In effect, this proposed provision would require information that already exists to be maintained in an additional location, thereby increasing recordkeeping burdens while providing no measurable safety improvements.

Comments A, B, and C explain why the three marking and labeling provisions in §§ 262.16(b)(6)(ii) and 262.17(a)(5)(ii) should not be applied to drip pads accumulating hazardous waste. The drip pad is a unique hazardous waste accumulation unit and should not be subject to the same standards as other units simply for the sake of regulatory uniformity. Therefore, TWC respectfully requests that EPA remove all references to drip pads in §§ 262.16(b)(6) and 262.17(a)(5) to ensure that drip pads are not subject to these provisions. [Footnote 14: Specifically, TWC requests that "drip pad" be removed from the following provisions for SQGs: §§ 262.16(b)(6), 262.16(b)(6)(ii), 262.16(b)(6)(ii)(A), 262.16(b)(6)(ii)(B), and 262.16(b)(6)(ii)(D). TWC requests that "drip pad" be removed from the following provisions for LQGs: §§ 262.17(a)(5), 262.17(a)(5)(ii), 262.17(a)(5)(ii)(A), 262.17(a)(5)(ii)(B), and 262.17(a)(5)(ii)(D).] (0164)
EPA Response: The Agency agrees with the above comments. Therefore, the Agency has reverted back to the previous regulations in addressing the above comments.
A generator with drip pads must comply with subpart W of 40 CFR part 265, and, consistent with existing regulations, must remove all hazardous wastes from the drip pad and associated collection system within every 90 days. Once the hazardous wastes was removed from a drip pad, LQGs would have up to 90 days and SQGs up to 180 days to accumulate the hazardous wastes without a permit or interim status. SQGs and LQGs would also have to maintain the following records at the facility by use of inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or any other effective means: records that describe the procedures that will be followed to ensure that all wastes are removed from the drip pad and associated collection system at least once every 90 days; and records that document each waste removal, including the quantity of waste removed from the drip pad and the sump or collection system and the date and time of removal.
These records would need to be kept on site and readily available for inspections. Ideally these records would be in close proximity to where hazardous waste is being accumulated after removal from the drip pad, such as in a control room, or other central location at the facility.
In addition, consistent with guidance previously issued by the Agency for wood treaters, that if hazardous waste is placed in a satellite accumulations area, the waste can remain there until the drum is full. Once the drum is full, it must be dated and moved to the hazardous waste storage area. Thereafter, the 90 or 180 day accumulation clock for LQGs and SQGs, respectively, begins.
In the process of trying to consolidate the waste accumulating provisions for tanks, drip pads and containment buildings in the proposed rule, the Agency failed to properly take notice that drip pads are very different in operation than tanks and containment buildings. The unique nature of drip pads was addressed through several earlier rulemakings. For example, on December 6, 1990, EPA promulgated several new hazardous waste listings specific to the wood preserving industry, along with unit-specific hazardous waste standards for drip pads (`subpart W') and corresponding generator accumulation provisions for persons generating hazardous waste and managing the waste on drip pads (55 FR 50450). As part of that rulemaking, EPA established a standard by which generators must remove all hazardous wastes from their drip pad at least once every 90 days, while still allowing for additional time to accumulate the hazardous waste (e.g., in tanks or containers) depending on their generator status. This latter issue was clarified in subsequent guidance, but is being further clarified in this final rule. Therefore, for both LQGs and SQGs, hazardous wastes must be removed from the drip pad and associated collection system at least once every 90 days, and the Agency is retaining the regulatory text previously found at § 262.34 (a)(1)(iii). By incorporating this provision, the Agency will also address the requirements that generators describe the procedures to demonstrate that all wastes have been removed from the drip pad and associated collection system at least once every 90 days.

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 above comments.
Comment: We also concur with the proposed language regarding identifying, marking and labeling wastes stored in a containment building or on a drip pad, with the exception of requiring an indication of the waste hazards, as commented above. (0195)
EPA Response: The Agency has modified the marking and labeling requirements such that the identification of waste hazards is not required.
Comment: EPA is proposing revisions to the marking and labeling waste accumulation units (e.g., container, tank, drip pad, or containment building) in order for employees, inspectors, emergency responders, and waste handlers to better understand the potential hazards associated with the contents of hazardous waste contained in a unit  -  Most generators and transporters already mark and label their containers with the applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers and the hazards of the container. Requiring that applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers and hazards be marked and labeled on the containers decreases overall burden because it avoids the need for a designated facility to identify the hazardous waste or send it back to the generator for proper identification. EPA states that this proposed provision should not increase the burden on generators and transporters as it reaffirms commonly used waste management practices.

The proposed marking and labeling of accumulation units is already a common practice and the proposal will have a limited impact on Wisconsin's facilities. As an efficiency measure, WDNR suggests that for these markings and the labels to be effective at a generator's site, they need to be visible to a person who is passing by the container. Therefore, require that all container markings and labels be clearly visible and legible to a person who is observing a container in a satellite accumulation area or a central accumulation area. (0206)
EPA Response: The Agency did not specifically require container markings and labels to be clearly visible and legible. However, the Agency believes this is a best management practice that all generators should already be doing.
Comment: Logs identifying each addition of hazardous wastes into a tank are unnecessary and should not be required. (See Comment #25). (0219)
EPA Response: The Agency is not requiring generators toidentify each addition of hazardous wastes into a tank. However, generators must use inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or other records to demonstrate that hazardous waste has been emptied within 180 days of first entering the tank if using a batch process, or in the case of a tank with a continuous flow process, demonstrate that estimated volumes of hazardous waste entering the tank daily exit the tank within 180 days of first entering; and keep inventory logs or records with the above information on site and readily available for inspection.

Comment: Pages 57950-51:
2. Tank Marking and Labeling for LQGs and SQGs (40 CFR 262.34(a)(3))

DC believes that it is not unreasonable to require facilities to mark the contents on tanks. (0248)
EPA Response: The Agency is not requiring facilities to mark the contents on tanks but relying on DOT marking and labeling requirements, a one example, to identify the hazards of the tank's contents.
Comment: Pages 57951-52:
3. Drip Pad and Containment Building Marking and Labeling for LQGs and SQGs (40 CFR 262.34(a)(3)) 76

DC feels that containment buildings should be labeled on the building, but the accumulation start date could be marked on the building or tracked via a log.

DC has no experience with drip pads used for storage.

EPA Response: In the final regulations, the generator must label its containment buildings with the words "Hazardous Waste" in a conspicuous place easily visible to employees, visitors, emergency responders, waste handlers, or other persons on site and also in a conspicuous place provide 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704).

Section 5.2.3 - Suggestions for alternative methods/standards

Comment: To improve information about the contents of tanks, particularly those in which the contents frequently changes, EPA proposes that SQGs and LQGs use inventory logs or records to identify the contents of a tank and its associated hazards, and make that information immediately accessible should the need arise. We agree that generator personnel and emergency responders need to have immediate access to information about hazards posed by a tank's contents; however, rather than inventory logs or records, we suggest the Agency consider the use of changeable placards for tanks or storage areas where the content designation changes. In an emergency, it is helpful to have such information visible from a safe distance. (0159)

EPA Response: In the final rule, generators will not need to identify the contents of a tank as much as (A) Mark or label its tanks with the words "Hazardous Waste;" and (B) Mark or label its tanks with 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704). Use of changeable placards is a method to indicate the hazards of the tank's contents.

Comment: :: 262.32 - Recommend modifying 262.32(b) to apply to all containers of 550 gallons or 2.75 cubic yard capacity or less. (0214)
EPA Response: 40 CFR 262.32 (b) is finalized as follows: "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:". This is consistent with existing DOT regulations.

Comment: Suggestion to Address Concerns With This Proposal: Northeastern suggests EPA drop the proposed additional labelling requirements altogether due to the requirement being duplicative of other programs and very difficult to implement. In lieu of dropping the proposed additional labelling requirements, Northeastern requests that EPA exempt containers smaller than 55 gallons from the proposed additional labelling requirement. This would reduce the burden on research facilities like Northeastern, but allow emergency response personnel an added layer of information in cases where the containers are large enough to pose a serious hazard. (0249)
EPA Response: The Agency does not agree with this comment. The Agency has modified the proposed rule in response to other comments and not included the requirement that generators mark their containers and tanks with the contents of the waste accumulation unit.
It is a 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.
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.
Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Extend Proposed Date Tracking Provisions For Tanks To Containers

Heritage fully supports EPA's proposal to accommodate alternative date tracking mechanisms as compared to the existing requirements to physically write hazardous waste accumulation dates on tanks. Digital recordkeeping systems, in particular inventory-focused barcode applications and tank level sensor controls, are both affordable and in widespread use throughout the generator community.

Also, since many of these systems are highly automated, they often will be more accurate than physically marking a tank with a date. Heritage also agrees with EPA's following comment; "Generators may also use any other methods that clearly demonstrate the date hazardous waste first entered the tank." (80 FR 57950). This statement accommodates alternative methodologies, future electronic recordkeeping innovations, and overall will reduce generators' recordkeeping burden. (0259)

EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has modified the marking of RCRA waste codes at 40 CFR 262.32 to allow a generator to use a nationally recognized electronic system, such as bar coding, to identify the EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s). As part of this system, other information valuable to a TSDF in profiling a hazardous waste. Also as part of the final rule, a generator may use inventory logs, monitoring equipment, or other records to demonstrate that hazardous waste has been emptied within 180 days of first entering the tank if using a batch process, or in the case of a tank with a continuous flow process, demonstrate that estimated volumes of hazardous waste entering the tank daily exit the tank within 180 days of first entering.

Section 5.2.4 - Other

Comment: EPA should not require container labels with the proposed multiple categories of information, but rather should convene all stakeholders to identify the best approach for labeling containers. (See Comment #22). (0219)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. In response to other comments, the Agency has reduced its marking and labeling requirements and also provided flexibility in how it accomplishes this requirement. We direct the commenter to the summary at the beginning of Section 5.2.

Section 5.3 - Specific handler concerns

Comment: §262.15(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), page 57995
EPA is proposing to require additional wording on containers of hazardous waste while the wastes are being managed in satellite accumulation areas. While this seems reasonable when managing large containers (e.g., 5 gallon drums) as satellite containers, this can become significantly burdensome when managing small containers (e.g., 1 oz bottle). From §262.15(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), the information required to be marked on the container oftentimes will not fit on a small container of hazardous waste. Currently our facility has a 4 oz container of waste PVC cement (D001 and D035) in a satellite accumulation area. This small container does not have enough blank space for the generator to satisfy the proposed marking requirements of §262.15(a)(5)(ii) and (iii). To add the proposed information to the container we would need to write over the current product markings, ingredients and/or hazard information with a black felt tip marker. It's generally not recommended that original product information be obscured. Furthermore, the original product information on the PVC cement container satisfies the proposed marking requirements.

Here are three suggestions.

1. Add wording to this section that exempts a container from (ii) and (iii) if the hazardous waste is in its original product container and the ingredient and hazard information on the product container accurately reflects the waste product in the container.

OR

2. Change the wording of §262.15(a)(5), saying "A generator must ensure the container is marked with the following:". By asking the generator to ensure the information of (i), (ii) and (iii) is on the container, the generator would only be obligated to add information not already on the container. This is much better than requiring the generator to mark the container with all the information, which 1.) is probably already on the product container and 2.) can make the outside of the container difficult to read.

OR

3. It would be beneficial for the agency to clearly state that for small containers of hazardous waste; it is acceptable to attach a tag containing all the required information. For example, for a small vial of hazardous waste, a tag with the required markings can be taped or tied to the vial.
(Commenter 0079)
EPA Response: 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. Similarly, if a hazardous waste is in a container that already has the appropriate marking and labeling (e.g., the hazardous waste is an unused commercial chemical product that is in its original container with an intact label), the existing marking and labeling would be sufficient. The generator would not need to duplicate the marking and labeling, assuming the original label contains the information necessary to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment: 3. Regarding the proposed labeling requirements for SAA containers, Colorado has the same comment that we have for central accumulation area containers, that is extra labeling beyond that which is already required seems unnecessary. The public and/or others are not typically allowed access to accumulation areas, so labels other than "Hazardous Waste" seem unnecessary. (Commenter 0085)
EPA Response: The Agency disagrees that the extra labeling for SAA containers is unnecessary. While the words "Hazardous Waste" on containers provide some measure of information regarding the contents, this information fails to describe the specific hazards of the contents and what risk these wastes could pose to human health and the environment.
Comment: Changing the labeling requirements defeats the purpose of satellite accumulation. Waste container labels are only of interest to waste managers; there is no need to include any safety information since it is readily available on virgin product containers in the same area the waste is generated. (Commenter 0099)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees. In many cases safety information will not be readily available on virgin product containers in the same area the waste is generated. And even in cases where the safety information is readily available, there could be multiple virgin products nearby with no way for an employees or emergency responders to know which one is in any specific hazardous waste.
Comment: Changing the labeling requirements defeats the purpose of satellite accumulation. Waste container labels are only of interest to waste managers; (Commenter 0101)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees. EPA believes it is important that employees, transporters, downstream handlers, emergency personnel, and EPA and state inspectors know as much as possible about the potential hazards of the contents in containers being accumulated, transported, and managed, whether on site and/or off site, so that the hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Comment: With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings.

The intent of the proposed rule appears to be two-fold: ensure the contents are listed to aid in waste determination and provide information that could be useful to emergency responders. Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides a method to achieve these goals 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." We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement. (Commenter 0110)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that this requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: However, UNL opposes the Agency's proposal to require marking of containers in SAAs with the words "Hazardous Waste."
Likewise, UNL opposes the Agency's proposal to require labeling of containers in SAAs with an "indication of the hazardous of the contents of the container." Several of the labeling examples in the preamble are infeasible or may lead to greater confusion. It is infeasible to expect SAA staff to be knowledgeable of 49 CFR 172. Like RCRA, the DOT regulations are complex and require a significant degree of training and competency. In general, SAA staff cannot be expected to be competent in DOT regulations, and it is not feasible for EHS staff to provide this type of information preemptive to the waste actually being generated.
We suggest that a more appropriate approach is to require labeling of SAA waste containers with sufficient information to allow for a waste determination which would necessarily include the proper chemical name(s) and an indication that the material is used/spent/or not otherwise intended for further use. Proper chemical names will allow emergency responders and others to access information necessary on potential hazards in the event of an emergency, although we would like to point out that by design the amount of waste that can accumulate in a SAA is very limited making a large scale emergency unlikely. (Commenter 0121)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that this requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: FR Page: 57965
Citation: 40 CFR 262.15
40 CFR 262.34
Topic: Revisions to Satellite Accumulation Area Regulations for SQGs and LQGs (VIII.I.3.)
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: EPA agrees and we have simplified the marking and labeling for containers in SAAs by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. The final regulations for marking and labeling of containers in SAAs require SQGs and LQGs to mark 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: 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 in I.3, 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: EPA agrees and we have simplified the marking and labeling for containers in SAAs by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. The final regulations for marking and labeling of containers in SAAs require SQGs and LQGs to mark 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: FR Page: 57980
Citation: 40 CFR 268.50
Topic: Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 268  -  Land Disposal Restrictions (XII.)
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)).

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. (Commenter 0123)
EPA Response: EPA agrees and we have simplified the marking and labeling for LDR storage prohibition purposes for containers at TSDFs by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. The final regulations for marking and labeling of containers in SAAs require SQGs and LQGs to mark 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: UofL requests EPA remove the proposed new requirement to label all hazardous waste containers in satellite accumulation areas with the words "hazardous waste", a description of the waste, and an indication of the hazard from the proposed addition of 40 CFR 262.15(a)(5).
In addition, UofL requests EPA remove the proposed new requirement for large quantity generators of hazardous waste to label all hazardous waste containers with the words "hazardous waste", a description of the waste, and an indication of the hazard from the proposed addition of 40 CFR 262.17(a)(5). These additional labelling requirements are duplicative of other regulatory programs and difficult to implement as proposed. (Commenter 0139)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and continues to believe that this requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Preamble Section VIII.I. This section pertains to numerous changes that EPA is proposing with respect to satellite accumulation areas. These are storage areas that are located at or near the process generating the waste and that are under the control of the operator of the process generating the waste. These storage areas are subject to fewer requirements than central accumulation areas since they are closely associated with the process, and are the point at which wastes initially accumulate until they are transferred to the central accumulation area. CT DEEP generally concurs with the proposed changes, except as noted below:

a.) CT DEEP concurs with EPA's proposal to add new requirements for the management of incompatible wastes in satellite accumulation areas operated by SQGs and LQGs. CT DEEP notes that Connecticut's hazardous waste regulations have required this for many years, and this requirement has proven helpful in preventing dangerous reactions due to co-storage of incompatible waste in satellite accumulation areas. CT DEEP would also encourage EPA to add a requirement that satellite accumulation areas be required to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 265.31 (regarding maintenance and operation of facility to prevent fires, explosions, and releases), and 265.173(b) (regarding management of containers to prevent them from rupturing or leaking). Connecticut's hazardous waste regulations have included these requirements for more than ten years and CT DEEP believes that these requirements are important to ensure that generators operate satellite accumulation areas safely. (Commenter 0178)
EPA Response: EPA agrees and in the final rule EPA has clarified that the preparedness, prevention and emergency procedures for SQGs (262.16(b)(8) and (b)(9)) and LQGs (part 262 Subpart M) must include any SAAs that are on-site. These new sections in the generator regulations include the requirement regarding maintenance and operation of facility to prevent fires, explosions, and releases, which was adapted from 40 CFR 265.31.
As for including a requirement for SAAs to comply with 265.173(b), regarding management of containers to prevent them from rupturing or leaking, although we did not include this specific requirement, we agree that it is appropriate to manage containers to prevent them from rupturing or leaking as a best management practice. And we have included provisions for how to manage containers if they do begin to leak.
Comment: Requiring that drums in Satellite Accumulation Areas be marked with an indication of the hazards of the container's contents would be burdensome to staff because the hazard class is not always known until the drum is full and the contents are sampled. The Port Authority feels that it is sufficient to mark the drums in Satellite Accumulation Areas with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste," and (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers. (Commenter 0179)
EPA Response: It is a misperception that we are requiring the use of DOT hazard class labels on containers during on-site accumulation. In actuality, the Agency is providing flexibility to generators in how they identify the hazards of the hazardous waste in the container, and using DOT hazard communication such as hazard class labels (or placards, if appropriate) is one option for complying with this requirement.
EPA now believes that a requirement to identify the contents of a container could be subject to much interpretation and problems with implementation and compliance could emerge. Nevertheless, 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: However, KULC-EHS opposes the Agency's proposal to require marking of containers in SAAs with the words "Hazardous Waste." The verbiage "Hazardous Waste" is not a descriptor that provides an scientific or safety warning/recognition. More appropriate are descriptors like "Spent Acetone" or "Waste Corrosive Liquid". The words "Hazardous Waste" should only be applied once the proper waste determination has been completed and it is determined these are materials RCRA regulated as Hazardous Waste. Even then, they serve no indicator other that it is regulated under 40 CFR 260-265.
Requiring the words "Hazardous Waste" will create confusion, paranoia and often times mislabeling of items when not required. The only way achieve the current proposed rule in SAAs typical of university laboratories will be to advise SAA staff to label all waste containers as hazardous waste. This would be contrary to the Agency's position that waste determinations be accurate and means many items that are not truly hazardous waste are designated as such prematurely. (Commenter 0183)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with commenter and continues to believe that this requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Likewise, KULC-EHS opposes the Agency's proposal to require labeling of containers in SAAs with an "indication of the hazardous of the contents of the container." Several of the labeling examples in the preamble are infeasible or may lead to greater confusion. It is infeasible to expect SAA staff to be knowledgeable of 49 CFR 172. Like RCRA, the DOT regulations are complex and require a significant degree of training and competency. In general, SAA staff cannot be expected to be competent in DOT regulations, and it is not feasible for EHS staff to provide this type of information preemptive to the waste actually being generated. (0183)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment. It is a misperception that we are requiring the use of DOT hazard class labels on containers during on-site accumulation. In actuality, the Agency is providing flexibility to generators in how they identify the hazards of the hazardous waste in the container, and using DOT hazard communication such as hazard class labels (or placards, if appropriate) is one option for complying with this requirement.
Comment: We suggest that a more appropriate approach is to require labeling of SAA waste containers with sufficient information to allow for a waste determination which would necessarily include the proper chemical name(s) and an indication that the material is used/spent/or not otherwise intended for further use. Proper chemical names will allow EHS staff and others (i.e., emergency responders) to access information necessary on potential hazards in the event of an emergency, although we would like to point out that by design the amount of waste that can accumulate in a SAA is very limited making a large scale emergency unlikely. Many institutions have devised their own internal container labels that address this. Allowing them to continue this as a "performance based" issue is in the best interest of all/ (Commenter 0183)
Instead, the Agency has simplified the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous wastes accumulated in containers in a SAA and CAA to read: (5) A generator must mark or label its container with the following: (i) The words "Hazardous Waste," and (ii) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704).
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Lab students, faculty and staff have general awareness that their waste is hazardous and know the general contents (i.e. methanol, chlorinated solvents, etc.). However, as previously mentioned, the requirement to indicate the precise hazards would be burdensome. (0190)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: EPA's proposed rule will impose a slight impact for those Wisconsin's facilities that use SAA, because of the additional labeling and marking requirements. Most Wisconsin facilities are already complying with these labeling and marking requirements. (Commenter 0206)
EPA Response: EPA is encouraged to hear that most Wisconsin facilities are already complying with the proposed labeling and marking requirements and that the rule's impact will be minimal.

Comment: 2. Strengthening the marking and labeling provisions for containers in SAAs.

The proposed labeling requirements defeats the purpose of SAAs. To meet the proposed labeling requirements for a mixture of waste chemicals requires expertise and analysis beyond the responsibility and/or capability of most SAA operators. (Commenter 0230)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: 1. EPA should not impose additional labeling requirements on satellite accumulation areas.

The proposed changes to the labeling requirements for satellite accumulation areas are overly burdensome and lack proper justification. See 80 Fed. Reg. 57,965. Because of the temporary nature of waste held in satellite accumulations areas, the labeling requirements are less stringent, and the program has been well served by the distinction between satellite accumulation and other areas for many years.
EPA's proposal would require generators to label waste containers at satellite accumulation areas with the specific contents of the containers, in addition to existing labels. 80 Fed. Reg. 57,965. This would impose entirely new compliance obligations. The new requirements are made no less burdensome by the suggestion that generators use DOT or OSHA labels. To effectively implement this program, companies would be required to organize and train additional staff with access to satellite accumulation areas and to impose additional inspections on those areas merely related to labeling.

The proposal does not provide any empirical data or analysis of the efficacy of existing systems, or examples of how additional labels have or would have prevented risks from satellite accumulation areas. EPA has stated that it "believes these proposed changes will alert workers, emergency responders, and others to the potential hazards posed by contents." However, it is improper to base the significant additional labelling, organizing, training and inspection burdens that would result from the proposal on belief or supposition. [Footnote 3: For example, it is unlikely that employees or first responders who are not trained in DOT labeling requirements would understand the meaning of DOT labels or be better prepared to address the contents of a container because of such labels.] This is especially true where, as here, the history of the program suggests that current labeling practices are sufficient.

Additionally, this requirement may cause confusion and compliance concerns for other programs. For example, the use of DOT labels on containers in satellite accumulation areas poses a risk that those containers would be confused for DOT compliant shipping containers, which have a number of requirements that do not apply to containers used in satellite accumulation areas. Similar confusion could arise from using OSHA labels. These concerns could only be avoided by requiring extensive and expensive training on various labeling requirements that may not otherwise apply to staff responsible for satellite accumulation areas.

In short, EPA should not impose the same requirements for longer term storage areas on satellite accumulation areas, and the existing labeling conventions for satellite accumulation areas should be left unchanged. (Commenter 0241)
EPA Response: EPA agrees and we have simplified the marking and labeling for LDR storage prohibition purposes for containers at TSDFs by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. The final regulations for marking and labeling of containers in SAAs require SQGs and LQGs to mark 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, it is a misperception that we are requiring the use of DOT hazard class labels on containers during on-site accumulation. In actuality, the Agency is providing flexibility to generators in how they identify the hazards of the hazardous waste in the container, and using DOT hazard communication such as hazard class labels (or placards, if appropriate) is one option for complying with this requirement.
Comment: MU does not support the mandatory requirement to label containers in SAA with both "Hazardous Waste" and "other words that identify the contents of the containers." MU also does not support the mandatory addition of a label that indicates the hazard. EPA provides no rationale for this change other than the assumption that the container in SAA will also be the container ultimately shipped and thus require such a label eventually. This assumption is incorrect in many situations, particularly in laboratories. Additionally, small discarded chemical containers (i.e., materials in the original container) already make compliance with the current standard difficult as additional labeling may obscure important information provided by the manufacturer on the bottle that may assist in lab packing that container once it arrives at the CAA. (Commenter 0256)

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: 262.15 Satellite accumulation area regulations for small and large quantity generators.

The proposed requirements in paragraph (a)(5) changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words "Hazardous Waste" and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings.

The intent of the proposed rule appears to be two-fold: ensure the contents are listed to aid in waste determination and provide information that could be useful to emergency responders. Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides a method to achieve these goals 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." We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement. (Commenter 0258)

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Instead the waste container should be labeled with sufficient information to communicate the hazards to coworkers and emergency responders and to facilitate waste characterization for disposal within the central accumulation area and prior to shipment. The final disposal characterization including waste codes, packaging in appropriate shipping containers, and labeling for transportation to the disposal facility should be completed by a trained professional (similar to the process described in subpart K under 40 CFR 262.210) and within the 90/180 storage timeline allowed under 40 CFR 262.17. (Commenter 0280)
EPA Response: EPA agrees and we have simplified the marking and labeling for LDR storage prohibition purposes for containers at TSDFs by eliminating the requirement that SQGs and LQGs mark their containers with words that identify the contents of their containers. The final regulations for marking and labeling of containers in SAAs require SQGs and LQGs to mark 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).
EPA also agrees that a trained professional should be the one that marks and labels containers of hazardous waste. Accordingly, the final rule requires the pre-transport requirements, such as the addition of hazardous waste codes and appropriate shipping containers/labeling only immediately before a hazardous waste is shipped off-site.
Comment: Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings. (Commenter 0135)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. EPA encourages colleges and universities (and associated eligible academic entities) to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to research and teaching focuses of academic institutions. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings. (Commenter 0136)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: The proposed requirements changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words "Hazardous Waste" and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings. (Commenter 0142)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: The proposed requirements in paragraph (a)(5) changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words "Hazardous Waste" and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. This rule would be particularly burdensome to university research and teaching areas because these areas house many small containers of a wide variety of materials. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings. Such an approach will present a limited, if not inverse value, in a laboratory setting, and in many cases is a duplication of requirements. (Commenter0218)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: §262.15 Satellite accumulation area regulations for small and large quantity generators.

The proposed requirements in paragraph (a)(5) changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words "Hazardous Waste" and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings.

The intent of the proposed rule appears to be two-fold: ensure the contents are listed to aid in waste determination and provide information that could be useful to emergency responders. Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides a method to achieve these goals 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." We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement. (Commenter 0226)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Although EPA's goal appears laudable, we believe that this additional labeling requirement goes beyond what is reasonable and practical in a university shop, clinic, laboratory, etc. Implementing this requirement will be burdensome because universities manage so many small containers of hazardous waste. (Commenter 0229)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: Comment: The proposed requirement in 40 CFR 262.15 (a)(5)(iii) to mark each waste container with the hazards of the contents determination for every waste container in each satellite accumulation area [in addition to the words "Hazardous waste" pursuant to 40 CFR 262.15 (a)(5)(i) and other words that identify the contents of the waste container pursuant to 40 CFR 262.15 (a)(5)(ii)] presents similar challenges as discussed above regarding proposed 40CFR62.11 on waste determinations. We support the comments of CSHEMA regarding the difficulties of labeling a variety of materials in small containers in laboratories and the complexity of end users at point of generation being able to verify the precise hazards of waste materials, particularly mixtures. We support CSHEMA's comments to consider the more practical approach currently enumerated in Subpart K. (Commenter 0231)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.

Comment: 3) Strengthening the marking and labeling provisions for containers in SAAs.
EPA's proposed additional labeling requirements add an unnecessary burden on the regulated community that is already required to label hazardous chemicals per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

In reviewing the preamble of the proposed rule, it appears that EPA's goal is to improve the immediate availability of hazard information for emergency responders and for the general public. The hazardous waste containers at UVA are in the control of UVA faculty, staff, or students at all times so potential public exposure is not a risk. UVA's EHS and the Charlottesville fire department both have a highly trained hazardous materials response teams, skilled at handling laboratory emergencies. Neither of these groups would benefit from the burdensome additional labelling requirement.

UVA suggests EPA drop the proposed additional labelling requirements altogether due to the requirement being duplicative of other programs and very difficult to implement. In lieu of dropping the proposed additional labelling requirements, UVA requests that EPA exempt containers smaller than 55 gallons from the proposed additional labelling requirement. This would reduce the burden on research facilities like UVA, but allow emergency response personnel an added layer of information in cases where the containers are large enough to pose a serious hazard. (Commenter 0242)
EPA Response: It is a 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.
EPA disagrees that emergency responders would not benefit from additional labeling. In fact, emergency responders expressed a preference for identifying the hazards of the contents over identifying the contents in the container. In large part, this expressed preference helped EPA decide to retain the requirement to identify the hazards of the contents and eliminate the requirement to identify the contents of the container.
Finally, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.

Comment: The proposed requirements in paragraph (a)(5) changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words ?Hazardous Waste? and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty, or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings.
The intent of the proposed rule appears to be two-fold: ensure the contents are listed to aid in waste determination and provide information that could be useful to emergency responders. Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides a method to achieve these goals 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.? We urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement. (Commenter 0282)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter, and continues to believe that the requirement is appropriate. Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: The proposed requirements in paragraph (a)(5) changes the marking of containers in satellite accumulation areas to require both the words "Hazardous Waste" and the identity of the contents. Furthermore, the proposed rule includes an additional labeling requirement to indicate the hazards of the contents. With so many small containers of a wide variety of materials, this rule would be burdensome to university research and teaching areas. It would require the laboratory worker (student, faculty or staff) to verify the precise hazards of the waste material (which is often a mixture of several chemicals) and choose the appropriate markings.

The intent of the proposed rule appears to be two-fold: ensure the contents are listed to aid in waste determination and provide information that could be useful to emergency responders. Subpart K, section 262.206(a)(I)(ii) provides a method to achieve these goals 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." I urge EPA to consider this option rather than the proposed requirement. (Commenter 0091)
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: There are some containers where it is not even possible to include the additional labeling requirements due to small size. Lab packs are small containers of hazardous waste in overpacked drums. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to require this information on each small container of material within the overpack. In addition, because of the potential mix of chemicals in the lab pack, it would be difficult to assign a specific identifying name to the overpack container. (Commenter 0131)
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Comment: Mandate additional labeling for containers of hazardous waste, which will likely exceed space available on the many small vials and containers. (Commenter 0155)
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment: Although EPA's goal appears laudable, we believe that this additional labeling requirement goes beyond what is reasonable and practical in a university shop, clinic, laboratory, etc. Implementing this requirement will be burdensome because universities manage so many small containers of hazardous waste. (Commenter 0166)
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: #4b. The proposed additional label information will not fit on small containers used in research. Hazardous waste containers at a research institution like Purdue are various sizes; some are very small. The physical dimensions of the small containers makes it difficult, if not impossible, to fit a legible label with all the proposed required language. In reviewing the preamble of the proposed rule, it appears that EPA's goal is to improve the immediate availability of hazard information for emergency responders and for the general public. The hazardous waste containers at Purdue are in the control of Purdue faculty, staff, or students at all times so potential public exposure is not a risk. Purdue's fire department has a highly trained hazardous materials response team, skilled at handling laboratory emergencies. Neither of these groups would benefit from the burdensome additional labelling requirement.
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment #4c. Some containers are already labelled with manufacturer's information; this should be acceptable. It is common in research labs for expired chemical reagents in their original containers to be placed into satellite accumulation areas for disposal due to the chemicals being out of date or unneeded. These reagents typically already have the manufacturer's label affixed to the container indicating the chemical name and often the hazard as well. However, under the proposed rule the container would also be required to be labeled as hazardous waste, which seems unnecessary since the waste is already in a satellite accumulation area. Purdue believes that it would be sufficient to label each container with the chemical name or the words "hazardous waste." Employees are required to receive OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) training or training under the OSHA Laboratory Standard. For individuals covered under the HCS, Safety Data Sheets (SDS) must be readily accessible and extensive information on the chemical(s) is required to be provided by the manufacturer. For those covered by a Chemical Hygiene Plan training on chemical hazards is required and in most cases the SDS is available. Under these systems employees should be familiar with the hazards of any waste and we believe requiring additional labeling is duplicative. (Commenter 0208)
EPA Response: If a hazardous waste is in a container that already has the appropriate marking and labeling (e.g., the hazardous waste is an unused commercial chemical product that is in its original container with an intact label), the existing marking and labeling would be sufficient. The generator would not need to duplicate the marking and labeling, assuming the original label contains the information necessary to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Moreover, EPA encourages colleges and universities to use Subpart K, which was specifically designed to address the concerns of this sector including the types of concerns expressed in this comment.
Comment: However, we do not support the requirement for this degree of labelling for materials in satellite accumulation areas, particularly in laboratory settings with laboratory scale materials.

Proposed Revision to 40 CFR Part 262 - Revisions to Satellite Accumulation Area
Regulations for SQGs and LQGs (40 CFR 262.34(c))
Strengthening the Marking and Labeling Provision for Containers in SAAs

BI appreciates EPA's effort to enhance labeling requirements in order to better identify the hazards and increase awareness to workers and others who might come into contact with hazardous waste containers.

BI generates RCRA regulated wastes from many research and development laboratories. In these laboratories, many small containers are generated as waste. These wastes would commonly become "lab packs" at shipment. The proposed modification to the marking and labeling requirements for Satellite Accumulation Areas (SAA) would require:
(1) The words "Hazardous Waste";
(2) Other words that identify the contents of the containers; and
(3) An indication of the hazards of the contents of the container.

BI supports parts 1 and 2 of the proposed modification. BI requests that EPA revisit part 3 of the proposed requirement with respect to SAAs that are located in research and development laboratories. Laboratory operations utilize small quantities of materials in small containers. The small size of bottles and vials will make additional labeling difficult. The large number of small containers that may need additional labeling would be burdensome (i.e. any bottles generated in the laboratory that are not in original manufacturers bottles). Most of these bottles will be shipped for treatment in a "lab pack" that would only require labeling on the outer container. BI believes that following the labelling requirements in items (1) & (2) above will meet EPA's intention to better identify the hazards and increase awareness to workers and others who might come into contact with hazardous waste containers in the laboratory setting. (Commenter 0236)
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and believes that marking and labeling is critical at the point of generation where the wastes are initially generated. Although labeling may appear to be an inconsequential "paperwork" exercise, it is, in fact, vitally important to ensuring that waste is identified and managed properly. Without proper labeling, hazardous waste may be mismanaged as non-hazardous waste, or as the wrong type of hazardous waste, which could cause harm to human health and the environment.
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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment: Additionally, some hazardous waste containers at a research institution like UVA are very small. The physical dimensions of small containers makes it difficult, if not impossible, to fit a legible label with all the proposed required language. (Commenter 0242)
EPA Response: 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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment: EPA is proposing a new requirement to label all hazardous waste containers in satellite accumulation areas with the words "hazardous waste", a description of the waste, and an indication of the hazard from the proposed addition of 40 CFR 262.15(a)(5) and 40 CFR 262.17(a)(5). These additional labelling requirements are duplicative of other regulatory programs and difficult to implement as proposed. Detailed comments follow:

The proposed additional labelling requirements duplicate exist regulatory programs: EPA's proposed additional labeling requirements add an unnecessary burden on the regulated community that is already required to label hazardous chemicals per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

The proposed additional label information will not fit on small containers used in research. Hazardous waste containers at a research institution range in size from milliliter to liter/gallon size. The physical dimensions of the small containers makes it difficult, if not impossible, to fit a legible label with all the proposed required language. In reviewing the preamble of the proposed rule, it appears that EPA's goal is to improve the immediate availability of hazard information for emergency responders and for the general public. The hazardous waste containers at Northeastern are in the control of Northeastern faculty, staff, or students at all times so potential public exposure is not a risk. The Boston Fire Department has a highly trained hazardous materials response team, skilled at handling laboratory emergencies. Neither of these groups would benefit from the burdensome additional labelling requirement.

Some containers are already labelled with manufacturer's information; this should be acceptable. It is common in research labs for expired chemical reagents in their original containers to be placed into satellite accumulation areas for disposal due to the chemicals being out of date or unneeded. These reagents typically already have the manufacturer's label affixed to the container indicating the chemical name and often the hazard as well. However, under the proposed rule the container would also be required to be labeled as hazardous waste, which seems unnecessary since the waste is already in a satellite accumulation area. Northeastern believes that it would be sufficient to label each container with the chemical name or the words "hazardous waste." Employees are required to receive OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) training or training under the OSHA Laboratory Standard. For individuals covered under the HCS, Safety Data Sheets (SDS) must be readily accessible and extensive information on the chemical(s) is required to be provided by the manufacturer. For those covered by a Chemical Hygiene Plan training on chemical hazards is required and in most cases the SDS is available. Under these systems employees should be familiar with the hazards of any waste and we believe requiring additional labeling is duplicative. (Commenter 0249)
EPA Response: It is a 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.

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, generators using small containers may attach a tag to a container to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
If a hazardous waste is in a container that already has the appropriate marking and labeling (e.g., the hazardous waste is an unused commercial chemical product that is in its original container with an intact label), the existing marking and labeling would be sufficient. The generator would not need to duplicate the marking and labeling, assuming the original label contains the information necessary to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.

Comment: In §262.15(a)(5), EPA's proposed labeling and marking requirements present difficulty in the SAA setting. Marking a container with a "hazardous waste" label along with (for instance) the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) proper shipping name would likely take place using EPA's existing "hazardous waste" pre-transport markings [Footnote 6: 40 CFR 262.32.], which are widely commercially available and already in the possession of most generators. These labels are typically 6 inches square. DOT labels are 4 inches square. This labeling combination is fine for 55-gallon drums, but problematic if the generator chooses to accumulate waste in smaller containers, e.g. one-gallon jugs. In addition, EPA has not indicated that simply marking containers with the words "hazardous waste" has resulted in safety or environmental issues; the preamble simply states that "...these proposed changes will alert workers, emergency responders, and others to the potential hazards posed by [the containers'] contents." This philosophy is largely unsubstantiated, as the workers near SAAs are already familiar with the processes generating wastes and the content of containers. Emergency responders are unlikely to approach containers to identify them during an emergency; instead, information available from the facility is used and conservative assumptions applied. We are not sure what "others" are likely to be alerted by EPA's expanded approach. What we know from our experience in Washington State (which has a requirement to mark SAA containers with the major risk(s) of the waste) is that these requirements engender a litany of alleged violations based on field interpretation by inspectors. Washington's Department of Ecology states that "[i]nadequate labeling is THE most common violation found during compliance inspections." [Footnote 7: Ecology, "Focus on Dangerous Waste Management: Risk Labels Required for Dangerous Waste Containers", Publication Number 12-04-016, June 2013.] [emphasis in original] Since Washington State's risk labeling regulations have been unchanged since 1984, the fact that the regulated community is still not clear what is required bodes ill for EPA's attempt to embrace the concept. Unless EPA has identified a specific need for this requirement, and wishes to shift its enforcement resources to assuring the proper, detailed labeling of containers in SAAs, we recommend that this requirement be simplified to simply require the words "hazardous waste" (as in the existing rule) with the use of the DOT label (when a waste is DOT-regulated) or the label's words (e.g. "corrosive") as a potential added marking.

o 262.16(b)(6). See our comment on 262.15(a)(5). We believe this requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and impractical. (0078)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous wastes accumulated in containers in a SAA to read: (5) A generator must mark or label its container with the following: (i) The words "Hazardous Waste," and (ii) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704). We believe these changes are responsive to this commenter.

Comment: 268.50(a)(2)(I): See comment on 262.15(a)(5). We believe this labeling requirement is unnecessarily burdensome. (0078)
EPA Response: See preceding response to comment.
Comment: 47. Regarding proposed revisions to Part 268  -  LDR  -  Section XII., page 57980: Colorado disagrees with this proposal for increased labeling and marking requirements for the same reasons stated above. (0085)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has simplified and reduced the marking and labeling requirements for TSDFs as follows:(i) Each container is clearly marked to identify its contents and with:(A) The words "Hazardous Waste;" (B) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter; or use a nationally recognized electronic system, such as bar coding, to identify the EPA hazardous waste number(s).(C) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704) and (D) The date each period of accumulation begins.

Comment: In 262.232 of the proposed rule, the labeling requirements for episodic waste do not allow time to evaluate the waste. When waste is accumulated during a clean out, it is commonly lab packed by a contractor who is an expert in chemical compatibility and RCRA regulations. It is not unusual to find waste during a cleanout event that is not labeled or otherwise identifiable. In cases like this it will be difficult to label the containers with the contents and hazard at the moment it is determined to be a waste. (0096)
EPA Response: The generator is responsible for making an accurate hazardous waste determination at the point of generation. At that point, if the waste is hazardous the generator must identify and mark the container with its hazards using one of the specified options and initiate the process of identifying the RCRA waste codes and mark the container with those codes in compliance with 40 CFR 262.32 (b). We believe these changes are responsive to this commenter.

Comment: 14. Section X. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 263 -- Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
NJDEP supports changing the marking and labeling requirements for transporters handling hazardous waste at transfer facilities to be consistent with the proposed changes for marking and labeling conditions for containers for SQGs, for LQGs, and in SAAs. (0108)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified and reduced the requirements for transporters of hazardous wastes, as follows:(b) When consolidating the contents of two or more containers with the same hazardous waste into a new container, or when combining and consolidating two different hazardous wastes that are compatible with each other, the transporter must mark its containers of 119 gallons or less with the following information:(1) The words "Hazardous Waste;" (2) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter, or in compliance with § 262.32(c).
Comment: 45. Regarding proposed revisions to Part 263 standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste  -  Section X., pages 57977-57978: Colorado disagrees with the proposed increased labeling and marking requirements for the same reasons stated above, Colorado believes these additional labeling requirements are unnecessary. (Commenter 0085)
EPA Response: The Agency has simplified and reduced the requirements for transporters of hazardous wastes, as follows: (b) When consolidating the contents of two or more containers with the same hazardous waste into a new container, or when combining and consolidating two different hazardous wastes that are compatible with each other, the transporter must mark its containers of 119 gallons or less with the following information:(1) The words "Hazardous Waste;" (2) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter, or in compliance with § 262.32(c).
Comment: 15. Section XII. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 268 -- Land Disposal Restrictions
NJDEP supports regulations on marking and labeling of containers by the owner/operator of a hazardous waste TSDF in § 268.50 to be consistent with the proposed marking and labeling changes for LQGs, for SQGs, for SAAs, and for transfer facilities.120

NJDEP also supports requiring containers be labeled with the applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes), to help the TSDF comply with the LDR regulations. (0108)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has simplified and reduced the marking and labeling requirements for TSDFs as follows: (i) Each container is clearly marked to identify its contents and with:(A) The words "Hazardous Waste;" (B) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter; or use a nationally recognized electronic system, such as bar coding, to identify the EPA hazardous waste number(s).(C) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704) and (D) The date each period of accumulation begins.

Similarly, TSDFs will need to comply with 40 CFR 262.32 should it generate a hazardous waste and ships the waste off-site for subsequent treatment and disposal.

Comment: ETC also recommends that the agency's definition of "containers" excludes rail cars and other transport devices from EPA's enhanced labeling requirements. Similarly, ETC recommends revising the requirements for 40 CFR § 268.50(a)(2)(i) to allow for any containers to optionally comply with 40 CFR § 268.50(a)(2)(ii) at a TSD facility. (0134)

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: Your basis language in XII for revising the LDRs in 40 CFR 268.50 doesn't recognize that the legitimate purpose of labeling the date each period of accumulation begins is to create evidence to facilitate assigning who has the burden of proof to demonstrate that storage is solely for the statutorily authorized purposes or if not that it is prohibited per RCRA §3004(j). (0156)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has simplified and reduced the marking and labeling requirements for TSDFs as follows:(i) Each container is clearly marked to identify its contents and with:(A) The words "Hazardous Waste;" (B) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter; or use a nationally recognized electronic system, such as bar coding, to identify the EPA hazardous waste number(s).(C) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704) and (D) The date each period of accumulation begins.
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: o Container Labeling (Section 5.10.2 below). EPA's proposal to require detailed markings and labels on accumulation containers is unworkable for the retail industry, where such containers generally hold only small quantities of a variety of products, typically in the original product packagings. The Agency should allow retailers to mark/label containers more generically (as under the existing RCRA rules). (0168)
EPA Response: 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.
Similarly, if a hazardous waste is in a container that already has the appropriate marking and labeling (e.g., the hazardous waste is an unused commercial chemical product that is in its original container with an intact label), the existing marking and labeling would be sufficient. The generator would not need to duplicate the marking and labeling, assuming the original label contains the information necessary to comply with the marking and labeling requirements.
Comment: 5.10.2 EPA's Proposal to Require Detailed Marking/Labeling of Hazardous Waste Containers Is Unnecessary and Unworkable in the Retail Sector

EPA has proposed to require hazardous waste generators to mark and label their containers not only with the words "Hazardous Waste," as under the existing regulations, but also with (a) words that identify the contents of the container, (b) an indication of the hazards of the contents, and, in some cases, (c) the applicable EPA hazardous waste codes. See generally 80 Fed. Reg. at 57,948-50. While these requirements might make sense in the context of a manufacturing facility, they are unnecessary and unworkable in the retail setting.

At retail facilities, waste containers generally contain very small quantities of a variety of products, typically in the original product packagings. For example, a 55-gallon drum could contain as many as 300 distinct items, or even more. Unless generic markings/labels are allowed (as under current law), retailers might have to mark each container with numerous waste descriptors and warnings. Multiple markings/labels of this sort would not provide any meaningful information to employees, transporters, downstream handlers, or government inspectors  -  especially since the packagings on the products inside the containers would likely give them any additional information they might need. A requirement for detailed markings/labels on the containers would only serve to create substantial new burdens on retailers, and potential new opportunities for minor technical noncompliance that could cause stores to be reclassified as TSDFs (as discussed in Section 5.3 above).

In this regard, it is instructive to note that U.S. Department of Transportation allows containers of mixed products of the sort generally handled by retailers to be marked simply as "consumer commodities" (or "waste consumer commodities," if the materials are RCRA hazardous wastes subject to manifesting). See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. §§ 173.150  -  173.155 (allowing certain limited quantity packages of hazardous materials to be designated as consumer commodities), and 173.156 (providing for reduced marking and other requirements when consumer commodities are transported from a retail outlet to a disposal facility). EPA should similarly allow retailers to use generic markings to indicate the contents and hazards of their wastes (although we question whether this really adds anything to the existing requirement to mark the containers with the words "Hazardous Waste"). Indeed, the Agency should take this approach even if it requires other generators to provide more specificity, perhaps by exempting retail facilities from the new enhanced marking/labeling requirements. (0168)

EPA Response: The Agency has simplified the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous wastes accumulated in containers in a SAA and CAA to read: (5) A generator must mark or label its container with the following: (i) The words "Hazardous Waste," and (ii) 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); hazard communication consistent with the Department of Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172 subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard statement or pictogram consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1920.1200; or a chemical hazard label consistent with the National Fire Protection Association code 704).
Also, in response to comments, the Agency has simplified the proposed marking and labeling for containers in SAAs 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. One commenter suggested that EPA's regulations should not interfere with a practice that is often already done as a best management practice. Another commenter suggested that we allow generators to choose between identifying the contents of the container and identifying the hazards of the contents. (Department of Energy, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0123.) EPA considered this option, but concluded the potential for interpretation and implementation problems would remain for those generators that chose the option of identifying the contents of the container and, therefore, decided against this approach. Nevertheless, 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.
We believe these changes are responsive to this commenter.

Comment: 7. Restricted Wastes Marking and Labeling Requires Container Marking and Labeling for restricted wastes that are consistent with the labeling and marking requirements for generators.
DTSC supports the amendments to 40 CFR 268.50 regarding container marking and labeling. (0174)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the above comment.
Comment: While Veolia understands the need for conforming changes to the transporter standards for marking and labeling of containers, EPA should not require transporters to add waste codes to containers at transfer facilities for the reasons stated above. The existing procedures in place at the TSD facilities to ensure compliance with the LDR requirements beginning at the time of contracting with the generator for treatment and disposal of the waste, and continuing through waste profiling, transportation and receipt of the shipment, has been proved to be sufficient. Requiring the transporter to put waste codes on drums in transfer facilities is of little to no value and will only disrupt transfer facility operations. (0181)

EPA Response: The only time a transporter should need to add RCRA waste codes to a container is if in the process of consolidating hazardous wastes from different containers, it generated a new hazardous waste.

Comment: :: Rail Cars used to accumulate and transport HW do not have to be labeled HW in transit. Issue with residue cars that are not RCRA empty. EPA has proposed to revise the container marking and labeling standards to be consistent with the proposed labeling and marking standards for SQG and LQG containers. How are rail cars carrying regulated amounts of HW residue marked in a manner to be apparent to regulator and to railroad that receives a load of "residue" in a rail car?

EPA Response: The Agency is deferring to DOT regulations when it comes to the transportation of hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues in rail cars. The regulator and railroad will have to use the hazardous waste manifest to determine that the rail car contains a hazardous waste residue.

:: 263.12 - Transfer facilities include areas where loaded trailers and bulk tankers are parked, as well as rail sidings and transfer yards. In some cases, the containers are never unloaded from the initial trailer. Some sites transfer containers directly from one trailer into another trailer intended for transport to different area. Some transfer facilities are warehouse operations. These containers are all considered to be hazardous materials stored in the normal course of transportation by USDOT, and it is not clear why EPA is proposing additional markings, without differentiating between bulk and non-bulk packagings. Non-bulk packagings are already labeled with the words "hazardous waste." In addition, the DOT shipping names usually include the primary EPA waste numbers that apply to the material. (0214)

EPA Response: The Agency is differentiating between bulk and non-bulk shipping at 40 CFR 262.32. Since hazardous wastes shipped off-site must meet DOT marking and labeling requirements, there really is no change from existing practices.
Comment: 57978
:: Any change to the container labeling requirements for transfer facilities needs to take into account the different labeling and marking requirements for containers over and under 119 gallons in size. Also remember that 40 CFR 262.32 was written prior to the widespread use of IBC totes, bags and boxes for transporting waste. Recommend that 40 CFR 262.32(b) markings should be applied to all IBCs.
:: In addition, EPA needs to consider how intermediate rail transporters will add these markings to cars that are stored for less than 10 days during the normal course of transport. What kind of training will be required for staff in addition to USDOT training?
EPA Response: The Agency is taking into account the different labeling and marking requirements for containers over and under 119 gallons in size at 40 CFR 262.32 (b). The Agency is unaware of the use of IBCs, but generators and transporters need to follow all applicable DOT marking and labeling requirements when shipping a hazardous waste off-site..

57978
:: EPA is proposing to require that containers ...at transfer facilities be labeled prior to being transported off site. This requirement would be in violation of USDOT and USEPA requirements. USEPA requires the generators to label and mark the containers prior to transport, and transfer facilities cannot be designated facilities on the manifests. These are pre-transport functions as defined at 49 CFR 171.1(b) Transfer facilities store a material incidental to movement per 49 CFR 171.1(c)(4) Storage incidental to movement of a hazardous material. Storage of a transport vehicle, freight container, or package containing a hazardous material by any person between the time that a carrier takes physical possession of the hazardous material for the purpose of transporting it until the package containing the hazardous material has been delivered to the destination indicated on a shipping document, package marking, or other medium, or, in the case of a private motor carrier, between the time that a motor vehicle driver takes physical possession of the hazardous material for the purpose of transporting it until the driver relinquishes possession of the package at its destination and is no longer responsible for performing functions subject to the HMR with respect to that particular package.
:: Storage incidental to movement includes --
o Storage at the destination shown on a shipping document, including storage at a transloading facility, provided the original shipping documentation identifies the shipment as a through-shipment and identifies the final destination or destinations of the hazardous material; and
o A rail car containing a hazardous material that is stored on track that does not meet the definition of "private track or siding" in §171.8, even if the car has been delivered to the destination shown on the shipping document.
:: Storage incidental to movement does not include storage of a hazardous material at its final destination as shown on a shipping document.
:: Requiring a transporter to alter a label or marking is contrary to the provisions of 49 CFR 171.2(l), except for transporters that mix hazardous waste of different DOT shipping description by placing them in a single container. 40 CFR 263.10(c) already requires these transporters to comply with Part 262 standards, so it is not clear why an additional regulatory reference must be added to Part 263. (0214)
EPA Response: The Agency is not requiring a transporter to do anything different than what it does now unless, as part of any consolidation activities at a transfer facility, the transporter mixes wastes deriving a new hazardous wastes in which case it must make a hazardous waste determination and comply with all applicable RCRA and DOT regulations when shipping the waste off-site.
Comment: 57980
:: 268.50 - Requiring container labels for wastes with multiple waste codes and underlying hazardous constituents is excessive, at least when dealing with bulked waste in rail cars and cargo tanks. In general, this results in waste being over classified. TSDFs are supposed to have an operating record that allows incoming waste to be tracked through treatment, storage and disposal. Further, incompatible wastes are not allowed to be stored together. TSDFs will have adequate information on the nature of the materials provided on the incoming manifests and waste profiled. Many of them apply individual bar codes to each container received, which provides for accurate tracking and recordkeeping.
:: If the TSDF is a temporary storage location, and the waste will be transferred elsewhere for ultimate treatment and disposal, removing and replacing labels and markings becomes an opportunity for error to creep in to the system. (0214)
EPA Response: Generators (and transporters as necessary) may use electronic profiling information, such as a bar coding system, in lieu of marking containers with the applicable hazardous waste codes.
Comment: Section X. (Page 57977): Containers at transfer facilities are in transit and subject to the requirements of container labeling during transport found in US DOT 49 CFR. In some States, containers tend to remain in/on the transport trailers when they are at a transfer facility, so requiring a transfer facility to label those containers in accordance with this proposed language would require extra handling of said containers, potentially resulting in mismanagement (e.g., spills and releases). Some States are concerned that the proposed labeling may pose an excessive burden on transporters operating transfer facilities that store hazardous waste containers for 10 days or less as those labels and marking may need to be removed prior to continued transport to be compliant with US DOT 49 CFR. Of particular concern would be the allowance for identifying the contents of the container different than the US DOT required marking found in 49 CFR Part 172 subpart D and risk labeling different than required in 49 CFR Part 172, subpart E. In addition, for identification of risk, one State recommends removing the following language: "Transfer facilities also may use any other marking and labeling commonly used nationwide in commerce that would alert workers and emergency responders to the nature of the hazards associated with the contents of the containers." This provision is overly broad and may cause confusion in the regulated community as well as for the regulators determining compliance with the requirements for transfer facilities.

One State supports the proposal to require transporters to mark and label containers at transfer facilities. This should not be a burden on the transporter since the generator is required to label and mark their containers prior to shipment off-site. (0217)
EPA Response: In response to comments, we have simplified and clarified the marking and labeling requirements for transporters. 40 CFR 263.12 as finalized, reads: (b) When consolidating the contents of two or more containers with the same hazardous waste into a new container, or when combining and consolidating two different hazardous wastes that are compatible with each other, the transporter must mark its containers of 119 gallons or less with the following information:
(1) The words "Hazardous Waste;"
(2) The applicable EPA hazardous waste number(s) (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and D of part 261 of this chapter, or in compliance with § 262.32(c).

Comment: Section XII (Page 57980): One State agrees with the proposed changes to §268.50 for consistency in labeling of containers by owner/operators of hazardous waste TSDFs. (0217)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates this comment.
Comment: 15. Strengthening the Marking and Labeling Provisions for Containers in SAAs  -  p. 57964
The department agrees with these changes to better identify the hazards of the waste which will reduce both short and long term risks of managing hazardous waste for facility personnel and others. Please see additional comments on labeling in item 18 below. (0223)
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates this comment.
Comment: 80 FR 57977, column 3 (X.)
Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 263 -- Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
The MPCA supports the general intent of the proposed requirements for transporters of hazardous waste holding that waste at '10-Day Transfer Facilities' ensure that it is labeled as described for the reasons discussed by the EPA at 80 FR 57977-57978. However, the MPCA is concerned that the only information directly available to transporters if they encounter a container at their transfer facility that is unlabeled will be the hazardous waste manifest accompanying that container. Unlike the original generator of the hazardous waste, who if not the original offeror of the waste to the transporter was at the very least the entity commencing the transport chain, transporters should not be assumed to have any foundational knowledge about the wastes they transport nor do they have the responsibility to independently determine such (unlike generators, who by the very act of causing a waste to be created, are not only assumed to have at least some knowledge regarding the waste based on its causal process, but are also explicitly assigned complete liability for determining not only its identity but all its hazardous attributes. Thus the MPCA believes that simply requiring transporters to `label' containers is inappropriate. Instead the MCPA recommends that the proposed requirement be revised to instead prohibit transporters from accepting hazardous waste containers for transport that are not already labeled fully as required. Thus, the only labeling required of the transporters themselves would be, as noted by EPA, when it consolidates or overpacks containers such that all that would be necessary would be moving or duplicating previously existing labels onto a new container. (0232)
EPA Response: The Agency agrees with MPCA's comments for this provision and has clarified the respective marking and labeling requirements for both generators and transporters.
Comment: Page 57965:
3. Strengthening the Marking and Labeling Provisions for Containers in SAAs

DC cannot find the proposed text at 262.15(a)(1)(iv), but reviewed the proposed text at 262.15(a)(5).

DC supports the proposed requirement that containers in SAAs be marked to identify the contents and associated hazards.
Pages 57977-78:
X. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 263 -- Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste

DC supports the proposed revision.
Page 57980:
XII. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 268 -- Land Disposal Restrictions

DC supports the proposed revision. (0248)

EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the support of this commenter regarding these provisions.
Comment: - 268.50 (storage of land-disposal-restricted wastes) now includes in section (a)(2)(i) new items (B) through (D) that specify the new waste-related information that must be on container labels beyond the current requirements of the section (contents identification) and the requirement in 262.34(c)(1)(ii) for "Hazardous Waste" or contents identification. Certain of the items cited (e.g. DOT hazard class labels) are required by other regulations and so need not be restated here. The existing requirements for container labeling are adequate and should not be made more cumbersome; each facet of the new requirements is yet another way that generators can inadvertently receive the severe punishment of forced coverage by the TSD regulations;
(0263)
EPA Response: In response to comments, the Agency has both modified and simplified the marking and labeling requirements for TSDFs. TSDFs should not have a problem complying with these requirements.
Comment: :: Responsibility for ensuring that hazardous waste materials are appropriately and correctly marked should lie with the generators of hazardous waste, and not with carriers, whose primary responsibility is to ensure its safe transport via public highway; (0283)
While ATA supports the marking of hazardous waste containers, the rule should make it clear that shippers of hazardous waste are responsible for ensuring that hazardous waste containers are properly marked during transport. (0283)

EPA Response: The Agency agrees with the above comments and have so indicated in the final rule.

Section 6 - Episodic Generation

6 General Comments
(a) Comment: A number of commenters expressed their support for allowing CESQGs and SQGs to remain in those generator categories when they experience an episodic waste generation event (63, 76, 77, 81, 88, 91, 93, 98, 99, 101, 107, 110, 113, 116, 117, 0120, 123, 126, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 141, 145, 155, 159, 163, 164, 172, 173, 174, 178, 181, 185, 192, 196, 202, 205, 206, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220, 224, 225, 226, 231, 235, 240, 241, 243, 244, 248, 250, 253, 256, 257, 258, 260, 262, 263, 282, 285). Some of the reasons given for this support included encouraging facilities to clean-out inventories of obsolete materials; making it easier for EPA to maintain an accurate database of EPA ID numbers; reducing the amount of hazardous materials a generator keeps in stock; assisting with relocations of manufacturing processes; allowing episodic generation in retail, pharmaceutical, and/or educational sectors where wastes do not present the same risk of release to the environmental as typical industrial hazardous wastes; and promoting flexibility and efficiency without sacrificing environmental protection. (63, 99, 101, 107, 123, 133, 145). SOCMA noted that batch and specialty chemical facilities are inherently more likely to experience these types of episodic events and provided examples (192). The American Gas Association also explained why natural gas pipelines are more likely to experience episodic generation events in their compliance with pipeline inspection and integrity management requirements (213).
(a) EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and is finalizing this provision with some revisions, as described in the preamble to the final rule. In general, EPA has determined that requiring a VSQG to comply with the additional SQG or LQG regulations or an SQG to comply with the LQG regulations for the month its hazardous waste exceeded the quantity limits during an irregular episodic event (planned or unplanned) is unnecessary to protect human health and the environment. By complying with the specified conditions, the generator would be able to maintain its current generator category and would not be required to comply with the more stringent site-wide regulations applicable to the higher generator category. EPA currently estimates that approximately 1,270 to 2,540 generators may take advantage of this provision once it is adopted by the authorized states.
(b) Comment: Some commenters, particularly several states and Earthjustice, did not support the proposed provision for CESQGs and SQGs to remain in those categories even when they generate higher amounts of hazardous waste due to an episodic event (85, 125, 229, 232, 264). In particular, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) argued that the "routine" waste generation events would more likely involve personnel not familiar with the waste and are more likely to lead to errors and mishandling or releases (232). MPCA is also concerned that the episodic generation provisions would also encourage stockpiling of unusable materials and/or delay of inventory checks (232). Hennepin County (MN) also argued that the proposed episodic generation provisions go too far and too complex. Hennepin County stated they think episodic events should be limited to those that cannot be predicted and are not anticipated to occur again. This would allow EPA to simplify the episodic generation regulations overall (229). Earthjustice opposed any allowance of episodic events. They argued allowing CESQGs and SQGs that exceed the generation levels to continue to operate at the lower levels is unlawful and runs counter to EPA's efforts to improve compliance and environmental protection (264). The RCRAInfo Site ID Expert Group did not support allowing episodic generation because uneven national adoption would result in inconsistent data nationally. They argued that episodic LQGs should not be exempt from filing a Biennial Report (BR) since this will result in an incomplete national picture of hazardous waste generation and management (125).
(b) EPA Response: EPA disagrees with those commenters that do not support this provision. EPA has determined that the provision is protective of human health and the environment, as the conditions included in the provision address management and final disposition of the hazardous waste at a RCRA-designated facility. In addition, EPA is finalizing episodic generation with some revisions to address some of the comments. For example, EPA does not believe that allowing episodic management of the hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations will result in management of the hazardous waste by employees who are inexperienced with handling that type of material or additional releases of hazardous waste to the environment. However, the notification conditions in the provision provide an additional layer of oversight for facilities that are using the episodic generation provisions and require the generator to consider its plan for safe management of the waste while completing the notification.
EPA has simplified the provision by removing the potential for a petition to extend the duration of an event and has, instead, lengthened the allowed duration for all events from the proposed 45 days to 60 days. In addition, in the final rule, only one planned episodic event would be allowed per year, limiting the number of times a facility could plan ahead to generate more than its standard levels of hazardous waste. EPA does believe that it is appropriate for episodic events include irregular planned events, such as tank cleanouts. EPA does not believe that this will encourage regular stockpiling of these wastes, as the commenter describes, but would rather encourage scheduled cleanouts of areas that may otherwise continue to be filled indefinitely with unwanted materials.
Regarding data management of hazardous wastes, EPA has determined that the national data on hazardous waste is not comprehensive and any increased inconsistencies from allowing facilities operating under episodic generation to not complete and submit a Biennial Report will not significantly impact the quality of the data as a whole and that the potential benefits of the episodic generation provision are substantial enough to finalize the provision even in light of this comment. The conditions for the provision do require that the facilities identify themselves as using the provision, which allows for important state oversight.
(c) Comment: The waste management industry requested EPA clarify that generators must continue to manage their waste properly and not purposefully mismanage it in a way to claim an episodic event has occurred (134, 243).
(c) EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that episodic generation cannot be used as an excuse to mismanage waste and then dispose of it under an episodic event. Notification to EPA (or the authorized state) serves as a check on facility's that may be abusing this provision to get around proper management of hazardous waste.
(d) Comment: The Retail Industry Leader s (RILA) expressed their appreciation for EPA's efforts associated with episodic generators but were concerned that the proposal fell short in several aspects. RILA discussed the "natural variability" in waste generation rates in the retail sector and urged EPA to allow retailers to determine their generator status based on average generation rates over time (168). Another retail commenter suggested that EPA allow generators, or at least, retail generators, to "reasonably" use their business knowledge to determine their generator status by averaging their yearly waste generation totals. They argue that the proposed episodic generation provisions do not fit the retail sector. They give an example of their stores averaging 2-3 generator status changes per year, usually once from CESQG to SQG and then back to CESQG again (233).
(d) EPA Response: As discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA has determined that determining generation status through averaging yearly generation months over 12 months does not meet the standard for determining generator status as mandated by the RCRA statute and would not be appropriate for this purpose. In addition, EPA has found that if a generator is operating at a higher generator status for 3 episodic events per year, those do not qualify as "episodic" and the generator actually belongs in the higher generator status. Under the final rule provisions, three episodic events of 60 days each would result in generation levels for half of the year being considered "episodic," which EPA does not consider consistent with the rationale behind the provision. Although EPA does believe that the episodic generation provision could be useful to some members of the retail industry, the provision is designed for the entire generation universe and must be evaluated in that light.