Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's Final Rule, however, groundwater assessment information must be placed in the operating record for the life of the facility. Such information is still available for review by regulatory authorities and the public. 78 Lastly, the notification that is currently required is a public record, placed in the Agency's files, and is readily available for public inspection and review. Eliminating this notice would deny the public the knowledge that a facility had experienced an increase in groundwater contamination, and had possibly released hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to area waters. The DEQ believes the public has a right to know this information in a timely fashion.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's Final Rule groundwater assessment information must be placed in the operating record for the life of the facility. Such information is still available for review by regulatory authorities and the public. There is nothing in today's rulemaking that prevents the regulating authority from requesting reports for groundwater quality assessment.

265.93( d)( 1)( 2)( 5)( e) Preparation, evaluation, and response. Whether hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents have entered the ground water; The rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents in the ground water; and The owner or operator must make his first determination under paragraph ( d)( 4) of this section as soon as techically feasible, and, within 15 days after the determination, submit to the Regional Administrator a written report containing an assessment of the ground water quality. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, any ground water quality assessment to satisfy the requirements of 265.93( d)( 4) which is initiated prior to final closure of the facility must be completed and reported in accordance with 265.93( d)( 5).

Document # 0131 265.93 ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2), ( d)( 5) & ( e), EPA proposed eliminating the submittal requirements in § 265.93 ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2), ( d)( 5) & ( e). However, EPA's proposed rules still requires the plans and determinations be completed. The regulating authority must be informed of a significant increase and the steps that follow to evaluate the increase. The notice and submittal requirements currently required are not burdensome to the facility. The Department does not support the proposed changes.

Response: The Agency believes that self implementing plans can be protective of human health and the environment. In today's Final Rule the groundwater monitoring plan and associated groundwater assessment reports must be kept in the operating record for the life of the facility. There is nothing in today's rulemaking that prevents the regulating authority from requesting reports for groundwater quality assessment. In addition, The Agency notes that today's finalized differences between monitoring and reporting requirements for interim status and permitted facilities could be an incentive for States to issue permits for interim status facilities. 79 265.93( d)( 2) Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit information for ground water quality assessment plan: Modify  no need to submit information. It may be maintained on site, where it will be available for regulators to inspect.

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

Response: The Agency disagrees that the groundwater quality assessment plan needs to be submitted to the regulatory agency for review. In today's Final Rule the groundwater monitoring plan and associated groundwater assessment reports must be kept in the operating record for the life of the facility. There is nothing in today's rulemaking that prevents the regulating authority from requesting reports for groundwater quality assessment. In addition, The Agency notes that today's finalized differences between monitoring and reporting requirements for interim status and permitted facilities could be an incentive for States to issue permits for interim status facilities.

Document # 0181 Groundwater Monitoring. If the groundwater monitoring plan does not meet the regulations, the facility could be out of compliance for a year or possibly more. The work put into the plan could be wasted and time and money spent without any positive return.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. There is nothing in today's Final Rule that prohibits the regulating authority from performing more frequent facility inspections.

Document #: 0208 FDEP suggests language in this current rule read as follows " Develop and submit to the Required Administrator a specific plan ... certified by a qualified professional geologist or qualified professional engineer...".

Document #: 0290 This citation [ § 265.93( d)( 2)] requires the submittal of a groundwater assessment plan which is much different from a notification. The plan requires additional groundwater monitoring and investigation to determine the facility's impact on underlying groundwater. This plan its execution are imperative in protecting human health and the environment. The notification that the facility may be affecting the quality of the groundwater is required by § 265.93( d)( 1). If this notification is not submitted, the regulatory agency will not be aware of this possible 80 contamination. Elimination of this notification assumes self regulation. 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: The Agency believes that self implementing plans can be protective of human health and the environment. In today's Final Rule the groundwater monitoring plan and associated groundwater assessment reports must be kept in the operating record for the life of the facility. There is nothing in today's rulemaking that prevents the regulating authority from requesting reports for groundwater quality assessment. In addition, The Agency notes that today's finalized differences between monitoring and reporting requirements for interim status and permitted facilities could be an incentive for States to issue permits for interim status facilities.

265.93( d)( 4)/ 265.94( 2) Preparation, evaluation, and response.

Document #: 0208 FDEP believes that all information required by these rules must continue to be submitted to the Regional Administrator. While the proposed rules may reduce reporting burdens for the regulatory community, they substantially increase the burden for the regulatory community to ensure that facility activities do not adversely affect human health and the environment. For example, under this proposal, inspectors would have to be accompanied by other staff qualified to review documents pertaining to groundwater issues. Such data and reports will likely require interpretation of hydrogeological information, which must be done by personnel trained for review of this information. In some states, this review must be performed or overseen by licensed professionals. Since review of these documents takes a considerable amount of time, in some cases, this would require long inspections or a series of short ones. Moreover, the inspection team would have to ensure that they had all material necessary to assist in completing the reviews. In some cases, this might include reference materials, computer software, maps, data summaries, etc. that the inspector team would likely have to carry with it. Finally, and most importantly, the proposed rule change would likely lead to insufficient Agency oversight for documents such as groundwater assessment plans. If evaluation of these documents only occurs during inspections, the facility risks increased likelihood of failing to meet regulatory requirements which could lead to enforcement actions and delays in assessment and cleanup.

Response: The Agency believes that self implementing plans can be protective of human health and the environment. In today's Final Rule the groundwater monitoring plan and associated groundwater assessment reports must be kept in the operating record for the life of the facility. EPA disagrees that today's Final Rule will result in an increased burden to the regulatory agencies. There is nothing in today's rulemaking that prevents the regulating authority from requesting reports for groundwater quality assessment. In addition, The Agency notes that today's finalized differences between monitoring and reporting requirements for interim status 81 and permitted facilities could be an incentive for States to issue permits for interim status facilities.

265.93( d)( 2) & 265.93( d)( 5), ( e), ( f)

Document #: 0211 As with item # 15, above, in lieu of multiple monitoring reports currently required under the regulation, the facility could submit only a final report for the regional administrator's evaluation. Therefore, TNRCC recommends that the rules not be revised or, in the alternative, that they be revised to require only a final report for the administrator's evaluation.

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

265.94 Document #: 0218 265.94( a)( 2)( i, ii, and iii), Revise text to eliminate reporting requirements, providing that the Regional Administrator is given notice of any increases in concentration levels under 264.93( d)( 1).

Response: In today's Final Rule, in response to comment, the Agency is retaining the submittal requirements § 265.94( a)( 2)( ii) and ( iii). States convinced us of the importance of these notifications.

265.94( a)( 2)( i) Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters: Modify  report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators.

Document #: 0169 82 We do not agree with this proposal. The quarterly reports should be submitted to the agency for review. It is impossible to evaluate such a complex document during an inspection. The plan would also be kept in the agency's file should any questions be raised about the approval of the alternate concentration limit. If it is kept in the operating record, it may be discarded after three years eliminating the history in the decision making process. The public should also have accessibility to all information regarding a decision to use an alternate concentration limit.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § 265.94( a) remain unchanged. The States have persuaded us of the importance of this notification.

265.94( a)( 2)( i), ( a)( 2)( ii)

Document #: 0211 The rules propose to eliminate the requirements for a quarterly ( during first year) and an annual groundwater monitoring report; instead facilities will be required to keep the monitoring information on site in the facility operating record. These proposed rules indicate that if a statistically significant increase ( SSI) in an indicator parameter occurs, the facility will implement the " plan" outlined in 40 CFR 265.93. However, it appears to TNRCC that the proposed " burden reduction" of 40 CFR 265.93 requirements would remove any notification to the regional administrator should an SSI occur at an interim status facility. If this is indeed the case, then there will be no record, other than the facility operating record, that the groundwater is contaminated and/ or remediated. Perhaps some notification requirements are repetitious and burdensome for the facility, but there should be some historical record available to the public concerning the contamination of groundwater by any industrial facility, regardless of the permitted status. In lieu of multiple monitoring reports, TNRCC suggests that the rules could be revised to require submission of only one annual report. This information is important in determining permitting, compliance, and enforcement actions.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § § 265.94( a)( i),( ii), and ( iii) are being retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

265.94( a)( 2)( i), ii), ( iii)

Document #: 0131 EPA has proposed removing the submittal requirements of § 265.94( a)( 2) for groundwater monitoring. The proposed rule requires the facility to " keep records." EPA states the information will be available on site for inspections by the regulating authority. The proposed rule places an unnecessary burden on the regulating authority to acquire the groundwater monitoring information. The Department does not support placing the burden of acquiring the 83 records on the regulating authority.

The regulating authority must receive a copy of the initial background concentrations for future comparison. Currently § 265.94( a)( 2) requires quarterly reporting. The Department would support annual reporting of the information.

The regulating authority should also review the concentrations of parameters used to indicate contamination. Annual submittal of the information is not a burden on the facility. Groundwater quality information is necessary for the regulating authority to determine whether the regulated unit has impacted groundwater and if those impacts may effect human health or the environment. The Department does not support removal of important oversight requirements including the proposed changes to § 265.94( a)( 2)( ii).

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § § 265.94( a)( i),( ii), and ( iii) are being retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

§ 265.94( a)( 2)( iii) requires annual submittal of the results of the evaluation of groundwater surface elevations. Annual submittal of this information is not burdensome to the facility and provides useful information to the regulating authority.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § § 265.94( a)( i),( ii), and ( iii) are being retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

265.94( a)( 2)( ii) Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on indicator parameter concentrations and evaluations: Modify  report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators.

Document #: 0169 We do not agree with the proposal to remove this requirement. With notification, the regulatory agency may need to require additional action. The whole purpose of having indicator monitoring is to be able to respond to changing conditions. Elimination of this requirement reduces much of the usefulness of detection monitoring. This notification can also signal a need to test nearby residential drinking water and point to a serious problem that needs immediate attention. This would unnecessarily delay appropriate response to a release.

Response: In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § § 265.94( a)( i), and ( ii) are being retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications. 84 265.94( a)( 2)( iii) Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on ground water surface elevations: Modify  report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators.

Document #: 0169 We do not agree with the proposal to remove this requirement. With notification, the regulatory agency may need to require additional action. The whole purpose of having indicator monitoring is to be able to respond to changing conditions. Elimination of this requirement reduces much of the usefulness of detection monitoring. This notification can also signal a need to test nearby residential drinking water and point to a serious problem that needs immediate attention. This would unnecessarily delay appropriate response to a release.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule the quarterly notification requirements of § § 265.94( a)( i),( ii), and ( iii) are being retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

265.94( b)( 2) Ground water Monitoring ( Interim Status Facilities)  Prepare and submit a report on the results of the groundwater quality assessment program: Modify  report will be kept onsite, where it may be inspected by regulators.

Document #: 0131 EPA has proposed removing the annual reporting requirements under § 265.91( b)( 2). EPA changed the requirement to keeping records of groundwater quality assessment program for § 265.93( d)( 4). The requirements of § 265.93( d) are implemented when a facility has demonstrated a significant increase in an indicator parameter. The regulating authority should receive a copy of records of calculated or measured rates of migration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents in the groundwater. The Department does not consider annual reporting currently required under § 265.94( b)( 2) to be a burden on the facility. The annual reporting requirement should not be changed.

Response: The Agency concurs with these comments. In today's final rule, the reporting requirements of § 265.94( b)( 2) are retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

Document #: 0169 This plan should be submitted to the agency for review. It is impossible to evaluate such a complex document during an inspection. The plan would also be kept in the agency's file should any question be raised about the approval of the alternate concentration limit. If it is kept in the operating record, it may be discarded after three years eliminating the history in the decisionmaking process. The public should also have accessibility to all information regarding a decision to use an alternate concentration limit. 85 Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule, the reporting requirements of § 265.94( b)( 2) are retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

Document #: 0218 Modify language to eliminate report to the Regional Administrator ( DEQ) believes that, in general, all significant events which may impact the public should be reported to the Agency. However, in the particular case, if the Agency has been properly notified of a contamination problem, then the facility inspectors will know that the reports in question exist and can ask for them specifically.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns. In today's final rule, the reporting requirements of § 265.94( b)( 2) are retained. The States persuaded us of the importance of these notifications.

265.113( e) Closure ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit semi annual corrective action report: 265.113( e)( 5) Closure ( Interim Status Facilities)  Submit semi annual corrective action report: Modify  according to Agency staff experts, regulators will have sufficient information if these reports are sent in annually instead of semiannually.

Document #: 0166 Safety Kleen agrees with EPA's proposal to allow owner/ operators of facilities to report on the effectiveness of corrective action on an annual basis instead of the current semi annual basis.

Response: The Agency acknowledges this comment and appreciates the support for today's finalized changes to § 265.113( e)( 5).

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Response: The Agency acknowledges this comment and appreciates the support for today's finalized changes to § 265.113( e)( 5).

Document # 0211 The proposed 40 CFR 264.98( g)( 5)( ii) eliminates the need for the submission of an engineering feasibility plan within 180 days of determining an SSI. The proposed rules require facilities to note in their operating record whether the contamination is caused by a source other than the regulated unit or from error in sampling and analysis or evaluation. TNRCC notes that, currently, the existing rules require the company to submit an engineering feasibility plan based on the corrective action program of 40 CFR 264.100 which is specified as a part of the permit. Without the detailed information provided by the facilities, the regional administrator may not be aware of 86 the current status of monitoring results ( i. e., contamination caused by a source other than the regulated unit or from an error in sampling analysis or evaluation). Therefore, TNRCC recommends that the rules not be changed or, in the alternative, they be modified to address this concern elsewhere.

Response: EPA is today finalizing changes to § 264.98( g)( 5) that require an engineering feasibility plan to be placed in the operating record. After consideration of all comments, in today's final rule, the Agency has retained the notification requirements of § 264.99( i)( 1) and ( 2). Stakeholders persuaded us of the importance of these notifications for alerting States of an environmental problem.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this report. The submittal of a semi annual report provides Ecology with the opportunity to address and correct with the facility inadequacies in the groundwater monitoring program before additional sampling is conducted.

Response: The Agency today is not eliminating the corrective action reports required under § 265.113( e)( 5), but is making their submittal an annual requirement instead of a semi annual one.

Document #: 0345 Groundwater Monitoring Requirements, annual reporting instead of semiannual reporting; caseby case monitoring of subset of monitoring wells. Concur Response: The Agency acknowledges this comment and appreciates the support for today's changes to the reporting requirements of § 264.98( g)( 5).

265.115  Not Changing existing requirement Certification of Closure: We are taking comment on ( but we are not proposing in today's rule) whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager is capable of performing this certification.

Document #: 0184 We disagree with this proposed change.

Response: The Agency appreciates your comment on this issue.

Document #: 0213 We could agree with this proposed modification for closures that do not involve engineering. Some closures are fairly simple; however, others may involve more complex engineering design and construction issues. In some cases closures and post closure work requires onsite verification 87 of work in accordance with engineering plans. Post closures will almost always require design and construction of engineered liners and caps that must meet strict RCRA specifications. These plans may also involve structural and design analyses as well as the review of complex calculations. The qualifications of a certified hazardous waste materials manager may not in all instances be adequate for complex closure and post closure certification.

Response to Comments: The Agency has been persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.120  Not allowing CHMMs to make this certification. Certify completion of post closure care: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Managers.

Document #: 0184 We disagree with this proposed change.

Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this modification. Some closures are fairly simple; however, others may involve more complex engineering design and construction issues. In some cases closures and post closure work requires onsite verification of work in accordance with engineering plans. Post closures will almost always require design and construction of engineered liners and caps that must meet strict RCRA specifications. These plans may also involve structural and design analyses as well as the review of complex calculations. The qualifications of a certified hazardous waste materials manager may not in all instances be adequate for complex closure and postclosure certification.

Document #: 0218 Modify to also allow certification of completion of post closure care by properly trained Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, in addition to a registered professional engineer.

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement. The readers are referred to the Burden Reduction preamble discussion on this point.

265.174 Container Inspection Frequency: Modify  allow regulators to modify the self inspection frequency for well performing facilities on a case by case basis.

Document #: 0030 Lengthen the period between inspections of hazardous waste containers ( currently weekly) to monthly for containers in storage areas meeting certain management standards [ 265.174].

Rationale: Container inspections are currently required at least weekly. In many cases facilities 88 manage containers in a manner that is even more protective than the current requirements. For these facilities the inspection frequency should be changed to monthly. Management standards that could allow for less frequent inspections are:

A. The container storage area is covered and has secondary containment B. The container storage area is actively managed ( e. g. daily presence of an operator)

Document #: 0131 The proposed rule would allow for weekly or less frequent inspections of container storage areas. The current regulations for the management of containers have been in place since May 1980 and have proven to offer basic and direct precautions to prevent the releases of hazardous waste. Leaks and container deterioration are the principal source of damage from container storage, and weekly inspections of container storage provide a means to minimize such incidents from occurring. Furthermore, the Department has observed that the requirement for weekly inspections of storage areas has not been an undue burden upon the regulated community.

The proposed regulation would allow container storage inspections less frequently then weekly ( up to a month) at the discretion of the regulatory agency. The Department views the proposal as adding an unnecessary administrative burden upon the program. The proposed regulation allows the regulatory agency to determine less frequent inspections on a case by case basis which would require the expenditure of additional resources trying to make decisions for less frequent inspections. Further, such a rule would necessitate increased regulatory program inspections to assure that undetected spills and releases do not occur.

Document #: 0144 Since secondary containment is not required for interim status container storage areas, we do not support the change in inspection frequencies from weekly to monthly. We also oppose the proposal to allow decreased inspection frequencies that must be reviewed on a case by case basis for the reasons stated above.

Document #: 0155 The proposal seeks to eliminate the minimum frequency for inspection of containers. Currently the regulations require weekly inspections. We have specified more frequent inspections by permit condition. Even with these stringent inspection requirements drum leaks still occur. Additional threats to human health and the environment may result if longer inspection periods are allowed and the time between when the drum starts leaking and cleanup increases.

Document #: 0169 While we agree that there are instances where the frequency of inspections may warrant some relaxation, we urge EPA to propose an absolute minimum such as biweekly. This will insure that the agency is not swamped with requests to waive inspection requirements. Container inspections are a very cost effective and efficient way to avoid serious environmental problems. We believe that it is in the public interest to establish an absolute minimum frequency for inspections and we 89 believe that the frequency should not exceed two weeks.

Document #: 0211 The current rules require inspection of containers at least once a week. The proposed revisions require inspection of containers at least once a month. In addition, the proposed rules require less frequent inspections based on an evaluation of a facility's compliance history. TNRCC does not agree with the proposal to reduce the inspection frequency because container storage areas subject to 40 CFR Part 265 are not required to have secondary containment. TNRCC also believes that requiring less frequent inspections based on compliance history would result in inconsistent requirements and may result in increased releases to the environment. Also, case bycase evaluation of individual facilities will burden regulators attempting to carry out uniform and even handed implementation of the regulations with regard to permitting, compliance and enforcement.

Document #: 0218 Allow inspections of container storage areas at a frequency of less than once per week, on a caseby case basis.

Response to Comments: The final rule will not change the inspection frequencies for container storage areas and containment buildings except for case by case extensions on an approved basis, for performance track facilities. Today's final rule provides regulatory incentive provisions to facilities who are members of the National Environmental Performance Track Program. Performance Track member facilities are provided the opportunity to reduce self inspections of tanks and tank systems, containers, containment buildings, and areas subject to spills to a frequency not less than once each month. The Agency has determined that case bycase provisions, on an approval basis, are appropriate for these facilities because of their demonstrated top environmental performance and rigorous evaluation by the Agency. In addition, the Agency believes it is important to recognize the difference in the need for oversight of facilities that are top environmental performers who have developed comprehensive environmental management systems and who have a track record of effective self oversight The final rule extending the inspection frequency for up to monthly for performance track facilities. 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.

265.191  Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity:

Document #: 0208 This section is obsolete   the definition of " existing tank system" in 40 CFR 260.10 is limited to tanks where installation commenced before July 14, 1986. These tanks should all have upgraded to meet current tanks standards by July 14, 2001. Current language should be changed to more clearly show that this section applies to tank systems holding hazardous wastes that became regulated after July 14, 1986. As currently written, it is confusing whether or not 265.191 or 192 90 applies to generator tank systems holding newly regulated toxic hazardous wastes when the tanks were built in 1989. In addition, a section needs to be added to address how tank systems are regulated when small quantity generators have a spill or increase production so as to become large quantity generators. The wastes in the tanks may have become hazardous in 1980, but the tank system has previously been subject to 40 CFR 265.201 standards.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment, but is retaining the regulatory language as is in the section, except for deleting the term registered as part of the qualifications for a professional engineer.

FDEP disagrees with the proposed change that variances should be self implementing for generators ( 265.193( g)( 1) and ( h)). FDEP agrees that the language is redundant for permitted TSDFs and could at least be made more flexible. The tanks systems and supplemental information should be part of the pre construction review or submitted as a permit modification. Generators are not required to submit assessments prior to construction. What if regulator and generator disagree as to hazard posed by waste? Does the agency wait until there has been a release to take enforcement?

Response: This comment is outside the scope of today's rulemaking.

Tank certification provisions could be liberalized for ASTs where all components are above ground and no individual tank in the system has a capacity of 550 gallons or more. Systems that include in floor sumps or strip drains would not be eligible for this exemption.

Actual hazardous waste tank systems pose relatively little hazard now that most of the generator systems have been closed. There are more hazards from WWTUs that manage HW. They are essentially unregulated.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of today's rulemaking.

265.191( a) Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity:

Document #: 0218 The DEQ OPPOSES the modification to allow CHMM's to perform tank integrity assessments. Tank assessments include consideration of such areas as structural stability, earthquake and wind considerations, and tank design details. The failure of a tank without secondary containment may have catastrophic consequences impacting the public. As noted in paragraph III above, typically only engineering curriculums cover the topics needed, which are tested by the registration process for engineers.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment and has been persuaded not to allow CHMM to make these certifications. 91 The DEQ SUPPORTS the deletion of the language requiring an assessment of integrity by 1988.

265.191( a), ( b)( 5)( ii) Assessment of Existing Tank System's Integrity: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Managers.

Document #: 0211 TNRCC believes that the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 264.113( e)( 5) may be acceptable if the other corrective action requirements have been addressed according to 40 CFR 264.113( e) and submitted annually as proposed instead of semi annually as required in the existing rules.

Response: The Agency appreciates the comment, and is amending the reference section to an annual submittal with no another changes to 264.113( e).

Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this proposal. An independent registered professional engineer with education training and practical experience in tank 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.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment but has been persuaded that a change in qualifications for this certification is not appropriate. We are however removing the term registered, as we believe it is redundant when referring to a professional engineer. We are also removing the term independent. The reader is referred to the preamble discussion on this point.

265.192 Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  assessment of structural integrity and acceptability for storing and treating waste:

Document #: 0218 265.192( a), ( b), The DEQ OPPOSES the changes made to subparagraph ( a), and SUPPORTS the modification to subparagraph ( b), with further modifications as noted.

As noted in subparagraph VI. T above, the design of a tank involves areas that are more properly the province of registered engineers. To allow other individuals ( with an accreditation that is not generally governed or recognized by the states) may unnecessarily endanger human health and the environment. The proposed change also is not clear that the certifying CHMM needs to be". independent, [ and] qualified..." as with the registered engineer. Therefore the modifications to subparagraph ( a) are opposed. 92 The modifications to subparagraph ( b) expand upon the existing language which already allow the use of an independent, qualified installation inspector, in addition to a registered engineer, and are believed to be protective of human health and the environment. However, the text should be made clear that the CHMM must be "... independent, [ and] qualified..." as with the engineer and tank installers.

Secondly, the DEQ would recommend that the following text be added as a note to subparagraph ( b):

[ NOTE: Some states have specific requirements regarding the personnel allowed to perform tank certifications. The owner or operator is advised to consult with state regulatory bodies to determine if such requirements are in effect for their state.]

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment but has been persuaded that a change in qualifications for this certification is not appropriate. We are however removing the term registered, as we believe it is redundant when referring to a professional engineer. We are also removing the term independent. The Agency further appreciates the supplemental language provided by the commenter, however in light of the changes being made today, this language is not needed. .

265.192( a) Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  assessment of structural integrity and acceptability for storing and treating waste: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment may be done by Certified Hazardous Materials Managers.

Document #: 0211 EPA is proposing to revise the rules in the future regarding whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager ( CHMM) can certify the closure certification report. TNRCC notes that existing 40 CFR 264.115 rules require an independent registered professional engineer to certify that the hazardous waste management unit or the facility have been closed according to the specifications in the approved closure plan. The EPA is proposing and taking comments on whether a CHMM is capable of performing closure certifications. A review of the requirements for certification as a CHMM finds that the candidate is not required to possess a technical degree of any sort. However, the individuals applying for a CHMM certification without a degree must have at least 11 years of experience in a field related to hazardous materials management. CHMM candidates holding a bachelor's degree must also possess at least 7 years experience in a field related to hazardous materials management. Candidates holding Master's degree or higher in a related field, must also have a minimum of 3 years of practical experience. In all cases, the individual must pass a professional multiple choice examination developed and administered by the Hazardous Materials Management Institute, a private organization. However, the professional engineering ( P. E.) requirements are more stringent and closely administered by 93 individual state licensing boards which are subject to state regulations. In order for an individual to obtain a P. E. license, the individual ( in most cases) must have BS degree in engineering and requisite experience before he is allowed to take P. E. certification exams. The P. E. certification examination is a two step process: first, the candidate is required to take and pass an exam covering the fundamentals of engineering; next he/ she must take a comprehensive engineering exam in the respective field for which the license is sought. The registration, exams, and license requirements for P. E. s are administered by the state engineering board. The brief review of the CHMM requirements, indicates that the CHMM standards are not as comprehensive or as stringent as those required for a P. E. In addition, P. E. s are required to comply with state regulations that establish standards for such criteria as education, experience, professional conduct and ethics, liability and insurance, etc.; there are no such established standards for the CHMM. Also, a licensed P. E. is only allowed to practice in the field of engineering in which he has the necessary education or experience; it is unclear if such restrictions regulate the areas of engineering in which a CHMM can practice. Therefore, unless CHMM standards are as stringent as the P. E. requirements and are governed by some state regulatory criteria, it is not advisable to allow CHMMs to authorize any of the various certification requirements. In addition, this proposal may conflict with state P. E. Board regulations. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned issues, TNRCC strongly recommends that EPA not allow CHMMs to authorize any engineering certifications, unless he/ she is also a qualified independent professional engineer licensed to practice in the individual state.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment and is persuaded that a change in qualifications for this certification is not appropriate. We are however removing the term registered, as we believe it is redundant when referring to a professional engineer. We are also removing the term independent. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change.

Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this proposal. An independent registered professional engineer with education 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.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment and is not pursuing a change in qualifications for this certification, We are however removing the term registered, as we believe it is redundant when referring to a professional engineer. We are also removing the term independent. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change.

265.192( b) Design and Installation of New Tank Systems or Components  assessment of tank installation: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 94 Document #: 0213 We do not agree with this proposal. An independent registered professional engineer with education 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.

Response: The Agency appreciates this comment and is not pursuing a change in qualifications for this certification, We are however removing the term registered, as we believe it is redundant when referring to a professional engineer. We are also removing the term independent. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change.

264/ 265.193 Tank Systems.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ OPPOSES the elimination of subparagraphs ( g) and ( h), in that allowing an owner or operator to determine and self implement a variance from secondary containment may endanger public safety. If an owner or operator improperly determines that secondary containment is not needed, it may be several years before this is resolved by the permitting process; as noted in paragraph I. C., above, it is not possible to guarantee that the Agency will be able to force the secondary containment to be built.

Document #: 0354 CRWI supported the reduced inspection frequency for large quantity generators in comments on the proposed rule. CRWI agrees with the Agency that it makes little sense to inspect the tanks on one schedule and the ancillary equipment on a different schedule. In addition, it does not seem reasonable to have the inspection schedule for small quantity generators more stringent than large quantity generators. This approach is not consistent with other RCRA requirements for these two classes of generators. As such, CRWI suggests that the inspection frequency for large and small quantity generators as well as all ancillary equipment be standardized on a weekly basis.

Response to Comments: While we are not eliminating subparagraphs ( g) and ( h) from 264.193, we are reducing the inspection frequencies for tank systems. This includes LQG and SQG tank systems and permitted and interim status tanks systems.

265.193( a) Tank Systems ( Interim Status): Remove obsolete language .

Document #: 0165 All tank systems and components must have secondary containment. EPA sensibly proposes to replace the convoluted text of § 264.193( a)( 1)( 5) with this simple requirement. In addition, the 95 secondary containment must be provided with a leak detection system that will detect any leakage and remove any accumulated waste or liquids within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time. We agree that these requirements in § 263.193( c) ( 1)( 2) and ( e)( 3)( iii) should be selfimplementing and should not require a demonstration to the regulatory authority. The operator of the tank system is in the best position to know the most timely and practicable manner to detect and remove collected waste materials from the secondary containment system to prevent harm to human health and the environment.

On the other hand, the ETC thinks it unwise for owners or operators of TSD facilities to grant themselves variances from secondary containment and leak detection with no review by the regulatory agency. Under the current regulation, the owner or operator may obtain a variance only if the Director finds, based on a demonstration by the applicant, that alternative design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the migration of hazardous waste into groundwater or surface water at least as effectively as secondary containment. 40 CFR § 264.193( g). The regulation also spells out the factors that the Director must consider in making a decision to grant or deny a variance. Id. We believe that tank systems with secondary containment are a practical and cost effective way of protecting against releases to the environment, and variances should not be available except for compelling reasons. In order to ensure protection, and to maintain credibility with local communities, we believe that the regulatory agency must carefully review the alternative design and operating practices and the factors that determine equivalent protection of groundwater and surface waters before independently granting a variance. For this reason, the ETC disagrees with EPA's proposal to make the variance self implementing, and we urge the agency not to include this provision in the final rule.

Document #: 0169 We do not agree with this change. Eliminating " in order to prevent the release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to the environment" is more than just removing obsolete language. It weakens the requirement.

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

Document #: 0218 Remove obsolete language.

Document #: 0222 ACC supports removing obsolete language, but suggests retention of certain existing regulatory that provides clarification regarding allowable exceptions to secondary containment.

ACC agrees with the proposal to remove obsolete language in § 264.193( a) and § 265.193( a), primarily by removing paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) in each of those sections. However, the parenthetical phrase "( except as provided in paragraphs ( f) and ( g) of this section)" that currently 96 appears at the end of the introductory text in both § 264.193( a) and § 265.193( a) should be retained in the revised sections such that the revised text in both sections reads:

A. Secondary containment must be provided for all existing and new tank systems and components ( except as provided in paragraphs ( f) and ( g) of this section).

This clarification is necessary to ensure that there is no apparent discrepancy between paragraph ( a) and the allowed exceptions to secondary containment in paragraphs ( f) and ( g).

Document #: 0223 ACC supports removing obsolete language, but suggests retention of certain existing regulatory that provides clarification regarding allowable exceptions to secondary containment.

ACC agrees with the proposal to remove obsolete language in § 264.193( a) and § 265.193( a), primarily by removing paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) in each of those sections. However, the parenthetical phrase "( except as provided in paragraphs ( f) and ( g) of this section)" that currently appears at the end of the introductory text in both § 264.193( a) and § 265.193( a) should be retained in the revised sections such that the revised text in both sections reads:

B. Secondary containment must be provided for all existing and new tank systems and components ( except as provided in paragraphs ( f) and ( g) of this section).

This clarification is necessary to ensure that there is no apparent discrepancy between paragraph ( a) and the allowed exceptions to secondary containment in paragraphs ( f) and ( g).

Response: The proposed rule deleted language from and revised 264/ 5.193( a)( 1)( 5)), arguing that the language was obsolete. However, the proposal inadvertently deleted subparagraphs ( 1) and ( 5). These subparagraphs specify what tanks are required to have secondary containment, and in the case of tanks managing newly regulated wastes, how soon secondary containment must be provided. We also agree with the commenters regarding retaining subparagraphs ( f) and ( g), and will retain those subparagraphs as well as language that informs owners and operators of tanks managing newly regulated wastes, how long they have to install secondary containment ( formerly subparagrph ( 5).

265.193( e)( 3)( iii) Not changing existing regulations Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  Demonstrate to EPA that technology and site conditions do not allow detection of release within 24 hours: Eliminate this demonstration. Having a functional leak detection system capable of detecting a release within 24 hours or the earliest practicable time, coupled with the tank design requirements, is adequately protective.

Document #: 0134 EPA proposes to modify the existing requirement that the Regional Administrator approve, based 97 on a demonstration by the owner/ operator, the built in leak detection system on an interim status double walled tank, if the earliest practicable time that the system can detect a release exceeds 24 hours. Under the proposed modified regulations, no demonstration or Regional Administrator approval would be required, provided that leak detection would occur at the earliest practicable time.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.193( e)( 3)( iii).

Document #: 0218 Remove language regarding approval by the Regional Administrator.

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.193( f)( 1)( 4) Tank Systems ( Interim Status)   Change self inspection frequency to weekly Document #: 0361 Small Quantity Generator Tanks and Ancillary Equipment Inspection Frequencies: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has requested comment on changing tank self inspection frequencies from daily to weekly for small quantity and large quantity generators.

DTSC Comment: DTSC does not support EPA's proposal to change tank inspection frequency from daily to weekly at every small quantity and large quantity generator site. DTSC contends that, in general, weekly inspections are not adequate to observe and correct deficiencies in the tank that can lead to failure and could result in a release to the environment. In order to prevent a release, all potential deficiencies ( including structural failure, failure of joints, connections, fittings and seals and uncontrolled reactions or corrosion) must be discovered and corrected in as timely manner as possible. DTSC does, however, support the option of adjusting the inspection frequency ( up to a weekly basis) based upon a facility's a compliance history.

Response: The Agency appreciates the comment, however in today's rule we are allowing a reduced inspection frequency for LQG and SQG under certain conditions. We believe that with these conditions in place, protection of human health and the environment is maintained. We however, are not convinced that using a facility compliance history is an efficient way for the regulatory agency to determine a revised self inspection frequency.

265.193( g) Tank Systems Document #: 0131 The proposed rule § 265.193( g) would eliminate the need to obtain a variance for the use of 98 alternate tank design and operating practices. The proposed rule would make containment development self implementing with no review or approval by an appropriate regulatory agency. It is apparent that without any checks as currently is provided, the failure of an alternative design for containment would only be discovered at the time of a hazardous waste discharge. The Department does not support the proposed changes to § 265.193( g).

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this change to the regulations.

265.193( g)( 1), ( h) Not changing existing regulations Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  Obtain variance to use alternate tank design and operating practices: Eliminate the need to obtain a variance and make this self implementing. Records are to be kept on site describing the decision making.

Document #: 0134 EPA proposes to modify the existing requirement that the Regional Administrator grant a variance for any design of an interim status tank that does not incorporate secondary containment. Under the proposed modified regulations, Regional Administrator approval would not be required, provided that records kept at the facility either would demonstrate that a release would not pose a human health hazard or would describe design and operating practices, together with location characteristics, that would be as effective as secondary containment.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this change.

Document #: 0157 ( 265.193( g)( 1)( h)/ 265.196( f) USWAG supports EPA's proposal to eliminate a number of variance submission/ certification requirements from the interim status tank requirements, including, for example: ( 1) allowing alternative tank design and operating practices to be self implementing, as opposed to requiring a variance under § § 265.193( g)( 1) & ( h); and ( 2) eliminating the need to submit a certification of major repair completion under § 265.196( f). Id. at 2524 25.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this change.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this proposal. This rule is far too important to the protection of human health and the environment to effectively abolish by allowing the owners and operators to unilaterally determine what is effectively equivalent. EPA took very significant action to stop the well documented problems with tank systems, it is absurd to now allow the regulated community to circumvent this rule by allowing them to do whatever they deem as adequate. Our enforcement files are loaded with examples of tank failures and catastrophic releases caused by tanks that were considered adequate by the owner or operator.

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this change. 99 Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.193( g)( 1), ( h).

Response: The Agency is not pursuing this change.

Document #: 0286 We believe that adding a notification which simply indicates the facility has decided to seek a self implementing tank variance is not burdensome. A notification as simple as an electronic mail would be sufficient. This allows the regulating agency to make this knowledge available to the public and allows us the ability to actively investigate their action if we choose to do so. By eliminating the simplest of notifications, we are required to adopt a hit or miss system in determining if these types of facilities have implemented these types of systems. Additionally, these variances would be implemented for the most part by generators of hazardous waste who may not have the best interest/ knowledge regarding the management of hazardous waste.

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.195( a) Tank Systems ( Interim Status): Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case by case basis. This determination will be made by regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility.

Document #: 0155 The proposal seeks to eliminate the minimum frequency for inspection of tanks. Currently the regulations require daily inspections. Even with these stringent inspection requirements tank leaks still occur. Additional threats to human health and the environment may result if longer inspection periods are allowed and the time between when the tank starts leaking and cleanup increases.

Document #: 0208 FDEP disagrees with the proposed language change, which would essentially remove the recordkeeping requirement for generator tanks inspections. 40 CFR 262 Subpart D does not require records to be kept of generator facility inspections. Generators consistently argue that 40 CFR 265.174 does not require records to be kept of generator container inspections. Florida eventually adopted a state container recordkeeping requirement because of this. Weekly inspections might be acceptable, provided that the recordkeeping requirements included a provision to record any problems found with the system, even if the problem was not noted during the weekly inspection. It would otherwise be too easy to hide routine leaks or maintenance problems that would indicate the need for a system upgrade.

Document #: 0030 Tank Inspections: Lengthen the period between inspections of hazardous waste storage tanks ( currently daily) to monthly. [ 265.195( a)] 100 Rationale: Inspecting hazardous waste storage tanks daily is an overly conservative, manpowerintensive approach. Chemical and hazardous waste storage facilities are designed to minimize potential leaks and unsafe conditions and to minimize the need for daily or weekly inspections. Hazardous waste storage tank designs, with secondary containment, are typically even more conservatively designed than process equipment. Modifying the inspection frequency to monthly will save about 100 man hours per year per tank ( based on 20 minutes to inspect and record results) with no unfavorable environmental impact.

Document #: 0131 The proposed changes to § 265.195( a) Tank Inspections would allow the inspection of a tank system to occur at least weekly or less frequent as determined by the regulatory agency. Hazardous waste tank systems are planned to accumulate large quantities of hazardous waste. The current requirement for daily inspections of tank systems provides an adequate means to detect spills or releases of potentially large quantities of hazardous waste. As with container storage, the requirement for daily inspections of tank systems has not posed a burden to the regulated community. Also, as with container storage, the proposed provision to allow less frequent then daily inspections at the discretion of the regulating agency would pose an unnecessary burden upon this program.

Document #: 0169 While we agree that there are instances where the frequency of inspections may warrant some relaxation, the absolute minimum should be weekly. Tank failures can and do have serious consequences. Tank inspections are a very cost effective and efficient way to avoid serious environmental problems. We believe that it is the public interest to establish an absolute minimum frequency for inspections and we believe that the frequency should not exceed one week.

Document #: 0184 We disagree with this proposed change. The frequency of inspections should not be based on past compliance, but on design and engineering considerations, and actual operating conditions of the tank ( e. g, through put).

Document #: 0211 It is not clear to TNRCC as to whether this information will be submitted or retained on site; the comments on Page 2522 are not reflected in the proposed rules ( Page 2536). Also, the facilities may be required to submit such information with the Part B permit application. Without knowledge of existing tank systems, it may be difficult for regulators to draft specific permit conditions.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ generally SUPPORTS the modification proposed, provided that additional language is added to restrict use of less frequent inspections to those tank systems with secondary containment and automatic leak detection alarms. Tanks can and frequently do fail abruptly and with little or no warning, losing most or all of their contents in a very short period of time. If the 101 rule is promulgated as proposed, it may be a week or longer before leaks of any size are discovered and remediation begun. For those tanks without secondary containment, waiting such a long time for remediation efforts may lead to extensive environmental damage, beyond the owner/ operator's financial abilities regardless of the requirements of 265.147.

Secondly, the failure of a tank implies that the tank's design, installation, operating, inspection, and/ or maintenance procedures were inadequate. This conclusion may be extended to include the secondary containment systems as well. For example, if a waste added to a tank is incompatible with the tank materials and causes high corrosion, then the waste operating procedures were not sufficient to keep that waste excluded from the tank, and if the tank itself fails then that waste will probably corrode the secondary containment in the same way.

Therefore, the DEQ recommends that the provisions for reduced frequency inspections be limited only to those tanks with secondary containment and automatic leak detection systems. Suggested language is as follows:

( a) Except as provided herein, tThe owner or operator of a tank system which has secondary containment and automatic leak detection systems must inspect at lest weekly, or less frequently as determined by the Director. In all cases, inspections must occur at least monthly, Director decisions about less frequent inspections will be based on an evaluation of the compliance record of a facility. For tank systems without secondary containment and automatic leak detection capability, the owner or operator must inspect at least daily. Where present, the following items are to be inspected:

( a) The owner or operator must inspect, where present, at least once each operating day:

( 1) Overfill/ spill control equipment ( e. g., waste feed cutoff systems, bypass systems, and drainage systems) to ensure that it is in good working order;

( 2) The aboveground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases of waste;

( 3) Data gathered from monitoring equipment and leak detection equipment, ( e. g., pressure and temperature gauges monitoring wells) to ensue that the tank system is being operated according to its design; and ( 4) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally accessible portion of the tank system including secondary containment structures ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion of signs of releases of hazardous waste ( e. g., wet spots, dead vegetation);

Note: Section 265.15( c) requires the owner or operator to remedy any deterioration or malfunction he finds. Section 265.196 requires the owner or operator to notify the Regional Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a release. Also, 40 CFR part 302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National Response Center of a release. 102 Response to Comments: Today's final rule reduces the inspection frequencies for interim status, permitted, and LQG tanks, and adds language to § § 264/ 265.195 allowing weekly inspections when the secondary containment employs leak detection equipment that notifies facility personnel if a leak occurs. In the absence of an automatic leak detection system, the facility must have workplace practices in place that shall ensure that any leaks will be promptly identified, so as to not violate the provisions of 264/ 5.193( c)( 3)). The leak detection equipment/ system used must alert facility personnel to the presence of any leak or spill, within 24 hours or the earliest practicable time, in accordance with § 264/ 5.193( c)( 3). Automatic leak detection systems were described in the proposed rule ( 67 FR 2527). However, the existing regulations, which requiring that secondary containment systems be able to detect releases, do not specify the method of leak detection. Some facilities, according to a comments on this rulemaking, use daily visual inspections as a method of leak detection for their above ground tanks. Under the current regulations, without daily visual inspections, automatic detection equipment is the only way to meet the leak detection requirement. Workplace practices must ensure leaks are promptly identified. Such practices would involve facility personnel who, in the course of their duties, remain alert to potential problems at the workplace so that problem areas are identified and addressed. Whether workplace practices or automatic leak detection systems are employed as a means of detecting leaks or spills, any leaks or spills must be detected within 24 hours, to comply with 264/ 5.193( c)( 3). As stated above, the reduced inspection requirements apply to tank systems. This would include ancillary equipment ( including piping), and for ancillary equipment that does not have secondary containment. It is anticipated that workplace practices would provide for the detection of releases from this equipment.

265.196( d)( 1), ( d)( 2) Not changing existing regulation Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of release: 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 record.

Document #: 0131 For § 265.196( d) the Department recommends maintaining ( d)( 1) and ( 2) which provides for initial reporting of spills or leaks and removal of ( d)( 3) which currently requires follow up reporting.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. Certification of clean up ensures that proper procedures were 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 #: 0211 103 EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 264.193( g) and eliminate 40 CFR 264.193( h) which concerns variances from secondary containment requirements. The proposed rules would eliminate the submittal of a variance request to the regional administrator, thus requiring facilities to keep records on site to describe the alternative design and operating practices for tanks not complying with the 40 CFR 264.193 requirements. Such information is submitted as an element of the Part B permit application. Therefore, it is unclear to TNRCC why these requirements are being eliminated. Eliminating the requirement to submit this information would make it difficult for regulators to properly evaluate a tank system in light o the regulatory requirements and set permit conditions specific to the tank system.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.196( d) ( 1)  ( 3).

Document #: 0218 [ 265.196( d)( 1)  ( 3)] 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 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.

Response to Comments: The Agency has been persuaded by the commenter's arguments to not to change the existing requirement.

265.196( d)( 3) Not changing existing regulation Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  Submit report describing releases: Eliminate  the cleanup requirements in the regulations and the need to certify ( required by 265.196( f)) is sufficient to protect human health and the environment.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. Certification of clean up ensures that proper procedures were 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 #: 0211 EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 264.193( g) and eliminate 40 CFR 264.193( h) which concerns 104 variances from secondary containment requirements. The proposed rules would eliminate the submittal of a variance request to the regional administrator, thus requiring facilities to keep records on site to describe the alternative design and operating practices for tanks not complying with the 40 CFR 264.193 requirements. Such information is submitted as an element of the Part B permit application. Therefore, it is unclear to TNRCC why these requirements are being eliminated. Eliminating the requirement to submit this information would make it difficult for regulators to properly evaluate a tank system in light of the regulatory requirements and set permit conditions specific to the tank system.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.196( d)( 1)  ( 3).

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.196( f) Tank Systems ( Interim Status)  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, this certification may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0156 ACE supports eliminating certain release notification and reporting requirements and the tank repair notification and certification requirements. For our member institutions, the types of events triggering these requirements are readily identified, easily corrected, and do not present a threat to human health or the environment. The requirement to notify EPA or the authorized state agency of these minor events is simply an opportunity for technical non compliance with no other adverse impacts, and no demonstrate benefit to the environment or the public.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.196( f).

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 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 and suitability for use, and such determinations should be reserved to registered engineers. The 105 arguments made in paragraphs VI. F and VI. G also apply here.

Response to 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 an independent, qualified, professional engineer.

265.201( c) ( 1)  ( 3) Small Quantity Generator Tanks Modify  Change daily inspection requirement to weekly.

Document #: 0317 In the comments submitted April 12, 2002, Dow did not suggest similar changes to 40 CFR 265.201( c) for small quantity generators, but Dow believes such a reduction in frequency would be consistent with the agency's intent. An SQG is generally regulated less stringently than a Large Quantity Generator, so it only makes sense to reduce the burden on this class of generators as well. In addition, some of the items in the existing 40 CFR 265.201 only require a weekly inspection. Doe suggests the following changes to the regulatory text:

40 CFR 265.201( c)( 1) "... at least once each operating day weekly, to ensure that it is in good working order;" 40 CFR 265.201( c)( 2) "... at least once each operating day weekly, to ensure that the tank is being operated according to its design;" 40 CFR 265.201( c)( 3) "... at least once each operating day weekly, to ensure compliance with 40 CFR 265.201( b)( 3);"

Document #: 0341 Duke Energy supports the agency's proposal to change the tank self inspection frequencies from daily to weekly for large quantity generators, and the agency's proposal to expand the change to include tanks located at small quantity generator sites ( 265.201( c)) and ancillary equipment at small and large quantity generator sites ( 265.193( f) and 265.193( f). Implementing this change would continue to ensure an appropriate monitoring frequency that would provide an adequate degree of environmental protection and would result in substantial cost savings to the regulated community.

Response: The requirements for SQG tanks were finalized on March 24, 1986 ( 51 FR 10146), and with the July 14, 1986 final tank regulations, codified at § 265.201. Discussion in the March 1986 rule relates to how the SQG requirements were developed, as distinct from the requirements for LQG tanks.. The rule states: " Congress anticipated reducing administrative 4 While the Agency solicited comment on reducing the inspection frequency for ancillary equipment for SQGs, the referenced regulation, § 265.193( f) does not apply to tank systems at SQG sites, only the requirements found in § 265.201( c) apply to SQG tank systems. Therefore, the Agency is not pursuing changes to § 265.193( f) that would affect SQGs. As discussed above, the regulatory changes we are making today apply to SQG tank systems, which include ancillary equipment.

106 requirements, such as reporting and recordkeeping, as a means to reduce impacts on the 100 1000 kg/ mo generators. Thus, EPA proposed to relieve these generators of some Part 262 standards that are administrative in nature while retaining all existing technical standards. The relief was only provided to generators who accumulate on site for the statutorily prescribed periods, because, given that the amount of waste accumulated would necessarily be limited, the relative risk from releases of such waste would be less than that from the unlimited amounts of waste accumulated by off site facilities," ( 51 FR 10149). Under the current regulations, generators of between 100 and 1,000 kg/ mo accumulating hazardous waste in tanks must inspect at least once each operating day, if applicable; ( 1) discharge control equipment ( e. g., waste feed cutoff systems, by pass systems, and drainage systems); ( 2) data gathered from monitoring equipment ( e. g., pressure and temperature gauges); and ( 3) the level of waste in the tank. In addition, at least weekly, generators must also inspect: ( 1) the construction materials of the tank to detect corrosion or leaking of fixtures or seams; and ( 2) the construction materials of, and the area immediately surrounding, discharge confinement structures ( e. g., dikes) to detect erosion or obvious signs of leakage ( e. g., wet spots or dead vegetation). While § 265.201 does not require SQGs to be equipped with secondary containment, nor leak detection, SQG tank system owners and operators who wish to reduce their inspection frequency may do so if these tank systems are provided with secondary containment with either leak detection equipment or established workplace practices that ensure prompt detection of releases, as described above for other tank systems. Owners and operators choosing one of these options to reduce inspection frequencies should document the option selected in their operating record. If the option selected is " established workplace practices," the owner and/ or operator should document those practices in the facility's operating record. In the proposal, we received comments suggesting that we expand the proposed reduction in tank self inspection frequency to include tanks located at small quantity generator sites ( see § 265.201( c)) and ancillary equipment ( see § 265.193( f) 4). This change would affect only three of the five SQG inspection requirements for discharge control equipment( § 265.201( c)( 1)); data gathered from monitoring equipment( § 265.201( c)( 2)); and monitoring the level of waste in the tank( § 265.201( c)( 3)), since the last two inspection requirements( § § 265.201( c)( 4) and ( c)( 5)) are already done on a weekly basis. We stated in the NODA that changing these inspection frequencies would be consistent with our intent to establish weekly inspections for all tank systems. ( See above comments) We agree, in part, with the commenters. SQG tanks historically have less stringent requirements than LQGs, permitted, and interim status tanks. But, while existing SQG tanks are not required to have secondary containment, in order to enjoy reduced inspection frequencies 107 under today's rule, tanks must have secondary containment with leak detection, or have secondary containment and workplace practices in use that promptly identify leaks and spills.

265.221( a) Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status): Remove obsolete language .

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

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

Document #: 0218 Remove obsolete language.

Response: This language is being deleted in today's rule.

265.223( a) Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate  Response Action Plans for other kinds of treatment units are not submitted to EPA. We are proposing that it is sufficient to keep this Plan on site.

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 #: 0213 Same comment as 265.223( a).

Document #: 0218 Revise language to remove requirement to submit RAP.

Response: The Agency proposed eliminating the need to submit response action 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. Commenters have convinced us of the utility of 108 this information and that the discovery of leakage above the ALR is a serious environmental concern meriting the attention of the regulating agency. final rule will only eliminate the submission of the response action plans. Actions to remedy problems will still be recorded in the operating record. Requirements for existing notifications in § § 265.223, 265.259, and 265.303 are not being changed.

265.223( b)( 1) _ Not changing existing requirement Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds action leakage rate for any sumps within 7 days: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since the facility still has to address the leakage and record its response to the leakage in the facility record, which is available for inspection by regulators.

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 #: 0211 [ 265.223( b)( 1), b( 2) and b( 6)] 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 [ 265.223( b)( 1), b( 2) and b( 6)] EPA should retain all of the information requirements regarding surface impoundment leaks. This is the only way the public and the agency will have access to timely information that can limit contamination that threatens public health and environmental quality.

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 265.223( b)( 1) to read as follows: Sec. 265.223 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.

Document #: 0218 [ 265.223( b)( 1), b( 2) and b( 6)] 109 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 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: The Agency has been persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.223( b)( 2) Not changing existing requirement Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since the facility still has to address the leakage and record its response to the leakage in the facility record, which is available for inspection by regulators.

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 #: 0213 Same comment as 264.223( b)( 2).

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement. 110 265.223( b)( 6) Not changing existing regulations Surface Impoundments ( Interim Status)  Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since information about the leak will be kept onsite, where it is available for inspection by regulators.

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 #: 0213 Is there a reason to retain this requirement? I propose: 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 265.223( b)( 6) by amending 265.223( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 265.223 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: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.259( a) Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement since other treatment units do not have to submit this plan. Removing this requirement will bring consistency to the regulations.

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0211 EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 264.193( g) and eliminate 40 CFR 264.193( h) which concerns variance from secondary containment requirements. The proposed rules would eliminate the submittal of a variance request to the regional administrator, thus requiring facilities to keep records on site to describe the alternate design and operating is submitted as an element of the 111 Part G permit application. Therefore, it is unclear to TNRCC why these requirements are being eliminated. Eliminating the requirement to submit this information would make it difficult for regulators to properly evaluate a tank system in light of the regulatory requirements and set permit conditions specific to the tank system.

Document #: 0213 We do not support this proposal. A release from a land based unit is a significant noncompliance and could pose serious impacts to people and the environment. Note that we see the leaks from land based units to be unusual circumstances that require decisive action. It is important for the facility to have a clear plan in advance to respond to releases. Because of the importance of controlling these releases, it is appropriate for the response action plan to be submitted to EPA or the state permit agency for review.

Document #: 0218 Revise language to remove requirement to submit RAP.

Response: 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..

265.259( b)( 1)  Not changing existing requirement Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA in writing of the exceedance amount of the leakage: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as Response Action Plan is followed. Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply food 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 #: 0211 [ 265.259( b)( 1), b( 2) and b( 6)] The proposed rules eliminate the reporting requirements for all " releases to the environment" 112 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.

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 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 retain all of the information requirements regarding waste pile leaks. This is the only way the public and th agency will have access to timely information that can limit contamination that threatens public health and environmental quality.

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 265.259( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.259 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 [ 265.259( 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 113 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 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.

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. 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 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 265.259( 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. 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 been persuaded not to change the existing requirement. The discovery of leakage above the action leakage rate is an extremely serious issue. It indicates a possble breach in the must be immediately addressed and throughly documented. While commenters have argues that this event rartely occurs, it is important for States to be kept up to date on the status of an issues as serious as this. 114 265.259( b)( 2) Not changing existing regulations Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed. Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record.

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 #: 0213 We support the elimination of this assessment report provided the notice requirement of 265.259( 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 Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.259( b)( 6) Not changing existing regulations Waste Piles ( Interim Status)  Submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed. Information about the facility's response to the leakage will be available in the facility's operating record.

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 #: 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 265.259( b)( 6) by amending 265.259( b)( 1) to read as follows: 115 Sec. 264.259 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: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.276( a) Not changing existing regulations Land Treatment ( Interim Status)  Submit notification for food chain crops at land treatment facility: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the other regulatory requirements in 265.276 are followed. Information about compliance with these other regulatory requirements will be in the facility operating record.

Document #: 0169 We agree this proposal.

Document #: 0211 The proposed revisions to the rules eliminate the notification requirements for growing food chain crops. TNRCC is concerned that without notification, there would be no public record that food chain crops are, or have been, grown at the interim status land treatment unit. In addition, without notification, regulators would not be aware of the status of the land treatment unit.

Document #: 0213 Growing food chain crops at a land treatment facility will be of the utmost concern to members of the public. Since there is no public process for interns status facility to begin operations, it is important that EPA or the state permitting agency received notification that food chain crops will be grown at the facility.

Document #: 0216 Maine does not concur with the proposal to eliminate food chain crop notifications. Maine believes this notification will allow inspectors to target this facility more easily for inspection.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ OPPOSES the elimination of this paragraph. As noted previously, this is currently a public record and should be retained.

Response to Comments: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.301( a) Landfills ( Interim Status)  Remove obsolete language 116 Document # 0169: We agree with this proposal.

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

Document # 0218: Remove obsolete language Response: The phrases " on which construction commences after January 29,1992", " on which construction commences after July 29, 1992", and " that is to commence reuse after July 29, 1992", as well as the last sentence of the section are being deleted.

265.303( a) Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Submit the Response Action Plan to EPA: Eliminate requirement to submit plan. Developing a plan, keeping it onsite, and implementing it when necessary is sufficient.

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0211 EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 264.193( g) and eliminate 40 CFR 264.193( h) which concerns variances from secondary containment requirements. The proposed rules would eliminate the submittal of a variance request to the regional administrator, thus requiring facilities to keep records on site to describe the alternative design and operating practices for tanks not complying with the 40 CFR 264.193 requirements. Such information is submitted as an element of the Part B permit application. Therefore, it is unclear to TNRCC why these requirements are being eliminated. Eliminating the requirement to submit this information would make it difficult for regulators to properly evaluate a tank system in light of the regulatory requirements and set permit conditions specific to the tank system.

Document #: 0213 A release from a land based unit is a significant noncompliance and could pose serious impacts to people and the environment.. Note that we see the leaks from land based units to be unusual circumstances that require decisive action. It is important for the facility to have a clear plan in advance to respond to releases. Because of the importance of controlling these releases, it is appropriate for the response action plan to be submitted to EPA or the state permit agency for review.

Document #: 0218 Revise language to remove requirement to submit RAP.

Response: The final rule eliminates the requirement to submit to the Regional Administrator, response action plans for surface impoundments, waste piles, and landfills. Response action 117 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..

265.303( b)( 1)  Not changing existing language Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA if action leakage rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Action Plan is followed and information on adherence to the Plan is kept in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators.

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 #: 0212 EPA should retain all of the information requirements regarding landfill leaks. This is the only way the public and the agency will have access to timely information that can limit contamination that threatens public health and environmental quality.

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 265.303( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 265.303 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: The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.303( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( b)( 6) Not changing existing language 118 Document #: 0218 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: A. In paragraph ( b)( 1), extend the notification date to 14 days. B. Delete paragraph ( b)( 2) 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.

Document #: 0290 Notification should performed in order for the regulatory authority to be able to follow up quickly with an inspection to guarantee that steps in the response action plan are followed. The public should be aware of any exceedances in the regulatory file. It would also allow the regulatory authority to ensure that the response action plan can adequately address the exceedance to prevent further release. The notification also 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. 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 persuaded not to change the existing requirement. 264.303( b)( 1) requires immediate notification of the regulatory agency when the action leakage rate is exceeded which the commenters have argues is warranted. Subparagraphs ( 2),( 3), ( 4), and ( 5) required follow on actions the landfill operator must take to evaluate and correct the leak. Subparagraph ( 6), which the Agency proposed to be deleted, required a report to the Regional Administrator of the steps taken to comply with sub paragraphs ( 2),( 3),( 4), and ( 5). The Agency is convinved by the arguments set forth by the commenters that it is illogical to require the landfill oeprator to take corrective steps, but not to report those to the regulatory agency, particular for an exceedance in the action leakage rate. 119 265.303( b)( 2) Not changing existing language Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the Response Plan is followed and information on adherence to the Plan is kept in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators.

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 #: 0213 We support the elimination of this assessment report provided the notice requirement of 265.303( 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.

Document #: 0290 Elimination of this requirement assumes that self regulation will occur. Once they receive notice of a leakage, the regulatory authorities can determine if proper action was taken to guarantee the leakage does not continue. 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, 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 persuaded not to change the existing requirement.

265.303( b)( 6) Not changing existing language Land Fills ( Interim Status)  Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate ( ALR) is exceeded: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the remediation required by regulation takes place, and information about the remediation is kept in the facility record.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good 120 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 #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting monthly reports of the results o 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 265.303( b)( 6) by amending 265.303( b)( 1) to read as follows:

Sec. 265.303 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 #: 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 and the agency is not 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. 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 persuaded not to change the existing requirement. The Agency has persuaded not to change the existing requirement. 264.303( b)( 1) requires immediate notification of the regulatory agency when the action leakage rate is exceeded which the commenters have argues is warranted. Subparagraphs ( 2),( 3), ( 4), and ( 5) required followon actions the landfill operator must take to evaluate and correct the leak. Subparagraph ( 6), which the Agency proposed to be deleted, required a report to the Regional Administrator of the steps taken to comply with sub paragraphs ( 2),( 3),( 4), and ( 5). The Agency is convinced by the arguments set forth by the commenters that it is illogical to require the landfill operator to take corrective steps, but not to report those to the regulatory agency, particular for an exceedance in the action leakage rate. 121 265.314( a), ( a)( 1), ( a)( 2), ( b),( g) Requirements for bulk and containerized liquids: Remove obsolete language .

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

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

Document # 0218: [ 264.314 ( a)( 1), ( a)( 2), ( b), and ( f)] Removal of obsolete language.

Response: We are eliminating obsolete language in these section in the final rule.

265.441( a), ( b), ( c) Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Assessment of Drip Pad, Submit written plan, as built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, certification may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

No Document number: EPA is proposing to revise the rules in the future regarding whether a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager ( CHMM) can certify the closure certification report. TNRCC notes that existing 40 CFR 264.115 rules require an independent registered professional engineer to certify that the hazardous waste management unit or the facility have been closed according to the specifications in the approved closure plan. The EPA is proposing and taking comments on whether a CHMM is capable of performing closure certifications. A review of the requirements for certification as a CHMM finds that the candidate is not required to possess a technical degree of any sort. However, the individuals applying for a CHMM certification without a degree must have at least 11 years of experience in a filed related to hazardous materials management. CHMM candidates holding a bachelor's degree must also possess at least 7 years experience in a field related to hazardous materials management. Candidates holding a Master's degree or higher in a related field, must also have a minimum of 3 years of practical experience. In all cases, the individual must pass a professional multiple choice examination developed and administered by the Hazardous Materials Management Institute, a private organization. However, the professional engineering ( P. E.) requirements are more stringent and closely administered by individual state licensing boards which are subject to state regulations. In order for an individual to obtain a P. E. license, the individual ( in most cases) must have a BS degree in engineering and requisite experience before he is allowed to take P. E. certification exams. The P. E. certification examination is a two step process: first, the candidate is required to take and pass an exam covering the fundamentals of engineering; next he/ she must take a comprehensive engineering exam in the respective field for which the license is sought. The registration, exams, and license requirements for P. E. s are administered by the state engineering board. The brief 122 review of the CHMM requirements, indicates that the CHMM standards are not as comprehensive or as stringent as those required for a P. E. In addition, P. E. s are required to comply with state regulations that establish standards for such criteria as education, experience, professional conduct and ethics, liability and insurance, etc.; there are no such established standards for the CHMM. Also, a licensed P. E. is only allowed to practice in the field of engineering in which he has the necessary education or experience; it is unclear is such restrictions regulate the areas of engineering in which a CHMM can practice. Therefore, unless CHMM standards are as stringent as the P. E. requirements and are governed by some state regulatory criteria, it is not advisable to allow CHMMs to authorize any of the various certification requirements. In addition, this proposal may conflict with state P. E. Board regulations. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned issues, TNRCC strongly recommends that EPA not allow CHMMs to authorize any engineering certifications, unless he/ she is also a qualified independent professional engineer licensed to practice in the individual state.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.441 ( a), ( b), ( c).

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

Response: These certifications must be made by qualified, professional engineer according to today's final rule. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change.

265.443( a)( 4)( ii),( g) Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Assessment of Drip Pad: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.443( a) ( 4) ( ii), ( g).

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

Response: These certifications must be made by a qualified, professional engineer according to today's final rule. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change. 123 265.443( m) ( 1) ( iv) Not changing existing language Drip Pads ( Interim Status)   Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup required by regulation takes place, and is recorded in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators.

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 265.443( m)( 1)( iv) to read as follows:

Sec. 265.443 Design and operating requirements.

( iv) Within 7 days after discovery of the condition, notify the Regional Administrator in writing of the condition.

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

Response to Comments: The Agency has been persuaded not to change the existing requirement. 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. The States have persuaded us that these releases are a serious environmental concern requiring notification.

265.443( m)( 1)( iv), ( 2) Not changing existing language Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup required by regulation takes place, and is recorded in the facility operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulators.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good 124 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 Agency has been persuaded not to change the existing requirement. 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. The States have persuaded us that these releases are a serious environmental concern requiring notification 265.443 ( m)( 2)  Not changing existing language. Drip Pads ( Interim Status)

Document #: 0213 Not changing existing language. Same comment as 264.443( m)( 2).

Document #: 0218 [ 265.443( m)( 2) and ( 3)] Not changing existing language. Delete these two paragraphs as unnecessary.

265.443( m)( 3) Not changing existing language. Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Notify Regional Administrator and certify completion of repairs: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as the required cleanup and repairs are made.

Document #: 0169 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.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.443( m)( 3).

Response to Comments: The Agency has been persuaded not to change the existing requirement Commenters have persuaded us that these releases are a serious environmental concern requiring notification to the regulatory agency. 125 265.444( a) Drip Pads ( Interim Status)  Inspection of liners: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.444( a)

Document #: 0218 Allowing CHMM's to perform inspections and certifications 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: These inspections and certifications must be performed by an independent, qualified, professional engineer, the Agency has been persuaded by the commenters that these certification should only be conducted by professional engineers. Please refer to the preamble discussion for an explanation for this change.

265.1061( b)( 1) Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as other regulatory requirements in 265.1061 are followed.

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.1061 ( b)( 1).

Document #: 0218 [ 265.1061 ( b)( 1) and ( d)] Delete notification requirements, in lieu of facility records.

265.1061( d) Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators can decide which standard to meet without notifying the Agency. This information will be retained in the facility's operating record, where it will be available for inspection by regulatory authorities.

Document #: 0042 Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to discontinue alternative valve standard. 126 Document #: 0169 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 Same comment as 264.1061( d).

265.1062( a)( 2) Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)  Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement. Owners or operators may use alternative work practice without notifying the Agency. This information will be kept in the facility operating record, which is available for regulatory authorities to inspect.

Document #: 0042 Notification to Implement Alternative Valve Standards  Submit notification to Region.

Document #: 0169 As long as the notification was given for 265.1061 ( b)( 1), we agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.1062 ( a)( 2),

Document #: 0218 Delete the notification requirement and renumber subsequent paragraphs.