Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility. ( Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.) 46 Comment: One of the main disadvantages to this rule is the increased potential for casual waste management practices. By eliminating the majority of the permit review process, regulatory interpretation is left up to the facility. This may result in more lax interpretations and thus relaxed management practices. Without the benefit of prior review from the regulating agency, misinterpretation of the regulations on the part of the facility could lead to increased violations. In addition to that, the burden to inspectors is due to increase greatly since they will essentially have to conduct a permit application review when they do their inspection.

Although the time frames for issuing a permit are reduced, almost all of the information that would be required by a traditional permit would still need to be generated and kept at the facility. Sometimes generating this information can be as time consuming as the regulatory review process. Therefore the time required to receive a permit may not be reduced as much as anticipated. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: We disagree that the standardized permit rule will result in more lax waste management practices. We have confidence that the certification and audit requirements imposed on the facility will result in protective waste management practices. Regarding time frames, we believe most time savings will occur during the review of the application by the regulatory authority, and not during the phase of information gathering performed by the permit applicant.

Comment: Many Council members own and operate the types of hazardous waste management units identified in the proposed standardized permit rule. The Council has reviewed, supports, and adopts by reference the comments separately submitted by the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association ( SOCMA). The proposed standardized permit option will accelerate the permit application process for the specified waste management units, and reduce the administrative burden for the permit on the part of the permittee. ( American Chemistry Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0067)

Response: We appreciate ACC's comments.

4. Who would be Eligible for a Standardized Permit? ( I. C. 4)

Comment: p. 52197, col. 1   The preamble states that once a standardized permit rule is promulgated, a facility owner or operator is not required to apply for a standardized permit, even though the facility is eligible for one.

DOE supports allowing a facility, at its own discretion, to seek an individual permit or a standardized permit for eligible on site storage and treatment activities. The Department believes that facilities should be given as much flexibility as possible in structuring how their activities are 47 permitted. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: We agree that a facility should be given flexibility as to whether or not they wish to apply for a standardized permit. The final rule will allow for facilities to have eligible units permitted under a standardized permit, while at the same time have other units under an individual permit.

Comment: ELIGIBILITY FOR A RCRA STANDARDIZED PERMIT. The regulatory agency would not make a determination whether or not a facility is eligible for a RCRA Standardized Permit until after the permit application was received. " We will inform you of your eligibility when we make a decision on your permit". California law requires pre application meetings with a permit applicant. During these meetings, basic information is exchanged, a project description is submitted, and many issues are resolved. By the time an application is formally developed, the applicant is knowledgeable about the permit process and information needs. The application DTSC receives is thereby of higher quality, saving DTSC and the applicant time and money. An individual application may be denied if it is significantly inadequate, and questions cannot be resolved, or the applicant has a history of significant compliance problems, but that is different from a basic eligibility for the permit tier. In addition, California law requires either a non refundable activity fee or a cost reimbursement contract be in place before any permit application review begins. It does not appear appropriate to allow an applicant to submit an application, incurring major expenses, and then deny eligibility for that permit tier. In addition, the regulatory agency will have spent valuable staff time reviewing the application. It would be far more helpful to lay out RCRA Standardized Permit eligibility criteria in more detail, so that a prospective proponent can clearly determine eligibility for the type of permit. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: We decided that making a decision on eligibility earlier in the process is not necessary and may complicate the permitting process. Of course states can have different permit review and issuance processes. While we recognize that preapplication meetings are helpful in the permitting process, we did not mandate that in the rule.

5. What are the Proposed Steps for Obtaining a Standardized Permit? ( I. D. 2)

Comment: The rule uses the terms " draft permit decision" and " draft permit" inconsistently and is very confusing. For example, Section I. D. 2. states that " Within 120 days of receiving the Notice of Intent and accompanying information, the... regulatory agency would need to make a preliminary decision to either grant or deny... coverage under the standardized permit." The text goes on to say that " If the Director anticipates granting coverage, he or she would prepare a draft standardized permit." In addition, Table 2, Permitting Process Comparison, indicates that for a 48 proposed standardized permit, a " draft permit decision" must be made within 120 days of submission of the Notice of Intent, etc., and that the preparation of the draft permit will take place following the declaration of the " draft permit decision". Section IV. A. 3., Preparing Your Draft Permit Decision in 120 Days, also clearly states "... you... would need to make a draft permit decision within 120 days of receiving a Notice of Intent... from the facility owner or operator." However, the next sentence states that " The proposed 120 day time frame for issuing the draft permit is a new concept...". This is very confusing and inconsistent with what has been previously presented. It is unclear exactly what EPA is proposing. Should EPA be proposing that a draft RCRA permit will be issued within 120 days from receipt of the Notice of Intent, then the proposal is unreasonable because 120 days may not be a sufficient amount of time to review information, determine eligibility, and establish any necessary supplemental provisions. It is also unclear what is meant by " issuance" of the permit. In addition, an extension period should be allowed to address any minor concerns the agency might have with the application. Instead of a flat 90 days, perhaps up to 120 days could be granted, depending on the gravity of the concerns, etc. ( Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, RCRA 2001 0029 0072)

Response: The final rule requires issuance of a draft permit within 120 days of the submission of the Notice of Intent, with an available 30 day extension. The final rule does not place any time constraints on how long it takes to issue the final permit. The Agency believes that, in general, 120 days provides sufficient time to issue a draft permit, but is also allowing for a 30 day extension for case by case situations.

6. Eligibility of facilities that manage through on site storage and treatment units as well as through other types of waste management units ( I. E. 3. a)

Comment: p. 52198, col. 3   EPA requests comment on whether a facility that manages some of its hazardous waste in on site storage and treatment units and some of its hazardous waste in other types of waste management units should be eligible for a standardized permit for the on site storage and treatment activities.

DOE supports allowing a facility, at its own discretion, to seek an individual permit for some activities while seeking a separate standardized permit for eligible on site storage and treatment activities. The Department agrees that, in certain circumstances, it may be advantageous for a facility to separate the permitting of storage and treatment activities eligible for a standardized permit from the permitting of other activities that require an individual permit. In addition, DOE believes facilities should be given as much flexibility as possible in structuring how their activities are permitted. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Comment: ADEQ generally agrees with the base concept of issuing standardized permits for certain hazardous waste facility owner/ operators managing hazardous waste in containers, tanks, 49 and containment buildings. We support the approach which allows standardized permits for some units and individual permits for others. ( Joe Hoover, Manager, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0053)

Comment: EPA requests comment on whether a facility that manages some of its hazardous waste in qualified on site storage and treatment units ( e. g., a tank or container) and some of its hazardous waste in other types of waste management units ( e. g., a thermal unit) should be eligible for a standardized permit for the qualified on site storage and treatment activities. Id. at 52198. Such a " split" facility should be eligible for a standardized permit for its qualified units so that it might be able to minimize its RCRA permitting requirements.

As EPA explains, "[ I] t may be resource intensive for a facility with multiple types of units to choose to go through the RCRA permitting process several times," and therefore, facilities may see an advantage in obtaining a standardized permit for only a portion of their operations. Id. USWAG agrees that a facility that manages some of its hazardous waste in qualified storage and treatment units should be eligible for a standardized permit for those units. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Comment: The goal of the standardized permit is to expedite and simplify the permit process. If there are units which can benefit from the advantages offered by a standardized permit, they should be allowed to use it regardless of whether or not they also need an individual permit for other types of management activities that do not qualify for a standardized permit. The proposed regulations enable the regulator to make a site specific determination as to whether to require an individual permit even if the facility meets the eligibility criteria for a standardized permit. This should be adequate to ensure that the standardized permit will only be used when appropriate.

Recommendation. Do not restrict use of the standardized permit option based on whether or not a facility needs an individual permit for other activities. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Comment: Onyx supports the proposal in that a facility is able to obtain both an individual permit in addition to a standardized permit. Although thermal treatment and land disposal operations are not eligible for a standardized permit, the facility should be allowed to obtain a standardized permit for the other waste management operations occurring on site. Facilities may find it initially burdensome to apply for and obtain a standardized permit for those existing waste management activities that are currently covered by an individual permit. However, Onyx believes that the overall benefits of the standardized permit will be sufficient reason for a facility to pursue the permitting change. ( Thomas M. Baker, Director, Environmental and Transportation, Onyx Environmental Services, RCRA 2001 0029 0058)

Comment: Safety Kleen agrees with EPA that a facility should be eligible for a standardized permit for certain units even if other units on site do not qualify. If a facility manages a drum 50 storage area and a separate disposal unit, the storage facility should be eligible under the standardized permit proposal. This would allow both the permitting agency and the facility to take advantage of the reduced administrative requirements for a portion of the facility. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

Comment: We feel that although in some cases it may not benefit a facility to obtain both an independent permit and a standardized permit, it should be an option available for qualifying hazardous waste management units. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: We agree with commenters that facility should be given flexibility as to whether or not they wish to apply for a standardized permit. The final rule will allow for facilities to have eligible units permitted under a standardized permit, while at the same time have other TSD units under an individual permit.

In addition, while having two permits at one facility may seem somewhat burdensome, we did not want to exclude facilities having both eligible ineligible units. The discretion for whether or not a facility is eligible for the standardized permit lies with the Director. If a facility is too complex, the facility may be a better candidate for an individual permit for their storage and treatment operations.

Comment: Applicability to facilities with a disposal or thermal treatment unit. The rule should be changed so that it does not apply to facilities that have a disposal or thermal treatment unit in addition to storage or non thermal treatment in containers, tanks, and containment buildings. The preamble, on page 52199, indicates that a facility could have both a full Part B permit for the disposal/ thermal treatment unit and a standardized permit for the storage and/ or non thermal treatment. Having two permits for a specific site would cause an implementation and compliance enforcement nightmare. Two separate permits would cover many of the facility's plans, procedures and structures. Alternatively, the facility would have to have two waste analysis plans, two inspection plans, two contingency plans, etc. ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Comment: No, the standardized permit should be applicable only to facilities that do not have ineligible units. ( Augusta Posner, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0059)

Comment: No. The utility of the standardized permit would be to reduce the burden of the permitting process on all parties; the states, EPA, the facility, and the public. Issuance of an additional Individual permit or permit by rule would increase the complexity of the administrative process to make it more complex and difficult for the agency to administer. For example, the Waste Analysis Plan ( WAP) would have to be updated and submitted for an individual permit, 51 where ( as currently proposed) it would not have to be reviewed as part of the standardized permitting process. This is likely to create inconsistencies in the WAP maintained at the facility versus the one submitted in the permit application. Also, having two plans ( one for units under the SP and one for units under the Individual Permit ( IP)) could be confusing during inspections. ( Jim Sygo, Chief of the Waste Management Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0060)

Response: We disagree with those who believe a standardized permit should not be available to facilities who also have units not eligible for a standardized permit. A facility should be given flexibility as to whether or not they wish to apply for a standardized permit. The final rule will allow for facilities to have eligible units permitted under a standardized permit, while at the same time have other TSD units under an individual permit. This would extend to thermal treatment operations with associated non thermal storage activities. In such a scenario, for example, a facility could have an incinerator permit and also a standardized permit for the storage of hazardous wastes destined for incineration.

While having two permits at one facility may seem somewhat burdensome, we did not want to exclude facilities having both eligible and ineligible units. The discretion for whether or not a facility is eligible for the standardized permit lies with the Director. If a facility is too complex, the facility may be a better candidate for an individual permit for their storage and treatment operations.

Comment: The standardized permit should apply to storage units, but not to all types of treatment units. 66 FR 52195 col 1. Units used for physical treatment, such as filtration, and certain routine chemical treatment, such as precipitation, are appropriate for a standardized permit. However, units used for other chemical treatment processes may pose significant risks that cannot be adequately addressed in a standardized permit, such as exothermic reactions that produce heat, chemical reactions that pose explosive and reactive hazards, and treatment that creates gaseous releases. These units are not appropriate for coverage by standardized permits. ( Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0071)

Response: We appreciate your comments. While there may be treatment activities conducted in tanks and containers that may be more suited for individual permitting, we believe many treatment and storage activities conducted in these units are suitable for the standardized permit. This would be similar to what treatment activities can be safely conducted under the generator accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 262.34, where our policy generally allows non thermal treatment to be conducted without a permit in accumulation units.

7. Should the standardized permit be applicable to facilities that treat or store waste generated off site? ( I. E. 3. b) 2 U. S. Department of Energy, Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low Level Waste and Mixed Low Level Waste; Amendment of the Record of Decision for the Nevada Test Site ( February 18, 2000), http:// www. em. doe. gov/ em30/ llwrod. html 52 Comment: No, we do not believe that facilities holding a ` standard' permit should be allowed to accept off site waste. As the number of waste streams increases so does the complexity of identification and handling. As a commercial TSD a large portion of our infrastructure is devoted to waste identification, verification analysis to ensure proper disposal. This follows detailed procedures. The ` physical' aspects such as handling, storage or treatment are minor compared to the identification, tracking and documentation aspects of waste handling. It is difficult to conceive how the EPA could allow this kind of activity to be conducted without prior review of appropriate procedures. Additionally, we fail to see how a brief on site compliance inspection can be anywhere near sufficient when handling off site waste.

Because of the identification and testing requirements commercial TSDs functionally serve as a check on generator waste identification. If the procedures employed by a standard permit holder are inadequate this verification would be lacking increasing the possibility of mishandled material.

As a permitted TSD we are subject to bi monthly inspections. There appears to be no set inspection frequency for ` standard' permit compliance inspections. If ` standard' permit holders are allowed to receive off site waste then inspections need to be uniform & consistent or ` standard' permit holders would be conducting exactly the same operations and treatments with significantly less oversight. ( James Butler Regulatory Compliance Officer, Cycle Chem, Inc., RCRA 2001 0029 0031)

Comment: p. 52199, col. 1   The preamble requests comment on whether the applicability of the RCRA standardized permit should be expanded to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off site?

( a) Traditionally, facilities within the DOE complex have managed only mixed wastes generated on site. However, DOE has completed a Record of Decision regarding management of low level mixed wastes, which anticipates consolidation of low level mixed wastes from multiple facilities within the DOE complex at regional facilities for treatment and/ or disposal. 2 Benefits would accrue in cost savings to taxpayers, if facilities where mixed wastes were consolidated could be regulated under a standardized permit when such facilities meet the requisite qualifications. Therefore, DOE encourages EPA to expand the applicability of the RCRA standardized permit to include centralized facilities. DOE notes, however, that a key aspect of the acceptability of this approach would be the proper design and implementation of waste analysis requirements to ensure the compatibility of wastes from multiple off site sources that are stored and treated together. For example, at least one DOE site that receives waste from off site believes it has as much knowledge and confidence in the compatibility of the off site wastes as it has for waste generated on site, because of its approach to waste analysis. The practice at this site 53 is to go to the generator facility, collect samples of the waste to be transferred, lock the containers to prohibit tampering, place a unique ID number on each container, and analyze the samples using its own contract laboratory. Thus, the waste is characterized using the same methods as are used to characterize the facility's on site wastes and administrative controls are applied to ensure that the wastes remain unchanged between sampling and receipt. To verify that acceptable waste analysis requirements are in place at a facility managing waste from off site, DOE suggests that EPA require the facility to submit a waste analysis plan with the Notice of Intent to operate under a standardized permit. Also, considering the sensitivity of receiving wastes from out of state, DOE suggests that a special state approval process could be established to allow the receiving state to deny shipments for specified reasons.

( b) DOE requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that a facility would be eligible for a standardized RCRA permit, even though in the past it received off site waste and currently stores such waste, if the facility does not plan to receive more off site waste in the future. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Comment: The Agency seeks comment on whether EPA should expand applicability of the RCRA standardized permit to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off site ( e. g., facilities that take off site waste from any source as well as the more limited scenario where companies have multiple off site generator locations and would like to centralize management of company generated waste). Id. at 52199. As EPA notes, off site waste generation does not necessarily equate to commercial management   an individual company may have a centralized waste collection facility for hazardous wastes generated at various off site company locations.

USWAG strongly encourages EPA to expand applicability of this rulemaking to company managed centralized collection facilities (" CCFs") used to consolidate wastes from off site company locations. As EPA explains, managing wastes at these facilities should not be more complicated or require greater attention than managing wastes generated on site because "  a company managing only its own waste generated at several locations  should know what specific wastes are generated by the company and be able to manage them properly at a centralized location." Id.

USWAG has long advocated the need for regulatory relief through EPA's hazardous waste manifest initiative, especially as applied to electric utility operations where intra company wastes are often generated in the field during the maintenance and repair of electric utility transmissions and distribution operations. In particular, USWAG has urged EPA to allow for the intra company consolidation of electric and gas utility wastes from remote locations at company owned CCFs without triggering the RCRA permitting program. Similar operations are authorized under New York State's Project XL Rule for electric utilities. 64 Fed. Reg. 37624 ( July 12, 1999). 54 A legal challenge to the New York XL Rule ( Atlantic States Legal Foundation et al. v. EPA, No. 99 1409 ( D. C. Cir.)) has, we understand, delayed EPA's expansion of this concept to the national RCRA program. While USWAG still strongly urges EPA to pursue such an approach at the national level, the RCRA permit streamlining and standardization proposal would provide at least some regulatory relief to utility owned CCFs, pending development of broader relief as explained above. Therefore, we strongly urge EPA to extend this rulemaking to include CCFs that manage wastes from off site company locations. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Comment: Boeing supports EPA's efforts to streamline the RCRA hazardous waste permitting process by establishing " standardized permits" that would allow facilities to obtain, modify and renew permits more easily without lessening the environmental protection provided by the permit. In that regard, EPA has asked whether the applicability of the RCRA standardized permit should be expanded to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off site ( 66 Fed. Reg. 52199).

Boeing urges EPA to allow the use of a standardized permit at a facility which only accepts offsite waste that is generated by its own manufacturing operations. This would allow a company like Boeing with multiple manufacturing locations to centralize its management of hazardous waste at a single location without being denied the tangible benefits of streamlined permitting proposed in the Standardized Permitting Rule. Since the company would only be managing its own waste generated from its own operations, the company could reasonably be expected to know the chemical make up and compatibility of the different incoming waste streams. Moreover, Boeing has procedures in place to assure that offsite waste streams are properly stored and/ or treated at centralized locations.

For example, at one Boeing facility in Puget Sound, the permitted storage unit receives waste from other Boeing manufacturing plants. These off site waste streams are limited to containerized waste from other Boeing facilities. These waste streams are similar to wastes generated at the receiving facility. Similar process and material specifications for the manufacturing processes are used. MSDS information for all products used within Boeing are also available throughout the company.

In addition, these offsite shipments are subject to considerable federal requirements, e. g., 40 CFR 262 Subpart B, 49 CFR, and 40 CFR 264 Subpart F, which assure their proper handling. These requirements include: ° A manifest must accompany the shipment being received that identifies the quantity and type of each waste in the load; ° The manifest must be completely filled out and signed by both the generator and transporter; ° The number of containers of each waste stream ( i. e., profile) as well as the total number of containers ( piece count) in the load must correspond to the information on the manifest; ° The labels must correspond to the information on the manifest; 55 ° The contents of the waste in the containers must correspond to the information on the manifest; ° Each waste stream in the load must be properly identified; ° The necessary land disposal restrictions ( LDR) notification( s) and/ or certification( s) must also accompany the shipment; ° The receiving site must verify that each of the waste streams in the shipment can be properly managed in the centralized storage unit; and ° The containers must be closed and free of all cracks or gaps.

Given a manufacturing facility's familiarity and experience with the waste streams generated at its own additional manufacturing sites, there is no reason to believe that the expansion of standardized permits to facilities that store or treat their own offsite wastes would compromise protection of human health or the environment. Any risks posed to the receiving facility will be readily apparent and can be properly managed. ( Matthew C. Frank, Boeing Company, RCRA 2001 0029 0042)

Comment: API supports extending the standardized permit option to facilities receiving wastes from off site, whether they are captive or commercial facilities, for those units and processes eligible for a standardized permit for on site management. We also support extending eligibility for the standardized permit and proposed permit modification procedures to off site recycling facilities under the same circumstances. We question what environmental gain would be made by denying the use of standardized permits under these circumstances. The proposed rule would allow facilities that have both the simpler types of operations proposed for a standardized permit and the more complex operations that would remain subject to a full permit to operate with both. In light of that proposal, there is simply no environmental benefit, but a potentially substantial cost associated with failing to allow these operations to take advantage of the proposed standardized permit. If thousands of generators do not require permits for such operations, but simply comply with standards published in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), it should be sufficient for any facility managing wastes in these ways to comply with standards incorporated into a site specific standardized permit. In addition to the financial savings and reduced uncertainty to the regulated community made possible by the proposed rule, EPA ' s own interaction costs would be cut significantly. Further, the statutory objective of encouraging recycling would be promoted. ( Cindy Gordon, American Petroleum Institute, RCRA 2001 0029 0050)

Comment: No. ADEQ believes the applicability of standardized permit should not be expanded to include facilities which manage waste generated off site, including recycling facilities. Off site facilities do not have first hand knowledge of the waste they manage and this increases the need for greater management controls. Generators, on the other hand, usually have very specific knowledge of the waste they manage. Moreover, ADEQ believes EPA should explicitly state that facilities that receive hazardous waste from off site and treat that waste in units permitted under an individual permit such that new wastes are generated in the form of treatment residues or recyclable materials, are not eligible to receive standardized permits for units managing the new 56 waste. For example, a facility holding an individual permit and blending hazardous waste received from multiple off site sources to produce a hazardous waste derived fuel should not be eligible to receive a standardized permit for tanks and containers used to store or further treat the blended waste product. Even though such hazardous waste derived fuel could be considered a newly generated waste since it may exhibit very different characteristics than any of the source wastes of which it is derived. In another example, ash which results from the incineration of hazardous waste can be considered a newly generated hazardous waste. These treatment residues, likewise, should not be eligible for management pursuant to a standardized permit. ADEQ believes these new wastes are a derivative of waste generated off site and are not within the scope of this proposed rule making. While we believe our view on this issue is consistent with EPA's intent expressed in the proposed rule making, we think it should be made explicitly clear that standardized permits may not be issued to hazardous waste facility owner/ operator for units which manage hazardous waste generated offsite or which manage newly generated hazardous waste derived from the treatment of hazardous waste generated offsite. ( Joe Hoover, Manager, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0053)

Comment: DoD supports expanding application of the standardized permit to allow waste to be accepted from offsite.

Discussion. EPA proposes to define a standardized permit as a general permit for facilities that generate waste and routinely manage the waste on site in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. However, on page 52199, EPA asks for comment on whether the applicability of the RCRA standardized permit should be expanded to facilities that treat or store waste generated off site. Two scenarios are raised. In one, waste could be accepted from any offsite source. In the other, waste could only be accepted from offsite sources from the same " company". EPA states that concern over whether a facility accepting waste will have " complete knowledge" of the waste is less likely to be a problem if a company is only allowed to manage their own offsite generated waste as opposed to wastes from other entities.

DoD believes that facilities with standardized permits should be allowed to treat or store waste from any source. Regardless of the origin of the waste, sufficient knowledge of the waste must be provided by the generator prior to acceptance. Facilities are also required to have waste analysis plans to ensure wastes are properly characterized. There does not appear to be an advantage to requiring an individual permit just because the source of generation is offsite or because it was not generated by the same " company".

The standardized permit, as opposed to the individual permit, will take much less time and effort to acquire and is expected to cost significantly less. This provides a strong financial incentive for facilities to remain in compliance so they will not jeopardize their standardized permit. We do not believe that facilities will consciously risk losing their standardized permit by accepting waste which is not adequately characterized or for which they are not permitted to manage. Therefore we believe facilities with standardized permits should be allowed to accept waste from offsite. 57 Examples of types of waste DoD would like to accept for storage under a standardized permit include the following: waste generated at other DoD facilities, such as nearby DoD installations or regional Army reserve facilities, that are often brought to a larger facility for centralized storage; waste generated during RCRA corrective action investigations beyond the facility boundary but returned to the facility for storage while awaiting lab analysis; and wastes generated from transportation related accidents.

Recommendation. Allow standardized permits for treatment or storage of waste regardless of whether it is generated on or offsite, and do not restrict acceptance based on whether it was generated by the same " company". The fact that a DoD installation accepts waste from regional DoD facilities should not preclude that installation from the advantages of the standardized permit. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Comment: Do not expand the proposed standard permitting process to facilities that treat or store waste generated off site. Such facilities bringing in wastes that can vary greatly by batch face more unknowns and potential handling problems that could greatly effect human health and the environment. ( Jamie Burroughs of the TSD Section and O. J. Wingfield of Financial Responsibility, Division of Solid Waste Management, Tennessee Department of Environmental and Conservation, RCRA 2001 0029 0057)

Comment: Onyx does not believe that the EPA is justified in limiting the eligibility of a standardized permit to only those facilities that manage waste originating from on site sources ( i. e. non commercial facility). Based on our experience, the source of the wastes, from either on site or from off site, is not the critical factor in whether a facility has adequate " knowledge" of the wastes being managed so that the facility can operate in compliance with the applicable regulations. Instead, Onyx believes the waste analysis plan is the critical element to assure that a facility is managing waste in safe and compliant manner. For example, a commercial facility accepting and managing wastes from numerous off site sources that has a well designed and implemented waste analysis plan could actually have better " knowledge" of the wastes they are managing than a non commercial facility with a poorly designed and implemented waste analysis plan that accepts wastes from only on site generating locations.

In addition, aside from the source of the wastes, all of the other waste management activities at a commercial facility are identical to that of the non commercial facility. There are no additional risks inherent to the management of wastes at a commercial facility in comparison to a non commercial facility. Onyx believes that the agency should manage the permitting processes for both of these types of facilities in the same manner.

Onyx recommends that commercial facilities should be able to obtain a standardized permit. The application process should include a review of the facility's waste analysis plan so that specific permit conditions related to the waste acceptance process can be developed to be included in the " site specific" portion of the standardized permit. As an alternative a " generic" waste analysis 58 plan that is uniform for all facilities could be included in the uniform portion of the standardized permit. Any unique waste acceptance issues ( i. e. management of reactive wastes) that apply to a particular facility could then be included in the site specific portion of the permit. ( Thomas M. Baker, Director, Environmental and Transportation, Onyx Environmental Services, RCRA 2001 0029 0058)

Comment: No. An SP should be proposed as more of a guideline to these facilities because the issues are typically more complex for waste analysis and site specific operating conditions. Since waste characterization is likely not to occur until the waste reaches the facility, the waste may create compatibility issues when a generator or marketer has failed to properly characterize the waste. On site generators are better suited to an SP because they already have intimate knowledge of what constituents are in their waste streams. ( Jim Sygo, Chief of the Waste Management Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0060)

Comment: Safety Kleen agrees with EPA's decision to limit the permit application to management of waste in tanks, containers and containment buildings. Safety Kleen believes that a standardized permit for these types of management units takes into account the relative risks posed by the storage and non thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, containers and containment buildings and agrees with EPA that these units are relatively simple to design and properly construct. We also agree that the streamlined standardized permit, as proposed, would allow adequate interaction and oversight by the regulating agency and streamline some of the administrative permitting process.

Safety Kleen does not agree that this proposal should be limited to generators of on site waste only. All of the reasons stated above can be achieved with both commercial and non commercial facilities and in the case of streamlining the administrative permitting process, this would be greatly increased if the commercial facilities are included. Safety Kleen alone has permitted facilities in 43 different states. In many states including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma to name a few, commercial facilities hold the majority of the RCRA permits. For example, in Massachusetts only 2 out of 16 statewide Part B RCRA permits are held by non commercial facilities.

We do not agree with EPA's comment that commercial facilities do not have " complete knowledge" of waste streams and therefore pose a greater risk to human health and environment as the proposal has eluded. This would seem to indicate that EPA and the state agencies do not have adequate regulatory controls in place to assess the hazards of wastes at commercial facilities. Safety Kleen does not believe that this is true. EPA has incorporated stringent waste analysis requirements and requirements for ignitable, reactive and incompatible wastes in the current RCRA permitting process for treatment, storage and disposal facilities ( see 40 CFR § 264.13 and 264.17). In the standardized permit proposal, EPA is not proposing any substantial changes to these two sections, which indicates that they are currently protective of human health and the environment. If the regulatory basis is the same, it should not matter whether the waste is 59 generated on or off site. Safety Kleen requests that EPA add the following off site facilities section back into the regulations; § § 264.13( a)( 3)( ii); ( a)( 4); ( b)( 5); ( c)( 1); and ( c)( 2).

We believe that the standardized permit proposal is well suited for the hazardous waste management industry. Safety Kleen has over 25 years of day to day waste management experience, and believe that commercial facilities are more familiar with the RCRA permit process through extensive experience and daily interaction with the regulations and the regulatory agencies. Commercial facilities have spent years fine tuning the Part B permit required documents with the assistance of the permitting agencies and understand the complexity and level of detail required in plans such as the contingency plan, waste analysis plan and the training plan. Experienced commercial facilities would be able to maintain these documents on site under the purview of the RCRA regulations in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment as intended in the proposal. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

Comment: In general, facilities that treat or store waste generated off site should not be allowed to get a standardized permit. Most of the facilities which accept off site wastes are commercial facilities that accept many of the waste codes listed in 40 CFR 261. This creates the need for a fairly in depth waste analysis plan which would be hard to review within the 120 day limit. However, some non commercial facilities accept waste from off site locations of the same company for centralized management of their wastes. These types of facilities could be granted a standardized permit on a case by case basis, depending on complexity of their processes and waste streams. ( Jill B. Pafford, Chair of the ASTSWMO Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force, RCRA 2001 0029 0064)

Comment: We feel that the majority of facilities that receive hazardous waste from off site are dealing with large quantities of hazardous waste. The increased risk associated with managing larger volumes of waste along with the additional complexity of waste analysis plans mentioned in the preamble merit a traditional permit review process. Therefore we would not support expansion of the rule to include these facilities. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Comment: Without any doubt, EPA must expand the applicability of the standardized permit to include commercial facilities that store hazardous waste generated off site. The preamble describes a concern that TSD facility operators may not have complete knowledge of the compatibility of different waste streams shipped to their facilities. 66 FR 52199 col 1. This concern is misplaced. If anything, commercial facilities have better knowledge of the wastes they manage for customers than the generators themselves. Commercial facilities are required to have Waste Analysis Plans ( WAPs) that ensure proper characterization of their customers' wastes, and to comply with specific standards on ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes. Before the waste is ever shipped, the customer must complete a waste profile sheet, based on analytical test 60 results and generator knowledge, that accurately describes the waste. When the waste is shipped and arrives at the TSD facility, the operator must conduct additional fingerprint tests to verify that the waste is the same waste described in the profile sheet. Following treatment, the commercial facility must conduct analytical tests to demonstrate compliance with the treatment standards of the LDR program for a full suite of hazardous constituents.

If EPA desires " supporting data" on this point, all the agency needs to do is review the WAPS , waste profile sheets, and reams of analytical test results for managed waste streams at any ETC member company. Certainly, commercial facility operators have sufficient knowledge of the compatibility of the different waste streams to provide for safe storage.

Moreover, commercial facilities are in the business of waste management, and therefore are better prepared and equipped to properly manage their storage facilities. Generators are in the business of manufacturing or services, and waste management is an additional and ancillary activity. Commercial facilities have an advanced level of employee training, safety measures, and standard operating procedures for safe management of storage facilities. A facility operator that can manage a large commercial incinerator, landfill, or other type of treatment/ disposal facility can certainly operate a container storage unit pursuant to a standardized permit. There is no reason to deny commercial facilities the benefits, albeit limited, of the standardized permit.

In addition, commercial facilities are a substantial population for permit writers. Allowing such facilities to use standardized permits for the storage units at their facilities will allow permit writers to focus on the more significant treatment and disposal units. This could have a positive impact on streamlining the overall RCRA permit process.

Likewise, the standardized permit should be extended to off site RCRA permitted recycling facilities. In addition to the reasons given above for all commercial TSD facilities, recycling facilities that can utilize the standardized permit will benefit from reduced regulatory burdens that may help encourage recycling. ( Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0071)

Comment: Section I. C. 2., of the proposed rule, Why Are We Proposing a RCRA Standardized Permit, states that it is the intent that the regulations will be revised to "... streamline the administrative permitting process and shorten the time required to obtain a RCRA permit, without lessening the environmental protection provided by the permit..." as well as "... reduce the amount of time and administrative resources required to maintain a RCRA permit..." for the "... on site storage and non thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and containment buildings." Because, in general, the design, construction and operational parameters for container storage areas, tanks, and containment buildings are relatively simple, we concur that streamlining the permitting process for the storage and/ or non thermal treatment of waste generated on site can be accomplished without diminishing protection of the environment. However, commercial facilities that store/ treat waste from off site sources normally handle a large number and variety of waste streams which, in light of the prospect of incompatibility between the wastes managed, would require a thorough review of not only the waste analysis plan but also the methods of 61 operation, etc. Also, such a review would be difficult in the 120 day time frame proposed. Therefore, commercial facilities should be excluded from the standardized permit authorization. Multiple sources of waste generated by the same company and managed in a consolidated fashion at a treatment/ storage ( T/ S) facility owned and operated by that company ( a captive facility as opposed to a commercial one) should still be eligible for the standardized permit. Captive facilities have greater control over the waste generation process and therefore the characteristics of the waste to be managed at the T/ S facility. ( Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, RCRA 2001 0029 0072)

Comment: Eligible Facilities. SOCMA considers it essential that EPA include in its definition of facilities eligible for standardized permits not only generating facilities, but also facilities that accept wastes from off site as well. The location where the waste is generated should not be a factor in determining eligibility. The key concerns, which SOCMA considers to be well addressed, are the substantive standards and procedures for permit applications and the substantive compliance standards that subsequently govern the storage activity. So long as these concerns are addressed, the issue of whether the waste being managed was originally generated on site or off site is irrelevant.

From the perspective of SOCMA members and other similar industry sectors that rely on the ability to ship wastes to off site facilities, the value of the standardized permit portion of the Proposed Rule is, in fact, heavily contingent on facilities' ability to use it to accept waste from off site. The primary purposes of this reform will be significantly thwarted if it is limited to generating facilities only. SOCMA members generate fluctuating volumes and types of hazardous wastes and foresee significant potential benefits to off site facilities being able to respond more rapidly to the needs of its members.

EPA has also sought comment on whether the RCRA standardized permit proposal should be expanded to include facilities that treat or store waste generated off site as well as facilities that recycle hazardous waste off site. In requesting comment, EPA differentiates between TSD and recycling facilities that accept off site waste generated by the same company from accepting waste generated off site from different companies. The Agency cites varying concerns over whether the TSD or recycling facilities would have knowledge of compatibility of different waste streams. As noted above, SOCMA does not understand the basis for the Agency's raising this concern in this context. The procedures by which a permit are granted do not alter the regulatory regime which governs waste evaluation, classification, labeling and shipping. The same requirements will need to met regardless of whether the shipment is between intercompany facilities or between unrelated third party facilities.

An off site facility accepting waste from another company will receive access to the information needed about the chemical make up of each waste stream to be able to adequately determine compatibility. Companies accepting waste from other unrelated companies always have the option to decide which waste streams they choose to accept and which to refuse, thus limiting the risks in mixing waste streams in those situations as well. SOCMA believes that allowing TSD and 62 recycling facilities to operate under a standardized permit will give them more flexibility in accepting a variety of waste streams, and SOCMA member companies who have varying waste streams would benefit from the stability of being able to use the same TSD or recycling facility for multiple waste streams. ( Jeff Gunnulfsen, Manager, Government Relations, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (" SOCMA"), RCRA 2001 0029 0038)

Response: The final rule extends the scope of facilities eligible for a standardized permit. The final rule will apply to facilities managing wastes generated, and then managed, on site, as proposed. The rule will also apply to facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility. ( Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.)

Commenters noted concerns with wastes generated off site. While some commenters noted that rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring offsite We agree with one commenter who noted that as the number of off site waste streams increases, so does the complexity of identifying and handling them. One commenter noted, that of the off site facilities, captive facilities might be best suited for the standardized permit, because of their familiarity with the wastes managed. Another commenter argued that companies managing their own waste generated from their own operations could reasonably be expected to know the chemical make up and compatibility of the different incoming waste streams. In addition, the commenter noted that off site waste streams are similar to wastes generated at the receiving facility.

We agree with commenters that these facilities should be generally familiar with the waste streams being managed, that either they themselves generate, or facilities owned by the same company generate. Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility.

It should also be noted that the Agency is exploring whether to extend eligibility for the standardized permit to other off site facilities that have demonstrated superior environmental performance; the National Performance Track Program provides an example of the kind of criteria/ facilities that EPA is considering in this 63 context. We believe it may be appropriate to offer this option to such facilities to further encourage superior environmental results. In fact, the Agency believes it important to reward companies that are top environmental performers and therefore, believe that such a change may be appropriate. The Agency anticipates issuing a proposed rulemaking involving Performance Track facilities in the near future.

Comment: Though DoD does not support restricting offsite waste acceptance to waste generated by the same " company", we believe if EPA chooses to do so that " company" should be defined to allow DoD to accept waste from any other DoD entity.

Discussion. EPA seeks comment on whether companies with more than one manufacturing location should be allowed to centralize storage of their waste by allowing wastes to be accepted from offsite under a standardized permit. However, it is not clear how this would apply to large corporations with multiple subsidiaries generating different types of waste streams or to an entity such as the Department of Defense.

DoD supports establishing a permit system which would allow DoD to store waste from any DoD component under a standardized permit. Our Defense Reutilization and Marketing Offices ( DRMOs) provide contracts and services for hazardous waste disposal for all DoD services ( Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.). We believe these facilities should be allowed to take advantage of the standardized permit option to store waste generated by any DoD entity if the need arises.

Recommendation. If acceptance of offsite waste is limited to waste generated within the " company", define company to clearly allow DoD to accept any waste from any other DoD entity. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Comment: We would oppose any effort to extending the standardized permit to off site facilities. These facilities are far more complicated and have a far greater potential for harm to be included in the standardized permit scheme. Our experience has shown that most of these facilities lack the financial strength and technical ability to be entrusted with the responsibility necessary with relaxed overview. This is a business with a low profit margin and an unpredictable cash flow. Several in Georgia have ended up in bankruptcy after years of noncompliance and enforcement. ( Jennifer R. Kaduck, Chief, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0048)

Comment: The WMD does not support this proposal for the reasons stated above for off site treatment and storage facilities. ( Jim Sygo, Chief of the Waste Management Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0060)

Comment: We would not be in favor of expanding the eligibility for standardized permits to off site commercial facilities, whether or not they are recycling facilities, due to the increased complexity of the waste management activities and the higher degree of uncertainty of the composition and compatibility of wastes managed at these facilities. We have found that 64 commercial operations are significantly more prone to fires, explosions and releases and feel that a careful, detailed review of permit application information for these facilities is essential.

However, we would expect that fewer problems would result from expanding the applicability to off site facilities who manage only their own wastes generated at different locations because of the familiarity of the company with the composition and character of it's own wastes. ( John A. Castner, Director of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0069)

Response: The final rule extends the scope of facilities eligible for a standardized permit. The final rule will apply to facilities managing wastes generated and then managed on site, as proposed. The rule will also apply to facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility. The receiving facility must submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, along with documentation showing that both the receiving facility and off site generator are under the same ownership.

With respect to facilities considered as being under the same ownership, in the final preamble we state: " With respect to federal facilities, this rule would allow the transfer of waste between sites under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the same federal agency. For instance, today's rule would, for instance, allow waste from one Department of Defense installation to go to another such installation because the Department has overall responsibility for the waste."

Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility. We are not extending eligibility to all off site facilities.

It should also be noted that the Agency is exploring whether to extend eligibility for the standardized permit to other off site facilities that have demonstrated superior environmental performance; the National Performance Track Program provides an example of the kind of criteria/ facilities that EPA is considering in this context. We believe it may be appropriate to offer this option to such facilities to further encourage superior environmental results. In fact, the Agency believes it important to reward companies that are top environmental performers and therefore, believe that such a change may be appropriate. The Agency anticipates issuing a proposed rulemaking involving Performance Track facilities in the near future.

8. Allow standardized permits at off site recycling facilities? ( I. E. 3. c)

Comment: We suggest that you allow RCRA standardized permits ONLY at RCRA permitted off site hazardous waste recycling facilities. Providing regulatory relief for TSD facilities might 65 encourage additional firms to become hazardous waste TSDs thus defeating a major agency goal of waste minimization. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029)

Comment: EPA should allow RCRA standardized permits for off site hazardous waste recycling facilities, in order to remove disincentives to hazardous waste recycling.

Discussion. DoD supports regulatory efforts that encourage recycling and concur with EPA that standardized permits should be applicable to off site hazardous waste recycling facilities. Particularly since the actual recycling units are not currently regulated, and the permitting issues concentrate on safe storage of recyclable hazardous materials, the standardized permit approach is a good fit with the operations of hazardous waste recycling facilities.

Recommendation. Include hazardous waste recycling facilities in the scope of facilities that may use the standardized permit process. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Comment: EPA requests feedback on its proposal to allow RCRA standardized permits at RCRA permitted off site hazardous waste recycling facilities. Id. at 52199. USWAG supports this proposal because, as the Agency explains, allowing these facilities to utilize a standardized permit will help provide regulatory relief to these facilities and " eliminate regulatory disincentives to safe hazardous waste recycling." Id.

Additionally, recycling facilities, much like the CCFs discussed above, are familiar with the composition of the materials they receive, and there is therefore limited risk in allowing these facilities to take advantage of the standardized permit option. Allowing RCRA permitted recycling facilities to take advantage of RCRA standardized permits should encourage additional owners/ operators to enter the hazardous waste recycling business, without compromising RCRA's mission of protecting human health and the environment. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Comment: Safety Kleen recommends that EPA allow recycling facilities to utilize the full standardized permit process for waste managed prior to recycling for the reasons noted above. This would include the modification process described in Section VI of the proposal and allow both the permitting agencies and the regulated facilities to take advantage of the reduced administrative burden. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

Comment: We feel that the development and use of recycling technologies should be encouraged by regulations. However, caution must be used in granting too much latitude to facilities handling large quantities of hazardous waste. The existence of " sham recycling" operations and quick money making operations necessitate some sort of regulatory review prior to permit issuance. We would be supportive of some mechanism by which recycling facilities could qualify for a 66 standardized permit as long as this mechanism includes a review of the treatment process to ensure that it indeed fits the definition of recycling and thus qualifies for the exemption under 40 CFR 261.6( c)( 1). It would be especially beneficial for universal waste destination facilities who store universal prior to recycling to be able to obtain a standardized permit. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: The final rule extends the scope of facilities eligible for a standardized permit, but not to recycling facilities in general. The final rule will apply to facilities managing wastes generated, and then managed, on site, as proposed. The rule will also apply to facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility. ( Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.)

Commenters noted concerns with wastes generated off site. While some commenters noted that rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring offsite We agree with one commenter who noted that as the number of off site waste streams increases, so does the complexity of identifying and handling them.

Unless recycling facilities are receiving wastes generated by facilities owned by the same owner, they would not be eligible for a standardized permit.

It should also be noted that the Agency is exploring whether to extend eligibility for the standardized permit to other off site facilities that have demonstrated superior environmental performance; the National Performance Track Program provides an example of the kind of criteria/ facilities that EPA is considering in this context. We believe it may be appropriate to offer this option to such facilities to further encourage superior environmental results. In fact, the Agency believes it important to reward companies that are top environmental performers and therefore, believe that such a change may be appropriate. The Agency anticipates issuing a proposed rulemaking involving Performance Track facilities in the near future.

9. Additional ways to reduce burden and cost of permitting while maintaining effectiveness? ( I. E. 3. d) 67 Comment: One thing the agency could do to streamline the permit application process would be to make available electronic, fill out able, Part A and Part B permit applications. This has been suggested to EPA headquarters for several years with no action forthcoming. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029)

Response: We agree with the commenter and are continuing to explore ways to apply electronic permitting approaches to the standardized permit.

Comment: p. 52199, col. 2   The preamble requests comment on whether EPA should look into the feasibility of developing a " fill in the blank" type standard format for Part B information that must be retained on site for each type of unit covered by a standardized permit.

DOE notes that the proposed standardized permitting process does not require the applicant to submit a Part B application to the responsible regulatory agency, as would be required when applying for a conventional RCRA permit. Instead, the detailed information that would otherwise appear in the Part B application would have to be developed and retained on site for review and inspection by the responsible regulatory agency. The specific information that would be retained at each facility subject to a standardized permit is based on the general and specific Part B permit application requirements found in 40 CFR 270.14 through 270.27. Hence, DOE concludes that while the administrative burden of filing the RCRA permit application may be reduced by the provisions discussed in the NPRM, the burden associated with developing the application will remain the same. Since development of the Part B permit application is an appreciable part of the facility burden associated with obtaining an individual RCRA permit, DOE would support methods for reducing this burden, including development of a " fill in the blank" type standard format for Part B information that could be retained on site for each type of unit covered by a standardized permit. Accordingly, DOE urges EPA to look into the feasibility of developing such " fill in the blank" type standard formats and making them available to facilities as guidance. In addition, if EPA decides to develop " fill in the blank" type standard formats, DOE encourages the Agency to consider the following steps to further enhance efficiency and clarity of the standardized permit process:

1. Make the " fill in the blank" type forms available in electronic format and establish an electronic submission process; and 2. Include a section at the end of each form that could be used for non conforming responses to questions on the form. This would allow explanations to be made in special circumstances. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: We agree with DOE and are exploring how to make use of electronic permitting concepts in the standardized permit rule. 68 Comment: The Agency seeks comment on additional opportunities within the framework of the standardized permit to reduce the burden and cost of the permitting process for facilities, while maintaining the protectiveness afforded by the RCRA standardized permit process. Id. at 52199. For example, EPA seeks comment on whether the Agency should evaluate developing a " fill in the blank" type standard format for each type of covered unit that could be used to prepare " Part B" information that would be required to be retained at the facility. Id.

USWAG supports such a standard format and encourages the Agency to develop a " fill in the blank" type format for each type of covered unit. We agree with EPA that offering this format to facilities as guidance will " further reduce the [ RCRA] permitting burden." Id ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Response: We agree with USWAG and are exploring how to make use of electronic permitting concepts in the standardized permit rule. Some of the tools we plan to make available include an electronic model permit, and permit applicant checklists both for information that must be kept on site, and for conducting compliance audits.

Comment: The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association ( CSHEMA) comments on the above rulemaking on behalf of its membership of over 400 colleges and universities nationwide. CSHEMA dedicates itself to fostering and promoting the management of environmental health and safety programs at institutions of higher education. CSHEMA believes that it can achieve this goal, in part, by participating in the development and implementation of regulations affecting colleges and universities. This organizational goal prompts these comments:

As written, the proposed rules appear to largely parallel the current permit writing process.

Many colleges and universities find the current permit process too onerous for an academic environment. While the proposed standard language could increase the efficiency of the permitting process, the * supplemental* component of the standardized permit appears to offset those advantages, depending on its administration. To truly standardize permits, EPA should eliminate the supplemental component of the permitting process. ( Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association ( CSHEMA), RCRA 2001 0029 0045)

Response: The supplemental portion of the permit is designed to present permit conditions to address unique situations that are not addressed in the uniform portion of the permit. It is possible that many permits will be issued either without a supplemental portion, or with only limited supplemental portion of the permit. If we were to eliminate the supplemental portion requirement, then we might lose the ability to directly address unique, site specific issues that impact environmental protection concerns. 69 Comment: ADEQ has proposed a similar process for streamlining the issuance of RCRA permits pursuant to the Joint EPA/ State Agreement To Pursue Regulatory Innovations. A copy of our latest proposal, which is in the preliminary acceptance phase of review by EPA, is attached. The proposal outlines some of our views on reducing the burden and cost to facilities requiring RCRA permits. ( Joe Hoover, Manager, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0053)

Response: We appreciate Arkansas comments and the process they have proposed for streamlining the issuance of RCRA permits.

Comment. Guidance in a simplified " fill in the blank" format would be helpful.

Discussion. EPA requests comment on the idea of developing a " fill in the blank" type standard format for each type of covered unit. DoD supports EPA's efforts to develop a standardized RCRA permit process for routine types of hazardous waste storage or simple treatment. To this end, guidance ( or regulation) that further simplifies and standardizes the format of submissions should be helpful to both the applicant and the regulatory agency reviewing the application.

Recommendation. Develop guidance that standardizes the form and format of standardized permit applications. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Response: We agree with DoD and are continuing to explore how to make use of electronic permitting concepts with standardized permits.

Comment: The current proposal should adequately streamline the permitting process even though it doesn't specifically create a " Part B Permit Application Form". Onyx does not believe that a " fill in the blank" type application form is necessary for each type of covered waste management unit. ( Thomas M. Baker, Director, Environmental and Transportation, Onyx Environmental Services, RCRA 2001 0029 0058)

Response: We are exploring ways to incorporate aspects of electronic permitting into the standardized permit process. We believe a " fill in the blank" type form may be helpful.

Comment: Safety Kleen agrees with EPA that the format of the standardized permit should be uniform. This would enhance not only the completion of the application, but would ensure less error and make the permit easier to review for the permitting agencies. Safety Kleen suggests that EPA work with representatives from the state agencies and the regulated community to draft a 70 template for review and comment. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

Response: We appreciate your comments. We are developing several model documents to assist applicants and regulators. Among these will be model permits and review checklists. We are also looking into how we can use electronic forms with the standardized permit process.

Comment: We feel that any additional cost or burden savings would come at the price of inadequate information being maintained at the facility. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: We appreciate your comments. We believe the nature of the standardized permit is designed for basic storage operations, as opposed to more complex operations requiring individual permits.

10. How would the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Requirements Change? ( II. B)

Comment: p. 52200, cols. 2 & 3   The preamble indicates that EPA is proposing that anyone seeking standardized permits must certify that the information being maintained on site is readily available to both the regulatory agency and the public.

( a) DOE requests that in the preamble to the final rule, EPA clarify that facilities seeking standardized permits are not required to certify that the public can have on site access to information maintained at the facility pursuant to proposed § § 270.290 through 270.315. In accordance with proposed § 270.280( a)( 2), DOE believes that EPA intends to require a facility to certify only that it is making available to the public the same information as is maintained at the facility. DOE would object if EPA intends to mandate that the public be given on site access to information in order for a facility to be granted a standardized permit. As EPA is aware, recent world events have caused Federal agencies to place new restrictions on public access to the certain governmental facilities. Therefore, a requirement that the public be given on site access to information would likely preclude any DOE facility from seeking a standardized permit. DOE facilities currently make permit related information available at a public location, which may be located off site.

( b) DOE also requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that confidential business information and government classified information can be excluded from the information that the facility must certify as being available to the public. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039) 71 Response: According to § 270.30( m) and § 124.33, the information required to be maintained can be kept at the facility or at a public location with acceptable access as determined by the director of the permitting agency.

We agree the confidential business information and government classified information does not need to be shared with the public and can be excluded form the certified material.

Comment: LOSS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Routine ( i. e., Class 1 & Class 2) modifications could be made without prior approval by the regulatory agency. The facility would still be required to notice the regulatory agency and the mailing list, but no public comment period would be available. This provision is significantly less stringent than the current regulations for Class 2 permit modifications. The public loses the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The public and the regulatory agency lose the opportunity to develop or review an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the modification. In addition, Class 3 modifications ( that sometimes do not really indicate major changes at a facility) would be required to go through a full public participation process, with a public meeting, etc. The contrast between the procedural requirements for a Class 2 modification and a Class 3 modification, that, physically or environmentally, may be very similar, does not appear to be appropriate. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: We appreciate DTSC's comments and are modifying the requirements for permit changes from what was presented in the proposal. We envision the final rule to not be " significantly less stringent" then the current regulations. Instead of only having routine and significant, we are finalizing the rule with two categories for routine changes: routine changes and routine changes requiring prior agency approval. " Routine changes" would include class 1 modifications that do not need prior agency approval, while " routine changes requiring approval" would include those class 1 modifications requiring prior agency approval and class 2 modifications.

11. Submit a Notice of Intent to operate under the standardized permit along with appropriate supporting documents ( III. A. 2)

Comment: p. 52201, cols 2 & 3   The preamble describes the supporting documents that the proposed rule would require to be submitted with the Notice of Intent to operate under a standardized permit. Included in the description are: ( 1) the RCRA Part A application; ( 2) the pre application meeting summary; ( 3) the certification that the facility either complies or will comply before permit issuance with the performance and design standards in 40 CFR part 267; and ( 4) the results of a self audit. 72 DOE notes that the list in the preamble section III. A. 2 ( p. 52201) of support documents that the applicant is required to submit with the standardized permit Notice of Intent is incomplete in comparison to the lists given in preamble section IX. B ( pp. 52228  52230) and the proposed regulatory text ( § 270.275; pp. 52265  52266). Specifically, section III. A. 2 omits documentation of compliance with the location standards of 40 CFR 267.18 and 270.14( b)( 11), information allowing the responsible regulatory agency to carry out obligations under other Federal laws required in 40 CFR 270.3, and solid waste management unit information required by 40 CFR 270.14( d). DOE recommends that, if the contents of the preamble section III. A. 2 will be used in the final rule, EPA correct the omissions. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: We agree with DOE and have clarified. what documents need to be included with the notice of intent. Please note that in addition to what was presented in the proposal, we are finalizing the rule to require that all applicants must submit a closure plan with the notice of intent as discussed elsewhere in this response to comments document and the preamble.

Comment: p. 52201, col. 3 and p. 52266, cols. 1& 2   The preamble explains that the Notice of Intent to Operate Under a Standardized Permit must be accompanied by a certification of compliance with 40 CFR Part 267. Alternatively, if the facility is not in compliance, the certification must state that the facility will come into compliance before permit issuance and a description of the aspects of the operations that do no comply must be provided along with a schedule indicating when the facility will achieve compliance. The proposed regulatory text implementing this requirement ( i. e., § 270.285( a)) indicates that the required schedule " must include an enforceable sequence of actions with milestones" ( emphasis added).

DOE does not object to the proposed requirement for a compliance schedule in the event that a facility seeking a standardized RCRA permit does not comply with 40 CFR Part 267 at the time a Notice of Intent is filed. However, the mechanism by which the compliance schedule would become " enforceable," as required by the proposed 40 CFR 270.285( a), is unclear, particularly for interim status facilities. Therefore, as is further explained in Specific Comment IX. C. 3, item 1, DOE suggests that, in the final rule, EPA either delete the word " enforceable" from § 270.285( a) or clarify the provision in proposed § 270.285 ( p. 52266) requiring that the schedule of compliance " include an enforceable sequence of actions with milestones" ( emphasis added). ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: We are finalizing the rule to require that applicants must be in compliance with part 267 requirements when they submit their notice of intent. This will obviate the need for a compliance schedule to be included as part of the permit.

Comment: NOI content. The proposed rule requires that the NOI " explain how the facility meets the standards" in 40 CFR Part 267. The preamble states that a bulleted list is not sufficient 73 information and that the type of detail provided in a Part B application is too much information. However, there is a lot of territory in between these two extremes. In the preamble, EPA states it will provide guidance. However, guidance does not have the force of regulation and there is not any certainty that guidance would be developed in a timely fashion. The rule needs to be revised to make it clear what constitutes a sufficient explanation of how the facility meets the standards in 40 CFR Part 267. ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Response: The preamble provides a discussion on compliance audits and directs permit applicants to the Agency's Web Page for further information on conducting audits. For the purposes of this rulemaking, we have developed compliance audit checklists to assist permit applicants in conducting audits.

Comment: Applicability to new facilities. The preamble to the proposed rule states that the standardized permit can be applied to existing or new facilities. However, the rule is written only for existing facilities. For example, to obtain a permit, the facility must describe how it is currently complying with the 40 CFR Part 267 standards before the standardized permit can be issued. There is no provision for stating how the facility will meet the standards if a permit is issued. In addition, under the proposed rules, the facility must certify that it complies with 40 CFR Part 267 or must put together and fully implement a schedule for coming into compliance before the agency can issue a permit. This is possible only if the facility is not already constructed and operating.

In editing the rule so it also applies to new facilities, EPA needs to clarify how the facility will explain how it " will" comply with the Part 267 standards ( not how it is currently complying with the standards) after the permit is issued and certify that the facility will be operated to comply with the standards ( not that it already complies with the standards). ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Response: In the RCRA permit program, terms of how the facility will comply with the permit once the permit is issued are specified in the permit. This will continue to be the case for standardized permits. In the final rule we will clarify how both existing and new facilities must certify compliance.

Comment: The proposed requirement to submit a " notice of intent" to operate under the standardized permit, along with supporting documentation, provides for an added measure of self regulation/ implementation. This provision has the potential to strain already limited RCRA enforcement resources. The need to confirm the adequacy of internal audits and other compliance type certifications that would be the basis of such a " notice of intent" is largely dependent upon past experience and/ or the working relationship between a regulator and those subject to regulation. As such, changes in ownership or operational philosophy could easily create strained 74 compliance relations under a standard permit, that would not otherwise occur. The proposed rule further enunciates this concern on page 52204 ( paragraph IV. C) in discussion of a facility's demonstrated ability to adhere to regulations. ( Jill B. Pafford, Chair of the ASTSWMO Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force, RCRA 2001 0029 0064)

Response: This rule may place additional burden on enforcement. However, this is one of the resource tradeoffs we accepted in an effort to streamline the permitting process and obtain burden reductions in other parts of the permitting process.

12. How would I Switch from an Individual Permit to a Standardized Permit? ( III. B)

Comment: p. 52201, col. 3   The preamble explains that the proposed rule would allow facilities operating under individual RCRA permits to request that the responsible regulatory agency revoke the individual permit and reissue a standardized permit.

As stated in Specific Comment I. E. 3, item 1, DOE supports allowing a facility, at its own discretion, to seek a conventional RCRA permit for some activities, while seeking a separate standardized permit for eligible on site storage and treatment. Similarly, DOE would support allowing a facility that already holds a conventional RCRA permit to switch only eligible on site storage and treatment units at the facility to a standardized permit, while retaining the conventional RCRA permit for the remaining activities. However, DOE believes that revocation and reissuance of the individual permit should not be required to accomplish this. Rather, the permittee should be allowed to file a Notice of Intent to operate under a standardized permit for the eligible units and allowed to simultaneously request a conforming modification to its individual permit. Since EPA did not address this scenario in the preamble, DOE requests that the final rule clarify whether switching only eligible on site storage and treatment units at the facility to a standardized permit, while retaining an individual permit for the remaining activities, can be accomplished without revocation and reissuance of the individual permit. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: Switching from an individual permit to a standardized permit could involve a few scenarios. In general, and the most likely case, is where a facility's units are all eligible for the standardized permit. In this case you could request the Director of the regulatory agency to revoke your individual permit and issue a standardized permit. For facilities where only some of the units are eligible for a standardized permit, you could request the Director to modify the original permit to no longer include those units, and issue a standardized permit for those units. The revocation and reissuance procedures are in § 124.203, as allowed by § 270.41, and are finalized as proposed.

While we agree that there may be some instances of switching to a standardized permit that may be challenging to States, we also do not want to burden facilities 75 who are eligible for a standardized permit. In any event, States, who for the most part implement the permitting program, will decide at what point they will allow facilities to switch from the individual permit to the standardized permit.

Comment: DoD requests clarification as to whether a partial conversion from an individual permit to a standardized permit is allowable, e. g. where a part of a facility can be converted to a standardized permit in lieu of the entire facility.

Discussion. Discussion on page 52198 implies that EPA intends to allow facilities to apply for both standardized and individual permits when some units are eligible for the standardized permit and other units are not eligible. However, preamble discussion regarding conversion of individual permits to standardized permits and the corresponding proposed regulation in 124.203 state that an individual permit may be revoked and reissued as a standardized permit. This appears to address the permit in its entirety and does not address partial conversion. Thus it is unclear whether conversion must be for the entire permit or whether the conversion can occur for certain eligible units, while other units retain an individual permit, thus leaving the facility to possess both types of permits simultaneously. We believe it was EPA's intent to allow partial conversions as well, but this is not reflected in the text of the rule in 124.203.

Recommendation. DoD requests that EPA add to the regulations a provision that clearly allows part of a facility to convert to a standardized permit, even if certain units are ineligible and must retain permitted status under an individual permit. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Response: As we discuss in the rule preamble, a facility can have some units covered under an individual permit while at the same time have units covered under a standardized permit.

13. Issuing a Standardized Permit ( IV)

Comment: The issuance and maintenance of multiple standardized and non standardized RCRA permits will be an administrative nightmare for states and regions and will be particularly burdensome to states that charge fees for RCRA permit issuance. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029)

Response: Allowing two different RCRA permits at a facility may initially be an increased administrative burden but it should reduce administrative burden in the longer term. We are allowing facilities to have both a standardized permit for eligible units and an individual permit for other TSD units at the facility. 76 Comment: Site specific permit conditions. It is unclear from the rule how the permitting agency would obtain site specific information in sufficient detail to develop permit conditions. ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Response: We have clarified in the preamble that the information would be obtained through site investigation, compliance inspections, and public comments. The preamble also references 270.10( k) & makes clear that the permit authority can request additional information under that provision.

14. Drafting terms and conditions for the supplemental portion ( IV. A. 1)

Comment: p. 52202, col. 1   The preamble indicates that EPA is proposing three steps in the process for preparing a standardized permit after the Agency receives the Notice of Intent to Operate Under a Standardized Permit. The last step, which must occur within 120 days after the agency receives the Notice of Intent, would be for the responsible regulatory agency to inform a facility owner or operator of the agency's tentative decision to grant or deny coverage under the standardized permit.

DOE is concerned that the proposed regulations do not obligate the responsible regulatory agency to inform a facility owner/ operator that his/ her facility is not eligible for a standardized RCRA permit until the draft permit decision is made, which might be as long as 120 days after a Notice of Intent is filed. DOE believes that eligibility for a standardized permit could and should be determined much faster. Accordingly, DOE urges EPA to insert a mechanism into the final rule whereby the responsible regulatory agency would notify a facility within 30 to 60 days after receiving its Notice of Intent, if the facility is ineligible for a standardized permit. Otherwise, facilities could wait several months expecting to operate under a standardized permit only to discover that they are not eligible and must apply for a conventional RCRA permit. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: An earlier notice of eligibility would add and additional step in the permit issuance process. We have decided not to include this additional step.

Comment: p. 52202, cols. 2 & 3   The preamble states that the Director must identify appropriate facility specific conditions, if any, to impose in the supplemental portion of a standardized permit. The preamble further states that EPA is proposing that a facility owner or operator could include a statement with their Notice of Intent specifying additional conditions he/ she would like the responsible regulatory agency to attach to the standardized permit. 77 DOE agrees that a facility owner or operator should be allowed to suggest supplemental conditions that he/ she would like the responsible regulatory agency to attach to the standardized permit. DOE notes, however, that the regulatory text proposed as 40 CFR 270.275 (" What information must I submit to the permitting agency to support my standardized permit application?") ( pp. 52265 52266) does not specifically address whether the seeker of a standardized RCRA permit should include in the Notice of Intent such suggestions. Therefore, DOE suggests that EPA add the following subsection § 270.275( g) to the final rule ( redline font = addition):

§ 270.275 What information must I submit to the permitting agency to support my standardized permit application?

* * * * *

( g) Specifications for supplemental terms and conditions that you, as owner or operator of the facility, would like the Director to include in the supplemental portion of the standardized permit, as described in § 124.204( b)( 1), if any. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Response: While we agree with the general premise of the suggestion for allowing the applicant to make suggestions, we chose not to include the language in the rule to avoid confusion that might lead applicants to feel required to submit suggested language.

Comment: MORE STRINGENT VS MORE DETAILED. The statement was made that " We do not anticipate that more stringent standards would be necessary in most situations". This statement is not clear. A distinction may need to be made between more stringent and more detailed. In California's experience with Standardized Permitting, we found that the wide variety of eligible activities, the complexity of applicable regulations, and the lack of knowledge of many owner/ operators made it essential to provide a detailed permit that specified what could and could not be done. Because of varying facility locations, variations in types of equipment, the wide variety of activities eligible for a Standardized Permit, differing local ordinances, and other variables, each permit had to be tailored to the specific facility. There are major core items, or course, but facility specific special conditions were necessary in order to provide adequate direction to allow the owner/ operator to operate in compliance with the permit and the regulations. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: We will clarify in the preamble that supplemental conditions will generally be more detailed and in some cases more stringent. 78 15. Denying coverage under the standardized permit ( IV. A. 2)

Comment: " SELF IMPLEMENTING". The phrase " the self implementing nature of the proposed requirements in the uniform portion of the standardized permit..." is used. The meaning of " self implementing" in this phrase is unclear. In context, it appears to mean uniform or standardized. In California, the term " self implementing" is used to describe a situation where no facility or case specific approval is required. If, for example, a generator's wastes and activities meet the regulatory criteria for permit by rule, then that generator is automatically eligible for the permit by rule tier. The owner/ operator must notify DTSC or the local agency that he/ she intends to operate under permit by rule, but that notification cannot be denied. This is not the way RCRA Standardized Permit program is being proposed; an applicant can be denied eligibility for a RCRA Standardized permit based on compliance history. This does not qualify as self implementing. Please clarify the intent of this statement . ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: We will clarify in the preamble that self implementing means operating under the uniform or standard conditions  but that interaction with the regulating agency and public is still required.

Comment: Denying or revoking a standardized permit.

a. The proposed rules fail to provide sufficient criteria for denying a permit for the facility ( triggering closure) and/ or requiring a full Part B permit application. The criteria for denying a request for a standardized permit appear to be:

° Applicant's application is for a unit that is disposal; storage or non thermal treatment in other than containers, tanks, and containment buildings; or thermal treatment and/ or the facility accepts hazardous waste from off site facilities; ° Facility has a history of noncompliance at the site; or ° Supplemental conditions to protect human health or the environment " cannot be imposed"

What EPA intends by the comment in the last bullet is unclear. What would cause a situation in which a " condition cannot be imposed"? Also, note that using " history of noncompliance" at the site would be difficult to apply without additional specific criteria. The problem is: how much noncompliance is needed to support a denial.

Additional criteria, similar to those for denying or revoking a decision on a full Part B permit, need to be added to the rule. There are likely to be situations in which the criteria above are met, but the facility's current or proposed operations do not protect human health or the environment. Examples are when the facility. 79 i) Provides an incomplete NOI. Note that the preamble states that incomplete information is a reason to deny the request for a standardized permit. However, the actual rule does not provide procedures or criteria for dealing with an incomplete submittal or for the permitting agency to ask the facility to supplement the submittal. The process for a full Part B permit are clear that refusal or inability to provide a complete and technically adequate application are grounds for denial. The standardized permit rules need the same requirement. ii) Is unable to demonstrate that it complies with the procedures and plans required under the rule. Perhaps the facility certifies that it complies with the standards, but the permitting agency determines via a site visit that the facility fails to meet the standards. iii) Under the rule, the permitting agency must make a draft decision within 120 days of receiving the application and cannot issue a standardized permit until the facility is in compliance with the technical standards. However, proposed 40 CFR Part 267 does not allow failure to be in compliance with the rules within that deadline to be a criterion for denial of the permit request. What happens then? Does the permitting agency have the authority to deny?; iv) Is large and complex, for example, with a wide variety of waste streams, many of which are incompatible; or v) Is in or near a residential area.

b. The rules are also unclear whether the request for a standardized permit can result in a full denial of a hazardous waste management facility permit or only that the permitting agency must offer a full Part B permit process as an alternative.

c. There are no clear criteria for revoking a standardized permit. The rules do provide for requiring the facility to apply for a full " Part B" permit, but the only reason is that the facility is not complying with the standards. This is a vague criterion that is difficult to implement. ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Response: Under the final rule, the Director could tentatively deny a facility coverage under the standardized permit. Reasons for denial could include failure of the facility owner or operator to submit all the information required under § 270.275, or that the facility does not meet the eligibility requirements for a standardized permit ( that is, the facility's activities are outside the scope of the permit). The Director could also deny coverage based on a facility's compliance history ( see § 124.204( b)).

Consideration of compliance history reflects the self implementing nature of the requirements that are being imposed under the uniform portion of the standardized permit. A facility with a demonstrated history of noncompliance may not be a viable candidate for a standardized permit. 80 Beyond these points, we believe it is difficult to develop specific criteria defining " poor" compliance history. We believe that the permitting authority is in the best position to determine whether or not a facility has a compliance history that is so poor as to determine that they should be ineligible for a standardized permit.

Comment: Sec. 124.206  Denying Coverage Under a Standardized Permit We support the idea that the permitting agency may determine that facilities with a history of environmental non compliance are ineligible for a standardized permit. We also feel that the permitting agency should have the flexibility to declare facilities who habitually submit incomplete and/ or deficient permit application information to be ineligible. This is an important consideration because the agency will not be performing a detailed review of the application information that is kept at the facility during the permitting process.

Therefore, we recommend that the following ( or similar) language be added to Section 124.206( a) of the regulations: " Cases where you may determine that a facility is not eligible for the standardized permit include, but are not limited to the following: ( 1) The facility does not meet the criteria in Section 124.201. ( 2) The facility has a demonstrated history of non compliance with regulations or permit conditions. ( 3) The facility has a demonstrated history of submitting incomplete or deficient permit application information." ( John A. Castner, Director of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0069)

Response: The suggested reasons are consistent with our intent to limit the eligibility for the standardized permit to those facilities that can demonstrate, or have demonstrated, an ability to adhere to the regulations, as we discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule ( see 66 FR 52203, Section IV. B. 2). The final rule provides specific eligibility criteria in § 124.204( b).

16. Preparing your draft permit decision in 120 days ( IV. A. 3)

Comment: Within 120 days of receiving the notice of intent and accompanying information, the state or EPA would need to make a preliminary decision to either grant or deny coverage under the standardized permit. One hundred twenty days is not sufficient time for the agency to conduct an RFA at the facility, in order to make an informed decision about the permit. All facilities applying for a RCRA permit must have an RFA. Therefore, this time limitation does not allow for issuance of the HSWA portion of a complete RCRA permit. The result would be for the agency to deny most standardized permit applications unless the facility could show a recent third party RFA or had already been issued a permit and had been through the corrective action process. In 81 the latter case a regular RCRA permit is easy to issue and a Standardized permit is unnecessary. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029)

Comment: While any time limit on departmental review is a significant improvement 120 days seems to be an inordinate amount of time for what is essentially a " cook book" application with little supporting documentation subject to review. By far the more significant review is delegated to field personal during a compliance inspection. A limit of 30/ 60/ 90 days would seem more reasonable. ( James Butler, Regulatory Compliance Officer, Cycle Chem, Inc., RCRA 2001 0029 0031)

Comment: Under the Proposed Rule, a permitting agency would be required to make a draft permit decision within 120 days of receiving a facility's notice of intent and supporting documents. SOCMA agrees with EPA that the goal of simplifying and expediting the permitting process will not be met unless an appropriate time limit is imposed on the permitting agency not only to determine the completeness of an application, but to issue the draft permit as well. SOCMA believes that the 120 day time period proposed by EPA is adequate for the permitting agency to review all materials submitted with a permit application. SOCMA also believes that the 120 day period typically should also be sufficient to allow any unanticipated issues to be addressed. SOCMA recommends that any extensions granted on the review period be kept to an absolute minimum and that the agency requesting the extension be required to submit a justification for the extension in order to preserve the integrity of the standardized permit. Additionally, SOCMA believes that the extension period should be limited to 60 days, as opposed to the 90 day extension proposed by EPA, because it seems disproportionate to make the extension period two thirds as long as the original review period. Otherwise, regulatory agencies will be likely to avail themselves of the extension alternative with sufficient regularity as to defeat the primary purpose of the Proposed Rule. ( Jeff Gunnulfsen, Manager, Government Relations, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (" SOCMA"), RCRA 2001 0029 0038)

Comment: p. 52203, col. 2   The preamble requests comments on three related issues: ( 1) whether 120 days is an appropriate time from for a draft permit decision, or whether a longer or shorter time frame would be more suitable; ( 2) whether a one time extension to the time limit should be allowed, and if so, what an appropriate amount of time would be; and ( 3) whether the 120 day " clock" should be suspended if site specific conditions require a comprehensive site visit and follow up by the permitting authority.

( f) Regarding the length of time to be allowed for the responsible regulatory agency to prepare a draft permit, DOE believes 120 days should be adequate. Notwithstanding, the Department would support allowing an extension of up to 90 days, if such an extension would encourage states to pursue the option of standardized permitting.

We need to provide a response to this 82 ( g) As indicated in Specific Comment IV. A. 1, item 1, DOE is concerned that facilities be notified in a timely manner that they are not eligible for a standardized RCRA permit. Accordingly, DOE urges EPA to insert a mechanism into the final rule whereby the responsible regulatory agency would notify a facility within 30 to 60 days after receiving its Notice of Intent whether the facility is ineligible for a standardized permit. Similarly, in cases of facilities that are eligible for standardized permits, DOE encourages EPA to adopt time limits which will motivate the most efficient processing based on the type of action to be taken. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039)

Comment: The Agency seeks comment on whether 120 days is an appropriate time frame for the permitting agency to make a draft permit decision ( i. e., whether to issue the permit or not.) Id. at 52203. USWAG supports the 120 day time frame as reasonable and appropriate, even though no parallel time frame exists in the current RCRA permitting process. As EPA explains, "[ t] o ensure that the standardized permitting process does, in fact, streamline the administrative process and shorten the time required to obtain the permit, we believe it is appropriate to propose a time limit for preparing standardized permits." Id.

Additionally, USWAG supports a one time extension of 90 days. As EPA explains, there may be times when permitting authorities might need to continue work on permitting issues past the 120 days, and in these circumstances, a 90 day extension would be appropriate.

USWAG also supports suspending the 120 day " clock" if site specific conditions require a comprehensive site visit and follow up by permitting authorities. We understand that under this approach, the permit application review " clock" would restart after the site specific issues were resolved. Id. If the Agency adopts this proposal, however, we urge EPA to clarify in the final rule that the permitting agency must provide a written explanation to a party seeking a standardized permit explaining why a site visit is necessary and what follow up is anticipated, as well as an estimate of how much time these actions will require, so as to offer the permittee an idea of when a draft decision on their standardized permit application will be made. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Comment: Under proposed § 124.202, the Director must make a permit decision in 120 days of receiving the Notice of Intent. Although EPA's desire to set a time period, which makes this rule more attractive from a streamlining standpoint, we are concerned that the corrective action portion could take much longer. The 120 days would likely be long enough for the operating portion of the permit, however the corrective action portion will require the agency to perform a RCRA Facility Assessment and write corrective action conditions into the permit. EPA should consider some method to allow a one time extension or bifurcate these sections in some way in order to expedite the operating permit while allowing the necessary time for corrective action 83 provisions to be established. ( Jennifer R. Kaduck, Chief, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0048)

Comment: The EPA proposes to institute a 120 day time frame for the Agency to make a draft permit decision and whether the Agency should allow a one time extension to the 120 day time frame. Dominion agrees with the proposal to require a 120 day time frame for making a draft permit decision, and that an extension of 30 days would be allowable as part of this process. The Agency has complex issues to address in this process and needs to address these issues in a timely manner. ( Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion, RCRA 2001 0029 0049)

Comment: We do not support a one time extension to processing time if site visits or followup are required. One of the most significant benefits of a standardized permit is EP A's commitment to limit processing time to 120 days. The information submitted to support permits for the simple management units and processes allowed under the Proposed Rule should not require extensive review. If facility inspections or follow up are required based on the information submitted, they should be easy to identify within 60 days of receipt of the information, allowing sufficient time for them to be completed within the 120 day review period. ( Cindy Gordon, American Petroleum Institute, RCRA 2001 0029 0050)

Response: The Agency believes that 120 days for draft permit issuance is adequate, subject to a one time 30 day extension. EPA considered notifying the applicant on their eligibility for the standardized permit apart from doing so during the draft permit decision. We decided that making a decision on eligibility earlier in the process is not necessary and may complicate the permitting process. States could modify these requirements to take into consideration unique program elements.

We decided that the time clock should not be suspended. Suspending the time clock is not necessary since we are going with the one time extension.

Although CA is site specific it could be put on a schedule of compliance. Also the 30 day extension could be used to address corrective action concerns.

The original proposal called for a draft permit decision within 120 days, and requested comment on whether additional time should be allowed. Several commenters agreed with the proposal that 120 days is sufficient time to review the information submitted with the Notice of Intent. In addition, several commenters recommended an extension be available beyond the initial 120 days. Suggested extensions ranged from those who suggested no extension, all the way up to 180 days suggested by one commenter. However, other commenters have argued that the initial 120 day period would not be adequate time to review all the information 84 submitted and conduct the required public comment period. We understand that some states have additional requirements that permit applicants must meet, that may necessitate an extension. However, we believe that most submissions should be reviewable in the 120 day time frame. Furthermore, under the standardized permit rule, the public comment period begins once the draft permit is public noticed, and is not part of the 120 day review period. Nevertheless, there may be situations where additional time is needed, for example, to work out a particular approach to an issue requiring a supplemental condition. For these facilities, and in response to comments, the Agency is providing a onetime extension of 30 days. We believe that the 120 day initial time period, with a one time 30 day extension will provide sufficient time to issue a draft permit ( or permit denial).

Comment: U. S. EPA proposes to have a draft permit decision within 120 days from the time of receiving the Intent of Notice to operate under a Standardized Permit. From the California experience, this processing time frame may not be possible. To have a draft permit decision, an agency needs to have good understanding of not only the proposed operations, but also the environmental impacts from the operations. Under the proposed Standardized Permit scheme, an applicant would not provide detailed information about the technical aspects of operation; an applicant instead would certify that he/ she meets the technical standards. To make sound environmental analyses, for example, an agency in California needs to comply with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and would need a lot of supplemental information to determine if the operations may have environmental impacts, such as upset of risk, air quality, etc. From our experiences, the elapsed time frame of processing a standardized permit is not much less than processing a full permit. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: The Agency believes that 120 days for draft permit issuance is adequate, subject to a one time 30 day extension. The CEQA environmental impacts could be addressed during the 30 day extension. Also the 30 day extension for cause could be used to address corrective action concerns. States could modify these requirements to take into consideration unique program elements.

Comment: EPA's Proposal To Standardized Permits Should Not Include Any Decrease In The Length of Time EPA Has To Review Permits. Doing So Could Weaken Protections For Public Health And Environmental Quality.

RCRA requires detailed permits, and detailed information to complete such permits, because RCRA facilities handle hazardous substances that pose serious threats to public health and environmental quality. At every stage of the process, permit reviewers need time to review these 85 permits to ensure that they adequately protect public health. Therefore, U. S. PIRG objects to the modifications proposed by EPA that would limit the amount of time that permit reviewers have to undertake detailed examinations of these permits.

EPA is already proposing to significantly reduce burden on facilities. For example, the agency is proposing to reduce the overall level of information that facilities have to submit. Additionally, the standardized permits should inure substantial burden reduction benefits to these same facilities. These actions should substantially reduce the time such facilities have to devote to the permit submittal process.

However, the proposal goes one step further by proposing to drastically scale back the amount of time that EPA officials can devote to ensuring that facilities, which handle potentially large volumes of toxic substances in areas where people live and work, operate in a manner that protects public health. RCRA's " cradle to grave" permitting system contemplated a scenario whereby EPA and state officials would undertake extensive reviews of highly detailed permits. With shrinking budgets, EPA may be hard pressed to keep up with permit submittals. This proposal, which already gives facilities much in the way of burden reduction, should not give facilities even more at the expense of EPA's ability to protect public health. ( Grant Cope, Staff Attorney, U. S. Public Interest Research Group, RCRA 2001 0029 0051)

Response: Under the final rule, much of the information gathered by the applicant and kept on site would not necessarily be reviewed, except on a case by case basis. Rather, applicants would self certify compliance with applicable requirements. Facilities, whose operations are overly complex might not be good candidates for a standardized permit, but rather an individual RCRA permit. Facilities, whose waste handling operations are more straightforward would make better candidates for a standardized permit. With this in mind, the Agency believes that 120 days for draft permit issuance is adequate time to reach a draft permit decision.

Comment: No. 120 days is insufficient time to make a draft permit decision if detailed site specific corrective action requirements must be incorporated into the supplemental portion of the permit prior to issuance of the draft permit decision. Corrective action requirements of the scope currently used by the State of Arkansas in RCRA permits generally require a much longer period of time to prepare than 120 days. Corrective action requirements are often the most comprehensive and complicated portion of the RCRA permit. Without streamlining this aspect of the permitting process, ADEQ believes little efficiency will be realized in the overall process of utilizing a standardized permit. In the alternative, ADEQ thinks that it is not necessary to include detailed site specific corrective action requirements in the draft or final permit decision. Statutory requirements for addressing past waste management practices can be accomplished by placing general requirements in the draft and final permit decisions which will establish the obligation of the permittee to conduct corrective action and a mechanism by which the detailed site specific corrective action requirements are developed under a compliance schedule in the 86 permit. ( Joe Hoover, Manager, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0053)

Response: The Agency believes that 120 days is normally an adequate time to issue a draft permit, but are allowing an extension of 30 days to address complex situations.

Comment: Under the proposal, the permitting agency has 120 days from receipt of the notice of intent ( NOI) to make a permit decision.

e. The rule fails to say what happens if there is no permit decision by the " deadline." A number of factors could cause the delay of the decision; for example, the NOI may not provide sufficient information ( e. g., there may be an insufficient description of how the facility meets the regulatory standards). It would be appropriate to allow an extension of the deadline under certain conditions. The rule needs to be clear what happens if the permitting agency does not meet the 120 day " deadline" for issuing a draft permit decision.

f. The 120 day deadline for making a permit decision fails to take into account requirements adopted by some authorized states that must be satisfied before an application can be reviewed and a permit decision made.

( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Comment: Florida's Administrative Procedures Act and waste management statutes provide time limits for permit decisions. Probably other states also have administrative and permitting deadlines. Any deadline put into the standardized permit rule should explicitly accommodate state variations without requiring statutory reforms that make the hazardous waste permitting program inconsistent with generally applicable state provisions. ( Augusta Posner, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0059)

Comment: Safety Kleen comments that there might be extenuating circumstances that could prevent a permitting agency from issuing a draft permit decision in 120 days. We suggest that it would be appropriate to allow a one time 60 day extension upon written notification to the 87 applicant. We also seek clarification on a section of the time line that seems to be missing. In the proposal, the permitting agency would have 120 days to make an initial determination and draft a permit for public review. There does not seem to be any time frame for the agency to issue the final permit after the public comment period has ended. We feel that this oversight weakens the advantages of the standardized permit. Currently, final permits can take years to be issued and in most cases, there is no incentive for the permitting agency to issue the permit. In order to keep the process expedited, Safety Kleen recommends that the proposed rule be modified to include 120 days for the agency to issue a final permit after the public comment period with a one time 60 day extension period if needed. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

Comment: ETC strongly supports the concept of a 120 day period for the Director to make a decision on whether to issue a draft standardized permit. 66 FR 52203. To ensure that the standardized permit process does, in fact, streamline the administrative process and shorten the time required to obtain the permit, a time limit is essential. A period of 120 days after the facility submits its application and supporting materials is a reasonable amount of time for the Director to make the necessary determinations. The Director should also have be able to invoke a one time extension for 60 days in the event additional time is necessary.

We do not support the concept of " suspending" the 120 day clock for any reason. The four months provided by the initial 120 day period and 60 day extension should be more than sufficient to conduct a comprehensive site visit.

Finally, there is a critical missing deadline in the time frame for issuing the standardized permit. While the proposal has a 120 day time period for the Director to issue the draft permit, there is no comparable time period after the close of the public comment process for issuance of the final permit. This could result in inordinate delays that jeopardizes the whole purpose of the standardized permit rule. The ETC strongly recommends that EPA include a 120 day time period after the close of the public comment period for the Director to issue the final standardized permit. ( Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0068)

Comment: Regarding preparation of draft permit decisions in 120 days, EPA requests comments on whether to suspend the 120 day " clock" if site specific conditions require a comprehensive site visit and follow up by the permitting authority. The regulatory agency must have the ability at any point during the 120 day process to suspend the 120 day clock for the purpose of addressing site specific or other unforeseen issues that could otherwise go unaddressed in the shortened time frame provided for under this proposed rule. Such suspension might require agency notification as to the reasons for delay, and could also include scheduling requirements not unlike those provided for at 40 CFR 124.3( g).

A one time extension of the 120 day " clock" for the Agency decision should be allowed. Most of the provisions that specify facility requirements allow for extension requests. The authorized 88 Agency should be allowed this same provision. However, the one time extension should be for another 120 days, not 90 days as proposed in the rule. ( Jill B. Pafford, Chair of the ASTSWMO Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force, RCRA 2001 0029 0064)