**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Clarify Regulations)**  **Stakeholder:** State of Wyoming **Topic: Confusion between CESQG and SQG regulations** 
- Im

prove readability **Comment:** It is the SHWD opinion that there is **confusion created by trying to read a nd 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 th e 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 stand ards, 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 Stakeholder: Northeastern University Topic: Outdated regulations **Comment:** With these significant positives to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation comes some negatives.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 m**  **anagement and contam** **ination continue to be found at m any small facilities and sites throughout the nation. The regulation**  **was also originally tailored for industrial and manufacturing facilities, resulting in many requirements being diffi**  **cult 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. **Perform ance require**  **ments may offer an option to rem edy som**  **e 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: **Form at of Regulations. The regulations are extrem**  **ely 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 ne cessary 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 w aste manageme nt 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: RE GULATIONS: Some of the regulations are easy to understand. But, there are difficult regulations (e.g., identification/definition of w astes and HW:LDRs). When enforcement personnel get confused, the regulated community does, also. As a result, EPA issues interpretations. How ever, 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, consis tent and enforceable.

Stakeholder: Jeff Tobergte (Private Citizen ) Topic: **Confusion between CESQG and SQG regulations** 
- Im

prove 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 Exe**  **mptions 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 excl usions 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 ha zardous 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 w aste 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 subsequent ly 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 th e 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 regulatio ns within a reasonable time period, following the federal rulemaking process. **Stakeholder: Navy Department**  **Topic: Reorganize the Generator Requirem**  **ents Section for Increased Readability**  **Comment: Reorganize the Generator Requirements Section for Increa sed 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 re gulations; and the various requirements for large, small, and conditionally exempt small quantity generators are dispersed throughout rather than w

ritten in distinct sub
- sections. **Discussion.** Many

states and RCRA training vendors have tabulated the gene rator 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 unde rstanding would further improve if EPA adopted and defined common terms of the hazardous wa ste 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 provide d 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 g enerator requirements are confusing not only to the regulated community, but also to som**  **e 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 v ary 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 enforcem**  **ent, or retracted where doing so would eliminate in consistency.**  Stakeholder: Lab Corp. Topic: **Confusion between CESQG and SQG regulations** 
- Im

prove readability Comment: The majority of generator requirements are contained in 40 CFR Part 262. **We recommend that the Conditionally Exe**  **mpt Small Quantity Ge nerator (**  **“ CESQG**  **” ) requirements in 40 CFR 261.5 be m**  **oved to Part 262**  , since it details requirements for generators of hazardous w aste 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 t o 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 wa ste 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 Top ic: **Confusion between CESQG and SQG regulations** 
- Im

prove 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**  **Generat ors of Hazardous Waste rather than to have some generator requirem**  **ents 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, an other 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 **“ im**  **me diately 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 generati**  **on ”**  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 ac cumulated 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 pum ped into a treatment system on the s ame 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 wa ste that is excluded from the definition of hazardous or so lid 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 wa ste 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 w ould seem reasonable to exempt wastes that are directly connected from the g eneration 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)
- Com bine to simplify the regu lation 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 ty pes 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 ” b ut 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 m ajor headings (such as satellite** 

**accumulation, container standards, tank standards, training, contingency planning, etc.) a nd, 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 re wr itten 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 el iminated 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 rew ritten 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 re gulations 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 regulat ory 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 im provements 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 interp retation. 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 great er clarity and certainty to both the regulated community and the**  **regulatory agencies charged with im ple**  **menting the program .**  Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Tabulate abbreviated generator standards Comment: Tabulate abbreviated generat or 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 w ould p rovide 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 generatedmo re o ften 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 regul ations Comment: The cradle
- to - grave concept of the existing hazardous w aste 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 haz ardous 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 warr ants 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 m any interpretations (som**  **etimes conflicting) that EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions and States have devel**  **oped over the years. ConocoPhillips Company believes that the tim**  **e is right to m ak** **e the RCRA generator standards relevant and up to date.**  ConocoPhillips Company **recommends that EPA m ake**  **the regulations m ore understandable and easier to use by textually con**  **solidating all relevant requirements by generator type and spelling out in a clear and concise manner the requirements that currently are**  **im plemented prim**  **arily 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**  **ma intain 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 som etimes conflicting) EPA and State versions and/or interpretations of the RCRA generator regulations. **EPA could avoid these conflicts if EPA would allocate the re**  **sources necessary to 1) address interpretive issues referred from** 

**States/Regions in a tim ely m**  **anner and 2) clean up the existing inconsistencies in the body of federal guidance and interpretations**  **.** Stakeholder: ConocoPhillips Topic: Consolidation of Requirem ents Comment: Consolidation of Requirements: **ConocoPhillips Company believes that significant im provement can**  **be m ade 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 ef fectiveness 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 regulatio ns **mo re understandable by utilizing the plain English form**  **at to consolidate all relevant requirem ents** **by generator type and spell out in a clear and concise manner the requirements that are currently**

**im plemented prim**  **arily through guidance. An Environmental Managem**  **ent System (EMS) approach as a potential alternative for compliance with RCRA principles would provide the regulated community the**  **flexibility to design a hazardous waste m anagem**  **ent structure that is appropriate to an individual facility and is pro**  **tective of hum an 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) require**  **ments for contain er accum**  **ulation tend to be satisfactory; but here too, it would be helpful to have all requirem**  **ents applicable to SQGs in one regulatory section**
. **Stakeholder:** State of Alabama **Topic: Reorganize 40CFR262 for clarity and ease of use**  **Comment: Changes ar e 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 e volved over the years has resulted in the**  **m being fractured and confusing. ADEM has found that generators, particularly sm**  **all quantity generators (SQGs) and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs), often**  **“ mi**  **ss ”**  **a portion of the regulations r**  **elevant to their hazardous waste because those rules are located som eplace 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 form**  **at.** Finally, som e 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 make s 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 m**  **ak es the**  **m confusing, hard to use,**  **and hard to understand. To rem edy 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 l ike: 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 rew ritten into the same basic format used for large quantity gener ators (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 40C FR265, 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 Tim e 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)(ii i) § 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 § Accum ulation 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 C ontainment 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
- Transp ort 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 an d 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 w ould 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. Stakeholde r: 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 some what misleading and could result in conf usion. **PhRMA recommends that EPA either rem ove the reference to 268.7(a)(5) entirely and rely on 268.1(b), or**  **ma ke it clearer in 262.34 that generators must also comply with part 268 unless otherwise noted.** Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Clean up and/or up date 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 ” pe r 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 w elded line ” as per 265.193(f). There are technologies available such as compression rin g 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 w eld quality and w eld failure) yet do not meet the criteria and therefore, gen erally 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 technol ogy should be included. Com panies 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 stream line hazardous waste generator regulations.**  The RCRA hazardous waste regulations, including the generator standards, are very complex regulations. To enhance understanding and im prove regulatory compliance, the regulations s hould be simplified and streamlined. They should also be rew ritten in plain English. **The regulations at 40 CFR 262 include m any references to other regulatory sections. For example, the**  **container m anagement standards at**  **§ 262.34 include m**  **any references to 40 CFR 265. These references are**  **very confusing and can cause facilities to m isunderstand regulatory requirem**  **ents. This is particularly the case for sm**  **all facilities with limited environmental resources**
. **These references to other regulatory sections should**  **be re mo**  **ved 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 i nconsistent interpretations that cause uncertainty ” for the RCRA
- C hazardous waste generator program. **In that regard, the Departm ent has identified seven which are**  **problematic to the Department: (1) USEPA**  **’ s Document 12269 (dated July 30, 1984) suggests t**  **hat dragout/carryover from a cyanide**  **electroplating operation is classified as F007 hazardous waste.** How ever, 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) Docum ent 13007 (dated August 7, 1987, also num**  **bered 11283) states that dragout/carryover of an F**   ** listed degreasing solvent entrained on degreased parts is not Flisted hazardous waste because the am** **ount of solvent carried over by the parts is too sm**  **all to m eet 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 mech anism to remove those wa stes containing minimal concentrations of spent solvent. ” Thissuggests 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) **Docum ent 11823 (dated March 30, 1994) states that materials which are r**  **eclaimed 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**  **reclaim ed 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 mi**  **sstated that the reclaim ed 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), treatm ent 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) **Docum ent 9441.1988(22) (dated June 6, 1988, attached) states that the Dom**  **estic Se wage Exclusion (DSE)**  **does not apply to m ixtures 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 disch arge 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 renoti fication 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 woul d 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 d ivided 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) **Novem ber, 1983**  **:** Q: “ Som e cam puses, especially those located in metrop olitan 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 cam pus buildings are separated by city streets but the buildings may be connected by tunnels or overhead walkways. Even in these cases each gen eration site (i.e., each city block or each half of a campus bisected by a public road) wo uld 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) wherethe sites are divided by a highway would need a manifest while on the highway. The one exception is when the

wa ste 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 f rom 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 i ts 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 ident ification number is sufficient for the two structures. ” “ [Office building and a factory on a single property] would m eet the definition of individual generation site if it is contiguous and would be ‘ on - site ’ for purposes of manifesting if the two structur es 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 - s ite ’ 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 ea ch 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 pro cedures 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 ex its 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 CESQG s. 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 wou**  **ld reduce the chances for error and provide for quicker and better understanding of the requirem**  **ents** . **In addition, a table of regulatory requirem ents such as the one below**  **would prove to be a clear, “**  **user friendly ”**  **regulatory summary for the regulated comm unity:**  **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 betw een 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. Stak eholder: 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 improp er management and disposal of hazardous wa ste. How ever, 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 furthe r 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 ru les 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 e xcellent 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 mo re definitive listing for EPA in the future.) Any flexibility offered to generators should no t 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 wa ste 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 lar ge 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 aFederal 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 underst and (i.e., eliminate the back and forth or cross
referencing 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 im prove the generato r 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 ar e 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 am ong**  **sections within 40 CFR part 262, as well as cross -**  **re ferences 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 determ ine what actions are needed to com** **ply.**
Stakeholder: State of Geo rgia 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 wo rk 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 in itiate in the near future, they are as follow s: 1. The provisions in 40 CFR 261.5 that allow conditionally exempt small quantity generators to send their hazardous wa ste to a non - RCRA permitted facility are no longer adequate protection of human health an d 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 im provements, 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, fo rexample 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 undert aken 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 in itiatives, which once completed could be shared among the states, may prove most successful is assisting CESQGs, as well as SQGs with compliance.