Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Clarify Regulations)

Stakeholder: State of Wyoming Topic: Confusion between CESQG and SQG 

regulations - Improve readability

Comment: It is the SHWD opinion that there is confusion created by trying to read and interpret the 

requirements as they apply to conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) and small quantity 

hazardous waste generators (SQG). The constant referring back and forth to other portions of the regulations 

makes it difficult for the regulated community to determine all of the specific requirements for these two types of 

generator status (i.e., the preparedness/prevention and contingency plan requirements are found by cross-reference 

to the interim status and operating facility standards, CESQG requirements are found in a different section of the 

HWRR and are not contained within the Part 262 hazardous waste generator standards, etc.).

Stakeholder: Northeastern University Topic: Outdated regulations

Comment: With these significant positives to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation comes some negatives. The 

regulation is extremely prescriptive, confusing and inflexible. Although the regulation has prevented large 

uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal facilities, such things as small spills, improper management and 

contamination continue to be found at many small facilities and sites throughout the nation. The regulation 

was also originally tailored for industrial and manufacturing facilities, resulting in many requirements being 

difficult and problematic at higher education institutions.

It has been my observation that up until the last few years, there has been an unwillingness and reluctance within 

EPA to address the problems with this regulation. In a world that is changing all the time, regulations sometimes 

need to change fast along with them, and they need to make sense and be workable in the regulated community. 

RCRA isn’t broke, however EPA needs to move more quickly and efficiently so this regulation can keep can keep 

up with changes and problems that occur now and in the future.

Performance requirements may offer an option to remedy some of the problems with RCRA and many people 

in higher education have been promoting them......

Stakeholder: Northeastern University Topic: Format of regulations - difficult to follow

Comment: Format of Regulations. The regulations are extremely difficult to follow and interpret, because 

some sections refer you to other sections, which in turn refer you to even other sections. This may be necessary 

to an extent for some requirements in regulations however this should be minimized whenever possible. For 

example, if I’m a small quantity generator of hazardous waste, then I should be able to determine my requirements 

without jumping around over a document of several hundred pages. In addition, the regulations are very prescriptive 

and inflexible. Since the regulation covers a very wide range of industries, having more flexibility or performance 

requirements could allow for improved waste management and recycling. The New England Laboratory XL and the 

OSHA Laboratory Safety Standard offer some examples that could be considered.

Stakeholder: Jeff Tobergte (Private Citizen ) Topic: Codify guidance and interpretations into regulations

Comment: REGULATIONS: Some of the regulations are easy to understand. But, there are difficult regulations 

(e.g., identification/definition of wastes and HW:LDRs). When enforcement personnel get confused, the regulated 

community does, also. As a result, EPA issues interpretations. However, those are opinions, not regulations. EPA 

relies too heavily on interpretations, which can change over time, and even between offices. 
Interpretations/clarifications should be codified into regulations, which are then clear, consistent and enforceable. 

Stakeholder: Jeff Tobergte (Private Citizen ) Topic: Confusion between CESQG and SQG 

regulations - Improve readability

Comment: The CESQG regs should be moved into Part 262, to consolidate all generator regs. A table could also be 

used to list the applicable regs for each category of generator. (The use of tables in the regs is very helpful, such as 

in the LDRs, or DOT’s HazMat Table in 49 CFR 172.101. Look for more opportunities to use tables to organize and 

consolidate regs.)

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Codify guidance and interpretations into regulations

Comment: Incorporate Interpretations, Exclusions, and Exemptions into the Regulatory Text. EPA has 

provided several exceptions, exclusions, and interpretations of RCRA hazardous waste generator requirements. 

Many are published in preambles to proposed and final rules, or in policy documents, but have never been codified 

in the regulations.

Discussion. There are many significant interpretations, exceptions, and exclusions to be incorporated into the text of 

the regulations; the following are but two.

It would be helpful to the regulated community and those enforcing the regulations if EPA were to codify in 40 CFR 

262 that it is permissible for generators to treat hazardous waste in 90 day tanks, containers, and containment 

buildings. It is inferred under 40 CFR 268.7(a)(5), “If a generator is managing and treating prohibited waste or 

contaminated soil in tanks, containers, or containment buildings regulated under 40 CFR 262.34...,” but nowhere in 

40 CFR 262.34 is the practice of treating hazardous waste in 90 day accumulation areas mentioned. A second useful 

interpretation is that soil from excavation or construction activities that is temporarily moved and subsequently 

redeposited into the same excavated area does not constitute treatment or storage, nor does it constitute land 

disposal; and thus, it does not trigger RCRA land disposal restrictions. (RCRA Online Number: 11671, June 11, 

1992)

Recommendation. Revise the regulations to codify EPA legal interpretations of the rules so that the regulations 

may be read and understood without reliance on a compilation of other reference materials. EPA should strive to

incorporate future clarifying language into the regulations within a reasonable time period, following the federal 

rulemaking process.

Stakeholder: Navy Department Topic: Reorganize the Generator Requirements Section 

for Increased Readability

Comment: Reorganize the Generator Requirements Section for Increased Readability. The current version of 

generator requirements in 40 CFR 262 are difficult to read because the requirements are presented entirely as text, 

vice flowcharts or tables; extensive references are made to other sections of the hazardous waste regulations; and the 

various requirements for large, small, and conditionally exempt small quantity generators are dispersed throughout 

rather than written in distinct sub-sections.

Discussion. Many states and RCRA training vendors have tabulated the generator requirements according to 

generator status (i.e., less than 100 kg per month; 100 - 1000 kg per month; and greater than 1000 kg per month). 

RCRA generator requirements would be more easily understood if presented in this manner.

Readability and understanding would further improve if EPA adopted and defined common terms of the hazardous 

waste industry such as “small quantity generator,” “large quantity generator,” and “satellite accumulation area;”

and, refrained from referring the reader to other parts of the regulation such as requirements applicable to interim 

status TSDFs in 40 CFR 265.
Recommendation. Include a table in 40 CFR 262 that summarizes generator requirements according to 

generator status. References (links) to example tables are provided below. (Not included.) Reorganize the 

generator requirements section so that requirements for each class of generator are all in individual subsections 

rather than dispersed throughout 40 CFR 262. To the extent practicable, incorporate into 40 CFR 262 the actual text 

of referenced requirements applicable to the generator rather than referring the reader to requirements in other parts 

such as 40 CFR 265.

Stakeholder: Lab Corp. Topic: Codify guidance and interpretations into regulations

Comment: The generator requirements are confusing not only to the regulated community, but also to some 

EPA enforcement personnel. As a result, EPA relies too heavily on interpretations, which can change over time 

based on the issuing individual’s views, and which can vary considerably between Regions and even among EPA 

personnel within the same Region. We recommend that interpretations and clarifications either be codified into 

regulations to provide consistent enforcement, or retracted where doing so would eliminate inconsistency.

Stakeholder: Lab Corp. Topic: Confusion between CESQG and SQG 

regulations - Improve readability

Comment: The majority of generator requirements are contained in 40 CFR Part 262. We recommend that the 

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (“CESQG”) requirements in 40 CFR 261.5 be moved to 

Part 262, since it details requirements for generators of hazardous waste and is also referenced in the current Part 

262.

We recommend that additional language be added to 40 CFR 261.5 to clarify that quantities of hazardous 

waste shipped per month are not necessarily an indication of the quantity of hazardous waste generated per 

month. For example, a Small Quantity Generator (“SQG”) may accumulate up to 6,000 kg of hazardous waste on 

site for up to 180 days. If 1,500 kg of waste is shipped off site at one time, this does not necessarily mean that the 

site generated 1,500 kg of waste during that calendar month. If only the manifests are reviewed during an inspection, 

then an inspector reviewing the manifests may conclude that the site is a Large Quantity Generator (“LQG”), when 

in reality it is a SQG. This erroneous conclusion would begin a “domino effect” of RCRA violations since the LQG 

requirements are more stringent than those applicable to a SQG. Too often, inspectors look solely at the hazardous 

waste manifests in order to determine a site’s hazardous waste generator category, and they sometimes attempt to 

issue a notice of violation based on this information alone.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Confusion between CESQG and SQG 

regulations - Improve readability

Comment: 40 CFR 261.5 – Special Requirements for Hazardous Wastes Generated by Conditionally Exempt Small 

Quantity Generators. This regulation describes the requirements applicable to conditionally exempt small quantity 

generators (CESQG) of hazardous waste. 40 CFR 260.10 does not define “generator” by the quantity of waste 

generated. It would be clearer to have all generator requirements in 40 CFR 262 – Standards Applicable to 

Generators of Hazardous Waste rather than to have some generator requirements in 40 CFR 261 –

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. Further, 40 CFR 262.10(b) refers to 40 CFR 261.5(c) and (d) for 

determining which wastes count toward generator status, another indication of how the CESQG regulations fit better 

into 40 CFR 262. This clarification has no impact on regulatory burden or environmental protection, but does make 

the regulations easier to use.
Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify phrases “immediately upon generation”

and “subsequent to the point of generation.”

Comment: 40 CFR 261.5(c)(2). This section of the regulation states that when making quantity determinations, 

generators do not need to count wastes managed “immediately upon generation” in onsite elementary 

neutralization units, wastewater treatment units, or totally enclosed treatment facilities. It is unclear what the phrase 

“immediately upon generation” means. Do wastes have to be hardpiped to the treatment system? If wastes are 

accumulated for any period of time, must they then be counted? If a waste is generated in a production process, 

transferred from process equipment manually (with a portable pump, for example) into a container, and then 

pumped into a treatment system on the same day, would it have to be counted? Similarly, 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7) states 

that a one-time land disposal restriction notice is required if a generator determines that he is managing a prohibited 

waste that is excluded from the definition of hazardous or solid waste or is exempted from Subtitle C regulation 

under 40 CFR 261.2 through 261.6 “subsequent to the point of generation.” Are there some treatment processes 

that would be exempt from this requirement based on when or where they occur? It seems that any waste treatment 

process would be “subsequent to the point of generation.”

We recommend clarification of the phrases described above to make these rules easier to understand. It would seem 

reasonable to exempt wastes that are directly connected from the generation process to the treatment process 

(without any separate accumulation in containers or tanks) from the requirements for quantity determinations and 

from land disposal restriction requirements.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify quantity determinations that define CESQG.

Comment: 40 CFR 261.5(c) and (d). 40 CFR 261.5(c) and (d) both identify hazardous wastes that do not have to be 

included when making the quantity determinations that define CESQG. These should be merged into one paragraph 

so that all the exceptions are in one place. This clarification has no impact on regulatory burden or environmental 

protection, but does make the regulations easier to use.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic:40 CFR 261.5(f) and (g) - Combine to simplify the 

regulation

Comment: 40 CFR 261.5(f) and (g) appear to be exactly the same, except that paragraph (f) deals with acutely 

hazardous wastes and paragraph (g) deals with other hazardous wastes. 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3)(i) through (vii) list the 

types of facilities that CESQGs may ship acutely hazardous wastes to, and is exactly the same as 40 CFR 

261.5(g)(3)(i) through (vii). We recommend that these paragraphs be combined to simplify the regulation. This 

clarification has no impact on regulatory burden or environmental protection, but does make the regulations easier to 

use.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Reorganize 40 CFR 262.34 into different sections to 

make more user-friendly

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34. This section of the regulations is titled “accumulation time” but addresses generator 

container and tank management standards, satellite accumulation, standards for drip pads and containment buildings, 

preparedness and prevention, contingency planning, training, closure,small quantity generator provisions, special 

requirements for F006 wastes, and other generator provisions. Many of these requirements are “hidden” in 262.34 

because they consist simply of a reference to another regulation (for example, one line at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) 

stating that generators must comply with Subparts C and D in 40 CFR part 265 and with 265.16 incorporates all of 

the training and contingency planning requirements applicable to large quantity generators without even using the 

words “training” or “contingency plan.”) This makes it difficult for a generator to read and understand the applicable 

requirements.
We recommend that the section be reorganized, broken down into major headings (such as satellite 

accumulation, container standards, tank standards, training, contingency planning, etc.) and, wherever 

possible, that the generator requirements be spelled out in this section rather than providing a reference to 

another section. Specifically, we recommend that the following regulations currently incorporated by reference in 

40 CFR 262.34 be rewritten in part 262 as applicable to generators to make the generator provisions easier to read 

and understand, and for additional reasons indicated below:

• 40 CFR 265 subparts C and D and 40 CFR 265.16 (currently incorporated by reference at 262.34(a)(4) and 

(d)(4)). This is because we suggest revising the regulations currently in 40 CFR 265 subparts C and D and 40 CFR 

265.16 as they apply to hazardous waste generators. More discussion on these recommended changes is provided 

elsewhere in this letter.

• 40 CFR 265.111 and 265.114 (closure standards currently incorporated by reference at 262.34(a)(1)). There has 

been confusion about whether generators are subject to parts of 40 CFR 265 that are referenced in 265.111 and 

265.114. This confusion would be eliminated if closure requirements applicable to generators were spelled out in 

Part 262

(in addition, these requirements are not lengthy so they could be easily spelled out in this section).

• 40 CFR 265 Subparts I and J (container and tank standards currently incorporated by reference at 262.34(a)(1)(i) 

and (ii), and in part at 262.34(c)(1)(i) for satellite accumulation containers, and in part at 262.34(d)(2) and (3) for 

small quantity generators). We suggest that these requirements be rewritten in Part 262 as applicable to generators.

Stakeholder: ACC Topic: Clarify regulatory language

Comment: .....While ACC member company implementation of RCRA has been highly successful, it has 

nonetheless been fraught with challenges including ambiguities in the regulations and accompanying guidance, and 

inconsistencies in interpretation among EPA Regional and state regulators.

The Council is very pleased that EPA has embarked on an initiative to reach out to program stakeholders and assess 

the need to make regulatory enhancements. EPA’s goal of addressing outdated, conflicting or duplicative regulatory 

provisions is laudable and should provide greater clarity to both the regulated community and delegated state 

regulators. ACC and The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) member companies 

participated in EPA’s public stakeholder meetings in May and have worked together to identify important 

improvements to the regulations. ACC therefore supports and incorporates by reference the comments being 

submitted by PhRMA.

The PhRMA comments provide a list of specific regulatory provisions, the implementation of which would be 

enhanced by recommended wording changes to provide clarification on points of diverse and sometimes conflicting 

regulatory interpretation. One such example is in the area of regulatory requirements related to satellite 

accumulation for generator facilities. Regulatory enforcement personnel often differ in interpreting requirements for 

“operator control” and storage “at the point of generation” that can create logistical and safety concerns for 

appropriate waste storage in facilities with limited space. This is an issue that affects many generators, and we 

encourage EPA to identify common-sense requirements as part of this initiative. We echo PhRMA’s 

recommendation that EPA look to improving th RCRA program by clarifying the regulatory language itself, 

rather than by developing new or reinterpreted guidance documents. The recommendations outlined in 

PhRMA’s comments will provide greater clarity and certainty to both the regulated community and the 

regulatory agencies charged with implementing the program. 

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Tabulate abbreviated generator standards 

Comment: Tabulate abbreviated generator standards with cross references similar to the table in 266.80(a).

RCRA, in general, is written with a slant toward the manufacturing industry and their associated processes. 

Regulatory phrasing of rules to move away from a manufacturing mindset would provide the regulated community 

with a more easily understandable and usable set of rules, in other words, a “plain English” version. The 

accumulation area concept is based on an “end-of-pipe” generation point. In reality, wastes tend to be generated 
more often from sources that are not “end-of-pipe.”

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Avoid cross-referencing to Part 265

Comment: In Part 262, EPA should avoid cross-referencing to Part 265 for additional generator requirements. All 

generator requirements should be placed in Part 262, similar to the regulatory structure that was developed for other 

programs that stand alone such as Universal Waste and Used Oil.

Stakeholder: ConocoPhillips Topic: Codify guidance and interpretations into regulations

Comment: The cradle-to-grave concept of the existing hazardous waste generator program has significantly 

contributed to meeting the program goals of protecting human health and the environment. During the past twenty 

years, generators have instituted robust programs to ensure the safe management of hazardous wastes that is 

protective of human health and the environment. The generator program has undoubtedly made a significant 

contribution towards reducing Superfund liabilities for generators of hazardous waste. ConocoPhillips Company, 

along with many other companies, continually work to reduce the number of facilities that require RCRA permits, 

and as a result, the generator program will become the centerpiece of RCRA in the future. As such, it warrants a 

critical review to ensure that it is responsive to the 2000s not the 1980s. 

While generators have developed tremendous experience in managing hazardous waste within the RCRA program, 

these successes have not come without challenges. ConocoPhillips Company has often found the RCRA 

hazardous waste generator regulatory program to be complex and confusing due to the structure of the 

regulations and the many interpretations (sometimes conflicting) that EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions and 

States have developed over the years. ConocoPhillips Company believes that the time is right to make the 

RCRA generator standards relevant and up to date. ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA make 

the regulations more understandable and easier to use by textually consolidating all relevant requirements by 

generator type and spelling out in a clear and concise manner the requirements that currently are 

implemented primarily through guidance.

EPA has improved the availability of regulatory interpretations issued by the Agency with RCRA Online. 

However, the RCRA Hotline is still a valuable resource that EPA should maintain for the regulatory 

community. Additionally, EPA needs to continue to work with State agencies to ensure consistent adoption and 

interpretation of the regulations. The regulated community has learned to accept that there are inconsistent (and 

sometimes conflicting) EPA and State versions and/or interpretations of the RCRA generator regulations. EPA 

could avoid these conflicts if EPA would allocate the resources necessary to 1) address interpretive issues 

referred from States/Regions in a timely manner and 2) clean up the existing inconsistencies in the body of 

federal guidance and interpretations.

Stakeholder: ConocoPhillips Topic: Consolidation of Requirements

Comment: Consolidation of Requirements: ConocoPhillips Company believes that significant improvement can 

be made by consolidating the requirements found in Section 261.5, Part 262 (Subparts A, B, C, D), and 

referenced portions of part 265 into individual sections. The sections could be titled “Requirements for 

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste”, “Requirements for Small Quantity 

Generators of Hazardous Waste”, and “Requirements for Large Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste”. Each of 

these sections should include all the requirements applicable to that type of generator and should avoid references to 

other sections (e.g., Part 265).

In summary, ConocoPhillips Company fully supports EPA’s effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the RCRA’s 

hazardous waste generator regulatory program, identify areas for potential improvement and commends EPA for this 

effort and for organizing the May 2004 public meetings. ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA make the 

regulations more understandable by utilizing the plain English format to consolidate all relevant requirements 
by generator type and spell out in a clear and concise manner the requirements that are currently 

implemented primarily through guidance. An Environmental Management System (EMS) approach as a 

potential alternative for compliance with RCRA principles would provide the regulated community the 

flexibility to design a hazardous waste management structure that is appropriate to an individual facility and 

is protective of human health and the environment. Finally, ConocoPhillips Company supports API’s comments 

to the ANPRM.

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Consolidation of SQG Requirements

Comment: Small quantity generator (SQG) requirements for container accumulation tend to be satisfactory; 

but here too, it would be helpful to have all requirements applicable to SQGs in one regulatory section. 

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: Reorganize 40CFR262 for clarity and ease of use

Comment: Changes are needed to reorganize 40CFR262 for clarity and ease of use: While the implementation 

of the hazardous waste generator regulations has played a major role in ensuring that hazardous waste has been 

properly managed, the piecemeal way that the regulations evolved over the years has resulted in them being 

fractured and confusing. ADEM has found that generators, particularly small quantity generators (SQGs) 

and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs), often “miss” a portion of the regulations 

relevant to their hazardous waste because those rules are located someplace other than 40CFR262. In 

addition, because sections of the regulations have been added as subparts to other rules, the references to 

those sections are often not clearly labeled and are not presented in a clear and consistent format. Finally, 

some of the regulations, notably 40CFR262.34(a)(4) and (c)(4), consist of several referrals to other parts of 40CFR 

without any labeling or description of the requirements referred to, which makes it hard for a generator to look up a 

specific requirement that they may be interested in without looking up several other requirements first. More than 

anything else, this fractured and inconsistent presentation of regulations makes them confusing, hard to use, 

and hard to understand. To remedy this, ADEM recommends that 40CFR262 be reorganized and all of the 

generator specific rules be moved to 40CFR262 as follows:

Move 261.5(c)&(d), the rules for calculating the quantity of HW generated per month,262.

Move 261.5(a), (b), (e), (f), (g), the requirements for CESQGs, into 262 under its own subheading.

Move 262.34(d) - (f), the requirements for SQGs, into its own subheading in 262.

For clarity and ease of use, the resulting 40CFR262 should look something like:

Part 262

Subpart A - General:

§ Applicability – currently 262.10

§ Hazardous Waste Determination – currently 262.11

§ Determining Generator Status – currently 261.5(c) & (d)

Subpart B - CESQG Rules – currently 261.5(a), (b), (e), (f), (g)

Subpart C - SQG Rules

§ EPA ID Numbers - currently 262.12

§ Manifests – currently 262 Subpart B

§ Accumulation at the Generator Facility – currently 262.34(d) & (e). In

addition, this section should be rewritten into the same basic format used

for large quantity generators (Rules 262.34(a), (b), &(c))

- Quantity Limitation – currently 262.34(d)(1)

- Accumulation in Containers – currently 262.34(d)(2)

- Accumulation in Tanks – currently 262.34(d)(3) and

265.201

- Accumulation on Drip Pads – currently unclear whether

40CFR265, Subpart W is an option for SQGs (see below)

- Labeling – currently 262.34(d)(4)
- Satellite Accumulation – currently unclear whether Rule

262.34(c) is an option for SQGs (see below)

- Consequences of Exceeding Time Limit and Requesting

Accumulation Time Extensions – currently 262.34(f)

§ Pre-Transport Requirements – currently 262.30 - .33

§ Preparedness and Prevention – currently 262.34(d)(5)(i), & (ii)

§ Emergency Response – currently 262.34(d)(5)(iv)

§ Personnel Training – currently 262.34(d)(5)(iii)

§ Recordkeeping:

- General Recordkeeping – currently 262.44(a)

- Exception Reports – currently 262.42

- Additional Reporting – currently 262.43

Subpart D - LQG Rules

§ EPA ID Numbers - currently 262.12

§ Manifests – currently 262 Subpart B

§ Accumulation at the Generator Facility – currently 262.34(a), (b), (c)

- Accumulation in Containers – currently 262.34(a)(1)(i)

- Accumulation in Tanks – currently 262.34(a)(1)(ii)

- Accumulation on Drip Pads – currently 262.34(a)(1)(iii)

- • Accumulation in Containment Buildings – currently

262.34(a)(1)(iv)

- Labeling – currently 262.34(a)(2) & (3)

- Satellite Accumulation – currently 262.34(c)

- Consequences of Exceeding Time Limit and Requesting

Accumulation Time Extensions – currently 262.34(b)

§ Pre-Transport Requirements – currently 262.30 - .33

§ Preparedness and Prevention – currently 262.34(a)(4.)

§ Contingency Plan – currently 262.34(a)(4)

§ Emergency Response – currently 262.34(d)(5)(iv)

§ Personnel Training – currently 262.34(a)(4)

§ Recordkeeping and Reporting:

- General Recordkeeping - currently 262.40

- Biennial Reporting – currently 262.41

§ Special Requirements for Generators of F006 – currently 262.34(g) &

(h)

Subparts E+ would be unchanged.

Organizing the generator regulations in this format would have the advantage that all of the regulations would be 

included in the chapter of the regulations that deals explicitly with generators and each requirement placed on the 

generator would be clearly labeled to facilitate understanding.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Clarify LDR requirements for Generators

Comment: 262.34(a)(4) & 268 - The specific reference to 268.7(a)(5) contained in 262.34(a)(4), (d)(4), (g)(4)(v), & 

(j)(7) would make it appear that 268.7(a)(5) is the only provision of 268 that large and small quantity generators 

need to comply with, but 268.1(b) makes it clear that generators must comply with essentially all of part 268 unless 

otherwise noted. Referring only to 268.7(a)(5) in 262.34 is somewhat misleading and could result in confusion. 

PhRMA recommends that EPA either remove the reference to 268.7(a)(5) entirely and rely on 268.1(b), or 

make it clearer in 262.34 that generators must also comply with part 268 unless otherwise noted.
Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Clean up and/or update the rules to update criteria or 

remove sections that are no longer applicable

Comment: PhRMA recommends that EPA clean up and/or update the rules to update criteria or remove sections that 

are no longer applicable. Examples of these are: 

▪ Remove the existing tank system requirements (265.191) and definition (260.10) since all of the time 

periods have expired that allowed an exemption from secondary containment. 

▪ Provide updated criteria to determine when a valve can be considered “sealless” per 265.193(f). 

Current guidance in RCRA online is outdated due to advances in valve seal technology.

Provide updated criteria for alternate technologies for a “solid welded line” as per 265.193(f). There are 

technologies available such as compression ring fitting (LokRing) that do not have any gaskets or seals, do not leak 

and are less expensive, easier to install, and have better quality of installation (no concerns with poor weld quality 

and weld failure) yet do not meet the criteria and therefore, generally cannot be used without approval from a 

regulator. In the original preamble for the rule, EPA felt they did not have sufficient information to allow use of this 

technology however PhRMA now feels that there is sufficient experience that this technology should be included. 

Companies use these types of lines throughout manufacturing processes that are managing valuable raw materials, 

intermediates, and products.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Simplify and streamline hazardous waste 

generator regulations

Comment: Simplify and streamline hazardous waste generator regulations. The RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations, including the generator standards, are very complex regulations. To enhance understanding and 

improve regulatory compliance, the regulations should be simplified and streamlined. They should also be rewritten 

in plain English.

The regulations at 40 CFR 262 include many references to other regulatory sections. For example, the 

container management standards at §262.34 include many references to 40 CFR 265. These references are 

very confusing and can cause facilities to misunderstand regulatory requirements. This is particularly the 

case for small facilities with limited environmental resources. These references to other regulatory sections 

should be removed and the applicable requirements incorporated into §262.

Stakeholder: State of New York Topic: Clarify inconsistent interpretations

Comment: Comments on inconsistent interpretations. 

On Page 21803, USEPA invites input on “multiple and/or inconsistent interpretations that cause uncertainty” for the 

RCRA-C hazardous waste generator program. In that regard, the Department has identified seven which are 

problematic to the Department: 

(1) USEPA’s Document 12269 (dated July 30, 1984) suggests that dragout/carryover from a cyanide 

electroplating operation is classified as F007 hazardous waste. However, Document 11269 (dated July 28, 1987) 

suggests that dragout/carryover is not F-listed because the rinsewater that the dragout/carryover mixes with does not 

meet the listing description. The Department understands that rinsewaters from cyanide electoplating operations 

have traditionally not been classified as F-listed hazardous waste and is not asking USEPA to revisit that 

classification, but does request that USEPA address the apparent inconsistency.

(2) Document 13007 (dated August 7, 1987, also numbered 11283) states that dragout/carryover of an Flisted degreasing solvent entrained on degreased parts is not Flisted hazardous waste because the amount of 

solvent carried over by the parts is too small to meet the listing description. This appears to be at odds with the 

original background document, which states on Page 81 that USEPA intends “to make case-by-case determinations 

via the delisting mechanism to remove those wastes containing minimal concentrations of spent solvent.” This 
suggests that the presence of even small amounts of spent solvent in a waste does not automatically preclude it from 

being classified as Flisted hazardous waste. Document 11638 (dated August 30, 1991) gives a different reason why 

solvent remaining on degreased parts is not F-listed, saying that such solvent is not spent. Because disputes 

frequently arise regarding the proper classification of wastes containing small amounts of F-listed solvents, the 

Department asks that USEPA address this apparent inconsistency and also provide comprehensive guidance on how 

dragout/carryover should be classified.

(3) Document 11823 (dated March 30, 1994) states that materials which are reclaimed prior to being used as 

an ingredient cannot qualify for the 261.3(e)(1)(i) “ingredient” exclusion, but then goes on to indicate that 

mercury wastes which have been reclaimed (by distillation) can then qualify for this same exclusion, provided 

the reclaimed mercury can be used without further processing or with only refining. We believe that such 

reclaimed mercury could be used as an ingredient instead by virtue of it having achieved product status under 

261.3(c)(2)(i). We question whether USEPA misstated that the reclaimed mercury could qualify for the 

261.3(e)(1)(i) exclusion, since this would be tantamount to allowing prior reclamation to occur with 261.3(e)(1)(i). 

We ask for clarification since this document would appear to provide a “back door” means of allowing prior 

reclamation with the 261.3(e)(1)(i) exclusion.

(4) USEPA identified, on Page 21803 (second column), treatment in satellite containers as a topic that had 

been raised in the past as potentially causing regulatory uncertainty. The Department would like to note that on 

two separate occasions2 the RCRA Call Center Hotline has advised us that they had received verbal guidance from 

USEPA that authorized states are at liberty to allow generators to engage in treatment within containers in satellite 

areas. On the strength of this advice the Department has allowed treatment to occur in satellite containers, but 

requests that USEPA formalize the guidance.

(5) Document 9441.1988(22) (dated June 6, 1988, attached) states that the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE) 

does not apply to mixtures of industrial waste and onsite-generated sanitary waste. This document was 

originally obtained from USEPA’s OSWER Compendium. It was recently discovered to be unavailable on 

RCRAOnLi ne when a member of the regulated community cited USEPA Document 11254 as support for his

position that mixtures with onsite-generated sanitary waste did qualify industrial discharges for the DSE. The 

Department requests clarification of whether 9441.1988(22) is current guidance, and whether onsite-generated 

sanitary waste can qualify an industrial waste discharge for the DSE. It is noted that preamble discussion in the May 

19, 1980 Federal Register (Page 33097, Column 3) suggests that the DSE can occur prior to entry

of the discharge into sewer lines that are publically owned. 

6) The instructions for filling out the Notification of Regulated Waste Activities Form (available at: 

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/form8700/forms.htm) strongly suggest on Pages 3 and 13 that renotification 

is required when ownership of a facility changes. However, USEPA personnel have made it clear during the national 

review of WIN/Informed’s “Site Activity Status Project Report” that such renotification is in fact not required. The 

Department would suggest amendment of the instructions. 

(7) Various guidance available from USEPA since the hazardous waste regulations were promulgated in 1980 have 

been contradictory on the issue of how USEPA ID numbers are to be assigned to a property, and the related issue of 

what constitutes an individual site. Relevant text from those guidance are as follows:

May, 1980: “[The definition of on-site] has been amended to make it clear that the entrance and exit of 

geographically contiguous property – which may be divided by a public or private right-of-way – must be directly 

across from each other in order to be considered to be the same site.”3 (May 19, 1980 Federal Register preamble, 

Page 33069)

November, 1983: Q: “Some campuses, especially those located in metropolitan areas, may be divided by public 

roads and this further complicates the determination of their generator status. Can universities consider themselves 

as one generation site in order to spread their

‘administrative umbrella’ over their entire campus?”

A: “...Metropolitan campuses are frequently constructed on a number of adjoining city blocks where the various 

campus buildings are separated by city streets but the buildings may be connected by tunnels or overhead walkways. 

Even in these cases each generation site (i.e., each city block or each half of a campus bisected by a public road) 

would be a generator (or SQG) and assigned its own USEPA ID number...

Hazardous wastes being shipped from one campus building (i.e., generator) to another building (i.e., TSDF) where 
the sites are divided by a highway would need a manifest while on the highway. The one exception is when the 

waste is shipped directly across the road. In this case the receiving building is considered ‘on-site,’ as defined in 40 

CFR 260.10 even though they are required to have separate USEPA ID numbers.

(NOTE: The definition of ‘on-site’ is intended to be used only in determining whether or not a generator should 

initiate a manifest. It does not define two buildings owned and/or operated by the same person but divided by a 

highway as one generation site.)”

November, 1994: “Many universities are divided by public roads or other rights-of-way that they do not control. If 

the entry and exit between two parts of a campus are directly across from each other, or across the junction of two 

cross roads, they are considered geographically contiguous. However, if a person must travel along a public road to 

go from one part of a campus to another, the sites are considered non-contiguous.... In your example of South 

Dakota University, two streets run through the university and waste from various parts of the campus are 

consolidated in one area...If the campus is divided by a road and waste does not need to travel along the road to 

another portion of its campus, it may be considered an individual generation site.”

May, 1996: “For the purposes of generator notification and obtaining USEPA identification numbers, and assuming 

that the two structures you describe are on-site as defined at 260.10, one identification number is sufficient for the 

two structures.” “[Office building and a factory on a single property] would meet the definition of individual 

generation site if it is contiguous and would be ‘on-site’ for purposes of manifesting if

the two structures were either a) not divided by a public right-of-way, or b) [were divided by a public right of way 

but] the public right-of-way can be crossed directly without traveling along it.”

February, 1997: “In may cases the Agency has used the definition of ‘on-site’ as the delimiting tool for determining 

when an identification number is needed.” Superimposed on all the above guidance is the widespread, longstanding 

acceptance by both USEPA and the Department of allowing large urban manufacturing facilities (e.g., Kodak Park 

in Rochester, New York, IBM in Endicott, New York8) to have only a single USEPA ID number even though such 

facilities are divided by public streets and the

entrances to each of the facility’s “city blocks” are not always directly across from each other.

NOTE: Footnotes to above 7 items not included.

Recognizing that numerous generators have, in good faith, obtained USEPA ID numbers using the various guidance 

described above and have then logistically and financially committed to compliance procedures based on how those 

numbers were assigned, the Department has stated that an entity is not automatically compelled to combine under 

one USEPA ID number two properties separated by a public right-of-way, even in those

instances where entrances and exits of those properties are positioned directly across from each other. The 

Department has also stated that one USEPA ID number may optionally be assigned to adjacent properties operated 

by one entity that are divided by streets provided they form a continuous patchwork grid of contiguous properties. 

We request that USEPA address these inconsistencies and, if possible, issue definitive guidance on the 

definition of site and the issuance of USEPA ID numbers.

Stakeholder: American Airlines Topic: Clearly defined regulatory requirements for CESQGs, 

SQGs, and LQGs 

Comment: Distinction Among Generators. The hazardous waste regulations should include separate sections 

clearly defining the respective regulatory requirements applicable to LQGs, SQGs and CESQGs. Currently, the 

regulated community is requires to sift through an amalgam of regulatory provision to attempt to

determine which sentences or subsections might be applicable to their particular situation. Separate sections for 

each generator category would reduce the chances for error and provide for quicker and better 

understanding of the requirements. In addition, a table of regulatory requirements such as the one below 

would prove to be a clear, “user friendly” regulatory summary for the regulated community:

GENERATOR SUMMARY CHART

(Not Included but found in separate file)

Describes requirements by category for each class of generator in matrix format.
Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Reorganize 40CFR262 for clarity and ease of use

Comment: Generator Accumulation Requirements: 262.34. This section is very difficult to read and follow, 

especially because it switches between discussion of LQGs & SQGs and refers to so many other sections in 40 CFR 

Parts 262-270. The actual conditions that apply should be recited and not just referenced, even though that may 

require repetition. The title should be changed from “accumulation time” to “conditions for accumulation and 

treatment.”

Analysis 

16 commenters and 34 comments

New

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topics: Clarify applicability sections

Comment: The DE-DNREC also believes several of the applicability sections or specific subparts within the 

regulations require clarification so that generators can quickly determine if the regulations of a subpart or section are 

applicable to them. It has been our experience that the requirements of the air emissions standards of Part 265, 

Subparts AA, BB, and CC, as well as the Part 268, Land Disposal Restriction requirements prove most troublesome.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topics: Piecemeal development has led to confusing set of 

rules

Comment: General Comments: Overall, the Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements have been effective in 

reducing the risks to human health and the environment from the improper management and disposal of hazardous 

waste. However, the piecemeal development of regulations through the years has resulted in a confusing set of rules 

that is difficult for generators to follow. These rules would benefit from reorganization and further clarification. In 

particular, all of the generator requirements could be collected into 40 CFR part 262 and organized in an manner 

which is easier to use. See Attachment I for specifics on how this might be accomplished. 

Also, in many cases the RCRA rules contain citations to other regulations which are erroneous or which are 

obsolete. Examples include references to various U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements pertaining 

to oxidizers and explosives. This program evaluation would be an excellent time to identify errors in 40 CFR parts 

261 and 262 and eliminate them. (The Task Force has begun an effort to identify such errors and hopes to have a 

more definitive listing for EPA in the future.) Any flexibility offered to generators should not discourage waste 

minimization but encourage it!

This program, in its current form, may need revisions but it does cause generators to think about not generating the 

waste in the first place and/or to use materials that are less toxic. For example, when the wastewater reporting 

requirement was dropped from the Biennial Report a number of years ago, pressure was removed from facilities to 

minimize hazardous waste that they mixed in wastewater. Before this requirement was removed, States saw a 

number of large quantity generators make great strides to reduce hazardous waste being mixed in wastewater 

because they

didn’t want to be one of the States’ top generators of hazardous waste listed in the Biennial Report for general public 

scrutiny.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topics: General Comment

Comment: During the Boston public meeting on May 4, 2004, EPA staff requested themes and main points to take 

away from the meeting. In response PhRMA company representatives recommended that the Agency publish a 
Federal Register proposal to address the following three (3) issues related to the generator regulations; 

- Update the sections of the regulations that are outdated, conflicting, and/or duplicative,

- Propose a simplified regulatory structure that is easier to understand (i.e., eliminate the back and forth or crossreferencing to different regulatory citations), but yet does not conflict nor negate current regulations and /or EPA 

guidance, and

- Solicit input from the regulated community on how to improve the generator program.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topics: Clarify 262.34(a)

Comment: 262.34(a) - PhRMA recommends that EPA add paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) to the those referenced in 

the first sentence of 262.34(a), since they contain exceptions from the paragraph (a) requirements for certain F006 

generators and for Performance Track members.

Stakeholder: DOE Topics: Reduce cross-referencing

Comment: The ANPR asks whether the RCRA hazardous waste generator regulations are easy to understand, 

whether they are logically organized, and whether the actions needed to comply with the regulations are clear.

1. While the generator regulations are fairly logically organized, the multitude of cross-references among 

sections within 40 CFR part 262, as well as cross-references from part 262 to sections in other parts of 

Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations reduces their usability and diminishes the clarity and ease 

with which generators can determine what actions are needed to comply.

Stakeholder: State of Georgia Topic: CESQG Wastes

Comment: We feel sure you have received many comments on the difficulty in understanding the regulations. 

Indeed, there are many areas of the generator regulations that are not clear and are subject to interpretation. We 

constantly work with those type issues and trust that EPA will identify the issues most pervasive among the 

comments received and work to correct them. In accordance with your request to identify the top three 

programmatic issues that we would like to see EPA initiate in the near future, they are as follows:

1. The provisions in 40 CFR 261.5 that allow conditionally exempt small quantity generators to send their hazardous 

waste to a non-RCRA permitted facility are no longer adequate protection of human health and the environment. We 

believe this waste contributes to known releases at Subtitle D facilities and creates unacceptable hazards in 

commercial dumpsters. We believe the public would find this provision alarming and unacceptable. EPA should 

initiate changes to the regulations that would require all hazardous waste, except household hazardous waste, to be 

disposed of at RCRA-permitted facilities;...........

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: CESQG Compliance Assurance

Comment: With respect to program improvements, the DE-DNREC believes the regulations, especially for 

conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG), must be made more clear, with the regulatory 

requirements fully presented in the section of the regulations applicable to the CESQGs. It is difficult, especially for 

the CESQGs, to maneuver through the regulations. One area that may potentially assist these generators with 

compliance is for EPA to make efforts in developing additional and more simplified compliance assistance tools, for 
example workbooks and self auditing checklists which are clear and simple in presentation of the regulatory 

requirements. EPA could then share these documents electronically with the states, at which point they could be 

made state specific. While many states, including Delaware, have undertaken compliance initiatives for various 

sectors with success, a general initiative out of EPA could potentially reduce the cost to states desiring to offer these 

small generators compliance information. As an alternative, EPA’s funding of state specific initiatives, which once 

completed could be shared among the states, may prove most successful is assisting CESQGs, as well as SQGs with 

compliance.