II. Background aad Swsunary of Final
Rule
A TAe Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
On November 8.1984. the President
signed Pub. L 98-616, tided The
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These
comprehensive amendments will have
far-reaching ramifications for EPA's
hazardous waste regulatory program
and will impact a very large number of
businesses in the United States. Further.
Congress has established in these
amendments ambitious schedules for
the imposition of the requirements that
EPA must promulgate.
With respect to regulation of small
quantity generators (i.e.. generators of
less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in
a calendar month) the HSWA added a
new subsection (d) to Section 3001 of
RCRA designed to modify EPA's current
regulatory exemption of wastes
generated by small quantity generators
from full Subtitle C regulation (40 CFR
261.5}. Section 3001 (d) directs EPA to
develop a comprehensive set of
standards which will apply to hazardous
wastes produced by small quantity
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg
of hazardous waste in a calendar month
("generators of 100-1000 kg/mo"). EPA
is required to promulgate final standards
no later than March 31.1988. Today's
final rule satisfied this requirement. In
addition, section 3001 (d) imposes certain
minimum requirements on these
generators prior to that date and
requires EPA to complete a number of
studies before April 1987.
1. Codification Rule
On July 15,1985. EPA published in the
Federal Register a Final Rule which
codified a number of legislatively
mandated provisions contained in the
HSWA (see 50 FR 28702-28755. July 15,
1985). Among those provisions is the
requirement of section 3001(d)(3) that
effective 270 days from the date of
enactment all off-site shipments of
hazardous waste from generators of
greater than 100 kg but less than 1000 kg
of hazardous waste during a calendar
month must be accompanied by a copy
of the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest, signed by the generator, and
containing the following information:
• The name and address of the
generator of the waste;
• The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) description of the
waste, including the proper shipping
name, hazard class, and identification
number (UN/NAfc
• The number and type of containers:
• The quantity of wa*te beam
transported; and
• The name and address of the
facility designated to receive the waste.
The information required by this
provision (codified at 40 CFR 261 J(h)(3))
corresponds to Items 3,9.11,12,13,14,
and 16, of EPA form 8700-22 and
accompanying instructions promulgated
on March 20,1984 (49 FR10490). These
information requirements conform to
DOT shipping requirements designed to
provide necessary information to
handlers of hazardous materials (e.g.,
transporters and emergency response
personnel).1 The interim manifest
requirement applies only until the
effective date of the regulations being
promulgated today. These final rules
will supersede the existing manifest
requirements for these generators.
The HSWA provisions, together with
existing regulations, distinguish three
main classes of small quantity
generators for regulatory purposes: (1)
Those generating between 100 and 1000
kg of non-acutely hazardous waste per
calendar month; (2) those generating up
to 100 kg of non-acutely hazardous
waste per calendar month; and (3) those
generating acutely hazardous wastes in
quantities currently set forth in
S 281.5(e). These classes of small
quantity generator are distinguished in
the July 1965 "Codification Rule". Until
the effective date of today's final rules,
under the regulatory system imposed by
40 CFR 261.5 implementing section
3001(d) of the HSWA. a small quantity
generator in the first group (i.e.,
producing between 100 and 1000 kg ot
non-acutely hazardous waste in a
calendar month) is subejct to the
fallowing requirements:
(1) He must determine if his waste is
hazardous under 40 CFR 282.11
(2) He may conditionally accumulate
hazardous waste on-site provided he
does not exceed the quantity limitation
contained in 1281.5(h)(2);
(3) After August 5.1985. he must
partially complete and sign a single
copy of the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest to accompany any off-site
shipment of hazardous waste
(S261.5(h)(3));and
(4) He must treat or dispose of his
hazardous waste on-site, or ensure
delivery to an off-site treatment, storage.
or disposal facility. The on-site or off-
site facility must be either (i) Permitted
by EPA punaont to Section 3086 of
RCRA or by a State having an
authorized permit program under Part
271; (ii) in interim status under Parts 270
and 266: (iii) permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
municipal or industrial solid waste: or
(iv) a facility which beneficially uses or
reuses, or legitimately recycles or
reclaims the waste, or treats the waste
prior to reuse, recycling or reclamation
1 While 100-1000 kg/mo generators are not now
required to complete toe entire manifest under
Federal law, many States operating their own
hazardous waste program may already require
additional information on the manifest or require
use of the State's version of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest
.
As discussed in the remainder of this
preamble, 100-1000 kg/mo generators
will be regulated under Part 262-266 and
Parts 270 and 124 when today's rules
become effective, to the extent that rule*
apply.
Generators of less than 100 kg of
hazardous waste in a calendar month
will remain conditionally exempt from
most of the hazardous waste program,
as provided in § 281.5(g). For example,
generators of less than 100 kg are not
required to comply with any manifesting
provisions. No additional requirements
apply to this class of hazardous'waste
generator under the existing rules unless
the quantity limitations contained hi
S 261.5(g) are exceeded.
Generators that produce acutely
hazardous waste and do not exceed the
quantity limitations for such waste
under § 261.5(e) will also be
conditionally exempt from regulation.
No additional requirements apply to this
class of generators unless the quantity
limitations contained in S261.5(e) are
exceeded, at which point the acutely
hazardous waste becomes subject to the
full generator requirements of 40 CFR
Part 282.
2. Minimum Rulemaking Requirements
Section 3001(d)(l) of the HSWA
requires EPA to promulgate, by March
31,1986, standards under sections 3002,
3003, and 3004, for hazardous wastes
generated by a generator hi a total
quantity greater than 100 but less than
1000 kilograms in a calendar month.
Standards developed under this section
must be sufficient to protect human
health and the environment but "may
vary from the standards applicable to
hazardous waste generated by larger
quantity generators" (emphasis added]
(section 3001(d)(2)). EPA is further
authorized to promulgate standards for
generators of less than 100 kg/mo of
hazardous waste if the Administrator
determine it is necessary to do so to
protect human health and the
environment (section 3001(d)(4)).
At a minimum, standards issued
pursuant to section 3001(d)(l) must
require that all treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes from
-------
10148
Federal Register /. Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulation,
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg
of hazardous waste in a calendar month.
occur at a facility with interim status or
a Porait issued under section 3005 of .
RCRA. The standards must also allow
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg
of hazardous waste during a calendar
month to store waste on-site for up to
180 days without being required to
obtain a RCRA permit. If a generator
must ship or haul his waste greater than
200 miles, that generator may store up to
6000 kg of hazardous wastes for up to
270 days without a permit (section
3001(d)(8)). These minimum
requirements are embodied in today's
final rule.
In addition, the Agency has
Interpreted the statute to require that, at
a minimum. EPA's regulations must
provide for continuation of the August
1985 requirement that off-site shipments
of hazardous waste from 100-1000 kg/
mo generators be accompanied by a
single copy of the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest containing at least the
information specified in section
3001(d)(3). See H.R. Report No. 198.98th
Cong, 1st Sess. 25-28 (1983); S. Rep. No.
284. 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 8 (1983); H.R.
Rep. No. 133.98th Cong., 2nd Sess.. 101-
103 (1984).
The Agency believes that at a
minimum Congress intended that the
Agency's regulations incorporate the
partial Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest requirements in order to
provide notice of the hazardous nature
of the waste to transporters and
facilities. In addition, the Agency is
specifically authorized to expand the
manifest requirements if necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. See section 3001(d)(3). As
discussed in Unit IU.C.2. of today's
preamble, EPA has concluded that
additional manifest requirements are
necessary to ensure protection of human
health and the environment.
3. March 31.1988 Hammer Provisions
If EPA had failed to promulgate
standards for hazardous waste
generators producing greater than 100 kg
but less than 1000 kg in a calendar
month by March 31.1986, these
generators would have been subject to
certain legislatively stipulated
provisions.
The promulgation of today's final rule
prior to March 31,1988. however.
effectively voids the hammer provisions
of the HSWA with respect to small
quantity generators. Consequently, the
requirements promulgated today are the
only requirements which 100-1000 kg/
mo generators must comply with. As
discussed in Unit IV, the Part 282
requirements applicable to 100-1000 kg/
mo generators that manage waste off-
site will take effect six months from
today while the requirements of Parts
284 and 285 applicable to generators
that manage waste on-site will take
effect twelve months from today.
It should be noted that the HSWA
specifically states that the requirements
of this Section should not be construed
to be determinative of the requirements
appropriate for small quantity
generators in developing a regulatory
program. The hammer provisions of
HSWA. therefore, do not dictate the
content of these final rules for
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo.
4. August 1.1985 Proposal
On August 1.1985, EPA proposied
rules that would apply to generators of
100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste.
The proposed rules represented the
Agency's efforts to balance the need for
regulation of this group of generators in
a manner that would protect human
health and the environment with the
need to minimize the impacts of uuch
regulation on small firms.
The proposed rules modified the
existing standards for generators and
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities to reflect the generally smaller
quantities of waste and small business
nature of many of these firms. In
essence, EPA concluded that some relief
from the administrative and paperwork
requirements embodied in the Part 282
Generator Standard* was appropriate
for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo of
hazardous waste.-
EPA proposed to remove 100-1000 kg/
mo generators from the existing S 261.5
small quantity generator provision, thus
subjecting them to Part 262. In addition.
the Agency proposed specific
amendments to Part 262 to relieve these
generators of some of the requirements
of that Part. Under the proposed rules.
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would
have bean required under Part 282 to: •
• Determine whether their wastes are
hazardous (already required under '
§ 261.5):
• Obtain an EPA identification
number
• Store hazardous waste on-sitis for
no more than 180 or 270 days in
compliance with specially modified
storage standards (unless they comply
with the full regulations for hazardous
waste management facilities):
• Offer their wastes only to
transporters and facilities with an EPA
identification number
• Comply with applicable Department
of Transportation (DOT) requirements
for shipping wastes off-site:
• Use a single copy of the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest to
accompany the waste from the
generation site.
The proposed requirements for
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo were
intended to be less stringent than those
applicable to large quantity generators
in two significant respects. First, under
the proposed rules, generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo would not have been
required to comply with the full manifest
system required of larger hazardous
waste generators that ship waste off-site
for treatment, storage, or disposal.
Instead, the Agency proposed a "single
copy" manifest system intended to serve
as a "notification" to subsequent
handlers of the waste (i.e.. transporters
and facilities) that the material is a
hazardous waste and to provide
essential information to those handlers
as well as emergency personnel. EPA
proposed to specifically exempt these
generators from the existing manifest
requirements pertaining to number and
distribution of manifest copies as well
as from the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the full
manifest system (i.e.. use and retention
of manifest copies and exception and
biennial reporting). EPA also proposed
to exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators
from all of the manifest requirements
under certain circumstances where the
waste is reclaimed under contractual
arrangements where either the generator
or a reclaimer retains ownership of the
material throughout the generation.
transportation, and reclamation of the
waste. Under such circumstances, EPA
believed that the manifest would be
unnecessary, provided that specific
conditions are met.
A second significant difference for
100-1000 kg/mo generators was the
proposed requirements affecting
accumulation (i.e.. short-term storage) of
hazardous waste on-site prior to
shipment of waste off-site or
management on-site in a treatment.
storage, or disposal facility. The
proposed rules implemented the
statutory requirement to allow
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo to
accumulate (i.e.. store) waste on-site in
tanks or containers for up to 180 days
(or 270 days if they must ship their '
waste over 200 miles for treatment or
disposal), without obtaining interim
status or a permit. In addition, the
proposed rules provided that these
generators would need to comply with
specific storage requirements which
were reduced somewhat from those
applicable to large quantity generators.
Unlike large quantity generators, those
producing between 100-1000 kg/mo
would not be required to prepare a'
written contingency plan or have
-------
1986 / Rules and Regulations; 10149
formalized personnel training program*.
They would, however, be subject to a
reduced set of specific requirements for
contingency and emergency procedures.
and for ensuring that their employees
are fully cognizant of those procedures
as well as proper hazardous waste
handling methods. Generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo that accumulate wastes in
tanks or containers would, however, be
subject to the same requirements of
existing Subparts I and J of Part 265
applicable to larger generators as well
as to the preparedness and prevention
standards contained in Subpart C of
Part 265.
EPA also proposed that those 100-
1000 kg/mo generators who treat, store,
or dispose of their hazardous waste in
on-site facilities and who do not qualify
for the 180- or 270-day exclusion would
be subject to the full set of Parts 284 and
265 facility standards currently
applicable to other hazardous waste
treatment storage, and disposal
facilities, including the need to obtain
interim status and a RCRA permit EPA
saw no basis for reducing the technical
standards for these generators since the
potential hazards to human health and
the environment appeared to be
equivalent to those from other fully
regulated treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. However, because of
the major impact which these facility
requirements would be likely to have on
many of these firms, the Agency
proposed to delay the effective date of
this portion of the regulations an
additional six months (i.e.. 1 year from
the date of publication in the Federal
Register of the final rules) to allow these
firms additional time to either arrange
for off-site management or to up-grade
their on-site practices for compliance
with the full set of Parts 264 and 265
facility standards.
B. Summary of Final Rule
Today's final rule adopts most of the
provisions of the proposed rales for
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo. Today's
final rule subjects generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo to regulation under Parts
262. 263. 264. 265, and 266 of the
hazardous waste regulations by
removing these generators from the
conditional exclusion provisions of
§ 261.5. However, the Agency has
decided not to formally redefine a
"small quantity generator" as one who
generates no more than 100 kg of non-
acutely hazardous waste since the
Agency has concluded that such a
redefinition would increase, rather than
reduce, confusion. Consequently, the
term "small quantity generator" will
continue to apply to all generators of
less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in
a calendar month.
As a result of today's final rule
subjecting generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
to the Part 262 requirements, these
generators will be required to:
• Determine whether their wastes are
hazardous (already required under
§ 261.5);
• Obtain an EPA identification
number
• Store hazardous waste on-site for
no more than 180 or 270 days in
compliance with specially modified
storage standards (unless they comply
with the full regulations for hazardous
waste management facilities);
• Offer their wastes only to
transporters and facilities with an EPA
identification number;
• Comply with applicable Department
of Transportation (DOT) requirements
for shipping wastes off-site;
• Use a multi-part "round-trip"
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to
accompany the waste to its final
destination; and
• Maintain copies of manifests for
three years;
EPA is today finalizing a number of
the proposed modifications to the Part
262 requirements applicable to
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo. These
generators will not be required to submit
biennial reports or file exception reports
if a copy of the manifest is not returned
by the destination facility. In addition.
the proposed modifications to the
accumulation provisions of § 262.34
exempting these generators from the
requirements to prepare a formal
contingency plan and conduct formal
personnel training are also being
finalized, as is the proposed exemption
from all manifest requirements for
wastes reclaimed under certain
contractual arrangements. The Agency
is also exempting 100-1000 kg/mo
generators from the 50* buffer zone
requirements for container storage of
ignitable or reactive wastes during
periods of on-site accumulation.
The most significant departure from
the proposed rules is the Agency's
determination that the multiple copy
manifest system does not impose a
significant burden and that in fact the
multiple copy manifest system is
essential to ensure protection of human
health and the environment Therefore,
the modifications to the existing
manifest system proposed for 100-1000
kg/mo generators are not being adopted
in today's final rule. The reasons for this
change are discussed in detail in Unit
III.C. of this preamble.
Of
. RwpOOM to <
i and Analysis)
This Section of the preamble
addresses the comments received on the
August l, 1985, proposed rules
("Proposal") and describes the Agency's
position on the major issues raised in
the proposal and during the comment
period.
A. EPA's Approach To Regulating 1OO-
1000 kg/mo Hazardous Waste
Generators
As discussed in the preamble to the
Proposal, EPA's approach in developing
standards for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators was one of balancing the two
competing goals inherent in section
3001(d>—protecting human health and
the environment and avoiding
unreasonable burdens on the large
number of small businesses affected by
the standards, in assuring protection of
human health and the environment the
Agency deemed it appropriate and
consisent with Congressional intent to
consider the "relative risk" posed by the
small aggregate amounts of waste
generated by the 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. Given the lower relative risk
that these generators pose compared to
larger generators in terms of quantity of
waste, varying the standards from those
applicable to large quantity generators
would still assure protection of human
health and the environment
EPA also evaluated the potential
impact of full Subtitle C regulations with
respect to both administrative and
technical considerations, and concluded
that the technical requirements were
more essential than the administrative
requirements to the general goal of
protecting human health and the
environment because they are directly
concerned with controlling releases to
the environment. In addition. Congress
anticipated reducing administrative
requirements, such as reporting and
recordkeeping, as a means to reduce
impacts on the 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. Thus. EPA proposed to
relieve these generators of some Part 262
standards that are administrative in
nature while retaining all existing
technical standards. The relief was only
provided to generators who accumulate
on-site for the statutorily-prescribed
periods, because, given that die amount
of waste accumulated would necessarily
be limited, the relative risk from
releases of such waste would be less
than that from the unlimited amounts of
waste accumulated by off-site facilities.
Most persons who commented on
EPA's approach to regulation in this
area supported the concept of reducing
-------
10150
burdens on small businesses and of
fashioning the degree of relief provided
from the level of risk involved; however.'
several commenters disagreed on the '
level of risk posed by waste from 100-"
1000 kg/mo generators. One commenter
argued that the "relative risk" approach
\vaa not technically sound because the
synergistic and antagonistic properties
of waste streams were not considered.
and mismanagement of even small
quantities of waste, if not controlled or
regulated, would eventually have the
same impact as larger amounts of waste.
One commenter pointed out that the
relative risk approach is difficult to
justify on a regional or local basis.
where 100-1000 kg generators may
contribute much more than the 0.3
percent nationwide contribution, and
their proximity to populations as
compared to large quantity generators •
should have been considered. Several
commentera also asserted that Congress
has judged the hazardousness of a given
waste to be imparted by-its inherent
properties, not by its quantity.
As EPA explained in the Proposal, the
Agency believes it to be both-
appropriate and consistent with
Congressional intent to consider the
relative risk posed by the smaller
quantities of waste generated by 100-
1000 kg/mo generators. Although it did
evaluate several Congressionally-
specified factors, such as waste
characteristics, the Agency found that
the only useful factor in drawing
meaningful distinctions between large
quantity generators and 100-1000 kg/mo
generators was the quantity of waste
generated. Thus, the Agency considered
both the inherent properties and the
quantities of waste generated in
developing standards'to assure
protection of human health and the
environment
The Agency is aware that there can be
concentrations of 100-1000 kg/mo
generators in populated areas, and thai
their 0.3 percent nationwide contribution
can be increased accordingly in some
cases; however, overall the quantities of
waste capable of being leaked or spilled
during storage or transportation, as
compared to that of large quantity
generators, still poses relatively less
risk. Moreover, the only type of relief
being provided is where the technical
standards deemed necessary to protect
human health and the environment are
not compromised in substance. The
Agency believes that, by retaining all
technical standards for storage,
transportation, and treatment required
of large quantity generators and by
n.odifying some requirements of an
administrative nature for the 100-1000
kg/mo generators, a fair balance
between the goals of reducing burdens
and protecting health and the
environment is reached. The Agency
does not believe that exempting the 100-
1000 kg/mo generators from theae
administrative requirements will
significantly increase the risks from
storage, transportation, or disposal of
the waste. In addition, as discussed
below, the Agency's decisions to require
the multiple-copy manifest, which will
allow "tracking" of the waste to ensure
proper disposal, will further reduce any
potential risks.
Another group of commenters
criticized EPA's approach in that it did
not consider bases for providing relief in
addition to that proposed. For example.
several commenters asserted that 100-
1000 kg/mo generators use less
sophisticated waste management
practices than large quantity generators.
due in large part to economic
constraints. This, along with the lesser
relative risks, they asserted, dictates
imposing less costly regulatory
requirements, such as eliminating on-
site storage permitting requirements for
longer periods of time and larger
quantities than EPA proposed.
While EPA did consider differences in
waste management practices that would
distinguish 100-1000 kg/mo generators
from large quantity generators, it found
that both classes use many of the same
waste management practices (sea SO Fit
31285 (Col. 1) (August 1.1985). The
comments received on this subject do
not provide evidence indicating
otherwise. The Agency has recognized
that the 100-1000 kg/mo generators
generally have less manpower and
fewer economic resources available to
them, and that this would affect their
ability to comply with the full regulatory
requirements applicable to large
quantity generators. However, Congress
has already provided for on-site storage
for longer periods of time to allow for
more economical shipments. In addition.
as discussed below, EPA is modifying
certain facility requirements for on-site
accumulation to simplify the
requirements for contingency plans.
emergency procedures, and personnel
training (contained in Part 265, Subpart
D and § 285.16). These requirements are
being modified because they would be
unduly burdensome and the underlying
environmental objectives can be
achieved in their modified form.
However, full Parts 264-265
requirements would apply to generators
that store their waste in tanks or
containers for very long periods ol: time
(i.e.. longer than 180 or 270 days)
because the quantity of waste present.
overtime, becomes significant.
Similarly, the potential for release of
hazardous waste to the environment
becomes significant where 100-1000 kg/
mo generators engage in waste
management in surface impoundments.'
waste piles, landfills, or land treatment
facilities. Thus, in order to fulfill its
mandate to protect human health and
the environment, EPA has rejected any
suggestions to reduce the Parts 264 and
265 facility standards.
B. Applicability Issues
1. Definition of "Small Quantity
Generator"
In the August 1.1985 proposal. EPA
proposed to amend 40 CFR 261.5 to
redefine a small quantity generator as
one who generates no more than
specified quantities of acutely
hazardous waste and no more than 100
kg of other hazardous waste in a
calendar month. The effect of the
proposed redefinition would have been
to remove 100-1000 kg/mo generators
from the S 261.5 exemption for small
quantity generators and subject them.
instead, to Parts 262-266,270, and 124 of
the hazardous waste regulatory
program. Under the proposed rules.
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would
have been one of two classes of large
quantity generator. The Agency also
proposed changes to Part 262 that would
specifically exempt these 100-1000 kg/
mo generators from a number of the
otherwise applicable administrative
requirements.
A number of commenters expressed
concern about the proposed redefinition
of the small quantity generator provision
to exclude generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo. In particular, they stated that many
of these generators were only now
becoming aware of their status as
regulated hazardous waste generators
and that for the most part, they
recognized themselves as "small
quantity generators". Changing these
generators to large quantity generators,
it was felt, would add to confusion and
reduce the likelihood of compliance. It
was also pointed out that many of the
education materials being used to
acquaint these generators with the
RCRA requirements, including many of
EPA's own materials, referred to this
class of generator as "small quantity
generators". Commenters suggested
several specific labels to differentiate
the various classes of generators.
including such terms as "small de
minimi's", "very small quantity
generators" or "extremely small
quantity generators".
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rulea and Regulations
In proposing to remove the 100-1000
KS/mo generators from { 281.5, the .
Agency was attempting to address the
complexity and confusion caused by
having multiple classes of small quantity
generator subject to significantly
different standards. The Agency is
sympathetic to the concerns of these
commenters and in no way intended the
redefinition to add to the confusion
which many of these firms may
experience in becoming subject to the
bulk of the RCRA regulatory program for
the first time. For the reasons discussed
below. EPA has decided not to alter the
existing definition of "small quantity
generator" but is making modifications
to § 261.5 that will provide a more
explicit labeling scheme for regulatory
purposes.
Section 261.5 has historically
addressed those hazardous waste
generators that were conditionally
exempt from most of the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Until the
HSWA of 1984 and the subsequent
codification of its early enactment
provisions on July 15.1985. only two
major classes of small quantity
generator existed: those generating or
accumulating acutely hazardous wastes
below certain quantity cutoffs and those
generating or accumulating below 1000
kg of most hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, both classes were largely
exempt from the standards applicable to
large quantity generators.
However, with the addition of a new
class of small quantity generator
designated by Section 3001(d) of HSWA
(i.e.. those generating between 100 kg
and 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a
calendar month) that would be subject
to most of the standards applicable to
large quantity generators, continued use
of the term "small quantity generator"
would have no regulatory significance
and would lead to confusion for the
previously exempt class of generators.
The proposed redefinition was
intended to distinguish between small
quantity generators that were
conditionally exempt from regulation
under § 261.5 (i.e., <100 kg/mo) and
those that would be subject to most of
the requirements applicable to large
quantity generators (i.e., 100-1000 kg/
mo). By removing the 100-1000 kg/mo
generator from § 261.5 and referring to
these generators by their actual quantity
limitations, the Agency intended to
provide a more explicit, and therefore
less confusing, regulatory scheme.
The Agency does not believe that the
commenters' suggestion of retaining the
term "small quantity generator" solely
for 100-1000 kg/mo generators or
creating new labels for different
categories of small quantity generators
will reduce confusion: such label* would
probably cause more confusion,
especially where states have
established their own small quantity
generator definitions and exclusion
levels. In fact, as a result of these
comments, the Agency' believes that the
term small quantity generator is no
longer sufficiently precise for most
regulatory purposes.
For this reason, the Agency is making
three regulatory changes affecting the
use of the term "small quantity
generator". First, the Agency is adding a
definition-of "small quantity generator"
to Section 260.10 as follows:
"Small quantity generator" means •
generator who generates lea* than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste in a calendar month.
This definition conforms to the existing
definition of the term and is being added
to § 260.10 to alleviate any potential
confusion over the definition of "small
quantity generator".
Second. EPA is finalizing the proposed
removal of generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo from the conditional exclusion
provisions of S 261.5 and will instead
refer to these generators in the
regulatory language as generators of
100-1000 kg/mo. This will retain the
original premise of the redefinition
which was to segregate in the
regulations those generators that are
predominantly exempt from regulation
(i.e. generators of less than 100 kg/mo of
hazardous waste and generators of
acutely hazardous waste in less than
specified quantities) from those who are
more fully regulated (i.e. 100-1000 kg/mo
generators). Since the 100-1000 kg/mo
generators are no longer excluded from
most of the Part 262 regulations by
inclusion in § 261.5, the applicable
portions of Parts 262-266,270, and 124
will apply to these generators, as
proposed.
Finally, the Agency is also modifying
references to the term "small quantity
generator" in i 261.5 and in other parts
of the regulations to provide more
explicit descriptions of the various
classes of small quantity generator.
Thus, generators of less than 100 kg/mo
of hazardous waste or less than
specified quantities of acutely
hazardous waste will also be referred to
by their quantity cutoffs or as generators
who are conditionally exempt under
Section 261.5. Section 261.5 will now be
titled "Special Requirements for
Hazardous Wastes Generated by
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators."
The removal of the term "small
quantity generator" from most
regulatory use will in no way preclude
continued use of the term "small
quantity generator" lor general
reference and educational purposes. Tha
Agency recognizes the widespread use
of the term "small quantity generator"
by States, trade associations. Congress
and others and has no intention of
interfering with the continued use of
that term by anyone choosing to use it to
refer to the broad class generating less
than 1000 kg in a calendar month. EPA
will also continue to use the term "small
quantity generator" in describing the
collective group of generators below
1000 kg/mo but will use the terms
"generators of less than 100 kg/mo" and
"100-1000 kg/mo generator" for
regulatory purposes. For example, in
discussing methodology for counting
quantities in order to determine
generator status, it would be appropriate
to refer to the small quantity generator
class since it includes both the 100-1000
kg/mo generators and generators of less
than 100 kg/mo.
2. Generator Category Determination
In the Proposal, the Agency discussed
a number of issues relevant to making a
determination of which generator
category a given firm belonged to at any
given point in time in order to determine
what requirements that establishment
was actually subject to. Among the
issues covered were which wastes need
not be included in quantity
determinations (e.g., spent lead-acid
batteries destined for reclamation and
used oil) and how to count wastes for
purposes of determining generator status
(e.g., counting of wastes reclaimed on-
site). The comments received on these
proposed rules raised a variety of
additional issues with respect to what
types of activities and wastes were
intended to be covered by the proposed
rules, and whether the rules were
applicable to "episodic generators" who
might be fully regulated in one month
but conditionally exempt the next.
These issues are discussed below. In
addition to the explanation provided in
this preamble, the Agency intends to
develop detailed. plain-English guidance
and education materials to help the 100-
1000 kg/mo generators understand and
comply with the hazardous waste
regulations.
a. Counting Amendment to §261.5: In
an effort to help clarify for small
hazardous waste generators which
wastes must be counted in determining
their generator category, the Agency
proposed an amendment to § 261.5.
The proposed amendment stated that
for purposes of making quantity
determinations under S 261.5, a
generator need not count wastes which
are specifically exempted from
-------
10152
Federal Register / VoJ. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
regulation (see. e.g.. § 281.4. or f 284.1(g)
(2). (4). (5) and (6)) or which were not •
subjpct to substantive regulation under
Paris 263. 264.285. and the on-site
accumulation provisions of § 262.34
weir not subject to counting for
purposes of determining generator
status. Wastes that were subject to the
provisions of § 261.6 (b) and (c)
(recyclable materials), however, would
be required to be counted in making
quantity determinations. The proposal
was designed to ensure that wastes that
are not regulated are not counted. In
addition, the counting amendment was
intended to eliminate the multiple
counting of wastes that are reclaimed
and then reused many times during the
calendar month. In this situation, the
waste would only be counted once, even
though it is reused and subsequently
becomes a hazardous waste again after
such reuse.
While the proposed amendment was
intended to make it clear that any
hazardous waste that is excluded or
exempted from substantive regulation
need not be included in the quantity
determinations, a number of
commenters either misunderstood the
scope of the amendment or believed that
additional clarification was necessary
for the amendment to be understood.
Although virtually all commenters on
the proposed amendment supported the
concept, several recommended specific
changes to improve the clarity of the
provision. Consequently, the Agency is
today finalizing a slightly modified
version of the amendment to § 261.5 to
clarify which wastes are counted in
making generator category
determinations.
One commenter correctly noted that
the amendment, as written, would not
apply to generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
since the amendment referred only to
the quantity determinations under
5 261.5. Sinci. under the rules being
promulgated today. 100-1000 kg/mo
generators will no longer be subject to
the conditional exclusion provisions of
§ 261.5. the counting amendment would
not have applied to these generators as
proposed. Since this was contrary to the
Agency's intent that the 5 261.5(c)
amendment be used by all generators in
determining their generator status, the
final regulatory language of this
provision is modified to indicate that the
amendment applies to quantity
determinations under Parts 261-266 and
270 of the hazardous waste rules.
A second modification to this
provision will make it clear that wastes
which are not regulated under Parts 262-
266 and 270 are not counted in making
quantity determinations.
The majority of commenters on this
provision asked for clarification on
which wastes or processes were
actually intended to be exempted from
counting since the references to broad
regulatory provisions or concepts such
as "subject to substantive regulations"
left many readers uncertain as to what
the Agency considered to be
"substantive regulation". For purposes
of this provision, the term "substantive
regulation" includes regulations which
are directly related to the storage.
transportation, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous wastes. Regulations which
would not be considered "substantive"
for purposes of this provision would be
requirements to notify and obtain an
EPA identification number or to file a
biennial report.
As a general guide, the following
materials are included in the general
category of exempted or excluded
wastes that would not be counted in
making quantity determinations for
purposes of determining hazardous
waste generator status:
• Any waste excluded from regulation
under § 261.4. For example, wastes
discharged to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) and commingled with
domestic sewage are not considered to
be solid wastes when discharged, under
§ 261.4(a). Therefore, they are excluded
from regulation under Subtitle C of
RCRA and not counted for purposes of
making quantity determinations (unless
they are stored or treated in regulated
units prior to being discharged). Such
wastes are regulated instead under the
Clean Water Act.2
• Any waste exempt from regulation
under 1281.6 or wastes that are not
stored or transported prior to being
reclaimed. For example, under
§ 261.6(a)(3)(ii), spent Wad-acid batteries
that are returned to a battery
manufacturer for regeneration are
exempt from regulation under Parts 262-
266.270. and 124. and. therefore, are not
counted in the quantity determination.
Also, used oil exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste,
unless mixed with other hazardous
wastes, is also currently exempt under
§ 261.6(a) and is not counted for
purposes of making quantity
determinations. EPA recently proposed
to list used oil as a hazardous waste and
1 Waste discharged to a pubtic sewer system a
exempted from RCRA to aroid duplicative
regulation since lucfa wastes are regulated under
the Clean Water Act. White disposal of hazardous
wastes in this manner is not a violation of RCRA.
the general pretreatment standards undirr the Clean
Water Act contained in 40 CFR 4033 prohibit the
introduction of wastes into POTWj thai would
interfere with the operation of the treatment plant
or subsequent POTW sludge management.
proposed special management standards
for used oil that is recycled. (See 50 FR
49164. November 29.1985.) These
proposals, if finalized, will continue to
exclude used oil from the quantity
determinations of Parts 281-266 and 270.
Under the proposed rules for used oil.
generators would count their used oil
separate)} from their other hazardous
wastes against a separate small quantity
generator cutoff that would be '.
established for recycled oil. Under those
proposed rules, generaiors would be
subject to less stringent standards for
their recycled used oil than for their
other hazardous wastes, provided they
do not mix other hazardous wastes with
their used oils or dispose of the used oil
rather than recyde it. Used oil which is
disposed of. or mixed with other
hazardous wastes, would be rej?ui«!(:d
like any other hazardous waste jn
-------
Federal Renter / Vol. 51. Nc. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
therefore, generators are required to
count for purposes of determining
generator status any-waste that is •
subject to the substantive regulations.
Wastes are only counted once, however.
A number of commenters claimed that
although EPA discussed this in the
preamble to the proposed rules, this
point was not made clear in the actual
regulatory language. The Agency agrees,
and thus has added § 261.5(d)(3) to
make it clear that a generator need not
count the hazardous waste generated
and then reclaimed and reused at the
site of generation if the hazardous waste
has already been included in the
monthly totals. The Agency also is
modifying § 261.5(d)(2) to make it
clear that you only count the residue
from treatment where the original
hazardous waste was not counted.
The following examples may help to
illustrate the regulatory scheme:
(Example 1) Manufacturer A uses
solvent in a degreasing process yielding
500 kg of spent solvent in a month. If the
solvent is to be reclaimed (e.g., distilled)
on-site and is not sorted or accumulated
prior to reclamation, it will qualify as a
solid (and hazardous) waste but it will
not be counted in the generator's
monthly totals. The 90 kg of still bottoms
from the distillation process are also
hazardous waste and must be counted
since they were not included in the
monthly total. Consequently, 'A' will not
be a generator of 100-1000 kg during the
month in question.
If the solvent is stored or accumulated
prior to distillation, the 500 kg of the
spent solvent will qualify as a
hazardous waste and will be counted in
'A's hazardous waste totals for the
month in which it was generated. The
still bottoms will also qualify as
hazardous waste, but will not be
counted because the spent solvents have
already been counted once. The
regenerated solvent, on the other hand,
will not be a solid or hazardous waste. It
will remain unregulated, just like the
virgin material.
(Example 2) Manufacturer A
generates 120 kg of hazardous spent
solvent in one month which he distills
without intervening storage. The
regenerated solvent is then reused.
Neither the spent solvent nor the
regenerated solvent is counted and "A"
is not a 100-1000 kg/mo generator.
Alternatively, "A" distills the spent
solvent, but stores it for less than 180
days before reclamation, and reuses the
regenerated solvent until spent again,
and then distills it once again. The spent
solvent would be counted because it
was stored before reclamation, but it
would only be counted once. "A" is now
a 100-1000 kg/mo generator. If the spent
solvent were stored for more than 180
days before reclamation, "A" would
need a storage permit.
(Examples) "A".generates 500 kg of
hazardous spent solvent in one month
and stores it in an earthen basin which
is an impoundment, not a tank. The
spent solvent is then discharged to a
POTW. "A" must count the total
quantity of spent solvent, as the
impoundment is not a wastewater
treatment unit by definition (§ 260.10),
and hence, "A" is a 100-1000 kg/mo
generator.
(Example 4) An automotive services
center generates spent lead-acid
batteries, which it sends to a battery
breaker. The service center does not
count the spent batteries in its monthly
total because they are exempt from
regulation until they reach the battery
breaker. (See § 266.80(a).)
b. Generators of Acutely Hazardous
Waste: Section 3001{d}(7) of HSWA
states that the requirements applicable
to generators of acute hazardous waste
listed in §§ 261.31, 261.32. or 261.33(e)
are not affected by the HSWA
amendments.3 Thus, today's regulatory
amendments will not alter those
requirements applicable to generators of
acutely hazardous wastes and these
generators will remain subject to the
exclusion limits and requirements
contained in § 261.5(e). The same
counting rules as those described above
are applicable.
c. Generators of Non-acutely
Hazardous Waste in Quantities of Less
than 100 kg/wo: Section 3001 of HSWA
gives EPA authority to promulgate
regulations for generators of less than
100 kg of hazardous waste per month if
the Administrator determines that such
standards are necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The
Agency is not required to promulgate
such regulations and it did not propose
to further extend coverage of the
hazardous waste program to this class
of hazardous waste generator in the
August 1,1985 proposal.
In the Proposal, the Agency stated
that it had no data to indicate that
additional regulation of generators of
less than 100 kg/mo of non-acutely
hazardous waste would provide any
significant additional level of
environmental protection. Generators of
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste
account for only .07 percent of the total
• quantity of hazardous waste generated
nationally. A review of damage cases
also indicated that very few incidents
involved quantities below 100 kg.
Consequently, none of the regulations
3 Al (his time, only one acute hazardout waste,
dioxin. ii listed outside of \ 281.33(e).
promulgated today, with one exception,
alter the existing § 261.5 provisions
applicable to generators of less than 100
kg/mo. As discussed under the on-site
accumulation provisions later in this
preamble, the Agency has decided-to
modify § 261.5(g) to subject generators
of less than 100 kg/mo who exceed the
accumulation limit of 1000 kg to the
modified standards for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo rather than to full
regulation.
d. Determination of Generator Status:
A number of commenters asked for
clarification of the requirements that
would apply to generators that do not
generate hazardous waste at a uniform
rate. Such "episodic generators" may
generate, for example, less than 100 kg
of hazardous waste one month.
quantities of 100-1000 kg other months.
or may periodically exceed 1000 kg in a
single month.
Several commenters requested
clarification of what standards would
apply to these episodic generators under
different circumstances. Various
circumstances for which clarification
was requested were raised; for example:
(1) A generator that exceeds the 100
kg/mo exclusion level periodically as a
result of special operations such as tank
cleaning;
(2) A generator that usually generates
between 100 and 1000 kg/mo, but
exceeds 1000 kg in one month;
(3) A generator that exceeds 1000 kg/
mo several times and accumulates ail
waste in a single tank;
(4) A generator that periodically
exceeds 1000 kg/mo and separates the
"under 1000 kg/mo" waste from the
"over 1000 kg/mo" waste.
The Agency has always taken the
position that a generator may be
subjected to different standards at
different times, depending upon his
generation rate in a given calendar
month (See. e.g., 45 FR 76620, November
19,1980). Thus, a generator of less than
100 kg in one calendar month would be
deemed a conditionally exempt
generator in that month, subject only to
the requirements of § 261.5; however, if
in the next calendar month, he generates
more than 100 kg but less than 1000 kg of
any regulated hazardous waste, he is
subject to all of the standards being
promulgated today, as his generator
status has changed. Furthermore, if he
generates more than 1000 kg in any
calendar month, he is deemed to be a
large quantity generator, subject to all
applicable standards. Thus, any non-
exempts waste that is generated during
a calendar month in which the 1000 kg/
mo cutoff is exceeded is subject to full
regulation until it is removed from the
-------
10154 Federal Ragkt.r / Vol. si No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
generator's tile. If such folly regulated
waste is mixed or combined with wrote
exempt or excluded from regulation or
waste that is subject to rednced
regulation under today's final rule, then
all of the waste is subject to full
regulation until the total mixture is
removed from the generator's site. If. on
the other hand the generator stores
separately that waste generated during
a month in which less than 1000 kg (but
more than 100 kg] of hazardous waste is
generated, from waste generated during
a month in which more than 1000 kg is
generated, the former is subject to
today's reduced requirements, while the
latter is subject to full regulation.
Therefore, generators who expect to
periodically exceed the 1000 kg/mo
cutoff for the reduced requirements
being promulgated today should be '
prepared to ship their waste off-site if
they wish to avoid being subject to full
regulation.
Several commenters have suggested
alternative schemes for determining
applicable standards, all of which the
Agency must reject. One commenter
suggested that generators would
determine their generator status on the
basis of a "moving average" over a 12
month period. If. for example, a
generator exceeded 1000 kg/mo for
several months but averaged between
100 and 1000 kg over the course of the
year, he would be subject to the reduced
standards being promulgated today for
100-1000 kg/mo generators. The major
problem with this approach is that
generators would not be able to
determine what standards they were
subject to until as much as a year after
they should have been complying with a
specific set of requirements. For
example, a generator who generates
over 1000 kg the first month but who
expects his moving average to fall below
1000 kg after 12 months could avoid
preparing a contingency plan or
complying with the other requirements
of Part 282 applicable to large
generators. This would also present
enforcement problems, since it would be
unclear which standards apply at any
given point. Thus, the Agency believes
that such an approach would not
significantly reduce the implementation
difficulties it was designed to address.
The second approach suggested was
establishment of a uniform time and
quantity cutoff for all generators.
applying the same standards to the
same quantities, regardless of monthly
generation rates. Under this approach.
all generators would be allowed to
utilize the 180- and 270-day storage
periods, provided the 6000 kg "cap" was
not exceeded for all accumulated
hazardous wastes so that the reduced
standards of Part 282 for 100-1000 kg/
mo generators would be extended to aU
generators who do not exceed 6000 kg
on-site.
While this approach would be simpler
to administer, it would be inconsistent
with the approach that Congress has
directed the Agency to take in
developing standards for generators
who produce different quantities of
waste. While the Agency is authorized
to consider such factors as small
business impacts and management
capabilities for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators, it i¬ explicitly authorized
to do so for larger generators. The
Agency may not ignore in this
rulemaking the fact that the statute has
established generation rate as a factor
in determining whether business
impacts may be considered. Thus, as
discussed further in Unit III.C.4.. below.
the Agency may not extend to all
generators the same time and quantity
limitations applicable to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators.
C. Part 262 Generator Responsibilities
EPA is today finalizing amendments
to Section 281.5 that will subject
hazardous waste generators of 100-1000
kg/mo to the Part 282 generator
standards and simplify a number of
those requirements. This section of the
preamble discusses the proposed
amendments to Part 262 to relieve 100-
1000 kg/mo generators of some of the
administrative burden of complying with
the hazardous waste regulatory
program, the comments received on
each proposal-and the Agency's decision
with respect to each of the proposed
amendments.
The specific Part 282 requirements
that EPA is amending for application to
' 100-1000 kg/mo generators are as
follows:
• §262.20 (General Manifest
Requirements) is amended to exempt
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo from all
manifest requirements if their hazardous
waste is reclaimed under certain
contractual agreements provided the
generator complies with specific
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
this section. Some modifications to this
amendment are being made in response
to comments.
• § 262.34 (Accumulation Time) is
amended to extend the period of on-site
storage allowed for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators without the need to obtain
interim status or a RCRA permit from 90
days to 180 (or 270) days for quantities
not to exceed 6000 kg. In addition.
§ 262.34 is amended to specify the
requirements that would apply to such
on-site storage by these generators.
• Anew§2«2.44 toSubpartDof Part
282 is added to exempt generators of
100-4000 kg/mo from the requirements
to file and maintain records of biennial
and exception reports. This exemption
does not apply to record* pertaining to
hazardous waste determinations under
§ 262.40(d) and the extension of
retention periods under f 262.40(c).
1. Notification and Identification
Number Requirements—i 282.12
In the August 1 proposal. EPA
proposed that generators of 100-1000
kg/mo be subject to 5 282.12. wfach
provides that generators not excluded
under 5 262.10 or the provisions of
§ 261.5: (t) Must not treat, store, dispose
of. transport, or offer for transportation,
hazardous waste without receiving an
EPA Identification Number: (2) must
obtain an EPA identification number
(and may do so by completing and
submitting EPA form 8700-12); and (3)
must not offer their hazardous waste to
transporters or to treatment, storage.
and disposal facilities that have not
received an EPA identification number.
The majority of commenters on the
requirement to obtain and use an EPA
identification number supported the
Agency's proposal not to exempt 100-
1000 kg/mo generators from this
provision. EPA believes that a
centralized data base of firms subject to
regulation under RCRA is essential for
effective compliance monitoring and
enforcement, as well us for
characterizing the regulated community
to provide information to Congress and
to make resource projections. Use of a
unique identifying number is necessary
to effectively manage any large data
base. Several commenters added that
requiring identification numbers for all
generators who are subject to
substantial regulation minimizes
confusion in the regulated community.
Commenters who opposed the
requirement cited the Agency's cost
estimate of $40.00 per generator to
obtain a U.S. EPA Identification
Number, the complexity of the
application form, and the lack of a
specific statutory requirement for
Identification Numbers. However, the
Agency does not believe that the
requirement to obtain a U.S. EPA
Identification Number is overly
burdensome to these generators, given
the important function which this
requirement fulfills.
Some commenters who opposed the
requirement cited the complexity of the
EPA Form 8700-12. "Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity." The
Agency does not believe that the form is
overly complex. EPA Regional Offices
-------
Feaarol
/Voka, No. 5« / Monday. Marck 24, 19ml
have already received over 2&000.
applications for U.S.EPA ID numbers
from, generators of less, than 1000, kg/me.
In some cases, these applications, were
prompted by requinmente from
transporters and facilities-that handle
waste from these generators. In other
cases. States require identification.
numbers for generators of less than. IflOO
kg/mo-. While the Agency is unaware of
any instances of 16O-MOO kg/mo
generators being unable to complete the
form, EPA has initiated a major
education program through tsade
associations. States., and greats to local
governments and others, which waaki
widely disseminate iaJoemation that will
help generators comply with today/a
rule. The Agency has also prepared a
supplemental instruction sheet to
provide additional information to
generators of less the* 1000 kg/mo wao
apply for US. EPA Identification
Numbers. These-instructions wiH
contain the EPA waste codes for wastes
commonly produced by these
generators. This mformation. will atiow
many generators, te complete tn*
application, without additional:
information- or research. In addition,
generators, may call meRCRA/
Superfund Hotline or the Smalt Business
Hotline for information- and assistance.
These numbers are provided at the
beginning of today's notice.
Some commenters suggested
establishing, a telephone system for
obtaining identification- numbers. EPA
considered this kind of system in the
proposal and1 concluded that the lack of
a signed record from the waste handler
would allow a high potential for
confusion and misrepresentation. The '
Agency still believes this to be true and'
no commerrter was able to suggest a
mechanism far a voiding this.
One coram enter suggested that EPA
modify the application form 10 require
generators to indicate whether they
generate less than, 100 kg/mo, 100-1000
kg/mo, or more than 1000 kg/mo. EPA
recently modified the form to require
generators to indicate, whether they
generate more than 1000 kg/mo or leas
than 1000 kg/mo of hazardous wastes.
The Agency does not believe that
there ia any justification. £er exempting
"infrequent generators" from the
Identification Number requirement, a*
suggested by one commenter. EPA
believes that all MXMGOB kg/mo,
generators should be known to- the
Agency, however infrequently they fit
into the category, to allot follow-up if
any problems arise. Also, use of a* EPA
IdentifieatioB Number when wastes are-
shipped off-site helps enforcement
authorities to keep- track el watte
shipments.
The Agency believes that the EPA
Identification Number requirement, aa
proposed, is the best system for ensuring
that the Agency has adequate
information about these new members
of the regulated) community.
Consequently, EPA is not modifying
S 262.12 for generators of 10O-1QOO kg/
mo.
2. The Hazardous Waste Manifest
System—Part 282, Subpart B
This Unit discusses the proposed
modifications to the hazardous waste
manifest system for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators for wastes shipped off-site.
The issues raised in the comments on
the Proposal include me "single*" versus
"multiple" copy or "round-trip"
manifest, the proposed exemption, from-
manifesting for wastes- shipped under
certain reclamation agreements,, and the
applicability of the manifest waste
minimization certification provisions of
the HSWA.
a. Number of Copies ojtcf Use of the
Manifest: The Proposal for generator* of
100-1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste
contained several modifications to- the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
system. The proposed rales would hare
exempted 100-1000 kg/ me- generators
from the following requirementor If to-
compete a multiple copy manifest' feem-
ff 2a?.22J, 3) to retain » copy for the
generators" records fj-262.33{a#3))v and
3} provide multiple copies of the
manifest to the waste transporter
(S 262.23f b». The effect el mes»
proposed modification* to- the manifest
system would aave been to exempt
these generators from the "roamfcpip" at
"tracking- fancHow of the manifest
system {/.«, establishment a* a paper
trail Jar enforcement pmposes? while
confiaaiBg to requite that a single copy
accompany the waste shipment a* *
means to provide notice to subsequent
handlers; that me waste ii hazardous,
No modifications were proposed! to the-
requirements tot fatty complete the
manifest Somt and ta use established
systems- for obtaining forms, from the
appropriate States except fora: ptopocsd
elimination of die- manifest document
number from tne. requited adoxmatioav
These modifications to the manifest
system wese intended to minimize
impacts on small business while sa»
meeting th* underlying:goal of HSWA to
protect human health aad the
environment. By reducing some of the
paperwork requirement* associated
with the full manifest systemv EPA
believed that both of those goals could
be served. In particular EPA believed
that ua featuvemeflt far mesa-
genentata I* obtain an EPA
identification number, complete- a smate
copy oimarmaaifeit tea-altoff-eini
laipmantaandforfaotttieatokeep
these, manifest* ia its Sat created) a
significant: legal obtigaam* mat the
waste would be managed at approve*
hazardous waste management Vitiaa.
as required under the HSWA. The-
Agency believed that this legal
obligation- would not be significantly
enhanced by requiring the use,
distribution, and retention of multiple:
copies-of the manifest bum.
to requesting public comment oa «*
issue of die "single copy'' manifest
systemv. EPA pointed out that it was: net
fully convinced that the relief being
offered was significant enough to offset
the potential ceansioa which the single
copy system might cause, or to offset the
toss, of the- "tracking" function of (a*
manifest a* an enforcement meenaaisai
EPA received extensive negative
comment oa the proposed ameadmenia-
which have-eeavincad the Agency ma*
the multiple copy manifest syetaat
should be- adopted in me 8aa* rales.
Many ceaonaaters. assarted mat
exempting toViOOe kg/ma pmeratoct
from the "round-trip" hazardous; wast*
maamiat system (i.e. return of & signed;
copy by me designated facilrry to the-
ganerator as proof that the shipment
anwedj! would BO* rigaifieantiy reonaa-
admmistEaiixs burden. Most
commenters wna- npremmted botb smaU
and large businesses. State agencies, and
firms kt tae> waste- mananemanl imtoatry
believed that mainfumation lequastadl
am me manifest was not paznomnrh/
difficult at piemde. and megpoMnoe
object to the proposed reaa Menu ma ta>
provide/ essentially fuH maniaiat
iaienmatioR. Masty eomsaoiitua signed
that requimg °>U maaifast mfoanktion
waa aeproptiarte- Sot all gemuateas. andi
that the preparation, of multipia- capiea
of the manifast presented no
iaerementai burden over a smgkt copy
system since manifests are geaetaJly
obtained in. carbon setsw reqnnnng no
real additional effort. Thasa commenters
also painted out tha* retention of a copy
for me generator's files poses * minimal
burden, due; to tie limited manbetof
shMnnefita moat IflH-ttAO kg/me will
need to- make under the extended
aecamulatJoB periede being promulgated
today for these generators (See Unit
IU.C.44 Givett the- limited number of
shipments- most generators will need to
rne&e- to treatment or dtsposal meiHties.
in a year (>.e: 2-4>>. commenters asserted
that fating, a manifest copy and replacing
it wkh a copy signed and returned by
the designated facility was simply not
-------
Federal Register / Voh si; No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
10156
burdensome. Furthermore, virtually all
commenters. many of whom represented
small business, also indicated that ••
retention of a copy of the manifest •
containing signatures of the transporter
and facility would be done in any case.
and was essential to demonstrate that a
business had met its legal
responsibilities in cases where the
waste is mishandled by subsequent
Handlers.
Another major concern of many
commenters with respect to the single
copy manifest system was the confusion
that would result from having two
different manifest systems in place for
100-1000 kg/mo generators and for
generators of over 1000 kg. While some
commenters representing small
businesses believed that the single copy
manifest system was workable and
provided a real reduction in
administrative burden, virtually all other
members of the waste management and
regulated community argued for a
uniform manifest system. Many
commenters representing larger
corporations and firms with multiple
facilities argued that a single uniform
system would be the least confusing and
least burdensome system. In addition.
many commenters believed that
different State and Federal requirements
would make it extremely burdensome
for many small businesses to determine
which manifest system applied to them.
States, waste haulers, and facilities
would also have the added burden of
trying to verify the generator status of
those utilizing a single copy form and
because of the difficulty in
administering a dual system, they would
simply require that all generators
comply with the full system.
One commenter also argued that the
Agency's proposed single copy manifest
was inconsistent with Congressional
intent since the hammer provisions of
Section 3001[d)(8). which included a
requirement for return of a signed
manifest by the facility to the generator,
were intended by Congress to serve as
the minimum regulatory standards.
However, the Agency can find no
evidence in either the statute or the
legislative history that would lead the
Agency to this conclusion. The plain
language of the hammer provision states
". . . nothing in this section shall be
construed to be determinative of those
standards appropriate for small quantity
generators", and Section 3001(d)(8)
explicitly sets out the "minimum"
standards that must be included in the
regulations. In addition, the legislative
history of Section 3001(d) indicates that
the provisions of subsection (d)(6) were
to be regarded as statutory minimums
rather than-the hammer provisions of
subsection (d)(8). See S. Rep. Mo. 284.
98th Cong.. 1st Seas. 11-12 (19JBJ; H.R.
Rep. No. 1133.98th Cong. 2nd Sess. 101.
103-104 (1984). Thus, the statute and
legislative history provide extensive
evidence that Congress gave EPA broad
authority to establish whatever
standards it deemed appropriate for
these generators, and to vary the
hazardous waste standards to minimize
burden, consistent with protection of
human health and the environment.
A number of commenters raised
concerns with respect to the
ineffectiveness of the single copy
manifest system in ensuring that waste
shipments are properly tracked from
generator to transporter to facility.
Under the proposed manifest system, a
generator would be required to complete
a single copy of the manifest and to give
it to the transporter who in turn would
be required to sign it and turn it over to
the designated facility upon delivery of
the waste shipment. The Agency felt
that this chain created a substantial
legal obligation that the waste would be
managed at a Subtitle C facility.
However, a number of commenters
asserted that such a system would serve
only to encourage unscrupulous
transporters to either alter manifest
information or simply dump the waste
illegally, since the generator or others do
not have any record of his accepting the
waste shipment. A number of States
were concerned that the absence of
multiple copies of the manifest in the
records of the generator, transporter.
and facility would completely eliminate
the ability of EPA or the States to
enforce the requirement that the waste
be managed at Subtitle C facilities.
Further, these commenters felt that,
whether or not the Agency taken an
aggressive enforcement posture with
respect to 100-1000 kg/mo generators,
the mere existence of the multiple
signed copies of a manifest serve as an
essential incentive to properly manage
the waste.
The Agency finds persuasive the
arguments presented by commenters
that requiring only the single copy
manifest does not offer significant
regulatory relief. The Agency has also
concluded, based on public comment.
that the single copy system may be
insufficient to meet the statutory
mandate to promulgate rules for 100-
1000 kg/mo generators which are
sufficient to protect human health and
the environment
The difference in burden between a
single copy of the manifest and a
multiple copy of the manifest, both
containing essentially full information.
appears to be negligible, so there is no
real reduction in burden from the single
copy system. Retention of a manifest
copy by the generator is also minimally
burdensome and is in the generator's
best interest. The absence of a round-
trip or multiple copy manifest could
encourage, rather than protect against,
mismanagement of these wastes. Most
importantly, requiring the generator to
retain a copy for his records and provide
multiple copies of the manifest to the
transporter provides an essential
incentive for all parties to fulfill their
responsibilities under RCRA. Thus, the
Agency has decided not to adopt the
single-copy manifest system, as
proposed.
Consequently, generators of 100-1000
kg/mo will be subject to all of the
requirements of Subpart B of Part 262
with respect to the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest except for certain waste
reclamation shipments as provided in
Section 262.20. discussed below.; In
addition, these generators will be
subject to the recordkeeping provisions
of Subpart D of Part 282 with respect to
manifest copies, but will not be subject
to the associated exception and biennial
reporting requirements, as discussed in
Unit ffl.C.3. below.
b. Manifest Exemption for Certain
Reclamation Shipments: In the Proposal.
EPA proposed to exempt generators of
100-1000 kg/mo from all of the manifest
requirements of Part 262, Subpart B,
provided the waste was reclaimed under
certain specific conditions, including:
1. The generator would be required to
have a written agreement with a
recycling facility to collect and reclaim a
specified waste and to deliver
regenerated material back to the
generator at a specified frequency;
2. The vehicle used to transport the
waste to the recycling facility and to
deliver regenerated material back to the
generator must be owned and operated
by the reclaimer of the waste;
3. Either the generator or the reclaimer
must retain title to the material at all
times: and
4. The generator and transporter/
reclaimer must comply with specific
recordkeeping requirements.
Specific regulatory requirements
which would have to be met in lieu of
the manifest requirements were
proposed as follows:
1. A copy of the reclamation
agreement is kept in the files of both the
reclaimer and the generator for a period
of at least three years;
2. The reclaimer/transporter records
(for example, on a log or shipping
document) the following information
(which would be required of
-------
/ Vat' 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Mes
transporters- ia a praaosod amendment
• Tha Bams, addsasa and EPA
identification number of the generator;
• T^ quantity af waste accepted;
• All DOT required skipping
information;
• The date the waste is accepted by
the transporter;
'3. The above record accompanies the
waste as it is shipped from generator to
recycling facility; and
4. The reclaimer/transporter keeps
these records for at least three years.
In proposing this exemption, EPA
indicated that such agreements satisfied
the Agency's concerns that subsequent
handlers of the waste would have
sufficient notification and knowledge of
the hazardous nature of the wastes
being handled and that the wastes
would be tracked properly from the
generator to the reclaimer and would
not be mismanaged, fir addition, the
Agency believed that such an exemption
would encourage beneficial recycling
activities and would avoid discouraging
current operations of this nature by not
imposing paperwork obligations that
have no corresponding- environmental
benefit. The Agency requested comment
on the proposed manifest exemption and
sought comment on other situations that
might warrant reduced manifest
requirements.
While some coramenters opposed the
proposed manifest exemption as
providing an opportunity for "sham
recycling", most commenters suggested
that the exemption be expanded to
cover all recycling- situations or to cover
a broader scope of activity than that
proposed. Some commenters felt that the
narrow nature of the exemption would •
afford some segments of the recycling
industry an unfair competitive
advantage. One eommenter suggested •
that the exemption apply to reclamation
agreements with firms that coiled
wastes for recycling but do not recltus
the wastes at their own facility, but
rather, ship them via a licensed
hazardous waste haaisr to a separately
owned and operated reclamation .
facility. This commeater argued that the
same degree of protection would be
afforded under these circumstances as
under the proposed system since the
waste would still be transported and
reclaimed at licensed or permitted
facilities. Other commenters argued that
the exemption should also apply to
legitimate recycling situations where
ownership of the material may in fact
change hands, such as cases where
reclaimed material is not returned to the
original generator but is instead sold to
a third party. One eommenter argued
that the mere existence of a contract
provides sufficient notice ««r aao.BV>«jM
handlers, of the nature of the waste- and
that adequate economic incentives, exist
in any recycling situation to ensure
proper management
The proposed restiic'tioBS oii
applicability of the manifest exemption
were ir.tended to serve the same
functions that the manifest system does.
The most important of these, the
"tracking" function of the manifest, must
be replaced with adequate contractual
relationships and commercial incentives
if the exemption is to meet the test of
protecting human health and the
environment while reducing
administrative burden.
The Agency has consideied various
ways in which to expand the
applicability of the exemption, including,
those suggested by commenters, and has*
concluded that unless the following
proposed restrictions are retained, the
exemption would allow unscrupulous
persons to easily avoid the hazardous
waste management system:
Ffrst, the Agency believes that the
requirement that the generator and
reclaimer have a written agreement for
collection and reclamation of a specified
waste and for redelivery of regenerated
material at a specified frequency is
essential. Such an arrangement (usually
called a tolling" arrangement] provides
tracking and accounting of waste in
place of the manifest system in waste
disposal situations. A simple
reclamation contract without return of
regenerated material to the generator
wouW provide no tracking of the waste.
since the generator wouM have no
incentive to check on subsequent waste
handling after he turns it over to the
transporter or reclaimer. In addition.
allowing the exemption in any
contractual situation would make no
distinction between recycling activities
and off-site waste disposal activities.
where normally there arc also
contractual obligations. Requiting return
of regenerated material as part of the
contractual relationship places-the
proper incentive on die reclaimer to
actually reclaim material for delivery to
the generator (otherwise he would be in
breach of the contract] and on th«
generator to scrutinize the practices of
the reclaimer. Unlike off-site waste
disposal the generator would have
some vested economic interest in.
ensuring proper management of the
waste.
Second, the Agency believes that the
vehicle used to transport the waste to
the recycling facility and to deliver
regenerated material back to the
generator must be owned and operated
by the reclaimer. This requirement
precludes third parties not bound by the
reclamaaa* agreement (A*, independent
transporter*-) from enieria« the cm*ei»
loop created by th* tellis* amagftmes*.
This ia necessary t» ensure tbet fee.
waste is not misataflaged. Eve* if a
generator were to skip- his wast* via a
licensed hazardous; wast* hauler, he-
would have ncrassMtanca that the waata*
would actually bedekvend to the
reclamation facility with which, a* ha*
contracted. In such a thitd-ptrty
transporter situation, where th*
transporter has no vested interest ia
proper handling and management of the
waste, the Agency would deem it
necessary to impose additional
significant recordkeeping requirements.
on all handlers of the waste, and
possibly impose additional requirements-
on the generator. This would defeat the
purpose of the manifest exemption, and
may even impose greater burden than
the'manifest itself.
Third, the proposed recordkeeping
requirements are an tasential ingredient
to providing the "paper trail" no longer
provided by the manifest system.
White-the Agency origjnall&r
considered the retention of ownership
requirement td be another essential:
element due the vested interest it
created (i.e., continuing legal
responsibility for the material), a second
look at this requirement, in light of
comments received, has convinced EPA
that it is unnecessary. The requirements:
of toiling and that the reclaimer and
transporter be the same entity appear to
adequately address the same concerns
underlying the ownership requirement
While the vested interest in proper
management of the waste may be
theoretically increased if ownership is
retained by the reclaimer or gemerator, it
does not appear to add significantly to
the economic interest created by the
tolling arrangement la addition, the.
concern that third parties would break
the chain between generator and
reclaimer is addressed by the
requirement that the reclaimer and
transporter be one entity. Moreover, the
retention of ownership requirement may
result in needless restriction on the type
of commercial arrangements allowed
between generators and reclaimers (e.g.,
where a reclaimer buys the waste from
the generator and sells regenerated
material back to the generator or to
other parties). Therefore, the Agency is
deleting the ownership requirement from
the final rule.
A number of commenters suggested
that the Agency be more explicit in the
regulation with respect to the periods of
retention of the contractual agreements
and the transportation logs since the
proposed rule did not specify when the
-------
10158i___Fedgral_Re^iter^yol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
3-year recordkeeping period wai to
begin. Consequently, tht Agency is
modifying the regulatory language of •'
this amendment to specify that a copy "of
the reclamation agreement must be kept
in the generator and reclaimer/
transporter's files for 3 years after the
expiration of the agreement. A copy of
the collection log or shipping paper for
each shipment must be kept in the
transporter's files for a period of 3 years
after the date of the shipment. •
Several commenters also requested
clarification on the applicability of the
proposed exemption to waste mixtures
where most, but not all. of the
constituents were reclaimed. In the
specific example cited, the Agency was
asked to clarify whether spent cartridge
filters used in dry cleaning operations
would qualify for the exemption, even
though only a portion of the waste
constituents are actually reclaimed. The
Agency believes such waste mixtures
should also qualify for the manifest
exemption, provided that the other
conditions of the exemption are met.
There is no basis for distinguishing
between, for example, bulk spent
solvents that have impurities removed
by a reclaimer, which impurities must be
subsequently managed as hazardous
waste, and waste constituents in a
mixture that may not be reclaimed and
must be disposed of as a hazardous
waste by the reclaimer. In both cases.
the manifest exemption for shipments to
the reclaimer would not affect the
responsibility of the reclaimer to
properly manage the residues from the*
reclamation process.
Another commenter requested
clarification on whether the requirement
that reclaimed material be returned to
the generator limited the exemption to
those situations where the generator
received back the same waste sent for
reclamation. The requirement that the
generator receive regenerated material
back from the reclaimer was intended to
ensure that the generator maintain a
vested interest in ensuring that the
reclamation facility was in fact engaged
in bona fide recycling. However, the
Agency recognizes that most
reclamation is conducted through
commingling of relatively small
quantities of recyclable materials from a
number of generators. The manifest
exemption only requires that the
generator receive regenerated material
back from the reclaimer, not that it be
the identical material as was shipped to
the reclaimer. The only requirement for
receiving regenerated material back is
(hat it be of the same type or product
specification as the material originally
shipped for reclamation. While the
Agency recognizes that this requirement
will limit the exemption to situations
where the generator purchases
reclaimed solvent from one source, we
do not agree with those commenters
who believe this provides an unfair
competitive advantage to firms with
reclamation facilities. While the
manifest exemption may reduce the
paperwork burden for some firms who
have waste materials collected on a
frequent basis, the Agency does not
believe that it provides such a reduction
in burden that companies qualifying for
the exemption would be able to reduce
costs significantly.
Other commenters asserted that the -
proposed exemption would be
appropriate for generators of more than
1000 kg/mo who recycle their wastes
under the same circumstances. V/hile
the Agency recognizes that some of the
regulatory amendments being
promulgated today for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo could be considered for
larger generators, to do so would require
extensive review of the existing
hazardous waste management system
and case-by-case determinations as to
the appropriateness of specific
requirements. Furthermore, the elements
that the Agency must consider in
adopting rules for small quantity
generators, including the economic
impacts of full regulation on small
businesses, are not necessarily relevant
to the rules applicable to larger quantity
generators. Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating the-manifest exemption
today only for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators.
c. Waste Minimization: Under section
3002{b) of HSWA, all generators must
certify on the manifest required under
subsection (a)(5) that they have in place
a program to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of the waste they
generate to a degree determined by the
generator to be economically
practicable. Generators must also certify
that their currant method of
management is the most practicable
method available to minimize present
and future threat to human health; and
the environment.
On July IS. 1985, EPA published a rule
codifying a number of interim HSWA
requirements (50 FR 28702). A revised
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
Form (EPA Form 8700-22) was included
in the Appendix to Part 262, and
contained a revised certification
statement incorporating the waste
minimization provision. In the
Codification Rule, EPA explained that
the waste minimization provision did
not apply to small quantity generators
generating less than the quantities of
acutely hazardous waste specified in
§ 261.5 or to generators of less than 1000
kg of other hazardous waste, unless the
generator accumulated quantities which
exceeded 1000 kg, and thus became
subject to Part 262. The waste
minimization requirements were not
applicable to these generators because
section 3002(b) refers to "the manifest
required by [section 3002] subsection
(a)(5)" and the interim manifest
provisions are imposed by section
3001{d), not 3002(a)(5). However.
because section 3001(d) of RCRA
requires EPA to establish standards for
100-1000 kg/mo generators under
sections 3002,3003, and 3004. the waste
minimization certification requirements
would apply to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators upon promulgation of such
standards. Since EPA did not propose to
exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators from
the waste minimization certification
requirements of section 3002(b) when it
proposed rules for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators on August l, 1985, these
generators would be required to certify
compliance with the waste minimization
provision when the standards under
today's rule become effective.
EPA believes that requiring 100-1000
kg/mo generators to comply with the
waste minimization certification !.
provision imposes little or no additional
administrative or technical burden and
could, in fact, have real environmental
benefit. However, since the Agency did
not provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on the
appropriateness of this provision for
100-1000 kg/mo generators, EPA is
publishing a separate notice elsewhere
in today's Federal Register which
explicitly requests comment on the
potential burden which this requirement
could impose on generators of 100-1000
kg/mo. The specific reasons for
proposing to apply the waste
minimization certification provision to
these generators are described in detail
in that notice. As noted in the other
Federal Register notice, EPA will accept
public comment on this provision for 30
days. If, after consideration of the
comments, EPA determines that no
exemption from the waste minimization
certification requirement is warranted at
this time, 100-1000 kg/mo generators
will need to comply with the
requirement by operation of law as of
the date that the other Part 262
requirements take effect (i.e.. six months
from today).
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting—Part
262. Subpart D
In the proposed rules for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo. EPA attempted to
-------
No. 5S / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Kales and
- -o—...WUMWJ itijitice" tile; rococdiceepinfl
and reporting burden on these
generators, consistent with the statutory
goals of protecting human health and the
environment while reducing impacts on
small business to the extent feasible.
Specific proposed modifications to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of Subpart D of Part 262
included:
• A proposed exemption from
the recordkeeping requirements of
§ 262.40{a) for manifest retention and
5 262.40(b) dealing with retention of
Biennial and Exfieption Reports;
• A proposed exemption from the
reporting requirements of § 282.41
(Biennial Reports) and § 262.42
(Exception Reports).
This section of the preamble
addresses the comments received on
these proposed modifications to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and the Agency's final
decision in each of these areas.
a. Bjecordkeepiag—§ 262.40: As noted
in Unit IILC.2. of today's preamble. EPA
received extensive comment on the
proposed single copy manifest system
which proposed to eliminate the need
for retention of manifest copies as well
as requirements for the use of a multiple
copy manifest when shipping waste off-
site. A large number of commenters
were generally supportive of efforts to
reduce recordkeeping requirements to-
the maximum extent feasible, and many
felt that no recordkeeping requirements
whatsoever should be imposed on 100-
1000 kg/mo generators. However, many
of these same commenters, when
discussing the proposed single copy
manifest, pointed out that most
generators would opt to retain a copy of
the manifest for their own records; in
order to have a record of their waste
management shipments, regardless of
whether it was required by EPA. While
some of these commenters did not want
the retention of manifest copies to be
required, they nevertheless felt such
recordkeeping to be prudent. Other
commenters believed that retention of
manifest copies should be required, and
that such a requirement does not impose
an unreasonable burden since, as noted
above, virtually all generators would
retain a copy for their records in any
case. These commenters also asserted
that the existence of a copy of the
manifest in the generator's records.
containing the signature of the
. transporter and ultimately the signature
of the designated facility when the
manifest copy was returned, was
essential.
The Agency agrees with these
commenters that retention of manifest
copies showfd be required. Existence of
such records may be the only defense a
geaeiator would have in enforcement
actions or other litigation if the single
manifest wer« to be changed by the
transporter or if the wasta i«
mismanaged. The existence of these
records would allow a generator to
demonstrate to enforcement personnel
should a problem in transporting or
subsequent handling arise, that the
generator had done his best to ensure
proper management by fulfilling his
generator responsibilities. Whik such
proof would not eliminate any liabilities
the firm may otherwise have under
RCRA and the Comprehensive.
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or "SHperfund"). it could
reduce the danger of the generator being
considered the primary responsible
party in a Superfund action. Also, as one
commenter pointed out, given the large
number of States, transporters and
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities that would insist upon we of
the full manifest system, it would not be
appropriate for EPA to, in effect
encourage generators to deliver their
only copy of the manifest to a
transporter.
EPA agrees with those commenters
that believe that retention of a copy of a
manifest, signed by the designated
facility and the transporter, does not
pose an unreasonable burden for 100-
1000 kg/mo generators, who will most
nkely be shipping only 2-« shipments
per year. This is particularly true in light
of the generally universal agreement on
the need for generators to retain a copy
for their own protection. EPA also
believes mat retention of manifest
copies provides the necessary-incentive
for all wastes, handlers to execute their
respoMibiHne* in the manner required
by state and Federal waste management
requirements. Therefore, die Agency is
not exempting 100-1000 kg/mo
generators- from the requirement to
retain a> copy of each manifest in their
file* £01 • period of three years from the
date of shipment or until a signed copy
of the manifest is returned by the
designated facility and is substituted for
the original manifest for a period of
three years.
b. Exception Reports—§262.42: As
discussed in the proposal, EPA proposed
ta exempt 100-1000 kg/mo generators
from the requirement to fife an
exception report with EPA if the
generator did not receive a signed copy
of the manifest back from the designated
facility within forty-five days of
acceptance of the waste- shipment by a
hazardous waste transporter (f 262.42).
The proposed exemption from this
requirement was based- simply oa the
lack of manifest copies under the
profMMM* stegU copy oMHiteat system.
Under tn» proposed rale; * copy of the
manifest was not reqwred to be
returned to tha generator by tfee facility,
so that there- wo«M fcave been HO basis
for a generator to nu*e » determination
as to whether or set his shipment
actually arrived1 at the designated
facility, and thus no basis for an
exception report.
In deciding to return to a full manties*
system for 100-1000. kg/mo generators*
the Agency deemed it appropriate to
evaluate whether also requiring.
exception reporting would impose an
unnecessary administrative burden on
these generators in light of the
environmental benefit that would be
gained. First, the Agency considered the
responsibilities that would be imposed
on the generators; which wouid include
establishment of an internal tracking
system, through filing or by computer, to
allow the generator to determine
whether a return copy of the manifest is
overdue. In addition, the generator must
contact the transporter and/or permitted
facility to determine the status or
location of the waste and manifest, and
if unsuccessful, must file a report with a
copy of the manifest and a cover letter
describing his efforts to Locate the waste
and the results of hia efforts. Several
coramenters objected to imposition of
these requirements and argued that this
is the very type of paperwork
requirement that Congress intended EPA
to scrutinize before applying to small
businesses.
Second, the Agency considered the
extent to which such reporting is
necessary to protect health and the
environment. Many commenters
contended that the exception reports
were essential to alert EPA and the
States to lost shipments, and the Agency
agrees that the exception report
requirement is an important link in the
fulF manifest scheme.* However, the
Agency has received very few exception
reports since the requirement was
adopted, leading it to believe that the
tracking function of the mulripFe-copy
manifest system is also working as a
self-policing mechanism* ensuring that
4 One comnenfer cited ksiahliue Usbny as
support for its. argument Hut tbt modified exaeption
reporting requirement of section 3001(d](8) must be
included in the regulation! because Congress
deewsd it to b* * minimum nqturaoeiit. Hie
legislative Watery at this proviso* indicate*.
however, that this was considered to ba a minimum
requirement only in the event that EPA did not
promulgate final' regulations by March M, I98ff. and
tfcat EPft is, autnomed to vary As- maai&siing and
repotting requirements as tent •• 'he notice
requirement is met Sea S. Rep. No- 284..96th Cong.
1st Sess. 11-12 (1963); H.R. Rep. Mo. 1133. 98th Cor,);.
2nd Sfisa. 103 (1984).
-------
10160 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
wastes reach their proper destination. In
addition, the smaller relative risks
associated with the smaller quantities of
waste generated by 100-1000 kg/mo '
generators do not necessitate the same
degree of double-checking needed for
large quantity generator shipments.
In balancing the utility of the
exception reporting requirements with
the need to minimize the administrative
and paperwork burden on small
businesses, the Agency has concluded
that its decision to require the multiple
copy manifest system for 100-1000 kg/
mo generators will provide sufficient
assurance that waste shipments reach
their proper destination, and that the
incremental environmental benefits that
may be gained by imposing the
exception reporting requirement on
these generators are outweighed by the
associated administrative burdens. The
capabilities of small businesses to
develop and maintain internal tracking
and follow-up systems are limited, and
could prove to be very burdensome.
especially where such follow-up
reporting is seldom necessary.
Consequently, while the Agency is
today requiring generators of 100-1000
kg/mo to use a multi-part manifest form
and requiring designated facilities to
return a signed copy to the generator.
the Agency has decided not to require
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo to comply
with the exception reporting provisions
of Part 262. However, this exemption
should not be construed as relieving the
generators of the responsibility of
assuring that their wastes are managed
at Subtitle C facilities. This obligation.
along with CERCLA liability should the
waste ultimately be mismanaged.
remains. Therefore, while EPA is today
exempting generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
from the requirement to file an
exception report under § 282.42, it is
specifically encouraging generators to
perform the necessary follow-up to
ensure that their waste shipments reach
the designated facility. Should a
shipment turn out to be truly lost, it will
be in the generator's interest to send a
copy of the manifest along with a brief
explanatory note to EPA or the
authorized State Agency in order to
reduce the likelihood that the generator
would be held solely responsible in an
enforcement or Superfund action.
c. Biennial Reports—§262.41: Section
262.41 requires a generator who ships
waste off-site to submit a biennial (i.e..
every other year) report to the Regional
Administrator by March 1 of each even
numbered year setting out the quantities
of wastes generated during the previous
odd numbered calendar year and the
disposition of the'wastes generated.
EPA proposed to exempt generators of
100-1000 kg/mo from the requirement to
complete, file, and retain copies of a
biennial report The Agency's rationale
for this exemption was based on four
points. First, the extent of error in State
summary reports used to compile
nationwide waste generated by all small
quantity generators. As a result the
value of the data from reports that
would be filed by 100-1000 kg/mo
generators would not signficantly add to
the value of the reports and the burden
imposed would far outweigh the benefits
to be gained. Second, the Agency
explained that the large number of
reports it would receive would far
outweigh the agency's administrative
ability to make use of the reports. Third.
under the proposed single copy manifest
system, generators would not have had
the manifest copies that serve asi the
basis for preparation of biennial reports.
Finally, the Agency explained that
information on wastes generated by
100-1000 kg/mo generators would still
be available from reports required to be
filed by treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
Several States submitted comments
which generally favored retention of the
biennial report requirement for 100-1000
kg/mo generators. Although generators
would have available to them the
manifest information needed to prepare
biennial reports under today'* final rule
imposing the multiple copy manifest the
remaining reasons for proposing this
exemption remain valid. In addition.
EPA received extensive comment
supporting the proposed exemption from
biennial reporting requirements as an
appropriate means of reducing
administrative burden without
sacrificing protection of human health
and the-environment. The Agency
agrees that this exemption is
appropriate.
One State specifically suggested that
EPA require biennial reporting from all
generators who generate more than 6000
kg or 124)00 kg in a calendar year and
specifically requested clarification of the
application of biennial report
requirements to "episodic generators"
(i.e.. generators that produce quantities
of hazardous waste that place them in
different generator categories from
month to month). The Agency does not
believe any benefit would be gained by
establishing a new generator category
based upon a yearly generation rate.
Doing so would only add further
confusion to an already complex
regulatory scheme, and would be
inconsistent with the month-to-month
approach already established by statute
and regulation. Also, episodic
generators must comply with the
biennial report requirements for those
months in which they are "large
quantity generators"; that is. they must
submit reports on their hazardous wasfa
activities for those months in which *
their generator activities have changed
and as long as the fully regulated waste
remains on-site.
Thus, the Agency is today finalizing
the proposed exemption from the
biennial report requirements of § 262.41
for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo;
including an exemption from the
provisions of this section requiring a
description of efforts taken during the
reporting year to minimize waste
generation.
4. On-site Accumulation—§ 262.34
As discussed in Unit I.B.I, of today's
preamble, generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
are no longer conditionally excluded in
Section 261.S from the bulk of the
hazardous waste regulatory program.
Instead, these generators, like other
regulated hazardous waste generators.
are subject to the requirements of Parts
262-266. 270. and 124, to the extent those
requirements apply, for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo, however, these \
requirements have been modified in
certain instances to reflect their small
business nature as well as specific
statutory directives.
Section 262.34 contains the
requirements for generators that
accumulate hazardous waste on-site.
Under § 262.34(a). a generator may
accumulate hazardous waste on-site in
tanks or containers in any quantity for
up to 90 days without the need to have
interim status or obtain a storage permit
under RCRA (or comply with Parts 264
or 265) provided the generator complies
with the limited requirements of
S 262.34. These requirements specify
that- (!) the date upon which the period
of accumulation begins is clearly
marked on the tank or container; (it) the
tank or container is labeled with the
words "Hazardous Waste"; (iii) the
generator complies with Subparts C and
D of 40 CFR Part 265 (Preparedness and
Prevention and Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures, respectively);
and iv) the generator complies with
Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 265 if the waste
is placed in containers or with Subpart f
of 40 CFR Part 265 if the waste is placed
in tanks, and he complies with the
personnel training requirements of
§ 265.16.
• The proposed rules for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo would have added a
number of modifications to the § 262.34
provisions, for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. This section of the preamble
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Ruks and Regulations
discusses those proposed amendments
and the issues raised by commenters- to
the proposed rules.
«• Time and Quantity Limitations:
Section 3001(d}(6) directs EPA, in
developing regulations for 100-1000 kg/
mo generators, to allow storage of
hazardous waste on-site without the
need for interim status or a RCRA
permit for up to 180 days. In addition,
EPA is directed to a!!ow these
generators to store up to 6000 kg of
hnzui-Jpus waste for a period of 270
d.iys without the need for interim status
or a prrmit if the generator must ship or
ha.i! his waste greater than 200 miles.
While no specific quantity cutoff was
e-i'.ablished for 180 day accumulation in
section 300l(d) a de facto limitation of
6000 k? exists. (This is due to the fact
that a 100-1000 kg/mo generator could
produce no more than 6000 kg in a 180
day period without exceeding 1000 kg/
mo a; ;?ast once during that period, and
thus become fully regulated under Part
282 instead of under the modified
standards being proposed today for 100-
1000 kg/mo generators.) EPA is today
amending § 262.34 to allow for such on-
side accumulation in tanks and
containers by 100-1000 kg/mo
generators for up to 180 days {or 270
days for long-distance transport)
without the need to obtain interim status
or a RCRA permit, in accordance with
Section 3001{d)(6) of the HSWA,
provided the requirements of S 262.34
are met.
A significant number of commenters
suggested variations on the proposed
time and quantity limitations for on-site
accumulation. A number of States
supported the application of the existing
90 day accumulation period to these
generators in order to maintain
consistency and reduce confusion. Still
other commenters argued that the time
limit for accumulation for 100-1000 kg/
mo generators should be extended to a
full year in order to allow economical
shipments, provided the 8000 kg cutoff
was not exceeded. Some commenters
even favored unlimited accumulation
time and quantity for these generators.
Because the time and quantity
limitations are established in RCRA
section 3001(d)(6), the Agency believes
that it carries a heavy burden in varying
these limitations. Except for emergency
circumstances, as discussed below, the
Agency does not believe that this
burden has been met.
While the 6000 kg cap arguably
applies only to the 270-day storage
period, the Agency believes that the
better interpretation is that the 6000 kg
cap applies to both storage periods. As
noted above, a maximum of 6000 kg of
hazardous waste could be accumulated
during a 180-day period if the generator
never generated more than 1000 kg in
any given calender month.
Consequently, any quantity in excess of
6000 kg would mean that the generator
was subject to full regulation at least
one month during the 6-month period.
Therefore, it is logical to apply the
accumulation "cap" of 6000 kg to both
storage for 180 as well as 270 days. In
addition, as explained in the August 1
proposal, the total quantity of 6000 kg
remains the same whether or not the
waste is accumulated on-site for 180 or
270 days and the Agency could see no
substantive difference in potential risk.
Finally, EPA believed that ihe high cost
of transportation would dictate that the
waste be managed at the closest facility,
regardless of the presence or absence of
regulatory criteria.
One State commenter felt that the
lack of specific criteria for allowing 270-
day accumulation could have the effect
of encouraging continued reliance on
land disposal as there will be decreasing
numbers of viable land disposal
facilities in the future, and the remaining
facilities will increasingly be located
more than 200 miles away from the
generator. This commentar suggested
that EPA allow accumulation for only
180 days for wastes that'are destined for
disposal but allow accumulation for 270
days for wastes which will be treated or
recycled. EPA does not believe that it
has authority to make such a distinction
since Congress has already established
the condition that must be met for
accumulation for 270 days: where the
waste must be shipped over 200 miles. If
the closest facility is a disposal facility
located greater than 200 miles from the
generator, to allow this generator only
180 days would directly conflict with the
plain language of the statute.
Another commenter expressed
concern over the enforcement of 180- or
270-day accumulation periods in the
absence of any specific criteria. This
commenter felt that an inspector would
have no way of ascertaining whether
wastes which have been stored longer
than 180 days but less than 270 days are
destined for management at a disposal
facility or a treatment or recycling
facility that is located further than 200
miles away. This commenter was
particularly concerned that the lack of
multiple copies of the manifest would
eliminate the ability of the inspector to
at least make a judgment based on the
generator's previous waste shipments.
The Agency has decided not to
establish specific criteria for
determining if a generator may
accumulate hazardous wastes on-site
for 180 or 270 days. EPA believes that
such criteria would not serve any useful
purpose. Under today's final rule,
however, generators would retain copies
of manifests which could be used to
ascertain the location of the facility,
which the generator has utilized for"-
previous shipments. Therefore, manifest
copies (or reclamation agreements) will
be available as a means to check the
actual location of the destination
facility. In addition, the Agency was
concerned that establishing criteria for
demonstrating that the closest facility
was greater than 200 miles from the
generation site would be unnecessarily
confusing and could have the perverse
effect of causing waste to go to less
desirable management practices (e.§..
where a disposal facility is located
within 200 miles while a recycling
facility is located over 200 miles from
the generator, the generator could be
forced to utilize the less desirable
disposal facility). The absence of
specific criteria will not pose an
unreasonable obstacle to enforcement of
the accumulation provisions. Thus. EPA
is finalizing J 262..14{e) as proposed.
It should be noted that generators that
have multiple waste streams which are
managed at different facilities may
actually be subject to different
accumulation time limitations for the
different waste streams. A generator
may accumulate some wastes for 180
days if they will be managed at a facility
under 200 miles away and other wastes
for 270 days provided the generator
never accumulates a total quantity of
hazardous waste on site that exceeds
6000 kg and provided the generator
complies with all applicable
accumulation provisions.
Today's rules also apply the existing
provisions of § 282.34(b) requiring
compliance with Parts 264. 265, and 270
to 100-1000 kg/mo generators that
exceed the time limitations in proposed
S 262.34(d) and (e). Under the existing
rules, and under the rules promulgated
today, generators that exceed a time or
quantity limitation must comply with the
interim status requirements and obtain a
storage permit. These requirements, as
they would apply to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators, are contained in new
I 262.34(f).
An additional component of the
proposed § 262.34(f) amendments would
have allowed an additional 30-day
accumulation period for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator where he
determines that such an extension is
warranted due to temporary,
unforeseen, and uncontrollable
circumstances/This amendment was
based on an identical provision
currently applicable to large quantity
-------
Federal R«gi«t«r / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
generators. While most conunenten on
this amendment were supportive of the
emergency extension provision, one •
commenter argued that the storage ."
periods specified in the statute were
clearly the maximum periods allowed.
The Agency believes that Congress
never intended for the Agency to
promulgate rules so inflexible that they
could not take into account, and
accommodate, legitimate emergency
circumstances. In addition, the Agency
assumes that the emergency extension
provision is consistent with
Congressional intent since it did not
explicitly preclude such an extension
when it adopted section 3001(d)(6).
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
this provision as proposed.
Several commenters requested the
Agency to clarify the applicability of the
"satellite provision" of 40 CFR 282.34.
This provision allows generators to
accumulate up to 55 gallons of non-
ucutely hazardous waste in "satellite"
areas where the waste is generated in
industrial processes without complying
with the 90-day accumulation standards.
See 49 FR 49568 (Dec. 20.1984). Satellite
areas are those places (under the control
of the operator of the process generating
the waste) where wastes are generated
in the industrial process and must
initially accumulate prior to removal to
a central area. Within three days of
accumulating over 55 gallons, the
generator is required to comply with all
applicable RCRA requirements for
further management of any waste in
excess of 55 gallons. When the satellite
rule was promulgated, generators of less
than 1000 kg/mo of non-acutely
hazardous waste (or leu than l kg/mo
of acutely hazardous waste) were not
subject to any of the requirements of the
satellite accumulation rule. See 49 FR
49568-49570. This is because these
generators were exempt from most of
the hazardous waste management
regulations, including Part 262.
However, under today's rale, only
generators of less than 100 kg/mo will
remain exempt from the regulations.
Therefore, 100-1000 kg/mo generators
may accumulate up to 55 gallons of non-
acutely hazardous waste in satellite
areas without meeting the storage
requirements being promulgated today,
so long as the requirements of
§ 262.34(c) are met. Of course, as soon
as the 55 gallon limit has been exceeded
in any satellite area, any excess waste
is subject to all applicable RCRA
requirements within 3 days. This means
that the 180/270 day on-site
accumulation provision for 100-1000 kg/
mo generators applies to any excess
waste three days after the 55 gallon limit
has been exceeded.
Two commenters who operate off-
shore drilling facilities requested
clarification on the applicability of this
provision to off-shore facilities and
central collection points located on-
shore. These commenters cited their
desire to avoid manifesting or using
transporters with EPA Identification
numbers in shipping wastes from off-
shore facilities to on-shore collection
areas.
The satellite provision was intended
to provide for extended accumulation of
waste in specific areas of generation to
allow for more economical transporting
of waste within one site. The
applicability of this provision does not
address the extent to which a generator
must comply with Part's 262 and 263
when it is shipping wastes off-site. EPA
does not deem off-shore facilities and
on-shore collection facilities to be "on-
site". or the same site, as defined by 40
CFR 260.10. To the extent that each
facility has various points of waste
generation, the satellite provision would
apply: however, as in any off-site
hazardous waste shipment the
requirements of Parts 262 and 283 must
be met when wastes generated at each
off-shore facility are transported to an
on-shore collection or storage facility.
b. Standards Applicable to On-site
Accumulation: EPA proposed to modify
certain of the requirements for on-site
accumulation by 100-1000 kg/mo
generators in order to simplify the
requirements for contingency plans and
emergency procedures, and personnel
training (contained in Part 265, Subpart
D, and S 265.16). The specific
amendments to | 262-34 would be
contained in new paragraphs (d), (e).
and (f). specifying the particular
requirements applicable to on-site
accumulation by generators of 100-1000
kg/mo. No modifications were proposed
to the standards for storage in
containers and tanks (Part 265. Subparts
I and J) or to the requirements foir
preparedness and prevention contained
in Subpart C of Part 285. EPA indicated
that it believed these standards were
appropriate and necessary and not
unduly burdensome. Several
commenters have objected to the
apparent inconsistency between
application of the existing accumulation
provisions of f 261.5 and § 282J41 and
the proposed standards under Section
3001(d) of the HSWA. Under the existing
rules for conditionally exempt small
quantity generators under § 261.5 and
the accumulation provisions of § 262.34,
generators who either generate
quantities above specific cutoffs or who
accumulate quantities above those
cutoffs over any period of time become
subject to additional requirements.
Thus, if the proposed rules were to be
finalized, generators of less than 100 kg/
mo who accumulated over 1000 kg/ mo
would be subject to full regulation under
Part 262. including a 90 day
accumulation time limit followed by
permitting requirements for longer on-
site storage. Also, if moreThan 1 kg of
acutely hazardous waste were
accumulated, full Part 262 standards
would apply, including a 90 day
accumulation time limit followed by
permitting requirements for longer on-
site storage. Conversely, generators of
100-1000 kg/mo would be allowed to
accumulate up to 8000 kg for up to 180 or
270 days and be subject to the specially
reduced standards being promulgated
today rather than full Part 262
regulation.
A number of commenters pointed out
that generators who fall into different
generator categories could be subject to
different standards for essentially the
same quantities of the same wastes. For
example, a generator of just over 1000
kg/mo would be subject to full
regulation as would a generator of just
under 1000 kg/mo who happens to
accumulate above 1000 kg. These
regulations include full contingency
planning and personnel training (as well
as exception and biennial reporting). At
the same time, a generator of between
100 and 100 kg per month may :
accumulate up to 6000 kg and be subject
to the special standards being
promulgated today, including reduced
contingency planning and personnel
training requirements and exemptions
from exception and biennial reporting.
Thus. 6000 kg of hazardous waste could
be subject to lesser standards than
quantities closer to 1000 kg/mo.
Substantial confusion may also result in
determining which storage standards
apply, when, and for how long. The
confusion is particularly troubling for so
called "episodic generators" that may
move from one generator category to
another from month to month. (See Unit
A number of commenters suggested a
variety of alternatives schemes for
eliminating the inequity and the
confusion, including applying the
reduced storage standards proposed for
100-1000 kg/mo generators to all
quantities of waste accumulated up to
6000 kg., regardless of the source of the
waste. These commenters believed that
such a scheme would greatly simplify
compliance and enforcement since
quantity of waste would be the only
-------
Federal Register /
56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
criteria needed in determining what
storage standards should apply.
The Agency agrees that, in theory, an
approach that uniformly applies the
same requirements to the same
quantities of waste has some merit.
However, as discussed above, Congress
has directed EPA to consider varying
the standards for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators only, and to consider their
small business nature in determining
which standards are appropriate for on-
site accumulation. EPA is directed to
relieve these generators of unnecessary
burden, to the extent feasible, and
consistent with protection of human
health and the environment. Given that
Congress has not extended such
economic considerations to large
generators, EPA is not authorized to
vary applicable storage standards, if
they are necessary to protect human
health and the environment. EPA has
already determined that the existing
storage standards applicable to
generators of more than 1000 kg/mo are
necessary to reduce risks sufficiently.
Therefore, EPA is retaining the existing
standards for these generators.
With regard to generators of less than
100 kg/mo. EPA has more flexibility
because they fall within the "small
business" category that Congress was
concerned about. The Agency decided in
the proposed rules not to modify the
accumulation provision for generators of
less than 100 kg/mo because such a
generator would need to accumulate
waste for at least 10 months before
exceeding 1000 kg. However, it appears
to be inconsistent with Congressional
intent that small businesses producing
less than 100 kg/mo should be subject to
more stringent accumulation standards
than 100-1000 kg/mo generators for
quantities between 1000 kg and 6000 kg.
Therefore. EPA is today finalizing an
amendment to $ 261.5 that will subject
generators of less than 100 kg/mo to the
same provisions of § 262.34(d) as are
applicable to generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo, when they accumulate waste in
quantities greater than 1000 kg but less
than 6000 kg.
/. Standards for Preparedness and
Prevention—Part 266, Subpart C: Under
§ 262.34(a), generators who accumulate
hazardous waste on-site must comply
with the requirements of Subpart C of
Part 265 which contains requirements
for facility preparedness and prevention.
In the Proposal, EPA indicated its
intention to apply ail of the existing
provisions of this Subpart, without
modification.
The requirements for preparedenss
and prevention are as follows:
• Section 265.31 requires that
facilities be maintained and operated to
minimize the possibility of fire,
explosion, or any unplanned release of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents to the environment;
• Section 265.32 specifies that
facilities must be equipped with certain
kinds of equipment (/.«r;ari internal
communications or alarm system, a
telephone or other device capable of
summoning emergency assistance, and
appropriate fire control equipment
including fire extinguishers and water at
adequate volume and pressure to supply
fire control system) unless none of the
wastes handled at the facility require a
particular kind of equipment;
• Section 265.33 requires that this
equipment be tested and maintained, as
necessary, to assure its proper
functioning;
• Section 265.34 requires that ail
persons involved in hazardous waste
handling operations have immediate
access to either internal or external
alarm or communications equipment,
unless such a device is not required
under § 265.32;
• Section 265.35 requires the owner or
operator of the facility to maintain
sufficient aisle space to allow the
unobstructed movement of personnel
and equipment to any area of facility
operation in an emergency, unless aisle
space is not needed for any of these
purposes; and
• Section 265.37 requires the owner or
operator to attempt to make certain
arrangements with police, fire
departments. State emergency response
teams, and hospitals, as appropriate for
the type of waste handled at his facility
and the potential need for the services
of these organizations. Further, if State
or local authorities decline to enter into
such arrangements, the owner or
operator must document the refusal.
The Agency did not propose any
amendments to Subpart C because they
are appropriate and necessary and not
unduly burdensome. The requirements
all involve common sense principles for
preparedness and prevention which
hazardous waste handlers can and
should address in order to ensure safe
handling of hazardous wastes. Also,
since the requirements are structured
such that specific equipment and
procedures are required only on an "as
needed" basis, the existing regulation
provides complete flexibility for
hazardous waste generators to tailor
their preparedness and prevention
activities to the specific kinds of wastes
handled at the facility.
Most commenters believed that these
requirements provided sufficient
flexibility for 100-1000 kg/mo generators
to tailor their preparedness activities to
their specific waste management
activities and needs. While EPA
requested comment on the possibility of
imposing more specific but less
numerous requirements in order to
alleviate potential uncertainty over
which procedures are appropriate for
particular types of wastes, the Agency
has decided that the broad principles
embodied in Subpart C are preferable to
the specific suggestions made by
commenters. For example, one
commenter felt that the requirement to
make arrangements with state and local
authorities, as needed, would confuse
many generators and suggested that
EPA substitute a simpler requirement
that a generator simply request a visit
from the fire department. EPA believes,
however, that such a specific
requirement would not provide
sufficient preparedness in some cases,
while in others it may be overly
burdensome, as where no ignitable or
flammable wastes are managed at that
site.
A number commenters were
concerned that the requirement to
document refusals to make appropriate
arrangements by state and local
authorities and health care facilities
would prove to be extremely
burdensome to small businesses.
particularly since refusals are seldom
likely to be made in writing. EPA did not
intend to convey a need for generators
to obtain written refusals from every
entity that declined to visit the facility.
For purposes of this requirement, EPA
will consider a signed and dated letter
from the generator to the state or local
entity which attempts to make such
arrangements to be sufficient
documentation of an attempt to make
the appropriate arrangements.
One commenter believed that the
requirement to make arrangements with
appropriate state and local emergency
service facilities was unnecessary
where generators maintain their own
fire, security, and emergency health care
personnel at some of their larger
facilities and that such facilities should
be allowed to fulfill this requirement
without making outside arrangements.
While the Agency did not intend to
preclude the use of on-site emergency
personnel to provide preparedness in
the case of emergencies. EPA does not
agree that such arrangements alone will
always be sufficent to comply with the
requirements of Subpart C where the
nature of the waste management
operations at that facility could result in
emergencies also requiring the
involvement of State and local
emergency services.
This commenter was also concerned
that EPA's broad definition of "facility"
-------
51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1966 / Rwle. and Regulation.
could require that prepucdoeM and
prevention measures be maintained
throughoutevcry portion of the
generator'* puberty instead of just
Ihoae areas where wast* is
accumulated. EPA has never intended
its broad definition of-facility" (see 50
FR 28712) to be used in application of
the preparedness and prevention -
regulations: rather, the definition of
"facility" in § 280.10 is used. Applying
this narrower definition makes'clear
that the preparedness and prevention
regulations only require the generator to
take those precautions and maintain
that equipment necessary to ensure that
they are adequately prepared to respond
to emergencies relating to the hazardous
waste operations of the facility. If
special equipment or precautions are not
needed for this purpose in areas of a
facility where hazardous wastes are not
managed, then a generator is not
expected to maintain them in those
areas. At the same time, however, other
precautions, such as adequate aisle
space, may be needed in areas outside
of the immediate waste accumulation
area in order to ensure adequate access
to emergency equipment in the event of
a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents.
For the reasons discussed above, the
Agency does not believe that
modifications to Subpart C of Pan 265
are appropriate for generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo and is. therefore, applying
the existing Subpart C requirements to
these generators.
if. Standards for Contingency Plans
and Emergency Procedures—Part 265.
Subpart D. and Personnel Training
Requirements: Under § 282.34(a),
generators who accumulate waste on-
site must comply with certain
requirements in Part 285. Subpart D,
pertaining to contingency plans and
emergency procedures and personnel
training requirements. These
requirements are contained in S 285.16.
The § 265.16 requirements are intended
to ensure that personnel are adequately
prepared to manage hazardous waste
and to respond to any emergencies that
are likely to arise. EPA considered
applying these same requirements to
100-1000 kg/mo generators since, for the
most part, the requirements embody
common sense principles that are
necessary and appropriate for facilities
managing hazardous waste. However.
these requirements appeared to be
unnecessarily burdensome in some
cases (e.g. requiring formal classroom
training and written, detailed
contingency plans) and costly and could
have unnecessarily severe impacts on
many small businesses. The Agency
therefore proposed a simpler set of
requirements far generators of MO-1O»
kg/mo to reduce the administrative
burden on small businesses while still
protecting human health and the
environment.
EPA proposed-and requested public.
comment on the following requirements
for 100-1000 kg/mo generators that
would be contained in a new 1262.34(d):
• At all times, an "emergency
coordinator" (B.C.). (i.e.. someone
familiar with these requirements), must
be on-site (or on call). The coordinator
may also designate someone to act in
his place.
• The generator must post curtain
information next to the telephone.
including: the name and telephone
number of the E.G.; location of fire
extinguishers and spill control material;
and the phone number of the fire
department:
• The generator must ensure that all
employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency
procedures:
• The generator (or the E.C.) would
have to respond to any emergencies that
arise. In the case where an emergency
was serious enough to warrant a visit by
the fire department or when the
generator (or E.C.) has knowledge of a
spill of hazardous waste that could
reach surface water or otherwise
threaten human health or the
environment, the generator would have
to notify the National Response Center
and file a report with the EPA Regional
Administrator as provided by proposed
§ 262.34{c}(3)(E).
EPA believed these requirements to
be adequate to protect public health and
the environment from fires, leaks, spills,
or other releases from generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo who are accumulating waste
on-site prior to shipment off-site.
While many commenters supported
the reduced contingency plan.
emergency procedures, and pemonnel
training requirements as proposed, a
number of commenters did not agree
with the proposed modification)!.
Several commenters believed that
relaxing the standards for on-site
accumulation for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators would not be appropriate
given the increased quantities of waste
which can be accumulated (i.e.. 6000 kg)
and the generally less sophisticated
waste management expertise of smaller
firms. Some commenters suggested
various approaches including requiring
full Subpart D compliance for all
quantities accumulated above specific
limits, such as 1000 kg or 3000 kg. Other
commenters argued that the reduced
standards were appropriate not only for
generators of lW-1600 kg/aw, but ako
to larger grantors nd suggested that
the reduced standards apply to all
accumulated qaantitiea between 1000 kit
and 6000 kg.
Since the Agency recognized in the
proposed rules that applying standards
to 100-1000 kg/mo generator*
accumulating waste on-site-m quantities
up to 6000 kg was of some concern, it
was careful to modify the standards
only where administrative requirements
not essential to the substantive
functioning of the standards were
involved. Thus, the standards, as
modified, are sufficient to protect human
health and the environment from release
of wastes accumulated by 100-1000 kg/
mo generators. ;
EPA does not believe it is appropriate
to apply the reduced standards to
wastes accumulated by generators of
more than 1000 kg/mo. As previously
discussed. EPA's authority to consider
areas in which to reduce burdens
extends to small quantity generators.
Also, as discussed in Unit IILA. above.
the relative risks posed by wastes
accumulated by large quantity
generators are greater. Thus, generators
of greater than 1000 kg/mo must comply
with the requirements of Subpart D of
Part 265 if wastes are accumulated on-
site prior to shipment off-site. •
A number of commenters also
suggested several modifications to the
proposed standards. Some commenters
were concerned that the requirement
that each business designate an
emergency coordinator to be on call at
all times would impose an undue burden
because this would require that the
emergency coordinator be trained in
emergency response procedures. One
commenter believed that the term
"emergency coordinator" would be •
confusing since it implies that the
individual must have a high degree of
training in risk assessment and
abatement.
The intent of this requirement was
simply to ensure that each generation
facility had at least one person available
at all times who could be contacted and
would know what steps to take in the
event that an emergency should arise.
EPA envisioned that for most small
businesses, the owner or manager
already fulfills this requirement by being
available 24 hours a day in case an
emergency, such as a fire or burglary,
occurs at that facility. EPA docs not
intend that generators must hire and
train a new employee for this task.
Viewed in this light, this requirement is
reasonable and not unduly burdensome.
In addition, there is no reason why
small businesses would confuse the
-------
Federal Register / Voj. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
term, "emergency coordinator" with the
more formal On-Scene Coordinate!* at
Superfund clean-up sites.
With regard to th. proposed personnel
training requirement that a generator
ensure that all employees be made
thoroughly familiar with waste handling
and emergency procedures, several
commenters were in favor of mon>
stringent personnel training
requirements. One commpnter noted
that personnel training is necessary to
manage tanks properly and to prevent
tank contamination and recommended
that the Agency adopt more stringent
personnel training requirements if more
than 15 drums or 7.500 pounds
(approximately 3400 kg) are
accumulated on-site. Another
commenter objected to allowing 100-
1000 kg/mo generators, who typically
have fewer resources and less expertise
than large quantity generators, to
accumulate 6000 kg on-site with reduced
personnel training standards, and
suggested that personnel training plans
be required whenever more than 3000 kg
are accumulated on-site. This
commenter suggested that criteria such
as the nature of the waste and the
history of spills and releases from the
generator be established to allow EPA
or State agencies to require a generator
of 100-1000 kg/mo to establish and
implement a personel training plan.
In the absence of any justification
provided by commenters. the Agency
does not believe that establishing an
intermediate limit on accumulation.
after which more formal personnel
training requirements apply, would
result in any significant increase in
protection to human health and the
. environment. While EPA agrees that
risks involved increases as waste is
accumulated, it believes that the
requirements adopted are adequate to
protect against the risks from fires.
leaks, spills, or other releases. The
proposed requirements embody the
same principles contained in the
existing personnel training
requirements, but rely less on the
preparation of written plans in order to
reduce the burdens on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators.
One commenter suggested that if a
100-1000 kg/mo generator at any time is
required to prepare a personnel training
plan because he generated more than
1000 kg in any one month, he should be
required to maintain the personnel
training plan for at least the following
six months even though he produces no
more than 1000 kg/mo during that
period. The commenter suggested that
this requirement would impose little
burden because the plan would already
be in existence and would only need to
be implemented. The Agency m net
adopting this suggestion. No rationale
was offered by this or other commenters
regarding any additional protection that
this approach would provide. In
addition, the Agency disagrees with the
conclusion that little burden would be
imposed in maintaining a plan. For
example, the generator would be
required to update job titles, job
descriptions, job qualifications, names
of employees in each position, and
standards for the introductory and
continuing training needed for persons
in each position. Furthermore, even if
not required by regulations to maintain
and follow their plans, many of the
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who were
previously generators of more than 1000
kg/mo will nevertheless continue to use
their plans as the basis for their
personnel training program.
Another commenter in favor of more
stringent personnel training
requirements argued that the approach
proposed by EPA is too broad and
unenforceable, and that the Agency
should require employees to sign a
document stating the "what. when, and
were of employee training." The Agency
believes that such an approach would
add considerable burden to the
generator without providing any
subtantial additional degree of
protection, particularly since the "what.
when, and where" are not explicitly
prescribed under either the current rules
or today's amendments.
Two commenters argued that 100-1000
kg/mo generators should be exempt
from all personnel training requirements
on the basis that personnel training
would be too costly and burdensome for
most small businesses and because less
than 1000 kg/mo would be "too small to
endanger the environment or public
health". The Agency does not agree that
100-1000 kg/mo generators should be
exempt from all personnel training
requirements. While die Agency agrees
that die risk to human health and the
environment posed by 100-1000 kg/mo
generators is less than the risk posed by
large quantity generators, some risk is
still present. The Agency has, therefore,
proposed less stringent rules for 100-
1000 kg/ mo generators, which will
mitigate this risk while minimizing the
regulatory burden upon these
generators.
A number of commenters suggested
that the Agency limit the scope of the •
training requirement since it is
inappropriate to require that all
employees of a generator receive
personnel training, regardless of their
job responsibilities. According to these
commenters. some firms, particularly
large companies, may have clerical and
office staff as well as some part-time
and temporary personnel "who will
never be involved or even remotely
associated with the firm's handling of
hazardous waste", and requiring these
employees to be thoroughly familiar
with hazardous waste management
techniques would be a poor use of the
firm's resources. One commenter
suggested that this requirement be
applied only to those employees who
handle hazardous waste as part of their
job.
The Agency agrees that it would not
make sense to require training in topics
not germane to an employee's areas of
responsibility since this would add
considerable burden to some firms
without corresponding environmental or
health benefits. Thus, the Agency has
amended the regulations to clarify this
issue. The rule promulgated today states
that generators "must ensure that all
employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency
procedures relevant to their job
responsibilities during normal facility
operations and emergencies," just as for
large quantity generators subject to
§ 265.16. implicit in the regulations is the
requirement that the type and amount of
training necessary for each employee
stems from his specific responsibilities.
Employees who handle hazardous
wastes as part of their normal job
responsibilities or are likely to handle
wastes in an emergency situation must
be thoroughly familiar with proper
waste handling and emergency
procedures. Employees who work in or
adjacent to areas where hazardous
wastes are generated, handled, or stored
but do not handle hazardous wastes.
must still be trained to be thoroughly
familiar with basic emergency
procedures. Part-time or temporary
employees must also receive
appropriate training.
iii. Standards for Accumulation in
Containers—Part 265. Subpart I: Section
262.34 requires that in order to
accumulate hazardous waste on-site
without a permit, the generator must
meet certain requirements. If the waste
is stored in containers, the generator
must comply with Subpart I of Part 265
(§5 265.170 thru 265.177) which contains
the following general requirements
applicable to the management of
hazardous waste storage containers:
• They must be kept in good condition
and any leaking containers replaced
(§265.171):
• The containers must be compatible
with the hazardous waste stored in them
(§ 265.172):
-------
10166 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1986 / Rules and Reflations
• Containers holding hazardous
waste must always be closed during
storage (except when necessary to add
or remove wastes) and must not be
handled in a way that would cause them
!o rupture or leak (§ 265.173);
• Containers must be inspected at
least weekly to check for leaks and any
signs of corrosion (§ 265.174);
• Containers holding ignitable or
reactive wastes must be placed at least
SO feet from the facility's property line
5 265.176); and
• Incompatible wastes must not be
placed In the same container so as to
cause fires, leaks, or other discharge of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents (§§ 265.177 and 265.17(b)).
In addition. § 262.34(a)(2) requires that
the date upon which each period of
storage begins is clearly marked on each
container and § 262.34(a)(3) requires
that each container be marked with the
words "Hazardous Waste".
Since these requirements embody
common sense "good housekeeping"
requirements necessary to avoid
releases into the environment, EPA
proposed no modifications to these
standards for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. Comments received
generally indicate that these
requirements were not unduly
burdensome and would be appropriate
for 100-1000 kg/mo generators. The one
major concern raised by a number of
conunentera, however, is the
requirement that a buffer zone of at
least SO1 from the property boundary be
maintained for reactive or ignitable
wastes. Since many smaller generators
are located in urban areas, it is not
uncommon for these generators to be
located on lots that would not permit the
maintenance of a 50-foot buffer zone.
EPA agrees with commenters that this
requirement would put many small
businesses in a situation in which it
would be impossible to comply. Since
the Agency has already proposed to
modify the buffer zone requirement to
increase flexibility in such situations (49
FR 43290. June 5.1984), it would make
sense for the Agency to exempt 100-1000
kg/mo generators from the 50-foot buffer
zone requirement until the Agency
promulgates final storage standards.
Whether the Agency ultimately decides
to apply the proposed standards to these
generators or to propose a more tailored
set of standards, it would be
inconsistent with the directives
contained in HSWA Section 3001(d) to
consider impacts on small business to
include, in the interim, the existing
buffer zone requirement. Therefore, as,
an interim measure, the Agency is
exempting 100-1000 kg/mo generators
from the § 265.176 requirement that
containers holding ignitable or reactive
wastes must be placed at least 50 feet
from the property boundary. Of course,
100-1000 kg/mo generators should
endeavor to store ignitable or reactive
wastes as far from the property
boundary as is practicable.
With the exception of the modified
buffer zone requirement. EPA is
incorporating by reference the
requirements of Subpart I of Part 265
into 9 262.34(d).
iv. Standards for On-site
Accumulation in Tanks—Part 26S,
Subpart f: As in Subpart I, Subpairt J
contains general standards that must be
followed by generators storing
hazardous waste in .tanks under !i 262.34:
• Wastes must not be placed in tanks
if they could cause ruptures, leaks,
corrosion, or otherwise cause the tank to
fail (S 265.192(b));
• Uncovered tanks must be operated
with at least 60 centimeters (2 feet) of
freeboard or a secondary containment
dike or trench to prevent overfilling
spillage (§ 265.192(c));
• Where waste is continuously fed
into a tank, the tank must be equipped
with a waste feed cutoff or bypass
system to stop the inflow to the tank
(S285.192(d));
• At least once each operating day, a
generator must inspect, where present,
discharge control equipment (e.g., waste
feed cut-off systems and drainage
systems), data gathered from monitoring
equipment (e.g.. pressure and
temperature gauges1), and the level of
waste in the tank to assure compliance
with the above freeboard requirements
(§ 265.194 (a)(l). (a){2), and (a)(3J);
• At least weekly, a generator must
further inspect the construction
materials of the tank and the areai
immediately surrounding the tank to
detect corrosion or obvious signs of
leakage (1285.194 (a)(4) and (a)(5));
• Special requirements apply to
ignitable or reactive waste, and
incompatible waste that are more or less
analogous to those in Subpart I, The
major difference is in the requirements
for ignitable or reactive waste which,
when stored in a covered tank, must be
in compliance with buffer zone
requirements contained in Tables 2-1
through 2-6 of the National Fire
Protection Association's (NFPA)
"Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code." These requirements are bused on
the hazardous characteristics of sill
combustible and flammable liquids and,
as such, are applicable to any type and
size of tank. While the Agency is.
modifying the buffer zone requirements
for containers, as discussed in the
previous section, the Agency did not
receive any comments indicating that
compliance with the NFPA code with
respect to tanks would be impossible for
small quantity generators. Therefore, the
existing buffer zone requirements for
tanks will apply to generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo.
The requirements of Subpart fare
meant not only to protect human health
and the environment, but are in the
generator's best interest by reducing the
likelihood of damages or injuries caused
by leaks and spills. The Agency did not
propose to modify these standards for
100-1000 kg/mo generators, and no
commenters raised any objections to
application of the existing Subpart f
requirements to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. Thus, the Agency has no
reason to believe that the existing tank
requirements present a problem for
these generators, and is including them
in this rule.
As discussed in detail in the Proposal.
the Agency is developing new
management standards for tank storage
that may require secondary containment
for accumulation tanks. These proposed
amendments to Subpart J (50 FR 26444,
June 26,1985) could impose additional
costs if applied to generators of 100-1000
kg/mo who accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks. In the Proposal, the
Agency requested and received public
comment on a variety of options related
to the proposed tank amendments.
However, the Agency has not yet
completed its evaluation of this issue
and has not issued any final
amendments to Subpart}. Accordingly,
the Agency, is today applying to
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo only those
Subpart) requirements currently
required under 9 262.34. Application of
any modified tank standards to
generators of 100-1000 gk/mo will be
evaluated in the final tank rule after
consideration of all comments received
on both the August 1 Proposal and the
tank proposal of June 26,1985.
The requirements of existing Subpart J
of Part 265 are, therefore, incorporated
by reference in S 262.34(d), and are
applicable to generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo.
5. International Shipments
On March 13,1986, EPA proposed
regulations under 9 3017 of HSWA
regarding exports of hazardous waste
(See 51 FR 8744). The proposed
regulations would prohibit export of
hazardous waste unless certain
requirements are met. These
requiremens include advance written
notification to EPA of any plans to
export hazardous waste, prior written
consent to such plan by the receiving
country, attachment of a copy of the
consent to the manifest accompanying
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
r u waste shipment, and conformance
or the shipment to such consent. EPA
also proposed a manifest pursuant to 40
LFR Part 262. Subpart a or equivalent
State provision, which specifies a
treatment. storage or disposal facility in
a foreign country as the facility to which
the waste will be sent. Under 40 CFR
261.5 and today's final rule all
generators, including those gent.-aiinx
kiss than 100 kg/mo, would qualify as
exporters under the export proposal.
Although the Agency is not aware of
any exports by generators of less than
1000 kg/mo, and hence, did not propose
to change the applicability of the export
requirements to these generators, the
Agency has requested comment from
generators of less than 1000 kg/mo on
whether the Agency should partially or
totally exempt them from the proposed
export requirements. Thus, generators
affected by today's final rule should be
aware th&t they may be subject to
additional regulatory requirements in
exporting hazardous waste, and that
they have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding the applicability of
those requirements to the public docket
established for the export proposal.
U, Transportation Issues
The existing standards for
transporters of hazardous waste are
contained in 40 CFR Part 263. and are
applicable to any form of hazardous
waste transportation that requires the
USP of a hazardous waste mrinife.st
(§ 263.10(a)). These standards pertain to
compliance with the manifest system.
recordkeeping, and actions to be taken
in response to spills or discharges of
hazardous waste. Taken in conjunction
with U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) requirements under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act (HMTA) regarding labeling.
marking, packaging and placarding
(incorporated in 40 CFR Part 282.
Subpart C), such standards are deemed
by the Agency to be those necessary to
protect human health and the
environment during the transportation of
hazardous waste.
In directing EPA to develop standards
for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo,
Section 3001(d)(7) of RCRA. as
amended, specifically states that
"nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect or impair the validity
of regulations pursuant to the
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act." Consequently, EPA did not
propose any substantive amendments to
applicable DOT requirements or to Part
263. However, several minor
amendments are necessary to bring the
transporter standards into conformance
with today's final standards for 100-1000
kg/mo generators.
In addition, commenters on the
proposed rules raised a number of-
transportation-relatejiiissues. The
Agency is fin&lizing''|iroposed § 263.20(h)
to specify certain recordkeeping
requirements for transporters (who are
also reclaimers) accepting unmanifested
hazardous waste from generators
utilizing the § 262.20(e) exemption for
wastes reclaimed under contractual
agreements. While one commenter
argued that these recordkeeping
requirements were too burdensome, the
Agency does not agree. The manifest
exemptjon is an entirely voluntary
arrangement that substantially reduces
the paperwork for both generators and
transporters. The transporter need not
maintain the prescribed records if he
chooses instead to comply with the
manifest si stem. A number of
commer.iers were concerned about the
lack of established transportation
networks fnr the collection and
transports tion of less than full
truckloads of hazardous waste. Three
commenters stated that EPA should take
steps to encourage such networks, and
iiiegs.-red various alternatives. Two
commenters suggested that EPA
encourage the establishment of
collection centers for waste from 100-
1000 kg/mo generators by extending the
current 10-day period for transportation
to 21 days and accelerating the issuance
of storage permits for facilities which
serve as collection and transfer stations
for small quantity generator waste. One
of these commenters specifically
suggested tfiat development of a class
permit concept for these facilities might
be a viable solution.
EPA agrees that the development of
networks and centralized collection
centers will help to increase compliance
with these regulations. However.
commenters have not adequately
demonstrated a need for longer
transportation time than the 10 days
currently provided. Nor does EPA
believe that the establishment of an
expedited permit process for these
facilities is feasible. Both of these issues
are discussed in greater detail in the
following section on facility standards.
It should be noted here, however, that
such networks can be established at any
time within the confines of the
applicable regulations.
Some commenters expressed concern
about EPA's discussion in the proposed
rules of self-transportation of hazardous
wastes, stating that all of the standards
for hazardous waste transportation
should be imposed on such generators.
In the proposal. EPA explained that self-
10187
transportation of hazardous waste by
generators was not precluded by the
regulations, provided the generator
obtained a U A EPA ID number and
complied with the provisions of Part 263
and the applicable portions of
Department of Transportation
regulations. EPA did not intend to create
the impression that self-transportation •
could be conducted without compliance
with the full Part 263 standards for
hazardous waste transportation.
Other commenters supported the
concept of licensing transporters to
assume the responsibilities of the
generator with respect to manifesting.
As EPA explained in the Proposal.
transporters may currently assume most
of the generators' manifesting
responsibilities except for signing the
certification statement. One commenter
believed that the transporter of a
hazardous waste shipment should
assume liability for the waste if that
transporter completed the manifest and
removed the waste from the generator's
establishment EPA may not alter the
liabilities established by statutes such
as CERCLA, which applies the concept
of joint and several liability to all
handlers of a hazardous substance. In
addition, EPA believes that removing
RCRA liability from generators would
remove an important incentive for them
to ensure that their wastes are properly
transported and managed. EPA.
therefore, is taking no action that would
alter a generator's liability under current
regulations and statutes.
Two States requested an amendment
to § 282.20(e) to allow generators of 100-
1000 kg/ mo to transport waste to a
temporary collection site of a hazardous
waste clean-up program or Amnesty
Day without the need to complete a
manifest. They stated that the
requirement to complete a manifest may
discourage some establishments from
participating. Under most "Amnesty
Day" programs of which the Agency is
aware", homeowners are encouraged to
bring their unwanted household
hazardous wastes to a central collection
point where they are sorted, packaged.
and subsequently transported to an
approved hazardous waste management
facility. In some cases, small quantity
generators have been allowed to discard
their wastes through similar programs.
Section 261.4(b)(l) exempts household
waste from all of the hazardous waste
requirements of RCRA. Thus, no
manifesting is required for transport of
wastes that are exempt from regulation
under § 261.5. However, because
quantities of hazardous wastes from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo could
pose a substantial risk if improperly
-------
10168 Federal Reyiter / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday, March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
managed, the Agency has decided to
impose manifest requirements-on these •
generators, except in the case of certain
reclamation agreements; The existence
of a State-approved collection center
does not. on its own. provide assurance
that the waste would be transported or
handled properly prior to or during
transportation to such a facility, or
indeed, that the shipment would ever
reach such a facility. Consequently,
development of some recordkeeping and
transportation requirements would be
needed which would offset any potential
savings of such an exemption.
E. Part 264/265 Facility Standard Issues
The requirements for facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste are contained in Parts 264 and 265
of the hazardous waste regulations. The
Part 265 standards are applicable to
facilities under interim status, a
condition which allows a facility to
continue operating until it receives a full
RCRA permit. (See HSWA section
3005(e)). The Part 264 standards
establish the minimum standards to be
incorporated into a full RCRA permit by
EPA or a State with an EPA authorized
hazardous waste program.
Section 261.5(b) previously exempted
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo of
hazardous waste from the facility
requirements of Parts 264 and 265 that
cover the on-site treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, provided
the facility is at least approved by a
State to manage municipal or industrial
(non-hazardous) solid waste and no
more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste
were accumulated at any time. Under
the rules promulgated today, this
exemption will continue to apply only to
generators of less than 100 kg/mo of
hazardous waste. Generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste will be
subject to full regulation under Parts 264
and 265 if they accumulate hazardous
waste on-site for greater than ISO (or
270) days, exceed the 6000 kg
accumulation limit, engage in waste
treatment in other than tanks, or manage
their waste in surface impoundments,
waste piles, landfills, or land treatment
facilities. In addition, those State-
approved municipal or industrial waste
facilities that manage wastes only from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo will also
no longer be exempted from the Part 264
and 265 permit requirements. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
comments concerning the application of
the uniform Part 264 and 265
requirements to generators of 100-1000
kg/mo and to the treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities that accept waste
from the generators.
1. Activities Requiring Permits
Under today's final rules, 100-1000 kg/
mo generators will be required to obtain
a permit if they treat or dispose of
hazardous waste on-site (except for
treatment in tanks or containers during
the 180/270 day accumulation period in
cor.formance with Subparts J or I of Part
265. respectively) or accumulate
hazardous waste on-site in tanks or
containers for more than 180 (or 270)
days.
A number of commenters agreed with
the need to manage wastes from
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo at fully
permitted facilities. They argued that no
special exemptions or requirements
should be applied to the management of
waste from these generators because the
characteristics of the waste, not the
source of the waste, poses the threat to
human health and the environment.
Two commenters opposed the
requirement for generators of 109-1000
kg/mo who accumulate waste on-site for
longer than 180 (or 270} days to obtain
RCRA permit, and argued that the
accumulation time limit before
permitting is required should be
extended. One of the commenters also
maintained that determining the
maximum quantity of hazardous waste
that may be accumulated at a non-
permitted facility should be based on
the degree of hazard posed by the waste
and the generator's capacity to transport
the waste off-site. The EPA disagrees
with both of these positions. As noted in
Unit III.C.4.a. of today's preamble, the
HSWA of 1984 clearly limit Agency
discretion in this matter. The Agency
carries a heavy burden in extending the
time limits established under section
3001(d)(6), and except for emergency
circumstances, the Agency does not
believe there to be sufficient
justification for extending the limits
Congress has established.
Another commenter opposed any
permitting requirement due to the
economic burden that would be placed
on a small number of generators. While
some generators of 100-1000 kg/mo may
be burdened financially by the
requirements promulgated today.
Congress has already judged that
outside of the accumulation limits
allowed for in Section 3001(d)(6),
disposal of wastes from these generators
at permitted facilities is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. In addition, since the rules
allow generators to manage their
hazardous wastes off-site, they are able
to avoid the cost of acquiring a RCRA
permit, if they so choose.
Several commenters suggested
exemptions from the RCRA permitting
requirements or reduced permit
requirements for on-site waste
treatment. Some commenters stated that
there is a need to encourage on-site
treatment to reduce the amount of
wastes sent off-site and that the
permitting requirements may hamper the
ability of generators to treat wastes at
their facilities.
The Agency disagrees that on-site
treatment should be encouraged by
exempting those generators of 100-1000
kg/mo from the RCRA permitting
requirements. To the extent that these
generators are conducting the same
treatment/storage or treatment/disposal
as other permitted facilities, their on-site
treatment activities pose a potential risk
to human health and the environment.
Therefore, reduced or eliminated
permitting requirements would be
inappropriate.
Of course, no permitting would be
required if a generator chooses to treat
their hazardous waste in the generator's
accumulation tanks or containers in
conformance with the requirements of
§ 262.34 and Subparts J or I of Part 265.
Nothing in $ 262.34 precludes a •
generator from treating waste when it is
in an accumulation tank or container
covered by that provision. Under, the
existing Subtitle C system. EPA has
established standards for tanks and
containers which apply to both the
storage and treatment of hazardous
waste. These requirements are designed
to ensure that the integrity of the tank or
container is not breached. Thus, the
same standards apply to a tank or a
container, regardless of whether
treatment or storage is occurring. Since
the same standards apply to treatment
in tanks as applies to storage in tanks.
and since EPA allows for limited on-site
storage without the need for a permit or
interim status (90 days for over 1000 kg/
mo generators and 180/270 days for 100-
1000 kg/mo generators), the Agency
believes that treatment in accumulation
tanks or containers is permissible undor
the existing rules, provided the tanks or
containers are operated strictly in
compliance with all applicable
standards. Therefore, generators of KXv-
1000 kg/mo are not required to obtain
interim status and a RCRA permit if the
only on-site management which they
perform is treatment in an accumpliiiiini
tank or container that is exempt from
permitting during periods of
accumulation (180 or 270 days)
Two commenters suggested ihdi .1
mechanism should be created lo tiiii«r
RCRA permits to the circumstances -.>!
individual facilities. For example OHH
commenter specifically asked for H
simplified and streamlined permii lm
the incineration of spent paint spni\
-------
booth filters. The Agency accepts the
need to consider individual
circumstances when drafting RCRA
permits. However, in order to protect
human health and the environment, the
Agency must impose certain minimum
permit requirements for each waste
management facility. Additional
provisions may be incorporated into a
permit to account for unique
circumstances at individual facilities
(see § 270.32). At the present time, the
Agency has decided not to take any
action regarding the tailoring of
regulatory requirements for permitting
specific types of waste management
activities for generators of 100-1000 kg/-
mo. At a future date, the Agency may
consider altering the regulatory
requirements for specific waste types or
handling practices that pose a low
potential for harm to human health and
the environment.
Two commenters discussed the need
for establishing regional collection
centers for the temporary storage of
wastes from generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo before being sent to treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities. One of
these commenters suggested that the
collection centers may also offer waste
identification and packaging services
and could be sponsored by State or local
governments. Both commenters
contended that regional collection
centers will be needed because most
waste shipments from generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo will be too small to justify
the expense of direct transportation to
TSDFs in less than truckload quantities.
The commenters further stated that
these collection centers should not be
required to meet the full RCRA permit
requirements for storage facilities.
While the rules promulgated today
may increase the cost of waste
transportation services for many
generators of 100-1000 kg'/mo,
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo are
allowed to accumulate hazardous waste
at their facilities for 180 (or 270) days.
thereby reducing the need for frequent
shipment off-site and off-site collection
centers. Nevertheless, if regional
collection and storage facilities are
established, these centers will probably
accumulate significant volumes of
various types of hazardous waste. The
storage of large amounts of hazardous
waste, regardless of its point of origin.
poses the potential for harm to human
health and th» environment. Therefore,
the Agency believes that the
requirements for storage and disposal
fac:'ities as described in Parts 264 and
?a5 must also apply to regional
ollection facilities. Furthermore, wastes
hipped from a generator of more than
100 kg/mo to a collection center must be
properly identified, manifested.
packaged, labeled, marked, placarded.
and transported in accordance with
Parts 262 and 263 and applicable
regulations promulgate'o! under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act.
One commenter proposed that
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo be
exempted from the full corrective action
for continuing releases provisions of
RCRA section 3004(u). which apply to
all solid waste management units at a
Subtitle C facility seeking or issued a
permit. EPA disagrees with the
suggestion: Section 3004(u) applies to
releases to all media; however, the
Agency believes that action is required
only where necessary to protect human
health and the environment Section
3004(u) requires that all permits issued
to Subtitle C facilities after November
1984 shall include schedules of
compliance and financial assurance for
completing any necessary corrective
actions for releases of hazardous waste
or constituents from any solid waste
management unit at the facility,
regardless of the time at which such
waste was placed in such unit. The clear -
statutory directive precludes a reading
of the statute that limits an owner's or
operator's responsibilities to waste
placed in units during his or her tenure
or for releases from solid waste
management units that are not
"regulated units."
The corrective action requirements
will apply only to the few generators of
100 to 1000 kg/mo who choose to seek
permits. Thus, the potential burden of
corrective action must be accepted by
those who choose to manage their
hazardous waste on-site. Should such a
generator become subject to the
corrective action provisions, the Agency
is considering the advisability of taking
into account the firm's ability to pay
when establishing a compliance
schedule and thereby reduce the burden
to generators of 100-1000 kg/mo.
Nonetheless, the goal of these rules is to
reduce the risk to human health and the
environment from uncontrolled releases
of hazardous waste. The risks
associated with such releases depend on
the nature of each individual release.
not on the quantity of hazardous waste
generated by the facility. There is no
rational basis for distinguishing between
generators of 100 to 1000 kg/mo and
larger quantity generators when
determining whether a release, once it
occurs, poses an imminent threat to
human health and the environment and
needs to be cleaned up.
2. Applicability of Permitting
Requirements to Recycled Wastes
Several commenters addressed the
issue of recycled wastes. One
commenter stated that generators of
100-1000 kg/mb who recycle the
generated products should not be
required to meet full Parts 264 and 265
facility standards. The commenter
argued that since recyclable wastes are
frequently handled as if they were
original products, they should not be
subject to regulation. This approach has
already been considered by the Agency
and rejected (See 50 FR 614,617
(January 4.1985). At the time, EPA
indicated that wastes often have little
independent economic value, but are
recycled to avoid disposal costs. Unless
the wastes are extremely valuable (as in
the case of precious metal-containing
wastes), there is little incentive to avoid
leaks and spills. EPA sees no reason to
reconsider the issue at this time.
Two other commenters sought
clarification concerning whether the
proposed rule requires on-site waste
recycling operations to be permitted
under Parts 284 and 265. While the
actual recycling operation is generally
not subject to permitting, the rule does,
indeed, require {or will require)
permitting for certain recycling activities
and for storage associated with
recycling activities. Generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo of recyclable materials must
obtain a permit or interim status if all of
the following conditions are met:
(1) The material is a solid waste.
Whether or not a material qualifies as a
solid waste depends upon both what the
material is and how it is being recycled.
Seel J 281.2 and 261.4(a).
(2) The solid waste is a hazardous
waste. Generally, the waste must be
listed or exhibit one of four
characteristics. See §{261.3 and
261.4(b).
(3) The hazardous waste is not
exempt from regulation under § 261 .a
Exempted materials include industrial
ethyl alcohol that is reclaimed and scrap
metal.
(4} The non-exempt hazardous waste
is stored on-site for more than 180 days
(or 270 days if it is to be transported at
least 200 miles). See § 282.34(d).
If the solvent is stored in anticipation
of reclamation for more than 180 days,
however, the generator must obtain a
permit or interim status. See 1262.34(f).
In addition, use constituting disposal
and burning for energy recovery would
also be recycling activities rnqniring a
permit.
-------
10170
Vd. 51. No. 56 / McncUy,. March, 34t 1886 / lUtes *nrf ReguhrtJBM
3. Permit By Rule
Two commenters argued that
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo should lie
allowed to obtain a RCRA "permit by
rule" (under § 270.82} and by-pass the
Parts 264 and 265 permitting process.
Permits by rule have been granted by
EPA to facilities already regulated and
permitted under other Federal laws,
provided that the facilities are in
compliance with their permits and other
specified requirements. For example.
ocean disposal barges or vessels-are
granted permits by rule under RCRA
§ 270.60(a) for ocean dumping because
those activities are already permitted
under the authority of tha Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act. as amended U.S.C. 1420 etseq.
Tha commenters are requesting EPA
to apply permits by rule in such a
manner that could effectively exempt
generators of loa-1000-kg/me front
Federal requirement*. They have
suggested that the proposed rule
requiring, full Part 264 and 265 standards
for generators of 100-1000 kg/mo would
be too. burdensome. One commenter
noted that a permit by rule would allow
for relief from full RCRA requirements
and thus allow for continued waste
treatment/minimization activities, on-
site. The second commenter explained
that 100-1000 kg/mo generators are
already regulated under State and local"
environmental programs. This
commenter suggested that permits by
rule should be issued for generators of
100-1000 kg/mo who are in compliance
with "adequate State and local
environmental programs and permits."
EPA does not believe that it is
appropriate to, effectively exempt these
generators from Parts 264 and 285. Pint
of all. Congress explicitly directed EPA
to require that wastes from the**
generator* be managed at Subtitle C
facilities. Second, EPA believes that
compliance with the permitting process-
is essential to provide protection «£
human health and the environment EPA
disagrees that State and local regulatory
programs for generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo are sufficient to maintain, proper
protection of human health and the
environment, since most State programs
do not now require that such waste be
managed at Subtitle C facilities. Of
course, States with authorized RCRA
programs may adopt equivalent (or
broader or more stringent) requirements
and administer State programs for those
generators.
4. Modifications to Part A Permit
Applications
One commenter questioned whether
requiring revisions tc Part A and Part B
permit* foe facilities handling waste
from generator* of 100-1000. kg/mo will
be too time-consuming and may delay
the implementation of the proposed role.
EPA ia aware that the ml*
promulgated today will require changes
in the Part A applications for ail-site
facilities that manage wastes from 100-
1000 kg/mo generators. As explained in
the preamble to the proposed rule, off-
site interim status facilities managing
wastes from both hiHy regulated large
quantity generators and generator* of
100-1000 kg/no may be required to
modify their Part A permit applications
under 1270.72 to account for wastes
from 100-1000 kg/mo generators if those
wastes are currently being managed as
exempt pursuant to f 261.3 and are not
currently identified on the Part A
application. Thus, facilities mat receive
wastes from generators of 100-11000 leg/
ma only,, which previously want not
required to fill ant Part A forma under
§ 270.41 are now required to do so.
Similarly, facilities that receive wastes
from genezatois of IflO-lOOOkgas well
as large quantity generators, must
modify their parmii* to reflect tfii»
wastes received from 10Q-100O kg/ma
generators.
The Agency does.no* believe that tha
proposed changes requiring facilities
receiving, wastes, from generators of 100-
1000 kg/ma to add new information to
Part A applications or requiring facilities
to begin filing Part A appiicatiojui will
be overly time-consuming.
One commenter sought to clarify that
facilities that only handle hazardous
waste from generators who generate no
more than 100 kg/mo will still' operate
under a blanket exemption from Part 284
and Part 285.
Under the Hazardous- and1 Solid Waste
Amendments- el 1084, generator! of less
than-100 kg/mo- and those treatment.
storage, or disposal faeifitis* tan* serve
thew generators- wdl continue to
operate under tha caaaitional exemption
from Pact 264 ami Part 28* tha* is
contained lain-Section 281.5.
IV. Delayed Effective Dates
EPA proposed dial the effective date
of the regulatory requirements for 100-
IQOa kg/mo generators be six months
from the date of promulgation of the
rales. It was also pioposed that the
effective date of fee Parts 284- and 286
facility standard* for generator!!, that
manage waste on-site be delayed an
additional *ix months,, to. become
effective, one yea* from the date of
promulgation.
Of tha four comments received on this
issue, one opposed any delay in
effective dates beyond March'. 3:U 1386,
on grounds that it iaone of the hammer
provisions and would not be ia UN beat
interest of enforcement. Another
commenter suggested a ana year daisy
for all of tar reaoinmea*svTn» Agency
does net agree with ek&ar camnuntar.-
Firat. the plain language of section '.
3001(dR9) state* that the last sentence oi
section 3010(b.), wrack allows, to a Ins
than six month effective data under
certain circumstances, shall not apply to
standards issued under section SOOTfdJ.
Thus, the language of the statute
appears to preclude an effective date of
less than six months. Although it is
arguable that the statute sad its
legislative history indicate some intent
that the regulations become effective
immediately,* the Agency believes that
a better reading of the statute requires a
delay in the effective date of the rules
for at least six months.
Second, the Agency believes that a six
month effective date for the generator
requirements is essential from a policy
perspective in order to allow these small
businesses to become familiar with the
hazardous waste regulations, obtain an
EPA Identification number, and find
hazardous waste transporters and
Subtitle C management facilities.
Finally, EPA has determined that the six
month effective date ta consistent with
the statutory directive to promulgate
rules for these generators that attempt to
minimize the burden on small business.
Thus, EPA believes that allowing six
months for these generators to comply
with most of the provisions of the newly
applicable hazardous waste
management system is a reasonable
response to the directives of section
300t(d). As discussed below, the Agency
does not believe, however, that a full
year is needed for compliance with rules
other man those relating to on-site
waste management.
With regard to the additional six
month delay for compliance with on-site
management standards, one commenter
supported the proposal while another
opposed it as legally unjustifiable and
not protective of public health. Thin
commenter asserted that the effective
* While the Agaacy daee notbelievethat the
hammer proviiion* in lection 30OlCd)(8) dictate the
content of the final rults, it la arguable that a March
31,18SS effactive-daJe we* intended. The fact that
Comma required flnat rule* to be promulgated by
March 31.188S, under faction. 3«Hd)(a). in.
conjunction with a sutemeet in the Conference
Report that the tection 30tO(b) lix month delay in
effective dale* doe* not apply to Mm
-------
Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 f Rules and
dates for on-aite and off-site activities
should be the same.
EPA disagrees that the effective dates
for compliance must be the same for on-
site and off-site management activities.
l he same concerns regarding undue
burdens that would be imposed by an
immediate effective date for the full set
of regulations led the Agency to '
conclude that a reasonable period of
time was necessary for on-site
compliance with Parts 264 and 265.
Generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who
engage in on-site management activities
will generally have to change their
waste management practices in more
dramatic ways than those generators
who simply ship their wastes for
management off-site. Most will modify
their current practices in one of the
following ways: (1) By adopting on-site
management practices exempt from
Parts 264 and 265, (2) by shifting to off-
site management practices, or (3) by
adjusting any non-exempt on-site
practices so they comply with the full
Parts 264 and 265 facility standards. The
delayed effective date will permit these
generators to effect the necessary
changes in a safe and effective manner.
Under the final rule. 100-1000 kg/mo
generators will have an additional six
months to qualify for interim status and
come into compliance with the Part 265
interim status facility standards if they
manage their wastes on-site, as opposed
to off-site. The interim status facility
standards include a number of
requirements that call for substantial
time and investment, especially the
requirement for implementation of a •
ground-water monitoring program. The
installation, operation and maintenance
of the monitoring system to determine
impact on ground-water quality includes
installation of wells, which will require
some time to be constructed. In the
meantime, there will be some protection
to health and the environment by the
need for approval by States for these
generators to manage municipal or
industrial (non-hazardous) solid waste.
Generators who manage their waste
off-site will not need this additional time
to comply with today's rule. In many
cases, their current waste management
practices will be allowed under this rule.
Even if they must arrange for new off-
site management, six months should be
sufficient time for this transition.
Therefore, the Agency is retaining the
proposed effective dates.
V. Impact on Authorized States
A. Applicability in Authorized States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce their own
hazardous waste programs pursuant to
Subtitle C (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the
standards and requirements for
authorization.) Following authorization.
EPA retains enforcement authority
under sections 3008. 3013 and 7003 of
RCRA. although authorized States have
primary enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of the Federal
program. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
hazardous waste management facilities
which the State was authorized to
permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obligated to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames, however the new
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized State until the
requirements were adopted as State
law.
In contrast, under newly enacted
section 3006(g) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C.
6926(g), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States.
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt HSWA
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.
Today's final rule is promulgated
pursuant to section 3001(d) of RCRA. a
provision added by HSWA. Therefore, it
is being added to Table 1 in 5 271.1(j).
which identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final status for the
HSWA provisions identified in Table 1.
as discussed in the following section of
this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
the standards in authorized States until
they revise their programs to adopt
these rules and the revisions are
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA. a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3008(g){2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
adoption of these regulations under
section 3006{b) are described in 40 CFR
271.21 (49 FR 21678. May 22.1984). The
same procedures should be followedfor
section 3006(g)(2).
. Applying § 27l.21(e)(2). States that
have final authorization must modify
dieir programs within one year from the'
date of today's promulgation of EPA's
regulations if only regulatory changes
are all that are necessary, or within two
years if statutory changes are necessary.
These deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course. States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce them as a matter of State
law. In implementing the Federal
program. EPA will work with States
under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
action under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after today's promulgation of
EPA's regulations could be approved
without including standards equivalent
to those promulgated. Once authorized.
however, a State must modify its
program to include standards
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's within the time period discussed
above.
VI. CERCLA Impacts
Today's final rule does not change
existing CERCLA requirements relating
to releases of reportable quantities of
CERCLA hazardous substances.
Whenever a hazardous waste or waste
stream is listed under section 3001 of
RCRA. it automatically becomes a
hazardous substance under section
101(14) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
Section 103 of CERCLA requires that
persons in charge of vessels or facilities
from which hazardous substances have
been released in quantities that are
equal to or greater than the reportable
quantities (RQs) immediately notify the
National Reponse Center (NRC) fa't i8(X)i
-------
424-680Z o» (202) 424-2K5) of the
release. (See SO FR111456-13522, April 4,
T^tejra "hazardous, substance;' .
includes all substances-designated in.
§ 302.4{a) of the April 4.1965 final ml*
(50 FR 13474). as well as unlisted
hazardous wastes exhibiting the-RCRA
characteristics of ignitability*
corroaivity, reactivity, and extraction
procedure toxicity. (See }302.4(h) of the
Aprir 4,1985 final rule.)
All persons who release a reportable
quantity of a CERCLA hazardous
substance into the environment.
including small quantity generators, aia
subject to notification provisions of
section 103 of CERCLA (see 40 CFR
302.6{a) Jti-J (bj). However, as stated in
CERCLA section I03(f)(l). no
notification shdll be required under
CERCLA sections 103(a) and (b) for any
release of a hazardous substance which.
is required to be reported (or specifically
exempted from a requirement for
reporting) under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act or regulations
thereunder and which has been reported
to the National Response Center (NRC],
VII. Executive Order 12291—Kegufotary
Impact
Executive Order 12291 (48 FR 13193,
February 9.19811 requires that a
regulatory agency determine whether a
new regulation will be "major" and if so.
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
conducted.
The Administrator has determined
that today's final rule is not a major rule.
because it has total estimated costs of
less than S100 million per year, and has
no significant adverse economic effects.
These conclusions, are based on an
economic analysis of today's proposal.
This analysis involved developing cost
estimates of both current waste
management practices used by 100-1000
kg/mo generators and practices required
by today's final rule. Some of thaae
estimates were firm-specific and others
were waste stream-specific. These coats
were used along with estimates of the
changes in waste management practices
likely to result from today's final rule to
estimate the annual incremental
compliance costs to 100-100O kg/mo
generators (S46.9 milllion). These costs
were added to the estimated
government costs of implementing the
regulation of 512 million for a total
social cost of S58.9 million.
A. Estimates of Per Firm Costs
1. Part 262 Generator Standards
The estimated incremental
compliance costs attributable to Part 262 '
requirements can be divided into an
initial, one-time, cost of S2267 per firm.
and an annual recurring cost of $222 per
firm. These costs will be incurred by all
10O-1BOO kg/ao generators that weald
be subject to- the requirement of todays
regulation with two. exception*—
generators disposing of their wtates by
sending them to POTW's and generators
that have their waste reclaimed under
certain contractural agreements.
Generators sending wastes to POTW's
will incur no Part 262 related costs as a
result of the regulation (unless the waste-
is accumulated prior to discharge; sea-
3.a. of this Unit}. Generators »«ing
reclamation agreements wouki incur a
cost of $1694 initially and no annual
costs.
2. Transportation Costs
Under today's rule, generators; of ISO-
1000 kg/mo will be required to either
contract with an authorized hazardous
waste transporter or haul the hazardous
waste to a hazardous wasta
management facility that has a permit
from the Agency or an authorized State-,
or is in interim status. Incremental
transport costs depend on current
generator practices, the distance which
wastes are transported, the quantity of
wastes transported, and the number of
times wastes are loaded and transported
each. year.
In many cases,, there will b» nit
incremental transportation costs due to,
these regulations because currant waste
management practices involve waste
transportation. Where this is. not the
case, average incremental costs that
would be imposed on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators for the transportation of their
hazardous waste-are estimated to-be
between $S3a per- year (for generators
that ship 600 kg of waste a short
distance twice yearly) and $1862. per
year (for generators that ship 6000-kg of
waste a longer distance twice yearly).
3. Treatment Storage and Disposal
Costs
a. On-Site Accumulation: Undiir
today's final rule, generator! of 100-1000
kg/ma would be allowed to store
hazardous waste en-site without a
permit or interim status for up- to 18Q>
days, or for up. to 27& days if the waste
is to be shipped over 200 miles.
Generators of 100-1000 kg/mo who
store hazardous waste- on-site. within
the 180-day (or 270-day) period specified
under the provisions of the storage
exemption, will have to comply with •
Part 265. Subpart C (Preparedness and
Prevention), a reduced set of
requirements in Subpart D (Contingency
Plan and Emergency Procedures), and
limited requirements for personnel
training (Section 265.16 of Subpart B),
The incremental compliance costs, for
facilities that choose this management
option are divided into an initial iitart-up
cost of $1447 and an annual cost of $53.
Generators that store hazardous
waste on-site within the 180-day (or 270-
day) period nay alae toon costs retoted
to storage container (Subpart I) and
storage tank fSbbpart flf reomtoawn*,.
ThstnensneBtal coats.isr these
requirement depend* o» a number of
factors, including the cursor practices'
of the generator, the generator's storage*
capacity, and the composition of the-
hazardous waste being stand. The*
range of incremental costs, a* a recufe, ifc
fairly large. For container storage, initial
incremental costs raage from practicatty
zero to $1854 and annual costs range
from $404 to $447. Th»comspondfn§
incremental cost estimates for die-
existing rules far tanks are $155 far
initial costs, and $770 far annual easts.
b. Treatment andDtapoaek After
analyzing the cost of on-site treatment
and disposal for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators relative ta off-site costs, the
Agency has determined that in nearly all
cases, the teas* expensive hazardous
waste management alternatives
available to- these generators involve
off-site activities. The small quantities of
waste generated by these
establishment* simply do not permit
them to operate expensive on-site
management facilities on an
economically efficient basis. The costs
of off-site commercial feeatraent and
disposal upon which this conclusion is
based are derived from a composite of
various existing sources of data oil
commercial waste management prices.
They range from $150 to $350 per metric
ton (for secure landfills) to $280 to $1200
per metric ton (for either treatment or
incineration), depending on me
characteristics of the wastes.
B. Estimate* of Nationwide bicremgaial
Cost Burden an Generator* of lOtk-WOO
kg/mo-
The aggregate costs for todays rule
were developed by comparing the costs
of current (baseline) management
practices with hazardous waste
management practices which are
required by the rule. The Agency has
determined, based on this analysis, that
the annual incremental compliance cost
for this proposal would be
approximately $46.9 million.
On a per metric ton basis, the average
incremental compliance cost overall
wastes is about $180. Because of
differences in baseline practices, and.
hence, the cost of compliance, the
incremental costs vary substantially
among different wastes. In fact, the
baseline method of waste management
by these generators is adequate to
comply with the regulations in many
cases. Others will have to change waste
management practices in order to
comply. Much of the $46.9 million in
compliance cost, is focused on a few
types of wastes (spent solvents dry
cleaning fii'ntion residues, acids, and
-------
Federal R«gj.teT / Vol. 51. No. 36 / Monday. March 24. 1966 / Rulea and Regulating*
alkalies, and ignitable wastes) that
constitute a large proportion of the .
wastes generated by these generators.
C. Estimates of the Economic Impacts of
Today's Final Rule
An analysis of the effects of
compliance costs on the sales and
profitability of 289 model plants
indicates that in over 80 percent of
plants the incremental costs are less
than 10 percent of profits. A few of the
plants, particularly in service industries,
show incremental costs of greater than
10 percent of profits. Nearly three
quarters of the models most affected by
the proposal have annual revenues of
less than $500,000. Some of these
establishments are low profit or
nonprofit by design, such as public or
private golf courses, hospitals, and other
public institutions.
Only six plants have incremental
compliance costs which exceed 1
percent of sales and 25 percent" of
profits. For each of these model plants, a
more detailed evaluation was conducted
to determine whether these plants
would be likely to close. This analysis
indicated that plant closings as a result
of this regulation would be unlikely.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 etseq.). requires the Agency
to evaluate the impacts of regulations on
small businesses, small organizations
and small governmental jurisdictions.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis for
today's final rule includes such an
evaluation. The Administrator has
determined that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small firms.
Today's proposed regulations are
expected to primarily affect small firms.
Therfore. the Regulatory Flexibility Act
requirement concerning effects on small
businesses is addressed to a large
extent by the overall economic analysis
performed in conjunction with this
rulemaking.
Throughout the development of
today's final rule, the Agency's goal has
been promulgation of requirements that
would be the least burdensome to small
businesses and also meet the
Congressional mandate of protecting
human health and the environment. In
our effort to design regulations that
would meet this goal, we have worked
closely with small business
organizations, trade associations. State
and local governments. EPA's Small
Business Ombudsman in the Office oi
Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, and the Federal Small
Business Administration to assess the
needs and capabilities of small
businesses. EPA believes that this rule is
a balanced approach to regulating
hazardous waste from these generators
while considering their small busineflB
nature.
For purposes of this analysis, "small
entities" were defined as firms
comprised of fewer than 50 employees
for all of tjie sectors except
manufacturing (< 100 employees). In
many cases, these classifications are
approximations because the Small
Business Administration establishes size
standards in terms of sales levels, and
the size standards vary within sectors.
For example, most small entity size
standards for manufacturing industries
range between 500 and 1000 employees.
The results of this analysis indicate
that less than 10 percent of small
entities within the impacted industries
will be affected by the regulations. Most
small businesses will not be affected by
these regulations because they: 1) Do
not generate hazardous waste. 2)
generate less than 100 kg/mo, or 3}
generate over 1000 kg/mo and are
already subject to hazardous waste
regulations.
Even though only a relatively small
percentage of potentially affected small
businesses will probably be affected,
the more important issue to analyze is
whether or not a large number of those
which are affected will be severely
impacted. Three commonly accepted
tests were used to measure whether or
not businesses would be severely
impacted:
(1) Annual compliance costs will
increase the relevant production costs
for small entities by more than five
percent:
(2) Capital costs of compliance will
represent a significant portion of the
capital available to small entities.
(3) The costs of the regulation will
likely result in closure of small entities.
To analyze the significance of
compliance costs on small businesses.
data were developed for 25 different
types and sizes of model plants
representing those most likely to be
severely impacted by the proposed
regulations. Compliance costs were
computed for these model plants based
on the economic analysis described in
the previous section of this preamble.
In general, these regulations will not
cause significant impacts on small firms.
None of the model plants established for
this analysis show.cost increases of
more than five percent as a direct result
of compliance costs. The regulations
require no significant capital outlays
and thus should not affect capital
requirements or availability. Even the
most severely impacted model plants
would not close under the assumptions
ot this exercise and would continue to
operate at a profit.
In summary, it appears that the impact
on small firms will not cause a
significant number of hardships. There
will be isolated cases, involving on-site
management or transportation over long
distances, where compliance costs for
some individual firms may be severe. In
the case of on-site management;
however, the Agency believes that most
100-1000 kg/mo generators will switch
to off-site practices rather than face the
high costs of obtaining interim status or
a permit. Furthermore, approximately 70
percent of these generators are in
metropolitan areas, and would thus be
able to reduce transportation costs by
allowing transporters to consolidate
shipments by picking up waste from
more than one generator at a time.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. and have been
assigned OMB control numbers 2050-
0028 (Notification) and 2050-0039
(Manifest).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Intergovernmental relations.
Hazardous materials. Waste treatment
and disposal. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 262
Intergovernmental relations,
Hazardous materials, Labeling.
Packaging and containers. Reporting
requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal.
40 CFR Part 263
Intergovernmental relations.
Hazardous materials transportation.
Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste, Indian
lands. Intergovernmental relations.
Penalties. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
Dated: March 14. 1986.
Lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. Title 40 of the Code of Feueic.
Regulations is amended, as follows:
-------
l«ga»» / Vd. 51. Mo. S6 / fcaanday. March », 1986 / RuJea and Regufetiobs
—-^•«^-^^—— . * . _ O _
MANAGEMENT SYSTEIfc QEMERAL
1. The authority citatina,far Part 260
continues to read as follows:.
AutboriJy: Sta. 100ft. 2GOe(a)» 3001 ttvougb
3007. 3010. 3014. 3015. 3017. 3O18. aeift. and
7004. Solid Waste Disposal Act. u ara«nd«d
by th» Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976. as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,
6912(a), 6921 through 6927, 6930. 6934. 6933.
6937. 6939. 6939. and 6974).
2. Section 380.10 is amended by
adding a new definition, alphabetically*
as follows:
§280.10 Detinttona.
« • • • «
"Snail Quantity Generator1' means a
generator who generates less than 1000
kg of hazardous waste in a calendar
month.
PART 2t1—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation fot Part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006.2002(a). 3001. and
3002 of the Solid Wa*ta Dispose* Act. a*
amended by th* Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1974. at amended (42. U.S.C
6905.6912(a). 6921. and 6922).
4. Section 261.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (aXl) to read as
follows:
§ 281.1 Purpose and scop*.
(a) • ' *
(1) Subpart A defines the terms "solid
waste" and "hazardous waste".
identifies those wastes which are
excluded from regulation: under Port*
262 through 266 and 27OandestaMiaaea
special management requirements fot
hazardous waste produced by
conditionally exempt small quantity
generators and hazardous wast* wbiek
is recycled.
• • • 4 *
5. Section 261.5. it, revised to read a*
follows.'
§281.5 Special requirement* for
hazardous wast* genenrtwf ay
conditionally exempt emaN quantity
generators,
(a) A generator is a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator in a
calendar month if he generates no more
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste
in that month.
(b) Except for those wastes identified
in paragraphs (e), (f). (g). and (jj of this
section, a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator's hazardous, wastes
are not subject to regulation under Parts
262 through 266 and Parts 270 and 124 of
this chapter, and the notification
requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA,
provided- the generator ccmplieft witb
and (j) of this section.
(cy Hazardous waste thai ia not
subject to legmtation or that ia subject
only to i 2»U1. } 282.12.1262.'JOfc),
and § 262.41 is not included in the
quantity determinations, of this Part and
Parts 262 through 286 and 270 and is not
subject to any of the requirement* of
those Parts. Hazardous waste diet is
subject to the requirement* of § 261.6 (b)
and fc) and Subparts C, D, and F of Part
266 is included hr the quantity
determination of this Part and IK subject
to the requirements of Parts 282 through
266 and 270.
(d) In determining the quantify of
hazardous waste generated, a generator
need not include:
(If Hazardous waste when it is
removed from on-site storage; at
(2) Hazardous waste produced by on-
site treatment {including rectanMtibn) of
his hazardous waste, so tong as the
hazardous waste that is treated we*
counted once; or
(3) Spent material* that are generated,
reclaimed, and subsequently reused on-
site, so tong as such spent materials
have been counted once.
(e) If a generator generates acute
hazardous waste in a calendar inanlh in
quantities greater aaa set faith below,
all quantities of that acute hazardous
waste an subject to ratt regulation
under Parts 262 through 266 and Parts
270 and 124 of this chapter, aarf the
notification requirements of section 3010
of RCRA:
(1) A total of one kilogram of acute
hazardous wastes listed mil 2A-1.31.
261.32, er 2W.38(e).
(2) A total of *» kilogram* of any
residue or cenCaoriaated sod, waste, or.
other debris rasukiag- from the clean-up
of a spill, in to* or OK aojr tend or water,
of any acute aaoardou* waste* listed ia
i §-281.31, 3M.32, ce 2«.33 of this sectioav att ol (bone
accumulated wastes are-subject to
regulation under Parts 263 through. 266/
and Parts 270 and 124 of tbi» chapter.
and the applicable notification
requirements of section 3010 of RCRA.
Tke time period of i 262.34(4} fat-
accumulation- of wastes oa-atte; begin*
when the accumulated waste* exceed
the applicable exclusion ioait;
(3) A conUtionaUy exempt small
quantity generator may either treat or
dispose of hi* acute hazardous waste •
an on-site faeility, ox ensure delivery to
an off-site storage, treatment -or disposal
facility, either of which is:
(i) Permitted under Part 27O of thf»
chapter
(ii) In interim status under Parts 27O
and 265 of this chapter; ;
(iii) Authorized to manage hazardous
waste by a State with a hazardous
waste management program approved
under Part 271 of this chapter;
(iv) Permitted, licensed, or registered
by a State to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste; or
(v) A facility which:
(A) Beneficially uses or reuses,; or
legitimately recycles or reclaims its
waste; or
(B) Treats its waste prior to beneficial
use or reuse, or legitimate recycling or
reclamation. >
(g] In order for hazardous, waste
generated by a conditionally exempt
small quantity generator in quantities: of
less than 100 kilograms of hazardous
wasta during a calendar month to be
excluded from full regulation under this:
section, the generator must comply with
the following requirements:
(1) Section 262.11 of this chapter
(2) The conditionally exempt small
quantity generator may accumulate.
hazardous waste on-site. If he
accumulates at any time more than a
total of 1000 kilograms of lua hazardous
wastes, all of those accumulated wastes
are subject to regulation under the
special provisions of Part 262 applicable
to generators of between 100kg and
1000 kg of hazardous waste in a
calendas month as well as the
requireBMBts of Parts 2fta through; 2W
and Parts 270 and 124 of this chapter,
and the applicable notification
requirements of section 301O of RCRA.
Tha. time period of § 28244(d} for
accumulation of wastes on-aite- begins.
for a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator when the
accumulated wastes exceed 1000
kttograaas;
(3) A conditionally exempt small
quantity generator may either treat or
dispose; of his hazardous waste in aa on-
site facility, or ensure delivery to an off-
site storage, treatment, or disposal
facility, either of which is:
(i) Permitted under Part 27Oof thia
chapter
(ii) JA interim status under Parts 270 -
and 265 of this chapter;
(iii) Authorized to manage hazardous
waste by a State with a hazardous
waste management program approved
under Part 271 of thia chapter;
(iv) Permitted, licensed, or registered
by a State to manage municipal or
industrial send waste; or
-------
Federal Register / VoL M. No, 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / RuJgs and Reflations
t-1 A. facility which:
(A) Beneficially uses or reuses, or -
legitimately recycles or reclaims its
waste: or
(B) Treats its waste prior to beneficial
use or reuse, or legitimate recycling or
reclamation.
(h) Hazardous waste subject to the
reduced requirements of this section
may be mixed with non-hazardous
waste and remain subject to these
reduced requirements even though the
resultant mixture exceeds the quantity
limitations identified in this sectioa
unless the mixture meets any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Subpart C.
(i) If any person mixes a solid waste
with a hazardous waste that exceeds a
quantity exclusion level of this section.
the mixture is subject to full regulation.
(j) If a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator's wastes are mixed
with used oil, the mixture is subject to
Subpart E of Part 266 of this chapter if it
is destined to be burned for energy
recovery. Any material produced from
such a mixture by processing, blending.
or other treatment is also so regulated if
it is destined to be burned for energy
recovery.
6. In Section 261.33 the introductory
text of paragraph (f) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 261.33 Discarded commercial chemical
products, off-sp«cMca.tion spsctes,
container residues, and spHI residues there-
of
(f) The commercial chemical products.
manfacturing chemical intermediates, or
off-specification commercial chemical
products referred to in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section, are identified
as toxic wastes (T). unless otherwise
designated and are subject to the small
quantity generator exclusion defined in
§ 261.5 (a) and (g).
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
7. The authority citation for Part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a), 3002. 3003.
J004. and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as
amended (42 L'.S.C. KW16. 6
-------
ffi
f-fy
10176 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Parts 284 and 265 and the permit
requirements of 40 CFR Part 270 unless."
he has been granted an extension to the
180-day (or 270-day if applicable) period.
Such extension may be granted by EPA
if hazardous wastes must remain on-site
for longer than 180 days (or 270 days if
•'ippllcable) due to unforeseen,
temporary- and uncontrollable
circumstancr's. An extension of up to 30
d.tys may he granted at the discretion of
lh<: Regional Administrator on a-case-
bj-«se basis.
10. In Subpart D of Part 262, add the
following new | 262.44:
Sufaptrt D-Recordkeeping and
Reporting
tf 292.44 Special Requirements for
Generators of between 100 and 1000 kg/
mo.
A generator who generates greater
than 100 kilograms but less than 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month is exempt from the
requirements of this subpart, except for
the recordkeeping requirements in
paragraphs (a), (c). and (d) in § 262.40
and the requirements of 5 262.43.
PART 263—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
11. The authority citation for Part 263
cnrlinues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 2002(a). 3002. 3003.
.1004. and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and
H3 amended by the Quiet Communities Act of
(078 (-12 U.S.C. 6912(a). 6922. 6923. 6924. and
H925L.
12. In § 263.20. paragraph (h) is added
to read as follows:
> 263.20 The manifest system.
* • • • «
(h) A transporter transporting
hazardous waste from a generator who
generates greater than 100 kilograms but
less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous
waste in a calendar month need not
comply with the requirements of this
section or those of § 263.22 provided
that:
(1) The waste is being transported
pursuant to a reclamation agreement as
provided for in § 262.20(e);
(2) The transporter records, on a log or
shipping paper, the following
information for each shipment:
(i) The name, address, and U.S. EPA
Identification Number of the generator
of the waste:
(ii) The quantity of waste accepted:
(iii) All DOT-required shipping
information;
(iv) The date the waste is accepted;
and
(3) The transporter carries this record
when transporting waste to the
reclamation facility; and
(4) The transporter retains these
records for a period of at least three
years after termination or expiration of
the agreement.
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
13. The authority citation for Part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1008,2002,3005, 3007, 3019,
and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905. 6912, 6925, 6927. 6939, and 6974).
14. Section 270.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
§ 270.1 Purpose and scop* of these
regulations.
* * * * *
(c)* * *
(2)* * '
(i) Generators who accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for less than
the time periods provided in 40 CFR
262.34.
IS. Section 270.10 is amended by
adding paragraph (e)(l)(iii) to read as
follows: ;
•
§ 270.10 General application :
(e) * * *
(1)' • •
(iii) For generators generating greater
than 100 kilograms but less than 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month and treats, stores, or
disposes of these wastes on-site, by
March 24. 1987.
PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
18. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), and 3006 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,6812(a),
and 6926).
17. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
§271.1 Purpose and scope.
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMEND-
MENTS OF 1984
DIM
Trtt« at Regulation
Federal Ragolar
reference
Mar, 24. 19M Fieguiations for 51 FR [inter!
Generators of page number)
100-1000 kg/mo
of Hazardous
WasM.
[FR Doc. 86-6224 Piled 3-21-86; 8:45 am)
SILUMO COM M40-KMI
-------
-------
10178
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 56 / Monday. March 24. 1986../ Propoaed Rules
does not". . . create civil or criminal
consequences [and that) . . . judgments
made by the generators are not subject
to external regulatory action." S. Rep.
No. 284. 98th Cong., 1st. Sess. 67 (1983).
The interim manifest requirements
(hat went into effect on August 5.1985.
already require 100-1000 kg/mo
generators to sign the general
nertification of accuracy statement
contained on the manifest. The
certification statement consists of two
parts: The first deals with the
completeness and accuracy of the
information contained on the manifest
and the second with the waste
minimization certification. Only one
signature is actually required, regardless
of whether the minimization provision
applies, and the generator would not be
required to keep any additional records
as a result of the certification. Moreover,
EPA has exempted 100-1000 kg/ma
generators from the biennial report
requirement, which, in effect, exempts
these generators from the section
3002(a](6) requirement to submit
biennial reports on waste minimization.
As the Manifest certification
requirement merely encourages
generators to consider alternative waste
management practices that may be more
environmentally protective and more
economically advantageous from the
generator's perspective, the Agency
believes that little or no additional
administrative or technical burden
would be placed on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. In addition, the Agency
believes that there is real benefit to be
gained from the certification in terms of
protection of human health and the
environment, since generators may
choose to switch their waste
management practices after considering
alternatives.
Therefore. EPA is today requesting
public comment on whether the
requirement to certify on the manifest to
waste minimization is appropriate or
whether it poses a significant and
inappropriate burden on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. A 30 day comment period is
provided. After consideration of the
comments, the Agency will publish a
Federal Register notice if it determines
that an exemption from the waste
minimization certification requirement is
appropriate for these generators. If EPA
determines that no exemption is
appropriate, the waste minimization
certification requirement will go into
effect by operation of law at the time
that the requirements contained in the
final rule for 100-1000 kg/mo generators
found elsewhere in today's Federal
Register take effect; that is, six months
from the date of promulgation.
The Agency is currently preparing a
report to Congress on the feasibility and
desirability of establishing standards for
waste minmization. This report is
required under HSWA, and is due by
October 1,1986. Should the Agency
decide at some point in the future to
propose specific waste minimization.
standards for hazardous waste
generators, the Agency will specifically
consider the impact of those proposed
regulations on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators, as mandated by the HSWA.
ID. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major" and thus subject to the
requirement to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis. A rule is majoir if it will:
(1) Have an effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; (2) signifkiantly
increase costs or prices to industry; or
(3) diminish the ability of U.S.-based
companies to compete in domestic or
export markets. The Administrator has
determined that this proposal is not a
major rule because it would not result in
increased costs to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA must
consider the paperwork burden imposed
by any information collection request in
a proposed or final rule. This proposed
rule will not impose any information
collection requirements.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.. EPA must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for all
proposed rules unless the Administrator
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, I
hereby certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
601(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant impact on a '
substantial number of small entiQes
because it would not result in increased
compliance costs for 100-1000 kg/mo
generators.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 282
Intergovernmental relations.
Hazardous materials transportation.
Hazardous waste. Imports, Labeling,
Packaging and containers,
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Dated: March 14,1986.
Lae M Thomas,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 86-6223 Filed 3-21-86; 8:45 am)
MM-
------- |