Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Container Standards)

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Subject: Treatment in containers. No citation.

Comment: The specific standards for treatment of hazardous wastes in containers, need to be 

listed under the generator standards including what constitutes a closed container, the types 

of treatment allowed, etc. 

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Subject: Storage of materials - Distance from 

property lines. 40 CFR 265.176

Comment: Modify 40 CFR 264.176 and 265.176 to comply with National Fire Protection 

Association standards and not a specified distance requirement. 

Stakeholder: Lab Corporation Subject: Definition of closed container. No 

citation. 

Comment: ..... we recommend that the EPA define the term “closed container”. Many times an 

inspector will determine that a container is “open” and issue a notice of violation, but is unable to 

determine when it is “closed”. Perhaps the old rule of thumb, “a container that will not leak if 

tipped over is closed”, could be added. Or, EPA could incorporate or reference guidance already

contained in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (“HMR”), 49 CFR Parts 171 – 180.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject: Air Emissions

Subparts AA, BB, CC vs. Subpart I (40 CFR 

262.34(a)(1)(i))

Comment: This section of the regulation requires large quantity generators placing wastes 

containing volatile organics into containers to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, 

and CC. For most generators, the referenced regulations do not result in any significant 

additional requirements. For example, a generator collecting hazardous wastes at satellite 

accumulation areas and at 90-day storage areas in 55-gallon drums or smaller who is not treating 

hazardous wastes would be required to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC for Level 1 

containers, which essentially requires that containers at 90-day storage areas be kept closed with 

no visible openings or gaps. This requirement is redundant with the standards in 40 CFR 

265 subpart I that require containers to be closed at all times except when waste is being 

added or removed. Even for larger Level 2 containers, additional requirements (such as 

submerged fill requirements) are not significant, and are redundant with fire prevention 

guidelines or regulations (such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106, 

for example, 1910.106(b)(2)(viii)(e) and (b)(3)(v)(d)). Requiring generators to comply with 
Subpart CC is not more protective of the environment than the existing container standards in 40 

CFR 265 Subpart I and other environmental, health and safety regulations. It is burdensome for 

generators to read through the extensive regulations in 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC, and to 

determine which hazardous wastes generated are subject to the requirements, without any

substantial additional requirements, and without any apparent environmental benefit.

40 CFR 265 Subpart AA (air emission standards for process vents) would rarely be applicable to 

generators because most generators with the types of regulated processes would already be 

exempt in accordance with 40 CFR 265.1030(b)(2) and (3) because the regulated process would 

typically be performed by generators as part of a recycling activity regulated under 40 CFR 

261.6. For generators with regulated processes, other environmental regulations such as air 

pollution control regulations would apply to any processes resulting in emissions to the 

atmosphere.

Similarly, 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB (air emission standards for equipment leaks) would rarely be 

applicable to generators collecting wastes in containers, as wastes are not typically transferred 

into containers via pumps, valves, etc. Transfer of flammable or combustible materials 

containing volatile organics would be regulated under fire prevention guidelines or regulations 

(such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106).

We recommend that generators collecting hazardous wastes in containers not be required to 

comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. If these requirements are to remain, we 

recommend that EPA clarify whether 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB applies to satellite accumulation 

containers; it is our understanding that these requirements currently apply only to equipment 

associated with 90-day containers.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject: Closed Containers 40 CFR 265.173(a)

Comment: This section requires that containers be closed except when waste is being added to or 

removed from a container. “Closed” should either be defined more clearly in the regulations 

or EPA should issue specific guidance about what “closed” means for various types of 

closures. For example, can a funnel be used in a container and still meet the definition of 

“closed”? What type(s) of funnels are acceptable? For waste in an open-head drum, must the 

drum lid be bolted or otherwise secured in place? Do requirements differ for solid materials 

versus liquid materials?

Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject: Inspection of Containers 40 CFR 265.174

Comment: This section requires that container storage areas be inspected “weekly.” If the 

agency intends this to mean at any time during consecutive calendar weeks, then no change 

is needed. If the agency intends “weekly” to mean every seven days, we suggest that 

“weekly”be replaced with “every seven days.”
Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject: Additional Comments 40 CFR 265.176

Comment: 40 CFR 265.176 includes a comment to “See 265.17(a) for additional requirements.”

It is our understanding that this comment is provided for reference for TSDFs only and that 

generators are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 265.17(a). We suggest removing the 

comment to avoid confusion. (Note that rewriting the container standards in Part 262 as 

suggested previously only as applicable to generators would also eliminate this confusion.)

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Subject: Closed Containers and Inspection 

Frequencies

Comment: Regulations governing the use and management of containers (in Part 265) are 

reasonable. However, EPA should more clearly describe 1) “closed” as related to 

containers in storage, and 2) “at least weekly” as related to inspections, e.g., “weekly” can 

be interpreted as any time within a calendar week, or more narrowly interpreted as once 

every seven days. Without further clarification generators are subject to the whim of the 

inspector as to the interpretation.

Stakeholder: American Airlines Subject: Closed Containers in satellite 

accumulation areas

Comment: There is a significant amount of variability among state agencies and EPA Regions in

connection with the interpretation of the regulations requiring containers in satellite 

accumulation areas to be “closed.” Some regulators view this requirement as mandating that the 

containers be air tight; others require that if the container were to be knocked over, there would 

be no spillage. Still others require only that the lid be in place but not necessarily fastened down.

American believes that regulators have often taken the concept of a closed container at

satellite collection areas to an illogical extreme. Such containers essentially serve two purposes:

(1) to provide a convenient and easily accessible location for the disposition of hazardous waste 

at or near the point of generation, and (2) to prevent the escape of wastes while they are being

collected and stored.

In most cases, at least with liquid or semi-liquid wastes, these waste materials are stored in

55 gallon drums. Materials are added by either removing the entire lid (e.g. for disposal of wipes 

and rags), or by pouring the liquid through a funnel in the bung-hole on the lid of the drum.

Often, the funnels used will have a spring loaded “lid” that snaps closed (although not air

American maintains that these containers should be considered “closed” as long as the drum

in place (i.e. properly positioned on top of the drum but not necessarily fastened in an airmanner) and as long as the lid on the funnel is closed. As such, the material is contained

drum and yet additional waste materials can readily be added to the containers. The process

simple and the goals of the regulations are achieved.
Some regulators would take the position, however, that the drums are not “closed”

the lid is securely fastened to the drum (sufficient to meet DOT specifications for shipment)

the funnel is removed and the bung securely fastened to the drum. Such an interpretation,

however, makes the addition of waste to the container an arduous and inefficient process.

such, American believes that EPA should clarify in the regulations that a container is closed

whenever the lid, or a funnel with a lid, is in place on the container.

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Subject: Labeling for CESQG wastes

Comment: Regarding CESQGs, like other generators we believe their containers should be 

labeled, with the words “Hazardous Waste” or a description of container contents, as this is 

beneficial to state emergency responders. Also, it demonstrates to generator personnel that 

such waste may require special handling. Further, the regulations for CESQGs have no provision

that containers be closed, an activity the DE-DNREC believes necessary. Delaware has amended 

its regulations to provide for these requirements.

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Subject: Secondary containment

Comment: As for large quantity generators (LQG), it has been our experience that many have 

environmental staffs available to read, interpret and implement the regulations; however this 

may prove untrue in less industrialized states. With regard to generator accumulation, DEDNREC believes all LQGs should be required to provide less than 90 day container storage 

areas with secondary containment. While many have provided secondary containment, we 

do occasionally come across LQGs who place less than 90 day storage (accumulation) 

containerized waste directly on the ground. The DE-DNREC may be inclined to support an 

increase in accumulation time frames for CESQGs, SQGs, and LQGs, but only where these 

changes are accompanied by requirements for secondary containment.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Subject: Commingling of waste once container 

closed

Comment: Once a container is filled, sealed, and labeled it should always be subject to certain 

rules. Once waste is containerized and the container is marked/labeled by the generator, the 

container should never be opened for commingling of different waste streams or disturbed until it 

is emptied in the treatment facility for treatment. Commingling of wastes should not be allowed 

at transfer facilities, but only in facilities permitted or authorized for such activity.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Subject: Storage of materials - Distance from 

property lines. 40 CFR 265.176

A set of minimum storage distances from property lines needs to be developed and universally 
applied. The potential danger represented by the container of hazardous waste is not diminished 

by who has possession of the waste. Therefore, if it is prudent to keep containers 50 feet from a 

property line in a storage facility, it should always be kept 50 feet from the property line, 

regardless whether the storage site is a satellite accumulation area, a generator storage area, a 

transfer facility, or a TSD facility. 

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Subject: Treatment in containers

Comment: The Treatment by Generator (TBG) program has been very effective in 

reducing hazardous waste generators’ dependence on offsite treatment, storage, and/or 

disposal (TSD) facilities. This also enables generators to reduce the hazards of their waste at the 

generation site and reduces the quantity and hazard of waste transported over public highways. 

We encourage EPA to continue this program, and to consider articulating the salient points in 

existing guidance within the regulations to assure broad and consistent implementation by

eligible generators.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Subject: Closed Container 262.34(a)(1)(i): 

Reference to 265.173(a)

Comment: The use of the definition of “closed” containers from the TSD facility regulations 

is problematical with regard to generator accumulation. The requirement cited was 

designed for treatment, storage, and/or disposal facilities and anticipated that closures would 

be secure during storage of waste, and that such facilities would seldom open closed containers. 

In the case of generator accumulation, this is not as frequently the case. Waste additions or 

removals may take place as part of consolidation of satellite area wastes or treatment by 

generator activities. This provision also interferes with intermittent and/or automated additions 

that might take place without direct intervention of the generator. Addition of contents to the 90-

day area container requires some sort of air displacement capability to prevent pressurization of 

the receiving container. As a result, EPA needs to consider allowing “addition” to be associated 

with a connected, ongoing process rather than individual physical additions to the container.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National 

Laboratory

Subject: Extension of storage accumulation times

262.34(b)

Comment: Consider providing a self-implementing provision for “emergency” extensions of 

30 days for container storage, possibly by providing secondary containment for the 

container. The generator could still be required to establish and document that the circumstances 

requiring the 30-day extension were unforeseen, temporary, and uncontrollable. Such 

documentation could be requested by the Regional Administrator at any time.
Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject: Placement of wastes in containers

Comment: A clear citation is needed in the regulations for large quantity generators and small 

quantity generators failing to place/manage hazardous waste in containers. The violation of not 

placing “waste in containers or tanks” is one which can be cited often, for many different 

situations of hazardous waste management (at the site of generation, satellite accumulation areas 

and storage areas) but there is no specific citation for this violation. In the State of North 

Carolina, if a facility has a release in a less than 90-day storage area, 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1) is 

cited for waste not being placed in containers. If a large quantity generator has a release in a 

satellite accumulation area, 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) is cited for a generator failing to “accumulate 

as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste in 

containers...” If a small quantity generator fails to place waste in containers it is cited as 40 CFR 

262.34(d)(5)(iv)(B) for the emergency coordinator not responding to and cleaning up a spill.

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject: Closed containers :40 CFR 262.34(a)(1) 

ref. 40 CFR 265.173(a)

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1) ref. 40 CFR 265.173(a) should provide a definition of “closed”. 

The State of North Carolina has guidance suggesting what classifies a closed container, but a 

clear definition would make this regulation more enforceable. 

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject: Inspection frequency: 40 CFR 

262.34(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.174

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.174 should specify that “weekly” is a seven 

day period of time. The State of North Carolina has guidance that suggests that weekly 

inspections of the hazardous waste storage area means that it be inspected within every seven 

days. A specific definition of “weekly” would assist in making this regulation more enforceable.

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject: Treatment 

Comment: 40 CFR 262 regulations should provide a list of allowable treatment activities 

(e.g. on-site distillation) that can be performed in the containers and tanks at satellite 

accumulation areas and in the 90-day or 180-day storage area of a generator’s facility.

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject: Labeling of containers for CESQGs

Comment: Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) should be required to 

comply with labeling requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3). Since CESQGs do not generate a 
large volume of waste, not labeling hazardous waste containers often leads to not knowing what 

is in the container. This, in turn, leads to waste determination violations.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Subject: Treatment in containers

Comment: Generator Treatment: - 262.34 should state explicitly whether generators are

allowed to treat in containers. In fact, ADEM believes that this “interpretation-by-analogy” of 

262.34 is confusing, encourages generators to handle waste in a manner that was not anticipated 

when the RCRA was originally adopted, and sometimes results in situations that make 

enforcement of the permit requirements of 40CFR265 difficult. Rather than following this 

approach, ADEM has consistently maintained that generators should not, as a general rule, treat 

hazardous waste onsite without a permit. Instead, ADEM has created specific exemptions from 

permitting in Chapter 335-14-8 of the Division 14 of the ADEM Administrative Code, which is 

the State of Alabama’s equivalent to 40CFR270, for certain common types of treatment. The 

regulatory

language used by ADEM to do so is as follows:

2. Specific exclusions. The following persons are among those who are not required to obtain a 

AHWMMA permit: 

(...)

(viii) Generators treating on-site generated hazardous wastes by evaporation in tanks or 

containers provided that:

(I) The generator complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 335- 14-3,

(II) Such treatment does not result in the emission or discharge of hazardous wastes or 

hazardous constituents into the environment in excess of any standard(s) promulgated by the 

Department or the Environmental Protection Agency,

(III) With respect to treatment, the generator complies with the applicable

requirements of Rules 335-14-5-.02(5), 335-14-5-.02(6), 335-14-5-.02(7), 335-14-5- .02(8), 335-

14-5-.03, 335-14-5-.04, 335-14-5-.07(2), 335-14-5-.07(5), 335-14-5-.09 and 335-14-5-.10,

(IV) Such treatment minimizes the amount of hazardous wastes which are subsequently

generated, treated, and/or disposed, and

(V) The generator provides the Department with written notice of intent to

treat such hazardous wastes on or before the effective date of 335-14-8-.01 or at least 60 days 

prior to the initiation of waste treatment, which ever date occurs last. This noticemust provide 

documentation of compliance with the requirements of 335-14-8-.01(1)(c)2.(viii)(II), (III), and 

(IV), and must be maintained for the life of the facility and be available for inspection;

(...)

(x) Generators treating on-site generated hazardous wastes in tanks or containers by physical or 

mechanical processes (e.g., compacting rags, crushing fluorescent lamps) solely for the purpose 

of reducing the bulk volume of the waste which must be subsequently managed as a hazardous 

waste provided that:

(I) The generator complies with the applicable requirements of Chapter 335- 14-3;

(II) The treatment process does not result in a change in the chemical

composition of the waste(s) treated;

(III) No mixing of different waste streams occurs;
(IV) No free liquids are included in the waste(s) to be treated or generated by the treatment 

process;

(V) The potential for ignition and/or reaction of the waste during treatment and/or as the result of 

treatment does not exist;

(VI) The treatment reduces the volume of hazardous waste which must be subsequently

managed;

(VII) Such treatment does not result in the emission or discharge of

hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents into the environment in excess of any standard(s) 

promulgated by the Department or the Environmental Protection Agency;

(VIII) With respect to treatment, the generator complies with the applicable

requirements of Rules 335-14-5-.02(5), 335-14-5-.02(6), 335-14-5-.02(7), 335-14-5-.02(8), 335-

14-5-.03, 335-14-5-.04, 335-14-5-.07(2), 335-14-5-.07(5), 335-14-5-.09, 335- 14-5-.10; and

(IX) The generator provides the Department with written notice of intent to treat such hazardous 

wastes on or before the effective date of 335-14-8-.01 or at least 60 days prior to the initiation of 

waste treatment, whichever date occurs last. This notice must provide documentation of 

compliance with the requirements of 335-14-8- .01(1)(c)2.(x)(II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI), (VII), and 

(VIII), and must be maintained for the life of the facility and be available for inspection.

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries 

Alliance (EIA)

Subject: Closed containers: 265.173(a)

Comment: “Closed Container” Requirement Should Not be Interpreted to Require that the 

Container be “Vapor Tight and Leak Tight.” Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.173(a) and 265.173(a), 

“a container holding hazardous waste must always be closed during storage, except when it is 

necessary to add or remove waste.” Applied to generators, this requirement has been interpreted 

to require containers used for accumulation of hazardous waste prior to off-site transportation to 

be closed in such a manner that the container is both vapor tight and leak tight. This creates 

particular problems for the electronics industry where this approach to waste management 

creates inconsistent interpretations and potential safety issues.

EIA requests that EPA clarify what constitutes a closed container. Some States require that the 

container be made leak tight and vapor tight, but this is not enforced consistently. In the case of 

an open head 55-gallon drum, this would require securing the closure ring around the lid and 

tightening the locking bolt with a wrench. This actually discourages people from closing the 

container. EIA believes that various types of containers with lid configurations should be 

considered closed even if the lid is not vapor tight or leak tight.” Examples of closure 

arrangements that EIA believes should meet the definition of a “closed container” include a 

hinged lid mounted in top of the drum and a waste can with a lid operated by a foot pedal. 

Similarly, for bung-type drums, funnel with a hinged lid also should be considered a “closed 

container.” Moreover, in the electronics industry safety considerations sometimes require that 

containers not be “leak tight and vapor tight.” For example, both arsenic and solvents are used in 

the manufacturing of semiconductors. Contaminated wipes generated from the manufacturing 

process can contain both solvents and arsenic. Such wipes must be managed in containers. 

However, because the solvent can cause the arsenic to volatize, and because opening and closing 
of the container to add wipes to the container can subject operators and the production process to 

the arsenic, such containers must be vented to prevent exposure of the operator and 

contamination to the clean room environment. EIA believes that such a container connected to a 

ventilation system to address safety concerns should be considered “closed” for purposes of the 

hazardous waste regulations. 

Moreover, EIA believes that the ventilation systems which use filters to trap the arsenic should 

not be considered waste treatment systems. The primary purpose of the ventilation system is to 

reduce pressure within the container and prevent arsenic exposures to operators and hazardous 

waste technicians. The purpose is not treatment of the arsenic or solvent emissions. EIA believes 

that EPA should issue guidance, or amend the hazardous waste regulations, to clarify what 

constitutes a “closed container” for purposes of hazardous waste accumulation requirements.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Subject: Treatment in containers - 265 Subparts 

I and J

Comment: 265 Subparts I and J – EPA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can 

conduct treatment in tanks and containers in less than 90-day storage areas. PhRMA 

recommends that EPA incorporate this into the regulations.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Subject: Storage of materials - Distance from 

property lines. 40 CFR 265.176

Comment: FDEP suggests elimination of the prohibition against storage of ignitable or reactive hazardous 

waste within 15 meters of the property lines, at least with respect to generators who accumulate waste in 

containers and small ASTs. The regulation has been an issue at several facilities in Florida, where compliance was 

a regulatory burden. A facility could have very toxic products located near property lines, or a 1000-gallon tank of 

virgin acetone, yet the same facility, as an LQG, would be in violation of RCRA if its 55-gallons drums of waste 

acetone were managed within the same 15-meter set back area. RCRA could reference applicable National Fire 

Protection Association standards.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Subject: Closed containers

Comment: What constitutes a “closed” container would depend on the container type. Bungs should be threaded 

on, secured, but not necessarily tightened all the way. A cap-type lid should be snapped on. A flip-top device should 

be in a closed position. The ring of a ring-top container should be on the container, either snapped shut or with a bolt 

inserted into the ring.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Subject: Closed and covered containers

Comment: The GAC asks that EPA provide clarification as to what constitutes a “closed”

container or tank. The printing industry has experienced a wide range of interpretations with 
respect to what constitutes a “closed” container. In the case of an open top 55-gallon drum for 

example, does the lid have to be secured in place, or can it lay loose on top of the drum? If the 

drum is a closed top type, does the bung have to be in place, or does its absence imply an open 

container? Does the use of a funnel that has spring loaded “door” that is screwed into the 

bung hole qualify as a closed container? 

In addition, EPA also needs to allow for the use of “covered” containers. There are certain 

types of hazardous waste streams such as solids and nonvolatile materials that can be safely 

accumulated in covered containers while the container is being filled. Once the container is 

filled it can then be closed or sealed. If there is a concern for release, non solid materials could 

be accumulated in covered containers as long as some form of secondary containment would be 

provided.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition 

(GAC)

Subject: Storage of materials - Distance from 

property lines. 40 CFR 265.176

Comment: §265.176 requires a 50 foot buffer zone from the property line for containers holding 

ignitable (D001) and reactive (D003) wastes. GAC strongly recommends that this 

requirement be eliminated. In many instances, printers are located in urban areas, and buildings 

are closer than 50 feet making this requirement is impossible to meet. This requirement is 

redundant with OSHA’s regulations as there are specific requirements that have to meet 

with respect to the storage of flammable and combustible materials.

Stakeholder: Utility Solid Waste 

Activities Group (USWAG)

Subject: Treatment in containers

Comment: EPA Should Codify The Ability of Generators To Treat Wastes In Qualified 

Accumulation Units.

USWAG recommends that, as a housekeeping item, EPA formally codify the Agency’s longstanding position expressed in a series of interpretive letters and preamble language that 

generators can treat hazardous waste in qualified accumulation units under the applicable 

generator accumulation provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 262.34. As EPA correctly reasoned in 1986 

when explaining this position:

Of course, no permitting would be required if a generator chooses to treat 

their hazardous waste in the generator’s accumulation tanks or containers 

in conformance with the requirements of § 262.34 and Subpart J or I of 

Part 265. Nothing in 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste 

when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that provision.

51 Fed. Reg. 10146, 10168 (March 24, 1986); see also Letter from Marcia E. Williams, Director, 
Office of Solid Waste, to Kevin A. Lehner, RMT, Inc. (July 25, 1986). The ability of generators 

to treat hazardous wastes in accumulation units under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34 has proven to be an 

environmentally sound option to conduct qualified treatment operations incidental to normal 

generator activities (e.g., preparing waste for off-site shipment to a commercial TSDF) without 

the burden of RCRA’s permitting process. Like the SAA rule, this aspect of the generator rules 

has proven over the last two decades to be one of the most practical components of the generator 

program, as it allows entities to engage in functions that are integral to the generation of any 

hazardous waste and that are appropriately distinct – as determined by the limited time frame and 

treatment options – from treatment activities otherwise subject to RCRA’s permitting program. 

Notwithstanding that EPA has taken the above position since at least 1986, confusion 

regarding the ability of generators to treat in qualified generator accumulation units still arises on 

occasion, especially with less experienced staff in state agencies. Therefore, USWAG believes 

that EPA should formally codify the ability of generators to treat wastes in the regulatory text of 

40 C.F.R. § 262.34.
Analysis of Comments

1. 29 individual comments received from 15 different stakeholders.

2. Comments addressed 11 different topics with 5 topics addressed by more than one 

stakeholder. Topics receiving the most comments included: Clarifying closed container issue (9), 

treatment in containers (6), clarifying distance from property line (4), clarifying inspection 

frequencies (3), and requiring CESQGs to label their containers (2). Topics receiving comments 

from only one stakeholder included: air emissions, secondary containment, extending 

accumulation times for storage, commingling of wastes once the container was closed, placement 

of wastes in containers (once generated), and deleting the citation mentioned in 40 CFR 265.175 

(Reserved for future regulation). 

Key comments on each topic:

Closed containers: Stakeholders, for most part, desire EPA to clarify and define “closed 

container.”

Lab Corporation: “a container that will not leak if tipped over is closed.” Or, EPA could 

incorporate or reference guidance already contained in the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (“HMR”), 49 CFR Parts 171 – 180.

ESS Group: “Closed” should either be defined more clearly in the regulations or EPA 

should issue specific guidance about what “closed” means for various types of closures. For 

example, can a funnel be used in a container and still meet the definition of “closed”? What 

type(s) of funnels are acceptable? For waste in an open-head drum, must the drum lid be bolted 

or otherwise secured in place? Do requirements differ for solid materials versus liquid materials?

TVA: Regulations governing the use and management of containers (in Part 265) are reasonable. 

However, EPA should more clearly describe “closed” as related to containers in 

storage.........

American Airlines: Some regulators view this requirement as mandating that the containers be 

air tight; others require that if the container were to be knocked over, there would be no spillage. 

Still others require only that the lid be in place but not necessarily fastened down. American 

believes that regulators have often taken the concept of a closed container at satellite collection 

areas to an illogical extreme.

In most cases, at least with liquid or semi-liquid wastes, these waste materials are stored in55 

gallon drums. Materials are added by either removing the entire lid (e.g. for disposal of wipes 

and rags), or by pouring the liquid through a funnel in the bung-hole on the lid of the drum. 

Often, the funnels used will have a spring loaded “lid” that snaps closed (although not air 

American maintains that these containers should be considered “closed” as long as the drum in 

place (i.e. properly positioned on top of the drum but not necessarily fastened in an airmanner) and as long as the lid on the funnel is closed. As such, the material is contained drum 

and yet additional waste materials can readily be added to the containers. The process is simple 

and the goals of the regulations are achieved.
Some regulators would take the position, however, that the drums are not “closed” until the lid is 

securely fastened to the drum (sufficient to meet DOT specifications for shipment) the funnel 

is removed and the bung securely fastened to the drum. Such an interpretation, however, makes 

the addition of waste to the container an arduous and inefficient process. As such, American 

believes that EPA should clarify in the regulations that a container is closed whenever the lid, 

or a funnel with a lid, is in place on the container.

Pacific NW National Laboratory: The use of the definition of “closed” containers from the 

TSD facility regulations is problematical with regard to generator accumulation..... Waste 

additions or removals may take place as part of consolidation of satellite area wastes or 

treatment by generator activities. This provision also interferes with intermittent and/or 

automated additions that might take place without direct intervention of the generator. Addition 

of contents to the 90- day area container requires some sort of air displacement capability to 

prevent pressurization of the receiving container. As a result, EPA needs to consider allowing 

“addition” to be associated with a connected, ongoing process rather than individual physical 

additions to the container.

State of North Carolina: EPA should provide a definition of “closed”. The State of North 

Carolina has guidance suggesting what classifies a closed container, but a clear definition 

would make this regulation more enforceable. 

Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA): “Closed Container” Requirement Should Not be 

Interpreted to Require that the Container be “Vapor Tight and Leak Tight.” Under 40 

C.F.R. §§ 264.173(a) and 265.173(a), “a container holding hazardous waste must always be 

closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.” Applied to 

generators, this requirement has been interpreted to require containers used for accumulation of 

hazardous waste prior to off-site transportation to be closed in such a manner that the container is 

both vapor tight and leak tight. This creates particular problems for the electronics industry

where this approach to waste management creates inconsistent interpretations and potential 

safety issues.

EIA requests that EPA clarify what constitutes a closed container. Some States require that the 

container be made leak tight and vapor tight, but this is not enforced consistently. In the case of 

an open head 55-gallon drum, this would require securing the closure ring around the lid and 

tightening the locking bolt with a wrench. This actually discourages people from closing the 

container. EIA believes that various types of containers with lid configurations should be 

considered closed even if the lid is not vapor tight or leak tight.” Examples of closure 

arrangements that EIA believes should meet the definition of a “closed container” include a 

hinged lid mounted in top of the drum and a waste can with a lid operated by a foot pedal. 

Similarly, for bung-type drums, funnel with a hinged lid also should be considered a “closed 

container.”

State of Florida: What constitutes a “closed” container would depend on the container type. 

Bungs should be threaded on, secured, but not necessarily tightened all the way. A cap-type lid 

should be snapped on. A flip-top device should be in a closed position. The ring of a ring-top 

container should be on the container, either snapped shut or with a bolt inserted into the ring.
GAC: The printing industry has experienced a wide range of interpretations with respect to what 

constitutes a “closed” container. In the case of an open top 55-gallon drum for example, does the 

lid have to be secured in place, or can it lay loose on top of the drum? If the drum is a closed top 

type, does the bung have to be in place, or does its absence imply an open container? Does the 

use of a funnel that has spring loaded “door” that is screwed into the bung hole qualify as a 

closed container? 

In addition, EPA also needs to allow for the use of “covered” containers. There are certain 

types of hazardous waste streams such as solids and nonvolatile materials that can be safely 

accumulated in covered containers while the container is being filled. Once the container is 

filled it can then be closed or sealed. If there is a concern for release, non solid materials could 

be accumulated in covered containers as long as some form of secondary containment would be 

provided.

Synopsis of Comments: Several commenters, such as American Airlines, GAC and EIA clearly 

described the issue and offered potential solutions common to one another. For instance, 

American believes that EPA should clarify in the regulations that a container is closed whenever 

the lid, or a funnel with a lid, is in place on the container. EIA believes should meet the 

definition of a “closed container” include a hinged lid mounted in top of the drum and a waste 

can with a lid operated by a foot pedal. Similarly, for bung-type drums, funnel with a hinged lid 

also should be considered a “closed container.” GAC states “Once the container is filled it can 

then be closed or sealed. If there is a concern for release, non solid materials could be 

accumulated in covered containers as long as some form of secondary containment would be 

provided.”

Potential action by EPA: Either issue clarifying guidance, or modify 40 CFR 265.173 (a) to 

clarify the definition of closed 

container - consistent with common 

sense and sound operational 

practices that minimize releases to 

the environment.
Treatment in containers

ASTSWMO: The Treatment by Generator (TBG) program has been very effective in reducing 

hazardous waste generators’ dependence on offsite treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) 

facilities. ..........We encourage EPA to continue this program, and to consider articulating the 

salient points in existing guidance within the regulations to assure broad and consistent 

implementation by eligible generators.

State of North Carolina: 40 CFR 262 regulations should provide a list of allowable treatment 

activities (e.g. on-site distillation) that can be performed in the containers and tanks at satellite 

accumulation areas and in the 90-day or 180-day storage area of a generator’s facility.

State of Alabama: Provides a copy of their own regulatory language which identifies types of 

treatment not requiring a permit. Examples include treating waste by means of: 

1. evaporation in tanks or containers provided that...

2. physical or mechanical processes (e.g., compacting rags, crushing fluorescent lamps) 

solely for the purpose of reducing the bulk volume of the waste...provided that...

(Note: I didn’t see neutralization.)

PhRMA: EPA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can conduct treatment in 

tanks and containers in less than 90-day storage areas. PhRMA recommends that EPA 

incorporate this into the regulations.

USWAG: USWAG recommends that, as a housekeeping item, EPA formally codify the 

Agency’s long-standing position expressed in a series of interpretive letters and preamble 

language that generators can treat hazardous waste in qualified accumulation units under 

the applicable generator accumulation provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 262.34. As EPA correctly

reasoned in 1986 when explaining this position:

Of course, no permitting would be required if a generator chooses to treat 

their hazardous waste in the generator’s accumulation tanks or containers 

in conformance with the requirements of § 262.34 and Subpart J or I of 

Part 265. Nothing in 262.34 precludes a generator from treating waste 

when it is in an accumulation tank or container covered by that provision.

51 Fed. Reg. 10146, 10168 (March 24, 1986); see also Letter from Marcia E. Williams, Director, 

Office of Solid Waste, to Kevin A. Lehner, RMT, Inc. (July 25, 1986). The ability of generators 

to treat hazardous wastes in accumulation units under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34 has proven to be an 

environmentally sound option to conduct qualified treatment operations incidental to normal 

generator activities (e.g., preparing waste for off-site shipment to a commercial TSDF) without 

the burden of RCRA’s permitting process. Like the SAA rule, this aspect of the generator rules 

has proven over the last two decades to be one of the most practical components of the generator 

program, as it allows entities to engage in functions that are integral to the generation of any 

hazardous waste and that are appropriately distinct – as determined by the limited time frame and 

treatment options – from treatment activities otherwise subject to RCRA’s permitting program. 
Notwithstanding that EPA has taken the above position since at least 1986, 

confusion regarding the ability of generators to treat in qualified generator accumulation 

units still arises on occasion, especially with less experienced staff in state agencies. 

Therefore, USWAG believes that EPA should formally codify the ability of generators to 

treat wastes in the regulatory text of 40 C.F.R. § 262.34.

Potential action by EPA: Evaluate existing guidance, identify specific technologies deemed 

acceptable and either update guidance if appropriate, or incorporate into regulations.
Storage of materials - Distance from property line

State of Michigan: Recommended modifying 40 CFR 264.176 and 265.176 to comply with

National Fire Protection Association standards and not a specified distance requirement. 

ASTSWMO: A set of minimum storage distances from property lines needs to be developed 

and universally applied. The potential danger represented by the container of hazardous waste 

is not diminished by who has possession of the waste. Therefore, if it is prudent to keep 

containers 50 feet from a property line in a storage facility, it should always be kept 50 feet 

from the property line, regardless whether the storage site is a satellite accumulation area, a 

generator storage area, a transfer facility, or a TSD facility. 

State of Florida: FDEP suggests elimination of the prohibition against storage of ignitable 

or reactive hazardous waste within 15 meters of the property lines, at least with respect to 

generators who accumulate waste in containers and small ASTs. The regulation has been an 

issue at several facilities in Florida, where compliance was a regulatory burden. A facility could 

have very toxic products located near property lines, or a 1000-gallon tank of virgin acetone, yet 

the same facility, as an LQG, would be in violation of RCRA if its 55-gallons drums of waste 

acetone were managed within the same 15-meter set back area. RCRA could reference 

applicable National Fire Protection Association standards.

GAC: §265.176 requires a 50 foot buffer zone from the property line for containers holding 

ignitable (D001) and reactive (D003) wastes. GAC strongly recommends that this 

requirement be eliminated. In many instances, printers are located in urban areas, and buildings 

are closer than 50 feet making this requirement is impossible to meet. This requirement is 

redundant with OSHA’s regulations as there are specific requirements that have to meet 

with respect to the storage of flammable and combustible materials.

Potential action by EPA: Modify 40 CFR 265.176 to be consistent with NFPA standards or 

OSHA regulations - whichever is more effective.
Clarifying Inspection Frequencies

ESS Group: This section requires that container storage areas be inspected “weekly.” If the 

agency intends this to mean at any time during consecutive calendar weeks, then no change 

is needed. If the agency intends “weekly” to mean every seven days, we suggest that 

“weekly”be replaced with “every seven days.”

TVA: EPA should more clearly describe “at least weekly” as related to inspections, e.g., 

“weekly” can be interpreted as any time within a calendar week, or more narrowly 

interpreted as once every seven days. Without further clarification generators are subject to the 

whim of the inspector as to the interpretation.

State of North Carolina: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.174 should specify that 

“weekly” is a seven day period of time. The State of North Carolina has guidance that suggests 

that weekly inspections of the hazardous waste storage area means that it be inspected within 

every seven days. A specific definition of “weekly” would assist in making this regulation more 

enforceable.

Potential action by EPA: Either issue clarifying guidance or modify 40 CFR 265.174 to clarify

definition of “at least weekly.”
Require CESQGs to label their Containers 

State of Delaware: Regarding CESQGs, like other generators we believe their containers 

should be labeled, with the words “Hazardous Waste” or a description of container 

contents, as this is beneficial to state emergency responders. Also, it demonstrates to 

generator personnel that such waste may require special handling. Further, the regulations for 

CESQGs have no provision that containers be closed, an activity the DE-DNREC believes 

necessary. Delaware has amended its regulations to provide for these requirements.

State of North Carolina: Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) should be 

required to comply with labeling requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3). Since CESQGs do 

not generate a large volume of waste, not labeling hazardous waste containers often leads to not 

knowing what is in the container. This, in turn, leads to waste determination violations.

Potential action by EPA: Modify CESQG regulations. 

Extending Accumulation Times for Storage

Pacific NW National Laboratory: Consider providing a self-implementing provision for 

“emergency” extensions of 30 days for container storage, possibly by providing secondary 

containment for the container. The generator could still be required to establish and document 

that the circumstances requiring the 30-day extension were unforeseen, temporary, and 

uncontrollable. Such documentation could be requested by the Regional Administrator at any

time.

Potential action by EPA: Addressed elsewhere

Air Emissions (Subparts AA, BB, CC vs. Subpart I (40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(i)))

ESS Group: This section of the regulation requires large quantity generators placing wastes 

containing volatile organics into containers to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, 

and CC. For most generators, the referenced regulations do not result in any significant 

additional requirements. For example, a generator collecting hazardous wastes at satellite 

accumulation areas and at 90-day storage areas in 55-gallon drums or smaller who is not treating 

hazardous wastes would be required to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC for Level 1 

containers, which essentially requires that containers at 90-day storage areas be kept closed with 

no visible openings or gaps. This requirement is redundant with the standards in 40 CFR 

265 subpart I that require containers to be closed at all times except when waste is being 

added or removed. Even for larger Level 2 containers, additional requirements (such as 

submerged fill requirements) are not significant, and are redundant with fire prevention 

guidelines or regulations (such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106, 

for example, 1910.106(b)(2)(viii)(e) and (b)(3)(v)(d)). Requiring generators to comply with 

Subpart CC is not more protective of the environment than the existing container standards in 

40 CFR 265 Subpart I and other environmental, health and safety regulations. It is burdensome 

for generators to read through the extensive regulations in 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC, and to 

determine which hazardous wastes generated are subject to the requirements, without any
substantial additional requirements, and without any apparent environmental benefit.

40 CFR 265 Subpart AA (air emission standards for process vents) would rarely be applicable to 

generators because most generators with the types of regulated processes would already be 

exempt in accordance with 40 CFR 265.1030(b)(2) and (3) because the regulated process would 

typically be performed by generators as part of a recycling activity regulated under 40 CFR 

261.6. For generators with regulated processes, other environmental regulations such as air 

pollution control regulations would apply to any processes resulting in emissions to the 

atmosphere.

Similarly, 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB (air emission standards for equipment leaks) would rarely be 

applicable to generators collecting wastes in containers, as wastes are not typically transferred 

into containers via pumps, valves, etc. Transfer of flammable or combustible materials 

containing volatile organics would be regulated under fire prevention guidelines or regulations 

(such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106).

We recommend that generators collecting hazardous wastes in containers not be required 

to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. If these requirements are to remain, 

we recommend that EPA clarify whether 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB applies to satellite 

accumulation containers; it is our understanding that these requirements currently apply 

only to equipment associated with 90-day containers.

Potential action by EPA: This issue is mentioned under other themes, such as reducing 

redundancy with other statutes. PT members already can take advantage of this redundancy (or at 

least will be able to in the future. At issue is ensuring that there is a 100% overlap with CAA 

regulations for non-PT members -if we choose to go in this direction. Such an action will 

require a rule change.

Secondary Containment

State of Delaware: As for large quantity generators (LQG), it has been our experience that 

many have environmental staffs available to read, interpret and implement the regulations; 

however this may prove untrue in less industrialized states. With regard to generator 

accumulation, DE-DNREC believes all LQGs should be required to provide less than 90 day 

container storage areas with secondary containment. While many have provided secondary 

containment, we do occasionally come across LQGs who place less than 90 day storage 

(accumulation) containerized waste directly on the ground. The DE-DNREC may be 

inclined to support an increase in accumulation time frames for CESQGs, SQGs, and 

LQGs, but only where these changes are accompanied by requirements for secondary 

containment.

Potential action by EPA: Evaluate comment made by several stakeholders at public meetings; 

i.e., that local authorities already require secondary containment, so requiring such a requirement 

would not be a big deal. However, Boeing also mentioned at Seattle public meeting that we 

needed to clarify what we meant by secondary containment if we went forward with such a rule. 

Could be something similar to Delaware’s proposal (and I believe Florida’s as well), i.e., not 
placing less than 90 day storage (accumulation) containerized waste directly on the ground.

Commingling of Waste Once Container Closed

ASTSWMO: Once a container is filled, sealed, and labeled it should always be subject to certain 

rules. Once waste is containerized and the container is marked/labeled by the generator, the 

container should never be opened for commingling of different waste streams or disturbed until it 

is emptied in the treatment facility for treatment. Commingling of wastes should not be allowed 

at transfer facilities, but only in facilities permitted or authorized for such activity. 

Potential action by EPA: Either issue clarifying guidance or modify rules to be clear on this 

subject.

Placement of Wastes in Containers -

State of North Carolina: A clear citation is needed in the regulations for large quantity 

generators and small quantity generators failing to place/manage hazardous waste in 

containers. The violation of not placing “waste in containers or tanks” is one which can be 

cited often, for many different situations of hazardous waste management (at the site of 

generation, satellite accumulation areas and storage areas) but there is no specific citation 

for this violation. In the State of North Carolina, if a facility has a release in a less than 90-day

storage area, 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1) is cited for waste not being placed in containers. If a large 

quantity generator has a release in a satellite accumulation area, 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1) is cited for 

a generator failing to “accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of 

acutely hazardous waste in containers...” If a small quantity generator fails to place waste in 

containers it is cited as 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(iv)(B) for the emergency coordinator not 

responding to and cleaning up a spill.

Potential action by EPA: Not sure how to respond. Appears to be associated with spills and 

releases. Most likely have to talk to North Carolina staff to better understand issue and 

implications.
New or possibly new comment 

Stakeholder: IPC Topic: Closed containers - Clarification

Comment: In this section EPA asks, “...what parts of the RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program can 

be improved and why?” EPA lists several areas for discussion including waste accumulation times, satellite 

accumulation, and generator accumulation in containers or tanks. Generally, IPC believes the program could be 

improved by shifting from the current, highly prescriptive regulations to a more performance based system. 

For example, in the area of containers and tanks, EPA requires storage in closed containers. Some states 

have interpreted this to require “sealed containers.” As a result, several of our members report having to 

construct special drums for the accumulation of soiled rags. Rational observation would reveal that even if a 

drum of rags spilled inside a building, it could be easily cleaned up without any possible environmental 

impact. In the case of materials stored inside buildings that constitute secondary containment, detailed 

storage requirements may be unnecessary.

New or possibly new comment

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Redundancy between RCRA and CAA

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(i). This section of the regulation requires large quantity generators placing 

wastes containing volatile organics into containers to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. For 

most generators, the referenced regulations do not result in any significant additional requirements. For example, a 

generator collecting hazardous wastes at satellite accumulation areas and at 90-day storage areas in 55-gallon drums 

or smaller who is not treating hazardous wastes would be required to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC for 

Level 1 containers, which essentially requires that containers at 90-day storage areas be kept closed with no visible 

openings or gaps. This requirement is redundant with the standards in 40 CFR 265 subpart I that require 

containers to be closed at all times except when waste is being added or removed. Even for larger Level 2 

containers, additional requirements (such as submerged fill requirements) are not significant, and are redundant with 

fire prevention guidelines or regulations (such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106, for 

example, 1910.106(b)(2)(viii)(e) and (b)(3)(v)(d)). Requiring generators to comply with Subpart CC is not more 

protective of the environment than the existing container standards in 40 CFR 265 Subpart I and other 

environmental, health and safety regulations. It is burdensome for generators to read through the extensive 

regulations in 40 CFR 265 Subpart CC, and to determine which hazardous wastes generated are subject to the 

requirements, without any substantial additional requirements, and without any apparent environmental

benefit.

Similarly, 40 CFR 265 Subpart BB (air emission standards for equipment leaks) would rarely be applicable to 

generators collecting wastes in containers, as wastes are not typically transferred into containers via pumps, valves, 

etc. Transfer of flammable or combustible materials containing volatile organics would be regulated under fire 

prevention guidelines or regulations (such as NFPA 30) and OSHA regulations (such as 29 CFR 1910.106).

We recommend that generators collecting hazardous wastes in containers not be required to comply with 40 CFR 

265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. If these requirements are to remain, we recommend that EPA clarify whether 40 

CFR 265 Subpart BB applies to satellite accumulation containers; it is our understanding that these requirements 

currently apply only to equipment associated with 90-day containers.

Possibly New comment from North Carolina:

Comment: Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) should be required to comply with labeling 

requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3). Since CESQGs do not generate a large volume of waste, not labeling 

hazardous waste containers often leads to not knowing what is in the container. This, in turn, leads to waste 
determination violations.