­
1­
BURDEN
REDUCTION
FINAL
RULE
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
VOLUME
I
JUNE
2005
­
2­
­
3­
ORGANIZATION
OF
THIS
DOCUMENT
This
document
includes,
first,
a
list
of
all
the
commenters
on
the
previous
burden
reduction
proposed
rule
and
the
two
notices
of
data
availability.
This
list
is
arranged
according
to
the
docket
number
assigned
each
comment.

Second,
this
document
includes
excerpts
from
the
comments,
grouped
according
to
subject
area
and/
or
CFR
section.
In
some
cases,
we
have
responded
to
each
comment
excerpt
individually.
These
responses
are
identified
by
the
word
"
Response."
In
other
cases,
when
the
comment
excerpts
are
very
similar,
we
have
responded
only
at
the
end
of
the
series
of
comment
excerpts.
These
responses
are
distinguished
by
saying
"
Response
to
Comments."
Therefore,
if
it
appears
that
a
comment
has
no
response,
scroll
down
through
the
series
of
similar
comment
excerpts
and
you'll
find
the
response
at
the
end.
­
4­
Key
to
RCRA
Docket
Commenters
and
Documents
Supporting
the
Following
Burden
Reduction
Federal
Register
Notices
June
18,
1999
NODA
(
64
FR
32859)
January
17,2002
Proposed
Rule
(
67
FR
2518)
October
29,
2003
(
68
FR
61662)

Document
ID:
0001
Company/
Group/
Association:
Page
Count:
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0002
Company/
Group/
Association:
Texas
A&
M
University­
Corpus
Christi
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0003
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utah
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0004
Company/
Group/
Association:
Association
of
Waste
Hazardous
Materials
Transporters
(
AWHMT)
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0005
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lion
Technology,
Inc.
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0006
Company/
Group/
Association:
TXU
Electric
&
Gas,
TXU
SESCO
&
Gas,
TXU
Mining
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0007
Company/
Group/
Association:
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
­
5­
Document
ID:
0008
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group,
Edison
Electric
Institute,
American
Public
Power
Association,
ET
AL.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0009
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Trucking
Association
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0010
Company/
Group/
Association:
Coalition
for
Effective
Environmental
Information
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0011
Company/
Group/
Association:
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0012
Company/
Group/
Association:
Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
(
CRWI)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0013
Company/
Group/
Association:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0014
Company/
Group/
Association:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0015
Company/
Group/
Association:
City
of
Houston,
Department
of
Solid
Waste
Management
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0015
­
6­
Company/
Group/
Association:
City
of
Houston,
Department
of
Solid
Waste
Management
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0016
Company/
Group/
Association:
GLAVO
WELLCOME,
Inc.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0017
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0018
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0019
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0020
Company/
Group/
Association:
MAINE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0021
Company/
Group/
Association:
ONYX
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES,
L.
L.
C.
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0022
Company/
Group/
Association:
UTAH
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY,
DIVISION
OF
SOLID
AND
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
­
7­
Document
ID:
0023
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
Page
Count:
9
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0024
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
Page
Count:
31
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0025
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
Page
Count:
105
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0026
Company/
Group/
Association:
EASTMAN
KODAK
COMPANY
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0027
Company/
Group/
Association:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0028
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0029
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0030
Company/
Group/
Association:
EXXON
CHEMICAL
AMERICAS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
­
8­
Document
ID:
0031
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lead
Industries
Association,
Inc.
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0032
Company/
Group/
Association:
Quebecor
Printing
MBMPHIS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0033
Company/
Group/
Association:
Battery
Council
International
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0034
Company/
Group/
Association:
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0035
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Technology
Council
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0036
Company/
Group/
Association:
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0037
Company/
Group/
Association:
Missouri
Department
of
Natural
Resource
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0038
Company/
Group/
Association:
U.
S.
Department
of
Defense
Page
Count:
17
Media:
Paper
­
9­
Document
ID:
0039
Company/
Group/
Association:
DaimlerChrysler
Corporation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0040
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0041
Company/
Group/
Association:
Safety­
Kleen
Corporation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0042
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0043
Company/
Group/
Association:
United
Technologies
Corporation
Page
Count:
12
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0044
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
21
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0045
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0046
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
­
10­
Document
ID:
0047
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0048
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0049
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
47
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0050
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
38
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0051
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0052
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0053
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0054
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
­
11­
Document
ID:
0055
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0056
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0057
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0058
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0059
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
75
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0060
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0061
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
39
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0062
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
­
12­
Document
ID:
0063
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
20
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0064
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
18
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0065
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0066
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
21
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0067
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0068
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
49
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0069
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
28
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0070
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
­
13­
Document
ID:
0071
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
7
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0072
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
7
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0073
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
15
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0074
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
6
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0075
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
1
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0076
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
4
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0077
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
54
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0078
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
77
Media:
N/
A
­
14­
Document
ID:
0079
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0080
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0081
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0082
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0083
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0084
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0085
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0086
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
­
15­
Document
ID:
0087
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0088
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0089
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0090
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0091
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
0
Document
ID:
0092
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
0
Document
ID:
0093
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0094
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:
­
16­
Document
ID:
0095
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0096
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0097
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0098
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0099
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0100
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0101
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
(
OECA
COMMENT
SUMMARY)
Page
Count:
6
Media:

Document
ID:
0102
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
3
Media:
­
17­
Document
ID:
0103
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
5
Media:

Document
ID:
0104
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
97
Media:

Document
ID:
0105
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
28
Media:

Document
ID:
0106
Company/
Group/
Association:
EQUIVA
SERVICES
LLC
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0107
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0108
Company/
Group/
Association:
Federal
Register
Page
Count:
28
Media:
Electronic
Document
ID:
0110
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0111
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
&
CONSULTING,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
18­
Document
ID:
0112
Company/
Group/
Association:
INDIANA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0113
Company/
Group/
Association:
DIGITAL
AUDIO
DISC
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0114
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0116
Company/
Group/
Association:
BAY
WEST,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0117
Company/
Group/
Association:
INTERNATIONAL
METALS
RECLAMATION
COMPANY,
INC.
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0118
Company/
Group/
Association:
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
30
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0119
Company/
Group/
Association:
INSTITUTE
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0120
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
MAGNOLIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
19­
Document
ID:
0121
Company/
Group/
Association:
DALLAS­
FORT
WORTH
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0122
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0123
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affilitation
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0124
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
MEXICO
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0125
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES
OF
GEORGIA
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0126
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES
OF
GEORGIA
Page
Count:
19
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0127
Company/
Group/
Association:
GATEWAY
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0128
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASFE,
INC.
Page
Count:
128
Media:
Paper
­
20­
Document
ID:
0129
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0130
Company/
Group/
Association:
SHELL
CHEMICAL
LP
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0131
Company/
Group/
Association:
MONTANA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0132
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0133
Company/
Group/
Association:
ALLIANCE
OF
AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0134
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0135
Company/
Group/
Association:
INDIANA
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0136
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
21­
Document
ID:
0137
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0138
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
DOW
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0139
Company/
Group/
Association:
KANSAS
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENT
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0140
Company/
Group/
Association:
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0141
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHICAGO
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0142
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
ACADEMY
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0143
Company/
Group/
Association:
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
AND
SCIENTIFIC
SPECIALTY
BOARDS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0144
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASSOCIATION
OF
STATE
AND
TERRITORIAL
SOLID
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OFFICIALS
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
­
22­
Document
ID:
0145
Company/
Group/
Association:
PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACADEMY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0146
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
ENGLAND
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0147
Company/
Group/
Association:
ARIZONA
THUNDERBIRD
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0148
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICHIGAN
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0149
Company/
Group/
Association:
MIAMI
VALLEY
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0150
Company/
Group/
Association:
KENTUCKIANA
CHAPTER
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0151
Company/
Group/
Association:
QUEEN
CITY
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
23­
Document
ID:
0152
Company/
Group/
Association:
TRI­
STATE
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0153
Company/
Group/
Association:
CONNECTICUT
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0154
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0155
Company/
Group/
Association:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0156
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
ON
EDUCATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0157
Company/
Group/
Association:
UTILITY
SOLID
WASTE
ACTIVITIES
GROUP
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0158
Company/
Group/
Association:
SYNTHETIC
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
11
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0159
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
­
24­
Document
ID:
0160
Company/
Group/
Association:
COMPASS
ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0161
Company/
Group/
Association:
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0162
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTH
STAR
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0163
Company/
Group/
Association:
MID­
SOUTH
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
30
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0164
Company/
Group/
Association:
INTERNATIONAL
TRUCK
AND
ENGINE
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0165
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
16
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0166
Company/
Group/
Association:
SAFETY­
KLEEN
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
12
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0167
Company/
Group/
Association:
GREATER
OZARKS
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
25­
Document
ID:
0168
Company/
Group/
Association:
WILLAMETTE­
COLUMBIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0169
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Page
Count:
44
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0170
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0171
Company/
Group/
Association:
DOMINION
ENERGY,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0172
Company/
Group/
Association:
HAWAII
PACIFIC
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0173
Company/
Group/
Association:
NYPENN
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0174
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
DOW
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0175
Company/
Group/
Association:
H.
G.
SCHLICKER
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
26­
Document
ID:
0176
Company/
Group/
Association:
H.
G.
SCHLICKER
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0177
Company/
Group/
Association:
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0178
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0179
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0180
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHEAST
INDIANA
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0181
Company/
Group/
Association:
IDAHO
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0182
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
BOARD
OF
REGISTRATION
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0183
Company/
Group/
Association:
LUHDORFF
AND
SCALMANINI,
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
5
Media:
PAPER
­
27­
Document
ID:
0184
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0185
Company/
Group/
Association:
LOURIE
CONSULTANTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0186
Company/
Group/
Association:
MALCOLM
PIRNIE
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0187
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
BOARD
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
AND
GEOPHYSICISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0188
Company/
Group/
Association:
PHILADELPHIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0189
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0190
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHEAST
OHIO
CHAPTER
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0191
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL
OF
GEOSCIENCE
ORGANIZATIONS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
­
28­
Document
ID:
0192
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0193
Company/
Group/
Association:
WISCONSIN
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0194
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS,
ARIZONA
SECTION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0195
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0196
Company/
Group/
Association:
VELSICOL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0197
Company/
Group/
Association:
ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
6
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0198
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
PAINT
&
COATINGS
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0199
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
GRAPHIC
ARTS
COALITION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
­
29­
Document
ID:
0200
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
GEOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0201
Company/
Group/
Association:
BP
AMOCO
FABRICS
AND
FIBERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0202
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
Page
Count:
11
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0203
Company/
Group/
Association:
ONYX
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
Page
Count:
5
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0204
Company/
Group/
Association:
COMPUS
SAFETY,
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0205
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF
MANUFACTURERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0206
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
JERSEY
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:

Document
ID:
0207
Company/
Group/
Association:
LION
TECHNOLOGY,
INC.
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
­
30­
Document
ID:
0208
Company/
Group/
Association:
FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
7
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0209
Company/
Group/
Association:
TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0210
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASSOCIATION
OF
AMERICAN
STATE
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0211
Company/
Group/
Association:
TEXAS
NATURAL
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Page
Count:
9
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0212
Company/
Group/
Association:
WORKING
GROUP
ON
COMMUNITY
RIGHT­
TO­
KNOW,
SIERRA
CLUB,
U.
S.
PUBLIC
INTEREST
RESEARCH
GROUP,
ET
AL.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0213
Company/
Group/
Association:
STATE
OF
WASHINGTON
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0214
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
SOCIETY
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0215
Company/
Group/
Association:
BETHLEHEM
STEEL
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
­
31­
Document
ID:
0216
Company/
Group/
Association:
MAINE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
10
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0217
Company/
Group/
Association:
EASTMAN
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0218
Company/
Group/
Association:
OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
20
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0219
Company/
Group/
Association:
ABARTA
OIL
&
GAS
COMPANY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0220
Company/
Group/
Association:
MIDWEST
PLAINS
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0221
Company/
Group/
Association:
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
OF
INDIANA,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0222
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
15
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0223
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
15
Media:
PAPER
­
32­
Document
ID:
0224
Company/
Group/
Association:
COALITION
FOR
RESPONSIBLE
WASTE
INCINERATION
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0225
Company/
Group/
Association:
VERMEER
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0226
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0227
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
YORK
STATE
COUNCIL
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0228
Company/
Group/
Association:
HALEY
&
ALDRICH
OF
NEW
YORK
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0229
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0230
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0231
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
­
33­
Document
ID:
0232
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0233
Company/
Group/
Association:
BOARD
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
AND
GEOPHYSICISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0234
Company/
Group/
Association:
HYDROSYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0235
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0236
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
REGISTRY
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONALS
Page
Count:
765
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0237
Company/
Group/
Association:
ELI
LILLY
AND
COMPANY
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0238
Company/
Group/
Association:
LUHDORFF
&
SCALMANINI
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0239
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTHEAST
TENNESSEE
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
­
34­
Document
ID:
0240
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
Page
Count:
20
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0241
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
JERSEY
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
8
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0242
Company/
Group/
Association:
EPOCH
ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUP
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0243
Company/
Group/
Association:
Kerr­
McGee
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0244
Company/
Group/
Association:
Kimley­
Horn
&
Association
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0245
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0246
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0247
Company/
Group/
Association:
Glover's
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
35­
Document
ID:
0248
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0249
Company/
Group/
Association:
Blasland,
Bouck
&
Lee,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0250
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0251
Company/
Group/
Association:
Envirodyne,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0252
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arcadis
G&
M,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0253
Company/
Group/
Association:
Rew
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0254
Company/
Group/
Association:
L.
S.
Sims
&
Association
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0255
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
Geological
Society
of
Puerto
Rico
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
36­
Document
ID:
0256
Company/
Group/
Association:
Secor
International
Incorporated
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0257
Company/
Group/
Association:
BT2,
Inc
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0258
Company/
Group/
Association:
IT
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0259
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0260
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
International
Association
for
Engineering
Geology
and
the
Environment
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0261
Company/
Group/
Association:
Geologic
New
York,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0262
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Corporation
of
America
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0263
Company/
Group/
Association:
Neil
O.
Anderson
&
Assoc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
37­
Document
ID:
0264
Company/
Group/
Association:
Burns
&
McDonnell
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0265
Company/
Group/
Association:
University
of
Kentucky
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0266
Company/
Group/
Association:
Geo
Services
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0267
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Evaluations,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0268
Company/
Group/
Association:
Envirospec,
Inc
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0269
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0270
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0271
Company/
Group/
Association:
ProTech
Assessment
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
­
38­
Document
ID:
0272
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
273
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
IT
GROUP
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
274
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
275
Company/
Group/
Association:
CLAYTON
GROUP
SERVICES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
276
Company/
Group/
Association:
MILHOLLAND
COMPANY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
277
Company/
Group/
Association:
BAKER
ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
278
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
279
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIROSCIENCE,
INC.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
­
39­
Document
ID:
280
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
FOUNDRY
SOCIETY
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
281
Company/
Group/
Association:
WASTE
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
282
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
SAFETY
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
283
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
284
Company/
Group/
Association:
GREGG
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
285
Company/
Group/
Association:
HYDROSYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
286
Company/
Group/
Association:
OHIO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
287
Company/
Group/
Association:
JOHNS
HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
­
40­
Document
ID:
288
Company/
Group/
Association:
HESS
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
289
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
290
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Page
Count:
18
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
291
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
292
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERS,
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES,
NATIONAL
SOCIETY
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
293
Company/
Group/
Association:
STATE
OF
IDAHO
BOARD
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
AND
PROFESSIONAL
LAND
SURVEYORS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
294
Company/
Group/
Association:
PARC
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
295
Company/
Group/
Association:
VIRGINIA
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES,
P.
C.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
41­
Document
ID:
296
Company/
Group/
Association:
VIRGINIA
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES,
P.
C.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0297
Company/
Group/
Association:
BURNS
&
MCDONNELL
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0298
Company/
Group/
Association:
BURNS
&
MCDONNELL
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0299
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0300
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0301
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0302
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0303
Company/
Group/
Association:
GALLET
&
ASSOCIATES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
­
42­
Document
ID:
0304
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0305
Company/
Group/
Association:
IPC
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0306
Company/
Group/
Association:
REGION
7
BIF
WORK
GROUP
Page
Count:
9
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0307
Company/
Group/
Association:
Bucher,
Willis
&
Radcliff
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0308
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASTM
International
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0309
Company/
Group/
Association:
(
Federal
Register)
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Electronic
Document
ID:
0310
Company/
Group/
Association:
Recycle
Worlds
Consulting
Corporation
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0311
Company/
Group/
Association:
Bower
­
Morner,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
­
43­
Document
ID:
0312
Company/
Group/
Association:
TolTest,
Inc.
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0313
Company/
Group/
Association:
Board
of
Professional
Engineers
&
Professional
Land
Surveyors
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0314
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ball
Corporation
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0315
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Chemistry
Council
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0316
Company/
Group/
Association:
PPG
Industries,
Inc.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0317
Company/
Group/
Association:
Dow
Chemical
Company
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0318
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0319
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
Graphic
Arts
Coalition
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
­
44­
Document
ID:
0320
Company/
Group/
Association:
Westinghouse
Savannah
River
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0321
Company/
Group/
Association:
Academy
of
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
(
ACHMM)
Page
Count:
9
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0322
Company/
Group/
Association:
Institute
of
Professional
Environmental
Practice
Page
Count:
22
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0323
Company/
Group/
Association:
ConocoPhillips
Company
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0324
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASFE
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0325
Company/
Group/
Association:
Steve
Diamond
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0326
Company/
Group/
Association:
Westinghouse
Savannah
River
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0327
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
­
45­
Document
ID:
0328
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Automobile
Dealers
Association
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0329
Company/
Group/
Association:
IPC
­
Association
Connecting
Electronics
Industries
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0330
Company/
Group/
Association:
Giant
Resource
Recovery,
Inc.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0331
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0332
Company/
Group/
Association:
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0333
Company/
Group/
Association:
Onyz
Environmental
Services
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0334
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Service
Industry
(
OESI)
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0335
Company/
Group/
Association:
General
Motors
Corporation
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
­
46­
Document
ID:
0336
Company/
Group/
Association:
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0337
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOCMA
Page
Count:
11
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0338
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0339
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Ready
Mixed
Concrete
Association
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0340
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Ready
Mixed
Concrete
Assoc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0341
Company/
Group/
Association:
Duke
Energy
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0342
Company/
Group/
Association:
Institute
of
Professional
Environmental
Practice
Page
Count:
21
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0343
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Society
of
Professional
Engineer
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
­
47­
Document
ID:
0344
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lockheed
Martin
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0345
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASTSWMO
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0346
Company/
Group/
Association:
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0347
Company/
Group/
Association:
Eastman
Chemical
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0348
Company/
Group/
Association:
Sierra
Club
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0349
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arkansas
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0350
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0351
Company/
Group/
Association:
Patricia
Donohue
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
­
48­
Document
ID:
0352
Company/
Group/
Association:
Los
Alamos
National
Lab
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0353
Company/
Group/
Association:
Short
Bliott
Hendrickson,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0354
Company/
Group/
Association:
Colalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
(
CRWI)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0355
Company/
Group/
Association:
Peabody,
LLP
Page
Count:
11
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0356
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arizona
Board
of
Technical
Registration
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0357
Company/
Group/
Association:
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0358
Company/
Group/
Association:
SQG
Specialist
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0359
Company/
Group/
Association:
New
Hampshire
National
Environmental
Trust
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
­
49­
Document
ID:
0360
Company/
Group/
Association:
Citizens
Leading
for
Environmental
Action
&
Responsibility
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0361
Company/
Group/
Association:
California
Department
of
Toxics
Substances
Control
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
­
50­
Summary
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Final
Rule
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
in
accordance
with
the
goals
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
is
promulgating
changes
to
the
regulatory
requirements
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
hazardous
waste
program
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
these
requirements
impose
on
the
States,
the
public,
and
the
regulated
community.
The
Agency
is
finalizing
­­­­
changes
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations
that
will
eliminate
­­­­­­­­­
burden
hours
per
year.
This
rulemaking
is
the
culmination
of
five
years
worth
of
effort
and
will
result
in
streamlining
our
information
collection
requirements,
ensuring
that
only
the
information
that
is
actually
needed
and
used
to
effectively
implement
the
RCRA
program
is
collected
and
the
goals
of
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
are
retained.
­
51­
General
Comments
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
Proposed
for
Elimination
or
Modification 
Overview
Document
#:
0002
Overall
we
support
the
concept
of
paperwork
reduction
via
electronic
reporting
and
recordkeeping
We
are
currently
involved
in
a
project
with
EPA
Region
VI
on
the
feasibility
of
a
community
based
electronic
incident
contingency
plan.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
support
on
the
topic
of
paperwork
reduction
via
electronic
reporting
and
recordkeeping.
This
area
however
is
not
part
of
the
burden
reduction
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0004
Wherever
paperwork
burden
can
be
reduced
without
unduly
compromising
environmental
protection
it
should
be
supported.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comment.

Document
#:
0008
USWAG
supports
the
reduction
and/
or
elimination
of
RCRA
reporting
and
certification
requirements
for
Generators
and
Treatment,
Storage
and
Disposal
Facilities
(
TSDFs).
The
document
Hazardous
Waste
Reporting
Requirements
provides
a
valuable
starting
point
in
this
analysis
and
demonstrates
the
vast
scope
of
the
exiting
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden.

As
a
threshold
matter,
USWAG
believes
that
it
is
incumbent
upon
EPA
to
identify
a
sound
justification
for
the
continued
imposition
of
any
paperwork
burden.
The
fact
that
a
particular
regulatory
requirement
may
impose
a
relatively
low
degree
of
burden
does
not
relieve
EPA
from
the
task
of
justifying
the
rule,
which
by
its
mere
existence
subjects
companies
to
the
specter
of
potential
enforcement
actions.

In
general,
USWAG
supports
OSW's
proposals
for
reducing
the
burdens
associated
with
compliance
with
RCRA
regulations.
The
Agency
is
to
be
commended
for
pursuing
this
initiative.
The
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
provides
a
useful
framework
for
considering
and
developing
specific
streamlining
modifications.
In
particular,
the
background
documents
demonstrate
unnecessary
burdens
imposed
by
the
regulations
and
argue
strongly
for
change.
The
following
comments
discuss
USWAG's
perspectives
on
specific
opportunities
for
burden
reduction.
USWAG
cautions,
however,
that
regulatory
change
in
the
name
of
burden
reduction
must
indeed
result
in
a
net
reduction
in
burden
rather
than
a
shifting
of
burden
from
one
EPA
­
52­
program
ledger
to
another.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
the
comment
and
agrees
that
burden
reduction
changes
must
result
in
actual
paperwork
savings
for
all
and
not
just
a
shift
from
one
ledger
to
another.

Document
#:
0010
CEEI
believes
that
OSW
has
taken
a
responsible
approach
to
the
issue
of
burden
reduction.
We
are
encouraged
by
several
aspects
of
this
project.
First,
EPA
acknowledged
that
adherence
to
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
necessitated
a
more
aggressive
approach
to
burden
reduction
than
has
occurred
in
the
past.
By
its
own
admission,
EPA
has
not
made
significant
progress
in
meeting
the
PRA
objectives
established
in
44
U.
S.
C.
§
3505(
a),
and
thus
it
is
necessary
for
the
Agency
to
adopt
creative
burden
reduction
strategies
to
satisfy
this
statutory
mandate.

Second,
OSW
did
a
good
job
"
taking
stock"
of
the
paperwork
burdens
associated
with
the
RCRA
program,
preparing
a
comprehensive
assessment
of
the
burden
hours
imposed
by
each
regulatory
requirement.
CEEI
has
been
recommending
since
1996
that
EPA
initiate
such
a
"
taking
stock"
effort.
On
several
occasions,
EPA
officials
have
told
us
that
the
workload
involved
rendered
such
an
exercise
impossible.
OSW
has
shown
that
a
"
taking
stock"
effort
can
be
done
on
one
of
EPA's
most
complex
programs.
CEEI
believes
that
OSW's
experience
provides
a
useful
model
for
the
Agency
on
how
it
might
approach
a
"
taking
stock"
initiative.

Third,
OSW's
approach
recognized
several
important
aspects
of
the
burden
reduction
issue.
For
example,
OSW
evaluated
separately
the
value
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
There
has
been
a
tendency
in
past
regulatory
efforts
to
assume
that
any
record
worth
keeping
is
also
worth
reporting
to
the
Agency
on
a
periodic
basis.
This
is
not
an
appropriate
assumption
because
information
should
only
be
reported
to
EPA
when
there
is
a
clear
use
for
that
information.
In
addition,
OSW
has
also
recognized
the
importance
of
electronic
recordkeeping
as
a
fast­
growing
business
practice.
CEEI
supports
policies
that
permit
companies
to
use
electronic
recordkeeping
systems
to
satisfy
regulatory
requirements.

As
an
overall
matter,
then,
CEEI
urges
OSW
to
proceed
with
the
reforms
outlined
in
the
proposal.
In
particular,
CEEI
favors
the
elimination
of
the
reporting
requirements
for
which
OSW
no
longer
sees
a
compelling
purpose.

CEEI
encourages
OSW
to
continue
with
its
efforts
to
pursue
burden
reduction
opportunities.
For
future
activities,
we
recommend
that
EPA
consider
the
following
suggestions.
OSW
should
expand
its
effort
to
identify
and
rely
upon
information
collection
efforts
conducted
by
other
government
programs.
CEEI
believes
that
some
of
the
best
opportunities
for
burden
reduction
will
come
form
the
elimination
of
overlapping
reporting
requirements
among
different
environmental
programs.
­
53­
Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.

Document
#:
0012
The
Agency
document
"
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Reporting
Requirements"
cited
in
the
NODA
includes
over
325
possible
requirements
for
large
quantity
generators
and/
or
TSDFs.
Of
these
requirements
over
80
Notifications
may
be
required,
over
75
reports,
over
40
certifications,
over
60
variances/
exemptions/
demonstrations/
extensions,
over
45
permits,
and
over
20
plans
are
listed.
The
document
has
a
19
page
table
listing
requirements.
Many
of
these
requirements
are
repeating
certification
and
notifications.
A
reduction
of
the
massive
amount
of
reporting
is
clearly
supportable.
Not
only
does
the
facility
use
vast
resources
and
time
to
comply
with
all
these
requirements,
EPA
has
to
maintain
these
reports
and
certifications.
CRWI
urges
EPA
to
examine
what
effect
on
human
health
and
the
environment
these
requirements
actually
impact
and
adjust
their
requirements
as
appropriate.

CRWI
also
supports
the
concept
of
only
requiring
that
justifiable
electronic
records
be
maintained
at
the
facility.
While
records
may
be
kept
at
other
locations
to
guarantee
safe
retention
of
data,
the
public
and
the
regulators
would
be
able
to
inspect
the
records
at
the
facility
to
ensuring
that
facility
is
meeting
their
permit
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Electronic
reporting
however
is
not
a
part
of
the
burden
reduction
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0015
The
Department
of
Solid
Waste
Management
of
the
City
of
Houston
does
not
have
any
specific
activities
that
fall
under
the
guidelines
or
requirements
of
RCRA,
and
therefore
we
do
not
generate
records
or
have
a
reporting
burden
associated
with
RCRA.
We
do
manage
the
city's
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Program,
but
at
this
time
household
wastes
are
exempt
from
RCRA
regulations.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comment.

Document
#:
0021
The
twin
objectives
of
reducing
40%
of
the
RCRA
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden,
yet
protecting
human
and
environmental
health,
may
not
be
mutually
compatible.
The
40%
burden
reduction
objective
was
not
developed
with
RCRA
program
requirements
in
mind,
and
therefore
its
relationship
to
achieving
relevant
program
objectives
is
highly
questionable.
Through
the
elimination
of
significant
RCRA
requirements,
EPA
loses
the
ability
as
public
advocates
to
monitor
regulated
parties,
increases
the
potential
for
preventative
measures
such
as
inspections
and
accurate
accounting
of
wastes
to
be
overlooked,
and
increases
the
enforcement
burdens
placed
principally
on
state
agencies
who
have
to
oversee
these
facilities.
­
54­
We
note
EPA
identified
11
"
untouchable"
requirements
deemed
critical
to
the
program,
but
did
not
include
among
this
list
groundwater
monitoring,
incident
reports,
and
other
crucial
elements
of
an
effective
RCRA
program
(
see
attachment
for
more
complete
list).

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.

Document
#:
0025
The
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
is
to
be
commended
for
its
thorough
analysis
and
evaluation
of
current
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
associated
with
implementing
the
RCRA.
CMA
strongly
encourages
other
offices
in
EPA
to
respond
to
OSW's
lead
and
perform
similar
analyses
of
their
own
paperwork
burden.
The
Coalition
for
Effective
Environmental
Information
(
CEEI),
of
which
CMA
is
a
member,
has
submitted
comments
on
broader
issues
of
burden
reduction.
As
those
comments
explain,
EPA
has
not
made
significant
progress
implementing
the
burden
reduction
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
OSW's
effort
shows
that
meaningful
assessment
of
burdens
and
possible
reductions
is
feasible
and
should
be
emulated
Agency
wide.
We
support
CEEI's
comments
and
incorporate
them
by
reference.

CMA
is
interested
in
burden
reduction
opportunities
that
the
Agency
believes
are
achievable
within
the
scope
of
the
statutory
requirements,
and
is
willing
to
work
closely
with
the
Agency
to
ensure
that
any
proposed
changes
do
indeed
reduce
the
overall
reporting
burdens.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.

Document
#:
0026
Over
the
past
20
years,
RCRA
regulations
have
been
instituted
that
were
clearly
needed
to
provide
a
framework
for
controlling
hazardous
wastes
in
this
country.
But
at
the
same
time,
tremendous
paperwork
burdens
have
been
placed
primarily
on
the
business
community,
many
of
which
seem
to
have
little
value
in
actually
reducing
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
are
pleased
that
the
Agency,
with
the
prompting
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
is
now
conducting
a
systematic
review
of
these
burdens
and
intends
to
reduce
them
substantially.
We
urge
you
look
at
this
burden
reduction
project
with
open
eyes,
and
not
necessarily
limit
the
scope
of
your
efforts
to
the
40%
mandated
by
the
PRA.
If
the
overall
value
of
the
collected
information
does
not
clearly
exceed
the
cost
of
its
collection,
you
should
not
be
collecting
it.
The
Agency
should
realize
that
the
regulated
community's
resources
are
not
unlimited,
and
that
any
activities
performed
to
comply
with
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
potentially
diverting
resources
from
other
valuable
environmental
activities
like
waste
minimization
or
pollution
prevention.

As
noted
above,
Kodak
believes
that
there
are
many
opportunities
to
reduce
the
burden
presented
by
RCRA
without
endangering
human
health
and
the
environment.
Many
things
have
changed
since
the
early
days
of
RCRA
regulations,
and
it
is
time
to
begin
moving
from
a
set
of
"
command
and
control"
regulations
to
a
more
"
performance­
based"
system.
The
changes
outlined
can
start
to
do
so.
­
55­
Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
EPA
notes
that
we
will
continue
to
look
for
burden
reduction
opportunities.

Document
#:
0027
The
Illinois
EPA
(
IEPA)
applauds
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
excessive
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
in
RCRA.
While
we
concur
with
several
of
the
proposals
which
call
for
increased
electronic
reporting
and
record
keeping,
we
also
found
many
of
the
proposals
to
make
key
RCRA
reporting
or
notification
requirements
"
self­
implementing"
to
be
ill­
advised.
Since
the
only
burden
reduction
to
the
regulated
community
is
postage
and
handling,
savings
if
any
would
be
minimal.
As
an
authorized
State,
we
feel
it
is
necessary
for
facilities
to
notify
us
if
there
is
a
significant
technical
change
at
the
site.
We
fail
to
see
how
EPA
found
these
types
of
proposals
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Most
importantly,
IEPA
was
very
surprised
and
disturbed
to
find
the
Burden
Reduction
Project
contained
proposals
to
modify
technical
aspects
of
the
RCRA
permit
program
which
had
nothing
to
do
with
record
keeping
or
reporting.
The
EPA
Fact
Sheet
and
other
general
descriptions
of
the
project
gave
absolutely
no
indication
that
the
project
contained
proposals
to
allow
generators
to
store
waste
on­
site
for
more
than
90
days
without
a
permit,
replace
technical
descriptions
of
regulated
units
with
certifications,
or
allow
in­
house
engineers
instead
of
independent
P.
E.
s
to
certify
key
documents.
It
is
not
appropriate
to
include
changes
such
as
these,
or
others,
in
a
proposal
which
is
intended
to
address
solely
reporting
and
record
keeping.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
In
the
Burden
Reduction
final
rule
we
are
not
pursuing
many
of
the
changes
the
commenter
felt
were
"
ill­
advised".
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
items
identified
in
the
comment
can
be
found
in
this
comment
response
document.

Document
#:
0034
The
Department
supports
the
Agency's
goal
to
reduce
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
administrative
requirements.
However,
we
are
concerned
that
in
reducing
regulatory
burden,
EPA
may
do
away
with
information
that
the
Department
considers
vital
when
determining
compliance
monitoring
priorities.
Specifically,
the
Department
is
concerned
that
a
reduction
in
key
generator
or
facility
notification
requirements
may
not
allow
us
to
adequately
monitor
activities
such
as
hazardous
waste
treatment
or
may
eliminate
notification
requirements
for
persons
managing
hazardous
waste
under
exemptions
in
RCRA.
The
Department
believes
that
any
reduction
in
our
ability
to
identify
and
track
hazardous
waste
generation,
management,
and
disposal
or
treatment
is
less
protective
or
Oregon's
environment
and
it's
citizens.
Limited
resources
require
the
Department
to
increasingly
rely
on
information
submitted
by
hazardous
waste
facilities
and
generators.
Elimination
of
some
of
this
key
information
would
reduce
the
effectiveness
of
our
RCRA
program.
We
urge
EPA
to
carefully
review
present
data
collection
needs
and
reduce
only
those
requirements
that
serve
little
purpose.
­
56­
Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0037
The
existing
record
keeping
requirements
were
put
in
place
to
ensure
safe
hazardous
waste
generation
and
management
and
to
satisfy
statutory
mandates.
Those
requirements
do
not
appear
particularly
onerous.
However,
some
reporting
requirements
can
probably
be
eliminated
or
revised.
Each
specific
requirement
was
instituted
to
provide
information
to
the
regulating
agency.
Agencies
use
the
information
to
ensure
that
the
public
is
not
threatened
by
a
facility's
hazardous
waste
activities.
Elimination
or
modification
of
specific
reporting
requirements
should
be
done
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
input
from
all
stakeholders.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0041
We
applaud
the
Agency's
efforts
in
reducing
the
administrative
burden
of
the
RCRA
program.
We
believe
that
substantial
savings
in
time
and
money,
both
for
hazardous
waste
generators
and
the
waste
management
industry
can
be
realized
by
taking
advantage
of
state­
of­
the­
art
electronic
recordkeeping
systems
and
the
elimination
of
duplicative,
and,
often
unnecessary,
paperwork.

Safety­
Kleen
has
actively
participated
in
the
Agency's
efforts
to
implement
electronic
reporting
of
hazardous
waste
shipments
via
EDI
and
have
recently
participated
in
EPA's
pilot
test
of
the
manifest
EDI
system.
We
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
Agency
on
this
and
other
burden
reduction
projects.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0043
United
Technologies
Corporation
(
UTC)
is
pleased
to
submit
the
following
comments
on
the
EPA's
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
proposal
associated
with
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act.
UTC
supports
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste's
plans
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
on
states,
the
public
and
regulated
community
associated
with
RCRA
wand
welcomes
the
opportunity
to
contribute
the
attached
comments
to
meet
this
objective.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0106
First,
we
are
supportive
of
the
comments
made
by
both
the
Coalition
for
Effective
Environmental
Information
(
CEEI)
and
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
in
response
to
your
request
for
comment,
and
incorporate
their
comments
by
reference.
­
57­
Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0117
Inmetco
strongly
supports
EPA's
sensible
proposal
to
reduce
those
burdens
consistent
with
assuring
continued
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
IF
the
present
proposal
really
does
eliminate
929,000
hours
of
paperwork
requirements
that
do
not
"
reflect
demonstrated
need,"
as
EPA
estimated
will
be
the
case,
it
will
represent
a
significant
achievement.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0129
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
subject
federal
register
regarding
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Proposed
Rule.
Michigan
supports
the
Proposed
Rule
as
drafted.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0134
DOE
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
reports
the
Agency
proposes
to
eliminate
are
rarely
used
by
regulatory
agencies
and
that
most
of
the
modifications
proposed
by
EPA
will
help
to
streamline
the
administrative
process,
without
reducing
the
level
of
protection
for
human
health
and
the
environment
already
established
by
EPA's
RCRA
regulatory
program.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0138
In
general,
Dow
supports
the
initiative
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
and
appreciates
EPA's
ideas.
Dow
understands
that
records
are
needed
to
demonstrate
to
inspectors
that
activities
were
indeed
completed.
However
much
of
the
existing
burden
involves
continuing
to
prove
that
archives
of
records
can
be
effectively
maintained
for
a
very
long
time.
Dow
is
very
glad
that
EPA
recognizes
that
this
is
an
unproductive
burden
on
the
regulated
community
and
that
eliminating
such
long­
term
recordkeeping
does
not
diminish
from
protection
of
the
environment
or
inhibit
the
ability
of
inspectors
to
ensure
that
required
activities
are
completed.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.

Document
#:
0144
The
Subcommittee
has
reviewed
the
proposed
rule
and
has
several
comments
which
we
would
like
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
to
consider
before
finalizing
this
rule.
In
general,
­
58­
we
would
like
to
commend
EPA
for
taking
on
this
burden
reduction
initiative
and
for
some
of
the
positive
changes
proposed
in
the
rule.
In
particular,
we
are
pleased
to
see
the
proposal
which
provides
flexibility
by
allowing
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
for
ground­
water
detection
monitoring.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0155
The
Illinois
EPA
strongly
supports
the
proposal
to
add
this
rule
to
the
list
of
minor
or
routine
rulemakings.
This
action
would
further
EPA's
encouragement
that
states
amend
their
programs
and
seek
authorization
for
today's
proposal
once
it
becomes
final.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0156
On
behalf
of
its
member
colleges
and
universities,
the
American
Council
on
Education
submits
the
following
comments
on
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Burden
Reduction
Initiative,
Proposed
Rule
for
reducing
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
that
RCRA
imposed
on
the
regulated
community.
ACE
is
the
nation's
coordinating
higher
education
association.
Its
approximately
1,800
members
include
accredited,
degree­
granting
colleges
and
universities
from
all
sectors
of
higher
education
and
other
education
and
education­
related
organizations.
ACE
maintains
both
a
domestic
and
an
international
agenda
and
seeks
to
advance
the
interests
and
goals
of
higher
and
adult
education
in
a
changing
environment
by
providing
leadership
and
advocacy
on
important
issues,
representing
the
views
of
the
higher
and
adult
education
community
to
policy
makers,
and
offering
services
to
its
members.

ACE
supports
EPA's
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
and
believes
that
in
addition
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
proposed
rule,
there
are
a
number
of
other
opportunities
to
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
of
RCRA
without
compromising
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
hope
that
the
scope
of
this
proposal
is
intended
to
be
just
one
step
in
a
continuum
of
activities
by
the
EPA
that
will
reduce
unnecessary
burdens
on
the
regulatory
community
while
ensuring
protection
of
the
environment
and
human
health.

In
conclusion,
ACE
supports
EPA's
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
as
set
forth
in
the
Proposed
Rule
as
a
first
step
in
the
continuing
process
of
building
a
regulatory
program
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
without
creating
unnecessary
burdens
that
undermine
the
efficacy
of
the
program
and
create
expensive
inefficiencies.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0158
Again,
SOCMA
applauds
EPA
for
addressing
these
long­
standing
recordkeeping
and
recording
burdens
and
strongly
urges
EPA
to
finalize
these
changes.
This
is
the
third
time
stakeholders
have
­
59­
commented
on
these
changes 
finalizing
them
would
truly
show
commitment
from
EPA
to
solve
these
unproductive
and
burdensome
paperwork
obligations.

SOCMA
is
pleased
the
EPA
is
taking
steps
to
improve
RCRA
reporting
and
recordkeeping
programs
by
modifying
certain
requirements
found
to
be
redundant
or
unnecessary.
States
and
EPA,
as
well
as
the
regulated
community,
will
all
benefit
from
the
opportunity
to
focus
their
time
and
resources
on
implementation
of
a
more
focused
regulatory
program.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0169
While
we
agree
with
many
of
the
ideas
for
reducing
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements,
some
of
the
proposals
go
too
far
and
would
result
in
unacceptable
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
RCRA
program
has
been
largely
successful
and
is
well
established.
We
believe
that
it
would
be
unwise
to
reduce
the
administrative
burden
if
it
means
sacrificing
important
safeguards,
which
have
proven
effective
in
ensuring
the
sage
handling
of
hazardous
waste.
We
would
welcome
the
opportunity
to
work
with
EPA
to
help
work
on
this
to
replace
the
existing
permit
modification
scheme.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0174
In
general,
Dow
supports
the
initiative
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
and
appreciates
EPA's
ideas.
Dow
understands
that
records
are
needed
to
demonstrate
to
inspectors
that
activities
were
indeed
completed.
However,
much
of
the
existing
burden
involves
continuing
to
prove
that
archives
of
records
can
be
effectively
maintained
for
a
very
long
time.
Dow
is
very
glad
that
EPA
recognizes
that
this
is
an
unproductive
burden
on
the
regulated
community
and
that
eliminating
such
long­
term
recordkeeping
does
not
diminish
from
protection
of
the
environment
or
inhibit
the
ability
of
inspectors
to
ensure
that
required
activities
are
completed.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0197
In
general,
the
Department
supports
the
agency's
efforts
to
reduce
the
unnecessary
burdens
placed
on
the
regulated
community
by
the
RCRA
program.
However,
the
agency
is
proposing
to
eliminate
a
number
of
important
notifications,
particularly
for
releases
exceeding
certain
groundwater
monitoring
parameters
(
e.
g.,
groundwater
protection
standards),
releases
from
landbased
units
exceeding
the
action
leakage
rate,
and
similar
releases.
While
it
is
true
that
this
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
and
would
be
available
to
an
inspector
to
review,
it
is
important
that
notifications
of
this
type
continue
to
occur.
As
state
hazardous
waste
programs
continue
to
struggle
with
budget
constraints
and
declining
federal
grants,
frequency
of
RCRA
inspections
are
declining.
So
there
are
fewer
opportunities
to
review
these
instances.
­
60­
Also,
it
is
important
that
the
regulatory
agencies
be
kept
informed
of
site
activities
such
as
these
in
order
to
be
responsive
to
public
concerns.
Finally,
frequent
instances
such
as
those
described
above
can
be
symptoms
of
design
problems
or
other
technical
inadequacies
that
must
be
detected
early
so
that
immediate
steps
can
be
taken
in
order
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
State
and
federal
agencies
should
be
involved
in
the
process
form
the
beginning.
We
agree
that
there
are
a
number
of
aspects
to
the
notifications,
particularly
for
groundwater
monitoring,
that
are
duplicative
and
should
be
streamlined.

Response:
In
response
to
the
concern
expressed
by
commenters,
EPA
is
today
retaining
in
the
CFR
the
following
regulatory
requirements,
among
others,
that
pertain
to
permitted
facilities:
§
264.90
(
Applicability),
§
264.92(
a)(
2),
§
264.98
(
Detection
monitoring
program),
notifications
under
§
§
264.98(
g)(
1),
(
g)(
5)(
ii),
and
(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii),
§
264.99
(
Compliance
monitoring
program
­
releases
from
solid
waste
management
units),
notifications
under
§
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
and
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
These
changes,
among
others,
were
retained
because
the
States
convinced
us
of
the
necessity
of
these
reports
and
or
notifications.
The
Agency,
however,
is
going
forward
with
other
proposed
changes.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
number
of
inspections
is
decreasing
and
the
commenter
offers
no
proof
that
this
is
actually
the
case.
EPA
believes
that
as
long
as
an
operating
record
is
maintained,
the
information
remains
available
for
review
and
comment.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prevents
appropriate
environmental
officials
from
being
involved
in
the
oversight
of
the
design,
construction,
and
maintenance
of
land­
based
waste
management
units.

Document
#:
0198
EPA
heavily
regulates
the
paint
and
coatings
industry
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
among
other
regulations.
As
many
of
our
members
are
small
businesses
­
over
50%
by
Small
Business
Administration
definition
­
with
limited
staff
and
resources,
they
are
particularly
disadvantaged
by
many
of
the
administrative
requirements
under
these
regulations.
In
addition,
whether
small
or
large,
companies
are
able
to
better
focus
resources
and
activities
on
substantive
environmental
improvements
when
regulatory
administrative
burdens
are
lessened.
Therefore,
NPCA
supports
EPA's
efforts
under
this
rulemaking
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
under
RCRA.
NPCA
believes
that
the
requirements
that
EPA
has
targeted
in
this
rulemaking
are
indeed
redundant
and
in
some
cases
wholly
unnecessary,
and
therefore
should
be
eliminated.
However,
NPCA
also
believes
that
there
are
other
such
administrative
burdens
that
can
and
should
be
reduced.
Therefore,
NPCA
also
urges
EPA
to
continue
in
the
examination
and
evaluation
their
efforts
to
reduce
these
burdens
and
to
pursue
further
reductions
as
suggested
in
our
comments.
EPA,
States
and
Industry
can
only
benefit
from
these
efforts
while
not
failing
to
and
in
most
cases
increasing
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0202
The
DoD
applauds
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
efforts
to
reduce
RCRA
reporting
burdens
and
encourages
EPA
to
move
forward
with
this
proposal.
We
have
some
­
61­
concerns
as
detailed
in
the
attached
comments.
In
particular,
we
are
concerned
over
proposed
reductions
in
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facility
(
TSDF)
operating
record
retention
periods.
We
believe
that
TSDFs
should
continue
to
maintain
operating
records
for
the
operating
for
life
of
the
TSDF
so
that
the
interests
of
the
HW
generator
are
protected
(
see
issues
5,
6,
and
7).
Further,
we
are
concerned
that
the
proposal
inadvertently
expands
OSHA
training
requirements
beyond
that
required
for
emergency
response.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0203
Onyx
does
not
believe
that
40CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
is
a
duplicative
regulation.
Rather,
Onyx
believes
that
this
regulation
places
the
burden
of
determining
if
a
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal
on
the
appropriate
entity,
the
generator.

Furthermore,
Onyx
encourages
EPA
to
further
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
on
generators
and
TSDFs
by
revising
the
LDR
paperwork
requirements
as
referenced
in
268.7(
a)(
4)(
10).
The
information
identified
in
the
"
Generator
Paperwork
Requirements
Table"
in
268.7(
a)(
4)
is
best
communicated
between
the
generator
and
the
TSDF
at
the
time
the
generator
initially
submits
the
waste
information
profile
to
the
TSDF
for
waste
approval.
This
information
must
be
available
to
the
TSDF
during
the
waste
approval
decision
making
process
to
assure
compliance
with
the
facility's
waste
analysis
plan
and
the
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards.
Currently
the
regulations
require
this
LDR
information
to
be
submitted
by
the
generator
with
the
initial
shipment
of
the
waste.
Onyx
experience
has
been
that
this
creates
a
situation
where
the
generator
is
required
to
provide
the
necessary
LDR
information
at
least
twice
­
prior
to
shipment
during
the
waste
approval
process
and
again
upon
initial
shipment.
Instead,
Onyx
recommends
that
EPA
revise
the
LDR
regulations
to
require
the
LDR
notifications
be
submitted
prior
to
initial
acceptance
of
the
waste
at
a
treatment
facility.
This
would
allow
generators
and
TSDFs
to
manage
the
LDR
paperwork
just
once
­
during
the
waste
approval
process.

Response:
Commenters
opposed
to
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.

Furthermore,
the
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.

The
Agency
appreciates
the
additional
information
about
the
LDR
generator
notification
being
submitted
at
least
twice
to
the
TSDF.
We
may
investigate
this
issue
further
in
our
efforts
to
reduce
paperwork
burden.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule
to
make
such
a
­
62­
change.

Document
#:
0207
Lion
agrees
with
EPA's
conclusions
that
the
requirements
proposed
to
be
eliminated
were
either
redundant,
or
simply
not
necessary.
After
presenting
RCRA
training
to
tens
of
thousands
of
people
nationwide,
for
nearly
24
years,
we
do
not
know
of
any
case
where
a
member
of
the
public
requested
copies
of
the
records
proposed
for
elimination
from
a
regulated
entity.
If
these
records
are
not
needed
by
the
Agency
for
program
management
or
enforcement,
their
elimination
is
warranted.

Lion
agrees
with
EPA's
assessments
that
existing
regulations
provide
adequate
substantive
management
requirements
to
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
without
needing
the
records
proposed
for
elimination.

The
most
conspicuous
public
information
need
is
for
data
on
the
kinds
of
hazardous
materials
present,
waste
generated
and
chemicals
released
to
the
environment
in
each
community.
Under
RCRA,
much
of
this
information
is
collected
in
biennial
reports
and
is
provided
to
the
general
public
by
EPA
in
online
reports
and
databases.

The
general
public
also
needs
reliable,
understandable
information
on
environmental
issues
and
risks
and
the
programs
in
place
to
address
them.
EPA's
web
site
and
outreach
brochures
also
include
consideration
information
in
this
area.

Finally,
the
public
needs
to
know
about
major
enforcement
and
permitting
activity
in
their
communities
Again,
EPA
has
a
number
of
outreach
and
public
participation
programs
to
serve
this
need.

The
general
public
does
not
need
information
on
the
details
of
compliance
administration
at
a
given
facility.
This
information
should
not
be
mandated
by
regulation
unless
it
is
needed
by
the
Agency
for
program
management,
oversight
or
enforcement.

Again,
we
believe
that
EPA's
paperwork
reduction
efforts
in
this
rulemaking
represent
a
valuable
and
sensible
effort
to
reduce
unnecessary
burden
on
the
regulated
community
from
outdated
or
unnecessary
regulation.
The
Agency
is
to
be
commended
fro
this
work.
We
encourage
continued
efforts
in
this
regard.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0209
We
wish
to
commend
EPA
for
the
degree
of
beneficial
innovation
and
reform
contained
in
this
proposal.
In
general,
it
appears
that
these
proposals
will
make
it
easier
for
the
regulated
community,
public,
and
regulatory,
agencies
without
compromising
environmental
protection.
­
63­
We
support
efforts
to
improve
environmental
protection
while
reducing
the
regulatory
burdens.
We
also
believe
it
will
make
enforcing
the
regulations
easier.
By
eliminating
regulations
with
limited
or
no
benefit,
it
makes
the
remaining
ones
easier
for
all
parties
to
concentrate
on.
We
fully
support
this
innovation.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
states
that,
"
One
of
the
measures
we
used
[
to
weigh
the
utility
of
information]
was
whether
the
information
was
put
into
a
database
by
regulatory
authorities."
We
strongly
disagree
with
EPA's
use
of
this
criterion.
The
inability
or
unwillingness
of
regulatory
authorities
to
create
and
maintain
effective
information
systems
is
not
a
reason
in
itself,
to
restrict
or
eliminate
the
collection
of
information.
EPA
should
create
adequate
data
systems,
rather
than
eliminating
the
collection
of
information.

Further,
EPA
calls
for
comments
on
whether
specific
information
"
is
stored
in
an
accessible
database".
Again,
we
strongly
object
to
EPA's
use
of
this
criterion.
Lack
of
meaningful,
timely,
and
effective
access
to
information
is
often
reason
that
the
information
is
under­
used
by
the
public
or
by
regulatory
agencies.

The
TNRCC
commends
the
EPA
for
its
efforts
toward
removing
outdated
portions
of
the
regulations
and
attempting
to
eliminate
or
greatly
reduce
non­
essential
paperwork
for
the
regulated
community,
and
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposals.
Most
of
our
comments
are
not
in
opposition
to
proposed
changes,
but
are
made
only
to
suggest
changes
in
specific
proposals
to
assist
in
complying
with
state
statutes
or
the
need
for
some
reporting
of
releases
to
generate
state­
mandated
inventories
of
releases
to
groundwater.
The
following
are
comments
which
detail
the
TNRCC's
observations
on
the
proposed
rule
changes.

EPA's
proposal
defers
any
decision
on
suggested
electronic
reporting
and
recordkeeping
changes,
arguing
that
the
agency's
Cross­
Media
Electronic
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Rule
will
address
such
issue
(
CMERRR).
However
EPA's
reliance
on
the
CMERRR
process
is
misplaced
for
two
reasons.
First,
EPA's
officials
heading
the
CMERRR
initiative
told
the
commenters
that
EPA
might
never
finalize
the
CMERRR
initiative.
Second,
CMERRR
is
only
an
electronic
reporting
initiative.
This
is
distinct
from
our
suggestion
that
the
agency
undertake
a
proactive
burden
reduction
initiative
based
around
intelligent
reporting
software,
and
other
reforms
noted
above.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0213
Staff
from
the
Department
of
Ecology
have
reviewed
the
proposed
rule
and
have
several
comments
which
we
would
like
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
consider
before
finalizing
this
rule.
In
general,
we
would
like
to
commend
EPA
for
taking
on
this
burden
reduction
initiative
and
for
some
of
the
positive
changes
proposed
in
the
rule.
In
particular,
we
­
64­
are
pleased
to
see
the
proposal
which
provides
flexibility
by
allowing
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
for
ground­
water
detection
monitoring.
Specific
comments
regarding
proposals
that
we
are
concerned
about
and
those
that
we
support
are
enclosed.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments.

Document
#:
0215
I
am
one
of
about
25
people
who
work
full
time
at
Bethlehem
Steel
on
environmental
performance,
and
I
have
particular
responsibility
in
the
area
of
RCRA
compliance
at
Bethlehem's
Burns
Harbor
Division
in
Northwest
Indiana.
I
have
more
than
20
years
of
RCRA
field
experience
and
am
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM).
I
personally
appreciate
the
agency's
goal
"
to
reduce
the
burden
imposed
by
our
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements"
by
"
47%
from
1995"
levels
and
strongly
support
the
agency's
desire
for
"
information
requirements
to
reflect
demonstrated
needs".
My
company,
Bethlehem
Steel
Corporation,
strongly
supports
the
agency's
proposed
rulemaking
with
the
following
qualifications,
Bethlehem
supports
the
agency's
action
in
reducing
the
reporting
and
paperwork
burdens,
and
it
encourages
further
work
by
the
agency
in
this
area.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments
and
continues
to
explore
new
burden
reduction
opportunities.

Document
#:
0216
The
State
of
Maine
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
would
like
to
offer
comment
on
this
proposed
rulemaking.
We
appreciate
the
need
to
revisit
the
regulatory
demands
of
the
various
reporting
requirements
after
twenty
years
of
RCRA's
operating
history.
We
agree
with
eliminating
any
duplicative
reporting,
whenever
possible.
However,
we
are
concerned
about
the
proposal
for
three
principal
reasons.

First,
some
of
these
proposed
changes
incorrectly
assume
facility
inspections
will
compensate
for
timely
submissions
of
important
reports
or
plans
or
regulatory
agencies.
The
assumption
is
incorrect
due
to
the
varying
frequency
of
inspections
and
the
huge
amount
of
material
that
would
be
necessary
to
review
during
an
inspection,
a
significant
portion
of
which
may
be
outside
an
inspector's
area
of
expertise.

Second,
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
a
variety
of
release
or
potential
release
notifications
to
the
regulatory
agencies
because
EPA
suggests
permit
modifications
or
other
applications
submitted
months
later
makes
such
notification
redundant.
However,
in
such
cases,
time
is
of
the
essence.
Knowledge
of
releases
or
potential
releases
as
soon
as
possible
is
critical
for
both
determining
an
appropriate
agency
response
and
communicating
to
the
public
at
large.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.
­
65­
Document
#:
0217
Eastman
thanks
the
Agency
for
the
resources
committed
to
developing
this
proposed
rule.
It
definitely
has
the
potential
to
reduce
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
at
our
facilities.
We
reiterate,
however,
that
we
think
the
Agency's
aggregate
estimate
of
reduced
burden
of
929,000
hours
and
$
120
million
is
vastly
overestimated
in
the
areas
of
LDR
and
in
keeping
records
on­
site
rather
than
submitting
them
to
the
Agency.
We
encourage
the
Agency
to
look
for
further
opportunities
within
the
operating
record
requirements
at
§
264.73
and
§
265.73,
and
we
respectfully
request
clarifications
of
some
of
the
changes
made
to
these
sections
as
described
above.

Response:
After
further
deliberation,
the
Agency
agrees
that
estimate
of
reduced
burden
of
929,000
hours
and
$
120
million
was
overestimated
in
the
areas
of
LDR
and
in
keeping
records
on­
site
rather
than
submitting
them
to
the
Agency.
Commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0218
In
general,
the
DEQ
supports
the
concept
of
reducing
unnecessary
or
redundant
reporting
burdens
on
the
hazardous
waste
management
community.
However,
the
reductions
proposed
should
be
fully
and
fairly
evaluated
to
ensure
that
a
modification
or
elimination
of
a
given
reporting
requirement
does
not
reduce
the
ability
of
the
regulatory
agencies
to
be
adequately
informed
of
unexpected
developments
at
waste
handling
sites.
Hopefully,
reducing
unnecessary
reporting
will
help
other
ongoing
efforts
to
ensure
collection
of
that
information
which
is
truly
needed
by
regulatory
agencies
and
the
public.

While
it
is
noted
that
the
proposed
rules
are
"
less
stringent"
than
existing
rules
(
and
thus
are
not
required
to
be
adopted
by
authorized
states),
Oklahoma
and
many
other
states
adopt
the
federal
rules
in
total,
to
reduce
confusion
and
duplication
of
requirements
for
the
regulated
industries.
As
a
practical
consequence,
then,
the
length
and
complexity
of
site
inspections
will
be
significantly
increased.

Characterization
and
management
of
waste
on
the
Hanford
Site
is
extremely
difficult
primarily
due
to
the
lack
of
records
kept
during
weapons
production.
While
it
is
recognized
that
characterization
and
management
is
also
difficult
due
to
the
technology
and
funding
limitations,
­
66­
the
fundamental
RCRA
requirements
to
properly
designate
waste
are
continually
at
issue
directly
due
to
the
lack
of
recordkeeping.
The
Federal
Register
appears
to
conclude
that
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
RCRA
facilities
are
simply
an
undue
and/
or
unnecessary
burden.
This
is
an
inaccurate
and
unfair
conclusion
that
appears
to
be
made
without
a
supporting
basis.
At
the
Hanford
Site,
it
could
easily
be
argued
that
had
better
waste
inventory
records
been
kept,
the
nation
would
not
currently
be
spending
the
millions
of
dollars
per
year
to
characterize
the
wastes
for
safe
waste
management
at
the
Hanford
Site.
The
proposed
rule
changes
will
not
aid
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology's
ability
to
perform
our
jobs.
It
is
requested
that
this
concern
be
evaluated
and
considered
in
context
of
implementing
the
proposed
rule
changes.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0222
Overall,
ACC
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
recordkeeping,
reporting,
and
administrative
burdens.
We
acknowledge
that
certain
records
are
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
requirements
have
been
met
and
that
activities
have
been
completed.
ACC
is
encouraged
by
EPA's
efforts
to
eliminate
and
reduce
unnecessary
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
on
our
industry.
We
have
reviewed
the
proposed
rule
and
are
responding
to
the
Agency's
request
for
comment
on
certain
aspects
of
the
rule.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0224
In
general,
CRWI
supports
the
burden
reduction
initiative
proposed
by
EPA.
CRWI
has
a
few
suggestions
that
we
think
will
improve
the
rule.
These
primarily
include
increasing
the
number
of
places
where
a
3­
year
record
retention
requirement
is
allowed.
These
are
listed
below.
We
also
urge
the
Agency
to
allow
these
recordkeeping
requirements
to
apply
to
all
RCRA
facilities,
either
as
a
part
of
the
preamble
discussion
or
as
a
part
of
policy
initiatives.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0226
API
actively
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
implement
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
PRA)
requiring
the
federal
government
to
reduce
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
states
and
the
public.
API
is
generally
supportive
of
this
proposal
yet
concurs
with
the
clarification
and
consistency
comments
provided
to
the
docket
by
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC).

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.
­
67­
Document
#:
0237
Eli
Lilly
and
Company
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
the
proposed
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.
Lilly
operates
three
facilities
which
holds
Part
B
permits
under
RCRA,
including
permitted
RCRA
incineration
units,
and
also
has
several
sites
which
are
regulated
as
RCRA
generators.
Lilly
strongly
supports
the
agency's
initiative
to
reduce
the
burden
of
RCRA
regulations
on
regulated
facilities,
and
believes
that
the
burden
reduction
initiatives
can
be
implemented
without
compromising
environmental
protection
in
any
way.
Lilly
agrees
with
the
agency's
statements
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
that
there
is
now
over
20
years
of
experience
with
operating
RCRA
facilities
in
a
safe
and
compliant
manner,
and
that
some
of
the
"
unnecessary
bureaucratic
controls"
can
be
eliminated.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0241
The
Division
of
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
supports
the
USEPA's
goal
established
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
to
reduce
the
burden
imposed
by
the
RCRA
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
so
long
as
the
burden
to
be
reduced
is
truly
a
reporting
and
recordkeeping
(
paperwork)
burden
and
does
not
significantly
reduce
a
facility's
accountability
and
responsibility
to
carry
out
the
basic
activities
specified
in
the
regulations
that
we
feel
are
important
to
remain
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
are
concerned
that
some
of
the
regulatory
changes
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
will
result
in
a
reduction
of
this
accountability
and
responsibility.

Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his/
her
comments.
Specific
comment
responses
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
can
be
found,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document.

Document
#:
0280
Unfortunately,
only
a
small
percentage
of
the
RCRA
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
proposed
for
elimination
or
modification
by
US
EPA
are
directly
applicable
to
generators.
Specifically,
less
than
20
or
120
regulations
that
will
be
addressed
by
US
EPA
as
part
of
the
rulemaking
deal
directly
with
generators.

We
believe
that
the
most
common
RCRA
burden
imposed
on
the
regulated
community,
authorized
States,
and
US
EPA
Regional
Offices
deals
with
hazardous
waste
generator
requirements.
We
acknowledge
the
statements
made
by
US
EPA
related
to
"
Other
Burden
Reduction
Proposals"
that
address
hazardous
waste
generator
requirements.

AFS
believes
that
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
is
clearly
a
benefit
to
our
industry.
AFS
commends
the
US
EPA
for
evaluating
the
RCRA
program
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
posed
on
American
businesses.
We
also
recognize
the
agency's
significant
efforts
and
accomplishments
to
date
in
reducing
the
significant
paperwork
burden
posed
on
our
­
68­
member
foundries
that
operate
under
RCRA
requirements.
However,
AFS
believes
that
the
vast
majority
of
our
membership
will
not
benefit
substantially
from
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
proposal.

This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
few
of
the
proposals
to
reduce
the
RCRA
burdens
in
the
aforementioned
rule
are
targeted
at
hazardous
waste
generators.
The
vast
majority
of
US
foundries
are
not
hazardous
waste
generators.
There
are
some
foundries
that
are.
Of
these
very
few
operate
as
TSDFs.
This
fact
is
evident
in
the
US
EPA's
Metal
Casting
Sector
Notebook
that
identified
only
a
fraction
of
the
industry
establishments
that
are
regulated
as
TSDFs
under
RCRA.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0286
We
support
efforts
to
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
on
the
states,
member
of
the
regulated
community
and
private
citizens.
However,
after
a
review
of
the
proposed
changes
and
your
explanation
of
how
you
estimated
burden,
we
are
concerned
that
you
did
not
take
into
account
how
this
proposal
transfers
the
regulatory
burden
form
the
regulated
community
to
the
states
and
the
public.
This
transfer
may
occur
in
cases
where
you
eliminated
the
requirement
to
submit
information
to
the
regulatory
agency
but
retained
the
requirement
to
obtain
and
keep
that
information
on
file.
In
general,
it
appears
as
though
you
did
not
consider
the
time
and
resources
a
state
regulatory
agency
will
need
to
conduct
inspections
or
the
increased
burden
on
the
public
to
obtain
such
information.

Response:
Upon
further
deliberation
on
many
of
the
changes
that
were
identified
in
the
proposed
rule
did
in
fact
result
in
an
increased
burden
to
the
States.
In
this
final
rule
we
have
decided
not
to
go
forward
with
many
of
the
proposed
changes.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
specific
sections,
by
subject
area,
in
this
document
for
a
complete
discussion
of
our
rationale.

Document
#:
0310
I
have
personal
information
of
one
such
facility
in
Wisconsin,
for
example,
and
nothing
has
been
done
about
the
fact
that
four
of
its
collection
lines
are
clogged.
The
owner
is
unable
to
clean
them
out
by
routine
maintenance,
has
refused
to
proceed
to
either
determine
the
extent
of
the
adverse
impacts
on
the
hydraulic
head,
and,
needless
to
say,
has
not
expended
the
millions
of
dollars
that
would
be
necessary
to
repair
the
lines.

Yet,
nothing
has
been
done
to
resolve
this
matter,
and
I
strongly
suspect
that
EPA
is
completely
unaware
that
the
problem
even
exists
due
to
the
woefully
inadequate
recordkeeping
requirements.

We
formally
request
the
EPA
to
state
where
is
has
established
a
process
to
systematically
determine
where
recordkeeping
and
reporting
deficiencies
exist,
as
a
counterpart
to
where
they
are
too
burdensome.
Beyond
the
compelling
case
for
a
balanced
approach
on
the
face
of
the
matter,
RCRA's
peremptory
legislative
mandates
to
the
agency
to
insure
that
no
harm
to
health
or
the
environment
follows
from
land
disposal
of
solid
waste
would
seem
to
permit
no
other
course.
­
69­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0323
COPC
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
states
and
the
public.
COPC
agrees
that
requiring
regulated
facilities
to
collect
and
submit
information
that
is
seldom
or
never
used
is
wasteful
and
diverts
resources
from
valueadded
activities
such
as
pollution
prevention
or
waste
minimization
programs
to
burdensome
and
unnecessary
data
collection
and
paperwork
efforts.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0332
Same
comments
as
Document
#:
0158.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Inspections,
General
­
70­
Document
#:
0004
Time
Period
for
Self
Inspections
Inspection
is
a
necessary
part
of
regulatory
compliance.
We
agree,
however,
that
"
one­
size­
fitsall
inspection
standards
may
be
overly
restrictive
and
not
recognize
technology
that
some
companies
may
invest
in
or
other
performance
measures
that
may
reduce
the
need
for
physical
inspection.
Nevertheless,
without
information
about
what
standards
EPA
may
employ
to
allow
reduced
inspection
schedules
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
we
are
not
in
a
position
to
evaluate
the
burden
reducing
aspects
of
this
initiative.
Additionally,
we
note
that
states
can
be
more
stringent
than
EPA
and
allow
no
relief
from
current
inspection
frequency
requirements.

Document
#:
0007
SOCMA
Supports
Modifying
the
Time
Periods
Between
Self­
Inspections
SOCMA
supports
the
Agency's
consideration
of
options
for
increasing
the
time
periods
between
required
self­
inspections
under
the
hazardous
waste
regulations.
There
is
a
range
of
circumstances
under
which
such
time
periods
could
be
lengthen
without
any
significant
decrease
in
environmental
protection.
For
example,
in
many
instances,
hazardous
waste
accumulation
and
storage
areas
are
located
in
areas
that
are
frequented
by
operating
personnel
on
an
8­
hour
basis,
if
not
on
a
24­
hour
basis.
Thus,
these
areas
are
routinely
under
visual
review
and
oversight
and
do
not
require
as
frequent
formal
inspections.

SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
focus
in
particular
on
options
for
reducing
the
daily
inspection
requirements
established
for
tanks
under
40
CFR
265.195.
The
requirement
to
inspect
the
items
listed
in
265.195(
a)
and
(
b)
on
a
daily
basis
and
to
enter
the
inspection
in
an
operating
log
is
labor
is
labor
intensive
and,
in
most
instances,
not
needed
to
assure
adequate
integrity
of
the
tank
and
operating
devices.

SOCMA
suggests
that
EPA
develop
a
self­
implementing
option
that
would
enable
a
facility
to
engage
in
less
frequent
inspections
based
upon
the
performance
of
the
equipment
and
areas
being
inspected.
For
example,
if
a
facility
had
conducted
daily
inspections
of
a
tank
for
an
initial
period
without
any
releases
or
noncompliance
being
identified,
the
facility
would
have
the
option
of
placing
a
certification
to
that
effect
in
the
facility
inspection
log
and
shifting
to
either
a
weekly
or
monthly
inspection
frequency
for
that
tank.
Under
this
approach,
the
facility
could
continue
on
the
less
frequent
inspection
schedule
so
long
as
there
were
no
release
or
incident
of
noncompliance
related
to
that
tank.

A
similar
self­
implementing
program
could
be
established
for
inspection
of
container
storage
areas.
Presently,
the
regulations
require
a
weekly
inspection
and
logging
of
results
for
container
storage
areas.
If
no
problems
have
been
identified
at
a
container
storage
area
after
an
initial
period,
the
facility
should
have
the
option
of
entering
an
appropriate
certification
in
the
inspection
log
and
shifting
to
a
less
frequent
inspection
schedule.
­
71­
SOCMA
believes
that
this
type
of
shift
in
inspection
schedule
requirements
needs
to
be
selfimplementing
in
order
to
be
effective.
SOCMA
is
concerned
that
any
type
of
more
formal
waiver
requirement
or
case­
by­
case
assessment
would
be
so
cumbersome
as
to
preclude
either
regulators
or
industry
from
actually
being
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
option.
The
time
required
to
submit
additional
documentation
and
obtain
approval
to
shift
inspection
schedules
would
effectively
undermine
the
very
burden
reduction
goal
that
EPA
is
seeking
to
achieve.

SOCMA
believes
that
the
self­
implementing
shift
in
inspection
schedules
is
a
logical
and
feasible
step
that
could
significantly
reduce
the
administrative
burden
of
compliance
without
reducing
substantive
compliance.
One
appealing
aspect
of
this
approach
is
its
self­
reinforcing
nature.
This
option
would
provide
an
immediate
and
positive
result
(
decreased
inspection
requirements)
to
the
individual
facility
personnel
most
immediately
responsible
for
routine
oversight,
inspection
and
maintenance
of
the
hazardous
waste
tanks
and
containers.
By
effectively
maintaining
the
safety
and
integrity
of
tanks
and
container
storage
areas
for
an
initial
period,
these
facility
personnel
would
be
eligible
to
shift
to
a
less
frequent
formal
inspection
schedule,
thus
reducing
the
time
required
for
more
frequent
inspection
log
entries.

Finally,
the
ability
of
a
facility
to
certify
and
then
implement
a
reduced
inspection
schedule
on
its
own
would
be
particularly
important
to
those
facilities
that
store
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
under
the
90­
day
provision
set
out
in
40
CFR
262.34.
Many
SOCMA
members
specifically
manage
hazardous
wastes
in
tanks
and
containers
under
the
terms
of
the
90­
day
storage
option
in
order
to
avoid
the
need
to
obtain
a
hazardous
waste
permit.
Thus,
the
option
suggested
by
EPA
in
the
Federal
Register
preamble
of
allowing
inspections
schedules
to
be
adjusted
in
the
context
of
permit
proceeding
would
be
of
no
benefit
to
these
SOCMA
members.

Document
#:
0008
EPA
should
pursue
its
burden
reduction
proposal
to
decrease
the
frequency
of
mandatory
selfinspections
for
generators
and
TSDFs.
EPA
should
focus
on
results
rather
than
process
and
eliminate
prescriptive
inspection
requirements
that
do
not
necessarily
improve
performance,
but
create
paperwork
compliance
pitfalls.
Environmental
managers
should
be
provided
the
discretion
to
inspect
units
upon
any
reasonable
and
protective
schedule
that
they
determine
best
reflects
the
risks
associated
with
their
waste
management
practices.

EPA
should
provide
this
flexibility
in
the
regulations
by
establishing
the
option
for
facilities
to
seek
approval
of
an
alternate
inspection
schedule.
However,
the
pursuit
of
such
an
alternate
approval
must
not
become
a
regulatory
burden
in
itself.
Therefore,
an
alternate
inspection
schedule
should
be
deemed
approved
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days.
Once
approved,
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
should
remain
available
indefinitely,
unless
there
is
a
violation
that
EPA
determines
is
directly
related
to
the
alternate
schedule.

Document
#:
0009
Inspection
Requirements.
The
Agency
has
made
an
important
point
in
recognizing
that
not
all
­
72­
RCRA
facilities
pose
the
same
risk
to
the
environment.
Variabilities
in
risk
posed
by
a
facility
include
the
nature
and
quantity
of
waste
stored
on­
site,
storage
location,
and
overall
level
of
facility
management.
While
different
inspection
frequencies
could
be
assigned
based
on
these
factors,
this
might
result
in
an
overly
complex
system.
The
proposed
system
where
facilities
without
a
history
of
problems
are
required
to
inspect
less
frequently
than
those
facilities
with
a
history
of
problems
would
reduce
the
burden
of
compliance
without
resulting
in
likely
impacts
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0011
Should
we
lengthen
the
periods
between
facility
self­
inspections?
Although
it
would
not
be
objectionable
to
change
the
frequency
of
required
inspections,
we
oppose
changing
or
eliminating
inspection
documentation.
An
appropriate
frequency
may
not
be
daily
or
weekly,
but
each
facility
should
be
required
to
have
the
same
inspection
schedules.
Allowing
variances
or
waivers
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
would
be
confusing
and
difficult
to
regulate.

EPA
should
further
investigate
which
inspection
time
frames
should
be
adjusted.
This
should
be
done
through
an
analysis
of
the
compliance
history
of
those
areas
in
RCRIS.

Document
#:
0012
Should
we
lengthen
the
periods
between
facility
self­
inspections?
CRWI
believes
that
there
are
certain
inspection
schedules
that
should
continue
on
a
periodic
basis
but
there
are
others
that
can
flexible
based
on
the
results
of
the
inspections.
When
RCRA
was
enacted,
an
inspection
schedule
was
developed
based
upon
limited
information.
Many
facilities
have
been
in
existence
for
over
20
years
and
that
experience
in
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment
should
be
used
to
develop
more
flexible
inspection
schedules.
CRWI
supports
the
concept
that
where
a
series
of
inspections
fail
to
show
any
concerns,
the
inspection
period
should
be
lengthened.
Should
problems
occur,
the
schedule
can
be
written
in
a
manner
that
appropriate
adjustments
to
the
frequency
of
inspections
can
be
made.

In
addition,
technological
advances
in
monitoring
equipment
have
made
some
daily
inspections
unnecessary.
For
example,
inspecting
RCRA
waste
tanks
daily
for
spills
or
leaks
can
be
eliminated
by
installing
continuous
LEL
monitors
which
would
indicate
any
spill
or
leak
of
a
volatile
material.
At
this
time,
the
incentive
to
install
monitors
is
minimal
because
of
the
daily
inspection
requirement.
If
a
simple
procedure,
such
as
noting
the
justification
in
operating
record,
were
available,
many
facilities
would
consider
using
continuous
monitors
instead
of
daily
inspections.

Document
#:
0013
Inspections
are
required
for
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
and
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
The
MDEQ
agrees
that
establishing
a
variable
inspection
schedule,
based
on
the
control
in
place
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
is
appropriate
for
a
TSDF
as
specified
in
the
facility's
permit.
But
for
interim
status
TSDFs
and
LGQs,
the
frequency
should
not
be
altered
because
there
is
no
permit
specifying
that
the
"
controls
in
place"
must
stay
in
operation
to
­
73­
maintain
the
variable
schedule.
A
leak
from
a
small
tank
can
cause
as
much
impact
to
human
health
and
the
environment
as
a
leak
from
a
large
tank.
Conducting
inspections
is
a
relatively
small
burden
compared
to
the
high
level
of
preventive
benefit
obtained.
Allowing
a
facility
that
conducts
an
inspections
also
defeats
the
purpose
of
a
preventative
program.
It
assumes
that
all
leaks
are
based
on
man­
made
errors
that
can
be
more
readily
controlled
instead
of
an
equal
proportion
being
mechanical
and/
or
acts
of
God,
which
cannot
be
controlled.
This
type
of
leak
would
ve
missed
for
a
longer
period
of
time
with
a
reduced
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0016
Glaxo
Wellcome
supports
a
change
in
self­
inspection
frequencies.
Many
owner/
operators,
including
Glaxo
Wellcome
have
implemented
waste
storage
improvements
such
as
stainless
steel
totes
for
container
storage
areas,
which
lessen
the
chance
of
corrosion,
and
which
provide
external
sight
glasses
to
check
liquid
levels.
The
tank
systems
in
use
are
housed
inside,
and
are
fully­
contained
including
piping.
The
entire
tank
storage
system
is
alarmed.
The
integrity
and
safety
of
these
systems
would
not
be
compromised
by
reducing
the
daily
or
weekly
inspections
to
weekly
or
biweekly.
In
some
instances,
instrumentation
in
place
can
be
modified
to
run
a
quantity
control
check
on
a
daily
basis.

Document
#:
0020
Inspections
are
an
effective
means
to
ensure
that
containment
structures
and
associated
equipment
are
in
good
shape
and
will
prevent
discharges
to
the
environment.
Routine
inspections
and
proper
maintenance
ensure
a
safer
and
more
efficient
work
environment.
These
practices
translate
to
greater
environmental
protection.
At
facilities
where
routine
inspections
are
not
conducted,
environmental
degradation
is
more
likely
to
occur.
The
Department
believes
that
inspections
are
a
critical
part
of
the
prevention
portion
of
the
RCRA
program.
Absent
compelling
evidence
the
inspections
are
unnecessary
or
duplicative,
the
current
rules
should
be
maintained.
Moreover,
the
Department
would
not
favor
a
phased
schedule
if
no
problems
were
detected
that
would
gradually
be
lengthened
from
daily
to
weekly
to
biweekly.
As
tanks
and
containers
and
their
associated
containment
structures
age,
their
integrity
declines,
making
a
discharge
more
likely,
not
less
In
short,
the
lack
of
a
problem
in
year
5
is
not
indicative
of
potential
equipment
failure
in
year
10.

EPA
proposes
Change
2
to
eliminate
reporting
hazardous
wastes
managed
in
units
that
are
exempt
from
permitting.
The
Department
strongly
disagrees
with
this
proposal.
Wastes
managed
in
units
exempt
from
RCRA
permitting
should
be
reported
in
BRS,
particularly
where
the
exemptions
are
not
the
result
of
a
risk
analysis,
but
are
instead
the
result
of
"
temporary"
or
deferred
regulatory
decisions
unrelated
to
the
potential
risks
posed
by
the
units
or
activities
(
i.
e.,
"
temporary"
wastewater
treatment
unit
exclusion
promulgated
in
1980,
exemption
for
recycling
unit
deferred
in
1985,
exemption
for
K061
derived
fertilizers).
Moreover,
the
reporting
on
some
of
these
exemptions
should
not
be
an
optional
item,
but
an
integral
part
of
EPA's
data
collection
efforts.
The
exempt
units
and
activities
are
the
very
items
which
EPA
and
the
States
need
more
information
on.
How
can
these
activities
ever
be
determined
to
be
handled
properly
or
improperly
if
inadequate
information
is
available
on
them?
Elimination
leaves
the
mistaken
impression
that
these
activities
are
always
benign.
To
the
extent
burden
reductions
are
sought
in
the
BRS
­
74­
reporting
scheme,
the
Department
recommends
utilizing
the
turn
around
document
concept
mentioned
above.

Document
#:
0021
Onyx
does
not
support
lengthening
inspection
schedules
through
specific
permit
changes
or
variances.
These
requirements
have
been
in
place
for
nearly
20
years
and
in
Onyx's
experience
they
have
not
been
unduely
burdensome.

Document
#:
0025
Reduce
Reporting
Requirements
­­
We
support
a
move
to
allowing
data
to
be
stored
at
the
reporting
facility
 
electronically
or
in
hard
copy
 
and
made
available
for
inspection
rather
than
being
reported
to
state
and
federal
agencies.
All
data
is
not
equally
important
for
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
OSW's
current
notice
provides
a
reasonable
rationale
for
the
notices
that
facilities
would
continue
to
report.
It
is
important
to
stress
that
because
a
report
is
not
submitted
to
a
regulatory
agency
does
not
mean
the
information
is
not
collected
or
available.
From
our
reading
of
the
notice,
there
is
no
proposal
to
change
what
is
required
to
document
compliance
with
requirements,
merely
where
that
information
is
housed.

Lengthen
the
Periods
Between
Facility
Self­
Inspection
 
As
facility
operations
become
more
automated,
a
variety
of
control
and
detection
systems
are
installed
that
may
be
able
to
detect
changes
of
concern
in
operating
conditions
more
quickly
than
a
human
inspection,
regardless
of
its
frequency.
It
makes
sense
for
such
facilities
to
be
able
to
rely
on
such
systems
as
a
general
rule,
and
require
less­
frequent
human
inspections
as
primarily
a
check
on
the
monitoring
system.

It
also
makes
sense
to
reward
good
performers
by
moving
to
less
frequent
inspection
frequencies
if
no
problem
arise.
This
concept
has
worked
well
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
leak
detection
requirements,
and
there
is
every
reason
to
believe
it
would
work
as
well
in
RCRA.

EPA
should
lengthen
the
period
between
inspections
for
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
from
daily
to
monthly.
Inspecting
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
daily
is
an
overly
conservation,
manpowerintensive
approach.
Chemical
and
hazardous
waste
storage
facilities
are
designed
to
minimize
potential
leaks
and
unsafe
conditions
and
to
minimize
the
need
for
daily
or
weekly
inspections.
Hazardous
waste
storage
tank
designs,
with
secondary
containment,
are
even
more
conservatively
designed
than
process
equipment.
Modifying
the
inspection
frequency
to
monthly
will
save
about
100
man­
hours
per
year
per
tank
(
based
on
20
minutes
to
inspect
and
record
results)
with
no
unfavorable
environmental
impact.

Document
#:
0026
Self
inspections
of
RCRA
units
are
useful
in
ensuring
the
integrity
of
the
facility,
but
there
should
be
greater
flexibility
in
the
currently
mandated
frequencies
in
order
to
reduce
the
burden
they
present.
This
flexibility
may
come
in
the
form
of
exemptions
for
inspecting
empty
or
idle
equipment,
variances
for
alternative
inspections
schedules,
or
extended
schedules
for
consistently
well
managed
facilities.
The
Agency
should
also
recognize
that
many
modern
facilities
have
­
75­
extensive
automatic
monitoring
equipment
built
into
their
facility
that
can
obviate
the
need
for
traditional
"
walk
around"
inspections.

Document
#:
0027
Section
II.
C.
Under
the
heading:
Possible
Changes
to
the
Frequency
of
Inspection
Requirements,
a
proposal
is
set
forth
for
establishing
the
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
or
through
a
special
variance
in
the
regulations.
IEPA
opposes
this
proposal
due
to
the
added
administrative
burden
on
the
Agency.
The
Agency
does
not
have
the
desire
nor
the
resources
to
make
such
decisions
for
every
RCRA
facility.
In
Illinois,
a
facility
may
request
a
variance
to
the
RCRA
regulations
through
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board.
With
every
year
that
passes
with
stagnant
federal
RCRA
funding,
IEPA
loses
approximately
four
FTE
in
the
RCRA
program.
We
are
looking
to
streamline
our
administrative
resource
burden,
not
add
to
it.
Therefore,
for
the
reasons
stated
above,
this
proposal
is
unnecessary
and
undesirable
to
IEPA.

Document
#:
0029
p.
32863,
col.
2
­
EPA
believes
it
might
be
acceptable
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
inspections
at
some
facilities.
DOE
agrees
with
EPA
that
inspections
are
vital
component
of
an
effective
regulatory
system.
Inspections
can
be
instrumental
as
a
tool
in
preventing
releases
of
hazardous
wastes
and
constituents
into
the
environment.
Inspections
can
also
help
assure
continuing
compliance
with
basic
unit
requirements.
DOE
also
agrees
that
in
many
instances
the
length
of
time
between
self­
inspections
could
be
extended
without
increasing
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
DOE
believes
that
such
instances
depend
on
the
type
of
unit,
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit,
the
environmental
setting,
and
the
likely
consequences
of
not
discovering
leaks
or
other
problems
within
a
certain
period.
Therefore,
DOE
would
support
regulatory
changes
that
allow
the
frequency
of
inspections
to
be
established
on
a
case­
specific
basis
as
part
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process,
or
under
a
special
variance.
DOE
also
believes
it
may
be
possible
to
change
the
regulations
to
specify
reduced
minimum
inspection
frequencies
for
well­
defined
combinations
of
particular
wastes
and
unit
types;
or
for
a
designated
unit
type,
if
past
experience
has
shown
the
designated
type
to
not
be
prone
to
releases
or
other
failures
that
could
endanger
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
permit
for
a
particular
unit
could
specify
more
frequent
inspections
on
a
casespecific
basis.
In
any
event,
DOE
notes
that
implementing
such
regulatory
changes
may
not
significantly
reduce
the
net
RCRA
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden.

Several
options
for
lengthening
the
period
between
facility
self­
inspections
are
presented
in
the
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA).
These
options
include
establishing
a
variable
schedule
based
on
unit
size,
or
a
phased
schedule
based
on
successful
operation,
as
evidenced
from
previous
investigations.
DOE
would
not
support
variable
inspection
schedules
based
on
unit
size
alone
because,
as
was
explained
above,
there
are
many
factors
other
than
unit
size
that
influences
the
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
created
by
a
hazardous
waste
management
unit.
Notwithstanding,
DOE
believes
that
phased
inspection
schedules
that
become
less
frequent
over
time,
contingent
upon
evidence
of
past
successful
operation
could
be
acceptable,
if
waste
type
and
environmental
setting
are
considered.
­
76­
Document
#:
0031
OSW's
proposal
to
lengthen
the
time
between
periodic
self­
inspections
would
directly
reduce
the
burden
upon
industry
under
the
existing
RCRA
regulations.
This
allows
each
facility
to
tailor
the
length
of
the
time
period
between
inspections
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Additionally,
such
a
proposal
recognizes
that
ongoing
operating
and
maintenance
serves
adequately
to
provide
for
necessary
inspections
in
many
cases.
In
the
alternative,
it
may
make
sense
to
set
up
a
system
in
which
particular
inspections
would
not
occur
more
frequently
than
x­
number
of
times
within
a
given
time
period.
This
may
be
determined
under
individual
permits.
Under
either
system,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
are
relieved
significantly
while
ensuring
compliance
with
federal
regulations.

Document
#:
0037
Lengthening
Periods
Between
Inspections.
EPA
has
requested
comment
on
the
issue
of
whether
a
lengthening
of
the
required
self­
inspection
frequency
for
a
facility
would
reduce
the
regulatory
burden?
On
the
surface
it
appears
that
the
answer
to
EPA's
question
is
obvious,
in
that
a
lengthening
of
the
required
self­
inspection
frequency
would
directly
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
regulatory
burden.
However,
what
is
not
evident
in
this
proposal,
is
the
scenario
that
with
an
extension
of
the
frequency
of
self­
inspections,
releases
of
hazardous
waste
from
containers
or
tanks
would
go
undetected
for
longer
periods
resulting
in
an
increase
in
the
potential
for
release
of
hazardous
constituents
into
the
environment.
For
facilities
that
have
significant
potential
for
releases
of
hazardous
waste
to
the
environment
(
principally
due
to
the
type
of
waste),
this
proposal
could
result
in
increased
contamination
from
releases
depending
upon
the
lengthening
of
the
inspection
frequency.

Document
­
0038
Comment.
The
Department
of
Defense
(
DoD)
supports
reduction
in
the
frequency
of
performing
tank
self­
inspections
to
allow
weekly
inspection.

Discussion.
The
current
requirement
is
to
inspect
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
on
a
daily
basis.
However,
we
believe
the
design
standards
in
40
CFR
264.191­
193
regarding
secondary
containment,
leak
detection,
and
corrosion
protection
in
conjunction
with
integrity
testing
and
registered
professional
engineer's
assessment/
certification
requirements
provide
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
allow
less
frequent
inspections.

We
do
not
support
adoption
of
a
variable
implementation
schedule
based
on
the
size
of
the
tank
as
suggested
by
the
Federal
Register
notice
(
64
FR
32863,
middle
column).
We
consider
variable
inspection
schedules
as
contrary
to
the
goals
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
since
it
will
complicate
data
collection
activities.
Instead,
we
encourage
harmonizing
tank
and
container
inspection
requirements
such
that
both
are
required
on
a
weekly
basis.

Also,
we
do
not
support
the
suggested
phased
schedule
that
considers
changing
from
a
daily
to
a
weekly,
to
a
biweekly
inspection
schedule,
if
no
problem
arises.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
likelihood
of
a
release
decreases
with
time.
Rather,
we
believe
that
releases
are
minimized
to
the
­
77­
extent
practicable
by
a
system
design
and
testing.
Weekly
inspections
should
ensure
that
releases,
when
they
do
occur,
will
not
be
undetected
for
extended
periods
of
time.

Recommendation:
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
reduce
the
required
frequency
for
performing
tank
self­
inspections
to
weekly
in
all
cases.

References.
64
FR
62863.

Document
#:
0043
"
We
(
EPA)
would
like
comment
on
whether
we
(
EPA)
should
lengthen
any
of
RCRA's
inspection
frequencies,
and
the
extent
to
which
such
an
action
would
reduce,
and
whether
this
would
impact
human
health
and
the
environment."

With
respect
to
"
We
(
EPA)
would
like
comment
on
whether
we
(
EPA)
should
lengthen
any
of
RCRA's
inspection
frequencies,"

In
general,
UTC
believes
that
the
current
frequency
of
inspections
supports
a
level
of
compliance
and
operation
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
some
of
the
existing
inspection
language
is
ambiguous
and
has
resulted
in
different
interpretation
among
EPA
regions,
state
environmental
agencies
and
the
regulated
entities.
By
taking
the
lead
to
eliminate
any
confusion,
EPA
could
reduce
the
burden
or
non­
essential
inspections
that
add
little
protective
value.
UTC
strongly
encourages
EPA
to
use
this
opportunity
to
more
completely
specify
the
inspection
schedules
as
suggested
below:

Inspection
type:
Regulatory
language/
impact:
Suggested
language:

Less
than
90
day
Weekly
/
Interpreted
as
no
more
Once
per
calendar
week
accumulation
areas
than
7
days
apart
No
more
than
10
days
apart
______________________________________________________________________________
Tanks
Daily
/
Interpreted
as
any
day
the
Daily
when
the
tank
has
the
tank
contains
any
amount
activity
(
filling
and
of
waste
emptying)
No
more
than
a
week
between
inspecting
______________________________________________________________________________
Emergency
response
Regulations
do
not
specify
a
Monthly,
and
following
any
equipment
schedule
/
Some
interpret
weekly;
use
of
equipment
some
allow
the
facility
to
set
the
schedule
and
inspect
to
that
schedule
______________________________________________________________________________

With
the
exception
of
the
language
regarding
tank
inspections,
these
clarifications
would
not
­
78­
change
the
current
inspection
schedule
and
would
avoid
confusion
in
the
regulatory
language
that
leads
to
"
over­
inspection".
In
order
to
provide
quantitative
data
to
support
this
belief,
another
UTC
site
completed
the
matrix
in
Appendix
C.

While
the
data
provided
in
Appendix
C
is
limited
to
one
site,
an
extrapolation
of
the
data
to
the
total
number
of
sites
in
the
United
States
leads
to
significant
potential
savings.

Document
#:
0117
Reduction
in
the
Frequency
of
Required
Inspections
­
Under
the
proposal,
the
minimum
required
frequency
for
self­
inspections
of
tanks
would
be
reduced
from
daily
to
weekly.
Container
storage
areas
and
containment
buildings
could
be
inspected
less
frequently
than
weekly
if
a
reduced
inspection
schedule
is
approved,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
by
EPA
or
the
State
Hazardous
Waste
Director.
Eliminating
the
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tanks
will
reduce
a
burdensome
requirement
that
contributes
little,
if
anything,
to
ensuring
the
integrity
of
the
tanks
or
protecting
against
potential
leaks
or
other
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
As
EPA
points
out,
other
kinds
of
tanks 
like
oil
tanks
and
underground
storage
tanks
holding
petroleum
or
hazardous
substances 
are
not
subject
to
daily
inspections;
nor
are
process
tanks
that
handle
the
same
chemicals
for
which
the
waste
was
designated
as
"
hazardous."
Moreover,
in
contrast
to
process
tanks,
hazardous
waste
tanks
are
subject
to
a
secondary
containment
requirement
under
CFR
264.193,
so
that
if
a
tank's
integrity
were
compromised
and
a
spill
occurred,
it
would
be
contained.
Furthermore,
in
Inmetco's
case,
all
of
the
tanks
are
located
within
a
containment
building,
providing
an
additional
layer
of
protection
against
potential
environmental
releases
even
if
a
tank's
integrity
should
fail
for
some
reason.

Human
nature
being
what
it
is,
daily
tank
inspections
not
only
are
unnecessary;
they
actually
may
be
counter­
productive 
because,
when
personnel
have
to
inspect
the
tanks
day
after
day,
there
is
a
tendency
to
perform
the
inspections
in
a
more
perfunctory
and
routine
manner
than
would
be
the
case
if
the
inspection
were
scheduled
at
weekly
intervals.
Thus,
rather
than
increasing
the
likelihood
of
detecting
an
emerging
flaw
in
tank
integrity,
the
lesser
degree
of
diligence
that
inevitably
creeps
into
daily
inspection
over
time
(
despite
the
best
of
intentions)
may
cause
the
flaw
to
go
unnoticed,
whereas
it
might
very
well
have
been
detected
in
a
more
carefully
performed
weekly
inspection.

By
the
same
token,
allowing
a
reduced
frequency
of
inspections
for
container
storage
areas
and
containment
buildings
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
when
approved
by
the
competent
regulatory
authority
is
well
justified 
because
there
may
be
many
situations
in
which
the
risk
of
a
contamination
incident
stemming
from
the
failure
of
a
hazardous
waste
container
is
negligible.
At
Inmetco,
for
example,
containers
of
hazardous
waste
are
held
in
a
permitted
drum
storage
area
having
a
secondary
containment
system,
all
of
which
rests
on
a
concrete
floor
that
is
coated
with
an
impervious
layer
and
undergirded
by
a
30
mil
PVC
liner
that
is
surrounded
top
and
bottom
by
protective
geotechnical
fabric
to
guard
against
possible
puncture.
And
the
drum
storage
areas
are
located
within
a
containment
building.
Moreover,
the
drums
are
stored
on
elevated
pallets,
so
any
leak
would
be
readily
apparent.
Other
facilities
may
have
similar
overlapping
protections
in
place
­
79­
and
a
track
record
that
could
justify
an
inspection
schedule
less
frequent
than
weekly.
While
weekly
inspections
should
be
the
presumed
norm,
case­
by­
case
exceptions
should
be
allowed
when
regulatory
approval
is
obtained.

Document
#:
0133
In
general,
the
Alliance
supports
all
of
the
agency's
efforts
to
reduce
unnecessary
burden
on
the
regulated
community.

In
Support
of:
Modify
and
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
to
monthly
Response:
The
Agency
thanks
the
commenter
for
his
comment,
however
we
are
not
proceeding
with
this
proposed
action,
due
to
the
burden
it
would
place
on
the
regulatory
agency
to
evaluate
and
grant
these
case­
by­
case
petitions.

Document
#:
0157
ACE
supports
the
modified
tank
and
container
inspection
frequencies
in
the
Proposed
rule.
We
believe
that
weekly
inspections
are
sufficient
and
longer
intervals
my
well
be
justified
on
a
caseby
case
basis,
considering
the
type
and
quantity
of
waste
being
accumulated
as
well
as
the
compliance
history
of
the
facility.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
appreciates
the
comments
in
support
of
reduced
selfinspection
frequency.
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
inspection
frequency
can
be
reduced
under
a
set
of
specific
conditions.
However
the
idea
of
reduced
inspection
frequency
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
would
be
a
high
burden
on
the
regulatory
agency
in
order
to
evaluate
each
and
every
petition.
In
that
this
rule
is
an
attempt
to
reduce
burden,
the
Agency
recognizes
that
granting
case­
by­
case
reductions
in
self­
inspection
frequency
would
place
an
undo
burden
on
the
States
and
regions.
This
notion
has
been
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
State
commenters.
As
such,
we
are
no
going
forward
with
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
management
units
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.
The
final
rule,
however,
does
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
leak
detection
equipment,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings.)
The
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
­
80­
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.
Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
except
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.
The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
Performance
Track
facilities
for
tank
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

Document#
Reduction
of
Container/
Tank
Inspection
Frequency
and
Elimination
of
Notification/
Certification
Requirements
for
Tank
System
Releases
and
Major
Repairs
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
amend
40
CFR
265.174
&
265.195(
a)
to
reduce
the
selfinspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
once
a
day
to
weekly,
or
even
less
frequently,
as
determined
by
regulators
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Id.
At
2524,
2526.
We
also
support
allowing
hazardous
waste
containers,
which
now
must
be
inspected
weekly,
to
be
eligible
for
a
more
flexible
inspection
schedule
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Id.
USWAG
agrees
that
other
kinds
of
tanks
(
e.
g.,
USTs)
are
required
to
be
inspected
less
frequently
than
daily,
but
still
meet
criteria
for
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
that
"
the
integrity
and
safety
of
hazardous
waste
tanks
would
not
be
compromised
by
reducing
the
daily
inspection
requirement
to
a
weekly
frequency."
Id.
At
2526­
27.

Similarly,
EPA
appropriately
proposes
to
eliminate
the
notification,
certification,
and
reporting
requirements
for
releases
and
major
repairs
of
tank
systems
under
40
CFR
265.196(
1)­(
3)
&
265.196(
f).
Id.
at
2525.
We
agree
that
"...
existing
regulatory
requirements
for
cleanup
and
certification
of
the
cleanup
are
adequately
protective"
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
"
this
extra
notification
to
the
regulatory
authorities
is
unnecessary"
because
"[
t}
his
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record."
Id.
With
respect
to
the
proposed
elimination
of
the
certification
requirement
in
40
CFR
265.196(
f),
we
occur
with
EPA
that,
because
the
Agency
does
"
not
ask
for
certifications
to
be
submitted
for
other
kinds
of
repairs...
there
is
no
special
reason
for
this
certification
to
be
submitted."
1d.
­
81­
Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
Supports
Shifting
from
Daily
to
Weekly
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Inspections
In
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
current
regulations
to
require
that
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
be
inspected
on
a
weekly,
rather
than
daily,
basis.
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
change.

The
daily
inspection
requirement
for
tanks
was
part
of
the
initial
set
of
hazardous
waste
regulations
promulgated
in
1980.
Since
that
time,
EPA
has
added
significant
new
substantive
requirements
for
tank
systems
by
mandating
use
of
secondary
containment
for
tank
systems
and
adding
requirements
for
leak
detection
systems.
Thus,
the
overall
level
of
environmental
protection
established
by
the
substantive
design
and
operating
standards
applicable
to
tank
systems
has
been
significantly
enhanced.
EPA
has
noted
in
other
contexts
that
tank
and
container
storage
of
hazardous
wastes
are
not
high­
risk
activities
and
have
not
proven
to
be
the
source
of
releases
or
other
environmental
concerns.

Discussions
with
SOCMA
members
have
confirmed
that
the
current
daily
inspection
requirement
is
a
significant
burden
for
many
SOCMA
members.
The
resources
and
manpower
required
for
daily
tank
inspections
and
entering
the
inspection
in
an
operating
log
draws
resources
away
from
other
activities.
Furthermore,
these
storage
areas
are
usually
centrally
located
and
thus
are
in
areas
frequented
by
operating
personnel
on
a
regular
basis
in
connection
with
daily
operations.
Thus,
these
areas
are
routinely
under
visual
review
and
oversight
and
do
not
require
daily
formal
inspections.

SOCMA
concurs
with
EPA's
assessment
that
this
labor­
intensive
daily
process
is
not
needed
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
tanks.
See
67
FR
at
2526­
27.
These
tanks
are
equipped
with
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
systems,
are
subject
to
routine
visual
inspection
by
employees,
and
inherently
require
less
oversight
since
they
are
simpler
to
design,
construct
and
maintain
than
more
complex
waste
management
units
(
e.
g.,
landfills
or
surface
impoundments).
Thus,
daily
inspections
are
not
necessary
and
are,
in
fact,
a
waste
or
resources.
Shifting
to
weekly
inspection
frequencies
will
lift
a
significant
burden
from
the
shoulders
of
small
chemical
companies
while
still
assuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

EPA's
Proposed
Approach
for
Reducing
Self­
Inspections
Will
Fail
to
Achieve
Any
Significant
Burden
Reduction:
A
Self­
Implementing
Option
is
Needed
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA's
stated
goal
of
reducing
the
frequency
of
self­
inspections
for
facilities
that
exhibit
strong
compliance
and
safety
records.
Particularly
for
small
companies
with
limited
resources,
the
relief
provided
by
decreased
inspection
frequencies
would
be
significant.

However,
SOCMA
is
extremely
concerned
that
EPA
intends
to
make
such
relief
available
only
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
By
requiring
site­
specific,
case­
specific
determinations,
EPA
has
created
additional
burdens
for
both
regulators
and
facilities
that
seek
to
pursue
this
option.
In
fact,
for
­
82­
smaller
facilities
such
as
those
operated
by
many
SOCMA
members,
the
additional
burden
of
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
is
likely
to
prevent
even
the
best­
performing
facilities
from
being
able
to
achieve
the
regulatory
relief
EPA
aspires
to
provide.

Accordingly,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
incorporate
a
well­
defined,
self­
implementing
mechanism
for
qualifying
for
decreased
inspection
frequencies
into
the
final
rule.

a.
The
Additional
Burden
of
Making
Case­
By­
Case
Determinations
Will
Not
Only
Dilute
the
Desired
Burden
Reduction
But
Also
Will
Prevent
Many
High
Performing
Facilities
From
Achieving
Such
Relief
The
approach
set
out
in
the
Proposed
Rule
places
a
new
burden
on
states
to
make
multiple
caseby
case
determinations
regarding
the
ability
of
facilities
to
qualify
for
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
Only
directors
of
authorized
states'
hazardous
waste
programs
and
EPA
would
be
authorized
to
allow
decreased
inspection
schedules
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Thus,
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
burden
reduction
program,
EPA's
proposal
makes
the
availability
of
this
regulatory
relief
contingent
upon
additional
(
and
optional)
further
activity
by
the
states.
The
manpower
limitations
and
competing
priorities
in
a
state
agency
thus
become
a
real­
world
limiting
factor
on
whether
an
eligible
facility
can
obtain
relief.

EPA
acknowledged
in
the
Proposed
Rule
that
states
were
apprehensive
of
the
administrative
burden
that
case­
by­
case
determinations
would
impose
upon
them:

We
also
received
comments
from
the
states
expressing
concerns
over
the
added
administrative
burden
in
implementing
case­
by­
case
changes
to
inspection
frequencies.
We
are
not
mandating
that
states
offer
these
changes.
We
are
only
providing
the
option
to
states
that
are
interested.
(
67
FR
Reg.
At
2527.)

However,
rather
than
develop
an
approach
that
responds
to
states'
concerns
about
the
resultant
administrative
burden,
the
Purposed
Rule
finessed
this
issue
by
declaring
that
states
are
not
required
to
implement
a
decreased­
frequency
inspection
program.
The
Proposed
Rule
thus
creates
a
situation
where
EPA
has
identified
a
valuable
burden
reduction
opportunity
but
effectively
fails
to
implement
it,
as
it
recognizes
many
states
will
lack
the
resources
required
to
pursue
EP's
approach
on
any
regular
basis.

SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
reconsider
this
position.
SOCMA
is
particularly
concerned
that
smaller
facilities,
such
as
those
operated
by
many
of
its
members,
would
be
the
category
most
adversely
affected
by
EPA's
proposed
approach.
To
the
extent
that
states
are
able
to
make
any
casespecific
determinations
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies
(
under
the
proposed
approach),
such
determinations
would
be
more
likely
to
be
made
in
the
context
of
permitting
decisions.
As
most
SOCMA
facilities
rely
on
90­
day
on­
site
storage
and
do
not
have
permits,
states
would
have
to
undertake
separate
ad
hoc
reviews
to
address
these
facilities.
SOCMA
is
concerned
that
regulators
are
unlikely
to
be
able
to
devote
the
time
needed
under
the
proposed
approach
to
­
83­
respond
to
requests
from
multiple
smaller
facilities.

SOCMA
is
equally
concerned
that
small
facilities
lack
the
personnel
and
resources
to
engage
in
the
multiple
meetings
and
submissions
that
would
be
required
under
the
proposed
case­
by­
case
determination
approach.
The
unfortunate
result
would
be
that
smaller
facilities
that
(
i)
have
more
limited
and
necessarily
short­
term
storage
operations
and
(
ii)
would
most
benefit
from
this
type
of
relief,
would
be
the
least
likely
to
receive
it.
SOCMA
believes
that
EPA
has
the
opportunity
to
establish
an
effective
self­
implementing
approach
that
would
both
motivate
and
reward
high­
performing
facilities.
Accordingly,
SOCMA
has
set
out
below
its
recommendations
for
a
self­
implementing
approach.
At
a
minimum,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
adopt
this
type
of
selfimplementing
mechanism
for
facilities
relying
on
the
90­
day
on­
site
storage
provision.

b.
A
Well
Designed,
Self­
Implementing
Mechanism
Can
Achieve
EPA's
Goal
of
Reducing
RCRA
Burdens
While
Protecting
Human
Health
and
the
Environment
SOCMA
has
previously
urged
and
continues
to
urge
EPA
to
institute
a
well­
designed,
selfimplementing
mechanism
to
allow
facilities
to
qualify
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies.

In
its
comments
on
the
initial
Notice
of
Date
Availability,
SOCMA
suggested
that
EPA
considers
the
following
approach
for
a
self­
implementing
program:
if
a
tank
or
container
had
no
releases
for
a
certain
period
time
based
on
daily
(
or
in
the
case
of
tanks,
weekly)
inspections,
the
facility
would
place
a
certification
as
such
in
the
log
and
shift
to
a
certain
reduced
frequency
(
which
could
be
specified
in
advance
by
EPA
in
this
rulemaking).
If
the
tank
or
container
area
subsequently
had
a
release
or
incident,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
shift
back
to
its
original
inspection
schedule.
SOCMA's
plan
thus
provided
a
framework
that
would
allow
for
a
reduced
inspection
burden
while
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
the
plan
carried
an
extra
incentive
for
facilities
to
pursue
safe
policies
by
providing
for
reduced
inspection
only
in
the
absence
of
releases
or
environmental
incidents.

In
the
preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
apparently
responded
to
a
different
set
of
prior
comments
regarding
a
self­
implementing
option:
"
For
example,
an
inspection
schedule
should
be
deemed
approved
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days."
67
FR
at
2527.
SOCMA
does
not
now
and
did
not
previously
support
the
concept
that
the
inability
of
a
regulatory
agency
to
act
within
30
days
was
a
sufficient
basis
to
make
a
reduced
schedule
option
self­
implementing.
EPA
then
went
on
to
dismiss
the
self­
implementing
option
with
little
explanation,
saying
only,
"
It
is
important
that
regulatory
agencies
make
the
decisions
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies.
Thus,
we
are
not
proposing
the
self­
implementing
option."
62
FR
at
2527.
EPA
thus
did
not
offer
any
detailed
rationale
for
this
position
or
identify
any
purported
advantages
of
regulatory
case­
by­
case
decision­
making
over
a
well­
designed,
carefully
structured,
self­
implementing
option.

SOCMA
asks
EPA
to
reconsider
this
position
and
take
the
time
now
to
identify
the
appropriate
criteria
to
be
met
for
a
facility
to
be
eligible
for
a
self­
implementing
option.
Specifically,
SOCMA
­
84­
recommends
that
EPA
allow
facilities
to
shift
to
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
after
a
specified
time
period
(
e.
g.,
six
months)
has
elapsed
during
which
routine
inspections
of
the
storage
facility
and
units
have
confirmed
on
a
consistent
basis
that
:
(
i)
the
units
are
in
good
condition;
(
ii)
the
storage
area
is
being
operated
in
accordance
with
applicable
hazardous
waste
requirements;
and
(
iii)
there
have
been
no
releases
from
the
tank
and
container
storage
areas.
The
facility
could
then
enter
a
statement
in
the
facility
inspection
log
certifying
that
these
requirements
have
been
met
and
electing
to
operate
on
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
basis
(
as
established
by
the
regulations)
so
long
as
these
conditions
continue
to
be
met.
If,
at
any
time,
the
facility
no
longer
met
these
conditions,
it
would
automatically
lose
its
eligibility
for
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
and
would
have
to
reinstate
routine
inspections,

This
approach
would
establish
a
defined
set
of
uniform
criteria
for
eligibility
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
and
would
require
the
facility
to
certify
that
it
has
met
those
criteria
and
then
maintain
the
inspection
logs
that
could
be
used
both
to
audit
initial
eligibility
and
continued
compliance.
This
type
of
self­
implementing
mechanism
would
establish
a
level
playing
field
for
all
facilities
and
would
achieve
burden
reduction
without
imposing
a
significant
new
set
of
regulatory
obligations
on
the
states.
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
give
serious
consideration
to
using
this
type
of
self­
implementing
program.

c.
If
the
Case­
by­
Case
Approach
Is
Retained,
EPA's
Suggested
Criteria
for
Eligibility
for
Reduced
Self­
Inspections
Should
Be
Replaced
By
a
More
Focused
Performance
Standard
In
the
preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
listed
several
factors
that
regulatory
agencies
should
consider
when
deciding
whether
to
allow
a
facility
to
reduce
its
self­
inspection
frequencies:

Considerations
for
decreasing
inspection
frequencies
will
be
based
on
factors
such
as:
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.
(
67
FR
at
2527.)

SOCMA
believes
that
these
criteria
are
both
too
subjective
and
too
expansive.
The
focus
of
any
such
determination
should
be
on
the
compliance
and
safety
record
of
the
facility
with
respect
to
the
hazardous
waste
units
being
inspected.
SOCMA
recommends
that
EPA
develop
specific
performance
criteria
that
relate
to
compliance
with
pertinent
hazardous
waste
management
standards.
These
types
of
performance
criteria
should
be
easily
verifiable
through
a
review
of
facility
records
and
inspection
logs
and
would
bear
directly
upon
the
suitability
of
a
facility
as
a
candidate
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies.

Document
#:
0166
­
85­
II
B.
Weekly
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Inspection
 
page
2526
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
EPA
that
reducing
the
daily
inspection
requirement
to
a
weekly
frequency
would
not
compromise
the
integrity
and
safety
of
hazardous
waste
tanks.

II
C.
Frequency
of
Self­
Inspections
 
page
2527
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
EPA
that
decreased
inspection
frequencies
could
be
established
on
a
site­
specific
basis
by
the
Directors
of
the
authorized
states'
hazardous
waste
programs
or
by
EPA.
This
option
would
give
facilities
added
flexibility.
The
preamble
indicates
that
a
broad
range
of
factors,
some
not
even
related
to
the
facility's
compliance
record,
would
be
considered
(
e.
g.,
"
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach").
67
FR
2527,
col.
2.
While
we
understand
EPA's
intent
to
encourage
good
compliance,
we
believe
the
factors
that
should
be
considered
for
inspections
frequency
are
more
logically
related
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
storage
area,
not
the
facility's
overall
"
compliance
record."
For
example,
a
small
facility
could
have
an
apparently
unblemished
compliance
record
mainly
as
a
result
of
infrequent
state
inspections,
while
its
drum
storage
area
could
be
designed
with
minimum
containment
and
operated
at
full
capacity
with
frequent
loading
and
unloading
activities
likely
to
cause
drum
damage.
On
the
other
hand,
a
larger
commercial
facility
could
have
received
compliance
citations
due
to
its
more
extensive
treatment
and
disposal
operations
and
higher
rate
of
state
inspections,
although
its
drum
storage
building
has
state­
of­
the­
art
safety
features,
highly
trained
personnel,
and
controlled
usage.
The
Director
should
consider
whether
the
storage
areas
are
designed
and
operated
to
minimize
undetected
releases
in
establishing
the
inspection
frequency.
Therefore,
we
strongly
urge
EPA
to
delete
the
language
proposed
for
containers,
tanks
and
containment
buildings
that
would
base
inspection
frequency
on
the
compliance
record,
and
allow
the
Director
to
exercise
good
judgment
based
on
relevant
factors.

Response
to
Comments:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings.)

The
automatic
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.
­
86­
Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.

Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).

As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.

The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities
for
tanks
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

EPA
received
several
comments
requesting
that
we
not
limit
these
incentives
to
Performance
Track
facilities,
but
suggested
that
there
are
top
environmental
performers
not
in
the
Performance
Track
Program,
but
instead
are
members
of
a
program
called
"
Responsible
Care"
established
by
the
American
Chemistry
Council
and
the
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
should
also
be
able
to
benefit
from
these
special
incentives.

Subsequent
to
receiving
these
comments,
EPA
co­
developed
and
signed
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
on
June
28,
2004
with
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC),
and
the
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
that
sets
out
plans
to
cooperate
on
matters
of
mutual
interest
in
promoting
high
levels
of
environmental
performance
and
improved
dialogue
and
collaboration
through
the
Performance
Track
and
"
Responsible
Care"
programs.
The
new
version
of
"
Responsible
Care"
is
integrated
with
ISO
14001.
ISO
14001
is
a
set
of
voluntary
international
business
standards
that
specify
the
requirements
for
environmental
management
systems
at
facilities.

The
Memorandum
of
Agreement
includes
the
following
key
provisions:
1.
Facilities
that
have
been
third­
party
certified
under
"
Responsible
Care"/
14001
will
be
deemed
to
have
met
the
Performance
Track
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
criterion;
2.
EPA
will
work
to
integrate
our
site
visits
with
the
"
Responsible
Care"
third­
party
audits;
3.
"
Responsible
Care"
third­
party
certification
in
most
cases
meets
Performance
Track
expectations
for
community
outreach,
but
that
applicants
will
still
provide
the
same
­
87­
information
the
Agency
requires
from
Performance
Track
applicants.
4.
Establishes
a
framework
for
EPA
and
ACC/
SOCMA
to
propose
enhancements
in
measurement
(
metrics
and
indicators)
in
both
Performance
Track
and
"
Responsible
Care."
EPA
made
it
clear
that
this
Memorandum
of
Agreement
does
not
make
the
"
Responsible
Care"
program
equivalent
to
Performance
Track.
They
are
separate
programs,
although
with
similar
goals
and
mechanisms
(
such
as
the
use
of
a
comprehensive
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS),
community
engagement,
and
a
focus
on
measuring
results).
To
be
in
the
Performance
Track
program
and
to
receive
Performance
Track
benefits,
such
as
the
ones
being
finalized
today,
"
Responsible
Care"
members
(
even
once
they
are
3rd­
party
certified)
have
to
apply
for
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
program
and
meet
the
same
criteria
as
any
other
applicant.
The
Agency
encourages
commenters
on
this
issue
to
join
the
Performance
Track
program.

We
believe
that
ACC/
SOCMA
did
not
have
a
complete
understanding
of
the
Performance
Track
Program
when
they
submitted
their
comments.
EPA
has
since
worked
closely
with
ACC/
SOCMA,
including
co­
developing
the
Memorandum
of
Agreement
discussed
above.
EPA
believes
that
all
parties
are
satisfied
with
the
Memorandum,
and
the
Performance
Track
provisions
in
today's
rule.

Document
#:
0198
NPCA
Supports
Adjustment
of
Daily
Tank
Inspections
to
Weekly
­
NPCA
supports
EPA's
decision
to
adjust
the
current
daily
waste
tank
inspections
from
daily
to
weekly.
As
EPA
correctly
points
out,
other
regulations
appropriately
address
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
with
even
longer
inspection
timeframes.
Tanks
are
inherently
safe
based
on
design
and
leak
detection
and
repair
programs
and
the
regulations
pursuant
to
such
ensure
proper
handling
and
correction
should
any
problems
arise.
In
addition,
we
recommend
allowing
reduced
frequencies
for
Small
Quantity
Generator
tank
inspections
as
well,
given
the
fact
that
relatively
small
amounts
of
hazardous
waste
are
managed
in
small
quantity
generator
tanks.

Document
#:
0215
Tank
and
Container
Inspection
Frequencies:
Bethlehem
strongly
supports
the
proposal
to
reduce
the
required
inspection
frequency
of
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
From
an
operating
facility
standpoint,
these
types
of
inspections
have
routinely
been
performed
on
a
more
frequent
basis
and
will
still
continue.
The
biggest
change
will
be
the
reduced
paper
storage
of
a
document
to
prove
the
inspection
has
occurred.
In
addition,
Bethlehem
requests
that
the
agency
reconsider
its
position
on
containers
because
the
same
can
be
said
of
these
types
of
units.
All
that
is
really
being
eliminated
is
the
requirement
to
complete
and
store
a
piece
of
paper.
As
a
result,
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
the
burden
to
request
approval
from
the
agency
for
a
reduced
container
inspection
frequency
can
be
justified
by
an
operating
facility.
The
original
RCRA
regulations
recognized
that
containers
did
not
need
as
frequent
of
an
inspection
as
tanks
because,
primarily,
of
the
limited
volume
of
waste
that
can
be
kept
in
containers.
Bethlehem
suggests
that
this
rationale
is
still
applicable
and
recommends
that
the
inspection
frequency
for
containers
be
similarly
reduced
to
­
88­
monthly.

Document(
s)
#:
0222/
0223
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
case­
by­
case.
The
preamble
includes
more
considerations
than
the
regulatory
language.
We
support
basing
these
case­
by­
case
determinations
on
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility
"
relative
to
storage
of
hazardous
waste."
This
approach
is
much
narrower
than
the
current
preamble
language
and
more
focused
on
hazardous
waste
storage
than
the
current
proposed
regulatory
language.

Clarification
on
Reducing
Inspection
Frequencies
on
Case­
By­
Case
Basis.
ACC
supports
the
proposed
revisions
to
Sections
264.174,
264.195(
b),
264.174
and
265.195(
a)
that
would
allow
the
Director
to
reduce
tank
and/
or
container
inspection
frequencies
beyond
weekly
on
a
sit­
specific
basis.
As
proposed
in
the
regulatory
language
in
each
of
those
sections,
ACC
generally
supports
such
decisions
being
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
facility's
compliance
record,
but
believes
this
evaluation
should
focus
specifically
on
the
facility's
compliance
record
under
RCRA
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage.
Further,
the
preamble
discussion
at
67
FR
2527
pertaining
to
this
portion
of
the
proposal
notes
many
other
factors,
well
beyond
and
not
directly
related
to
the
facility's
compliance
record,
for
the
agency
to
consider
when
making
these
case­
bycase
determinations,
such
s
public
outreach
and
subjective
management
traits.
This
preamble
discussion
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposed
regulatory
wording
and
will
result
in
inconsistent
implementation
of
this
portion
of
the
rule
if
not
clarified
in
the
final
rule.

The
intent
of
this
proposal
revision
should
be
to
allow
facilities
with
good
demonstrated
past
performance
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage
to
benefit
from
a
reduction
in
associated
inspection
frequencies.
As
such,
basing
these
site­
specific
decisions
on
the
relevant
compliance
record
is
both
adequate
and
appropriate.
The
many
other
factors
described
in
the
preamble
are
not
directly
applicable
to
this
issue,
and
EPA
should
clarify
that
they
are
unnecessary.

Document
#:
0240
Modification
of
some
standards
to
allow
reduced
facility
operator
inspection
frequency
on
a
case
by
case
basis.
Summary
of
sections
proposed
to
be
changed:
Sections
264.174,
264.195(
b),
264.1101(
c)(
4),
265.174,
265.195(
a),
and
265.1101(
c)(
4)
are
proposed
for
modification.
The
modifications
to
these
sections
would
allow
for
a
reduction
in
the
frequency
of
owner
or
operator
inspections
of
containers,
tanks,
and
containment
buildings
and
associated
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment.
These
sections
apply
to
permitted
and
interim
status
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
and
generators
that
are
required
to
comply
with
interim
status
facility
standards
for
these
areas.

Response
to
Comments:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
­
89­
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
The
automatic
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.
Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.
The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities
for
tanks
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

Document#
Specific
comments:

DTSC
does
not
agree
with
these
proposed
reductions
in
inspection
frequency
for
the
following
reasons:

A.
U.
S.
EPA
has
provided
nothing
to
document
that
weekly
inspections
of
hazardous
waste
container
storage
areas,
daily
inspections
of
the
above
ground
portion
of
tank
systems
and
leak
detection
systems,
and
weekly
inspections
of
containment
buildings
and
leak
detection
systems
are
a
significant
burden
to
the
regulated
community.

B.
It
may
be
appropriate
to
reduce
the
required
frequency
of
inspections
for
facilities
that
have
a
good
compliance
history;
however,
there
should
be
some
standards
or
criteria
proposed
for
reduced
inspection
frequency.
An
onsite
facility
with
a
minimal
number
drums
or
a
single
small
tank
represents
a
significantly
different
problem
than
a
facility
­
90­
receiving
several
hundred
drums
a
day
or
a
facility
with
multiple
50,000
gallon
tanks
or
tank
systems.
This
proposal
does
not
provide
a
means
for
consistent
decision
making
regarding
the
frequency
of
owner
or
operator
required
inspections.

C.
Although
facility
compliance
history
may
be
a
valid
consideration
in
deciding
which
facilities
could
benefit
from
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
without
a
concurrent
negative
impact
on
the
public
health
or
the
environment,
it
is
important
to
consider
that
not
every
facility
will
always
be
operated
in
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
laws.
Changes
in
personnel,
management,
facility
practices,
willful
acts
of
non­
compliance,
and
mistakes
will
result
in
periods
of
non­
compliance
with
the
law.

D.
There
are
over
200
facilities
with
tank
systems
or
container
storage
areas
onsite
in
California.
If
each
of
these
facilities
were
to
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency
from
DTSC,
there
would
be
a
substantial
burden
on
DTSC
to
provide
modifications
to
each
permit
to
be
consistent
with
this
changed
regulatory
standard.

E.
Generators
required
by
regulation
to
comply
with
interim
status
facility
standards
would
also
be
impacted
by
this
proposal.
The
agencies
charged
with
regulating
these
generators
(
both
local
and
State
agencies,
depending
on
the
circumstances)
would
have
to
consider
the
reduction
of
inspection
frequencies
for
numerous
generators
without
having
any
objective
criteria
to
consider.

Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status
and
permitted
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
§
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
Today's
final
rule
does
not
reduce
inspection
frequencies
for
container
storage
areas
or
containment
buildings.
The
automatic
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
require
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.
Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
­
91­
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.
The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities
for
tanks
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

Document
#:
0305
Tank
Inspections.
IPC
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
as
a
means
of
lessening
the
administrative
burden
on
facilities.
This
will
serve
to
free
valuable
resources
for
facilities,
especially
smaller
facilities,
where
a
reduction
in
regulatory
burden
can
help
considerably.
IPC
is
concerned
that
the
case­
by­
case
determination
proposed
in
the
new
rule
may
prove
to
be
too
onerous
for
state
regulators
who
in
turn
may
choose
not
too
participate.
Furthermore,
small
businesses
may
be
shut
out
of
the
program
since
the
submissions
and
meetings
necessary
in
a
case­
by­
case
determination
my
be
too
taxing
on
their
limited
resources.
IPC
recommends
EPA
develop
criteria
for
a
self­
implementing
mechanism
that
can
reward
qualified,
well­
managed
facilities
with
reduced
inspection
frequencies
while
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0315
A.
Small
Quantity
Generator
Tanks
and
Tank
Ancillary
Equipment
Frequencies
ACC
was
one
of
the
parties
that
commented
on
reducing
the
proposed
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
for
SQG,
as
well
as
for
ancillary
equipment
at
small
and
large
quantity
generator
facilities,
and
fully
supports
these
changes.

B.
Further
Reduced
Inspection
Frequencies
for
Performance
Track
Facilities
ACC
fully
supported
EPA's
proposed
revisions
to
Sections
264.174,
264.1959b),
265.174,
and
265.195(
a)
that
would
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers
and
containment
buildings.
ACC
also
stated
that
decreased
inspection
frequencies
should
be
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
facility's
compliance
record,
with
a
focus
on
its
RCRA
compliance
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage.
ACC
did
not
believe
it
appropriate
for
the
state
or
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
host
of
other
factors
that
deal
with
issues
well
beyond,
and
not
directly
related
to,
the
facility's
compliance
record,
e.
g.,
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach.

The
intent
of
this
proposal
revision
should
be
to
allow
facilities
with
good
demonstrated
past
­
92­
performance
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage
to
benefit
from
a
reduction
in
associated
inspection
frequencies.
As
such,
basing
these
site­
specific
decisions
on
the
relevant
compliance
record
is
appropriate
and
should
not
place
an
unreasonable
burden
on
the
state
or
EPA
since
it
would
only
be
evaluating
compliance
data.

In
this
NODA,
EPA
is
now
proposing
to
retract
its
broader
proposal,
and
only
allow
companies
who
have
joined
EPA's
National
Performance
Track
Program
(
PT
Program)
to
be
eligible
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
self­
inspection
frequencies.
ACC
objects
to
limiting
the
proposed
provision
to
only
PT
companies,
and
advocates
that
reduced
inspection
frequencies
should
be
afforded
to
all
facilities
with
good
compliance
records,
as
originally
proposed
last
January.

However,
if
it
is
now
EPA's
intent
to
limit
the
scope
of
this
provision
to
"
those
companies
that
go
beyond
compliance
with
regulatory
requirements
to
achieve
environmental
excellence"
(
68
FR
at
61665),
then
ACC
submits
that
all
other
environmental
management
systems
that
require
companies
to
go
beyond
compliance
with
regulatory
requirements
to
achieve
environmental
excellence
and
create
"
good
[
environmental]
perform[
ance]"
(
id.),
such
as
ACC's
Responsible
Care
Program,
should
also
be
included
as
acceptable.

Responsible
Care
is
ACC's
comprehensive
environmental,
health,
safety,
and
security
performance
improvement
initiative,
and
implementation
of
this
initiative
is
mandatory
for
membership
in
ACC.
On
a
annual
basis,
ACC
member
companies
report
on
a
set
of
uniform
industry­
wide
metrics
to
measure
individual
company
and
industry
performance.
The
measures
enable
members
to
identify
areas
for
continuous
performance
improvement
and
provide
a
means
for
the
public
to
track
performance.
Public
reporting
of
an
enhanced
set
of
eleven
company­
and
industry­
specific
performance
metrics
begins
in
2004.
The
economics,
environment,
health,
safety,
security,
and
products.

While
the
Responsible
Care
Program
is
not
an
exact
duplicate
of
EPA's
PT
Program,
the
environmental
management
system
technical
specifications
of
each
program
are
very
similar.
As
such,
the
Responsible
Care
Program
should
ve
recognized
as
an
acceptable
environmental
management
system
alternative
to
EPA's
PT
Program,
thereby
availing
Responsible
Care
certified
facilities
the
regulatory
relief
of
being
able
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
selfinspection
frequencies.

EPA
is
soliciting
additional
comment
in
this
NODA
on
whether
to
extend
reduced
inspection
frequencies
to
areas
subject
to
spills.
ACC
fully
supports
reduced
inspection
frequencies
for
areas
subject
to
spills
for
those
companies
that
have
demonstrated
good
past
performance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
264.15(
b).
Again,
ACC
does
not
believe
that
granting
relief
on
this
issue
should
only
go
to
companies
that
are
National
Performance
Track
members.
While
that
program
and
other
EMS
programs
may
claim
"
top
environmental
performers"
as
members,
this
does
not
mean
that
non­
members
couldn't
demonstrate
strong
past
performance
in
the
area
of
waste
storage,
good
housekeeping
practices,
and
spill
prevention
and
control.
Companies
that
have
­
93­
demonstrated
strong
past
performance
in
areas
relevant
to
the
regulatory
relief
being
considered
should
not
be
denied
the
reduced
regulatory
burden
just
because
they
have
not
joined
EPA's
National
Performance
Track
Program.

Response:
The
final
rule
extends
the
inspection
frequency
to
at
least
once
each
month
for
performance
track
facilities.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

Document
#:
0317
Preamble
Section
III.
B:
Dow
supports
allowing
facilities
to
submit
case­
by­
case
applications
for
further
reducing
inspections
frequencies,
especially
for
those
facilities
which
participate
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
However,
Dow
does
not
believe
that
the
case­
by­
case
applications
should
be
limited
to
member
companies
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
EPA
is
concerned
that
making
this
change
available
to
companies
that
do
not
participate
in
this
program
would
place
a
large
burden
on
authorized
states
in
reviewing
numerous
applications.
Dow
is
not
convinced
that
restricting
the
applicants
for
reduced
inspections
in
this
manner
will
achieve
the
overall
goal
of
burden
reduction.
As
long
as
authorized
states
have
adopted
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
into
the
respective
state
programs
this
mechanism
might
be
an
effective
way
to
administer
applications
for
reduced
inspection
frequency.
However,
all
states
may
not
have
incorporated
this
program.
In
addition,
a
state
may
have
a
comparable
and
equally
effective
program,
but
with
a
different
name.
Also,
future
programs
could
ve
developed
for
"
good
performers."
Dow
requests
that
EPA
allow
the
use
of
other
current
or
future
programs
as
a
means
to
meet
the
"
good
actor"
criteria.

Lastly,
Dow
requests
that
this
option
for
case­
by­
case
reduction
in
inspection
frequency
also
be
available
for
permitted
units
and
not
just
generator
units.
The
engineering
requirements
for
these
units
are
basically
the
same
whether
or
not
they
are
permitted.

Response:
The
final
rule
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states
Document
#:
0319
­
94­
Small
Quantity
General
Tanks
and
Tank
Ancillary
Equipment
Inspection
Frequencies:
The
GAC
supports
the
expansion
of
the
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
for
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs).
The
GAC
believes
that
this
reduction
in
frequency
inspections
is
consistent
with
the
Agency's
goal
of
burden
reductions
and
that
there
will
be
no
compromise
in
environmental
protection.
The
majority
of
printers
that
have
tanks
for
collecting
hazardous
waste
have
small
tanks
and
they
are
generally
located
indoors.
As
such,
any
release
from
the
tank
would
be
detected
almost
immediately
and
the
extension
of
mandatory
inspection
frequency
would
greatly
reduce
the
administrative
burden
associated
with
using
these
types
of
collection
tanks.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
allowing
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
SQGs
under
certain
conditions.

Document
#:
0320
Comment
1:
FR
page
61665
column
2,
section
III.
B.
Paragraph
2
states
that
the
EPA
is
reconsidering
whether
to
allow
facilities
that
meet
certain
criteria
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequencies.
The
concern
seems
to
be
that
evaluating
whether
the
facilities
who
meet
the
criteria
could
pose
an
additional
burden
on
the
States.
We
believe
that
the
criteria
should
not
pose
an
added
burden
on
the
states.
For
instance,

Factor
#
2
requires
the
facility
to
be
in
compliance
over
the
years.
The
state
already
is
required
to
inspect
our
facility
each
year
and
must
make
available
to
the
public
our
compliance
history
.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
use
the
compliance
history
that
they
have
already
compiled
to
determine
if
the
facility
meets
factor
#
2.

Factor
#
4
requires
the
facility
to
commit
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting.
The
facilities
are
already
required
to
involve
the
public
at
numerous
steps
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process
and
at
other
times
by
the
RCRA
regulations.
In
addition,
the
RCRA
regulations
require
the
facilities
to
submit
numerous
reports
documenting
their
performance
(
i.
e.,
Hazardous
Waste
reporting­
262.41,
exception
reporting­
262.42,
Subpart
BB
reporting
­
264.1065
just
to
name
a
few).
The
states
are
already
required
to
make
sure
we
properly
involve
the
public
during
the
permitting
process
and
to
receive/
review
many
reports
submitted
by
the
facilities.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
ask
the
cognizant
permit
engineer
whether
the
facility
has
been
involving
the
public
as
required
and
submitting
the
performance
reports
required
in
order
to
determine
if
the
facility
meets
factor
#
4.

Factor
#
5
requires
the
facility
to
install
automatic
monitoring
devices.
As
part
of
the
permitting
process,
the
facilities
are
already
required
to
install
such
devices.
For
instance,
facilities
must
have
fire
detection
monitors,
sump
level
monitors,
stack
monitors,
etc.
The
state
already
is
required
to
make
sure
we
have
these
monitors
as
part
of
the
permitting
review
process
and
the
annual
compliance
inspections.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
ask
the
permit
engineer
or
compliance
inspector
for
the
facility
if
the
facility
has
the
required
monitors.
­
95­
We
believe
that
there
may
be
confusion
on
the
part
of
the
States
as
to
what
is
required
to
evaluate
whether
the
facilities
meet
the
six
factors.
We
suggest
that
the
EPA
issue
a
guidance
document
to
help
the
states
understand
how
to
perform
this
evaluation.
Once
the
states
see
the
guidance
and
that
they
already
have
most
of
the
required
information,
they
will
see
that
this
evaluation
is
not
really
an
added
burden.

Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
EPA
should
retain
the
original
proposal
to
reduce
the
inspections
for
facilities
that
meet
six
criteria.
As
stated,
we
also
recommend
that
the
EPA
issue
a
brief
guidance
document
to
help
the
states
perform
the
necessary
evaluation.

Response:
The
final
rule
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states
While
the
commenter
may
not
feel
that
the
burden
associated
with
case­
by­
case
evaluations
is
substantial,
the
state
have
provided
convincing
arguments
to
the
contrary,
and
the
Agency
has
been
persuaded.
.

Document
#:
0326
Comment
1:
FR
page
61665
column
2,
section
III.
B.
Paragraph
2
states
that
the
EPA
is
reconsidering
whether
to
allow
facilities
that
meet
certain
criteria
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequencies.
The
concern
seems
to
be
that
evaluating
whether
the
facilities
meet
the
criteria
could
pose
an
additional
burden
on
the
States.
We
believe
that
the
criteria
should
not
pose
an
added
burden
on
the
states.
For
instance,

Factor
#
2
requires
the
facility
to
be
in
compliance
over
the
years.
The
state
already
is
required
to
inspect
our
facility
each
year
and
must
make
available
to
the
public
our
compliance
history
.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
use
the
compliance
history
that
they
have
already
compiled
to
determine
if
the
facility
meets
factor
#
2.

Factor
#
4
requires
the
facility
to
commit
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting.
The
facilities
are
already
required
to
involve
the
public
at
numerous
steps
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process
and
at
other
times
by
the
RCRA
regulations.
In
addition,
the
RCRA
regulations
require
the
facilities
to
submit
numerous
reports
documenting
their
performance
(
i.
e.,
Hazardous
Waste
reporting­
262.41,
exception
reporting­
262.42,
Subpart
BB
reporting
­
264.1065
just
to
name
a
few).
The
states
are
already
required
to
make
sure
we
properly
involve
the
public
during
the
permitting
process
and
to
receive/
review
many
reports
submitted
by
the
facilities.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
ask
the
cognizant
permit
engineer
whether
the
facility
has
been
involving
the
public
as
required
and
submitting
the
performance
reports
required
in
order
to
­
96­
determine
if
the
facility
meets
factor
#
4.

Factor
#
5
requires
the
facility
to
install
automatic
monitoring
devices.
As
part
of
the
permitting
process,
the
facilities
are
already
required
to
install
such
devices.
For
instance,
facilities
must
have
fire
detection
monitors,
sump
level
monitors,
stack
monitors,
etc.
The
state
already
is
required
to
make
sure
we
have
these
monitors
as
part
of
the
permitting
review
process
and
the
annual
compliance
inspections.
It
should
be
no
additional
burden
for
the
states
to
ask
the
permit
engineer
or
compliance
inspector
for
the
facility
if
the
facility
has
the
required
monitors.

We
believe
that
there
may
be
confusion
on
the
part
of
the
States
as
to
what
is
required
to
evaluate
whether
the
facilities
meet
the
six
factors.
We
suggest
that
the
EPA
issue
a
guidance
document
to
help
the
states
understand
how
to
perform
this
evaluation.
Once
the
states
see
the
guidance
and
that
they
already
have
most
of
the
required
information,
they
will
see
that
this
evaluation
is
not
really
an
added
burden.

Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
EPA
should
retain
the
original
proposal
to
reduce
the
inspections
for
facilities
that
meet
six
criteria.
As
stated,
we
also
recommend
that
the
EPA
issue
a
brief
guidance
document
to
help
the
states
perform
the
necessary
evaluation.

Response:
The
final
rule
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states
Document
#:
0328
I.
Waste
Storage
Inspection
Frequencies
Automobile
and
truck
dealerships
generating
hazardous
wastes
typically
fall
within
the
"
conditionally
exempt"
or
"
small
quantity"
generator
RCRA
classes.
Few
are
large
quantity
generators
and
virtually
none
are
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facilities.
NADA
advises
its
members
to
avoid
storing
hazardous
waste
liquids
(
e.
g.,
spent
parts
cleaning
solvents
and
waste
paint/
solvent
mixtures)
in
tanks.
Consequently,
very
few
dealers
operate
hazardous
waste
tanks,
opting
instead
to
use
containers.

EPA
should
extend
the
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly,
and
for
containers
from
weekly
to
monthly
(
conditionally
exempt
dealerships
who
never
accumulate
more
than
1000kg
technically
need
not
conduct
waste
storage
inspections).
Notably
small
quantity
generator
dealerships
rarely
accumulate
more
than
1000kg,
let
alone
the
6,000kg
maximum
limit.
­
97­
Thus,
given
the
small
quantity
of
wastes
they
accumulate,
the
fact
that
many
SQGs
are
small
businesses,
and
the
large
burden
reductions
that
would
result,
extended
inspection
periods
are
warranted
for
SQGs.

Document
#:
0329
Tank
Inspections.
As
discussed
in
our
May
20,
2002
comments,
IPC
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
as
a
means
of
lessening
the
administrative
burden
on
facilities.
While
this
may
not
represent
a
significant
burden
reduction
to
our
members
as
their
facilities
do
not
have
significant
tank­
based
storage
of
hazardous
waste,
it
will
nonetheless
reduce
administrative
burdens
without
lessening
environmental
protection.
Expansion
of
this
option
to
include
reduced
inspections
of
containers
would
increase
the
benefit
of
this
burden
reduction
to
many
of
our
member
facilities
and
other
small
businesses
that
do
not
have
significant
tank
storage.

IPC
does
not
support
case­
by­
case
determination
for
further
reduction
of
inspection
frequencies.
As
we
noted
in
our
May
20,
2002
comments,
case­
by­
case
determinations
may
prove
to
be
too
onerous
for
state
regulators
who
in
turn
may
choose
not
too
participate.
Furthermore,
small
businesses
may
be
shut
out
of
the
program
since
the
submissions
and
meetings
necessary
in
a
case­
by­
case
determination
may
be
too
taxing
on
their
limited
resources.
IPC
recommends
EPA
develop
criteria
for
a
self­
implementing
mechanism
that
can
reward
qualified,
well­
managed
facilities
with
reduced
inspection
frequencies
while
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0331
NPCA
Supports
Further
Reduction
in
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Inspections
In
NPCA's
comments
on
the
Proposed
rule
NPCA
supported
EPA's
decision
to
adjust
the
current
daily
waste
tank
inspections
from
daily
to
weekly,
but
commented
that
this
provision
should
not
just
be
applied
to
Large
Quantity
Generators
(
LQG),
but
be
available
to
Small
Quantity
Generators
(
SQG)
as
well.
As
EPA
correctly
stated
in
the
Proposed
rule,
other
regulations
appropriately
address
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
with
even
longer
inspection
timeframes.
Tanks
are
inherently
safe
based
on
design
and
leak
detection
and
repair
programs
and
the
regulations
pursuant
to
such
ensure
proper
handling
and
correction
should
any
problems
arise.
Changing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
not
only
LGQ,
but
SQG
also
is
consistent
with
EPA's
goals
in
reducing
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
for
all
stakeholders
subject
to
RCRA
regulations.
For
the
same
reasons,
NPA
also
supports
EPA's
proposal
in
the
Notice
to
further
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
tank
inspections
by
expanding
this
change
to
include
tank
ancillary
equipment
at
LQG
and
SQG
as
well.

NPCA
Supports
Self­
Implementation
for
Self­
Inspections
NPCA
reiterates
support
for
a
self­
implementing
approach
to
inspections
based
on
documented
performance
and
compliance.
As
stated
in
NPCA's
comments
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
a
case­
by
­
98­
case
basis
approach
actually
creates
additional
burden
for
states
and
facilities,
when
the
goal
of
EPA's
initiative
is
to
reduce
such.
However,
a
self­
implementing
approach,
documenting
the
performance
criteria
outlined
by
EPA
and
supported
by
compliance
records
would
be
a
manageable
way
to
provide
this
benefit
to
all
stakeholders.
EPA
recognized
the
burdens
a
caseby
case,
site­
specific
approach
would
impose
and
in
the
Notice
therefore
proposes
to
restrict
this
provision
to
facilities
in
its
Performance
Track
Program
only.

Several
of
NPCA's
member
companies
have
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
program
and
NPCA
is
a
Performance
Track
Network
partner.
NPCA
has
historically
commented
that
the
Performance
Track
program
must
offer
increased
incentives,
especially
to
small
businesses,
if
it
is
to
be
successful
long­
term.
Given
the
current
economic
status
for
many
businesses,
simple
recognition
of
environmental
performance
is
not
enough.
In
order
to
justify
the
resources
and
expense
of
joining
the
Performance
Track
program,
facilities
must
receive
tangible
regulatory
relief.
Thus,
providing
this
benefit
automatically
to
Performance
Track
facilities,
that
through
the
program
have
already
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
criteria
EPA
outlines
for
case­
by­
case
decisions,
is
appropriate.
However,
as
stated
above,
NPCA
believes
this
benefit
can
still
be
offered
to
other
facilities
without
the
full
burden
of
case­
by­
case
analysis,
using
a
selfimplementing
approach
and
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
facility's
compliance
record
under
RCRA
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage.

Document
#:
0332
SOCMA
Supports
Shifting
from
Daily
to
Weekly
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Inspections
In
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
proposed
to
modify
the
current
regulations
to
require
that
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
be
inspected
on
a
weekly,
rather
than
a
daily
basis.
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
change.
In
this
Notice,
EPA
is
proposing
to
also
change
the
inspection
frequencies
to
include
tanks
located
at
small
quantity
generators.
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
change
also.
Shifting
to
weekly
inspection
frequencies
will
lift
a
significant
burden
from
the
shoulders
of
small
chemical
companies
while
still
assuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0335
Inspection
Frequencies
 
In
general,
GM
supports
the
agency's
proposal
to
modify
and
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
to
monthly
for
both
large­
and
small
quantity
generators.
GM
believes
that
this
change
should
be
available
for
all
generators
regardless
of
their
participation
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
While
GM
understands
EPA's
intention
to
provide
"
relief
to
companies
that
are
demonstrated
good
performers",
EPA
should
not
arbitrarily
give
preferential
treatment
to
companies
participating
in
this
one
specific
program.
There
are
many
ways
to
demonstrate
"
good
performance"
and
many
other
companies
may
have
equivalent
 
or
better
 
environmental
management
programs
than
those
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
The
National
Performance
Track
Program
is
intended
to
be
voluntary
and
without
penalty
for
those
not
participating
and
GM
views
this
proposal
option
as
an
inappropriate
"
incentive"
to
force
companies
to
participate
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
in
order
to
take
advantage
of
this
proposed
revision.
­
99­
An
example
of
other
management
programs
would
be
the
ISO
14001
Certification.
As
stated
in
the
Alliance
comments
dated
April
16,
2002.

The
burden
reductions
are
especially
appropriate
for
facilities
that
have
obtained
ISO
14001
Certification.
Rather
than
require
certain
burden
reductions
to
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
such
as
tank
inspection
frequencies,
the
Alliance
supports
monthly
inspections
for
facilities
with
ISO
14001
certification.
EPA
has
long
recognized
the
benefit
of
formalized
environmental
management
systems
and
is
beginning
to
recognize
that
facilities
with
such
systems
may
warrant
less
prescriptive
regulatory
constraints.
For
example,
in
a
recent
Federal
Register
notice,
EP
has
solicited
comment
on
a
new
option
concerning
the
use
of
an
environmental
management
system
(
EMS)
based
alternative
to
the
final
40
CFR
Part
438
effluent
limits
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
that
is
directly
applicable
to
the
Automotive
industry.
66
FR
424.513
(
Jan3,
2001).
Additionally,
in
an
unrelated
industry,
EPA
has
proposed
EMS
based
regulatory
options
for
the
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
66
FR
58,556,
58,601
(
Nov.
21,
2001).
A
1998
EPA
policy
statement
endorsed
the
use
of
EMSs
that
focus
on
improved
environmental
performance.

So
while
GM
supports
EPA's
recognition
of
the
use
and
benefits
of
EMSs,
we
do
not
support
the
recognition
of
only
one
specific
program.

Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
Supports
Shifting
from
Daily
to
Weekly
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Inspections
In
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
current
regulations
to
require
that
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
be
inspected
on
a
weekly,
rather
than
daily,
basis.
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
change.

The
daily
inspection
requirement
for
tanks
was
part
of
the
initial
set
of
hazardous
waste
regulations
promulgated
in
1980.
Since
that
time,
EPA
has
added
significant
new
substantive
requirements
for
tank
systems
by
mandating
use
of
secondary
containment
for
tank
systems
and
adding
requirements
for
leak
detection
systems.
Thus,
the
overall
level
of
environmental
protection
established
by
the
substantive
design
and
operating
standards
applicable
to
tank
systems
has
been
significantly
enhanced.
EPA
has
noted
in
other
contexts
that
tank
and
container
storage
of
hazardous
wastes
are
not
high­
risk
activities
and
have
not
proven
to
be
the
source
of
releases
or
other
environmental
concerns.

Discussions
with
SOCMA
members
have
confirmed
that
the
current
daily
inspection
requirement
is
a
significant
burden
for
many
SOCMA
members.
The
resources
and
manpower
required
for
daily
tank
inspections
and
entering
the
inspection
in
an
operating
log
draw
resources
away
from
other
activities.
Furthermore,
these
storage
areas
are
usually
centrally
located
and
thus
are
in
areas
frequented
by
operating
personnel
on
a
regular
basis
in
connection
with
daily
operations.

Thus,
these
areas
are
routinely
under
visual
review
and
oversight
and
do
not
require
daily
formal
­
100­
inspections.

SOCMA
concurs
with
EPA's
assessment
that
this
labor­
intensive
daily
process
is
not
needed
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
tanks.
See
67
FR
at
2526­
27.
These
tanks
are
equipped
with
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
systems,
are
subject
to
routine
visual
inspection
by
employees,
and
inherently
require
less
oversight
since
they
are
simpler
to
design,
construct
and
maintain
than
more
complex
waste
management
units
(
e.
g.,
landfills
or
surface
impoundments).
Thus,
daily
inspections
are
not
necessary
and
are,
in
fact,
a
waste
or
resources.
Shifting
to
weekly
inspection
frequencies
will
lift
a
significant
burden
from
the
shoulders
of
small
chemical
companies
while
still
assuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

EPA's
Proposed
Approach
for
Reducing
Self­
Inspections
Will
Fail
to
Achieve
Any
Significant
Burden
Reduction:
A
Self­
Implementing
Option
is
Needed
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA's
stated
goal
of
reducing
the
frequency
of
self­
inspections
for
facilities
that
exhibit
strong
compliance
and
safety
records.
Particularly
for
small
companies
with
limited
resources,
the
relief
provided
by
decreased
inspection
frequencies
would
be
significant.

However,
SOCMA
is
extremely
concerned
that
EPA
intends
to
make
such
relief
available
only
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
By
requiring
site­
specific,
case­
specific
determinations,
EPA
has
created
additional
burdens
for
both
regulators
and
facilities
that
seek
to
pursue
this
option.
In
fact,
for
smaller
facilities
such
as
those
operated
by
many
SOCMA
members,
the
additional
burden
of
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
is
likely
to
prevent
even
the
best­
performing
facilities
from
being
able
to
achieve
the
regulatory
relief
EPA
aspires
to
provide.

Accordingly,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
incorporate
a
well­
defined,
self­
implementing
mechanism
for
qualifying
for
decreased
inspection
frequencies
into
the
final
rule.

a.
The
Additional
Burden
of
Making
Case­
By­
Case
Determinations
Will
Not
Only
Dilute
the
Desired
Burden
Reduction
But
Also
Will
Prevent
Many
High
Performing
Facilities
From
Achieving
Such
Relief
The
approach
set
out
in
the
Proposed
Rule
places
a
new
burden
on
states
to
make
multiple
caseby
case
determinations
regarding
the
ability
of
facilities
to
qualify
for
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
Only
directors
of
authorized
states'
hazardous
waste
programs
and
EPA
would
be
authorized
to
allow
decreased
inspection
schedules
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Thus,
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
burden
reduction
program,
EPA's
proposal
makes
the
availability
of
this
regulatory
relief
contingent
upon
additional
(
and
optional)
further
activity
by
the
states.
The
manpower
limitations
and
competing
priorities
in
a
state
agency
thus
become
a
real­
world
limiting
factor
on
whether
an
eligible
facility
can
obtain
relief.

EPA
acknowledged
in
the
Proposed
Rule
that
states
were
apprehensive
of
the
administrative
burden
that
case­
by­
case
determinations
would
impose
upon
them:
­
101­
We
also
received
comments
from
the
states
expressing
concerns
over
the
added
administrative
burden
in
implementing
case­
by­
case
changes
to
inspection
frequencies.
We
are
not
mandating
that
states
offer
these
changes.
We
are
only
providing
the
option
to
states
that
are
interested.
(
67
FR
Reg.
At
2527.)

However,
rather
than
develop
an
approach
that
responds
to
states'
concerns
about
the
resultant
administrative
burden,
the
Purposed
Rule
finessed
this
issue
by
declaring
that
states
are
not
required
to
implement
a
decreased­
frequency
inspection
program.
The
Proposed
Rule
thus
creates
a
situation
where
EPA
has
identified
a
valuable
burden
reduction
opportunity
but
effectively
fails
to
implement
it,
as
it
recognizes
many
states
will
lack
the
resources
required
to
pursue
EP's
approach
on
any
regular
basis.

SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
reconsider
this
position.
SOCMA
is
particularly
concerned
that
smaller
facilities,
such
as
those
operated
by
many
of
its
members,
would
be
the
category
most
adversely
affected
by
EPA's
proposed
approach.
To
the
extent
that
states
are
able
to
make
any
casespecific
determinations
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies
(
under
the
proposed
approach),
such
determinations
would
be
more
likely
to
be
made
in
the
context
of
permitting
decisions.
As
most
SOCMA
facilities
rely
on
90­
day
on­
site
storage
and
do
not
have
permits,
states
would
have
to
undertake
separate
ad
hoc
reviews
to
address
these
facilities.
SOCMA
is
concerned
that
regulators
are
unlikely
to
be
able
to
devote
the
time
needed
under
the
proposed
approach
to
respond
to
requests
from
multiple
smaller
facilities.

SOCMA
is
equally
concerned
that
small
facilities
lack
the
personnel
and
resources
to
engage
in
the
multiple
meetings
and
submissions
that
would
be
required
under
the
proposed
case­
by­
case
determination
approach.
The
unfortunate
result
would
be
that
smaller
facilities
that
(
i)
have
more
limited
and
necessarily
short­
term
storage
operations
and
(
ii)
would
most
benefit
from
this
type
of
relief,
would
be
the
least
likely
to
receive
it.
SOCMA
believes
that
EPA
has
the
opportunity
to
establish
an
effective
self­
implementing
approach
that
would
both
motivate
and
reward
high­
performing
facilities.
Accordingly,
SOCMA
has
set
out
below
its
recommendations
for
a
self­
implementing
approach.
At
a
minimum,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
adopt
this
type
of
selfimplementing
mechanism
for
facilities
relying
on
the
90­
day
on­
site
storage
provision.

b.
A
Well
Designed,
Self­
Implementing
Mechanism
Can
Achieve
EPA's
Goal
of
Reducing
RCRA
Burdens
While
Protecting
Human
Health
and
the
Environment
SOCMA
has
previously
urged
and
continues
to
urge
EPA
to
institute
a
well­
designed,
selfimplementing
mechanism
to
allow
facilities
to
qualify
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies.

In
its
comments
on
the
initial
Notice
of
Date
Availability,
SOCMA
suggested
that
EPA
considers
the
following
approach
for
a
self­
implementing
program:
if
a
tank
or
container
had
no
releases
for
a
certain
period
time
based
on
daily
(
or
in
the
case
of
tanks,
weekly)
inspections,
the
facility
would
place
a
certification
as
such
in
the
log
and
shift
to
a
certain
reduced
frequency
(
which
could
be
specified
in
advance
by
EPA
in
this
rulemaking).
If
the
tank
or
container
area
subsequently
­
102­
had
a
release
or
incident,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
shift
back
to
its
original
inspection
schedule.
SOCMA's
plan
thus
provided
a
framework
that
would
allow
for
a
reduced
inspection
burden
while
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
the
plan
carried
an
extra
incentive
for
facilities
to
pursue
safe
policies
by
providing
for
reduced
inspection
only
in
the
absence
of
releases
or
environmental
incidents.

In
the
preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
apparently
responded
to
a
different
set
of
prior
comments
regarding
a
self­
implementing
option:
"
For
example,
an
inspection
schedule
should
be
deemed
approved
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days."
67
FR
at
2527.
SOCMA
does
not
now
and
did
not
previously
support
the
concept
that
the
inability
of
a
regulatory
agency
to
act
within
30
days
was
a
sufficient
basis
to
make
a
reduced
schedule
option
self­
implementing.
EPA
then
went
on
to
dismiss
the
self­
implementing
option
with
little
explanation,
saying
only,
"
It
is
important
that
regulatory
agencies
make
the
decisions
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies.
Thus,
we
are
not
proposing
the
self­
implementing
option."
62
FR
at
2527.
EPA
thus
did
not
offer
any
detailed
rationale
for
this
position
or
identify
any
purported
advantages
of
regulatory
case­
by­
case
decision­
making
over
a
well­
designed,
carefully
structured,
self­
implementing
option.

SOCMA
asks
EPA
to
reconsider
this
position
and
take
the
time
now
to
identify
the
appropriate
criteria
to
be
met
for
a
facility
to
be
eligible
for
a
self­
implementing
option.
Specifically,
SOCMA
recommends
that
EPA
allow
facilities
to
shift
to
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
after
a
specified
time
period
(
e.
g.,
six
months)
has
elapsed
during
which
routine
inspections
of
the
storage
facility
and
units
have
confirmed
on
a
consistent
basis
that
:
(
i)
the
units
are
in
good
condition;
(
ii)
the
storage
area
is
being
operated
in
accordance
with
applicable
hazardous
waste
requirements;
and
(
iii)
there
have
been
no
releases
from
the
tank
and
container
storage
areas.
The
facility
could
then
enter
a
statement
in
the
facility
inspection
log
certifying
that
these
requirements
have
been
met
and
electing
to
operate
on
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
basis
(
as
established
by
the
regulations)
so
long
as
these
conditions
continue
to
be
met.
If,
at
any
time,
the
facility
no
longer
met
these
conditions,
it
would
automatically
lose
its
eligibility
for
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
and
would
have
to
reinstate
routine
inspections,

This
approach
would
establish
a
defined
set
of
uniform
criteria
for
eligibility
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
and
would
require
the
facility
to
certify
that
it
has
met
those
criteria
and
then
maintain
the
inspection
logs
that
could
be
used
both
to
audit
initial
eligibility
and
continued
compliance.
This
type
of
self­
implementing
mechanism
would
establish
a
level
playing
field
for
all
facilities
and
would
achieve
burden
reduction
without
imposing
a
significant
new
set
of
regulatory
obligations
on
the
states.
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
give
serious
consideration
to
using
this
type
of
self­
implementing
program.

c.
If
the
Case­
by­
Case
Approach
Is
Retained,
EPA's
Suggested
Criteria
for
Eligibility
for
Reduced
Self­
Inspections
Should
Be
Replaced
By
a
More
Focused
Performance
Standard
In
the
preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
listed
several
factors
that
regulatory
agencies
should
consider
when
deciding
whether
to
allow
a
facility
to
reduce
its
self­
inspection
frequencies:
­
103­
Considerations
for
decreasing
inspection
frequencies
will
be
based
on
factors
such
as:
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.
(
67
FR
at
2527.)

SOCMA
believes
that
these
criteria
are
both
too
subjective
and
too
expansive.
The
focus
of
any
such
determination
should
be
on
the
compliance
and
safety
record
of
the
facility
with
respect
to
the
hazardous
waste
units
being
inspected.
SOCMA
recommends
that
EPA
develop
specific
performance
criteria
that
relate
to
compliance
with
pertinent
hazardous
waste
management
standards.
These
types
of
performance
criteria
should
be
easily
verifiable
through
a
review
of
facility
records
and
inspection
logs
and
would
bear
directly
upon
the
suitability
of
a
facility
as
a
candidate
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies.

Document
#:
0338
USWAG
Supports
Extending
Container/
Tank
inspection
Frequency
Relief
to
Small
Quantity
Generators
USWAG
continues
its
support
for
EPA's
proposal
to
amend
40
CFR
Sections
265.174
&
265.195(
a)
to
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
once
a
day
to
once
See,
e.
g.,
67
FR
at
2524
and
USWAG
Comments
dated
April
17,
2002
at
pp.
3­
4.
USWAG
also
supports
EPA's
recent
proposal
to
extend
the
reduced
weekly
inspection
schedule
for
tanks
to
small
quantity
generator
facilities.
See
68
FR
at
61665.
This
proposal
makes
sense
and
affirms
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
additional
reduction
in
inspection
frequency
will
bring
significant
costs
savings
without
compromising
environmental
protection.
Id
Further
Discretionary
Reductions
in
Container/
Tank
Inspection
Frequency
Should
Not
Be
Limited
To
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Facilities
USWAG
has
consistently
supported
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
facilities,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
further
reduce
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers
and
containment
buildings
from
weekly
to
at
least
monthly,
if
a
facility
can
demonstrate
sound
environmental
management
practices
and
a
sustained
environmental
compliance
record.
See
USWAG
Comments
dated
April
17,
2002
at
p.
4.
However,
USWAG
questions
the
value
of
EPA's
proposal
to
limit
the
availability
of
this
inspection
flexibility
solely
to
facilities
that
are
members
of
EPA's
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
("
NEPT")
program.
USWAG
agrees
that,
if
a
facility
is
approved
by
EPA
to
participate
in
the
NEPT
program,
it
can
be
presumed
that
the
facility
has
demonstrated
sustained
superior
environmental
performance.
USWAG
recommends,
however,
that
such
facilities
not
simply
be
eligible
to
apply
to
conduct
monthly
inspections,
but
rather
should
automatically
qualify
as
a
"
sustained
environmental
performer,"
and
thus
eligible
for
the
­
104­
reduced
inspection
frequency
option.

USWAG
also
questions
the
usefulness
of
EPA's
proposal
to
effectively
bar
all
other
companies
with
strong
environmental
compliance
programs
from
being
able
to
apply
to
EPA
or
a
delegated
state
program
for
monthly
inspection
flexibility.
If
a
facility
can
demonstrate
sustained
commitment
to
environmental
compliance,
there
is
no
reason
to
exclude
it
from
the
benefit
of
applying
for
a
discretionary
reduction
in
inspection
frequency.

In
short,
USWAG
submits
that
a
flexible
approach,
allowing
NEPT
facilities
to
automatically
qualify
for
further
reduced
inspections
and
allowing
other
good
environmental
performers
to
apply
for
such
relief,
would
meet
EPA's
RCRA
burden
reduction
goals
and
its
desire
to
encourage
and
reward
participation
in
the
NEPT.
The
reduced
inspection
frequency
would
lessen
RCRA
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
while
maintaining
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
68
FR
at
61664.
Moreover,
the
fact
that
a
NEPT
facility
is
automatically
eligible
for
the
inspection
frequency
reduction
based
on
its
participation
in
the
NEPT
program
is
a
strong
incentive
to
join
NEPT.

Response
to
Comments:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status
and
permitted
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
§
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
Today's
final
rule
does
not
reduce
inspection
frequencies
for
container
storage
areas
or
containment
buildings.

The
automatic
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
require
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.

Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).

As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.
­
105­
The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities
for
tanks
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

Performance
Track
Proposed
Action
in
2003
NODA:
Solicited
comment
on
whether
to
limit
the
case­
by­
case
decreased
inspection
frequencies
tanks,
containers
and
containment
buildings,
up
to
monthly,
for
Performance
Track
Facilities.

Document
#:
0198
NPCA
strongly
supports
a
self­
implementing
approach
to
inspections
based
on
documented
performance
and
compliance.
NPCA
does
not
believe,
however,
that
a
case­
by­
case
basis
is
the
appropriate
approach.
A
case­
by­
case,
site
specific
approach
actually
creates
additional
burdens
for
stakeholders
under
RCRA
and
to
comply
with
the
Federal
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
As
this
provision
will
not
be
utilized
since
it
creates
too
large
of
a
hurdle
for
facilities,
especially
small
businesses,
to
pursue,
it
cannot
have
the
desired
reduction
EPA
intends.
Instead,
EPA
should
adopt
a
viable
self­
implementing
inspection
approach.

If
EPA
does
go
forward
with
a
case­
by­
case,
specific
approach
basis
­
it
should
base
decisions
on
evaluation
of
the
facility's
compliance
record
under
RCRA
related
to
hazardous
waste
storage.

NPCA
and
its
members
support
EPA's
efforts
with
regard
to
reducing
the
redundant
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
under
RCRA.
NPCA
believes
these
actions
will
have
no
impact
on
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
but
will
reduce
burden
for
industry,
EPA
and
the
States.
Finally,
NPCA
believes
that
EPA
should
continue
examining
regulations
for
burden
reduction
opportunities.
In
advance,
thank
you
for
your
consideration
in
this
regard.
Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
a
reducing
self­
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
is
not
an
appropriate
approach
for
reducing
burden
for
all
our
stakeholders.
We
now
believe
that
a
case­
by­
case,
site
specific
approach
actually
creates
additional
burdens
for
stakeholders
under
RCRA
and
to
comply
with
the
Federal
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
industry
may
not
utilize
this
provision
because
it
creates
too
large
of
a
hurdle
for
facilities,
especially
small
businesses,
to
pursue,
and
will
not
have
the
desired
reduction
EPA
intends
Document
#:
0216
­
106­
The
State
of
Maine
does
not
concur
with
the
proposal
to
allow
self­
inspection
frequencies
to
be
changed,
even
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Inspections
catch
problems
early
and
should
at
a
minimum
be
done
weekly.
This
good
housekeeping
requirement
should
be
retained.
Allowing
case­
by­
case
determinations
of
these
basic
inspection
requirements
would
lead
to
very
different
decisions
on
the
same
information
in
various
states
and
regions.
This
lack
of
basic
national
consistency
would
put
certain
facilities
at
economic
advantages
over
other
facilities,
not
because
of
how
they
are
operated
or
the
risk
that
they
pose,
but
on
other
factors
such
as
the
regulatory
and
political
environment
in
a
particular
state
or
region.
It
is
not
difficult
to
envision
situations
where
agencies
could
be
forced
to
approve
lax
inspection
schedules
due
to
these
factors.
We
have
found
these
inspection
requirements
very
useful
in
preventing
small
problems
from
becoming
larger
problems.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
only
Performance
Track
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
with
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0316
The
PPG
Industries
Meadville
facility,
a
National
Environmental
Performance
Tract
member,
is
providing
the
following
comments
on
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.
PPG
Industries
is
an
$
8
billion
dollar
service
provider
and
manufacturer
of
glass
chemicals
and
coatings
with
operations
in
23
countries
and
more
than
20
states
in
the
United
States.
The
Meadville
location
is
a
major
producer
of
flat
glass
for
the
automotive
glass
market.

PPG
Industries
supports
the
proposed
reduction
in
frequency
of
RCRA
tank
and
container
inspections
for
facilities
that
are
participants
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
(
NEPT)
program.
The
PPG
Industries
Meadville
facility
was
accepted
into
the
NEPT
program
in
2002
following
the
implementation
of
an
ISO14001
registered
environmental
management
system
(
EMS).
The
EMS
has
been
effective
in
helping
the
facility
to
manage
its
environmental
performance
and
compliance
activities.
The
facility
was
awarded
the
2003
Pennsylvania
Governors
Award
for
Environmental
Excellence
for
conversion
of
its
Line
#
1
furnace
to
an
oxyfuel
combustion
process
which
led
to
a
greater
than
50%
reduction
in
Nox
emissions.
­
107­
Reducing
the
RCRA
container
inspection
frequency
from
weekly
to
monthly
will
result
in
a
savings
of
approximately
15
man­
hours
at
the
Meadville
facility.
The
reduction
in
man­
hours
devoted
to
unnecessary
RCRA
inspection
leads
to
a
more
efficient
allocation
of
resources
at
the
facility
that
results
in
cost
savings.
The
automotive
flat
glass
market
is
extremely
competitive
so
any
reduction
in
operating
costs
helps
the
plant
to
remain
viable.

Unfortunately,
there
are
few
incentives
for
joining
NEPT.
The
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
for
NEPT
facilities
may
provide
an
incentive
for
other
facilities
to
implement
an
EMS.
However,
the
incentive
will
only
be
significant
if
the
reduced
inspection
burden
is
automatically
applicable
to
NEPT
facilities.
RCRA
regulated
facilities
are
unlikely
to
view
the
regulatory
reduction
burden
as
an
incentive
to
join
NEPT
if
they
must
incur
the
added
cost
and
time
associated
with
applying
for
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
benefit.
Elimination
of
the
case­
bycase
review
will
also
eliminate
the
State's
burden
of
reviewing
and
approving
the
applications
for
reduced
inspections.

If
EPA
determines
that
a
case­
by­
case
review
is
needed
for
NEPT
members
prior
to
implementation
of
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
then
PPG
recommends
that
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
eligibility
be
afforded
to
any
facility
that
has
implemented
an
EMS
such
as
ISO14001,
NEPT
or
the
ACC
Responsible
Care
Management
System.

PPG
would
like
to
commend
the
Agency
for
pursuing
initiatives
that
lower
operating
costs
without
adversely
affecting
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0320
Paragraph
2
states
that
the
EPA
is
considering
limiting
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
provision
to
facilities
that
are
member
companies
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
The
proposal
indicates
that
this
program
has
only
300
members,
many
of
whom
are
may
not
even
subject
to
40
CFR
264
or
265.
Therefore,
only
a
very
small
percentage
of
all
of
the
facilities
that
do
manage
hazardous
waste
would
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this
provision.
Writing
the
rule
in
a
way
that
benefits
only
a
few
appears
to
defeat
the
purpose
of
this
rule,
i.
e.,
reduction
of
the
burden
in
a
substantive
way.
We
believe
that
the
EPA
should
not
limit
this
provision
to
facilities
solely
to
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
There
are
other
reputable
programs
that
recognize
and
encourage
top
environmental
performance,
i.
e.,
ISO
14000,
and
we
believe
the
EPA
needs
to
expand
the
scope
of
this
proposed
rule
to
include
them
as
well.

The
final
rule
should
make
the
provision
available
to
any
facility
recognized
by
an
acceptable
organization
or
program
as
a
facility
that
encourages
top
environmental
performance.
It
should
mention
National
Performance
Track
Program
and
ISO
14000
as
examples
of
acceptable
program,
but
not
limit
acceptability
to
these
program
only.
The
final
rule
should
allow
the
states
the
flexibility
to
determine
what
is
an
acceptable
organization
or
program.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
only
Performance
­
108­
Track
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0326
Same
comment
as
Document
#:
0320.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
only
Performance
Track
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0327
EPA
is
now
proposing
to
only
allow
companies
who
have
joined
EPA's
National
Performance
Track
(
PT)
Program
to
be
eligible
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
self­
inspection
frequencies.
API
instead
supports
affording
this
opportunity
to
all
facilities
with
good
compliance
records,
as
EPA
originally
proposed
last
January.
The
PT
facilities
likely
have
gone
much
of
the
way
in
documenting
their
recognized
environmental
performance,
yet
there
are
likely
other
well
­
109­
performing
facilities
that
have
not
chosen
the
PT
program
due
to
already
having
well­
established
and
highly­
effective
management
systems.
API
believes
that
these
other
well­
performing
facilities
should
also
have
an
opportunity
to
establish
a
less
frequent
inspection
schedule.

API
supports
the
idea
that
any
well­
performing
facility
may
petition
on
a
site­
specific
basis
for
further
reduced
burden
based
upon
its
performance
record.
To
assist
delegated
states
in
rapidly
evaluating
these
petitions,
a
guidance
document
developed
with
industry
stakeholders
can
simplify
the
application
and
review
process.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
only
Performance
Track
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0332
SOCMA
again
emphasizes,
as
we
did
in
our
2002
comments,
the
benefits
of
and
need
for
a
broader
self­
inspection
frequency
for
non­
Performance­
Track
members
as
well.
Please
see
our
2002
comments.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.
The
Agency
believes
that
at
this
time
that
case­
by­
case
reductions
in
self­
inspection
frequency
for
selected
waste
management
units
should
only
be
for
Performance
Track
facilities.
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
many
of
the
State
commenters
as
well
­
110­
as
others
that
going
forward
with
case­
by­
case
reduced
inspection
frequencies
would
be
overly
burdensome
to
the
regulatory
community
as
well
as
the
regulated
community.
As
it
was
structured
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
would
be
too
burdensome
for
industry
to
prepare
the
ncecessary
information
to
possibly
enjoy
reduced
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0336
Should
the
ability
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
be
limited
to
member
companies
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program?

In
general,
Florida
DEP
would
prefer
to
have
uniform
requirements.
In
Florida,
each
exemption
form
the
daily
tank
inspection
requirement
could
constitute
final
administrative
action,
potentially
requiring
public
notice
with
opportunity
for
third
party
interventions.
This
will
increase
the
agency's
burden.
If
a
case­
by­
case
reduced
tank
inspection
frequency
is
enacted,
Florida
agrees
that
limiting
the
pool
of
applicants
in
some
meaningful
way,
such
as
NPTP
participants,
would
help
reduce
the
burden.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0339
The
National
Ready
Mixed
Concrete
Association
(
NRMCA)
supports
the
examination
of
ideas
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
imposed
on
the
regulated
community
under
the
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations
of
the
RCRA.
In
the
ready
mixed
concrete
industry,
these
regulations
are
most
likely
related
to
vehicle
repair
shops
that
generate
waste
degreasing
solvents,
waste
oil
and
anti­
freeze.
These
facilities
are
generally
small
quantity
generators
that
do
not
require
extensive
oversight;
most
use
contractors
to
manage
their
hazardous
wastes.
We
would
like
to
see
the
removal
of
requirements
for
the
submission
of
information
required
under
RCRA
that
is
seldom
or
never
used.
We
also
support
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
for
tank
self
inspection
frequencies,
especially
for
small
quantity
generators.
Additionally,
NRMCA
supports
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers
and
containment
buildings.
The
burden
and
future
potential
encumbrances
created
by
the
excess
reporting
and
inspections
standards
reduce
productivity
and
profitability
of
our
members.
The
burden
is
especially
detrimental
to
smaller
companies.
NRMCA
advocates
the
possibility
of
reduced
self
inspection
frequencies
to
member
companies
of
the
Performance
Track
Program.
Those
member
companies
have
had
their
environmental
performance
measured
and
certified
by
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
as
a
condition
of
their
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
program.
NRMCA
is
actively
­
111­
recruiting
our
member
companies
to
become
members
of
Performance
Track.
We
can
better
gain
and
preserve
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
program
if
potential
applicants
see
the
special
benefits
to
the
overall
scheme.

Response:
The
Agency
applauds
NRMCA
efforts
to
promote
membership
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Under
today's
regulations,
under
specific
conditions,
selected
waste
management
units
may
petition
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency
up
to
monthly.
With
regard
to
the
commenters
suggestion
that
NRMCA
would
like
to
se
the
removal
of
requirements
for
submission
of
information
required
under
RCRA
that
is
seldom
or
never
used.
The
Agency,
at
this
time,
has
not
undertaken
such
an
analysis,
which
would
have
to
be
coordinated
with
the
States
and
Regions.
Without
this
information
it
is
difficult
to
identify
was
information
is
seldom
or
never
used.
This
type
of
analysis
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
With
regard
to
the
encumbrances
created
by
the
excess
reporting
and
inspections,
the
Agency
is
puzzled
by
this
statement.
Presently
SQG
are
not
required
to
keep
an
inspsection
log
and
the
only
inpsection
burden
is
an
employee
physically
examining
a
tank
system
weekly.
(
See
40
CFR
265.201).

Document
#:
0341
Duke
Energy
supports
the
agency's
proposal
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
We
understand
that
the
proposal
would
allow
generators
to
request
further
decreased
inspection
frequencies
(
minimum
monthly)
from
authorized
States,
or
by
the
EPA
in
non­
authorized
States.
We
do
not
believe
this
proposal
will
impose
a
burden
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
compliance
records
prior
to
granting
generator
facilities
the
ability
to
implement
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
We
do
not
support
the
agency's
proposal
to
require
a
company
to
be
a
member
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
in
order
to
be
considered
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
such
a
requirement
would
result
in
more
paperwork
and
burden
on
the
regulated
community
without
providing
a
proportionate
degree
of
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters
and
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
the
only
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0344
The
Lockheed
Martin
Manassas
facility
agrees
with
and
supports
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
reducing
the
frequency
of
inspection
for
RCRA
containers.
This
is
consistent
with
other
Agency
­
112­
efforts
to
reduce
administrative
burdens
without
compromising
environmental
performance
and
have
made
additional
commitments
beyond
regulatory
requirements.

The
implementation
of
the
proposed
case­
by­
case
application
of
this
provision
should
be
a
streamlined
process
with
as
little
administrative
burden
as
possible
and
delegated
to
the
appropriate
state
regulatory
agencies.
Such
a
process
could
be
as
simple
as
a
request
letter
from
the
facility
to
the
state
agency
and
an
approval
letter
in
response
from
the
state
agency
to
the
facility
conditioned
on
current
membership
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0345
The
proposed
rule
discussed
the
availability
of
leak
detection
systems
which
are
subject
to
routine
visual
inspection
and
systems
for
the
continuous
surveillance
of
releases.
It
concluded
that
this
supports
going
from
daily
to
weekly
inspection
frequency.
All
tank
systems
are
not
mandated
to
have
continuous
surveillance
for
leak
detection.
See
40
CFR
264.194.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
small
quantity
generators
are
also
not
required
to
maintain
financial
assurance
for
closure.

The
RCRA
regulations
in
general
are
more
protective
than
regulations
pertaining
to
a
product
since
the
product
has
a
commercial
value
and
it
is
in
the
regulated
company's
interest
to
preserve
it,
unlike
waste
which
is
an
economic
burden
and
whose
management
is
an
activity
that
is
not
revenue
oriented
.
Historically,
compliance
inspections
have
proven
that
tanks
may
leak,
cause
serious
property
damage,
contaminate
water
supplies
and
increase
air
emissions.
Implementing
the
proposed
less
frequent
inspections
will
add
an
administrative
burden
to
the
States
in
terms
of
permitting,
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement.

The
proposal
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
inspection
for
tank
systems,
containers
and
containment
buildings
should
also
consider
the
environmental
considerations
and
location
standards.
Facilities
that
are
located
in
proximity
to
wetlands,
over
sole
source
aquifers,
flood
plains
and
in
urban
areas
should
inspect
tank
systems
daily.

The
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems
that
have
continuous
surveillance
for
release
could
be
changed
from
daily
to
weekly
if
the
alarm
system
for
the
leak
detection
equipment
is
checked
daily.
Frequently
a
compliance­
based
incentive
can
be
linked
to
burden
reduction.
In
this
instance
­
113­
a
reduction
in
inspection
requirements
must
be
linked
with
a
demonstrably
adequate
secondary
containment
system,
a
continuous
surveillance
system,
a
satisfactory
compliance
history
and
a
suitable
location.

The
same
conditions
that
would
ensure
protectiveness
of
the
environment
for
changing
from
daily
to
weekly
inspections
should
apply
to
any
incentive
that
changes
the
frequency
from
daily
up
to
monthly
(
alarm
system
for
the
leak
detection
equipment
is
checked
daily,
demonstrably
adequate
secondary
containment
system,
a
continuous
surveillance
system,
a
satisfactory
compliance
history
and
a
suitable
location.

The
design
of
EPA's
Performance
Track
utilizes
several
levels
of
review
which
include
an
EPAconducted
compliance
screen,
a
review
of
the
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
by
a
third­
party
auditor,
and
a
an
EPA
review
to
ensure
that
the
facility
is
achieving
"
beyond
compliance"
performance.
EPA,
however,
does
not
directly
review
or
approve
the
third
party
evaluation
of
the
EMS.
Several
studies
have
shown
that
there
are
variations
in
quality
in
the
third­
party
auditing
community,
and
that
a
third­
party
audit
of
an
EMS
does
not
in
all
cases
assure
the
facility
is
achieving
higher
levels
of
compliance.
In
addition,
third
party
audits
may
not
cover
the
scope
of
the
site
that
is
inclusive
of
the
area
that
contains
the
tanks.
For
example
an
ISO
14001
audit
may
be
scoped
to
include
only
portions
of
the
site.

For
these
reasons,
it
is
recommended
that
this
incentive
be
only
provided
to
Performance
Track
members
that
have
received
a
State­
conducted
pre­
audit,
or
a
third­
party
pre­
audit
that
has
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
State.
This
would
ensure
that
the
EMS
that
is
in
place
is
actually
assuring
a
higher
level
of
performance
at
the
facility
and
that
the
EMS
is
inclusive
of
the
area
in
which
the
tanks
are
located.

Document
#:
0346
DOE
supports
giving
all
facilities
the
opportunity
(
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis)
to
decrease
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
tanks.
As
previously
indicated
DOE
believes
this
approach
would
provide
facilities
with
incentives
for
establishing
more
protective
designs,
environmental
management
systems,
and
compliance
practices.
However,
if
only
National
Performance
Track
Facilities
are
eligible
for
the
decrease
in
inspection
frequencies,
the
benefits
of
the
approach
would
be
diminished.
Accordingly,
DOE
would
prefer
that
the
opportunity
not
be
limited
at
the
federal
level
to
National
Performance
Track
Facilities.
Having
said
this,
DOE
wishes
to
express
its
support
for
providing
additional
meaningful
incentives
for
participants
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program,
when
appropriate.
But,
such
additional
incentives
should
not
necessarily
be
provided
at
the
expense
of
more
widespread
burden
reduction.

DOE
acknowledges
the
potential
burden
on
authorized
states
from
case­
by­
case
reviews
of
inspection
programs.
However,
states
would
not
be
required
to
become
authorized
for
this
program
and
also
would
have
the
option
to
adopt
a
more
stringent
approach,
including
limiting
eligible
facilities
within
their
boundaries
to
National
Performance
Track
Facilities.
­
114­
DOE
supports
extending
the
opportunity
for
a
decrease
in
inspection
frequency
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
areas
subject
to
spills.
As
previously
indicated,
DOE
believes
this
would
be
justified
because
activities
that
may
cause
spills
usually
allow
for
the
spills
to
be
easily
detected
and
quickly
cleaned
up.
More
frequent
inspections
are
unlikely
to
result
in
quicker
spill
detection.
Also,
for
the
reasons
states
in
item
III.
B.
1a,
above,
DOE
suggests
that
EPA
not
limit
this
element
of
the
burden
reduction
initiative
to
members
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
Document
#:
0347
Eastman
supports
the
Agency's
previous
proposal
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
for
facilities
with
certain
demonstrated
commitments
relevant
to
good
and
appropriate
management
practices.
This
current
suggestion
that
such
changes
be
limited
to
only
member
companies
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
is
simply
too
self­
serving,
in
our
view.
There
are
many
good
performers
(
so
called
"
top
environmental
performers")
who
will
not
take
on
the
burden
of
participating
in
yet
another
federal
program,
when
they
have
existing
and
comparable
criteria
to
be
met
under
the
American
Chemistry
Council's
Responsible
Care
®
program
or
ISO
14000/
14001
standards
or
various
other
program
in
which
they
are
participants.
Limiting
participation
to
members
of
one
EPA­
sponsored
program
when
there
are
many
non­
members
who
would
qualify
is
simply
unacceptable.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
by­
case
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0348
Limit
the
provision
to
only
members
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program.
In
addition
the
decreased
inspection
frequency
should
be
required
to
revert
to
daily
if
problems
are
observed.
Require
daily
inspections
until
the
issue
is
addressed
and
for
a
two­
week
period
following
the
fix
to
insure
the
fix
is
appropriate.

Do
not
allow
reduced
frequency
of
inspections
in
areas
subject
to
spills.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
­
115­
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0349
ADEQ
does
not
concur
with
EPA's
proposal
to
further
reduce
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
on
a
case­
by­
case
or
sit
specific
basis.
We
believe
that
the
process
of
evaluating
case­
by­
case
and/
or
site
specific
conditions
and
considerations
necessary
for
further
decreasing
inspection
frequencies
while
maintaining
an
appropriate
level
of
controls
for
the
safe
operation
of
these
units
would
dramatically
increase
the
burden
on
EPA
and
authorized
States
which
are
already
working
with
decreased
resources
in
many
instances.
Our
concerns
regarding
increased
burden
on
EPA
and
authorized
States
are
applicable
with
regard
to
whether
EPA
considers
limiting
inspection
frequency
reductions
to
member
of
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
only
or
considers
expanding
this
allowance
to
all
generators.
However,
the
larger
the
eligible
facility
base,
the
greater
EPA's
and
authorized
State's
burden
will
be
evaluating
caseby
case
and
site
specific
requests
for
inspection
frequency
reductions.

ADEQ
reiterates
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
will
not
provide
any
additional
reduction
in
the
recordkeeping/
reporting
burden
for
small
quantity
generators
who
are
not
subject
to
40
CFR,
Section
254/
265.15
and,
therefore,
are
not
required
to
maintain
a
schedule
or
a
record
of
inspections.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0352
EPA
requested
comments
on
establishing
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
spills
based
on
site­
specific
evaluations.
LANL
believes
that
equipment­
specific
factors,
such
as
those
already
described
in
40
CFR
§
264.15(
b)(
4)
and
§
265.15(
b)(
4)
can
be
applied
to
all
RCRA­
regulated
tank
systems,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
so
that
case­
by­
case
frequencies
could
be
established
without
impacting
the
environment
or
human
health.
We
also
believe
that
some
inspection
frequencies
could
be
decreased
without
the
need
for
a
case­
by­
case
evaluation.
Many
facilities,
not
just
Performance
Track
Facilities,
have
well
operated
systems.
Therefore,
the
case­
by­
case
evaluation
should
be
made
available
to
all
generators
and
permitted
and
interim­
status
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
­
116­
COPC
supports
the
idea
that
any
well
performing
facility
may
petition,
on
a
site­
specific
basis
to
further
reduce
its
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
based
upon
its
performance
record.
Facilities
participating
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
have
likely
done
much
of
the
work
in
documenting
their
recognized
environmental
performance;
yet
there
are
probably
other
well
performing
facilities
that
have
not
chosen
the
Performance
Track
program
because
they
already
have
well
established
and
highly
effective
management
systems.
COPC
thinks
these
other
well
performing
facilities
should
also
have
an
opportunity
to
establish
a
less
frequent
inspection
schedule.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0354
In
the
original
proposed
rule,
EPA
proposed
to
allow
"
good
actors"
to
further
decrease
inspection
frequencies.
In
our
comments,
CRWI
supported
this
idea.
Based
on
comments
received,
EPA
is
re­
evaluating
whether
to
allow
all
generators
to
use
this
"
good
actor"
provision
or
to
restrict
this
provision
to
companies
that
participate
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
EPA
is
concerned
that
allowing
all
generators
to
use
this
case­
by­
case
option
will
impose
a
burden
on
the
authorized
states
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
criteria.
CRWI
agrees
with
the
concept
of
reducing
the
burden
to
both
the
regulated
and
the
regulator.
However,
we
are
not
convinced
that
this
change
would
accomplish
what
EPA
intends.
As
long
as
the
authorized
state
has
already
incorporated
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
into
its
program,
this
might
be
a
mechanism
for
administering
reduced
inspection
frequency.
However,
not
all
facilities
will
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this
program.
In
addition,
all
states
may
not
have
incorporated
this
program
into
their
system.
CRWI
believes
that
restricting
the
"
good
actor"
provisions
to
participants
of
this
program
may
not
achieve
the
desired
goals
of
burden
reduction.
Similarly,
some
states
may
also
have
internal
programs
that
are
comparable
to
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Restricting
burden
reduction
to
only
federal
compliance
incentive
programs
may
exclude
other,
equally
effective
state
programs.

CRWI
agrees
that
where
such
programs
are
already
in
place
they
should
be
used.
We
also
believe
that
restricting
the
"
good
actor"
provision
to
any
one
program
may
become
counterproductive.
Should
future
programs
be
developed,
these
would
have
to
be
incorporated
into
both
the
federal
and
state
plans
and
regulations
before
they
could
be
used.
Thus,
CRWI
suggests
that
EPA
revise
the
language
to
allow
other
current
and
future
programs
to
be
utilized
to
meet
the
"
good
actor"
­
117­
criteria.
This
approach
would
preclude
the
need
for
future
rule
changes
when
new
or
revised
incentive
programs
become
available.
Perhaps
EPA
actually
said
it
best
in
the
preamble
of
the
original
proposed
rule(
67
FR
2527)
by
noting:

"
We
are
not
mandating
that
states
offer
these
changes.
We
are
only
providing
the
option
to
states
that
are
interested."

Following
the
same
logic,
CRWI
believes
that
EPA
should
not
mandate
to
the
states
that
a
particular
program
is
an
exclusive
prerequisite
for
burden
reduction
but
rather
allows
the
state
to
decide
what
justifies
using
the
"
good
actor"
provision
following
criteria
already
outlined
by
EPA
in
the
proposed
rule
and
the
NODA.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
membership
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
is
sufficient
qualification
to
reduce
facility
self
inspections
up
to
once
per
month
without
a
case­
bycase
review.
EPA's
proposal
included
criteria
to
determine
eligibility
for
inspection
reductions
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Those
criteria
included
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices,
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements),
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
pubic
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

Document
#:
0357
The
Department
continues
to
oppose
allowing
decreased
inspections
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
building
including
inspections
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
the
regulatory
agency.
The
Department
encourages
EPA
to
not
change
the
inspection
schedules
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
The
Department
believes
that
frequent
inspections
help
prevent
releases
from
waste
management
units.

EPA
states
the
Agency
is
reconsidering
whether
to
allow
case­
by­
case
determinations
because
of
the
burden
it
might
impose
on
authorized
states.
The
Department
is
concerned
about
the
additional
administrative
burden
that
case­
by­
case
determination
would
cause.
Therefore,
if
EPA
pursues
allowing
reduced
inspections
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
Department
encourages
EPA
to
set
forth
expressly
and
authoritatively
criteria
that
generators
can
follow
to
self­
implement
an
inspection
frequency
without
the
prior
approval
of
the
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0361
EPA
has
requested
comment
on
decreased
inspection
frequencies
(
but
at
least
monthly
inspection)
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

DTSC
does
not
believe
that
monthly
inspections
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
are
adequate
under
any
circumstance.
DTSC
supports
the
option
of
adjusting
the
inspection
frequency
(
up
to
a
weekly
basis)
based
upon
compliance
history.
­
118­
Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264.193(
c)(
3))
or
265.193(
c)(
3)
.

The
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.

Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264.193(
c)(
3)
or
265.193(
c)(
3).

As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.

While
permitted,
interim
status,
and
LQG
tanks
are
subject
to
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Parts
264/
5,
Subpart
J,
SQG
tanks
are
subject
to
separate
requirements,
found
in
40
CFR
265.201.
Today's
rulemaking
reduces
the
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
SQG
tanks,
from
daily
to
weekly.
The
existing
required
inspections
for
SQGs
are
listed
below,
with
the
currentlyrequired
frequency
in
parentheses
after
each
item.
The
existing
regulations
specify
that
owners
and
operators
of
SQG
tanks
must
inspect,
where
present:
°
Discharge
control
equipment(
e.
g.,
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
by­
pass
systems,
and
drainage
systems)
to
ensure
that
it
is
in
good
working
order
(
daily)
;
°
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
and
temperature
gauges
to
ensure
that
the
tank
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design
(
daily);
°
The
level
of
waste
in
the
tank
to
ensure
compliance
with
265.201(
b)(
3)(
daily).
°
The
construction
materials
of
the
tank
to
detect
corrosion
or
leaking
of
fixtures
or
seams
(
weekly);
and
°
The
construction
materials
of,
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding,
discharge
confinement
structures
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
obvious
signs
of
leakage
(
e.
g.,
set
spots
or
dead
vegetation)
(
weekly)
­
119­
The
requirements
for
SQG
tanks
were
finalized
on
March
24,
1986
(
51
FR
10146),
and
with
the
July
14,
1986
final
tank
regulations,
codified
at
§
265.201.
Discussion
in
the
March
1986
rule
relates
to
how
the
SQG
requirements
were
developed,
as
distinct
from
the
requirements
for
LQG
tanks..
The
rule
states:
"
Congress
anticipated
reducing
administrative
requirements,
such
as
reporting
and
recordkeeping,
as
a
means
to
reduce
impacts
on
the
100­
1000
kg/
mo
generators.
Thus,
EPA
proposed
to
relieve
these
generators
of
some
Part
262
standards
that
are
administrative
in
nature
while
retaining
all
existing
technical
standards.
The
relief
was
only
provided
to
generators
who
accumulate
on
site
for
the
statutorily­
prescribed
periods,
because,
given
that
the
amount
of
waste
accumulated
would
necessarily
be
limited,
the
relative
risk
from
releases
of
such
waste
would
be
less
than
that
from
the
unlimited
amounts
of
waste
accumulated
by
off­
site
facilities,"
(
51
FR
10149).

Today's
final
rule
also
changes
the
frequency
of
all
the
inspections
for
SQGs,
listed
in
40
CFR
265.201,
from
daily
to
weekly.
We
believe
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
SQGs
is
consistent
with
the
approach
for
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
other
hazardous
waste
tanks.
Because
we
are
reducing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
reduced
inspection
frequencies
for
SQGs
makes
sense
in
terms
of
how
and
why
both
types
of
generators
were
originally
regulated.

264.304
265.303
Landfills
­
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
Notification:
General
Proposal:
An
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
Final
Rule:
The
Agency
is
not
going
forward
with
this
change.

Document
#:
0216
Maine
disagrees
that
submission
of
Response
Action
Plans
and
notifications
when
flow
rates
exceed
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR)
for
any
sumps
within
7
days
should
be
eliminated.
These
are
not
unnecessary
requirements
and
of
course
we
would
expect
all
actions
should
be
taken
to
stop
leaks.
Regulatory
authorities
should
continue
to
be
notified
for
the
reasons
stated
previously.
Written
assessment
of
leakage
determinations
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
agency
as
well
as
follow
up
reports.

Submit
information
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded.

Document
#:
0286
We
believe
a
provision
to
include
a
notification
which
simply
indicates
the
leak
rate
has
exceeded
the
action
level
is
not
burdensome.
A
notification
as
simple
as
an
electronic
mail
would
be
sufficient.
This
allows
the
regulating
agency
to
first
make
this
knowledge
available
to
the
public
and
allows
us
the
ability
to
actively
investigate
if
we
choose
to
do
so.
By
eliminating
the
simplest
of
notifications,
we
are
required
to
adopt
a
hit
or
miss
system
in
determining
if
these
types
of
­
120­
facilities
have
had
these
types
of
issues.
Additionally,
by
eliminating
these
requirements,
record
keeping
requirements
documenting
these
situations
are
nebulous
at
best.
There
is
no
direct
provision
which
requires
all
of
the
actions
taken
to
be
documented.
We
believe
this
should
be
added
to
these
rules.

Response:
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
requirement
to
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills.
Response
action
plans
document
what
a
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.

The
final
rule
will
retain
the
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)(
1),
and
will
eliminate
the
submission
only
of
the
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
be
developed
and
retained
on­
site.
As
a
reminder,
the
requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed;
only
the
requirement
to
submit
a
response
action
plan
is
being
eliminated..

Cost
Benefit
Analysis,
General
Document
#:
0004
While
we
are
mainly
interested
in
this
docket
to
the
extent
it
reduces
burden
associated
with
specific
regulatory
requirements,
we
nevertheless
acknowledge
that
the
way
burden
is
counted
can
make
a
difference.
For
example,
in
a
separate
proceeding,
we
discovered
that
EPA
was
adding
to
its
Uniform
Manifest
burden
estimate
hours
spent
complying
with
requirements
of
the
US
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT).
At
the
same
time,
DOT
was
also
accounting
for
these
same
burden
hours.
However,
we
disagree
that
EPA
need
only
count
burden
for
reading
regulations
at
new
facilities.
Facilities
do
not
comply
with
requirements,
people
do.
Each
time
an
employee
with
regulatory
responsibility
changes,
ostensibly
there
would
be
reason
to
reread
the
regulations
to
ensure
that
compliance
is
on
track.
Also,
each
item
the
regulations
are
changed,
irrespective
of
whether
a
facility
is
"
new"
or
"
old",
a
reading
of
the
regulations
would
be
necessary
to
determine
compliance.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0008
With
regard
to
the
burden
of
the
LDR
program,
USWAG
agrees
with
EPA's
assessment
that
the
LDR
requirements
account
for
nearly
one­
third
of
all
RCRA
paperwork
burdens.
USWAG
also
endorses
the
specific
LDR
burden
reduction
proposals
presented
in
the
NODA.

Response:
Several
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirements
at
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
­
121­
not
deleting
these
requirements
from
the
regulations
as
proposed.
These
requirements
accounted
for
most
of
the
proposed
paperwork
burden.
The
other
proposed
LDR
changes,
some
of
which
we
are
promulgating,
account
for
much
less
burden
reduction.

Document
#:
0011
One
of
the
proposed
changes
is
to
eliminate
the
legal
owner
information
for
generators
and
transporters
­
requiring
it
only
for
TSDFs.
We
oppose
deleting
the
legal
owner
from
the
notification
forms.
The
vast
majority
of
hazardous
waste
is
handled
by
owners
&
operators
who
are
not
TSDFs.
It
is
important
to
keep
the
owner
information
in
case
the
operator
defaults
on
their
obligations
and
it
is
necessary
to
identify
responsible
parties
in
enforcement
actions.

Another
proposed
change
is
to
eliminate
the
need
for
small
quantity
generators
to
obtain
an
EPA
ID
number.
Small
quantity
generators
are
historically
the
facilities
with
the
highest
rates
of
noncompliance
and
without
a
way
to
track
their
locations,
States
would
not
be
able
to
identify
and
inspection
them.
Further,
identification
numbers
are
necessary
for
manifesting
wastes
to
appropriate
TSDFs
for
disposal.

Although
the
proposed
changes
to
container
labeling
are
not
clearly
defined
in
the
background
documents,
we
oppose
changing
the
labeling
requirements
for
containers
storing
hazardous
wastes.
Containers
are
currently
required
to
be
labeled
as
hazardous
wastes
and
also
must
contain
the
beginning
date
of
accumulation.
It
is
unclear
how
eliminating
these
requirements
would
reduce
paperwork­
if
alternate
methods
are
required
for
documenting
the
date
of
accumulation
it
seems
that
this
would
increase
the
amount
of
paperwork.
Allowing
elimination
of
container
labeling
would
create
a
regulatory
nightmare
for
inspectors
trying
to
locate
wastes
in
facilities
or
trying
to
identify
responsible
parties
for
abandoned
drums.
In
addition,
in
emergency
situations,
if
drums
are
just
labeled
with
a
numbered
inventory
system,
then
having
to
spend
time
looking
up
what
was
in
the
drum
would
prolong
the
process
of
trying
to
keep
the
emergency
situation
under
control.
Paperwork
may
also
end
up
being
increased
due
to
changes
to
contingency
plans
which
would
have
to
detail
the
inventory
process
used
and
how
to
determine
contents
of
drums.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
these
burden
reduction
strategies.

Document
#:
0020
EPA
should
carefully
assess
the
potential
for
flaws
in
its
estimation
of
the
time
spent
submitting
information,
keeping
records,
developing
required
information,
analyzing
and
summarizing
data,
writing
reports,
and
filling
out
forms.
If
the
burden
estimate
is
not
accurate,
the
hours
required
to
be
reduced
would
also
be
flawed.
The
baseline
estimate
of
12,6000,000
hours
per
year
appears
to
be
unjustifiably
high.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
that
our
initial
estimate
of
burden
reduction
was
high.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
cost
benefit
analysis
supporting
this
final
rule
for
a
more
accurate
account
of
potential
savings.
­
122­
Document
#:
0027
Regarding
the
Burden
Reduction
Analysis
dated
April
8,
1999,
we
have
the
following
comments.
The
format
and
numbering
system
for
these
comments
is
the
same
as
that
used
in
the
Draft
Burden
Reduction
Analysis.

We
believe
these
issues
should
be
deferred
to
the
WIN/
Informed
project,
which
is
currently
addressing
this
issue.

Proposal
A.
1
seems
to
conflict
with
the
proposal
under
Section
A.
5.
(
Number
IX
on
Form 
Description
of
Hazardous
Waste).

One
concern
IEPA
has
with
this
proposal
is
the
issue
of
electronic
signatures.
Also,
see
the
comments
made
previously
regarding
our
experience
with
the
Annual
Hazardous
Waste
Report.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0174
For
hazardous
waste
generators,
these
changes
will
be
self­
implementing
if
the
proposed
rule
is
finalized.
However
for
facilities
with
permits,
these
changes
would
involve
modification
to
the
inspection
schedule
in
the
facility
permit.
Most
changes
that
reduce
the
burden
require
a
Class
2
permit
modification
(
40
CFR
270.42
Appendix
1).
Dow
request
that
EPA
expressly
allow
permitted
facilities
use
the
Class
1
modification
procedure
or,
at
most,
the
Class
1­
modification
procedure
to
implement
the
changes,
arising
form
this
rulemaking.

Dow
believes
that
this
change
could
be
easily
made
with
the
following
language
addition
to
Appendix
I:

8.
Changes
related
to
generating,
reporting,
and
keeping
records
as
identified
in
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Final
Rule.

a.
changes
that
do
not
require
approval
b.
changes
that
require
approval
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
rulemaking
and
prevents
both
EPA
and
relevant
state
agencies
from
the
unnecessary
burdens
from
a
multitude
of
unneeded
Class
2
permit
modifications.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
The
reader
is
referred
to
our
preamble
discussion
on
permit
modifications.

Document
#:
0215
The
proposal
states
that
the
agency
has
"
already
achieved
reductions
of
close
to
5
million
hours,"
or
40%
of
1995
levels
(
page
2519).
Based
on
my
experience,
the
agency
is
overestimating
what
has
been
achieved
so
far.
The
burdens
associated
with
RCRA
reporting
and
record­
keeping
at
­
123­
Bethlehem's
facilities
have
not
decreased
compared
to
1995
levels.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
that
our
initial
estimate
of
burden
reduction
was
high.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
cost
benefit
analysis
supporting
this
final
rule
for
a
more
accurate
account
of
potential
savings.

Document
#:
0217
Many
of
the
burden
reduction
claims
made
by
the
Agency
for
the
proposed
changes
in
its
"
Revised
Draft
Cost­
Benefit
Analysis"
dates
January
29,
2001
look
reasonable.
But
Eastman
does
disagree
with
the
burden
reduction
claim
in
two
general
areas,
as
follows:

For
those
citations
where
the
only
change
is
to
keep
records
on
site
rather
than
keep
them
on
site
AND
submit
to
EPA,
we
believe
the
Agency
is
totally
unrealistic
in
claiming
a
50
percent
burden
reduction.
Examples
of
where
such
change
occur
are
at
265.93(
d)(
2)
and
268.7(
b)(
6),
plus
a
number
of
other
citations.
It
takes
little
in
the
way
of
resources
to
submit
a
record
to
EPA
after
it's
completed;
the
vast
majority
of
the
burden
is
associated
with
the
preparation
of
the
record
itself.

For
example,
the
requirement
at
265.93(
d)(
2)
is
to
develop
and
submit
"...
a
specific
plan,
based
on
the
outline
required
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
and
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
for
a
ground­
water
quality
assessment
program
at
the
facility."
The
burden
is
in
developing
the
plan,
not
in
submitting
the
plan
to
the
Agency.
Eastman
suggests
a
more
appropriate
burden
reduction
for
this
and
other
relevant
citations
would
be
five
percent
or
even
less,
basically
for
clerical
time
that
might
be
required
plus
postage.

Another
are
where
Eastman
believes
EPA
is
overestimating
the
resultant
benefits
is
in
regard
to
proposed
changes
in
the
LDR
paperwork
requirements.
This
is
where
the
bulk
fo
EPA's
cost
savings
for
this
proposal
are
claimed.
What
the
Agency
is
doing
is
simply
eliminating
duplicative
requirements,
so
there's
actually
no
real
cost
savings
to
facilities.
The
same
waste
determinations
are
done
and
will
continue
to
be
done
by
a
facility,
so
removal
of
the
code
in
Part
268
does
not
change
the
cost
to
a
facility
of
characterizing
its
wastes.
This
is
simply
a
"
paperwork"
change
by
EPA,
resulting
in
no
cost
reduction
for
any
affected
facility.

The
other
proposed
changes
to
Part
268
simply
eliminate
submitting
notification/
certifications
to
EPA.
Again,
this
results
in
very
little
cost
savings
to
the
facility
since
the
development
of
the
information
needed
for
the
paperwork
still
has
to
be
done.
The
only
savings
is
in
a
little
clerical
time
and
postage.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
that
our
initial
estimate
of
burden
reduction
was
high.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
cost
benefit
analysis
supporting
this
final
rule
for
a
more
accurate
account
of
potential
savings.

In
regards
to
the
proposed
LDR
changes,
several
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirements
at
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
only
shift
the
­
124­
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
The
Agency
agrees;
therefore,
the
Agency
is
not
deleting
these
requirements
from
the
regulations
as
proposed.
These
requirements
accounted
for
most
of
the
proposed
paperwork
burden.
The
other
proposed
LDR
changes,
some
of
which
we
are
promulgating,
account
for
much
less
burden
reduction.

Document
#:
0306
The
Work
Group
has
not
gathered
any
quantitative
information
regarding
the
economic
burden
of
the
RCRA
record
retention
requirements
currently
applicable
to
its
member
companies.
However,
hundreds
of
man­
hours
and
thousands
of
dollars
are
expended
annually
to
generate
and
archive
the
required
compliance
records,
and
our
members
are
now
charged
with
the
retention
of
tens
of
thousands
of
documents.
The
office
space,
man­
hours,
and
capital
that
must
be
expended
to
retain
records
until
closure
of
an
affected
HWF
facility
or
management
unit
(
and
to
deliver
the
operating
record
to
a
state
regulatory
authority,
if
required)
are
significant.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
that
our
initial
estimate
of
burden
reduction
was
high.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
cost
benefit
analysis
supporting
this
final
rule
for
a
more
accurate
account
of
potential
savings.

Notifications;
General
Document
#:
0004
We
agree
that
many
reports
that
have
heretofore
been
routinely
submitted
to
EPA
need
not
be
as
long
as
the
information
is
available
on
request.
We
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
routine
filings
where
the
information
can
be
obtained
in
a
manner
that
does
not
compromise
enforcement
efforts
or
the
environment.
We
remind
EPA,
however,
that
states
can
be
more
stringent
than
EPA,
and
despite
EPA's
initiative
may
continue
to
require
report
filings.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document:
0007
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
intention
to
reduce
the
number
of
reports
required
of
generators
and
TSDFs
under
the
hazardous
waste
regulations.
In
many
instances,
it
is
questionable
whether
the
routine
submission
of
this
information
serves
any
real
purpose.
Furthermore,
given
that
the
management
of
this
paperwork
can
place
considerable
administrative
burdens
on
state
agencies
as
well
as
industry,
there
needs
to
be
a
demonstrated
need
for
and
benefit
derived
from
the
actual
submission
of
the
required
information.

SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
consult
actively
with
authorized
states
about
whether
the
states
would
be
inclined
to
adopt
any
reduced
reporting
requirements
that
might
be
proposed
by
the
Agency.
EPA
should
seek
to
identify
a
set
of
reduced
reporting
requirements
that
could
be
fairly
uniformly
accepted
as
modifications
to
the
current
hazardous
waste
regulations.
The
value
of
reduced
reporting
requirements
were
widely
adopted
by
the
states
as
part
of
their
authorized
hazardous
­
125­
waste
programs.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0020
EPA
proposes
elimination
of
Hazardous
waste
fuel
activity,
Underground
Injection
control
and
Used
Oil
Activities
in
Section
VIII.
There
is
no
justification
given
for
the
elimination
of
these
items.
The
Department
views
the
notification
of
these
activities
to
be
an
important
element
of
developing
a
protective
program.
There
needs
to
be
a
mechanism
for
notification
to
EPA
and
States
for
these
activities.

It
is
unclear
why
Section
II
is
being
removed
from
consideration.
Section
II
"
Name
of
Installation"
may
have
changed
in
a
subsequent
notification.
It
seems
to
make
more
sense
to
remove
item
III,
"
Location
of
Installation".
ID
numbers
are
site
specific
and
the
location
should
not
change
in
the
event
of
a
subsequent
notification.

Closure
and
Post
Closure
reports,
corrective
action
monitoring,
groundwater
monitoring
and
compliance
monitoring:
These
submittals
are
absolutely
essential
to
monitor
the
effectiveness
of
the
facilities
design
and
determine
whether
environmental
performance
standards
are
met.
Furthermore,
how
would
regulatory
agencies
respond
to
public
inquiries
without
this
data
readily
available?

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursing
this
burden
reduction
change
in
today's
final
rule.

Currently
notification
requirements
also
provide
a
substantial
burden
for
our
nationwide
customer
base
that
includes
a
variety
of
locations
which
qualify
as
Small
Quantity
Generator
facilities
under
RCRA.
It
would
reduce
burden
on
these
customers
substantially
if
the
Agency
were
to
only
require
individual
ID
Numbers
for
Large
Quantity
Generators,
Transporters
and
TSDFs.
This
would
mean
that
Small
Quantity
Generators
would
no
longer
need
to
apply
for
and
get
and
individual
ID
number,
but
only
would
need
to
comply
with
the
waste
management
regulations,
putting
in
a
uniform
code
where
ID
numbers
are
required
from
others.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
but
it
is
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0028
Make
electronic
version
of
Notification
8700­
12
Form
available
on
a
website
for
hazardous
waste
facilities.
States
could
modify
(
where
Federal
and
State
requirements
differ)
according
to
their
state
regulations.
This
would
reduce
turnaround
time
and
numerous
phone
calls
required
for
filing.
Also,
include
a
standardized
form
letter
that
states
would
be
able
to
modify,
to
enable
facilities
to
describe
the
reason
the
facilities
are
filing
the
Notification
to
apply
for
an
EPA
Identification
Number;
e.
g.,
one­
time
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
for
a
laboratory
clean­
up.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
but
it
is
beyond
the
scope
­
126­
of
today's
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0038
In
deciding
which
notices
to
retain,
the
EPA
should
identify
key
program
requirements
and
use
those
requirements
to
identify
appropriate
notices.

The
DOD
recommends
that
the
EPA
limit
notification
requirements
to
those
that
serve
a
meaningful
enforcement
function
or
minimize
the
need
for
generators,
haulers,
or
TSDFs
to
verify
qualifications
of
other
participants
in
the
waste
disposal
process.
Further
the
EPA
should
examine
eliminating
the
associated
on­
site
recordkeeping
where
the
records
do
not
serve
a
meaningful
purpose.
Additionally,
the
EPA
should
not
claim
significant
paperwork
reduction
burden
if
associated
recordkeeping
requirements
are
not
also
eliminated.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0041
We
agree
with
the
position
that
much
of
the
information
currently
submitted
to
the
Agency
could
be
maintained
on
site.
Not
requiring
the
submission
of
this
information
would
save
considerable
time
and
money,
especially
if
we
were
allowed
to
maintain
the
information
electronically.
The
information
and
documents
would
still
be
developed
by
the
affected
facility
but
would
be
kept
electronically
as
part
of
the
facility
record
and
would
be
made
available
to
officials
during
inspections.
We
also
believe
that
this
initiative
would
save
the
Agency
and
the
States
considerable
time
and
money
since
they
would
no
longer
have
to
review
each
document
and
maintain
files
containing
the
documents.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0042
DHWM
believes
the
following
reporting
or
notification
requirements
can
be
removed
from
the
hazardous
waste
rules
with
no
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
or
to
the
implementation
of
the
hazardous
waste
program.
Please
note,
we
found
some
of
the
citations
given
in
the
document
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Reporting
Requirements,
to
be
incorrect
per
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
revised
July
1,
1998.
We
used
the
correct
citation
for
the
rules
we
are
in
favor
of
removing.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0133
Eliminate
duplicative
notifications,
especially
regarding
releases.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment..

Document
#:
0169
Several
of
the
proposed
revisions
assume
that
facilities
will
follow
the
requirements
and
keep
the
­
127­
documentation
that
their
facility.
Even
if
a
facility
is
diligent
in
maintaining
their
file,
this
eliminates
the
accessibility
of
the
file
to
the
public
and
requires
more
records
to
be
reviewed
during
the
inspection.
This
will
result
in
longer,
more
detailed
inspections
and
may
in
fact
prove
more
time
consuming
than
having
the
facility
submit
important
documents,
as
they
are
required.
Also,
it
is
simply
not
possible
to
do
the
detailed
technical
review
that
many
of
these
submittals
require
during
an
inspection.
These
documents
often
require
review
by
technical
experts
who
cannot
attend
routine
inspections.
Also,
notifications,
when
required
,
are
cost
effective
and
efficient
ways
for
the
regulatory
agencies
to
track
changes
at
facilities
and
for
facilities
to
notify
the
public
and
receive
feedback
from
the
regulatory
agency
on
the
adequacy
of
their
proposed
change.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
the
Agency
is
significantly
limiting
the
number
of
notifications
that
will
not
be
required
to
be
sent
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
as
opposed
to
the
number
originally
proposed.
We
feel
that
the
notifications
that
we
are
deleting
will
have
no
adverse
impact
on
the
ability
of
the
enforcement
agency
to
track
changes
at
the
facility.
It
is
important
to
note
that
we
believe
that
these
changes
will
not
affect
the
government
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
hazardous
waste
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
be
available
in
the
facility's
record.
With
regard
to
public
feed
back,
although
the
public
does
not
generally
have
access
to
the
facility's
operating
record,
the
Agency
Director
can
require
permitted
facilities
to
establish
and
maintain
a
publicly
accessible
information
repository
at
any
time.
(
See
270.30(
m)).
Similarly,
facilities
that
are
applying
for
permits
may
be
required
to
establish
and
maintain
an
information
repository.
(
See
124.33).

Document
#:
0184
The
two
major
issues,
notification
and
reporting,
have
significant
implications
for
efficient
use
of
limited
staff
time.
Facilities
need
to
continue
to
notify
the
Nebraska
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
NDEQ)
of
significant
events
such
as
SSIs
etc.
Relying
on
facility
notification,
rather
than
NDEQ
"
discovering"
that
an
exceedance
occurred
through
review
of
the
operating
record
during
routine
compliance
inspections,
is
consistent
with
NDEQ
making
efficient
use
of
limited
staff
resources.
It
is
also
important
that
facilities
continue
to
provide
monitoring
reports
on
a
routine
basis
rather
than
simply
storing
the
reports
on
site
as
part
of
the
operating
record.
If
they
are
not
required
to
provide
monitoring
data,
we
will
not
be
able
to
effectively
implement
electronic
data
submittals,
and
therefore,
it
will
be
more
difficult
to
implement
electronic
data
review.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
the
Agency
is
significantly
limiting
the
number
of
notifications
that
will
not
required
to
be
sent
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
as
opposed
to
what
was
originally
proposed.
We
feel
that
the
notifications
that
we
are
deleting
will
have
no
adverse
impact
on
the
ability
of
the
enforcement
agency
to
track
changes
at
the
facility.
It
is
important
to
note
that
we
believe
that
these
changes
will
not
affect
the
government
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
hazardous
waste
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
be
­
128­
available
in
the
facility's
record.
With
regard
to
public
feed
back,
although
the
public
does
not
generally
have
access
to
the
facility's
operating
record,
the
Agency
Director
can
require
permitted
facilities
to
establish
and
maintain
a
publicly
accessible
information
repository
at
any
time.
(
See
270.30(
m)).
Similarly,
facilities
that
are
applying
for
permits
may
be
required
to
establish
and
maintain
an
information
repository.

Document
#:
0205
The
NAM
supports
basing
the
case­
by­
case
determinations
on
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility
"
relative
to
storage
of
hazardous
waste."
This
approach
is
much
narrower
than
the
current
preamble
language
and
more
focused
on
hazardous­
waste
storage
than
the
current
proposed
regulatory
language.
The
preamble
discussion
considers
many
factors
well
beyond,
and
not
directly
related
to,
the
facility's
compliance
record
for
the
agency
to
consider
when
making
these
case­
by­
case
determinations,
such
as
public
outreach
and
subjective
management
traits.
The
preamble
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposed
regulatory
wording
and
result
in
inconsistent
implementation
of
this
portion
of
the
rule,
if
not
clarified
in
the
final
rule.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment..

Document
#:
0240
These
proposed
revisions
to
RCRA
regulations
would
eliminate
a
requirement
for
a
regulated
entity
to
provide
notice
of
specified
significant
events
in
the
operation
of
a
facility
or
reports
regarding
significant
acts
in
the
operation
of
a
facility
and,
according
to
the
summary
of
the
changes
in
the
Federal
Register,
would
instead
require
or
allow
the
facility
to
record
that
data
in
the
facility's
operating
record
or
other
facility
files.
DTSC
supports
regulatory
changes
that
eliminate
unnecessary
regulatory
burden
and
non­
essential
paperwork.
However,
we
believe
that
the
proposed
changes
go
beyond
reducing
reporting
burden
by
eliminating
unnecessary
or
nonessential
paperwork.
In
effect,
the
proposed
rulemaking
eliminates
much
of
the
critical
and
timely
oversight
by
regulatory
agencies
and
may
compromise
the
regulatory
agency's
ability
to
fulfill
the
mandate
of
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
the
Agency
is
significantly
limiting
the
number
of
notifications
that
will
not
required
to
be
sent
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
as
opposed
to
what
was
originally
proposed.
We
feel
that
the
notifications
that
we
are
deleting
will
have
no
adverse
impact
on
the
ability
of
the
enforcement
agency
to
track
changes
at
the
facility.
It
is
important
to
note
that
we
believe
that
these
changes
will
not
affect
the
government
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
hazardous
waste
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
be
available
in
the
facility's
record.
With
regard
to
public
feed
back,
although
the
public
does
not
generally
have
access
to
the
facility's
operating
record,
the
Agency
Director
can
require
permitted
facilities
to
establish
and
maintain
a
publicly
accessible
information
repository
at
any
time.
(
See
270.30(
m)).
Similarly,
facilities
that
are
applying
for
permits
may
be
required
to
establish
and
maintain
an
information
repository.

Document
#:
0331
­
129­
NPCA
supports
EPA's
Notice
provision
adopting
a
three­
year
limit
for
keeping
information
under
the
operating
record
requirements
of
RCRA
264.73
and
265.73.
This
is
consistent
with
other
EPA
programs
including
the
Toxics
Substance
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Community
Right
to
Know
programs.
This
reduces
burden
without
impacting
the
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Miscellaneous;
General
Document
#:
0008
RCRA
regulations
establish
detailed
employee­
training
requirements
for
large
quantity
generators,
and
further
require
these
facilities
to
keep
updated
information
on
employees,
job
descriptions,
and
the
type
of
training
that
personnel
have
received.
EPA
should
pursue
elements
of
both
alternatives
presented
in
the
NODA
for
easing
recordkeeping
requirements
under
these
provisions.

Replacing
current
recordkeeping
requirements
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained
 
has
merit.
As
a
practical
matter,
many
companies
may
opt
to
maintain
current
records
to
facilitate
their
compliance
with
the
substantive
training
requirements
and
generally
to
help
manage
employee
training.
Nonetheless,
the
reduction
of
the
reporting
requirements
is
a
positive
step
in
reducing
compliance
burdens.
Whether
or
not
the
detailed
paperwork
is
maintained
should
not
be
the
focus
of
EPA
inspection
and
enforcement
activities.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
strategy
in
today's
final
rule.

Document
#:
0016
The
alternatives
proposed
for
changing
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
are
both
good
ideas,
and
each
have
merit
on
their
own.
Therefore,
we
support
both
alternatives
and
believe
each
should
be
implemented.

The
certification
proposed
to
replace
the
voluminous
training
and
personnel
records
required
by
rules
would
eliminate
the
recordkeeping
tribulations
experienced
by
many
RCRA
facilities
and
Agency
inspectors.
Violations
associated
with
Personnel
Training
records
do
not
normally
threaten
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
strategy
in
today's
final
rule.

Document
#:
0020
EPA
proposes
to
allow
an
in
house
engineer
to
certify
post
closure
at
a
TSDF.
The
Department
strongly
opposes
this
idea
as
explained
above
in
response
to
Idea
D­
2.
There
is
limited
burden
reduction
from
this
change,
and
there
is
potential
for
diminished
environmental
protection.
­
130­
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
demonstration
by
a
TSDF
that
ignitable,
reactive,
or
incompatible
wastes
will
be
stored,
treated,
or
disposed
in
a
protective
manner.
The
demonstration
may
be
based
on
published
literature,
trial
tests,
or
results
from
treatment
of
similar
wastes
under
similar
operating
conditions.
It
seems
reasonable
to
the
Department
to
continue
to
require
this
demonstration.
Ignitable,
reactive,
and
incompatible
wastes
certainly
hold
the
potential
to
create
dangerous
and
harmful
environmental
impacts,
e.
g.
fires,
explosions.
The
public
deserves
to
have
a
demonstration
that
the
facility
is
using
handling
practices
which
have
been
shown
to
be
safe
in
the
past.

EPA
proposes
to
extend
the
duration
of
a
variance
from
one
to
three
years
for
wastes
being
accumulated
speculatively
prior
to
recycling.
The
Department
strongly
opposes
this
idea.
The
speculative
accumulation
of
materials
for
three
years
is
risky
and
not
protective
of
the
environment,
particularly
in
the
absence
of
any
numerical
quantity
limit.
In
more
than
one
instance,
recycling
facilities
in
Maine
became
Superfund
sites
after
they
received
large
volumes
of
"
recyclable"
materials
only
to
find
they
had
received
unusable
waste.
The
facilities
went
bankrupt,
and
left
the
public
to
fund
and
oversee
expensive
removal,
disposal,
site
characterization
and
corrective
action
activities.
This
is
a
graphic
example
where
the
pressure
for
burden
reduction
has
resulted
in
the
consideration
of
clearly
unprotective
proposals.
One
year
is
generally
sufficient
time
for
a
company
to
accumulate
materials
and
demonstrate
that
legitimate
recycling
is
practicable.
Adjustments
to
this
limit
should
be
based
solely
on
particular
recycling­
related
needs,
not
reporting
consideration.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
these
burden
reduction
strategies
in
today's
final
rule.

Document
#:
0022
We
commend
EPA
for
proposing
to
simplify
the
current
requirements
in
certain
areas
of
the
State
authorization
process.
However,
we
continue
to
support
previous
recommendations
offered
by
the
States
to
reduce
the
process
to
just
require
the
states
to
certify
that
they
have
everything
in
place
to
carry
out
the
program.
Authorization
would
then
be
automatic
unless
the
states
indicated
those
areas
where
they
were
not
ready.

Without
requiring
facilities
to
record
that
they
conducted
inspections,
it
makes
it
hard
to
verify
that
inspections
are
being
conducted
on
a
regular
basis.
If
the
regulator
were
to
find
an
inspection
problem,
the
answer
could
always
be
that
it
is
a
new
problem
because
it
was
not
recorded
anywhere.

Reducing
the
frequency
of
adjustment
to
the
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
form
annually
to
biennially
might
be
appropriate
in
years
where
inflation
is
low,
but
if
we
return
to
times
where
inflation
is
high,
it
could
cause
the
facilities'
financial
assurance
mechanisms
to
be
underfunded.

Having
the
legal
owner
for
generators
or
transporters
is
necessary
information.
We
have
had
to
have
owners
take
responsibility
when
the
generator
has
left
the
are
but
left
contamination
behind.
It
is
important
that
the
owner
puts
his
name
on
the
notification
form
and
acknowledge
his
­
131­
responsibility
and
potential
liability.

It
is
absolutely
necessary
for
SQGs
to
get
ID
numbers.
Small
Quantity
Generators
have
been
the
ones
where
we
have
found
a
number
of
problems
and
the
best
way
to
locate
them
is
with
their
ID
numbers.
Also
the
TSDFs
require
SQGs
to
have
an
ID
number
before
they
will
accept
their
waste.
Utah
opposes
this
change.

We
are
opposed
to
implementing
a
general
permitting
scheme
for
storage
and
treatment
of
hazardous
waste
in
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
Having
detailed
specific
information
on
how
a
facility
will
construct
and
operate
storage
and
treatment
facilities
is
a
vital
part
of
our
program.
We
do
not
think
it
is
a
great
burden
to
submit
the
specific
information.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
strategy
in
today's
final
rule.

Document
#:
0025
One
of
the
most
significant
ways
EPA
could
reduce
unnecessary
paperwork
burden
would
be
to
revise
the
mixture
and
derived­
from
rules
to
remove
low­
risk
wastes
from
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
system.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
strategy
in
today's
final
rule.

Document
#:
0027
The
first
and
second
bullet
items
in
the
first
column
of
page
32863
are
unclear.
What
exactly
is
meant
by
Hazardous
Waste
Program
Evaluation
and
Hazardous
Waste
Program
Implementation
as
criteria
for
establishing
which
notices
and
other
documents
are
necessary
to
be
submitted
to
EPA?
These
two
criteria
should
be
explained
in
more
detail.
We
believe
many
additional
documents
must
be
added
to
the
"
necessary"
list.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0029
DOE
agrees
that
if
EPA
intends
to
eliminate
requirements
for
generators
and
TSDFs
to
submit
notifications,
reports,
certifications,
demonstrations,
or
plans
to
the
Agency,
some
criteria
must
be
established
for
deciding
which
submissions
are
not
necessary.
DOE
also
understands
that
all
statutory
requirements
to
collect
and
submit
information
must
be
retained.

DOE
understands
that
EPA
has
discretion
with
respect
to
the
actual
attributes
of
the
information
that
the
Agency
collects
to
implement
a
statutory
directive.
DOE
suggests
that
to
decide
whether
to
eliminate
a
discretionary
information
requirement,
EPA
should
examine
whether
the
requirement
helps
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
other
words,
EPA
should
consider
whether
the
requirement
motivates
either
the
regulated
entity
or
the
Agency
to
act
in
a
way
more
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
than
would
be
the
case
if
there
were
no
requirement.
If
so,
EPA
should
consider
whether
the
cost
of
compliance
would
outweigh
the
benefit.
In
circumstances
where
a
regulatory
requirement
is
expected
to
yield
a
net
benefit,
the
requirement
­
132­
should
be
retained.
Otherwise,
it
should
be
eliminated.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0033
We
believe
that
any
burden
reduction
initiative
should
contain
BCI's
proposal
to
modify
the
hazardous
waste
transportation
regulations
applicable
to
materials
sent
for
recycling.
BCI
has
previously
submitted
a
petition
to
EPA
requesting
modification
of
its
hazardous
waste
transportation
regulation
that
would
allow
certain
recyclable
lead
materials
(
known
as
Appendix
11
materials)
to
be
shipped
in
commerce
using
a
recyclable
materials
tracking
document
in
lieu
of
hazardous
manifests.
The
petition
was
submitted
more
than
five
years
ago.
The
Agency's
delay
in
moving
on
the
petition
is
unconscionable.

BCI
strongly
encourages
EPA
to
incorporate
the
recommendations
contained
in
BCI's
petition
into
it's
current
initiative
or,
at
the
very
least,
in
the
anticipated
manifest
revisions
scheduled
to
be
published
in
a
proposed
rule
in
June
2000.
There
is
simply
no
reason
for
EPA
not
to
consider
BCI's
petition
now
during
its
current
burden
reduction
initiative.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0038
The
DOD
supports
the
broadening
of
the
application
of
"
Universal
Waste"
rules
to
include
additional
wastes
that
are
commonly
and
widely
produced.

The
DOD
recommends
that
in
the
interest
of
burden
reduction,
the
EPA
take
the
lead
in
expanding
use
of
the
Universal
Waste
regulatory
scheme.

Where
hazardous
waste
is
generated
by
infrequent
or
one­
time
contract
work
performed
by
off­
site
personnel
at
a
site
that
otherwise
does
not
generate
large
quantities
of
hazardous
waste,
the
applicability
of
certain
RCRA
accumulation­
time
requirements
such
as
those
for
a
training
plan
and
a
spill
contingency
plan
is
unclear.
The
EPA
should
clarify
that
this
type
of
episodic
generation
would
not
trigger
the
training
and
a
spill
contingency
plan
is
unclear.

The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
clarify
the
regulations
to
ensure
regulatory
relief
from
large
quantity
generator
requirements
for
sites
where
the
large
quantity
generator
classification
is
triggered
by
performance
of
a
single
task
by
off­
site
personnel
who
handle
and
remove
the
waste
as
part
of
the
task.

Federal
burden
reduction
efforts
will
not
achieve
the
desired
result
unless
authorized
state
programs
are
modified
to
pass
along
the
benefits
of
the
EPA
regulatory
changes.

The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
track
and
report
state
implementation
of
federal
burden
reduction
steps
as
a
specific
goal
of
the
federal
burden
reduction
effort.
Progress
toward
implementing
individual
burden
reduction
initiatives
should
be
made
available
to
the
public.
­
133­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0040
While
our
ideas
for
using
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
data
sound
interesting,
they
would
fail
to
give
me
information
about
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
generators
in
Alexandria
since
none
of
them
are
required
to
file
TRI
reports.
I
recommend
that
you
require
reporting
by
all
RCRA
entities
according
to
the
amounts
of
chemicals
(
RCRA
hazardous
constituents)
that
they
generate,
treat,
dispose,
or
estimate
are
contained
in
the
soil
or
groundwater.

To
reduce
the
amount
of
reporting
smaller
businesses
and
industries
would
have
to
do,
EPA
should
determine
the
typical
amounts
of
various
constituents
in
wastestreams
(
by
RCRA
waste
codes)
for
entities
that
have
fewer
and
smaller
quantities
of
hazardous
wastes.
Then
these
groups
of
RCRA
and
EPA
would
calculate
and
present
the
quantity
of
the
typical
chemicals
for
each
of
these
reporters.

EPA
should
require
the
larger
generators,
treaters,
disposers,
and
cleanup
sites
to
report
their
data
on
a
chemical
basis
for
all
their
wastestreams.
This
recommendation
may
require
some
regulatory
changes
for
wastestreams
that
currently
are
not
accounted
for
because
the
facilities
use
systems
which
are
under
other
regulatory
requirements,
e.
g.,
NPDES
wastewater
permits.
While
TRI
may
provide
a
model
for
reporting
by
larger
facilities,
EPA
needs
to
create
framework
that
is
relevant
to
the
RCRA
program;
the
TRI
reporting
thresholds
may
be
too
large
a
quantity
for
meaningful
RCRA
information.

EPA
should
devise
some
way
to
present
information
on
how
RCRA
entities
are
eliminating
pollutants
by
destroying
or
converting
wastes
to
non­
toxic
chemicals;
this
data
would
make
it
obvious
the
amounts
of
toxic
chemicals
which
are
being
sequestered
in
landfills
or
released
to
the
air
and
water.
EPA
must,
also,
require
RCRA
entities
to
submit
information
about
waste
minimization;
the
Agency
stopped
obtaining
this
information
in
1997.
Reporting
of
this
data
should
be
by
chemicals
in
the
wastestreams.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0106
We
are
especially
supportive
of
CMA's
comments
in
this
area.
The
removal
of
low­
risk
wastes
from
the
hazardous
waste
definition
and
Subtitle
C
regulations
can
substantially
reduce
recordkeeping
in
the
reporting
burden
without
harm
to
the
environment
and
allow
both
governmental
agencies
and
the
regulated
community
to
focus
limited
resources
on
the
management
of
higher
risk
wastes.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0107
­
134­
In
the
interest
of
minimizing
testing
requirements
and
streamlining
the
analytical
burden
under
the
LDR
program,
we
encourage
EPA
to
allow
the
existing
UTS
congeners
for
dioxin
and
furan
to
serve
as
treatment
surrogates
for
the
K173
and
K174
wastes.
This
is
also
justified
in
that
the
most
toxic
dioxin
and
furan
congeners
are
currently
covered
under
the
UTS.
The
proposed
five
new
congeners
are
of
substantially
lower
toxicity;
therefore,
the
use
of
surrogates
for
these
5
congeners
would
not
present
any
significant
risk.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
and
we
may
investigate
it
further
in
future
rulemakings.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Document
#:
0133
In
addition
to
reviewing
RCRA
requirements
for
notifications,
reports,
certifications,
demonstrations
and
plans
required
by
the
regulations,
the
Alliance
encourages
the
agency
to
take
a
broader
view
of
RCRA
by
evaluating
"
point
of
generation"
determinations
and
the
burden
association
with
those
decisions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
and
we
may
investigate
it
further
in
future
rulemakings.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Document
#:
0157
The
essence
of
this
rulemaking
initiative
is
to
remove
unnecessary
and
burdensome
RCRA
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
where
such
removal
will
not
compromise
EPA's
mission
of
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
USWAG
respectfully
submits
that
modifying
requirements
for
"
episodic
generators"
falls
squarely
within
the
spirit
and
scope
of
this
important
initiative.
USWAG
suggests
that
EPA
can
implement
such
relief
on
an
interim
basis
through
guidance
to
the
EPA
Regions
and
authorized
states
that
such
entities
should
not
be
subject
to
the
LQG
requirements 
e.
g.,
personnel
training
and
contingency
plan
and
emergency
preparedness
requirements.
This
policy
could
then
be
codified
in
the
regulations
in
accordance
with
requisite
rulemaking
procedures.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
and
we
may
investigate
it
further
in
future
rulemakings.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
states
that
"
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
at
the
facility
(
in
the
facility's
operating
record)
[
which]
can
be
examined
by
regulatory
authorities
and
then
shared
with
the
public."
However,
EPA
does
not
state
or
analyze
how
and
when
EPA
will
share
this
information
with
the
public
in
a
meaningful
and
timely
manner.
EPA
should
describe
the
various
proposals
for
undertaking
such
activities
and
allow
the
public
to
comment
on
the
agency's
suggestions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
of
today's
rule
for
a
further
discussion
on
the
operating
record.
­
135­
Document
#:
0238
The
USEPA
is
a
leader
and,
as
an
agency
that
has
grappled
with
the
difficulty
of
complex
and
challenging
issues
relating
to
the
remediation
of
contaminated
ground
water
where
effective
and
economically
feasible
solutions
are
not
typically
available,
can
facilitate
the
integration
of
research
with
the
applied
science
and
technology
of
a
multitude
of
disciplines
for
more
expedient
identification
and
implementation
of
methods
that
will
mitigate
existing
contamination,
preclude
future
contamination,
and
ensure
the
long­
term
viability
of
our
water
resources.
The
USEPA
should
seize
this
opportunity
to
encourage
the
integration
of
science
from
many
disciplines
rather
than
perpetuate
a
continued
exclusionary
process
that
stifles
scientific
collaboration
and
cooperation.
If
the
USEPA
can
through
its
rulemaking
encourage
integrated,
science­
based
solutions,
and
recognize
and
foster
the
multi­
disciplined
expertise
of
ground­
water
professionals,
this
action
will
"
set
a
new
bar"
not
only
at
the
federal
level
but
also
at
the
state
level
for
reviewing
outdated
regulations
that,
if
they
remain
as
currently
written,
will
ineffectively
address
state,
national,
and
global
ground­
water
resource
needs
of
the
future.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0240
DTSC
has
no
objection
to
the
elimination
of
obsolete
language
in
these
regulations.
However,
the
published
amendments
to
sections
264.193,
264.314,
and
265.314
are
unclear.
When
a
section
is
being
modified
as
extensively
as
these
sections
are,
it
would
be
useful
to
the
reviewer
if
the
proposed
language
of
the
new
section
was
published
in
a
complete
form
so
that
the
reviewer
can
clearly
see
the
impacts
of
the
changes.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
has
incorporating
this
suggestion
in
today's
preamble
discussion.

Document
#:
0331
NPCA
supports
EPA's
Notice
provision
allowing
annual
corrective
action
reporting.
Collecting
only
that
information
adequate
to
ensure
compliance
not
only
reduces
the
administrative
burdens
on
facilities
and
the
states,
it
allows
valuable
resources
to
be
used
for
more
significant
tasks.
NPCA
also
supports
EPA's
Notice
provision
allowing
facilities
to
modify
sampling
procedures
for
groundwater
wells,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
a
subset
of
wells.
This
corrects
an
inconsistency
within
RCRA's
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
without
impacting
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0335
Only
require
current
financial
estimates
to
be
kept
on
file.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
and
we
may
investigate
it
further
in
future
rulemakings.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.
­
136­
Document
#:
0358
I
would
much
rather
see
a
simple
rule
that
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community
can
easily
understand
and
follow,
while
upholding
the
original
intent
behind
all
environmental
regulation.
Define
"
reclamation"
as
a
completely
separate
function
from
"
recycling."
Continue
to
track
materials
that
can
be
reclaimed.
Allow
the
original
generator
to
reduce
the
TOTAL
volume
of
waste
treated
by
reclamation
from
their
volumes
at
the
end
of
the
year,
reducing
generator
status
through
"
reclamation
credit."
The
company
that
performs
the
reclamation
should
continue
to
track
incoming
material
and
count
the
NET
waste
(
after
reclamation)
as
their
own
waste
generated.
Set
a
minimum
standard
for
reclamation
"
credit"
to
apply.

This
would
benefit
generators
while
protecting
the
environment
and
community.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
and
we
may
investigate
it
further
in
future
rulemakings.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Permit
Modifications;
General
Document
#:
0138
For
hazardous
waste
generators,
these
changes
will
be
self­
implementing
if
the
proposed
rule
is
finalized.
However
for
facilities
with
permits,
these
changes
would
involve
modification
to
the
inspection
schedule
in
the
facility
permit.
Most
changes
that
reduce
the
burden
require
a
Class
2
permit
modification
(
40
CFR
270.42
Appendix
1).
Dow
requests
that
EPA
expressly
allow
permitted
facilities
use
the
Class
1
modification
procedure
or,
at
most,
the
Class
11
­
modification
procedure
to
implement
the
changes,
arising
from
this
rulemaking.

Dow
believes
that
this
change
could
be
easily
made
with
the
following
language
addition
to
Appendix
1:

B.
General
Facility
Conditions
*
*
*
*

8.
Changes
related
to
generating,
reporting,
and
keeping
records
as
identified
in
records
as
identified
in
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Final
Rule.

a.
changes
that
do
not
require
approval
1
b.
changes
that
require
approval
1
1
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
rulemaking
and
prevents
both
EPA
and
relevant
state
agencies
from
the
unnecessary
burdens
from
a
multitude
of
unneeded
Class
2
permit
modifications.

Document
#:
0217
Many
of
Eastman's
facilities
have
permits,
and
the
proposed
changes
will
involve
modification
to
­
137­
the
inspection
schedule
in
our
facility
permit,
given
current
regulations.
Does
EPA
think
it
necessary
for
a
facility
to
go
through
the
time
&
expense
of
a
permit
modification
for
these
burden
reduction
changes?
Is
it
possible
to
modify
RCRA
regulations
in
the
final
rule
in
such
a
way
that
permit
modification
is
not
necessary
to
implement
the
proposed
changes?
Our
facilities
likely
would
not
do
a
Class
2
permit
modification,
minimizing
the
potential
relief
afforded
by
this
proposal.
At
minimum,
we
suggest
the
Agency
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
modification
procedure.
This
would
reduce
burden
for
both
facilities
and
the
regulating
agencies.

Document
#:
0222/
0223
­
ACC/
API
0226
Use
Level
1
permit
modification
procedures.
Currently
any
changes
to
the
inspection
schedule
would
entail
a
Class
2
modification
procedure.
We
request
that
facilities
which
wish
to
modify
their
permits
to
allow
for
the
proposed
reduced
inspection
schedules
be
allowed
to
follow
Level
1
proposed
changes.

For
hazardous
waste
generators,
these
changes
will
be
self­
implementing
if
the
proposed
rule
is
finalized.
However
for
facilities
with
RCRA
permits,
these
changes
would
involve
modification
to
the
inspection
schedule
in
the
facility
permit.
Most
changes
that
reduce
the
burden
require
a
Class
2
permit
modification
(
40
CFR
270
42
Appendix
1).

ACC
requests
that
EPA
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
modification
procedures
or
the
Class
1­
1
modification
procedure
to
implement
changes,
which
arise
from
this
rulemaking.
This
change
could
be
easily
made
with
the
following
language
addition
to
Appendix
1:

B.
General
Facility
Conditions
*
*
*
*

8.
Changes
related
to
generating,
reporting,
and
keeping
records
as
identified
in
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Final
Rule.

a.
changes
that
do
not
require
approval
b.
changes
that
require
approval
ACC
believes
that
such
a
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
rulemaking
and
does
not
believe
that
EPA
or
any
state
agency
would
want
to
be
unnecessarily
burdened
with
a
multitude
of
Class
2
permit
modifications.

Document
#:
0237
Lilly
strongly
supports
the
proposed
burden
reduction
provisions,
but
suggests
that
the
agency
needs
to
also
include
a
provision
which
allows
permitted
facilities
to
implement
these
changes
through
a
Class
1
permit
modification.
Permitted
facilities
have
many
of
these
"
unnecessary
bureaucratic
controls"
built
into
their
permits,
and
will
be
unable
to
implement
these
changes
­
138­
without
a
permit
modification.
A
large
amount
of
the
reduced
burden
will
not
be
realized
if
these
facilities
cannot
take
advantage
of
the
proposed
regulation.
These
changes
should
be
implemented
as
Class
1
permit
modifications
so
that
the
reduced
burden
of
the
regulations
can
be
implemented
quickly.
This
will
reduce
the
strain
on
agency
(
and
facility)
resources,
which
would
result
from
a
lengthy
permit
modification
process.

Document
#:
0315
In
our
prior
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
ACC
requested
that
EPA
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
Class
1
modification
procedures
to
implement
the
final
changes
arising
from
this
rulemaking.
We
strongly
support
the
proposal
that
these
Class
1
modifications
could
and
should
be
done
without
the
permitted
party
seeking
prior
Agency
approval
since
these
are
essentially
permit
modifications
made
to
conform
with
Agency
regulations.
For
this
reason,
we
urge
the
Agency
to
further
modify
the
language
in
its
final
rule
to
not
require
the
permittee
to
send
notice
of
the
Class
1
modifications
to
all
persons
on
the
facility
list.
ACC
believes
that
such
a
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
rulemaking
to
reduce
the
reporting
and
record­
keeping
burden
imposed
on
the
states,
the
regulated
community
and
the
public.

Document
#:
0320
&
0326
Comment
5:
FR
page
61668
column
3,
section
III.
H
­
In
the
first
Paragraph
of
Section
H,
the
EPA
solicits
comments
on
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure
(
either
with
or
without
prior
Agency
approval)
to
implement
the
changes
arising
from
this
rulemaking.
WSRC
supports
making
it
a
Class
1
modification
without
prior
Agency
approval.
The
state
agencies
are
all
short
handed
and
the
backlog
of
permit
modifications
requiring
their
approval
is
huge.
The
Savannah
River
Site
just
received
in
2003
a
Part
B
permit
for
an
application
that
was
submitted
in
1986
(
17
years
ago).
If
these
changes
must
be
made
via
a
Class
1
modification
that
does
require
prior
Agency
approval,
it
could
be
years
before
the
benefits
from
this
rulemaking
ever
get
realized.

If
EPA
is
unwilling
to
take
the
approach
using
the
Class
1
modification
without
prior
Agency
approval,
we
suggest
you
take
the
Class
2
approach.
In
fact,
40
CFR
270.42
Appendix
1
B.
4
classifies
changes
in
inspection
frequencies
as
Class
2
modification.
The
Class
2
approach
would
be
better
than
the
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
in
that
the
procedures
for
Class
2
modifications
impose
a
deadline
on
the
agency
to
make
a
decision.
Although
less
desirable
an
approach
of
a
Class
1
modification
without
agency
approval,
this
approach
would
help
to
ensure
a
more
timely
implementation
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0323
COPC
supports
the
EPA
proposal
to
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure,
without
prior
Agency
approval,
to
implement
the
changes
arising
from
this
rulemaking.
Requiring
the
designated
Agency
to
first
approve
modifications
will
slow
down
implementation
of
these
important
burden
reduction
opportunities.

Document
#:
0327
API
supports
the
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
­
139­
modification
procedure
to
implement
the
changes
arising
from
this
rulemaking.
In
addition,
API
believes
it
unnecessary
to
require
additional
Agency
approval,
beyond
that
which
will
be
provided
in
the
final
rule,
to
implement
these
modifications.

To
further
ensure
implementation
of
these
changes
minimize
burden,
the
Agency
should
specify
40
CFR
Part
270.42(
a)(
1)
is
not
appropriate.
For
these
burden
reduction
opportunities,
the
requirements
as
specified
in
270(
a)(
2)
are
appropriate.
To
facilitate
this
process,
the
final
rule
should
be
considered
the
prior
approval
of
the
Director
specified.
This
approach
us
consistent
with
the
stated
position
of
the
Agency,
as
it
has
determined
the
changes
"
will
provide
no
significant
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment."

Document
#:
0331
NPCA
Supports
Class
1
Permit
Modifications
to
Implement
Final
Burden
Reductions.

NPCA
supports
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
less
burdensome
Class
1
permit
modification
procedures
(
as
opposed
to
the
Class
2
permit
modification
procedure)
to
implement
the
burden
reduction
changes
proposed
under
this
initiative
when
finalized.
This
can
be
done,
without
prior
Agency
approval,
without
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment
and
is
consistent
with
EPA's
goal
of
reducing
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirement
under
RCRA.

NPCA
and
its
members
support
EPA's
efforts
with
regard
to
reducing
the
redundant
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burdens
under
RCRA,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations.
NPCA
hopes
EPA
will
consider
NPCA's
additional
suggestions
for
burden
reduction
and
promulgate
a
comprehensive
final
rule.
In
addition,
NPCA
urges
EPA
to
continue
to
undertake
burden
reduction
initiatives
not
only
for
RCRA
but
for
other
regulations
governed
by
EPA.

Document
#:
0333
We
support
EPA's
proposal
to
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure,
without
prior
Agency
approval,
to
implement
the
changes
from
this
rulemaking.
Since
EPA
has
already
determined
that
the
modifications
in
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
have
no
significant
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
there
is
no
reason
to
require
prior
approval
by
the
Agency
for
permit
modifications
to
be
implemented.
Not
requiring
prior
approval
will
speed
up
the
implementation
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Initiatives.

Document
#:
0334
As
the
proposal
points
out,
implementing
many
of
the
changes
in
the
proposal
rule
will
require
a
Class
2
permit
modification
for
facilities
with
permits.
Because
the
proposed
changes
will
provide
no
significant
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
we
support
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
class
1
permit
modification
procedures
to
element
the
changes
arising
from
the
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0335
Allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure
to
implement
these
­
140­
proposed
changes
without
prior
Agency
approval.

In
summary,
GM
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
ineffective
administrative
burdens
on
the
regulated
community
and
encourages
EPA
make
more
substantial
improvements
through
more
appropriate
"
point
of
generation
determinations"
and
broader
exclusions
for
recycled
materials.

Document
#:
0338
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
permitted
facilities
to
implement
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
through
the
streamlined
Class
1
permit
modification
process
rather
than
the
potentially
lengthy
Class
2
process.
1d
USWAG
agrees
that
this
approach
is
consistent
with
EPA's
goal
to
have
final
burden
reduction
measures
implemented
as
quickly
as
possible.
Id.

Document
#:
0345
H.
266.203(
c)
Permit
Modifications
­
waive
the
Class
permit
modification
requirements
for
the
proposed
"
Burden
Reduction"
changes.

Permit
modification
rules
are
in
place
and
cannot
be
summarily
waived.
In
addition,
the
proposed
amendments
are
"
less
stringent"
than
existing
federal
and
State
standards,
and
cannot
become
effective
until
and
unless
authorized
States
choose
to
adopt
these
rules.

Document
#:
0346
1.
P.
61668,
col.
3
­
EPA
requests
comment
on
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure,
with
prior
Agency
approval,
to
implement
the
changes
arising
from
the
final
burden
reduction
rule.
In
addition,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
Class
1
permit
modifications
should
be
allowed
without
prior
Agency
approval.

DOE
supports
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedures
to
implement
any
permit
modification
prompted
by
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
DOE
generally
supports
not
requiring
prior
Agency
approval
for
such
Class
1
permit
modifications.
However,
for
permit
modifications
that
would
implement
provisions
in
the
final
burden
reduction
rule
that
provide
for
site­
specific
flexibility,
such
as
the
frequency
with
which
system
inspections
or
groundwater
sampling
events
must
be
conducted
at
a
particular
facility,
DOE
would
not
object
to
a
requirement
for
prior
Agency
approval.

Document
#:
0347
Eastman
strongly
supports
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure,
without
prior
Agency
approval,
to
implement
the
changes
addressed
under
this
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.

Document
#:
0348
The
Class
1
permit
modification
must
only
be
allowed
with
prior
agency
approval.

Document
#:
0349
­
141­
ADEQ
Comments::
ADEQ
concurs
that
permit
modifications
necessitated
by
changes
in
requirements
resulting
from
this
proposal
should
be
allowable
as
Class
1
modifications.
Provided,
however,
the
Class
1
modification
requires
prior
approval
of
the
EPA
Administrator,
authorized
State's
Director,
or
functional
equivalent.

Document
#:
0352
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
changes
pose
no
significant
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Therefore,
LANL
supports
EPA's
decision
to
allow
RCRA­
permitted
facilities
to
incorporate
these
changes
using
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedures.
This
will
relieve
already
overburdened
state
agencies
from
having
to
evaluated
each
proposed
modification.

Document
#:
0354
CRWI
would
like
to
point
out
that
EPA
has
already
followed
this
approach
for
more
substantial
facility
modifications.
For
example,
EPA
added
provisions
for
"
fast­
track"
permit
modifications
for
RCRA
incinerators
that
needed
to
make
facility
changes
to
comply
with
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
MACT
(
40
CFR
63
Subpart
EEE).
These
changes
generally
would
have
required
either
Class
2
or
Class
3
permit
modifications.
However,
the
"
fast
track"
provisions
allow
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
with
prior
approval
procedure
for
modifications
of
a
facility
to
meet
new
standards.
CRWI
believes
that
changes
proposed
under
RCRA
burden
reduction
would
be
even
less
substantial
than
those
already
allowed
under
the
"
fast
track"
approach.
CRWI
believes
that
the
Class
1
procedure
is
an
appropriate
mechanism
to
allow
newly
promulgated
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
incorporated
into
existing
RCRA
permits.
There
is
no
reason
to
keep
the
Class
2
or
Class
3
modification
procedures
to
modify
these
RCRA
permit
provisions.
CRWI
believes
that
this
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
rulemaking
(
Burden
Reduction),
would
prevent
both
EPA
and
relevant
state
agencies
from
reviewing
a
multitude
of
Class
2
or
Class
3
permit
modifications,
and
accomplish
EPA's
objectives
without
a
sacrifice
of
environmental
protection.

Document
#:
0357
EPA
requests
comment
whether
to
allow
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedures
with
or
without
prior
agency
approval
to
implement
the
proposed
changes.
The
Department
recommends
that
changes
require
prior
agency
approval.
Prior
approval
will
ensure
that
a
facility
properly
interprets
the
applicability
of
new
regulations.
For
example,
the
Department
will
not
be
able
to
approve
permit
modifications
based
on
any
revisions
to
the
CFR
until
the
Department
has
adopted
changes
into
the
Administrative
Rules
of
Montana.
The
Department
is
aware
that
40
CFR
270.42(
a)(
1)(
iii)
allows
the
agency
to
reject
with
cause
any
Class
1
modification.
However,
prior
approval
of
changes
may
prevent
potential
compliance
issues
that
could
arise
in
between
the
time
a
facility
begins
to
implement
changes
and
the
Department
rejects
a
modification
under
40
CFR
270.42(
a)(
1)(
iii).

Document
#:
0361
EPA
is
proposing
that
implementation
of
changes
in
the
proposed
rule
be
accomplished
by
means
of
a
Class
1
Permit
modification
rather
than
a
Class
2
Permit
modification.
­
142­
DTSC
Comment:
DTSC
has
no
objection
to
the
use
if
Class
1
Permit
modifications
to
implement
changes
in
the
proposed
rule.
These
changes
are
administrative
in
nature
and
do
not
constitute
any
actual
change
in
a
facility's
status
or
operation
that
would
require
public
notice.

Response
to
Comments:
The
changes
in
the
final
rule
will
be
allowed
to
be
implemented
as
Class
1
Permit
modifications
without
prior
approval.
However,
we
wish
to
point
out
that,
unless
State
law
prevents
it,
States
can
be
more
stringent
than
the
EPA
rules
if
there
are
specific
concerns
with
the
consequences
of
these
changes
in
any
State.
All
States
also
can
use
the
omnibus
authority
of
RCRA
section
3005(
c)
for
specific
facilities
where
they
believe
there
is
risk
due
to
site­
specific
circumstances
not
identified
in
our
rulemaking
process.
This
will
allow
States
to
retain
oversight
where
they
choose
to
do
so.

Comments
Directed
at
Specific
CFR
Sections
260.31(
b)(
2)
Submit
report
on
industry­
wide
prevalence
of
the
material
production
process:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate.
Regulatory
authorities
can
decide
whether
to
give
a
variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
without
this
information.
Final
Action:
Eliminating
the
requirement
in
260.31(
b)(
2)
that
applicants
provide
industrywide
information,
but
we
are
adding
the
criteria
to
existing
260.31(
b)(
8)
as
an
example
of
other
relevant
information
that
may
be
provided
to
support
a
variance
application.

Document
#:
0020
IPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
requirement
that
a
petitioner
survey
the
industry
wide
prevalence
of
the
material
production
process.
The
Department
does
not
object
to
this
narrow
easement
in
regards
to
demonstration
that
a
variance
is
warranted.
The
remaining
criteria
should
be
retained
and
demonstrated
by
the
petitioner
to
obtain
a
variance
under
this
subpart.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
streamline
the
variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
procedure
by
eliminating
the
requirement
that
petitioners
survey
the
industry­
wide
prevalence
of
the
material
production
process.
In
a
highly
specialized,
competitive
sector
like
batch
and
specialty
chemical
production,
this
information
generally
cannot
be
obtained.
SOCMA
applauds
EPA
for
also
recognizing
that
the
information
is
not
used
practically,
and
therefore
lessening
the
burden
upon
chemical
manufacturers.

SOCMA
also
urges
EPA
to
acknowledge
the
need
to
establish
a
more
effective
mechanism
whereby
can
it
confirm
that
recycling,
reuse
or
reclamation
activities
would
be
deemed
exempt
from
the
definition
of
"
solid
waste."
The
complexity
and
uncertainty
of
this
part
of
the
RCRA
program
needs
to
be
addressed
in
order
to
promote
increased
recycling
and
reuse
of
secondary
­
143­
materials.
The
current
petition
mechanism
is
of
no
value
for
companies,
such
as
SOCMA
members,
that
generate
multiple
and
varying
product
mixes
on
a
batch
basis.

Document
#:
0165
EPA
has
proposed
to
delete
§
260.31(
b)(
2),
which
is
one
of
the
criteria
used
to
determine
if
reclamation
of
a
hazardous
waste
prior
to
reuse
as
a
feedstock
in
a
production
process
is
an
exempt
production­
related
activity,
or
is
a
hazardous
waste
management
activity
that
should
properly
be
subject
to
Subtitle
C
standards.

Safety­
Kleen
is
very
concerned
that
EPA
have
the
regulatory
tools
necessary
to
prevent
sham
recycling
of
hazardous
wastes.
While
we
support
the
agency's
efforts
to
encourage
legitimate
and
beneficial
recycling,
we
think
it
is
equally
important
that
EPA
has
strong
criteria
to
identify
sham
recycling
that
is
essentially
hazardous
waste
management.

Under
the
RCRA
recycling
rules,
hazardous
wastes
that
are
first
reclaimed
and
then
reused
as
feedstocks
within
the
original
production
process
are
subject
to
limited
standards.
If
the
hazardous
waste
is
managed
in
any
manner
other
than
a
closed­
loop
tank
system,
or
if
it
is
accumulated
for
over
one
year
without
being
reclaimed,
or
if
the
reclamation
process
involves
fuel
use
or
combustion,
then
RCRA
standards
apply
to
the
reclamation
activities.
See
§
§
261.2(
e)(
1)(
iii)
and
261.1(
a)(
8).
These
safeguards
are
important
to
ensure
protection,
particularly
since
improper
reclamation
can
result
in
environmental
releases
and
property
contamination.

In
promulgating
this
provision
in
1985,
EPA
gave
the
following
example.
A
primary
aluminum
smelter
generates
spent
potliners
from
which
it
recovers
fluoride
for
use
in
its
own
process.
The
potliners,
a
spent
material,
are
a
hazardous
waste.
They
are
sent
to
a
different
unit
operation
for
the
purpose
of
recovering
fluoride
that
is
reused
in
the
aluminum
production
process.
"
In
addition,
fluoride
recovery
is
an
ancillary
activity,
far
removed
from
the
production
of
aluminum,
the
principal
activity
of
the
primary
aluminum
facility.
(
In
fact,
this
operation
is
probably
best
viewed
as
hazardous
waste
treatment
because
the
main
purpose
fo
the
operation
is
to
treat
the
cyanide
in
the
potliners,
not
to
recover
fluoride.)"
See
50
Fed.
Reg.
641
col.
2
(
Jan.
4,
1985).

However,
EPA
may
grant
a
variance
from
classifying
such
material
as
solid
waste,
thus
waiving
the
RCRA
standards,
"
if
the
reclamation
operation
is
an
essential
part
of
the
production
process."
40CFR
§
260.31(
b).
The
criteria
for
granting
this
variance
are:

1.
How
economically
viable
the
production
process
would
be
if
it
were
to
use
virgin
material,
rather
than
reclaimed
materials;
2.
The
prevalence
of
the
practice
on
an
industry­
wide
basis;
3.
The
extent
to
which
the
material
is
handled
before
reclamation
to
minimize
loss;
4.
The
time
periods
between
generating
the
material
and
its
reclamation
and
between
reclamation
and
return
to
the
original
primary
production
process;
5.
The
location
of
the
reclamation
operation
in
relation
to
the
production
process;
6.
Whether
the
reclaimed
materials
is
used
for
the
purpose
for
which
it
was
originally
produced
with
it
is
returned
to
the
original
process,
and
whether
it
is
returned
to
the
­
144­
process
in
substantially
its
original
form.
7.
Whether
the
person
who
generated
the
material
also
reclaims
it;
8.
Other
relevant
factors.

In
the
burden
reduction
rulemaking,
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate
criterion
(
2)
which
requires
the
petitioner
to
show
whether
the
reclamation
process
is
a
prevalent
practice
on
an
industry­
wide
basis.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2521
(
entry
for
260.31(
b)(
2)).
We
believe
that
criterion
(
2)
is
necessary
to
support
a
petitioner's
contention
that
the
reclamation
process
is
"
production­
like,"
and
not
a
facility­
specific
process
that
constitutes
waste
management.
As
EPA
said
in
promulgating
this
criterion,
"[
t]
he
more
wide­
spread
the
practice,
the
more
likely
it
is
to
be
a
production
process.
50Fed.
Reg.
654
(
Jan.
4,
4,
1985).

EPA's
rationale
for
proposing
to
eliminate
criterion
(
2)
is
that
"[
r]
egulatory
authorities
can
decide
whether
to
give
a
variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
without
this
information."
The
SAFETY­
KLEEN
strongly
disagrees.
Whether
a
material
is
typically
and
frequently
reclaimed
before
its
reuse
in
a
production
process
throughout
an
industry
is
a
significant
and
helpful
criterion
for
determining
whether
that
reclamation
is
production
or
waste
management.
In
the
preamble,
EPA
states:
"
In
practice,
we
have
found
that
we
do
not
use
this
information
in
making
decisions
on
these
variances."
67
Fed.
Reg.
2530
col.
1.
We
are
alarmed
by
this
statement,
and
urge
EPA
to
consider
all
relevant
factors
when
evaluating
such
and
important
question
as
whether
to
exempt
a
hazardous
waste
from
RCRA.
EPA
should
not
eliminate
criterion
(
2)
merely
for
the
sake
of
reducing
paperwork,
for
doing
so
would
weaken
the
RCRA
standards
on
recycling
of
hazardous
wastes.
For
these
reasons,
Safety­
Kleen
urges
that
§
260.31(
b)(
2)
not
be
eliminated.

Document
#:
0169
EPA
has
proposed
to
eliminate
this
requirement
reasoning
that
regulatory
authorities
can
decide
whether
to
give
a
variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
without
this
information.
While
that
is
true
knowing
how
prevalent
a
certain
practice
is
throughout
a
certain
industry
is
extremely
relevant
in
deciding
whether
or
not
to
grant
a
variance.
If
the
practice
is
common
it
is
important
to
view
the
proposal
in
a
much
broader
context.
We
disagree
with
this
proposal
as
facilities
would
have
very
specific
knowledge
of
the
frequency
of
a
certain
practice
and
it
unquestionably
benefits
the
regulatory
agencies
and
the
public
to
have
this
information
and
finally
it
is
not
overly
burdensome
to
supply
this
information
as
part
of
a
variance
request.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
requirement.

Document
#:
0218
In
particular,
the
DEQ
specifically
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
changes
regarding
elimination
of
notice
requirements
on
industry­
wide
prevalence
of
a
material
in
production.

Document
#:
0286
You
propose
to
eliminate
one
of
the
criteria
on
which
the
administrator
will
base
his
decision
whether
to
grant
a
request
for
a
variance
from
classification
as
a
waste.
There
is
no
requirement
­
145­
for
the
applicant
to
submit
this
information
in
40
CFR
260.31.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
takes
place.
We
recommend
that
this
rule
remain
unchanged.

Document
#:
0290
This
information
helps
the
regulatory
agency
differentiate
between
sham
recycling
and
legitimate
recycling.

Document
#:
0337
Same
comment
as
Document
#:
0158
Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
agrees
that
industry­
wide
information
about
these
practices
is
not
necessarily
critical
in
demonstrating
or
determining
that
reclamation
is
an
essential
part
of
production.
We
believe
that
a
successful
demonstration
could
be
made
without
this
information
and
have
found
that
this
information
was
less
important
in
making
the
decision
that
the
other
factors.
We
also
acknowledge
that
this
information
may
be
very
difficult,
and
in
some
cases,
impossible
for
one
company
to
obtain.
Thus,
we
continue
to
believe
that
this
requirement
is
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
some
industry
sectors.
We
do
agree,
however,
with
commenters
who
assert
that
this
information
can
be
relevant
and
useful
if
it
can
be
easily
obtained.
We
are,
therefore,
eliminating
the
requirement
in
40
CFR
260.31(
b)(
2)
that
applicants
provide
industry­
wide
information.

261.4(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
E)
Exclusion 
Submit
one­
time
notification
for
recycled
wood­
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood­
preserving
solutions:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Final
Action:
We
are
only
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
one­
time
notification;
we
are
not
eliminating
the
requirement
to
keep
the
document
on­
site
(
until
closure
of
the
facility);
or
the
discussion
of
compliance
implementation
procedures.

Document
#:
0169
This
is
an
important
notification
and
we
do
not
support
its
elimination.
Several
potential
problems
are
identified
at
the
notification
stage,
which
avoid
bigger
problems
associated
with
misinterpretation
of
exclusions.
There
are
several
examples
of
facilities
that
have
created
large
problems
both
environmentally
and
legally
by
misapplying
exclusions
to
their
waste
stream
and
failing
to
notify.
This
Notification
is
cost
effective
and
helps
eliminate
ambiguity.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
one­
time
notification
requirement.
We
urge
EPA
to
make
these
notifications
more
available
and
useful
to
the
states
and
public
by
storing
them
in
searchable
databases
on
the
internet.
When
they
are
retrievable
by
activity
they
are
useful
for
workload
planning,
targeting
inspections,
creating
stakeholder
lists,
and
finding
wastes
in
commerce.
­
146­
Document
#:
0218
In
particular,
the
DEQ
specifically
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
changes
to
eliminate
one­
time
notification
requirement
with
respect
to
recycling
of
wood
preservatives.

Document
#:
0290
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.
However,
the
notification
identifies
facilities
that
are
utilizing
this
exclusion.
The
exclusion
is
very
specific
in
the
use
of
this
type
of
material.
This
notification
provides
the
regulatory
agency
with
the
opportunity
to
inspect
the
facility
to
verify
that
the
material
is
being
handled
in
accordance
with
the
exclusion.
There
have
been
numerous
NPL
sites
that
have
resulted
from
the
mismanagement
of
this
waste.

Response
to
Comments:
While
we
understand
the
concern
of
the
some
of
the
commenters,
we
still
do
not
believe,
overall,
that
arguments
put
forth
were
sufficient
to
change
the
proposal.
We
still
believe
that
the
notification
is
unnecessary,
especially
because
this
requirement
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
most
facilities
have
already
notified.
We
also
believe
that
the
submittal
of
this
notification
is
unnecessary
because
the
facilities
are
engaged
in
limited
activities
to
return
materials
to
their
intended
use
in
the
wood
treating
industry.
Many
comparable
activities
occur
without
notification,
indcluding
direct
resue
of
the
same
material.
These
activities
will
occur
at
generator
sites
subject
to
EPA
or
state
inspection
(
and
in
some
cases
at
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities)
so
EPA
or
the
state
will
have
an
opportunity
to
review
the
activity.

Note
that
in
the
final
change
to
the
regulatory
text
we
are
only
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
one­
time
notification
described
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposal.
We
are
not
eliminating
the
requirement
to
keep
the
document
on­
site,
or
the
discussion
of
compliance
implementation
procedures.

261.4(
f)(
9)
Submit
report
estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate.
An
unnecessary
requirement,
since
this
information
is
provided
to
the
regulatory
agency
at
a
later
date,
meaning
that
the
information
has
to
be
supplied
by
the
facility
twice
(
an
unnecessary
duplication).
Final
Action:
Eliminating
the
requirement
in
261.4(
f)(
9)
to
submit
estimates
of
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
for
the
current
year,
but
are
retaining
the
requirements
for
preparing
and
submitting
an
annual
report
providing
information
for
the
previous
year.

Document
#:
0144
We
do
not
agree
that
this
information
is
unnecessary
and
inaccurate.
The
proposed
rule
indicates
that
the
estimates
are
usually
not
accurate.
While
the
estimates
for
current
treatability
studies
are
simply
estimates,
the
current
rule
also
requires
reporting
on
what
actually
occurred
during
the
previous
year,
which
should
be
accurate.
EPA
should
clarify
and
address
these
issues
before
­
147­
changing
the
existing
rules.
Please
note,
that
without
the
required
information
regarding
treatability
studies,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulatory
authorities
to
effectively
monitor
and
administer
the
RCRA
program.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
elimination
of
the
requirement
that
facilities
submit
an
estimate
fo
the
number
of
treatability
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
expected
to
be
used
in
treability
studies
in
the
upcoming
year,
since
EPA
has
determined
that
these
submissions
are
not
necessary,
and
are
often
inaccurate.

Document
#:
0166
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
treatability
study
information
from
the
annual
report
Document
#:
0169
We
agree
that
this
report
is
duplicative
and
should
be
eliminated.

Document
#:
0181
Supplying
the
Treatability
Study
information
at
a
later
date
to
the
agency
will
not
prevent
the
use
of
amounts
of
waste
in
excess
of
the
requirements.
The
restriction
on
amounts
of
waste
types
prevents
the
fraudulent
treatment
of
entire
waste
amounts
generated
at
a
facility
under
the
guise
of
a
Treatability
Study.
A
one­
time
waste
allowance
can
be
made
by
the
agency,
but
only
if
that
information
is
provided
and
the
facility
has
complied
with
the
original
waste
amounts.

Document
#:
0204
CSHEMA
supports
the
eliminate
the
report
on
treatability
studies.
Colleges
and
universities
that
participate
in
treatability
studies
often
do
so
in
multiple
departments
and
the
frequency/
duration
of
such
work
is
largely
dictated
by
the
funding
source.
Estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
is
unnecessary
and
redundant.
Any
estimate
in
advance
of
such
work
is
little
more
than
speculation.
SCHEMA
believes
this
process
could
be
further
streamlined
by
eliminating
the
notification
requirements.
Submission
of
the
annual
summary
of
treatability
studies
provides
adequate
information
to
the
regulatory
agencies
during
years
a
facility
conducts
work
of
this
nature.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
require
the
earlier
submittal
and
eliminate
the
later
submittal.

Document
#:
0218
In
particular,
the
DEQ
specifically
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
changes
regarding
elimination
of
submission
of
reports
on
the
amount
of
waste
proposed
fro
treatability
studies.

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
submittal
of
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
treatability
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
those
studies
from
the
annual
report
requirements.
­
148­
Document
#:
0241
The
proposed
modifications
to
this
section
will
eliminate
the
requirement
that
the
annual
treatability
studies
report
include
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
the
study
in
the
upcoming
year.
The
preamble
argues
that
this
information
is
not
accurate
and
that
precise
information
is
received
in
the
next
year's
annual
report.
However,
the
rule
proposal
completely
eliminates
the
requirement
for
any
report,
including
the
submittal
of
information
from
the
previous
year.

Document
#:
0337
Same
comment
as
Document
#:
0158.

Response
to
Comments:
Based
on
the
comments
of
those
who
supported
the
proposed
amendment,
they
did
so
with
the
understanding
that
only
the
requirement
to
provide
estimates
for
the
coming
year
was
to
be
eliminated,
and
that
the
requirement
to
submit
information
for
the
previous
year
would
remain
in
place.
Most
agreed
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
estimates
based
on
the
rationale
in
the
preamble
that
the
information
would
be
provided
at
a
later
date.
We
also
recognize
that
eliminating
all
of
section
261.4(
f)(
9)
also
eliminates
the
requirement
for
providing
any
report,
including
the
submittal
of
information
from
the
previous
year.
That
was
not
our
intention.

The
Agency
agrees
that
the
information
provided
on
past
activities
will
be
more
accurate
than
estimates
of
the
future.
We
are
therefore
eliminating
the
requirement
in
section
261.4(
f)(
9)
to
submit
estimates
of
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
for
the
current
year,
but
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparing
and
submitting
an
annual
report
providing
information
for
the
previous
year.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
suggestion
to
eliminate
the
notification
requirements
in
section
261.4(
f)(
1)
and
(
f)(
11).
These
sections
require
notification
that
a
facility
intends
to
conduct
treatability
studies,
and
when
the
facility
is
no
longer
planning
on
conducting
treatability
studies,
respectively.
We
believe
this
information
is
essential
for
a
regulatory
agency
in
conducting
its
program,
and
that
the
requirement
is
not
unreasonably
burdensome.
Only
section
261.4(
f)(
9)
is
being
eliminated.

NOTE:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
action.
The
requirement
will
remain
in
the
CFR.

261.38(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
Exclusion 
Generator
submit
a
one­
time
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice
to
the
permitting
agency:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
subsequent
public
notice
regulatory
requirements
(
where
this
information
is
also
submitted).
Plus,
we
are
not
eliminating
the
overall
regulatory
requirements
for
burning,
blending,
generation,
sampling,
etc.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
action.
The
requirement
will
remain
in
the
CFR.
This
change
may
be
part
of
a
different
rulemaking
being
pursued
by
the
Agency.
­
149­
Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
this
requirement.
Failure
to
submit
this
notification
eliminates
the
requirement
for
submitting
a
certification.
The
certification
is
very
detailed
and
legally
binds
the
person
responsible
for
the
accuracy
of
the
information.
Considering
all
of
the
issues
involved
in
evaluating
and
burning
comparable
fuels,
we
have
found
that
it
is
useful
to
evaluate
comparable
fuel
burning
proposals
prior
to
initiating
burning.
Removal
of
the
notification
and
subsequent
certification
reduces
the
accountability
for
deciding
what
waste
stream
can
be
burned.
Although,
the
Regulatory
agency
can
certainly
take
enforcement
action
later,
the
rigor
of
the
notification
and
the
certification
has
been
successful
in
avoiding
these
problems.

Document
#:
0196
Elimination
of
the
one­
time
notice
to
permitting
agency
before
implementing
the
comparable/
syngas
fuel
exclusion,
Velsicol
supports
this
change.
We
are
currently
making
use
of
this
rule
in
Tennessee
and
have
plans
to
do
so
in
Maryland
as
soon
as
they
adopt
the
exclusion.
The
later
has
proposed
more
rigorous
requirements,
which
adds
rather
than
reduces
the
compliance
burden.
It
is
appropriate
for
EPA
to
set
minimal
standards
of
compliance.
This
facilitates
a
state's
right
to
set
more
stringent
standards
where
they
deem
necessary.
It
is
our
opinion
that
this
exclusion
should
be
no
more
burdensome
to
implement
when
it
comes
to
regarding
the
regulatory
authorities
or
the
public
than
the
other
exclusion
in
part
261.
It
has
been
our
experience
that
the
notification
requirement
prompts
additional
inquiry
by
the
regulating
authority.
For
instance,
upon
receiving
our
notification
the
regulating
authority
requested
a
copy
of
our
Waste
Analysis
Plan
in
order
to
assess
compliance
with
the
exclusion.
We
do
not
think
this
would
have
occurred
if
there
would
not
have
been
a
notification
requirement
or
maybe
if
only
the
public
notice
requirement
was
in
place
per
the
subject
proposal.
Velsicol
is
routinely
inspected
by
both
the
state
and
EPA
RCRA
authorities,
which
we
feel
is
a
more
appropriate
opportunity
to
access
compliance
with
a
self­
implementing
rule.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
the
one­
time
notice
by
the
generator,
last
sentence
of
261.37(
c)(
1)(
i).
The
public
notice
required
of
the
burner,
261.38(
c)(
1)(
ii),
may
not
provide
notice
to
the
regulatory
authorities
in
the
area
of
the
generator
due
to
geographic
separation
of
the
generator
and
burner.
Consequently,
the
public
could
not
be
assured
of
generator
oversight
by
the
appropriate
regulatory
authorities
as
implied
by
the
public
notice
requirement
of
261.38(
c)(
1)(
ii)(
E),
since
the
notification
of
those
authorities
by
the
generator
is
proposed
to
be
eliminated.
We
urge
EPA
to
make
these
notifications
more
available
and
useful
to
the
states
and
public
by
storing
them
in
searchable
databases
on
the
internet.

We
also
do
not
support
eliminating
the
certification
that
is
currently
required
at
261.38(
c)(
1)(
C)(
4).
This
certification
is
also
not
a
requirement
of
the
public
notice.

Document
#:
0218
In
particular,
the
DEQ
specifically
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
changes
regarding
elimination
of
submission
of
syngas
fuel
notice.
­
150­
Document
#:
0222
We
support
the
elimination
of
the
one
time
generator
notification,
but
are
suggesting
several
corresponding
clarifications
or
revisions.
ACC
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
the
onetime
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice.
As
EPA
notes,
the
generator
and
burner
information
contained
in
this
one­
time
notice
is
also
made
available
in
the
public
notice
process,
making
this
notice
unnecessary.

Note
also,
that
for
consistency
with
the
elimination
of
this
notification
requirement,
the
following
sections
should
also
be
deleted,
since
they
would
no
longer
be
relevant:

§
261.38(
c)(
1)(
ii)(
E)
­
The
requirement
to
include
in
the
public
notice
the
"
name
and
mailing
address
of
the
Regional
or
State
Directors
to
whom
the
claim
was
submitted."

§
261.38(
c)(
10)(
i)(
A)
­
(
C)
­
The
requirement
to
maintain
records
related
to
the
notification.

Assuming
this
notice
is
eliminated
by
the
final
rule,
as
proposed,
EPA
should
provide
some
additional
clarification
in
the
preamble
to
amend
the
related
discussion
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
June
19,
1998
final
rule
at
63
FR
33797.

Elimination
of
the
notification
requirement
would
appear
to
render
the
above
preamble
language
obsolete,
however
to
avoid
any
future
confusion
regarding
the
timing
of
the
self­
implementing
aspect
of
this
exclusion,
EPA
should
make
that
clear.
It
should
be
clearly
noted
that
the
previous
statements
that
the
notification
had
to
be
received
before
the
waste
cold
be
considered
excluded
are
no
longer
applicable.

Document
#:
0286
We
do
not
believe
this
requirement
should
be
removed.
This
is
not
a
duplicative
requirement.
By
eliminating
the
notification
to
the
state
authorities
where
the
burning
of
the
syngas
fuel
will
take
place,
no
official
notification
will
be
given
to
the
state.
The
only
notification
will
come
via
a
public
notice
in
the
local
paper
where
the
burning
will
take
place.
State
regulators
will
be
required
to
scan
daily
papers
looking
for
public
notices
in
all
local
papers
throughout
the
state.
Since
the
public
notice
is
not
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
state
authorities
where
the
burning
will
take
place,
the
state
agency
will
be
placed
at
a
disadvantage
in
assisting
the
public
with
questions
regarding
the
management
of
this
type
of
waste.
Ultimately,
this
rule
change
will
cause
a
greater
burden
upon
the
state
regulators
and
place
the
public
at
a
disadvantage
at
gathering
information
to
which
they
are
entitled.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
option.
EPA
will
be
addressing
this
exclusion
and
the
accompanying
paperwork
in
an
upcoming
Federal
Register
notice
dealing
specifically
with
synthesis
gas
and
gasification
technologies.
In
that
this
future
rule
will
address
all
the
elements
of
this
regulation,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
pruduent
course
of
action
is
to
amend
the
regulation
in
total
and
not
with
individual
actions.
­
151­
NOTE:
Changes
to
these
sections
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

262.11
262.12
262.34
Proposed
Action:
The
Agency
did
not
propose
any
action
under
these
requirements.
Final
Action:
Changes
to
these
sections
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0165
Other
regulatory
requirements
do
not
provide
the
same
safeguards.
For
example,
§
262.11
requires
the
generator
merely
to
determine
if
its
waste
is
listed
or
exhibits
a
hazardous
characteristic.
Most
often
the
generator
uses
knowledge,
rather
than
testing
the
waste.
The
fact
that
the
waste
is
listed
or
characteristically
hazardous,
however,
does
not
tell
the
generator,
or
the
subsequent
TSD
facility,
what
must
be
known
about
the
presence
or
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
in
the
waste
that
require
treatment
prior
to
land
disposal.
Indeed,
the
hazardous
waste
determination
under
§
262.11
is
simply
the
starting
point,
and
the
obvious
and
necessary
next
step
is
for
the
generator
to
determine
whether
the
hazardous
waste
requires
treatment
prior
to
land
disposal.

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.11
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0184
We
have
had
confusion
in
the
past
regarding
whether
or
not
the
hazardous
waste
determination
language
of
262.11
required
identifying
all
the
characteristics,
or
if
the
generator
could
stop
at
one.
The
deleted
portion
of
268.9(
a)(
1)
stated.
The
initial
generator
of
a
solid
waste
must
determine
each
EPA
hazardous
waste
number
applicable
to
the
waste...
and
was
used
to
clarify
that
all
hazardous
characteristics
must
be
identified.
The
changes
proposed
refer
back
to
the
ambiguous
262.11
language.
It
wold
be
advantageous
to
state
"
A
generator
of
hazardous
waste
must
determine
all
EPA
hazardous
waste
numbers
applicable
to
the
waste
except
as
specified
in
268.9(
a)(
2)..."

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.11
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

262.12
We
did
not
propose
any
changes
to
this
section
of
the
RCRA
regulations.

Document
#:
0008
Additionally,
USWAG
believes
that
EPA
should
consider
streamlining
the
notification
of
regulated
waste
activity
requirements
in
sections
262.12,
263.11,
and
264.11
 
relating
to
EPA
hazardous
waste
identification
numbers.
While
USWAG
understands
that
EPA
considers
these
provisions
necessary
for
compliance
assurance,
streamlining
of
these
provisions
would
result
in
significant
burden
reduction
without
any
sacrifice
in
accountability.
Specifically,
USWAG
seeks
relief
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
separate
identification
number
for
each
site
at
which
a
waste
is
­
152­
generated.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
recognizes
the
electric
utility
industry's
efforts
to
reform
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
requirements.
A
remote
generation
sites,
the
hazardous
waste
identification
number
requirements
create
undue
burdens.
It
is
inefficient,
if
not
impossible,
to
obtain
a
separate
hazardous
waste
identification
number
for
each
of
these
thousands
of
remote
sites
located
throughout
electric
utility
transmission
and
distribution
systems.
USWAG
request
that
EPA
modify
the
requirements
to
explicitly
allow
the
option
to
use
a
central
facility's
identification
number
for
these
remote
generation
sites.
We
urge
EPA
to
adopt
this
modification
as
soon
as
possible,
through
either
the
manifest
reform
initiative
or
the
burden
reduction
initiative,
whichever
would
provide
the
quickest
result.

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
these
sections
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0043
UTC
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
keep
reports
on­
site
and
available
for
inspection
rather
than
submitting
them
to
EPA.
This
proposal
appears
to
offer
the
greatest
benefits
to
facilities
with
corrective
action
programs
and
TSDFs.
Large
quantity
generators
that
operate
without
special
permits
would
realize
little,
if
any,
benefit.
Regarding
40
CFR
262.12,
notification
of
regulated
waste
activity,
UTC
proposes
that
once
the
initial
notification
is
made,
the
generator
would
keep
copies
of
any
additions
or
deletions
to
EPA
waste
codes
on­
site
and
available
for
inspection.
UTC's
experience
has
been
that
when
updated
notifications
are
made
to
the
agency,
there
is
no
response,
consequence,
or
change
in
practices
required.
Typically,
these
changes
are
minor
in
nature;
for
example,
the
addition
of
a
U
code
to
manage
a
lab
pack
or
obsolete
raw
material.

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.12
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

262.34
Accumulation
Time
We
did
not
propose
any
changes
to
this
section
of
the
RCRA
regulations.

Document
#:
0031
LIA
also
supports
OSW's
proposal
to
maintain
records
on­
site
that
show
compliance
with
RCRA
regulations,
as
opposed
to
submitting
each
of
these
records
to
the
Agency.
OSW's
proposal
as
currently
stated,
however,
would
reduce
the
data
management
and
administrative
burden
on
the
agency
because
it
would
be
in
receipt
of
less
information,
but
it
does
little
to
reduce
the
burden
on
the
facilities
to
prepare
such
reports
continuously.
To
reduce
the
burden
of
recordkeeping
further,
the
Agency
should
consider
replacing
many
of
the
regulations
requiring
periodic
reporting
with
a
one­
time
notification
or
certification
statement
to
the
Agency.
Some
of
the
regulations
that
are
suitable
to
be
converted
to
this
single
record
include
40
CFR
§
§
262.34
and
264.16.

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.34
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
­
153­
262.34(
d)(
5)
We
did
not
propose
any
changes
to
this
section
of
the
RCRA
regulations.

Document
#:
0030
EPA
currently
requires
that
generators
who
accumulate
waste
in
excess
of
the
satellite
accumulation
requirements
comply
within
3
days
with
various
container
or
tank
requirements
for
the
storage
of
hazardous
waste.
Extending
the
time
limit
to
7
days
will
provide
generators
with
additional
flexibility
to
manage
the
waste
appropriately
and
cost­
effectively.
For
example,
on
3­
day
weekends
it
is
sometimes
necessary
to
call
in
on
an
overtime
basis,
waste
management
personnel
to
transfer
wastes.
Also,
at
times
during
a
unit
turnaround
a
large
volume
of
waste
is
being
generated
during
a
week,
necessitating
the
use
of
a
roll­
off
box.
Allowing
the
roll­
off
box
to
remain
in
place
for
a
week
reduces
the
need
to
transfer
a
partially
filled
roll­
off
box
because
the
three­
day
accumulation
time
has
been
reached.

Response:
Changing
the
262.34
requirements
with
respect
to
satellite
accumulation
areas
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0328
Emergency
response
requirements
for
SQGs
are
set
out
in
Section
262.34(
d)(
5)
and
in
Section
265,
Subpart
C.
Given
that
the
Agency
is
attempting
to
reconcile
its
emergency
response
requirements
with
those
set
out
in
OSHA's
regulations,
an
effort
should
be
made
to
identify
and
eliminate
potential
overlaps
involving
SQGs.

262.34(
d)(
5)(
ii)
We
did
not
propose
any
changes
to
this
section
of
the
RCRA
regulations.

Document
#:
0208
Requirement
for
SQGs
to
post
emergency
numbers
and
equipment
locations
has
been
made
largely
obsolete
by
the
existence
of
911
systems.
A
suggested
change
to
40
CFR
265.32(
c)
would
handle
concerns
on
equipment
locations
 
"
Readily
accessible
and
clearly
marked
portable
fire..."

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.34
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

264.12(
c)
265.12(
c)
Before
transferring
ownership
or
operation
of
a
facility
during
it's
operating
life,
or
of
a
disposal
facility
during
the
post
closure
care
period,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
new
owner
or
operator
in
writing
of
the
requirements
of
this
part
and
part
270
of
this
chapter.
Proposed
Action:
No
regulatory
change
was
proposed.
Final
Action:
No
regulatory
change
is
being
made.
­
154­
Document
#:
0042
Provide
notice
of
Part
264
or
265
and
Part
270
Requirements.

Response:
Changing
the
requirements
in
262.12
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

264.13(
a)(
1)
Before
an
owner
or
operator
treats,
stores
or
disposes
of
any
hazardous
wastes,
or
nonhazardous
wastes
if
applicable
under
264.113(
d),
he
must
obtain
a
detailed
chemical
and
physical
analysis
of
a
representative
sample
of
the
wastes.
At
a
minimum,
the
analysis
must
contain
all
the
information
which
must
be
known
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
the
waste
in
accordance
with
the
part
and
part
268
of
this
chapter.
Proposed
Action:
No
regulatory
change
was
proposed.
Final
Action:
No
regulatory
change
is
being
made.

Document
#:
0165
EPA
also
points
to
264.13(
a)(
1)
as
a
safeguard,
but
again
the
preamble
misstates
the
regulation
(
see
note
1
above).
Contrary
to
the
preamble,
264.13(
a)(
1)
does
not
require
"
TSDFs
to
perform
a
general
waste
analysis"
to
determine
all
the
information
necessary
for
treatment.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2528
cols.
1­
2
(
emphasis
added).
The
regulation
states
that
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
TSD
facility
"
must
obtain
a
detailed
chemical
and
physical
analysis
of
a
representative
sample
of
the
waste."
TSD
facilities
"
obtain"
this
268.7(
a)(
1)
requirement
that
EPA
now
proposes
to
eliminate.
Again,
the
fact
that
EOA
has
not
accurately
described
either
the
regulation
or
the
resulting
commercial
practice
shows
that
EPA's
reasoning
is
flawed.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
the
commenter
is
referred
to
section
268.7
of
this
document
and
the
preamble
discussion
for
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
for
a
discussion
of
the
changes
to
these
regulatory
requirements.

264.15
General
Inspections
requirements.
Proposed
Action:
No
regulatory
change
was
proposed.
Final
Action:
No
regulatory
change
is
being
made.

Document
#:
0041
While
Safety­
Kleen
supports
the
goals
of
burden
reduction
in
general,
we
do
not
agree
that
lengthening
RCRA
inspection
frequencies
will
produce
any
burden
reduction
benefit
and
ill
likely
result
in
less
environmental
protection.
The
current
inspection
regulations
contained
in
40
CFR
264.15
allow
considerable
leeway
for
inspection
frequency
except
where
a
particular
frequency
is
mandated,
the
Agency
could
amend
the
regulations
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
a
facility
to
demonstrate
that
a
longer
inspection
frequency
is
warranted.
This
could
be
demonstrated
by
perform
a
Hazardous
and
Operatability
Analysis
on
the
unit
or
by
a
review
of
the
historical
failure
or
spill
rate
of
the
unit.
We
believe
that
any
reduction
in
burden
costs
due
to
reduced
inspections
­
155­
would
be
significantly
outweighed
by
the
increased
costs
due
to
potential
remediation
of
tanks
or
other
units
that
failed
due
to
inadequate
inspection.

Document
#:
0042
DHWM
does
not
presently
support
lengthening
the
periods
between
any
TSD
facility
selfinspections
for
container
storage
areas,
tank
systems,
surface
impoundments,
incinerators,
waste
piles,
landfills
or
miscellaneous
units.

We
realize
that
generators
are
also
subject
to
these
requirements.
The
requirements
are
not
necessarily
applicable
to
generator
operations
and
can
be
burdensome
for
them.
However,
we
do
not
support
reducing
the
facility
self­
inspection
requirement,
which
are
applicable
to
TSD
facilities,
in
lieu
of
reducing
the
burden
on
generators.
We
take
the
position
that
such
a
regulatory
change
could
increase
the
risk
of
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
To
resolve
this
issue,
US
EPA
might
consider
developing
specific
inspection
schedules
that
are
appropriate
for
generators
and
their
operations.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments
and
refers
the
reader
to
the
specific
section
in
this
document
regarding
tank
inspection
frequency
and
Performance
Track
facilities.
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
any
regulatory
change
regarding
decreased
inspection
frequency
beyond
these.
We
have
been
persuaded
by
commenters
that
providing
for
a
case­
by­
case
application
process
for
decreasing
self
­
inspection
frequency
for
tanks,
containers
and
containment
building
would
be
a
tremendous
burden
on
the
states
and
as
such
we
are
not
pursuing
these
regulatory
changes.
We
are
allowing
Performance
Track
member
facillities
to
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
these
types
of
management
units.
­
156­
264.15(
b)(
4)
The
owner
or
operator
must
develop
and
follow
a
written
schedule
for
inspecting
monitoring
equipment,
safety
and
emergency
equipment,
security
devices,
and
operating
and
structural
equipment
(
such
as
dikes
and
sump
and
pumps)
that
are
important
to
preventing,
detecting,
or
responding
to
environmental
or
human
health
hazards.

The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.
However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
any
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
264.174,
264.193,
264.195,
264.226,
264.254,
264.278,
264.303,
264.347,
264.602,
264.1033,
264.1052,
264.1053,
264.1058,
and
264.1083
through
264.1089
if
this
part
where
applicable.
Proposed
Action:
In
NODA
2,
solicited
comment
on
adding
areas
subject
to
spills
for
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities.
Final
Action:
Promulgating
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
upon
approval
by
regulatory
agency
reduced
inspection
frequency,
up
to
monthly
for
areas
subject
to
spills
at
Performance
Track
member
facilities.

Document
#:
0134
DOE
requests
that
EPA
consider
giving
the
responsible
regulatory
agency
authority
to
adjust,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
frequency
of
inspection
in
areas
subject
to
spills
at
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities.
DOE
believes
this
change
would
be
very
similar
to
the
proposal
in
the
NPRM
that
owners/
operators
of
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
be
allowed
the
opportunity
to
adjust
the
frequency
of
their
self­
inspections
(
p.
2527,
cols.
1
&
2).
DOE
believes
the
change
is
justified
because
activities
that
may
cause
spills
usually
allow
the
spills
to
be
easily
detected
and
quickly
cleaned
up
without
a
specific
delay
caused
by
an
inspection.

Response:
Currently,
all
facilities
must
inspect
areas
subject
to
spills
on
a
daily
basis.
In
response
to
a
comment
in
the
proposal,
the
2003
NODA
considered
reducing
the
inspection
frequencies,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case­
basis,
for
areas
subject
to
spills
as
a
general
matter.
We
also
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
grant
this
relief
only
to
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
stating
that
the
risk
from
this
change
is
minimal
at
facilities
that
have
met
the
requirements
to
be
accepted
into
the
Performance
Track
Program.

In
general,
we
do
not
believe
that
such
a
change
to
the
regulation
is
appropriate
for
all
facilities
since
they
do
not
have
the
environmental
management
systems,
commitments,
and
demonstrated
compliance
records
that
Performance
Track
facilities
have.
We
think
the
risk
from
this
change
(
i.
e.,
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
obtain
permission
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency),
is
minimal.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
to
extend
inspection
frequencies
in
264/
5.15(
b)(
4)
for
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
monthly
frequency
­
157­
but
only
for
facilities
that
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
that
have
applied
and
received
permission
to
reduce
inspection
frequency
from
their
State
or
EPA
region.
The
Director
will
inform
the
applicant
in
writing
as
to
the
disposition
of
their
application.

Document
#
0323
COPC
supports
the
proposal
to
change
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
for
both
large
and
small
quantity
generators.
We
further
support
including
ancillary
tank
equipment
(
piping,
pumps,
valves
and
other
associated
equipment)
at
both
small
and
large
quantity
generator
facilities.

In
addition,
COPC
supports
reduced
inspection
requirement
for
areas
subject
to
spills
(
see
264.15(
b)(
4).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0327
As
a
general
matter,
API
also
supports
reduced
inspection
requirement
for
areas
subject
to
spills
(
see
264.15(
b)(
4).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0352
Spills
­
Areas
subject
to
spills
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
264.15(
b)(
4)
and
265(
b)(
4).
Well­
operated
and
maintained
equipment
should
receive
a
case­
bycase
determination
of
whether
a
less
frequent
inspection
is
appropriate.
Therefore,
LANL
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
any
facility
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
containment
building
inspection
frequencies,
and
suggests
using
factors
such
as
those
described
in
40
CFR
264.15(
b)(
4)
and
265.15(
b)(
4).

Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tank
systems
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
We
are
not
promulgating
reduced
inspection
frequencies
for
ancillary
equipment
regulated
under
264/
5.193(
f)(
1)­(
4).
While
most
commenters
supported
this
change,
upon
further
analysis
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
the
final
rule
addresses
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems.
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings
or
areas
subject
to
spills,
except
for
case­
by­
case
situations
with
Performance
Track
facilities.)
­
158­
264/
5.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
Personnel
Training
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
onthe
job
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
ensure
that
this
program
includes
all
the
elements
described
in
the
document
required
under
paragraph
(
d)(
3)
of
this
section.
264.16(
a)(
1)
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
onthe
job
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
ensure
that
this
program
includes
all
the
elements
described
in
the
document
required
under
paragraph
(
d)(
3)
of
this
section.

Proposed
Action:
We
proposed
eliminating
the
personnel
training
requirements
to
record
job
title
and
description,
as
well
as
the
type
and
amount
of
training
employees
will
receive.
Final
Action:
The
States
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
is
being
retained.

Document
#:
0012
CRWI
supports
Alternate
1
where
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
personnel
have
been
trained.
CRWI
also
agrees
with
EPA
that
there
are
certain
areas
where
OSHA
and
RCRA
training
requirements
overlap.
CRWI
sees
this
as
an
inefficient
use
of
time
and
resources.
CRWI
suggests
that
EPA
defer
to
OSHA
for
the
training
requirements.
As
listed
in
the
document
"
RCRA­
OSHA
Training
Requirements
Overlap",
the
OSHA
program
meets
or
exceeds
the
RCRA
requirements.
This
would
exceed
the
RCRA
requirements
and
ensure
the
proper
training.
This
would
also
eliminate
any
duplication
and
would
relieve
the
facility
from
possible
dual
enforcement
actions.

Response:
The
Agency
proposed
to
allow
OSHA
training
in
lieu
of
RCRA
training.
EPA's
intent
was
to
limit
this
to
emergency
response
training,
however
many
commenters
misunderstood
this.
In
the
second
NODA,
EPA
clarified
its
position
and
solicited
comment
on
applying
either
RCRA
or
OSHA
for
emergency
response
training,
Among
other
reasons,
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
many
facilities
are
not
subject
to
OSHA
requirements,
as
such
relying
only
on
OSHA
training
would
leave
gaps
for
certain
facilities.
In
today's
rule,
the
Agency
is
allowing
a
facility
to
use
either
RCRA
or
OSHA
for
emergency
response
training
as
long
as
all
the
RCRA
training
requirements
are
met.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
expand
its
three­
year
record
retention
policy
to
employee
training
records.
Since
training
records
are
routine
and
are
not
needed
for
closure
of
a
facility,
EPA
should
allow
training
records
to
be
discarded
after
three
years.
This
option
would
reduce
the
amount
of
administrative
time
needed
to
review
training
records,
as
well
as
the
paperwork
burden
upon
the
facilities,
and
would
be
consistent
with
EPA's
stated
policy
of
record
retention.
­
159­
Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion.
Presently,
the
regulations
state
that
for
current
personnel,
training
records
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility,
and
that
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
The
Agency
feels
that
this
in
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
that
these
records
should
be
maintained.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA
that
maintaining
records
of
job
titles
and
job
descriptions
for
individuals
who
receive
training
is
unnecessary
and
does
not
contribute
to
the
safety
of
a
facility.
Accordingly,
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
these
non­
essential
recordkeeping
requirements.

Response:
The
States
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
is
being
retained.
Upon
review,
a
facility
should
maintain
a
list
of
personnel
that
actively
handle/
manage
the
facility's
hazardous
waste
or
actively
participate
in
emergency
response
in
order
to
ensure
those
people
are
properly
trained.
The
record
should
document
the
type
and
amount
of
training
received
by
each
individual.
Commenters
have
convinced
us
that
the
best
way
to
determine
whether
or
not
an
employee
has
been
adequately
trained
is
to
pick
an
employee
from
the
documentation
at
the
facility
and
then
question
that
employee
about
the
type
of
training
that
they
have
received.
Failure
to
maintain
this
information
will
weaken
the
inspector's
capabilities
to
ensure
appropriate
staff
are
maintained
and
will
weaken
the
ability
to
enforce
the
regulation.

Document
#:
0174
(
Personnel
Training
for
Emergency
Response)
In
the
preamble
(
67
FR
2527),
EPA
proposed
to
drop
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3).
In
the
proposed
changes
to
the
regulatory
text,
these
requirements
are
not
dropped
but
by
eliminating
the
section
instead
of
rewording
it.
As
an
alternative,
Dow
supports
rewording
the
section
as
ACC
has
commented.

(
Personnel
Training
Recordkeeping)
The
proposal
includes
changes
to
personnel
training
in
40CFR
264.16(
a)
&
(
d)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)
&
(
d).
Under
Section
II.
D
of
the
preamble,
EPA
discussed
personnel
training
extensively,
including
the
existing
requirement
to
keep
training
records
until
closure.
However,
EPA
did
not
propose
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
found
at
both
40
CFR
264.16(
e)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
e).
In
other
places,
EPA
also
recognized
that
keeping
records
until
closure
is
not
productive
and
proposed
to
reduce
that
burden
in
a
number
of
othe
places,
such
as:

°
40
CFR
264.73
and
40
CFR
265.73
for
the
operating
record,
°
40
CFR
266.102(
e)(
10)
for
permitted
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
and
°
40
CFR
266.103(
k)
for
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces.

Dow
firmly
believes
that
keeping
training
records
for
three
years
is
more
than
adequate.
Dow
requests
that
the
final
rule
also
change
both
40
CFR
264.16(
e)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
e)
so
that
these
­
160­
references
are
consistent
with
the
approach
that
EPA
is
taking
for
other
listed
regulatory
areas.
Such
a
change
could
be
accomplished
very
easily,
and
Dow
suggest
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:

40
CFR
264.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
acmpany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company."

40
CFR
265.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
accompany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company."

Even
though
changes
to
these
regulatory
references
were
not
specifically
proposed,
these
changes
are
consistent
with
other
changes
that
EPA
has
proposed.
In
addition
at
67
FR
2520,
EPA
did
invite
comments
on
"...
new
approaches
we
haven't
considered..."

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however,
the
States
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
these
requirements
are
being
retained,
as
noted
previously
without
this
documentation
on­
site
it
would
be
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
is
the
appropriate
personnel
have
been
trained,
as
such
this
information
should
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility,
Presently,
the
regulations
state
that
for
current
personnel,
training
records
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility,
and
that
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
The
Agency
feels
that
this
in
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
that
these
records
should
be
maintained.
.

Document
#:
0207
Most
of
the
proposed
reductions
in
training
records
will
save
time
and
have
little
or
no
effect
on
environmental
protection.
However,
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
stated:

"
Finally,
we
are
proposing
to
eliminate
the
regulatory
requirement
for
a
description
of
the
training
employees
will
receive.
The
facility
inspections
ensure
adequate
training 
simply
documenting
the
employee(
s)
name(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
training
sufficient."
[
67
FR
2527]

Lion
believes
that
this
reduction
will
ultimately
reduce
environmental
protection.
Reducing
training
records
to
only
names
and
dates
of
those
trained
provides
no
record
of
what
that
training
entailed.
Such
records
except
for
names
and
dates
of
training
would
reduce
accountability
and
encourage
less
conscientious
managers
to
provide
minimal
awareness
training
to
employees
whose
­
161­
jobs
require
more
detailed
training.

The
US
DOT,
Office
of
Hazardous
Materials
Regulation,
in
a
recently
revised
related
training
rule
[
p49
CFR
172.704(
d)(
3)],
requires
training
records
to
include
either
a
description
of
the
training,
a
copy
of
the
training
materials
or
a
reference
to
where
those
training
materials
are
maintained.
This
provides
flexibility,
while
still
providing
a
record
of
what
training
was
actually
given
to
each
employee.

EPA's
proposed
regulatory
language
itself
simply
requires
that:

"(
d)
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
at
the
facility
records
documenting
the
training
or
job
experience
required
under
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section
that
has
been
given
to
and
completed
by
facility
personnel."
[
67
FR
2527]

This
language
appropriately
leaves
the
specific
content
and
format
of
records
to
the
discretion
of
the
regulated
person.
It
does
not
appear
to
limit
the
required
records
only
personnel
names
and
training
dates.

Lion
believes
the
proposed
regulatory
language
is
reasonable,
but
requests
that
the
Agency
clarify
that
training
records
also
must
include
some
description
of
the
training
provided
or
a
reference
to
where
such
description
may
be
found.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however,
the
States
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
is
being
retained.
See
previous
comment
responses.

Document
#:
0207
Lion
notes
that
EPA
has
not
addressed
the
use
of
computer­
based
or
web­
based
training
programs
to
meet
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
Governmental
agencies
and
companies
are
increasingly
providing
training
to
their
employees
via
these
methods,
and
finding
many
advantages,
including
a
significant
reduction
in
the
overall
cost
of
training
as
well
as
vastly
increased
flexibility
regarding
training
content
and
timing.
Lion
requests
that
EPA
clarify
that
these
training
delivery
methods
may
be
used
to
provide
the
training
required
by
40
CFR
264/
265.16.

Response:
This
comment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0208
Training
­
264/
5.16,
262.34(
d)(
5)(
iii)
FDEP
generally
agrees
that
the
personnel
training
requirements
have
too
much
overlap
with
OSHA
training
requirements,
except
that
OSHA
does
not
cover
state
and
municipal
employees.
The
proposed
264./
16(
a)(
3)(
ii)
should
delete
the
words
"
required"
and
"
as
applicable."
Language
should
be
adopted
that
requires
the
training
at
RCRA
facilities
not
regulated
under
OSHA,
especially
as
262.34
generator
standards
reference
265.16
requirements.
­
162­
FDEP
suggests
that
EPA
reference
DOT
Hazmat
49
CFR
172
Subpart
H
and
OSHA
Hazcom
29
CFR
1910.1200.
The
preamble
to
the
satellite
accumulation
regulation
discussed
the
applicability
of
265.16
to
employees
at
generator
facilities
who
only
managed
H
in
satellite
containers.
At
that
time,
EPA
stated
that
Hazcom
(
not
Hazwoper)
was
expected
to
provide
sufficient
training
for
management
of
HW
in
satellite
containers.
Full
265.16
compliance
for
these
employees
was
not
required.
Even
though
MSDSs
are
notorious
for
containing
the
statement
"
dispose
of
in
accordance
with
all
federal
state
and
local
regulations,"
even
when
the
spent
or
discarded
unused
substance
is
known
to
be
a
hazardous
waste.

Response:
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
264.16(
a)(
3)
of
this
document.

Document
#:
0212
Sierra
Club
EPA's
proposals
for
RCRA
sections
264.16
and
265.16
will
reduce
training
requirements
for
hazardous
workers.
EPA's
proposal
fails
to
address
the
overall
question
of
jurisdiction
between
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
("
OSHA").
OSHA
does
not
and
cannot
regulate
protection
of
the
environment.
OSHA
only
regulates
the
protection
of
worker
health
and
safety.
OSHA
cannot
regulate
ground
water
contamination,
shut
down
of
operations
or
waste
feed
operations
or
training
for
ALL
workers
in
this
area.
EPA
can.
OSHA
can
only
regulate
it
if
it
effects
workers
health
which
in
some
cases
it
will
not.
EPA
should
keep
those
few
tools
that
the
agency
has
and
that
OSHA
does
not
and
cannot
have.

OSHA's
emphasis
is
clearly
working
conditions
and
it
it
unlikely
that
OSHA
can
effectively
regulate
issues
related
to
the
environment.
The
net
effect
of
this
change
iwll
be
to
decrease
training
of
workers
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
the
environment
at
the
point
of
release;
at
the
very
point
where
workers
can
best
prevent
and
avoid
any
damage
to
health
and
the
environment.

Further,
many
companies
do
not
train
their
workers
to
engage
in
chemical
emergency
response.
Instead
they
have
evacuation
plans;
therefore
the
provisions
of
1910.120(
q)
on
training
emergency
response
workers
largely
do
not
apply.
In
contrast,
EPA's
requirements
at
264.16,
Personal
Training,
state
clearly
that
at
a
minimum
the
training
program
must
be
designed
for
all
locations,
including
those
companies
that
do
NOT
implement
1910.120(
q)
and
that
instead
plan
to
evacuate
all
personnel.

EPA's
"
Crosswalk
between
OSHA
and
RCRA's
Training
Requirements"
admits
that
sections
(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
"
more
detailed
than
OSHA
requirements".
It
incorrectly
states
that
OSHA's
"
requirements
is
generally
the
same
as
RCRA"
for
points
(
a)(
3)(
v)
an
(
vi).
It
contains
further
inappropriate
comparisons.
It
compares
OSHA's
requirements
for
trainer's
background
with
the
RCRA's
for
training
of
the
Training
Director,
OSHA's
requirement
for
workers
not
to
"
endanger
themselves
or
other
employees"
with
RCRA's
requirement
to
"
respond
effectively".

EPA
refers
to
the
OSHA
standard
on
evacuation
which
all
companies
have
to
do
in
emergencies
(
1910.38).
However,
OSHA's
emergency
plan
standard
basically
makes
sure
that
evacuation
are
done
safely
for
the
protection
of
employees,
and
is
not
intended
to
protect
the
environment.
1Formerly
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office.

­
163­
Lastly,
given
the
lack
of
effective
training
to
hazardous
waste
workers,
the
deletion
of
recordkeeping
requirements
in
section
d(
3)
would
allow
the
further
weakening
the
current
level
of
training.
The
OSHA
language
on
recordkeeping
is
included
in
the
Non
Mandatory
Appendix
E
tot
he
1910.120
standard
where
RCRA's
is
in
the
regulation.
RCRA
also
requires
the
owner
to
maintain
the
records
where
OSHA's
guideline"
is
for
the
training
provider.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
We
are
not
going
forward
with
any
changes
to
264/
5.16(
d)(
1)­(
3).
With
regard
to
the
OSHA/
RCRA
requirements
we
are
revising
§
§
264.16
and
265.16
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
OSHA
and
RCRA
regulations
while
still
ensuring
protectiveness.
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
have
both
promulgated
regulations
addressing
worker
activities
and
training
at
hazardous
waste
management
facilities.
While
EPA's
hazardous
waste
regulations
focus
on
facility
operations,
worker
training,
OSHA
focuses
on
worker
safety.
Both
agencies
require
worker
training.
While
we
were
conducting
our
own
review
of
potential
overlaps
between
EPA
and
OSHA
regulations,
the
Government
Accountability
Office1
published
in
October
2000
a
study
on
the
issue.
GAO
suggested
that
the
overlap
in
emergency
training
requirements
diminishes
the
efficiency
of
the
facility
and
creates
unnecessary
compliance
costs.
The
GAO
study
pointed
out
that
OSHA's
regulations
have
specific
training
requirements
for
RCRA­
permitted
facilities
to
teach
hazardous
waste
workers
how
to
respond
to
emergencies
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
With
the
support
of
the
GAO
findings,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
While
we
received
comments
in
support
of
the
proposal,
other
commenters
expressed
particular
concern
that
two
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
are
not
covered
in
OSHA's
requirements.
(
1)
understanding
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems;
and
(
2)
how
to
respond
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
deletion
of
these
two
requirements
would
endanger
the
environment
and
human
health
in
the
area
of
RCRA
facilities,
in
that
adhering
only
to
the
OSHA
requirements
would
mean
that
workers
would
not
be
trained
in
these
areas.
This,
however,
is
not
EPA's
intention.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
­
164­
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0215
Bethlehem
Steel
supports
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
requirements
for
personnel
training
at
40
CFR
264.16.
However,
at
large
companies
such
as
Bethlehem
Steel
that
employ
as
many
as
5000
people
at
any
one
operating
facility,
training
requirements
are
specified
by
many
separate
regulatory
programs
and
are
consolidated
as
much
as
possible
to
reduce
the
hours
that
employees
are
away
from
their
job
position.
Record
keeping
requirements
for
each
regulatory
program
therefore
become
duplicative
paper
work
exercises.
For
any
reference
to
training
requirements
that
will
remain
in
264.16,
we
recommend
the
following
additional
changes:

a.
The
time
period
to
keep
training
records
should
be
reduced
to
three
years,
instead
of
"
until
closure
of
the
facility."
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
similar
changes
on
the
time
period
for
document
retention
that
the
agency
is
proposing.

b.
The
requirement
at
40
CFR
264.16(
c)
for
an
"
annual
review"
of
each
employee's
training
should
be
changed
to
a
review
"
once
each
calendar
year."
Especially
at
a
facility
where
thousands
of
employees
may
be
subject
to
the
training
requirement,
it
is
much
simpler
to
schedule
based
on
the
calendar
year.
For
example,
all
employees
could
be
scheduled
for
training
in
October/
November,
with
a
make
up
session
in
December
for
employees
who
were
sick,
on
leave,
or
who
had
other
emergencies.
Bethlehem
has
experienced
situations
­
165­
where
aggressive
enforcement
staff
interpret
the
"
annual
review"
language
in
the
current
regulations
in
a
way
that
would
create
a
"
violation"
if
an
employee
is
trained
in
November
of
one
year,
is
out
sick
during
the
next
training
session,
and
then
takes
a
make­
up
session
the
following
December.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
disagree
with
the
record
retention
time
of
three
years.
The
States
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
important
to
retain
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
those
employees
who
maintain
their
employment
at
the
facility,
if
employment
is
terminated
the
records
need
only
be
retained
for
three
years.
With
regard
to
comment
b,
the
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
however
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0286
We
believe
the
training
outline
for
hazardous
waste
management
which
occurs
on­
site
is
a
useful
tool
for
the
facility
representatives
which
must
ensure
adequate
training
has
taken
place.
Without
a
thoughtful
outline
which
truly
examines
the
hazardous
waste
management
operations,
facility
workers
may
be
untrained
or
be
improperly
trained.
While
the
initial
output
may
be
burdensome,
a
thorough
training
outline
(
outside
of
the
emergency
training)
could
potentially
save
time
and
money
for
facilities.
We
recommend
that
this
rule
remain
unchanged.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0184
We
support
this
change,
but
only
with
modification
of
the
proposed
language.
Personnel
training
­
If
the
intent
of
this
citation
is
to
ensure
employees
are
trained
in
RCRA­
specific
facility
operations
(
inspections,
recordkeeping,
waste
management
requirements,
waste
feed
controls)
then
it
should
so
state.
There
should
be
a
description
of
the
training
that
will
be
provided
to
meet
RCRA
requirements
that
are
independent
of
OSHA
requirements.

264.16(
a)(
3)
Personnel
training
requirements 
training
program:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
the
RCRA
requirements,
and
have
facilities
follow
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
standards,
which
are
more
comprehensive.
This
is
an
area
of
overlap
that
has
been
identified
in
a
comprehensive
study
of
federal
personnel
training
requirements
by
the
General
Accounting
Office.

Document
#:
0002
Re:
"
D.
Should
we
change
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements?"
You
suggest
"
certification"
as
opposed
to
recordkeeping.
a.
Who
will
certify?
The
Company
or
an
"
outside,
unbiased"
entity?
Who
will
qualify
to
"
certify"
proper
training
if
not
done
by
the
company?
(
OSHA
put
out
a
proposed
rule­
making
in
January
of
1990
"
29
CFR
1910.121"
regarding
certification
of
Hazwoper
trainers
and
course
curriculum,
but
2Formerly
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office.

­
166­
it
was
never
finalized.)

b.
How
will
a
"
certificate"
assure
proper
topics
have
been
discussed
during
the
training?
Finalization
of
"
1910.121"
mentioned
above
might
resolve
that
problem.

c.
We
agree
that
most
of
OSHA's
Hazwoper
Standard
(
29
CFR
1910.120)
covers
training
required
by
RCRA.
What's
not
could
be
added
to
Hazwoper
and
then
incorporated
by
reference
into
EPA's
40
CFR
311
which
already
includes
Hazwoper.
(
See
also
the
various
course
curricula
described
in
"
1910.121",
esp.
that
described
for
TSDF's)

Response:
We
are
revising
§
§
264.16
and
265.16
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
OSHA
and
RCRA
regulations
while
still
ensuring
protectiveness.
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
have
both
promulgated
regulations
addressing
worker
activities
and
training
at
hazardous
waste
management
facilities.
While
EPA's
hazardous
waste
regulations
focus
on
facility
operations,
worker
training,
OSHA
focuses
on
worker
safety.
Both
agencies
require
worker
training.
While
we
were
conducting
our
own
review
of
potential
overlaps
between
EPA
and
OSHA
regulations,
the
Government
Accountability
Office2
published
in
October
2000
a
study
on
the
issue.
GAO
suggested
that
the
overlap
in
emergency
training
requirements
diminishes
the
efficiency
of
the
facility
and
creates
unnecessary
compliance
costs.
The
GAO
study
pointed
out
that
OSHA's
regulations
have
specific
training
requirements
for
RCRA­
permitted
facilities
to
teach
hazardous
waste
workers
how
to
respond
to
emergencies
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
With
the
support
of
the
GAO
findings,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
While
we
received
comments
in
support
of
the
proposal,
other
commenters
expressed
particular
concern
that
two
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
are
not
covered
in
OSHA's
requirements.
(
1)
understanding
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems;
and
(
2)
how
to
respond
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
deletion
of
these
two
requirements
would
endanger
the
environment
and
human
health
in
the
area
of
RCRA
facilities,
in
that
adhering
only
to
the
OSHA
requirements
would
mean
that
workers
would
not
be
trained
in
these
areas.
This,
however,
is
not
EPA's
intention.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
­
167­
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0004
The
issue
of
which
agency's
training
requirements
should
prevail
is
a
fundamental
question
of
jurisdiction
­
one
that
must
be
answered
before
recommendations
about
how
to
avert
the
obvious
regulatory
overlap,.
The
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
(
OSH
Act)
provides
that
where
"
other
Federal
agencies",
including
EPA
promulgate
rules
respecting
the
working
conditions
of
employees
that
rules
issued
by
the
Secretary
of
Labor
will
no
longer
apply.
The
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
training
rules
referenced
in
this
notice
are
issued
under
authority
of
the
OSH
Act,.
It
is
immaterial
whether
OSHA's
requirements
are
more
stringent
or
less,
EPA
has
issued
rules
for
worker
safety
and
they
supercede
OSHA's.

Response:
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
previous
comment
response.

Document
#:
0007
In
the
Federal
Register
notice,
EPA
indicates
that
it
is
considering
two
different
alternatives
for
changing
the
existing
requirements
for
personnel
training
under
RCRA.
Under
Alternative
1,
EPA
would
maintain
the
current
substantive
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
but
would
eliminate
the
current
recordkeeping
requirements
for
documenting
training
and
replace
the
recordkeeping
with
a
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
­
168­
SOCMA
recommends
that
EPA
review
and
reduce,
rather
than
eliminate,
the
records
that
companies
are
expected
to
maintain
of
RCRA
training.
This
approach
would
minimize
the
paperwork
burden
but
still
assure
that
companies
focus
on
and
document
the
adequacy
of
training.
Training
is
a
key
element
of
compliance.
Training
serves
as
an
information
exchange
between
those
who
understand
the
regulations
and
their
application
and
those
who
manage
hazardous
wastes
as
part
of
their
jobs.
A
recordkeeping
system
is
a
good
means
of
assuring
that
this
communication
is
being
maintained.

Rather
than
eliminating
all
recordkeeping,
EPA
should
consider
simplifying
the
information
that
is
required
to
be
maintained
and
shortening
the
length
of
time
that
records
are
required
to
be
kept.
For
example,
EPA
should
reconsider
whether
job
descriptions
are
a
necessary
element
of
documenting
training.
Training
records
should
identify
each
of
the
participants
by
name
and
by
job
title.
This
information
serves
to
document
who
participated
in
the
training
and
the
position
that
the
individual
held
within
the
company
at
the
time
the
training
was
conducted.
A
more
detailed
job
description
is
not
necessary
for
recordkeeping
purposes.

In
addition,
EPA
should
reconsider
the
current
requirement
that
training
records
for
current
employees
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.
It
is
unclear
what
EPA
intended
to
accomplish
with
such
an
open­
ended
recordkeeping
requirement
and
why
this
category
of
records
should
be
singled
for
longer­
term
record
retention
than
other
types
of
records.
SOCMA
recommends
that
EPA
consider
requiring
retention
of
training
records
of
current
employees
for
no
longer
than
a
three­
year
period.
This
would
significantly
reduce
the
volume
of
paper
industry
is
required
to
retain,
and
would
establish
a
uniform
time
period
for
training
record
retention
and
would
reduce
the
amount
of
administrative
time
needed
to
review
and
sort
records
to
identify
those
that
no
longer
need
to
be
retained.

In
the
Federal
Register
notice,
EPA
also
indicated
that
it
is
considering
as
Alternative
2
elimination
of
those
RCRA
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
OSHA
training
requirements.
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
proposal.
Emergency
response
training
is
one
area
where
duplicative
requirements
exist.
Elimination
of
the
RCRA
training
requirements
are
more
comprehensive
and
more
detailed
than
the
RCRA
requirements.
RCRA
training
should
be
focused
primarily
on
information
that
is
particular
to
waste
generation,
waste
management,
waste
shipment
and
waste
disposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
With
regard
to
RCRA/
OSHA
training,
the
commenter
is
referred
to
the
previous
response
regarding
this
topic.

Document
#:
0008
EPA's
second
approach
 
elimination
of
those
recordkeeping
requirements
that
duplicate
similar
rules
enforced
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
 
should
be
pursued
in
conjunction
with
the
first
option.
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
this
approach
would
eliminate
many
RCRA
recordkeeping
requirements
for
personnel
training
that
are
duplicative
of
OSHA
requirements.
Although
EPA
training
applies
to
"
facility
personnel"
and
OSHA's
requirements
apply
to
employees
exposed
to
health
hazards
or
hazardous
substances,
the
overlap
in
­
169­
requirements
is
significant.
It
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
definition
of
"
facility
personnel"
is
limited
to
those
personnel
at
a
facility
"
whose
actions
or
failure
to
act
may
result
in
noncompliance"
with
the
RCRA
regulations.
40
CFR
260.10.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
the
Agency
met
to
address
the
RCRA/
OSHA
overlap
for
emergency
response
training
only.
The
Agency
regrets
the
confusion
made
by
this
error.
.

Document
#:
0009
The
current
system
of
overlapping
requirements
is
counterproductive
and
often
discourages
employers
from
providing
training
to
employees
that
may
benefit
from
but
are
not
required
to
receive
training.
The
proposal
to
eliminate
recordkeeping
requirements
for
RCRA
personnel
training
will
do
little
to
reduce
employers
burden.
In
order
to
satisfy
themselves
that
they
have
properly
trained
employees,
as
they
would
be
required
to
certify,
employers
would
still
need
to
keep
training
records.
Only
the
proposal
to
eliminate
RCRA
training
requirements
that
duplicate
OSHA
requirements
could
truly
be
considered
streamlining.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
The
Agency
also
regrets
the
error
it
made
in
the
proposal
regarding
the
overlap
of
RCRA/
OSHA.
The
Agency
meant
for
this
overlap
discussion
to
apply
only
to
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0011
We
oppose
changes
to
the
personnel
training
requirements
proposed
in
the
Federal
Register.
Alternative
1
proposes
to
eliminate
record
keeping
for
RCRA
personnel
training
and
replacing
it
with
a
one
time
certification.
We
oppose
a
one
time
certification
because
there
would
be
no
way
to
ensure
that
new
employees
were
properly
trained.
However,
certification
of
each
employee
would
be
acceptable.
Refresher
courses
should
still
be
required
but
possibly
on
a
less
frequent
basis.
The
proposed
reduction
requirements
would
benefit
the
regulated
facility,
however,
it
would
make
it
difficult,
it
not
impossible,
for
an
inspector
to
determine
if
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
There
should
be
a
training
plan
and
documentation
indicating
the
name
of
each
employee
trained
and
what
the
training
covered.
Ideally,
there
should
be
a
certification
form
signed
by
each
employee
trained
which
also
describes
the
specific
training
received.

In
regard
to
Alternative
2
which
proposes
to
replace
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
OSHA,
OSHA
does
not
apply
to
all
facilities
that
generate
hazardous
waste.
Also,
OSHA
only
covers
hazardous
materials
and
not
all
wastes
defined
as
hazardous
in
RCRA.
Second,
OSHA
does
not
cover
on­
site
management,
pre­
transport,
or
manifesting
procedures.
Third,
there
is
not
a
clear,
well
defined
relationship
between
OSHA
and
State
or
Federal
RCRA
regulators.
In
additions
the
fines
imposed
by
OSHA
are
not
equivalent
to
those
imposed
by
RCRA.
Further,
historically
when
States
have
referred
violations
to
OSHA,
they
are
ignored
or
they
are
told
that
OSHA
is
not
authorized
to
investigate
third
party
complaints
­
that
all
the
complaints
must
be
referred
by
affected
employees.
If
anything
personnel
training
requirements
need
to
be
improved,
not
reduced
or
eliminated.
We
recommend
deleting
this
proposal
from
the
­
170­
final
recommendations.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements
and
have
modified
are
changes
dealing
with
OSHA/
RCRA
overlap
only
to
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0011
We
oppose
changes
to
the
personnel
training
requirements
proposed
in
the
Federal
Register.
Alternative
1
proposes
to
eliminate
record
keeping
for
RCRA
personnel
training
and
replacing
it
with
a
one
time
certification.
We
oppose
a
one
time
certification
because
there
would
be
no
way
to
ensure
that
new
employees
were
properly
trained.
However,
certification
of
each
employee
would
be
acceptable.
Refresher
courses
should
still
be
required
but
possibly
on
a
less
frequent
basis.
The
proposed
reduction
requirements
would
benefit
the
regulated
facility,
however
it
would
make
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
for
an
inspector
to
determine
if
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
There
should
be
a
training
plan
and
documentation
indicating
the
name
of
each
employee
trained
and
what
the
training
covered.
Ideally,
there
should
be
a
certification
form
signed
by
each
employee
trained
which
also
describes
the
specific
training
received.

In
regard
to
Alternative
2
which
proposes
to
replace
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
OSHA,
OSHA
does
not
apply
to
all
facilities
that
generate
hazardous
waste.
Also,
OSHA
only
covers
hazardous
materials
and
not
all
wastes
defined
as
hazardous
in
RCRA.
Second,
OSHA
does
not
cover
on­
site
management,
pre­
transport,
or
manifesting
procedures.
Third,
there
is
not
a
clear,
well
defined
relationship
between
OSHA
and
State
or
Federal
RCRA
regulators.
In
addition,
the
fines
imposed
by
OSHA
are
not
equivalent
to
those
imposed
by
RCRA.
Further,
historically
when
States
have
referred
violations
to
OSHA,
they
are
ignored
or
they
are
told
that
OSHA
is
not
authorized
to
investigate
third
party
complaints
­
that
all
the
complaints
must
be
referred
by
affected
employees.
If
anything,
personnel
training
requirements
need
to
be
improved,
not
reduced
or
eliminated.
We
recommend
deleting
this
proposal
from
the
final
recommendations.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.

Document
#:
0013
One
of
the
most
effective
preventative
measures
taken
at
a
facility
is
personnel
training.
Reducing
the
human
errors
caused
by
ignorance
is
the
most
cost
effective
and
easiest
way
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Training
ensures
that
employee
are
able
to
response
to
emergencies
by
familiarizing
them
with
emergency
procedures.
Currently,
the
training
records
must
include
the
employees'
names,
job
descriptions,
and
type
of
training.
The
MDEQ
does
not
agree
that
a
onetime
certification,
as
described
in
alternative
one,
is
at
all
adequate
to
verify
that
employees
receive
proper
training.
The
MDEQ
does,
however,
concur
that
some
of
the
documentation
is
not
necessary,
specifically
job
descriptions
and
type
of
training.
Simply
documenting
the
employee(
s)
name(
s)
and
date(
s)
if
training
is
adequate.
The
reason
for
this
reduction
is
that
the
job
description
may
be
necessary
in
a
minimal
number
of
instances
at
certain
TSDFs,
but
at
LQGs
this
not
only
­
171­
becomes
burdensome,
but
may
also
be
prohibited
by
union
contracts.
The
training
description
does
not
depict
the
adequacy
of
the
training
so
that
requirement
can
be
eliminated.
Faulty
inspections
and
the
requirements
of
Sections
264.54
and
265.54
can
ensure
adequate
training.

Regarding
alternative
two,
the
MDEQ
does
not
agree
with
referencing
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
requirements
or
eliminating
the
entire
set
of
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA
requirements.
As
stated
above,
the
benefits
of
personnel
training
far
outweigh
any
burden
associated
with
it,
but
there
are
some
recordkeeping
requirements
that
could
be
eliminated.
The
requirements
could
be
that
OSHA
and
RCRA
training
might
be
given
together,
as
long
as
the
correct
personnel
are
trained
and
the
training
covers
the
correct
topics.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.

Document
#:
0016
Replacing
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
OSHA
requirements
should
be
implemented
regardless
of
whether
a
burden
analysis
is
being
conducted
or
not.
Facility
owners
and
operators
have
already
incorporated
overlapping
training
requirements
to
try
and
eliminate
needless
and
time­
consuming
duplicative
training
for
hazardous
waste
management
personnel.
Any
OSHA
training
received
that
satisfies
RCRA
training
requirements
is
kept
on
file
as
part
of
the
training
record.
If
these
alternatives
are
implemented,
the
certification
form
could
easily
reference
those
overlapping
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
The
Agency
is
also
promulgating
regulations
to
reduce
redundancy
is
OSHA/
RCRA
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0020
The
RCRA
program
should
retain
the
training
requirements
for
workers
within
its
RCRA
rules.
The
key
element
of
personnel
training
under
RCRA
is
that
the
employee
be
trained
commensurate
with
the
level
of
duties
the
employee
has
in
regards
to
hazardous
waste
management.
The
Department
does
not
favor
Alternative
1
which
eliminates
recordkeeping
at
RCRA
sites
and
allows
a
one
time
certification.
In
order
to
be
effective
and
in
compliance,
the
owner/
operator
must
keep
an
updated
version
of
the
job
description
as
well
as
the
type
of
training
provided.
This
ensures
adequate
training
on
an
ongoing
basis.
A
one
time
certification
would
be
less
protective
of
worker
health
and
safety
as
there
would
be
no
way
to
determine
if
current
(
or
newly
employed)
workers
have
training
in
accordance
with
their
hazard
exposure.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.

Document
#:
0021
Onyx
believes
that
the
only
RCRA
training
requirements
that
should
be
removed
are
those
which
­
172­
overlap
with
OSHA.
If
section
264.16(
d)
is
removed
and
replaced
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
there
does
not
seem
to
be
a
requirement
to
track
and
document
continuing
training,
i.
e.,
annual
refresher
training.
training
on
new
or
modified
procedures,
etc.
If
this
is
the
case,
training
programs
may
become
tax,
thereby
jeopardizing
the
health
and
safety
of
employees
and
the
surrounding
community,
and
well
being
of
the
environment.
If
the
intent
of
the
Agency
is
to
continue
documentation
of
on­
going
training,
it
should
be
stated
more
clearly.

If
the
Agency
intends
to
eliminate
overlapping
recordkeeping
requirements,
the
Agency
must
work
closely
with
OSHA
to
determine
what
information
is
required.
A
key
part
of
OSHA
inspections
of
work
place
accidents
is
the
review
of
training.
Detailed
and
well­
organized
training
records
have
prevented
citation
and
fines
from
OSHA.
A
simple
certification
may
not
be
enough.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
The
Agency
does
note
that
we
are
promulgating
regulatory
changes
that
reduce
the
redundancy
in
RCRA/
OSHA
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0022
It
is
important
that
generators
and
facilities
maintain
records
documenting
personal
training.
A
one­
time
certification
would
be
insufficient.
It
is
also
doubtful
that
facilities
would
do
this
because
of
their
own
potential
liability
from
employee
lawsuits
it
the
employees
were
injured
while
dealing
with
a
hazardous
waste.
It
is
important
to
know
which
employees
have
had
the
proper
training
so
that,
as
a
regulatory
agency,
we
are
not
only
protecting
the
environment
but
also
human
health.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements
based
on
the
arguements
presented
by
the
commenters.

Document
#:
0025
In
addition
to
harmonizing
RCRA­
OSHA
personnel
training
requirements,
CMA
also
urges
the
agency
to
look
for
opportunities
to
harmonize
RCRA
with
other
programs.
CMA
has
commissioned
a
study,
"
Streamlining
Regulatory
Programs:
Gaining
Efficiency
in
Existing
and
Future
Regulations
and
Requirements,"
which
identifies
the
federal
information
requirements
necessary
to
obtain
and
maintain
RCRA,
air,
water,
and
UIC
permits.
The
report,
among
other
things,
identifies
areas
in
which
data
requirements
could
be
standardized
across
the
programs
as
a
means
of
reducing
burden.
We
have
attached
the
report
to
these
comments
and
urge
the
Agency
to
review
it
for
additional
burden
reductions
opportunities.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
The
other
ideas
presented
by
the
commenter
are
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0025
RCRA
emergency
response
requirements
are
included
in
Part
265
Preparedness
and
Prevention
Subpart
C
and
Contingency
Plan
and
Emergency
Procedures
Subpart
D.
Few
facilities
maintain
a
­
173­
separate
RCRA
emergency
response
plan
since
there
are
other
emergency
response
regulatory
requirements
(
SPCC,
OPA,
etc)
that
have
evolved
since
the
RCRA
regulations
were
promulgated.
Similar
to
the
EOA
effort
to
evaluate
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
overlap,
EPA
should
initiate
an
effort
to
compare
emergency
response
requirements
in
the
various
regulations
with
the
objective
of
harmonizing
all
the
requirements
or
simplifying
the
RCRA
requirements
for
sites
that
have
established
emergency
response
plans
that
meet
these
other
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
the
Agency
is
promulgating
a
change
to
264/
5.52
by
specifically
authorizing
combined
plans.

Document
#:
0025
CMA
supports
the
proposal
to
harmonize
the
RCRA
and
OSHA
personnel
training
requirements.
Both
of
the
options
proposed
­
replacing
RCRA
recordkeeping
with
an
annual
certification
and
eliminating
the
requirements
duplicative
of
OSHA
(
or
referencing
the
OSHA
requirements)
­
make
sense
and
are
not
mutually
exclusive.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
this
document.
EPA
does
note
however
that
the
OSHA/
RCRa
overlap
was
meant
to
only
apply
to
emergency
response
training
and
the
Agency
apologizes
for
any
confusion
this
may
have
caused.

Document
#:
0027
In
Illinois,
a
facility
may
request
a
variance
to
the
RCRA
regulations
through
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board.
With
every
year
that
passes
with
stagnant
federal
RCRA
funding,
IEPA
loses
approximately
four
FTE
in
the
RCRA
program.
We
are
looking
to
streamline
our
administrative
resource
burden,
not
add
to
it.
Therefore,
for
the
reasons
stated
above,
this
proposal
is
unnecessary
and
undesirable
to
IEPA.

Section
II.
D.
Alternative
1:
Eliminate
Record
keeping
for
RCRA
Personnel
Training,
the
IEPA
strongly
opposes
this
alternative.
The
first
paragraph
of
the
summary
of
this
notice
states:
"
We
are
working
to
reduce
burden
while
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment."
The
IEPA
believes
that
eliminating
the
requirement
for
a
personnel
training
program
will
do
just
the
opposite;
it
will
increase
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
RCRA
regulatory
entity
that
inspects
a
facility
must
be
able
to
evaluate
a
personnel
training
program
that
ensures
that
all
facility
personnel
that
handle
hazardous
waste
are
able
to
evaluate
a
personnel
training
program
that
ensures
that
all
facility
personnel
that
handle
hazardous
waste
are
able
to
respond
effectively
to
emergencies.

Alternative
2:
Replace
RCRA
Personnel
Training
Requirements
that
overlap
OSHA
Training
Requirements.
This
is
the
preferred
alternative
for
IEPA.
RCRA
and
OSHA
Requirements
that
overlap
should
be
streamlined,
with
the
more
stringent
ones
required
any
time
there
are
differences.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
­
174­
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
We
are
also
removing
any
reduancy
in
the
OSHA/
RCRA
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0029
1.
p.
32864,
col.
1­
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
to
either
eliminate
all
recordkeeping
for
RCRA
personnel
training
and
replace
it
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained,
or
eliminate
all
training
and
recordkeeping
that
duplicates
training
required
by
OSHA.

RCRA
is
among
the
most
complex
Federal
environmental
laws.
Consequences
of
noncompliance
could
be
quite
serious,
leading
to
injury,
death
and
severe
impact
to
the
environment.
Therefore,
employees
responsible
for
compliance
need
to
be
trained
to
implement
RCRA
in
a
safe
and
effective
manner.
DOE
believes
that
established
hazardous
waste
training
programs
are
essential
for
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
compliance
with
RCRA
requirements.
EPA
puts
forth
two
alternatives
for
reducing
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
associated
with
training.
The
first
option
entails
replacing
RCRA
personnel
training
recordkeeping
requirements
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
employees
are
and
will
continue
to
be
adequately
trained.
The
second
alternative
entails
eliminating
RCRA
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
those
established
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).
DOE
notes
that
these
actions
are
not
mutually
exclusive
alternatives,
as
both
may
be
implemented
in
parallel.
Notwithstanding,
they
are
discussed
separately
below.

While
DOE
believes
replacing
the
existing
documentation
requirements
with
a
one­
time
certification
has
some
appeal
for
reducing
recordkeeping
requirements.
DOE
does
not
favor
this
alternative
if
it
would
mean
complete
elimination
of
the
requirement
to
have
a
RCRA
training
plan.
DOE
would
prefer
revising
the
regulations
specifying
the
content
of
the
training
plan
so
that
preparing
and
maintaining
the
plan
would
be
less
onerous.
For
example,
DOE
suggests
that
facilities
be
required
to
keep
records
f
the
job
titles,
but
not
necessarily
the
job
descriptions,
responsible
for
managing
hazardous
waste.
Additionally,
DOE
suggests
that
facilities
be
required
to
(
1)
confirm
(
by
name)
the
individuals
who
have
been
trained,
(
2)
record
the
date
on
which
the
training
occurred,
(
3)
describe
the
scope
of
the
training,
and
(
4)
identify
the
job
title
held
at
the
time
of
training
by
each
individual
trained.

One
alternative
discussed
in
the
NODA
is
to
reduce
the
duplicative
training
requirements
of
OSHA
and
RCRA.
As
part
of
the
record
for
this
NODA,
EPA
prepared
a
document
detailing
the
overlap
between
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
requirements.
The
document
demonstrates
that
there
is
a
substantial
amount
of
overlap
between
the
two
programs.
However,
there
are
also
areas
under
RCRA
that
are
not
addressed
by
OSHA,
and
the
opposite
situation
exists
as
well.
Therefore,
DOE
supports
EPA's
plan
to
work
with
OSHA
to
reduce
duplicative
requirements,
and
encourages
EPA
and
OSHA
to
jointly
define
the
components
necessary
for
a
single
training
program
that
complies
with
both
OSHA
and
RCRA
training
requirements.
The
underlying
intent
of
OSHA
is
to
protect
workers;
the
underlying
intent
of
RCRA
is
to
also
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
but
this
may
not
always
be
the
case.
­
175­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements
with
regard
to
personnel
training.
We
are
also
promulgating
regulations
that
avoid
duplicative
training
for
workers
who
are
affected
by
both
OSHA
and
RCRA
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0030
RCRA
emergency
response
requirements
are
included
in
Part
265
Preparedness
and
Prevention
Subpart
C
and
Contingency
Plan
and
Emergency
Procedures
Subpart
D.
Our
experiences
is
that
none
of
our
facilities
maintain
a
separate
RCA
emergency
response
plan
since
there
are
other
emergency
response
regulatory
requirements
(
e.
g.
SPCC,
OPA).
Similar
to
the
EPA
effort
to
evaluate
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
overlap,
EPA
should
initiate
an
effort
to
compare
emergency
response
requirements
in
the
various
regulations
with
the
objective
of
simplifying
RCRA
requirements
if
sites
have
established
emergency
response
plans
that
meet
these
other
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
this
document.

Document
#:
0030
RCRA
Personnel
Training
requirements
are
primarily
oriented
to
emergency
response
areas
that
are
typically
covered
by
OSHA
regulations.
ECA
supports
the
Agency
initiative
to
evaluate
the
overlap
and
reduce
RCRA
requirements
if
specific
OSHA
training
is
completed.
EPA
should
provide
clear
guidance
on
this
issue
to
the
regulated
community.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
apologizes
for
any
confusion
that
the
commenter
had
regarding
our
proposal.
The
RCRA/
OSHA
overpal
was
meant
to
only
apply
to
emergency
response
training.
In
today's
rule
was
are
promulgating
regulations
that
deal
specifically
with
removing
any
duplicative
training
requirements
via
the
two
statues
regarding
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0031
LIA
fully
supports
the
idea
of
eliminating
the
recordkeeping
associated
with
training
personnel
under
RCRA
and
replacing
it
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
To
do
so
would
provide
sufficient
verification
that
all
employees
have
received
the
proper
training
under
the
regulations.
In
addition,
deleting
those
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
with
OSHA's
requirements
for
health
and
safety
training
also
relieves
the
burden
on
industry,
yet
does
not
adversely
impact
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
We
have
been
persuaded
by
the
States
that
these
recordkepping
requirements
are
an
important
paperwork
trail
for
the
facility
and
for
regulators
that
must
be
retained.

Document
#:
0037
­
176­
EPA
has
requested
comment
on
the
issue
of
changes
in
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements.
At
issue
are
2
alternatives,
first
eliminate
recordkieeping
for
RCRA
personnel
training
and
second,
replace
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
OSHA
training
requirements.

Regarding
the
first
alternative,
allowing
the
facilities
to
eliminate
recordkeeping
associated
with
personnel
training
by
making
a
one­
time
certification
of
compliance
will
undoubtedly
result
in
additional
effort
expended
by
EPA
and
state
compliance
officers
in
determining
a
facility's
also
stands
at
risk
in
terms
of
being
able
to
document
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
regulations.
With
respect
to
the
stated
intent
of
the
alternatives
being
a
reduction
in
the
regulatory
burden,
alternative
1
appears
to
be
of
marginal
value.

Alternative
2
also
appears
to
have
more
value
with
respect
to
a
regulatory
burden
reduction.
In
order
to
have
the
desired
result
in
regulatory
burden
reduction;
the
approach
of
eliminating
overlapping
OSHA/
RCRA
requirements
should
e
pursued.
Elimination
of
overlapping
OSHA/
RCRA
requirement
should
be
pursued
in
favor
of
the
idea
of
referencing
OSHA
regulations
in
RCRA.
Referencing
OSHA
regulations
in
the
RCRA
regulations
would
complicate
further
an
already
complicated
regulatory
jungle.

However,
since
there
is
no
objective
standard
for
the
amount
or
required
content
of
training,
only
what
is
essentially
an
after
the
fact
"
standard
of
care"
requirement,
it
is
hard
to
envision
what
can
be
streamlined
without
removing
any
point
to
this
requirement
at
all.
On
a
practical
level,
the
weaknesses
of
the
Federal
OSHA
program
would
provide
much
less
protection
to
the
public
than
they
currently
enjoy
if
the
existing
rule
was
weakened.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements,
based
on
arguments
like
those
presented
by
the
commenter.
The
Agency
is
also
promulgating
a
regulatory
change
dealing
with
duplicative
OSHA/
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.

Document
#:
0038
Comment.
Delete
the
training
related
recordkeeping
requirements
in
264(
d)(
1)
through
(
3).

Discussion.
On
page
32863
of
the
notice,
the
EPA
suggests
possible
changes
to
the
Resource
Conversation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Personnel
Training
Requirement.
Suggested
alternative
(
1)
would
replace
all
of
paragraph
264.16(
d)
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
trained.

The
Alternative
(
1)
"
one
time
certification"
would
not
address
training
of
new
employees,
nor
refresher
training
addressed
in
264.16(
d)(
4).
Training
documentation
is
necessary
to
protect
both
the
employee
and
employer,
and
is
necessary
when
hazardous
waste
is
involved.
We
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
to
continue
to
require
retention
of
records
of
employees'
RCRA
related
training.

However,
the
detailed
recordkeeping
required
by
RCRA
sections
264.16(
d)(
1)
through
(
3)
is
not
necessary
and
should
be
deleted.
RCRA
sections
264.16(
d)(
1)
through
(
3)
require
records
of
the
­
177­
following;
(
1)
job
title
and
employee
name
for
each
position
at
the
facility
related
to
hazardous
waste
management;
(
2)
written
job
description
for
each
position;
and,
(
3)
Written
description
of
the
type
and
amount
of
both
introductory
and
continuing
training
that
will
be
given
to
each
person
filling
a
position
listed.
The
RCRA
Section
40
CFR
262.34(
a)(
4)
broadly
applies
these
requirements
to
all
hazardous
waste
generators
through
the
accumulation
time
requirements.
Such
detailed
requirements
may
occasionally
be
appropriate
for
waste
treatment
and
disposal
facilities,
but
are
excessive
for
generators
and
storage­
only
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
Local
regulatory
enforcement
agencies
occasionally
interpret
the
recordkeeping
required
by
264.16(
d)(
1)
through
(
3)
to
require
excessively
detailed
and
burdensome
recordkeeping.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
delete
the
training
related
recordkeeping
requirements
contained
in
264.16(
d)(
1)
through
(
3)
but
maintain
the
training
documentation
requirements
of
264.16(
d)(
4).
Further,
the
DoD
opposes
authorizing
a
"
one
time
certification"
because
this
certification
would
not
adequately
address
training
of
new
employees
and
refresher
training.

References.
64
FR,
32863,
Column
III.

COMMENT
2b.
Eliminate
RCRA­
OSHA
Training
Overlap
Comment.
The
DoD
supports
the
elimination
of
overlap
between
RCRA
and
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
requirements
for
training
and
for
emergency
response
plans.

Discussion.
The
EPA
suggests
(
Page
32863,
Paragraph
D,
Alternative
2)
that
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
that
overlap
OSHA
training
requirements
be
eliminated.
We
agree
and
additionally
point
out
that
the
OSHA
requirements
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)(
1)
appear
to
duplicate
the
RCRA
contingency
plan
requirements
for
generators.

The
RCRA's
training
requirements
mandate
that
personnel
receive
training
on
emergency
procedures,
emergency
equipment
and
emergency
systems.
Personnel
who
work
with
or
handle
hazardous
waste
at
generator
facilities
will
typically
respond
directly
to
small
spills
and/
or
emergencies.
They
will
not
necessarily
be
the
same
personnel
who
would
be
called
upon
to
response
to
a
large
hazardous
substance/
hazardous
waste
emergency
at
an
installation.
The
OSHA
hazardous
waste
training
requirements
address
this
situation
by
allowing
a
reduced
quantity
of
training
for
employees
who
have
limited
response
duties.
The
RCRA
addresses
this
situation
indirectly
by
allowing
the
facility
to
match
training
with
job
descriptions
(
40
CFR
265.16(
d)).
The
EPA
has,
however,
proposed
to
delete
this
section.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
coordinate
with
the
OSHA
and
eliminate
duplication
between
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
related
training
and
emergency
response
plans.

References
29
CFR
1910.120(
p),
40
CFR
262.34(
a)(
4)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
d)(
3).
­
178­
COMMENT
2c.
Replace
Prescriptive
Requirements
with
Content
­
Based
Requirements
Comment.
The
OSHA
requirement
that
RCRA
hazardous
waste
operations
training
be
a
specified
number
of
hours
is
inappropriate.
The
OSHA
"
24
hour"
classroom
training
or
"
8
hour
refresher"
training
requirements
should
be
replaced
by
a
requirement
for
training
that
covers
a
specific
scope.

Discussion.
In
coordinating
with
the
OSHA
to
unify
RCRA
training
requirements,
the
EPA
should
strive
to
replace
the
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
requirements
for
a
fixed
number
of
hours
of
training
with
a
requirement
that
training
cover
a
minimum
set
of
information.
For
some
TSD
operations,
24
hours
of
training
may
not
be
sufficient
to
thoroughly
present
the
necessary
information.
In
other
circumstances,
24
hours
may
be
more
than
is
required.

Time­
based
requirements
may
also
discourage
innovative
training
approaches
that
could
otherwise
be
used
to
save
time
while
making
refresher
training
more
effective
or
in
supplementing
instructorled
training.
For
example,
the
Navy
is
developing
interactive
hazardous
waste
training
based
on
a
combination
of
optical
disc
and
Internet.
Incorrect
answers
by
the
student
to
initial
"
pre­
test"
questions
determine
subsequent
material
to
be
covered
in
detail.
At
the
end
of
the
training
a
"
final
exam"
is
given
to
confirm
an
acceptable
level
of
knowledge.
Although
this
approach
has
been
shown
to
be
very
effective,
alone
or
in
combination
with
instructor­
let
training,
no
savings
in
student
classroom
time
can
be
realized
if
training
requirements
measured
in
terms
of
hours
are
retained.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
develop
an
outline
or
summary
of
the
basic
required
scope
for
the
classroom
portion
of
hazardous
waste
operations
training,
then
coordinate
with
OSHA
to
remove
the
prescriptive
"
24
hours"
or
"
8
hours"
requirements
of
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
Instead,
training
that
covers
a
minimum
scope
should
be
required.

References.
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.

The
reader
is
also
referred
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
for
a
full
discussion
on
OSHA/
RCRA
and
their
relationship
with
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0041
We
do
not
believe
that
eliminating
the
required
recordkeeping
for
employee
training
will
reduce
overall
burden.
Training
of
employees
insures
that
they
have
the
knowledge
to
adequately
perform
their
jobs
in
accordance
with
all
regulations
and
company
policies.
The
only
way
to
insure
that
the
employees
have
current
knowledge
and
to
document
that
the
knowledge
is
adequate
is
to
maintain
detailed
training
records.
In
addition,
the
presence
of
appropriate
training
records
provides
an
affirmative
defense
in
the
case
of
an
incident
that
the
employee
(
s)
involved
were
knowledgeable
in
the
tasks
that
they
were
performing.
­
179­
We
do
believe,
however
that
the
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
requirements
needs
to
be
harmonized.
There
is
currently
considerable
overlap
between
the
training
requirements
of
the
two
programs
In
the
case
of
Safety­
Kleen,
the
programs
are
administered
by
two
different
department
and
training
is
generally
not
given
at
the
same
time.
In
order
to
insure
that
the
requirements
of
both
programs
are
met,
employees
are
required
go
through
both
programs
even
though
the
information
they
receive
is
the
same.
Consolidating
the
requirements
will
save
considerable
expense
in
program
development
and
administration,
as
well
as
time
spent
by
the
employee
receiving
the
training.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements.
With
regard
to
the
OSHA/
RCRA
emergency
response
training,
we
are
making
a
regulatory
change
that
would
avoid
duplicative,
yet
comprehensive
emergency
response
training
for
those
facilities
affected
by
both
the
RCRA
and
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements.

Document
#:
0042
DHWM
does
not
presently
support
eliminating
RCRA
personnel
training
record
keeping
requirements
for
generators
and
TSD
facility
personnel
in
lieu
of
a
one­
time
certification
of
training.
We
believe
that
yearly
personnel
training
on
hazardous
waste
management
and
emergency
response
is
a
cornerstone
for
maintaining
a
preventative
hazardous
waste
program.
If
the
documentation
requirement
is
removed,
we
suspect
that
generators
and
TSD
facilities
will
not
be
diligent
in
providing
annual
training
for
their
employees.
In
addition,
an
inspector
will
have
a
difficult
task
determining
if
facility
employees
have
received
the
required
training.
The
one­
time
certification
of
training
is
not
sufficient
to
verify
that
employees
are
being
trained
on
an
annual
basis.

We
do
not
support
the
idea
of
referencing
OSHA
rules
withing
the
hazardous
waste
personnel
training
rules.
RCRA
inspectors
will
not
be
able
to
legally
enforce
personnel
training
requirements
that
are
contained
in
a
different
regulatory
program.

Our
inspectors
visit
approximately
305
generators
and
TSD
facilities
each
year.
We
frequently
cite
these
handlers
for
failing
to
have
an
adequate
personnel
training
program.
We
believe
it
is
a
benefit
for
the
general
public
and
the
facility
that
inspectors
find
these
deficiencies
and
help
the
facility
develop
a
sound
personnel
training
program
regarding
the
management
of
hazardous
waste.

DHWM
has
always
maintained
that
as
long
as
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
were
being
met,
there
is
no
need
to
maintain
a
separate
stand­
alone
RCRA
training
document.
We
would
applaud
the
development
of
a
document
that
shows
generators
and
TSD
facilities
where
OSHA
and
RCRA
overlap
in
their
training
requirements.
The
document
should
explain
how
the
regulated
community
can
show
they
meet
both
sets
of
requirements
while
maintaining
one
document
for
regulatory
purposes.

However,
DHWM
notes
that
there
are
problems
with
the
"
Crosswalk"
figure
that
describes
the
two
programs
and
their
regulatory
relationship.
On
several
instances,
the
"
Crosswalk"
figure
states
that
the
OSHA
requirements
meets
or
exceeds
the
RCRA
standard.
Yet,
on
closer
­
180­
observation,
the
OSHA
standards
are
non­
mandatory
and
include
words
such
as
"
should,"
making
them
non­
binding
and
non­
prescriptive.
As
such,
they
would
not
meet
or
exceed
RCRA
standards
and
should
not
be
used
in
place
of
RCRA
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
persuaded
by
the
arguments
presented
by
the
commenters
supporting
the
retention
of
this
requirement.

The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.
­
181­
Document
#:
0043
UTC
believes
that
there
is
an
overlap
between
EPA
and
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
training
which
requires
facility
personnel
to
be
trained
in
emergency
response.
(
See
the
RCRA­
OSHA
training
requirements
overlap
document
dated
3/
27/
99
on
the
EPA
Internet
website).
However,
the
overlap
with
OSHA
is
a
small
part
of
total
RCRA
training
and
the
overlap
is
actually
beneficial
in
reminding
personnel
of
the
need
to
know
chemical
hazards
in
responding
to
hazardous
waste
emergencies.
While
there
is
overlap,
it
is
largely
irrelevant
since
most
managers
have
combined
the
two
training's
already.
This
has
not
created
a
paperwork
or
recordkeeping
burden
since
the
topics
are
so
closely
related
and
typically
fewer
personnel.
required
RCRA
training
than
OSHA.
One
set
of
records
has
been
used
to
support
both
compliance
issues.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
­
182­
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0117
Given
the
existence
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
("
OSHA")
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
and
Emergency
Response
Standard,
29
CFR
1910.120,
EPA
quite
properly
proposes
to
eliminate
the
separately
imposed
requirements
for
emergency
response
training
currently
contained
in
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3).
The
OSHA
Standard
applies,
inter
alia,
to
corrective
actions
at
sites
covered
by
RCRA
and,
more
generally,
to
operations
conducted
at
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage.
and
disposal
facilities
regulated
under
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265.
The
OSHA
Standard
requires
initial
training
for
a
minimum
of
24
­
40
hours,
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
employee's
job,
and
refresher
training
of
8
hours
annually.
Our
experience
suggests
that
these
OSHA
training
requirements
are
more
extensive
and
demanding
than
necessary
for
most
of
the
workers.
There
is
certainly
no
need
to
establish
an
overlapping
set
of
requirements
under
EPA's
RCRA
regulations.
Cross­
referencing
the
OSHA
Standard
in
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3)
will
ensure
that
hazardous
waste
operation
workers
receive
all
the
training
they
need
­
and
then
some.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
­
183­
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0133
Eliminate
the
personnel
training
documentation
requirements
an
align
the
requirements
with
those
dictated
by
OSHA.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
In
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
made
an
error
by
referring
to
all
OSHA
training
when
we
only
meet
to
delete
overlap
between
OSHA/
RCRA
in
emergency
response
training.

Document
#:
0138
In
the
preamble
(
67
FR
2527),
EPA
proposed
to
drop
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
264,16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3).
In
the
proposed
changes
to
the
regulatory
text,
these
requirements
are
not
dropped
but
are
reworded.
Dow
believes
that
text
should
indeed
be
dropped
but
by
eliminating
the
section
instead
of
rewording
it.
As
an
alternative,
Dow
supports
rewording
the
section
as
ACC
has
commented.

As
the
OSHA
requirements
are
much
more
comprehensive,
repeating
the
OSHA
requirements
in
RCRA
is
unnecessary
and
could
lead
to
confusion.
Dow
requests
that
these
requirements
be
deleted
in
both
Parts
264
and
265.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
­
184­
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0144
The
proposal
suggests
eliminating
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
and
relying
solely
on
OSHA
requirements.
It
is
not
clear
that
29
CFR
Section
1910.120
covers
all
of
the
requirements
for
training
that
are
currently
in
RCRA
regulations.
For
example,
the
OSHA
requirements
do
not
appear
to
cover
the
RCRA
requirements
for
emergency
response
regarding
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems
and
response
to
groundwater
contamination
incidents.
In
addition,
relying
solely
on
the
OSHA
requirements
could
cause
enforcement
complications
(
e.
g.,
does
the
RCRA
inspector
have
the
authority
to
enforce
OSHA
standards?).
It
would
also
add
a
burden
onto
the
RCRA
inspectors
to
know,
understand,
and
inspect
for
the
OSHA
standards.
We
recommend
a
careful
review
of
the
OSHA
requirements
versus
the
RCRA
requirements
and,
if
not,
maintain
the
specific
differences
in
the
RCRA
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
­
185­
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
Also
see
the
previous
comment
response.

Document
#:
0155
To
the
extent
that
personnel
training
requirements
overlap
OSHA
training
requirements
Illinois
EPA
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
training,
and
the
related
information
such
as
job
title
and
job
description.
However,
OSHA
does
not
require
training
in
every
aspect
of
the
facility
operation.
The
regulations
currently
require
training
that
teaches
facility
personnel
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
that
facility's
compliance
with
RCRA
regulations.
Training
requirements
that
go
beyond
the
health
and
safety
training
required
by
OSHA
include
the
day­
today
operating
procedures,
inspections,
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements.
The
job
titles
and
job
descriptions
are
necessary
if
evaluation
of
the
training
plan
is
still
required
to
obtain
permit.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
Supports
Recognition
of
OSHA
Training
as
an
Alternative
to
the
Present
RCRA
Training
Requirements,
But
Also
Urges
Retention
of
Current
RCRA
Training
Requirements
an
Option
While
SOCMA
commends
EPA
for
its
proposal
to
eliminate
the
present
overlap
o
certain
RCRA
training
requirements
with
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
("
OSHA")
training
requirements,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
retain
the
option
of
allowing
facilities
to
continue
to
comply
only
with
RCRA
training
requirements.
Retaining
this
option
is
essential
to
avoid
imposing
an
unnecessary
burden
on
those
facilities
and
personnel
that
are
not
otherwise
subject
to
the
more
expansive
OSHA
training
requirements.
As
noted
below,
SOCMA
also
supports
elimination
of
non­
essential
RCRA
training
requirements.
As
noted
below,
SOCMA
also
supports
elimination
of
non­
essential
RCRA
training
record
keeping
requirements
and
elimination
of
unnecessary
record
retention
and
notification
requirements.

A.
SOCMA
Supports
Elimination
of
RCRA
Emergency
Response
Training
Requirements
for
Facilities
That
Are
Also
Subject
to
OSHA
Requirements
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
current
overlap
for
some
facilities
between
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
requirements
produces
an
administrative
burden
without
contributing
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

During
our
research,
we
compared
the
personnel
training
requirements
imposed
by
EPA
under
RCRA
with
those
imposed
by
OSHA
through
their
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
and
Emergency
Response
regulation.
Based
on
this
analysis
and
comments
received
on
the
"
Notice
of
Data
Availability,"
we
discovered
that
there
is
really
only
one
area
of
overlap.
This
overlap
is
emergency
response
training.
A
recent
report
from
the
General
Accounting
Office
titled:
"
Worker
Protection,
Better
Coordination
Can
Improve
Safety
and
Hazardous
­
186­
Materials
Facilities"
independently
reached
the
same
conclusion
about
an
overlap
in
these
two
sets
of
emergency
response
training
requirements.
(
67
FR
at
2527.)

Since
the
OSHA
training
requirements
are
more
comprehensive
and
detailed
than
the
comparable
RCRA
requirements,
SOCMA
agrees
that
facilities
that
are
currently
subject
to
both
requirements
should
have
the
option
of
only
complying
with
the
OSHA
requirements.
For
these
companies,
this
step
will
eliminate
duplicative
programs
and
reduce
paperwork,
thereby
allowing
these
companies
to
concentrate
these
resources
on
other
substantive
areas
of
environmental
compliance.
However,
as
SOCMA
notes
below,
the
option
of
complying
with
the
current
RCRA
training
requirements
must
still
be
retained
in
order
to
accommodate
facilities
and
individuals
not
otherwise
subject
to
the
OSHA
requirements.

B.
SOCMA
Urges
EPA
to
Continue
To
Allow
Facilities
That
Are
Not
Subject
To
OSHA
Training
Requirements
To
Comply
With
RCRA
Training
Requirements
As
90­
day
generators,
some
SOCMA
members
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA,
but
not
OSHA,
training
requirements.
While
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
RCRA
training
requirements
for
facilities
that
are
subject
to
an
overlap,
it
urges
EPA
to
allow
facilities
that
are
not
currently
subject
to
OSHA
requirements
to
continue
to
comply
only
with
RCRA
training
requirements.
The
level
of
detail
and
extensiveness
required
by
OSHA
training
requirements
would
impose
additional
burdens
upon
these
SOCMA
facilities,
a
result
that
is
counterproductive
to
EPA's
burden
reduction
efforts.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0165
The
ETC
agrees
that
RCRA
personnel
training
and
OSHA
HazWOPER
regulations
overlap
in
one
area
­
emergency
response
training.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2527
col.
3.
There
is
no
need
for
this
duplication,
and
therefore
the
ETC
supports
the
proposal
to
amend
264.16(
a)(
3)
by
incorporating
the
OSHA
standards
which
are
more
comprehensive.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0166
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
RCRA
training
requirements
have
become
obsolete
since
the
inception
of
the
OSHA
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
and
Emergency
Response
regulations.
The
OSHA
training
is
much
more
comprehensive
than
the
RCRA
training
requirements
and
is
required
for
all
employees
who
handle
hazardous
materials
as
part
of
their
job
assignment.

Safety­
Kleen
also
agrees
that
the
requirement
to
list
job
descriptions
and
the
amount
and
type
of
­
187­
training
in
the
training
plan
is
of
little
value.
This
information
tends
to
change
on
a
frequent
basis
as
job
descriptions
change
and
can
result
in
costly
permit
modifications.
Some
states
charge
hundreds
and
even
thousands
of
dollars
for
even
the
smallest
permit
modification
and
minor
changes
to
the
training
plan
have
been
a
costly
burden
for
the
hazardous
waste
industry
to
bear.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0169
Personnel
training
requirements­
training
program:
Eliminate
the
RCRA
requirements,
and
have
facilities
follow
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
standards,
which
are
more
comprehensive.
This
is
an
area
of
overlap
that
has
been
identified
in
a
comprehensive
study
of
federal
personnel
training
requirements
by
the
General
Accounting
Office.

We
oppose
a
wholesale
elimination
of
the
RCRA
Personnel
Training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
Although
there
is
some
overlap,
there
is
good
reason
since
certain
requirements
are
relevant
to
both
programs
and
consequently
a
single
set
of
records
will
suffice
to
document
compliance
with
both
programs.
However,
the
OSHA
Requirements
although
similar
to
RCRA
requirements
are
not
as
detailed
as
the
RCRA
requirements.
For
instance,
the
OSHA
requirements
do
not
identify
key
parameters
for
atuomatic
waste
feed
cutoff
systems
or
repsonse
to
groundwater
contamination
incidents.
It
may
be
possible
to
list
which
requirements
are
beyond
the
OSHA
requirements,
however,
it
is
more
efficient
to
maintain
the
base
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements.
Since
OSHA
and
RCRA
are
different
statutes
with
different
goals,
any
future
changes
in
OSHA
would
not
necessarily
contemplate
the
potential
impacts
to
RCRA
facilities.
Also,
it
is
well
known
that
OSHA
does
not
have
the
staff
to
perform
inspections
on
their
current
universe
and
this
would
be
further
exasperated
by
deferring
RCRA
personnel
training
to
their
oversight.
The
States
ensuring
that
the
requirements
are
met
inspect
RCRA
facilities
on
a
regular
basis.
Furthermore,
facilities
have
made
measurable
improvements
on
the
overall
violations
noted
when
they
have
improved
the
training
for
personnel
responsible
for
managing
or
generating
hazardous
wastes.
Most
facilities
adopt
a
training
curriculum
specific
to
the
wastes
generated
at
their
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
­
188­
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0181
OSHA
provides
training,
but
does
not
cover
areas
of
the
RCRA
regulations
required
for
proper
waste
management
and
disposal.
Such
areas
not
covered
by
OSHA
are:
waste
determination,
satellite
accumulation
requirements,
90/
180
day
storage
requirements,
inspection
requirements,
manifest/
LDR
requirements,
exception
reporting,
pre­
transport
requirements,
Corrective
Action,
or
Closure/
Post
Closure
of
facilities.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0184
We
support
this
change,
but
only
with
modification
of
the
proposed
language.
Personnel
training
­
The
statement
"...
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility..."
is
­
189­
overly
broad
and
can
be
read
to
include
all
employees
at
the
facility.
If
the
intent
is
to
ensure
that
designated
emergency
responders
are
trained
in
accordance
with
the
OSHA
standard
it
would
be
clearer
to
state
that.
It
appears
that
the
only
RCRA­
specific
requirement
is
contingency
plan
training.
Since
evacuation
signals
and
routes
apply
to
all
employees,
this
citation
could
state
"...
ensure
all
employees
have
been
trained
in
all
elements
of
the
facility's
contingency
plan
applicable
to
their
roles."

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0198
NPCA
supports
EPA's
initiative
n
the
Proposed
Rule
to
eliminate
the
overlapping
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).
As
EPA
states,
OSHA
regulations,
through
their
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
and
Emergency
Response
provisions
are
indeed
more
comprehensive
than
RCRA's
provisions.
Therefore,
having
facilities
comply
with
just
the
OSHA
personnel
training
requirements
and
eliminating
the
RCRA
requirements
will
have
not
detrimental
effect
on
human
and
health
and
the
environment.
Similarly,
the
coordination
of
contingency
plans
and
reliance
on
EPA's
"
one
plan"
guidance
is
appropriate
to
address
and
minimize
potential
hazards
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
fires,
explosions
and
unplanned
releases.
One
coordinated
plan
relieves
facilities
from
the
duplication
and
costs
associated
with
the
preparation
and
use
of
multiple
contingency
plans
and
eliminates
confusion
in
implementation.

NPCA
supports
EPA's
elimination
in
the
Proposed
Rule
of
the
unnecessary
requirements
of
recording
job
title,
job
description,
and
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided.
While
NPCA
believes
that
safety
training
is
an
integral
and
essential
element
of
facility
operations.
NPCA
also
believes
that
in
order
to
ensure
this
training,
proper
records
must
be
kept.
However,
we
agree
with
EPA
that
documenting
employee
names
and
the
dates
of
the
training
serve
as
sufficient
to
records
and
immaterial
information
such
as
job
titles
and
descriptions
are
unnecessary.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
­
190­
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0202
Comment.
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
certain
components
for
training
records
but
does
not
address
whether
or
not
those
elements
can
be
deleted
from
existing
records
or
whether
existing
records
must
continue
to
be
maintained
until
facility
closure.

EPA
proposed
to
reduce
training
records
to
only
the
name
of
the
employee
and
date
of
training.
It
isn't
clear
whether
this
applies
only
to
collection
of
future
records
or
whether
it
is
also
intended
to
allow
job
titles,
job
descriptions,
and
descriptions
of
planned
training
to
be
deleted
from
existing
records
as
well.

Recommendation.
DoD
believes
it
would
be
cumbersome
to
have
two
different
sets
of
recordkeeping
requirements
regarding
training.
We
also
believe
it
would
be
appropriate
to
limit
recordkeeping
only
to
those
elements
currently
in
effect.
Thus
we
recommend
allowing
disposal
of
existing
records
pertaining
to
job
titles,
job
descriptions,
and
planned
training.

Comment.
DoD
does
not
support
the
proposed
changes
to
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3)
regarding
compliance
with
OSHA
training
requirements.
One,
we
believe
within
the
context
of
the
RCRA
personnel
training
paragraphs
of
this
proposal,
the
reference
should
only
refer
to
the"
emergency
­
191­
response"
training
requirements
of
OSHA
found
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)(
iii),
not
to
all
of
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
nor
to
any
of
1910.120(
q).
Further,
for
the
sake
of
the
regulated
community,
we
believe
it
is
important
to
continue
to
list
the
specific
minimum
training
requirements
within
the
context
of
the
RCRA
regulations
rather
than
merely
referencing
OSHA
regulations.

Recommendation.
Continue
to
list
specific
training
requirements
within
the
context
of
RCRA
regulations
in
40
CFR
264/
265.16(
a)(
3).
Reference
only
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)(
iii)
"
emergency
response
training"
of
the
OSHA
regulations.
The
reference
to
29
CFR
1910.120(
q)
should
be
deleted.
This
revision
will
avoid
potential
confusion
and
conflict
with
OSHA
applicability
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.120(
a).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
­
192­
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Document
#:
0204
CSHEMA
Support
the
Replacement
of
RCRA
Training
Requirements
with
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
standards.
In
essence,
this
rule
modification
to
[
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)]
has
already
taken
place
since
compliance
with
the
more
comprehensive
OSHA
standard
virtually
assures
compliance
with
the
requirements
specified
in
RCRA.
This
essentially
reduces
the
current
RCRA
requirements
specified
in
RCRA.
This
essentially
reduces
the
current
RCRA
requirements
to
an
unnecessary
record
keeping
exercise.
CSHEMA
believes
this
RCRA
training
requirement
can
be
eliminated
without
compromising
worker
safety
or
protection
of
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0205
The
NAM
supports
replacing
the
existing
RCRA
personnel­
training
requirements
[
264.16(
a)(
3)]
related
to
emergency
response
with
a
reference
to
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
training
requirements.
Companies
that
comply
with
the
OSHA
requirements
are,
by
default,
in
compliance
with
the
training
requirements
under
RCRA,
and
OSHA
requirements
are
more
extensive
than
the
current
RCRA
requirements.
Our
one
criticism
of
this
section
would
be
to
ensure
that
EPA's
language
be
more
consistent
with
OSHA's
by
clarifying
the
revised
RCRA
regulation
to
include
emergency­
response
training
only
for
those
personnel
who
are
required
to
receive
it
under
the
applicable
OSHA
regulations.
Additionally,
we
suggest
changing
the
recordkeeping
requirements
to
keep
personnel­
training
records
from
the
current
requirement
until
closure
of
the
facility
to
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0207
Lion
especially
supports
EPA's
conclusion
that
there
is
"
really
only
one
area
of
overlap"
between
EPA's
RCRA
training
requirements
and
training
required
by
OSHA.

OSHA's
"
HAZWOPER"
standards
[
29
CFR
1910.120]
requires
training
for
hazardous
waste
workers
to
teach
them
how
to
respond
to
emergencies.
EPA
appropriately
integrated
these
requirements
in
the
RCRA
rules
at
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3).
­
193­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
replacing
the
site­
specific
RCRA
training
requirements
with
the
more
general
OSHA
requirements.
We
will
not
be
able
to
enforce
OSHA
requirements
and
they
do
not
provide
the
same
level
of
protection.

At
Hanford,
The
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
is
"
self­
regulating"
for
OSHA
requirements.
So,
our
only
authority
for
regulating
training
requirements.
So,
our
only
authority
for
regulating
training
requirements
is
through
RCRA.
We
have
a
history
at
Hanford
of
with
problems
with
DOE/
contractors
following
the
RCRA
training
requirements.

We
have
been
focusing
increasing
attention
on
training
at
our
commercial
TSD
facilities.
In
fact,
we
have
been
requiring
more
training
because
of
noncompliance
at
the
facilities.
Lack
of
training
seems
to
be
a
major
contributing
factor
to
noncompliance.

We
note
that
the
supporting
document,
"
RCRA­
OSHA
Training
Requirements
Overlap",
identifies
several
key
RCRA
requirements
as
"
more
stringent"
than
OSHA
standards.
Specifically;
264.16(
a)(
3)(
i),
"
the
scope
of
training
on
standard
operating
procedures"
and
264.16(
a)(
3)(
ii)
"
the
scope
of
training
on
waste
feed
cutoff
systems".
In
addition
OSHA
standards
apparently
do
not
cover
response
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents,
264.16(
a)(
3)(
v)
and
shutdown
of
operations,
264.16(
a)(
3)(
vi).
These
provisions
are
important
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
RCRA­
specific
training
requirements,
refer
to
OSHA
standards
instead.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0222/
0223
We
are
requesting
clarification
of
language
regarding
training
for
"
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility"
in
the
final
rule.
The
revised
language
should
be
consistent
with
OSHA
requirements.
EPA
should
make
it
clear
that
the
revised
RCRA
regulation
will
require
emergency
response
training
only
for
only
those
personnel
who
are
required
to
receive
it
under
the
applicable
OSHA
regulations.
We
also
recommend
reducing
the
recordkeeping
­
194­
requirements
to
keep
training
records
for
three
years.

Emergency
Response
Training
ACC
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
replace
the
existing
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
related
to
emergency
response
with
a
reference
to
the
OSHA
training
requirements
for
emergency
response
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q),
as
applicable.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble,
it
appears
EPA's
intent
relative
to
emergency
response
training
is
to
defer
entirely
to
the
OSHA
training
requirements,
and
ACC
agrees
with
that
position.
The
relevant
language
at
67
FR
2527
states:

We
propose
changing
the
RCRA
regulations
to
have
facilities
comply
with
the
OSHA
regulations
for
emergency
response
training,
and
to
drop
the
current
RCRA
requirements.
The
OSHA
requirements
are
more
extensive
than
the
current
RCRA
requirements,
and
should
therefore
replace
the
RCRA
requirements.

Consistent
with
that
approach,
facility
personnel
who
would
require
emergency
response
training
under
the
revised
RCRA
regulatory
wording
should
be
no
different
than
the
personnel
who
require
the
training
under
OSHA
regulations.
By
limiting
the
proposed
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
256.16(
a)(
3)
to
"
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility,"
it
appears
that
EPA
is
in
fact
attempting
to
be
consistent
with
the
personnel
scope
and
applicability
of
the
referenced
OSHA
regulations.
However,
EPA
should
make
it
clear
that
the
revised
RCRA
regulations
will
require
emergency
response
training
only
for
those
personnel
who
are
required
to
receive
it
under
the
applicable
OSHA
regulations
[
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)].

Contingency
Plan
Training
Proposed
264.16(
a)(
3)(
ii)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)(
ii)
require
that
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility
be
trained
in
all
elements
of
the
facility's
contingency
plan
applicable
to
their
roles
in
emergency
response.
Because
this
paragraph
adequately
and
appropriately
covers
contingency
plan
training,
the
parenthetical
work
in
265.16(
a)(
2)
and
265.16(
a)(
2)
which
reads,
"(
including
contingency
plan
implementation)"
should
be
deleted.

Job
Titles,
Job
Descriptions,
and
Descriptions
of
the
Type
and
Amount
of
Training
ACC
fully
supports
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirements
in
existing
264.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
and
265.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
to
maintain
records
related
to
job
titles,
job
descriptions,
and
descriptions
of
type
and
amount
of
training.
These
records
contribute
nothing
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Facilities
subject
to
these
regulations
are
required
by
264.16(
a)­(
c)
and
265.16(
a)­(
c)
to
provide
appropriate
and
adequate
training
and
to
document
such
training
under
264.16(
a)­(
c)
and
265.16(
a)­(
c)
to
provide
appropriate
and
adequate
training
and
to
document
such
training
under
264.16(
d)(
4)
and
265.16(
d)(
4),
and
proposed
264.16(
d)
and
265.16(
d).
The
264.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
and
265.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
records
are
superfluous
and
unnecessary.

Personnel
Training
Records
As
noted
above,
the
proposal
includes
changes
to
personnel
training
in
264.16(
a)
&
(
d)
and
265.16(
a)
and
(
d).
Under
Section
II.
D
of
the
preamble,
EPA
discussed
personnel
training
­
195­
extensively
including
the
existing
requirement
to
keep
training
records
until
closure.
However,
EPA
did
not
propose
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
found
at
both
264.16(
e)
and
265.16(
e).
EPA
did
recognize
that
keeping
records
until
closure
is
not
productive
and
did
propose
to
reduce
that
burden
in
a
number
of
other
places,
such
as:

°
264.73
and
265.73
for
the
operating
record,
°
266.102(
e)(
10)
for
permitted
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
and
°
266.103(
k)
for
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces.

ACC
believes
that
keeping
training
records
for
three
years
is
more
than
adequate,
and
requests
that
the
final
rule
also
address
changes
to
both
264.16(
e)
and
265.16(
e)
so
that
these
references
are
consistent
with
the
approach
that
EPA
is
taking
for
other
regulatory
areas.
Such
a
change
could
be
accomplished
very
easily,
and
ACC
proposes
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
test:

264.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years
from
the
date
of
completion
of
training;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
accompany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company."

265.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years
from
the
date
of
completion
of
training;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
work
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
accompany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company.

Even
though
changes
to
these
regulatory
references
were
not
specifically
proposed,
we
believe
that
these
changes
would
be
consistent
with
other
changes
that
EPA
has
proposed.
In
addition
at
67
FR
2520,
EPA
did
invite
comments
on
"...
new
approaches
we
haven't
considered..."
Inspectors
would
generally
visit
a
facility
more
than
once
during
a
three­
year
period
and
could
very
easily
verify
that
training
has
occurred.
Keeping
records
longer
is
more
of
an
exercise
in
maintaining
an
archive
and
is
unproductive.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0240
Proposed
changes
to
sections
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
would
eliminate
existing
RCRA
training
requirements
and
substitute
OSHA
standards;
proposed
changes
to
sections
264.16(
d)(
1)
and
265.16(
d)(
1)
would
eliminate
job
title
and
name
of
employees
in
those
jobs;
proposed
changes
to
sections
264.16(
d)(
2)
and
265.16(
d)(
2)
would
eliminate
written
job
descriptions;
and
proposed
­
196­
changes
to
sections
264.16(
d)(
3)
and
265(
d)(
3)
would
eliminate
written
description
of
introductory
and
continuing
training
requirements.

Specific
comments:

A.
Eliminate
RCRA
training
requirements
and
substitute
OSHA
standards
by
amending
section
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3).

The
language
on
page
2521
(
and
page
2523
for
Part
265
sections)
of
the
January
17,
2002
Federal
Register
states
that
the
RCRA
requirements
should
be
eliminated
and
OSHA
training
be
substituted.
The
rationale
behind
this
proposed
change
as
stated
on
pages
2521
and
2523
of
the
Federal
Register
is
that
OSHA
requirements
and
RCRA
requirements
overlap.
As
written,
DTSC
opposes
this
proposed
change
for
the
following
reasons:

1.
RCRA
requires
training
in
procedures
for
using,
inspecting,
repairing,
and
replacing
facility
emergency
and
monitoring
equipment.
OSHA
standards
only
require
training
for
using
emergency
equipment
and
do
not
address
the
other
issues.
Therefore,
the
elimination
of
portions
of
this
subsection
go
well
beyond
the
stated
rationale
and
reason
for
this
change.
This
change
eliminates
specific
requirements
for
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
follow
in
providing
training
under
section
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3),
that
are
not
covered
by
OSHA,
including
the
following:

a.
Key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems.
b.
Response
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents.
c.
Shutdown
of
operations.

Elimination
of
these
requirements
under
section
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
is
not
consistent
with
th
stated
purpose
and
goes
well
beyond
that
purpose.

2.
These
changes
are
a
significant
reduction
and
relaxation
of
existing
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
handlers.

3.
DTSC
has
found
that
there
is
a
correlation
between
a
lack
of
training
plans,
training
records,
and
adequate
training
of
facility
staff.
DTSC
has
found
that
a
significant
number
of
enforcement
orders
are
issued
that
cite
training
issues
along
with
more
serious
violations.

4.
If
the
OSHA
requirements
are
substituted
for
sections
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3),
what
mechanism
would
RCRA
inspectors
use
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
new
OSHA
standard?
Would
the
inspector
look
at
all
the
OSHA
requirements
or
just
ensure
that
hazardous
waste
workers
have
the
OSHA
certificate
required
in
section
1910.120(
p)(
7)(
i)
of
29
CFR?
These
regulations
do
not
address
this
issue
and
should
if
we
are
to
substitute
this
requirement.
­
197­
B.
Eliminate
job
description
in
sections
264.16(
d)(
2)
and
265(
d)(
2).

The
proposed
rule
summary
states
that
a
State
expert
says
this
requirement
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
DTSC
opposes
the
proposed
deletion
of
this
requirement
for
the
following
reasons:

1.
The
purpose
of
training
is
to
ensure
that
employees
"
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
that
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part"
pursuant
to
section
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1).
Both
the
facility
and
the
employee
need
to
know
clearly
what
the
employee's
job
entails.
Therefore,
a
written
job
description
is
essential.
The
job
description
clearly
tells
the
employee
and
the
facility
management
what
the
employee's
responsibilities
are.

2.
The
job
description
gives
the
facility
management
a
document
to
identify
the
appropriate
training
for
each
duty
and
responsibility
that
the
employee
must
perform.

3.
The
employees'
names
need
to
be
associated
with
the
job
descriptions
so
that
inspectors
can
determine
if
these
individuals
have
been
appropriately
trained.

C.
Eliminate
recording
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided
264.16(
d)(
3)
and
265.16(
d)(
3).

DTSC
opposes
the
proposed
deletion
of
this
requirement
for
the
following
reasons:

1.
The
rationale
is
inappropriate
for
the
same
reason
as
stated
above.

2.
Section
264.16(
a)(
1)
requires
that
training
be
given.
There
will
be
no
way
to
verify
if
this
training
has
been
given
unless
the
facility
keeps
records.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0280
AFS
also
supports
replacing
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirement
related
to
emergency
response
with
a
reference
to
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
training
requirements.
We
also
believe
that
the
hazardous
waste
generator
exemption
currently
contained
in
the
OSHA
regulations
should
be
retained
by
US
EPA.
This
will
reduce
the
burden
place
on
hazardous
waste
generators
and
is
commensurate
with
the
risk
imposed
by
their
operations.

AFS
also
supports
the
US
EPA
proposal
to
reduce
the
hazardous
waste
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly.
We
believe
that
this
proposal
will
significantly
reduce
the
burden
posed
by
­
198­
these
regulations
on
our
membership,
and
that
environmental
protection
will
not
be
sacrificed
as
a
result.

This
concludes
our
comments
on
US
EPA's
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.
We
support
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
January
17,
2002
proposal,
but
believe
that
US
EPA
needs
to
do
additional
work
to
reduce
the
RCRA
burden
imposed
on
hazardous
waste
generators.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0287
This
is
written
for
two
purposes.
First
to
support
and
express
appreciation
for
EPA
efforts
to
reduce
non­
essential
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
recordkeeping
and
reporting
paperwork.
I
appreciate
that
the
EPA
was
(
and
still
is)
faced
with
an
enormous
challenge
in
protecting
the
nation's
water
supply.
I
also
appreciate
that
the
EPA
is
making
this
effort
to
review
the
regulations
that
where
put
in
place
to
address
this
issue.
I
also
appreciate
the
effort
not
to
duplicate
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
efforts.
Thank
you.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0305
IPC
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
recordkeeping
by
eliminating
the
overlap
of
RCRA
emergency
response
personnel
training
requirements
with
that
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
training
requirements.
Facilities
in
compliance
with
OSHA
training
requirements
inherently
are
in
compliance
with
RCRA
standards.
However,
please
note
that
not
all
facilities
and
personnel
must
complete
OSHA
training
programs.
Therefore,
IPC
urges
EPA
to
allow
businesses
to
use
OSHA's
training
requirements
as
an
alternative
to
the
RCRA
training
requirements
while
also
allowing
those
not
subject
to
OSHA
requirements
to
continue
their
RCRA
emergency
response
personnel
training
programs.

In
conclusion,
EPA
efforts
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
on
regulated
entities
as
proposed
in
this
rule
are
commendable.
Reducing
the
regulatory
burden
on
facilities,
especially
smaller
companies
with
limited
resources,
help
to
bolster
a
business's
ability
to
focus
their
efforts
on
truly
improving
environmental
performance
above
and
beyond
regulatory
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0315
­
199­
EPA
is
clarifying
in
this
NODA
that
it
is
proposing
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
personnel
emergency
training
requirements
found
at
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements
found
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
or
1910.120(
q).
In
addition,
EPA
is
seeking
comment
on
whether
it
should
allow
a
facility
to
choose
which
requirements
to
follow
(
RCRA
or
OSHA)
rather
than
requiring
all
facilities
to
follow
OSHA
requirements.

ACC
fully
supports
allowing
a
facility
to
select
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements
referenced
above.
Consistent
with
this
approach,
facility
personnel
requiring
emergency
response
training
under
RCRA
should
be
no
different
than
the
personnel
requiring
the
training
under
OSHA.
EPA
should
make
it
clear
that
the
revised
RCRA
regulations
will
require
emergency
response
training
only
for
those
personnel
who
are
required
to
receive
it
under
applicable
OSHA
regulations
found
at
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0317
In
Dow's
April
12,
2002
comments
to
the
proposed
rule,
Dow
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
that
EPA
proposed
to
drop
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
3).
However,
in
the
proposed
changes
to
the
regulatory
text,
these
requirements
were
not
eliminated
but
were
reworded.
At
the
time,
Dow
commented
that
the
text
should
indeed
be
eliminated
to
avoid
the
potential
confusion
of
rewording.

Dow
still
supports
EPA's
intention
to
delete
the
text.
Nonetheless,
Dow
also
supports
using
language
that
would
allow
flexibility
to
use
the
RCRA
approach
for
facilities
that
are
not
regulated
by
OSHA.
Should
EPA
decide
to
alter
the
language
instead
of
deleting
it
altogether,
Dow
is
suggesting
the
following
language
for
both
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
40
CFR
265,16(
a)(
3):

"
Facilities
which
are
regulated
by
OSHA
and
are
required
to
develop
a
training
program
for
response
to
emergencies
are
not
also
required
to
develop
such
a
program
for
RCRA
purposes.
For
these
facilities,
the
OSHA
training
program
will
suffice.
For
facilities
which
are
not
required
by
OSHA
to
develop
such
a
program,
At
a
minimum,
the
training
program
must
be
designed
to
ensure
that
facility
personnel
are
able
to
respond
effectively
to
emergencies
by
familiarizing
them
with
emergency
procedures,
emergency
equipment,
and
emergency
systems,
including,
where
applicable."

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0319
The
GAC
supports
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
overlapping
training
requirements.
Allowing
­
200­
facilities
to
determine
which
training
requirements
to
follow,
either
OSHA
or
US
EPA,
reduces
overall
training
time
as
well
as
the
paperwork
involved.

In
order
to
further
reduce
the
burden
on
small
business,
EPA
should
revise
its
interpretation
and/
or
actual
Small
Quantity
Generator
emergency
response
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
265
pertaining
to
contingency
plans,
emergency
procedures,
and
personnel
training
(
40
CFR
262,34(
a)(
4))
to
allow
SQGs
to
evacuate
and
call
the
fire
department
or
other
emergency
response
contractor,
According
to
EPA's
interpretation
of
these
requirements,
which
is
contained
in
a
May
9,
1989
letter
to
Mr.
John
D'Aloia,
Jr.,
Vice
President,
Regulatory
Affairs,
Deuel
&
Associates,
Inc.,
appropriate
responses
include
calling
the
fire
department
or
attempting
to
extinguish
a
fire,
and
containing
and
cleaning
up
spills
of
hazardous
wastes.

The
interpretation
letter
reads,
in
part:

In
your
letter
you
asked
specifically
whether
a
generator
could
comply
with
these
requirements
by
instituting
a
training
program
and
emergency
procedures
whose
only
requirement
is
for
employees
to
withdraw
to
a
safe
distance
and
call
for
outside
assistance.
Such
a
program
would
not
satisfy
the
requirements
in
Subparts
C
and
D
in
40
CFR
Part
265
and
265.16.
The
generator's
training
program
must
be:

Designed
to
ensure
that
facility
personnel
are
able
to
respond
effectively
to
emergencies
by
familiarizing
them
with
emergency
procedures,
emergency
equipment,
and
emergency
systems,
including,
where
applicable:
(
i)
Procedures
for
using,
inspecting,
repairing,
and
replacing
facility
emergency
and
monitoring
equipment....(
40
CFR
265.16(
a)(
2))

Besides
not
meeting
these
requirements,
the
training
program
you
hypothesize
would
not
meet
many
other
requirements
relating
to
preparedness.
For
example,
generators
are
required
to
have
an
employee
designated
as
the
emergency
coordinator
(
265.55).
The
emergency
coordinator's
responsibilities
include
taking
"
all
reasonable
measures
necessary
to
ensure
that
fires,
explosions,
and
releases
do
not
occur,
recur,
or
spread
to
other
hazardous
waste
at
the
facility.
These
measures
must
include,
where
applicable...
collecting
and
containing
released
waste..."
(
265.56).
These
requirements
contemplate
employees'
active
involvement
in
controlling
emergencies,
unlike
the
essentially
passive
program
you
describe.

Generators
of
more
than
100
kg./
mo.
but
less
than
1,000
kg./
mo.
of
hazardous
waste
("
small­
quantity
generators")
are
required
to
comply
with
Subpart
C
of
Part
265
as
well
as
the
special
emergency
preparedness
provisions
of
262.34(
d).
Like
other
generators,
small­
quantity
generators
must
maintain
appropriate
fire
and
spill
control
equipment
on
site
(
265.32).
The
special
provisions
in
262.34(
d)
require
that
an
employee
be
designated
as
the
emergency
coordinator
(
262.34(
d)(
5)(
i)
and
­
201­
that
the
emergency
coordinator
respond
to
emergencies
that
arise
(
262.34(
d)
require
that
and
employee
be
designated
as
the
emergency
coordinator
(
262.34(
d)(
5)(
i))
and
that
the
emergency
coordinator
respond
to
emergencies
that
arise
(
262.34(
d)(
5)(
iv)).
Appropriate
responses
include
calling
the
fire
department
or
attempting
to
extinguish
a
fire,
and
containing
and
cleaning
up
spills
of
hazardous
wastes.
To
comply
with
these
requirements,
virtually
all
small­
quantity
generators
will
need
to
plan
for
more
than
evacuation
and
calling
the
fire
department.

As
a
result
of
this
interpretation,
SQGs,
must
comply
with
OSHA's
HAZWOPER
training
requirements
found
at
29
CFR
1910.120.
By
allowing
SQGs
to
simply
evacuate
and
call
the
proper
authorities
or
response
personnel,
SQGs
could
take
advantage
of
the
provision
in
OSHA's
regulation
that
exempts
facilities
[
29
CFR
1910.120
(
p)(
8)]
from
employee
training
requirements
for
release
response
if
their
program
calls
for
evacuation
and
notification
of
authorities.

In
many
instances,
small
businesses
do
not
have
the
resources
to
meet
the
emergency
release
training
requirements
set
out
by
both
EPA
and
OSHA.
In
fact,
OSHA
does
not
allow
facilities
the
option
of
either
complying
with
their
requirements
or
EPA's.
If
a
facility
is
required
to
have
a
release
response,
they
must
train
according
to
OSHA's
requirements.
OSHA's
training
requirements
are
detailed
according
to
the
role
that
an
employee
has
in
the
response.
Additionally,
retraining
at
a
specific
frequency
is
mandated.

Aligning
EPA's
interpretation
and
regulations
with
OSHA's
allows
small
businesses
the
flexibility
to
decide
what
the
appropriate
level
of
response
is
needed
in
the
event
of
a
release.
Otherwise,
small
business
(
SQGs),
as
a
minimum,
are
forced
to
comply
with
OSHA's
training
requirements,
but
also
EPA's
other
mandatory
response
actions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0321
We
are
in
favor
of
companies
having
the
flexibility
to
choose
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements,
as
both
are
essentially
the
same
with
minor
variances.
Upon
inspection
by
eith
agency,
if
a
company
has
an
active
plan
containing
the
required
elements
under
OSHA
and/
or
RCRA
then
there
should
be
no
penalties
issued
by
the
inspecting
agency.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0323
COPC
supports
the
Agency
considering
a
person
who
has
completed
the
OSHA
training,
including
­
202­
training
for
emergency
response,
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
to
have
also
fulfilled
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Regarding
the
option
of
continuing
with
a
RCRA
emergency
response
program
in
addition
to
the
OSHA
requirements,
COPC
believes
allowing
this
choice
will
benefit
those
facilities
that
are
not
required
to
train
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0327
API
supports
the
Agency
finding
that
a
person
completing
the
OSHA
training,
including
training
for
emergency
response,
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
fulfills
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Providing
the
option
of
continuing
with
a
RCRA
emergency
response
program
in
addition
to
the
OSHA
requirements
will
benefit
those
facilities
that
are
not
required
to
train
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
API
supports
allowing
a
facility
to
select
compliance
with
either
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0329
As
discussed
in
our
May
20,
2002
comments,
IPC
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
recordkeeping
by
eliminating
the
overlap
of
RCRA
emergency
response
personnel
training
requirements
with
that
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
training
requirements.
Facilities
in
compliance
with
OSHA
training
requirement
inherently
are
in
compliance
with
RCRA
standards.
However,
we
note
taht
not
all
facilities
and
personnel
must
complete
OSHA
training
programs.
Therefore,
IPC
supports
allowing
facilities
to
choose
between
OSHA
and
RCRA
training
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0331
NPCA
Supports
Elimination
of
Overlapping
Training
Requirements
and
Facility
Designation
of
Regulation
As
stated
in
NPCA's
comments
on
the
Proposed
Rule,
NPCA
supports
EPA's
initiative
to
eliminate
the
overlapping
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).
While
EPA's
Proposed
Rule
simply
eliminated
the
RCRA
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
regulations,
in
the
Notice,
EPA
correctly
addresses
those
cases
where
a
facility
is
not
otherwise
required
to
comply
with
the
OSHA
requirements,
by
providing
the
flexibility
for
a
facility
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
training
requirements.
­
203­
NPCA
supports
this
change.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0333
Onyx
disagrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
facilities
the
flexibility
of
choosing
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training.
One
set
of
training
requirements
should
be
selected
to
eliminate
any
confusion
regarding
the
appropriate
training
requirements.
While
having
more
than
one
set
of
training
requirements
could
cause
confusion
for
facilities,
employees,
and
regulators,
it
is
essential
that
employees
handling
dangerous
materials
receive
thorough
and
effective
training.
Onyx
has
found
the
OSHA
training
requirements
to
be
more
comprehensive
and
useful
in
preparing
our
employees
for
safe
management
of
hazardous
wastes
than
the
current
RCRA
regulations.
We
therefore
recommend
that
the
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements
be
mandated.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0334
The
OESI
supports
the
proposal
to
allow
owner/
operators
to
comply
with
personnel
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
either
RCRA
or
OSHA.
We
agree
there
is
significant
overlap
in
the
training
requirements
and
that,
in
either
case,
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
will
not
be
jeopardized
by
the
change.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0335
GM
in
addition
to
the
comments
previously
submitted
by
the
Alliance,
GM
supports
EPA's
efforts
detailed
in
this
proposal
as
follows:

Allow
a
facility
the
option
to
align
emergency
response
training
requirements
with
those
dictated
by
OSHA,
as
appropriate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0336
FDEP
agrees
with
the
original
concept
of
incorporating
by
reference
the
OSHA
emergency
­
204­
response
training
standards
and
with
the
new
proposal
to
allow
facilities
the
options
of
implementing
a
training
course
that
meets
either
OSHA
or
the
current
RCRA
requirements.
However,
FDEP
is
very
concerned
that
rule
language
not
imply
that
RCRA
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to
enforce
the
emergency
response
training
requirement.
The
language
in
proposed
rule
states:

The
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility
shall
ensure
that
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility:
(
i)
Have
received
training
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)
as
applicable;

Training
under
the
cited
sections
of
29
CFR
Part
1910
is
not
REQUIRED
at
many
hazardous
waste
generators
and
TSDFs
­
including
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
or
operated
installations.
These
facilities
could
argue
that
because
training
is
not
REQUIRED
by
OSHA,
it
is
not
required
by
this
RCRA
provision.
Alternate
language
is
proposed
as
follows:

40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility
shall
ensure
that
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility
are
able
to
respond
effectively
to
emergencies.
This
requirement
can
be
satisfied
by:

1.
a
training
course
that
meets
the
requirements
of
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)
as
applicable;
or
2.
other
training
that
familiaritizes
appropriate
facility
personnel
with
emergency
procedures,
emergency
equipment,
and
emergency
systems,
including
where
applicable
[
restate
current
requirements
of
40
CFR
264.16(
3)(
i)
­
(
vi)]

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
Supports
Recognition
of
OSHA
Training
as
an
Alternative
to
the
Present
RCRA
Training
Requirements,
But
Also
Urges
Retention
of
Current
RCRA
Training
Requirements
as
an
Option
While
SOCMA
commends
EPA
for
its
proposal
to
eliminate
the
present
overlap
of
certain
RCRA
training
requirements
with
Occupation
Safety
and
Health
Act
("
OSHA")
training
requirements,
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
retain
the
option
of
allowing
Facilities
to
continue
to
comply
only
with
RCRA
training
requirements.
Retaining
this
option
is
essential
to
avoid
imposing
an
unnecessary
burden
on
those
facilities
and
personnel
that
are
not
otherwise
subject
to
the
more
expansive
OSHA
training
requirements.
As
noted
below,
SOCMA
also
supports
elimination
of
non­
essential
RCRA
training
record
keeping
requirements
and
elimination
of
unnecessary
record
retention
and
notification
requirements.

3.
SOCMA
Supports
Elimination
of
RCRA
Emergency
Response
Training
­
205­
Requirements
For
Facilities
That
Are
Also
Subject
To
OSHA
Requirements
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
current
overlap
for
some
facilities
between
RCRA
and
OSHA
training
requirements
produces
an
administrative
burden
without
contributing
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

During
our
research,
we
compared
the
personnel
training
requirements
imposed
by
EPA
under
RCRA
with
those
imposed
by
OSHA
through
their
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
and
Emergency
Response
regulation.
Based
on
this
analysis
and
comments
received
on
the
"
Notice
of
Data
Availability,"
we
discovered
that
there
is
really
only
one
area
of
overlap.
This
overlap
is
emergency
response
training.
A
recent
report
from
the
General
Accounting
Office
titled:
"
Worker
Protection,
Better
Coordination
Can
Improve
Safety
and
Hazardous
Materials
Facilities"
independently
reached
the
same
conclusion
about
an
overlap
in
these
two
sets
of
emergency
response
training
requirements.
(
67
Fed.
Reg.
At
2527.)

Since
the
OSHA
training
requirements
are
more
comprehensive
and
detailed
than
the
comparable
RCRA
requirements,
SOCMA
agrees
that
facilities
that
are
currently
subject
to
both
requirements
should
have
the
option
of
only
complying
with
the
OSHA
requirements.
For
these
companies,
this
step
will
eliminate
duplicative
programs
and
reduce
paperwork,
thereby
allowing
these
companies
to
concentrate
these
resources
on
other
substantive
areas
of
environmental
compliance.
However,
as
SOCMA
notes
below,
the
option
of
complying
with
the
current
RCRA
training
requirements
must
still
be
retained
in
order
to
accommodate
facilities
and
individuals
not
otherwise
subject
to
the
OSHA
requirements.

2.
SOCMA
Urges
EPA
To
Continue
To
Allow
Facilities
That
Are
Not
Subject
To
OSHA
Training
Requirements
To
Comply
With
RCRA
Training
Requirements
As
90­
day
generators,
some
SOCMA
members
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA,
but
not
OSHA,
training
requirements.
While
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
RCRA
training
requirements
for
facilities
that
are
subject
to
an
overlap,
it
urges
EPA
to
allow
facilities
that
are
not
currently
subject
to
OSHA
requirements
to
continue
to
comply
only
with
RCRA
training
requirements.
The
level
of
detail
and
extensiveness
required
by
OSHA
training
requirements
would
impose
additional
burdens
upon
these
SOCMA
facilities,
as
a
result
that
is
counterproductive
to
EPA's
burden
reduction
efforts.
­
206­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0338
USWAG
supported
EPA's
supported
EPA's
original
proposal
to
eliminate
a
number
of
the
personnel
training
record
keeping
requirements
currently
set
forth
in
40
C.
F.
R.
265.16,
which
are
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
90­
day
accumulation
unit
provisions.
See
67
Fed.
Reg.
At
2523
and
USWAG
Comments
dated
April
17,
2002
at
p.
3.
USWAG
continues
to
support
EPA's
proposal
to
(
1)
replace
specific
training
components
set
forth
in
265.16(
a)(
3)
with
more
comprehensive
OSHA
requirements,
and
(
2)
eliminate
requirements
under
265.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
to
keep
records
of
job
titles,
job
descriptions,
and
the
types
and
amounts
of
training
provided
to
employees.
67
Fed.
Reg.
At
2523.
USWAG
affirms
EPA's
conclusion
that
OSHA
requirements
are
more
extensive
than
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
68
Fed.
Reg.
At
61666.
Moreover,
we
concur
with
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
a
facility
owner/
operator
to
choose
whether
to
follow
the
OSHA
or
RCRA
requirements
(
thereby
recognizing
that
some
facilities
subject
to
RCRA
emergency
response
requirement
may
not
be
subject
to
all
OSHA
training
requirements).
Id.
EPA's
proposal
is
a
common­
sense
approach
that
allows
for
efficient
compliance
with
the
federal
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
a
manner
that
reduces
the
burdens
of
EPA/
OSHA
regulatory
overlap.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0347
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
whether
it
should
allow
a
facility
owner/
operator
the
flexibility
to
follow
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements,
relevant
to
emergency
response
training.
The
concern
is
for
facilities
that
are
otherwise
not
required
to
comply
with
OSHA
training
requirements.
Eastman
has
no
disagreement
with
allowing
this
flexibility
to
either
follow
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0348
EPA
states
that:

"
Deferring
to
the
standards
of
other
organizations
whose
expertise
is
greater
than
ours
has
precedent
in
the
RCRA
regulations.
An
example
is
Sec.
264.198(
b),
which
establishes
special
requirements
for
ignitable
or
reactive
wastes.
We
require
facilities
storing
or
treating
these
wastes
to
comply
with
the
standards
of
the
National
Fire
Protection
Association,
a
non­
profit
organization
that
develops
consensus
codes
and
standards
to
­
207­
protect
the
public
against
fire
dangers."

This
derference
is
misplace;
the
National
Fire
Protection
Association
(
NFPA)
standards
are
demonstrably
inadequate
to
address
reactive
chemical
hazards.
Recently
the
U.
S.
Chemical
Safety
and
Harzard
Investigation
Board
investigated
the
suitability
of
the
NFPA
hazard
rating
system.
The
Board's
report,
"
Improving
Reactive
Hazard
Management,"
reviewed
some
167
incidents
involving
reactive
chemicals
that
together
killed
over
100
people.
Of
the
167
incidents,
only
about
10
percent
were
rated
NFPA
"
3"
or
"
4,"
the
highest
NFPA
ratings.
In
addition,
NFPA
rates
only
a
small
number
of
substances
and
does
not
address
mixtures
of
chemicals
­
such
as
runaway
chemical
reactions
involving
RCRA
wastes.
EPA
should
evaluate
its
proposal
for
reactive
chemicals
in
view
of
the
Chemical
Safety
Board's
work.

Although
we
appreciate
EPA's
comments
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
of
October
29,
2003,
we
must
still
register
our
objection
to
the
proposed
elimination
of
some
training
requirements
for
RCRA
workers.
We
still
stand
by
our
original
comments
in
this
are
but
for
the
record
our
concern
is
primarily
that
if
work
training
is
reduced
the
EPA
will
weaken
the
protection
for
the
environment,
as
well
as
works'
protection.
These
are
not
primarily
"
gaps
in
workplace
safety
and
health"
but
more
gaps
in
protection
of
the
environment
by
permitting
a
less
well­
trained
workforce.

EPA's
proposals
for
RCRA
sections
264.16
and
265.16
will
reduce
emergency
training
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
workers
by
largely
eliminating
sections
264
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
and
replacing
it
with
a
reference
to
OSHA's
1910.120(
p)(
8).
As
we
previously
stated,
EPA's
October
29
notice
fails
to
address
the
overall
question
of
jurisdiction
between
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).
The
requirements
between
the
two
organizations
may
seem
similar,
however
OSHA
regulations
are
designed
to
regulate
the
protection
of
worker
health
and
safety
while
EPA's
requirements
ensure
that
workers
are
trained
to
protect
the
environment.
EPA's
requirement
will
minimize
spills
at
their
source.
OSHA
cannot
regulate
ground
water
contamination,
shut
down
of
operations
or
waste
feed
operations.
EPA
has
this
authority.

This
is
clearly
reflected
in
the
corresponding
OSHA
training
language.
1910.120(
p)(
7)
states
that
the
training
for
most
TSD
employees
is
so
they
can
"
perform
their
assigned
duties
and
functions
in
a
safe
and
healthful
manner
so
as
not
to
endanger
themselves
or
other
employees."
Aside
from
this
general
language
for
all
TSD
workers,
the
substitute
language
proposed
by
the
EPA
would
reference
OSHA's
emergency
response
language.
Many
RCRA
facilities
do
not
train
their
workers
to
engage
in
chemical
emergency
response
and
instead
have
evacuation
plans;
therefore
the
provisions
of
1910.120(
p)(
8)
on
training
RCRA
emergency
response
workers
largely
do
not
apply.
If
the
EPA
only
references
this
OSHA
language,
this
will
exempt
these
workers
from
many
training
requirements.
In
contrast,
EPA's
requirements
in
264
and
265.16,
Personal
Training,
state
clearly
that
at
a
minimum
the
training
program
must
be
designed
for
all
locations,
including
those
companies
that
do
NOT
implement
1910.120(
p)(
8)
and
that
instead
plan
to
evacuate
all
personnel.
This
significant
difference
in
training
requirements
is
not
addressed
in
the
October
comments.
­
208­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0349
EPA
has
requested
comment
on
the
approach
of
allowing
facility
owner/
operator
the
flexibility
to
determine
whether
to
follow
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training
requirements.
ADEQ
does
not
concur
with
this
approach.
Allowing
facility
owners/
operators
the
flexibility
to
pick
and
choose
which
set
of
agency
regulations
to
follow
may
lead
to
confusion
in
evaluating
compliance
with
wither
standard.
If
flexibility
to
select
either
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements
is
necessary
to
prevent
program
duplication,
then
EPA
or
the
authorized
State,
as
applicable,
should
determine
which
standard
to
apply,
not
the
facility
owner/
operator,
However,
we
do
not
agree
that
the
current
requirements
create
duplication
of
effort
or
confusion
among
the
regulated
community.
Having
the
requirement
in
other
RCRA
and
OSHA
does
not
mean
the
facility
would
have
to
do
anything
duplicative.
The
facility
could
perform
the
training
once,
but
address
both
OSHA
and
RCRA
requirements.
ADEQ
believes
RCRA
should
remain
a
regulatory
authority
to
address
potential
noncompliance
with
these
standards.
Some
proposed
alternative
language
for
these
sections
are:
"(
3)
At
a
minimum,
the
training
program
must
meet
the
standards
set
out
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)."
This
retains
the
emphasis
on
complying
with
OSHA
standards,
but
as
a
RCRA
regulatory
requirement,
and
should
eliminate
conflicting
requirements.

ADEQ
further
disagrees
with
EPA's
proposal
because
it
does
not
provide
an
equivalent
degree
of
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment
as
does
the
current
standard.
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
specifically
requires
the
safety
and
health
program
be
designed
to
identify,
evaluate
and
control
safety
and
health
hazards
at
facilities
for
the
purpose
of
employee
protection,
to
provide
for
emergency
response
and
to
address
as
appropriate
site
analysis,
engineering
controls,
maximum
exposure
limits,
hazardous
waste
handling
procedures
and
uses
of
new
technologies.
These
are
procedures
to
follow
in
the
event
of
a
release,
not
how
the
personnel
are
to
be
trained
to
respond
to
release
or
emergency.
By
removing
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3),
EPA
would
effectively
be
removing
training
requirements
that
help
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0352
LANL
supports
providing
facilities
with
the
flexibility
of:

4.
Replacing
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
in
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
with
the
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
OSHA
training
requirements,
or
5.
allowing
facilities
to
choose
whether
to
comply
with
RCRA
or
OSHA,
or
6.
allowing
facilities
to
develop
a
training
program
equivalent
to
RCRA.
­
209­
The
second
and
third
options
are
necessary
because,
Section
4
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
exempts
federal
and
state
agencies
from
OSHA
requirements,
although
some
agencies
voluntarily
comply
with
the
OSHA
requirements.
EPA
should
also
specify
that
40
CFR
264.16
emergency
response
requirements
could
be
met
by
attending
OSHA­
equivalent
off­
site
training.

In
addition,
EPA
needs
to
incorporate
alternate
regulatory
language
to
address
situations
where
large
federal,
state,
and
private
facilities
use
a
24­
hour
on
or
off­
site
emergency
response
team,
rather
than
requiring
the
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facility
(
TSD)
workers
to
respons
to
emergencies.
To
address
this
situation,
EPA
should
duplicate
the
29
CFR
1910.130(
p)(
8)(
iii)
exceptions,
which
follow:

Exception
1:
An
employer
need
not
train
all
employees
to
the
degree
specified
if
the
employer
divides
the
work
force
in
a
manner
such
that
a
sufficient
number
of
employees
who
have
responsibility
to
control
emergencies
have
the
training
specified,
and
all
other
employees,
who
may
first
respond
to
an
emergency
incident,
have
sufficient
awareness
training
to
recognize
that
an
emergency
response
situation
exists
and
that
they
are
instructed
in
that
case
to
summon
the
fully
trained
employees
and
not
attempt
control
activities
for
which
they
are
not
trained.

Exception
2:
An
employer
need
not
train
all
employees
to
the
degree
specified
if
arrangements
have
been
made
in
advance
for
an
outside
fully­
trained
emergency
response
team
to
respond
in
a
reasonable
period
and
all
employees,
who
may
come
to
the
incident
first,
have
sufficient
awareness
training
to
recognize
that
an
emergency
response
situation
exists
and
they
have
bee
instructed
to
call
the
designated
outside
fully­
trained
emergency
response
team
for
assistance.

The
requirements
of
40
CFR
264.52(
d)
and
265.52(
d)
also
need
to
be
revised
for
facilities
that
use
centralized,
continually
staffed
emergency
response
center
with
a
single
phone
number.
Currently,
the
contingency
plan
must
list
the
names,
addresses,
and
phone
numbers
(
office
and
home)
of
all
persons
qualified
to
act
as
emergency
coordinator.
For
facilities
with
centralized
systems,
only
phone
number
should
be
listed
in
the
contingency
plan.
The
requirement
for
listing
individuals
triggers
frequent
permit
modification
as
workers
change
and
is
not
useful
to
workers
who
are
required
to
call
a
centralized
number.
Also,
facilities
such
as
LANL,
for
which
the
threat
of
terrorist
attack
is
real,
would
prefer
not
to
identify
key
emergency
response
personnel
by
name,
home
address,
and
phone
number.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0354
CRWI
supported
removing
the
RCRA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training
where
they
overlapped
with
OSHA
requirements.
However,
facilities
that
have
met
their
OSHA
requirements
through
a
RCRA
training
program
may
want
to
retain
their
current
training
program.
Since
the
­
210­
requirements
for
both
programs
are
the
same,
CRWI
sees
no
reason
to
prefer
one
over
the
other.
It
makes
sense
for
the
Agency
to
allow
either
training
scheme
to
meet
the
requirement.
CRWI
Supports
this
change.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264/
265.16(
a)
&
(
d)

Document
#:
0138
The
proposal
includes
changes
to
personnel
training
in
40
CFR
264.16(
a)
&
(
d)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
a)
&
(
d).
Under
Section
II.
D
of
the
preamble,
EPA
discussed
personnel
training
extensively,
including
the
existing
requirement
to
keep
training
records
until
closure.
However,
EPA
did
not
propose
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden
found
at
both
40
CFR
264.16(
e)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
e).
In
other
places,
EPA
also
recognized
that
keeping
records
until
closure
is
not
productive
and
proposed
to
reduce
that
burden
in
a
number
of
other
places,
such
as:

°
40
CFR
264.73
and
40
CFR
265.73
for
the
operating
record,
°
40
CFR
266.102(
e)(
10)
for
permitted
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
and
°
40
CFR
266.103(
k)
for
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces.

Dow
firmly
believes
that
keeping
training
records
for
three
years
is
more
than
adequate.
Dow
requests
that
the
final
rule
also
change
both
40
CFR
264.16(
e)
and
40
CFR
265.16(
e)
so
that
these
references
are
consistent
with
the
approach
that
EPA
is
taking
for
other
listed
regulatory
areas.
Such
a
change
could
be
accomplished
very
easily,
and
Dow
suggests
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:

40
CFR
264.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
accompany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company."

40
CFR
265.16(
e)
"
Training
records
on
current
personnel
must
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facility
for
three
years;
training
records
on
former
employees
must
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Personnel
training
records
may
accompany
personnel
transferred
within
the
same
company."

Even
though
changes
to
these
regulatory
references
were
not
specifically
proposed,
these
changes
are
consistent
with
other
changes
that
EPA
has
proposed.
In
addition
at
67
FR
2520,
EPA
did
­
211­
invite
comments
on
"...
new
approaches
we
haven't
considered..."
Inspectors
would
generally
visit
a
facility
many
times
during
a
three­
year
period
and
could
very
easily
verify
that
training
has
occurred.
Keeping
records
longer
is
an
unproductive
exercise
in
maintaining
an
archive.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264.16(
a)(
3),(
d)(
1)(
2)(
3)

Document
#:
0216
We
disagree
with
these
requirements
being
deleted
and
believe
the
rational
that
this
requirement
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely
is
erroneous.
This
requirement
is
helpful
in
ensuring
that
adequate
training
is
provided
and
the
person
is
fully
trained
for
the
job
he/
she
is
being
asked
to
do.
We
have
found
that
by
reviewing
the
job
descriptions
we
are
able
to
determine
who
actually
needs
training.
This
facilitates
a
review
of
the
records
and
a
determination
of
who
has
not
been
trained.
Without
these
requirements,
we
will
not
be
able
to
determine
this
flaw
in
a
facility's
training
program.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0043
UTC
believes
that
regular
RCRA
training
is
necessary
and
that
certification
must
be
kept
up
to
date.
We
recommend
that
EPA
focus
on
whether
there
is
a
system
to
achieve
this
and
not
on
minor
recordkeeping
discrepancies
in
whatever
system
is
adopted.

In
the
event
that
EPA
decides
not
to
eliminate
all
recordkeeping,
UTC
offers
the
following
suggestions:

°
Records
should
be
limited
to
show
that
training
is
current
for
each
employee
with
hazardous
waste
handling
responsibility.

°
The
requirement
to
keep
written
job
descriptions
and
titles
for
personnel
trained
in
RCRA
should
be
eliminated.
Any
person
who
is
assigned
to
manufacturing,
service
or
maintenance
activities
involving
hazardous
waste
should
receive
training
regardless
of
job
description.

°
Records
should
be
retained
for
only
one
to
two
years
after
an
employee
leaves
or
stops
performing
waste
management.

1.
p.
61666,
col.
1
­
In
2002,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
­
212­
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
requirements.
A
number
of
commenters
suggested
that
the
Agency
provide
additional
flexibility
to
this
change
by
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements.
Comments
on
this
alternative
approach
are
requested.

As
was
stated
in
Comments
on
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
Letter
to
RCRA
Docket
No.
F­
1999­
IBRA­
FFFFF,
April
17,
2002,
Specific
Comments
on
Proposed
Regulatory
Text,
1),
DOE
supports
the
goal
of
modifying
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
to
eliminate
overlap
with
the
OSHA
regulations
that
establish
training
requirements
for
emergency
response
personnel.
DOE
agrees
that
this
goal
would
be
accomplished
by
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
the
OSHA
regulations).
Furthermore,
the
more
flexible
approach
of
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
decide
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
would
address
the
concern
raised
in
DOE's
April
17,
2002
comment
regarding
potential
misinterpretation
of
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
text
for
264.16(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)(
i).

Specifically
DOE
expressed
concern
that
the
phrase,
"
Have
received
training
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)
as
applicable"
[
emphasis
added],
which
appeared
in
the
proposed
regulatory
text,
might
be
misinterpreted
as
not
applicable
to
some
DOE
contractors.
This
concern
arose
because,
under
a
1992
Memorandum
of
Understanding
between
DOE
and
the
Department
of
Labor,
OSHA
requirements
do
not
apply
directly
to
many
DOE
contractors.
DOE
suggested
that
the
quoted
phrase
be
modified
as
follows
(
redline
=
addition;
strikeout
=
deletion):
"
Have
received
training
defined
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
­
213­
254/
265.16(
a)(
3)(
i)

Personnel
training.

Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
onthe
job
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
ensure
that
this
program
includes
all
the
elements
described
in
the
document
required
under
paragraph
(
d)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
3)
At
a
minimum,
the
training
program
must
be
designed
to
ensure
that
facility
personnel
are
able
to
respond
effectively
to
emergencies
by
familiarizing
them
with
emergency
procedures,
emergency
equipment,
and
emergency
systems,
including,
where
applicable:
(
i)
Procedures
for
using,
inspecting,
repairing,
and
replacing
facility
emergency
and
monitoring
equipment;

Document
#:
0134
DOE
supports
modifying
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
to
eliminate
overlap
with
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
addressing
training
requirements
for
emergency
response
personnel.
However,
Section4(
b)(
1)
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
(
OSH
Act)
of
1970
(
P.
L.
91­
596)
waives
OSHA's
jurisdiction
in
cases
where
another
Federal
agency
has
exercised
its
statutory
authority
to
prescribe
or
enforce
occupational
safety
and
health
standards.
Relying
on
this
section
of
the
OSH
Act,
in
1974,
the
Department
of
Labor
(
DOL)
explicitly
recognized
the
Atomic
Energy
Commission's
(
AEC's)
authority
to
establish
and
enforce
occupational
safety
and
health
standards
at
AEC­
sponsored
contractor
facilities.
Subsequently,
DOL
and
DIE,
a
successor
agency
to
the
AEC,
reaffirmed
this
arrangement
at
DOE's
government­
owned,
contractor­
operated
(
GOCO)
facilities
in
an
August
10,
1992,
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(
MOU).
Under
the
1992
MOU,
OSHA
advises
DOE
worker
protection,
but
DOE
regulates
all
aspects
of
worker
health
and
safety
at
almost
all
of
its
nuclear
facilities.
DOE
exercises
its
authority
over
working
conditions
at
GOCO
facilities
through
the
system
of
DOE
Orders
and
a
program
of
internal
oversight
at
these
facilities.
For
this
reason,
DOE
is
concerned
that,
since
OSHA
regulations
do
not
apply
directly
to
many
DOE
contractors,
the
phrase,
"
Have
received
training
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.1210(
q)
as
applicable"
[
emphasis
added],
in
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
text
for
264.16(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)(
i)
might
be
misinterpreted
as
not
applicable
to
such
contractors.
Accordingly,
DOE
suggests
that
in
the
final
version
of
264.16(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)(
i),
the
quoted
phrase
be
modified
to
read
as
follows:
"
Have
received
training
defined
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)."

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0346
­
214­
RCRA/
OSHA
Overlap
in
Emergency
Response
Training
1.
p.
61666,
col.
1
­
In
2002,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
requirements.
A
number
of
commenters
suggested
that
the
Agency
provide
additional
flexibility
to
this
change
by
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements.
Comments
on
this
alternative
approach
are
requested.

As
was
stated
in
Comments
on
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
Letter
to
RCRA
Docket
No.
F­
1999­
IBRA­
FFFFF,
April
17,
2002,
Specific
Comments
on
Proposed
Regulatory
Text,
1),
DOE
supports
the
goal
of
modifying
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
to
eliminate
overlap
with
the
OSHA
regulations
that
establish
training
requirements
for
emergency
response
personnel.
DOE
agrees
that
this
goal
would
be
accomplished
by
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
the
OSHA
regulations).
Furthermore,
the
more
flexible
approach
of
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
decide
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
would
address
the
concern
raised
in
DOE's
April
17,
2002
comment
regarding
potential
misinterpretation
of
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
text
for
264.16(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)(
i).

Specifically,
DOE
expressed
concern
that
the
phrase,
"
Have
received
training
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q)
as
applicable"
[
emphasis
added],
which
appeared
in
the
proposed
regulatory
text,
might
be
misinterpreted
as
not
applicable
to
some
DOE
contractors.
This
concern
arose
because,
under
a
1992
Memorandum
of
Understanding
between
DOE
and
the
Department
of
Labor,
OSHA
requirements
do
not
apply
directly
to
many
DOE
contractors.
DOE
suggested
that
the
quoted
phrase
be
modified
as
follows
(
redline
=
addition;
strikeout
=
deletion):
"
Have
received
training
defined
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
at
39
CFR
1910.1210(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Comment
0315
­
The
American
Chemistry
Council
fully
supports
allowing
a
facility
to
select
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
EPA
should
also
make
it
clear
that
the
revised
regulations
will
require
emergency
response
training
only
for
those
personnel
who
are
required
to
receive
it
under
applicable
OSHA
regulations.

Response:
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
­
215­
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Comment
0317
­
Dow
supports
using
language
that
would
allow
the
flexibility
to
use
the
RCRA
approach
for
facilities
that
are
not
regulated
by
OSHA.

Comment
0319
­
The
Graphic
Arts
Coalition
(
GAC)
supports
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
overlapping
training
requirements.
Allowing
the
facilities
to
determine
which
training
requirements
to
follow,
OSHA
or
US
EPA,
reduces
overall
training
time
as
well
as
the
paperwork
involved.

Comment
0321
­
The
Academy
of
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
(
ACHMM)
is
in
favor
of
companies
having
the
flexibility
to
choose
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements,
as
both
are
essentially
the
same
with
minor
variances.
­
216­
Comment
0323
­
ConocoPhillips
(
COPC)
supports
the
Agency
considering
a
person
who
has
completed
the
OSHA
training,
including
training
for
emergency
response,
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
to
have
also
fulfilled
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Regarding
the
option
of
continuing
with
a
RCRA
emergency
response
program
in
addition
to
the
OSHA
requirements,
COPC
believes
allowing
this
choice
will
benefit
those
facilities
that
are
not
required
to
train
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).

Comment
0327
­
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
supports
the
Agency
finding
that
a
person
completing
the
OSHA
training,
including
training
for
emergency
response,
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)
fulfills
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Providing
the
option
of
continuing
with
a
RCRA
emergency
response
program
in
addition
to
the
OSHA
requirements
will
benefit
those
facilities
that
are
not
required
to
train
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
API
supports
allowing
a
facility
to
select
compliance
with
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements.

Comment
0331
­
The
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
supports
EPA's
initiative
to
eliminate
the
overlapping
training
requirements
under
the
RCRA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).
While
EPA's
Proposed
Rule
simply
eliminated
the
RCRA
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
regulations,
in
the
Notice,
EPA
correctly
addresses
those
cases
where
a
facility
is
not
otherwise
required
to
comply
with
the
OSHA
requirements,
by
providing
the
flexibility
for
a
facility
to
determine
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
training
requirement.
NPCA
supports
the
change.

Response
to
All
Comments:
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
­
217­
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Comment
0333
­
Onyx
disagrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
facilities
the
flexibility
of
choosing
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training.
One
set
of
training
requirements
should
be
selected
to
eliminate
any
confusion
regarding
the
appropriate.
While
having
more
than
one
set
of
training
requirements
could
cause
confusion
for
facilities,
employees,
and
regulators,
it
is
essential
that
employees
handling
dangerous
materials
receive
thorough
and
effective
training.
Onyx
has
found
that
the
OSHA
training
requirements
to
be
more
comprehensive
and
useful
in
preparing
our
employees
for
safe
management
of
hazardous
wastes
than
the
current
RCRA
regulations.
We
therefore
recommend
that
the
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements
be
mandated.

Response:
We
disagree.
Our
analysis
indicates
that
the
OSHA
requirements
are
not
as
extensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements.
Specifically,
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
at
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
and
small
quantity
generators
and
certain
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federally
owned
and
operated
facilities).

Comment
0334
­
The
Ohio
Environmental
Service
Industry
(
OESI)
supports
the
proposal
to
allow
owner/
operators
to
comply
with
personal
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
either
RCRA
or
OSHA.
We
agree
there
is
significant
overlap
in
the
training
requirements
and
that,
in
either
case,
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
will
not
be
jeopardized
by
the
change.

Comment
0335
­
General
Motors
Corporation
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
allow
a
facility
the
option
to
align
emergency
response
training
requirements
with
those
dictated
by
OSHA,
as
appropriate.

Comment
0336
­
The
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection(
FDEP)
agrees
with
the
original
concept
of
incorporating
by
reference
the
OSHA
emergency
response
training
standards
and
with
the
new
proposal
to
allow
the
facilities
the
option
of
implementing
a
training
course
that
­
218­
meets
either
OSHA
or
the
current
RCRA
requirements.
However,
the
FDEP
is
very
concerned
that
rule
language
not
imply
that
RCRA
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to
enforce
the
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Training
under
20
CFR
Part
1910
is
not
REQUIRED
at
many
hazardous
waste
generators
and
TSDF's
­
including
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
installations.
These
facilities
could
argue
that
because
training
is
not
REQUIRED
by
OSHA,
it
is
not
required
by
RCRA.

Comment
0338
­
The
Utiltity
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG)
supported
EPA's
original;
proposal
to
eliminate
a
number
of
the
personnel
training
record
keeping
requirements
currently
set
forth
in
40
CFR
265.16,
which
are
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
90­
day
accumulation
unit
provisions.
USWAG
continues
to
support
EPA's
proposal
to
replace
specific
training
components
set
forth
in
285.16
(
a)(
3)
with
more
comprehensive
OSHA
requirements.
USWAG
affirms
EPA's
conclusion
that
OSHA
are
more
extensive
that
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Moreover,
we
concur
with
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
a
facility
owner/
operator
to
choose
whether
to
follow
the
OSHA
or
RCRA
requirements
(
thereby
recognizing
that
some
facilities
subject
to
RCRA
emergency
requirements
may
not
be
subject
to
all
OSHA
training
requirements).

Comment
0346
­
The
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
supports
the
goal
of
modifying
the
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements
to
eliminate
overlap
with
the
OSHA
regulations
that
establish
training
requirements
for
emergency
response
personnel.
DOE
agrees
that
this
goal
would
be
accomplished
by
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
determine
whether
to
follow
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
the
OSHA
regulations).
Furthermore,
the
more
flexible
approach
of
allowing
the
facility
owner/
operator
to
decide
whether
to
follow
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
would
address
the
concern
raised
in
DOE's
April
17,
2002
comment
regarding
potenetial
misinterpretation
of
EPA's
proposed
regulatory
text
for
264.16
(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
265.16
(
a)(
3)(
i).

Comment
0347
­
Eastman
Chemical
Company
has
no
disagreement
with
allowing
this
flexibility
to
either
follow
RCRA
or
OSHA.

Response
to
All
Comments:
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
­
219­
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

Comment
0348
­
The
Sierra
Club,
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
To­
Know,
U.
S.
Public
Interest
Research
Group
and
the
Clean
Water
Action
register
their
objection
to
the
proposed
elimination
of
some
training
requirements
for
RCRA
workers.
They
stand
by
their
original
comments
in
this
area
but
for
the
record
they
are
concerned
primarily
that
if
worker
training
is
reduced
the
EPA
will
weaken
the
protection
for
the
environment,
as
well
as
workers
protection.
These
are
not
primarily
"
gaps
in
workplace
safety
and
health"
but
more
gaps
in
protection
of
the
environment
by
permitting
a
less
well­
trained
workforce.
They
also
stated
that
EPA
fails
to
address
the
overall
question
of
jurisdiction
between
EPA
and
OSHA
The
requirements
between
the
two
organizations
may
seem
similar,
however
OSHA
regulations
are
designed
to
regulate
the
protection
of
worker
health
and
safety
while
EPA's
requirements
ensure
that
workers
are
trained
to
protect
the
environment.

Response:
We
disagree.
We
do
not
believe
that
environmental
protection
will
be
reduced.
Generators
and
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
are
still
required
to
comply
with
264/
265.16
regardless
of
what
option
they
choose.
Recognizing
that
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
vary
in
size
and
complexity
allowing
a
facility
to
use
OSHA
or
RCRA
to
meet
the
emergency
training
requirements
allows
a
facility
to
develop
training
programs
that
better
fit
their
situation.

Comment
0349
­
The
Arkansas
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
ADEQ)
does
not
concur
with
EPA's
proposed
approach
of
allowing
the
flexibility
to
determine
whether
to
follow
RCRA
or
­
220­
OSHA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training.
By
allowing
facility
owners/
operators
the
flexibility
to
pick
and
choose
which
set
of
agency
regulations
to
follow
may
lead
to
confusion
in
evaluating
compliance
with
either
standard.
If
flexibility
to
select
either
RCRA
or
OSHA
emergency
response
training
requirements
is
necessary
to
prevent
program
duplication,
then
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
as
applicable,
should
determine
which
standard
to
apply,
not
the
facility
owner/
operator.
However,
we
do
not
agree
that
the
current
requirements
create
duplication
of
effort
or
confusion
among
the
regulated
community
Response:
We
disagree.
We
do
not
believe
that
allowing
facilities
the
flexibility
to
decide
whether
to
use
OSHA
or
RCRA
to
fulfill
their
emergency
response
training
would
lead
to
confusion.
In
fact
we
believe
the
opposite
will
happen.
By
allowing
facilities
the
option
to
determine
what
training
program
best
fits
their
needs
overlap
and
duplication
will
be
minimized
thus
leading
to
a
less
confusing
training
program.
Finally,
facilities
are
in
a
much
better
position
to
decide
what
is
best
them
for
them
in
designing
their
training
programs
and
that
EPA
nor
authorized
states
should
be
determining
what
standards
apply.

Comment
0352
­
The
Los
Alamos
National
Laboratory
(
LANL)
supports
providing
facilities
with
the
flexibility
of
replacing
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
in
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)
and
265.16(
a)(
3)
with
the
29
CFR
1910.120
(
p)
OSHA
training
requirements
or
allowing
facilities
to
choose
whether
to
comply
with
RCRA
or
OSHA,
or
allowing
facilities
to
develop
a
training
program
equivalent
to
RCRA.

Comment
0354
­
The
Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
(
CRWI)
supported
removing
the
RCRA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training
where
they
overlapped
with
OSHA
requirements.
However,
facilities
that
have
met
their
OSHA
requirements
through
a
RCRA
training
program
may
want
to
retain
their
current
training
program.
Since
the
requirements
for
both
programs
are
the
same,
CRWI
see
no
reason
to
prefer
one
over
the
other.
It
makes
sense
for
the
Agency
to
allow
either
training
scheme
to
meet
the
requirement.
CRWI
supports
this
change.
Response
to
Comments:
This,
however,
is
not
EPA's
intention.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
­
221­
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

264.16(
d)
Personnel
training.

Document
#:
0184
We
support
this
change,
but
only
with
modification
of
the
proposed
language.
Personnel
training
­
Removing
items
(
d)(
1),
(
2)
and
(
3)
makes
it
more
difficult
(
if
not
impossible)
to
determine
which
employee
records
must
be
reviewed
during
inspections,
and
what
type
of
training
is
required
for
each
employee.
How
do
regulators
identify
applicable
staff
to
ensure
compliance
with
this
requirement?
There
are
two
reasonable
options:
Drop
the
training
requirement
altogether
and
evaluate
the
facility
solely
on
its
compliance
with
the
regulations
(
performance­
based),
or
have
the
facility
maintain
an
annual
certification
statement
that
all
employees
have
received
appropriate
training.
Random
employee
interviews
can
be
use
to
confirm
that
the
training
was
given.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0207
Finally,
Lion
notes
in
the
proposal
that
EPA
is
retaining
the
requirement
to
maintain
training
records
"
at
the
facility."
It
is
Lion's
experience
that
many
organizations
are
working
to
centralize
records
of
training
and
certification
for
more
effective
and
more
efficient
management.
Most
such
centralized
recordkeeping
systems
are
electronically
based,
providing
for
record
retrieval
at
the
­
222­
regulated
facility,
within
corporate
offices
and
elsewhere.
We
believe
that
requiring
records
to
be
physically
present
at
the
regulated
facility
is
unnecessary
and
will
result
in
duplicate
recordkeeping
in
many
cases.

Recommended
regulatory
changes:

At
a
minimum,
we
believe
that
40
CFR
264.16(
d)
should
be
revised
to
read
as
follows:

(
d)
The
owner
operator
must
maintain
records
at
the
facility
or
electronically
available
to
the
facility,
documenting
the
training
or
job
experience
required
under
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section
that
has
been
given
to
and
completed
by
facility
personnel.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264.16(
d)(
1)
Personnel
training
requirements 
record
job
title:

Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
the
job
title
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
Final
Action:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0165
While
it
is
important
to
maintain
"
records
documenting
the
training
or
job
experience...
given
to
and
completed
by
facility
personnel,"
264.16(
d)(
4),
at
the
facility
for
agency
inspection,
we
agree
that
EPA
does
not
need
to
review
job
titles,
job
descriptions,
or
a
written
description
of
the
type
and
amount
o
training.
Therefore,
we
concur
that
264.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
can
be
deleted.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0169
Eliminate­
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
the
job
title
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
is
an
insignificant
burden
and
the
job
titles
are
used
to
identify
facility
personnel
who
require
the
RCRA
training
or
specialized
training
because
of
their
position.
All
facility
personnel
are
not
required
to
have
RCRA
training,
only
employees
exposed
to
or
are
­
223­
responsible
for
hazardous
waste
duties.
Generally,
this
information
is
standard
in
the
human
resource
division
at
a
company.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0181
(
264/
265.16(
d)(
1))
Job
titles
should
be
created
that
differentiate
between
roles
of
management
and
labor
in
responsibility
for
hazardous
waste
management.
This
provides
a
clear
path
for
decision
making.
The
lack
of
job
titles
will
hurt
criminal
prosecution,
by
requiring
the
prosecutor
to
prove
who
was
responsible
for
the
waste
management
at
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
The
rationale
given
argues
for
better
matching
of
job
titles
and
descriptions
to
actual
work
rather
than
eliminating
them
from
the
plan.
We
find
this
information
to
be
critical
for
identifying
persons
to
interview
in
the
course
of
compliance
inspections
and
investigations.
The
job
title
is
important
for
clarity,
i.
e.,
so
that
staff
that
work
under
each
job
title
can
be
easily
identified.
Also,
the
job
title
is
used
as
a
category
by
which
the
corresponding
training
requirements
are
developed.
If
you
don't
know
what
someone
does
via
a
job
title
and
description
(
264.16(
d)(
2)),
then
it
is
very
difficult
to
gauge
whether
their
training
has
been
sufficient.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
requirement
to
record
job
titles
in
training.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0345
RCRA/
OSHA
Overlap
in
Emergency
Response
Training.
GAO
study
found
OSHA
and
EPA
worker
training
requirements
in
emergency
response
procedures
to
be
duplicative,
and
an
"
unnecessary
burden"
and
are
proposed
to
be
eliminated.
­
224­
Although
OSHA
my
have
greater
employee
expertise,
their
inspections
are
severely
limited
by
lack
of
State
and
federal
funding.
EPA
and
State
RCRA
representatives,
however,
are
routinely
visiting
these
facilities,
making
efficient
use
of
existing
public
employees
to
enforce
this
very
important
training
requirement.
OSHA
employees,
because
of
funding,
do
not
regularly
inspect
RCRA
facilities
without
a
referral
from
the
State
environmental
agency.
States
may
lack
the
authority
to
enforce
or
cite
OSHA
violations.

The
proposal
to
delete
the
requirement
for
documenting
job
titles
and
job
description
would
reduce
the
ability
to
determine
whether
adequate
training
has
been
imparted
to
the
employees,
diminishing
the
effectiveness
of
RCRA
oversight
on
personnel
training.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
264/
5.16(
a)(
3)
of
the
document
for
further
discussion.
In
addition
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
­
225­
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.

264/
265.16(
d)(
1)­(
d)(
3)

Document
#:
0144
Although
we
agree
that
the
facility
does
not
necessarily
need
to
keep
a
list
of
job
titles
and
descriptions
for
hazardous
waste
personnel,
they
should
maintain
a
list
of
personnel
that
actively
handle/
manage
the
facility's
hazardous
waste
personnel,
they
should
maintain
a
list
of
personnel
that
actively
handle/
manage
the
facility's
hazardous
waste
or
actively
participate
in
emergency
response
in
order
to
ensure
those
people
are
properly
trained.
The
records
should
also
continue
to
document
the
type
and
amount
of
training
received
by
each
individual.
The
best
way
to
determine
whether
or
not
an
employee
has
been
adequately
trained
is
to
pick
an
employee
from
the
documentation
at
the
facility
and
then
question
that
employee
about
the
type
of
training
that
they
have
received.
Failure
to
maintain
this
information
will
weaken
the
inspector's
capabilities
to
ensure
appropriate
staff
are
trained
and
will
weaken
the
ability
to
enforce
the
regulation.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0204
CSHEMA
supports
this
change
in
40
CFR
264.16(
d)(
1,
2
&
3).
In
addition,
we
believe
it
is
unnecessary
to
updates
to
facility
records
when
job
descriptions
and
titles
change.
This
simply
creates
an
unnecessary
burden
and
does
nothing
to
protect
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0217
Eastman
supports
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirements
that
require
the
recording
of
employee's
job
titles
and
job
descriptions
in
association
with
training
activities.
Eastman
has
found
it
burdensome
to
keep
up
with
these
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
believes
the
retention
of
such
information
has
little
to
no
value
in
determining
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
his/
her
job
safely
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
­
226­
Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
urges
EPA
to
expand
its
three­
year
record
retention
policy
to
employee
training
records.
Since
training
records.
Since
training
records
are
routine
and
are
not
needed
for
closure
of
a
facility,
EPA
should
allow
training
records
to
be
discarded
after
three
years.
This
option
would
reduce
the
amount
of
administrative
time
needed
to
review
training
records,
as
well
as
the
paperwork
burden
upon
the
facilities,
and
would
be
consistent
with
EPA's
state
policy
of
record
retention.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
agrees
with
EPA
that
maintaining
records
of
job
titles
and
job
descriptions
for
individuals
who
receive
training
is
unnecessary
and
does
not
contribute
to
the
safety
of
a
facility.
Accordingly,
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
these
non­
essential
recordkeeping
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264.16(
d)(
2)
Personnel
training
requirements 
record
job
description:

Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
this
requirement
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
Final
Action:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0169
Eliminate­
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
this
requirement
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
is
an
insignificant
burden.
The
job
descriptions
are
used
to
ensure
that
the
personnel
are
properly
trained
for
the
work
they
actually
perform.
The
job
descriptions
include
a
detailed
description
of
the
exposure
and
responsibilities
regarding
hazardous
waste.
Generally,
this
information
is
standard
in
the
human
resource
division
at
a
company.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
­
227­
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0181
(
264/
265.16(
d)(
2))
Job
descriptions
should
be
created
that
differentiate
between
roles
of
management
and
labor
as
responsible
for
hazardous
waste
management.
This
stops
the
facility
from
using
confusion
as
a
defense
of
fault
in
waste
management
and
provides
a
clear
decision
making
path.
The
lack
of
job
descriptions
will
hurt
criminal
prosecution,
by
requiring
the
prosecutor
to
prove
who
was
responsible
for
the
waste
management
at
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
.

Document
#:
0213
Washington
State
does
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
This
information
is
useful
for
identifying
persons
to
interview
in
the
course
of
compliance
inspections
and
investigations.
The
job
description
is
important
for
clarity,
i.
e.,
so
that
the
staff
assigned
to
the
job
do
not
perform
functions
beyond
their
job
description
and
associated
training
requirements.
It
is
also
helpful
for
our
use
in
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
the
facility's
Training
Plan.
Identifying
who's
responsible
for
various
tasks
has
been
particularly
important
when
resolving
noncompliance
situations.
If
you
don't
know
what
someone
does
via
a
job
title
and
description
(
264.16(
d)(
d)
0,
then
it
is
very
difficult
to
gauge
whether
their
training
has
been
sufficient.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
requirement
to
record
job
description..

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264/
265.16(
d)(
2)&(
3)

Document
#:
0241
The
proposal
would
eliminate
the
requirements
that
an
employee's
written
job
description
and
written
description
of
training
be
maintained
at
the
facility.
The
rationale
given
in
the
preamble
is
that
these
requirements
do
not
have
a
bearing
on
whether
an
employee
can
do
his
job
safely.
For
the
Agency,
or
even
the
facility
itself,
to
know
whether
an
employee
is
trained
properly,
the
­
228­
employee's
responsibilities
and
type
and
amount
of
training
must
be
known.
Any
facility
who
properly
trains
its
employees
will
have
this
information
in
written
form.
Therefore,
for
facilities
that
comply
with
the
regulations,
the
proposal
will
not
reduce
burden.
We
strongly
disagree
with
any
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirements
for
maintenance
of
written
job
responsibilities
and
written
descriptions
of
the
types
and
amounts
of
training
received.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264.16(
d)(
3)
Personnel
training
requirements 
record
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided:

Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
this
requirement
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
Final
Action:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0169
Personnel
training
requirements­
record
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided:
Eliminate­
based
on
comments
from
a
state
expert,
we
are
recommending
that
these
requirements
be
deleted.
The
rationale
is
that
this
requirement
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
is
an
insignificant
burden.
This
requirement
identifies
the
training
requirements
for
each
job.
The
training
requirements
are
specific
to
each
job
title.
This
requirement
ensures
that
specific
training
is
required
on
a
regular
basis.
Training
in
confined
space
is
not
the
same
as
training
for
labeling
an
placarding.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0181
(
264/
265.16(
d)(
3))
There
are
times
that
training
records
do
not
determine
how
well
a
person
is
trained
for
a
particular
position.
However,
with
training
records,
it
eliminates
the
defense
of
ignorance
and
requires
that
a
person
be
provided
the
training
opportunity.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).
­
229­
Document
#:
0213
Washington
State
does
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
This
requirement
provides
documentation
of
the
training
deemed
necessary
for
safe,
compliant
operations
of
the
facility.
Reviewing
this
plan
can
identify
potential
gaps
in
training.
During
compliance
inspections
and
investigations
this
documentation
is
compared
with
the
training
record
documentation
to
help
determine
if
the
training
requirements
are
met.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
requirement
to
record
type
and
amount
of
training
to
be
provided.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
Stakeholders
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained,
hence
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264/
5(
d)(
1)­(
3).

264.34(
a)(
1)(
i)
Access
to
communications
or
alarm
system.
Accumulation
time.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.
We
believe
EPA
is
taking
too
narrow
a
view
regarding
this
matter.
EPA
seems
to
be
implying
that
if
a
facility
performs
well,
it
should
be
able
to
change
a
regulatory
agency's
inspection
schedule.
First,
we
don't
subscribe
to
the
basic
premise.
Second,
the
citation
is
actually
applicable
to
generators
and
facilities.
It
is
applicable
to
SQGs
and
LQGs
by
reference
from
262.34(
a)(
1)(
i).
Since
we
are
able
to
inspect
SQG's
on
average
only
once
every
few
years
or
more,
we
don't
see
how
the
public's
safety
is
served
by
stating
that
one
favorable
Compliance
Evaluation
Inspection
can
demonstrate
a
facility's
suitability
for
reduced
oversight.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
but
we
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
the
requirements
in
264.34(
a)(
1)(
i).

264.52(
b)­­
Contingency
Plan 
Coordination
with
other
plans:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
One
Plan
guidance,
which
will
eliminate
the
need
to
prepare
multiple
contingency
plans
for
Agency
requirements.
Final
Action:
The
Agency
is
promulgating
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0134
DOE
supports
the
addition
of
clarifying
regulatory
language
that
encourages
hazardous
waste
facility
owners/
operators
to
consider
developing
single,
integrated
contingency
plans.
The
­
230­
Department
requests,
however,
that
EPA
consider
also
adding
language
to
the
regulations
clarifying
that,
when
modifications
are
made
to
non­
RCRA
provisions
in
an
integrated
contingency
plan,
making
such
changes
would
not
trigger
the
need
for
a
RCRA
permit
modification.
DOE
requests
this
clarification
because
one
DOE
facility
reports
that
the
primary
reason
it
has
not
previously
integrated
its
RCRA
contingency
plan
with
other
emergency
or
contingency
plans
at
the
facility
(
as
allowed
by
existing
40
CFR
264,52(
b))
is
a
concern
about
that
applicability
of
RCRA
permit
modification
requirements.
Specifically,
it
is
unclear
whether
RCRA
facilities
having
integrated
contingency
plans
are
required
to
process
changes
to
such
plans
as
RCRA
permit
modifications,
whether
or
not
the
provisions
being
changed
are
based
on
RCRA
requirements.

DOE
suggest
that
a
provision
be
added
to
40
CFR
270.42
indicating
that
a
change
to
a
RCRA
facility's
integrated
contingency
plan
requires
a
RCRA
permit
modification
only
if
the
item
being
changed
implements
a
requirement
imposed
by
RCRA.
Specifically,
DOE
suggests
the
following
addition
to
40
CFR
270.42:

270.42
Permit
modification
at
the
request
of
the
permittee.

(
k)
Modifications
to
Integrated
Contingency
Plans.
No
permit
modification
is
necessary
to
change
a
provision
in
an
integrated
Contingency
Plan,
if
the
integrated
contingency
plan
was
developed
pursuant
to
264.52(
b),
and
if
the
provision
being
changed
is
not
mandated
by
264.52(
a),(
c),
(
d),
(
e),
or
(
f).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.

Document
#:
0165
TSD
facilities
must
have
a
number
of
different
contingency
plans
under
various
environmental
laws.
EPA
has
been
asked
to
streamline
and
consolidate
these
contingency
plans
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
on
facilities.
EPA
has
responded
that
it
already
allows
combined
plans
under
the
"
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance"
issued
in
1996.
Therefore,
EPA
proposes
to
amend
264.52(
b)
to
clearly
state
that
a
combined
contingency
plan
which
meets
all
regulatory
requirements
is
allowed.

An
integrated
contingency
plan
is
not
a
substitute
for
streamlining
and
consolidating
the
contingency
plan
requirements
of
various
environmental
programs.
EPA
should
make
a
genuine
effort
to
review
all
contingency
plan
requirements,
eliminate
duplication
and
overlap,
and
promulgate
a
truly
consolidated
standard
that
eliminates
unnecessary
paperwork
burdens.
In
the
meantime,
the
ETC
supports
the
modest
change
that
EPA
would
make
to
the
RCRA
requirement.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
­
231­
Document
#:
0166
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
the
proposed
language
to
allow
Consolidated
Contingency
Plans,
but
feels
that
this
does
little
to
reduce
the
burden
of
multiple
agency
requirements
for
emergency
response
plans.
In
the
past,
Safety­
Kleen
has
received
quotes
for
up
to
$
10,000
for
consulting
firms
to
produce
consolidated
contingency
plans
from
existing
plans.
This
cost
is
due
to
the
time
consuming
cross
referencing
that
must
be
done
on
the
plan
to
incorporate
all
the
agencies
requirements
in
one
document
in
a
manner
that
can
be
easily
inspected
by
all
agencies.

The
agencies
have
turned
a
blind
eye
to
this
problem
for
years.
It
is
time
that
the
agencies
got
together
and
agreed
upon
one
plan
which
could
be
used
across
all
disciplines
for
emergency
response.
Until
this
is
done,
most
facilities
will
not
develop
Integrated
Contingency
Plans
and
will
instead
maintain
4
­
6
individual
plans
that
satisfy
the
regulations
but
cause
great
confusion
at
the
time
of
an
actual
emergency.
Safety­
Kleen
encourages
EPA
to
take
the
initiative
on
this
project
in
order
to
reduce
the
burden
on
the
regulated
community
and
provide
adequate
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment
during
emergency
response
actions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
With
regard
to
the
commenters
concern
with
emergency
response,
this
is
an
area
that
the
Agency
may
look
into
in
the
future,
it
is,
however,
out
of
scope
with
today's
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0169
Modify­
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
One
Plan
guidance,
which
will
eliminate
the
need
to
prepare
multiple
contingency
plans
for
Agency
requirements.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change
regarding
contingency
plans
­
Since
use
of
the
National
Response
Teams
guidance
is
not
a
requirement,
the
proposed
language
is
redundant
and
belabors
the
point
that
facilities
may
combine
plans
developed
for
other
programs.
The
reference
to
the
guidance
should
be
a
note,
not
part
of
the
regulation.

Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
Having
the
option
to
consolidate
into
one
plan
will
eliminate
the
confusion
facilities
face
when
they
must
decide
which
of
the
contingency
plans
is
applicable
to
a
particular
emergency.
In
addition,
a
single
plan
will
provide
"
first
responders"
with
a
mechanism
for
complying
with
multiple
regulatory
requirements.
The
adoption
of
a
standard
plan
will
ease
the
burden
of
coordination
with
local
emergency
planning
committees
.
Thus,
the
regulatory
change
will
improve
the
protectiveness
of
facility
response
­
232­
actions.
.
Document
#:
0213
Generally
we
support
this
concept
however
we
have
had
facilities
who
do
not
want
to
develop
one
contingency
plan.
That
is
because
they
do
not
want
non­
RCRA
items
to
be
included
in
the
RCRA
permit.
We
have
been
able
to
write
some
permits
so
that
the
non
RCRA
items
are
not
included.
When
facilities
use
the
"
One
Plan"
guidance,
it
is
important
to
make
sure
that
the
RCRA
requirements
cannot
get
lost
of
lessened;
for
example,
the
notification
and
reporting
requirements
when
the
contingency
plan
is
implemented.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
the
comment.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
Having
the
option
to
consolidate
into
one
plan
will
eliminate
the
confusion
facilities
face
when
they
must
decide
which
of
the
contingency
plans
is
applicable
to
a
particular
emergency.
In
addition,
a
single
plan
will
provide
"
first
responders"
with
a
mechanism
for
complying
with
multiple
regulatory
requirements.
The
adoption
of
a
standard
plan
will
ease
the
burden
of
coordination
with
local
emergency
planning
committees
.
Thus,
the
regulatory
change
will
improve
the
protectiveness
of
facility
response
actions.

Document
#:
0216
We
agree
that
coordination
with
other
plans
is
appropriate
and
that
the
plan
should
be
based
on
consistent
guidance.
Coordination
my
eliminate
the
need
for
a
facility
to
prepare
multiple
contingency
plans.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
Contingency
Plan
requirements
to
eliminate
need
to
prepare
multiple
documents.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0286
This
is
an
unnecessary
change
to
the
rule.
Currently
there
is
no
rule
which
would
not
allow
one
plan.
No
burden
reduction
will
take
place
with
the
change
to
this
rule.
In
fact,
it
will
increase
the
burden
on
the
state
only
to
change
a
rule
which
would
have
no
impact.

Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
amending
264/
5.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owner/
operators
of
TSDFs
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
Having
the
option
to
consolidate
into
one
plan
will
eliminate
the
confusion
facilities
face
when
they
must
decide
which
of
the
contingency
plans
is
applicable
to
a
particular
emergency.
In
addition,
a
single
plan
will
provide
"
first
responders"
with
a
mechanism
for
complying
with
multiple
regulatory
requirements.
The
adoption
of
a
standard
plan
will
ease
the
burden
of
coordination
with
local
emergency
planning
­
233­
committees
.
Thus,
the
regulatory
change
will
improve
the
protectiveness
of
facility
response
actions.

264.52(
e)

Document
#:
0134
DOE
believes
it
is
generally
unnecessary
for
the
contingency
plan
to
include
a
physical
description
and
outline
of
the
capabilities
of
every
item
of
common
emergency
equipment,
such
as
fire
extinguishers.
Accordingly,
DOE
suggests
that
40
CFR
264.52(
e)
be
revised
so
that
such
information
is
required
only
for
items
that
are
unique
or
have
customized
uses
at
the
permitted
facility.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

264/
5.56
Document
#:
0155
The
current
RCRA
requirements
to
provide
notification
that
certain
repairs
or
emergency
procedures
have
been
completed
provides
valuable
information
to
the
regulatory
agencies
that
is
used
to
respond
to
public
inquiries.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.56(
h)/
265.57(
h)

Document
#:
0042
Incorrect
citation
given,
might
be
264.56(
i),
265.56(
i)
Notification
of
Compliance
­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
Part
264/
265.56
before
resuming
operations.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
­
234­
264.56(
i)
Emergency
Procedures 
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
264.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations:

Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
is
a
notification
to
the
regulatory
Agency
that
the
emergency
coordinator
has
ensured
that
no
incompatible
waste
is
being
treated
at
the
site
and
that
the
emergency
equipment
is
ready
to
use
again.
This
emergency
coordinator
does
not
need
to
have
this
notification
to
ensure
that
these
tasks
are
done.
The
environmentally
protective
activities
are
still
in
place,
and
are
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record,
as
well
as
documented
by
the
emergency
coordinator.
Final
Action:
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
That
They
Are
in
Compliance
After
a
Release.

Document
#:
0165
Should
an
emergency
occur
at
a
TSD
facility,
the
emergency
coordinator
must
take
actions
to
implement
the
contingency
plan
which
include
notifying
the
appropriate
government
officials.
These
response
actions
are
specified
in
detail
in
264.56.
After
the
emergency
is
over,
the
coordinator
must
note
the
details
of
his
actions
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
and
he
must
also
submit
a
report
on
the
incident
to
the
regulatory
authorities.
In
view
of
these
requirements,
it
is
not
necessary
for
the
emergency
coordinator
to
also
notify
the
regulatory
authorities
that
cleanup
procedures
have
been
completed
before
resuming
operations.
This
additional
notification
requirement
does
not
provide
any
substantive
safety
protection.
We
therefore
agree
with
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
this
notice
requirements
in
264.56(
i).

Document
#:
0169
Emergency
Procedures­
Notify,
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
264.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
is
a
notification
to
the
regulatory
Agency
that
the
emergency
coordinator
has
ensured
that
no
incompatible
waste
is
being
treated
at
the
site
and
that
the
emergency
equipment
is
ready
to
use
again.
This
emergency
coordinator
does
not
need
to
have
this
notification
to
ensure
that
these
tasks
are
done.
The
environmentally
protective
activities
are
still
in
place,
and
are
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record,
as
well
as
documented
by
the
emergency
coordinator.

We
oppose
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
This
is
an
important
notification
and
is
certainly
not
overly
burdensome
on
a
facility
that
has
had
to
implement
its
contingency
plan.
This
notification
affords
the
regulatory
agency
an
opportunity
to
perform
an
inspection
to
insure
that
the
corrective
measures
are
adequate.
A
bigger
burden
is
a
reoccurrence
of
the
emergency.

Document
#:
0184
Emergency
procedures.
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.
Part
264
also
applies
to
facilities
that
should
have
had
a
permit,
but
did
not
obtain
one
(
illegal
TSDFs).
For
these
facilities
it
is
advantageous
to
submit
information
directly
to
the
agency,
rather
than
just
maintain
it
on­
site,
­
235­
because
such
facilities,
since
they
have
operated
illegally,
have
demonstrated
that
they
have
difficulty
operating
within
the
regulations
without
state
or
federal
oversight.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
see
that
this
is
an
overly
burdensome
requirement.
Facilities
are
more
careful
to
be
sure
a
situation
has
actually
been
remedied
if
it
must
report
that
the
problem
has
been
fixed.
In
Washington,
we
have
added
a
requirement
that
facilities
submit
a
description
of
corrective
action
taken
to
prevent
reoccurrence.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
notification
requirement
certifying
compliance
before
resuming
operations.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
decided
to
eliminate
this
requirement.
We
received
comments
that
both
supported
and
opposed
the
elimination
of
the
notifications
required
by
§
§
264.56(
i)
and
265.56(
i).
These
notifications
require
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
and
appropriate
State
and
local
authorities
after
an
emergency
action
has
taken
place,
that
the
facility
is
in
compliance
with
§
§
264.56(
h)
and
265.56(
h),
respectively.
Sections
264.56(
h)
and
265.56(
h)
require
the
facility
emergency
coordinator
to
ensure
that
no
wastes
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
is
treated,
stored,
or
disposed
of
until
cleanup
procedures
are
completed;
and
that
emergency
equipment
listed
in
the
contingency
plan
is
cleaned
and
fit
for
its
intended
use
before
operations
are
resumed.
Several
commenters
generally
supported
the
elimination
of
these
notification
provisions.
Other
commenters
were
opposed
to
eliminating
these
provisions
because
they
thought
that
it
was
prudent
for
the
regulatory
agency
to
receive
notification
that
a
facility
was
ready
to
again
manage
hazardous
waste
after
emergency
measures
were
implemented
and
releases
were
cleaned
up.
We
have
decided
to
finalize
the
elimination
of
this
notification
provision.
The
Regional
Administrator
and
appropriate
State
and
local
authorities
will
still
be
getting
a
report
15
days
after
the
emergency
incident
(
as
required
in
§
§
264.56(
j)
and
265.56(
j)).
This
report
will
specify
the
details
of
the
incident
that
required
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan.
In
most
cases,
the
incident
is
likely
to
be
relatively
minor,
and
operations
may
even
be
ready
for
resumption
with
the
15
days.
The
actions
to
be
taken
(
i.
e.,
not
handling
incompatible
waste
and
cleaning
emergency
equipment)
are
straightforward
and
it
is
not
clear
what
value
a
simple
notification
would
add.
On
the
other
hand,
in
major
incidents
the
State
would
likely
send
personnel
on­
site
and
would
be
in
a
position
to
ensure
that
an
appropriate
response
was
taken
before
operations
resumed.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
to
eliminate
this
notification
requirement.

264.70
­
Applicability
Document
#:
0208
Incidentally
­
a
typographical
error
in
40
CFR
264.70
should
be
corrected.
The
current
language
says
that
264.73(
b)
only
applies
to
permittees
who
treat
store
or
dispose
of
HW
on­
site
where
such
­
236­
wastes
were
generated.
This
is
a
typo
from
the
original
preamble,
which
read
"
264.73(
b)(
9)
is..."
(
7/
15/
85,
50
FR
28734).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
We
are
not
pursuing
any
burden
reduction
changes
to
264.70.

264/
265.73
­
Operating
Record.

Document
#:
0020
Reports
specific
to
certain
units
or
activities
are
valuable
and
should
be
retained
by
EPA
as
reporting
requirements.
Landfills,
Surface
Impoundments,
Land
Treatment
facilities,
Waste
Piles,
Tanks
and
Container
Storage,
Incinerators,
Treatment
facilities,
Miscellaneous
units
and
Commercial
facilities
all
have
specific
reporting
requirements
intended
to
protect
human
health.
These
compliance­
related
reporting
requirements
should
not
be
dismissed
lightly,
and
a
comprehensive
examination
should
be
performed
to
assess
how
each
type
of
facility
could
affect
the
environment
in
the
absence
of
the
required
reporting
and
recordkeeping.
If
the
reporting
requirement
is
removed,
one
incentive
to
complete
the
work
will
be
eliminated,
and
the
agency's
existing
ability
to
review
the
quality
of
this
work
will
be
weakened.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
agrees
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.

Document
#:
0133
Reduce
the
length
of
time
that
certain
files
must
be
maintained
on
site.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
retention
times
for
certain
routine
records
that
are
not
necessary
for
facility
closure.
SOCMA
agrees
that
three
years
is
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
routine
records.
Many
SOCMA
members
are
small
businesses
with
significant
space
constraints
in
their
facilities.
Allowing
these
facilities
to
discard
irrelevant
records
after
three
years
will
have
a
positive
impact
on
their
ability
to
manage
and
retrieve
data
that
is
needed.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0165
­
237­
We
agree
with
EPA
that
important
operating
records
should
be
kept
for
the
life
of
a
facility,
but
certain
records
can
be
discarded
after
an
appropriate
time
without
affecting
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2529
cols.
1­
2
Specifically,
information
about
what
wastes
are
disposed
at
the
facility,
where
the
disposed
waste
is
located,
and
information
relevant
to
facility
closure
should
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
However,
the
voluminous
records
that
result
from
routine
operations
related
to
waste
analyses,
self­
inspections,
notices
to
generators,
waste
minimization
certifications,
and
the
many
LDR
notices
and
certifications
can
be
discarded
after
a
reasonable
time.
The
current
record
retention
requirements
impose
a
very
heavy
burden
on
owners
and
operators
of
TSD
facilities.
Therefore,
we
emphatically
support
EPA's
proposal
to
amend
264.73
to
require
that
such
routine
records
be
kept
for
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
agrees
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.

Document
#:
0166
Safety
Kleen
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
reduce
the
operating
record
retention
period
for
routine
records
to
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
agrees
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
More
routine
information,
such
as
whether
certain
notices
were
filed
and
records
of
inspections,
can
be
discarded
after
three
years.
In
the
RCRA
regulations,
we
have
generally
settled
on
three
years
as
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
records.
This
is
consistent
with
other
Agency
programs,
such
as
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Community
Right
to
Know
programs,
that
impose
a
three
year
record
retention
time
in
their
regulations.

Document
#:
0169
The
reduction
in
the
record
retention
requirements
for
all
documents
to
be
kept
for
three
years
combined
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
certain
submittals
will
adversely
affect
the
public's
access
to
information
and
the
agency's
ability
to
adequately
regulate
facilities
that
are
not
routinely
inspected.
Records,
including
designs
and
certifications,
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agencies
are
kept
indefinitely
and
can
easily
be
accessed
by
the
public
and
are
available
even
when
a
facility
goes
out
of
business.
These
types
of
records
and
information
are
also
extremely
helpful
if
the
­
238­
government
is
required
to
close
a
facility
or
respond
to
an
emergency
at
the
facility.
Many
proposed
changes
will
be
virtually
rendered
null
if
facilities
are
allowed
to
determine
what
is
adequate
and
to
discard
important
certifications
after
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
Certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
More
routine
information,
such
as
whether
certain
notices
were
filed
and
records
of
inspections,
can
be
discarded
after
three
years.
In
the
RCRA
regulations,
we
have
generally
settled
on
three
years
as
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
records.
This
is
consistent
with
other
Agency
programs,
such
as
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Community
Right
to
Know
programs,
that
impose
a
three
year
record
retention
time
in
their
regulations.

Document
#:
0198
NPCA
supports
the
reduction
of
RCRA
retention
policies
to
3­
years
from
the
life
of
the
facility
for
operating
records.
As
stated,
many
of
our
members
are
small
businesses
and
therefore
have
significant
space
restraints.
A
standardized
record
retention
policy
of
3
years
for
routine
company
records
under
RCRA,
just
as
with
other
EPA
regulations
provides
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
retention
without
impacting
the
protections
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
agrees
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.

Document
#:
0202
DoD
does
not
support
the
proposal
to
change
the
record
retention
period
for
LDR
notifications
to
3
years.

Current
regulations
in
40
CFR
264/
265.73
require
receiving
facilities
to
maintain
LDR
notifications
until
facility
closure.
EPA
proposes
to
change
this
to
3
years
from
the
date
entered
into
the
operating
record.

DoD
does
not
support
this
change
because
40
CFR
268.7
a
generator
is
only
required
to
submit
a
one­
time
notification
to
the
TSDF
receiving
their
waste.
Conceivably,
a
generator
may
ship
the
same
waste
stream
for
a
number
of
years
under
a
single
LDR
notice.
If
the
TSDR
is
not
required
to
maintain
this
record,
a
burden
would
be
placed
on
the
generator
to
either
resubmit
notifications
­
239­
or
risk
having
their
waste
mismanaged
because
the
receiving
facility
would
not
have
adequately
information
regarding
whether
the
waste
requires
treatment.

Recommendation:
Continue
to
require
the
TSDF
to
maintain
LDR
notifications
for
the
operating
life
of
the
facility.

Response:
The
commenter
evidently
does
not
realize
that
the
record
retention
for
LDR
paperwork
has
been
three
years
since
early
in
the
LDR
program
development.

Document
#:
0202
As
proposed,
the
record
retention
time
for
264.73(
b)(
4)
and
265(
b)(
4),
summary
reports
from
incidents
that
require
implementation
of
contingency
plans,
would
be
reduced
to
three
years.
We
believe
this
documentation
should
be
retained
for
facility
closure
purposes,
as
hazardous
materials
or
wastes
may
be
released
during
an
incident
that
requires
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan.

Recommendation:
Revise
proposed
40
CFR
264.73(
b)
and
265.73(
b)
to
include
retention
of
information
documented
pursuant
to
264.73(
b)(
4)
and
265.73(
b)(
4)
for
the
life
of
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
agrees
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
However,
we
disagree
that
this
information
should
be
kept
for
more
than
three
years.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.

Document
#:
0240
DTSC
opposes
this
proposal.
We
believe
that
reducing
the
retention
time
of
the
facility
operating
record
to
three
years
would
compromise
the
agency's
ability
to
fulfill
the
mandate
of
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment.
Historic
information
about
past
practices,
including
chemicals
used
or
handled
at
the
facility
and
past
spills
or
discharges
is
essential
for
evaluating
the
need
for
corrective
action
to
address
past
releases
and
to
evaluate
long­
term
groundwater
investigations.
Moreover,
the
current
proposal
to
eliminate
or
reduce
submittals
increase
the
need
for
longer
retention
of
the
operating
record
so
that
information
would
be
available
upon
inspection.
The
reduction
in
record
retention
from
the
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years
coupled
with
the
elimination
of
many
reports
and
notices
regarding
occurrences
at
the
facility
will
have
a
potential
adverse
affect
on
the
protection
of
public
health
an
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
but
feels
that
only
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
­
240­
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
More
routine
information,
such
as
whether
certain
notices
were
filed
and
records
of
inspections,
can
be
discarded
after
three
years.
In
the
RCRA
regulations,
we
have
generally
settled
on
three
years
as
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
records.
This
is
consistent
with
other
Agency
programs,
such
as
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Community
Right
to
Know
programs,
that
impose
a
three
year
record
retention
time
in
their
regulations
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.

Document
#:
0315
ACC
strongly
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
modify
the
264.73
and
265.73
operating
record
requirements
to
require
only
a
three­
year
record
retention
limit
for
keeping
the
information
required
by,
or
reference
in
264.73
and
265.73.
For
example,
we
understand
this
to
mean
that
the
monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
records
required
by
Subpart
F
and
the
various
regulatory
citations
contained
in
264.73(
b)(
6)
would
only
have
to
be
retained
for
three
years.
This
would
mean
that
the
large
volume
of
"
continuous"
operating
data
that
is
generated
annually
for
incinerators
would
now
only
have
to
be
retained
for
three
years.
ACC
strongly
supports
this
proposed
change,
as
the
resources
required
to
maintain
this
data
for
the
life
of
the
facility
are
onerous.

While
the
NODA
does
not
address
the
record­
keeping
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
burned
in
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
(
Part
266,
Subpart
H),
the
January
17,
2002,
proposed
rule
proposed
reducing
the
record­
keeping
requirements
from
the
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.
ACC
is
assuming
that
the
Agency
intends
to
incorporate
those
proposed
changes
in
the
final
rule
so
that
the
present
burden
associated
with
the
record­
keeping
retention
periods
for
hazardous
waste
boilers,
industrial
furnaces
and
incinerators
is
reduced
and
is
consistent
for
all
of
these
hazardous
waste
combustion
units.

In
addition,
some
time
ago
EPA
proposed
the
electronic
and
record­
keeping
rule,
"
CROMERRR",
which
would
require
that
all
data
stored
electronically
would
be
retrievable
and
readable
throughout
its
retention
period.
Life
of
the
facility
retention
requirements
would
make
the
implementation
of
CROMERRR
extraordinarily
expensive,
burdensome
and
close
to
technically
impossible.

As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
we
also
support
changing
the
requirement
of
264.73(
b)(
8)
and
­
241­
265.73(
b)(
8)
to
only
require
that
current
closure
and
post­
closure
estimates
be
kept
at
the
facility.
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
present
requirements
of
264.142(
d)
and
264.144(
d).

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0319
The
GAC
supports
EPA's
proposed
provision
adopting
a
three­
year
limit
for
keeping
information
under
the
operating
record
requirements
of
Parts
264.73
and
265.73.
This
is
consistent
with
other
EPA
programs
including
the
Toxics
Substance
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
community
Right
to
Know
programs.
This
reduces
burden
without
impacting
the
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0323
COPC
approves
of
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
record
retention
for
routine
operating
records
to
three
years,
including
certain
records
related
to
incinerators.
COPC
agrees
that
only
the
latest
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
need
to
be
kept
by
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0327
API
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
time
frames
for
record
retention
requirements
for
routine
operating
records
to
three
years,
including
reducing
the
time
frames
for
retention
of
certain
­
242­
records
related
to
incinerators,
to
three
years.
We
also
support
changing
the
requirements
that
only
the
latest
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
should
be
kept
by
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0334
Based
on
our
many
years
of
collective
experience
in
the
hazardous
waste
industry,
we
agree
with
EPA
that
three
years
is
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
RCRA­
related
records.
Specifically,
for
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates,
we
support
the
proposal
of
requiring
only
the
current
estimates
to
be
kept
at
the
facility.
OESI,
which
includes
incinerator
facilities
as
active
members,
also
supports
reducing
the
length
of
time
that
incinerator
operating
data
must
be
maintained
­
from
the
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
More
routine
information,
such
as
whether
certain
notices
were
filed
and
records
of
inspections,
can
be
discarded
after
three
years.
In
the
RCRA
regulations,
we
have
generally
settled
on
three
years
as
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
records.
This
is
consistent
with
other
Agency
programs,
such
as
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
and
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Community
Right
to
Know
programs,
that
impose
a
three
year
record
retention
time
in
their
regulations
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0335
Reduce
the
length
of
time
that
routine
information
must
be
maintained
on
site
to
three
years.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
­
243­
Document
#:
0337
In
any
modifications
of
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73,
please
correct
the
typographical
error
in
264.70
that
references
"
264.70(
b)"
instead
of
"
264.70(
b)(
9)."
See
50
FR
28734,
July
15,
1985.
Otherwise,
any
change
to
the
operating
record
requirements
would
arguably
not
be
applicable
to
facilities
that
only
receive
waste
generated
off
site.

FDEP
agrees
that
requirements
for
air
monitoring
data
retention
should
be
consistent
with
those
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
regulations,
with
provisions
for
longer
retention
in
enforcement
cases.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
retention
times
for
certain
routine
records
that
are
not
necessary
for
facility
closure.
SOCMA
agrees
that
three
years
is
a
reasonable
time
frame
for
keeping
routine
records.
Many
SOCMA
members
are
small
businesses
with
significant
space
constraints
in
their
facilities.
Allowing
these
facilities
to
discard
irrelevant
records
after
three
years
will
have
a
positive
impact
on
their
ability
to
manage
and
retrieve
data
that
is
needed..

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0338
On
behalf
of
USWAG
members
that
may
have
RCRA
TSDF
permits
or
interim
status,
USWAG
supported
EPA's
2002
proposed
change
to
40
CFR
264.73(
b)
&
265.73(
b)
to
reduce
the
retention
period
for
certain
records
at
permitted
and
interim
status
facilities
from
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.
67
Fed.
Reg.
At
2524
and
USWAG
Comments
dated
April
17,
2002
at
pp.
7­
8.
We
also
support
the
Agency's
recent
proposal
to
modify
to
these
regulations
to:
(
1)
confirm
that
a
TSDF
or
interim
status
facility
need
only
maintain
the
latest
estimates
of
closure
and
post
closure
costs
(
without
respect
to
any
time
period)
pursuant
to
40
CFR
264.73(
b)(
8),
264.142(
d),
264.144(
d)
&
265.73(
b)(
8);
and
(
2)
extend
the
three­
year
record
retention
requirements.
68
Fed.
Red.
At
61667.
USWAG
agrees
with
EPA
that
these
changes
effectively
address
inconsistencies
in
the
regulations
and
streamline
records
retention
requirements
without
any
negative
impact
to
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0347
In
its
April
16,
2002
comments
package
to
EPA
on
burden
reduction,
Eastman
requested
that
the
retention
period
for
incinerator
data
from
the
continuous
monitoring
of
combustion
temperature,
waste
feed
rate,
the
indicator
of
combustion
gas
velocity
specified
in
the
facility's
permit,
CO,
THC,
pH
and
numerous
other
operating
parameters
be
reduced
to
five
years,
as
opposed
to
the
current
life­
of­
the­
facility
requirement.
Five
years'
retention
is
the
requirement
under
the
Clean
Air
Act's
MACT
standards
for
incinerators.
EPA
has
responded
to
those
comments
by
requesting
comment
on
a
three­
year
retention
period.
This
would
be
a
huge
burden
reduction,
in
terms
of
the
­
244­
volume
of
information
that
would
no
longer
need
to
be
maintained
year­
after­
year
with
no
end
in
sight,
and
in
mitigating
the
compliance
issue
of
always
having
that
data
retrievable,
when
over
time
it
is
migrated
from
one
information
management
system
(
legacy
system)
to
another
without
corrupting
or
losing
any
data.
Another
factor
is
the
near
impossibility
of
retaining
IT
staff
to
manage
legacy
systems,
if
migration
to
newer
system
is
infeasible.
Eastman
commends
the
Agency
on
recognizing
the
difficulties
in
maintaining
voluminous
computer­
generated
data
for
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
strongly
supports
the
change
to
either
three
or
five­
year
retention
for
operating
record
requirements
for
incinerators.

Eastman
also
supports
the
suggested
change
that
only
current
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
be
kept
at
the
facility.
This
will
allow
for
consistency
in
the
regulatory
code.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

264.73(
a)
Operating
record:
The
owner
operator
must
keep
a
written
operating
record
at
his
facility.

The
requirement
for
a
"
written
operating
record"
at
40
CFR
264.73(
a)
should
be
replaced
by
a
"
written
or
electronic
operating
record."
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
EPA's
objective
in
this
proposal
and
elsewhere
of
encouraging
electronic
recordkeeping
and
should
not
await
the
(
possibly
lengthy)
development
of
a
separate
rule
on
cross­
media
reporting
and
record
keeping
(
page
2530).
­
245­
Response:
This
suggestion
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

264.73(
b)
Operating
record:
Proposed
Action:
Maintain
operating
record
for
facility.
Modify
amount
of
time
most
of
the
information
in
operating
records
have
to
be
kept 
three
years
instead
of
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
We
are
proposing
this
to
standardize
our
record
retention
requirements.

Document
#:
If
the
requirement
for
submitting
notifications
currently
found
in
40
CFR
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
40
CFR
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)(
ii),
and
other
rules
in
this
proposal
concerning
contamination
of
ground
water
are
removed
and
replaced
by
the
requirement
to
place
that
information
in
the
facility
operating
record,
we
believe
a
three
year
limit
imposed
on
the
retention
of
these
records
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
When
closure
is
to
be
performed
on
a
unit,
it
will
be
necessary
to
review
ground
water
records
for
the
life
of
the
facility.

Response:
This
regulatory
requirement
will
remain
in
the
CFR.
We
are
not
pursuing
any
changes
to
this
requirement.

Document
#:
0144
Issue:
The
operating
record
retention
times
are
changed
from
"
until
closure
of
the
facility"
to
a
3
year
timeframe.
Although
this
may
be
acceptable
for
some
types
of
records,
we
believe
that
it
is
not
satisfactory
of
other
records
and
will
inhibit
the
ability
of
inspectors
to
determine
compliance
with
some
requirements.

264.73(
b)
and
265.73(
b)
­
Although
we
agree
that
some
records
could
be
changed
to
a
3­
year
retention
period,
we
DO
NOT
agree
with
all
of
the
changes
proposed.
In
particular,
the
records
and
results
of
waste
analyses
and
waste
determinations
are
proposed
to
be
maintained
for
3
years
after
entry
into
the
operating
record.
We
recommend
that
this
be
changed
to
maintaining
them
for
3
years
after
the
wastes
are
no
longer
generated,
stored,
treated,
or
disposed
at
the
facility.
In
addition,
we
do
not
agree
with
reducing
the
record
maintenance
from
"
until
closure
of
the
facility"
to
3
years
for
the
following
paragraphs
(
b)(
4)
regarding
reports
of
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan
and
(
b)(
11)
thru
(
b)(
16)
regarding
notices
and
certifications
for
on­
site
and
offsite
treatment,
disposal,
and
storage
facilities.
These
records
will
be
most
helpful
to
regulatory
agencies
years
from
now
should
the
facility
close/
dissolve/
go
into
bankruptcy
versus
having
records
that
only
go
back
3
years.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
­
246­
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0157
While
most
USWAG
members
operate
90­
day
accumulation
units,
some
members
may
have
RCRA
TSDF
permits
or
interim
status.
To
that
end,
we
specifically
support
EPA's
proposal
to
change
under
40
CFR
264.73(
b)
&
265.73(
b)
the
timeframe
for
record
retention
in
certain
recordkeeping
requirements
for
permitted
and
interim
status
facilities
from
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.
Id
at
2524.
We
agree
that
"[
t]
his
will
standardize
the
RCRA
record
retention
time
requirements,
eliminating
confusion
about
how
long
records
have
to
be
kept."
Id.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
­
247­
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0169
Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
Modify
amount
of
time
most
of
the
information
in
operating
records
have
to
be
kept­
three
years
instead
of
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
We
are
proposing
this
to
standardize
our
record
retention
requirements.

Although
we
generally
support
a
reduction
in
the
retention
times
for
some
records,
the
records
retained
in
the
operating
record
include
all
design
requirements
and
assessments
and
records
of
implementing
the
Contingency
Plan
that
need
to
be
maintained
much
longer.
If
other
changes
proposed
in
this
Proposed
change
are
made
that
allow
facilities
not
to
submit
notification
of
contamination,
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits,
submittal
of
certification
ti
remediation
from
a
tank
release,
etc.)
and
to
maintain
the
information
in
the
operating
record,
this
reduces
the
time
frame
for
all
notices
and
reports
to
three
years.
This
is
simply
not
adequate
for
several
submittals,
which
are
currently
required.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0196
Record
retention
for
operating
records
and
BIF
records
[
264.73(
b)
&
265.73(
b)
&
266.102(
e)
(
10)]
­
Velsicol
supports
this
change.
We
don't
see
much
benefit
from
keeping
these
records
beyond
three
years.
The
change
to
three
years
would
be
more
consistent
with
other
RCRA
record
retention
requirements,
thus
reduce
confusion
and
simplify
the
management
system
we
use
to
comply
with
this
requirement.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
Document
#:
0202
Comment:
The
proposed
reduction
from
permanent
record
keeping
to
three­
year
retention
does
not
account
for
cleanup
liability
responsibility
determination.

Discussion:
Several
favorable
DoD
cleanup
liability
determinations
have
been
made
based
on
operating
records
documenting
lesser
DoD
contributions
and
identifying
more
potentially
responsible
parties
(
PRPs).
These
include
the
Casmalia
and
Environmental
Pacific
sites
in
California,
Fuels
and
Chemicals
in
Alabama,
and
the
PCB,
Inc.,
sites
in
Missouri.
It
is
impossible
to
determine
actual
DoD
savings
based
on
operating
records
found
on
site
that
exceed
three
years
­
248­
in
age,
however,
we
estimate
minimum
savings
in
millions
and
potentially
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
Although
electronic
issues
have
been
removed
from
this
proposed
rule,
electronic
record
keeping
significantly
reduces
the
storage
cost
for
maintaining
operating
records
indefinitely.

Recommendation:
Do
not
modify
record
retention
requirements
in
264.73(
b)
or
265.73(
b).
Continue
to
require
TSDFs
to
maintain
records
until
facility
closure
or
longer
at
the
request
of
the
Administrator
per
40
CFR
264/
265.74(
b).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges,
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
.
Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
only
allow
a
three­
year
retention
period
if
there
are
no
outstanding
enforcement,
noncompliance
or
legal
issues
pending.
EPA
should
be
required
to
revoke
this
allowance
if
any
government
official
issues
the
facility
or
its
parent
corporation
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges,
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
.
Document
#:
0213
With
few
exceptions,
we
believe
that
these
records
need
to
be
kept
until
closure.
In
general,
any
information
the
facility
would
need
to
identify
the
source
and
identity
of
contamination
at
the
site
needs
to
be
kept
until
closure.
As
the
proposed
rule
states,
monitoring
and
cleaning
up
groundwater
is
a
multi­
year
or
even
multi­
decade
effort.
In
order
to
monitoring
changes
in
groundwater
monitoring
parameters
over
time,
facilities
need
to
keep
records
on
soil
and
groundwater
investigations
and
monitoring
results
for
the
life
of
the
facility.)
Our
experience
at
Hanford
indicates
that
waste
analysis
information
is
valuable
as
long
as
the
waste
remains
on­
site
potentially
subject
to
subsequent
management
needs.
Training
records
for
employees
that
have
left
the
facility's
employment
may
not
need
to
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
­
249­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges,
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
.
Document
#:
0216
(
264/
265.73(
b))
The
State
of
Maine
is
opposed
to
the
proposal
to
standardize
the
operating
record
for
all
facilities
such
that
the
length
of
time
information
must
be
retained
is
for
three
years
instead
of
the
life
of
the
facility.
In
particular,
for
disposal
and
treatment
facilities
(
i.
e.
landfills,
incinerators,
land
treatment
facilities,
surface
impoundments)
it
is
still
important
to
retain
records
for
the
life
of
the
facility
to
identify
past
disposal
records
and
locations.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges,
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
.
Document
#:
0218
Modify
record
retention
time
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0222/
0224
(
ACC)
Clarify
exceptions
to
retention
of
operating
record
under
264.73(
b)(
6).
ACC
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
the
operating
record
at
264.73
and
265.73,
but
believes
additional
changes
and
clarifications
are
needed.

Clarification
of
Exceptions
and
Additional
Needed
Changes
To
Retention
of
Operating
Record
Under
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6).

ACC
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
the
operating
record
at
264.73
and
265.73,
but
believes
additional
changes
and
some
clarification
are
needed
at
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6).
EPA
has
proposed
to
change
the
retention
period
of
certain
specified
information
in
the
operating
record
at
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73
from
"
until
closure
of
the
facility"
to
a
much
more
reasonable
"
three
­
250­
years
after
it
is
entered
into
the
operating
record."
We
support
this
positive
change.
EPA
states
that:

After
many
years
of
experience
with
RCRA,
we
are
better
able
to
distinguish
records
that
must
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
facility
from
those
which
can
be
discarded
after
some
period
of
time
without
affecting
protections
of
human
health
and
the
environment...
information
about
what
wastes
are
disposed
at
a
facility,
where
the
disposed
waste
is
located,
and
information
relevant
for
facility
closure
must
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
(
67
FR
2529)

From
this
point
forward,
our
discussion
on
the
operating
record
will
refer
to
citations
within
264.73(
b)(
6),
with
the
understanding
that
corresponding
citations
within
265.73(
b)(
6)
are
similarly
affected.
ACC
members
do
not
object
retaining
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
requirements
of
264.73(
b)(
1)
related
to
what
wastes
are
disposed
at
a
facility
or
(
b)(
2)
related
to
the
location
of
each
hazardous
waste
within
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
Nor
do
we
object
to
life­
of­
the­
facility
retention
of
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
at
(
b)(
8)
or
to
the
requirements
found
at
(
b)(
10).

But
ACC
believes
that
some
of
the
monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
required
at
(
b)(
6)
can
be
retained
for
less
than
the
life
of
the
facility.
The
proposed
264.73(
b)(
6)
reads
as
follows:

264.73(
b)(
6):
Monitoring,
testing,
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
data
where
required
by
subpart
F
of
this
part
and
264.19,
264.191,
264.193,
264.195,
264.222,
264.223,
264.226,
264.252,
through
264.254,
264.276,
264.278,
264.280,
264.302,
through
264.304,
n264.309,
264.347,
264.602,
264.1034(
c)
through
264.1063(
i),
264.1064,
and
264.1090.
All
this
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
(
Proposed
new
text
is
underlined.

Some
of
the
monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
requirements
associated
with
the
many
citation
references
in
this
paragraph
are
among
the
most
voluminous
under
RCRA,
and
present
the
greatest
opportunity
for
burden
reduction
to
the
regulated
community.
ACC
suggests
that
the
Agency
reconsider
its
requirements
to
retain
until
closure
of
the
facility
some
of
the
information
designated
under
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6).

We
also
believe
taht
many
of
the
recordkeeping
requirements
included
in
those
many
citations
are
required
to
be
retained
for
only
three
years
now,
and
we
assume
that
the
proposed
change
to
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6)
does
not
change
the
existing
recordkeeping
requirements
included
in
the
above
citations.
However,
EPA
needs
to
clarify
that
by
adding
the
sentence
"
All
of
this
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility,"
the
Agency
is
not
superceding
the
???????

of
a
minimum
of
3
years
­
no
"
until
closure"
recordkeeping
requirements.
ACC
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal.
­
251­
264.1084
contains
standards
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
tanks.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
for
264.1084
are
found
at
264.1089(
b).
The
retention
period
for
those
records
is
3
years,
and
ACC
again
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
the
proposal.

264.1085
contains
standards
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
surface
impoundments.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
for
264.1086
are
found
at
264.1089(
c)
and
are
again
required
to
be
kept
for
3
years.

264.1086
contains
standards
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
containers.
These
are
"
standards"
and
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
264.1086
are
found
at
264.1089(
d),
with
a
retention
period
of
a
minimum
of
3
years.
There
are
no
"
until
closure"
recordkeeping
requirements
associated
with
this
paragraph.

264.1087
contains
standards
for
closed­
vent
systems
and
control
devices.
There
are
no
actual
operating
record
requirements
in
this
paragraph;
rather
the
operating
record
requirements
are
addressed
in
264.1089(
e),
which
requires
records
associated
with
264.1087
to
be
kept
for
only
a
minimum
of
3
years.
There
are
not
"
until
closure"
recordkeeping
requirements
associated
with
this
paragraph.

264.1088
contains
inspection
and
monitoring
requirements
for
air
emission
control
equipment.
There
are
no
operating
record
requirements
in
this
paragraph.

264.1089
contains
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
all
the
above.
However,
with
the
exception
of
two
subparagraphs
(
i)
and
(
j),
all
such
records
need
to
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
"
a
minimum
of
3
years."
Thus,
only
the
requirements
of
(
i)
and
(
j)
require
maintenance
until
closure,
these
requirements
relate
to
tanks,
containers
or
hazardous
waste
management
units
not
using
air
emission
controls,
and
ACC
does
not
object
to
such
requirements.
ACC
assumes
the
3
year
retention
period
for
the
vast
majority
of
264.1089
recordkeeping
requirements
will
remain
in
place.

264.1090
contains
reporting
requirements.
However,
none
of
those
requirements
pertain
to
monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
or
corrective
action
data
that
must
go
into
the
operating
record.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
the
preamble
discussion.

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
most
of
the
proposed
changes
to
264.73(
b)
and
265.73(
b).
We
agree
with
the
addition
of
the
3­
year
recordkeeping
requirements
in
the
introductory
paragraph.
However,
we
do
have
a
number
of
concerns
about
the
exceptions
included
in
the
subsequent
text.
We
believe
that
there
are
a
number
of
monitoring,
testing,
analytical,
and
corrective
actions
(
see
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6))
that
should
also
have
a
3­
year
record
retention
requirement
rather
than
the
life
of
the
­
252­
facility
requirement.
One
example
is
the
requirements
to
keep
the
assessments
of
a
tank
system
integrity
(
264.191)
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
CRWI
believes
that
keeping
these
records
for
three
years
is
ample
time
for
the
permitting
agency
to
inspect
the
operating
record
of
that
facility.
Other
examples
include
264.193,
264.195,
264.226,
etc.
CRWI
urges
EPA
to
look
at
all
the
requirements
listed
in
(
b)(
6)
to
determine
which
should
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
facility
and
where
a
3­
year
retention
period
is
adequate
to
show
compliance
with
the
regulations.

CRWI
also
has
a
concern
with
retaining
all
the
closure
cost
estimates
in
(
b)(
8)
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
We
see
no
reason
to
keep
all
of
the
estimates.
CRWI
believes
that
only
the
latest,
most
up­
to­
date
estimates
should
be
kept.
Should
a
facility
update
their
closure
plan
and
develop
new
estimates,
we
see
no
reason
why
that
facility
has
to
keep
both
the
old
and
the
revised
estimates.
Surely
the
newest
estimates
are
the
most
accurate
and
should
be
the
only
one
retained.
CRWI
urges
EPA
to
modify
this
provision
to
retain
only
the
newest
estimates
and
not
all
estimates.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
refers
the
reader
to
the
preamble
discussion.

Document
#:
0354
CRWI
was
one
of
the
commenters
on
the
proposed
rule
who
suggest
that
only
the
most
recent
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
need
to
be
retained.
We
still
support
that
position
and
suggest
that
EPA
revise
the
final
rule
to
require
keeping
only
the
most
recent
closure
cost
estimates
at
the
facility.

In
our
comments
on
the
original
proposed
rule,
CRWI
also
supported
the
proposed
changes
to
the
record
retention
of
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
from
"
life
of
the
facility"
to
three
years.
We
continue
to
support
that
change.

We
agree
with
the
commenter
who
pointed
out
that
large
amounts
of
data
are
produced
as
part
of
an
incinerator
operating
record.
There
are
many
requirements
associated
with
these
units,
and
keeping
records
until
closure
is
extremely
difficult
because
of
the
sheer
volume
of
information
generated.
CRWI
member
companies
have
explored
the
use
of
paper
records,
microfiche,
and
long­
term
computer
files.
None
of
these
methods
are
attractive.
Maintaining
a
perfect
archive
of
these
records
for
the
life
of
the
facility
does
not
enhance
protecting
the
environment.
Frequent
inspections
of
these
units
makes
such
long­
term
records
retention
unnecessary.
CRWI
supports
the
modification
of
this
provision
to
allow
incinerators
to
have
the
same
records
retention
requirements
as
proposed
for
BIF
units
(
three
years).
To
accomplish
this,
we
suggest
that
the
references
to
264.347
and
265.347
be
removed
from
the
proposed
language
in
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265(
b)(
6).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
­
253­
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
With
regard
to
closure
estimates,
the
commenter
has
not
provided
the
Agency
with
a
compelling
argument
that
this
information
should
not
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.
As
such,
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
1).
Operating
record.
Proposed
Action:
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
A
description
and
the
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received,
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
if
its
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
at
the
facility
as
required
by
appendix
I.

Document
#:
0134
The
existing
264.73(
b)(
1)
reads
as
follows:
(
1)
A
description
and
the
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received,
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
if
its
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
at
the
facility
as
required
by
appendix
I"
(
emphasis
added).
DOE
requests
that,
in
the
final
revised
version
of
264.73(
b)(
1),
EPA
consider
retaining
the
phrase
"
as
required
by
Appendix
I,"
because
Appendix
I
contains
useful
instructions
about
the
contents
of
the
required
records.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
but
is
unclear
as
to
the
point
of
the
proposed
change
and
is
therefore
not
compelled
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
­
254­
264.73(
b)(
1)&(
2).
Operating
record.
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
(
1)
A
description
and
the
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received,
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
its
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
at
the
facility
as
required
by
appendix
I;
(
2)
The
location
fo
each
hazardous
waste
withing
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
For
disposal
facilities,
the
location
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
must
be
recorded
on
a
map
or
diagram
of
each
cell
or
disposal
area.
For
all
facilities,
this
information
must
include
cross­
references
to
specific
manifest
document
numbers,
if
the
waste
was
accompanied
by
a
manifest.

Document
#:
0203
Onyx
supports
EPA's
proposed
modifications
for
records
retention
at
RCRA
TSDF's.
The
time
frame
for
the
records
retention
should
be
standardized
to
three
years
as
outlined
in
EPA's
proposed
rule.
EPA
proposes
to
continue
to
require
facilities
to
maintain
records
related
to
waste
receipt,
storage
locations
and
disposition
of
hazardous
waste
for
the
life
of
the
facilities
under
40
CFR
264.73(
b)(
1)
and
(
2).
However,
for
facilities
that
are
not
disposing
wastes
on­
site,
records
should
only
be
required
to
be
maintained
for
three
years.
The
three­
year
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
assure
that
the
wastes
are
being
properly
managed
and
the
longer
record
retention
period
places
an
unnecessary
burden
upon
the
TSDF.

EPA
consistently
uses
the
language:
"
Maintain
for
three
years
after
entry
into
the
operating
record",
in
the
proposed
rule.
Onyx
believes
this
language
should
be
changed
to
read
"
Maintain
for
three
years."
The
operating
records
for
TSDFs
consist
of
separate
documents
located
throughout
the
facility.
For
example,
the
laboratory
analytical
results
are
part
of
the
operating
record
when
they
are
created.
The
data
stands
alone
in
the
laboratory
records
and
is
not
actually
"
entered
into
the
operating
record."
Therefore,
there
is
no
need
for
the
regulations
to
read
"...
after
entry
into
the
operating
record."

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.73(
b)(
5).
Operating
record.
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
Records
and
results
of
inspections
as
required
by
264.15(
d)
(
except
these
data
need
be
kept
only
three
years).

Document
#:
0134
DOE
suggests
that
40
CFR
264.73(
b)(
5)
be
revised
as
indicated
below
to
maintain
consistency
between
this
subsection
and
subsections
affected
by
the
other
revisions
that
EPA
has
proposed
in
40
CFR
264.73(
b)
(
strikeout
=
deletion):

(
5)
Records
and
results
of
inspections
are
required
by
264.15(
d)
(
except
these
data
need
be
­
255­
kept
only
three
years);

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.73(
b)(
6).
Operating
record.
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
where
required
by
subpart
F
of
this
part
and
264.19,
264.191,
264.193,
264.195,
264.222,
264.223,
264.226,
264.252­
264.254,
264.276,
264.278,
264.280,
264.302­
264.304,
264.309,
264.1035,
264.1063(
d)­
264.1063(
i),
264.1064
and
264.1082
through
264.1090
of
this
part.

Document
#:
0317
Dow
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
supports
the
suggested
modification
to
40
CFR
264.73(
b)(
6)
dealing
with
records
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators.
Dow
supports
changing
the
requirement
to
a
3­
year
retention
time
as
opposed
to
closure
of
the
facility
as
expressed
in
the
proposed
rule.
Likewise
in
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
listed
similar
records
for
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
in
the
table
of
proposed
reductions
related
to
Part
266.

In
the
table
of
proposed
reductions
in
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
indicated
that
most
of
the
information
required
by
40
CFR
264.73
and
40
CFR
265.73
would
be
affected
by
the
reduction.
Dow
suggests
that
most
of
the
affected
operating
records
are
not
actually
reduced
at
all
because
of
all
the
exceptions
to
the
3­
year
retention
time
in
the
proposed
rule,
including
incinerator
records.
IN
placing
so
many
exceptions
in
the
proposed
language
for
40
CFR
264.73
and
40
CFR
265.73,
Dow
believes
that
EPA
has
actually
diminished
the
original
objective
claimed
in
the
table,
"
Modify
amount
of
time
most
of
the
information
in
operating
records
have
to
be
kept."
[
Emphasis
added
by
Dow]

In
Dow's
comments
to
the
proposed
rule,
Dow
supported
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
period
for
permitted
and
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
from
closure
to
three
years.
Dow
continues
to
support
that
proposal
for
BIF
units,
and
also
supports
similar
approach
for
incinerators.

Allowing
the
3­
year
records
requirement
to
also
apply
to
incinerators
would
be
consistent
with
EPA's
approach
to
BIF
records.
There
are
many
requirements
associated
with
these
units,
and
keeping
records
until
closure
is
extremely
difficult
because
of
the
sheer
volume
of
information.
Dow
has
explosred
paper
records,
microfiche,
and
long­
term
computer
files.
None
of
these
methods
are
attractive.
Keeping
these
records
this
long
has
not
protected
the
environment
in
any
fashion
and
is
more
of
an
exercise
in
maintaining
a
perfect
archive.
Again,
frequent
inpsection
of
these
units
makes
such
long­
term
records
retention
unnecessary.
Dow
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
burden.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
­
256­
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.

In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

264.73(
b)(
8).
Operating
record.
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
All
closure
cost
estimates
under
264.142,
and,
for
disposal
facilities,
all
post­
closure
cost
estimates
under
264.144.

Document
#:
0134
DOE
requests
that,
in
the
final
revised
version
of
264.73(
b)(
8),
EPA
retain
the
existing
crossreferences
to
264.142
and
264.144,
because
the
cross­
references
provide
useful
instructions
about
the
contents
of
the
required
records.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
but
is
not
making
this
change.
.

Document
#:
0345
264.73(
b)(
8),
265.73(
b)(
8)
General
Facility
Standards
­
Record
Retention
of
only
the
current
closure
and
post­
closure
estimates.
Three­
year
retention
of
incinerator
records.

There
is
opportunity
to
clarify
the
regulations
to
minimize
confusion.
The
original
proposed
regulations
on
financial
assurance
and
cost
estimates
used
the
term
"
latest
closure
and
post­
closure
costs
estimates".
However,
due
to
the
confusion
that
generated
it
was
changed
in
1986
to
"
current
­
257­
cost
estimates".
Originally,
latest
cost
estimates
was
defined
as
approved
by
EPA,
but
it
was
written
in
a
way
that
it
was
not
clear
if
the
adjustment
for
inflation
was
included.
This
created
a
confusion
with
the
term
current
cost
estimates
and
current
dollars.
Current
costs
estimates
is
defined
as
the
most
recent
cost
estimates
which
includes
any
revisions
due
to
changes
in
plan
or
inflation
adjustments.
Consequently
adjustment
for
inflation
can
be
done
in
two
ways;
one
by
using
the
inflation
factor
or
by
re­
calculating
the
closure
costs
using
current
dollars.
Recalculating
the
closure
costs
using
current
dollars
is
more
accurate
and
it
is
more
expensive
than
the
inflation
factor.
That
is
why
most
companies
use
the
inflation
factor.

264.144(
d)
makes
the
issue
more
confusing
because
it
refers
to
latest
cost
estimates.
It
defines
latest
cost
estimates
as
the
sum
of
current
cost
estimates
and
any
subsequent
adjustments
for
inflation.
For
example:
Company
A
submits
a
closure
plan
in
1996
with
current
dollars
and
it
is
accepted
by
the
regulatory
agency,
we
can
call
the
cost
estimates
as
1996
current
cost
estimates.
Then
the
company
has
the
option
of
adjusting
for
inflation
by
using
next
year
inflation
factor
or
recalculating
using
current
dollars.
The
latest
closure
costs
and
post­
closure
costs
is
the
1996
current
cost­
estimates
+
the
annual
adjustment.

It
would
help
to
better
define
current
cost
estimates
or
eliminate
latest
cost
estimates.
In
terms
of
the
paper
reduction
the
company
should
keep
the
most
updated
cost
estimates,
"
latest"
or
"
current".
It
is
basically
the
same
thing
but
creates
a
lot
of
confusion
for
the
States
and
the
regulated
community.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
and
acknowledges
this
comment
however
cost
estimates
must
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

264.73(
b)(
10)
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility:
Records
of
the
quantities
(
and
date
of
placement)
for
each
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
placed
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
granted
pursuant
to
268.5,
a
petition
pursuant
to
268.6,
or
a
certification
under
268.8,
and
the
applicable
notice
required
by
a
generator
under
268.7(
a).

Document
#:
0134
DOE
suggests
that,
for
clarity,
the
phrase
"
of
this
chapter,"
which
appears
three
times
in
the
proposed
version
of
264.73(
b)(
10),
either
be
eliminated
or
changed
to
"
of
this
part."
The
phrase
"
of
this
chapter"
is
not
used
in
the
existing
version
of
264.73(
b)(
10),
which
is
otherwise
identical
to
the
proposed
version,
except
that
the
existing
version
does
not
contain
the
last
sentence
in
the
proposed
version.
DOE
does
not
believe
that
adding
the
phrase
"
of
this
chapter"
to
264.73(
b)(
10)
improves
the
regulatory
language.
On
the
contrary,
because
the
section
numbering
scheme
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
reflects
the
title
number
and
the
part
number
(
e.
g.,
40
CFR
264.
xxx),
but
does
not
reflect
the
chapter
number,
DOE
believes
that
referring
to
the
"
chapter,"
­
258­
rather
than
the
"
part"
may
actually
confuse
some
readers.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment.
In
today's
rule
we
are
amending
the
record
retention
requirements
of
264/
5.73
to
three
years
for
most
of
the
information.
However,
we
feel
that
certain
information
must
be
maintained
until
the
closure
of
the
facility.
In
today's
rule
we
are
maintaining
that
the
retention
of
the
following
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.
This
information
includes:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
In
response
to
comments
received,
we
are
also
amending
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
the
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
265.90
and
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
265.93(
d)(
5).
Although
these
changes
were
not
proposed,
We
believe
they
make
sense
as
a
natural
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
and
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
nay
report
issued
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increased
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.
In
addition,
we
have
also
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnace)
that
will
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

264.90
Applicability.

Document
#:
0222/
0223
Clarification
on
the
proposed
change
to
260.90(
a)(
2).
We
support
the
Agency's
effort
to
remove
obsolete
regulatory
language,
however,
the
change
proposed
for
264.90(
a)(
2)
needs
clarification.
Removing
the
qualifer
for
land
disposal
units
"
that
receives
hazardous
waste
after
July
26,
1982
(
hereinafter
referred
to
as
a
"
regulated
unit")"
implies
that
units
closed
prior
to
1982
may
now
be
subject
to
additional
requirements.
EPA
should
retain
the
existing
date
reference
or
clarify
the
language
in
this
section
clearly
exclude
units
closed
prior
to
July
26,
1982.

CLARIFICATION
OF
LANGUAGE
CHANGE
TO
264.90(
A)(
2)
­
STANDARDS
FOR
SOLID
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
ACC
supports
the
Agency's
effort
to
remove
obsolete
regulatory
language
as
part
of
the
Burden
Reduction
proposal.
However,
the
change
proposed
for
264.90(
a)(
2)
needs
clarification.
Removing
the
qualifer
for
land
disposal
units
"
that
receives
hazardous
waste
after
July
26,
1982
(
hereinafter
referred
to
as
a
"
regulated
unit")"
implies
that
units
closed
prior
to
1982
may
now
be
­
259­
subject
to
additional
requirements.
EPA
should
retain
the
existing
data
reference
or
clarify
the
language
in
this
section
to
clearly
exclude
units
closed
prior
to
July
26,
1982.

Response:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
change,
in
that
this
language
is
not
obsolete.

264.90(
a)(
2)
Standards
for
Solid
Waste
Management
Units
Proposed
Action:
Remove
obsolete
language
Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Response:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
change,
in
that
the
language
is
not
obsolete.

Document
#:
0218
Remove
obsolete
language
regarding
SWMUs.

Response:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
burden
reduction
change.

264.98
Detection
Monitoring
Document
#:
0165
Many
ETC
members
companies
must
comply
with
the
ground
water
monitoring
provisions
of
Part
264,
which
impose
significant
capital
and
operating
costs
on
TSD
facilities.
After
many
years
of
experience
with
these
provisions,
we
believe
that
greater
flexibility
can
be
allowed
without
compromising
environmental
protection.

The
ETC
supports
the
proposed
change
to
264.98(
c)
which
would
allow
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
os
Appendix
IX
constituents
to
be
specified
in
permit.
However,
since
this
change
will
require
that
permits
be
modified,
EPA
must
also
amend
270.42
Appendix
I
to
clearly
provide
that
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
is
a
Class
1
Permit
Modification
with
prior
approval
of
the
Director.
Currently,
Appendix
1
indicates
that
"
changes
is
ground
water
sampling
or
analysis
procedures"
are
Class
1
mods
with
prior
approval,
but
"
changes
in
indicator
parameters,
hazardous
constituents,
or
concentration
limits"
as
specified
in
the
groundwater
protection
standards
are
Class
3
mods,
and
as
specified
in
the
detection
monitoring
program
are
Class
mode
2
mods.
It
is
not
clear
which
description
would
apply
to
changes
allowed
by
the
amended
264.98(
c),
but
we
believe
a
Class
1
mod
with
prior
approval
is
the
correct
and
most
practical
approach.
The
flexibility
and
burden
reduction
that
EPA
intends
to
accomplish
will
be
­
260­
frustrated
unless
Class
1
permit
mods
with
prior
approval
are
used
to
implement
sampling
for
a
subset
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
as
provided
in
amended
264.98(
c)

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
but
disagrees
that
any
additional
change
to
§
270.42
Appendix
I
is
necessary.

EPA
is
taking
comment
on
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
of
contamination
required
by
264.98(
g)(
1),
although
the
preamble
indicates
that
EPA
is
"
not
proposing"
this
change.
67
Federal
Register
2521.
We
note
that
an
agency
can
make
changes
in
final
rule,
even
if
not
included
in
the
proposed
rule,
that
are
a
"
logical
outgrowth"
of
public
comments,
so
we
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
this
redundant
and
unnecessary
notification
in
the
final
rule.
Section
264.98(
g)(
1)
provides
that
when
there
is
evidence
of
contamination
at
any
monitoring
well,
the
facility
must
submit
a
written
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
7
days.
The
regulation
goes
on,
however,
to
direct
the
facility
to
sample
all
monitoring
well
to
determine
the
concentrations
of
any
hazardous
constituents
present,
and
to
resample
for
any
constituents
found
within
one
month
to
confirm
the
initial
results,
and
then
to
submit
an
application
for
a
permit
modification
within
90
days
to
establish
a
compliance
monitoring
program.
Thus,
the
264.98(
g)(
1)
notification
is
either
unnecessary
if
the
subsequent
re­
sampling
does
not
confirm
the
initial
results,
or
duplicative
of
the
information
provided
in
the
application
for
a
permit
modification.
In
order
to
reduce
such
needless
reporting
burdens,
EPA
should
eliminate
264.98(
g)(
1).

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
notification
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
is
unnecessary
or
duplicative.
The
Agency
believes
that
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
ground­
water
contamination
under
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
is
still
an
essential
part
of
compliance
monitoring.

The
facility's
application
for
a
permit
modification
to
establish
a
compliance
monitoring
program
must
include
a
number
of
specified
items.
See
264.98(
g)(
4).
However,
we
agree
that
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
a
corrective
action
program
required
by
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
can
be
maintained
in
the
facility
operating
record,
rather
than
submitted
to
the
regulatory
authority.
We
therefore
support
this
proposed
change.

Response:
After
considering
comments
to
the
proposed
changes,
EPA
is
today
retaining
the
requirement
under
§
264.98(
g)(
ii)
for
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan.
Commenter's
convinced
the
Agency
of
the
usefulness
this
notification.
Further,
the
Agency
believes
that
such
reporting
requirements
are
essential
to
compliance
monitoring
and
need
to
be
retained
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.

If
the
facility
believes
that
another
source
caused
the
contamination
found
in
a
monitoring
well,
or
that
the
detection
is
an
artifact
caused
by
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
statistical
evaluation,
or
is
due
to
variation
in
the
groundwater,
then
the
facility
can
apply
to
make
appropriate
changes
to
the
detection
monitoring
program,
rather
than
move
into
compliance
monitoring.
In
that
case
,
264.98(
g)(
6)
requires
the
facility
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
its
intent
to
make
such
a
­
261­
demonstration
within
7
days,
following
by
a
report
on
the
demonstration
within
90
days,
in
addition
to
submitting
an
application
for
a
permit
modification
within
90
days
which
would
include
all
the
same
information.
While
EPA
has
proposed
to
make
the
notice
and
report
part
of
the
operating
record
rather
than
having
them
sent
to
the
regulatory
authority,
we
see
no
need
for
this
redundant
paperwork
at
all.
Since
the
pertinent
information
would
be
included
in
the
facility's
permit
modification
application,
we
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii).
We
note
that
EPA
has
proposed
eliminating
the
identical
notice
and
report
related
to
corrective
action
under
264.98(
i)(
1)
and
(
2),
as
discussed
below.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
reporting
requirements
under
§
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
redundant.
Further,
the
Agency
believes
that
such
reporting
requirements
are
essential
to
compliance
monitoring
and
need
to
be
retained
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.

Document
#:
0181
The
proposal
to
allow
sampling
of
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents
is
supported
by
IDEQ.
The
need
for
this
change
has
long
been
recognized.
For
example,
regulated
facilities
have
often
questioned
the
need
for
annual
pesticide
sampling
in
areas
where
pesticide
contamination
is
not
suspected.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
change
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2).

Document
#:
0212
EPA
must
require
facilities
to
submit
the
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action
to
the
agency.
This
will
provide
community
members
with
necessary
information
on
which
determine
extent
of
contamination.
Further,
allowing
firms
to
keep
the
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action
in
the
facility
operating
record
impedes
meaningful
and
timely
public
access
to
the
information.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
allowing
firms
to
keep
the
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action
in
the
facility
operating
record
impedes
meaningful
and
timely
public
access
to
the
information.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
impedes
timely
public
access
to
information
in
a
facility's
operating
record.
EPA,
however,
is
today
retaining
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
because
commenters
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
notification.

Document
#:
0216
Maine
agrees
with
your
proposal
to
introduce
flexibility
for
sampling
requirements.
In
certain
situations
smaller
subset
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents
would
be
appropriate
for
analysis.
For
submission
of
the
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations,
we
agree
with
your
suggestion
to
modify
for
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
­
262­
today's
change
to
sampling
requirements.

Document
#:
0315
ACC
supports
EPA's
clarification
of
an
inconsistency
in
the
groundwater
regulations;
that
is,
EPA
should
revise
§
264.98(
d)
detection
monitoring
requirements
(
which
require
a
facility
to
collect
at
least
4
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semi­
annually)
to
allow
a
facility
to
propose
(
with
the
Regional
Administrator's
approval)
alternate
sampling
procedures.
This
change
would
be
consistent
with
the
present
general
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
of
§
264.97(
g)(
2).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
change
to
§
264.98(
d).

ACC
strongly
supports
the
inclusion
of
language
in
the
groundwater
detection
and
compliance
monitoring
requirements
to
provide
as
much
flexibility
as
the
data
support.
Not
only
is
it
appropriate
to
allow
for
the
State
or
EPA
to
allow
flexibility
in
the
resampling
time
frame,
EPA
and
the
State
should
also
allow
a
facility
to
sample
for
less
than
the
full
suite
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
if
facility
records
can
demonstrate
the
type
of
material
that
was
disposed
of
or
handled
in
the
area
being
monitored.
Sampling
for
every
constituent
on
Appendix
IX
is
both
expensive
and
unnecessary
to
ensure
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
sampling
in
all
cases
for
every
constituent
in
Appendix
IX
is
both
expensive
and
unnecessary
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
EPA
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
knowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2).

In
addition,
a
trend
can
often
be
detected
early
on
in
a
monitoring
program.
Once
trends
are
developed,
the
spatial
and
temporal
frequency
of
sampling
should
be
determined,
or
revisited.
ACC
members
have
had
great
success
in
using
trend
charts
and
control
charts
to
make
significant
changes
in
both
the
location
and
sampling
frequency
at
many
sites.
Should
conditions
change,
more
frequent
and
tighter
spatial
controls
can
be
placed
in
the
area
as
needed.
ACC
believes
it
is
important
for
the
sampling
frequency
and
location
to
be
based
on
the
site­
specific
date,
not
"
onesize
fits
all"
regulatory
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
it
is
important
for
the
sampling
frequency
and
location
to
be
based
on
the
site­
specific
data,
not
"
one­
size
fits
all"
regulatory
requirements.

Lastly,
ACC
supports
the
proposed
change
to
§
264.100(
g)
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
proposed
change
to
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
­
requiring
an
annual
instead
of
a
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
change
to
§
264.100.
­
263­
Document
#:
0323
COPC
supports
EPA's
proposals
to
change
semi­
annual
reporting
requirements
to
annual
reporting
for
groundwater
issues
related
to
corrective
action.
COPC
also
supports,
on
a
case­
bycase
basis,
allowing
Appendix
IX
sampling
on
a
subset
of
compliance
monitoring
wells.
Another
important
proposal
COPC
supports
is
to
allow
alternative
site­
specific
detection
monitoring
well
sampling
procedures
in
place
of
the
current
requirement
of
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semi­
annually.
COPC
also
supports
flexibility
in
the
required
frequency
of
resampling
monitoring
wells
where
Appendix
IX
compounds
are
present,
upon
approval
by
the
State
or
EPA.
And
finally,
COPC
supports
the
revised
requirement
for
an
annual
rather
than
a
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes.

Document
#:
0327
API
supports
EPA's
proposals
to
change
semi­
annual
reporting
requirements
to
annual
for
groundwater
issues
related
to
corrective
action.
API
also
supports
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
Appendix
IX
sampling
on
a
subset
of
a
compliance
monitoring
wells.
Most
importantly,
API
supports
site­
specific
alternate
detection
monitoring
well
sampling
procedures
to
replace
the
four
samples
per
well
semi­
annual
currently
prescribed
procedure.
Additionally,
API
supports
flexibility
in
the
frequency
of
re­
sampling
monitoring
wells
where
Appendix
IX
compounds
are
present,
upon
approval
by
the
State
or
EPA.
And
finally,
API
supports
the
revised
requirement
for
an
annual
rather
than
a
semi­
annual
correction
action
report.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes.

Document
#:
0333
Onyx
supports
modifying
the
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
to
allow
owners/
operators
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
on
an
annual
basis
instead
of
the
current
semiannual
basis.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
change
to
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0334
OESI
supports
EPA's
proposals
related
to
groundwater
monitoring
of
regulated
units.
Specifically,
we
support
the
proposal
to
allow
owner/
operators
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
for
groundwater
on
an
annual
basis
instead
of
the
current
semiannual
basis.
As
an
alternative,
a
sliding
reporting
frequency
to
be
determined
by
the
State
or
EPA
in
conjunction
with
the
facility
may
be
appropriate
in
some
cases.
This
alternative
could
require,
for
instance,
a
semiannual
reporting
frequency
for
the
first
two
years
of
operation
of
the
remedy
and
annual
reporting
for
subsequent
years.
This
would
allow
more
frequent
reporting
during
the
early
years
where
most
exceedences
and/
or
changes
occur
and
less
frequent
reporting
once
a
remedy
is
better
­
264­
understood
and
more
predictable.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
reporting
requirements.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prevents
a
State
from
being
more
stringent
or
a
facility
from
reporting
more
frequently
than
specified
in
§
264.100.

OESI
also
supports
the
proposal
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
sampling
of
a
subset
of
wells
for
the
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
during
compliance
monitoring.
Currently,
during
the
compliance
monitoring,
all
wells
must
be
sampled
for
the
Appendix
IX
constituents
on
an
annual
basis.
Facilities
in
compliance
monitoring
which,
for
example,
utilize
a
static
background
data
set,
would
benefit
from
this
change
by
not
having
to
collect
Appendix
IX
data
from
background
wells
which
are
not
utilized.
Similarly,
we
support
the
proposal
to
allow
flexibility
in
the
timing
for
the
resampling
event
for
confirmation
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
during
detection
and
compliance
monitoring.
Currently,
facilities
that
detect
Appendix
IX
compounds
in
groundwater,
beyond
the
site­
specific
hazardous
constituents,
may
resample
within
a
month
to
check
again
for
the
specific
constituents.
By
removing
the
requirement
to
sample
within
a
month,
a
facility,
for
example
could
include
the
resampling
as
part
of
a
different
monitoring
event,
thus
eliminating
the
need
to
conduct
a
sampling
event
for
one
well.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
sampling
requirements.

OESI
also
believes
that
the
proposed
elimination
of
the
requirement
to
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semiannually
during
detection
monitoring
is
long
overdue
and
is
strongly
supported.
Finally,
the
proposal
to
allow
alternate
sampling
procedures
for
detection
monitoring
is
supported
by
OESI.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
sampling
requirements.

Document
#:
0336
FDEP
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
allow
a
subset
of
Appendix
IX,
especially
at
facilities
which
are
not
known
to
have
accepted
off
site
waste.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
sampling
requirements.

Document
#:
0338
USWAG
has
consistently
supported
EPA's
burden
reduction
proposal
to
allow
owners/
operators
of
RCRA
facilities
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
groundwater
monitoring
on
an
annual
basis
rather
than
the
current
semi­
annual
basis.
USWAG
has
also
supported
related
EPA
proposals
to:
(
1)
allow
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
to
be
kept
at
a
facility;
and
(
2)
allow
a
facility
conducting
compliance
monitoring
to
sample
a
subset
of
the
wells
and
analyze
samples
for
a
subset
­
265­
of
the
Appendix
IX
constituents
as
opposed
to
the
current
requirement
of
annual
analysis
of
all
Appendix
IX
constituents
from
samples
of
all
monitoring
wells.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
sampling
and
reporting
requirements.

USWAG
agrees
with
EPA's
recent
proposal
to
expand
these
groundwater
monitoring
burden
reductions
proposals.
In
addition
to
these
changes,
USWAG
also
recommends
that
facilities,
with
Administrator
approval
based
on
site­
specific
factors,
be
allowed
to
modify
the
number
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
that
must
be
collected
during
groundwater
sampling.

Response:
In
today's
final
rule
EPA
has
approved
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
the
discretion
to
allow
a
facility
to
sample
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
Appendix
IX.

Document
#:
0350
US
EPA
proposes
to
change
the
frequency
of
reporting
on
the
effectiveness
of
ground
water
corrective
action
from
semi­
annual.
We
believe
that
the
change
is
appropriate
because
annual
reporting,
combined
with
other
forms
of
regulatory
oversight,
will
provide
adequate
information
to
ensure
compliance.
Also,
the
reporting
will
be
consistent
with
the
frequency
requirements
under
detection
and
compliance
monitoring.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
today's
changes
to
reporting
requirements
will
still
provide
adequate
information
to
ensure
compliance.

264.98/
264.99
Document
#:
0216
Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action,
required
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
constituent
limits
Maine
also
disagrees
that
these
are
duplicative
requirements.
This
information
is
valuable
to
the
regulatory
agencies
and
should
be
submitted
rather
than
maintained
on
site
as
part
of
the
facility
operating
record.
We
disagree
with
your
rationale
that
this
information
should
be
only
be
made
available
at
the
facility
for
review
by
inspectors.
The
inspectors
are
already
being
asked
to
review
all
permit
imitations
as
well
as
mot
of
the
plans
in
the
license.
This
plan
should
be
submitted
for
review
and
approval
by
the
appropriate
licensing
and/
or
technical
reviewers.
The
appropriate
technical
reviewer
will
likely
not
be
the
inspector.
In
addition,
the
agency's
needed
engineering
and
hydrogeologic
expertise
for
the
review
will
not
likely
be
on
site.
We
often
have
found
that
research
into
issues
that
arise
in
reviewing
these
reports
is
necessary.
It
would
be
an
unreasonable
burden
to
handicap
the
agency
reviewers
by
limiting
their
review
ability
to
what
they
could
­
266­
accomplish
on
site.
In
addition,
inspectors
would
only
infrequently
visit
these
sits
at
best,
even
if
the
inspector
were
the
appropriate
individual
to
review
these
documents.
This
would
make
understanding
sites
very
difficult
and
create
additional
public
criticism
for
our
lack
of
understanding
and
oversight
of
hazardous
waste
sites.
These
plans
need
to
be
in
public
files
where
access
by
the
public
will
be
readily
available
.
Finally,
a
letter
on
the
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
is
not
burdensome
and
the
permit
modification
can
be
submitted
later.
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
264.98(
g)(
6)(
ii);
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i),
(
ii)
264.99((
i)(
1),
(
2)
264.99(
h)(
1)

Response:
After
considering
this
and
other
commenter's
concerns,
EPA
today
is
retaining
the
notification
requirements
for
permitted
facilities
under
§
§
264.98(
g)(
1),
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
264.98(
g)(
6)(
ii);
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i),
(
ii),
264.99((
i)(
1)­(
2)),
and
264.99(
h)(
1).
Commenter's
have
convinced
the
Agency
of
the
usefulness
of
these
reports
and
notifications.

Document
#:
0216
This
requires
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
a
treatment
zone.
The
information
needs
to
be
provided
much
sooner
than
it
would
be
in
a
permit
modification.
See
also
our
comments
for
264.98(
g)(
1)
and
264.278(
g)(
1).

Response:
EPA
agrees,
and
is
today
retaining
the
notification
requirements
for
permitted
facilities
under
§
§
(
g)(
1),
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
264.98(
g)(
6)(
ii);
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i),
(
ii),
264.99((
i)(
1)­
(
2)),
and
264.99(
h)(
1).
Commenter's
have
convinced
the
Agency
of
the
usefulness
of
these
reports
and
notifications.

Document
#:
0240
Modification
of
some
standards
allowing
for
groundwater
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents.
Summary
of
Section
Proposed
to
be
change
Section
264.98(
c)
and
264.99(
g)

Specific
Comments:
Section
264.98(
c)
allows
for
flexibility
in
determining
an
appropriate
subset
of
hazardous
constituents
during
detection
and
compliance
monitoring,
respectively.
DTSC
supports
the
concept
flexibility
introduced
by
the
proposed
revisions
to
sections
264.98(
c)
and
264.99(
g).
However,
minor
revisions
to
the
proposed
text
are
needed.

A.
With
respect
to
section
264.98(
c)
DTSC
recommends
that
the
change
be
placed
in
section
264.98(
g)(
2),
as
follows:

Section
264.98(
g)(
2).
Immediately
sample
the
groundwater
in
all
monitoring
wells
and
determine
whether
the
constituents
in
the
list
of
appendix
IX
and
part
264
are
present,
and
if
so,
in
what
concentration.
The
Regional
Administrator,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
may
allow
sampling
for
a
­
267­
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
this
part
and
other
representative
or
related
waste
constituents.

B.
This
proposed
change
would
also
necessitate
a
minor
change
to
section
264.98(
g)(
3)
where
occurrence
of
"
Appendix
IX
compounds"
should
be
replaced
by
"
Appendix
compounds
or
other
waste
constituents".

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes,
and
in
response
to
this
comment,
has
modified
§
264.98(
g)(
2).
EPA
disagrees
that
the
change
needs
to
be
inserted
into
§
§
264.98(
g)(
3).

C.
DTSC
recommends
that
the
following
minor
edits
be
made
to
Section
264.99(
g)
proposed
language.

Section
264.99(
g)
the
owner
or
operator
must
analyze
samples
from
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point.
The
number
of
wells,
and
samples,
and
specific
analyses
will
be
worked
out
on
a
case
by
case
basis
with
must
be
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264
to
be
analyzed
will
also
be
worked
out
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
with
the
Regional
Administrator.
This
analysis
must
be
done
annually
to
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
are
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
section
264.98(
f).
If
the
owner
or
operator
finds
Appendix
IX
constituents
in
the
ground
water
that
are
not
already
identified
in
the
permit
as
monitoring
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
and
repeat
the
Appendix
IX/
modified
Appendix
IX
analysis.
If
the
second
analysis
confirms
the
presence
of
new
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentration
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
the
completion
of
the
second
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
If
the
owner
or
operator
chooses
not
to
resample,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentrations
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
completion
of
the
initial
analysis,
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
proposed
language
changes
to
§
264.99(
g)
and
believes
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
264.99(
g)
are
adequate.

Document
#:
0281
WM
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
Section
264.98
Detection
Monitoring
as
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
c),
(
g)(
5)(
ii),
(
g)(
6)(
i),
and
(
g)(
6)(
ii).
We
believe
the
proposed
changes
to
264.98(
c),
will
reduce
the
burden
for
facilities
to
report
results
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents,
when
only
some
of
the
constituents
may
be
present
or
may
be
indicative
of
a
release.
Similarly,
changes
to
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
(
g)(
6)(
i),
and
(
g)(
6)(
ii)
will
help
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
at
hazardous
waste
facilities,
without
sacrificing
environmental
protection,
by
requiring
notification
to
the
operating
record,
where
the
reported
issue
is
the
result
of
an
alternate
source.

Response:
While
the
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
­
268­
support
for
today's
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2),
EPA
is
today
retaining
the
report
submittal
provisions
of
§
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i),
and
264.98(
g)(
6)(
ii).

WM
recommends
that
264.98(
d)
be
revised
in
order
to
allow
for
alternate
sampling
procedures
as
provided
in
264.97(
g)(
2).
Under
264.98(
d),
a
facility
"
must
collect
at
lease
four
samples
from
each
well..
At
least
semi­
annually".
This
provision,
without
clarification,
has
resulted
in
sites
being
required
by
state
and
EPA
to
sample
four
times
within
a
single
monitoring
event,
despite
the
apparent
contradiction
with
264.97(
g)(
2),
which
allows
for
an
alternative
sampling
procedure.
WM
recommends
that
the
last
sentence
from264.(
d)
be
stricken,
because
sampling
frequency
and
statistical
testing
requirements
are
sufficiently
covered
under
the
first
sentence.
Such
a
change
would
reduce
some
of
the
burdens
related
to
sampling
and
reporting,
without
sacrificing
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
§
264.98(
d)
needs
revision.
EPA
believes
the
current
language
is
adequate.

WM
recommends
that
264.98(
g)(
1)
be
amended
to
require
placement
of
the
initial
notice
of
statistical
significant
evidence
contamination
in
the
operating
record,
rather
than
reported
to
the
Administrator.
As
clarified
in
section
in
(
g)(
2)
and
(
g)(
5),
the
notice
required
by
(
g)(
1)
is
for
an
initial
exceedance,
one
that
has
not
been
verified
by
resampling
and
one
that
may
be
attributed
to
an
alternate
source.
We
believe
that
such
notice
should
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
and
would
be
included
in
the
routine
groundwater
monitoring
reports
required
under
264.97(
j).
The
facility
should
notify
the
Administrator
only
after
an
exceedance
has
been
verified
and
when
compliance
monitoring
is
required
under
(
g)(
4).

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
be
amended.
EPA
believes
that
notification
should
happen
after
the
initial
exceedence
as
today's
rule
continues
to
require.

WM
recommends
that
the
resampling
requirements
under
264.98(
g)(
3)
and
264.99(
g)
be
changed
from
"
may
resample
within
one
month
and
repeat
the
....
analysis"
to
"
May
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site
specific
time
frame
approved
by
th
Administrator
and
repeat
the
analysis".
The
one­
month
time
frame
has
no
technical
basis
and
does
not
consider
sample
independence
based
on
site­
specific
hydrogeologic
conditions.
Further,
it
can
be
burdensome
to
require
facilities
site
to
resample
well
within
30
days.
There
is
often
insufficient
time
to
fully
evaluate
the
original
data
set,
perform
quality
assurance
evaluations,
and
remobilize
a
sampling
team.
We
believe
that
the
recommended
change
will
address
the
technical
and
logistical
issues
without
compromising
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
§
264.98(
g)(
3)
and
§
264.99(
g)
be
changed.
EPA
believes
that
it
is
not
burdensome
for
facilities
to
resample
a
well
within
30
days.

Document
#:
0352
­
269­
EPA's
intention
to
allow
the
proposal
of
alternate
sampling
procedures
in
the
detection
monitoring
program
requirements
(
40
CFR
264.98)
as
well
as
in
the
general
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
(
40
CFR
264.97
(
g)(
2)
was
also
clarified
LANL
support
this
clarification
in
40
CFR
264.98,
as
proposed,
for
consistency
This
flexibility
for
detection
and
compliance
monitoring
is
stated
in
40
CFR
264.97(
g).
However,
40
CFR
264.98,
as
currently
written,
does
not
reiterate
this
allowance.

Allowing
flexibility
in
the
time
frame
to
resample
for
detected
Appendix
IX
compounds
in
groundwater
was
also
proposed.
LANL
supports
this
change
and
believes
it
could
be
beneficial
in
collection
representative
samples,
consideration
factors
such
as
seasonal
fluctuations
in
hydraulically
interconnected
surface
and
groundwater,
and
changes
in
level
of
facility
activity
associated
with
permitted
discharges.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
resampling
requirements
in
§
§
264.98(
g)(
3)
and
264.99(
g).
This
change
allows
for
sampling
to
be
based
on
site­
specific
hydrogeologic
conditions.

264.98(
c)
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Conduct
and
maintain
ground­
water
monitoring:
Proposed
Action:
We
plan
to
introduce
flexibility
by
allowing
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents.
This
idea
originated
from
state
staff
with
field
experience.
Final
Action:
In
today's
final
rule
EPA
has
approved
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
the
discretion
to
allow
a
facility
to
sample
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
Appendix
IX.

Document
#:
0013
The
MDEQ
has
continuously
requested
regulatory
relief
by
modifying
Section
264.98(
c)
and
Section
265.98(
c)
requirements
applicable
to
facilities
that
must
test
groundwater
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents.
The
MDEQ
proposes
the
use
of
Appendix
IX
for
one
or
two
strategically
located
downgradient
wells
and
then
developing
a
"
target
list."
A
target
list
is
generated
by
evaluating
the
parameters
detected
in
the
full
Appendix
IX
analytical
and
choosing
a
subset
of
the
detects
based
mobility
and
concentrations
observed.
This
is
a
much
more
realistic
and
much
less
expensive
approach
than
sampling
all
wells
or
multiple
wells
for
the
entire
Appendix
IX
list.
Another
approach
would
be
to
only
run
Appendix
IX
constituents
on
contaminated
wells
or
wells
within
a
certain
distance
from
the
area
of
concern,
as
appropriate,
for
the
specific
site.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
efforts
in
petitioning
for
changes
finalized
in
today's
rule.
In
today's
final
rule
EPA
has
approved
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
the
discretion
to
allow
a
facility
to
sample
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
Appendix
IX.
­
270­
Another
suggestion
would
be
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
Appendix
IX
list
(
about
225
constituents).
There
are
approximately
17
metals
and
208
organic
constituents
on
this
list.
This
was
this
suggestion
by
"
The
Occurrence
of
Appendix
IX
Organic
Constituents
in
Disposal
Site
Ground
Water,"
in
the
Spring
1991
issue
of
Ground
Water
Monitoring
Review,
by
R.
H.
Plumb,
Jr.
This
study
(
funded
by
the
EPA)
reviewed
monitoring
data
from
479
sites
and
found
that
60
of
the
208
organic
constituents
were
not
detected
at
all
(
although
this
is
misleading
because
none
of
these
sites
were
RCRA
sites,
and
the
full
Appendix
IX
list
was
only
done
at
about
20
of
these
497
sites).

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
size
of
the
Appendix
IX
list
be
reduced.
EPA
believes
the
current
list
is
adequate.

The
analytical
cost
for
an
Appendix
IX
sample
was
estimated
by
the
EPA
in
1987
to
be
about
$
3,000.
The
above
article
found
the
range
to
be
$
2,700
to
$
6,000
was
used
as
an
average.
If
the
organic
constituents
are
divided
into
analysis
for
"
Non­
Priority
Pollutants"
at
a
cost
to
analyze
of
$
2,750,
and
of
"
Priority
Pollutants"
at
an
analytical
cost
of
$
850
(
which
together
totals
$
3,600),
almost
all
of
the
60
or
so
non­
detected
organic
constituents
are
in
the
first
category
("
Non­
Priority
Pollutants").
One
could
get
most
of
the
detected
parameters
by
just
spending
23.6
percent
(
850)
of
the
cost.

The
EPA
should
conduct
a
similar
study
at
just
RCRA
hazardous
waste
facilities
using
historical
sampling
events
(
i.
e.,
existing
data)
to
see
if
the
number
of
parameters
in
Appendix
IX
could
be
reduced.
Removing
parameters
that
are
always
non­
detect
could
reduce
a
large
proportion
of
the
cost.
In
order
to
get
a
more
realistic
picture
of
which
parameters
could
potentially
be
dropped
from
the
list,
the
data
set
for
this
study
could
include
different
types
of
facilities
as
well
as
all
of
the
categories
(
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal)
that
have
done
the
Full
Appendix
IX
list
of
parameters.
Another
option
is
to
give
more
consideration
to
reducing
the
number
of
wells
or
borings
required
to
be
sampled
for
Appendix
IX
(
e.
g.,
most
strategic
locations),
without
reducing
the
parameter
list,
before
implementing
such
a
huge
change
of
going
only
site­
specific
parameters.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
information
on
the
analytical
cost
for
an
Appendix
IX
sample.
In
today's
final
rule
EPA
has
approved
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
the
discretion
to
allow
a
facility
to
sample
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
Appendix
IX.
In
making
a
determination,
the
Regional
Administrator
could
use
historical
sampling
data
to
reduce
the
number
of
Appendix
IX
constituents.
The
Agency
agrees
that
parameters
that
are
always
non­
detect
could
be
potentially
dropped
from
the
list
of
constituents
to
be
sampled.

The
MDEQ
did
consider
using
site
history
as
an
indication
of
what
might
be
impacting
groundwater
However,
the
MDEQ
does
not
support
that
approach
because
sites
often
have
50or
more
years
of
history
(
and
perhaps
multiple
owners
and
multiple
types
of
activities).
In
many
causes,
the
records,
long­
term
employees,
and
good
historical
environmental
data
are
often
lacking
or
nonexisting
Dropping
Appendix
IX
entirely
could
allow
contaminants
to
remain
undetected
and,
therefore,
not
addressed
by
corrective
action
­
271­
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
dropping
Appendix
IX
entirely
could
allow
contaminants
to
remain
undetected
and,
therefore,
unaddressed.

Document
#:
0131
In
40
DFR
264.98(
c)
EPA
has
proposed
removing
the
language
"
pursuant
to
pagagraph
(
a)
or
this
section
in
accordance
with
264.97(
g),"
264.97
(
g)
refers
to
sampling
requirements
for
statistical
test.
The
removal
of
the
reference
to
264.97
(
g)
from
264.98(
c)
does
not
alter
an
owner
or
operators
obligation
to
conduct
ground
water
monitoring
in
such
a
way
as
statistical
text
may
be
employed.
The
Department
does
not
have
any
objections
to
this
language
change.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
this
comment
and
agrees
that
today's
change
to
§
264.98
does
not
alter
the
obligation
of
an
owner
or
operator
to
conduct
groundwater
monitoring
in
such
a
way
so
that
a
statistical
test
may
be
employed.

However,
EPA
has
also
proposed
adding
a
sentence
stating.
"
The
Regional
Administrator,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
may
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
this
part
and
other
representative/
related
waste
constituents."
The
added
language
is
redundant
since
264.98(
a)
already
provides
the
Regional
Administrator
the
discretion
of
specify
the
parameters
or
constituents
to
be
monitored.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment.

Document
#:
0134
P.
2521,
chart,
item
concerning
264.98(
c).
The
chart
indicates
that
EPA
plans
to
modify
the
existing
requirement
to
"
conduct
a
ground­
water
monitoring
program
for
each
chemical
parameter
and
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit"
so
that
it
gives
the
Regional
Administrator
discretion
to
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
lists.

DOE
does
not
object
to
the
proposed
modification
of
40
CFR
264.98(
c).
However,
DOE
requests
that
the
need
for
the
proposed
change
be
clarified.
The
existing
264.98(
c)
read
as
follows:

The
owner
or
operator
must
conduct
a
groundwater
monitoring
program
for
each
chemical
parameter
and
hazardous
constituent
specified
to
the
permit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
accordance
with
264.98(
g).
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
a
record
of
groundwater
analytical
data
as
measured
and
in
form
necessary
for
the
determination
of
statistical
significance
under
264.97(
b).

Nothing
in
this
existing
subsection
suggests
that
all
samples
collected
for
the
detection
groundwater
monitoring
program
must
be
analyzed
for
every
chemical
parameter
and
hazardous
constituent
listed
in
Appendix
IX.
On
the
contrary,
the
existing
264.98(
c)
directs
analysis
of
groundwater
samples
for
only
the
parameters
or
constituents
specified
in
th
permit
pursuant
to
264.98(
a).
Such
parameters
and
constituents
are
to
be
selected
by
Regional
Administrator
after
considering
four
factors,
which
are
listed
in
264.98(
a).
It
appears
that
the
existing
264.98(
c)
­
272­
already
gives
the
Regional
Administrator
discretion
for
the
purpose
of
detection
monitoring
to
allow
groundwater
sampling
for
a
site
specific
group
of
chemical
parameters
and
hazardous
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list.
Therefore,
it
is
not
clear
how
the
proposed
modification
to
264.98(
c)
reduces
the
regulatory
burden
of
the
section.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments,
but
believes
that
burden
reduction
has
been
demonstrated
in
today's
final
rule.

264.98(
c)/
264.98(
g)

Document
#:
0166
Safety­
Kleen
supports
proposed
change
to
264.98(
c)
which
would
allow
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
to
be
specified
in
permits.
However,
since
this
change
will
require
that
permits
be
modified,
EPA
must
also
amend
270.42
Appendix
I
to
clearly
provide
that
sampling
for
a
site
specific
subset
of
constituents
is
a
Class
I
Permit
Modification
with
prior
approval
of
the
Director.
Currently,
Appendix
I
indicates
that
"
changes
is
groundwater
sampling
or
analysis
procedures"
are
Class
1
mods
with
prior
approval,
bur
"
changes
in
indicator
parameters,
hazardous
constituents,
or
concentration
limits"
as
specified
in
the
groundwater
protection
standards
are
Class
mods,
and
as
specified
in
the
detection
monitoring
program
are
Class
2
mods.
It
is
not
clear
which
description
would
apply
to
changes
allowed
by
the
amended
264.98(
c),
but
we
believe
a
Class
1
mod
with
prior
approval
is
the
correct
and
most
practical
approach.
The
flexibility
and
burden
reduction
that
EPA
intends
to
accomplish
will
be
frustrated
unless
Class
1
permit
mods
with
prior
approval
are
used
to
implement
sampling
for
a
subset
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
as
provided
in
amended
264.98(
c).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
264.98,
but
disagrees
that
§
270.42
Appendix
I
must
also
be
amended.

EPA
is
taking
comment
on
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
contamination
required
by
264.98(
g)(
1),
although
the
preamble
indicates
that
EPA
is
"
not
proposing"
this
change.
67
Federal
Register
2521.
We
note
that
an
agency
can
make
changes
in
a
final
rule,
even
if
not
included
in
the
proposed
rule,
that
are
a
"
logical
outgrowth"
of
public
comments,
so
we
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
this
redundant
and
unnecessary
notification
in
the
final
rule.
Section
264.98(
g)(
1)
provides
that
when
there
is
evidence
of
contamination
at
any
monitoring
well,
the
facility
must
submit
a
written
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
7
days.
The
regulation
goes
on,
however,
to
direct
the
facility
to
sample
all
monitoring
wells
to
determine
the
concentrations
of
any
hazardous
constituents
present,
and
to
resample
for
any
constituents
found
within
one
month
to
confirm
the
initial
results,
and
then
to
submit
an
application
for
permit
modification
within
90
days
to
establish
a
compliance
monitoring
program.
Thus,
the
264.98(
g)(
1)
notification
is
either
unnecessary
if
the
subsequent
resampling
does
not
confirm
the
initial
results,
or
duplicative
of
the
information
provided
in
the
application
for
a
permit
modification.
In
order
to
reduce
such
needless
reporting
burdens,
EPA
should
eliminate
264.98(
g)(
1).
­
273­
Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
notification
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
is
unnecessary
or
duplicative.
The
Agency
believes
that
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
ground­
water
contamination
under
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
is
still
an
essential
part
of
compliance
monitoring.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

The
facility's
application
for
a
permit
modification
to
establish
a
compliance
monitoring
program
must
include
a
number
of
specified
items.
See
264.98(
g)(
4).
However,
we
agree
that
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
a
corrective
action
program
required
by
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
can
be
maintained
in
the
facility
operating
record,
rather
than
submitted
to
the
regulatory
authority.
We
there0fore
support
this
proposed
change.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments,
but
based
on
its
analysis
believes
that
the
requirements
in
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
for
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
need
to
be
retained
in
today's
Final
Rule.

If
the
facility
believes
that
another
source
caused
the
contamination
found
in
a
monitoring
well,
or
that
the
detection
is
an
artifact
caused
by
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
statistical
evaluation,
or
is
due
to
natural
variation
in
the
groundwater,
then
the
facility
can
apply
to
make
appropriate
changes
to
the
detection
monitoring
program,
rather
than
move
into
compliance
monitoring.
In
that
case,
264.98(
g)(
6)
requires
the
facility
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
its
intent
to
make
such
a
demonstration
within
7
days,
following
by
a
report
on
the
demonstration
within
90
days,
in
addition
to
submitting
an
application
for
a
permit
modification
within
90
days
which
would
include
all
the
same
information.
While
EPA
has
proposed
to
make
the
notice
and
report
part
of
the
operating
record
rather
than
having
them
sent
to
the
regulatory
authority,
we
see
no
need
for
this
redundant
paperwork
at
all.
Since
the
pertinent
information
would
be
included
in
the
facility's
permit
modification
application,
we
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii).
We
note
that
EPA
has
proposed
eliminating
the
identical
notice
and
report
related
to
corrective
notice
and
report
related
to
corrective
action
under
264.(
i)(
1)
and
(
2),
as
discussed
below.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
reporting
requirements
under
§
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
redundant.
In
today's
final
rule
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
not
removed
and
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0169
Detection
and
monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
and
maintain
groundwater
monitoring:
Modify­
We
plan
to
introduce
flexibility
by
allowing
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents.
This
idea
originated
from
state
staff
with
field
experience.

We
do
not
agree
with
this
change.
It
is
important
that
Appendix
IX
monitoring
evaluate
all
­
274­
contaminants.
Only
after
the
facility
has
reached
Compliance
Monitoring
and/
or
has
been
in
Corrective
Action
for
some
time
and
the
contaminants
of
concern
are
well
known,
should
the
regulatory
agency
make
a
determination
to
reduce
the
Appendix
IX
monitoring
to
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents.

Response:
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.
EPA
is,
therefore,
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
that
allows
sampling
of
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list.

Document
#:
0208
264.98(
c)
FDEP
recommends
no
changes
be
made
to
the
current
regulation.
The
current
regulation
requires
that
sampling
parameters
be
specified
in
the
permit
allowing
for
sampling
for
a
subset
of
Appendix
IX
parameters
immediately
upon
confirmation
of
a
release
from
the
regulated
unit
would
appear
to
be
more
appropriately
included
within
40
CFR
264.98
(
g)(
c).

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
sampling
of
a
subset
should
only
be
allowed
upon
confirmation
of
a
release.
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0212
In
order
for
EPA
to
allow
sampling
of
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
in
ground
water
monitoring,
the
facility
must
demonstrate
that
the
constituents
to
be
eliminated
were
never
contained
in
any
waste
handled
by
the
facility,
including
any
deriviatives
of
chemicals
handled
by
the
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
facility
must
demonstrate
that
the
constituents
to
be
eliminated
were
never
contained
in
any
waste
handled
by
the
facility,
including
any
derivatives
of
chemicals
handled
by
the
facility.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
modification
and
appreciates
the
flexibility
to
work
with
a
facility
to
determine
and
sample
for
constituents
of
concern
that
specific
to
the
facility.
We
recommend
EPA
clarify
that
the
needs
to
be
strong
evidence
that
the
excluded
chemical
parameters
are
no
present
in
the
ground
water.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
there
needs
to
be
strong
evidence
that
any
Appendix
IX
chemical
parameters
excluded
from
monitoring
are
not
present
in
the
ground
water.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
either
opposes
or
recommends
modification
of
the
following
proposed
changes,
either
in
­
275­
part
or
in
full,
as
noted
below:

DEQ
suggests
that
the
proposed
language
be
modified
to
make
it
clear
that
any
alternate
sampling
lists
must
be
approved
as
part
of
the
permit
(
and
public
participation)
process
as
follows:

(
c)
The
owner
or
operator
must
conduct
and
maintain
records
for
a
ground
water
monitoring
program
for
each
chemical
parameter
and
hazardous
constituents
specified
in
their
permit.
When
issuing
or
modifying
the
permit,
the
Regional
Administrator,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
may
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
this
part
and
other
representatives/
related
waste
constituents.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
a
record
of
ground
water
analytical
data
as
measured
and
in
a
form
necessary
for
the
determination
of
statistical
significance
under
Section
264.97(
h).

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
proposed
language
of
§
264.98(
c)
should
be
modified
and
is
today
finalizing
the
language
of
§
264.98(
g)(
2).
Plain
reading
of
the
statute
clearly
implies
that
modification
of
the
list
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
is
to
be
considered
only
when
issuing
or
modifying
the
permit.

264.98(
d)­­
Detection
monitoring
program.
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
whether
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
any
parameter
or
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
in
accordance
with
264.97(
g).
A
sequence
of
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
(
background
and
compliance
wells)
must
be
collected
at
least
semiannually
during
detection
monitoring.

Document
#:
0346
EPA
reports
on
changes
to
the
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
that
were
suggested
in
three
comments
received
by
the
Agency
in
response
to
the
2002
NPRM
regarding
RCRA
burden
reduction.
The
Agency
notes
that
two
of
these
suggested
changes
appear
reasonable.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
merits
of
the
third
suggested
change
DOE
supports
removing
inconsistency
in
the
regulations
by
revising
the
detection
monitoring
requirements
in
40
CFR
264.98(
d)
such
that
facilities
will
have
flexibility
to
request
the
Regional
Administrator's
approval
for
alternate
sampling
procedures,
in
the
same
manner
as
already
is
provided
in
the
general
ground
water
monitoring
requirement
in
40
CFR
264.97(
g)(
2).

DOE
support
changing
the
language
in
the
groundwater
detection
and
compliance
monitoring
requirements
to
say
that
repeat
sampling,
in
the
event
a
facility
finds
Appendix
IX
compounds
in
groundwater,
must
occur
either
within
one
month
of
the
sampling
that
revealed
the
presence
of
the
­
276­
Appendix
IX
compounds
or
within
a
different
time
frame
approved
by
the
EPA
or
an
authorized
state.

DOE
supports
making
changes
in
40
CFR
264.100(
g)
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
changes
in
40
CFR
264.113(
e)(
5)
that
were
proposed
in
the
2002
NPRM.
As
modified,
these
regulatory
sections,
would
require
an
annual
instead
of
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments.
In
today's
rule
§
264.100
is
modified
to
allow
annual
reporting
to
the
Regional
administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.

Document
#:
0350
We
support
U.
S.
EPA's
proposal
to
clarify
an
inconsistency
between
40
CFR
264.98(
d)
and
40
CFR
264.97(
g)(
2)
in
the
sampling
procedures
for
detection
monitoring.
We
agree
that
the
flexibility
afforded
in
40
CFR
264.97(
g)(
2)
to
allow
alternate
sampling
procedures
should
be
extended
to
detection
monitoring
under
40
CFR
264.98(
d)

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
in
the
sampling
procedures
for
detection
monitoring.

Document
#:
0361
D.
Groundwater
Monitoring
Requirements:
Several
items
relating
to
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
are
proposed
for
comments
in
the
notice.

A.
Detection
Monitoring
­
Alternate
sampling
procedures
on
a
case­
by
case
basis:
EPA
proposes
to
revise
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.98(
d)
to
be
consistent
with
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.97(
g)(
2).
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.98(
d)
requires
that
a
facility
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semiannually.
In
contrast,
40
code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.97(
g)(
2)
offers
greater
flexibility
by
the
Regional
Administrator.

DTSC
Comment:
DTSC
concur
with
the
proposed
change
and
notes
that
this
modification
is
also
appropriate
for
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.99(
f).
It
is
our
understanding
that
the
requirement
to
collect
four
samples
was
intended
to
support
data
evaluation
using
the
analysis
of
variance
(
ANOVA)
statistical
methods.
In
our
experience,
use
of
ANOVA
for
groundwater
data
is
rarely
appropriate
because
four
samples
collected
within
a
short
interval
of
time
fail
the
statistical
assumption
of
data
independence.
Hence,
enforcement
of
this
required
causes
unnecessary
cost
to
facilities.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
today's
modification
to
§
264.98(
d)
should
also
be
applied
to
§
264.99(
f).
­
277­
264.98(
g)(
1)
If
the
owner
or
operator
determines
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section
that
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
chemical
parameters
or
hazardous
constituents
specified
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
at
any
monitoring
well
at
the
compliance
point,
he
or
she
must:
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
this
finding
in
writing
within
seven
days.
The
notification
must
indicate
what
chemical
parameters
or
hazardous
constituents
have
shown
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination;

Document
#:
0131
The
detection
monitoring
program
is
conducted
for
regulated
units
where
no
contamination
has
occurred.
Should
contamination
has
occurred.
Should
contamination
be
present
in
the
groundwater
the
regulated
unit
would
be
under
a
compliance
monitoring
program.
The
notification
required
in
264.98(
g)(
1)
allows
the
regulating
authority
to
be
aware
of
any
statistically
significant
increase
of
contamination
would
indicate
a
release
from
the
regulated
unit.

The
regulatory
authority
must
have
ability
to
evaluate
the
potential
contamination
and
determine
whether
immediate
action
must
be
taken.
If
the
regulating
authority
does
not
become
aware
of
the
potential
contamination
and
receiving
the
information
with
the
monitoring
report
or
in
90
days
when
a
permit
modification
request
is
submitted,
critical
time
may
have
passed.
The
current
notification
under
264(
g)(
1)
would
be
a
letter.
The
Department
believes
the
notification
is
an
important
part
of
oversight
and
a
facility's
compliance
with
this
requirement
is
not
burdensome.
Prompt
notification
allows
the
regulating
authority
the
opportunity
to
take
administrative
action
and
inform
affected
persons,
if
necessary.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0169
Detection
Monitoring
Permitted
Prepare
and
submit
the
notification
of
contamination.
We
are
taking
comment
on
eliminating
this
requirement
(
but
we
are
not
proposing
this
in
today's
proposed
change)
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement.
The
owner/
operator
must
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
(
this
is
required
by
regulation)
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
establishes
a
compliance
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
This
should
be
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
remove
this
required.
This
is
not
a
duplicative
requirement.
With
notification
and
regulatory
agency
may
want
to
continue
to
monitor
for
additional
constituents
to
determine
if
other
factors
may
have
influenced
the
results
before
calling
in
a
permit
modification.
This
requirement
can
also
signal
a
need
to
test
nearby
residential
drinking
water
and
point
to
a
serious
problem
that
needs
immediate
attention.
This
would
unnecessarily
delay
appropriate
response
to
a
release.
­
278­
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0181
Detection
Monitoring.
Notification
of
groundwater
contamination
to
the
agency
is
a
crucial
part
of
reporting
and
keeping
tract
of
environmental
problems.
This
allows
the
agency
to
be
able
to
respond
to
the
public.
If
this
requirement
is
eliminated,
an
added
burden
is
placed
on
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement
activities.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
retain
the
preparation
and
submittal
of
the
notification
of
contamination.
The
public
has
a
right
to
such
information
that
would
otherwise
be
buried
in
a
permit
modification
that
the
public
would
only
have
knowledge
of
after
the
initial
discovery
of
contamination.
If
there
is
contamination,
the
facility
obviously
did
not
protect
the
environment.
The
public
has
a
right­
toknow
and
compelling
need
for
timely
information
about
the
nature
and
extent
of
such
contamination.
Therefore,
the
facility
should
tell
the
EPA
and
the
public
about
such
contamination
when
it
occurs,
not
potentially
weeks,
months
or
years
in
the
future.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
This
notice
performs
a
"
head's
up"
function
that
helps
identify
inspection
priorities
and
resource
needs.
The
notice
provides
an
opportunity
for
Ecology
to
provide
oversight
on
the
required
sampling
and
permit
modification
subsequent
to
the
owner's/
operator's
determination
of
evidence
of
contamination.
In
addition
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
It
the
release
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
Agency,
as
much
as
two
years
could
elapse
before
the
Agency
could
follow
up
or
confirm
that
adequate
cleanup
occurred.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0216
Maine
is
strongly
opposed
to
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirements
for
notification
of
contamination
because
it
is
allegedly
duplicative.
The
proposal
notes
that
the
owner/
operator
must
­
279­
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
regulatory
agency
establishes
a
compliance­
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
However,
this
information
should
be
provided
as
soon
as
contamination
is
identified.
It
could
be
months
if
not
a
year
before
a
permit
modification
is
submitted
for
review
and
approval.
We
have
sites
where
homeowner
wells
are
adjacent
to
contaminated.
If
a
monitoring
well
starts
showing
contamination,
we
need
to
know
that
as
soon
as
possible.
Having
the
agency
find
out
about
this
by
having
a
reporter
or
an
irate
neighbor
call
does
not
represent
appropriate
oversight.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
specifically
opposes
removing
the
requirement
that
facility
operators
submit
a
notification
of
significant
increase
in
contamination.
The
DEQ
considers
it
of
vital
importance
that
it
receive
notification
of
such
an
increase
as
soon
as
it
is
found,
so
that
adequate
oversight
can
be
made
of
the
measures
taken
by
the
permittee
to
respond
to
the
situation,
and
take
appropriate
enforcement
actions
if
needed.
If
the
permittee
takes
improper
action,
then
depending
upon
the
frequency
of
inspection,
it
may
be
several
years
before
the
exceedance
is
discovered
by
the
Agency.
Also,
as
noted
in
Section
1
and
I
above,
searching
for
a
reviewing
these
documents
will
increase
the
inspector's
workload,
and
if
they
are
overlooked
it
can
be
many
more
years
before
the
situation
is
revealed.

Depending
upon
the
specifics
of
the
facility,
it
may
be
necessary
to
promptly
inform
the
public
of
an
increase
in
contamination,
to
protect
users
of
ground­
of­
surface­
waters.
If
the
Agency
is
not
notified
so
that
is
can
take
appropriate
action,
human
health
and
the
environment
can
be
adversely
affected.

Lastly,
the
notification
that
is
currently
required
is
a
public
record,
placed
in
the
Agency's
files,
and
is
readily
available
for
public
inspection
and
review.
Eliminating
the
notice
would
deny
the
public
the
knowledge
that
a
facility
had
experienced
an
increase
in
groundwater
contamination,
and
had
possibly
released
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
to
area
waters.
The
DEQ
believes
the
public
has
a
right
to
know
this
information
in
a
timely
fashion.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0240
DA
DTSC
Comments
requested
on
sections
being
considered
for
elimination
or
modification
that
are
not
affected
by
the
current
proposal.

Summary
of
Sections
proposed
to
be
change:
­
280­
The
proposed
amendment
of
Section
264.98(
g)(
1)
would
eliminate
notification
to
the
regulatory
agency
of
statistically
significant
groundwater
contamination
during
detection
monitoring.

DTSC
proposes
revising
Section
264.98(
g)(
1)
to
eliminate
notification
of
the
regulatory
agency
of
statistically
significant
groundwater
contamination
during
detection
monitoring.
We
believe
this
requirement
is
essential
to
meeting
the
mandate
of
protection
of
public
health
and
environment
and
satisfying
the
public's
right
to
know.
Any
evidence
of
potential
contamination
should
be
addressed
as
soon
as
possible.
Agency
feedback
is
essential
early
during
this
stage,
and
elimination
of
this
submittal
could
potential
cause
significant
delays
in
design
and
implementation
of
the
corrective
action
program.

The
rationale
for
the
proposed
change
is
that
the
requirement
is
redundant
with
Section
264.98(
g)(
ii),
which
requires
submittal
of
an
application
for
the
permit
modification
to
the
change
a
compliance
monitoring
program.
Issuing
of
permit
modifications
take
time,
and
it
is
not
reasonable
to
expect
that
an
appropriate
compliance
monitoring
program
will
be
in
place
through
a
permit
modification
within
reasonable
time
frame
without
timely
agency
input
the
feedback.
Processing
the
permit
modification
could
result
in
a
delayed
response
to
contamination.
Such
a
delay
conceivably
could
impact
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0290
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.
However,
with
notification,
the
regulatory
agency
may
want
to
continue
to
monitor
for
additional
constituents
to
determine
if
other
factors
may
have
influenced
the
results
before
calling
in
a
permit
modification.
Elimination
of
this
requirement
would
delay
the
requirements
in
this
section
which
require
the
facility
to
submit
a
permit
modification.

Additional,
site
specific
parameters
in
association
with
the
facility
may
dictate
that
more
immediate
actions
be
taken
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
(
example.
If
there
are
drinking
water
wells
down
gradient,
immediate
actions
may
be
necessary
to
ensure
they
have
not
been
affected).
Also,
if
the
agency
does
not
know
about
the
need
for
a
permit
modification,
the
agency
will
not
know
to
take
action
if
the
modification
is
not
submitted
when
due.
With
out
modification,
if
the
permit
modification
submittal
is
not
timely,
ultimately
delay
of
corrective
action
could
be
much
mor
significant,
as
the
agency
will
not
have
an
opportunity
to
intervene.

The
existing
rules
require
the
permittee
to
submit
an
Engineering
Feasibility
Plan
based
on
the
corrective
action
program
of
40
CF
R
264.100
specified
as
part
of
the
permit.
The
corrective
action
requirements
are
based
on
extensive
investigations
and
analysis
that
are
included
in
the
Engineering
Feasibility
Plan
submitted
by
the
permittee
as
a
part
of
the
information
required
by
40
CFR
264.98(
g),.
This
information
is
used
to
specify
effective
corrective
action
criteria
as
part
of
the
corrective
action
process.
Also,
this
feasibility
study
forms
a
basis
for
specifying
time
frames,
­
281­
groundwater
monitoring
requirements,
and
measures
to
remove
or
remediate,
in
place,
any
groundwater
contamination.
Therefore,
this
information
is
vital
to
implement
economically
and
environmentally
sound
corrective
action
programs
for
a
given
facility.

From
September
28,
2001
­
September
27,
2002,
our
record
indicate
919
facility
file
reviews
were
conducted
by
the
public.
In
addition,
there
were
201
FOLA
requests.
We
do
not
track
whether
or
not
the
specific
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
documents
are
reviewed
or
requested.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
provisions
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
are
retained
as
a
necessary
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

264.98
(
d)/
264.99(
g)

Document
#:
0347
Eastman
agrees
with
EPA
that
owners/
operators
can
reduce
their
burden
and
still
provide
adequate
information
to
ensure
compliance
by
submitting
a
corrective
action
effectiveness
report
annually
instead
of
semi­
annually.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
is
today
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.100
to
allow
the
owner
or
operator
to
submit
the
report
on
corrective
action
effectiveness
annually.

We
support
the
previously
proposed
modification
to
264.99(
g)
that
would
allow,
on
a
case­
bycase
basis,
an
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
on
a
subset
of
monitoring
wells,
rather
than
on
all
monitoring
wells.
For
consistency
in
the
groundwater
regulations,
we
also
support
alternate
sampling
procedures
for
the
detection
monitoring
requirements
at
264.98(
d)

Response:
The
Agency
is
today
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
g)
that
require
the
owner
or
operator
consult
with
the
Regional
Administrator
to
determine
which
sampling
event
will
involve
enhanced
sampling,
the
number
of
monitoring
wells
to
undergo
enhanced
sampling,
the
number
of
samples
to
be
collected
from
each
well,
and
the
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
to
be
analyzed.
EPA
disagrees
that
alternate
sampling
procedures
for
detection
monitoring
are
required
in
§
264.98(
d).

Eastman
also
supports
the
additional
flexibility
of
retesting
for
Appendix
IX
compounds
found
in
the
groundwater
on
a
State
or
EPA
approval
schedule
that
is
not
restricted
to
the
current
"
within
a
month"
timeframe.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
is
today
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
g)
that
would
allow
resampling
according
to
an
alternative
site­
specific
schedule
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator.
­
282­
264.98(
g)­­
Detection
monitoring
program.
If
the
owner
or
operator
determines
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section
that
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
chemical
parameters
or
hazardous
constituents
specified
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
at
any
monitoring
well
at
the
compliance
point,
etc..

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
require
facilities
to
complete
the
procedures
for
a
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
with
detection
monitoring.
This
is
the
only
way
the
public
can
easily
identify
activities
associated
with
contamination.

Response:
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

264.98(
g)(
2)­­
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
the
notification
of
contamination:
Proposed
Action:
We
are
taking
comment
on
eliminating
this
requirement
(
but
we
are
not
proposing
this
in
today's
rule) 
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement.
The
owner/
operator
must
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
(
this
is
required
by
regulation)
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
establishes
a
compliance
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
This
should
be
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0208
FDEP
believes
that
this
regulation
should
be
modified
to
allow
sampling
for
a
subset
of
Appendix
IX
parameters
and
for
a
subset
of
available
wells,
subject
to
the
Regional
Administrator's
approval.

Response:
In
today's
final
rule
the
Agency
is
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
form
the
Appendix
IX
list,
subject
to
approval
by
the
Regional
Administrator.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
must
also
be
modified
to
reflect
this
change.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
offers
the
following
recommendations
for
additional
modifications
to
the
rules,
beyond
those
proposed
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.

A.
264.98(
g)(
2)
(
regarding
immediate
sampling
of
all
wells
for
Appendix
IX
parameters),
The
DEQ
recommends
that
owner/
operators
be
allowed
to
sample
wells
only
for
those
parameters
which
could
possibly
be
found
in
the
groundwater
as
a
result
of
the
facility's
operations.
For
example,
if
a
facility
has
never
managed
any
of
the
wastes
for
which
the
­
283­
dioxin
compounds
are
a
concern,
there
should
be
no
reason
to
analyze
for
dioxins.

The
lists
of
parameters
to
be
analyzed
(
in
addition
to
those
routinely
analyzed)
would
be
established
in
the
permit
itself
at
the
time
of
issuance
(
or
subsequent
modification).

Response:
EPA
disagrees
that
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
needs
modification.

Secondly,
for
very
large
facilities,
the
requirement
to
sample
all
wells
when
any
single
well
has
an
exceedance
is
considered
as
excessive.
DEQ
recommends
that
the
Agency
be
authorized
to
designate
subsets
of
wells
that
would
be
sampled
if
a
given
well
in
that
subset
(
or
possibly
adjacent
subsets)
shows
an
exceedance.
Subsets
might
consist
of
a
single
wast
management
unit
or
several
units
in
a
common
area,
but
need
not
include
all
units
on
a
given
facility.
Again,
these
subsets
would
be
designated
during
permitting.

Such
a
sampling
scheme
should
provide
equivalent
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment
while
reducing
unnecessary
expenses
to
the
owner/
operator.
Suggested
language
is
as
follows:

264.98(
g)***

(
2).
Immediately
sample
the
ground
waster
in
all
monitoring
wells
in
the
same
group(
s)
as
the
well
or
wells
of
concern
and
determine
whether
constituents
in
the
special
monitoring
list
established
in
the
permit
are
present,
and
if
so,
in
what
concentrations.
(
i)
The
wells
to
be
grouped
together
for
special
monitoring
purposes
shall
be
established
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance
or
modification,
and
may
include
the
wells
associated
with
a
single
unit
or
with
several
adjacent
or
nearby
units.
If
no
such
groupings
are
designated
in
the
permit,
the
owner
or
operator
must
sample
all
wells
at
the
facility,
(
ii)
The
special
monitoring
list
of
analytical
parameters
shall
be
established
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance
or
modification,
and
will
include
at
a
minimum
all
parameters
designated
under
294.98(
a)
for
routine
monitoring.
The
list
shall
also
include
all
Appendix
IX
constituents
which
are
or
may
be
present
in
the
waste
managed
onsite,
but
which
are
not
routinely
monitored.
If
no
special
monitoring
list
is
established
in
the
permit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
shall
analyze
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
a
§
264.98(
g)
needs
to
be
changed
to
allow
subsets
of
wells
to
be
sampled
in
the
event
of
an
exceedance
detected
in
one
of
the
wells.
­
284­
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)­­
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action,
if
required:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
Our
review
of
the
regulations
identified
this
requirement
as
one
that
could
be
switched
from
having
to
send
it
to
the
regulatory
authority
to
just
keeping
it
as
part
of
the
facility
operating
record.
Our
rationale
is
that
this
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility
for
inspectors
to
see,
and
that
the
facility
operator
still
has
to
undertake
the
environmentally
protective
actions
described
in
the
regulation.

Document
#:
0131
EPA's
proposed
language
significantly
changes
the
requirements
of
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
EPA
has
removed
the
requirement
for
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
a
corrective
action
program
to
meet
the
requirements
of
264.94(
b)
and
for
submittal
of
the
plan
within
180
days
to
the
regulating
authority.
The
proposed
language
only
requires
a
note
in
the
operating
record
whether
this
contamination
was
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
evaluation.

If
a
statistically
significant
increase
occurs
and
it
is
not
determined
to
be
from
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
sampling
or
analysis
error,
the
facility
would
need
to
enter
compliance
monitoring
and
some
corrective
action
(
264.100)
may
be
required.
The
requirement
for
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
should
be
maintained
and
the
regulating
authority
should
receive
a
copy
of
the
report.
The
engineering
feasibility
plan
outlines
the
corrective
action
plan
and
is
a
critical
step
for
addressing
contamination.
The
regulating
authority
should
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
the
plan
to
correct
the
release
and
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
plan.
In
addition,
the
regulating
authority
needs
the
plan
to
properly
evaluate
the
semi­
annual
reports
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program
required
under
264.100(
g).

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.
EPA,
however,
is
finalizing
changes
to
require
annual
reporting
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program
under
§
264.100(
g)
instead
of
semiannual
reporting.
The
Agency
believes
that
annual
submittal
of
corrective
measure
reports
will
not
jeopardize
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Additionally,
EPA
notes
there
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prohibits
States
from
being
more
stringent
in
their
reporting
requirements.

EPA's
proposed
language
states,
"
Note
in
the
operating
record
whether
this
contamination
was
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
evaluation."
The
proposed
language
is
redundant
since
264.98(
g)(
6)
already
contains
provisions
for
a
facility
to
make
a
determination
whether
contamination
was
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
evaluation.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment.
­
285­
EPA
should
not
remove
the
requirement
for
an
engineering
feasibility
plan.
If
EPA
does
remove
the
requirement
for
an
engineering
feasibility
plan,
EPA
must
at
least
require
that
the
regulating
authority
receive
a
copy
of
the
information
required
under
proposed
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).

Response:
Nothing
in
today's
final
rule
prohibits
the
requirement
for
an
engineering
feasibility
plan.
In
today's
Final
Rule
EPA
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparation
and
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
convinced
us
of
the
importance
of
this
submittal.

Document
#:
0169
The
engineering
feasibility
plan
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
question
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decision­
making
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.

Response:
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.

Document
#:
0181
Keeping
the
feasibility
study
in
the
operating
record
could
be
adequate,
but
not
if
the
operating
record
is
only
kept
for
three
years.

Response:
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.
It
is
unclear
whether
the
new
language
for
(
ii)
is
to
be
inserted
after
the
existing
(
i),
thus
shifting
the
current
(
ii)
to
a
new
(
iii),
or
whether
the
proposed
(
ii)
language
replaces
the
current
(
ii)
(
the
engineering
feasibility
plan.
If
it
is
meant
to
replace,
then
some
rationale
for
elimination
of
the
plan
should
be
given.
The
new
language
proposed
as
(
ii)
appears
to
be
out
of
context
(
ACLs
and
Corrective
Action)
and
may
be
intended
to
pertain
to
264.99(
g).
Indicate
developing
risk
to
the
public
necessitating
alternate
water
supplies
and
environmental
remediation.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
confusion
produced
by
the
rule
language
in
its
proposal.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparation
and
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.
­
286­
Document
#:
0208
FDEP
believes
that
any
documentation
a
facility
might
have
to
support
a
contention
that
contamination
discovered
during
detection
monitoring
is
due
to
other
sources
etc.
must
be
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator
for
approval.
Florida's
experience
has
been
that
documentation
necessary
to
fully
demonstrate
such
a
contention
is
very
difficult
to
develop.
Hence,
Florida
is
opposed
to
allowing
a
facility
to
merely
note
such
evidence
within
the
operating
record.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments
and
in
today's
Final
Rule
is
retaining
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)­(
2).

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
40
CFR
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
eliminates
the
need
for
the
submission
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
within
180
days
of
determining
an
SSI.
The
proposed
rules
requires
facilities
to
note
in
their
operating
record
whether
the
contamination
is
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
error
in
sampling
and
analysis
or
evaluation.
TNRCC
notes
that,
currently,
the
existing
rules
require
the
company
to
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
based
on
the
corrective
action
program
of
40
CFR
264.100
which
is
specified
as
a
part
of
the
permit.
Without
the
detailed
information
provided
by
the
facilities,
the
regional
administrator
may
not
be
able
to
specify
corrective
action
if
required.
Also,
because
the
proposed
rules
require
facilities
to
keep
information
as
a
part
of
the
operating
record,
the
regional
administrator
may
not
be
aware
of
the
current
status
of
monitoring
results
(
i.
e.,
contamination
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis
or
evaluation).
Therefore,
TNRCC
recommends
that
the
rules
not
be
changed
or,
in
the
alternative,
they
be
modified
to
address
this
concern
elsewhere.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
these
comments
and
in
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparation
and
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.

Document
#:
0213
We
could
support
a
modification
of
this
regulation
if
264.98(
g)(
1)
or
other
regulatory
mechanisms
are
in
place
to
notify
the
Agency
of
contamination
immediately.
Once
the
Agency
received
the
notification,
the
Agency
can
request
submittal
of
the
engineering
feasibility
plan
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
submittal
of
the
engineering
feasibility
plan
provides
an
opportunity
to
provide
input
on
whether
the
corrective
action
program
proposed
by
the
facility
is
adequate
to
meeting
the
requirements
of
264.100.

Response:
In
today's
final
rule,
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
remain
unchanged.
If
the
owner
or
operator
determines
that
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
at
any
monitoring
well,
he
must
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
this
finding
in
writing
within
seven
days.
In
addition,
in
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparation
and
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.
­
287­
Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
Agrees
with
the
logic
used
in
the
Preamble
(
page
2521),
but
does
not
believe
that
the
actual
text
proposed
(
page
2535)
accomplishes
the
stated
intent,
and
in
fact
the
text
is
confusing.
Please
note
that
264.98(
g)(
5)
states
"
Within
180
days,
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,"
and
then
goes
on
to
list
two
items
required
for
submission.
The
proposed
changed
text
to
the
second
reuired
submission
((
g)(
5)(
ii))
reads:
"
Note
in
the
operating
record
whether
this
contamination
was
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling,
analysis,
or
evaluation,".
These
two
statements
are
incompatible.
In
addition
DEQ
believes
that
some
form
of
notification
to
the
Agency
should
be
required.

DEQ
suggests
that
the
language
of
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
be
modified
by
substituting
the
following
text
in
subparagraph
(
ii):

(
ii)
A
notification
stating
whether
or
not
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
a
corrective
action
program
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
of
264.100
has
been
prepared
and
placed
in
the
facility
records.
Such
plan
is
required
to
be
prepared
unless:
(
A)
All
hazardous
constituents...{
continue
with
existing
language}.
(
B)
The
owner
or
operator
has
sought
...
{
continue
with
existing
language}.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
confusion
produced
by
the
rule
language
in
its
proposal.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparation
and
submittal
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
under
§
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii).
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
usefulness
of
this
submittal.
In
addition,
EPA
notes
that
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
1)
remain
unchanged.

Document
#:
0241
(
Detection
Monitoring
­
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
265.90(
d)(
1);
265.90(
d)(
3);
265.93(
c)
and
(
d)
The
Proposed
changes
to
these
regulations
will
eliminate
the
submittal
of
various
notifications
and
technical
plans
and
reports
to
the
Agency
and
allow
the
facility
to
maintain
this
information
on­
site.
Revisions
to
these
plans
should
be
reviewed
for
compliance
with
regulations
and
approved
by
the
Agency
prior
to
implementation.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
self­
implementation
of
such
plans
is
advisable.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments
and
in
today's
Final
Rule
is
retaining
the
notification
and
submittal
requirements
of
§
§
264.98(
g)(
1),
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii),
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii),
and
264.99(
h)(
1)
and
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2)
among
others.
­
288­
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i),
(
ii)­­
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
make
part
of
operating
record
instead
of
sending
it
to
the
regulatory
authority.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility
for
inspectors
to
see.
Additionally,
this
kind
of
information
is
also
provided
to
the
regulatory
authorities
in
the
permit
modification
submitted
under
264.98(
g)(
6)(
iii).

Document
#:
0131
When
a
case
is
made
under
proposed
264.98(
g)(
6),
a
permit
modification
may
not
always
be
appropriate,
for
example,
when
the
statistically
significant
difference
is
caused
by
a
sampling
and/
or
analytical
error.
Information
that
is
currently
submitted
under
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
would
not
be
received
by
the
regulating
authority
under
EPA's
current
proposal.
The
regulating
authority
should
receive,
in
a
reasonable
time,
a
facility's
claim
that
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
caused
contamination.
The
regulating
authority
needs
to
review
the
information
so
that
action
may
be
taken
if
the
regulating
authority
disagrees
with
the
facility's
claim.

As
currently
written
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
provides
notice
to
the
regulating
authority
of
a
facility's
activities
and
intentions.
The
notification
under
264.99(
h)(
1)
would
be
a
letter.
The
Department
believes
the
notifications
in
264(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
an
important
part
of
oversight
and
that
a
facility's
compliance
with
this
requirement
is
not
burdensome.
Therefore,
264(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
should
not
be
removed.

Response:
In
today's
rule
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
not
removed
and
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0169
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration:
Modify­
make
part
of
operating
record
instead
of
sending
it
to
the
regulatory
authority.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility
for
inspectors
to
see.
Additionally,
this
kind
of
information
is
also
provided
to
the
regulatory
authorities
in
the
permit
modification
submitted
under
264.98(
g)(
6)(
iii).

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
In
today's
rule
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
not
removed
and
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
altering
the
language
of
these
two
subparagraphs
as
proposed.
From
experience,
alternate
source
demonstrations
may
be
poorly
documented,
or
even
totally
unjustified.
If
the
agency
is
not
promptly
notified
that
such
a
demonstration
is
being
relied
upon,
extensive
­
289­
groundwater
contamination
may
occur
and
not
be
properly
addressed.
Depending
upon
the
frequency
of
inspection,
it
may
be
several
years
before
the
improper
demonstration
is
discovered
by
the
Agency.
Also,
as
noted
in
Sections
I
and
II
above,
searching
for
and
reviewing
these
documents
will
increase
the
inspector's
workload,
and
if
they
are
overlooked
it
can
be
many
more
years
before
the
situation
is
revealed.

Response:
In
today's
rule
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
not
removed
and
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

The
DEQ
would
RECOMMEND
that
the
period
specified
for
notification
of
the
intent
to
make
an
alternate
source
demonstration,
currently
set
at
seven
days,
be
extended
to
30
days.
Oftentimes,
when
a
groundwater
exceedance
is
determined,
it
may
not
be
clear
to
the
owner/
operator
that
such
a
demonstration
is
appropriate,
within
the
seven
day
timeframe
currently
allowed.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
period
specified
for
the
notification
is
too
short.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
proposal.
The
Agency
should
be
informed
of
the
facilities
decision
to
make
this
demonstration
as
soon
as
possible.
This
will
allow
for
timely
review
to
determine
if
a
non­
regulated
source
does
in
fact
exist
and
to
work
with
the
facility
on
the
content
of
the
NOI
to
make
sure
that
it
is
adequate
to
meet
the
requirements
of
264,98.
This
determination
plays
a
large
role
in
determining
if
RCRA
clean
closure
can
be
certified.
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
The
Agency
may
not
be
aware
of
such
a
determination
for
1­
2
years.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
rule
the
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
are
not
removed
and
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
oversight.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information
as
an
alert
that
there
is
an
environmental
problem.

264.99
Compliance
monitoring
program.

Document
#:
0165
The
current
regulations
on
compliance
monitoring
require
the
facility
to
analyze
samples
from
all
monitoring
wells
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents
annually.
See
264.99(
g).
This
is
a
costly
and
overboard
requirement
since
the
detection
monitoring
program
will
have
identified
the
wells
and
constituents
of
concern.
Therefore,
we
support
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
the
facility
to
determine
the
number
of
wells,
samples
and
constituents
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
the
regulatory
authority.
This
would
be
done
as
a
Class
3
permit
modification.
See
270.42
Appendix
I.
­
290­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

If
compliance
monitoring
shows
an
exceedance
at
any
monitoring
well,
the
facility
must
establish
a
corrective
action
program,
However,
264.99(
h)(
1)
requires
the
facility
to
submit
a
notice
within
7
days,
and
then
an
application
for
permit
modification
within
180
days
with
the
same
information.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
the
7­
day
notice
is
unnecessary
and
264.99(
h)(
1)
should
be
eliminated.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
and
today
the
notice
requirement
of
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

For
the
reasons
given
above,
we
also
agree
that
EPA
should
delete
the
requirement
to
submit
a
notice
of
intent
and
a
report
demonstrating
that
apparent
noncompliance
was
caused
by
another
source
of
error,
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2),
since
this
information
is
submitted
with
the
facility's
application
for
a
permit
modification
under
264.99(
i)(
3).

Response:
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0166
The
current
regulations
on
compliance
monitoring
require
the
facility
to
analyze
samples
from
all
monitoring
wells
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents
annually.
See
264.99(
g).
This
is
a
costly
and
overbroad
requirement
since
the
detection
monitoring
program
will
have
identified
the
wells
and
constituents
of
concern.
Therefore,
we
support
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
the
facility
to
determine
the
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
the
regulatory
authority.

Response:
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.
EPA
is,
therefore,
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g)
that
allows,
among
other
things,
sampling
of
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list,
and
the
regulatory
authority
to
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conduction
statistical
tests.

If
compliance
monitoring
shows
an
exceedance
at
any
monitoring
well,
the
facility
must
establish
a
corrective
action
program,
However,
264.99(
h)(
1)
requires
the
facility
to
submit
a
notice
within
7
days,
and
then
an
application
for
permit
modification
within
180
days
with
the
same
information.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
the
7­
day
notice
is
unnecessary
and
264.99(
h)(
1)
should
be
eliminated.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
and
today
the
notice
requirement
of
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
­
291­
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

For
the
reasons
given
above,
we
also
agree
that
EPA
should
delete
the
requirement
to
submit
a
notice
of
intent
and
a
report
demonstrating
that
apparent
noncompliance
was
caused
by
another
source
of
error,
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2),
since
this
information
is
submitted
with
the
facility's
application
for
a
permit
modification
under
264.99(
i)(
3).

Response:
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
must
maintain
the
information
requirements
under
this
section.
This
information
is
needed
when
it
is
first
identified
not
later
when
contained
in
a
permit
modification.
Communities
are
often
located
over
ground
water
plumes
and
are
not
aware
of
the
contamination.
Removing
these
requirements
could
result
in
the
communities
being
unaware
of
the
situation.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
to
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
deletion
of
these
paragraphs
for
the
same
reasons
as
noted
in
paragraph
VI.
C,
above.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
to
an
environmental
problem.
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
and
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).

Document
#:
0281
WM
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
Section
264.99
Compliance
Monitoring
as
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
g);
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
h)(
1);
removing
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
and
(
i)(
2)
and
redsignating
paragraphs
(
i)(
3)
and
(
i)(
4)
as
(
i)(
1)
and
(
i)(
2).
We
concur
with
EPA
Staff,
that
the
proposed
changes
to
264.99
will
reduce
the
burden
for
facilities.
Specifically,
sampling
for
Appendix
IX
constituents
under
compliance
monitoring
for
select
wells
as
opposed
to
all
wells,
is
a
more
technically
sound
and
defensible
approach.
Changes
to
(
h)(
1)
and
264.99(
l)
are
consistent
with
changes
to
264.98,
which
WM
supported
above.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
Stakeholders,
however,
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
and
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
­
292­
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.
EPA
is,
therefore,
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g)
that
allows,
among
other
things,
sampling
of
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list,
and
the
regulatory
authority
to
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conduction
statistical
tests.

WM
recommends
that
EPA
eliminate
the
last
sentence
in
264.99
(
f),
to
be
consistent
with
the
above
comment
on
264.98(
d).
EPA
Technical
Guidance
and
Statistical
Guidance
published
since
development
of
this
rule
clarify
the
appropriate
frequencies
of
sampling
and
statistical
analysis
that
run
counter
to
the
provision
that
"
four
samples...
must
be
collected
semi­
annually".
This
provision
is
no
longer
consistent
with
the
most
of
the
statistical
approaches
outlined
in
264.97(
h)
and
clearly
do
not
allow
for
sample
independence.
It
places
undue
burden
on
the
facility,
requiring
duplicative
and
unnecessary
sampling
and
reporting.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
and
is
today
finalizing
a
change
to
§
264.99(
f)
that
eliminates
the
last
sentence
requiring
a
facility
to
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semiannually
These
changes
will
prevent
264.98(
d)
and
264.99(
f)
from
unintentionally
trumping
the
flexibility
granted
by
264.97(
g)(
2).

264.99(
f),(
g)
Compliance
monitoring
program.
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
test
to
determine
statistically
significant
evidence
of
increased
contamination
in
accordance
with
264.97(
g).
A
sequence
of
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
(
background
and
compliance
wells)
must
be
collected
at
least
semi
annually
during
the
compliance
period
of
the
facility.
The
owner
or
operator
must
analyze
samples
from
all
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point
for
all
constituents
contained
in
appendix
IX
of
part
264
at
least
annually
to
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
are
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
264.98(
f).

Document
#:
0134
DOE
suggests
that,
to
improve
its
clarity,
the
final
text
of
40
CFR
264(
g)
be
altered
from
that
proposed
by
EPA.
Specifically,
it
is
unclear
whether
the
annual
enhanced
compliance
monitoring
event
must
be
renegotiated
every
year,
and
if
so,
what
process
must
be
used.
DOE
requests
that
EPA
consider
the
following
approach
(
highlight
=
addition;
strikeout
=
deletion)

(
g)
Annually,
the
owner
or
operator
must
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264,
which
could
possibly
be
present
but
are
not
on
the
detection
monitoring
list
in
the
permit,
are
actually
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
­
293­
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
264.98(
f).
To
accomplish
this,
the
owner
or
operator
must
consult
with
the
Regional
Administrator
to
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
1)
which
sample
collection
event
during
the
year
will
involve
enhanced
sampling,
(
2)
the
number
of
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point
to
undergo
enhanced
sampling,
(
3)
the
number
of
samples
to
be
collected
from
each
of
these
monitoring
wells,
and
(
4)
the
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264
for
which
these
samples
must
be
analyzed.
analyze
samples
from
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point.
The
number
of
wells
and
samples
will
be
worked
out
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264
to
be
analyzed
will
also
be
worked
out
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
the
Regional
Administrator.
This
analysis
must
be
done
annually
to
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
are
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
264.98(
f).
If
the
enhanced
sampling
event
indicates
that
the
owner
or
operator
finds
Appendix
IX
constituents
are
present
in
the
groundwater
that
are
not
already
identified
in
the
permit
as
monitoring
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
and
repeat
the
Appendix
IX
analysis.
If
the
second
analysis
confirms
the
presence
of
new
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentration
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
the
completion
of
the
second
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
If
the
owner
or
operator
chooses
not
to
resample,
then
he
or
she
must
report
the
concentrations
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
completion
of
the
initial
analysis,
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
and
is
today
making
changes
to
language
of
§
264.98(
g)
as
proposed.

264.99(
g)
Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
will
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
instead
of
for
all
wells.
This
idea
came
from
state
experts,
and
is
based
on
their
field
experience
that
sampling
all
wells
can
be
unnecessary.

Document
#:
0134
DOE
supports
modifying
the
required
scope
of
the
annual
enhanced
groundwater
compliance
monitoring
event
mandated
by
the
existing
40
CFR
264.99(
g).
This
change
will
not
only
eliminate
unnecessary
records
and
reports,
but
will
also
reduce
the
amount
of
wastewater
generated
from
purging
of
monitoring
well
s
during
sampling
events.
In
initially
establishing
RCRA
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
in
1982,
EPA
believed
that
past
waste
disposal
practices
were
not
sufficiently
controlled
to
allow
reliance
on
knowledge
of
a
site
as
the
sole
indicator
of
constituents
of
concern
for
purposes
of
groundwater
monitoring.
As
a
consequence,
analysis
of
groundwater
samples
for
all
Appendix
VIII
constituents
(
later
changed
to
Appendix
IX)
was
required
annually
to
check
for
new
contaminants.
DOE
concurs
that
insufficient
knowledge
of
past
waste
disposal
­
294­
practices
may
have
been
a
reasonable
concern
at
a
time
when
pre­
RCRA
land
disposal
units
were
first
becoming
subject
to
RCRA
authority,
because
waste
disposal
records
for
units
whose
operation
predated
RCRA
may
indeed
have
been
incomplete.
Currently,
however,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requires
that
operating
land
disposal
units
meet
stringent
design
requirements
and
maintain
robust
records
pertaining
to
waste
disposal.
As
a
result,
identification
of
specific
Appendix
IX
constituents
having
potential
to
migrate
to
groundwater
at
a
particular
unit
should
be
fairly
straightforward
undertaking.
Therefore,
DOE
agrees
that
it
should
no
longer
be
necessary
to
conduct
annual
monitoring
for
all
Appendix
IX
constituents,
if
the
responsible
regulatory
agency
determines
that
monitoring
for
a
subset
of
such
constituents
would
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Notwithstanding,
DOE
believes
that
certain
clarifying
changes
to
the
proposed
test
for
40
CFR
264.99(
g)
would
be
helpful(
see
Specific
Comments
on
Proposed
Regulatory
Text,
item
7).

Response:
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.
EPA
is,
therefore,
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g)
that
allows,
among
other
things,
sampling
of
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list,
and
the
regulatory
authority
to
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conduction
statistical
tests.
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns,
but
disagrees
that
proposed
rule
language
needs
to
be
changed.

Document
#:
0169
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations:
Modify­
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
will
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
instead
of
for
all
wells.
This
idea
came
from
state
experts,
and
is
based
on
their
field
experience
that
sampling
all
wells
can
be
unnecessary.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
final
rule,
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.
EPA
is,
therefore,
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g)
that
allows,
among
other
things,
sampling
of
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list,
and
the
regulatory
authority
to
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conduction
statistical
tests.

Document
#:
0181
The
new
provisions
allowing
a
case­
by­
case
determination
as
to
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
is
supported
by
IDEQ.
It
allows
the
regulator
and
regulated
facilities
flexibility
in
use
of
resources
to
address
specific,
known
concerns.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
­
295­
for
today's
changes
to
the
compliance
monitoring
requirements
of
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

Document
#:
0197
The
State
of
Alabama
supports
the
agency's
proposal
to
allow
sampling
for
a
reduced
subset
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
at
facilities
conducting
compliance
monitoring.
We
have,
for
many
years,
observed
that
sampling
for
the
complete
list
of
Appendix
IX
parameters
at
all
but
a
few
of
our
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
is
unnecessary.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
changes
to
the
compliance
monitoring
requirements
of
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

Document
#:
0213
We
support
this
proposal
as
long
as
facilities
work
with
agencies
to
determine
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
notes
that
even
though
the
provisions
are
self
implementing,
it
is
in
the
facility's
best
interest
to
work
with
the
regulatory
community
as
it
develops
and
conducts
compliance
monitoring.

Document
#:
0241
The
proposed
rule
states
that
the
number
of
wells
and
samples
will
be
"
worked
out"
on
a
case­
bycase
basis
with
the
Regional
Administrator.
It
also
states
that
the
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264
to
be
analyzed
will
also
be
"
worked
out"
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
with
the
Regional
Administrator.
We
have
no
objection
to
the
number
of
wells,
samples
and
analytes
being
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
However,
the
term
"
worked
out"
is
inappropriate.
While
requirements
for
wells,
samples
and
analytes
should
be
negotiated
between
the
Agency
and
the
facility,
the
ultimate
authority
must
be
with
the
Agency.
Therefore,
the
proposed
rule
should
be
revised
to
state
that
wells,
samples
and
analytes
will
be
determined
by
the
Regional
Administrator
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Response:
As
finalized
in
today's
rule,
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
specifies
that
the
Regional
Administrator
may
allow,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
Appendix
IX
constituents
during
Detection
Monitoring,
and
under
§
264.98(
d)
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests.
Similarly,
the
Regional
administrator
also
specifies
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
during
Compliance
Monitoring
under
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
Regional
Administrator
will
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
the
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
analytes,
and
today's
finalized
rule
language
reflects
this
fact.

Document
#:
0320
EPA
proposes
to
change
the
reporting
frequency
from
semi­
annually
to
annually.
We
support
this
change.
We
also
support
EPA's
proposed
revision
to
40
CFR
264.99(
g),
which
would
allow
facilities
to
perform
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
on
a
subset
of
monitoring
wells
rather
than
all
compliance
monitoring
wells.
­
296­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments,
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

Document
#:
0326
EPA
proposes
to
change
the
reporting
frequency
from
semi­
annually
to
annually.
We
support
this
change.
We
also
support
EPA's
proposed
revision
to
40
CFR
264.99(
g),
which
would
allow
facilities
to
perform
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
on
a
subset
of
monitoring
wells
rather
than
all
compliance
monitoring
wells.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments,
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

Document
#:
0349
ADEQ
is
concerned
that
changing
to
annual
reporting
in
lieu
of
semi­
annual
would
allow
a
potential
problem
to
go
on
for
some
period
of
time
before
it
is
discovered.
With
regard
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR,
Section
264.99
(
g)
and
EPA's
proposal
of
allowing,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
sampling
a
subset
of
wells
instead
of
all
the
wells,
ADEQ
asks
if
this
would
be
subject
to
a
variance
granted
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
State?
What
guidelines,
if
any,
is
EPA
proposing
to
ensure
that
the
appropriate
monitoring
well
subset
is
being
sampled
in
order
to
make
an
appropriate
and
adequate
evaluation
of
groundwater?
ADEQ
requests
that
EPA
provide
answers
to
the
above
questions
and
allow
for
additional
comments
on
its
response
prior
to
finalizing
the
proposals
of
this
section.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
regarding
the
disadvantages
to
annual
reporting,
but
believes
that
oversight
authorities
can
identify
potential
problems
using
annual
monitoring.
Nevertheless,
EPA
notes
that
there
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prohibits
States
from
being
more
stringent
in
their
reporting
requirements.
Implementation
of
today's
rule
is
the
responsibility
of
the
authorized
regulatory
authority.

Document
#:
0350
U.
S.
EPA
proposes
to
change
40
CFR
264.99(
g)
from
requiring
annual
Appendix
IX
sampling
of
all
ground
water
monitoring
wells
to
allowing,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
sampling
of
only
a
subset
of
the
wells.
We
support
this
change
because
we
believe
there
are
instances
where
the
area
of
potential
ground
water
contamination
is
sufficiently
know
and
it
is
not
necessary
to
sample
wells
outside
of
the
are
for
Appendix
IX
constituents.
A
further
benefit
is
that
the
rule
retains
the
authority
to
require
sampling
of
all
wells
when
it
is
warranted.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
these
comments,
and
appreciates
the
commenter's
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
§
264.99(
f)
and
(
g).

Although
U.
S.
EPA
has
not
proposed
it,
we
also
would
support
changing
the
rule
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
annual
sampling
of
a
sub­
set
of
Appendix
IX
constituents.
This
is
because
we
believe
there
are
instances
where
the
waste
stream
has
been
defined
to
the
extent
that
sampling
for
some
Appendix
IX
constituents
is
not
necessary.
­
297­
Document
#:
0361
EPA
proposes
to
provide
greater
flexibility
for
facilities
operating
under
a
compliance
monitoring
program
by
allowing,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
sampling
of
a
subset
of
wells
rather
than
having
facilities
conduct
an
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
of
all
monitoring
wells
as
required
by
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
264.99(
g).

DTSC
Comment:
DTSC
concurs
with
the
proposed
change.
Based
on
our
experience,
this
discretion
will
eliminate
unnecessary
costs
to
the
facility,
eliminate
sampling
when
it
is
not
technically
appropriate,
and
decrease
the
conflict
that
frequently
arises
when
the
regulating
agency
enforces
the
current
requirement.
Facilities
that
have
been
monitored
for
many
years
will
welcome
this
discretion.
DTSC
also
strongly
suggests
that
flexibility
regarding
the
specific
analyses
required
by
Appendix
IX
be
incorporated
into
the
regulations.
If
a
site
has
been
well
characterized
and
monitored,
annual
analysis
for
the
entire
suite
of
contaminants
contained
in
Appendix
IX
will
provide
little
benefit.
The
regulations
should
also
allow
for
a
subset
of
the
Appendix
IX
parameters
be
conducted
as
appropriate,
with
concurrence
of
the
Regional
Administrator.

Response:
The
Agency
concurs
with
the
commenter's
assertions
and
appreciates
the
support
for
today's
changes
to
§
264.99.

264.99(
h)(
1)
Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement,
since
this
information
is
later
included
as
part
of
a
permit
modification
that
must
be
submitted
under
264.99(
h)(
2).

Document
#:
0131
The
notification
required
in
264.99(
h)(
1)
allows
the
regulating
authority
to
be
aware
of
any
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
in
a
timely
fashion
(
seven
days).
The
notification
is
important
because
a
statistically
significant
increase
of
contamination
would
indicate
a
release
from
the
regulated
unit.
The
regulatory
authority
must
have
the
ability
to
evaluate
the
potential
contamination,
determine
whether
immediate
action
must
be
taken
to
protect
human
health
or
the
environment,
and
inform
any
affected
persons.

Without
264.99(
h)(
1),
the
regulating
authority
may
not
become
aware
of
the
potential
contamination
until
receiving
the
monitoring
report
or
in
90
­
180
days
per
the
requirements
of
264.99(
h)(
2).
The
current
notification
would
be
a
letter.
The
Department
believes
that
the
notification
is
an
important
part
of
oversight
and
a
facility's
compliance
with
this
requirement
is
not
burdensome.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.
­
298­
Document
#:
0169
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits:
Eliminate­
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement,
since
this
information
is
later
included
as
part
of
a
permit
modification
that
must
be
submitted
under
264.99(
h)(
2).

We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
remove
this
requirement.
This
is
not
a
duplicative
requirement.
With
notification
the
regulatory
agency
may
want
to
continue
to
monitor
for
additional
constituents
to
determine
if
other
factors
may
have
influenced
the
results
before
calling
in
a
permit
modification.
This
requirement
can
also
signal
a
need
to
test
nearby
residential
drinking
water
and
point
to
a
serious
problem
that
needs
immediate
attention.
This
would
unnecessarily
delay
appropriate
response
to
a
release.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0181
The
facility
would
not
have
to
notify
the
agency
for
a
minimum
of
90
days
or
maximum
of
180
days.
This
time
period
is
too
long,
the
requirements
for
seven
days
allows
for
the
agency
to
prepare
for
the
work
load
and
provide
information
to
the
public.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0208
FDEP
objects
to
the
proposal
to
eliminate
existing
rules
requiring
immediate
notification
to
the
Agency
following
the
determination
of
the
existence
of
contamination
or
notification
requirements
that
the
facility
intends
to
demonstrate
that
the
contamination
was
caused
by
another
source
or
that
the
apparent
non­
compliance
of
standards
was
due
to
error
in
sampling,
analysis
or
evaluation.
First
of
all,
the
Department
does
not
believe
these
requirements
are
particularly
onerous
to
facilities
or
to
the
regulators.
Secondly,
it
has
been
the
Department's
experience
that
these
demonstrations
are
actually
difficult
to
make
and
require
regulatory
approval.
Finally,
the
Department
contends
that
such
documentation
is
an
important
part
of
the
public
record
and
that
eliminating
requirements
for
such
reportage
would
make
it
more
difficult
for
the
public
to
be
informed
about
the
status
of
a
given
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0213
Washington
State
does
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
This
is
an
important
­
299­
notification
`
trigger'
that
lets
the
Agency
know
that
concentration
limits
were
exceeded,
and
also
documents
and
starts
the
180­
day
clock
submittal
of
the
permit
modification
under
264.99(
h)(
2).
This
notice
also
performs
a
"
head's
up"
function
that
helps
identify
inspection
priorities
and
resource
needs.
The
submittal
of
the
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits
provides
Ecology
with
an
opportunity
work
with
the
facility
on
the
content
of
the
sequent
permit
modification
to
make
sure
that
it
is
adequate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
deleting
this
requirement
that
facility
operators
submit
a
notification
of
a
significant
increase
in
contamination.
The
DEQ
considers
it
of
vital
importance
to
be
notified
of
such
an
increase
as
soon
as
it
is
found.
In
this
way,
adequate
oversight
can
be
made
of
the
measures
taken
by
the
permittee
to
respond
to
the
situation,
and
appropriate
enforcement
actions
taken
if
needed.
If
the
permittee
takes
improper
action,
then
depending
upon
the
frequency
of
inspection
it
may
be
several
years
before
the
exceedance
is
discovered
by
the
Agency.
Also,
as
noted
in
Sections
I
and
II
above,
searching
for
and
reviewing
these
documents
will
increase
the
inspector's
workload,
and
if
they
are
overlooked
it
can
be
many
more
years
before
the
situation
is
revealed.

Depending
upon
the
specifics
of
the
facility,
it
may
be
necessary
to
promptly
inform
the
public
of
an
increase
in
contamination,
to
protect
users
of
ground­
or­
surface­
waters.
If
the
Agency
is
not
notified
so
that
it
can
take
appropriate
action,
human
health
and
the
environment
can
be
adversely
affected.

Lastly,
the
notification
that
is
currently
required
is
a
public
record,
placed
in
the
Agency's
files,
and
is
readily
available
for
public
inspection
and
review.
Eliminating
this
notice
would
deny
the
public
the
knowledge
that
a
facility
had
experienced
an
increase
in
groundwater
contamination,
and
had
possibly
released
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
to
area
waters.
The
DEQ
believes
the
public
has
a
right
to
know
this
information
in
a
timely
fashion.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0290
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
the
requirement
for
submittal
of
notification
of
exceede
concentration
limits
and
the
notification
of
intent
to
make
an
demonstration
for
alternate
sources.
Although
we
do
maintain
a
record
which
includes
the
date,
method
of
notification,
and
who
submitted
it,
the
specific
information
contained
in
each
submittal
is
not
recorded
in
a
database.
We
do
maintain
a
database
that
includes
information
about
each
confirmed
release
to
ground­
water.
This
information
is
maintained
in
a
State­
wide
database.
Without
these
notifications,
we
would
not
be
­
300­
aware
of
the
ground­
water
contamination
until
on­
site
investigations
are
conducted
or
receptors
are
impacted.
Resource
limitations
prevent
conducting
compliance
monitoring
evaluations
(
CMEs)
at
each
permittee
each
year,
therefore,
it
could
be
several
years
before
the
contamination
is
known.
Additionally,
site­
specific
parameters
in
association
with
the
facility
may
dictate
that
more
immediate
actions
be
taken
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
(
example:
if
there
are
drinking
water
wells
down
gradient,
immediate
actions
may
be
necessary
to
ensure
they
have
not
been
affected).
With
out
notification,
if
the
permit
modification
submittal
is
not
timely,
ultimately
delay
of
corrective
action
could
be
much
more
significant,
as
the
agency
will
not
have
an
opportunity
to
intervene.
Also,
as
stated
in
our
original
comments,
our
experience
has
shown
that
alternate
source
demonstrations
may
be
poorly
documented
or
unjustified
and
require
scrutiny
by
the
regulatory
agencies.
This
information
is
also
an
important
public
record
and
must
be
readily
available
for
the
public
to
review.
Maintaining
this
information
on­
site
will
eliminate
the
availability
of
this
information
to
the
public
in
a
timely
fashion.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1)
remains
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

264.99(
i)(
1),
(
2)­­
Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement,
since
the
Regional
Administrator
will
get
the
same
information
through
the
264.99(
i)(
3)
permit
modification.

Document
#:
0131
EPA
proposes
to
delete
the
seven­
day
notification
to
the
regulating
authority
when
a
facility
decides
to
make
a
demonstration
that
the
contamination
is
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit.
EPA
also
proposes
to
delete
the
requirements
for
a
facility
to
submit
a
written
report
within
90
days
to
the
regulating
authority.

Without
264.99(
i)(
1)
and(
2),
the
regulating
authority
would
only
receive
notification
(
when
a
facility
determined
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
caused
the
contamination)
upon
receiving
an
application
for
a
permit
modification
if
"
any
appropriate
changes"
were
required
or
submittal
of
the
monitoring
report.
A
permit
modification
may
not
always
be
appropriate,
for
example,
when
the
statistically
significant
increase
is
caused
by
sampling
and/
or
analytical
errors.
A
facility
could
comply
with
264.99(
i)(
1)
with
a
short
letter.
The
Department
does
not
believe
submittal
of
a
letter
is
burdensome.

The
information
required
to
be
submitted
in
264.99(
i)(
2)
is
important
because
the
regulating
authority
should
evaluate
whether
they
agree
with
a
facility's
explanation
for
a
source
other
than
a
regulated
unit
causing
a
statistically
significant
increase.
264.99(
i)(
2)
provides
the
requirement
that
this
information
be
submitted
in
a
timely
fashion.
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2)
should
not
be
deleted.
­
301­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1),
and
§
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2)
remain
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0169
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration:
Eliminate­
this
has
been
identified
through
our
review
of
the
regulations
as
a
duplicative
requirement,
since
the
Regional
Administrator
will
get
the
same
information
through
the
264.99(
i)(
3)
permit
modification.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1),
and
§
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2)
remain
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
the
elimination
of
this
notification.
The
submittal
of
the
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
provides
Ecology
with
an
opportunity
work
with
the
facility
on
the
content
of
the
subsequent
permit
modification
to
make
sure
that
it
is
adequate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
§
264.99(
h)(
1),
and
§
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2)
remain
an
important
part
of
compliance.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

264.100(
g)­­
Corrective
Action
Report
Proposed
Action:
Modify
 
Require
an
annual
instead
of
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report.

Preamble
Language:

We
Are
Changing
the
Requirement
to
an
Annual
Report
for
the
Corrective
Action
Report
Detailing
the
Effectiveness
of
the
Corrective
Action
Program.

Section
264.100(
g)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
permitted
facility
to
report
in
writing
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectivenesss
of
the
corrective
annual
program.
These
reports
must
be
submitted
semi­
annually.
We
are
now
requiring
an
annual
report
instead
of
semi­
annual
report.
While
this
change
was
not
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
was
identified
in
the
comments
received
and
was
discussed
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61668).
It
is
a
change
that
conforms
to
the
change
we
are
making
to
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.
­
302­
Document
#:
0197
We
also
support
the
agency's
proposal
to
allow
facilities
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
on
an
annual
basis
instead
of
the
current
semi­
annual
basis.
To
effect
this
change
would
require
modifications
to
the
language
found
at
40
CFR
264.100(
g).
However,
no
such
modifications
to
this
regulation
were
discussed
in
the
preamble.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
under
§
264.100(
g)
we
are
now
requiring
an
annual
report
instead
of
semi­
annual
report.
While
this
change
was
not
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
was
identified
in
the
comments
received
and
was
discussed
in
the
October
2003
NODA.
It
is
a
change
that
conforms
to
the
change
we
are
making
to
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.

Document
#:
0350
U.
S.
EPA
proposes
to
change
40
CFR
264.100(
g)
to
allow
more
flexibility
in
the
time
frame
within
which
the
facility
owner/
operator
is
required
to
resample
if
a
new
constituent
on
the
Appendix
IX
list
shows
up
in
the
ground
water.
We
support
the
change
away
from
a
mandated
one
month
to
a
different
time
frame
if
approved
by
the
overseeing
agency.
We
believe
that
the
change
is
reasonable,
provided
that
agencies
do
not
implement
in
a
way
that
allows
the
time
frame
to
extend
to
the
next
semi­
annual
sampling
event.

Response:
In
today's
rule
§
264.100(
g)
is
modified
to
allow
annual
reporting
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.

Document
#:
0348
The
semi­
annual
reporting
of
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
should
be
retained.
The
agency
needs
to
be
kept
informed
to
be
able
to
respond
to
changes
in
the
environmental
situation.
Annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
should
be
maintained
at
all
wells.
The
scope
and
frequency
of
sampling
should
not
be
changed.
Greater
substantive
flexibility
should
not
be
granted
in
a
regulation
meant
to
reduce
paperwork.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment,
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
greater
substantive
flexibility
should
not
be
granted.
In
today's
Final
Rule
under
§
264.100(
g)
we
are
now
requiring
an
annual
report
instead
of
semi­
annual
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action.
While
this
change
was
not
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
was
identified
in
the
comments
received
and
was
discussed
in
the
October
2003
NODA.
It
is
a
change
that
conforms
to
the
change
we
are
making
to
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.

264.113
Document
#:
0216
The
proposal
recommends
modifying
the
submission
schedule
of
this
report
to
be
submitted
­
303­
annually,
instead
of
semi­
annually.
We
would
prefer
to
see
this
modified
such
that
on
a
case­
bycase
basis
an
annual
submission
may
be
allowed.

Response:
This
change
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
proposed
modification
that
these
reports
be
submitted
annually
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Ground
water
cleanup
is
generally
a
multi­
year
effort
and
a
relaxation
of
the
semi­
annual
reporting
requirement
would
not
jeopardize
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
burden
reduction
savings
would
not
be
achieved
by
extending
this
abbreviated
reporting
schedule
only
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.

Document
#:
0240
The
proposed
change
to
submit
the
corrective
action
report
annually,
instead
of
semi­
annually
makes
and
assumption
that
annual
reporting
is
appropriate
at
all
facilities
during
all
stages
of
corrective
action.
DTSC
believes
that
this
proposal
may
not
be
appropriate
for
all
facilities.
However,
it
may
be
sensible
to
require
the
submittal
of
corrective
action
reports
on
an
annual
basis
rather
than
a
semi­
annual
basis
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
facilities
identified
at
the
Regional
Administrator's
or
the
State
regulatory
agency's
discretion.
DTSC
recommends
maintaining
the
requirement
that
all
the
groundwater
data
compiled
within
the
report
be
retained.

To
provide
flexibility
on
submittal
of
the
report
in
question,
the
following
language
is
proposed
for
sections
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
265.113(
e)(
5)
to
allow
the
Regional
Administrator
to
make
a
case­
bycase
determination
of
an
appropriate
submittal
frequency:

Section
265.113(
e)(
5).
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
an
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program.
The
frequency
for
submitting
these
reports
shall
be
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
reports
shall
also
include
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
an
evaluateion
of
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
corrective
action.

Response:
This
change
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
proposed
modification
that
these
reports
be
submitted
annually
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Ground
water
cleanup
is
generally
a
multi­
year
effort
and
a
relaxation
of
the
semi­
annual
reporting
requirement
would
not
jeopardize
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
burden
reduction
savings
would
not
be
achieved
by
extending
this
abbreviated
reporting
schedule
only
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.
With
regard
to
the
commenters
proposed
regulatory
language
the
Agency
is
requiring
in
the
regulatory
language
that
"
during
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

264.113(
e)­­
Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report:
­
304­
Document
#:
0042
Corrective
Action
Report
­
Prepare
and
submit
corrective
action
report
for
closure
(
two
times
annually).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.113(
e)(
5)­­
Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities) 
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report:
Proposed
Action.
Modify 
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually,
instead
of
semiannually
According
to
staff
experts
at
the
Agency,
annual
reports
will
be
sufficient
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Final
Action:
The
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually.

Document
#:
0134
(
264.113(
e)(
5)/
264.100(
g))
DOE
supports
changing
the
frequency
of
reports
on
the
effectiveness
of
groundwater
corrective
action
from
semi­
annual
to
annual.
As
noted
in
the
preamble
of
the
NPRM,
groundwater
monitoring
and
cleanup
is
almost
always
a
multi­
year
or
even
multi­
decade
effort,
and
DOE
agrees
that
annual
reporting
should
provide
adequate
information
to
ensure
compliance.
However,
DOE
notes
that
the
preamble
discussion
on
page
2530
does
not
specify
the
regulatory
sections
to
which
the
proposed
reporting
modifications
would
apply.
There
are
three
existing
regulatory
sections
that
require
semi­
annual
reports
describing
the
progress
of
corrective
action.

(
1)
Existing
§
264.100(
g)
applies
to
permitted
regulated
units
(
i.
e.,
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
land
treatment
units,
and
landfills
that
have
received
hazardous
wastes
after
January
26,
1982)
required
to
establish
a
corrective
action
program
pursuant
to
40
CFR
264,
Subpart
F.
(
2)
Existing
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
applies
to
permitted
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundments
receiving
only
non­
hazardous
wastes
and
not
in
compliance
with
statutory
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
requirements.
(
3)
Existing
§
265.113(
e)(
5)
applies
to
interim
status
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundments
receiving
only
non­
hazardous
wastes
and
not
in
compliance
with
statutory
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
requirements.

DOE
believes
the
reason
stated
in
the
preamble
for
reducing
the
required
frequency
of
corrective
action
progress
reporting
is
equally
valid
with
respect
tot
he
circumstances
addressed
by
all
three
of
these
existing
regulatory
sections.
Nevertheless,
the
NPRM
proposes
regulatory
language
that
would
reduce
the
frequency
of
corrective
action
progress
reporting
just
for
permitted
and
interim
status
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundments
receiving
only
non­
hazardous
wastes
and
not
in
compliance
with
statutory
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
requirements
[
see
proposed
§
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
(
p.
2535)
and
265.113(
e)(
5)(
p.
2540)].
The
NPRM
does
not
propose
regulatory
language
that
would
reduce
the
frequency
of
progress
reporting
for
corrective
action
at
permitted
regulated
units
required
to
establish
a
corrective
action
program
pursuant
to
40
CFR,
Subpart
F.
Therefore,
DOE
requests
that
EPA
consider
also
modifying
§
264.100(
g)
in
the
final
rule
so
that
­
305­
progress
reporting
for
corrective
action
at
permitted
regulated
units
would
be
required
annually
rather
than
semi­
annually.

Response:
This
change
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
but
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
proposed
modification
that
these
reports
be
submitted
annually
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Ground
water
cleanup
is
generally
a
multi­
year
effort
and
a
relaxation
of
the
semi­
annual
reporting
requirement
would
not
jeopardize
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
burden
reduction
savings
would
not
be
achieved
by
extending
this
abbreviated
reporting
schedule
only
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.

With
regard
to
the
commenters
proposed
regulatory
language
the
Agency
is
requiring
in
the
regulatory
language
that
"
during
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

The
Agency
acknowledges
this
last
comment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
under
§
264.100(
g)
we
are
now
requiring
an
annual
report
instead
of
semi­
annual
report.
While
this
change
was
not
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
was
identified
in
the
comments
received
and
was
discussed
in
the
October
2003
NODA.
It
is
a
change
that
conforms
to
the
change
we
are
making
to
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.

Document
#:
0157
EPA
proposes
to
allow
owners/
operators
of
RCRA
facilities
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
groundwater
monitoring
on
an
annual
basis
rather
than
the
current
semi­
annual
basis
required
by
40
CFR
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
&
265.113(
e)(
5).
Id.
at
2530.
EPA
appropriately
reasons
that
the
"
proposed
change
makes
a
sense
because
monitoring
and
cleaning
up
groundwater
is
almost
always
a
multi­
year
or
even
multi­
decade
effort.
Semi­
annual
reporting
of
data
is
not
necessary
for
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment."
Id.

On
a
related
issue,
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposals
to:
(
1)
allow
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
to
be
kept
at
a
facility;
and
(
2)
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
that
the
40
CFR
§
264.99(
g)
requirement
that
facilities
engaged
in
compliance
monitoring
conduct
an
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
of
all
monitoring
wells
be
revised
to
allow
sampling
for
a
subset
of
the
wells
and
for
a
subset
of
the
Appendix
IX
constituents.
Id.
EPA
correctly
states
that
"
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly...
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment."
Id.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
­
306­
Document
#:
0208
FDEP
believes
that
the
proposed
rule
should
read
"
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide,
on
at
least
an
annual
basis,
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
corrective
action...".
It
has
been
FDEP's
experience
that,
at
least
in
the
early
stages
of
corrective
action,
more
frequent
reportage
than
annually
is
necessary
in
order
to
ensure
that
necessary
charges
to
the
corrective
action
system's
efficiency
be
made
as
soon
as
possible.
Once
the
corrective
action
system's
effectiveness
has
been
demonstrated,
it
might
be
appropriate
to
decrease
the
reportage
requirements
to
an
annual
basis.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
the
phrase
"
at
least"
should
be
inserted
into
the
regulatory
text.
We
see
no
need
to
require
this
language
and
feel
that
it
would
result
in
a
situation
resembling
a
case­
by­
case
exclusion
rather
than
an
overall
change
in
the
requirement,
As
previously
noted,
we
believe
that
this
would
result
in
additional
burden
to
the
State
regulators
without
any
addition
protections.

Document
#:
0211
TNRCC
believes
that
the
proposed
revisions
to
40
CFR
264.113(
e)(
5)
may
be
acceptable
if
the
other
corrective
action
requirements
have
been
addressed
according
to
40
CFR
264.113(
e)
and
submitted
annually
as
proposed
instead
of
semi­
annually
as
required
in
the
existing
rules.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
report.
The
submittal
of
a
semi­
annual
report
provides
Ecology
with
the
opportunity
to
address
and
correct
with
the
facility
inadequacies
in
the
groundwater
monitoring
program
before
additional
sampling
is
conducted.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
this
comment.
Ground
water
monitoring
is
generally
a
multi­
year
effort
and
thus
a
annual
report
which
includes
all
monitoring
data
would
be
sufficient
to
identify
an
inadequacies
in
the
ground­
water
monitoring
program.

Document
#:
0218
Modifying
the
requirement
for
semi­
annual
reports
on
corrective
actions,
to
allow
annual
reports.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

Document
#:
0352
(
264.113(
e)(
5)/
264.100(
g))
EPA
is
proposing
annual
instead
of
semi­
annual
reporting
by
the
facility
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
addressing
ground­
water
contamination.
Changing
40
CFR
§
264.100(
g)
to
reflect
this
reduction
in
reporting
previously
proposed
at
40
CFR
264.113(
e)(
5)
was
also
suggested.
LANL
supports
these
changes
and
agrees
that,
because
such
corrective
action
can
often
continue
for
several
years,
semi­
annual
reporting
is
not
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
­
307­
EPA
is
also
proposing
annual
Appendix
IX
analysis
during
compliance
monitoring
for
a
subset
of
wells,
rather
than
for
all
wells.
LANL
supports
this
change
and
agrees
that
such
analysis
for
all
wells
may
not
be
appropriate
if
Appendix
IX
contaminants
would
not
likely
be
found
at
a
particular
site
or
well,
may
not
be
a
good
use
of
resources,
and
may
not
necessarily
contribute
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.115 
Certification
of
Closure:
Proposed
Action:
We
are
taking
comment
on
(
but
we
are
not
proposing
in
today's
rule)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
performing
this
certification.
Final
Action:
We
are
allowing
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer
to
make
the
certification.
in
264.115.

Document
#:
0181
The
CHMM
must
still
be
an
independent
registered
professional.
Are
there
enough
CHMMs
in
the
independent
filed
to
adequately
address
the
need?
Who
and
how
is
the
training
for
a
CHMM
determined
to
be
sufficient?
Most
CHMMs
are
not
qualified
to
conduct
certification
of
integrity
of
tank
systems,
structural
engineering
of
buildings,
ponds,
dikes,
and
berms.

Document
#:
0208
While
EPA
is
not
formally
proposing
changes
to
40
CFR
Part
264.115
at
this
time,
FDEP
is
responding
to
EPA's
request
for
comments
on
a
suggestion
that
CHMMs
be
allowed
to
certify
completion
of
closure
for
hazardous
waste
management
areas.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
Comment
7,
FDEP
would
be
opposed
to
such
a
proposal.
However,
FDEP
does
suggest
that
requirements
for
appropriate
certification
by
Professional
Geologists
be
included
in
this
rule.
Geologists
have
an
important
role
in
demonstrating
the
completion
of
closure
activities,
especially
for
clean
closure,
since
those
activities
may
include
groundwater
sampling,
groundwater
remediation
activities
and
the
like.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
rules
in
the
future
regarding
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM)
can
certify
the
closure
certification
report.
TNRCC
notes
that
existing
40
CFR
264.115
rules
require
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
the
facility
have
been
closed
according
to
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
EPA
is
proposing
and
taking
comments
on
whether
a
CHMM
is
capable
of
performing
closure
certifications.
A
review
of
the
requirements
for
certification
as
a
CHMM
finds
that
the
candidate
is
not
required
to
possess
a
technical
degree
of
any
sort.
However,
the
individuals
applying
for
a
CHMM
certification
without
a
degree
must
have
at
least
11
years
of
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
CHMM
candidates
holding
a
bachelor's
degree
must
also
possess
at
least
7
years
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
waste
management.
Candidates
holding
a
Master's
degree
or
higher
in
a
related
field,
must
also
have
a
minimum
of
3
years
of
practical
experience.
In
all
cases,
the
­
308­
individual
must
pass
a
professional
multiple­
choice
examination
developed
and
administered
by
the
Hazardous
Materials
Management
Institute,
a
private
organization.
However,
the
professional
engineering
(
P.
E.)
requirements
are
more
stringent
and
closely
administered
by
individual
state
licensing
boards
which
are
subject
to
state
regulations.
In
order
for
an
individual
to
obtain
a
P.
E.
license,
the
individual
(
in
most
cases)
must
have
a
BS
degree
in
engineering
and
requisite
experience
is
a
two­
step
process:
first,
the
candidate
is
required
to
take
and
pass
an
exam
covering
the
fundamentals
of
engineering;
next
he/
she
must
take
a
comprehensive
engineering
exam
in
the
respective
field
for
which
the
license
is
sought.
The
registration,
exams,
and
license
requirements
for
P.
E.
s
are
administered
by
the
state
engineering
board.
The
brief
review
of
the
CHMM
requirements,
indicates
that
the
CHMM
standards
are
not
as
comprehensive
or
as
stringent
as
those
required
for
a
P.
E.
In
addition,
P.
E.
s
are
required
to
comply
with
state
regulations
that
establish
standards
for
such
criteria
as
education,
experience,
professional
conduct
and
ethics,
liability
and
insurance,
etc.;
there
are
no
such
established
standards
for
the
CHMM.
Also,
a
licensed
P.
E.
is
only
allowed
to
practice
in
the
field
of
engineering
in
which
he
has
the
necessary
education
or
experience;
it
is
unclear
if
such
restrictions
regulate
the
areas
of
engineering
in
which
a
CHMM
can
practice.
Therefore,
unless
CHMM
standards
are
as
stringent
as
the
P.
E.
requirements
and
are
governed
by
some
state
regulatory
criteria,
it
is
not
advisable
to
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
of
the
various
certification
requirements.
In
addition,
this
proposal
issues,
TNRCC
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
not
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
engineering
certifications,
unless
he/
she
is
also
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer
licensed
to
practice
in
the
individual
state.

Document
#:
0213
We
could
agree
with
this
proposed
modification
for
closures
that
do
not
involve
engineering..
Some
closures
are
fairly
simple;
however,
others
may
involve
more
complex
engineering
design
and
construction
issues.
In
some
cases
closures
and
post­
closure
work
requires
onsite
verification
of
work
in
accordance
with
engineering
plans.
Post­
closures
will
almost
always
require
design
and
construction
of
engineered
liners
and
caps
that
must
meet
strict
RCRA
specifications.
These
plans
may
also
involve
structural
and
design
analyses
as
well
as
the
review
of
complex
calculations.
The
qualifications
of
a
certified
hazardous
waste
materials
manager
may
not
in
all
instances
be
adequate
for
complex
closure
and
post­
closure
certification.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
modifying
the
certification
requirements
for
closure,
to
allow
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
to
make
a
certification
of
closure
for
a
landfill,
surface
impoundment,
or
waste
pile
unit.
Such
closures
generally
involve
geotechnical
determinations,
such
as
slope
stability,
erosion
considerations,
soils
compaction,
and
others,
that
can
typically
be
provided
only
by
properly
trained,
registered
professional
engineers.
In
addition,
closure
of
land
disposal
units
with
waste
left
in
place
can
affect
public
safety
as
well
as
health
and
the
environment,
and
the
engineering
profession
has
long
been
recognized
as
the
appropriate
group
to
make
determinations
in
this
area.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciate
the
comments
received
on
264.115,
we
agree
with
the
commenters
that
CHMMs
are
not
qualified
to
certify
the
type
of
­
309­
certification
that
are
required
under
this
Part.
We
are
convinced
that
because
of
State
licensing
protections
that
the
term
independent
can
be
removed
from
the
certification
requriements.
Therefore
as
a
result
of
this
rule,
the
264.115
certiification
can
be
done
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer.

264.120­­
Certification
of
Completion
of
Post­
Closure
Care:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
certification
can
be
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager,
who
will
have
sufficient
education
and
skill
to
make
this
certification.
Final
Action:
We
have
decided
not
to
allow
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
to
make
these
certifications.

Document
#:
0181
The
CHMM
must
still
be
an
independent
registered
professional.
Who
and
how
is
the
training
for
a
CHMM
determined
to
be
sufficient?
Most
CHMMs
are
not
qualified
to
conduct
certification
of
integrity
of
tank
systems,
structural
engineering
of
buildings,
ponds,
dikes,
and
berms.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
modification.
Some
closures
are
fairly
simple;
however,
others
may
involve
more
complex
engineering
design
and
construction
issues.
In
come
cases
closures
and
postclosure
work
requires
onsite
verification
of
work
in
accordance
with
engineering
plans.
Postclosures
will
almost
always
require
design
and
construction
of
engineered
liners
and
caps
that
must
meet
strict
RCRA
specifications.
These
plans
may
also
involve
structural
and
design
analyses
as
well
as
the
review
of
complex
calculations.
The
qualifications
of
a
certified
hazardous
materials
manager
may
not
in
all
instances
be
adequate
for
complex
closure
and
post­
closure
certification.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
to
also
allow
certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care
by
a
properly
trained
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager,
in
addition
to
a
registered
professional
engineer.

Response
to
All
Comments:
The
Agency
has
decided
not
to
pursue
this
change
in
the
regulatory
requirement.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
discussion.

264.174/
265.174­­
Containers 
Inspection
frequency:
Proposed
Action:
Allow
self­
inspection
frequencies
to
be
changed,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Based
on
comments
from
states
and
the
regulated
community,
we
want
to
provide
flexibility
in
inspections
for
well­
performing
facilities.
Final
Action:
Only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
Program
may
apply
for
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies.

Document
#:
0134
(
Error:
264.170
&
265.170)
DOE
supports
the
proposed
allowance
for
decreased
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
containers,
containment
buildings
and
tanks.
DOE
believes
this
approach
would
provide
facilities
with
incentives
for
establishing
more
protective
designs
and
environmental
management
­
310­
systems
and
compliance
practices
in
order
to
obtain
regulatory
relief
in
the
form
of
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
DOE
suggests,
however,
that
in
the
final
rule
the
preamble
discussion
cite
the
correct
regulatory
sections
applicable
to
inspections
of
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
tanks,
which
are
the
following:

°
Containers:
40
CFR
§
264.171
and
§
265.174
°
Containment
Buildings:
40
CFR
§
264.1101(
c)(
4)
and
265.1101(
c)(
4)
°
Tanks:
40
CFR
§
264.195(
b)
and
§
265.195(
a)

The
NPRM
preamble
(
p.
2527,
col.
1)
incorrectly
cites
40
CFR
§
264.170
and
§
265.170
for
containers,
40
CFR
§
264.1100
and
§
265.1100
for
containment
buildings,
and
40
CFR
§
264.190
and
§
265.190
for
tanks.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule,
commenters
persuasively
argued
that
reduced
inspection
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
would
result
in
an
overwhelming
burden
to
state
regulatory
agencies.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
for
a
reduction
their
inspection
frequency.

The
Agency
acknowledges
the
errors
in
the
regulatory
citations
and
thanks
the
commenter.

Document
#:
0038
The
EPA
should
clarify
that
self
inspection
is
not
required
when
designated
90­
day
storage
sites
are
temporarily
not
being
used
to
store
hazardous
waste.

Discussion:
Current
regulations
do
not
clearly
indicate
that
self­
inspection
requirements
do
not
apply
in
storage
areas
where
hazardous
wastes
are
not
present.
At
smaller
facilities
such
as
Reserve
Centers
or
deployed
Marine
Corps
units,
90­
day
storage
areas
may
not
be
used
for
several
months.
The
current
regulatory
wording
could
be
interpreted
to
require
that
areas
where
containers
are
typically
stored
must
be
inspected
at
least
weekly.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
amend
container
storage
self­
inspection
requirements
at
40
CFR
264/
265.174
to
indicate
that
weekly
inspections
are
not
required
at
90­
day
storage
areas
when
hazardous
wastes
are
not
present.

References.
40
CFR
262.34(
a)(
1)(
i)
and
40
CFR
264/
265,
Subpart
I.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0144
Although
we
agree
that
inspection
frequencies
could
be
relaxed,
in
particular
for
permitted
units,
and
still
maintain
adequate
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
we
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
allow,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
decreased
inspection
frequencies.
­
311­
We
agree
that
inspection
frequencies
could
be
adjusted,
however,
we
STRONGLY
oppose
the
proposal
to
allow
decreased
inspection
frequencies
that
must
be
reviewed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
This
would
significantly
increase
the
workload
of
State
regulatory
authorities
and
would
result
in
inconsistent
standards
not
only
from
State
to
State
but
from
facility
to
facility.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule
based
on
the
overwhelming
burden
that
case­
by­
case
extension
would
create
on
state
regulatory
agency.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0165
Currently,
all
storage
areas
for
containers
must
inspected
at
least
weekly.
In
certain
situations,
however,
container
storage
is
sufficiently
secure
that
less
frequent
self­
inspections
are
appropriate
with
no
loss
of
environmental
protection.
Containers
holding
hazardous
wastes
must
be
in
good
condition
(
without
apparent
structural
defects),
and
made
or
lined
with
material
that
is
compatible
with
the
waste.
See
§
§
264.171
and
264.172.
The
storage
area
must
have
a
secondary
containment
system
to
capture
spills
or
leaks,
and
any
leakage
must
be
removed
from
sumps
or
collection
areas
in
as
timely
a
manner
as
necessary
to
prevent
overflow.
See
§
264.175.
Given
these
safeguards,
the
facility
and
regulatory
authorities
should
have
flexibility
to
allow
the
inspection
frequency
to
be
established
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
but
no
less
frequent
than
monthly),
as
proposed
in
revised
§
264.174.

The
proposed
§
264.741
would
further
stipulate,
however,
that
"
Director
decisions
about
less
frequent
inspections
will
be
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
compliance
record
of
a
facility."
67
Fed.
Reg.
2535
col.
3.
The
preamble
indicates
that
an
even
broader
range
of
factors,
some
not
even
related
to
the
facility's
compliance
record,
would
be
considered
(
e.
g.,
"
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach").
67
Fed.
Reg.
2527,
col.
2.
While
we
understand
EPA's
intent
to
encourage
good
compliance,
we
believe
the
factors
that
should
be
considered
for
inspection
frequency
are
more
logically
related
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
storage
are,
not
the
facility's
overall
"
compliance
record."
For
example,
a
small
facility
could
have
an
apparently
unblemished
compliance
record
mainly
as
a
result
of
infrequent
state
inspections,
while
its
drum
storage
area
could
be
designed
with
minimum
containment
and
operated
at
full
capacity
with
frequent
loading
unloading
activities
likely
to
cause
drum
damage.
On
the
other
hand,
a
larger
commercial
facility
could
have
received
compliance
citations
due
to
its
more
extensive
treatment
and
disposal
operations
and
a
higher
rate
of
state
inspections,
although
its
drum
storage
building
has
state­
of­
the­
art
safety
features,
highly
trained
personnel,
and
controlled
usage.
The
Director
should
consider
whether
the
container
storage
area
is
designed
and
operated
to
minimize
undetected
releases
in
establishing
the
inspection
frequency.
Therefore,
we
strongly
urge
EPA
to
delete
the
sentence
in
proposed
§
264.174
that
would
base
inspection
frequency.
Therefore,
we
strongly
urge
EPA
to
delete
the
sentence
in
proposed
§
264.174
that
would
base
inspection
frequency
on
the
compliance
record,
and
allow
the
Director
to
exercise
good
judgment
based
on
relevant
factors.

Since
changing
the
inspection
frequency
will
require
TSD
facilities
to
obtain
a
permit
modification,
EPA
must
also
amend
§
270.42
Appendix
I
to
clearly
provide
that
establishing
the
­
312­
inspection
frequency
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
revised
§
264.174
is
a
Class
I
permit
modification
with
prior
approval
of
the
Director.
If
EPA
does
not
make
this
corresponding
change
to
the
permit
rules,
the
burden
reduction
will
not
be
realized.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0169
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.
The
proposed
wording
in
§
264.174
states,
"
At
least
weekly,
or
less
frequently
as
determined
by
the
Director."

Weekly
inspections
for
containers
are
not
frequent
enough
to
discover
problems
common
with
containers.
From
our
experience,
we
recommend
daily
inspections
of
containers
since
containers
are
usually
moved
on
a
daily
basis.
Movement
can
cause
a
number
of
problems
with
containers
such
as
gaskets
coming
loose
causing
spills,
containers
shifting
on
pallets
leading
to
unstable
stacking,
etc.
Most
containers
are
exposed
to
the
elements
and
therefore
deterioration
can
occur
quickly
(
labels
fading,
rusting,
pressure
buildup,
etc.).
These
problems
can
occur
even
at
well
ran
facilities.
It
has
been
our
experience
that
a
lot
of
the
violations
found
during
inspections
could
have
been
prevented
if
a
self­
inspection
were
performed.
Facility
personnel
simply
do
not
pay
enough
attention
to
problems
during
inspections;
and
therefore,
problems
go
unnoticed
for
resulting
in
serious
violations.

Container
inspections
are
a
very
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environmental
problems.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0209
Container
Inspections.
Currently
container
inspections
are
required
on
a
weekly
basis.
The
federal
register
suggested
going
to
a
monthly
inspection
schedule.
We
were
concerned
because
many
containers
are
stored
outside
and/
or
without
secondary
containment.
Due
to
these
factors,
a
container
that
fails
is
more
likely
to
release
constituents
to
the
environment.
We
suggest
that
containers
with
secondary
containment
go
to
a
monthly
inspection
schedule.
Containers
without
secondary
containment
should
remain
on
a
weekly
inspection
schedule.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0213
Some
flexibility
could
be
written
into
final
status
permits,
based
on
the
performance
of
the
facility,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
We
do
not
agree
with
changing
the
inspection
frequency
for
less
than
90­
day
generators
or
interim
status
facilities.
For
facilities
operating
under
interim
status
or
for
<
90­
day
generators,
it
would
be
too
hard
to
identify
what
the
frequency
should
be.
We
don't
believe
­
313­
that
weekly
inspections
are
an
onerous
and
burdensome
issue
for
facilities.
Weekly
inspections
are
a
proactive
way
to
address
problems.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0218
Allow
inspections
of
container
storage
areas
at
a
frequency
of
less
than
once
per
week,
on
a
caseby
case
basis.

Document
#:
0241
We
believe
that
is
it
important
that
all
facilities
continue
to
inspect
container
storage
areas
at
least
weekly,
regardless
of
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility.
A
facility's
enforcement
history
has
little
or
no
bearing
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
containers
or
a
container's
potential
to
develop
leaks.
Furthermore,
allowing
less
frequent
container
storage
area
inspections
will
not
significantly
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
because
inspection
reports
are
not
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
are
kept
in
a
log
at
the
facility
site.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
0352
LANL
has
inspected
thousands
of
containers
in
accumulation
areas
and
permitted
storage
units,
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
264.174
and
§
265.174.
During
these
inspections,
changes
in
the
physical
condition
of
new
containers
(
i.
e.,
having
contained
waste
for
less
than
a
year)
in
less
than
90­
day
accumulation
areas
or
in
permitted
or
interim­
status
storage
units
were
not
found
to
degrade
significantly
from
week­
to­
week.
However,
there
are
many
complicating
factors,
such
as
how
long
the
material
resided
in
the
container
as
a
product
before
being
declared
a
waste,
whether
the
material
stored
is
stable
(
e.
g.,
not
peroxide
forming),
whether
containment
is
100
percent
or
less,
and
the
size
of
the
container.
Such
issues
should
be
evaluated
for
each
waste
stream.
For
some,
such
as
stable
wastes
in
short
term
storage,
monthly
inspections
would
be
more
appropriate.
For
others,
such
as
unstable
wastes
or
materials
residing
in
the
same
containers
for
a
long
period
of
time,
more
frequent
inspections
would
be
appropriate.
LANL,
therefore,
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
any
generator
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
container
inspection
frequencies.
However,
instead
of
applying
a
single
inspection
frequency
to
a
facility,
LANL
believes
it
should
be
evaluated
for
individual
waste
streams.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
proposed
change
in
the
final
rule.
Only
Performance
Track
facilities
can
apply
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.

Document
#:
No
Document
ID
(
Error:
264.190)
CRWI
supports
reducing
the
frequency
for
self
inspection
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly
(
264.190
and
265.190)
(
67
FR
2526).
We
also
note
that
there
are
a
number
of
places
in
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f)
where
the
word
"
daily"
needs
to
be
changed
to
"
weekly."
­
314­
Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).

(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings,
except
for
case­
by­
case
situations
with
Performance
Track
facilities
that
must
have
approval
by
the
State
or
EPA
regulating
agency.
See
preamble
discussion.)

Today's
final
rule
provides
regulatory
incentive
provisions
to
facilities
who
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
are
provided
the
opportunity
to
reduce
self
inspections
of
tanks
and
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
frequency
not
less
than
one
month.
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
these
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

264.191­­
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity:

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
modification
to
allow
CHMM's
to
perform
than
integrity
assessments.
Tank
assessments
include
consideration
of
such
areas
as
structural
stability,
earthquake
and
wind
considerations,
and
tank
design
details.
The
failure
of
a
tank
without
secondary
containment
may
have
catastrophic
consequences
impacting
the
public.
As
noted
in
paragraph
III
above,
typically
only
engineering
curriculums
cover
the
topics
needed,
which
are
tested
by
the
registration
process
for
engineers.

The
DEQ
SUPPORTS
the
deletion
of
the
language
requiring
an
assessment
of
integrity
by
1988.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
discussion
of
the
Burden
Reduction
rule.

264.192(
a),
(
b)­­
Assessment
of
new
tank
system
and
components:
Proposed
Action.
Modify 
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager,
who
will
have
sufficient
education
and
skill
to
do
this
certification.
And,
this
assessment
may
be
retained
on­
site.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
the
final
rule.
­
315­
Document
#:
0181
Assessment
of
new
tank
system
and
components.
A
CHMM
does
not
have
the
training
required
for
this
type
of
in
depth
assessment.
A
CHMM
must
still
be
an
independent
registered
professional.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
rule.
We
disagree
however
that
the
term
"
independent"
needs
to
be
retained.
(
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
language
to
the
final
rule.)

Document
#:
0211
Please
see
comments
concerning
item
#
2,
above.
In
addition,
it
is
not
clear
to
TNRCC
as
to
whether
this
information
will
be
submitted
or
retained
on­
site;
the
comments
on
Page
2522
are
not
reflected
in
the
proposed
rules
(
Page
2536).
Also,
the
facilities
may
be
required
to
submit
such
information
with
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Without
knowledge
of
existing
tank
systems,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulators
to
draft
specific
permit
conditions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
rule.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
education
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems,
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
(
i.
e.,
allowing
a
CHMM
to
make
these
certifications)
in
today's
rule.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
changes
made
to
subparagraph
(
a),
and
SUPPORTS
the
modification
to
subparagraph
(
b),
with
further
modifications
as
noted.

As
noted
in
subparagraph
VI.
F
above,
the
design
of
a
tank
involves
area
that
are
more
properly
the
province
of
registered
engineers.
To
allow
other
individuals
(
with
an
accreditation
that
is
not
generally
governed
or
recognized
by
the
states)
may
unnecessarily
endanger
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
proposed
change
also
is
not
clear
that
the
certifying
CHMM
needs
to
be".
independent,
[
and]
qualified..."
as
with
the
registered
engineer.
Therefore
the
modifications
to
subparagraph
(
a)
are
opposed.

The
modifications
to
subparagraph
(
b)
expand
upon
the
existing
language
which
already
allow
the
use
of
an
independent,
qualified
installation
inspector,
in
addition
to
a
registered
engineer,
and
are
believed
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
the
text
should
be
made
clear
that
the
CHMM
must
be
"...
independent,
[
and]
qualified..."
as
with
the
engineer
and
tank
­
316­
installers.

Secondly,
the
DEQ
would
recommend
that
the
following
text
be
added
as
a
note
to
subparagraph
(
b):

[
NOTE:
Some
states
have
specific
requirements
regarding
the
personnel
allowed
to
perform
tank
certifications.
The
owner
or
operator
is
advised
to
consult
with
state
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
if
such
requirements
are
in
effect
for
their
state.]

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
rule.

264.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)­­
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity:
Proposed
Rule:
Modify 
assessment
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager,
who
will
have
sufficient
education
and
skill
to
do
this
certification.
Final
Rule:
The
Agency
is
not
promulgating
this
change.

Document
#:
0181
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity.
A
CHMM
does
not
have
the
training
required
for
this
type
of
in
depth
assessment.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
rule.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
education
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems,
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
we
are
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
rule
to
allow
a
CHMM
to
make
these
certifications.
We
are
however
deleting
the
term
"
independent"
from
the
qualifications
necessary
for
the
Professional
Engineer.
Because
of
State
oversight
and
licensing
requirements,
the
Agency
believes
that
a
PE
regardless
of
whether
he/
she
is
employed
by
the
facility
can
conduct
an
unbiased
and
through
review
of
the
certification
requirements.
The
reaser
is
referred
to
the
preamble
langauge
for
the
Burden
Reduction
final
rule
for
additional
discussion
on
these
points.
.

264.193/
265.193­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases:
Proposed
Action:
Remove
obsolete
language.

Document
#:
0222/
0223
­
ACC
­
317­
Retain
allowable
exceptions
to
tank
secondary
containment.
ACC
supports
removing
obsolete
language,
but
suggests
retention
of
certain
existing
regulatory
language
that
provides
clarification
regarding
allowable
exceptions
to
secondary
containment.

HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TANK
SYSTEM
SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT
ACC
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
remove
obsolete
language
in
264.193(
a)
and
265.193(
a),
primarily
by
removing
paragraphs
(
1)
through
(
5)
in
each
of
those
sections.
However,
the
parenthetical
phrase
"(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section)"
that
currently
appears
at
the
end
of
the
introductory
text
in
both
264,193(
a)
and
265.193(
a)
should
be
retained
in
the
revised
sections
such
that
the
revised
text
in
both
sections
reads:

(
a)
Secondary
containment
must
be
provided
for
all
existing
and
new
tank
systems
and
components
(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section).

This
clarification
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
there
is
not
apparent
discrepancy
between
paragraph
(
a)
and
the
allowed
exceptions
to
secondary
containment
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g).

Response:
Deleting
the
subparagraphs
as
proposed
would
eliminate
the
provision
for
phasing
in
secondary
containment
for
tanks
storing
newly
listed
wastes,
and
for
using
the
secondary
containment
variance.
Eliminating
these
provisions
was
not
our
intent
and
we
will
retain
them
provision
in
the
regulations.
The
final
rule
will
remove
only
subparagraphs
(
2)
through
(
4)
and
retain
a
revised
subparagraph
(
1)
and
a
revised
and
renumbered
subparagraph
(
5).

Document
#:
0327
(
264/
265.193/
195)
API
supports
the
proposal
to
change
the
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
for
both
large
and
small
quantity
generators.
We
also
support
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
inspection
frequency
for
ancillary
tank
equipment
(
piping,
pumps,
valves
and
other
associated
equipment)
at
both
small
and
large
quantity
generator
facilities.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
commenter
supporting
the
changes
to
the
inspection
frequencies
for
LQG
and
SQG
under
certain
conditions.

Document
#:
0347
Eastman
supports
changing
the
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
at
small
quantity
generator
sites
and
ancillary
equipment
at
small
and
large
quantity
generator
facilities.
While
daily
tank
inspections
are
part
of
our
regulatory
"
culture"
and
some
of
our
facilities
may
prefer
to
continue
that
practice,
we
appreciate
the
flexibility
to
go
to
weekly
inspections,
believing
that
hazardous
waste
tanks
are
designed
and
operated
such
that
there
is
no
need
for
a
daily
inspection.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
commenter
supporting
the
changes
to
the
inspection
frequencies
for
LQGs
and
SQGs
under
certain
conditions.
­
318­
Document
#:
0348
The
change
of
inspection
frequency
should
require
the
following
addition:
if
problems
are
observed,
the
frequency
of
inspections
must
be
daily
until
the
problem
is
fixed
and
two
weeks
of
daily
inspections
demonstrate
the
fix
was
appropriate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
commenter
supporting
the
changes
to
the
inspection
frequencies
for
LQGs
and
SQGs,
however
the
Agency
is
unconvinced
as
to
the
need
to
require
additional
inspection
frequency
in
the
event
of
a
problem.
Sufficient
regulatory
requirements
are
in
place
that
would
alleviate
the
need
for
this
additional
oversight.

Document
#:
0349
ADEQ
does
not
object
to
comments
suggesting
EPA
also
allow
small
quantity
generators
reduce
tank
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly.
However,
ADEQ
notes
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
will
not
provide
any
additional
reduction
in
the
recordkeeping/
reporting
burden
for
small
quantity
generators
who
are
not
subject
to
40
CFR,
Section
264/
265.15
and,
therefore,
are
not
required
to
maintain
a
schedule
or
a
record
of
inspections.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
commenter
supporting
the
changes
to
the
inspection
frequencies
for
SQGs
under
certain
conditions.

Document
#:
0350
US
EPA
proposes
to
change
the
frequency
of
tank
inspections
for
small
quantity
generators
from
daily
to
weekly.
However,
US
EPA
has
not
provided
any
data
that
suggests
that
the
reduced
frequency
of
tank
inspections
is
as
protective
as
the
intent
of
the
current
standard
which
as
stated
in
51
FR
25454,
July
14,
1986
is
to
"...
enable
the
detection
of
releases
or
potential
releases
at
the
earliest
possible
time."

We
do
not
believe
that
the
reduced
tank
inspection
frequency
should
be
afforded
to
small
quantity
generators
unless
their
tank
systems
are
upgraded
to
meet
additional
standards.
Currently
small
quantity
generators
only
have
to
inspect
their
tank
systems
for
proper
operational
controls
daily.
Otherwise,
small
quantity
generators
are
not
required
to
do
any
type
of
additional
leak
detection,
except
for
the
weekly
requirement
already
in
place.
Also,
since
small
quantity
generators
are
not
required
to
provide
secondary
containment,
the
operating
day
inspections
assist
in
protecting
from
a
release
or
potential
release.
We
believe,
if
small
quantity
generators
wish
to
receive
this
reduced
inspection
frequency,
then
they
must
comply
with
the
same
secondary
containment
requirements
as
large
quantity
generators
and
would
need
to
install
an
automated
leak
detection
system
that
alerts
a
person
designated
to
respond.

Overall,
Ohio
EPA
does
not
support
changing
the
frequency
of
any
current
tank
inspection
provided
for
in
the
rules
unless
certain
standards
are
met.
We
believe
that
the
tank
inspection
frequency
should
only
be
reduced
to
weekly
when
the
tank
system
has
secondary
containment
and
has
an
automated
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
response
personnel.

ADEQ
Comment:
ADEQ
does
not
object
to
comments
suggesting
EPA
also
allow
small
quantity
­
319­
generators
reduce
tank
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly.
However,
ADEQ
notes
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
will
not
provide
any
additional
reduction
in
the
recordkeeping/
reporting
burden
for
small
quantity
generators
who
are
not
subject
to
40
CFR,
Section
264/
265.15
and,
therefore,
are
not
required
to
maintain
a
schedule
or
a
record
of
inspections.

Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tank
systems,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings,
except
for
case­
by­
case
situations
with
performance
track
facilities.)
We
also
recognize
that
SQG
are
not
required
to
maintain
an
inspection
log.
Any
burden
reduction
that
results
from
the
changes
made
in
today's
rule,
will
be
on
the
labor
saved
not
paperwork
reduced.

Document
#:
0352
EPA
requested
comment
on
establishing
weekly
tank
inspections
for
all
tank
and
tank
systems
for
small
quantity
generators.
Inspections
currently
must
be
conducted
daily,
as
required
by
40
CFR
§
265.201(
c),
§
264.193(
f),
and
§
265.193(
f).
Because
the
physical
state
of
the
tank
and
surrounding
area
change
only
slowly
under
normal
operating
conditions,
LANL
believes
that
the
visual
inspection
frequency
of
tanks
and
tank
systems
could
be
decreased
to
a
minimum
of
weekly.
LANL
also
believes
some
well­
operated
systems
may
warrant
even
less
frequent
inspection.
Therefore,
we
suggest
that
the
variance
provisions
provided
for
ancillary
equipment
by
40
CFR
§
264.193(
g)
and
§
265.193(
g)
be
extended
to
40
§
265.201(
c).

Response:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
an
automatic
leak
detection
system
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings,
except
for
case­
by­
case
situations
with
Performance
Track
facilities.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
variance
provisions
could
be
utilized
for
reducing
tank
systems
inspection
frequency
up
to
monthly.
There
are
two
reasons
why
we
do
not
support
this
idea;
1)
There
is
no
data/
information
to
suggest
that
this
type
of
frequency
would
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment;
and
2)
evaluation
of
a
variance
petitions
could
put
a
significant
burden
on
the
regulatory
agency
.

Document
#:
0357
A
basic
principle
of
RCRA
is
prevention,
including
preventing
a
major
release
from
a
waste
management
unit.
The
proposed
rule
changes
appear
primarily
guided
by
a
desire
to
project
an
image
of
providing
a
"
burden
reduction"
for
the
regulated
community.
In
doing
so,
the
proposed
­
320­
changes
are
disregarding
prevention
mechanisms.
The
chances
of
releases
occurring
and
going
undetected
are
greatly
increased
by
allowing
for
weekly
inspections
of
tank
systems.
Hazardous
waste
tank
systems
are
designed
to
accumulate
large
quantities
of
hazardous
waste.
The
current
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
systems
provides
a
reasonable
means
to
detect
and
minimize
releases
of
hazardous
waste
in
a
timely
manner.
In
addition,
it
is
the
Department's
position
that
the
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
systems
has
not
been
a
significant
burden
on
the
regulated
community.
The
Department
strongly
recommends
the
requirements
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
system
be
maintained.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter,
today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
its
absence,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
(
Today's
rule
does
not
reduce
the
inspection
frequencies
for
containers
or
containment
buildings,
except
for
case­
by­
case
situations
with
Performance
Track
facilities.)

Today's
final
rule
provides
regulatory
incentive
provisions
to
facilities
who
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
are
provided
the
opportunity
to
apply
for
reduced
self
inspections
of
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
frequency
not
less
than
one
month.
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
these
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight
264.193(
a)­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases:

Document
#:
0286
We
believe
some
provision
which
allows
for
a
phased­
in
approach
for
newly
listed
wastes
stored
in
tanks
to
meet
the
secondary
containment
requirements
is
reasonable.
By
removing
all
the
language
in
this
paragraph,
an
increased
burden
would
be
placed
upon
facilities
which
may
be
storing
waste
in
tanks.
Additionally,
we
may
be
required
to
take
enforcement
action
against
facilities
which
were
not
in
compliance
with
the
secondary
containment
requirements,
which
would
be
an
increased
burden
placed
upon
us.

Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
deleting
the
subparagraphs
as
proposed
would
eliminate
the
provision
for
phasing
in
secondary
containment
for
tanks
storing
newly
listed
wastes.
Eliminating
this
provision
was
not
our
intent
and
we
will
retain
the
provision
in
the
regulations.
The
final
rule
will
remove
only
subparagraphs
(
2)
through
(
4)
and
retain
a
revised
subparagraph
(
1)
and
a
revised
and
renumbered
subparagraph
(
5).
­
321­
264.193(
a),
(
a)(
1) (
5)­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases:
Proposed
Action:
Remove
obsolete
language
264.193/
265.193(
c)(
4)­­
Reporting
of
precipitation
and
material
in
secondary
containment.

Document
#:
0215
A
reporting
obligation
that
appears
minor,
but
that
has
caused
significant
problems
in
practice,
appears
at
40
CFR
§
264.193(
c)(
4),
regarding
containment
and
detection
of
releases
from
tank
systems.
In
brief,
small
amounts
of
material
may
often
be
present
in
the
secondary
containment
for
tank
systems.
In
the
winter,
there's
snow.
Throughout
the
year,
a
small
amount
of
water
or
other
material
may
remain
in
the
secondary
containment
because
the
quantity
is
not
sufficient
to
trigger
the
drain.
The
quantities
of
material
involved
are
almost
always
less
than
1%
of
the
total
capacity
of
the
secondary
containment
(
and
the
secondary
containment
is
typically
twice
th
site
the
size
of
the
tank
it
is
designed
to
contain).
In
these
situations,
the
regulations
at
§
264.193(
c)(
4)
require
the
tank's
owner
or
operator
to
"
demonstrate
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
removal
of
the
released
wastes
or
accumulated
precipitation
cannot
be
accomplished
within
24
hours."
In
practice,
this
"
demonstration"
has
often
proved
remarkably
difficult,
even
in
a
context
that
would
pose
no
plausible
environmental
hazard.
I
strongly
recommend
that
EPA
add
a
sentence
at
the
end
of
this
regulation
to
reduce
this
burden.
For
example:
"
No
demonstration
is
required
for
de
minimis
amounts
of
precipitation
or
waste,
constituting
less
than
1%
of
the
total
volume
of
the
secondary
containment,
in
a
tank
system
that
otherwise
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section."
In
the
alternative,
I
recommend
that
EPA
follow
the
approach
taken
in
Indiana's
"
Secondary
Containment
for
Hazardous
Materials"
regulations
(
327
IAC
2­
10).
These
regulations
state:
"
Liquid
that
collects
within
the
secondary
containment
area
must
be
removed
within
seventy
two
(
72)
hours
of
its
discovery
in
order
to
maintain
the
available
capacity
of
the
secondary
containment
at
one
hundred
percent
(
100%)
of
the
largest
above
ground
tank,
or
portable
tank
in
the
secondary
containment
area.
Ice
must
be
removed
as
soon
as
weather
permits."
[
327
IAC
2­
10­
6(
e)]

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
these
comments,
however
the
recommended
changes
are
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
No
change
to
existing
regulations
264.193(
c)(
3),
(
c)(
4),
(
e)(
3)(
iii)­­
Leak
Detection
System
for
Tanks:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
need
for
demonstrations
to
the
regulatory
authorities,
and
make
this
requirement
self­
implementing.
The
owner
or
operator
is
in
the
best
position
to
make
the
determination
as
to
what
is
the
earliest
practical
time,
based
on
the
site
characteristics.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
pursuing
this
change.
No
change
in
CFR.

Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
this
change.
Owners
and
operators
frequently
decide
that
the
earliest
practical
time
is
at
their
convenience.
It
is
absurd
to
allow
the
regulated
community
to
determine
when
they
can
get
to
it.
The
elimination
of
this
requirement
effectively
voids
the
entire
rule
since
­
322­
the
regulatory
agency
would
never
be
able
to
compel
facilities
to
respond
to
leaks
since
they
could
legally
argue
that
the
time
to
respond
to
the
leak
was
not
yet
practical.

Response:
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
the
arguments
presented
by
the
commenter
and
there
will
be
no
change
to
existing
regulations.

Document
#:
0181
Many
times
the
facility
is
not
the
best
entity
to
determine
when
it
is
applicable
to
allow
liquids
in
secondary
containment
to
exceed
24­
hours.
This
demonstration
should
remain
in
the
regulators
purview
as
to
whether
or
not
continued
or
future
operation
of
the
unit
should
be
allowed
at
all.
Removal
of
the
demonstration
requirement
eliminates
an
effective
regulatory
tool.
Too
often,
fiscal
and
difficulty
of
compliance
are
used
as
major
reasons
by
the
facility,
and
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
are
not
considered.

Response:
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
the
arguments
presented
by
the
commenter
and
there
will
be
no
change
to
existing
regulations.
Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
These
variance
demonstration
requirements
are
important
requirements
that
should
be
met
with
approval
by
the
Agency
prior
to
use.
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
The
term
earliest
practicable
time
should
be
justified
by
the
facility
if
the
24­
hour
time
limit
is
not
met.
The
Agency
may
not
be
aware
of
such
a
determination
for
1­
2
years.

Response:
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
the
arguments
presented
by
the
commenter
and
there
will
be
no
change
to
existing
regulations.

264.193(
c)(
3),
(
4),
(
e)(
3)(
iii)/
265.193
(
g)(
1,
(
h)­­
Leak
Detection
System
for
Tanks:
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulation.

Document
#:
0216
Elimination
of
notifications
and
demonstrations.

 
Leak
Detection
System
for
Tanks;
and
 
Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
(
Permitted
&
Interim
Status)

We
disagree
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
need
for
demonstrations
to
the
regulatory
authorities,
as
well
as
making
this
requirement
self­
implementing.
If
would
be
too
easy
for
an
owner/
operator
to
simply
state
that
the
situation
would
not
allow
for
24­
hour
detection
and
removal
of
waste
within
24
hours.
It
is
also
difficult
to
envision
the
variance
from
leak
detection
as
self­
implementing.
There
are
basic
elements
of
a
regulatory
program
that
require
timely
agency
oversight,
and
variance
approvals
are
one
such
element.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter.
There
will
be
no
change
to
existing
­
323­
regulations.

264/
265.193(
f)­­
Request
for
Comment
for
SQG
tanks
and
SQG/
LQG
Ancillary
Equipment
on
Tanks
Document
#:
0317
Large
Quantity
Generators:
For
the
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
proposal
of
January
17,
2002,
Dow
submitted
comments
on
April
12,
2002.
In
addition
to
agreeing
with
the
proposal
to
reduce
tank
inspection
frequency,
Dow
commented
on
the
need
to
also
reduce
the
frequency
of
inspection
for
tank
ancillary
equipment
[
40
CFR
264.193(
f)
and
40
CFR
265.193(
f)
from
daily
to
weekly.
At
the
time,
Dow
commented
that
reducing
the
frequency
of
inspection
of
these
items
should
not
diminish
from
environmental
protection.

Dow
continues
to
believe
that
such
a
reduction
in
inspection
frequency
for
this
equipment
is
needed
if
anything
is
to
be
achieved
by
reducing
the
tank
inspection
frequency.
Since
both
of
these
inspections
are
usually
performed
at
the
same
time,
there
will
be
very
little
benefit
if
only
the
inspection
frequency
for
the
tank
itself
is
reduced.

Dow
proposed
language
in
the
comments
of
April
12,
2002
and
still
suggests
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:

40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
and
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis."
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
and
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
In
response
to
several
commenters
to
the
proposed
rule
suggested
changing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
ancillary
equipment,
specifically
citing
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f).
(
These
requirements
specify
that
ancillary
equipment
must
have
secondary
containment,
except
in
four
instances,
each
involving
daily
visual
inspections
for
leaks.)
While
most
commenters
provided
little
information
to
support
making
the
change,
one
commenter
did
argue
that
if
the
proposed
changes
to
§
§
264.195
and
265.195
were
finalized,
the
existing
provisions
in
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
if
not
also
changed,
would
be
inconsistent.
As
background,
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
requested
comment
on
expanding
the
proposed
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
at
LQG
and
SQG
sites.
The
NODA
referenced
the
­
324­
regulations
at
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
suggesting
making
the
change
would
be
consistent
with
our
intent,
as
discussed
in
the
proposed
rule.
Because
today's
rule
changes
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
provided
with
secondary
containment,
where
leak
detection
equipment
or
workplace
practices
are
used,
as
discussed
previously,
any
ancillary
equipment
associated
with
such
tank
systems
would,
therefore,
be
eligible
for
reduced
inspections.
We
considered
allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment,
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
to
be
visually
inspected
weekly
instead
of
daily.
While
most
of
the
commenters
supported
this
change,
upon
further
analysis
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
the
final
rule
addresses
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
systems.
The
proposed
rule
discussed
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems
because
of,
among
other
reasons,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment.
Allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
to
change
from
daily
visual
inspections
to
weekly
visual
inspections
would
not
be
consistent
with
our
approach.
We
are
including
regulatory
language
in
§
§
264.194(
d)
and
265.195(
c)
to
say
that
ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.

264.193(
f)(
1)(
2)(
3)(
4)­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

Document
#:
0138
Dow
appreciates
the
proposed
reduction
in
the
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly.
However,
Dow
believes
that
changes
to
other
regulatory
references
besides
those
in
the
table
(
67
FR
2521)
are
needed
to
accomplish
EPA's
intent
to
reduce
burden.
Specifically,
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
and
40
CFR
265.193(
f)
both
require
daily
inspection
of
tank
system
ancillary
equipment
in
(
4)
four
places.
If
the
changes
to
40
CFR
264.195
and
40
CFR
265.195
are
finalized
as
proposed
these
requirements
will
create
an
inconsistency.
Dow
requests
that
both
40
CFR
264.195
and
40
CFR
265.195.
Dow
suggests
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
and
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
and
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"

Response
to
Comment:
Reducing
the
frequency
of
inspection
of
these
items
should
not
diminish
from
environmental
protection,
particularly
because
this
equipment
most
often
has
containment
for
other
reasons
(
e.
g.,
NPDES,
SPCC,
etc.)
even
though
the
design
may
not
match
RCRA
­
325­
requirements.
several
commenters
to
the
proposed
rule
suggested
changing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
ancillary
equipment,
specifically
citing
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f).
(
These
requirements
specify
that
ancillary
equipment
must
have
secondary
containment,
except
in
four
instances,
each
involving
daily
visual
inspections
for
leaks.)
While
most
commenters
provided
little
information
to
support
making
the
change,
one
commenter
did
argue
that
if
the
proposed
changes
to
§
§
264.195
and
265.195
were
finalized,
the
existing
provisions
in
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
if
not
also
changed,
would
be
inconsistent.
As
background,
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
requested
comment
on
expanding
the
proposed
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
at
LQG
and
SQG
sites.
The
NODA
referenced
the
regulations
at
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
suggesting
making
the
change
would
be
consistent
with
our
intent,
as
discussed
in
the
proposed
rule.
Because
today's
rule
changes
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
provided
with
secondary
containment,
where
leak
detection
equipment
or
workplace
practices
are
used,
as
discussed
previously,
any
ancillary
equipment
associated
with
such
tank
systems
would,
therefore,
be
eligible
for
reduced
inspections.
We
considered
allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment,
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
to
be
visually
inspected
weekly
instead
of
daily.
While
most
of
the
commenters
supported
this
change,
upon
further
analysis
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
the
final
rule
addresses
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
systems.
The
proposed
rule
discussed
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems
because
of,
among
other
reasons,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment.
Allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
to
change
from
daily
visual
inspections
to
weekly
visual
inspections
would
not
be
consistent
with
our
approach.
We
are
including
regulatory
language
in
§
§
264.194(
d)
and
265.195(
c)
to
say
that
ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.

264.193(
f)(
1),
(
3)­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

Document
#:
0174
Dow
appreciates
the
proposed
reduction
in
the
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly.
However,
Dow
believes
that
changes
to
other
regulatory
references
besides
those
in
the
table
(
67
FR
2521)
are
needed
to
accomplish
EPA's
intent
to
reduce
burden.
Specifically,
40
CFR
264.193(
f)
and
40
CFR
265.193(
f)
both
require
daily
inspection
of
tank
system
ancillary
equipment
in
(
4)
four
places.
If
the
changes
to
40
CFR
264.195
and
40
CFR
265.195
are
finalized
as
proposed,
these
requirements
will
create
an
inconsistency.
Dow
requests
that
both
40
CFR
264.195
and
40
CFR
265.195.
Dow
suggests
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:

40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
­
326­
and
40
CFR
264.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis."
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
1)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
2)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
3)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"
and
40
CFR
265.193
(
f)
(
4)
"...
are
visually
inspected
for
leaks
on
a
daily
weekly
basis;"

Reducing
the
frequency
of
inspection
of
these
items
should
not
diminish
from
environmental
protection,
particularly
because
this
equipment
most
often
has
containment
for
other
reasons
(
e.
g.,
NPDES,
SPCC,
etc.)
even
though
the
design
may
not
match
RCRA
requirements.

Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
The
final
rule
will
reduce
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly,
and
for
up
to
monthly,
for
performance
track
facilities
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Ancillary
equipment,
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f).
without
secondary
containment
will
be
required
to
inspect
daily.
Because
today's
rule
changes
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
provided
with
secondary
containment,
where
leak
detection
equipment
or
workplace
practices
are
used,
any
ancillary
equipment
associated
with
such
tank
systems
would,
therefore,
be
eligible
for
reduced
inspections.
We
considered
allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment,
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
to
be
visually
inspected
weekly
instead
of
daily.
Upon
further
analysis,
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
systems
have
been
addressed
in
this
final
rule.
The
proposed
rule
discussed
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems
because
of,
among
other
reasons,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment.
Allowing
ancillary
equipment,
without
secondary
containment,
to
change
from
daily
visual
inspections
to
weekly
visual
inspections
would
not
be
consistent
with
our
approach.
Therefore,
we
are
including
regulatory
language
in
§
§
264.194(
d)
and
265.195(
c)
to
say
that
ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.
There
are
instances,
however,
where
tanks
and
tanks
systems
are
located
within
buildings,
and
where
the
building
itself
provides
secondary
containment.
In
cases
where
ancillary
equipment
is
located
inside
of
a
building
that
has
been
determined
to
provide
secondary
containment,
and
either
leak
detection
systems
or
workplace
practices
exist
to
identify
leaks
and
spills,
then
the
regulatory
criteria
are
met
and
that
ancillary
equipment
may
be
inspected
weekly.
Thus,
for
example,
in
a
case
where
ancillary
equipment
inside
a
building
does
not
have
double
walls
or
leak
detection,
this
ancillary
equipment
would
still
be
eligible
for
weekly
inspections
if
the
building
serves
as
secondary
containment,
and
if
the
area
is
frequented
by
employees
whereby
releases
will
be
immediately
obvious
and
the
employees,
as
part
of
established
workplace
practices,
will
promptly
identify
and
remediate
leaks
and
spills.
In
cases
involving
buildings
serving
as
secondary
containment,
as
authorized
programs,
states
necessarily
have
the
ultimate
authority
to
make
the
determination
that
secondary
containment
requirements
are
met
(
taking
into
account
all
relevant
site­
specific
considerations).
­
327­
264/
265.193(
g)­­
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
The
owner
or
operator
may
obtain
a
variance
from
the
requirements
of
this
Section
if
the
Regional
Administrator
finds,
as
a
result
of
a
demonstration
by
the
owner
or
operator,
either:
that
alternative
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
will
prevent
the
migration
of
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
into
the
ground
water
or
surface
water
at
least
as
effectively
as
secondary
containment
during
the
active
life
of
the
tank
system
or
that
in
the
event
of
a
release
that
does
migrate
to
ground
water
or
surface
water,
no
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
will
be
posed
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
New
underground
tank
systems
may
not,
per
a
demonstration
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
be
exempted
from
the
secondary
containment
requirements
of
this
section.
Application
for
a
variance
as
allowed
in
paragraph
(
g)
of
this
section
does
not
waive
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart
for
new
tank
systems.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0241
The
table
of
regulatory
sections
proposed
for
modification
beginning
on
page
2521
of
the
preamble
indicates
that
a
variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
is
being
proposed
for
elimination.
The
variances
listed
in
these
sections
of
the
regulations
are
not
variances
from
leak
detection
requirements,
but
variances
from
the
requirements
of
all
of
264/
265.193,
the
section
that
requires
that
secondary
containment
be
provided
for
tanks.
Secondary
containment
is
the
only
generally
reliable
means
to
achieve
control
over
releases
from
these
tanks
before
they
pose
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

We
feel
that
the
proposed
modifications
to
this
section
go
beyond
a
paperwork
burden
reduction.
They
would
allow
any
facility
owner/
operator
to
unilaterally
decide
not
to
provide
secondary
containment
for
his
hazardous
waste
tanks,
provided
that
he
writes
a
demonstration
of
equivalency
and
places
it
in
the
facility
operating
record.
It
has
been
our
experience
as
a
permitting
authority
that
demonstrations
of
this
type
are
often
incomplete
or
deficient
and
we
are
adamantly
opposed
to
making
these
variances
self­
implementing.
We
strongly
believe
that
the
eligibility
for
a
variance
from
this
critically
important
requirement
should
be
demonstrated
with
certainty
and
that
the
continued
requirement
for
a
detailed
agency
review
of
requests
for
a
variance
from
tank
secondary
containment
requirements
is
essential.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change
in
today's
final
rule.

264.193(
g),
(
h)­­
Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
need
to
obtain
variance,
and
make
this
provision
selfimplementing
The
owner
or
operator
can
implement
alternate
design
and
operating
practices
as
long
as
they
follow
the
requirements
of
this
section.
­
328­
Document
#:
0134
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
existing
requirement
that
the
Regional
Administrator
grant
a
variance
before
a
permitted
hazardous
waste
tank
is
allowed
to
operate
with
a
secondary
containment
or
release
detection
system
that
does
not
meet
specifications.
Under
the
proposed
modified
regulations,
no
variance
would
be
needed
as
long
as
the
owner/
operator
implements
and
keeps
records
of
alternate
tank
design
and
operating
practices
that
would
prevent
migration
of
hazardous
waste
and
hazardous
constituents
into
the
groundwater
or
surface
water.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
proposal.
This
rule
is
far
too
important
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
to
effectively
abolish
it
by
allowing
the
owners
and
operators
to
unilaterally
determine
what
is
effectively
equivalent.
EPA
took
very
significant
action
to
stop
the
well­
documented
problems
with
tank
systems,
it
is
absurd
to
now
allow
the
regulated
community
to
circumvent
this
rule
by
allowing
them
to
do
whatever
they
deem
as
adequate.
Our
enforcement
files
are
loaded
with
examples
of
tank
failures
and
catastrophic
releases
caused
by
tanks
that
were
considered
adequate
by
the
owner
or
operator.

Document
#:
0181
With
the
regulation
becoming
self
implementing,
the
burden
of
proof
shifts
from
the
facility
to
the
regulator.
Now
the
regulator
has
to
prove
the
ability
or
inability
of
the
alternative
system.
Instead
of
a
facility
conducting
the
system
analysis
for
their
own
equipment,
the
regulator
must
do
this
for
several
to
many
tank
systems
in
the
regulated
public.
This
will
increase
costs
and
time
problems
for
agencies,
or
work
will
not
be
completed
and
some
systems
which
do
not
meet
the
requirements
will
go
unchanged.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
40
CFR
264.193(
g)
and
eliminate
40
CFR
264.193(
h)
which
concerns
variances
from
secondary
containment
requirements.
The
proposed
rules
would
eliminate
the
submittal
of
a
variance
request
to
the
regional
administrator,
thus
requiring
facilities
to
keep
records
on­
site
to
describe
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
for
tanks
not
complying
with
the
40
CFR
264.193
requirements.
Such
information
is
submitted
as
an
element
of
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Therefore,
it
is
unclear
to
TNRCC
why
these
requirements
are
being
eliminated.
Eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
this
information
would
make
it
difficult
for
regulators
to
properly
evaluate
a
tank
system
in
light
of
the
regulatory
requirements
and
set
permit
conditions
specific
to
the
tank
system.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
These
variance
demonstration
requirements
are
important
requirements
that
should
be
met
with
approval
by
the
Agency
prior
to
use.
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
The
term
earliest
practicable
time
should
be
justified
by
the
facility
if
the
24­
hour
time
limit
is
not
met.
The
Agency
may
not
be
aware
of
such
a
determination
for
1­
2
years.

Document
#:
0218
­
329­
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
elimination
of
subparagraph
(
g),
in
that
allowing
an
owner
or
operator
to
determine
and
self­
implement
a
variance
from
secondary
containment
may
endanger
public
safety.
The
permitting
process
is
intended
as
an
oversight
function,
allowing
an
independent
(
government)
agency
to
review
and
approve
of
the
designs
and
operating
plans
for
hazardous
waste
facilities.
Such
an
oversight
role
also
provides
the
public
with
some
assurances
that
the
facility
will
be
safe.
Allowing
an
owner/
operator
to
make
and
implement
this
determination,
apparently
outside
of
the
permit
process,
would
removal
this
oversight
role
and
decrease
overall
public
protection.
(
Please
also
refer
to
paragraph
II,
above).

Regarding
subparagraph
(
h),
the
DEQ
believes
that
this
section
is
outdated
and
may
be
deleted,
provided
that
minor
clarification
text
is
added
to
subparagraph
(
g),
as
follows:

(
g)
The
owner
or
operator
may
obtain
a
variance
from
the
requirements
of
this
section
if
the
Regional
Administrator
finds,
as
a
result
of
a
demonstration
by
the
owner
or
operator
that
alternative
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
will
prevent
the
migration
of
any
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
into
the
groundwater;
or
surface
water
at
least
as
effectively
as
secondary
containment
during
the
active
life
of
the
tank
system
or
that
in
the
event
of
a
release
that
does
migrate
to
groundwater
or
surface
water,
no
substantial
present
or
potential
hazard
will
be
posed
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
New
underground
tank
systems
may
not,
per
a
demonstration
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
be
exempted
from
the
secondary
containment
requirements
of
this
section.
Such
demonstration
shall
be
made
as
part
of
permit
issuance
or
modification
activities.

Response
to
Comments:
No
change
to
existing
regulations.
We
are
retaining
the
current
provisions
for
variances
from
secondary
containment.
We
believe
it
important
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
have
oversight
in
decisions
on
whether
to
grant
or
deny
variance
requests.

264.193­
264.196­­
Tank
Systems.

Document
#:
0165
All
tank
systems
and
components
must
have
secondary
containment.
EPA
sensibly
proposes
to
replace
the
convoluted
text
of
§
264.193(
a)(
1)­(
5)
with
this
simple
requirement.
In
addition,
the
secondary
containment
must
be
provided
with
a
leak
detection
system
that
will
detect
any
leakage
and
remove
any
accumulated
waste
or
liquids
within
24
hours,
or
at
the
earliest
practicable
time.
We
agree
that
these
requirements
in
§
263.193(
c)(
1)­(
2)
and
(
e)(
3)(
iii)
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
should
not
require
a
demonstration
to
the
regulatory
authority.
The
operator
of
the
tank
system
is
in
the
best
position
to
know
the
most
timely
and
practicable
manner
to
detect
and
remove
collected
waste
materials
from
the
secondary
containment
system
to
prevent
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

On
the
other
hand,
the
ETC
thinks
it
unwise
for
owners
or
operators
of
TSD
facilities
to
grant
themselves
variances
from
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
with
no
review
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Under
the
current
regulation,
the
owner
or
operator
may
obtain
a
variance
only
­
330­
if
the
Director
finds,
based
on
a
demonstration
by
the
applicant,
that
alternative
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
will
prevent
the
migration
of
hazardous
waste
into
ground
water
or
surface
water
at
least
as
effectively
as
secondary
containment.
40
CFR
§
264.193(
f).
The
regulation
also
spells
out
the
factors
that
the
Director
must
consider
in
making
a
decision
to
grant
or
deny
a
variance.
Id.
We
believe
that
tank
systems
with
secondary
containment
are
a
practical
and
cost­
effective
way
of
protecting
against
releases
to
the
environment,
and
variances
should
not
be
available
except
for
compelling
reasons.
In
order
to
ensure
protections,
and
to
maintain
credibility
with
local
communities,
we
believe
that
the
regulatory
agency
must
carefully
review
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
and
the
factors
that
determine
equivalent
protection
of
groundwater
and
surface
waters
before
independently
granting
a
variance.
For
this
reason,
the
ETC
disagrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
make
the
variance
self­
implementing,
and
we
urge
the
agency
not
to
include
this
provision
in
the
final
rule.

Document
#:
0166
All
tank
systems
and
components
must
have
secondary
containment.
EPA
sensibly
proposes
to
replace
the
convoluted
text
of
§
264.193(
a)(
1)
­
(
5)
with
this
simple
requirement.
In
addition,
the
secondary
containment
must
be
provided
with
a
leak­
detection
system
that
will
detect
any
leakage
and
remove
any
accumulated
waste
or
liquids
within
24
hours,
or
at
the
earliest
practicable
time.
We
agree
that
these
requirements
in
§
263.193(
c)
(
1)­(
2)
and
(
e)(
3)(
iii)
should
be
selfimplementing
and
should
not
require
a
demonstration
to
the
regulatory
authority.
The
operator
of
the
tank
system
is
in
the
best
position
to
know
the
most
timely
and
practicable
manner
to
detect
and
remove
collected
waste
materials
from
the
secondary
containment
system
to
prevent
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
EPA
that
owners
or
operators
of
TSD
facilities
can
make
use
of
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
variances
based
on
a
demonstration
that
alternative
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
will
prevent
the
migration
of
hazardous
waste
into
groundwater
or
surface
water
at
least
as
effectively
as
secondary
containment.
40
CFR
§
264.193(
g).

If
a
tank
or
secondary
containment
system
has
a
leak
or
spill,
the
operator
must
immediately
stop
using
the
tank,
repair
it,
and
clean
up
any
contamination.
40
CFR
§
264.196.
The
regulatory
requirements
for
responses
to
leaks
and
spills
are
appropriately
detailed
and
rigorous.
Of
course,
if
there
is
a
release
to
the
environment
in
a
reportable
quantity
(
RQ),
the
operator
must
also
make
a
report
to
the
appropriate
authorities
pursuant
to
CERCLA
and
40
CFR
Part
302.
Therefore,
we
agree
that
the
additional
notice
requirement
in
§
264.196(
d)
is
redundant
and
can
be
eliminated
without
compromising
protection.
Likewise,
the
report
within
30
days
to
the
Regional
Administrator
is
not
necessary
because
the
sam
information
on
the
response
actions
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records.
Therefore,
§
264.196(
d)
can
be
deleted.

In
addition,
a
registered
professional
engineer
must
certify
that
the
repaired
tank
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
before
it
is
returned
to
service.
See
§
264.197(
f).
Since
this
certification
will
also
be
kept
with
facility
records,
there
is
no
need
for
submitting
it
to
­
331­
the
Regional
Administrator
within
7
days
after
returning
the
tank
system
to
use.
We
agree
with
EPA's
proposal
to
delete
this
sentence
in
§
264.197(
f).

Response
to
Comments:
No
change
to
existing
regulations.
We
are
retaining
the
current
provisions
for
variances
from
secondary
containment.
We
believe
it
important
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
have
oversight
in
decisions
on
whether
to
grant
or
deny
variance
requests.
We
also
concur
to
an
extent
with
the
commenter
on
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
under
certain
conditions.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
of
today's
rule
for
a
further
discussion
of
these
points.

Document
#:
0217
Eastman
supports
the
proposed
regulatory
change
from
daily
to
weekly
inspections,
believing
that
hazardous
waste
tanks
are
designed
and
operated
such
that
there
is
no
need
for
a
daily
inspection.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264/
5.195(
b)­­
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted) 
Inspection
frequency:
Proposed
Action:
Change
frequency
to
weekly.
Based
on
comments
and
the
existence
of
substantial
safety
features
required
by
regulation,
this
change
will
have
little
negative
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
Also,
inspections
may
be
less
frequent
than
weekly,
as
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
regulatory
authorities.

Document
#:
0165
The
ETC
supports
the
revisions
proposed
to
§
264.195(
b)
that
will
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2526
col.
1.
In
general,
weekly
inspections
have
proven
effective
in
both
the
RCRA
Subtitle
I
UST
program
and
the
SPCC
program
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
As
noted
above,
tank
systems
for
hazardous
wastes
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
systems
which
provide
for
continuous
surveillance
for
the
presence
of
leaks
or
spills.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2527
col.
1.
The
integrity
and
safety
of
hazardous
waste
tanks
will
not
be
compromised
by
reducing
the
inspection
frequency
to
weekly.

In
addition,
as
with
containers
and
containment
buildings,
the
facility
and
regulatory
authorities
should
have
flexibility
to
allow
the
inspection
frequency
to
be
established
on
a
case­
bycase
basis
(
but
no
less
frequent
than
monthly).
For
the
same
reasons
stated
above
with
respect
to
containers,
we
believe
the
Director
should
consider
whether
the
tank
system
is
designed
and
operated
to
minimize
undetected
releases
in
establishing
the
inspection
frequency.
Therefore,
we
strongly
urge
EPA
to
delete
the
sentence
in
proposed
§
264.195(
b)
that
would
base
inspection
frequency
on
the
compliance
record,
and
allow
the
Director
to
exercise
good
judgment
based
on
relevant
factors.

Since
changing
the
inspection
frequency
will
require
TSD
facilities
to
obtain
a
permit
modification,
EPA
must
also
amend
§
270.42
Appendix
I
to
clearly
provide
that
establishing
the
­
332­
inspection
frequency
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
revised
§
264.195(
b)
is
a
Class
I
permit
modification
with
prior
approval
of
the
Director.
If
EPA
does
not
make
this
corresponding
change
to
the
permit
rules,
the
burden
reduction
will
not
be
realized.

Document
#:
0169
While
we
agree
that
there
are
instances
where
the
frequency
of
inspections
may
warrant
some
relaxation,
the
absolute
minimum
should
be
weekly.
Tank
failures
can
and
do
have
serious
consequences.
Tank
inspections
are
a
very
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environmental
problems.
We
believe
that
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
establish
an
absolute
minimum
frequency
for
inspections
and
we
believe
that
the
frequency
should
not
exceed
one
week.

Document
#:
0181
The
proposal
to
change
inspection
frequency
may
be
acceptable,
so
long
as
it
does
not
conflict
with
the
requirements
of
264.193(
f).
This
would
imply
that
aboveground
portions
of
the
system,
that
would
no
longer
be
subject
to
daily
inspections,
would
have
secondary
containment
capable
of
detection
of
releases.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
generally
SUPPORTS
the
modification
proposed,
provided
that
additional
language
is
added
to
restrict
use
of
less­
frequent
inspections
to
those
tank
systems
with
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
alarms.
Tanks
can
and
frequently
do
fail
abruptly
and
with
little
of
no
warning,
losing
most
or
all
of
their
contents
in
a
very
short
period
of
time.
If
the
rule
is
promulgated
as
proposed,
it
may
be
week
or
longer
before
leaks
of
any
size
are
discovered
and
remediation
begun.
For
those
tanks
without
secondary
containment,
waiting
such
a
long
time
for
remediation
efforts
may
lead
to
extensive
environmental
damage,
beyond
the
owner/
operator's
financial
ability
regardless
of
the
requirements
of
264.147.

Secondly,
the
simple
failure
of
a
tank
implies
that
the
tank's
design,
installation,
operating,
inspection,
and/
or
maintenance
procedures
were
inadequate.
This
conclusion
may
be
extended
to
include
the
secondary
containment
systems
as
well.
For
example,
if
a
waste
added
to
a
tank
is
incompatible
with
the
tank
materials
and
causes
high
corrosion,
then
the
waste
operating
procedures
were
not
sufficient
to
keep
that
waste
excluded
from
the
tank,
and
if
the
tank
itself
fails
then
that
waste
will
probably
corrode
the
secondary
containment
in
the
same
way.

Therefore,
the
DEQ
recommends
that
the
provisions
for
reduced­
frequency
inspections
be
limited
only
to
those
tanks
with
secondary
containment
and
automatic
lead
detection
systems.
Suggested
language
is
as
follows:

{
Modify
subparagraph
(
b)
as
shown;
add
new
subparagraph
(
c),
and
renumber
existing
subparagraphs
(
c)
and
(
d)
as
subparagraphs
(
d)
and
(
e)
respectively.}

(
B)
Except
under
the
provisions
of
264.195(
c),
below,
tThe
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day:
­
333­
(
1)
Aboveground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any,
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste;

(
2)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)
to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;
and
(
3)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tank
system,
including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).

(
c)
For
those
tank
systems
which
have
full
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
alarms,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
weekly,
or
less
frequently
as
determined
by
the
Director.
In
all
cases,
inspections
must
occur
at
least
monthly.
Director
decisions
about
less
frequent
inpsections
will
be
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
compliance
record
of
a
facility.

[
Note:
Section
264.15(
c)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
remedy
any
deterioration
or
malfunction
he
finds.
Section
264.196
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
within
24
hours
of
confirming
a
leak.
Also,
40
CFR
part
302
may
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
of
a
release.]

Document
#:
0241
We
believe
that
it
is
important
that
all
facilities
continue
to
inspect
tank
systems
daily,
regardless
of
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility.
A
facility's
enforcement
history
has
little
or
no
bearing
on
the
need
to
check
tank
monitoring
data,
the
potential
for
equipment
breakdown,
or
the
development
of
leaks.
Most
of
the
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
in
New
Jersey
are
aboveground
and
are
not
equipped
with
leak
detection
equipment.
Visual
monitoring
is
by
far
the
most
common
method
of
leak
detection
employed.
It
is
important
that
this
monitoring
be
performed
frequently
in
order
to
minimize
the
time
between
a
leak
and
its
discovery.
The
continued
requirement
for
daily
inspection
of
the
tank
system
helps
to
ensure
that
visual
monitoring
for
leaks
is
performed
each
operating
day.
Furthermore,
allowing
less
frequent
tank
system
inspections
will
not
significantly
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
because
inspection
reports
are
not
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
are
kept
in
a
log
at
the
facility
site.

264.195(
b)
&
265.195(
a) 
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted) 
Inspection
frequency:
Proposed
Action:
Change
frequency
to
weekly.
Based
on
comments
and
the
existence
of
substantial
safety
features
required
by
regulation,
this
change
will
have
little
negative
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
Also,
inspections
may
be
less
frequent
than
weekly,
as
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
regulatory
authorities.

Document
#:
0205
The
NAM
supports
reducing
the
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
§
264.195(
b)
and
­
334­
§
265.195(
a).
The
rational
for
the
EPA
to
provide
industry
this
flexibility
is
quite
simple:
Companies
have
implemented
advanced
technologies,
sound
environmental
practices
and
have
demonstrated
a
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
outreach
and
performance
reporting.
Daily
inspections
were
burdensome
and
unnecessary,
often
straining
limited
resources.
To
further
streamline
this
section,
the
NAM
suggests
clarifying
which
parts
of
the
facility's
permitted
tank
system
are
to
be
inspected.
Additionally,
we
strongly
urge
the
EPA
to
allow
small
quantity
generators
to
reduce
their
inspections
from
daily
to
weekly.

Document
#:
0222
We
support
reducing
the
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly,
however,
we
are
requesting
a
clarification
on
what
needs
to
be
inspected,
as
well
as
on
a
section
of
the
preamble
that
does
not
match
the
proposed
regulatory
wording.
In
addition,
we
recommend
allowing
reduced
frequencies
for
Small
Quantity
Generator
tank
inspections.

The
proposed
§
264.195(
b)
and
§
265.195(
a)
revisions,
as
well
as
the
corresponding
preamble
language
at
67
FR
2526,
make
clear
that
the
proposed
rule
would
reduce
the
required
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
ACC
supports
that
revision.
The
design
and
operating
standards
for
hazardous
waste
tanks,
including
leak
detection
systems
and
secondary
containment
requirements,
are
adequately
protective
without
an
additional
need
for
daily
inspections.

It
is
unclear,
however,
from
the
actual
proposed
wording
of
revised
§
264.195(
b)
and
§
265.195(
a)
whether
§
264.195(
b)(
1)
­
(
3)
and
§
265.195(
a)(
1)
­
(
4),
which
specify
which
parts
of
the
tank
system
are
to
be
inspected,
are
being
retained
or
not.
If
so,
then
the
first
sentence
of
both
§
264.195(
b)
and
§
265.195(
a)
should
be
revised
to
specifically
refer
to
those
sub­
paragraphs
so
it
is
clear
what
needs
to
be
inspected.
If
these
sub­
paragraphs
are
intended
to
be
deleted,
then
the
first
sentence
of
both
§
264.195(
b)
and
§
265.195(
a)
should
be
revised
to
clearly
state
what
needs
to
be
inspected.

As
noted
above,
the
proposed
wording
in
revised
§
265.195(
a)
[
affecting
interim
status
facilities
and
large
quantity
generators
via
§
262.34(
a)(
1)(
ii)]
clearly
states
that
the
frequency
for
tank
inspections
would
be
revised
from
"
at
least
once
each
operating
day"
to
"
at
least
weekly."
The
corresponding
preamble
language
at
67
FR
2526
also
supports
the
intent
to
change
the
required
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly,
but
that
is
not
reflected
in
the
summary
table
at
67
FR
2524.
In
that
table,
the
§
265.195(
a)
entry
only
shows
that
the
revision
would
"
allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis."
It
appears
the
summary
table
is
simply
in
error
and
inadvertently
omits
the
change
to
weekly
inspection
frequency,
in
that
it
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposed
regulatory
language
and
other
preamble
discussion.
EPA
should
correct
the
summary
table
to
include
the
revised
inspection
frequency
in
§
265.195(
a)
to
weekly
and
to
ensure
consistency
with
the
regulatory
language,
assuming
this
section
is
finalized
as
proposed.

EPA
has
not
proposed
to
reduce
the
tank
inspection
requirements
for
small
quantity
generators
in
§
265.201(
c)(
1)
­
(
3)
from
daily
to
weekly,
or
to
allow
case­
by­
case
reductions
of
those
inspection
frequencies.
For
many
of
the
same
reasons
EPA
has
given
for
reducing
the
§
264.195(
b)
and
­
335­
§
265.195(
a)
inspection
frequencies,
and
given
the
relatively
small
amounts
of
hazardous
waste
managed
in
these
small
quantity
generator
tanks,
ACC
recommends
that
EPA
similarly
reduce
the
§
265.201(
c)(
1)
­
(
3)
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly,
or
at
least
allow
for
case­
by­
case
reductions
based
on
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility
relative
to
hazardous
waste
storage.

264.195(
b)(
1)­­
Inspections.

Document
#:
0352
Inspection
of
data
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection,
visible
portions
of
tanks,
the
surrounding
area,
and
ancillary
equipment
must
be
checked
daily,
as
required
40
CFR
§
264.195(
b)(
1)
and
(
3),
§
265.195(
a)(
2)
and
(
4),
§
264.193(
f).
Because
the
physical
state
of
the
tank
and
surrounding
area
change
only
slowly
under
normal
operating
conditions,
LANL
believes
that
these
visual
inspection
frequencies
should
be
decreased
to
a
minimum
of
weekly.
If
a
monitoring
or
leak
detection
system
is
operating
properly,
there
also
should
be
no
need
to
inspect
the
data
daily.

Therefore,
LANL
suggests
that
visual
inspections
of
tanks
and
ancillary
equipment
be
changed
to
a
minimum
of
weekly,
with
the
opportunity
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
a
lesser
frequency,
such
a
monthly.
Case­
by­
case
evaluations
could
be
based
on
factors
such
as
those
described
in
40
CFR
§
264.15
and
§
265.15:
"
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
any
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections."

Response
to
Comments:
We
are
reducing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adding
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).

The
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.

Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
­
336­
As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.

We
considered
allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment,
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
to
be
visually
inspected
weekly
instead
of
daily.
Upon
further
analysis,
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
systems
have
been
addressed
in
this
final
rule.
The
proposed
rule
discussed
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems
because
of,
among
other
reasons,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment.
Allowing
ancillary
equipment,
without
secondary
containment,
to
change
from
daily
visual
inspections
to
weekly
visual
inspections
would
not
be
consistent
with
our
approach.
Therefore,
we
are
including
regulatory
language
in
§
§
264.194(
d)
and
265.195(
c)
to
say
that
ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.

There
are
instances,
however,
where
tanks
and
tanks
systems
are
located
within
buildings,
and
where
the
building
itself
provides
secondary
containment.
In
cases
where
ancillary
equipment
is
located
inside
of
a
building
that
has
been
determined
to
provide
secondary
containment,
and
either
leak
detection
systems
or
workplace
practices
exist
to
identify
leaks
and
spills,
then
the
regulatory
criteria
are
met
and
that
ancillary
equipment
may
be
inspected
weekly.
Thus,
for
example,
in
a
case
where
ancillary
equipment
inside
a
building
does
not
have
double
walls
or
leak
detection,
this
ancillary
equipment
would
still
be
eligible
for
weekly
inspections
if
the
building
serves
as
secondary
containment,
and
if
the
area
is
frequented
by
employees
whereby
releases
will
be
immediately
obvious
and
the
employees,
as
part
of
established
workplace
practices,
will
promptly
identify
and
remediate
leaks
and
spills.

In
cases
involving
buildings
serving
as
secondary
containment,
as
authorized
programs,
states
necessarily
have
the
ultimate
authority
to
make
the
determination
that
secondary
containment
requirements
are
met
(
taking
into
account
all
relevant
site­
specific
considerations).
The
final
rule
also
extends
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities
for
tanks
systems.
We
believe
that
the
performance
track
program
is
a
sufficient
screen
for
those
who
will
be
allowed
to
petition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
because
they
must
have
demonstrated
superior
environmental
performance,
have
a
history
of
sustained
compliance,
and
be
committed
to
an
environmental
management
system.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

264.196­­
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
submit
report:

Document
#:
0165
If
a
tank
or
secondary
containment
system
has
a
leak
or
spill,
the
operator
must
take
appropriate
response
actions
and,
if
necessary,
repair
the
tank
and
clean
up
any
contamination.
40
CFR
§
264.196.
The
regulatory
requirements
for
responses
to
leaks
and
spills
are
appropriately
detailed
­
337­
and
rigorous.
Of
course,
if
there
is
a
release
to
the
environment
in
a
reportable
quantity
(
RQ),
the
operator
must
also
make
a
report
to
the
appropriate
authorities
pursuant
to
CERCLA
and
40
CFR
Part
302.
Therefore,
we
agree
that
the
additional
notice
requirement
in
§
264.196(
d)
is
redundant
and
can
be
eliminated
without
compromising
protection.
Likewise,
the
report
within
30
days
to
the
Regional
Administrator
is
not
necessary
because
the
same
information
on
the
response
actions
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records.
Therefore,
§
264.196(
d)
can
be
deleted.

In
addition,
a
registered
professional
engineer
must
certify
that
the
repaired
tank
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
before
it
is
returned
to
service.
See
§
264.197(
f).
Since
this
certification
will
also
be
kept
with
facility
records,
there
is
no
need
for
submitting
it
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
7
days
after
returning
the
tank
system
to
use.
We
agree
with
EPA's
proposal
to
delete
this
sentence
in
§
264.197(
f).

Document
#:
0216
We
strongly
disagree
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
notification
of
releases.
We
believe
releases
need
to
be
reported
quickly
to
minimize
future
problems.
We
have
extensive
experience
with
quick
notification
of
releases
as
well
as
with
facilities
that
have
not
notified
us
promptly.
We
have
found
it
extremely
difficult
to
piece
together
the
actual
situation
and
whether
appropriate
actions
were
taken
when
it
is
after­
the­
fact.

These
lack
of
notices,
in
our
experience,
have
resulted
in
untreated
hazardous
waste
being
discharged
to
surface
waters,
soils,
and
groundwater.
If
we
had
been
notified
immediately,
we
could
have
intervened
to
stop
these
discharges.
Your
proposal
would
sanction
this
type
of
behavior
and
would
undermine
the
agency's
ability
to
prevent
the
magnification
of
accidental
spills.
264.196(
d)(
1)­(
3)
265.196(
d)(
1)­(
3)

Response:
While
we
proposed
elimination
of
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section,
we
are
retaining
that
paragraph,
as
we
agree
with
commenters
that
such
a
notification
is
important
to
remain
as
a
part
of
the
public
record.
With
respect
to
paragraph
(
f),
in
response
to
comments,
we
are
finalizing
the
rule
to
require
the
certification
can
be
kept
on­
site
in
the
operating
log,
instead
of
being
submitted
to
regulatory
authorities,
and
that
the
certification
be
made
by
a
qualified
professional
engineer.
The
certification
must
be
kept
on
site
through
the
intended
life
of
the
system,
as
the
certification
reads.
This
change
will
eliminate
the
submission
of
duplicative
information
to
the
regulatory
authority.
Section
264.196(
d)
and
265.196(
d)
already
require
that
certain
notifications
be
submitted
that
include
descriptions
of
response
actions
taken
or
planned.

Response
to
Comments:
With
regard
to
releases,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
is
retaining
these
notices.

Several
commenters
did
not
support
the
proposed
change,
noting
that
submission
of
the
certification
helps
to
ensure
that
the
regulatory
authority
is
made
aware
of
any
potentially
significant
repairs
that
were
conducted.
Several
commenters
did
not
support
allowing
CHMM
to
perform
the
certification,
noting
that
often
the
experience
and
professional
judgement
of
an
­
338­
engineer
is
necessary.

One
commenter
argued
that
the
elimination
of
these
notices
or
notations
in
the
operating
record
will
adversely
affect
oversight.
One
commenter
argued
that,
while
supportive
of
the
proposed
change,
the
certification
of
major
repair
must
be
kept
with
the
facility
record,
and
available
for
review
by
regulatory
inspectors.

We
believe
that
information
provided
by
the
certification
of
major
repairs
is
already
provided
through
the
notification
mechanisms
described
in
264.196(
d),
which
requires
notification
when
releases
occur,
and
a
description
of
response
actions
taken
or
planned.
While
we
are
not
eliminating
the
certification,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
kept
on
site
in
the
operating
record,
and,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
signed
by
a
registered
professional
engineer.

264.196(
d)(
1) (
3)
­­
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
submit
report:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
the
existing
regulatory
requirements
for
cleanup
and
certification
of
the
cleanup
are
adequately
protective;
this
extra
notification
to
the
regulatory
authorities
is
unnecessary.
This
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
records.
Final
Action:
No
change
in
regulation
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
Certification
of
clean
up
ensures
that
proper
procedures
where
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
files
that
the
release
was
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
files.
This
useful
and
sensible
requirement
eliminates
much
duplication
of
effort
and
is
simply
good
engineering
practice.

Document
#:
0181
Tank
Systems
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
submit
report.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
the
reporting
requirements
for
all
"
releases
to
the
environment"
from
tank
systems.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
retain
all
requirements
related
to
releases
from
permitted
tanks.
Releases
imply
potential
worker,
public,
or
environmental
exposure
and
potential
worker
involvement
in
cleanup,
­
339­
etc.
EPA
must
retain
all
such
reporting
regarding
the
fact
and
remedy
of
failure
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposed
modification.
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
If
the
release
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
Agency,
as
much
as
two
years
could
elapse
before
the
Agency
could
follow
up
or
confirm
that
adequate
cleanup
occurred.
The
Agency
and
the
community
is
particularly
interested
in
facilities
that
have
continued
releases
to
the
environment.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
deletion
of
this
language
as
proposed.
In
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
properly
aware
of
problems
at
a
given
facility,
notification
of
such
spills
or
releases
must
be
continued.
Spill
and
release
reports
are
currently
considered
as
public
records,
and
available
for
the
general
public
to
review.
Removing
the
notification
requirement
would
prevent
the
Agency
from
having
prompt
knowledge
of
such
spills,
and
providing
timely
notice
to
the
public
of
potential
health
or
environmental
problems.
It
would
also
prevent
the
public
from
learning
about
the
frequency
and
severity
of
spills
at
a
site,
which
can
be
a
useful
measure
of
compliance
for
such
facilities.

The
DEQ
would
support
changing
certain
of
the
requirements
of
subparagraph
(
d),
specifically:
A.
In
(
d)(
2)(
i),
raise
the
exemption
limit
to
the
Reportable
Quantity
listed
in
40
CFR
302.4.
B.
Eliminating
the
need
for
the
specific
report
described
in
(
d)(
3),
while
providing
the
authority
for
the
Regional
Administrator
to
request
such
a
report
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Document
#:
0290
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc,
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

The
notification
provides
a
means
of
assessing
leaks/
releases
from
tank
systems
and
proposed
corrective
action
for
such
releases.
The
notification
provides
information
on
the
integrity
of
the
tank
system.
The
notification
also
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
releases
occur),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
the
releases.
The
notification
allows
the
agency
the
opportunity
to
conduct
a
more
immediate
evaluation
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
release
to
determine
whether
enforcement
is
also
necessary.
The
information
may
be
needed
for
various
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement
actions,
which
may
occur
as
a
result
of
the
release.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
files
that
the
release
was
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
files.
Otherwise,
the
public
must
inquire
to
the
facility
regarding
documentation.
­
340­
Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments.
We
are
persuaded
by
the
arguements
provided
by
the
commenters
and
are
not
pursuing
these
regulatory
changes.

264.196(
f)­­
Tank
Systems
(
Permitted) 
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs:
Eliminate
requirement
to
submit
certification 
we
do
not
ask
for
certifications
to
be
submitted
for
other
kinds
of
repairs;
there
is
no
special
reason
for
this
certification
to
be
submitted.
Also,
the
certification
may
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0181
Tank
Systems
Certification
of
Completion
of
Major
Repairs.
A
CHMM
does
not
have
the
training
or
knowledge
required
for
this
type
of
tank
system
repair
and
replacement
for
in
depth
assessment.
A
CHMM
must
still
be
an
independent
registered
professional
the
proposed
change
includes
a
statement
that
"
there
is
no
special
reason
for
this
certification
to
be
submitted."
Such
a
statement
apparently
fails
to
recognize
attempts
by
the
original
authors
of
RCRA
to
ensure
that
major
repairs
are
protective.
The
requirement
to
provide
documentation
of
such
activity
should
not
require
any
"
special
reason,"
it
simply
makes
good
sense.
Do
not
make
this
change.
Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
We
see
the
requirement
in
the
existing
regulation
as
being
just
about
equal
to
what
we
require
of
a
new
tank
system.
If
the
repairs
are
to
replace
or
modify
significant
components
of
the
tank
system,
as
described
in
the
existing
regulation,
then
we
should
receive
a
notification
and
certification.
Certification
submittal
should
be
required
to
verify
adequate
tank
repair.
TSDs
are
sometimes
inspected
every
other
year.
The
Agency
may
not
be
aware
of
such
a
tank
repair
for
1­
2
years
and
would
not
be
able
to
verify
until
that
time.

An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
educational
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems,
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
To
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail
after
repair.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
change
in
part,
and
OPPOSES
the
change
in
part.
In
particular,
the
DEQ
agrees
that
the
certification
of
a
major
tank
repair
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
as
is
currently
required.
However,
the
DEQ
also
believes
that
language
should
be
added
to
the
proposed
rule
that
requires
that
the
certification
of
a
major
repair
must
be
kept
with
the
facility
record,
for
review
by
regulatory
inspectors.

The
DEQ
specifically
opposes
allowing
major
tank
repairs
to
be
certified
by
CHMM's,
in
addition
to
registered
engineers.
Such
repairs
can
affect
the
structural
stability
of
a
tank
and/
or
its
integrity
­
341­
and
suitability
for
use,
and
such
determinations
should
be
reserved
to
registered
engineers.
The
arguments
made
in
paragraphs
VI.
F
and
VI.
G
also
apply
here.

Document
#:
0241
The
proposal
would
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
to
the
agency
the
professional
engineer
certification
of
the
adequacy
of
major
repairs
that
have
been
made
to
a
tank.
We
are
opposed
to
this
modification
because
we
feel
that
agency
knowledge
of
major
repairs
to
hazardous
waste
tanks
is
important
to
our
permitting
and
enforcement
efforts,
especially
since
some
of
the
repaired
tanks
may
not
be
provided
with
secondary
containment
and
may
need
to
be
inspected
more
frequently.

Document
#:
0286
The
reason
for
having
this
provision
is
for
repairs
that
would
be
so
extensive
that
it
would
in
essence
be
like
installing
a
new
tank
system
component
that
must
be
installed
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
264.192.
We
agree
a
submittal
is
not
necessary,
but
we
believe
there
should
be
a
provision
for
inclusion
of
this
certification
in
facility
records,
i.
e.,
40
CFR
264.192(
f).

Response
to
All
Comments:
We
believe
that
information
provided
by
the
certification
of
major
repairs
is
already
provided
through
the
notification
mechanisms
described
in
264.196(
d),
which
requires
notification
when
releases
occur,
and
a
description
of
response
actions
taken
or
planned.
While
we
are
not
eliminating
the
certification,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
kept
on
site
in
the
operating
record,
and,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
signed
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer.

264.223;
264.253;
264.304­­
Action
Leakage.

Document
#:
0241
The
proposed
rule
would
eliminate
all
Agency
notifications
of
exceedances
of
the
action
leakage
rates
in
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles
and
landfills.
The
justification
in
the
preamble
states
only
that
EPA
does
not
believe
the
regulatory
agency
needs
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
While
we
agree
it
is
unnecessary
to
have
three
separate
submittals
to
the
Agency,
we
believe
that
the
Agency
should
be
notified.
The
fact
that
the
unit
has
had
a
significant
leak
may
indicate
that
the
permit
needs
to
be
revisited
to
adequately
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
If
the
facility
is
in
interim
status,
the
Agency
must
be
aware
of
these
situations
to
perform
an
adequate
review
of
the
permit
application
or
closure
plan.
In
addition,
actions
taken
in
response
to
the
leak
may
result
in
the
need
for
a
permit
modification
or
in
a
revision
to
the
response
action
plan.
We
believe
the
regulation
should
be
revised
to
require
one
notification
of
the
exceedance.
The
notification
should
include
the
information
presently
required
by
(
b)(
2),
(
3),
(
4)
and
(
5)
and
be
made
early
enough
in
the
process
for
the
Agency
to
review,
comment
on
and
oversee
any
actions
taken.

264.223(
b)­­
Response
actions.

Document
#:
0218
264.223(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),
and
(
b)(
6),
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
­
342­
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
if
the
secondary
liner
should
also
leak.
As
noted
previously,
such
notifications
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
of
the
reporting
deadlines,
however,
as
follows:
A.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days.
B.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
C.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6),
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analyses
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semiannual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
not
longer
being
exceeded.

Document
#:
0290
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
i
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

There
should
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land­
based
regulated
units.
This
information
will
help
to
address
any
preventive
or
corrective
action
measures
as
part
of
the
permitting
process.
These
measures
may
include
groundwater
monitoring
for
the
contaminants
of
concerns
and/
or
changes
to
the
design/
operating
procedures
of
the
surface
impoundment
to
prevent
future
ALR
exceedances.

Response
to
Comments:
We
will
not
require
submission
of
the
RAP,
but
it
must
be
kept
on
site.
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
requirement
to
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills.
Response
action
plans
document
what
a
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.

The
final
rule
will
retain
the
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)(
1),
and
will
eliminate
the
submission
only
of
the
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
be
developed
and
retained
on­
site.
As
a
reminder,
the
requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed;
only
the
requirement
to
submit
a
response
action
plan
is
being
eliminated.
­
343­
264.223(
b)(
1)
­
Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR)
for
any
sumps
within
7
days:
Proposed
Action.
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks;
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulation.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0181
Surface
Impoundments
Notification
of
Exceeding
ALR.
Recently
the
regulatory
agency
dealt
with
a
facility
that
attempted
to
control
pumping
rates
to
get
below
ALR
rather
than
repair
leaks
and
take
proper
action.
This
was
even
with
notification.
Without
notification
this
may
have
led
to
a
major
release
to
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
of
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommend
amending
264.223(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.223
Response
actions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
re­
evaluation,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
will
not
be
pursuing
this
regulatory
change
in
the
final
rule.

264.223(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)&(
b)(
6)

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
regulations
would
eliminate
the
7­
day
notification
for
exceeding
the
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR),
the
14­
day
written
assessment
for
that
exceedance,
and
the
final
report
consisting
of
remedial
actions
taken
and
planned
due
30­
days
after
the
exceedance
in
surface
impoundments.
Based
on
the
proposed
rules,
it
appears
that
there
would
be
no
reporting
requirements
if
the
ALR
­
344­
is
exceeded.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land­
based
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document#:
0212
EPA
should
maintain
these
information
requirements.
They
provide
the
agency
with
timely
information
and
provide
data
that
the
agency
uses
to
monitor
the
facilities'
progress.
Any
leakage
from
surface
impoundments
indicates
a
failure
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
whether
from
actual
or
potential
harm.
Therefore,
the
agency
should
maintain
these
information
requirements.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
re­
evaluation,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
will
not
be
pursuing
this
regulatory
change
in
the
final
rule.

264.223(
b)(
2)
­
Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks,
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulation
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0181
Recently
the
regulatory
agency
dealt
with
a
facility
that
attempted
to
control
pumping
rates
to
get
below
ALR
rather
than
repair
leaks
and
take
proper
action.
This
was
even
with
notification.
Without
notification
this
may
have
led
to
a
major
release
to
the
environment.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
re­
evaluation,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
will
not
be
pursuing
this
regulatory
change
in
the
final
rule.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
assessment
report
provided
the
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)
(
1)
is
retained.
The
regulatory
agency
can
choose
to
follow
up
with
the
facility
regarding
the
notice
of
exceedance
of
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comment:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however
upon
­
345­
re­
evaluation
of
this
proposed
change
we
have
decided
to
retain
this
regulatory
requirement.

264.223(
b)(
6)­­
Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted) 
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks,
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulation
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0181
Recently
the
regulatory
agency
dealt
with
a
facility
that
attempted
to
control
pumping
rates
to
get
below
ALR
rather
than
repair
leaks
and
take
proper
action.
This
was
even
with
notification.
Without
notification
this
may
have
led
to
a
major
release
to
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
exceedance
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)(
6)
by
amending
264.223(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.223
Response
actions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
re­
evaluation,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
will
not
be
pursuing
this
regulatory
change
in
the
final
rule.

264.251(
c)­­
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted):
Installation
of
liners
and
leachate
collection
systems
after
January
29,
1992:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
obsolete
language
­
346­
Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#:
0218
Revise
introductory
paragraph
to
remove
obsolete
language
and
dates.

Response
to
Comments:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
this
change
is
appropriate.

264.253(
b)
­
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage:
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0290
Elimination
of
these
requirement
assumes
that
self
regulation
will
occur.
Once
they
receive
notice
of
a
leakage,
the
regulatory
authorities
can
then
inspect
the
facility
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken
to
guarantee
the
leakage
does
not
continue.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
the
extent
of
contamination
resulting
from
the
leakage.
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.
There
are
no
records
kept
on
how
often
the
public
requests
this
information.

The
notification
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
exceedances
occur),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
the
releases.

Section
264.253(
b)(
6)
requirements
assist
the
regulatory
authority
in
determining
if
leakage
from
the
waste
pile
has
been
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
If
a
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
and
the
agency
is
not
be
aware
that
the
ALR
is
exceeded,
proper
action
may
not
be
taken.
The
public
has
a
right
to
know
if
there
have
been
exceedances
or
releases.
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.
There
are
no
records
kept
on
how
often
the
public
requests
this
information.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
We
have
decided
to
retain
this
regulatory
requirement.
­
347­
264.253(
b)(
1)­­
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks,
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulation.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0181
264.253(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),
(
b)(
6);
265.259
(
a)
&
(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)
&
(
b)(
6)
Waste
Piles.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0213
I
propose:
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
of
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommend
amending
264.253(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.253
Response
actions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0218
264.253(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),
&
(
b)(
6),
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
of
­
348­
the
reporting
de3adlines,
however,
as
follows:
1.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days.
2.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
3.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6),
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analyses
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semiannual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
no
longer
being
exceeded.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
re­
evaluation
of
this
proposed
change,
the
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
this
is
an
important
regulatory
requirement
that
must
be
maintained.

264.253(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)
&
(
b)(
6)
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
eliminates
the
reporting
requirements
for
all
"
releases
to
the
environment"
from
tank
systems.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
#:
0212
Similarly,
EPA
should
maintain
these
information
requirements.
They
provide
the
agency
with
timely
information
and
provide
data
that
the
agency
uses
to
monitor
the
facilities'
progress.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments.
We
have
considered
the
comments
and
agree
that
these
requirements
should
be
maintained.

264.253(
b)(
2)­­
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks,
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
­
349­
Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
has
decided
to
retain
this
regulatory
requirement.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
assessment
report
provided
the
notice
requirement
of
264.253(
b)(
1)
is
retained.
The
regulatory
agency
can
choose
to
follow
up
with
the
facility
regarding
the
notice
of
exceedance
of
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.253(
b)(
6)­­
Waste
Piles
(
Permitted) 
Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks,
action
that
is
already
required
by
regulation.
We
do
not
think
regulatory
authorities
need
to
be
notified
in
these
cases.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
has
decided
to
retain
this
regulatory
requirement.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However,
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
exceedance
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
264.253(
b)(
6)
by
amending
264.253(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.253
Response
actions.

*
*
*
*
*
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.
­
350­
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.278
­­
Unsaturated
zone
monitoring.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0218
264278(
g)
and
(
h)(
1)
and
(
h)(
2),
Delete
the
paragraphs
noted,
and
renumber
subsequent
paragraphs
for
continuity.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.

264.278(
g)(
1)­­
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
a
duplicative
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
The
regulatory
authorities
do
not
need
to
be
notified
twice.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0169
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted­
Prepared
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone:
Eliminate­
a
duplicative
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
it
this
event
happens.
The
regulatory
authorities
do
not
need
to
be
notified
twice.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
required
actions.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allow
the
regulatory
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0290
Eliminating
this
requirement
assumes
self­
compliance.
Without
notification,
the
regulatory
authority
would
not
know
if
a
permit
modification
should
be
submitted
by
the
facility.
Notification
upon
discover
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
ensure
that
all
other
requirements
are
not
met.
Notification
upon
discovery
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
ensure
that
all
other
requirements
are
met.
Notification
should
be
documented
in
the
regulatory
files.
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
the
weight
of
the
comments
and
will
not
be
finalizing
this
change.
The
existing
requirement
will
be
retained.
­
351­
264.278(
g)(
1)\(
h)(
1)(
h)(
2)
­
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
A
duplicative
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
The
regulatory
authorities
do
not
need
to
be
notified
twice.
Final
Action:
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Document
#:
0131
The
notification
required
in
264.278(
g)(
1)
allows
the
regulating
authority
to
be
made
aware
of
any
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
in
a
timely
fashion
(
seven
days).
Otherwise,
the
regulating
authority
would
not
be
aware
of
the
situation
until
receiving
the
monitoring
report
on
in
90
days
when
a
permit
modification
request
is
submitted.
The
notification
is
important
because
of
statistically
significant
increase
of
contamination
would
indicate
a
release
from
the
regulated
unit.
The
regulating
authority
must
have
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
the
potential
contamination
and
any
potential
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
If
any
potential
exist
for
harm
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
the
regulating
entity
may
need
to
initiate
action
as
opposed
to
waiting
for
the
permit
modification
process.
The
current
modification
under
40
CFR
264.278(
g)(
1)
would
be
a
letter.
The
Department
believes
the
notification
is
an
important
part
of
oversight
and
a
facility's
compliance
with
this
requirement
is
not
burdensome.

EPA
proposes
to
delete
264.278(
h)(
1)
which
requires
a
seven­
day
notification
to
the
regulating
authority
when
a
facility
decides
to
make
a
demonstration
that
the
contamination
is
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit.
EPA
also
proposes
to
delete
the
requirements
in
264.278
(
h)(
2)
for
a
facility
to
submit
a
written
report
within
90
days
to
the
regulating
authority.

Without
264.278(
h)(
1)
and
(
2),
the
regulating
authority
would
only
receive
notification
when
an
application
for
a
permit
modification
is
submitted
if
"
any
appropriate
changes"
were
required
or
when
the
monitoring
report
is
submitted.
A
permit
modification
may
not
always
be
appropriate.
For
example,
when
the
statistically
significant
increase
is
caused
by
sampling
and/
or
analytical
errors.

A
facility
could
comply
with
264.278
(
h)(
1)
with
a
short
letter.
The
Department
does
not
believe
submittal
of
a
letter
is
burdensome.
The
information
currently
required
in
264.278(
h)(
2)
should
be
evaluated
by
the
regulating
authority
to
determine
of
the
conclusions
are
valid.
264.278
(
h)(
2)
provides
the
requirement
that
this
information
be
submitted
in
a
timely
fashion.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
proposed
changes
to
264.278(
h)(
1)
and
(
2).

265.52(
b)
currently
allows
a
hazardous
waste
contingency
plan
to
be
incorporated
into
some
other
emergency/
contingency
plan.
The
proposed
rule
reference
the
"
National
Response
Team's
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance."
Referencing
a
guidance
document
as
a
requirement
in
the
regulations
is
inappropriate.
Referencing
the
guidance
document
in
a
comment
field
of
the
proposed
regulation
would
be
appropriate.
­
352­
Document
#:
0212
264.278(
g)(
1)
and
(
2)
­
EPA
should
retain
the
notification
requirements
under
this
section.
Including
information
on
leaks
only
in
a
permit
modification
does
not
allow
EPA
or
the
public
to
be
come
aware
and
monitor
a
situation
as
it
occurs.
The
permit
modification
may
take
some
time
to
prepare
and
submit.
Therefore,
this
modification
would
eliminate
public
knowledge
of
leakage
in
the
interim.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
re­
evaluated
this
proposed
change
in
light
of
the
comments
received
and
has
decided
to
retain
the
regulatory
requirement.
We
will
not
be
proceeding
with
this
proposed
change.

264.278(
h)(
1),
(
2)
No
change
to
existing
regulations
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted) 
Prepare
and
submit
notice
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
that
other
sources
or
error
led
to
increases
below
treatment
zone:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
The
regulatory
authorities
do
not
need
to
be
notified
twice.

Commenter
Unknown:
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
but
will
be
maintaining
this
regulatory
requirement.

264.280(
b)­­
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted) 
Certification
of
closure:
Proposed
Action:
We
are
taking
comment
on
(
but
not
proposing
in
today's
rule)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
doing
this
certification.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
proceeding
with
this
change.

The
DEO
generally
SUPPORTS
allowing
CHMM's
to
certify
closure
of
land
treatment
units.
As
noted
elsewhere
in
this
document,
all
personnel
who
certify
closures
should
be
independent
from
the
owner
or
operator,
and
properly
trained
and
experienced.

Response:
The
Agency
upon
further
review
has
determined
that
a
CHMM
is
not
technically
capable
of
engineering
certifications.
The
Ageny
further
believes
that
because
of
the
licensing
oversight
of
Professional
Engineers
that
requiring
the
engineer
to
be
independent
is
not
necessary.
As
such,
we
are
changing
the
certification
requirements
to
allow
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer
to
make
these
certifications.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
premable
discussion
in
the
Burden
Reduction
final
rule
for
additional
discussion.
­
353­
264.304­­
Response
actions.

Document
#:
0165
Response
Actions
264.304
EPA
recognizes
that
a
landfill
must
have
a
response
action
plan
to
respond
to
any
leachate
flow
into
a
leak
detection
system
sump
that
exceeds
the
leakage
rate
approved
by
the
regulatory
authorities.
The
action
leakage
rate
is
set
at
the
design
flow
rate
the
leak
detection
system
can
remove
without
the
fluid
head
on
the
bottom
liner
exceeding
1
foot,
including
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
The
response
action
plan
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
landfill
to
determine
the
location,
size,
and
cause
of
any
flow
into
a
leak
detection
system
sump
that
exceeds
the
approved
rate,
and
take
any
short­
term
action,
such
as
ceasing
waste
receipts,
and
any
long­
term
action,
such
as
repairs
or
controls,
to
mitigate
and
stop
the
leak.

Therefore,
we
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
owners
or
operators
of
landfills
to
notify
EPA
within
7
days
whenever
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
Likewise,
we
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
landfills
to
submit
a
written
assessment
within
14
days
of
a
determination
of
leakage.
For
the
same
reason,
we
support
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
reports
each
month
that
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded.
To
eliminate
these
necessary
reporting
burden,
264.304(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
6)
should
be
deleted.

Since
changing
the
reporting
requirements
will
require
TSD
facilities
to
obtain
a
permit
modification,
EPA
must
also
amend
270.42
Appendix
1
to
clearly
provide
that
deleting
these
unnecessary
reporting
burdens
in
a
Class
1
permit
modification.
If
EPA
does
not
make
this
corresponding
change
to
the
permit
rules,
the
burden
reduction
will
not
be
realized.

Document
#:
0166
Response
Action
264.304
We
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
owners
or
operators
of
landfills
to
notify
EPA
within
7
days
whenever
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
Likewise,
we
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
landfills
to
submit
a
written
assessment
within
14
days
of
a
determination
of
leakage.
For
the
same
reason,
we
support
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
reports
each
month
that
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded.
To
eliminate
these
unnecessary
reporting
burdens,
246.304
(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),
and
(
b)(
6)
should
be
deleted.

Document
#:
0216
Drip
Pad­(
Permitted
&
Interim
Status)

This
proposal
would
eliminate
any
notice
if
an
action
leakage
rate
were
exceeded
within
7
days
of
a
determination.
If
notification
is
only
preformed
pursuant
to
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan,
the
agency
would
not
know
any
problem
existed
for
some
time.
We
would
rather
know
there
was
a
problem
early
on
and
ensure
prompt
remedies
are
being
undertaken.
It
is
important
for
the
­
354­
reviewing
agency
to
evaluate
the
information
provided
and
make
an
appropriate
determination
whether
more
work
is
needed.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
documents
that
are
approved
plan
was
implemented
264.304(
b)(
1)
265.303(
b)(
1)
264.304(
b)(
2)
265.303(
b)(
2)
264.304(
b)(
6)
265.303(
b)(
6)
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv),
(
2)
264.573(
m)(
3)
265.443(
m)(
3)
265.303(
a)

Document
#:
0218
264.304(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
6).
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
if
the
secondary
liner
should
also
leak.
As
noted
previously,
such
notifications
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
of
the
reporting
deadlines,
however,
as
follows:
1.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days
2.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
3.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6)
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analysis
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semi­
annual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
no
longer
being
exceeded.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
these
plans
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
and
also
proposed
submission
of
related
reports
when
there
is
leakage.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
actual
Response
Action
Plan,
which
documents
what
the
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
response
action
plans,
the
Agency
has
found
the
arguments
presented
by
the
commenters
arguing
that
the
notifications
are
important,
persuasive
and
that
the
discovery
of
leakage
upon
the
ALR
is
a
serious
environmental
concern,
possibly
indicating
a
breach
in
the
protective
liner.
Requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed.

264.304(
b)/
265.303(
a)&(
b)
­
355­
Document
#:
0181
264.304(
b)(
1)
&
(
b)(
6)
&
265.303
(
a)
&
(
b)(
2)
&
(
b)(
6)
Land
Fills.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meed
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
proposed
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
these
plans
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
and
also
proposed
submission
of
related
reports
when
there
is
leakage.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
actual
Response
Action
Plan,
which
documents
what
the
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
response
action
plans.
Requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed.

264.304(
b)(
1)
­
No
change
in
existing
regulations
Land
Fills
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
(
a
response
action
plan
is
still
required
to
be
developed.)
are
followed.
Final
Action:
Promulgate
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0169
Land
Fills
(
Permitted)­
Notify
EPA
it
action
leakage
rate
is
exceed
within
7
days
of
determination.
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
(
a
response
action
plan
is
regulatorily
required)
as
followed.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Notification
should
be
performed
in
order
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
insure
that
steps
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
The
public
should
be
aware
of
any
accedences
in
the
regulatory
file.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommends
amending
264.304
(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Section
264.304
Response
Action
­
356­
A.
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
exceeding
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceed
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0290
Notification
should
be
performed
to
order
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
be
able
to
follow­
up
quicky
with
an
inspection
to
guarantee
that
steps
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
The
public
should
be
aware
of
any
accedences
in
the
regulatory
file.
It
would
also
allow
the
regulatory
authority
to
ensure
that
the
response
action
plan
can
adequately
address
the
accedence
to
prevent
further
release.
The
notification
also
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
accedences
occur),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
the
releases.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notification,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
report,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.,
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
these
plans
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
and
also
proposed
submission
of
related
reports
when
there
is
leakage.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
actual
Response
Action
Plan,
which
documents
what
the
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
response
action
plans.
Requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed.

264.304(
b)(
1)(
2)
and
(
6)
Final
Action.
No
change
in
existing
regulation
Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
remain
the
notification
information­
submitted,
and
public
availability
requirements
for
this
information,
nor
solely
in
the
permit
modification,
as
this
would
keep
both
the
public
and
the
agency
in
the
dark
about
potential
serious
contamination.
Any
leakage
from
landfills
indicates
a
failure
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
whether
from
actual
or
potential
harm.
EPA
should
not
condition
the
ability
of
the
public
to
obtain
timely
information
about
such
failures
on
whether
the
facility
follows
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
EPA
will
not
be
eliminating
this
requirement,
we
have
been
persuaded
by
the
commenters
that
the
discovery
of
leakage
above
the
ALR
is
a
serious
environmental
concern,
possibly
indicating
a
breach
in
the
protective
liner
and
should
have
the
oversight
and
attention
of
the
regulatory
agency.
­
357­
264.304(
b)(
2)
Land
Fills
(
Permitted) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Proposed
Action.
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
Response
action
plans
are
required
by
regulation.
Final
Action:
No
change
in
existing
regulation
Document
#:
0169
Land
Fills
(
Permitted)­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed
Response
action
plans
are
required
by
regulation.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simple
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
assessment
report
provided
the
notice
requirement
of
264.304(
b)
(
1)
is
retained.
The
regulatory
agency
can
choose
to
follow
up
with
the
facility
regarding
the
notice
of
accedence
of
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Commenters:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
both
of
these
comments,
however
upon
re­
evaluation
of
this
potential
change
in
the
regulations,
we
have
determined
that
this
requirement
is
a
necessary
one
to
continue
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
and
will
be
retained.

Document
#:
0290
The
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
the
extent
of
contamination
resulting
from
the
leakage.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
agency
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
any
threats
to
human
health
or
the
environmental
from
the
leakage.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notification,
etc.,
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map.,
etc
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
going
forward
with
this
change,
we
have
been
persuaded
by
the
commenters
that
the
discovery
of
leakage
above
the
ALR
is
a
serious
environmental
concern,
possibly
indicating
a
breach
in
the
protective
liner
and
should
have
the
oversight
and
attention
of
the
regulatory
agency.
.
­
358­
264.304(
b)(
6)­­
Land
Fills
(
Permitted) 
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
Response
action
plans
are
required
by
regulation.
Final
Rule:
No
change
in
existing
regulation
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
reports.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
of
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
accedence
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
264.304
(
b)
(
6)
by
amending
264.304
(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.304
Response
Action.
(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
written
of
the
accedence
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0290
This
requirement
assists
the
regulatory
authority
in
determining
if
leakage
from
the
landfill
has
been
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
If
a
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
is
not
be
aware
that
the
ALR
is
exceed,,
proper
action
may
not
be
taken.
The
public
has
a
right
to
know
if
there
have
been
accedences
or
releases.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.,
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.,
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map
etc.,
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
reviewed
the
concerns
made
by
all
the
commenters
and
has
determined
that
this
is
an
essential
regulatory
requirement
that
will
be
retained.

264.314
264.314
(
a)(
1)­(
2)
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
­
359­
Document
#:
0166
EPA
proposes
to
replace
the
convoluted
language
of
264.314(
a)(
1)­(
2)
with
the
simple
prohibition
on
the
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
waste
or
waste
containing
free
liquids
in
landfills.
We
support
this
clarification.

EPA
also
proposes
to
eliminate
obsolete
language
in
264.314(
1),
but
unfortunately
and
typographical
error
in
the
Federal
Register
refers
to
this
subsection
as
(
c)
instead
of
(
1)
Section
67
Federal
Register
2537
Col.
1.
We
believe
that
comments
can
easily
identify
this
error
and
that
the
agency's
intent
to
amend
264.314(
1)
is
clear.
We
support
the
propose
change.

Document
#:
0218
264,314(
a),
(
a)(
1),
(
a)(
2),
(
b)
and
(
f),
Removal
of
obsolete
language.

Document
#:
0165
EPA
proposes
to
replace
the
convoluted
language
of
264.314(
a)(
b)(
1)­(
2)
with
the
simple
prohibition
on
the
replacement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
waste
or
waste
containing
fee
liquid
in
landfills.
We
support
this
clarification.

EPA
also
proposes
to
eliminate
obsolete
language
in
264.314(
1),
but
unfortunately
a
typographical
error
in
the
Federal
Register
refers
to
this
subsection
as
(
e)
instead
of
(
f),
Section
67
and
Federal
Register
2537
Col.
1.
We
believe
that
commenters
can
easily
identify
this
error
and
that
the
agency's
intend
to
amend
264.314(
1)
is
clear.
We
support
the
proposed
change
Document
#:
0169
Special
Requirements
for
Bulk
and
Containerized
Liquids:
Remove
obsolete
language.
We
agree
with
this
proposal
Document
#:
0213
We
support
concurs
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Response
to
Comments:
We
concur
with
commenters
that
this
change
is
appropriate.

264.343­­
Performance
standards.

Document
#:
0165
The
ETC
agrees
with
the
proposed
change
to
24.343
(
a)(
2)
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020­
23,
F026­
027,
since
the
incinerator
is
already
permitted
to
burn
these
wastes,
and
stringent
regulatory
standards
already
govern
how
the
waste
must
be
incinerated.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
­
360­
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

Document
#:
0166
Subpart
O
­
Incinerators
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
the
proposed
change
to
264.343
(
a)(
2)
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020­
23,
F026­
027,
since
the
incinerator
is
already
to
burn
these
wastes,
and
stringent
regulatory
standards
already
govern
how
the
waste
must
be
incinerated.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

Document
#:
0218
Remove
last
sentence
of
paragraph,
relating
to
notification
of
intent
to
burn
dioxin
wastes.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

264.343(
a)

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
Subpart
O
to
delete
the
requirement
that
a
facility
notify
the
regional
administrator
of
an
intent
to
incinerate
F020,
F022,
F023,
or
F027.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

264.343(
a)(
2)
Incinerators
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
F027:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
this
waste,
and
since
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.

Preamble
Language:
­
361­
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
of
Their
Intent
to
Burn
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
and
F027
Wastes.

We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
dioxin/
furan
wastes
listed
as
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026
and
F027.
We
viewed
this
as
an
unnecessary
requirement
because
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
these
wastes,
and
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.

Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
§
264.343.
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

Document
#:
0169
Incinerators
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
waste
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
F027:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
this
waste,
and
since
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

Document
#:
0213
We
agree
with
this
proposal.
In
fact
we
believe
that
all
of
264.343
(
a)(
2)
can
be
eliminated.
Technologically,
it
is
now
possible
to
capture
dioxin
and
to
eliminate
the
production
of
dioxin.
Therefore,
safe
burning
of
these
wastes
is
comprehensively
addressed
in
current
permits
and
now
has
much
less
potential
for
causing
an
impact
on
the
environment
that
in
the
past.

Response:
Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement
in
this
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
Today
we
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

264.347(
d)

Document
#:
0333
Onyx
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
record
keeping
requirement
at
incinerators
to
three
years
instead
of
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
The
data
referenced
in
the
Federal
Register
­
continuous
monitoring
of
combustion
temperature,
waste
feed
rate,
the
indicator
of
combustion
gas
velocity
­
362­
specified
in
the
facility
permit,
and
other
operating
parameters­
indicate
that
the
incinerator
is
operating
property
and
are
often
tied
to
incinerator
shut
off.
These
data
are
necessary
to
verify
proper
operation
of
the
incinerator
at
the
time
they
are
collected.
The
three­
year
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
provide
the
agency
the
opportunity
to
review
records
to
assure
that
the
incinerator
is
operating
property
and
that
the
wastes
are
being
properly
treated.
A
longer
record
retention
period
places
an
unnecessary
burden
upon
the
TSDF.

Response:
Commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0348
Incinerator
should
keep
all
their
data­
points
always,
for
the
same
reason.
These
facilities
are
not
often
inspected,
and
do
not
often
have
stack
tests.
If
there
are
compliance
questions,
all
the
state
inspector
has
to
go
on
for
the
duration
of
the
violation
are
the
data­
points
on
the
parametric
monitoring
for
the
incinerator.
In
no
case
should
record
retention
be
reduced
if
there
are
outstanding
enforcement,
non­
compliance
or
legal
issues
pending.

Response:
While
data
from
keeping
records
until
closure
may
be
somewhat
useful
at
times,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
potential
use
would
offset
the
effects
of
lowering
of
burden
for
keeping
these
records
for
a
shorter
period
of
time.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
retention
time
for
incinerators.
We
believe
that
pending
enforcement
actions
are
an
important
consideration.
However,
we
believe
that
we
should
change
the
record
retention
time
despite
this
point.
This
is
because
enforcement
actions
are
addressed
under
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
264.74,
which
states:
"
The
record
retention
period
for
all
records
required
under
this
part
is
extended
automatically
during
the
course
of
any
unresolved
enforcement
action
regarding
the
facility
or
as
requested
by
the
Administrator."

264.571
­
Assessment
of
existing
drip
pad
integrity.
264.571(
a),
(
b),
(
c)
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
Submit
written
plan,
as­
built
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
these
activities
may
also
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Final
Action:
We
will
not
allow
CHMM
to
certify
this
change
only
a
qualified,
Professional
Engineer
can
sign
this
certification.

Document
#:
0218
264.571(
a),(
b),
and
(
c),
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
specified
certifications
on
Drip
Pads,
­
363­
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
proposal.
The
independent
PE
certification
should
be
retain.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
will
not
be
proceeding
with
this
change.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
language
for
today's
rule
and
the
2003
NODA
supporting
the
Burden
Reduction
rule.

264.573­­
Design
and
operating
requirements.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
opposes
the
elimination
of
this
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
the
potential
leak
in
the
containment
area
of
a
dip
pad.
Such
notice
is
needed
so
that
the
Agency
can
properly
perform
is
oversight
role.
The
DEQ
does
believe,
however
that
the
24­
hour
notification
requirement
is
too
stringent
and
unnecessarily
brief.
A
longer
notification
time
frame
of
7
calendar
days
is
considered
to
be
sufficient.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
proceeding
with
this
change.

264.573(
a)
Design
and
operating
requirements.
Drip
Pads
264.573
(
a)(
4)(
ii),
(
g)
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
Evaluate
drip
pads:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
evaluation
may
also
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0218
264.573
(
a)(
4)(
1)
and
(
g).
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
specified
certifications
on
Dips
Pads,
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
proposal.
The
independent
PE
certification
should
be
retained.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
decided
not
to
proceed
with
this
change,
however
the
Agency
in
today's
rule
has
modified
the
requirements
that
are
necessary
for
the
Professinal
Engineer.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
discussion
in
today's
Burden
Reduction
final
rule
and
the
text
found
in
the
2003
NODA.
­
364­
264.573(
m)
Design
and
operating
requirements
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup:
Proposed
Action.
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i) (
iii)
of
this
part
are
taken.
Information
relevant
to
the
happenings
at
the
drip
pad
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
Final
Action:
We
are
retaining
this
requirement.

Document
#:
0181
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
&
(
m)(
2)
&
(
m)(
3)
&
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv),
(
2)
&
(
3)
Drip
Pads.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
reports
of
planned
actions.
However
a
notice
of
a
possible
leak
or
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
notice
requirement
by
amending
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
to
read
as
follows:

Section
264.573
­
Design
and
operating
requirements.
(
iv)
­
Within
24
hours
after
discovery
of
the
condition,
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
condition.

Document
#:
0218
264.573(
m)(
2)
and
(
3),
Delete
these
two
paragraphs
as
unnecessary.

Document
#:
0169
Eliminate
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i)­(
iii)
of
this
part
are
taken.
Information
relevant
to
the
happenings
at
the
drip
pad
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
response
actions.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response
to
Comments:
The
States
have
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.
We
are
not
proceeding
with
the
elimination
of
these
notices
in
today's
rule.
­
365­
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)

All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.
Georgia
maintains
records
of
all
the
notifications
and
reports,
submitted
by
the
regulated
entity.
These
reports
and
notification
are
tracked
until
such
time
as
the
regulatory
requirements
are
met.
This
allows
effective
oversight
of
the
facility
until
all
issues
are
resolved.

Information
concerning
repairs
and/
or
corrective
actions
and/
or
remedial
actions
taken
by
the
permitted
is
evaluated
to
determine
if
regulatory
requirements
are
met.
In
addition,
this
information
in
used
to
identify
additional
operating
and
design
conditions
that
will
minimize
future
releases
to
the
environment,
or
to
determine
whether
the
drip
pad
should
be
removed
from
service.

Notification
should
be
made
to
the
regulatory
authority
to
allow
to
ensure
proper
response
actions
are
taken,
and
in
a
timely
manner.
Further
investigations,
may
be
required
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
notification
allows
the
agency
the
opportunity
to
conduct
a
more
immediate
evaluation
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
release
to
determine
whether
enforcement
is
also
necessary.
The
information
may
be
needed
for
various
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement
actions
which
may
occur
as
a
result
of
the
release.
The
public
should
be
aware
of
any
releases
that
will
be
recorded
in
the
regulatory
file.

The
notification
also
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
release
occurs),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
th
releases.

Response
to
Comments:
The
States
have
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.
We
are
not
proceeding
with
the
elimination
of
these
notices
in
today's
rule.

264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
(
m)(
2)
(
m)(
3)

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rule
will
eliminate
the
requirements
for
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
concerning
cleanup
and
repairs
of
drip
pads.
While
some
are
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
there
should
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land
based
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
­
366­
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Response
to
Comments:
The
States
have
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.
We
are
not
proceeding
with
the
elimination
of
these
notices
in
today's
rule.

264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)(
m)(
2)
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv)

Document
#:
0241
For
both
drip
pad
and
containment
building,
the
proposal
would
eliminate
the
requirements
for
(
1)
submission
of
notification
of
a
release
and
planned
repairs
to
the
agency,
(
2)
Agency
determination
of
whether
the
unit
may
be
repaired
or
must
be
removed
from
service
and
(
3)
submission
of
professional
engineer
certification
of
the
completion
of
the
repairs
and
cleanup.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
section
of
the
regulations
is
not
intended
to
apply
to
minor
reports
of
drip
pads
or
containment
buildings,
but
is
intended
to
apply
only
to
those
situation
in
which
there
has
been
a
release
of
hazardous
wastes
to
the
environment.
We
are
opposed
to
this
modification
because
we
feel
that
Agency
knowledge
of
conditions
that
have
led
to
a
release
from
a
drip
pad
or
containment
buildings
is
important
to
our
permitting
and
enforcement
efforts.
In
addition,
we
feel
that
Agency
(
and
not
owner/
operator)
determination
of
whether
the
required
reports
are
extensive
enough
(
or
the
potential
for
further
releases
is
high
enough)
to
have
the
unit
removed
from
service
is
a
necessary
function
in
order
to
remain
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
we
believe
that
the
submission
of
professional
engineer
certification
that
the
reports
and
clean
up
work
were
completed
according
to
plan
submitted
is
necessary
in
order
for
both
the
Agency
and
the
owner/
operator
to
have
confidence
that
the
unit
may
be
safely
returned
to
service.

Response
to
Comments:
The
States
have
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.
We
are
not
proceeding
with
the
elimination
of
these
notices
in
today's
rule.

264.573(
m)(
2)­­
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
EPA
makes
determination
about
removal
of
pad:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i) (
iii)
of
this
part
are
undertaken.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
proceeding
with
this
removing
this
requirement.
It
will
be
retained.

Document
#:
0169
Eliminate
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
i)(
iii)
of
this
part
are
undertaken.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
­
367­
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
regulatory
authority
should
retain
the
authority
to
require
removal
of
the
drip
pad
if
necessary.
Response
actions
may
not
be
enough
to
allow
the
pad
to
continue
to
operate.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
modifying
this
requirement
so
EPA
has
the
authority
to
require
the
facility
remove
the
drip
pads
from
service.
What
can
be
eliminated
is
the
obligation
for
EPA
to
make
a
decision
and
give
notice.

Document
0290
The
regulatory
authority
should
retain
the
right
to
require
removal
of
the
drip
pad.
Response
actions
may
not
be
adequate
enough
to
allow
the
pad
to
continue
to
operate.

Response
to
Comments:
We
have
looked
at
this
requirement
in
light
of
the
comments
and
have
decided
to
retain
it.

264.573(
m)(
2)­­
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
EPA
makes
determination
about
removal
of
pad:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i) (
iii)
of
this
part
are
undertaken.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
Final
Action:
We
will
not
be
proceeding
with
these
changes.

Document
#:
0286
Removal
of
this
language
is
acceptable.
However,
we
believe
a
provision
should
be
added
that
requires
the
owner/
operator
to
have
a
determination
whether
to
remove
any
portion
of
the
pad
and
to
certify
and
retain
the
record
in
their
file.
Additionally,
any
repairs
made
should
be
certified
by
an
appropriate
person.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
review
of
the
comments,
we
have
been
persuaded
to
retain
this
requirement.

264.573(
m)(
3)­­
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
and
certify
completion
of
repairs:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
described
in
the
regulations
of
this
part
are
made.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
Final
Action:
We
will
not
be
proceeding
with
this
change.

Document
#:
0169
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
described
in
the
regulations
of
this
part
are
made.
Information
relevant
to
the
drip
pad
activities
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
­
368­
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Further,
the
public
has
a
right
to
know
if
there
have
been
releases.
How
will
they
know
if
facilities
are
not
required
to
notify?
The
regulatory
authority
may
need
more
than
three
years
of
information
to
determine
if
the
pad
should
be
removed.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
elimination
of
this
requirement.
Certification
that
the
repairs
are
complete
seem
prudent
and
in
line
with
other
certification
of
repairs
or
new
construction.

Document
#:
0290
This
requirement
assists
the
regulatory
authority
in
determining
of
leakage
from
the
drip
pad
has
been
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
The
notification
also
provides
the
agency
with
the
ability
to
inspect
the
repairs
to
ensure
that
they
are
adequate.
The
notification
and
certification
provides
documentation
in
the
facility's
file
that
the
repairs
and
clean­
up
have
been
rededicated
properly.
The
facility
records
are
required
to
be
kept
for
only
three
years.
The
regulatory
authority
may
need
more
than
three
years
of
information
to
determine
if
the
pad
should
be
removed.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.,
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
control
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.,
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
Upon
review
of
the
comments,
we
have
been
persuaded
to
retain
this
requirement.

264.574(
a)­­
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted) 
Inspections:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
these
inspections
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
proceeding
with
this
change.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
proposal.
The
independent
PE
certification
should
be
retained.

Document
#:
0218
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
inspections
and
certification
related
to
Drip
Pad
construction,
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
will
not
be
proceeding
with
this
change
in
the
regulation,
however
we
are
modifying
the
requirements
for
the
­
369­
Professional
Engineer
certification
and
will
now
require
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer
to
make
the
certification.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
further
information
on
this
change.

264.1036(
1035)­­
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)­­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
need
to
submit
report­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
detailed
recordkeeping
required
by
264.1035.
The
264.1035
information
will
be
retained
on­
site
for
regulators
to
examine.
Final
Action:
We
are
retaining
this
requirement.

Document
#:
0216
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)
The
rulemaking
proposes
to
eliminate
the
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
agency
with
the
information
to
be
retained
on
site.
This
is
acceptable
provided
a
provision
is
maintained
for
submittal
to
be
made
within
fourteen
days
upon
the
agency's
request.
264.1035
264.1036
Document#:
0165
Subpart
AA
­
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Process
Vents
Semi­
Annual
Report
on
Control
Device
Exceedance
­
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
AA
standards
are
quite
extensive.
See
264.1035.
Among
the
information
that
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records
for
agency
inspection
is
documentation
on
control
device
accedences
and
the
corrective
measures
taken.
Consequently,
there
is
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information,
as
currently
required
by
264.1036.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
264.1036
can
be
deleted.

Document#:
0166
Subpart
AA
­
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Process
Vents
Semi­
Annual
Report
on
Control
Device
Exceedance
­
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
AA
standards
are
quite
extensive.
See
264.1035.
Among
the
information
that
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records
for
agency
inspection
is
documentation
on
control
device
accedences
and
the
corrective
measures
taken.
Consequently,
there
is
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information,
as
currently
required
by
264.1036.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
264.1036
can
be
deleted.

Document
#:
0169
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region.
Eliminate
need
to
submit
report
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
detained
record
­
370­
keeping
required
by
264.1035.
The
264.1035
information
will
be
retained
on­
site
for
regulators
to
examine.

We
disagree
with
proposed
changes.
The
semi­
annual
report
identifies
when
the
control
device
operates
outside
of
the
device's
design
specifications.
By
notifying
the
regulatory
agency
of
problems
with
the
control
device,
the
regulatory
agency
can
determine
if
action
needs
to
be
taken.
If
this
requirement
is
eliminated,
the
regulatory
agency
will
not
be
notified
by
the
facility
when
there
is
a
problem
with
control
device,
and
if
the
problem
was
corrected.
Elimination
of
this
reporting
requirement
may
not
compel
the
facility
to
conduct
timely
repairs
on
the
control
device
if
the
unit
fails
to
operate
within
its
design
specifications.

Document
#:
0181
Process
Vents
­
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meed
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
will
eliminate
the
reporting
requirements
of
264.1036
for
facilities
subject
to
40
CAR
264
Subpart
AA.
The
rule
proposes
that
in
lieu
of
reporting,
the
requirements
of
40
CAR
264.1035
would
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
TNRCC
believes
that,
should
this
be
the
case,
the
regional
administrator
would
not
be
aware
of
any
emission
accedence
under
Subpart
AA
at
the
facility.
Also,
recurring
emission
accedence
at
the
facility
may
not
be
known
to
regulators
unit
a
facility
is
inspected.
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
also
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
of
emission
accedences
asa
permitted
facilities.
In
addition,
this
rule
change
could
create
an
undue
administrative
burden
on
the
regulators
who
may
require
such
information
for
permitting,
compliance,
or
enforcement
actions.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
these
reports.
The
facility
must
submit
the
report
only
if
there
has
been
a
release;
otherwise
the
reports
are
not
necessary.
The
agency
and
public
are
interested
in
releases
from
facilities.

Document
#:
0218
Delete
the
requirement
for
a
semi­
annual
report
on
Subpart
AA
issues.

Document
#:
0290
All
reports,.
records,
correspondence,
permit
application,
notification,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Georgia
maintains
records
of
all
the
notifications
and
reports
submitted
by
the
permitted.
These
­
371­
reports
and
modifications
are
tracked
unit
such
time
as
the
regulatory
requirements
are
met.
This
allows
effective
oversight
of
the
facility
until
all
issues
are
resolved.
This
information
is
evaluated
and
used
to
aid
in
addressing
additional
permitting,
enforcement,
and/
or
corrective
action
issues
that
arise
as
a
result
of
control
device
accedences.

Document
#:
0042
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)
Submit
semi
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
is
persuaded
by
the
commenters
arguing
against
the
deletionof
this
requirement.
The
semi­
annual
report
identifies
when
the
control
device
operates
outside
of
the
device's
design
specifications.
By
notifying
the
regulatory
agency
of
problems
with
the
control
device,
the
regulatory
agency
can
determine
if
action
needs
to
be
taken.
If
this
requirement
is
eliminated,
the
regulatory
agency
will
not
be
notified
by
the
facility
when
there
is
a
problem
with
control
device,
and
if
the
problem
was
corrected.
Elimination
of
this
reporting
requirement
may
not
compel
the
facility
to
conduct
timely
repairs
on
the
control
device
if
the
unit
fails
to
operate
within
its
design
specifications.

264.1061/
264.1062/
265.1061
264.1061/
264.1062
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
Final
Action:
We
are
eliminating
the
requirement.

Document
#:
0216
Equipment
Leak
(
Permitted
&
Interim
Status
­
Maine
disagrees
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
notification
to
implement
an
alternative
valve
standard.
We
believe
some
technical
review
by
the
agency
should
be
warranted
to
approve
this
alternative
standard.
264.1061(
b)(
1)
264.1062(
a)(
2)
265.1061(
b)(
1)

Document
#:
0165
Alternative
Standards
for
Values
264.1061and
264.1062
­
0Facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
BB
standards
must
ensure
that
values
in
gas/
vapor
or
light
liquid
service
are
monitored
monthly
to
detect
leaks.
See
264.1057.
As
an
alternative
standard,
the
facility
can
elect
to
comply
with
a
performance
standard
in
264.1061
that
allows
no
greater
than
2
percent
of
values
to
leak.
The
performance
tests
and
repair
obligations
are
set
forth
in
detain
in
the
regulation.
Therefore,
we
agree
that
this
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
is
no
need
for
a
facility
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
264.1061(
b)(
1),
or
to
discontinue
reliance
on
this
standard,
264.1061(
d),
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
­
372­
Likewise,
the
facility
may
elect
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
that
are
specified
in
264.1062.
There
is
no
need
for
the
facility
to
submit
a
notification
before
implementing
these
work
practices,
so
264.1062(
a)(
2)
should
be
deleted.

Document
#:
0166
Alternative
Standards
for
Values
­
Facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
BB
standards
must
ensure
that
values
in
gas/
vapor
or
light
liquid
service
are
monitored
monthly
to
detect
leaks,
Sec.
264.1057.
As
an
alternative
standard,
the
facility
can
elect
to
comply
with
a
performance
standard
in
264.1061
that
allows
no
greater
than
2
percent
of
values
to
leak.
The
performance
tests
repair
obligations
are
set
forth
in
detail
in
the
regulation.
Therefore,
we
agree
that
this
alternative
value
standard
should
be
self­
implementing
and
there
is
no
need
for
a
facility
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
standards265.1061(
b)(
1),
or
to
discontinue
reliance
on
this
standard,
264.1061(
b),
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.

Likewise,
the
facility
may
elect
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
values
that
are
specified
in
264.1062.
There
is
no
need
for
the
facility
to
submit
a
notification
before
implementing
these
work
practices,
so
264.1062(
a)(
2)
should
be
deleted.

264.1061,
1026
and
1065
Document
#:
0196
Various
notification
regarding
the
equipment
leaks
requirements
264.1061,
1062
&
1065
­
Vesical
supports
these
changes.
We
agree
that
the
proposed
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
reside
in
the
facilities
records
where
they
can
be
examined
during
a
compliance
enforcement
inspection.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
parties
(
i
e.,
regulators
and
Velsicol).

264.1061(
b)(
1)

Document
#:
0042
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Document
#:
0169
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard;
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
there
are
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
the
regular
standards
are
going
to
be
followed.
Relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.

We
oppose
this
change.
The
proposed
Notification
allows
2%
of
all
valves
to
continue
to
leak
.
The
current
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
that
a
performance
test
be
conducted
and
to
determine
if
additional
testing
should
be
performed.

Document
#:
0213
­
373­
We
support
elimination
of
this
requirement
as
long
as
the
facility
must
document
in
the
operating
record
that
it
has
chosen
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Document
#:
0218
264.1061(
b)(
1)
and
(
d),
Delete
notification
requirements,
in
lieu
of
facility
records.

Document
#:
0290
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Notification
should
be
required
when
a
facility
elects
to
use
alternate
standards
because
without
knowledge
of
the
specifications
that
facilities
are
using,
40
CAR
Part
264.
standards
may
not
be
effectively
administered.
In
addition,
this
information
may
be
necessary
to
address
various
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement
actions
at
the
facility.
The
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
ensure
a
performance
test
is
conducted
and
determine
if
more
testing
should
be
performed.

264.1061
(
a)(
1)
and
(
d)

Document
#:
0211
TNRCC
believes
that
facilities
need
to
notify
regulators
when
they
elect
to
use
alternate
standards.
Without
knowledge
of
the
specifications
that
facilities
are
using,
regulatory
may
not
be
able
to
effectively
administer
40CFR
Part
264
standards.
In
addition,
this
information
may
be
required
for
regulators
to
address
various
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement
actions
as
the
facility.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semi­
annual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.

The
information
in
these
notifications
is
already
contained
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.

Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
­
374­
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.

Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.

264.1061(
d)

Document
#:
0042
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard.

Document
#:
0169
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standards:
Eliminate
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
there
are
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
the
regular
standards
are
going
to
be
followed.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
elimination
of
this
requirement
as
long
as
the
facility
must
document
in
the
operating
record
that
it
has
chosen
to
discontinue
use
of
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semi­
annual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.

The
information
in
these
notifications
is
already
contained
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.

Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.

Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.
­
375­
264.1062
Document
#:
0218
Delete
the
notification
requirement
and
renumber
the
subsequent
paragraphs.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semi­
annual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.

The
information
in
these
notifications
is
already
contained
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.

Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.

Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.

264.1062(
a)(
2)

Document
#:
0042
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
valve
standard
Document
#:
0169
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
reporting
requirement
as
long
as
standards
are
followed.
Relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record
for
regulators
to
examine.

As
long
as
the
notification
was
given
for
264.1061(
b)(
1),
we
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
elimination
of
this
requirement
as
long
as
the
facility
must
document
in
the
operating
record
that
it
is
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
­
376­
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semi­
annual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.

The
information
in
these
notifications
is
already
contained
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.

Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.

Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.

The
final
rule
eliminates
the
notifications
for
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
alternative
work
practices
fo
valves,
and
the
requirement
for
a
semi­
annual
report
submission.
The
necessary
information
related
to
the
report
and
the
notifications
is
contained
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
inspection.

264.1063
264.1064
264.1065
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
a
semi­
annual
report
with
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
264.1064
recordkeeping
requirements
will
provide
adequate
information.
The
264.1064
information
will
remain
on­
site
for
regulators
to
examine.
Final
Action:
Retain
submittal
of
the
semi­
annual
report.

Document
#:
0217
Test
Methods
and
Procedures
under
Subpart
BB,
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
Code
related
to
subparagraphs
264.1063264.1063(
d)(
1)
requires
a
facility
to
make
three
determination:
(
1)
whether
each
piece
of
equipment
contains
or
contact
a
hazardous
waste
with
organic
concentration
that
equals
on
exceeds
10
percent
by
weight,
(
2)
if
pumps
or
valves
are
in
light
liquid
service
and
(
3)
certain
performance
tests
to
determine
if
a
control
device
achieves
95
weight
percent
organic
emission
reduction.
It
is
unclear
how
this
relates
to
the
"
monitoring,
­
377­
testing,
or
analytical
data
and
corrective
action
data"
required
to
be
maintained
in
operating
record
"
until
closure
of
the
facility."
This
code
is
related
to
test
methods
and
procedures
to
be
used,
rather
than
to
actual
monitoring
or
test
data.
Eastman
suggests
that
this
citation
be
removed
from
the
text
of
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
265.73(
b)(
6).

Document
#:
0217
Record
keeping
Requirement
for
Sub
BB
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
­
All
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
Subpart
BB
are
spelled
out
in
this
section
of
code.
Eastman
does
not
believe
these
records
are
useful
to
the
Agency
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
In
fact,
the
existing
code
at
264.1064(
1)
requires
only
three
year
retention
of
equipment
leak
information
as
per
$
264.1064(
d)
and
operating
information
as
per
264.1064(
c).
We
assume
that
the
three­
year
retention
remains
in
place
and
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal,
but
request
clarification
from
EPA
on
this
issue.
Further,
the
Agency
could
reduce
to
no
more
than
three
or
five
years'
retention
the
test
data
required
at
264.1064(
g)(
4)
and
monitoring
results
required
at
264.1064(
i)(
2)
without
losing
information
of
any
use
to
the
Agency
beyond
that
period
of
time.

Document
#:
0165
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
BB
are
also
extensive.
See
264.1064.
Among
the
information
that
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records
for
agency
inspection
is
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Consequently,
there
is
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information,
as
currently
required
by
264.1065.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
264.1065
should
be
deleted.

Document
#:
0166
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
the
Subpart
BB
are
also
extensive
Section
264.1064.
Among
the
information
that
must
be
maintained
in
facility
records
for
agency
inspection
is
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Consequently,
three
is
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information,
as
currently
by
264.1065.
We
agree
with
EPA
that
264.1065
should
be
deleted.

Document
#:
0169
Equipment
Leaks
­
(
Permitted)­
Submit
a
semi­
annual
report
with
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events:
Eliminate
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
264.1064
record
keeping
requirements
will
provide
adequate
information.
The
264.1064
information
will
remain
on­
site
for
regulators
to
examine.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
will
eliminate
the
requirements
for
notification
to
the
regional
administrator
concerning
cleanup
and
repairs
of
drip
pads.
White
some
are
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
there
should
be
some
historical
record
available
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land
based
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.
­
378­
Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
elimination
of
this
report.
The
report
must
be
submitted
only
if
there
have
been
problems
with
the
equipment.
The
public
has
an
interest
in
these
reports
and
would
not
see
the
information
if
it
were
only
maintained
at
the
facility.

Document
#:
0218
Delete
the
requirement
for
the
semiannual
report
on
Subpart
BB
issues.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
however
we
have
been
persuaded
by
the
commenters
that
this
is
a
necessary
reporting
mechanism
that
should
be
retained.
The
report
must
be
submitted
only
if
there
have
been
problems
with
the
equipment.
The
public
has
an
interest
in
these
reports
and
would
not
see
the
information
if
it
were
only
maintained
at
the
facility.

264.1065
­
264.1061­­
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
Document
#:
0042
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)­
Submit
semiannual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region.

Document
#:
0181
Equipment
Leaks.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
knowledge
need
to
reply
to
the
general
public
especially
if
the
other
reporting
is
discontinued.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
however
we
have
been
persuaded
by
the
commenters
that
this
is
a
necessary
reporting
mechanism
that
should
be
retained.
The
report
must
be
submitted
only
if
there
have
been
problems
with
the
equipment.
The
public
has
an
interest
in
these
reports
and
would
not
see
the
information
if
it
were
only
maintained
at
the
facility.

264.1082
Document
#:
0217
Eastman
contains
general
standards
for
the
management
of
hazardous
waste
in
tank,
surface
impoundments
and
containers.
Record
keeping
requirements
for
264.1082
are
found
at
264.1089(
f)
with
a
minimum
retention
period
of
three
years.
No
record
retention
until
closure
of
­
379­
the
facility
is
now
required.
We
assume
the
Agency's
intent
is
not
to
change
this
to
until
closure
of
the
facility
and
request
clarification
of
this
issue.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
their
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements.

264.1083
Document
#:
0217
Eastman
­
264.1083
contains
waste
determination
procedures
to
determine
the
average
volatile
organic
concentration
of
hazardous
waste
at
the
point
of
waste
origination.
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
264.1083
waste
analyses
are
found
at
264.1089(
f)(
1)
with
a
retention
period
of
a
minimum
of
three
years
 
no
"
until
closure"
record
keeping
requirements.
Eastman
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal
and
requests
clarification
of
the
same.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
their
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements
264.1084
Document
#:
0217
264.1084
contains
standards
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
tanks.
The
record
keeping
requirements
for
264.1084
are
found
at
264.1089(
c)
and
again
are
required
to
be
kept
for
three
years.
Eastman
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal
and
requests
clarification
of
the
same.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements.

264.1085
Document
#:
0217
Eastman
264.1085
contains
standards
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
surface
impoundments.
This
record
keeping
requirements
for
264.1085
are
found
at
264.1089(
c)
and
again
are
required
to
be
kept
for
three
years.
Eastman
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal
and
requests
clarification
of
the
same.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
­
380­
regulatory
requirements.

264.1086
Document
#:
0217
274.1086
Eastman
contains
for
the
control
of
air
pollutant
emission
from
containers.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
for
264.1089(
d),
with
a
retention
period
of
a
minimum
of
three
years.
Eastman
assumes
this
retention
period
is
unchanged
by
this
proposal
and
requests
clarification
of
the
same.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements.

264.1087
Document
#:
0217
264.1087
contains
standards
for
close
vent
systems
and
control
devices.
Three
are
no
actual
operating
record
requirements
in
this
paragraph;
rather
the
operating
record
requirements
are
addressed
in
264.1087
to
be
kept
for
only
a
minimum
of
three
years.
There
are
no
"
unit
closure"
record
keeping
requirements
associated
with
this
paragraph
and
we
assume
this
remains
unchanged
by
this
proposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements.

264.1089
Document
#:
0217
264.1089
contains
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
all
the
above.
However,
with
the
exception
of
two
subparagraphs
(
i)
and
(
j),
all
such
records
need
to
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
a
"
minimum
of
3
years."
Thus,
only
the
requirements
of
(
i)
and
(
j)
require
maintenance
until
closure,
three
requirements
relate
to
tank,
containers
or
hazardous
waste
management
units
not
using
air
emission
controls,
and
Eastman
does
not
object
to
"
until
closure"
retention
of
such
requirements.
Bur
we
assume
that
this
proposal
does
not
change
the
three
year
retention
period
for
the
vast
majority
of
264.1089
recordkeeping
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
­
381­
regulatory
requirements
264.1090
Document
#:
0217
264.1090
contains
reporting
requirements.
However,
none
of
those
requirements
pertains
to
monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
or
corrective
action
data
that
must
go
into
the
operating
record.
Thus,
Eastman
recommends
that
EPA
remove
the
reference
to
this
citation
from
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
264.73(
b)(
6).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment.
This
section
however
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
its
assessment
of
the
regulatory
requirements
264.1100
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted):
264.1100/
264.1101
(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted):
Proposed
Action:
Remove
obsolete
language
Document
#:
0042
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
requirements:
Notify
EPA
of
intent
to
be
bound
by
the
regulations
earlier
than
as
specified
in
264.1100.

Document
#
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language
Document
#:
0218
Delete
obsolete
languages.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
these
comments.
­
382­
264.1101/
265.1101
264.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
requirements:
Proposed
Action:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
the
certification
may
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
f)(
d)
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup:
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)/
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
­
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
repair
of
containment
building
must
occur
anyway.
Information
about
this
situation
will
be
available
in
the
facility
record
for
regulators
to
inspect.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)/
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i),
(
iii)
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
EPA
does
not
get
involved
in
similar
decisions
about
whether
other
parts
of
a
facility
need
to
be
removed
from
service.
Information
about
this
situation
will
be
available
in
the
facility
records
for
regulators
to
inspect.
264.1101(
c)(
4)
Final
Action,
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
iii)
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
264.1101(
3)(
3)(
i)(
D),
(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i),
(
iii)
Final
Action.
NO
CHANGE
TO
EXISTING
REGULATIONS
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted) 
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
EPA
does
not
get
involved
in
similar
decisions
about
whether
other
parts
of
a
facility
need
to
be
removed
from
service.
Information
about
this
situation
will
be
available
in
the
facility
records
for
regulators
to
inspect.
­
383­
Document
#:
0216
Maine
believes
it
remains
important
for
the
agency
to
be
aware
of
these
situations,
and
to
be
able
to
have
input.
After
the
fact
knowledge
does
not
provide
this
opportunity.
In
addition,
the
state
does
not
wish
to
eliminate
the
need
to
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release.
The
reasons
for
the
release
should
be
well
understood
and
would
normally
entail
some
level
of
review
by
the
agency,
especially
if
repairs
have
not
been
completed.
See
also
comments
on
264.196(
d)(
1)­(
3)
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)(
iii)
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)(
iii)

Document
#:
0218
264.1011(
c)(
4),
Modify
language
to
allow
longer
inspection
intervals
with
the
approval
of
the
Division
Director.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
generally
supports
the
proposed
rule,
with
modification,
as
shown
below.
Because
a
structure
is
involved,
state
law
may
require
the
building
to
be
designed
and
certified
by
a
registered
professional
engineer
for
safety
reasons.
The
DEQ
believes
that
the
possibility
of
this
requirement
can
be
addressed
by
a
note
at
the
end
of
the
rule.
Secondly,
the
requirement
that
the
certification
be
obtained
prior
to
first
use
of
the
building,
should
be
retained.
Suggested
language
is
as
follows:

(
2)
Obtained
certification
by
an
independent
qualified
registered
professional
engineer
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
prior
to
operation
of
the
building,
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
b)
and
(
c)
of
the
section.

Note:
Some
states
have
specific
requirements
regarding
the
personnel
allowed
to
perform
certification
on
buildings
and
structures.
The
owner
or
operator
is
advised
to
consult
with
state
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
if
such
requirements
are
in
effect
for
their
state.

Document
#:
0218
264,1011(
c)(
3)(
i)(
C)
and
(
D),
Add
text
to
paragraph
(
c)
and
delete
paragraph
(
d).

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
modification.

Document
#:
0218
264.1101
(
c)(
3)(
ii),
Delete
reporting
requirements.
­
384­
Document
#:
0181
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
iii)
&
265.1101
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
iii)
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public
and
show
control
of
the
situation,
prior
to
return
to
use
of
the
building.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0169
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)­
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
repair
of
containment
building
must
occur
anyway.
Information
about
this
situation
will
be
available
in
the
facility
record
for
regulators
to
inspect.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Notification
ensures
that
the
repair
of
the
containment
building
occurs.
Notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
document
the
incident
in
their
files.
The
public
may
review
any
release
from
the
facility
by
reviewing
the
regulatory
files.

Document
#:
0286
We
believe
you
should
add
language
requiring
repairs
to
be
certified
by
proper
personnel
and
to
keep
the
certification
with
records
at
the
facility.
You
should
also
add
that
these
records
must
be
part
of
the
operating
record.

Document
#:
0181
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
&
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
­
Containment
Building.
This
will
not
allow
the
agency
the
knowledge
needed
to
reply
to
the
general
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
when
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
reports
of
planned
actions.
However,
a
notice
of
a
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
notice
requirement
by
amending
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
to
read
as
follows:

Section
264.1101
Design
and
operating
requirements.
(
D)
Within
7
days
after
discovery
of
the
condition,
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
te
condition.

Document
#:
0290
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
­
Notification
allows
the
agency
to
ensure
proper
response
actions
are
taken,
­
385­
and
in
a
timely
manner.
Further,
investigations
may
be
required
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
notification
allows
the
agency
the
opportunity
to
conduct
a
more
immediate
evaluation
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
release
to
determine
whether
enforcement
actions
which
may
occur
as
a
result
of
the
release.
The
public
is
provided
with
the
opportunity
to
review
the
notification
the
regulatory
files.

264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i),
(
iii)
­
Notification
of
clean­
up
ensures
that
the
proper
procedures
were
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment,
and
done
so
in
a
timely
manner.
The
regulatory
agency
is
provided
with
the
opportunity
to
inspect
the
facility
to
ensure
that
the
repairs
have
been
completed.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
file
that
the
repairs
were
properly
handled
when
the
public
review
the
files.
Otherwise,
the
public
must
inquire
to
the
facility
regarding
documentation
of
clean
up
and
repairs.
This
information
is
not
entered
into
a
database.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
We
disagree
with
the
rationale
presented.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
regulations
eliminate
notification
requirements
for
leaks,
repairs,
etc.
at
containment
buildings.
As
mentioned
in
previous
comments,
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
but
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
information
and
remedial
action
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
0169
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)­
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
EPA
does
not
get
involved
in
similar
decisions
about
whether
other
parts
of
a
facility
need
to
be
removed
from
service.
Information
about
this
situation
will
be
available
in
the
facility
records
for
regulators
to
inspect.

We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
report
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
on
the
environment.
Notification
of
clean
up
ensures
that
proper
procedures
were
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment
.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
file
that
the
reports
were
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
file.
Otherwise
the
public
must
inquire
to
the
facility
regarding
documentation
of
clean
­
386­
up
and
repairs.

Document
#:
0169
264.1101(
c)(
4)
­
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)­
Inspection
frequency:
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case
by
case
basis.
This
determination
will
be
made
regulatory
authorities
based
on
past
performance
of
the
facility.

While
we
agree
that
there
are
instances
where
the
frequency
of
inspections
may
warrant
some
relaxation,
EPA
should
propose
an
absolute
minimum
of
no
more
than
biweekly.
This
will
insure
that
the
agency
is
no
swamped
with
requests
to
valve
inspection
requirements.
Container
inspections
are
a
very
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environmental
problems.
We
believe
that
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
establish
an
absolute
minimum
frequency
for
inspections
and
we
believe
that
the
frequency
should
not
exceed
two
weeks.

Document
#:
0211
40
CAR
264.115
(
EPA
is
taking
comments
and
is
not
proposing
any
changes
to
these
rules.

Comments:
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
rules
in
the
future
regarding
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM)
can
certify
the
closure
certification
report.
TNRCC
notes
that
existing
40CFR
264.115
rules
require
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
the
facility
have
been
closed
according
to
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
EPA
is
proposing
and
taking
comments
on
whether
a
CHMM
is
capable
of
performing
closure
certifications.
A
review
of
the
requirements
for
certification
as
a
CHMM
that
the
candidate
is
not
required
to
posses
a
technical
degree
of
any
sort.
However,
the
individual
applying
for
a
CHMM
certification
without
a
degree
must
have
at
least
11
years
of
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management
CHMM
candidates
holding
a
bachelor's
degree
must
also
process
at
least
7
years
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
Candidates
hold
a
Master's
degree
or
higher
in
a
related
field,
must
also
have
a
minimum
of
3
years
of
practical
experience.
In
all
cases,
the
individual
must
pass
a
professional
multiple­
choice
examination
developed
and
administered
by
the
Hazardous
Materials
Management
Institute,
a
private
organization.
However,
the
professional
engineering
(
P.
E.)
requirements
are
more
stringent
and
closely
administered
by
individual
state
licensing
board
which
are
subject
to
state
regulations.
In
order
for
an
individual
to
obtain
a
P.
E.
license,
the
individual
(
in
most
cases)
must
have
a
ES
degree
in
engineering
and
requisite
experience
before
he
is
allowed
to
take
P.
E.
certification
exams.
The
P.
E.
certification
examination
is
a
two­
step
process:
first,
the
candidate
is
required
to
take
and
pass
an
exam
covering
the
fundamentals
of
engineering;
next
he/
she
must
take
a
comprehensive
engineering
exam
in
the
respective
field
for
which
the
license
is
sought.
The
registration,
exams,
and
license
requirements
for
P.
E.
s
are
administered
by
the
state
engineering
board.
The
brief
review
of
the
CHMM
requirements,
indicates
the
CHMM
standards
are
not
as
comprehensive
or
as
stringent
as
those
required
for
a
P.
E.
In
addition,
the
P.
E.
s
are
required
to
comply
with
state
regulations
that
establish
standards
for
such
criteria
as
education,
experience,
professional
conduct
and
ethics,
liability
and
insurance,
etc.,
there
are
no
such
established
standards
for
the
CHMM.
Also,
a
licensed
P.
E.,
is
only
allowed
­
387­
to
practice
in
the
field
of
engineering
in
which
he
has
the
necessary
education
or
experience;
it
is
unclear
if
such
restrictions
regulate
the
areas
of
engineering
in
which
a
CHMM
can
practice.
Therefore,
unless
CHMM
standards
are
as
stringent
as
the
P.
E.
requirements
and
are
governed
by
some
state
regulatory
criteria,
it
us
bit
advisable
to
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
of
the
various
certification
requirements.
In
addition,
this
proposal
may
conflict
with
state
P.
E.
Board
regulations.
Therefore,
in
light
of
the
aforementioned
issues,
TNRCC
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
not
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
engineering
certification,
unless
he/
she
is
also
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer
licensed
to
practice
in
the
individual
state.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0241
We
believe
that
it
is
important
that
all
facilities
continue
to
inspect
containment
buildings
and
their
monitoring
equipment
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
regardless
of
the
compliance
record
of
the
facility.
A
facility's
enforcement
history
has
little
or
no
bearing
on
the
need
to
check
monitoring
data,
the
potential
for
equipment
breakdown
or
the
development
of
leaks.
Furthermore,
allowing
less
frequent
containment
building
inspections
will
not
significantly
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
because
inspection
reports
are
not
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
are
kept
in
a
log
at
the
facility
site.

Document
#:
0352
Containment
Buildings
­
Inspection
of
data
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
for
liquids),
the
containment
building,
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
building
are
required
weekly
by
264.11011(
c)(
4)
and
265.1101(
c)(
4).
For
the
same
rationale
present
above
for
tanks,
LANL
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
any
facility
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
reduced
containment
building
inspection
frequencies
using
factors
such
as
those
described
in
40
CAR
264.15(
b)(
4).

Response
to
All
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
by
the
arguments
made
by
the
commenters
for
retaining
these
requirements.
With
regard
to
comments
concerning
Hazardous
Material
Managers,
please
refer
to
the
preamble.

264.1036
Process
Vents
(
Permitted) 
Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
need
to
submit
report 
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
detailed
recordkeeping
required
by
264.1035.
The
264.1035
information
will
be
retained
on­
site
for
regulators
to
examine.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
is
retaining
this
requirements.
­
388­
264.1061(
b)(
1)
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard:

Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.

Response:
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
notifications
for
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
alternative
work
practices
fo
valves,
and
the
requirement
for
a
semiannual
report
submission.
The
necessary
information
related
to
the
report
and
the
notifications
is
contained
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
inspection.

264.1061(
d)
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
there
are
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
the
regular
standards
are
going
to
be
followed.
Relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.
264.1062(
a)(
2)
Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
reporting
requirement
as
long
as
standards
are
followed.
Relevant
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record
for
regulators
to
examine.

See
response
for
265.1062(
a)(
2)
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
notifications
for
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
alternative
work
practices
fo
valves,
and
the
requirement
for
a
semi­
annual
report
submission.
The
necessary
information
related
to
the
report
and
the
notifications
is
contained
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
inspection.

Response:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semiannual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.

We
receive
a
number
of
comments
on
these
proposed
eliminations.
Some
commenters
opposed
elimination
of
notifications
for
alternative
valve
standards,
believing
that
some
technical
review
was
needed
to
approve
an
alternative
standard.

Another
commenter
opposed
to
eliminating
these
notifications
argued
that
the
report
(
equipment
leaks)
should
be
submitted
only
if
there
have
been
problems
with
the
equipment,
and
that
the
public
has
an
interest
in
these
reports
and
would
not
see
the
information
if
it
were
only
­
389­
maintained
at
the
facility.

Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
self­
implementing,
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.

Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.

Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.

The
final
rule
eliminates
the
notifications
for
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
alternative
work
practices
fo
valves,
and
the
requirement
for
a
semi­
annual
report
submission.
The
necessary
information
related
to
the
report
and
the
notifications
is
contained
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
inspection.
Furthermore,
we
believe
that
the
information
regarding
the
use
or
discontinued
use
of
alternative
valve
standards
need
not
be
submitted
but
maintained
on­
site.
