for exemption associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste by an
SQG.
1. Accumulation of Hazardous Waste on Drip Pads
    On December 30, 1988, EPA issued a proposed rule listing three
additional hazardous wastes from wood preserving operations that use
chlorophenolic, creosote, and/or inorganic (arsenic and chromium)
preservatives, and listing one hazardous waste from surface protection
processes that use chlorophenolics (53 FR 53282). As part of this rule,
the Agency proposed additional standards ``applicable to drip pads in
treated wood storage yards and in kick back areas used in managing
hazardous wastes at wood preserving and surface protection facilities.
These standards are intended to provide for proper handling of treated
wood drippage'' (53 FR 53308).
    In terms of the types of RCRA facilities this regulation would
apply to, the proposed rule identified and discussed the regulatory
requirements for two groups: Hazardous waste TSDFs subject to the part
264 permitting standards and LQGs subject to the part 265 interim
status drip pad standards. More specifically, the preamble stated that
``in the event that drippage is collected and is moved from the drip
pad within 90 days following generation, generators may avail
themselves of the 90-day accumulation standards of 40 CFR 262.34, and
would not need Part B permits for their drip pads or tanks (consistent
with Sec.  264.1(g)(3), 265.1(c)(7), and 270.1(c)(2)(i)) provided that
they comply with the Part 265 standards, as required by 40 CFR 262.34''
(53 FR 53309).
    When EPA promulgated the final rule for these hazardous wastes (55
FR 50450, December 6, 1990), the discussion addressed the same universe
of facilities (i.e., hazardous waste TSDFs subject to the part 264
permitting standards and LQGs subject to the part 265 interim status
drip pad standards).
    Pursuant to Sec.  262.34(a), LQGs may accumulate the hazardous
waste they generate without having to obtain a RCRA permit provided
they comply with several specified conditions, including the technical
standards for containers, tanks, drip pads, or containment buildings
found at part 265 subparts I, J, W, and DD, respectively. Similarly,
pursuant to Sec.  262.34(d), SQGs may accumulate the hazardous waste
they generate without having to obtain a permit, provided they comply
with several specified conditions, including the technical standards
for containers and tanks found at part 265 subparts I and J,
respectively. Although there is no explicit condition for SQGs
accumulating and managing their hazardous waste on drip pads, EPA
intended SQGs accumulating hazardous wastes on drip pads either to
comply with all of the conditions for exemption, as well as any
associated independent requirements for LQGs at part 265 subpart W, or
else obtain a Part B permit for their drip pads (consistent with
Sec. Sec.  264.1(g)(3), 265.1(c)(7), and 270.1(c)(2)(i)).
    EPA has consistently interpreted this regulatory requirement to
apply to SQGs. For example, as stated in the wood preserving technical
guidance document issued by EPA in 1996, a copy of which is found in
the docket, ``this 90-day limit applies to both large quantity and
small quantity generators. While small quantity generators may normally
accumulate hazardous waste in accumulation units for up to 180 days,
this is not the case for small quantity generators accumulating waste
on Subpart W drip pads. Owners/operators of wood preserving facilities
who generate between 100-1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per
calendar month and who accumulate the waste on drip pads are not
eligible for the reduced standards normally provided for small quantity
generators. Instead, these generators must comply with all the
management conditions for large quantity generators accumulating
hazardous waste on drip pads.'' \101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ ``Wood Preserving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Compliance Guide--A Guide to Federal Environmental Regulation,''
U.S. EPA, EPA-305-B-96-001, June 1996, Section 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the RCRA training module for drip pads, a copy of which
is found in the docket to this proposal, reinforced this principle by
stating the following: ``Under Sec.  262.34(d), small quantity
generators (SQGs) are subject to a reduced set of requirements when
accumulating hazardous wastes in tanks or containers meeting the
interim status unit standards. SQGs who accumulate wood-preserving
wastes on drip pads do not qualify for this partial exemption.
Consequently, all generators of more than 100 kilograms of waste per
month who manage wood-preserving wastes on drip pads must comply with
the requirements applicable to LQGs in Sec.  262.34(a). As a result,
the maximum generator accumulation time period on drip pads is 90
days.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ``Introduction to Drip Pads (40 CFR parts 264 and 265,
subpart W),'' RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Call Center Training Module,
U.S. EPA, EPA530-K-02-008I, October 2001, page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the end of the same paragraph, the document states, ``Generators
using drip pads must also comply with the requirements that apply to
large quantity generators for personnel training, development of a full
contingency plan, and biennial reporting,'' suggesting that SQGs
accumulating hazardous waste on drip pads must comply with all of the
conditions and independent requirements for LQGs, and not just the
accumulation time limits.
    Because of this statement, the Agency believes that confusion may
potentially exist about the applicability of the regulations. As stated
above, if an SQG accumulates hazardous waste in containers, it can
comply with a reduced set of regulations, including accumulation of
hazardous waste for up to 180 days, whereas if the SQG accumulates
hazardous waste on drip pads, it must comply with the regulations for
LQGs. The Agency believes a more effective and efficient approach is to
require SQGs accumulating hazardous waste on drip pads to comply with
the technical standards of part 265 subpart W, including compliance
with the LQG 90-day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day
accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with less stringent
conditions for SQGs found at 40 CFR 262.34(d). EPA notes that hazardous
waste that is generated elsewhere at the wood preserving facility and
accumulated in tanks or containers (i.e., not accumulated on drip pads)
will remain subject to the SQG accumulation limits. Only waste that is
accumulated on drip pads must comply with the LQG accumulation
limits.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ ``Wood Preserving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Compliance Guide--A Guide to Federal Environmental Regulation,''
U.S. EPA, EPA-305-B-96-001, June 1996, Section 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because both the monthly generation quantities (e.g., greater than
100 kg and less than 1,000 kg) and accumulation total (e.g., not to
exceed 6,000 kg at any one time) for SQGs are significantly less than
the generation and accumulation quantities for LQGs, the Agency
believes that SQGs complying with the less stringent conditions at
Sec.  262.34(d) (e.g., personnel training, contingency plan) will be
protective of human health and the environment. Other than complying
with the management standards at 40 CFR part 265 subpart W, the Agency
sees no difference in the risks associated with hazardous wastes
accumulated in tanks or containers. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
modify the SQG regulations to require SQGs who

accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads to comply with the technical
standards of 40 CFR part 265 subpart W, with the 90-day accumulation
limit for that hazardous waste, and with all of the other hazardous
waste accumulation standards for an SQG currently found at Sec.
262.34(d).
    Situations may also occur where an SQG initially accumulates
hazardous waste on a drip pad but subsequently transfers this waste to
a container or tank for subsequent management. Similarly, the opposite
situation may occur where hazardous wastes are generated and first
accumulated by an SQG in a tank or in containers and then transferred
to a drip pad. The Agency is proposing that the SQG have up to a total
of 180 days to accumulate the hazardous wastes, which includes both the
time the waste is on a drip pad and when it is in a tank or container,
but that the total amount of time to accumulate the hazardous waste on
the drip pad must not exceed 90 days. For example, if an SQG
accumulates hazardous wastes on a drip pad for 80 days prior to
transferring its waste to a tank, the SQG would be able to accumulate
waste up to 100 days in the tank before it would be required to send it
off-site for subsequent waste management, or conversely, treat and
dispose of the waste on-site in compliance with all applicable RCRA
regulations under parts 262 through 268 and 270.
    In the case of an SQG first accumulating a hazardous waste in a
tank or container and then transferring the waste to a drip pad, the
generator would still have up to a total of 180 days, depending on the
circumstances, to send the waste off-site for subsequent waste
management, or conversely, treat and dispose of the waste on-site in
compliance with all applicable RCRA regulations under parts 262 through
268 and 270. However, under the proposal, the amount of time allowed
for the SQG to accumulate the hazardous waste on a drip pad may not
exceed 90 days. For example, if an SQG first accumulated hazardous
wastes in a tank or container for 100 days and then transferred the
waste to a drip pad, the SQG would be able to accumulate up to 80 days
more (for a total of 180 days) to accumulate the waste on the drip pad
before the generator would be required to send the waste off-site for
subsequent waste management, or conversely, treat and dispose of the
waste on-site in compliance with all applicable RCRA regulations under
parts 262 through 268 and 270.
    However, if an SQG first accumulated hazardous wastes in a tank or
container for 80 days and then transferred the waste to a drip pad, the
SQG would only have 90 days more (or a total of 170 days) to accumulate
the waste on the drip pad before the generator sent the waste off-site
for subsequent waste management, or conversely, treat and dispose of
the waste on-site in compliance with all applicable RCRA regulations
under parts 262 through 268 and 270.
    EPA solicits comments on these proposed revisions. In particular,
EPA requests comment on whether SQGs accumulating hazardous waste on
drip pads should be subject to the accumulation time limit of 180 days,
similar to SQGs accumulating hazardous wastes in containers and tanks.
Conversely, EPA is seeking comment on whether SQGs accumulating
hazardous waste on drip pads should be subject to all applicable
conditions and requirements for LQGs, and not just the 90-day
accumulation time limit.
    The Agency also requests comment on the procedures for documenting
and ensuring hazardous wastes are removed from the sump or collection
system 90 days or less from being first placed on the drip pad and also
for situations where hazardous waste accumulation involves both drip
pads and containers or tanks.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is affected by
the proposed reorganization. As part of the reorganization in this
action, EPA is proposing to move the conditions for exemption for SQGs
accumulating hazardous waste from Sec.  262.34 to Sec.  262.16. The
proposed drip pad conditions for SQGs can be found at Sec.
262.16(b)(4). The reorganization is discussed in section XIII of this
preamble.
2. Accumulation of Hazardous Waste in Containment Buildings
    Consistent with the changes proposed for hazardous wastes
accumulated on drip pads by SQGs, the Agency is also proposing that
SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings for 90
days or less without a permit or interim status must comply with the
technical standards of part 265 subpart DD and with all other
conditions associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste by SQGs
currently found at Sec.  262.34(d).
    Similar to the drip pad regulations, the containment building
regulations promulgated in 1992 (August 18, 1992, 57 FR 37194) did not
discuss the possibility of an SQG accumulating hazardous wastes in a
containment building, but instead only discussed TSDFs and LQGs
accumulating hazardous waste in containment buildings (57 FR 37212).
Thus, under the current regulations, SQGs that choose to manage
hazardous wastes in containment buildings can only do so if they comply
with the LQG requirements or obtain a Part B permit for their
containment building.
    EPA is proposing to modify the regulations to allow SQGs to
accumulate hazardous wastes in containment buildings for 90 days or
less without a permit or without having interim status provided they
comply with the technical standards of part 265 subpart DD and comply
with all other conditions associated with the accumulation of hazardous
waste by an SQG found at Sec.  262.34(d). As with wastes accumulated by
SQGs on drip pads, the Agency believes that SQGs complying with the
less stringent conditions at Sec.  262.34(d) (e.g., personnel training,
contingency plan) will be protective of human health and the
environment and other than complying with the management standards at
40 CFR part 265 subpart DD, the Agency sees no difference in the risks
associated with hazardous wastes accumulated in tanks or containers.
    As with drip pads, situations may potentially arise where hazardous
wastes are first accumulated in a containment building and then
transferred to containers for subsequent accumulation, or vice-versa.
The Agency is proposing the same framework as described in the
discussion on drip pads above for how long SQGs may accumulate
hazardous wastes in a containment building to maintain their hazardous
waste accumulation exemption.
    EPA solicits comments on this proposed revision. In particular, EPA
requests comment regarding whether SQGs accumulating hazardous waste in
containment buildings should be subject to the accumulation time limit
of 180 days, similar to SQGs accumulating hazardous wastes in
containers and tanks or, conversely, whether SQGs accumulating
hazardous waste in containment buildings should be subject to all
applicable conditions for an exemption and independent requirements for
LQGs, and not just the 90-day accumulation time limit. EPA also seeks
comment on situations where hazardous waste accumulation involves both
containment buildings and containers or tanks.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is affected by
the proposed reorganization. As part of the reorganization in this
action, EPA is proposing to move the conditions for

exemption for SQGs accumulating hazardous waste from Sec.  262.34 to
Sec.  262.16. The proposed containment building regulations for SQGs
can be found at Sec.  262.16(b)(5). The proposed containment building
regulations for LQGs can be found at Sec.  262.17(a)(4). The
reorganization is discussed in section XIII of this preamble.

K. Deletion of Performance Track Regulations

    EPA launched The National Environmental Performance Track in 2000
to provide regulatory and administrative benefits to Performance Track
members. Performance Track was a public-private partnership that
encouraged continuous environmental improvement through use of
environmental management systems, community outreach, and measurable
results. In order to provide regulatory benefits to members, EPA made
changes to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, among others, that
specifically referenced members of Performance Track.
    EPA terminated the Performance Track program in 2009. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to remove obsolete references to Performance Track in
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations as a part of this rulemaking. In
some cases, a whole paragraph of regulation will be removed and in
other instances we will remove just the part of the paragraph that
references Performance Track. The deleted paragraphs would then be
reserved to reduce the possibility of confusion by replacing them with
other regulations. The references that would be removed would be the
following:
     Sec.  260.10: Definition of Performance Track member
facility;
     Sec.  262.34(j), (k), and (l): Regulations for
accumulation of hazardous waste by LQGs in Performance Track;
     Sec.  262.211(c): Two parenthetical references to Sec.
262.34 (j) and (k) in the regulations for academic labs in subpart K of
part 262;
     Sec. Sec.  264.15(b)(4) and 265.15(b)(4): References to
the requirements for inspection of areas of the facility subject to
spills in Sec. Sec.  264.15(b)(5) and 265.15(b)(5), respectively;
     Sec. Sec.  264.15(b)(5) and 265.15(b)(5): Requirements for
Performance Track member facilities that reduce inspection frequency
for areas subject to spills;
     Sec. Sec.  264.174 and 265.174: References to Performance
Track requirements for inspections of areas where containers are
stored;
     Sec. Sec.  264.195(e), 265.195(d), and 265.201(e):
Requirements for Performance Track member facilities for inspections of
tank systems;
     Sec. Sec.  264.1101(c)(4) and 265.1101(c)(4): Requirements
for Performance Track member facilities for reduced inspections of
containment buildings;
     Sec.  270.42(l): Procedures for permit modifications for
Performance Track member facilities; and
     Appendix 1 to Sec.  270.42--Classification of Permit
Modification, Section O.1: Indication that a permit modification for
reduced inspections for a Performance Track member facility is a Class
1 permit modification.
    The provisions that EPA is proposing to remove were added to the
regulations in the National Environmental Performance Track Program
final rule, dated April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21737), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative final rule,
dated April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16862), and the Academic Laboratories final
rule, dated December 1, 2008 (73 FR 72912). The Agency is requesting
comment on whether there are additional references to the Performance
Track program in the RCRA hazardous waste regulations that should be
removed as a part of this rulemaking.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

L. Clarification of Biennial Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 262.41)

    EPA is proposing to modify the biennial reporting regulations for
generators found at 40 CFR 262.41 in order to make the regulations
consistent with Agency guidance, including its biennial report
instructions and forms. More specifically, the Agency is proposing the
following revisions: (1) Only LQGs need to submit biennial reports; (2)
LQGs must report all of the hazardous waste they generate for the
entire reporting year, not just the month(s) the generator was an LQG;
(3) LQGs completing a biennial report must report all hazardous wastes
they generated in the reporting year, regardless of whether they
transferred the waste off site during the reporting year; and (4) a
reference to the biennial report form (EPA form 8700-13) at Sec.
262.41 rather than the list of specific data elements in currently at
that citation.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to modify the title of subpart D
from ``Recordkeeping and Reporting'' to ``Recordkeeping and Reporting
Applicable to Small and Large Quantity Generators'' in order to
highlight which entities need to comply with this subpart.
1. Biennial Report Requirements Are Only Applicable to LQGs
    The first proposed change is to modify the biennial reporting
regulations in Sec.  262.41 to make these only applicable to LQGs (and
thus not applicable to SQGs and CESQGs). Currently, the biennial report
regulations at Sec.  262.41(a) and (b) refer to ``a generator'' and
``any generator,'' but do not further specify which categories of
generators must complete and submit a biennial report. However, current
EPA guidance, as well as a 1986 FR notice, states that only LQGs must
complete and submit a biennial report to EPA.104 105 To
reduce confusion between the regulations and EPA's current guidance
regarding the applicability of biennial reporting requirements, EPA is
proposing to modify Sec.  262.41 to state that only LQGs are required
to complete and submit a biennial report. This proposed change would
not result in a substantive change to the existing regulations, but
would make clear who is required to submit the biennial report.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to modify the phrase ``prepare and
submit'' which is the existing language in Sec.  262.41, to ``complete
and submit'' because the Agency believes that ``complete and submit''
more accurately reflects that LQGs must complete all applicable
elements of the biennial report forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The Federal Register notice states, ``the Agency is today
finalizing the proposed exemption from the biennial report
requirements of Sec.  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.'' (51 FR 10160, March 24, 1986). Additionally,
EPA's Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms specify that
only LQGs (as well as facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
RCRA hazardous waste on-site) must complete and file the biennial
report (http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm).
    \105\ Both EPA and the states have received questions from
generators regarding whether they must submit a biennial report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.
2. LQGs Must Report All Hazardous Waste Generated During the Reporting
Year, Not Just for the Month(s) the Generator Was an LQG
    The second proposed change is to modify the biennial reporting
regulations to require LQGs to report all of the hazardous waste they
generate for the entire reporting year, not just the month(s) the
generator was actually an LQG. (Additionally, if EPA were to make final
the proposed provision allowing an LQG to receive hazardous waste from
a CESQG under control of

the same person, an LQG would also have to report the waste it received
during the reporting year. See section VII.C of the preamble for
discussion of this provision.) The Agency is proposing this change
since there have been different positions provided by EPA regarding
whether LQGs must report on the amount of hazardous waste generated and
managed for the entire reporting year or only for those months they
were an LQG, and, thus, were subject to the LQG standards, including
biennial reporting. In addition, although the vast majority of states
require LQGs to report the total amount of hazardous waste they
generate for the entire reporting year, even if they were an LQG for
only one calendar month, there are at least two states that only
require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated and
managed for those months they were an LQG.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Relatedly, EPA is also proposing to allow CESQGs and SQGs
that generate additional amounts of hazardous waste in response to
an episodic event that would have required a bump up in generator
category to maintain their generator category provided certain
conditions are met. See section IX of this preamble for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, in a 1980 Federal Register notice, the Agency stated,
``The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of part 262 apply,
however, only to those periods in which the generator's hazardous waste
is subject to full regulation under part 262. Thus, for example, the
annual report of a generator whose waste is subject to full regulation
under part 262 for three months in a year would cover the generator's
activity only for those three months'' (45 FR 76621, November 19,
1980). However, current EPA guidance in the Hazardous Waste Report
Instructions and Forms instructs generators to report the total
quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year. The
regulations in Sec.  262.41 are silent on this issue.
    In the interest of national consistency, EPA proposes to modify the
regulations at Sec.  262.41 to require LQGs to report the total amount
of hazardous waste generated during the entire reporting year. EPA
believes that this change will ensure a more complete and reliable
estimate on the total amount of hazardous waste generated in order to
support various RCRA program development and implementation efforts by
EPA and the states.
    The Agency does not anticipate significant added burden from this
provision. First, EPA knows of only two states (Idaho and Kentucky)
that currently require generators to report only those hazardous wastes
generated during the months the generator was an LQG. Thus, this
modification will only affect a small percentage of the LQG universe
that in certain months are not LQGs. Second, these LQGs are already
completing a biennial report, so the change in burden will be in
reporting the additional amounts of hazardous waste they generate for
the remaining months of the reporting year that they were not an LQG.
Third, generators are already required under Sec.  261.5(c) and (d) to
count the amount of hazardous waste they generate monthly to determine
their regulatory status and thus would be counting hazardous waste
during months they are not LQGs. Fourth, most generators transfer the
hazardous waste they generate off site and, thus, should be able to use
their hazardous wastes manifests to calculate the total amount of
hazardous wastes they generate annually.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.
3. LQGs Must Report All Hazardous Waste Generated During the Reporting
Year, Regardless of When the Waste Was Transferred Off Site
    The third proposed change requires LQGs completing a biennial
report to report all hazardous wastes they generated during the
reporting year, regardless of when the hazardous waste was transported
off site. Although the current biennial report instructions clearly
state that LQGs should report the total quantity of hazardous waste
that was generated during the reporting year, the regulations do not
address cases in which the generator generates hazardous waste during
the reporting year, but ships the waste off site during the next
calendar year.
    For purposes of completeness and to be consistent and avoid
confusion with the current biennial report and its instructions, the
Agency is proposing to state in Sec.  262.41 that LQGs must report all
hazardous wastes they generate in the reporting year, regardless of
when the generated hazardous waste was transferred off site. The Agency
believes that this change will not pose a significant burden since the
information is already available; it is simply stating clearly in which
year the data is reported.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.
4. Replace the List of Specific Data Elements With an Independent
Requirement To Complete and Submit All Data Elements Required in the
Biennial Report Form (EPA Form 8700-13)
    EPA is proposing to modify the regulations at 40 CFR 262.41 to
eliminate the specific list of data elements and to require the
completion and submission of all data elements contained in the
biennial report form (EPA form 8700-13).
    Section 262.41(a) currently requires that the biennial report
include a specific list of data elements, including the name, address,
and EPA ID number of the generator and each transporter and TSDF, the
EPA hazardous waste number for each hazardous waste shipped off site,
and a signed certification, among other things.
    In the nearly three decades since the biennial report regulations
were first promulgated, EPA's biennial report form and instructions
have evolved to enable better data analysis and to reduce burden, where
possible. Thus, the regulations at Sec.  262.41 no longer accurately
reflect the data elements currently listed in EPA's biennial report
instructions and forms. For example, current EPA guidance for biennial
reporting requires generators to identify their hazardous wastes using
not only the EPA hazardous waste number, but also using source, form,
and management method codes. Additionally, EPA no longer requires the
collection of the name and EPA identification number of each
transporter in the biennial report. In order to maintain consistency
between the regulations at Sec.  262.41 and the EPA biennial report
instructions and forms, EPA is proposing to remove the list of specific
data elements currently in the regulations and to simply require
completion and submission of all the data elements required in EPA form
8700-13. This change eliminates the need to update the list of data
elements in the regulations, which would require periodic rulemakings,
every time that changes were made to the information to be provided.
    At least every three years, EPA's biennial report instructions and
forms are reviewed and approved through the information collection
request (ICR) process under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The PRA
requires EPA to issue proposed and final notices in the Federal
Register and to provide opportunity for public comment, thus ensuring
that the regulated community is informed and has the opportunity to
comment on the report instructions and

form. The PRA also requires approval by the Office of Management and
Budget. Eliminating the list of specific data elements currently in the
regulations therefore does not eliminate public input and avoids
duplication with the review and approval processes established under
the PRA.
    EPA does not believe this change in any way affects the
enforceability of the biennial reporting regulations. Generators must
complete and submit all information required by EPA form 8700-13. EPA
also notes that this approach is similar to the current regulations at
Sec.  262.12, which require generators to obtain an EPA identification
number using EPA form 8700-12 (Site ID form). Section 262.12 does not
contain an itemized list of specific data elements contained in EPA
form 8700-12. Instead, it requires the completion and submission of the
specified form.
    EPA also notes that some states develop their own biennial report
forms, based on the federal forms. EPA does not believe this proposed
change would impact the biennial reporting processes in these states.
Authorized states that use a different form for collecting biennial
report information would simply refer to their authorized state form in
their state regulations.
5. Request for Comment
    The Agency requests comment on the proposed changes to Sec.
262.41. EPA also specifically requests whether commenters believe the
proposed change to eliminate the specific data elements in Sec.  262.41
will ease compliance and understanding of the current biennial
reporting procedures.

M. Provision Prohibiting Generators from Disposing of Liquids in
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Proposed Sec.  262.14 and Sec.
262.35)

    EPA is proposing to add a paragraph at Sec.  262.14 (for CESQGs)
and Sec.  262.35 (for SQGs and LQGs) that hazardous waste generators
are prohibited from disposing of liquid hazardous wastes in landfills.
This is not a new requirement; it is a reflection of existing
regulations found at Sec.  258.28 for municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs), and Sec. Sec.  264.314 and 265.314 for permitted and interim
status hazardous waste landfills. The Agency believes it is important
to emphasize that the responsibility for complying with this provision
not only resides with municipal and hazardous waste haulers and
landfill operators, but also with hazardous waste generators.
    The restriction for disposal of liquid hazardous waste in MSWLFs
has been in place since 1991 at Sec.  258.28 and specifically restricts
``bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes, except (1) household wastes
(other than septic wastes), and (2) leachate and gas condensate that is
derived from the MSWLF unit where the unit is equipped with a composite
liner and a leachate collection system. . . designed and constructed to
maintain less than 30 centimeters of leachate over the liner'' (56 FR
51055, October 9, 1991).\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The prohibition on liquid wastes in MSWLFs applies to all
liquid wastes and not just liquid hazardous wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the same preamble, EPA went on to state that liquids
restrictions are necessary because the disposal of liquids into
landfills can be a significant source of leachate generation and that
restricting the introduction of liquids into landfills would minimize
the leachate generation potential of landfills and reduce the risk of
liner failure and subsequent contamination of the ground water.\108\
The special requirements for bulk and containerized liquids in part 264
address similar concerns about the management of liquids in
landfills.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 56 FR 51055, October 9, 1991.
    \109\ 40 CFR 264.314(a) and 265.314(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current practices and operations, the primary onus for seeing
that hazardous waste liquids are restricted from landfills generally
resides with the hauler. Should a random inspection at a landfill of
the hauler's waste find liquid hazardous waste, the landfill operator
cannot accept the hauler's waste without violating its landfill permit.
As a result, the hauler would be required to transport its waste back
to the generator or to a RCRA-permitted treatment facility and pay the
significantly higher tipping fees for any required treatment prior to
disposal. While the waste management hauler or transporter can provide
a measure of oversight, ultimately the hauler must rely on the due
diligence and waste management practices of the hazardous waste
generator to avoid such an outcome. In other words, the hazardous waste
generator is responsible for ensuring that hazardous waste liquids are
not disposed of in landfills.
    Considering the importance of restricting liquid hazardous wastes
in landfills, the Agency believes including a mirror provision in the
40 CFR part 262 hazardous waste generator regulations would increase
awareness, and thus compliance, by generators with the liquids
restriction that currently exists in Sec. Sec.  258.28, 264.314(a) and
265.314(a) Therefore, the Agency is proposing to incorporate this
provision into the generator regulations at part 262.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is affected by
the proposed reorganization in that we are proposing to include the
provision as a condition in Sec.  262.14 for CESQGs, as well as in
Sec.  262.35 for SQGs and LQGs.

N. Extending Time Limit for Accumulation Under Alternative Requirements
for Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Facilities (40 CFR Part 262
Subpart K)

    The Agency is proposing to extend the accumulation time for
unwanted material by eligible academic entities with laboratories
operating under 40 CFR part 262 subpart K from six months to one year.
    Under 40 CFR part 262 subpart K eligible academic entities have the
choice of operating their laboratories under the alternative subpart K
standards instead of the satellite accumulation area regulations at 40
CFR 262.34(c). Currently, if the eligible academic entity chooses to
operate its laboratories under subpart K, the entity must remove the
unwanted material from each laboratory under the following two
circumstances: (1) Every 6 months; or (2) within 10 days, if the
laboratory accumulates more than 55 gallons of unwanted material or 1
quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material.
    Operating under the SAA regulations, an eligible academic entity
has no time limit for accumulation. Therefore, for smaller eligible
academic entities that do not accumulate 55 gallons in a laboratory,
subpart K's six month accumulation time limit can mean a shorter, more
stringent, accumulation time than they have under the satellite
accumulation area regulations. Eligible academic entities have cited
this shorter accumulation time as a disincentive for opting into the
alternative standards in subpart K. The Agency therefore requests
comment regarding its proposal to increase the accumulation time limit
in an eligible academic entity's laboratory to 12 months.
    Lengthening the time would yield a cost savings for those operating
under subpart K compared to the costs they have now. The longer
accumulation time would come with no increased risk because the volume
limits--which are the same as the SAA volume limits--would continue to
be in place for the rare cases where labs do accumulate 55 gallons of
unwanted material or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted
material.
    The Agency requests comment on extending the accumulation time for

unwanted material by eligible academic entities with laboratories
operating under 40 CFR part 262 subpart K, from six months to one year.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

IX. Proposed Addition to 40 CFR Part 262 for Generators that
Temporarily Change Generator Category as a Result of an Episodic Event

    EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to maintain its
existing generator category if, as a result of a planned or unplanned
episodic event, the generator would generate a quantity of hazardous
waste in a calendar month sufficient to bump the facility into a more
stringent generator category (i.e., CESQG to either an SQG or an LQG;
or an SQG to an LQG). This proposed change would allow a CESQG or SQG
to generate additional quantities of hazardous waste--exceeding its
normal generator category limits temporarily--and still maintain its
existing regulatory category provided it complies with specified
conditions discussed below. Because these events are considered to be
temporary and episodic in nature, the hazardous waste generator would
only be allowed to take advantage of this provision once every calendar
year. Also as explained below, a CESQG or SQG could petition EPA to
manage one additional episodic event per calendar year.

A. Background

    Under the current RCRA regulatory framework for hazardous waste
generators, a generator's category is determined by the quantity of
hazardous waste it generates in a calendar month. For example, if a
generator generates less than or equal to 100 kilograms of non-acute
hazardous waste and 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste in a calendar
month, then it can comply with the regulations applicable to a
CESQG.\110\ However, if that same generator generates more than 100
kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste
and less than or equal to 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste in the
following calendar month, then it must comply with all applicable
regulations associated with an SQG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Note: Besides the generation of non-acute hazardous waste,
a generator's category is also determined by the quantities of acute
hazardous waste it generates in a calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At issue is when the generator generates an additional quantity of
hazardous waste in a calendar month as a result of an episodic event--
(planned or unplanned)--only to revert back to its normal waste
generation quantities in the following month. For example, a CESQG
plans a short-term demolition project that generates an additional 500
kilograms of hazardous waste in the calendar month, resulting in the
CESQG becoming an SQG for that calendar month. However, once the
demolition project has been completed, the generator's waste generation
drops such that it again qualifies as a CESQG. Other examples of
planned episodic events include tank cleanouts, short-term construction
projects, site remediation, equipment maintenance during plant shut
downs, and removal of excess chemical inventories.
    Unplanned episodic events, which may be less frequent, include
production process upsets, product recalls, excess inventory,
accidental spills, or ``acts of nature,'' such as a tornado, hurricane,
or flood. For example, an SQG suffers an unplanned disruption in
production that results in the generation of 3,000 kilograms of an off-
specification product that cannot be sold and must be discarded,
therefore bumping the generator from an SQG to an LQG for that calendar
month.
    Currently, for the one month the hazardous waste generator was
subject to more stringent regulations, the generator has two options:
(1) Temporarily change its waste management practices to comply with
those of the more stringent generator category for the duration of the
event or (2) permanently adjust and manage all subsequent quantities it
generates in the more stringent generator category (even though it is
in a less stringent generator category in subsequent months).
Generators that do not comply will be out of compliance with the
applicable regulations.
    Under the current regulatory framework, a CESQG must comply with
minimal conditions for an exemption. For non-acute hazardous waste,
these include the following: making a hazardous waste determination;
counting the amount of hazardous waste it generates to ensure it is a
CESQG (e.g., generates less than or equal to 100 kilograms of non-acute
hazardous waste and 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste in a calendar
month); accumulating no more than 1,000 kilograms on site at any one
time; and sending its hazardous waste for subsequent off-site waste
management to one of several specified designation facilities.\111\
However, if an episodic event were to occur, such as the generation of
an additional 500 kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste resulting from
a disruption in production process, the generator would need to comply
with the SQG regulations that include both independent requirements and
conditions for exemption. Having to obtain a RCRA identification number
would be an example of an independent requirement, whereas managing its
hazardous wastes in containers or tanks subject to the applicable 40
CFR part 265 subparts I and J regulations, and marking and labeling the
containers would be examples of conditions for exemption. EPA believes
requiring a CESQG to comply with the additional SQG or LQG regulations
or an SQG to comply with the LQG regulations for the month its
hazardous waste exceeded the quantity limits based on an episodic event
(planned or unplanned) may be unnecessary to protect human health and
the environment. Instead, the Agency is proposing a more practical
approach to ease compliance for episodic generators and still protect
human health and the environment. By complying with the specified
conditions, the generator would be able to maintain its current
generator category and would not be required to comply with the more
stringent site-wide regulations applicable to the higher generator
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ A CESQG may send its hazardous waste to (1) a hazardous
waste facility permitted by EPA; (2) an interim status hazardous
waste facility; (3) a hazardous waste facility permitted by an
authorized state; (4) a facility permitted, licensed or registered
by a state to manage municipal solid waste; (5) a facility
permitted, licensed or registered by a state to manage non-municipal
non-hazardous solid waste; (6) a facility which beneficially uses or
reuses or legitimacy recycles or reclaims its wastes or treats its
waste prior to beneficial use or reuse or legitimacy recycling or
reclamation; or (7) universal waste handler or destination facility
subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA does not have specific information regarding the
number of generators that may take advantage of its proposed
alternative episodic standards, we can make certain estimates using
data collected through the biennial report. EPA currently estimates
that 1,270-2,550 generators could potentially take advantage of this
provision if it is finalized.\112\ However, EPA believes that the
potential universe of generators that may want to take advantage of the
episodic event standards may be significantly higher and is seeking
comment on what a more reliable estimate might be. For example, there
may be certain industrial sectors in which generators have a higher
probability of being episodic generators

than in others (e.g., retail, oil and gas exploration, utilities, and
military bases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other
Impacts of the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator
Regulatory Program, As Proposed, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Industrial Economics, Incorporated, May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2014, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
for the Retail Sector in which the Agency requested, among other
topics, comments from retailers on issues they face in complying with
the RCRA regulations. Some commenters mentioned the challenge posed by
complying with the hazardous waste regulations when an irregular event
causes them to exceed the threshold of their normal generator category
for a single month. This provision would provide a way for retailers
and others to manage that challenge.

B. Proposed Conditions for Episodic Generators

    Under the proposed framework, a CESQG or an SQG generating an
increased quantity of hazardous waste because of an episodic event that
resulted in a temporary change in a generator's category would be able
to maintain its existing generator category provided specified
conditions are met as the waste is accumulated. We believe these
conditions will be sufficient to ensure these additional hazardous
wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. Similar to the
existing hazardous waste regulatory framework, should a CESQG fail to
meet the specified conditions, it would immediately lose the CESQG
accumulation exemption and be the operator of a non-exempt storage
facility unless it also immediately complied with all of the conditions
for exemption for an SQG or LQG. If an SQG failed to meet any specified
condition for exemption, it would immediately lose its exemption and be
the operator of a non-exempt storage facility unless it had immediately
complied with all of the conditions for an exemption for an LQG.
    For both CESQGs and SQGs taking advantage of this provision, the
following conditions must be met:
    (1) Episodic events are limited to one per calendar year;
    (2) The generator must notify EPA at least 30 calendar days prior
to initiating a planned episodic event or within 24 hours after an
unplanned episodic event or as soon as possible; identify the start and
end dates, which may be no more than 45 days apart, as well as other
information about the event; and identify a facility contact and/or
emergency coordinator with 24-hour telephone access to discuss
notification submittal or respond to emergency;
    (3) The generator must obtain an EPA ID number (CESQGs);
    (4) The generator must comply with specified hazardous waste
management conditions as the waste is accumulated on-site;
    (5) The generator must use a hazardous waste manifest and hazardous
waste transporter to ship the waste generated by the episodic event to
a RCRA-designated facility within 45 calendar days from the start of
the episodic event;
    (6) The generator must complete and maintain specified records.
    EPA is also proposing a petition process to allow hazardous waste
generators to request from EPA one additional episodic event within the
same calendar year and/or an extension of up to 30 calendar days to
complete an episodic event and still be eligible to maintain its
generator category. An example of how the implementation of these
provisions would work in practice, particularly the start and end dates
in conjunction with normal waste generation and accumulation
operations, follows a discussion of these requirements.
    The proposed regulations for episodic generators are located at a
new part 262 subpart L, Sec. Sec.  262.230-232.
1. Number of Episodic Events per Calendar Year
    The Agency is proposing that a CESQG or a SQG be allowed to exceed
its generator category limits only once per calendar year without
affecting its generator category.113 114 EPA has several
reasons for this restriction. First, if a CESQG or SQG exceeds its
generator category limits more frequently than once per calendar year,
EPA is concerned that these generators are more likely to be routinely
generating greater amounts of hazardous waste and thus it may be more
appropriate for the generator to comply with the regulations applicable
to the higher generator category, at least for the months they exceed
the quantity limits for their generator category. Second, EPA believes
most hazardous waste generators experience an episodic event
infrequently, such as once every few years, and these events are
typically planned maintenance projects. Third, the Agency does not
consider an episodic event to be limited to one project within the
generator's site. In fact, a generator could start and complete
multiple projects (e.g., a small demolition project, a tank cleanout,
and removal of excess chemicals) at different dates within the 45 day
time limit so long as it stayed within the 45 day start and end dates
identified on the notification form with all hazardous waste generated
considered part of the same episodic event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ As discussed later, the length of a generator's episodic
event may overlap two calendar years in which case discretion would
be provided to EPA or the authorized state as to how it would
address a request for another episodic event in the second year by a
generator.
    \114\ EPA is proposing a process to petition the Agency for an
additional event, if warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Notification
    A SQG or CESQG would have to notify EPA no later than 30 days prior
to initiating a planned episodic event using EPA form 8700-12 (Site ID
form). Should EPA finalize this provision, EPA will provide
instructions in the Site ID form on how to report an episodic event
(for example, using the notes section of the form). The hazardous waste
generator would be required to identify the dates the episodic event
will begin and end--a time frame not to exceed 45 calendar days--as
well as describe the reason for the event and the types and estimated
quantities of hazardous wastes that would be generated during the
event. Should an unplanned event occur, the generator would be required
to notify EPA as soon as possible via phone or email, but must submit
EPA form 8700-12 (Site ID form) within 24 hours of the unplanned event,
or as soon as possible depending upon the circumstances. Unless
notified by EPA or an authorized state, a CESQG or SQG would be allowed
to begin its episodic event on the date identified on its form 8700-12.
    The date identified on the notification form as the start date for
the episodic event is assumed to be the date the generator initiates
physical action in generating and accumulating the hazardous waste.
Whether such action actually occurs on that date or after by the
generator will have no impact in changing the end date of the episodic
event identified on the notification form.
    No matter what, the end date must be no later than 45 calendar days
from the date identified on the notification form as the start date of
the episodic event. The end date will be the date on which all
hazardous waste generated from the episodic event, and possibly other
hazardous waste also generated during that time period as part of
normal operations, will have had to be removed and sent to a RCRA
designation facility as verified by the hazardous waste manifest. The
Agency does not see any reason to preclude a generator taking advantage
of this provision to also dispose of other hazardous wastes generated
during the time of the episodic event.

    As part of the notification form, a CESQG would have to notify its
local fire department that it was taking advantage of an episodic
event. The notice would need to include the start and end dates and
identify the types and quantities of hazardous wastes that would be
generated.
    EPA believes notification is essential to inform regulatory
authorities of the facility's activities in order to enable adequate
compliance monitoring of the facility with the conditions of the
alternative standards.
3. EPA ID Number
    A CESQG generating and accumulating quantities of hazardous waste
that would otherwise result in a higher generator category because of
an episodic event (whether planned or unplanned) would be required,
under the proposed regulations, to obtain an EPA ID number using EPA
form 8700-12 if one had not previously been assigned. A generator
cannot initiate a hazardous waste shipment to a RCRA-designated
facility without an EPA ID number. (SQGs are already required to obtain
an EPA ID number.)
4. Waste Management Standards
    a. Accumulation standards for CESQGs. Under the current
regulations, a CESQG must not accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of
non-acute hazardous waste at any one time, but otherwise does not have
any on-site waste management standards when accumulating hazardous
waste, primarily because the quantities generated every month are so
small. EPA is proposing to require a CESQG that generates episodic
hazardous waste that would cause the CESQG to exceed its generator
category limit for the calendar month to comply with the following
accumulation standards for containers and tanks that manage the
episodic wastes if it wants to take advantage of the episodic generator
provision (CESQGs are prohibited from using a drip pad or a containment
building). EPA believes that these standards are necessary because the
quantity of hazardous waste that is accumulated during this episodic
period requires standards for safe management in order to adequately
protect human health and the environment.
    When accumulating hazardous waste in containers, the CESQG would be
required to mark its containers with the following: (1) The words
``Episodic Hazardous Waste''; (2) other words that identify the
contents of the containers--examples may include, but are not limited
to the name of the chemical(s), such as ``acetone'' or ``methylene
dichloride,'' or the type or class of chemical, such as ``organic
solvents'' or ``halogenated organic solvents'' or, as applicable, the
proper shipping name and technical name markings used to comply with
DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D; and (3) an indication of
the hazards of the contents of the container--examples of hazards
include, but are not limited to, the applicable hazardous waste
characteristic(s) (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic). In the
case of hazardous wastes ultimately treated and disposed of off-site,
the generator could use a hazard class label consistent with the DOT
requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling), use a label
consistent with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR
1920.1200, or use a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code
704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' GHS.
Generators also may use any other marking or labeling commonly used
nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and emergency
responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of
the containers.
    These marking standards are the same as those for LQGs and SQGs
accumulating hazardous wastes in containers in the course of normal
business operations and are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. In addition to these, the CESQG would be required to mark
the date that the episodic event began clearly on each container.
    For tanks, the CESQG would have to mark or label the tank
containing hazardous waste accumulated during the event with the words
``Episodic Hazardous Waste'' and would be required to use inventory
logs, monitoring equipment, or other records to identify the contents
of the tank, the quantity accumulated as a result of the episodic
event, and the associated hazards and to identify the date that the
episodic event began. The records containing this information would
have to be immediately accessible by the generator.
    In addition, the generator would be required to manage the
hazardous waste in a manner that minimizes the possibility of an
accident or release. Management standards are critical to ensure the
hazardous waste does not pose a risk to human health and the
environment. A CESQG may use best management practices to comply with
this condition. In practice, this includes managing the hazardous waste
in containers that are in good condition and chemically compatible with
any hazardous waste accumulated therein and keeping the containers
closed except to add or remove waste. Complying with the standards in
part 265 subpart I would satisfy this condition.
    With respect to tanks, the following standards are proposed: (1)
Having procedures in place to prevent overflow (e.g., the tank is
equipped with a means to stop inflow with systems such as a waste feed
cutoff system or bypass system to a standby tank when hazardous waste
is continuously fed into the tank); (2) inspecting the tank(s) at least
once each operating day during the episodic event to ensure all
applicable discharge control equipment, such as waste feed cutoff
systems, bypass systems, and drainage systems, are in good working
order and (3) using appropriate controls and practices to prevent
spills and overflows from tank or secondary containment systems
including at a minimum spill prevention controls (e.g., check valves,
dry disconnect couplings), overfill prevention controls (e.g., level
sensing devices, high level alarms, automatic feed cutoff, or bypass to
a standby tank), maintenance of sufficient freeboard in uncovered tanks
to prevent overtopping by wave or wind action or by precipitation. Such
practices are necessary to prevent the release of the hazardous waste
or hazardous constituents to air, soil, or water, which could threaten
human health and the environment.
    As mentioned above, an emergency coordinator (in compliance with
proposed Sec.  262.16(b)(9)(i)) must be identified for the duration of
the episodic event on the notification form. A CESQG taking advantage
of this provision would also need to notify the local fire department
of who their emergency coordinator was if they had not done so already
for other emergency preparedness and planning reasons. An emergency
coordinator is needed because the CESQG will be generating greater
amounts of hazardous waste than normal and, should an accident occur,
the emergency coordinator would need to be prepared to handle the
situation.
    EPA believes these management standards are necessary to adequately
protect human health and the environment because of the additional
quantities of hazardous waste generated and accumulated as a result of
an episodic event. The Agency, however, seeks comment on these proposed
management standards. In particular, the Agency is aware of concerns
expressed by generators in the past that the marking and labeling of
tanks with the date the generator first began

accumulating hazardous waste could prove problematic since the tank
could have numerous markings on it. (See comments found in RCRA Docket
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0678 in response to EPA's Technical Corrections Direct
Final rule, 75 FR 12989.) The Agency has responded to this concern by
allowing generators to use log books and other means to identify the
hazardous waste accumulation start date. However, the Agency is
proposing that CESQGs (and SQGs) label their tanks with the words
``Episodic Hazardous Waste'' so that emergency responders and others
are readily aware of the tank's contents and situation. The Agency
requests comment on whether this requirement could also prove
problematic, and if so, why, and what cost-effective alternatives exist
to address those concerns and still allow emergency responders,
inspectors, workers, etc. to be readily aware of the tank's hazardous
waste contents.
    Under the existing regulations, CESQGs may not treat hazardous
waste generated on site in a manner equivalent to SQGs and LQGs under
Sec.  262.34, except in an on-site elementary neutralization unit.
Elementary neutralization units, as defined in Sec.  260.10, are exempt
from RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal standards and permitting
requirements. The elementary neutralization unit exclusion does not
preclude a CESQG from treating waste in the exempt unit as long as the
generator meets the criteria outlined in Sec. Sec.  264.1(g)(6),
265.1(c)(10), and 270.1(c)(2)(v). Specifically, the elementary
neutralization unit must meet the definition of a container, tank, tank
system, transport vehicle, or vessel, and must be used for neutralizing
wastes that are hazardous only because of the corrosivity
characteristic.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ RCRA Hotline Q & A, February 1996, RCRA Online 13778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering that CESQGs will be required to meet additional waste
management requirements under this proposed rule for episodic
generation, the Agency seeks comment on whether CESQGs taking advantage
of this provision should be allowed to treat their episodic hazardous
waste on site in a manner equivalent to SQGs and LQGs at Sec.  262.34.
In particular, the Agency seeks comment on whether the volume of
hazardous waste generated from an episodic event exceeds the capacity
and expertise of CESQGs, which are accustomed to managing smaller
quantities of hazardous waste, and whether the Agency should identify a
select list of allowable types of treatment that would not pose a risk
to human health and the environment.
    b. Manifest use by CESQGs and management at a RCRA-designated
facility. EPA is proposing to require CESQGs to manifest the hazardous
waste generated from an episodic event and send it to a RCRA-designated
facility. Under current regulations, CESQGs are not required to
manifest their hazardous waste to a RCRA-designated facility, but can
ship them without a manifest and to one of seven types of facilities
listed in Sec.  261.5(f)(3). Because the CESQG will be generating
quantities of hazardous waste that exceed its normal generator category
thresholds, the Agency believes the use of a hazardous waste manifest
and the shipment of the hazardous waste to a RCRA-designated facility
is necessary to protect human health and the environment. However, the
condition to manifest the hazardous waste and send it off site to a
RCRA-designated facility would only apply to the hazardous waste
generated as a result of the episodic event. The condition would not
apply, unless if for economic or logistical reasons, the CESQG desired
to ship off site to a RCRA-designated facility all hazardous waste
generated and accumulated either as a result of the episodic event,
independent of the episodic event, or prior to the event.
    c. Accumulation standards for SQGs. Under the current regulations,
SQGs must comply with the waste accumulation, waste management,
employee training, and emergency preparedness and prevention conditions
at 40 CFR 262.34 (d)-(f) with references to 40 CFR 265 subparts C, I,
and J in order to accumulate hazardous waste without a RCRA storage
permit or compliance with interim status standards. SQGs may not take
advantage of this proposed episodic generation provision for wastes
accumulated on drip pads or in containment buildings although EPA does
seek comment on allowing episodic event wastes to be accumulated in
these units prior to sending the hazardous waste off-site for treatment
and disposal to a RCRA designated facility. Under this proposed rule,
EPA is proposing to require an SQG that generates episodic hazardous
waste that would cause the SQG to exceed their generator category
limits for the calendar month to comply with certain standards for
containers and tanks if it desires to take advantage of the episodic
generator provision.
    When accumulating hazardous waste generated as a result of an
episodic event in containers, the SQG would be required to mark its
containers with the following: (1) The words ``Episodic Hazardous
Waste''; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers--
examples may include, but are not limited to the name of the
chemical(s), such as ``acetone'' or ``methylene dichloride,'' or the
type or class of chemical, such as ``organic solvents'' or
``halogenated organic solvents'' or, as applicable, the proper shipping
name and technical name markings used to comply with DOT requirements
at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D; and (3) an indication of the hazards of
the contents of the container--examples of hazards include, but are not
limited to, the applicable hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e.,
ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic). In the case of hazardous wastes
ultimately treated and disposed of off-site, the generator could use a
hazard class label consistent with the DOT requirements at 49 CFR part
172 subpart E (labeling), a label consistent with the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200, a chemical hazard label
consistent with the NFPA code 704, or a hazard pictogram consistent
with the United Nations' GHS. Generators also may use any other marking
or labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that would alert
workers and emergency responders to the nature of the hazards
associated with the contents of the containers.
    These standards are the same as those for SQGs accumulating
hazardous wastes in containers in the course of normal business
operations and are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. In addition to these, the SQG would be required to mark
the date that the episodic event began clearly on each container.
    For tanks, the SQG would be required to mark or label the tank
containing hazardous waste accumulated during the event with the words
``Episodic Hazardous Waste'' and would be required to use inventory
logs, monitoring equipment, or other records to identify the contents
of the tank and the associated hazards and to identify the date that
the episodic event began and ended. The generator would need to have
records containing this information immediately accessible.
    In addition, the SQG would need to comply with all the conditions
of the exemption in Sec.  262.34 (d) through (f) with references to 40
CFR 265 subparts C, I, and J, part 268 land disposal restrictions
(Sec.  262.16 under the proposed reorganization)--that is, the waste
accumulation, waste management, employee training, and emergency
preparedness and prevention conditions.

    d. Manifest use by SQGs. As under the current regulations, EPA is
proposing that SQGs manifest the hazardous waste generated from an
episodic event and send it to a RCRA-designated facility, unless the
waste is managed on site. The Agency believes the use of a hazardous
waste manifest and shipment of the hazardous waste to a RCRA-designated
facility is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
However, unlike CESQGs, the use of the hazardous waste manifest would
apply not only to the wastes generated from the episodic event, but all
other hazardous wastes the SQG generates within its generator category.
5. Forty-five (45) Days or Less Would be Allowed to Treat and Dispose
of Hazardous Wastes On Site (SQGs) or Manifested and Shipped Off Site
(CESQGs or SQGs) to a RCRA-Designated Facility
    The Agency is proposing to allow SQGs and CESQGs 45 calendar days
to initiate and complete an episodic event, which includes generation,
accumulation and management (e.g., recycling, treatment and disposal--
either on site, such as waste neutralization in a container, or off
site at a RCRA-designated facility) of all hazardous waste resulting
from the episodic event. The Agency believes 45 days is sufficient time
for a generator to complete management of the hazardous waste from the
time that the generator begins generating and accumulating the
hazardous waste. However, as discussed below, a CESQG or SQG can
petition the Agency for additional time to complete the generation and
removal of the hazardous waste during the episodic event, if necessary.
6. Recordkeeping
    Finally, generators would need to keep the following information in
their records: (1) Beginning and end dates of the episodic event; (2) a
description of the episodic event; (3) a description of the types and
quantities of hazardous wastes generated during the episodic event; (4)
a description of how the hazardous waste was managed as well as the
name of the RCRA designated facility that received the hazardous waste;
(5) name(s) of hazardous waste transporters, as appropriate; (6) an
approval letter from EPA, if the generator successfully petitioned to
conduct an additional episodic event during the calendar year; and (7)
an approval letter from EPA, if the generator successfully petitioned
for an additional 30 calendar day extension. These records would need
to be maintained on site by the generator for three years from the
completion date of each episodic event.
    EPA believes the recordkeeping condition is critical to enable
effective and credible oversight. We also believe that the information
to be maintained is the minimum information necessary to determine that
any hazardous waste generated during the episodic event is managed
properly.
7. Petitions
a. Petition To Request one Additional Episodic Event
    While the Agency believes that most generators will experience an
episodic event infrequently, we also recognize that there may be
situations, often unexpected, where a hazardous waste generator may
have more than one episodic event within a calendar year, such as an
unexpected product recall, a major spill, or an act of nature.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to allow CESQGs and SQGs to petition
EPA (at least 30 days before initiating a planned episodic event and
within 24 hours after an unplanned event) for permission to manage one
additional episodic event without impacting the hazardous waste
generator category. The petition must include (1) the reason why an
additional episodic event is needed and the nature of the episodic
event; (2) the estimated amount of hazardous waste to be managed from
the event; (3) how the hazardous waste is to be managed; (4) the
estimated length of time needed to complete management of the hazardous
waste generated from the episodic event--not to exceed 45 days; and (5)
information regarding previous episodic event(s) managed by the
generator and whether it complied with the proposed conditions. EPA
will then evaluate this and other site-specific information to
determine whether a generator should be allowed to initiate a second
episodic event under the proposed alternative standards. The petition
by the generator may be made via fax, email, or letter. The generator
may not manage hazardous waste for an additional episodic event until
written approval by EPA (or the authorized state) has been received.
The generator must retain written approval in its records for three
years from the date the episodic event ended.
b. Petition To Request Additional Time To Complete an Episodic Event
    Events may arise, particularly unplanned events, such as an ``act
of nature,'' where 45 days is insufficient to complete the event. The
Agency is proposing to allow generators to petition EPA for an
additional 30 days to complete the generation and removal of hazardous
waste, if needed. The petition must include (1) the nature of the
episodic event; (2) the estimated amount of hazardous waste to be
managed from the event; and (3) and the generator's rationale for
needing an extension for an additional 30 days beyond the 45-day limit
to complete the episodic event. EPA will then evaluate the generator's
request to determine whether it should be allowed up to an additional
30 days to complete the episodic event. For example, a situation may
exist where a hazardous waste transporter cannot arrive and remove
hazardous waste generated until the 46th day because of unforeseen
problems with its truck or the generator did not foresee problems with
completing a tank cleanout because cleanout equipment failed to
operate. These are all site-specific situations that EPA or authorized
state would evaluate when making its decision. The generator cannot go
beyond the 45-day limit unless written approval by EPA has been
received.
    The generator would need to petition EPA for approval at least 15
days before the original end date of the episodic event. The petition
by the generator may be made via fax, email, or letter. The generator
must retain written approval in its records for three years from the
date the episodic event ended.
    Should the generator request an extension from the Agency or
authorized state with less than 15 days remaining and be denied the
extension, then the generator would have to remove all hazardous wastes
generated as a result of the episodic event as of the specified end
date in its notification or be in violation of its exemption.
    Unlike rulemaking petitions in part 260 subpart C of the hazardous
waste regulations, the Agency is not proposing to have a notice and
comment period for granting an episodic event or an extension. The
Agency believes a generator's actions and performance will dictate
approval or disapproval of a generator's request. In addition, in some
cases a timely response to these requests is critical, especially with
requests for extension. Taking notice and comment would delay that
response.
8. Tracking and Accounting for Hazardous Waste Generation and
Accumulation as a Result of an Episodic Event Along With Normal
Production Operations
    In practice, a generator taking advantage of this rule, in
particular a CESQG or SQG, must track and monitor the start and end
dates of the episodic event in conjunction with the date the

calendar month ends to ensure compliance with all RCRA regulatory
provisions associated with waste generation and management. An example
may be the best way of explaining how this rule would work.
    A CESQG could have a number of facility operations (e.g., tank
cleanouts, disposal of off-spec products it cannot sell or reclaim,
repair work involving the removal of lead paint chips) that will often
result in a temporary change in its regulatory category. The CESQG
decides to notify its authorized state two months prior (as well as
identifying a point of contact and emergency coordinator) that it will
initiate the planned episodic event on July 20 and take advantage of
the full 45 days allowed to conduct the event and end on September 2.
Beginning on July 20, the generator must comply with all of the
regulatory standards of subpart L discussed above to maintain its
exemption as a CESQG. Under this example, if the generator complies
with subpart L, it need not be concerned about the total amount of
hazardous waste it will generate in the calendar months of July and
August (e.g. 100 kg or less) or whether it will exceed the hazardous
waste accumulation total of less than 1,000 kilograms associated with a
CESQG.
    However, on or before September 2, the generator must remove and
dispose of all the hazardous wastes it generated over the course of the
last 45 days that represented the episodic event. Provided the
generator meets that deadline, that waste would not count when
determining the generator's status. In this example, the generator
chooses to also dispose of waste generated from its normal operations
by September 2. In this case, it would then not count that waste in
determining its generator status for July, August, and September. The
CESQG would then estimate the quantity of hazardous waste it generates
and accumulates for the remainder of September (starting on September 3
until the end of the month) to determine its regulatory category.
    If the generator decides to separate out normal production
operations from episodic event operations, then the waste from normal
operations is counted each month to determine the generator's status.
For example, assume the generator at the beginning of the episodic
event had accumulated 950 kg of hazardous waste and proceeds to
accumulate another 75 kg over the course of the 45-day episodic event
that is associated with normal operations.\116\ On September 3, if the
generator had not disposed of that 1,025 kg of hazardous waste along
with all of the episodic event hazardous wastes it generated and
accumulated, then it would have violated the accumulation provision of
a CESQG at 40 CFR 261.5(g)(2) (e.g., less than 1,000 kg) and would be
in violation of the conditions of the CESQG exemption. A similar
concern might occur if the generator generated 101 kg of hazardous
wastes on September 1 and 2 from normal operations and did not dispose
of it by September 2 with the waste from the episodic event. The
generator would not be in compliance with the CESQG threshold for the
calendar month and would be required to comply with the SQG conditions
for exemption or be in violation of the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Note that it would not matter how much the CESQG had
generated during a calendar month in which the episodic event begins
because all of that hazardous waste is now folded into the hazardous
waste generated as a result of the episodic event. Otherwise, the
rule would not work from a practical viewpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are numerous variations on the above example (e.g., request
to extend the length of time for the episodic event, etc.) that a
generator would have to be aware of when it ended its episodic event to
avoid exceeding waste generation totals for the calendar month or waste
accumulation limitation totals.
9. An Episodic Event Involving Two Calendar Years
    An episodic event may also involve overlapping two calendar years.
The Agency is proposing that the generator count all the waste from the
episodic event in the year with the most days involved in the episodic
event. In other words, if the episodic event begins on December 16 of
year 1 and ends on January 30 of year 2, the waste would count in year
2.

C. Request for Comment

    The Agency requests comment on its proposed approach for addressing
hazardous waste generated during an episodic event. Specifically, the
Agency requests comment on whether the overall approach proposed would
assist generators and allow a CESQG or SQG to maintain its generator
category and not be bumped up into a more stringent generator category
temporarily.
    EPA also requests comment on the number of episodic events that
would be allowed under these proposed alternative regulations. As
stated above, we are proposing to allow CESQGs and SQGs to take
advantage of this alternative regulatory framework for one episodic
event per calendar year, with the ability to petition EPA for one
additional event per calendar year. EPA is interested in ideas on how
best to structure this alternative framework in terms of identifying a
reasonable number of episodic events allowed per year and identifying
an appropriate time period allowed to conduct and manage the hazardous
waste from an episodic event in a way that would be effective while
still ensuring protection of human health and the environment.
    Additionally, the Agency requests comment regarding its proposed
conditions for CESQGs and SQGs managing hazardous waste generated from
the episodic event, such as the proposed 45-day limit to generate and
manage the waste and the ability for CESQGs and SQGs to petition the
Agency for one additional episodic event per calendar year or an
additional 30 days to complete an episodic event. The Agency also
requests comment on whether the proposed conditions for CESQGs and SQGs
are reasonable and sufficient to protect human health and the
environment.
    Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether to allow a CESQG or
SQG to accumulate hazardous waste either on a drip pad or in a
containment building in compliance with 40 CFR part 265 subparts W and
DD, respectively, as a result of an episodic event. As proposed, the
Agency has focused on hazardous wastes accumulated in containers or
tanks as a result of an episodic event since almost all CESQGs and SQGs
accumulate waste in containers with a small percentage accumulated in
tanks. However, there may be circumstances that lend themselves to a
CESQG or SQG accumulating hazardous wastes on a drip pad or in a
containment building.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

X. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 263--Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste

    The current regulations at Sec.  263.12 for transporters handling
hazardous waste at a transfer facility for ten days or less state that
the transporter is not subject to the storage regulations in 40 CFR
parts 264, 265, 267, 268 and 270. In addition, the regulation
stipulates that containers that hold hazardous waste must meet the
provisions in Sec.  262.30 that reference DOT's packaging regulations
at 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179.
    The Agency is proposing to change the marking and labeling
requirements for transporters handling hazardous waste at transfer
facilities, found at Sec.  263.12, to be consistent with the proposed
changes for marking and

labeling conditions for containers for SQGs, for LQGs, and in
SAAs.\117\ In addition to these proposed changes, EPA is also proposing
to require that containers of hazardous waste at transfer facilities be
labeled prior to being transported off site to a RCRA-designated
facility with the applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA
hazardous waste codes), which will help the TSDF receiving the
hazardous waste comply with the LDR regulations in 40 CFR part 268. The
Agency is proposing these modifications to ensure that hazardous wastes
are appropriately labeled and marked throughout transportation to a
RCRA-permitted or interim status TSDF or to another transfer facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ EPA is proposing to move these provisions as a part of the
reorganization of the generator regulations. They can be found in
the proposed regulatory text at the following citations: SAAs--Sec.
262.15(a)(1)(iv); SQGs--Sec.  262.16(b)(6)(i); and LQGs--Sec.
262.17(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, EPA is proposing that transporters storing hazardous
wastes in containers at transfer facilities mark the containers with
the following: (1) The words ``Hazardous Waste''; (2) the applicable
EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C
and D of part 261; (3) other words that identify the contents of the
containers--examples may include, but are not limited to the name of
the chemical(s), such as ``acetone'' or ``methylene dichloride''; or
the type or class of chemical, such as ``organic solvents'' or
``halogenated organic solvents'' or, as applicable, the proper shipping
name and technical name markings used to comply with DOT requirements
at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D; and (4) an indication of the hazards of
the contents of the container--examples of which include, but are not
limited to, the applicable hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e.,
ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic); a hazard class label consistent
with the DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling); a
label consistent with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR
1920.1200; a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704;
or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' GHS. Transfer
facilities also may use any other marking and labeling commonly used
nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and emergency
responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of
the containers.
    A transfer facility may choose to use an appropriate DOT proper
shipping name found in the 49 CFR 172.101 hazardous materials table to
identify the contents of the container. That way, the transfer facility
will fulfill EPA and DOT requirements simultaneously; however, EPA is
not proposing to require the use of the DOT shipping names while the
hazardous waste is accumulating on-site. We only suggest that the DOT
shipping name may be one way that some generators may choose to
identify the contents of the container.
    As previously discussed, the Agency believes providing this
information on the container will alert workers and other handlers to
the contents of the container and the potential hazards of the
materials therein. This information increases the awareness of workers
and others who might come into contact with the hazardous waste in the
containers and reduces potential adverse impacts from container
mismanagement. The Agency does not believe this proposed change will
adversely impact transfer facility operations since similar marking and
labeling standards are proposed for hazardous waste generators. One
difference, however, is the inclusion of the EPA hazardous waste number
in the list of labeling requirements. Although generators are not
required to have the EPA hazardous waste number on the hazardous waste
while accumulating it, we are proposing in this rulemaking that
generators must include the EPA hazardous waste number on the label
before transporting the hazardous waste off site, so when a container
arrives at the transfer facility it should already have the EPA
hazardous waste number on its label.
    Given that containers received by the transfer facility will
already be marked and labeled by the generator, the Agency believes the
additional burden on the transfer facility will be minimal. However,
there may be situations where the transporter would be required to mark
and label a container. One example of when a transfer facility would be
required to mark and label its containers would be when it consolidates
two containers with the same hazardous waste into a new container or
when it is able to combine and consolidate two different hazardous
wastes that are compatible with each other and are able to be
subsequently managed consistently in compliance with the applicable
regulations in parts 264, 265, 267, 268 and 270 of this chapter.
    The Agency requests comment on this proposed change, particularly
the identification of any unintended problems from this requirement.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

XI. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265--Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities and Interim Status Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities

    The Agency is proposing to modify the biennial report requirements
for facilities subject to 40 CFR 264.75 and 40 CFR 265.75 and the
special requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes at 40 CFR
265.176.

A. Proposed Changes to Biennial Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 264.75
and 40 CFR 265.75)

    EPA is proposing to modify the regulations at Sec. Sec.  264.75 and
265.75 to eliminate the list of specific data elements and to require
the completion and submission of all data elements in the biennial
report form (EPA form 8700-13).
    Section 264.75 currently requires that the biennial report include
a specific list of data elements, including the name, address, and EPA
ID number of the generator and each transporter and TSDF, the EPA
hazardous waste number for each hazardous waste shipped off site, and a
signed certification, among other things.
    Section 265.75 includes the above data elements as well as
requiring monitoring data under Sec.  265.94(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), and
(b)(2), where required.
    Similar to the approach EPA is proposing for the biennial reporting
requirements for LQGs in Sec.  262.41, EPA believes removing the
specific data elements in the regulations and replacing it with a
requirement to complete and submit all the data elements required in
the biennial report form will ensure that the regulations and forms
remain consistent. For example, the existing regulations require
closure cost information and, at Sec.  265.75(f), groundwater
monitoring data under Sec.  265.94(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), and (b)(2) to
be submitted as part of the biennial report; however, these data
elements are not collected on EPA's current biennial reporting form
8700-13.\118\ Thus, EPA believes removing this

list from the regulations will help TSDFs understand what EPA currently
requires to be submitted as part of the biennial report. This approach
eliminates the need to update the list of specific required data
elements through rulemaking and reduces duplication with review and
approval processes established under the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Closure cost estimates must be submitted in accordance
with Sec.  264.142 or 265.142 which requires owners or operators
using the financial test or corporate guarantee to update closure
costs for inflation within 30 days after the close of the firm's
fiscal year and before submission of updated information to the
Regional Administrator under Sec.  264.143(f)(3) or 265.143(e)(3),
respectively. Additionally, disposal facilities must submit the most
recent post-closure cost estimate under Sec.  264.144 or 265.144,
which requires owners or operators using the financial test or
corporate guarantee to update for inflation within 30 days after the
close of the firm's fiscal year and before the submission of updated
information to the Regional Administrator. Groundwater monitoring
data must be submitted in accordance with Sec.  265.94(b)(2), which
requires the owner or operator to submit annually, until final
closure of the facility, to the Regional Administrator a report
containing the results of the groundwater quality assessment program
no later than March 1 following each calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not believe this change in any way affects the
enforceability of the biennial report regulations. Owners and operators
must complete and submit EPA form 8700-13.
    EPA also notes that some states develop their own state biennial
report forms. EPA does not believe this proposed change would impact a
state's ability to use their own biennial report forms or to collect
more information than is required by the federal forms. Authorized
states that use a different form for collecting biennial report
information would simply refer to their authorized state form in their
state regulations. Additionally, EPA is aware that some states use
their state biennial report form as a vehicle for collecting closure
cost data, required to be submitted under Sec.  264.142, and
groundwater monitoring data, required to be submitted under Sec.
264.97(j). Because the existing federal regulations already specify
collection of this information, EPA would not consider states that
continue collecting this data using their state authorized biennial
report form to be more stringent than the federal program.
    Additionally, as discussed in section VIII.L of this preamble, EPA
is proposing to modify the phrase ``prepare and submit,'' which is the
existing language in Sec. Sec.  264.75 and 265.75, to ``complete and
submit'' because the Agency believes that ``complete and submit'' more
accurately reflects that facilities must complete all applicable
elements of the biennial report forms.
    The Agency requests comment on these proposed changes to Sec. Sec.
264.75 and 265.75. EPA also specifically requests whether commenters
believe the proposed change to eliminate the specific data elements in
these regulations will ease compliance and understanding of the current
biennial reporting procedures.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

B. Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes

    Sections 262.34(a)(1)(i) and 262.34(d)(2) contain conditions for
exemptions for LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on site
for up to 90 or 180 days without a permit. These regulations both
reference part 265 subpart I, which contains regulations for owners and
operators of interim status hazardous waste facilities that store
hazardous waste in containers.
    The LQG conditions in Sec.  262.34(a)(1)(i) reference Sec.
265.176. Section 265.176 states that containers holding ignitable or
reactive waste must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the
facility's property line. SQGs are not required to comply with this
provision.
    In some cases, to comply with this standard for ignitable and
reactive wastes, LQGs may modify their production feedstocks or
production processes to generate a waste that is not an ignitable or
reactive hazardous waste or reexamine the site's layout to identify
alternative accumulation areas. However, there are some cases where it
may not be physically possible to meet this standard, particularly if
the width of the site is 100 feet or less or when the generator's
operations have expanded such that it no longer has the ability to
accumulate ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters (50 feet)
from the site's property line. Insurance companies and local fire
departments often assist hazardous waste generators in minimizing their
environmental hazards and liabilities, but site dimensions may
sometimes physically prevent a facility from complying with this
condition.
    Therefore, the Agency is proposing to modify the regulatory text
for generators to allow LQGs to apply for a site-specific waiver from
their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous
waste accumulation property line condition.\119\ The proposed change
would require LQGs to obtain a waiver from this provision, in writing,
from local fire departments. LQGs would then be required to keep the
written waiver in their records. In addition, as part of the
reorganization of the generator regulations, discussed in section XIII
of the preamble, we are also including this provision directly in the
LQG accumulation regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The Agency is not proposing to modify Sec.  265.176 to
allow interim status facilities to apply for a site-specific waiver
from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the
hazardous waste accumulation property line condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is the local fire department that has the expertise to
address this problem when it arises, EPA is relying on those local fire
departments to work with the generators on any waivers that may be
requested and on finding the most appropriate place on site to
accumulate this hazardous waste.
    Section 265.176 contains a comment that references Sec.  265.17(a)
and states that there are additional requirements in that section,
which also contains provisions for ignitable, reactive, and
incompatible wastes. The Agency is also proposing to incorporate the
language from existing Sec.  265.17(a) into Sec.  262.17(a)(1)(vi)(B)
of the generator regulations. EPA is proposing to replace the words
``owner and operator'' with ``large quantity generator'' as part of
this revision. By eliminating the cross-references, generators should
be able to more easily discern what provisions are applicable and
therefore should be better able to properly manage any ignitable or
reactive hazardous waste.
    The Agency seeks comment on the proposed addition of this language
to the generator conditions for exemption, as well as the change to
allow LQGs to seek a waiver from the provision that containers holding
hazardous waste must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the
property line. Specifically, EPA requests comment on whether this
waiver option provides a sufficient level of protection for the
facility and the surrounding community and whether generators would
benefit from the increased flexibility. Additionally, EPA requests
comment on whether it is appropriate to delegate the responsibility for
issuing waivers in this case to the fire department and whether EPA
should promulgate criteria that must be met as a condition of the
waiver as part of this provision. For example, conditions may include a
limit on the amount of ignitable or reactive hazardous waste that could
be accumulated at any time or a requirement that the facility have
certain technical controls, such as fire suppression devices or walls
that meet a certain fire-resistance rating. Furthermore, EPA requests
comment on whether the insertion of the language from Sec.  265.17(a)
in this section is helpful.
    Finally, EPA requests comment on whether including a waiver to the
provision for ignitable and reactive wastes would also be appropriate
for interim status facilities or for permitted facilities in Sec. Sec.
264.176 and 265.176.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is affected by
the proposed

reorganization. The revised language would appear directly in Sec.
262.17(a)(1)(vi) as a condition for exemption for LQGs, rather than
being located in 40 CFR part 265 subpart I and referenced from the
generator regulations. The reorganization is discussed in section XIII
of this preamble.

XII. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 268--Land Disposal Restrictions

    The Agency is proposing to change the regulations on marking and
labeling of containers by the owner/operator of a hazardous waste TSDF
in Sec.  268.50 to be consistent with the proposed marking and labeling
changes for LQGs, for SQGs, for SAAs, and for transfer facilities.\120\
EPA is also proposing to require that containers be labeled with the
applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes),
which help the TSDF comply with the LDR regulations. More specifically,
the Agency is proposing to modify Sec.  268.50(a)(2)(i), which states
that one of the requirements for storing hazardous wastes restricted
from land disposal is that each container is clearly marked to identify
its contents and the date each period of accumulation begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ EPA is proposing to move some of these provisions as a
part of the reorganization of the generator regulations. They can be
found in the proposed regulatory text at the following citations:
SAAs--Sec.  262.15(a)(1)(iv); SQGs--Sec.  262.16(b)(6)(i); and
LQGs--Sec.  262.17(a)(5)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the other proposed changes that clarify the
contents and hazards posed by the contents of hazardous waste in
containers, the Agency is proposing to modify this language to state
that each container must be clearly marked with (1) the words
``Hazardous Waste''; (2) the applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s)
(EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261; (3) other
words that identify the contents of the containers--examples may
include, but are not limited to the name of the chemical(s), such as,
``acetone'' or ``methylene dichloride''; or the type or class of
chemical, such as ``organic solvents'' or ``halogenated organic
solvents'' or, as applicable, the proper shipping name and technical
name markings used to comply with DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172
subpart D; (4) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the
container (examples include, but are not limited to, the applicable
hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e., ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, toxic); a hazard class label consistent with the Department
of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling);
a label consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; a
chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection
Association code 704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United
Nations' Globally Harmonized System); or any other marking or labeling
commonly used nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and
emergency responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the
contents of the containers. The Agency will continue to require each
container to be clearly marked with the date each period of
accumulation begins.
    The Agency believes this proposed change will not adversely impact
facility operations. In fact, because these are consistent with the
requirements for marking and labeling that are proposed elsewhere in
the regulations, we believe it will be easier for all those who manage
the hazardous waste to know and comply with the consistent system of
marking and labeling. In addition, a clear description of what material
is in each container makes the facility safer for employees, first
responders, and the public. The Agency requests comment on this
proposed change.
    Effect of the Proposed Reorganization: This section is not affected
by the proposed reorganization.

XIII. Proposed Reorganization of Hazardous Waste Generator Regulations

    EPA is proposing to reorganize the hazardous waste generator
regulations to make them more user-friendly, which should facilitate
better generator compliance. As part of the Agency's 2004 Program
Evaluation of the hazardous waste generator program, the most frequent
comment by stakeholders was to improve the user-friendliness of the
regulations.
    Although many existing generators are familiar with the current
regulations, every year many generators either enter the hazardous
waste generator program or switch their generator category and
therefore need to become familiar with their obligations. Similarly, an
existing generator may need to examine a particular regulatory citation
to ensure it is complying with the regulations correctly. The Agency
believes that providing these generators with a user-friendly
regulatory framework is an effective way to make the regulations easier
to understand for those who need to comply with them.
    Therefore, in response to these concerns, EPA is proposing the
following organizational changes:
    (1) Integrate the generator regulations in Sec.  261.5 into the
generator regulations at part 262 by moving Sec.  261.5 (which contains
the regulations applicable to CESQGs, counting of hazardous waste, and
mixing of hazardous wastes with non-hazardous wastes);
    (2) Move the existing regulations at Sec.  262.34 for SQGs and LQGs
into three new sections:
    (a) Satellite accumulation areas regulations for small and large
quantity generators,
    (b) Conditions for exemption for an SQG that accumulates hazardous
waste; and
    (c) Conditions for exemption for an LQG that accumulates hazardous
waste;
    (3) Use subtitles in these new sections; and
    (4) Where reasonable, incorporate regulations that currently cross
reference part 265 into these new sections.

A. Moving and Integrating Regulations from 40 CFR 261.5 into 40 CFR
Part 262

    Currently, certain hazardous waste generator regulations are
located in a different part of the regulations (40 CFR 261.5) from the
rest of the generator regulations (40 CFR part 262). Stakeholders have
stated that this current organization is confusing and not user
friendly and have asked EPA to move the CESQG regulations in Sec.
261.5 into part 262 so that all the generator regulations are in the
same place. The Agency believes this reorganization would alleviate
much confusion in the regulated community and, in the process, would
foster greater compliance with the regulations.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing to move the definition of a CESQG
that generates non-acute hazardous waste at Sec.  261.5(a) into the
CESQG definition at Sec.  260.10, move Sec.  261.5(c) through (e) to a
new section at Sec.  262.13 titled ``Generator category determination''
and move Sec.  261.5(b) and (f) through (j) to a new section at Sec.
262.14 titled ``Conditions for exemption for a very small quantity
generator.'' \121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ EPA is proposing to rename CESQGs to VSQGs (very small
quantity generators). For a detailed discussion on this proposed
change see section VI.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Hazardous Waste Generation Quantity Limits for CESQGs (40 CFR
261.5(a) and (e))
    Currently Sec.  261.5(a) sets forth the non-acute hazardous waste
quantity limits for a CESQG and Sec.  261.5(e) provides quantity limits
for generating acute hazardous waste and any residue or contaminated
soil, waste, or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill of

acute hazardous waste. As mentioned previously, EPA is now proposing to
define each category of generator at Sec.  260.10, and, thus, under the
reorganization, Sec.  261.5(a) and (e) will be incorporated into those
definitions.
2. Determining Generator Category (40 CFR 261.5(c) and (d))
    Section 261.5(c) and (d) set forth the provisions for a hazardous
waste generator to use in making its generator category determination.
Every hazardous waste generator must determine its generator category
so it knows what regulations are applicable to it. Since these
regulations are applicable to all hazardous waste generators, it makes
sense to move them into 40 CFR part 262 along with the other hazardous
waste generator regulations. To further aid in making the regulations
more user friendly, the Agency is proposing to make a new section for
generator category determination at Sec.  262.13, titled ``Generator
category determination.'' This new section is appropriate because,
after a generator of a solid waste determines it has generated a
hazardous waste (Sec.  262.11), the generator must then determine its
hazardous waste generator category for the calendar month. Table 3--
Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for Determining
Generator Category provides a summary of the crosswalk between the
existing and proposed regulatory citations for determining a
generator's category.

        Table 3--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for Determining Generator Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regulation                  Existing citation        Proposed citation             Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions of Generator Categories..  Sec.  Sec.   260.10,     Sec.   260.10..........  Current definition of
                                        261.5 and 262.34.                                 SQG in Sec.   260.10
                                                                                is outdated. Current
                                                                                usage of generator
                                                                                categories is based on
                                                                                Sec.  Sec.   261.5 and
                                                                                262.34.
Hazardous Waste Limits for CESQGs....  Sec.   261.5(a) and (e)  Sec.   260.10..........  .......................
Purpose, Scope, and Applicability....  Sec.   262.10..........  Sec.   262.10..........  Not moved, but expanded
                                                                                significantly.
Hazardous Waste Determination and      Sec.  Sec.   262.11 and  Sec.   262.11..........  Content in Sec.
 Recordkeeping.                         262.40(c).                                        262.11 is expanded and
                                                                                Sec.   262.40(c) is
                                                                                incorporated.
Generator Category Determination.....  Sec.   261.5(c)-(e)....  Sec.   262.13..........  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CESQG Conditions for Exemption (40 CFR 261.5(b) and (f) through (j))
    Sections 261.5(b) and (f) through (j) establish a CESQG's
conditions for exemption from regulation as an SQG or LQG. More
specifically, these conditions for exemption establish the regulations
for accumulating acute and non-acute hazardous waste, where the acute
and non-acute hazardous waste may be managed off-site, and what the
implications are when hazardous waste is mixed with solid waste or used
oil. Since these regulations set forth conditions for exemption for
CESQGs, just as the regulations found in existing Sec.  262.34 set
forth conditions for exemption for SQGs and LQGs, EPA is proposing to
move Sec.  261.5(b) and (f) through (j) to the newly created Sec.
262.14 titled, ``Conditions for exemption for a very small quantity
generator.'' All these regulations would then be located parallel to
one another in part 262. Section 262.14 would also include the CESQG
landfill ban for liquids. In addition, CESQGs who episodically generate
higher amounts of hazardous waste could follow the newly proposed
standards for episodic generation in part 262 subpart L in order to
maintain their CESQG status while managing these higher amounts of
hazardous waste. Table 4--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed
Citations for CESQGs provides a crosswalk between the existing and
proposed CESQG conditions for exemption.

                    Table 4--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for CESQGs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regulation                  Existing citation        Proposed citation             Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CESQG Definition.....................  Sec.   261.5(a)........  Sec.   260.10..........  .......................
Conditions for Exemption for a Very    Sec.   261.5(b) and (f)  Sec.   262.14..........  .......................
 Small Quantity Generator.              through (j).
CESQG Consolidation by LQGs Within     N/A....................  Sec.                     Proposed new provision.
 the Same Company.                                               262.14(a)(3)(viii).
Landfill Ban for Liquids.............  Sec.   258.28..........  Sec.   262.14(d).......  .......................
Episodic Generation..................  N/A....................  Part 262 subpart L.....  Proposed new provision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. SQG and LQG Conditions for Exemption (40 CFR 262.34)

    SQGs and LQGs may accumulate their hazardous waste on site without
a permit or without having interim status provided they follow all of
the conditions for exemption established in Sec.  262.34. Section
262.34 can be difficult to navigate because the SQG and LQG conditions
for exemption are intertwined and there are many references to sections
in 40 CFR part 265. Therefore the Agency is proposing to break Sec.
262.34 into three new sections at Sec. Sec.  262.15, 262.16 and 262.17.
Section 262.15 would establish the conditions for exemption for SQGs
and LQGs who wish to operate an SAA, Sec.  262.16 would establish
conditions for exemption for SQGs, and Sec.  262.17 would establish the
conditions for exemption for LQGs.
1. Satellite Accumulation Area Conditions for Exemption for SQGs and
LQGs (40 CFR 262.15)
    Many generators use an SAA at their sites. These areas allow
generators to accumulate hazardous waste near the point of generation,
which provides for

efficiencies and greater safety in the handling of hazardous waste.
When the generator has accumulated 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or
one quart of acutely hazardous waste) in the SAA, the generator must
then move the hazardous waste to the 90- or 180-day central
accumulation area within three days. Currently the conditions for
exemption for operating an SAA are located at Sec.  262.34(c). The
location of this provision in the regulations creates confusion as to
whether it applies to LQGs only or both SQGs and LQGs because it is
located between the hazardous waste accumulation conditions for LQGs
and those for SQGs. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to move 40 CFR
262.34(c) into its own section at Sec.  262.15 titled, ``Satellite
accumulation area regulations for small and large quantity
generators.''
    Additionally, the Agency is proposing to duplicate Sec. Sec.
265.171, 265.172 and 265.173(a) (which are currently referenced from
Sec.  262.34(c)(1)(i)) into Sec.  262.15 in order to eliminate cross-
referencing and improve the user friendliness of the regulations. Table
5--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for SAAs
provides a summary of the crosswalk between existing and proposed
regulations for SAAs.

 Table 5--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for SAAs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulation              Existing citation   Proposed citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite Accumulation Area       Sec.   262.34(c)..  Sec.   262.15.
 Provisions.
Selected Part 265 Subpart I       Sec.   265.171....  Sec.
 Provisions.                                           262.15(a)(1)(i).
Selected Part 265 Subpart I       Sec.   265.172....  Sec.
 Provisions.                                           262.15(a)(1)(ii).
Selected Part 265 Subpart I       Sec.   265.173(a).  Sec.
 Provisions.                                           262.15(a)(1)(iii)
                                                       .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Conditions for Exemption for an SQG Accumulating Hazardous Waste
(Sec.  262.16)
    As previously mentioned, the Agency is proposing to create 40 CFR
262.16 titled, ``Conditions for exemption for a small quantity
generator that accumulates hazardous waste.'' This reorganization would
move Sec.  262.34(d) through (f) and (m) into Sec.  262.16.
Specifically, the Agency proposes to move the bulk of Sec.  262.34(d)
to Sec.  262.16(b),\122\ move Sec.  262.34(e) to Sec.  262.16(d), move
Sec.  262.34(f) to Sec.  262.16(e) and move Sec.  262.34(m) to Sec.
262.16(f). Paragraph (c) of Sec.  262.16, which covers the mixing of
hazardous waste, is a new paragraph that EPA is proposing to add in
this rulemaking.\123\ EPA is also proposing to add subtitles and
eliminate several cross-references to 40 CFR part 265 in order to make
the regulations easier to navigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The portions of Sec.  262.34(d) that state what the
generation limits are for this category of generator would be moved
to the definition of ``small quantity generator'' in Sec.  262.10.
    \123\ For a detailed discussion of this proposed addition please
see section VII.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Addition of subtitles. EPA is proposing to add subtitles to
Sec.  262.16 to highlight to the reader the topic of each section or
paragraph. Every subtitle is italicized after the regulatory citation.
For example Sec.  262.16(b)(2) addresses ``Accumulation in
Containers.''
    b. Incorporating 40 CFR part 265 subpart I, Sec.  265.201, and part
265 subpart C into 40 CFR 262.16. EPA is proposing to integrate three
sections of 40 CFR part 265--subpart I, Sec.  265.201 and subpart C--
into Sec.  262.16. First, at Sec.  262.34(d)(2), the regulations state
an SQG must comply with subpart I of part 265 except for Sec. Sec.
265.176 and 265.178. Therefore, EPA is proposing to incorporate the
text of the appropriate subpart I regulations at Sec.  262.16(b)(2).
Second, at Sec.  262.34(d)(3) the regulation states that an SQG must
comply with Sec.  265.201 in subpart J when using a tank. Thus, EPA is
proposing to incorporate the text of all of Sec.  265.201 except for
paragraph (a) at Sec.  262.16(b)(3). Paragraph (a) of Sec.  265.201 is
not necessary because it describes what is already stated in Sec.
262.16--the requirements for an SQG accumulating hazardous waste in a
tank for less than 180 days and accumulating no more than 6,000 kg on
site at any time. Third Sec.  262.34(d)(4) states an SQG must comply
with subpart C of part 265. Therefore, EPA is proposing to incorporate
the text of subpart C--Preparedness and Prevention--at Sec.
262.16(b)(8).
    c. Other part 262 provisions for SQGs. In addition, part 262
subpart L would contain the newly proposed standards for SQGs who
episodically generate higher amounts of hazardous waste to maintain
their designation as SQGs during these episodic events. Also, Sec.
262.35 would include the landfill ban for liquids that applies to SQGs
and LQGs.
    Table 6--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for
SQGs provides a summary of changes between the existing and proposed
citations for SQGs.

                     Table 6--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for SQGs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regulation                  Existing citation        Proposed citation             Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Small Quantity           Sec.   262.34(d).......  Sec.   260.10..........  .......................
 Generator.
Accumulation Time Limit..............  Sec.   262.34(d).......  Sec.   262.16(b).......  .......................
Accumulation Limit...................  Sec.   262.34(d)(1) and  Sec.   262.16(a) and     .......................
                                        (f).                     (e).
Accumulation in Containers...........  Sec.   262.34(d)(2)      Sec.   262.16(b)(2)....  .......................
                                        references part 265
                                        subpart I.
Accumulation in Tanks................  Sec.   262.34(d)(3)      Sec.   262.16(b)(3)....  .......................
                                        references part 265
                                        subpart J.
Marking of Tanks and Containers......  Sec.   262.34(d)(4)      Sec.   262.16(b)(6)....  .......................
                                        references Sec.
                                        262.34(a)(2) and (3).
Preparedness and Prevention..........  Sec.   262.34(d)(4)      Sec.   262.16(b)(8) and  .......................
                                        references part 265      (9).
                                        subpart C and Sec.
                                        262.34(d)(5).
Land Disposal Restrictions...........  Sec.   262.34(d)(4)      Sec.   262.16(b)(7)....  .......................
                                        references part 268.

Transporting Over 200 Miles..........  Sec.   262.34(e).......  Sec.   262.16(d).......  .......................
Accumulation Time Limit Extension....  Sec.   262.34(f).......  Sec.   262.16(e).......  .......................
Episodic Generation..................  N/A....................  Part 262 subpart L.....  Proposed new provision.
Landfill Ban for Liquids.............  Sec.   258.28..........  Sec.   262.35..........  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Conditions for Exemption for an LQG Accumulating Hazardous Waste (40
CFR 262.17)
    As previously mentioned the Agency is proposing to create 40 CFR
262.17 titled, ``Conditions for exemption for a large quantity
generator that accumulates hazardous waste.'' The Agency is proposing
to move Sec.  262.34(a), (b), (g) through (i) and (m) into Sec.
262.17. Specifically, the Agency is proposing to move Sec.  262.34(a)
to Sec.  262.17(a), move Sec.  262.34(b) to Sec.  262.17(b), move Sec.
262.34(g) to Sec.  262.17(c), move Sec.  262.34(h) to Sec.  262.17(d),
move Sec.  262.34(i) to Sec.  262.17(e), and move Sec.  262.34(m) to
Sec.  262.16(g). EPA is additionally proposing to delete paragraphs (j)
through (l), which deal with Performance Track, since the program is no
longer in operation.\124\ Paragraph (f) of Sec.  262.17, which deals
with the mixing of hazardous waste, is a new paragraph being proposed
in this rulemaking.\125\ EPA is also proposing to add subtitles and
eliminate some cross-references to part 265 in order to make the
regulations easier to navigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ For a detailed discussion of this proposed deletion please
see section VIII.K of this preamble.
    \125\ For a detailed discussion of this proposed addition please
see section VII.A.2 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Addition of subtitles. EPA is proposing to add subtitles to
Sec.  262.17 to highlight to the reader the central concept addressed
by each section or paragraph. Every subtitle is italicized after the
regulatory citation. For example Sec.  262.17(a)(1) addresses
``accumulation in containers.''
    b. Incorporating 40 CFR part 265 subpart I into 40 CFR 262.17. EPA
is proposing to incorporate the 40 CFR part 265 subpart I regulations,
which are currently referenced at Sec.  262.34(a)(1)(i), into the
proposed Sec.  262.17(a)(1). EPA also considered incorporating the text
of other subparts of part 265 that contain technical standards for LQGs
and that are currently referenced in Sec.  262.34 into the new section
Sec.  262.17 (i.e., part 265 subparts J, W, AA, BB, and CC), but
ultimately decided not to incorporate these due to the length of these
subparts.
    Section 262.35 would also include the landfill ban for liquids that
applies to SQGs and LQGs. EPA requests comment on the proposed changes.
    c. Emergency planning and procedures regulations for LQGs in part
265 subpart M. EPA is proposing to remove the reference to part 265
subparts C and D for the preparedness, prevention, and emergency
procedure regulations for LQGs and instead incorporate those
regulations in part 262 with the other generator regulations. However,
due to the length of these subparts, rather than copying the text of
these subparts to Sec.  262.17, EPA is proposing to copy these into a
new subpart M in part 262. EPA believes that including these provisions
in part 262, along with the rest of the generator regulations, will
make the regulations easier to navigate. EPA requests comment on this
proposed change.
    d. Other part 262 provisions for LQGs. In addition, Sec.  262.17(g)
would contain the newly proposed standards for LQGs who accept and
consolidate hazardous waste from CESQGs. Also, Sec.  262.35 would
include the landfill ban for liquids that applies to SQGs and LQGs.
    Table 7--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for
LQGs provides a summary of changes between the existing and proposed
citations for LQGs.

                     Table 7--Crosswalk of Existing Citations to Proposed Citations for LQGs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regulation                  Existing citation        Proposed citation             Comment