Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0008 With regard to the burden of the LDR program, USWAG agrees with EPA's assessment that the LDR requirements account for nearly one third of all RCRA paperwork burdens. USWAG also endorses the specific LDR burden reduction proposals presented in the NODA.

Response: Several commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting the LDR waste analysis requirements at 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). Therefore, the Agency is  121 not deleting these requirements from the regulations as proposed. These requirements accounted for most of the proposed paperwork burden. The other proposed LDR changes, some of which we are promulgating, account for much less burden reduction.

Document #: 0011 One of the proposed changes is to eliminate the legal owner information for generators and transporters  requiring it only for TSDFs. We oppose deleting the legal owner from the notification forms. The vast majority of hazardous waste is handled by owners & operators who are not TSDFs. It is important to keep the owner information in case the operator defaults on their obligations and it is necessary to identify responsible parties in enforcement actions.

Another proposed change is to eliminate the need for small quantity generators to obtain an EPA ID number. Small quantity generators are historically the facilities with the highest rates of noncompliance and without a way to track their locations, States would not be able to identify and inspection them. Further, identification numbers are necessary for manifesting wastes to appropriate TSDFs for disposal.

Although the proposed changes to container labeling are not clearly defined in the background documents, we oppose changing the labeling requirements for containers storing hazardous wastes. Containers are currently required to be labeled as hazardous wastes and also must contain the beginning date of accumulation. It is unclear how eliminating these requirements would reduce paperwork if alternate methods are required for documenting the date of accumulation it seems that this would increase the amount of paperwork. Allowing elimination of container labeling would create a regulatory nightmare for inspectors trying to locate wastes in facilities or trying to identify responsible parties for abandoned drums. In addition, in emergency situations, if drums are just labeled with a numbered inventory system, then having to spend time looking up what was in the drum would prolong the process of trying to keep the emergency situation under control. Paperwork may also end up being increased due to changes to contingency plans which would have to detail the inventory process used and how to determine contents of drums.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing these burden reduction strategies.

Document #: 0020 EPA should carefully assess the potential for flaws in its estimation of the time spent submitting information, keeping records, developing required information, analyzing and summarizing data, writing reports, and filling out forms. If the burden estimate is not accurate, the hours required to be reduced would also be flawed. The baseline estimate of 12,6000,000 hours per year appears to be unjustifiably high.

Response: The Agency agrees that our initial estimate of burden reduction was high. The reader is referred to the cost benefit analysis supporting this final rule for a more accurate account of potential savings.  122 Document #: 0027 Regarding the Burden Reduction Analysis dated April 8, 1999, we have the following comments. The format and numbering system for these comments is the same as that used in the Draft Burden Reduction Analysis.

We believe these issues should be deferred to the WIN/ Informed project, which is currently addressing this issue.

Proposal A. 1 seems to conflict with the proposal under Section A. 5. ( Number IX on Form  Description of Hazardous Waste).

One concern IEPA has with this proposal is the issue of electronic signatures. Also, see the comments made previously regarding our experience with the Annual Hazardous Waste Report.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0174 For hazardous waste generators, these changes will be self implementing if the proposed rule is finalized. However for facilities with permits, these changes would involve modification to the inspection schedule in the facility permit. Most changes that reduce the burden require a Class 2 permit modification ( 40 CFR 270.42 Appendix 1). Dow request that EPA expressly allow permitted facilities use the Class 1 modification procedure or, at most, the Class 1 modification procedure to implement the changes, arising form this rulemaking.

Dow believes that this change could be easily made with the following language addition to Appendix I:

8. Changes related to generating, reporting, and keeping records as identified in the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative Final Rule.

a. changes that do not require approval b. changes that require approval This change would be consistent with the intent of this rulemaking and prevents both EPA and relevant state agencies from the unnecessary burdens from a multitude of unneeded Class 2 permit modifications.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. The reader is referred to our preamble discussion on permit modifications.

Document #: 0215 The proposal states that the agency has " already achieved reductions of close to 5 million hours," or 40% of 1995 levels ( page 2519). Based on my experience, the agency is overestimating what has been achieved so far. The burdens associated with RCRA reporting and record keeping at  123 Bethlehem's facilities have not decreased compared to 1995 levels.

Response: The Agency agrees that our initial estimate of burden reduction was high. The reader is referred to the cost benefit analysis supporting this final rule for a more accurate account of potential savings.

Document #: 0217 Many of the burden reduction claims made by the Agency for the proposed changes in its " Revised Draft Cost Benefit Analysis" dates January 29, 2001 look reasonable. But Eastman does disagree with the burden reduction claim in two general areas, as follows:

For those citations where the only change is to keep records on site rather than keep them on site AND submit to EPA, we believe the Agency is totally unrealistic in claiming a 50 percent burden reduction. Examples of where such change occur are at 265.93( d)( 2) and 268.7( b)( 6), plus a number of other citations. It takes little in the way of resources to submit a record to EPA after it's completed; the vast majority of the burden is associated with the preparation of the record itself.

For example, the requirement at 265.93( d)( 2) is to develop and submit "... a specific plan, based on the outline required under paragraph ( a) of this section and certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, for a ground water quality assessment program at the facility." The burden is in developing the plan, not in submitting the plan to the Agency. Eastman suggests a more appropriate burden reduction for this and other relevant citations would be five percent or even less, basically for clerical time that might be required plus postage.

Another are where Eastman believes EPA is overestimating the resultant benefits is in regard to proposed changes in the LDR paperwork requirements. This is where the bulk fo EPA's cost savings for this proposal are claimed. What the Agency is doing is simply eliminating duplicative requirements, so there's actually no real cost savings to facilities. The same waste determinations are done and will continue to be done by a facility, so removal of the code in Part 268 does not change the cost to a facility of characterizing its wastes. This is simply a " paperwork" change by EPA, resulting in no cost reduction for any affected facility.

The other proposed changes to Part 268 simply eliminate submitting notification/ certifications to EPA. Again, this results in very little cost savings to the facility since the development of the information needed for the paperwork still has to be done. The only savings is in a little clerical time and postage.

Response: The Agency agrees that our initial estimate of burden reduction was high. The reader is referred to the cost benefit analysis supporting this final rule for a more accurate account of potential savings.

In regards to the proposed LDR changes, several commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting the LDR waste analysis requirements at 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would only shift the  124 waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). The Agency agrees; therefore, the Agency is not deleting these requirements from the regulations as proposed. These requirements accounted for most of the proposed paperwork burden. The other proposed LDR changes, some of which we are promulgating, account for much less burden reduction.

Document #: 0306 The Work Group has not gathered any quantitative information regarding the economic burden of the RCRA record retention requirements currently applicable to its member companies. However, hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars are expended annually to generate and archive the required compliance records, and our members are now charged with the retention of tens of thousands of documents. The office space, man hours, and capital that must be expended to retain records until closure of an affected HWF facility or management unit ( and to deliver the operating record to a state regulatory authority, if required) are significant.

Response: The Agency agrees that our initial estimate of burden reduction was high. The reader is referred to the cost benefit analysis supporting this final rule for a more accurate account of potential savings.

Notifications; General Document #: 0004 We agree that many reports that have heretofore been routinely submitted to EPA need not be as long as the information is available on request. We urge EPA to eliminate routine filings where the information can be obtained in a manner that does not compromise enforcement efforts or the environment. We remind EPA, however, that states can be more stringent than EPA, and despite EPA's initiative may continue to require report filings.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document: 0007 SOCMA supports EPA's intention to reduce the number of reports required of generators and TSDFs under the hazardous waste regulations. In many instances, it is questionable whether the routine submission of this information serves any real purpose. Furthermore, given that the management of this paperwork can place considerable administrative burdens on state agencies as well as industry, there needs to be a demonstrated need for and benefit derived from the actual submission of the required information.

SOCMA urges EPA to consult actively with authorized states about whether the states would be inclined to adopt any reduced reporting requirements that might be proposed by the Agency. EPA should seek to identify a set of reduced reporting requirements that could be fairly uniformly accepted as modifications to the current hazardous waste regulations. The value of reduced reporting requirements were widely adopted by the states as part of their authorized hazardous  125 waste programs.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0020 EPA proposes elimination of Hazardous waste fuel activity, Underground Injection control and Used Oil Activities in Section VIII. There is no justification given for the elimination of these items. The Department views the notification of these activities to be an important element of developing a protective program. There needs to be a mechanism for notification to EPA and States for these activities.

It is unclear why Section II is being removed from consideration. Section II " Name of Installation" may have changed in a subsequent notification. It seems to make more sense to remove item III, " Location of Installation". ID numbers are site specific and the location should not change in the event of a subsequent notification.

Closure and Post Closure reports, corrective action monitoring, groundwater monitoring and compliance monitoring: These submittals are absolutely essential to monitor the effectiveness of the facilities design and determine whether environmental performance standards are met. Furthermore, how would regulatory agencies respond to public inquiries without this data readily available?

Response: The Agency is not pursing this burden reduction change in today's final rule.

Currently notification requirements also provide a substantial burden for our nationwide customer base that includes a variety of locations which qualify as Small Quantity Generator facilities under RCRA. It would reduce burden on these customers substantially if the Agency were to only require individual ID Numbers for Large Quantity Generators, Transporters and TSDFs. This would mean that Small Quantity Generators would no longer need to apply for and get and individual ID number, but only would need to comply with the waste management regulations, putting in a uniform code where ID numbers are required from others.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment but it is beyond the scope of today's rulemaking.

Document #: 0028 Make electronic version of Notification 8700 12 Form available on a website for hazardous waste facilities. States could modify ( where Federal and State requirements differ) according to their state regulations. This would reduce turnaround time and numerous phone calls required for filing. Also, include a standardized form letter that states would be able to modify, to enable facilities to describe the reason the facilities are filing the Notification to apply for an EPA Identification Number; e. g., one time shipment of hazardous waste for a laboratory clean up.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment but it is beyond the scope  126 of today's rulemaking.

Document #: 0038 In deciding which notices to retain, the EPA should identify key program requirements and use those requirements to identify appropriate notices.

The DOD recommends that the EPA limit notification requirements to those that serve a meaningful enforcement function or minimize the need for generators, haulers, or TSDFs to verify qualifications of other participants in the waste disposal process. Further the EPA should examine eliminating the associated on site recordkeeping where the records do not serve a meaningful purpose. Additionally, the EPA should not claim significant paperwork reduction burden if associated recordkeeping requirements are not also eliminated.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0041 We agree with the position that much of the information currently submitted to the Agency could be maintained on site. Not requiring the submission of this information would save considerable time and money, especially if we were allowed to maintain the information electronically. The information and documents would still be developed by the affected facility but would be kept electronically as part of the facility record and would be made available to officials during inspections. We also believe that this initiative would save the Agency and the States considerable time and money since they would no longer have to review each document and maintain files containing the documents.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0042 DHWM believes the following reporting or notification requirements can be removed from the hazardous waste rules with no harm to human health and the environment, or to the implementation of the hazardous waste program. Please note, we found some of the citations given in the document RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting Requirements, to be incorrect per Code of Federal Regulations revised July 1, 1998. We used the correct citation for the rules we are in favor of removing.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0133 Eliminate duplicative notifications, especially regarding releases.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment..

Document #: 0169 Several of the proposed revisions assume that facilities will follow the requirements and keep the  127 documentation that their facility. Even if a facility is diligent in maintaining their file, this eliminates the accessibility of the file to the public and requires more records to be reviewed during the inspection. This will result in longer, more detailed inspections and may in fact prove more time consuming than having the facility submit important documents, as they are required. Also, it is simply not possible to do the detailed technical review that many of these submittals require during an inspection. These documents often require review by technical experts who cannot attend routine inspections. Also, notifications, when required , are cost effective and efficient ways for the regulatory agencies to track changes at facilities and for facilities to notify the public and receive feedback from the regulatory agency on the adequacy of their proposed change.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. In today's rule, the Agency is significantly limiting the number of notifications that will not be required to be sent to the Regional Administrator, as opposed to the number originally proposed. We feel that the notifications that we are deleting will have no adverse impact on the ability of the enforcement agency to track changes at the facility. It is important to note that we believe that these changes will not affect the government ability to know what is happening at a hazardous waste facility because a basic set of compliance information will be available in the facility's record. With regard to public feed back, although the public does not generally have access to the facility's operating record, the Agency Director can require permitted facilities to establish and maintain a publicly accessible information repository at any time. ( See 270.30( m)). Similarly, facilities that are applying for permits may be required to establish and maintain an information repository. ( See 124.33).

Document #: 0184 The two major issues, notification and reporting, have significant implications for efficient use of limited staff time. Facilities need to continue to notify the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality ( NDEQ) of significant events such as SSIs etc. Relying on facility notification, rather than NDEQ " discovering" that an exceedance occurred through review of the operating record during routine compliance inspections, is consistent with NDEQ making efficient use of limited staff resources. It is also important that facilities continue to provide monitoring reports on a routine basis rather than simply storing the reports on site as part of the operating record. If they are not required to provide monitoring data, we will not be able to effectively implement electronic data submittals, and therefore, it will be more difficult to implement electronic data review.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. In today's rule, the Agency is significantly limiting the number of notifications that will not required to be sent to the Regional Administrator, as opposed to what was originally proposed. We feel that the notifications that we are deleting will have no adverse impact on the ability of the enforcement agency to track changes at the facility. It is important to note that we believe that these changes will not affect the government ability to know what is happening at a hazardous waste facility because a basic set of compliance information will be  128 available in the facility's record. With regard to public feed back, although the public does not generally have access to the facility's operating record, the Agency Director can require permitted facilities to establish and maintain a publicly accessible information repository at any time. ( See 270.30( m)). Similarly, facilities that are applying for permits may be required to establish and maintain an information repository.

Document #: 0205 The NAM supports basing the case by case determinations on the compliance record of the facility " relative to storage of hazardous waste." This approach is much narrower than the current preamble language and more focused on hazardous waste storage than the current proposed regulatory language. The preamble discussion considers many factors well beyond, and not directly related to, the facility's compliance record for the agency to consider when making these case by case determinations, such as public outreach and subjective management traits. The preamble is inconsistent with the proposed regulatory wording and result in inconsistent implementation of this portion of the rule, if not clarified in the final rule.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment..

Document #: 0240 These proposed revisions to RCRA regulations would eliminate a requirement for a regulated entity to provide notice of specified significant events in the operation of a facility or reports regarding significant acts in the operation of a facility and, according to the summary of the changes in the Federal Register, would instead require or allow the facility to record that data in the facility's operating record or other facility files. DTSC supports regulatory changes that eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden and non essential paperwork. However, we believe that the proposed changes go beyond reducing reporting burden by eliminating unnecessary or nonessential paperwork. In effect, the proposed rulemaking eliminates much of the critical and timely oversight by regulatory agencies and may compromise the regulatory agency's ability to fulfill the mandate of protection of public health and the environment.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. In today's rule, the Agency is significantly limiting the number of notifications that will not required to be sent to the Regional Administrator, as opposed to what was originally proposed. We feel that the notifications that we are deleting will have no adverse impact on the ability of the enforcement agency to track changes at the facility. It is important to note that we believe that these changes will not affect the government ability to know what is happening at a hazardous waste facility because a basic set of compliance information will be available in the facility's record. With regard to public feed back, although the public does not generally have access to the facility's operating record, the Agency Director can require permitted facilities to establish and maintain a publicly accessible information repository at any time. ( See 270.30( m)). Similarly, facilities that are applying for permits may be required to establish and maintain an information repository.

Document #: 0331  129 NPCA supports EPA's Notice provision adopting a three year limit for keeping information under the operating record requirements of RCRA 264.73 and 265.73. This is consistent with other EPA programs including the Toxics Substance Control Act and the Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Community Right to Know programs. This reduces burden without impacting the protection to human health and the environment.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Miscellaneous; General Document #: 0008 RCRA regulations establish detailed employee training requirements for large quantity generators, and further require these facilities to keep updated information on employees, job descriptions, and the type of training that personnel have received. EPA should pursue elements of both alternatives presented in the NODA for easing recordkeeping requirements under these provisions.

Replacing current recordkeeping requirements with a one time certification that all employees have been properly trained   has merit. As a practical matter, many companies may opt to maintain current records to facilitate their compliance with the substantive training requirements and generally to help manage employee training. Nonetheless, the reduction of the reporting requirements is a positive step in reducing compliance burdens. Whether or not the detailed paperwork is maintained should not be the focus of EPA inspection and enforcement activities.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this burden reduction strategy in today's final rule.

Document #: 0016 The alternatives proposed for changing RCRA personnel training requirements are both good ideas, and each have merit on their own. Therefore, we support both alternatives and believe each should be implemented.

The certification proposed to replace the voluminous training and personnel records required by rules would eliminate the recordkeeping tribulations experienced by many RCRA facilities and Agency inspectors. Violations associated with Personnel Training records do not normally threaten human health and the environment.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this burden reduction strategy in today's final rule.

Document #: 0020 EPA proposes to allow an in house engineer to certify post closure at a TSDF. The Department strongly opposes this idea as explained above in response to Idea D 2. There is limited burden reduction from this change, and there is potential for diminished environmental protection.  130 EPA proposes to eliminate the demonstration by a TSDF that ignitable, reactive, or incompatible wastes will be stored, treated, or disposed in a protective manner. The demonstration may be based on published literature, trial tests, or results from treatment of similar wastes under similar operating conditions. It seems reasonable to the Department to continue to require this demonstration. Ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes certainly hold the potential to create dangerous and harmful environmental impacts, e. g. fires, explosions. The public deserves to have a demonstration that the facility is using handling practices which have been shown to be safe in the past.

EPA proposes to extend the duration of a variance from one to three years for wastes being accumulated speculatively prior to recycling. The Department strongly opposes this idea. The speculative accumulation of materials for three years is risky and not protective of the environment, particularly in the absence of any numerical quantity limit. In more than one instance, recycling facilities in Maine became Superfund sites after they received large volumes of " recyclable" materials only to find they had received unusable waste. The facilities went bankrupt, and left the public to fund and oversee expensive removal, disposal, site characterization and corrective action activities. This is a graphic example where the pressure for burden reduction has resulted in the consideration of clearly unprotective proposals. One year is generally sufficient time for a company to accumulate materials and demonstrate that legitimate recycling is practicable. Adjustments to this limit should be based solely on particular recycling related needs, not reporting consideration.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing these burden reduction strategies in today's final rule.

Document #: 0022 We commend EPA for proposing to simplify the current requirements in certain areas of the State authorization process. However, we continue to support previous recommendations offered by the States to reduce the process to just require the states to certify that they have everything in place to carry out the program. Authorization would then be automatic unless the states indicated those areas where they were not ready.

Without requiring facilities to record that they conducted inspections, it makes it hard to verify that inspections are being conducted on a regular basis. If the regulator were to find an inspection problem, the answer could always be that it is a new problem because it was not recorded anywhere.

Reducing the frequency of adjustment to the closure and post closure cost estimates form annually to biennially might be appropriate in years where inflation is low, but if we return to times where inflation is high, it could cause the facilities' financial assurance mechanisms to be underfunded.

Having the legal owner for generators or transporters is necessary information. We have had to have owners take responsibility when the generator has left the are but left contamination behind. It is important that the owner puts his name on the notification form and acknowledge his  131 responsibility and potential liability.

It is absolutely necessary for SQGs to get ID numbers. Small Quantity Generators have been the ones where we have found a number of problems and the best way to locate them is with their ID numbers. Also the TSDFs require SQGs to have an ID number before they will accept their waste. Utah opposes this change.

We are opposed to implementing a general permitting scheme for storage and treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. Having detailed specific information on how a facility will construct and operate storage and treatment facilities is a vital part of our program. We do not think it is a great burden to submit the specific information.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this burden reduction strategy in today's final rule.

Document #: 0025 One of the most significant ways EPA could reduce unnecessary paperwork burden would be to revise the mixture and derived from rules to remove low risk wastes from the RCRA Subtitle C system.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this burden reduction strategy in today's final rule.

Document #: 0027 The first and second bullet items in the first column of page 32863 are unclear. What exactly is meant by Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation and Hazardous Waste Program Implementation as criteria for establishing which notices and other documents are necessary to be submitted to EPA? These two criteria should be explained in more detail. We believe many additional documents must be added to the " necessary" list.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0029 DOE agrees that if EPA intends to eliminate requirements for generators and TSDFs to submit notifications, reports, certifications, demonstrations, or plans to the Agency, some criteria must be established for deciding which submissions are not necessary. DOE also understands that all statutory requirements to collect and submit information must be retained.

DOE understands that EPA has discretion with respect to the actual attributes of the information that the Agency collects to implement a statutory directive. DOE suggests that to decide whether to eliminate a discretionary information requirement, EPA should examine whether the requirement helps to protect human health and the environment. In other words, EPA should consider whether the requirement motivates either the regulated entity or the Agency to act in a way more protective of human health and the environment than would be the case if there were no requirement. If so, EPA should consider whether the cost of compliance would outweigh the benefit. In circumstances where a regulatory requirement is expected to yield a net benefit, the requirement  132 should be retained. Otherwise, it should be eliminated.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0033 We believe that any burden reduction initiative should contain BCI's proposal to modify the hazardous waste transportation regulations applicable to materials sent for recycling. BCI has previously submitted a petition to EPA requesting modification of its hazardous waste transportation regulation that would allow certain recyclable lead materials ( known as Appendix 11 materials) to be shipped in commerce using a recyclable materials tracking document in lieu of hazardous manifests. The petition was submitted more than five years ago. The Agency's delay in moving on the petition is unconscionable.

BCI strongly encourages EPA to incorporate the recommendations contained in BCI's petition into it's current initiative or, at the very least, in the anticipated manifest revisions scheduled to be published in a proposed rule in June 2000. There is simply no reason for EPA not to consider BCI's petition now during its current burden reduction initiative.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0038 The DOD supports the broadening of the application of " Universal Waste" rules to include additional wastes that are commonly and widely produced.

The DOD recommends that in the interest of burden reduction, the EPA take the lead in expanding use of the Universal Waste regulatory scheme.

Where hazardous waste is generated by infrequent or one time contract work performed by off site personnel at a site that otherwise does not generate large quantities of hazardous waste, the applicability of certain RCRA accumulation time requirements such as those for a training plan and a spill contingency plan is unclear. The EPA should clarify that this type of episodic generation would not trigger the training and a spill contingency plan is unclear.

The DoD recommends that the EPA clarify the regulations to ensure regulatory relief from large quantity generator requirements for sites where the large quantity generator classification is triggered by performance of a single task by off site personnel who handle and remove the waste as part of the task.

Federal burden reduction efforts will not achieve the desired result unless authorized state programs are modified to pass along the benefits of the EPA regulatory changes.

The DoD recommends that the EPA track and report state implementation of federal burden reduction steps as a specific goal of the federal burden reduction effort. Progress toward implementing individual burden reduction initiatives should be made available to the public.  133 Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0040 While our ideas for using the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory data sound interesting, they would fail to give me information about the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act generators in Alexandria since none of them are required to file TRI reports. I recommend that you require reporting by all RCRA entities according to the amounts of chemicals ( RCRA hazardous constituents) that they generate, treat, dispose, or estimate are contained in the soil or groundwater.

To reduce the amount of reporting smaller businesses and industries would have to do, EPA should determine the typical amounts of various constituents in wastestreams ( by RCRA waste codes) for entities that have fewer and smaller quantities of hazardous wastes. Then these groups of RCRA and EPA would calculate and present the quantity of the typical chemicals for each of these reporters.

EPA should require the larger generators, treaters, disposers, and cleanup sites to report their data on a chemical basis for all their wastestreams. This recommendation may require some regulatory changes for wastestreams that currently are not accounted for because the facilities use systems which are under other regulatory requirements, e. g., NPDES wastewater permits. While TRI may provide a model for reporting by larger facilities, EPA needs to create framework that is relevant to the RCRA program; the TRI reporting thresholds may be too large a quantity for meaningful RCRA information.

EPA should devise some way to present information on how RCRA entities are eliminating pollutants by destroying or converting wastes to non toxic chemicals; this data would make it obvious the amounts of toxic chemicals which are being sequestered in landfills or released to the air and water. EPA must, also, require RCRA entities to submit information about waste minimization; the Agency stopped obtaining this information in 1997. Reporting of this data should be by chemicals in the wastestreams.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0106 We are especially supportive of CMA's comments in this area. The removal of low risk wastes from the hazardous waste definition and Subtitle C regulations can substantially reduce recordkeeping in the reporting burden without harm to the environment and allow both governmental agencies and the regulated community to focus limited resources on the management of higher risk wastes.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0107  134 In the interest of minimizing testing requirements and streamlining the analytical burden under the LDR program, we encourage EPA to allow the existing UTS congeners for dioxin and furan to serve as treatment surrogates for the K173 and K174 wastes. This is also justified in that the most toxic dioxin and furan congeners are currently covered under the UTS. The proposed five new congeners are of substantially lower toxicity; therefore, the use of surrogates for these 5 congeners would not present any significant risk.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, and we may investigate it further in future rulemakings. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.

Document #: 0133 In addition to reviewing RCRA requirements for notifications, reports, certifications, demonstrations and plans required by the regulations, the Alliance encourages the agency to take a broader view of RCRA by evaluating " point of generation" determinations and the burden association with those decisions.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, and we may investigate it further in future rulemakings. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.

Document #: 0157 The essence of this rulemaking initiative is to remove unnecessary and burdensome RCRA recordkeeping and reporting requirements where such removal will not compromise EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment. USWAG respectfully submits that modifying requirements for " episodic generators" falls squarely within the spirit and scope of this important initiative. USWAG suggests that EPA can implement such relief on an interim basis through guidance to the EPA Regions and authorized states that such entities should not be subject to the LQG requirements  e. g., personnel training and contingency plan and emergency preparedness requirements. This policy could then be codified in the regulations in accordance with requisite rulemaking procedures.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, and we may investigate it further in future rulemakings. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.

Document #: 0212 EPA states that " a basic set of compliance information will still be at the facility ( in the facility's operating record) [ which] can be examined by regulatory authorities and then shared with the public." However, EPA does not state or analyze how and when EPA will share this information with the public in a meaningful and timely manner. EPA should describe the various proposals for undertaking such activities and allow the public to comment on the agency's suggestions.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. The reader is referred to the preamble of today's rule for a further discussion on the operating record.  135 Document #: 0238 The USEPA is a leader and, as an agency that has grappled with the difficulty of complex and challenging issues relating to the remediation of contaminated ground water where effective and economically feasible solutions are not typically available, can facilitate the integration of research with the applied science and technology of a multitude of disciplines for more expedient identification and implementation of methods that will mitigate existing contamination, preclude future contamination, and ensure the long term viability of our water resources. The USEPA should seize this opportunity to encourage the integration of science from many disciplines rather than perpetuate a continued exclusionary process that stifles scientific collaboration and cooperation. If the USEPA can through its rulemaking encourage integrated, science based solutions, and recognize and foster the multi disciplined expertise of ground water professionals, this action will " set a new bar" not only at the federal level but also at the state level for reviewing outdated regulations that, if they remain as currently written, will ineffectively address state, national, and global ground water resource needs of the future.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0240 DTSC has no objection to the elimination of obsolete language in these regulations. However, the published amendments to sections 264.193, 264.314, and 265.314 are unclear. When a section is being modified as extensively as these sections are, it would be useful to the reviewer if the proposed language of the new section was published in a complete form so that the reviewer can clearly see the impacts of the changes.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment and has incorporating this suggestion in today's preamble discussion.

Document #: 0331 NPCA supports EPA's Notice provision allowing annual corrective action reporting. Collecting only that information adequate to ensure compliance not only reduces the administrative burdens on facilities and the states, it allows valuable resources to be used for more significant tasks. NPCA also supports EPA's Notice provision allowing facilities to modify sampling procedures for groundwater wells, on a case by case basis to a subset of wells. This corrects an inconsistency within RCRA's groundwater monitoring requirements without impacting human health or the environment.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0335 Only require current financial estimates to be kept on file.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, and we may investigate it further in future rulemakings. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.  136 Document #: 0358 I would much rather see a simple rule that both regulators and the regulated community can easily understand and follow, while upholding the original intent behind all environmental regulation. Define " reclamation" as a completely separate function from " recycling." Continue to track materials that can be reclaimed. Allow the original generator to reduce the TOTAL volume of waste treated by reclamation from their volumes at the end of the year, reducing generator status through " reclamation credit." The company that performs the reclamation should continue to track incoming material and count the NET waste ( after reclamation) as their own waste generated. Set a minimum standard for reclamation " credit" to apply.

This would benefit generators while protecting the environment and community.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, and we may investigate it further in future rulemakings. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.

Permit Modifications; General Document #: 0138 For hazardous waste generators, these changes will be self implementing if the proposed rule is finalized. However for facilities with permits, these changes would involve modification to the inspection schedule in the facility permit. Most changes that reduce the burden require a Class 2 permit modification ( 40 CFR 270.42 Appendix 1). Dow requests that EPA expressly allow permitted facilities use the Class 1 modification procedure or, at most, the Class 11  modification procedure to implement the changes, arising from this rulemaking.

Dow believes that this change could be easily made with the following language addition to Appendix 1:

B. General Facility Conditions * * * *

8. Changes related to generating, reporting, and keeping records as identified in records as identified in the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative Final Rule.

a. changes that do not require approval 1 b. changes that require approval 1 1 This change would be consistent with the intent of this rulemaking and prevents both EPA and relevant state agencies from the unnecessary burdens from a multitude of unneeded Class 2 permit modifications.

Document #: 0217 Many of Eastman's facilities have permits, and the proposed changes will involve modification to  137 the inspection schedule in our facility permit, given current regulations. Does EPA think it necessary for a facility to go through the time & expense of a permit modification for these burden reduction changes? Is it possible to modify RCRA regulations in the final rule in such a way that permit modification is not necessary to implement the proposed changes? Our facilities likely would not do a Class 2 permit modification, minimizing the potential relief afforded by this proposal. At minimum, we suggest the Agency allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 modification procedure. This would reduce burden for both facilities and the regulating agencies.

Document #: 0222/ 0223  ACC/ API 0226 Use Level 1 permit modification procedures. Currently any changes to the inspection schedule would entail a Class 2 modification procedure. We request that facilities which wish to modify their permits to allow for the proposed reduced inspection schedules be allowed to follow Level 1 proposed changes.

For hazardous waste generators, these changes will be self implementing if the proposed rule is finalized. However for facilities with RCRA permits, these changes would involve modification to the inspection schedule in the facility permit. Most changes that reduce the burden require a Class 2 permit modification ( 40 CFR 270 42 Appendix 1).

ACC requests that EPA allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 modification procedures or the Class 1 1 modification procedure to implement changes, which arise from this rulemaking. This change could be easily made with the following language addition to Appendix 1:

B. General Facility Conditions * * * *

8. Changes related to generating, reporting, and keeping records as identified in the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative Final Rule.

a. changes that do not require approval b. changes that require approval ACC believes that such a change would be consistent with the intent of this rulemaking and does not believe that EPA or any state agency would want to be unnecessarily burdened with a multitude of Class 2 permit modifications.

Document #: 0237 Lilly strongly supports the proposed burden reduction provisions, but suggests that the agency needs to also include a provision which allows permitted facilities to implement these changes through a Class 1 permit modification. Permitted facilities have many of these " unnecessary bureaucratic controls" built into their permits, and will be unable to implement these changes  138 without a permit modification. A large amount of the reduced burden will not be realized if these facilities cannot take advantage of the proposed regulation. These changes should be implemented as Class 1 permit modifications so that the reduced burden of the regulations can be implemented quickly. This will reduce the strain on agency ( and facility) resources, which would result from a lengthy permit modification process.

Document #: 0315 In our prior comments on the proposed rule, ACC requested that EPA allow permitted facilities to use Class 1 modification procedures to implement the final changes arising from this rulemaking. We strongly support the proposal that these Class 1 modifications could and should be done without the permitted party seeking prior Agency approval since these are essentially permit modifications made to conform with Agency regulations. For this reason, we urge the Agency to further modify the language in its final rule to not require the permittee to send notice of the Class 1 modifications to all persons on the facility list. ACC believes that such a change would be consistent with the intent of this rulemaking to reduce the reporting and record keeping burden imposed on the states, the regulated community and the public.

Document #: 0320 & 0326 Comment 5: FR page 61668 column 3, section III. H  In the first Paragraph of Section H, the EPA solicits comments on allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure ( either with or without prior Agency approval) to implement the changes arising from this rulemaking. WSRC supports making it a Class 1 modification without prior Agency approval. The state agencies are all short handed and the backlog of permit modifications requiring their approval is huge. The Savannah River Site just received in 2003 a Part B permit for an application that was submitted in 1986 ( 17 years ago). If these changes must be made via a Class 1 modification that does require prior Agency approval, it could be years before the benefits from this rulemaking ever get realized.

If EPA is unwilling to take the approach using the Class 1 modification without prior Agency approval, we suggest you take the Class 2 approach. In fact, 40 CFR 270.42 Appendix 1 B. 4 classifies changes in inspection frequencies as Class 2 modification. The Class 2 approach would be better than the Class 1 modification with prior Agency approval in that the procedures for Class 2 modifications impose a deadline on the agency to make a decision. Although less desirable an approach of a Class 1 modification without agency approval, this approach would help to ensure a more timely implementation of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0323 COPC supports the EPA proposal to allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure, without prior Agency approval, to implement the changes arising from this rulemaking. Requiring the designated Agency to first approve modifications will slow down implementation of these important burden reduction opportunities.

Document #: 0327 API supports the EPA's proposal to allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit  139 modification procedure to implement the changes arising from this rulemaking. In addition, API believes it unnecessary to require additional Agency approval, beyond that which will be provided in the final rule, to implement these modifications.

To further ensure implementation of these changes minimize burden, the Agency should specify 40 CFR Part 270.42( a)( 1) is not appropriate. For these burden reduction opportunities, the requirements as specified in 270( a)( 2) are appropriate. To facilitate this process, the final rule should be considered the prior approval of the Director specified. This approach us consistent with the stated position of the Agency, as it has determined the changes " will provide no significant threat to human health or the environment."

Document #: 0331 NPCA Supports Class 1 Permit Modifications to Implement Final Burden Reductions.

NPCA supports allowing permitted facilities to use the less burdensome Class 1 permit modification procedures ( as opposed to the Class 2 permit modification procedure) to implement the burden reduction changes proposed under this initiative when finalized. This can be done, without prior Agency approval, without threat to human health or the environment and is consistent with EPA's goal of reducing the recordkeeping and reporting requirement under RCRA.

NPCA and its members support EPA's efforts with regard to reducing the redundant recordkeeping and reporting burdens under RCRA, particularly with respect to the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. NPCA hopes EPA will consider NPCA's additional suggestions for burden reduction and promulgate a comprehensive final rule. In addition, NPCA urges EPA to continue to undertake burden reduction initiatives not only for RCRA but for other regulations governed by EPA.

Document #: 0333 We support EPA's proposal to allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure, without prior Agency approval, to implement the changes from this rulemaking. Since EPA has already determined that the modifications in the Burden Reduction Rule have no significant threat to human health or the environment, there is no reason to require prior approval by the Agency for permit modifications to be implemented. Not requiring prior approval will speed up the implementation of the Burden Reduction Initiatives.

Document #: 0334 As the proposal points out, implementing many of the changes in the proposal rule will require a Class 2 permit modification for facilities with permits. Because the proposed changes will provide no significant threat to human health or the environment, we support EPA's proposal to allow permitted facilities to use the class 1 permit modification procedures to element the changes arising from the rulemaking.

Document #: 0335 Allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure to implement these  140 proposed changes without prior Agency approval.

In summary, GM supports EPA's efforts to reduce ineffective administrative burdens on the regulated community and encourages EPA make more substantial improvements through more appropriate " point of generation determinations" and broader exclusions for recycled materials.

Document #: 0338 USWAG supports EPA's proposal to allow permitted facilities to implement RCRA Burden Reduction through the streamlined Class 1 permit modification process rather than the potentially lengthy Class 2 process. 1d USWAG agrees that this approach is consistent with EPA's goal to have final burden reduction measures implemented as quickly as possible. Id.

Document #: 0345 H. 266.203( c) Permit Modifications  waive the Class permit modification requirements for the proposed " Burden Reduction" changes.

Permit modification rules are in place and cannot be summarily waived. In addition, the proposed amendments are " less stringent" than existing federal and State standards, and cannot become effective until and unless authorized States choose to adopt these rules.

Document #: 0346 1. P. 61668, col. 3  EPA requests comment on allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure, with prior Agency approval, to implement the changes arising from the final burden reduction rule. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether Class 1 permit modifications should be allowed without prior Agency approval.

DOE supports allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedures to implement any permit modification prompted by the final rule. In addition, DOE generally supports not requiring prior Agency approval for such Class 1 permit modifications. However, for permit modifications that would implement provisions in the final burden reduction rule that provide for site specific flexibility, such as the frequency with which system inspections or groundwater sampling events must be conducted at a particular facility, DOE would not object to a requirement for prior Agency approval.

Document #: 0347 Eastman strongly supports allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure, without prior Agency approval, to implement the changes addressed under this RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative.

Document #: 0348 The Class 1 permit modification must only be allowed with prior agency approval.

Document #: 0349  141 ADEQ Comments:: ADEQ concurs that permit modifications necessitated by changes in requirements resulting from this proposal should be allowable as Class 1 modifications. Provided, however, the Class 1 modification requires prior approval of the EPA Administrator, authorized State's Director, or functional equivalent.

Document #: 0352 EPA has determined that the proposed changes pose no significant threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, LANL supports EPA's decision to allow RCRA permitted facilities to incorporate these changes using the Class 1 permit modification procedures. This will relieve already overburdened state agencies from having to evaluated each proposed modification.

Document #: 0354 CRWI would like to point out that EPA has already followed this approach for more substantial facility modifications. For example, EPA added provisions for " fast track" permit modifications for RCRA incinerators that needed to make facility changes to comply with the hazardous waste combustor MACT ( 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE). These changes generally would have required either Class 2 or Class 3 permit modifications. However, the " fast track" provisions allow facilities to use the Class 1 with prior approval procedure for modifications of a facility to meet new standards. CRWI believes that changes proposed under RCRA burden reduction would be even less substantial than those already allowed under the " fast track" approach. CRWI believes that the Class 1 procedure is an appropriate mechanism to allow newly promulgated recordkeeping and reporting requirements to be incorporated into existing RCRA permits. There is no reason to keep the Class 2 or Class 3 modification procedures to modify these RCRA permit provisions. CRWI believes that this change would be consistent with the intent of this rulemaking ( Burden Reduction), would prevent both EPA and relevant state agencies from reviewing a multitude of Class 2 or Class 3 permit modifications, and accomplish EPA's objectives without a sacrifice of environmental protection.

Document #: 0357 EPA requests comment whether to allow permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedures with or without prior agency approval to implement the proposed changes. The Department recommends that changes require prior agency approval. Prior approval will ensure that a facility properly interprets the applicability of new regulations. For example, the Department will not be able to approve permit modifications based on any revisions to the CFR until the Department has adopted changes into the Administrative Rules of Montana. The Department is aware that 40 CFR 270.42( a)( 1)( iii) allows the agency to reject with cause any Class 1 modification. However, prior approval of changes may prevent potential compliance issues that could arise in between the time a facility begins to implement changes and the Department rejects a modification under 40 CFR 270.42( a)( 1)( iii).

Document #: 0361 EPA is proposing that implementation of changes in the proposed rule be accomplished by means of a Class 1 Permit modification rather than a Class 2 Permit modification.  142 DTSC Comment: DTSC has no objection to the use if Class 1 Permit modifications to implement changes in the proposed rule. These changes are administrative in nature and do not constitute any actual change in a facility's status or operation that would require public notice.

Response to Comments: The changes in the final rule will be allowed to be implemented as Class 1 Permit modifications without prior approval. However, we wish to point out that, unless State law prevents it, States can be more stringent than the EPA rules if there are specific concerns with the consequences of these changes in any State. All States also can use the omnibus authority of RCRA section 3005( c) for specific facilities where they believe there is risk due to site specific circumstances not identified in our rulemaking process. This will allow States to retain oversight where they choose to do so.

Comments Directed at Specific CFR Sections 260.31( b)( 2) Submit report on industry wide prevalence of the material production process: Proposed Action: Eliminate. Regulatory authorities can decide whether to give a variance from classification as a solid waste without this information. Final Action: Eliminating the requirement in 260.31( b)( 2) that applicants provide industrywide information, but we are adding the criteria to existing 260.31( b)( 8) as an example of other relevant information that may be provided to support a variance application.

Document #: 0020 IPA proposes to eliminate the requirement that a petitioner survey the industry wide prevalence of the material production process. The Department does not object to this narrow easement in regards to demonstration that a variance is warranted. The remaining criteria should be retained and demonstrated by the petitioner to obtain a variance under this subpart.

Document #: 0158 SOCMA supports EPA's proposal to streamline the variance from classification as a solid waste procedure by eliminating the requirement that petitioners survey the industry wide prevalence of the material production process. In a highly specialized, competitive sector like batch and specialty chemical production, this information generally cannot be obtained. SOCMA applauds EPA for also recognizing that the information is not used practically, and therefore lessening the burden upon chemical manufacturers.

SOCMA also urges EPA to acknowledge the need to establish a more effective mechanism whereby can it confirm that recycling, reuse or reclamation activities would be deemed exempt from the definition of " solid waste." The complexity and uncertainty of this part of the RCRA program needs to be addressed in order to promote increased recycling and reuse of secondary  143 materials. The current petition mechanism is of no value for companies, such as SOCMA members, that generate multiple and varying product mixes on a batch basis.

Document #: 0165 EPA has proposed to delete § 260.31( b)( 2), which is one of the criteria used to determine if reclamation of a hazardous waste prior to reuse as a feedstock in a production process is an exempt production related activity, or is a hazardous waste management activity that should properly be subject to Subtitle C standards.

Safety Kleen is very concerned that EPA have the regulatory tools necessary to prevent sham recycling of hazardous wastes. While we support the agency's efforts to encourage legitimate and beneficial recycling, we think it is equally important that EPA has strong criteria to identify sham recycling that is essentially hazardous waste management.

Under the RCRA recycling rules, hazardous wastes that are first reclaimed and then reused as feedstocks within the original production process are subject to limited standards. If the hazardous waste is managed in any manner other than a closed loop tank system, or if it is accumulated for over one year without being reclaimed, or if the reclamation process involves fuel use or combustion, then RCRA standards apply to the reclamation activities. See § § 261.2( e)( 1)( iii) and 261.1( a)( 8). These safeguards are important to ensure protection, particularly since improper reclamation can result in environmental releases and property contamination.

In promulgating this provision in 1985, EPA gave the following example. A primary aluminum smelter generates spent potliners from which it recovers fluoride for use in its own process. The potliners, a spent material, are a hazardous waste. They are sent to a different unit operation for the purpose of recovering fluoride that is reused in the aluminum production process. " In addition, fluoride recovery is an ancillary activity, far removed from the production of aluminum, the principal activity of the primary aluminum facility. ( In fact, this operation is probably best viewed as hazardous waste treatment because the main purpose fo the operation is to treat the cyanide in the potliners, not to recover fluoride.)" See 50 Fed. Reg. 641 col. 2 ( Jan. 4, 1985).

However, EPA may grant a variance from classifying such material as solid waste, thus waiving the RCRA standards, " if the reclamation operation is an essential part of the production process." 40CFR § 260.31( b). The criteria for granting this variance are:

1. How economically viable the production process would be if it were to use virgin material, rather than reclaimed materials; 2. The prevalence of the practice on an industry wide basis; 3. The extent to which the material is handled before reclamation to minimize loss; 4. The time periods between generating the material and its reclamation and between reclamation and return to the original primary production process; 5. The location of the reclamation operation in relation to the production process; 6. Whether the reclaimed materials is used for the purpose for which it was originally produced with it is returned to the original process, and whether it is returned to the  144 process in substantially its original form. 7. Whether the person who generated the material also reclaims it; 8. Other relevant factors.

In the burden reduction rulemaking, EPA is proposing to eliminate criterion ( 2) which requires the petitioner to show whether the reclamation process is a prevalent practice on an industry wide basis. 67 Fed. Reg. 2521 ( entry for 260.31( b)( 2)). We believe that criterion ( 2) is necessary to support a petitioner's contention that the reclamation process is " production like," and not a facility specific process that constitutes waste management. As EPA said in promulgating this criterion, "[ t] he more wide spread the practice, the more likely it is to be a production process. 50Fed. Reg. 654 ( Jan. 4, 4, 1985).

EPA's rationale for proposing to eliminate criterion ( 2) is that "[ r] egulatory authorities can decide whether to give a variance from classification as a solid waste without this information." The SAFETY KLEEN strongly disagrees. Whether a material is typically and frequently reclaimed before its reuse in a production process throughout an industry is a significant and helpful criterion for determining whether that reclamation is production or waste management. In the preamble, EPA states: " In practice, we have found that we do not use this information in making decisions on these variances." 67 Fed. Reg. 2530 col. 1. We are alarmed by this statement, and urge EPA to consider all relevant factors when evaluating such and important question as whether to exempt a hazardous waste from RCRA. EPA should not eliminate criterion ( 2) merely for the sake of reducing paperwork, for doing so would weaken the RCRA standards on recycling of hazardous wastes. For these reasons, Safety Kleen urges that § 260.31( b)( 2) not be eliminated.

Document #: 0169 EPA has proposed to eliminate this requirement reasoning that regulatory authorities can decide whether to give a variance from classification as a solid waste without this information. While that is true knowing how prevalent a certain practice is throughout a certain industry is extremely relevant in deciding whether or not to grant a variance. If the practice is common it is important to view the proposal in a much broader context. We disagree with this proposal as facilities would have very specific knowledge of the frequency of a certain practice and it unquestionably benefits the regulatory agencies and the public to have this information and finally it is not overly burdensome to supply this information as part of a variance request.

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

Document #: 0218 In particular, the DEQ specifically SUPPORTS the proposed changes regarding elimination of notice requirements on industry wide prevalence of a material in production.

Document #: 0286 You propose to eliminate one of the criteria on which the administrator will base his decision whether to grant a request for a variance from classification as a waste. There is no requirement  145 for the applicant to submit this information in 40 CFR 260.31. Therefore, no burden reduction takes place. We recommend that this rule remain unchanged.

Document #: 0290 This information helps the regulatory agency differentiate between sham recycling and legitimate recycling.

Document #: 0337 Same comment as Document #: 0158 Response to Comments: The Agency agrees that industry wide information about these practices is not necessarily critical in demonstrating or determining that reclamation is an essential part of production. We believe that a successful demonstration could be made without this information and have found that this information was less important in making the decision that the other factors. We also acknowledge that this information may be very difficult, and in some cases, impossible for one company to obtain. Thus, we continue to believe that this requirement is unnecessarily burdensome on some industry sectors. We do agree, however, with commenters who assert that this information can be relevant and useful if it can be easily obtained. We are, therefore, eliminating the requirement in 40 CFR 260.31( b)( 2) that applicants provide industry wide information.

261.4( a)( 9)( iii)( E) Exclusion  Submit one time notification for recycled wood preserving wastewaters and spent wood preserving solutions: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. Final Action: We are only eliminating the requirement to submit the one time notification; we are not eliminating the requirement to keep the document on site ( until closure of the facility); or the discussion of compliance implementation procedures.

Document #: 0169 This is an important notification and we do not support its elimination. Several potential problems are identified at the notification stage, which avoid bigger problems associated with misinterpretation of exclusions. There are several examples of facilities that have created large problems both environmentally and legally by misapplying exclusions to their waste stream and failing to notify. This Notification is cost effective and helps eliminate ambiguity.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this one time notification requirement. We urge EPA to make these notifications more available and useful to the states and public by storing them in searchable databases on the internet. When they are retrievable by activity they are useful for workload planning, targeting inspections, creating stakeholder lists, and finding wastes in commerce.  146 Document #: 0218 In particular, the DEQ specifically SUPPORTS the proposed changes to eliminate one time notification requirement with respect to recycling of wood preservatives.

Document #: 0290 This information is not entered into a database. However, the notification identifies facilities that are utilizing this exclusion. The exclusion is very specific in the use of this type of material. This notification provides the regulatory agency with the opportunity to inspect the facility to verify that the material is being handled in accordance with the exclusion. There have been numerous NPL sites that have resulted from the mismanagement of this waste.

Response to Comments: While we understand the concern of the some of the commenters, we still do not believe, overall, that arguments put forth were sufficient to change the proposal. We still believe that the notification is unnecessary, especially because this requirement has been in place for a number of years and most facilities have already notified. We also believe that the submittal of this notification is unnecessary because the facilities are engaged in limited activities to return materials to their intended use in the wood treating industry. Many comparable activities occur without notification, indcluding direct resue of the same material. These activities will occur at generator sites subject to EPA or state inspection ( and in some cases at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities) so EPA or the state will have an opportunity to review the activity.

Note that in the final change to the regulatory text we are only eliminating the requirement to submit the one time notification described in the preamble to the proposal. We are not eliminating the requirement to keep the document on site, or the discussion of compliance implementation procedures.

261.4( f)( 9) Submit report estimating the number of studies and amount of waste to be used in treatability studies: Proposed Action: Eliminate. An unnecessary requirement, since this information is provided to the regulatory agency at a later date, meaning that the information has to be supplied by the facility twice ( an unnecessary duplication). Final Action: Eliminating the requirement in 261.4( f)( 9) to submit estimates of the number of studies and the amount of waste to be used in treatability studies for the current year, but are retaining the requirements for preparing and submitting an annual report providing information for the previous year.

Document #: 0144 We do not agree that this information is unnecessary and inaccurate. The proposed rule indicates that the estimates are usually not accurate. While the estimates for current treatability studies are simply estimates, the current rule also requires reporting on what actually occurred during the previous year, which should be accurate. EPA should clarify and address these issues before  147 changing the existing rules. Please note, that without the required information regarding treatability studies, it may be difficult for regulatory authorities to effectively monitor and administer the RCRA program.

Document #: 0158 SOCMA supports EPA's elimination of the requirement that facilities submit an estimate fo the number of treatability studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in treability studies in the upcoming year, since EPA has determined that these submissions are not necessary, and are often inaccurate.

Document #: 0166 Safety Kleen agrees with the proposal to eliminate the treatability study information from the annual report Document #: 0169 We agree that this report is duplicative and should be eliminated.

Document #: 0181 Supplying the Treatability Study information at a later date to the agency will not prevent the use of amounts of waste in excess of the requirements. The restriction on amounts of waste types prevents the fraudulent treatment of entire waste amounts generated at a facility under the guise of a Treatability Study. A one time waste allowance can be made by the agency, but only if that information is provided and the facility has complied with the original waste amounts.

Document #: 0204 CSHEMA supports the eliminate the report on treatability studies. Colleges and universities that participate in treatability studies often do so in multiple departments and the frequency/ duration of such work is largely dictated by the funding source. Estimating the number of studies and amount of waste to be used in treatability studies is unnecessary and redundant. Any estimate in advance of such work is little more than speculation. SCHEMA believes this process could be further streamlined by eliminating the notification requirements. Submission of the annual summary of treatability studies provides adequate information to the regulatory agencies during years a facility conducts work of this nature.

Document #: 0212 EPA should require the earlier submittal and eliminate the later submittal.

Document #: 0218 In particular, the DEQ specifically SUPPORTS the proposed changes regarding elimination of submission of reports on the amount of waste proposed fro treatability studies.

Document #: 0224 CRWI supports the proposal to eliminate the submittal of an estimate of the number of treatability studies and the amount of waste to be used in those studies from the annual report requirements.  148 Document #: 0241 The proposed modifications to this section will eliminate the requirement that the annual treatability studies report include an estimate of the number of studies and the amount of waste to be used in the study in the upcoming year. The preamble argues that this information is not accurate and that precise information is received in the next year's annual report. However, the rule proposal completely eliminates the requirement for any report, including the submittal of information from the previous year.

Document #: 0337 Same comment as Document #: 0158.

Response to Comments: Based on the comments of those who supported the proposed amendment, they did so with the understanding that only the requirement to provide estimates for the coming year was to be eliminated, and that the requirement to submit information for the previous year would remain in place. Most agreed with the proposal to eliminate the estimates based on the rationale in the preamble that the information would be provided at a later date. We also recognize that eliminating all of section 261.4( f)( 9) also eliminates the requirement for providing any report, including the submittal of information from the previous year. That was not our intention.

The Agency agrees that the information provided on past activities will be more accurate than estimates of the future. We are therefore eliminating the requirement in section 261.4( f)( 9) to submit estimates of the number of studies and the amount of waste to be used in treatability studies for the current year, but retaining the requirement for preparing and submitting an annual report providing information for the previous year.

We do not agree with the suggestion to eliminate the notification requirements in section 261.4( f)( 1) and ( f)( 11). These sections require notification that a facility intends to conduct treatability studies, and when the facility is no longer planning on conducting treatability studies, respectively. We believe this information is essential for a regulatory agency in conducting its program, and that the requirement is not unreasonably burdensome. Only section 261.4( f)( 9) is being eliminated.

NOTE: We are not pursuing this action. The requirement will remain in the CFR.

261.38( c)( 1)( i)( A) Exclusion  Generator submit a one time comparable/ syngas fuel notice to the permitting agency: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement given the subsequent public notice regulatory requirements ( where this information is also submitted). Plus, we are not eliminating the overall regulatory requirements for burning, blending, generation, sampling, etc. Final Action: We are not pursuing this burden reduction action. The requirement will remain in the CFR. This change may be part of a different rulemaking being pursued by the Agency.  149 Document #: 0169 We do not agree with the proposal to eliminate this requirement. Failure to submit this notification eliminates the requirement for submitting a certification. The certification is very detailed and legally binds the person responsible for the accuracy of the information. Considering all of the issues involved in evaluating and burning comparable fuels, we have found that it is useful to evaluate comparable fuel burning proposals prior to initiating burning. Removal of the notification and subsequent certification reduces the accountability for deciding what waste stream can be burned. Although, the Regulatory agency can certainly take enforcement action later, the rigor of the notification and the certification has been successful in avoiding these problems.

Document #: 0196 Elimination of the one time notice to permitting agency before implementing the comparable/ syngas fuel exclusion, Velsicol supports this change. We are currently making use of this rule in Tennessee and have plans to do so in Maryland as soon as they adopt the exclusion. The later has proposed more rigorous requirements, which adds rather than reduces the compliance burden. It is appropriate for EPA to set minimal standards of compliance. This facilitates a state's right to set more stringent standards where they deem necessary. It is our opinion that this exclusion should be no more burdensome to implement when it comes to regarding the regulatory authorities or the public than the other exclusion in part 261. It has been our experience that the notification requirement prompts additional inquiry by the regulating authority. For instance, upon receiving our notification the regulating authority requested a copy of our Waste Analysis Plan in order to assess compliance with the exclusion. We do not think this would have occurred if there would not have been a notification requirement or maybe if only the public notice requirement was in place per the subject proposal. Velsicol is routinely inspected by both the state and EPA RCRA authorities, which we feel is a more appropriate opportunity to access compliance with a self implementing rule.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of the one time notice by the generator, last sentence of 261.37( c)( 1)( i). The public notice required of the burner, 261.38( c)( 1)( ii), may not provide notice to the regulatory authorities in the area of the generator due to geographic separation of the generator and burner. Consequently, the public could not be assured of generator oversight by the appropriate regulatory authorities as implied by the public notice requirement of 261.38( c)( 1)( ii)( E), since the notification of those authorities by the generator is proposed to be eliminated. We urge EPA to make these notifications more available and useful to the states and public by storing them in searchable databases on the internet.

We also do not support eliminating the certification that is currently required at 261.38( c)( 1)( C)( 4). This certification is also not a requirement of the public notice.

Document #: 0218 In particular, the DEQ specifically SUPPORTS the proposed changes regarding elimination of submission of syngas fuel notice.  150 Document #: 0222 We support the elimination of the one time generator notification, but are suggesting several corresponding clarifications or revisions. ACC agrees with EPA's proposal to eliminate the onetime comparable/ syngas fuel notice. As EPA notes, the generator and burner information contained in this one time notice is also made available in the public notice process, making this notice unnecessary.

Note also, that for consistency with the elimination of this notification requirement, the following sections should also be deleted, since they would no longer be relevant:

§ 261.38( c)( 1)( ii)( E)  The requirement to include in the public notice the " name and mailing address of the Regional or State Directors to whom the claim was submitted."

§ 261.38( c)( 10)( i)( A)  ( C)  The requirement to maintain records related to the notification.

Assuming this notice is eliminated by the final rule, as proposed, EPA should provide some additional clarification in the preamble to amend the related discussion found in the preamble to the June 19, 1998 final rule at 63 FR 33797.

Elimination of the notification requirement would appear to render the above preamble language obsolete, however to avoid any future confusion regarding the timing of the self implementing aspect of this exclusion, EPA should make that clear. It should be clearly noted that the previous statements that the notification had to be received before the waste cold be considered excluded are no longer applicable.

Document #: 0286 We do not believe this requirement should be removed. This is not a duplicative requirement. By eliminating the notification to the state authorities where the burning of the syngas fuel will take place, no official notification will be given to the state. The only notification will come via a public notice in the local paper where the burning will take place. State regulators will be required to scan daily papers looking for public notices in all local papers throughout the state. Since the public notice is not required to be submitted to the state authorities where the burning will take place, the state agency will be placed at a disadvantage in assisting the public with questions regarding the management of this type of waste. Ultimately, this rule change will cause a greater burden upon the state regulators and place the public at a disadvantage at gathering information to which they are entitled.

Response to Comments: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments, however we are not pursuing this burden reduction option. EPA will be addressing this exclusion and the accompanying paperwork in an upcoming Federal Register notice dealing specifically with synthesis gas and gasification technologies. In that this future rule will address all the elements of this regulation, the Agency believes that the pruduent course of action is to amend the regulation in total and not with individual actions.  151 NOTE: Changes to these sections are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

262.11 262.12 262.34 Proposed Action: The Agency did not propose any action under these requirements. Final Action: Changes to these sections are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0165 Other regulatory requirements do not provide the same safeguards. For example, § 262.11 requires the generator merely to determine if its waste is listed or exhibits a hazardous characteristic. Most often the generator uses knowledge, rather than testing the waste. The fact that the waste is listed or characteristically hazardous, however, does not tell the generator, or the subsequent TSD facility, what must be known about the presence or concentration of hazardous constituents in the waste that require treatment prior to land disposal. Indeed, the hazardous waste determination under § 262.11 is simply the starting point, and the obvious and necessary next step is for the generator to determine whether the hazardous waste requires treatment prior to land disposal.

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.11 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0184 We have had confusion in the past regarding whether or not the hazardous waste determination language of 262.11 required identifying all the characteristics, or if the generator could stop at one. The deleted portion of 268.9( a)( 1) stated. The initial generator of a solid waste must determine each EPA hazardous waste number applicable to the waste... and was used to clarify that all hazardous characteristics must be identified. The changes proposed refer back to the ambiguous 262.11 language. It wold be advantageous to state " A generator of hazardous waste must determine all EPA hazardous waste numbers applicable to the waste except as specified in 268.9( a)( 2)..."

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.11 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

262.12 We did not propose any changes to this section of the RCRA regulations.

Document #: 0008 Additionally, USWAG believes that EPA should consider streamlining the notification of regulated waste activity requirements in sections 262.12, 263.11, and 264.11   relating to EPA hazardous waste identification numbers. While USWAG understands that EPA considers these provisions necessary for compliance assurance, streamlining of these provisions would result in significant burden reduction without any sacrifice in accountability. Specifically, USWAG seeks relief from the requirement to obtain a separate identification number for each site at which a waste is  152 generated. In the NODA, EPA recognizes the electric utility industry's efforts to reform the RCRA hazardous waste manifest requirements. A remote generation sites, the hazardous waste identification number requirements create undue burdens. It is inefficient, if not impossible, to obtain a separate hazardous waste identification number for each of these thousands of remote sites located throughout electric utility transmission and distribution systems. USWAG request that EPA modify the requirements to explicitly allow the option to use a central facility's identification number for these remote generation sites. We urge EPA to adopt this modification as soon as possible, through either the manifest reform initiative or the burden reduction initiative, whichever would provide the quickest result.

Response: Changing the requirements in these sections is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0043 UTC agrees with EPA's proposal to keep reports on site and available for inspection rather than submitting them to EPA. This proposal appears to offer the greatest benefits to facilities with corrective action programs and TSDFs. Large quantity generators that operate without special permits would realize little, if any, benefit. Regarding 40 CFR 262.12, notification of regulated waste activity, UTC proposes that once the initial notification is made, the generator would keep copies of any additions or deletions to EPA waste codes on site and available for inspection. UTC's experience has been that when updated notifications are made to the agency, there is no response, consequence, or change in practices required. Typically, these changes are minor in nature; for example, the addition of a U code to manage a lab pack or obsolete raw material.

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.12 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

262.34 Accumulation Time We did not propose any changes to this section of the RCRA regulations.

Document #: 0031 LIA also supports OSW's proposal to maintain records on site that show compliance with RCRA regulations, as opposed to submitting each of these records to the Agency. OSW's proposal as currently stated, however, would reduce the data management and administrative burden on the agency because it would be in receipt of less information, but it does little to reduce the burden on the facilities to prepare such reports continuously. To reduce the burden of recordkeeping further, the Agency should consider replacing many of the regulations requiring periodic reporting with a one time notification or certification statement to the Agency. Some of the regulations that are suitable to be converted to this single record include 40 CFR § § 262.34 and 264.16.

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.34 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.  153 262.34( d)( 5) We did not propose any changes to this section of the RCRA regulations.

Document #: 0030 EPA currently requires that generators who accumulate waste in excess of the satellite accumulation requirements comply within 3 days with various container or tank requirements for the storage of hazardous waste. Extending the time limit to 7 days will provide generators with additional flexibility to manage the waste appropriately and cost effectively. For example, on 3 day weekends it is sometimes necessary to call in on an overtime basis, waste management personnel to transfer wastes. Also, at times during a unit turnaround a large volume of waste is being generated during a week, necessitating the use of a roll off box. Allowing the roll off box to remain in place for a week reduces the need to transfer a partially filled roll off box because the three day accumulation time has been reached.

Response: Changing the 262.34 requirements with respect to satellite accumulation areas is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0328 Emergency response requirements for SQGs are set out in Section 262.34( d)( 5) and in Section 265, Subpart C. Given that the Agency is attempting to reconcile its emergency response requirements with those set out in OSHA's regulations, an effort should be made to identify and eliminate potential overlaps involving SQGs.

262.34( d)( 5)( ii) We did not propose any changes to this section of the RCRA regulations.

Document #: 0208 Requirement for SQGs to post emergency numbers and equipment locations has been made largely obsolete by the existence of 911 systems. A suggested change to 40 CFR 265.32( c) would handle concerns on equipment locations   " Readily accessible and clearly marked portable fire..."

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.34 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

264.12( c) 265.12( c) Before transferring ownership or operation of a facility during it's operating life, or of a disposal facility during the post closure care period, the owner or operator must notify the new owner or operator in writing of the requirements of this part and part 270 of this chapter. Proposed Action: No regulatory change was proposed. Final Action: No regulatory change is being made.  154 Document #: 0042 Provide notice of Part 264 or 265 and Part 270 Requirements.

Response: Changing the requirements in 262.12 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

264.13( a)( 1) Before an owner or operator treats, stores or disposes of any hazardous wastes, or nonhazardous wastes if applicable under 264.113( d), he must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of the wastes. At a minimum, the analysis must contain all the information which must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance with the part and part 268 of this chapter. Proposed Action: No regulatory change was proposed. Final Action: No regulatory change is being made.

Document #: 0165 EPA also points to 264.13( a)( 1) as a safeguard, but again the preamble misstates the regulation ( see note 1 above). Contrary to the preamble, 264.13( a)( 1) does not require " TSDFs to perform a general waste analysis" to determine all the information necessary for treatment. 67 Fed. Reg. 2528 cols. 1 2 ( emphasis added). The regulation states that the owner or operator of a TSD facility " must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of the waste." TSD facilities " obtain" this 268.7( a)( 1) requirement that EPA now proposes to eliminate. Again, the fact that EOA has not accurately described either the regulation or the resulting commercial practice shows that EPA's reasoning is flawed.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, the commenter is referred to section 268.7 of this document and the preamble discussion for the Burden Reduction Rule for a discussion of the changes to these regulatory requirements.

264.15 General Inspections requirements. Proposed Action: No regulatory change was proposed. Final Action: No regulatory change is being made.

Document #: 0041 While Safety Kleen supports the goals of burden reduction in general, we do not agree that lengthening RCRA inspection frequencies will produce any burden reduction benefit and ill likely result in less environmental protection. The current inspection regulations contained in 40 CFR 264.15 allow considerable leeway for inspection frequency except where a particular frequency is mandated, the Agency could amend the regulations to allow, on a case by case basis, a facility to demonstrate that a longer inspection frequency is warranted. This could be demonstrated by perform a Hazardous and Operatability Analysis on the unit or by a review of the historical failure or spill rate of the unit. We believe that any reduction in burden costs due to reduced inspections  155 would be significantly outweighed by the increased costs due to potential remediation of tanks or other units that failed due to inadequate inspection.

Document #: 0042 DHWM does not presently support lengthening the periods between any TSD facility selfinspections for container storage areas, tank systems, surface impoundments, incinerators, waste piles, landfills or miscellaneous units.

We realize that generators are also subject to these requirements. The requirements are not necessarily applicable to generator operations and can be burdensome for them. However, we do not support reducing the facility self inspection requirement, which are applicable to TSD facilities, in lieu of reducing the burden on generators. We take the position that such a regulatory change could increase the risk of harm to human health and the environment. To resolve this issue, US EPA might consider developing specific inspection schedules that are appropriate for generators and their operations.

Response to Comments: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments and refers the reader to the specific section in this document regarding tank inspection frequency and Performance Track facilities. The Agency is not pursuing any regulatory change regarding decreased inspection frequency beyond these. We have been persuaded by commenters that providing for a case by case application process for decreasing self  inspection frequency for tanks, containers and containment building would be a tremendous burden on the states and as such we are not pursuing these regulatory changes. We are allowing Performance Track member facillities to apply for reduced inspection frequency for these types of management units.  156 264.15( b)( 4) The owner or operator must develop and follow a written schedule for inspecting monitoring equipment, safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and operating and structural equipment ( such as dikes and sump and pumps) that are important to preventing, detecting, or responding to environmental or human health hazards.

The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on the schedule. However, the frequency should be based on the rate of deterioration of the equipment and the probability of an environmental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or any operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject to spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily when in use. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the items and frequencies called for in 264.174, 264.193, 264.195, 264.226, 264.254, 264.278, 264.303, 264.347, 264.602, 264.1033, 264.1052, 264.1053, 264.1058, and 264.1083 through 264.1089 if this part where applicable. Proposed Action: In NODA 2, solicited comment on adding areas subject to spills for reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track member facilities. Final Action: Promulgating on a case by case basis, upon approval by regulatory agency reduced inspection frequency, up to monthly for areas subject to spills at Performance Track member facilities.

Document #: 0134 DOE requests that EPA consider giving the responsible regulatory agency authority to adjust, on a case by case basis, the frequency of inspection in areas subject to spills at hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. DOE believes this change would be very similar to the proposal in the NPRM that owners/ operators of tanks, containers, and containment buildings be allowed the opportunity to adjust the frequency of their self inspections ( p. 2527, cols. 1 & 2). DOE believes the change is justified because activities that may cause spills usually allow the spills to be easily detected and quickly cleaned up without a specific delay caused by an inspection.

Response: Currently, all facilities must inspect areas subject to spills on a daily basis. In response to a comment in the proposal, the 2003 NODA considered reducing the inspection frequencies, granted on a case by case basis, for areas subject to spills as a general matter. We also solicited comment on whether to grant this relief only to Performance Track member facilities, stating that the risk from this change is minimal at facilities that have met the requirements to be accepted into the Performance Track Program.

In general, we do not believe that such a change to the regulation is appropriate for all facilities since they do not have the environmental management systems, commitments, and demonstrated compliance records that Performance Track facilities have. We think the risk from this change ( i. e., reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track member facilities that obtain permission to reduce their inspection frequency), is minimal. Therefore, we have decided to extend inspection frequencies in 264/ 5.15( b)( 4) for areas subject to spills to a monthly frequency  157 but only for facilities that are members of the National Environmental Performance Track Program and that have applied and received permission to reduce inspection frequency from their State or EPA region. The Director will inform the applicant in writing as to the disposition of their application.

Document # 0323 COPC supports the proposal to change tank self inspection frequencies from daily to weekly for both large and small quantity generators. We further support including ancillary tank equipment ( piping, pumps, valves and other associated equipment) at both small and large quantity generator facilities.

In addition, COPC supports reduced inspection requirement for areas subject to spills ( see 264.15( b)( 4).

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0327 As a general matter, API also supports reduced inspection requirement for areas subject to spills ( see 264.15( b)( 4).

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0352 Spills  Areas subject to spills must be inspected daily when in use in accordance with 40 CFR 264.15( b)( 4) and 265( b)( 4). Well operated and maintained equipment should receive a case bycase determination of whether a less frequent inspection is appropriate. Therefore, LANL supports EPA's proposal to allow any facility to file a case by case application for reduced containment building inspection frequencies, and suggests using factors such as those described in 40 CFR 264.15( b)( 4) and 265.15( b)( 4).

Response: Today's final rule reduces the inspection frequencies for interim status, permitted, and LQG tank systems and adds language to § § 264/ 265.195 allowing weekly inspections when the secondary containment employs an automatic leak detection system that notifies facility personnel if a leak occurs. In the absence of an automatic leak detection system, the facility must have workplace practices in place that shall ensure that any leaks will be promptly identified, so as to not violate the provisions of 264/ 5.193( c)( 3)). We are not promulgating reduced inspection frequencies for ancillary equipment regulated under 264/ 5.193( f)( 1)( 4). While most commenters supported this change, upon further analysis we now conclude that expanding the rule to include ancillary equipment without secondary containment is not consistent with how the final rule addresses reduced inspection frequency for tank systems. ( Today's rule does not reduce the inspection frequencies for containers or containment buildings or areas subject to spills, except for case by case situations with Performance Track facilities.)  158 264/ 5.16( d)( 1)( 3) Personnel Training Facility personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or onthe job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part. The owner or operator must ensure that this program includes all the elements described in the document required under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section. 264.16( a)( 1) Facility personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or onthe job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part. The owner or operator must ensure that this program includes all the elements described in the document required under paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section.

Proposed Action: We proposed eliminating the personnel training requirements to record job title and description, as well as the type and amount of training employees will receive. Final Action: The States persuaded us that this information is critical in determining whether facility personnel are properly trained and as such is being retained.

Document #: 0012 CRWI supports Alternate 1 where a one time certification that all personnel have been trained. CRWI also agrees with EPA that there are certain areas where OSHA and RCRA training requirements overlap. CRWI sees this as an inefficient use of time and resources. CRWI suggests that EPA defer to OSHA for the training requirements. As listed in the document " RCRA OSHA Training Requirements Overlap", the OSHA program meets or exceeds the RCRA requirements. This would exceed the RCRA requirements and ensure the proper training. This would also eliminate any duplication and would relieve the facility from possible dual enforcement actions.

Response: The Agency proposed to allow OSHA training in lieu of RCRA training. EPA's intent was to limit this to emergency response training, however many commenters misunderstood this. In the second NODA, EPA clarified its position and solicited comment on applying either RCRA or OSHA for emergency response training, Among other reasons, the Agency has concluded that many facilities are not subject to OSHA requirements, as such relying only on OSHA training would leave gaps for certain facilities. In today's rule, the Agency is allowing a facility to use either RCRA or OSHA for emergency response training as long as all the RCRA training requirements are met.

Document #: 0158 SOCMA urges EPA to expand its three year record retention policy to employee training records. Since training records are routine and are not needed for closure of a facility, EPA should allow training records to be discarded after three years. This option would reduce the amount of administrative time needed to review training records, as well as the paperwork burden upon the facilities, and would be consistent with EPA's stated policy of record retention.  159 Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. Presently, the regulations state that for current personnel, training records must be kept until closure of the facility, and that training records on former employees must be kept for at least three years from the date the employee last worked at the facility. The Agency feels that this in the appropriate amount of time that these records should be maintained.

Document #: 0158 SOCMA agrees with EPA that maintaining records of job titles and job descriptions for individuals who receive training is unnecessary and does not contribute to the safety of a facility. Accordingly, SOCMA supports EPA's proposal to eliminate these non essential recordkeeping requirements.

Response: The States have persuaded us that this information is critical in determining whether facility personnel are properly trained and as such is being retained. Upon review, a facility should maintain a list of personnel that actively handle/ manage the facility's hazardous waste or actively participate in emergency response in order to ensure those people are properly trained. The record should document the type and amount of training received by each individual. Commenters have convinced us that the best way to determine whether or not an employee has been adequately trained is to pick an employee from the documentation at the facility and then question that employee about the type of training that they have received. Failure to maintain this information will weaken the inspector's capabilities to ensure appropriate staff are maintained and will weaken the ability to enforce the regulation.

Document #: 0174 ( Personnel Training for Emergency Response) In the preamble ( 67 FR 2527), EPA proposed to drop the requirements at 40 CFR 264.16( a)( 3) and 40 CFR 265.16( a)( 3). In the proposed changes to the regulatory text, these requirements are not dropped but by eliminating the section instead of rewording it. As an alternative, Dow supports rewording the section as ACC has commented.

( Personnel Training Recordkeeping) The proposal includes changes to personnel training in 40CFR 264.16( a) & ( d) and 40 CFR 265.16( a) & ( d). Under Section II. D of the preamble, EPA discussed personnel training extensively, including the existing requirement to keep training records until closure. However, EPA did not propose to reduce the recordkeeping burden found at both 40 CFR 264.16( e) and 40 CFR 265.16( e). In other places, EPA also recognized that keeping records until closure is not productive and proposed to reduce that burden in a number of othe places, such as:

° 40 CFR 264.73 and 40 CFR 265.73 for the operating record, ° 40 CFR 266.102( e)( 10) for permitted Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, and ° 40 CFR 266.103( k) for interim status Boilers and Industrial Furnaces.

Dow firmly believes that keeping training records for three years is more than adequate. Dow requests that the final rule also change both 40 CFR 264.16( e) and 40 CFR 265.16( e) so that these  160 references are consistent with the approach that EPA is taking for other listed regulatory areas. Such a change could be accomplished very easily, and Dow suggest the following changes to the regulatory text:

40 CFR 264.16( e) " Training records on current personnel must be kept until closure of the facility for three years; training records on former employees must be kept for at least three years from the date the employee last worked at the facility. Personnel training records may acmpany personnel transferred within the same company."

40 CFR 265.16( e) " Training records on current personnel must be kept until closure of the facility for three years; training records on former employees must be kept for at least three years from the date the employee last worked at the facility. Personnel training records may accompany personnel transferred within the same company."

Even though changes to these regulatory references were not specifically proposed, these changes are consistent with other changes that EPA has proposed. In addition at 67 FR 2520, EPA did invite comments on "... new approaches we haven't considered..."

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 these requirements are being retained, as noted previously without this documentation on site it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine is the appropriate personnel have been trained, as such this information should be kept until closure of the facility, Presently, the regulations state that for current personnel, training records must be kept until closure of the facility, and that training records on former employees must be kept for at least three years from the date the employee last worked at the facility. The Agency feels that this in the appropriate amount of time that these records should be maintained. .

Document #: 0207 Most of the proposed reductions in training records will save time and have little or no effect on environmental protection. However, in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA stated:

" Finally, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory requirement for a description of the training employees will receive. The facility inspections ensure adequate training  simply documenting the employee( s) name( s) and date( s) of training sufficient." [ 67 FR 2527]

Lion believes that this reduction will ultimately reduce environmental protection. Reducing training records to only names and dates of those trained provides no record of what that training entailed. Such records except for names and dates of training would reduce accountability and encourage less conscientious managers to provide minimal awareness training to employees whose  161 jobs require more detailed training.

The US DOT, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation, in a recently revised related training rule [ p49 CFR 172.704( d)( 3)], requires training records to include either a description of the training, a copy of the training materials or a reference to where those training materials are maintained. This provides flexibility, while still providing a record of what training was actually given to each employee.

EPA's proposed regulatory language itself simply requires that:

"( d) The owner or operator must maintain at the facility records documenting the training or job experience required under paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) of this section that has been given to and completed by facility personnel." [ 67 FR 2527]

This language appropriately leaves the specific content and format of records to the discretion of the regulated person. It does not appear to limit the required records only personnel names and training dates.

Lion believes the proposed regulatory language is reasonable, but requests that the Agency clarify that training records also must include some description of the training provided or a reference to where such description may be found.

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. See previous comment responses.

Document #: 0207 Lion notes that EPA has not addressed the use of computer based or web based training programs to meet the RCRA training requirements. Governmental agencies and companies are increasingly providing training to their employees via these methods, and finding many advantages, including a significant reduction in the overall cost of training as well as vastly increased flexibility regarding training content and timing. Lion requests that EPA clarify that these training delivery methods may be used to provide the training required by 40 CFR 264/ 265.16.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0208 Training  264/ 5.16, 262.34( d)( 5)( iii) FDEP generally agrees that the personnel training requirements have too much overlap with OSHA training requirements, except that OSHA does not cover state and municipal employees. The proposed 264./ 16( a)( 3)( ii) should delete the words " required" and " as applicable." Language should be adopted that requires the training at RCRA facilities not regulated under OSHA, especially as 262.34 generator standards reference 265.16 requirements.  162 FDEP suggests that EPA reference DOT Hazmat 49 CFR 172 Subpart H and OSHA Hazcom 29 CFR 1910.1200. The preamble to the satellite accumulation regulation discussed the applicability of 265.16 to employees at generator facilities who only managed H in satellite containers. At that time, EPA stated that Hazcom ( not Hazwoper) was expected to provide sufficient training for management of HW in satellite containers. Full 265.16 compliance for these employees was not required. Even though MSDSs are notorious for containing the statement " dispose of in accordance with all federal state and local regulations," even when the spent or discarded unused substance is known to be a hazardous waste.

Response: The reader is referred to the 264.16( a)( 3) of this document.

Document #: 0212 Sierra Club EPA's proposals for RCRA sections 264.16 and 265.16 will reduce training requirements for hazardous workers. EPA's proposal fails to address the overall question of jurisdiction between EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (" OSHA"). OSHA does not and cannot regulate protection of the environment. OSHA only regulates the protection of worker health and safety. OSHA cannot regulate ground water contamination, shut down of operations or waste feed operations or training for ALL workers in this area. EPA can. OSHA can only regulate it if it effects workers health which in some cases it will not. EPA should keep those few tools that the agency has and that OSHA does not and cannot have.

OSHA's emphasis is clearly working conditions and it it unlikely that OSHA can effectively regulate issues related to the environment. The net effect of this change iwll be to decrease training of workers for the purpose of protecting the environment at the point of release; at the very point where workers can best prevent and avoid any damage to health and the environment.

Further, many companies do not train their workers to engage in chemical emergency response. Instead they have evacuation plans; therefore the provisions of 1910.120( q) on training emergency response workers largely do not apply. In contrast, EPA's requirements at 264.16, Personal Training, state clearly that at a minimum the training program must be designed for all locations, including those companies that do NOT implement 1910.120( q) and that instead plan to evacuate all personnel.

EPA's " Crosswalk between OSHA and RCRA's Training Requirements" admits that sections ( a)( 3)( i) and ( ii) are " more detailed than OSHA requirements". It incorrectly states that OSHA's " requirements is generally the same as RCRA" for points ( a)( 3)( v) an ( vi). It contains further inappropriate comparisons. It compares OSHA's requirements for trainer's background with the RCRA's for training of the Training Director, OSHA's requirement for workers not to " endanger themselves or other employees" with RCRA's requirement to " respond effectively".

EPA refers to the OSHA standard on evacuation which all companies have to do in emergencies ( 1910.38). However, OSHA's emergency plan standard basically makes sure that evacuation are done safely for the protection of employees, and is not intended to protect the environment. 1Formerly the United States General Accounting Office.

 163 Lastly, given the lack of effective training to hazardous waste workers, the deletion of recordkeeping requirements in section d( 3) would allow the further weakening the current level of training. The OSHA language on recordkeeping is included in the Non Mandatory Appendix E tot he 1910.120 standard where RCRA's is in the regulation. RCRA also requires the owner to maintain the records where OSHA's guideline" is for the training provider.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. We are not going forward with any changes to 264/ 5.16( d)( 1)( 3). With regard to the OSHA/ RCRA requirements we are revising § § 264.16 and 265.16 to eliminate redundant emergency response training requirements under OSHA and RCRA regulations while still ensuring protectiveness. EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) have both promulgated regulations addressing worker activities and training at hazardous waste management facilities. While EPA's hazardous waste regulations focus on facility operations, worker training, OSHA focuses on worker safety. Both agencies require worker training. 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." 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.  164 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 #: 0215 Bethlehem Steel supports the proposed revisions to the requirements for personnel training at 40 CFR 264.16. However, at large companies such as Bethlehem Steel that employ as many as 5000 people at any one operating facility, training requirements are specified by many separate regulatory programs and are consolidated as much as possible to reduce the hours that employees are away from their job position. Record keeping requirements for each regulatory program therefore become duplicative paper work exercises. For any reference to training requirements that will remain in 264.16, we recommend the following additional changes:

a. The time period to keep training records should be reduced to three years, instead of " until closure of the facility." This change would be consistent with similar changes on the time period for document retention that the agency is proposing.

b. The requirement at 40 CFR 264.16( c) for an " annual review" of each employee's training should be changed to a review " once each calendar year." Especially at a facility where thousands of employees may be subject to the training requirement, it is much simpler to schedule based on the calendar year. For example, all employees could be scheduled for training in October/ November, with a make up session in December for employees who were sick, on leave, or who had other emergencies. Bethlehem has experienced situations  165 where aggressive enforcement staff interpret the " annual review" language in the current regulations in a way that would create a " violation" if an employee is trained in November of one year, is out sick during the next training session, and then takes a make up session the following December.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, however we disagree with the record retention time of three years. The States have persuaded us that this information is important to retain until closure of the facility for those employees who maintain their employment at the facility, if employment is terminated the records need only be retained for three years. With regard to comment b, the Agency appreciates this comment however it is outside the scope of today's rulemaking.

Document #: 0286 We believe the training outline for hazardous waste management which occurs on site is a useful tool for the facility representatives which must ensure adequate training has taken place. Without a thoughtful outline which truly examines the hazardous waste management operations, facility workers may be untrained or be improperly trained. While the initial output may be burdensome, a thorough training outline ( outside of the emergency training) could potentially save time and money for facilities. We recommend that this rule remain unchanged.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0184 We support this change, but only with modification of the proposed language. Personnel training  If the intent of this citation is to ensure employees are trained in RCRA specific facility operations ( inspections, recordkeeping, waste management requirements, waste feed controls) then it should so state. There should be a description of the training that will be provided to meet RCRA requirements that are independent of OSHA requirements.

264.16( a)( 3) Personnel training requirements  training program: Proposed Action: Eliminate the RCRA requirements, and have facilities follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, which are more comprehensive. This is an area of overlap that has been identified in a comprehensive study of federal personnel training requirements by the General Accounting Office.