Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Contingency Management Plans )

Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Distribution of contingency plans with local 

authorities

Comment: Consider the distribution of contingency plans by generators to local emergency organizations to 

suffice for arrangements with local authorities (40 CFR 262.34)

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify posting of “information next to telephone”

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(ii) - This regulation requires that certain information be posted “next to the 

telephone.” This phrase should be clarified to define which telephones at the facility require this information.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify the term “device maintained at scene of 

operations”

Comment: 40 CFR 265.32 requires generators to maintain a device, such as a telephone immediately available at 

the scene of operations. We recommend that clarification be provided as to whether this device is required to 

be maintained in the 90-day hazardous waste storage areas, or whether it simply has to be available at the 

facility. 

Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Clarify the term “immediate access”

Comment: .... 40 CFR 265.34 requires certain employees to have “immediate access” to communication devices; we 

recommend that clarification of the term “immediate access” be provided. 

Stakeholder: Tennessee Valley Authority Topic: Emergency coordinator information

Comment: The hazardous waste contingency plan requirements are for the most part reasonable, but could be 

better formatted by eliminating references to other parts as noted in item 17 above. There is one notable 

requirement, however, which could be revised to better ensure compliance. 

a. The emergency coordinator information required by Part 265.52(d) should be amended to allow for the 

listing of a 24/7/365 staffed position title that has full authority to commit resources in the event that a facility 

is operated in such a manner. Facilities which operate in this manner typically delegate emergency coordinator 

responsibilities to the person on shift, i.e. operations manager, shift coordinator, shift operations supervisor or some 

other similar position. This person fulfills these duties only while on shift. In the event of an emergency, off-shift 

personnel would not be called or contacted while at home because they are rotated off duty and the 

subsequent person on shift assumed full authority at the time of turnover. This is the same operational 

protocol that the National Response Center, CHEMTREC, Poison Control Center, and other 24/7/365 

operations utilize. Requiring home addresses and telephone numbers for personnel in these kinds of 

operations provides no benefit to the regulated community or the emergency response workers. Requiring this 

information adversely impacts a generating facility’s ability to maintain compliance by ensuring an accurate and upto-date contingency plan as required by the current rule in 265.54(d).
Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Distribution of contingency plans with local 

authorities

Comment: 262.34(a)(4): Reference to 265.53(b). Mandatory submittal of contingency plan documents for each 

90-day area to multiple local agencies should be reconsidered. This is another instance where reference to 

requirements for TSD facilities creates a burden for generators and, we suspect, for emergency response agencies as 

well. Our experience is that most of these local agencies do not wish to receive such documents from

generators, especially for facilities with multiple 90-day areas. Consider requiring submission to the fire 

department (or other lead responding agency) only, or to the local emergency planning committee established 

under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986.

Stakeholder: Pacific NW National Laboratory Topic: Clarify when the contingency plan is considered 

“implemented”

Comment: 262.34(a)(4): Reference to 265.56(j). Questions have arisen in practice over when the contingency 

plan is considered “implemented”. The principal issue lies in whether a 15- day report must be submitted to 

the Regional Administrator in accordance with 265.56(j) for any incident, or only those that threaten human 

health and the environment. Consider clarifying the requirement (at least for 90-day area compliance) to 

require”implementation” only where the incident threatens human health or the environment, as is done in 

265.56(d).

Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Topic: Clarify what areas contingency plan applies

Comment: 40 CFR 262(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265 Subpart D should state that the contingency plan is specific to 

the 90-day storage area(s). As the regulation stands, it is assumed that the contingency plan is developed and 

maintained for the entire facility and not just for areas where hazardous waste is stored. With this 

assumption, facilities include information in contingency plans that may not be necessary (e.g. a list of fire 

extinguishers and spill control equipment for the entire facility and not just for the 90- day storage area, a 

description of evacuation routes from all parts of the facility and not just from the 90-day storage area). 

Clarification of the intent of this regulation would greatly reduce the paperwork burden of some facilities.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: Recordkeeping and Arrangements With Local 

Authorities

Comment: Recordkeeping and Arrangements With Local Authorities - The requirements for SQGs (262.34(d)(4)) 

and LQGs (262.34(a)(4)) reference Rule 265, Subpart C, which states that the generator must make preparedness 

and prevention requirements with local authorities (265.37). However, 265.37 does not require the generator to 

document arrangements with local authorities, only rejections of such arrangements by the local authorities. 

Both should be required to document the arrangements by some means (i.e., a certified letter requesting such 

arrangements, etc.). To resolve this, ADEM recommends that the USEPA add a requirement to document these 

notifications to 262.40 for LQGs and 262.44 for SQGs.

Stakeholder: State of Alabama Topic: Document provision of the contingency plan to local 

authorities.

Comment: ..... the requirements for LQGs (262.34(a)(4)) reference 40CFR265, Subpart D, which states that the 

generator must provide copies of the contingency plan to local authorities (265.53(c)). However, 265.53(b) does not 

require the generator to document provision of the contingency plan to local authorities. To resolve this issue, 

ADEM recommends that LQGs be required to document provision of the contingency plan by some means 
(i.e., a certified letter accompanying the plan, response letter from the local authorities, etc.).

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Harmonize RCRA with OSHA requirements

Comment: Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan Requirements Should be Clarified, Simplified, and 

Harmonized with OSHA Emergency Response Plan Requirements The Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan 

requirements in 40 C.F.R. §§ 264, Subpart D and 265, Subpart D overlap with the Emergency Response Plan 

requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120 (l). 

Moreover, for LQGs, these requirements also overlap with requirements for SARA Tier II. In many cases the 

local Fire Department is the entity required to receive copies of these various plans and reports. Often local 

Fire Departments and similar agencies are not equipped to manage and understand these various plans. As a 

result, EIA believes that both the local Fire Departments and LQGs would be better served if the RCRA 

Contingency Plan requirements could be clarified, simplified and harmonized with the OSHA required 

Emergency Response Plan so that a single plan is required, instead of multiple plans. 

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Clarify information required of emergency 

coordinators

Comment: In addition, if EPA decides to retain Contingency Plan requirements, EIA has a number of issues that 

need clarification under the existing requirements:

- Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.52(d) and 265.52(d), the hazardous waste regulations currently require that the 

Contingency Plan include the names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and home) of all persons qualified to 

act as emergency coordinators. It is unclear from this section whether home addresses are required. EIA 

believes that EPA should clarify that the only information required for the emergency coordinators is their 

site address and site and home phone numbers.

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Clarify utility of requiring emergency equipment

Comment: Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.52(e) and 265.52(e), the hazardous waste regulations require that the 

Contingency Plan include the “location and physical description”of emergency equipment at the site. The 

regulations list as emergency equipment “fire extinguishing systems” and “decontamination equipment.” EPA 

needs to clarify what is intended by this requirement. For example, does the reference to “fire extinguishing 

systems” mean that a site must list the location of each and every fire extinguisher? Because these locations may 

change frequently, this can become a tremendous burden to keep updated. Moreover, some sites use mobile 

emergency response teams (“ERT”). The ERT equipment includes fire extinguishers and decontamination 

equipment and may move from place to place. As such, any location description would need to be general. EIA 

believes that EPA should either delete the location requirement, or clarify that locations may be provided 

generally.

Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Clarify evacuation plan information required in Plan

Comment: Under 40 C.F.R. §§ 264.52(f) and 265.52(f), the hazardous waste regulations currently require that 

the Contingency Plan include an evacuation plan, including evacuation routes (primary and alternate). Large sites 

may have hundreds of evacuation routes depending upon how the site is configured. EIA does not believe it makes 

sense to include all these evacuation routes in the Contingency Plan. Evacuation routes need to be posted in the 

area and evacuation training/drills must be conducted to familiarize employees with the routes. In the event 

of an emergency, nobody is going to open up the Contingency Plan to figure out how to get out of the 

building. EIA believes this requirement should be modified to require that evacuation routes be posted and 
drills be conducted, but not that the routes themselves be included in the Contingency Plan. 

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Simplify Contingency plan requirements

Comment: 265 Subparts C & D - The current regulations require generators to provide the plan to fire departments, 

hospitals, etc. that may have limited resources to review the plan, so it just sits on the shelf. Additionally, in light of 

security concerns, generator facility personnel identified in the contingency plan are not comfortable having their 

home addresses and phone numbers, as required by 265.52(d), listed in a public document. For facilities that operate 

with a 24 hour/365 day Emergency Coordinator on-site, only office and a back-up company phone number should 

be required PhRMA recommends that EPA update the regulations to allow providing some basic information 

on the facility to emergency responders (storage capacity, type of materials managed, type of operations at 

facility, contact information) and providing the responders an opportunity to visit the facility or to request a 

more detailed plan (which would still be prepared and maintained at the facility). This could be a “one 

pager” which would be sent return receipt w/ signature required.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Eliminate contingency plan requirements

Comment: Generator Training, Preparedness/Prevention and Contingency Plan Requirements: FDEP recommends 

that the written contingency plan requirement for LQGs be eliminated. HW can be less hazardous than raw 

materials and products. Many large manufacturing operations are SQG because of waste reduction practices, 

while having extensive hazardous substance inventories. Planning requirements should be on the basis of risk, 

not on the regulatory status of the chemical being stored, perhaps using the threshold planning quantities 

under 40 CFR 355.30.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Eliminate posting of emergency telephone 

numbers

Comment: Other areas of 262.34(d)(5)(ii) should be eliminated. In this age of near-universal 911 availability, it 

is simply not important from a regulatory point of view to have emergency telephone numbers posted. Locations of 

fire extinguishers, spill control material, fire alarms etc. should be conveyed to relevant employees and 

displayed in a worker break area rather than the facility office. Posting the name and telephone number of 

the emergency coordinator is also not necessary. For the majority of the SQG universe the emergency 

coordinator is the owner or shop foreman.

Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Eliminate requirement in 265.52(c) that 

generators make arrangements with local authorities

Comment: The requirement in 265.52(c) that generators make arrangements with local authorities doesn’t 

really serve much purpose anymore and should be deleted. Facilities already have to notify local fire marshals 

and are inspected routinely by them. Facilities also have to notify under EPCRA, from which HAZMAT teams can 

gather information. Hospitals, police departments and other emergency authorities don’t know what to do with 

contingency plans, and don’t really want to receive them.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) Topic: Harmonize RCRA with other statutes

Comment: Due to other regulatory requirements imposed by EPA, OSHA and DOT, an effected printer is 

overwhelmed with requirements to different emergency response plans in addition to the contingency plan 

required of some hazardous waste generators. Under the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plans and 

Risk Management plans, EPA requires a formal emergency response plan when certain chemicals are stored above 
specified threshold amounts. These generators are subject to OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan requirements and may 

also be subject to OSHA’s Process Safety Management regulations, requiring preparation of an emergency response 

plan.

If not already covered by the Process Safety Management regulation, a company may be required to prepare 

an emergency response plan when the amount of hazardous materials, including hazardous wastes, is stored 

above prescribed threshold amounts. A company may also have to prepare a “business plan” or an equivalent 

emergency response plan as required by certain municipal fire codes. Lastly, DOT is now requiring security 

plans by some generators of hazardous wastes.

The requirement to prepare different plans that generally cover the same subject is counterproductive to 

sound management practices and can put employees and the community at risk when so many plans are in 

place. Under actual emergency conditions decisions have to be made quickly concerning available resources. The 

requirement to develop a separate contingency plan should be revised to allow a generator to use an existing 

plan that may be required by another regulation or agency. In the case where another plan does not cover all 

of the necessary elements, then the requirement for the contingency plan should allow the generator to simply 

supplement one of the other required plans with the missing elements.

Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition Topic: Requirement for communication devices, etc. 

Comment: The requirement for communication devices, alarms, fire extinguishing equipment, water, etc. is 

vague and needs to be clarified. The GAC is aware of several printers who had this equipment within a 

reasonable distance of the accumulation area and who were inspected without problem. However, due to a 

change in inspectors, these same facilities were cited for not having the emergency response equipment within the 

containment area. There are several reasons for not having this equipment in the actual containment area, An 

employee who needs to access the equipment must be able to do so without being put into grave danger, as a result 

of the spill, fire, explosion, etc. This may not require a regulatory change; however, clear guidance needs to be 

offered to the states as to access requirements on the part of the employee. For example, several printers have 

been cited for not having a phone in the accumulation area or containment room. In order to meet OSHA’s 

requirements, the printers were required to install an explosion proof phone in the containment room. 

Phones located outside the room and two way radios on the employees were deemed to not meet the 

regulation. Explosion proof phones are very expensive and using it duringa release would require the 

employee to remain in the room and either stand in or otherwise be exposed to the released material as the 

summon help or call the fire department.

Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute (API) Topic: Harmonize RCRA with other statutes

Comment: The current regulations require generators to provide their contingency plan to fire departments, 

hospitals, etc. These plans are duplicative for facilities and should no longer be required. While the need to 

submit these plans provided new useful information at the time the requirement was established, other regulations 

now better address these community emergency planning and notification requirements.

Stakeholder: Johnson & Johnson Topic: Emergency Telephone number

Comment: Revise 262.34(d)(5) which applies to SQGs - to only require an emergency telephone number near the 

phone and not all of the equipment information. 

Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Arrangements with local authorities
Comment: ... with regard to the §265.37 requirements for arrangement with local authorities, more specificity

may achieve a better understanding of the types of arrangements to be made with local emergency authorities 

and the information to be provided. Often times this requirement is fulfilled by offering emergency response 

organizations a copy of the site contingency plan. This may, or may not, achieve the goal of the §265.37 

requirements.
Analysis of Comments 

EPA received 23 comments from 13 commenters. The thrust of the comments focused on 3 areas: clarifying 

particular terms (6); clarifying relationships with local authorities (5); and either eliminating contingency plan 

requirements, or at least harmonizing RCRA requirements with OSHA and other statutes to eliminate any potential 

redundancies (4). Other comments focused on related subjects, such as content of emergency coordinator 

information (2), clarifying the utility of emergency equipment, and simplifying contingency management plans, 

documenting the provision of contingency plan to local authorities. 

Clarifying particular terms or sections of the contingency management plan. Particular terms included:: 

“information next to telephone,” “device maintained at scene of operations,” “immediate access.” Particular 

sections included when the contingency plan is considered “implemented,” what areas the contingency plan 

applies to, and clarifying what evacuation plan information should be required in the plan. These comments are 

rather self-explanatory. 

Potential EPA Action: Clarifying guidance could possibly be issued for all, if not most, of the above topics. 

However, a rule also might be necessary to address one or two of the topics, such as what areas the contingency plan 

applies to. 

Eliminating contingency plan requirements, or at least harmonizing RCRA requirements with OSHA and 

other statutes. Eliminating redundancies with other statutes is a comment that runs throughout commenter 

responses. Some analyses already have been conducted under the One-Stop Plan study that identifies potential areas 

of overlap with other statutes. Concenr would be if in the course of deferring to other statutes, a gap resulted where 

no plan was required. 

Potential EPA Action: Evaluate potential for eliminating redundancies, if not eliminating this requirement 

altogether. A rule change would be necessary in anything we did.

Clarifying relationships with local authorities. At issue in the comments was the need to clarify who should 

receive copies of the contingency plan, and in what format. Concern was expressed (as well as in the public 

meetings) that local authorities have neither the time or inclination to review these plans. What they desire are one 

page summaries and/or schematics about the type, quantity and location of hazardous waste stored on-site.

Potential EPA Action: Most likely a rule change.