Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0031-0366
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-04T04:00Z

1
BURDEN
REDUCTION
FINAL
RULE
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
VOLUME
II
JUNE
2005
2
ORGANIZATION
OF
THIS
DOCUMENT
This
document
includes,
first,
a
list
of
all
the
commenters
on
the
previous
burden
reduction
proposed
rules
and
notice
of
data
availability.
This
list
is
arranged
according
to
the
docket
number
assigned
each
comment.

Second,
this
document
includes
excerpts
from
the
comments,
grouped
according
to
subject
area
and/
or
CFR
section.
In
some
cases,
we
have
responded
to
each
comment
excerpt
individually.
These
responses
are
identified
by
the
word
"
Response."
In
other
cases,
when
the
comment
excerpts
are
very
similar,
we
have
responded
only
at
the
end
of
the
series
of
comment
excerpts.
These
responses
are
distinguished
by
saying
"
Response
to
Comments."
Therefore,
if
it
appears
that
a
comment
has
no
response,
scroll
down
through
the
series
of
similar
comment
excerpts
and
you'll
find
the
response
at
the
end.
3
Key
to
RCRA
Docket
Commenters
and
Documents
Supporting
the
Following
Burden
Reduction
Federal
Register
Notices
June
18,
1999
NODA
(
64
FR
32859)
January
17,2002
Proposed
Rule
(
67
FR
2518)
October
29,
2003
(
68
FR
61662)

Document
ID:
0001
Company/
Group/
Association:
Page
Count:
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0002
Company/
Group/
Association:
Texas
A&
M
University­
Corpus
Christi
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0003
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utah
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0004
Company/
Group/
Association:
Association
of
Waste
Hazardous
Materials
Transporters
(
AWHMT)
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0005
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lion
Technology,
Inc.
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0006
Company/
Group/
Association:
TXU
Electric
&
Gas,
TXU
SESCO
&
Gas,
TXU
Mining
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0007
Company/
Group/
Association:
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
4
Document
ID:
0008
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group,
Edison
Electric
Institute,
American
Public
Power
Association,
ET
AL.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0009
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Trucking
Association
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0010
Company/
Group/
Association:
Coalition
for
Effective
Environmental
Information
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0011
Company/
Group/
Association:
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0012
Company/
Group/
Association:
Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
(
CRWI)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0013
Company/
Group/
Association:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0014
Company/
Group/
Association:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0015
Company/
Group/
Association:
City
of
Houston,
Department
of
Solid
Waste
Management
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0015
Company/
Group/
Association:
City
of
Houston,
Department
of
Solid
Waste
Management
5
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0016
Company/
Group/
Association:
GLAVO
WELLCOME,
Inc.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0017
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0018
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0019
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICRON
TECHNOLOGY,
Inc.
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0020
Company/
Group/
Association:
MAINE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0021
Company/
Group/
Association:
ONYX
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES,
L.
L.
C.
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0022
Company/
Group/
Association:
UTAH
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY,
DIVISION
OF
SOLID
AND
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0023
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
6
Page
Count:
9
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0024
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
Page
Count:
31
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0025
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
(
CMA)
Page
Count:
105
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0026
Company/
Group/
Association:
EASTMAN
KODAK
COMPANY
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0027
Company/
Group/
Association:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0028
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0029
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0030
Company/
Group/
Association:
EXXON
CHEMICAL
AMERICAS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0031
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lead
Industries
Association,
Inc.
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
7
Document
ID:
0032
Company/
Group/
Association:
Quebecor
Printing
MBMPHIS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0033
Company/
Group/
Association:
Battery
Council
International
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0034
Company/
Group/
Association:
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0035
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Technology
Council
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0036
Company/
Group/
Association:
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0037
Company/
Group/
Association:
Missouri
Department
of
Natural
Resource
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0038
Company/
Group/
Association:
U.
S.
Department
of
Defense
Page
Count:
17
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0039
Company/
Group/
Association:
DaimlerChrysler
Corporation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0040
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
8
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0041
Company/
Group/
Association:
Safety­
Kleen
Corporation
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0042
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0043
Company/
Group/
Association:
United
Technologies
Corporation
Page
Count:
12
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0044
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
21
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0045
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0046
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0047
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0048
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
7
9
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0049
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
47
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0050
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
38
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0051
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0052
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0053
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0054
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0055
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0056
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
10
Document
ID:
0057
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0058
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0059
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
75
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0060
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0061
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
39
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0062
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0063
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
20
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0064
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
18
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0065
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
11
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0066
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
21
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0067
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0068
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
49
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0069
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
28
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0070
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0071
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
7
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0072
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
7
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0073
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
15
Media:
N/
A
12
Document
ID:
0074
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
6
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0075
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
1
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0076
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
4
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0077
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
54
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0078
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
77
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0079
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0080
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0081
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0082
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
13
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0083
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0084
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0085
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0086
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0087
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0088
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0089
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
Document
ID:
0090
Company/
Group/
Association:
SUPPORT­
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
Page
Count:
0
Media:
N/
A
14
Document
ID:
0091
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
0
Document
ID:
0092
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
0
Media:
0
Document
ID:
0093
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0094
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0095
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0096
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0097
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0098
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0099
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
15
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0100
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0101
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
(
OECA
COMMENT
SUMMARY)
Page
Count:
6
Media:

Document
ID:
0102
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
3
Media:

Document
ID:
0103
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
5
Media:

Document
ID:
0104
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
97
Media:

Document
ID:
0105
Company/
Group/
Association:
Support­
Background
Page
Count:
28
Media:

Document
ID:
0106
Company/
Group/
Association:
EQUIVA
SERVICES
LLC
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0107
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
16
Document
ID:
0108
Company/
Group/
Association:
Federal
Register
Page
Count:
28
Media:
Electronic
Document
ID:
0110
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0111
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
&
CONSULTING,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0112
Company/
Group/
Association:
INDIANA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0113
Company/
Group/
Association:
DIGITAL
AUDIO
DISC
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0114
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0116
Company/
Group/
Association:
BAY
WEST,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0117
Company/
Group/
Association:
INTERNATIONAL
METALS
RECLAMATION
COMPANY,
INC.
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
17
Document
ID:
0118
Company/
Group/
Association:
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
30
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0119
Company/
Group/
Association:
INSTITUTE
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0120
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
MAGNOLIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0121
Company/
Group/
Association:
DALLAS­
FORT
WORTH
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0122
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0123
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affilitation
Page
Count:
10
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0124
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
MEXICO
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0125
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES
OF
GEORGIA
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
18
Document
ID:
0126
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES
OF
GEORGIA
Page
Count:
19
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0127
Company/
Group/
Association:
GATEWAY
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0128
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASFE,
INC.
Page
Count:
128
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0129
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0130
Company/
Group/
Association:
SHELL
CHEMICAL
LP
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0131
Company/
Group/
Association:
MONTANA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0132
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0133
Company/
Group/
Association:
ALLIANCE
OF
AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
19
Document
ID:
0134
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENERGY
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0135
Company/
Group/
Association:
INDIANA
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0136
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0137
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0138
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
DOW
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0139
Company/
Group/
Association:
KANSAS
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENT
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0140
Company/
Group/
Association:
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0141
Company/
Group/
Association:
CHICAGO
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0142
20
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
ACADEMY
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0143
Company/
Group/
Association:
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
AND
SCIENTIFIC
SPECIALTY
BOARDS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0144
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASSOCIATION
OF
STATE
AND
TERRITORIAL
SOLID
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OFFICIALS
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0145
Company/
Group/
Association:
PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACADEMY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0146
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
ENGLAND
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0147
Company/
Group/
Association:
ARIZONA
THUNDERBIRD
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0148
Company/
Group/
Association:
MICHIGAN
CHAPTER
OF
THE
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0149
Company/
Group/
Association:
MIAMI
VALLEY
SOCIETY
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
21
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0150
Company/
Group/
Association:
KENTUCKIANA
CHAPTER
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0151
Company/
Group/
Association:
QUEEN
CITY
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0152
Company/
Group/
Association:
TRI­
STATE
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0153
Company/
Group/
Association:
CONNECTICUT
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0154
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0155
Company/
Group/
Association:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0156
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
ON
EDUCATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0157
22
Company/
Group/
Association:
UTILITY
SOLID
WASTE
ACTIVITIES
GROUP
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0158
Company/
Group/
Association:
SYNTHETIC
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
11
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0159
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0160
Company/
Group/
Association:
COMPASS
ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0161
Company/
Group/
Association:
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0162
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTH
STAR
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0163
Company/
Group/
Association:
MID­
SOUTH
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
30
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0164
Company/
Group/
Association:
INTERNATIONAL
TRUCK
AND
ENGINE
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0165
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
23
Page
Count:
16
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0166
Company/
Group/
Association:
SAFETY­
KLEEN
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
12
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0167
Company/
Group/
Association:
GREATER
OZARKS
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0168
Company/
Group/
Association:
WILLAMETTE­
COLUMBIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0169
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Page
Count:
44
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0170
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0171
Company/
Group/
Association:
DOMINION
ENERGY,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0172
Company/
Group/
Association:
HAWWAII
PACIFIC
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0173
Company/
Group/
Association:
NYPENN
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
24
Document
ID:
0174
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
DOW
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0175
Company/
Group/
Association:
H.
G.
SCHLICKER
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0176
Company/
Group/
Association:
H.
G.
SCHLICKER
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0177
Company/
Group/
Association:
ACADEMY
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0178
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0179
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0180
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHEAST
INDIANA
CHAPTER
OF
CERTIFIED
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0181
Company/
Group/
Association:
IDAHO
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
25
Document
ID:
0182
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
BOARD
OF
REGISTRATION
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0183
Company/
Group/
Association:
LUHDORFF
AND
SCALMANINI,
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
5
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0184
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0185
Company/
Group/
Association:
LOURIE
CONSULTANTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0186
Company/
Group/
Association:
MALCOLM
PIRNIE
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0187
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
BOARD
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
AND
GEOPHYSICISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0188
Company/
Group/
Association:
PHILADELPHIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0189
26
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0190
Company/
Group/
Association:
NORTHEAST
OHIO
CHAPTER
OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
MANAGERS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0191
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL
OF
GEOSCIENCE
ORGANIZATIONS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0192
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0193
Company/
Group/
Association:
WISCONSIN
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0194
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS,
ARIZONA
SECTION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0195
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTH
CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0196
Company/
Group/
Association:
VELSICOL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
27
Document
ID:
0197
Company/
Group/
Association:
ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Page
Count:
6
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0198
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
PAINT
&
COATINGS
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0199
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
GRAPHIC
ARTS
COALITION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0200
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
GEOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0201
Company/
Group/
Association:
BP
AMOCO
FABRICS
AND
FIBERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0202
Company/
Group/
Association:
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
Page
Count:
11
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0203
Company/
Group/
Association:
ONYX
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
Page
Count:
5
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0204
Company/
Group/
Association:
COMPUS
SAFETY,
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
28
Document
ID:
0205
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF
MANUFACTURERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0206
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
JERSEY
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:

Document
ID:
0207
Company/
Group/
Association:
LION
TECHNOLOGY,
INC.
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0208
Company/
Group/
Association:
FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
7
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0209
Company/
Group/
Association:
TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0210
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASSOCIATION
OF
AMERICAN
STATE
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0211
Company/
Group/
Association:
TEXAS
NATURAL
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Page
Count:
9
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0212
Company/
Group/
Association:
WORKING
GROUP
ON
COMMUNITY
RIGHT­
TO­
KNOW,
SIERRA
CLUB,
U.
S.
PUBLIC
INTEREST
RESEARCH
GROUP,
ET
AL.
Page
Count:
13
Media:
PAPER
29
Document
ID:
0213
Company/
Group/
Association:
STATE
OF
WASHINGTON
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0214
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
SOCIETY
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0215
Company/
Group/
Association:
BETHLEHEM
STEEL
CORPORATION
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0216
Company/
Group/
Association:
MAINE
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
10
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0217
Company/
Group/
Association:
EASTMAN
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Page
Count:
7
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0218
Company/
Group/
Association:
OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Page
Count:
20
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0219
Company/
Group/
Association:
ABARTA
OIL
&
GAS
COMPANY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0220
Company/
Group/
Association:
MIDWEST
PLAINS
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0221
30
Company/
Group/
Association:
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
OF
INDIANA,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0222
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
15
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0223
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL
Page
Count:
15
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0224
Company/
Group/
Association:
COALITION
FOR
RESPONSIBLE
WASTE
INCINERATION
Page
Count:
4
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0225
Company/
Group/
Association:
VERMEER
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0226
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0227
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
YORK
STATE
COUNCIL
OF
PROFESSIONAL
GEOLOGISTS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0228
Company/
Group/
Association:
HALEY
&
ALDRICH
OF
NEW
YORK
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0229
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
4
31
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0230
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0231
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0232
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0233
Company/
Group/
Association:
BOARD
FOR
GEOLOGISTS
AND
GEOPHYSICISTS
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0234
Company/
Group/
Association:
HYDROSYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0235
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0236
Company/
Group/
Association:
NATIONAL
REGISTRY
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONALS
Page
Count:
765
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0237
Company/
Group/
Association:
ELI
LILLY
AND
COMPANY
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
32
Document
ID:
0238
Company/
Group/
Association:
LUHDORFF
&
SCALMANINI
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
3
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0239
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOUTHEAST
TENNESSEE
CHAPTER
OF
ACHMM
Page
Count:
1
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0240
Company/
Group/
Association:
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
Page
Count:
20
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0241
Company/
Group/
Association:
NEW
JERSEY
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Page
Count:
8
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0242
Company/
Group/
Association:
EPOCH
ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUP
Page
Count:
2
Media:
PAPER
Document
ID:
0243
Company/
Group/
Association:
Kerr­
McGee
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0244
Company/
Group/
Association:
Kimley­
Horn
&
Association
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0245
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0246
33
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0247
Company/
Group/
Association:
Glover's
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0248
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0249
Company/
Group/
Association:
Blasland,
Bouck
&
Lee,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0250
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0251
Company/
Group/
Association:
Envirodyne,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0252
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arcadis
G&
M,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0253
Company/
Group/
Association:
Rew
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0254
Company/
Group/
Association:
L.
S.
Sims
&
Association
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
34
Document
ID:
0255
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
Geological
Society
of
Puerto
Rico
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0256
Company/
Group/
Association:
Secor
International
Incorporated
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0257
Company/
Group/
Association:
BT2,
Inc
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0258
Company/
Group/
Association:
IT
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0259
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0260
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
International
Association
for
Engineering
Geology
and
the
Environment
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0261
Company/
Group/
Association:
Geologic
New
York,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0262
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Corporation
of
America
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0263
Company/
Group/
Association:
Neil
O.
Anderson
&
Assoc.
35
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0264
Company/
Group/
Association:
Burns
&
McDonnell
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0265
Company/
Group/
Association:
University
of
Kentucky
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0266
Company/
Group/
Association:
Geo
Services
Consultants
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0267
Company/
Group/
Association:
Environmental
Evaluations,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0268
Company/
Group/
Association:
Envirospec,
Inc
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0269
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0270
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0271
Company/
Group/
Association:
ProTech
Assessment
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
36
Document
ID:
0272
Company/
Group/
Association:
No
Affiliation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
273
Company/
Group/
Association:
THE
IT
GROUP
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
274
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
275
Company/
Group/
Association:
CLAYTON
GROUP
SERVICES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
276
Company/
Group/
Association:
MILHOLLAND
COMPANY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
277
Company/
Group/
Association:
BAKER
ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
278
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
279
Company/
Group/
Association:
ENVIROSCIENCE,
INC.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
280
37
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
FOUNDRY
SOCIETY
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
281
Company/
Group/
Association:
WASTE
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
282
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
SAFETY
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
14
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
283
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
284
Company/
Group/
Association:
GREGG
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
285
Company/
Group/
Association:
HYDROSYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
286
Company/
Group/
Association:
OHIO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
287
Company/
Group/
Association:
JOHNS
HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
288
38
Company/
Group/
Association:
HESS
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
289
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
290
Company/
Group/
Association:
GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Page
Count:
18
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
291
Company/
Group/
Association:
TERRACON
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
292
Company/
Group/
Association:
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERS,
AMERICAN
COUNCIL
OF
ENGINEERING
COMPANIES,
NATIONAL
SOCIETY
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
293
Company/
Group/
Association:
STATE
OF
IDAHO
BOARD
OF
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
AND
PROFESSIONAL
LAND
SURVEYORS
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
294
Company/
Group/
Association:
PARC
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
295
Company/
Group/
Association:
VIRGINIA
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES,
P.
C.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
296
39
Company/
Group/
Association:
VIRGINIA
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES,
P.
C.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0297
Company/
Group/
Association:
BURNS
&
MCDONNELL
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0298
Company/
Group/
Association:
BURNS
&
MCDONNELL
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0299
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0300
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0301
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0302
Company/
Group/
Association:
HARTMAN
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0303
Company/
Group/
Association:
GALLET
&
ASSOCIATES
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0304
Company/
Group/
Association:
NO
AFFILIATION
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
40
Document
ID:
0305
Company/
Group/
Association:
IPC
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0306
Company/
Group/
Association:
REGION
7
BIF
WORK
GROUP
Page
Count:
9
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0307
Company/
Group/
Association:
Bucher,
Willis
&
Radcliff
Corporation
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0308
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASTM
International
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0309
Company/
Group/
Association:
(
Federal
Register)
Page
Count:
8
Media:
Electronic
Document
ID:
0310
Company/
Group/
Association:
Recycle
Worlds
Consulting
Corporation
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0311
Company/
Group/
Association:
Bower
­
Morner,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0312
Company/
Group/
Association:
TolTest,
Inc.
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0313
41
Company/
Group/
Association:
Board
of
Professional
Engineers
&
Professional
Land
Surveyors
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0314
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ball
Corporation
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0315
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Chemistry
Council
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0316
Company/
Group/
Association:
PPG
Industries,
Inc.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0317
Company/
Group/
Association:
Dow
Chemical
Company
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0318
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Society
of
Civil
Engineers
Page
Count:
13
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0319
Company/
Group/
Association:
The
Graphic
Arts
Coalition
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0320
Company/
Group/
Association:
Westinghouse
Savannah
River
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0321
Company/
Group/
Association:
Academy
of
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
(
ACHMM)
Page
Count:
9
42
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0322
Company/
Group/
Association:
Institute
of
Professional
Environmental
Practice
Page
Count:
22
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0323
Company/
Group/
Association:
ConocoPhillips
Company
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0324
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASFE
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0325
Company/
Group/
Association:
Steve
Diamond
Page
Count:
Media:

Document
ID:
0326
Company/
Group/
Association:
Westinghouse
Savannah
River
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0327
Company/
Group/
Association:
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0328
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Automobile
Dealers
Association
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0329
Company/
Group/
Association:
IPC
­
Association
Connecting
Electronics
Industries
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
43
Document
ID:
0330
Company/
Group/
Association:
Giant
Resource
Recovery,
Inc.
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0331
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0332
Company/
Group/
Association:
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0333
Company/
Group/
Association:
Onyz
Environmental
Services
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0334
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Service
Industry
(
OESI)
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0335
Company/
Group/
Association:
General
Motors
Corporation
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0336
Company/
Group/
Association:
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0337
Company/
Group/
Association:
SOCMA
Page
Count:
11
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0338
Company/
Group/
Association:
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
Page
Count:
5
44
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0339
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Ready
Mixed
Concrete
Association
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0340
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Ready
Mixed
Concrete
Assoc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Paper
Document
ID:
0341
Company/
Group/
Association:
Duke
Energy
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0342
Company/
Group/
Association:
Institute
of
Professional
Environmental
Practice
Page
Count:
21
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0343
Company/
Group/
Association:
National
Society
of
Professional
Engineer
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0344
Company/
Group/
Association:
Lockheed
Martin
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0345
Company/
Group/
Association:
ASTSWMO
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0346
Company/
Group/
Association:
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
45
Document
ID:
0347
Company/
Group/
Association:
Eastman
Chemical
Company
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0348
Company/
Group/
Association:
Sierra
Club
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0349
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arkansas
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
3
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0350
Company/
Group/
Association:
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Page
Count:
6
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0351
Company/
Group/
Association:
Patricia
Donohue
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0352
Company/
Group/
Association:
Los
Alamos
National
Lab
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0353
Company/
Group/
Association:
Short
Bliott
Hendrickson,
Inc.
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0354
Company/
Group/
Association:
Colalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
(
CRWI)
Page
Count:
5
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0355
Company/
Group/
Association:
Peabody,
LLP
Page
Count:
11
46
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0356
Company/
Group/
Association:
Arizona
Board
of
Technical
Registration
Page
Count:
2
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0357
Company/
Group/
Association:
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Page
Count:
4
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0358
Company/
Group/
Association:
SQG
Specialist
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0359
Company/
Group/
Association:
New
Hampshire
National
Environmental
Trust
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0360
Company/
Group/
Association:
Citizens
Leading
for
Environmental
Action
&
Responsibility
Page
Count:
1
Media:
Electronic
File
Document
ID:
0361
Company/
Group/
Association:
California
Department
of
Toxics
Substances
Control
Page
Count:
7
Media:
Electronic
File
47
Summary
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Final
Rule
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
in
accordance
with
the
goals
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
is
promulgating
changes
to
the
regulatory
requirements
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
hazardous
waste
program
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
these
requirements
impose
on
the
States,
the
public,
and
the
regulated
community.
The
Agency
is
finalizing
­­­­
changes
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations
that
will
eliminate
­­­­­­­­­
burden
hours
per
year.
This
rulemaking
is
the
culmination
of
five
years
worth
of
effort
and
will
result
in
streamlining
our
information
collection
requirements,
ensuring
that
only
the
information
that
is
actually
needed
and
used
to
effectively
implement
the
RCRA
program
is
collected
and
the
goals
of
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
are
retained.
48
Comments
265.1(
b)
Purpose,
Scope,
and
Applicability:
Proposed
Action:
Remove
obsolete
language.

Document
#
0169:
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#
0213:
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#
0218:
The
DEQ
questions
whether
this
rule
should
be
modified
as
indicated.
While
we
agree
that
the
reference
to
the
November,
1980
date
is
obsolete
and
should
be
revised,
there
may
still
be
a
need
for
language
applying
the
Part
265
rules
to
generators
and
owners
and
operators
who
are
managing
hazardous
wastes
at
TSDFs,
but
who
have
not
received
a
permit
or
achieved
interim
status.
If
the
rule
is
modified
as
proposed,
then
there
will
be
no
applicable
design
or
performance
standards
to
apply
to
such
facilities.

Response:
Upon
reassessment
of
this
proposed
deletion,
we
agree
with
the
commenter
that
this
language
is
needed,
and
are
retaining
it
in
the
final
rule.

265.16
Personnel
Training 
Emergency
response:

Document
#:
0005
Consistent,
up­
to­
date
training
in
hazardous
waste
management
rules
and
procedures
from
the
point
of
generation
through
ultimate
disposal
and
post­
closure
care
("
cradle
to
grave")
is
critical
to
achieving
the
objectives
of
RCRA.
This
training
is
not
achieved
under
OSHA
rules.

Modern
training
methods
and
technologies
are
significantly
reducing
the
time,
effort,
and
cost
of
training
and
especially
of
recordkeeping.
EPA's
paperwork
reduction
efforts
should
focus
on
allowing
for
modern
training
and
recordkeeping
technology,
rather
than
eliminating
records.

The
requirement
to
document
training
motivates
managers
to
actually
do
the
training.
For
some,
no
recordkeeping
requirement
will
equate
to
no
training.
We
strongly
recommend
the
EPA
take
care
not
to
make
the
RCRA
training
rules
appear
less
stringent.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
if
anything
the
opposite
should
be
accomplished.

EPA
continues
to
recognize
the
importance
o
training
in
its
support
and
promotion
of
ISO
14000
and
other
environmental
management
systems,
which
include
documentation
of
training
as
core
49
requirements.
[
63
FR
12094,
March
12,
1998].

Training
Is
Essential
to
Compliance
and
Safety
RCRA
training
requirements
were
first
proposed
on
12/
18/
78,
because
EPA's
"
file
of
damage
incidents
which
have
occurred
at
hazardous
waste
management
facilities"
indicated
that
lack
of
appropriate
training
was
one
of
the
major
"
causes
of
human
health
and
environmental
damage"
[
43
FR
58985].

More
recently,
a
comprehensive
study
of
the
root
causes
of
environmental
non­
compliance
found
the
top
three
root
causes
of
environmental
non­
compliance,
in
order,
to
be:
1.
The
facility
being
"
unaware
of
the
applicability
of
regulation"
2.
Individual
human
error,
and
3.
Operating
procedures
not
followed.
[
EPA/
CMA
Root
Cause
Analysis
Pilot
Project,
US
EPA
Office
of
Compliance
Assurance,
may
1999,
EPA­
305­
R­
99­
001]

All
of
these
are
issues
that
are
best
addressed
through
training.

Similarly,
the
US
Department
of
Transportation,
Office
of
Hazardous
Materials
Safety
has
recently
been
expanding
its
training
requirements
based
on
their
determination
that
inadequate
training
is
responsible
for
much
of
the
noncompliance
and
for
many
major
incidents
involving
hazmat
transportation.

Training
Technology
Is
Changing
as
Industrial
Training
Needs
Are
Increasing
Technology
is
now
available
which
considerably
reduces
the
cost
and
time
required
to
deliver
and
document
training.
Digital
technology
has
made
it
much
more
convenient
to
train
"
on
demand",
on
the
job,
or
at
home.
Computer
interactive
and
game­
oriented
training,
web­
based
on­
demand
training
and
new
low­
cost
video
conferencing
technologies
are
examples
of
applied
technology
now
reducing
the
number
of
hours
required
to
cover
given
subjects,
making
it
more
convenient
to
schedule
training
around
work
demands,
and
generally
reducing
costs.
Documentation
of
successful
training
can
be
produced
automatically
and
at
virtually
no
cost,
by
a
modern
training
system.

Most
industrial
sites
already
have
such
technologies
either
on
site
or
readily
available
nearby.
In
order
to
meet
a
broad
range
of
training
needs
(
not
just
regulatory
compliance)
most
have
made
availability
of
such
resources
a
high
priority.

Managers
Need
This
Regulation
We
find
that
most
employees
and
managers
want
good
RCRA
training.
They
see
such
training
as
a
tool
to
"
keep
out
of
trouble",
and
as
a
means
of
improving
themselves
and
their
careers.
50
In
the
commercial
sector,
however,
in
order
to
fund
any
program
which
does
not
directly
contribute
to
profit,
middle
and
line
managers
at
industrial
and
commercial
sites
need
to
demonstrate
an
explicit
basis
for
needing
such
program.
Nothing
ism
ore
explicit
and
objective
than
a
regulation.

As
one
illustration
of
this
need,
in
responding
to
a
recent
request
for
comment
by
the
US
DOT,
Office
of
Hazardous
Materials,
a
leading
industry
association
(
COSTHA)
explicitly
requested
an
increase
in
hazardous
materials
training
requirements.

Indirect
Benefits
of
RCRA
Training:

Training
does
much
more
than
just
convey
information;
it
improves
focus.
Training
motivates
people
and
improves
and
encourages
environmental
safety
and
compliance.
RCRA
training
improves
the
national
environmental
work
force.

Should
EPA
Eliminate
Recordkeeping
for
RCRA
Personnel
Training?

No.
Elimination
of
recordkeeping
standards
would
impede
enforcement
and
may
actually
increase
recordkeeping
burden.

No
Acutal
Reduction
in
Paperwork
Eliminating
requirements
to
keep
records
of
RCRA
personnel
training
will
not
reduce
paperwork
for
the
regulated
community.
If
recordkeeping
standards
are
removed,
managers
will
have
no
uniform,
objective
basis
for
demonstrating
compliance.
This
will
increase
their
burden,
cost
and
risk
as
described
below.

In
the
event
of
enforcement
or
litigation,
the
regulated
community
needs
an
objective
standard
for
what
should
have
been
expected
of
them.
Explicit
recordkeeping
criteria
establish
this
standard.

Legal
counsels
often
use
documented
compliance
with
government
or
industry
standards
as
a
valuable
defense
against
enforcement
or
other
legal
claims.
In
the
absence
of
government
standards,
conscientious
industrial
managers
and
their
legal
counsel
will
have
to
develop
their
own
standards,
policies
and
procedures
for
"
defensive
documentation".
Without
a
regulatory
standard
for
appropriate
records,
the
facility
may
need
to
keep
more
documentation
than
is
currently
required,
and
the
facility
management
still
will
have
no
assurances
that
such
documentation
will
be
acceptable
to
enforcement
agencies
or
courts.

Records
Versus
"
Annual
Review"

RCRA
regulations
require
personnel
training
to
be
reviewed
annually.
With
no
record
of
when,
or
even
if,
training
was
done,
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
track
or
assess
update
requirements.
This
would
be
especially
complicated
for
large
facilities
with
many
individuals
meeting
the
51
definition
of
"
personnel"
at
40
CFR
260.10.

Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Reducing
or
eliminating
recordkeeping
standards
will
impede
enforcement
and
will
reduce
concern
about
training
for
less
conscientious
managers.

Records
allow
government
inspectors,
insurance
inspectors,
industrial
and
institutional
auditors
and
consultants
to
determine
whether
required
and
appropriate
training
is
being
performed.
The
depth
of
knowledge
and
competence
at
the
site
indicate
a
site's
ability
to
maintain
compliance,
and
to
be
prepared
for
problems
and
issues
that
do
arise.
Without
records,
inspectors
and
auditors
must
wait
until
they
find
environmental
incidents
or
hazards
already
existing
before
they
can
take
action.
In
this
sense,
training
records
actually
serve
to
prevent
environmental
damage.

We
have
found
that,
for
some
members
of
the
regulated
community,
the
driver
for
annual
training
is
not
the
training
requirement
itself
[
40
CFR
264/
265.16(
c)],
but
rather
the
requirement
to
have
documentation,
or
proof,
of
training
[
§
264/
265.16(
d)(
4_].
For
these
people,
removing
the
requirement
to
have
a
record
of
training
will
have
the
effect
of
removing
the
training
requirement
itself.

Divergent
State
Rules
In
light
of
enforcement
concerns,
most
states
agencies
likely
will
retain
recordkeeping
requirements
for
training.
Without
a
national
standard,
such
requirements
can
be
expected
to
diverge
over
time.
Eventually,
companies
will
multi­
state
operations
may
face
different
and
even
contradictory
standards
for
training
records
in
each
state
in
which
they
operate.
This
will
be
a
burden
to
commerce
as
employees
transferred
between
states
may
not
be
able
to
transfer
their
training
records.

EPA
Should
Provide
Flexibility
in
Recordkeeping
Current
rules
[
40
CFR
264.16(
d)­(
e)
and
265.16(
d)­(
e)]
require
training
records
to
be
maintained
°
as
written
documents,
°
in
a
specific
format,
°
at
the
facility,
°
in
their
entirety,
°
until
facility
closure.
The
detailed
prescriptive
nature
of
this
rule
forces
many
companies
to
duplicate
training
records.
The
burden
of
keeping
training
records
can
be
significantly
reduced
by
providing
flexibility
in
the
content
and
format
of
these
records;
i.
e.,
°
By
allowing
the
record
to
be
kept
in
any
medium
(
electronic,
video,
etc.),
as
long
as
such
medium
is
secure,
e.
g.
by
such
means
as
a
password.
°
By
providing
some
flexibility
in
the
specific
data
to
be
recorded,
and
52
°
By
allowing
records
to
be
kept
on
an
Intranet
or
via
Internet,
and
°
By
allowing
for
third­
party
certification
of
training
and
maintenance
of
records.
(
Such
documentation
is
usually
provided
free
by
training
vendors.)

As
an
example,
under
the
hazardous
materials
transportation
regulations
[
49
CFR
171­
179]
the
U.
S.
DOT
requires
training
for
"
hazmat
employees".
The
DOT
also
requires
the
creation
of
a
"
record
of
current
training"
[
49
CFR
172.704(
d)].
In
acknowledgment
of
current
technology,
the
form
of
this
record
is
not
mandated
­
DOT
has
stated
in
official
guidance
that
it
can
be
paper,
electronic
or
other
means
of
recording.

Also,
current
rules
require
facilities
to
maintain
all
records
of
all
training
for
all
employees
until
closure
of
the
facility.
Once
an
employee
receives
his
or
her
annual
update
training,
as
required
at
§
(
c),
the
previous
update
training
is
no
longer
significant
to
his
or
her
job
performance.
This
long­
term
paperwork
requirement
does
not
provide
additional
environmental
benefit.
It
should
be
eliminated.

Recommended
Regulatory
Changes
To
address
the
above
concerns,
we
recommend
that
EPA
modify
the
training
recordkeeping
requirements
[
40
CFR
264.16(
d)­(
e)
and
265.16(
d)­(
e)]
to
read
follows:

"(
d)
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
records
of
current
training,
including:
"(
1)
An
identification
of
each
position
at
the
facility
related
to
hazardous
waste
management.
Positions
with
similar
hazardous
waste
responsibilities
may
be
grouped
as
appropriate.
"(
2)
A
description
of
the
training
required
for
each
position,
or
a
copy
of
the
training
materials
used.
"(
3)
A
unique
identification
for
each
person
working
in
each
position
that
requires
hazardous
waste
training
(
e.
g.,
full
name
or
employee
ID
number).
"(
4)
Certification
that
the
required
training
has
been
given
to
and
successfully
completed
by
each
person
identified
above.
"(
5)
The
most
recent
date
of
update
training
for
each
person
identified
above."
"(
e)
Records
of
training
for
current
employees
shall
be
kept
until
that
training
is
repeated.
Records
for
former
employees
shall
be
kept
for
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
the
employee
last
worked
at
the
facility.
Records
shall
be
maintained
in
a
manner
that
they
can
be
provided
to
a
representative
of
the
EPA
on
request
(
e.
g.,
within
2
hours
during
normal
business
hours)."

Should
EPA
Eliminate
Training
and
Recordkeeping
that
Duplicates
OSHA's?

Yes.
EPA
rules
that
duplicate
OSHA
rules
either
should
be
eliminated
or
should
reference
OSHA
rules.
However,
RCRA
rules
only
duplicate
OSHA
rules
in
limited
ways.

Different
goals
53
The
goal
of
OSHA
training
rules
is
"
to
enable
the
employees
to
perform
their
assigned
duties
and
functions
in
a
safe
and
healthful
manner
so
as
not
[
to]
endanger
themselves
or
other
employees"
[
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
7)(
I)].
The
goal
of
RCRA
training
is
to
"
protect
human
health
and
the
environment"
(
SW­
968,
Permit
applicants
Guidance
Manual
for
the
General
Facility
Standards
of
40
CFR
264,
US
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
October
1983,
or,
in
the
words
of
40
CFR
264.16,
"
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part".

Hazardous
waste
generator
rules
mandate
a
variety
of
compliance
activities
including
identifying
hazardous
waste,
container
and
tanks
management,
accumulation
dates,
container
and
tank
markings,
contingency
planning,
emergency
preparedness,
and
off­
site
shipping
with
manifesting
and
LDR
documentation.
TSDF
requirements
are
even
more
detailed.
These
matters
are
not
addressed
by
OSHA
rules.

RCRA
Training
I
Not
Just
for
Emergency
Response
EPA's
background
discussion
in
the
paperwork
burden
reduction
notice
reflects
a
recent
misinterpretation
that
RCRA
requires
training
only
on
emergency
response.
Section
(
a)(
3)
of
the
training
rule
contains
detailed
minimum
requirements
for
emergency
response
training,
to
emphasize
the
importance
of
this
training.
This
was
not
intended
to
indicate
that
RCRA
requires
training
only
on
emergency
response,
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
1­
2)
and
265.16(
a)(
1­
2)
state
that:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
...
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
...
This
program
...
must
include
instruction
which
teaches
facility
personnel
hazardous
waste
management
procedures
(
including
contingency
plan
implementation)
relevant
to
the
positions
in
which
they
are
employed".
(
Emphasis
added)
In
SW­
968,
EPA
stated:
"
The
intent
of
the
personnel
training
requirements
is
to
reduce
the
potential
for
mistakes
...
by
assuring
that
facility
personnel
...
will
be
thoroughly
familiar
with
their
duties
and
responsibilities...

"
The
point
you
should
make
in
your
outline
[
required
under
paragraph
(
d)(
3)]
is
that
your
program
will
prepare
your
employees
to
operate
and
maintain
the
hazardous
waste
facility
in
a
safe
manner."

[
SW­
968,
page
5­
164,
emphasis
added.]

"
Additionally,
employees
who
are
in
charge
of
managing
wastes
must
have
certain
knowledge
which
will
help
them
perform
their
jobs
adequately.
For
example
...
°
`
the
chemical
characteristics
of
the
wastes
they
are
assigned
to
manage
(
i.
e.,
reactivity
and
incompatability
with
other
types
of
wastes)
...
°
"
proper
operation
of
trucks,
forklifts,
or
any
other
machinery
to
be
used
...
54
"
It
is
your
responsibility
to
define
the
scope
of
the
training
programs.
The
training
program
should
assure
the
Agency
that
your
employees
have
or
will
have
acquired
the
necessary
training
and
management
skills
needed
to
perform
their
jobs
in
a
competent
manner
that
will
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

[
SW­
968,
page
5­
167,
5­
168]

Where
Are
the
RCRA
and
OSHA
Training
Programs
Duplicative
for
TSDFs/
LQGs
and
Where
Does
RCRA
Require
Training
Beyond
the
Scope
of
OSHA's
Training?

Under
OSHA
rules,
TSDF
employees
are
subject
to
29
CFR
1910.120(
p);
emergency
response
at
generator
sites
and
public
or
contract
emergency
responders
are
subject
to
29
CFR
1910.120(
q).
Under
RCRA,
TSDFs
are
subject
to
40
CFR
264.16
and
large
quantity
generators
are
subject
to
40
CFR
265.16.

Emergency
Response
Requirements
Are
Similar
but
Not
the
Same
Emergency
response
actions
taken
to
protect
employees
often
are
similar
to
actions
taken
to
protect
the
environment,
but
there
are
notable
differences.
In
either
case,
employees
must
recognize
and
evaluate
the
problem,
stop
the
emergency
and
contain
the
hazardous
waste.
In
one
case
the
focus
is
on
workplace
hazards;
in
the
other
the
focus
is
outside
the
workplace.

OSHA
rules
for
TSDF
employees
at
1910.120(
p)(
8)
and
for
generators
and
others
at
1910.120(
q)
are
generally
more
detailed
and
systematic
than
RCRA
training
requirements.
However
OSHA
rules
focus
on
employee
protection
concerns
(
selection
and
use
of
PPE,
safe
work
practices,
etc.).
Environmental
protection
concerns
such
a
plugging
storm
drains,
managing
secondary
containment,
preventing
discharges
to
water,
preventing
air
emissions,
etc.
are
addressed
only
in
the
recommendatory
1910.120
Appendix
C,
and
some
of
these
issues
are
not
addressed
at
all.

RCRA
rules
contain
a
list
of
example
emergency
response
training
elements
at
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
3)(
ii)
and
265.16(
a)(
3).
This
list
includes
only
six
elements
and
does
not
come
close
to
covering
all
environmental
concerns
in
emergency
response.
Despite
the
intent
of
this
list,
we
have
known
some
compliance
managers
to
mistakenly
use
it
as
a
checklist
for
RCRA
training.
This
list
is
unnecessary
and
potentially
confusing.
It
should
be
eliminated
from
the
regulations.

Accountability
for
"
Employees"
versus
"
Personnel"

EPA
and
OSHA
rules
for
emergency
response
training
are
distinct
in
that
EPA
holds
the
facility
owner
and
operator
responsible
for
training
of
all
personnel
working
at
the
facility,
whether
or
not
they
are
employees.
This
difference
results
from
the
different
statutory
goals
and
statutory
authority
of
the
agencies.

OSHA's
statutory
purpose
is
to
assure
that
an
employer
protects
its
employees
from
harm.
55
EPA's
statutory
purpose
under
RCRA
is
th
assure
that
facility
owners
and
operators
protect
the
environment
from
facility
operations,
regardless
of
whether
those
operations
are
performed
by
employees
or
by
contractors.
The
EPA
should
therefore
retain
accountability
of
owners
and
operators
to
assure
proper
emergency
preparedness
and
response
training
for
all
personnel.

Recommended
Regulatory
Changes
In
order
to
assure
that
emergency
response
training
covers
environmental
concerns
and
to
hold
the
facility
accountable
to
assure
that
all
personnel
have
emergency
response
training,
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
40
CFR
264.16
and
265.16
should
be
revised
to
read
as
follows:
"(
3)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility
shall
assure
that
all
personnel
potentially
involved
in
emergency
response
at
the
facility:
(
i)
have
received
the
training
required
by
the
Occupational
Safety
&
Health
Administration
at
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
or
1910.120(
q),
as
applicable;
and
(
ii)
have
been
trained
in
all
elements
of
the
facility's
contingency
plan
applicable
to
their
roles
in
emergency
response."

Operational
Training
Requirements
Do
Not
Overlap
During
routine
operations,
employee
protection
is
often
at
odds
with
environmental
protection.
For
example,
OSHA
may
require
an
employer
to
provide
ventilation
to
remove
hazardous
air
contaminants
from
the
workplace.
This
in
turn
creates
an
air
emission
point
source
that
the
PEA
must
regulate.

OSHA
hazardous
waste
operations
rules
do
not
require
training
of
LQG
employees
and
personnel
in
routine
operations
at
all.
OSHA
does
have
some
scattered
rules
on
general
safety
and
health
that
would
apply
to
generators
(
e.
g.,
requirements
for
training
o
safe
operation
of
forklifts
and
other
industrial
trucks).
But
non
address
environmental
issues.

20
CFR
1910.120(
p)
requires
that
TSDF
employees
be
trained
as
necessary
"
to
enable
to
employees
to
perform
their
assigned
duties
and
functions
in
a
safe
and
healthful
manner".
This
training
does
not
assure
against
environmental
damage.
For
example,
none
of
the
following
would
be
included
in
TSDF
employee
training
under
OSHA
rules:
°
Preventing
air
emissions
from
tanks,
containers
and
other
devices.
°
Monitoring
and
maintaining
a
99.99%
DRE
in
a
hazardous
waste
incinerator
or
BIF.
°
Preventing
the
commingling
of
wastes
that,
once
mixed,
become
impossible
to
treat
to
meet
land
disposal
restrictions.
°
Determining,
based
on
waste
analysis,
whether
the
facility
can
effectively
treat
a
particular
waste.
°
Preventing
the
unknowing
entry
and
minimizing
the
unauthorized
entry
of
non­
employees
to
waste
management
areas.

All
of
these,
and
others,
are
encompassed
under
EPA's
general
mandate
to
train
all
personnel
"
to
1Formerly
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office.

56
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
..."
[
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
1)].

Recommended
Regulatory
Changes
Lion
recommends
that
EPA
leave
40
CFR
264.16(
a)(
1­
2),
(
b)
and
(
c)
as
is.
This
will
emphasize
the
performance
standard
(
to
train
personnel
"
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
...")
as
the
key
aspect
of
RCRA
training.
Since
training
needs
vary
considerably,
based
on
operations
and
employee
responsibilities,
the
regulated
community
should
be
allowed
the
flexibility
to
determine
required
competencies
and
training
needs
for
each
group
of
employees
and
to
train
each
group
as
appropriate.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment
and
notes
that
we
are
retaining
the
existing
requirements
under
264.16(
a)(
1­
2),
(
b)
and
(
c)
as
is.
We
are
however,
revising
§
§
264.16
and
265.16
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
OSHA
and
RCRA
regulations
while
still
ensuring
protectiveness.
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
have
both
promulgated
regulations
addressing
worker
activities
and
training
at
hazardous
waste
management
facilities.
While
EPA's
hazardous
waste
regulations
focus
on
facility
operations,
worker
training,
OSHA
focuses
on
worker
safety.
Both
agencies
require
worker
training.
While
we
were
conducting
our
own
review
of
potential
overlaps
between
EPA
and
OSHA
regulations,
the
Government
Accountability
Office1
published
in
October
2000
a
study
on
the
issue.
GAO
suggested
that
the
overlap
in
emergency
training
requirements
diminishes
the
efficiency
of
the
facility
and
creates
unnecessary
compliance
costs.
The
GAO
study
pointed
out
that
OSHA's
regulations
have
specific
training
requirements
for
RCRA­
permitted
facilities
to
teach
hazardous
waste
workers
how
to
respond
to
emergencies
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
With
the
support
of
the
GAO
findings,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
While
we
received
comments
in
support
of
the
proposal,
other
commenters
expressed
particular
concern
that
two
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
are
not
covered
in
OSHA's
requirements.
(
1)
understanding
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems;
and
(
2)
how
to
respond
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
deletion
of
these
two
requirements
would
endanger
the
environment
and
human
health
in
the
area
of
RCRA
facilities,
in
that
adhering
only
to
the
OSHA
requirements
would
mean
that
workers
would
not
be
trained
in
these
areas.
This,
however,
is
not
EPA's
intention.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
57
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
proposal
because
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910
requirements
are
not
as
comprehensive
as
the
RCRA
requirements
regarding
the
universe
of
facilities.
Specifically,
they
stated
that
OSHA's
regulations
are
not
required
for
all
hazardous
waste
generators
(
e.
g.,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
under
§
261.5
and
small
quantity
generators
under
§
262.34)
and
certain
treatment,
storage,
disposal
facilities
(
e.
g.,
municipal,
state
and
federal
owned
and
operated
facilities.)
We
agree,
and
facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.
.

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposal
to
drop
the
RCRA
requirements
for
emergency
response
training
where
they
overlap
OSHA
training
requirements
(
67
FR
2527).
We
agree
with
your
logic
that
OSHA
requirements
are
more
extensive
than
are
RCRA
requirements.
We
also
agree
with
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirement
that
facilities
include
job
titles
and
descriptions
as
a
part
of
personnel
records.
We
agree
that
job
titles
and
descriptions
have
little
to
do
with
whether
the
employee
is
properly
trained.
Finally,
we
agree
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirement
for
a
description
of
the
training
an
employee
will
receive.
We
agree
that
this
is
best
done
during
facility
inspections
to
ensure
adequate
training
and
that
simply
documenting
the
employee's
name
and
date
of
training
are
sufficient.

In
addition,
we
suggest
that
retaining
training
records
for
three
years
is
more
than
adequate
and
suggest
that
EPA
modify
264.16(
e)
and
265.16(
e)
to
reflect
this
change.
2Formerly
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office.

58
Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
but
would
like
to
note
that
based
on
a
review
of
all
the
comments
on
this
proposed
change,
we
are
revising
§
§
264.16
and
265.16
to
only
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
OSHA
and
RCRA
regulations
while
still
ensuring
protectiveness.
EPA
and
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
have
both
promulgated
regulations
addressing
worker
activities
and
training
at
hazardous
waste
management
facilities.
While
EPA's
hazardous
waste
regulations
focus
on
facility
operations,
worker
training,
OSHA
focuses
on
worker
safety.
Both
agencies
require
worker
training.
While
we
were
conducting
our
own
review
of
potential
overlaps
between
EPA
and
OSHA
regulations,
the
Government
Accountability
Office2
published
in
October
2000
a
study
on
the
issue.
GAO
suggested
that
the
overlap
in
emergency
training
requirements
diminishes
the
efficiency
of
the
facility
and
creates
unnecessary
compliance
costs.
The
GAO
study
pointed
out
that
OSHA's
regulations
have
specific
training
requirements
for
RCRA­
permitted
facilities
to
teach
hazardous
waste
workers
how
to
respond
to
emergencies
under
29
CFR
1910.120(
p).
With
the
support
of
the
GAO
findings,
EPA
proposed
to
eliminate
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
While
we
received
comments
in
support
of
the
proposal,
other
commenters
expressed
particular
concern
that
two
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
are
not
covered
in
OSHA's
requirements.
(
1)
understanding
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
systems;
and
(
2)
how
to
respond
to
ground­
water
contamination
incidents.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
deletion
of
these
two
requirements
would
endanger
the
environment
and
human
health
in
the
area
of
RCRA
facilities,
in
that
adhering
only
to
the
OSHA
requirements
would
mean
that
workers
would
not
be
trained
in
these
areas.
This,
however,
is
not
EPA's
intention.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
ensure
that
RCRA
facilities
are
not
required
to
provide
separate
training.
We
also
note
that
facilities
exempted
from
RCRA
emergency
response
training
would
still
have
to
comply
with
§
§
264.16(
a)(
1)
and
265.16(
a)(
1),
which
state:
"
Facility
personnel
must
successfully
complete
a
program
of
classroom
instruction
or
on­
the­
job­
training
that
teaches
them
to
perform
their
duties
in
a
way
that
ensures
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part."
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.120
regulations
require
that
employees
understand
and
be
able
to
perform
the
standard
operating
procedures
that
are
part
of
their
daily
work.
OSHA's
29
CFR
1910.38
Emergency
Action
Plan
requirements
include
mandated
training
in
procedures
to
be
followed
by
employees
who
operate
critical
plant
operations
(
such
as
responding
to
ground
water
contamination
incidents)
during
a
spill
or
other
emergency.
To
ensure
that
all
facilities
are
covered
and
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
the
emergency
response
training
requirements,
we
are
providing
flexibility
by
allowing
facilities
to
eliminate
redundant
emergency
response
training
requirements
under
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
(
as
opposed
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach
of
requiring
facilities
to
follow
only
the
OSHA
regulations).
For
example,
if
a
facility
can
meet
all
of
the
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
we
would
consider
the
facility
in
compliance
with
the
regulation.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
facility
cannot
meet
the
emergency
response
59
training
requirements
through
an
OSHA
training
course,
then
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
that
facility
to
address
any
gaps
(
for
example,
if
OSHA
did
not
include
automatic
waste
feed
cut­
off
training,
there
would
not
be
a
problem
as
long
as
appropriate
training
occurs,
such
as
combustor
staff
receives
this
training
as
part
of
its
RCRA
training.)
Facilities
not
subject
to
OSHA
training
requirements
would
have
to
comply
with
the
RCRA
training
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
all
facilities.
Generators
and
owners/
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
should
work
with
the
appropriate
permitting
and/
or
enforcement
authority
to
ensure
that
the
approach
they
take
in
developing
an
emergency
response
training
program
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
264.16
and
265.16.
.

§
265.16(
a)(
3)
Personnel
Training 
Emergency
response:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate
and
replace
with
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
requirements,
which
are
more
comprehensive
than
the
RCRA
requirements.
Final
Action:
Today's
final
rule
avoids
duplicative
training
for
a
generator
and/
or
the
owner/
operator
of
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facilities
who
are
covered
by
both
the
OSHA
and
RCRA
emergency
response
training
requirements.
Response:
The
reader
is
referred
to
§
264.16(
a)(
3)
of
this
document
for
a
complete
discussion
of
the
comments
submitted
on
this
topic.

Document
#:
0157
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
a
number
of
the
personnel
training
recordkeeping
requirements
currently
set
forth
in
40
CFR
§
265.16,
which
are
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
90­
day
accumulation
unit
provisions,
including
(
1)
replacing
specific
training
components
set
forth
in
§
264.16(
a)(
3)
with
more
comprehensive
OSHA
requirements;
and
(
2)
eliminating
requirements
under
§
265.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)
to
keep
records
of
job
titles,
descriptions
of
same,
and
records
as
to
the
type
and
amount
of
training
provided
to
employees.
Id.
at
2523.
USWAG
agrees
there
is
overlap
in
RCRA
and
OSHA
emergency
response
training
regulations,
and
OSHA
regulations
are
actually
more
extensive.
Id.
at
2527.
We
concur
that
"
requiring
job
descriptions
provides
little
value
in
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
Often
these
job
descriptions
bear
little
resemblance
to
the
work
the
employees
do,
and
they
have
little
relationship
to
whether
an
employee
is
trained
properly."
Id.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
and
appreciates
this
comment,
however,
the
States
have
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
is
being
retained.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
a
wholesale
elimination
of
the
RCRA
Personnel
Training
requirements
in
favor
of
the
OSHA
requirements.
Although
there
is
some
overlap,
there
is
good
reason
since
certain
requirements
are
relevant
to
both
programs
and
consequently
a
single
set
of
records
will
suffice
to
document
compliance
with
both
programs.
However,
the
OSHA
Requirements
although
similar
to
RCRA
requirements
are
not
as
detailed
as
the
RCRA
requirements.
For
instance,
the
OSHA
60
requirements
do
not
identify
key
parameters
for
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
systems
or
response
to
groundwater
contamination
incidents.
It
may
be
possible
to
list,
which
requirements
are
beyond
the
OSHA
requirements;
however,
it
is
more
efficient
to
maintain
the
base
RCRA
personnel
training
requirements.
Since
OSHA
and
RCRA
are
different
statutes
with
different
goals,
any
future
changes
in
OSHA
would
not
necessarily
contemplate
the
potential
impacts
to
RCRA
facilities.
Also,
it
is
well
known
that
OSHA
does
not
have
the
staff
to
perform
inspections
on
their
current
universe
and
this
would
be
further
exasperated
by
deferring
RCRA
personnel
training
to
their
oversight.
The
States
ensuring
that
the
requirements
are
met
inspect
RCRA
facilities
on
a
regular
basis.
Furthermore,
facilities
have
made
measurable
improvements
on
the
overall
violations
noted
when
they
have
improved
the
training
for
personnel
responsible
for
managing
or
generating
hazardous
wastes.
Most
facilities
adopt
a
training
curriculum
specific
to
the
wastes
generated
at
their
facility.

Response:
Today's
final
rule
provides
the
flexibility
for
a
generator
and/
or
the
owner/
operator
of
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facilities
to
avoid
duplicative
emergency
response
training
when
covered
by
both
the
OSHA
and
RCRA
regulatory
requirements.

Document
#:
0218
Revise
wording
to
clarify
Response:
Thank
you
for
this
suggestion.

265.16
Personnel
Training 
Record
job
titles:

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
requirement
to
record
job
title
and
description,
reword.

265.16(
a)

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
unnecessary
language.

265.16(
d)(
1)(
2)

Personnel
Training 
Record
job
titles:

Document
#:
0169
61
We
oppose
this
change.
This
is
an
insignificant
burden
and
the
job
titles
are
used
to
identify
facility
personnel
who
require
the
RCRA
training
or
specialized
training
because
of
their
position.
All
facility
personnel
are
not
required
to
have
RCRA
training,
only
employees
exposed
to
or
are
responsible
for
hazardous
waste
duties.
Generally,
this
information
is
standard
in
the
human
resource
division
at
a
company.

265.16(
d)(
1)­(
3)

Personnel
Training 
Record
job
titles:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement 
from
information
we
received
from
the
field,
the
job
title
doesn't
necessarily
correspond
to
the
work
the
employee
does,
and
has
little
bearing
on
whether
the
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.

Document
#
0030:
ECA
supports
maintaining
records
that
employees
managing
waste
are
trained
in
a
manner
that
meets
the
requirements
of
265.16
(
a­
c).
However,
the
265.16(
d)(
1­
3)
requirements
relating
to
documenting
job
titles,
job
descriptions
and
individual
training
plans
are
overly
burdensome
and
prescriptive
requirements
that
do
not
directly
relate
to
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
Some
facilities
may
include
these
elements
in
their
organization
and
training
plans,
but
these
elements
should
not
be
a
regulatory
requirement.

Document
#
0033:
BCI
supports
the
elimination
of
all
recordkeeping
associated
with
RCRA
personnel
training
by
replacing
it
with
a
one­
time
certification
that
all
employees
have
been
properly
trained.
We
believe
that
certification
is
sufficient
to
verify
that
employees
have
received
the
necessary
training.

265.16(
d)(
3)

Personnel
Training 
Record
job
titles:

Document
#
0169:
We
oppose
this
change.
This
is
an
insignificant
burden.
This
requirement
identifies
the
training
requirements
for
each
job.
The
training
requirements
are
specific
to
each
job
title.
This
requirement
ensures
that
specific
training
is
required
on
a
regular
basis.
Training
in
confined
space
is
not
the
same
as
training
for
labeling
and
placarding.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
requirements
to
record
type
and
amount
of
training
to
provided
Response
to
Comments:
The
States
persuaded
us
that
this
information
is
critical
in
determining
whether
facility
personnel
are
properly
trained
and
as
such
is
being
retained.
62
265.52­­
Contingency
Plans 
Coordination
with
other
plans:
Proposal:
Modify 
Facilities
should
follow
the
One
Plan
guidance,
which
is
designed
to
eliminate
overlap
between
different
regulatory
requirements
for
contingency
plans.
This
proposal
has
been
endorsed
by
a
recent
General
Accounting
Office
report
on
worker
protection.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
Contingency
Plan
requirements
to
eliminate
need
to
prepare
multiple
documents.

Document
#:
0133
In
support
eliminating
the
need
for
a
separate
Contingency
Plan
and
allow
the
plan
to
be
coordinated
with
other
emergency
response
plans.

Document
#:
0157
We
applaud
EPA
for
proposing
to
amend
40
CFR
§
265.52(
b)
to
allow
facilities
to
follow
the
"
One
Plan"
guidance,
which
is
designed
to
eliminate
overlap
between
different
regulatory
requirements
for
contingency
plans.
This
approach
will
allow
facilities
to
consolidate
multiple
contingency
plans
they
must
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations
into
one
document.
Id.
at
2529­
30
ACE
supports
the
Proposed
Rule's
changes
to
the
training
and
contingency
planning
requirements.
Many
of
our
members
are
hazardous
waste
generators
subject
to
these
requirements
and
the
Proposed
Rule
would
eliminated
duplicative
training
requirements
and
the
need
for
multiple
(
and
possibly
inconsistent
contingency
and
emergency
response
plans.

Document
#:
0169
Contingency
Plans
­
Coordination
with
other
plans:
Modify­
Facilities
should
follow
the
One
Plan
guidance,
which
is
designed
to
eliminate
overlap
between
different
regulatory
requirements
for
contingency
plans.
This
proposal
has
been
endorsed
by
a
recent
General
Accounting
Office
report
on
worker
protection.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0203
Onyx
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
consolidate
the
facilities
Contingency
Plans
into
one
Integrated
Contingency
Plan.
This
proposal
will
minimize
the
duplication
and
cost
associated
with
developing
and
maintaining
multiple
contingency
plans
and
avoid
confusion
for
emergency
responsible
personnel
in
the
event
the
contingency
plan
is
required
to
be
activated.

Document
#
0224:
CRWI
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
allow
consolidation
of
contingency
plans
under
DOT,
DOI,
DOL,
and
EPA.
This
would
allow
each
facility
would
have
only
one
contingency
management
plan.
3
In
1996,
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
the
Department
of
Transportation,
the
Department
of
the
Interior,
and
the
Department
of
Labor,
issued
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
This
guidance
provides
a
mechanism
for
consolidating
the
multiple
contingency
plans
that
facilities
have
to
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations.
Owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
facilities
can
develop
one
contingency
plan
based
on
this
Guidance.
The
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
can
be
found
at
61
FR
28641,
June
5,
1996
or
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
swercepp/
p­
tech.
htm
63
Document
#
0335:
Eliminate
the
need
for
a
separate
Contingency
Plan
and
allow
the
plan
to
be
coordinated
with
other
emergency
response
plans.

Response
to
Comments:
We
are
amending
§
§
264.52(
b)
and
265.52(
b)
of
the
RCRA
regulations
to
provide
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
the
option
of
developing
one
contingency
plan.
EPA
recommends
that
the
plan
be
based
on
the
integrated
contingency
plan
guidance.
3
This
guidance
provides
an
excellent
set
of
standards
for
consolidating
the
multiple
contingency
plans
that
facilities
have
to
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations.
The
use
of
a
single
plan
per
facility
will
eliminate
the
confusion
for
facilities
that
must
decide
which
of
the
contingency
plans
is
applicable
to
a
particular
emergency.
In
addition,
a
single
plan
will
provide
"
first
responders"
(
e.
g.,
firemen)
with
a
mechanism
for
complying
with
multiple
regulatory
requirements.
The
adoption
of
a
standard
plan
should
ease
the
burden
of
coordination
with
local
emergency
planning
committees.
Today's
rule
clarifies
our
regulations
(
see
§
§
264.52
and
265.52)
by
specifically
authorizing
combined
plans,
as
well
as
clarifying
that
when
modifications
are
made
to
non­
RCRA
provisions
in
an
integrated
contingency
plan,
the
changes
do
not
trigger
the
need
for
a
RCRA
permit
modification.

265.56(
i)­­
Emergency
Procedures 
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
265.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
is
a
notification
to
the
regulatory
Agency
that
the
emergency
coordinator
has
ensured
that
no
incompatible
waste
is
being
treated
at
the
site
and
that
the
emergency
equipment
is
ready
to
use
again.
This
emergency
coordinator
does
not
need
to
have
this
notification
to
ensure
that
these
tasks
are
done.
The
environmentally
protective
activities
are
still
in
place,
and
are
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record,
as
well
as
documented
by
the
emergency
coordinator.

Document
#:
0042
Notification
of
Compliance
­
Submit
report
to
Regional
Administrator
Document
#:
0157
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
requirement
under
40
CFR
§
265.56(
i)
to
notify
the
appropriate
regulatory
Agency
that
emergency
equipment
is
ready
for
use
again
after
a
facility
has
a
spill
that
requires
implementation
of
a
hazardous
waste
contingency
plan.
Id.
at
2524.
We
agree
that
the
64
Agency"...
does
not
need
to
have
this
notification
to
ensure
that
these
tasks
are
done.
The
environmentally
protective
activities
are
still
in
place,
and
are
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record,
as
well
as
documented
by
the
emergency
coordinator."
Id.

Document
#:
0169
Emergency
Procedures­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
265.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
is
a
notification
to
the
regulatory
Agency
that
the
emergency
coordinator
has
ensured
that
no
incompatible
waste
is
being
treated
at
the
site
and
that
the
emergency
equipment
is
ready
to
use
again.
This
emergency
coordinator
does
not
need
to
have
this
notification
to
ensure
that
these
tasks
are
done.
The
environmentally
protective
activities
are
still
in
place,
and
are
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record,
as
well
as
documented
by
the
emergency
coordinator.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
notification
requirement
certifying
compliance
before
resuming
operations.

Response
to
Comments:
We
have
decided
to
finalize
the
elimination
of
this
notification
provision.
The
Regional
Administrator
and
appropriate
State
and
local
authorities
will
still
be
getting
a
report
15
days
after
the
emergency
incident
(
as
required
in
§
§
264.56(
j)
and
265.56(
j)).
This
report
will
specify
the
details
of
the
incident
that
required
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan.
In
most
cases,
the
incident
is
likely
to
be
relatively
minor,
and
operations
may
even
be
ready
for
resumption
with
the
15
days.
Furthermore,
the
actions
to
be
taken
(
i.
e.,
not
handling
incompatible
waste
and
cleaning
emergency
equipment)
are
straightforward
and
it
is
not
clear
what
value
a
simple
notification
would
add.
On
the
other
hand,
in
major
incidents,
the
State
would
likely
send
personnel
on­
site
and
would
be
in
a
position
to
ensure
that
an
appropriate
response
was
taken
before
operations
resumed.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
to
eliminate
this
likely
redundant
notification
requirement.

265.73(
b)­­
Operating
Record 
Keep
operating
record
for
facility:
Modify
the
amount
of
time
most
records
have
to
be
kept;
three
years
instead
of
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
This
will
standardize
the
RCRA
record
retention
time
requirements,
eliminating
confusion
about
how
long
records
have
to
be
kept.

Document
#
0131:
From
an
enforcement
perspective,
historical
information
can
be
of
importance
to
determine
a
handler's
compliance
record.
Further,
the
hazardous
waste
regulatory
agency
has
not
observed
that
the
current
requirement
of
maintaining
records
for
the
life
of
a
facility
has
posed
any
significant
burden
on
the
regulated
community.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
changes
proposed
to
§
265.73(
b).

The
changes
proposed
to
§
265.73(
b)(
1)
do
not
reference
Appendix
I
of
40
CFR
265
which
65
provides
additional
instructions
on
describing
waste
and
handling
codes.
Without
this
reference
to
the
Appendix,
handlers
may
record
varying
information
on
the
management
of
their
hazardous
waste.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
changes
proposed
in
§
265.73(
b)(
1).

Document
#
0169:
Operating
Record­
Keep
operating
record
for
facility:
Modify
the
amount
of
time
most
records
have
to
be
kept;
three
years
instead
of
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
This
will
standardize
the
RCRA
record
retention
time
requirements,
eliminating
confusion
about
how
long
records
have
to
be
kept.

Although
we
generally
support
a
reduction
in
the
retention
times
for
some
records,
the
records
retained
in
the
operating
record
include
all
design
requirements
and
assessments
and
records
of
implementing
the
Contingency
Plan
that
need
to
be
maintained
much
longer.
If
the
other
proposed
changes
that
allow
facilities
not
to
submit
required
notices
to
regulatory
agencies
and
not
to
maintain
information
in
the
operating
record,
this
reduces
the
time
frame
for
all
notices
and
reports
to
three
years.
This
is
simply
not
adequate
for
several
submittals,
which
are
currently
required.

Document
#
0212:
EPA
should
only
allow
a
three­
year
retention
period
if
there
are
no
outstanding
enforcement,
noncompliance
or
legal
issues
pending.
EPA
should
be
required
to
revoke
this
allowance
if
any
government
official
issues
the
facility
or
its
parent
corporation
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance.

Document
#
0218:
Modify
record
retention
time
requirements.
Support
Document
#
0241:
The
proposal
would
change
the
holding
time
for
certain
operating
records.
This
change
is
also
being
made
in
264.73.
We
believe
EPA
intended
to
change
the
holding
times
for
the
same
records
in
both
264
and
265.
However,
the
proposed
revisions
to
265.73
appear
to
be
incorrect.

Document
#
0348:
Third
paragraph
­
Keeping
records
on
facility
inspections
for
only
three
years
undermines
potential
enforcement
actions
down
the
line.
Those
inspection
records
are
often
the
only
paper
trail
of
compliance
problems.
Companies
should
be
required
to
keep
such
records
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
In
no
case
should
record
retention
be
changed
to
three
years
if
there
are
outstanding
enforcement,
non­
compliance
or
legal
issues
pending.

Document
#
0349:
ADEQ
concurs
that
there
are
some
records
which
could
be
discarded
after
a
three
(
3)
year
period.
We
concur
in
only
keeping
the
latest
closure
and
post
closure
cost
estimates.
However,
three
years
worth
of
data
for
an
incinerator
(
i.
e.,
emissions
data)
is
not
sufficient
and
should
be
maintained
longer.
But
we
do
not
believe
there
is
any
benefit
to
maintaining
these
records
for
a
66
period
of
five
to
seven
years
would
allow
facilities
and
regulators
both
to
have
a
"
trend"
of
data
to
review
at
a
later
date
for
chronic
health
or
environmental
concerns.
EPA
should
provide
more
information
on
this
issue
before
a
decision
is
final
and
they
should
be
more
specific
in
their
intent.
Does
"
three
years"
mean
a
strict
72
month
period
where
old
records
would
be
disposed
on
a
monthly
basis
as
they
pass
the
72
month
period,
or
does
it
mean
a
complete
calendar
year's
worth
of
records?
Does
it
intend
to
file
the
three
past
years'
plus
the
current
ongoing
year's
worth
of
records?

Response
to
Comments:
Today,
we
are
amending
a
number
of
the
operating
record
requirements
under
§
265.73
to
reduce
the
record
retention
time
for
certain
information
to
three
years.
Among
other
things,
we
are
modifying
the
retention
time
limit
for
records
on
waste
analyses;
certain
monitoring,
testing
and
analytical
data;
waste
determinations;
selected
certifications;
and
notifications.
We
believe
that
these
changes
establish
a
more
reasonable
record
retention
time
than
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
until
closure
of
the
facility.
In
addition,
the
three­
year
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
enable
regulators
to
effectively
monitor
industry
compliance
and
take
enforcement
actions
as
needed.
In
any
event,
§
265.74(
b)
requires
the
retention
period
of
any
records
to
be
extended
automatically
during
the
course
of
any
unresolved
enforcement
action
regarding
the
facility
or
as
requested
by
the
Administrator.
We
are
not
modifying
the
retention
limit
for
records
that
contain
the
following
information:
(
1)
description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
what
was
done
with
it;
(
2)
location
of
each
hazardous
waste;
(
3)
closure
estimates;
or
(
4)
quantities
of
waste
placed
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction.
The
retention
of
this
information
is
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
life
of
the
facility,
and
until
closure
of
the
facility.

265.90(
d)(
1)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan:
Modify 
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator,
it
can
be
kept
onsite
where
it
will
be
available
for
regulators
to
inspect.

Document
#:
0131
EPA
proposes
removing
the
requirement
that
the
plan
developed
under
§
265.90(
d)(
1)
be
submitted
to
the
regulating
authority.
The
plan
must
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
3)
for
an
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
system.
The
regulating
authority
should
receive
a
copy
of
the
plan
to
assess
its
appropriateness.

In
addition,
the
regulation
authority
should
receive
a
copy
of
the
plan
to
evaluate
sampling
and
analysis
completed
per
the
plan.
EPA's
rationale
places
the
burden
on
the
regulating
authority
to
acquire
the
plan.
The
Department
does
not
support
deleting
§
265.90(
d)(
1).

Response:
In
today's
Final
Rule,
EPA
will
now
require
waste
handlers
only
to
keep
these
records
on
site.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
As
stated
in
today's
preamble,
EPA
believes
that
67
many
of
the
various
notices
required
do
not
add
very
much
in
protection
and,
in
fact,
some
are
simply
redundant.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
there
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
the
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan.

265.90/
265.93
Document
#:
0155
The
proposal
seeks
to
eliminate
the
submittal
of
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
information
for
groundwater
quality
assessment
plans.
While
the
proposal
states
that
these
plans
can
be
maintained
on­
site
for
regulators
to
inspect,
review
of
these
submittals
is
not
the
function
of
our
field
operations
staff
in
Illinois,
but
rather
the
Permit
staff
at
headquarters.

Without
the
submittal
of
such
plans
and
an
independent
review
by
the
appropriate
regulator,
to
insure
that
the
intent
of
the
regulations
is
met,
the
groundwater
programs
would
be
selfimplementing
The
negative
effect
on
ground
waters
of
the
state
and
their
effect
on
human
health
and
the
environment
could
potentially
increase.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rule
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
the
alternate
ground­
watermonitoring
plan.
Further,
the
commenter
offers
no
proof
for
their
assertion
that
today's
requirement
for
on­
site
maintenance
of
the
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan
will
result
in
a
negative
impact
on
ground
waters
of
the
State.

265.90/
265.93/
265.94
Document
#:
0155
The
proposal
seeks
to
eliminate
requirements
associated
with
the
submittal
of
reports
for:
(
1)
groundwater
quality
assessment;
(
2)
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters;
(
3)
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations;
(
4)
groundwater
surface
elevations;
and
(
5)
results
of
the
groundwater
quality
assessment
program.
As
discussed
above,
while
the
proposal
states
that
these
plans
can
be
maintained
on­
site
for
regulators
to
inspect,
review
of
these
submittals
is
not
the
function
of
our
filed
operations
staff
in
Illinois,
but
rather
the
Permit
staff
at
headquarters.
In
addition,
the
proposal
eliminates
the
current
state
capabilities
to
fully
evaluate
groundwater
across
the
state.
Electronic
reporting
of
field
parameters
and
groundwater
quality
parameters
provide
the
state
the
ability
to
evaluate
the
groundwater
conditions
and
the
quality
of
ground
waters
of
the
state
and
their
potential
to
effect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
68
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
In
today's
Final
Rule
these
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment,
indicator
parameter
concentrations,
or
groundwater
surface
elevations.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0169
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan:
Modify­
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator,
it
can
be
kept
onsite
where
it
will
be
available
for
regulators
to
inspect.

We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
The
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plan
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
question
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decision­
making
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
the
requirement
for
facilities
to
submit
an
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plan
if
monitoring
and
analysis
of
groundwater
indicates
a
statistically
significant
increase.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rules
require
that
these
records
be
kept
at
the
site.
TNRCC
is
concerned
that
without
the
submission
of
the
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plan,
regulators
may
not
be
aware
of
the
status
of
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
at
a
facility.
As
a
result,
regulators
may
not
be
needed
to
respond
to
any
statistical
increases
or
possible
groundwater
contamination.
Accordingly,
without
knowing
the
details
of
the
alternate
monitoring
plan
in
advance,
regulators
will
be
not
be
able
to
conduct
effective
inspection,
compliance,
and
enforcement
actions
concerning
the
groundwater
issues.
Therefore,
TNRCC
recommends
that
the
rules
not
be
revised
or,
in
the
alternative,
they
be
revised
in
a
manner
so
as
to
address
the
aforementioned
concerns.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
69
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0212
265.90(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
3);
265.93(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
5),
(
e)
and
(
f),
EPA
should
retain
all
of
these
reporting
requirements,
as
they
are
extremely
important
for
both
citizens
and
the
agency.
If
this
data
is
not
submitted
to
the
EPA,
the
public
does
not
have
a
mechanism
for
identifying
and
tracking
a
groundwater
problem.
If
the
data
is
not
submitted
to
EPA,
in
three
years
the
company
can
destroy
the
records
and
historical
data
is
lost.
The
issue
of
suitability
of
drinking
water
is
also
important
to
workers.
For
example,
at
the
Georgia
Gulf
plant
in
Plaquemine,
LA
the
drinking
water
exceeded
the
arsenic
level
and
the
workers
were
not
notified.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters
assertion
that
under
today's
Final
Rule
the
statute
has
been
changed
so
that
the
public
does
not
have
a
mechanism
for
identifying
and
tracking
a
groundwater
problem
at
interim
status
facilities.
In
today's
Final
Rule
data
collected
under
265.90(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
3);
265.93(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
5),
(
e)
and
(
f),
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
data.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0213
(
265.90(
d)(
1);
265.93;
265.94)
The
basis
for
the
proposed
changes
regarding
interim
status
groundwater
monitoring
reporting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
265.90(
d)(
1),
265.90(
d)(
3),
265.93(
c)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
2),
265.93(
d)(
5)
(
e
and
f),
265.94(
a)
2(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
and
265.94(
b)(
2))
is
not
provided.
The
justification
or
explanation
that
the
report
or
record
"
can
be
kept
onsite
where
it
will
be
available
for
regulators
to
inspect"
and
that
"
there
is
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator"
is
an
insufficient
basis
for
the
proposed
change.
Similarly,
the
one
sentence
discussion
in
the
preamble
which
occurs
on
page
2530
which
states:
"
We
are
also
proposing
to
allow
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
to
be
kept
at
a
facility"
is
an
insufficient
discussion
or
deliberation
as
basis
for
the
proposed
change.
The
statement
in
the
preamble
merely
identifies
the
proposal
and
neither
discusses
alternatives
nor
provides
supporting
basis.

Response:
As
stated
in
the
preamble
to
today's
Final
Rule,
although
oversight
of
hazardous
waste
facilities
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis
is
important,
EPA
believes
that
many
of
the
various
notices
required
do
not
add
very
much
in
protection
and,
in
fact,
some
are
simply
redundant.
Thus,
EPA
believes
that
reporting
on
the
majority
of
the
day­
to­
day
functions
of
an
interim
status
facility
does
not
need
to
occur.
In
addition,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
Agency
is
cutting
back
70
the
government's
or
the
public's
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
at
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
in
the
facility's
operating
record).
Furthermore,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

We
do
not
support
the
proposed
changes.
The
proposed
changes
regarding
interim
status
groundwater
monitoring
reporting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
265.90(
d)(
1),
265.90(
d)(
3),
265.93(
c)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
2),
265.93(
d)(
5)
(
e
and
f),
265.94(
a)
2(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
and
265.94(
b)(
2))
rely
on
regulators
inspecting
facility
records.
At
the
Hanford
Site,
the
very
first
RCRA
Comprehensive
Groundwater
Monitoring
Evaluation
(
CME)
was
performed
in
December
2000.
In
November
2001,
the
findings
were
transmitted
to
the
USDOE.
To
date,
the
inspection
findings
are
unresolved.
In
fact,
the
findings
were
so
numerous
(
i.
e.,
insufficient
number
of
groundwater
monitoring
wells,
lack
of
upgradient
groundwater
monitoring
well,
inadequate
downgradient
spatial
coverage
for
detection
monitoring,
lack
of
characterization
of
nature
of
groundwater
contamination,
lack
of
vertical
and
horizontal
groundwater
contamination,
etc.)
That
inadequate
reporting
was
identified
only
as
a
"
concern".
In
addition,
the
findings
were
so
numerous
(
i.
e.,
resource
overloading)
that
after
the
first
Hanford
CME,
Ecology
inspectors
canceled
planned
future
Hanford
is
not
planned.
To
delete
and/
or
reduce
groundwater
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
places
a
tremendous
additional
burden
on
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
and
reduces
the
state's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
finds
the
commenters
arguments
unconvincing.
Adequate
groundwater
monitoring
and
reporting
must
still
be
performed
at
interim
status
facilities.
In
addition,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
Agency
is
cutting
back
the
government's
or
the
public's
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
at
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
in
the
facility's
operating
record).
Furthermore,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

We
do
not
support
the
proposed
changes.
The
proposed
changes
regarding
interim
status
groundwater
monitoring
reporting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
265.90(
d)(
1),
265.90(
d)(
3),
265.93(
c)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
2),
265.93(
d)(
5)
(
e
and
f),
265.94(
a)
2(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
and
265.94(
b)(
2))
rely
on
regulators
inspecting
facility
records.
At
the
Hanford
Site,
the
very
first
RCRA
Comprehensive
Groundwater
Monitoring
Evaluation
(
CME)
was
performed
in
December
2000.
The
Ecology
hydrogeologist
who
performed
the
CME
had
performed
13
other
such
CMEs
during
previous
public
service.
By
far,
this
CME
represented
the
most
complicated
and
difficult
to
perform.
To
delete
and/
or
reduce
groundwater
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
at
Hanford
places
a
tremendous
additional
burden
o
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
and
reduces
the
state's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertions
that
EPA's
rationale
places
71
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority
and
reduces
the
State's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

We
do
not
support
the
proposed
changes.
The
proposed
changes
regarding
interim
status
groundwater
monitoring
reporting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
265.90(
d)(
1),
265.90(
d)(
3),
265.93(
c)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
2),
265.93(
d)(
5)
(
e
and
f),
265.94(
a)
2(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
and
265.94(
b)(
2))
rely
on
regulators
inspecting
facility
records.
On
the
Hanford
Site,
there
may
be
as
many
as
7,000
wells
that
meet
the
regulatory
definition
for
"
well".
In
addition,
there
are
over
1,000
solid
waste
management
units.
In
addition,
there
are
more
than
two
dozen
RCRA
TSD
units
operating
at
the
Hanford
Site
on
an
interim
permit
basis
for
which
groundwater
monitoring
is
required.
It
is
respectfully
submitted
that
to
delete
and/
or
reduce
groundwater
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
at
Hanford
places
a
tremendous
additional
burden
on
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
and
reduces
the
state's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertions
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority
and
reduces
the
State's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

We
do
not
support
the
proposed
changes.
The
proposed
changes
regarding
interim
status
groundwater
monitoring
reporting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
265.90(
d)(
1),
265.90(
d)(
3),
265.93(
c)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
1),
265.93(
d)(
2),
265.93(
d)(
5)
(
e
and
f),
265.94(
a)
2(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
and
265.94(
b)(
2))
rely
on
regulators
inspecting
facility
records.
At
the
Hanford
Site,
there
are
thousands
of
wells
(
approximately
7,000
that
fit
the
WAC
173­
160
definition
for
groundwater
well).
Hundreds
of
wells
are
monitored
regularly.
Reports
submitted
for
"
notification"
purposes
serve
to
provide
a
regulatory
notice
and
status.
This
notice
and
status
also
serve
to
reduce
an
administrative
burden
on
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology.
To
explain,
if
the
notices
and
statuses
were
not
provided,
it
would
be
necessary
for
the
Washington
State
Department
of
reports
and/
or
visit
the
site
to
review
the
reports.
It
is
respectfully
submitted
that
to
delete
and/
or
reduce
groundwater
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
at
Hanford
places
a
tremendous
additional
burden
on
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
and
reduces
the
state's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
72
Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertions
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority
and
reduces
the
State's
ability
to
ensure
environmental
protection.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
notices
or
reports
relating
to
groundwater
quality.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0216
265.90(
d)(
1)(
d)(
3);
265.93(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
2),
(
d)(
5),
(
e)
and
(
f);
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i,
ii
and
iii)
(
b)(
2),
Maine
strongly
disagrees
with
these
proposed
changes.
These
reports
need
to
be
submitted
for
the
regulators
review
and
files.
It
is
unreasonable
to
expect
an
inspector
to
conduct
this
very
comprehensive
type
of
review
during
a
site
inspection.
They
have
limited
time
to
spend
at
a
site
and
will
not
have
all
the
technical
expertise
necessary
at
the
site
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
review.
In
addition,
these
inspections
can
vary
greatly
in
frequency,
so
the
reviews
may
not
be
timely
if
it
must
be
triggered
by
an
inspection.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
notices
or
reports
relating
to
groundwater
quality.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.90(
d)(
3)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
report:
Modify 
no
need
to
submit
report
to
Regional
Administrators.
It
can
be
kept
on­
site,
where
it
will
be
available
for
regulators
to
inspect.

Document
#
0131:
§
265.90(
d)(
3)
requires
the
submittal
to
the
regulating
authority
of
a
written
report
containing
assessment
of
the
ground
water
quality.
This
report
is
only
required
one
time,
after
the
first
determination
under
paragraph
§
265.93(
d)(
4).
The
Department
supports
deleting
§
265.90(
d)(
3)
provided
the
information
is
submitted
in
an
annual
report.

Response:
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
Final
Rule
the
assessment
of
ground
water
quality
for
interim
status
facilities
required
under
§
265.90(
d)(
3)
will
no
longer
be
required
to
be
submitted,
but
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
§
265.73(
b)(
6)
73
To
ensure
the
information
is
received
in
an
annual
report,
EPA
should
modify
§
265.94(
b).
§
265.90(
d)(
5)
requires
compliance
with
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
§
265.94(
b).
However,
§
265.94(
b)
states
if
the
groundwater
is
monitored
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
4)
the
facility
must
keep
records
and
annually
submit
a
report
to
the
regulation
authority.
The
rules
are
unclear
if
a
facility
is
monitoring
groundwater
to
comply
with
§
265.90(
d)
whether
the
record
keeping
in
§
265.94(
b)
would
apply.

§
265.94(
b)
should
be
clarified
by
including
a
reference
to
§
265.90(
d).
§
265.94(
b)
could
be
modified
as
follows,
"
If
the
groundwater
is
monitored
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
265.90(
d)
or
§
265.93(
d)(
4)...."

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA
should
modify
§
265.94(
b).
The
Agency
believes
that
the
current
rule
language
is
adequate.

Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
The
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plan
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
question
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decision­
making
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
plan
that
is
required
under
265.90(
d)(
1)
should
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
review.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
Agency
is
cutting
back
the
government's
or
the
public's
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
at
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
in
the
facility's
operating
record).
Furthermore,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#:
0211
40
CFR
264.115
(
EPA
is
taking
comments
and
is
not
proposing
any
changes
to
these
rules):
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
rules
in
the
future
regarding
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM)
can
certify
the
closure
certification
report.
TNRCC
notes
that
existing
40
CFR
264.115
rules
require
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
the
facility
have
been
closed
according
to
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
EPA
is
proposing
and
taking
comments
on
whether
a
CHMM
is
capable
of
performing
closure
certifications.
A
review
of
the
requirements
for
certification
as
a
CHMM
finds
that
the
candidate
is
not
required
to
possess
a
technical
degree
of
any
sort.
However,
the
individuals
applying
for
a
CHMM
certification
without
a
degree
must
have
at
least
11
years
of
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
CHMM
candidates
holding
a
bachelor's
degree
must
also
possess
at
least
7
years
experience
in
a
74
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
Candidates
holding
a
Master's
degree
or
higher
in
a
related
field,
must
also
have
a
minimum
of
3
years
of
practical
experience.
In
all
cases,
the
individual
must
pass
a
professional
multiple­
choice
examination
developed
and
administered
by
the
Hazardous
Materials
Management
Institute,
a
private
organization.
However,
the
professional
engineering
(
P.
E.)
Requirements
are
more
stringent
and
closely
administered
by
individual
to
obtain
a
P.
E.
license,
the
individual
(
in
most
cases)
must
have
a
BS
degree
in
engineering
and
requisite
experience
before
he
is
allowed
to
take
P.
E.
certification
exams.
The
P.
E.
certification
examination
is
a
two­
step
process:
first,
the
candidate
is
required
to
take
and
pass
an
exam
covering
the
fundamentals
of
engineering;
next
he/
she
must
take
a
comprehensive
engineering
exam
in
the
respective
field
for
which
the
license
is
sought.
The
registration,
exams,
and
license
requirements
for
P.
E.
s
are
administered
by
the
state
engineering
board.
The
brief
review
of
the
CHMM
requirements,
indicates
that
the
CHMM
standards
are
not
as
comprehensive
or
as
stringent
as
those
required
for
a
P.
E.
In
addition,
P.
E.
s
are
required
to
comply
with
state
regulations
that
establish
standards
for
such
criteria
as
education,
experience,
professional
conduct
and
ethics,
liability
and
insurance,
etc;
there
are
no
such
established
standards
for
the
CHMM.
Also,
a
licensed
P.
E.,
is
only
allowed
to
practice
in
the
field
of
engineering
in
which
he
has
the
necessary
education
or
experience;
it
is
unclear
if
such
restrictions
regulate
the
areas
of
engineering
in
which
a
CHMM
can
practice.
Therefore,
unless
CHMM
standards
are
as
stringent
as
the
P.
E.
requirements
and
are
governed
by
some
state
regulatory
criteria,
it
si
not
advisable
to
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
of
the
various
certification
requirements.
In
addition,
this
proposal
may
conflict
with
state
P.
E.
Board
regulations.
Therefore,
in
light
of
the
aforementioned
issues,
TNRCC
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
not
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
engineering
certifications,
unless
he/
she
is
also
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer
licensed
to
practice
in
the
individual
state.

Response:
The
reader
is
referred
to
Volume
III
of
the
Response
to
Comment
Document.
In
this
document,
we
addressed
the
issue
of
Certified
Hazardous
Material
Managers.
We
also
refer
the
reader
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
further
information.
EPA
is
retaining
the
requirement
that
only
qualified
Professional
Engineers
can
make
these
certifications.

40
CFR
264.192(
a)
and
(
b):
Please
see
comments
concerning
item
#
2,
above.
In
addition,
it
is
not
clear
to
TNRCC
as
to
whether
this
information
will
be
submitted
or
retained
on­
site,
the
comments
on
Page
2522
are
not
reflected
in
the
proposed
rules
(
page
2536).
Also,
the
facilities
may
be
required
to
submit
such
information
with
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Without
knowledge
of
existing
tank
systems,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulators
to
draft
specific
permit
conditions
Response:
The
reader
is
referred
to
Volume
III
of
the
Response
to
Comment
Document.
In
this
document,
we
addressed
the
issue
of
Certified
Hazardous
Material
Managers.
We
also
refer
the
reader
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
further
information.
EPA
is
retaining
the
requirement
that
only
qualified
Professional
Engineers
can
make
these
certifications.
.
75
40
CFR
264.113(
e)(
5):
TNRCC
believes
that
the
proposed
revisions
to
40
CFR.
264.113(
e)(
5)
may
be
acceptable
if
the
other
corrective
action
requirements
have
been
addressed
according
to
40
CFR
264.113(
e)
and
submitted
annually
as
proposed
instead
of
semi­
annually
as
required
in
the
existing
rules.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
is
amending
this
requirement
to
be
submitted
annually.

265.90(
i)

Document
#:
0208
265.90(
i):
FDEP
suggests
that
this
proposed
rule
read
as
follows
"...
certified
by
a
qualified
professional
geologist
or
qualified
professional
engineer..."
Florida
objects
to
the
current
language
of
the
proposed
rule
because
it
might
undermine
states'
current
professional
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter.
The
reader
is
also
referred
to
Volume
III
of
the
Response
to
Comment
Document.
In
this
document,
we
addressed
the
issue
of
qualification
for
hazardous
waste
certifications.
We
also
refer
the
reader
to
the
preamble
discussion..

265.93
(
c)(
1)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
notification
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations:
Modify 
no
need
to
submit
reports;
this
information
will
be
noted
as
part
of
the
groundwater
quality
assessment
program.

Document
#
0131:
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
requirement
for
facilities
to
submit
information
regarding
a
significant
increase
in
potential
contaminant
in
upgradient
wells.
The
current
reporting
requirement
is
annually.
The
notification
is
important
because
a
statistically
significant
increase
may
indicate
a
release
from
the
regulated
unit.
The
regulatory
authority
must
have
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
the
potential
contamination
to
determine
whether
any
action
must
be
taken.
Requiring
the
facility
to
include
the
information
in
an
annual
report
is
not
burdensome
and
is
an
important
part
of
the
regulating
authority's
oversight.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
changes
to
§
265.93
(
c)(
1).

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
implied
assertion
that
EPA's
action
today
means
that
the
regulatory
authority
will
not
continue
to
have
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
potential
contamination.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
information
required
in
§
265.93
(
c)(
1)
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
notices
or
reports
relating
to
groundwater
quality.
76
Document
#:
0181
265.93(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1);
(
d)(
5),
(
e),
(
f);
(
a)(
2)(
ii)
&
(
iii);
(
b)(
2),
Groundwater
Monitoring.
Notification
of
groundwater
contamination
to
the
agency
is
a
crucial
part
of
reporting
and
keeping
track
of
environmental
problems.
This
allows
the
agency
to
be
able
to
respond
to
the
public.
The
burden
shifts
from
permitting
to
compliance
staff
to
detect
the
areas
where
the
facility
does
not
meet
the
regulations.
This
can
lead
to
increased
enforcement,
simply
to
save
reporting
requirements.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA's
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
notices
or
reports
relating
to
groundwater
quality.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
in
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.93(
c)(
1),(
d)(
1)

Document
#:
0208
The
Department
disagrees
with
the
proposed
change.
It
is
important
that
the
regulatory
agency
be
appraised
of
any
significant
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination
rather
than
by
discovering
this
fact
during
the
record
review
for
some
future
inspection.
Moreover,
the
current
reportage
requirement
also
serve
to
keep
the
general
public
apprised
of
such
development
in
as
easier
manner
than
by
requiring
the
public
to
find
out
these
developments
through
an
inspection
of
the
facility's
on
site
records.

Requiring
the
facility
to
include
the
information
in
an
annual
report
is
not
burdensome
and
is
an
important
part
of
the
regulating
authority's
oversight.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
changes
to
§
265.93(
c)(
1).

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
statement
that
requiring
the
facility
to
submit
information
is
not
burdensome.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plans
and
reports
still
must
be
prepared
and
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
notices
or
reports
relating
to
groundwater
quality.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
some
of
the
reporting
requirements
if
there
is
a
statistically
significant
increase
(
or
pH
decrease)
in
the
concentrations
of
monitoring
parameters.
As
previously
mentioned
for
item
#
15,
above,
TNRCC
is
concerned
that
without
the
knowledge
of
the
status
of
the
facility
groundwater
monitoring
system,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulators
to
77
conduct
effective
inspections,
address
compliance
issues,
and
address
enforcement
issues
regarding
the
groundwater
at
interim
facilities.
Therefore,
TNRCC
recommends
that
the
rules
not
be
revised
or,
if
revised,
that
they
address
the
aforementioned
concerns.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
implied
assertion
that
today's
changes
to
reporting
requirements
will
deprive
regulators
of
groundwater
monitoring
information.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.93(
c),
(
d),
(
e)
and
(
f)

Document
#:
0218
While
the
DEQ
generally
agrees
with
the
text
changes
made
in
these
paragraphs,
as
they
are
clearer
and
more
concise,
the
DEQ
specifically
OPPOSES
the
deletion
of
the
requirements
that
an
owner
or
operator
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
certain
events,
specifically
those
currently
found
in
265.93(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
5),
and
(
d)(
6).
The
DEQ
considers
it
of
vital
importance
to
receive
notification
of
such
an
increase
as
soon
as
it
is
found.
If
notified,
adequate
Agency
oversight
can
be
made
of
the
measures
taken
by
the
permittee
to
respond
to
the
situation,
and
appropriate
enforcement
actions
taken
if
needed.
If
the
permittee
takes
improper
action,
then
depending
upon
the
frequency
of
inspection,
it
may
be
serval
years
before
the
exceedance
is
discovered
by
the
Agency.
Also,
as
noted
in
Sections
I
and
II
above,
searching
for
and
reviewing
these
documents
will
increase
the
inspector's
workload,
and
if
they
are
overlooked
it
can
be
many
more
years
before
the
situation
is
revealed.
The
same
can
be
said
of
owner/
operator
decisions
made
with
respect
to
contamination
determinations
and
continuation
of
monitoring
programs.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
but
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Depending
upon
the
specifics
of
the
facility,
it
may
be
necessary
to
promptly
inform
the
public
of
an
increase
in
contamination,
to
protect
users
of
ground­
or
surface­
waters.
If
the
Agency
is
not
notified
so
that
it
can
take
appropriate
action,
human
health
and
the
environment
can
be
adversely
affected.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
Final
Rule,
however,
groundwater
assessment
information
must
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
Such
information
is
still
available
for
review
by
regulatory
authorities
and
the
public.
78
Lastly,
the
notification
that
is
currently
required
is
a
public
record,
placed
in
the
Agency's
files,
and
is
readily
available
for
public
inspection
and
review.
Eliminating
this
notice
would
deny
the
public
the
knowledge
that
a
facility
had
experienced
an
increase
in
groundwater
contamination,
and
had
possibly
released
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
to
area
waters.
The
DEQ
believes
the
public
has
a
right
to
know
this
information
in
a
timely
fashion.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
Final
Rule
groundwater
assessment
information
must
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
Such
information
is
still
available
for
review
by
regulatory
authorities
and
the
public.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.

265.93(
d)(
1)(
2)(
5)(
e)­­
Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.
Whether
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
constituents
have
entered
the
ground
water;
The
rate
and
extent
of
migration
of
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
constituents
in
the
ground
water;
and
The
owner
or
operator
must
make
his
first
determination
under
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section
as
soon
as
techically
feasible,
and,
within
15
days
after
the
determination,
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
a
written
report
containing
an
assessment
of
the
ground­
water
quality.
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
subpart,
any
ground­
water
quality
assessment
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
265.93(
d)(
4)
which
is
initiated
prior
to
final
closure
of
the
facility
must
be
completed
and
reported
in
accordance
with
265.93(
d)(
5).

Document
#
0131
265.93
(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
2),
(
d)(
5)
&
(
e),
EPA
proposed
eliminating
the
submittal
requirements
in
§
265.93
(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
2),
(
d)(
5)
&
(
e).
However,
EPA's
proposed
rules
still
requires
the
plans
and
determinations
be
completed.
The
regulating
authority
must
be
informed
of
a
significant
increase
and
the
steps
that
follow
to
evaluate
the
increase.
The
notice
and
submittal
requirements
currently
required
are
not
burdensome
to
the
facility.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
proposed
changes.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.
79
265.93(
d)(
2)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
information
for
ground­
water
quality
assessment
plan:
Modify 
no
need
to
submit
information.
It
may
be
maintained
on­
site,
where
it
will
be
available
for
regulators
to
inspect.

Document
#
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
The
groundwater
quality
assessment
plan
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
question
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decision­
making
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
that
the
groundwater
quality
assessment
plan
needs
to
be
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
review.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

Document
#
0181
Groundwater
Monitoring.
If
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
does
not
meet
the
regulations,
the
facility
could
be
out
of
compliance
for
a
year
or
possibly
more.
The
work
put
into
the
plan
could
be
wasted
and
time
and
money
spent
without
any
positive
return.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
Final
Rule
that
prohibits
the
regulating
authority
from
performing
more
frequent
facility
inspections.

Document
#:
0208
FDEP
suggests
language
in
this
current
rule
read
as
follows
"
Develop
and
submit
to
the
Required
Administrator
a
specific
plan
...
certified
by
a
qualified
professional
geologist
or
qualified
professional
engineer...".

Document
#:
0290
This
citation
[
§
265.93(
d)(
2)]
requires
the
submittal
of
a
groundwater
assessment
plan
which
is
much
different
from
a
notification.
The
plan
requires
additional
groundwater
monitoring
and
investigation
to
determine
the
facility's
impact
on
underlying
groundwater.
This
plan
its
execution
are
imperative
in
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
notification
that
the
facility
may
be
affecting
the
quality
of
the
groundwater
is
required
by
§
265.93(
d)(
1).
If
this
notification
is
not
submitted,
the
regulatory
agency
will
not
be
aware
of
this
possible
80
contamination.
Elimination
of
this
notification
assumes
self­
regulation.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.93(
d)(
4)/
265.94(
2)­­
Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.

Document
#:
0208
FDEP
believes
that
all
information
required
by
these
rules
must
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
While
the
proposed
rules
may
reduce
reporting
burdens
for
the
regulatory
community,
they
substantially
increase
the
burden
for
the
regulatory
community
to
ensure
that
facility
activities
do
not
adversely
affect
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
example,
under
this
proposal,
inspectors
would
have
to
be
accompanied
by
other
staff
qualified
to
review
documents
pertaining
to
groundwater
issues.
Such
data
and
reports
will
likely
require
interpretation
of
hydrogeological
information,
which
must
be
done
by
personnel
trained
for
review
of
this
information.
In
some
states,
this
review
must
be
performed
or
overseen
by
licensed
professionals.
Since
review
of
these
documents
takes
a
considerable
amount
of
time,
in
some
cases,
this
would
require
long
inspections
or
a
series
of
short
ones.
Moreover,
the
inspection
team
would
have
to
ensure
that
they
had
all
material
necessary
to
assist
in
completing
the
reviews.
In
some
cases,
this
might
include
reference
materials,
computer
software,
maps,
data
summaries,
etc.
that
the
inspector
team
would
likely
have
to
carry
with
it.
Finally,
and
most
importantly,
the
proposed
rule
change
would
likely
lead
to
insufficient
Agency
oversight
for
documents
such
as
groundwater
assessment
plans.
If
evaluation
of
these
documents
only
occurs
during
inspections,
the
facility
risks
increased
likelihood
of
failing
to
meet
regulatory
requirements
which
could
lead
to
enforcement
actions
and
delays
in
assessment
and
cleanup.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
EPA
disagrees
that
today's
Final
Rule
will
result
in
an
increased
burden
to
the
regulatory
agencies.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
81
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.93(
d)(
2)
&
265.93(
d)(
5),
(
e),
(
f)

Document
#:
0211
As
with
item
#
15,
above,
in
lieu
of
multiple
monitoring
reports
currently
required
under
the
regulation,
the
facility
could
submit
only
a
final
report
for
the
regional
administrator's
evaluation.
Therefore,
TNRCC
recommends
that
the
rules
not
be
revised
or,
in
the
alternative,
that
they
be
revised
to
require
only
a
final
report
for
the
administrator's
evaluation.

Response:
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
facility
should
submit
a
final
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
EPA
believes
that
self­
implementing
plans
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
today's
Final
Rule
the
groundwater
monitoring
plan
and
associated
groundwater
assessment
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
There
is
nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
that
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
for
groundwater
quality
assessment.
In
addition,
The
Agency
notes
that
today's
finalized
differences
between
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
interim
status
and
permitted
facilities
could
be
an
incentive
for
States
to
issue
permits
for
interim
status
facilities.

265.94
Document
#:
0218
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i,
ii,
and
iii),
Revise
text
to
eliminate
reporting
requirements,
providing
that
the
Regional
Administrator
is
given
notice
of
any
increases
in
concentration
levels
under
264.93(
d)(
1).

Response:
In
today's
Final
Rule,
in
response
to
comment,
the
Agency
is
retaining
the
submittal
requirements
§
265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iii).
States
convinced
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters:
Modify 
report
will
be
kept
onsite,
where
it
may
be
inspected
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
82
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
The
quarterly
reports
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
questions
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decision­
making
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
265.94(
a)
remain
unchanged.
The
States
have
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
this
notification.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
i),
(
a)(
2)(
ii)

Document
#:
0211
The
rules
propose
to
eliminate
the
requirements
for
a
quarterly
(
during
first
year)
and
an
annual
groundwater
monitoring
report;
instead
facilities
will
be
required
to
keep
the
monitoring
information
on­
site
in
the
facility
operating
record.
These
proposed
rules
indicate
that
if
a
statistically
significant
increase
(
SSI)
in
an
indicator
parameter
occurs,
the
facility
will
implement
the
"
plan"
outlined
in
40
CFR
265.93.
However,
it
appears
to
TNRCC
that
the
proposed
"
burden
reduction"
of
40
CFR
265.93
requirements
would
remove
any
notification
to
the
regional
administrator
should
an
SSI
occur
at
an
interim
status
facility.
If
this
is
indeed
the
case,
then
there
will
be
no
record,
other
than
the
facility
operating
record,
that
the
groundwater
is
contaminated
and/
or
remediated.
Perhaps
some
notification
requirements
are
repetitious
and
burdensome
for
the
facility,
but
there
should
be
some
historical
record
available
to
the
public
concerning
the
contamination
of
groundwater
by
any
industrial
facility,
regardless
of
the
permitted
status.
In
lieu
of
multiple
monitoring
reports,
TNRCC
suggests
that
the
rules
could
be
revised
to
require
submission
of
only
one
annual
report.
This
information
is
important
in
determining
permitting,
compliance,
and
enforcement
actions.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
§
265.94(
a)(
i),(
ii),
and
(
iii)
are
being
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
i),
ii),
(
iii)

Document
#:
0131
EPA
has
proposed
removing
the
submittal
requirements
of
§
265.94(
a)(
2)
for
groundwater
monitoring.
The
proposed
rule
requires
the
facility
to
"
keep
records."
EPA
states
the
information
will
be
available
on­
site
for
inspections
by
the
regulating
authority.
The
proposed
rule
places
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
regulating
authority
to
acquire
the
groundwater
monitoring
information.
The
Department
does
not
support
placing
the
burden
of
acquiring
the
83
records
on
the
regulating
authority.

The
regulating
authority
must
receive
a
copy
of
the
initial
background
concentrations
for
future
comparison.
Currently
§
265.94(
a)(
2)
requires
quarterly
reporting.
The
Department
would
support
annual
reporting
of
the
information.

The
regulating
authority
should
also
review
the
concentrations
of
parameters
used
to
indicate
contamination.
Annual
submittal
of
the
information
is
not
a
burden
on
the
facility.
Groundwater
quality
information
is
necessary
for
the
regulating
authority
to
determine
whether
the
regulated
unit
has
impacted
groundwater
and
if
those
impacts
may
effect
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
Department
does
not
support
removal
of
important
oversight
requirements
including
the
proposed
changes
to
§
265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii).

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
§
265.94(
a)(
i),(
ii),
and
(
iii)
are
being
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

§
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)
requires
annual
submittal
of
the
results
of
the
evaluation
of
groundwater
surface
elevations.
Annual
submittal
of
this
information
is
not
burdensome
to
the
facility
and
provides
useful
information
to
the
regulating
authority.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
§
265.94(
a)(
i),(
ii),
and
(
iii)
are
being
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations:
Modify 
report
will
be
kept
onsite,
where
it
may
be
inspected
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
remove
this
requirement.
With
notification,
the
regulatory
agency
may
need
to
require
additional
action.
The
whole
purpose
of
having
indicator
monitoring
is
to
be
able
to
respond
to
changing
conditions.
Elimination
of
this
requirement
reduces
much
of
the
usefulness
of
detection
monitoring.
This
notification
can
also
signal
a
need
to
test
nearby
residential
drinking
water
and
point
to
a
serious
problem
that
needs
immediate
attention.
This
would
unnecessarily
delay
appropriate
response
to
a
release.

Response:
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
§
265.94(
a)(
i),
and
(
ii)
are
being
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.
84
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations:
Modify 
report
will
be
kept
onsite,
where
it
may
be
inspected
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
remove
this
requirement.
With
notification,
the
regulatory
agency
may
need
to
require
additional
action.
The
whole
purpose
of
having
indicator
monitoring
is
to
be
able
to
respond
to
changing
conditions.
Elimination
of
this
requirement
reduces
much
of
the
usefulness
of
detection
monitoring.
This
notification
can
also
signal
a
need
to
test
nearby
residential
drinking
water
and
point
to
a
serious
problem
that
needs
immediate
attention.
This
would
unnecessarily
delay
appropriate
response
to
a
release.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule
the
quarterly
notification
requirements
of
§
§
265.94(
a)(
i),(
ii),
and
(
iii)
are
being
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

265.94(
b)(
2)­­
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
groundwater
quality
assessment
program:
Modify 
report
will
be
kept
onsite,
where
it
may
be
inspected
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0131
EPA
has
proposed
removing
the
annual
reporting
requirements
under
§
265.91(
b)(
2).
EPA
changed
the
requirement
to
keeping
records
of
groundwater
quality
assessment
program
for
§
265.93(
d)(
4).
The
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)
are
implemented
when
a
facility
has
demonstrated
a
significant
increase
in
an
indicator
parameter.
The
regulating
authority
should
receive
a
copy
of
records
of
calculated
or
measured
rates
of
migration
of
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
constituents
in
the
groundwater.
The
Department
does
not
consider
annual
reporting
currently
required
under
§
265.94(
b)(
2)
to
be
a
burden
on
the
facility.
The
annual
reporting
requirement
should
not
be
changed.

Response:
The
Agency
concurs
with
these
comments.
In
today's
final
rule,
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
265.94(
b)(
2)
are
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

Document
#:
0169
This
plan
should
be
submitted
to
the
agency
for
review.
It
is
impossible
to
evaluate
such
a
complex
document
during
an
inspection.
The
plan
would
also
be
kept
in
the
agency's
file
should
any
question
be
raised
about
the
approval
of
the
alternate
concentration
limit.
If
it
is
kept
in
the
operating
record,
it
may
be
discarded
after
three
years
eliminating
the
history
in
the
decisionmaking
process.
The
public
should
also
have
accessibility
to
all
information
regarding
a
decision
to
use
an
alternate
concentration
limit.
85
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule,
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
265.94(
b)(
2)
are
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
language
to
eliminate
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator
(
DEQ)
believes
that,
in
general,
all
significant
events
which
may
impact
the
public
should
be
reported
to
the
Agency.
However,
in
the
particular
case,
if
the
Agency
has
been
properly
notified
of
a
contamination
problem,
then
the
facility
inspectors
will
know
that
the
reports
in
question
exist
and
can
ask
for
them
specifically.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns.
In
today's
final
rule,
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
265.94(
b)(
2)
are
retained.
The
States
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications.

265.113(
e)­­
Closure
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report:
265.113(
e)(
5)
Closure
(
Interim
Status
Facilities) 
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report:
Modify 
according
to
Agency
staff
experts,
regulators
will
have
sufficient
information
if
these
reports
are
sent
in
annually
instead
of
semiannually.

Document
#:
0166
Safety­
Kleen
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
owner/
operators
of
facilities
to
report
on
the
effectiveness
of
corrective
action
on
an
annual
basis
instead
of
the
current
semi­
annual
basis.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
265.113(
e)(
5).

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
support
for
today's
finalized
changes
to
§
265.113(
e)(
5).

Document
#
0211
The
proposed
40
CFR
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
eliminates
the
need
for
the
submission
of
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
within
180
days
of
determining
an
SSI.
The
proposed
rules
require
facilities
to
note
in
their
operating
record
whether
the
contamination
is
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
error
in
sampling
and
analysis
or
evaluation.
TNRCC
notes
that,
currently,
the
existing
rules
require
the
company
to
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
based
on
the
corrective
action
program
of
40
CFR
264.100
which
is
specified
as
a
part
of
the
permit.
Without
the
detailed
information
provided
by
the
facilities,
the
regional
administrator
may
not
be
aware
of
86
the
current
status
of
monitoring
results
(
i.
e.,
contamination
caused
by
a
source
other
than
the
regulated
unit
or
from
an
error
in
sampling
analysis
or
evaluation).
Therefore,
TNRCC
recommends
that
the
rules
not
be
changed
or,
in
the
alternative,
they
be
modified
to
address
this
concern
elsewhere.

Response:
EPA
is
today
finalizing
changes
to
§
264.98(
g)(
5)
that
require
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
to
be
placed
in
the
operating
record.
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
in
today's
final
rule,
the
Agency
has
retained
the
notification
requirements
of
§
264.99(
i)(
1)
and
(
2).
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
of
the
importance
of
these
notifications
for
alerting
States
of
an
environmental
problem.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
report.
The
submittal
of
a
semi­
annual
report
provides
Ecology
with
the
opportunity
to
address
and
correct
with
the
facility
inadequacies
in
the
groundwater
monitoring
program
before
additional
sampling
is
conducted.

Response:
The
Agency
today
is
not
eliminating
the
corrective
action
reports
required
under
§
265.113(
e)(
5),
but
is
making
their
submittal
an
annual
requirement
instead
of
a
semi­
annual
one.

Document
#:
0345
Groundwater
Monitoring
Requirements,
annual
reporting
instead
of
semiannual
reporting;
caseby
case
monitoring
of
subset
of
monitoring
wells.
Concur
Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment
and
appreciates
the
support
for
today's
changes
to
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
264.98(
g)(
5).

265.115
­
Not
Changing
existing
requirement
Certification
of
Closure:
We
are
taking
comment
on
(
but
we
are
not
proposing
in
today's
rule)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
performing
this
certification.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
your
comment
on
this
issue.

Document
#:
0213
We
could
agree
with
this
proposed
modification
for
closures
that
do
not
involve
engineering.
Some
closures
are
fairly
simple;
however,
others
may
involve
more
complex
engineering
design
and
construction
issues.
In
some
cases
closures
and
post­
closure
work
requires
onsite
verification
87
of
work
in
accordance
with
engineering
plans.
Post­
closures
will
almost
always
require
design
and
construction
of
engineered
liners
and
caps
that
must
meet
strict
RCRA
specifications.
These
plans
may
also
involve
structural
and
design
analyses
as
well
as
the
review
of
complex
calculations.
The
qualifications
of
a
certified
hazardous
waste
materials
manager
may
not
in
all
instances
be
adequate
for
complex
closure
and
post­
closure
certification.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.120
­
Not
allowing
CHMMs
to
make
this
certification.
Certify
completion
of
post­
closure
care:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
certification
may
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
modification.
Some
closures
are
fairly
simple;
however,
others
may
involve
more
complex
engineering
design
and
construction
issues.
In
some
cases
closures
and
post
closure
work
requires
onsite
verification
of
work
in
accordance
with
engineering
plans.
Post­
closures
will
almost
always
require
design
and
construction
of
engineered
liners
and
caps
that
must
meet
strict
RCRA
specifications.
These
plans
may
also
involve
structural
and
design
analyses
as
well
as
the
review
of
complex
calculations.
The
qualifications
of
a
certified
hazardous
waste
materials
manager
may
not
in
all
instances
be
adequate
for
complex
closure
and
postclosure
certification.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
to
also
allow
certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care
by
properly
trained
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager,
in
addition
to
a
registered
professional
engineer.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
The
readers
are
referred
to
the
Burden
Reduction
preamble
discussion
on
this
point.

265.174­­
Container
Inspection
Frequency:
Modify 
allow
regulators
to
modify
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
well­
performing
facilities
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Document
#:
0030
Lengthen
the
period
between
inspections
of
hazardous
waste
containers
(
currently
weekly)
to
monthly
for
containers
in
storage
areas
meeting
certain
management
standards
[
265.174].

Rationale:
Container
inspections
are
currently
required
at
least
weekly.
In
many
cases
facilities
88
manage
containers
in
a
manner
that
is
even
more
protective
than
the
current
requirements.
For
these
facilities
the
inspection
frequency
should
be
changed
to
monthly.
Management
standards
that
could
allow
for
less
frequent
inspections
are:

A.
The
container
storage
area
is
covered
and
has
secondary
containment
B.
The
container
storage
area
is
actively
managed
(
e.
g.
daily
presence
of
an
operator)

Document
#:
0131
The
proposed
rule
would
allow
for
weekly
or
less
frequent
inspections
of
container
storage
areas.
The
current
regulations
for
the
management
of
containers
have
been
in
place
since
May
1980
and
have
proven
to
offer
basic
and
direct
precautions
to
prevent
the
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
Leaks
and
container
deterioration
are
the
principal
source
of
damage
from
container
storage,
and
weekly
inspections
of
container
storage
provide
a
means
to
minimize
such
incidents
from
occurring.
Furthermore,
the
Department
has
observed
that
the
requirement
for
weekly
inspections
of
storage
areas
has
not
been
an
undue
burden
upon
the
regulated
community.

The
proposed
regulation
would
allow
container
storage
inspections
less
frequently
then
weekly
(
up
to
a
month)
at
the
discretion
of
the
regulatory
agency.
The
Department
views
the
proposal
as
adding
an
unnecessary
administrative
burden
upon
the
program.
The
proposed
regulation
allows
the
regulatory
agency
to
determine
less
frequent
inspections
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
which
would
require
the
expenditure
of
additional
resources
trying
to
make
decisions
for
less
frequent
inspections.
Further,
such
a
rule
would
necessitate
increased
regulatory
program
inspections
to
assure
that
undetected
spills
and
releases
do
not
occur.

Document
#:
0144
Since
secondary
containment
is
not
required
for
interim
status
container
storage
areas,
we
do
not
support
the
change
in
inspection
frequencies
from
weekly
to
monthly.
We
also
oppose
the
proposal
to
allow
decreased
inspection
frequencies
that
must
be
reviewed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
the
reasons
stated
above.

Document
#:
0155
The
proposal
seeks
to
eliminate
the
minimum
frequency
for
inspection
of
containers.
Currently
the
regulations
require
weekly
inspections.
We
have
specified
more
frequent
inspections
by
permit
condition.
Even
with
these
stringent
inspection
requirements
drum
leaks
still
occur.
Additional
threats
to
human
health
and
the
environment
may
result
if
longer
inspection
periods
are
allowed
and
the
time
between
when
the
drum
starts
leaking
and
cleanup
increases.

Document
#:
0169
While
we
agree
that
there
are
instances
where
the
frequency
of
inspections
may
warrant
some
relaxation,
we
urge
EPA
to
propose
an
absolute
minimum
such
as
biweekly.
This
will
insure
that
the
agency
is
not
swamped
with
requests
to
waive
inspection
requirements.
Container
inspections
are
a
very
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environmental
problems.
We
believe
that
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
establish
an
absolute
minimum
frequency
for
inspections
and
we
89
believe
that
the
frequency
should
not
exceed
two
weeks.

Document
#:
0211
The
current
rules
require
inspection
of
containers
at
least
once
a
week.
The
proposed
revisions
require
inspection
of
containers
at
least
once
a
month.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rules
require
less
frequent
inspections
based
on
an
evaluation
of
a
facility's
compliance
history.
TNRCC
does
not
agree
with
the
proposal
to
reduce
the
inspection
frequency
because
container
storage
areas
subject
to
40
CFR
Part
265
are
not
required
to
have
secondary
containment.
TNRCC
also
believes
that
requiring
less
frequent
inspections
based
on
compliance
history
would
result
in
inconsistent
requirements
and
may
result
in
increased
releases
to
the
environment.
Also,
case­
bycase
evaluation
of
individual
facilities
will
burden
regulators
attempting
to
carry
out
uniform
and
even­
handed
implementation
of
the
regulations
with
regard
to
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement.

Document
#:
0218
Allow
inspections
of
container
storage
areas
at
a
frequency
of
less
than
once
per
week,
on
a
caseby
case
basis.

Response
to
Comments:
The
final
rule
will
not
change
the
inspection
frequencies
for
container
storage
areas
and
containment
buildings
except
for
case­
by­
case
extensions
on
an
approved
basis,
for
performance
track
facilities.
Today's
final
rule
provides
regulatory
incentive
provisions
to
facilities
who
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
are
provided
the
opportunity
to
reduce
self
inspections
of
tanks
and
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
frequency
not
less
than
once
each
month.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
case­
bycase
provisions,
on
an
approval
basis,
are
appropriate
for
these
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight
The
final
rule
extending
the
inspection
frequency
for
up
to
monthly
for
performance
track
facilities.
Since
only
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
who
wish
to
obtain
reductions
in
their
self­
inspection
frequencies
can
apply
through
their
state
or
region,
this
will
not
add
a
significant
amount
of
extra
burden
on
the
states.

265.191
­
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity:

Document
#:
0208
This
section
is
obsolete
 
the
definition
of
"
existing
tank
system"
in
40
CFR
260.10
is
limited
to
tanks
where
installation
commenced
before
July
14,
1986.
These
tanks
should
all
have
upgraded
to
meet
current
tanks
standards
by
July
14,
2001.
Current
language
should
be
changed
to
more
clearly
show
that
this
section
applies
to
tank
systems
holding
hazardous
wastes
that
became
regulated
after
July
14,
1986.
As
currently
written,
it
is
confusing
whether
or
not
265.191
or
192
90
applies
to
generator
tank
systems
holding
newly
regulated
toxic
hazardous
wastes
when
the
tanks
were
built
in
1989.
In
addition,
a
section
needs
to
be
added
to
address
how
tank
systems
are
regulated
when
small
quantity
generators
have
a
spill
or
increase
production
so
as
to
become
large
quantity
generators.
The
wastes
in
the
tanks
may
have
become
hazardous
in
1980,
but
the
tank
system
has
previously
been
subject
to
40
CFR
265.201
standards.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment,
but
is
retaining
the
regulatory
language
as
is
in
the
section,
except
for
deleting
the
term
registered
as
part
of
the
qualifications
for
a
professional
engineer.

FDEP
disagrees
with
the
proposed
change
that
variances
should
be
self
implementing
for
generators
(
265.193(
g)(
1)
and
(
h)).
FDEP
agrees
that
the
language
is
redundant
for
permitted
TSDFs
and
could
at
least
be
made
more
flexible.
The
tanks
systems
and
supplemental
information
should
be
part
of
the
pre­
construction
review
or
submitted
as
a
permit
modification.
Generators
are
not
required
to
submit
assessments
prior
to
construction.
What
if
regulator
and
generator
disagree
as
to
hazard
posed
by
waste?
Does
the
agency
wait
until
there
has
been
a
release
to
take
enforcement?

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Tank
certification
provisions
could
be
liberalized
for
ASTs
where
all
components
are
above
ground
and
no
individual
tank
in
the
system
has
a
capacity
of
550
gallons
or
more.
Systems
that
include
in­
floor
sumps
or
strip
drains
would
not
be
eligible
for
this
exemption.

Actual
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
pose
relatively
little
hazard
now
that
most
of
the
generator
systems
have
been
closed.
There
are
more
hazards
from
WWTUs
that
manage
HW.
They
are
essentially
unregulated.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

265.191(
a)­­
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity:

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
modification
to
allow
CHMM's
to
perform
tank
integrity
assessments.
Tank
assessments
include
consideration
of
such
areas
as
structural
stability,
earthquake
and
wind
considerations,
and
tank
design
details.
The
failure
of
a
tank
without
secondary
containment
may
have
catastrophic
consequences
impacting
the
public.
As
noted
in
paragraph
III
above,
typically
only
engineering
curriculums
cover
the
topics
needed,
which
are
tested
by
the
registration
process
for
engineers.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
has
been
persuaded
not
to
allow
CHMM
to
make
these
certifications.
91
The
DEQ
SUPPORTS
the
deletion
of
the
language
requiring
an
assessment
of
integrity
by
1988.

265.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)­­
Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers.

Document
#:
0211
TNRCC
believes
that
the
proposed
revisions
to
40
CFR
264.113(
e)(
5)
may
be
acceptable
if
the
other
corrective
action
requirements
have
been
addressed
according
to
40
CFR
264.113(
e)
and
submitted
annually
as
proposed
instead
of
semi­
annually
as
required
in
the
existing
rules.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
the
comment,
and
is
amending
the
reference
section
to
an
annual
submittal
with
no
another
changes
to
264.113(
e).

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
education
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems,
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
but
has
been
persuaded
that
a
change
in
qualifications
for
this
certification
is
not
appropriate.
We
are
however
removing
the
term
registered,
as
we
believe
it
is
redundant
when
referring
to
a
professional
engineer.
We
are
also
removing
the
term
independent.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
preamble
discussion
on
this
point.

265.192­­
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components 
assessment
of
structural
integrity
and
acceptability
for
storing
and
treating
waste:

Document
#:
0218
265.192(
a),
(
b),
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
changes
made
to
subparagraph
(
a),
and
SUPPORTS
the
modification
to
subparagraph
(
b),
with
further
modifications
as
noted.

As
noted
in
subparagraph
VI.
T
above,
the
design
of
a
tank
involves
areas
that
are
more
properly
the
province
of
registered
engineers.
To
allow
other
individuals
(
with
an
accreditation
that
is
not
generally
governed
or
recognized
by
the
states)
may
unnecessarily
endanger
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
proposed
change
also
is
not
clear
that
the
certifying
CHMM
needs
to
be".
independent,
[
and]
qualified..."
as
with
the
registered
engineer.
Therefore
the
modifications
to
subparagraph
(
a)
are
opposed.
92
The
modifications
to
subparagraph
(
b)
expand
upon
the
existing
language
which
already
allow
the
use
of
an
independent,
qualified
installation
inspector,
in
addition
to
a
registered
engineer,
and
are
believed
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
the
text
should
be
made
clear
that
the
CHMM
must
be
"...
independent,
[
and]
qualified..."
as
with
the
engineer
and
tank
installers.

Secondly,
the
DEQ
would
recommend
that
the
following
text
be
added
as
a
note
to
subparagraph
(
b):

[
NOTE:
Some
states
have
specific
requirements
regarding
the
personnel
allowed
to
perform
tank
certifications.
The
owner
or
operator
is
advised
to
consult
with
state
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
if
such
requirements
are
in
effect
for
their
state.]

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
but
has
been
persuaded
that
a
change
in
qualifications
for
this
certification
is
not
appropriate.
We
are
however
removing
the
term
registered,
as
we
believe
it
is
redundant
when
referring
to
a
professional
engineer.
We
are
also
removing
the
term
independent.
The
Agency
further
appreciates
the
supplemental
language
provided
by
the
commenter,
however
in
light
of
the
changes
being
made
today,
this
language
is
not
needed.
.

265.192(
a)­­
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components 
assessment
of
structural
integrity
and
acceptability
for
storing
and
treating
waste:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
rules
in
the
future
regarding
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM)
can
certify
the
closure
certification
report.
TNRCC
notes
that
existing
40
CFR
264.115
rules
require
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
the
facility
have
been
closed
according
to
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
EPA
is
proposing
and
taking
comments
on
whether
a
CHMM
is
capable
of
performing
closure
certifications.
A
review
of
the
requirements
for
certification
as
a
CHMM
finds
that
the
candidate
is
not
required
to
possess
a
technical
degree
of
any
sort.
However,
the
individuals
applying
for
a
CHMM
certification
without
a
degree
must
have
at
least
11
years
of
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
CHMM
candidates
holding
a
bachelor's
degree
must
also
possess
at
least
7
years
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
Candidates
holding
Master's
degree
or
higher
in
a
related
field,
must
also
have
a
minimum
of
3
years
of
practical
experience.
In
all
cases,
the
individual
must
pass
a
professional
multiple­
choice
examination
developed
and
administered
by
the
Hazardous
Materials
Management
Institute,
a
private
organization.
However,
the
professional
engineering
(
P.
E.)
requirements
are
more
stringent
and
closely
administered
by
93
individual
state
licensing
boards
which
are
subject
to
state
regulations.
In
order
for
an
individual
to
obtain
a
P.
E.
license,
the
individual
(
in
most
cases)
must
have
BS
degree
in
engineering
and
requisite
experience
before
he
is
allowed
to
take
P.
E.
certification
exams.
The
P.
E.
certification
examination
is
a
two­
step
process:
first,
the
candidate
is
required
to
take
and
pass
an
exam
covering
the
fundamentals
of
engineering;
next
he/
she
must
take
a
comprehensive
engineering
exam
in
the
respective
field
for
which
the
license
is
sought.
The
registration,
exams,
and
license
requirements
for
P.
E.
s
are
administered
by
the
state
engineering
board.
The
brief
review
of
the
CHMM
requirements,
indicates
that
the
CHMM
standards
are
not
as
comprehensive
or
as
stringent
as
those
required
for
a
P.
E.
In
addition,
P.
E.
s
are
required
to
comply
with
state
regulations
that
establish
standards
for
such
criteria
as
education,
experience,
professional
conduct
and
ethics,
liability
and
insurance,
etc.;
there
are
no
such
established
standards
for
the
CHMM.
Also,
a
licensed
P.
E.
is
only
allowed
to
practice
in
the
field
of
engineering
in
which
he
has
the
necessary
education
or
experience;
it
is
unclear
if
such
restrictions
regulate
the
areas
of
engineering
in
which
a
CHMM
can
practice.
Therefore,
unless
CHMM
standards
are
as
stringent
as
the
P.
E.
requirements
and
are
governed
by
some
state
regulatory
criteria,
it
is
not
advisable
to
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
of
the
various
certification
requirements.
In
addition,
this
proposal
may
conflict
with
state
P.
E.
Board
regulations.
Therefore,
in
light
of
the
aforementioned
issues,
TNRCC
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
not
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
engineering
certifications,
unless
he/
she
is
also
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer
licensed
to
practice
in
the
individual
state.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
is
persuaded
that
a
change
in
qualifications
for
this
certification
is
not
appropriate.
We
are
however
removing
the
term
registered,
as
we
believe
it
is
redundant
when
referring
to
a
professional
engineer.
We
are
also
removing
the
term
independent.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
education
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
is
not
pursuing
a
change
in
qualifications
for
this
certification,
We
are
however
removing
the
term
registered,
as
we
believe
it
is
redundant
when
referring
to
a
professional
engineer.
We
are
also
removing
the
term
independent.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.

265.192(
b)­­
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components 
assessment
of
tank
installation:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
94
Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
agree
with
this
proposal.
An
independent
registered
professional
engineer
with
education
training
and
practical
experience
in
tank
design/
construction,
leak
detection
systems
and
installation
should
be
required.
In
some
cases
complex
tank
systems
require
professional
engineer
judgement
on
structural
integrity
and
design.
It
is
important
that
the
tank
be
design,
and
installation
be
overseen
by
a
qualified
independent
P.
E.
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
fail.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
this
comment
and
is
not
pursuing
a
change
in
qualifications
for
this
certification,
We
are
however
removing
the
term
registered,
as
we
believe
it
is
redundant
when
referring
to
a
professional
engineer.
We
are
also
removing
the
term
independent.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.

264/
265.193­­
Tank
Systems.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
elimination
of
subparagraphs
(
g)
and
(
h),
in
that
allowing
an
owner
or
operator
to
determine
and
self­
implement
a
variance
from
secondary
containment
may
endanger
public
safety.
If
an
owner
or
operator
improperly
determines
that
secondary
containment
is
not
needed,
it
may
be
several
years
before
this
is
resolved
by
the
permitting
process;
as
noted
in
paragraph
I.
C.,
above,
it
is
not
possible
to
guarantee
that
the
Agency
will
be
able
to
force
the
secondary
containment
to
be
built.

Document
#:
0354
CRWI
supported
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
large
quantity
generators
in
comments
on
the
proposed
rule.
CRWI
agrees
with
the
Agency
that
it
makes
little
sense
to
inspect
the
tanks
on
one
schedule
and
the
ancillary
equipment
on
a
different
schedule.
In
addition,
it
does
not
seem
reasonable
to
have
the
inspection
schedule
for
small
quantity
generators
more
stringent
than
large
quantity
generators.
This
approach
is
not
consistent
with
other
RCRA
requirements
for
these
two
classes
of
generators.
As
such,
CRWI
suggests
that
the
inspection
frequency
for
large
and
small
quantity
generators
as
well
as
all
ancillary
equipment
be
standardized
on
a
weekly
basis.

Response
to
Comments:
While
we
are
not
eliminating
subparagraphs
(
g)
and
(
h)
from
264.193,
we
are
reducing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems.
This
includes
LQG
and
SQG
tank
systems
and
permitted
and
interim
status
tanks
systems.

265.193(
a)­­
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status):
Remove
obsolete
language
.

Document
#:
0165
All
tank
systems
and
components
must
have
secondary
containment.
EPA
sensibly
proposes
to
replace
the
convoluted
text
of
§
264.193(
a)(
1)­(
5)
with
this
simple
requirement.
In
addition,
the
95
secondary
containment
must
be
provided
with
a
leak­
detection
system
that
will
detect
any
leakage
and
remove
any
accumulated
waste
or
liquids
within
24
hours,
or
at
the
earliest
practicable
time.
We
agree
that
these
requirements
in
§
263.193(
c)
(
1)­(
2)
and
(
e)(
3)(
iii)
should
be
selfimplementing
and
should
not
require
a
demonstration
to
the
regulatory
authority.
The
operator
of
the
tank
system
is
in
the
best
position
to
know
the
most
timely
and
practicable
manner
to
detect
and
remove
collected
waste
materials
from
the
secondary
containment
system
to
prevent
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

On
the
other
hand,
the
ETC
thinks
it
unwise
for
owners
or
operators
of
TSD
facilities
to
grant
themselves
variances
from
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
with
no
review
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Under
the
current
regulation,
the
owner
or
operator
may
obtain
a
variance
only
if
the
Director
finds,
based
on
a
demonstration
by
the
applicant,
that
alternative
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
will
prevent
the
migration
of
hazardous
waste
into
groundwater
or
surface
water
at
least
as
effectively
as
secondary
containment.
40
CFR
§
264.193(
g).
The
regulation
also
spells
out
the
factors
that
the
Director
must
consider
in
making
a
decision
to
grant
or
deny
a
variance.
Id.
We
believe
that
tank
systems
with
secondary
containment
are
a
practical
and
cost­
effective
way
of
protecting
against
releases
to
the
environment,
and
variances
should
not
be
available
except
for
compelling
reasons.
In
order
to
ensure
protection,
and
to
maintain
credibility
with
local
communities,
we
believe
that
the
regulatory
agency
must
carefully
review
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
and
the
factors
that
determine
equivalent
protection
of
groundwater
and
surface
waters
before
independently
granting
a
variance.
For
this
reason,
the
ETC
disagrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
make
the
variance
self­
implementing,
and
we
urge
the
agency
not
to
include
this
provision
in
the
final
rule.

Document
#:
0169
We
do
not
agree
with
this
change.
Eliminating
"
in
order
to
prevent
the
release
of
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
constituents
to
the
environment"
is
more
than
just
removing
obsolete
language.
It
weakens
the
requirement.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#:
0218
Remove
obsolete
language.

Document
#:
0222
ACC
supports
removing
obsolete
language,
but
suggests
retention
of
certain
existing
regulatory
that
provides
clarification
regarding
allowable
exceptions
to
secondary
containment.

ACC
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
remove
obsolete
language
in
§
264.193(
a)
and
§
265.193(
a),
primarily
by
removing
paragraphs
(
1)
through
(
5)
in
each
of
those
sections.
However,
the
parenthetical
phrase
"(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section)"
that
currently
96
appears
at
the
end
of
the
introductory
text
in
both
§
264.193(
a)
and
§
265.193(
a)
should
be
retained
in
the
revised
sections
such
that
the
revised
text
in
both
sections
reads:

A.
Secondary
containment
must
be
provided
for
all
existing
and
new
tank
systems
and
components
(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section).

This
clarification
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
there
is
no
apparent
discrepancy
between
paragraph
(
a)
and
the
allowed
exceptions
to
secondary
containment
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g).

Document
#:
0223
ACC
supports
removing
obsolete
language,
but
suggests
retention
of
certain
existing
regulatory
that
provides
clarification
regarding
allowable
exceptions
to
secondary
containment.

ACC
agrees
with
the
proposal
to
remove
obsolete
language
in
§
264.193(
a)
and
§
265.193(
a),
primarily
by
removing
paragraphs
(
1)
through
(
5)
in
each
of
those
sections.
However,
the
parenthetical
phrase
"(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section)"
that
currently
appears
at
the
end
of
the
introductory
text
in
both
§
264.193(
a)
and
§
265.193(
a)
should
be
retained
in
the
revised
sections
such
that
the
revised
text
in
both
sections
reads:

B.
Secondary
containment
must
be
provided
for
all
existing
and
new
tank
systems
and
components
(
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
of
this
section).

This
clarification
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
there
is
no
apparent
discrepancy
between
paragraph
(
a)
and
the
allowed
exceptions
to
secondary
containment
in
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g).

Response:
The
proposed
rule
deleted
language
from
and
revised
264/
5.193(
a)(
1)­(
5)),
arguing
that
the
language
was
obsolete.
However,
the
proposal
inadvertently
deleted
subparagraphs
(
1)
and
(
5).
These
subparagraphs
specify
what
tanks
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment,
and
in
the
case
of
tanks
managing
newly
regulated
wastes,
how
soon
secondary
containment
must
be
provided.
We
also
agree
with
the
commenters
regarding
retaining
subparagraphs
(
f)
and
(
g),
and
will
retain
those
subparagraphs
as
well
as
language
that
informs
owners
and
operators
of
tanks
managing
newly
regulated
wastes,
how
long
they
have
to
install
secondary
containment
(
formerly
subparagrph
(
5).

265.193(
e)(
3)(
iii)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status) 
Demonstrate
to
EPA
that
technology
and
site
conditions
do
not
allow
detection
of
release
within
24
hours:
Eliminate
this
demonstration.
Having
a
functional
leak
detection
system
capable
of
detecting
a
release
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
coupled
with
the
tank
design
requirements,
is
adequately
protective.

Document
#:
0134
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
existing
requirement
that
the
Regional
Administrator
approve,
based
97
on
a
demonstration
by
the
owner/
operator,
the
built­
in
leak
detection
system
on
an
interim
status
double­
walled
tank,
if
the
earliest
practicable
time
that
the
system
can
detect
a
release
exceeds
24
hours.
Under
the
proposed
modified
regulations,
no
demonstration
or
Regional
Administrator
approval
would
be
required,
provided
that
leak
detection
would
occur
at
the
earliest
practicable
time.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.193(
e)(
3)(
iii).

Document
#:
0218
Remove
language
regarding
approval
by
the
Regional
Administrator.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
 
Change
self­
inspection
frequency
to
weekly
Document
#:
0361
Small
Quantity
Generator
Tanks
and
Ancillary
Equipment
Inspection
Frequencies:
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
has
requested
comment
on
changing
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
for
small
quantity
and
large
quantity
generators.

DTSC
Comment:
DTSC
does
not
support
EPA's
proposal
to
change
tank
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
at
every
small
quantity
and
large
quantity
generator
site.
DTSC
contends
that,
in
general,
weekly
inspections
are
not
adequate
to
observe
and
correct
deficiencies
in
the
tank
that
can
lead
to
failure
and
could
result
in
a
release
to
the
environment.
In
order
to
prevent
a
release,
all
potential
deficiencies
(
including
structural
failure,
failure
of
joints,
connections,
fittings
and
seals
and
uncontrolled
reactions
or
corrosion)
must
be
discovered
and
corrected
in
as
timely
manner
as
possible.
DTSC
does,
however,
support
the
option
of
adjusting
the
inspection
frequency
(
up
to
a
weekly
basis)
based
upon
a
facility's
a
compliance
history.

Response:
The
Agency
appreciates
the
comment,
however
in
today's
rule
we
are
allowing
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
LQG
and
SQG
under
certain
conditions.
We
believe
that
with
these
conditions
in
place,
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
is
maintained.
We
however,
are
not
convinced
that
using
a
facility
compliance
history
is
an
efficient
way
for
the
regulatory
agency
to
determine
a
revised
self
inspection
frequency.

265.193(
g)
Tank
Systems
Document
#:
0131
The
proposed
rule
§
265.193(
g)
would
eliminate
the
need
to
obtain
a
variance
for
the
use
of
98
alternate
tank
design
and
operating
practices.
The
proposed
rule
would
make
containment
development
self­
implementing
with
no
review
or
approval
by
an
appropriate
regulatory
agency.
It
is
apparent
that
without
any
checks
as
currently
is
provided,
the
failure
of
an
alternative
design
for
containment
would
only
be
discovered
at
the
time
of
a
hazardous
waste
discharge.
The
Department
does
not
support
the
proposed
changes
to
§
265.193(
g).

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change
to
the
regulations.

265.193(
g)(
1),
(
h)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status) 
Obtain
variance
to
use
alternate
tank
design
and
operating
practices:
Eliminate
the
need
to
obtain
a
variance
and
make
this
self­
implementing.
Records
are
to
be
kept
on­
site
describing
the
decision­
making.

Document
#:
0134
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
existing
requirement
that
the
Regional
Administrator
grant
a
variance
for
any
design
of
an
interim
status
tank
that
does
not
incorporate
secondary
containment.
Under
the
proposed
modified
regulations,
Regional
Administrator
approval
would
not
be
required,
provided
that
records
kept
at
the
facility
either
would
demonstrate
that
a
release
would
not
pose
a
human
health
hazard
or
would
describe
design
and
operating
practices,
together
with
location
characteristics,
that
would
be
as
effective
as
secondary
containment.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0157
(
265.193(
g)(
1)(
h)/
265.196(
f)
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
a
number
of
variance
submission/
certification
requirements
from
the
interim
status
tank
requirements,
including,
for
example:
(
1)
allowing
alternative
tank
design
and
operating
practices
to
be
self­
implementing,
as
opposed
to
requiring
a
variance
under
§
§
265.193(
g)(
1)
&
(
h);
and
(
2)
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
a
certification
of
major
repair
completion
under
§
265.196(
f).
Id.
at
2524­
25.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
proposal.
This
rule
is
far
too
important
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
to
effectively
abolish
by
allowing
the
owners
and
operators
to
unilaterally
determine
what
is
effectively
equivalent.
EPA
took
very
significant
action
to
stop
the
well­
documented
problems
with
tank
systems,
it
is
absurd
to
now
allow
the
regulated
community
to
circumvent
this
rule
by
allowing
them
to
do
whatever
they
deem
as
adequate.
Our
enforcement
files
are
loaded
with
examples
of
tank
failures
and
catastrophic
releases
caused
by
tanks
that
were
considered
adequate
by
the
owner
or
operator.

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.
99
Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.193(
g)(
1),
(
h).

Response:
The
Agency
is
not
pursuing
this
change.

Document
#:
0286
We
believe
that
adding
a
notification
which
simply
indicates
the
facility
has
decided
to
seek
a
self
implementing
tank
variance
is
not
burdensome.
A
notification
as
simple
as
an
electronic
mail
would
be
sufficient.
This
allows
the
regulating
agency
to
make
this
knowledge
available
to
the
public
and
allows
us
the
ability
to
actively
investigate
their
action
if
we
choose
to
do
so.
By
eliminating
the
simplest
of
notifications,
we
are
required
to
adopt
a
hit
or
miss
system
in
determining
if
these
types
of
facilities
have
implemented
these
types
of
systems.
Additionally,
these
variances
would
be
implemented
for
the
most
part
by
generators
of
hazardous
waste
who
may
not
have
the
best
interest/
knowledge
regarding
the
management
of
hazardous
waste.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.195(
a)­­
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status):
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
This
determination
will
be
made
by
regulatory
authorities
based
on
past
performance
of
the
facility.

Document
#:
0155
The
proposal
seeks
to
eliminate
the
minimum
frequency
for
inspection
of
tanks.
Currently
the
regulations
require
daily
inspections.
Even
with
these
stringent
inspection
requirements
tank
leaks
still
occur.
Additional
threats
to
human
health
and
the
environment
may
result
if
longer
inspection
periods
are
allowed
and
the
time
between
when
the
tank
starts
leaking
and
cleanup
increases.

Document
#:
0208
FDEP
disagrees
with
the
proposed
language
change,
which
would
essentially
remove
the
recordkeeping
requirement
for
generator
tanks
inspections.
40
CFR
262
Subpart
D
does
not
require
records
to
be
kept
of
generator
facility
inspections.
Generators
consistently
argue
that
40
CFR
265.174
does
not
require
records
to
be
kept
of
generator
container
inspections.
Florida
eventually
adopted
a
state
container
recordkeeping
requirement
because
of
this.
Weekly
inspections
might
be
acceptable,
provided
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
included
a
provision
to
record
any
problems
found
with
the
system,
even
if
the
problem
was
not
noted
during
the
weekly
inspection.
It
would
otherwise
be
too
easy
to
hide
routine
leaks
or
maintenance
problems
that
would
indicate
the
need
for
a
system
upgrade.

Document
#:
0030
Tank
Inspections:
Lengthen
the
period
between
inspections
of
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
(
currently
daily)
to
monthly.
[
265.195(
a)]
100
Rationale:
Inspecting
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
daily
is
an
overly
conservative,
manpowerintensive
approach.
Chemical
and
hazardous
waste
storage
facilities
are
designed
to
minimize
potential
leaks
and
unsafe
conditions
and
to
minimize
the
need
for
daily
or
weekly
inspections.
Hazardous
waste
storage
tank
designs,
with
secondary
containment,
are
typically
even
more
conservatively
designed
than
process
equipment.
Modifying
the
inspection
frequency
to
monthly
will
save
about
100
man­
hours
per
year
per
tank
(
based
on
20
minutes
to
inspect
and
record
results)
with
no
unfavorable
environmental
impact.

Document
#:
0131
The
proposed
changes
to
§
265.195(
a)
Tank
Inspections
would
allow
the
inspection
of
a
tank
system
to
occur
at
least
weekly
or
less
frequent
as
determined
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Hazardous
waste
tank
systems
are
planned
to
accumulate
large
quantities
of
hazardous
waste.
The
current
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
systems
provides
an
adequate
means
to
detect
spills
or
releases
of
potentially
large
quantities
of
hazardous
waste.
As
with
container
storage,
the
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
systems
has
not
posed
a
burden
to
the
regulated
community.
Also,
as
with
container
storage,
the
proposed
provision
to
allow
less
frequent
then
daily
inspections
at
the
discretion
of
the
regulating
agency
would
pose
an
unnecessary
burden
upon
this
program.

Document
#:
0169
While
we
agree
that
there
are
instances
where
the
frequency
of
inspections
may
warrant
some
relaxation,
the
absolute
minimum
should
be
weekly.
Tank
failures
can
and
do
have
serious
consequences.
Tank
inspections
are
a
very
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environmental
problems.
We
believe
that
it
is
the
public
interest
to
establish
an
absolute
minimum
frequency
for
inspections
and
we
believe
that
the
frequency
should
not
exceed
one
week.

Document
#:
0184
We
disagree
with
this
proposed
change.
The
frequency
of
inspections
should
not
be
based
on
past
compliance,
but
on
design
and
engineering
considerations,
and
actual
operating
conditions
of
the
tank
(
e.
g,
through­
put).

Document
#:
0211
It
is
not
clear
to
TNRCC
as
to
whether
this
information
will
be
submitted
or
retained
on­
site;
the
comments
on
Page
2522
are
not
reflected
in
the
proposed
rules
(
Page
2536).
Also,
the
facilities
may
be
required
to
submit
such
information
with
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Without
knowledge
of
existing
tank
systems,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulators
to
draft
specific
permit
conditions.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
generally
SUPPORTS
the
modification
proposed,
provided
that
additional
language
is
added
to
restrict
use
of
less­
frequent
inspections
to
those
tank
systems
with
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
alarms.
Tanks
can
and
frequently
do
fail
abruptly
and
with
little
or
no
warning,
losing
most
or
all
of
their
contents
in
a
very
short
period
of
time.
If
the
101
rule
is
promulgated
as
proposed,
it
may
be
a
week
or
longer
before
leaks
of
any
size
are
discovered
and
remediation
begun.
For
those
tanks
without
secondary
containment,
waiting
such
a
long
time
for
remediation
efforts
may
lead
to
extensive
environmental
damage,
beyond
the
owner/
operator's
financial
abilities
regardless
of
the
requirements
of
265.147.

Secondly,
the
failure
of
a
tank
implies
that
the
tank's
design,
installation,
operating,
inspection,
and/
or
maintenance
procedures
were
inadequate.
This
conclusion
may
be
extended
to
include
the
secondary
containment
systems
as
well.
For
example,
if
a
waste
added
to
a
tank
is
incompatible
with
the
tank
materials
and
causes
high
corrosion,
then
the
waste
operating
procedures
were
not
sufficient
to
keep
that
waste
excluded
from
the
tank,
and
if
the
tank
itself
fails
then
that
waste
will
probably
corrode
the
secondary
containment
in
the
same
way.

Therefore,
the
DEQ
recommends
that
the
provisions
for
reduced­
frequency
inspections
be
limited
only
to
those
tanks
with
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
systems.
Suggested
language
is
as
follows:

(
a)
Except
as
provided
herein,
tThe
owner
or
operator
of
a
tank
system
which
has
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
systems
must
inspect
at
lest
weekly,
or
less
frequently
as
determined
by
the
Director.
In
all
cases,
inspections
must
occur
at
least
monthly,
Director
decisions
about
less
frequent
inspections
will
be
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
compliance
record
of
a
facility.
For
tank
systems
without
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection
capability,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
daily.
Where
present,
the
following
items
are
to
be
inspected:

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect,
where
present,
at
least
once
each
operating
day:

(
1)
Overfill/
spill
control
equipment
(
e.
g.,
waste­
feed
cutoff
systems,
bypass
systems,
and
drainage
systems)
to
ensure
that
it
is
in
good
working
order;

(
2)
The
aboveground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any,
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste;

(
3)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment
and
leak­
detection
equipment,
(
e.
g.,
pressure
and
temperature
gauges
monitoring
wells)
to
ensue
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;
and
(
4)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tank
system
including
secondary
containment
structures
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
of
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation);

Note:
Section
265.15(
c)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
remedy
any
deterioration
or
malfunction
he
finds.
Section
265.196
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
within
24
hours
of
confirming
a
release.
Also,
40
CFR
part
302
may
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
of
a
release.
102
Response
to
Comments:
Today's
final
rule
reduces
the
inspection
frequencies
for
interim
status,
permitted,
and
LQG
tanks,
and
adds
language
to
§
§
264/
265.195
allowing
weekly
inspections
when
the
secondary
containment
employs
leak
detection
equipment
that
notifies
facility
personnel
if
a
leak
occurs.
In
the
absence
of
an
automatic
leak
detection
system,
the
facility
must
have
workplace
practices
in
place
that
shall
ensure
that
any
leaks
will
be
promptly
identified,
so
as
to
not
violate
the
provisions
of
264/
5.193(
c)(
3)).
The
leak
detection
equipment/
system
used
must
alert
facility
personnel
to
the
presence
of
any
leak
or
spill,
within
24
hours
or
the
earliest
practicable
time,
in
accordance
with
§
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
Automatic
leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
However,
the
existing
regulations,
which
requiring
that
secondary
containment
systems
be
able
to
detect
releases,
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection.
Some
facilities,
according
to
a
comments
on
this
rulemaking,
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
above
ground
tanks.
Under
the
current
regulations,
without
daily
visual
inspections,
automatic
detection
equipment
is
the
only
way
to
meet
the
leak
detection
requirement.
Workplace
practices
must
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified.
Such
practices
would
involve
facility
personnel
who,
in
the
course
of
their
duties,
remain
alert
to
potential
problems
at
the
workplace
so
that
problem
areas
are
identified
and
addressed.
Whether
workplace
practices
or
automatic
leak
detection
systems
are
employed
as
a
means
of
detecting
leaks
or
spills,
any
leaks
or
spills
must
be
detected
within
24
hours,
to
comply
with
264/
5.193(
c)(
3).
As
stated
above,
the
reduced
inspection
requirements
apply
to
tank
systems.
This
would
include
ancillary
equipment
(
including
piping),
and
for
ancillary
equipment
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment.
It
is
anticipated
that
workplace
practices
would
provide
for
the
detection
of
releases
from
this
equipment.

265.196(
d)(
1),
(
d)(
2)
Not
changing
existing
regulation
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
of
release:
Eliminate 
the
existing
regulatory
requirements
for
cleanup
and
certification
of
the
cleanup
are
adequately
protective;
this
extra
notification
to
the
regulatory
authorities
is
unnecessary.
This
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility
record.

Document
#:
0131
For
§
265.196(
d)
the
Department
recommends
maintaining
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
which
provides
for
initial
reporting
of
spills
or
leaks
and
removal
of
(
d)(
3)
which
currently
requires
follow­
up
reporting.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
Certification
of
clean
up
ensures
that
proper
procedures
were
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
files
that
the
release
was
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
files.
This
useful
and
sensible
requirement
eliminates
much
duplication
of
effort
and
is
simply
good
engineering
practice.

Document
#:
0211
103
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
40
CFR
264.193(
g)
and
eliminate
40
CFR
264.193(
h)
which
concerns
variances
from
secondary
containment
requirements.
The
proposed
rules
would
eliminate
the
submittal
of
a
variance
request
to
the
regional
administrator,
thus
requiring
facilities
to
keep
records
on­
site
to
describe
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
for
tanks
not
complying
with
the
40
CFR
264.193
requirements.
Such
information
is
submitted
as
an
element
of
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Therefore,
it
is
unclear
to
TNRCC
why
these
requirements
are
being
eliminated.
Eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
this
information
would
make
it
difficult
for
regulators
to
properly
evaluate
a
tank
system
in
light
o
the
regulatory
requirements
and
set
permit
conditions
specific
to
the
tank
system.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.196(
d)
(
1)
­
(
3).

Document
#:
0218
[
265.196(
d)(
1)
­
(
3)]
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
deletion
of
this
language
as
proposed.
In
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
properly
aware
of
problems
at
a
given
facility,
notification
of
such
spills
or
releases
must
be
continued.
Spill
and
release
reports
are
currently
considered
as
public
records,
and
available
for
the
general
public
to
review.
Removing
the
notification
requirement
would
prevent
the
Agency
from
having
prompt
knowledge
of
problems.
It
would
also
prevent
the
public
from
learning
about
the
frequency
and
severity
of
spills
at
a
site,
which
can
be
a
useful
measure
of
compliance
for
such
facilities.

The
DEQ
would
support
changing
certain
of
the
requirements
of
subparagraph
(
d),
specifically:
A.
In
(
d)(
2)(
i),
raise
the
exemption
limit
to
the
Reportable
Quantity
listed
in
40
CFR
302.4.
B.
Eliminating
the
need
for
the
specific
report
described
in
(
d)(
3),
while
providing
the
authority
for
the
Regional
Administrator
to
request
such
a
report
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
by
the
commenter's
arguments
to
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.196(
d)(
3)
Not
changing
existing
regulation
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
report
describing
releases:
Eliminate 
the
cleanup
requirements
in
the
regulations
and
the
need
to
certify
(
required
by
265.196(
f))
is
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
Certification
of
clean
up
ensures
that
proper
procedures
were
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
files
that
the
release
was
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
files.
This
useful
and
sensible
requirement
eliminates
much
duplication
of
effort
and
is
simply
good
engineering
practice.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
40
CFR
264.193(
g)
and
eliminate
40
CFR
264.193(
h)
which
concerns
104
variances
from
secondary
containment
requirements.
The
proposed
rules
would
eliminate
the
submittal
of
a
variance
request
to
the
regional
administrator,
thus
requiring
facilities
to
keep
records
on­
site
to
describe
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
for
tanks
not
complying
with
the
40
CFR
264.193
requirements.
Such
information
is
submitted
as
an
element
of
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Therefore,
it
is
unclear
to
TNRCC
why
these
requirements
are
being
eliminated.
Eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
this
information
would
make
it
difficult
for
regulators
to
properly
evaluate
a
tank
system
in
light
of
the
regulatory
requirements
and
set
permit
conditions
specific
to
the
tank
system.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.196(
d)(
1)
­
(
3).

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.196(
f)
Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs:
Eliminate
requirement
to
submit
certification 
we
do
not
ask
for
certifications
to
be
submitted
for
other
kinds
of
repairs;
there
is
no
special
reason
for
this
certification
to
be
submitted.
Also,
this
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0156
ACE
supports
eliminating
certain
release
notification
and
reporting
requirements
and
the
tank
repair
notification
and
certification
requirements.
For
our
member
institutions,
the
types
of
events
triggering
these
requirements
are
readily
identified,
easily
corrected,
and
do
not
present
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
requirement
to
notify
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
agency
of
these
minor
events
is
simply
an
opportunity
for
technical
non­
compliance
with
no
other
adverse
impacts,
and
no
demonstrate
benefit
to
the
environment
or
the
public.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.196(
f).

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
change
in
part,
and
OPPOSES
the
change
in
part.
In
particular,
the
DEQ
agrees
that
the
certification
of
a
major
tank
repair
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
as
is
certification
of
a
major
tank
repair
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
as
is
currently
required.
However,
the
DEQ
also
believes
that
language
should
be
added
to
the
proposed
rule
that
requires
that
the
certification
of
a
major
repair
must
be
kept
with
the
facility
record,
for
review
by
regulatory
inspectors.

The
DEQ
specifically
opposes
allowing
major
tank
repairs
to
be
certified
by
CHMM's,
in
addition
to
registered
engineers.
Such
repairs
can
affect
the
structural
stability
of
a
tank
and/
or
its
integrity
and
suitability
for
use,
and
such
determinations
should
be
reserved
to
registered
engineers.
The
105
arguments
made
in
paragraphs
VI.
F
and
VI.
G
also
apply
here.

Response
to
Comments:
We
believe
that
information
provided
by
the
certification
of
major
repairs
is
already
provided
through
the
notification
mechanisms
described
in
264.196(
d),
which
requires
notification
when
releases
occur,
and
a
description
of
response
actions
taken
or
planned.
While
we
are
not
eliminating
the
certification,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
kept
on
site
in
the
operating
record,
and,
we
are
requiring
the
certification
be
signed
by
an
independent,
qualified,
professional
engineer.

265.201(
c)
(
1)
­
(
3)
Small
Quantity
Generator
Tanks
Modify
­
Change
daily
inspection
requirement
to
weekly.

Document
#:
0317
In
the
comments
submitted
April
12,
2002,
Dow
did
not
suggest
similar
changes
to
40
CFR
265.201(
c)
for
small
quantity
generators,
but
Dow
believes
such
a
reduction
in
frequency
would
be
consistent
with
the
agency's
intent.
An
SQG
is
generally
regulated
less
stringently
than
a
Large
Quantity
Generator,
so
it
only
makes
sense
to
reduce
the
burden
on
this
class
of
generators
as
well.
In
addition,
some
of
the
items
in
the
existing
40
CFR
265.201
only
require
a
weekly
inspection.
Doe
suggests
the
following
changes
to
the
regulatory
text:

40
CFR
265.201(
c)(
1)
"...
at
least
once
each
operating
day
weekly,
to
ensure
that
it
is
in
good
working
order;"
40
CFR
265.201(
c)(
2)
"...
at
least
once
each
operating
day
weekly,
to
ensure
that
the
tank
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;"
40
CFR
265.201(
c)(
3)
"...
at
least
once
each
operating
day
weekly,
to
ensure
compliance
with
40
CFR
265.201(
b)(
3);"

Document
#:
0341
Duke
Energy
supports
the
agency's
proposal
to
change
the
tank
self­
inspection
frequencies
from
daily
to
weekly
for
large
quantity
generators,
and
the
agency's
proposal
to
expand
the
change
to
include
tanks
located
at
small
quantity
generator
sites
(
265.201(
c))
and
ancillary
equipment
at
small
and
large
quantity
generator
sites
(
265.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f).
Implementing
this
change
would
continue
to
ensure
an
appropriate
monitoring
frequency
that
would
provide
an
adequate
degree
of
environmental
protection
and
would
result
in
substantial
cost
savings
to
the
regulated
community.

Response:
The
requirements
for
SQG
tanks
were
finalized
on
March
24,
1986
(
51
FR
10146),
and
with
the
July
14,
1986
final
tank
regulations,
codified
at
§
265.201.
Discussion
in
the
March
1986
rule
relates
to
how
the
SQG
requirements
were
developed,
as
distinct
from
the
requirements
for
LQG
tanks..
The
rule
states:
"
Congress
anticipated
reducing
administrative
4
While
the
Agency
solicited
comment
on
reducing
the
inspection
frequency
for
ancillary
equipment
for
SQGs,
the
referenced
regulation,
§
265.193(
f)
does
not
apply
to
tank
systems
at
SQG
sites,
only
the
requirements
found
in
§
265.201(
c)
apply
to
SQG
tank
systems.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
not
pursuing
changes
to
§
265.193(
f)
that
would
affect
SQGs.
As
discussed
above,
the
regulatory
changes
we
are
making
today
apply
to
SQG
tank
systems,
which
include
ancillary
equipment.

106
requirements,
such
as
reporting
and
recordkeeping,
as
a
means
to
reduce
impacts
on
the
100­
1000
kg/
mo
generators.
Thus,
EPA
proposed
to
relieve
these
generators
of
some
Part
262
standards
that
are
administrative
in
nature
while
retaining
all
existing
technical
standards.
The
relief
was
only
provided
to
generators
who
accumulate
on
site
for
the
statutorily­
prescribed
periods,
because,
given
that
the
amount
of
waste
accumulated
would
necessarily
be
limited,
the
relative
risk
from
releases
of
such
waste
would
be
less
than
that
from
the
unlimited
amounts
of
waste
accumulated
by
off­
site
facilities,"
(
51
FR
10149).
Under
the
current
regulations,
generators
of
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
accumulating
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
if
applicable;
(
1)
discharge
control
equipment
(
e.
g.,
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
by­
pass
systems,
and
drainage
systems);
(
2)
data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
and
temperature
gauges);
and
(
3)
the
level
of
waste
in
the
tank.
In
addition,
at
least
weekly,
generators
must
also
inspect:
(
1)
the
construction
materials
of
the
tank
to
detect
corrosion
or
leaking
of
fixtures
or
seams;
and
(
2)
the
construction
materials
of,
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding,
discharge
confinement
structures
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
obvious
signs
of
leakage
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots
or
dead
vegetation).
While
§
265.201
does
not
require
SQGs
to
be
equipped
with
secondary
containment,
nor
leak
detection,
SQG
tank
system
owners
and
operators
who
wish
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency
may
do
so
if
these
tank
systems
are
provided
with
secondary
containment
with
either
leak
detection
equipment
or
established
workplace
practices
that
ensure
prompt
detection
of
releases,
as
described
above
for
other
tank
systems.
Owners
and
operators
choosing
one
of
these
options
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies
should
document
the
option
selected
in
their
operating
record.
If
the
option
selected
is
"
established
workplace
practices,"
the
owner
and/
or
operator
should
document
those
practices
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
In
the
proposal,
we
received
comments
suggesting
that
we
expand
the
proposed
reduction
in
tank
self­
inspection
frequency
to
include
tanks
located
at
small
quantity
generator
sites
(
see
§
265.201(
c))
and
ancillary
equipment
(
see
§
265.193(
f)
4).
This
change
would
affect
only
three
of
the
five
SQG
inspection
requirements
for
discharge
control
equipment(
§
265.201(
c)(
1));
data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment(
§
265.201(
c)(
2));
and
monitoring
the
level
of
waste
in
the
tank(
§
265.201(
c)(
3)),
since
the
last
two
inspection
requirements(
§
§
265.201(
c)(
4)
and
(
c)(
5))
are
already
done
on
a
weekly
basis.
We
stated
in
the
NODA
that
changing
these
inspection
frequencies
would
be
consistent
with
our
intent
to
establish
weekly
inspections
for
all
tank
systems.
(
See
above
comments)
We
agree,
in
part,
with
the
commenters.
SQG
tanks
historically
have
less
stringent
requirements
than
LQGs,
permitted,
and
interim
status
tanks.
But,
while
existing
SQG
tanks
are
not
required
to
have
secondary
containment,
in
order
to
enjoy
reduced
inspection
frequencies
107
under
today's
rule,
tanks
must
have
secondary
containment
with
leak
detection,
or
have
secondary
containment
and
workplace
practices
in
use
that
promptly
identify
leaks
and
spills.

265.221(
a)­­
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status):
Remove
obsolete
language
.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#:
0218
Remove
obsolete
language.

Response:
This
language
is
being
deleted
in
today's
rule.

265.223(
a)­­
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA:
Eliminate 
Response
Action
Plans
for
other
kinds
of
treatment
units
are
not
submitted
to
EPA.
We
are
proposing
that
it
is
sufficient
to
keep
this
Plan
on­
site.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
265.223(
a).

Document
#:
0218
Revise
language
to
remove
requirement
to
submit
RAP.

Response:
The
Agency
proposed
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
response
action
plans
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
and
also
proposed
submission
of
related
reports
when
there
is
leakage.
The
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
actual
Response
Action
Plan,
which
documents
what
the
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
Commenters
have
convinced
us
of
the
utility
of
108
this
information
and
that
the
discovery
of
leakage
above
the
ALR
is
a
serious
environmental
concern
meriting
the
attention
of
the
regulating
agency.
final
rule
will
only
eliminate
the
submission
of
the
response
action
plans.
Actions
to
remedy
problems
will
still
be
recorded
in
the
operating
record.
Requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed.

265.223(
b)(
1)
_
Not
changing
existing
requirement
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
action
leakage
rate
for
any
sumps
within
7
days:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
still
has
to
address
the
leakage
and
record
its
response
to
the
leakage
in
the
facility
record,
which
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0211
[
265.223(
b)(
1),
b(
2)
and
b(
6)]
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
the
reporting
requirements
for
all
"
releases
to
the
environment"
from
tank
systems.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
#:
0212
[
265.223(
b)(
1),
b(
2)
and
b(
6)]
EPA
should
retain
all
of
the
information
requirements
regarding
surface
impoundment
leaks.
This
is
the
only
way
the
public
and
the
agency
will
have
access
to
timely
information
that
can
limit
contamination
that
threatens
public
health
and
environmental
quality.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
of
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommend
amending
265.223(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:
Sec.
265.223
Response
Actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0218
[
265.223(
b)(
1),
b(
2)
and
b(
6)]
109
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
if
the
secondary
liner
should
also
leak.
As
noted
previously,
such
notifications
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
of
the
reporting
deadlines,
however,
as
follows:
1.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days.
2.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
3.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6),
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analyses
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semiannual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
no
longer
being
exceeded.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.223(
b)(
2)
Not
changing
existing
requirement
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
still
has
to
address
the
leakage
and
record
its
response
to
the
leakage
in
the
facility
record,
which
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.223(
b)(
2).

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
110
265.223(
b)(
6)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status) 
Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
information
about
the
leak
will
be
kept
onsite,
where
it
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
Is
there
a
reason
to
retain
this
requirement?
I
propose:
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However,
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
exceedance
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
265.223(
b)(
6)
by
amending
265.223(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
265.223
Response
actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.259(
a)­­
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
other
treatment
units
do
not
have
to
submit
this
plan.
Removing
this
requirement
will
bring
consistency
to
the
regulations.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
40
CFR
264.193(
g)
and
eliminate
40
CFR
264.193(
h)
which
concerns
variance
from
secondary
containment
requirements.
The
proposed
rules
would
eliminate
the
submittal
of
a
variance
request
to
the
regional
administrator,
thus
requiring
facilities
to
keep
records
on­
site
to
describe
the
alternate
design
and
operating
is
submitted
as
an
element
of
the
111
Part
G
permit
application.
Therefore,
it
is
unclear
to
TNRCC
why
these
requirements
are
being
eliminated.
Eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
this
information
would
make
it
difficult
for
regulators
to
properly
evaluate
a
tank
system
in
light
of
the
regulatory
requirements
and
set
permit
conditions
specific
to
the
tank
system.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
proposal.
A
release
from
a
land­
based
unit
is
a
significant
noncompliance
and
could
pose
serious
impacts
to
people
and
the
environment.
Note
that
we
see
the
leaks
from
land­
based
units
to
be
unusual
circumstances
that
require
decisive
action.
It
is
important
for
the
facility
to
have
a
clear
plan
in
advance
to
respond
to
releases.
Because
of
the
importance
of
controlling
these
releases,
it
is
appropriate
for
the
response
action
plan
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
or
the
state
permit
agency
for
review.

Document
#:
0218
Revise
language
to
remove
requirement
to
submit
RAP.

Response:
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
requirement
to
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills.
Response
action
plans
document
what
a
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
The
final
rule
will
retain
the
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)(
1),
and
will
eliminate
the
submission
only
of
the
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
be
developed
and
retained
on­
site.
As
a
reminder,
the
requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed;
only
the
requirement
to
submit
a
response
action
plan
is
being
eliminated..

265.259(
b)(
1)
­
Not
changing
existing
requirement
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
Information
about
the
facility's
response
to
the
leakage
will
be
available
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
food
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0211
[
265.259(
b)(
1),
b(
2)
and
b(
6)]
The
proposed
rules
eliminate
the
reporting
requirements
for
all
"
releases
to
the
environment"
112
from
tank
systems.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

The
proposed
regulations
would
eliminate
the
7­
day
notification
for
exceeding
the
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR),
the
14­
day
written
assessment
for
that
exceedance,
and
the
final
report
consisting
of
remedial
actions
taken
and
planned
due
30­
days
after
the
exceedance
in
surface
impoundments.
Based
on
the
proposed
rules,
it
appears
that
there
would
be
no
reporting
requirements
if
the
ALR
is
exceeded.
While
some
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
TNRCC
recommends
that
there
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land­
based
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
retain
all
of
the
information
requirements
regarding
waste
pile
leaks.
This
is
the
only
way
the
public
and
th
agency
will
have
access
to
timely
information
that
can
limit
contamination
that
threatens
public
health
and
environmental
quality.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
of
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommend
amending
265.259(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
264.259
Response
actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0218
[
265.259(
b)(
1),
b(
2)
and
b(
6)]
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
if
the
secondary
liner
should
also
leak.
As
noted
previously,
such
notifications
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
113
of
the
reporting
deadlines,
however,
as
follows:
1.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days.
2.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
3.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6),
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analyses
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semiannual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
no
longer
being
exceeded.

Document
#:
0290
Elimination
of
these
requirement
assumes
that
self
regulation
will
occur.
Once
they
receive
notice
of
a
leakage,
the
regulatory
authorities
can
then
inspect
the
facility
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken
to
guarantee
the
leakage
does
not
continue.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
the
extent
of
contamination
resulting
from
the
leakage.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

The
notification
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
exceedances
occur),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
the
releases.

Section
265.259(
b)(
6)
requirements
assist
the
regulatory
authority
in
determining
if
leakage
from
the
waste
pile
has
been
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
If
a
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
and
the
agency
is
not
be
aware
that
the
ALR
is
exceeded,
proper
action
may
not
be
taken.
The
public
has
a
right
to
know
if
there
have
been
exceedances
or
releases.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
The
discovery
of
leakage
above
the
action
leakage
rate
is
an
extremely
serious
issue.
It
indicates
a
possble
breach
in
the
must
be
immediately
addressed
and
throughly
documented.
While
commenters
have
argues
that
this
event
rartely
occurs,
it
is
important
for
States
to
be
kept
up
to
date
on
the
status
of
an
issues
as
serious
as
this.
114
265.259(
b)(
2)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
Information
about
the
facility's
response
to
the
leakage
will
be
available
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
assessment
report
provided
the
notice
requirement
of
265.259(
b)(
1)
is
retained.
The
regulatory
agency
can
choose
to
follow
up
with
the
facility
regarding
the
notice
of
exceedance
of
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.259(
b)(
6)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
Information
about
the
facility's
response
to
the
leakage
will
be
available
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
of
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
exceedance
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
265.259(
b)(
6)
by
amending
265.259(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:
115
Sec.
264.259
Response
actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.276(
a)
Not
changing
existing
regulations
Land
Treatment
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
notification
for
food­
chain
crops
at
land
treatment
facility:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
other
regulatory
requirements
in
265.276
are
followed.
Information
about
compliance
with
these
other
regulatory
requirements
will
be
in
the
facility
operating
record.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
revisions
to
the
rules
eliminate
the
notification
requirements
for
growing
food
chain
crops.
TNRCC
is
concerned
that
without
notification,
there
would
be
no
public
record
that
food
chain
crops
are,
or
have
been,
grown
at
the
interim
status
land
treatment
unit.
In
addition,
without
notification,
regulators
would
not
be
aware
of
the
status
of
the
land
treatment
unit.

Document
#:
0213
Growing
food­
chain
crops
at
a
land
treatment
facility
will
be
of
the
utmost
concern
to
members
of
the
public.
Since
there
is
no
public
process
for
interns
status
facility
to
begin
operations,
it
is
important
that
EPA
or
the
state
permitting
agency
received
notification
that
food­
chain
crops
will
be
grown
at
the
facility.

Document
#:
0216
Maine
does
not
concur
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
food
chain
crop
notifications.
Maine
believes
this
notification
will
allow
inspectors
to
target
this
facility
more
easily
for
inspection.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
elimination
of
this
paragraph.
As
noted
previously,
this
is
currently
a
public
record
and
should
be
retained.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.301(
a)
Landfills
(
Interim
Status) 
Remove
obsolete
language
116
Document
#
0169:
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#
0213:
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#
0218:
Remove
obsolete
language
Response:
The
phrases
"
on
which
construction
commences
after
January
29,1992",
"
on
which
construction
commences
after
July
29,
1992",
and
"
that
is
to
commence
reuse
after
July
29,
1992",
as
well
as
the
last
sentence
of
the
section
are
being
deleted.

265.303(
a)
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
to
EPA:
Eliminate
requirement
to
submit
plan.
Developing
a
plan,
keeping
it
onsite,
and
implementing
it
when
necessary
is
sufficient.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0211
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
40
CFR
264.193(
g)
and
eliminate
40
CFR
264.193(
h)
which
concerns
variances
from
secondary
containment
requirements.
The
proposed
rules
would
eliminate
the
submittal
of
a
variance
request
to
the
regional
administrator,
thus
requiring
facilities
to
keep
records
on­
site
to
describe
the
alternative
design
and
operating
practices
for
tanks
not
complying
with
the
40
CFR
264.193
requirements.
Such
information
is
submitted
as
an
element
of
the
Part
B
permit
application.
Therefore,
it
is
unclear
to
TNRCC
why
these
requirements
are
being
eliminated.
Eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
this
information
would
make
it
difficult
for
regulators
to
properly
evaluate
a
tank
system
in
light
of
the
regulatory
requirements
and
set
permit
conditions
specific
to
the
tank
system.

Document
#:
0213
A
release
from
a
land­
based
unit
is
a
significant
noncompliance
and
could
pose
serious
impacts
to
people
and
the
environment..
Note
that
we
see
the
leaks
from
land­
based
units
to
be
unusual
circumstances
that
require
decisive
action.
It
is
important
for
the
facility
to
have
a
clear
plan
in
advance
to
respond
to
releases.
Because
of
the
importance
of
controlling
these
releases,
it
is
appropriate
for
the
response
action
plan
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
or
the
state
permit
agency
for
review.

Document
#:
0218
Revise
language
to
remove
requirement
to
submit
RAP.

Response:
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
requirement
to
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills.
Response
action
117
plans
document
what
a
facility
must
do
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
The
plan
must
still
be
prepared
and
retained
on­
site.
If
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded,
then
reports
must
be
submitted,
as
the
current
regulations
require.
The
final
rule
will
retain
the
notice
requirement
of
264.223(
b)(
1),
and
will
eliminate
the
submission
only
of
the
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
be
developed
and
retained
on­
site.
As
a
reminder,
the
requirements
for
existing
notifications
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259,
and
265.303
are
not
being
changed;
only
the
requirement
to
submit
a
response
action
plan
is
being
eliminated..

265.303(
b)(
1)
­
Not
changing
existing
language
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed
and
information
on
adherence
to
the
Plan
is
kept
in
the
facility
operating
record,
where
it
will
be
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0212
EPA
should
retain
all
of
the
information
requirements
regarding
landfill
leaks.
This
is
the
only
way
the
public
and
the
agency
will
have
access
to
timely
information
that
can
limit
contamination
that
threatens
public
health
and
environmental
quality.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
notice.
This
requirement
prompts
action
by
the
facility
and
provides
a
"
heads
up"
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
prioritization
of
inspections
and
resources.
We
recommend
amending
265.303(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
265.303
Response
actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.303(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),
and
(
b)(
6)
Not
changing
existing
language
118
Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
generally
OPPOSES
the
removal
of
the
notification
and
reporting
language
in
these
subparagraphs,
and
believes
that
the
regulatory
agencies
must
be
notified
at
any
time
that
a
land
disposal
unit
shows
evidence
of
leakage,
to
allow
proper
oversight
of
the
steps
taken
to
correct
the
problem.
A
failure
of
the
owner/
operator
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
control
the
leak
and
repair
the
problem
could
lead
to
groundwater
contamination
if
the
secondary
liner
should
also
leak.
As
noted
previously,
such
notifications
are
a
public
record,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
for
them
would
deprive
the
public
of
access
to
relevant
and
important
information
on
the
performance
and
compliance
status
of
a
land
disposal
facility.

The
DEQ
would
support
reducing
and
simplifying
the
reporting
requirements
and
extending
one
of
the
reporting
deadlines,
however,
as
follows:
A.
In
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
extend
the
notification
date
to
14
days.
B.
Delete
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
In
paragraph
(
b)(
6),
retain
the
requirement
that
the
results
of
the
analyses
be
submitted
to
the
Agency,
but
allow
semiannual
reports
thereafter,
rather
than
monthly
reports.
The
final
report
will
notify
the
Agency
that
the
leak
is
repaired,
and
the
ALRs
are
no
longer
being
exceeded.

Document
#:
0290
Notification
should
performed
in
order
for
the
regulatory
authority
to
be
able
to
follow­
up
quickly
with
an
inspection
to
guarantee
that
steps
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
The
public
should
be
aware
of
any
exceedances
in
the
regulatory
file.
It
would
also
allow
the
regulatory
authority
to
ensure
that
the
response
action
plan
can
adequately
address
the
exceedance
to
prevent
further
release.
The
notification
also
enables
the
agency
to
evaluate
trends
of
the
facility
(
if
frequent
exceedances
occur),
which
may
prompt
additional
actions.
If
facility
records
are
not
well
organized,
this
type
of
evaluation
may
not
be
possible
during
an
inspection
without
the
agency
having
prior
knowledge
of
the
releases.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
264.303(
b)(
1)
requires
immediate
notification
of
the
regulatory
agency
when
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
which
the
commenters
have
argues
is
warranted.
Subparagraphs
(
2),(
3),
(
4),
and
(
5)
required
follow­
on
actions
the
landfill
operator
must
take
to
evaluate
and
correct
the
leak.
Subparagraph
(
6),
which
the
Agency
proposed
to
be
deleted,
required
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
the
steps
taken
to
comply
with
sub­
paragraphs
(
2),(
3),(
4),
and
(
5).
The
Agency
is
convinved
by
the
arguments
set
forth
by
the
commenters
that
it
is
illogical
to
require
the
landfill
oeprator
to
take
corrective
steps,
but
not
to
report
those
to
the
regulatory
agency,
particular
for
an
exceedance
in
the
action
leakage
rate.
119
265.303(
b)(
2)
Not
changing
existing
language
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
Response
Plan
is
followed
and
information
on
adherence
to
the
Plan
is
kept
in
the
facility
operating
record,
where
it
will
be
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
assessment
report
provided
the
notice
requirement
of
265.303(
b)(
1)
is
retained.
The
regulatory
agency
can
choose
to
follow
up
with
the
facility
regarding
the
notice
of
exceedance
of
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0290
Elimination
of
this
requirement
assumes
that
self
regulation
will
occur.
Once
they
receive
notice
of
a
leakage,
the
regulatory
authorities
can
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken
to
guarantee
the
leakage
does
not
continue.
The
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
the
extent
of
contamination
resulting
from
the
leakage.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
agency
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
any
threats
to
human
health
or
the
environmental
from
the
leakage.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.

265.303(
b)(
6)
Not
changing
existing
language
Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
remediation
required
by
regulation
takes
place,
and
information
about
the
remediation
is
kept
in
the
facility
record.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
120
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
monthly
reports
of
the
results
o
the
actions
taken
and
actions
planned.
However
a
monthly
notice
of
an
ongoing
exceedance
of
the
leakage
action
rate
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
monthly
notice
requirement
of
265.303(
b)(
6)
by
amending
265.303(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
265.303
Response
actions.

(
1)
Notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
within
7
days
of
the
determination
and
monthly
thereafter,
as
long
as
the
flow
rate
in
the
leak
detection
system
exceeds
the
action
leakage
rate.

Document
#:
0290
This
requirement
assists
the
regulatory
authority
in
determining
if
leakage
from
the
landfill
has
been
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
If
a
notification
is
not
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
and
the
agency
is
not
aware
that
the
ALR
is
exceeded,
proper
action
may
not
be
taken.
The
public
has
a
right
to
know
if
there
have
been
exceedances
or
releases.
All
reports,
records,
correspondence,
permit
applications,
notifications,
etc.
regarding
an
individual
facility
are
normally
made
available
to
the
public
in
a
central
repository.
Copies
of
all
correspondence,
reports,
applications,
etc.
are
filed
for
each
facility
using
a
unique
identifier.
It
is
not
possible
to
ascertain
which
particular
report,
letter,
map,
etc.
is
being
reviewed
when
an
individual
requests
to
review
facility
information.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
The
Agency
has
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
264.303(
b)(
1)
requires
immediate
notification
of
the
regulatory
agency
when
the
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
which
the
commenters
have
argues
is
warranted.
Subparagraphs
(
2),(
3),
(
4),
and
(
5)
required
followon
actions
the
landfill
operator
must
take
to
evaluate
and
correct
the
leak.
Subparagraph
(
6),
which
the
Agency
proposed
to
be
deleted,
required
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
the
steps
taken
to
comply
with
sub­
paragraphs
(
2),(
3),(
4),
and
(
5).
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
the
arguments
set
forth
by
the
commenters
that
it
is
illogical
to
require
the
landfill
operator
to
take
corrective
steps,
but
not
to
report
those
to
the
regulatory
agency,
particular
for
an
exceedance
in
the
action
leakage
rate.
121
265.314(
a),
(
a)(
1),
(
a)(
2),
(
b),(
g)­­
Requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids:
Remove
obsolete
language
.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
concur
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#
0218:
[
264.314
(
a)(
1),
(
a)(
2),
(
b),
and
(
f)]
Removal
of
obsolete
language.

Response:
We
are
eliminating
obsolete
language
in
these
section
in
the
final
rule.

265.441(
a),
(
b),
(
c)
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status) 
Assessment
of
Drip
Pad,
Submit
written
plan,
as­
built
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
certification
may
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

No
Document
number:
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
rules
in
the
future
regarding
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(
CHMM)
can
certify
the
closure
certification
report.
TNRCC
notes
that
existing
40
CFR
264.115
rules
require
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
the
facility
have
been
closed
according
to
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
EPA
is
proposing
and
taking
comments
on
whether
a
CHMM
is
capable
of
performing
closure
certifications.
A
review
of
the
requirements
for
certification
as
a
CHMM
finds
that
the
candidate
is
not
required
to
possess
a
technical
degree
of
any
sort.
However,
the
individuals
applying
for
a
CHMM
certification
without
a
degree
must
have
at
least
11
years
of
experience
in
a
filed
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
CHMM
candidates
holding
a
bachelor's
degree
must
also
possess
at
least
7
years
experience
in
a
field
related
to
hazardous
materials
management.
Candidates
holding
a
Master's
degree
or
higher
in
a
related
field,
must
also
have
a
minimum
of
3
years
of
practical
experience.
In
all
cases,
the
individual
must
pass
a
professional
multiple­
choice
examination
developed
and
administered
by
the
Hazardous
Materials
Management
Institute,
a
private
organization.
However,
the
professional
engineering
(
P.
E.)
requirements
are
more
stringent
and
closely
administered
by
individual
state
licensing
boards
which
are
subject
to
state
regulations.
In
order
for
an
individual
to
obtain
a
P.
E.
license,
the
individual
(
in
most
cases)
must
have
a
BS
degree
in
engineering
and
requisite
experience
before
he
is
allowed
to
take
P.
E.
certification
exams.
The
P.
E.
certification
examination
is
a
two­
step
process:
first,
the
candidate
is
required
to
take
and
pass
an
exam
covering
the
fundamentals
of
engineering;
next
he/
she
must
take
a
comprehensive
engineering
exam
in
the
respective
field
for
which
the
license
is
sought.
The
registration,
exams,
and
license
requirements
for
P.
E.
s
are
administered
by
the
state
engineering
board.
The
brief
122
review
of
the
CHMM
requirements,
indicates
that
the
CHMM
standards
are
not
as
comprehensive
or
as
stringent
as
those
required
for
a
P.
E.
In
addition,
P.
E.
s
are
required
to
comply
with
state
regulations
that
establish
standards
for
such
criteria
as
education,
experience,
professional
conduct
and
ethics,
liability
and
insurance,
etc.;
there
are
no
such
established
standards
for
the
CHMM.
Also,
a
licensed
P.
E.
is
only
allowed
to
practice
in
the
field
of
engineering
in
which
he
has
the
necessary
education
or
experience;
it
is
unclear
is
such
restrictions
regulate
the
areas
of
engineering
in
which
a
CHMM
can
practice.
Therefore,
unless
CHMM
standards
are
as
stringent
as
the
P.
E.
requirements
and
are
governed
by
some
state
regulatory
criteria,
it
is
not
advisable
to
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
of
the
various
certification
requirements.
In
addition,
this
proposal
may
conflict
with
state
P.
E.
Board
regulations.
Therefore,
in
light
of
the
aforementioned
issues,
TNRCC
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
not
allow
CHMMs
to
authorize
any
engineering
certifications,
unless
he/
she
is
also
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer
licensed
to
practice
in
the
individual
state.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.441
(
a),
(
b),
(
c).

Document
#:
0218
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
specified
certifications
on
Drip
Pads,
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Response:
These
certifications
must
be
made
by
qualified,
professional
engineer
according
to
today's
final
rule.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.

265.443(
a)(
4)(
ii),(
g)
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status) 
Assessment
of
Drip
Pad:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.443(
a)
(
4)
(
ii),
(
g).

Document
#:
0218
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
specified
certifications
on
Drip
Pads,
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Response:
These
certifications
must
be
made
by
a
qualified,
professional
engineer
according
to
today's
final
rule.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.
123
265.443(
m)
(
1)
(
iv)
Not
changing
existing
language
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
required
by
regulation
takes
place,
and
is
recorded
in
the
facility
operating
record,
where
it
will
be
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
reports
of
planned
actions.
However,
a
notice
of
a
possible
leak
or
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
notice
requirement
by
amending
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv)
to
read
as
follows:

Sec.
265.443
Design
and
operating
requirements.

(
iv)
Within
7
days
after
discovery
of
the
condition,
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
condition.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
elimination
of
this
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
of
a
potential
leak
in
the
containment
area
of
a
drip
pad.
Such
notice
is
needed
so
that
the
Agency
can
properly
perform
its
oversight
role.
The
DEQ
does
believe,
however,
that
the
24­
hour
notification
requirement
is
too
stringent
and
unnecessarily
brief.
A
longer
notification
timeframe
of
7
calendar
days
is
considered
to
be
sufficient.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
A
notice
of
a
possible
leak
or
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
The
States
have
persuaded
us
that
these
releases
are
a
serious
environmental
concern
requiring
notification.

265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv),
(
2)
Not
changing
existing
language
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
required
by
regulation
takes
place,
and
is
recorded
in
the
facility
operating
record,
where
it
will
be
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
124
engineering
practice
to
document
response
actions.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement.
A
notice
of
a
possible
leak
or
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
The
States
have
persuaded
us
that
these
releases
are
a
serious
environmental
concern
requiring
notification
265.443
(
m)(
2)
­
Not
changing
existing
language.
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
 

Document
#:
0213
Not
changing
existing
language.
Same
comment
as
264.443(
m)(
2).

Document
#:
0218
[
265.443(
m)(
2)
and
(
3)]
Not
changing
existing
language.
Delete
these
two
paragraphs
as
unnecessary.

265.443(
m)(
3)
Not
changing
existing
language.
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
Regional
Administrator
and
certify
completion
of
repairs:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
required
cleanup
and
repairs
are
made.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
response
actions.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.443(
m)(
3).

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
has
been
persuaded
not
to
change
the
existing
requirement
Commenters
have
persuaded
us
that
these
releases
are
a
serious
environmental
concern
requiring
notification
to
the
regulatory
agency.
125
265.444(
a)
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status) 
Inspection
of
liners:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.444(
a)

Document
#:
0218
Allowing
CHMM's
to
perform
inspections
and
certifications
related
to
Drip
Pad
construction,
provided
that
they
are
independent
of
the
owner
or
operator
and
qualified
by
training
and
experience
to
make
the
certification
in
question.

Response:
These
inspections
and
certifications
must
be
performed
by
an
independent,
qualified,
professional
engineer,
the
Agency
has
been
persuaded
by
the
commenters
that
these
certification
should
only
be
conducted
by
professional
engineers.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion
for
an
explanation
for
this
change.

265.1061(
b)(
1)­­
Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
other
regulatory
requirements
in
265.1061
are
followed.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.1061
(
b)(
1).

Document
#:
0218
[
265.1061
(
b)(
1)
and
(
d)]
Delete
notification
requirements,
in
lieu
of
facility
records.

265.1061(
d)
Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Owners
or
operators
can
decide
which
standard
to
meet
without
notifying
the
Agency.
This
information
will
be
retained
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
where
it
will
be
available
for
inspection
by
regulatory
authorities.

Document
#:
0042
Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard.
126
Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
The
proposed
Notification
allows
2%
of
all
valves
to
continue
to
leak.
The
current
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
that
a
performance
test
be
conducted
and
to
determine
if
additional
testing
should
be
performed.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.1061(
d).

265.1062(
a)(
2)
Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status) 
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Owners
or
operators
may
use
alternative
work
practice
without
notifying
the
Agency.
This
information
will
be
kept
in
the
facility
operating
record,
which
is
available
for
regulatory
authorities
to
inspect.

Document
#:
0042
Notification
to
Implement
Alternative
Valve
Standards
­
Submit
notification
to
Region.

Document
#:
0169
As
long
as
the
notification
was
given
for
265.1061
(
b)(
1),
we
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.1062
(
a)(
2),

Document
#:
0218
Delete
the
notification
requirement
and
renumber
subsequent
paragraphs.

Response:
The
Agency
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
regarding
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards.
In
addition,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
notifications
for
implementing
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.
We
also
proposed
elimination
of
the
semi­
annual
report
with
a
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events.
We
receive
a
number
of
comments
on
these
proposed
eliminations.
Some
commenters
opposed
elimination
of
notifications
for
alternative
valve
standards,
believing
that
some
technical
review
was
needed
to
approve
an
alternative
standard.
Another
commenter
opposed
to
eliminating
these
notifications
argued
that
the
report
(
equipment
leaks)
should
be
submitted
only
if
there
have
been
problems
with
the
equipment,
and
that
the
public
has
an
interest
in
these
reports
and
would
not
see
the
information
if
it
were
only
maintained
at
the
facility.
Another
commenter
argued
that
the
alternative
valve
standard
should
be
selfimplementing
and
there
should
be
no
need
to
submit
a
notification
to
implement
the
standard,
since,
since
this
information
is
retained
in
facility
records.
Similarly,
this
commenter
also
believed
there
was
no
need
to
submit
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
specified
in
264.1062.
127
Another
commenter
believed
the
notifications
are
not
necessary
since
the
appropriate
documentation
will
be
in
the
facility's
records,
available
for
review
during
inspections.
This
reduces
the
administrative
burden
on
both
the
facility
and
regulator.
Another
commenter
said
that
the
record
keeping
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
Subpart
BB
are
extensive,
and
that
facility
records
would
contain
documentation
on
leaks
from
valves,
pumps,
and
compressors
and
resulting
repairs.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
need
for
facilities
to
also
submit
semi­
annual
reports
with
this
same
information.
The
final
rule
eliminates
the
notifications
for
implementing
and
discontinuing
alternative
valve
standards,
alternative
work
practices
fo
valves,
and
the
requirement
for
a
semi­
annual
report
submission.
The
necessary
information
related
to
the
report
and
the
notifications
is
contained
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
inspection.
Furthermore,
we
believe
that
the
information
regarding
the
use
or
discontinued
use
of
alternative
valve
standards
need
not
be
submitted
but
maintained
on­
site.

265.1100­­
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
of
intent
to
be
bound
by
the
regulations
earlier
than
as
specified
in
section
265.1100:
Eliminate 
an
obsolete
requirement.

Document
#:
0042
[
§
265.1100,
265.1061(
b)(
1)]
Equipment
Leaks
(
Interim
Status)
 
Submit
notification
to
Region.

Notify
EPA
of
intent
to
be
bound
by
the
regulations
earlier
than
as
specified
in.

Document
#:
0169
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
the
elimination
of
this
language.

Document
#:
0218
Delete
obsolete
language.

Response:
We
are
removing
this
obsolete
language
in
the
final
rule.

265.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status) 
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
design
requirements:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
certification
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
265.1101(
c)(
2)
128
Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
generally
SUPPORTS
the
proposed
rule,
WITH
MODIFICATION,
as
shown
below.
Because
a
structure
is
involved,
state
law
may
require
the
building
to
be
designed
and
certified
by
a
registered
professional
engineer
for
safety
reasons.
The
DEQ
believes
that
the
possibility
of
this
requirement
can
be
addressed
by
a
note
at
the
end
of
the
rule.
Secondly,
the
requirement
that
the
certification
be
obtained
prior
to
first
use
of
the
building,
should
be
retained.
Suggested
language
is
as
follows:

(
2)
Obtain
certification
by
an
independent
qualified
registered
professional
engineer
or
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
prior
to
operation
of
the
building,
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section.

[
Note:
Some
states
have
specific
requirements
regarding
the
personnel
allowed
to
perform
certifications
on
buildings
and
structures.
The
owner
or
operator
is
advised
to
consult
with
state
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
if
such
requirements
are
in
effect
for
their
state.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency
is
not
proceeding
with
the
proposed
change
of
allowing
a
CHMM
to
certify
this
requirement.
This
certification
must
be
done
by
a
qualified
professional
engineer.
We
however
removing
obsolete
language
from
the
regulation
and
we
are
providing
for
the
certification
to
be
maintained
on­
site.
Please
refer
to
the
preamble
discussion.

265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status) 
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
to
notify
regulatory
authorities
about
a
cleanup
that
must
be
done
by
regulation.
Records
of
the
cleanup
will
be
in
a
facility's
operating
record,
which
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulatory
authorities.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
rules
will
eliminate
the
requirements
for
notification
to
the
regional
administrator
concerning
cleanup
and
repairs
of
drip
pads.
While
some
are
repetitious
and
burdensome
notification
requirements
could
be
eliminated,
there
should
be
some
historical
record
available
to
regulators
and
the
public
concerning
the
failure
of
control
mechanisms
for
land
based
regulated
units.
Such
notification
could
be
the
final
notification
which
would
include
all
the
necessary
information
and
remedial
actions
taken
or
planned
for
the
unit.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
of
automatically
submitting
reports
of
planned
actions.
However,
a
notice
of
a
release
does
not
represent
a
significant
paperwork
burden
and
provides
the
regulatory
agency
the
ability
to
provide
timely
oversight
to
ensure
correction.
We
recommend
retaining
the
notice
requirement
by
amending
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
to
read
as
follows:
129
Sec.
265.1101
Design
and
operating
requirements.

(
D)
Within
7
days
after
discovery
of
the
condition,
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
in
writing
of
the
condition.

Document
#:
0218
Add
text
to
paragraph
(
C)
and
delete
paragraph
(
D).

265.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
iii)
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed:
Proposed
Action:
Eliminate 
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
required
by
regulation
takes
place.
This
information
will
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record,
which
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulators.
Final
Action:
We
are
not
changing
this
requirement
Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii),
(
iii).

Document
#:
0218
Delete
reporting
requirements.

265.1101(
c)(
3)(
j)(
D):
Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup:
Proposed
Change:
Eliminate­
an
unnecessary
requirement
to
notify
regulatory
authorities
about
a
cleanup
that
must
be
done
by
regulation.
Records
of
the
cleanup
will
be
in
a
facility's
operating
record,
which
is
available
for
inspection
by
regulatory
authorities.

Document
#:
0169
We
oppose
this
change.
This
can
be
an
indication
of
a
serious
problem.
It
is
simply
good
engineering
practice
to
document
repairs.
These
reports
allow
the
regulatory
agencies
to
determine
if
proper
action
was
taken.
The
notification
also
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
require
further
investigation
to
determine
no
exposure
occurred
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Notification
of
clean
up
ensures
that
proper
procedures
were
followed
to
eliminate
harm
to
the
environment.
It
also
documents
in
the
regulatory
file
that
the
repairs
were
properly
handled
when
the
public
reviews
the
file.
Otherwise,
the
public
must
inquire
to
the
facility
130
regarding
documentation
of
clean
up
and
repairs.

Response:
We
are
persuaded
by
the
commenters
on
the
utility
of
this
information,
so
we
will
not
be
proceeding
with
these
changes.

265.1101(
c)(
4)
Containment
Buildings 
Interim
Status:
Proposed
Change:
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
This
determination
will
be
made
by
regulatory
authorities
based
on
past
performance
of
the
facility.

Document
#:
0131
The
proposed
rule
would
allow
an
operator
to
inspect
containment
buildings
once
every
seven
days
or
less
frequently
(
up
to
a
month)
at
the
discretion
of
the
regulatory
program.
Containment
buildings
typically
are
designed
to
store
large
quantities
of
hazardous
waste.
As
with
tank
systems,
weekly
inspections
of
containment
buildings
provide
a
means
to
detect
spills
or
releases
in
a
timely
manner.
Also,
the
proposed
rule's
provision
to
allow
the
regulatory
agency
to
grant
less
frequent
inspections
would
impose
an
unnecessary
administrative
burden
on
the
regulatory
program
because
the
agency
would
have
to
expend
additional
resources
making
decisions
for
less
frequent
inspections.
As
with
containers
and
tank
systems,
such
a
rule
would
necessitate
increased
regulatory
program
inspections
to
assure
that
undetected
releases
do
not
occur.

Document
#:
0169
While
we
agree
that
there
are
instances
where
the
frequency
of
inspections
may
warrant
some
relaxation,
we
urge
EPA
to
propose
an
absolute
minimum
such
as
biweekly.
This
will
insure
that
the
agency
is
not
swamped
with
requests
to
waive
inspection
requirements.
Container
inspections
are
a
vary
cost
effective
and
efficient
way
to
avoid
serious
environment
problems.
We
believe
that
this
is
in
the
public
interest
to
establish
an
absolute
minimum
frequency
for
inspections
and
we
believe
that
the
frequency
should
not
exceed
two
weeks.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.1101(
c)(
4)

Document
#:
0218
Modify
language
to
allow
longer
inspection
intervals
with
the
approval
of
the
Division
Director.
(
Note:
The
proposed
language
is
not
clear.)

Response:
Today's
changes
provide
Performance
Track
members
the
opportunity
to
reduce
self
inspection
frequencies
beyond
those
applicable
to
all
other
facilities
for
containers,
containment
buildings,
tanks,
tank
systems,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
upon
approval
by
the
regulatory
agency.
To
employ
these
provisions,
Performance
Track
members
must
provide
submit
an
application
to
the
authorized
state
or
EPA
regional
office.
(
See
discussion
of
procedures
in
today's
preamble.)
Today's
final
rule
provides
regulatory
incentive
provisions
to
facilities
who
are
members
131
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
are
provided
the
opportunity
to
reduce
self
inspections
of
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
frequency
not
less
than
once
each
month.
.
The
Agency
has
determined
these
provisions
are
appropriate
for
these
facilities
because
of
their
demonstrated
top
environmental
performance
and
rigorous
evaluation
by
the
Agency.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
who
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.
Commenters
have
convinced
us
that
allowing
every
facility
to
apply
for
a
case­
by­
case
reduction
in
theirself
inspection
frequency
would
put
a
tremendous
burden
on
the
regulatory
agency
to
review
these
application,
counter
to
the
purpose
of
this
rule.

266.111(
e)(
2)
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Permitted) 
Recordkeeping:
Modify 
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
Bringing
consistency
to
record
retention
times
will
assist
facilities
in
complying
with
our
regulations.

Document
#:
0020
Idea
C­
1
BIF
requirements:
EPA
proposes
to
decrease
retention
time
for
operating
records
at
BIF
facilities.
The
requirement
to
retain
records
until
closure
would
be
reduced
to
3
years.
One
useful
purpose
of
retaining
operating
records
until
closure
is
that
it
provides
a
complete
records
of
the
wastes
disposed
at
a
BIF.
These
records
could
be
useful
for
scientists
evaluating
health
effects
over
time
by
comparing
wastes
incinerated,
temperature,
retention
time,
and
the
many
other
factors
kept
in
the
operating
record.
With
the
availability
of
electronic
media
storage,
it
does
not
seem
unreasonable
to
maintain
the
operation
record
until
closure.

Response:
While
data
from
keeping
records
until
closure
may
be
somewhat
useful
at
times,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
potential
use
would
offset
the
effects
of
lowering
of
burden
for
keeping
these
records
for
a
shorter
period
of
time.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0138
Dow
is
particularly
pleased
that
EPA
proposed
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
period
for
permitted
and
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
from
closure
to
three
years.
There
are
many
requirements
associated
with
these
units,
and
keeping
records
until
closure
has
been
more
difficult
than
supported
by
the
potential
benefit
of
maintaining
these
records.
DOW
has
explored
paper
132
records,
microfiche,
and
long­
term
computer
files.
None
of
these
methods
are
attractive.
Keeping
these
records
this
long
has
not
protected
the
environment
in
any
fashion.
Again,
frequent
inspection
of
these
units
makes
such
long­
term
records
retention
unnecessary.
DOW
supports
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
BIF
recordkeeping.

Response:
We
agree
with
this
commenter
that
lowering
the
record
retention
time
will
help
decrease
burden
for
BIFs.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0157
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
standardize
the
recordkeeping
retention
period
for
boiler
and
industrial
furnace
owners/
operators
to
three
years,
bringing
the
retention
period
into
line
with
other
RCRA
recordkeeping
requirements.
Id,
at
2529
Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0165
DOW
is
particularly
pleased
that
EPA
proposed
to
reduce
the
recording
period
for
permitted
and
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
from
closure
to
three
years.
There
are
many
requirements
associated
with
these
units,
and
keeping
records
until
closure
has
been
more
difficult
than
supported
by
the
potential
benefit
of
maintaining
these
records.
DOW
has
explored
paper
records,
microfiche,
and
long­
term
computer
files.
None
of
these
methods
are
attractive.
Keeping
these
records
this
long
has
not
protected
the
environment
in
any
fashion.
Again,
frequent
inspection
of
these
units
make
such
long­
term
records
retention
unnecessary.
DOW
supports
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
BIF
recordkeeping.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
133
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0169
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Permitted)­
Record
keeping:
Modify­
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
Bringing
consistency
to
record
retention
times
will
assist
facilities
in
complying
with
our
regulations.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0213
WE
do
not
support
reducing
the
recordkeeping
time.

Response:
Most
commenters
supported
reducing
the
recordkeeping
time,
therefore
we
are
not
persuaded
by
this
comment.
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

266.102(
e)(
10);
266.103(
k)

Document
#:
0216
Maine
disagrees
with
the
proposal
that
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years.
It
may
be
important
to
know
years
from
now
what
kinds
of
waste
were
burned
in
such
a
facility.

Response:
While
data
from
keeping
records
until
closure
may
be
somewhat
useful
at
times,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
potential
use
would
offset
the
effects
of
lowering
of
burden
for
keeping
these
records
for
a
shorter
period
of
time.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
retention
time
for
134
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0217
Eastman
supports
changing
the
retention
period
for
BIF
recordkeeping
requirement
from
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.
This
avoid
the
accumulation
of
large
amounts
of
data
for
which
no
one
has
any
use
after
a
reasonable
three­
year
period.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
recordkeeping
time
frames.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
the
record
retention
from
life
of
BIF
facility
to
3
years.
In
addition,
we
support
the
proposed
change
the
frequency
of
re­
certification
from
3
years
to
5
years
for
BIFs.
CRWI
also
encourages
EPA
to
examine
the
regulations
to
see
if
there
are
other
requirements
for
other
RCRA
facilities
where
a
3­
year
record
retention
policy
is
appropriate.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
135
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0241
The
proposal
would
reduce
the
holding
time
for
BIF
records
to
three
years.
We
general
agree
with
the
change,
however,
we
believe
that
the
most
recent
trial
burn
and
compliance
test
data,
including
both
stack
emissions
and
operating
parameter
data,
should
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
unit.
We
feel
this
is
necessary
because
this
data
documents
the
unit's
ability
to
comply
with
emission
standards
and
also
forms
the
basis
for
the
day
to
day
operating
requirements
for
the
life
of
the
unit.

Response:
We
understand
the
commenter's
point
that
trial
burn
and
compliance
test
data
are
important,
however
we
believe
that
the
five
year
record
retention
time
would
be
sufficient.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
We
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0332
SOCMA
is
supportive
of
a
record
retention
policy
of
3
years
for
incinerators
as
opposed
to
life
of
a
facility
and
concurs
with
EPA
that
these
record­
keeping
requirements
should
be
changed
to
Class
1
RCRA
permit
modifications.
These
are
both
changes
that
will
reduce
record
keeping
burdens
without
endangering
the
environment
Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status) 
Evaluation
of
data
and
making
determinations:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
evaluation
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
136
Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
proposal.

Response:
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
are
not
making
the
proposed
change
because
it
was
a
sunset
provision
and
has
been
deleted.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
opposes
the
changes
made
to
subparagraph
(
D).
The
certification
deals
with
a
critical
factor
in
determining
the
potential
emissions
from
a
boiler
or
furnace.
Since
the
rule
in
question
involve
"
interim
status"
burners
who
haven't
gone
through
complete
trial
burns
to
establish
acceptable
operating
conditions
the
highest
level
of
review
is
needed,
which
would
be
performed
by
a
qualified
registered
professional
engineer.
The
EPA
itself
uses
the
language
...
best
engineering
judgement
...,
in
several
areas,
to
describe
the
review
process
needed
to
make
the
required
determinations.
It
therefore
follows
that,
if
this
is
the
standard
to
be
met,
then
engineers
are
the
technical
professionals
best
qualified
to
make
the
certification.
To
allow
other
individuals
(
with
as
accreditation
that
is
not
generally
governed
or
recognized
by
the
states)
may
unnecessarily
endanger
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
are
not
making
the
proposed
change
because
it
was
a
sunset
provision
and
has
been
deleted.

266.103(
d)
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status) 
Periodic
re­
certifications
of
compliance:
Modify 
extend
period
of
time
from
three
to
five
years,
which
Agency
field
staff
believe
is
sufficient
for
regulatory
purposes.

Document
#:
0134
EPA
proposes
to
modify
the
existing
requirement
that,
every
three
years,
an
interim
status
boiler
or
industrial
furnace
(
BIF)
must
test
for
compliance
with
emissions
standards
and
submit
the
results
to
the
responsible
regulatory
agency.
Under
the
proposed
modified
regulations,
compliance
testing
of
the
emissions
from
an
interim
status
BIF
and
submission
of
the
results
to
the
responsible
regulatory
agency
would
be
required
every
five
years
(
see
Specific
Comment
on
the
Preamble
III,
item
1).

Document
#:
0169
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status­
Periodic
re­
certification
of
compliance:
Modifyextend
period
of
time
from
three
to
five
years,
which
Agency
field
staff
believe
is
sufficient
for
regulatory
purposes.
This
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposal
to
go
to
a
three­
year
record
retention
period.
By
extending
the
time
for
re­
certifications
of
compliance
to
five
years,
the
three­
year
record
retention
for
the
information
required
for
the
certification
would
not
be
sufficient.
137
Document
#:
0196
Extend
BIF
(
interim
Status)
re­
certification
of
compliance
frequency
from
three
to
five
years.
We
support
this
change.
Velsicol
has
been
operating
four
BIF
units
under
interim
status
long
enough
to
experience
two
re­
certifications
and
we
are
coming
up
on
the
third
one.
During
this
time
we
neither
changed
the
waste
feed
nor
the
operating
scheme
for
these
units.
We
felt
the
initial
certification
adequately
demonstrated
compliance
during
the
whole
time
we
have
operated
the
units
and
that
re­
certification
was
not
necessary.
We
feel
that
the
resources
made
available
through
less
frequent
re­
certification
would
be
better
served
elsewhere
(
i.
e.,
corrective
action,
waste
minimization,
and
energy
conservation).

Document
#:
0217
Eastman
also
support
the
re­
certification
change
from
three
years
to
five
years.

Document
#:
0218
Extend
re­
certification
frequency
from
three
to
five
years.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities
and
are
also
extending
the
recertification
of
compliance
requirement
to
five
years,
as
suggested
by
the
commenters.

266.103(
k)
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status) 
Recordkeeping:
Modify 
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
Bringing
consistency
to
record
retention
times
will
assist
facilities
in
complying
with
our
regulations.

Document
#:
0134
In
general,
DOE
supports
this
proposed
modification
of
the
record
retention
period
for
interim
status
of
BIFs.
However,
the
chart,
titled
"
RCRA
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
Proposed
for
Elimination
or
modification"
(
see
p.
2526),
indicates
that
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
emissions
compliance
testing
for
interim
status
BIFs
from
once
every
three
years
to
once
every
five
years.
If
EPA
finalizes
a
three­
year
retention
period
for
all
BIFs
records
and
also
reduces
the
frequency
of
emissions
compliance
testing
for
interim
status
BIFs
to
once
every
five
years,
DOE
is
concerned
that
an
interim
status
BIF
would
be
allowed
to
discard
the
records
for
one
compliance
testing
event
up
to
two
years
before
the
next
compliance
testing
event
occurs.
While
it
is
not
clear
that
this
would
create
any
particular
problem,
DOE
suggests
that
it
would
be
better
for
the
retention
period
for
records
of
interim
status
BIF
compliance
testing
events
to
not
be
shorter
than
the
length
of
time
between
such
events.
Therefore,
DOE
urges
that
the
recordkeeping
retention
regulations
expressly
state
that,
unlike
other
records
for
interim
status
BIFs,
the
records
of
each
emissions
compliance
testing
event
must
be
retained
for
five
years
or
until
the
next
compliance
testing
event
is
completed
and
documented,
whichever
time
is
shorter
(
see
Specific
Comments
on
Proposed
Regulatory
Text,
item
6).

An
interim
status
BIF
would
be
allowed
to
discard
the
records
for
one
compliance
testing
event
138
up
to
two
years
before
the
next
compliance
testing
event
occurs.
While
it
is
not
clear
that
this
would
create
any
particular
problem,
DOE
suggests
that
it
would
be
better
for
the
retention
period
for
records
of
interim
status
BIF
compliance
testing
events
to
not
be
shorter
than
the
length
of
time
between
such
events.
Therefore,
DOE
urges
that
the
recordkeeping
retention
regulations
expressly
state
that,
unlike
other
records
for
interim
status
BIFs,
the
records
of
each
emissions
compliance
testing
event
must
be
retained
for
five
years
or
until
the
next
compliance
testing
event
is
completed
and
documented,
whichever
time
is
shorter
(
see
Specific
Comments
on
Proposed
Regulatory
Text,
item
6).
DOE
is
concerned
that
if
the
frequency
of
emissions
compliance
testing
for
interim
status
BIFs
is
changed
from
once
each
three
years
to
once
each
five
years
then
the
proposed
change
to
40
CFR
266.103k
would
allow
an
interim
status
BIF
to
discard
the
records
for
one
compliance
testing
events
up
to
two
years
before
the
next
compliance
testing
event
occurs.
Accordingly,
DOE
requests
that
EPA
consider
adopting
in
the
final
rule
the
following
revisions
to
the
proposed
text
for
266.103k.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
We
are
extending
the
time
from
the
certification
to
the
recertification
to
five
years
as
well,
in
order
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
record
retention
time.

Document
#:
0138
Dow
is
particularly
pleased
that
EPA
proposed
to
reduce
the
recordkeeping
period
for
permitted
and
interim
status
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
from
closure
to
three
years.
There
are
many
requirements
associated
with
these
units,
and
keeping
records
until
closure
has
been
more
difficult
than
supported
by
the
potential
benefit
of
maintaining
these
records.
DOW
has
explored
paper
records,
microfiche,
and
long­
term
computer
files.
None
of
these
methods
are
attractive.
Keeping
these
records
this
long
has
not
protected
the
environment
in
any
fashion.
Again,
frequent
inspection
of
these
units
makes
such
long­
term
records
retention
unnecessary.
DOW
supports
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
BIF
recordkeeping.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
139
Document
#:
0157
USWAG
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
standardize
the
recordkeeping
retention
period
for
boiler
and
industrial
furnace
owners/
operators
to
three
years,
bringing
the
retention
period
into
line
with
other
RCRA
recordkeeping
requirements.
Id,
at
2529
Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0169
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
Record
keeping:
Modify­
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years,
making
this
record
retention
time
consistent
with
other
treatment
units.
Bringing
consistency
to
record
retention
times
will
assist
facilities
in
complying
with
our
regulations.
This
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
proposal
to
go
to
a
three­
year
record
retention
period.
By
extending
the
time
for
re­
certifications
of
compliance
to
five
years,
the
three­
year
record
retention
for
the
information
required
for
the
certification
would
not
be
sufficient.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
We
are
extending
the
time
from
the
certification
to
the
recertification
to
five
years
as
well,
in
order
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
record
retention
time.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
reducing
the
recordkeeping
time.

Response:
Most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
change,
therefore,
we
are
not
persuaded
by
this
comment.
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
140
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0216
Maine
disagrees
with
the
proposal
that
records
only
have
to
be
kept
for
three
years.
It
may
be
important
to
know
years
from
now
what
kinds
of
waste
were
burned
in
such
a
facility.

Response:
While
data
from
keeping
records
until
closure
may
be
somewhat
useful
at
times,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
potential
use
would
offset
the
effects
of
lowering
of
burden
for
keeping
these
records
for
a
shorter
period
of
time.
Therefore,
we
are
decreasing
the
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0217
Eastman
supports
changing
the
retention
period
for
BIF
recordkeeping
requirement
from
life
of
the
facility
to
three
years.
This
avoid
the
accumulation
of
large
amounts
of
data
for
which
no
one
has
any
use
after
a
reasonable
three­
year
period.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
recordkeeping
time
frames.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
141
Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposed
changes
to
the
record
retention
from
life
of
BIF
facility
to
3
years.
In
addition,
we
support
the
proposed
change
the
frequency
of
re­
certification
from
3
years
to
5
years
for
BIFs.
CRWI
also
encourages
EPA
to
examine
the
regulations
to
see
if
there
are
other
requirements
for
other
RCRA
facilities
where
a
3­
year
record
retention
policy
is
appropriate.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
However,
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.

Document
#:
0241
The
proposal
would
reduce
the
holding
time
for
BIF
records
to
three
years.
We
general
agree
with
the
change,
however,
we
believe
that
the
most
recent
trial
burn
and
compliance
test
data,
including
both
stack
emissions
and
operating
parameter
data,
should
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
unit.
We
feel
this
is
necessary
because
this
data
documents
the
unit's
ability
to
comply
with
emission
standards
and
also
forms
the
basis
for
the
day
to
day
operating
requirements
for
the
life
of
the
unit.

Response:
We
are
decreasing
the
record
retention
time
for
BIF
facilities.
Other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
have
decided,
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
records
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
records
retention
time
to
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
MACT
standards.
We
are
extending
the
time
from
the
certification
to
the
recertification
to
five
years
as
well,
in
order
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
record
retention
time.

266.111(
e)(
2)
Direct
Transfer
Equipment 
Assessment
of
equipment:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0169
Direct
Transfer
Equipment­
Assessment
of
equipment:
Modify­
in
addition
to
an
independent,
registered
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

We
oppose
this
change.
It
is
no
clear
how
this
proposal
in
any
way
reduces
the
record
keeping
or
142
reporting
burden,
which
is
the
stated
purpose
of
the
proposed
change.
It
is
inappropriate
to
allow
a
CHMM
to
certify
work
that
is
professional
engineering.

Georgia
law
defines
professional
engineering
as
"
including
any
professional
services,
such
as
consultation,
investigation,
evaluation,
planning,
designing,
or
responsible
supervision
of
construction
or
operation,
in
connection
with
any
public
welfare,
or
the
safeguarding
or
like,
health
or
property
is
concerned
or
involved,
when
professional
services
requires
the
application
of
mathematical
or
physical
sciences".
The
certification
referenced
is,
by
definition,
the
practice
of
engineering.
Georgia
law
further
states,
:
It
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
other
than
a
professional
engineer
to
practice
or
offer
to
practice
professional
engineering
in
this
state."
The
proposed
change
is
not
in
the
public
interest,
and
is
less
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Designation
of
the
professional
engineer
as
the
certifying
professional,
places
the
responsibility
with
a
profession
that
holds
a
duty
of
care
to
the
public,
as
regulated
by
the
laws
of
the
State
of
Georgia.
The
CHMM
has
no
legal
standing
and
is
unregulated
in
Georgia.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
supports
the
modification
to
subparagraph
(
e)
(
2),
with
further
modifications
as
noted.
The
modifications
to
subparagraph
(
e)
(
2)
expand
upon
the
existing
language
which
allow
a
registered
engineer,
and
are
believed
to
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
the
text
should
be
made
clear
that
the
CHMM
must
be
"
independent,
[
and]
qualified...
as
with
the
engineer
and
tank
installers.
Secondly,
the
DEQ
would
recommend
that
the
following
text
be
added
as
a
note
to
subparagraph
(
e)
(
2):
[
Note:
Some
states
have
specific
requirements
regarding
the
personnel
allowed
to
perform
these
certifications.
The
owner
or
operator
is
advised
to
consult
with
state
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
if
such
requirements
are
in
effect
for
their
state.]

Response:
After
publication
of
the
October
29,
2003
NODA,
(
See
68
FR
61662),
EPA
determined
that
the
certification
required
by
266.111(
e)(
2)
had
to
be
made
by
August
21,
1992.
As
such,
the
Agency
is
not
pursuing
a
change
to
this
requirement
in
today's
rulemaking,
obviously
because
the
date
has
passed.

266.203
Standards
applicable
to
the
transportation
of
solid
waste
military
munitions.

Document
#:
0202
Comment:
DOD
requests
technical
corrections
to
40
CFR
266.203
as
part
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.

Discussion:
Existing
regulations
in
40
CFR
266.203
(
a)(
1)(
ii)
require
all
conditionally
exempt
waste
munitions
to
be
transported
under
certain
shipping
controls
identified
in
40
CFR
266.203(
c).
This
section
currently
requires
all
shipments
to
possess
the
following
forms:
143
Government
Bill
of
Lading
(
GBL)
)
GSA
Standard
Form
1109),
requisition
tracking
form
DD
Form
1348,
the
Signature
and
Tally
Record
(
DD
Form
1907),
Special
Instructions
for
Motor
Vehicle
Driver
(
DD
Form
836),
and
the
Motor
Vehicle
Inspection
Report
(
DD
Form
626).
This
does
not
accurately
reflect
actual
DOD
requirements
and
practices
and
overstates
certain
paperwork
requirements
because
some
of
these
forms
are
applicable
only
to
military
transportation
as
opposed
to
commercial
transport.

Because
it
is
the
intent
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
to
eliminate
unnecessary
paperwork,
DOD
believes
it
would
be
appropriate
to
delete
40
CFR
266.203(
c)
via
this
rulemaking.
Text
provided
in
40
CFR
266.203(
a)(
1)(
ii),
which
requires
munitions
to
be
transported
in
accordance
with
DOD
shipping
controls,
is
sufficient,
If
40
CFR
266.203(
c)
is
retained,
the
regulations
must
be
modified
every
time
a
form
number
changes.

If
EPA
feels
it
necessary
to
retain
reference
to
forms
within
40
CFR
266.203(
c),
it
should
be
corrected
to
reflect
the
following:

(
1)
The
applicability
of
forms
depends
upon
whether
it
is
a
commercial
or
military
shipment.
Commercial
transport
uses
only
the
GBL,
DD
form
1907,
and
DD
form
626.
However,
shipments
by
military
transport
are
required
to
sue
DD
Forms
1348,
1907,836
and
626.

(
2)
The
form
number
for
the
GBL
should
be
corrected
from
1109
to
1103.
GSA
Standard
Form
1109
refers
to
the
continuation
sheet
of
the
1103
form.

(
3)
The
title
of
DD
Form
836
should
be
corrected
to
"
Hazardous
Materials
Transported
by
Government
Vehicles".

(
4)
The
title
of
DD
Form
626
should
be
corrected
to
"
Transporting
Hazardous
Materials".

Recommendation:
Delete
40
CFR
266.203(
c).

Document
#:
0323
COPC
has
no
comments
on
this
issue.

Document
#:
0327
API
has
no
comments
to
offer
on
this
issue.

Document
#:
0336
FDEP
supports
the
proposed
shipping
paperwork
requirements.

Document
#:
0345
All
regulatory
forms
(
not
just
Military
Munitions
forms)
must
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register
when
they
are
amended,
and
this
is
the
method
by
which
States
and
the
regulated
community
are
routinely
notified
of
such
amendments.
144
Document
#:
0347
No
comments;
not
applicable
to
Eastman.

Document
#:
0349
ADEQ
Comments:
ADEQ
concurs.
Response:
We
are
making
no
change
to
section
266.203.
We
currently
require
conditionally
exempt
munitions
(
i.
e.,
exempt
form
40
CFR
Part
260
through
270)
to
be
transported
under
shopping
controls
specified
in
266.203(
c).
This
section
requires
all
shipments
to
be
accompanied
by
five
specific
forms
(
the
regulations
currently
list
the
name
of
each
form,
as
well
as
the
accompanying
form
identification
number).
The
problem,
according
to
a
commenter,
is
that
every
time
the
name
of
one
of
these
forms,
or
the
form
identification
number
changes,
the
Department
of
Defense
must
publish
a
Federal
Register
notice
annoucing
the
change.
In
our
October
29,
2003
Federal
Register
NODA,
we
suggested
eliminating
the
form
change
Federal
Register
Notice
and
replacing
it
with
a
written
notification
to
the
Director
of
EPA's
Office
of
Federal
Facilities
Enforcement.
States
strongly
opposed
this
change,
pointing
out
that
we
would
be
eliminating
a
notification
about
wastes
of
concern
to
them
and
their
citizens.
Because
States
have
identified
a
strong
interest
by
the
public
in
these
notices,
we
are
not
making
this
change.
.

266.205(
a)(
1)(
v)
Storage
of
Solid
Waste
Military
Munitions 
Notification
of
loss
or
theft:
Simplify
notification
process 
there
is
no
need
to
notify
the
regulatory
authorities
twice.

Document
#:
0169
Storage
of
Solid
Waste
Military
Munitions­
Notification
of
loss
or
theft
Simplify
notification
process­
there
is
no
need
to
notify
the
regulatory
authorities
twice.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0202
Comment:
The
proposed
text
for
the
notification
regarding
waste
military
munitions
does
not
state
whether
the
notification
can
be
oral
or
written.

Discussion:
Under
existing
requirements,
when
waste
military
munitions
are
lost
or
stolen
or
a
condition
of
40
CFR
266,
subpart
M
is
not
met,
an
oral
notice
must
be
provided
to
EPA
within
24
hours
followed
by
a
written
notice
within
5
days.
The
proposed
change
merely
requires
a
single
notification
within
24
hours
but
does
not
specify
whether
it
is
to
be
written
or
verbal.

Recommendation:
DOD
recommends
modifying
the
text
in
proposed
266.205(
a)(
1)(
v)
to.
"
The
owner
or
operator
must
provide
either
written
or
verbal
notice
to
the
Director
within
24
hours
from
the
time.

Document
#:
0213
We
support
this
proposal.
145
Document
#:
0216
Storage
of
Solid
Waste
Military
Munitions.
Maine
does
not
believe
either
notice
requirement
should
be
eliminated.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
redundant
reporting
requirement.

Reponse:
We
are
making
no
change
to
section
266.205,
as
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

268.5(
f)

Document
#:
0042
Procedures
for
Case­
by­
Case
Extension
­
Notify
EPA
of
any
changes.

Response
:
No
changes
to
268.5(
f)
were
proposed,
so
any
change
would
be
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
rule.

268.6
Document
#:
0134
In
the
fifth
line
of
the
quote
above,
"
section
298.6"
should
be
corrected
to
read
section
"
section
268.6.

Response:
Thank
you
for
the
correction.

268.7­­
LDR
Generator
Requirements 
Generator
waste
determination:

Document
#:
0004
EPA
rules
require
notification
to
treatment
and
disposal
facilities
about
the
LDR
status
of
waste
shipments.
The
notifications
are
to
be
submitted
"
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste."
This
wording
creates
confusion
as
to
the
responsibility
of
the
transporter
to
carry
LDR
notifications.
While
no
direct
charge
is
given
to
a
transporter
for
this
paperwork,
the
requirement
that
the
notifications
be
submitted
"
with"
a
shipment
appears
to
require
transporter
compliance.
Please
use
this
opportunity
to
clarify
that
this
is
not
a
transporter
responsibility,
and
that
electronic
filing
is
acceptable.

Response:
The
LDR
regulations
do
not
require
transporters
to
carry
LDR
notifications.
We
leave
it
to
the
generator
and
the
TSDF
to
decide
how
to
submit
LDR
notifications,
therefore,
electronic
filing 
among
other
methods­­
is
acceptable.
146
Document
#:
0012
E.
Should
we
streamline
the
LDR
requirements?

Change
1:
Eliminate
268.7(
a)(
1)
Generator
waste
determinations
Change
2:
Eliminate
268.7(
b)(
6)
Recycler
notifications
and
certification
Change
3:
Eliminate
268.7(
d)
Hazardous
debris
notification
Change
4:
Eliminate
268.9(
a)
Characteristic
waste
determination
and
streamline
268.9(
d)
Notification
procedures
CRWI
supports
streamlining
the
LDR
paperwork
requirements.
As
reported
in
the
NODA,
the
waste
determinations
under
Part
262
and
264
would
meet
the
obligations
under
Part
268.
This
is
a
duplicative
requirement
that
should
be
removed.

The
notifications
and
certification
under
LDR
program
are
extensive
and
numerous.
CRWI
supports
eliminating
the
additional
certifications
required.
These
certifications
have
no
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
certification
required
to
accompany
the
manifested
shipment
should
be
adequate
and
can
be
reviewed
by
inspectors
to
ensure
compliance
and
protection
of
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
We
are
however
providing
additional
flexibility
to
the
generator
whereby,
he/
she
does
not
have
to
make
the
determination
that
the
waste
needs
to
be
treated
to
met
LDR.
The
generatormay
simply
send
his/
her
waste
to
a
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
with
the
determination
that
they
do
not
know
whether
it
meets
LDR.
In
these
cases,
the
treatment
facility
must
make
that
determination.
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
147
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

Document
#:
0022
Land
Disposal
Restrictions:
If
treatment
facilities
are
not
required
to
perform
LDR
analysis,
they
might
not
know
if
their
treatment
was
effective
until
it
reaches
the
disposal
facility.
Once
the
waste
arrives
at
the
disposal
facility
and
they
determine
that
it
fails
LDR,
then
the
waste
would
have
to
be
sent
back
to
the
treatment
facility.
It
could
increase
the
amount
of
time
the
waste
has
to
travel
on
the
highways.
It
is
important
for
the
treatment
facility
to
know
if
its
treatment
is
effective.
Therefore,
we
oppose
changing
the
LDR
analysis
requirements
for
treatment
facilities.

Response:
The
commenter
appears
to
misunderstand
what
was
being
proposed
in
regards
to
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirements.
We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
waste
analysis
requirements
for
generators,
not
TSDFs.
Furthermore,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).

Document
#:
0025
EPA
Should
Streamline
LDR
Paperwork
Requirements
While
the
four
changes
proposed
by
EPA
in
this
notice
would
be
specific
to
the
LDR
program,
they
can
also
be
seen
as
examples
of
earlier
ideas.
Changes
1
and
4
(
eliminating
the
generator
and
characteristic
waste
determinations)
is
a
variation
on
burden
reduction
concept
D
except,
in
this
case,
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate
redundancy
with
the
RCRA
program
rather
than
between
RCRA
and
OSHA.
Changes
2
and
3
(
eliminating
the
recycler
notifications
and
certifications
and
the
hazardous
debris
notification)
are
examples
of
burden
reduction
concept
B
­
allowing
information
to
be
kept
on
site
rather
than
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
and
eliminating
duplication.
This
concept
makes
sense
generally,
and
it
makes
sense
in
this
context.

We
agree
with
the
discussion
that
the
262.11
waste
determination,
along
with
the
determinations
required
under
264.13
and
268.40,
are
sufficient
to
assure
that
a
treated
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
compliance
with
LDRs,
and
thus
we
encourage
the
Agency
to
eliminate
the
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
requirements.
We
also
agree
with
the
discussion
that
notifications
under
268.7(
b)(
6)
for
materials
recycled
and
268.7(
d)
for
hazardous
debris
can
be
eliminated
and
replaced
by
requirements
to
maintain
information
in
the
facility
records.

Document
#:
0027
Section
II.
E.
Illinois
EPA
agrees
with
the
proposals
regarding
LDR
requirements.

Response
to
Comments:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
148
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

Document
#:
0028
LDR
information
is
required
and
should
not
be
reduced.
However,
time
and
ease
of
use
may
be
enhanced
by
changing
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
to
include
a
standardized
LDR
notification.
It
(
LDR
portion)
would
still
only
need
to
be
completed
on
first
shipment,
etc.,
as
now.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
The
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increased
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
149
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

The
Agency
appreciates
the
suggestion
made
by
the
commenter
about
the
Uniform
Manifest.
However,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Document
#:
0029
1.
p.
32864,
col.
3
­
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
268.7
for
generators
to
determine
whether
their
waste
must
be
treated
before
it
can
be
land
disposed,
and
to
provide
certain
notifications
and
certifications
to
the
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
facility,
should
be
eliminated.

The
NODA
indicates
that
if
the
generator
of
a
waste
determines,
as
required
by
40
CFR
262.11,
that
the
waste
is
hazardous,
and
the
treater
obtains
a
detailed
chemical
and
physical
analysis,
as
required
by
40
CFR
264.13,
this
should
be
sufficient
to
decide
whether
the
waste
meets
the
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards
contained
in
40
CFR
268.40.
DOE
disagrees.
LDR
treatment
standards
are
not
always
assigned
simply
by
waste
code,
which
is
all
the
generator
is
required
by
40
CFR
262.11
to
determine.
Some
waste
codes
have
been
divided
into
waste
code
treatment
subcategories
for
the
purpose
of
assigning
LDR
treatment
standards.
For
example,
the
waste
code
P092
(
phenyl
mercuric
acetate)
has
five
waste
code
treatment
subcategories,
each
of
which
has
its
own
LDR
treatment
standard.
Furthermore,
the
waste
code
treatment
subcategories
do
not
depend
entirely
on
factors
that
can
be
determined
by
testing
the
waste
itself.
Typically,
one
or
a
combination
of
the
following
factors
defines
a
waste
code
subcategory:

°
The
source
of
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
nuclear
fuel
rod
reprocessing,
emergency
response
actions
involving
explosives,
incineration,
etc.);
and
°
The
content
of
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
high
mercury,
high
total
organic
carbon,
lead­
acid
batteries,
etc.).

Other
complications
arise
if
the
waste
is
a
complex
waste
that
falls
into
a
category
for
which
EPA
has
promulgated
alternative
LDR
treatment
standards,
such
as
lab
packs,
or
if
the
waste
is
a
characteristic
hazardous
waste.

Under
40
CFR
268.7(
a),
generators
are
now
required
to
notify
the
receiving
facility
of
the
waste
code
subcategory
and,
in
the
case
of
a
characteristic
hazardous
waste,
of
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents.
If
40
CFR.
268.7(
a)
were
to
be
eliminated,
generators
would
no
longer
be
150
required
to
determine
such
information,
or
submit
it
to
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
facilities.
It
is
unclear
as
to
what
waste
handling
problems
would
be
created
by
eliminating
the
requirement
that
generators
determine
and
submit
such
information
to
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities.
However,
it
is
clear
that
before
treatment
and
disposal
facilities
can
determine
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards
for
certain
wastes,
and
demonstrate
that
the
treated
wastes
meet
those
standards,
such
facilities
will
require
more
information
from
the
generator
than
a
waste
code
determination.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

Document
#:
0041
We
also
believe,
however,
that
the
Agency
is
missing
a
major
burden
reduction
opportunity
by
still
requiring
the
generator
notification
provisions
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
268.7.
Safety­
Kleen
has
been
an
advocate
of
eliminating
the
notification
documents,
under
certain
conditions,
for
some
time.
We
recently
reiterated
our
position
on
this
issue
in
our
June
4,
1999
response
to
Information
Collection
Request,
No.
801.12,
OMB
No.
2050­
0039
that
was
published
in
the
151
Federal
Register
on
April
5,
1999.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concern,
however
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Document
#:
0042
268.5(
f)
­
Procedures
for
Case­
by­
Case
Extension
­
Notify
EPA
of
any
changes.

Section
(
11)(
E)
Should
we
streamline
the
LDR
Paperwork
Requirements?

a.
Change
1:
Eliminate
the
Generator
Waste
Determinations
for
the
Purposes
of
LDR
Requirements
found
in
Sections
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)(
1)
Characteristic
Waste
Determinations
DHWM
agrees
that
the
Section
262.11
generator
waste
determination
in
conjunction
with
the
waste
information
required
to
be
obtained
by
the
TSD
facility
will
provide
sufficient
information
for
the
TSD
facility
to
store,
treat,
or
dispose
of
hazardous
wastes
according
to
the
LDR
rules.
We
believe
the
generator
waste
determinations
under
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)(
1)
can
be
removed
from
the
rules.
We
do
not
anticipate
that
the
removal
of
waste
determination
will
harm
the
RCRA
program
or
cause
significant
enforcement
issues.

However,
we
are
hesitant
to
conclude
that
the
elimination
of
the
generator
waste
determination
requirements
from
the
rules
will
reduce
any
burden
on
generators
imposed
by
the
LDR
requirements.

Due
to
the
manner
in
which
it
is
structured,
the
LDR
program
dictates
that
waste
determinations
must
be
conducted
in
order
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
LDR
requirements.
So,
even
though
the
determinations
are
removed
from
the
rules,
a
waste
determination
will
still
need
to
be
performed.
Either
the
generator
or
the
TSD
facility
will
need
to
perform
the
task.

In
addition,
the
TSD
facility
must
obtain
certain
information
so
that
the
waste
can
be
properly
stored,
treated,
or
disposed.
This
information
is
equivalent
to
the
information
gained
from
a
waste
determination.
In
order
for
the
TSD
facility
to
meet
their
regulatory
requirements,
they
need
to
either
require
the
generator
to
supply
information
similar
to
a
waste
determination
in
order
to
do
business
or
offer
the
waste
determination
analysis
for
a
fee.
The
burden
of
a
waste
determination
will
still
be
present.

B.
Change
2:
Eliminate
268.7(
b)(
6),
Submission
of
Recycler
Notifications
and
Certifications
to
US
EPA,
and
C.
Change
3:
Eliminate
268.7(
d),
Generator
and
Treater
One­
Time
Notification
for
Treated
Characteristic
Hazardous
Waste
Debris,
and
D.
Change
4.
Remove
Generator
and
Treater
One­
Time
Notification
and
Certification
152
Requirement
of
268.9(
d)
for
Treated
Characteristic
Hazardous
Waste
that
is
Disposed
of
at
Non­
hazardous
Waste
Facility.

DHWM
supports
all
three
of
the
above
contemplated
rule
changes
to
eliminate
the
submission
of
certain
one­
time
notifications
and
certifications
to
the
overseeing
agency.
We
can
obtain
much
of
this
information
from
the
annual
hazardous
reports
Ohio
treaters
and
LGQs
are
required
to
submit
to
us.
Furthermore,
the
information
will
be
maintained
on­
site
at
the
facility
and
available
to
an
inspector
upon
request.

268.7(
d)
incorrect
citation
given,
should
be
268.7(
d)(
1)
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
to
EPA.

268.7(
b)(
6)
Treatment
Facility
Notification
and
Certifications
­
Complete
and
submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
153
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

Document
#:
0144
268.7
­
The
proposed
revisions
to
rules
would
eliminate
the
requirements
for
generators
to
notify
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
(
TSD)
facilities
of
waste
streams
which
are
subject
to
the
land
disposal
restrictions
(
LDRs)
of
40
CFR
268.
Many
commercial
TSD
facilities
rely
on
this
certification
prior
to
accepting
wastes
from
generators.
This
certification
from
generators
enables
commercial
facilities
to
accurately
characterize
waste
streams
for
treatment
(
if
required)
and
disposal.
In
addition,
the
certification
acts
as
an
additional
tool
in
identifying
and
accurately
characterizing
LDR
waste
streams
prior
to
disposal.
Because
waste
streams
may
not
be
accurately
characterized,
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
requirement
will
potentially
create
a
problem
for
commercial
TSD
facilities
which
accept
large
and
different
waste
streams.
The
expense
of
additional
characterization
will
be
passed
on
to
the
generator.
In
addition,
certain
waste
streams
are
often
generated
infrequently;
hence,
generators
and
commercial
facilities
draw
upon
previous
analyses
for
characterization
of
such
wastes.
The
elimination
of
this
requirement
would
require
unnecessary,
redundant
characterization
by
the
TSD.
Please
note
that
the
LDR
requirements
are
addressed
in
existing
waste
analysis
plans
(
WAPs)
for
both
commercial
and
noncommercial
permitted
TSD
facilities,
which
means
that
the
proposed
changes
to
the
rules
will
require
permitted
facilities
to
review
and
revise
their
existing
WAP.
Be
reminded
that
such
revisions
to
the
permit
application
call
for
modification
or
amendment,
thus
placing
an
added
burden
on
commercial
TSD
facilities,
and
possibly
on
permitted
generators.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion,
such
as
this
commenter,
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
As
this
commenter
pointed
out,
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
154
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).

Document
#:
0166
Generator
Determination
Section
268.7
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
requirement
in
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
generators
determine,
by
testing
or
knowledge,
whether
their
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal.
EPA
believes
that
other
requirements,
such
as
the
generator
hazardous
waste
determination
in
262.11,
provide
the
same
safeguards.
The
related
record
retention
provision
in
268.7(
a)(
6)
would
also
be
eliminated.

After
careful
consideration,
and
contrary
to
our
initial
reaction,
the
Safety­
Kleen
must
disagree
with
the
agency's
assessment.
It
is
true
that
TSD
facilities
usually
obtain
waste
profiles,
including
analytical
results,
from
their
generator
customers
in
order
to
determine
treatment
requirements.
But
the
waste
profiles
provided
by
generators
are
based
on
the
requirements
of
268.7(
a)(
1),
which
is
the
underpinning
for
this
commercial
practice.
In
other
words,
the
regulation
sets
the
standard
for
the
commercial
practice.
We
are
concerned
that
the
elimination
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
will
jeopardize
the
ability
of
commercial
TSD
facilities
to
obtain
constituent­
specific
information
on
wastes
from
customers
and
brokers.
If
generators
are
not
required
to
provide
this
information
on
their
own
wastes,
then
TSD
facilities
may
not
be
able
to
obtain
it
as
a
matter
of
commercial
practice
and
contract
arrangement.

Other
regulatory
requirements
do
not
provide
the
same
safeguards.
For
example,
262.11
requires
the
generator
merely
to
determine
if
its
waste
is
listed
or
exhibits
a
hazardous
characteristic.
Most
often
the
generator
uses
knowledge,
rather
than
testing
the
waste.
The
fact
that
the
waste
is
listed
or
characteristically
hazardous,
however,
does
not
tell
the
generator,
or
the
subsequent
TSD
facility,
what
must
be
known
about
the
presence
or
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
in
the
waste
that
require
treatment
prior
to
land
disposal.
The
hazardous
waste
determination
under
262.11
is
simply
the
starting
point,
and
the
obvious
and
necessary
next
step
is
for
the
generator
to
determine
whether
the
hazardous
waste
requires
treatment
prior
to
land
disposal.

In
contrast,
the
LDR
requirements
for
generators
in
268.7(
a)(
1)
are
more
exacting.
The
generator
must
specifically
determine
"
if
the
hazardous
waste
meets
the
treatment
standards
in
268.40,
268.45,
or
268.49."
As
EPA
knows,
the
treatment
standards
are
expressed
mainly
as
concentrations
of
specific
hazardous
constituents,
so
the
generator
must
determine
both
the
presence
and
concentration
of
the
relevant
constituents
in
the
waste
or
a
waste
extract.
For
this
information,
the
generator
usually
must
test
the
waste
using
EPA­
approved
analytical
test
methods,
and
the
results
can
then
be
provided
to
the
TSD
facility
in
waste
profiles
for
proper
treatment.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
155
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).

While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion,
such
as
this
one,
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).

Document
#:
0216
12.
LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements.
Maine
disagrees
with
the
proposal
that
the
notification
of
a
waste
determined
to
meet
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion
be
maintained
onsite
rather
than
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency.
We
believe
that
regulatory
agencies
should
be
made
aware
of
these
waste
determinations
and
should
also
receive
notification
of
which
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
are
receiving
such
waste.

Response:
The
Agency
is
maintaining
the
requirement
under
268.7(
d)
because
commenters,
such
as
this
commenter,
opposed
its
deletion.
Other
commenters
said
that
the
notification
was
necessary
to
alert
inspectors
before
the
hazardous
waste
debris
is
impossible
to
recover.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
alerts
inspectors
to
the
need
to
do
spot
checks,
especially
for
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
­
redundant
languages
Response:
Thank
you
for
your
general
support.
We
have
made
efforts
in
the
final
rule
to
eliminate
as
much
of
the
redundant
language
as
possible.
156
268.7(
a) 
LDR
Generator
Requirements.

Document
#:
0011
We
agree
that
the
268.7(
a)
requirements
can
be
replaced
in
part
with
the
162.11
and/
or
264/
265.13.
However,
a
typical
generator
waste
determination
262.11,
or
a
general
TSDF
waste
analysis,
264/
265.13,
does
not
include
the
detail
needed
to
determine
the
treatment
standards
as
required
in
268.40.
We
would
encourage
EPA
to
revise
the
requirements
of
262.11
and
264/
265.13
so
that
the
requirements
of
268.40
may
still
be
met.

Eliminating
the
Recycler
Notification,
268.7(
b)(
6)
and
the
Hazardous
Debris
Notification
268.7(
d)
is
appropriate
provided
that
the
records
are
maintained
on­
site.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.

Document
#:
0016
Glaxo
Wellcome
supports
any
effort
to
streamline
the
LDR
requirements.
Eliminating
157
redundancies
in
the
rules
covering
land
disposal
restrictions
(
LDR)
and
waste
analysis
is
a
sensible
step
in
the
burden
reduction
process
and
also
shows
that
the
Agency
is
taking
aim
at
some
of
the
confusion
inherent
in
the
LDR
section
of
RCRA.
The
elimination
of
a
redundant
rule
such
as
40
CFR
268.7(
a),
where
a
similar
waste
analysis
requirement
is
already
in
place
for
generators
262.11,
would
not
eliminate
the
information
waste
handlers
need
to
manage
wastes
properly.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0021
Onyx
believes
that
this
notification
is
of
no
value
to
the
commercial
hazardous
waste
treatment
industry.
As
was
discussed
at
the
July
1998
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Roundtable,
this
notification
is
simply
placed
in
a
file
and
adds
no
value
to
the
process,
as
the
facility
already
has
the
waste
stream
profiled
and
approved
into
their
site
prior
to
receiving
the
LDR
form.

Therefore,
Onyx
does
not
agree
with
the
Agency's
justification
that
this
information
is
necessary
for
tracking
purposes.
Onxy
believes
that
this
is
still
an
area
where
more
burden
reduction
can
be
achieved
because
the
Agency
can
monitor
what
happens
to
hazardous
waste
from
generation
to
treatment
through
the
manifest
system
and
Generator
and
TSDF
annual/
biennial
reports.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
158
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0033
LDR
Paperwork
Requirements
and
Generator
Waste
Determinations
­
BCI
supports
EPA
efforts
to
eliminate
waste
determinations
under
RCRA
Section
268.7(
a).
The
section
262.11
waste
determination
and
those
required
under
sections
264.13
and
268.40
are
sufficient
to
assure
that
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
BCI
appreciates
this
opportunity
to
submit
comments
on
EPA's
Burden
Reduction
Initiative.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
However,
in
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0038
159
Comment.
The
DoD
encourages
the
EPA
to
implement
the
proposed
Change
1
(
64
FR
32864)
to
eliminate
the
waste
determination
requirements
of
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
for
separate
LDR
waste
determinations.

Discussion.
Generators
are
required
to
determine
whether
they
have
hazardous
waste
under
40
CFR
262.11,
and
treaters
are
required
to
obtain
a
detailed
physical
and
chemical
analysis
of
the
waste
under
40
CFR
264.13.
The
DoD
believes
that
these
requirements
generally
provide
all
information
necessary
for
the
generator
to
comply
with
the
land
disposal
restrictions
(
LDRs)
and
requiring
separate
waste
determinations
is
duplicative
and
unnecessary.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
deletion
of
the
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
requirement
for
a
generator
LDR
waste
determination.

References.
64
FR
32864.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
In
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0133
Eliminate
duplicable
LDR
waste
determination
requirements.
160
Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
In
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0157
Finally,
ACE
supports
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
duplicative
reporting
in
the
generator
requirements
of
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
regulations.
We
believe
that
the
requirement
to
keep
records
of
waste
determinations,
waste
debris
exclusions
and
treatment
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
provides
adequate
protection,
whereas
the
requirement
to
notify
EPA
or
an
authorized
state
agency
is
another
opportunity
for
technical
noncompliance
with
no
adverse
impact.

Response:
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.
The
Agency
is
maintaining
the
requirement
under
268.7(
d)
because
commenters
said
that
the
notification
was
necessary
to
alert
inspectors
before
the
hazardous
waste
debris
is
impossible
to
recover.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
alerts
inspectors
to
the
need
to
do
spot
checks,
especially
for
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
161
Document
#:
0184
268.7(
a)(
1)
­
We
support
this
proposed
change,
but
only
with
modification
of
262.11(
c).
Problems
we
have
experienced
with
the
262.11
requirements
and
Waste
Analysis
Plans
at
TSDFs
are
identified
in
the
discussion
of
268.11(
c)
could
eliminate
confusion
by
stating
"...
the
generator
must
identify
all
applicable
subpart
C
waste
codes...".

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0184
Proper
application
of
the
land
disposal
restriction
requirements
in
Part
268,
requires
that
all
waste
codes
must
be
identified
to
ensure
adequate
treatment
standard
are
met.
We
are
reminded
of
an
often­
heard
statement
to
the
effect
that,
"
it
doesn't
matter
if
all
the
codes
are
right
because
it's
going
to
a
TSDF
where
it
will
be
properly
managed."
Part
268
mandates
treatment
of
all
waste
codes
prior
to
land
disposal.
If
the
waste
is
D001
(
high
TOC),
but
the
generator
neglects
to
mention
it's
also
D008,
then
it
could
be
treated
by
combustion
and
the
ashes
be
sent
to
a
RCRAD
landfill
and
still
be
D008
or
be
above
0.75
Mg/
L.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).

While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
162
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0006
Eliminate
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
­
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
a
separate
waste
determination
is
not
required
since
generators
must
already
make
hazardous
waste
determinations
under
262.11.
EPA
should
also
consider
elimination
of
additional
generator
requirements.
These
requirements
are
unnecessary
given
the
treatment
facility
notifications
in
268.7(
b)
and
the
relationship
between
the
generator
and
treatment
facility.
For
example,
the
Waste
Analysis
Plan
requirements
contained
in
268.7(
a)(
5)
can
create
compliance
problems
with
little
environmental
benefit.
Additionally,
the
3
year
record
retention
requirement
in
268.7(
a)(
8)
creates
another
overly
restrictive
requirement.
The
exact
duration
should
be
determined
by
the
generator
based
on
company­
specific
needs.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
In
order
to
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
generators,
we
also
are
clarifying
that
if
a
generator
does
not
want
to
determine,
based
on
waste
analysis
or
knowledge
of
the
waste,
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
he
may
assume
that
he
is
subject
to
the
full
array
of
LDR
requirements.
The
generator
then
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
where
the
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination
when
the
waste
has
met
the
treatment
standard
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
268.7(
a)(
2).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
163
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0007
SOCMA
supports
the
changes
being
considered
by
EPA
to
reduce
the
burden
of
compliance
with
the
LDR
requirements.
SOCMA
concurs
with
EPA's
assessment
that
the
generator
waste
determination
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
40
CFR
268.9(
a)
are
redundant
with
the
basic
waste
characterization
requirement
imposed
on
all
generators
under
40
CFR
262.11.
These
requirements
should
be
eliminated
as
they
are
effectively
a
paperwork
exercise
that
provides
no
additional
substantive
information.
Elimination
of
these
requirements
would
be
particularly
valuable
to
those
industry
sectors
such
as
the
specialty
and
custom
chemical
industry
which
use
batch
manufacturing
processes.
The
routine
production
of
multiple
and
shifting
product
lines
generates
multiple
and
shifting
waste
streams.
For
this
industry,
eliminating
the
additional
paperwork
burden
imposed
by
these
two
LDR
requirements
would
be
of
particular
value.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0008
Elimination
of
Generator
Waste
Determinations
Under
40
CFR
Section
268.7(
a)(
1).
Section
268(
a)(
1)
requires
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
of
hazardous
waste
to
determine
whether
their
waste
meets
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards
by
either
testing
the
waste
or
relying
on
"
generator
knowledge."
Generators
are
then
required
to
make
one­
time
notifications
to
the
applicable
treatment
facility.
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
other
testing
obligations
eliminate
the
need
for
these
generator
determinations.
Generators
already
must
make
hazardous
waste
determinations
under
40
CFR
262.11.
Most
significantly,
existing
waste
determination
requirements
for
treatment
facilities
insure
that
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
LDR
compliance.
164
In
addition
USWAG
requests
the
Agency
to
provide
the
option
of
satisfying
the
section
268.7(
a)(
2)
and
(
3)
requirements
by
including
the
notification
and
certification
on
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
form.
This
streamlining
provision
would
simplify
recordkeeping
and
reduce
the
burdens
associated
with
generating
a
stand­
alone
LDR
notice
document.

EPA
also
should
consider
elimination
of
additional
generator
requirements
found
in
section
268.7(
a).
As
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
waste
determinations,
these
regulatory
requirements
are
unnecessary
given
the
treatment
facility
notifications
in
268.7(
b)
and
the
relationship
between
the
generator
and
treatment
facility.
The
section
268.7(
a)(
5)
Waste
Analysis
Plan
requirements
in
particular
can
create
a
compliance
obstacle
with
little
benefit
for
day
to
day
environmental
management.
Similarly,
the
3
year
record
retention
requirement
in
section
268.7(
a)(
8),
simply
creates
another
unduly
restrictive
burden.
Certainly
sound
environmental
and
liability
management
requires
the
retention
of
records
for
an
appropriate
period
of
time.
The
exact
duration
should
be
determined
by
the
generator
based
on
company­
specific
needs.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
The
commenter's
suggestion
to
combine
the
LDR
notification
and
to
delete
other
LDR
paperwork
requirements
may
be
considered
in
some
future
rulemaking,
however,
they
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

Document
#
???
Land
Disposal
Regulations
Paperwork
Requirements:

The
first
proposed
change
is
to
eliminate
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
governing
the
generator
waste
determination,
since
treaters
are
required
to
obtain
a
detailed
chemical
and
physical
analysis
under
Section
264.13,
which
provides
all
of
the
information
required
to
comply
with
Part
268.
The
MDEQ
concurs
that
the
requirement
in
Section
264.13
(
specifying
that
a
detailed
chemical
and
165
physical
analysis
must
be
obtained
before
an
owner
or
operator
treats,
stores,
or
disposes
of
any
hazardous
waste)
should
be
adequate
to
allow
elimination
of
Section
268.7(
a)(
1).
We
amended
the
rules
to
require
further
assessment,
supposedly
in
response
to
an
inadequacy
in
the
regulations.
The
EPA
should
first
assess
if,
by
removing
the
requirement
in
Section
268.7(
a)(
1),
the
problem(
s)
will
return.

The
second
proposed
change
is
to
remove
the
requirement
that
treatment
facilities
send
notifications
and
certifications
to
the
EPA,
as
long
as
the
information
is
kept
in
facility
records
as
required
in
Section
268.7(
b)(
6)
for
wastes
that
are
recyclable
materials
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal.
The
MDEQ
supports
this
proposed
change.

The
third
proposed
change
is
to
allow
generators
and
treaters
to
keep
in
facility
records
only
the
hazardous
debris
notifications
and
not
submit
them
to
the
EPA
as
specified
in
Section
268.7(
d).
The
MDEQ
supports
this
proposed
change.

The
next
proposal
under
consideration
is
to
eliminate
Section
268.9(
a),
characteristic
waste
determinations,
because
generators
are
already
required
to
determine
whether
they
have
a
hazardous
waste
under
Section
262.11.
The
MDEQ
does
not
agree
with
elimination
of
this
rule.
Section
262.11
only
specifies
the
generator
must
determine
if
the
waste
is
hazardous
waste,
and
this
does
not
provide
enough
information
to
determine
characteristic
waste
determinations.

The
MDEQ
concurs
that
the
one­
time
notification
and
certification
that
a
waste
is
no
longer
characteristic,
as
required
in
Section
268.9(
d),
need
only
be
placed
in
the
facility
files
and
that
a
copy
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
EPA.
The
MDEQ
concurs
with
removal
of
this
requirement.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
166
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.
The
Agency
is
maintaining
the
requirement
under
268.7(
d)
because
commenters
said
that
the
notification
was
necessary
to
alert
inspectors
before
the
hazardous
waste
debris
is
impossible
to
recover.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
alerts
inspectors
to
the
need
to
do
spot
checks,
especially
for
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.

Document
#:
0021
Onyx
does
not
believe
a
separate
waste
determination
under
268.7(
a)
is
necessary.
We
believe
it
can
be
accomplished
by
rewriting
268.7(
a)
to
state
that
the
LDR
waste
determination
obligations
can
be
satisfied
under
262.11,
264.13
and
268.40.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0037
E.
Streamlining
LDR
Paperwork
Requirements.
If
a
greater
degree
of
risk
is
tolerable
under
HSWA,
there
does
not
appear
any
reason
that
many
of
these
requirements
could
not
be
combined
into
existing
recordkeeping
and/
or
made
selfimplementing

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
this
comment.

Document
#:
0117
C.
Simplifying
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Paperwork
Requirements
EPA
proposes
to
simplify
or
eliminate
a
number
of
paperwork
requirements
under
the
Land
167
disposal
Restrictions
("
LDR")
program.
The
provisions
at
issue
are
unnecessary
(
given
other
requirements
contained
in
the
RCRA
regulations)
or
result
in
the
reporting
of
information
that
experience
has
shown
is
not
being
used
by
regulatory
authorities
or
other
interested
parties.

Section
268.7(
a)(
1)  
which
requires
a
generator
to
determine
if
its
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal 
is
a
good
example
of
this.
Other
provisions
of
the
rules
require
the
generator
to
determine
whether
the
waste
is
hazardous
and,
if
so,
to
specify
which
hazardous
waste
code
category(
ies)
it
fits.
8
And
40
CFR
264.13(
a)(
1)
requires
a
treatment
storage,
or
disposal
("
TSD")
facility
to
perform
a
waste
analysis
sufficient
to
obtain
the
information
needed
to
handle
the
waste
in
accordance
with
the
RCRA
regulations,
including
the
LDR
program.
Thus,
before
a
hazardous
waste
is
land
disposed,
someone 
either
the
generator
or
the
TSDF
facility
operator 
will
have
to
determine
whether
the
applicable
LDR
treatment
standards
have
been
met.
The
requirement
of
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
is
not
needed
to
ensure
that
this
occurs.

Furthermore,
in
the
case
of
wastes
that
are
sent
for
recycling
at
a
facility
like
Inmetco's,
it
does
not
matter
whether
the
wastes
meet
LDR
treatment
standards
as
received
at
the
facility 
because
the
waste
is
not
stored
on
the
ground,
and
it
is
going
to
be
processed
before
anything
is
applied
to
the
land.
As
far
as
LDR
standards
are
concerned,
the
relevant
material
at
Inmetco
is
the
slag
produced
as
a
co­
product
of
its
high
temperature
metals
recovery
process,
not
the
feed
materials
that
it
receives
from
its
hazardous
waste­
generating
customers.
Even
if
those
hazardous
wastes
did
not
meet
LDR
treatment
standards
as
received,
Inmetco
still
would
have
to
determine
whether
its
slag
(
a
"
derived­
from"
hazardous
waste)
meets
the
applicable
LDR
standards
(
which
it
does)
before
the
slag
could
be
used
in
land
applications.
So
Inmetco
is
largely
indifferent
to
whether
the
hazardous
wastes
it
receives
for
processing
meet
LDR
treatment
standards
when
they
enter
its
gate.
Thus,
from
Inmetco's
perspective,
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
serves
no
useful
purpose.
We
therefore
support
EPA's
proposed
elimination
of
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1),
as
well
as
the
other
paperwork
reduction
revisions
that
EPA
has
proposed
for
the
LDR
program.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
168
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.
The
Agency
is
maintaining
the
requirement
under
268.7(
d)
because
commenters
said
that
the
notification
was
necessary
to
alert
inspectors
before
the
hazardous
waste
debris
is
impossible
to
recover.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
alerts
inspectors
to
the
need
to
do
spot
checks,
especially
for
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.

Document
#:
0157
Burden
Reduction
for
Generator
LDR
Paperwork
Requirements
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
a
number
of
redundant
recordkeeping,
testing,
and
reporting
requirements
for
generators
under
RCRA's
land
disposal
restriction
("
LDR")
program.
We
concur,
"
that
a
number
of
LDR
requirements
for
waste
determinations,
notifications,
and
certifications
could
be
eliminated
without
diminishing
the
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment."
ld.
at
2528.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
The
Agency
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
specified
in
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
as
proposed.
Also,
we
are
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
certification
and
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
under
268.9(
d).
The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
so
the
deletion
of
these
requirements
is
warranted.
The
Agency
is
maintaining
the
requirement
under
268.7(
d)
because
commenters
said
that
the
notification
was
169
necessary
to
alert
inspectors
before
the
hazardous
waste
debris
is
impossible
to
recover.
Also,
they
argued
that
it
alerts
inspectors
to
the
need
to
do
spot
checks,
especially
for
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.

Document
#:
0157
Elimination
of
Separate
LDR
Analysis
USWAG
supports
elimination
of
current
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
for
generators
to
determine
whether
their
hazardous
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal.
As
EPA
recognizes
"
a
combination
of
several
other
requirements
provide
the
same
safeguards
as
the
268.7(
a)(
1)
requirement."
ld.
Specifically,
40
CFR
261.11
requires
a
determination
of
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous;
40
CFR
264.13(
a)(
1)
requires
TSDFs
to
perform
a
general
waste
analysis
to
determine
information
which
must
be
known
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
the
waste;
and
40
CFR
268.40
prohibits
hazardous
waste
from
land
disposal
unless
it
meets
the
requirements
in
the
Table
of
Treatment
Standards.
ld.
at
2526,
2528.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0157
Elimination
of
Separate
LDR
Waste
Characteristic
Determination
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
existing
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.9(
a)
to
provide
a
separate
LDR
waste
determination
for
characteristic
waste.
ld.
at
2526.
We
agree
that
this
determination
is
duplicated
elsewhere
in
the
regulations,
including
under
40
CFR
262.11,
264.13
&
268.40.
As
EPA
reasons,
these
"
other
determinations
are
sufficient
to
assure
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
LDRs
and,
therefore,
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment."
ld.
at
2528.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
170
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0158
SOCMA
strongly
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
and
streamline
certain
of
the
land
disposal
restrictions
(
LDR)
paperwork
requirements.
Reducing
paperwork
requirements
would
be
especially
helpful
to
specialty
and
custom
chemical
manufacturers
who
use
batch
manufacturing
processes.
The
routine
production
of
multiple
and
shifting
product
lines,
and
the
resultant
multiple
and
shifting
waste
streams
that
are
produced
by
batch
manufacturing,
lead
to
heavy
LDR
paperwork
burdens
upon
batch
manufacturers.

In
this
regard,
SOCMA
particularly
commends
EPA
for
its
proposal
to
drop
the
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
generator
waste
determination
requirement.
As
EPA
correctly
notes,
generators
already
have
an
obligation
to
know
enough
about
their
wastes
to
characterize
them,
and
Section
264.13(
a)(
1)
already
requires
TSDFs
to
perform
a
waste
analysis
that
provides
them
with
all
the
information
needed
to
manage
the
waste
appropriately.
This
requirement
is
burdensome,
duplicative
and
should
be
eliminated.

Similarly,
SOCMA
also
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
the
need
for
a
separate
LDR
waste
determination
for
characteristic
waste,
as
is
presently
required
by
Section
268.0(
a).
Elimination
of
these
requirements
would
significantly
lessen
the
heavy
burden
suffered
by
batch
manufacturers
when
complying
with
LDR
requirements
without
affecting
the
ability
to
manage
wastes
in
a
manner
that
continues
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
171
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0165
Generator
Determination
Section
268.7
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
requirement
in
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
generators
determine,
by
testing
or
knowledge,
whether
their
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal.
EPA
believes
that
other
requirements,
such
as
the
generator
hazardous
waste
determination
in
262.11,
provide
the
same
safeguards.
The
related
record
retention
provision
in
268.7(
a)(
6)
would
also
be
eliminated.

We
understand
that
generators
want
to
reduce
their
analytical
testing
costs
under
the
LDR
program,
but
268.7(
a)(
1)
is
not
the
requirement
to
eliminate.
Rather
than
reducing
costs,
we
believe
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
will
actually
increase
the
overall
costs
of
the
LDR
program.
Costs
will
increase
because
TSD
facilities,
lacking
the
generator's
knowledge
of
the
waste
and
the
raw
materials
and
production
processes
that
produced
the
waste,
will
have
to
test
more
wastes
more
frequently
at
substantially
higher
total
costs
under
the
LDR
program.
For
this
reason,
the
ETC
believes
that
EPA
must
analyze
the
overall
costs
of
the
LDR
requirements
that
would
result
from
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1),
including
the
increased
frequency
and
scope
of
waste
testing
and
not
just
the
cost
savings
to
generators,
before
proceeding
with
a
final
rule.

Response
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion,
such
as
this
comment,
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
172
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0169
268.7(
a)(
1).
LDR
Generator
Requirements­
Generator
waste
determination:
Eliminate­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
role
preamble.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.
Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0211
The
proposed
revisions
to
rules
would
eliminate
the
requirements
for
generators
to
notify
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
(
TSD)
facilities
of
waste
streams
which
are
subject
to
the
land
disposal
restrictions
(
LDRs)
of
40
CFR
Part
268.
Many
commercial
TSD
facilities
rely
on
this
certification
prior
to
accepting
wastes
from
generators.
This
certification
from
generators
enables
commercial
facilities
accurately
characterize
waste
streams
for
treatment
(
if
required)
and
disposal.
In
addition,
the
certification
acts
as
an
additional
tool
in
identifying
and
accurately
characterizing
LDR
waste
streams
prior
to
disposal.
Because
waste
streams
may
not
be
accurately
characterized,
TNRCC
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
elimination
of
this
requirement
will
potentially
created
a
problem
for
commercial
TSD
facilities
which
accept
large
and
different
waste
streams.
The
expense
of
additional
characterization
will
be
passed
on
to
the
generator.
In
addition,
certain
waste
streams
are
often
generated
infrequently;
hence,
generators
and
commercial
facilities
draw
upon
previous
analyses
for
characterization
of
such
wastes.
The
elimination
of
this
requirement
would
require
unnecessary,
redundant
characterization
by
the
TSD.
Please
note
that
the
LDR
requirements
are
addressed
in
existing
waste
analysis
plans
(
WAPs)
for
both
commercial
and
non­
commercial
permitted
TSD
facilities;
which
means
that
the
173
proposed
changes
to
the
rules
will
require
permitted
facilities
to
review
and
revise
their
existing
WAP.
Be
reminded
that
such
revisions
to
the
permit
application
call
for
a
modification
or
amendment,
thus
placing
an
added
burden
on
commercial
TSD
facilities,
and
possibly
on
permitted
generators.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
(
including
this
one)
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.
In
our
experience
the
TSDF's
in
the
hazardous
waste
management
industry
often
provide
this
information
to
the
generators
which
they
are
providing
waste
management
services
to.
These
generators
are,
in
essence,
already
"
relieved"
of
this
burden
by
the
TSDF's.

In
addition
the
generator
knows
the
underlying
constituents
in
the
waste.
It
is
extremely
difficult
and
expensive
to
discover
all
of
the
underlying
constituents
in
a
waste
stream
via
laboratory
analysis.
No
ones
does
laboratory
analysis
to
determine
all
the
underlying
constituents
in
the
waste
because
of
this
expense.

It
is
also
our
experience
that
in
cases
where
Hazardous
Wastes
become
secondary
materials
which
may
be
"
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal"
the
generators
often
have
much
better
knowledge
of
RCRA
requirements
than
the
subsequent
recipients
of
the
secondary
materials,
for
example,
fertilizer
manufacturers.
There
is
generally
less
incentive
for
LDR
requirements
to
stay
with
the
hazardous
waste
in
this
reuse
scenario.
We
strongly
urge
EPA
to
retain
this
generator
requirement.

Generator
LDR
recordkeeping
requirements
are
extremely
important
to
retain.
This
requirement
supports
the
need
for
generators
to
obtain
and
document
their
acceptable
knowledge
of
a
waste
174
stream
and
take
responsibility
for
knowing
what
is
in
their
waste
that
they
send
on
for
storage
or
treatment.
It
also
helps
to
ensure
safe
storage
by
knowing
what
they
have
at
the
it
is
generated.
It
also
promotes
the
movement
of
LDR
waste
through
to
treatment
and
disposal,
rather
than
long­
term
storage,
by
requiring
generators
to
better
know
what
they
have
and
what
they
need
to
treat
for.
This
way,
viable
treatment
options
can
be
determined.
At
Hanford,
this
requirement
has
been
very
instrumental
in
encouraging
DOE
to
have
better
information
about
what
waste
they
are
generating,
how
they
are
storing
it,
and
what
needs
to
be
known
before
they
can
send
it
for
treatment,
and
what
treatment
technologies
are
needed
for
development.

Also
applicable
at
Hanford
is
the
Federal
Facility
Compliance
Act
which
dictates
requirements
for
management
of
mixed
waste,
many
of
which
include
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
support
LDRs.
Section
268.7(
a)
fits
together
with
the
FFCA
requirements.
The
State
should
not
support
elimination
of
this
requirement.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).

While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
­
redundant
languages.

Response:
Thank
you
for
your
general
support.
We
have
made
efforts
in
the
final
rule
to
eliminate
as
much
of
the
redundant
language
as
possible.

Document
#:
0337
SOCMA
Supports
EPA's
Streamlining
of
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Paperwork
Requirements.

SOCMA
strongly
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
and
streamline
certain
of
the
land
disposal
175
restrictions
(
LDR)
paperwork
requirements.
Reducing
paperwork
requirements
would
be
especially
helpful
to
specialty
and
custom
chemical
manufacturers
who
use
batch
manufacturing
processes.
The
routine
production
of
multiple
and
shifting
product
lines,
and
the
resultant
multiple
and
shifting
waste
streams
that
are
produced
by
batch
manufacturing,
lead
to
heavy
LDR
paperwork
burdens
upon
batch
manufacturers.

In
this
regard,
SOCMA
particularly
commends
EPA
for
its
proposal
to
drop
the
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
generator
waste
determination
requirement.
As
EPA
correctly
notes,
generators
already
have
an
obligation
to
know
enough
about
their
wastes
to
characterize
them,
and
Section
264.13(
a)(
1)
already
requires
TSDFs
to
perform
a
waste
analysis
that
provides
them
with
all
the
information
needed
to
manage
the
waste
appropriately.
This
requirement
is
burdensome,
duplicative
and
should
be
eliminated.

Similarly,
SOCMA
also
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
the
need
for
a
separate
LDR
waste
determination
for
characteristic
waste,
as
is
presently
required
by
Section
268.9(
a).
Elimination
of
these
requirements
would
significantly
lessen
the
heavy
burden
suffered
by
batch
manufacturers
when
complying
with
LDR
requirements
without
affecting
the
ability
to
manage
wastes
in
a
manner
that
continues
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

268.7(
a)(
1)(
2)(
3)(
4)(
5)(
6)(
7)(
8)(
10)

LDR
Generator
Requirements
Document
#:
0134
DOE
suggests
that,
in
the
final
rule,
EPA
consider
also
making
conforming
changes
in
any
cross
176
references
within
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
to
the
re­
designated
subsections
of
268.7.
Most
such
cross­
references
appear
within
268.7
itself.
While
making
these
changes,
DOE
suggests
that
EPA
also
consider
removing
existing
cross­
references
to
268.8,
since
that
section
was
removed
and
reserved
in
1996
[
61
FR
15599,
April
8,
1996].

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
Therefore,
conforming
changes
are
not
necessary.

268.7(
a)(
6)­­
LDR
Generator
Requirements 
Generator
waste
determination:
Eliminate 
because
we
are
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1),
this
record
retention
requirement
is
unnecessary.

Document
#:
0169
LDR
Generator
Requirements­
Generator
waste
determination:
Eliminate­
because
we
are
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1),
this
record
retention
requirement
is
unnecessary.

We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
provision.

Document
#:
0184
The
deletion
of
this
requirement
creates
additional
reliance
on
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators
(
262.40).
To
eliminate
any
confusion,
262.40
should
be
modified
to
state"...
test
results,
waste
analyses,
all
supporting
data
used
for
determinations
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste,
or
other
information
used
to
make
the
determination
under
262.11..."

Response:
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
177
provision.
We
are
therefore
not
following
the
suggestion
made
by
the
commenter
to
modify
40
CFR
262.40.

Document
#:
0202
Proposed
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
6)

Comment.
We
concur
with
the
removal
of
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
6);
however,
the
requirement
to
document
waste
determinations
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste
should
then
be
incorporated
into
268.7(
a)(
8)

Discussion.
We
agree
that
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
6)
can
be
deleted
as
these
documentation
requirements
are
duplicative
of
the
same
documents
that
must
be
retained
per
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
8),
however,
268.7(
a)(
6)
is
the
only
paragraph
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste
Allowance
for
such
a
determination
by
the
generator
is
specified
in
Section
262.11,
but
nowhere
is
there
a
requirement
for
the
generator
to
retain
the
records
except
in
current
268.7(
a)(
6).
Therefore,
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
8)
should
contain
an
explicit
statement
requiring
retention
of
waste
determinations
made
pursuant
to
262.11
and
264.13
(
if
applicable),
in
addition
to
documentation
produced
pursuant
to
Section
268.7.

Recommendation.
Remove
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
6);
and
revise
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
8)
to
include
a
requirement
to
retain
all
waste
determination
documentation
produced
pursuant
to
262.11,
264.13
and
268.7
for
three
years
from
the
date
that
the
waste
was
last
sent
to
on­
site
or
off­
site
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal.

Response:
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
provision.
We
are
not,
therefore,
following
the
suggestion
that
we
modify
any
other
language.

Document
#:
0208
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement
Response:
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
178
provision.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement.

Response
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
provision.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
unnecessary
language.

Response:
Some
commenters
supported
the
deletion
of
this
requirement,
generally
because
they
support
the
burden
reduction.
However,
we
received
other
comments
that
opposed
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
in
the
on­
site
files.
One
commenter
pointed
out,
correctly,
that
this
is
the
only
place
in
the
LDR
regulations
that
specifies
the
requirement
to
retain
a
determination
based
on
knowledge
of
the
waste.
Upon
further
consideration,
the
Agency
believes
these
records
should
continue
to
be
retained
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
Thus,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
opposed
this
proposed
change,
and
are
not
finalizing
this
provision.

268.7(
b)(
4)­­
LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements
Document
#:
0021
This
requirement
should
be
amended
to
address
the
situation
where
the
TSDF
is
both
the
treatment
and
disposal
facility.
In
this
situation
the
treatment
operation
must
fill
out
an
LDR
form
and
place
it
in
its
files
certifying
that
the
waste
has
met
LDR
requirements.
This
is
an
unnecessary
requirement
because
the
facility's
permit
prohibits
land
disposal
of
hazardous
waste
unless
the
waste
meets
the
LDR
requirements.

Response:
Thank
you
for
your
suggestion,
however,
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
rule.

268.7(
b)(
6)­­
LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements 
Submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA:
Modify 
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
179
Document
#:
0008
Elimination
of
Recycler
Notifications
and
Certifications
Under
40
CFR
Section
268.7(
b)(
6).
EPA
should
eliminate
the
notification
and
certification
requirements
for
recyclers
in
section
268.7(
b)(
6).
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
notify
the
Agency,
as
long
as
the
information
is
maintained
at
the
facility.

Document
#:
0031
LDR
Paperwork
Reduction
The
paperwork
created
in
connection
with
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
would
be
minimized
under
the
streamlining
procedures
proposed
by
OSW.
However,
with
respect
to
recyclable
material
under
268.7(
b)(
6),
the
current
proposal
simply
changes
the
requirements
that
the
facility
submit
notifications
and
certifications
to
the
EPA
with
each
shipment
to
require
that
the
facility
maintain
those
records
on­
site,
which
although
welcome,
does
not
materially
reduce
the
burden
involved.
LIA
suggests
OSW
consider
further
alternatives
to
reduce
the
burdens
of
paperwork
requirements
under
the
LDR
program,
and
in
particular,
those
related
to
268.7(
b)(
6).
For
example,
to
encourage
recycling,
these
notification
and
certification
requirements
could
be
replaced
altogether
with
a
one­
time
certification,
unless
the
process
involves
changes.
Another
alternative
may
involve
relieving
the
frequency
associated
with
such
notifications
and
certifications.
The
facility
could
maintain
records
of
the
receiving
facility
on­
site,
primarily
as
a
matter
of
course
in
conducting
business,
but
would
no
longer
have
to
prepare
all
records
with
routine
shipments.
Changing
the
reporting
system
in
this
way
would
substantially
streamline
the
paperwork
requirements
of
the
LDR.

Document
#:
0042
Treatment
Facility
Notification
and
Certifications
­
Complete
and
submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA.

Document
#:
0165
Treatment
facilities
that
recycle
hazardous
wastes
into
products
applied
to
the
land
must
submit
a
certification
under
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
the
treatment
process
was
operated
properly
so
as
to
comply
with
the
treatment
standards
that
apply
to
such
waste­
derived
products.
EPA
proposes
to
delete
this
notice
requirement,
as
long
as
the
treatment
facility
retains
the
same
information
in
its
on­
site
records.
67
Fed.
Reg.
2528
col.
2.
We
support
this
proposed
amendment.

Document
#:
0169
LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements­
Submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA:
Modify­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
change
preamble.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0203
180
Onyx
agrees
with
EPA
that
the
regulatory
authorities
do
not
review
the
one­
time
notices
that
wastes
have
been
treated
to
comply
with
the
LDR
treatment
standards
and
agrees
that
these
notices
should
no
longer
be
required
to
be
sent
to
the
regulatory
agencies.
Notification
or
certification
forms
do
not
need
to
be
created
as
long
as
the
information
indicating
that
the
wastes
have
been
treated
to
meet
the
LDR
standards
remains
in
the
operating
record
and
available
for
review
during
an
inspection
by
a
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0213
We
don
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement
and
urges
EPA
to
make
these
notices
more
available.
In
our
experience
of
trying
to
track
down
Hazardous
Wastes
used
in
the
manufacture
of
fertilizers
these
notices
would
be
important
but
they
are
not
visible
because
to
find
them
you
must
know
the
name
of
the
facility.
Often
we
do
not
know
the
facilities
are
carrying
out
the
activity
but
we
could
find
them
if
the
notices
were
available
in
a
data
base
that
was
searchable.
They
are
generally
filed
by
facility
rather
than
by
activity.
Being
left
on­
site
they
would
disappear
altogether.
The
history
of
compliance
is
not
very
long
in
this
industry
and
tends
to
be
dismal.

Document
#:
0218
Modify
to
remove
submission
requirements.

Response
to
Comments:
Based
on
the
comments
received,
we
feel
confident
that
maintaining
these
records
on­
site
provides
sufficient
documentation
of
waste
treatment
in
these
cases.
We
believe
that
regulating
agencies
have
a
great
deal
of
information
about
these
facilities
already
since
in
most
cases
they
would
be
permitted
facilities,
hence
retaining
these
notices
on­
site
does
not
eliminate
the
regulating
agency's
knowledge
of
the
existence
of
the
facility.
We
do
also
note,
however,
that
if
a
state
has
concerns
about
compliance
in
a
particular
use
constituting
disposal
industry
in
their
state,
they
may
chose
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
federal
program,
and
thus
may
chose
to
retain
these
notification
requirements.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
preamble
to
the
proposal
incorrectly
indicated
that
the
current
regulations
only
require
one­
time
notifications
and
certifications
for
these
materials.
This
is
not
accurate.
The
existing
regulations
actually
require
that
certifications
and
notifications
are
sent
to
the
regulating
agency
with
each
shipment.
We
further
agree
with
the
commenter
who
suggested
that
we
change
the
requirement
so
that
these
notifications
and
certifications
are
only
required
to
be
prepared
once
and
maintained
in
the
facility's
records,
unless
there
are
changes
to
the
treatment
process.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
it
would
greatly
reduce
the
burden
for
the
facility
if
they
were
only
required
to
prepare
these
documents
once,
and
then
again
any
time
the
treatment
process
changes.
As
long
as
these
notifications
and
certifications
are
required
to
be
maintained
in
the
facility's
files
and
be
available
for
inspection,
there
is
no
reason
for
the
facility
to
prepare
and
maintain
multiple
copies
for
each
shipment.
The
information
will
be
available
for
inspection
at
all
times.
Thus,
this
final
rule
only
requires
facilities
(
recyclers)
to
prepare
and
maintain
notifications
and
certifications
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste,
and
then
to
prepare
new
documentation
only
if
the
waste,
the
treatment
process,
or
the
receiving
facility
changes
181
268.7(
d)­­
LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements
Document
#:
0008
Elimination
of
Hazardous
Waste
Debris
Notifications
Under
40
CFR
Section
268.7(
d).
EPA
should
eliminate
the
hazardous
debris
notification
requirements
in
section
268.7(
d).
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
facilities
that
generate
or
treat
excluded
debris
to
notify
the
Agency
as
long
as
pertinent
information
is
kept
in
facility
records.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0038
Comment.
The
DoD
concurs
with
the
EPA's
proposed
change
3
(
64
FR
32865),
which
would
eliminate
the
requirement
for
generators
and
treaters
of
excluded
hazardous
debris
to
notify
the
EPA,
and
instead,
to
maintain
records
on­
site
only.

Discussion.
The
DoD
concurs
with
the
EPA's
rationale
for
change
3
that
there
is
no
reason
to
send
these
notifications
to
the
EPA
or
the
state
as
long
as
they
are
maintained
on­
site.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
eliminate
the
requirement
for
generators
and
treaters
to
send
a
one­
time
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
state,
when
hazardous
debris
that
has
been
treated
with
the
extraction
or
destruction
technologies
listed
in
Table
1
of
40
CFR
268.45,
is
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.

References.
64
FR
32865
Comment.
The
EPA
should
implement
Change
4
to
eliminate
the
40
CFR
268.9(
d)
requirement
to
send
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
state,
when
a
characteristic
hazardous
waste
is
treated
to
remove
the
characteristic.

Discussion.
The
DoD
supports
elimination
of
the
one­
time
notification
and
certification
to
the
EPA
or
the
state
that
is
required
by
40
CFR
268.9(
d).
We
do
not
believe
these
provide
waste
handlers,
or
regulators,
any
additional
information
on
proper
management
of
the
wastes.
It
should
be
sufficient
for
enforcement
to
require
the
generator
and/
or
treater
to
complete
the
182
certification
and
maintain
those
records
in
the
facility's
waste
management
files
for
up
to
three
years.
Further,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
proposed
change
is
consistent
with
recent
amendments
to
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
5),
which
removed
the
requirement
for
generators
treating
hazardous
waste
on­
site
to
submit
waste
analysis
plans
to
the
state
or
the
EPA
region.

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
elimination
of
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
268.9(
d)
to
send
a
one­
time
notification
and
notification
to
the
EPA
or
the
state.

References.
64
FR
32865
Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0042
incorrect
citation
given,
should
be
268.7(
d)(
1)
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
to
EPA.

Response:
Thanks
to
the
commenter
for
this
correction.

Document
#:
0157
Elimination
of
One­
Time
notice
of
Decharacterized
Debris
Under
current
40
CFR
268.7(
d),
generators
who
claim
their
hazardous
debris
is
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
must
send
a
one­
time
notice
of
this
claim
to
EPA
and
keep
a
copy
of
the
notice
in
their
files.
The
Agency
explains,
however,
that
it
has
"
been
unable
to
verify
that
this
information
is
routinely
used
for
its
intended
purpose.
Therefore,
we
[
EPA]
are
proposing
that
generators
and
treaters
of
excluded
debris
not
send
these
notifications
to
EPA,
as
long
as
the
information
that
would
have
been
in
the
notifications
is
kept
in
facility
records."
ld.
at
2526,
2528.
Such
a
change
is
fully
appropriate
given
the
Agency's
findings.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
183
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0203
Onyx
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
that
generators
and
treaters
of
hazardous
debris
that
is
excluded
from
the
definition
of
a
hazardous
waste
need
not
complete
or
submit
a
one­
time
notice
of
this
claim
to
EPA.
The
information
that
would
have
been
in
the
notification
should
only
be
maintained
in
the
generators
and
treaters
facility
records
Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

268.7(
d)(
1)­­
LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements 
Submit
notification
of
claim
that
debris
is
excluded
from
definition
of
hazardous
waste:
Modify 
notification
becomes
one­
time
and
remains
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.

Document
#:
0169
LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements­
Submit
notification
of
claim
that
debris
is
excluded
from
definition
of
hazardous
waste:
Modify­
notification
becomes
one­
time
and
remains
On­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
role
preamble.

We
oppose
this
change.
Notification
for
exclusion
should
continue
to
be
submitted.
The
notification
allows
the
regulatory
authority
to
spot
check
the
hazardous
debris
to
ensure
it
is
excluded
from
the
definition
and
to
obtain
information
that
nothing
has
been
mixed
with
the
debris.
We
have
extensive
enforcement
experience
with
facilities
that
have
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
If
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected
to
see
the
one
time
notification,
the
material
will
be
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
recover
which
can
result
in
a
serious
threat
to
human
184
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0184
This
is
the
only
regulatory
mechanism
for
notifying
the
department
that
shipments
of
hazardous
debris
are
bound
for
landfills.
Some
shipments
of
hazardous
debris
are
controversial,
and
removing
this
requirement
eliminates
the
state's
ability
to
conduct
confirmation
sampling,
if
it
is
deemed
necessary.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement
and
urges
EPA
to
make
these
notices
more
available
to
all
states
and
the
public.
When
they
are
retrievable
by
activity
they
are
useful
for
workload
planning,
targeting
inspection,
creating
stakeholder
lists,
and
finding
wastes
in
commerce.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
185
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
submission
requirements.

Response:
Although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.

268.7/
268.9
Document
#:
0202
Reference.
Proposed
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
Proposed
CFR
268.9(
a);
67
FR
2528
and
2543.

Comment.
For
clarity
of
the
LDRs,
it
would
be
best
to
reference
262.11
and
264.13
waste
determination
requirements
in
268.7(
a)(
1)
rather
that
268.9(
a),
thereby
revising
268.7(
a)(
1)
to
serve
as
an
overview
of
the
LDR
requirements,
and
retaining
268.9
specifically
for
the
special
rules
regarding
characteristic
waste.

Discussion.
EPA
proposes
to
delete
the
waste
determination
requirement
from
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
move
the
remainder
of
the
paragraph
268.7(
a)(
1)
text
to
268.9(
a),
thus
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1)
entirely.
Then,
in
addition
to
inserting
text
from
268.7(
a)(
1),
the
proposed
revision
to
268.9(
a)
incorporates
by
reference
a
waste
determination
requirement.
Rather,
we
suggest
incorporating
the
waste
determination
references
to
262.11
and
264.13
into
268.7(
a)(
1),
eliminating
the
details
of
the
determination
from
current
268.7(
a)(
1),
and
leaving
the
latter
part
of
current
268.7(
a)(
1)
as
is.
This
provides
clarity
to
the
regulations
by
introducing
the
LDR
scheme
prior
to
specifying
the
related
paperwork
requirements.
Then,
268.9(
a)
need
only
contain
the
"
special
rules,"
as
the
section
heading
implies,
broken
out
into
two
paragraphs
as
EPA
has
proposed.
186
Recommendation.
To
enhance
readability
of
the
LDR
requirements,
we
recommend
the
following
revisions
to
paragraphs
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a):

Section
268.7
Testing,
tracking
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators,
treaters,
and
disposal
facilities.
(
A)(
1)
A
generator
of
hazardous
waste
must
determine,
following
the
requirements
of
262.11
of
this
chapter
or
264.13,
if
applicable,
whether
the
waste
has
to
be
treated
before
it
can
be
land
disposed.
This
is
done
by
determining
if
the
hazardous
waste
meets
the
treatment
standards
in
268.40,
260.45,
or
268.49.
[
Note,
the
treatment
standard
reference
is
to
268.45,
as
in
the
current
regulatory
text,
rather
than
268.48
as
EPA
proposed].
(
i)
Some
hazardous
wastes
must
be
treated
by
particular
treatment
methods
before
they
can
be
land
disposed.
These
treatment
method
are
also
found
in
268.40,
and
are
described
in
detail
in
268.42,
Table
1.
These
wastes,
and
soils
contaminated
with
such
wastes,
do
not
need
to
be
tested
(
however,
if
they
are
in
a
waste
mixture,
other
wastes
with
concentration
level
treatment
standards
would
have
to
be
tested).
(
ii)
If
a
generator
is
managing
a
waste
or
soil
contaminated
with
a
waste,
that
displays
a
hazardous
characteristic
of
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity,
they
must
comply
with
the
special
requirements
of
268.9
of
this
part
in
addition
to
any
applicable
requirement
in
this
section.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0208
Instead
of
the
confusing
"
generator
paperwork
requirements"
Table
in
268.7(
a),
FDEP
recommends
that
EPA
adopt
a
uniform
waste
profile
form
that
must
be
submitted
to
the
TSD
prior
for
shipment.
Completing
a
waste
profile
is
an
unacknowledged
recordkeeping
and
187
reporting
burden
on
the
generator
under
the
40
CFR
262.11,
262.49(
c)
and
264/
3
requirements.
Signed
waste
profiles
also
often
are
used
to
fulfill
the
TSD
notice
requirement
under
264.12(
b).
A
waste
profile
form
could
include
all
the
information
needed
to
make
treatment
decisions
under
both
land
ban
and
waste
analysis
plan
requirements.

The
generator
should
also
be
required
to
CERTIFY
that
the
waste
has
been
properly
characterized.
The
signed
certification
statement
on
manifest
forms
is
not
sufficient
for
this
purpose.
DOT
shipping
names
(
which
are
the
only
requirement
for
manifests)
do
not
provide
complete
waste
characterization
and
treatability
information.
Currently
a
generator
must
certify
that
a
waste
meets
land
disposal
treatment
standards
but
does
NOT
have
to
certify
that
the
waste
has
been
properly
characterized
as
to
all
applicable
waste
codes
when
the
generator
says
the
waste
does
not
meet
treatment
standards.

Regulatory
agencies
can
claim
that
since
waste
profile
forms
are
required
to
be
completed
pursuant
to
a
hazardous
waste
permit,
they
are
therefore
"
records
required
to
be
maintain"
by
the
agency.
However,
it
is
much
more
difficult
to
make
a
criminal
case
on
falsification
of
a
waste
profile
than
a
manifest.
The
reality
is
that
many
times,
an
untrained
sales
person
for
the
TSDF
will
complete
the
waste
profile
for
the
generator.
This
is
an
invitation
to
fraud,
especially
when
a
storage
facility
or
fuels
blending
facility
is
involved.
The
facilities
that
bulk
waste
will
usually
have
a
"
blanket
profile"
filed
with
the
treatment
or
disposal
facility
that
can
include
a
wide
range
of
constituent
concentrations,
listings
and
physical
parameters.

Most
TSDFs
are
not
required
to
examine
or
test
every
drum
they
receive
to
ensure
that
the
waste
was
profiled
correctly.
This
is
especially
true
when
the
waste
is
profiles
as
non­
hazardous.

If
the
agency
adopts
a
uniform
waste
profile
form,
generators
who
treat
on
site
should
still
have
to
fill
out
a
waste
profile
and
retain
it
on
site.
The
profile
would
fulfill
the
recordkeeping
and
certification
requirements
under
268.7(
a)(
3,5,6,7
and
8)
268.7(
d)
and
(
e).

At
67
FR
2528
Change
3.
The
problem
is
not
that
268.7(
d)
notices
are
not
being
reviewed
by
the
receiving
agencies.
They
just
aren't
being
submitted
by
the
generator.
This
section
should
be
deleted
for
TSDFs
and
moved
to
268.7(
a)
for
generators
(
assuming
that
section
is
kept).
Relatively
few
TSDFs
treat
off
site
debris.
Sections
268.7
and
268.9
should
be
consolidated.
Having
them
separate
is
unnecessary
and
confusing.

To
reduce
confusion,
generator
waste
profile
and
certification
requirements
should
be
a
part
of
40
CFR
Part
262
Subpart
B.
Generators
(
including
100
to
1,000
kg/
m
generators)
who
treat
should
be
required
to
comply
with
40
CFR
265.13,
which
should
be
amended
to
include
land
ban
analysis,
certification
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Part
268
should
be
limited
to
treatment
standards
and
some
of
the
particular
prohibitions,
such
as
dilution
in
lieu
of
treatment.
EPA
should
finalize
the
proposed
rule
for
national
uniform
hazardous
waste
manifest
along
with
these
changes.
188
Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.
As
far
as
268.7(
d)(
1)
is
concerned,
although
most
commenters
supported
the
proposed
deletion
of
the
one­
time
requirement
to
submit
this
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
several
commenters
made
convincing
arguments
that
this
particular
notification
should
continue
to
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state.
One
state
commenter
said
they
had
extensive
experience
with
facilities
that
illegally
disposed
of
hazardous
waste
debris.
Another
state
commenter
said
that
if
the
regulatory
authority
is
unaware
of
the
presumed
exclusion,
by
the
time
the
facility
is
inspected,
the
debris
will
likely
be
impossible
to
recover.
And
commenters
supported
that
this
notification
is
needed
in
order
to
alert
the
regulatory
authority
for
the
need
for
spot
checks,
especially
of
"
controversial"
hazardous
waste
debris.
The
Agency
is
convinced
by
these
commenters
that
this
notification
should
remain
in
place,
and
is
thus
not
finalizing
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
the
EPA
or
authorized
state
as
proposed.
Therefore
we
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
these
sections
of
the
LDR
regulations.

268.9­­
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
Document
#:
0218
Eliminate
­
redundant
languages
Response:
Thank
you
for
your
general
support.
We
have
made
efforts
in
the
final
rule
to
eliminate
as
much
of
the
redundant
language
as
possible.
189
268.9(
a)­­
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes 
Submit
one­
time
notification:
Modify 
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.

Document
#:
0006
Eliminate
Section
268.9(
a)
­
EPA
correctly
recognizes
that
a
separate
characteristic
waste
determination
for
underlying
hazardous
constituents
is
unnecessary
in
light
of
similar
requirements
contained
in
262.11,
264.13,
and
268.40.
These
requirements
ensure
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
LDRs.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0008
Elimination
of
Characteristic
Waste
Determinations
Under
40
CFR
Section
268.9(
a).
EPA
should
eliminate
the
LDR
requirement
for
generators
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
to
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
of
those
wastes.
EPA
again
correctly
recognizes
that
this
requirement
is
unnecessary
in
light
of
similar
requirements
elsewhere
in
the
regulations.
As
with
section
268.7(
a),
the
waste
determination
issues
contemplated
by
section
268.9(
a)
are
already
adequately
addressed
by
similar
generator
requirements
under
section
262.11,
and
by
requirements
on
treatment
facilities
under
sections
264.13
and
268.40.

EPA
also
should
reconsider
eliminating
the
duplicative
generator
characteristic
waste
notification
requirements
in
section
268.9(
d).
The
one­
time
notification
and
certification
that
a
waste
is
no
longer
characteristically
hazardous
serves
only
to
create
a
potential
compliance
obstacle
that
a
generator
might
occasionally
stumble
over,
despite
best
management
efforts.
Like
other
notification
requirement
EPA
is
proposing
to
eliminate
(
see
below),
retention
of
the
certifications
190
in
facility
records
is
sufficient.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0021
Onyx
does
not
believe
a
separate
waste
determination
under
268.9(
a)
is
necessary.
However,
elimination
of
the
requirement
under
268.9(
a)
is
not
necessary
as
long
as
the
waste
determination
requirements
under
262.11,
264.13,
and
268.40
are
referenced.

The
Agency's
evaluation
of
this
requirement
and
its
possible
elimination
seems
to
be
in
contradiction
with
section
B
of
this
Notice
that
discusses
removing
the
tracking
mechanism
for
debris
that
exits
the
RCRA
program.
On
page
32862
of
this
Notice,
the
Agency
list
several
notifications
it
views
as
high
priority
and
will
keep.
40
CFR
Part
268.9
is
one
of
the
high
priority
notifications.
The
Agency
states
the
following
reason:
"
Maintaining
this
notice
and
supporting
information
is
important
because
once
the
waste
has
been
decharacterized
it
can
be
land
disposed
in
a
nonhazardous
landfill.
An
inspector
will
not
know
where
this
waste
was
sent
for
treatment
or
disposal
without
this
notice
because
the
receiving
facility
in
out
of
RCRA
jurisdiction.
Therefore,
this
information
is
critical
to
maintain
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
process."

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
191
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0029
p.
32865,
col.
1
­
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
requirement
in
40
CFR
268.9(
a)
for
generators
to
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
in
their
characteristic
hazardous
waste
should
be
eliminated.

The
comment
in
item
1,
above
applies
to
a
larger
number
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
than
listed
hazardous
wastes.
Furthermore,
in
the
case
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
that
fall
into
waste
code
subcategories
for
which
the
LDR
treatment
standard
involves
treatment
of
underlying
hazardous
constituents
(
UHCs),
an
additional
issue
arises.
UHCs
are
defined
by
40
CFR
268.2(
i)
as
being
any
constituent
listed
in
40
CFR
268.48,
Table
UTS
­
Universal
Treatment
Standards,
except
fluoride,
selenium,
sulfides,
vanadium,
and
zinc,
which
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
be
present
at
the
point
of
generation
of
the
hazardous
waste
at
a
concentration
above
the
concentration
above
the
constituent­
specific
UTS
level.
There
are
several
hundred
constituents
listed
on
Table
UTS.
DOE
believes
that
generators
are
in
a
better
position
to
evaluate
which
of
these
several
hundred
constituents
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
be
present
at
the
point
of
generation
that
are
treaters
and
disposers.
Therefore,
the
overall
burden
on
the
regulated
community
(
generators,
treatment
facilities
storage
facilities,
and
disposal
facilities)
should
be
less
if
generators
continue
to
be
responsible
for
determining
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
in
their
characteristic
hazardous
waste
for
the
entire
universe
of
possible
UHCs
verify
that
all
are
below
UTS
levels.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).

While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
192
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0155
The
existing
language
in
40
CFR
268.9(
a)
should
not
be
modified
unless
additional
language
is
added
to
the
regulations
which
clearly
indicates
it
is
the
generators
responsibility
to
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
as
defined
in
40
CFR
262.11.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0169
LDR
Special
Proposed
changes
for
Characteristic
Waste­
Submit
one­
time
notification:
Modify­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
role
preamble.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
193
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0184
We
support
this
proposed
change,
but
only
with
additional
modifications.
The
proposed
modifications
to
this
citation
will
increase
the
emphasis
on
complete
generator
waste
determinations
and
adequacy
of
facility
Waste
Analysis
Plans.
These
are
two
areas
that
might
not
have
received
adequate
scrutiny
in
the
past.
Some
TSDFs
do
not
obtain
a
detail
chemical
and
physical
analysis
of
generator
specific
waste,
but
rather
use
"
profiles"
that
are
significantly
more
generic
and
do
not
necessarily
confirm
the
identity
of
generator
specific
waste.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0203
Onyx
does
not
agree
with
EPA's
proposal
to
eliminate
the
40
CFR
268.9(
a)
determination
and
does
not
believe
that
it
is
a
duplicative
requirement.
The
requirement
to
determine
whether
a
hazardous
waste,
as
generated,
meets
the
LDR
treatment
standards
should
remain
with
the
generator
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
not
be
imposed
upon
the
TSDF
that
receives
the
waste
from
the
generator.
This
regulation
places
the
burden
of
determining
if
a
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal
on
the
appropriate
entity,
the
generator.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
194
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements
and
are
not
making
any
of
the
suggested
changes
to
the
readability
of
the
these
two
provisions.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement
and
urge
EPA
to
make
these
notices
more
available
to
all
states
and
the
public.
When
they
are
retrievable
by
activity
they
are
useful
for
workload
planning,
targeting
inspections,
creating
stakeholder
lists,
and
finding
wastes
in
commerce.

268.9(
d)­­
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes 
Submit
certification:
Modify 
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.

Document
#:
0029
3.
p.
32865,
col.
2
­
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
requirement
in
40
CFR
268.9(
d)
for
generators
and
treaters
to
send
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
State
a
notification
and
certification
that
a
characteristic
waste
has
been
treated
so
it
no
longer
exhibits
a
characteristic
should
be
eliminated.

DOE
would
support
eliminating
the
requirement
for
generators
and
treaters
to
submit
notifications
and
certifications
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
State
under
40
CFR
268.9(
d)
if
EPA
is
satisfied,
based
on
information
collected
so
far,
that
subtitle
D
treatment
and
disposal
companies
are
being
adequately
informed
in
situations
involving
decharacterized
wastes
that
still
require
treatment
of
UHC's
at
the
point
of
disposal
(
see
59
FR
47980,48016,
col.
3;
September
9,
1994).

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
195
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0157
Elimination
of
One­
Time
Notice
of
Decharacterized
Waste
Finally,
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
notification
requirement
of
40
CFR
268.9(
d).
ld.
at
2526.
Under
that
section,
once
a
characteristic
waste
is
treated
so
it
is
no
longer
characteristic,
a
related
one­
time
notification
and
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
generator's
files
and
sent
to
EPA.
We
agree
that
this
information,
once
sent
to
EPA,
is
not
routinely
used,
and
therefore
these
notifications
should
not
have
to
be
sent
to
EPA
if
they
are
kept
at
the
facility.
ld.
at
2528.

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0169
LDR
Special
Proposed
changes
for
Characteristic
Wastes­
Submit
certification:
Modify­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
change
preamble.
We
agree
with
this
proposal.

Response
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0184
This
is
the
only
regulatory
mechanism
for
notifying
the
department
of
shipments
of
decharacterized
wastes
prior
to
the
shipment.
Some
shipments
of
de­
characterized
wastes
are
controversial,
and
removing
this
requirement
eliminates
the
state's
ability
to
conduct
confirmation
sampling,
if
it
is
deemed
necessary.

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
196
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
the
elimination
of
this
requirement
and
urges
EPA
to
make
these
notices
more
available
to
all
states
and
the
public.
Whey
they
are
retrievable
by
activity
they
are
useful
for
workload
planning,
targeting
inspections,
creating
stakeholder
lists,
and
finding
wastes
in
commerce.

Response
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0218
268.9(
d).
­
Eliminate
submission
requirements.

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.

Document
#:
0224
CRWI
supports
the
proposed
change
to
eliminate
the
notification
step
for
wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic.
Instead
of
putting
the
one
time
notification
and
certification
in
the
operating
record
and
sending
it
to
the
region
or
the
state,
EPA
has
proposed
to
place
it
in
the
operating
record
(
268.9(
d)).
CRWI
supports
this
change
and
suggests
that
EPA
retain
this
in
the
final
rule.

Response:
Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
268.9(
d)
notification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
Other
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
this
submittal
requirement,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable,
especially
for
controversial
wastes.
The
Agency
continues
to
believe,
however,
that
these
notifications
are
not
routinely
reviewed
by
EPA
or
the
authorized
state,
and
is
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
these
notices
to
the
authorized
regulatory
agency.
197
268.9(
a)(
2)

Document
#:
0184
The
language
proposed
for
268.9(
a)(
2)
is
also
ambiguous,
stating,
"...
where
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic,
the
waste
will
carry
one
or
more
of
the
characteristic
waste
codes..."
This
appears
to
give
the
generator
the
option
of
identifying
only
one
characteristic
(
D001
or
D002),
and
ignoring
the
more
expensive
toxicity
determination
(
40
consultants),
if
they
choose
to
do
so.
It
would
be
advantageous
to
state,
"...
where
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic,
the
waste
will
carry
all
applicable
characteristic
waste
codes..."

Response:
Thank
you
for
the
suggestion
but
it
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

268.40
Document
#
0038
LDR
Notification:
Wastes
on
lines
11a
11b
11c
11d
require
treatment.

*
If
the
waste
is
to
be
treated
by
a
alternative
treatment
standard,
such
as
for
lab
packs
or
soils
or
debris,
the
generator
would
be
required
to
put
this
information
into
existing
box
15.
In
the
absence
of
information
in
box
15,
the
standards
in
40
CFR
268.40
would
have
to
be
met
by
the
TSDF.

*
Alternatively,
a
vertical
column
could
be
added
to
the
manifest
to
the
left
of
the
column
12.
The
title
of
the
column
could
be:
Additional
Treatment
Required.
In
association
with
each
line
item
on
the
manifest
(
11a,
11b,
etc),
the
generator
would
check
the
box
if
additional
treatment
was
required.
It
would
still
be
recommended
that
alternative
treatment
standards
be
presented
in
box
15.
Additionally,
the
EPA
may
need
to
add
elements
for
individual
state
hazardous
waste
codes,

Recommendation.
The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
make
appropriate
changes
in
the
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
form,
discussed
above,
to
provide
reductions
in
facility
reporting
burden
and
promote
a
single
manifest
acceptable
by
all
states,
territories,
and
the
federal
government.

References.
64
FR
32866
Response:
Changes
to
the
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
to
include
the
LDR
paperwork
requirements
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
regulation.

Document
#:
0165
Finally,
EPA
relies
on
268.40
which
is
the
general
prohibition
on
land
disposal
unless
the
waste
meets
treatment
standards.
EPA
argues
that
this
prohibition
requires
knowledge
of
waste
198
constituents,
67
Fed.
Reg.
2528
co..
2,
which
is
certainly
true,
but
it
begs
the
question
of
how
a
TSD
facility
is
supposed
to
obtain
that
knowledge.
Once
again,
268.40
is
predicated
upon
the
previous
steps
in
the
LDR
process
which
begins
with
the
generator
determination
required
by
268.7(
a)(
1).
The
critical
success
of
the
LDR
program
has
depended,
in
large
part,
on
generators
being
responsible
for
making
the
initial
determination
that
their
wastes
require
treatment,
including
the
presence
and
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
that
must
be
effectively
treated.
EPA
should
not
eliminate
such
a
key
element
of
the
regulatory
scheme.
EPA's
preamble
rationale
for
proposing
to
eliminate
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
6)
is
flawed
and
does
not
support
a
final
rule.

Response:
The
Agency's
goal
of
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements
is
being
met
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
clarifies
that
the
waste
characterization
and
analysis
requirements
of
262.11
and
268.7(
a)(
1)
can
be
performed
concurrently.
However,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
not
go
forward
with
the
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a).
While
several
commenters
supported
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis
requirements,
the
Agency
found
the
comments
of
those
opposed
to
the
deletion
to
be
most
persuasive.
These
commenters
pointed
out,
generally,
that
deleting
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
only
shift
the
waste
analysis
burden
from
the
generators
to
the
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
They
assert
that
if
the
TSDFs
were
forced
to
test
incoming
waste
because
the
generators
did
not
characterize
it,
the
analyses
would
be
more
expensive.
This
is
because
generators
often
use
their
knowledge
of
their
waste
to
identify
what
constituents
are
in
the
waste
and
at
what
levels,
and
that
information
would
not
be
available
to
the
TSDFs,
who
would
have
to
perform
waste
analysis.
In
addition,
if
generators
did
not
have
the
responsibility
for
waste
analysis
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions
program,
it
would
break
the
RCRA
cradle­
to­
grave
tracking
for
hazardous
wastes.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
persuaded
that
the
proposed
deletion
of
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
would
result
in
a
shift
or
an
increase
burden,
not
an
elimination
of
burden.
We
are,
therefore,
not
eliminating
these
requirements.

270.16(
a)
Part
B
Requirements
for
Tank
Systems 
Submit
written
assessment
of
structural
integrity:

Proposed
Action:
Modify 
in
addition
to
an
registered,
independent
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0213
Same
comment
as
264.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
iii)

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
modification
proposed.
Response:
In
today's
final
rule
we
are
requiring
this
assessment
be
done
by
a
qualified,
Professional
Engineer.
199
270.17(
d)
Part
B
Requirements
for
Surface
Impoundments 
Assessment
of
structural
integrity:

Proposed
Action:
Modify 
in
addition
to
a
registered,
independent
professional
engineer,
this
assessment
may
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.

Document
#:
0213
We
do
not
support
this
proposal.

Document
#:
0218
The
DEQ
OPPOSES
the
proposed
modification.
The
assessment
of
the
integrity
of
a
dike
or
similar
earthen
structure
is
a
process
that
can
only
be
performed
by
someone
highly
trained
and
experienced
in
civil
or
geotechnical
engineering
fields.
Generally,
the
professionals
most
technically
proficient
in
this
field
are
those
that
have
dedicated
a
substantial
portion
of
their
careers
to
this
area.
Allowing
individuals
without
engineering
credentials
to
perform
this
certification
would
result
in
a
decrease
in
safety
of
the
impoundments,
possibly
endangering
human
health
and
the
environment.

DEQ
would
also
note
that
the
language
of
264.226(
c)
specifically
requires
that
a
"
qualified
engineer"
perform
the
required
assessment,
and
EPA
has
not
proposed
any
changes
to
this
paragraph.

Response
to
Comments:
Although
changes
to
this
certification
were
not
proposed,
EPA
believes
they
are
a
logical
outgrowth
of
today's
changes
to
provide
consistency
to
the
certification
requirements,
i.
e.,
removing
the
term,
"
registered."
Therefore,
the
assessment
of
structural
integrity
must
be
made
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer.

Manifest
­
NODA
­

Document
#:
0004
EPA
does
not
at
this
time
invite
comment
on
burden
reduction
initiatives
concerning
the
Uniform
Manifest.
However,
in
the
discussion
about
electronic
submission,
this
docket
cites
several
burden­
reducing
initiatives
involving
the
Manifest.
We
cannot
resist
this
opportunity
to
voice
our
support
for
EPA's
Uniform
Manifest
reform
efforts
and
dismay
about
delays
that
have
hampered
the
rulemaking.
Despite
EPA's
rhetoric
about
the
priority
afforded
this
initiative,
we
are
concerned
about
the
Agency's
sporadic
commitment
of
resources.
We
strongly
recommend
that
EPA
commit
the
staff
and
resources
necessary
to
prevent
any
further
slippage
of
this
important
regulatory
and
burden
reducing
effort.

Response:
Although
this
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule,
the
Agency
appreciates
your
concern
about
promulgation
of
the
Uniform
Manifest
Rule.
On
March
200
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
this
final
rule
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0011
We
oppose
the
proposal
to
mandate
a
fully
automated
hazardous
waste
manifesting
system
at
this
time.
States
should
have
the
ability
to
require
paper
manifests.
Original
signatures
are
necessary
in
many
States
to
prove
liability
in
enforcement
cases.
Lack
of
original
signatures
has
negated
criminal
enforcement
actions
in
the
past.
Spending
resources
to
develop
electronic
data
entry
to
manifests
to
allow
automation
in
filling
out
the
manifest
would
be
advantageous.
Further
research
into
the
filing
of
electronic
manifests
is
encouraged,
but,
until
courts
are
willing
to
accept
electronic
signatures
as
valid,
legally
binding
signatures,
we
cannot
concur.

One
of
the
proposals
in
the
background
document
entitle
"
Draft
Burden
Reduction
Analysis"
includes
revising
the
manifest
form
to
reduce
the
variability
of
State
requirements.
This
would
adversely
affect
many
States,
and
is
also
opposed.
Many
States
base
their
fee
structures
on
the
hazardous
waste
manifests.
Without
the
State­
specific
information,
the
fee
systems
could
not
function
in
the
same
manner
and
costly
changes
would
be
required.
This
would
be
overly
burdensome
for
many
States.
This
section
of
the
manifest
should
not
be
altered.

The
concept
of
providing
manifesting
relief
to
utilities
is
encouraged.
However,
expanding
that
concept
to
target
exemptions
for
manifest
requirements
for
generators
shipping
recyclable
materials
(
as
indicated
in
the
"
Draft
Burden
Reduction
Analysis")
is
very
troublesome.
Since
we
have
so
many
cases
of
sham
recycling
and
mismanagement
of
wastes
which
were
designated
as
recyclable,
providing
an
exemption
for
recyclable
materials
would
undermine
the
basic
premise
of
the
RCRA
program
­
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Recyclable
materials
still
need
to
be
managed
appropriately.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0020
Modifying
the
manifest
form:
A
universal
form
would
limit
State
flexibility.
We
would
not
be
able
to
change
the
form
in
the
future
if
necessary.

The
Department
supports
the
ability
to
use
a
separate
tracking
form
for
Universal
Wastes.

We
do
not
agree
that
the
generator
can
pass
responsibility
of
signing
the
manifest
to
a
preparer.
The
generator
should
continue
to
sign
the
manifest
either
by
hand
or
electronically.
201
The
Department
favors
keeping
all
of
the
state
optional
boxes
on
the
manifest.
It
is
vitally
important
to
keep
Site
Address,
State
Transporter
ID,
Phone
number
of
Generator
and
Phone
number
of
Facility.
Problems
with
manifests
are
frequent
enough
that
one
person
in
the
enforcement
unit
spends
3/
4
of
his
time
troubleshooting
the
manifests.
One
very
common
problem
is
incorrect
ID
numbers.
EPA
should
not
assume
it
is
easy
to
find
a
phone
number
for
an
out
of
state
facility.
We
need
to
be
able
to
reach
generator
and
TSDF
easily
if
there
is
a
problem
with
their
manifest.
The
more
information
collected
on
the
manifest
that
satisfies
EPA's
BRS
requirements,
the
sooner
we
can
get
away
from
the
traditional
form
of
biennial
reporting
(
e.
g.
site
address,
mailing
address,
phone
number,
system
type
codes,
etc.)

Other
Technical
Concerns:
The
Department
supports
addressing
the
issues
of
rejected
loads
and
container
residues
as
we
continue
to
experience
problems
in
this
regard.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0022
It
would
be
unacceptable
to
reduce
or
eliminate
the
State
requirements
from
the
manifests.
States
have
required
information
that
is
important
to
track
the
waste.
EPA
should
not
use
this
to
help
with
its
burden
reduction
requirements.
It
is
also
unacceptable
to
exempt
transporters
from
signing
the
manifest.
The
transporters
are
an
important
part
of
tracking
the
waste
from
the
"
cradle
to
the
grave."
Enforcement
actions
have
been
taken
against
transporters
who
have
not
properly
signed
the
manifest.
If
transporters
are
not
requested
to
sign
the
manifest,
they
might
not
feel
as
much
of
the
responsibility
as
if
they
are
required
to
sign
them.
Reducing
the
burden
by
only
1%
is
not
worth
the
potential
problems.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0025
Currently
many
states
make
minor
modifications
to
customize
hazardous
waste
manifests.
The
changes
are
minor,
but
they
result
in
generators
having
to
maintain
multiple
manifest
forms
and,
for
automated
systems,
implement
stat­
specific
forms
and
reports.
All
of
these
differences
lead
to
higher
costs
with
no
identifiable
benefits.
Since
stats
have
the
authority
to
customize
manifests,
we
encourage
EPA
to
work
with
the
states
to
develop
a
truly
standardized
manifest.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
202
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0026
The
hazardous
waste
manifest
system
has
often
been
problematic
to
many
of
our
customers,
particularly
those
that
take
part
in
reclamation
activities.
These
include
on­
site
reclamation,
returns
to
our
manufacturing
facilities,
intra­
company
reclamation,
off­
site
reclamation
with
return,
and
third
party
reclamation.
The
bulk
of
the
hazardous
waste
from
photo
processing
facilities
is
precious
metal
recyclable
wastes,
that
are
subject
to
reduced
requirements
under
RCRA.
Aptly
so,
because
silver­
rich
solutions
contain
sufficient
amounts
of
silver
to
support
cost­
effective
silver­
recovery
by
large
and
small
photoimagers.
Companies
which
operate
in
multiple
states
need
different
manifests
and
have
to
follow
varying
state
procedures
for
the
same
wastes,
due
to
the
lack
of
uniformity
of
state
manifest
requirements.
Providing
a
targeted
exemption
from
manifest
requirements
would
greatly
reduce
the
administrative
burden
for
our
customers
who
have
to
manage
silver­
bearing
wastes
in
the
same
manner
as
hazardous
waste
disposal
problem.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0030
Same
comment
as
Document
#:
0025.

Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.

Document
#:
0038
Hazardous
waste
manifest
forms
should
be
modified
if
those
changes
can
achieve
real
reductions
in
the
reporting
burden
on
facilities.
Potential
changes
include
addition
of
EPA
waste
codes,
applicable
state
waste
codes,
and
LDR
treatment
notification.

The
DoD
supports
changes
to
the
manifest,
which
will
simplify
and
reduce
overall
reporting
burdens
on
our
installations.
We
encourage
the
EPA
to
consider
the
following
changes
but
to
implement
only
in
the
context
of
reducing
overall
reporting
burdens:
203
*
Provide
space
for
the
generator
to
complete
their
LDR
treatment
notification
requirements
for
each
waste
stream.
*
Make
the
EPA
waste
codes
mandatory.
*
Provide
space
for
optional
entry
of
a
state
waste
code.

The
DoD
believes
that
facilities
should
have
the
option
to
meet
their
LDR
notification
requirements
on
the
manifest
through
use
of
two
new
fields,
a
waste
code
field
and
a
field
to
indicate
whether
the
waste
meets
LDR
treatment
standards
or
not.
We
support
this
if
it
eliminates
the
separate
LDR
notification
requirements
of
268.7(
a).

The
DoD
finds
that
the
addition
of
the
waste
code
to
the
manifest
has
other
advantages,
which
can
reduce
reporting
burdens
on
the
regulated
community.
First,
the
addition
of
the
EPA
waste
code
and
the
applicable
state
waste
codes
could
enable
the
EPA
and
states
to
replace
Biennial
Report
System,
or
similar
state
systems,
through
the
data
collected
in
an
electronic
manifesting
system.

Lastly,
the
changes
discussed
above
should
make
the
manifest
more
acceptable
to
all
states,
territories,
and
the
Federal
government.
We
encourage
the
EPA
to
use
these
changes
as
a
starting
point
to
develop
a
manifest
that
would
be
used
nation­
wide.
This
could
lead
to
meaningful
burden
reduction.

*
Addition
to
the
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest.
Make
column
"
I",
the
waste
number,
a
numbered
mandatory
column.
Add
a
new
numbered
box
for
the
LDR
notification
in
the
area
currently
reserved
for
items
"
J",
"
K",
and
15.
For
example:

LDR
Notification:
Wastes
on
lines
11a
11b
11c
11d
require
treatment.

*
If
the
waste
is
to
be
treated
by
an
alternative
treatment
standard,
such
as
for
lab
packs
or
soils
or
debris,
the
generator
would
be
required
to
put
this
information
into
existing
box
15.
In
the
absence
of
information
in
box
15,
the
standards
in
40
CFR
268.40
would
have
to
be
met
by
the
TSDF.

*
Alternatively,
a
vertical
column
could
be
added
to
the
manifest
to
the
left
of
column
12.
The
title
of
the
column
could
be:
Additional
treatment
Required.
In
association
with
each
line
item
on
the
manifest
(
11a,
11b,
etc),
the
generator
would
check
the
box
if
additional
treatment
required.
It
would
still
be
recommended
that
alternative
treatment
standards
be
presented
in
box
15.
Additionally,
the
EPA
may
need
to
add
elements
for
individual
state
hazardous
waste
codes.

The
DoD
recommends
that
the
EPA
make
appropriate
changes
in
the
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
form,
discussed
above,
to
provide
reductions
in
facility
reporting
burden
and
promote
a
single
manifest
acceptable
by
all
states,
territories,
and
the
federal
government.
204
Response:
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
final
Burden
Reduction
rule.
On
March
4,
2005
(
70
FR
10775),
however,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
establishing
a
nationally
standardized
manifest
form.
We
estimate
this
new
form
will
significantly
change
the
paperwork
burden
to
states
and
industry,
resulting
in
a
savings
of
between
$
12
­
20
million
annually.