**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Contingency Managem**  **ent Plans )** Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Distribution of contingency plans with local authorities Comment: Consider the **distribution of contingency plans by generators to local em e**  **rgency 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 inform ati**  **on 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 m**  **aintained 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 recomm end that clarification be provided as to whether this device is required to**  **be m aintained 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 requirem ents are for the m**  **ost part reasonable, but could be bett**  **er form atted 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 inform ation required by Part 265.52(d) should be**  **am ended 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 re sponsibilities 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 em ergency, off**  **- shift**  **personnel would no t be called or contacted while at home because they are rotated off duty and the**  **subsequent person on shift assumed full authority at the tim e of turnover.**  **This is the same operational protocol that the National Response Center, CHEMTREC, Poison Control Ce**  **nter, and other 24/7/365 operations utilize. Requiring hom**  **e addresses and telephone numbers for personnel in these kinds of operations provides no benefit to the regulated community or the em**  **ergency response workers.** Requiring this information adversely im pacts a generating facility ’ s ability to maintain compliance by ensuring an accurate and up
to - 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 fa cilities 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 docum ents from**  **generators, especially for facilities with multiple 90 -**  **day are as**  . **Consider requiring submission to the fire department (or other lead responding agency) only, or to the local em**  **ergency planning committee established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right**  **- To**  **- Know Act of 1986.**  Stakeholder: Pacific NW **Nation al Laboratory**  Topic: Clarify **when the contingency plan is considered “**  **im plemented**  **”** Comment: 262.34(a)(4): Reference to 265.56(j). **Questions have arisen in practice over when the contingency plan is considered**  **“ im**  **plemented ”**  **. The principal issue lies in whether a 15**  **- day report m**  **ust be submitted to the Regional Administrator in accordance with 265.56(j) for any incident, or only those that threaten hum**  **an health and the environment.**  Consider clarifying the requirement (at least for 90
- day area compliance) to require ” im

plementation” 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 S ubpart 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 i**  **s stored. With this assumption, facilities include inform**  **ation in contingency plans that m ay 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 Arrangem**  **ents 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 **preparedn ess**  **and prevention require ments**  with local authorities (265.37). **However, 265.37 does not require the generator to document arrangem**  **ents with local authorities, only rejections of such arrangem ents by the local authorities.**  **Both should be required to docum ent the arrangem**  **ents by som e means (i.e., a certified letter requesting such**  **arrangem ents, 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 loc al 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**  **som e 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 Re quirements Should be Clarified, Simplified, and**  **Harm onized 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 requireme**  **nts 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 Departm**  **ent is the entity required to receive copies of these various plans and reports. Often local**  **Fire Departm ents and similar agencies are not equipped to m**  **anage and understand these various plans** . As a result, **EIA believes that both the local Fire Departm ents and LQGs would be better served if t**  **he RCRA Contingency Plan requirements could be clarified, simplified and harm**  **onized with the OSHA required Emergency Response Plan so that a single plan is required, instead of multiple plans.**  Stakeholder: Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Topic: Cl arify 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 hom**  **e a ddresses are required. EIA**  **believes that EPA should clarify that the only inform ation 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 li st 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 ea ch 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 requirem**  **ent, or clarify that locations m ay be provided**  **generally.**

Stakeholder: Electr onic 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 ro utes 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 em**  **ergency, nobody is going to open up the Contingency Plan to figure out how to get out of the building. EIA be**  **lieves 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 C omment: 265 Subparts C & D
- The current regulations require generators to provide the plan to fire departments, hospitals, etc. that may have limited resources to revie w 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 som e basic information**  **on the facility to em ergency responders (storage capacity, type of m**  **aterials managed, type of operations at**  **facility, contact inform ation) 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 wo**  **uld 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 co**  **ntingency plan require ment for LQGs be eliminated. HW can be less hazardous than raw**  **materials and products. Many large m anufacturing operations are SQG because of waste reduction practices,**  **while having extensive hazardous substance inventories. Planning require**  **ments should be on the basis of risk, not on the regulatory status of the chem** **ical being stored, perhaps using the threshold planning quantities under 40 CFR 355.30.**  **Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Eliminate posting of em**  **ergency telephone nu**  **mbers 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 vie w to have emergency telephone numbers posted. **Locations of fire extinguishers,**  **spill control m aterial, fire alarm**  **s etc. should be conveyed to relevant employees and displayed in a worker break area rather than the facility office. Posting the nam**  **e and telephone number of the em**  **ergency coordinator is also not necessary. For the majori ty of the SQG universe the em**  **ergency coordinator is the owner or shop forem**  **an. Stakeholder: State of Florida**  **Topic: Eliminate require me**  **nt in 265.52(c) that generators m**  **ak e arrangem**  **ents with local authorities Comment: The requirement in 265.52(c) that**  **generators make arrangements with local authorities doesn ’**  **t really serve m** **uch purpose anym ore 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 RC RA with other statutes Comment: **Due to other regulatory requirem ents imposed by EPA, OSHA and DOT, an effected printer is**  **overwhelm ed with requirements to different em**  **ergency 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 abovespecified 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 Managem ent regulation, a com** **pany may be requi red to prepare**  **an em ergency response plan when the am**  **ount of hazardous materials, including hazardous wastes, is stored above prescribed threshold am**  **ounts** . **A company m ay also have to prepare a**  **“ business plan**  **” or an equivalent**  **em ergency response plan as req**  **uired 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 sam e subject is counterproductive to**  **sound management practices and can put employees and the community at risk when so m**  **any 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 t**  **o allow a generator to use an existing plan that m**  **ay be required by another regulation or agency**
. **In the case where another plan does not cover all of the necessary elem**  **ents, then the requirement for the contingency plan should allow the generator to sim pl** **y supplement one of the other required plans with the missing elements.**  Stakeholder: Graphic Arts Coalition Topic: R**equirement for communication devices, etc.** Comment: **The require ment for communication devices, alarm**  **s, 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 fac ilities were cited for not having the emergency response equipment **within the containm**  **ent area** . **There are several reasons for not having this equipment in the actual containm ent area**  , An em ployee who needs to access the equipment must be able to do so with out 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 exam ple, several**  **printers have been cited for not having a phone in the accumulation area or containm**  **ent room . In order to m**  **eet OSHA ’**  **s requirements, the printers were required to install an explosion proof phone in the containm**  **ent room .**  **Phones located outside the room and**  **two way radios on the employees were deem ed to not m**  **eet the regulation. Explosion proof phones are very expensive and using it duringa release would require the**  **em ployee to rem**  **ain in the room and either stand in or otherwise be exposed to the released m**  **at erial 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 departm ents**  **, 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 co mmunity 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 o f the equipment information. Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Arrangements with local authoritiesComment : **... with regard to the §**  **265.37 requirem ents for arrangem**  **ent with local authorities, more specificity** 

**may achieve a better understanding of the types of arrangem**  **ents to be m ade with local em**  **ergency authorities and the inform**  **ation 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 term s or sections**  of the contingency management plan. Particular term s included:: “ information next to telephone, ” **“ device m**  **aintained at scene of operations, ”**  “ immediate access **. ”**  Particular sections included **when the contingency plan is considered “**  **im plemented**  , ” what areas the contingency plan applies to, and clarifyi ng 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 ne cessary to address one or two of the topics, such as what areas the contingency plan applies to. **Eliminating contingency plan requirements, or at least harm onizing RCRA requirements with OSHA and**  **other statutes.** Eliminating redundancies with other statut es 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 statut es, 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 lo cal 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 revie w 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.