Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted. The Agency is maintaining the requirement under 268.7( d) because commenters said that the notification was 169 necessary to alert inspectors before the hazardous waste debris is impossible to recover. Also, they argued that it alerts inspectors to the need to do spot checks, especially for " controversial" hazardous waste debris.

Document #: 0157 Elimination of Separate LDR Analysis USWAG supports elimination of current requirements under 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) for generators to determine whether their hazardous waste must be treated prior to land disposal. As EPA recognizes " a combination of several other requirements provide the same safeguards as the 268.7( a)( 1) requirement." ld. Specifically, 40 CFR 261.11 requires a determination of whether a waste is hazardous; 40 CFR 264.13( a)( 1) requires TSDFs to perform a general waste analysis to determine information which must be known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste; and 40 CFR 268.40 prohibits hazardous waste from land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the Table of Treatment Standards. ld. at 2526, 2528.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0157 Elimination of Separate LDR Waste Characteristic Determination EPA proposes to eliminate existing requirements under 40 CFR 268.9( a) to provide a separate LDR waste determination for characteristic waste. ld. at 2526. We agree that this determination is duplicated elsewhere in the regulations, including under 40 CFR 262.11, 264.13 & 268.40. As EPA reasons, these " other determinations are sufficient to assure a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs and, therefore, protecting human health and the environment." ld. at 2528.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in 170 the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0158 SOCMA strongly supports EPA's proposal to eliminate and streamline certain of the land disposal restrictions ( LDR) paperwork requirements. Reducing paperwork requirements would be especially helpful to specialty and custom chemical manufacturers who use batch manufacturing processes. The routine production of multiple and shifting product lines, and the resultant multiple and shifting waste streams that are produced by batch manufacturing, lead to heavy LDR paperwork burdens upon batch manufacturers.

In this regard, SOCMA particularly commends EPA for its proposal to drop the Section 268.7( a)( 1) generator waste determination requirement. As EPA correctly notes, generators already have an obligation to know enough about their wastes to characterize them, and Section 264.13( a)( 1) already requires TSDFs to perform a waste analysis that provides them with all the information needed to manage the waste appropriately. This requirement is burdensome, duplicative and should be eliminated.

Similarly, SOCMA also supports EPA's proposal to eliminate the need for a separate LDR waste determination for characteristic waste, as is presently required by Section 268.0( a). Elimination of these requirements would significantly lessen the heavy burden suffered by batch manufacturers when complying with LDR requirements without affecting the ability to manage wastes in a manner that continues to protect human health and the environment.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, 171 the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0165 Generator Determination Section 268.7 EPA proposes to eliminate the requirement in 268.7( a)( 1) that generators determine, by testing or knowledge, whether their waste must be treated prior to land disposal. EPA believes that other requirements, such as the generator hazardous waste determination in 262.11, provide the same safeguards. The related record retention provision in 268.7( a)( 6) would also be eliminated.

We understand that generators want to reduce their analytical testing costs under the LDR program, but 268.7( a)( 1) is not the requirement to eliminate. Rather than reducing costs, we believe that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) will actually increase the overall costs of the LDR program. Costs will increase because TSD facilities, lacking the generator's knowledge of the waste and the raw materials and production processes that produced the waste, will have to test more wastes more frequently at substantially higher total costs under the LDR program. For this reason, the ETC believes that EPA must analyze the overall costs of the LDR requirements that would result from eliminating 268.7( a)( 1), including the increased frequency and scope of waste testing and not just the cost savings to generators, before proceeding with a final rule.

Response The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion, such as this comment, to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste 172 analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0169 268.7( a)( 1). LDR Generator Requirements Generator waste determination: Eliminate a separate determination is unnecessary. See discussion in proposed role preamble. We agree with this proposal. Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0211 The proposed revisions to rules would eliminate the requirements for generators to notify treatment, storage, and disposal ( TSD) facilities of waste streams which are subject to the land disposal restrictions ( LDRs) of 40 CFR Part 268. Many commercial TSD facilities rely on this certification prior to accepting wastes from generators. This certification from generators enables commercial facilities accurately characterize waste streams for treatment ( if required) and disposal. In addition, the certification acts as an additional tool in identifying and accurately characterizing LDR waste streams prior to disposal. Because waste streams may not be accurately characterized, TNRCC is concerned that the proposed elimination of this requirement will potentially created a problem for commercial TSD facilities which accept large and different waste streams. The expense of additional characterization will be passed on to the generator. In addition, certain waste streams are often generated infrequently; hence, generators and commercial facilities draw upon previous analyses for characterization of such wastes. The elimination of this requirement would require unnecessary, redundant characterization by the TSD. Please note that the LDR requirements are addressed in existing waste analysis plans ( WAPs) for both commercial and non commercial permitted TSD facilities; which means that the 173 proposed changes to the rules will require permitted facilities to review and revise their existing WAP. Be reminded that such revisions to the permit application call for a modification or amendment, thus placing an added burden on commercial TSD facilities, and possibly on permitted generators.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters ( including this one) pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement. In our experience the TSDF's in the hazardous waste management industry often provide this information to the generators which they are providing waste management services to. These generators are, in essence, already " relieved" of this burden by the TSDF's.

In addition the generator knows the underlying constituents in the waste. It is extremely difficult and expensive to discover all of the underlying constituents in a waste stream via laboratory analysis. No ones does laboratory analysis to determine all the underlying constituents in the waste because of this expense.

It is also our experience that in cases where Hazardous Wastes become secondary materials which may be " used in a manner constituting disposal" the generators often have much better knowledge of RCRA requirements than the subsequent recipients of the secondary materials, for example, fertilizer manufacturers. There is generally less incentive for LDR requirements to stay with the hazardous waste in this reuse scenario. We strongly urge EPA to retain this generator requirement.

Generator LDR recordkeeping requirements are extremely important to retain. This requirement supports the need for generators to obtain and document their acceptable knowledge of a waste 174 stream and take responsibility for knowing what is in their waste that they send on for storage or treatment. It also helps to ensure safe storage by knowing what they have at the it is generated. It also promotes the movement of LDR waste through to treatment and disposal, rather than long term storage, by requiring generators to better know what they have and what they need to treat for. This way, viable treatment options can be determined. At Hanford, this requirement has been very instrumental in encouraging DOE to have better information about what waste they are generating, how they are storing it, and what needs to be known before they can send it for treatment, and what treatment technologies are needed for development.

Also applicable at Hanford is the Federal Facility Compliance Act which dictates requirements for management of mixed waste, many of which include recordkeeping and reporting requirements that support LDRs. Section 268.7( a) fits together with the FFCA requirements. The State should not support elimination of this requirement.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a).

While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0218 Eliminate  redundant languages.

Response: Thank you for your general support. We have made efforts in the final rule to eliminate as much of the redundant language as possible.

Document #: 0337 SOCMA Supports EPA's Streamlining of Land Disposal Restrictions Paperwork Requirements.

SOCMA strongly supports EPA's proposal to eliminate and streamline certain of the land disposal 175 restrictions ( LDR) paperwork requirements. Reducing paperwork requirements would be especially helpful to specialty and custom chemical manufacturers who use batch manufacturing processes. The routine production of multiple and shifting product lines, and the resultant multiple and shifting waste streams that are produced by batch manufacturing, lead to heavy LDR paperwork burdens upon batch manufacturers.

In this regard, SOCMA particularly commends EPA for its proposal to drop the Section 268.7( a)( 1) generator waste determination requirement. As EPA correctly notes, generators already have an obligation to know enough about their wastes to characterize them, and Section 264.13( a)( 1) already requires TSDFs to perform a waste analysis that provides them with all the information needed to manage the waste appropriately. This requirement is burdensome, duplicative and should be eliminated.

Similarly, SOCMA also supports EPA's proposal to eliminate the need for a separate LDR waste determination for characteristic waste, as is presently required by Section 268.9( a). Elimination of these requirements would significantly lessen the heavy burden suffered by batch manufacturers when complying with LDR requirements without affecting the ability to manage wastes in a manner that continues to protect human health and the environment.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

268.7( a)( 1)( 2)( 3)( 4)( 5)( 6)( 7)( 8)( 10)

LDR Generator Requirements Document #: 0134 DOE suggests that, in the final rule, EPA consider also making conforming changes in any cross 176 references within the hazardous waste regulations to the re designated subsections of 268.7. Most such cross references appear within 268.7 itself. While making these changes, DOE suggests that EPA also consider removing existing cross references to 268.8, since that section was removed and reserved in 1996 [ 61 FR 15599, April 8, 1996].

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). Therefore, conforming changes are not necessary.

268.7( a)( 6) LDR Generator Requirements  Generator waste determination: Eliminate  because we are eliminating 268.7( a)( 1), this record retention requirement is unnecessary.

Document #: 0169 LDR Generator Requirements Generator waste determination: Eliminate because we are eliminating 268.7( a)( 1), this record retention requirement is unnecessary.

We agree with this proposal.

Response: Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this provision.

Document #: 0184 The deletion of this requirement creates additional reliance on the recordkeeping requirements for generators ( 262.40). To eliminate any confusion, 262.40 should be modified to state"... test results, waste analyses, all supporting data used for determinations based on knowledge of the waste, or other information used to make the determination under 262.11..."

Response: Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this 177 provision. We are therefore not following the suggestion made by the commenter to modify 40 CFR 262.40.

Document #: 0202 Proposed 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 6)

Comment. We concur with the removal of paragraph 268.7( a)( 6); however, the requirement to document waste determinations based on knowledge of the waste should then be incorporated into 268.7( a)( 8)

Discussion. We agree that paragraph 268.7( a)( 6) can be deleted as these documentation requirements are duplicative of the same documents that must be retained per paragraph 268.7( a)( 8), however, 268.7( a)( 6) is the only paragraph that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste Allowance for such a determination by the generator is specified in Section 262.11, but nowhere is there a requirement for the generator to retain the records except in current 268.7( a)( 6). Therefore, paragraph 268.7( a)( 8) should contain an explicit statement requiring retention of waste determinations made pursuant to 262.11 and 264.13 ( if applicable), in addition to documentation produced pursuant to Section 268.7.

Recommendation. Remove paragraph 268.7( a)( 6); and revise paragraph 268.7( a)( 8) to include a requirement to retain all waste determination documentation produced pursuant to 262.11, 264.13 and 268.7 for three years from the date that the waste was last sent to on site or off site treatment, storage, or disposal.

Response: Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this provision. We are not, therefore, following the suggestion that we modify any other language.

Document #: 0208 We do not support the elimination of this requirement Response: Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this 178 provision.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement.

Response Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this provision.

Document #: 0218 Eliminate unnecessary language.

Response: Some commenters supported the deletion of this requirement, generally because they support the burden reduction. However, we received other comments that opposed the deletion of the requirement to keep this information in the on site files. One commenter pointed out, correctly, that this is the only place in the LDR regulations that specifies the requirement to retain a determination based on knowledge of the waste. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes these records should continue to be retained in the facility's on site files. Thus, we agree with commenters that opposed this proposed change, and are not finalizing this provision.

268.7( b)( 4) LDR Treatment Facility Requirements Document #: 0021 This requirement should be amended to address the situation where the TSDF is both the treatment and disposal facility. In this situation the treatment operation must fill out an LDR form and place it in its files certifying that the waste has met LDR requirements. This is an unnecessary requirement because the facility's permit prohibits land disposal of hazardous waste unless the waste meets the LDR requirements.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, however, it is outside the scope of the final rule.

268.7( b)( 6) LDR Treatment Facility Requirements  Submit a recycling notice and certification to EPA: Modify  keep information on site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble. 179 Document #: 0008 Elimination of Recycler Notifications and Certifications Under 40 CFR Section 268.7( b)( 6). EPA should eliminate the notification and certification requirements for recyclers in section 268.7( b)( 6). EPA correctly recognizes that it is not necessary to notify the Agency, as long as the information is maintained at the facility.

Document #: 0031 LDR Paperwork Reduction The paperwork created in connection with the Land Disposal Restrictions would be minimized under the streamlining procedures proposed by OSW. However, with respect to recyclable material under 268.7( b)( 6), the current proposal simply changes the requirements that the facility submit notifications and certifications to the EPA with each shipment to require that the facility maintain those records on site, which although welcome, does not materially reduce the burden involved. LIA suggests OSW consider further alternatives to reduce the burdens of paperwork requirements under the LDR program, and in particular, those related to 268.7( b)( 6). For example, to encourage recycling, these notification and certification requirements could be replaced altogether with a one time certification, unless the process involves changes. Another alternative may involve relieving the frequency associated with such notifications and certifications. The facility could maintain records of the receiving facility on site, primarily as a matter of course in conducting business, but would no longer have to prepare all records with routine shipments. Changing the reporting system in this way would substantially streamline the paperwork requirements of the LDR.

Document #: 0042 Treatment Facility Notification and Certifications  Complete and submit a recycling notice and certification to EPA.

Document #: 0165 Treatment facilities that recycle hazardous wastes into products applied to the land must submit a certification under 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator that the treatment process was operated properly so as to comply with the treatment standards that apply to such waste derived products. EPA proposes to delete this notice requirement, as long as the treatment facility retains the same information in its on site records. 67 Fed. Reg. 2528 col. 2. We support this proposed amendment.

Document #: 0169 LDR Treatment Facility Requirements Submit a recycling notice and certification to EPA: Modify keep information on site. See discussion in proposed change preamble. We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0203 180 Onyx agrees with EPA that the regulatory authorities do not review the one time notices that wastes have been treated to comply with the LDR treatment standards and agrees that these notices should no longer be required to be sent to the regulatory agencies. Notification or certification forms do not need to be created as long as the information indicating that the wastes have been treated to meet the LDR standards remains in the operating record and available for review during an inspection by a regulatory agency.

Document #: 0213 We don not support the elimination of this requirement and urges EPA to make these notices more available. In our experience of trying to track down Hazardous Wastes used in the manufacture of fertilizers these notices would be important but they are not visible because to find them you must know the name of the facility. Often we do not know the facilities are carrying out the activity but we could find them if the notices were available in a data base that was searchable. They are generally filed by facility rather than by activity. Being left on site they would disappear altogether. The history of compliance is not very long in this industry and tends to be dismal.

Document #: 0218 Modify to remove submission requirements.

Response to Comments: Based on the comments received, we feel confident that maintaining these records on site provides sufficient documentation of waste treatment in these cases. We believe that regulating agencies have a great deal of information about these facilities already since in most cases they would be permitted facilities, hence retaining these notices on site does not eliminate the regulating agency's knowledge of the existence of the facility. We do also note, however, that if a state has concerns about compliance in a particular use constituting disposal industry in their state, they may chose to be more stringent than the federal program, and thus may chose to retain these notification requirements. It should be noted that the preamble to the proposal incorrectly indicated that the current regulations only require one time notifications and certifications for these materials. This is not accurate. The existing regulations actually require that certifications and notifications are sent to the regulating agency with each shipment. We further agree with the commenter who suggested that we change the requirement so that these notifications and certifications are only required to be prepared once and maintained in the facility's records, unless there are changes to the treatment process. The commenter pointed out that it would greatly reduce the burden for the facility if they were only required to prepare these documents once, and then again any time the treatment process changes. As long as these notifications and certifications are required to be maintained in the facility's files and be available for inspection, there is no reason for the facility to prepare and maintain multiple copies for each shipment. The information will be available for inspection at all times. Thus, this final rule only requires facilities ( recyclers) to prepare and maintain notifications and certifications with the initial shipment of waste, and then to prepare new documentation only if the waste, the treatment process, or the receiving facility changes 181 268.7( d) LDR Hazardous Debris Requirements Document #: 0008 Elimination of Hazardous Waste Debris Notifications Under 40 CFR Section 268.7( d). EPA should eliminate the hazardous debris notification requirements in section 268.7( d). EPA correctly recognizes that it is not necessary for facilities that generate or treat excluded debris to notify the Agency as long as pertinent information is kept in facility records.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0038 Comment. The DoD concurs with the EPA's proposed change 3 ( 64 FR 32865), which would eliminate the requirement for generators and treaters of excluded hazardous debris to notify the EPA, and instead, to maintain records on site only.

Discussion. The DoD concurs with the EPA's rationale for change 3 that there is no reason to send these notifications to the EPA or the state as long as they are maintained on site.

Recommendation. The DoD recommends that the EPA eliminate the requirement for generators and treaters to send a one time notification to the EPA or the state, when hazardous debris that has been treated with the extraction or destruction technologies listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 268.45, is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste.

References. 64 FR 32865 Comment. The EPA should implement Change 4 to eliminate the 40 CFR 268.9( d) requirement to send a one time notification and certification to the EPA or the state, when a characteristic hazardous waste is treated to remove the characteristic.

Discussion. The DoD supports elimination of the one time notification and certification to the EPA or the state that is required by 40 CFR 268.9( d). We do not believe these provide waste handlers, or regulators, any additional information on proper management of the wastes. It should be sufficient for enforcement to require the generator and/ or treater to complete the 182 certification and maintain those records in the facility's waste management files for up to three years. Further, it should be noted that the proposed change is consistent with recent amendments to 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 5), which removed the requirement for generators treating hazardous waste on site to submit waste analysis plans to the state or the EPA region.

Recommendation. The DoD recommends elimination of the requirements in 40 CFR 268.9( d) to send a one time notification and notification to the EPA or the state.

References. 64 FR 32865 Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0042 incorrect citation given, should be 268.7( d)( 1) Hazardous Debris Requirements  Prepare and submit notification to EPA.

Response: Thanks to the commenter for this correction.

Document #: 0157 Elimination of One Time notice of Decharacterized Debris Under current 40 CFR 268.7( d), generators who claim their hazardous debris is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste must send a one time notice of this claim to EPA and keep a copy of the notice in their files. The Agency explains, however, that it has " been unable to verify that this information is routinely used for its intended purpose. Therefore, we [ EPA] are proposing that generators and treaters of excluded debris not send these notifications to EPA, as long as the information that would have been in the notifications is kept in facility records." ld. at 2526, 2528. Such a change is fully appropriate given the Agency's findings.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the 183 regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0203 Onyx agrees with EPA's proposal that generators and treaters of hazardous debris that is excluded from the definition of a hazardous waste need not complete or submit a one time notice of this claim to EPA. The information that would have been in the notification should only be maintained in the generators and treaters facility records Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

268.7( d)( 1) LDR Hazardous Debris Requirements  Submit notification of claim that debris is excluded from definition of hazardous waste: Modify  notification becomes one time and remains on site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble.

Document #: 0169 LDR Hazardous Debris Requirements Submit notification of claim that debris is excluded from definition of hazardous waste: Modify notification becomes one time and remains On site. See discussion in proposed role preamble.

We oppose this change. Notification for exclusion should continue to be submitted. The notification allows the regulatory authority to spot check the hazardous debris to ensure it is excluded from the definition and to obtain information that nothing has been mixed with the debris. We have extensive enforcement experience with facilities that have illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. If the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected to see the one time notification, the material will be difficult, if not impossible, to recover which can result in a serious threat to human 184 health and the environment.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0184 This is the only regulatory mechanism for notifying the department that shipments of hazardous debris are bound for landfills. Some shipments of hazardous debris are controversial, and removing this requirement eliminates the state's ability to conduct confirmation sampling, if it is deemed necessary.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement and urges EPA to make these notices more available to all states and the public. When they are retrievable by activity they are useful for workload planning, targeting inspection, creating stakeholder lists, and finding wastes in commerce.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the 185 regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

Document #: 0218 Eliminate submission requirements.

Response: Although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed.

268.7/ 268.9 Document #: 0202 Reference. Proposed 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) and Proposed CFR 268.9( a); 67 FR 2528 and 2543.

Comment. For clarity of the LDRs, it would be best to reference 262.11 and 264.13 waste determination requirements in 268.7( a)( 1) rather that 268.9( a), thereby revising 268.7( a)( 1) to serve as an overview of the LDR requirements, and retaining 268.9 specifically for the special rules regarding characteristic waste.

Discussion. EPA proposes to delete the waste determination requirement from 268.7( a)( 1) and move the remainder of the paragraph 268.7( a)( 1) text to 268.9( a), thus eliminating 268.7( a)( 1) entirely. Then, in addition to inserting text from 268.7( a)( 1), the proposed revision to 268.9( a) incorporates by reference a waste determination requirement. Rather, we suggest incorporating the waste determination references to 262.11 and 264.13 into 268.7( a)( 1), eliminating the details of the determination from current 268.7( a)( 1), and leaving the latter part of current 268.7( a)( 1) as is. This provides clarity to the regulations by introducing the LDR scheme prior to specifying the related paperwork requirements. Then, 268.9( a) need only contain the " special rules," as the section heading implies, broken out into two paragraphs as EPA has proposed. 186 Recommendation. To enhance readability of the LDR requirements, we recommend the following revisions to paragraphs 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a):

Section 268.7 Testing, tracking and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters, and disposal facilities. ( A)( 1) A generator of hazardous waste must determine, following the requirements of 262.11 of this chapter or 264.13, if applicable, whether the waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. This is done by determining if the hazardous waste meets the treatment standards in 268.40, 260.45, or 268.49. [ Note, the treatment standard reference is to 268.45, as in the current regulatory text, rather than 268.48 as EPA proposed]. ( i) Some hazardous wastes must be treated by particular treatment methods before they can be land disposed. These treatment method are also found in 268.40, and are described in detail in 268.42, Table 1. These wastes, and soils contaminated with such wastes, do not need to be tested ( however, if they are in a waste mixture, other wastes with concentration level treatment standards would have to be tested). ( ii) If a generator is managing a waste or soil contaminated with a waste, that displays a hazardous characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, they must comply with the special requirements of 268.9 of this part in addition to any applicable requirement in this section.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0208 Instead of the confusing " generator paperwork requirements" Table in 268.7( a), FDEP recommends that EPA adopt a uniform waste profile form that must be submitted to the TSD prior for shipment. Completing a waste profile is an unacknowledged recordkeeping and 187 reporting burden on the generator under the 40 CFR 262.11, 262.49( c) and 264/ 3 requirements. Signed waste profiles also often are used to fulfill the TSD notice requirement under 264.12( b). A waste profile form could include all the information needed to make treatment decisions under both land ban and waste analysis plan requirements.

The generator should also be required to CERTIFY that the waste has been properly characterized. The signed certification statement on manifest forms is not sufficient for this purpose. DOT shipping names ( which are the only requirement for manifests) do not provide complete waste characterization and treatability information. Currently a generator must certify that a waste meets land disposal treatment standards but does NOT have to certify that the waste has been properly characterized as to all applicable waste codes when the generator says the waste does not meet treatment standards.

Regulatory agencies can claim that since waste profile forms are required to be completed pursuant to a hazardous waste permit, they are therefore " records required to be maintain" by the agency. However, it is much more difficult to make a criminal case on falsification of a waste profile than a manifest. The reality is that many times, an untrained sales person for the TSDF will complete the waste profile for the generator. This is an invitation to fraud, especially when a storage facility or fuels blending facility is involved. The facilities that bulk waste will usually have a " blanket profile" filed with the treatment or disposal facility that can include a wide range of constituent concentrations, listings and physical parameters.

Most TSDFs are not required to examine or test every drum they receive to ensure that the waste was profiled correctly. This is especially true when the waste is profiles as non hazardous.

If the agency adopts a uniform waste profile form, generators who treat on site should still have to fill out a waste profile and retain it on site. The profile would fulfill the recordkeeping and certification requirements under 268.7( a)( 3,5,6,7 and 8) 268.7( d) and ( e).

At 67 FR 2528 Change 3. The problem is not that 268.7( d) notices are not being reviewed by the receiving agencies. They just aren't being submitted by the generator. This section should be deleted for TSDFs and moved to 268.7( a) for generators ( assuming that section is kept). Relatively few TSDFs treat off site debris. Sections 268.7 and 268.9 should be consolidated. Having them separate is unnecessary and confusing.

To reduce confusion, generator waste profile and certification requirements should be a part of 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart B. Generators ( including 100 to 1,000 kg/ m generators) who treat should be required to comply with 40 CFR 265.13, which should be amended to include land ban analysis, certification and recordkeeping requirements. Part 268 should be limited to treatment standards and some of the particular prohibitions, such as dilution in lieu of treatment. EPA should finalize the proposed rule for national uniform hazardous waste manifest along with these changes. 188 Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. As far as 268.7( d)( 1) is concerned, although most commenters supported the proposed deletion of the one time requirement to submit this notification to EPA or the authorized state, several commenters made convincing arguments that this particular notification should continue to be submitted to the EPA or authorized state. One state commenter said they had extensive experience with facilities that illegally disposed of hazardous waste debris. Another state commenter said that if the regulatory authority is unaware of the presumed exclusion, by the time the facility is inspected, the debris will likely be impossible to recover. And commenters supported that this notification is needed in order to alert the regulatory authority for the need for spot checks, especially of " controversial" hazardous waste debris. The Agency is convinced by these commenters that this notification should remain in place, and is thus not finalizing the deletion of the requirement to submit the notification to the EPA or authorized state as proposed. Therefore we are not making any of the suggested changes to these sections of the LDR regulations.

268.9 LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes Document #: 0218 Eliminate  redundant languages Response: Thank you for your general support. We have made efforts in the final rule to eliminate as much of the redundant language as possible. 189 268.9( a) LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes  Submit one time notification: Modify  a separate determination is unnecessary. See discussion in proposed rule preamble.

Document #: 0006 Eliminate Section 268.9( a)  EPA correctly recognizes that a separate characteristic waste determination for underlying hazardous constituents is unnecessary in light of similar requirements contained in 262.11, 264.13, and 268.40. These requirements ensure a waste is properly characterized for achieving compliance with the LDRs.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0008 Elimination of Characteristic Waste Determinations Under 40 CFR Section 268.9( a). EPA should eliminate the LDR requirement for generators of characteristic hazardous wastes to determine the underlying hazardous constituents of those wastes. EPA again correctly recognizes that this requirement is unnecessary in light of similar requirements elsewhere in the regulations. As with section 268.7( a), the waste determination issues contemplated by section 268.9( a) are already adequately addressed by similar generator requirements under section 262.11, and by requirements on treatment facilities under sections 264.13 and 268.40.

EPA also should reconsider eliminating the duplicative generator characteristic waste notification requirements in section 268.9( d). The one time notification and certification that a waste is no longer characteristically hazardous serves only to create a potential compliance obstacle that a generator might occasionally stumble over, despite best management efforts. Like other notification requirement EPA is proposing to eliminate ( see below), retention of the certifications 190 in facility records is sufficient.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0021 Onyx does not believe a separate waste determination under 268.9( a) is necessary. However, elimination of the requirement under 268.9( a) is not necessary as long as the waste determination requirements under 262.11, 264.13, and 268.40 are referenced.

The Agency's evaluation of this requirement and its possible elimination seems to be in contradiction with section B of this Notice that discusses removing the tracking mechanism for debris that exits the RCRA program. On page 32862 of this Notice, the Agency list several notifications it views as high priority and will keep. 40 CFR Part 268.9 is one of the high priority notifications. The Agency states the following reason: " Maintaining this notice and supporting information is important because once the waste has been decharacterized it can be land disposed in a nonhazardous landfill. An inspector will not know where this waste was sent for treatment or disposal without this notice because the receiving facility in out of RCRA jurisdiction. Therefore, this information is critical to maintain the RCRA cradle to grave tracking process."

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis 191 burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0029 p. 32865, col. 1  EPA requests comment on whether the requirement in 40 CFR 268.9( a) for generators to determine the underlying hazardous constituents in their characteristic hazardous waste should be eliminated.

The comment in item 1, above applies to a larger number of characteristic hazardous wastes than listed hazardous wastes. Furthermore, in the case of characteristic hazardous wastes that fall into waste code subcategories for which the LDR treatment standard involves treatment of underlying hazardous constituents ( UHCs), an additional issue arises. UHCs are defined by 40 CFR 268.2( i) as being any constituent listed in 40 CFR 268.48, Table UTS  Universal Treatment Standards, except fluoride, selenium, sulfides, vanadium, and zinc, which can reasonably be expected to be present at the point of generation of the hazardous waste at a concentration above the concentration above the constituent specific UTS level. There are several hundred constituents listed on Table UTS. DOE believes that generators are in a better position to evaluate which of these several hundred constituents can reasonably be expected to be present at the point of generation that are treaters and disposers. Therefore, the overall burden on the regulated community ( generators, treatment facilities storage facilities, and disposal facilities) should be less if generators continue to be responsible for determining the underlying hazardous constituents in their characteristic hazardous waste for the entire universe of possible UHCs verify that all are below UTS levels.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a).

While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not 192 characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0155 The existing language in 40 CFR 268.9( a) should not be modified unless additional language is added to the regulations which clearly indicates it is the generators responsibility to determine the underlying hazardous constituents as defined in 40 CFR 262.11.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0169 LDR Special Proposed changes for Characteristic Waste Submit one time notification: Modify a separate determination is unnecessary. See discussion in proposed role preamble. We agree with this proposal.

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is 193 valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0184 We support this proposed change, but only with additional modifications. The proposed modifications to this citation will increase the emphasis on complete generator waste determinations and adequacy of facility Waste Analysis Plans. These are two areas that might not have received adequate scrutiny in the past. Some TSDFs do not obtain a detail chemical and physical analysis of generator specific waste, but rather use " profiles" that are significantly more generic and do not necessarily confirm the identity of generator specific waste.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0203 Onyx does not agree with EPA's proposal to eliminate the 40 CFR 268.9( a) determination and does not believe that it is a duplicative requirement. The requirement to determine whether a hazardous waste, as generated, meets the LDR treatment standards should remain with the generator of the hazardous waste and not be imposed upon the TSDF that receives the waste from the generator. This regulation places the burden of determining if a waste must be treated prior to land disposal on the appropriate entity, the generator.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). 194 While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements and are not making any of the suggested changes to the readability of the these two provisions.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement and urge EPA to make these notices more available to all states and the public. When they are retrievable by activity they are useful for workload planning, targeting inspections, creating stakeholder lists, and finding wastes in commerce.

268.9( d) LDR Special Rules for Characteristic Wastes  Submit certification: Modify  keep information on site. See discussion in proposed rule preamble.

Document #: 0029 3. p. 32865, col. 2  EPA requests comment on whether the requirement in 40 CFR 268.9( d) for generators and treaters to send to EPA or the authorized State a notification and certification that a characteristic waste has been treated so it no longer exhibits a characteristic should be eliminated.

DOE would support eliminating the requirement for generators and treaters to submit notifications and certifications to EPA or the authorized State under 40 CFR 268.9( d) if EPA is satisfied, based on information collected so far, that subtitle D treatment and disposal companies are being adequately informed in situations involving decharacterized wastes that still require treatment of UHC's at the point of disposal ( see 59 FR 47980,48016, col. 3; September 9, 1994).

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that 195 these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0157 Elimination of One Time Notice of Decharacterized Waste Finally, EPA proposes to eliminate the notification requirement of 40 CFR 268.9( d). ld. at 2526. Under that section, once a characteristic waste is treated so it is no longer characteristic, a related one time notification and certification must be placed in the generator's files and sent to EPA. We agree that this information, once sent to EPA, is not routinely used, and therefore these notifications should not have to be sent to EPA if they are kept at the facility. ld. at 2528.

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0169 LDR Special Proposed changes for Characteristic Wastes Submit certification: Modify keep information on site. See discussion in proposed change preamble. We agree with this proposal.

Response Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0184 This is the only regulatory mechanism for notifying the department of shipments of decharacterized wastes prior to the shipment. Some shipments of de characterized wastes are controversial, and removing this requirement eliminates the state's ability to conduct confirmation sampling, if it is deemed necessary.

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that 196 these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0213 We do not support the elimination of this requirement and urges EPA to make these notices more available to all states and the public. Whey they are retrievable by activity they are useful for workload planning, targeting inspections, creating stakeholder lists, and finding wastes in commerce.

Response Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0218 268.9( d).  Eliminate submission requirements.

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency.

Document #: 0224 CRWI supports the proposed change to eliminate the notification step for wastes that exhibit a characteristic. Instead of putting the one time notification and certification in the operating record and sending it to the region or the state, EPA has proposed to place it in the operating record ( 268.9( d)). CRWI supports this change and suggests that EPA retain this in the final rule.

Response: Almost all commenters supported the proposal to delete the one time requirement that the 268.9( d) notification be sent to EPA or the authorized state. This is because the notification must be placed in the on site files and would thus be available for inspection. Other commenters opposed the deletion of this submittal requirement, stating that this information is valuable, especially for controversial wastes. The Agency continues to believe, however, that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, and is eliminating the requirement to submit these notices to the authorized regulatory agency. 197 268.9( a)( 2)

Document #: 0184 The language proposed for 268.9( a)( 2) is also ambiguous, stating, "... where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste will carry one or more of the characteristic waste codes..." This appears to give the generator the option of identifying only one characteristic ( D001 or D002), and ignoring the more expensive toxicity determination ( 40 consultants), if they choose to do so. It would be advantageous to state, "... where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste will carry all applicable characteristic waste codes..."

Response: Thank you for the suggestion but it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

268.40 Document # 0038 LDR Notification: Wastes on lines 11a 11b 11c 11d require treatment.

* If the waste is to be treated by a alternative treatment standard, such as for lab packs or soils or debris, the generator would be required to put this information into existing box 15. In the absence of information in box 15, the standards in 40 CFR 268.40 would have to be met by the TSDF.

* Alternatively, a vertical column could be added to the manifest to the left of the column 12. The title of the column could be: Additional Treatment Required. In association with each line item on the manifest ( 11a, 11b, etc), the generator would check the box if additional treatment was required. It would still be recommended that alternative treatment standards be presented in box 15. Additionally, the EPA may need to add elements for individual state hazardous waste codes,

Recommendation. The DoD recommends that the EPA make appropriate changes in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form, discussed above, to provide reductions in facility reporting burden and promote a single manifest acceptable by all states, territories, and the federal government.

References. 64 FR 32866 Response: Changes to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to include the LDR paperwork requirements is outside the scope of this regulation.

Document #: 0165 Finally, EPA relies on 268.40 which is the general prohibition on land disposal unless the waste meets treatment standards. EPA argues that this prohibition requires knowledge of waste 198 constituents, 67 Fed. Reg. 2528 co.. 2, which is certainly true, but it begs the question of how a TSD facility is supposed to obtain that knowledge. Once again, 268.40 is predicated upon the previous steps in the LDR process which begins with the generator determination required by 268.7( a)( 1). The critical success of the LDR program has depended, in large part, on generators being responsible for making the initial determination that their wastes require treatment, including the presence and concentration of hazardous constituents that must be effectively treated. EPA should not eliminate such a key element of the regulatory scheme. EPA's preamble rationale for proposing to eliminate 268.7( a)( 1) and ( a)( 6) is flawed and does not support a final rule.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

270.16( a) Part B Requirements for Tank Systems  Submit written assessment of structural integrity:

Proposed Action: Modify  in addition to an registered, independent professional engineer, this assessment may be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.191( a), ( b)( 5)( iii)

Document #: 0218 The DEQ OPPOSES the modification proposed. Response: In today's final rule we are requiring this assessment be done by a qualified, Professional Engineer. 199 270.17( d) Part B Requirements for Surface Impoundments  Assessment of structural integrity:

Proposed Action: Modify  in addition to a registered, independent professional engineer, this assessment may be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0213 We do not support this proposal.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ OPPOSES the proposed modification. The assessment of the integrity of a dike or similar earthen structure is a process that can only be performed by someone highly trained and experienced in civil or geotechnical engineering fields. Generally, the professionals most technically proficient in this field are those that have dedicated a substantial portion of their careers to this area. Allowing individuals without engineering credentials to perform this certification would result in a decrease in safety of the impoundments, possibly endangering human health and the environment.

DEQ would also note that the language of 264.226( c) specifically requires that a " qualified engineer" perform the required assessment, and EPA has not proposed any changes to this paragraph.

Response to Comments: Although changes to this certification were not proposed, EPA believes they are a logical outgrowth of today's changes to provide consistency to the certification requirements, i. e., removing the term, " registered." Therefore, the assessment of structural integrity must be made by a qualified Professional Engineer.

Manifest  NODA

Document #: 0004 EPA does not at this time invite comment on burden reduction initiatives concerning the Uniform Manifest. However, in the discussion about electronic submission, this docket cites several burden reducing initiatives involving the Manifest. We cannot resist this opportunity to voice our support for EPA's Uniform Manifest reform efforts and dismay about delays that have hampered the rulemaking. Despite EPA's rhetoric about the priority afforded this initiative, we are concerned about the Agency's sporadic commitment of resources. We strongly recommend that EPA commit the staff and resources necessary to prevent any further slippage of this important regulatory and burden reducing effort.

Response: Although this comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule, the Agency appreciates your concern about promulgation of the Uniform Manifest Rule. On March 200 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published this final rule establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0011 We oppose the proposal to mandate a fully automated hazardous waste manifesting system at this time. States should have the ability to require paper manifests. Original signatures are necessary in many States to prove liability in enforcement cases. Lack of original signatures has negated criminal enforcement actions in the past. Spending resources to develop electronic data entry to manifests to allow automation in filling out the manifest would be advantageous. Further research into the filing of electronic manifests is encouraged, but, until courts are willing to accept electronic signatures as valid, legally binding signatures, we cannot concur.

One of the proposals in the background document entitle " Draft Burden Reduction Analysis" includes revising the manifest form to reduce the variability of State requirements. This would adversely affect many States, and is also opposed. Many States base their fee structures on the hazardous waste manifests. Without the State specific information, the fee systems could not function in the same manner and costly changes would be required. This would be overly burdensome for many States. This section of the manifest should not be altered.

The concept of providing manifesting relief to utilities is encouraged. However, expanding that concept to target exemptions for manifest requirements for generators shipping recyclable materials ( as indicated in the " Draft Burden Reduction Analysis") is very troublesome. Since we have so many cases of sham recycling and mismanagement of wastes which were designated as recyclable, providing an exemption for recyclable materials would undermine the basic premise of the RCRA program  to protect human health and the environment. Recyclable materials still need to be managed appropriately.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0020 Modifying the manifest form: A universal form would limit State flexibility. We would not be able to change the form in the future if necessary.

The Department supports the ability to use a separate tracking form for Universal Wastes.

We do not agree that the generator can pass responsibility of signing the manifest to a preparer. The generator should continue to sign the manifest either by hand or electronically. 201 The Department favors keeping all of the state optional boxes on the manifest. It is vitally important to keep Site Address, State Transporter ID, Phone number of Generator and Phone number of Facility. Problems with manifests are frequent enough that one person in the enforcement unit spends 3/ 4 of his time troubleshooting the manifests. One very common problem is incorrect ID numbers. EPA should not assume it is easy to find a phone number for an out of state facility. We need to be able to reach generator and TSDF easily if there is a problem with their manifest. The more information collected on the manifest that satisfies EPA's BRS requirements, the sooner we can get away from the traditional form of biennial reporting ( e. g. site address, mailing address, phone number, system type codes, etc.)

Other Technical Concerns: The Department supports addressing the issues of rejected loads and container residues as we continue to experience problems in this regard.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0022 It would be unacceptable to reduce or eliminate the State requirements from the manifests. States have required information that is important to track the waste. EPA should not use this to help with its burden reduction requirements. It is also unacceptable to exempt transporters from signing the manifest. The transporters are an important part of tracking the waste from the " cradle to the grave." Enforcement actions have been taken against transporters who have not properly signed the manifest. If transporters are not requested to sign the manifest, they might not feel as much of the responsibility as if they are required to sign them. Reducing the burden by only 1% is not worth the potential problems.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0025 Currently many states make minor modifications to customize hazardous waste manifests. The changes are minor, but they result in generators having to maintain multiple manifest forms and, for automated systems, implement stat specific forms and reports. All of these differences lead to higher costs with no identifiable benefits. Since stats have the authority to customize manifests, we encourage EPA to work with the states to develop a truly standardized manifest.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 202 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0026 The hazardous waste manifest system has often been problematic to many of our customers, particularly those that take part in reclamation activities. These include on site reclamation, returns to our manufacturing facilities, intra company reclamation, off site reclamation with return, and third party reclamation. The bulk of the hazardous waste from photo processing facilities is precious metal recyclable wastes, that are subject to reduced requirements under RCRA. Aptly so, because silver rich solutions contain sufficient amounts of silver to support cost effective silver recovery by large and small photoimagers. Companies which operate in multiple states need different manifests and have to follow varying state procedures for the same wastes, due to the lack of uniformity of state manifest requirements. Providing a targeted exemption from manifest requirements would greatly reduce the administrative burden for our customers who have to manage silver bearing wastes in the same manner as hazardous waste disposal problem.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0030 Same comment as Document #: 0025.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.

Document #: 0038 Hazardous waste manifest forms should be modified if those changes can achieve real reductions in the reporting burden on facilities. Potential changes include addition of EPA waste codes, applicable state waste codes, and LDR treatment notification.

The DoD supports changes to the manifest, which will simplify and reduce overall reporting burdens on our installations. We encourage the EPA to consider the following changes but to implement only in the context of reducing overall reporting burdens: 203 * Provide space for the generator to complete their LDR treatment notification requirements for each waste stream. * Make the EPA waste codes mandatory. * Provide space for optional entry of a state waste code.

The DoD believes that facilities should have the option to meet their LDR notification requirements on the manifest through use of two new fields, a waste code field and a field to indicate whether the waste meets LDR treatment standards or not. We support this if it eliminates the separate LDR notification requirements of 268.7( a).

The DoD finds that the addition of the waste code to the manifest has other advantages, which can reduce reporting burdens on the regulated community. First, the addition of the EPA waste code and the applicable state waste codes could enable the EPA and states to replace Biennial Report System, or similar state systems, through the data collected in an electronic manifesting system.

Lastly, the changes discussed above should make the manifest more acceptable to all states, territories, and the Federal government. We encourage the EPA to use these changes as a starting point to develop a manifest that would be used nation wide. This could lead to meaningful burden reduction.

* Addition to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Make column " I", the waste number, a numbered mandatory column. Add a new numbered box for the LDR notification in the area currently reserved for items " J", " K", and 15. For example:

LDR Notification: Wastes on lines 11a 11b 11c 11d require treatment.

* If the waste is to be treated by an alternative treatment standard, such as for lab packs or soils or debris, the generator would be required to put this information into existing box 15. In the absence of information in box 15, the standards in 40 CFR 268.40 would have to be met by the TSDF.

* Alternatively, a vertical column could be added to the manifest to the left of column 12. The title of the column could be: Additional treatment Required. In association with each line item on the manifest ( 11a, 11b, etc), the generator would check the box if additional treatment required. It would still be recommended that alternative treatment standards be presented in box 15. Additionally, the EPA may need to add elements for individual state hazardous waste codes.

The DoD recommends that the EPA make appropriate changes in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form, discussed above, to provide reductions in facility reporting burden and promote a single manifest acceptable by all states, territories, and the federal government. 204 Response: This comment is outside the scope of the final Burden Reduction rule. On March 4, 2005 ( 70 FR 10775), however, we published the Uniform Manifest final rule, establishing a nationally standardized manifest form. We estimate this new form will significantly change the paperwork burden to states and industry, resulting in a savings of between $ 12  20 million annually.