codified at 40 CFR 261.5(h)(3)) corresponds to Items 3,9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16, ofEPA form 8700-22 and accompanying instructions promulgated

on March 20, 1984 (49FR 10490). These information requirements conform to DOT shipping requirements designed to provide necessary information to handlers ofhazardous materials (e.g., transporters and emergency response personnel).' The interim manifest requirement applies only until the effective date ofthe regulations being promulgated today. These final rules will supersede the existing manifest requirements for these generators. ! The HSWA provisions, together with existing regulations, distinguish three main classes ofsmall quantity generators for regulatory purposes: (1) Those generating between 100 and 1000 kgofnon-acutely hazardous waste per calendar month; (2) those generating up to 100kg ofnon-acutely hazardous
waste per calendar month; and (3)those generating acutely hazardous wastes in quantities currently set forth in §261.5(e). These classes of small quantity generator are distinguished in the July 1985 "Codification Rule". Until the effective date oftoday's final rules, under the regulatory system imposed by 40 CFR 261.5 implementing section 3001(d) ofthe HSWA, a small quantity generator in the first group (i.e., producing between 100 and 1000 kg of non-acutely hazardous waste in a calendarmonth) is subejct to the following requirements:

(1) He must determine if his waste is hazardous under 40 CFR 262.11 

### (§261.5(h)(1));

(2) He may conditionally accumulate hazardous waste on-site provided he does not exceed the quantity limitation contained in §261.5(h)(2);

(3)After August 5, 1985,he must partially complete and sign a single
copy of.theUniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to accompany any off-site shipment ofhazardous waste 

### (§261.5(h)(3)); and

(4) Hemust treat or dispose ofhis hazardous waste on-site, orensure delivery to an off-site treatment, storage,

ordisposal facility. Theon-site oroffsite facility must be either: (i)Permitted

While 100-1000 kg/mo generators are not now required tocomplete the entiremanifest under Federal law, many States operating their own hazardous waste programs may already require additional information on the manifest orrequire

use of the State'sversion oftheUniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. by EPApursuant to Section 3005 of RCRA orby a State having an authorized permit program under Part 271; (ii) in interim status under Parts 270 and 265; (iii)permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or (iv)a facility which beneficially uses or
reuses, orlegitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, ortreats the waste priorto reuse, recycling orreclamation 

### (§261.5(h)(4)).

As discussed in the remainder ofthis preamble, 100-1000 kg/mo generators willbe regulated under Part 262-266 and Parts 270 and 124 when today's rules become'effective, to the extent that rules apply.

Generators ofless than 100 kg of hazardous wastein a calendar month willremain conditionally exempt from
most ofthehazardous waste program,

as provided in §261.5(g). For example, generators of less than 100 kgare not required to comply with anymanifesting provisions. No additional requirements apply to this class ofhazardous waste generator under the existing rules unless the quantity limitations contained in §261.5(g) are exceeded.

Generators that produce acutely hazardous waste and do not exceed thequantity limitations for such waste under §261.5(e) will also be conditionally exempt fromregulation. No additional requirements apply to this class ofgenerators unless the quantity limitations contained in §261.5(e) are exceeded, at which point the acutely hazardous waste becomes subject to the full generator requirements of40 CFR Part 262.

2. Minimum Rulemaking Requirements

Section 3001(d)(1) of theHSWA requires EPAto promulgate, by March 31, 1986, standards under sections 3002, 3003, and 3004, for hazardous wastes generated by a generator ina total quantity greater than 100but less than 1000 kilograms in a calendarmonth. Standards developed under this section
must be sufficient to protect human health and the environment but "may
vary from thestandards applicableto hazardouswastegeneratedbylarger quantitygenerators"[emphasis added] (section 3001(d)(2)). EPA is further authorized to promulgate standards for generators ofless than 100kg/mo of hazardous waste iftheAdministrator determine it is necessary to do so to protect human health and the environment (section 3001(d)(4)).

At a minimum, standards issued pursuant to section 3001(d)(1) must require that all treatment, storage, and disposal ofhazardous wastes from 

### -10147

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10147 1986

### 10148 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

generators ofbetween 100 and 1000 kg ofhazardous wastein a calendarmonth

occur at a facility with interim status or
a permit issuedunder section3005 of RCRA.The standards must also allow generators ofbetween 100 and 1000 kg ,ofhazardous waste during a calendar month to store waste on-site forup to 180days without being required to obtain a RCRApermit. Ifa generator must ship orhaul his waste greater than 200miles,that generator may store up to 6000 kg ofhazardous wastes for upto 270 days without a permit (section 3001(d)(6)). These minimum requirements are embodied in today's final rule.

In addition, theAgency has interpreted the statute torequire that, at

a minimum, EPA'sregulations must provide forcontinuation oftheAugust 1985 requirement thatoff-site shipments ofhazardous waste from100-1000 kg/

mogenerators be accompanied bya single copy ofthe Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest containing at least the information specifiedin section 3001(d)(3). See H.R.Report No. 198,98th Cong, 1st Sess.25-28 (1983); S.Rep. No. 284,98th Cong. 1st Sess.8 (1983); H.R. Rep. No. 133,98th Cong., 2nd Sess., 101- 103 (1984).

TheAgency believes that at a minimum Congress intended that the Agency's regulations incorporate the partial UniformHazardous Waste Manifest requirements in ordertoprovide notice ofthe hazardous nature ofthe waste to transporters and

- facilities. In addition, theAgency is specifically authorized to expand the manifest requirements ifnecessary to protect human health and the environment. See section 3001(d)(3). As discussedin Unit III.C.2. oftoday's preamble, EPAhas concluded that additional manifest requirements are necessary to ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment.
3.March 31, 1986 HammerProvisions

IfEPA had failed to promulgate standards for hazardous waste generators producing greater than 100kg but lessthan 1000 kg in a calendar month byMarch 31, 1986, these

. generators would havebeen subject to certain legislatively stipulated provisions.

The promulgation oftoday's final rule priorto March 31, 1986,however, effectively voids thehammer provisions ofthe HSWAwith respect to small quantity generators. Consequently, the requirements promulgated today are the onlyrequirements which 100-1000 kg/

mogenerators must comply with.As discussed in UnitIV, thePart 262 requirements applicable to 100-1000 kg/ mogenerators that manage waste offsitewill take effect six months from todaywhile therequirements ofParts 264 and 265 applicable to generators that manage waste of-site will take effect twelve months from today.

It should be noted that the HSWA specifically states that therequirements ofthisSection should notbe construed tobe determinative ofthe requirements appropriate for smallquantity generators in developing a regulatory program. Thehammer provisions of HSWA, therefore, donotdictate the content ofthese finalrules for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo.
4. August 1,1985 Proposal

OnAugust 1,1985, EPA proposed rules that would apply togenerators of 100-1000 kg/mo ofhazardous waste. Theproposed rulesrepresented the Agency's efforts tobalance theneed for regulation ofthis group ofgenerators in

a manner thatwould protect human health and the environment with the needto minimize the impacts of such regulation on small firms.

The proposed rules modified the existing standards forgenerators and treatment, storage,and disposal facilities toreflect the generally smaller quantities ofwaste and small business nature ofmany ofthese firms. In
essence, EPA concluded that some relief from the administrative andpaperwork requirements embodied in the Part 262 Generator Standards wasappropriate forgenerators of100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste.

EPAproposed toremove 100-1000 kg/

mogenerators from theexisting §261.5 small quantity generatorprovision, thus subjecting them to Part262. In addition, the Agency proposed specific amendments to Part 262to relieve these generators ofsome oftherequirements ofthat Part. Under the proposed rules, generators of100-1000 kg/mo would, havebeen required underPart 262to:

e Determine whether their wastes are hazardous (alreadyrequired under §261.5);

* Obtain anEPA identificatiofi number;

e Store hazardous waste on-site for ho more than 180 or270 days in compliance with specially modified storage standards (unlessthey comply with thefull regulations for hazardous waste management facilities);

* Offer their wastes only to transporters and facilities with anEPA identification number;

* Comply with applicable Department ofTransportation (DOT)requirements forshipping wastes off-site;

e Use a single copy ofthe Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to accompany the wastefrom the generation site.

The proposed requirements for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo were intended to be less stringent than those applicable tolarge quantity generators in two significant respects. First, under the proposed rules, generators of 100- 1000kg/mo would not have been required to comply with the full manifest system required oflarger hazardous
waste generators that ship waste off-site fortreatment, storage, ordisposal. Instead, the Agency proposed a "single copy" manifest system intended to serve

as a "notification" to subsequent handlers ofthe waste (i.e.,transporters and facilities) that the material is a hazardous waste and toprovide essential information to those handlers

as well as emergency personnel. EPA proposed to specifically exempt these generators from the existing manifest requirements pertaining to number and distribution Ofmanifest copies as well

as from therecordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the full manifest system (i.e.,use and retention ofmanifest copies and exception and biennial reporting). EPA alsoproposed
to exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators from all ofthe manifest requirements under certain circumstances where the
waste isreclaimed under contractual arrangements where either the generator

ora reclaimer retains ownership of the material throughout the generation, transportation, and reclamation ofthe
waste. Under such circumstances, EPA believed that the manifest would be unnecessary, provided that specific conditions are met.

A second significant difference for 100-1000 kg/mo generators was the proposed requirements affecting accumulation (i.e., short-term storage) of hazardous waste on-site priorto shipment ofwaste off-site or management on-site in a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. The proposed rules implemented the statutory requirement to allow generators of100-1000 kg/mo to accumulate (i.e., store) waste on-site in tanks orcontainets forup to 180 days (or270 days ifthey must ship their
waste over200 miles fortreatment or disposal), without obtaining interim status or a permit. In addition, the proposed rules provided that these generators would need to comply with specific storage requirements which

were reduced somewhat from those applicable to large quantity generators. Unlike large quantity generators, those producing between 100-1000 kg/mo would not be required to prepare a written contingency plan orhave

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10148 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 Monday, March 24, 1986 

# / Rules and Regulations

formalized personnel training programs. They would, however, be subject to a reduced set ofspecific requirements for contingency and emergency pr6cedures, and for ensuring that their employees

are fully cognizant ofthose procedures

as well as proper hazardous waste handling methods. Generators of 100- 1000 kg/mo that accumulate wastes in tanks or.containers would, however, be subject to the same requirements of existing Subparts I and 

### I ofPart 265 applicable to larger generators as well

as to thepreparedness and prevention standards contained in Subpart C of Part 265.

EPA also proposed that those 100- 1000 kg/mo generators who treat, store,

or dispose oftheir hazardous waste in on-site facilities and who do not qualify for the 180- or 270-day exclusion would be subject to the full set ofParts 264 and 265 facility standards currently applicable to other hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including the need to obtain interim status and a RCRA permit. EPA

saw no basis forreducing the 'technical standards for these generators since the potential hazards to human health and the environment appeared to be equivalent to those from other fully regulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. However, because of the major impact which these facility requirements would be likely to have on many ofthese firms, the Agency proposed to delay the effective date of thisportion of the regulations an additional six months (i.e., 1year from the date ofpublication in the Federal Register of the final rules) to allow these firms additional time to either arrange for off-site management or to up-grade their on-site practices for compliance with the full set ofParts 264 and 265 facility standards.

B. SummaryofFinal Rule Today's final rule adopts most of the provisions ofthe proposed rules for generators of100-1000 kg/mo. Today's final rule subjects generators of 100- 1000 kg/mo to regulation under Parts 262, 263, 264, 265, and 266 ofthe hazardous waste regulations by removing these generators from the conditional exclusion provisions of § 261.5. However, the Agency has decided not to formally redefine a "small quantity generator" as one who generates no more than 100kg ofnonacutely hazardous waste since the Agency has concluded that such a redefinition would increase, rather than reduce, confusion. Consequently, the
term "small quantity generator" will continue to apply to all generators of less than 1000kg ofhazardous waste in

a calendar month.

As a result oftoday's final rule subjecting generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
to the Part 262 requirements, these generators will be required to:

9 Determine whether their wastes are hazardous (already required under §261.5);

- Obtain an EPAidentification number;

- Store hazardous waste on-site for

no more than 180 or 270 days in compliance with specially modified storage standards (unless they comply with the full regulations forhazardous
waste management facilities);

- Offer their wastes only to transpoi'ters and facilities with an EPA identification number;

- Comply with applicable Department ofTransportation (DOT) requirements for shipping wastes off-site;

e Use a multi-part "round-trip" Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to accompany the waste to its final destination; and

o Maintain copies ofmanifests for three years;

EPA is today finalizing a number of the proposed modifications to the Part 262 requirements applicable to generators of100-1000 kg/mo. These generators will not be required to submit biennial reports orfile exception reports ifa copy ofthe manifest is not returned by the destination facility. In addition, the proposed modifications to the accumulation provisions of §262.34 exempting thesegenerators from the requirements to prepare a formal contingency plan and conduct formal personnel training are.also being finalized, as is the proposed exemption from all manifest requirements for
wastes reclaimed under certain contractual arrangements. The Agency is also exempting 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the 50' buffer zone requirements for container storage of ignitable or reactive wastes during periods of on-site accumulation.

The most significant departure from the proposed rules is the Agency's determination that the multiple copy manifest system does not impose a significant burden and that,in fact, the multiple copy manifest system is essential to ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment. Therefore, the modifications to the existing manifest system proposed for 100-1000 kg/mo generators are not being adopted in today's final rule.The reasons for this change are discussed in detail inUnit III.C. ofthis preamble. III. Response to Comments and Analysis ofIssues

This Section of thepreamble addresses the comments received on the August 1, 1985, proposed rules ("Proposal") and describes the Agency's position on'themajor issues raised in the proposal and during the comment period.

A. EPA 'sApproachToRegulating100- 1000kg/mo HazardousWaste Generators

As discussed in the preamble to the Proposal, EPA's approach in developing standards for 100-1000kg/mo generators was one ofbalancing the two competing goals inherent in section 3001(d)-protecting human.health and the environment and avoiding unreasonable burdens on the large number ofsmall businesses affected by the standards. In assuring protection of human health and the environment, the Agency deemed it appropriate and consisent with Congressional intent to consider the "relative risk" posed by the small aggregate amounts ofwaste generated by the 100-1000 kg/mo generators. Given the.lower relative risk that these generators pose compared to larger generators interms ofquantity of waste, varying the standards from those applicable to large quantity generators would still assure protection ofhuman health and the environment.

EPA also evaluated the potential impact offull Subtitle Cregulations with respect to both administrative and technical considerations, and concluded that the technical requirements were

more essential than the administrative requirements to the general goal of protecting human health and the environment because they are directly concerned with controlling releases to the environment. In addition, Congress anticipated reducing administrative requirements, such as reporting and recordkeeping, as a means to reduce impacts on the 100-1000 kg/mo generators. Thus, EPAproposed to relieve these generators of some Part 262 standards that are administrative in
nature while retaining all existing technical standards. The reliefwas only provided togenerators who accumulate on-site for the statutorily-prescribed periods, because, given that the amount ofwaste accumulated would necessarily be limited, the relative risk from releases ofsuch waste wouldbe less than that from the unlimited amounts of
waste accumulated by off-site facilities.

Most persons who commented on EPA's approach to regulation in this

area supported the concept ofreducing 

### i0149

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10149 1986

### 10150 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

burdens on small businesses and of fashioning the degree ofreliefprovided

- from the level ofrisk involved; however, several commenters disagreed onthe level ofrisk posed bywaste from 100- 1000 kg/mo generators. One commenter argued that the "relative risk" approach

was nottechnically sound because the synergistic and antagonistic properties of waste streams were not considered, and mismanagement ofeven small quantities ofwaste,ifnot controlled or regulated, would eventually have the

same impact as larger amounts ofwaste. One commenter pointed out that the relative riskapproach is difficult to justify on a regional orlocal basis, where 100-1000 kg generators may contribute much more than the0.3 percentnationwide contribution, and theirproximity topopulations as compared to large quantity generators should have beenconsidered. Several commenters also asserted that Congress hasjudged thehazardousness ofa given waste to be imparted byits inherent properties, notby its quantity.

AsEPAexplained in theProposal, the Agency believes itto be both appropriate and consistentwith Congressional intent to consider the relative risk posed bythe smaller quantities ofwastegenerated by 100- 1000 kg/mogenerators. Although itdid evaluate several Congressionallyspecified factors, such as waste characteristics, theAgency found that the onlyuseful factorin drawing meaningful distinctions between large quantity generators and 100-1000 kg/mo generators was the quantity ofwaste generated. Thus,the Agency considered both theinherent properties and the quantities ofwaste generated in developing standards to assure protection ofhuman health andthe environment.

The Agency is aware that there can be concentrations of100-1000 kg/mo generators inpopulated areas, and that their0.3 percent nationwide contribution

can beincreased accordingly in some cases; however, overall the quantities of waste capable ofbeing leakedor spilled during storage or transportation, as compared to that oflarge quantity generators, still posesrelatively less risk. Moreover, theonly type ofrelief being provided is where the technical standards deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment are not compromised in substance. The Agency believes that,byretaining all technical standards for storage, transportation, and treatment required. oflarge quantity generators and by modifying some requirements ofan administrative nature for the 100-1.000 kg/mo generators, a fairbalance

- between thegoals ofreducingburdens and protecting health and the environment is reached. TheAgency doesnot believe that exempting the 100- 1000kg/mo generators from these admiiistrative requirements will significantly increase the risks from storage, transportation, or disposal of thewaste. In addition, as discussed below, theAgency's decisions to require the multiple-copy manifest, which will allow "tracking" ofthewaste to ensure proper disposal, willfurtherreduce any potential risks.

Another group ofcommenters criticized EPA's approach in that it did not consider bases for providing reliefin additionto that proposed. Forexample, several commenters asserted that 100- 1000kg/mo generators use less sophisticated waste management practices than large quantity generators, due in largepart to economic constraints. This, along with the lesser relative risks, they asserted, dictates imposing lesscostly regulatory requirements, such as eliminating onsite storage permitting requirements for longer periods oftime andlarger quantities than EPAproposed.

While EPA did consider differences in waste management practices that would distinguish 100-1000 kg/mo generators from large quantity generators, it found that both classes use many ofthe same waste management practices (see50FR 31285 

### (Col. 1)

### (August 1, 1985). The 

### comments received on this subject do not provide evidence indicating otherwise. TheAgency has recognized thatthe 100-1000 kg/mo generators generally have less manpower and fewer economic resources available to them, and that this would affect their ability to comply withthe fullregulatory requirements applicable to large quantity generators. However, Congress has already provided for on-site storage forlonger periods oftimeto allowfor

more economical shipments. In addition,

as discussed below,EPA is modifying certain facility requirements foron-site accumulation to simplify the requirements for contingency plans, emergency procedures, and personnel training (containedin Part 265, Subpart Dand §265.16). These requirements are beingmodified because they would be unduly burdensome and theunderlying environmental objectives can be achieved in their modified form. However, full Parts 264-265 requirements would apply to generators that store their waste in tanks or containers for very long periods oftime (i.e., longer than 180 or 270days) because the quantity ofwaste present, over time, becomes significant. Similarly, the potential forrelease -of hazardous waste to the environment becomes ignificant where 100-1000 kg/

mo generators engage inwaste management in surface impoundments,
waste piles, landfills, or land treatment facilities. Thus, in order to fulfill its mandate to protect human health and the environment, EPA has rejected any suggestions to reduce the Parts 264 and 265 facility standards.

B.ApplicabilityIssues

1.Definition of"Small Quantity Generator"

In the August 1, 1985 proposal, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 261.5 to redefine a smallquantity generator as

one who generates no more than specified quantities ofacutely hazardous waste and no more tharlO00 kg ofother hazardous waste in a calendarmonth. The effect of the proposed redefinition would have been
to remove 100-1000kg/mo generators from.the §261.5 exemption forsmall quantity generators and subject them, instead, toParts 262-266, 270, and 124 of the hazardous waste regulatory
program. Under theproposed rules, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would have been one oftwo classes oflarge quantity generator. The Agency also proposed changes to Part262 that would specifically exempt these 100-1000 kg/

mo generators from a number ofthe otherwise applicable administrative requirements.

A number ofcommenters expressed

concern about the proposed redefinition of the small quantity generator provision
to exclude generators of100-1000 kg/

mo. In :Particular, they stated that many of these generators were onlynow becoming aware of their status as regulated hazardous waste generators and that, for the most part, they recognized themselves as "small quantity generators". Changing these generators to large quantity generators, it was felt, would add to confusion and reduce the likelihood ofcompliance. It

was also pointed out that many ofthe education materials being used to acquaint these generators with the RCRA requirements, including many of EPA's own materials, referred to this class ofgenerator as "small quantity generators". Commenters suggested several specific labels to differentiate the various classes ofgenerators, including such terms as "small.de 

### mininimis","very small quantity generators" or "extremely small quantity generators".

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10150 1986

### Federal Register 

## / Vol. 51, No. 56 

## / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

In proposing to remove the 100-1000 

### kg/mo generators from §261.5, the Agency was attempting to address the complexity and confusion caused by having multiple classes ofsmall quantity generator subject to significantly different standards. The Agency is sympathetic to the concerns ofthese commenters and in no way intended the redefinition to add to the confusion which many ofthese firms may experience inbecoming subject to the bulk oftheRCRA regulatory program for the first time. For the reasons discussed below, EPAhas decided not to alterthe existing definition of"small quantity generator" but is making modifications to §261.5 that will provide a more explicit labeling scheme forregulatory purposes.

Section 261.5 has historically addressed those hazardous waste generators that were conditionally exempt from most ofthehazardous waste regulatory program. Until the HSWA of 1984 and the subsequent codification ofits early enactment provisions on July 15, 1985, only two major classes ofsmall quantity generator existed: those generating or accumulating acutely hazardous wastes below certain quantity cutoffs and those generating oraccumulating below 1000 kg ofmost hazardous wastes. Furthermore, both classes were largely exempt from the standards applicable to large quantity generators.

However, with the addition of a new class ofsmall quantity generator designated by Section 3001(d) ofHSWA (i.e., those generating between 100kg and 1000kg ofhazardous waste in a calendar month) that would be subject to mostofthe standards applicable to large quantity generators, continued use ofthe term "small quantity generator" would have noregulatory significance and would lead to confusion for the previously exempt class ofgenerators.

The proposed redefinition was intended to distinguish between small quantity generators that were conditionally exempt from regulation under §261.5 (i.e., <100 kg/mo) and those that would be subjectto most of therequirements applicable to large quantity generators (i.e.,100-1000 kg/ mo). By removing the 100-1000 kg/mo generator from §261.5 and referring to these generators by their actual quantity limitations, theAgency intended to provide a more explicit, and therefore lessconfusing, regulatory scheme.

The Agency does not believe that the commenters' suggestion ofretainingthe term "small quantity generator" solely for 100-1000 kg/mo generators or creating new labels fordifferent categories ofsmall quantity generators will reduce confusion; such labels would probably cause more confusion, especially where states have established their own small quantity generator definitions and exclusion levels. In fact, as a result of these cbmments, the Agency believes that the
term small quantity generator is no longer sufficiently precise formost regulatory purposes.

For thisreason, theAgency is making three regulatory changes affecting the

use ofthe term "small quantity generator". First, the Agency is adding a definition of "small quantity generator"
to Section 260.10 as follows:

"Small quantity generator" means a generator who generates less than1000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month.
This definition conformsto the existing definitionofthe term and is being added
to §260.10 to alleviate any potential confusion over the definition of "small quantity generator".

Second, EPA is finalizing the proposed removal ofgenerators of100-1000 kg/

mofrom the conditional exclusion provisions of §261.5 and will instead 

### refer to these generators in the regulatory language as generators of 100-1000 kg/mo. This wiUretain the original premise ofthe redefinition which was to segregate in the regulations those generators that are predominantly exempt from regulation '(i.e.generators ofless than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste and generators of acutely hazardous waste in less than specified quantities) from those who are

more fully regulated (i.e.100-1000 kg/mo generators). Since the 100-1000 kg/mo generators are no longer excluded from
most ofthe Part 262 regulations by inclusion in §261.5, the applicable 

### .portions ofParts 262-266, 270, 

### and 124 

### will apply to these generators, as proposed.

Finally, theAgency is also modifying references to the term "small quantity generator" in §261.5 and in other parts ofthe regulations toprovide more explicit descriptions ofthe various classes ofsmall quantity generator. Thus, generators ofless than 100 kg/mo ofhazardous waste orless than specified quantities ofacutely hazardous waste will also be referred to bytheir quantity cutoffs oras generators who are conditionally exempt under Section 261.5. Section 261.5 willnowbe titled "Special Requirements for Hazardous Wastes Generated by Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators."

Theremoval of theterm "small quantity generator" from most regulatory use will inno waypreclude continued use ofthe term "small quantity generator" for general reference and educational purposes. The Agency recognizes the widespread use ofthe term "small quantity generator" by States, trade associations, Congress and others and has no intention of interfering with the continued use of that term by anyone choosing to use it to refer to the broad class generating less than 1000 kg in a calendar month. EPA will also continue to use the term "small quantity generator" in describing the collective group ofgenerators below 1000 kg/mo but will use the terms "generators ofless than 100kg/mo" and "100-1000 kg/mogenerator" for regulatory purposes. For example, in discussing methodology for counting quantities in order to determine generator status, it would be appropriate
to refer to the small quantity generator class since it includes both the 100-1000 kg/mo generators and generators ofless than 100 kg/mo.

2. Generator Category Determination

In the Proposal, the Agency discussed

a number ofissues relevant to making a determination ofwhich generator category a given firm belonged to at any given point in time in order to determine what requirements that establishment

was actually subject to. Among the issues covered were which wastes need
not be included in quantity determinations (e.g., spent lead-acid batteries destined forreclamation and used oil) and how to count wastes for purposes of determining generator status (e.g.,counting ofwastes reclaimed onsite). The comments received on these proposed rules raised a variety of additional issues with respect to what tyfes ofactivities and wastes were intended to be covered by the proposed rules, and whether the rules were applicable to "episodic generators" who might be fully regulated in one month but conditionally exempt thenext. These issues are discussed below. In addition to the explanation provided in this preamble, the Agency intends to develop detailed,-plain-Englishguidance and education materials to help the 100- 1000 kg/mo generators understand and comply with thehazardous waste regulations.

a. Counting Amendment to §261.5. In

an effort to help clarify for small hazardous waste generators which
wastes mustbe counted in determining theirgenerator category, the Agency proposed an amendment to §261.5.

The proposed amendment stated that for purposes ofmaking quantity determinations under §261.5, a generator need not count wastes which

are specifically exempted from 

### 10151

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10151 1986

### 10152 'Federal Register 

## / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

regulation (see,e.g., § 261.4, or § 264.1(g) (2), (4), (5)and (6)) orwhich were not subject to substantive regulation under Parts 263, 264, 265, and the on-site 

### accumulation provisions of §262.34

were not subject to counting for purposes ofdetermining generator status. Wastes that were subject to the provisions of §261.6 (b) and (c) (recyclable materials), however,would be required to becounted in making quantity determinations. The proposal

was designed to ensure that wastes that

are not regulated are not counted. In addition, the counting amendment was intended to eliminate the multiple counting ofwastes that are reclaimed and then reused many times duringthe calendar month. In this situation, the waste would onlybe counted once, even though it is reused and subsequently becomes a hazardous waste again after such reuse.

While theproposed amendment was intended to make it clear that any hazardous waste that is excluded or, exempted fromsubstantive regulation neednotbe included in thequantity determinations, a number of commenters either misunderstood the scope ofthe amendment or believed that additional clarification was necessary forthe amendment to be understood. Although virtually all commenters on theproposed amendment supported the concept, several recommended specific changes to improve the clarity ofthe provision. Consequently, the Agency is today finalizing a slightly modified version ofthe amendment to §261.5 to clarify which wastes are counted in making generator category determinations.

Onecommenter correctly noted that the amendment, as written, would not apply togenerators of100-1000 kg/mo since the amendment referred only to the quantity determinations under §261.5. Since, under therules being promulgated today, 100-1000 kg/mo generators will no longer be subject to the conditional exclusion provisions of §261.5, thecounting amendment would nothave applied to these generators as proposed. Since thiswas contrary to the Agency's intent that the §261.5(c) amendment be used by all generators in determining theirgenerator status,the finalregulatory language ofthis provision is modified to indicate that the amendment applies to quantity determinations under Parts 261-266 and 270 ofthe hazardous waste rules.

A second modification to this provision willmake it clear that wastes which are not regulated under Parts 262- 266and 270 are notcounted in making quantity determinations. The majority ofcommenters on this provision asked for clarification on which wastes or processes were actually intended to be exempted from counting since the references to broad regulatory provisions or concepts such

as "subject to substantive regulations". left many readers uncertain as to what the Agency considered to be "substantive regulation". Forpurposes ofthisprovision, the term "substantive regulation" includes regulations which

are directly related to the storage, transportation, treatment, ordisposal of hazardous wastes. Regulations which wouldnot be considered "substantive" forpurposes ofthis provision would be requirements to notify and obtain an EPA identification number or to file a biennial report.

As a general guide, the following materials are included in the general category ofexempted.or excluded wastes that wouldnot be counted in making quantity determinations for purposes of determining hazardous
waste generator status:

- Any waste excluded from regulation under § 261.4. For example, wastes discharged to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and commingled with domestic sewage are not considered to be solid wastes when discharged, under § 261.4(a). Therefore, they are excluded from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA and not counted for purposes of making quantity determinations (unless they are stored ortreated in regulated units prior to being discharged). Such
wastes areregulated instead under the Clean Water Act. 2

a Any waste exempt from regulation under §261.6 or wastes that are not stored or transported prior to being reclaimed. For example, under § 261.6(a](3)(ii), spent lead-acid batteries that are returned to a battery manufacturer for regeneration are exempt fromregulation under Parts 262- 266,270, and 124, and, therefore, are not counted in the quantity determination.

Also, used oil exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous waste, unless mixed with other hazardous wastes, is also currently exempt under § 261.6(a) and is not counted for
purposes ofmaking quantity determinations. EPA recently proposed
tolist used oil as a hazardous waste and

2Waste discharged to a public sewer system is exempted from RCRA to avoid duplicative regulation since such wastes are regulated under the Clean Water Act. While disposal of hazardous wastes in this manner is not a violation of RCRA, the general pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act contained in 40CFR 403.5 prohibit the introduction of wastes into POTWs that would interfere with the operation.ofthe treatment plant

or subsequent POTW sludgemanagement. proposed special management standards for used oil that is recycled. (See 50 FR 49164, November 29, 1985.) These proposals, iffinalized, will continue to exclude used oil from the quantity determinations ofParts 261-266 and 270. Under the proposed rules for used oil, generators would count their used oil separately from their other hazardous
wastes against a separate small quantity generator cutoffthat would be established forrecycled oil. Under those proposed rules, generators would be subject to less stringent standards for their recycled used oil than for their other hazardous wastes, provided they do not mix other hazardous wastes with their used oils or dispose of the used oil rather than recycle it. Used oil which is disposed of,or mixed with other hazardous wastes, would be regulated like any other hazardous waste and counted separately against the 100 kg/

mo cutoffbeing promulgated today for other hazardous waste generators.

* Any waste reclaimed on-site ifit is
not accumulated prior to recycling in such a way as to become subject to the accumulation provisions of § 262.34 or the permitting requirements for storage facilities under Parts 264 or 265 (i.e.ifit is not accumulated or stored prior to reclamation on-site). Under the hazardous waste rules, the actual
process ofreclaiming wastes is not subject to regulation under Parts 262-265 and 270 and 124 ofthe hazardous waste regulations.

Only the accumulation, transportation, long term storagq, or the management ofresidues or sludges resulting from the reclamation process

are actually subject to regulation. For example, wastes which are continuously reclaimed in a still or solvent cleaning machine on-site without intervening storage and which are reused on-site are not regulated and are not required to be counted in determining generator status.

a Wastes exempt from regulation under §§ 264.1 or 265.1, provided they

are also not subject to the substantive standards in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263. For example, wastes treated in elementary neutralization units,
wastewater treatment units or totally enclosed treatment facilities as these units are defined in §260.10 are exempt from regulation underParts 264 and 265.

- Wastes exempt from certain regulations under § 261.4(c). For example, wastes stored in a product or

raw material storage tank are not subject to regulation under Parts 262- 265, 270,271, and 124, orto theRCRA 3010 notification requirements, and hence, are not counted.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10152 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Therefore, generators are required to count forpurposes ofdetermining generator status any waste that is subject to the substantive regulations. Wastes are only counted once, however. A number of commenters claimed that although EPA discussed this in the preamble to the proposed rules, this pointwas not made clear in the actual regulatory language. The Agency agrees, and thus has added § 261.5(d)(3) to make itclear that agenerator need not
count the hazardous waste generated and then reclaimed and reused at the site ofgeneration if the hazardous waste has already been included in the monthly totals. The Agency also is modifying § 261.5(d)(2) to make it clear that you only count the residue from treatment where the original hazardous waste was not counted.

The following examples may help to illustrate the regulatory scheme:

(Example1) Manufacturer A uses solvent in a degreasing process yielding 500 kg of spent solvent in a month. If the solvent is to be reclaimed (e.g., distilled) on-site and is not sorted or accumulated priorto reclamation, it will qualify as a solid (and hazardous) waste but it will not be counted in the generator's monthly totals. The 90kgof stillbottoms from the distillationprocess are also hazardous waste and must be counted since they were not included in the monthly total. Consequently, 'A' will not be a generator of100-1000 kg during the month in question.

If the solvent is stored oraccumulated priorto distillation, the500 kg of the spent solvent will qualify as a hazardous waste and willbe counted in 'A's hazardous waste totals forthe month in which it was generated. The still bottoms will also qualify as hazardous waste, butwillnot be counted because the spent solvents have already been counted once. The regenerated solvent, on the other hand, will not be a solid orhazardous waste. It will remain unregulated,just like the virgin material.

(Example2)Manufacturer A generates 120kg ofhazardous spent solvent in one month which-he distills without intervening storage. The regenerated solvent is thenreused. Neither the spent solvent northe regenerated solvent is counted and "A" is not a 100-1000 kg/mo generator. Alternatively, "A" distills the spent solvent, but stores itforless than 180 days before reclamation, and reuses the regenerated solvent until spent again, and then distills it once again.The spent solvent would be countedbecause it

was stored before reclamation, but it would onlybe counted once. "A" is now

a 100-1000 kg/mo generator. If the spent solvent were stored formore than 180 days before reclamation, "A" would need a storage permit.

(Example3) "A" generates 500 kgof hazardous spent solvent in one month and stores it in an earthen basin which is an impoundment, not a tank. The spent solvent is then discharged to a POTW. "A" must count the total quantity ofspent solvent, as the impoundment is not a wastewater treatment unit by definition 

### (§260.10), and hence, "A"is a 100-1000 kg/mo generator.

(Example4) An automotive services
centergenerates spent lead-acid batteries, which it sends to a battery breaker. The service center does not count the spentbatteries in its monthly total because they are exempt from regulation until they reach the battery breaker. (See § 266.80(a).)

b. Generatorsof Acutely Hazardous Waste:Section 3001(d)(7) ofHSWA
states that the requirements applicable
togenerators ofacute hazardous waste listed in §§261.31, 261.32, or 261.33(e)

are not affected by the'HSWA amendments. 3 Thus,today's regulatory amendments will not alter those requirements applicable.to generators of acutely hazardous wastes and these generators will remain subject to the exclusion limits and requirements contained in §261.5[e)..The same counting rules as those described above

are applicable.

c. Generators of

Non-acutely HazardousWaste inQuantitiesof Less than100kg/mo: Section 3001 of HSWA gives EPA authority to promulgate regulations for generators of less than 100 kg ofhazardous waste per month if the Administrator determines that such *standardsare necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Agency is notrequired to promulgate such regulations and it did not propose to further extend coverage ofthe hazardous waste program to this class ofhazardous waste generator in the August 1, 1985proposal.

In the Proposal, theAgency stated that it had no data to indicate that additional regulation ofgenerators of less than 100kg/mo ofnon-acutely hazardous waste wouldprovide any significant additional level of environmental protection. Generators of less than 100kg/mo ofhazardous waste account for only .07percent of the total quantity ofhazardous waste generated nationally. Areview ofdamage cases also indicated that very few incidents involved quantities below 100 kg. Consequently, none ofthe regulations

3Atthis time, only one acute hazardous waste, dioxin,is listed outside of§261.33(e). promulgated today, with one exception, alter the existing §261.5 provisions applicable to generators ofless than 100 kg/mo. As discussed under the on-site accumulation provisions laterin this preamble, the Agency has decided to modify § 261.5(g) to subject generators ofless than 100 kg/mo who exceed the accumulation limit of 1000kg to the modified standards forgenerators of 100-1000 kg/morather than to full regulation.

d DeterminationofGenerator Status: A number ofcommenters asked for clarification ofthe requirements that would apply to generators that do not generate hazardous waste at a uniform
rate. Such "episodic generators" may generate, for example, less than 100kg ofhazardous waste one month, quantities of 100-1000 kg other months,

ormay periodically exceed 1000kg in a single month.

Several commenters requested clarification ofwhat standards would apply to these episodic generators under different circumstances. Various circumstances forwhich clarification

was requested were raised; for example:

(1)A generator that exceeds the 100 kg/mo exclusion level periodically as a result of'special operations such as tank cleaning;

(2) A generator that usually generates between 100 and 1000 kg/mo, but exceeds 1000kg in one month;

(3)A generator that exceeds 1000 kg/

mo several times and accumulates all
waste ina single tank;

(4) A generator that periodically exceeds 1000kg/mo and separates the "under 1000 kg/mo" waste from the "over 1000kg/mo" waste.

The Agency has always taken the position that a generator maybe subjected to different standards at different times, depending upon his generation rate in a given calendar month (See, e.g.,45 FR76620, November 19, 1980). Thus, a generator ofless than 100kg in onecalendar month would be deemed a conditionally exempt generator in that month, subject only to the requirements of §261.5; however, if in the next calendar month, he generates

more than 100kgbut less than 1000 kg of
any regulated hazardous waste, he is subject to all ofthe standards being

- promulgated today, as hisgenerator

statushas changed. Furthermore, ifhe generates more than 1000 kg in any calendar month, he is deemed to be a large quantity generator, subject to all applicable standards. Thus, any non- exempts waste that is generated during

a calendar month in which the 1000kg/

mo cutoff is exceeded is subject to full regulation until it is removed from the 

### 10153

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10153 1986

### 10154 Federal Register 

# / Vol. 51, 

### No. 56 

# / Monday, March 24, 1986 

# I Rules and Regulations generator's site. Ifsuch fully regulated
waste is mixed or combined with waste exempt or excluded from regulation or waste that is subject to reduced regulation under today's final rule, then all of the waste is subject to full regulation until the total mixture is removed fromthe generator's site. If,on the other hand, the generator stores separately that waste generated during

a month in which less than 1000 kg (but

more than 100kg) ofhazardous waste is generated, from waste generated during

a month in which more than 1000 kg is generated, the former is subject to today's reduced requirements, while the latter is subject to full regulation.

Therefore, generators who expect to periodically exceed the 1000 kg/mo cutoffforthe reduced requirements being promulgated today should be prepared to ship their waste off-site if they wish to avoid being subject to full regulation.

Several commenters have suggested alternative schemes for determining applicable standards, all ofwhich the Agency must reject. One commenter suggested that generators would determine their generator status on the basis ofa "moving average" over a 12 month period. If, for example, a generator exceeded 1000kg/mo for several months but averaged between 100 and 1000 kg over the course ofthe
year, he would be subject to the reduced standards being promulgated today for 100-1000 kg/mo generators. The major problem with this approach is that generators would not be able to determine what standards they were subject to until as much as a year after they should have been complying with a specific set ofrequirements. For example, a generator who generates

over 1000 kgthe first month but who expects his moving average to fall below 1000 kgafter 12 months could avoid preparing a contingency plan or complying with the other requirements ofPart 262 applicable to large generators. This would also present enforcement problems, since it would be unclear which standards apply at any given point. Thus, the Agency believes that such an approach would not significantly reduce the implementation difficulties it was designed to address.

The second approach suggested was establishment of a uniform time and quantity cutofffor all generators, applying the same standards to the

same quantities, regardless ofmonthly generation rates. Under this approach, all generators would be allowed to utilize the 180- and 270-day storage periods, provided the 6000 kg "cap" was not exceeded for all accumulated 

### hazardous wastes so that the reduced standards ofPart 262 for 100-1000 kg/



### mo generators would be extended to all generators who do not exceed 6000 kg on-site.

While this approach wouldbe simpler to administer, it would be inconsistent with the approach that Congress has directed theAgency to take in developing standards for generators whoproduce different quantities of waste. While theAgency is authorized to consider such factors as small business impacts and management capabilities for 100-1000 kg/mo 

### .generators, it i;, not explicitly authorized to do so forlarger generators. The Agency may not ignore in this rulemaking the fact that the statute has established generation rate as a factor in determining whetherbusiness impacts may be considered. Thus, as discussed further in Unit II1.C.4., below, the Agency may not extend to all generators the same time'and quantity limitations applicable to 100-1000 kg/mo 

### generators.

C.Part262 Generator Responsibilities 

### EPA is today finalizing amendments to Section 261.5 that will subject hazardous waste generators of100-1000 

### kg/mo to the Part262generator standards and simplify a number of thoserequirements. This section ofthe preamble discusses theproposed amendments to Part 262 to relieve 100- 

### 1000kg/mo generators ofsome ofthe administrative burden of complying with thehazardous waste regulatory program, thecomments received on each proposal and the Agency's decision with respect to each ofthe proposed amendments.

The specific Part 262requirements that EPA is amending for application to 100-1000 kg/mo generators are as 

### follows:

e §262.20 (General Manifest 

### Requirements) is amended to exempt generators of100-1000 kg/mo from all 

### manifest requirements iftheirhazardous waste is reclaimed ,undercertain contractual agreements provided the generator complies with specific recordkeeping requirements set forth in this section. Some modifications to this amendment are being made in response to comments.



### * §262.34 (Accumulation Time) is amended to extend the period ofon-site storage allowed for 100-1000 kg/mo 

### generators without theneed to obtain interim status ora RCRA permit,from 90 days to 180 (or270) days for quantities 

### notto exceed 6000 kg.In addition, §262.34 is amended to specify the 

### requirements thatwould apply to such on-site storage bythese generators. a A new §262.44 to Subpart D ofPart 262 is added to exempt generators of 100-1000 kg/mo from the requirements
to file and maintain records of biennial and exception reports. This exemption does not apply to records pertaining to hazardous waste determinations under § 262.40(d) and the extension of retention periods under § 262.40(c).
1.Notification and Identification
Number Requirements-§ 262.12

In the August 1 proposal, EPA proposed that generators of100-1000 kg/mo be subject to §262.12, which provides that generators not excluded under §262.10 or the provisions of §261.5: (1)Must not treat, store, dispose of, transport, or offer for transportation, hazardous waste without receiving an EPA Identification Number: (2) must obtain an EPA identification number (and may do so by completing and submitting EPA form 8700-12): and (3)
must not offer their hazardous waste to transporters or to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that have not received an EPA identification number,

The majority o commenters on the requirement to obtain and use an EPA identification number supported the Agency's proposal not to exempt 100- 1000 kg/mo generators from this provision. EPA believes that a centralized data base of firms subject to regulation under RCRA is essential for effective compliance monitoring and enforcement, as well as for characterizing thp regulated community
to provide information to Congress and
to make resource projections. Use ofa unique identifying number is necessary to effectively manage any large data base. Several commenters added that requiring identification numbers for all generators who are subject to substantial regulation minimizes confusion in the regulated community.

Commenters who opposed the requirement cited the Agency's cost estimate of$40.00 per generator to obtain a U.S. EPA Identification Number, the complexity ofthe application form, and the lack ofa specific statutory requirement for Identification Numbers. However, the Agency does not believe that the requirement to obtain a U.S.EPA Identification Number is overly burdensome to these generators, given the important function which this requirement fulfills.

Some commenters Who opposed the requirement cited the complexity of the EPA Form 8700-12, "Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity." The Agency does not believe that the form is overly complex. EPA Regional Offices 10154 Federal Register / Vol. 

### 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10154 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

have already received over 28,000 

### applications forU.S. EPA ID numbers from generators of.less than 1000kg/mo. In some cases, these applications were prompted byrequirements from transporters and facilities that handle waste from these generators. In other

cases, States require identification numbers for generators ofless than 1000 kg/mo. While the Agency'is unaware of any instances of100-1000 kg/mo generators being unable to complete the form,EPA has initiated a major education program through trade associations, States, and grants to local governments and others, which would widely disseminate information that will help generators comply with today's rule. TheAgency has also prepared a supplemental instruction sheet to provide additional information to generators ofless than 1000 kg/mo who apply forU.S.EPA Identification Numbers. These instructions will contain theEPA waste codes forwastes commonly produced bythese generators. This information will allow many generators to complete the application without additional information or-research. In addition, generators may call theRCRA/ Superfund Hotline or the Small Business Hotline for information and assistance. These numbers are provided at the beginning oftoday'snotice.

Some commenters suggested establishing a telephone system for obtaining identification numbers. EPA considered this kind ofsystem in the proposal and concluded that the lack of

a signed record from thewaste handler would allow'a high potential for confusion and misrepresentation. The Agency still believes this tobe trueand

no commenter was able tosuggest a mechanism for avoiding this.

One commenter suggested thatEPA modify the application form to require generators to indicate whether they generate less than 100 kg/mo, 100-1000 kg/mo, or more than 1000 kg/mo.EPA recently modified the form to require generators to indicate whether they generate more than 1000 kg/mo or less than 1000kg/mo ofhazardous wastes.

Thes Agency does notbelieve that there is anyjustification for exempting "infrequent generators" from the Identification Number requirement, as suggested by one commenter. EPA believes that all 100-1000 kg/mo generators should be known to the Agency,however infrequently theyfit into the category, to allot follow-up if any problems arise. Also,use ofan EPA Identification Number when wastes are shipped off-site helps enforcement authorities to keep track ofwaste shipments.

The Agency believes that the EPA Identification Number requirement, as proposed, is the best system for ensuring that the Agency has adequate information about these new members ofthe regulated community. Consequently, EPA isnot modifying §262.12 for generators of 100-1000 kg/,

mo.
2. The Hazardous Waste Manifest System-Part 262, Subpart B

This Unit discusses the proposed modifications to the hazardous waste manifest system for 100-1000 kg/mo generators for wastes shipped off-site. The issues raised in the comments on the Proposal include the "single" versus "multiple" copy or "round-trip" manifest, the proposed exemption from manifesting forwastes shipped under certain reclamation agreements, and the applicability of themanifest waste minimization certification provisions of the HSWA.

a.NumberofCopiesandUseofthe Manifest:The Proposal forgenerators of 100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste contained several modifications to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest system. The proposed rules would have exempted 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the following requirements: 1) to compete a multiple copy manifest form 

### (§262.22), 2) to retain a copy for the generators' records 

### (§262.23(a)(3)), and 3)provide multiple copies ofthe manifest to the waste transporter (§262.23(b)). Theeffect ofthese proposed modifications to themanifest system would have been to exempt these generators from the "roundtrip" or "tracking" function ofthe manifest system (i.e.,establishment of a paper trail for enforcement purposes] while continuing torequire that a single copy of a fully completed manifest accompany the waste shipment as a

means to provide notice to subsequent handlers that the waste is hazardous. No modifications were proposed to the requirements to fully complete the manifest form, and to use established systems for obtaining forms from the appropriate State, except for a proposed elimination ofthe manifest document number from the required information.

These modifications to the manifest system were intended to minimize impacts on smallbusiness while still meeting the underlying goal 'f HSWA to protect human health and the. environment. By reducing some of the paperwork requirements associated with the full manifest system, EPA believed that both of those goals could be served. In particular, EPA believed that the requirement for these generators toobtain an EPA identification number, complete a single
copy of the manifest for all off-site shipments and for facilities to keep these manifests in its files created a significant legal obligation that the
waste would be managed at approved hazardous waste management facilities,

as required under the HSWA. The Agency believed that this legal obligation would not be significantly enhanced by requiringthe use, distribution, and retention ofmultiple copies ofthe manifest form.

In requesting public comment on the issue ofthe "single copy" manifest system, EPA pointed out that it was not fully convinced that the relief being offered was significant enough to offset the potential confusion which the single
copy system might cause, orto offset the loss ofthe "tracking" function ofthe manifest as an enforcement mechanism. EPAreceived extensive negative
comment on the proposed amendments which-have convinced the Agency that the multiple copy manifest system should be adopted in the final rules.

Many commenters asserted that exempting 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the "round-trip" hazardous waste manifest system (i.e.return ofa signed
copy by the designated facility to the generator as proofthat the shipment arrived] would not significantly reduce administrative burden. Most
commenters who represented both small and large businesses, State agencies and firms in the waste management industry believed that the information requested

on the manifest was not particularly difficult to provide, and they did not object to the proposed requirements to provide essentially full manifest information. Many commenters argued that requiring full manifest information was-appropriate for all generators, and that the preparation ofmultiple copies ofthe manifest presented no incremental burden over a single copy system since manifests are generally obtained incarbon sets, requiring no real additional effort. These commenters also pointed out that retention ofa copy for the generator's files poses a minimal burden due to the limitednumber of shipments most 100-1000 kg/mo will. need to make under the extended accumulation periods being promulgated today for these generators (See Unit III.C.4.). Given the limited number of shipments most generators will need to make to treatment ordisposal facilities in a year (i.e.2-4), commenters asserted that filing a manifest copy and replacing it with a copy signed and returned by the designated facility was simply not 

### 10155

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10155 1986

### 10156 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations.

burdensome. Furthermore, virtually all commenters, many ofwhom represented small business, also indicated that retention of a copy ofthe manifest containing signatures ofthe transporter and facility would be done in any case, and was essential to demonstrate that a business had met its legal responsibilities in cases where the
waste is mishandled by subsequent handlers.

Another major concern ofmany commenters with respect to the single
copy manifest system was the confusion that would result from having two different manifest systems in plalce for 100-1000 kg/mo generators and for generators ofover 1000kg. While some commenters representing small businesses believed that the single copy manifest system was workable and provided a real reduction in administrative burden, virtually all other members ofthe waste management and regulated community argued for a uniform manifest system. Many
commenters representing larger corporations and firms with multiple facilities argued that a single uniform system would be the least confusing and least burdensome system. In addition, 'manycommenters believed that different State and Federal requirements would make it extremely burdensome formany smallbusinesses to determine which manifest system applied to them. States, waste haulers, and facilities would also have the added burden of trying to verify the generator status of those utilizing a single copy form and because ofthe difficulty in administering a dual system, they would simply require that all generators comply with the full system.

One commenter also argued that the Agency's proposed single copy manifest

was inconsistent with Congressional intent since the hammer provisions of Section 3001(d)(8), which included a requirement forreturn of a signed manifest by the facility to the generator,

were intended by Congress to serve as the minimum regulatory standards. However, the Agency can find no evidence in either the statute or the legislative history that would lead the Agency tothis conclusion. The plain language ofthehammer provision states "... nothing in this section shall be construed to be determinative ofthose standards appropriate for small quantity generators", and Section 3001(d)(6) explicitly sets out the "minimum" standards that mustbe included in the regulations. In addition, thelegislative history ofSection 3001(d) indicates that the provisions ofsubsection (d)(6) were to be regarded as statutory minimums rather than the hammer provisions of subsection (d)(8). See S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 11-12 (1983); H.R. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong. 2nd Sess. 101, 103-104 (1984). Thus, the statute and legislative history provide extensive evidence that Congress gaveEPA broad authority to establish whatever standards it deemed appropriate for these generators, and to vary the hazardous waste standards to minimize burden, consistent with protection of human health and the environment.

. A number ofcommenters raised

concerns with respect tothe ineffectiveness ofthe single copy manifest system in ensuring that waste shipments are properly tracked from generator to transporter to facility. Under the proposed manifest system, a generator would be required to complete

a single copy of the manifest and to give it to the transporter who in turn would be required to sign it and turn itover to the-designated facility upon delivery of the waste shipment. TheAgency felt that this chain created a substantial legal obligation that the waste would be managed at a Subtitle C facility. However, a number ofcommenters asserted that such a system would serve only to encotrage unscrupulous transporters to either altermanifest information or simply dump the waste illegally, since the generator orothers do
not have any record ofhis accepting the
waste shipment. A numberof States

were concerned that the absence of multiple copies ofthe manifest in the records ofthe generator, transporter, and facility would completely eliminate the ability ofEPA or the States to enforce the requirement that the waste be managed at Subtitle C facilities. Further, these commenters felt that, whether ornot the Agency takes an aggressive enforcement posturewith respect to 100-1000 kg/mo generators, the mere existence ofthe multiple signed copies ofa manifest serve as an essential incentive toproperly manage the waste.

The Agency finds persuasive the arguments presented by commenters that requiring only the single copy manifest does not offer significant regulatory relief. The Agency has also concluded, based on public comment, that the single copy system may be insufficient to meet the statutory mandate to promulgate rulesfor 100- 1000kg/mo generators which are sufficient to protect human health and the environment.

The difference in burden between a single copy ofthe manifest and a multiple copy ofthe manifest, both containing essentially full information, appears tobe negligible, so there is no real reduction in burden from the single
copy system. Retention ofa manifest
copy by the generator is also minimally burdensome and is in the generator's best interest. The absence ofa roundtrip ormultiple copy manifest could encourage, rather than protect against, mismanagement ofthese wastes. Most importantly, requiring the generator to retain a copy forhis records and provide multiple copies ofthe manifest to the transporter provides an essential incentive for all parties to fulfill their responsibilities under RCRA. Thus, the Agency has decided not to adopt the single-copy manifest system, as proposed.

Consequently, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo will be subject to all of the requirements ofSubl5art B ofPart 262 with respect to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest except for certain waste reclamation shipments as provided in Section 262.20, discussed below. In addition, these generators will be subject to therecordkeeping provisions ofSubpart D ofPart 262 with respect to manifest copies but will not be subject
to the associated exception and biennial reporting requirements, as discussed in UnitIII.C.3, below.

b. ManifestExemptionfor Certain ReclamationShipments:In the Proposal. EPA proposed to exempt generators of 100-1000 kg/mo from all of the manifest requirements ofPart 262, Subpart B, provided the waste was reclaimed under certain specific conditions, including:

1.The generator would be required to have a written agreement with a recycling facility to collect and reclaim a specified waste and to deliver regenerated material back to the generator at a specified frequency;

2. The vehicle used to transport the
waste to therecycling facility and to deliver regenerated material back to the generator must be owned and operated by thereclaimer of the waste;

3. Either the generator or the reclaimer
must retain title to the material at all times; and

4. The generator and transporter/ reclaimer must comply with specific recordkeeping requirements.

Specific regulatory requirements which would have to be met in lieu of themanifest requirements were proposed as follows:

1.A copy ofthe reclamation agreement is kept in the files of both the reclaimer and the generator for a period ofat least three years;

2.The reclaimer/transporter records (for example, on a log or shipping document) the following information (which would be required of

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10156 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

transporters in a proposed amendment
to § 263.20):

* The name, address and EPA identification number of the generator;

" The quantity of waste accepted; " All DOT required shipping information;

* The date the waste is accepted by the transporter;

3.The above record accompanies the
waste as it is shipped fromgenerator to recycling facility; and

4. The reclaimer/transporter keeps these records for at least three years.

In proposing this exemption, EPA indicated that such agreements satisfied the Agency's concerns that subsequent handlers ofthe wastewould have sufficient notification and knowledge of the hazardous nature ofthe wastes being handled and that the wastes would be tracked properly from the generator to the reclaimer and would
not be mismanaged. In addition, the Agency believed that such an exemption would encourage beneficial recycling activities and would avoid discouraging
current operations ofthis nature by not imposing paperwork obligations that have no corresponding environmental benefit. TheAgency requested comment

on the proposed manifest exemption and sought comment on other situations that might warrant reduced manifest requirements.

While some commenters opposed the' proposed manifest exemption as providing an opportunity for "sham recycling", most commenters suggested that the exemption be expanded to

cover all recycling situations or to cover
a broader scope ofactivity than that proposed. Some commenters felt that the

narrow nature ofthe exemption would afford some segments of therecycling industry an unfair competitive advantage. One commenter suggested that the exemption apply to reclamation agreements with firms that collect wastes for recycling but do not reclaim the wastes at their own facility, but rather, ship themvia a licensed hazardous waste hauler to a separately owned and operated reclamation facility. This commenter argued that the

same degree ofprotection would be afforded under these circumstances as under the proposed system since the
waste would still be transported and reclaimed at licensed or permitted facilities. Other commenters argued that the exemption should also apply to legitimate recycling situations where ownership ofthe material may in fact change hands, such as cases where reclaimed material is not returned to the original generator butis instead sold to

a third party. One commenter argued that the mere existence of a contract provides sufficient notice to subsequent handlers of the nature ofthe waste and that adequate economic incentives exist in any recycling situation to ensure proper management.

The proposed restrictions on applicability of themanifest exemption

were intended to serve the same functions that the manifest system does. The mostimportant ofthese, the "tracking" function ofthe manifest, must be replaced with adequate contractual relationships and commercial incentives ifthe exemption is to meet the testof protecting human health and the environment while reducing administrative burden.

TheAgency has considered various
ways in which to expand the applicability of the exemption, including those suggested bycommenters, and has concluded that unless the following proposed restrictions are retained, the exemption would allow unscrupulous persons to easily avoid the hazardous
waste management system:

First, the Agency believes that the requirement that the generator and reclaimerhave a written agreement for collection and reclamation ofa specified waste and for redelivery ofregenerated material at a specified frequency is essential. Such an arrangement (usually called a "tolling" arrangement) provides tracking and accounting ofwaste in place of themanifest system in waste disposal situations. A simple reclamation contract withoutreturn of regenerated material to the generator would provide no tracking ofthe waste, since the generator would have no incentive to check on subsequent waste handling after he turns it over to the transporter orreclaimer. In addition, allowing the exemption in any contractual situation would make no distinction between recycling activities and off-site waste disposal activities, where normally there are also contractual obligations. Requiring return ofregenerated material as part ofthe contractual relationship places the proper incentive on the reclaimer to actually reclaim material for delivery to the generator (otherwisehe would be in breach ofthe contract) and on the generator to scrutinize thepractices of thereclaimer. Unlike off-site waste disposal, the generator would have

somevested economic interest in ensuring proper management ofthe
waste.

Second, theAgency believes that the vehicle used to transport the waste to the recycling facility and to deliver regenerated material back to the generator mustbe owned and operated by the reclaimer.This requirement precludes third parties not bound by the reclamation agreement (i.e., independent transporters) from entering the closed loop created by thetolling arrangement. This is necessary to ensure that the
waste isnot mismanaged. Even ifa generator were to ship his waste via a licensed hazardous waste hauler, he would have no assurance that the waste would actually be delivered to the reclamation facility with which he has contracted. In such a third-party transporter situation, where the transporter has no vested interest in
proper handling and management of the waste, theAgency would deem it necessary toimpose.additional significant recordkeeping requirements

on allhandlers ofthe waste, and possibly impose additional requirements

on the generator. Thiswould defeat the
purpose of themanifest exemption, and may even impose greater burden than the manifest itself.

Third, the proposed recordkeeping requirements are an essential ingredient
to providing the "paper trail" no longer provided by themanifest system.

While the Agency originally considered the retention ofownership requirement to be another essential element due the vested interest it created (i.e., continuinglegal responsibility for the material), a second look at this requirement, in light of
comments received, has convinced EPA that it isunnecessary. The requirements of tolling and that the reclaimer and transporter be the same entity appear to adequately address the same concerns underlying the ownership requirement. While the vested interest in proper management of the waste may be theoretically increased ifownership is retained by the reclaimer orgenerator, it does not appear to add significantly to the economic interest created by the tolling arrangement. In addition,the

concern that third parties would break the chain between generator and reclaimer is addressed by the requirement that the reclaimer and transporter be one entity. Moreover, the retention ofownership requirement may result in needless restriction on thetype ofcommercial arrangements allowed between generators and reclaimers (e.g., where a reclaimer buys the waste from the generator and sells regenerated material back to the generator or to other parties). Therefore, the Agency is deleting the ownership requirement from the final rule.

A number ofcommenters suggested that the Agency be more explicit in the regulation with respect to theperiods of retention ofthe contractual agreements and the transportation logs since the proposed rule did not specify when the 

### 10157-

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10157 1986

### 10158 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

3-year recordkeeping period was to begin. Consequently, the Agency is modifying the regulatory language of this amendment to specify that a copy of the reclamation agreement must be kept in the generator and reclaimer/ transporter's files for3years after the expiration ofthe agreement. A copy of the collection log or shipping paper for each shipment must be kept in the transporter's filesfor a period of3years after the date ofthe shipment.

Several commenters also requested clarification on the applicability ofthe proposed exemption to waste mixtures where most, but not all, ofthe constituents were reclaimed. In the specific example cited, the Agency was asked to clarify whether spent cartridge filters used in dry cleaning operations would qualify for the exemption, even though only a portion of the waste constituents are actually reclaimed. The Agency believes such waste mixtures should also qualify forthe manifest exemption, provided that the other conditions ofthe exemption are met. There is no basis for distinguishing between, for example, bulk spent solvents that have impurities removed by a reclaimer, which impurities mustbe subsequently managed as hazardous waste, and waste constituents in a mixture thatmay not bereclaimed and
must be disposed ofas a hazardous
waste by the reclaimer. In both cases, the manifest exemption for shipments to the reclaimer would not affect the responsibility ofthe reclaimer to properly manage the residues from the reclamation process.

Another commenter requested clarification on whether the requirement thatreclaimed material be returned to the generator limited the exemption to those situations where the generator received back the same waste sent for reclamation. The requirement that the generator receive regenerated material back from the reclaimer was intended to

ensure that the generator maintain a vested interest in ensuring that the reclamation facility was in fact.engaged in bona fide recycling. However, the Agency recognizes that mast reclamation is conducted through commingling ofrelatively small quantities of recyclable materials from a number ofgenerators. Themanifbst exemption onlyrequires that the generator receive regenerated material back from the reclaimer, not that it be the identical material as was shipped to the reclaimer. The only requirementfor receiving regenerated materialbackis that it be ofthe same typeorproduct specificationas thematerial originally shipped for reclamation. While the Agency recognizes that this requirement will limit the exemption to situations where the generator purchases reclaimed solvent from one source, we do not agree with those commenters who believe this provides an unfair competitive advantage to firms with reclamation facilities. While the manifest exemption may reduce the paperwork burden for some firms who have waste materials collected on a frequent basis, the Agency does not believe thatit provides such a reduction in burden that companies qualifying for the exemption would be able toreduce
costs significantly.

Other commenters asserted that the proposed exemption would be appropriate for generators ofmore than 1000 kg/mo who recycle their wastes under the same circumstances. While the Agency recognizes that some ofthe regulatory amendments being promulgated today for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo .couldbe considered for larger generators, to do so would require extensive review ofthe existing hazardous waste management system and case-by-case determinations as to the appropriateness ofspecific requirements. Furthermore, the elements that the Agency must consider in adopting rules for small quantity generators, including the economic impacts offull regulation on small businesses, arenot necessarily relevant
to the rules applicable to larger quantity generators. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating themanifest exemption today only for 100-1000 kg/mo generators.

c. WasteMinimization:Under section' 3002(b) ofHSWA, all generators must certify on the manifest required under subsection (a)(5) that they have in place

aprogram to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity ofthe waste they generate to a degree determined by the generator tobe economically practicable. Generators must also certify that theircurrent method of management is the most practicable method available to minimize present and future threat tohuman health and the environment.

.On July 15, 1985,EPA published a rule codifying a number ofinterim,HSWA requirements (50 FR 28702). A revised Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Form (EPA Form 8700-22) wasincluded in the Appendix to Part 262, and contained a revised certification
statement incorporating the waste minimization provision. Inthe Codification Rule, EPA explained that the waste minimization provisiondid
not apply to small quantity generators generating less than the quantities of acutely hazardous waste specified in §261.5 or to generators ofless than 1000 kgofother hazardous waste, unless the generator accumulated quantities which exceeded 1000kg, and thus became subject to Part 262. The waste minimization requirements were not applicable to these generators because section 3002(b) refers to "the manifest required by [section 3002] subsection (a)(5)" and the interim manifest provisions are imposed by section 3001(d), not 3002(a)(5). However, because section 3001(d) ofRCRA requires EPA to establish standards for 100-1000 kg/mo generators under sections 3002, 3003, and 3004,the waste minimization certification requirements would apply to 100-1000 kg/mo generators upon promulgation ofsuch standards. Since EPA did not propose to exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the waste minimization certification requirements ofsection 3002(b) when it proposed rules for 100-1000 kg/mo generators on August 1, 1985, these generators would be required to certify compliance with the waste minimization provision when the standards under today's rule become effective.

EPA believes that requiring 100-1000 kg/mo generators to comply with the
wasteminimization certification provision imposes little orno additional administrative ortechnical burden and could, in fact,have real environmental benefit. However, since the Agency did
not provide thepublic with an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness ofthis provision for 100-1000 kg/mogenerators, EPA is publishing a separate notice elsewhere in today's Federal Register which explicitly requests comment on the potential burden which this requirement could impose on generators of 100-1000 kg/mo. The specific reasons for proposing to apply the waste minimization certification provision to these generators are described in detail in that notice.As noted in the other Federal Register notice, EPAwill accept public-comment on thisprovision for 30 days. If, after consideration of the comments, EPA determines that no exemption.from the waste minimization certification requirement iswarranted at this time, 100-1000 kg/mo generators will need,to comply with the requirement by operation oflaw as.of the date that the other Part 262 requirements take effect [Le., sixmonths from today).

3. Recordkeeping and Reporting-Part
26Z Subpart D'

In the proposed rules for generators of 100-1000'kg/mo, EPA attempted to

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10158 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

.significantly reduce therecordkeeping and reporting burden on these generators, consistent with the statutory goals ofprotecting human health and the environment while reducing impacts on small business to the extent feasible. Specific proposed modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements ofSubpart DofPart 262 included:

* A proposed exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of § 262.40(a) formanifest retention and §262.40(b) dealing with retention of Biennial and Exception Reports;

9 Aproposed exemption from the reporting requirements of § 262.41 (Biennial Reports) and §262.42. (ExceptionReports).

This section ofthe preamble addresses the comments received on these proposed modifications to recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the Agency's final decision in each of these areas.

a.Recordkeeping-§262.40:As noted in UnitIII.C.2. of today's preamble, EPA received extensive comment on the proposed single copy manifest system which proposed to eliminate theneed for retention ofmanifest copies as well

as requirements for the use ofa multiple copy manifest when shipping waste offsite. A large number ofcommenters

were generally supportive ofefforts to reduce recordkeeping requirements to the maximum extent feasible, and many felt that no recordkeeping requirements whatsoever should be imposed on 100- 1000 kg/mo generators. However, many ofthese same commenters, when discussing the proposed single copy manifest, pointed out that most generators would opt to retain a copy of themanifest for theirown records, in order tohave a record of theirwaste management shipments, regardless of whether it was required by EPA. While

some ofthese commenters did not want the retention ofmanifest copies to be required, they nevertheless felt such recordkeeping to be prudent. Other
commenters believed that retention of manifest copies should-be required, and that such a requirement does not impose

an unreasonable burden since, as noted above, virtually all generators would retain a copy fortheir records in any

case. These commenters also asserted that the existence of a copy ofthe manifest in the generator's records, containing the signature ofthe transporter and ultimately the signature ofthe designated facility when the manifest copy was returned, was essential.

The Agency agrees with these
commenters that retention ofmanifest copies should be required. Existence of such records may be the only defense a generator would have in enforcement actions orother litigation ifthe single manifest were to be changed by the transporter or ifthe waste is mismanaged. The existence ofthese records would allow a generator to demonstrate to enforcement personnel, should a problem in transporting or subsequent handling arise, that the generator had done his best to ensure proper management by fulfilling his generator responsibilities. While such proofwould not eliminate any liabilities the firm may otherwise have under RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"), it could reduce the danger ofthe generator being considered the primaryresponsible party in a Superfund action. Also, as one commenter pointed out, given the large number ofStates, transporters and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that would insist upon use of the full manifest system, it would not be appropriate forEPA to, in effect,
encourage generators to deliver their only copy ofthe manifest to a transporter.

EPA agrees with those commenters thatbelieve that retention of a copy ofa manifest, signed by the designated facility and the transporter, does not pose an unreasonable burden for 100- 1000kg/mo generators, who willmost likely be shipping only 2-4 shipments
per year. This is particularly true in light ofthe generally universal agreement on theneed for generators to retain a copy for theirown protection. EPA also believes that retention ofmanifest copies provides the necessary incentive for all wastes handlers to execute their responsibilities in the manner required by state and Federal waste management requirements. Therefore, the Agency is
not exempting 100-1000 kg/mo generators from therequirement to retain a copy ofeach manifest in their files fora period of three years from the date of shipment or until a signed copy ofthe manifest is returned by the designated facility and is substituted for the original manifest for a period of three years.

b.ExceptionReports-§262.42:As discussed in the proposal, EPA proposed
to exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the requirement to file an exception report with EPA ifthe generator did not receive a signed copy ofthemanifest back from the designated facility within forty-five days of acceptance ofthe waste shipment by a hazardous waste transporter (§ 262.42). The proposed exemption from this requirement was based simply on the lack ofmanifest copies under the proposed single copy manifest system. Under the proposed rule, a copy ofthe manifest was not required to be returned to the generator by the facility,

so that there would have been no basis for a generator to make a determination

as to whether ornot his shipment actually arrived at the designated facility, and thus no basis foran exception report.

In deciding toreturn to a full manifest system for 100-1000 kg/mo generators, the Agency deemed it appropriate to evaluate whether also requiring exception reporting would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on these generators in light of the environmental benefit that would be gained. First,the Agency considered the responsibilities that would be imposed

on the generators, which would include establishment ofan internal tracking system, through filing or by computer, to allow the generator to determine whether a return copy ofthe manifest is overdue. In addition, the generator must
contact the transporter and/or permitted facility to determine the status or location ofthe waste and manifest, and ifunsuccessful, must file a report with a copy ofthe manifest and a cover letter describing his efforts to locate the waste and the results ofhis efforts. Several
commenters objected to imposition of these requirements and argued that this is the very type ofpaperwork requirement that Congress intended EPA
to scrutinize before applying to small businesses.

Second, the Agency considered the
extent to which such reporting is
necessary to protect health and the environment. Many commenters contended that the exception reports

were essential to alertEPA and the States to lost shipments, and the Agency
agrees that the exception report requirement is an important link in the full manifest scheme.4 However, the Agency has received very few exception reports since the requirement was adopted, leading it to believe that the tracking function of themultiple-copy manifest system is also working as a self-policing mechanism, ensuring that

4One commenter cited legislative history as support for its argument that the modified exception reporting requirement ofsection 3001(d)(8) must be included inthe regulations because Congress deemed itto be a minimum requirement. The legislative history ofthis provision indicates. however,that this was considered to be aminimum requirement only in the event that EPA did not promulgate final regulations by March 31,1986, and that EPA is authorized tovary the manifesting and reporting requirements as long as the notice requirement is met. See S. Rep. No.284, 98th Cong.. let Seas. 11-12 11983); H.R. Rep. No.1133, 98th Cong. 2nd Seas. 103 (1984). 

### 10159

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10159 1986

### 10160 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

wastes reach theirproper destination. In addition, the smaller relative risks associated with the smaller quantities of
waste generated by 100-1000 kg/mo generators do not necessitate the same degree ofdouble-checking needed for large quantity generator shipments.

In balancing the utility ofthe exception reporting requirements with the need to minimize the administrative and paperwork burden on small businesses, the Agency has concluded that its decision to require the multiple
copy manifest system for 100-1000 kg/

mo generators will provide sufficient

assurance that waste shipments reach theirproper destination, and that the incremental environmental benefits that
may be gained by imposing the exception reporting requirement on these generators are outweighed by the associated administrative burdens. The capabilities ofsmall businesses to develop and maintain internal tracking

,and follow-up systems are limited, and could prove tobe very burdensome, especially where such follow-up reporting is seldom necessary. Consequently, while the Agency is today requiring generators of100-1000 kg/mo to use a multi-part manifest form and requiring designated facilities to return a signed copy to the generator, the Agency has decided not to require generators of100-1000 kg/mo to comply with the exception reporting provisions ofPart 262. However, this exemption should not be construed as relieving the generators ofthe responsibility of assuring that their wastes are managed
at Subtitle Cfacilities. This obligation, alongwith CERCLA liability should the
waste ultimately be mismanaged, remains. Therefore, while EPA is today exempting generators of 100-1000 kg/mo fromthe requirementto file an exception reportunder §262.42, it is specifically encouraginggenerators to perform the necessary follow-up to

ensure that their waste shipments reach

. the designated facility. Should a

shipment turn out to be truly lost, it will be in the generator's interest to send a copy of the manifest along with a brief explanatory note to EPAor the authorized State Agency in order to reduce the likelihood that the generator would be held solely responsible in an enforcement orSuperfund action.

c.Biennial Reports-§ 262.41:Section 262.41 requires a generator who ships
waste off-site to submit a biennial (i.e.,
every otheryear) report to theRegional Administrator by March 1 ofeach even numbered year setting out the quantities ofwastes generated during the previous odd numbered calendar year and the disposition ofthe wastes generated. * EPAproposed to exempt generators of 100-1000 kg/mo from the requirement to complete, file, and retain copies ofa biennial report. The Agency's rationale for this exemption was based on four points. First, the extent oferror in State
summary reports used to compile nationwide waste generated by all small quantity generators. As a result, the value ofthe data fromreports that would be filed by 100-1000 kg/mo generators would not signficantly add to the value ofthe reports and the burden imposed would far outweigh the benefits
to begained. Second, the Agency explained that the large number of reports it would receive would far outweigh the agency's administrative ability to make use ofthe reports. Third, under the proposed single copy manifest system,generators would not have had the manifest copies that serve as the basis for preparation ofbiennial reports. Finally, theAgency explained that information on wastes generated by 100-1000 kg/mo generators would still be available from reports required to be filed by treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Several States submitted comments which generally favored retention ofthe biennial report requirement for 100-1000 kg/mo generators. Although generators would have available to them the manifest information needed to prepare biennial reports under today's final rule imposing the multiple copy manifest, the remaining reasons for proposing this exemption remain valid. In addition, EPA received extensive comment supporting the proposed exemption from biennial reporting requirements as an appropriate means ofreducing administrative burden without sacrifihing protection ofhuman health and the environment. The Agency agrees that this exemption is appropriate.

One State specifically suggested that EPA require biennial reporting from all generators who generate more than 6000 kg or 12,000 kgin a calendar year and specifically requested clarification ofthe application ofbiennial report requirements to "episodic generators" (i.e.,generators that produce quantities ofhazardous waste thatplace them in different generator categories from month to month). The Agency does not believe any benefit would be gained by establishing a new generator category based upon a yearly generation rate. Doing so would onlyadd further confusion to an already complex regulatory scheme, and would be inconsistent with the month-to-month approach already established by statute and regulation. Also, episodic. generators must comply with the biennial report requirements for those months inwhich they are "large quantity generators"; that is, they must submit reports on their hazardous waste activities for those months in which their generator activities have changed and as long as the fully regulated waste remains on-site.

Thus, the Agency is today finalizing the proposed exemption from the, biennial report requirements of § 262.41 for generators of100-1000 kg/mo, including an exemption from the provisions of this section requiring a description ofefforts taken during the reporting year to minimize waste generation.

4. On-site Accumulation-§ 262.34

As discussed in Unit I.B.1. oftoday's preamble, generators of100-1000 kg/mo

are no longer conditionally excluded in Section 261.5 fromthe bulk ofthe haza'rdous waste regulatory program. Instead, these generators, like other regulated hazardous waste generators,

are subject to the requirements ofParts 262-266, 270, and 124, to the extent those requirements apply. for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo, however, these requirements have been modified in certain instances to reflect their small business nature as well as specific statutory directives.

Section 262.34 contains the requirements for generators that accumulate hazardous waste on-site. Under §262.34(a), a generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers in any quantity for
up to 90 days without the need to have interim status orobtain a storage permit under RCRA (or comply with Parts 264

or265) provided the generator complies withthe limited requirements of §262.34. These requirements specify that: (i)the date upon which the period ofaccumulation begins is clearly marked on the tank or container; (ii) the tank orcontainer is labeled with the words "Hazardous Waste"; (iii) the generator complies with Subparts C and D of40 CFR Part 265 (Preparedness and Prevention and Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, respectively); and iv) the generator complies with Subpart Iof40 CFR Part 265 ifthe waste is placed in containers or with Subpart J of40 CFR Part 265 ifthe waste is placed in tanks, and he complies with the personnel training requirements of §265.16.

Theprbposed rules for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would have added a number ofmodifications to the §262.34 provisions, for 100-1000 kg/mo generators. This section of thepreamble

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10160 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

discusses those proposed amendments and the issues raised by commenters to the proposed rules.

a. Time andQuantityLimitations: Section 3001(d)(6) directs EPA, in developing regulations for 100-1000 kg/

mo generators, to allow storage of hazardous waste on-site without the need for interim status or a RCRA permit forup to 180 days. In addition, EPAis directed toallow these generators to store up to6000 kg of hazardous waste for a period of270 days without the need for interim status

ora permit ifthe generator must ship or haul his waste greater than 200 miles. While no specific quantity cutoffwas established for 180 day accumulation in section 3001(d) a de facto limitation of 6000 kg exists. (This is due to the fact that a 100-1000 kg/mo generator could produce no more than 6000 kgin a 180 day period without exceeding 1000kg/

mo at least once during that period, and thus become fully regulated under Part 262 instead ofunder the modified standards being proposed today for100- 1000 kg/mo generators.) EPA is today amending §262.34 to allow forsuch onside accumulation in tanks and containers by 100-1000 kg/mo generators for up to 180 days (or270 days forlong-distance transport) without the need toobtain interim status

or a RCRA permit, inaccordance with Section 3001(d)(6) ofthe HSWA, provided the requirements of §262.34

are met.

A significant number ofcommenters suggested variations on the proposed time and quantity limitations for on-site accumulation. A number ofStates supported the application.of the-existing 90 day accumulation period to these generators in order to maintain consistency and reduce confusion. Still other commenters argued that the time limit for accumulation for 100-1000 kg/

mo generators should be extended to a full year inorder to allow economical shipments, provided the 6000 kg cutoff

was not exceeded. Some commenters

even favored unlimited accumulation time and quantity for these generators.

Because the time and quantity limitations are established in RCRA section 3001(d)(6), the Agency believes that it carries a heavy burden in varying these limitations. Except for emergency circumstances, as discussed below, the Agency does not believe thatthis burden has been met.

While the 6000 kg cap arguably applies only to the 270-day storage period, the Agency believes that the better interpretation is thatthe 6000kg
cap applies to both storage periods. As noted above, a maximum of6000kg of hazardous waste could be accumulated during a 180-day period ifthe generator

never generated more than 1000 kg in
anygiven calender month. Consequently, any quantity in excess of 6000 kg would mean that the generator

.was subject to full regulation at least

one month during the 6-month period. Therefore, it is logical to apply the accumulation "cap" of6000kg to both storage for 180 as well as 270 days. In addition, as explained in the August 1 proposal, the total quantity of6000kg remains the same whether ornot the
waste is accumulated on-site for 180 or 270 days and the Agency could see no substantive difference inpotential risk. Finally, EPA believed that the high cost of transportation would dictate that the
waste be managed at the closest facility, regardless of the presence orabsence of regulatory criteria.

One State commenter felt that the lack ofspecific criteria for allowing 270- day accumulation could have the effect ofencouraging continued reliance on land disposal as there will be decreasing numbers ofviable land disposal facilities in the future, and the remaining facilities will increasingly be located

more than 200 miles away from the generator. This commenter suggested thatEPA allow accumulation foronly 180 days forwastes that are destined for disposal but allow accumulation for270 days for wastes which will be treated or recycled. EPA does not believe that it has authority tomake such a distinction since Congress has already established the condition that must be met for accumulation for 270 days: where the
waste must be shipped over 200 miles. If the 'closestfacility is a disposal facility located greater than 200 miles from the generator, to allow this generator only 180 days would directly conflict with the plain language ofthe statute.

Another commenter expressed

concern over the enforcement of180- or 270-day accumulation periods in the absence ofany specific criteria. This
commenter felt that an inspector would have no way ofascertaining whether
wastes which have been stored longer than 180 days but less than 270 days are destined formanagement at a disposal facility or a treatment or recycling facility that is located further than 200 miles away. This commenter was particularly concerned that the lack of multiple copies of the manifest would eliminate the ability ofthe inspector to at least make ajudgment based on the generator's previous waste shipments.

The Agency has decided not to establish specific criteria for determining ifa generator may accumulate hazardous wastes on-site for 180 or270 days. EPAbelieves that such criteria would not serve any useful purpose. Under today's final rule, however, generators would retain copies ofmanifests which could be used to ascertain the location ofthe facility which the generator has utilized for previous shipments. Therefore, manifest copies (orreclamation agreements) will be available as ameans to check the actual location ofthe destination facility. In addition, the Agency was concerned that establishing criteria for demonstrating that the closest facility

was greater than 200 miles from the generation site would be unnecessarily confusing and could have the perverse effect ofcausing waste to go to less desirable management practices (e.g., where a disposal facility is located within 200 miles while a recycling facility is located over 200 miles from the generator,the generator could be forced to utilize the less desirable disposal facility). The absence of specific criteria will not pose an unreasonable obstacle to enforcement of the accumulation provisions. Thus, EPA isfinalizing §262.34(e) as proposed.

It shouldbe noted that generators that have multiple waste streams which are managed at different facilities may actually be subject to different accumulation time limitations for the different waste streams. A generator may accumulate some wastes for 180 days ifthey will be managed at.a facility under 200 miles away and other wastes for270 days provided the generator

never accumulates a total quantity of hazardous waste on site that exceeds 6000 kg and provided the generator complies with all applicable accumulation provisions.

Today's rules also apply the existing provisions of § 262.34(b) requiring compliance with Parts 264, 265, and 270
to 100-1000 kg/mo generators that exceed the time limitations in proposed §262.34(d) and (e). Under the existing rules, and under the rules promulgated today,generators that exceed a time or quantity limitation must comply with the interim statusrequirements and obtain a storage permit. These requirements, as they would apply to 100-1000 kg/mo generators, are contained in new §262.34(f).

An additional component ofthe proposed §262.34(f) amendments would have allowed an additional 30-day accumulation period for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo at the discretion ofthe Regional Administrator Where he determines that such an extension is warranted due to temporary, unforeseeh, and uncontrollable circumstances. This amendment was based on an identical provision currently applicable to large quantity 

### 10161

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10161 1986

### 10162 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

generators. While most commenters on thisamendment were supportive ofthe emergency extension provision, one commenter argued that the storage periods specified in the statute were clearly themaximum periods allowed. The Agency believes that Congress

never intended for the Agency to promulgate rules so inflexible that they could not take into account, and accommodate, legitimateemergency circumstances. In addition, theAgency

assumes that the emergency extension provision is consistent with Congressional intent since it did not .explicitlypreclude such an extension when it adopted section 3001(d)(6). Therefore, the Agency is promulgating this provision as proposed.

Several commenters requested the Agency to clarify the applicability ofthe "satellite provision" of40 CFR 262.34. Thisprovision allows generators to accumulate up to55 gallons ofnonacutely hazardous waste in "satellite"

areas wherethe waste is generated in industrial processes without complying with the 90-day accumulation standards. See49FR 49568 (Dec.20, 1984). Satellite

areas are those places (under the control ofthe operator ofthe process generating thewaste) where wastes are generated in theindustrial process and must initiallyaccumulate prior toremoval to

a central area. Within three days of accumulating over55 gallons, the generator is required to comply with all applicable RCRA-requirements for further management ofany waste ii

excess of55 gallons. When the satellite rule was promulgated, generators ofless than 1000kg/mo ofnon-acutely hazardous waste (or less than I kg/mo ofacutely hazardous waste)were not subject to any oftherequirements ofthe satellite accumulation rule. See49FR 49568-49570. This isbecause these generators were exempt from mostof the hazardous waste management regulations, including Part262. However,under today's rule, only generators ofless than 100'kg/mo will remain exempt from the regulations; Therefore, 100-1000 kg/mo generators may accumulate up to 55 gallons ofnonacutely hazardous waste in satellite

areas withoutmeeting the storage requirements being promulgated today,

solong as therequirements of §262.34(c) are met. Ofcourse, as soon
as the 55 gallonlimit has beenexceeded in any satellite area, any excess waste is subject to all applicable RCRA requirements within 3days. This means that the 180/270 day on-site accumulation provision for 100-1000kg/

mogenerators applies to any excess waste three days after the 55 gallon limit has been exceeded.

Two commenters who operate offshore drilling facilities requested clarification on the applicability ofthis provision to off-shore facilities and central collection points located onshore. These commenters citedtheir desire to avoid manifesting orusing transporters with EPA Identification numbers in shipping wastes from offshore facilities to on-shore collection

areas.

The satellite provision was intended
to provide for extended accumulation of
waste in specific areas ofgeneration to allow for more economical transporting ofwaste within one site.The applicability ofthisprovision does not address the extent to which agenerator must comply with Parts 262 and 263 when it is shipping wastes off-site. EPA does not deem off-shore facilities and on-shore collection facilities to be "onsite", or the same site, as defined by40 CFR 260.10. To the extent that each facility has various points ofwaste generation, the satellitepr"ovision would apply; however, as in any off-site hazardous waste shipment, the requirements ofParts 262 and 263 must be met when wastes generated at each off-shore facility are transported to an on-shore collection or storage facility.

b.Standards Applicableto On-site Accumulation:EPA proposed to modify certain ofthe requirements for on-site accumulation by 100-1000 kg/mo generators in order to simplify the requirements for contingency plans and emergency procedures, and personnel training (contained in Part265, Subpart D, and §265.16). The specific amendments to § 262.34 would be contained in new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), specifying theparticular requirements applicable to on-site accumulation by generators of 100-1000 kg/mo. No modifications were proposed
to the standards for storage in containers and tanks (Part265, Subparts I and 

### J)orto the requirements for preparedness and 1irevention contained in Subpart C ofPart 265. EPA indicated that it believed these standards were appropriate and necessary and not unduly burdensome. Several
commenters have objected to the apparent inconsistency between application of the existing accumulation provisions of §261.5 and § 262.34 and theproposed standards under Section 3001(d) of the HSWA. Under the existing rulesfor conditionally exempt small quantity generators under §261.5 and the accumulation provisions of §262.34, generators who either generate quantities above specific cutoffs orwho accumulatequantitiesabove those cutoffs overany periodoftime become subject to additional requirements. Thus, ifthe proposed ruleswere to be finalized, generators ofless than 100 kg/

mo who accumulated over1000 kg/mo would be subject to full regulation under Part 262, including a 90 day accumulation time limit followed by permitting requirements for longer onsite storage. Also, ifmore than 1kgof acutely hazardous waste were accumulated, full Part 262 standards would apply,including a 90 day accumulation time limit followed by permitting requirements for longer onsite storage. Conversely, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would be allowed to accumulate up to6000 kg forup to 180or 270 days and be subject to the specially reduced standards being promulgated today rather than full Part 262 regulation.

Anumber ofcommenters pointed out that generators who fall into different generator categories could be subject to different standards for essentially the

same quantities of the same wastes. For example, a generator ofjust over 1000 kg/mo would be subject to full regulation as would a generator ofjust under 1000kg/mo who happens to accumulate above 1000kg. These regulations include full contingency planning and personnel training (aswell

as exception and biennial reporting). At the same time, a generator ofbetween 100 and 100 kg per month may accumulate up to6000 kg and be subject
to the special standards being promulgated today, including reduced contingency planning and personnel training requirements and exemptions from exception and biennial reporting. Thus, 6000 kg ofhazardous waste could be subject to lesser standards than quantities closer to 1000 kg/mo. Substantial confusion may also result in determining which storage standards apply, when, and forhow long. The confusion is particularly troubling for socalled "episodic generators" that may
move from one generator category to another from month to month. (See Unit IlI.B.2.e.)

A number ofcommenters suggested a variety ofalternatives schemes for eliminating the inequity and the confusion, including applying the reduced storage standards proposed for 100-1000 kg/mogenerators to all quantities ofwaste accumulated up to 6000 kg., regardless ofthe source ofthe waste. These commenters believed that such a scheme would greatly simplify compliance and enforcement since quantity ofwaste would be the only

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10162 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

criteria needed in determining what storage standards shouldapply.

TheAgency agrees that, in theory,an approach that uniformly applies the

same requirements to the same quantities ofwaste has some merit. However,as discussed above, Congress has directed EPAtoconsider varying the standards for 100-1000 kg/mo generators only, and to consider their smallbusiness nature in determining which standards are appropriate foronsite accumulation. EPA is directed to relieve these generators ofunnecessary burden, to theextent feasible, and consistent with protection ofhuman health and the environment. Given that Congress has not extended such economic considerations to large generators, EPA is not authorized to vary applicable storage standards, if they are necessary toprotect human health and the environment. EPAhas already determined that the existing storage standards applicable to generators ofmore than 1000 kg/mo are necessary to reduce risks sufficiently. Therefore, EPA is retaining the existing standards for these generators.

With regard togenerators ofless than 100 kg/mo,EPA has moreflexibility because they fall within the "small business" category that Congress was concerned about. The Agency decided in the proposed rules not to modify the accumulation provision forgenerators of less than 100kg/mo because such a generator would need to accumulate
waste for at least 10months before exceeding 1000 kg. However, it appears to be inconsistent with Congressional intent that smallbusinesses producing less than 100kg/mo should be subject to

more stringent accumulation standards than 100-1000 kg/mo generators for quantities between 1000 kg and 6000 kg. Therefore, EPAis today finalizing an amendment to §261.5 thatwill subject generators ofless than 100kg/mo to the

same provisions of §262.34(d) as are applicable to.generators of100-1000 kg/
mo, when they accumulate waste in quantities greater than 1000 kgbut less than 6000 kg.

i Standards forPreparedness and Prevention-Part 265,SubpartC: Under §262.34(a), generatorswho accumulate hazardous waste on-site must comply with therequirements ofSubpart Cof Part 265 which contains requirements for facility preparedness and prevention. In the Proposal, EPA indicated its intention to apply all ofthe existing provisions ofthis Subpart,without modification.

The requirements forpreparedenss and prevention are as follows:

9 Section 265.31 requires that facilities be maintained and operated to minimize thepossibility offire, explosion, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste orhazardous waste constituents to the environment;

* Section 265.32 specifies that facilities mustbe equipped with certain kinds ofequipment (i.e., an internal communications or alarm system, a telephone or other device capable of. summoning emergency assistance, and appropriate fire control equipment including fire extinguishers and water at adequate volume and pressure to supply fire control system) unlessnone ofthe wasteshandled at the facility require a particular kind ofequipment;

e Section 265.33.requires that this equipmentbe tested and maintained, as necessary, to assure itsproper functioning;

* Section 265.34 requires that all persons involved in hazardouswaste handling operations haveimmediate

access toeither internal or external alarm or communications equipment, unless such a device isnot required under §265.32;



### * Section 265.35 requires the owneror operator ofthe facility to maintain sufficient aisle space to allow the unobstructed movement ofpersonnel and equipment to any area offacility operation in an emergency, unless aisle space is notneeded forany ofthese purposes; and

• Section265.37 requires theowner or operator to attempt to make certain arrangements with police, fire departments, State emergency response teams, and hospitals, as appropriate for the type ofwaste handled athis facility and the potential needfor the services ofthese organizations. Further, ifState

orlocal authorities decline to enter into such arrangements, the owner or operator must document the refusal.

The Agency did notpropose any amendments to Subpart C because they

are appropriate and necessary and not unduly burdensome. The requirements all involve common senseprinciples for preparedness and prevention which hazardous waste handlers can and should address in order to ensure safe handling ofhazardous wastes. Also, since therequirements are structured such that specific equipment and procedures are required only on an "as needed" basis, the existingregulation provides complete flexibility for hazardous waste generators to tailor their preparedness and prevention activities to the specific kinds ofwastes handled at thefacility.

Most commenters believed that these requirements provided sufficient flexibility for 100-1000 kg/mo generators to tailor theirpreparedness activities to their specific waste management activities and needs. While EPA requested comment on the possibility of imposing more specific but less

numerous requirements in order to alleviate potential uncertainty over which procedures are appropriate for particular types ofwastes, the Agency has decided that the broad principles embodied in Subpart C are preferable to the specific suggestions made by
commenters. For example, one commenter felt that the requirement to make arrangements with state and local authorities, ag needed, would confuse
many generators and suggested that EPA substitute a simpler requirement that a generator simply request a visit from the fire department. EPA believes, however, that such a specific requirement would not provide sufficient preparedness in some cases, while inothers itmay be overly burdensome, as where no ignitable or flammable wastes are managed at that site.

A number commenters were concerned that the requirement to document refusals to make appropriate arrangements by state and local authorities and health care facilities would prove to be extremely burdensome to small businesses, .particularly since refusals are seldom likely tobe made in writing.EPA did not intend to corvey a need for generators
to obtain written refusals from every entity that declined to visit the facility. For purposes ofthis requirement, EPA will consider a signed and dated letter from the generator to the state orlocal entity which attempts to make such arrangements to be sufficient documentation ofan attempt to make the appropriate arrangements.

One commenter believed that the requirement to make arrangements with appropriate state and local emergency service facilities was unnecessary .wheregenerators maintain their own fire, security, and emergency health care personnel at some oftheir larger facilities and that such facilities should be allowed to fulfill this requirement without making outside arrangements. While the Agency did not intend to preclude the use ofon-site emergency personnel to provide preparedness in the case of emergencies, EPA does not agree that such arrangements alone will always be sufficent tocomply with the requirements of Subpart C where the
nature ofthe waste management operations at that facility could result in emergencies alsorequiring the involvement ofState and local
emergency services.

This commenter was also concerned thatEPA's broad definition of "facility" 

### 10163

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10163 1986

### 10164 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1.986 / Rules and Regulations

could require that preparedness and prevention measures be maintained throughout every portion ofthe generator's property instead ofjust those areas'where waste is accumulated. EPA has never intended its broad definition of "facility" (see 50 FR 28712) to be used in application of the preparedness and prevention reguiti'ons; rather, the definition of "facility" in § 260.10 is used. Applying this narrower definition makes clear that the preparedness and prevention regulations only require the generator to take those precautions and maintain that equipment necessary to ensure that they are adequately prepared to respond
to emergencies relating to the hazardous
waste operations of the facility. If special equipment or precautions are not needed for this purpose in areas of a facility where hazardous wastes are not managed, then a generator is not expected to maintain them in those

areas. At the same time, however, other precautions, such as adequate aisle
space, may be needed in areas outside ofthe immediate waste accumulation

area in order to ensure adequate access to emergency equipment in the event of

a fire, explosion, or release ofhazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents.

Forthe reasons discussed above, the Agency does not believe that modifications to Subpart C of*Part 265

are appropriate for generators of100- 1000 kg/mo and is, therefore, applying the existing Subpart Crequirements to these generators.

ii. Standards forContingencyPlans andEmergencyProcedures-Part 265. SubpartD, andPersonnelTraining Requirements:Under § 262.34(a), generators who accumulate waste onsite must comply with certain requirements inPart 265, Subpart D, pertaining to contingency plans and
emergency procedures and personnel trainingrequirements. These requirements are contained in §265.16. The §265.16 requirements are intended
to ensure that personnel are adequately prepared to manage hazardous waste and to respond to any emergencies that

are likely to arise. EPA considered applying these same requirements to 100-1000 kg/mo generators since, forthe
most part, the requirements embody

common sense principles that are necessary and appropriate forfacilities managing hazardous waste. However, these requirements appeared to be unnecessarily burdensome in some

cases (e.g.requiring formal classroom training andwritten, detailed contingency plans) and costly and could have unnecessarily severe impacts on many small businesses. The Agency therefore proposed a simpler set of requirements for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo to reduce the administrative

- burden on small businesses while still protecting human health and the environment.

EPA proposed and requested public
comment on the following requirements for 100-1000 kg/mo generators that would be contained in a new § 262.34(d):

- At all times, an "emergency coordinator" (E.C.); (i.e., someone familiar with these requirements), must be on-site (or on call). The coordinator may also designate someone to act in his place..

* The generator mustpost certain information next to the telephone, including: the name and telephone number ofthe E.C.; location .offire extinguishers and spill control material; and the phone number ofthe fire department;

- The generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency procedures;

* The generator (orthe E.C.) would have to respond to any emergencies that arise.In the case where an emergency

was serious enough to warrant a visit by the fire department or when the generator (orE.C.) has knowledge of a spill ofhazardous waste that could reach surface water or otherwise threaten human health or the environment, the generator would have
to notify the National Response Center and file a report with the EPARegional Administrator as provided by proposed § 262.34(c)(3)(E).

EPA believed these requirements to be adequate to protect public health and the environment from fires, leaks, spills,

or otherreleases from generators of100- 1000 kg/mo who are accumulating waste on-site prior to shipment off-site.

While many commenters supported the reduced contingency plan,
emergency procedures, and personnel training requirements as proposed, a number ofcommenters did not agree with the proposed modifications. Several commenters believed that relaxing the standards for on-site accumulation for 100-1000 kg/mo generators would not be appropriate given the increased quantities of waste which can be accumulated (i.e.,6000 kg) and the generally less sophisticated
waste management expertise of smaller firms. Some commenters suggested various approaches including requiring full Subpart D compliance for all quantities accumulated above specific limits, such as 1000 kg or3000 kg. Other
commenters argued that the reduced standards were appropriate not onlyfor generators of 100-1000 kg/mo, but also
to larger generators and suggested that the reduced standards apply to all accumulated quantities between 1000 kg and 6000 kg.

Since theAgency recognized in the proposed rules that applying standards
to 100-1000 kg/mo generators accumulating waste on-site in quantities
up to 6000 kgwas ofsome concern, it

was careful to modify the standards onlywhere administrative requirements
not essential to the substantive functioning ofthe standards were involved. Thus, the standards, as modified, are sufficient to protect human health and the environment fromrelease ofwastes accumulated by 100-1000 kg/

mo generators.

-EPA does not believe it is appropriate
to apply the reduced standards to wastes accumulated bygenerators of

more than 1000 kg/mo. As previously discussed, EPA's authority to consider

areas in which toreduce burdens extends to small quantity generators. Also, as discussed inUnit III.A. above, the relative risks posed by wastes accumulated by large quantity generators are greater. Thus, generators ofgreater than 1000 kg/mo must comply with the requirements of Subpart D of Part 265 ifwastes are accumulated onsite prior to shipment off-site.

Ahumber ofcommenters also suggested several modifications to the proposed standards. Some commenters

were concerned that the requirement that each business designate an emergency coordinator to be on call at all times would impose an undue burden because this would require that the
emergency coordinator be trained in
emergency response procedures. One
commenter believed that the term "emergency coordinator" would be confusing since it implies that the individual must have a high degree of training inrisk assessment and abatement.

The intent ofthis requirement was simply to ensure that each generation facility had at least one person available
at all times who could be contacted and would know what steps to take in the
event that an emergency should arise. EPA envisioned that formost small businesses, the owner or manager already fulfills this requirement by being available 24 hours a day in case an emergency, such as a fire or burglary,

occurs at that facility. EPA does not intend that generators musthire and train a new employee for this task. Viewed in this light, this requirement is reasonable and not unduly burdensome. In addition, there is no reason why small businesses would confuse the

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10164 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

term "emergency coordinator" with the

more formal On-Scene Coordinators at Superfund clean-up sites.

With regard to the proposed personnel training requirement that a generator

ensure that all employees be made thoroughly familiar with'waste handling and emergency procedures, several
commenters were in favor ofmore stringent personnel training requirements. One commenter noted that personnel training is necessary to manage tanks properly and to prevent tank contamination and recommended that the Agency adopt more stringent personnel training requirements ifmore than 15 drums or 7,500 pounds (approximately 3400 kg) are accumulated on-site. Another
commenter objected to allowing 100- 1000 kg/mogenerators, who typically have fewerresources and less expertise than large quantity generators, to accumulate 6000kg on-site with reduced personnel training standards, and suggested that personnel training plans be required whenever more than3000 kg

are accumulated on-site. This
commenter suggested that criteria such

as the nature ofthe waste and the history ofspills and releases from the generator be established to allow EPA

or State agencies to require a generator of 100-1000 kg/mo to establish and implement a personel training plan.

In the absence ofanyjustification provided by commenters, the Agency does not believe that establishing an intermediate limiton accumulation, after which more formal personnel training requirements apply, would result in any significant increase in protection to human health and the environment. While EPA agrees that risks involved increases as waste is accumulated, it believes that the requirements adopted are adequate to protect against therisks from fires, leaks, spills, or other releases. The proposed requirements embody the same-principlep contained in the existing personnel training requirements, but rely less on the preparation ofwritten plansin order to reduce the burdens on 100-1000 kg/mo generators.

One commenter suggested that ifa 100-1000 kg/mo genrator at any time is required toprepare a personnel training plan because he generated more than 1000 kgin any one month, he shouldbe required to maintain the personnel training plan for at least the following six months even though he produces no

more than 1000 kg/mo during that period. The commenter suggested that this requirement would impose little burden because the plan would already be in existence and would only need to be implemented. The Agency isnot adopting this suggestion. No rationale

was offered by this or other commenters regarding any additional protection that this approach would provide. In addition, the Agency disagrees with the conclusion that little burden would be imposed in maintaining a plan. For example, the generator would be required to update job titles,job descriptions,job qualifications, names ofemployees in each position, and standards for the introductory and continuing trainingneeded forpersons in eachposition. Furthermore, even if
not required by regulations to maintain and follow theirplans, many ofthe generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who were previously generators ofmore than 1000 kg/mo will nevertheless continue to use their plans as thebasis for their personnel training program.

Another commenter in favor ofmore stringent personnel training requirements argued that the approach proposed by EPAis too broad and unenforceable, and that the Agency should require employees to sign a document stating the "what, when, and

were of employee training." The Agency believes that such an approach would add considerable burden to the generator without providing any subtantial additional degree of protection, particularly since the "what, when, and where" are not explicitly prescribed under either the currentrules

or today's amendments.

Two commenters argued that 100-1000 kg/mo generators should be exempt from all personnel training requirements

on the basis that personnel training would be too costly and burdensome for
most small businesses and because less than 1000 kg/mo would be "too small to endanger the environment or public health". The Agency doesnot agree that 100-1000 kg/mo generators should be exempt fromall personnel training requirements. While the Agency agrees that the riskto human health and the environment.posed by 100-1000 kg/mo generators is less than the risk posed by large quantity generators, some risk is still present. The Agency has, therefore, proposed less stringent rules for 100- 1000 kg/mo generators, which will mitigate this risk while minimizing the regulatory burden upon these generators.

Anumber ofcommenters suggested that the Agency limit the scope ofthe training requirement since it is inappropriate to require that all employees ofa generator receive personnel training, regardless oftheir job responsibilities. According to these commenters, some firms, particularly large companies, may have clerical and office staffas well as some part-time and temporary personnel "who will

never be involved oreven remotely associated with the firm'shandling of hazardous waste", and requiring these employees to be thoroughly familiar with hazardous waste management techniques would be a poor use ofthe firm's resources. One commenter suggested that this requirement be applied only to those employees who handle hazardous waste as part oftheir job.

The Agency agrees that it would not make sense to require training in topics
not germane to an employee's areas of responsibility since thiswould add considerable burden to some firms without corresponding environmental or health benefits. Thus, theAgency has amended the regulations to clarify this issue.The rule promulgated today states that generators "must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency procedures relevant to their job responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies," just as for large quantity generators subject to §265.16, implicit in the regulations is the requirement that thetype and amount of training necessary for each employee stems from his specific responsibilities. Employees who handle hazardous
wastes as part of theirnormaljob responsibilities or are likely to handle
wastes in an emergency situation must be thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures. Employees who work in or adjacent to areas where hazardous wastes aregenerated, handled, or stored but do not handle hazardous wastes, must still be trained to be thoroughly familiar with basic emergency procedures. Part-time or temporary employees must also receive appropriate training.

iii.Standards forAccumulation in Containers-Part 265,SubpartI: Section 262.34 requires that in orderto accumulate hazardous waste on-site without a permit,the generator must meet certain requirements. If the waste is stored in containers, the generator must comply with Subpart IofPart 265 (§§265.170 thru 265.177) which contains the following general requirements applicable to the management of hazardous waste storage containers:

e They mustbe kept in good condition and any leaking containers replaced (§265.171);

9 The containers must be compatible with the hazardous waste stored in them (§265.172); 

### 10165

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10165 1986

### 10166 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

* Containers holding hazardous waste must always be closed during storage (except when necessary to add

or remove wastes) and'must not be handled in a way that would cause them
to rupture or leak 

### (§265.173);

• Containers mustbe inspected at least weeklyto check forleaks and any signs ofcorrosion 

### (§265.174);

* Containers holding ignitable or. reactive wastes mustbe placed at least 50 feet fromthe facility's property line § 265.176); and



### 9 Incompatible wastes mustnotbe placed in the same container so as to

cause fires, leaks, orother discharge of hazardous waste orhazardous waste constituents (§§265.177 and 265.17(b)).

In addition, §262.34(a)(2) requires that the date upon which each period of storage begins is clearly marked on each container and §262.34(a)(3) requires that each container be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste".

Since these requirements embody

common sense "goodhousekeeping" requirements necessary to avoid releases into the environment, EPA proposed nomodifications to these standards for 100-1000kg/mo generators. Comments received generally indicate that these requirements were not unduly burdensome and wouldbe appropriate for 100-1000 kg/mo generators. The one major concernraised by a numberof commenters, however, is the requirement that a buffer zone ofat least 50' from the property boundary be maintained forreactive or ignitable wastes. Since many smallergenerators

are located in urban areas, it isnot uncommon'for these generators tobe located on lots that would notpermit the maintenance ofa 50-foot buffer zone.

EPA agrees with commenters that this requirement would put many small businesses in a situation in which it would beimpossible to comply. Since the Agency has already proposed to modify the buffer zone requirement to increase flexibility in such situations (49 FR43290, June5,1984), it would make

sense forthe Agency to exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the 50-foot buffer

zone requirement until theAgency promulgates final storage standards. Whether the Agency ultimately decides to apply the proposed standards to these generators ortopropose a more tailored set ofstandards, itwould be inconsistent with the directives contained in HSWA Section3001(d) to consider impacts on small business to include, in the interim, theexisting buffer zone requirement. Therefore, as
aninterim measure, theAgency is exempting 100-1000 kg/mo generators from the 

### §265.176 requirement that containers holding ignitable orreactive
wastes must beplaced at least 50 feet from the property boundary. Of course, 100-1000 kg/mo generators should -endeavor to store ignitable orreactive
wastes as far from the property boundary as ispracticable.

With the exception ofthe modified buffer zone requirement, EPA is incorporating by reference the requirements of Subpart Iof Part 265 into §262.34(d).

iv. Standards forOn-site Accumulation in Tanks-Part 265, Subpart]: As in Subpart I,Subpart J contains general standards that must be followed by generators storing hazardous waste in tanks under §262.34:

e Wastes must not be placed in tanks ifthey could cause ruptures, leaks, corrosion, or otherwise cause the tank to fail 

### (§265.192(b));

e Uncovered tanks mustbe operated with-at least 60 centimeters (2feet) of freeboard or a secondary containment dike or trench to prevent overfilling spillage (§265.192(c));

a Where waste is continuously fed into a tank, the tank must be equipped with a waste feed cutoffor bypass system to stop theinflow to the tank 

### (§265.192(d));

a At least once each operating day, a generator must inspect, where present, discharge control equipment (e.g., waste feed cut-off systems and drainage systems), data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g., pressure and temperature gauges), and the level of
waste in the tank to assure compliance with the above freeboard requirements 

### (9

265.194 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)); * At least weekly, a generator must further inspect the construction materials ofthe tank and the area immediately surrounding the tank to detect corrosion or obvious signs of leakage (§265.194 (a)(4) and (a)(5));

* Special requirements apply to ignitable orreactive waste, and incompatible waste that are more orless analogous to those in Subpart I,The major difference is in therequirements for ignitable orreactive waste which, when stored in a covered tank, mustbe in compliance with buffer zone requirements contained in Tables 2-1 through 2-6 ofthe National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) "Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code." These requirements are based on the hazardous characteristics-of all combustible and flammable liquids and,

as such, are applicable to any type and size of tank.While the Agency is modifying the bqffer zone requirements for containers, as discussed in the previous section, theAgency did not receive any comments indicating that compliance with the NFPA code with respect to tanks would be impossible for small quantity generators. Therefore, the existing buffer zone requirements for tanks will apply togenerators of 100- 1000 kg/mo.

The requirements ofSubpart Jare meant not onlyto protect human health and the environment, but are in the generator's best interest byreducing the likelihood ofdamages orinjuries caused by leaks and spills. The Agency did not propose to modify these standards for 100-1000 kg/mo generators, and no commenters raised any objections to application ofthe existing Subpart J requirements to 100-1000 kg/mo generators. Thus, the Agency has no

reason tobelieve that the existing tank requirements present a problem for these generators, and is including them in thisrule.

As discussed in detail in the Proposal, the Agency is developing new management standards for tank storage that may require secondary containment for accumulation tanks. These proposed amendments to SubpartJ (50 FR 26444, June 26, 1985) could impose additional
costs ifapplied to generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks. In the Proposal, the Agency requested and received public
comment on a variety ofoptions related
to the proposed tank amendments. However, the Agency has not yet completed its evaluation ofthis issue and has not issued.any final amendments to Subpart 

### J.Accordingly, the Agency is today applying to generators.of 100-1000 kg/mo onlythose Subpart Jrequirements currently required under §'262.34. Application of
any modified tank standards to generators of 100-1000 gk/mo willbe evaluated in the final tank rule after consideration ofall comments received

on both theAugust 1Proposal and the tank proposal ofJune 26, 1985.

The requirements ofexisting SubpartJ ofPart 265 are, therefore, incorporated byreference in §262.34(d), and are applicable to generators of 100-1000'kg/

mo.

5. International Shipments On March 13, 1986, EPA proposed regulations under §3017 ofHSWA regarding exports ofhazardous waste (See 51 FR 8744). The proposed regulations would prohibit export of hazardous waste unless certain requirements are met. These requiremens include advance written notification to EPA ofany plans to export hazardous waste, prior written
consent to such plan by the receiving country, attachment ofa copy ofthe
consent to the manifest accompanying

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10166 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

each waste shipment, and conformance ofthe shipment to such consent. EPA also proposed a manifest pursuant to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart B, or equivalent State provision, which specifies a treatment, storage or disposal facility in

a foreign country as the facility to which the waste willbe sent. Under 40 CFR 261.5 and today's final rule all generators, including those generating less than 100 kg/mo, would qualify as exporters under the export proposal. Although the Agency is not aware of
any exports by generators ofless than 1000kg/mo, and hence, did not propose to change the applicability of the export requirements to these generators, the Agency has requested comment from generators ofless than 1000kg/mo on whether the Agency should partially or totally exempt them from the proposed export requirements. Thus, generators affected by today's final rule shouldbe

aware that they may be subject to additional regulatory requirements in exporting hazardous waste, and that they have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding the applicability of those requirements to the public docket established for the exportproposal.

D. Transportation Issues

The existing standards for transporters ofhazardous waste are contained in 40 CFR Part 263, and are applicable to a3ny form ofhazardous
waste transportation that requires the

use of a hazardous waste manifest (§ 263.10(a)). These standards pertain to compliance with the manifest system, recordkeeping, and actions to be taken inresponse to spills ordischarges of hazardous waste. Taken in conjunction with U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT)requirements under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)regarding labeling, marking, packaging and placarding (incorporated in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart C), such standards are deemed by the Agency to be those necessary to protect human health and the environment during the transportation of hazardous waste.

In directing EPA to develop standards for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo, Section 3001(d)(7) ofRCRA, as amended, specifically states that "nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect orimpair the validity ofregulations pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act." Consequently, EPA did not propose any substantive amendments to applicable DOT requirements or to Part 263. However, several minor amendments arenecessary to bring the transporter standards into conformance with today's final standards for 100-1000 kg/mo generators.

In addition, commenters on the proposed rules raised a number of transportation-related issues. The Agency is finalizing proposed §263.20(h)
to specify certain recordkeeping requirements fortransporters (who are also reclaimers) accepting unmanifested hazardous waste fromgenerators utilizing the § 262.20(e) exemption for
wastes reclaimed under contractual agreements. While one commenter argued that these recordkeeping requirements were tooburdensome, the Agency does not agree. The manifest exemption is an entirely voluntary arrangement that substantially reduces the paperwork forboth generators and transporters. The transporter need not maintain the prescribed records ifhe chooses instead to comply with the manifest system.A number of
commenters were concerned about the lack ofestablished transportation networks for the collection and transportation ofless than full truckloads ofhazardous waste. Three
commenters stated that EPA should take steps to encourage such networks, and suggested various alternatives. Two
commenters suggested thatEPA encourage the establishment of collection centers forwaste from 100- 1000kg/mo generators by extending the
current 10-day period for transportation
to 21 days and accelerating the issuance ofstorage permits for facilities which

serve as collection and transfer stations for small quantity generator waste. One ofthese commenters specifically suggested that development ofa class permit concept for these facilities might be a viable solution.

EPA agrees that the development of networks and centralized collection
centers will help to increase compliance with these regulations. However,
commenters have not adequately demonstrated a need forlonger transportation time than the 10 days currently provided. Nor doesEPA believe that the establishment ofan expedited permit process forthese facilities is feasible.Both ofthese issues

are discussed ingreater detail in the following section on facility standards. It shouldbe noted here, however, that such networks can be established at any time within the confines of the applicable regulations.

Some commenters expressed concern about EPA's discussion in the proposed rulesof self-transportation ofhazardous wastes, stating that all of the standards forhazardous waste transportation should be imposed on such generators. In the proposal, EPA explained that selftransportation ofhazardous waste by generators was not precluded by the regulations, provided the generator obtained a U.S. EPA ID number and complied with the provisions ofPart 263 and the applicable portions of Department ofTransportation regulations..EPAdid not intend to create the impression that self-transportation could be conducted without compliance with the full Part 263 standards for hazardous waste transportation.

Other commen'ters supported the concept of licensing transporters to

assume the responsibilities ofthe generator with respect to manifesting. As EPA explained in theProposal, transporters may currently assumemost ofthe generators' manifesting responsibilities except for signing the certification statement. One commenter believed that the transporter ofa hazardous waste shipment should

assume liability for the waste ifthat transporter completed the manifest and removed the waste from the generator's establishment. EPA may-not alterthe liabilities established by statutes such

as CERCLA, which applies the concept ofjoint and several liability to all handlers ofa hazardous substance. In addition, EPAbelieves that removing RCRA liability fromgenerators would

remove an important incentive for them
to ensure that their wastes are properly transported and managed. EPA, therefore, is taking no action that would alter a generator's liability under current regulations and statutes.

Two States requested an amendment
to § 262.20(e) to allow generators of 100- 1000 kg/mo to transport waste to a temporary collection site ofa hazardous
waste clean-up program or Amnesty Day without the need to complete a manifest. They stated that the requirement to complete a manifest may discourage some establishments from participating. Under most "Amnesty Day" programs ofwhich the Agency is
aware, homeowners are encouraged to bring their unwanted household hazardous wastes to a central collection point where they are sorted, packaged, and subsequently transported to an approved hazardous waste management facility. In some cases, small quantity generators have been allowed to discard theirwastes through similar programs.

Section 261.4(b)(1) exempts household waste from all ofthe hazardous waste requirements ofRCRA. Thus, no manifesting is required for transport of
wastes that are exempt fromregulation under §261.5. However, because quantities ofhazardous wastes from generators of 100-1000 kg/mo could
pose a substantial risk ifimproperly 

### 10167

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10167 1986

### 10168 Federal'Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

managed, the Agency has decided to impose manifest requirements on these generators, except in the case ofcertain reclamation agreements. The existence ofa State-approved collection center does not, on its own, provide assurance that the waste would be transported or handled properly prior to or during transportation to such a facility, or indeed, that the shipment would ever reach such a facility. Consequently, development ofsome recordkeeping and transportation requirements would be needed which would offset any potential savings ofsuch an exemption.

E.Part264/265FacilityStandard Issues
The requirements for facilities that treat, store, or dispose ofhazardous waste are contained in Parts 264 and 265 ofthe hazardous waste regulations. The Part 265 standards are applicable to facilities under interim status, a condition which allows a facility to continue operating until it receives a full RCRA permit. (See HSWA section 3005(e)). The Part-264 standards establish the minimum standards to be incorporated into a full RCRA permit by EPA or a State with an EPA authorized hazardous waste program.

Section 261.5(b) previously exempted generators of 100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste from the facility requirements ofParts 264 and 265 that

cover the on-site treatment, storage, or disposal ofhazardous waste, provided the facility is at least approved by a State to manage municipal or industrial (non-hazardous) solid waste and no

more than 1000 kg ofhazardous waste

were accumulated at any time. Under the rules promulgated today, this exemption will continue to apply only to generators ofless than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste. Generators of100- 1000 kg/mo ofhazardous waste willbe subject to-full regulation under Parts264 and 265 ifthey accumulate hazardous
waste on-site for greater than 180 (or 270) days, exceed the 6000 kg accumulation limit, engage in waste treatment in other than tanks, or manage their-waste in surface impoundments,
waste piles, landfills, orland treatment facilities. In addition, those Stateapproved municipal orindustrial waste facilities that manage wastes only from generators of 100-1000 kg/mo will also

no longer be exempted from thePart 264 and 265 permit requirements. In the proposed rule, the Agency requested
comments concerning the application of the uniform Part 264 and 265 requirements to generators of 100-1000 kg/mo and to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that accept waste from the generators.

1.Activities Requiring Permits Under today's final rules, 100-1000 kg/

mo generators will be required to obtain

a permit ifthey treat or dispose of hazardous waste on-site (except for
treatment in tanks or containers during the 180/270 day accumulation period in conformance with Subparts JorI ofPart 265, respectively) or accumulate hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers for more than 180 (or270) days.

A number ofcommenters agreed with the need to manage wastes from generators of100-1000 kg/mo at fully permitted facilities. They argued that no special exemptions orrequirements shouldbe applied to themanagement of
waste from thesegenerators because the characteristics ofthe waste, not the

source ofthe waste, poses the threat to human health and the environment.

Two commenters opposed the requirement for generators of 100-1000 kg/mowho accumulate waste on-site for longer than 180 (or 270) days to obtain RCRA permit, and argued that the accumulation time limitbefore permitting isrequired should be extended. One ofthe commenters also maintained that determining the maximum quantity ofhazardous waste that may be accumulated at a nonpermitted facility shouldbe based on the degree ofhazard posed by the waste and the generator's capacity to transport the waste off-site. TheEPA disagrees

. with both ofthese positions.As noted in Unit III.C.4.a. oftoday's preamble, the HSWA of1984 clearly limitAgency discretion in thismatter. The Agency carries a heavy burden in extending the time limits established under section 3001(d)(6), and except for emergency circumstances, the Agency does not believe there to be sufficient justification for extending the limits Congress has established.

Another commenter opposed any permitting requirement due to the economic burden that would be placed

on a small number ofgenerators. While

somegenerators of100-1000 kg/mo may be burdened financially by the requirements promulgated today, Congress has alreadyjudged that outside ofthe accumulation limits allowed forin Section 3001(d)(6), disposal ofwastes fromthese generators
at permitted facilities is necessary to protect human health and the environment. In addition, since the rules allow generators to manage their hazardous wastes off-site, they are able
to avoid the cost ofacquiring a RCRA permit, ifthey so choose.

Several commenters suggested exemptions from the RCRA permitting requirements or reduced permit requirements for on-site waste treatment. Some commenters stated that there is a need to encourage on-site
treatment to reduce the amount of
wastes sent off-site and that the permitting requirements may hamper the ability'of generators to treat wastes at their facilities.

The Agency disagrees that on-site
treatment shouldbe encouraged by exempting those generators of 100-1000 kg/mo from the RCRA permitting requirements. To the extent that these generators are conducting the same treatment/storage or treatment/disposal

as other permitted facilities, theiron-site
treatment activities pose a potential risk
to human health and the environment. Therefore, reduced oreliminated permitting requirements would be inappropriate.

Ofcourse, no permitting would be required ifa generator chooses to treat their hazardous waste in the generator's accumulation tanks orcontainers in conformance with the requirements of § 262.34 and Subparts 

### JorIof Part 265. Nothing in §262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste when it is in an accumulation tankor container covered by that provision. Under the existing Subtitle C system, EPA has established standards for tanks and containers which apply to both the storage and treatment ofhazardous
waste. These requirements are designed
to ensure that the integrity ofthe tank or container is not breached. Thus, the

same standards apply to a tank ora container, regardless ofwhether
treatment or storage is occurring. Since the same standards apply to treatment in tanks as applies to storage in tanks. and since EPA allows for limited on-site storage without the need for a permit or interim status (90 days for over 1000kg/

mo generators and 180/270 days for 100- 1000kg/mo generators), the Agency believes that treatment in accumulation tanks or containers is permissible under the existing rules, provided the tanks or containers are operated strictly in compliance with all applicable standards. Therefore, generators of 10o1000 kg/mo are not required to oblain interim status and a RCRA permit if ite only on-site management which thiey perform is treatment in an accumulation tank or container that is exempt from permitting during periods of accumulation (180 or270 days).

Two commenters suggested that a mechanism should be created to t,0itor RCRA permits to the circumstances of individual facilities. For example. oute commenter specifically asked for a simplified and streamlined permit for the incineration ofspent paint spray

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10168 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

booth filters. TheAgency accepts the need to consider individual circumstances when drafting RCRA permits.However, in order to protect human health and the environment, the Agency must impose certain minimum permit requirements foreach waste management facility. Additional provisions may be incorporated into a permit to account forunique circumstances at individual facilities (see §270.32). At thepresent time, the Agency has decided not to take any action regarding the tailoring of regulatory requirements for permitting specific types of wastemanagement activities forgenerators of 100-1000 kg/

mo. At a future date, theAgency may consider altering theregulatory requirements for specificwaste typesor handling practices that pose a low potential for harm to human health and the environment.

Two commenters discussed theneed forestablishing regional collection centers forthe temporary storage of wastes fromgenerators of100-1000 kg/

mobefore being sent to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. One of these commenters suggested that the collection centers may also offer waste identification and packaging services and could be sponsored by State orlocal governments. Both commenters contended that regional collection centers will be needed because most waste shipments from generators of 100- 1000kg/mo will be too small tojustify the expense of direct transportation to TSDFs inless than truckload quantities. Thecommenters further stated that these collection centers should notbe required to meet the fullRCRA permit requirements for storage facilities.

While the rulespromulgated today mayincrease the costofwaste transportation services formany generators of100-1000 kg/mo, generators of100-1000 kg/mo are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste at their facilities for 180 (or270) days, thereby reducing the needfor frequent shipment off-site and off-site collection centers. Nevertheless, ifregional collection and storage facilities are established, these centers willprobably accumulate significant volumes of various types ofhazardous waste. The storage oflarge amounts ofhazardous waste,regardless ofitspoint oforigin, poses the potential forharm to human health and the environment. Therefore, the Agency believes that the requirements forstorage and disposal facilities as described in Parts 264 and 265 mustalso apply to regional collection facilities. Furthermore, wastes shipped from a generator ofmore than 100 kg/mo to a collection center must be properly identified, manifested, packaged, labeled, marked, placarded, and transported in accordance with Parts 262 and 263 and applicable regulations promulgated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

One commenter proposed that generators of 100-1000 kg/mo be exempted fromthe full corrective action for continuing releases provisions of RCRA section 3004(u), which apply to all solid waste management units at a Subtitle C facility seeking or issued a permit. EPA disagrees with the suggestion. Section 3004(u) applies to releases to all media; however, the Agency believes that action is required only where necessary to protect human health and the environment. Section 3004(u) requires that all permits issued
to Subtitle Cfacilities after November 1984 shall include schedules of compliance and financial assurance for completing any necessary corrective actions forreleases ofhazardous waste

or constituents from any solid waste management unit at the facility, regardless ofthe time at which such
waste was placed in such unit. The clear statutory directive precludes a reading ofthe statute that limits an owner's or operator's responsibilities to waste placed in units during his orher tenure.

or forreleases from solid waste management units that are not "regulated units."

The corrective action requirements will apply only to the few generators of 100 to 1000kg/mo who choose to seek permits. Thus, thepotential burden of corrective action must be accepted by those who choose tomanage their hazardous waste on-site. Should such a generator become subject to the corrective action provisions, the Agency is considering the advisability oftaking into account the firm's ability to pay when establishing a compliance schedule and thereby reduce the burden
togenerators of 100-1000 kg/mo. Nonetheless, the goal ofthese rules is to reduce therisk to human health and the environment from uncontrolled releases ofhazardous waste. The risks associated with such releases depend on the nature ofeach individual release,
not on the quantity ofhazardous waste generated by the facility. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between generators of100 to 1000kg/mo and larger quantity generators when determining whether arelease, once it
occurs, poses an imminent threat to human health and the environment and needs to be cleaned up. 2.Applicability ofPermitting Requirements to Recycled Wastes

Several commenters addressed the issue ofrecycled wastes. One
commenter stated that generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who recycle the generated products should not be required to meet full Parts 264 and 265 facility standards. The commenter argued that since recyclable wastes are frequently handled as ifthey were original products, they should not be subject to regulation. This approach has already been considered by the Agency and rejected (See 50FR 614, 617 .(January4, 1985). At the time, EPA indicated that wastes often have little independent economic value, but are recycled to avoid disposal costs. Unless the wastes are extremely valuable (as in the case ofprecious metal-containing wastes), there is little incentive to avoid leaks and spills. EPA sees no reason to reconsider theissue at this time.

Two other commenters sought clarification concerning whether the proposed rule requires on-site waste recycling operations to be permitted under Parts 264 and 265. While the actual recycling-operation isgenerally
not subject to permitting, therule does, indeed, require (orwillrequire) permitting for certain recycling activities and for storage associated with recycling activities. Generators of 100- 1000 kg/mo ofrecyclable materials must obtain a permit orinterim status ifall of the following conditions are met:

(1)The material is a solid waste. Whether ornot a material qualifies as a solid waste depends upon both what the material is and how it is being recycled. See §§261.2 and 261.4(a).

(2) The solid waste is a hazardous
waste. Generally, the waste must be listed or exhibit one of four characteristics. See §§261.3 and 261.4(b).

(3)The hazardous waste is not exempt from regulation under ,261.6. Exempted materials include industrial ethyl alcohol that is reclaimed and scrap metal.

(4) Thenon-exempt hazardous waste is stored on-site for more than 180 days (or270 days ifit is to be transported at least 200 miles). See §262.34(d).

Ifthe solvent is stored in anticipation ofreclamation formore than 180 days, however, the generator must obtain a permit or interim status. See §262.34(f). In addition, use constituting disposal and burning for energy recovery would also be recycling activities requiring a permit. 

### 10169

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10169 1986

### 10170 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

3.Permit ByRule

Two commenters argued that generators of100-1000 kg/mo shouldbe allowed to obtain a RCRA "permit by rule" (under §270.62) and by-pass the Parts 264 and 265 permitting process. Permits by rule have been granted by EPA to facilities already regulated and permitted under other Federal laws, provided that the facilities are in compliance with their permits and other specified requirements. Forexample,

ocean disposal barges or vessels are granted permits by rule under RCRA §270.60(a) for ocean dumping because those activities are already permitted under the authority oftheMarine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended U.S.C. 1420 etseq.

The commenters are requesting EPA
to apply permits by rule in such a

manner that could effectively exempt generators of100-1000 kg/mo from Federal requirements. They have suggested that the proposed rule requiring full Part 264 and 265 standards for generators of100-1000 kg/mo would be tooburdensome. One commenter noted that a permit by rule would allow for relieffromfull RCRA requirements and thus allow for continued waste treatment/minimization activities onsite. The second commenter explained that 100-1000 kg/mo generators are already regulated under State and local environmental programs. This
commenter suggested that permits by rule shouldbe issued forgenerators of 100-1000 kg/mo who are in compliance with "adequate State and local environmental programs and permits."

EPA does not believe thatit is appropriate to effectively exempt these generators fromParts 264 and 265. First ofall, Congress explicitly directed EPA
to require that wastes from these generators be managed at Subtitle C facilities. Second, EPA believes that compliance with the permitting process is essential to provide protection of human health and the environment. EPA disagrees that State and local regulatory
programs for generators of100-1000 kg/

mo are sufficient to maintain proper protection ofhuman health and the environment, since most State programs do not now require that such waste be managed at Subtitle C facilities. Of
course, States with authorized RCRA
programs may adopt equivalent (or broader or more stringent) requirements and administer State programs for these generators.
4. Modifications to PartA Permit Applications

One commenter questioned whether requiring revisions to Part A and Part B permits for facilities handling waste from generators of100-1000 kg/mo will be too time-consuming and may delay the implementation ofthe proposed rule.

EPA is aware that the rule promulgated today willrequire changes in the Part A applications for off-site facilities thatmanage wastes from 100- 1000 kg/mogenerators. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, offsite interim status facilities managing
wastes from both fully regulated large

- quantity generators and generators of 100-1000 kg/mo maybe required to modify their PartA permit applications under §270.72 to account for wastes from 100-1000 kg/mogenerators ifthose
wastes are currently being managed as exempt pursuant to §261.5 and are not currently identified on thePart A application. Thus, facilities thatreceive
wastes from generators of100-1000 kg/

mo only, which previouslywere not required to fill out PartA forms under §270.41 are now required to do so. Similarly, facilities that receive wastes from generators of100-1000 kg as well

as large quantity generators, must modify theirpermits to reflect the wastes received from 100-1000 kg/mo generators.

The Agency does not believe that the proposed changes requiring facilities receiving wastes from generators of100- 1000kg/mo to addnew information to PartA applicatiops orrequiring facilities
to begin filing Part A applications will be overly time-consuming.

One commenter sought to clarify that facilities that only handle hazardous waste from generators who generate no

more than 100 kg/mo will still operate under a blanket exemption from Part 264 and Part 265.

Under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, generators of less than 100kg/mo and those treatment, storage, ordisposal facilities that serve those generators will continue to operate under the conditional exemption from Part 264 and Part 265 that is contained in in Section 261.5.

IV. Delayed Effective Dates

EPAproposed that the effective date ofthe regulatory'requirements for 100- 1000 kg/mo generators be six months fromthe date ofpromulgation ofthe rules. It was also proposed that the effective date ofthe Parts 264 and 265 facility standards for generators that
manage waste on-site be delayed an additional six months: to become effective one year from the date of promulgation.

Ofthe four comments received on this issue,one opposed any delay in effective dates beyond March 31, 1986,

on grounds that it is one ofthe hammer 

### 'provisions and would not be in thebest interest ofenforcement. Another
commenter suggested a one year delay for all ofthe requirements. The Agency does not agree with either commenter. First, theplain language ofsection 3001(d)(9) states that the last sentence of section 3010(b), which allows for a less than six month effective date under certain circumstances, shall not apply to standards issued under section 3001(d). Thus, the language ofthe statute appears topreclude an effective date of less than six months.Although itis arguable that the statute and its legislative history indicate some intent that the regulations become effective immediately,5 

### the Agency believes that

a better reading ofthe statute requires a delay in theeffective date oftherules for atleast six months.

Second, the Agency believes that a six month effective date forthe generator requirements is essential from a policy perspective in order to allow these small businesses tobecome familiarwith the hazardous waste regulations, obtain an EPA Identification number, and find hazardous waste transporters and Subtitle C management facilities. Finally,EPA has determined that the six month effective date is consistent with the statutory directive to promulgate rules for these generators that attempt to minimize theburden on small business. Thus,EPA believes that allowing six months forthese generators to comply with most ofthe provisions ofthe newly applicable hazardous waste management system is a reasonable response to the directives ofsection 3001(d).-As discussed below, theAgency does notbelieve, however,that a full

. year isneeded for compliance withrules other than thoserelating to on-site waste management.

With regard to the additional six month delay forcompliance with on-site management standards, one commenter supported the proposal while another opposed it aslegally unjustifiable and notprotective ofpublic health.This commenter asserted that the effective

5While the Agency does notbelieve that the hammer provisions in section 3001(d)(8) dictate the content ofthe final rules,it is arguablethat a March 31, 1986effective date wasIntended. The fact that Congress requiredfinal rules to be promulgated by March 31, 1986, under section 3001(d)(8), in conjunctionwith astatement in theConference Report that the section3010(b) sixmonth delay in effective datesdoes not applyto 3001(d)(1) regulations (see H.R. Rep. No.1133, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 101 (19841 raises some question regarding the applicabilityofthe sixmonth delay ofsection 3010(b). Since theplain meaning ofthe statutory language in section 3001[d)19) is so clear,however, theAgency does not believethat the legislative historyshould prevail.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10170 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 

## /Rules and Regulations

dates foron-site and off-site activities should be the same.

EPA disagrees that the effective dates forcompliance mustbe the same for onsite and off-site management activities. The same concerns regarding undue burdens thatwould be imposedby an immediate effective date for thefull set ofregulations led the Agency to conclude that a reasonable period of time was necessary for on-site compliance with Parts264 and 265.

Generators of100-1000 kg/mo who engage in on-site management activities will generally have to change their waste management practices in more dramatic ways than those generators who simply ship their wastes for management off-site. Mostwill modify their currentpractices in one ofthe following ways: (1)By adopting on-site management practices exempt from Parts264 and 265, (2)by shifting to offsitemanagement practices, or (3)by adjusting any non-exempt on-site practices so theycomply with thefull Parts 264 and 265 facility standards. The delayed effective date will permit these generators to effect thenecessary changes in a safe and effective manner. Under the final rule, 100-1000 kg/mo generators will have an additional six months to qualify forinterim status and

come into compliance with the Part265 interim status facilitystandards ifthey manage theirwastes on-site, as opposed to off-site. Theinterim status facility standards include anumber of requirements that callfor substantial time and investment, especially the requirement for implementation of a ground-water monitoring program. The installation, operation and maintenance ofthemonitoring system to determine impact on ground-water quality includes installation ofwells,which will require

some time tobe constructed. In the meantime,there willbe some protection to health and the environment bythe need forapproval by States for these generators to manage municipal or industrial (non-hazardous) solidwaste.

Generators whomanage theirwaste off-site will notneed this additional time to comply withtoday's rule. Inmany cases, their currentwaste management practices willbe allowed under this rule. Evenif-they must arrange for newoffsite management, six'months should be sufficient time forthis transition.

Therefore, theAgency isretaining the proposed effective dates.

V.Impacton Authorized States
A. ApplicabilityinAuthorizedStates

Under Section3006 ofRCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to administer andenforce their own hazardous waste programs pursuant to Subtitle C (See 40 CFR Part271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement responsibility.

Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a State with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieuof theFederal
program. TheFederal requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for any hazardous waste management facilities which the State was authorized to permit. When new,more stringent Federal requirements were promulgated

or enacted, the State was obligated to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames, however; the new Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the requirements were adopted as State law.

In contrast, under newly enacted section 3006(g) ofRCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in nonauthorized States.EPA is directed to carry out those requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance ofpermits, until the State is granted authorization to do

so. While States must still adopt HSWA provisions as State law to retain final authorization, the HSWA requirements apply in authorized States in the interim.

Today's final rule is promulgated pursuant to section 3001(d) ofRCRA, a provision added by HSWA. Therefore, it is being added toTable 1in §271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States, regardless oftheir authorization status. States may apply foreither interim or final status forthe HSWA provisions identified inTable 1,

as discussed in the following section of this preamble.

B.EffectonStateAuthorizations

As noted above, EPAwill implement the standards in authorized States until they revisetheir programs to adopt these rules and the revisions are approved by EPA. Because therule is promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a program modification may apply to receive either interim orfinal authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The procedures and schedule for State adoption ofthese regulations under section 3006(b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21 (49FR21678, May 22, 1984). The

same procedures should be followed for section 3006(g)(2)'.

Applying §271.21(e)(2), States that have final authorization must modify their programs within one year from the date oftoday's promulgation ofEPA's regulations ifonly regulatory changes

are all.that are necessary, orwithin two years ifstatutory changes are necessary. These deadlines can be extended in exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).

States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have requirements similar to those in today's rule. These State regulations have not been assessed against theFederal regulations being promulgated today to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a State is not authorized to implement these requirements inlieu ofEPAuntil the State program modification is approved. Of course, States with existing standards may continue to administer and enforce them as a matter ofState law. In implementing the Federal
program, EPA will work with States under cooperative agreements to minimize duplication ofefforts. In many cases, EPA will be able to defer to States in their efforts to implement their programs rather than take separate action under Federal authority.

States that submit official applications forfinal authorization less than 12 months after today's promulgation of EPA's regulations could be approved without including standards equivalent
to those promulgated. Once authorized, however, a State must modify its program to include standards substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within the time period discussed above.

VI. CERCLA Impacts

Today's final rule does not change existing CERCLA requirements relating
to releases ofreportable quantifies of CERCLA hazardous substances. Whenever a hazardous waste or waste stream is:listed under section 3001 of RCRA, it automatically becomes a hazardous substance under section 101(14) ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Section 103 ofCERCLA requires that
persons in charge ofvessels or facilities from which hazardous substances.have been released in quantities that are equal to orgreater than the repoftable quantities (RQs) immediately notifythe National Reponse Center (NRC] (at (800) 

### 10171

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10171 1986

### 10172 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

424-8802 or (202)426-2675) ofthe 

### release. (See 50FR 13456-13522, April 4, 1985).



### Theterm "hazardous substance" includes all substances designated in §302.4(a) ofthe April4, 1985final rule (50 FR 13474), as well as unlisted 

### hazardous wastes exhibiting the RCRA characteristics ofignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure toxicity. (See §302.4(b) ofthe April4,1985 finalrule.)

All persons whorelease a reportable quantity ofa CERCLA hazardous substance into theenvironment, including small quantitygenerators, are - subject to notification provisions of section 103 ofCERCLA (see 40 CFR 302.6(a) and (b)). However, as statedin CERCLA section 103(f)(1), no 

### notification shall be required under CERCLA sections 103(a) and (b for any. release ofa hazardous substance which isrequired tobe reported (orspecifically exempted from a requirement for reporting) under subtitle Cofthe Solid WasteDisposal Act orregulations thereunder and which has been reported to theNational Response Center (NRC).

VII. Executive Order 12291-Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12291 (46 FR13193, February 9, 1981) requires that a regulatory agency determine whether a

new regulation willbe "major" and ifso, that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be conducted.

The Administrator has determined that today's final rule is not a major rule, because ithas total estimated costs of less than$100 million peryear, and has

no significant adverse economic effects. These conclusions, are based on an economic analysis oftoday's proposal. This analysis involved developing cost estimates ofboth current waste management practices used by 100-1000 kg/mo generators and practices required by today's final rule. Some ofthese estimates were firm-specific and others were waste stream-specific. These costs

were used alongwith estimates ofthe changes in waste management practices likely to result from today's final rule to estimate the annual incremental compliance costs to 100-1000 kg/mo generators ($46.9 milllion). These costs

were added to the estimated government costs ofimplementing the regulation of$12 million for a total social costof$58.9 million.

A. EstimatesofPer FirmCosts

1.Part 262 G6nerator Standards

The estimated incremental compliance costs attributable to Part 262 requirements canbe divided into an initial, one-time, cost of$2267 per firm, and an annual recurring cost of$222 per firm. These costs willbe incurred byall 100-100O kg/mogenerators that would be subject to therequirements oftoday's regulation with two exceptionsgenerators disposing oftheir wastes by sending them to POTW's and generators that have their waste reclaimed under certain contractural agreements. Generators sending wastes to POTW's willincur noPart262 related costs as a result oftheregulation (unlessthe waste is accumulated priorto discharge; see 3.a. ofthis Unit). Generators using reclamation agreements would incur a costof$1694 initially and no annual costs.
2.Transportation Costs

Under today's rule,generators of 100- 1000 kg/mo willbe required to either
contract with an authorized hazardous waste transporter orhaul the hazardous waste to a hazardous waste management facility that has a permit from theAgency or an authorized State,

or is in interim status. Incremental transport costs depend on current generator practices, the distance which wastes are transported, the quantity of wastes transported, and the number of times wastes are loaded andtransported each year.

In many cases,there willbe no incremental transportation costs due to theseregulations because current waste management practices involve waste transportation. Where this isnotthe
case, average incremental costs that wouldbe imposed on 100-1000 kg/mo generators forthe transportation oftheir hazardous waste are estimated.tobe between $838per year (forgenerators that ship 600kg ofwaste a short distance twice yearly)and$1882 per year (forgenerators that ship 6000kg of
waste a longer distance twice yearly).
3.Tieatment, Storage andDisposal Costs

a. On-Site Accumulation:Under today'sfinal rule, generators of100-1000 kg/mowould be allowed to store hazardous waste on-site without a permit orinterim status forup to 180 days, or forup to270 days ifthe waste is tobe shipped over200 miles.

Generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who store hazardous waste on-site, within the 180-day (or270-day) period specified under the provisions ofthe storage exemption, will have to complywith Part 265, Subpart C(Preparedness and Prevention), a reduced set of requirements in SubpartD(Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures), and limited requirements forpersonnel training (Section 265.16 ofSubpartB), The incremental compliance costs for 

### Ifacilities that choose this management

option are divided into aninitial start-up cost of$1447 and an annual costof$53.

Generators that store hazardous waste on-site within the 180-day (or270- day) period may also incur costsrelated
to storage container (Subpart I)and storage tank (Subpart 

### J)requirements. Theincremental costs forthese requirements depend on a number of factors, including the currentpractices ofthe generator, the generator's storage capacity, and the composition of the hazardous wastebeing stored. The
range ofincremental costs, as a result, is fairly large. For container storage, initial incremental costsrange from practically

zero to $1854 and annual costs range from $404 to $447. The corresponding incremental cost estimates for the existing rules fortanks are $155 for initial costs, and $770 forannual costs.

b. TreatmentandDisposal:After analyzing the cost ofon-site treatment and disposal for 100-1000 kg/mo generators relative to off-site costs, the Agency has determined that in nearly all

cases, the least expensive hazardous
waste management alternatives available to-these generators involve off-site activities. The small quantities of
waste generated by these establishments simply do notpermit them to operate expensive on-site management facilities on an economically efficient basis. The costs ofoff-site commergial treatment and disposal upon which this conclusion is based are derived from a composite of various existing sources ofdata on commercial waste management prices. They range from $150 to $250 per metric
ton (forsecure landfills) to $200 to $1200
per metric ton (for either treatment or incineration), depending on the characteristics ofthe wastes.

B.Estimatesof NationwideIncremental CostBurdenon Generatorsof100-1000 kg/mo

The aggregate costs for today's rule

were developed by comparing the costs ofcurrent (baseline)management practices with hazardous waste' management practices which are required by the rule.The Agency has determined, based on this analysis, that the annual incremental compliance cost for this proposal would be approximately $46.9 million.

On a per metricton basis, the average incremental compliance cost over all
wastes is about$180. Because of differences in baseline practices, and, hence, the cost ofcompliance, the incremental costs vary substantially
among different wastes. In fact, the baseline method ofwaste management by these generators is adequate to comply with the regulations in many

cases. Others willhave to change waste management practices in order to comply. Much ofthe $46.9 million in compliance cost, is focused on a few types ofwastes (spent solvents dry cleaning filtration residues, acids, and

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10172 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1.986 / Rules and Regulations

alkalies, and ignitable was.tes) that constitute a large proportion of the
wastes generated by these generators.

C.EstimatesoftheEconomicImpactsof Today'sFinal Rule
An analysis ofthe effects of compliance costs on the sales and profitability of289 model plants indicates that in over80 percent of plants the incremental costs are less than 10 percent of profits. A few ofthe plants, particularly in service industries. show incremental costs ofgreater than 10 percent ofprofits. Nearly three quarters ofthe models most affected by the proposal have annual revenues of less than $500,000. Some of these establishments Are low profit or nonprofit by design, such as public or private golf courses, hospitals, and other public institutions.

Only six plants have incremental compliance costs which exceed 1 percent of sales and 25 percent of profits. For each ofthese model plants, a

more detailed evaluation was conducted
to deternine whether these plants would be likely to close.This analysis indicated that plant closings as a result of thisregulation would be unlikely.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

TheRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.),requires the Agency
to evaluate the impacts ofregulations on smallbusinesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for today's final rule includes such an evaluation. TheAdministrator has determined that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall firms.

Today's proposed regulations are expected to primarily affect small firms. Therfore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirement concerning effects on small businesses is addressed to a large
extent by the overall economic analysis performed in conjunction with this rulemaking.

Throughout the development of today's final rule, the Agency's goal has been promulgation ofrequirements that would be the least burdensome to small businesses and also meet the Congressional mandate ofprotecting human health and the environment. In

our effort to design regulations that would meet this goal, we have worked closely with small business organizations, trade associations, State and local governments, EPA's Small Business Ombudsman in the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, and the Federal Small Business Administration to assess the needs and capabilities of small businesses. EPA believes that this rule is

a balanced approach to regulating hazardous waste from these generators while considering their smallbusiness
nature.

For purposes ofthis analysis, "small entities" were defined as firms comprised offewer than 50 employees for all ofthe sectors except manufa6turing (<100 employees). In many cases, these classifications are approximations because the Small Business Administration establishes size standards in terms ofsales levels, and the size standards vary within sectors. For example, most small entity size standards for manufacturing industries range between 500 and 1000 employees.

Theresults of this analysis indicate that less than 10 percent of small entities within the impacted industries will be affected by the regulations. Most small businesses will not be affected by these regulations because they: 1)Do
not generate hazardous waste, 2) generate less than 100 kg/mo, or 3) generate over 1000kg/mo and are already subject to hazardous waste regulations.

Even though only a relatively small percentage ofpotentially affected small businesses will probably be affected, the more important issue to analyze is whether or not a large number of those which are affected will be severely impacted. Three commonly accepted
tests were used to measure whether or not businesses would be severely impacted:

(1)Annual compliance costs will increase the relevant production costs for small entities by more than five percent;

(2) Capital costs ofcompliance will represent a significant portion ofthe capital available to small entities,

(3)The costs ofthe regulation will likely result in closure ofsmall entities.

To analyze the significance of compliance costs on small businesses, data were developed for 25 different types and sizes ofmodel plants representing those most likely to be severely impacted by the proposed regulations. Compliance costs were computed for-these model plants based

on the economic analysis described in theprevious section of this preamble.

In general, theseregulations will not

cause significant impacts on small firms. None of the model plants established for this analysis show cost increases of

more than five percent as a direct result ofcompliance costs. The regulations require no significant capital outlays and ihus should not affect capital requirements or availability. Even the
most severely impacted model plants would not close under the assumptions ofthis exercise and would continue to operate at a profit.

In summary, it appears that the impact

on small firms will not cause a significant number ofhardships. There will be isolated cases, involving on-site management ortransportation over long distances, where compliance costs'for

some individual firms may be severe. In the case ofon-site management, however, the Agency believes that most 100-1000 kg/mo generators will switch
to off-site practices rather than face the high costs ofobtaining interim status or

a permit. Furthermore, approximately 70 percent of these generators are in metropolitan areas, and would thus be able to reduce transportation costs by allowing transporters to consolidate shipments by picking up waste from

more than one generator at a time.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq., and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2050- 0028 (Notification) and 2050-0039 (Manifest).

List of Subjects

40 CFRPart 261 Intergovernmental relations, Hazardous materials, Waste treatment and disposal, Recycling.

40 CFRPart 262 Intergovernmental relations, Hazardous materials, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFRPart 263 Intergovernmental relations, Hazardous materials transportation, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFRPart 270

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

.40 CFI:IPart 271

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: March 14, 1986.,

Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended, as follows: 

### 10173

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10173 1986

### 10174 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

1.The authority citation for Part 260 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006,2002(a), 3001 through 3007,3010, 3014,3015, 3017,3018, 3019,

### and 7004, Solid WasteDisposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of1976,as amended (42U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921 through 6927,6930, 6934,6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,and6974).

2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding a new definition, alphabetically,

as follows:

§260.10 Definitions.

*k * * * *

"Small Quantity Generator" means a generator who generates less than 1000 kg ofhazardous waste in a calendar month.

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

3.The authority citation forPart 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and 3002of theSolid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976,as amended (42U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921, and 6922).

4. Section 261.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: §261.1 Purposeand scope.

(a) * * * (1)Subpart Adefines the terms "solid waste" and "hazardous waste", identifies those wastes which are excluded from regulation under Parts 262 through 266 and 270 and establishes special management requirements for hazardous wasteproduced by conditionally exempt small quantity generators and hazardous waste which is recycled.

• * * * *

5. Section 261.5, is revised to read as followg: §261.5 Special requirements for hazardous waste generated by conditionallyexempt small quantity generators.

(a) A generator is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator in a calendar month ifhegenerates no more than 100kilograms ofhazardous waste in that month.

(b) Except for those wastes identified in paragraphs (e), (0, (g), and (j) ofthis section, a conditionally exempt small quantity generator's hazardous wastes

are not subject to regulation under Parts 262 through 266 and Parts 270 and 124 of this chapter, and the notification requirements of Section 3010 ofRCRA, provided the generator complies with the requirements ofparagraphs (f), (g), and 

### (j)ofthis section.

(c) Hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation orthat is subject only to §262.11, §262.12, §262.40(c), and §262.41 is not included in the quantity determinations ofthis Part and Parts 262 through 266 and 270 and is not subject to any oftherequirements of those Parts. Hazardous waste that is subject to the requirements of§261.6 (b) and (c) and Subparts C,D, and FofPart 266is included in the quantity determination ofthis Part and is subject
to the requirements ofParts 262through 266 and 270.

(d) In determining the quantity of hazardous waste generated, a generator need not include:

(1)Hazardous waste when it is removed from on-site storage; or

(2) Hazardous waste produced by onsite treatment (including reclamation) of his hazardous waste, so long as the hazardous waste that is treated was counted once; or

(3)Spent materials that aregenerated, reclaimed, and subsequently reused onsite, so long as such spent materials have been counted once.

(e) Ifa generator generates acute hazardous waste ina calendar month in quantities greater than set forth below, all quantities ofthat acute hazardous
waste are subject to full regulation under Parts 262 through 266 and Parts 270 and 124 ofthis chapter, and the* notification requirements ofsection 3010 ofRCRA:

(1)Atotal ofone kilogram ofacute hazardous wastes listed in 

### §§ 261.31, 261.32, or 261.33(e).

(2) A total of100kilograms ofany residue or contaminated soil, waste, or other debris resulting from the clean-up of a spill, into oron any land orwater, ofany acute hazardous wastes listed in §§ 261.31, 261.32, or261.33(e).

(f)In order for acute hazardous
wastes generated by a generator of
acute hazardous wastes in quantities equal to orless than those set forth in paragraph (e)(1)-or (e)(2) ofthis section
to be excluded from full regulation under this section, the generator must comply with the following requirements:

(1)Section 262.11 ofthis chapter; (2) Thegenerator may accumulate
acute hazardous waste on-site. Ifhe accumulates at any time acute hazardous wastes in quantities greater than those set forth in paragraph (e)(1)

or (e)(2)of this se6tion,all ofthose accumulated wastes are subject to regulation under Parts 262 through 266 and Parts 270 and 124 of thischapter, and the applicable notification requirements ofsection 3010 ofRCRA. The time period of §262.34(d) for accumulation ofwastes on-site begins when the accumulated wastes exceed the applicable exclusion limit; (3] A conditionally exempt small quantity generator may either treat or dispose ofhis acute hazardous waste in

an on-site facility, or ensure delivery to

an off-site storage, treatment or disposal facility, either of which is:

(i)Permitted under Part 270 of this chapter;

(fi) In interim status under Parts 270 and 265 ofthis chapter;

(iii) Authorized to manage hazardous
waste by a State with a hazardous
waste management program approved under Part271 ofthis chapter;

(iv)Permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or

(v)A facility which: (A)Beneficially uses orreuses, or legitimately recycles orreclaims its waste; or

(B) Treats its waste prior to beneficial

use or reuse, or legitimate recycling or reclamation.

(g) In orderfor hazardous waste generated by a conditionally exempt small quantity generator in quantities of less than 100kilograms ofhazardous
waste during a calendar month to be excluded fromfull regulation under this section, the generator must comply with the following requirements:

(1) Section 262.11 ofthis chapter; (2) The conditionally exempt small quantitygenerator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site. If he accumulates at any timemore than a total of1000 kilograms ofhis hazardous wastes, all of those accumulated wastes

are subject to regulation under the special provisions ofPart 262 applicable
to generators ofbetween 100 kgand 1000kg ofhazardous waste in a calendar month as well as the requirements ofParts 263 through 266 and Parts 270 and 124 ofthis chapter, and the applicable notification requirements ofsection 3010 ofRCRA. The time period of §262.34(d) for accumulation ofwastes on-site begins for a conditionally exempt small quantity generator when the accumulated wastes exceed 1000 kilograms;

(3) A conditionally exempt small quantity generator may either treat or dispose ofhis hazardous waste in an onsite facility, or ensure delivery to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either ofwhich is:

(i)Permitted under Part 270 ofthis chapter;

(ii) In interim status under Parts 270 and 265 ofthischapter;

(iii)Authorized to manage hazardous
waste by a State with a hazardous
waste management programapproved under Part 271 ofthis chapter

(iv)Permitted, licensed, orregistered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10174 1986

### Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 

## / Rules and Regulations

(v) A facility which: (A) Beneficially uses orreuses, or legitimately recycles orreclaims its waste; or

(B) Treats its waste prior to beneficial

use orreuse, orlegitimate recycling or reclamation.

(h) Hazardous waste subject to the reduced requirements ofthis section may be mixed with non-hazardous
waste and remain subject to these reduced requirements even though the resultant mixture exceeds the quantity limitations identified in this section, unless the mixture meets any ofthe characteristics ofhazardous waste identified in Subpart C.

(i)Ifany person mixes a solid waste with a hazardous waste that exceeds a quantity exclusion level of this section, the mixture is subject to full regulation.

(j)Ifa conditionally exempt small quantity generator's wastes are mixed with used oil, the mixture is subject to Subpart E ofPart 266 ofthis chapter ifit is.destined to be burned for energy recovery. Any material produced from such a mixture byprocessing, blending,

or other treatment is also so regulated if it is destined to be burned for energy recovery.

6. In Section 261.33 the introductory
text ofparagraph (f) isrevised to read as follows:
§261.33 Discarded commercial chemical products,off-specificationspecies, container residues, and spillresidues thereof

(f) The commercial chemical products, manfacturing chemical intermediates, or off-specification commercial chemical products referred to in paragraphs (a) through (d) ofthis section, are identified

as toxic wastes (T), unless otherwise designated and are subject to the small quantity generator exclusion defined in § 261.5 (a) and (g).

PART 262-STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

7. The authority citation for Part 262 continues to read as folloOvs:

Authority: Secs. 1006,2002(a), 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3017of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,as amended by the Resource Conservation 

### and Recovery Act of1976,

### as amended (42U.S.C. 6906, 6912(a), 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, and 6937).

8. Section 262.20 is amended by adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§262.20 General requirements.

(e) The requirements ofthis Subpart do not apply to hazardous waste produced by generators ofgreater than 100 kg but less than 1000 kg in a calendar month where:

(1)The waste is reclaimed under a contractual agreement pursuant to which:

(i)The type ol waste and frequency of shipments are specified in the agreement;

(ii) The vehicle used to transport the
waste to the recycling facility and to deliver regenerated material back to the generator is owned and operated by the reclaimer ofthe waste; and

(2)Thegenerator maintains a copy of the reclamation agreement in his files for a period of at least three years after termination or expiration of the agreement.

9. Section 262.34 isamended by revising theintroductory text to paragraph (a) and by adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). 

### §262.34 Accumulation time.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs" (d), (e), and (f) ofthis section, a generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without

a permit or without having interim
status provided that:

(d) A generator who generates greater 

### than 100kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms ofhazardous waste in a calendar month may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 180days or less without a permit orwithout having interim status provided that:

(1)The quantity ofwaste accumulated on-site never exceeds 6000kilograms;

(2) The generator complies with the requirements ofparagraph (a)(1) except the generator need not comply with §265.176.

(3) The generator complies with the requirements ofparagraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) ofthis section and the requirements ofSubpart C ofPart 265; and

(4) The generator complies with the following-requirements:

(i)At all times there must be at least

one employee either on the premises or

on call (i.e., available to respond to an emergency byreaching the facility within a shortperiod oftime) with the responsibility for coordinating all
emergency response measures specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) ofthis section. This employee is the emergency coordinator.

(ii)Thegenerator must post the following inforination next to the telephone:

(A) The name and telephone number of the emergency coordinator; (B) Location offire extinguishers and spill control material, and, ifpresent, fire alarm; and

(C) The telephone number ofthe fire department, unless the facility has a direct alarm.

(iii) The generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies;

(iv)The emergency coordinator or his designee must respond to any emergencies that arise. The applicable responses are as follows:

(A) In the event ofa fire, call the fire department or attempt to extinguish it using a fire extinguisher;

(B)In the event of a spill, contain the flow of hazardous waste to the extent possible, and as soon as is practicable, clean up the hazardous waste and any contaminated materials or soil;

(C) In the event ofa fire, explosion, or other release which could threaten human health outside the facility or when the generator has knowledge that

a spill has reached surface water, the generator must immediately notify the National Response Center (using their 24-hour toll free number 800/424--8802). The report must include the following information:

(1)The name, address, and U.S. EPA Identification Number ofthe generator;

(2)Date, time, and type ofincident (e.g., spill orfire);

(3)Quantity and type ofhazardous
waste involved-in the incident; (4) Extent ofinjuries,,if any; and (5)Estimated.quantity and disposition ofrecovered materials, ifany.

(e) A generator who generates greater than 100kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms ofhazardous waste in a calendar month and who must transport his waste, or offer his waste for transportation, over 'adistance of200 miles or more for off-site treatment, storage or disposal may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 270 days or less without a permit orwithout having interim status provided that he complies with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.

(f) A generator who generates greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month and who accumulates hazardous waste in quantities exceeding 6000 kg oraccumtlates hazardous waste for more than 180 days (or formore than 270 days ifhe must transport his waste,

or offer his waste for transportation,

over a distance of200 miles ormore) is

an operator ofa storage facility and is subject to the requirements of40 CFR 

### 10175

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10175 1986

### 10176 Federal Register 

## / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Parts 264 and 265 and the permit requirements of40 CFR Part 270 unless he has been granted an extension to the 180-day (or270-day ifapplicable) period. Such extension may be granted by EPA ifhazardous wastes must remain on-site for longer than 180 days (or 270 days if applicable) due to unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable circumstances. An extension of up to 30 days may begranted at the discretion of the Regional Administrator on a caseby-case basis.

10. In Subpart D ofPart 262, add the following new § 262.44: Subpart D-Recordkeeping and Reporting

* *

. *

. §262.44 Special Requirements for Generators of between 100and 1000 kg/

mo.

Agenerator who generates greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms ofhazardous waste in a calendar month is exempt fromthe requirements ofthis subpart, except for the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) in §262.40 and the requirements of § 262.43.

PART 263-STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

11. The authority citation forPart 263 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 2002(a), 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3005 of theSolid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976 and

as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (42U.S.C. 6912(a), 6922, 6923, 6924, and 6925).

12. In § 263.20, paragraph (h) is added
to read as follows: §263.20 The manifest system.

* * * * *

(h) A transporter transporting hazardous waste from a generator who generates greater than 100kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms ofhazardous waste in a calendar month need not comply with the requirements of this section or those of § 263.22 provided that:

(1)The waste is being transported pursuant to a reclamation agreement as provided for in § 262.20(e);

(2) The transporter records, on a log or shipping paper, the following information for each shipment:

fi) The name, address, and U.S. EPA Identification Number ofthe generator of the waste;

(ii) The quantity ofwaste accepted; (iii) All DOT-required shipping information;



### (iv) The date the waste is accepted; and

. (3)The transporter carries this record 

### when transporting waste to the reclamation facility; and

(4) The transporter retains these records for a period ofat least three
years after termination or expiration of the agreement.


### PART270-EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM

13. The authority citation for Part 270 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002, 3005, 3007, 3019, and 7004 ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974).

14. Section 270.1 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as follows: §270.1 Purposeand scopeofthese regulations.



### (c) * * * (2) * * * (i) Generators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site for less than the time periods provided in 40 CFR 262.34. 15. Section 270.10 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

§270.10 General application requirements.

]* * ***

(e)* * * (1) * * (iii)For generators generating greater than.100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms ofhazardous waste in a calendar month and treats, stores, or disposes of these wastes on-site, by March 24, 1987.

a * * * *

PART271-REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

16. The authority citation for Part 271 continues toread as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976, as amended (42U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926).

17. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entry to Table I in chronological orderby date of publication:

§271.1 Purposeand scope.

* * * * a

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Date Title ofRegulation Federal Register reference

Mar, 24, 1986

. Regulations for 51FR [insert Generators of page number] 100-1000 kg/mo of Hazardous Waste.

[FR Doc. 86-6224 Filed 3-21-86; 8:45 am]
BILLINGCODE 6560-50-M

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10176 1986