Requiring Hazardous Waste Numbers When Marking of Containers Prior to Shipping Hazardous Waste Off Site to a Designated RCRA Facility
The MPCA supports the proposed requirement for SQGs/LQGs to label hazardous waste containers with the `EPA hazardous waste numbers' of the wastes they contain prior to shipment off-site. However, as discussed in the MPCA's comment above (VII., C., 3.), the MPCA believes there may be an additional question not discussed at 80 FR 57948-57949: is EPA's intent for all EPA hazardous waste codes known or potentially present in the container to be included on the label, or only a limited number of those, in parallel to the Uniform Hazardous Waste requirement "...most representative of the properties of the waste..." [40 CFR 262 Appendix, Item 13; 70 FR 10788]? While in most instances the MPCA has observed that only a relatively few hazardous waste codes will apply to the waste in a container, just as discussed in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Final Rule Preamble, on occasion many more waste codes may apply to a container, such as lab packs. (0232)

EPA Response: With the manifest, generators with more than 6 RCRA waste codes may include the additional waste codes in the comment section of the manifest. For the purposes of container marking and labeling, generators also must include all the applicable RCRA waste codes. For container labeling, generators have the option of using a nationally recognized electronic system such as bar coding to capture the hazardous waste codes, in lieu of marking their containers with the EPA waste codes.

Comment: EPA is proposing to modify § 262.32 to require SQGs and LQGs to mark their containers with the applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers (usually referred to as waste codes) prior to shipping hazardous waste off site. Clean Harbors believes this new requirement would greatly burden generators, and cause confusion at TSD facilities that already have clear procedures under their RCRA permits and Waste Analysis Plans for profiling hazardous wastes, with no real benefit to emergency responders who are unlikely to examine drum labels or rely on hazardous waste codes in responding to an emergency.

We understand EPA's basic assumption that including more information on containers might be helpful. We disagree with this assumption. The employees of generators are much more familiar with the common names of waste materials, and it is very unlikely that they have memorized all of the RCRA hazardous waste codes and the types of wastes to which the codes apply. In fact, it is our experience the RCRA codes are not meaningful or helpful to generator employees. In addition, multiple waste codes often apply under the mixture or derived-from rules, even though many of those codes do not accurately describe the waste. Likewise, the same waste codes may apply as a result of the process of generation, even though the actual wastes are not the same. Thus, waste codes are more appropriate for use by experienced personnel who are highly trained in RCRA requirements, and are not of much use to the typical generator employee.

In addition, EPA's rationale that marking waste codes on containers will help TSDFs readily identify the contents is mistaken. TSD facilities already have detailed waste profile procedures in place and rely instead on bar codes, scanners, and computerized systems to accurately identify individual drum contents. Waste codes marked on containers by generators would not improve this identification system, and in fact could possibly complicate and undermine it. The TSDF waste profile process fully describes the waste in terms of physical state, common name, hazard codes, LDR applicability, and DOT description. TSDFs commonly prepare labels and shipping papers for their generator customers, so the requirement to also mark drums with waste codes does not add any useful information and simply imposes a burden and potential for mistake and confusion.

Emergency responders are also more familiar with common names and DOT markings, rather than RCRA waste codes. In an emergency event, responders are unlikely to get close enough to individual drums to safely read the waste codes, and if they can then the drums' DOT hazard class label and UN number would be used for response. In the vast majority of instances, emergency responders would obtain information on the contents and characteristics of the waste directly from the generator, or through the TSD facility it the container was located at the TSD facility, rather than by attempting to read and translate waste codes marked on drums. (0243)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the comments of Clean Harbors. We direct Clean Harbors to our response to Commenter 0128. We believe that response is also applicable to Clean Harbor's concerns.
Comment: We have concerns with value and accuracy in the application of RCRA waste codes on accumulation containers in the satellite accumulation area (SAA). (0244)
EPA Response: As finalized, generators must start the process of identifying RCRA waste codes at the point of waste generation. However, placement of these codes on containers is not necessary until the containers are in pre-transport mode being readied for shipment off-site to a RCRA TSDF.
Comment: Page 57948-49:
E. Requiring Hazardous Waste Numbers When Marking of Containers Prior to Shipping Hazardous Waste Off Site to a Designated RCRA Facility (40 CFR 262.32)

DC supports this change. (0248)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of the DC Government regarding this provision.
Comment: The requirements for including the words "Hazardous Waste," the identification of the contents; an indication of the hazard; and the date of beginning accumulation are sufficient to allow captive facilities to properly manage their wastes. Adding a waste code to containers managed on-site does not improve their ability to properly manage that waste.

CRWI believes that including waste codes on container labels are only needed when those containers are transported off-site to a third party. We believe that when waste codes are included on a container label, the number of codes should have the same restrictions as are on the uniform manifest form (restricted to six waste codes). Any remaining applicable codes can be included on the LDR Notification or Certification form which is required to be submitted to the destination facility at least initially and whenever the characteristics of the waste changes. For management at captive facilities, the words "hazardous waste," the identification of the contents, an indication of the hazard, and the date of beginning accumulation are sufficient. (0255)
EPA Response: The Agency directs this commenter to Commenter 0128. We believe that response is also applicable to this commenter as well.
Comment: MU does not support this change as proposed. It is not uncommon for lab packs or waste bulked from laboratories to contain 20 or more codes. Currently the manifest only requires management of the six most applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers. If all hazardous waste codes are truly needed on the transportation container, how has the universal manifest system for transportation operated safely with only the six most applicable for years? MU would support this change if it were limited to the first six codes that are listed on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest but not requiring a duplication of the full list being provided through other mandatory paperwork. (0256)
EPA Response: With the manifest, generators with more than 6 RCRA waste codes may include the additional waste codes in the comment section of the manifest. For the purposes of container marking and labeling, generators also must include all the applicable RCRA waste codes. For container labeling, generators have the option of using a nationally recognized electronic system such as bar coding to capture the hazardous waste codes, in lieu of marking their containers with the EPA waste codes.

Comment: Remove Requirements For Hazardous Waste Numbers On Containers

Heritage does not support any requirements imposed on generators, transporters, or transfer facilities for marking hazardous waste numbers on containers. Further, EPA's rationale for a perceived need for additional container marking is incorrect.

Two scenarios/timelines are generally applicable to labeling containers; initially when waste is generated, and again when waste is being prepared for shipment. Often these initial and final labeling events use the same labels, so that a container is "shipment ready" upon initial generation. Heritage also recognizes that certain hazardous wastes are completely managed onsite, but this is a small percentage of generated hazardous wastes.

In Heritage's experience, a generator's most valuable reference for a given hazardous waste's identity is the common name of the material, using terminology that is familiar to the generator's employees that are handling the waste. Additionally, the generation of multiple wastes from a given process, which may carry identical hazardous waste numbers, is also quite common. A common name, in contrast to hazardous waste numbers, often distinguishes materials by a combination of physical state (e.g., process X floor sweepings, process X sludges), process location (e.g., line X paint solids), or generator-specific nomenclature (e.g., trade names). Therefore, the addition of hazardous waste numbers to containers in these scenarios adds no additional context to improve or enhance management of these wastes.

The next two most valuable container label elements include DOT information and off-site waste treatment facility (TSDF) waste approval references. Generators shipping materials off-site for disposal, which again represents the majority of managed containers, must undergo an approval process for the selected TSDF consistent with the TSDF's Waste Analysis Plan. This process occurs well in advance of shipment, and also occurs very early in the waste generation process. Comprehensive information about the waste is collected in this approval process. The end result is a fully described waste in terms of physical state, common name, hazard codes, LDR applicability, DOT description and label requirements. In fact, TSDFs commonly supply generators with labels, and prepare/configure manifests for off-site shipment. TSDFs do not need to "readily identify the contents of hazardous waste containers they are receiving from generators" (80 FR 57948) since they know exactly what the waste contains, and have supplied the container labels. Again, the physical addition of printed hazardous waste numbers to the containers adds no additional context to improve or enhance management of these wastes since those details are already known by the parties involved in the process.

Apart from generator and TSDF employees, the other two major stakeholders in the container management labeling process are regulatory officials and emergency responders. While conducting a site inspection, a regulatory official would simply ask generator personnel if there were any issues regarding a container that required clarification. This question and answer scenario will most often lead to a paperwork review (e.g., manifests, waste determination, TSDF approval documents), which again minimizes the importance of what is actually marked on the container. Emergency responders, on the other hand, are typically much more familiar with container DOT markings than RCRA markings. Assuming that an emergency responder can actually get close enough to a container to safely read the container label during an incident, the container's DOT hazard class label and UN number preceding the proper shipping name would be used as a secondary emergency response mechanism. The primary emergency response mechanism would be questioning the generator regarding the contents and characteristics of the waste. As with all the above situations, marking all the hazardous waste numbers on a container offers no significant enhancements for managing the containers.

Finally, there is a physical aspect that makes EPA's proposed labeling requirement impractical. There are more than 500 EPA hazardous waste numbers. A complex generator waste can easily be assigned dozens of EPA hazardous waste numbers. Applicable hazardous waste numbers from TSDF-generated wastes can number in the 100s due to implications of the mixture and derived-from rule requirements. Acquiring printers, configuring label content, finding label stock, and actually applying what would need to be super-sized labels to containers will be highly impractical if not impossible in day to day management scenarios.

In summary, this proposed requirement offers no benefits for the management of hazardous waste containers, and is contrary to EPA's past and future efforts to offer burden reduction initiatives to the regulated community. (0259)
EPA Response: The Agency directs the commenter to our response to Commenter 0128. We believe that response is also applicable to the concerns raised by this commenter.
Comment: In this section, EPA is proposing to require SQGs and LQGs to mark their containers with EPA hazardous waste numbers/codes prior to transporting their hazardous waste offsite for management. SQGs and LQGs would have to define (via marking and labeling) contents and hazards present. [Footnote 19: 80 Fed. Reg. at 57949.] EPA asserts that this provision should not increase burden on generators as it "reaffirms commonly used waste management practices." HSC 2012 exempts (1910.1200 (b)(6)(i)) hazardous waste- when that waste is subject to regulations issued by EPA. Therefore, EPA's assumption that its proposal would not increase the regulatory burden is incorrect because most chemical manufacturers would not be labeling their waste according to HCS 2012. ACA maintains that since this is not a required practice, this would increase the regulatory burden on companies that do not require their facilities to do this, nor does this proposal have any benefits to the environment.

ACA is concerned with requiring SQGs and LQGs to mark their containers with EPA hazardous waste numbers, as some of its members' sites use preprinted labels provided by waste vendors that have the codes already marked on the label. This would be an additional burden to other sites that don't mark waste codes on the labels without any benefits, especially since waste codes are already required to be entered on manifests. In addition, since the SAA is required to be located at or near the point of generation, employees using or around the containers would normally be working with the materials contained within, so additional labeling would not be useful. Thus, they would already understand the hazards associated with this material. ACA is also concerned that labeling containers in satellite areas is somewhat premature in that the contents and hazards of the waste may change over time as additional waste is added to the container, the generator would potentially have to change the label over time, or use multiple containers. (0262)
EPA Response: The Agency directs the commenter to our response to Commenter 0128. We believe that response is also applicable to the concerns raised by this commenter.
Comment: - 262.32(c): adds a new requirement for marking the EPA hazardous waste codes on shipments. This information is already on the manifests. Requiring this on the containers when they already are subject to DOT labeling requirements is unnecessary and is yet another new way that a generator can inadvertently be pushed into getting a RCRA permit as a punishment for a noncompliance with this requirement; (0263)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the above comment and directs them to our response to Commenter 0128.We believe that response is also applicable to the concerns raised by this commenter.

Section 5.1.2 - Labelling containers with "Hazardous Waste" and other words to identify the contents

Comment: This would mean that some class 9 material with generic names only is allowed as long as the EPA hazardous waste number is included. This would be inconsistent with EPA's stated desire to require marking that provides "an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container..." 262.14 (a)(4)(viii)(B)(3). This is an example where the DOT shipping name ending in N.O.S. may not provide indication as to the contents of the waste.
Contents should be identified regardless of the mode used to achieve this objective. (0068)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.

Comment: Requiring both the words "Hazardous Waste" AND other words describing the contents. If used in the Webster's Dictionary sense of the word "hazardous" may have some utility in alerting people to the presence of a possible danger. If used in a regulatory sense it provides little useful information and presupposes that a waste determination has been made. (0097)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Also, while chemical names and classes of chemicals are meaningful to some with specialized training in chemistry, they provide little additional information (and therefore protection) to first responders or shop personnel who generate the waste. "Hazardous Waste" marking is sufficient. (0106)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: 5. Section VIII. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 262 -- Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste - Modifications to Management of Containers, Tanks, Drip Pads, and Containment Buildings ( and (3) and 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1))
NJDEP supports SQGs and LQGs accumulating hazardous waste in containers mark their containers with both the words ``Hazardous Waste'' and other words that identify the contents of the containers and an indication of the hazards of the contents of the containers. (0108)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Requiring the words "Hazardous Waste" will create confusion for generators, inspectors, emergency response personnel, and others because the only feasible option in SAAs typical of university laboratories will be to advise SAA staff to label all waste containers as hazardous waste. (0121)

EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. This requirement has existed for over thirty years and is a clear method of making workers, emergency responders, etc. of the containers contents.
Comment: FR Page: 57949  -  57950
Citation: 40 CFR 262.16(b)(6)
40 CFR 262.16(a)(5)
40 CFR 262.34
Topic: Modifications to Management of Containers, Tanks, Drip Pads, and Containment Buildings (VIII.F.1)
Comment: WRPS and BNI are not in favor of this proposed change. Rather, BNI and WRPS are in favor of a change to list the HW and Major Risk on the container and not require a full listing of the contents.
BNI-WTP is not in favor of the proposed change. BNI-WTP agree additional marking on waste accumulation containers are useful at all levels of waste management and emergency response. The proposed change requires three markings/labels: (1) HW, AND (2) contents identification, AND (3) hazard/risk. This may be a little overkill. Suggest requiring at least two of the three: (1) HW AND (2) contents identification OR hazard/risk label (but not both). For accumulation, the container contents and hazard or risk generally provide the same information (e.g., acid and corrosive). This alternative is similar to the existing State of Washington rule (WAC 173-303-200(1)(d)). (0123)
EPA Response: The Agency has modified its proposed rule. In the final rule SQGs and LQGs will not be required to mark the contents of their containers, although we strongly recommend generators maintain records identifying the contents of the containers as a best management practice. However, SQGs and LQGs will continue to mark or label their containers with the words "Hazardous Waste." They also must mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
The Agency also directs the commenter to 40 CFR 262.32 to understand the requirements for marking their containers with the applicable RCRA waste codes.
Comment: WRPS is not in favor of the proposed change regarding marking accumulated hazardous waste containers with the words "Hazardous Waste" and other words that identify the contents of the containers for a third party as it would require time and money expenditure to develop and implement a consistent approach for this additional marking and labeling requirement.
WRPS requests the addition of text to the proposed change regarding marking accumulated hazardous waste containers with the words "Hazardous Waste" and other words that identify the contents of the containers for a third party to exempt small-scale satellite accumulation of laboratory waste or to allow for a labeling alternative that makes reference to the process that generated such laboratory waste. Laboratories often generate chemically-complex analytical residues as hazardous waste that may consist of tens of different chemicals. Labeling the names of all these chemicals on a container of waste at a laboratory scale is not practical due to label space constraints. Similarly, labeling laboratory waste with the type of class of chemical is not as straightforward as it might be for a common industrial process. Analytical residues are often complex, multifaceted, mixtures that can be cumbersome to place into a chemical category that would provide meaningful information to an emergency responder. Using the proper DOT shipping name for small containers of SAA laboratory bench waste is also not practical because these items will eventually be lab-packed into shipping containers and the DOT shipping name will depend on the contents. Assigning shipping names to items that will ultimately be lab-packed would be extremely labor intensive.
WRPS requests the addition of text to the proposed change regarding labeling containers to indicate the hazards of contained waste to require that only the HW and major risk of the contained waste be addressed on the label. (0123)
EPA Response: The Agency believes the response to this commenter's previous comment also responds to this comment as well.
Comment: The agency is proposing fairly significant, if uncomplicated, changes to labeling requirements for hazardous waste containers and tanks. Current regulations require only that SQGs and LQGs label hazardous waste containers and tanks as "Hazardous Waste." The accumulation start date and other shipping information must also be labeled in preparation for off-site transportation.

EPA is proposing that additional information be included on hazardous waste containers. Specifically, "the [a]gency is proposing that SQGs and LQGs accumulating hazardous waste in containers mark their containers with both the words `Hazardous Waste' and other words that identify the contents of the containers that a third party, such as an emergency responder, co-worker unfamiliar with the material, or even the general public may recognize."

The labeling options proposed for generators include, "other words that identify the contents of the container [such as] the name of the chemical(s), such as `acetone' or `methylene dichloride'; or the type or class of chemical, such as `organic solvents' or `halogenated organic solvents.' Another option for complying with this provision is to use the proper shipping name and technical name markings used to comply with DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D." [Emphasis added].

IME does not oppose the proposed enhanced labeling requirements although the requirements do impose an additional burden on generators. That said, if additional requirements would improve hazard identification, we support giving generators options to accomplish this strengthened communication. In particular, we support the option of allowing generators to use labeling/marking consistent with DOT requirements. According to the proposal, generators "may choose [among other things] to use an appropriate DOT proper shipping name found on the hazardous materials table at 49 CFR 172.101 to identify the contents of the container while it is accumulating onsite." EPA is correct in observing that this option provides a means for the generator to "fulfill EPA and DOT requirements simultaneously . . . ."

The agency also is "requesting comment on examples of when the DOT shipping name would not meet EPA's intent of `identifying the contents of the container' and suggestions for addressing this situation. EPA notes that additional pre-transport requirements, other than the DOT shipping name, apply when shipping hazardous waste off-site. We are not proposing to change EPA's existing requirements for pre-transport requirements that are currently found in §§ 262.30 through 262.33." (0126)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Since a DOT marking option is included in both in the first and second labeling requirements, and the name of the chemical/chemical class provides little additional information to most observers, we suggest that the first proposed labeling requirement be eliminated in the final rule, and only the second labeling requirement be retained. This approach provides the hazard warning that is desired, and eliminates an unwieldy rule text that will confuse readers who must carefully parse the multiple or's and and's to determine what the requirement is. (0133)

EPA Response: The Agency agrees with Boeing. The Agency believes the response discussed at the beginning of this section also responds to this commenter as well.
Comment: H. ETC Supports Improved Marking and Labeling of Containers, Tanks, Drip Pads, and Containment Buildings

ETC supports EPA's proposal to require LQGs and SQGs to mark containers with words that identify the contents of the containers and an indication of the hazards of the container's contents. 80 FR 57949. Examples of words that identify the contents are the names of chemicals (e.g., "acetone"), the type or class of chemical (e.g., "organic solvents"), or the DOT shipping name.

We recommend that EPA make clear in the final rule that generators may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge"). A common name often distinguishes materials by describing the physical state (e.g., "process line floor sweepings"), process location (e.g., "line 3 paint solids"), or generator-specific nomenclature (e.g., trade names). A generator should have broad discretion to use words that are appropriate for its facility and employees. (0134)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Instead of supporting the objectives of the storage prohibition, it sounds like you are merely mimicking the rationale provided for generators which doesn't justify the revision to 40 CFR 268.50. (0156)

EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter. With the new requirements, the Agency is trying to promote consistency in container marking and labeling throughout the cradle to grave management of hazardous waste. Dating of the container for supporting the objectives of the storage prohibition is already required and will remain.
Comment: Labeling of Containers and Tanks

The Agency is proposing modifications to strengthen the labeling and marking requirements for SQGs and LQGs by requiring them to label containers with additional information for first responders or subsequent handlers beyond the wording "Hazardous Waste." EPA suggests a variety of information such as chemical name, technical name, or Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping name, along with requiring an indication of the waste's characteristic hazards. While the DOT information for most hazardous materials will satisfy this requirement, WM TSDFs often receive lab packs, which do not require technical names in conjunction with the DOT shipping name. Instead, generators affix a packing slip to the container with information about the contents. We believe this should meet the purpose of the new requirements, but suggest the Agency offer a clarification. (0159)
EPA Response: The Agency agrees, and in keeping with existing EPA guidance, generators would be able to continue to mark outer/secondary containers, such as lab packs, color-coded bins, etc. with the words "Hazardous Waste" and the hazards of the hazardous waste instead of marking a small container (e.g., tubes, vials, etc.) that is placed inside the secondary container.(See Robert Springer, Director of Office of Solid Waste to RCRA Directors, Regions 1-10, Frequently Asked Questions About Satellite Accumulation Areas, March 17, 2004.) Alternatively, as commenter 0079 suggested, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Comment: Preamble Section VIII.F.1. CT DEEP supports EPA's proposal to require that generators mark their containers with, in addition to the currently required words "Hazardous Waste," a description of the contents of the container and information identifying the potential hazards of the waste. CT DEEP agrees with EPA that this additional marking will enhance the safety of on-site personnel, CT DEEP inspectors, emergency responders, and the transporters and TSDFs that the containers are shipped to. CT DEEP notes that the requirement to mark containers with a description of the contents is already a requirement in Connecticut's hazardous waste regulations and has proven very successful in improving the identification of waste containers. (0178)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: In particular, we support the option [Footnote 19: The use of DOT information would be one option available to generators and would not be mandatory.] of allowing generators to use labeling/marking consistent with DOT requirements. According to the proposal, generators "may choose [among other things] to use an appropriate DOT proper shipping name found on the hazardous materials table at 49 CFR 172.101 to identify the contents of the container while it is accumulating onsite." EPA is correct in observing that this option provides a means for the generator to "fulfill EPA and DOT requirements simultaneously . . . ." [Footnote 20: A similar proposal applies to satellite accumulation areas.] (0188)

EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: The agency also is "requesting comment on examples of when the DOT shipping name would not meet EPA's intent of `identifying the contents of the container' and suggestions for addressing this situation. EPA notes that additional pre-transport requirements, other than the DOT shipping name, apply when shipping hazardous waste off-site. We are not proposing to change EPA's existing requirements for pre-transport requirements that are currently found in §§ 262.30 through 262.33." (0188)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement:

(5) A generator must mark its container with the following:

(i) The words "Hazardous Waste," and

(ii) Other words that identify the contents of the containers (examples may include, but are not limited to the name of the chemical(s), such as "acetone" or "methylene dichloride"; or the type or class of chemical, such as "organic solvents" or "halogenated organic solvents" or, as applicable, the proper shipping name and technical name markings used to comply with Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D)[DELETE TEXT: ; and].

[DELETE TEXT: An indication of the hazards of the contents. (examples include, but are not limited to, the applicable hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic); a hazard class label consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (label consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.2000; a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System; or any other making or labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that identifies the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of the waste accumulation unit).] (0190)
EPA Response: The Agency has taken a different approach.See Agency comment at introduction to this section.
Comment: Topic: Proposed regulation at §262 Subpart C: Pre-Transport Requirements Applicable to Small and Large Quantity Generators -§262.15(a)(5)(iii); §262.16(b)(6) and §262.17(a)(5) Marking.

Comment: The proposed rule requires SQGs and LQGs to mark containers with: 1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and 2) other words that identify the contents of the containers; and 3) an indication of the hazards of the contents. SD agrees with maintaining the requirement to mark the words "Hazardous Waste" and believes including a descriptive word(s) regarding the contents is acceptable. The state is not in favor of adding the third marking requirement to include a hazard notation. (0195)
EPA Response: The Agency has taken a different approach. See Agency comment at introduction to this section.
Comment: One State believes the change to the marking requirements for SAA containers to include the use of the words "hazardous waste" is commendable. The State believes the existing requirement at §262.34(c)(1)(ii) for the use of the words "hazardous waste" or other words that identify the contents has resulted in confusion for generators, inconsistent communication of container contents for emergency responders and regulatory inspectors, and potential for noncompliance for generators once the container moves to a central accumulation area. Consistent marking across all accumulation area containers is encouraged. (0217)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Section VIII.F.1 (Page 57949): EPA is proposing that generators mark their containers of hazardous waste with the words "Hazardous Waste" and with other words that identify the contents of the containers (emphasis added). Most States support this proposal. (0217)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Pages 57949-50:
F. Modifications to Management of Containers, Tanks, Drip Pads, and Containment Buildings (40 CFR 262.34(a)(2) and(3) and 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1))
1. Container Marking and Labeling for LQGs and SQGs (40 CFR 262.34(a)(3))

DC strongly supports requiring the Generator to mark containers of Hazardous Waste with words that "a third party, such as an emergency responder, co-worker unfamiliar with the material, or even the general public may recognize" and also mark the hazards associated with the contents. We feel this information will be invaluable to emergency responders and may help allay concerns from members of the general public. We don't believe that this will be a significant additional burden on the Generator. We expect it will reduce errors at the time of shipping. (0248)

EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: 2. EPA is requesting comment on examples of when the Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping name would not meet EPA's intent of "identifying the contents of the container" and suggestions for addressing this situation. 80 FR 57,931.

CRWI believes that the proper DOT name even with N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) is adequate. DOT allows exceptions to the N.O.S. rule so that not every waste container is required to have the technical names provided (e.g., lab packs). In addition, Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) set up a profile with the facility where the waste is being sent. This profile also helps identify the contents of the container. (0255)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: EPA's proposed requirement that generators add additional information to the label of waste consumer products to identify their contents is unnecessary. Pursuant to strict packaging and labeling laws for pharmaceuticals and other consumer goods, these products are already labeled with their contents and/or ingredients. See e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 343, 352, 362 (FDA labeling requirements for food, drugs and devices, and cosmetics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. (the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1261 et seq. (labeling requirements for products containing hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act). Thus, there is no need for another label identifying the contents of the package. Additionally, given the huge variety of different consumer products and numerous and diverse industry members, it would be extremely difficult to develop and use common, consistent terminology. Finally, retailers and reverse distributors often combine different compatible consumer products into a single container. Developing a term or phrase that would adequately and accurately describe all of the different items in the container would be challenging and, as a result, confusing to those reading the labels. (0260)

EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: - 262.17(a)(6) adds significant additional labeling requirements in addition to "Hazardous Waste." When DOT labeling is already required for waste shipments, USEPA need not impose essentially redundant new requirements on generators that provide yet more ways to receive the TSD-requirements punishment if they have any noncompliance; (0263)

EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: 40 CFR 262.17 (ii) (5)(B) please consider clarifying labeling requirements to allow a trade name to be used to indicate the chemical constituents on the waste label as long as this is the most descriptive method to identify the waste and there is not a more accurate technical name as listed in the NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards or other similar guide. (0280)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.
Comment: Also, the proposal discusses the use of technical name as required 49 CFR 172.301(b) for shipping name ending in N.O.S. DOT " lab pack" 49 CFR 173.12 does not, but Virginia Tech believes Emergency Response Guidebook and hazmat UN IDs provides enough information to allow for a safe hazmat incident response. (0284)
EPA Response: See Agency comment at introduction to this section. The Agency believes that comment is responsive to the above comments as well.

Section 5.1.3 - Labelling containers with an indication of the hazards of the contents

Comment: UNL is supportive of the proposed conditions as written by the Agency, with the exception of requiring an indication of the hazards of the contents (proposed 262.14 (a)(4)(viii)(B)(3)). UNL also takes exception to this labeling requirement for all generator categories and waste locations (e.g., satellite or central accumulation areas) because this additional information is unnecessary and redundant. (0121)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter. The proposed change to have generators identify the hazards of the containers contents is designed to alert workers, emergency responders, and others to the potential hazards posed by the contents of a container. Identifying the hazard increases awareness to workers and others who might come into contact with the hazardous waste container and reduces potential risks to human health and the environment from container mismanagement.
EPA reasoned that the pre-transport requirements of part 262 subpart C already require hazardous waste generators to comply with the DOT labeling/marking requirements of 49 CFR part 172. By requiring generators to include information on container labels while on site, the Agency proposed that generators perform a task that is already required when preparing the container prior to transporting the hazardous waste off site for subsequent waste management. Because, in most cases the hazardous waste will be shipped off site and thus be subject to DOT regulations, we proposed that SQGs and LQGs could use the DOT hazard class labels to comply with the new labeling and marking regulation for containers in SAAs. However, we proposed several alternatives to using DOT hazard labels (as noted above) from which generators could choose to indicate the hazards of the container.

Comment: It is infeasible to use RCRA codes or RCRA characteristics (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic) for the same reason. In some cases, RCRA codes or characteristics won't be known until after a waste is generated and it can be tested or generator knowledge applied, which makes labeling with RCRA codes during accumulation infeasible. Descriptors such as "toxic" are non-specific and have different meanings, depending on the reference. It is also not clear how many descriptors would be necessary to adequately describe the hazards of waste in a container. For example, the GHS system recognizes 16 classes of physical hazards, 12 classes of health hazards, and 2 classes of environmental hazards. It is conceivable and likely that multiple classes may pertain to any given waste thereby creating a situation where an entity could be deemed as non-compliant if only one of several possible hazards were missing from the label. In the case of by-products or mixed solutions, GHS information is not likely to be available to facilitate labeling. (0121)

EPA Response: Again, we disagree with this commenter. We believe we have answered the second part of this comment with our comment above. Regarding the comment about the use of RCRA waste codes as being infeasible, we agree that in some instances RCRA waste codes or characteristics will not be known until sometime after the waste has been generated, but generators must still start the waste identification at the point of generation. Only when the waste is ready to be shipped off-site must the RCRA waste codes be placed on the container or alternatively, incorporated into an electronic bar coding system if that is the normal course of business.
Comment: EPA is also proposing to enhance the labeling of containers in CAAs to include a hazard indication. Specifically, the NPRM states as follows:

The second modification we are proposing for labeling containers in central accumulation areas is to add a provision that SQGs and LQGs mark and label their containers with an indication of the hazards of the contents of the containers. SQGs and LQGs will have flexibility in how to comply with this new provision. That is, generators can indicate the hazards of the contents of the container using any of several established methods, including, but not limited to an EPA hazardous waste characteristic(s) (ignitable, corrosive, reactive or toxic); a hazard class label consistent with the DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling); a label consistent with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; a chemical hazard label consistent with NFPA code 704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' Global Harmonized System (GHS). Generators also may use any other marking or labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and emergency responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of the containers.

Again, while the additional labeling requirements will increase the regulatory burden of generators, we support, conceptually, regulatory requirements that are designed to accurately communicate hazards and ensure worker and emergency responder safety. As previously noted, we agree with EPA's approach in providing several options to SQGs and LQGs in meeting the proposed requirement. (0126)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified.

Comment: 4) DOT marking and labeling should be an option, not a requirement, for wastes that are not shipped over public right of ways to off-site locations. The generator should be able to choose between DOT, OHSA, GHS, or other marking and labeling standards for conveying the characteristics of the stored waste. (0131)

EPA Response: The Agency agrees with this comment and provides for such flexibility in the final rule.
Comment: 3. Container Labeling Requirements for All Generators and Transfer Facilities. §262.14(a)(4)(viii)(B); §262.15(a)(5); §262.16(b)(6); §262.17(a)(5); §262.232(a)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(i); §263.12(b).

Recognizing that the words "Hazardous Waste" during pre-transport storage may not provide sufficient information for first responders and site personnel, some states have required additional container marking requirements. For example, in Missouri's newly revised hazardous waste rules, containers in pre-transport storage must either label the container in accordance with DOT hazmat shipping labels or with a label indicating that the waste is classified as Ignitable, Toxic, Corrosive, and/or Reactive. The latter option was developed after an intensive stakeholder process that determined that the DOT Proper Shipping Name can be unstable, because it may change several times as additional compatible wastes are added to a container (particularly for lab packs). Because of this, DOT marking is not an efficient way to convey (DOT-correct) hazard information for some waste containers.

The EPA proposal addresses the same hazard communication concern as the Missouri rule, but complicates the labeling requirement by requiring 1) DOT markings or the name of the chemical/chemical class and 2) an indication of the hazard, including, but not limited to Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, Toxic; or DOT markings; or OSHA Hazard Communication label; or NFPA 704 markings; or a Globally Harmonized System pictogram; or other commonly used marking that identifies the hazard. While the second labeling requirement is quite flexible, it is paired with the first labeling scheme, which suffers the following shortcomings. DOT markings, particularly Proper Shipping Name, may have to be changed several times during the storage period if additional compatible wastes are added. Furthermore, the name of the chemical or chemical class may be meaningful to persons well trained in chemistry, but provides little additional information to many first responders or to facility personnel who know the waste by its trade name or function. (0133)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified.

Comment: H. ETC Supports Improved Marking and Labeling of Containers, Tanks, Drip Pads, and Containment Buildings

ETC supports EPA's proposal to require LQGs and SQGs to mark containers with words that identify the contents of the containers and an indication of the hazards of the container's contents. 80 FR 57949. Examples of words that identify the contents are the names of chemicals (e.g., "acetone"), the type or class of chemical (e.g., "organic solvents"), or the DOT shipping name.

We recommend that EPA make clear in the final rule that generators may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge"). A common name often distinguishes materials by describing the physical state (e.g., "process line floor sweepings"), process location (e.g., "line 3 paint solids"), or generator-specific nomenclature (e.g., trade names). A generator should have broad discretion to use words that are appropriate for its facility and employees. (0134)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified. Therefore, generators, if they so choose, may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge").
Comment: In particular, the requirement to mark containers with an indication of the hazards of the contents will require that the person marking the container (student, staff, vendor, or EHS personnel) verify the precise hazards of each container and determine the most appropriate marking(s). It is not uncommon for waste contents to have multiple hazards. Also, given the frequent change in the population of students and staff, the training to meet this requirement will be difficult, if not onerous, to deliver and costly to implement every year. (0166)

EPA Response: The Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
Similarly, the Agency struggles to understand why every student or staff is not trained on the potential hazards they may encounter with the chemicals they use and wastes they generate in the laboratory. The Agency has to believe this training is already occurring as a basic safety measure.
Comment: We recommend that EPA consider alternative, less burdensome methods (such as door' signs) to achieve the objective of informing employees, emergency personnel, and inspectors of hazards posed by individual waste containers at the point of generation. Please consider the following alternatives:

:: When a container is labeled with its contents, employees, transporters, downstream handlers, emergency personnel, and inspectors can easily use any number of smartphone apps to look up the information most relevant to them. Online information will be far more valuable to the user than the hazard wording chosen by the person marking the container.

:: In many years of working with emergency responders, it is our experience that marking the hazards of each container is confusing, overwhelming and of little practical use to them. It is much more important that they have general information about the room or area's hazards. Universities convey this information via door signs.

:: Once hazardous wastes are bulked or lab packed (e.g., in the CAA, during transportation, at the TSDF, etc.), Department of Transportation hazard labeling is required on the outer container. (0166)
EPA Response: For the purposes of RCRA, EPA does not believe that door signs are an appropriate method for conveying the hazards posed by hazardous waste in containers in a laboratory because a door sign will not be able to accompany the waste during its cradle to grave management. However, door signs could be used in addition to labeling the containers of hazardous waste.
Regarding the second bullet, identifying the hazards on a very small container, in keeping with existing EPA guidance, generators would be able to continue to mark outer/secondary containers, such as labpacks, color-coded bins, etc. with the words "Hazardous Waste" and the hazards of the hazardous waste instead of marking a small container (e.g., tubes, vials, etc.) that is placed inside the secondary container.(See Robert Springer, Director of Office of Solid Waste to RCRA Directors, Regions 1-10, Frequently Asked Questions About Satellite Accumulation Areas, March 17, 2004.) Alternatively, as commenter 0079 suggested, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Comment: KULC-EHS is supportive of the proposed conditions as written by the Agency, with the exception of requiring an indication of the hazards of the contents (proposed 262.14 (a)(4)(viii)(B)(3)). KULC-EHS also takes exception to this labeling requirement for all generator categories and waste locations (e.g., satellite or central accumulation areas) because this additional information is unnecessary and redundant. (0183)
EPA Response: The Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
The Agency believes workers in satellite accumulation and central accumulation areas need to be aware of the hazards they are dealing with on a daily basis. Therefore, the Agency disagrees with the comment that this information is unnecessary and redundant.
Comment: It is also not clear how many descriptors would be necessary to adequately describe the hazards of waste in a container. For example, the GHS system recognizes 16 classes of physical hazards, 12 classes of health hazards, and 2 classes of environmental hazards. It is conceivable and likely that multiple classes may pertain to any given waste thereby creating a situation where an entity could be deemed as non-compliant if only one of several possible hazards were missing from the label. In the case of by-products or mixed solutions, GHS information is not likely to be available to facilitate labeling. (0183)
EPA Response: In response, the Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).

Comment: Although the intent to require labeling with additional hazard information can be beneficial, the number of potential options may create additional confusion for regulators, the regulated community and emergency responders. Providing a standardized list of hazards will eliminate confusion for all parties. For example, the standardized list could require including one or more of the following words on the label; Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, Toxic, Water Reactive, Shock Sensitive, Spontaneously Combustible and Explosive. (0187)

EPA Response: The Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
However, as a matter of practicality, it would benefit many generators to consider the use of DOT hazard communication, since such a method would not only satisfy EPA's requirement, but it may also satisfy DOT requirements when the wastes are shipped off site to a RCRA-designated facility, such as an interim status or permitted TSDF. It is important to note that if generators choose to identify the hazards of the contents of their containers using the DOT, OSHA or NFPA labeling methods, those methods must be used appropriately. Furthermore, if a method other than DOT hazard communication is used while the waste is accumulating on site, when the waste is shipped off site, generators and transporters must ensure that those markings and labels are located away from and do not obscure DOT marking and labeling.
Similarly, a number of commenters also had the misperception that the requirement for identifying the hazards of the contents is duplicative with OSHA requirements and/or DOT requirements. On the contrary, EPA notes that the marking and labeling of containers is not duplicative of other regulations: OSHA Hazard Communication does not apply to hazardous waste (See 29 CFR 1900.1200(b)(6)(i)) and DOT requirements only apply during transportation. In fact, under the RCRA rules being finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency believes it is closing a loophole for hazard communication for hazardous wastes accumulated on site.
Comment: The second modification we are proposing for labeling containers in central accumulation areas is to add a provision that SQGs and LQGs mark and label their containers with an indication of the hazards of the contents of the containers. SQGs and LQGs will have flexibility in how to comply with this new provision. That is, generators can indicate the hazards of the contents of the container using any of several established methods, including, but not limited to an EPA hazardous waste characteristic(s) (ignitable, corrosive, reactive or toxic); a hazard class label consistent with the DOT requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling); a label consistent with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; a chemical hazard label consistent with NFPA code 704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' Global Harmonized System (GHS). Generators also may use any other marking or labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and emergency responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of the containers. (0188)

EPA Response: The Agency believes this is not a comment but a statement from the preamble of the proposed rule.
Comment: We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement:

(5) A generator must mark its container with the following:

(i) The words "Hazardous Waste," and

(ii) Other words that identify the contents of the containers (examples may include, but are not limited to the name of the chemical(s), such as "acetone" or "methylene dichloride"; or the type or class of chemical, such as "organic solvents" or "halogenated organic solvents" or, as applicable, the proper shipping name and technical name markings used to comply with Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D)[DELETE TEXT: ; and].

[DELETE TEXT: An indication of the hazards of the contents. (examples include, but are not limited to, the applicable hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic); a hazard class label consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (label consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.2000; a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704; or a hazard pictogram consistent with the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System; or any other making or labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that identifies the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of the waste accumulation unit).] (0190)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees and has taken a different approach in order to improve the risk communications associated with the generation and accumulation of hazardous wastes on-site. SQGs and LQGs will continue to mark or label their containers with the words "Hazardous Waste", the date waste first started to be accumulated in a CAA and an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
However, as a matter of practicality, it would benefit many generators to consider the use of DOT hazard communication, since such a method would not only satisfy EPA's requirement, but it may also satisfy DOT requirements when the wastes are shipped off site to a RCRA-designated facility, such as an interim status or permitted TSDF. It is important to note that if generators choose to identify the hazards of the contents of their containers using the DOT, OSHA or NFPA labeling methods, those methods must be used appropriately. Furthermore, if a method other than DOT hazard communication is used while the waste is accumulating on site, when the waste is shipped off site, generators and transporters must ensure that those markings and labels are located away from and do not obscure DOT marking and labeling.
Similarly, a number of commenters also had the misperception that the requirement for identifying the hazards of the contents is duplicative with OSHA requirements and/or DOT requirements. On the contrary, EPA notes that the marking and labeling of containers is not duplicative of other regulations: OSHA Hazard Communication does not apply to hazardous waste (See 29 CFR 1900.1200(b)(6)(i)) and DOT requirements only apply during transportation. In fact, under the RCRA rules being finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency believes it is closing a loophole for hazard communication for hazardous wastes accumulated on site.

Comment: From an enforcement standpoint, although hazardous waste inspectors must understand and distinguish use of the hazardous waste characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity and acute toxicity, the same is not true regarding appropriate hazard class notations established by the Department of Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Fire Protection Association, the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System or other non-EPA agency designations. Misapplication of a hazard class represents a potential violation of the hazardous waste rules. If EPA retains this requirement, SD advocates limiting the hazard labeling requirement to terms defined by and associated with hazardous wastes as codified under the hazardous waste regulations (i.e. acute hazardous waste; toxic; ignitable, reactive, corrosive). From a practical standpoint, the words "Hazardous Waste" on a yellow (or white) label is a highly visible information mark for an emergency responder to see upon entering a site, especially if multiple drums need to be assessed in a matter of seconds. Adding a third mark does not seem practical. (0195)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with this commenter. Without knowing why the waste is hazardous, anyone potentially exposed to the waste will not know the potential hazards of the waste. Workers, emergency responders, etc. need to be aware of the hazards they are dealing with or may come in contact with.
Comment: One State believes the change to the marking requirements for SAA containers to include the use of the words "hazardous waste" is commendable. The State believes the existing requirement at §262.34(c)(1)(ii) for the use of the words "hazardous waste" or other words that identify the contents has resulted in confusion for generators, inconsistent communication of container contents for emergency responders and regulatory inspectors, and potential for noncompliance for generators once the container moves to a central accumulation area. Consistent marking across all accumulation area containers is encouraged. (0217)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the comments of the state above. The Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Some commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified. Therefore, generators, if they so choose, may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge").
Comment: The department supports additional labeling of containers and tanks to identify the hazards of the contents. Additional information about the chemical would help to prevent potential mixing of incompatible wastes and associated fires and other exposures. However, in regard to hazard labeling in (6)(C), on page 57997 of the proposed rule, the department believes that too many options can lead to confusion and a greater chance of accidents. Considering that the goal is for facility managers and emergency responders to quickly and accurately identify a container's contents and hazards, it seems that allowing OSHA, NFPA, GHS or "any other marking or labeling used in commerce" as the rule proposes, would be less familiar and useful to hazardous waste managers, inspectors and responders. OSHA, NFPA and GHS convey hazards primarily by use of symbols, colors and numbers, which would require additional training of hazardous waste managers and more interpretation to ascertain the hazards. We also recognized that OSHA has aligned its labels with GHS but, in the proposed rule they are listed separately. Although DOT labels also convey hazards by symbols, colors and numbers, they are preferred as being more familiar to hazardous waste managers since they are required for hazardous waste transportation. For storage, it seems that the DOT label, with additional words as proposed, would be a good combination. We recognize that the OSHA/GHS was included as a new standard, roughly equivalent to DOT, and for this reason we could support this addition; but, we are less assured that NFPA or "any other marking or labeling used in commerce" would achieve the goals.

While OSHA or NFPA information may be useful to emergency responders, it is less likely to assist facility managers in making decisions on container management to prevent other storage violations, or in identifying the waste for eventual shipment. The department acknowledges that there is a separate requirement for including words that identify the contents of the container that could alleviate some of these concerns, but the deficiencies in the amount of information conveyed by these other types of labels may not be adequately addressed even with these additional words. Also, because this hazardous waste will in most cases be transported on public highways and because DOT shipping requirements will still apply, we recommend required use of appropriate DOT labels or at the least, the chemical name along with the hazards of the container during onsite storage. (0223)

EPA Response: The Agency is in pretty much agreement with this commenter. First, the Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
Second, EPA reasoned that the pre-transport requirements of part 262 subpart C already require hazardous waste generators to comply with the DOT labeling/marking requirements of 49 CFR part 172. By requiring generators to include information on container labels while on site, the Agency proposed that generators perform a task that is already required when preparing the container prior to transporting the hazardous waste off site for subsequent waste management. Because, in most cases the hazardous waste will be shipped off site and thus be subject to DOT regulations, we proposed that SQGs and LQGs could use the DOT hazard class labels to comply with the new labeling and marking regulation for containers in SAAs. However, we proposed several alternatives to using DOT hazard labels (as noted above) from which generators could choose to indicate the hazards of the container.

Comment: In particular, the requirement to mark containers with an indication of the hazards of the contents will require that the person marking the container (student, staff, vendor, or EHS personnel) verify the precise hazards of each container and determine the most appropriate marking(s). It is not uncommon for waste contents to have multiple hazards. (0228)
EPA Response: The Agency believes it is the responsibility of the generator to ensure its workers, students, researchers, etc. are aware of the potential hazards they are dealing with in the workplace or laboratory. To the extent the waste has multiple hazards, the workers etc, should be made aware of them for their own protection.
The Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).
However, as a matter of practicality, it would benefit many generators to consider the use of DOT hazard communication, since such a method would not only satisfy EPA's requirement, but it may also satisfy DOT requirements when the wastes are shipped off site to a RCRA-designated facility, such as an interim status or permitted TSDF. It is important to note that if generators choose to identify the hazards of the contents of their containers using the DOT, OSHA or NFPA labeling methods, those methods must be used appropriately. Furthermore, if a method other than DOT hazard communication is used while the waste is accumulating on site, when the waste is shipped off site, generators and transporters must ensure that those markings and labels are located away from and do not obscure DOT marking and labeling.
Similarly, a number of commenters also had the misperception that the requirement for identifying the hazards of the contents is duplicative with OSHA requirements and/or DOT requirements. On the contrary, EPA notes that the marking and labeling of containers is not duplicative of other regulations: OSHA Hazard Communication does not apply to hazardous waste (See 29 CFR 1900.1200(b)(6)(i)) and DOT requirements only apply during transportation. In fact, under the RCRA rules being finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency believes it is closing a loophole for hazard communication for hazardous wastes accumulated on site.

Comment: We recommend that EPA consider alternative, less burdensome methods (such as door signs) to achieve the objective of informing employees, emergency personnel, and inspectors of hazards posed by individual waste containers at the point of generation. Please consider the following alternatives:

:: 'When a container is labeled with its contents, employees, transporters, downstream handlers, emergency personnel, and inspectors can easily use any number of sources to look up the information most relevant to them. Online source information will be far more valuable to the user than the hazard wording chosen by the person marking the container.

:: In many years of working with emergency responders, it is our experience that marking the hazards of each container is confusing, overwhelming and of little practical use to them. It is much more important that they have general information about the room or area's hazards. Universities convey this information via door signs.

:: Once hazardous wastes are bulked or lab-packed (e.g., in the CAA, during transportation, at the TSDF, etc.), Department of Transportation hazard labeling is required on the outer container. (0228)
EPA Response: For the purposes of RCRA, EPA does not believe that door signs are an appropriate method for conveying the hazards posed by hazardous waste in containers in a laboratory because a door sign will not be able to accompany the waste during its cradle to grave management. However, door signs could be used in addition to labeling the containers of hazardous waste.
Comment: The NSC agrees that indicating the hazard contents of containers is important to protect the health and safety of facility workers, emergency responders, and others from potential hazards posed by its contents. However, we feel that EPA should provide more guidance and clarification in strengthening the marking and labeling of containers in SAAs (satellite accumulation areas).

The rule states, "Other words that identify the contents of the containers (examples may include, but are not limited to the name of the chemical(s), such as ``acetone'' or ``methylene dichloride''; or the type or class of chemical, such as ``organic solvents'' or ``halogenated organic solvents'' or, as applicable, the proper shipping name and technical name markings used to comply with Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart D);"

It would be less confusing, especially for emergency responders, if EPA selected one method for indicating a waste's hazard content, instead of allowing the facility to choose from several possible methods. At the very least, EPA should develop a plain language guidance document, an FAQ, or a small business compliance guide on hazardous waste labeling to help facilities label their waste to be in compliance with the proposed standards. In addition, some workers who come in contact with hazardous waste may not speak English. EPA should clarify what facilities with non-English speaking employees should do to ensure proper handling and worker safety. (0235)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified. Therefore, generators, if they so choose, may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge").
Comment: Management of containers, tanks, drip pads and containment buildings

EPA is proposing to require generators to label waste storage containers at central accumulation areas with an indication of the containers' hazardous contents. This proposal also applies to containers at a Satellite Accumulation Area. In addition to this label, EPA is also proposing that containers be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste." According to the proposal, this signage will enable persons coming into contact with the container to understand its possible hazards. Between these two methods for identifying a container with hazardous wastes, marking containers with "Hazardous Waste" is sufficient to effectively communicate the container's hazard, as the information depicted in the hazard labels is not universally understood. The City urges EPA to consider revising the proposal to require that containers with hazardous waste be marked only with the words "Hazardous Waste." (0257)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with this commenter. Without knowing why the waste is hazardous, anyone potentially exposed to the waste will not know the potential hazards of the waste. Workers, emergency responders, etc. need to be aware of the hazards they are dealing with or may come in contact with.
Comment: The proposed requirement that generators add hazard information to the labels of consumer product waste is also unnecessary. According to EPA, the proposed modifications "would help increase awareness in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent improper treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste." 2015 Economic Assessment at 4-20. However, DOT already regulates consumer products to ensure that, when shipped, these materials do not pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property. The DOT regulations themselves are targeted at ensuring that hazards are clearly and consistently communicated via DOT classification, proper shipping names, marking, labeling, and shipping papers. DOT has already evaluated the risks associated with the management of consumer products and has found its requirements sufficient for communicating hazards to third parties. If the DOT requirements are sufficient for third parties, then they are also sufficient for the reverse distributors, retailers and healthcare facilities that manage these consumer products every day. If EPA insists on incorporating new labeling requirements into its RCRA regulations, it should make clear that labels complying with applicable DOT labeling requirements are sufficient. (0260)

EPA Response: The regulation is clear that generators' compliancewith applicable DOT labeling requirements is sufficient.
Comment: In addition, ACA opposes the additional labeling requirements for LQGs and SQGs, particularly the requirements for LQGs and SQGs to address hazards on their labels when many of the "options" that these generators can choose, including pictograms, would have the potential to cause confusion and conflict with other federally mandated warnings. Companies would incur substantial additional costs and be open to possible enforcement action unless they revaluate and/or change labels, make determinations for how to indicate hazards of the contents of the containers, and now have added daily and weekly recordkeeping for inspections. Additionally, many facilities already have the hazardous waste yellow label and DOT hazard label on their containers at satellite areas, so many of these new requirements are unnecessary. ACA believes these added requirements will burden SQGs and LQGs, and will simply add paperwork without commensurate benefits to health or the environment since these generators are already required to perform inspections.

ACA is concerned that additional labeling requirements -- in particular, indications of the hazards of the containers contents using "any of several established methods" could conflict with DOT and GHS labeling requirements, setting the generator up for additional DOT and OSHA violations. Labeling under HCS 2012 and the GHS is based on a classification system. Adding multiple (potentially unclassified) mixtures into a container could result in a change in a classification which would result in labeling changes. Further, the classifications for mixtures under the GHS is extremely complicated and requires the use of "bridging principles." These calculations are difficult and time consuming. Therefore, ACA objects to EPA allowing manufacturers to rely on HCS 2012 labels to provide hazard information to hazardous waste transporters.

The GHS building blocks are developed by a subcommittee of experts at the United Nations. Currently the subcommittee is considering an amendment to the GHS regarding the use of pictograms that are not a part of a complete label. Although the proposal has not been completed, the subcommittee of experts generally agrees that it would be considered inappropriate you only use GHS pictograms without the complete hazard communication language. Therefore, ACA objects to allowing manufactures from using GHS pictograms has method to convey hazard information to hazardous waste transporters.

If EPA decides to continue with increased labeling requirements, at the very least the Agency should meet with OSHA, DOT and other stakeholders to ensure that the standards do not conflict or cause confusion. (0262)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the above problems this rule will cause, particularly if a generator is already complying with the applicable DOT regulations. All the Agency is asking the generator to do is mark their containers with the applicable DOT marking or label (as one option) when accumulating hazardous wastes on-site to make workers, emergency responders, etc. aware of the potential hazards they are in close proximity to. The Agency is also providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704).

However, as a matter of practicality, it would benefit many generators to consider the use of DOT hazard communication, since such a method would not only satisfy EPA's requirement, but it may also satisfy DOT requirements when the wastes are shipped off site to a RCRA-designated facility, such as an interim status or permitted TSDF. It is important to note that if generators choose to identify the hazards of the contents of their containers using the DOT, OSHA or NFPA labeling methods, those methods must be used appropriately. Furthermore, if a method other than DOT hazard communication is used while the waste is accumulating on site, when the waste is shipped off site, generators and transporters must ensure that those markings and labels are located away from and do not obscure DOT marking and labeling.
Similarly, a number of commenters also had the misperception that the requirement for identifying the hazards of the contents is duplicative with OSHA requirements and/or DOT requirements. On the contrary, EPA notes that the marking and labeling of containers is not duplicative of other regulations: OSHA Hazard Communication does not apply to hazardous waste (See 29 CFR 1900.1200(b)(6)(i)) and DOT requirements only apply during transportation. In fact, under the RCRA rules being finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency believes it is closing a loophole for hazard communication for hazardous wastes accumulated on site.

Comment: Also, as we mentioned before, ACA is concerned that additional labeling requirements to indicate the hazards of the contents of the container, and citing DOT, GHS, and NFPA labels. Adding these new labels could conflict with other federal labeling requirements, setting the generator up for additional violations. ACA once again recommends not adding additional labeling requirements, or in the alternative, requiring that EPA consult with stakeholders and relevant federal agencies before finalizing any regulations with additional labeling requirements. (0262)EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the above comments. There is no conflict with other federal labeling requirements. The Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulation requires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704). All the Agency is asking the generator to do is mark their containers with the applicable DOT marking or label (as one option) when accumulating hazardous wastes on-site to make workers, emergency responders, etc. aware of the potential hazards they are in close proximity to.

Section 5.1.4 - Other

Comment: Since most hazardous waste generators ship their waste off site for treatment and disposal/recycling, the proposed new labeling requirements may create the negative unintended consequence of SQG/LQG occasionally violating strict DOT labeling and marking regulations. (0106)

EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. If a generator is using a particular DOT label or marking when shipping their hazardous wastes off-site, the Agency sees no problem in being able to use the same label when accumulating hazardous wastes on-site to make workers, emergency responders, etc. aware of the potential hazards of the wastes. Those hazards should be the same whether accumulated on-site or shipped off-site.
Comment: It is possible a SQG/LQG would place a label on a container and then remove or cover the label before offering the container for transport. But this is labor intensive, since most labels are designed to permanently stick to containers in all kinds of weather conditions. If a generator fails to remove a prohibited label or forgets to cover it up it would violate DOT regulations. (0106)

EPA Response: The Agency does not understand this comment. If a generator is using a particular DOT label or marking when shipping their hazardous wastes off-site, the Agency sees no problem in being able to use the same label when accumulating hazardous wastes on-site to make workers, emergency responders, etc. aware of the potential hazards of the wastes. Those hazards should be the same whether accumulated on-site or shipped off-site. The Agency does not understand why the generator would remove one label and replace it with a new one representing the same hazards.
Comment: Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides an alternative method that would achieve the goals of the revision in a manner much less burdensome and much more likely to be accurate by allowing generators to label the containers with "sufficient information to alert emergency responders to the hazards or the contents of the container." Drake urges EPA to adopt a similar standard under 262.15(a)(5). (0136)

EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency is providing flexibility in how a generator may mark its containers with the applicable RCRA hazard. The final regulationrequires SQGs and LQGs to mark or label containers with the following: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; and (2) an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container including, but 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 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the NFPA code 704). All the Agency is asking the generator to do is mark their containers with the applicable DOT marking or label (as one option) when accumulating hazardous wastes on-site to make workers, emergency responders, etc. aware of the potential hazards they are in close proximity to.
The Agency also has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents were not identified. Therefore, generators, if they so choose, may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge").
Comment: Additionally, Heritage requests that these same date marking allowances be extended to containers. The same electronic recordkeeping systems available for tanks are also available for containers, with the same high degree of reliability as compared to manual systems. Heritage also believes that such recordkeeping systems may be even more commonly in use for containers than tanks simply based on the ratio of containers to tanks in the general marketplace. Accommodating date marking flexibility for containers would offer generators even more recordkeeping burden relief than for tanks simply based on the quantity of containers managed by generators. Heritage also notes that within the RCRA program, unlike DOT provisions, tanks and containers primarily differ from one another only with respect to mobility rather than size. In other words, RCRA tanks are stationary/fixed and containers are mobile. For example, the same 5,000 gallon vessel could just as easily be considered a RCRA tank or container following the addition or subtraction of wheels, a floor anchoring system, or fixed piping connections. When considering all these factors, there is not sufficient justification for EPA to restrict the proposed date marking options only to tanks. Finally, if container marking provisions are modified at 40 CFR 262, Heritage requests that EPA implement corresponding changes within the Land Disposal Restrictions requirements at 40 CFR 268.50. (0259)

EPA Response: Generators will be able to use electronic recordkeeping/bar coding systems in the final rule in identifying RCRA waste codes and other information profiling the hazardous wastes. Regarding the last comment concerning corresponding changes within the Land Disposal Restrictions requirements at 40 CFR 268.50 have been made as well.

Section 5.2 - Marking and labeling tanks, drip pads, containment buildings

Comment: A physical marking on the tank should be one of the allowed methods since marking a tank is no more burdensome than marking a container. Using a marking that contains multiple rows reserved for start dates and pickup dates works well in the cases that waste is removed via vacuum and the container is reused for accumulation.
Marking of some hazardous waste tanks is more challenging in particular for tanks involved in a continuous flow process. In this case, using other modes of identification is more suitable than a physical label. (0068)
EPA Response: The Agency agrees with this commenter and has finalized the marking and labeling requirements for tanks to accommodate differences between containers and this type of accumulation unit.
Comment: 25. Regarding modifications to drip pad and containment building marking and labeling for LQGs and SQGs  -  Section VIII. F.3. pages 57951-57952 Colorado does not agree with the extra labeling requirements because it seems an extra burden for generators with little environmental benefit as discussed under container labeling requirements. (0085)

EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified the labeling requirements for hazardous wastes accumulated on drip pads. A summary is provided at the beginning of this section.
Comment: The EPA is proposing that drip pans for catching spills be labeled and inspected as if they were a tank. Labeling a drip pan as if it did contain hazardous waste even if it does not would provide confusing information. (0089)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified the labeling requirements for hazardous wastes accumulated on drip pads. A summary is provided at the beginning of this section.
Comment: We also support the proposed changes for marking and labeling of tanks, drip pads and containment buildings with "Hazardous Waste" and the accumulation start date so as not to exceed 90 days. 80 FR 57950-53. (0134)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: TWC explains its concerns with labeling drip pads with the words "Hazardous Waste" in Comment B.
B. Requiring Drip Pads to Be Labeled with the Words "Hazardous Waste"

EPA proposes to require that generators label their drip pads "with the words `Hazardous Waste' in a conspicuous place easily visible to employees, visitors, emergency responders, waste handlers, etc." See §§ 262.16(b)(6)(ii)(A) (SQGs), 262.17(a)(5)(ii)(A) (LQGs). TWC opposes this proposal because we believe that current labeling standards are sufficient and that this additional labeling provision would be burdensome without providing any additional meaningful benefits.

First, no danger exists of unaware individuals entering a drip pad. Only trained employees are authorized near the drip pad. Generators accumulating hazardous waste on drip pads already are required to have procedures in place to minimize tracking of hazardous waste off the drip pad. See § 265.443(j). The quantity of waste on the drip pad is small, as the pad must be constructed to freely drain to a collection system. Drip pads vary in size and the number of entry points, and this proposed regulation does not provide clear direction on the quantity and size of the "Hazardous Waste" label(s). Furthermore, labeling the entire drip pad as "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 that contain hazardous waste and the drum storage area are already labeled. Emergency responders are provided the facility contingency plan identifying the hazardous waste areas.

For these reasons, TWC believes that the current drip pad standards are sufficient. This proposal demonstrates a situation in which EPA, in its effort to make unit-specific regulations more uniform, failed to take into account the unique nature of drip pads as hazardous waste accumulation units. [Footnote 9: EPA shows that uniformity was its goal with this provision when it states, "[B]ecause the risks for accumulating hazardous wastes on drip pads and containment buildings are similar to those accumulating in tanks, and for purposes of consistency and uniformity with the marking and labeling provisions for tanks, the Agency is proposing the same marking and labeling regulatory framework for hazardous wastes accumulated on drip pads and in containment building that it is proposing for tanks." See 80 Fed. Reg. 57,951, col. 2.] The proposed drip pad labeling requirement is burdensome and unclear and would provide no additional benefit. (0164)

EPA Response: In response to these comments, the Agency has modified the proposed rule for hazardous wastes accumulated on drip pads. A summary is provided at the beginning of this section.
Comment: Preamble Section VIII.F.3. CT DEEP supports EPA's proposed clarification of the marking and labeling requirements for LQGs that store hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings. Drip pads are typically used by companies engaged in wood preserving (of which we have only one in Connecticut). Containment buildings are typically used for the management of remediation waste (e.g., contaminated soil), and we have traditionally not seen many of these storage units in Connecticut  -  and those that we have seen have been durational in nature (i.e., operated only for a period of time while they were necessary to complete a remediation project). (0178)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: In this section, EPA also proposes to require SQGs to comply with the same marking and labeling requirements as LQGs for their drip pads and containment buildings. CT DEEP does not support this part of the proposal, since we do not believe it is even appropriate for SQGs to use these types of units. These types of storage units are complicated and require a fairly high level of knowledge and expertise to properly construct and operate.

In fact, SQGs are actually prohibited from storing hazardous waste in drip pads and containment buildings in Connecticut's current hazardous waste regulations for these reasons. See also comment 25 below. (0178)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with the above comments. While these type units are complicated, the requirements apply to any SQG that wants to accumulate hazardous wastes in these units in subparts W and DD, respectively. If they desire to do so, its their responsibility to comply with these requirements.
Comment: EPA should understand that it is important to exclude from this enhanced container labeling requirement certain bulk transport containers such as cargo tanks, rail cars, and portable tanks. Similarly, ETC recommends revising the requirements for 40 CFR Part 268.50(a)(2)(i) to allow for any container to optionally comply with 40 CFR Part 268.50(a)(2)(ii) at a TSD. (0181)

EPA Response: Regarding certain bulk transport containers, at 40 CFR 262.32(b), the Agency states, "Before transporting hazardous waste or offering hazardous waste for transportation off site, a generator must mark each container of 119 gallons or less used in such transportation with the following words and information in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 172.304:." Therefore, certain bulk transport containers are excluded from the enhanced container labeling requirements.

As for allowing any containers to optionally comply with 40 CFR § 268.50(a)(2)(ii) at a TSD facility, EPA does not think it is appropriate for TSDs to mark containers as they would tanks, as key pieces of information would be lacking, including the words "Hazardous Waste," waste codes, and an indication of the hazards of the contents.

Comment: Veolia is also supportive of the proposed changes for marking and labeling of tanks, drip pads and containment buildings with "Hazardous Waste" and the accumulation start date so as not to exceed 90 days. (0181)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: 262.34(a)(3) Marking and 262.34(d)(3) Inspection documentation
Support these proposed rules. Local (Santa Clara County, CA) ordinance already requires this level of marking and inspection documentation, and has for 35 years. (0196)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: Section VIII.F.3 (Page 57951): The States that provided comments do not support labeling Drip Pads with the words "Hazardous Waste" in a conspicuous place easily visible. Typically, the treatment solution is used multiple times before it becomes a waste. However, the States do support using inventory logs or records to identify the contents of the drip pad. (0217)

EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified the marking and labeling requirements for drip pads. 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.
Comment: Clean Harbors generally supports EPA's proposal to require LQGs and SQGs to mark containers with words that identify the contents of the containers and an indication of the hazards of the container's contents, so long as it is not unduly burdensome for the generator. Use of words that identify the contents such as the names of chemicals (e.g., "acetone"), the type or class of chemical (e.g., "organic solvents"), or the DOT shipping name would be acceptable. We recommend that EPA make clear in the final rule that generators may use the common name of the waste that is familiar to the generator's employees (e.g., "electroplating sludge"). A common name often distinguishes materials by describing the physical state (e.g., "process line floor sweepings"), process location (e.g., "line 3 paint solids"), or generator-specific nomenclature (e.g., trade names). A generator should have broad discretion to use words that are appropriate for its facility and employees.

We also recommend that the agency's definition of "containers" excludes rail cars and cars and other transport devices. (0243)

EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. Commenters argued, and EPA agrees, that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. While the Agency is not finalizing the requirement that generators identify the contents of their containers, we not only encourage, but would expect, that generators would identify the contents of hazardous waste in their containers considering both the operational and potential downstream regulatory problems that would likely emerge if the contents
Regarding certain bulk transport containers, at 40 CFR 262.32(b), the Agency states, "Before transporting hazardous waste or offering hazardous waste for transportation off site, a generator must mark each container of 119 gallons or less used in such transportation with the following words and information in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 172.304:." Therefore, certain bulk transport containers, such as rail cars and other transport devices are excluded from the enhanced container labeling requirements.

Section 5.2.1 - Requiring accumulation start date in logs or records for tanks

Comment: 24. Regarding tank labeling requirements for LQGs and SQGs  -  Section VIII.F.2., pages 57950-57951: Colorado agrees with the proposal to use inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or other records indicating the accumulation start date to show a generator's compliance with the accumulation time limits for hazardous waste tanks. Colorado already allows tank logs to ensure the accumulation time limit is not exceeded and the proposed regulatory language seems to allow enough flexibility for facilities to establish their own tracking and recording methods for ensuring that they have not exceeded accumulation time limits. (0085)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments, we have modified the proposed rule which we believe will be more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes. Further, the Agency believes the final rule's tank marking and labeling requirements reflect industry practices.
Comment: Regulations 262.16 and 262.17
Tank Labels and Logs
The proposed rule requires additional monitoring and inventory logs. This additional information/requirement is not practical for all waste collection situations. For instance, some 90-day accumulation tanks operate under continuous flow and many operate in a manner where different wastes are "batched" to the tank frequently. At a batch chemical plant, compatible waste may be sent from several different processes to one tank many times during a day. Keeping a log and description of the waste each time it is sent to a 90-day tank would be extremely burdensome. (0087)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified the proposed rule to reflect existing operations and practices and to reflect the concerns of this commenter.
Comment: A. Documentation of the first date of accumulation facilitates compliance.

EPA proposes to clarify the requirement that facilities document accumulation start dates. 80 Fed. Reg. at 57,950-57,951. The current rule specifies that containers are marked with the "date upon which each period of accumulation begins," but it is less clear regarding tanks and drip pads. The additional clarity proposed will promote compliance by eliminating differences in management of containers, tanks, and other units. (0107)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified its proposal to clarify the date upon which each period of accumulation begins. A summary of these requirements is discussed at the beginning of Section 5.
Comment: Eastman does not oppose the change in labeling requirements proposed for containers and supports the provisions for tanks that allow the description of the contents to be maintained in a log along with the accumulation information. (0128)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes
Comment: ii. Tank Marking and Labeling for LQGs and SQGs (40 CFR 262.34(a)(3). Current regulation requires that all tanks be labeled with the words "Hazardous Waste". The new regulation would allow generators to use inventory logs, monitoring equipment or records to determine the 90 and 180 day accumulation dates, as well as in helping to determine the contents and the associated hazards of the hazardous waste in the tank.
DTSC supports the amendments to 40 CFR 262 regarding tank marking and labeling and inventorying. DTSC supports the clarifications regarding additional inspections. (0174)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of this section. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: Preamble Section VIII.F.2. CT DEEP supports EPA's proposal to require SQGs and LQGs that accumulate waste in tanks to document the amount of time that waste has been accumulated by marking the date of original accumulation on the tank itself, or by recording this information in inventory logs, tank level monitoring equipment, or tank inspection logs. However, CT DEEP requests clarification from EPA regarding how to assess compliance with the accumulation time requirements for SQGs and LQGs that store waste in tanks that receive hazardous waste from continuous flow processes (in other words, how to determine compliance with the accumulation limit requirement when waste may enter and leave the tank at different times, without the tank ever being completely emptied). CT DEEP also suggests that EPA consider creating a definition of an "empty tank" just as it has defined "empty containers." (0178)

EPA Response: In response to this commenter and others, the Agency has addressed the concern of continuous flow processes in both preamble and regulatory text in the final rule. A summary is discussed above at the beginning of Section 5.
Comment: 22. Page 57951, Section VIII.F.3.: Utah agrees that drip pads and containment buildings also need proper records to determine accumulation times. (0185)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of Section 5. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: 23. Page 57952, Section VIII.F.3.: Utah agrees that the generators need to use inventory logs or records to show accumulation times. (0185)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of Section 5. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: Regarding identifying waste placed in tanks, the state agrees with the proposed regulation allowing SQGs and LQGs to use inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or records indicating start accumulation dates. (0195)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of Section 5. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: Regarding the proposed requirement that generators storing waste in tanks implement a system to verify the date that waste first entered the tank and that records of such information be immediately available to an inspector, implementation of this requirement will impose undue burden on the generators. Specifically, tanks used for <90-day storage of hazardous waste are already required to be labeled as hazardous waste, and the date could easily be affixed to the already in place label. This is the same process as currently applies to containers, and generators are entrusted under the current rules to date containers when waste first enters the container. It seems unnecessary to require an additional and higher standard, such as logs, inventory, etc., for tanks being used for essentially the same function as containers. (0205)
EPA Response: The Agency has modified the marking and labeling of tanks in the final rule to take into account existing operating practices. These modifications address the above concerns.
Comment: In addition, some hazardous waste storage tanks function essentially as flow-through tanks, where waste is added and removed on a daily or weekly basis. For such tanks, the requirement to date when the waste first enters the tank is problematic, since waste is entering and being removed from the tank regularly or continuously. Facilities where such tank storage is in place manage the tank contents via an understanding of tank turnover rate to demonstrate routine removal of all contents without the need to document the date of first waste entry into the tank. The net effect of such a system is that waste never remains in the tank for more than 90 days, and in reality, is typically in the tank for only a few days at the most. Requiring use of logs, inventories or level sensors burden generators with added recordkeeping, documentation and potentially capital costs when simply marking a date on a label consistent with other procedures already in place for containers, or use of current records demonstrating regular waste removal, will accomplish the same result. (0205)
EPA Response: In response to this commenter and others, the Agency has addressed the concern of continuous flow processes in both preamble and regulatory text in the final rule. A summary is discussed above at the beginning of Section 5.
Comment: 57950 - Exceeding time limits could be a violation of a condition for an exemption from permitting
:: Input sought on recordkeeping requirements for tanks accumulating hazardous waste to demonstrate it has not been storing waste for more than the allowable time frames.
:: Request that EPA changes specifically address situations where the tank is not RCRA empty because of solids settled at the bottom, and the tank construction can allow several feet of solids to accumulate. Current rules only require the tank to be emptied using "normal procedures." These tanks do not have to be RCRA empty, and inventory records can show active throughput well over the tank capacity. (0214)
EPA Response: The commenter raises a good point. The Agency believes that generators will periodically shut down their tanks in order to clean out bottom residues. Without performing this cleanout of residue buildup, the tank will have less volume over time to store/accumulate the wastes leading the generator to possibly purchase a new tank when there is no need to do so.
Comment: Section VIII.F.2 (Page 57951): Based on knowledge and experience, generators that accumulate hazardous waste in tanks do not change the type of waste placed in the tanks. Therefore, most States feel it is sufficient for generators to mark their tanks with the words "Hazardous Waste." It is not believed that adding a description to the tank adds any additional protection. Most States support using inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or records to identify that date upon which each period of accumulation begins. In practice, this seems to work well. (0217)

EPA Response: We agree with this commenter. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of Section 5. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.
Comment: DC feels that requiring proof of accumulation start date via dating the vessel or via a log would be sufficient. (0248)
EPA Response: The Agency agrees with this commenter regarding these provisions. However, in response to comments we have modified the proposed rule as described in the beginning of Section 5. We believe the final rule is more practical and achieves the objectives of improving risk communication in the management of hazardous wastes.

Comment: ACA believes that this proposal could be infeasible for a system that is directly connected or if material is continuously being added to the storage tank. ACA argues that requiring logs to identify each addition of hazardous waste into a tank are not necessary since there are other more economical ways to prove that material is being stored for less than the allotted time. Generators could prove compliance by using the volume shipped, date, or tank volume. (0262)

EPA Response: In response to this commenter and others, the Agency has addressed the concern of continuous flow processes in both preamble and regulatory text in the final rule. A summary is discussed above at the beginning of Section 5.We believe these changes should address this commenter's concerns.

Section 5.2.2 - Requiring contents of a tank and hazards in logs or records for tanks

Comment: It should also be recognized that chemical reactions occur when hazardous waste is mixed in collection tanks. Molecules A & B sent independently to a tank may interact with other chemicals in the tank to produce molecules C, D, & E. It is not practical for large batch plants that collect liquid waste in tanks to keep a dynamic log of waste inputs and tank contents (reaction products). (0087)
EPA Response: 40 CFR 262.34 (a) states that a generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit or without having interim status provided it meets specified conditions. At issue is how that is accomplished with generators using a batch process. As part of this e final rule the Agency changed the dating requirement for tanks at SQGs and LQGs so that instead of using logs, monitoring equipment or records to identify when the 180- or 90-day accumulation period begins, generators must use logs, monitoring equipment or other records to demonstrate that hazardous waste is either emptied or removed from the tank within 180 or 90 days, with the final regulations now addressing both batch and continuous flow processes. While the Agency discussed both types of processes in the preamble to the proposed rule, the regulatory text in the proposed rule failed to address continuous flow processes. SQGs and LQGs with batch process tanks must demonstrate that their tanks are emptied every 180 or 90 days, respectively. However, the Agency recognizes that when hazardous waste is accumulated in tanks with continuous flow processes it may not be possible for SQGs and LQGs to demonstrate that a tank is emptied every 180 or 90 days, respectively, from when the hazardous waste first entered the tank. Therefore, generators with tanks with a continuous flow process have flexibility in how to demonstrate that hazardous waste has been turned over (as opposed to emptied) in a tank. For a continuous flow process, this demonstration involves a generator identifying the estimated daily input or inflow of hazardous wastes into the tank, the estimated outflow from the tank, and the capacity of the tank to estimate how many days the hazardous waste will reside in the tank before exiting. This procedure should satisfy the concerns of this commenter.
Comment: B. Allowing the use of inventory logs and other existing records to satisfy the documentation requirement provides appropriate flexibility and reduces the burden on generators.

The proposed rule offers generators the flexibility to use inventory logs and other routinely kept operations records to satisfy the documentation requirement. Rather than impose a new burden on generators, the proposed rule acknowledges procedures that many generators already have in place.
Thus, it provides common sense flexibility to address a gap in the existing rule. (0107)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the above comments.
Comment: In Comment C, TWC explains why a new provision requiring hazardous waste generators to log the contents of drip pads and associated hazards is unnecessary.
C. Requiring Generators Who Accumulate Hazardous Waste on Drip Pads to Use Inventory Logs, Monitoring Equipment, or Records to Identify Drip Pad Contents and Associated Hazards

The proposed rule would require generators operating drip pads to "use inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or records to identify the contents of the tank, drip pad or containment building and its associated hazards." §§ 262.16(b)(6)(ii)(B) (SQGs), 262.17(a)(5)(ii)(B) (LQGs). TWC opposes this provision because it is duplicative and unnecessary.

The identity and nature of the hazardous waste on the drip pad is consistent, barring a conversion to a different preservative. The quantity of waste on a drip pad is typically very small, as the drip pad must be sloped to freely drain to an associated sump or collection system. This sump or collection system is generally part of the facility's RCRA - exempt wastewater treatment unit. Therefore, there is no need to maintain inventory logs or similar records. Indeed, it is impractical to attempt this as the typical drip pad may contain only a few shovels full of waste spread over the entire area, and it is not possible to accurately quantify the amount of this material. Typically, the material is quantified when it is removed from the drip pad and placed in a satellite accumulation container as required by the existing rules.

Furthermore, identification of hazardous wastes and associated dangers is accomplished through existing tools, such as the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) and associated safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals, [Footnote 10: See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1200(g) and (h).] Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) requirements for conducting emergency response planning and maintaining and submitting safety data sheets to local responders, [Footnote 11: See 40 C.F.R. part 370.] and the hazardous waste contingency plan for LQGs. [Footnote 12: As the regulations currently stand, this provision is located at 40 C.F.R § 262.34(a)(4) (requiring LQGs to comply with the contingency plan and emergency procedures requirements in 40 C.F.R. part 265 subpart D).] The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [Footnote 13: See 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.] requires that extensive information on the wood preservatives themselves, including associated hazards, is made available. These provisions ensure that employees and emergency responders have the information and training necessary to operate safely around a drip pad under both normal and emergency conditions.