[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21800-21804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9141]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262

[RCRA-2003-0014; FRL-7651-9]
RIN 2050-ZA02


Hazardous Waste Generator Program Evaluation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking 
information from its stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA's) hazardous waste 
generator regulatory program, as well as to identify areas for 
potential improvement. EPA, along with our State partners, will 
evaluate the information received in response to this notice to 
determine whether changes to the hazardous waste generator program are 
appropriate. If changes to the program are warranted, EPA will develop 
a strategy for implementing revisions to the hazardous waste generator 
program. The goals of this effort are to foster improved program 
effectiveness, a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and 
reduce compliance cost, where practicable. The Agency's efforts to 
develop revisions to the hazardous waste generator regulations would be 
predicated upon resource availability. The Agency also intends to hold 
meetings with the public to discuss this subject further, including the 
identification of priority concerns and potential solutions. A separate 
Federal Register notice will announce these meetings.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Send your comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA 
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
RCRA-2003-0014. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Section 
I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about this ANPRM, 
see the Web at: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/init/index.htm. If 
you do not have access to the Web, contact the RCRA Call Center at 800 
424-9346

[[Page 21801]]

or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, 
metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703 412-3323.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information 
?

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. The official public docket consists of 
the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public 
comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Docket. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket 
facility identified above.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or 
information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the 
instructions in Section I.C. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit 
CBI or information protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available 
in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected], attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are captured automatically by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in Section I.A. These electronic submissions 
will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send a copy of your comments to: OSWER Docket, Mailcode 
5202T, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: OSWER 
Docket, EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. Such deliveries 
only are accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as 
identified in Section 1.A.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically

[[Page 21802]]

through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI 
Docket Officer, U.S. EPA, Mailcode 5305W, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 , Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. You may 
claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or 
all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
you are claiming as CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives; i.e., identify any suggested alternative 
requirements which could meet the rule objectives and result in either 
reduced regulatory burden, reduced compliance costs, or increased 
environmental protection.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It also would be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Statutory Authority

    EPA is requesting information under the authority of sections 2002, 
3001-3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912 , 
6921-6930, and 6974.

III. Background

    In 1980, the Agency promulgated regulations applicable to 
generators of hazardous waste. These regulations were amended in 1986 
to address small quantity generators and again in the late 1980's and 
early 1990's to address land disposal restrictions and air emission 
control requirements for generators, respectively. These regulations 
are found at 40 CFR 261.5 and 40 CFR part 262.\1\ These regulations 
establish procedures and requirements for the management of hazardous 
waste on-site and off-site for both large and small quantity generators 
(LQGs and SQGs), as well as conditionally exempt small quantity 
generators (CESQGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note: Part 262 regulations lead the reader to other 
regulations found in parts 265, 266 and 268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation of the generator regulations have played a major 
role in ensuring that hazardous waste has been properly managed. 
However, during the twenty years since their implementation, generators 
complying with the regulations, and States implementing the hazardous 
waste program, have developed a great deal of experience with this 
program. These experiences have been both positive and challenging. On 
the positive side, they include thousands of generators instituting 
programs that successfully prevent spills and accidents and ensure the 
safe management of hazardous waste. They also include EPA and the 
States developing effective training, compliance and technical 
assistance programs that support hazardous waste generators. These 
successes, however, have not come without challenges. Stakeholders tell 
us that they find the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program to be 
very complex. Some generators believe the regulations are confusing. 
This may be particularly true for small businesses who often do not 
have the in-house capabilities or resources to devote to understanding 
and complying with the hazardous waste regulations. In other cases, EPA 
has heard that some hazardous waste generator regulations duplicate 
other federal regulations. Some stakeholders, conversely, are concerned 
that gaps may exist in the current regulations that could impede the 
safe management of hazardous waste.

IV. Request for Information

    With these concerns in mind, this notice is seeking information 
that will allow us to identify what is working effectively with the 
current regulatory program for hazardous waste generators, as well as 
to identify those aspects of the hazardous waste generator regulatory 
program that can be improved. The goals of improving our generator 
regulatory program are to foster improved program effectiveness, foster 
a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and reduce regulatory 
compliance costs, where practicable.
    Using the comments received in response to this notice, and 
information collected in public meetings with stakeholders, EPA, 
working with our State partners, intends to determine whether changes 
to the hazardous waste generator program are appropriate. If so, we 
will then develop a program improvement strategy that focuses on those 
actions that could most efficiently and effectively improve the 
program. In developing the strategy, we will take into account the 
resources necessary and available for implementing the strategy.
    Please note that this notice does not in any way change the 
existing Federal or State generator regulatory requirements. EPA is 
only seeking input on potential programmatic changes to improve the 
program. If any regulatory changes are proposed in the future, EPA will 
follow the full notice and comment process.
    More specifically, EPA seeks input on the following questions that 
are organized by program theme. In responding, please identify the 
organization you represent (e.g., company, trade association, public 
interest or citizen group, State implementing agency, etc.).
    1. Program effectiveness. From your perspective, is the existing 
RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program meeting its goal of 
protecting human health and the environment? Have hazardous waste 
accidents been prevented as a result of the hazardous waste generator 
regulatory program? Has the generation and disposal of hazardous waste 
been minimized or eliminated? Has the management of hazardous waste 
become safer as a result of this program? Are the regulations easy to 
understand? Are

[[Page 21803]]

they logically organized? Is it clear what actions are needed to comply 
with the regulations? Please identify the specific regulations that are 
working effectively by regulatory citation and explain the reasons they 
are working. (Note: As stated earlier, we are focusing on those 
generator regulations in 40 CFR parts 261.5 and 262, and those 
management requirements in 40 CFR part 265 referenced in those 
generator regulations. We are not addressing issues associated with the 
definition of solid waste, hazardous waste identification regulations 
associated with listings and characteristics, or export provisions.)
    2. Program improvements. From your perspective, what parts of the 
RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program can be improved and 
why? Please identify the specific regulations that are not working 
effectively by regulatory citation and explain the reasons they are not 
working. For example, is the regulation unclear? Are there multiple 
and/or inconsistent interpretations that cause uncertainty? Are you 
aware of any Agency interpretations that appear inconsistent with the 
regulatory wording? Is it clear what actions are needed to comply? Are 
there challenges or barriers that prevent you from complying 
effectively or efficiently with the regulations? Are there regulations 
that create unnecessary administrative burdens without providing 
additional increases in environmental protection? What impact does this 
problem have on your organization? Has your organization experienced 
any unintended adverse consequences as a result of complying with the 
regulations?
    What would you recommend as solutions to the problems you 
identified for the current regulatory program? How would the program be 
improved by addressing these problems? What environmental or economic 
benefits would be achieved? For example:

--Would the regulation(s) be more efficient for purposes of compliance?
--Would implementation be easier?
--Would improved environmental protection result?
--Would greater compliance be achieved?
--What mechanism do you recommend for solving the problem you 
identified? Rule change? Policy or technical compliance guidance? New 
regulatory interpretations? Other (information dissemination, training, 
outreach, etc.)?

    To help you answer these questions, some areas that have been 
identified by stakeholders in the past that could be improved are 
listed below:

--Waste accumulation times for both large and small quantity 
generators. Should there be different regulatory requirements for 
accumulating hazardous wastes other than the current specified time 
periods? If so, why?
--Waste generation quantity thresholds and counting rules for LQGs, 
SQGs, and CESQGs.
--Episodic generator requirements; i.e., where the volume of hazardous 
waste generated in any given month fluctuates, for example due to 
equipment maintenance, such that a generator switches back and forth 
between generator categories from month to month. What requirements 
apply to episodic generators, such as submission of a Biennial Report, 
preparation of Contingency Plans, changes in training requirements, 
etc.?
--Waste sampling and testing. When is the use of grab sampling more 
appropriate than representative sampling? When is the use of analytical 
testing more appropriate than use of generator knowledge?
--Waste management standards for LQGs, SQGs and CESQGs. Are the 
regulations clear and effective?
--Satellite accumulation. What activities are allowed and what 
activities are prohibited within the specific regulatory provisions of 
40 CFR 262.34 (c)? What requirements generators must comply with when 
moving wastes between a satellite accumulation area and a consolidation 
area?
--Generator accumulation and treatment in containers or tanks. What 
constitutes a ``closed'' container? What tank standards apply to 
generators? What types of treatment are allowed and not allowed in 
containers or tanks; clarifying if treatment is allowed in satellite 
accumulation areas?
--Closure standards for generator accumulation areas. What requirements 
are generators responsible for under 40 CFR 265.111 and 265.114?
--Co-generator requirements. Who must comply with generator 
requirements when a hazardous waste is generated by a contractor 
working (e.g., providing maintenance services) at the generator's 
facility.
--RCRA identification numbers. Should wastes from different locations 
be allowed to be consolidated into one reporting and/or identification 
number? To what extent should a RCRA ID number be tied to the site 
definition?
--Waste minimization. Are there more efficient and effective mechanisms 
other than the hazardous waste manifest for generators to certify that 
they have a waste minimization program in place? Are there options that 
would not violate the RCRA statute?
--Land disposal restriction requirements applicable to generators. Is 
applicability clear? What notification requirements apply? What are the 
different requirements for listed vs. characteristic wastes?

    3. Program redundancy. Are there certain parts of the RCRA 
hazardous waste generator regulatory program that overlap, duplicate, 
or conflict with other federal rules? Please provide the specific 
regulatory citations to both the RCRA regulations and the other federal 
regulations and explain how they overlap. If possible, please provide 
copies of or citations to the other federal agency guidance, policy 
documents, or legal opinions you believe are of concern. How would you 
suggest that EPA resolve such conflicts?
    4. Program innovations. Realizing that most of the hazardous waste 
generator regulatory program was promulgated over 20 years ago, are 
there new techniques or technologies that lend themselves to improving 
the existing regulatory framework in a more systematic and efficient 
manner? Are there new technologies that substantially reduce or 
eliminate hazardous waste generation? For instance, many generator 
facilities have adopted environmental management systems (EMSs) to 
assist them in complying with regulatory programs and as a method to 
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental 
management operations. How best can EPA facilitate the use of EMSs and 
other management techniques as vehicles to improve the hazardous waste 
generator program? Similarly, should EPA promote the research and 
development of innovative technologies to improve the management of 
hazardous waste? If so, in what areas? What would the potential 
benefits be to the protection of human health and the environment? What 
are the barriers towards implementing innovative processes that address 
hazardous waste generation?
    5. Performance Track Program. The National Environmental 
Performance Track (NEPT) is a voluntary program that recognizes and 
rewards facilities for beyond-compliance environmental performance. For 
membership in NEPT, facilities must apply and meet several criteria. 
These include:


[[Page 21804]]


--Adopting and implementing an environmental management system (EMS),
--Having a record of sustained compliance with environmental 
requirements,
--Demonstrating environmental achievements and committing to continued 
improvement in particular environmental categories, and
--Engaging the public and quantitatively reporting on their 
environmental performance.

    NEPT member facilities submit annual reports that summarize their 
progress in achieving their chosen commitments in specific 
environmental categories. This annual reporting, and additional 
activities undertaken by member facilities to engage the public, allows 
a high level of Agency scrutiny to continuously assess facility 
performance. In addition, facilities are accepted to Performance Track 
for a period of three years. To continue membership in the program 
after three years, facilities must renew their membership which 
includes developing additional, ongoing commitments to environmental 
performance improvements.
    The Agency believes that because of the stringent qualification 
criteria and ongoing performance assessment, NEPT facilities should 
benefit from non-regulatory and regulatory flexibility not otherwise 
available to other generators of hazardous waste. Therefore, what RCRA 
generator requirements would be appropriate for NEPT facilities? Are 
there specific hazardous waste generator regulatory requirements that 
could be reduced, modified or eliminated for Performance Track member 
facilities?
    6. State programs. Are there any specific State hazardous waste 
regulations, interpretations, or implementation programs that EPA 
should review and evaluate for improving and/or clarifying our 
generator regulations? If so, please provide copies of or citations to 
these regulations, interpretations and programs.
    7. Compliance assistance. EPA wants to help generators understand 
and comply with the hazardous waste generator regulations. Similarly, 
EPA wants to provide the most effective support to States and others 
who provide compliance and technical assistance to hazardous waste 
generators. To this end, a great deal of compliance assistance 
information and links to additional resources are available at 
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance.
    EPA is interested in obtaining comment on where we can be most 
effective in this area. For example, have you sought assistance from 
EPA in the past? Did you receive the assistance you needed? If not, why 
not? What types of assistance (information, technical assistance, 
training, etc.) could EPA provide that would result in greater 
compliance? How can the assistance be provided cost-effectively? What, 
if any, barriers to compliance could be removed that would result in 
greater compliance?
    8. Measuring program performance and environmental results. To 
measure performance of the hazardous waste generator program, EPA has 
in the past relied on indices such as the number of inspections and 
number of generators in compliance with the regulations. From your 
perspective, do other or better indices exist that more accurately 
measure program performance and environmental results? If so, what are 
they and what mechanisms, particularly existing mechanisms, could EPA 
use to collect these data? For example, would measuring the number of 
hazardous waste accidents occurring annually by facility and nationally 
be a good measure? By type of accident; i.e., spill during transport 
(either within a facility or between facilities), release from a 
leaking container, fire, explosion? By type of waste?
    9. Burden reduction. EPA is also seeking ways to reduce the record 
keeping and reporting burden on generators, while increasing our 
ability to measure environmental results more effectively. Over the 
last few years, EPA initiatives have identified several areas, such as 
the Biennial Reporting System and the Land Disposal Restrictions 
program, where record keeping and reporting requirements can be 
potentially reduced and still maintain our ability to measure 
environmental results. Are there other areas of the hazardous waste 
generator regulatory program where burden reduction can occur and still 
allow EPA to measure environmental results? Conversely, are there 
specific record keeping and reporting requirements that are redundant, 
confusing, or very time-consuming and costly that should be reviewed 
and evaluated? Please identify the specific regulations and reasons for 
seeking this review.
    10. Fostering pollution prevention and recycling. EPA strongly 
believes that source reduction and recycling practices constituting 
legitimate/beneficial use of secondary materials result in both cost 
savings to industry and improved environmental benefits. How can EPA 
encourage generators to practice pollution prevention and recycling? 
Are there particular industrial sectors, waste streams, or chemicals on 
which we should focus our efforts? If so, why? What barriers prevent 
you from practicing pollution prevention and recycling? What types of 
assistance (research and development, information, technical 
assistance, training, incentives, etc.) could EPA provide that would 
result in your adopting pollution prevention practices or recycling as 
part of your operation?
    Similarly, the Agency is seeking information from generators 
describing successful pollution prevention and recycling techniques, 
practices, or processes that could be shared with and transferred to 
other organizations. In particular, EPA would be interested in 
facilities identifying the following: industrial sector; a description 
of the pollution prevention or recycling process, technology, or 
practice implemented; the costs of implementation; cost savings 
derived; environmental benefits achieved, such as reduction in air or 
water releases, resources conserved or reused, and reduction or 
elimination of hazardous waste generated; and point of contact, if 
possible.
    11. Program Priorities. Realizing that EPA will not be able to 
address all stakeholder concerns immediately, please identify the top 
three priority projects you would like to see EPA undertake in the near 
future. In identifying these priorities, please identify the 
environmental and/or economic benefits of undertaking these projects.
    Finally, EPA intends to hold meetings with the public to obtain 
additional feedback on the above questions. Details about the location 
and dates of these meetings will be announced in a Federal Register 
notice in the very near future.

    Dated: April 15, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-9141 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P