[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21800-21804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9141]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261 and 262
[RCRA-2003-0014; FRL-7651-9]
RIN 2050-ZA02
Hazardous Waste Generator Program Evaluation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
information from its stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA's) hazardous waste
generator regulatory program, as well as to identify areas for
potential improvement. EPA, along with our State partners, will
evaluate the information received in response to this notice to
determine whether changes to the hazardous waste generator program are
appropriate. If changes to the program are warranted, EPA will develop
a strategy for implementing revisions to the hazardous waste generator
program. The goals of this effort are to foster improved program
effectiveness, a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and
reduce compliance cost, where practicable. The Agency's efforts to
develop revisions to the hazardous waste generator regulations would be
predicated upon resource availability. The Agency also intends to hold
meetings with the public to discuss this subject further, including the
identification of priority concerns and potential solutions. A separate
Federal Register notice will announce these meetings.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Send your comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
RCRA-2003-0014. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Section
I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about this ANPRM,
see the Web at: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/init/index.htm. If
you do not have access to the Web, contact the RCRA Call Center at 800
424-9346
[[Page 21801]]
or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703 412-3323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information
?
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. The official public docket consists of
the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public
comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Docket.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified above.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or
information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the
instructions in Section I.C. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit
CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available
in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected], attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are captured automatically by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in Section I.A. These electronic submissions
will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send a copy of your comments to: OSWER Docket, Mailcode
5202T, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: OSWER
Docket, EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. Such deliveries
only are accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as
identified in Section 1.A.
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically
[[Page 21802]]
through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI
Docket Officer, U.S. EPA, Mailcode 5305W, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 , Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0014. You may
claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or
all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
you are claiming as CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives; i.e., identify any suggested alternative
requirements which could meet the rule objectives and result in either
reduced regulatory burden, reduced compliance costs, or increased
environmental protection.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It also would be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Statutory Authority
EPA is requesting information under the authority of sections 2002,
3001-3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912 ,
6921-6930, and 6974.
III. Background
In 1980, the Agency promulgated regulations applicable to
generators of hazardous waste. These regulations were amended in 1986
to address small quantity generators and again in the late 1980's and
early 1990's to address land disposal restrictions and air emission
control requirements for generators, respectively. These regulations
are found at 40 CFR 261.5 and 40 CFR part 262.\1\ These regulations
establish procedures and requirements for the management of hazardous
waste on-site and off-site for both large and small quantity generators
(LQGs and SQGs), as well as conditionally exempt small quantity
generators (CESQGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Part 262 regulations lead the reader to other
regulations found in parts 265, 266 and 268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implementation of the generator regulations have played a major
role in ensuring that hazardous waste has been properly managed.
However, during the twenty years since their implementation, generators
complying with the regulations, and States implementing the hazardous
waste program, have developed a great deal of experience with this
program. These experiences have been both positive and challenging. On
the positive side, they include thousands of generators instituting
programs that successfully prevent spills and accidents and ensure the
safe management of hazardous waste. They also include EPA and the
States developing effective training, compliance and technical
assistance programs that support hazardous waste generators. These
successes, however, have not come without challenges. Stakeholders tell
us that they find the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program to be
very complex. Some generators believe the regulations are confusing.
This may be particularly true for small businesses who often do not
have the in-house capabilities or resources to devote to understanding
and complying with the hazardous waste regulations. In other cases, EPA
has heard that some hazardous waste generator regulations duplicate
other federal regulations. Some stakeholders, conversely, are concerned
that gaps may exist in the current regulations that could impede the
safe management of hazardous waste.
IV. Request for Information
With these concerns in mind, this notice is seeking information
that will allow us to identify what is working effectively with the
current regulatory program for hazardous waste generators, as well as
to identify those aspects of the hazardous waste generator regulatory
program that can be improved. The goals of improving our generator
regulatory program are to foster improved program effectiveness, foster
a pollution prevention stewardship philosophy, and reduce regulatory
compliance costs, where practicable.
Using the comments received in response to this notice, and
information collected in public meetings with stakeholders, EPA,
working with our State partners, intends to determine whether changes
to the hazardous waste generator program are appropriate. If so, we
will then develop a program improvement strategy that focuses on those
actions that could most efficiently and effectively improve the
program. In developing the strategy, we will take into account the
resources necessary and available for implementing the strategy.
Please note that this notice does not in any way change the
existing Federal or State generator regulatory requirements. EPA is
only seeking input on potential programmatic changes to improve the
program. If any regulatory changes are proposed in the future, EPA will
follow the full notice and comment process.
More specifically, EPA seeks input on the following questions that
are organized by program theme. In responding, please identify the
organization you represent (e.g., company, trade association, public
interest or citizen group, State implementing agency, etc.).
1. Program effectiveness. From your perspective, is the existing
RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program meeting its goal of
protecting human health and the environment? Have hazardous waste
accidents been prevented as a result of the hazardous waste generator
regulatory program? Has the generation and disposal of hazardous waste
been minimized or eliminated? Has the management of hazardous waste
become safer as a result of this program? Are the regulations easy to
understand? Are
[[Page 21803]]
they logically organized? Is it clear what actions are needed to comply
with the regulations? Please identify the specific regulations that are
working effectively by regulatory citation and explain the reasons they
are working. (Note: As stated earlier, we are focusing on those
generator regulations in 40 CFR parts 261.5 and 262, and those
management requirements in 40 CFR part 265 referenced in those
generator regulations. We are not addressing issues associated with the
definition of solid waste, hazardous waste identification regulations
associated with listings and characteristics, or export provisions.)
2. Program improvements. From your perspective, what parts of the
RCRA hazardous waste generator regulatory program can be improved and
why? Please identify the specific regulations that are not working
effectively by regulatory citation and explain the reasons they are not
working. For example, is the regulation unclear? Are there multiple
and/or inconsistent interpretations that cause uncertainty? Are you
aware of any Agency interpretations that appear inconsistent with the
regulatory wording? Is it clear what actions are needed to comply? Are
there challenges or barriers that prevent you from complying
effectively or efficiently with the regulations? Are there regulations
that create unnecessary administrative burdens without providing
additional increases in environmental protection? What impact does this
problem have on your organization? Has your organization experienced
any unintended adverse consequences as a result of complying with the
regulations?
What would you recommend as solutions to the problems you
identified for the current regulatory program? How would the program be
improved by addressing these problems? What environmental or economic
benefits would be achieved? For example:
--Would the regulation(s) be more efficient for purposes of compliance?
--Would implementation be easier?
--Would improved environmental protection result?
--Would greater compliance be achieved?
--What mechanism do you recommend for solving the problem you
identified? Rule change? Policy or technical compliance guidance? New
regulatory interpretations? Other (information dissemination, training,
outreach, etc.)?
To help you answer these questions, some areas that have been
identified by stakeholders in the past that could be improved are
listed below:
--Waste accumulation times for both large and small quantity
generators. Should there be different regulatory requirements for
accumulating hazardous wastes other than the current specified time
periods? If so, why?
--Waste generation quantity thresholds and counting rules for LQGs,
SQGs, and CESQGs.
--Episodic generator requirements; i.e., where the volume of hazardous
waste generated in any given month fluctuates, for example due to
equipment maintenance, such that a generator switches back and forth
between generator categories from month to month. What requirements
apply to episodic generators, such as submission of a Biennial Report,
preparation of Contingency Plans, changes in training requirements,
etc.?
--Waste sampling and testing. When is the use of grab sampling more
appropriate than representative sampling? When is the use of analytical
testing more appropriate than use of generator knowledge?
--Waste management standards for LQGs, SQGs and CESQGs. Are the
regulations clear and effective?
--Satellite accumulation. What activities are allowed and what
activities are prohibited within the specific regulatory provisions of
40 CFR 262.34 (c)? What requirements generators must comply with when
moving wastes between a satellite accumulation area and a consolidation
area?
--Generator accumulation and treatment in containers or tanks. What
constitutes a ``closed'' container? What tank standards apply to
generators? What types of treatment are allowed and not allowed in
containers or tanks; clarifying if treatment is allowed in satellite
accumulation areas?
--Closure standards for generator accumulation areas. What requirements
are generators responsible for under 40 CFR 265.111 and 265.114?
--Co-generator requirements. Who must comply with generator
requirements when a hazardous waste is generated by a contractor
working (e.g., providing maintenance services) at the generator's
facility.
--RCRA identification numbers. Should wastes from different locations
be allowed to be consolidated into one reporting and/or identification
number? To what extent should a RCRA ID number be tied to the site
definition?
--Waste minimization. Are there more efficient and effective mechanisms
other than the hazardous waste manifest for generators to certify that
they have a waste minimization program in place? Are there options that
would not violate the RCRA statute?
--Land disposal restriction requirements applicable to generators. Is
applicability clear? What notification requirements apply? What are the
different requirements for listed vs. characteristic wastes?
3. Program redundancy. Are there certain parts of the RCRA
hazardous waste generator regulatory program that overlap, duplicate,
or conflict with other federal rules? Please provide the specific
regulatory citations to both the RCRA regulations and the other federal
regulations and explain how they overlap. If possible, please provide
copies of or citations to the other federal agency guidance, policy
documents, or legal opinions you believe are of concern. How would you
suggest that EPA resolve such conflicts?
4. Program innovations. Realizing that most of the hazardous waste
generator regulatory program was promulgated over 20 years ago, are
there new techniques or technologies that lend themselves to improving
the existing regulatory framework in a more systematic and efficient
manner? Are there new technologies that substantially reduce or
eliminate hazardous waste generation? For instance, many generator
facilities have adopted environmental management systems (EMSs) to
assist them in complying with regulatory programs and as a method to
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental
management operations. How best can EPA facilitate the use of EMSs and
other management techniques as vehicles to improve the hazardous waste
generator program? Similarly, should EPA promote the research and
development of innovative technologies to improve the management of
hazardous waste? If so, in what areas? What would the potential
benefits be to the protection of human health and the environment? What
are the barriers towards implementing innovative processes that address
hazardous waste generation?
5. Performance Track Program. The National Environmental
Performance Track (NEPT) is a voluntary program that recognizes and
rewards facilities for beyond-compliance environmental performance. For
membership in NEPT, facilities must apply and meet several criteria.
These include:
[[Page 21804]]
--Adopting and implementing an environmental management system (EMS),
--Having a record of sustained compliance with environmental
requirements,
--Demonstrating environmental achievements and committing to continued
improvement in particular environmental categories, and
--Engaging the public and quantitatively reporting on their
environmental performance.
NEPT member facilities submit annual reports that summarize their
progress in achieving their chosen commitments in specific
environmental categories. This annual reporting, and additional
activities undertaken by member facilities to engage the public, allows
a high level of Agency scrutiny to continuously assess facility
performance. In addition, facilities are accepted to Performance Track
for a period of three years. To continue membership in the program
after three years, facilities must renew their membership which
includes developing additional, ongoing commitments to environmental
performance improvements.
The Agency believes that because of the stringent qualification
criteria and ongoing performance assessment, NEPT facilities should
benefit from non-regulatory and regulatory flexibility not otherwise
available to other generators of hazardous waste. Therefore, what RCRA
generator requirements would be appropriate for NEPT facilities? Are
there specific hazardous waste generator regulatory requirements that
could be reduced, modified or eliminated for Performance Track member
facilities?
6. State programs. Are there any specific State hazardous waste
regulations, interpretations, or implementation programs that EPA
should review and evaluate for improving and/or clarifying our
generator regulations? If so, please provide copies of or citations to
these regulations, interpretations and programs.
7. Compliance assistance. EPA wants to help generators understand
and comply with the hazardous waste generator regulations. Similarly,
EPA wants to provide the most effective support to States and others
who provide compliance and technical assistance to hazardous waste
generators. To this end, a great deal of compliance assistance
information and links to additional resources are available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance.
EPA is interested in obtaining comment on where we can be most
effective in this area. For example, have you sought assistance from
EPA in the past? Did you receive the assistance you needed? If not, why
not? What types of assistance (information, technical assistance,
training, etc.) could EPA provide that would result in greater
compliance? How can the assistance be provided cost-effectively? What,
if any, barriers to compliance could be removed that would result in
greater compliance?
8. Measuring program performance and environmental results. To
measure performance of the hazardous waste generator program, EPA has
in the past relied on indices such as the number of inspections and
number of generators in compliance with the regulations. From your
perspective, do other or better indices exist that more accurately
measure program performance and environmental results? If so, what are
they and what mechanisms, particularly existing mechanisms, could EPA
use to collect these data? For example, would measuring the number of
hazardous waste accidents occurring annually by facility and nationally
be a good measure? By type of accident; i.e., spill during transport
(either within a facility or between facilities), release from a
leaking container, fire, explosion? By type of waste?
9. Burden reduction. EPA is also seeking ways to reduce the record
keeping and reporting burden on generators, while increasing our
ability to measure environmental results more effectively. Over the
last few years, EPA initiatives have identified several areas, such as
the Biennial Reporting System and the Land Disposal Restrictions
program, where record keeping and reporting requirements can be
potentially reduced and still maintain our ability to measure
environmental results. Are there other areas of the hazardous waste
generator regulatory program where burden reduction can occur and still
allow EPA to measure environmental results? Conversely, are there
specific record keeping and reporting requirements that are redundant,
confusing, or very time-consuming and costly that should be reviewed
and evaluated? Please identify the specific regulations and reasons for
seeking this review.
10. Fostering pollution prevention and recycling. EPA strongly
believes that source reduction and recycling practices constituting
legitimate/beneficial use of secondary materials result in both cost
savings to industry and improved environmental benefits. How can EPA
encourage generators to practice pollution prevention and recycling?
Are there particular industrial sectors, waste streams, or chemicals on
which we should focus our efforts? If so, why? What barriers prevent
you from practicing pollution prevention and recycling? What types of
assistance (research and development, information, technical
assistance, training, incentives, etc.) could EPA provide that would
result in your adopting pollution prevention practices or recycling as
part of your operation?
Similarly, the Agency is seeking information from generators
describing successful pollution prevention and recycling techniques,
practices, or processes that could be shared with and transferred to
other organizations. In particular, EPA would be interested in
facilities identifying the following: industrial sector; a description
of the pollution prevention or recycling process, technology, or
practice implemented; the costs of implementation; cost savings
derived; environmental benefits achieved, such as reduction in air or
water releases, resources conserved or reused, and reduction or
elimination of hazardous waste generated; and point of contact, if
possible.
11. Program Priorities. Realizing that EPA will not be able to
address all stakeholder concerns immediately, please identify the top
three priority projects you would like to see EPA undertake in the near
future. In identifying these priorities, please identify the
environmental and/or economic benefits of undertaking these projects.
Finally, EPA intends to hold meetings with the public to obtain
additional feedback on the above questions. Details about the location
and dates of these meetings will be announced in a Federal Register
notice in the very near future.
Dated: April 15, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-9141 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P