Agency was simply proposing to codify long-standing, existing policy on
the issue of what ``three days'' meant, as it is used in the SAA
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Memorandum from Robert Springer, Director or EPA's Office
of Solid Waste, to RCRA Regional Directors, ``Frequently Asked
Questions About Satellite Accumulation Areas,'' March 17, 2004, RCRA
Online 14703.
    \56\ Proposed rule: January 3, 1983 48 FR 118; Final rule:
December 20, 1984; 49 FR 49569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on this issue were mixed, with some commenters supporting
the codification of the policy, while others preferred that we allow
the term ``three days'' to mean ``three business days'' or ``three
working days.'' Still others suggested that we take this opportunity to
lengthen the time frame to 5, 7, or even 10 days. Although many
commenters argued that we should allow ``three working days,'' one
commenter conceded that, ``due to differences in business schedules,
this becomes difficult to define in a rule.'' \57\ For example, some
companies shut down completely for lengthy periods around the holidays
or during seasonal slowdowns. As a result, if we relied on ``three
working days,'' it would create an uneven and unfair implementation of
this SAA provision. Further, it's easy to imagine a raft of
implementation questions that would ensue about the definition of a
``working day.'' Therefore, the Agency is finalizing this provision, as
proposed, with one minor revision. While in the preamble to the
proposed rule we used the term ``three consecutive calendar days,'' in
the proposed regulatory language, we used ``three calendar days.'' To
promote the most clarity, in the final rule, we will use ``three
consecutive calendar days.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The Boeing Company, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Providing a Maximum Weight for the Accumulations of Acute Hazardous
Waste in Containers at SAAs (40 CFR 262.15(a))
    The SAA regulations impose maximum volumes of hazardous waste that
may be accumulated in an SAA without a permit, or interim status, or
complying with the central accumulation area standards for SQGs or
LQGs. For non-acute hazardous waste, the maximum volume is 55 gallons.
For acute hazardous waste, the maximum volume has been, until this
rulemaking, 1 quart. When the SAA regulations were finalized in 1984,
EPA explained that 55 gallons was selected for non-acute hazardous
waste in part because it is the size of the most commonly used
accumulation container.\58\ EPA also explained in that final SAA rule
that 1 quart was chosen for acute hazardous waste because it is the
volumetric equivalent of 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste used
elsewhere in the regulations \59\ and that commenters expressed
opposition to using a weight measure. Since then, however, stakeholders
have indicated that the 1-quart volume maximum is not a practical way
to measure the accumulation of some wastes, particularly non-liquid
acute hazardous wastes. Therefore, we proposed to add a weight
measurement \60\ to the SAA regulations for the maximum accumulation of
acute hazardous wastes. Specifically, we proposed that 1 quart or 1
kilogram (2.2 pounds) of acute hazardous waste may be accumulated in an
SAA. We proposed that generators that accumulate acute hazardous waste
in SAAs would have the choice of whether to use 1 quart or 1 kilogram,
but they would be required to identify which metric they choose. We did
not propose to add a similar weight equivalent to the 55-gallon
threshold for non-acute hazardous waste because stakeholders had not
expressed a similar need; however, we did request comment on whether it
would be useful to have a maximum weight for the accumulation of non-
acute hazardous waste in SAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ December 20, 1984; 49 FR 49569-70.
    \59\ Though this is only a rough equivalent, as 1 quart is an
English unit and 1 kg is a metric unit. Further, as one commenter
noted, whether 1 quart (or liter) is equivalent to 1 kg depends on
the density of the waste (Iowa State University, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-
0121-0099).
    \60\ As one commenter pointed out, 1 kg is more accurately a
measurement of mass, not weight (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although some commenters did not see the need for the additional
flexibility for the accumulation of acute hazardous waste in SAAs, most
commenters supported the change, with a minor revision. Specifically,
commenters suggested that, instead of allowing a generator to choose
which unit to use, we should specify in the regulations that the 1
quart maximum for acute hazardous waste in an SAA should apply to
liquids and the 1 kg maximum for acute hazardous waste in an SAA should
apply to solids. We agree with these commenters and we are revising the
final regulatory language for SAAs so that acute hazardous wastes that
are liquids have a maximum volume of 1 quart, and acute hazardous
wastes that are solids have a maximum mass of 1 kg (or 2.2 lbs). The
maximum thresholds for acute hazardous wastes are not intended to be
additive, so in cases where a generator has both liquid and solid acute
hazardous waste accumulating in an SAA, the 1 kg or 2.2 lb limit will
be applied.
    In contrast, for non-acute hazardous waste, commenters indicated
that the existing volumetric accumulation limit of 55 gallons for SAAs
is sufficient and that it is not necessary to add a mass equivalent.
Therefore, for non-acute hazardous waste, 55 gallons will remain the
only unit for measuring maximum accumulation limits in SAAs. EPA
continues to rely on its existing interpretation that at an SAA where
more than one type of waste is accumulated, the total allowable
accumulation is 55 gallons of hazardous waste--not 55 gallons per waste
stream.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Memorandum from Robert Springer, Director or EPA's Office
of Solid Waste, to RCRA Regional Directors, ``Frequently Asked
Questions About Satellite Accumulation Areas,'' March 17, 2004, RCRA
Online 14703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asked for clarification about whether the weight of
the packaging (such as fully dispensed vials that once held P-listed
pharmaceuticals) would have to be included in determining the maximum
mass or volume of an acute hazardous waste in an SAA. In a February 17,
2016, memo, EPA clarified that the container (e.g., packaging) does not
need to be included when calculating the maximum accumulation volume of
acute hazardous waste in an SAA.\62\ This would also be the case when
calculating the maximum accumulation weight (mass) of acute hazardous
waste in an SAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Letter from Barnes Johnson, Director of EPA's Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, to Charlotte A. Smith,
PharmEcology Services, February 17, 2016, RCRA Online 14875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Modifying the Language for When the Maximum Volume or Weight Is
Exceeded in an SAA (40 CFR 262.15(a)(6))
    Previously, the regulation at Sec.  262.34(c)(2) stated that, when
the maximum volumes are exceeded in an SAA, a generator ``must, with
respect to that amount of excess waste, comply within three days with
paragraph (a) of this section or other applicable provisions of this
chapter.'' The Agency proposed to reword this regulation in order to
more clearly state the generator's options for managing the materials
that exceed the limit. The

proposed regulatory text stated that a generator who accumulates either
non-acute hazardous waste or acute hazardous waste listed in Sec.
261.31 or Sec.  261.33(e) in excess of the amounts listed in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section at or near any point of generation must remove
the excess from the satellite accumulation area within three calendar
days either to (1) a central accumulation area, (2) an on-site interim
status or permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility, or (3) an
off-site designated facility. The proposed regulatory text also stated
that during the three-calendar-day period, the generator must continue
to comply with paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section and
must mark the container(s) holding the excess accumulation of hazardous
waste with the date the excess amount began accumulating. The Agency
did not view this as a substantive change to the SAA regulations.
    We are finalizing this change, with two minor changes to address
commenters' concerns. First, commenters pointed out that the proposed
rewording of this section of the SAA regulations expands a generator's
options for where the excess hazardous waste can be sent when the
maximum volumes (or mass) are reached, but it removed the option that
had originally existed to convert the SAA to a CAA and manage the
hazardous waste in place. At the time of proposal, the Agency did not
anticipate that generators would choose to convert SAAs into CAAs.
However, one commenter pointed out that some generators do not have a
CAA to move the waste to and therefore must manage the SAA as an CAA
when volumes (or mass) are exceeded. In response to comments, in the
final rule the Agency has amended the regulatory text to retain the
option to allow generators to convert an SAA to a CAA when maximum
volumes (or mass) are exceeded. Second, in this section of the SAA
regulations, as well as other sections of the SAA regulations, where we
mention CAAs, we have inserted the citation for the CAA regulations.
    Other comments on this section of the SAA regulations were related
to the phrasing of the previous SAA regulations that we did not propose
to change. Specifically, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) ``believes that the revised language
should not focus on the ``excess waste,'' but on the waste that was
accumulated before the excess amount was generated. That is, the rule
should require that the waste that was in storage before the generation
of the ``excess waste'' be removed from the area, not just the ``excess
waste.'' This would prevent situations in which only the ``excess
waste'' is removed time and time again, leaving the remaining waste
behind indefinitely.'' \63\ EPA agrees with CT DEEP and, during the
development of the proposed rule, we sought to revise this aspect of
the SAA regulations. We also agree with CT DEEP that ``In reality, what
happens in most cases is that the generator removes the older waste,
and continues to accumulate the most-recently generated waste. For
example, if a generator has a 55-gallon drum in an SAA and that drum
becomes full, the generator might begin accumulating newly generated
waste in a second 55-gallon drum.'' Unfortunately, during the
development of the proposed rule, EPA's attempts to convey this idea
through regulatory changes were unsuccessful and therefore were not
included in the proposed rule. Nevertheless, we endorse CT DEEP's
description as a best management practice for removing hazardous waste
from an SAA. One alternative suggested by Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) is to ``clarify that a full 55-gallon drum
must be moved from the satellite accumulation area. As the proposed
rule reads now, a full 55-gallon drum may be under the satellite
accumulation requirements indefinitely because 40 CFR 262.15(a)(6)
refers to excess amounts . . . If a satellite accumulation drum is at
capacity it should be moved into the central accumulation area.'' \64\
Again, the Agency agrees that a full 55-gallon drum should be moved to
a CAA. During the development of the proposed rule, we considered
rewording this section of the proposed regulations as the WDNR
suggested but we declined to use this construct in the proposal out of
concern that generators would be able to easily circumvent our intent
by not completely filling a container before beginning to fill another
container.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Comment number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0178.
    \64\ Comment number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Preparedness, Prevention, and Emergency Procedures for SQGs and LQGs
    EPA is adding paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8) to the SAA regulations
in Sec.  262.15 to clarify that the preparedness, prevention, and
emergency procedures for SQGs and LQGs that are found in Sec.
262.16(b)(8) and part 262 subpart M, respectively, extend to any SAAs
on site, as well as CAAs. These specific changes to the SAA regulatory
text were not proposed, although we did request comment, but are being
added in the final rule in response to comments we received on the
proposed addition of part 262 subpart M, which is discussed more
thoroughly in section XI of this preamble.
7. Rescinding a Memo Regarding Accumulating Reactive Hazardous Waste
Away From the Point of Generation
    In a memo dated January 13, 1988, EPA wrote that a storage shed
that is outside of a building where a reactive hazardous waste (D003)
is initially generated could be considered an SAA.\65\ According to the
company's incoming letter to EPA, the Atlantic Research Corporation
(ARC) ``manufactures solid rocket propellant. In it's [sic] operations,
ARC generates waste chemicals which are accumulated in containers
located in storage sheds outside of the buildings generating the
materials. The waste chemicals are accumulated outside of the buildings
for safety reasons due to the explosive nature of the work conducted.''
\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Letter from Marcia E. Williams, Director of EPA's Office of
Solid Waste, to Michael E. Young, Atlantic Research Corporation,
January 13, 1988, RCRA Online 11317.
    \66\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were no proposed regulatory changes associated with this
action; however, in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA gave notice
that it was proposing to revoke this interpretation. EPA agreed with
ARC that in some instances it is safer to accumulate hazardous waste
away from the initial point of generation, such as hazardous wastes
that are explosive. However, in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
reasoned that, because SAAs are subject to less stringent conditions
than CAAs, it is not appropriate for such dangerous hazardous wastes to
be stored in SAAs. Rather, EPA stated that if a generator accumulates
hazardous waste that is so dangerous it needs to be accumulated away
from the point of generation, it should be accumulated under the more
rigorous accumulation standards for central accumulation areas.
    We received more than a dozen comments on this action. Several
commenters supported the action to rescind the memo. Others, such as
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group (USWAG) and Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)
supported it, but suggested that additional clarity was

needed.\67\ We intend to rescind the memo, as proposed, while
addressing commenters' concerns. First, not only do SAAs have fewer
regulations and safeguards associated with them than CAAs, but the
regulations require that they must be ``at or near the point of
generation.'' EPA would not consider a shed outside a building where
the waste is initially generated to be ``at or near the point of
generation.'' Nevertheless, as this term is not particularly specific,
implementing regulatory agencies will retain authority in determining
what they consider ``at or near the point of generation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Comments EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0078, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-
0093 and EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0126, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both PNNL and USWAG were concerned that EPA was implying that all
reactive hazardous wastes (D003) were required to be accumulated away
from the initial area of generation and, therefore, could not be
accumulated in SAAs. Additionally, PNNL was concerned that there might
be a ``Catch-22 where EPA does not allow remote accumulation and OSHA
or the International Fire Code does not allow them to be accumulated at
the point of generation.'' This was not our intent. Our intent was that
if, for safety reasons, which may be driven by fire codes or OSHA
regulations, a reactive hazardous waste (or other hazardous waste, for
that matter) needs to be accumulated away from the initial area of
generation, then that accumulation area should be considered a CAA, not
an SAA. EPA is not prohibiting remote accumulation; rather, we are
clarifying that it is more appropriate to regulate the remote
accumulation area as a CAA than an SAA. Likewise, EPA did not intend to
suggest that all storage sheds would necessarily be CAAs. For example,
a storage shed that is located ``at or near the point of generation''
could be considered an SAA.
    In its comments IME said it ``would have no objection to rescinding
this memorandum so long as the agency allows accumulated SAA waste to
be temporarily moved from the initial point of generation for purposes
of complying with the regulations of other federal agencies. For
example, a number of IME member companies collect hazardous waste in
containers at SAAs. Regulations administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (``ATF'') require that these
containers be moved to a magazine at the end of a shift . . . The
containers are returned to the SAA at the start of the subsequent
shift.'' \68\ EPA's SAA and CAA regulations do not prohibit generators
from moving hazardous waste from the SAA's initial point of generation
to a CAA (e.g. magazine) and back again to the SAA for further
accumulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Comment EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Examples of the Meaning of ``Under the Control of the Operator''
    The previous SAA regulation at Sec.  262.34(c)(1) used the term `
''under the control of the operator,'' as do the revised SAA
regulations being finalized at Sec.  262.15(a). EPA has not defined
this term in the regulations, has not discussed it in preamble and
discussed it only minimally in guidance letters.\69\ However, over the
years, the Agency has received inquiries about what constitutes ``under
the control of the operator.'' In an effort to assist generators to
better understand this term and to foster improved compliance with the
SAA provisions, the Agency provided examples in the preamble to the
proposed rule. For example, EPA stated that it would consider waste to
be ``under the control of the operator'' if the operator controlled
access to an area, building, or room in which the SAA is located, such
as with entry by access card, key or lock box. Another example EPA
provided was if the operator accumulates waste in a locked cabinet and
controlled access to the key, even if the cabinet is stored inside a
room to which access is not controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Letter from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director of the Office of
Solid Waste to Mr. D.B. Redington, February 23, 1993, RCRA Online
11728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were concerned that EPA is imposing new requirements on
SAAs. To the contrary, the Agency requested comment on this issue in
the hope of developing a list of best management practices that
regulators and the regulated community could rely on to fulfill this
existing requirement. The Agency deliberately did not propose any
regulatory text to define the term ``under the control of the
operator.''
    A number of commenters provided helpful examples of what they
believe constitutes ``under the control of the operator'' as it
pertains to the SAA regulations. For example, the Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality ``believes that the term ``Under the control
of the operator'' has a much broader meaning than those examples in the
proposed rules; e.g. a situation where the operator is regularly within
view of the SAA during the course of their job, or a situation where
the operator is expected to be able to observe any individuals that may
enter or exit the SAA.'' \70\ One state commenting as part of the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) ``believes as a general rule the SAAs in a manufacturing
plant are not in locked cabinets or in locked rooms. They are generally
in centralized locations along the assembly lines so all the employees,
in several shifts, have access to them. SAA closest to the assembly
line employees would be under their control and be at or near the point
of generation. This state does not believe the regulated community
would agree to buying several locked cabinets and placing them on the
plant floor. It would be very inconvenient for the employees to run and
look for the person with the keys to unlock the cabinet every time they
need to place waste in the SAA. The sites have controlled access so the
entire building would be under control of the operator.'' \71\ The
District of Columbia (DC) Department of Energy and Environment suggests
that `` 'under control of the operator' would not include situations
where the waste cannot be seen unless the area is equipped with 24 hour
video surveillance or 24 hour sensor surveillance. DC also suggests
adding criteria such as: the area must be monitored daily by trained
personnel and access to the area must be limited to prevent access by
untrained personnel or visitors.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Comment Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0182.
    \71\ Comment Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0217.
    \72\ Comment Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, one commenter referenced an EPA memo that discussed
the term ``under control of the operator.'' \73\ EPA states: ``The
condition that wastes accumulated under the satellite provision `be
under control of the operator of the process generating the waste' is
met provided the generator demonstrates that the personnel responsible
for generating/or accumulating the waste have adequate control over the
temporary storage of these wastes. The EPA recognizes that for many
wastes, the person who first generates the waste may not be the same
person responsible for the accumulation of all of these wastes; rather,
another worker may have responsibility of overseeing the temporary
storage of wastes.'' The Agency then states that ``the goal is that
this temporary accumulation is performed responsibly and safely, with
adequate oversight and control.'' On a related matter, commenters asked
EPA to clarify whether an ``operator'' must be a single

individual. The Agency believes that there can be more than one
operator per SAA over time. For example, as employees change shifts
over the course of a day, the role of the operator can be transferred
from one employee to another. Likewise, the Agency believes that there
can also be more than one operator per SAA at the same time. For
example, multiple operators may be running laboratory equipment in the
same room and share hazardous waste containers located in a single
SAA.\74\ However, the term operator does refer to an individual or
individuals responsible for the equipment or processes generating the
hazardous waste and does not refer to a company or entity as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Letter from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director of the Office of
Solid Waste to Mr. D.B. Redington, February 23, 1993, RCRA Online
11728.
    \74\ Memorandum from Robert Springer, Director or EPA's Office
of Solid Waste, to RCRA Regional Directors, ``Frequently Asked
Questions About Satellite Accumulation Areas,'' March 17, 2004, RCRA
Online 14703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The examples discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule and
final rule are not an all-inclusive or exhaustive list of practices
that may be used to meet the requirement that hazardous waste in an SAA
must be ``under the control of the operator.'' Implementing regulatory
agencies may consider these examples or alternatives to meet the intent
of the term, which is to ensure that someone familiar with the
operations generating the hazardous waste is aware of and able to
attend to the operations, if needed, while also providing some measure
of controlled access.
G. Accumulation of Hazardous Waste by SQGs and LQGs on Drip Pads and in
Containment Buildings
    As part of its reorganization efforts to improve the user-
friendliness of the hazardous waste generator regulations, the Agency
proposed to consolidate the waste accumulation provisions for tanks,
drip pads and containment buildings into one section. The Agency also
proposed to include specific provisions for SQGs that may accumulate
hazardous waste on drip pads and in containment buildings at Sec.
262.16 (b)(4) and (5), respectively. Previously, the regulatory
provisions for LQGs referred to drip pads and containment buildings,
but these accumulation units were not specifically identified in the
SQG provisions. Therefore, if an SQG desired to accumulate hazardous
waste in these type units, they could only do so by complying with the
more stringent LQG regulations. In the proposed rule, the Agency
attempted to provide clarity by adding the regulations applicable to
LQG drip pads and containment buildings (previously found at Sec.
262.34 (a)(1)(iii) and (iv)) to provisions for SQGs accumulating
hazardous waste in these units.
    With respect to the marking and labeling provisions for hazardous
waste accumulated on drip pads and in containment buildings, the Agency
proposed that SQGs and LQGs mark or label its waste accumulation units
with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' in a conspicuous place easily
visible to employees, visitors, emergency responders, waste handlers,
etc. We also proposed that SQGs and LQGs use inventory logs, monitoring
equipment, or records to: Identify the contents of the drip pad and
containment building and its associated hazards; to identify the date
upon which each period of accumulation begins; and keep inventory logs
or records with the above information in close proximity to the drip
pad and containment building.
1. Drip Pads
    a. What is EPA finalizing? The Agency is finalizing the regulations
associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste on drip pads for
SQGs and LQGs Sec.  262.16(b)(4) and Sec.  262.17(a)(3), respectively.
This provision was previously found at Sec.  262.34(a)(1)(iii) for LQGs
only. This provision states that a generator with drip pads must comply
with subpart W of 40 CFR part 265, and, consistent with existing
regulations, must remove all hazardous wastes from the drip pad and
associated collection system at least once every 90 days. Similarly, at
closure, SQGs and LQGs must comply with Sec.  265.445(a) and (b), but
not (c). Once the hazardous wastes are removed from a drip pad, LQGs
would have up to 90 days and SQGs up to 180 days to accumulate the
hazardous wastes without a permit or interim status. SQGs and LQGs
would also have to maintain the following records at the facility by
use of inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or any other effective
means: Records that describe the procedures that will be followed to
ensure that all wastes are removed from the drip pad and associated
collection system at least once every 90 days; and records that
document each waste removal, including the quantity of waste removed
from the drip pad and the sump or collection system and the date and
time of removal.
    These records would need to be kept on site and readily available
for inspections. Ideally these records would be in close proximity to
where hazardous waste is being accumulated after removal from the drip
pad, such as in a control room, or other central location at the
facility.
    In addition, consistent with guidance previously issued by the
Agency for wood treaters, that if hazardous waste is placed in a
satellite accumulation area, the waste can remain there until the drum
is full. Once the drum is full, it must be dated and moved to the
hazardous waste storage area. Thereafter, the 90 or 180 day
accumulation clock for LQGs and SQGs, respectively, begins.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wood Preserving
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Compliance Guide: A Guide to
Federal Environmental Regulation, EPA-305-B-96-001, at section 5-17
(June 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, consistent with this same guidance for wood
preservers, EPA is clarifying in this final rule that VSQGs may
accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads as long as they also comply
with the technical standards of 40 CFR part 265 subpart W to ensure the
drip pads are operated in an environmentally safe and responsible
manner.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Ibid., 5-8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. What changed since proposal? In the process of trying to
consolidate the waste accumulating provisions for tanks, drip pads and
containment buildings in the proposed rule, the Agency failed to
properly take notice that drip pads are very different in operation
than tanks and containment buildings. The unique nature of drip pads
was addressed through several earlier rulemakings. For example, on
December 6, 1990, EPA promulgated several new hazardous waste listings
specific to the wood preserving industry, along with unit-specific
hazardous waste standards for drip pads (`subpart W') and corresponding
generator accumulation provisions for persons generating hazardous
waste and managing the waste on drip pads (55 FR 50450). As part of
that rulemaking, EPA established a standard by which generators must
remove all hazardous wastes from their drip pad at least once every 90
days, while still allowing for additional time to accumulate the
hazardous waste (e.g., in tanks or containers) depending on their
generator status. This latter issue was clarified in subsequent
guidance, but is being further clarified in this final rule. Therefore,
for both LQGs and SQGs, hazardous wastes must be removed from the drip
pad and associated collection system at least once every 90 days, and
the Agency is retaining the regulatory text previously found at Sec.
262.34 (a)(1)(iii). By incorporating this provision, the Agency will
also address the requirements that generators

describe the procedures to demonstrate that all wastes have been
removed from the drip pad and associated collection system at least
once every 90 days.
    The Agency is not finalizing the provision that would require SQGs
and LQGs to mark drip pads with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' in a
conspicuous place easily visible to employees, visitors, emergency
responders, waste handlers, etc. As stated by one commenter, labeling
the entire drip pad with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' is inaccurate
because not all of the materials on the drip pad are hazardous waste,
such as the poles and lumber being treated on the drip pad. Finally,
the drums stored on the drip pad or drum storage area that contain
hazardous waste and the drum storage area would already be labeled with
those words. Similarly, identifying the hazards of wastes is
inappropriate because drip pads contain both wastes and components of
treated wood operations.
    Similarly, we have modified where inventory logs or records for
drip pads must be kept. We had proposed that the information must be in
close proximity to the drip pad. Commenters indicated that having
records in close proximity may not always be practical or even
desirable. In response to comments, we have modified the regulations so
that the records must be kept on site and readily available for
inspections.
    c. Major Comments. Commenters primarily focused on explaining how
drip pad operations work and identifying the mistake the Agency
inadvertently made in consolidating the waste accumulation regulations
for all types of units. Commenters also requested that the Agency
change the waste accumulation time for SQGs from 90 days to 180 days
for wastes removed from the drip pad to be consistent with other waste
accumulation unit time limits. This comment is also consistent with
Agency guidance issued for drip pads.\77\ One commenter identified a
number of problems associated with the marking and labeling of
hazardous wastes on drip pads, including generators marking drip pads
with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' in a conspicuous place easily
visible to employees, visitors, emergency responders, waste handlers,
etc, and identifying the hazards of wastes as being inappropriate. As
discussed previously, the Agency has responded to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Ibid, section 5-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Containment Buildings
    a. What is EPA finalizing? The Agency is finalizing the regulations
that were proposed in Sec.  262.16 (b)(5) and Sec.  262.17 (a)(4) for
hazardous wastes accumulated in containment buildings by both SQGs and
LQGs, respectively.\78\ This provision states that an SQG or LQG
accumulating hazardous waste in a containment building must comply with
subpart DD of 40 CFR part 265, place its professional engineer
certification that the building complies with the design standards
specified in 40 CFR 265.1101 in the generator's files prior to
operation of the unit, and maintain the following records by use of
inventory logs, monitoring equipment, records, or any other effective
means: (1) A written description of procedures to ensure that each
waste volume remains in the unit for no more than 90 days, a written
description of the waste generation and management practices for the
site showing that they are consistent with respecting the 90 day limit,
and documentation that the procedures are complied with; or (2)
documentation that the unit is emptied at least once every 90 days. The
Agency is also stating that these records must be readily available
upon request from the implementing agency. These recordkeeping
provisions were found under the marking and labeling provisions for
containment buildings in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ This regulatory text was originally found at Sec.
262.34(a)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is also requiring SQGs and LQGs accumulating hazardous
waste in containment buildings to label their containment building with
the words ``Hazardous Waste'' located in a conspicuous place easily
visible to employees, visitors, emergency responders, waste handlers or
other persons on site and also provide an indication of the hazards of
the waste using one of several methods described under Sec.
262.16(b)(6)(i)(B) and (b)(6)(ii)(B)--Labeling of containers and tanks.
    b. What changed from proposal? Similar to the changes made for drip
pads, the Agency moved the marking and labeling provisions to the waste
accumulation section because these provisions more appropriately
address how generators will meet the 90 day waste accumulation time
limit. The Agency is also adding a provision to clarify that the
records used to demonstrate that hazardous wastes have been removed
within 90 days must be readily available upon request from the
implementing agency.
    c. Major comments. There were very few comments about this
provision. One commenter did not support the provision allowing SQGs to
accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings because these are
complicated units requiring a fairly high level of knowledge and
expertise to properly construct and operate. While the Agency agrees
with this commenter conceptually, we have no basis to prohibit such an
operation, such as damage cases from generators accumulating hazardous
wastes in such units. Another commenter sought clarification to
differentiate between containment buildings and manufacturing process
buildings. As described at subpart DD of part 265, containment
buildings are specially designed and constructed buildings that address
the waste accumulation of hazardous wastes. Manufacturing process
buildings may or may not have similar design specifications, but if
they are not generating or accumulating hazardous wastes, they need not
comply with subpart DD requirements. Also, the Agency maintained the 90
day accumulation time period for any SQGs accumulating hazardous wastes
in containment buildings consistent with what was proposed.

H. Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes for LQGs (40
CFR 262.17(a)(1)(vi))

    Some generators, especially as those located in urban environments,
have expressed their concern regarding the LQG provision requiring
generators to place containers holding ignitable or reactive waste 15
meters (50 feet) from the site's property line. In some cases, 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 generator from complying with this
condition.
    The Agency proposed to allow LQGs to apply for a site-specific
waiver from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the
15 meter ignitable and reactive hazardous waste accumulation property
line condition. This proposed change would require LQGs to obtain a
written approval from a local fire department and keep the written
approval in their records.

Additional details are discussed in section XI of the preamble of the
proposed rule (80 FR 57979).
1. What is EPA finalizing?
    The Agency is finalizing the proposed regulation with a minor
modification. The final regulation allows an LQG to apply for a site-
specific waiver from the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) over the
fire code if the LQG is unable to meet the 15 meter ignitable and
reactive hazardous waste accumulation property line condition. If an
LQG wants this waiver, they are required to obtain a written approved
waiver from the AHJ who has the ability to determine a safe and
practical location for the facility to store ignitable or reactive
waste that is within 15 meters (50 feet) of the facility's property
line. LQGs are then required to keep the written approval in their
records.
2. What changed since proposal?
    EPA originally proposed that the facility contact their local fire
department for the site-specific approval. While several commenters
agreed that most fire departments are well qualified to approve this
waiver, some commenters indicated that there may be some confusion as
to who can approve this waiver. For example, some areas may require a
designated official to interpret and enforce the fire code rather than
the local fire department. In this case, the designated official will
grant the approval. The Agency did not intend to restrict the ability
of those who can grant this approval to only local fire departments.
However, the Agency did intend that the entity or individual granting
this approval has detailed knowledge of the fire code, has the ability
to evaluate the site conditions to determine a safe and practical place
for storing ignitable and reactive wastes, and is authorized by the
state or local government to enforce the fire code.
    To address these comments, the Agency changed the terminology from
the ``fire department'' to the ``authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)''
over the fire code within the facility's state or locality. An AHJ may
or may not be the fire marshal, fire chief, building official, or
another official as designated by the state or local government. AHJ is
a term developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and
has been adopted by several state and local governments. Considering
the wide use of the term ``AHJ'' in various fire codes, the Agency
believes the more general term will ensure that regardless of who has
the authority (local/state), the generator will be able to apply for
the site-specific waiver. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the AHJ
is well qualified at finding the most appropriate place to accumulate
this waste and to determine that there is a sufficient level of
protection for the facility and the surrounding community prior to
issuing this approval.
    We requested comment on whether EPA should set conditions for the
waiver, but determined from the commenters that the decision should be
made on a site-specific basis dependent on the characteristics of the
generator, the physical make-up of the site, and the surrounding area.
EPA expects the AHJ to be sufficiently qualified to make a site-
specific determination for the waiver and consider relevant factors
when making that decision, such as the length of time the hazardous
waste can be accumulated, the amount of hazardous waste that can be
accumulated, and any physical or technical controls. The AHJ should
also consider any potential off-site conditions, such as the proximity
to populated public areas (schools, hospitals, or playgrounds), off-
site sources of ignition, and the proximity to an adjacent property's
storage area of ignitable or reactive waste.
3. Major Comments
    A few commenters recommended that EPA directly allow deference to
locally applicable fire codes rather than requiring the generator to
obtain an approval. EPA proposed a rule in 1984 that is similar to the
commenters' recommendation. It would have amended the buffer zone
requirements and adopted NFPA fire codes but the rule was never
finalized.\79\ However, the 1984 proposal shows that adopting the fire
code appears to be more complicated than the commenters realize due to
the differences in terms and definitions. Furthermore, fire codes
differ from locality to locality and some rural areas have no fire code
or fire department. While EPA agrees that this recommendation would be
easier to implement for the generator since it removes the approval
process, at this time, the Agency cannot defer to local fire codes
because the complexity involved may increase confusion and in some
cases it may present a danger for the community or for the facility
itself. However, the Agency may reevaluate this topic in future
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 49 FR 23290, June 5, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency took comment on whether owners and operators of
permitted and interim TSDFs should also be able to apply for this
approval. While several commenters agreed that TSDFs should be
included, EPA determined that TSDFs already go through an existing
permit process, including public notice and comment, to determine site-
specific conditions that include identifying locations for accumulating
hazardous waste.\80\ Considering that parts of the permit process may
be bypassed if owners/operators of TSDFs were allowed to apply for this
waiver, EPA concludes that it is not appropriate to include TSDFs in
this waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 40 CFR part 270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effect of the Reorganization: This section is affected by the
reorganization. The special requirements for ignitable and reactive
waste were found at 40 CFR 265.176.

I. LQG Closure Regulations (40 CFR 262.17(a)(8))

    In an effort to improve the clarity and understanding of the
closure regulations for LQGs, as well as to strengthen M. he closure
regulations to improve environmental protection, the Agency proposed
three changes to the closure provisions for LQGs previously found at
Sec.  262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B).
    First, EPA proposed to consolidate the closure regulations for LQGs
accumulating hazardous waste at Sec.  262.17(a)(8). EPA believed the
organization of the closure regulations previously found at Sec.
262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B) (which referred to various closure requirements in
part 265) was confusing and difficult to follow. The proposed
consolidation included both the facility-wide general performance
requirements found at Sec. Sec.  265.111 and 265.114 for hazardous
wastes accumulated in containers, tanks, drip pads, and containment
buildings, and the unit-specific requirements found at Sec.  265.197
for tanks, Sec.  265.445 for drip pads and Sec.  265.1102 for
containment buildings.
    Second, EPA proposed to strengthen the closure regulations for LQGs
accumulating hazardous waste in containers in central accumulation
areas that plan to stop hazardous waste accumulation by requiring them
to meet the same type of closure regulations that apply to tanks, drip
pads and containment buildings, including those situations where a
generator is not able to demonstrate that its hazardous waste,
hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated run-off, or hazardous
waste decomposition products can be practicably removed or
decontaminated (i.e., cannot ``clean close''). The Agency demonstrated
the need for closure requirements to apply to LQGs accumulating
hazardous waste in containers as discussed in detail in the

preamble to the proposed rule at 80 FR 57955 and provided in the docket
a list of Superfund damage cases to the environment caused by
generators who accumulated hazardous wastes in containers and abandoned
these facilities.
    Third, EPA proposed to require an LQG to notify EPA or the
authorized state using EPA Form 8700-12 at least 30 days prior to
closing the generator's facility or when the generator closes a unit
accumulating hazardous waste. Additionally, EPA proposed that an LQG
notify EPA or its authorized state within 90 days after closing the
facility or the unit accumulating the hazardous waste. This
notification would state the LQG had clean closed or failed to clean
close and therefore, must close as a landfill.
1. What is EPA finalizing?
    Based on review and evaluation of comments, the Agency is
finalizing the following provisions associated with the closure
regulations for LQGs. First, we are consolidating the closure
regulations at Sec.  262.17(a)(8). These regulations consist of two
components: Closure of a waste accumulation unit, such as a tank system
and container accumulation area, and closure of a generator's facility.
    When closing a waste accumulation unit at Sec.  262.17(a)(8), a
generator may either elect to place a notice in its operating record
that identifies the unit they are closing and not conduct the formal
closure performance standards of Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iii) in the case of
a container, tank or containment accumulation unit, or Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(iv) in the case of a drip pad unit, until the facility
closes, or they can formally perform the closure provisions in Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(ii)(B) through Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iv) including clean
closure performance standards and notification to EPA that the facility
has closed that accumulation unit within 90 days of closing the unit.
    When closing the facility, the generator would be required to meet
the notification standards of Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(ii) and performance
standards of Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iii) for container, tank and
containment building units, and Sec.  262.17(a)(8) (iv) for drip pad
units. The performance standards of Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iii) include
four paragraphs. The first two paragraphs incorporate the closure
performance requirements at Sec. Sec.  265.111 and 265.114 when an
LQG's waste accumulation unit or facility closes. The third paragraph
addresses what must be done with any hazardous wastes generated as a
result of an LQG clean closing its waste accumulation areas. The fourth
paragraph addresses the situation when an LQG that has accumulated
hazardous waste in a container, tank or containment building waste
accumulation area cannot meet the closure performance standards or
clean close (i.e., situations where contaminated soils and wastes
cannot be practicably removed or decontaminated).
    In addition, LQGs with drip pads must continue to comply with the
unit-specific closure performance standards found at Sec.  265.445(a)
and (b) \81\ and the general closure requirements now found at Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(iii)(A)(1) and (3). In the proposed rule, the Agency
consolidated drip pad closure requirements with tanks and containment
buildings and in the process, incorrectly modified the closure
requirements. In this final rule, Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iv) has been added
to specifically address the closure requirements for drip pads and
correct the modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Generator Closure Requirements, RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Monthly Report, December 1998, EPA530-R-98-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned previously, LQGs need to notify EPA or their
authorized state using the Site ID form (EPA Form 8700-12) when they
are closing their facility. Specifically, LQGs must notify EPA or the
authorized state using the Site ID form (EPA Form 8700-12) at least 30
days prior to closing their facility, and also notify EPA or the
authorized state within 90 days after closing the facility. This second
notification using form 8700-12 would state that the LQG has either met
the closure performance standards of Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iii) or failed
to meet such standards, in which case they must notify that they are
closing as a landfill. In the case of LQGs with drip pads, they would
either notify using form 8700-12 they had met the closure performance
standards of Sec.  265.445(a), or if they failed to meet those
standards, notify that they must close in comply with the requirements
of Sec.  265.445(b). In response to comments, the Agency is allowing
LQGs to request additional time to clean close at Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(ii)(C). However, the LQG must notify EPA using form 8700-
12 or its authorized state within 75 days after closing their site to
request an extension and provide an explanation as to why the
additional time is required.
    Third, the Agency is clarifying that closure requirements do not
apply to satellite accumulation areas at Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(v). While
the Agency did not receive any specific comments on the scope of
closure requirements, we are clarifying that the closure requirements
do not apply to satellite accumulation areas.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The Agency simplified and clarified the closure process. First, EPA
is providing LQGs a choice for when they close a hazardous waste
accumulation unit (i.e., CAA, tank, containment building, drip pad):
(1) Put a notice in the operating record stating they closed the
accumulation unit, or (2) follow the closure procedures in Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(ii)-(iv). The Agency is making this change in the final
rule based on information from commenters who described normal
operating situations where accumulation units close and reopen, or are
relocated to another part of the site. The Agency did not want the
accumulation unit closure provisions to interfere with facility
operations and the generation and accumulation of hazardous wastes,
especially as the Agency is aware of situations where hazardous wastes
are placed in containers that are mobile storage devices. However, when
closing their overall facility, generators must ensure all remaining
hazardous wastes they have generated and accumulated are removed from
their facility and clean close per Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(iii) (i.e.,
minimize the need for further maintenance by controlling, minimizing,
or eliminating the post-closure escape of hazardous waste, hazardous
constituents, leachate, contaminated run-off, or hazardous waste
decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the
atmosphere to the extent necessary to protect human health and the
environment).
    Second, rather than have LQGs notify EPA or an authorized state
every time they close a waste accumulation unit, they must now notify
only when they are closing their facility. The Agency received many
comments that providing a notification every time a waste accumulation
unit is closing, particularly for container waste accumulation units,
is impractical. Commenters noted that opening, closing and reopening
waste accumulation units, even temporarily, occurs periodically and the
Agency does not want to interfere with the operations of the facility.
    Third, in finalizing the closure performance standards Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(iii), the Agency has reverted back to the existing
regulatory text previously found at Sec.  265.197(a) for closure of
tanks and Sec.  265.1102(a) for closure of containment buildings for
purposes of consistency, and because one of the primary purposes of
this

section is to consolidate the closure regulations found in different
parts of the program.
    Finally, the Agency separated the closure performance requirements
for drip pads because they are different than those of containers,
tanks and containment buildings.
3. Major Comments
    Many commenters supported the consolidation of closure requirements
to make them more user-friendly and easier to comply with. Many
commenters did not support EPA's proposal to require notification every
time a waste accumulation area was closing and requiring LQGs to clean
close every time a waste accumulation area closed. In both cases,
commenters stated the proposed changes were inefficient, impractical
and/or unnecessary. One commenter, representing several generator
organizations, did not believe closure standards should be identified
as conditions for exemption. However, EPA notes that closure standards
are a condition for exemption under the existing RCRA program. See
section IX.A for a more detailed discussion of the distinction between
conditions for exemption and independent requirements. This commenter
also recommended that the concept proposed in Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(ii)(A)(1) that closure should be undertaken ``to the
extent necessary to protect human health and the environment,'' should
be moved up to the introductory paragraph since this is an important
risk-based concept applicable to all of the requirements in Sec.
262.17(a)(8)(ii)(A), not just to subparagraph (1). The Agency believes
the regulations being finalized already take into account a risk-based
concept because ``minimizing the need for further maintenance by
controlling, minimizing, or eliminating, to the extent necessary to
protect human health and the environment'' is a risk-based standard.
Hence, we have not finalized this change.
    This same commenter expressed serious concerns that this proposal
was a major departure from existing regulations regarding the clean
closure of container central accumulation areas and specifically, the
requirement that if the facility could not clean close, then the
generator must close as a landfill with all the associated requirements
(e.g., installing groundwater monitoring wells upgradient and
downgradient from the container area; installing monitoring wells for
30 years or longer during a post-closure care groundwater monitoring
program, etc.)
    The Agency agrees that this is a new provision. However, as
discussed in the proposal (80 FR 57955), many Superfund removal actions
over the years have resulted from generators who failed to clean close
their hazardous waste container accumulation areas. The EPA believes
that facilities accumulating hazardous wastes in containers should have
to close as a landfill if they cannot clean close like all other LQGs
accumulating hazardous waste. The inability to clean close would
indicate major environmental problems have occurred at the generator's
facility. If so, the responsibility falls on the generator to address
the potential contamination just as a generator would address any
problems that resulted from its accumulated hazardous wastes in tanks,
drip pads, or containment buildings. Whether a generator would actually
have to meet all the requirements of closing as a landfill would be a
site-specific decision, made in conjunction with EPA or the authorized
state., Generally, if a LQG has been managing its hazardous waste in
accordance with the LQG provisions including proper accumulation
standards and spill clean-up, then clean closure will consist of
removing the containers from the accumulation area. EPA anticipates
this will be the case in most situations for container central
accumulation areas. The Agency has determined that clean closure
requirements should apply equally to all hazardous waste accumulation
areas.
    Finally, one commenter pointed out that the proposal to consolidate
the closure standards for drip pads with tanks and containment
buildings would modify existing drip pad closure requirements. The
Agency acknowledges this was an inadvertent mistake and has reverted
back to the existing subpart W requirements of part 265. However, for
purposes of consolidation and consistency, LQGs that accumulate
hazardous waste on drip pads and that are closing their facility must
still comply with the notification and waste management provisions
found at Sec.  262.17(a)(8)(ii) and (a)(8)(iii)(A)(3), as well as 40
CFR part 265 subpart W.
    Effect of the Reorganization: This section is affected by the
reorganization. The closure requirements were previously found in Sec.
262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B). The reorganization is discussed in section VI of
the preamble.

J. Documentation of Inspections of Waste Accumulation Units

    As part of the of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator
Improvements rule, the Agency at 80 FR 57952-53 requested comment on
requiring generators to document the results of their container, tank
and drip pad inspections. More specifically, the Agency requested
comment on whether to require the following: (1) Both SQGs and LQGs
document the results of their required ``at least weekly'' container
inspections; (2) SQGs accumulating hazardous waste in tank systems
document the results of their tank inspections; and (3) both SQGs and
LQGs accumulating hazardous waste on drip pads document the results of
their drip pad inspections.
    The Agency requested comment on modifying these provisions to
require documentation of inspections for these waste accumulation units
to emphasize the importance of these inspections in preventing releases
into the environment and to provide a measure of accountability that a
generator's inspection of its containers, tanks or drip pads actually
took place when required. Currently, the only way an inspector can
determine whether the required inspections actually occurred is to
inspect a generator site at the same time that the inspection is
supposed to occur, or conduct an inspection within one week of the
first inspection--assuming the inspector knew when the first inspection
actually occurred. Both situations have low probabilities of occurring.
    As part of the proposed rule, the Agency noted that many states
already require generators accumulating hazardous waste in waste
accumulation units to maintain records of their inspections. Many of
these states provide templates for generators to use to assist them in
recording the results of their inspections. Similarly, EPA stated the
burden imposed upon generators to record the results of its inspections
would not be significant, particularly if generators use a template to
document the results of inspections.
    The Agency also stated that documenting the results of these
inspections is an important best management practice for generators to
use not only to prevent any releases, but also to identify situations,
such as damaged containers, tanks or drip pads that could lead to a
potential release to the environment.
1. What is EPA finalizing?
    The Agency is not moving forward at this time to require SQGs and
LQGs to

document those situations identified earlier where documentation of
inspections is currently not required. At this time, the Agency
believes further analysis and evaluation is required before a final
decision can be made. However, as already noted, the Agency believes
this is a best management practice that serves to protect generators
from possible releases and cleanup and which also bolsters the
preventive aspects of the RCRA program. EPA encourages generators to
examine the feasibility of adopting this practice as part of their
standard operating procedures.
2. Major Comments
    Commenters were mixed on the need to require SQGs and LQGs to
document the results of their inspections associated with containers,
tanks and drip pads. Among the reasons commenters cited for supporting
documentation of inspections included: Such a process acts as a
reminder to ensure there are no problems; the requirement is not unduly
burdensome; companies are already in the habit of preparing and
maintaining these types of records; the records are useful in tracking
containers within the accumulation areas and corrective actions needed
and taken, and in documenting that no releases occurred within the
unit; and documentation will result in greater protection against
hazardous waste releases into the environment.
    Commenters who opposed this requirement stated that adding
additional recordkeeping requirements shifts the focus away from actual
storage practices to secondary recordkeeping practices; there is not
sufficient justification for imposing this requirement; there is no
added benefit because accumulation units in poor condition have
obviously not been regularly inspected; and the Agency would be better
served by increasing outreach to small generators to increase awareness
of the inspection requirement.

K. Allowing VSQGs To Send Hazardous Waste to LQGs Under the Control of
the Same Person (40 CFR 262.14(a)(5)(viii) and 262.17(f))

    EPA is finalizing the proposed provision to allow VSQGs to send
their hazardous waste to an LQG that is under the control of the same
person, as defined at Sec.  260.10, provided both the VSQG and LQG
comply with specified conditions.
1. Introduction
    Before the revisions in this rulemaking, under the regulations at
Sec.  261.5(f)(3) for acute hazardous waste, and Sec.  261.5(g)(3) for
non-acute hazardous waste, a VSQG was allowed to either treat or
dispose of its hazardous waste in an on-site facility or ensure
delivery to an off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility, which
included RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facilities, interim status
hazardous waste facilities, municipal solid waste facilities, non-
municipal non-hazardous waste facilities, recycling facilities, and
universal waste handlers. The previous VSQG regulations did not allow a
generator to send its hazardous waste off site to another generator
unless the receiving generator had a storage permit or was otherwise
one of the types of facilities cited previously. Thus, persons looking
to reduce their overall environmental liability across multiple
facilities were prohibited from managing their VSQG hazardous waste at
one or more of their LQG facilities without first obtaining a permit or
complying with the interim status standards.
    EPA determined that providing the option for VSQGs to send their
hazardous waste to an LQG that is under the control of the same person
will improve the management of that hazardous waste for the following
reasons. First, LQGs are subject to more stringent management
conditions compared to VSQGs, such as accumulation time, labeling,
training, emergency planning, and containment standards. In addition,
LQGs may only transport (using a hazardous waste manifest) hazardous
waste to RCRA-permitted or interim status hazardous waste TSDFs, which
in turn, are subject to more stringent management standards than the
municipal or non-municipal solid waste facilities that VSQGs are
allowed to use. Therefore, allowing hazardous waste generated by a VSQG
to be sent to an LQG under the control of the same person will improve
overall tracking, oversight and management of the hazardous waste and
enable more effective environmental protection.
    Furthermore, a company, because of economies of scale, may reduce
its overall waste management costs, as well as its potential financial
liabilities for hazardous waste it generates at VSQG facilities, as it
would be handled under the more comprehensive LQG and TSDF regulatory
programs. Consolidation by an LQG of hazardous waste generated by
several VSQGs under its control may also increase potential
opportunities for hazardous waste recycling by the LQG.
    In addition, whereas LQGs have up to 90 days to accumulate
hazardous waste in compliance with all the LQG conditions for exemption
without having to obtain a RCRA storage permit or comply with all the
other standards otherwise applicable, VSQGs may accumulate up to 1,000
kilograms of non-acute hazardous waste or up to 1 kilogram of acute
hazardous waste or up to 100 kilograms of residues from the cleanup of
a spill of acute hazardous waste without any time constraint. Even
though the amount of hazardous waste allowed on site by VSQGs at any
one time is limited, the longer that hazardous waste is accumulated on
site, the greater the risk of adverse impacts to human health and the
environment. Allowing VSQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG
under the control of the same person will likely reduce the overall
time that the VSQG accumulates hazardous waste on site, which would
further reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment.
    Finally, this new provision will give companies flexibility in
allocating labor and resources required to manage the company's total
quantity of hazardous waste generated, as the company is now allowed to
consolidate its hazardous waste from VSQG facilities at its LQG
facilities.
    EPA has received requests over the years from industry to amend the
regulations to allow VSQGs to send their hazardous waste to LQGs for
consolidation. Many of the commenters, including state agencies, the
generator industry, and the waste management industry, supported adding
this option to the regulations. Commenters expressed their support for
consolidation, stating that it will ease the financial and
administrative burden for VSQGs and encourage responsible waste
management, treatment, and disposal. Specifically, some commenters
stated that consolidation at an LQG would ensure greater safety and
environmental protection because LQG staff are generally more
knowledgeable than those at a VSQG. In addition, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency confirmed with direct observation that
allowing a VSQG to send its hazardous waste to another site where
proper and safe management is available at a reasonable financial and
management price, such as is provided by a VSQG collection site, does
consistently reduce the average time that VSQGs accumulate waste on
site, reducing on-site health and safety risks and also lowering the
potential for both accidental releases

and the temptation for improper disposal of larger amounts.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Comment Number:
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adding the consolidation option in the regulations will enable
generators to employ greater control over the management of their
hazardous waste, thereby resulting in improved efficiency and reduced
liability for the generator. Commenters noted numerous examples where
VSQGs and LQGs under the same ownership may take advantage of the new
consolidation provision. For example, Army National Guard and Reserve
units that may be VSQGs can send their hazardous waste to an active
Army base that is an LQG. The same situation applies to Air Force,
Navy, and Marine Corps reserve units as well. Additionally, many
universities commented that they supported this provision. Often,
individual laboratory buildings qualify as VSQGs. Allowing different
laboratory buildings within a university or industrial environment that
are VSQGs to send their hazardous waste to another university or
industrial entity that is an LQG under the same control will provide
both economic and environmental benefits. Furthermore, utilities,
retailers, and remote oil and gas production facilities also represent
examples of industrial sectors that indicated they expect to benefit
from the intra-company transfer of hazardous waste from VSQGs to LQGs.
2. What is EPA finalizing?
    The Agency is finalizing the provision that allows a VSQG to send
its hazardous waste to an LQG that is under the control of the same
person, provided specified conditions are met.
    a. Scope. EPA is finalizing its proposal to amend the regulations
under the previous regulatory framework at Sec.  261.5(f)(3) and (g)(3)
to allow VSQGs to send hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of
the same person. ``Person'' is defined in Sec.  260.10 to mean an
individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, federal agency,
corporation (including a government corporation), partnership,
association, state, municipality, commission, political subdivision of
a state or any interstate body. For the purposes of this section,
``control'' means the power to direct the policies of the generator,
whether by the ownership of stock, voting rights, or otherwise, except
that contractors who operate as generators on behalf of a different
person shall not be deemed to ``control'' such generators. EPA notes
that these are the same key terms used in the exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials that are
generated and legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator
(40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)), which was promulgated on October 30, 2008, (73
FR 64668) and revised on January 13, 2015 (80 FR 57918). Consistent
with the October 30, 2008, final rule, companies within the same
corporate structure would be considered ``under the control of the same
person'' if they meet the definition of same ``person'' and ``control''
as outlined above.
    Limiting transfers to facilities under control of the same person
is appropriate because it ensures common control is maintained over
both facilities and takes advantage of strong liability incentives to
ensure the hazardous waste is safely managed. Additionally, if a VSQG
sends hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same person,
the LQG is likely to be more familiar with the type of hazardous waste
generated by the VSQG. Furthermore, questions regarding liability and
responsibility for such hazardous waste are clearer than is the case
with facilities from unrelated companies. The majority of commenters,
including most of the states, supported limiting the VSQG consolidation
option to facilities under the control of the same person at this time
for similar reasons.
    EPA is also finalizing the proposed requirements for certain
labeling and marking standards for VSQG waste being transferred to LQGs
under the control of the same person under this provision. Note that
aside from these conditions, the same standards for management of VSQG
waste apply to materials going to an LQG under this provision as to
other VSQG waste, including the exemption from the requirement to ship
using a hazardous waste manifest. However, DOT shipping requirements do
still apply as appropriate.
b. Conditions for Exemption
Condition for Exemption for VSQGs
    As part of this provision, VSQGs are required to meet the following
conditions for exemption, found at Sec.  262.14(a)(5)(viii).
    Under control of the same person. As described previously, the VSQG
and the LQG must be under control of the same person, according to the
definition in Sec.  260.10.
    Labeling and marking of containers. The Agency is requiring that a
VSQG transferring waste to an LQG under the control of the same person
label its containers with (1) the words ``Hazardous waste'' and (2) 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); hazard
communication consistent with the DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172
subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or
pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR
1910.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) code 704). This condition is also
consistent with the revisions for labeling and marking of containers
found in 40 CFR parts 262, 263, and 268 and discussed in section IX.E.1
of this preamble.
Conditions for Exemption for LQGs
    EPA is finalizing the following conditions for exemption for LQGs
receiving hazardous waste from VSQGs under the control of the same
person, all found at Sec.  262.17(f).
    Notification. LQGs receiving hazardous waste from VSQGs under the
control of the same person must submit a notification to EPA or their
authorized state using EPA Form 8700-12 (i.e., the Site Identification
(Site ID) form) at least 30 days prior to receiving the first shipment
of hazardous waste from the VSQG. LQGs are required to identify on the
Site ID form the name(s), site address(es), and contact information for
the VSQG(s) that will be transferring hazardous waste to the LQG. LQGs
are also required to submit an updated Site ID form within 30 days
should the name or site address for the VSQG change. Since the process
to update the Site ID form to reflect this final rule will not be
completed by the time some facilities are required to notify, EPA will
create an interim procedure for submitting notifications for the
regulated community to aid their compliance efforts with the new
consolidation provision and publish it on the EPA Web site.
    Notification in this instance serves to inform the regulatory
authorities of which LQGs are receiving hazardous waste from which
VSQGs under the control of the same person. The Agency has determined
notification is necessary in order to communicate to inspectors the
origin of the hazardous waste received by the LQG and to ensure the
received shipment is managed in compliance with the conditions of the
provision. EPA also believes notification by the LQG, rather than
notification by the VSQG, is more efficient and less

burdensome, because LQGs are already required to submit Site ID forms
as part of obtaining a RCRA Identification Number and as part of the
biennial reporting process. Additionally, it is more efficient for one
LQG to notify on behalf of numerous VSQGs.
    EPA has recently made available an electronic interface for states
and the regulated community to use to submit Site ID forms
electronically, which will further reduce burden on LQGs. Facilities
should check with their states regarding whether and when their state
will use EPA's electronic submittal process.
    Recordkeeping. LQGs are required to maintain records for three
years from the date the hazardous waste was received from the VSQG with
the following information:

--The name, site address, and contact information for each VSQG; and
--A description of each waste shipment received from the VSQG,
including the quantity and the date the hazardous waste was received.

    Recordkeeping is necessary to ensure the VSQG and LQGs operating
under the consolidation provision are meeting the conditions of the
provision, including that the VSQG and LQG are under control of the
same person. Records can also be used to ensure that the hazardous
waste from the VSQG is managed according to the other conditions for
exemption of this provision, such as the requirement that LQGs are
receiving shipments of hazardous waste from VSQGs in quantities
commensurate with the VSQG's generator category. This recordkeeping
condition can be fulfilled through routine business records, such as a
bill of lading, and will not present an undue burden to the LQG.
Additionally, the LQG can then use this information to report the
hazardous waste from the VSQG on its biennial report forms.
    Labeling and marking of containers. The Agency is requiring that
LQGs comply with the same labeling and marking conditions for exemption
under Sec.  262.17(a)(5), including the date accumulation started
(i.e., the date the hazardous waste was received from the VSQG). (Note:
These are the same standards that VSQGs must comply with in labeling
and marking containers that they send to LQGs, as discussed previously,
with the exception of the accumulation start date.) If the LQG is
consolidating incoming hazardous waste from a VSQG with either its own
hazardous waste or with hazardous waste from another VSQG, the LQG must
mark each container with the earliest date any hazardous waste in the
container was accumulated on site. This will prevent an LQG from
starting the accumulation clock over again, which could lead to an
endless loop of accumulation.
    Because the LQG must manage the hazardous waste it receives from
VSQGs according to the LQG regulations, EPA has determined the same
labeling and marking requirements should apply to both its own
hazardous waste and hazardous waste received from a VSQG. EPA believes
that it is important that employees, transporters, downstream handlers,
emergency personnel, EPA, and the states know as much as possible about
the potential hazards of the contents in containers that LQGs
accumulate, transport, and manage.
    Waste management. Under the finalized consolidation provision, an
LQG is required to manage all incoming hazardous waste from a VSQG in
compliance with the regulations applicable to its LQG generator
category. In other words, there will be no difference in how the
hazardous waste from a VSQG is managed relative to the management of
the LQG's own hazardous waste, although hazardous waste from a VSQG is
not eligible for management under the satellite accumulation
regulations (Sec.  262.15) (That is, VSQG waste must be placed in a
central accumulation area or immediately shipped off site from the
LQG.)
    Biennial Reporting. An LQG must also report the hazardous waste it
receives from VSQGs on its biennial report, as required under Sec.
262.41. EPA will include a new source code in the biennial report
instructions that LQGs will use to identify the hazardous waste
received from a VSQG (to differentiate from hazardous waste the LQG
generates on site). Generators are required to report hazardous waste
they receive from VSQGs by type of hazardous waste. In other words, if
an LQG receives the same type of hazardous waste from multiple VSQGs,
it only need report the total quantity of that hazardous waste received
from all VSQGs. This will enable states and EPA to better understand
the additional volumes and types of hazardous wastes managed at an LQG,
which will assist in prioritizing compliance assistance.
    c. No maximum limit of hazardous waste LQGs receive from VSQGs.
Because LQGs currently have no maximum limit on the amount of hazardous
waste they can accumulate, and because the regulations that are
applicable to LQGs are protective, the Agency has determined there is
no need to establish a maximum limit on the amount or types of
hazardous waste that an LQG can receive from VSQGs. In fact, we believe
the more hazardous waste that is shipped to LQGs, the greater potential
for better management, since these hazardous wastes will be managed
under the more comprehensive hazardous waste regulations, as opposed to
potentially being sent to non-hazardous waste disposal facilities. In
addition, the LQG will need to move the VSQG waste off site in a timely
manner since the 90-day accumulation limit for the exemption from
permitting will still apply.
    d. Enforcement. The conditions in this final rule that allow VSQGs
to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same
person are necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. Failure to meet one or more of the conditions could lead
to potential mismanagement of the hazardous waste, potentially
resulting in a release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents to the environment. Persons taking advantage of the
consolidation provision who fail to meet one or more of the conditions
for exemption would lose their exemption from a permit, interim status,
and operating requirements and be subject to an enforcement action
under RCRA section 3008 for violations of the applicable requirements
in part 264 through 268, 270, and the notification requirements of
section 3010 of RCRA. EPA and authorized states also have the authority
to cease specific transfers of hazardous waste from VSQGs to an LQG in
the context of an enforcement action. EPA also notes that failure on
the part of the LQG to meet one of the conditions for exemption would
not mean that the VSQG is subject to a permit, interim status, and
operating requirements, provided that the VSQG met its conditions for
exemption and vice versa.
    e. Interstate shipments. Under RCRA, authorized state programs may
be more stringent than the federal program and thus states may choose
not to adopt the finalized consolidation provision allowing VSQGs to
send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same
person. In the case of interstate shipments where a VSQG wants to
transfer its waste to an LQG located in a different state than the
VSQG, the VSQG must ensure that both states have adopted the provision
(including the exemption from the requirement to ship using a hazardous
waste manifest). Additionally, if a VSQG wants to transit its waste
through states that have not adopted the consolidation provision, EPA
recommends that generators contact any transit states through which

the hazardous waste will be shipped to ascertain their policy about
such shipments.
2. What changed since proposal?
    a. Labeling and Marking of Containers. EPA proposed that the VSQG
would label its containers with the words ``Very small quantity
generator hazardous waste.'' However, several commenters stated that
having two ``systems'' of labeling was confusing and discussed other
ways to distinguish the VSQG waste from the LQG's own waste when it is
consolidated. Specifically, the records that an LQG are required to
keep should be sufficient to distinguish VSQG waste from the LQG's own
waste. In addition, there will likely be situations where an LQG
supplies the labels to the VSQG, so using one common label is
reasonable. EPA has determined that using a different label would not
improve management of the hazardous waste at either generator.
Therefore, EPA has decided that labeling the VSQG's waste to be
consolidated with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' (along with the other
labeling requirements) are sufficient under the consolidation
provision.
    In addition, we are not requiring the following marking and
labeling: (1) Other words that identify the contents of the containers
and (2) the applicable hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste
code). First, we are not requiring ``the contents'' of the container to
be consistent with the finalized marking and labeling requirements for
all generators as discussed in section IX.E.1. In addition, we are not
requiring the applicable hazardous waste number(s) be included on the
label because we have determined that it is not necessary at this point
in the management of the VSQG waste. Due to the fact that LQGs do not
need to add the hazardous waste codes until the waste is ready to be
shipped off site to a designated RCRA facility for subsequent
management, we determined that was also the best option for the VSQG
waste being consolidated at an LQG. Therefore, the VSQG waste only
needs to be labeled with the words ``Hazardous Waste'' and an
indication of the hazards of the contents when it is sent for
consolidation at an LQG under the same control. Once at the LQG, the
date the accumulation starts (i.e., the date the hazardous waste was
received from the VSQG) must be added to the label. Of course, if the
VSQG wants to include words that identify the contents of the
containers and/or the applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s)
(hazardous waste codes), that is encouraged as discussed in the general
marking and labeling provisions in this preamble (section IX.E.1). Due
to the fact that the VSQG and the LQG are under the control of the same
person, EPA assumes that the two parties will consult and determine the
most appropriate labeling for the safe management of their hazardous
waste that meets the minimum requirements laid out in the regulations.
    b. LQG notification. EPA proposed that LQGs notify using an updated
Site ID form 8700-12 within 30 days of a change in the site name, site
address, or contact information for a VSQG sending their hazardous
waste for consolidation at the LQG. Several commenters recommended only
requiring notification of changes to the site name and/or address of
the VSQG. EPA agrees that if the site name and address remains the
same, it is not necessary for the LQG to notify again simply because
the contact information for the VSQG changes. Due to the fact that the
VSQG consolidation provision is limited to facilities under the control
of the same person, the LQG would likely have knowledge of any change
in contact information and could provide that to the implementing
agencies if necessary.
3. Major Comments
    a. Expanding scope of the provision. EPA also requested comment on
whether to establish a process that would allow a generator (whether
VSQG or LQG) to request approval from its EPA Regional Administrator or
the authorized state to transfer hazardous waste from VSQGs to LQGs
that are not under the control of the same person. Additionally, the
Agency also requested comment on a variation that would allow LQGs to
consolidate VSQG hazardous waste from VSQGs that are not under the
control of the same person by submitting a request for approval. The
difference under this variation was that after 60 days, the generator
could start consolidating regardless of whether it had heard back from
the implementing agency.
    After consideration of the comments received, EPA has decided not
to finalize an inter-company consolidation provision at this time.
There was not enough support in the public comments and significant
implementation issues were identified. It is likely that additional
safeguards would need to be put in place to allow VSQG consolidation at
an LQG that is not under the control of the same person. After a
sufficient number of states adopt the intra-company consolidation
provision, the Agency plans to evaluate how the consolidation option is
working. EPA will then consider possible expansion of the provision in
the future, including whether to allow VSQG consolidation at SQGs under
the same control and/or LQGs under the control of a different person.
    b. Effect on existing state programs. EPA received comments from
the retail sector suggesting that, under the existing RCRA regulations,
VSQG hazardous waste can be consolidated at any intermediate location,
as long as the VSQG ensures ultimate delivery to an acceptable facility
listed under the regulations. However, EPA does not agree with that
characterization of the existing regulations and has expressed that in
writing as far back as 1987.\83\ As explained in the guidance, a VSQG
must either treat or dispose of its hazardous waste in an on-site
facility or ensure delivery to an off-site facility listed in previous
Sec.  261.5(f)(3) and now found at Sec.  262.14(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See RCRA Hotline Monthly Report Question, April, 1987, RCRA
Online 12894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, other commenters noted that certain states already
operate consolidation programs that go beyond what EPA is finalizing in
this document. For example, Minnesota operates a VSQG collection
program (VSQGCP) where non-affiliated LQGs apply and are individually
reviewed and approved by the state to receive hazardous waste from any
VSQG at their discretion. Currently, Minnesota has approved 31 such
VSQGCPs, providing relatively convenient safe disposal for VSQGs across
the state.\84\ The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group also expressed
their concern that EPA has not acknowledged many state practices that
facilitate the removal of small hazardous waste streams from remote,
unmanned locations.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Comment Number:
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0232.
    \85\ The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Comment Number:
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not EPA's intention to interfere with existing state
consolidation programs. If a state has authorized a facility to manage
hazardous waste or has permitted, licensed, or registered a facility to
manage municipal solid waste or non-municipal, non-hazardous waste, EPA
would consider that to be a facility allowed to receive VSQG waste
under Sec.  262.14(a)(5). In addition, EPA notes that states can be
more stringent and thus, can adopt the VSQG consolidation provision
finalized in this rule and add other requirements as they deem
necessary and allowable under state law.

    Effect of the Reorganization: This section is affected by the
reorganization. The reorganization of the generator regulations moved
the conditions for VSQGs from Sec.  261.5 to Sec.  262.14 and the
conditions for LQGs from Sec.  262.34 to Sec.  262.17. The
reorganization is discussed in section VI of this preamble.

L. EPA Identification Numbers and Re-notification for SQGs and LQGs (40
CFR 262.18)

    Under existing RCRA regulations, SQGs and LQGs are required to
notify EPA using form 8700-12 (Site ID form) in order to obtain an EPA
identification number. The Site ID form contains such information as
the name and address of the generator, the industrial sector in which
it belongs (i.e., NAICS code), name of a facility contact, what type of
waste activities take place at the facility, etc. Without such an
identification number, a generator cannot treat, store, dispose of, or
transport its hazardous waste. Subsequent to obtaining an EPA ID, there
is no federal regulation requiring SQGs or LQGs to re-notify EPA to
update their site information or confirm the information remains
accurate. However, LQGs do update their site information every two
years as part of the biennial report, as the Site ID form is part of
the biennial report submission.
    The lack of a re-notification requirement, especially for SQGs at
the federal level, greatly impairs EPA's and the states' ability to use
the information for compliance monitoring and programmatic purposes.
This is because a one-time notification provides no assurance that the
information collected in EPA's and the states' databases over time will
accurately reflect which facilities are generating hazardous waste.
    To address these issues, the Agency proposed several changes to the
RCRA SQG and LQG site-identification and re-notification processes.
First, we proposed to add an independent requirement for LQGs that
reflects existing processes by which LQGs already submit Site ID forms
as part of the biennial reporting process. Second, we proposed that
SQGs must re-notify EPA using the Site ID form prior to February 1 of
each even-numbered year, similar to the biennial report with the SQG
re-notifications occurring one month prior. EPA took comment on
alternative time frames for SQG re-notification such as every four
years, alternate cycles from the biennial report, and rolling re-
notifications. Finally, EPA took comment on whether a better approach
would be for EPA to require an SQG or LQG to re-notify only in the
event of a change to certain information, such as change in ownership
or generator category.
1. What is EPA finalizing?
    The Agency is finalizing the requirement for SQGs to re-notify EPA
(or an authorized state program) beginning in 2021 and every four years
thereafter using EPA Form 8700-12. While still several years away,
states must become authorized for this provision. In the meantime, the
Agency will work with the states and the regulated community to develop
the necessary software and instructions to effectively implement this
new requirement. This re-notification requirement will also occur in
years in which federal biennial reporting is not required. This form
must be submitted by September 1st of each year in which re-
notifications are required.
    In addition, EPA is finalizing in Sec.  262.18(d)(2) the
formalization of LQGs re-notifying using EPA Form 8700-12, the RCRA
Site Identification form, as part of the LQG's biennial report required
under Sec.  262.41.
    Note that the changes to the regulatory text for Sec.  262.18 in
this action take into account the revisions being made as a part of the
``Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions'' Final Rule (Docket ID EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2015-0147; FRL-9947-74-OLEM), including the reference in Sec.
262.18(e) for recognized traders.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The Agency, in response to comments, increased the interval for SQG
re-notifying from every two years to every four years. A number of
commenters responded to our requests for alternative timing for SQG
notification. Significantly, we heard from a number of states as well
as the RCRAInfo Expert Group (a group of EPA and state RCRAInfo data
experts), that keeping the SQG notifications on the same cycle as the
biennial report is too burdensome and not practical given the large
volume of data they receive for the biennial report. These commenters
suggested that we reduce the frequency of SQG notifications from two
years to every four years and stagger it from the timing of the
biennial report. The EPA agrees with these experts and, as described
previously, is finalizing the SQG re-notification requirement with
these changes as recommended.
    There was varied support from commenters on alterative timing for
SQG notification. Some commenters supported keeping the timing to every
two years both on the biennial report cycle and off. EPA agrees there
is general awareness in the generator population of when the biennial
report is due, which could make it easier for SQGs to comply with this
new requirement. Also, the Agency understands that for companies or
facilities that may have multiple sites that are LQGs and SQGs, it may
be difficult to keep track of one schedule for LQGs and the biennial
report and another for the SQG re-notification. However, the Agency
decided to defer to the comments regarding how keeping SQG re-
notification timing on the same cycle as the biennial report would
overwhelm state and EPA workload capacity to keep up with the data
submissions. In order for the data to be usable and the collection
effort worthwhile, the Agency must be able to ensure it is entered into
our system correctly and we believe the four year cycle alternating
with the biennial report will best address capacity issues.
    Both state and industry commenters pointed out that many states
already require annual re-notification by LQGs and some for SQGs as
well. Most asked that EPA clarify that this collected state data can be
used to satisfy the federal SQG re-notification requirement. We are
clarifying that as long as the more frequently state-collected data is
transferred into the national RCRA information management system or
RCRAInfo by the state on the timetable EPA is finalizing in this
rulemaking for SQG re-notification, these existing state regulations
would meet the requirement.
    Two concepts were raised by commenters that EPA intends to
investigate for possible changes to the Site ID form in the future.
First, commenters asked for the ability to check a box certifying that
their site ID information had not changed rather than have to fill out
the entire Site ID form each time they re-notify. By increasing the
time interval for SQG re-notification to every four years, EPA believes
there will be reduced burden, but understands this option would
increase efficiency for the regulated community and implementers. We
intend to work with our national data experts to explore a possible
form change to accommodate this idea. Second, commenters asked for a
check box or another mechanism to inactivate a RCRA Site ID number. EPA
intended for the SQG re-notification process to provide a mechanism for
EPA and the states to deactivate RCRA identification numbers when no
activity occurred for long periods of time. The Agency intends to work
with our state partners in exploring whether the Site ID form or data
system changes can be made, or

guidance issued, to allow this action to occur.
    Some in industry questioned the need for such information.
Commenters suggested that alternative information collection mechanisms
already exist, such as using the Biennial Report submission for LQGs
and manifest data. First, the existing one-time notification for SQGs
provides no assurance that the information collected by EPA and many
states, over time, will accurately reflect which facilities are
generating hazardous waste and whether they still are SQGs. EPA agrees
that the Biennial Report required by LQGs does provide a mechanism by
which LQGs regularly re-notify, and we are simply codifying that
process in this final rule. While TSDFs report hazardous waste received
by SQGs in their Waste Received (WR) form, they do not identify the
generator category of the facility they are receiving waste from, only
the RCRA identification number. From experience, the Agency has found
there is no guarantee that cross walking the RCRA identification number
of a facility reported in the WR form with the information found in an
existing RCRA Site Identification form will guarantee that the
regulatory category of the generator is correct. Therefore, the Agency
believes periodic re-notification is required.
    With respect to using manifest data, currently manifest data is
owned by the states and not required to be sent EPA. This is changing
with the e-Manifest system under development, in that the e-manifest
data will be available to EPA and the states. However, as the system is
being designed, specifications do not include a generator category data
element, nor is including this data element possible without a
regulatory change. However, the Agency will continue to investigate the
feasibility of using e-Manifest data to identify active SQGs and LQGs.
    A number of commenters supported the idea that SQG re-notification
be required when a specified event occurs. Technically, generators
already have this capability. The existing instructions for completing
EPA Form 8700-12 include the statement, ``You must use this form to
submit a subsequent notification if your site already has an EPA
Identification Number and you wish to change information (e.g.,
generator status, new site contact person, new owner, new mailing
address, new regulated waste activity, etc.).'' \86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See 2015 Biennial Report Instructions, page 11-12 at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/2015_hwr_instructions_forms.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Agency took comment on this option, we believe that
having EPA and states conduct a census re-notification process every
four years is a more cost effective process guaranteeing a greater
response rate than requiring a self-initiation process on the part of
generators (i.e., from past experience, EPA and the states have had to
remind many generators they failed to re-notify). In fact, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments strongly cautioned EPA to
not adopt this approach and to learn from Minnesota's negative
experience requiring re-notification when events occur. EPA and the
states also have experience regarding how to implement a census re-
notification process via the Biennial Reporting process for LQGs that
they can apply to the new SQG re-notification process.
    The retail sector also requested that the Agency limit the periodic
re-notification requirement for their stores, and provide a streamlined
process for large retail chains (e.g., allowing a consolidated update
that identifies only key changes).\87\ The Agency understands the
retailers' concerns, which are among the reasons we are not finalizing
re-notification based on specified events. EPA continues to explore the
various approaches to the retail sector as they, similar to
laboratories, tend to operate very differently than typical hazardous
waste generators and face unique issues with the RCRA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Comments of the Retail Associations in Response to
EPA's proposal, Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121, December 23,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA is clarifying that when an SQG or LQG changes
location, it is required to notify EPA because a new RCRA
identification number will be needed as these numbers are tied to a
physical site. EPA and the states will work with the generator to
inactivate the previous RCRA identification number held by the
generator while also assigning a new RCRA Identification number. Also,
while not required, EPA recommends that generators who change ownership
re-notify and alert EPA or their state that a new owner is responsible
for the management of hazardous waste at the facility.
    Overall, this provision of the final rule provides a balanced
approach between the re-notification needs of EPA, the states, and
SQGs. We will work with all parties to ensure its effective
implementation.
    Effect of Reorganization: This section is affected by the
reorganization. The reorganization of the generator regulations moved
the requirements for EPA identification numbers from Sec.  262.12 to
Sec.  262.18. The reorganization is discussed in section VI of this
preamble.

M. Provision Prohibiting Generators From Disposing of Liquids in
Landfills (40 CFR 262.14(b) and 262.35)

    RCRA section 3004(c) prohibits the disposal of bulk or non-
containerized liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in
hazardous waste in any landfill. This prohibition is necessary because
the disposal of liquids in landfills can be a significant source of
leachate generation. 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.\88\ The Agency codified this prohibition for
municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) at Sec.  258.28, and at Sec.
264.314 and Sec.  265.314 for permitted and interim status hazardous
waste landfills. This prohibition is not a new provision and has been
in place for almost 25 years. However, the Agency believes it is
important to emphasize that the responsibility for complying with this
statutory provision resides not only with municipal and hazardous waste
haulers and landfill operators, but also with hazardous waste
generators. Additional information can be found in the preamble of the
proposed rule (80 FR 57971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ October 9, 1991, 56 FR 51055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What is EPA finalizing?
    The Agency is finalizing the proposed regulatory language
prohibiting hazardous waste generators from disposing of liquid
hazardous wastes in landfills. The final regulatory language is located
at Sec.  262.14(b) for VSQGs and at Sec.  262.35 for SQGs and LQGs. As
explained in the proposal, EPA is clarifying existing language to
emphasize that hazardous waste generators are also responsible for
complying with this provision. Also, the Agency is adding references to
Sec.  264.314 and Sec.  265.314 in the SQG and LQG regulation (Sec.
262.35). Liquid waste disposed in a hazardous waste landfill must meet
the additional requirements in Sec.  264.314 and Sec.  265.314, notably
the requirement that the sorbents be nonbiodegradable. EPA is adding
these references to Sec.  262.35 in response to comments about sorbed
hazardous waste liquids and to clarify the requirements that must be
met prior to disposal in a hazardous waste landfill.

2. Major Comments
    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed regulatory
language would cause confusion and force generators to alter their
current practices for disposal of liquids. This was not the intent of
this proposed regulation; EPA simply wanted to make generators more
aware of this prohibition. Because the statutory prohibition was
codified in the TSDF regulations and not in the generator regulations,
some generators may have been unaware of the prohibition against the
disposal of liquids in landfills. EPA disagrees with the commenter's
suggestion to alter the proposed regulatory language for generators.
EPA concludes that the proposed regulatory language prohibiting liquids
in landfills is appropriate because the language was adopted directly
from the statute and the same language is found in other parts of the
regulations which applies to generators. It would be confusing to have
slightly varying versions of this prohibition for each generator
category and TSDFs.
    A few commenters had concerns over the phrase ``whether or not
sorbents have been added'' in the proposed regulatory text. The Agency
is clarifying that this phrase does not restrict the use of sorbents as
treatment prior to disposing in a landfill. If sorbents have been used
but free liquids are still present, then the waste is prohibited from
disposal in all landfills. However, if there are no free liquids as
defined in Sec.  260.10 after the use of sorbents, then the waste may
be disposed in the correct corresponding landfill.
    EPA would like to clarify how current practices that remove free
liquids prior to disposal in a landfill will not be altered by this
proposed regulatory language, although commenters believed otherwise.
These current practices will not be altered by this regulation and most
generators should be able to continue operating as they have prior to
this rule unless their waste contains free liquids when disposed in
landfills. If there are free liquids, they are already out of
compliance with the current requirements even before this rule takes
effect. Methods that remove or solidify free liquids, such as mixing in
sorbents until no free liquids are present, must continue to be
utilized by all generators prior to disposal in any landfill. However,
sorbed hazardous waste liquids by an SQG and LQG must meet additional
criteria specified in Sec.  264.314 and Sec.  265.314 prior to disposal
in a hazardous waste landfill.89 90 For example, one
criterion, as some commenters pointed out, is that the sorbent must be
non-biodegradable if disposed in a hazardous waste landfill. In
instances where biodegradable sorbents are used, such as prior to
incineration or energy recovery, then SQGs and LQGs must ensure that
these wastes are not disposed in a hazardous waste landfill. VSQGs are
not required to follow the additional criteria in Sec.  264.314 and
Sec.  265.314 if they are disposing their waste in a MSWLF, but they
must still ensure that their waste contains no free liquids prior to
disposal in any landfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ November 18, 1992, 57 FR 54452.
    \90\ RCRA Online 11798, November 17, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some generators commented that they have agreements where a TSDF is
stabilizing all or some of their liquid hazardous waste. These
generators are concerned that this regulation will end these
agreements. EPA would like to clarify that this practice is not
restricted by this regulation and generators may continue to ship their
liquid waste to TSDFs for stabilization.
    Effect of the Reorganization: This section is not affected by the
reorganization. Regulatory language regarding the prohibition of
liquids in landfills was duplicated from Sec.  258.28, and at Sec.
264.314 and Sec.  265.314.

N. Clarification of Biennial Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 262.41,
264.75 and 265.75)

    The Agency proposed changes to biennial reporting requirements at
Sec.  262.41, Sec.  264.75 and Sec.  265.75. For purposes of
convenience and efficiency, a discussion of proposed changes being
finalized in this rulemaking are consolidated here.
    The biennial report provides EPA and the states with important
information from all LQGs and RCRA treatment, storage and disposal
facilities associated with hazardous waste generation and management.
For LQGs, this information includes, for each hazardous waste
generated, the quantity generated and the hazardous waste composition,
as well as how and where this waste is managed. For TSDFs, this
information includes hazardous wastes received from not only LQGs but
also SQGs and VSQGs. This information is used to support various EPA
and state program management and compliance monitoring functions.
    The regulations associated with biennial reporting by both
generators and TSDFs have been in existence for approximately thirty
years with very little change over this time period. From experience
through years of implementing this program, the Agency identified areas
where clarifications and changes to these regulations could improve
both program efficiency and effectiveness. The Agency proposed such
changes as part of this rulemaking. A discussion of the proposed
changes being finalized follows.
    EPA proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed to modify the title of part 262 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.
    With respect to permitted and interim status TSDFs at Sec.  264.75
and Sec.  265.75, EPA proposed 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).
1. Standards Applicable for LQGs (40 CFR 262.41)
    a. What is EPA finalizing for LQGs? First, only LQGs need to
complete and submit biennial reports. The previous regulatory text was
unclear as to which generators had to submit a biennial report.
Previous regulatory text also did not include the word ``complete''
which now has been added. However, the Agency is modifying the
regulatory text per a comment to clarify that information is to be
reported for every odd-numbered year and that the actual Biennial
Report must be completed and submitted using EPA Form 8700-13 A/B to
the Regional Administrator by March 1 of the following even-

numbered year.\91\ The states may have more frequent or additional data
reporting requirements over and above EPA's and may use a different,
but equivalent, form to collect federal data and satisfy their own
program data reporting needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See comments from the staff of the Hazardous Waste Section
in the Hawaii Department of Health, Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-
0121-0082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, 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. Almost all states require their LQGs to perform this function
already since the Biennial Report instructions require such reporting.
This change simply creates consistency between the instruction and
regulations. This change also provides EPA and the states with a much
more reliable estimate of hazardous waste generated annually. As stated
in the preamble to the proposed rule, LQGs should have this information
available through their hazardous waste manifests and other counting
processes.
    Third, rather than citing specific data elements to be reported in
Sec.  262.41, as proposed, the Agency is simply referencing the
Biennial Report form (EPA Form 8700-13 A/B) at Sec.  262.41(a) and (b)
in this final rule. Through the years, the Agency has modified what
data elements it was collecting in the biennial report through changes
in biennial report instructions but not updating the regulations.
Therefore this change formalizes this process. Several commenters had
concerns about this process as discussed in this section.
    The Agency is also not finalizing a commenter's suggestion that an
LQG be allowed to report a solid waste that was generated at the end of
a reporting year, but which was not determined to be hazardous until
the beginning of the next, or non-reporting, year. With the Agency
maintaining the existing regulatory framework for what must be reported
(i.e., hazardous waste generated and also sent off site in the
reporting year, this situation no longer matters.
    b. What changed since proposal? In the proposed rule, the Agency
modified the regulatory text at Sec.  262.41(a) to require all LQGs to
complete and submit a biennial report for all hazardous wastes
generated in the reporting year. This change altered what hazardous
waste has to be reported, particularly for LQGs that manage their waste
off site. Under the previous biennial reporting regulations, an LQG had
to report all hazardous wastes both generated and shipped off site to a
TSDF within the United States. Not included were hazardous wastes
generated in the reporting year but not yet shipped off site because
LQGs have up to 90 days to accumulate hazardous wastes prior to either
managing the material on site or shipping it off site to a TSDF. Hence,
the possibility existed that EPA and the states were not obtaining a
reliable estimate of how much hazardous wastes was generated annually
by LQGs.
    Several commenters were concerned that such a change would
dramatically alter the existing processes and procedures long
established by LQGs, and by TSDFs who support LQGs in completing the
Biennial Report. Others pointed out that EPA was obtaining a reliable
estimate of hazardous wastes generated by LQGs, although not
necessarily in a clear cut manner. A closer examination of existing
biennial reporting instructions revealed that the amount reported
included: (1) Hazardous waste generated and accumulated on site and
subsequently managed on site or shipped off site in the reporting year;
or (2) hazardous waste generated and accumulated on site in the
reporting year but not managed on site or shipped off site until the
following year; or (3) hazardous waste generated and accumulated on
site prior to the reporting year but either managed on site or shipped
off site in the reporting year. In other words, an estimate of
hazardous waste generated by LQGs is already being captured and
reported for a 12 month period, but not necessarily only in the
reporting year.
    Based on these comments, EPA is not finalizing the proposed Sec.
262.41(a) changes and will instead revert back to the previous language
found in Sec.  262.41(a).
    c. Major comments.. Many of the comments submitted by individuals
and organizations concerned these issues. However, a number of
commenters expressed concern regarding the Agency's process of
involving the public in making changes to the Biennial Report forms now
that the regulatory language will cite the form and no longer identify
the required data to be submitted. Specifically, commenters mistakenly
believed that EPA may impose additional substantive reporting
requirements by simply changing the form, rather than through a
rulemaking to change Sec.  262.41. However, the Agency has been
following the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and will continue to
do so. Commenters may not have been aware but changes to EPA Form 8700-
13A/B are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires
an amendment to the Information Collection Request (ICR), which is
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before amending
the ICR, EPA publishes a notice in the Federal Register informing the
public that the ICR is to be amended, and takes comment on the draft
form, which is available in the docket. Moreover, there is a follow-up
notice in the Federal Register informing the public when the ICR
amendment has been submitted to OMB for approval. In the future, in
order to ensure more transparency, the Agency also will post a copy of
the draft form along with a discussion of any proposed changes,
including the need for such changes, as part of the Federal Register
notice. As part of this process, the Agency also will inform
stakeholders of this Federal Register notice on the RCRAInfo Web page
at https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/.
    One state commenter also disagreed that LQGs had to submit
hazardous waste generation information for the months they were either
an SQG or VSQG. The Agency believes generators should not find it
difficult to submit this information because they will have maintained
hazardous waste manifest records which identify the quantity of
hazardous waste generated over a particular time period. Likewise, if
the generator is an SQG or VSQG for eleven months of the year they may
be able to take advantage of the new episodic event regulations being
finalized at Sec.  262.230. As already discussed, almost all states
already require this information as part of their biennial reporting
requirements, and it has long been included in the BR instructions.
    Another commenter mentioned that it may be difficult for generators
to determine in a precise way the amounts of waste that were generated
at the beginning and end of each reporting year, particularly for
wastes that are generated in small amounts at a time or that are
initially stored in satellite accumulation areas, since they typically
do not keep the records necessary to produce this information--
especially by the time the reports are due, which could be a year or
more after the fact. Generators are responsible for calculating the
amount of hazardous waste they generate monthly to determine their
generator category. Therefore, generators should have the requisite
processes in place to accomplish this function.
    One state expressed concerns that any changes to EPA Form 8700-13
A/B would also involve changes to the Biennial Report instructions and
forms, as well as the RCRAInfo database, and wanted to ensure state
input in this process. The Agency wants to assure all stakeholders that
we will work with our

state partners in developing any changes to Biennial Report forms and
instructions, as well as any changes to the RCRAInfo database, through
established processes and procedures.
    Note that the changes to the regulatory text for Sec.  262.41 in
this action take into account the revisions being made as a part of the
``Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions'' Final Rule (Docket ID EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2015-0147; FRL-9947-74-OLEM), including changing the reference
to ``Sec.  262.56'' that used to be in Sec.  262.41(b) to a reference
to ``Sec.  262.83(g)'' in Sec.  262.41(c).
2. Standards Applicable for TSDFs (40 CFR 264.75 and 265.75)
    a. What is EPA finalizing? The Agency is also finalizing the
provision that requires permitted and interim status TSDFs at Sec.
264.75 and Sec.  265.75, respectively to complete and submit EPA Form
8700-13 A/B to the Regional Administrator by March 1 of each even
numbered year for facility activities during the previous calendar
year. This change is similar to those proposed for LQGs at Sec.
262.41.
    b. Major comments. Comments received were very similar to those
discussed under Sec.  262.41 where concern was expressed with the
process EPA would use to notify stakeholders that changes to EPA Form
8700-13 A/B were being proposed. Commenters were concerned that EPA
might impose substantive reporting requirements merely by reference to
a form that can be changed at the Agency's whim which would violate the
notice and comment provisions of the APA. As previously described, the
Agency will ensure that it follows a transparent process with respect
to any proposed changes and that stakeholders will continue to have an
opportunity to comment on any proposed form or reporting element
changes.
    Effect of the Reorganization: This provision is not affected by the
reorganization of the generator regulations.

O. Extending Time Limit for Accumulation Under Alternative Requirements
for Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Entities (40 CFR part 262
Subpart K)

    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 262.15. When subpart K was initially promulgated,
if the eligible academic entity chose to operate its laboratories under
subpart K, the entity had to remove the unwanted material from each
laboratory under the following two timetables: (1) every 6 months; or
(2) within 10 calendar 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, proposed to
increase the accumulation time limit in an eligible academic entity's
laboratory to 12 months.
1. What is EPA finalizing?
    We are finalizing the increased accumulation time limit, as
proposed. Therefore, laboratories at eligible academic entities that
have opted into subpart K will be required to remove the unwanted
material from each laboratory under the following timetables: (1) Every
12 months; or (2) within 10 calendar days, if the laboratory
accumulates more than 55 gallons of unwanted material or 1 quart of
reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material. EPA proposed a number of
other changes to subpart K, but they were all conforming changes,
meaning they were necessary to make the terminology and citations
consistent with the new generator regulations (e.g., changing the term
``conditionally exempt small quantity generator'' to ``very small
quantity generator''). These conforming changes will also be finalized
as proposed.
2. Major Comments
    Although we received approximately 60 comments from academic
institutions, very few commented on this specific proposed change. All
that did comment on this proposed change, were in favor of the longer
accumulation time.
    The remainder of the comments received from academic institutions