Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0031-0364
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-04T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM:

TO;
The
Record
FROM:
Elaine
Eby,
Environmental
Scientist
SUBJECT:
Emails
and
Materials
Developed
for
OMB
During
the
OMB
Review
Process:
August
2005­
Feb
28,2006.

Attached
to
this
document
are
the
emails
and
documents
developed
in
response
to
OMB's
questions
during
the
OMB
review
process.
Also
included
in
this
document
is
the
redline/
strikeout
document
that
compares
the
preamble
for
the
Burden
Reduction
rule
that
was
submitted
to
OMB
with
the
preamble
that
OMB
concurred
with.
2
David
S.
Nicholas
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
02/
23/
2006
10:
18
AM
­­­­­

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
06/
10/
2005
11:
55
AM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
Re:
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
Hi
Keith,

Yes­
it
is
true
that
the
amount
of
burden
to
be
reduced
in
the
final
rule
is
less
than
was
in
the
proposal.
I'm
getting
the
exact
amounts
in
a
few
hours
and
will
share
that
with
you
­
I
have
been
keeping
your
request
for
that
on
the
front
burner
from
when
I
asked
if
you'd
be
able
to
do
an
expedited
review
to
help
us
meet
a
Thompson
report
deadline.

It
was
pointed
out
to
me
this
morning
that
the
article
is
possibly
confusing
some
things.
It
described
the
broadening
of
who
could
be
certified
­

and
EPA's
goal
in
that
was
to
encourage
competition,
which
may,
as
a
secondary
benefit,
lower
some
costs
but
not
necessarily
reduce
burden.

Also,
the
proposed
certification
changes
that
we
are
not
promulgating
never
did
have
much
burden
reduction
savings,
some
fraction
of
$
3
million.
In
the
final
rule,
these
still
do
not
have
much
burden
reduction
savings.
Even
with
our
changes,
the
burden
reduction
effect
is
very,

very
small.
To
further
clarify,
in
the
proposal,
all
the
changes
proposed,
except
for
two
LDR
changes,
accounted
for
$
3
million
in
annual
savings.
In
our
final
rule,
we
have
$
5.5million
to
$
9
million
in
annual
savings
of
that
$
3.5million
­
7million
is
for
the
reduction
in
the
frequency
of
tank
inpsections
for
LQGs
and
SQG.
3
I
should
have
some
more
explanatory
info
about
the
burden
reduction
rule
and
how
it
has
evolved
soon
­
will
keep
you
apprised.

David
S.
Nicholas
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

06/
10/
2005
07:
57
AM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
So
is
it
fair
to
say
that
the
burden
of
the
draft
final
rule
is
much,
much
less
than
what
was
proposed?
(
see
article)

Thursday,
June
09,
2005
Click
here
for
the
InsideEPA.
com
Main
Page
4
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Rule
May
Omit
Contentious
Certification
Plan
EPA's
soon­
to­
be­
finalized
rule
aimed
at
reducing
paperwork
and
reporting
burdens
under
the
Resource
Conservation
&

Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
may
omit
a
contentious
proposal
that
would
have
broadened
the
type
of
environmental
professionals
who
could
certify
the
effectiveness
of
waste
treatment
units,
according
to
EPA
and
industry
sources.

While
an
official
with
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
declined
to
specify
whether
EPA
would
omit
the
provision
from
the
final
version
of
the
burden
reduction
rule,
the
source
says
the
provision
on
environmental
professionals
was
"
extremely
controversial"

and
drew
strong
concerns
from
state
environmental
agencies.

But
the
source
confirms
that
in
light
of
state
concerns,
the
agency
would
limit
its
proposal
to
reduce
inspection
requirements
for
some
tanks,
containers
and
containment
buildings
from
weekly
to,
at
a
minimum,
monthly
inspections.
Instead
of
permitting
such
inspections
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
EPA's
final
rule
will
only
reduce
inspection
frequency
for
facilities
participating
in
the
agency's
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
program.
This
program
provides
reduced
inspections
and
other
regulatory
flexibility
for
certain
high­
performing
facilities
that
use
environmental
management
systems
(
EMS)
and
go
"
beyond
compliance."

The
source
says
the
rule
is
currently
undergoing
internal
agency
review
before
being
sent
to
the
White
House
Office
of
Management
&
Budget
for
interagency
review.

The
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
is
part
of
an
ongoing
EPA
initiative
to
reduce
paperwork,
reporting
and
other
burdens
imposed
under
the
law,
which
regulates
hazardous
waste
storage,
disposal
and
treatment
facilities.
In
an
October
2003
Federal
Register
notice,
EPA
proposed
to
allow
so­
called
certified
hazardous
materials
managers
to
certify
whether
certain
hazardous
waste
treatment
units
were
designed
and
operated
effectively
in
lieu
of
only
allowing
what
the
notice
described
as
"
independent,

qualified
registered
professional"
engineers
to
issue
those
certifications.

The
organization
representing
the
certified
hazardous
materials
managers
asked
EPA,
in
comments
on
a
1999
notice
of
data
availability
on
the
RCRA
burden
reduction
initiative,
to
allow
them
to
issue
the
certifications.
Industry
groups
like
the
American
Chemistry
Council
also
supported
the
proposal,
with
some
saying
the
increased
competition
would
reduce
certification
costs.

But
states
were
sharply
opposed
to
the
plan,
with
the
Association
of
State
&
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
5
(
ASTSWMO)
saying
in
December
2003
comments,
"
There
is
no
reason
for
the
RCRA
program
to
attempt
to
create
an
alternative
strategy
to
allow
non­
engineers
to
certify
RCRA
documents."
ASTSWMO
also
says
allowing
a
non­
independent
engineer,
such
as
an
engineer
already
employed
by
a
regulated
facility,
would
create
a
conflict
of
interest.
ASTSWMO
represents
state
waste
regulators.
ASTSWMO
also
says
in
its
comments
that
the
proposal
does
not
meet
the
rule's
goal
of
reducing
RCRA
paperwork
burdens
because
"
allowing
someone
other
than
a
PE
[
professional
engineer]
to
perform
the
RCRA
certifications,
even
in
limited
situations,

does
not
reduce
the
time
spent
or
the
paperwork
involved.
Non­
PEs
would
have
to
review
the
exact
same
amount/
type
of
materials
as
that
of
a
PE,
thereby
not
reducing
the
time
spent
or
the
paperwork."

Meanwhile,
the
OSW
source
says
EPA
has
decided
to
limit
provisions
allowing
less
frequent
inspections
to
participants
in
the
agency's
performance
track
program,
in
light
of
state
concerns
that
their
workload
would
increase
dramatically
if
they
were
forced
to
decide
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
whether
certain
facilities
could
have
less
frequent
inspections.

States
had
also
suggested
that
the
flexibility
be
limited
to
performance
track
members
whose
EMSs
have
been
audited
by
the
state
or
where
independent,
third­
party
EMS
audits
have
been
approved
by
the
state.
According
to
ASTSWMO's
comments,
"
Several
studies
have
shown
that
there
are
variations
in
quality
in
the
third­
party
auditing
community,
and
that
a
third­
party
audit
of
an
EMS
does
not
in
all
cases
assure
the
facility
is
achieving
higher
levels
of
compliance."

As
a
result,
the
group
says,
"
It
is
recommended
that
this
incentive
be
only
provided
to
Performance
Track
members
that
have
received
a
state­
conducted
pre­
audit
or
a
third­
party
audit
that
has
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
state.
This
would
ensure
that
the
EMS
that
is
in
place
is
actually
assuring
a
higher
level
of
performance."

Date:
June
9,
2005
©
Inside
Washington
Publishers
6
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
06/
10/
2005
02:
34
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
JohnB
Chamberlin/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Sarah
Garman/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Gerain
Perry/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
Re:
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
Hi
Keith,

I'm
going
to
be
out
of
the
office
for
a
few
hours­
have
to
run
now­­
will
check
back
in
around
4:
30
via
email
from
home.
Here's
the
detail
on
our
burden
reduction
rule
­
a
chronology,
a
matrix
of
the
changes
­
and
some
context
about
burden
reduction
in
general
across
RCRA
­
let
me
know
if
you
have
Q's.

thanks
06.10.05
Burden
Reduction
Cost
Savings
Chronology
Federal
Register
Notices
7
June
18,
1999
(
64
FR
32859)
­
EPA
published
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
presenting
all
of
our
burden
reduction
ideas
for
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations.

January
17,
2002
(
67
FR
2518)
­
EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
identifying
approximately
one
third
of
the
334
RCRA
hazardous
waste
reporting
requirements
to
be
eliminated
or
modified.
This
comprised
only
a
subset
of
the
ideas
put
forth
in
our
1999
NODA.

October
29,
2003
(
68
FR
61662)
­
EPA
published
a
second
NODA
soliciting
comment
on
additional
burden
reduction
changes
to
the
RCRA
regulations
suggested
by
the
commenters
(
e.
g.,
reduced
self­
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
systems
for
small
quantity
generators,
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
members).
EPA
also
solicited
comment
on
some
other
actions
that
posed
possible
notice
and
comment
problems
if
promulgated.

December
2005
­
We
plan
to
finalize
our
Burden
Reduction
rule.
Our
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
currently
estimates
between
$
5.5
and
$
9
million
in
annual
savings
(
79,000
­
135,000
hours)
as
a
result
of
approximately
150
changes
to
the
RCRA
regulations.
The
majority
of
savings
($
3.5
million
to
$
7
million),
is
from
the
reduced
frequency
of
tank
systems
inspections
from
daily
to
weekly
for
large
quantity
generators
and
small
quantity
generators.

Evolution
of
the
Burden
Reduction
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Proposed
Rule:

The
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
for
the
proposed
rule
estimated
a
total
burden
reduction
of
$
120
million
(
assuming
all
actions
were
promulgated
as
proposed).

To
develop
this
Cost
Benefit
Analysis,
we
relied
in
part
on
the
information/
data
available
from
the
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICRs).

The
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
identified
8
ICRs
that
would
be
affected
by
our
proposed
changes,
including
the
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards
(
ICR
#
820.08)
and
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions(
LDR)
(
ICR
#
1442.18).

In
the
proposal,
we
solicited
comment
on
the
elimination
of
two
LDR
waste
analysis
requirements,
(
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)),
8
which
we
estimated
would
result
in
$
117
million
in
burden
reduction
savings.

We
suggested
that
other
requirements
provided
the
same
safeguards
as
these
two
LDR
determinations,
making
them
redundant.

We
reasoned
that
a
determination
of
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous
is
required
by
generators
under
§
262.11,
which
says
that
generators
of
solid
waste
must
determine
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous
through
analysis
or
process
knowledge.
Also
§
264.13.
requires
treatment,

storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs)
to
perform
a
general
waste
analysis
to
determine
"
all
of
the
information
which
must
be
known
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
the
waste
in
accordance
with
this
Part
and
Part
268
of
this
chapter
"(
emphasis
added).

We
concluded
that
these
two
determinations
were
sufficient
to
assure
that
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
LDRs.

The
Cost
Benefit
Analysis,
therefore,
made
the
assumption
that
generators
would
make
their
hazardous
waste
determination
(
§
262.11)

and
their
LDR
determinations
(
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a))
separately,
incurring
burden
for
each
determination.

Using
this
assumption,
coupled
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a),
we
calculated
an
estimated
$
117
million
in
burden
reduction
savings
(
out
of
the
total
$
120
million
proposed).

Comments
on
the
Proposed
Rule:

Commenters
pointed
out
that
the
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)
generator
waste
analysis
determinations
if
eliminated
would
create
similar
or
greater
burdens
for
TSDFs,
who
rely
on
these
generator
analyses.

Similarly,
we
could
not
eliminate
the
§
262.11
waste
analysis
determination,
which
requires
the
generator
to
determine
whether
their
waste
is
hazardous.

Therefore,
we
are
leaving
both
requirements
in
place,
but
are
clarifying
in
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)
that
the
LDR
waste
analysis
determinations
(
which
would
normally
also
satisfy
the
§
262.11
waste
analysis
requirement)
may
be
done
simultaneously
with
the
§
262.11
waste
analysis
determination.
9
However,
many
generators
already
perform
these
determinations
simultaneously,
and
therefore
avoid
duplicative
waste
analyses.

The
Generator
ICR
(#
820.08)
confirms
that
simultaneous
determinations
are
currently
being
done.
10
Final
Rule:

In
the
final
rule,
instead
of
eliminating
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)
as
we
proposed,
we
are
adding
cross
references
to
the
regulatory
language
in
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)
to
§
262.11,
in
order
to
clarify
in
the
regulations
that
these
two
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently.

Comments
to
the
proposal
pointed
out
that
we
could
not
eliminate
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)
without
creating
a
similar
level
of
burden
for
treatment
facilities
receiving
the
wastes.

This
change
is
consistent
with
comments
received
on
the
proposal,
our
understanding
of
current
industry
practices,
and
our
ICRs.
The
cross­
references
will
prevent
enforcement
issues
being
raised
with
the
current
practice,
(
i.
e.,
concurrent
determinations.)

The
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
for
the
draft
rule,
now
reflects
the
actual
practice
of
the
industry,
i.
e.,
that
generators
normally
make
a
single
request
to
a
laboratory
to
determine
if
their
waste
is
both
hazardous
(
§
262.11)
and
if
the
waste
has
to
be
treated
before
land
disposal
(
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
§
268.9(
a)).
This
results
in
$
117
million
in
relief
being
subtracted
from
our
proposed
Cost
Benefit
Analysis,
because
the
original
analysis
took
credit
for
reducing
a
burden
that
to
a
large
extent
did
not
really
exist.

The
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
now
estimates
a
burden
reduction
savings
of
between
$
5.5
million
and
$
9
million.
Of
this
total
savings,

we
estimate
$
3.5
million
to
$
7.0
million
is
attributed
to
the
reduced
tank
inspection
frequency
for
generators
of
hazardous
waste
(
both
LQG
and
SQGs).

06.10.05
OSW
Burden
Reduction
Activities
The
OSW
Burden
Reduction
rule
is
nearing
final
agency
review
and
is
one
of
several
burden
reduction
action
activities.

In
2005,
we
published
the
Uniform
Manifest
final
rule,
which
is
estimated
will
reduce
burden
by
345,057
hours
per
year
at
a
cost
savings
of
between
$
12
and
$
20
million
annually.

In
2005,
we
plan
to
publish
the
Standardized
Permit
final
rule,
which
would
be
available
to
facilities
that
generate
hazardous
waste
11
and
routinely
manage
the
waste
on­
site
in
non­
thermal
units
such
as
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings.
This
final
rule
could
result
in
an
annual
permitting
process
paperwork
burden
hour
savings
of
between
46,900
to
57,100
hours
per
year
and
an
annual
cost
savings
to
industry
and
permitting
authorities
of
between
$
6.5
and
$
12.3
million.

In
2005,
we
also
plan
to
publish
the
Burden
Reduction
final
rule,
that
will
result
in
approximately
149
changes
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations.
We
estimate
that
this
final
rule
will
result
in
a
total
annual
burden
reduction
of
between
79,000
to
135,000
hours,
for
a
cost
savings
of
between
$
5.5
and
$
9
million
annually.

Note:
These
activities
compare
to
other
burden
reduction
efforts
being
undertaken
outside
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
for
example,
the
TRI
program
is
amending
their
reporting
requirements
and
estimates
an
annual
burden
reduction
of
between
340,000
and
500,000
hours
per
year.
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
10/
06/
2005
02:
10
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
Re:
rcra
burden
reduction
Hi
Keith,

Getting
back
to
you
on
what's
been
excluded
from
the
final
rule
and
NODA.
Here's
a
table
that
racks
this
up
­
it
would
be
ideal
to
look
at
this
in
conjunction
with
reading
the
preamble
­
hopefully
that
will
clarify
things.
1
We
solicited
comment
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
of
requiring
this
information
to
be
maintained
for
three
years
instead
of
until
closure
of
the
facility,
(
one
commenter
suggested
this
possible
change).
We
were
convinced
by
additional
comments
to
the
NODA
of
the
utility
of
this
information
and
are
not
making
this
change.

12
The
shaded
rows
are
the
actual
CFR
cites,
the
unshaded
(
white)
rows
are
headers
to
identify
what
areas
of
the
CFR
the
regs
are
in.
There
were
only
three
changes
that
we
discusssed
in
the
NODA
that
we
did
not
go
final
with,
these
are
footnoted.
If
you
have
any
questions
please
let
me
know
or
if
you'd
like
us
to
walk
through
anything
with
you.
REGULATORY
CHANGES
(
PROPOSED
JANUARY
17,
2002
OR
IN
THE
OCTOBER
29,
2003
NODA
)

THAT
ARE
NOT
BEING
FINALIZED
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
261.38
Lists
of
Hazardous
Wastes.
Comparable/
syngas
fuel
exclusion.

261.38(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
Submit
a
one­
time
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice
to
the
permitting
agency.

264/
5.16
General
Facility
Standards.
Personnel
training.

264/
5.16(
d)(
1)

264/
5.16(
d)(
2)

264/
5.16(
d)(
3)
Record
the
job
title.

Record
job
description
.

Record
type
and
amount
of
training
employees
will
be
provided.

264/
5.73
Operating
Record
264/
5.73(
b)(
8)
1
All
closure
and
post­
closure
cost
estimates
264.90
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Applicability.

264.90(
a)(
2)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
264.101
with
exceptions
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
land
treatment
unit,
or
landfills.

264/
5.98
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Detection
monitoring
program.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
13
264.98(
c)
Conduct
and
maintain
ground
water
monitoring
264.98(
g)(
1)

264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)

264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)­(
ii)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
contamination.

Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration.

264.99
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Compliance
monitoring
program.

264.99(
h)(
1);

264.99(
i)(
1)­(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
.

264/
5.174
Use
and
Management
of
Containers.
Inspections.

264/
5.174
Inspect
containers
weekly.

264/
5.193
Tank
Systems.
Leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

264.193(
c)(
3)

264.193
(
c)(
4)

264/
5.193(
e)(
3)(
iii)

264/
5.193(
g)

264/
5.193(
h)
Demonstration.
Demonstration.

Demonstrate
to
EPA
that
technology
and
site
conditions
do
not
allow
detection
of
release
within
24
hours
.

Variance
from
leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

Variance
from
leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

264.196
Tank
Systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
to
use
tank
systems.

264.196(
d)(
1)

264.196(
d)(
2)

264.196(
d)(
3)
Notify
EPA
of
release.

Notify
EPA
of
release.

Submit
report
describing
release.

264/
5.223
Surface
Impoundments.
Response
actions.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
14
264/
5.223(
b)(
1)

264/
5.223(
b)(
2)

264/
5.223(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
Action
Leakage
Rate
for
any
sump
within
7
days.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.253
Waste
Piles.
Response
actions.

264.253(
b)(
1)

264.253(
b)(
2)

264.253(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedence
within
7
days
of
the
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determining
leakage.

Compile
and
submit
information
to
the
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.278
Land
Treatment.
Unsaturated
zone
monitoring.

264.278(
g)(
1)

264.278(
h)(
1)­(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
that
other
sources
or
error
led
to
increases
below
treatment
zone.

264.304
Landfills.
Response
actions.

264.304(
b)(
1)

264.304(
b)(
2)

264.304(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
if
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.573
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
operating
standards.

264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)

264.573(
m)(
2)

264.573(
m)(
3)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
release.

Regional
Administrator
will
make
a
determination
and
will
notify
owner/
operator
of
the
determination.

Notify
EPA
and
certify
completion
of
repairs.

264.1036
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Process
Vents.
Reporting
requirements.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
15
264.1036(
a)
Notify
EPA
semi­
annually
of
exceedences.

264.1065
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Reporting
requirements.

264.1065(
a)
Notify
EPA
semi­
annually
of
exceedences.

264/
5.1101
Containment
Buildings.
Design
and
operating
standards.

265.1101(
c)(
2)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)­(
iii)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
4)
Certify
by
qualified
registered
professional
engineer.

Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
release.

Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release.

Inspection
frequency.

265.1(
b)
Purpose,
scope,
and
applicability.

265.93
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.
Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.

265.93(
c)(
1)

265.93(
d)(
1)

265.93(
e)

265.93(
f)
Notify
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations.

Notify
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations.

Any
ground­
water
assessment
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
4)
which
is
initiated
prior
to
final
closure
must
be
completed
and
reported
in
accordance
with
§
265.93(
d)(
5).

Evaluate
data
and
if
§
265.91(
a)
are
not
satisfied,
immediately
modify
the
number,
location,
or
depth
of
the
monitoring
wells.

265.94
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.
Recordkeeping
and
reporting.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)

265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)

265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)

265.94(
b)(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
ground
water
quality
assessment
program.

265.259
Waste
Piles.
Response
actions.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
2After
publication
of
the
October
29,
2003
NODA,
(
See
68
FR
61662),
EPA
determined
that
the
certification
required
by
Section
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
the
rulemaking,
obviously
because
the
date
has
passed.
16
265.259(
b)(
1)

265.259(
b)(
2)

265.259(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedence
amount
of
the
leakage.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

265.276
Land
Treatment.
Food­
chain
crops.

265.276(
a)
Submit
notification
for
food­
chain
crops
at
land
treatment
facility.

265.303
Landfills.
Response
actions.

265.303(
b)(
1)

265.303(
b)(
2)

265.303(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
if
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

265.443
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
operating
requirements.

265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv)(
2)

265.443(
m)(
2)

265.443(
m)(
3)
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup.

Regional
Administrator
will
make
a
determination
and
notify
the
owner/
operator
of
the
determination.

Notify
Regional
Administrator
and
certify
completion
of
repairs.

266.103
Hazardous
Waste
Burned
in
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces.
Interim
status
standards
for
burners.

266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
Certification
of
pre­
compliance.

266.111(
e)(
2)
2
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
Direct
transfer
equipment
­
requirements
prior
to
meeting
secondary
containment
requirements.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
3In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA,
we
suggested
eliminating
the
form
change
FR
notice
that
is
required
by
266.203(
c)
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.

17
266.203
Standard
applicable
to
the
transportation
of
solid
waste
military
munitions.

266.203(
c)
3
Amendments
to
DOD
shipping
controls.

268.7
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
General.
Testing,
tracking,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators,
treaters,

and
disposal
facilities.

268.7(
a)(
6)
Requirement
to
keep
in
the
facility's
files
all
supporting
data
and
waste
analysis
data
for
"
knowledge
of
the
waste"

determinations
and
for
testing
determinations.

268.7(
d)(
1)
Requirement
to
submit
to
the
regulatory
authority
one­
time
notifications
that
hazardous
debris
is
excluded
form
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.

270.17(
d)
Permit
Application.
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
surface
impoundments
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
10/
13/
2005
10:
19
AM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
Fw:
document2
BRFR0.
wpd
­
BR
final
rule
Volume
I
of
RTC
Hi
Keith,
18
I
have
to
send
this
info
to
you
in
separate
emails
(
I'm
working
offsite
this
week)
­
there
are
2
more
to
follow.
Please
let
me
know
if
you
have
additional
questions.
Thanks.

David
S.
Nicholas
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
NOTE:
THIS
IS
VOLUME
I
OF
THE
COMMENT
RESPONSE
DOCUMENT
THAT
IS
AVAILABLE
ELSEWHERE
IN
THE
DOCKET
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
10/
20/
2005
04:
54
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

Subject
Re:
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Rule
Hi
Keith
and
Kevin,

I
have
some
answers
to
the
second
question
of
your
original
message.
Take
a
look
at
the
attached
chart,
which
is
excerpted
from
the
following
document,
"
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
­
Revised
Draft
Cost­
Benefit
Analysis,
January
29,
2001.
The
shaded
rows
are
the
proposed
actions
that
we
are
not
finalizing,
i.
e.,
we
are
retaining
the
requirements
in
the
CFR.

In
the
third
column
are
the
assumptions
we
made
on
burden
reduction.
These
assumptions
apply
on
a
per
facility
basis
and
as
such
do
not
give
you
the
cumulative
savings
number.
These
numbers
however
can
be
put
together
if
need
be
or
can
be
found
in
the
above
referenced
document.

Hopefully
this
helps
­
if
you
need
more
on
this,
please
call.
4The
shaded
boxes
are
the
proposed
burden
reduction
changes
that
we
are
not
finalizing.
This
table
adds
information
to
the
table
requested
by
OMB
regarding
the
regulatory
action
that
are
not
being
finalized.
If
the
change
was
mentioned
in
the
NODA
(
October
29,2003)
there
was
no
cost
benefit
analysis
done.
The
burden
hours
reduced
(
found
in
column
3)
are
by
facility.
The
total
savings
are
not
reflected
in
this
table.
19
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden4
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
ICR
#
959.10
­
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
and
maintain
groundwater
monitoring
Modify
­
We
plan
to
introduce
flexibility
by
allowing
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents.
264.98(
c)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
records
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
the
notification
of
contamination
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
eliminating
this
requirement
(
but
not
proposing
this
in
the
rule).
The
owner/
operator
must
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
(
required
by
regulation)
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
establishes
a
compliance
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
264.98(
g)(
1)
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action,
if
required
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,040,000
to
$
1,039,952.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
&
(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
90,006
to
$
89,994.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
20
Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations
Modify
­
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
will
be
made
on
a
caseby
case
basis.
264.99(
g)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
notifications
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
reduction
was
taken.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
will
be
included
as
part
of
a
permit
modification
that
must
be
submitted
under
264.99(
h)(
2).
264.99(
h)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
69.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
93
to
$
0.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement,
since
Regional
Administrator
will
get
information
through
the
264.99(
i)(
3)
permit
modification.
264.99(
i)(
1),
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
231.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
135,009
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
onsite.
265.90(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
report
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
onsite
265.90(
d)(
3)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
22.50
to
11.25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
44,140
to
$
44,125.

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.
265.93
(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
40
to
20.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
7,500
to
$
7,470.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
information
for
ground­
water
quality
assessment
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
information,
it
may
be
maintained
onsite.
265.93(
d)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
50
to
25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
40,000
to
$
39,970.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
21
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Develop
and
submit
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report.
265.93(
d)(
5)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
400,000
to
$
399,970.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
program
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
b)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

Hours
decreased
from
2,036
to
1,018.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,781,500
to
$
1,779,973.

ICR
#
1189.06
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
Variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
­
survey
industry­
wide
practices
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
Agency
does
not
need
this
information
to
grant
a
variance.
260.31(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
100
to
0.

Submit
report
estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
is
provided
to
the
regulatory
agency
at
a
later
date,
and
these
estimates
are
not
necessarily
accurate.
261.4(
f)(
9)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
16
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
10
to
$
0.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
22
ICR
#
1189.07
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
LDR
Phase
IV)

Exclusion
­
Submit
one­
time
notification
for
recycled
wood­
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood­
preserving
solutions
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
requirement
has
limited
use
for
regulators.
This
proposed
change
does
not
affect
the
protective
regulatory
requirements.
261.4(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
E)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
860
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
579
to
$
0.

Exclusion
­
Submit
notification
for
recycled
mineral
processing
secondary
materials
and
update,
if
necessary
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
notification
has
limited
use
for
regulators.
261.4(
a)(
17)(
v)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
93
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
177
to
$
0.

ICR
#
1361.07
­
Incinerators,
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
Exclusion
­
Generator
submit
a
one­
time
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice
to
the
permitting
agency
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
subsequent
public
notice
requirements,
and
the
regulatory
requirements
for
burning,
blending,

generation,
sampling,
etc.
261.38(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
25.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
51
to
$
0.

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.
266.102(
e)(
10)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
­
Evaluation
of
data
and
making
determinations
Modify
­
evaluation
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
evaluation.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
23
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
(
Interim
Status)
­
Periodic
recertifications
of
compliance
Modify
­
extend
period
of
time
from
three
to
five
years,
which
is
sufficient
for
regulatory
purposes.
266.103(
d)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
recertifications
are
done
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
583
to
291.5.

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.
266.103(
k)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Direct
Transfer
Equipment
­
Assessment
of
equipment
Modify
­
assessment
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
266.111(
e)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
assessment.

ICR
#
1442.17
­
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
LDR
Generator
Requirements
­
Generator
waste
determination
Eliminate
­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
6)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
854,631
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
71,170,020
to
$
0.

LDR
Treatment
Facility
Requirements
­
Submit
a
recycling
notice
and
certification
to
EPA
Modify
­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
b)(
6)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
1,451
to
725.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1161
to
$
0.

LDR
Hazardous
Debris
Requirements
­
Submit
notification
of
claim
that
debris
is
excluded
from
definition
of
hazardous
waste
Modify
­
notification
remains
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.7(
d)(
1)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­
Submit
one­
time
notification
Modify
­
a
separate
determination
is
unnecessary.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.9(
a)
The
ICR
did
not
burden
this
requirement
individually
but
included
it
in
268.7(
a)(
1).
The
burden
reduction
is
included
in
the
elimination
of
268.7(
a)(
1).
This
requirement
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
24
LDR
Special
Rules
for
Characteristic
Wastes
­
Submit
certification
Modify
­
keep
information
on­
site.
See
discussion
in
proposed
rule
preamble.
268.9(
d)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
581
to
290.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
232.20
to
$
0.

ICR
#
1571.06
­
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
Personnel
training
requirements
­
training
program
Eliminate
the
RCRA
requirements
and
have
facilities
follow
OSHA
standards.
264.16(
a)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
new
standards
will
not
change
the
paperwork
burden
found
in
264.16(
d).

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
job
title
Eliminate
­
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.
264.16(
d)(
1)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
job
description
Eliminate
­
the
job
description
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.
264.16(
d)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
training
requirements
­
record
type
and
amount
of
training
that
will
be
provided
Eliminate
­
this
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
264.16(
d)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Contingency
Plan
­
Coordination
with
other
plans
Modify
­
Plan
should
be
based
on
the
"
One
Plan"
guidance,
which
will
eliminate
the
need
to
prepare
multiple
contingency
plans
for
Agency
requirements.
264.52(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.

Operating
record
­
Maintain
operating
record
for
facility
Modify
amount
of
time
some
of
the
information
in
operating
record
has
to
be
kept
­
three
years
for
some
requirements,
and
for
the
life
of
the
facility
for
others.
264.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
25
Standards
for
Solid
Waste
Management
Units
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.90(
a)(
2)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Certification
of
Closure
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
(
but
not
proposing)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
performing
this
certification.
264.115
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Certification
of
Completion
of
Post­
Closure
Care
Modify
­
certification
can
be
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.120
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
certification.

Purpose,
Scope,
and
Applicability
Clarify
language.
265.1(
b)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Personnel
Training
­
Emergency
response
Eliminate
and
have
facilities
follow
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
requirements.
265.16(
a)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
new
standards
will
not
change
the
paperwork
burden
found
in
265.16(
d).
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
This
requirement
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Personnel
Training
­
Record
job
titles
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
­
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.
265.16(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

Personnel
Training
­
Description
of
type
and
amount
of
training
each
employee
will
receive.

Eliminate
­
this
isn't
necessarily
a
good
indicator
of
whether
an
employee
is
capable
of
doing
the
job
safely.
265.16(
d)(
3)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
other
pertinent
information
is
still
required.

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.
265.52(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
One
Plan
guidance
will
not
affect
the
burden
for
writing
the
contingency
plan.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
26
Emergency
Procedures
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
265.56(
h)
before
resuming
operations
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement,
duplicating
the
information
required
by
265.56(
j).
265.56(
i)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Reduction
taken
as
part
of
264.56(
i)
because
the
burden
was
not
separated.

Operating
Record
Keep
operating
record
for
facility
Modify
the
amount
of
time
some
records
have
to
be
kept
­
three
years
for
some
requirements,
and
for
the
life
of
the
facility
for
others.
265.73(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
record
retention.

Certification
of
completion
of
Post­
Closure
care
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.120
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
respondents
will
not
have
a
decreased
burden
for
the
certification.

ICR
#
1572.05
­
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Process
and
Types
Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
Modify
­
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually,
instead
of
semiannually
264.113(
e)(
5)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
report
is
now
annual.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
Allow
inspection
frequency
to
be
changed,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.174
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.
In
addition,
the
ICR
does
not
specifically
identify
this
requirement.

Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.191(
a),(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
the
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Assessment
of
new
tank
system
and
components
Modify
­
assessment
does
not
need
to
be
submitted,
and
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.192(
a)
See
Part
B
Permits
­
ICR
#
1573,
40
CFR
270.16.
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
burden
is
listed
under
270.16(
a),
which
still
requires
this
activity.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
27
Inspection
of
new
tank
system
and
components
Modify
­
inspection
does
not
need
to
be
submitted,
and
can
be
made
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.192(
b)
See
Part
B
Permits
­
ICR
#
1573,
40
CFR
270.16.
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
burden
is
listed
under
270.16,

which
still
requires
this
activity.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Inspection
frequency
Change
frequency
to
weekly,
with
further
frequency
reductions
possible
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.195(
b)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
the
inspections
are
performed
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
65,032.5
to
32,516.25.
No
further
burden
reduction
taken
for
any
case
by
case
frequency
changes.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
submit
report
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
Other
parts
of
264.196
establish
regulatory
requirements
to
ensure
that
the
spill
is
contained.
There
is
no
need
for
notification
of
EPA
to
occur.
264.196(
d)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
168
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
672
to
$
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
report
describing
release
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
As
long
as
release
is
cleaned
up
according
to
the
264.196
requirements,
the
report
is
of
little
importance.
264.196(
d)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
2,128
to
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Does
not
need
to
be
submitted;
only
maintained
on­
site.
264.196(
f)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit.
Hours
decreased
from
1
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
6
to
$
0.
Certifications
performed
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
are
not
associated
with
any
burden
reduction.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
action
leakage
rate
(
ALR)
for
any
sumps
within
7
days
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
0.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
4.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
28
Surface
Impoundments
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.223(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
12
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Waste
Piles
­
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.251(
c)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedance
amount
of
the
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Waste
Piles
(
Permitted)
­
Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
action
is
taken
to
stop
leaks.
264.253(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
264.278(
g)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
29
Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notice
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
that
other
sources
or
error
led
to
increases
below
treatment
zone
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
this
information
will
be
in
the
permit
modification
that
has
to
be
submitted
if
this
event
happens.
264.278(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Treatment
(
Permitted)
­
Certification
of
closure.

EPA
is
taking
comment
on
(
but
not
proposing)
whether
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
is
capable
of
doing
this
certification.
264.280(
b)
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
0.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
4.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
3
to
$
0.

Land
Fills
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
the
procedures
in
the
response
action
plan
are
followed.
264.304(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
12
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Special
Requirements
for
Bulk
and
Containerized
Liquids
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.314(
a),
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2),
(
b)
&
(
f)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Incinerators
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
F027
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
this
waste,
and
since
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.
264.343(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
30
Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
written
plan,
as­
built
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
Modify
­
activities
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.571(
a),
(
b),
(
c)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
although
submittal
is
no
longer
required,
the
plan,
drawings,
and
assessment
must
still
be
obtained
and
now
maintained
on
site.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Maintain
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad
that
has
been
reviewed
by
certified
engineers
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.573(
a)(
4)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Evaluate
drip
pads
Modify
­
evaluation
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.573(
g)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
evaluation
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
response
actions
described
in
(
m)(
1)(
i)­(
iii)
are
taken.
264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
EPA
makes
determination
about
removal
of
pad
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
are
made.
264.573(
m)(
2)
This
burden
is
for
Agency
activities
only;
therefore,
there
is
no
burden
reduction
for
respondents.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
and
certify
completion
of
repairs
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
a
certification
is
obtained.
264.573(
m)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
and
notification
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Permitted)
­
Inspections
Modify
­
inspection
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.574(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
inspection
must
still
be
done.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
31
Process
Vents
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
of
control
device
monitoring
events
to
the
Region
Eliminate
need
to
submit
report­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
detailed
recordkeeping
required
by
264.1035.
264.1036
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
1,056
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
192
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
given
the
performance
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
this
option
is
chosen.
264.1061(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
564
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
846
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
discontinue
alternative
valve
standard
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
there
are
standards
that
must
be
followed
if
the
regular
standards
are
going
to
be
followed.
264.1061(
d)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
6
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
reporting
requirement
as
long
as
standards
are
followed.
264.1062(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
140
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
210
to
$
0.

Equipment
Leaks
(
Permitted)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
report
with
record
of
equipment,
shutdowns,
and
control
device
monitoring
events
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
264.1064
recordkeeping
requirements
will
provide
adequate
information.
264.1065
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
7,818.5
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
2,469
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Applicability
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
requirements
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
264.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
certification
must
still
be
obtained.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
32
Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
of
condition
that
has
caused
a
release
and
provide
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
since
repair
of
containment
building
must
occur
anyway.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
6.25
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
30
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
EPA
does
not
get
involved
in
similar
decisions
about
whether
other
parts
of
a
facility
need
to
be
removed
from
service.
264.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
3.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
15
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Permitted)
­
Inspection
frequency
Allow
reduced
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.1101(
c)(
4)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

Closure
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Submit
semi­
annual
corrective
action
report
Modify
­
report
only
needs
to
be
submitted
annually,
instead
of
semiannually
265.113(
e)(
5)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
report
is
now
annual.

No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containers
­
Inspection
frequency
Modify­
allow
regulators
to
modify
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
wellperforming
facilities
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
265.174
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.
In
addition,
the
ICR
does
not
specifically
identify
this
requirement.

Assessment
of
Existing
Tank
System's
Integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
assessment
of
structural
integrity
and
acceptability
for
storing
and
treating
waste
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.192(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
33
Design
and
Installation
of
New
Tank
Systems
or
Components
­
assessment
of
tank
installation
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.192
(
b)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Containment
and
detection
of
releases
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.193(
a),(
a)(
1)­(
5)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Leak
detection
system
Modify
­
Eliminate
need
for
demonstrations.
The
owner
or
operator
can
make
the
determination
as
to
what
is
the
earliest
practicable
time.
265.193(
e)(
3)(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
to
obtain
variance.
Owner
or
operator
can
implement
alternate
design
and
operating
practices
as
long
as
they
follow
the
requirements
of
this
section.
265.193(
g)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Inspection
frequency
Change
frequency
to
weekly.
265.195(
a)
Burden
hours
reduced
by
50%
because
the
inspections
are
performed
less
frequently.
Hours
decreased
from
9,353
to
4,676.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
Eliminate
­
existing
requirements
for
cleanup
are
adequately
protective;

notification
is
unnecessary.
265.196(
d)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
24
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
96
to
$
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
report
describing
releases
Eliminate
­
the
required
certification
is
adequate.
265.196(
d)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
304
to
0.

Tank
Systems
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs
Modify
­
certification
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
Does
not
need
to
be
submitted;
only
maintained
on­
site.
265.196(
f)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit.
Hours
decreased
from
8
to
0.

Surface
Impoundments
(
Interim
Status)
­
Design
and
operating
requirements
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.221(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
34
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.
It
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.223(
a)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit
the
plan.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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
facility
still
has
to
address
the
leakage.
265.223(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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.
265.223(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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
onsite.
265.223(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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.
265.259(
a)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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.
265.259(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.259(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
35
Waste
Piles
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.259(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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.
265.276(
a)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Installation
of
landfill
liners
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.301(
a)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
the
Response
Action
Plan
(
RAP)
to
EPA
Modify
­
Eliminate
requirement
to
submit
plan.
Developing
a
plan,
keeping
it
onsite,
and
implementing
it
when
necessary
is
sufficient.
265.303(
a)
Eliminated
requirement
to
submit
plan.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
if
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
Response
Action
Plan
is
followed.
265.303(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

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
Response
Plan
is
followed.
265.303(
b)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Land
Fills
(
Interim
Status)
­
Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
(
ALR)
is
exceeded
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
remediation
takes
place.
265.303(
b)(
6)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids
Remove
obsolete
language.
265.314(
a),
(
a)(
1),

(
a)(
2),
(
b)
and
(
g)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
36
Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Assessment
of
Drip
pad,
Submit
written
plan,

asbuilt
drawings,
and
certification
for
upgrading,
repairing
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.441(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Assessment
of
Drip
Pad
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.443(
a)(
4)(
ii),
(
g)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

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
takes
place.
265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv),
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
Regional
Administrator
and
certify
completion
of
repairs
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
and
repairs
are
made.
265.443(
m)(
3)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
and
notification
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Drip
Pads
(
Interim
Status)
­
Inspections
Modify
­
inspection
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.444(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
inspection
must
still
be
done.

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.
265.1061(
b)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
44
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
66
to
$
0.

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.
265.1061(
d)
Eliminated
requirement.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
37
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.
265.1062(
a)(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
10
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
15
to
$
0.

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.
265.1100
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Obtain
certification
that
building
meets
design
requirements
Modify
­
certification
can
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
265.1101(
c)(
2)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
certification
must
still
be
obtained.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
3.75
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
18
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
(
Interim
Status)
­
Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement
as
long
as
cleanup
takes
place.
265.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
2.25
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Containment
Buildings
­
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.
265.1101(
c)(
4)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
decrease
by
different
amounts
depending
on
how
often
an
inspection
is
required.
Therefore,

no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

ICR
#
1573.06
­
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Modifications,
and
Special
Permits
Containment
and
detection
of
releases
Remove
obsolete
language.
264.193(
a),(
a)(
1)­(
5)
There
is
no
effect
on
the
ICR.

Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
for
demonstrations.
The
owner
or
operator
can
make
the
determination
as
to
what
is
the
earliest
practical
time.
264.193(
c)(
3),
(
c)(
4),

(
e)(
3)(
iii)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
65
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
27
to
$
0.
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
38
Variance
from
Leak
Detection
Systems
for
Tanks
Eliminate
need
to
obtain
variance.
Owner
or
operator
can
implement
alternate
design
and
operating
practices
as
long
as
they
follow
the
requirements
of
this
section.
264.193(
g)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
57
to
0.

O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
9
to
$
0.

Tank
Systems
­
Submit
written
assessment
of
structural
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
270.16(
a)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

Surface
Impoundments
­
Assessment
of
structural
integrity
Modify
­
assessment
may
be
done
by
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager.
270.17(
d)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
the
assessment
must
still
be
done.

ICR
Not
Available
Storage
of
Solid
Waste
Military
Munitions
­
Notification
of
loss
or
theft
Eliminate
additional
written
submission.
266.205(
a)(
1)(
v)
Burden
hour
reduction
is
negligible
and
not
quantified
in
this
analysis.
39
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

10/
18/
2005
03:
39
PM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

Subject
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Rule
Every
time
I
try
to
focus
on
this
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule,
I
get
diverted
and
lose
my
train
of
thought.
Unfortunately,
this
has
resulted
in
me
asking
repeatedly
for
the
same
or
similar
information
from
you.

Let
me
try
to
state
what
info
I
need,
even
though
you
may
have
already
provided
it
(
but
I
don't
think
you
have):

I
understand
that
the
burden
reduction
estimate
for
this
final
rule
is
much
less
than
the
proposed
rule
because
of
mis­
estimation
at
the
proposed
rule
stage.
That
is,
there
was
a
misunderstanding
about
what
companies
were
already
doing
that
resulted
in
a
mischaracterization
of
the
baseline.

I
understand
that
EPA
believes
the
many
items
that
were
proposed
(
but
are
not
being
finalized)
do
not
amount
to
much
additional
burden
reduction,
should
they
be
finalized.

What
I
would
like
to
find
out
is
the
following:
40
1.
Which
specific
provision
of
the
proposed
rule
(
and/
or
NODA)
did
EPA
think
was
going
to
reduce
burden
significantly,
but
in
the
draft
final
rule
does
not
account
for
much
burden
reduction?
What
information
led
EPA
to
conclude
that
the
estimated
burden
reduction
in
the
proposed
rule
was
an
over­
estimate?

2.
Please
provide
me
with
estimated
burden
reductions
associated
with
those
requirements
that
were
proposed
(
or
part
of
the
NODA),
but
which
are
not
being
finalized.
You
have
previously
provided
me
with
a
table
of
various
provisions
that
are
not
being
finalized.
I
would
now
like
to
have
some
estimate
of
the
burden
reduction
associated
with
these
various
provisions.

If
we
need
to
have
a
conf
call
to
clarify
this
request,
let
me
know.

I
have
cc'd
Kevin
Bromberg
of
SBA
on
this
e­
mail
because
he
is
raising
the
same
questions
as
he
tries
to
review
this
rule
as
part
of
our
interagency
review
process.

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
10/
24/
2005
01:
38
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

Subject
Re:
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Rule
Hi
Keith
and
Kevin,

Here's
the
answer
to
your
first
question.
It
includes
excerpts
from
the
proposed
rulet
that
hopefully
explain
how
we
arrive
at
the
new
savings.
If
you'd
like
to
discuss
on
a
conference
call,
I'd
be
happy
to
arrange
lines.
Let
me
know
if
you
need
anything
else.
41
1.
Which
specific
provision
of
the
proposed
rule
(
and/
or
NODA)
did
EPA
think
was
going
to
reduce
burden
significantly,
but
in
the
draft
final
rule
does
not
account
for
much
burden
reduction?
What
information
led
EPA
to
conclude
that
the
estimated
burden
reduction
in
the
proposed
rule
was
an
over­
estimate?

When
proposed,
the
burden
reduction
savings
totaled
920,000
hours
annually
at
a
cost
savings
of
about
$
120
million.
However,
approximately
$
117
million
of
the
total
burden
savings
lay
in
proposing
to
eliminate
a
duplicate
requirement
for
generator
testing
of
hazardous
wastes.
Commenters
suggested
that
our
estimated
savings
for
this
change
was
unreasonably
high
compared
to
common
industry
practice.
During
the
development
of
the
final
rule,
we
investigated
further
and
found
that
an
earlier
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
recognized
the
de
facto
industry
practice
of
meeting
the
two
requirements
through
simultaneous
testing
and
reflected
the
reduced
burden.
The
legality
of
the
industry
practice
was
never
clarified
in
the
appropriate
RCRA
regulations,

however,
and
in
the
final
rule
we
are
clarifying
the
legality
of
simultaneous
testing.

Excerpts
from
the
Proposed
Rule
Document:

Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act:
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
­
Revised
Draft
Cost­
Benefit
Analysis
(
January
29,
2001).

Pages:
4­
1
­
4­
3.

The
total
annual
cost
burden
to
the
regulated
community
under
the
baseline
is
approximately
$
387.88
million.
The
total
annual
cost
burden
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
$
267.81
million.
Thus,
the
total
annual
cost
burden
savings
under
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
$
120.07
million
(
31%

annual
reduction
from
the
baseline).

Following
are
the
primary
reasons
for
the
annual
savings
under
the
rule:

The
overwhelming
majority
of
annual
savings
under
the
rule
results
from
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
the
LDR
program
at
40
CFR
Part
268.
The
proposed
LDR
program
changes
would
result
in
an
annual
burden
savings
of
approximately
0.87
million
hours
and
$
116.96
million
(
i.
e.,
approximately
94%
of
the
total
annual
hour
savings
and
97%
of
the
total
annual
cost
savings
under
the
proposed
rule).
Most
of
the
savings
under
the
LDR
program
(
greater
than
95%)
arise
from
the
proposed
elimination
of
the
waste
determination
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
1)
and
268.9(
a)
and
the
associated
recordkeeping
requirements
under
40
CFR
268.7(
a)(
6).
The
LDR
ICR
estimates
that
approximately
167,200
sites
conduct
waste
determinations
and
keep
records
each
year.
These
sites
would
be
completely
relieved
of
these
activities
under
the
rule.

Excerpts
from
the
Final
Rule
Preamble
Discussion
pages
33­
35.

We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
RestrictionsGenerator
Waste
Determination.
42
We
proposed
eliminating
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
requires,
among
other
things,
that
generators
conduct
a
waste
determination
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
LDRs).
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
requires
generators
to
determine
if
hazardous
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal.
This
determination
can
be
made
either
through
testing
or
using
the
generator's
knowledge
of
the
waste's
properties
and
constituents.

We
suggested
that
a
combination
of
two
other
requirements
provided
the
same
safeguards
as
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
making
it
redundant.
First,
a
determination
of
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous
is
required
by
40
CFR
262.11,
which
says
that
generators
of
solid
waste
must
determine
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous.
Second,
§
264.13(
a)(
1)
requires
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs)
to
perform
a
general
waste
analysis
to
determine
"
all
of
the
information
which
must
be
known
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
the
waste
in
accordance
with
this
Part
and
Part
268
of
this
chapter
"(
emphasis
added).
We
suggested
that
these
other
determinations
are
sufficient
to
assure
that
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
LDRs.

Some
commenters
supported
deleting
this
waste
analysis
requirement,
stating,
generally,
that
they
supported
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
testing
requirements.
We
agree
with
these
comments
with
respect
to
reducing
redundant
testing
requirements
and
are
adding
a
cross
reference
in
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
to
§
262.11,
in
order
to
clarify
that
these
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently,
thus
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis.

Commenters
opposing
deleting
the
generator
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
however,
were
persuasive
in
their
argument
that
the
deletion
of
§
268.7(
a)(
1)

would
not
really
result
in
burden
reduction.
Rather,
it
would
merely
shift
the
burden
from
the
generator
to
the
TSDF.
While
TSDFs
have
a
separate
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement
under
§
264.13(
a)(
1),
they
often
rely
 
at
least
in
part
 
on
determinations
or
information
provided
by
the
generator.
Commenters
further
asserted
that
if
TSDFs
have
to
assume
full
responsibility
for
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
it
would
be
more
expensive
overall,
because
generators
can
use
their
knowledge
of
the
waste
in
determining
how
LDRs
apply
to
a
waste,
while
the
TSDF
would
not
have
that
background
and
would
have
to
perform
much
more
extensive
waste
analysis.
We
agree
with
these
comments,
and
have
determined
that
we
need
to
maintain
the
LDR
generator
waste
analysis
requirement
of
§
268.7(
a)(
1).
Thus,
today's
rule,
rather
than
eliminating
paragraph
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
amends
paragraph
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
to
avoid
duplication
and
clarify
that
the
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently.

We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Characteristic
Waste
Determination
Requirement.

We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
separate
waste
analysis
requirement
(
§
268.9(
a))
for
generators
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions,
in
order
to
parallel
the
proposed
changes
to
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
are
discussed
above.

Some
commenters
supported
deleting
this
waste
analysis
requirement,
stating,
generally,
that
they
supported
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
testing
requirements.
We
agree
with
these
comments
with
respect
to
reducing
redundant
testing
requirements
and
are
adding
a
cross
reference
in
§
268.9(
a)
to
§
262.11,
in
order
to
clarify
that
these
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently,
thus
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis.

Commenters
opposing
deleting
the
generator
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
however,
were
persuasive
in
their
argument
that
the
deletion
of
§
268.9(
a)
43
would
not
really
result
in
burden
reduction.
Rather,
it
would
merely
shift
the
burden
from
the
generator
to
the
TSDF.
While
TSDFs
have
a
separate
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement
under
§
264.13(
a)(
1),
they
often
rely
 
at
least
in
part
 
on
determinations
or
information
provided
by
the
generator.
Commenters
further
asserted
that
if
TSDFs
have
to
assume
full
responsibility
for
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
it
would
be
more
expensive
overall,
because
generators
can
use
their
knowledge
of
the
waste
in
determining
how
LDRs
apply
to
a
waste,
while
the
TSDF
would
not
have
that
background
and
would
have
to
perform
much
more
extensive
waste
analysis.
We
agree
with
these
comments,
and
have
determined
that
we
need
to
maintain
the
LDR
generator
waste
analysis
requirement
of
§
268.9(
a).
Thus,
today's
rule,
rather
than
eliminating
paragraph
§
268.9(
a),
amends
paragraph
§
268.9(
a),
to
avoid
duplication
and
clarify
that
the
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
11/
01/
2005
04:
30
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
Re:
RCRA
burden
reduction
Hi
Keith
­
Getting
back
to
your
questions:

­
We
still
expect
the
economic
analysis
to
come
in
sometime
this
week­
but
it
will
only
be
slightly
modified,
I
think
the
new
information
is
just
contained
on
a
front
cover
page
­
not
a
total
reworking
of
the
full
analysis.

­
Here's
a
new
chart
that
we
hope
responds
to
your
#
2
question
­
­
note
that
the
items
we
retained
in
RCRA
are
in
boldfont
and
some
of
them
are
5The
shaded
boxes
are
the
proposed
burden
reduction
changes
that
we
are
not
finalizing.
This
table
adds
information
to
the
table
requested
by
OMB
regarding
the
regulatory
action
that
are
not
being
finalized.
If
the
change
was
mentioned
in
the
NODA
(
October
29,2003)
there
was
no
cost
benefit
analysis
done.
The
burden
hours
reduced
(
found
in
column
3)
are
by
facility.
The
total
savings
are
not
reflected
in
this
table.

6The
row
entries
in
bold
text
have
a
calculated
burden
reduction
savings.

44
"
big
ticket"
but
don't
always
surpass
the
10k
mark...

On
#
3
­
I
have
all
the
comments
pulled
together
­
would
be
a
tough
package
to
fax
­
so
let's
meet
for
a
drop
off.
I
can
come
over
today
if
you
are
ready
for
it.
Let
me
know
logistics
­
and
I
can
call
on
my
cel
when
I'm
within
a
few
yards.

Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
to
RCRA
Information
Collection
Requirements
and
EPA's
Assumptions
Used
in
Estimating
Revised
Waste
Handler
Hour
and
Cost
Burden56
Reporting
or
Recordkeeping
Requirement
Description
Citation
Changes
in
Burden,
Assumptions
Used,
and
Information
ICR
#
959.10
­
Facility
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Baseline
Annual
Respondent
Burden
Hours
64,181
O&
M
Cost
$
80,106,425
Total
Cost:
$
82,924,275.

Annual
Respondent
Burden
Under
Proposed
Rule
Hours
58,725
O&
M
Cost
$
79,966,571
Total
Cost
$
82,535,542
Estimated
Change
From
Baseline
Hours
­
5,456
O&
M
Cost
­$
139,854
Total
Cost
­$
388,733
Percentage
Change
From
Baseline
Hours
8.5%
O&
M
Cost
0.2%
Total
Cost
0.5%

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Conduct
and
maintain
ground­
water
monitoring
Modify
­
We
plan
to
introduce
flexibility
by
allowing
sampling
for
a
smaller
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
constituents.

264.98(
c)
It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
records
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
burden
reduction
was
taken.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
the
notification
of
contamination
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
eliminating
this
requirement
(
but
not
proposing
this
in
the
rule).
The
owner/
operator
must
still
sample
groundwater
wells
for
hazardous
constituents
(
required
by
regulation)
and
also
submit
a
permit
modification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
establishes
a
compliance
monitoring
program
for
the
constituents.
264.98(
g)(
1)
This
suggestion
has
no
effect
on
the
ICR
because
it
is
not
a
requirement
in
the
proposal.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action,
if
required
45
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)

Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,040,000
to
$
1,039,952.

Detection
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Modify
­
make
part
of
operating
record.
This
information
will
be
available
at
the
facility.
264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)
&
(
ii)

Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
90,006
to
$
89,994.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
new
constituent
concentrations
Modify
­
number
of
wells,
samples,
and
constituents
will
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
264.99(
g)

It
is
difficult
to
determine
what
impact
a
case
by
case
change
will
produce;
hours
could
increase
or
decrease
depending
on
how
the
notifications
are
modified.
Therefore,
no
reduction
was
taken.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
will
be
included
as
part
of
a
permit
modification
that
must
be
submitted
under
264.99(
h)(
2).

264.99(
h)(
1)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
69.75
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
93
to
$
0.

Compliance
Monitoring
(
Permitted
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
and
submit
report
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement,
since
Regional
Administrator
will
get
information
through
the
264.99(
i)(
3)
permit
modification.

264.99(
i)(
1),
(
2)
Eliminated
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
231.75
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
135,009
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
plan
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
onsite.
265.90(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.

O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
report
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report
to
Regional
Administrator,
can
be
kept
on­
site.
265.90(
d)(
3)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
22.50
to
11.25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
44,140
to
$
44,125.

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.

265.93
(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
40
to
20.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
7,500
to
$
7,470.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Submit
information
for
ground­
water
quality
assessment
plan
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
information,
it
may
be
maintained
onsite.
265.93(
d)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
50
to
25.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
40,000
to
$
39,970.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Develop
and
submit
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports
Modify
­
no
need
to
submit
report.
265.93(
d)(
5)
Burden
hours
not
reduced
because
recordkeeping
will
replace
reporting.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
400,000
to
$
399,970.
46
Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
O&
M
costs
for
mailings
were
eliminated.
No
respondents
shown
in
ICR
so
no
change
in
hours
or
cost.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
4,080
to
2,040.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,530
to
$
0.

Ground­
water
Monitoring
(
Interim
Status
Facilities)
­
Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
program
Modify
­
report
may
be
kept
onsite.
265.94(
b)(
2)
Burden
reduced
by
50%
because
no
longer
submitting
report.
Hours
decreased
from
2,036
to
1,018.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
1,781,500
to
$
1,779,973.

ICR
#
1189.06
­
Identification,
Listing,
and
Rulemaking
Petitions
This
estimate
includes
ICRs
1189.06
and
1189.07
Baseline
Annual
Respondent
Burden
Hours
20,111
O&
M
Cost
$
42,693
Total
Cost:
$
1,761,883
Annual
Respondent
Burden
Under
Proposed
Rule
Hours
19,041
O&
M
Cost
$
41,895
Total
Cost
$
1,695,059
Estimated
Change
From
Baseline
Hours
­
1,070
O&
M
Cost
­$
798
Total
Cost
­$
66,824
Percentage
Change
From
Baseline
Hours
5.3%
O&
M
Cost
1.9%
Total
Cost
3.8%

Variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
­
survey
industry­
wide
practices
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
The
Agency
does
not
need
this
information
to
grant
a
variance.
260.31(
b)(
2)

Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
100
to
0.

Submit
report
estimating
the
number
of
studies
and
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
Eliminate
­
an
unnecessary
requirement.
This
information
is
provided
to
the
regulatory
agency
at
a
later
date,
and
these
estimates
are
not
necessarily
accurate.
261.4(
f)(
9)
Eliminated
this
requirement.
Hours
decreased
from
16
to
0.
O&
M
costs
decreased
from
$
10
to
$
0.
47
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

10/
31/
2005
12:
47
PM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
RCRA
burden
reduction
1.
EPA
is
still
revising
theri
economic
analysis,
correct?
When
will
I
see
a
new
version?

2.
A
while
ago,
you
sent
me
a
chart
showing
the
items
that
were
proposed
but
which
are
not
being
finalized,
along
with
an
estimate
of
the
per­
facility
burden
reduction
that
might
be
involved.
(
This
was
a
three­
column
table.)
I
do
want
to
know
what
the
total
burden
reduction
is
for
each
of
these
items/
requirements
that
are
not
being
finalized.
Is
it
possible
to
get
this
info?
(
If
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
work,
call
me
to
discuss.
I
don't
want
there
to
be
a
misunderstanding
of
what
I
am
asking
for.)

3.
I
would
like
to
see
certain
public
comments
from
your
docket
on
the
NODA's/
proposed
rule:
SOCMA,
ACC,
USWAG,
NAM,
API,

ASTSWMO,
Michigan,
New
Jersey,
TX,
WA,
DOE,
DoD,
and
ETC.
Can
I
get
these
from
you?
(
Many
of
these
organizations
submitted
more
than
one
comment.
I
want
them
all.)
Since
many
of
these
were
submitted
in
paper
form
only,
you
may
need
to
meet
me
on
the
street
for
delivery.

BTW,
I
expect
SBA
to
have
comments
this
week.
48
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
11/
07/
2005
01:
26
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
final
economic
analysis­
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
Hi
Keith,

Sorry
for
the
delay
in
getting
this
to
you­
Attached
is
the
final
analysis­
including
a
cover
letter
that
explains
changes
in
the
rule
and
presents
the
updated
burden
savings.
Note
that
only
the
second
page
has
changed...
the
rest
is
the
same
as
previously
sent
to
you.

Please
don't
hesitate
to
call
with
questions.

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
11/
23/
2005
03:
06
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov
Subject
responses
to
questions
on
RCRA
Burden
Rule
49
Here
are
the
responses
to
your
questions
from
our
earlier
conference
call
and
followup
email
exchanges:

On
a
technical/
procedural
note
about
the
extension
request
­
I've
just
learned
that
in
order
to
get
an
extension
letter
signed
by
OPEI
management,

I
need
to
get
from
you
the
dates
by
which
you'd
want
your
review
to
close.
From
that,
I
draft
the
extension
letter
and
OPEI
sends
it
to
Art
Fraas.

So
let
me
know
the
dates
and
I'll
get
the
letter
moving
ASAP,
although
maybe
our
answers
above
will
help
conclude
at
least
part
of
your
review
sooner
than
later.

David
S.
Nicholas
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Final
Rule
EPA
Responses
to
OMB/
SBA
Comments
and
Questions
November
23,
2005
OMB
Questions:

1.
Recommend
that
the
final
rule
eliminate
the
following
waste
analysis
requirement
for
generators:
268.7(
a)(
1).

Eliminating
this
requirement
was
proposed.
Providing
generators
with
greater
flexibility
is
likely
to
reduce
burden
to
at
least
some
extent,
even
if
it
cannot
be
quantified.

Consequences
of
Dropping
LDR
Generator
Waste
Analysis
50
Eliminating
the
268.7(
a)(
1)
generator
waste
analysis
requirement
undermines
the
notification
and
certification
framework
that
we
have
set
up
for
generators,
and
will
limit
existing
generator
flexibility
to
test
wastes
on
their
own
or
use
existing
knowledge
of
the
waste
stream
to
establish
whether
the
waste
requires
treatment
under
LDR.
Since
there
will
be
no
EPAenforceable
certification
for
generators,
TSDFs
have
told
us
they
will
protect
themselves
from
enforcement
liability
by
requiring
more
in­
house
analysis
of
wastes.
The
cost
of
these
analyses
will
be
passed
to
the
generators.

The
certification
described
in
268.7(
a)
(
1)
is
closely
aligned
with
the
certifications
described
in
268.7
(
a)(
2)
and
(
a)
(
3).

By
eliminating
the
provisions
of
(
a)(
1)
we
would
needlessly
complicate
those
other
certifications,
or
simply
assure
that
TSDFs
require
in­
house
analysis
to
satisfy
the
entire
268.7
(
a)
framework.

2.
Recommend
that
Performance
Track
facilities
should
be
allowed
to
inspect
monthly,
without
a
case­
by
case
determination.
Please
explain
why
a
subset
of
non­
PT
companies
(
e.
g.,
those
with
an
exemplary
environmental
record)
should
be
excluded
from
monthly
self­
inspections.

In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
we
proposed
to
allow
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
facilities,
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.
We
have
never
discussed
an
option
to
remove
the
case­
by
case
criteria
for
inspection
frequencies
greater
than
one
week
for
any
facility.
Furthermore,
EPA
believes
such
oversight
would
not
create
undue
burden.

One
of
the
principal
arguments
for
limiting
the
case­
by­
case
option
only
to
Performance
Track
members
was
the
burden
it
would
otherwise
impose
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
other
facilities
(
an
unfunded
federal
mandate).
States
believed
very
strongly
that
this
option
should
not
be
offered
to
all
facilities
because
of
the
burden
it
would
create
for
them.

It
would
not
reduce
burden
if
States
and
the
Agency
had
to
determine
case
by
case
who
is
a
top
performer
and
who
is
not,
based
on
the
criteria
set
out
in
the
proposal.
Performance
Track
facilities
meet
these
criteria
by
definition
of
their
membership
in
the
program,
and
therefore
are
provided
this
alternative
by
rule.
51
EPA
recognizes
that
there
are
many
top
performing
facilities
in
the
United
States
and
its
territories
that
may
warrant
the
alternatives
provided
by
today's
rule.
EPA
encourages
any
facility
who
believes
themselves
to
be
a
top
environmental
performer
to
apply
to
the
Performance
Track
program
for
membership,
and
by
extension,
for
immediate
eligibility
for
these
provisions.

3.
Recommend
that
EPA
not
require
secondary
containment
with
leak
detection
as
a
condition
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
for
small
quantity
generators.

It
would
seem
that
small
quantity
generators
do
not
pose
the
same
risk
as
LQGs,
and
therefore
should
not
be
treated
the
same
under
this
burden
reduction
rule.

In
the
SQG
tank
requirements
(
265.201(
c)),
SQG
tanks
are
not
required
to
have
secondary
containment.
However,

inspections
of
the
construction
materials
of
the
tank
and
the
construction
material
of
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
tank
are
required
to
be
conducted
weekly.
SQGs
also
are
required
to
inspect,
on
a
daily
basis,
any
discharge
control
equipment,
any
monitoring
data;
and
the
level
of
waste
in
the
tank
to
ensure
that
the
waste
is
being
managed
properly
and
that
leaks
and/
or
releases
can
be
identified
quickly.
There
is
no
paperwork
requirement
attached
to
conducting
these
inspections.

EPA
agrees
that
SQGs
do
not
pose
the
same
risk
as
LQGs
and
we
stated
such
in
the
SQG
tanks
regulations
finalized
on
March
24,
1986
(
51
FR
25422),
codified
at
265.201
(
see
footnote
14
of
the
BR
preamble).
However,
we
still
believe
that,

unless
there
is
secondary
containment,
these
three
inspection
requirements
should
be
conducted
daily
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
tank
is
being
operated
properly
and
the
waste
remains
in
the
tank
and
is
not
about
to
overflow.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
SQGs
generate
between
220
and
2,200
pounds
of
hazardous
waste
per
month,
and
can
accumulate
up
to
three
months
of
waste
 
approximately
13,200
pounds
or
1,800
gallons
 
a
considerable
amount
of
hazardous
waste
to
be
spilled
from
a
tank.

4.
Why
is
it
necessary
to
have
a
biennial
RCRA
survey?
Would
a
less
frequent
collection
of
this
data
make
sense?
52
Summary
of
RCRA
Sections
3002
and
3004
Authorizing
the
Hazardous
Waste
Report
Section
3002(
a)(
6)
requires
submission
of
reports
to
EPA
or
the
States
at
least
every
two
years
on
the:

°
Quantities
and
nature
of
hazardous
wastes
that
have
been
generated
during
the
year;
and
°
Disposition
of
these
hazardous
wastes.

Section
3004(
a)
requires
EPA
to
issue
regulations
establishing
performance
standards
applicable
to
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
for
the
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
of
hazardous
waste
that
include:

C
Reporting
and
maintaining
records
of
all
hazardous
wastes
treated,

stored,
or
disposed
and
the
manner
in
which
such
wastes
were
treated,
stored,
or
disposed.

RCRA
Sections
3002
and
3004
authorize
the
Hazardous
Waste
Report.
Both
sections
require
EPA
to
establish
standards
for
record
keeping
and
reporting
of
hazardous
waste.
Section
3002
applies
to
hazardous
waste
generators
and
Section
3004
applies
to
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities.
The
implementing
regulations
are
found
at
40
CFR
parts
262.40(
b)
and
(
d);
262.41(
a)(
1)­(
5),
(
a)(
8),
and
(
b);
264.75(
a)­(
e)
and
(
j);
265.75(
a)­(
e)
and
(
j);

and
270.30(
l)(
9).
This
is
mandatory
reporting
by
the
respondents
(
see
text
box
below.)

However,
EPA
will
be
examining
possible
options
to
our
current
census
approach
in
a
second
phase
of
this
project
("
Smarter
Waste
Reporting".)

5.
In
EPA's
written
response
to
previous
questions.
EPA
identified
the
two
changes
to
53
the
biennial
report
that
were
part
of
a
NODA.
Please
summarize
the
public
comments
to
those
two
proposals,

and
explain
why
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
eliminate
those
data
elements
from
the
biennial
report
in
this
draft
final
rule.

As
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
chose
to
address
the
biennial
report
changes
separately
through
the
Waste
Information
Needs
(
WIN)
Initiative.
The
WIN
Initiative
is
a
multi­
year
project
which
is
reinventing
RCRA
information
management.
It
operates
as
a
partnership
among
EPA
Headquarters,
EPA
Regions,
and
the
states.
Both
information
management
experts
and
implementers
of
hazardous
waste
programs
participate
in
the
Initiative.

The
WIN
process
addressed
both
of
the
changes
mentioned
in
the
Burden
Reduction
NODA.

Change
1:
Remove
Optional
Data
Elements
from
the
Current
Biennial
Reporting
forms.
Through
the
WIN
process
it
was
determined
that
these
optional
requirements
should
be
retained
in
the
biennial
report
because
some
States
require
this
information
to
be
reported.
Under
the
RCRA
Info
data
system
agreements
with
the
states,
EPA
has
the
responsibility
to
provide
a
common
system
for
reporting
this
information
to
avoid
the
need
for
states
to
design
state­
specific
reporting
forms.
Otherwise,
companies
operating
in
multiple
states
would
be
burdened
with
multiple
reporting
formats
when
submitting
their
biennial
reports.

Change
2:
Eliminate
Reporting
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Wastes
that
Are
Managed
in
Units
Exempt
from
RCRA
permitting,

we
eliminated
this
requirement
in
the
2001
cycle
of
the
biennial
report.

Commenters
to
the
Burden
Reduction
NODA
(
approximately
20
on
these
issues)
were
largely
supportive
of
making
both
these
changes.
Many
commenters
were
aware
of
the
WIN
process
and
urged
EPA
to
defer
to
the
recommendations
of
that
joint
EPA/
State
effort.
Only
one
commenter
thought
the
requirements
should
be
retained
in
the
biennial
report.

6.
On
page
11
of
the
preamble
(
Section
III.
A.
1)
in
the
paragraph
beginning
"
We
believe",
change
"
will
be
still
be
available"
to
"
will
still
be
available".

This
change
has
been
made.
54
7.
On
page
21
of
the
preamble
(
section
III.
B),
"
EPA
states
that
"
we
are
not
convinced
that
all
environmental
professionals
certified
by
the
ASTM
standard
would
be
qualified
to
perform
these
engineering
evaluations".

Please
provide
more
explanation
as
to
why
the
ASTM
certification
is
not
sufficient.

Under
ASTM
E
1929­
98
Standard
Practice
for
Assessment
of
Certification
Programs
for
Environmental
Professional:

Accreditation
Criteria,
it
would
be
possible
for
CHMMs
to
be
accredited
as
environmental
professionals.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
requirements
to
become
a
CHMM
are
not
equivalent
to
the
requirements
to
become
a
licensed
professional
engineer
(
see
the
answer
to
question
8)
and,
as
such,
any
regulatory
change
that
would
allow
a
CHMM
to
make
a
RCRA
certification
is
not
appropriate
and
will
not
be
finalized.

8.
What
are
drip
pads.

A
drip
pad,
as
defined
in
260.10,
is
an
engineered
structure
at
a
wood
preserving
plant
consisting
of
a
curbed,

freedraining
base,
constructed
of
non­
earthen
materials
and
designed
to
convey
preservative
kick­
back
or
drippage
from
treated
wood,
precipitation,
and
surface
water
run­
on
to
an
associated
collection
system.

Drip
pads
are
exclusive
to
the
wood
preserving
industry.

8(
a).
What
aspects
of
drip
pad
requirements
are
such
that
only
a
professional
engineer
can
make
the
required
certification?

Certifications
for
drip
pads
include::

1)
the
proper
design
and
operation
of
the
drip
pad;

2)
the
results
of
hydraulic
conductivity
testing;

3)
identification
and
monitoring
of
factors
adversely
affecting
hydraulic
conductivity;

4)
identification
and
evaluation
of
chemical
compatibility
between
drip
pad
material
and
preservatives;

5)
design,
construction
and
installation
of
synthetic
liner
to
prevent
leakage
from
drip
pad
into
adjacent
subsurface
soil
or
groundwater
or
surface
water
at
any
time
during
the
active
life
of
the
drip
pad;
55
6)
evaluation
of
synthetic
liner
with
regard
to
chemical
properties,
strength
and
thickness
and
ability
to
prevent
failure
due
to
pressure
gradient
(
including
static
head
and
external
hyrogeologic
forces),
stress
of
installation,
stress
of
daily
operation
and
stresses
from
vehicular
traffic
on
drip
pad;

7)
evaluation
of
foundation
or
base
capable
of
providing
support
to
the
liner
and
resistance
to
pressure
gradients
above
and
below
the
liner
to
prevent
failure
of
the
liner
due
to
settlement,
compression
or
uplift;

8)
design,
construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
leakage
detection
systems;

9)
design,
construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
a
run­
on
control
system
capable
of
preventing
flow
onto
the
drip
pad
during
peak
discharge
from
at
least
a
24­
hour,
25
year
storm;

10)
design,
construction,
maintenance
and
operation
of
run­
off
management
system
to
collect
and
control
at
least
the
water
volume
resulting
from
a
24
hour,
25­
year
storm,.
excess
capacity
to
contain
any
run­
off
that
might
enter
the
system;

11)
Construction
and/
or
installation
of
liners
and
cover
system
(
e.
g.,
membranes,
sheets,
coatings)
for
uniformity,

damage
and
imperfections;
and
12)
Inspection
of
liners
and
covers
to
ensure
tight
seams
and
joints
and
the
absence
of
tears
punctures,
or
blisters
8(
b).
Why
can't
a
CHMM
do
the
certifications
required
for
drip
pads?

The
best
way
to
explain
why
we
believe
that
a
CHMM
would
not
be
capable
of
making
these
certifications
is
to
look
at
the
examination
blueprint
for
CHMM
(
attached
for
your
review
is
the
Table
of
Specifications
for
the
CHMM
Examination
"
Blueprint"
which
we
downloaded
from
the
www.
achmm.
org
website.)

As
the
examination
blueprint
reads:
"
The
CHMM
examination
is
a
testing
instrument
designed
to
evaluate
candidates
seeking
professional
certification
in
the
field
of
hazardous
material
management.
Candidates
should
be
familiar
with
those
laws
and
regulations
and
with
the
science,
technology
and
management
issues
relating
to
hazardous
materials
at
any
point
in
their
life
cycles,
as
they
pertain
to
environmental
protection,
safety
and
health,
transportation,
and
security."

The
examination
consists
of
three
parts,
showing
examination
weighting
in
parentheses:
Laws
and
Regulations
(
25%),

Science
and
Technology
(
35%)
and
Management
(
40%).
In
the
Science
and
Technology
section
of
the
test
there
is
no
indication
that
coverage
is
given
to
the
design,
construction,
operation
or
maintenance
of
hazardous
waste
management
56
units.
There
is
also
no
coverage
regarding
engineering
fundamentals,
principles,
concepts,
or
knowledge.
The
absence
of
this
material
in
the
CHMM
examination
raises
serious
doubts
as
to
the
ability
of
a
CHMM
to
adequately
certify
engineered
structures,
as
is
required
for
drip
pads
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Several
states
have
indicated
strong
opposition
to
allowing
non­
professional
engineers
certify
these
designs.

Potential
Burden
Reduction
Savings
EPA
searched
the
EnviroFAX
database
to
determine
how
many
facilities
with
drip
pads
could
be
affected
by
this
requirement.
We
found
that
there
are
between
14
and
20
facilities
that
have,
or
have
had,
drip
pads.
Also,
please
note
that
because
most
wood
preserving
facilities
do
not
generate
large
volumes
of
waste,
the
majority
of
facilities
do
not
find
it
difficult
to
remain
exempt
from
permitting
requirements.

SBA
Position
Re:
Tank
Inspection
Frequencies
LQGs
:
SBA
supports
the
proposal
in
2002
to
allow
weekly
inspections
without
secondary
containment.

Upon
review
of
the
2002
proposal,
we
were
unable
to
find
any
reference
that
referred
to
allowing
weekly
inspections
without
secondary
containment.
As
a
point
of
clarification,
per
264/
265.193(
A),
all
new
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
must
have
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
before
being
put
into
service.
Existing
tanks,
i.
e.,
those
that
were
in
existence
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
tank
regulations
(
July
14,
1986),
were
required
to
install
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection
systems
within
15
years
of
that
effective
date
(
July
14,
1986).
In
other
words,
all
LQG
hazardous
waste
tanks
have
been
required
to
have
secondary
containment
since
July
14,
2001.

The
original
proposal
was
not
predicated
on
secondary
containment,
but
on
the
comparison
with
other
programs
such
as
SPCC
and
UST
that
did
not
require
daily
inspections.
UST
requires
monitoring
only
every
30
days,
and
SPCC
as
specified
by
the
professional
engineer.

We
will
assume
this
comment
refers
to
SQGs.
When
we
proposed
to
reduce
the
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
57
daily
to
weekly,
we
failed
to
consider
how
this
change
would
affect
the
other
tank
system
requirements
(
e.
g.,
the
design/
size
of
tank
secondary
containment;
the
requirement
to
identify
the
presence
of
accumulated
material
within
24
hours;
and
the
removal
of
waste
in
the
secondary
containment
with
24
hours.)
These
requirements
make
clear
the
need
to
inspect
at
least
every
24
hours
unless
there
was
secondary
containment
and
automatic
leak
detection,
or
workplace
practices
that
provided
the
functional
equivalent
of
these
safety
systems.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
SQGs
generate
between
220
and
2,200
pounds
of
hazardous
waste
per
month,
and
can
accumulate
up
to
three
months
of
waste
 
approximately
13,200
pounds
or
1,800
gallons
 
a
considerable
amount
to
be
spilled
from
a
tank.
During
development
of
the
final
rule
we
have
learned
that
many
facilities,
in
lieu
of
leak
detection
equipment,
conduct
daily
visual
inspections
to
ascertain
the
integrity
of
the
tanks
and
monitor
primary
and
secondary
containment.
These
inspections
likely
could
qualify
as
the
type
of
workplace
practices
needed
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
and
leak
detection.

Also,
EPA
pointed
out
that
tanks
are
simpler
to
design,
manage
and
construct
than
other
RCRA
units
such
as
combustion
or
land
disposal
units.
Further,
EPA
also
requires
tanks
to
be
tested
initially
for
integrity
(
pre­
1986),

or
after
installation
after
1986.
This
combined
with
a
reasonable
inspection
schedule
provides
a
reasonable
amount
of
environmental
protection.
The
secondary
containment
requirement,
which
does
apply
to
post­
1986
tanks,
as
I
understand
it,
means
that
more
recent
vintage
tanks
have
even
less
justification
for
daily
inspections.

As
mentioned
earlier,
when
we
proposed
to
reduce
the
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly
we
failed
to
consider
how
this
change
would
affect
the
other
tank
system
requirements,
namely,
the
design/
size
of
tank
secondary
containment;
the
requirement
to
identify
the
presence
of
accumulated
material
within
24
hours;
and
the
removal
of
waste
in
the
secondary
containment
with
24
hours.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
SQGs
generate
between
220
and
2,200
pounds
of
hazardous
waste
per
month,
and
can
accumulate
up
to
three
months
of
waste
 
approximately
13,200
pounds
or
1,800
gallons
 
a
considerable
amount
to
be
spilled
from
a
tank.
We
also
failed
to
realize,
until
development
of
the
final
rule,
that
many
facilities,
in
lieu
of
leak
detection
equipment,
conduct
daily
visual
inspections
to
ascertain
the
integrity
of
the
tanks
and
monitor
primary
and
secondary
containment
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
other
tank
provisions.
This
is
important
because,
as
proposed,
the
ability
to
reduce
self­
inspection
frequency
could
not
be
enjoyed
by
those
facilities
that
used
daily
visual
inspections
unless
they
installed
leak
detection
equipment.
Consequently,
in
the
final
rule,
we
added
an
additional
condition
that
would
allow
facilities
with
established
work
place
practices
to
reduce
their
inspection
58
self­
inspection
frequency
instead
of
installing
leak
detection.

In
addition,
as
SOCMA
points
out
in
its
1999
comments,
in
many
situations,
plant
personnel
are
present
in
the
areas
where
the
tanks
are
located
on
an
8
hour
basis,
if
not
on
a
24­
hour
basis,
making
these
formal
inspections
less
necessary.
Elimination
of
this
requirement
alleviates
substantial
hours
dedicated
to
both
the
inspection
and
the
recording
of
these
inspections.
Resources
saved
could
be
dedicated
to
more
important
environmental
and
safety
concerns
(
such
as
the
establishment
of
chemical
security
plans).

With
respect
to
SOCMA's
comment,
there
is
no
issue
here.
If
plant
personnel
are
present
in
the
areas
where
tanks
are
located
on
an
8
hour
or
24
hour
basis,
this
could
be
defined
as
"
established
workplaces
practices"
and
as
such,
the
facility
would
be
able
to
reduce
their
self­
inspection
frequency
to
weekly,
as
long
as
a
notification
and
description
of
the
workplace
practices
was
placed
in
the
facility
operating
record.

Furthermore,
I
think
EPA
should
eliminate
the
current
incentive
for
using
containers
vs.
tanks,
by
equalizing
the
weekly
container
requirement
with
the
weekly
tank
requirement.

(
Are
containers
generally
required
to
be
inspected
weekly?)

Yes,
under
264/
5.174
container
storage
must
be
self­
inspected
at
least
weekly.
We
believe
we
are
equalizing
the
requirement
in
the
manner
that
can
be
defended
as
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
There
are
many
reasons
that
containers
may
not
need
as
frequent
inspections,
the
most
important
being
that
each
container
holds
much
less
waste
than
a
tank.
Therefore
the
potential
consequences
of
a
container
leak
are
much
less
severe
than
a
tank
leak.

SQGs
­
SBA
supports
the
NODA
proposal
in
2003
to
extend
the
weekly
inspections
to
all
SQG
tanks
(
and
related
ancillary
equipment)
without
a
secondary
containment
requirement.
No
such
requirement
was
suggested
as
part
of
the
2003
NODA.

See
OMB's
question
3.
59
Please
note:
As
the
BR
rule
is
currently
written,
tank
systems
can
reduce
their
self
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
if
the
following
conditions
are
met:
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
established
work
place
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur,
they
will
be
promptly
identified,

and
promptly
remediated.

Tank
system,
as
defined
in
260.10,
means
a
hazardous
waste
storage
or
treatment
tank
and
its
associated
ancillary
equipment
and
containment
Inspection
Frequency
Reduction
to
Monthly
for
Performance
Track
Case­
by­
case
determinations
are
too
costly
for
both
the
facilities
and
the
state
agencies.
Performance
Track
facilities
are
very
few
in
number,
and
should
be
rewarded
for
their
effort
in
getting
into
Performance
Track.

There
is
not
a
significant
need
for
further
state
review.

We
disagree,
as
we
discussed
earlier,
case­
by­
case
determinations
have
always
been
part
of
allowing
reduced
inspection
frequencies.
Although
the
facility
is
a
member
of
Performance
Track,
it
is
not
likely
to
be
a
large
burden
for
the
state
or
the
Performance
Track
facility
if
done
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

EPA
could
include
a
requirement
that
the
monthly
inspections
would
revert
to
the
current
requirements
(
weekly?)
upon
the
discovery
of
any
significant
tank
spill
or
RCRA
noncompliance.
In
other
words,
a
performance
based
standard
could
determine
the
continuation
of
eligibility
for
the
reduced
inspection
requirements.

The
discovery
of
either
a
significant
tank
spill
or
RCRA
noncompliance
are
exactly
the
types
of
situations
we
hope
to
avoid
with
our
regulations.
EPA
believes
that
prevention
of
releases
is
preferable
to
spill
clean­
up,
both
environmentally
60
and
economically.
It
is
unclear
how
this
type
of
option
could
be
considered
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
SBA
supports
the
2003
NODA
proposal
to
allow
CHMMs
to
certify
2
standards:
drip
pad
evaluation
and
drip
pads
inspections.
(
The
third
standard
in
the
NODA
is
no
longer
relevant
because
it
is
outdated.)

Please
refer
to
our
response
to
OMB's
question
8.
l
In
addition,
we
support
the
12/
05/
03
comments
of
the
Academy
of
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
that
CHMMs
should
be
eligible
to
perform
4
of
the
11
other
functions,
and
retain
the
existing
PE
requirements
for
the
remaining
7
functions.

The
certifications
you
referenced
include:

264/
5.115
Certification
of
closure.

264/
5.120
Certification
of
post­
closure.

264.280(
b)
Land
Treatment
units,
certification
of
closure;
and
266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
This
standard
is
no
longer
relevant
since
it
is
outdated
(
sunset
August
21,
1991)

We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
As
stated
in
the
preamble,
certification
of
final
closure
is
the
final
step
in
the
closure
process
and
triggers
the
release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
financial
responsibility
requirements
for
closure
and
third
party
liability
coverage
requirements.
As
such,
objective
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
are
essential
for
avoiding
any
potential
conflicts
of
interest
and
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
more
specific
requirements
concerning
the
qualification
of
the
certifying
party
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
adequacy
of
the
certification.
We,
therefore,
require
that
certifications
be
obtained
from
independent,
registered,
professional
engineers
(
i.
e.,
registered
professional
engineers
not
in
the
employ
of
the
owner
or
operator),
consistent
with
requirements
under
subtitle
C
and
other
federally
mandated
certification
programs
(
e.
g.,
Clean
Water
Act
grants).
61
SBA
is
referred
to
the
BR
preamble
for
additional
discussion
on
this
point.

The
Institute
of
Professional
Environmental
Practice
(
December
15,
2003
comments)
also
selected
the
same
4
requirements
as
appropriate
for
non
engineers.
We
believe
that
both
sets
of
comments
reached
appropriate
conclusions
about
the
expertise
of
these
certified
individuals.
All
of
these
individuals
are
subject
to
approval
by
a
board,
using
the
ASTM
standard,
developed
using
a
consensus
process.
Furthermore,
EPA's
draft
final
rule
is
inconsistent
with
the
recently
promulgated
all
appropriate
inquiry
(
AAI)
rule
allowing
non
engineers
to
perform
both
phase
I
and
phase
II
audits.
If
non
engineers
can
help
determine
facility
liability
under
RCRA
and
CERCLA,

then
certainly
they
should
be
able
to
make
these
types
of
professional
environmental
judgments
under
RCRA.

Given
that
this
determination
was
reached
in
a
negotiated
rulemaking
among
all
affected
parties,
this
judgment
should
be
given
even
more
weight.

This
rule
has
no
relationship
to
the
design,
installation,
operation
and
maintenance
of
hazardous
waste
management
units.
These
activities
require
engineering
knowledge
and
judgement.

One
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
the
all
appropriate
inquiries
requirements
do
not
(
in
any
way
what
so
ever)

require
the
environmental
professional
to
render
any
judgment
or
opinion
regarding
RCRA
or
CERCLA
compliance
or
liability.
The
all
appropriate
inquiries
requirements
include
research
activities
and
a
site
investigation
similar
to
a
Phase
I
environmental
site
assessment.
No
compliance
evaluation
and
no
assessment
of
engineering
or
technical
requirements
(
which
may
inherently
require
the
expertise
of
an
engineer
or
geologist).
As
we
described
earlier,
many
states
were
very
concerned
about
the
potential
for
unqualified
individuals
to
allowed
to
provide
these
certifications,
and
were
unwilling
to
take
on
the
unfunded
mandate
of
evaluating
the
qualifications
of
non­
PEs.

Independent
Professional
Engineer
Requirement
We
are
persuaded
by
the
original
the
2003
NODA
that
the
independent
PE
requirement
be
dropped.
In
particular,

the
2003
NODA
observed
that
more
recent
decisions
by
other
Federal
agencies
did
not
require
an
independent
PE:
FHA
regarding
bridge
safety
and
OSHA
regarding
ramp
designs.
EPA
also
observed
that
more
recent
EPA
62
certification
requirements,
containment
building
design
certification
(
promulgated
8/
92)
and
BIF
data
evaluations
(
this
requirement
is
no
longer
in
effect)
did
not
require
an
independent
engineer.
Further,
the
SPCC
and
Storm
Water
rules
do
not
require
independent
PEs.
These
professionals
are
also
subject
to
scrutiny
from
their
insurers
and
state
boards,
and
therefore
the
independence
requirement
appears
excessive.
Commenters
on
the
original
proposal
indicated
that
"
this
would
save
money
without
compromising
environmental
safety."
NODA
at
page
61667.

We
disagree.
Please
refer
to
the
discussion
in
the
BR
preamble.

LDR
Generator
Waste
Determinations
SBA
Advocacy
supports
the
deletion
of
the
requirement
for
generators
to
perform
a
waste
analysis
that
in
many
respects
is
redundant
(
section
268.7(
a)(
1)).
Because
TSDFs
are
ultimately
responsible
for
assuring
that
waste
is
properly
treated
and
disposed
of,
and
modern
TSDFs
are
high­
volume,
sophisticated
business
enterprises,
it
is
appropriate
that
they
bear
the
burden
of
waste
analysis.
We
are
not
persuaded
that
generators
are
always
the
cheapest
party
to
conduct
the
analysis.
Moreover,
TSDFs
could
also
arrange
to
have
a
generator
conduct
the
waste
analyses
if
it
were
more
efficient
in
a
particular
situation.

By
not
requiring
both
the
generator
and
TSDF
to
perform
the
analysis,
EPA
would
allow
the
most
efficient
arrangements
to
be
made.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
TSDF
is
still
responsible
for
properly
analyzing
and
dealing
with
the
waste.

See
response
to
Question
1
from
OMB.

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
12/
19/
2005
03:
33
PM
63
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
answers
on
burden
reduction
Answers
to
your
questions
are
attached.
Our
team
is
available
to
discuss
anytime
except
all
day
Thurs.
Thanks.

RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Final
Rule
EPA
Responses
to
Follow­
up
Questions
by
OMB/
SBA
December
2,
2005
On
December
2,
2005,
EPA
in
a
conference
call
with
OMB
and
SBA
discussed
the
responses
to
questions
posed
by
OMB/
SBA
on
a
November
23
conference
call.
As
a
result
of
these
discussions
several
follow­
up
questions
were
asked
by
OMB/
SBA.
Below
are
the
original
questions
from
November
23,
as
well
as
the
follow­
up
question
and
EPA's
response.

1.
Original
OMB
Question
from
November
23,
2005
and
EPA
Response:

Recommend
that
the
final
rule
eliminate
the
following
waste
analysis
requirement
for
generators:

268.7(
a)(
1).
Eliminating
this
requirement
was
proposed.
Providing
generators
with
greater
flexibility
is
likely
to
reduce
burden
to
at
least
some
extent,
even
if
it
cannot
be
quantified.

Consequences
of
Dropping
LDR
Generator
Waste
Analysis
64
Eliminating
the
268.7(
a)(
1)
generator
waste
analysis
requirement,
as
suggested,
undermines
the
notification
and
certification
framework
that
we
have
set
up
for
generators,
and
will
limit
existing
generator
flexibility
to
test
wastes
on
their
own
or
use
existing
knowledge
of
the
waste
stream
to
establish
whether
the
waste
requires
treatment
under
LDR.
Since
there
will
be
no
EPA­
enforceable
certification
for
generators,
TSDFs
have
told
us
that
they
will
protect
themselves
from
enforcement
liability
by
conducting
more
in­
house
analysis
of
wastes.
The
cost
of
these
analyses
will
be
passed
on
to
the
generators,
which
will
have
the
effect
of
increasing
costs
on
generators.

The
certification
described
in
268.7(
a)
(
1)
is
closely
aligned
with
the
certifications
described
in
268.7
(
a)(
2)
and
(
a)

(
3).
By
eliminating
the
provisions
of
(
a)(
1)
we
would
needlessly
complicate
those
other
certifications,
or
simply
assure
that
TSDFs
conduct
in­
house
analysis
to
satisfy
the
entire
268.7
(
a)
framework.
We
believe
this
change
could
actually
increase
burden
or
costs
on
the
regulated
community,
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
goals
of
this
rulemaking
and,
therefore,
do
not
believe
the
change
should
be
made.

Follow­
up
Question
from
OMB:

Does
EPA
ever
enforce
on
LDR
requirement
268.7(
a)(
1)?

Upon
consultation
with
Regional
enforcement
attorneys,
OECA
has
determined
that
failure
to
comply
with
268.7(
a)(
1)
is
a
fairly
common
violation
in
RCRA
enforcement
cases.
65
2.
Original
OMB
Question
from
November
23,
2005
and
EPA
Response:

Recommend
that
Performance
Track
facilities
should
be
allowed
to
inspect
monthly,
without
a
case­
by
case
determination.
Please
explain
why
a
subset
of
non­
PT
companies
(
e.
g.,
those
with
an
exemplary
environmental
record)
should
not
be
excluded
from
monthly
self­
inspections.

In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA,
we
proposed
to
allow
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
facilities,
up
to
monthly
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.
We
have
never
discussed
an
option
to
remove
the
case­
by
case
criteria
for
inspection
frequencies
greater
than
one
week
for
any
facility.
As
such,
this
type
of
change
would
be
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
could
create
serious
notice
and
comment
issues
if
the
rule
were
challenged.
Furthermore,
EPA
believes
such
oversight
on
a
site­
specific
basis
is
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
due
to
the
potential,
in
some
scenarios,
for
significant
spills.

One
of
the
principal
arguments
for
limiting
the
case­
by­
case
option
only
to
Performance
Track
members
was
the
burden
it
would
otherwise
impose
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
other
facilities
(
an
unfunded
federal
mandate.)

States
believed
very
strongly
that
this
option
should
not
be
offered
to
all
facilities
because
of
the
burden
it
would
create
for
them.

The
option
of
allowing
for
a
universe
of
non­
Performance
Track
companies
(
e.
g.,
those
with
an
exemplary
environmental
record)
to
be
excluded
from
monthly
self­
inspections
has
its
own
set
of
drawbacks
to
consider:
(
1)
a
process
or
mechanism
would
have
to
be
developed
that
would
define
"
exemplary
environmental
record;"
2)
such
criteria
would
have
to
undergo
notice
and
comment;
and
3)
the
additional
burden
imposed
on
States
or
EPA
to
review
and
evaluate
the
applications.
We
expect
that
the
states
would
reject
any
new
burden
for
them
under
this
as
another
unfunded
mandate.

Follow­
up
Question
from
OMB/
SBA:
66
Could
you
confer
with
OGC
and
get
their
opinion
whether
EPA
could
go
forward
with
an
option
to
allow
Performance
Track
facilities
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequencies
to
monthly
without
State
approval.
Is
this
a
logical
outgrowth
of
the
comments?

On
June
18,
1999
(
64
FR
32859),
EPA
published
its
first
NODA
on
the
Burden
Reduction
Initiative,
As
part
of
that
NODA,
we
solicited
comment
on
whether
we
should
lengthen
the
periods
between
facility
self­
inspection.
We
asked
for
comment
on
the
extent
that
such
as
action
would
decrease
burden,
and
whether
this
would
impact
human
health
and
the
environment.
Also,
we
asked
for
suggestions
as
to
the
type
of
mechanisms,
such
as
variance
and
waivers
(
all
these
actions
require
regulatory
view
and
approval)
that
could
be
used
to
allow
a
less
frequent
schedule,
and
what
should
be
involved
in
such
a
mechanism,
such
as
public
input.

In
the
proposed
rule
(
see
67
FR
at
2527),
we
proposed
to
reduce
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
from
daily
to
weekly.
For
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
tanks,
we
also
proposed
to
allow
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
decreased
inspection
frequency,
up
to
monthly.
We
stated
that
consideration
for
decreasing
inspection
frequencies
will
be
based
on
factors
such
as:
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices;
demonstrations
of
good
management
practices
over
the
years
(
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
requirements,
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement,
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting,
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility,
and
the
chemical
and
physical
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
managed
in
the
unit.

In
addition,
we
also
stated
that
States
or
EPA
could
include
a
qualification
that
facilities
must
revert
to
the
original
inspection
schedule
if
there
are
spills
or
releases.

As
part
of
this
discussion,
(
see
67
FR
2527),
we
also
stated
that
a
group
of
commenters
to
the
1999
NODA
suggested
that
inspection
frequency
changes
should
be
self­
implementing.
For
example,
an
inspection
schedule
should
be
deemed
approved
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days.
We
stated
in
the
preamble
that
where
we
were
able
to
identify
an
across­
the­
board
change,
like
tanks
going
to
weekly,
we
did
67
so.
(
I.
e.,
changing
from
daily
to
weekly
the
tank
self­
inspection).
We
further
stated
however,
that,
"...
beyond
that,
a
case­
by­
case
evaluation
of
facility
conditions
is
still
necessary.
It
is
important
that
regulatory
agencies
make
the
decisions
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies.
Thus,
we
are
not
proposing
the
self­
implementing
option."

In
summary,
EPA
stated
that
we
were
not
proposing
the
self­
implementing
option
 
an
approach
that
would
allow
the
inspection
schedule
to
be
reduced
from
weekly
to
monthly
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days,
because
it
is
important
that
regulatory
agencies
make
the
decisions
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies
on
a
case­
by
case
basis.
In
addition,
the
Agency
did
not
solicit
comment
on
a
self­
implementing
approach
as
suggested
by
OMB/
SBA.
Nevertheless,
OGC
believes
we
can
argue,
with
some
legal
risk,
that
these
statements
invited
comment
on
the
self­
implementing
option.
However,
the
self­
implementing
option
would
be
more
akin
to
what
commenters
have
suggested
than
what
OMB/
SBA
have
suggested.
That
is,
since
commenters
suggested
a
monthly
inspection
frequency
with
some
opportunity
to
review
by
the
regulatory
agency,
it
would
be
hard
to
argue
that
the
approach
as
suggested
by
OMB/
SBA
was
an
outgrowth
of
comments.

3.
Original
OMB
Question
from
November
23,
2005
and
EPA
response
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
We
support
the
12/
05/
03
comments
of
the
Academy
of
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
that
CHMMs
should
be
eligible
to
perform
4
of
the
11
other
functions,
and
retain
the
existing
PE
requirements
for
the
remaining
7
functions.

The
certifications
you
referenced
include:

264/
5.115
Certification
of
closure.

264/
5.120
Certification
of
post­
closure.

264.280(
b)
Land
Treatment
units,
certification
of
closure;
and
266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
This
standard
is
no
longer
relevant
since
it
is
outdated
(
sunset
August
21,
1991)
68
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
As
stated
in
the
preamble,
certification
of
final
closure
is
the
final
step
in
the
closure
process
and
triggers
the
release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
financial
responsibility
requirements
for
closure
and
third
party
liability
coverage
requirements.
As
such,
objective
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
are
essential
for
avoiding
any
potential
conflicts
of
interest
and
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
more
specific
requirements
concerning
the
qualification
of
the
certifying
party
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
adequacy
of
the
certification.
We,
therefore,
require
that
certifications
be
obtained
from
independent,
registered,
professional
engineers
(
i.
e.,
registered
professional
engineers
not
in
the
employ
of
the
owner
or
operator),
consistent
with
requirements
under
subtitle
C
and
other
federally
mandated
certification
programs
(
e.
g.,
Clean
Water
Act
grants).

Follow­
up
Question
from
OMB/
SBA.

Provide
discussion
as
to
why
ASTM­
certified
Environmental
Professional
may
not
be
able
to
certify
the
following
three
requirements:

264/
5.115
Certification
of
closure
264.280(
b)
Land
treatment
units,
certification
of
closure
264/
5.120
Certification
of
post­
closure
(
Excerpt
from:
Draft
Guidance
for
Subpart
G
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
Care
Standard
and
Subpart
H
Cost
Estimating
Requirements
(
May
1986))

Closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
"
certify"
that
closure/
post­
closure
activities
have
been
performed
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
Simply
certifying
that
closure
has
been
completed
is
insufficient.
The
owner
or
operator
should
describe
in
the
closure
plan:

°
The
types
of
activities
that
will
be
conducted
by
the
independent
professional
engineer
or
soil
scientist;
69
°
Testing
and
analyses
to
be
performed;

°
Criteria
for
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
the
closure
activities;

°
A
schedule
or
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
periodic
inspections
to
be
made
by
an
engineer
during
the
closure
period;
and
°
Types
of
documentation
to
be
made
available.

Under
the
first
requirement:

264/
5.115
Certification
of
closure
Within
60
days
of
completion
of
closure
of
each
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundment,
waste
pile,
land
treatment,

and
landfill
unit,
and
within
60
days
of
the
completion
of
final
closure,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
facility,
as
applicable,
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
by
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer.
Documentation
supporting
the
independent
registered
professional
engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
closure
under
264.143(
i).

Certification
requires
the
independent,
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that
the
following
activities
were
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan:

1.
Removal
and/
or
decontamination
of
all
waste
residues,
contaminated
containment
system
components
(
liners,

etc.),
contaminated
subsoils,
and
structures
and
equipment
contaminated
with
waste
and
leachate;

2.
Removal
and
elimination
of
free
liquids
by
removing
liquid
waste
or
solidfying
the
remaining
waste
and
waste
residues;
70
3.
Stabilization
of
remaining
wastes
to
a
bearing
capacity
to
support
final
cover
4.
Design,
construction,
and
structural
integrity
of
surface
impoundment
final
cover
that
ensures
that
long­
term
minimization
of
migration
of
liquids;

5.
Design,
construction,
and
structural
integrity
of
final
cover
to
promote
drainage
and
minimize
erosion
or
abrasion;

6.
Design,
construction,
and
structural
integrity
of
final
cover
to
accommodate
settling
and
subsistence
to
ensure
that
integrity
of
cover
is
maintained;

7.
Adequacy
of
repairs
to
the
cap
as
necessary
to
assure
structural
integrity
of
the
cap
and
correct
the
effects
of
settling,
subsistence,
erosion,
or
other
events;

8.
Design,
maintenance
and
monitoring
of
the
leak
detection
system
and
compliance
with
all
other
applicable
leak
detection
system
requirements;

9.
Design,
maintenance
and
monitoring
of
ground­
water
monitoring
system
(
i.
e.,
the
location
of
wells,
and
frequency
of
sampling
and
analysis);
and
10.
Design,
maintenance
and
monitoring
of
run­
on
and
run­
off
from
unit.

Under
the
second
requirement:

264.280(
b)
Land
treatment
units,
certification
of
closure
For
the
purpose
of
complying
with
264.115,
when
closure
is
completed
the
owner
or
operator
may
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
certification
by
an
independent
qualified
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer,
that
the
facility
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specification
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
certification
requires
the
either
an
independent,
qualified
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer
to
certify
that:
71
1.
The
design
and
installation
of
the
final
cap
taking
into
account
infiltration
control,
erosion
and
run­
off
control,

wind
erosion
control
and
prevention
of
ponding;

2.
The
final
cap
design
and
installation
taking
into
account
density,
porosity,
permeability,
compatibility
with
wastes
to
ensure
wastes
will
not
corrode
cover;

3.
The
design
and
evaluation
of
grading
and
terracing
for
controlling
erosion
including,
slope
of
cover,
length
of
run
of
slope,
drainage
and
diversion
structures
to
channel
water
away
from
the
waste
area;

4.
The
design
and
installation
evaluation
of
surrounding
berms
and
containment
areas.

5.
The
evaluation
and
certification
of
final
cover
permeability;

6.
The
evaluation
and
certification
of
synthetic
membrane
liners,
if
applicable;

7.
Operations
at
the
site
maximize
degradation,
transformation,
or
immobilization
of
hazardous
constituents
within
the
treatment
zone;

8.
Operations
in
the
treatment
zone
to
minimize
run­
off
of
hazardous
constituents.

9.
Operations
to
control
wind
disperal
of
hazardous
constituents;

10.
Monitoring
of
the
unsaturated
zone
and
soil­
pore
monitoring;
and
11.
Installation
and
evaluation
of
a
vegetative
cover
that
will
not
substantially
impede
degradation,
transformation,

or
immobilization
of
hazardous
constituents
in
the
treatment
zone.

Under
the
third
requirement:
72
264/
5.120
Certification
of
post­
closure
No
later
than
60
days
after
completion
of
the
established
post­
closure
care
period
for
each
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit,
the
owner
or
operation
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
postclosure
care
period
for
the
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit
was
performed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent
registered
professional
engineer.
Documentation
supporting
the
independent
registered
professional
engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
post­
closure
care
under
264.145(
i).

A
independent,
registered
professional
engineer
must
certify
that
the
post­
closure
care
period
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
post­
closure
plan
(
all
post­
closure
plans
must
describe
procedures
for
providing
30
years
of
post­
closure
care).
This
includes
reviewing/
evaluating
data,
calling
for
analysis,
etc.,
to
ensure
that
the
following
activities
were
conducted
properly
over
the
post­
closure
period:

1.
Monitoring
and
reporting
in
accordance
with
the
process­
specific
including
ground­
water,
soil
leachate,
and
leak
detection
monitoring
activities
and
frequencies;

2.
Maintenance
and
monitoring
of
waste
containment
systems
in
accordance
with
the
process­
specific
requirements;

3.
Maintenance
activities
for
any
events
that
could
reasonable
be
expected
to
occur
over
a
30
year
period.

Storms,
droughts,
seismic
activities;

4.
Maintenance
and
inspections
of
final
cover,
run­
on
and
run­
off
control
systems,
surveyed
benchmarks,

groundwater
monitoring
systems,
leachate
collection
systems,
unsaturated
zone
soil
monitoring
systems,
security
systems;
and
5.
Maintenance
of
monitoring
systems
including
replacing
or
re­
drilling
monitoring
wells,
replacing
seals,
piping,

cans,
repairing
replacing
pumps.
73
As
noted
above,
to
conduct
the
certifications
for
these
sections
of
the
regulations
requires
engineering
skills
or
in
the
case
of
land
treatment
closure
activities
the
expertise
of
a
qualified
soil
scientist
to
insure
the
design,

installation,
maintenance
and
structural
integrity
of
those
systems
employed
to
conduct
closure
and
post­
closure
activities.
The
ASTM
certification
for
Environmental
Professionals,(
for
which
a
Certified
Hazardous
Material
Manger
would
qualify)
is
inadequate
to
insure
that
the
professionals
are
adequately
trained
for
the
types
of
certifications
involved.
The
ASTM
certification
focuses
on
professionals
understanding
the
content
of
the
rules,
it
does
not
require
professionals
to
acquire
the
technical
skills
to
design
or
review
the
design
of
some
features
required
by
these
rules.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
believe
that
ASTM­
certified
Environmental
Professionals
should
not
be
allowed
to
conduct
these
certifications.

It
is
important
to
reiterate
our
response
to
the
question
posed
by
SBA
in
our
November
23,
2005
correspondence
regarding
the
appropriate
inquiry
rule
SBA
question:
Furthermore,
EPA's
draft
final
rule
is
inconsistent
with
the
recently
promulgated
all
appropriate
inquiry
(
AAI)
rule
allowing
non
engineers
to
perform
both
phase
I
and
phase
II
audits.
If
non
engineers
can
help
determine
facility
liability
under
RCRA
and
CERCLA,
then
certainly
they
should
be
able
to
make
these
types
of
professional
environmental
judgments
under
RCRA.
Given
that
this
determination
was
reached
in
a
negotiated
rulemaking
among
all
affected
parties,
this
judgment
should
be
given
even
more
weight.

This
rule
has
no
relationship
to
the
design,
installation,
operation
and
maintenance
of
hazardous
waste
management
units.
These
activities
require
engineering
knowledge
and
judgement.

One
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
the
all
appropriate
inquiries
requirements
do
not
(
in
any
way
what
so
ever)
require
the
environmental
professional
to
render
any
judgment
or
opinion
regarding
RCRA
or
CERCLA
compliance
or
liability.
The
all
appropriate
inquiries
requirements
include
research
activities
and
a
site
investigation
similar
to
a
Phase
I
environmental
site
assessment.
No
compliance
evaluation
and
no
assessment
of
engineering
or
technical
requirements
(
which
may
inherently
require
the
expertise
of
an
engineer
or
geologist).
As
we
described
earlier,
many
states
were
very
concerned
about
the
potential
for
unqualified
individuals
to
allowed
to
74
provide
these
certifications,
and
were
unwilling
to
take
on
the
unfunded
mandate
of
evaluating
the
qualifications
of
non­
PEs.

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
01/
03/
2006
03:
53
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>,
"
Johansson,
Robert
C."

<
Robert_
C._
Johansson@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
Ben
Lesser/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,

Elaine
Eby/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jim
Berlow/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,

Janette
Petersen/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Barbara
Hostage/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Gerain
Perry/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject
2:
30­
3:
30
conf
call
on
RCRA
Burden
Rule
Weds
Jan
4
We're
on
for
a
call
tomorrow
at
2:
30
­
for
EPA,
we'll
have
Jim
Berlow,
Ben
Lesser,
Elaine
Eby,
Janette
Petersen
and
myself.
75
We
have
a
new
reservationless
system
­
­
Please
dial
866­
299­
3188
then
conference
code:
202
566
1934
­
you
then
may
be
asked
if
you're
the
leader
of
the
call­­
that'd
be
me
­­
so
just
stay
on
the
line
and
I'll
open
it
up
when
I
dial
in
promptly
at
2:
30.

Our
agenda
will
be
for
us
to
respond
to
these
3
items:

1)
On
the
issue
of
whether
EPA
can
finalize
reduced
inspection
frequencies
(
monthly)
for
PT
facilities
without
state
approval.
EPA's
response
says
that
it
could
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
with
some
opportunity
for
states
to
interject
(
30
days),
although
there
is
some
legal
risk.
However,
EPA's
response
implies
that
it
cannot
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
for
PT
facilities
without
some
opportunity
for
states
to
interject
(
30
days).
Is
this
last
statement
correct?
Does
EPA's
OGC
believe
it
cannot
legally
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
for
PT
facilities
without
some
opportunity
for
the
state
to
interject?

2)
Need
to
clarify
EPA's
statement
that
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1)
reduces
flexibility
for
generators.

3)
Any
remaining
issues
and
clarification
on
schedule
or
possible
need
for
an
extension
request.

Talk
to
you
tomorrow.

David
S.
Nicholas
Acting
Director
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
76
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

01/
03/
2006
01:
51
PM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>,
"
Johansson,
Robert
C."

<
Robert_
C._
Johansson@
omb.
eop.
gov>

Subject
RE:
RCRA
Burden
Rule
Anytime
after
2
is
fine
with
me.
Let
me
know
when,
and
send
Kevin,
Rob,

and
I
a
call­
in
number.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Nicholas.
David@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Nicholas.
David@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
77
Sent:
Tuesday,
January
03,
2006
12:
50
PM
To:
Belton,
Keith
B.

Subject:
RE:
RCRA
Burden
Rule
Hi
Keith,

Is
Weds
after
1:
00
looking
doable
for
a
call
on
this
rule?

­
alsoresponses
to
CRT
issues
are
en
route
soon.

David
S.
Nicholas
Acting
Director
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton
To
@
omb.
eop.
gov>
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
12/
29/
2005
02:
31
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."

PM
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>
Subject
78
RE:
RCRA
Burden
Rule
I
read
the
latest
EPA
response.
I
have
one
question
and
one
request.

(
1)
question.
On
the
issue
of
whether
EPA
can
finalize
reduced
inspection
frequencies
(
monthly)
for
PT
facilities
without
state
approval.
EPA's
response
says
that
it
could
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
with
some
opportunity
for
states
to
interject
(
30
days),
although
there
is
some
legal
risk.
However,
EPA's
response
implies
that
it
cannot
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
for
PT
facilities
without
some
opportunity
for
states
to
interject
(
30
days).
Is
this
last
statement
correct?
Does
EPA's
OGC
believe
it
cannot
legally
finalize
a
monthly
self­
implementation
approach
for
PT
facilities
without
some
opportunity
for
the
state
to
interject?
Please
clarify.

2)
Request.
I
would
like
to
have
another
conference
call
to
better
79
understand
EPA's
statement
that
eliminating
268.7(
a)(
1)
reduces
flexibility
for
generators.
This
time,
I
would
like
to
include
an
OIRA
colleague.
Let
me
know
when
EPA
is
available
for
such
a
call.
Perhaps
we
can
use
the
call
to
go
through
all
of
the
remaining
issues
and
resolve
and/
or
elevate.

No
additional
extension
request
is
needed
from
EPA
at
this
time.

­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Nicholas.
David@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Nicholas.
David@
epamail.
epa.
gov]

Sent:
Tuesday,
December
27,
2005
4:
34
PM
To:
Belton,
Keith
B.

Subject:
extension
on
RCRA
Burden
Rule?

Hi
Keith,

Just
checking
in
on
your
reaction
to
our
responses
and
if
an
extension
will
be
needed.
Thanks.

David
S.
Nicholas
Acting
Director
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
80
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
01/
30/
2006
11:
08
AM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
Subject
Re:
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
I
had
a
quick
round
of
calls
with
OSW
­
Jim
Berlow
confirmed
that
this
probably
will
not
need
to
elevate
­
I
think
final
touches
on
the
language
are
still
with
counsel,
but
the
complicated
story
that
I'll
try
to
summarize
here
is
that
in
going
from
weekly
to
monthly
inspections
the
facility's
application
is
deemed
approved
if
they
hear
nothing
from
the
state
in
90
days
(
I
think
the
state
can
also
invoke
a
30
day
extension
too
but
has
to
give
notice)
­
if
the
state
disapproves
the
application
then
the
facility
gets
a
10
day
window
to
get
back
on
cycle.
Jim
tells
me
this
is
essentially
in
line
with
your
position
and
that
reg
text
will
be
modified
accordingly.

Hope
that
is
on
target­­
please
call
if
not.

David
S.
Nicholas
81
Policy
Analysis
and
Regulatory
Management
Staff
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
mc
5103T)

ph.
202.566.1927
fx.
202.566.1934
nicholas.
david@
epa.
gov
Hi
Keith
and
Kevin,

Answers
to
your
questions
follow
­
please
let
me
know
if
this
works
and
if
you're
able
to
conclude
review
or
want
to
talk
more
­
thanks.

=============

Question
1):
page
22.
EPA
has
struck
the
SBA­
suggested
language
that
PEs
may
not
always
have
the
required
expertise.
Please
explain
why
this
language
was
struck.
If
it
is
not
correct,
please
explain.

Answer:
EPA
did
not
adopt
the
suggested
language
indicating
that
Professional
Engineers
might
rely
on
other
qualified
professionals
to
do
work
in
areas
where
they
might
not
be
qualified.
It
would
be
both
unethical
and
legally
impermissible
for
a
Professional
Engineer
to
certify
work
that
was
outside
his
or
her
expertise.
Professional
Engineers
can
use
other
professionals
to
save
time
and
reduce
the
cost
of
doing
the
original
work,
but
the
Professional
Engineer
must
be
fully
qualified
to
check
that
work
and
attest
to
its
quality
and
completeness.

Question
2):
page
29.
Please
insert
the
word
"
not"
after
the
word
"
does"
in
the
following
sentence.
"
This
error
also
does
change
our
position
that
all
certifications
should
be
conducted
by
a
'
qualified
professional
engineer'
....."

Answer:
We
concur
with
the
comment
and
have
fixed
this
typo.

Question
3):
page
36­
37.
Why
not
clarify
that
generators
have
the
same
flexibility
regarding
LDR
characteristic
waste
requirement
(
269.7)
as
is
being
done
for
the
generator
LDR
waste
determination
(
268.7)?
Shouldn't
268.9
parallel
the
changes
for
269.7?
82
Answer:
We
assume
you
mean
268.9
No.
286.9
should
not
be
changed.
It
does
not
conflict
with
the
changes
made
to
268.7
that
offer
the
generator
flexibility
as
to
who
makes
the
LDR
determination.

Details:
Section
268.9
can
be
viewed
as
an
extension
to
the
262.11
requirements
(
i.
e.,
characterization
of
the
waste),
it
requires
the
initial
generator
of
a
solid
waste
to
determine
each
hazardous
waste
code
applicable
to
the
waste
in
order
to
be
treated.
Unlike
268.7
it
does
not
require
the
generator
to
make
a
determination
of
whether
the
waste
meets
LDR
or
needs
to
be
treated.

Section
268.9
also
provides
guidance
as
to
what
should
be
on
the
notification
form
and
how
the
waste
must
be
treated
if
it
exhibits
a
characteristic
or
it
exhibits
a
characteristic
and
is
a
listed
waste.
Since
we
added
flexibility
language
to
268.7,
that
language
applies
to
268.9
as
well.
There
is
a
cross­
reference
to
268.7
at
268.9(
d)
that
states:

Wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
are
also
subject
to
268.7
requirements,
except
that,
once
the
waste
is
no
longer
hazardous,
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
generator?
s
or
treaters
files
and
sent
to
the
EPA
region
or
authorized
state?.

In
addition,
268.9(
d)(
ii)
states
that,
if
the
generator
does
not
specify
which
underlying
hazardous
constituents
must
be
treated,
then
all
underlying
hazardous
constituents
will
be
treated
and
monitored.
This
compares
to
the
case
when
the
generator
decides
that
he
wants
the
treater
to
make
the
determination.,
i.
e.,
the
treater
absent
any
information
from
the
generator
will
have
to
test
and/
or
treat
for
all.

268.9(
d)(
ii):
A
description
of
the
waste
as
initially
generated,
including
the
applicable
EPA
hazardous
waste
code(
s),
treatability
groups(
s),

and
underlying
hazardous
constituents
(
as
defined
in
268.2(
i)),
unless
the
waste
will
be
treated
and
monitored
for
all
underlying
hazardous
constituents.
If
all
underlying
hazardous
constituents
will
be
treated
and
monitored,
there
is
no
requirement
to
list
any
of
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
on
the
notice.
============================
83
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

02/
13/
2006
03:
01
PM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jim
Berlow/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
"
Bromberg,
Kevin
L."
<
kevin.
bromberg@
sba.
gov>

Subject
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Rule
Looked
over
the
redline.
Conferred
with
SBA.
Remaining
comments/
questions:

page
22.
EPA
has
struck
the
SBA­
suggested
language
that
PEs
may
not
always
have
the
required
expertise.
Please
explain
why
this
language
was
struck.
If
it
is
not
correct,
please
explain.

page
29.
Please
insert
the
word
"
not"
after
the
word
"
does"
in
the
following
sentence.
"
This
error
also
does
change
our
position
that
all
certifications
should
be
conducted
by
a
'
qualified
professional
engineer'
....."

page
36­
37.
Why
not
clarify
that
generators
have
the
same
flexibility
regarding
LDR
characteristic
waste
requirement
(
269.7)
as
is
being
done
for
the
generator
LDR
waste
determination
(
268.7)?
Shouldn't
268.9
parallel
the
changes
for
269.7?
84
"
Belton,
Keith
B."

<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

01/
30/
2006
09:
25
AM
To
David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
RCRA
Burden
Reduction
Does
EPA
agree
in
principle
to
what
I
had
written
on
generators?
I
thought
it
would
be
ok
because
it
was
consistent
with
an
outcome
that
Jim
Berlow
and
I
had
discussed.
(
That
is,
change
the
reg
text
to
make
it
clear
that
generators
don't
have
to
do
(
a)(
1),
and
could
just
do
(
a)(
2)
if
they
don't
know
about
whether
the
waste
meets
LDR,
in
which
case
they
would
have
to
use
the
certification
in
(
a)(
2).)

Just
want
to
be
sure
that
we
won't
have
to
elevate
the
generator
issue.

David
Nicholas/
DC/
USEPA/
US
02/
09/
2006
05:
29
PM
To
"
Belton,
Keith
B."
<
Keith_
B._
Belton@
omb.
eop.
gov>

cc
85
Subject
redline
strikeout
for
burden
reduction
rule
Hi
Keith,
Attached
is
a
redline/
strikeout
version
of
the
rule.

Changes
shown
in
the
attached
redline/
strikeout
include:

Professional
Engineer
(
PE)
Certifications
(
pages
22­
30)

1.
Add
explanation
that
the
facility
may
use
other
qualified
professionals
to
assist
in
certification
analysis,
however
PE
must
sign
document;

2.
Remove
"
independent"
requirement
from
the
PE
certification.
Make
all
certifications
require
"
qualified"
Professional
Engineer.

Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
page
36)

­
Add
language
allowing
generator
to
have
the
option
of
allowing
a
treatment
facility
to
make
LDR
determination.

Tank
Inspections
(
pages
53,
68)

­
Remove
redundant
language
on
secondary
containment.

Performance
Track
Application
Process
for
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
(
pages
63­
64)

­
New
application
process
is
described
where
60­
day
deadlines
are
imposed
for
States
to
act
on
application
or
application
is
considered
approved.

While
not
noted
by
specific
page
numbers,
the
tables
and
regulatory
language
have
also
been
amended
to
reflect
these
changes
and
appear
in
this
redline/
strikeout
version.
Some
grammatical
changes
have
also
been
made,
these
are
identified
in
red.

02.06.06
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
86
40
CFR
Parts
260,
261,
264,
265,
266,
268,
270,
and
271
[
RCRA­
2001­
0039:
FRL­
]

RIN:
2050­
AE50
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Burden
Reduction
Initiative
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
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,
EPA,
and
the
regulated
community.
EPA
has
estimated
that
the
total
annual
hour
savings
under
the
final
rule
ranges
from
22,000
hours
to
37,500
hours
per
year.
The
total
annual
cost
savings
under
the
final
rule
ranges
from
approximately
$
2
million
to
$
3
million.
This
rulemaking
will
streamline
our
information
collection
requirements,
ensuring
that
only
the
information
that
is
actually
needed
and
used
to
implement
the
RCRA
program
is
collected
and
the
goals
of
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
are
retained.

DATES:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
[
insert
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

ADDRESSES:
EPA
has
established
a
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
RCRA­
2001­
0039.
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
on
the
www.
regulations.
gov
web
site.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
e.
g.,

CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
RCRA
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
This
Docket
Facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,

excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
RCRA
docket
is
(
202)
566­
566­
0270.
87
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Elaine
Eby,
Waste
Minimization
Branch,
Hazardous
Waste
Minimization
and
Management
Division,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5302W),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,

Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308­
8449,
fax
number:
(
703)
308­
8443,
email
address:
eby.
elaine
@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

This
rule
applies
to
entities
regulated
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
including
manufacturing,

transportation,
utilities,
the
waste
treatment
industry,
and
the
mineral
processing
industry.
This
list
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,

but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility,

company,
or
business
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
273.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
"
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT"
section.

B.
Table
of
Contents
I.
Statutory
Authority
II.
Background,
Purpose,
and
Summary
of
Today's
Action
III.
What
Burden
Reduction
Changes
Are
We
Making?

A.
Changes
to
the
Amount
of
Time
Records
Must
be
Kept.

1.
We
Are
Reducing
the
Retention
Time
for
Certain
Information
Kept
in
a
Facility's
Operating
Record.

2.
We
Are
Increasing
the
Retention
Time
for
Certain
Information
Kept
in
an
Interim
Status
Facility's
Operating
Record.
88
3.
We
Are
Establishing
a
Five
Year
Record
Retention
Time
for
Information
Kept
on
the
Operation
of
Incinerators,
Boilers,

and
Industrial
Furnaces.

B.
Changes
to
the
Qualifications
of
a
Professional
Engineer
Who
Is
Required
to
Make
Certain
Certifications.
Professional
Engineer
Certification
Requirements.

1.
We
Are
Removing
the
"
Independent
and
"
Registered"
"
Registered"
Requirement
and
Keeping
the
Requirements
for
Selected
Certifications.

2.
We
Are
Also
Changing
the
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
Certification
Requirements.

C.
Owners
and
Operators
of
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
Have
an
Option
of
Following
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.

D.
Owners
and
Operators
of
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
Have
an
Option
to
Follow
the
RCRA
or
Equivalent
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
Standard
for
Emergency
Response
Training.

E.
We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Generator
Waste
Determination.

2.
We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Characteristic
Waste
Determination.

3.
We
Are
Removing
Obsolete
Regulatory
Language.

F.
We
Are
Eliminating
Selected
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
That
We
Believe
Provide
Duplicative
Information
to
EPA.

1.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
That
They
Are
in
Compliance
After
a
Release.

2.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
of
Their
Intent
to
Burn
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
and
F027
Wastes.

3.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
if
They
Employ
or
Discontinue
Use
of
the
Alternative
Valve
Standard.

4.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
if
They
are
Using
Alternative
Valve
Work
Practices.

G.
We
Are
Permitting
Decreased
Inspection
Frequency
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Units.
89
1.
We
Are
Establishing
Weekly
Inspections
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Systems
at
Permitted
and
Interim
Status
Facilities,
and
at
Large
Quantity
Generator
Sites.

2.
We
Are
Establishing
Weekly
Inspections
for
SQG
Hazardous
Waste
Tanks
Systems
With
Secondary
Containment.

3.
We
Are
Allowing
Members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
to
Apply
for
an
Adjustment
to
the
Frequency
of
Their
Inspections
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Units
and
Areas.

a.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Areas
Subject
to
Spills.

b.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Containers.

c.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Tank
Systems.

d.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Containment
Buildings.

H.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Record
Retention
and
Submittal
of
Records.

1.
We
Are
Removing
the
Requirement
to
Submit
a
One­
time
Notification
for
Recycled
Wood
Wastewater
and
Spent
Wood­

Preserving
Solutions
and
Clarifying
an
Unintentional
Elimination
Made
in
the
Proposal.

2.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Interim
Status
Facilities
to
Submit
Specific
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Plans
and
Ground­
water
Assessment
Reports.

3.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Interim
Status
Surface
Impoundments,
Waste
Piles,
and
Landfills
to
Submit
a
Response
Action
Plan.

4.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Submit
a
Tank
System
Certification
of
Completion
of
Major
Repairs.

5.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
a
Recycler
to
Submit
a
Notification
and
Certification.

6.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
to
Submit
an
LDR
Notification
and
Certification.

I.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Document
Submittal.

1.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Procedure
for
Obtaining
a
Variance
from
Classification
as
a
Solid
Waste.

2.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Requirements
for
Treatability
Study
Reports
for
Testing
Facilities.
90
3.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Requirements
for
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.

J.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Semi­
Annual
Reports
to
Annual
Reports.

1.
We
Are
Changing
the
Requirement
for
a
Semi­
Annual
Report
Detailing
the
Effectiveness
of
the
Corrective
Action
Program.

2.
We
Are
Changing
the
Requirement
for
a
Semi­
Annual
Report
Detailing
the
Progress
of
the
Corrective
Action
Program.

IV.
What
Regulatory
Requirements
Will
Remain
in
the
CFR?

V.
We
Will
Implement
this
Rule
via
the
Class
I
Permit
Modification
Process
Without
Prior
Approval.

VI.
How
Will
Today's
Regulatory
Changes
Be
Administered
and
Enforced
in
the
States?

A.
Applicability
of
Federal
Rules
in
Authorized
States.

B.
Authorization
of
States
for
Today's
Rule.

VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Reviews.

A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995.
91
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations.

K.
Congressional
Review
Act.

VIII.
Regulatory
Language.

I.
Statutory
Authority
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
regulates
the
generation
and
management
of
hazardous
waste
under
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
273
using
the
authority
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976
(
RCRA),
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901
et
seq.

II.
Background,
Purpose,
and
Summary
of
Today's
Action
As
part
of
its
hazardous
waste
regulations,
EPA
has
established
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
allow
the
Agency
to
enforce
and
ensure
compliance
with
these
regulations.
In
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
44
U.
S.
C.
3501,
et
seq,

Congress
directs
all
Federal
agencies
to
become
more
responsible
and
publicly
accountable
for
reducing
the
burden
of
Federal
7
The
Notices
of
Data
Availability
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
June
18,
1999
(
64
FR
32859)
and
October
29,

2003
(
68
FR
61662).
The
Proposed
Rulemaking
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
January
17,
2002
(
67
FR
2518).

92
paperwork
on
the
public.
"
Burden"
is
defined
as
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,

maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3502(
2)).

Over
the
past
five
years,
EPA
has
continued
to
assess
and
evaluate
the
need
for
the
many
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
found
in
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program.
In
the
course
of
this
effort,
we
have
identified
numerous
opportunities
to
eliminate
or
streamline
RCRA
requirements,
while
continuing
to
fulfill
our
mission
of
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.

Today's
final
rule
changes
a
number
of
the
regulatory
requirements
found
in
40
CFR
Parts
260
through
271.
These
changes
will
bring
about
burden
reductions
to
both
the
regulated
community
and
the
regulators
and
is
a
direct
result
of
our
consultations
with
a
number
of
state
experts
on
potential
burden
reduction
ideas,
as
well
as
public
input
through
two
Notices
of
Data
Availability
and
a
Proposed
Rulemaking.
7
The
regulatory
changes
contained
in
the
Burden
Reduction
final
rule
will
have
no
practical
impact
on
the
many
protections
that
EPA
has
established
over
the
years
for
human
health
and
the
environment.
At
the
same
time,
this
rule
strives
to
relieve
stakeholders
of
the
burden
of
nonessential
paperwork.
The
final
rule
clarifies
certain
requirements
and
eliminates
or
simplifies
other
93
requirements.
We
have
eliminated
paperwork
requirements
if
they
entail
information
that
is
obscure,
inconsequential,
or
infrequently
submitted
to
or
used
by
regulators.
Note,
however,
that
the
final
rule
does
not
curtail
the
right
of
regulatory
agencies
to
request
any
information
desired.
Waste
handlers
must
continue
to
keep
on­
site
records
of
their
waste
management
activities
and
make
them
available
to
regulators
when
requested.
As
such,
the
rule
does
not
limit
regulators'
or
the
public's
ability
to
learn
what
is
happening
at
a
facility.
To
effectively
present
the
large
number
of
regulatory
changes
we
are
finalizing,
we
have
divided
these
changes
into
ten
categories
or
groups
of
changes,
they
are:
(
1)
the
amount
of
time
records
must
be
kept;
(
2)
certification
by
a
professional
engineer;
(
3)

option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance;
(
4)
option
to
follow
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
for
emergency
training;
(
5)
clarifications
and
elimination
of
obsolete
regulatory
language;
(
6)
elimination
of
selected
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements;
(
7)
decreased
self­
inspection
frequency
for
selected
hazardous
waste
management
units;
(
8)
selected
changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records;
(
9)
changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal;
and
(
10)
reduced
frequency
for
report
submittals.
A
summary
of
the
major
components
of
the
final
rule
is
presented
in
Table
1.

The
preamble
discussion
follows
the
set
of
categories
presented
above
(
see
also
Table
1,
94
"
Summary
of
the
Major
Components
and
a
Description
of
the
Regulatory
Changes
Being
Promulgated
in
Today's
Burden
Reduction
Final
Rule").
Within
each
category,
we
present
the
changes
we
are
promulgating,
along
with
a
discussion
of
the
comments
received
and
our
resolution
of
the
major
issues
or
concerns.
At
the
conclusion
of
each
section,
we
present
comparative
tables
showing
both
the
current
regulatory
requirement
and
the
new
requirement
for
the
affected
group,
i.
e.,
generators;
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment,

storage,
and
disposal
facilities;
and
interim
status
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities.
Interim
status
regulations
at
40CFR
Part
265
provide
for
the
continued
operation
of
an
existing
facility
that
meets
certain
conditions
until
final
administrative
disposition
of
the
owner
and
operator
permit
application
is
made.
Regulations
for
permit
applications
are
found
in
40
CFR
Part
270
and
general
standards
for
permitted
facilities
are
found
in
40
CFR
Part
264.
TABLE
1
SUMMARY
OF
THE
MAJOR
COMPONENTS
AND
A
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
REGULATORY
CHANGES
BEING
PROMULGATED
IN
TODAY'S
BURDEN
REDUCTION
FINAL
RULE
95
Regulatory
Change
Description
of
Regulatory
Change
The
amount
of
time
records
must
be
kept.
Many
of
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs)
mandate
record
retention
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
In
this
final
rule,
we
have
reduced
the
length
of
time
waste
handlers
must
retain
certain
records
on
site
to
three
years
or
five
years
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
units.
(
e.
g.,
operating
record
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.73
and
265.73).
We
have
also
increased
the
record
retention
time
for
a
selected
number
of
documents
for
interim
status
facilities
in
cases
where
the
notification
requirement
has
been
eliminated.
.

Certification
by
an
independent,
professional
engineer.
Numerous
regulations
require
generators
and
TSDFs
to
obtain
an
independent,
qualified,
registered,
professional
engineer's
certification,
as
specified
To
remove
redundancy,
We
have
changed
certain
RCRA
certification
requirements
by
taking
out
the
terms
"
independent"
and
"
registered."

Option
to
follow
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.
Large
Quantity
Generators
(
LQGs)
and
TSDFs
must
have
contingency
plans
to
minimize
hazards
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
fires,

explosions,
or
any
unplanned
release
of
hazardous
waste
to
the
environment.
We
have
modified
our
RCRA
regulations
to
indicate
that
these
waste
handlers
may
consider
developing
one
comprehensive
contingency
plan
based
on
the
Integrated
Contingency
Guidance.
This
guidance
provides
a
mechanism
for
consolidating
the
multiple
contingency
plans
that
waste
handlers
have
to
prepare
to
comply
with
various
government
regulations.
Regulatory
Change
Description
of
Regulatory
Change
96
Option
to
follow
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
for
emergency
training.
LQGs
and
TSDFs
must
train
their
employees
in
emergency
procedures.
We
have
modified
the
RCRA
regulations
to
allow
waste
handlers
to
have
the
option
of
complying
with
either
the
RCRA
or
OSHA
requirements
for
emergency
response
procedures.

Clarifications
and
elimination
of
obsolete
regulatory
language.
We
are
modifying
specified
regulatory
language
by
eliminating
obsolete
terms
and/
or
rewording
language
to
make
it
clearer.
We
are
also
providing
regulatory
clarifications
to
several
LDR
requirements.

Elimination
of
selected
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
We
have
eliminated
certain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
RCRA
regulations
in
order
to
eliminate
submission
of
duplicative
information
and/
or
unnecessary
burden
to
waste
handlers.

Decreased
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Under
many
RCRA
inspection
requirements,
we
specify
a
frequency
at
which
waste
handlers
must
inspect
their
facility
and
equipment.
We
have
reduced
the
self­
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly,
under
certain
conditions.
In
addition,
EPA
is
allowing
facilities
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequencies,
under
certain
conditions,
up
to
monthly,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,

and
areas
subject
to
spills.

Selected
changes
to
the
requirements
for
record
retention
and
submittal
of
records.
We
are
modifying
certain
requirements
under
which
waste
handlers
must
keep
records
on­
site
and
submit
these
same
records
to
EPA.
We
are
specifying
certain
records
that
waste
handlers
need
keep
only
on­
site.

Changes
to
the
requirements
for
document
submittal.
We
have
eliminated
several
requirements
to
reduce
the
number
of
documents
that
are
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
review.

Reduced
frequency
for
report
submittal.
We
have
reduced
the
submittal
frequency
of
certain
documents
(
e.
g.,
from
semi­
annual
to
annual).
97
III.
What
Burden
Reduction
Changes
Are
We
Making?

A.
Changes
to
the
Amount
of
Time
Records
Must
Be
Kept.

As
a
precautionary
measure
in
promulgating
the
hazardous
waste
requirements
in
1980,
we
mandated
the
retention
of
many
kinds
of
records
until
facility
closure,
resulting
in
a
tremendous
volume
of
stored
paperwork..
Our
experience
in
implementing
the
RCRA
program
has
shown
that
this
retention
time
is
excessive,
and
a
priority
item
for
reduction.

1.
We
Are
Reducing
the
Retention
Time
for
Certain
Information
Kept
in
a
Facility's
Operating
Record.

We
are
changing
a
number
of
the
operating
record
requirements
under
§
§

264.73
and
265.73
to
reduce
the
record
retention
time
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.
8
Record
retention
times
for
other
Agency
programs
vary,
but
in
numerous
instances
have
retention
times
shorter
than
the
life
of
the
facility.
For
example,
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
require
records
retention
times
of
one,
five,
and
twelve
years
(
depending
on
the
record).
The
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants,
Subpart
FF
­
National
Emission
Standards
for
Benzene
Waste
Operations
requires
a
two
year
records
retention
time.

98
We
believe
that
these
changes
establish
a
more
reasonable
record
retention
time
than
the
requirement
to
keep
this
information
until
closure
of
the
facility.
8
The
three­
year
record
retention
period
is
sufficient
to
enable
regulators
to
monitor
industry
compliance
and
take
enforcement
actions
as
needed.
In
any
event,
§
§
264.74(
b)
and
265.74(
b)
require
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.
99
We
believe
that
these
changes
will
not
affect
the
government's
or
the
public's
ability
to
know
what
is
happening
at
a
hazardous
waste
facility
because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
be
still
be
available
in
the
facility's
records.
The
Agency
will
have
access
to
the
facility's
operating
record,
which
will
contain
many
of
the
documents
previously
submitted
to
the
Agency.

Although
the
public
does
not
generally
have
access
to
the
facility's
operating
record,
the
Agency
Director
can
require
permitted
facilities
to
establish
and
maintain
a
publicly
accessible
information
repository
at
any
time
(
see
§
270.30
(
m)).
Similarly,
facilities
that
are
applying
for
permits
may
be
required
to
establish
and
maintain
an
information
repository.
(
See
124.33).

In
today's
rule,
we
are
also
amending
the
regulatory
language
proposed
for
maintaining
these
records.
In
the
proposed
rule,

we
used
the
language,
"
maintain
for
three
years
after
entry
into
the
operating
record."
A
commenter
pointed
out
that
some
records,

such
as
laboratory
analytical
results,
stand
alone
in
the
laboratory
records
and
are
not
actually
"
entered
into
the
operating
record."
We
recognize
that
this
is
an
important
distinction
and
are
changing
the
regulatory
language
from
the
proposal
to
say
"
maintain
for
three
years"
instead
of
"
maintain
for
three
years
after
entry
into
the
operating
record."
Also,
a
commenter
pointed
out
that
since
monitoring
and
ground­
water
clean
up
is
a
multi­
year
or
multi­
decade
task,
these
records
should
be
kept
until
closure
of
the
facilities.
We
agree,

and
are
changing
§
264.73(
b)(
6)
and
§
265.73(
b)(
6)
accordingly.
100
We
also
received
comments
stating
that
we
should
not
reduce
our
record
retention
requirements,
because
any
particular
record
might
be
useful
at
some
future
point.
This
could
be
said
of
any
requirement.
In
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
Congress
instructed
us
to
set
a
higher
standard
for
imposing
an
information
collection
requirement.
We
believe
that
information
must
have
a
demonstrable
value.
Based
on
our
experience,
we
believe
that
we
have
identified
those
records
that
have
the
greatest
potential
impact
on
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Such
records
must
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

We
also
received
questions
in
response
to
the
proposed
rule
asking
whether
facilities
must
keep
existing
records,
once
generated
and
stored,
until
the
date
that
was
initially
established
for
their
disposal,
even
though
we
are
changing
that
date
with
this
rule.
It
would
be
burdensome
for
facilities
to
have
two
different
sets
of
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
difficult
for
EPA
and
the
states
to
enforce
a
phase­
out
of
recordkeeping.
Therefore,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
maintain
consistency
and
retain
records
until
the
date
established
by
today's
rule
(
or
if
the
date
is
unchanged
by
this
rule,
to
the
original
date
(
i.
e.,
until
closure
of
the
facility)).

Therefore,
facilities
may
dispose
of
existing
records
consistent
with
today's
rule,
once
the
retention
date
established
by
today's
rule
becomes
effective.

2.
We
Are
Increasing
the
Retention
Time
for
Certain
Information
Kept
in
an
Interim
Status
Facility's
Operating
Record.
101
In
response
to
comments
received,
EPA
is
amending
§
265.73(
b)(
6)
and
creating
a
new
§
265.73(
b)(
15)
to
require
retention
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility,
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
plans
required
under
§
265.90
and
§
265.93(
d)(
2),

and
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
§
265.93(
d)(
5).
Under
today's
rule
these
plans
are
no
longer
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
Accordingly,
EPA
has
decided
that,
in
order
to
ensure
protection
of
health
and
the
environment,
these
records
need
to
be
available
and,
therefore,
has
amended
the
regulation
to
require
that
the
information
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.
EPA
believes
today's
changes
would
result
in
no
more
burden
to
facility
owners
or
operators
for
storage,
since
it
is
likely
that
any
report
submitted
to
the
Agency
would
also
be
kept
on­
site
by
the
facility.
In
other
words,
there
would
be
no
increase
in
burden
over
what
is
already
being
done.

3.
We
Are
Establishing
a
Five
Year
Record
Retention
Time
for
Information
Kept
on
the
Operation
of
Incinerators,
Boilers,
and
Industrial
Furnaces.

Owners
and/
or
operators
of
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
(
BIFs)
are
subject
to
compliance­
related
recordkeeping
regulations.

For
example,
BIFs
must
conduct
emission
tests
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
RCRA
emission
standards
(
such
as
certification
of
compliance
tests),
performance
tests
for
their
continuous
emissions
monitors,
and
retain
these
test
reports
on­
site
until
closure
of
the
facility.
As
a
result
of
the
emissions
tests,
BIFs
also
establish
enforceable
operating
limits
that
must
be
achieved
on
a
daily
basis
9
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
the
Agency
to
develop
rules
to
reduce
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
emissions.
The
rules
require
the
application
of
strict
air
emission
controls
based
on
performance
of
best
technologies,
the
overall
approach
usually
being
referred
to
as
maximum
achievable
control
technology,
or
MACT.
102
(
such
as
hourly
rolling
average
feed
rate
limits).
BIFs
are
also
required
to
record
the
daily
operating
data
in
their
operating
record
for
compliance
purposes
and
make
them
available
for
inspection.

In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
we
solicited
comment
on
amending
the
current
record
retention
requirement
for
incinerator
monitoring,
testing
and
analytical
data,
from
"
for
the
life
of
the
facility"
to
three
years.
We
took
this
action
because
we
had
overlooked
incinerators
in
the
original
proposal
and
maintain
that
their
record
retention
requirements
should
be
consistent
with
those
for
BIFs.
This
change
for
incinerators
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters;
however,
some
pointed
out
that
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
should
be
consistent
with
those
that
the
Agency
is
currently
developing
promulgated
on
October
12,
2005
(
70
FR
59402)
for
incinerators
and
the
majority
of
BIFs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
9
We
agree
with
these
commenters
and
have
decided
for
reasons
of
consistency
with
the
CAA
requirements,
to
finalize
a
five
year
record
retention
time
for
incinerators
and
BIFs.
We
are
also
promulgating
the
five
year
record
retention
time
for
BIFs
(
such
as
sulfur
recovery
furnaces)
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
upcoming
recently
promulgated
MACT
standards.
103
One
commenter
that
opposed
any
change
to
the
record
retention
time
stated
that
incinerators
should
keep
all
their
data
points
for
the
life
of
the
facility.
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
only
information
that
a
state
inspector
has
to
use
during
a
violation
are
the
data
on
the
incinerator's
parametric
monitoring.
They
argued
that,
in
no
case,
should
record
retention
be
reduced
if
there
are
outstanding
enforcement,
non­
compliance
or
legal
issues
pending.

For
reasons
cited
earlier,
we
believe
that
modifying
the
record
retention
period
for
incinerators
and
BIFs
to
five
years
is
appropriate.
Regarding
the
commenter's
point
that
records
should
be
retained
if
there
is
an
outstanding
enforcement,
non­
compliance
or
legal
action
pending,
the
regulations
already
provide
for
this
and
nothing
in
today's
rule
would
amend
this
provision.
See
§
§
264.74
and
265.74
which
state:

The
record
retention
period
for
all
records
required
under
this
part
is
extended
automatically
during
the
course
of
any
unresolved
enforcement
action
regarding
the
facility
or
as
requested
by
the
Administrator.

The
following
tables
show
the
new
retention
times
by
facility
for
selected
records.
We
have
also
included
the
recordkeeping
requirements
found
in:
(
1)
Section
264.73,
Operating
record;
(
2)
Section
264.347,
Monitoring
and
inspections;
(
3)
Section
265.73
Operating
record;
(
4)
Section
266.102(
e)(
10),
Permit
standards
for
burners;
and
(
5)
Section
266.103(
d)
and
(
k),
Interim
status
standards
for
burners.
104
TABLE
2
REVISED
RECORD
RETENTION
TIMES
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Record
Summary
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
264.73(
b)(
1)
Description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
its
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
at
the
facility.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
2)
The
location
of
each
hazardous
waste
within
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
3)
Records
and
results
of
waste
analyses
and
waste
determinations.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.
CFR
Section
Record
Summary
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
105
264.73(
b)(
4)
Summary
reports
and
details
of
all
incidents
that
require
implementing
the
contingency
plan.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
5)
Records
and
results
of
inspections.
Maintain
for
three
years.

No
change
in
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
6)
Monitoring,
testing,
or
analytical
data
and
corrective
action.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years,
except
for
records
and
results
pertaining
to
ground­
water
monitoring
and
cleanup,
which
must
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility
264.73(
b)(
7)
For
off­
site
facilities,
notices
to
generators
as
specified
in
§
264.12(
b).
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
8)
All
closure
cost
estimates
for
disposal
facilities,
all
postclosure
cost
estimates.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
9)
Waste
minimization
certification.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
10)
Records
of
the
quantities
and
date
of
placement
for
each
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
granted.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.
CFR
Section
Record
Summary
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
106
No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

264.73(
b)(
11)
For
off­
site
treatment
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
12).
For
on­
site
treatment
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
13)
For
off­
site
land
disposal
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
14)
For
on­
site
land
disposal
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
15)
For
off­
site
storage
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
16)
For
on­
site
storage
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

264.73(
b)(
17)
Records
required
under
§
264.1(
j)(
13).
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.
CFR
Section
Record
Summary
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
107
264.73(
b)(
18)
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
where
required
by
§
264.347.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
five
years.

264.73(
b)(
19)
Certification
as
required
by
§
264.196(
f).
No
specified
requirement.

Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

264.347(
d)
For
incinerators:
monitoring
and
inspection
data.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
five
years.

266.102(
e)(
10)
For
burners:
recordkeeping
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
five
years.

TABLE
3
REVISED
RECORD
RETENTION
TIMES
FOR
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
108
CFR
Section
Summary
Record
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
265.73(
b)(
1)
Description
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
its
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
at
the
facility.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

265.73(
b)(
2)
The
location
of
each
hazardous
waste
within
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

265.73(
b)(
3)
Records
and
results
of
waste
analyses
and
waste
determinations.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
4)
Summary
reports
and
details
of
all
incidents
that
require
implementing
the
contingency
plan.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
5)
Records
and
results
of
inspections.
Maintain
for
three
years.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

265.73(
b)(
6)
Monitoring,
testing,
or
analytical
data
and
corrective
action.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years,
except
for
records
and
results
pertaining
to
ground­
water
monitoring
and
cleanup,
and
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,

and
landfills
which
must
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

265.73(
b)(
7)
All
closure
cost
estimates
for
disposal
facilities,
all
postclosure
cost
estimates.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.
CFR
Section
Summary
Record
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
109
265.73(
b)(
8)
Records
of
the
quantities
and
date
of
placement
for
each
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
place
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
granted.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

No
change
in
regulatory
requirement.

265.73(
b)(
9)
For
off­
site
treatment
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
10)
For
on­
site
treatment
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
11)
For
off­
site
land
disposal
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
12)
For
on­
site
land
disposal
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
13)
For
off­
site
storage
facility,
notices
and
certifications
from
generator.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.

265.73(
b)(
14)
For
on­
site
storage
facility,
notices
and
certifications.
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
three
years.
CFR
Section
Summary
Record
Current
Retention
Time
New
Retention
Time
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
110
265.73(
b)(
15)
Monitoring,
testing
or
,
analytical
data,
corrective
action
where
required
by
§
§
265.90,
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
265.93(
d)(
5)

of
this
part
and
certifications
as
required
by
§
265.196(
f).
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

266.103(
d)
Periodic
Recertifications.
The
owner
or
operator
must
conduct
compliance
testing
and
submit
to
the
Director
a
recertification
of
compliance
under
provisions
of
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
within
five
years
from
submitting
the
previous
certification
or
recertification.
If
the
owner
or
operator
seeks
to
recertify
compliance
under
new
operating
conditions,
he/
she
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
8)
of
this
section.
Every
three
years.

Every
five
years.

266.103(
k)
Interim
status
standards
for
burners:
recordkeeping
Maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Maintain
for
five
years.

B.
Changes
to
the
Qualifications
of
a
Professional
Engineer
Who
Is
Required
to
Make
Certain
Certifications
Professional
Engineer
Certification
Requirements.

Throughout
the
RCRA
regulations,
there
are
various
requirements
for
the
services
of
an
independent,
qualified,
registered,

professional
engineer
to
certify
the
effectiveness
of
the
design
and
operation
of
various
hazardous
waste
management
units.
We
111
proposed
to
add
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Managers
(
CHMMs)
as
professionals
qualified
to
make
selected
certifications.
This
proposed
change
was
a
result
of
comments
received
on
our
June
18,
1999
NODA
(
64
FR
32859).
In
response
to
this
proposal,
the
Agency
received
significant
comment,
primarily
requesting
that
we
expand
the
category
of
persons
allowed
to
provide
the
various
certifications.
Commenters
argued
that
we
were
being
arbitrary
in
proposing
to
allow
only
two
professional
disciplines
(
i.
e.,

CHMMs
and
professional
engineers)
to
certify
hazardous
waste
management
operations.
Conversely,
professional
engineers
strongly
opposed
the
proposed
change
in
the
regulatory
requirements.
They
suggested
that
CHMMs
were
not
qualified
to
certify
the
design,

construction,
and
structural
integrity
of
hazardous
waste
management
units.

In
addition,
numerous
states
opposed
the
change
on
the
grounds
that
their
state
laws
allow
only
licensed
engineers
to
make
these
certifications.
State
comments
also
pointed
out
that
state
licensing
boards
can
investigate
complaints
of
negligence
or
incompetence,
on
the
part
of
professional
engineers,
and
may
impose
fines
and
other
disciplinary
actions
such
as
cease­
and­
desist
orders
or
license
revocation.
According
to
commenters,
similar
controls
do
not
exist
for
other
professions.
This
personal
liability
of
the
professional
engineer
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
state
commenters
supported
the
idea
that
RCRA
certifications
should
only
be
done
by
licensed
professional
engineers.
10
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.
112
Other
commenters
suggested
that,
rather
than
deciding
which
professions
are
qualified
to
make
certifications,
we
should
establish
an
environmental
professional
performance
standard
based
on
membership
in
a
recognized
professional
organization.
In
response
to
these
comments,
we
solicited
comment
in
our
October
29,
2003
NODA
to
allow
professionals
accredited
by
organizations
meeting
the
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM)
E1929­
98,
Standard
Practice
for
the
Assessment
of
Certification
Programs
for
Environmental
Engineers
:
Accreditation
Criteria
to
conduct
a
limited
number
of
certifications,
including:
(
1)
Section
264.573(
a)(
4)(
ii)(
g),
Drip
Pads,
Design
and
operating
requirements;
(
2)
Section
265.443(
a)(
4)(
ii)(
g),
Drip
Pads,
Design
and
operating
requirements;
(
3)
Section
264.574(
a),
Drip
Pads,
Inspections;
(
4)
Section
265.444(
a),
Drip
Pads,
Inspections;
and
(
5)

Section
266.111(
e)(
2),
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces,
Direct
transfer
equipment
­
requirements
prior
to
meeting
secondary
containment
requirements.
10
Comments
to
the
change
described
in
the
NODA
were
mixed.
Some
commenters
supported
this
change
in
qualifications
for
selected
certifications,
while
a
number
of
states
and
professional
organizations
still
strongly
opposed
allowing
anyone
other
than
a
professional
engineer
to
perform
these
certifications.
While
the
Agency
believes
that
added
flexibility
to
the
RCRA
regulations
is
a
113
goal
worth
pursuing,
in
this
case,
we
are
persuaded
by
the
arguments
presented
by
states
with
regard
to
these
certifications
and
are
not
going
forward
with
these
changes
at
this
time.
Certifications
for
drip
pads
involve
certifying
engineering
designs,
drawings,
plans
and
other
engineering
details,
involving
structural
and
hydraulic
and
other
functions.
As
such,
we
believe
that
while
there
may
be
professionals
other
than
professional
engineers
qualified
to
make
these
certifications,
it
is
imperative
that
the
goals
of
human
health
and
the
environmental
protection
are
maintained.
In
reviewing
the
comments,
we
are
not
convinced
that
all
environmental
professionals
certified
by
the
ASTM
standard
would
be
qualified
to
perform
these
engineering
evaluations.
To
this
end,
we
are
not
going
forward
with
allowing
the
changes
to
the
drip
pad
certification
requirements
that
would
allow
environmental
professionals
recognized
by
a
certification
program
that
is
compliant
with
ASTM
E­
1929­
98
Standard
Practice
for
the
Assessment
of
Certification
Programs
for
Environmental
Professionals:
Accreditation
Criteria.

Although
the
Agency
was
not
persuaded
that
ASTM
board
certified
environmental
professionals,
including
CHMMs,
should
be
allowed
to
make
the
required
RCRA
certifications
that
were
the
subject
of
this
rulemaking,
the
Agency
wants
to
make
it
clear
that
facilities
are
still
permitted
to
utilize
qualified
professionals
who
may
not
be
professional
engineers
in
performing
the
analyses
that
underlie
these
certifications.
Facilities
can
potentially
lower
their
costs
by
utilizing
the
flexibility
to
employ
others
as
part
of
the
certification
requirement.
For
example,
as
part
of
the
closure
and
post
closure
requirements,
some
CHMMs
may
be
qualified
to
make
11
For
example,
in
the
All
Appropriate
Inquiries
(
AAI)
rule
published
on
November
1,
2005,
(
70
CFR
66070i)
EPA
sets
standards
for
CERCLA
liability
protection
by
establishing
criteria
that
prospective
property
owners
must
use
in
the
inquiries
they
conduct
into
the
previous
ownership,
uses,
and
environmental
conditions
of
a
property
prior
to
acquiring
the
property.
The
AAI
rule
differs
from
the
RCRA
burden
reduction
rule
in
that
AAI
does
not
in
any
way
require
the
environmental
professional
to
render
any
judgment
or
opinion
regarding
RCRA
or
CERCLA
compliance
or
liability.
AAI
requirements
include
research
activities
and
a
site
investigation
similar
to
a
Phase
I
environmental
site
assessment.
It
does
not
include
compliance
evaluation
or
an
assessment
of
engineering
or
technical
requirements
(
which
may
inherently
require
the
expertise
of
an
engineer
or
geologist).

114
certain
determinations
associated
with
these
certifications.
design
and
maintenance
of
groundwater
monitoring
systems
and
to
determine
whether
operations
at
the
site
will
minimize
hazards.

The
Agency
is
sympathetic
to
the
large
number
of
comments
by
the
CHMMs
and
other
environmental
professionals
about
unnecessary
restrictions
in
the
marketplace.
Frankly,
we
also
recognize
that
professional
engineers
providing
the
certification,
while
qualified
to
make
the
certifications
may
not
individually
possess
all
the
technical
expertise
to
make
their
own
independent
judgment
on
all
the
elements
of
the
certification,
but
may
rely
on
the
professional
advice
of
others.
In
that
regard,
the
professional
engineer
may
be
no
more
qualified
than
the
certified
environmental
professional
to
perform
all
the
required
analyses
for
some
certifications.

However,
EPA
is
retaining
the
professional
engineering
certification,
in
part,
to
allay
state
concerns
about
the
need
to
monitor
and
control
the
activities
of
personnel
that
are
now
subject
to
state
licensure
control.
Given
however
additional
experience
by
the
Agency
with
the
utilization
of
other
environmental
professionals,
EPA
may
re­
examine
this
issue
in
the
future.
11
115
1.
We
Are
Removing
the
"
Independent"
and
"
Registered"
Requirements
and
Keeping
the
"
Independent"
Requirement
for
Selected
Certifications.

Some
commenters
to
the
proposed
rule
also
suggested
that
we
change
the
certification
requirements
by
amending
the
qualifications
required
for
the
certification
from
"
independent,
qualified,
registered,
professional
engineer"
to
"
qualified,
professional
engineer."
That
is,
the
commenters
suggested
it
was
not
necessary
for
the
professional
engineer
to
be
independent
or
registered.
Commenters
argued
that
the
term
"
qualified
professional
engineer"
retains
the
most
important
components
of
the
requirement:
(
1)
that
the
engineer
be
qualified
to
perform
the
task;
and
(
2)
that
she
or
he
be
a
professional
engineer
(
following
a
code
of
ethics
and
the
potential
of
losing
his/
her
license
for
negligence).

In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
EPA
also
solicited
comment
on
changing
the
qualifications
for
who
can
certify
the
design,
operation
and
closure
of
specific
hazardous
waste
management
units
from
"
independent,
qualified,
registered,

professional
engineer"
to
"
qualified,
professional
engineer."
We
solicited
comment
on
eliminating
the
requirement
that
the
certifier
be
"
independent,"
reasoning
that
we
could
rely
on
the
professional
standards
of
the
certifier
to
ensure
accurate
certifications.
This
116
could
potentially
save
expenses
for
companies
with
in­
house
engineers,
since
they
would
not
have
to
hire
outside
consultants.
Several
commenters
strongly
State
commenters
strongly
argued
that
the
word
"
independent"
should
be
retained
because
an
independent
review
and
certification
avoids
any
potential
of
conflict
of
interest.
Commenters
stated
that
an
employee
of
a
facility
would
more
likely
have
a
biased
approach
to
review
and
certification,
and
that
state
agencies
would
have
less
confidence
in
the
accuracy
and
quality
of
review
and
certification.
Furthermore,
the
commenters
argued
that
the
public
would
have
reduced
confidence
in
the
accuracy
and
meaning
of
the
engineering
review
and
certification
if
it
was
conducted
by
an
employee
of
the
facility.
The
public
would
more
likely
suspect
a
conflict
of
interest
and
demand
a
more
rigorous
review
by
state
agencies.
Commenters
also
noted
that
a
similar
change,
regarding
whether
to
retain
the
term
"
independent"
for
professional
engineers
certifying
closure,
was
proposed
by
EPA
on
March
19,
1985
(
50
FR
11074).
After
receiving
public
comment,
a
final
rule
was
issued
on
May
2,1986
with
the
term
"
independent"
retained.
In
the
preamble
to
the
May
2,
1986
final
rule,
we
stated
that,
because
certification
of
final
closure
is
the
final
step
in
the
closure
process
and
triggers
the
release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
financial
responsibility
requirements
for
closure
and
third
party
liability
coverage
requirements,
we
believed
that
the
certification
should
be
made
by
a
person
who
is
least
subject
to
pressures
to
certify
to
the
adequacy
of
a
closure
that,
in
fact,
is
not
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
Commenters
also
117
noted
that
in
the
October
9,
1991
Federal
Register,
EPA
addressed
concerns
regarding
proposed
language
that
would
have
allowed
a
"
qualified
party"
to
perform
closure
and
post
closure
certification.
In
that
FR
notice,
we
stated
on
page
51103:

The
Agency
agrees
with
commenters
that
objective
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
are
essential
for
avoiding
any
potential
conflicts
of
interest
and
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
more
specific
requirements
concerning
the
qualification
of
the
certifying
party
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
adequacy
of
the
certification.
We,

therefore,
are
requiring
in
this
final
rule
that
certifications
be
obtained
from
independent,
registered,
professional
engineers
(
i.
e.,
registered
professional
engineers
not
in
the
employ
of
the
owner
or
operator),
consistent
with
requirements
under
subtitle
C
and
other
federally
mandated
certification
programs
(
e.
g.,
Clean
Water
Act
grants).

Upon
further
analysis,
we
have
decided
to
retain
the
independent
certification
by
a
qualified,
professional
engineer
in
other
certification
requirements
as
well.
While
commenters
argued
that
this
change
would
save
facilities
money,
EPA
believes,
based
on
further
comment,
that
it
is
important
for
the
engineer,
who
is
making
these
certifications,
to
be
independent
of
the
person
conducting
the
action
.
Common
prudence,
as
well
as
experience
under
similar
circumstances
(
e.
g.,
the
importance
of
third
­
party
audits
in
ensuring
the
adequacy
of
Environmental
Management
Systems
or
private
financial
statements)
dictate
the
use
of
independent
engineers
we
have
decided
to
delete
the
independent
qualification
for
certification
made
by
a
professional
engineer.
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
this
proposed
modification
retains
the
most
important
requirements:

that
the
engineer
is
qualified
to
perform
the
task
and
is
a
professional
engineer(
i.
e.,
licensed
to
practice
engineering
under
the
title
118
Professional
Engineer.)
We
believe
that
a
professional
engineer
regardless
of
whether
he/
she
is
independent
is
able
to
give
fair
and
technical
review
because
of
the
programs
established
by
the
state
licensing
boards.
It
is
not
clear
to
us
that
an
in­
house
engineer
faces
a
greater
economic
temptation
than
an
independent
engineer
seeking
to
cultivate
an
ongoing
relationship
with
a
client.
This
is
a
central
mission
of
state
licensing
boards.
If
certifications
are
provided
when
the
facts
to
do
not
warrant
certification,
the
professional
engineer
is
subject
to
penalties,
including
the
loss
of
license
and
the
possibility
of
fines.
Furthermore,
we
are
convinced
that
the
change
to
the
certification
requirements
will
allow
facilities
to
reduce
burden
without
compromising
environmental
safety
by
using
in­
house
expertise.
Professional
engineers
employed
by
a
facility
are
more
familiar
with
its
own
particular
situation
and
are
in
a
position
to
provide
more
on­
site
review
and
oversight
of
the
activity
being
certified.

We
also
solicited
comment
on
removing
the
term
"
registered,"
explaining
that
based
on
our
understanding
of
the
term
"
registered"
(
one
who
is
licensed
by
a
state)
the
terms
"
registered,"
"
licensed"
and
"
professional"
mean
the
same
thing
in
the
case
of
certifying
the
design,
operation
and
closure
of
hazardous
waste
management
units.
Thus,
using
the
terms
"
registered"
and
"
professional"
when
defining
the
qualification
of
an
engineer,
in
this
context,
is
redundant.
While
the
majority
of
the
comments
supported
the
change,
agreeing
that
the
term
"
registered"
appears
to
be
redundant
and
could
be
removed,
several
commenters
were
opposed
to
making
the
change.
These
commenters
argued
that
the
word
"
registered"
is
necessary
to
prevent
confusion
in
the
field,
119
particularly
among
generators,
that
a
license
or
registration
is
required.
The
Agency
is
unconvinced
by
this
argument
and
maintains
that
the
use
of
"
registered"
and
"
professional"
as
qualifications
for
engineers
making
these
certifications
is
redundant
and
should
be
simplified.
As
a
final
matter,
we
unintentionally
failed
to
identify
eight
additional
certification
requirements
that
are
part
of
this
regulatory
change,
i.
e.,
they
all
each
contains
one
or
a
combination
of
the
terms:
independent,
registered
and/
or
professional
when
describing
the
qualifications
of
the
engineer.
These
certifications
include:
(
1)
Section
264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)(
2),
Tank
Systems,

Containment
and
detection
of
releases;
(
2)
Section
265.193(
h)(
5)(
i)(
2),
Tank
Systems,
Containment
and
detection
of
releases;
(
3)

Section
264.554(
c)(
2),
Staging
Piles;
(
4)
Section
264.1101(
c)(
2),
Containment
Buildings,
Design
and
operating
standards;
(
5)

Section
265.1101(
c)(
2),
Containment
Buildings,
Design
and
operating
standards;
(
6)
Section
270.14(
a),
Permit
Application,
Content
of
part
B.
General
requirements;
(
7)
Section
270.17(
d)
Permit
Application,
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
surface
impoundments;
and
(
8)
Section
270.26(
c)(
15),
Permit
Application,
Special
part
B
information
requirements
for
drip
pads.
EPA
believes
today's
changes
provide
consistency
to
the
certification
requirements,
i.
e.,
removing
the
terms
independent
and
registered.

As
such,
we
are
finalizing
these
eight
additional
certification
changes.
Tables
4
and
5
identify
the
certifications
that
we
are
amending
12
In
§
§
264.192(
b)
and
265.192(
b)
certifications
may
also
be
done
by
an
independent,
qualified
installation
inspector.

Similarly,
in
§
264.280(
b)
this
certification
may
be
done
by
an
independent,
qualified
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent,

professional
engineer.
120
in
today's
rule
for
permitted
and
interim
status
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
as
needing
a
qualified
(
as
in
"
qualified
to
perform
the
task")
Professional
Engineer.
12
2.
We
Are
Also
Changing
the
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
Certification
Requirements.

In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
we
also
solicited
comment
on
amending
the
qualifications
for
selected
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
to
"
qualified
professional
engineer."
These
certifications
included:
(
1)
Section
264.115,
Closure
and
Post­
Closure,
Certification
of
closure;
(
2)
Section
265.115,
Closure
and
Post­
Closure,
Certification
of
closure;
(
3)
Section
264.120,

Closure
and
Post­
Closure,
Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care;
(
4)
Section
265.120,
Closure
and
Post­
Closure,

Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care;
and
(
5)
Section
264.280(
b),
Land
Treatment,
Closure
and
post­
closure
care.

During
the
development
of
today's
final
rule,
we
discovered
that
we
incorrectly
stated
the
required
qualifications
for
engineers
providing
the
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications,
and
we
failed
to
identify
one
additional
certification,
§
265.280(
e)
Land
Treatment,
Closure
and
post­
closure
care;
and
six
cross­
reference
citations
to
the
original
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications.

These
cross­
references
are:
(
1)
Section
264.143(
i),
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure,
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
121
requirements
of
this
section;
(
2)
Section
265.143(
h),
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure,
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section;
(
3)
Section
264.145(
i),
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure,
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section;
(
4)
Section
265.145(
h),
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure,
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section;
(
5)
Section
264.147(
e),
Liability
Requirements,
Period
of
coverage;
and
(
6)
Section
265.147(
e),
Liability
Requirements,
Period
of
coverage.

We
incorrectly
stated,
in
both
the
proposed
rule
and
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
the
regulatory
requirements
for
these
certifications.
In
both
these
notices,
we
stated
that
the
regulatory
language
for
closure
and
post­
closure
certifications
require
an
"
independent,
qualified,
registered,
professional
engineer"
to
make
the
certifications.
This
is
incorrect.
The
regulatory
language
for
these
certifications
does
not
include
the
word
"
qualified;"
the
certifications
language
states
that
the
certification
must
be
made
by
an
"
independent,
registered,
professional
engineer."
Hence
our
proposed
regulatory
change
to
"
qualified
professional
engineer"
for
these
certifications
was
inaccurate
and
inconsistent
with
our
other
proposed
certification
requirements.
In
our
view,
this
error
was
minor
and
does
not
change
our
position
regarding
the
redundancy
of
using
both
"
registered"
and
"
professional,"
when
defining
the
necessary
certification
qualifications.
This
error
also
does
change
our
position
that
all
certifications
should
be
conducted
by
a
"
qualified
professional
engineer"
i.
e.,
one
that
is
qualified
to
perform
the
task
and
is
a
professional
engineer(
licensed/
registered
by
the
13
In
§
§
264.192(
b)
and
265.192(
b)
certifications
may
also
be
done
by
an
independent,
qualified
installation
inspector.

Similarly,
in
§
264.280(
b)
this
certification
may
be
done
by
an
independent,
qualified
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent,
qualified
professional
engineer.
122
state
and
following
a
code
of
ethics
and
the
potential
of
losing
his/
her
license
for
negligence).
As
such,
we
are
today
amending
all
the
closure
and
post­
closure
certification
requirements
to
require
qualified
professional
engineers
to
certify
closure
and
post­
closure.

Tables
4
and
5
identify
the
certifications
that
we
are
amending
in
today's
rule
for
permitted
and
interim
status
treatment,

storage
and
disposal
facilities
as
needing
a
qualified
(
as
in
"
qualified
to
perform
the
task")
professional
engineer.
13
TABLE
4
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
NEEDING
RCRA
CERTIFICATIONS
BY
AN
INDEPENDENT,
QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
CFR
Section
New
RCRA
Certification
Requirement
(
i.
e.,
dropping
"
registered")

264.115
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.
Certification
of
closure.

264.120
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.
Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care.

264.143(
i)
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure.
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.

264.145(
i)
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure.
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.

264.147(
e)
Liability
Requirements.
Period
of
coverage.
CFR
Section
New
RCRA
Certification
Requirement
(
i.
e.,
dropping
"
registered")

123
264.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Tank
Systems.
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity.

264.192(
a),
(
b)
Tank
Systems.
Design
and
installation
of
new
tank
systems
or
components.

264.193(
h)(
4)(
i)(
2)
Tank
Systems.
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

264.196(
f)
Tank
systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
for­
use
tank
systems.

264.280(
b)
Land
Treatment.
Closure
and
post
closure
care.

264.554(
c)(
2)
Staging
Piles.

264.571(
a),(
b),(
c)
Drip
Pads.
Assessment
of
existing
drip
pad
integrity.

264.573(
a)(
4)(
ii)
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
Operating
Requirements.

264.573(
g)
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
Operating
Requirements.

264.574(
a)
Drip
Pads.
Inspections.

264.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings.
Design
and
operating
standards.

270.14(
a)
Permit
Application.
Content
of
part
B.
General
requirements.

270.16(
a)
Permit
Application.
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
tank
systems.

270.26(
c)(
15)
Permit
Application.
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
drip
pads.

TABLE
5
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
NEEDING
RCRA
CERTIFICATIONS
BY
AN
124
INDEPENDENT,
QUALIFIED,
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
CFR
Section
New
RCRA
Certification
Requirement
(
i.
e.,
dropping
"
registered")

265.115
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.
Certification
of
closure
265.120
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.
Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care.

265.143(
h)
Financial
Assurance
for
Closure.
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.

265.145(
h)
Financial
Assurance
for
Post­
Closure.
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.

265.147(
e)
Liability
Requirements.
Period
of
coverage.

265.191(
a),
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
Tank
Systems.
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity.

265.192(
a),
(
b)
Tank
Systems.
Design
and
installation
of
new
tank
systems
or
components.

265.193(
h)(
5)(
i)(
2)
Tank
Systems.
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

265.196(
f)
Tank
systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
for­
use
tank
systems.

265.280(
e)
Land
Treatment.
Closure
and
post
closure
care.

265.441(
a),
(
b),
(
c)
Drip
Pads.
Assessment
of
existing
drip
pad
integrity.

265.443(
a)(
4)(
ii)
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
Operating
Requirements.

265.443(
g)
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
Operating
Requirements.

265.444(
a)
Drip
Pads.
Inspections
265.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings.
Design
and
operating
standards.

270.14(
a)
Permit
Application.
Content
of
part
B.
General
requirements
270.16(
a)
Permit
Application.
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
tank
systems.
CFR
Section
New
RCRA
Certification
Requirement
(
i.
e.,
dropping
"
registered")

14
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
125
270.26(
c)(
15)
Permit
Application.
Special
part
B
information
requirements
for
drip
pads.

C.
Owners
and
Operators
of
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
Have
an
Option
of
Following
the
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance.

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.
14
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
126
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.

D.
Owners
and
Operators
of
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
Have
an
Option
to
Follow
the
RCRA
or
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
Standards
for
Emergency
Response
Training.

We
are
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.
15
Formerly
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office.
127
While
we
were
conducting
our
own
review
of
potential
overlaps
between
EPA
and
OSHA
regulations,
the
Government
Accountability
Office15
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
128
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.

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
129
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.

E.
We
Are
Clarifying
Selected
Requirements
Under
RCRA's
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
and
Eliminating
of
Obsolete
Regulatory
Language.
130
1.
We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Generator
Waste
Determination.

We
proposed
eliminating
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
requires,
among
other
things,
that
generators
conduct
a
waste
determination
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
LDRs).
Section
268.7(
a)(
1)
requires
generators
to
determine
if
hazardous
waste
must
be
treated
prior
to
land
disposal.
This
determination
can
be
made
either
through
testing
or
using
the
generator's
knowledge
of
the
waste's
properties
and
constituents.
We
suggested
that
a
combination
of
two
other
requirements
provided
the
same
safeguards
as
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
making
it
redundant.
First,
a
determination
of
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous
is
required
by
40
CFR
262.11,
which
says
that
generators
of
solid
waste
must
determine
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous.
Second,
§
264.13(
a)(
1)
requires
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs)
to
perform
a
general
waste
analysis
to
determine
"
all
of
the
information
which
must
be
known
to
treat,

store,
or
dispose
of
the
waste
in
accordance
with
this
Part
and
Part
268
of
this
chapter"(
emphasis
added).
We
suggested
that
these
other
determinations
are
sufficient
to
assure
that
a
waste
is
properly
characterized
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
LDRs.

Some
commenters
supported
deleting
this
waste
analysis
requirement,
stating,
generally,
that
they
supported
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
testing
requirements.
We
agree
with
these
comments
with
respect
to
reducing
redundant
testing
131
requirements
and
are
adding
a
cross
reference
in
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
to
§
262.11,
in
order
to
clarify
that
these
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently,
thus
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis.

Commenters
opposing
deleting
the
generator
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
however,
were
persuasive
in
their
argument
that
the
deletion
of
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
would
not
really
result
in
burden
reduction.
Rather,
it
would
merely
shift
the
burden
from
the
generator
to
the
TSDF.
While
TSDFs
have
a
separate
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement
under
§
264.13(
a)(
1),
they
often
rely
 
at
least
in
part
 
on
determinations
or
information
provided
by
the
generator.
Commenters
further
asserted
that
if
TSDFs
have
to
assume
full
responsibility
for
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
it
would
be
more
expensive
overall,
because
generators
can
use
their
knowledge
of
the
waste
in
determining
how
LDRs
apply
to
a
waste,
while
the
TSDF
would
not
have
that
background
and
would
have
to
perform
much
more
extensive
waste
analysis.

We
agree
with
these
comments,
and
have
determined
that
we
need
to
maintain
the
LDR
generator
waste
analysis
requirement
of
§
268.7(
a)(
1).
Thus,
today's
rule,
rather
than
eliminating
paragraph
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
amends
paragraph
§
268.7(
a)(
1),
to
avoid
duplication
and
clarify
that
the
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently.
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.
132
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
standards
of
LDR
(
possibly
even
upon
receipt
as
generated.)
A
conforming
change
is
also
being
made
to
the
notification
in
§
268.7(
a)(
2)
for
such
cases.

2.
We
Are
Clarifying
the
Regulatory
Language
on
the
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Characteristic
Waste
Determination
Requirement.

We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
separate
waste
analysis
requirement
(
§
268.9(
a))
for
generators
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
under
the
land
disposal
restrictions,
in
order
to
parallel
the
proposed
changes
to
§
268.7(
a)(
1)
that
are
discussed
above.

Some
commenters
supported
deleting
this
waste
analysis
requirement,
stating,
generally,
that
they
supported
the
Agency's
efforts
to
reduce
redundant
testing
requirements.
We
agree
with
these
comments
with
respect
to
reducing
redundant
testing
requirements
and
are
adding
a
cross
reference
in
§
268.9(
a)
to
§
262.11,
in
order
to
clarify
that
these
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently,
thus
avoiding
redundant
waste
analysis.

Commenters
opposing
deleting
the
generator
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
however,
were
persuasive
in
their
argument
that
the
deletion
of
§
268.9(
a)
would
not
really
result
in
burden
reduction.
Rather,
it
would
merely
shift
the
burden
from
the
generator
to
the
TSDF.
While
TSDFs
have
a
separate
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement
under
§
264.13(
a)(
1),
they
often
rely
 
at
least
in
part
 
on
133
determinations
or
information
provided
by
the
generator.
Commenters
further
asserted
that
if
TSDFs
have
to
assume
full
responsibility
for
the
LDR
waste
analysis
requirement,
it
would
be
more
expensive
overall,
because
generators
can
use
their
knowledge
of
the
waste
in
determining
how
LDRs
apply
to
a
waste,
while
the
TSDF
would
not
have
that
background
and
would
have
to
perform
much
more
extensive
waste
analysis.
We
agree
with
these
comments,
and
have
determined
that
we
need
to
maintain
the
LDR
generator
waste
analysis
requirement
of
§
268.9(
a).
Thus,
today's
rule,
rather
than
eliminating
paragraph
§
268.9(
a),
amends
paragraph
§
268.9(
a),
to
avoid
duplication
and
clarify
that
the
two
generator
waste
analysis
functions
can
be
performed
concurrently.

3.
We
Are
Removing
Obsolete
Regulatory
Language.

We
are
deleting
seventeen
RCRA
requirements
because
they
are
no
longer
applicable
or
have
an
expiration
date
that
has
passed.
Except
as
noted
below,
we
received
no
negative
comments
on
these
proposed
changes.

In
the
proposed
rule,
we
suggested
amending
§
§
264.193(
a)
and
265.193(
a),
arguing
that
the
language
was
obsolete.
However,

the
proposal
inadvertently
deleted
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
5)
of
§
§
264.193(
a)
and
265.193(
a).
These
paragraphs
specify
what
tanks
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment,
and
in
the
case
of
tanks
managing
newly
regulated
waste,
how
soon
134
secondary
containment
must
be
provided.
We
are
correcting
this
mistake
by
finalizing
the
deletion
of
only
§
§
264.193
(
a)(
2),(
3),
and
(
4)
and
265.193(
a)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
and
clarifying
the
requirements
in
§
§
264.193(
a)(
5)
and
265.193(
a)(
5).
Tables
8,
9,
and
10
summarize
the
changes
being
finalized
today.
TABLE
8
6
REGULATORY
CLARIFICATIONS
BEING
MADE
FOR
LAND
DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
TESTING,
TRACKING,
AND
RECORD­
KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
GENERATORS,
TREATERS,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
135
CFR
Section
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
268.7(
a)(
1)
(
a)
Requirements
for
generators:
(
1)
A
generator
of
hazardous
waste
must
determine
if
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,
§
268.45,
or
§
268.49.

This
determination
can
be
made
in
either
of
two
ways:
testing
the
waste
or
using
knowledge
of
the
waste.
If
the
generator
tests
the
waste,
testing
would
normally
determine
the
total
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents,
or
the
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
in
an
extract
of
the
waste
obtained
using
test
method
1311
in
"
Test
Methods
of
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,

Physical/
Chemical
Methods,"
EPA
Publication
SW 
846,
as
referenced
in
§
260.11
of
this
chapter,
depending
on
whether
the
treatment
standard
for
the
waste
is
expressed
as
a
total
concentration
or
concentration
of
hazardous
constituent
in
the
waste's
extract.
In
addition,
some
hazardous
wastes
must
be
treated
by
particular
treatment
methods
before
they
can
be
land
disposed
and
some
soils
are
contaminated
by
such
hazardous
wastes.
These
treatment
standards
are
also
found
in
§
268.40,
and
are
described
in
detail
in
§
268.42,
Table
1.
These
wastes,
and
solids
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).
If
a
generator
determines
they
are
managing
a
waste
or
soil
contamination
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
requirements
in
this
section.
CFR
Section
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
136
(
a)
Requirements
for
generators:
(
1)
A
generator
of
hazardous
waste
must
determine
if
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,
§
268.45,
or
§
268.49.

This
determination
can
be
made
concurrently
with
the
hazardous
waste
determination
required
in
§
262.11
of
this
chapter,
in
either
of
two
ways:
testing
the
waste
or
using
knowledge
of
the
waste.
If
the
generator
tests
the
waste,
testing
would
normally
determine
the
total
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents,
or
the
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
in
an
extract
of
the
waste
obtained
using
test
method
1311
in
"
Test
Methods
of
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,
Physical/
Chemical
Methods,"
EPA
Publication
SW 
846,
as
referenced
in
§
260.11
of
this
chapter,
depending
on
whether
the
treatment
standard
for
the
waste
is
expressed
as
a
total
concentration
or
concentration
of
hazardous
constituent
in
the
waste's
extract.
(
Alternatively,
the
generator
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility,
where
the
waste
treatment
facility
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
264.13
of
this
chapter
and
§
268.7(
b)
of
this
part).
In
addition,
some
hazardous
wastes
must
be
treated
by
particular
treatment
methods
before
they
can
be
land
disposed
and
some
soils
are
contaminated
by
such
hazardous
wastes.
These
treatment
standards
are
also
found
in
§
268.40,
and
are
described
in
detail
in
§
268.42,
Table
1.
These
wastes,
and
solids
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).
If
a
generator
determines
they
are
managing
a
waste
or
soil
contamination
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
requirements
in
this
section.

268.7(
a)(
2)
(
a)(
2)
If
the
waste
or
contaminated
soil
does
not
meet
the
treatment
standards:
With
the
initial
shipment
of
waste
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility,
the
generator
must
send
a
one­
time
written
notice
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility
receiving
the
waste,
and
place
a
copy
in
the
file.
The
notice
must
include
the
information
in
column
"
268.7(
a)(
2)"
of
the
Generator
Paperwork
Requirements
Table
in
268.7(
a)(
4).
No
further
notification
is
necessary
until
such
time
that
the
waste
or
facility
change,
in
which
case
a
new
notification
must
be
sent
and
a
copy
placed
in
the
generator's
file.
CFR
Section
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
137
(
a)(
2)
If
the
waste
or
contaminated
soil
does
not
meet
the
treatment
standards,
or
if
the
generator
chooses
not
to
make
the
determination
of
whether
his
waste
must
be
treated,
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility,
the
generator
must
send
a
one­
time
written
notice
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility
receiving
the
waste,
and
place
a
copy
in
the
file.

The
notice
must
include
the
information
in
column
"
268.7(
a)(
2)"
of
the
Generator
Paperwork
Requirements
Table
in
268.7(
a)(
4).

(
Alternatively,
if
the
generator
chooses
not
to
make
the
determination
of
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
the
notification
must
include
the
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers
and
Manifest
Number
of
the
first
shipment
and
must
state
"
This
hazardous
waste
may
or
may
not
be
subject
to
the
LDR
treatment
standards.
The
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination.")
No
further
notification
is
necessary
until
such
time
that
the
waste
or
facility
change,
in
which
case
a
new
notification
must
be
sent
and
a
copy
placed
in
the
generator's
file.

268.9(
a)
(
a)
The
initial
generator
of
a
solid
waste
must
determine
each
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Number
(
waste
code)
applicable
to
the
waste
in
order
to
determine
the
applicable
treatment
standards
under
subpart
D
of
this
part.
For
purposes
of
part
268,
the
waste
will
carry
the
waste
code
for
any
applicable
listed
waste
(
Part
261,
Subpart
D).
In
addition,
where
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic,
the
waste
will
carry
one
or
more
of
the
characteristic
waste
codes
(
Part
261,
Subpart
C),
except
when
the
treatment
standard
for
the
listed
waste
operates
in
lieu
of
the
treatment
standard
for
the
characteristic
waste,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
If
the
generator
determines
that
their
waste
displays
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
and
is
not
D001
nonwastewaters
treated
by
CMBST,

RORGS,
OR
POLYM
of
§
268.42,
Table
1),
the
generator
must
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
(
as
defined
at
§
268.2(
i))
in
the
characteristic
waste.
CFR
Section
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
138
(
a)
The
initial
generator
of
a
solid
waste
must
determine
each
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Number
(
waste
code)
applicable
to
the
waste
in
order
to
determine
the
applicable
treatment
standards
under
subpart
D
of
this
part.
This
determination
may
be
made
concurrently
with
the
hazardous
waste
determination
required
in
§
262.11
of
this
chapter.
For
purposes
of
part
268,
the
waste
will
carry
the
waste
code
for
any
applicable
listed
waste
(
Part
261,
Subpart
D).
In
addition,
where
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic,
the
waste
will
carry
one
or
more
of
the
characteristic
waste
codes
(
Part
261,
Subpart
C),
except
when
the
treatment
standard
for
the
listed
waste
operates
in
lieu
of
the
treatment
standard
for
the
characteristic
waste,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
If
the
generator
determines
that
their
waste
displays
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
and
is
not
D001
nonwastewaters
treated
by
CMBST,
RORGS,
OR
POLYM
of
§
268.42,
Table
1),
the
generator
must
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
(
as
defined
at
§
268.2(
i))
in
the
characteristic
waste.
TABLE
7
OBSOLETE
REGULATORY
LANGUAGE
BEING
DELETED
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
264.193(
a)(
2)
Tank
Systems:
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
all
existing
tank
systems
used
to
store
or
treat
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Nos.
F020,
F021,
F022,

F023,
F026,
and
F027,
within
two
years
after
January
12,
1987.

Section
264.193(
a)(
2)
is
being
deleted.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
139
264.193(
a)(
3)
Tank
Systems:
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
those
existing
tank
systems
of
known
and
documented
age,
within
two
years
after
January
12,

1987
or
when
the
tank
system
has
reached
15
years
of
age,
whichever
comes
later.

Section
264.193(
a)(
3)
is
being
deleted.

264.193(
a)(
4)
Tank
Systems:
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
those
existing
tank
systems
for
which
the
age
cannot
be
documented,
within
eight
years
of
January
12,
1987;
but
if
the
age
of
the
facility
is
greater
than
seven
years,
secondary
containment
must
be
provided
by
the
time
the
facility
reaches
15
years
of
age,
or
within
two
years
of
January
12,
1987,
whichever
comes
later.

Section
264.193(
a)(
4)
is
being
deleted.

264.251(
c)
Waste
Piles:

Design
and
operating
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
waste
pile
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
January
29,
1992,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
waste
pile
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
July
29,
1992,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
waste
pile
unit
that
is
to
commence
reuse
after
July
29,
1992
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners.
"
Construction
commences"
is
as
defined
in
section
260.10
under
"
existing
facility".

The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
waste
pile
unit
,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
waste
pile
unit
,

and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
waste
pile
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners.

264.314(
a)
Landfills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
waste
or
waste
containing
free
liquids
may
be
placed
in
a
landfill
prior
to
May
8,
1985.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
140
Section
264.314(
a)
is
being
deleted.

264.314(
b)
Land
Fills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Effective
May
8,
1995,
the
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

The
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

264.314(
f)
Land
Fills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Effective
November
8,
1985,
the
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

The
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

264.1100
Containment
Buildings.

Applicability.
The
requirements
of
ths
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
264.1101
of
this
subpart.
These
provisions
will
become
effective
on
February
18,
1993,
although
owner
or
operator
may
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
his
intent
to
be
bound
by
this
subpart
at
an
earlier
time.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
§
3004(
k)
provided
that
the
unit:
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
141
The
requirements
of
this
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
264.1101
of
this
subpart.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
§
3004(
k)
provided
that
the
unit:

264.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings.

Design
and
Operating
Standards.
Obtain
certification
by
a
qualified
registered
professional
engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.
For
units
placed
into
operation
prior
to
February
18,1993,
this
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
(
on­
site
files
for
generators
who
are
not
formally
required
to
have
operating
records)
no
later
than
60
days
after
the
date
of
initial
operation
of
the
unit.
After
February
18,
1993,
PE
certification
will
be
required
prior
to
operation
of
the
unit.

Obtain
and
keep
on­
site
a
certification
by
a
qualified
professional
engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section.
142
TABLE
8
OBSOLETE
REGULATORY
LANGUAGE
BEING
DELETED
FOR
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
265.193(
a)(
2)
Tank
Systems:

Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
all
existing
tank
systems
used
to
store
or
treat
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Nos.
F020,
F021,
F022,

F023,
F026,
and
F027,
within
two
years
after
January
12,
1987.

Section
265.193(
a)(
2)
is
being
deleted.

265.193(
a)(
3)
Tank
Systems:

Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
those
existing
tank
systems
of
known
and
documented
age,
within
two
years
after
January
12,

1987
or
when
the
tank
system
has
reached
15
years
of
age,
whichever
comes
later.

Section
265.193(
a)(
3)
is
being
deleted.

265.193(
a)(
4)
Tank
Systems:

Containment
and
detection
of
releases.
For
those
existing
tank
systems
for
which
the
age
cannot
be
documented,
within
eight
years
of
January
12,
1987;
but
if
the
age
of
the
facility
is
greater
than
seven
years,
secondary
containment
must
be
provided
by
the
time
the
facility
reaches
15
years
of
age,
or
within
two
years
of
January
12,
1987,
whichever
comes
later.

Section
265.193(
a)(
4)
is
being
deleted.

265.314(
a)
Landfills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
waste
or
waste
containing
free
liquids
may
be
placed
in
a
landfill
prior
to
May
8,
1985.

Section
265.314(
a)
is
being
deleted
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
143
265.314(
b)
Land
Fills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Effective
May
8,
1995,
the
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

The
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

265.314(
g)
Land
Fills:
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.
Effective
November
8,
1985,
the
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

The
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

265.1100
Containment
Buildings.

Applicability.
The
requirements
of
ths
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
265.1101
of
this
subpart.
These
provisions
will
become
effective
on
February
18,
1993,
although
owner
or
operator
may
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
his
intent
to
be
bound
by
this
subpart
at
an
earlier
time.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
§
3004(
k)
provided
that
the
unit:
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
144
The
requirements
of
this
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
265.1101
of
this
subpart.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
§
3004(
k)
provided
that
the
unit:

265.1101(
c)(
2)
Containment
Buildings.

Design
and
Operating
Standards.
Obtain
certification
by
a
qualified
registered
professional
engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.
For
units
placed
into
operation
prior
to
February
18,1993,
this
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
(
on­
site
files
for
generators
who
are
not
formally
required
to
have
operating
records)
no
later
than
60
days
after
the
date
of
initial
operation
of
the
unit.
After
February
18,
1993,
PE
certification
will
be
required
prior
to
operation
of
the
unit.

Obtain
and
keep
on­
site
a
certification
by
a
qualified
professional
engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section.

265.221(
a)
Surface
Impoundments:

Design
and
operating
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
surface
impoundment
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
January
29,
1992,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
surface
impoundment
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
July
29,
1992,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
surface
impoundment
unit
that
is
to
commence
reuse
after
July
29,
1992
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners,
and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
systems,
in
accordance
with
§
264.221(
c),
unless
exempted
under
§
264.221(
d),(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
chapter.
"
Construction
commences"
is
as
defined
in
§
260.10
under
"
existing
facility".
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Requirement
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
145
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
surface
impoundment
unit,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
surface
impoundment
unit,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
surface
impoundment
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners,

and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
systems,
in
accordance
with
§
264.221(
c),
unless
exempted
under
§
264.221(
d),(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
chapter.

265.301(
a)
Landfills:
Design
and
operating
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
landfill
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
January
29,
1992,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
landfill
unit
on
which
construction
commences
after
July
29,

1992,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
landfill
unit
that
is
to
commence
reuse
after
July
29,

1992
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners,
and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
systems,
in
accordance
with
§
264.301
(
d),(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
chapter.
"
Construction
commences"
is
as
defined
in
§
260.10
under
"
existing
facility."

The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
landfill
unit
,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
landfill
unit,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
landfill
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners,
and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
systems,
in
accordance
with
§
264.301
(
d),(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
chapter.

C
We
Are
Eliminating
Selected
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
That
We
Believe
Provide
Duplicative
Information
to
EPA.

C
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
That
They
Are
in
146
Compliance
After
a
Release.

We
received
comments
that
both
supported
and
opposed
the
elimination
of
the
notifications
required
by
§
§
264.56(
i)
and
265.56(
i).
These
notifications
require
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
and
appropriate
state
and
local
authorities
after
an
emergency
action
has
taken
place,
that
the
facility
is
in
compliance
with
§
§
264.56(
h)
and
265.56(
h),

respectively.
Sections
264.56(
h)
and
265.56(
h)
require
the
facility
emergency
coordinator
to
ensure
that
no
wastes
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
is
treated,
stored,
or
disposed
of
until
cleanup
procedures
are
completed;
and
that
emergency
equipment
listed
in
the
contingency
plan
is
cleaned
and
fit
for
its
intended
use
before
operations
are
resumed.
Several
commenters
generally
supported
the
elimination
of
these
notification
provisions.
Other
commenters
were
opposed
to
eliminating
these
provisions
because
they
thought
that
it
was
prudent
for
the
regulatory
agency
to
receive
notification
that
a
facility
was
ready
to
again
manage
hazardous
waste
after
emergency
measures
were
implemented
and
releases
were
cleaned
up.

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.
The
actions
to
be
taken
(
i.
e.,
not
handling
147
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
notification
requirement.

C
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
of
Their
Intent
to
Burn
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
and
F027
Wastes.

We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
dioxin/
furan
wastes
listed
as
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,

F026
and
F027.
We
viewed
this
as
an
unnecessary
requirement
because
the
facility
is
already
permitted
to
burn
these
wastes,
and
there
are
already
regulatory
standards
governing
how
the
waste
is
burned.

Commenters
generally
supported
our
proposed
change.
Therefore,
we
are
removing
the
notification
requirement.

We
inadvertently
proposed
to
remove
the
entire
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
§
264.343.
We
are
merely
removing
the
last
sentence
that
referred
to
the
notification
of
intent
to
burn
listed
dioxin/
furan
wastes.

3.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
if
They
Employ
or
Discontinue
Use
of
the
Alternative
Valve
Standard.
148
The
regulations
in
Subpart
BB
of
RCRA
deal
with
air
emission
standards
for
equipment
leaks.
They
apply
to
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
that
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
hazardous
waste
with
equipment
that
contains
or
contacts
hazardous
waste
with
organic
concentrations
of
at
least
10
percent
by
weight.
We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
requirement
for
submitting
notifications
to
the
Regional
Administrator
with
regard
to
the
implementation
of
the
alternative
standards
for
valves
in
gas/
vapor
service
or
in
light
liquid
service.
Under
the
current
regulations
in
§
§
264.1061(
b)(
1),
(
d)
and
265.1061(
b)(
1)
and
(
d),
if
an
owner
or
operator
decides
to
either:
(
1)
implement
the
alternative
standard
or
(
2)
discontinue
the
use
of
the
alternative
standard,
a
written
notification
must
be
sent
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
stated
that
these
notifications
were
an
unnecessary
requirement
because
§
§
264.1061(
b)(
2)
and
265.1061(
b)(
2)
require
performance
tests
to
be
conducted
(
upon
designation,

annually,
and
as
requested
by
the
Regional
Administrator)
and
their
results
kept
on
site
once
a
decision
is
made
to
use
the
alternative
valve
standard.
Several
commenters
disagreed
with
our
position
and
suggested
that
facilities
need
to
notify
regulators
when
they
elect
to
use
alternative
standards.
Commenters
further
stated
that
without
knowledge
of
the
specification
that
facilities
are
using,
regulators
may
not
be
able
to
effectively
administer
the
standards
and
that
this
information
may
be
required
for
regulators
to
address
various
permitting,
compliance
and
enforcement
actions
at
the
facility.
We
remain
unconvinced
that
these
notifications
are
an
essential
149
element
in
our
regulatory
compliance
regime.
While
we
understand
the
commenters
concerns,
we
believe
that
sufficient
information
and
data
will
be
available
to
the
regulatory
authority
to
monitor
compliance
with
an
alternative
standard
without
these
notifications.

4.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Notify
if
They
Are
Using
Alternative
Valve
Work
Practices.

We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
a
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
before
implementing
one
of
the
alternative
work
practices
specified
in
§
§
264.1062(
b)(
2)
and
(
3)
and
265.1062(
b)(
2)
and
(
3).
Under
the
current
regulations,
an
owner
or
operator
may
elect
to
comply
with
one
of
two
alternative
work
practices
specified
in
the
regulations.
These
alternatives
are:

(
1)
After
two
consecutive
quarterly
leak
detection
periods
with
the
percentage
of
valves
leaking
equal
to
or
less
than
2
percent,
an
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
skip
one
of
the
quarterly
leak
detection
periods
(
i.
e.,
monitor
for
leaks
once
every
six
months)
for
the
valves;
or
(
2)
After
five
consecutive
quarterly
leak
detection
periods
with
the
percentage
of
valves
leaking
equal
to
or
less
than
2
percent,
an
owner
or
operator
may
be
begin
to
skip
three
of
the
quarterly
leak
detection
periods
(
i.
e.,
monitor
for
leaks
once
every
year)
for
the
valves.

The
majority
of
the
commenters
agreed
with
the
proposal.
One
commenter,
however,
argued
that
some
technical
review
by
the
Agency
should
be
warranted
to
approve
this
alternative
standard.
Upon
review
of
the
comment,
we
are
unconvinced
that
the
150
implementation
of
this
alternative
work
practice
need
technical
review
or
oversight
by
the
regulated
authority.
The
alternative
work
practices
described
in
the
regulations
are
straightforward
and
the
results
of
the
leak
detection
periods
will
be
maintained
in
the
facility
files
as
required
under
the
recordkeeping
requirements
found
in
§
264.1064.
Therefore,
we
are
eliminating
the
need
for
these
notifications.
TABLE
9
RECORDKEEPING
AND
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
BEING
DELETED
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL,
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Deletion
to
264.56
Contingency
Plan
and
Emergency
Procedures.
Emergency
Procedures.

264.56(
i)
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
§
265.56(
h)
(
which
requires
that
no
waste
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
will
be
treated,
stored,
or
disposed
until
cleanup
is
completed,
and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again)
before
resuming
operations.

Deletion
to
264.343
Incinerators.
Performance
standards.

264.343(
a)(
2)
Submit
notification
of
intent
to
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,

F026,
and
F027.

Deletions
to
264.1061
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Alternative
standards
for
valves
in
gas/
vapor
service
or
in
light
liquid
service:
percentage
of
valves
allowed
to
leak.

264.1061(
b)(
1)

264.1061(
d)
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Submit
notification
to
discontinue
the
alternative
valve
standard.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
151
Deletion
to
264.1062
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Alternative
standards
for
valves
in
gas/
vapor
service
or
in
light
liquid
service;
skip
period
leak
detection
and
repair.

264.1062(
a)(
2)
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.

TABLE
10
RECORDKEEPING
AND
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
BEING
DELETED
FOR
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Deletion
to
265.56
Contingency
Plan
and
Emergency
Procedures.
Emergency
Procedures.

265.56(
i)
Notify
Regional
Administrator
that
facility
is
in
compliance
with
§
265.56(
h)

(
which
requires
that
no
waste
that
may
be
incompatible
with
the
released
material
will
be
treated,
stored,
or
disposed
until
cleanup
is
completed,
and
emergency
equipment
is
made
ready
for
use
again)
before
resuming
operations.

Deletions
to
265.1061
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Alternative
standards
for
valves
in
gas/
vapor
service
or
in
light
liquid
service:
percentage
of
valves
allowed
to
leak.

265.1061(
b)(
1)

265.1061(
d)
Submit
notification
to
implement
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Submit
notification
to
discontinue
the
alternative
valve
standard.

Deletion
to
265.1062
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Alternative
standards
for
valves
in
gas/
vapor
service
or
in
light
liquid
service;
skip
period
leak
detection
and
repair.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
152
265.1062(
a)(
2)
Submit
notification
to
implement
alternative
work
practices
for
valves.

G.
We
Are
Permitting
Decreased
Inspection
Frequency
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Units.

RCRA
regulations
require
generators
and
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities
to
self­
inspect
their
facilities
to
ensure
that
they
are
in
compliance.
The
regulations
include
both
facility­
wide
and
unit­
and
equipment­
specific
inspection
standards.
Some
of
RCRA's
regulations
specify
the
inspection
frequency.

Self­
inspections
are
a
vital
component
of
an
effective
regulatory
system.
We
recognize
however,
that
the
frequency
of
inspections
has
been
a
concern,
and
that
in
most
cases
(
particularly
where
alternative
approaches
are
employed)
facilities
are
able
to
carry
out
formal
inspections
less
frequently
without
sacrificing
human
health
and
environmental
protection.
153
The
Agency
proposed
a
reduction
in
tank
self­
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly
for
large
quantity
generator
tanks
and
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities.
We
also
solicited
comment
on
allowing
further
reduced
inspection
frequencies,
on
a
case­

bycase
basis
(
as
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator
or
the
state
Director,
as
the
context
requires,
or
an
authorized
representative),

for
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
tanks.
up
to
at
least
However,
this
proposal
required
that
these
inspections
occur
at
least
monthly
(
in
addition
to
moving
their
inspection
frequency
from
daily
to
weekly).
In
proposing
these
changes,
we
suggested
that
decreased
inspection
frequencies
should
be
based
on
factors
such
as:
(
1)
a
demonstrated
commitment
by
facility
management
to
sound
environmental
practices;
(
2)
achievement
of
good
management
practices
over
the
history
of
the
facility
­
that
is,
having
a
record
of
sustained
compliance
with
environmental
laws
and
permit
requirements;
(
3)
a
demonstrated
commitment
to
continued
environmental
improvement;
(
4)
a
demonstrated
commitment
to
public
outreach
and
performance
reporting;
(
5)
the
installation
of
automatic
monitoring
devices
at
the
facility;
and
(
6)
the
risk
posed
by
the
waste
managed
in
the
unit.

Many
commenters
supported
the
change
from
a
daily
to
weekly
inspection
frequency
for
tanks.
Commenters
pointed
out
that
the
integrity
and
safety
of
hazardous
waste
tanks
would
not
be
compromised
by
reducing
the
daily
inspection
requirement
to
a
weekly
frequency.
Several
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks,
which
have
secondary
containment,
are
even
more
protectively
designed
than
process
tanks
which
handle
the
same
chemicals.
Other
commenters,
however,
did
not
support
any
16
The
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
is
a
voluntary
EPA
program
that
recognizes
and
rewards
private
and
public
facilities
that
demonstrate
strong
environmental
performance
beyond
current
requirements.
The
program
is
based
on
the
premise
that
government
should
complement
its
existing
programs
and
regulations
with
new
tools
and
strategies
that
not
only
protect
people
and
the
environment,
but
also
capture
opportunities
for
reducing
cost
and
spurring
innovation.
For
more
information
and
a
closer
look
at
the
activities
and
accomplishments
of
Performance
Track
members
to
date,
as
well
as
member's
goals
for
future
achievements,
please
refer
to
the
program
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
performancetrack.

154
decrease
in
inspection
frequency
because
of
concerns
that
if
inspection
frequencies
were
decreased,
the
amount
of
time
between
a
leak
and
its
discovery
would
increase.

With
regard
to
extending
even
further
the
inspection
frequency,
up
to
at
least
once
each
month
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
we
received
comments
from
the
states
expressing
concern
over
the
added
administrative
burden
in
implementing
case­
by­
case
changes
to
inspection
frequencies.

Based
on
the
comments
from
the
proposed
rule,
we
reconsidered
whether
to
make
case­
by­
case
reduced
inspections
available
to
all
generators
because
of
the
burden
it
might
impose
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
criteria..
In
the
October
29,

2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
we
proposed
reduced
inspection
frequencies,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
only
for
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program,
stating
that,
at
a
minimum,
we
believe
that
providing
relief
is
appropriate
for
companies
that
are
demonstrated
"
good
performers."
16
155
In
the
NODA,
we
also
clarified
that
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tanks
was
intended
to
apply
not
just
to
the
tanks,
but
to
the
complete
tank
systems,
which
include
piping,
pumps,
valves
and
other
associated
equipment,
also
known
as
ancillary
equipment
(
see
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f)).
We
also
asked
for
comment
on
expanding
the
change
to
include
tanks,
not
only
at
large
quantity
generator
sites,
but
small
quantity
generator
sites
as
well
(
see
§
265.201(
c)).
Furthermore,
we
solicited
comment
on
extending
the
reduced
inspection
frequencies,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
areas
subject
to
spills
(
see
§
§
264.15(
b)(
4)
and
265.15(
b)(
4)).
We
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
grant
this
relief
only
to
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
in
that
we
believe
the
risk
from
this
change
would
be
minimal
at
facilities
that
have
met
the
requirements
to
be
accepted
into
this
program.

C
We
Are
Establishing
Weekly
Inspections
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Systems
at
Permitted
and
Interim
Status
Facilities
and
at
Large
Quantity
Generator
Sites.

We
are
changing
the
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
weekly
at
permitted
and
interim
status
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities,
as
well
as
for
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
tank
systems
that
are
operated
under
certain
conditions.
Changing
inspections
for
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
tanks
is
discussed
in
section
III.
G.
2
of
this
preamble.
Tank
system,
as
defined
in
§
260.10,
means
a
hazardous
waste
storage
or
treatment
tank
and
its
associated
ancillary
equipment
and
containment
system.
The
requirements
for
permitted,
interim
status,
and
LQG
tank
systems
appear
in
§
§
264
and
265,
subpart
J.
Daily
156
inspections
enable
tank
systems,
subject
to
subpart
J,
to
comply
with
the
§
§
264.193(
c)
and
265.193(
c)
requirements
to
detect
leaks
and
spills
within
24
hours.

Our
rule
reduces
inspections
for:
(
1)
above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any,
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste;

and
(
2)
the
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tank
system,
including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).
Reduced
inspections
will
be
allowed
when
either
of
two
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment;
or
(
2)
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
established
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur,
they
will
be
promptly
identified,

and
promptly
remediated.
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.

Leak
detection
equipment
must
meet
the
respective
requirements
of
§
§
264.193(
c)(
3)
and
265.193(
c)(
3).
It
should
be
designed
to
alert
facility
personnel
promptly
to
the
presence
of
any
leaks
or
spills
(
e.
g.,
alarm
systems)
so
that
emergency
and/
or
remedial
action
can
be
taken.
(
The
existing
subpart
J
tank
regulations
require
secondary
containment
systems
to
be
designed
and
operated
to
detect
157
releases
within
24
hours.)
Leak
detection
systems
were
described
in
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
2527).
But,
while
subpart
J
requires
releases
to
be
detected
within
24
hours,
the
regulations
do
not
specify
the
method
of
leak
detection
systems
that
must
be
used.
For
example,
some
facilities
use
daily
visual
inspections
as
a
method
of
leak
detection
for
their
aboveground
tanks,
which
is
an
acceptable
practice.
However,
under
the
current
tank
system
regulations,
absent
daily
visual
inspections,
leak
detection
equipment
that
promptly
notifies
facility
personnel
of
leaks
or
spills,
must
be
used.

In
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
established
workplace
practices
must
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur,

they
will
be
promptly
identified
and
promptly
remediated
in
compliance
with
§
§
264.193(
c)(
3)
and
(
4)
and
265.193(
c)(
3)
and
(
4).

When
we
say
"
established
workplace
practices."
we
mean
practices
that
are
documented
and
that
describe
how
the
facility
is
operated.

(
An
example
of
established
workplace
practices
could
be
the
presence
of
an
Environmental
Management
System
that
includes
plans
and
practices
to
ensure
that
any
releases
are
promptly
identified,
contained,
and
cleaned
up.)
Established
workplace
practices
will
most
likely
be
put
in
place
in
situations,
like
that
described
by
a
state
commenter,
where
aboveground
tanks
without
leak
detection
exist
and
daily
visual
monitoring
is
the
most
common
method
of
leak
detection
used.
In
cases
such
as
these,
lacking
leak
detection
equipment,
owners
or
operators
would
need
to
use
workplace
practices
to
identify
releases,
if
they
choose
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency.
158
A
number
of
commenters
noted
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
of
§
§
264.195
and
265.195
should
only
be
done
if
secondary
containment
is
equipped
with
leak
detection
that
notifies
response
personnel
if
releases
occur.
We
partially
agree
with
the
commenters;
however,
as
noted
earlier,
the
rule
also
allows
the
facility
operator
to
institute
work
practices
to
ensure
prompt
detection
of
a
release.
For
example,
if
the
tank
system
is
in
an
area
frequented
by
employees,
where
releases
will
be
immediately
obvious,
all
employees
might
be
trained
to
watch
for
releases
and
report
them.
In
other
situations,
an
employee
might
be
assigned
to
check
secondary
containment
on
a
daily
basis
without
conducting
a
full
tank
system
"
inspection."

We
received
several
comments
on
our
proposal
from
industry
that
the
current
daily
inspection
requirements
are
a
large
burden
for
the
regulated
community,
and
that
weekly
inspections
would
provide
welcome
relief.
One
commenter
noted
that
the
majority
of
printers
that
have
tanks
for
collecting
hazardous
waste
have
small
tanks
and
they
are
generally
located
indoors.
Any
release
from
the
tank
would
be
detected
almost
immediately
and
the
extension
of
mandatory
inspection
frequency
would
greatly
reduce
the
administrative
burden
associated
with
using
these
types
of
collection
tanks.
In
this
case,
the
facility
might
not
have
leak
detection
equipment,
but
standard
work
practices
might
require
all
employees
to
notify
appropriate
facility
personnel
if
they
observe
a
release
from
the
tanks.
Given
the
nature
of
the
facility
described
by
the
commenter,
this
would
likely
constitute
a
work
practice
sufficient
to
159
ensure
prompt
detection
of
a
release.
Conversely,
we
also
received
other
industry
comments
suggesting
that
while
they
liked
the
flexibility
of
the
reduced
inspections,
they
offered
they
probably
would
not
reduce
their
own
inspection
frequency.

A
state
commenter
argued
that
a
basic
principle
of
RCRA
is
prevention,
including
preventing
a
major
release
from
a
waste
management
unit
and
that
the
proposed
rule
appears
primarily
guided
by
a
desire
to
project
an
image
of
providing
a
"
burden
reduction"
for
the
regulated
community,
while
disregarding
prevention
mechanisms.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
the
chance
of
a
release
occurring
and
going
undetected
is
greatly
increased
by
allowing
for
weekly
inspections
of
tank
systems.
The
commenter
believes
the
current
requirement
for
daily
inspections
of
tank
systems
provides
a
reasonable
means
to
detect
and
minimize
release
of
hazardous
waste
in
a
timely
manner
and
the
commenter
further
stated
that
the
requirement
for
daily
inspection
of
tank
systems
has
not
been
a
significant
burden
on
the
regulated
community.
We
question
this
commenter's
conclusion.
By
requiring
owners
and
operators
who
wish
to
change
the
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks,
to
use
either
leak
detection
or
work
place
practices,
we
believe
it
is
unlikely
that
releases
from
tanks
will
go
undetected.
The
use
of
either
leak
detection
systems
or
established
workplace
practices
should
assure
that
releases
are
promptly
detected,
and
that
the
appropriate
personnel
are
notified
so
that
releases
can
be
stopped
and
cleaned
up.
According
to
§
264.196,
upon
detection
of
a
leak,
either
through
the
leak
detection
system
or
visual
observation,
the
owner
160
or
operator
of
the
tank
system
must
immediately
stop
the
flow
of
hazardous
waste,
determine
and
rectify
the
cause
of
the
leak,
remove
the
waste,
and
contain
releases
to
the
environment.

It
is
important
to
note
that
we
are
not
changing
the
existing
requirement,
found
in
§
264.195(
a)(
2)
and
§
265.195(
a)(
3)),
that
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day
to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design.
We
believe
that
this
requirement
is
necessary
in
order
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
264.193(
c)
and
§
265.193(
c),
which
require
the
detection
of
leaks
and
spills
within
24
hours.
In
addition,
keeping
this
requirement
supports
the
new
reduced
inspection
requirements
that
we
are
putting
in
place
today,
by
providing
further
information
about
any
releases
that
may
occur.

As
a
final
matter,
several
commenters
to
the
proposed
rule
suggested
changing
the
inspection
frequencies
for
ancillary
equipment,
specifically
citing
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f).
(
These
requirements
specify
that
ancillary
equipment
must
have
secondary
containment,
except
in
four
instances,
each
involving
daily
visual
inspections
for
leaks.)
While
most
commenters
provided
little
information
to
support
making
the
change,
one
commenter
did
argue
that
if
the
proposed
changes
to
§
§
264.195
and
265.195
were
finalized,
the
existing
provisions
in
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
if
not
also
changed,
would
be
inconsistent.
161
As
background,
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
requested
comment
on
expanding
the
proposed
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
at
LQG
and
SQG
sites.
The
NODA
referenced
the
regulations
at
§
§
264.193(
f)
and
265.193(
f),
suggesting
making
the
change
would
be
consistent
with
our
intent,
as
discussed
in
the
proposed
rule.
Because
today's
rule
changes
the
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
provided
with
secondary
containment,
where
leak
detection
equipment
or
workplace
practices
are
used,
as
discussed
previously,
any
ancillary
equipment
associated
with
such
tank
systems
would,
therefore,
be
eligible
for
reduced
inspections.

We
considered
allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment,
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
to
be
visually
inspected
weekly
instead
of
daily.
While
most
of
the
commenters
supported
this
change,
upon
further
analysis
we
now
conclude
that
expanding
the
rule
to
include
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
is
not
consistent
with
how
the
final
rule
addresses
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems.
The
proposed
rule
discussed
reducing
inspection
frequencies
for
tanks
and
tank
systems
because
of,
among
other
reasons,
the
presence
of
secondary
containment.
Allowing
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
to
change
from
daily
visual
inspections
to
weekly
visual
inspections
would
not
be
consistent
with
our
approach.
We
are
including
regulatory
language
in
§
§
264.194(
d)
and
265.195(
c)
to
say
that
ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.
162
We
would
like
to
note
that
there
are
instances
where
tanks
and
tanks
systems
are
located
within
buildings,
and
where
the
building
itself
provides
secondary
containment.
In
cases
where
ancillary
equipment
is
located
inside
a
building
that
has
been
determined
to
provide
secondary
containment,
and
either
leak
detection
systems
or
established
workplace
practices
exist
to
identify
leaks
and
spills,
then
the
regulatory
criteria
are
met
and
that
ancillary
equipment
may
be
inspected
weekly.
For
example,
in
a
case
where
ancillary
equipment
inside
a
building
does
not
have
double
walls
or
leak
detection,
this
ancillary
equipment
would
still
be
eligible
for
weekly
inspections
if
the
building
serves
as
secondary
containment,
and
if
the
area
is
frequented
by
employees
whereby
releases
will
be
immediately
obvious
and
the
employees
will
promptly
identify
and
remediate
leaks
and
spills.

In
cases
involving
buildings
serving
as
secondary
containment,
authorized
states
necessarily
have
the
ultimate
authority
to
make
the
determination
that
secondary
containment
requirements
are
met
(
taking
into
account
all
relevant
site­
specific
considerations).

C
We
Are
Establishing
Weekly
Inspections
for
SQG
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Systems
With
Secondary
Containment.
17
The
requirements
for
SQG
tanks
were
finalized
on
March
24,
1986
(
51
FR
10146),
and
with
the
July
14,
1986
final
tank
regulations
(
51
FR
25422),
codified
at
§
265.201.
Discussion
in
the
March
1986
rule
explains
how
the
SQG
requirements
were
developed,
as
distinct
from
the
requirements
for
tanks
at
LQG
sites.
The
rule
states:
"
Congress
anticipated
reducing
administrative
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).

163
While
the
previous
discussion
addressed
changes
in
the
inspection
frequency
for
certain
tank
systems
at
permitted
and
interim
status
facilities,
and
LQG
sites,
today's
rule
also
changes
the
inspection
frequency
for
certain
tank
systems
at
SQG
sites.
The
requirements
for
SQG
tanks
are
found
in
40
CFR
265.201(
b).
17
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).
18
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.

164
While
§
265.201
does
not
require
SQGs
to
be
equipped
with
secondary
containment,
nor
leak
detection,
under
today's
rule,

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)
18).
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
165
stated
in
the
NODA
that
changing
these
inspection
frequencies
would
be
consistent
with
our
intent
to
establish
weekly
inspections
for
all
tank
systems.

One
state
commenter
argued
that
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
and
if
the
rule
were
promulgated
as
proposed,
it
might
be
a
week
or
longer
before
leaks
of
any
size
were
discovered
and
remediation
begun.
The
commenter
further
reasoned
that
for
those
tanks
without
secondary
containment
(
e.
g.,
SQGs),
waiting
such
a
long
time
for
remediation
efforts
may
lead
to
extensive
environmental
damage.
We
acknowledge
the
commenter's
concerns
and
support
the
rapid
remediation
of
leaks;
we
believe
that
the
controls
we
are
promulgating
today
will
adequately
prevent
such
an
occurrence,
even
for
SQGs.

One
commenter
did
state
that,
although
he
did
not
object
to
allowing
small
quantity
generators
reduced
tank
inspection
frequencies,
he
noted
that
reducing
inspection
frequencies
will
not
provide
any
additional
reduction
in
the
recordkeeping/
reporting
burden
for
small
quantity
generators
who
are
not
subject
to
§
§
264.15
and
265.15
and
are
not
required
to
maintain
a
schedule
or
a
record
of
inspections.
We
agree
that
§
265.201
does
not
require
SQGs
to
record
inspections.
Burden
reduction
would
come
from
time
saved
(
person­
hours)
from
reduced
inspections.
166
Several
states
were
not
in
favor
of
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
small
quantity
generators.
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
has
not
provided
any
data
that
suggest
that
the
reduced
frequency
of
tank
inspections
is
as
protective
as
the
intent
of
the
current
standard
which
as
stated
in
51
FR
25454,
July
14,
1986
is
to
"...
enable
the
detection
of
releases
or
potential
releases
at
the
earliest
possible
time."
Another
commenter
further
argued
that
reduced
tank
inspection
frequency
should
not
be
afforded
to
small
quantity
generators
unless
their
tank
systems
are
upgraded
to
meet
additional
standards
and
that
currently
SQGs
only
have
to
inspect
their
tank
systems
for
proper
operations
controls
daily.
SQGs
are
not
required
to
do
any
type
of
additional
leak
detection
except
for
the
weekly
requirements
already
in
place.
Since
SQGs
are
not
required
to
provide
secondary
containment,
the
operating
day
inspections
assist
in
protecting
from
a
release
or
potential
release.
Other
commenters
argued
that
if
SQGs
wish
to
receive
this
reduced
inspection
frequency,
they
should
comply
with
the
same
secondary
containment
requirements
as
large
quantity
generators
and
install
an
automated
leak
detection
equipment
that
alerts
a
person
designated
to
respond.
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
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.
167
3.
We
Are
Allowing
Members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
to
Apply
for
an
Adjustment
to
the
Frequency
of
Their
Inspections
for
Certain
Hazardous
Waste
Units
and
Areas.

In
addition
to
allowing
a
change
in
the
inspection
frequency
for
selected
tank
systems,
we
also
proposed
to
allow
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
less
frequent
self­
inspections
for
tank
systems,
container
storage
areas,
and
containment
buildings.
Under
our
current
regulations,
container
storage
areas
and
containment
buildings
must
be
inspected
weekly.
(
See
§
§
264.174,
265.174,
264.1101(
c)(
4),
and
265.1101(
c)(
4).)

Based
on
comments
received
on
the
proposal,
we
reconsidered
whether
to
make
such
a
change
available
to
all
generators
because
of
the
burden
it
would
impose
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
criteria.
As
stated
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
we
believe
that
providing
relief
is
appropriate
for
companies
that
are
demonstrated
"
good
performers"
and
we
solicited
comment
on
limiting
this
provision
to
member
companies
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
as
well
as
extending
reduced
inspection
frequencies,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
areas
subject
to
spills
(
see
§
264.15(
b)(
4)).

In
today's
rule
we
are
finalizing
this
provision
­
the
ability
to
file
a
case­
by­
case
application
for
further
reduced
self­
inspection
frequencies
­
to
facilities
that
which
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Performance
Track
19
In
the
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
at
2527)
the
Agency
made
reference
to
a
commenter's
suggestion
that
inspection
frequency
changes
should
be
self­
implementing.
The
example
given
by
the
commenter
outlined
an
option
where
an
inspection
schedule
should
be
deemed
approved
if
EPA
does
not
specifically
deny
the
request
in
writing
within
30
days.
At
that
time,
we
stated
that
one
of
our
principle
objectives
for
this
burden
reduction
change,
was
to
ensure
that
the
regulatory
agencies
made
the
decision
to
decrease
inspection
frequencies
and
as
such,
we
were
not
considering
self­
implementing
alternatives.
While
we
still
maintain
that
regulatory
agencies
should
make
these
decisions
on
a
case­
by
case
basis,
upon
further
consideration
we
believe
it
is
also
important
to
streamline
the
application
process
by
establishing
a
timetable
for
application/
permit
modification
review.

168
member
facilities
are
provided
the
opportunity
to
reduce
self­
inspections
of
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills
to
a
frequency
of
up
to
at
least
once
each
month.

Performance
Track
members
must
apply
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
approval
before
implementing
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
schedule.
19
The
Performance
Track
facility
must
submit
an
application
to
the
regulatory
authority
identifying
itself
as
a
member
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
request
a
reduction
in
self
inspection
frequency.
For
those
members
that
are
also
permitted
treatment,
storage
and
disposal
facilities,
the
application
must
be
in
the
form
of
a
Class
1
permit
modification
with
prior
approval.
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
request
reduced
inspections,
for
no
less
than
once
each
month,
for
any
of
the
waste
management
units
identified
in
today's
rule
(
including
tank
systems,
containers,
containment
buildings,
and
areas
subject
to
spills).
(
Only
one
application
per
Performance
Track
member
facility
is
required.)
After
the
application
is
received,
the
Director
has
60
days
to
approve
or
deny
the
application,
in
writing.
The
Director
also
may
choose
to
extend
this
60
20
For
more
information
on
the
the
Independent
Assessment
Criteria
for
EMSs,
see
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
performancetrack/
ind_
assessment.
htm.
169
day
deadline,
if
more
time
is
needed
to
review
the
application
(
e.
g.,
in
the
case
where
an
on­
site
inspection
is
needed
or
a
more
indepth
analysis
of
the
application
is
warranted.)
If
the
application
is
approved,
the
notification
will
identify
the
management
units
approved
for
reduced
frequency
of
inspections
as
well
as
the
time
interval
between
inspections
(
up
to
at
a
minimum
of
one
inspection
each
month.)
This
notice
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
after
60
days
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)

deny
the
application,
in
writing;
or
(
2)
notify,
in
writing,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
of
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
their
application
and
keep
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

It
is
expected
that
Performance
track
facilities
would
have
an
EMS
providing
sufficient
oversight
to
prevent
and
detect
leaks
and
spills.
In
addition,
facilities
which
that
applied
for
Performance
Track
would
have
conducted
an
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
Independent
Assessment.
20
The
assessment
must
determine
whether
the
facility
regularly
monitors
and
measures
its
key
operations
that
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment,
and
records
this
information.
Therefore,
through
the
use
of
170
EMSs
and
workplace
practices,
we
would
expect
Performance
Track
facilities
to
be
able
to
prevent
and
detect
leaks
and
spills.

Providing
Performance
Track
member
facilities
with
the
option
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies
does
not
mean
we
are
reducing
the
requirements
for
the
owner
or
operator
to
detect
leaks
and
spills;
providing
reduced
inspection
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
acknowledges
that
these
facilities
have
established
controls
and
procedures
to
prevent
releases
and
to
respond
promptly
if
and
when
they
occur.
The
Agency
believes
it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
the
need
for
oversight
of
facilities
that
are
top
environmental
performers
which
have
developed
comprehensive
environmental
management
systems
and
who
have
a
track
record
of
effective
self­
oversight.

Any
Performance
Track
member
facility
that
discontinues
its
membership
in
Performance
Track
or
is
terminated
from
the
program
must
immediately
notify
the
Director,
in
writing
of
their
its
change
in
status
(
i.
e.,
they
are
no
longer
a
Performance
Track
member
facility).
These
facilities
must
revert
back
to
the
"
non­
Performance
Track
member"
inspection
frequency
within
seven
calendar
days.
The
facility
must
place
in
their
operating
record
a
dated
copy
of
this
notification.
In
cases
where
the
Performance
Track
member
is
a
permitted
TSDF,
the
Agency
is
requiring
that
the
permit
modification
to
allow
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
contain
a
"
sunset"
clause,
in
case
the
facility's
membership
in
Performance
Track
ends.
If
written
without
a
"
sunset"
clause,
an
approved
permit
modification
allowing
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
could
otherwise
"
shield"
the
facility
from
violation
if
it
ceases
171
to
be
a
Performance
Track
member.
Therefore,
we
are
requiring
that
the
Class
1
modification
request
to
allow
the
facility
to
go
to
a
reduced
inspection
frequency
contain
specific
language
stating
that
the
reduced
frequency
is
for
as
long
as
the
facility
remains
a
Performance
Track
member.
The
language
must
say
that
if
the
facility
ceases
to
be
a
Performance
Track
member
facility,
it
must
revert
to
the
"
non­
Performance
Track"
inspection
frequency
within
seven
calendar
days
after
membership
in
Performance
Track
ends.

Sections
a.
through
d.
below
discuss
in
more
detail
the
Agency's
basis
for
decisions
on
inspection
frequency
for
areas
subject
to
spills,
containers,
tank
systems,
and
containment
buildings
at
Performance
Track
member
facilities.

C
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Areas
Subject
to
Spills.

The
general
inspection
requirements
of
§
§
264.15
and
265.14,
paragraph
(
b)(
4),
require
that
areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
while
in
use.
These
inspections
are
to
identify
malfunctions
and
deterioration,

operator
errors,
and
discharges
which
may
be
causing
 
or
be
leading
to
 
(
1)
a
release
of
hazardous
waste
constituents
to
the
environment,
or
(
2)
a
threat
to
human
health.
In
response
to
a
comment
in
the
2002
proposal,
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662)
considered
reducing
inspection
frequencies,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
areas
subject
to
spills.
We
also
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
grant
this
relief
only
to
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
stating
that
the
risk
from
this
change
is
minimal
at
facilities
that
have
met
the
requirements
to
be
accepted
into
the
Performance
Track
Program.
We
received
two
comments
on
this
172
issue;
one
commenter
supported
the
proposal,
and
one
did
not
.
The
commenter
that
opposed
the
proposal
provided
no
explanation
or
justification
for
its
position.
The
supporting
commenter
stated
that
activities
that
may
cause
spills
"
usually
allow
for
the
spills
to
be
easily
detected
and
quickly
cleaned
up.
More
frequent
inspections
are
unlikely
to
result
in
quicker
spill
detection."

In
general,
we
do
not
believe
that
such
a
change
to
the
regulation
is
appropriate
for
all
facilities,
for
the
reasons
laid
out
above.

However,
we
believe
the
risk
from
this
change
is
minimal
at
facilities
that
have
met
the
requirements
to
be
accepted
into
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Therefore,
we
have
decided
to
extend
inspection
frequencies
for
no
less
than
once
each
month,
at
areas
subject
to
spills
(
§
§
264.15(
b)(
4)
and
265.14(
b)(
4)),
but
only
for
facilities
that
are
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
that
have
received
prior
approval
from
the
regulatory
agency.

C
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Containers.

Sections
264.174
and
265.174
require
owners
or
operators
to
inspect,
at
least
weekly,
areas
where
containers
holding
hazardous
waste
are
stored,
looking
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
of
other
factors.
We
proposed
to
allow
case­
by­
case
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
containers.

The
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662)
addressed
comments
received
on
the
2002
proposal.
Based
on
the
comments
from
the
proposal,
the
NODA
reconsidered
whether
to
make
case­
by­
case
reduced
self­
inspections
available
to
all
generators
because
173
of
the
burden
it
might
impose
on
authorized
states
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
criteria.
That
is,
making
such
a
change
available
to
all
generators
would
likely
impose
a
substantial
burden
on
the
states
or
EPA
in
order
to
evaluate
whether
an
applicant
facility
met
the
criteria.
Such
a
burden
is
clearly
in
opposition
to
the
intent
of
today's
rule.
Finally,
the
Agency
stated
clearly
that
"
at
a
minimum,
we
believe
that
providing
relief
is
appropriate
for
companies
that
are
demonstrated
good
performers."(
68
FR
61665.)

The
Agency
received
comments
on
this
issue
that
supported
the
application
of
this
provision
to
Performance
Track
members.

Other
comments
stated
that
this
provision
should
be
made
available
to
all
facilities
with
a
demonstrated
record
of
good
compliance,

with
some
type
of
demonstrated
top
performance,
or
by
meeting
the
proposed
criteria.

The
Agency
considered
all
comments
received
on
this
issue
and
has
decided
to
finalize
a
reduced
self­
inspection
requirement
to
§
§
264.174
and
265.174
available
only
to
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
The
reason
for
this
decision
is
that
case­
by­
case
determinations
for
all
hazardous
waste
facilities
would
significantly
increase
the
burden
associated
with
providing
this
benefit
to
all
facilities.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
apply
to
their
regulatory
agency
for
a
reduction
in
self­
inspection
frequency,
for
no
less
than
once
each
month,
for
containers
and
for
areas
where
containers
holding
hazardous
waste
are
stored.

c.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Tank
Systems.
21
As
previously
discussed,
we
intended
to
include
a
broad
applicability
for
tank
systems
in
our
proposed
rule,
however
the
proposal
did
not
clearly
address
the
point.
We
clarified
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662)
that
the
proposal
was
meant
to
apply
not
just
to
the
tanks,
but
to
the
complete
tank
systems
(
i.
e.,
ancillary
equipment).
Complete
tank
systems
were
defined
as
including
piping,
pumps,
valves
and
other
associated
equipment.
Commenters
were
generally
supportive
of
this
change.
Therefore,

we
are
applying
this
provision
to
complete
tank
systems,
except
to
ancillary
equipment
without
secondary
containment
as
described
at
§
§
264.193(
f)(
1)­(
4)
and
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4).
174
Today,
we
are
changing
the
self­
inspection
frequencies
for
tank
systems
from
daily
to
no
less
than
once
each
month
for
tank
systems,
granted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
for
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
when
they
are
operating
under
certain
conditions.
21
This
includes
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
are
either
permitted
TSDFs,
interim
status
TSDFs,
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs),
and/
or
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs).

Today's
rule
allows
Performance
Track
member
facilities
to
apply
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
reduced
tank
system
selfinspection
frequency,
of
no
less
than
once
each
month
when
either
of
two
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
when
tank
owners
and
operators
employ
leak
detection
equipment
used
in
conjunction
with
secondary
containment,
or
(
2)
when
in
the
absence
of
leak
detection
equipment,
owners
and
operators
of
tank
systems
with
secondary
containment
employ
workplace
practices
that
ensure
that
when
any
leaks
or
spills
occur,
they
will
be
promptly
identified
and
remediated.
Performance
Track
member
facilities
choosing
one
of
these
options
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies,
should
identify
the
option
selected
as
part
of
its
application
to
the
regulatory
agency.
175
Small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
tank
systems
are
subject
to
separate
requirements,
found
in
40
CFR
265.201.
Today's
rulemaking
also
allows
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
members
to
apply
to
the
regulatory
agency
for
reduced
selfinspection
frequencies
for
SQG
tank
systems
under
§
265.201(
b)
when
they
meet
either
one
of
the
two
conditions
described
above.

d.
Performance
Track:
Reduced
Inspection
Frequency
for
Containment
Buildings.

We
proposed
to
allow
case­
by­
case
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
containment
buildings.
As
stated
generally
above,
the
intent
was
to
offer
this
provision
only
to
the
safest
and
best
performing
facilities.
In
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
we
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
limit
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
containment
building
to
member
facilities
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
Again,
for
the
same
reasons
stated
above,
we
decided
to
limit
§
§
264.1101
and
265.1101
to
Performance
Track
member
facilities.
TABLE
11
DECREASED
INSPECTION
FREQUENCIES
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
AT
PERMITTED
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
FACILITIES
176
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
260.10
Hazardous
Waste
Management
System:
Definitions
No
regulatory
definition
currently
exists
Performance
Track
member
facility
means
a
facility
which
that
has
been
accepted
by
EPA
for
membership
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
is
still
a
member
of
the
Program.
The
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
is
a
voluntary,
facility
based,
program
for
top
environmental
performers.
Facility
members
must
demonstrate
a
good
record
of
compliance,
past
success
in
achieving
environmental
goals,
and
commit
to
future
specific
quantified
environmental
goals,
environmental
management
systems,
local
community
outreach,
and
annual
reporting
of
measurable
results.

264.15
(
b)(
4)
General
Facility
Standards:

General
Inspection
Requirements
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.

However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
any
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
264.174,

264.193,
264.195,
264.226,
264.254,
264.278,
264.303,
264.347,
264.602,

264.1033,
264.1052,
264.1053,
264.1058,
and
264.1083
through
264.1089
of
this
part,
where
applicable.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
177
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.

However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,

must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
may
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
as
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
264.174,
264.193,
264.195,
264.226,
264.254,
264.278,
264.303,
264.347,

264.602,
264.1033,
264.1052,
264.1053,
264.1058,
and
264.1083
through
264.1089
of
this
part,
where
applicable.

264.15
(
b)(
5)
General
Facility
Standards:

General
Inspection
Requirements
New
regulatory
language
added.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
178
Performance
Track
member
facilities
who
that
choose
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency
must:

(
i)
Submit
a
request
for
a
Class
I
permit
modification
with
prior
approval
to
the
Director.
The
modification
request
must
identify
the
facility
as
a
member
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
identify
the
management
units
for
reduced
inspections
and
the
proposed
frequency
of
inspections.
The
modification
request
must
also
specify,
in
writing,
that
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
will
apply
for
as
long
as
the
facility
is
a
Performance
Track
member
facility,
and
that
within
seven
calendar
days
of
ceasing
to
be
a
Performance
Track
member,
the
facility
will
revert
to
the
non­
Performance
Track
inspection
frequency.
Inspections
must
be
conducted
at
least
once
each
month.

(
ii)
Within
60
days,
the
Director
will
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility,
in
writing,
if
the
request
is
approved,
denied,
or
if
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline
is
needed.
This
notice
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)
deny
the
application;
or
(
2)
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
of
an
extension
to
the
60
day
deadline.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
its
request
for
a
Class
I
permit
modification
and
keep
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

(
iii)
Any
Performance
Track
member
facility
who
that
discontinues
its
their
membership
or
is
terminated
from
the
program
must
immediately
notify
the
Director
of
their
its
change
in
status.
The
facility
must
place
in
the
operating
record
a
dated
copy
of
this
notification
and
revert
back
to
the
non­

Performance
Track
inspection
frequencies
within
seven
calendar
days.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
179
264.174
Use
and
Management
of
Containers:

Inspections
At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
looking
for
leaking
containers,
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.

At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
who
may
conduct
inspections
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director.

To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequencies,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.

The
owner
or
operator
must
look
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
180
264.195
Tank
Systems:

Inspections.
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day:

(
1)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste:

(
2)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,

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

[
Note:
Section
264.15(
c)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
remedy
any
deterioration
or
malfunction
he
finds.
Section
264.196
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
within
24
hours
of
confirming
a
leak.
Also,
40
CFR
part
302
may
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
of
a
release.]
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
181
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)
to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;

(
c)
In
addition,
except
as
noted
under
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day:

(
1)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste:

(
2)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tanks
system,
including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).

(
d)
Owners
or
operators
of
tank
systems
with
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
equipment
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,

or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly
those
areas
described
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record.
This
documentation
must
include
a
description
of
the
established
workplace
practices
at
the
facility.

(
e)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
inspect
on
a
less
frequent
basis,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
but
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month.
To
apply
for
a
less
than
weekly
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.

(
f)
Ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
182
264.1101
(
c)(
4)
Containment
Buildings:
Design
and
Operating
Standards
Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.

Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
who
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.

TABLE
12
DECREASED
INSPECTION
FREQUENCIES
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
AT
INTERIM
STATUS
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
260.10
Hazardous
Waste
Management
System:

Definitions
No
regulatory
definition
currently
exists
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
183
Performance
Track
member
facility
means
a
facility
which
that
has
been
accepted
by
EPA
for
membership
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
is
still
a
member
of
the
Program.
The
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
is
a
voluntary,
facility
based,

program
for
top
environmental
performers.
Facility
members
must
demonstrate
a
good
record
of
compliance,
past
success
in
achieving
environmental
goals,
and
commit
to
future
specific
quantified
environmental
goals,
environmental
management
systems,
local
community
outreach,
and
annual
reporting
of
measurable
results.

265.15
(
b)(
4)
General
Facility
Standards:
General
Inspection
Requirements
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.
However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
any
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
265.174,
265.193,
265.195,
265.226,
265.260,
265.278,
265.304,
265.347,
265.377,
265.403,

265.1033,
265.1052,
265.1053,
265.1058
and
265.1084
through
265.1090
of
this
part,
where
applicable.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
184
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.
However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.

Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
as
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
265.174,
265.193,
265.195,
265.226,
265.260,

265.278,
265.304,
265.347,
265.377,
265.403,
265.1033,
265.1052,
265.1053,
265.1058
and
265.1084
through
265.1090
of
this
part,
where
applicable.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
185
265.15(
b)(
5)
General
Facility
Standards:
General
Inspection
Requirements
New
regulatory
language
added.

Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
who
choose
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency
must:
do
the
following:

(
i)
Submit
an
application
to
the
Director.
The
application
must
identify
the
facility
as
a
member
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
identify
the
management
units
for
reduced
inspections
and
the
proposed
frequency
of
inspections.
Inspections
must
be
conducted
at
least
once
each
month.

(
ii)
Within
60
days,
the
Director
will
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility,
in
writing,
if
the
application
is
approved,
denied,
or
if
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline
is
needed.
This
notice
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)
deny
the
application;
or
(
2)
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
of
an
extension
to
the
60
day
deadline.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
its
application
and
keep
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

(
iii)
Any
Performance
Track
member
facility
that
discontinues
its
membership
or
is
terminated
from
the
program
must
immediately
notify
the
Director
of
its
change
in
status.
The
facility
must
place
in
the
operating
record
a
dated
copy
of
this
notification
and
revert
back
to
the
non­
Performance
Track
inspection
frequencies
within
seven
calender
days
265.174
Use
and
Management
of
Containers:
Inspections
At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
looking
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
186
At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
who
that
must
conduct
inspections
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
look
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
187
265.195
Tank
Systems:

Inspections.
(
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)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste:

(
3)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,

monitoring
wells)
to
ensure
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
tanks
system,
including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
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
264.196
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
within
24
hours
of
confirming
a
leak.
Also,
40
CFR
part
302
may
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
notify
the
National
Response
Center
of
a
release.]
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
188
New
language:

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect,
where
present,
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)

to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design:

(
b)
Except
as
noted
under
the
provisions
of
§
265.195(
c),
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
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)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste;
and
(
3)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tanks
system,
including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).

(
c)
Owners
or
operators
of
tank
systems
with
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
equipment
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,
or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly
those
areas
described
in
paragraphs
(
1)­(
3)
of
this
section.
Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
facility
operating
record.
This
documentation
must
include
a
description
of
the
established
workplace
practices
at
the
facility.

(
d)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
inspect
on
a
less
frequent
basis,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
but
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month.
To
apply
for
a
less
than
weekly
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.

(
e)
Ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
265.193(
f)(
1)­(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
189
265.1101
(
c)(
4)
Containment
Buildings:

Design
and
Operating
Standards
Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.

Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
who
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.
190
TABLE
13
DECREASED
INSPECTION
FREQUENCIES
FOR
SMALL
QUANTITY
GENERATOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
265.201(
c)
Tank
Systems:

Special
requirements
for
generators
of
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
that
accumulate
hazardous
waste
in
tanks.
(
c)
Generators
who
accumulate
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
of
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
must
inspect,
where
present:

(
1)
Discharge
control
equipment
(
e.
g.,
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
by­
pass
systems,
and
drainage
systems)
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
to
ensure
that
it
is
in
good
working
order;

(
2)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
and
temperature
gauges)
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
to
ensure
that
the
tank
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;

(
3)
The
level
of
waste
in
the
tank
at
least
once
each
operating
day
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
265.201(
b)(
3);

(
4)
The
construction
materials
of
the
tank
at
least
weekly
to
detect
corrosion
or
leaking
of
fixtures
or
seams;
and
(
5)
The
construction
materials
of,
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding,

discharge
confinement
structures
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
at
least
weekly
to
detect
erosion
or
obvious
signs
of
leakage
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots
or
dead
vegetation).
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
191
New
language:

(
c)
Except
as
noted
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section,
generators
who
accumulate
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
accumulating
of
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
must
inspect,
where
present:

(
1)
Discharge
control
equipment
(
e.
g.,
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
by­
pass
systems,
and
drainage
systems)
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
to
ensure
that
it
is
in
good
working
order;

(
2)
Data
gathered
from
monitoring
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
and
temperature
gauges)
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
to
ensure
that
the
tank
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design;

(
3)
The
level
of
waste
in
the
tank
at
least
once
each
operating
day
to
ensure
compliance
with
§
265.201(
b)(
3);

(
4)
The
construction
materials
of
the
tank
at
least
weekly
to
detect
corrosion
or
leaking
of
fixtures
or
seams;
and
(
5)
The
construction
materials
of,
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding,

discharge
confinement
structures
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
at
least
weekly
to
detect
erosion
or
obvious
signs
of
leakage
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots
or
dead
vegetation).

(
d)
Generators
who
accumulate
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
of
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
or
tank
systems
that
have
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
equipment
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,
or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly,
where
applicable,
the
areas
identified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)­(
5)
of
this
section.

Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
192
H.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Record
Retention
and
Submittal
of
Records.

EPA
is
modifying
certain
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
handlers
to
keep
records
on
site
and
submit
these
same
records
to
EPA.
We
will
now
require
waste
handlers
only
to
keep
these
selected
records
on
site.

EPA
believes
that
many
of
the
various
notices
required
do
not
add
much
in
protection
and
some
are
simply
redundant.
We
believe
that
reporting
to
EPA
on
the
majority
of
the
day­
to­
day
functions
of
a
facility
does
not
need
to
occur.
Because
a
basic
set
of
compliance
information
will
still
be
kept
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
we
believe
the
regulatory
agency
has
an
ample
opportunity
for
effective
oversight.

1.
We
Are
Removing
the
Requirement
to
Submit
a
One­
Time
Notification
for
Recycled
Wood
Wastewaters
and
Spent
Wood­
Preserving
Solutions
and
Clarifying
an
Unintentional
Elimination
Made
in
the
Proposal.

Currently
under
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
9),
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
and
wastewaters
from
wood
preserving
processes
are
excluded
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
if
they
are
reclaimed
and
reused
for
their
original
intended
purpose,
and
if
five
conditions
specified
in
subparagraphs
(
iii)(
A)
through
(
iii)(
E)
are
met.
Paragraph
(
E)
required
that
the
plant
owner
or
operator
submit
a
one­
time
22
The
four
other
conditions
found
in
261.4(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
A)­(
D)
are:
(
A)
The
wood
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
are
reused
on­
site
at
water
borne
plants
in
the
production
process
for
their
original
intended
purpose;
(
B)
Prior
to
reuse,
the
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
are
managed
to
prevent
release
to
either
land
or
groundwater
or
both;
(
C)

Any
unit
used
to
manage
wastewaters
and/
or
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
prior
to
reuse
can
be
visually
or
otherwise
be
determined
to
prevent
such
releases;
and
(
D)
Any
drip
pad
used
to
manage
the
wastewaters
and/
or
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
prior
to
reuse
complies
with
the
standard
in
part
265,
subpart
W
of
this
chapter,
regardless
of
whether
the
plant
generates
a
total
of
less
than
100
kg/
month
of
hazardous
waste.
193
notification
that
the
plant
intends
to
claim
the
exclusion.
22
Paragraph
(
E)
also
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
maintain
a
copy
of
the
notification
on­
site
for
no
less
than
three
years.
Finally,
paragraph
(
E)
explains
that
the
exclusion
applies
only
so
long
as
the
plant
meets
all
of
the
conditions,
and
sets
forth
procedures
for
what
to
do
to
retain
the
exclusion
if
the
facility
goes
out
of
compliance
with
a
condition.
The
proposed
rule
(
see
67
FR
2521)
was
to
reduce
the
burden
on
wood
preservers/
treaters
by
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
one­
time
notification.
The
proposal
stated
that
the
requirement
is
unnecessary
and
has
limited
use
for
regulators.
However,

the
change
to
the
regulations
specified
in
the
regulatory
text
of
the
proposal
unintentionally
eliminated
the
entire
paragraph
(
E)
of
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
9),
thus
eliminating
the
one­
time
notification
requirement
and
also
eliminating
the
two
other
requirements
in
that
paragraph:
(
1)
the
requirement
to
maintain
the
notification
on­
site
for
three
years,
and
(
2)
the
implementation
discussion
for
compliance
with
the
conditions.
194
Three
state
commenters
did
not
agree
with
the
proposal.
These
commenters
argued
that
the
notification
is
useful
for
identifying
facilities
that
are
claiming
the
exclusion,
identifying
potential
problems
before
they
occur,
allowing
the
regulating
agency
to
verify
compliance,
and
workload
planning.
Several
state
commenters,
however,
agreed
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification.
Based
on
their
comments,
these
commenters
appeared
to
understand
that
only
the
requirement
to
submit
the
one­
time
notification
was
proposed
for
elimination.
None
mentioned
the
requirement
to
retain
the
notification
on­
site
or
the
compliance
implementation
procedures.

While
we
understand
the
concern
of
some
of
the
commenters,
we
still
do
not
believe
that
arguments
put
forth
were
sufficient
to
change
the
proposed
approach.
We
believe
that
the
submittal
of
this
notification
is
unnecessary
because
the
facilities
are
engaged
in
limited
activities
to
return
materials
to
their
intended
use
in
the
wood
treating
industry.
Many
comparable
activities
occur
without
notification,
including
direct
reuse
of
the
same
material.
These
activities
will
occur
at
generator
sites
subject
to
EPA
or
state
inspection
(
and
in
some
case
at
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities),
so
EPA
or
the
state
will
have
an
opportunity
to
review
the
activity.
Note
that
in
the
final
change
to
the
regulatory
text,
we
are
only
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
the
one­
time
notification;
we
are
not
eliminating
the
requirement
to
keep
the
document
on­
site,
or
the
discussion
of
compliance
implementation
procedures.
195
2.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Interim
Status
Facilities
to
Submit
Specific
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Plans
and
Ground­
Water
Assessment
Reports.

In
today's
final
rule,
we
are
reducing
some
of
the
burden
on
interim
status
facilities
by
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
specific
ground­
water
monitoring
plans
and
ground­
water
assessment
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
These
reports
include:
(
1)
plans
for
an
alternative
ground­
water
monitoring
system
under
§
265.90(
d)(
1)
that
are
implemented
when
the
owner
or
operator
assumes
(
or
knows)
that
ground­
water
monitoring
of
indicator
parameters
in
accordance
with
§
§
265.91
and
265.92
would
show
statistically
significant
increases
when
evaluated
under
§
265.93(
b);
(
2)
records
of
the
analyses
and
evaluations
specified
in
the
plan
under
§
265.93(
d)(
2);
and
(
3)
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports
required
under
§
265.93(
d)(
5).
These
plans
are
not
being
eliminated,

but
are
to
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.
We
consider
today's
changes
to
be
a
common
sense
approach
to
reducing
burden
at
regulated
facilities
without
compromising
environmental
protection.

Numerous
states
objected
to
these
proposed
changes
to
the
interim
status
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
asserting
that
the
regulatory
agency
should
continue
to
receive
a
copy
of
these
reports
to
assess
the
effectiveness
and
appropriateness
of
the
ground­
water
monitoring
system.
Other
states
asserted
that
EPA's
approach
places
an
undue
burden
on
the
regulatory
authority
and
makes
it
difficult
for
states
to
fully
evaluate
ground
water
across
the
state.
196
We
believe
that
self­
implementing
ground­
water
monitoring
plans
for
interim
status
facilities
can
be
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment;
we
disagree
with
the
assertion
that
our
rationale
places
a
burden
on
the
regulating
authority.
These
reports
must
be
kept
in
the
facility's
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility
and
will
be
available
for
inspection
when
the
state
or
EPA
visits
the
facility.
Nothing
in
today's
rulemaking
prevents
the
regulating
authority
from
requesting
reports
from
interim
status
facilities
for
ground­
water
quality
assessment
or
indicator
parameter
concentrations.

EPA
is
retaining
many
requirements
for
interim
status
facilities.
For
example,
we
are
not
changing
the
ground­
water
reporting
requirements
of
§
§
265.93
(
c)(
1),
(
d)(
1),
(
e)
and
(
f)
and
265.94(
a)(
2)(
i),
(
ii)
and
(
iii),
that
deal
with
submitting
notifications
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
the
development
and
submittal
of:
(
1)
ground­
water
quality
assessment
reports;
(
2)

preparation
and
submittal
of
quarterly
reports
on
drinking
water
suitability
parameters;
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations;
and
(
3)
ground
­
water
surface
elevations.
Stakeholders
have
convinced
us
of
the
importance
of
this
information.
Without
the
knowledge
of
the
status
of
the
facility
ground­
water
monitoring
system,
it
may
be
difficult
for
regulators
to
conduct
effective
inspections,
address
compliance
issues,
and
address
enforcement
issues
regarding
the
ground
water
at
interim
facilities.

3.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Interim
Status
Surface
Impoundments,

Waste
Piles,
and
Landfills
to
Submit
a
Response
Action
Plan.
23
The
action
leakage
rate
is
the
maximum
design
flow
rate
that
the
leak
detection
system
(
LDS)
can
remove
without
the
fluid
head
on
the
bottom
liner
exceeding
one
foot.
The
action
leakage
rate
must
include
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
to
allow
for
uncertainties
in
the
design
(
e.
g.,
slope,
hydraulic
conductivity,
thickness
of
drainage
material),
construction,
operation,
and
location
of
the
LDS,
waste
and
leachate
characteristics,
likelihood
and
amounts
of
other
sources
of
liquids
in
the
LDS,
and
proposed
response
actions
(
e.
g.,
the
action
leakage
rate
must
consider
decreases
in
the
flow
capacity
of
the
system
over
time
resulting
from
siltation
and
clogging,
rib
layover
and
creep
of
synthetic
components
of
the
system,
overburden
pressures,
etc.).

197
Response
action
plans
are
generated
by
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
specified
hazardous
waste
management
unit
(
e.
g.,
surface
impoundment,
waste
pile,
and/
or
land
fill),
and
document
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
in
the
unit's
leak
detection
system
has
been
exceeded.
23
These
actions
are
listed
in
§
§
265.223,
265.259
and
265.303.
The
Agency
proposed
eliminating
the
need
to
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
response
action
plans
for
interim
status
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills.
We
are
eliminating
the
submission
of
the
response
action
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
facility
must
still
prepare
and
retain
these
plans
on­
site.

Several
state
commenters
agreed
with
the
proposal;
however,
several
others
did
not.
One
commenter
argued
that
a
release
from
a
land­
based
unit
is
a
significant
noncompliance
and
could
pose
serious
impacts
to
the
people
and
the
environment,
and
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.
While
we
agree
with
the
commenter
that
198
any
release
from
a
land­
based
unit
is
a
serious
matter,
and
that
controlling
these
releases
is
of
the
utmost
importance,
we
are
not
convinced
that
these
plans
need
to
be
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency.
EPA
is
retaining
all
requirements
to
submit
notices
to
the
regulatory
authority
when
an
action
leakage
rate
is
exceeded
(
see
§
§
265.223
(
b)(
2)
and
(
6);
265.259(
b)(
2)
and
(
6);
and
265.303(
b)(
2)

and
(
6));
we
believe
that
the
need
to
submit
the
response
action
plan
which
merely
reiterates
these
requirements
is
an
overly
burdensome
requirement
that
can
be
removed.

4.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
Facilities
to
Submit
a
Tank
System
Certification
of
Completion
of
Major
Repairs.

We
are
amending
the
requirement
for
submitting
to
the
Regional
Administrator
a
certification
of
completion
of
major
repairs
to
a
tank
system
by
an
independent,
qualified,
professional
engineer.
This
certification
need
only
be
kept
on­
site
in
the
operating
record
through
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
change
will
eliminate
the
submission
of
duplicative
information
to
the
regulatory
authority.
Sections
264.196(
d)
and
265.196(
d)
already
require
that
certain
notifications
be
submitted
that
include
descriptions
of
response
actions
taken
or
planned.

Several
commenters
did
not
support
the
proposed
change,
noting
that
submission
of
the
certification
helps
to
ensure
that
the
regulatory
authority
is
made
aware
of
any
potentially
significant
repairs
that
were
conducted.
One
commenter
argued
that
the
199
elimination
of
these
notices
or
notations
in
the
operating
record
will
adversely
affect
oversight.
Another
commenter
argued
that,
while
supportive
of
the
proposed
change,
the
certification
of
major
repairs
must
be
kept
with
the
facility
record,
and
be
available
for
review
by
regulatory
inspectors.
We
believe
that
information
provided
by
the
certification
of
major
repairs
is
already
provided
through
the
notification
mechanisms
described
in
§
§
264.196(
d)
and
265.196(
d),
which
require
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.

5.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
for
a
Recycler
to
Submit
a
Notification
and
Certification.

Under
40
CFR
268.7(
b)(
3),
a
treatment
facility
must
send
a
one­
time
notice
to
the
receiving
land
disposal
facility
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste
or
contaminated
soil.
Also,
in
§
268.7(
b)(
4),
the
treatment
facility
must
submit
a
one­
time
certification
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste
or
contaminated
soil
to
the
land
disposal
facility.

Under
§
268.7(
b)(
6),
however,
if
the
wastes
are
recyclable
materials
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
the
recycler)
is
not
required
to
send
the
one­
time
(
b)(
3)
notice
to
the
receiving
facility.
For
each
shipment,
however,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
recycler)
must
submit
a
(
b)(
4)
certification
and
a
notice
with
200
the
information
listed
in
(
b)(
3)
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
These
notifications
and
certifications
are
to
assure
and
document
that
treatment
standards
are
being
met.
The
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
described
a
proposal
that
would
reduce
burden
on
the
regulated
industry
by
eliminating
the
requirement
to
send
the
notifications
and
certifications
to
EPA,
and
instead
require
that
the
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
recycler)
place
these
documents
in
its
on­
site
files.

Five
commenters,
including
three
states,
agreed
that
notifying
the
regulatory
agency
is
not
necessary
as
long
as
the
information
is
maintained
at
the
facility.
Only
one
commenter
did
not
support
the
elimination
of
the
requirement.
This
commenter
argued
that
it
is
important
to
track
hazardous
wastes
used
in
the
manufacture
of
fertilizers
because
it
believes
there
are
problems
with
compliance
in
this
industry.
It
believes
that
notification
to
the
regulatory
agency
allows
such
tracking.
We,
however,
do
not
agree
with
this
commenter,
for
the
reasons
presented
below.

Based
on
the
majority
of
comments
received,
we
are
amending
§
268.7(
b)(
6)
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
notifications
and
certifications
to
EPA,
and
instead
require
that
the
information
be
placed
in
the
treating/
recycling
facility's
on­
site
files.
All
but
one
commenter
confirmed
that
maintaining
these
records
on­
site
provides
sufficient
documentation
of
waste
treatment
in
these
cases.
We
also
point
out
that
regulating
agencies
have
a
great
deal
of
information
about
these
facilities
already
since,
in
most
cases,
they
would
be
permitted
facilities.
Retaining
these
notices
on­
site
does
not
eliminate
the
regulating
agency's
knowledge
of
the
201
existence
of
the
facility.
We
also
note
that
if
a
state
has
concerns
about
compliance
in
a
particular
use
constituting
disposal
industry
in
their
state,
they
may
choose
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
federal
program,
and
choose
to
retain
these
notifications.

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.
As
discussed
earlier,
the
existing
regulations
actually
require
that
certifications
and
notifications
be
sent
to
the
regulating
agency
with
each
shipment.
One
commenter
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.
We
agree
with
this
commenter's
point.
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.
Whereas
the
proposal
did
address
the
burden
of
sending
notifications
and
certifications
to
the
regulatory
agency,
it
did
not
address
the
burden
associated
with
the
requirement
to
send
those
documents
with
each
waste
shipment.
This
final
rule
corrects
that
omission.
Thus,
this
final
rule
only
requires
facilities
(
i.
e.,
recyclers)
to
prepare
and
maintain
202
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.

6.
We
Are
Eliminating
the
Requirement
to
Submit
an
LDR
Notification
and
Certification.

Under
§
268.9(
d),
once
a
characteristic
waste
is
treated
so
it
is
no
longer
characteristic,
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
of
this
fact
have
to
be
placed
in
the
generator's
or
treater's
files,
and
also
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
We
proposed
to
eliminate
the
requirement
to
submit
the
notification
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state
(
the
notification
and
certification
would
continue
to
be
required
to
be
kept
in
the
facility's
files).

Almost
all
commenters
supported
the
proposal
to
delete
the
one­
time
requirement
that
the
§
268.9(
d)
notification
and
certification
be
sent
to
EPA
or
the
authorized
state.
This
is
because
the
notification
and
the
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
on­
site
files
and
would
thus
be
available
for
inspection.
A
few
commenters
opposed
the
deletion
of
these
submittals,
stating
that
this
information
is
valuable.
While
we
agree
that
the
information
is
valuable,
we
do
not
believe
that
submitting
these
documents
to
the
regulatory
agency
is
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
a
number
of
years,
other
LDR
notifications
and
certifications
have
not
been
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
regulatory
agency
but
are
available
for
inspection
in
the
facility's
on­
site
203
files.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
this
system
of
recordkeeping
is
sufficient
and
are
deleting
the
notification
and
certification
submission
requirement
as
proposed.
TABLE
14
CHANGES
TO
THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
RECORD
RETENTION
AND
SUBMITTAL
OF
RECORDS
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
264.196(
f)
Tank
Systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
for­
use
tank
systems.
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,

installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified,
registered,

professional
engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
must
be
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
returning
the
tank
system
to
use.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
24
The
reader
is
referred
to
Section
III.
B.
of
today's
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
the
change
from
"
independent,
qualified,

registered,
professional"
to
"
independent,
"
qualified
professional
engineer".

204
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,

installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
a
qualified
professional
engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.
24
205
TABLE
15
CHANGES
TO
THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
RECORD
RETENTION
AND
SUBMITTAL
OF
RECORDS
FOR
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
265.90(
d)(
1)
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.

Applicability.
Within
one
year
after
the
effective
date
of
these
regulations,
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
a
specific
plan,
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
which
satisfies
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
3),
for
an
alternate
groundwater
monitoring
system.

Within
one
year
after
the
effective
date
of
these
regulations,
develop
a
specific
plan,

certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
which
satisfies
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
3),
for
an
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
system.
This
plan
is
to
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

265.90(
d)(
3)
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.

Applicability.
Prepare
and
submit
a
written
report
in
accordance
with
§
265.93(
d)(
5).

Prepare
a
report
in
accordance
with
§
265.93(
d)(
5)
and
place
it
in
the
facility's
operating
record
and
maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
206
265.93(
d)(
2)
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.

Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.
Within
15
days
after
the
notification
under
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
must
develop
and
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
a
specific
plan,

based
on
the
outline
required
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
and
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
for
a
ground­
water
quality
assessment
at
the
facility.

Within
15
days
after
the
notification
under
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
must
develop
a
specific
plan,
based
on
the
outline
required
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
and
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
for
a
ground­
water
quality
assessment
at
the
facility.
This
plan
must
be
placed
in
the
facility
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

265.93(
d)(
5)
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.
Preparation,

evaluation,
and
response.
The
owner
or
operator
must
make
his
first
determination
under
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section,
as
soon
as
technically
feasible,
and,
within
15
days
after
that
determination,
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
a
written
report
containing
an
assessment
of
the
ground­
water
quality.

The
owner
or
operator
must
make
his
first
determination
under
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section
as
soon
as
technically
feasible,
and
prepare
a
report
containing
an
assessment
of
the
ground­
water
quality.
This
report
must
be
placed
in
the
facility
operating
record
and
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
207
265.196(
f)
Tank
Systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfitfor
use
tank
systems.
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,

installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified,
registered,

professional
engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
must
be
submitted
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
returning
the
tank
system
to
use.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
25
The
reader
is
referred
to
today's
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
the
change
from
"
independent,
qualified,
registered,

professional
engineer"
to
"
qualified
professional
engineer".
We
are
also
requiring
that
this
certification
be
retained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.
208
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,

installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
professional
engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
must
be
kept
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.
25
265.223(
a)
Surface
Impoundments
.
Response
actions.
The
owner
or
operator
of
surface
impoundment
units
subject
to
§
265.221(
a)
must
submit
a
response
action
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator
when
submitting
the
proposed
action
leakage
rate
under
§
265.222.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,

the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
209
The
owner
or
operator
of
surface
impoundment
units
subject
to
§
265.221(
a)
must
develop
and
keep
on­
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

265.259(
a)
Waste
Piles.
Response
actions.
The
owner
or
operator
of
waste
pile
units
subject
to
§
265.254
must
submit
a
response
action
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator
when
submitting
the
proposed
action
leakage
rate
under
§
265.255.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
action
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

The
owner
or
operator
of
waste
pile
units
subject
to
§
265.254
must
develop
and
keep
on­
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

265.303(
a)
Landfills.
Response
actions.
The
owner
or
operator
of
landfill
units
subject
to
§
265.301(
a)
must
submit
a
response
action
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator
when
submitting
the
proposed
action
leakage
rate
under
§
265.302.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
action
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

The
owner
or
operator
of
landfill
units
subject
to
§
265.301(
a)
must
develop
and
keep
on­
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
210
TABLE
16
CHANGES
TO
THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
RECORD
RETENTION
AND
SUBMITTAL
OF
RECORDS
FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
GENERATORS
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
261.4
(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
E)
General.
Exclusions.
Materials
which
are
not
solid
wastes.
Prior
to
operating
pursuant
to
this
exclusion,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
submits
to
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
a
one­
time
notification
stating
that
the
plant
intends
to
claim
the
exclusion,
giving
the
date
on
which
the
plant
intends
to
begin
operating
under
the
exclusion,
and
containing
the
following
language:"
I
have
read
the
applicable
regulation
establishing
an
exclusion
for
wood
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
and
understand
it
requires
me
to
comply
at
all
times
with
the
conditions
set
out
in
the
regulation."
The
plant
must
maintain
a
copy
of
that
document
in
its
on­
site
records
for
a
period
of
no
less
than
3
years
from
the
date
specified
in
the
notice.
The
exclusion
applies
only
so
long
as
the
plant
meets
all
of
the
conditions.
If
the
plant
goes
out
of
compliance
with
any
condition,
it
may
apply
to
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
for
reinstatement.
The
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
may
reinstate
the
exclusion
upon
finding
that
the
plant
has
returned
to
compliance
with
all
conditions
and
that
violations
are
not
likely
to
recur.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
211
Prior
to
operating
pursuant
to
this
exclusion,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
prepares
a
one­
time
notification
stating
that
the
plant
intends
to
claim
the
exclusion,
giving
the
date
on
which
the
plant
intends
to
begin
operating
under
the
exclusion,
and
containing
the
following
language:
"
I
have
read
the
applicable
regulation
establishing
an
exclusion
for
wood
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
and
understand
it
requires
me
to
comply
at
all
times
with
the
conditions
set
out
in
the
regulation."
The
plant
must
maintain
a
copy
of
that
document
in
its
on­
site
records
until
closure
of
the
facility.
The
exclusion
applies
only
so
long
as
the
plant
meets
all
of
the
conditions.
If
the
plant
goes
out
of
compliance
with
any
condition,
it
may
apply
to
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
for
reinstatement.

The
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
may
reinstate
the
exclusion
upon
finding
that
the
plant
has
returned
to
compliance
with
all
conditions
and
that
violations
are
not
likely
to
recur.

268.7(
b)(
6)
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
Testing,

tracking,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators,
treaters,

and
disposal
facilities.
Where
the
wastes
are
recyclable
materials
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
subject
to
the
provisions
of
§
268.20(
b)
regarding
treatment
standards
and
prohibition
levels,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
the
recycler)
is
not
required
to
notify
the
receiving
facility,
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section.
With
each
shipment
of
such
wastes,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
recycling
facility
must
submit
a
certification
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section,
and
a
notice
which
includes
the
information
listed
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
(
except
the
manifest
number)

to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
his
delegated
representative.
The
recycling
facility
also
must
keep
records
of
the
name
and
location
of
each
entity
receiving
the
hazardous
waste­
derived
product.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
26
In
the
previous
regulatory
language,
the
citation
referred
to
§
268.20(
b),
however
this
was
an
error.
In
today's
rule,
we
are
correcting
this
error
by
referring
to
the
correct
citation
which
is
§
266.20(
b).

212
Where
the
wastes
are
recyclable
materials
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
subject
to
the
provisions
of
§
266.20(
b)
26
of
this
part
regarding
treatment
standards
and
prohibition
levels,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
the
recycler)

must,
for
the
initial
shipment
of
waste,
prepare
a
one­
time
certification
described
in
paragraph(
b)(
4)
of
this
section,
and
a
one­
time
notice
which
includes
the
information
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
(
except
the
manifest
number).
The
certification
and
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
If
the
waste
or
the
receiving
facility
changes,
a
new
certification
and
notification
must
be
prepared
and
placed
in
the
on­
site
files.
In
addition,
the
recycling
facility
must
also
keep
records
of
the
name
and
location
of
each
entity
receiving
the
hazardous
waste­
derived
product.

268.9(
d)
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
Special
rules
regarding
wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
Wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
are
also
subject
to
§
268.7
requirements,
except
that
once
the
waste
is
no
longer
hazardous,
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
generators
or
treaters
files
and
sent
to
the
EPA
region
or
authorized
state.
The
notification
and
certification
that
is
placed
in
the
generators
or
treaters
files
must
be
updated
if
the
process
or
operation
generating
the
waste
changes
and/
or
if
the
subtitle
D
facility
receiving
the
waste
changes.
However,
the
generator
or
treater
need
only
notify
the
EPA
region
or
an
authorized
state
on
an
annual
basis
if
such
changes
occur.
Such
notification
and
certification
should
be
sent
to
the
EPA
region
or
authorized
state
by
the
end
of
the
calendar
year,
but
no
later
than
December
31.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
213
Wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
are
also
subject
to
§
268.7
requirements,
except
that
once
the
waste
is
no
longer
hazardous,
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
generator's
or
treater's
files.
The
notification
and
certification
must
be
updated
if
the
process
or
operation
generating
the
waste
changes
and/
or
if
the
subtitle
D
facility
receiving
the
waste
changes.

I.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Document
Submittal
1.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Procedure
for
Obtaining
a
Variance
from
Classification
as
a
Solid
Waste.

A
regulatory
agency
may
grant
a
variance
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste
for
materials
that
are
reclaimed
and
then
reused
as
feedstock
within
the
original
production
process
in
which
the
materials
were
generated.
The
regulation
lists
eight
criteria
that
are
to
be
used
in
determining
if
the
request
for
a
variance
is
to
be
granted.
One
of
the
criteria
is
a
requirement
to
demonstrate
the
prevalence
of
the
practice
on
an
industry­
wide
basis.
214
The
proposed
rule
described
a
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirement
that
applicants
for
this
variance
submit
information
on
the
prevalence
of
the
practice
on
an
industry­
wide
basis.
The
Agency
found
that
this
information
was
less
important
in
making
the
decision
than
the
other
factors
and
could
be
difficult
for
a
facility
to
provide.

Four
commenters
agreed
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
requirement.
One
pointed
out
the
difficulty
of
obtaining
such
information,
particularly
in
the
batch
and
speciality
chemical
industry.
Three
states
also
supported
eliminating
the
requirement.
Three
other
commenters
opposed
eliminating
the
requirement,
arguing
that
the
information
is
important
in
determining
whether
the
reclamation
process
is
an
essential
part
of
the
production
process.

While
the
Agency
believes
that
this
information
can
be
useful
in
some
cases,
we
also
believe
that
such
industry­
wide
information
about
these
practices
is
not
critical
in
demonstrating
or
determining
that
reclamation
is
an
essential
part
of
production.
We
believe
that
a
successful
demonstration
can
be
made
without
this
information.
We
also
acknowledge
that
this
information
may
be
very
difficult,
and
in
some
cases,
impossible
for
one
company
to
obtain.
We
are
eliminating
the
requirement
in
§
260.31(
b)(
2)
that
applicants
provide
industry­
wide
information.

2.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Requirements
for
Treatability
Study
Reports
for
Testing
Facilities.
215
Treatability
studies
are
studies
at
laboratories
and
testing
facilities
in
which
hazardous
waste
is
tested
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
a
treatment
process.
(
See
definition
in
40
CFR
260.)
Facilities
conducting
treatability
studies
are
excluded
from
the
standard
hazardous
waste
management
requirements
if
they
comply
with
certain
requirements
described
in
§
261.4(
f).
Paragraph
(
9)

requires
the
facility
to
submit
to
the
regulatory
agency
an
annual
report
that
includes:
(
1)
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
expected
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
during
the
current
year;
and
(
2)
information
on
the
treatability
studies
conducted
during
the
previous
year.

We
proposed
to
reduce
burden
by
eliminating
the
requirement
to
submit
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
treatability
studies
and
amount
of
waste
expected
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
in
the
upcoming
year.
The
proposal
explained
that
the
requirement
is
duplicative
because
the
same
information
is
submitted
in
the
annual
report
at
a
later
date.
However,
the
change
to
the
regulations
specified
in
the
regulatory
text
of
the
proposal
unintentionally
eliminated
the
entire
paragraph
(
9)
of
§
261.4(
g),
thus
proposing
to
eliminate
both
the
requirement
to
submit
estimates
for
the
current
year,
as
well
as
information
for
the
previous
year.

The
majority
of
commenters
(
seven)
supported
elimination
of
the
estimates.
They
did
so
with
the
apparent
understanding
that
only
the
requirement
to
provide
estimates
for
the
coming
year
was
to
be
eliminated,
and
that
the
requirement
to
submit
information
for
the
previous
year
would
remain
in
place.
Most
agreed
with
the
proposal
to
eliminate
the
estimates
based
on
the
rationale
in
the
216
preamble
that
the
information
would
be
provided
at
a
later
date.
Two
commenters
did
point
out
that
eliminating
all
of
§
261.4(
f)(
9)

also
eliminates
the
requirement
for
providing
any
report,
including
the
submittal
of
information
from
the
previous
year.

We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
estimate
of
upcoming
activities
are
unnecessary
since
the
same
information
will
be
provided
later
in
the
annual
report,
and
the
information
provided
on
past
activities
will
be
more
accurate
than
estimates
of
the
future.

We
are
therefore
eliminating
the
requirement
in
§
261.4(
f)(
9)
to
submit
estimates
of
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
for
the
current
year,
but
are
retaining
the
requirement
for
preparing
and
submitting
an
annual
report
providing
information
for
the
previous
year.

3.
We
Are
Streamlining
the
Requirements
for
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.

As
previously
discussed
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61662),
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
must
implement
ground­
water
monitoring
as
a
condition
for
receiving
a
RCRA
permit.
EPA
requires
a
phased
approach
to
ground­
water
monitoring
(
detection
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring,
corrective
action).
Ground­
water
monitoring
systems
must
consist
of
a
sufficient
number
of
wells,
properly
located
and
constructed,
and
capable
of
ensuring
that
the
ground­
water
impacts
of
a
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
unit
can
be
determined.
Sampling
and
analysis
procedures
must
also
be
capable
of
determining
both
background
quality
of
ground
water
and
quality
at
the
point
of
compliance.
217
If
hazardous
constituents
are
detected
in
ground
water,
more
detailed
monitoring
may
be
required.
In
this
case,
a
facility
would
need
additional
wells,
sampling,
and
analysis
to
determine
the
extent
and
rate
of
contaminant
migration,
to
determine
if
the
groundwater
protection
standard
is
violated,
and
to
indicate
the
need
for,
or
effectiveness
of,
corrective
action.

Detection
monitoring
is
the
first
phase
of
ground­
water
monitoring,
and
is
designed
to
detect
a
change
in
ground­
water
quality
in
wells
surrounding
a
regulated
unit.
A
potential
release
from
the
unit,
or
impacts
from
activities
up
gradient
of
the
unit,
may
cause
this
change.
For
detection
monitoring,
ground­
water
monitoring
wells
are
installed
up­
gradient
of
the
unit
and
at
the
point
of
compliance.
Facilities
then
monitor
for
each
indicator
parameter
or
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit.

Compliance
monitoring
occurs
when
hazardous
waste
constituents
are
detected
down­
gradient
of
the
unit.
The
permitting
authority
will
establish
hazardous
constituent
standards
for
facilities
undergoing
compliance
monitoring.

The
third
phase
of
ground­
water
monitoring,
corrective
action,
is
required
when
hazardous
constituents
exceed
the
groundwater
protection
standards
at
the
point
of
compliance.
Once
this
has
occurred,
the
owner
or
operator
must
remedy
the
situation
by
removing
the
hazardous
constituents
or
treating
them
in
place.
218
We
are
modifying
the
§
264.99(
g)
requirement
that
facilities
performing
compliance
monitoring
conduct
an
annual
40
CFR
Part
264
Appendix
IX
(
the
ground­
water
monitoring
chemical
list)
analysis
of
all
monitoring
wells.
We
are
allowing,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
as
authorized
by
a
permit
authority,
sampling
from
a
subset
of
the
wells.
Appendix
IX
analyses
are
costly
at
large
facilities,
and
analyzing
all
wells
does
not
necessarily
contribute
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
especially
the
case
if
there
are
multiple
units
and
wells
at
a
facility,
and
only
one
unit
shows
signs
of
contamination.

Monitoring
for
constituents
that
are
not
likely
to
be
found
at
a
site
is
wasteful
and
does
not
increase
the
protection
of
monitoring
programs.
We
are
also
modifying
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
discretion
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
allow
sampling
for
a
subset
of
the
Appendix
IX
constituents.
While
this
change
was
proposed
for
§
264.98(
c),
upon
re­
evaluation,
we
decided
it
is
more
appropriate
to
amend
§
264.98(
g)(
2)
and
leave
§
264.98(
c)
unchanged.
Decisions
on
what
constituents
must
be
sampled
will
be
based
on
regulatory
agencies'
judgement
of
what
amount
of
sampling
supports
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
as
well
as
the
level
of
knowledge
of
what
contaminants
could
be
present
at
a
site.
As
a
commenter
pointed
out,
this
subsection
prior
to
today
did
not
require
that
all
samples
must
be
analyzed
for
every
chemical
parameter
and
hazardous
constituent
listed
in
Appendix
IX.
Today's
rule
eliminates
ambiguity
by
specifically
confirming
that
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
is
allowable.
219
Based
on
a
comment
we
received,
we
also
are
revising
§
264.98(
d)
to
allow
for
alternative
sampling
procedures
as
provided
in
§
264.97(
g)(
2).
Under
§
264.98(
d),
a
facility
must
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semi­
annually.
This
provision
has
resulted
in
sites
being
required
to
sample
four
times
within
a
single
monitoring
event,
despite
the
contradiction
with
§
264.97(
g)(
2)

which
allows
for
an
alternate
sampling
procedure.
To
reduce
some
of
the
burden
related
to
this
sampling
and
reporting,
we
are
removing
the
last
sentence
from
§
264.98(
d)
(
requiring
a
facility
to
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semi­
annually).

We
are
also
eliminating
the
last
sentence
in
§
264.99(
f)
(
requiring
a
facility
to
collect
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
at
least
semiannually
These
changes
will
prevent
§
264.98(
d)
and
§
264.99(
f)
from
unintentionally
trumping
the
flexibility
granted
by
§
264.97(
g)(
2).
Finally,
based
on
another
comment
received,
we
are
also
changing
the
resampling
requirements
in
§
264.98(
g)(
3)
and
§
264.99(
g)
from
"
may
resample
within
one
month"
to
"
may
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site­
specific
time
frame
approved
by
the
Administrator."
This
change
allows
for
sampling
to
be
based
on
site­
specific
hydrogeologic
conditions.
It
also
can
be
burdensome
for
facilities
to
resample
wells
within
30
days,
because
this
time
frame
can
allow,
in
some
circumstances,
insufficient
time
to
evaluate
the
original
data
set,
perform
quality
assurance
evaluations,
and
remobilize
the
sampling
team.
220
TABLE
17
CHANGES
TO
THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
DOCUMENT
SUBMITTAL
FOR
VARIANCES
FROM
CLASSIFICATION
AS
A
SOLID
WASTE
AND
FOR
TESTING
FACILITIES
REGARDING
TREATABILITY
STUDY
REPORTS
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
260.31(
b)(
2)
Rulemaking
Petitions.

Standards
and
criteria
for
variances
from
classification
as
a
solid
waste.
The
prevalence
of
the
practice
on
an
industry­
wide
basis.

Section
260.31(
b)(
2)
has
been
deleted
from
the
regulatory
text.

261.4(
f)(
9)
General.
Exclusions.

Samples
undergoing
treatability
studies
at
laboratories
and
testing
facilities.
The
facility
prepares
and
submits
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
state
Director
(
if
located
in
an
authorized
state),
by
March
15
of
each
year
that
estimates
the
number
of
studies
and
the
amount
of
waste
expected
to
be
used
in
treatability
studies
during
the
current
year,
and
includes
the
following
information
for
the
previous
calendar
year:

The
facility
prepares
and
submits
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
state
Director
(
if
located
in
an
authorized
state),
by
March
15
of
each
year,
that
includes
the
following
information
for
the
previous
calendar
year:
221
TABLE
18
CHANGES
TO
THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
DOCUMENT
SUBMITTAL
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
264.98(
d)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Detection
monitoring
program.
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
whether
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
any
parameter
or
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g).
A
sequence
of
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
(
background
and
compliance
wells)
must
be
collected
at
least
semi­
annually
during
detection
monitoring.

The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
whether
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
any
parameter
or
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit
conditions
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g).

264.98(
g)(
2)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Detection
monitoring
program.
Immediately
sample
the
ground
water
in
all
monitoring
wells
and
determine
whether
constituents
in
the
list
of
appendix
IX
of
part
264
are
present,
and
if
so,
in
what
concentration.

Immediately
sample
the
ground
water
in
all
monitoring
wells
and
determine
whether
constituents
in
the
list
of
appendix
IX
of
part
264
are
present,
and
if
so,
in
what
concentration.
However,
the
Regional
Administrator,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
may
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
this
part
and
other
representative/
related
waste
constituents.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
222
264.98(
g)(
3)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Detection
monitoring
program.
For
any
appendix
IX
compounds
found
in
the
analysis
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
and
repeat
the
analysis
for
those
compounds
detected.
If
the
results
of
the
second
analysis
confirm
the
initial
results,
then
these
constituents
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.
If
the
owner
or
operator
does
not
resample
for
the
compounds
found
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
hazardous
constituents
found
during
this
initial
appendix
IX
analysis
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.

For
any
appendix
IX
compounds
found
in
the
analysis
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site­
specific
schedule
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
repeat
the
analysis
for
those
compounds
detected.
If
the
results
of
the
second
analysis
confirm
the
initial
results,
then
these
constituents
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.
If
the
owner
or
operator
does
not
resample
for
the
compounds
in
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
hazardous
constituents
found
during
this
initial
appendix
IX
analysis
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
223
264.99(
f)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Compliance
monitoring
program
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
statistically
significant
evidence
of
increased
contamination
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g).
A
sequence
of
at
least
four
samples
from
each
well
(
background
and
compliance
wells)
must
be
collected
at
least
semi­
annually
during
the
compliance
period
of
the
facility.

The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
statistically
significant
evidence
of
increased
contamination
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g)
of
this
part.

264.99(
g)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Compliance
monitoring
program.
The
owner
or
operator
must
analyze
samples
from
all
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point
for
all
constituents
contained
in
appendix
IX
of
part
264
at
least
annually
to
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
are
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so
at
what
concentrations,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
§
264.98(
f).
If
the
owner
or
operator
finds
appendix
IX
constituents
in
the
ground
water
that
are
not
already
identified
in
the
permit
as
monitoring
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
and
repeat
the
appendix
IX
analysis.
If
the
second
analysis
confirms
the
presence
of
new
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentration
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
the
completion
of
the
second
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
If
the
owner
or
operator
chooses
not
to
resample,
then
he
or
she
must
report
the
concentrations
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
completion
of
the
initial
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
224
Annually,
the
owner
or
operator
must
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
from
appendix
IX
of
part
264,
which
could
possibly
be
present
but
are
not
on
the
detection
monitoring
list
in
the
permit,
are
actually
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
§
264.98(
f).
To
accomplish
this,
the
owner
or
operator
must
consult
with
the
Regional
Administrator
to
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis:
(
1)
which
sample
collection
event
during
the
year
will
involve
enhance
sampling;
(
2)
the
number
of
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point
to
undergo
enhanced
sampling;
(
3)
the
number
of
samples
to
be
collected
from
each
of
these
monitoring
wells;
and,

(
4)
the
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
part
264
for
which
these
samples
must
be
analyzed.
If
the
enhanced
sampling
event
indicates
that
appendix
IX
constituents
are
present
in
the
ground
water
that
are
not
already
identified
in
the
permit
as
monitoring
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site­
specific
schedule
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator,

and
repeat
the
analysis.
If
the
second
analysis
confirms
the
presence
of
new
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentration
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
the
completion
of
the
second
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
If
the
owner
or
operators
chooses
not
to
resample,
then
he
or
she
must
report
the
concentrations
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
completion
of
the
initial
analysis,
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list
225
J.
We
Are
Making
Selected
Changes
to
the
Requirements
for
Semi­
Annual
Reports
to
Annual
Reports.

1.
We
Are
Changing
the
Requirement
for
a
Semi­
Annual
Report
Detailing
the
Effectiveness
of
the
Corrective
Action
Program.

Section
264.100(
g)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
permitted
facility
to
report
in
writing
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.
These
reports
must
be
submitted
semi­
annually.
We
are
now
requiring
an
annual
report
instead
of
a
semi­
annual
report.
While
this
change
was
not
in
the
proposed
rule,
it
was
identified
in
the
comments
received
and
was
discussed
in
the
October
29,
2003
NODA
(
68
FR
61668).
It
is
a
change
that
conforms
to
the
change
we
are
making
to
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
was
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
commenters.

2.
We
Are
Changing
the
Requirement
for
a
Semi­
Annual
Report
Describing
the
Progress
of
the
Corrective
Action
Program.

We
proposed
lengthening
the
reporting
frequency
for
corrective
action
effectiveness
reports
required
by
§
§
264.113(
e)(
5)
and
265.113(
e)(
5).
These
reports
are
currently
required
to
be
submitted
semi­
annually
and
include
a
description
of
the
progress
of
the
226
corrective
action
program,
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
an
evaluation
of
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.
We
received
comments,
mainly
from
the
states,
on
this
proposed
regulatory
change.
Several
states
suggested
giving
the
regulatory
agency
the
flexibility
of
establishing
report
submittals
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Other
states
suggested
the
reports
be
submitted
at
least
annually.
Still
another
state
suggested
that
the
semi­
annual
submittal
of
reports
is
preferred
because
it
allows
the
state
to
identify
inadequate
monitoring
systems
earlier,
which
in
turn,
could
save
the
facilities
needless
ground­
water
monitoring
expenses.

After
reviewing
the
comments
submitted,
we
have
decided
to
promulgate
the
changes
as
proposed.
Ground­
water
cleanup
is
generally
a
multi­
year
effort.
Thus,
we
believe
that
annual
submittal
of
these
reports
will
not
jeopardize
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
227
TABLE
19
REDUCED
FREQUENCY
FOR
SUBMITTAL
OF
REPORTS
FOR
PERMITTED
TREATMENT,
STORAGE
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
264.100(
g)
Releases
from
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Corrective
action
program.
The
owner
or
operator
must
report
in
writing
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.
The
owner
or
operator
must
submit
these
reports
semi­
annually.

The
owner
or
operator
must
report
in
writing
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.
The
owner
or
operator
must
submit
these
reports
annually.

264.113(
e)(
5)
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.
Closure;

time
allowed
for
closure.
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
semi­
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
describe
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,

compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.
228
TABLE
20
REDUCED
FREQUENCY
FOR
SUBMITTAL
OF
REPORTS
FOR
INTERIM
STATUS
TREATMENT,
STORAGE
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES.

CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
Current
Regulatory
Language
New
Regulatory
Language
as
Amended
by
the
Burden
Reduction
Rule
265.113(
e)(
5)
Closure
and
Post­
Closure.

Closure;
time
allowed
for
closure.
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
semi­
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
that
describe
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,

compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

IV.
What
Regulatory
Requirements
Will
Remain
in
the
CFR?

Commenters
opposed
a
number
of
the
burden
reduction
changes
that
we
either
proposed
or
noticed
in
our
October
29,
2003
NODA.
After
thorough
analysis
of
the
comments,
and
in
consultation
with
state
representatives,
we
have
decided
(
at
least
for
the
present
time)
to
retain
these
regulatory
requirements.
Stakeholders
persuaded
us
that
these
changes
could
delete
important
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
were
necessary
in
order
to
protect
human
health
229
and
the
environment.
Stakeholders,
particularly
the
states,
also
provided
arguments
as
to
the
importance
of
retaining
their
oversight
role
when
dealing
with
leaks
and
spills
of
hazardous
waste.
Table
23­
Regulatory
Requirements
That
Will
Remain
in
the
CFR,

identifies
those
proposed
regulatory
changes
that
we
are
not
promulgating
in
today's
rule.

For
information
on
what
commenters
said
and
the
Agency's
response,
the
reader
is
referred
to
the
following
document,
Response
to
Comments
Background
Document
that
can
be
found
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
TABLE
21
REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
THAT
WILL
REMAIN
IN
THE
CFR
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
261.38
Lists
of
Hazardous
Wastes.
Comparable/
syngas
fuel
exclusion.

261.38(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
Submit
a
one­
time
comparable/
syngas
fuel
notice
to
the
permitting
agency.

264/
5.16
General
Facility
Standards.
Personnel
training.

264/
5.16(
d)(
1)

264/
5.16(
d)(
2)

264/
5.16(
d)(
3)
Record
the
job
title.

Record
job
description
.

Record
type
and
amount
of
training
employees
will
be
provided.

264.90
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Applicability.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
230
264.90(
a)(
2)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
264.101
with
exceptions
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
land
treatment
unit,

or
landfills.

264/
5.98
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Detection
monitoring
program.

264.98(
c)
Conduct
and
maintain
ground­
water
monitoring
264.98(
g)(
1)

264.98(
g)(
5)(
ii)

264.98(
g)(
6)(
i)­(
ii)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
contamination.

Prepare
and
submit
an
engineering
feasibility
plan
for
corrective
action.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration.

264.99
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units.
Compliance
monitoring
program.

264.99(
h)(
1);

264.99(
i)(
1)­(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
exceeded
concentration
limits.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
.

264/
5.174
Use
and
Management
of
Containers.
Inspections.

264/
5.174
Inspect
containers
weekly.

264/
5.193
Tank
Systems.
Leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

264.193(
c)(
3)

264.193
(
c)(
4)

264/
5.193(
e)(
3)(
iii)

264/
5.193(
g)

264/
5.193(
h)
Demonstration.
Demonstration.

Demonstrate
to
EPA
that
technology
and
site
conditions
do
not
allow
detection
of
release
within
24
hours
.

Variance
from
leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

Variance
from
leak
detection
systems
for
tanks.

264.196
Tank
Systems.
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
to
use
tank
systems.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
231
264.196(
d)(
1)

264.196(
d)(
2)

264.196(
d)(
3)
Notify
EPA
of
release.

Notify
EPA
of
release.

Submit
report
describing
release.

264/
5.223
Surface
Impoundments.
Response
actions.

264/
5.223(
b)(
1)

264/
5.223(
b)(
2)

264/
5.223(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
if
flow
rate
exceeds
Action
Leakage
Rate
for
any
sump
within
7
days.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Compile
and
submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.253
Waste
Piles.
Response
actions.

264.253(
b)(
1)

264.253(
b)(
2)

264.253(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedence
within
7
days
of
the
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determining
leakage.

Compile
and
submit
information
to
the
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.278
Land
Treatment.
Unsaturated
zone
monitoring.

264.278(
g)(
1)

264.278(
h)(
1)­(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
statistically
significant
increases
in
hazardous
constituents
below
treatment
zone.

Prepare
and
submit
a
notice
of
intent
to
make
a
demonstration
that
other
sources
or
error
led
to
increases
below
treatment
zone.

264.304
Landfills.
Response
actions.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
232
264.304(
b)(
1)

264.304(
b)(
2)

264.304(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
if
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

264.573
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
operating
standards.

264.573(
m)(
1)(
iv)

264.573(
m)(
2)

264.573(
m)(
3)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
release.

Regional
Administrator
will
make
a
determination
and
will
notify
owner/
operator
of
the
determination.

Notify
EPA
and
certify
completion
of
repairs.

264.1036
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Process
Vents.
Reporting
requirements.

264.1036(
a)
Notify
EPA
semi­
annually
of
exceedences.

264.1065
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks.
Reporting
requirements.

264.1065(
a)
Notify
EPA
semi­
annually
of
exceedences.

264/
5.1101
Containment
Buildings.
Design
and
operating
standards.

265.1101(
c)(
2)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
3)(
i)(
D)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
3)(
ii)­(
iii)

264/
5.1101(
c)(
4)
Certify
by
qualified
registered
professional
engineer.

Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
release.

Notify
EPA
and
verify
in
writing
that
the
cleanup
and
repairs
have
been
completed
after
a
release.

Inspection
frequency.

265.1(
b)
Purpose,
scope,
and
applicability.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
233
265.93
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.
Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.

265.93(
c)(
1)

265.93(
d)(
1)

265.93(
e)

265.93(
f)
Notify
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations.

Notify
of
increased
indicator
parameter
concentrations.

Any
ground­
water
assessment
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
4)
which
is
initiated
prior
to
final
closure
must
be
completed
and
reported
in
accordance
with
§
265.93(
d)(
5).

Evaluate
data
and
if
§
265.91(
a)
are
not
satisfied,
immediately
modify
the
number,
location,
or
depth
of
the
monitoring
wells.

265.94
Ground­
Water
Monitoring.
Recordkeeping
and
reporting.

265.94(
a)(
2)(
i)

265.94(
a)(
2)(
ii)

265.94(
a)(
2)(
iii)

265.94(
b)(
2)
Prepare
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
of
concentrations
of
values
of
the
drinking
water
suitability
parameters.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
indicator
parameter
concentrations
and
evaluations.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
ground­
water
surface
elevations.

Prepare
and
submit
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
ground­
water
quality
assessment
program.

265.259
Waste
Piles.
Response
actions.

265.259(
b)(
1)

265.259(
b)(
2)

265.259(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
in
writing
of
the
exceedence
amount
of
the
leakage.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
that
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

265.276
Land
Treatment.
Food­
chain
crops.

265.276(
a)
Submit
notification
for
food­
chain
crops
at
land
treatment
facility.
CFR
Section
Regulatory
Requirement
234
265.303
Landfills.
Response
actions.

265.303(
b)(
1)

265.303(
b)(
2)

265.303(
b)(
6)
Notify
EPA
if
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded
within
7
days
of
determination.

Submit
a
written
assessment
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
14
days
of
determination
of
leakage.

Submit
information
to
EPA
each
month
the
Action
Leakage
Rate
is
exceeded.

265.443
Drip
Pads.
Design
and
operating
requirements.

265.443(
m)(
1)(
iv)(
2)

265.443(
m)(
2)

265.443(
m)(
3)
Notify
EPA
of
release
and
provide
written
notice
of
procedures
and
schedule
for
cleanup.

Regional
Administrator
will
make
a
determination
and
notify
the
owner/
operator
of
the
determination.

Notify
Regional
Administrator
and
certify
completion
of
repairs.

266.103
Hazardous
Waste
Burned
in
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces.
Interim
status
standards
for
burners.

266.103(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
D)
Certification
of
pre­
compliance.

268.7
Land
Disposal
Restrictions.
General.
Testing,
tracking,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators,
treaters,
and
disposal
facilities.

268.7(
a)(
6)
Requirement
to
keep
in
the
facility's
files
all
supporting
data
and
waste
analysis
data
for
"
knowledge
of
the
waste"

determinations
and
for
testing
determinations.

268.7(
d)(
1)
Requirement
to
submit
to
the
regulatory
authority
one­
time
notifications
that
hazardous
debris
is
excluded
form
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.

270.17(
d)
Permit
Application.
Specific
part
B
information
requirements
for
surface
impoundments
235
V.
We
Will
Implement
this
Rule
via
the
Class
I
Permit
Modification
Process
Without
Prior
Approval.

Several
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
pointed
out
that
implementing
many
of
the
changes
in
the
proposal
would
require
a
Class
2
Permit
modification
for
facilities
with
permits
(
see
the
following
website
for
information
about
Permit
modifications:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hotline/
training/
perm.
pdf).
Obtaining
a
Class
2
Permit
modification
requires
a
substantial
effort
on
the
part
of
a
regulated
facility,
which
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
today's
rule.
We
believe
the
changes
in
this
rule
will
provide
no
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
and
thus,
we
prefer
that
these
changes
become
effective
as
quickly
as
possible
so
that
the
paperwork
reduction
benefits
from
the
rule
can
be
realized.

Therefore,
in
our
October
29,
2003
NODA,
we
requested
comment
on
allowing
permitted
facilities
to
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure,
with
prior
Agency
approval,
to
implement
the
changes
arising
from
this
rulemaking.
We
also
requested
comment
on
whether
the
Class
1
permit
modifications
should
be
without
prior
Agency
approval.

States
represented
by
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
requested
that
we
use
the
Class
1
permit
modification
procedure
with
prior
Agency
approval.
They
expressed
an
interest
in
retaining
oversight
in
the
implementation
of
our
burden
reductions.
After
weighing
this
interest
against
the
interest
in
achieving
savings
as
soon
as
possible,
we
236
have
decided
in
favor
of
not
delaying
the
benefits
of
this
rule.
This
is
based
on
our
judgment
that,
in
general,
the
risks
associated
with
these
changes
are
negligible.
We
will
allow
the
changes
in
today's
rule
to
be
implemented
as
Class
1
permit
modifications
without
prior
approval,
except
for
Class
1
permit
modification
for
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
which
will
be
implemented
as
Class
1
permit
modification
with
prior
approval.
To
implement
this
approach,
we
are
adding
regulatory
language
and
an
entry
to
the
permit
modification
classification
table
in
Appendix
I
to
270.42,
denoting
modifications
pursuant
to
the
burden
reduction
rule.
However,
we
wish
to
point
out
that,
unless
state
law
prevents
it,
states
can
be
more
stringent
than
the
EPA
rules
if
there
are
specific
concerns
with
the
consequences
of
these
changes
in
any
state.
All
states
also
can
use
the
omnibus
authority
of
RCRA
Section
3005(
c)
for
specific
facilities
where
they
believe
there
is
risk
due
to
site­
specific
circumstances
not
identified
in
our
rulemaking
process.
This
will
allow
states
to
retain
oversight
where
they
choose
to
do
so.

VI.
How
Would
Today's
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Be
Administered
and
Enforced
in
the
States?

A.
Applicability
of
Federal
Rules
in
Authorized
States
Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
qualified
states
to
administer
their
own
hazardous
waste
programs
in
lieu
of
the
federal
program
within
the
state.
Following
authorization,
EPA
retains
enforcement
authority
under
sections
3008,
3013,
and
7003
237
of
RCRA,
although
authorized
states
have
primary
enforcement
responsibility.
The
standards
and
requirements
for
state
authorization
are
found
at
40
CFR
Part
271.

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

In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
which
was
added
by
HSWA,
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
under
HSWA
authority
take
effect
in
authorized
states
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
states.
EPA
is
directed
by
the
statute
to
implement
these
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
states,
including
the
issuance
of
permits,
until
the
state
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.
While
states
must
still
adopt
HSWA
related
provisions
as
state
law
to
retain
final
authorization,
EPA
implements
the
HSWA
provisions
in
authorized
states
until
the
states
do
so.
238
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.
RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
states
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
federal
program
(
see
also
40
CFR
271.1).
Therefore,
authorized
states
may,
but
are
not
required
to,
adopt
federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
previous
federal
regulations.

C
Authorization
of
States
for
Today's
Rule
Today's
rule
affects
many
aspects
of
the
RCRA
program
and
is
promulgated
pursuant
to
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA
statutory
authority.
Today's
rule
amends
a
number
of
provisions
in
the
RCRA
regulations
which
were
promulgated
pursuant
to
HSWA.
These
provisions
include,
among
others,
the
land
disposal
restrictions
and
the
regulation
of
air
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
facilities,

which
were
promulgated
pursuant
to
authority
in
sections
3004(
m)
and
(
o)
respectively,
of
RCRA.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
adding
the
rule
to
Table
1
in
40
CFR
271.1(
j),
which
identifies
the
Federal
program
requirements
that
are
promulgated
pursuant
to
the
statutory
authority
that
was
added
by
HSWA.

Other
sections
of
today's
rule
are
being
promulgated
pursuant
to
non­
HSWA
authority.
All
of
the
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA
requirements
in
today's
rulemaking
are
equivalent
to,
or
less
stringent
than,
the
existing
provisions
in
the
Federal
regulations
which
they
would
amend.
Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
program
only
when
EPA
promulgates
Federal
regulations
that
are
239
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
the
authorized
state
regulations.
For
those
changes
that
are
less
stringent
or
reduce
the
scope
of
the
Federal
program,
states
are
not
required
to
modify
their
program.
This
is
a
result
of
section
3009
of
RCRA,
which
allows
states
to
impose
more
stringent
regulations
than
the
Federal
program.
Therefore,
states
are
not
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
this
rulemaking.
EPA
will
implement
this
rulemaking
only
in
those
states
which
are
not
authorized
for
the
RCRA
program,
and
will
implement
provisions
promulgated
pursuant
to
HSWA
only
in
those
states
which
have
not
received
authorization
for
the
HSWA
provision
that
is
amended
today.

Nevertheless,
this
rule
will
provide
significant
benefits
to
EPA,
states,
and
the
regulated
community,
without
compromising
human
health
or
environmental
protection.
Because
this
rulemaking
will
not
become
effective
in
authorized
states
until
they
have
adopted
and
are
authorized
for
it,
we
strongly
encourage
states
to
amend
their
programs
and
seek
authorization
for
today's
rule.
EPA
will
try
to
act
promptly
on
any
such
requests
for
authorization.

VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
significant
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
significant
240
regulatory
action
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Although
this
rule
clarifies
inconsistencies
in
the
regulations
and
decreases
burden,
it
is
still
considered
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
since
it
addresses
one
of
the
President's
priorities
of
reducing
burden.

VIII.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
EPA
has
prepared
a
document
listing
the
information
collection
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
and
has
submitted
this
document
to
OMB
for
approval
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
information
collection
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
approves
them.

EPA
estimates
that
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
hour
burden
reduction
for
this
rule
ranges
from
22,000
hours
to
37,500
hours.
EPA
also
estimates
that
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
cost
burden
reduction
for
this
rule
ranges
from
approximately
$
2
241
million
to
$
3
million.
"
Burden"
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,

or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,

install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
Based
on
analysis
of
previous
ICRs,
EPA
estimates
the
current
annual
burden
of
RCRA
regulations
at
3.4
million
hours
and
$
329
million.

An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
When
this
ICR
is
approved
by
OMB,
the
Agency
will
publish
a
technical
amendment
to
40
CFR
part
9
in
the
Federal
Register
to
display
the
OMB
control
number
for
the
approved
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
final
rule.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
of
1980
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
requires
EPA
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
any
rule
that
will
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
242
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
small
businesses,
small
governments,
and
small
non­
profit
organizations).
However,
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
not
required
if
the
Administrator
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
SBREFA
further
requires
EPA
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities,
a
"
small
entity"
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business;
(
2)

a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

EPA
has
examined
the
final
rule's
potential
effects
on
small
entities
as
required
by
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
and
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
final
rule
is
specifically
intended
to
reduce,
not
increase,
the
paperwork
and
related
burdens
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program.
For
businesses
in
general,
including
all
small
businesses,
the
regulatory
changes
will
reduce
the
labor
time
and
other
costs
of
preparing,

keeping
records
of,
and
submitting
reports
to
the
Agency.
The
final
rule,
for
example,
reduces
the
frequency
by
which
businesses
must
conduct
specified
recordkeeping
and
reporting
activities
(
e.
g.,
decreased
inspection
frequency
for
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
243
daily
to
weekly).
It
also
eliminates
certain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
altogether,
i.
e.,
in
cases
where
the
documents
are
little
used
by
the
public
or
regulators.
In
addition,
the
rule
eliminates
redundancies
between
the
RCRA
regulations
and
other
regulatory
programs
(
e.
g.,
RCRA
and
OSHA
requirements
for
personnel
training),
thereby
streamlining
facilities'
compliance
activities.
Finally,
the
rule
provides
increased
flexibility
in
how
waste
handlers
may
comply
with
the
regulations
(
e.
g.,
establishment
of
decreased
inspection
frequencies
for
facilities
in
the
National
Performance
Track
Program).

Based
on
the
above,
EPA
certifies
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA)
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
Section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
must
prepare
a
written
statement
for
rules
with
Federal
mandates
that
may
result
in
the
expenditure
by
state,
local,
and
tTribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
Section
205
of
the
UMRA
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
244
provisions
of
Section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
Section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
of
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.

Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed,
under
Section
203
of
the
UMRA,
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments;
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates;
and
informing,

educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
final
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
in
any
one
year.
In
addition,
the
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
for
small
governments.
Thus,
the
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
Sections
202,
203,
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
245
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Federalism
implications."
As
defined
in
Executive
Order
13132,

"
policies
that
have
Federalism
implications"
include
regulations,
legislative
comments
or
proposed
legislation,
and
other
policy
statements
or
actions
that
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.

Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
Federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
state
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
Federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
state
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.

The
final
rule
does
not
have
Federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
because
it
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
states
or
any
other
level
of
government.
As
explained
above,
the
final
rule
eliminates
or
relaxes
many
of
the
paperwork
requirements
in
the
regulations.
Because
246
these
changes
are
equivalent
to
or
less
stringent
than
the
existing
Federal
program,
states
will
not
be
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
them.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
Section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
Tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Tribal
implications."
As
defined
in
Executive
Order
13175,
"
policies
that
have
Tribal
implications"
include
regulations,
legislative
comments
or
proposed
legislation,
and
other
policy
statements
or
actions
that
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
Tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
Tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
Tribes.

The
final
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
Tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
As
explained
above,
the
final
rule
eliminates
or
relaxes
many
of
the
paperwork
requirements
in
the
regulations.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
247
Executive
Order
13045
applies
to
any
rule
that
may:
(
1)
be
"
economically
significant"
under
Executive
Order
12866
(
i.
e.,
a
rulemaking
that
has
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
would
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities),
and
(
2)
concern
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
"
economically
significant"

rule
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866.
EPA
also
expects
the
rule
does
not
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children's
health.
The
basic
reason
for
this
finding
is
that
the
rule
modifies
or
eliminates
paperwork
requirements
that
were
deemed
unnecessary
or
infrequently
used
by
regulators.
However,
the
rule
preserves
the
technical
requirements
underlying
these
paperwork
requirements.
In
addition,
regulators
continue
to
have
access
to
all
facility
paperwork
held
on
site,
should
the
need
arise.

In
addition,
EPA
has
reduced
the
inspection
frequency
of
tank
systems
from
each
operating
day
to
at
least
weekly,
provided
that
the
tank
systems
have
full
secondary
containment
with
leak
detection
equipment
or
established
workplace
practices
that
will
alert
248
facility
personnel.
SQG
tank
systems
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment
with
leak
detection
equipment
or
established
workplace
practices
to
adopt
the
weekly
inspections.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use
Executive
Order
13211
requires
EPA
to
prepare
and
submit
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
to
OMB
for
those
matters
identified
as
significant
energy
actions.
As
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
a
"
significant
energy
action"
is
any
action
by
an
agency
(
normally
published
in
the
Federal
Register)
that
promulgates
or
is
expected
to
lead
to
the
promulgation
of
a
final
rule
or
regulation,
including
notices
of
inquiry,
advance
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking,
and
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking
that:
(
1)
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
or
any
successor
order
and
is
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,

or
use
of
energy;
or
(
2)
is
designated
by
OMB
as
a
significant
energy
action.

The
final
rule
does
not
involve
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13211
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
249
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104­
113,
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
also
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

The
final
rule
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Under
Executive
Order
12898,
as
well
as
through
EPA's
April
1995
"
Environmental
Justice
Strategy,
OSWER
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
Action
Agency
Report"
and
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Council,
EPA
has
undertaken
to
incorporate
environmental
justice
into
its
policies
and
programs.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns,
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
U.
S.
The
Agency's
goals
250
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities.

EPA
has
considered
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
low­
income
populations
and
minority
populations
and
concluded
that
there
are
no
disproportionately
high
impacts
under
the
rule.
The
basic
reason
for
this
finding
is
that
the
rule
modifies
or
eliminates
paperwork
requirements
that
were
deemed
unnecessary
or
infrequently
used
by
regulators.
However,
the
rule
preserves
the
technical
requirements
underlying
these
paperwork
requirements.
In
addition,
regulators
continue
to
have
access
to
all
facility
paperwork
held
on
site,
should
the
need
arise.

In
addition,
EPA
has
reduced
the
inspection
frequency
of
tank
systems
from
each
operating
day
to
at
least
weekly,
provided
that
the
tank
systems
have
full
secondary
containment
with
leak
detection
equipment
or
workplace
practices
that
will
alert
facility
personnel.

K.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
251
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
Major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.

804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
[
INSERT
30
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION].

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
260
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
waste
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
261
Excluded
hazardous
waste,
Hazardous
waste,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
264
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Surety
bonds.
252
40
CFR
Part
265
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Surety
bonds,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
266
Energy,
Hazardous
waste,
Recycling,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
268
Hazardous
waste,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
270
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
materials
transportation,
Hazardous
waste,

Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

40
CFR
Part
271
253
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
materials
transportation,
Hazardous
waste,

Indians­
lands,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Dated
Stephen
L.
Johnson,
Administrator
254
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
260­­
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM:
GENERAL
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
260
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921­
6927,
6930,
6934,
6935,
6937,
6938,
6939,
and
6974.

Subpart
B 
Definitions
2.
Section
260.10
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphabetical
order
the
definition
of
Performance
Track
member
facility
to
read
as
follows:

§
260.10
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

Performance
Track
member
facility
means
a
facility
that
has
been
accepted
by
EPA
for
membership
in
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
is
still
a
member
of
the
Program.
The
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
is
a
voluntary,
facility
based,
program
for
top
environmental
performers.
Facility
members
must
demonstrate
a
good
record
255
of
compliance,
past
success
in
achieving
environmental
goals,
and
commit
to
future
specific
quantified
environmental
goals,

environmental
management
systems,
local
community
outreach,
and
annual
reporting
of
measurable
results.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
C 
Rulemaking
Petitions
§
260.31 
[
Amended]

3.
Section
260.31
is
amended
by
removing
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
and
redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
through
(
b)(
8)
as
(
b)(
2)

through
(
b)(
7).

PART
261
­
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
4.
The
authority
citation
for
part
261
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
6922,
6924(
y),
and
6938.

Subpart
A 
General
5.
Section
261.4
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
9)(
iii)(
E)
and
(
f)(
9)
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:

§
261.4
Exclusions.
256
(
a)
*
*
*

(
9)
*
*
*

(
iii)
*
*
*

(
E)
Prior
to
operating
pursuant
to
this
exclusion,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
prepares
a
one­
time
notification
stating
that
the
plant
intends
to
claim
the
exclusion,
giving
the
date
on
which
the
plant
intends
to
begin
operating
under
the
exclusion,
and
containing
the
following
language:
"
I
have
read
the
applicable
regulation
establishing
an
exclusion
for
wood
preserving
wastewaters
and
spent
wood
preserving
solutions
and
understand
it
requires
me
to
comply
at
all
times
with
the
conditions
set
out
in
the
regulation."
The
plant
must
maintain
a
copy
of
that
document
in
its
on­
site
records
until
closure
of
the
facility.
The
exclusion
applies
so
long
as
the
plant
meets
all
of
the
conditions.
If
the
plant
goes
out
of
compliance
with
any
condition,
it
may
apply
to
the
appropriate
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
for
reinstatement.
The
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director
may
reinstate
the
exclusion
upon
finding
that
the
plant
has
returned
to
compliance
with
all
conditions
and
that
the
violations
are
not
likely
to
recur.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
*
*
*
257
(
9)
The
facility
prepares
and
submits
a
report
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
state
Director
(
if
located
in
an
authorized
state),
by
March
15
of
each
year,
that
includes
the
following
information
for
the
previous
calendar
year:

*
*
*
*
*

PART
264
­
STANDARDS
FOR
OWNERS
AND
OPERATORS
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT,

STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
6.
The
authority
citation
for
part
264
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6924,
and
6925.

Subpart
B 
General
Facility
Standards
7.
Section
264.15
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
(
the
comment
to
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
is
unchanged),
and
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.15
General
inspection
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*
258
(
4)
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.
However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
as
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
264.174,
264.193,
264.195,
264.226,
264.254,
264.278,
264.303,
264.347,
264.602,
264.1033,
264.1052,

264.1053,
264.1058,
and
264.1083
through
264.1089
of
this
part,
where
applicable.

*
*
*
*
*

(
5)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
choose
to
reduce
their
inspection
frequency
must:

(
i)
Submit
a
request
for
a
Class
I
permit
modification
with
prior
approval
to
the
Director.
The
modification
request
must
identify
the
facility
as
a
member
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
identify
the
management
units
for
reduced
inspections
and
the
proposed
frequency
of
inspections.
The
modification
request
must
also
specify,
in
writing,
that
the
reduced
inspection
frequency
will
apply
for
as
long
as
the
facility
is
a
Performance
Track
member
facility,
and
that
within
seven
259
calendar
days
of
ceasing
to
be
a
Performance
Track
member,
the
facility
will
revert
to
the
non­
Performance
Track
inspection
frequency.
Inspections
must
be
conducted
at
least
once
each
month.

(
ii)
Within
60
days,
the
Director
will
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility,
in
writing,
if
the
request
is
approved,

denied,
or
if
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline
is
needed.
This
notice
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)
deny
the
application;
or
(
2)

notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
of
an
extension
to
the
60
day
deadline.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
its
request
for
a
Class
1
permit
modification
and
keep
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

(
iii)
Any
Performance
Track
member
facility
that
discontinues
their
membership
or
is
terminated
from
the
program
must
immediately
notify
the
Director
of
their
change
in
status.
The
facility
must
place
in
its
operating
record
a
dated
copy
of
this
notification
and
revert
back
to
the
non­
Performance
Track
inspection
frequencies
within
seven
calendar
days.

*
*
*
*
*

8.
Section
264.16
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
a)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.16
Personnel
training.
260
(
a)(
1)
*
*
*

(
4)
For
facility
employees
that
receive
emergency
response
training
pursuant
to
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
and
1910.120(
q),
the
facility
is
not
required
to
provide
separate
emergency
response
training
pursuant
to
this
section,
provided
that
the
overall
facility
training
meets
all
the
requirements
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
D 
Contingency
Plan
and
Emergency
Procedures
9.
Section
264.52
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.52
Content
of
contingency
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
If
the
owner
or
operator
has
already
prepared
a
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
(
SPCC)
Plan
in
accordance
with
part
112
of
this
chapter,
or
part
1510
of
chapter
V,
or
some
other
emergency
or
contingency
plan,
he
need
only
amend
that
plan
to
incorporate
hazardous
waste
management
provisions
that
are
sufficient
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
may
develop
one
contingency
plan
which
meets
all
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
recommends
that
the
plan
be
based
on
the
261
National
Response
Team's
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
("
One
Plan").
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.

*
*
*
*
*

§
264.56 
[
Amended]

10.
Section
264.56
is
amended
by
removing
paragraph
(
i)
and
redesignating
paragraph
(
j)
as
paragraph
(
i).

Subpart
E 
Manifest
System,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
11.
Section
264.73
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)
introductory
text,
(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)
(
the
comment
to
(
b)(
2)
remains
unchanged),
(
b)(
6),
(
b)(
8),
and
(
b)(
10),
and
by
adding
paragraphs
(
b)(
18)
and
(
b)(
19)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.73
Operating
record.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
three
years
unless
noted
as
follows:
262
(
1)
A
description
and
the
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received,
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
its
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
at
the
facility
as
required
by
Appendix
I
of
this
part.
This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility;

(
2)
The
location
of
each
hazardous
waste
within
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
For
disposal
facilities,
the
location
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
must
be
recorded
on
a
map
or
diagram
that
shows
each
cell
or
disposal
area.
For
all
facilities,
this
information
must
include
cross­
references
to
manifest
document
numbers
if
the
waste
was
accompanied
by
a
manifest.

This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
6)
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
where
required
by
subpart
F
of
this
part
and
§
§
264.19,

264.191,
264.193,
264.195,
264.222,
264.223,
264.226,
264.252­­
264.254,
264.276,
264.278,
264.280,
264.302­­
264.304,
264.309,

264.602,
264.1034(
c)­­
264.1034(
f),
264.1035,
264.1063(
d)­­
264.1063(
i),
264.1064,
and
264.1082
through
264.1090
of
this
part.

Maintain
in
the
operating
record
for
three
years,
except
for
records
and
results
pertaining
to
ground­
water
monitoring
and
cleanup
which
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*
263
(
8)
All
closure
cost
estimates
under
§
264.142,
and
for
disposal
facilities,
all
post­
closure
cost
estimates
under
§
264.144
of
this
part.
This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
10)
Records
of
the
quantities
and
date
of
placement
for
each
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
placed
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
granted
pursuant
to
§
268.5
of
this
chapter,
a
petition
pursuant
to
§
268.6
of
this
chapter,
or
a
certification
under
§
268.8
of
this
chapter,
and
the
applicable
notice
required
by
a
generator
under
§
268.7(
a)

of
this
chapter.
This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
18)
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data
where
required
by
§
264.347
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
five
years.
(
19)
Certifications
as
required
by
§
264.196(
f)
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Subpart
F 
Releases
From
Solid
Waste
Management
Units
12.
Section
264.98
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
d),
(
g)(
2),
and
(
g)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:
264
§
264.98
Detection
monitoring
program.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
whether
there
is
statistically
significant
evidence
of
contamination
for
any
parameter
or
hazardous
constituent
specified
in
the
permit
conditions
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g).

*
*
*
*
*

(
g)
*
*
*

(
2)
Immediately
sample
the
ground
water
in
all
monitoring
wells
and
determine
whether
constituents
in
the
list
of
appendix
IX
of
this
part
are
present,
and
if
so,
in
what
concentration.
However,
the
Regional
Administrator,
on
a
discretionary
basis,
may
allow
sampling
for
a
site­
specific
subset
of
constituents
from
the
Appendix
IX
list
of
this
part
and
other
representative/
related
waste
constituents.

(
3)
For
any
appendix
IX
compounds
found
in
the
analysis
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site­
specific
schedule
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
repeat
the
analysis
for
265
those
compounds
detected.
If
the
results
of
the
second
analysis
confirm
the
initial
results,
then
these
constituents
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.
If
the
owner
or
operator
does
not
resample
for
the
compounds
in
paragraph
(
g)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
hazardous
constituents
found
during
this
initial
appendix
IX
analysis
will
form
the
basis
for
compliance
monitoring.

*
*
*
*
*

13.
Section
264.99
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.99
Compliance
monitoring
program.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
The
Regional
Administrator
will
specify
the
frequencies
for
collecting
samples
and
conducting
statistical
tests
to
determine
statistically
significant
evidence
of
increased
contamination
in
accordance
with
§
264.97(
g).

(
g)
Annually,
the
owner
or
operator
must
determine
whether
additional
hazardous
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
this
part,

which
could
possibly
be
present
but
are
not
on
the
detection
monitoring
list
in
the
permit,
are
actually
present
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
and,
if
so,
at
what
concentration,
pursuant
to
procedures
in
§
264.98(
f).
To
accomplish
this,
the
owner
or
operator
must
consult
with
the
Regional
Administrator
to
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis:
which
sample
collection
event
during
the
year
will
involve
enhanced
266
sampling;
the
number
of
monitoring
wells
at
the
compliance
point
to
undergo
enhanced
sampling;
the
number
of
samples
to
be
collected
from
each
of
these
monitoring
wells;
and,
the
specific
constituents
from
Appendix
IX
of
this
part
for
which
these
samples
must
be
analyzed.
If
the
enhanced
sampling
event
indicates
that
Appendix
IX
constituents
are
present
in
the
ground
water
that
are
not
already
identified
in
the
permit
as
monitoring
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
may
resample
within
one
month
or
at
an
alternative
site­
specific
schedule
approved
by
the
Regional
Administrator,
and
repeat
the
analysis.
If
the
second
analysis
confirms
the
presence
of
new
constituents,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
concentration
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
the
completion
of
the
second
analysis
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.
If
the
owner
or
operator
chooses
not
to
resample,
then
he
or
she
must
report
the
concentrations
of
these
additional
constituents
to
the
Regional
Administrator
within
seven
days
after
completion
of
the
initial
analysis,
and
add
them
to
the
monitoring
list.

*
*
*
*
*

14.
Section
264.100
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.100
Corrective
action
program.

*
*
*
*
*
267
(
g)
The
owner
or
operator
must
report
in
writing
to
the
Regional
Administrator
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action
program.
The
owner
or
operator
must
submit
these
reports
annually.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
G
­
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
15.
Section
264.113
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.113
Closure;
time
allowed
for
closure.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
*
*
*

(
5)
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

*
*
*
*
*

16.
Section
264.115
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:
268
§
264.115
Certification
of
closure.

Within
60
days
of
completion
of
closure
of
each
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundment,
waste
pile,
land
treatment,
and
landfill
unit,
and
within
60
days
of
the
completion
of
final
closure,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
facility,
as
applicable,
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan..
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
by
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
Documentation
supporting
the
independent,
Professional
Engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
closure
under
§
264.143(
i).

17.
Section
264.120
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.120
Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care.

No
later
than
60
days
after
completion
of
the
established
post­
closure
care
period
for
each
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
post­
closure
care
period
for
the
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit
was
performed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
Documentation
supporting
269
the
independent,
Professional
Engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
post­
closure
care
under
§
264.145(
i).

Subpart
H 
Financial
Requirements
18.
Section
264.143
is
amending
by
revising
paragraph
(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.143
Financial
assurance
for
closure.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
a
qualified
n
independent,
Professional
Engineer
that
final
closure
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
in
writing
that
he
is
no
longer
required
by
this
section
to
maintain
financial
assurance
for
final
closure
of
the
facility,
unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
final
closure
has
not
been
approved
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
Regional
Administrator
shall
provide
the
owner
or
operator
a
detailed
written
statement
of
any
such
reason
to
believe
that
closure
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
270
19.
Section
264.145
is
amending
by
revising
paragraph
(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.145
Financial
assurance
for
post­
closure
care.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
the
post­
closure
has
been
completed
for
a
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit
in
accordance
with
the
approved
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
that
he
is
no
longer
required
to
maintain
financial
assurance
for
post­
closure
of
that
unit,
unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
post­
closure
care
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.
The
Regional
Administrator
shall
provide
the
owner
or
operator
a
detailed
written
statement
of
any
such
reason
to
believe
that
post­
closure
care
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.

20.
Section
264.147
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.147
Liability
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
271
(
e)
Period
of
coverage.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
final
closure
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
in
writing
that
he
is
no
longer
required
by
this
section
to
maintain
liability
coverage
for
that
facility,

unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
closure
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
I 
Use
and
Management
of
Containers
21.
Section
264.174
is
revised
(
the
comment
to
§
264.174
is
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.174
Inspections.

At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
may
conduct
inspections
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
identified
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
look
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.
272
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
J 
Tank
Systems
22.
Section
264.191
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
(
the
note
to
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
is
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.191
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity.

(
a)
For
each
existing
tank
system
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment
meeting
the
requirements
of
§
264.193,
the
owner
or
operator
must
determine
that
the
tank
system
is
not
leaking
or
is
unfit
for
use.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section,

the
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
an
assessment
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter,
that
attests
to
the
tank
system's
integrity
by
January
12,
1988.

(
b)
*
*
*

(
5)
*
*
*
273
(
ii)
For
other
than
non­
enterable
underground
tanks
and
for
ancillary
equipment,
this
assessment
must
include
either
a
leak
test,

as
described
above,
or
other
integrity
examination
that
is
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter,
that
addresses
cracks,
leaks,
corrosion,
and
erosion.

*
*
*
*
*

23.
Section
264.192
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
introductory
text
and
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.192
Design
and
installation
of
new
tank
systems
or
components.

(
a)
Owners
or
operators
of
new
tank
systems
or
components
must
obtain
and
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
at
time
of
submittal
of
part
B
information,
a
written
assessment,
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter,
attesting
that
the
tank
system
has
sufficient
structural
integrity
and
is
acceptable
for
the
storing
and
treating
of
hazardous
waste.
The
assessment
must
show
that
the
foundation,
structural
support,
seams,
connections,
and
pressure
controls
(
if
applicable)
are
adequately
designed
and
that
the
tank
system
has
sufficient
structural
strength,
compatibility
with
the
waste(
s)
to
be
stored
or
treated,
and
corrosion
protection
to
ensure
that
it
will
not
collapse,
rupture,
or
fail.
This
assessment,
which
will
be
used
by
the
Regional
Administrator
to
review
and
approve
or
disapprove
the
acceptability
of
the
tank
system
design,
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
following
information:
274
*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
tank
system
must
ensure
that
proper
handling
procedures
are
adhered
to
in
order
to
prevent
damage
to
the
system
during
installation.
Prior
to
covering,
enclosing,
or
placing
a
new
tank
system
or
component
in
use,
an
independent,
qualified,
installation
inspector
or
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
either
of
whom
is
trained
and
experienced
in
the
proper
installation
of
tanks
systems
or
components,
must
inspect
the
system
for
the
presence
of
any
of
the
following
items:

*
*
*
*
*

24.
Section
264.193
is
amended
by:

a.
Removing
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)
through
(
a)(
4);

b.
Redesignating
(
a)(
5)
as
(
a)(
2);

c.
Revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1),
newly
designated
(
a)(
2),
and
(
h)(
4)(
i)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.193
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

(
a)
*
*
*
275
(
1)
For
all
new
and
existing
tank
systems
or
components,
prior
to
their
being
put
into
service.

(
2)
For
tank
systems
that
store
or
treat
materials
that
become
hazardous
wastes,
within
two
years
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing,

or
when
the
tank
system
has
reached
15
years
of
age,
whichever
comes
later.

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
*
*
*

(
4)
*
*
*

(
i)
*
*
*

(
2)
For
other
than
non­
enterable
underground
tanks,
the
owner
or
operator
must
either
conduct
a
leak
test
as
in
paragraph
(
i)(
1)

of
this
section
or
develop
a
schedule
and
procedure
for
an
assessment
of
the
overall
condition
of
the
tank
system
by
an
independent,

qualified
Professional
Engineer.
The
schedule
and
procedure
must
be
adequate
to
detect
obvious
cracks,
leaks,
and
corrosion
or
erosion
that
may
lead
to
cracks
and
leaks.
The
owner
or
operator
must
remove
the
stored
waste
from
the
tank,
if
necessary,
to
allow
the
condition
of
all
internal
tank
surfaces
to
be
assessed.
The
frequency
of
these
assessments
must
be
based
on
the
material
of
construction
276
of
the
tanks
and
its
ancillary
equipment,
the
age
of
the
system,
the
type
of
corrosion
or
erosion
protection
used,
the
rate
of
corrosion
or
erosion
observed
during
the
previous
inspection,
and
the
characteristics
of
the
waste
being
stored
or
treated.

*
*
*
*
*

25.
Section
264.195
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
paragraph
(
b)
(
the
note
to
paragraph
(
b)
is
unchanged);

b.
Redesignating
existing
paragraphs
(
c)
and
(
d),
as
paragraphs
(
g)
and
(
h),
respectively;

c.
Adding
new
paragraphs
(
c)
through
(
f),
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.195
Inspections.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)
to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design.

*
*
*
*
*
277
(
c)
In
addition,
except
as
noted
under
the
provision
of
§
264.195(
d),
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
operating
day:

(
1)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any,
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste.

(
2)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tank
system,

including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).

(
d)
Owners
or
operators
of
tank
systems
with
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
systems
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,
or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly
those
areas
described
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section.
Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
This
documentation
must
include
a
description
of
the
established
workplace
practices
at
the
facility.

(
e)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
inspect
on
a
less
frequent
basis,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
but
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month.
To
apply
for
a
less
than
weekly
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5).
278
(
f)
Ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
264.193(
f)(
1)
through
(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.

*
*
*
*
*

26.
Section
264.196
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
f)
(
the
notes
to
paragraph
(
f)
are
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.196
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
for­
use
tank
systems.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,
installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*
279
Subpart
L
­
Waste
Piles
27.
Section
264.251
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
paragraph
(
c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.251
Design
and
operating
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
waste
pile
unit,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
waste
pile
unit,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
waste
pile
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
M
­
Land
Treatment
28.
Section
264.280
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.280
Closure
and
post­
closure
care.

*
*
*
*
*
280
(
b)
For
the
purpose
of
complying
with
§
264.115
of
this
chapter,
when
closure
is
completed
the
owner
or
operator
may
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
that
the
facility
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
N
­
Landfills
29.
Section
264.314
is
amended
by:

a.
Removing
paragraph
(
a);

b.
Redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
f)
as
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
e);
and,

c.
Revising
newly
designated
paragraphs
(
a)
and
newly
designated
paragraph
(
e)
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.314
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.

(
a)
The
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

*
*
*
*
*
281
(
e)
The
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
O 
Incinerators
30.
Section
264.343
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.343
Performance
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

(
a)(
1)
*
*
*

(
2)
An
incinerator
burning
hazardous
wastes
FO20,
FO21,
FO22,
FO23,
FO26,
or
FO27
must
achieve
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.9999%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC)
designated
(
under
§
264.342)
in
its
permit.
This
performance
must
be
demonstrated
on
POHCs
that
are
more
difficult
to
incinerate
than
tetra­,
penta­,
and
hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxins
and
dibenzofurans.
DRE
is
determined
for
each
POHC
from
the
equation
in
§
264.343(
a)(
1).

*
*
*
*
*
282
31.
Section
264.347
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
d)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.347
Monitoring
and
inspections.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
This
monitoring
and
inspection
data
must
be
recorded
and
the
records
must
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
required
by
§
264.73
of
this
part
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
five
years.

Subpart
S
­
Special
Provisions
for
Cleanup
32.
Section
264.554
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.554
Staging
piles.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
*
*
*

(
2)
Certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
for
technical
data,
such
as
design
drawings
and
specifications,
and
engineering
studies,
unless
the
Director
determines,
based
on
information
that
you
provide,
that
this
certification
is
not
necessary
to
ensure
that
a
staging
pile
will
protect
human
health
and
the
environment;
and
283
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
W 
Drip
Pads
33.
Section
264.571
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.571
Assessment
of
existing
drip
pad
integrity.

(
a)
For
each
existing
drip
pad
as
defined
in
§
264.570
of
this
subpart,
the
owner
or
operator
must
evaluate
the
drip
pad
and
determine
whether
it
meets
all
of
the
requirements
of
this
subpart,
except
the
requirements
for
liners
and
leak
detection
systems
of
§

264.573(
b).
No
later
than
the
effective
date
of
[
Insert
Date
30
Days
for
Date
of
Publication],
the
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
a
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad,
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
attests
to
the
results
of
the
evaluation.
The
assessment
must
be
reviewed,
updated
and
re­
certified
annually
until
all
upgrades,
repairs,
or
modifications
necessary
to
achieve
compliance
with
all
the
standards
of
§
264.573
are
complete.
The
evaluation
must
document
the
extent
to
which
the
drip
pad
meets
each
of
the
design
and
operating
standards
of
§
264.573,
except
the
standards
for
liners
and
leak
detection
systems,
specified
in
§
264.573(
b).

(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
must
develop
a
written
plan
for
upgrading,
repairing,
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
264.573(
b)
and
submit
the
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator
no
later
than
2
years
before
the
date
that
all
repairs,
284
upgrades,
and
modifications
are
complete.
This
written
plan
must
describe
all
changes
to
be
made
to
the
drip
pad
in
sufficient
detail
to
document
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
of
§
264.573.
The
plan
must
be
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer.

(
c)
Upon
completion
of
all
upgrades,
repairs,
and
modifications,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director,
the
as­
built
drawings
for
the
drip
pad
together
with
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
attesting
that
the
drip
pad
conforms
to
the
drawings.

*
*
*
*
*

34.
Section
264.573
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)(
ii)
and
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.573
Design
and
operating
requirements.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
4)
*
*
*

(
ii)
The
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
a
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad,
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
attests
to
the
results
of
the
evaluation.
The
assessment
must
be
285
reviewed,
updated
and
recertified
annually.
The
evaluation
must
document
the
extent
to
which
the
drip
pad
meets
the
design
and
operating
standards
of
this
section,
except
for
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

(
g)
The
drip
pad
must
be
evaluated
to
determine
that
it
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
f)
of
this
section
and
the
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
a
statement
from
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
certifying
that
the
drip
pad
design
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

35.
Section
264.574
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.574
Inspections.

(
a)
During
construction
or
installation,
liners
and
cover
systems
(
e.
g.,
membranes,
sheets,
or
coatings)
must
be
inspected
for
uniformity,
damage
and
imperfections
(
e.
g.,
holes,
cracks,
thin
spots,
or
foreign
materials).
Immediately
after
construction
or
installation,
liners
must
be
inspected
and
certified
as
meeting
the
requirements
in
§
264.573
of
this
subpart
by
a
independent,
qualified
286
Professional
Engineer.
This
certification
must
be
maintained
at
the
facility
as
part
of
the
facility
operating
record.
After
installation,

liners
and
covers
must
be
inspected
to
ensure
tight
seams
and
joints
and
the
absence
of
tears,
punctures,
or
blisters.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
BB 
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
§
264.1061 
[
Amended]

36.
Section
264.1061
is
amended
by:

a.
Removing
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
d);
and,

b.
Redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
as
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
b)(
2).

37.
Section
264.1062
is
amended
by
removing
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
and
redesignating
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
as
paragraph
(
a).

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
DD 
Containment
Buildings
38.
Section
264.1100
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.1100
Applicability.
287
The
requirements
of
this
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
264.1101
of
this
subpart.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
section
3004(
k)

provided
that
the
unit:

*
*
*
*
*

39.
Section
264.1101
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)
and
(
c)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.1101
Design
and
operating
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
*
*
*

(
2)
Obtain
and
keep
on­
site
a
certification
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

(
4)
Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record,
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
288
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
264.15(
b)(
5).

*
*
*
*
*

PART
265
­
INTERIM
STATUS
STANDARDS
FOR
OWNERS
AND
OPERATORS
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
TREATMENT,
STORAGE,
AND
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
40.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
265
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6906,
6912,
6922,
6923,
6924,
6925,
6935,
6936,
and
6937,
unless
otherwise
noted.

Subpart
B 
General
Facility
Standards
41.
Section
265.15
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
and
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.15
General
inspection
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*
289
(
4)
The
frequency
of
inspection
may
vary
for
the
items
on
the
schedule.
However,
the
frequency
should
be
based
on
the
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
equipment
and
the
probability
of
an
environmental
or
human
health
incident
if
the
deterioration,
malfunction,
or
operator
error
goes
undetected
between
inspections.
Areas
subject
to
spills,
such
as
loading
and
unloading
areas,
must
be
inspected
daily
when
in
use,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
as
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section.
At
a
minimum,
the
inspection
schedule
must
include
the
items
and
frequencies
called
for
in
§
§
265.174,
265.193,
265.195,
265.226,
265.260,
265.278,
265.304,
265.347,
265.377,
265.403,
265.1033,

265.1052,
265.1053,
265.1058,
and
265.1084
through
265.1090,
where
applicable.

(
5)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
choose
to
reduce
inspection
frequencies
must:

(
i)
Submit
an
application
to
the
Director.
The
application
must
identify
the
facility
as
a
member
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
and
identify
the
management
units
for
reduced
inspections
and
the
proposed
frequency
of
inspections.

Inspections
must
be
conducted
at
least
once
each
month.

(
ii)
Within
60
days,
the
Director
will
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility,
in
writing,
if
the
application
is
approved,

denied,
or
if
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline
is
needed.
This
notice
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)
deny
the
application;
or
(
2)
290
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
of
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
its
application
and
maintain
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

(
iii)
Any
Performance
Track
member
facility
that
discontinues
its
membership
or
is
terminated
from
the
program
must
immediately
notify
the
Director
of
its
change
in
status.
The
facility
must
place
in
its
operating
record
a
dated
copy
of
this
notification
and
revert
back
to
the
non­
Performance
Track
inspection
frequencies
within
seven
calendar
days.

*
*
*
*
*

42.
Section
265.16
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
a)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.16
Personnel
training.

(
a)(
1)
*
*
*

(
4)
For
facility
employees
that
receive
emergency
response
training
pursuant
to
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
regulations
29
CFR
1910.120(
p)(
8)
and
1910.120(
q),
the
facility
is
not
required
to
provide
separate
emergency
response
training
pursuant
to
this
section,
provided
that
the
overall
facility
training
meets
all
the
requirements
of
this
section.
291
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
D 
Contingency
Plans
and
Emergency
Procedures
43.
Section
265.52
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.52
Content
of
contingency
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
If
the
owner
or
operator
has
already
prepared
a
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
(
SPCC)
Plan
in
accordance
with
Part
112
of
this
chapter,
or
Part
1510
of
chapter
V,
or
some
other
emergency
or
contingency
plan,
he
need
only
amend
that
plan
to
incorporate
hazardous
waste
management
provisions
that
are
sufficient
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
Part.
The
owner
or
operator
may
develop
one
contingency
plan
which
meets
all
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
recommends
that
the
plan
be
based
on
the
National
Response
Team's
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
("
One
Plan").
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 
[
Amended]
292
44.
Section
265.56
is
amended
by
removing
paragraph
(
i)
and
redesignating
paragraph
(
j)
as
paragraph
(
i).

Subpart
E 
Manifest
System,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
45.
Section
265.73
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
paragraph
(
b),
(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2)
(
the
comment
to
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
is
unchanged),
(
b)(
6)
(
the
comment
to
paragraph
(
b)(
6)
is
unchanged),
(
b)(
7),
and
(
b)(
8)
and
adding
a
new
(
b)(
15)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.73
Operating
record.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
The
following
information
must
be
recorded,
as
it
becomes
available,
and
maintained
in
the
operating
record
for
three
years
unless
noted
below:

(
1)
A
description
and
the
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
received,
and
the
method(
s)
and
date(
s)
of
its
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
at
the
facility.
This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility;

(
2)
The
location
of
each
hazardous
waste
within
the
facility
and
the
quantity
at
each
location.
For
disposal
facilities,
the
location
and
quantity
of
each
hazardous
waste
must
be
recorded
on
a
map
or
diagram
of
each
cell
or
disposal
area.
For
all
facilities,
this
293
information
must
include
cross­
references
to
manifest
document
numbers
if
the
waste
was
accompanied
by
a
manifest.
This
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility;

*
*
*
*
*

(
6)
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
where
required
by
subpart
F
of
this
part
and
§
§
265.19,
265.94,

265.191,
265.193,
265.195,
265.222,
265.226,
265.255,
265.260,
265.276,
265.278,
265.280(
d)(
1),
265.302,
265.304,
265.347,

265.377,
265.1034(
c)
through
265.1034(
f),
265.1035,
265.1063(
d)
through
265.
265.1063(
i),
265.1064,
and
265.1083
through
265.1090.
Maintain
in
the
operating
record
for
three
years,
except
for
records
and
results
pertaining
to
ground­
water
monitoring
and
cleanup,
and
response
action
plans
for
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles,
and
landfills,
which
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
7)
All
closure
cost
estimates
under
§
265.142
and,
for
disposal
facilities,
all
post­
closure
cost
estimates
under
§
265.144
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

(
8)
Records
of
the
quantities
(
and
date
of
placement)
for
each
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
placed
in
land
disposal
units
under
an
extension
to
the
effective
date
of
any
land
disposal
restriction
granted
pursuant
to
§
268.5
of
this
chapter,
monitoring
data
required
294
pursuant
to
a
petition
under
§
268.6
of
this
chapter,
or
a
certification
under
§
268.8
of
this
chapter,
and
the
applicable
notice
required
by
a
generator
under
§
268.7(
a)
of
this
chapter.
All
of
this
information
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
15)
Monitoring,
testing
or
analytical
data,
and
corrective
action
where
required
by
§
§
265.90,
265.93(
d)(
2),
and
265.93(
d)(
5),

and
the
certification
as
required
by
§
265.196(
f)
must
be
maintained
in
the
operating
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

Subpart
F
­
Ground
­
Water
Monitoring
46.
Section
265.90
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
and
(
d)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.90
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
*
*
*
295
(
1)
Within
one
year
after
the
effective
date
of
these
regulations,
develop
a
specific
plan,
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
which
satisfies
the
requirements
of
§
265.93(
d)(
3),
for
an
alternate
ground­
water
monitoring
system.
This
plan
is
to
be
placed
in
the
facility's
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
3)
Prepare
a
report
in
accordance
with
§
265.93(
d)(
5)
and
place
it
in
the
facility's
operating
record
and
maintain
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

47.
Section
265.93
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.93
Preparation,
evaluation,
and
response.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)(
1)
*
*
*
296
(
2)
Within
15
days
after
the
notification
under
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
must
develop
a
specific
plan,
based
on
the
outline
required
under
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
and
certified
by
a
qualified
geologist
or
geotechnical
engineer,
for
a
ground­
water
quality
assessment
at
the
facility.
This
plan
must
be
placed
in
the
facility
operating
record
and
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

(
5)
The
owner
or
operator
must
make
his
first
determination
under
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section,
as
soon
as
technically
feasible,
and
prepare
a
report
containing
an
assessment
of
ground­
water
quality.
This
report
must
be
placed
in
the
facility
operating
record
and
be
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
G
­
Closure
and
Post­
Closure
48.
Section
265.113
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.113
Closure;
time
allowed
for
closure.

*
*
*
*
*
297
(
e)
*
*
*

(
5)
During
the
period
of
corrective
action,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
annual
reports
to
the
Regional
Administrator
describing
the
progress
of
the
corrective
action
program,
compile
all
ground­
water
monitoring
data,
and
evaluate
the
effect
of
the
continued
receipt
of
non­
hazardous
wastes
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
corrective
action.

*
*
*
*
*

49.
Section
265.115
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.115
Certification
of
closure.

Within
60
days
of
completion
of
closure
of
each
hazardous
waste
surface
impoundment,
waste
pile,
land
treatment,
and
landfill
unit,
and
within
60
days
of
completion
of
final
closure,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
hazardous
waste
management
unit
or
facility,
as
applicable,
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
Documentation
supporting
the
independent,
Professional
Engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
closure
under
§
265.143(
h).
298
50.
Section
265.120
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.120.
Certification
of
completion
of
post­
closure
care.

No
later
than
60
days
after
the
completion
of
the
established
post­
closure
care
period
for
each
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
by
registered
mail,
a
certification
that
the
post­
closure
care
period
for
the
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit
was
performed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
Documentation
supporting
the
independent,
Professional
Engineer's
certification
must
be
furnished
to
the
Regional
Administrator
upon
request
until
he
releases
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
financial
assurance
requirements
for
post­
closure
care
under
§
265.145(
h).

Subpart
H
­
Financial
Requirements
51.
Section
265.143
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.143
Financial
assurance
for
closure.

*
*
*
*
*
299
(
h)
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
final
closure
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
in
writing
that
he
is
no
longer
required
by
this
section
to
maintain
financial
assurance
for
final
closure
of
the
facility,
unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
final
closure
has
not
been
approved
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
The
Regional
Administrator
shall
provide
the
owner
or
operator
a
detailed
written
statement
of
any
such
reason
to
believe
that
closure
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.
52.
Section
265.145
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.145
Financial
assurance
for
post­
closure
care.

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
Release
of
the
owner
or
operator
from
the
requirements
of
this
section.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
the
post­
closure
has
been
completed
for
a
hazardous
waste
disposal
unit
in
accordance
with
the
approved
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
that
he
is
no
longer
required
to
maintain
financial
assurance
for
post­
closure
of
that
unit,
unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
300
post­
closure
care
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.
The
Regional
Administrator
shall
provide
the
owner
or
operator
a
detailed
written
statement
of
any
such
reason
to
believe
that
post­
closure
care
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
post­
closure
plan.

53.
Section
265.147
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.147
Liability
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
Period
of
coverage.
Within
60
days
after
receiving
certifications
from
the
owner
or
operator
and
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
final
closure
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
notify
the
owner
or
operator
in
writing
that
he
is
no
longer
required
by
this
section
to
maintain
liability
coverage
for
that
facility,

unless
the
Regional
Administrator
has
reason
to
believe
that
closure
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
the
approved
closure
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
I
­
Use
and
Management
of
Containers
54.
Section
265.174
is
revised
(
the
comment
to
§
265.174
is
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:
301
§
265.174
Inspections.

At
least
weekly,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
areas
where
containers
are
stored,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
must
conduct
inspections
at
least
once
each
month,
upon
approval
by
the
Director.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5)
of
this
part.
The
owner
or
operator
must
look
for
leaking
containers
and
for
deterioration
of
containers
and
the
containment
system
caused
by
corrosion
or
other
factors.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
J
­
Tank
Systems
55.
Section
265.191
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
(
the
note
to
paragraph
(
b)(
5)(
ii)
is
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.191
Assessment
of
existing
tank
system's
integrity.

(
a)
For
each
existing
tank
system
that
does
not
have
secondary
containment
meeting
the
requirements
of
§
265.193,
the
owner
or
operator
must
determine
that
the
tank
system
is
not
leaking
or
is
unfit
for
use.
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section,
the
302
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
a
written
assessment
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter,
that
attests
to
the
tank
system's
integrity
by
January
12,
1988.

(
b)
*
*
*

(
5)
*
*
*

(
ii)
For
other
than
non­
enterable
underground
tanks
and
for
ancillary
equipment,
this
assessment
must
be
either
a
leak
test,
as
described
above,
or
an
internal
inspection
and/
or
other
tank
integrity
examination
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter
that
addresses
cracks,
leaks,
corrosion,
and
erosion.

*
*
*
*
*

56.
Section
265.192
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.192
Design
and
installation
of
new
tank
systems
or
components.

(
a)
Owners
or
operators
of
new
tank
systems
or
components
must
ensure
that
the
foundation,
structural
support,
seams,

connections,
and
pressure
controls
(
if
applicable)
are
adequately
designed
and
that
the
tank
system
has
sufficient
structural
strength,

compatibility
with
the
waste(
s)
to
be
stored
or
treated,
and
corrosion
protection
so
that
it
will
not
collapse,
rupture,
or
fail.
The
owner
303
or
operator
must
obtain
a
written
assessment
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
of
this
chapter
attesting
that
the
system
has
sufficient
structural
integrity
and
is
acceptable
for
the
storing
and
treating
of
hazardous
waste.
This
assessment
must
include
the
following
information:

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
tank
system
must
ensure
that
proper
handling
procedures
are
adhered
to
in
order
to
prevent
damage
to
the
system
during
installation.
Prior
to
covering,
enclosing,
or
placing
a
new
tank
system
or
component
in
use,
an
independent,
qualified
installation
inspector
or
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
either
of
whom
is
trained
and
experienced
in
the
proper
installation
of
tank
systems,
must
inspect
the
system
or
component
for
the
presence
of
any
of
the
following
items:

*
*
*
*
*

56.
Section
265.193
is
amended
by:

a.
Removing
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)
through
(
a)(
4);

b.
Redesignating
(
a)(
5)
as
(
a)(
2);
304
c.
Revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1),
newly
designated
(
a)(
2)
and
(
h)(
5)(
i)(
2)
(
the
note
to
(
h)(
5)(
i)(
2)
is
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows.

§
265.193
Containment
and
detection
of
releases.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
1)
For
all
new
and
existing
tank
systems
or
components,
prior
to
their
being
put
into
service.

(
2)
For
tank
systems
that
store
or
treat
materials
that
become
hazardous
wastes,
within
two
years
of
the
hazardous
waste
listing,

or
when
the
tank
system
has
reached
15
years
of
age,
whichever
comes
later.

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
*
*
*

(
5)
*
*
*

(
i)
*
*
*

(
2)
For
other
than
non­
enterable
underground
tanks,
the
owner
or
operator
must
either
conduct
a
leak
test
as
in
paragraph
(
i)(
1)

of
this
section
or
an
internal
inspection
or
other
tank
integrity
examination
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
305
addresses
cracks,
leaks,
and
corrosion
or
erosion
at
least
annually.
The
owner
or
operator
must
remove
the
stored
waste
from
the
tank,

if
necessary,
to
allow
the
condition
of
all
internal
tanks
surfaces
to
be
assessed.

*
*
*
*
*

58.
Section
265.195
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
paragraph
(
a)
(
the
note
to
paragraph
(
a)
is
unchanged);

b.
Redesignating
existing
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c),
as
paragraphs
(
f)
and
(
g),
respectively;
and,

c.
Adding
new
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
e).

§
265.195
Inspections.

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
must
inspect,
where
present,
at
least
once
each
operating
day,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
or
temperature
gauges,
monitoring
wells)
to
ensure
that
the
tank
system
is
being
operated
according
to
its
design.

*
*
*
*
*
306
(
b)
Except
as
noted
under
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
must
inspect
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)
Above
ground
portions
of
the
tank
system,
if
any,
to
detect
corrosion
or
releases
of
waste;
and
(
3)
The
construction
materials
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
externally
accessible
portion
of
the
tank
system,

including
the
secondary
containment
system
(
e.
g.,
dikes)
to
detect
erosion
or
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
wet
spots,
dead
vegetation).

(
c)
Owners
or
operators
of
tank
systems
with
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
equipment
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,
or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly
those
areas
described
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
This
documentation
must
include
a
description
of
the
established
workplace
practices
at
the
facility.
307
(
d)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
inspect
on
a
less
frequent
basis,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
but
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month.
To
apply
for
a
less
than
weekly
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5).

(
e)
Ancillary
equipment
that
is
not
provided
with
secondary
containment,
as
described
in
§
265.193(
f)(
1)
through
(
4),
must
be
inspected
at
least
once
each
operating
day.

*
*
*
*
*

59.
Section
265.196
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
f)
(
the
notes
to
paragraph
(
f)
are
unchanged)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.196
Response
to
leaks
or
spills
and
disposition
of
leaking
or
unfit­
for­
use
tank
systems.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
Certification
of
major
repairs.
If
the
owner/
operator
has
repaired
a
tank
system
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
the
repair
has
been
extensive
(
e.
g.,
installation
of
an
internal
liner;
repair
of
a
ruptured
primary
containment
or
secondary
containment
vessel),
the
tank
system
must
not
be
returned
to
service
unless
the
owner/
operator
has
obtained
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
in
accordance
with
§
270.11(
d)
that
the
repaired
system
is
capable
of
handling
hazardous
308
wastes
without
release
for
the
intended
life
of
the
system.
This
certification
is
to
be
placed
in
the
operating
record
and
maintained
until
closure
of
the
facility.

*
*
*
*
*

60.
Section
265.201
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
the
paragraph
(
c)
introductory
text;

b.
Redesignating
paragraph
(
d)
through
(
f),
as
paragraphs
(
f)
through
(
h),
respectively;
and,

c.
Adding
new
paragraphs
(
d)
and
(
e).
.

§
265.201
Special
requirements
for
generators
of
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo.
that
accumulate
hazardous
waste
in
tanks.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
Except
as
noted
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section,
generators
who
accumulate
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
of
hazardous
in
tanks
must
inspect,
where
present:

*
*
*
*
*
309
(
d)
Generators
who
accumulate
between
100
and
1,000
kg/
mo
of
hazardous
waste
in
tanks
or
tank
systems
that
have
full
secondary
containment
and
that
either
use
leak
detection
equipment
to
alert
facility
personnel
to
leaks,
or
implement
established
workplace
practices
to
ensure
leaks
are
promptly
identified,
must
inspect
at
least
weekly,
where
applicable,
the
areas
identified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
Use
of
the
alternate
inspection
schedule
must
be
documented
in
the
facility's
operating
record.
This
documentation
must
include
a
description
of
the
established
workplace
practices
at
the
facility.

(
e)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
may
inspect
on
a
less
frequent
basis,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
but
must
inspect
at
least
once
each
month.
To
apply
for
a
less
than
weekly
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5).

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
K
­
Surface
Impoundments
61.
Section
265.221
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.221
Design
and
operating
requirements.
310
(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
surface
impoundment
unit,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
surface
impoundment
unit,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
surface
impoundment
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners,
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
the
liners,
and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
system,
in
accordance
with
§
264.221(
c),
unless
exempted
under
§
264.221(
d),
(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
Chapter.

*
*
*
*
*

62.
Section
265.223
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.223
Response
actions.

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
surface
impoundment
units
subject
to
§
265.221(
a)
must
develop
and
keep
on
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
L
­
Waste
Piles
63.
Section
265.259
is
amended
by
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:
311
§
265.259
Response
actions.

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
waste
pile
units
subject
to
§
265.254
must
develop
and
keep
on­
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
M
Land
Treatment
64.
Section
265.280
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.280
Closure
and
post­
closure.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
For
the
purpose
of
complying
with
§
265.115,
when
closure
is
completed
the
owner
or
operator
may
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
certification
both
by
the
owner
or
operator
and
by
an
independent,
qualified,
soil
scientist,
in
lieu
of
an
independent
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
that
the
facility
has
been
closed
in
accordance
with
the
specifications
in
the
approved
closure
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
N 
Landfills
312
65.
Section
265.301
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.301
Design
and
operating
requirements.

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
each
new
landfill
unit,
each
lateral
expansion
of
a
landfill
unit,
and
each
replacement
of
an
existing
landfill
unit
must
install
two
or
more
liners
and
a
leachate
collection
and
removal
system
above
and
between
such
liners,
and
operate
the
leachate
collection
and
removal
system,
in
accordance
with
§
264.301(
d),
(
e),
or
(
f)
of
this
chapter.

*
*
*
*
*

66.
Section
265.303
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.303
Response
actions.

(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
landfill
units
subject
to
§
265.301(
a)
must
develop
and
keep
on
site
until
closure
of
the
facility
a
response
action
plan.
The
response
action
plan
must
set
forth
the
actions
to
be
taken
if
the
action
leakage
rate
has
been
exceeded.
At
a
minimum,
the
response
action
plan
must
describe
the
actions
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

67.
Section
265.314
is
amended
by:
313
a.
Removing
paragraph
(
a);

b.
Redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
g)
as
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
f);
and,

c.
Revising
newly
designated
paragraph
(
a),
and
the
introductory
text
of
newly
designated
paragraph
(
f)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.314
Special
requirements
for
bulk
and
containerized
liquids.

(
a)
The
placement
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
hazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
containing
free
liquids
(
whether
or
not
sorbents
have
been
added)
in
any
landfill
is
prohibited.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
The
placement
of
any
liquid
which
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
in
a
landfill
is
prohibited
unless
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
landfill
demonstrates
to
the
Regional
Administrator
or
the
Regional
Administrator
determines
that:

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
W
­
Drip
Pads
68.
Section
265.441
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.441
Assessment
of
existing
drip
pad
integrity.
314
(
a)
For
each
existing
drip
pad
as
defined
in
§
265.440,
the
owner
or
operator
must
evaluate
the
drip
pad
and
determine
that
it
meets
all
of
the
requirements
of
this
subpart,
except
the
requirements
for
liners
and
leak
detection
systems
of
§
265.443(
b).
No
later
than
the
effective
date
of
this
rule,
the
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
a
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad,
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
attests
to
the
results
of
the
evaluation.
The
assessment
must
be
reviewed,
updated,
and
re­
certified
annually
until
all
upgrades,
repairs,
or
modifications
necessary
to
achieve
compliance
with
all
the
standards
of
§
265.443
are
complete.
The
evaluation
must
document
the
extent
to
which
the
drip
pad
meets
each
of
the
design
and
operating
standards
of
§
265.443,
except
the
standards
for
liners
and
leak
detection
systems,
specified
in
§
265.443(
b).

(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
must
develop
a
written
plan
for
upgrading,
repairing,
and
modifying
the
drip
pad
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
265.443(
b),
and
submit
the
plan
to
the
Regional
Administrator
no
later
than
2
years
before
the
date
that
all
repairs,

upgrades,
and
modifications
are
complete.
This
written
plan
must
describe
all
changes
to
be
made
to
the
drip
pad
in
sufficient
detail
to
document
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
of
§
265.443.
The
plan
must
be
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
315
(
c)
Upon
completion
of
all
repairs
and
modifications,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Regional
Administrator
or
state
Director,
the
as­
built
drawings
for
the
drip
pad
together
with
a
certification
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
attesting
that
the
drip
pad
conforms
to
the
drawings.

*
*
*
*
*

69.
Section
265.443
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)(
ii)
and
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.443
Design
and
operating
requirements.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
4)(
i)
*
*
*

(
ii)
The
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
and
keep
on
file
at
the
facility
a
written
assessment
of
the
drip
pad,
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
attests
to
the
results
of
the
evaluation.
The
assessment
must
be
reviewed,
updated
and
recertified
annually.
The
evaluation
must
document
the
extent
to
which
the
drip
pad
meets
the
design
and
operating
standards
of
this
section,
except
for
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*
316
(
g)
The
drip
pad
must
be
evaluated
to
determine
that
it
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
f)
of
this
section
and
the
owner
or
operator
must
obtain
a
statement
from
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
certifying
that
the
drip
pad
design
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

70.
Section
265.444
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.444
Inspections.

(
a)
During
construction
or
installation,
liners
and
cover
systems
(
e.
g.,
membranes,
sheets,
or
coatings)
must
be
inspected
for
uniformity,
damage
and
imperfections
(
e.
g.,
holes,
cracks,
thin
spots,
or
foreign
materials).
Immediately
after
construction
or
installation,
liners
must
be
inspected
and
certified
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
§
265.443
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
This
certification
must
be
maintained
at
the
facility
as
part
of
the
facility
operating
record.
After
installation,
liners
and
covers
must
be
inspected
to
ensure
tight
seams
and
joints
and
the
absence
of
tears,
punctures,
or
blisters.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
BB 
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
317
§
265.1061
 
[
Amended]

71.
Section
265.1061
is
amended
by
removing
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
d),
and
redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
as
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
b)(
2).

§
265.1062
 
[
Amended]

72.
Section
265.1062
is
amended
by
removing
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
and
redesignating
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
as
paragraph
(
a).

Subpart
DD 
Containment
Buildings
73.
Section
265.1100
is
amended
by
revising
the
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:

§
265.1100
Applicability.

The
requirements
of
this
subpart
apply
to
owners
or
operators
who
store
or
treat
hazardous
waste
in
units
designed
and
operated
under
§
265.1101
of
this
subpart.
The
owner
or
operator
is
not
subject
to
the
definition
of
land
disposal
in
RCRA
section
3004(
k)

provided
that
the
unit:

*
*
*
*
*

74.
Section
265.1101
is
amended
revising
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)
and
(
c)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:
318
§
265.1101
Design
and
operating
standards.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
*
*
*

(
2)
Obtain
and
keep
on­
site
a
certification
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer
that
the
containment
building
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

(
4)
Inspect
and
record
in
the
facility's
operating
record
at
least
once
every
seven
days,
except
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
that
must
inspect
up
to
once
each
month,
data
gathered
from
monitoring
and
leak
detection
equipment
as
well
as
the
containment
building
and
the
area
immediately
surrounding
the
containment
building
to
detect
signs
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste.
To
apply
for
reduced
inspection
frequency,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
follow
the
procedures
described
in
§
265.15(
b)(
5).

*
*
*
*
*
319
PART
266
­
STANDARDS
FOR
THE
MANAGEMENT
OF
SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS
WASTES
AND
SPECIFIC
TYPES
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
75.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
266
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
1006,
2002(
a),
3001­
3009,
3014,
6905,
6906,
6912,
6921,
6922,
6924­
6927,
6934,
and
6937.

Subpart
H 
Hazardous
Waste
Burned
in
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces
76.
Section
266.102
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)(
10)
to
read
as
follows:

§
266.102
Permit
standards
for
burners.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
*
*
*

(
10)
Recordkeeping.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
in
the
operating
record
of
the
facility
all
information
and
data
required
by
this
section
for
five
years.

*
*
*
*
*

77.
Section
266.103
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
d)
and
(
k)
to
read
as
follows:
320
§
266.103
Interim
status
standards
for
burners.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
Periodic
Recertifications.
The
owner
or
operator
must
conduct
compliance
testing
and
submit
to
the
Director
a
recertification
of
compliance
under
provisions
of
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
within
five
years
from
submitting
the
previous
certification
or
recertification.
If
the
owner
or
operator
seeks
to
recertify
compliance
under
new
operating
conditions,
he/
she
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
8)
of
this
section.

*
*
*
*
*

(
k)
Recordkeeping.
The
owner
or
operator
must
keep
in
the
operating
record
all
information
and
data
required
by
this
section
for
five
years.

*
*
*
*
*

PART
268
 
LAND
DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
78.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
268
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
and
6924.
321
Subpart
A
 
General
79.
Section
268.7
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1),
(
a)(
2),
and
(
b)(
6)
to
read
as
follows:

§
268.7
Testing,
tracking
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
generators,
treaters,
and
disposal
facilities.

(
a)
Requirements
for
generators:
(
1)
A
generator
of
hazardous
waste
must
determine
if
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,
268.45,
or
§
268.49.

This
determination
can
be
made
concurrently
with
the
hazardous
waste
determination
required
in
§
262.11
of
this
chapter,
in
either
of
two
ways:
testing
the
waste
or
using
knowledge
of
the
waste.
If
the
generator
tests
the
waste,
testing
would
normally
determine
the
total
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents,
or
the
concentration
of
hazardous
constituents
in
an
extract
of
the
waste
obtained
using
test
method
1311
in
"
Test
Methods
of
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,
Physical/
Chemical
Methods,"
EPA
Publication
SW 
846,
incorporated
by
reference,
(
see
§
260.11
of
this
chapter),
depending
on
whether
the
treatment
standard
for
the
waste
is
expressed
as
a
total
concentration
or
concentration
of
hazardous
constituent
in
the
waste's
extract.
(
Alternatively,
the
generator
must
send
the
waste
to
a
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility,
where
the
waste
treatment
facility
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
264.13
of
this
chapter
and
§
268.7(
b)
of
this
part).
In
addition,
some
hazardous
wastes
must
be
treated
by
particular
treatment
methods
before
they
can
be
land
disposed
and
some
soils
are
contaminated
by
such
hazardous
wastes.
These
treatment
standards
are
also
found
in
322
§
268.40,
and
are
described
in
detail
in
§
268.42,
Table
1.
These
wastes,
and
solids
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).
If
a
generator
determines
they
are
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
requirements
in
this
section.

(
2)
If
the
waste
or
contaminated
soil
does
not
meet
the
treatment
standards,
or
if
the
generator
chooses
not
to
make
the
determination
of
whether
his
waste
must
be
treated,
with
the
initial
shipment
of
waste
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility,
the
generator
must
send
a
one­
time
written
notice
to
each
treatment
or
storage
facility
receiving
the
waste,
and
place
a
copy
in
the
file.
The
notice
must
include
the
information
in
column
"
268.7(
a)(
2)"
of
the
Generator
Paperwork
Requirements
Table
in
268.7(
a)(
4).
(
Alternatively,

if
the
generator
chooses
not
to
make
the
determination
of
whether
the
waste
must
be
treated,
the
notification
must
include
the
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Numbers
and
Manifest
Number
of
the
first
shipment
and
must
state
"
This
hazardous
waste
may
or
may
not
be
subject
to
the
LDR
treatment
standards.
The
treatment
facility
must
make
the
determination.")
No
further
notification
is
necessary
until
such
time
that
the
waste
or
facility
change,
in
which
case
a
new
notification
must
be
sent
and
a
copy
placed
in
the
generator's
file.

*
*
*
*
*
323
(
b)
*
*
*

(
6)
Where
the
wastes
are
recyclable
materials
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
subject
to
the
provisions
of
§
266.20(
b)
of
this
chapter
regarding
treatment
standards
and
prohibition
levels,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
treatment
facility
(
i.
e.,
the
recycler)
must,

for
the
initial
shipment
of
waste,
prepare
a
one­
time
certification
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section,
and
a
one­
time
notice
which
includes
the
information
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
(
except
the
manifest
number).
The
certification
and
notification
must
be
placed
in
the
facility's
on­
site
files.
If
the
waste
or
the
receiving
facility
changes,
a
new
certification
and
notification
must
be
prepared
and
placed
in
the
on
site
files.
In
addition,
the
recycling
facility
must
also
keep
records
of
the
name
and
location
of
each
entity
receiving
the
hazardous
waste­
derived
product.

*
*
*
*
*

80.
Section
268.9
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
d)
introductory
text
to
read
as
follows:

§
268.9
Special
rules
regarding
wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic.

(
a)
The
initial
generator
of
a
solid
waste
must
determine
each
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Number
(
waste
code)
applicable
to
the
waste
in
order
to
determine
the
applicable
treatment
standards
under
subpart
D
of
this
part.
This
determination
may
be
made
concurrently
with
the
hazardous
waste
determination
required
in
§
262.11
of
this
chapter.
For
purposes
of
part
268,
the
waste
will
carry
324
the
waste
code
for
any
applicable
listed
waste
(
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
D).
In
addition,
where
the
waste
exhibits
a
characteristic,
the
waste
will
carry
one
or
more
of
the
characteristic
waste
codes
(
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
C),
except
when
the
treatment
standard
for
the
listed
waste
operates
in
lieu
of
the
treatment
standard
for
the
characteristic
waste,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
If
the
generator
determines
that
their
waste
displays
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
and
is
not
D001
nonwastewaters
treated
by
CMBST,
RORGS,

OR
POLYM
of
§
268.42,
Table
1),
the
generator
must
determine
the
underlying
hazardous
constituents
(
as
defined
at
§
268.2(
i))
in
the
characteristic
waste.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
Wastes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
are
also
subject
to
§
268.7
requirements,
except
that
once
the
waste
is
no
longer
hazardous,
a
one­
time
notification
and
certification
must
be
placed
in
the
generator's
or
treater's
on­
site
files.
The
notification
and
certification
must
be
updated
if
the
process
or
operation
generating
the
waste
changes
and/
or
if
the
subtitle
D
facility
receiving
the
waste
changes.

*
*
*
*
*

PART
270
EPA
ADMINISTERED
PERMIT
PROGRAMS:
THE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PERMIT
PROGRAM
81.
The
authority
citation
for
part
270
continues
to
read
as
follows:
325
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912,
6924,
6925,
6927,
6939,
and
6974
Subpart
B
 
Permit
Application
82.
Section
270.14
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
270.14
Contents
of
part
B:
General
requirements.

(
a)
Part
B
of
the
permit
application
consists
of
the
general
information
requirements
of
this
section,
and
the
specific
information
requirements
in
§
§
270.14
through
270.29
applicable
to
the
facility.
The
part
B
information
requirements
presented
in
§
§
270.14
through
270.29
reflect
the
standards
promulgated
in
40
CFR
part
264.
These
information
requirements
are
necessary
in
order
for
EPA
to
determine
compliance
with
the
part
264
standards.
If
owners
and
operators
of
HWM
facilities
can
demonstrate
that
the
information
prescribed
in
part
B
can
not
be
provided
to
the
extent
required,
the
Director
may
make
allowance
for
submission
of
such
information
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Information
required
in
part
B
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Director
and
signed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
in
§
270.11.
Certain
technical
data,
such
as
design
drawings
and
specification,
and
engineering
studies
shall
be
certified
by
a
qualified
Professional
Engineer.
For
post
­
closure
permits,
only
the
information
specified
in
§
270.28
is
required
in
part
B
of
the
permit
application.

*
*
*
*
*
326
83.
Section
270.16
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
270.16
Specific
Part
B
information
requirements
for
tank
systems.

*
*
*
*
*

(
a)
A
written
assessment
that
is
reviewed
and
certified
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer
as
to
the
structural
integrity
and
suitability
for
handling
hazardous
waste
of
each
tank
system,
as
required
under
§
§
264.191
and
264.192
of
this
chapter;

*
*
*
*
*

84.
Section
270.26
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
c)(
15)
to
read
as
follows:

§
270.26
Special
part
B
information
requirements
for
drip
pads.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
*
*
*

(
15)
A
certification
signed
by
an
independent,
qualified
Professional
Engineer,
stating
that
the
drip
pad
design
meets
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
§
264.573
(
a)
through(
f)
of
this
chapter.
327
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
D 
Changes
to
Permits.

85.
Section
270.42
is
amended
by
adding
new
section
(
k)
and
by
adding
new
section
O
to
the
table
in
Appendix
I.
to
read
as
follows:

§
270.42
Permit
modification
at
the
request
of
the
permittee.

*
*
*
*
*

(
k)
Performance
Track
member
facilities.
The
following
procedures
apply
to
Performance
Track
member
facilities
that
request
a
permit
modification
under
Appendix
I
of
this
section,
section
O(
1).

(
1)
Performance
Track
member
facilities
must
have
complied
with
the
requirements
of
§
264.15(
b)(
5)
in
order
to
request
a
permit
modification
under
this
section.

(
2)
The
Performance
Track
member
facility
should
consider
the
application
approved
if
the
Director
does
not:
(
1)
deny
the
application,
in
writing;
or
(
2)
notify
the
Performance
Track
member
facility,
in
writing,
of
an
extension
to
the
60­
day
deadline
within
328
60
days
of
receiving
the
request.
In
these
situations,
the
Performance
Track
member
facility
must
adhere
to
the
revised
inspection
schedule
outlined
in
their
application
and
maintain
a
copy
of
the
application
in
the
facility's
operating
record.

*
*
*
*
*
APPENDIX
1
TO
§
270.42
­
CLASSIFICATION
OF
PERMIT
MODIFICATION
Modifications
Class
329
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

O.
Burden
Reduction
1.
Approval
of
reduced
inspection
frequency
for
Performance
Track
member
facilities
for:

a.
Tanks
systems
pursuant
to
§
264.195.

b.
Containers
pursuant
to
§
264.174.

c.
Containment
buildings
pursuant
to
§
264.1101(
c)(
4).

d.
Areas
subject
to
spills
pursuant
to
§
264.15(
b)(
4).

2.
Development
of
one
contingency
plan
based
on
Integrated
Contingency
Plan
Guidance
pursuant
to
§
264.52(
b)

3.
Changes
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
pursuant
to:
§
§
264.56(
i),
264.343(
a)(
2),
264.1061(
b)(
1),(
d),

264.1062(
a)(
2),
264.196(
f),
264.100(
g),
and
264.113(
e)(
5).

4.
Changes
to
inspection
frequency
for
tank
systems
pursuant
to
§
264.195(
b).

5.
Changes
to
detection
and
compliance
monitoring
program
pursuant
to
§
§
264.98(
d),(
g)(
2),
and(
g)(
3),
264.99(
f),

and(
g).
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
Class
1
modifications
requiring
prior
Agency
approval.

PART
271­­
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
AUTHORIZATION
OF
STATE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PROGRAMS
330
86.
The
authority
citation
for
Part
271
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a)
and
6926.

87.
Section
271.1(
j)
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
entries
to
Table
1
in
chronological
order
by
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register,
to
read
as
follows:

§
271.1
Purpose
and
scope.

*
*
*
*
*

(
j)
*
*
*

TABLE
1.
­
REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING
THE
HAZARDOUS
AND
SOLID
WASTE
AMENDMENTS
OF
1984
Promulgation
date
Title
of
Regulation
Federal
Register
reference
Effective
date
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
331
[
Insert
date
of
publication
of
final
rule
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER
(
FR)].
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Burden
Reduction
Project
[
Insert
FR
page
numbers].
[
Insert
date
of
30
days
from
the
date
of
publication
of
final
rule].

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
332