ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 124 and Part 270

[FRL-  ]

RCRA Expanded Public Participation and Revisions to Combustion
Permitting Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency

ACTION: Proposed Rule

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposes
to amend its regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) governing the permitting of hazardous waste
management facilities.  This proposed rule expands the
opportunities for public involvement by allowing public
participation at an earlier point in the permitting process for
all RCRA facilities, and during key permitting milestones.  This
proposed rule also amends and clarifies permit modification
classifications pertaining to combustion facilities, found in
Appendix I to Section 270.42.  Finally, this proposed rule amends
the procedures for interim status combustion facilities during
the trial burn period by making the procedures more equivalent to
the procedures governing permitted facilities.  

DATES:  Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or
before [insert date 60 days after publication].

ADDRESSES:  Written comments on this proposal should be addressed
to the docket clerk at the following address:  U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Docket (5305), 401 M Street
SW, Washington, DC  20460.  Commenters should send one original
and two copies and place the docket number (F-94-PPCP-FFFFF) in
the comments.  The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for Federal holidays.  Docket materials
may be reviewed by appointment by calling (202) 260-9327.  Copies
of docket material may be made at no cost, with a maximum of 100
pages of material from any one regulatory docket.  Additional
copies are $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 


Preamble Outline

I.  Authority

II.  Background

III.  Section by Section Analysis

A. Expanded Public Participation Requirements for all RCRA
Facilities
1.  Purpose of Public Involvement in Today's Rule
2.  Current Public Participation Requirements in the RCRA Permit
Process
3. Summary of Proposed Approach
a.  EPA's Approach to Public Participation
b.  Structure of Proposal
c.  Overview of Proposed Requirements 
4.  Applicability of Public Involvement Requirements
a.  Equitable Public Participation
b.  Applicability of the Pre-application Meeting
c.  Applicability of the Public Notice at Permit Application
d.  Applicability of the Information Repository
5.  Detailed Discussion on the Proposed Public Involvement
Requirements
a.  General Considerations Regarding Public Notices
b.  Requirements for the Pre-application Meeting
c.  Requirement for Public Notice at Permit Application
d.  Requirement for an Information Repository

B.  Permit Modification Procedures in Section 270.42
1.  Purpose
2.  Background Summary
3.  Technical Corrections
4.  Unclassified Modifications
5.  Revisions to Appendix I of Section 270.42
a.  Structure of Today's Proposal
b.  Shakedown
c.  Trial Burn

C.  Requirements Regarding the Trial Burn
1.  Purpose and Applicability 
2.  Summary of the Proposed Approach
3.  Current Trial Burn Procedures
a.  Current Trial Burn Procedures for Permitted Combustion
Facilities
b.  Current Trial Burn Procedures for Interim Status Combustion
Facilities
4.  Discussion of Proposed Procedural Requirements for Trial
Burns
a.  Submittal of Trial Burn Plans for Interim Status Facilities
b.  Approval of Trial Burn Plans for Interim Status Facilities
c.  Notice of Trial Burns
d.  Post Trial Burn Period at Interim Status Combustion
Facilities
e.  Additional Trial Burns
f.  Denial of Permit Application After the Trial Burn

IV.  Solicitation of Comments

A.  Expanded Public Participation

B.  Trial Burn Notices

C.  Cost Estimates

V.  State Authority

A.  Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

B.  Effect on State Authorizations

VI.  Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

A.  Cost Analysis

B.  Summary of Benefits

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.  Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

E.  Paperwork Reduction Act


I.  AUTHORITY

These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections
2002, 3004, 3005 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.


II.  BACKGROUND 

Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), requires owners and operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to comply with standards "necessary to
protect human health and the environment."  These standards are
implemented generally through interim status standards applicable
to facilities that achieve interim status under RCRA section
3005(c), and through permits that are issued by EPA or under
authorized State programs.  EPA continuously strives to improve
the hazardous waste management standards in order to ensure
protection of human health and the environment.

The role that combustion plays in hazardous waste management has
changed dramatically over the last decade and a half.  With the
recognition that land disposal of hazardous waste could present
long term pollution problems, larger use of combustion ensued. 
However, waste treatment alone will not totally solve the
problems associated with hazardous waste disposal.  Therefore,
EPA decided to take a fresh look at how to achieve a fully
integrated waste management program that gives source reduction
its proper emphasis.**

** [While the Agency is committed to source reduction as its
primary approach to waste management, it believes that there will
continue to be a role for waste combustion, provided it is done
safely and in compliance with federal regulations.  Combustion is
a proven waste treatment technique to address many types of
wastes.]

To this end, on May 18, 1993, the Agency announced its Draft
Strategy on Waste Minimization and Hazardous Waste Combustion. 
EPA issued the strategy in draft form as the starting point for
the debate on what source reduction/recycling actions and
regulatory changes the Agency should pursue.  The Agency has been
aggressive in involving all the stakeholders as part of the
national dialogue on these national policy questions.  In
addition, since EPA and the States are partners and co-regulators
in hazardous waste management, any evaluation of the role of
waste minimization and hazardous waste combustion in the
hazardous waste management system must be a joint federal and
state effort.  Thus, EPA and the States have used, and will
continue to use, a joint EPA/State committee to further develop
the national strategy. 

In the context of a national dialogue on waste minimization and
hazardous waste combustion, the Agency has identified a number of
specific actions it would pursue to ensure that existing
combustion facilities operate safely and without unacceptable
risks to human health and the environment.  These actions
include:

* aggressive use of waste minimization measures in permitting and
enforcement efforts that involve generators of combustible waste,
as well as incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs);

* ensuring that a comprehensive risk assessment, including
indirect risk, is conducted at each facility site;

* use of omnibus permitting authority to include dioxin/furan
emission limits and more stringent particulate matter standards
in new permits, where necessary to protect human health and the
environment; and

* giving low management priority to permitting any new
incinerator and BIF capacity, unless the new facilities would
replace and be a significant improvement over existing capacity;
in other words, the draft strategy makes interim status
combustion facilities the highest permitting priority, in terms
of processing permits, in order to bring these facilities under
more comprehensive environmental controls. 

In addition, the draft strategy calls for development of
mechanisms to facilitate increased public participation in the
permitting process.  By developing such mechanisms, EPA hopes to
allow the public early access to information about the facility
and an opportunity to participate in permitting decisions
regarding hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal
facilities (TSDFs) that may affect their communities.

By providing citizens an enhanced opportunity to participate in
facility permitting, the Agency is striving to give citizens more
input into decisions about facilities that may impact their
communities.  This may be particularly so in low income or
minority communities where the lack of this opportunity has been
felt strongly.  Consistent with the Agency's efforts to ensure
environmental justice, EPA intends that this rulemaking will give
people in such communities increased opportunity to affect RCRA
permitting decisions. 

The draft strategy has many components and implementing all of
its aspects will take time.  Today's notice is the first
regulatory action that EPA has taken under the draft strategy; it
addresses public participation and several improvements to the
RCRA permitting program that EPA had envisioned prior to the
development of the draft strategy.  Specifically, EPA proposes
to:  (1) expand opportunities for timely and effective public
involvement in the permitting process for all types of units; (2)
improve the regulations pertaining to permit modifications,
specifically, to clarify combustion modification classifications;
and (3) align certain interim status requirements for combustion
units with the more stringent permit standards for new units,
particularly with regard to trial burns.  Although the Draft
Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy focuses on combustion
units, many of the requirements EPA is proposing today are more
encompassing and apply to all RCRA facilities.  

Additional efforts are underway to continue to improve EPA's
hazardous waste management standards and to implement other
components of the Agency's Draft Waste Minimization and
Combustion Strategy.  Today's proposed rule is only one piece of
an integrated and comprehensive set of regulatory, non-
regulatory, and guidance materials intended to support the
Agency's Draft Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy.

EPA has taken administrative steps to address the section of the
draft strategy that discusses the Agency's permit denial and
appeals process.  In particular, the draft strategy indicates
that EPA will evaluate ways to limit the burning of hazardous
waste in interim status units during the administrative appeal of
a permit denial, prior to a final decision.  EPA considered a
number of options for implementing this aspect of the draft
strategy and selected one that could be effected immediately.

The Agency issued a directive under Administrator Browner's
signature, on March 16, 1994, to prioritize and expedite the
review by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) of Federal RCRA
permit denials.  Under the procedures set forth in the directive,
entitled Expedited Administrative Review of Appeals of RCRA
Permit Denials Filed by Interim Status Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities, the Administrator directed the EAB to take final
action on any combustion permit denial no later than 90 days from
the receipt of a petition for review.  EPA believes that these
procedures will promote the draft strategy's goal of limiting
burning of waste during the potentially lengthy appeals process,
during which interim status facilities whose permits were denied
were entitled to continue operating under interim status, without
infringing upon important rights of appeal.  


III.  SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

A. Expanded Public Participation Requirements for all RCRA
Facilities

1.  Purpose of Public Involvement in Today's Rule.

The purpose of this section of the proposed rule is to enhance
public involvement in the RCRA permit process by improving and
increasing the opportunities for public participation.  The
permitting agency should carry out these new opportunities
concurrently with the existing permitting process.  Today's
proposed requirements should not delay the process.  

"Public participation" is part of the process leading to a final
EPA or State permit decision; it provides an opportunity for the
public to express its views to the permitting authority and the
applicant, and enables both to give due consideration to the
public's concerns.  Today's proposal will establish procedures to
promote better and more timely information-sharing, not only
between the public and the permitting agency, but among the
facility applicant, EPA (or the State) and the public.  In
particular, the rule places new responsibilities on the permit
applicant.  The Agency believes that the permit applicant, who is
responsible for initiating the permit process, is a key
participant in the public participation process because it is the
permit applicant who must interact and operate within the
community.  

Although this portion of today's proposal applies to all
applicants for new RCRA permits, certain aspects of the proposal
specifically respond to the Agency's Draft Waste Minimization and
Combustion Strategy (see the Background Section of today's
preamble for further discussion of the draft strategy).  As noted
above, one component of the draft strategy specifically calls for
greater and earlier public involvement in the hazardous waste
permitting process.  Accordingly, EPA proposes to amend the
hazardous waste regulations to provide for earlier public
involvement in the permitting process and, in the case of
combustion units, to ensure public involvement at the trial burn
plan stage.  For example, today's regulations propose specific
provisions to:  solicit public participation at the beginning of
the permit process for all new and interim status facilities;
maintain open lines of communication with the public throughout
the permit process; and increase public involvement with regard
to trial burn plans at combustion facilities.  These provisions
will provide the public an expanded role in the permitting
process by promoting community participation and input at all
decision-making levels.  These provisions will also help the
permitting authority to better address public concerns during the
permitting process and foster continued community involvement
after facilities are permitted.  These procedures are consistent
with, and in furtherance of, the congressional mandate, expressed
in RCRA section 7004(b)(1), to "encourage" and "assist" public
involvement in implementation of the permit program.

2.  Current Public Participation Requirements in the RCRA Permit
Process. 

Today's proposed public involvement requirements build upon the
current RCRA public participation process.  EPA does not intend
for the proposed provisions to replace or delete the existing
public participation requirements in 40 CFR Part 124 and 40 CFR
270.42; these requirements form the foundation for public
involvement activities during the RCRA permitting process.  

Four steps make up the existing RCRA permitting decision process: 
(1) receipt and review of the permit application; (2) preparation
of draft permit or decision to deny; (3) public comment period;
and (4) final permit decision.  EPA regulations currently require
public involvement activities during two of the four steps.  The
first step in the decision process begins when the permitting
agency receives the permit application from the facility.  Under
the existing federal rules, no direct public involvement
activities occur at this stage; however, the permitting agency
begins to assemble a mailing list of appropriate government
agencies and individuals, including interested members of the
public, as required by Section 124.10(c).  The permitting agency
uses the list to distribute information about meetings, hearings,
and available reports and documents later in the permit process. 
In addition, the permitting agency may periodically publicize the
existence of this list and solicit additions to it.

The second step in the permitting decision process occurs after
the regulatory agency completes review of the permit application. 
At this point, the regulatory agency decides either to
tentatively deny the permit application or to prepare a draft
permit for the facility.  The third step occurs once the
regulatory agency makes its preliminary decision about the permit
application.  Under the existing regulations, the public has its
first formal participation opportunities in this step.  If the
permitting agency prepares a draft permit, it must give a formal
public notice that the draft permit is available for public
review and comment.  In addition, the permitting authority must
formally notify the public if it plans to deny a permit
application.  In both cases, the permitting agency must place the
notice in a major local newspaper, broadcast it over local radio
stations, and send it to all persons on the mailing list.  A 45-
day public comment period on the draft permit or notice of intent
to deny the permit follows the publication of the notice.  The
comment period provides the public with an opportunity to
comment, in writing, on conditions contained in the draft permit
or notice of intent to deny.  The regulatory agency may re-open
or extend the comment period if, during the comment period, it
receives substantial new questions or issues concerning the draft
permit decision.  In addition, the public may request that the
permitting agency hold a public hearing on the draft permit
decision.  If the regulatory agency holds a public hearing, it
must give the public a 30-day advance notice of the time and
place of the hearing.  

The final permit decision is the fourth step in the permitting
decision process.  After the public comment period closes, the
regulatory agency reviews and evaluates all written and oral
comments and, then, issues a final permit decision.  At this
time, the regulatory agency must send a notice of decision,
together with a written response to all significant comments, to
all persons who submitted public comments or requested notice of
the final permit decision (in accordance with Section 124.17). 
The response to comments summarizes all significant comments
received during the public comment period and explains how the
permitting authority addressed or rejected the comments in the
final permit decision.  The permitting agency must place the
written response to comments in the Administrative Record
established at the regulatory agency. 

3.  Summary of Proposed Approach.

a.  EPA's Approach to Public Participation.  Today's amendments
introduce provisions for new public notices and meetings in the
permit process.  Through this approach, EPA intends to open
opportunities for public participation earlier in the permit
process.  Through earlier public involvement and improved public
awareness, today's requirements will result in more meaningful
and interactive public participation.  At the same time, these
amendments are flexible and allow permitting agencies and
facilities to tailor public participation activities according to
facility-specific circumstances.  

By expanding public involvement opportunities, the proposed rule
should streamline the permitting process, since public issues
will be raised and addressed earlier in the process.  At present,
formal public involvement in the permitting process does not
begin until the draft permit stage.  By this point in the
process, the permitting authority and the applicant already have
discussed crucial parts of the Part B application; thus, the
public often feels that most major decisions on the permit are
made before public input.  Under today's proposed requirements,
the permitting authority will be focusing discussion and dialogue
on the permit application earlier in the permitting process.  EPA
wishes to encourage the public to participate in these earlier
and expanded opportunities for involvement, fully raising issues
and concerns early so they may be evaluated and responded to. 
Such early and meaningful dialogue should result in an
expeditious permit decision.

The earlier public involvement opportunities proposed today allow
the public the opportunity to raise issues before many decisions
are made.  This then allows the applicant and the permitting
authority to address citizen concerns.  The idea of promoting
earlier public involvement in the permitting process is also
consistent with recommendations put forth by the RCRA
Implementation Study and a number of outside sources (e.g., the
Keystone Center, environmental groups, and business trade
associations).

EPA considered a variety of approaches in developing today's
proposal.  After careful evaluation, EPA believes that the
proposed requirements will meet the Agency's goal of providing
increased opportunity for public involvement.  Today's proposed
requirements would not, of course, preclude additional public
involvement activities beyond the regulations, where appropriate
on a facility-specific basis, such as alternative public outreach
activities, supplementary meetings, or fact sheets.  At RCRA
locations, in fact, permitting agencies and facilities have
implemented a variety of public involvement activities that have
helped affected communities to understand and participate in
permit decision-making.  EPA has published a practical how-to
guidance for regional permit writers and public involvement
staff, entitled the RCRA Public Involvement Manual (September
1993/ EPA 530-R-93-006).  In the guidance, EPA recommends public
involvement activities to encourage productive public
participation in a variety of community and facility situations. 
Additional examples of ways to expand public involvement, beyond
what is required by today's proposed regulations, are included in
section 5.a: General Requirements for Providing Public Notice.

Before drafting this proposal, the Agency contacted a variety of
interested parties involved in public outreach activities.  EPA
had discussions with a range of groups, including:  public
interest groups, industry, state and local government, Indian
tribal representatives, trade associations, and public
involvement specialists from EPA regions and Headquarters.  These
groups submitted valuable comments and suggestions to the Agency
on how to expand and enhance public involvement.  The Agency also
held an informal meeting on October 13, 1993, with a small, yet
diverse group of stakeholders to receive their input and to
facilitate the exchange of information concerning greater
opportunities for public participation.  This meeting was a
starting point for efforts to improve public involvement in the
permitting process; EPA would like to continue these discussions
beyond this proposal.

Today's rule is consistent with, and builds upon, the Agency's
final Public Participation Policy, published in the Federal
Register at 46 FR 5740, January 19, 1981.  This policy
established a uniform set of guidelines concerning public
participation in all EPA programs.  The guidelines encouraged EPA
programs to provide a consistent level of public involvement
during EPA activities, including State and local activities
funded or delegated by EPA.  The 1981 policy embodied many public
comments on improving the process and outlined new steps that the
Agency should take to ensure that members of the public are given
earlier and better opportunities to be involved in EPA decision-
making.  Among other things, the policy emphasized public access
to information as a critical component to successful public
participation programs, and encouraged the use of a variety of
outreach activities throughout the permit process so that the
public can be kept up to date on matters of concern.   Today's
rule builds upon these policy statements and, in many cases,
strengthens them through proposed regulatory language.  For
example, EPA is proposing regulatory requirements to provide the
public with the opportunity to attend a public meeting at the
outset of the permitting process.  Additional public notices,
including improved notification activities, are required at new
points within the permit process.  These proposed notices will
provide information to the public at the beginning of decision-
making processes so that the public will have adequate time to
respond.  Finally, today's rule adopts the ideas suggested by the
policy on "depositories" and incorporates them into a flexible
tool called the information "repository."   

In a separate effort, the Agency is reviewing its regulations
that impose restrictions on siting RCRA hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).  The
Agency's current regulations impose restrictions on siting these
facilities in flood plains and seismic zones.  EPA believes that
there may be a need for enhanced national minimum standards as
required under section 3004(o)(7) of RCRA.  Consistent with
Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, EPA is reviewing
existing and potential standards for siting hazardous waste
TSDFs.  As a part of this review, the Agency intends to look at
siting TSDFs in proximity to populations and institutions such as
schools, hospitals, and prisons, to determine whether there is a
need to consider (and the appropriate way to do so) such factors
in siting these facilities.  

In conducting the review, EPA will recognize the appropriate role
of State and local governments in land use planning and facility
siting.  EPA does not intend to preempt this role.  Rather, it is
EPA's intention to review the current procedures and requirements
to identify whether any additional measures are necessary to
protect human health and the environment.

b.  Structure of Proposal.  In expanding the public involvement
activities within the permit process, EPA proposes to place these
requirements within 40 CFR Parts 124 and 270.  EPA placed the
general requirements for public participation within Part 124
Subpart B -- Specific Procedures Applicable to RCRA Permits. 
Subpart B is an already established section, which does not
contain any regulations at this time.  EPA proposes to place
public involvement requirements within Subpart B to ensure a
clear and orderly integration of new RCRA permitting requirements
into Part 124.  Please note that other sections of this rule will
address additional public involvement requirements during the 

trial burn phase within Part 270.  The flow chart shown in Figure
1 indicates the points in the permitting process where the
proposed additions to public involvement activities would occur.

To avoid any potential confusion, it should be noted that
facilities operating under interim status would not lose this
status if they do not follow the procedures the Agency is
proposing in Parts 124 or 270.  However, the permitting agency
may choose to pursue an enforcement action, not connected to the
termination of interim status provisions, including a requirement
that the application be resubmitted or the notice be republished,
if a facility fails to comply with the requirements.  Similarly,
for a new facility, the permitting agency's recourse would be to
require that the application be resubmitted or the notice
republished under the correct procedures, rather than permit
denial. 

c.  Overview of Proposed Requirements.   EPA first proposes that
a permit applicant must give notice and hold at least one
informal public meeting before submitting a RCRA permit
application to EPA or the State.  EPA believes this requirement
will address the public concern that public involvement occurs
too late in the RCRA permit process.  One purpose of the meeting
is to inform the affected community of the facility's proposed
operations and its intent to apply for a RCRA permit in the near
future.  Another important purpose of the meeting is for the
applicant to solicit and receive public input.  EPA believes that
dialogue between the applicant and the public, before the
permitting process is initiated with the permitting authority,
will allow the public to raise important community issues early
in the process, and will promote discussion between the public
and the persons seeking the permit.  In this way, the public will
have direct input to facility owners or operators; at the same
time, facility owners or operators can gain an understanding of
public expectations and attempt to resolve public issues well in
advance of the draft permit.  For example, facility owners or
operators could address public concerns through the permit
application itself, by changing the proposed design or operation
of the facility, or through subsequent public interactions.  

The notice and meeting also will assist in the generation of a
mailing list of interested citizens.  This list is a currently
required mechanism used in the distribution of notices and
information concerning the facility at points throughout the
permit process.  The permitting authority is responsible for
developing a representative mailing list for public notices under
40 CFR 124.10 (see also preamble Section A.2: Current Public
Participation Requirements in the RCRA Permit Process).  Section
124.10 specifies the timing and content of such mailing lists. 
The pre-application meeting will assist the permitting authority
in identifying people or organizations to include on the list so
that it is complete and represents everyone who demonstrates an
interest in the facility and the permit process.  The permitting
authority may develop the mailing list, in part, from the pre-
application meeting attendance list.  It has been EPA's
experience that mailing lists often are not fully developed until
the permitting authority issues the draft permit for public
comment.  Since EPA seeks to increase public participation
earlier in the process, generation of a mailing list should
precede such activities.  

Second, EPA is proposing that the permitting authority provide
public notice upon receiving a permit application.  Under this
provision, the permitting authority would notify the public of
proposed facility operations at a much earlier stage than 40 CFR
Part 124 currently requires.  Existing Section 124.10 requires
the permitting authority to provide public notice of a facility's
intention to obtain a RCRA permit, but only after the permitting
authority has received and reviewed the application and proposes
to grant or deny the permit.  Due to the volume and complexity of
information contained in a permit application, this process may
take several years to complete from the time a permit application
is initially submitted. (See Figure 1.)  For some facilities, the
public has expressed a concern that critical decisions about the
facility already have been made by the time the permitting
authority proposes the draft permit decision.  A requirement for
a notice at the permit application stage would allow members of
the public to review a permit application at the same time as the
permitting agency and inform the agency of any concerns or
comments they may have.    

In addition to involving the public earlier in the RCRA
permitting process, the proposed provisions will also allow the
public to get an overview of the RCRA application and permitting
process, and the parts played by the permitting authority and the
facility owner and operator in that process.  Under the proposed
rule, the permit applicant conducts the pre-application meeting
since it is the applicant who initiates the permit process by
submitting a permit application.  The permitting authority issues
the notice when it receives the permit application from the
facility since, at that time, EPA or the State will use its
authority to begin review of the permit application.

Table 1 below summarizes the applicability of the pre-application
and notice of application provisions in today's rule.

*Table 1:  Proposed Requirements for the Pre-Application Meeting
and the Notice of Application*

Facility Stage in Permit Process; Facility Pre-Application
Meeting; Agency Notice of Application

New Facility; Yes; Yes
Interim Status; Yes; Yes
Permit Renewal; No; Yes
Permit Modification; No; No
Post-Closure Permit; No; No

Third, the Agency is proposing a provision that will allow the
Director the discretion to require the facility to establish an
information repository.  An information repository is a central
collection of documents, which could include reports, summaries
of data, studies, plans, etc., that the regulatory agency
considers in evaluating the permit.  The collection would be set
up by the applicant in a convenient and accessible location.  An
information repository, similar to those required under Superfund
and proposed under the RCRA Subpart S corrective action
regulations of 40 CFR Part 264 (see 55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990),
would allow the interested public greater access to information,
such as the permit application, and other material relevant to
the permit decision process.  To maintain flexibility in the
permit process, and in recognition that information repositories
may not be necessary for all facilities, the Director will use
his or her discretion, based primarily on the level of public
interest, in requiring a facility to establish an information
repository.  In situations where public interest is high, a
locally established repository may benefit a community by
providing convenient and timely access to important information
about a local facility.  If EPA or an authorized State decides to
require a facility to establish a repository, it should be noted
that only one repository is needed to fulfill the intent of
today's proposed requirement, whether the permitting process for
that facility is EPA-lead, State-lead, or joint federal-state.

4.  Applicability of Public Involvement Requirements. 

a.  Equitable Public Participation.  The Agency believes that
affected members of the community should have an equal
opportunity to participate in the permitting process.  EPA
considers the community to be all residents in the vicinity of
the facility who might be most affected by the facility's
operations.  The Agency recognizes that local communities may be
composed of a diverse group of people who may not share English
as a primary language.  Therefore, for a notice to be effective,
the Agency is requiring under proposed Section 124.30 that both
the facility and the permitting authority make all reasonable
efforts to communicate with the various segments within the
community.  Multilingual public notices and fact sheets may be
necessary for some communities, for example, communities that
contain a significant non-English speaking population.  Likewise,
interpreters may need to be provided at public meetings and
hearings.  EPA understands that developing multilingual notices
and fact sheets, and providing translators, could be difficult to
implement depending on the size, composition, and diversity of
the community.  Also, resource constraints could be a factor when
determining what is a "reasonable effort" to communicate
effectively with the public.  EPA would like to solicit comments
on how the requirements proposed in Section 124.30 could be
implemented.   

a.1.  Agency activities dealing with environmental justice.

The Agency is placing heavy emphasis on environmental justice
issues across all environmental programs.  The Agency has stated
repeatedly that environmental justice is one of EPA's top
priorities; all offices should consider environmental justice
issues during decision-making.  

In December 1993, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) established an Environmental Justice Task Force
to broaden discussion of these issues and formulate short and
long-term recommendations for how OSWER can integrate the
Agency's environmental justice goals and objectives into all of
OSWER's programs and activities.  Specifically, the task force 
has examined ways that OSWER can better address the concerns of 
minority populations and low-income populations that are affected
by OSWER-regulated facilities and may face disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects.  The task
force has included representatives from all OSWER program and
administrative offices, as well as other offices throughout the
Agency that have an interest in OSWER's programs and activities.  
The task force has met with representatives from citizen groups,
industry, Congress, and state and local governments to ensure
that stakeholders have an opportunity to influence OSWER's
environmental justice strategy.  The draft recommendations
emerging from OSWER's Environmental Justice task force are
consistent with and supportive of the Agency's environmental
justice goals and objectives, as well as the President's
Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

The Agency believes that this rule presents significant
opportunities to be responsive to environmental justice concerns
in relation to specific OSWER-regulated facilities.  The measures
recommended in this proposed rule would help enhance the level of
public participation in the permitting process and thereby
provide minority populations and low-income populations with a
greater voice in decision-making and a stronger opportunity to
influence permit decisions early in the process.  In today's
proposal, the Agency would like to solicit comments on ways to
incorporate environmental justice concerns into the RCRA public
participation process.

In addition to public participation, some of the key
environmental justice issues for the RCRA permitting program
include: 1) the siting of hazardous waste facilities; 2) the
manner in which EPA should respond when confronted with a
challenge to a RCRA permit based on environmental justice issues;
and 3) environmental justice concerns in corrective action
cleanups.  The Agency requests comments on these aspects of the
RCRA program in order to help identify the need for additional
rulemaking or policy guidance.  

The Agency has also begun to focus on how EPA's programs can take
account of the "cumulative risk" and "cumulative effects"
associated with human exposure to multiple sources of pollution. 
Although the Agency does not expect to address these issues in
this rulemaking, EPA would like to solicit comment on suggested
methodologies and procedures for undertaking this type of
analysis.  

With regard to the siting of a RCRA facility, EPA has in the past
focused on geological factors to be considered when siting a
facility, but has not undertaken a concerted effort to address
environmental justice issues associated with the siting of a
hazardous waste facility.  The draft final report of the OSWER
Environmental Justice Task Force recommends that the Agency
compile a national summary of existing State, tribal, and local
government requirements for siting with regard to environmental
justice.  The draft report also recommends that the Agency
develop guidance for State, tribal, and local governments on how
to best site a hazardous waste facility in the light of
environmental justice concerns.  In developing this guidance, the
Agency would look to existing State and local requirements and
would consult with a wide range of public and private
stakeholders.  EPA has placed the OSWER Environmental Justice
Task Force Draft Final Report, April 25, 1994, into the docket
for this proposed rule.  The Agency is soliciting comments on the
recommendations in the draft final report, as well as on any
additional steps that the Agency might wish to consider in order
to respond to environmental justice concerns associated with the
siting of RCRA facilities.  

EPA is also interested in exploring appropriate responses when
confronted with a challenge to a RCRA permit based on
environmental justice concerns.  This issue has arisen in the
context of recent challenges under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act alleging that federal grants allocated to States to support
State RCRA permit programs are being administered in a
discriminatory manner.  The draft report of the OSWER
Environmental Justice task force recommends that the Agency first
seek to mediate appropriate resolutions among affected citizens,
the State, and the permittee.  Where necessary and prudent, the
task force also proposes that the Agency explore ways of using
risk and/or health assessments to determine whether the affected
community would face unacceptable human health or environmental
effects if the permit were issued.  EPA requests comment on these
recommendations as well as on the relationship of Title VI to
RCRA permitting and EPA's administration of state grants.

The Agency would also like to solicit comments on ways to
incorporate environmental justice concerns into the RCRA
corrective action program.  The OSWER Environmental Justice draft
task force report recommends that the Agency examine the current
priority-setting method for the cleanup of RCRA corrective action
sites to determine whether this system adequately addresses
environmental justice concerns.  The task force has also
recommended that environmental justice policy governing cleanup
actions at RCRA corrective action facilities be consistent with
the policy implemented under the Superfund program.  The Agency
would like to receive responses to these proposals as well as
additional options under the RCRA corrective action program.

a.2.  The relationship of today's Rule with Indian policy. 
Currently, EPA has the responsibility for ensuring the
implementation of the Subtitle C hazardous waste program on
Indian lands.  This includes the issuance of hazardous waste
permits.  However, consistent with EPA's Indian Policy of 1984,
the Agency will look directly to, and work with, Tribal
governments in determining the best way to implement these
proposed public involvement requirements in Indian country.  This
Indian policy recognizes the sovereignty of Federally-recognized
Tribes and commits EPA to a government-to-government relationship
with these Tribes.

    b.  Applicability of Pre-application Meeting.  The
requirements for the pre-application meeting would pertain only
to new permit applications, i.e., the initial permit applications
submitted by either new or interim status facilities.  Therefore,
the proposed pre-application meeting requirements would not
affect facilities that are submitting a permit renewal
application under Section 270.51 or applying for a permit
modification under Section 270.42.  The additional requirements
would not apply to cases where a facility submits a permit
renewal application, since information concerning the facility
would have been previously available to the public throughout the
life of its operation.  The facility would have completed the
permit process and conducted public involvement activities,
usually through the permit modification requirements.  For
example, the public will have had access to the administrative
record for the facility, and the permitting authority already
would have developed a mailing list for the facility.

Furthermore, EPA is proposing today in Section 124.32(a) that the
permitting authority provide public notice when a renewal
application is submitted.  This will provide the public an
opportunity to further review the state of operations at the
facility, and be aware that the previously approved permit is
expiring.  The current opportunities for public involvement
throughout the duration of a facility's permit should be
sufficient to keep the public informed of the facility's
activities.  No change can occur to any permit without the
public, at a minimum, being notified (see Section 270.42
modification procedures).  EPA would like to request comments on
whether these current opportunities are indeed sufficient, or
whether the pre-application meeting requirements should apply to
renewal permits.

Similarly, EPA does not believe the addition of a pre-application
meeting requirement is necessary for requested permit
modifications.  A facility proposing changes to its permit must
apply for a permit modification under Section 270.42.  Existing
permit modification requirements have established public
involvement procedures that must be followed by the permitting
authority and the facility before the final decision.  These
requirements are comparable to those proposed today for permit
applications submitted by new and interim status facilities.  For
example, significant permit modifications, called class 2 or
class 3 modifications, require a public meeting at the initiation
of the permit modification process to alert the public to changes
the facility is proposing to make.  Requiring an additional
public meeting would be redundant.  

EPA conducted a preliminary overview of State regulations
containing public involvement requirements that could potentially
overlap with today's pre-application requirements.  Approximately
a dozen States have siting permit regulations that contain public
participation requirements, apart from RCRA requirements.  The
state siting requirements could overlap with the pre-application
meeting requirement proposed today.  For example, the two permit
processes, i.e., for siting and RCRA permits, could share similar
public involvement mechanisms.  

EPA believes that it is important for the facility to host an
informal and informational pre-application meeting with the
public.  This meeting should focus on the operating requirements
for the permit, including (1) whether the facility should operate
and (2) suggestions on how the facility should operate to protect
human health and the environment.  The informal atmosphere of the
meeting should encourage dialogue between the public and the
facility, addressing questions, such as the need for the
facility, the proposed facility design, waste management
practices, and safety considerations.  

On the other hand, the public meetings required by State siting
regulations are more formal and may be hosted by the State rather
than the facility (although state siting regulations differ
regarding which party is responsible for conducting the siting
meeting).  The focus of the siting meeting is also different than
a pre-application meeting, usually examining such factors as the
physical location of the proposed facility, including local land-
use issues, location sensitivity and suitability.

In addition, there may be a large gap in time between the public
siting meeting (for the dozen states with public involvement
siting requirements) and the pre-application meeting.  If a
significant period of time were to elapse between the siting
meeting and the actual commencement of the RCRA permitting
process, then the issues raised at the siting meeting may not be
fresh in the public's mind, or the public may not have the
opportunity to raise new issues or potential solutions until
later in the process.

Because the goals of each meeting are typically different, i.e.,
a decision for whether a new facility is located at a particular
site versus a decision on whether a facility should operate and
how a facility could operate to protect human health and the
environment, EPA is not proposing today to allow siting meetings
to automatically substitute for the pre-application meeting. 
Some of the same issues may come up in either public meeting;
however, this should not deter the public from providing input at
both meetings.  Of course, if a State's requirements for siting
meetings meet the goal of today's proposal for a facility-led
pre-application meeting, particularly in terms of opening a
dialogue between the applicant and the community, then they would
probably fulfill authorization requirements.  In this case, the
State would not have to require separate pre-application
meetings.  Refer to Section V, State Authority, of this preamble
for further information on flexibility within the State
authorization process.

EPA evaluated the option of allowing State siting meetings to
substitute for the pre-application meeting, and, for the reasons
discussed above, decided not to include it in today's proposal. 
However, the Agency is requesting comments on this issue. 
Specifically, the Agency would like to hear comments on reasons
for or against allowing State siting meetings to automatically
substitute for the pre-application meeting.

c.  Applicability of the Public Notice at Permit Application. 
The requirements for the permitting authority to provide public
notice when it receives a permit application, like the pre-
application meeting requirement, would not apply to permit
modifications, because similar requirements already exist for
both class 2 and class 3 permit modifications that would make the
requirement redundant.  Specifically, under Section 270.42(b)(2)
and (c)(2), the permittee must send a notice of the modification
request to all persons on the facility mailing list and publish
the notice in a major local newspaper.  The notice is required to
give, among other things, the location where copies of the
modification request and any supporting documents can be read and
copied.  EPA believes that this requirement effectively
substitutes for the public notice at application in the case of
permit modifications.

Unlike the pre-application meeting requirement, the public notice
requirement will apply to permit renewals.  A public notice for
permit renewals is appropriate because the renewal application
may be significantly different from the original permit
application, warranting early public involvement.  For example,
facilities may decide to propose major changes, such as addition
of a new unit, at the time of permit renewal, separate from any
modifications processed during its original permit.  In this
situation, the results would be an application that is new in
certain key respects.  The permitting authority should give the
public the same notification as it would for a new permit
application, even though the public may already be familiar with
the general scope of operations at the facility.  

In addition, since permit renewals generally occur 5 to 10 years
after a facility is permitted and operating, a notice of the
permit renewal alerts the public to the fact that the facility
plans to continue operating.  A public notice at permit renewal
also would allow the public to compare changes between the
initial approved permit and the permit renewal application to
determine the magnitude of any proposed changes.  Finally, the
notice could serve as a mechanism for updating the facility
mailing list, which may not contain a thorough list of people who
are interested in the facility.

The requirements for the pre-application meeting and the notice
at permit application would not apply to post-closure permits. 
Post-closure permit applications raise a narrower set of issues
and a narrower range of alternatives.  The public may be
adequately involved through notices at the draft permit stage. 
Furthermore, the post-closure period does not involve the same
ongoing relationship between the facility and the community as
the operating period.  EPA is requesting comments on whether
current requirements are adequate to ensure public involvement,
or whether today's proposed requirements for public notice at
application submittal should apply to post-closure permits.  

d.  Applicability of the Information Repository.  The information
repository is a public participation tool that the permitting
authority can use at any time during the permit process.  As
proposed, the permitting authority may require the facility to
establish a repository during the permit review process for a new
facility, or at any time during the life of a facility when the
Director determines a repository is warranted due to significant
public interest in the facility.  The need for an information
repository will be decided by the Director, based on decision
criteria discussed elsewhere in today's preamble.  It is
important to have a repository requirement that the Director can
adapt to different facility situations and public information
needs.  Thus, the Agency has allowed the Director the flexibility
to decide whether and when a repository is established, for what
activity, how long it must be maintained, and where it is housed. 

5.  Detailed Discussion on the Proposed Public Involvement
Requirements.

a.  General Considerations Regarding Public Notices.  EPA is
proposing new requirements for public notice in order to address
public concern that community members are sometimes unaware of
hazardous waste permitting activities or that public notice about
a facility comes too late in the RCRA process.  EPA believes that
appropriate public notice is necessary to fully inform
communities and involve them in permitting decisions involving
hazardous waste facilities.  By appropriate public notice, the
Agency means that sufficient information is provided in a timely
manner to all segments of the public throughout the permit
process.  Towards this end, EPA is proposing additional public
notices throughout the permit process.  These new notices will
require the permitting authority to notify the public when it
reaches certain points in the permitting process (e.g.,
application submittal, prior to a trial burn).  This provision
will give the public the opportunity to become involved in the
decision-making process.  As a result, the public may become more
informed about the various steps of the permit process and the
time requirements of each step.  

Similarly, a widely-distributed notice may reach interested
individuals who otherwise may not have known about the
opportunity to be on the facility mailing list.  To address this
issue, EPA is proposing requirements under Section 124.31(c)(1)
concerning the distribution of the public notice for the pre-
application meeting.  This notice will be the first activity
required by the RCRA permit process; EPA believes that stronger
requirements resulting in a wider initial outreach are
appropriate at this juncture.  EPA is not proposing that
implementing agencies follow the new distribution requirements
for subsequent notices.  Such a requirement would be redundant
since, as a result of the widely distributed notice of the pre-
application meeting, the permitting authority would have a list
of interested people that it could contact as part of the mailing
list.  

The Agency recognizes that the means by which a notice is
effectively distributed is highly community-specific.  The
permitting authority may find any of a variety of distribution
mechanisms effective, depending upon such factors as population
density, geographic location, expanse, and cultural diversity of
a community, when such mechanisms are used in conjunction with
required notice activities.  EPA has learned, through discussions
with States, Regions, and outside parties (environmental and
industry organizations), of a number of mechanisms for
distributing notices.  Facilities and agencies may voluntarily
use the methods that are most practical for disseminating
information throughout their community.  Several of these methods
that go beyond today's proposed requirements, and which may be
voluntarily implemented, are discussed below:

Press Releases.  Permitting authorities and industry alike have
used press releases to successfully alert the local community to
specific activities.  A press release to one paper may be picked
up by other local papers with no cost to the original party. 
Press releases have the advantage of providing in-depth coverage
of a subject in a forum that can be widely distributed within a
short timeframe.  40 CFR 124.10(c) specifically cites press
releases as a method that permitting authorities can use to
promote public participation. 

Local Cable TV Channels.  Many communities run their own cable
channels for local news and activities.  This medium may be used
to target a local audience, often at no charge.  TV spots may be
advantageous for delivering pertinent information about a
hazardous waste facility directly to people at home.  The
permitting authorities may also use the stations to broadcast
logistics for upcoming meetings. 

Local Community Groups.   The facility may enhance the
distribution of information by including local community groups
on the facility mailing list.  Such groups may have a particular
interest in hazardous waste issues and can be effective in
circulating the information to a wider audience.  Local religious
establishments, for example, can be particularly useful in
distributing information locally.  Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs), required under Section 301 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), can also be an
effective group through which to disseminate notices.  LEPCs are
composed of representatives from a variety of groups or
organizations, for example, local elected officials, law
enforcement, fire fighting, health, and transportation personnel,
community groups, and broadcast and print media.  Facility
mailing lists can include other community groups, such as
professional and trade associations, planning commissions, civic
leaders, and special interest groups.  

b.   Requirements for the Pre-application Meeting.  EPA is
proposing that the facility provide public notification of the
pre-application meeting between the facility and the public. 
This provision would apply to all RCRA facilities that submit a
Part B Permit application for the first time.  The facility will
have the dual responsibility of providing appropriate notice and
conducting the meeting. 

EPA believes that the requirements for the pre-application
meeting should apply to all RCRA TSD facilities.  EPA emphasizes
that the pre-application meeting is meant to be flexible,
informal, and informative.  Owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities, including owners and operators of small
businesses, should be able to meet the proposed requirements for
the pre-application meeting without undue burden.  EPA estimates
that the costs associated with the pre-application will be small. 
In addition, EPA believes that this approach will benefit the
facility, as well as the public, in the long run since the public
will gain greater understanding of the facility's plans and
responsibilities.  As stated above, earlier and more meaningful
public involvement could streamline the permitting process, since
issues and concerns will be raised at the initial point of the
process.

EPA solicits public comment on whether or not the Agency should
require facilities to hold a pre-application meeting and, if so,
whether the requirement should apply to all facilities, or only
particular facilities, such as facilities conducting specific
waste management practices, managing certain kinds of waste, or
accepting off-site waste.  In addition, EPA requests comment on
the proposed functions of the pre-application meeting as well as
comments about the notice requirements for the meeting.  

b.1.  Providing notice of the pre-application meeting.  The
Agency is proposing this requirement because EPA is concerned
that the existing mechanisms for providing public notice (found
in 40 CFR Part 124) may not work as effectively at the pre-
application stage of the permit process as they do later in the
permit process.  The main reason for this is that the permitting
authority generally does not develop the facility mailing list by
the pre-application stage; it usually develops the list after the
facility submits its permit application.  Consequently, there is
no mailing list for the facility to utilize.  These initial
outreach efforts will ultimately benefit the permit process by
engaging interested individuals early in the process.

EPA is proposing to require that the applicant provide notice of
the pre-application meeting to the public, including EPA and
appropriate units of State and local government, in three
separate ways.  EPA has designed these requirements to ensure
effective public notice for the meeting.  As proposed under
Section 124.31(c)(1), two of these requirements are new
approaches to providing public notice and apply only to the
notice for the pre-application meeting.  The third is a current
requirement under Section 124.10(c)(2)(ii).  EPA believes that
since the notice for the pre-application meeting is the first
public notice in the RCRA permitting process and occurs so early
in the process, i.e., possibly before a mailing list is
developed, these additional requirements are necessary to ensure
widespread notice so that the public is appropriately informed. 
All of the public notice requirements for the pre-application
meeting must contain the information proposed under Section
124.31(c)(2).

The first requirement proposes that the facility must place the
notice not only in a paper of general circulation within the 
community where the facility is located, as currently required,
but also in newspapers that cover each jurisdiction adjacent to   
that community.  EPA believes this approach is necessary to
ensure that the facility appropriately notifies neighboring  
jurisdictions in the event that a facility is located near a
jurisdictional boundary.  In these cases, people who live near,
but across the county or state line from, a hazardous waste
facility that is applying for a RCRA permit may not receive
notice of the activity under the present scheme because the
newspaper is not in general circulation across that
jurisdictional line.  As a result, these people may not learn
about the facility until much later in the permit process or
after the facility is permitted.  This initial outreach
requirement would avoid such a situation.  Interested persons
could respond to this initial notice either by attending the pre-
application meeting or by signing up for the facility mailing
list.  In either case, the person would be on the list for
subsequent notices that comply with existing requirements in
Section 124.10(c)(2) (including requirements for the facility
mailing list).  

In some states (especially in the western part of the United
States), the geographic areas covered by a host county or
adjacent counties can be very large.  In these cases, the
requirement for the facility to give public notice in adjacent
counties may not be practical or useful.  Therefore, in
situations where the geographic area of a host jurisdiction or
adjacent jurisdictions is very large (hundreds of square miles),
the newspaper notice shall cover a reasonable radius from the
facility, such that all potentially affected persons have the
opportunity to receive notice.  EPA requests comment on how to
implement this alternative notice provision in the regulations
without prescribing a specific formula or approach that may not
be appropriate in all circumstances.

The required newspaper notices must appear as display
advertisements within the newspapers.  This provision clarifies
the form in which the official public notice must appear in the
papers.  As defined by this proposed rule, a display ad must be
of sufficient size to be seen easily by the reader.  

EPA intends the display ad requirement to make information about
the pre-application meeting more visible within the newspaper. 
The display ad must be placed in a section of the newspaper that
the average reader is likely to see, or in a manner that
otherwise gives the general public effective notice.  Currently,
most public notices related to RCRA permitting appear as legal
notices.  However, EPA proposes to change this practice for the
notice at pre-application in response to public concerns that
legal notices are not widely read.    

EPA encourages facilities and permit writers, if it is within
their means, to apply this requirement to other notices published
in the newspaper.  The requirements proposed in today's rule are
in no way meant to inhibit additional public involvement
activities that the owner or operator or the regulatory agency
could carry out voluntarily.  

The second proposed mechanism for enhancing public notice of the
pre-application meeting is a requirement that the facility owner
or operator post a sign on the facility property displaying
information about the meeting.  This requirement will give clear
notice of the facility location, and activity the facility is, or
will be, conducting.  The posted sign must show the same
information as the other notices, except for the requirement to
include a facility map, which is unnecessary.  The sign must be
large enough so that the wording is readable from the facility
boundary; it should be located where it will be visible to the
public, including passers-by.  The Agency encourages facilities
to post similar signs within the local community, where
appropriate, to encourage people to attend the pre-application
meeting.  In some cases, the option of posting additional signs
around the community may be a cost-effective way for the facility
to communicate with the public.

The third requirement is that the facility owner or operator must
provide a radio broadcast announcement of the pre-application
meeting.  This is a current mechanism for providing public notice
in Section 124.10(c)(2)(ii).  The Agency is including it within
today's proposed requirements for the pre-application meeting in
order to maintain consistency with existing public notice
requirements under Section 124.10.  

Over the years, EPA has received many questions from authorized
states and the public concerning radio announcements.  Today's
proposal requires a radio announcement to be broadcast from at
least one local radio station serving the community, which is the
same as the current Part 124 regulations.  As mentioned earlier
in the Equitable Public Participation section, EPA considers the
community to be all residents in the vicinity of the facility who
might be most affected by the facility's operations.  

Facilities can, of course, go beyond the minimum requirement
being proposed today.  EPA provides the following suggestions as
guidance for those facilities interested in going beyond the
proposed minimum requirements.  In some rural areas, community
members may listen predominantly to one station; in this case,
EPA recommends that the applicant use this station as the vehicle
for the notice.  Some areas are part of a radio market (i.e., as
defined by services such as Arbitron's Radio Market Definitions)
and have competing radio stations.  Where there is more than one
radio station, the facility owner or operator should carefully
consider the likely listeners of the radio stations in order to
ensure a substantial listener audience.  For example, if the
facility is located within a predominately Hispanic-American
community, the applicant should use the local Spanish language
station as the vehicle for the notice.  

Areas with many competing stations are more likely to have
listener groups that may be delineated by, for instance, age,
ethnicity, or income.  In these situations, broadcasting the
notice on several stations, or in more than one language, may be
beneficial.  In all cases, EPA suggests that the announcement
occur at listening hours with a substantial audience, which will
vary for each community as well as within listener groups.  The
facility may consult with radio stations and community members to
determine the best times to broadcast the public notice.

The notice of the pre-application meeting is perhaps the most
important of the permit notices, since it is the first notice of
the permitting process for new or existing facilities.  The
applicant should make an attempt to ensure that all interested
citizens are aware of the pre-application meeting.  The new
requirements proposed today -- display ads, notices published
across jurisdictional boundaries, and posted signs at facilities
-- are more likely to reach a wider audience than a single notice
in the legal section of the paper.

In analyzing other approaches, such as applying the new pre-
application notice requirements to all other RCRA public notices,
EPA found that the requirements may become burdensome to
regulatory agencies, who must publish a number of notices
throughout the permitting process.  (As proposed today, the
facility bears the burden of the pre-application meeting
requirements.)  EPA's goal in proposing this approach is the
efficient use of resources for effective public notice.  EPA
proposes a larger initial outreach effort to help establish a
mailing list.  By initiating a larger effort early in the
process, people who desire to be put on the mailing list are
included as early as possible in the permit process.  The
facility will conduct subsequent notices using the existing
notice requirements, which have proven adequate when accompanied
by a well-developed mailing list.

The Agency requests comment on the proposed requirements for
public notice of the pre-application meeting.  For example, EPA
would like comments regarding the practicality or usefulness of
these requirements and their application within the permitting
process.

b.2.  Conducting the pre-application meeting.  Today's proposed
rule requires the applicant to hold at least one informational
meeting, open to all interested members of the public, before
submitting a permit application.  This meeting will provide
earlier public involvement opportunities in the RCRA permitting
process, and enable the applicant to explain facility plans and
the scope of the project to the public.  In addition, EPA intends
this meeting to create a dialogue with the community, raise
public awareness, determine public views and questions raised
with respect to the facility, and provide the applicant with the
opportunity to make changes to its application based on public
comments.  (The facility may choose to hold additional meetings
to answer questions raised at the pre-application meeting).  It
is appropriate for the facility to conduct the public meeting
because the facility initiates the permit process and conducts
business in the area.  The permit applicant must give the public
adequate notice, at least 30 days before the date, of the pre-
application meeting.  

The Agency believes that the meeting should be informal and
informational.  This approach is consistent with the preamble
discussion of public meeting requirements for Class 3 permit
modification procedures (see 53 FR 37912, September 28, 1988). 
However, in contrast to the requirements for Class 3
modifications, today's rule would require the facility to submit
a record of the pre-application meeting, a list of attendees and
their addresses, and copies of any written comments or materials
submitted at the meeting, to the Director.  The facility must
include this record as part of the permit application and, if
required, the information repository.  The record requirement
will provide the public, especially people who are unable to
attend the meeting, and the Agency with a summary of information
and issues raised at the pre-application meeting.  The proposed
rule does not require the permitting authority to attend the
meeting.  The Agency believes that attendance by the permitting
authority, in certain instances, may undercut one of the main
purposes of the meeting, which is to open a dialogue between the
facility and the community.  In some cases, attendance by the
permitting authority might be useful in gaining a better
understanding of public perceptions and issues for a particular
facility.  However, it should always remain clear that it is a
facility-lead meeting.  EPA believes it is important for the
public to understand that it is the facility's responsibility
both to initiate the permit process, by submitting an application
to EPA, and to inform the public of its intentions.  EPA would
like to solicit comments on whether the permitting agency should
attend the pre-application meetings.

With regard to the nature of the public meeting, EPA intends to
provide facilities with considerable latitude.  Through
discussions with community relations experts from a variety of
backgrounds, EPA has found that "public meeting" means many
things to many people.  In most cases, however, it appears that
people view public meetings as being similar to public hearings. 
EPA would like to dispel the idea that public meetings must be
similar to formal public hearings; rather, EPA encourages
facilities to be creative in their approach towards conducting
the pre-application meeting, in order to encourage constructive
and open participation with people in the community.  The
facility may accomplish this goal through any of a variety of
meeting formats.  EPA further encourages innovation in the type
of public meeting by allowing the facility to choose the medium
by which it reports the record of the meeting to EPA, as long as
the medium provides an adequate record of the meeting.  For
example, facilities may choose to tape-record discussions at the
meeting or find another effective medium with which the public is
comfortable.

Many guidance documents are available on how to conduct public
meetings and community outreach.  Among them are EPA documents
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (January 1992,
EPA/540/R-92/009), RCRA Public Involvement Manual (September
1993, EPA 530-R-93-006)), as well as publications by private
interests.  The applicant may wish to consult these or similar
publications for appropriate guidance on how to conduct an
appropriate meeting with the public.  

Regardless of the guidance source, EPA believes that the
facility, in meeting regulatory requirements, should also
consider the following factors to conduct what EPA believes to be
an appropriate and effective public meeting:  first, the
applicant should give special attention to process, logistics,
content and trouble-shooting when preparing for a public meeting; 
second, the applicant should provide appropriate public
notification, as required by Section 124.31(c), identify all
sectors of the community that the facility will potentially
affect, as required by Section 124.30(a), and provide outreach to
interested citizens and officials.  All these factors are
important to ensure that the audience is representative of the
community.  

The facility should encourage public participation through
selection of a meeting date, time, and place that are convenient
to the public.  The facility should select the date and time of
the public meeting to correspond to times when the public is most
available; this may require the facility to conduct the meeting
after normal business hours.  The applicant should make sure that
the meeting place has adequate space and is conducive to the type
of meeting that the applicant will conduct.  The applicant should
take care in the development of the content of the meeting to
meet the requirement of "sufficient detail to allow the community
to understand the nature of the operations to be conducted at the
facility and the implications for human health and the
environment" under proposed Section 124.31(a).  To meet the
"sufficient detail" requirement, the applicant should have a
clear meeting agenda that states the exact reasons for the
meeting and the specific objectives of the meeting.  The
applicant shall give an overview of the facility in as much
detail as possible, such as identifying the type of facility
(i.e., commercial or private),  the location of the facility, the
general processes involved, the type of wastes generated and
managed, and implementation of waste minimization and pollution
control measures.  In addition, the applicant should provide
information about risk to the public, where available.  

Finally, trouble-shooting potential problems will help the
meeting to run smoothly in the event of unplanned obstacles. 
Trouble-shooting may involve planning for equipment failures, a
shortage of parking spaces, or demonstrations, as well as
locating facilities for handicapped individuals.    

c.  Requirement for Public Notice at Permit Application.

Today's proposal would also require EPA or the State to publish a
public notice upon receipt of a permit application.  EPA proposes
that the permitting authority send the notice to everyone on the
mailing list.  These requirements are consistent with the notice
requirements under Sections 124.10 and 270.42.  Unlike the
proposed pre-application meeting requirement, the permitting
authority must also publish this notice for permit renewals (see
Section A.4: Applicability of Public Involvement Requirements, of
today's preamble discussion).

Information requirements for the public notice will give people a
clear opportunity to contact the appropriate parties for
questions and suggestions, sign up on the facility mailing list,
and locate the appropriate documents, such as the permit
application, for review.  The permitting authority must provide
the name and telephone number of the facility and permitting
agency contacts.  EPA suggests that the permitting authority
designate a community affairs specialist as the appropriate
contact person.  The permitting authority must also provide an
address to which people can send requests to be put on the
facility mailing list.  EPA believes that the public should have
this opportunity during the permit process, and that the notice
at application is a good mechanism for announcing this
opportunity.  Today's proposed rule requires the permitting
authority to provide the notice; however, EPA would like to
solicit comments on whether the permitting authority or the
facility should be responsible for providing the notice at
application submittal.  While a person may request to be put on
the mailing list at any time during the permit process, EPA
intends this requirement to ensure that the permitting authority
alerts the public early in the permit process.  Finally, EPA is
requiring the notice to include specific information about the
facility operations, facility location, and the location where
the public may review and copy versions of the permit application
and other important documents.

EPA believes that these requirements significantly increase the
opportunities for, and the effectiveness of, public participation
within the permitting process.  The requirement for a public
notice will tell the public when an application for a permit has
been received by the permitting authority.  It would also provide
information on where the permit application is available for
review by the public and, thus, would allow interested people to
begin review of the permit application at the same time as EPA or
the State authority.  The public would have the opportunity to
review all aspects of the permit application in its initial form,
before EPA or the State review the application for completeness. 
The public has the opportunity to make suggestions and raise
issues for consideration by the permitting agency at any time
during the agency's review of the permit application. 
Consequently, the permitting agency will receive public input
earlier in the permit process as well as later, i.e., after the
proposal of the draft permit.  Another benefit of requiring such
a notice is that it may alert the agency to facilities generating
high public interest.  The public notice will highlight public
attention concerning a hazardous waste facility.  Public interest
and concerns may be expressed to the permitting authority in the
form of letters, phone calls, and requests to be put on the
facility mailing list.  This early stage could be one potential
point where the Director may choose to require the facility to
establish an information repository.  Furthermore, by providing
important and timely information at the beginning of the permit
application review stage, the permitting authority can better
inform the public about the steps of the permit process and the
amount of time required for each step.  

EPA believes that the public input that the permitted authority
will receive early in the process will assist in the review of
the permit application and result in the development of a draft
permit that is responsive to community concerns.  Once the
permitting authority completes the draft permit, or the notice of
intent to deny the permit, and proposes it to the public, then
the public has the opportunity to review that decision, including
any changes that occurred to the original permit application,
since they will be reflected in the draft permit.  These changes
could include changes in response to the public comments EPA may
have received during its review of the permit application.  

d.  Requirement for an Information Repository.  Proposed Sections
124.33(a) and 270.30(m) would provide the Director with explicit
authority to require the permit applicant or permittee,
respectively, to establish and maintain an information
repository.  The repository would allow interested parties to:
(1) access reports, plans, findings, and other informative
material relevant to the facility and the particular issues at
hand; and (2) receive information on appropriate opportunities
for involvement during a variety of permitting decisions.  EPA
expects that the Director would consider requiring a facility to
establish a repository in a limited number of cases where the
community expresses a high level of interest.  A high level of
community interest could be demonstrated, for example, in such
ways as written requests from members of the public, or press
coverage.  However, the final decision for requiring the
repository is at the Director's discretion.  The Director may
also specify any appropriate time period for the repository. 

As provided in proposed Section 124.33(b), the information
repository will contain all public information that the Director
determines to be relevant to public understanding of permitting
activities at the facility.  In general, the Director would
require the facility to make available those reports or documents
that provide the most relevant information about the facility and
the best technical basis for decision-making.  The information
repository could include some of the following items: copies of
the permit application, technical documents directly supporting
the application, maps (i.e., sketched or copied street map) of
the proposed location of the facility, notice of deficiencies
(NODs), or summary reports of ground-water and air monitoring
results at the facility, if such reports exist for the facility
location.  The repository should also contain information on how
the public may participate and become involved during the
permitting process.  For example, EPA may contribute a fact sheet
that outlines public involvement opportunities within the permit
process and how to be put on the facility mailing list. 
Similarly, the facility may provide information in the repository
on any additional public involvement activities it chooses to
conduct.  Examples of background material the facility may
maintain in the repository include copies of relevant RCRA
regulations and related information, e.g., fact sheets.  The
facility may exclude from the repository any material it claims
to be confidential business information (CBI).  Examples of CBI
could include trade secrets, commercial, or financial information
whose general availability could cause substantial harm to the
facility's competitive position.  The contents and size of the
information repository may differ among sites, depending upon the
reasons for setting up the repository, the permitting phase of
the facility, and the site-specific characteristics of the
facility.

The facility is responsible for site selection and maintenance of
the information repository.  The facility should place the
repository at a local public library, town hall, county
courthouse, community college, public health office, or another
public location within reasonable distance of the facility.  In
instances where such a location is not feasible due to the remote
location of the facility, the Director may require the facility
to establish and maintain the repository at some other suitable
location.  In most instances, the information repository should
not be at the facility.  Interested communities have expressed a
greater comfort level with siting the repository at a public
location, instead of within facility boundaries.  The repository
must also be open to the public during reasonable hours or
accessible by appointment.  Reasonable hours could include, for
example, weekend and evening hours of access (e.g., beyond normal
business hours), depending, among other things, on work schedules
of the interested individuals, the degree of public interest in
the facility permitting activities, the convenience of the
location of the repository, and the timing of public meetings or
hearings.  In these situations, EPA encourages facilities to
select a location that already has extended hours of operation,
such as a local library. 

EPA encourages facilities to establish the information repository
at a location that has reasonable access to a photocopy machine,
if possible.  Such a location would be more convenient for the
people who wish to make copies of any of the materials at
reasonable cost.  For example, some of the public locations
mentioned previously should, in most cases, have a photocopy
machine on the premises.  If it is not possible, the facility may
want to explore other options, such as providing extra copies of
documents that people can keep without charge or at reasonable
cost.  

In cases where physical space to house the documents is limited,
a potential solution for the facility, where resources allow and
capability is available at the location, is to copy documents
onto microfiche or CD-ROM.  Either of these possible options
requires little space and would discourage document theft or
vandalism.   

Under Section 124.33(d), the Director will specify requirements
that the applicant must satisfy in informing the public of the
existence of the information repository.  At a minimum, the
Director will require the facility owner/operator to notify
individuals on the mailing list when the facility establishes the
repository.  The Director may also require the facility to
provide public notice in a local newspaper.  As a practical
matter, the facility may, in some cases, choose to provide the
relevant information to the permitting authority so that it may
include the information in other required notices.  The facility
owner/operator would identify the EPA or State office contact and
a facility contact person to answer questions related to the
repository.  EPA suggests that the permitting authority designate
a community affairs specialist as the appropriate contact person. 

The information repository EPA is proposing today closely
resembles the repository proposed under Subpart S of the
Corrective Action Rule (see 30798 FR, July 27, 1990) and is
similar to the repositories established at Superfund sites under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA).  EPA's CERCLA experience has demonstrated
that the public's interest in nearby hazardous waste activities
is served effectively by a repository.  Without a local
repository, the burden falls on citizens to locate and contact
the appropriate officials who are knowledgeable about the site in
Regional EPA or State offices, which could be located far from
the site.

There are three major differences between the information
repositories in today's proposal and the repositories included in
the CERCLA program.  First, Superfund requires information
repositories at all sites on the National Priorities List (NPL),
whereas, under today's proposal, the Director would use his or
her discretion on a case-by-case basis.  All communities may not
desire or request every option available for public involvement. 
In most situations, an information repository may not be
necessary and could become an unnecessary resource drain for the
local community hosting the repository.  Providing discretion to
the Director will allow the facility and community to use their
resources in the most efficient manner.  In making such a
determination, the Director would consider the degree of public
interest (which could, for example, be demonstrated through
written requests from the public to set up a repository), as well
as the proposed location of the facility, the proposed types and
volumes of wastes to be managed, and the type of facility. 
Furthermore, the Director may consider requiring information
repositories at certain Class 3 modifications or at other stages
within a permit where there is a high level of public interest.  

The second major difference between the CERCLA and proposed RCRA
repositories is that CERCLA repositories for NPL sites generally
house the administrative record for CERCLA actions.  Under the
RCRA permitting program, and as described in proposed Subpart S,
EPA Regional offices, or authorized States, maintain
administrative records, which provide documentation of the basis
of EPA's decisions and other parts of the record, at Regional
office location.  Because the RCRA permitting record is already
available for public inspection at a separate location, the
Agency does not believe that it is necessary to duplicate the
entire administrative record for RCRA facilities at information
repositories.  The administrative record developed during the
permitting process is often large, and could become burdensome to
the Agency and the facility if it were duplicated in its entirety
in an information repository.  In addition, the space required to
house an information repository, if it were required to be a
duplicate of the administrative record, may severely limit
prospective repository locations in a community.

The third major difference between the CERCLA and proposed RCRA
provisions relates to the point in the waste management process
when an information repository is established and maintained. 
Information repositories are established at NPL sites to give the
public the opportunity to keep informed during the cleanup
process.  On the other hand, the repository proposed for certain
RCRA facilities could be established by the facility at any time
during the RCRA permitting process or during the life of the
facility.  In either case, the facility will set up the
information repository to provide information to the community
about the specific issues at hand.  Therefore, the Director may
require the facility to operate the information repository during
the permit application process only or the active life of a
facility, whichever best applies to the facility and the
community.  For new facilities, this provision means that the
Director might instruct the facility to establish an information
repository before construction of the facility.  EPA is concerned
that the information repository for a RCRA facility could become
cumbersome if the Agency prescribes specific content and duration
requirements in a regulation.  Therefore, EPA believes that the
Director should designate timeframes and details for the contents
of the information repository on a case-by-case basis, in keeping
with the goal of enhancing public participation in the permitting
process.

The Agency chose what it believes to be the most flexible
approach, that is, one that allows permitting authorities to
readily respond to community demands.  However, the Agency
recognizes that questions may exist regarding this approach and
requests comment on several aspects of the information
repository.  First, the Agency seeks comments on making the
information repository an optional, as opposed to mandatory, tool
within the permitting process.  Second, EPA solicits comments on
making the repository mandatory for some types of units; for
example, the Agency could require all commercial facilities or
facilities managing certain types of waste to establish
information repositories.  Third, EPA requests comments on the
location of the repository and the point in the permitting
process when it might be appropriate for the Director to require
certain facilities to establish or terminate a repository. 
Fourth, the Agency seeks comments on what documents the facility
should include within the repository as a minimum, and the
process by which those documents are selected.  


B.  Permit Modification Procedures in Section 270.42

1.  Purpose.

The main purpose of this section of the rule is to clarify the
combustion modification provisions found in Appendix I of Section
270.42.  EPA is aware that there has been some confusion over the
description of modifications listed under section L.7 of Appendix
I, which covers the shakedown and trial burn phases of operation
for combustion units.  Through today's changes, EPA intends to
make these modification classifications easier to understand and
implement.  Today's proposal clarifies and describes the phases
of shakedown and trial burn in more detail, thus, making it
easier for the facility to distinguish between modification
classifications.  By making it easier for a facility to select
the appropriate classification for each modification activity,
the proposed rule will make compliance with the modification
process easier.

This section also proposes minor revisions to Section 270.42(d)
of the modification procedures and addresses those modification
requests that are not classified in the Appendix I table of
Section 270.42.  Today's proposal clarifies how facilities may
implement and utilize the provision for other modifications in
Section 270.42(d).  

2.  Background Summary.

EPA first promulgated procedures for RCRA permit modifications in
1980 as part of the initial regulations establishing the RCRA
permit program.  This system of modifications consisted of two
types:  major and minor.  Major modifications followed the same
public notice and comment procedures as for permit issuance,
while minor modifications required only approval by the
permitting authority.  "Minor modifications" were defined as any
modification contained in a short list in the regulations; all
other modifications were deemed "major."  

EPA gained experience in implementing these procedures and
decided that the Agency could improve the modifications process. 
One of the Agency's primary concerns was that most modifications
were processed under the major modification procedures since few
modifications were listed as minor.  Since many less
consequential permit changes and facility improvements were
subject to extensive "major" modification procedures, EPA found
that facilities were discouraged from making improvements to
upgrade the facility to be more protective.  At the same time,
EPA and the States were diverting their resources to address
minor modifications, instead of addressing modifications with
greater environmental significance, or other permitting and
enforcement actions.  In considering how to address these
concerns, EPA determined that the procedural structure needed
modifying in order to classify the many activities that did not
fall easily into only the major and minor categories. 

EPA amended the procedures for facility-initiated permit
modifications on September 28, 1988 (see 53 FR 37912).  The goals
of this rule were to allow for additional flexibility in
processing permit modifications and to provide for an appropriate
level of public involvement in the decision-making process.  The
main feature of these revised procedures was a system of three
classes of permit modifications, ranging from Class 1 for the
least significant changes to Class 3 for the most significant
facility modifications. 

EPA continues to believe that Agency and State permitting
authorities must focus time, efforts, and resources on
substantive changes to protect human health and the environment. 
With three classes of procedures, permitting authorities can
classify modifications more accurately, according to their
environmental significance, than they could under the former
system.  Individual examples of modifications are classified in a
detailed appendix to the rule (Appendix I to Section 270.42). 

3.  Technical Corrections.

In today's rule, EPA is proposing certain technical corrections
in Sections 270.42(a)(1)(ii), 270.42(b)(2), and 270.42(c)(2). 
One correction would change the reference for notifying
appropriate units of state and local government in each of these
paragraphs to Section 124.10(c)(1)(x), in order to correct a
typographical error.  At present, these sections incorrectly
reference Section 124.10(c)(ix), which is the reference for
notifying the facility mailing list.

EPA is also proposing to make a technical correction to Section
270.42(b)(6)(i).  In this paragraph, the term "notification
request" should be changed to "modification request."  It is
clear from the preamble to the September 28, 1988 permit
modification rule (see 53 FR 37916) that EPA intended that the
deadline for EPA action be related to the date that the
modification request is submitted to the permitting authority.

4.  Unclassified Modifications.

During the development of the September 1988 permit modification
rule, EPA recognized that classifying all possible permit
modifications under the items listed in Appendix I of Section
270.42 would be impossible.  Therefore, the Agency provided a
procedure in Section 270.42(d) to enable facilities to submit
modification requests for changes that are not specifically
listed in Appendix I.  For these unclassified modifications,
facilities must either use the Class 3 modification procedures
or, alternatively, request that the Agency make a determination
that the activity is either a Class 1 or 2 modification.  In
general, requests for a classification determination would be
attached to the modification request.  In making its
determination whether to process the request as a Class 1, 2,
modification instead of a Class 3, the Agency would consider the
similarity of the specific modification to others listed in
Appendix I and the criteria listed in Section 270.42(d)(2).

After several years' experience, EPA has found that very few
unclassified modifications have been processed using this
procedure.  EPA believes that both facilities and permit writers
may be restricting themselves to only the classification examples
that are in Appendix I.  EPA is also concerned that in those
cases where Section 270.42(d) is used, the Class 3 modification
procedure may be automatically selected, without consideration of
whether the permit activity is less significant and should be
reclassified to a lower category.

While EPA believes that Appendix I offers a good starting point
for classifying modifications, facilities and the permitting
authority should both make additional efforts to use the
flexibility in Section 270.42(d) when proposing modifications. 
Use of this flexibility will allow permit writers to better focus
their efforts and resources on modification procedures that are
necessary and appropriately tailored to the substantive changes
proposed.  Therefore, EPA believes that facilities should use the
flexibility contained in Section 270.42(d) when their site-
specific permit changes are not listed in the Appendix I table. 
To address this situation, EPA is proposing to modify the wording
in Section 270.42(d) to clarify that unclassified modifications
can be processed under Class 1 or 2 procedures, if this lower
classification is more appropriate.  EPA is also proposing to add
a notation to Appendix I that instructs facilities to use the
procedures in Section 270.42(d) if a proposed modification is not
listed in Appendix I.

In addition, EPA would like to clarify that the temporary
authorization provision in Section 270.42(e) may be used by the
facility, subject to approval by the permitting authority, to
implement unclassified modifications as well as classified ones. 
In other words, the permitting agency may grant a temporary
authorization, without prior notice and comment, for activities
that are necessary for facilities to respond promptly to changing
conditions to be protective of human health and the environment. 
Temporary authorizations have a term of up to 180 days; the
permitting agency may grant temporary authorizations for Class 2
or 3 modifications that meet the criteria in Section 270.42(e),
including compliance with the Part 264 standards.  Activities
that will be completed before the 180 day term expires do not
require a modification request.  If a facility knows up front
that the activity will take longer than 180 days to complete, it
should submit a modification request at the same time as its
request for temporary authorization.

5.  Revisions to Appendix I of Section 270.42. 

RCRA permits for new incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs) address four distinct phases of operation after
construction.  The four phases are:  shakedown, trial burn, post-
trial burn operation, and final operation, which lasts for the
duration of the permit.  The permitting authority establishes
operating conditions for each of these phases in the permit.

The shakedown phase of operation lasts from the initial start up
after construction until the trial burn.  The shakedown phase
prepares the unit for the trial burn.  During this period,
possible mechanical difficulties are identified and the unit
reaches operational readiness by achieving steady-state operating
conditions immediately prior to the trial burn.  Federal
regulations limit the shakedown period to 720 hours of operation
using hazardous waste feed; the permitting authority may allow
one additional period of up to 720 hours with cause.  Permit
conditions limit operations during this period; the permit sets
hazardous waste feed and other waste management practices and
requires the facility to monitor certain key operational
indicators.  

The trial burn, which typically lasts several days, is the actual
testing that the facility conducts, with permitting agency
oversight, to (1) determine whether a combustion unit can meet
the performance standards required by the regulations and the
permit, (2) establish the final facility operating conditions for
the term of the permit, and (3) provide data on which the permit
authority can base a risk assessment.  The trial burn plan
contains the parameters for conducting a trial burn.  The trial
burn plan is part of the original permit for new facilities and
must be approved by the permitting agency before the facility can
conduct a trial burn.  The facility often tests several sets of
operating conditions during the trial burn.  The conditions are
designed in order to determine the range of operating conditions
where the unit meets the performance standards.  For example, the
facility may set one trial burn condition to determine what the
maximum hazardous waste feed can be.  The trial burn demonstrates
the range of operating conditions that allow the facility to
comply with the performance standards.  The permit writer uses
the results of the trial burn to define the operating conditions
that the facility will operate under during the permit term.

The post-trial burn phase starts after the trial burn and lasts
an average of 3 to 9 months.  The permit specifies operating
conditions that apply during this phase.  Federal regulations
require the permittee to analyze the results of the trial burn
and submit them to the Agency within 90 days of completion of the
trial burn, or later if approved by the Director.  Also during
this period, the facility may submit, and EPA may process, a
permit modification to revise the final operating conditions to
reflect the results of the trial burn and any other information. 
This phase ends once the permitting agency and the facility
complete all necessary permit modifications and the final
operating conditions take effect.  

The final operating conditions are effective for the life of the
permit, unless the facility's permit is modified pursuant to 40
CFR Sections 270.41 or 270.42.  The permit writer bases the
conditions on actual trial burn data that reflect the conditions
under which the facility met the performance standards during the
trial burn. 
a.  Structure of Today's Proposal.  Confusion has existed, at
times, over the descriptions of modifications for certain items
listed in section L of Appendix I to Section 270.42, which covers
incinerators and BIFs; in particular, the confusion has concerned
changes during the shakedown period of operation and trial burn. 
How to interpret these modification classifications may be
unclear in certain situations.  In order to avoid further
confusion or potential delays in determining these
classifications, the Agency is proposing to reorganize and
clarify Section L.7. of Appendix I.

Currently, Appendix I of Section 270.42 places items regarding
the shakedown period, trial burn plan, and post-trial burn
operation into the same section, i.e., section L.7.  EPA believes
that placing those items regarding the shakedown period in one
section and items concerning the trial burn plan into another
section, along with describing each item more precisely, will
clarify the intent behind each description.  This reorganization
will make it easier to classify individual modification requests
and ensure that the permitting agency processes the requests
under the appropriate procedures.  EPA proposes today that all
modifications regarding the shakedown period will remain in
section L.7. and all items regarding the trial burn will move to
new section L.8.  The existing section L.8. will become section
L.9.  An explanation of the proposed revisions to sections L.7.
and L.8. of the Appendix follows.

In this proposal, Class 2 will remain the highest classification
for changes to the trial burn and shakedown period permit
conditions.  Further, the permitting agency will continue to
process many changes under the Class 1 procedures, with prior
Director approval.  One reason for these classifications is the
short period of operation for both the shakedown and trial burn
phases.  The permitting authority must be in a position to
respond quickly to requests for changes that are necessary to
ensure thorough testing of the unit.  In addition, operating
conditions during the shakedown period are generally more
restrictive than the final operation conditions.

b.  Shakedown.  Appendix I to Section 270.42 currently classifies
modifications addressing the shakedown period for a permitted
combustion unit in items L.7. a. and b.  EPA today proposes to
simplify item L.7.a. by applying it only during the shakedown
period and moving the references to the trial burn plan and post-
trial burn operation to newly proposed section L.8.  The
permitting agency should not process under L.7.a any
modifications that are classified in other items in Appendix I. 
Today's proposed rule will not change item L.7.b., which allows
the Director to authorize an additional 720 hours of operation as
a Class 1 modification.

EPA also proposes to reclassify proposed item L.7.a. as a Class 1
permit modification, with prior approval of the Director.  Our
basis for this change is that the narrower scope and limited
duration of the shakedown period means that a facility's
activities would be less significant than the activities found
under the existing L.7.a.  One example of a modification under
proposed item L.7.a. would be a change in combustion temperature
to increase the unit's efficiency.  The purpose of the shakedown
period is to prepare the unit for the trial burn and, thus, any
changes made during the shakedown period would not affect long
term operation.  The shakedown period can last no longer than 720
hours of operation, with only one extension possible.  As stated
previously, modification items related to the trial burn will now
be addressed by the permitting authority under proposed section
L.8.

c.  Trial Burn.  Today, EPA is proposing to create a new section
L.8. in Appendix I to address modifications to permit conditions
during the trial burn.  These conditions are contained in the
approved trial burn plan, which is a part of the RCRA permit.  
EPA has structured this section to progress from changes before
any trial burns are completed to those after a trial burn has
been conducted, including changes made to reflect the results of
a successful trial burn.  The format of the new section L.8. is
as follows.

EPA is proposing to revise Appendix I to address changes to the
trial burn plan before the trial burn is complete (items L.8.a.
and L.8.b).  Under the proposed scheme, the permitting authority
will consider changes to the trial burn plan a Class 2 permit
modification, unless they are minor, in which case they will be
Class 1, with prior Director approval.  One example of a minor
change would be an increase in the secondary combustion chamber
temperature for a trial burn condition that is testing the
destruction and removal efficiency for organic wastes.  One
example of a major change would be an increase in the waste feed
rate.  Please note that classifying changes as minor with regard
to the trial burn is not a new requirement; it was previously
listed under item L.7.c.  However, to reflect the fact that the
trial burn conditions are contained in the trial burn plan, EPA
is deleting any references to "operating requirements set in the
permit" from the modification table.

EPA expects that permittees may request technical changes in the
trial burn plan under L.8.a. while the permitting authority is
on-site immediately before, or during, the trial burn.  These
changes address unanticipated issues and are often necessary for
effective and protective operation and testing during the trial
burn.  A representative of the permitting authority, usually the
permit writer, is typically at the facility during the trial
burn.  The Agency encourages permit writers and facilities to
write trial burn plans with the flexibility to accommodate
alterations during the trial burn.  The permitting authority can
expedite the modification process by delegating approval
authority to one of its agents.  The permit itself can also
specify what level of permitting agency staff has authority to
approve these minor changes.  In deciding whether to allow such
changes on-site, we encourage the permit writer to consider the
criteria contained in the February 16, 1989, Trial Burn
Observation Guide.  Of course, the final permit conditions would
limit the permittee to those conditions that met the performance
standards during the trial burn.

After a facility conducts a trial burn and submits the results to
the permitting agency, the facility may request  another trial
burn.  The facility must, then, submit a new trial burn plan. 
EPA is proposing to revise Appendix I to clarify this situation. 
Item L.8.c. specifically relates to situations where the facility
did not meet the performance standards set in the trial burn plan
and the facility proposes another trial burn, or portions of a
trial burn, at improved conditions.  Item L.8.c. addresses
conducting additional tests to replace one or more of the failed
conditions of a trial burn.  Before the facility can conduct
these tests, it must revise the conditions in the trial burn plan
and the permitting agency must approve the revisions through a
permit modification.  In general, the permitting agency will not
approve the modification request to conduct another trial burn
unless the facility has provided a sound technical basis,
demonstrating that the revised operating conditions are likely to
meet the performance standards set in the permit.   

EPA is also proposing to classify item L.8.c. as a Class 2 permit
modification.  The Agency recognizes that this classification
represents a change from the preamble language in past
incinerator technical regulations.  An early incinerator rule
preamble states that "if compliance has not been shown and an
additional trial burn is necessary, the permit may also be
modified under section 122.17 [old minor permit modification
language] to allow for an additional trial burn" (See 47 FR
27524, June 24, 1982).  This 1982 preamble language describes a
trial burn retest of a failed condition.  Since 1982, EPA has
gained considerable experience regarding trial burns.  EPA now
believes that if a facility does not meet the regulatory
performance standards during the trial burn, then the public
needs to be involved before the facility revises the trial burn
plan and conducts another test, because the facility's failure
under certain conditions may raise concerns.  Therefore, EPA
believes that the additional public participation requirements of
the Class 2 procedures are appropriate for this item.  (See
proposed Section 270.74(c)(7) for the analogous procedures for
interim status combustion facilities.)

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to add item L.8.d to address
changes to the permit conditions that are in effect during the
limited period called the post-trial burn period.  (These
modifications would currently be addressed under item L.7.a.) 
Because any changes during the post-trial burn period will be
limited in duration, similar to those during the shakedown
period, EPA is also reclassifying post-trial burn period
modifications from Class 2 to Class 1 permit modifications, with
prior approval of the Director.  

For the last item in this section of Appendix I, EPA is proposing
to move existing item L.7.d. to L.8.e.  This item describes
revising the final operating conditions to reflect the results of
the trial burn.  Changes in the final permit should reflect the
operating conditions under which the facility met the required
performance standards during the trial burn.  EPA does not
propose changes to the wording of this item.


C.  Requirements Regarding the Trial Burn 

1.  Purpose and Applicability.

The purposes of this section of the proposed rule are (1) to make
the permitting procedural requirements for interim status
combustion units more equivalent to current permitting
requirements for new units, particularly with regard to trial
burns, and (2) to clarify some administrative permitting
procedures for combustion units.  In addition, this section
contains proposed requirements that will provide for more public
involvement opportunities, both earlier in the combustion
permitting process and at key points throughout the process.

The requirements in this section apply only to combustion units
at both interim status and permitted facilities.

2.  Summary of Proposed Approach.

EPA is proposing today to create a new Section 270.74, which will
contain permitting procedural requirements for interim status
combustion units.  This proposed new section is a consolidation
of Sections 270.62(d) and 270.66(g), which currently contain
permitting procedural requirements for interim status
incinerators and BIFs, respectively.  Proposed Section 270.74 is
virtually identical to Sections 270.62(d) and 270.66(g), except
where EPA is proposing additional permitting procedural
requirements for interim status units.  EPA intends the
additional requirements to make the procedural requirements for
interim status units more equivalent to the permitting procedural
requirements for new units, and to expand public involvement
opportunities during the trial burn phase.  The flow chart shown
in Figure 2 indicates the points in the permitting process where
the proposed activities would occur.  For instance, the
administrative procedural changes EPA is proposing in Section
270.74 will require interim status facilities to submit a trial
burn plan with their initial Part B applications.  Section 270.74
further states that the permitting agency must approve the trial
burn plan before the facility conducts the trial burn.  These
proposed explicit requirements will ensure that interim status
facilities conduct trial burns in accordance with approved plans,
as do permitted facilities, and do not perform the trial burns
before submitting their applications.  In another permitting
procedural change, EPA proposes to clarify the Director's
authority to allow additional trial burns and to deny a permit to
an interim status unit if the Director does not believe that the
unit is capable of meeting performance standards.

EPA is proposing a new regulatory requirement, not addressed in
previous regulations, which pertains to post-trial burn
conditions at interim status combustion facilities.  EPA is
proposing that, upon completion of the trial burn, interim status
facilities must operate only under conditions that passed and
were demonstrated to meet the performance standards of Section
264.343 (for incinerators) or Sections 266.104 through 266.107
(for BIFs), and only if the successful trial burn data are
sufficient to set all applicable operating conditions.

Concerning public involvement, the Agency is proposing additional
public participation opportunities in the combustion permitting
process by requiring public notices at key points in the trial
burn process.  The Agency would like to build on the public
involvement requirements in today's proposed rule and expand them
to the trial burn stage.  The Agency believes that public
involvement opportunities should continue beyond the initial
permit application stage and throughout the permitting process. 
For instance, the proposed rule requires the permitting authority
to give public notice of the actual trial burn for both interim
status and new combustion facilities.  It is important to inform
the public of the pending burn and give members of the public an
opportunity to participate in this later phase of the permitting
process.  As mentioned previously in the public involvement
segment of the preamble, expanded public participation in the
RCRA program and decision-making process is a high priority for
the Agency.

3.  Current Trial Burn Procedures.

Trial burns are an important step in the permitting process for
combustion facilities.  There are differences in the permitting
process for new and interim status combustion facilities, which
stem from the original composition of the regulated community in
1980 when EPA first promulgated the RCRA Subtitle C regulations. 
At that time, Congress granted existing facilities interim status
if they complied with notification and application requirements,
so they could continue operating while pursuing a permit.  Anyone
proposing a new facility now had to obtain a permit prior to
construction.  This distinction between existing and proposed
facilities led to differences in the permitting procedural
requirements for combustion units.  For example, existing
combustion facilities that have interim status must conduct a
trial burn prior to permit issuance, whereas proposed facilities
must obtain a permit before they may construct the combustion
unit and then conduct a trial burn.

a.  Current Trial Burn Procedures for Permitted Combustion
Facilities.  The trial burn procedures for new combustion units
are currently set forth in Section 270.62(b) for incinerators,
and Section 270.66(c) for BIFs.  These regulations require new
hazardous waste incinerators and BIFs to submit trial burn plans
with their initial Part B permit applications.  The actual trial
burn is conducted after:  (1) the public has reviewed and
commented on the permit application; (2) the permitting authority
has reviewed and approved the permit application; and (3) the
facility has constructed the combustion unit.  The permitting
authority uses the results of the trial burn to determine whether
a facility can meet the applicable performance standards and, if
it does, to establish the final operating conditions in the
permit that enable the facility to comply with those standards.

The facility or the permitting authority must initiate changes to
the trial burn plan through the permit modification procedures in
Sections 270.41 through 270.42 (see Section B. Permit
Modification Procedures).  The permitting authority must approve
any modifications before the facility can implement them.  Where
results of a trial burn show non-compliance with performance
standards, a facility would typically be required to either:  (1)
revise the trial burn plan to test new conditions; or (2) submit
a request to the permitting authority to modify the permit to
permanently exclude the conditions that resulted in non-
compliance.   Both the permit review/ determination process and
the permit modification process have built-in opportunities for
public involvement, including procedures for appealing decisions
made by the permitting authority.

b.  Current Trial Burn Procedures for Interim Status Combustion
Facilities.  The trial burn procedures for interim status
combustion units are currently in Sections 270.62(d) and
270.66(g).  These requirements are not as detailed as the
requirements for new combustion facilities, although it is common
practice for owners/operators of interim status facilities to
follow many of the requirements for new facilities.  For example,
the interim status regulations in Sections 270.62(d) and
270.66(g) require facilities to submit the results of the trial
burn before permit issuance, but do not explicitly state that
facilities must receive permitting agency approval of the trial
burn plan before conducting the burn.   

The procedures for interim status and new combustion facilities
differ in other areas.  Contrary to permitted facilities, interim
status facilities do not have a permit during the trial burn
stage; thus, the permit modification procedures do not apply.  As
a consequence, the permitting agency currently does not have the
same authority to regulate post-trial burn changes by interim
status facilities as it does for new combustion facilities,
especially in the case of incinerators [BIFs are more highly
regulated under interim status].

Unlike the requirements for new facilities, there is no
opportunity for public involvement in the permitting process for
interim status combustion facilities until after the facility has
conducted the burn and the permitting agency issues the draft
permit.  

EPA believes that many of the requirements for new combustion
facilities are appropriate for interim status facilities; the
Agency proposes to change the regulations to apply some of these
requirements specifically to interim status facilities.  It is
the Agency's intent, in changing the regulations, to ensure
protection of human health and the environment and provide a
greater opportunity for public involvement in the permitting
process.

4.  Discussion of Proposed Permitting Requirements for Trial
Burns.

EPA is proposing to consolidate the permitting procedural
requirements for interim status combustion facilities by moving
the incinerator and BIF interim status permitting requirements,
found in Sections 270.62(d) and 270.66(g), to proposed Section
270.74.  In addition, EPA is proposing to amend these
requirements to make them more equivalent to the permitting
requirements for new combustion units.  EPA believes that
consolidating the permitting requirements for interim status
combustion facilities and distinguishing them from the
requirements for permitted facilities will simplify the interim
status trial burn process.

The consolidation and movement into proposed Section 270.74(a)
and (b) will not change the majority of the regulatory language
in the existing provisions.  However, EPA is proposing additional
language that will make interim status permitting procedures more
consistent with new facility permitting procedures and expand the
opportunities for public participation.

EPA is also revising provisions for submitting data in lieu of a
trial burn, Section 270.19 for incinerators and Section 270.22
for BIFs, to reflect actual Agency practice.  As currently
written, this waiver, which the permitting agency can grant to
either permitted or interim status units, could be seen as
relatively open-ended; yet, in actual practice, permitting
authorities have allowed facilities to use the provisions only
under a narrow range of circumstances.  EPA believes that
granting the waiver only under a narrow range of circumstances is
appropriate for the reasons discussed below and, therefore, is
proposing to revise this provision to specifically restrict
application to this narrow range.  This revision to the
regulatory language will ensure consistency among permit writers. 
It could also benefit facilities in the following way.  The
proposed rule will make explicit the strict circumstances under
which a permitting agency will grant a waiver.  Once a facility
knows these circumstances, it will not misuse its resources in
compiling a waiver request that the permitting agency will not
grant; instead, the facility can focus its resources on
developing a trial burn plan.

EPA is concerned that units constructed at different locations at
different times, or with slight design or operating differences,
may not perform in an identical manner.  For example, if the
locations are at different altitudes, the differences in
atmospheric pressure could affect the performance of the units. 
In addition, there would likely be different operators running
the units at different locations; thus, the units may not be
operated in an identical manner.  

The Agency believes that the theory of submitting data from other
units in lieu of conducting a trial burn is sound; however,
sufficient data is not available to ensure that the theory could
be applied to real world situations without imposing strict
limitations.  EPA believes that most combustion units will need
to conduct trial burns in order to develop operating conditions
that ensure compliance with the performance standards.

To this end, EPA is proposing today to codify EPA's current
policy by making the following changes:  (1) replace
"sufficiently similar" with "virtually identical"; and (2)
specify that the units must be located at the same facility.  The
"data in lieu of" provision, therefore, would not apply to mobile
treatment units when moved from site to site, since they would
not be located at the same facility.

a.  Submittal of Trial Burn Plans for Interim Status Facilities. 
Today's proposed rule would require interim status hazardous
waste incinerators (proposed Section 270.74(a)(1)) and BIFs
(proposed Section 270.74(b)) to submit a trial burn plan with
their initial Part B permit applications.  EPA believes that the
trial burn plan for interim status facilities should be subject
to public notice and available for review with the initial Part B
application, as it is for new facilities seeking permits.  EPA's
objective in proposing these revisions is to involve the public
much earlier in the interim status facility permitting process
than current regulations require.

EPA intends that today's requirements regarding submittal of the
trial burn plans for interim status facilities will: (1) specify
the point in the permit process when the facility submits the
trial burn plan, which will be the same point as for new
facilities; and (2) explicitly provide that interim status
facilities must conduct the burn in accordance with an approved
plan.

Since EPA is proposing a specific point for trial burn plan
submittal in the proposed rule, i.e., with the Part B
application, the Agency is deleting the current provisions that
refer to the trial burn plan submittal (Sections 270.62(d) and
270.66(g)). 

b.  Approval of Trial Burn Plans for Interim Status Facilities. 
In Section 270.74(c)(1), EPA is explicitly requiring that any
interim status combustion facility that seeks a permit must
obtain the Director's approval of the trial burn plan before
conducting the trial burn.  EPA is also proposing, in Section
270.74(c)(4), that the Director, after approving a trial burn
plan, must specify a time period during which the facility shall
conduct the burn.  EPA adds this latter requirement to ensure
that facilities conduct trial burns in a timely manner.  The
Agency believes that requiring the permitting agency's approval
of interim status trial burn plans will ensure that the
facilities submit plans that reflect, and the permitting
authority reviews the plans in the context of, current EPA policy
and guidance.  EPA also believes that today's proposed
requirements will ensure that, in most cases, the burns will
supply adequate data and information to set permit operating
conditions.  This proposed requirement for interim status
facilities is equivalent to the permitting procedures for new
facilities seeking permits.  

It should be noted, however, that unlike the procedures for new
facilities, approval of the trial burn plan for interim status
facilities is on a separate track from the rest of the permit
application.  As mentioned earlier in this preamble, a new
combustion facility must receive a permit before building the
combustion unit and conducting the trial burn.  Review and
approval of trial burn plans for these facilities is concurrent
with review and approval of the entire permit application; the
trial burn plan is just one of many components.  However, for
interim status facilities, the permitting authority does not
issue the draft permit, or the notice of intent to deny the
permit, until after the facility conducts the trial burn.  Since
facilities must conduct the burn in accordance with a plan
approved by the permitting agency, it is clear that the plan must
be on a separate approval track from the rest of the permit
application.  Furthermore, interim status facilities typically
must revise their permit applications to reflect the results of
the burn, so that the conditions set in the permit can be based
on conditions known to ensure compliance with the performance
standards.

c.  Notices of Trial Burns.  In today's proposed rulemaking, EPA
is seeking to expand opportunities for public involvement during
the trial burn phase of the combustion permitting process for
both new and interim status facilities.  EPA requests comments on
whether the facility or the permitting authority should be
responsible for publishing the public notices discussed in the
following sections.  

c.1.  Permitted combustion facilities.  EPA is proposing, in
Section 270.62(b)(6) for incinerators and Section 270.66(d)(3)
for BIFs, to require the Director to send a notice of the
expected trial burn schedule to all persons on the mailing list
and to appropriate units of State and local government.  As
mentioned previously in the preamble, the trial burn plan is
available for public review at other points in the permitting
process (e.g., at application submittal, at draft permit
issuance, and at final permit determination).  Thus, unlike the
notice requirement for interim status facilities, explained in
the section below, the notice of the trial burn schedule for
permitted facilities does not refer to the trial burn plan.  

EPA recognizes that, in a limited number of situations,
circumstances beyond the control of the facility or the
permitting authority could delay a trial burn.  It is not EPA's
intent, in these limited situations, to require an additional
notice with a revised burn schedule.

The notice must contain the following information, specified in
Sections 270.62(b)(6) or 270.66(d)(3):  (1) name and telephone
number of the facility's contact person; (2) name and telephone
number of the permitting authority's contact office; (3) location
where the approved trial burn plan and any supporting documents
are available for review; and, (4) the expected time period
during which the facility is scheduled to conduct the trial burn. 
Including this information in the notice enables members of the
public to speak with a person who is knowledgeable about the
trial burn plan, and to be aware of an imminent trial burn in
their community.

c.2.  Interim status combustion facilities.  In Section
270.74(c)(3), EPA is proposing notice requirements for interim
status facilities that are similar to the requirements for
permitted facilities.  The proposed rule will require the
Director to send a notice to all persons on the mailing list and
appropriate units of State and local government, informing them
of the proposed approval of the trial burn plan and the expected
trial burn schedule.  The Agency is requiring this notice before
the permitting authority approves the plan in order to provide an
additional opportunity for the public to review the final draft
plan.  It should be noted that, for interim status facilities,
the Director's decision to approve the trial burn plan is not
subject to administrative appeal.

EPA recognizes that the draft plan submitted with the initial
Part B application may differ significantly from the final
version that the permitting authority approves.  EPA wants to
ensure that the public has a chance to see the revisions prior to
approval and the actual burn.  EPA would like to solicit comments
on whether the Agency should establish a comment period for
interim status facilities prior to approving the trial burn plan,
in view of the fact that, for permitted facilities, the public
has an opportunity to comment on the draft trial burn plan as
part of the draft permit process.

Currently, there are less public involvement opportunities for
interim status facilities than there are for permitted
facilities, with regard to the review of trial burn plans.  As
mentioned previously, for permitted facilities, the public has
the opportunity to review the trial burn plan at both the
application and draft permit phases before a trial burn occurs.

The notice must contain the information specified in proposed
Section 270.74(c)(3).  The notice should include the following: 
(1) name and telephone number of the facility's contact person;
(2) name and telephone number of the permitting authority's
contact office; (3) location where the draft trial burn plan and
any supporting documentation are available for review; and (4) a
schedule of activities that are required prior to permit
issuance, including the date by which the Director expects to
approve the plan and the expected time period during which the
facility is scheduled to conduct the trial burn and submit
results to the Director (refer to proposed Section 270.74(c)(4)). 
Including this information in the notice enables the public to
speak with a person who is knowledgeable about the trial burn
plan, receive or review additional information, and learn of an
imminent trial burn in their community.

As stated earlier, interim status facilities will conduct the
trial burn prior to permit issuance, as required by current
regulations.  Although the public will have an opportunity to
review the trial burn plan, since it must be submitted with the
initial Part B application, in accordance with today's proposed
requirements in Section 270.74(a) or (b), a significant amount of
time may elapse before the Director approves the plan and
announces the facility's expected schedule for the burn.  EPA
believes that it is important to inform the public of the
Director's proposed approval of the trial burn plan, separate
from the rest of the Part B permit application, and the
anticipated time period for conducting the burn.  Again, this is
consistent with the Draft Combustion Strategy goal of promoting
public involvement in the trial burn stage.

d.  Post-Trial Burn Period at Interim Status Combustion
Facilities.  In today's rule, EPA is proposing that interim
status combustion facilities be subject to the performance
standards of Section 264.343, for incinerators, or Sections
266.104 through 266.107, for BIFs, upon completion of the trial
burn.  During the post-trial burn period, interim status
facilities must operate only under conditions that passed and
were demonstrated to meet these performance standards, and only
if the successful trial burn data is sufficient to set all
applicable operating conditions.  EPA has provided information,
in its June 1994 Guidance on Trial Burn Failures, for determining
whether conditions resulted in non-compliance and under what
circumstances successful data from the trial burn is sufficient
to set all applicable operating conditions.  

This proposal is more stringent than current regulations and
practices.  Currently, no regulations provide for setting post-
trial burn conditions at interim status facilities.  EPA believes
that these proposed regulations will give the permitting agency
the direct authority it needs to restrict these interim status
facilities' operations to ensure that they are in compliance with
the basic performance standards applicable to permitted
facilities during the post-trial burn period.  Establishing these
requirements will ensure that interim status combustion
facilities are operating in a manner that is protective of human
health and the environment during the post-trial burn period.

This proposed requirement for interim status facilities is
consistent with the post-trial burn requirements for permitted
facilities.  It is also consistent with EPA's draft model permit
(September 1988), which has wording for the permitting agency to
incorporate into combustion permits regarding temporary
restriction of operating conditions following the trial burn.  

Today's proposed rule supports and builds upon the language
contained in the draft model permit.  EPA is proposing that if
the trial burn data for an interim status combustion facility
show non-compliance with any set of the performance standards,
then the facility will be required to (1) immediately cease
operating under the condition(s) that resulted in non-compliance
and (2) notify the Director.  The facility may only continue
operating if there are enough successful data from the trial burn
to set all applicable operating conditions, and the facility is
able to modify its design and/or limit its operating conditions
to operate within the performance standards.  

For example, one component in establishing a complete set of
operating conditions is determining a maximum and a minimum
combustion temperature.  A maximum temperature is important for
the metals volatilization standard; a minimum temperature is
important for the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
standard.  For the sake of simplicity, this example assumes that
the facility tested under only two temperature conditions, a high
and low temperature, and that all other variables remained
constant.  By setting minimum and maximum temperature limits, the
test burn can establish an operating "envelope," in other words,
a range of temperatures within which the facility can operate
safely in compliance with the performance standards.  If the
trial burn results show that the high temperature was successful,
but that the low temperature was not sufficient to meet
performance requirements, then there may not be enough successful
data to set all applicable operating conditions.  In this
example, the facility would be required to stop operating.  

On the other hand, following up on the above example, a facility
may want to run tests over a range of temperatures in order to
avoid shutdown.  By running multiple temperature tests, the
facility could attempt more conservative tests, as well as tests
that would push the combustion unit's operating envelope.  For
instance, a facility may plan to conduct multiple tests to
establish its minimum operating temperature.  Thus, a facility
may choose to test at two temperatures, e.g., low and medium.  If
the trial burn results show that the low temperature could not
meet the performance standards, but the medium temperature did,
then enough successful data would exist to set all applicable
operating conditions.  In this scenario, the facility would
restrict its operations to burn between the medium and the high
temperature during the post-trial burn period and, thus, would
continue operating within the performance standards.

EPA intends for the facility to be responsible for restricting
its operations if any of the trial burn data show non-compliance
with performance standards.  If the facility wishes to continue
operating under restricted conditions during the post-trial burn
period, it must provide to the Director a description of the
conditions under which it is operating, and a preliminary
explanation of how the conditions were determined to be
sufficient to ensure that the unit functions within the
performance standards.  EPA is proposing to require facilities to
submit this information with the trial burn results.  As
currently required in Sections 270.62(b)(7) and (8) for
incinerators, and 270.66(d)(3) and (4) for BIFs, facilities must
submit the results of the trial burn and any data from the trial
burn within 90 days of conducting the burn.  As part of the
proposed consolidation of the permitting procedural requirements
for interim status combustion facilities, EPA has also reiterated
this requirement by incorporating it, by reference, into Section
270.74(c)(5).    

EPA is proposing, in Section 270.74(c)(6), to give the Director
the discretion to further restrict operating conditions during
the post-trial burn period to ensure that the unit is operated
within the performance standards.  The Director will make a
determination on the need for further restrictions after
reviewing the trial burn data and the preliminary explanation
submitted by the facility within 90 days of the trial burn.  The
Director will inform the facility, in writing, of any operational
restrictions that he or she is imposing on the facility beyond
those listed by the facility in its preliminary explanation.

e.  Additional Trial Burns.  The existing permit modification
procedures (Section 270.42) contain provisions to address
additional trial burns at permitted combustion facilities.  As
mentioned previously, public involvement opportunities are built
into the permit modification procedures.  The procedures require
the permitting authority to notify the public when any change is
made to the existing permit through these procedures.  Since the
permit modification procedures do not apply to interim status
facilities, EPA is proposing, in Section 270.74(c)(7), to specify
requirements for additional trial burns at interim status
combustion facilities.  As discussed in the previous section, if
any results of a trial burn at an interim status combustion
facility show non-compliance with any set of the performance
standards, the facility must restrict its post-trial burn
operations to conditions that passed and demonstrated compliance
with performance standards.  At this point, there are two
potential courses of action a facility may follow. On one hand,
the facility may choose to revise its Part B application to
exclude those conditions.  A facility that opts for this course
of action is, in essence, choosing not to pursue those conditions
in its final permit.  For example, if the facility failed
conditions relating to burning of aqueous wastes, it may decide
to restrict its long-term operations by handling only non-aqueous
wastes; the facility would then reflect that decision in its
permit application.

Alternatively, a facility may choose to revise its trial burn
plan to address the reasons for the failure and then conduct an
additional burn under improved design or operating conditions. 
EPA believes that the majority of facilities that fail trial burn
condition(s) will choose this latter course of action in order to
establish permit conditions that meet their needs for long-term
operation.  

EPA believes that there may be a misconception that permitting
authorities allow facilities to run the same conditions over and
over again without making any changes.  The Agency would like to
remove any confusion over its policy regarding performance of
additional trial burns when a test condition fails.  It is
important first to recognize that a facility spends a
considerable amount of time and resources on the trial burn, and
intends to pass the first time.  An informal poll of EPA Regions
showed that only a dozen additional trial burns for incinerators
have occurred to date.  

Furthermore, EPA has clarified, in its Guidance on Trial Burn
Failures (June 1994), the circumstances under which facilities
would be allowed to run additional trial burns.  According to
this guidance, facilities may submit a request to conduct an
additional trial burn to the Director.  As part of this request,
the facility should demonstrate that it has investigated the
reasons for the failure and describe planned substantive changes
to its process.  A facility should not be allowed to retest under
the same design and operating conditions at which it failed.  The
facility should demonstrate in a revised trial burn plan that the
changes to its design and/or operations are sufficient to prevent
failure from reoccurring.  The Director reviews, and either
approves or denies, the request.  The Director should not approve
an additional trial burn unless the facility has demonstrated
satisfactorily that the changes proposed in the revised trial
burn plan are likely to meet the performance standards. 

As indicated in the trial burn guidance, existing EPA policy
allows for facilities to conduct additional trial burns.  Current
regulations, on the other hand, do not specifically address
permitting procedures for interim status combustion facilities
for the limited number of situations when facilities would
request additional burns.  Today's proposed rule establishes
procedures for these situations and builds upon EPA's current
policy by incorporating the circumstances described in guidance
into proposed regulatory language.

Under proposed Section 270.74(c)(7), interim status combustion
facilities may request an additional trial burn.  According to
the proposed section, the facility's request for an additional
trial burn must contain an explanation of the reasons for the
previous trial burn failure, as well as a revised trial burn plan
that has substantive changes to address the reasons for the
previous failure.  EPA encourages facilities that pursue this
option to fulfill the above requirement by expanding the
preliminary explanation that they are required to provide in
order to continue operating during the post-trial burn period (as
discussed in the previous section).  The Agency believes that
these provisions, along with the requirement that the permitting
agency approve trial burn plans before the facility conducts the
burn, will help ensure that facilities conduct trial burns
properly and the public is informed throughout the process.

EPA believes it is important to inform the public when the
permitting authority anticipates an additional trial burn.  Thus,
in proposed Section 270.74(c)(7), the rule will require the
Director to inform the people on the mailing list and appropriate
units of State and local government once he or she has reviewed
the revised trial burn plan and has tentatively decided to
approve it.  This notice will provide the public with an
opportunity to review the revised plan, and see the rationale for
the additional burn.  EPA wants the public to be aware of the
reasons why the facility believes the additional run will be
successful.  The Director's decision to approve a revised trial
burn plan is not subject to administrative appeal.

f.  Denial of Permit Application after the Trial Burn.   There
may be occasions when a combustion facility cannot demonstrate
compliance with the performance standards through the trial burn,
or has not demonstrated to the Director that an additional burn
is likely to address the causes of the previous failure.  In the
case of permitted facilities, the Director may choose to
terminate the permit.  Existing regulations in Section 270.43
provide the Director with the authority to terminate a permit for
cause, following procedures set forth in Part 124.  

EPA would like to provide similarly clear authority to the
Director in the case of interim status combustion facilities. 
Existing regulations in Section 270.29 provide the Director with
authority to deny a permit application, pursuant to procedures in
Part 124.  In order to clarify the applicability of this
provision to trial burn failure situations, EPA is proposing, in
Section 270.74(c)(8), to provide specific authority for the
Director to deny a permit, pursuant to procedures in Part 124,
for an interim status combustion facility, based on the
facility's inability to demonstrate compliance with the
performance standards.  It is not EPA's intent, in providing this
authority, to imply that the Director would deny a permit
automatically if the facility failed any of the trial burn plan
conditions.  Every facility, permitted and interim status alike,
will have the option of requesting and proving that it can meet
the requirements for an additional burn.

In keeping with EPA's goal of involving the public at key points
in the permit process, EPA would like to reiterate that the
current procedures for permit denial, set forth in part 124,
include requirements for the permitting authority to notify to
the public of intent to deny the permit application.


IV.  SOLICITATION OF COMMENTS

EPA is soliciting comments on a number of items in today's
proposed rule.  The following is a list of the items on which EPA
solicits comment in the preamble.  Detailed discussions of each
of the items can be found in the relevant sections of the
preamble.  For ease in referencing these sections, the items are
briefly summarized below.

A.  Expanded Public Participation

1.  Equitable Public Participation.  EPA is asking for comments,
in section 4.a: Equitable Public Participation, on how the
requirements proposed in Section 124.30 could be implemented.

2.  Environmental justice.  EPA is soliciting comments, in
section 4.a.1: Agency activities dealing with environmental
justice, on several items relating to environmental justice.  For
instance, EPA is interested in receiving comments on ways to
incorporate environmental justice concerns into the RCRA public
participation process.  EPA is also requesting comments on the
need for additional rulemaking or policy guidance for
incorporating environmental justice into certain aspects of the
RCRA permitting program, such as corrective action.  The Agency
is also interested in receiving comments on suggested
methodologies and procedures for undertaking analysis of
"cumulative risk" and "cumulative effects" associated with human
exposure to multiple sources of pollution.  Finally, EPA is
soliciting comments on some of the recommendations developed by
the OSWER Environmental Justice task force, discussed in section
4.a.1.

3.  Pre-application meeting - applicability.  EPA is soliciting
comments on the applicability of the pre-application meeting
requirements in two sections.  In section 4.b: Applicability of
Pre-application Meeting, EPA is requesting comments on whether
the pre-application meeting should apply to permit renewal
applications.  In section 5.b: Requirements for the Pre-
application Meeting, EPA is requesting comment on whether the
requirements should apply to all facilities or only to certain
groups (e.g., incinerators, commercial facilities).  EPA is also
requesting comments on whether the permitting authority should
attend the pre-application meeting.

4.  Pre-application meeting - possible alternative.  In section
4.b: Applicability of Pre-application Meeting, EPA is requesting
comments on whether a State's public participation meeting for
siting a facility should be an allowable substitute for today's
proposed pre-application meeting. 

5.  Pre-application meeting notice requirements.  As discussed in
section 5.b.1: Providing Notice of the Pre-application Meeting,
EPA would like comments on whether these expanded notice
requirements should apply to other notices during the RCRA
permitting process.  EPA also requests comments on how to
implement the alternative notice provision in the regulations
without prescribing a specific formula or approach that may not
be appropriate in all circumstances. 

6.  Public notice at permit application - applicability.  EPA is
requesting comments in section 4.c: Applicability of Public
Notice at Permit Application on whether today's proposed
requirements should also apply to post-closure permits. 

7.  Public notice at permit application - responsibility.  In
section 5.c: Requirement for Public Notice at Permit Application, 
EPA is requesting comments on whether the permitting authority or
the facility should be responsible for providing the public
notice at application submittal.

8.  Information repository.  EPA is requesting comments on the
proposed information repository requirements described in section
5.d: Requirement for an Information Repository.  For example, at
what time during the permitting process would it be useful to
have the repository be maintained or terminated?  Should the
repository be limited to certain types of facilities?  What
specific documents would the public like to see in the
repository?

B.  Requirements Regarding the Trial Burn

1.  Notices of trial burns.  In section 4.c: Notices of Trial
Burns, EPA is requesting comments on whether the permitting
authority or the facility should be responsible for providing
public notices during the trial burn stage.  EPA is also
requesting comments, in section 5.c.2: Interim Status Combustion
Facilities, on whether the Agency should establish a comment
period for interim status facilities prior to approving the trial
burn plan, in view of the fact that, for permitted facilities,
the public has an opportunity to comment on a draft trial burn
plan as part of the draft permit process.

C.  Cost estimates.  In section VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA is asking for comments on
the data and methodologies used to derive the cost estimates
associated with this proposed rule.

EPA intends to consider all comments on these, and any
additional, items before drafting a final rule.


V.  STATE AUTHORITY

A.  Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the state (see 40
CFR Part 271 for the standards and requirements for
authorization).  Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility.

Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984, a state with final RCRA authorization
administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the
federal program.  The federal requirements no longer applied in
the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to
issue RCRA permits.  When new, more stringent federal
requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was obligated
to enact equivalent authority within specified timeframes. 
However, the new federal requirements did not take effect in an
authorized state until the state adopted the requirements as
state law.

In contrast, HSWA amended RCRA to add section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C.
6926(g)).  Under section 3006(g), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under HSWA authority take effect in
authorized states at the same time that they take effect in
nonauthorized states.  EPA is directed by statute to implement
those requirements and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted
authorization to do so.  While states must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as state law to retain final authorization,
the HSWA requirements are implemented by EPA in authorized states
in the interim.

Today's proposal is promulgated pursuant to pre-HSWA authority. 
These provisions, therefore, would become effective as RCRA
requirements in states with final authorization once the state
has amended its regulations and the amended regulations are
authorized by EPA.  However, EPA would like to encourage States
to adopt the changes proposed today expeditiously, and implement
them as part of their own programs as rapidly as possible.

B.  Effect on State Authorizations

The provisions of this rule are proposed under pre-HSWA
authority.  This section discusses the implications of the pre-
HSWA authority on EPA's and the states' implementation, and the
schedule for state adoption of these new requirements.

1.  Pre-HSWA Provisions.  

a.  Part 270 - Hazardous Waste Permitting.  The provisions of
today's proposal that would affect the permitting and permit
modification procedures for combustion units (BIFs and
incinerators) are proposed under pre-HSWA authority.  These
provisions include revised Sections 270.22(a) and 270.19(d) which
clarify allowable circumstances for using the "data in lieu of
trial burns" in connection with permitting combustion units;
proposed Section 270.74, and revisions to Sections 270.62 and
270.66 for permitted units, which would add new procedures for
public involvement in the trial burn planning and trial burn
phases for both permitted and interim status combustion
facilities, make interim status procedures more equivalent to
permitted, and require interim status facilities to comply with
performance standards during the post-trial burn period.  In
addition, the proposed amendments to the permit modification
provisions of Section 270.42 (to distinguish further between the
shakedown and trial burn phases when modifying permitted
combustion units) are also based on pre-HSWA provisions.  These
provisions of the proposal, since they are based on pre-HSWA
authority, will apply immediately only in those states that do
not have RCRA authorization.  In authorized states, these
requirements will not apply until the states revise their
programs to adopt requirements under state law that are at least
as stringent and have these new requirements approved by EPA.  

b.  Part 124 - Public Participation Requirements.  EPA desires to
provide for, encourage and assist public participation.  This
proposed rule would establish procedures to promote better and
more timely information sharing between the public, the state,
EPA, and the facility applicant.  The following is required under
the Part 124 regulations to comply with new public participation
requirements:  a pre-application meeting, a notice of
application, and an information repository.  However, these
provisions, since they are based on pre-HSWA authority, will
apply immediately only in those states that do not have RCRA
authorization.  In authorized states, these requirements will not
apply until the states revise their programs to adopt
requirements under state law that are at least as stringent and
have these new requirements approved by EPA.

2.  Procedures Applicable to Pre-HSWA Provisions.  

40 CFR 271.21(e) requires that states that have final
authorization must modify their programs to reflect federal
program changes and must subsequently submit the modifications to
EPA for approval.  The deadlines for state modifications are set
out in Section 271.21(e)(2), and depend upon the date of
promulgation of final rules by EPA, announcing the program
changes.  For example, if a final regulation based on this
proposal is promulgated by EPA before June 30, 1995, the deadline
by which the states must modify their programs to adopt this
regulation would be July 1, 1996 (or July 1, 1997 if a state
statutory change is needed).  These deadlines can be extended in
certain cases (see 40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).  Once EPA approves the
modifications, the state requirements become RCRA subtitle C
requirements.

States with authorized RCRA programs may already have
requirements similar to those proposed today.  These state
regulations have not been assessed against final federal
regulations to determine whether they meet the tests for
authorization.  Thus, similar provisions of state law are not
considered to be authorized RCRA requirements until they are
submitted to EPA and evaluated against final EPA regulations.  Of
course, states may continue to administer and enforce their
existing standards as a matter of state law.  

States that submit their official applications for final
authorization less than 12 months after the effective date of
final standards are not required to include standards that are at
least as stringent as these standards in their application. 
However, states that submit final applications for final
authorization 12 months or more after the effective date of the
final standards must include standards that are at least as
stringent as these standards in their applications.  40 CFR 271.3
sets forth the requirements that states must meet when submitting
final authorization applications.  Because the proposed public
participation requirements in Section 270.74 represent a
significant upgrade to the combustion unit permitting process,
EPA strongly encourages States that have not yet adopted the BIF
rule (56 FR 7134, February 21, 1991) to adopt these new public
participation procedures concurrently with their BIF rules,
rather than deferring their adoption to the much later deadline
that would apply under the Cluster Rule to this new regulation. 
It should be noted that in situations where EPA retains
permitting authority for BIFs (because the State has not yet
received authorization for BIFs), EPA may implement both the
permitting and public involvement procedures described in today's
proposed rule.  In this joint permitting situation, EPA would be
the responsible Agency for the BIF permitting requirements in
unauthorized States that are not authorized to issue BIF permits.

EPA believes that the overall effect of this proposed regulation
would increase the stringency of the RCRA permitting processes. 
Therefore, all authorized states will be obligated to modify
their programs to adopt these requirements when they are
finalized by EPA, unless their existing state programs and laws
are deemed by EPA to be equivalent in effect.  For those states
which are obligated to modify their programs to adopt these
requirements when they are finalized by EPA, Section 271.21(e)
deadlines for state modifications will apply accordingly.

In developing today's proposed regulations, EPA was sensitive to
impacts on existing State programs.  The proposed requirements
may be viewed as performance objectives the Agency wants States
to meet.  It is not EPA's intent to restrict States from using
similar activities that accomplish the same objectives. 
Therefore, EPA will allow latitude and room for interpretation
when reviewing state modifications for adopting these
regulations.  


VI.  REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the
Executive Order, which include assessing the costs and benefits
anticipated as a result of the proposed regulatory action.  The
Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.  

OMB has determined this is a significant rule under Executive
Order 12866.  Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866,
this section of the preamble summarizes the potential economic
impacts of the proposed RCRA Expanded Public Participation and
Revisions to Combustion Permitting Procedures rule.

Based upon the economic impact analysis for today's proposed
rule, the Agency's best estimate is that the requirements
regarding expanded public participation before and during permit
application would result in an incremental national annual cost
of $130,000 to $380,000.

In addition, the annualized incremental national cost of the
permitting requirements in today's proposed rule is estimated to
be between $0 to $520,000.  EPA expects that much of the effect
of the permitting provisions in today's proposed rule will be to
clarify and codify current practice.  

Based upon the economic impact analysis for today's proposed
rule, the Agency's best estimate is that the requirements of
today's proposed rule would result in an incremental national
annual cost of $130,000 to $900,000.

A complete discussion of the economic impact analysis is
available in the regulatory docket for today's proposed rule in a
report entitled "Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed RCRA
Expanded Public Participation and Revisions to Combustion
Permitting Procedures Rule."

EPA requests comments on the data and methodologies used to
derive the estimates described below and in the background
document.


A.  Cost Analysis

This section summarizes estimated costs and potential impacts of
two aspects of today's proposed rule: (1) expansion of
opportunities for public involvement in the permitting process,
and (2) modification of combustion unit permitting requirements. 
These two pieces of the proposed rule affect a different universe
of facilities at different stages in the permitting process and,
thus, are presented separately.

1.  Expanded Public Involvement Opportunities.

Most of the requirements of the expanded public involvement
portion of today's proposed rule apply only to new hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal permit applications.  With
the exception of the information repository requirement (see
below), the expanded public involvement requirements do not apply
to post-closure permits and permit modifications.

EPA estimates that, over the next ten years, the bulk of new
permit applications will be submitted by the 159 interim-status
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).  In addition, based on
information provided by the Regional permit writers, EPA
estimates that an additional 53 to 127 new treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (for a total of 212 to 286 facilities)
will submit permit applications over the next ten years.

Today's proposed rule includes several requirements that would
result in direct costs to facilities submitting new permit
applications.  The analysis estimates the costs to all affected
facilities of (1) preparing a public notice announcing the
intention to submit a permit application and to hold a public
meeting; (2) disseminating the public notice in local newspapers
and over the radio; and (3) holding a public meeting and
preparing a transcript.  

In addition, for communities with a non-English speaking
population, the rule will require the facility to "make all
reasonable efforts to communicate with the community in ways that
reach all segments."  Based on conversations with RCRA and
Superfund Regional community relations specialists and on data
about existing RCRA facilities, this analysis assumes that
between 5%-30% of the facilities (11 to 86 facilities over the
next ten years) will fulfill this requirement by publishing
multi-lingual notices and providing an interpreter at the public
meeting.

Finally, the rule will give the Director the discretion to
require a facility to set up an information repository, based on
the level of public interest or other factors.  This requirement
can apply anywhere in the permitting process, including post-
closure permits, permit renewals, and permit modifications.  Thus
in addition to the interim status BIFs and the new facilities
mentioned above, the repository requirement can apply, at the
discretion of the Director, to the approximately 4,100 treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities that EPA expects will undergo
permit renewals, modifications, or closure over the next ten
years.  EPA estimates that 15-20% of the estimated 212 to 286
facilities submitting a new Part B application, and 1% of the
4,100 already-permitted facilities (73 to 98 facilities total)
would be affected over the next ten years by the repository
requirement in today's proposed rule.

The total cost per facility of the above requirements is
approximately $5,000 to $14,000.  Annualized over a ten-year
period, using a 7% discount rate, the resulting national annual
cost of the expanded public involvement requirements is estimated
to be between $130,000 to $380,000.

2.  Modification of the Permitting Process

a. Direct Costs

Today's proposed rule includes two new permitting requirements
that have direct cost implications for the regulated universe:
(1) changing the "data in lieu of" requirements, and (2)
specifying the events that follow a trial burn failure.  

Currently, interim status combustion facilities have the option
of submitting "data in lieu of" a trial burn for a unit that is
"sufficiently similar" to an already-permitted unit.  Today's
proposed rule proposes changing the requirements for "data in
lieu of" by requiring the units to be "virtually identical" and
to be located at the same facility  

Based on information from trial burn contractors, preparing a
trial burn plan and conducting a trial burn costs about $110,000
to $550,000 per facility.  Submitting "data in lieu of" a trial
burn is assumed to cost approximately the same as preparing a
trial burn plan, or $10,000 to $50,000.  The net incremental cost
of denying the "data in lieu of" option would be $100,000 to
$500,000 per affected facility.  

EPA estimates that between zero and eight percent (0-13
facilities total) of the interim-status BIFs could incur a cost
of doing a trial burn due to this proposed rule.  The resulting
annual national cost is $0 to $520,000.

The low end of the affected facility universe is "zero" because,
although submission of "data in lieu of" a trial burn is an
option under current regulations for a facility with
"sufficiently similar" units, it appears that facilities almost
never exercise this option.  EPA guidance on trial burns states
that "although it is possible to satisfy this requirement by
submitting information showing that a trial burn is not required,
this is a rare occurrence. . . ."**  Neither of the trial burn
contractors that were contacted was aware of a successful "data
in lieu of" application.  Regional permit writers knew of a few
permits that were granted based on the "data in lieu of"
provision, but in those cases the units were determined to be
identical and, therefore, would still qualify under today's
proposal.  Thus it is likely that the main effect of changing the
"data in lieu of" provision will be to clarify already existing
practices, and to reflect more realistic situations and how EPA
currently interprets this provision.

** [Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial
Burn Results. US EPA January 1989.]

The second permitting requirement that may result in a direct
cost to the regulated community is the delineation of the process
following a trial burn failure.  Today's proposed rule proposes
that, following a trial burn failure, (1) the combustion facility
must immediately restrict operation for those conditions that
failed the trial burn, and (2) the combustion facility must
either revise the permit application to reflect the new
conditions (estimated cost $5,100), or revise the trial burn plan
and rerun the trial burn (estimated cost $110,000 to $550,000).

EPA estimates that 4% of interim status combustion units (six
facilities over the next twenty years) will fail a trial burn for
one or more conditions.  Of these, 17% (one facility) is expected
to simply revise the permit application and 83% (five facilities)
are expected to revise the trial burn plan and rerun the trial
burn.  Annualized over a ten year period, discounted at 7%, the
resulting annualized national total cost of facility actions that
follow a trial burn failure is $70,000 to $340,000.

Although the above costs can be attributed to today's proposed
rule, EPA does not expect there to be any true incremental costs. 
Currently, if an interim status facility fails a trial burn, the
permitting authority can deny the permit.  In addition, based on
conversations with EPA Regional permit writers, no permit writer
would grant a permit to a facility that failed the trial burn
unless the facility re-ran (and passed) the trial burn or revised
the permit conditions.  Thus, the incremental cost of this
proposed requirement, when current practices are taken into
account, is $0.  The main effect of the delineation of the
process that follows trial burn failures would be to clarify
current permitting requirements.

In summary, the potential annualized total national cost for the
permitting section of today's proposed rule is estimated to be
$70,000 to $860,000.  The annualized incremental cost, when
current practices are taken into account, is estimated to be
between $0 to $520,000.  EPA expects that the main effect of the
permitting provisions of today's proposed rule will be to clarify
and codify current practice.  

b.  Other Effects

In addition to the costs estimated above, the requirement that
interim status combustion facilities be subject to the
performance standards of Section 264.342 (for incinerators) or
Section 266.104 through Section 266.107 (for BIFs) upon
completion of trial burn has the potential to impose costs due to
the restricted operating conditions.

However, despite the proposed restriction following trial burn
failure, operations at the affected units are not expected to
cease entirely, because the proposed restriction on operations
pertains only to the condition(s) that fail to meet the
specifications in the trial burn plan.  The unit can continue
operations under a modified design and/or operating conditions
that are sufficient to allow the unit to function within the
performance standards.  In addition, the restriction lasts only
until the trial burn plan is revised and a new trial burn occurs
or the permit application is modified.  Therefore, EPA does not
expect this provision to significantly disrupt facility operation
or impose significant additional costs.  


B.  Summary of Benefits

The RCRA permitting program was developed to protect human health
and the environment from the risks posed by the treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.  By improving and
clarifying the permitting process, today's proposed rule produces
environmental benefits that result from a more efficient
permitting process.  Below is an explanation of how each of the
provisions of today's rule provides benefits.

1.  Expanded Public Involvement Opportunities.

The main benefit of the expanded public participation
requirements of today's rule is to provide more opportunities for
the public to become involved early in permitting decisions
regarding hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities that may ultimately affect their communities.  EPA
believes these requirements will allow applicants and permitting
authorities the opportunity to address public concern in making
decisions about the facility and the proposed permit.

Providing the public with an expanded role in the permit process,
by promoting community participation and input at all decision-
making levels, also will help to foster continued community
involvement after sites become permitted.  

In addition, expanding public involvement opportunities should
streamline the permitting process, since public issues will be
raised and addressed earlier in the process.  Currently, the
public does not formally get involved in the permitting process
until the draft permit stage.  This stage occurs after the
permitting agency and the permit applicant have discussed crucial
parts of the Part B application; thus, the public feels that most
major decisions on the permit have already been made at this
point.    

2.  Modification of the Permitting Process.

One benefit of the permitting provisions of today's rule is to
clarify current practices and, therefore, facilitate the
permitting process by making it easier to understand for the
public and the regulated community.  

For example, today's proposal moves Section 270.62(d) and Section
270.66(g), which address interim status requirements, to proposed
Section 270.74, where the majority of the interim status
provisions are contained.  The wording is essentially the same,
clarifying when the facility must submit the trial burn plan and
emphasizing that the permitting authority must approve the trial
burn plan before the facility may conduct the trial burn.  The
new language structure presents the requirements chronologically
and makes the regulation easier to understand.

EPA is also stating in Section 270.74(c)(1) that interim status
combustion facilities seeking permits must receive approval of
the trial burn plan by the Director before conducting the trial
burn.  EPA believes that making the requirements more explicit
will ensure that trial burn plans reflect EPA policy and
guidance, and that the burns will be adequate to set permit
operating conditions.  As discussed in the cost analysis section,
EPA is also proposing a revision of the provision for submitting
data in lieu of a trial burn (Section 270.19 for incinerators and
Section 270.22 for BIFs) to reflect current practices.   

By specifying that a unit must be "virtually identical" to, and
at the same facility as, a permitted unit, instead of
"sufficiently similar", today's rule will remove any confusion
surrounding the interpretation of the "data in lieu of" option
and will reflect EPA's current interpretation of this provision.

Another aspect of the permitting process that may cause confusion
is the fact that, although existing EPA policy allows the
facility to conduct additional trial burns, current regulations
do not specifically address permitting procedures following an
interim status facility trial burn failure.  Today's proposed
rule, by clarifying existing EPA policy, will help state what
actions follow a trial burn failure.

Finally, today's proposed rule describes in more detail the
phases of both shakedown and the trial burn permit modifications
listed under section L.7 of Appendix I, and clarifies how a
facility may implement and utilize section 270.42(d) of the
modification procedures.  This revision will simplify a
facility's compliance with the modification process by making it
easier for a facility to select the appropriate classification
for the modification activity.


C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to consider "small entities" throughout the regulatory
process.  Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening
analysis to be performed to determine whether small entities will
be adversely affected by the regulation.  If the analysis
identifies affected small entities, regulatory alternatives must
be considered to mitigate the potential impacts.  Small entities
as described in the Act are only those "businesses, organizations
and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation."  

In developing the proposed regulations for expanding public
involvement in the RCRA permitting process, EPA was sensitive to
the needs and concerns of small businesses.  Therefore, the
proposed regulations describe the minimum efforts necessary to
fulfill the public involvement requirements.  Additional examples
of activities facilities may choose to conduct are provided in
the preamble, rather than incorporated into the regulatory
language.  EPA's intent in doing so is to provide flexibility for
a facility to determine how elaborate it wishes to be in
conducting public involvement activities.  In addition, EPA
recognizes that, in some situations, an information repository
could become resource intensive for a facility or for the local
community.  EPA has addressed this concern by providing
discretion to the Director to determine whether to require a
repository, rather than requiring it for all facilities.

In regards to the burden placed on facilities that burn small
quantities of hazardous waste, EPA has already provided an
exemption under section 3004(q)(2)(B) of RCRA.  The Agency
carefully evaluated the risks posed by small quantity burning and
concluded that a conditional exemption for small quantity burners
should be allowed where hazardous waste combustion poses an
insignificant risk.  This small quantity burner exemption would
therefore reduce the burden placed on small entities from the
revised permitting requirements for hazardous waste combustors.  

The following sub-sections summarize the potential impacts on
small entities of three aspects of today's proposed rule:
expanded public participation requirements, revised requirements
for "data in lieu of" a trial burn, and requirements following a
trial burn failure.  In summary, EPA has determined that there
are no significant impacts on small entities from the
requirements of this proposed rule.

1.  Small Entity Impacts of Expanded Public Participation
Requirements. 

The universe of facilities affected by the public participation
requirements include all facilities submitting a new part B
application.  In the case of the repository requirement,
facilities undergoing permit modification or closure may also be
affected.

Determination of which facilities that submit new part B
applications might be small entities is somewhat speculative. 
Assuming future RCRA facilities will resemble past facilities,
approximately 12% of the estimated 53 to 127 new hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities may be "small
entities."**  In addition, 14 of the 159 interim status BIFs are
owned by companies that are potentially "small entities," based
on current size thresholds established by the U.S. Small Business
Association.** **

** [Hazardous Waste TSDF - Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Proposed RCRA Air Emission Standards, Final Review Draft, USEPA,
Office of Air and Radiation, August 1989.  "Small entity" was
defined as a company whose uniform annual sales cutoff is equal
to $3.5 million.]

** [13 CFR Part 121.]

** [Employment, sales, industry category, and parent company
information was obtained from on-line searches of Dun &
Bradstreet and the American Business Directory.   In addition to
the fourteen BIFs that were identified as potentially small
entities, another four did not have enough information to make a
determination.]

As mentioned in the cost analysis section, the highest total cost
of the public participation requirements is estimated to be
$14,000 per facility.  This cost includes setting up an
information repository, translating public notices, and
interpreting public meetings.  Annualized over ten years at a
discount rate of 7%, the cost for a facility, as the high end of
the cost range, would be $1,900 per year.

This $1,900 per year may have a significant impact on a small
entity if it is greater than five percent of the total cost of
production.  Thus a facility whose total cost of production is
less than $37,000 may be significantly impacted.  It is highly
unlikely that the cost of production would be this low for a RCRA
hazardous waste facility.  Total sales for "small entity" BIFs
range from $1.3 million to $87.3 million for the individual
facilities and $19.1 million to $513 million for the parent
companies.**  Costs of production would presumably be in the same
order of magnitude.  Thus EPA has determined that there are no
significant impacts on small entities from this provision of the
proposed rule and that alternative regulatory approaches are not
necessary.

** [Ibid.]

2.  Small Entity Impacts of Revised Requirements for "Data in
Lieu of" a Trial Burn.

The universe of facilities potentially affected by the revised
requirements for "data in lieu of" a trial burn include interim-
status BIFs that would have used the "data in lieu of" exemption,
but because of the revised requirements of the proposed rule,
would now not be allowed to do so.  As mentioned above, 14 of the
159 interim status BIFs are owned by companies that are
potentially "small entities." 

As mentioned in the cost analysis section, the revised
requirements for "data in lieu of" a trial burn have a potential
direct incremental cost of $0 to $500,000 per affected facility,
or an annualized cost of $0 to $47,000 per facility (over ten
years at 7% discount rate, assuming costs occur in year one). 
The high end of the cost range would be caused by trial burn
costs that are imposed due to tightening of the "data in lieu of"
requirement.  Because total sales for "small entity" BIFs range
from $1.3 million to $87.3 million for the individual facilities
and $19.1 million to $513 million for the parent companies,** the
costs of the "data in lieu of" requirement are less than 5% of
total sales for any one facility and therefore not likely to
significantly impact small entities.

** [Ibid.]

Furthermore, the "data in lieu of" requirement is not a new
requirement, but simply a codification of current policy. 
Currently, this requirement can only be applied at facilities
with multiple units.  Such facilities are not likely to be small
entities; therefore a tightening of the "data in lieu of"
requirement would not affect small entities.  Thus EPA does not
expect the revised requirements for "data in lieu of" a trial
burn to impact small entities.

3.  Small Entity Impacts of Requirements Following a Trial Burn
Failure.

The universe of facilities potentially affected by the
requirements following a trial burn failure include interim-
status BIFs that fail their trial burn for one or more condition. 
As mentioned above, 14 of the 159 interim status BIFs are owned
by companies that are potentially "small entities."   As
explained in the cost analysis section, EPA does not expect there
to be any major incremental costs to those facilities that fail a
trial burn and, therefore, does not expect the proposed rule
requirements to have any significant impacts on small entities.


D.  Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Executive Order 12875 on enhancing the intergovernmental
partnership charges federal agencies to establish meaningful
consultation and collaboration with State and local governments
on matters that affect them.  In most cases, State governments
are the level of government that regulates hazardous waste.  In
developing this proposed rule, therefore, EPA has consulted with
State officials.  EPA had five states (representing various parts
of the country, e.g., east, south, center, and west) participate
in the workgroup process for this proposed rule.  These states
reviewed and provided feedback on the draft proposal over a
period of eight months.  In addition, these states participated
in monthly workgroup meetings via conference call.  Their
participation and immediate feedback in the workgroup process
added considerable value to the draft proposal.

EPA contacted additional states in an effort to receive their
specific feedback on general permitting and public involvement
techniques.  Additionally, EPA solicited state input during a
session of the 3rd Annual RCRA Public Involvement National
Conference, in which 16 state representatives participated.  The
state participants provided numerous helpful suggestions and
ideas.

In addition, the Agency utilized existing State groups, such as
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO), to solicit input on the proposed rule at
various stages in the development process.  Also, State personnel
at the Commissioner level provided input to EPA at bi-monthly
meetings of the EPA-State Task Force on Hazardous Waste
Management.  Through early involvement in both vehicles, state
representatives made valuable contributions to the regulatory
development process.


E.  Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.  An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1688.01) and a copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch  (2136); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

This collection of information is estimated to have a public
reporting burden varying from 203.45 to 1,230.50 hours per
response, with an average of 716.98 hours per response, and to
require 34.10 hours per recordkeeper over the three year period
covered by the ICR.  This includes time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. 

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch (2136);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC  20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington,
DC  20503, marked "Attention:  Desk Officer for EPA."  The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.


List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 124

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous Waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous Waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Permit application requirements,
Permit modification procedures, Waste treatment and disposal.



RCRA Expanded Public Participation and Revisions to Combustion
Permitting Procedures -- Proposed Rule


_______________________             _____________________________

  Date                                   Carol M. Browner

                                          Administrator

(This is page 128 of 147) 

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as
follows:


PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISION-MAKING

1.  The authority citation for Part 124 continues to read as
follows:

Authority:  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.;
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 1857 et seq.

2.  Subpart B is hereby added to read as follows:

Subpart B -- Specific Procedures Applicable to RCRA Permits

Sec.

124.30  Equitable Public Participation

124.31  Public participation requirements at pre-application

124.32  Public notice requirements at application stage

124.33  Information repository.          

Section 124.30  Equitable Public Participation

(a) The applicant and the Director shall make all reasonable
efforts when conducting public information activities, such as
public briefings, meetings, hearings, and dissemination of
notices and fact sheets, to ensure that all segments of the
population have an equal opportunity to participate in the
permitting process.  Reasonable efforts include disseminating
multilingual public notices and fact sheets, and providing an
interpreter at public meetings and hearings, where the affected
community contains a significant non-English speaking population.

Section 124.31  Public participation requirements at pre-
application

(a) Prior to the initial submission of a Part B RCRA permit
application for a facility, the applicant must hold at least one 
meeting with the public in order to solicit questions from the
community and inform the community of proposed hazardous waste
management activities in sufficient detail to allow the community
to understand the nature of the operations to be conducted at the
facility and the implications for human health and the
environment.  The applicant shall give an overview of the
facility in as much detail as possible, such as identifying the
type of facility, the location of the facility, the general
processes involved, the types of wastes generated and managed,
and implementation of waste minimization and pollution control
measures.

(b) A stenographic or electronic record shall be made of the
meeting, along with a list of attendees and their addresses.  The
record, list of attendees, and copies of any written comments or
materials submitted at the meeting, shall be submitted as part of
the permit application.

(c) The applicant must provide public notice of the pre-
application meeting at least 30 days prior to the meeting in a
manner that is likely to reach all affected members of the
community.  The applicant must provide documentation of this
notice in the permit application.  

(1) Public notice shall be given in the following manner:

(i) The notice shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county or equivalent jurisdiction that hosts
the proposed location of the facility, and in each adjacent
county or jurisdiction, if applicable.  In situations where the
geographic area of a host jurisdiction or adjacent jurisdictions
is very large (hundreds of square miles), the newspaper notice
shall cover a reasonable radius from the facility.  The notice
must be published as a display advertisement.  The advertisement
shall appear in a place within the newspaper calculated to give
the general public effective notice; it must be of sufficient
size to be seen easily by the reader.

(ii) The applicant must post a notice on a clearly marked sign on
the proposed or existing facility property.  The sign should be
large enough so that the wording is readable from the facility
boundary.  It is not necessary to display a map on the required
posted sign on the facility property.  

(iii) The notice must be broadcast on at least one local radio
station.

(2) The notices required under (c)(1) of this section must
include:

(i)  The date, time, and location of the meeting.

(ii)  A brief description of the purpose of the meeting.

(iii)  A brief description of the facility and proposed
operations, including a map (e.g., a sketched or copied street
map) of the facility location.  Notices sent to people on the
mailing list must show the facility map on the front page of the
notice.

(iv)  A statement that encourages people who need special access
(e.g., disabled) to participate in the meeting to provide at
least a 72-hour advance notice of their needs to the facility.

(d) The requirements of this section do not apply to permit
modifications under Section 270.42, permit renewals under Section
270.51, or applications that are submitted for the sole purpose
of conducting post-closure activities at a facility. 

Section 124.32 Public notice requirements at application stage

(a)  Notification at application submittal. (1) The Director
shall provide public notice as cited in Section 124.10(c)(1)(ix),
that a Part B permit application has been submitted to the
Agency, and is available for review.  The requirements of this
section apply to permit renewals under Section 270.51 as well as
to original applications. 

(2)  The notice shall be published within a reasonable period of
time after the application is received by the Director.  The
notice must include:

(i)  The name and telephone number of the applicant's contact
person;

(ii)  The name and telephone number of the permitting agency's
contact office, and a mailing address to which comments and
inquiries may be directed throughout the permit review process;

(iii)  An address to which people can write in order to be put on
the facility mailing list;

(iv)  Location where copies of the permit application and any
supporting documents can be viewed and copied; 

(v)  Brief description of the facility and proposed operations,
including a map (i.e., sketched or copied street map) of the
facility location.  Notices sent to people on the mailing list
must show the facility map on the front page of the notice; and

(vi)  The date the application was submitted. 

(b)  Concurrent with the notice required under Section 124.32(a)
of this subpart, the Director must place the permit application
and any supporting documents in a location accessible to the
public in the vicinity of the permitted facility or at the
permitting agency's office.  For facilities establishing an
information repository pursuant to proposed Sections 124.33 or
270.30(l)(12), the applicant shall place a copy of the permit
application or modification request, and any supporting documents
in the information repository.

(c)  The requirements of this section do not apply to permit
modifications under Section 270.42, and/or applications that are
submitted for the sole purpose of conducting post-closure
activities at a facility.

Section 124.33 Information repository.

(a)At any time during the application process for a RCRA permit,
the Director may require the applicant to establish and maintain
an information repository.  The purpose of this provision is to
make accessible to interested persons documents, reports and
other public information developed pursuant to activities
required under 40 CFR Parts 124, 264, and 270.  (See Section
270.30(l)(12) for similar provisions relating to the information
repository during the life of a permit.)

(b)  The information repository shall contain all documents,
reports, data, and other information deemed sufficient by the
Director for public understanding of the plans, activities, and
operations of any hazardous waste facility that is operating or
seeking a permit.

(c)  The information repository shall be located and maintained
at a location chosen by the facility that is within reasonable
distance of the facility, and within a structure with suitable
public access, such as a county library, courthouse, or local
government building.  However, if the Director determines the
location unsuitable, the Director may specify a more appropriate
location.  The repository shall be open to the public during
reasonable hours, or accessible by appointment.  The information
repository shall be located to provide reasonable access to a
photocopy machine or alternative means for people to obtain
copies of documents at reasonable cost.

(d)  The Director shall specify requirements for informing the
public about the information repository.  At a minimum, the
Director shall require the facility to provide a written notice
about the information repository to all individuals on the
facility mailing list.

(e)  Information regarding opportunities and procedures for
public involvement, including the opportunity to be put on the
facility mailing list, shall be made available at the repository.

(f)  The facility owner/operator shall be responsible for
maintaining and updating the repository with appropriate
information throughout a time period specified by the Director,
unless existing State regulations require the State to maintain
the information repository.  


PART 270--EPA-ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM

1.  The authority citation for Part 270 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939,and 6974.

2.  Section 270.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for "Combustion unit," and by correcting the
definition for "Facility mailing list" to read as follows:

Section 270.2  Definitions.

Combustion unit means any unit that meets the definition of an
incinerator, a boiler, or an industrial furnace in Section 260.10
of this chapter.

Facility mailing list means the mailing list for a facility
maintained by EPA or the State in accordance with 40 CFR
124.10(c)(1)(ix).

3.  Section 270.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)
to read as follows:

Section 270.19 Specific part B information requirements for
incinerators.

(b)  Submit a trial burn plan with the initial part B application
including all required determinations, in accordance with
Sections 270.62 or 270.74 of this chapter; or

(d)  The Director shall approve a permit application for an
incinerator without a trial burn if he finds that:

(1)  The wastes are sufficiently similar;

(2)  The incinerator units are virtually identical and are
located at the same facility; and 

(3)  The data from other trial burns are adequate to specify
(under Section 264.345 of this chapter) operating conditions that
will ensure that the performance standards in Section 264.343 of
this chapter will be met by the incinerator.

4.  Section 270.22 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(6) to
read as follows:

Section 270.22 Specific part B information requirements for
boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste.

(a)

(6)  Data in lieu of a trial burn.  The owner or operator may
seek a waiver from the trial burn requirements to demonstrate
conformance with Sections 266.104 through 266.107 of this chapter
and Section 270.66 by providing the information required by
Section 270.66 from previous compliance testing of the device in
conformance with Section 266.103 of this chapter, or from
compliance testing or trial or operational burns of boilers or
industrial furnaces with a virtually identical design at the same
facility burning similar hazardous wastes under virtually
identical  conditions.  If data from a virtually identical device
is used to support a trial burn waiver request, the design and
operating information required by Section 270.66 must be provided
for both the virtually identical device and the device to which
the data are to be applied, and a comparison of the design and
operating information must be provided.  The Director shall
approve a permit application without a trial burn if he finds
that the hazardous wastes are sufficiently similar, the devices
are virtually identical in design and at the same facility, the
operating conditions are virtually identical, and the data from
other compliance tests, trial burns, or operational burns are
adequate to specify (under Section 266.102 of this chapter)
operating conditions that will ensure conformance with Section
266.102(c) of this chapter. In addition, the following
information shall be submitted:

5.  Section 270.30 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:

Section 270.30 Conditions applicable to all permits.

(m)  Information repository. The Director may require the
permittee to establish an information repository for a permit if
the Director determines that there is significant public interest
in the permitted facility.  The information repository will be
governed by the provisions in Section 124.33(b) through (f).

6.  Section 270.42(d) is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to
read as follows:

Section 270.42 Permit modification at the request of the
permittee.

(d)  Other modifications.  (1) In the case of modifications not
explicitly listed in Appendix I of this section, the permittee
may submit to the Agency a request for a determination by the
Director on a Class 1, 2, or 3 modification.  If the permittee
requests that the modification be classified as a Class 1 or 2
modification, he or she must provide the Agency with the
necessary information to support the requested classification.

7.  Section 270.42, Appendix I is amended by moving item L.8. to
new L.9, revising item L.7, and creating new item L.8 to read as
follows:

Appendix I to Section 270.42--Classification of Permit
Modifications

Modification     Class

L.  Incinerators, Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces

7. Shakedown:

a.  Modification of permit conditions applicable during the
shakedown period for determining operational readiness after
construction, with prior approval of the Director.  Class: 1**

b.  Authorization of an additional 720 hours of waste burning
during the shakedown period for determining operational readiness
after construction, with prior approval of the Director.  Class:
1**

8.  Trial Burn 

a.  Changes in the approved trial burn plan for conducting an
initial trial burn, provided the change is minor and has received
the prior approval of the Director.  Class: 1**

b.  Changes in the approved trial burn plan for conducting an
initial trial burn, if the change is not minor.  Class: 2

c.  Changes in the approved trial burn plan to conduct additional
trial burn testing under revised conditions if the unit has not
met one or more conditions of a previous trial burn.  Class: 2

d.  Modification of permit conditions applicable during the post-
trial burn period, with prior approval of the Director.  Class:
1**

e.  Changes in the operating requirements set in the permit to
reflect the results of the trial burn, provided the change is
minor and has received the prior approval of the Director. 
Class: 1**

9.  Substitution of an alternative type of nonhazardous waste
fuel that is not specified in the permit.  Class: 1

** [Class 1 modification requiring prior Agency approval.]


Note: Permittees should use the procedures in 270.42(d) if a
proposed modification is not listed in this Appendix.

8.  In Section 270.62(b), paragraphs (6) through (10) are
redesignated as paragraphs (7) through (11), and new paragraph
(6) is added to read as follows:

Section 270.62  Hazardous waste incinerator permits.

(b)

(6)  The Director must send a notice to all persons on the
facility mailing list as specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and
to the appropriate units of State and local government as
specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) announcing the scheduled
commencement and completion dates for the trial burn.

(i)  This notice must be mailed within a reasonable time period
before the scheduled trial burn. 

(ii)  This notice must contain:

(A)  Name and telephone number of applicant's contact person;

(B)  Name and telephone number of the permitting authority
contact office;

(C)  Location where the approved trial burn plan and any
supporting documents can be reviewed and copied; and

(D)  An expected time period for commencement and completion of
the trial burn.  An additional notice is not required if the
trial burn is delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of
the facility or the permitting authority.  

9.  In Section 270.62, paragraph (d) is removed.

10.  In Section 270.66(d), paragraphs (3) through (5) are
redesignated as paragraphs (4) through (6), and new paragraph (3)
is added to read as follows:

Section 270.66  Permits for boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste.

(d)

(3)  The Director must send a notice to all persons on the
facility mailing list as specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and
to the appropriate units of State and local government as
specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) announcing the scheduled
commencement and completion dates for the trial burn.

(i)  This notice must be mailed within a reasonable time period
before the trial burn. 

(ii)  This notice must contain:

(A)  Name and telephone number of applicant's contact person;

(B)  Name and telephone number of the permitting authority
contact office;

(C)  Location where the approved trial burn plan and any
supporting documents can be reviewed and copied; and

(D)  An expected time period for commencement and completion of
the trial burn.  An additional notice is not required if the
trial burn is delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of
the facility or the permitting authority.  

11.  In Section 270.66, paragraph (g) is removed.

12.  Section 270.74 is added to read as follows:

Section 270.74  Trial Burn Requirements For Interim Status
Combustion Units

(a)  Submission of the trial burn plan for interim status
incinerators.  (1) For the purpose of determining feasibility of
compliance with the performance standards of Section 264.343 and
establishing adequate operating conditions under Section 264.345,
the applicant for a permit for an existing hazardous waste
incinerator must prepare and submit a trial burn plan with Part B
of the permit application in accordance with Section 270.19(b)
and 270.62(b)(2).

(i)  Applicants submitting other information as specified in
270.19(c) are exempt from the requirement to conduct a trial burn
if the Director approves the permit application in accordance
with the criteria in Section 270.19(d). 

(ii)  Applicants submitting information under Section 270.19(a)
are exempt from compliance with Sections 264.343 and 264.345 and,
therefore, are exempt from the requirement to conduct a trial
burn.

(b)  Submission of the trial burn plan for interim status boilers
and industrial furnaces.  For the purpose of determining
feasibility of compliance with the performance standards of
Sections 266.104 through 266.107 and establishing adequate
operating conditions under Section 266.102, applicants owning or
operating existing boilers or industrial furnaces operated under
the interim status standards of Section 266.103 must prepare and
submit a trial burn plan with Part B of the permit application in
accordance with Sections 270.22(a) and 270.66(c) or submit other
information in accordance with Section 270.22(a)(6).

(c)  At combustion facilities - approval of the trial burn plan
and conducting the trial burn.  (1)  The applicant must receive
approval for the trial burn plan by the Director before
performing a trial burn.

(2)  The Director shall review and make a determination on the
trial burn plan in accordance with Sections 270.62(b)(3) through
(b)(5) for incinerators, or Section 270.66(d)(2) for boilers and
industrial furnaces.

(3)  The Director must send a notice to all persons on the
facility mailing list as specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and
to the appropriate units of State and local government as
specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) announcing that the Director
has reviewed the draft trial burn plan and has tentatively
decided to approve it.

(i)  This notice must be mailed within a reasonable time period
before the trial burn.

(ii)  This notice must contain:

(A)  Name and telephone number of applicant's contact person;

(B)  Name and telephone number of the permitting authority
contact office;

(C)  Location where the draft trial burn plan and any supporting
documents can be viewed and copied; and 

(D)  A schedule of required activities prior to permit issuance,
including when the permitting authority is expecting to give its
approval of the plan, and the time periods during which the trial
burn would be conducted.

(4)  When a trial burn plan is approved, the Director will
specify a time period prior to permit issuance during which the
trial burn must be conducted.

(5)  The applicant shall perform a trial burn in accordance with
the approved trial burn plan, and must make the required
determinations, submissions, and certifications in accordance
with Sections 270.62(b)(6) through (b)(9) for incinerators, or
Sections 270.66(d)(3) through (d)(5), and 270.66(f) for boilers
and industrial furnaces.  Trial burn results must be submitted
prior to issuance of a draft permit.

(6)  Upon completion of the trial burn, combustion units must
comply with the performance standards of Section 264.343 (for
incinerators), or Sections 266.104 through 266.107 (for BIFs),
along with all other applicable interim status standards. 
Compliance shall be demonstrated and determined based on the
results of the trial burn, as follows.  The owner or operator may
only operate the combustion unit (1) under conditions that passed
and were demonstrated to meet the performance standards, and (2)
only if the successful trial burn data is sufficient to set all
applicable operating conditions during the post-trial burn
period.  If any results of a trial burn for a combustion unit
show non-compliance with any set of performance standards, the
owner or operator must immediately cease operating under the
condition(s) that resulted in non-compliance, and notify the
Director.  In order to continue operating when results of the
trial burn show non-compliance with any performance standards
under any set of conditions, the owner or operator must submit to
the Director, with the trial burn results, (1) a description of
the conditions under which it is operating, and (2) a preliminary
explanation of how the conditions were determined to be
sufficient to ensure that the unit functions within the
performance standards.  After reviewing the trial burn data and
the preliminary demonstration submitted by the owner or operator,
the Director may further restrict operating conditions as
necessary to assure that the unit is operated within the
performance standards.

(7)  If the trial burn results indicate that any performance
standards in Section 264.343 for incinerators, or Sections
266.104 through 266.107 for boilers and industrial furnaces, have
not been met, the facility may submit a request to conduct an
additional trial burn.  

(i)  The request to conduct an additional trial burn must
include:

(A)  An explanation of the reasons for the previous trial burn
failure; and

(B)  A revised trial burn plan submitted under paragraph (a) or
(b) of this section which contains substantive changes to address
the reasons for the previous trial burn failure.

(ii)  The revised trial burn plan must be approved by the
Director according to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(4) of this section.  The Director may approve the
request to conduct an additional trial burn only if the
requirements of this section have been satisfactorily met.   

(iii)  The Director must send a notice to all persons on the
facility mailing list as specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(ix) and
to the appropriate units of State and local government as
specified in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) announcing that the Director
has reviewed the draft revised trial burn plan and has
tentatively decided to approve it.

(iv)  This notice must be given within a reasonable time period,
and in accordance with Section 270.74(c)(3)(A) through (D).

(8)  If the trial burn results indicate that compliance with the
performance standards in Section 264.343 for incinerators, or
Sections 266.104 through 266.107 for boilers and industrial
furnaces, was not achieved, and thus, operating conditions cannot
be developed under Section 264.345 for incinerators, or Section
266.103 for boilers and industrial furnaces, the Director may,
pursuant to the procedures in Part 124, deny the permit
application for the combustion unit.