**Record Keeping and Burden Reduction**

Stakeholder: American Chemical Society Topic: Eliminate the requirement for land disposal restriction notices and recordkeeping for all hazardous waste labpacks
Comment: **Elimination of generator requirements for land disposal restriction notifications**  **on off**
**- site shipments of laboratory waste.** 
**BACKGROUND** : 40CFR 268.7 lists substantial testing, tracking, and recordkeeping requirements for generators of hazardous waste... These requirements resulted from the 1984 H azardous and Solid Waste Amendments, which restricted the land disposal of hazardous wastes without pretreatment. With the initial shipment of a waste to each treatment or storage facility, the generator must send a one

- time written notice to each treatment or storage facility receiving the waste, and also maintain a cop y of this notice. The information required includes: the EPA Hazardous waste numbers, manifest number of each shipment, a list of all wastes subject to land disposal restrictions (LDRs), the applicable wastewater/nonwastewater category , waste anal ys is data (when available), and a certification. For industrial facilities with a few, large waste streams, this requirement is not burdensome; it does require the notification only with the initial shipment. For laboratory

wastes, however, which consist largely of packaged reagents in labpacks, each and every shipment is considered to be "unique", and the notification must be made with every shipment. While this information may have been useful durin g the phase

- in process for LDR, at this point all treatment and storage facilities (TSDFs) are well aware of the requirements. In addition, the vast majority of all laboratory waste is shipped to interim storage facilities; the waste is then frequentl y rep ackaged, consolidated, and re

- manifested to an ultimate disposal site. All TSDFs are now operating under Part B permits which clearl y specify the wastes they

can handle, and the re

- manifesting process results in a duplication of the LDR notification proces s. The LDR process, from the laboratory waste generator perspective, results in a significantly higher cost, in that each vendor (often the accepting TSDF) has their own LDR notification form which must be completed for each shipment. While it is the generator responsibility to make the notification, the difficulty in understanding and completing the forms (which frequently have up to three pages of instructions to follow) normally

results in the vendor's representative completing the forms while the packag ing crew waits. Essentially

n o laboratory

waste can be land disposed without pretreatment. The accepting TSDF is in every case well familiar with the requirements associated with proper treatment and/or disposal, and does not need the generator to tell th em how to handle these wastes. This requirement discriminates against laboratories and should be eliminated. **PROPOSAL** : Eliminate the requirement for land disposal restriction notices and recordkeeping for all hazardous waste labpacks

- specificall y, all pa ckaged laboratory chemicals comingled according to hazard class in a labpack (as described in 49CFR 173.12(b) and in the "Environmental Management Guide for Small Laboratories", a 1998 EPA publication). **ALTERNATE PROPOSAL:** Eliminate the requirement for lan d disposal restriction notices and recordkeeping requirements for ALL hazardous waste shipments, as the information provided is duplicitous and no longer necessary

.Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Eliminate the generator requirement for job titles and descriptions
Comment: E liminate the generator requirement for job titles and descriptions as part of recordkeeping (40 CFR 262.34)

Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Allow compliance with the OSHA training programs as an alternative to complian ce with RCRA training

Comment: **SOCMA Urges RCRA Burden Reduction in Recordkeeping and Reporting.** SOCMA generall y supports efforts to reduce record keeping and notification requirements that have proven to be redundant or of little value to regulators. **In this regard, SOCMA agrees with EPA’s prior statements that it is not necessary to require facilities to comply simultaneously**  **with equivalent emergency response training programs under both the RCRA and OSHA programs. However, EPA needs to recognize tha**  **t not all facilities and not all personnel are required to complete the OSHA training programs. Hence, it is very important to SOCMA**  **members that EPA allow compliance with the OSHA training programs as an alternative to compliance with RCRA training, while**  **still allowing facilities not subject to OSHA training the option of continuing with their current RCRA training programs.**  Overall, SOCMA believes that the paperwork reduction and burden reduction steps embodied in the RCRA Burden Reduction Proposed Rule , along with others identified under this initiative, will be of direct benefit to both state and federal regulators, as well as to the regulated community

. Discussions with SOCMA members have again confirmed that the points raised b y SOCMA with respect to that Proposed Rule continue to be priorities that will be of significant benefit to SOCMA members. For smaller companies with limited staff and resources, even small adjustments in the regulations can be quite significant in helping a facility balance a w orkload. Most importantly , these proposed changes can eliminate unproductive requirements and thereb y enhance the ability of these companies to focus their resources on more useful environmental compliance and performance activities.

Stakeholder: ASTSWMO Topic: Recordkeeping for SQG training and inspections
Comment: **SQG Recordkeeping** :. Rule 262.34(d)(5)(iii) requires SQGs to ensure that all employees with positions relevant to HW operations are trained in waste handling and emergency response. SQGs are not required to document the training. SQGs are not currentl y required to keep records of Exception Reports.Rule 262.44(a) exempts SQGs from complying with Rule 262.40(b) which requires generators to

keep Exception Reports for 3 years. Rule 262.44(b) requires SQGs to comply w ith Rule 262.42(b), exception reporting, but there is no requirement in that rule to maintain records of Exception Reports. **Recordkeeping and Inspections** : The requirements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(2)] and LQGs [Rule 2 62.34(a)(1)( i)] reference 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart I , which requires generators to perform inspections of container storage areas (Rule 265.174).
Rule 265.174 does not currentl y require a generator to keep records of inspections of container storage areas. The requi rements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(3)] reference Rule 265.201, which requires SQGs to inspect tank sy stems [Rule 265.201(c)]. Rule 265.201(c) does not require these inspections to be documented. **Recordkeeping and Arrangements With Local Authorities:**

- The r equirements for SQGs [Rule 262.34(d)(4)] and LQGs [Rule 262.34(a)(4)] reference 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart C, which requires that the generator make preparedness and prevention arrangements with local authorities (Rule 265.37). However, Rule 265.37 does not require the generator to document arrangements with local authorities, only rejections of such arrangements by the local authorities. Both arrangements should be required to document by some means (i.e., a certified letter requesting such arrangements, etc .).

- The requirements for LQGs [Rule 262.34(a)(4)] reference 40 CFR Part265, Subpart D, requires the generator to provide copies of the contingency plan to local authorities [Rule 265.53(c)]. However, Rule 2 65.53(b) does not require the generator to document provision of the contingency

plan to local authorities. L QGs should be required to document provision of the contingency plan b y some means (i.e., a certified letter accompanyi ng the plan, response b y local authorities) Stakeholder: P acific NW **National Laboratory**  Topic: **Documentation of waste determinations**

- non HW
Comment: 262.40(c): **The requirement to maintain documentation of waste determinations is**  **applied inconsistently in the field and interpreted variably by E PA in different documents.**  The regulation itself indicates that records of any determination made pursuant to 262.11 must be retained. 262.11 indicates that determinations must be made for all solid waste. **EPA guidance indicates that information on determi**  **nations must “clearly demonstrate that the information relied upon is sufficient to identify the waste accurately and completely**  .”11 **By contrast, 262.10 states that 40 CFR 262 applies to generators of hazardous waste. EPA has previously indicated that th**  **e requirement for recordkeeping for waste determinations only applies to hazardous waste.12 To the extent that EPA and the authorized states believe**  **that the**  **recordkeeping requirements**  **apply to**  **determinations that**  **a waste**  **is non**  **- hazardous,**  **the requirement is**  **burdensome and is a prime candidate for reduction.**Stakeholder: Electronic Industries

Alliance Topic: Recordkeeping changes to 4 0 C.F.R. §§ 264.16 and 265.16
Comment: **VII. Miscellaneous Issues (Recordkeeping, Reactivity, Metrics)** In addition to the issues noted above, EIA supports the recordkeeping changes to 4 0 C.F.R. §§ 264.16 and 265.16 that EPA proposed last year. EIA believes that EPA should simplify RCRA requirements for recordkeeping of training. EIA supports the requirement to conduct annual refresher training and maintenance of those records for three ye ars. However, EIA believes some of the details required are unnecessarily complex. For example, EIA does not believe it should be necessary to explain in the records why the hazardous wast e handler is no longer in that job. It should be sufficient to document that the handler has been removed from that job. Similarly, EIA does not think it is necessary to track employees who do not make waste determinations, but are simply factory technicians who put waste into containers in satellite accumulation areas and/or move bags of waste within the factory into such satellite accumulation areas. These employees follow procedures and don’t make any hazardous waste determinations or move waste to central accumulation areas.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Necessity of the biennial report
Comment: 262.41

– The biennial report is an administrative burden on the regulated community. One PhRMA member company spends approximately

200 man

- hours completing and submitting the report. **PhRMA recommends that EPA reevaluate the necessity of the biennial report.** If the information gathered by the biennial report is necessary , PhRMA suggests EPA find an easier way

to collect it; perhaps the electronic manifest sy stem that EPA is considering could provide the needed information.

Stakeholder: PhRMA Topic: Modifications to BR Comment: 262.41(a)(5), (6), &(7)

- For consistency with the Biennial Report form and instructions, PhRMA recommends that EPA delete the requirement in paragraph (5) to include the "DOT hazard class" for each hazardous waste shipped offsite, and remove paragraphs (6) & (7) entirely

. T he Biennial Report Form 8700

- 13A (Form GM) do es not include spaces to record the DOT hazard class or the information required b y paragraphs (6) & (7) and the reporting instructions do not describe any of that information as being required. T here has been no demonstrated need to compile this information at the Federal or State level, nor has it been collected in any uniform manner in the past, therefore elimination of these data elements would appear to be an appropriate burden reduction opportunity resulting in no harm to human health or the environm ent.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Automate BR
Comment: **Replace biennial reporting with automated reporting** EPA should eliminate the requirement at §262.41 for large quantity hazardous w aste generatorsto prepare a biennial hazardous waste report. **Instead, EPA should establish an automated**

**system for tracking hazardous waste manifest i**  **nformation. The** sy stem should track the generator’s EPA Identification Number, the transporter’s EPA Identif ication Number, the waste description and waste codes, destination TSDF information, etc. An y a dditional information about the final disposition of the waste should be provided by the TSDF through the automated s ys tem. 8 commenters; 9 comments
New

Stak eholder: State of Michigan Topic: Paper work reduction
Comment: Consider elimination of biennial reporting requirements if no significant information is gained in the process (40 CFR 262.41) Stakeholder: ConocoPhillips Topic: Promulgate the burden reduction rule
**Comment:** While EPA has been seeking to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on generators, its progress is excruciatingl y slow. EPA should make every effort to promulgate, as quickly as possible, the existing burden reduction meas ures already under consideration.

Stakeholder: National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) Topic: Burden Reduction

**Re**
**- examine and place in correct subject area.**  Comment: EPA RCRA burden reduction initiatives should be finalized in order to provid e facilities w ith decreased recordkeeping and reporting burdens and to eliminate requirements that are duplicative of other regulations. EPA has already proposed two such rulemakings and should work to finalize provisions contained therein.
**As stated in NPCA’s comments on these proposals,**  **EPA should finalize the elimination of unnecessary records documentation, such as employee job titles and descriptions from**  **training logs**  **and reducing**  **the record retention polices for RCRA from the life of the facility t**  **o 3**  **years. In**  **addition, EPA**  **should eliminate**  **duplicative RCRA mandates**  **or provide**  **for the**  **option of complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in lieu of RCRA requirements. OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response**  **p ersonnel training and contingency plan requirements are adequate to protect human**  **health and the environment as envisioned by RCRA.** Similarly , **NPCA urges EPA to consider reducing or eliminating the need for the current daily**  **tank inspections under RCRA as well. Other regulations, such as the requirements under the Clean Water Act’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures, the Clean Air** **Act’s Risk Management Plan requirements and Maximum Achievable Control Technology**

**(MAC T) Requirements, as well as the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines all**  **require various tank inspection requirements for the protection of human health and the environment and all have longer inspection time periods.**  Thus, RCRA inspection could be eliminated or at the very

least adjusted to weekl y or monthly without detrimental effect. Further, facilities that have implemented MACT equipment leak detection and repair programs should be given the option to extend these programs to include hazardo us waste tanks to reduce burden associated with two separate (and most l ikely different) leak detection and repair programs. **Finally, facilities should be able to more easily petition EPA for less burdensome hazardous waste leak detection and repair requi**  **rements based on historic leak frequencies and site conditions (for example sensory leak detection as opposed to burdensome monitoring using**  **instruments). Lastly, NPCA supports allowing the use of a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager to**  **verify that tr eatment, storage and disposal units are functioning properly. This would**  **eliminate the expense of hiring or contracting with a Professional Engineer. NPCA also supports the elimination of the “independent” requirement, since many of these facilities**  **have s taff on** 
**- site, whether Professional Engineers or Certified Hazardous Material**  **Mangers, who are generally more familiar with the plant than outside consultants and thus in a better position to evaluate its operations and equipment.** 
12 comments