**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 **g enerator 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 26 4.176 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 def ine 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 ov er 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 guidelin es 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 withSubpart CC is not more protective of the environment than the existing container standards in 40

CFR 265 Subpart Iand 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 rarel y be applicable to generators because most generators with the typ es of regulated processes would already be exempt in accordance with 40 CFR 265.1030(b)(2) and (3) because the regulated process would ty picall y 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 rarel y 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. I f 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: ES S 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 shou ld 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 ty

pe(s) of funnels are acceptable? For waste in an open
- head drum, must th e 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 area s 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.**  **”**S takeholder: 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 gen erators 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 previousl y 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 Regi ons 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 onl y 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 b y either removing the entire lid (e.g. for disposal of wipes and rags), or b y pouring the liq uid 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. properl y positioned on top of the drum but not necessaril y fastened in an air
manner) 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. Th e 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 securel y 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 clos ed 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 ( **L QG),**  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 s hould 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 dire ctly 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: Comming ling of waste once container**  **closed** Comment: Once a container is filled, sealed, and labeled it should alway s be subject to certain rules. Once waste is containerized and the container is marked/labeled b y 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 universallyapplied. The potential danger represented b y the contain er 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 s torage 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**  **reduci ng 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 highway s. **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 **Nation al**  **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 wa**  **s 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 frequen tly 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 direc t 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 phy sical additions to the container.
Stakeholder: **Pacific NW National**  **Laboratory** Subject: Extension of storage accumulation times 262.34(b) Comment: **Consider providing a self -**  **implementing p rovision 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 b y 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 2 62.34(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 acutel y 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 No rth 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 close d 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 spec ify that**  **“ weekly**  **” is a seven**  **day period of time.** The State of North Carolina has guidance that suggests that weekl y inspections of the hazardous waste storage area means that it be inspected within every seven day s. 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 alarge 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 believe s 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 originall y 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 ty pes of treatment. The regulatory language used b y 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 b y 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 b y the Department or the Environmental Protection Age ncy , (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
- 1 4
- 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 ef fective date of 335
- 14
- 8
- .01 or at least 60 day s 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 b y ph ys ical or mechanical processes (e.g., compacting rags, crushing fluorescent lamps) sol ely 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/o r 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 haz ardous wastes or hazardous constituents into the environment in excess of any standard(s) promulgated b y the Department or the Environmental Protection Agency ; (VIII) With respect to treatment, the generator complies with the applicable requirements of Rul es 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 haz ardous wastes on or before the effective date of 335
- 14
- 8
- .01 or at least 60 day s 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 ad d 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 re quire 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 ty pes 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
- ty

pe 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 th e 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 closingof 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 sy stem to address s afety concerns should be considered “ closed ” for purposes of the hazardous waste regulations. Moreover, E IA believes that the ventilation systems which use filters to trap the arsenic should not be considered waste treatment s ys tems. 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 an d 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: Storag**  **e 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 m**  **eters of the property lines, at least with respect to generators wh o accumulate waste in**  **containers and small ASTs.** The regulation has been an issue at several facilities in Florida, w here 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.**  **St akeholder: State of Florida**  **Subject: Closed containers Comment: What constitutes a**  **“ closed**  **” container**  wo uld depend on the container type. Bungs should be threaded on, secured, but not necessarily tightened all the way. A cap
- ty pe 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 containe rs**  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 withrespect to what constitutes a “ closed ” container. In the case of an op en 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 ty

pe, does the bung have to be in place, or does its absence impl y 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 m**  **aterials 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 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 explaini ng 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. Nothi ng 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 appropriatel y distinct

– as determined b y 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 occas ion, especiall y 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 comm ents**  received from 15 different stakeholders. 2. **Comments addressed 11 different topics** with 5 topics addressed b y 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 accumulatio n 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 co**  **ntainers:** 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 Mat**  **erials 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 us ed in a container and still meet the definition of “ closed” ? What ty pe(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.........**  **Am erican Airlines:**  Some regulators view this requirement as m andating 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 necessaril y 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 b y either removing th e entire lid (e.g. for disposal of wipes and rags), or b y 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. properl y positioned on top of the drum but not necessaril y fastened in an air
manner) and as long as the lid on the funnel is closed. As such, **the material is contained** drum and ye t additional waste materials can readil y 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

securel y fastened to the drum ( **sufficient to meet DOT specifications for shipment** ) the funnel is removed and the bung securel y fastened to the drum. Such an interpretation, however, makes the addition of waste to the container an arduous and inefficient process. **As such, A merican**  **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 fac ility

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 phy sical additions to the container. **State of North Carolina:** EPA should provide a definition of “ closed” . The State of North Carol ina 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 Containe r be**  **“ Vapor Tight and Leak Tight.**  **”** Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.173(a) and 265.173(a), “ a container holding hazardous waste must alway s 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 thi s 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 ty pes 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 depen d on the container type. Bungs should be threaded on, secured, but not necessaril y tightened all the way . A cap
- ty pe 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, e ither 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? I f the drum is a closed top ty pe, does the bung have to be in place, or does its absence impl y an open container? **Does the use of a funnel that has spring loaded**  **“ door**  **” that is screwed in**  **to 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 covere d 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 clearl y described the issue and offered potential solutions common to one another. For instance, **Am erican**  believes that EPA should clarify in the regulati ons 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
- ty pe 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 a ccumulated 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 commo n 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, s torage, 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 ar ea of a generator ’ s facility
. **State of Alabama:** Provides a copy of their own regulatory

language which identifies ty pes of treatment not requiring a permit. Examples include treating waste b y means of: 1. evaporation in tanks or containers provided that..
. 2. phy sical 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:**  **EP A 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**  **- s**  **tanding 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, Offi ce 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 appropriatel y distinct

– as determined b y the limited time frame and treatm ent 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 m **odifying 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 potenti al danger represented b y 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 pro perty 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 ha zardous 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 fac ility

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 ba ck 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 require**  **ments 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 Frequ encies** 

**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 ev ery 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 S tate of North Carolina has guidance that suggests that weekl y inspections of the hazardous waste storage area means that it be inspected within every seven day s. A specific definition of “weekl y” would assist in making this regulation more enforceable. **Po tential 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 regulat ions 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 **(CESQ Gs) 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 con tainer 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 quanti ty 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 rem oved.**  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, f or 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 Iand 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 anysubstantial additional requirements, and without any ap parent environmental benefit. 40 CFR 265 Subpart AA (air emission standards for process vents) would rarel y be applicable to generators because most generators with the ty pes of regulated processes would already be exempt in accordance with 40 CFR 265.10 30(b)(2) and (3) because the regulated process would ty picall y 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 rarel y be applicable to generators collecting wastes in containers, as wastes are not typ ically 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**  **containmen t, 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 believ e 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 b y 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. Comm ingling 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 o r 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 . I f 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 acutel y 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 c oordinator 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 discussi on including waste accumulation times, satellite accumulation, and generator accumulation in containers or tanks. Generally, IPC believes the program could be im proved by shifting from the current, highly prescriptive regulations to a more performance bas ed 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 m**  **em bers report having to**  **construct special drums for t he 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 im**  **pact. In the case of m aterials stored inside buildings that consti**  **tute secondary containm ent, detailed**  **storage requirem ents 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 quan tity generators placing**  **wastes containing volatile organics into containers to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC.** For mo st generators, the referenced regulations do not result in any significant additional requirements. For example, a generato r 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 re quires that containers at 90
- day storage areas be kept closed with no visible openings or gaps. **This requirem ent is redundant with the standards in 40 CFR 265 subpart I that require**  **containers to be closed at all tim es except when waste is being added or r**  **em oved.**  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 regul ations. 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, valv es, 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 un derstanding 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 labelin g 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 wastedetermination violations.