![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.3777777777777778in"
height="0.5388888888888889in"}

July 21, 2004

OSWER Docket

EPA Docket Center

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 5305T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

Attention Docket ID No. RCRA--2003--0014.

Reference: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); Hazardous
Waste Generator Regulatory Program Evaluation.

Dear Docket Clerk:

ConocoPhillips Company is pleased to submit the following comments on
the ANPRM relating to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's
(RCRA's) hazardous waste generator regulatory program, 69 Fed. Reg.
21800 (April 22, 2004). ConocoPhillips Company is a major integrated
energy company headquartered in Houston, Texas, involved in every aspect
of the oil and natural gas industry, including worldwide exploration,
production, transportation, marketing, refining, chemicals and power.
ConocoPhillips Company conducts four key businesses worldwide:

-   Petroleum exploration and production

-   Petroleum refining, marketing, supply and transportation

-   Natural gas gathering, processing and marketing, including a 30.3
    percent interest in Duke Energy Field Services

-   Chemicals and plastics production and distribution through a 50
    percent interest in Chevron Phillips Chemical Company

ConocoPhillips Company has numerous operations that generate hazardous
wastes ranging from the very small (conditionally-exempt small quantity
generators) to the very large (large quantity generators). Additionally,
ConocoPhillips Company operates permitted treatment, storage and
disposal (TSD) facilities for management of some of its hazardous
wastes. As a solid and hazardous waste generator, ConocoPhillips Company
is keenly interested in any initiative that has the potential to affect
any federal requirements applicable to RCRA waste generators.

ConocoPhillips Company is a member of the American Petroleum Institute
(API) and endorses API's comments submitted to this docket. We are
committed to working with EPA individually and through API to improve
program effectiveness, where practicable.

The ANPRM requested information from stakeholders to evaluate the
effectiveness of the RCRA's hazardous waste generator regulatory
program, as well as to identify areas for potential improvement.
ConocoPhillips Company commends EPA for this action and for organizing
the May 2004 public meetings to solicit input from interested
stakeholders on the effectiveness of the RCRA's hazardous waste
generator regulatory program. ConocoPhillips Company participated in the
May 13^th^ public meeting at EPA Headquarters in Washington D.C. and,
with others, articulated the use of an Environmental Management System
(EMS) as a potential alternative for compliance with RCRA principles.
For generators that were qualified for and elected to utilize an EMS
approach, the flexibility to design a hazardous waste management
structure that is appropriate to an individual facility and is
protective of human health and the environment is appealing. Tailored
standards for the accumulation of hazardous waste, management of
containers, training, documentation, attainment of waste minimization
goals and inspections would be articulated and the facility would be
held accountable for compliance. The RCRA program, which has used a
command and control regulatory approach, has played a major role to
ensure the proper management of hazardous waste over the course of the
past 20 years, but an evaluation of program requirements is overdue.
While the command and control approach may have been necessary in the
1980's, a performance-based approach is more appropriate for the current
decade.

Below is a summary of ConocoPhillips Company's response to some of the
specific questions posed by EPA in the ANPRM:

1\. [Program Effectiveness]{.underline}

The cradle-to-grave concept of the existing hazardous waste generator
program has significantly contributed to meeting the program goals of
protecting human health and the environment. During the past twenty
years, generators have instituted robust programs to ensure the safe
management of hazardous wastes that is protective of human health and
the environment. The generator program has undoubtedly made a
significant contribution towards reducing Superfund liabilities for
generators of hazardous waste. ConocoPhillips Company, along with many
other companies, continually work to reduce the number of facilities
that require RCRA permits, and as a result, the generator program will
become the centerpiece of RCRA in the future. As such, it warrants a
critical review to ensure that it is responsive to the 2000s not the
1980s.

While generators have developed tremendous experience in managing
hazardous waste within the RCRA program, these successes have not come
without challenges. ConocoPhillips Company has often found the RCRA
hazardous waste generator regulatory program to be complex and confusing
due to the structure of the regulations and the many interpretations
(sometimes conflicting) that EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions and States
have developed over the years. ConocoPhillips Company believes that the
time is right to make the RCRA generator standards relevant and up to
date. ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA make the regulations
more understandable and easier to use by textually consolidating all
relevant requirements by generator type and spelling out in a clear and
concise manner the requirements that currently are implemented primarily
through guidance.

2\. [Program Improvements]{.underline}

ConocoPhillips Company strongly supports EPA's initiative to determine
if changes to the generator program are warranted. EPA has stated that
they will develop and implement a hazardous waste strategy with the
goals of fostering improved program effectiveness, fostering a pollution
prevention stewardship philosophy, and reducing compliance cost, where
practicable. ConocoPhillips Company believes that hazardous waste
management approaches have matured over the past several decades of RCRA
regulation, which warrants evaluation of the RCRA generator program.
EPA, in its ANPRM (69 FR 21803 (cols. 2 & 3), has identified 12 areas
for improvement. ConocoPhillips Company concurs that each of these areas
warrant some improvement and, in its response to item 10 below,
identifies those program areas that should be given top priority.

Although there are sections within generator requirements that are
conflicting, outdated or duplicative, the regulated community and the
regulators have developed a web of interpretations that allow facilities
to operate in compliance. In approaching any changes to the program, EPA
must be careful not to completely negate these interpretations. Where
feasible, EPA should make changes in the regulatory language and not
regulate through guidance. So much of the RCRA regulatory program is
through interpretations and guidance; it would be much easier for the
regulated community, regardless of the size or sophistication of the
facility, for regulation to be via the rules, not guidance.

7\. [Compliance Assistance]{.underline}

EPA has improved the availability of regulatory interpretations issued
by the Agency with [RCRA Online]{.underline}. However, the [RCRA
Hotline]{.underline} is still a valuable resource that EPA should
maintain for the regulatory community. Additionally, EPA needs to
continue to work with State agencies to ensure consistent adoption and
interpretation of the regulations. The regulated community has learned
to accept that there are inconsistent (and sometimes conflicting) EPA
and State versions and/or interpretations of the RCRA generator
regulations. EPA could avoid these conflicts if EPA would allocate the
resources necessary to 1) address interpretive issues referred from
States/Regions in a timely manner and 2) clean up the existing
inconsistencies in the body of federal guidance and interpretations.

9\. [Burden Reduction]{.underline}

While EPA has been seeking to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting
burden on generators, its progress is excruciatingly slow. EPA should
make every effort to promulgate, as quickly as possible, the existing
burden reduction measures already under consideration.

10\. [Program Priorities (ConocoPhillips Company's
Recommendations)]{.underline}

[Consolidation of Requirements:]{.underline} ConocoPhillips Company
believes that significant improvement can be made by consolidating the
requirements found in Section 261.5, Part 262 (Subparts A, B, C, D), and
referenced portions of part 265 into individual sections. The sections
could be titled "Requirements for Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste", "Requirements for Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste", and "Requirements for Large Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste". Each of these sections should include
all the requirements applicable to that type of generator and should
avoid references to other sections (e.g., Part 265).

[Waste Accumulation Times:]{.underline} ConocoPhillips Company believes
that EPA should reevaluate the specified waste accumulation times for
generators (especially Small Quantity Generators). The length of time
that a small quantity generator is allowed to accumulate hazardous
wastes should be harmonized with the accumulation times for Universal
Wastes. As long as the total amount of accumulated hazardous waste does
not exceed the current threshold of 6000 kilograms, an accumulation time
of 1 year should be allowed. This is especially important for generators
that must transport hazardous wastes long distances for treatment and/or
disposal.

[Satellite Accumulation and other Container Requirements:]{.underline}
ConocoPhillips Company often encounters issues relating to management of
hazardous waste in containers, especially those located in satellite
accumulation areas (SAA). Throughout the U.S., there are varying
interpretations of what constitutes a "closed" container and the
meanings of "under control of the operator" and "at or near any point of
generation". Although the March 17, 2004 OSWER guidance (titled
"Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Satellite Accumulation Areas")
addressed some important issues, others still remain.

For Satellite Accumulation Areas, ConocoPhillips Company recommends that
EPA allow a generator to consider the overall responsibilities of the
operator. For example, if the operator is generating hazardous waste
throughout a particular building or area (e.g., laboratory or production
line), then a centralized satellite accumulation area should be allowed.
Additionally, EPA should adjust satellite accumulation requirements to
reflect that "under control of the operator" could include accumulation
in areas where access was controlled. In addition, some states allow
wastes to be moved from a SAA to a pickup/staging area for a limited
period of time before it is transferred to a \<90-day storage area.

[RCRA Air Emission Standards:]{.underline} ConocoPhillips Company
recommends that EPA evaluate the need for the RCRA air emission
regulations in light of the Clean Air Act Amendments MACT standards and
other existing regulatory controls under the Clean Air Act.

[Training:]{.underline} ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA
clarify the expectations for the RCRA training requirements and, as a
test case for the use of Environmental Management System (EMS), allow
generators to address training needs by way of an EMS.

In summary, ConocoPhillips Company fully supports EPA's effort to
evaluate the effectiveness of the RCRA's hazardous waste generator
regulatory program, identify areas for potential improvement and
commends EPA for this effort and for organizing the May 2004 public
meetings. ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA make the
regulations more understandable by utilizing the plain English format to
consolidate all relevant requirements by generator type and spell out in
a clear and concise manner the requirements that are currently
implemented primarily through guidance. An Environmental Management
System (EMS) approach as a potential alternative for compliance with
RCRA principles would provide the regulated community the flexibility to
design a hazardous waste management structure that is appropriate to an
individual facility and is protective of human health and the
environment. Finally, ConocoPhillips Company supports API's comments to
the ANPRM.

ConocoPhillips Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
ANPRM. If you have any questions relating to this submission, please
contact me at (281) 293-2689 or at <mickey.w.carter@conocophillips.com>
or Peter Day at (303) 649-4008 or <peter.c.day@conocophillips.com>.

Sincerely,

(Submitted electronically, signature on original)

Mickey Carter

cc: Dan Hunter

> Peter Day