Question of the Week: Determining Generator Status
Since 1986 (51 FR 10175, March 24, 1986), there have been three classes of hazardous waste generator.
- Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) ≤ 100 kg/month; ≤ 1 kg/month acutely hazardous waste [40 CFR 261.5(a)-(j)]
- Small Quantity Generators (SQG) >100, <1,000 kg/month [40 CFR 262.34(d)]
- Large Quantity Generators (LQG) ≥1,000 kg/month; >1 kg/month acutely hazardous waste [40 CFR 262.34(a)]
The answer lies in the deep history of RCRA. When the hazardous waste regulations were first codified in 1980 (51 FR 10175, March 24, 1986), the small quantity generator category did not exist. The EPA estimated that facilities which generated less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month represented less than 10% of all hazardous waste. Since the EPA’s enforcement resources at the time were limited, the Agency simply made all facilities under the 1,000 kg threshold conditionally exempt from regulation, and required that those generators follow the waste management standards in 261.5. See 45 FR 76618, November 19, 1980.
Under such a scheme, the only generators who really needed to worry about counting their waste were facilities that knew they were near 1,000 kilograms but had not yet counted waste specifically enough to be sure which side of 1,000 they fell on, or those whose waste generation totals varied from month to month. In 1980 this group was mostly auto-shops and miscellaneous craft trades. Having only two types of generator rules meant that when the Agency started fielding questions about which wastes to count, or not count, 261.5 was the most appropriate place to put them, right along the CESQG standards.
When EPA added the category of Small Quantity Generator in 1985, they decided not to move the counting rules to a more central location, most likely because of how involved such a regulatory action would be. This does cause some confusion for people who are new to the regulations and expect to find the counting rules in a section of their own; it’s also an easily-avoidable mistake once you know where to look.
Find a Post
The instructor was energetic and made learning fun compared to dry instructors from other training providers.
International Trade Compliance Manager
Very good. I have always appreciated the way Lion Tech develops, presents and provides training and materials.
The course was very informative and presented in a way that was easily understood and remembered. I would recommend this course.
Hazmat Shipping Professional
Lion Technology workshops are amazing!! You always learn so much, and the instructors are fantastic.
Excellent job. Made what is very dry material interesting. Thoroughly explained all topics in easy-to-understand terms.
Lion's online training is more comprehensive, has better slides, and is a superior training experience than what I would get from other trainers.
District Environmental Manager
Our instructor was very dynamic and kept everyone's interest. Hazmat shipping can be a dry, complicated topic but I was engaged the entire time.
Senior Director of EH&S
My experience with Lion classes has always been good. Lion Technology always covers the EPA requirements I must follow.
The instructor was excellent. They knew all of the material without having to read from a notepad or computer.
The instructor was very very informative, helpful, understandable and pleasant. This course answered many questions I had, being new to this industry.
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
Four key considerations to help you maximize the convenience and quality of your experience with online training.