We considered allowing ancillary equipment without secondary containment, as described at § § 264.193( f)( 1)( 4) and 265.193( f)( 1)( 4), to be visually inspected weekly instead of daily. Upon further analysis, we now conclude that expanding the rule to include ancillary equipment without secondary containment is not consistent with how reduced inspection frequency for tanks systems have been addressed in this final rule. The proposed rule discussed reducing inspection frequencies for tanks and tank systems because of, among other reasons, the presence of secondary containment. Allowing ancillary equipment, without secondary containment, to change from daily visual inspections to weekly visual inspections would not be consistent with our approach. Therefore, we are including regulatory language in § § 264.194( d) and 265.195( c) to say that ancillary equipment that is not provided with secondary containment, as described in § § 264.193( f)( 1)( 4), must be inspected at least once each operating day.

There are instances, however, where tanks and tanks systems are located within buildings, and where the building itself provides secondary containment. In cases where ancillary equipment is located inside of a building that has been determined to provide secondary containment, and either leak detection systems or workplace practices exist to identify leaks and spills, then the regulatory criteria are met and that ancillary equipment may be inspected weekly. Thus, for example, in a case where ancillary equipment inside a building does not have double walls or leak detection, this ancillary equipment would still be eligible for weekly inspections if the building serves as secondary containment, and if the area is frequented by employees whereby releases will be immediately obvious and the employees, as part of established workplace practices, will promptly identify and remediate leaks and spills.

In cases involving buildings serving as secondary containment, as authorized programs, states necessarily have the ultimate authority to make the determination that secondary containment requirements are met ( taking into account all relevant site specific considerations). The final rule also extends the inspection frequency for up to monthly for performance track facilities for tanks systems. We believe that the performance track program is a sufficient screen for those who will be allowed to petition for reduced inspection frequencies because they must have demonstrated superior environmental performance, have a history of sustained compliance, and be committed to an environmental management system. Since only facilities in the Performance Track who wish to obtain reductions in their self inspection frequencies can apply through their state or region, this will not add a significant amount of extra burden on the states.

264.196 Tank Systems ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of release and submit report:

Document #: 0165 If a tank or secondary containment system has a leak or spill, the operator must take appropriate response actions and, if necessary, repair the tank and clean up any contamination. 40 CFR § 264.196. The regulatory requirements for responses to leaks and spills are appropriately detailed  337 and rigorous. Of course, if there is a release to the environment in a reportable quantity ( RQ), the operator must also make a report to the appropriate authorities pursuant to CERCLA and 40 CFR Part 302. Therefore, we agree that the additional notice requirement in § 264.196( d) is redundant and can be eliminated without compromising protection. Likewise, the report within 30 days to the Regional Administrator is not necessary because the same information on the response actions must be maintained in facility records. Therefore, § 264.196( d) can be deleted.

In addition, a registered professional engineer must certify that the repaired tank system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release before it is returned to service. See § 264.197( f). Since this certification will also be kept with facility records, there is no need for submitting it to the Regional Administrator within 7 days after returning the tank system to use. We agree with EPA's proposal to delete this sentence in § 264.197( f).

Document #: 0216 We strongly disagree with the proposal to eliminate the notification of releases. We believe releases need to be reported quickly to minimize future problems. We have extensive experience with quick notification of releases as well as with facilities that have not notified us promptly. We have found it extremely difficult to piece together the actual situation and whether appropriate actions were taken when it is after the fact.

These lack of notices, in our experience, have resulted in untreated hazardous waste being discharged to surface waters, soils, and groundwater. If we had been notified immediately, we could have intervened to stop these discharges. Your proposal would sanction this type of behavior and would undermine the agency's ability to prevent the magnification of accidental spills. 264.196( d)( 1)( 3) 265.196( d)( 1)( 3)

Response: While we proposed elimination of paragraph ( d) of this section, we are retaining that paragraph, as we agree with commenters that such a notification is important to remain as a part of the public record. With respect to paragraph ( f), in response to comments, we are finalizing the rule to require the certification can be kept on site in the operating log, instead of being submitted to regulatory authorities, and that the certification be made by a qualified professional engineer. The certification must be kept on site through the intended life of the system, as the certification reads. This change will eliminate the submission of duplicative information to the regulatory authority. Section 264.196( d) and 265.196( d) already require that certain notifications be submitted that include descriptions of response actions taken or planned.

Response to Comments: With regard to releases, the Agency agrees with the commenter and is retaining these notices.

Several commenters did not support the proposed change, noting that submission of the certification helps to ensure that the regulatory authority is made aware of any potentially significant repairs that were conducted. Several commenters did not support allowing CHMM to perform the certification, noting that often the experience and professional judgement of an  338 engineer is necessary.

One commenter argued that the elimination of these notices or notations in the operating record will adversely affect oversight. One commenter argued that, while supportive of the proposed change, the certification of major repair must be kept with the facility record, and available for review by regulatory inspectors.

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

264.196( d)( 1) ( 3)  Tank Systems ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of release and submit report: Proposed Action: Eliminate  the existing regulatory requirements for cleanup and certification of the cleanup are adequately protective; this extra notification to the regulatory authorities is unnecessary. This information will be retained in the facility records. Final Action: No change in regulation Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. Certification of clean up ensures that proper procedures where followed to eliminate harm to the environment. It also documents in the regulatory files that the release was properly handled when the public reviews the files. This useful and sensible requirement eliminates much duplication of effort and is simply good engineering practice.

Document #: 0181 Tank Systems Notify EPA of release and submit report. This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

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

Document #: 0212 EPA should retain all requirements related to releases from permitted tanks. Releases imply potential worker, public, or environmental exposure and potential worker involvement in cleanup,  339 etc. EPA must retain all such reporting regarding the fact and remedy of failure to protect human health and the environment.

Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this proposed modification. TSDs are sometimes inspected every other year. If the release notification is not submitted to the Agency, as much as two years could elapse before the Agency could follow up or confirm that adequate cleanup occurred. The Agency and the community is particularly interested in facilities that have continued releases to the environment.

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

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

Document #: 0290 All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc, is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

The notification provides a means of assessing leaks/ releases from tank systems and proposed corrective action for such releases. The notification provides information on the integrity of the tank system. The notification also enables the agency to evaluate trends of the facility ( if frequent releases occur), which may prompt additional actions. If facility records are not well organized, this type of evaluation may not be possible during an inspection without the agency having prior knowledge of the releases. The notification allows the agency the opportunity to conduct a more immediate evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the release to determine whether enforcement is also necessary. The information may be needed for various permitting, compliance and enforcement actions, which may occur as a result of the release. It also documents in the regulatory files that the release was properly handled when the public reviews the files. Otherwise, the public must inquire to the facility regarding documentation.  340 Response to Comments: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments. We are persuaded by the arguements provided by the commenters and are not pursuing these regulatory changes.

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

Document #: 0181 Tank Systems Certification of Completion of Major Repairs. A CHMM does not have the training or knowledge required for this type of tank system repair and replacement for in depth assessment. A CHMM must still be an independent registered professional the proposed change includes a statement that " there is no special reason for this certification to be submitted." Such a statement apparently fails to recognize attempts by the original authors of RCRA to ensure that major repairs are protective. The requirement to provide documentation of such activity should not require any " special reason," it simply makes good sense. Do not make this change. Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this proposal. We see the requirement in the existing regulation as being just about equal to what we require of a new tank system. If the repairs are to replace or modify significant components of the tank system, as described in the existing regulation, then we should receive a notification and certification. Certification submittal should be required to verify adequate tank repair. TSDs are sometimes inspected every other year. The Agency may not be aware of such a tank repair for 1 2 years and would not be able to verify until that time.

An independent registered professional engineer with educational training and practical experience in tank design/ construction, leak detection systems, and installation should be required. In some cases complex tank systems require professional engineer judgement on structural integrity and design. It is important that the tank be design, and installation be overseen by a qualified independent P. E. To ensure that it will not fail after repair.

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

The DEQ specifically opposes allowing major tank repairs to be certified by CHMM's, in addition to registered engineers. Such repairs can affect the structural stability of a tank and/ or its integrity  341 and suitability for use, and such determinations should be reserved to registered engineers. The arguments made in paragraphs VI. F and VI. G also apply here.

Document #: 0241 The proposal would eliminate the requirement to submit to the agency the professional engineer certification of the adequacy of major repairs that have been made to a tank. We are opposed to this modification because we feel that agency knowledge of major repairs to hazardous waste tanks is important to our permitting and enforcement efforts, especially since some of the repaired tanks may not be provided with secondary containment and may need to be inspected more frequently.

Document #: 0286 The reason for having this provision is for repairs that would be so extensive that it would in essence be like installing a new tank system component that must be installed in accordance with 40 CFR 264.192. We agree a submittal is not necessary, but we believe there should be a provision for inclusion of this certification in facility records, i. e., 40 CFR 264.192( f).

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

264.223; 264.253; 264.304 Action Leakage.

Document #: 0241 The proposed rule would eliminate all Agency notifications of exceedances of the action leakage rates in surface impoundments, waste piles and landfills. The justification in the preamble states only that EPA does not believe the regulatory agency needs to be notified in these cases. While we agree it is unnecessary to have three separate submittals to the Agency, we believe that the Agency should be notified. The fact that the unit has had a significant leak may indicate that the permit needs to be revisited to adequately protect human health and the environment. If the facility is in interim status, the Agency must be aware of these situations to perform an adequate review of the permit application or closure plan. In addition, actions taken in response to the leak may result in the need for a permit modification or in a revision to the response action plan. We believe the regulation should be revised to require one notification of the exceedance. The notification should include the information presently required by ( b)( 2), ( 3), ( 4) and ( 5) and be made early enough in the process for the Agency to review, comment on and oversee any actions taken.

264.223( b) Response actions.

Document #: 0218 264.223( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6), The DEQ generally OPPOSES the removal of the notification  342 and reporting language in these subparagraphs, and believes that the regulatory agencies must be notified at any time that a land disposal unit shows evidence of leakage, to allow proper oversight of the steps taken to correct the problem. A failure of the owner/ operator to take the proper steps to control the leak and repair the problem could lead to groundwater contamination if the secondary liner should also leak. As noted previously, such notifications are a public record, and eliminating the requirement for them would deprive the public of access to relevant and important information on the performance and compliance status of a land disposal facility.

The DEQ would support reducing and simplifying the reporting requirements and extending one of the reporting deadlines, however, as follows: A. In paragraph ( b)( 1), extend the notification date to 14 days. B. Delete paragraph ( b)( 2) C. In paragraph ( b)( 6), retain the requirement that the results of the analyses be submitted to the Agency, but allow semiannual reports thereafter, rather than monthly reports. The final report will notify the Agency that the leak is repaired, and the ALRs are not longer being exceeded.

Document #: 0290 All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public i a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

There should be some historical record available to regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for land based regulated units. This information will help to address any preventive or corrective action measures as part of the permitting process. These measures may include groundwater monitoring for the contaminants of concerns and/ or changes to the design/ operating procedures of the surface impoundment to prevent future ALR exceedances.

Response to Comments: We will not require submission of the RAP, but it must be kept on site. The final rule eliminates the requirement to submit to the Regional Administrator, response action plans for surface impoundments, waste piles, and landfills. Response action plans document what a facility must do if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. The plan must still be prepared and retained on site. If the action leakage rate is exceeded, then reports must be submitted, as the current regulations require.

The final rule will retain the notice requirement of 264.223( b)( 1), and will eliminate the submission only of the response action plan. The response action plan must be developed and retained on site. As a reminder, the requirements for existing notifications in § § 265.223, 265.259, and 265.303 are not being changed; only the requirement to submit a response action plan is being eliminated.  343 264.223( b)( 1)  Surface Impoundments ( Permitted)  Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds action leakage rate ( ALR) for any sumps within 7 days: Proposed Action. Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks; action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulation.

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

Document #: 0181 Surface Impoundments Notification of Exceeding ALR. Recently the regulatory agency dealt with a facility that attempted to control pumping rates to get below ALR rather than repair leaks and take proper action. This was even with notification. Without notification this may have led to a major release to the environment.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this notice. This requirement prompts action by the facility and provides a " heads up" to the regulatory agency for prioritization of inspections and resources. We recommend amending 264.223( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.223 Response actions.

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

Response to Comments: Upon re evaluation, the Agency agrees with the commenters and will not be pursuing this regulatory change in the final rule.

264.223( b)( 1), ( b)( 2)&( b)( 6)

Document #: 0211 The proposed regulations would eliminate the 7 day notification for exceeding the action leakage rate ( ALR), the 14 day written assessment for that exceedance, and the final report consisting of remedial actions taken and planned due 30 days after the exceedance in surface impoundments. Based on the proposed rules, it appears that there would be no reporting requirements if the ALR  344 is exceeded. While some repetitious and burdensome notification requirements could be eliminated, TNRCC recommends that there be some historical record available to regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for land based regulated units. Such notification could be the final notification which would include all the necessary information and remedial actions taken or planned for the unit.

Document#: 0212 EPA should maintain these information requirements. They provide the agency with timely information and provide data that the agency uses to monitor the facilities' progress. Any leakage from surface impoundments indicates a failure to protect human health and the environment, whether from actual or potential harm. Therefore, the agency should maintain these information requirements.

Response to Comments: Upon re evaluation, the Agency agrees with the commenters and will not be pursuing this regulatory change in the final rule.

264.223( b)( 2)  Surface Impoundments ( Permitted)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulation Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment.

Document #: 0181 Recently the regulatory agency dealt with a facility that attempted to control pumping rates to get below ALR rather than repair leaks and take proper action. This was even with notification. Without notification this may have led to a major release to the environment.

Response to Comments: Upon re evaluation, the Agency agrees with the commenters and will not be pursuing this regulatory change in the final rule.

Document #: 0213 We support the elimination of this assessment report provided the notice requirement of 264.223( b) ( 1) is retained. The regulatory agency can choose to follow up with the facility regarding the notice of exceedance of the action leakage rate.

Response to Comment: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, however upon  345 re evaluation of this proposed change we have decided to retain this regulatory requirement.

264.223( b)( 6) Surface Impoundments ( Permitted)  Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulation Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment.

Document #: 0181 Recently the regulatory agency dealt with a facility that attempted to control pumping rates to get below ALR rather than repair leaks and take proper action. This was even with notification. Without notification this may have led to a major release to the environment.

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting monthly reports of the results of the actions taken and actions planned. However a monthly notice of an ongoing exceedance of the leakage action rate does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the monthly notice requirement of 264.223( b)( 6) by amending 264.223( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.223 Response actions.

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

Response to Comments: Upon re evaluation, the Agency agrees with the commenters and will not be pursuing this regulatory change in the final rule.

264.251( c) Waste Piles ( Permitted): Installation of liners and leachate collection systems after January 29, 1992: Proposed Action: Eliminate  obsolete language  346 Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

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

Document #: 0218 Revise introductory paragraph to remove obsolete language and dates.

Response to Comments: We agree with the commenters that this change is appropriate.

264.253( b)  Waste Piles ( Permitted)  Notify EPA in writing of the exceedance amount of the leakage: Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0290 Elimination of these requirement assumes that self regulation will occur. Once they receive notice of a leakage, the regulatory authorities can then inspect the facility to determine if proper action was taken to guarantee the leakage does not continue. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine the extent of contamination resulting from the leakage. This information is not entered into a database. There are no records kept on how often the public requests this information.

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

Section 264.253( b)( 6) requirements assist the regulatory authority in determining if leakage from the waste pile has been corrected in a timely manner. If a notification is not submitted to the regulatory agency and the agency is not be aware that the ALR is exceeded, proper action may not be taken. The public has a right to know if there have been exceedances or releases. This information is not entered into a database. There are no records kept on how often the public requests this information.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. We have decided to retain this regulatory requirement.  347 264.253( b)( 1) Waste Piles ( Permitted)  Notify EPA in writing of the exceedance amount of the leakage: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulation.

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

Document #: 0181 264.253( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), ( b)( 6); 265.259 ( a) & ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) & ( b)( 6) Waste Piles. This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Document #: 0213 I propose: We do not support the elimination of this notice. This requirement prompts action by the facility and provides a " heads up" to the regulatory agency for prioritization of inspections and resources. We recommend amending 264.253( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.253 Response actions.

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

Document #: 0218 264.253( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), & ( b)( 6), The DEQ generally OPPOSES the removal of the notification and reporting language in these subparagraphs, and believes that the regulatory agencies must be notified at any time that a land disposal unit shows evidence of leakage, to allow proper oversight of the steps taken to correct the problem. A failure of the owner/ operator to take the proper steps to control the leak and repair the problem could lead to groundwater contamination are a public record, and eliminating the requirement for them would deprive the public of access to relevant and important information on the performance and compliance status of a land disposal facility.

The DEQ would support reducing and simplifying the reporting requirements and extending one of  348 the reporting de3adlines, however, as follows: 1. In paragraph ( b)( 1), extend the notification date to 14 days. 2. Delete paragraph ( b)( 2) 3. In paragraph ( b)( 6), retain the requirement that the results of the analyses be submitted to the Agency, but allow semiannual reports thereafter, rather than monthly reports. The final report will notify the Agency that the leak is repaired, and the ALRs are no longer being exceeded.

Response to Comments: Upon re evaluation of this proposed change, the Agency agrees with the commenters that this is an important regulatory requirement that must be maintained.

264.253( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) & ( b)( 6) Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0211 The proposed rules eliminates the reporting requirements for all " releases to the environment" from tank systems. While some repetitious and burdensome notification requirements could be eliminated, TNRCC recommends that there be some historical record available to regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for hazardous waste management units. Such notification could be the final notification which would include necessary information and remedial actions taken or planned for the unit.

Document #: 0212 Similarly, EPA should maintain these information requirements. They provide the agency with timely information and provide data that the agency uses to monitor the facilities' progress.

Response to Comments: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments. We have considered the comments and agree that these requirements should be maintained.

264.253( b)( 2) Waste Piles ( Permitted)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment.  349 Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and has decided to retain this regulatory requirement.

Document #: 0213 We support the elimination of this assessment report provided the notice requirement of 264.253( b)( 1) is retained. The regulatory agency can choose to follow up with the facility regarding the notice of exceedance of the action leakage rate.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

264.253( b)( 6) Waste Piles ( Permitted)  Compile and submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as action is taken to stop leaks, action that is already required by regulation. We do not think regulatory authorities need to be notified in these cases. Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment.

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and has decided to retain this regulatory requirement.

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting monthly reports of the results of the actions taken and actions planned. However, a monthly notice of an ongoing exceedance of the leakage action rate does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the monthly notice requirement of 264.253( b)( 6) by amending 264.253( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.253 Response actions.

* * * * * ( 1) Notify the Regional Administrator in writing of the exceedance within 7 days of the determination and monthly thereafter, as long as the flow rate in the leak detection system exceeds the action leakage rate.  350 Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

264.278  Unsaturated zone monitoring. Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0218 264278( g) and ( h)( 1) and ( h)( 2), Delete the paragraphs noted, and renumber subsequent paragraphs for continuity.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

264.278( g)( 1) Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone: Proposed Action: Eliminate  a duplicative requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice. Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0169 Land Treatment ( Permitted Prepared and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone: Eliminate a duplicative requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted it this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice.

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

Document #: 0290 Eliminating this requirement assumes self compliance. Without notification, the regulatory authority would not know if a permit modification should be submitted by the facility. Notification upon discover allows the regulatory authority to ensure that all other requirements are not met. Notification upon discovery allows the regulatory authority to ensure that all other requirements are met. Notification should be documented in the regulatory files. This information is not entered into a database.

Response to Comments: The Agency is persuaded by the weight of the comments and will not be finalizing this change. The existing requirement will be retained.  351 264.278( g)( 1)\( h)( 1)( h)( 2)  Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment zone: Proposed Action: Eliminate  A duplicative requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice. Final Action: No change to existing regulations Document #: 0131 The notification required in 264.278( g)( 1) allows the regulating authority to be made aware of any statistically significant evidence of contamination in a timely fashion ( seven days). Otherwise, the regulating authority would not be aware of the situation until receiving the monitoring report on in 90 days when a permit modification request is submitted. The notification is important because of statistically significant increase of contamination would indicate a release from the regulated unit. The regulating authority must have the opportunity to evaluate the potential contamination and any potential threat to human health and the environment. If any potential exist for harm to human health or the environment, the regulating entity may need to initiate action as opposed to waiting for the permit modification process. The current modification under 40 CFR 264.278( g)( 1) would be a letter. The Department believes the notification is an important part of oversight and a facility's compliance with this requirement is not burdensome.

EPA proposes to delete 264.278( h)( 1) which requires a seven day notification to the regulating authority when a facility decides to make a demonstration that the contamination is caused by a source other than the regulated unit. EPA also proposes to delete the requirements in 264.278 ( h)( 2) for a facility to submit a written report within 90 days to the regulating authority.

Without 264.278( h)( 1) and ( 2), the regulating authority would only receive notification when an application for a permit modification is submitted if " any appropriate changes" were required or when the monitoring report is submitted. A permit modification may not always be appropriate. For example, when the statistically significant increase is caused by sampling and/ or analytical errors.

A facility could comply with 264.278 ( h)( 1) with a short letter. The Department does not believe submittal of a letter is burdensome. The information currently required in 264.278( h)( 2) should be evaluated by the regulating authority to determine of the conclusions are valid. 264.278 ( h)( 2) provides the requirement that this information be submitted in a timely fashion. The Department does not support the proposed changes to 264.278( h)( 1) and ( 2).

265.52( b) currently allows a hazardous waste contingency plan to be incorporated into some other emergency/ contingency plan. The proposed rule reference the " National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance." Referencing a guidance document as a requirement in the regulations is inappropriate. Referencing the guidance document in a comment field of the proposed regulation would be appropriate.  352 Document #: 0212 264.278( g)( 1) and ( 2)  EPA should retain the notification requirements under this section. Including information on leaks only in a permit modification does not allow EPA or the public to be come aware and monitor a situation as it occurs. The permit modification may take some time to prepare and submit. Therefore, this modification would eliminate public knowledge of leakage in the interim.

Response to Comments: The Agency has re evaluated this proposed change in light of the comments received and has decided to retain the regulatory requirement. We will not be proceeding with this proposed change.

264.278( h)( 1), ( 2) No change to existing regulations Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Prepare and submit notice of intent to make a demonstration that other sources or error led to increases below treatment zone: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since this information will be in the permit modification that has to be submitted if this event happens. The regulatory authorities do not need to be notified twice.

Commenter Unknown: We agree with this proposal.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment, but will be maintaining this regulatory requirement.

264.280( b) Land Treatment ( Permitted)  Certification of closure: Proposed Action: We are taking comment on ( but not proposing in today's rule) whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager is capable of doing this certification. Final Action: We are not proceeding with this change.

The DEO generally SUPPORTS allowing CHMM's to certify closure of land treatment units. As noted elsewhere in this document, all personnel who certify closures should be independent from the owner or operator, and properly trained and experienced.

Response: The Agency upon further review has determined that a CHMM is not technically capable of engineering certifications. The Ageny further believes that because of the licensing oversight of Professional Engineers that requiring the engineer to be independent is not necessary. As such, we are changing the certification requirements to allow a qualified Professional Engineer to make these certifications. The reader is referred to the premable discussion in the Burden Reduction final rule for additional discussion.  353 264.304 Response actions.

Document #: 0165 Response Actions 264.304 EPA recognizes that a landfill must have a response action plan to respond to any leachate flow into a leak detection system sump that exceeds the leakage rate approved by the regulatory authorities. The action leakage rate is set at the design flow rate the leak detection system can remove without the fluid head on the bottom liner exceeding 1 foot, including an adequate margin of safety. The response action plan requires the owner or operator of the landfill to determine the location, size, and cause of any flow into a leak detection system sump that exceeds the approved rate, and take any short term action, such as ceasing waste receipts, and any long term action, such as repairs or controls, to mitigate and stop the leak.

Therefore, we agree that it is not necessary for owners or operators of landfills to notify EPA within 7 days whenever the action leakage rate is exceeded, as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Likewise, we agree that it is not necessary for landfills to submit a written assessment within 14 days of a determination of leakage. For the same reason, we support eliminating the requirement to submit reports each month that the action leakage rate is exceeded. To eliminate these necessary reporting burden, 264.304( b)( 1), ( b)( 6) should be deleted.

Since changing the reporting requirements will require TSD facilities to obtain a permit modification, EPA must also amend 270.42 Appendix 1 to clearly provide that deleting these unnecessary reporting burdens in a Class 1 permit modification. If EPA does not make this corresponding change to the permit rules, the burden reduction will not be realized.

Document #: 0166 Response Action 264.304 We agree that it is not necessary for owners or operators of landfills to notify EPA within 7 days whenever the action leakage rate is exceeded, as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Likewise, we agree that it is not necessary for landfills to submit a written assessment within 14 days of a determination of leakage. For the same reason, we support eliminating the requirement to submit reports each month that the action leakage rate is exceeded. To eliminate these unnecessary reporting burdens, 246.304 ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6) should be deleted.

Document #: 0216 Drip Pad( Permitted & Interim Status)

This proposal would eliminate any notice if an action leakage rate were exceeded within 7 days of a determination. If notification is only preformed pursuant to the procedures in the response action plan, the agency would not know any problem existed for some time. We would rather know there was a problem early on and ensure prompt remedies are being undertaken. It is important for the  354 reviewing agency to evaluate the information provided and make an appropriate determination whether more work is needed. Information relevant to the drip pad activities documents that are approved plan was implemented 264.304( b)( 1) 265.303( b)( 1) 264.304( b)( 2) 265.303( b)( 2) 264.304( b)( 6) 265.303( b)( 6) 264.573( m)( 1)( iv) 265.443( m)( 1)( iv), ( 2) 264.573( m)( 3) 265.443( m)( 3) 265.303( a)

Document #: 0218 264.304( b)( 1), ( b)( 2) and ( b)( 6). The DEQ generally OPPOSES the removal of the notification and reporting language in these subparagraphs, and believes that the regulatory agencies must be notified at any time that a land disposal unit shows evidence of leakage, to allow proper oversight of the steps taken to correct the problem. A failure of the owner/ operator to take the proper steps to control the leak and repair the problem could lead to groundwater contamination if the secondary liner should also leak. As noted previously, such notifications are a public record, and eliminating the requirement for them would deprive the public of access to relevant and important information on the performance and compliance status of a land disposal facility.

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

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed eliminating the need to submit these plans to the Regional Administrator, and also proposed submission of related reports when there is leakage. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the actual Response Action Plan, which documents what the facility must do if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. The plan must still be prepared and retained on site. If the action leakage rate is exceeded, then reports must be submitted, as the current regulations require. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the response action plans, the Agency has found the arguments presented by the commenters arguing that the notifications are important, persuasive and that the discovery of leakage upon the ALR is a serious environmental concern, possibly indicating a breach in the protective liner. Requirements for existing notifications in § § 265.223, 265.259, and 265.303 are not being changed.

264.304( b)/ 265.303( a)&( b)  355 Document #: 0181 264.304( b)( 1) & ( b)( 6) & 265.303 ( a) & ( b)( 2) & ( b)( 6) Land Fills. This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meed the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Response: The Agency proposed eliminating the need to submit these plans to the Regional Administrator, and also proposed submission of related reports when there is leakage. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the actual Response Action Plan, which documents what the facility must do if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. The plan must still be prepared and retained on site. If the action leakage rate is exceeded, then reports must be submitted, as the current regulations require. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the response action plans. Requirements for existing notifications in § § 265.223, 265.259, and 265.303 are not being changed.

264.304( b)( 1)  No change in existing regulations Land Fills ( Permitted)  Notify EPA if action leakage rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan ( a response action plan is still required to be developed.) are followed. Final Action: Promulgate as proposed.

Document #: 0169 Land Fills ( Permitted) Notify EPA it action leakage rate is exceed within 7 days of determination. Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan ( a response action plan is regulatorily required) as followed.

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

Notification should be performed in order for the regulatory authority to insure that steps in the response action plan are followed. The public should be aware of any accedences in the regulatory file.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this notice. This requirement prompts action by the facility and provides a " heads up" to the regulatory agency for prioritization inspections and resources. We recommends amending 264.304 ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Section 264.304 Response Action  356 A. Notify the Regional Administrator in writing of exceeding within 7 days of the determination and monthly thereafter, as long as the flow rate in the leak detection system exceed the action leakage rate.

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

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed eliminating the need to submit these plans to the Regional Administrator, and also proposed submission of related reports when there is leakage. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the actual Response Action Plan, which documents what the facility must do if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. The plan must still be prepared and retained on site. If the action leakage rate is exceeded, then reports must be submitted, as the current regulations require. The final rule will only eliminate the submission of the response action plans. Requirements for existing notifications in § § 265.223, 265.259, and 265.303 are not being changed.

264.304( b)( 1)( 2) and ( 6) Final Action. No change in existing regulation Document #: 0212 EPA should remain the notification information submitted, and public availability requirements for this information, nor solely in the permit modification, as this would keep both the public and the agency in the dark about potential serious contamination. Any leakage from landfills indicates a failure to protect human health and the environment, whether from actual or potential harm. EPA should not condition the ability of the public to obtain timely information about such failures on whether the facility follows procedures in the response action plan.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. EPA will not be eliminating this requirement, we have been persuaded by the commenters that the discovery of leakage above the ALR is a serious environmental concern, possibly indicating a breach in the protective liner and should have the oversight and attention of the regulatory agency.  357 264.304( b)( 2) Land Fills ( Permitted)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Proposed Action. Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Response action plans are required by regulation. Final Action: No change in existing regulation Document #: 0169 Land Fills ( Permitted) Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed Response action plans are required by regulation.

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

Document #: 0213 We support the elimination of this assessment report provided the notice requirement of 264.304( b) ( 1) is retained. The regulatory agency can choose to follow up with the facility regarding the notice of accedence of the action leakage rate.

Response to Commenters: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates both of these comments, however upon re evaluation of this potential change in the regulations, we have determined that this requirement is a necessary one to continue to protect human health and the environment and will be retained.

Document #: 0290 The notification allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine the extent of contamination resulting from the leakage. The notification also allows the regulatory agency the opportunity to evaluate any threats to human health or the environmental from the leakage. All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notification, etc., regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map., etc is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

Response: The Agency is not going forward with this change, we have been persuaded by the commenters that the discovery of leakage above the ALR is a serious environmental concern, possibly indicating a breach in the protective liner and should have the oversight and attention of the regulatory agency. .  358 264.304( b)( 6) Land Fills ( Permitted)  Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the procedures in the response action plan are followed. Response action plans are required by regulation. Final Rule: No change in existing regulation Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document reports. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health of the environment.

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting monthly reports of the results of the actions taken and actions planned. However a monthly notice of an ongoing accedence of the leakage action rate does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the monthly notice requirement of 264.304 ( b) ( 6) by amending 264.304 ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.304 Response Action. ( 1) Notify the Regional Administrator in written of the accedence within 7 days of the determination and monthly thereafter, as long as the flow rate in the leak detection system exceeds the action leakage rate.

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

Response to Comments: The Agency has reviewed the concerns made by all the commenters and has determined that this is an essential regulatory requirement that will be retained.

264.314 264.314 ( a)( 1)( 2) Special requirements for bulk and containerized liquids.  359 Document #: 0166 EPA proposes to replace the convoluted language of 264.314( a)( 1)( 2) with the simple prohibition on the placement of bulk or non containerized liquid waste or waste containing free liquids in landfills. We support this clarification.

EPA also proposes to eliminate obsolete language in 264.314( 1), but unfortunately and typographical error in the Federal Register refers to this subsection as ( c) instead of ( 1) Section 67 Federal Register 2537 Col. 1. We believe that comments can easily identify this error and that the agency's intent to amend 264.314( 1) is clear. We support the propose change.

Document #: 0218 264,314( a), ( a)( 1), ( a)( 2), ( b) and ( f), Removal of obsolete language.

Document #: 0165 EPA proposes to replace the convoluted language of 264.314( a)( b)( 1)( 2) with the simple prohibition on the replacement of bulk or non containerized liquid waste or waste containing fee liquid in landfills. We support this clarification.

EPA also proposes to eliminate obsolete language in 264.314( 1), but unfortunately a typographical error in the Federal Register refers to this subsection as ( e) instead of ( f), Section 67 and Federal Register 2537 Col. 1. We believe that commenters can easily identify this error and that the agency's intend to amend 264.314( 1) is clear. We support the proposed change Document #: 0169 Special Requirements for Bulk and Containerized Liquids: Remove obsolete language. We agree with this proposal Document #: 0213 We support concurs with the proposed elimination of this language.

Response to Comments: We concur with commenters that this change is appropriate.

264.343 Performance standards.

Document #: 0165 The ETC agrees with the proposed change to 24.343 ( a)( 2) to eliminate the requirement to submit a notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020 23, F026 027, since the incinerator is already permitted to burn these wastes, and stringent regulatory standards already govern how the waste must be incinerated.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire  360 paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

Document #: 0166 Subpart O  Incinerators Safety Kleen agrees with the proposed change to 264.343 ( a)( 2) to eliminate the requirement to submit a notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020 23, F026 027, since the incinerator is already to burn these wastes, and stringent regulatory standards already govern how the waste must be incinerated.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

Document #: 0218 Remove last sentence of paragraph, relating to notification of intent to burn dioxin wastes.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

264.343( a)

Document #: 0224 CRWI supports the proposed changes to Subpart O to delete the requirement that a facility notify the regional administrator of an intent to incinerate F020, F022, F023, or F027.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

264.343( a)( 2) Incinerators ( Permitted)  Submit notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since the facility is already permitted to burn this waste, and since there are already regulatory standards governing how the waste is burned.

Preamble Language:  361 We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities to Notify of Their Intent to Burn F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027 Wastes.

We proposed to eliminate the notification of intent to burn hazardous dioxin/ furan wastes listed as F020, F021, F022, F023, F026 and F027. We viewed this as an unnecessary requirement because the facility is already permitted to burn these wastes, and there are already regulatory standards governing how the waste is burned.

Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2) of § 264.343. Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

Document #: 0169 Incinerators ( Permitted)  Submit notification of intent to burn hazardous waste F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since the facility is already permitted to burn this waste, and since there are already regulatory standards governing how the waste is burned.

We agree with this proposal.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

Document #: 0213 We agree with this proposal. In fact we believe that all of 264.343 ( a)( 2) can be eliminated. Technologically, it is now possible to capture dioxin and to eliminate the production of dioxin. Therefore, safe burning of these wastes is comprehensively addressed in current permits and now has much less potential for causing an impact on the environment that in the past.

Response: Commenters generally supported our proposed change. Therefore, we are removing the notification requirement in this final rule. We inadvertently proposed to remove the entire paragraph ( a)( 2). Today we are merely removing the last sentence that referred to the notification of intent to burn listed dioxin/ furan wastes.

264.347( d)

Document #: 0333 Onyx supports EPA's proposal to reduce the record keeping requirement at incinerators to three years instead of for the life of the facility. The data referenced in the Federal Register  continuous monitoring of combustion temperature, waste feed rate, the indicator of combustion gas velocity  362 specified in the facility permit, and other operating parameters indicate that the incinerator is operating property and are often tied to incinerator shut off. These data are necessary to verify proper operation of the incinerator at the time they are collected. The three year record retention period is sufficient to provide the agency the opportunity to review records to assure that the incinerator is operating property and that the wastes are being properly treated. A longer record retention period places an unnecessary burden upon the TSDF.

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

Document #: 0348 Incinerator should keep all their data points always, for the same reason. These facilities are not often inspected, and do not often have stack tests. If there are compliance questions, all the state inspector has to go on for the duration of the violation are the data points on the parametric monitoring for the incinerator. In no case should record retention be reduced if there are outstanding enforcement, non compliance or legal issues pending.

Response: While data from keeping records until closure may be somewhat useful at times, we do not believe that this potential use would offset the effects of lowering of burden for keeping these records for a shorter period of time. Therefore, we are decreasing the retention time for incinerators. We believe that pending enforcement actions are an important consideration. However, we believe that we should change the record retention time despite this point. This is because enforcement actions are addressed under the requirements of 40 CFR 264.74, which states: " The record retention period for all records required under this part is extended automatically during the course of any unresolved enforcement action regarding the facility or as requested by the Administrator."

264.571  Assessment of existing drip pad integrity. 264.571( a), ( b), ( c) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Submit written plan, as built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad: Proposed Action: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, these activities may also be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Final Action: We will not allow CHMM to certify this change only a qualified, Professional Engineer can sign this certification.

Document #: 0218 264.571( a),( b), and ( c), Allowing CHMM's to perform specified certifications on Drip Pads,  363 provided that they are independent of the owner or operator and qualified by training and experience to make the certification in question.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the proposal. The independent PE certification should be retain.

Response to Comments: The Agency will not be proceeding with this change. The reader is referred to the preamble language for today's rule and the 2003 NODA supporting the Burden Reduction rule.

264.573 Design and operating requirements.

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

Response: The Agency is not proceeding with this change.

264.573( a) Design and operating requirements. Drip Pads 264.573 ( a)( 4)( ii), ( g) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Evaluate drip pads: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this evaluation may also be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0218 264.573 ( a)( 4)( 1) and ( g). Allowing CHMM's to perform specified certifications on Dips Pads, provided that they are independent of the owner or operator and qualified by training and experience to make the certification in question.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the proposal. The independent PE certification should be retained.

Response to Comments: The Agency has decided not to proceed with this change, however the Agency in today's rule has modified the requirements that are necessary for the Professinal Engineer. The reader is referred to the discussion in today's Burden Reduction final rule and the text found in the 2003 NODA.  364 264.573( m) Design and operating requirements 264.573( m)( 1)( iv) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Proposed Action. Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i) ( iii) of this part are taken. Information relevant to the happenings at the drip pad will be retained in the facility record. Final Action: We are retaining this requirement.

Document #: 0181 264.573( m)( 1)( iv) & ( m)( 2) & ( m)( 3) & 265.443( m)( 1)( iv), ( 2) & ( 3) Drip Pads. This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting reports of planned actions. However a notice of a possible leak or release does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the notice requirement by amending 264.573( m)( 1)( iv) to read as follows:

Section 264.573  Design and operating requirements. ( iv)  Within 24 hours after discovery of the condition, notify the Regional Administrator in writing of the condition.

Document #: 0218 264.573( m)( 2) and ( 3), Delete these two paragraphs as unnecessary.

Document #: 0169 Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i)( iii) of this part are taken. Information relevant to the happenings at the drip pad will be retained in the facility record.

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

Response to Comments: The States have persuaded us of the importance of these notifications. We are not proceeding with the elimination of these notices in today's rule.  365 264.573( m)( 1)( iv)

All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information. Georgia maintains records of all the notifications and reports, submitted by the regulated entity. These reports and notification are tracked until such time as the regulatory requirements are met. This allows effective oversight of the facility until all issues are resolved.

Information concerning repairs and/ or corrective actions and/ or remedial actions taken by the permitted is evaluated to determine if regulatory requirements are met. In addition, this information in used to identify additional operating and design conditions that will minimize future releases to the environment, or to determine whether the drip pad should be removed from service.

Notification should be made to the regulatory authority to allow to ensure proper response actions are taken, and in a timely manner. Further investigations, may be required to protect human health and the environment. The notification allows the agency the opportunity to conduct a more immediate evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the release to determine whether enforcement is also necessary. The information may be needed for various permitting, compliance and enforcement actions which may occur as a result of the release. The public should be aware of any releases that will be recorded in the regulatory file.

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

Response to Comments: The States have persuaded us of the importance of these notifications. We are not proceeding with the elimination of these notices in today's rule.

264.573( m)( 1)( iv) ( m)( 2) ( m)( 3)

Document #: 0211 The proposed rule will eliminate the requirements for notification to the Regional Administrator concerning cleanup and repairs of drip pads. While some are repetitious and burdensome notification requirements could be eliminated, there should be some historical record available to regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for land based regulated units. Such notification could be the final notification which would include all the necessary  366 information and remedial actions taken or planned for the unit.

Response to Comments: The States have persuaded us of the importance of these notifications. We are not proceeding with the elimination of these notices in today's rule.

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

Document #: 0241 For both drip pad and containment building, the proposal would eliminate the requirements for ( 1) submission of notification of a release and planned repairs to the agency, ( 2) Agency determination of whether the unit may be repaired or must be removed from service and ( 3) submission of professional engineer certification of the completion of the repairs and cleanup. It is important to note that this section of the regulations is not intended to apply to minor reports of drip pads or containment buildings, but is intended to apply only to those situation in which there has been a release of hazardous wastes to the environment. We are opposed to this modification because we feel that Agency knowledge of conditions that have led to a release from a drip pad or containment buildings is important to our permitting and enforcement efforts. In addition, we feel that Agency ( and not owner/ operator) determination of whether the required reports are extensive enough ( or the potential for further releases is high enough) to have the unit removed from service is a necessary function in order to remain protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, we believe that the submission of professional engineer certification that the reports and clean up work were completed according to plan submitted is necessary in order for both the Agency and the owner/ operator to have confidence that the unit may be safely returned to service.

Response to Comments: The States have persuaded us of the importance of these notifications. We are not proceeding with the elimination of these notices in today's rule.

264.573( m)( 2) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  EPA makes determination about removal of pad: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i) ( iii) of this part are undertaken. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record. Final Action: We are not proceeding with this removing this requirement. It will be retained.

Document #: 0169 Eliminate unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( i)( iii) of this part are undertaken. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record.

We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to  367 determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment. The regulatory authority should retain the authority to require removal of the drip pad if necessary. Response actions may not be enough to allow the pad to continue to operate.

Document #: 0213 We support modifying this requirement so EPA has the authority to require the facility remove the drip pads from service. What can be eliminated is the obligation for EPA to make a decision and give notice.

Document 0290 The regulatory authority should retain the right to require removal of the drip pad. Response actions may not be adequate enough to allow the pad to continue to operate.

Response to Comments: We have looked at this requirement in light of the comments and have decided to retain it.

264.573( m)( 2) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  EPA makes determination about removal of pad: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as response actions described in ( m)( 1)( i) ( iii) of this part are undertaken. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record. Final Action: We will not be proceeding with these changes.

Document #: 0286 Removal of this language is acceptable. However, we believe a provision should be added that requires the owner/ operator to have a determination whether to remove any portion of the pad and to certify and retain the record in their file. Additionally, any repairs made should be certified by an appropriate person.

Response to Comments: Upon review of the comments, we have been persuaded to retain this requirement.

264.573( m)( 3) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Notify EPA and certify completion of repairs: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup and repairs described in the regulations of this part are made. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record. Final Action: We will not be proceeding with this change.

Document #: 0169 Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup and repairs described in the regulations of this part are made. Information relevant to the drip pad activities will be retained in the facility record.  368 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment. Further, the public has a right to know if there have been releases. How will they know if facilities are not required to notify? The regulatory authority may need more than three years of information to determine if the pad should be removed.

Document #: 0213 We do not support elimination of this requirement. Certification that the repairs are complete seem prudent and in line with other certification of repairs or new construction.

Document #: 0290 This requirement assists the regulatory authority in determining of leakage from the drip pad has been corrected in a timely manner. The notification also provides the agency with the ability to inspect the repairs to ensure that they are adequate. The notification and certification provides documentation in the facility's file that the repairs and clean up have been rededicated properly. The facility records are required to be kept for only three years. The regulatory authority may need more than three years of information to determine if the pad should be removed. All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc., regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in control repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc., filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

Response to Comments: Upon review of the comments, we have been persuaded to retain this requirement.

264.574( a) Drip Pads ( Permitted)  Inspections: Proposed Action: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, these inspections may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Final Action: We are not proceeding with this change.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the proposal. The independent PE certification should be retained.

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

Response to Comments: The Agency agrees with the commenters and will not be proceeding with this change in the regulation, however we are modifying the requirements for the  369 Professional Engineer certification and will now require a qualified Professional Engineer to make the certification. The reader is referred to the preamble discussion for further information on this change.

264.1036( 1035) Process Vents ( Permitted) Submit semi annual report of control device monitoring events to the Region: Proposed Action: Eliminate need to submit report an unnecessary requirement given the detailed recordkeeping required by 264.1035. The 264.1035 information will be retained on site for regulators to examine. Final Action: We are retaining this requirement.

Document #: 0216 Process Vents ( Permitted) The rulemaking proposes to eliminate the semi annual report of control device monitoring events to the agency with the information to be retained on site. This is acceptable provided a provision is maintained for submittal to be made within fourteen days upon the agency's request. 264.1035 264.1036 Document#: 0165 Subpart AA  Air Emission Standards for Process Vents Semi Annual Report on Control Device Exceedance  The record keeping requirements for facilities subject to the Subpart AA standards are quite extensive. See 264.1035. Among the information that must be maintained in facility records for agency inspection is documentation on control device accedences and the corrective measures taken. Consequently, there is no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information, as currently required by 264.1036. We agree with EPA that 264.1036 can be deleted.

Document#: 0166 Subpart AA  Air Emission Standards for Process Vents Semi Annual Report on Control Device Exceedance  The record keeping requirements for facilities subject to the Subpart AA standards are quite extensive. See 264.1035. Among the information that must be maintained in facility records for agency inspection is documentation on control device accedences and the corrective measures taken. Consequently, there is no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information, as currently required by 264.1036. We agree with EPA that 264.1036 can be deleted.

Document #: 0169 Process Vents ( Permitted) Submit semi annual report of control device monitoring events to the Region. Eliminate need to submit report an unnecessary requirement given the detained record  370 keeping required by 264.1035. The 264.1035 information will be retained on site for regulators to examine.

We disagree with proposed changes. The semi annual report identifies when the control device operates outside of the device's design specifications. By notifying the regulatory agency of problems with the control device, the regulatory agency can determine if action needs to be taken. If this requirement is eliminated, the regulatory agency will not be notified by the facility when there is a problem with control device, and if the problem was corrected. Elimination of this reporting requirement may not compel the facility to conduct timely repairs on the control device if the unit fails to operate within its design specifications.

Document #: 0181 Process Vents  This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meed the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Document #: 0211 The proposed rules will eliminate the reporting requirements of 264.1036 for facilities subject to 40 CAR 264 Subpart AA. The rule proposes that in lieu of reporting, the requirements of 40 CAR 264.1035 would be kept on site by the facility. TNRCC believes that, should this be the case, the regional administrator would not be aware of any emission accedence under Subpart AA at the facility. Also, recurring emission accedence at the facility may not be known to regulators unit a facility is inspected. TNRCC recommends that there also be some historical record available to regulators and the public of emission accedences asa permitted facilities. In addition, this rule change could create an undue administrative burden on the regulators who may require such information for permitting, compliance, or enforcement actions.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of these reports. The facility must submit the report only if there has been a release; otherwise the reports are not necessary. The agency and public are interested in releases from facilities.

Document #: 0218 Delete the requirement for a semi annual report on Subpart AA issues.

Document #: 0290 All reports,. records, correspondence, permit application, notification, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

Georgia maintains records of all the notifications and reports submitted by the permitted. These  371 reports and modifications are tracked unit such time as the regulatory requirements are met. This allows effective oversight of the facility until all issues are resolved. This information is evaluated and used to aid in addressing additional permitting, enforcement, and/ or corrective action issues that arise as a result of control device accedences.

Document #: 0042 Process Vents ( Permitted) Submit semi annual report of control device monitoring events to the Region.

Response to Comments: The Agency is persuaded by the commenters arguing against the deletionof this requirement. The semi annual report identifies when the control device operates outside of the device's design specifications. By notifying the regulatory agency of problems with the control device, the regulatory agency can determine if action needs to be taken. If this requirement is eliminated, the regulatory agency will not be notified by the facility when there is a problem with control device, and if the problem was corrected. Elimination of this reporting requirement may not compel the facility to conduct timely repairs on the control device if the unit fails to operate within its design specifications.

264.1061/ 264.1062/ 265.1061 264.1061/ 264.1062 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since the relevant information will be retained in the facility record. Final Action: We are eliminating the requirement.

Document #: 0216 Equipment Leak ( Permitted & Interim Status  Maine disagrees with the proposal to eliminate the notification to implement an alternative valve standard. We believe some technical review by the agency should be warranted to approve this alternative standard. 264.1061( b)( 1) 264.1062( a)( 2) 265.1061( b)( 1)

Document #: 0165 Alternative Standards for Values 264.1061and 264.1062  0Facilities subject to the Subpart BB standards must ensure that values in gas/ vapor or light liquid service are monitored monthly to detect leaks. See 264.1057. As an alternative standard, the facility can elect to comply with a performance standard in 264.1061 that allows no greater than 2 percent of values to leak. The performance tests and repair obligations are set forth in detain in the regulation. Therefore, we agree that this alternative valve standard should be self implementing, and there is no need for a facility to submit a notification to implement the standard, 264.1061( b)( 1), or to discontinue reliance on this standard, 264.1061( d), since this information is retained in facility records.  372 Likewise, the facility may elect to implement alternative work practices for valves that are specified in 264.1062. There is no need for the facility to submit a notification before implementing these work practices, so 264.1062( a)( 2) should be deleted.

Document #: 0166 Alternative Standards for Values  Facilities subject to the Subpart BB standards must ensure that values in gas/ vapor or light liquid service are monitored monthly to detect leaks, Sec. 264.1057. As an alternative standard, the facility can elect to comply with a performance standard in 264.1061 that allows no greater than 2 percent of values to leak. The performance tests repair obligations are set forth in detail in the regulation. Therefore, we agree that this alternative value standard should be self implementing and there is no need for a facility to submit a notification to implement standards265.1061( b)( 1), or to discontinue reliance on this standard, 264.1061( b), since this information is retained in facility records.

Likewise, the facility may elect to implement alternative work practices for values that are specified in 264.1062. There is no need for the facility to submit a notification before implementing these work practices, so 264.1062( a)( 2) should be deleted.

264.1061, 1026 and 1065 Document #: 0196 Various notification regarding the equipment leaks requirements 264.1061, 1062 & 1065  Vesical supports these changes. We agree that the proposed notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will reside in the facilities records where they can be examined during a compliance enforcement inspection. This reduces the administrative burden on both parties ( i e., regulators and Velsicol).

264.1061( b)( 1)

Document #: 0042 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard.

Document #: 0169 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard; Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since there are standards that must be followed if the regular standards are going to be followed. Relevant information will be retained in the facility record.

We oppose this change. The proposed Notification allows 2% of all valves to continue to leak . The current notification allows the regulatory authority to require that a performance test be conducted and to determine if additional testing should be performed.

Document #: 0213  373 We support elimination of this requirement as long as the facility must document in the operating record that it has chosen to implement the alternative valve standard.

Document #: 0218 264.1061( b)( 1) and ( d), Delete notification requirements, in lieu of facility records.

Document #: 0290 All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

Notification should be required when a facility elects to use alternate standards because without knowledge of the specifications that facilities are using, 40 CAR Part 264. standards may not be effectively administered. In addition, this information may be necessary to address various permitting, compliance and enforcement actions at the facility. The notification allows the regulatory authority to ensure a performance test is conducted and determine if more testing should be performed.

264.1061 ( a)( 1) and ( d)

Document #: 0211 TNRCC believes that facilities need to notify regulators when they elect to use alternate standards. Without knowledge of the specifications that facilities are using, regulatory may not be able to effectively administer 40CFR Part 264 standards. In addition, this information may be required for regulators to address various permitting, compliance and enforcement actions as the facility.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards. In addition, we proposed to eliminate notifications for implementing alternative work practices for valves. We also proposed elimination of the semi annual report with a record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events.

The information in these notifications is already contained in the facility's operating record.

Another commenter argued that the alternative valve standard should be self implementing, and there should be no need to submit a notification to implement the standard, since, since this information is retained in facility records. Similarly, this commenter also believed there was no need to submit alternative work practices for valves specified in 264.1062.

Another commenter believed the notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will be in the facility's records, available for review during inspections. This  374 reduces the administrative burden on both the facility and regulator.

Another commenter said that the record keeping requirements for facilities subject to Subpart BB are extensive, and that facility records would contain documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Therefore, there should be no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information.

264.1061( d)

Document #: 0042 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard.

Document #: 0169 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standards: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since there are standards that must be followed if the regular standards are going to be followed. We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0213 We support elimination of this requirement as long as the facility must document in the operating record that it has chosen to discontinue use of the alternative valve standard.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards. In addition, we proposed to eliminate notifications for implementing alternative work practices for valves. We also proposed elimination of the semi annual report with a record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events.

The information in these notifications is already contained in the facility's operating record.

Another commenter argued that the alternative valve standard should be self implementing, and there should be no need to submit a notification to implement the standard, since, since this information is retained in facility records. Similarly, this commenter also believed there was no need to submit alternative work practices for valves specified in 264.1062.

Another commenter believed the notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will be in the facility's records, available for review during inspections. This reduces the administrative burden on both the facility and regulator.

Another commenter said that the record keeping requirements for facilities subject to Subpart BB are extensive, and that facility records would contain documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Therefore, there should be no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information.  375 264.1062 Document #: 0218 Delete the notification requirement and renumber the subsequent paragraphs.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards. In addition, we proposed to eliminate notifications for implementing alternative work practices for valves. We also proposed elimination of the semi annual report with a record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events.

The information in these notifications is already contained in the facility's operating record.

Another commenter argued that the alternative valve standard should be self implementing, and there should be no need to submit a notification to implement the standard, since, since this information is retained in facility records. Similarly, this commenter also believed there was no need to submit alternative work practices for valves specified in 264.1062.

Another commenter believed the notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will be in the facility's records, available for review during inspections. This reduces the administrative burden on both the facility and regulator.

Another commenter said that the record keeping requirements for facilities subject to Subpart BB are extensive, and that facility records would contain documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Therefore, there should be no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information.

264.1062( a)( 2)

Document #: 0042 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit notification to implement alternative valve standard Document #: 0169 Eliminate  an unnecessary reporting requirement as long as standards are followed. Relevant information will be retained in the facility record for regulators to examine.

As long as the notification was given for 264.1061( b)( 1), we agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0213 We support elimination of this requirement as long as the facility must document in the operating record that it is implementing alternative work practices for valves.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding  376 implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards. In addition, we proposed to eliminate notifications for implementing alternative work practices for valves. We also proposed elimination of the semi annual report with a record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events.

The information in these notifications is already contained in the facility's operating record.

Another commenter argued that the alternative valve standard should be self implementing, and there should be no need to submit a notification to implement the standard, since, since this information is retained in facility records. Similarly, this commenter also believed there was no need to submit alternative work practices for valves specified in 264.1062.

Another commenter believed the notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will be in the facility's records, available for review during inspections. This reduces the administrative burden on both the facility and regulator.

Another commenter said that the record keeping requirements for facilities subject to Subpart BB are extensive, and that facility records would contain documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Therefore, there should be no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information.

The final rule eliminates the notifications for implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards, alternative work practices fo valves, and the requirement for a semi annual report submission. The necessary information related to the report and the notifications is contained in the operating record and available for review during inspection.

264.1063 264.1064 264.1065 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted)  Submit a semi annual report with record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. The 264.1064 recordkeeping requirements will provide adequate information. The 264.1064 information will remain on site for regulators to examine. Final Action: Retain submittal of the semi annual report.

Document #: 0217 Test Methods and Procedures under Subpart BB, Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks Code related to subparagraphs 264.1063264.1063( d)( 1) requires a facility to make three determination: ( 1) whether each piece of equipment contains or contact a hazardous waste with organic concentration that equals on exceeds 10 percent by weight, ( 2) if pumps or valves are in light liquid service and ( 3) certain performance tests to determine if a control device achieves 95 weight percent organic emission reduction. It is unclear how this relates to the " monitoring,  377 testing, or analytical data and corrective action data" required to be maintained in operating record " until closure of the facility." This code is related to test methods and procedures to be used, rather than to actual monitoring or test data. Eastman suggests that this citation be removed from the text of 264.73( b)( 6) and 265.73( b)( 6).

Document #: 0217 Record keeping Requirement for Sub BB Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks.  All the record keeping requirements for Subpart BB are spelled out in this section of code. Eastman does not believe these records are useful to the Agency for the life of the facility. In fact, the existing code at 264.1064( 1) requires only three year retention of equipment leak information as per $ 264.1064( d) and operating information as per 264.1064( c). We assume that the three year retention remains in place and is unchanged by this proposal, but request clarification from EPA on this issue. Further, the Agency could reduce to no more than three or five years' retention the test data required at 264.1064( g)( 4) and monitoring results required at 264.1064( i)( 2) without losing information of any use to the Agency beyond that period of time.

Document #: 0165 The record keeping requirements for facilities subject to the Subpart BB are also extensive. See 264.1064. Among the information that must be maintained in facility records for agency inspection is documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Consequently, there is no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information, as currently required by 264.1065. We agree with EPA that 264.1065 should be deleted.

Document #: 0166 The record keeping requirements for facilities subject to the Subpart BB are also extensive Section 264.1064. Among the information that must be maintained in facility records for agency inspection is documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Consequently, three is no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information, as currently by 264.1065. We agree with EPA that 264.1065 should be deleted.

Document #: 0169 Equipment Leaks  ( Permitted) Submit a semi annual report with record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement. The 264.1064 record keeping requirements will provide adequate information. The 264.1064 information will remain on site for regulators to examine. We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0211 The proposed rules will eliminate the requirements for notification to the regional administrator concerning cleanup and repairs of drip pads. White some are repetitious and burdensome notification requirements could be eliminated, there should be some historical record available regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for land based regulated units. Such notification could be the final notification which would include all the necessary information and remedial actions taken or planned for the unit.  378 Document #: 0213 We do not support elimination of this report. The report must be submitted only if there have been problems with the equipment. The public has an interest in these reports and would not see the information if it were only maintained at the facility.

Document #: 0218 Delete the requirement for the semiannual report on Subpart BB issues.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards, however we have been persuaded by the commenters that this is a necessary reporting mechanism that should be retained. The report must be submitted only if there have been problems with the equipment. The public has an interest in these reports and would not see the information if it were only maintained at the facility.

264.1065  264.1061 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Document #: 0042 Equipment Leaks ( Permitted) Submit semiannual report of control device monitoring events to the Region.

Document #: 0181 Equipment Leaks. This will not allow the agency knowledge need to reply to the general public especially if the other reporting is discontinued. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Response to Comments: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards, however we have been persuaded by the commenters that this is a necessary reporting mechanism that should be retained. The report must be submitted only if there have been problems with the equipment. The public has an interest in these reports and would not see the information if it were only maintained at the facility.

264.1082 Document #: 0217 Eastman contains general standards for the management of hazardous waste in tank, surface impoundments and containers. Record keeping requirements for 264.1082 are found at 264.1089( f) with a minimum retention period of three years. No record retention until closure of  379 the facility is now required. We assume the Agency's intent is not to change this to until closure of the facility and request clarification of this issue.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in their assessment of the regulatory requirements.

264.1083 Document #: 0217 Eastman  264.1083 contains waste determination procedures to determine the average volatile organic concentration of hazardous waste at the point of waste origination. The record keeping requirements for 264.1083 waste analyses are found at 264.1089( f)( 1) with a retention period of a minimum of three years   no " until closure" record keeping requirements. Eastman assumes this retention period is unchanged by this proposal and requests clarification of the same.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in their assessment of the regulatory requirements 264.1084 Document #: 0217 264.1084 contains standards for the control of air pollutant emissions from tanks. The record keeping requirements for 264.1084 are found at 264.1089( c) and again are required to be kept for three years. Eastman assumes this retention period is unchanged by this proposal and requests clarification of the same.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the regulatory requirements.

264.1085 Document #: 0217 Eastman 264.1085 contains standards for the control of air pollutant emissions from surface impoundments. This record keeping requirements for 264.1085 are found at 264.1089( c) and again are required to be kept for three years. Eastman assumes this retention period is unchanged by this proposal and requests clarification of the same.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the  380 regulatory requirements.

264.1086 Document #: 0217 274.1086 Eastman contains for the control of air pollutant emission from containers. The recordkeeping requirements for 264.1089( d), with a retention period of a minimum of three years. Eastman assumes this retention period is unchanged by this proposal and requests clarification of the same.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the regulatory requirements.

264.1087 Document #: 0217 264.1087 contains standards for close vent systems and control devices. Three are no actual operating record requirements in this paragraph; rather the operating record requirements are addressed in 264.1087 to be kept for only a minimum of three years. There are no " unit closure" record keeping requirements associated with this paragraph and we assume this remains unchanged by this proposal.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the regulatory requirements.

264.1089 Document #: 0217 264.1089 contains the record keeping requirements for all the above. However, with the exception of two subparagraphs ( i) and ( j), all such records need to be maintained in the operating record for a " minimum of 3 years." Thus, only the requirements of ( i) and ( j) require maintenance until closure, three requirements relate to tank, containers or hazardous waste management units not using air emission controls, and Eastman does not object to " until closure" retention of such requirements. Bur we assume that this proposal does not change the three year retention period for the vast majority of 264.1089 recordkeeping requirements.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the  381 regulatory requirements 264.1090 Document #: 0217 264.1090 contains reporting requirements. However, none of those requirements pertains to monitoring, testing or analytical data or corrective action data that must go into the operating record. Thus, Eastman recommends that EPA remove the reference to this citation from 264.73( b)( 6) and 264.73( b)( 6).

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment. This section however is outside the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter is correct in its assessment of the regulatory requirements 264.1100 Containment Buildings ( Permitted): 264.1100/ 264.1101 ( c)( 2) Containment Buildings ( Permitted): Proposed Action: Remove obsolete language Document #: 0042 Obtain certification that building meets requirements: Notify EPA of intent to be bound by the regulations earlier than as specified in 264.1100.

Document # 0213 We concur with the proposed elimination of this language Document #: 0218 Delete obsolete languages.

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Response to Comments: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments.  382 264.1101/ 265.1101 264.1101( c)( 2) Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Obtain certification that building meets requirements: Proposed Action: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, the certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 264.1101( c)( 3)( f)( d) Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup: 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)/ 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D)  Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since repair of containment building must occur anyway. Information about this situation will be available in the facility record for regulators to inspect. 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D)/ 264.1101( c)( 3)( i), ( iii) Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. EPA does not get involved in similar decisions about whether other parts of a facility need to be removed from service. Information about this situation will be available in the facility records for regulators to inspect. 264.1101( c)( 4) Final Action, NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii) Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS 264.1101( 3)( 3)( i)( D), ( c)( 3)( ii), ( c)( 3)( iii) Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS 264.1101( c)( 3)( i), ( iii) Final Action. NO CHANGE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS Containment Buildings ( Permitted)  Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. EPA does not get involved in similar decisions about whether other parts of a facility need to be removed from service. Information about this situation will be available in the facility records for regulators to inspect.  383 Document #: 0216 Maine believes it remains important for the agency to be aware of these situations, and to be able to have input. After the fact knowledge does not provide this opportunity. In addition, the state does not wish to eliminate the need to verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release. The reasons for the release should be well understood and would normally entail some level of review by the agency, especially if repairs have not been completed. See also comments on 264.196( d)( 1)( 3) 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii)( iii) 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) 265.1101( c)( 3)( ii)( iii)

Document #: 0218 264.1011( c)( 4), Modify language to allow longer inspection intervals with the approval of the Division Director.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ generally supports the proposed rule, with modification, as shown below. Because a structure is involved, state law may require the building to be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer for safety reasons. The DEQ believes that the possibility of this requirement can be addressed by a note at the end of the rule. Secondly, the requirement that the certification be obtained prior to first use of the building, should be retained. Suggested language is as follows:

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

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

Document #: 0218 264,1011( c)( 3)( i)( C) and ( D), Add text to paragraph ( c) and delete paragraph ( d).

Document #: 0213 We do not support this modification.

Document #: 0218 264.1101 ( c)( 3)( ii), Delete reporting requirements.  384 Document #: 0181 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii) & 265.1101 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii) This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public and show control of the situation, prior to return to use of the building. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas where the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Document #: 0169 Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Notify EPA of condition that has caused a release and provide schedule for cleanup: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement since repair of containment building must occur anyway. Information about this situation will be available in the facility record for regulators to inspect.

We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment. Notification ensures that the repair of the containment building occurs. Notification also allows the regulatory authority to document the incident in their files. The public may review any release from the facility by reviewing the regulatory files.

Document #: 0286 We believe you should add language requiring repairs to be certified by proper personnel and to keep the certification with records at the facility. You should also add that these records must be part of the operating record.

Document #: 0181 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) & 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D)  Containment Building. This will not allow the agency the knowledge needed to reply to the general public. The burden shifts from permitting to compliance staff to detect the areas when the facility does not meet the regulations. This can lead to increased enforcement, simply to save reporting requirements.

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting reports of planned actions. However, a notice of a release does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the notice requirement by amending 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) to read as follows:

Section 264.1101 Design and operating requirements. ( D) Within 7 days after discovery of the condition, notify the Regional Administrator in writing of te condition.

Document #: 0290 264.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D)  Notification allows the agency to ensure proper response actions are taken,  385 and in a timely manner. Further, investigations may be required to protect human health and the environment. The notification allows the agency the opportunity to conduct a more immediate evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the release to determine whether enforcement actions which may occur as a result of the release. The public is provided with the opportunity to review the notification the regulatory files.

264.1101( c)( 3)( i), ( iii)  Notification of clean up ensures that the proper procedures were followed to eliminate harm to the environment, and done so in a timely manner. The regulatory agency is provided with the opportunity to inspect the facility to ensure that the repairs have been completed. It also documents in the regulatory file that the repairs were properly handled when the public review the files. Otherwise, the public must inquire to the facility regarding documentation of clean up and repairs. This information is not entered into a database. All reports, records, correspondence, permit applications, notifications, etc. regarding an individual facility are normally made available to the public in a central repository. Copies of all correspondence, reports, applications, etc. are filed for each facility using a unique identifier. It is not possible to ascertain which particular report, letter, map, etc. is being reviewed when an individual requests to review facility information.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement. We disagree with the rationale presented.

Document #: 0211 The proposed regulations eliminate notification requirements for leaks, repairs, etc. at containment buildings. As mentioned in previous comments, some repetitious and burdensome notification requirements could be eliminated, but TNRCC recommends that there be some historical record available to regulators and the public concerning the failure of control mechanisms for regulated units. Such notification could be the final notification which would include all the necessary information and remedial action taken or planned for the unit.

Document 0169 Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement EPA does not get involved in similar decisions about whether other parts of a facility need to be removed from service. Information about this situation will be available in the facility records for regulators to inspect.

We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These report allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health on the environment. Notification of clean up ensures that proper procedures were followed to eliminate harm to the environment . It also documents in the regulatory file that the reports were properly handled when the public reviews the file. Otherwise the public must inquire to the facility regarding documentation of clean  386 up and repairs.

Document #: 0169 264.1101( c)( 4)  Containment Buildings ( Permitted) Inspection frequency: Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case by case basis. This determination will be made regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility.