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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Document # 0169: We agree with this proposal.

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

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

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

265.16 Personnel Training  Emergency response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indirect Benefits of RCRA Training:

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

Should EPA Eliminate Recordkeeping for RCRA Personnel Training?

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

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

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

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

Records Versus " Annual Review"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ SW 968, page 5 167, 5 168]

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability for " Employees" versus " Personnel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

265.16 Personnel Training  Record job titles:

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

265.16( a)

Document #: 0218 Eliminate unnecessary language.

265.16( d)( 1)( 2)

Personnel Training  Record job titles:

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

265.16( d)( 1)( 3)

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

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

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

265.16( d)( 3)

Personnel Training  Record job titles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We agree with this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We agree with this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

265.90( i)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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