COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT   HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; STANDARDIZED PERMIT; CORRECTIVE ACTION; AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ( RCRA 2001 0029)

Office of Solid Waste U. S. Environmental Protection Agency April 2005 2 Table of Contents 1. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Overview and Background ( I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3. What would be the Advantages of a Standardized Permit? ( I. C. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4. Who would be Eligible for a Standardized Permit? ( I. C. 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. What are the Proposed Steps for Obtaining a Standardized Permit? ( I. D. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6. Eligibility of facilities that manage through on site storage and treatment units as well as through other types of waste management units ( I. E. 3. a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7. Should the standardized permit be applicable to facilities that treat or store waste generated off site? ( I. E. 3. b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 9. Additional ways to reduce burden and cost of permitting while maintaining effectiveness? ( I. E. 3. d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10. How would the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Requirements Change? ( II. B) . . . . 70 11. Submit a Notice of Intent to operate under the standardized permit along with appropriate supporting documents ( III. A. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 12. How would I Switch from an Individual Permit to a Standardized Permit? ( III. B) . . . . . . . 74 13. Issuing a Standardized Permit ( IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 14. Drafting terms and conditions for the supplemental portion ( IV. A. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 15. Denying coverage under the standardized permit ( IV. A. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 16. Preparing your draft permit decision in 120 days ( IV. A. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 17. How Would the Regulatory Agency Prepare a Final Standardized Permit? ( IV. B) . . . . . . 90 18. In What Situations Could Facility Owners or Operators be Required to Apply for an Individual Permit? ( IV. C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 19. What are the Proposed Opportunities for Public Comments and Hearings? ( V. B) . . . . . . . 94 3 20. How could People Appeal a Final Standardized Permit Decision under the Proposal? ( V. D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 21. Maintaining a Standardized Permit ( VI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 22. What Types of Changes could Owners or Operators Make? ( VI. A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 23. What are the Proposed Definitions of Routine and Significant Changes? ( VI. B) . . . . . . . . 98 24. What are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making Routine Changes? ( VI. C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 25. What are the Proposed Standardized Permit Procedures for Making Significant Changes? ( VI. D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 26. Proposed Part 267 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under A Standardized Permit ( VII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 27. Overview ( VII. A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 28. What are the proposed security requirements? ( VII. C. 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 29. What are the proposed standards for selecting the location of my facility? ( VII. C. 9) . . . . 111 30. How would I ensure access for personnel and equipment during emergencies? ( VII. D. 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 31. When would I need to manifest my waste? ( VII. F. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 32. What information would I need to keep? ( VII. F. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 33. Why would the proposed corrective action requirements be included in the supplemental portion of the standardized permit? ( VII. G. 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 34. Subpart G   Closure ( VII. H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 35. What general standards would I need to meet when I stop operating the unit? ( VII. H. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 36. What procedures would I need to follow? ( VII. H. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 37. After I stop operating, how long would I have until I close the unit? ( VII. H. 3) . . . . . . . 136 4 38. Subpart H   Financial Requirements ( VII. I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 39. Closure cost estimates ( VII. I. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 40. Option 4: Standard forms for estimating closure costs ( VII. I. 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 41. Option 5: Default estimates for estimating closure costs ( VII. I. 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 42. Option 6: Waiving the cost estimate for facilities using the financial test or corporate guarantee ( VII. I. 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 43. Financial assurance for closure ( VII. I. 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 44. Liability requirements ( VII. I. 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 45. Other provisions of the financial requirements ( VII. I. 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 46. Subpart I   Use and management of containers ( VII. J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 47. Would this subpart apply to me? ( VII. J. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 48. What would I need to do when I want to stop using the containers? ( VII. J. 7) . . . . . . . . 170 49. Subpart J   Tank Systems ( VII. K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 50. What are the proposed required design and construction standards for new tank systems or components? ( VII. K. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 51. What are the proposed preventative requirements for containing a release? ( VII. K. 6) . . . 174 52. Specific Changes to Part 270: Permit reapplication ( VIII. B. 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 53. Specific Changes to Part 270: Continuation of expiring permits ( VIII. B. 7) . . . . . . . . . . . 176 54. What Information would I Need to Submit to the Permitting Agency to Support my Standardized Permit Application?: RCRA Part A application information ( IX. B. 1) . . 177 55. What are the Proposed Certification Requirements? Certification of compliance ( IX. C. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 56. What are the Proposed Certification Requirements? Certification of availability of information ( IX. C. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 5 57. What happens if my facility is not in compliance with proposed part 267 requirements at the time I submit my Notice of Intent? ( IX. C. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 58. What Information would be Required to be Kept at my Facility? ( IX. D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 59. What Information would be Required to be Kept at my Facility? Air emission control information ( IX. D. 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 60. Public Comments on Corrective Action and Financial Assurance Issues ( X) . . . . . . . . . . 191 61. Public Comment on Corrective Action and Financial Assurance Issues: Corrective Action ( X. A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 62. Could I satisfy the RCRA corrective action requirements for my site by conducting cleanup under an alternate State program? ( X. A. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 63. How would EPA and the authorized States address the alternate authority cleanup provisions in the RCRA permit? ( X. A. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 64. How would EPA or the authorized State determine that cleanups conducted under an alternate cleanup program would satisfy the requirements of section 264.101? ( X. A. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 65. Financial Assurance ( X. B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 66. Executive Order 12866: Description of potential benefits of this rule ( XII. A. 1. b) . . . . . . 258 6 COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT   HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; STANDARDIZED PERMIT; CORRECTIVE ACTION; AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ( RCRA 2001 0029)

1. General Comments Comment: Allowing facilities to switch from a newly issued regular permit to a standardized permit adds an additional burden to states and regions. Existing permits should not be revoked before their term has ended. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029)

Response: The agency recognizes that, although there may be additional initial burden associated with switching to a standardized permit, we should not deny eligibility for a standardized permit simply because a facility currently has a " regular permit."

Comment: Generally we agree with the intent of this proposal. Any " managerial" simplification without sacrificing environmental integrity is good. Facilities that do not dispose or incinerate hazardous waste are not necessarily more inherently ` dangerous' { either operationally or environmentally} then many non hazardous waste operations such as chemical warehousing, bulking, or blending facilities. Drum storage of a waste solvent is functionally not any different then drum storage of raw solvent materials. The public's right to know and ` governmental' oversight should not be much different for hazardous waste facilities then it is for facilities that use & generate the waste in the first place.

We believe the proposal as written would set up a double standard between regular and standard permits regarding oversight and application requirements for the exactly the same activities. The net result of this proposal would be a disjointed compliance/ enforcement structure. Specifically regarding submittal of waste analysis plans, inclusion of off site waste handlers and permit revisions. ( James Butler, Regulatory Compliance Officer, Cycle Chem, Inc., RCRA 2001 0029 0031)

Response: The storage of waste solvent may not be functionally much different than product storage. However, the hazardous waste regulations of 40 CFR 260 270 impose requirements on hazardous waste management, rather than on product management.

The standardized permit rule is designed for the relatively straightforward management activities conducted in tanks, containers, and/ or containment buildings that normally require a permit. The rule envisioned that waste management in these units warranted a less structured permitting approach than would be applied to other waste management units, particularly when that waste is 7 either generated and managed on site, or managed at a site that receives wastes from an off site generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility. In these cases, the person treating the waste should have adequate knowledge of the wastes being treated, whether generated on site, or received from off site.

Comment: Limited Direct Value for SOCMA Members. Despite the obvious benefits of a standardized permit, SOCMA believes that the clean closure requirements and strict insurance requirements are sufficiently burdensome so as to preclude many SOCMA members from obtaining standardized permits for their own facilities. Currently, most SOCMA members do not have Part B permits for the specific reasons that the multi year lead time, costs, and related burdens associated with the Part B permit process make it too cumbersome and inflexible to be a feasible option. The market driven nature of batch manufacturing creates an inability to accurately predict in advance which products and hence which wastes will be produced. This effectively precludes a batch manufacturer from being able to obtain a Part B permit which has sufficient flexibility to cover the varying waste streams which may be produced.

If there were a more tailored hazardous waste storage option available to SOCMA members that did not include the burdensome requirements of the Part B permit, many SOCMA members could benefit from the increased flexibility that longer storage time might afford. Similarly, greater flexibility in storage options could increase the ability of SOCMA members to pursue recycling opportunities which presently are not feasible due to the lack of a Part B permit.

Thus, while SOCMA commends EPA for pursuing the standardized permit proposal, SOCMA urges EPA to consider additional steps for providing greater flexibility with respect to on site storage practices for generating facilities that are not Part B permitted facilities. ( Jeff Gunnulfsen, Manager, Government Relations, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (" SOCMA"), RCRA 2001 0029 0038)

Response: The standardized permit rule was intended to provide a more streamlined permitting approach for those activities for which a permit is already required. Providing greater flexibility for on site management without a permit is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment:

1. The U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE) generally supports EPA's efforts to streamline the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) permitting process. The standardized permit would be available to generators that non thermally treat or store hazardous waste in on site containers, tanks or containment buildings. DOE agrees that the standardized permit should help to streamline the administrative permitting process for these generators and shorten the time required to obtain the RCRA permit, without lessening the environmental protection provided by the permit. The standardized permit should also 8 reduce the amount of time and resources required to maintain the RCRA permit through the operating life of the facility, by providing streamlined permit modification and renewal processes.

2. DOE is concerned about possible implications of the proposed standardized permit regulations with respect to EPA's long standing policy that exempts from RCRA permitting requirements the storage and treatment of a limited amount of hazardous waste in tanks or containers by the generator at or near the site of generation. This policy is based on the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34( c), and is supported by several EPA policy statements, the most recent of which appeared in a letter dated July 18, 2000 ( E. Cotsworth, EPA to L. Moothart, Belshire Environmental Services). While the standardized permit notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM) does not suggest any change to the generator exemption for storage and treatment in tanks or containers, DOE urges EPA to clarify in the final rule that there is none. In addition, DOE suggests that EPA consider promulgating, as part of the standardized permit rule, clarifying changes to 40 CFR 262.34( c). DOE has observed that EPA continues to receive inquiries from the regulated community about whether the generator exemption for storage in tanks or containers also allows treatment. This is evidenced by repeated policy statements addressing this subject dating back to 1985. DOE believes the reason this subject receives so many inquiries is because the treatment exemption is not clearly stated in the regulations. Therefore, DOE believes that clarifying changes are warranted and that EPA could logically make them as part of the final standardized permit rule.

3. In the preamble to the standardized permit NPRM, EPA indicates that, due to the complexity of thermal treatment and land disposal activities, individual permits continue to be warranted for these types of hazardous waste management activities ( p. 52196, col. 1). DOE agrees that these types of hazardous waste management activities are more complex than storage and non thermal treatment. Also more complex are post closure units undergoing remediation. Nevertheless, DOE encourages EPA to look for opportunities to reduce the permitting burden, even for such complex waste management practices. Regarding post closure units undergoing remediation, there seems to be a particular need to reduce administrative paperwork and expedite regulator reviews in order to accelerate cleanups. One DOE facility reports that obtaining regulator approval of a permit modification to simply add or move one extraction well at a RCRA regulated post closure unit has taken up to 11 months.

4. DOE requests that, in the final standardized permit rule, EPA confirm that mixed waste not managed under the mixed waste treatment and storage conditional exemption ( 40 CFR part 266, subpart N) would be eligible for a standardized permit, if the generator treats or stores it in tanks, containers, or containment buildings in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 267. ( Thomas T. Traceski, Director, RCRA/ CERCLA Division, DOE, RCRA 2001 0029 0039) 9 Response: The Standardized Permit Rulemaking, as DOE points out, is not intended to change policy related to the 40 CFR 262.34 generator accumulation provisions, which allow wastes generated on site to be stored without a permit under certain conditions. This rulemaking does not modify the provisions applicable to generators managing wastes within the time limits and conditions of § 262.34. It applies only to activities of RCRA TSDs that are otherwise subject to permitting ( and who generate and then store or treat waste on site in containers, tanks, or containment buildings, or facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility, and then store or non thermally treat the hazardous waste in containers, tanks, or containment buildings.

With respect to mixed waste not being managed under the mixed waste treatment and storage conditional exemption, the storage of such waste in tanks, containers, or in containment buildings would be eligible for a standardized permit, presuming the other regulatory conditions were met.

Comment: USWAG Commends EPA For Proposing Regulations That Could Provide Significant Regulatory Relief to Members of the Regulated Community. USWAG applauds EPA for proposing a RCRA standardized permit rulemaking that will provide regulatory relief from current RCRA hazardous waste permitting requirements to many members of the regulated community   we have long supported such streamlining efforts. We specifically support the Agency's proposal to streamline RCRA hazardous waste permitting procedures as they apply to hazardous waste storage in tanks, containers, and containment buildings, and we agree that such streamlined procedures will continue to protect human health and the environment while providing procedural relief to many members of the regulated community.

USWAG agrees with the fundamental premise underlying the standardized permit proposal:

These units [ i. e., tanks, containers, and containment buildings] are relatively simple to design and properly construct. The engineering and construction knowledge and skills necessary to design and construct these units are relatively basic. These units are in common usage in many applications and are frequently bought " off the shelf" or built from " off the shelf" designs. Industry associations and standards organizations have developed standards for these units that are in widespread use. 66 Fed. Reg. at 52196.

We also agree that "[ i] t is easier to control risks at these simpler storage and treatment units. We believe that the streamlined standardized permit, as proposed, would allow adequate interaction and oversight by the regulating agency and would provide sufficient technical controls to protect human health and the environment." Id. 10 Additionally, USWAG commends the Agency for investigating the important issue of coordinating RCRA corrective action requirements between authorized RCRA programs and alternate State programs. Id. at 52232 36. It is essential to address this issue explicitly within the context of the standardized permit proposal to " balance [ EPA's] desire for a streamlined permitting process against the need for flexibility in the corrective action program." Id. at 52213. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Response: We appreciate your comments. In the final rule, we are not adding any additional corrective action provisions beyond what already exists in the regulations. This final rule does not include a policy or regulatory provisions related to the use of alternate authorities to address corrective action needs at RCRA facilities. The Agency continues to explore the use of alternate authorities. However, the Agency would prefer to do so in the broader context of all facilities, rather than just permitted facilities and, therefore, believes it is more appropriate to do so outside of this rulemaking.

Because issues related to alternate authority use are not addressed in this final rule, the Agency did not respond to comments related to those issues. The Agency may in the future develop guidance on issues related to use of alternate authorities, and will consider comments submitted on this rulemaking at that time.

Comment: If a new HSWA waste was created by EPA, and if the State of Missouri had adopted the Standardized Permit Rule at that time, it would be necessary and appropriate for EPA to regulate and permit the management of that new waste under the provisions of the Missouri Standardized Permit conditions appropriate for that waste. At the time that Missouri has adopted the HSWA regulations that define the newly created hazardous waste and received authorization from EPA to administer the regulations that govern it, the State will become the primary regulator.

Missouri law requires that permit applications must contain " plans, specifications, and such other data as may be necessary to demonstrate to the satisfactions of the department that such facility does or will provide adequate protection of the health of humans and the environment..." and applications must " include plans, designs, engineering reports and relevant data for construction, alteration or operation of a hazardous waste facility, to be submitted to the department by a registered professional engineer licensed by [ Missouri]." The proposed rule provides for applications which do not provide information required by our law. Furthermore " The State Geologist and the departmental engineers shall review the geologic and engineering plans, respectively, and attest to their adequacy." We feel that we could not attest to plans which are not submitted and have not been reviewed. Therefore we would have to modify the rule before we could adopt it. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: Under RCRA, authorized state's regulations often may be more stringent than the federal program. If Missouri state law requires additional information for permit 11 applications, then modification of the rule before adoption may be an appropriate course of action.

Comment: Terminology Confusion. Since 1993, California has had statutes for Standardized Permits for hazardous waste management facilities. Final Standardized Permit regulations have been in place since July 31, 1996. California Standardized Permits are available to most onsite or offsite facilities that conduct non RCRA regulated treatment or storage activities. Thirty two ( 32) California Standardized Permits are currently in effect; several more are in process. If federal regulations now provide a " Standardized Permit" for RCRA regulated onsite treatment or storage, it will result in major confusion for industries in California. The proposed regulations would apply to a different universe of wastes and activities. California's statutory and regulatory definitions and references for Standardized Permits would no longer be functional, as they would be referring to two different regulatory programs. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: Although we appreciate California's concern, we plan to continue to use the term " standardized permit" for this streamlined approach to RCRA hazardous waste permitting. We hope our use of the term with respect to the RCRA program does not result in unintended difficulties for California.

Comment: Adequate Oversight. The proposed RCRA Standardized Permit efficacies are based on the same concept as California's Standardized Permit program: specified portions of the Part B are certified, not reviewed. The proposed RCRA Standardized Permit application certifications, however, cover a far broader scope than California's application. For California's Standardized Permit program, only nine specified portions of the Part B information ( personnel training, reporting, inspection plan, security plan, facility siting information, facility management practices, manifesting compliance, contingency and emergency preparedness, and land ban compliance) were allowed to be certified, and detailed guidance and forms were provided, to assure that an applicant could be held responsible as being aware to what he was certifying. The proposed RCRA Standardized Permit application appears to have no such structure. Similarly, California has a Permit by Rule level of authorization for specified onsite waste streams and treatment activities. The allowable parameters are detailed in regulations and guidance, and an increased level of inspections is provided by the local environmental health agency. Would there be any provisions made for providing forms, guidance and/ or an increased level of inspections to assure compliance with the appropriate regulatory standards? Without this type of assistance, we believe that applicants may have a difficult time interpreting the applicable regulations accurately enough to be in compliance, regardless of their best efforts. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: We have developed some materials to assist permit applicants and regulators involved in the standardized permit process. These materials include checklists for materials required to be kept on site ( rather than be submitted), compliance checklists for regulatory provisions that must be met as part of the compliance 12 audit, and a model standardized permit. We are also in the process of developing electronic permitting approaches that should work for standardized permits.

Comment: Reactive wastes. While military munitions are excluded from management under a RCRA Standardized Permit, other reactive wastes are not. Management of reactive wastes may pose significant hazards if not properly managed. In addition, reactive wastes frequently require different handling than do other hazardous wastes. If the RCRA Standardized Permit is seen as usually including only the uniform portion of the permit, any requirements unique to reactive wastes would not be addressed. Please see the comments regarding guidance and inspections under Adequate Oversight, above. ( California Department of Toxic Substances Control, RCRA 2001 0029 0043)

Response: Management of reactive wastes may pose hazards if those wastes are not handled properly. Part 267 of the final rule includes special requirements for the proper management of ignitable or reactive wastes. Additionally, the standardized permit would, at the discretion of EPA or the director, include a supplemental portion designed to address site specific issues.

Comment: We agree with EPA's position that the storage of hazardous waste military munitions should continue under the individual permitting program. This type of activity should not be viewed as routine and standardization does not seem practical.

The Standardized Permit proposed rule does not take into account for environmental justice issues and any state specific siting requirements. In addition, EPA may need to administer the program before states have the authorization to do so under the states' regulations. The Standardized Permit may complicate these issues. ( William C. Gidley, Waste Management Section Supervisor, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0046)

Response: The standardized permit was intended for waste management activities in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. Facilities conducting activities that cannot be safely performed in those devices should consider individual permitting as an alternative to a standardized permit.

Environmental justice issues could be addressed through site specific conditions, as is done under the current individual permit process. This is a Non HSWA rule so EPA would not administer it in states authorized for base RCRA permitting.

Comment: ACS thanks the Agency for its efforts to make hazardous waste regulations issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act more efficient. ACS believes that regulatory flexibility can maintain or improve environmental performance while reducing compliance costs. To that end, ACS believes that the proposed " standardized permit" would streamline the 13 administrative permitting process and reduce paperwork, especially for permitting agencies. However, the proposal does not address the long standing concerns of educational and research laboratories about burdensome with RCRA waste treatment regulations. Congress directed EPA to address those concerns in PL 103 327 in 1995. In this sense, the proposed rule does not go far enough to address the concerns of the regulated community.

ACS has consistently encouraged EPA to develop regulations allowing educational and research laboratories to perform some on site treatment of limited quantities of RCRA hazardous waste. EPA should provide a de minimis exemption for treatment of very small quantities of laboratory waste or issue a permit by rule to allow on site treatment in laboratories. EPA's Permits Improvement Team has explored and recommended both options. Such an allowance would allow more laboratories to treat wastes on site and reduce the costs and public health risks of transporting and disposing of wastes at commercial facilities. ( Attila E. Pavlath, American Chemical Society, RCRA 2001 0029 0047)

Response: While certain on site management without a permit is already allowed under 40 CFR 262.34, the more general concerns you raised concerning educational and research labs are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: Positive Aspects of Proposal. We agree with many of the ideas for streamlining the RCRA permitting program. In particular we agree that revisions to Part 270 concerning permit modifications are needed to reduce the extraneous administrative burden on the permittee and agencies caused by inconsequential and routine changes at permitted facilities. There is very little benefit to human health and the environment from the morass of Class 1 and Class 2 permit modifications in the current rule. We encourage EPA to propose a common sense revision to the permit modification rule that would result in a reduced administrative burden. We would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA to help work on this to replace the existing permit modification scheme.

Areas of Concern with the Proposal. We question the usefulness of the standardized permit since Georgia has only received two new storage applications since 1988. All storage permits were statutorily required to be issued by November 8, 1992. Due to the corrective action obligations and financial assurance obligation not many facilities are seeking new RCRA permits. As mentioned above we believe that it would be more helpful to permit holders and regulatory agencies to focus on a streamlining the permit modification process and other extraneous reporting requirements. Our specific comments on the proposed rule are detailed below. ( Jennifer R. Kaduck, Chief, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0048)

Response: As discussed in the proposal, the rule will also have benefits during the renewal of expiring individual permits, and through the streamlined modification ( permit change) process. The permit change processes we are finalizing should help improve the permit maintenance process with respect to standardized permits. We are finalizing the rule with three categories for permit changes: routine, routine 14 with prior agency approval ( includes class 1 modifications requiring prior approval, and all class 2 modifications), and significant. We included this additional category, from what was proposed, because certain class 1 and class 2 modifications require prior approval, and we wanted to account for that need. Streamlining the overall permit modification process for individual permitting is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: Dominion is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) and agrees with the separate comments filed by USWAG on this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) issue.

Dominion strongly agrees with the Agency's proposal to standardize the RCRA permit, which will streamline the permitting process as well as the permit modification process. We strongly agree with the Agency's intent to shorten the permit process time by using the " fill in the blank" permit application method. Additionally, Dominion agrees with the proposal to allow owners or operators to prepare and make available upon request documents that we currently submit to the Agency for approval during the permitting process. Both of these proposals support the Agency's intent to streamline the process and make the process less burdensome to the owner or operator.

However, Dominion urges the Agency to ensure that the RCRA permit process will not create additional burdens for the generator. For example, we do not support the requirement to conduct audits nor would we want this proposal to apply to conditionally exempt or small quantity generators. ( Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion, RCRA 2001 0029 0049)

Response: As discussed in the proposal, the rule will also have benefits during the renewal of expiring individual permits, and through the streamlined modification ( permit change) process. The permit change processes we are finalizing should help improve the permit maintenance process with respect to standardized permits. We are finalizing the rule with three categories for permit changes: routine, routine with prior agency approval ( includes class 1 modifications requiring prior approval, and all class 2 modifications), and significant. We included this additional category, from what was proposed, because certain class 1 and class 2 modifications require prior approval, and we wanted to account for that need. Streamlining the overall permit modification process for individual permitting is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

We are exploring how we can best use a fill in the blank type form to assist in the permit application process, and are currently developing an e permitting tool to assist permit applicants and permit writers.. 15 We believe that audits are necessary, and integral to a permitting process based on self certification. The audits help confirm that the facility is/ will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the regulations.

Currently, generators are not required to obtain a RCRA permit unless storage is conducted for longer than the time periods detailed in section 262.34, or treatment is conducted that is not permissible under those provisions ( e. g., thermal treatment). The RCRA Standardized Permit Rule is not intended to create any additional burden for generators, and does not impose any requirements on generators already exempt from permitting under 40 CFR § 262.34. If a generator is required to obtain a permit because of longer storage times, or another reason, then the Standardized Permit Rule may benefit that generator.

Comment: API encourages EPA to include regulatory language reflecting its intention that the effect of the proposed rule is to streamline requirements for facilities already required to obtain permits rather than impose new requirements on hazardous waste generators not currently required to obtain permits. Though EPA states in the preamble " Today's action, if finalized, could potentially affect an estimated 866 RCRA permitted private sector facilities..." and, later, " Because the rule proposes to streamline existing RCRA regulation, rather than add new RCRA regulation..." ( at 66 Fed. Reg. 52194 and 52238 respectively), the regulatory language could be read to potentially apply to hazardous waste generators currently operating without RCRA permits. The language that could be misread to apply to facilities not currently subject to RCRA permits is found at proposed section 267.10: " Does this subpart apply to me? This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a facility that treats or stores hazardous waste An equal opportunity employer under a 40 CFR, subpart I standardized permit. ...," and again at proposed 270.1, where the proposal states that " you may be eligible for a standardized permit if you generate hazardous waste and then non thermally treat or store the hazardous waste in tanks, containers, or containment buildings..." It is critical that EPA clarify that it is not revoking the long standing policy that hazardous waste generators may store and non thermally treat hazardous wastes at the site of generation for up to 90 days ( for a large quantity generator) without a permit so long as it remains in with applicable regulatory standards. ( Cindy Gordon, American Petroleum Institute, RCRA 2001 0029 0050)

Response: The standardized permit rule only applies to those facilities already required to obtain a RCRA permit. It is not intended to apply facilities not currently required to obtain a permit, e. g., generator accumulation, already exempt from permitting under § 262.34. We clarify this in the final rule preamble.

Comment: We would first like to set the context of our comments. Standardized permits. EPA should undertake a proactive approach to streamlining and reform that reduce paperwork, rather than a reactive approach that results in the EPA, public and regulated entities using outdated 16 methods of data collection. For example, rather than consolidating forms, reducing the information that regulated entities have to provide to demonstrate that they are operating safely, and reducing the public's access to high quality data, EPA should attempt to reduce paperwork by using " smart reporting software", electronic reporting, cross program databasing ( that integrates all relevant environmental information from all programs and agencies), one stop reporting and data retrieval, and a unified national facility identification system. The Paperwork Reduction Act and Government Performance and Results Act demand this type of proactive reform, and look disfavorably on a continuation of outdated information collection systems.

Correction Action. U. S. PIRG vigorously objects to EPA's proposal to allow state voluntary clean up programs to remediate The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's ( RCRA) Corrective Action ( CA) provisions are playing an increasingly important role in remediating the nation's toxic waste sites. EPA, as the lead agency at CA sites and toxic waste sites remediated under pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, has decades of experience cleaning up some of the nation's most contaminated sites. EPA also has the ability to utilize significant federal resources to address the threats posed by toxic waste sites. By contrast, state voluntary clean up programs have limited or uncertain financial resources, varying levels of public participation, disparate levels of technical expertise in remediating sites, and a host of other problems. Therefore, EPA   not the states   is best suited to take the lead in cleaning up RCRA CA sites.

Financial Responsibility. In this time of widespread economic downturn, it is more vital than ever before to ensure that facilities that manage hazardous waste have the financial capacity to respond to any accidental releases and to conduct clean up operations and long term operation and maintenance activities at their facilities after closure. This is particularly true given the nation's long period of economic growth, which may have caused facilities to increase the amount of waste that they handle, without a concomitant increase in the financial resources that they devoted to assurance. Unfortunately, many states also face budget deficits, and therefore are not well situated to fund clean up activities if facilities fail to maintain adequate finances resources. Therefore, it is critical that facilities purchase their assurance from insurers with the highest credit rating that provides long term protection for public health and environmental quality. ( Grant Cope, Staff Attorney, U. S. Public Interest Research Group, RCRA 2001 0029 0051)

Response: We are exploring the use of electronic forms through the Agency's e permitting initiative ( see: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ epmt/ epermit. htm).

The corrective action provisions will be finalized as proposed with no additional guidance provided under this rulemaking.

This final rule does not include a policy or regulatory provisions related to the use of alternate authorities to address corrective action needs at RCRA facilities. The Agency continues to explore the use of alternate authorities. However, the 17 Agency would prefer to do so in the broader context of all facilities, rather than just permitted facilities and, therefore, believes it is more appropriate to do so outside of this rulemaking.

Because issues related to alternate authority use are not addressed in this final rule, the Agency did not respond to comments related to those issues. The Agency may in the future develop guidance on issues related to use of alternate authorities, and will consider comments submitted on this rulemaking at that time. This final rule does not include a policy or regulatory provisions related to the use of captive insurance or minimum ratings for insurers. The Agency continues to explore these issues, and has requested that an Agency federal advisory committee, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board provide input on these questions.

Comment: The National Automobile Dealers Association ( NADA) represents 20,000 franchised automobile and truck dealers who sell new and used motor vehicles and engage in service, repair and parts sales. Together they employ in excess of 1,000,000 people nationwide, yet more than 60% are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration.

Earlier this Fall, EPA proposed a standardized hazardous waste facility permit program and discussed several corrective action and financial assurance issues. 66 Fed. Reg. 52192, et seq. ( October 12, 2001). In response, NADA makes the following comments and suggestions.

Virtually all automobile dealerships generate hazardous wastes ( e. g., parts cleaning solvents, paint wastes, batteries) and other RCRA regulated wastes ( e. g., used oil, antifreeze). NADA estimates that no more than 50% of these dealerships are small quantity generators, with the remainder qualifying for conditionally exempt status. NADA is unaware of even one dealership that treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste in a manner that requires a Federal permit. Thus, while generally supportive of attempts to ease unnecessary regulatory burdens, NADA offers no specific comment on the standardized facility permit proposal. ( Douglas I. Greenhaus, Director, Environment Health and Safety, National Automobile Dealers Association, RCRA 2001 0029 0052)

Response: We appreciate NADA's comments to the proposed rule.

Comment: General Permits for RCRA Hazardous Waste Container and Tank Management Objective of Proposal: The hazardous waste permitting process is notoriously lengthy. Simple waste management techniques must ( by regulatory requirement) go through the same process as complicated management techniques. General permits for container and tank management will shorten the permitting process for these straightforward and simpler hazardous waste 18 management activities. EPA and States have " talked" about this option before but little progress has been made to actually implement the actions needed to make it happen.

Expected Benefits: General permits for RCRA hazardous waste containers and tanks can expedite and simplify the permitting process without diminishing the level of environmental and health protection afforded by conventional permitting approaches. Faster, simpler permitting for these basic hazardous waste management techniques will result in more efficient use of resources. Facilities requiring permits will save money as a result of the more efficient process and receive permits faster. Faster permitting will allow businesses greater flexibility in planning future expansions. Some businesses who may employ improper waste management practices rather than submit to conventional and costly permitting procedures may be more likely to operate in of general permits.

Regulatory Change: Implementing this option will necessitate federal rulemaking to establish the protocol for hazardous waste general permits and ( more significantly) deal with the statutory requirement for site wide corrective action at hazardous waste management facilities. In order for general permits to be viable for RCRA hazardous waste management units ( tanks and containers) some degree of relaxation of HSWA corrective action requirements would be necessary. Currently, any new RCRA hazardous waste management permit must include facility wide corrective action requirements. Under this proposal general permits for hazardous waste tanks and containers would still include this requirement. However, rather than including detailed facility specific corrective action requirements, the general permit would include basic requirements which would lead to the development of facility specific corrective action requirements as a function conducted under the permit after it has been issued.

Principles in Agreement: This proposal relates to the principles of the Agreement as follows:

Experimentation: Regulators will have less facility specific information when permitting containers and tanks using this approach. Instead, regulatory standards mirroring " interim status" type operating parameters would be used to control the design and operating conditions and limits for these units. Likewise, similar general facility standards would also be used to direct site security, record keeping, manifesting, etc. This approach moves in the direction of setting standard performance standards for units rather than customization for specific unit designs.

Environmental Performance: No adverse impact to the environment would be anticipated. Operating requirements and facility standards for operators utilizing general permits would be no less protective than those currently in place for facilities operating under " interim status" or generator accumulation requirements. Public access to information and public participation in the permit process can be accommodated within the scope of this permit strategy. 19 Smarter Approaches: This approach is geared to matching the level of complexity and risk associated with hazardous waste management activities with an appropriate level of regulator input and oversight into the permitting process. Scaling permit oversight efforts to the appropriate level to insure safe management of hazardous waste management processes rather than applying a " one size fits all" method is a more efficient utilization of limited resources. This approach will not only result in more for less but will also achieve " better" results because some permits can be issued much faster Stakeholder Involvement: The stakeholders in this proposal are federal, state, and local regulators who have permit authority for hazardous waste management activities, the public who may be impacted by permitting decisions and hazardous waste management practices, legislators who make the laws governing these practices, the operators who undertake hazardous waste management activities by choice or necessity, and businesses that send and receive hazardous waste from facilities subject to permits. A coalition of EPA, States, local government, elected officials, and citizen and business organization representatives could be called upon to develop the concept of general permits for containers and tanks to a working model on which EPA could develop an advance notice of proposed rule making. Further input could be the basis for proposed and final rules implementing this approach into the base RCRA programs.

Measuring and Verifying Results: Measurement and verification would be accomplished by monitoring reduction of average permit issuance time frames compared to conventional permitting approaches. at facilities operating units under general permits should also be monitored and compared to for facilities operating tanks and contains under conventional permits. These rates should be similar in order to determine the success of the innovation. EPA currently keeps statistical information which could be utilized for monitoring these items. No additional effort would be required.

Accountability/ Enforcement: Since it is proposed that this innovation be absorbed into the current regulatory framework, current systems of accountability and mechanisms of enforcement will be applicable.

State EPA Partnership: EPA should lead the development of draft guidance/ regulation for general permits. States and other stakeholders should be allowed extensive review and comment opportunities.

Side By Side Comparison of Traditional RCRA Hazardous Waste Permits and Proposed General RCRA Hazardous Waste Permits for Tanks and Containers Traditional RCRA Permits General RCRA Permits Lengthy two part permit application process Streamlined one part application process 20 Long permit review period Short permit review period Facility specific requirements General requirements Facility specific corrective action requirements upon issuance of permit General corrective action requirements upon issuance of permit with facility specific requirements developed after permit issuance Public participation for each permit Public participation for initial issuance of general permit and each additional permittee ( Mike Bates, Chief, Hazardous Waste Division, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0053)

Response: We appreciate ADEQ's comments and the efforts they have taken in a similar action within their State. We are exploring the use of electronic forms through the Agency's e permitting initiative ( see: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ epmt/ epermit. htm), to assist permit applicants and regulators involved in the standardized permit process.

Comment: In concept, Ecology supports development of rules to allow for standardized permits. This proposed rule, however, does not provide the clarity and protection of human health and the environment needed for such a permit process. Ecology would not adopt this rule into the state Dangerous Waste Rules if the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) adopts them substantially as proposed.

Ecology estimates that about 3 existing facilities in the State of Washington would meet the applicability requirements. It is possible that a few large quantity generators would apply for a standardized permit should the rules be adopted. However, it is doubtful that Ecology would adopt another set of complex regulations for a handful of facilities.

Our general comments are that the proposed rule:

1. Needlessly adds another layer of regulations that applicants, permit writers, inspectors, and the public must learn. It would be more effective to keep the 40 CFR Part 264 standards rather than rewriting the standards as Part 267.

2. Omits important standards, such as the current requirement for a closure plan to be in place during operation of the facility. This makes the rules less stringent than the current final facility permit standards. 21 3. Fails to provide clear criteria and/ or sufficient information for implementing portions of the rule, such as denying a standardized permit or modifying a standardized permit.

4. Sets a deadline for the permit decision that fails to take into account requirements adopted by authorized states that must be satisfied before an application can be reviewed and a permit decision made.

In summary, Ecology believes the rules as proposed are less stringent than current facility standards and are too vague to be successfully implemented.

In the federal register, EPA asks whether the rule should be expanded to apply also to facilities that take hazardous waste from off site. Ecology believes that as proposed the standardized permit rules must not be extended to off site treatment and storage facilities. These facilities accept a wide variety of often incompatible wastes. They have no control over the generation, designation, and labeling of the waste containers. Ecology would support expanding the applicability requirements only if the rule is changed so that the permitting agency has the authority to review certain of the facility's operating plans, and that the facility must provide certification by a professional engineer that design and engineering of the hazardous waste management units meet the regulatory standards. The operating plans that Ecology believes the facility would need to provide for review are the waste analysis plan, the contingency plan, the training plan and the inspection plan. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory standards would be a reason to deny such a standardized permit. Also, the permitting agency's discovery that the professional engineer's certification that the design and engineering meet regulatory standards is incorrect would be the basis for the need for the facility to modify the facility structures to meet the standards or for the permitting agency to deny or revoke the permit. ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

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

We believe that both types of facilities eligible for a standardized permit should have adequate knowledge of the wastes they manage. Generators who manage their wastes on site should have knowledge of their own wastes, and facilities managing wastes generated off site by facilities under the same ownership should also have familiarity with the wastes involved. 22 The documents a facility must submit with their Notice of Intent are described in the preamble to the rule and listed in the regulations. We did not require all eligible facilities to submit a waste analysis plan, only those receiving wastes from off site. Other documentation, such as the certification of design and engineering of waste management units are to be kept on site, as are contingency, training, and inspection plans. Requiring all this documentation with the Notice of Intent begins to approach the process for individual permitting and detracts from the intent of this rulemaking to streamline the permitting process.

Although this rule may seem like just " another layer of regulations" that must be learned, we believed it was important to consolidate the requirements for standardized permits in one area. Some of the requirements of Part 264 are not applicable, and as such, we believed it would be confusing to have a section in part 264 for standardized permits. Therefore, we developed a separate section, Part 267, for standardized permits.

All applicants will be required to submit a closure plan with their notice of intent. We only provide general discussion in the preamble regarding reasons for denying a standardized permit, because it would be difficult to provide specific examples that sufficiently cover the range of possibilities. Denying a standardized permit is best left to the judgement of the State in light of the general guidelines provided by the preamble.

Regarding your concerns over time lines for review an application and a permit decision, the Agency believes that 120 days for draft permit issuance is adequate, subject to a one time 30 day extension for cause. We have not placed a time limit on preparing the final permit. We did not want to unnecessarily limit the Agency, nor the states in how they issue permits. States are free modify the procedures and time lines to best fit their situations. We are establishing federal standards only, with this rulemaking.

We believe that this rule is no more or less stringent than the current individual permitting program.

Comment: The writing style and format of the rule causes confusion and in places makes implementation difficult if not impossible. The rule fails to identify who is responsible for certain actions in the body of the rule ( only in the title to the section). It simply refers to " you": " you must ...." Some sections describe what the facility must do; others describe what the agency does. In some cases, the " you" refers to both the facility and the agency within the same section. This is very confusing. It does not satisfy EPA's stated purpose of making the rule easier to understand. It does not take that many more words to say " the Director must" or " the facility must" or " the applicant must" rather than " You must". 23 EPA should revise the regulation to clearly identify who must comply with the rule. Instead of " you" use " The Director", " the facility", or " the applicant". ( Greg Sorlie, Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ( Ecology), RCRA 2001 0029 0054)

Response: We have made revisions to the language in the rule which should make it easier to understand.

Comment: The use of the pronoun " You" within Part 124 may lead to confusion if not read very carefully. Within sections 124.201 203 and 124.210 213, " you" refers to the permittee or person requesting the permit. In sections 124.204 209 " you" refers to the Director or agency issuing the permit. In an attempt to simplify the writing of the regulation, EPA has added unnecessary confusion. DoD suggests that EPA use the term, " the Director" or " Agency" in the appropriate sections in order to avoid confusion to the reader. ( Department of Defense, RCRA 2001 0029 0055)

Response: We have attempted to improve the clarity of the final rule.

Comment: Request a 180 day extension for commenting on the proposed hazardous waste permitting rules. The 60 day period given did not allow adequate time to evaluate the potential effects on human health and the environment due to the number and significance of the changes and also the formatting change of the new rules. The proposed rules significantly alter the way regulatory agencies approach hazardous waste activities. ( Jamie Burroughs of the TSD Section and O. J. Wingfield of Financial Responsibility, Division of Solid Waste Management, Tennessee Department of Environmental and Conservation, RCRA 2001 0029 0057)

Response: We did not extend the comment period for the proposed rule; we believe we provided adequate time for submission of comments.

Comment: Safety Kleen Corp. is a North American environmental service company with an integrated network of over 250 facilities designed to collect, process, recycle and dispose of hazardous materials and hazardous waste from over 400,000 customers. Safety Kleen maintains approximately 159 RCRA permitted facilities under 43 authorized state programs and is directly affected by EPA's proposed revisions to standardize permitting, corrective action and financial assurance.

In general, Safety Kleen agrees with EPA that a standardized permit should streamline the permit process by allowing facilities to obtain and modify permits more easily while maintaining the protectiveness currently existing in the individual RCRA permit process. Safety Kleen does not agree that this process should be limited to only non commercial facilities that manage their own waste. As a leader in the waste management industry, we feel strongly that this opportunity be 24 made available to all qualified facilities regardless of whether they receive off site waste or not. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

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

We considered extending eligibility to all off site facilities, but considering commentors concerns with this option, we decided at this time to limit the rule to on site facilities only.

The Agency remains open to considering relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting.

Comment: In conclusion, Safety Kleen strongly supports the proposed standardized permit as an option to individual permits for all qualified facilities including commercial hazardous waste facilities. We feel that this is the only way for the Agency to truly meet the objectives of the proposal. Safety Kleen appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to this rule. ( Susan L. Prior, Regulatory Programs Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, RCRA 2001 0029 0061)

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

The Agency remains open to considering providing relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting.

Comment: The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration ( CRWI) is pleased to submit comments on the Hazardous Waste Management System; Standardized Permit; Corrective Action; and Financial Responsibility for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities ( 66 FR 25 52192, October 12, 2001). CRWI represents eleven companies that operate hazardous waste combustion units and fourteen other companies with interests in hazardous waste combustion. These companies account for a significant portion of the U. S. capacity for hazardous waste combustion. In addition, CRWI is advised by a number of academic members with research interests in hazardous waste combustion. Since its inception, CRWI has encouraged its members to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. However, for certain hazardous waste streams, CRWI believes that combustion is a safe and effective method of treatment, reducing both the volume and toxicity of the waste treated. CRWI seeks to help its member companies both to improve their operations and to provide lawmakers and regulators helpful data and comments.

As noted in the preamble to the standardized permit rule, this proposal is preceded by more than fifteen years of experience in reconciling the goals of operational flexibility, public participation, and regulatory oversight. CRWI believes these goals are complementary, not competing, and praises EPA for this important initiative.

CRWI's primary comment addresses the eligibility of its member facilities for the benefits of the standardized permit rule. Also, CRWI submits comments on other discrete issues such as the organization of the new rule, the permit modification process, and certification for new facilities. ( Melvin E. Keener, Executive Director, Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, RCRA 2001 0029 0063)

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

The Agency remains open to considering providing relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting.

Comment: Organization of the standardized permit rule. As proposed, the standardized permit rule places many of its substantive provisions in a new Subpart G to Part 124. This placement is several volumes removed in 40 CFR from the RCRA Subtitle C series of regulations beginning at Part 260. CRWI respectfully suggests that the provisions currently proposed as Subpart G to Part 124 would be better compiled in the newly promulgated Subpart I of Part 270. This would place these new RCRA regulations, both in regulatory context and hard copy proximity, closer to the cross references that users must consult in order to understand all of the implications of this rule. ( Melvin E. Keener, Executive Director, Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, RCRA 2001 0029 0063) 26 Response: EPA has decided to keep the permit application process procedures in Part 124, which is where the general permitting procedures are currently found for RCRA facilities. However, EPA has chosen to place the actual technical requirements that facilities must follow in a single location, at Part 267 to make it simpler for users.

Comment: EPA's efforts at presenting the proposed rule in " plain language" is commendable; however, the use of the " active" voice in the preamble and proposed rules is somewhat confusing at times. Sometimes it is not clear at all as to who " you" and " I" and " we" are supposed to represent, especially as it relates to authorized States. ( Jill B. Pafford, Chair of the ASTSWMO Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force, RCRA 2001 0029 0064)

Response: We have attempted to clarify the language in the final rule.

Comment: Missouri regulators in general feel that the proposed standardized permit rule may reduce time frames associated with obtaining a permit. This benefit could be greatly advantageous to recycling facilities and universal waste destination facilities if the rule were expanded to include those facilities. However, we have some concerns with rule as discussed in our comments listed below. Chief among those concerns is the feeling that the rule as proposed will merely result in a shift of review responsibilities from permit writers to inspection and enforcement personnel. There is also the risk that allowing facilities to self certify with all regulations could lead to more relaxed waste management practices. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: We agree that the rule shifts responsibility to enforcement and compliance. The final rule, we believe, provides adequate emphasis to the importance of audits and compliance inspections, by requiring a compliance audit and submission of an audit report with the application materials. We believe these types of unit operations ( i. e., tanks, containers, containment buildings) lend themselves to a selfcertification process.

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

Comment: 27 5. The proposed rule is not clear as to what time frames a facility that cannot clean close is supposed to submit an individual post closure permit application. If the standardized permit regulations go into effect, requirements regarding how a facility should notify the director that it cannot clean close and the procedures/ time frames to submit an individual permit shall be outlined.

6. The uniform portion of the standardized permit language should have been published as part of this rulemaking. It is discussed throughout the preamble that the uniform portion of the permit would not be appealable or commentable. Therefore, this language should be proposed for public review prior to use. ( Missouri Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0065)

Response: Facilities that cannot clean close must pursue post closure options. ( See preamble Section IV. H. 1, and also § 267.111.) This rule does not specify time frames for when a post closure permit application must be submitted.

The rule did not publish standardized permit language. The rule established a streamlined process, and provided the regulations that permit conditions would be written to meet ( e. g., Part 267). The draft permit, when public noticed, is subject to comment, as with other publicly noticed draft permits. We will provide a model permit to be used as a resource by regulators and permit applicants. This will soon be available on the OSW web site.

Comment: The American Iron and Steel Institute (" AISI"), whose member companies account for approximately 55 percent of this country's basic iron and steel production, is pleased to submit these brief comments to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA" or " the Agency") on EPA's October 12, 2001 proposed revisions to the hazardous waste permitting program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (" RCRA") to allow for a standardized RCRA permit. See 66 Fed. Reg. 52192 ( Oct. 12, 2001) ( hereinafter referred to as the " Proposed Rule"). AISI generally supports EPA's efforts to establish standardized permit provisions that will streamline the permit process and make it easier for facilities to obtain and modify RCRA permits while maintaining the protectiveness in the current individual RCRA permit process. AISI's comments here, however, are focused on the preamble discussion in the Proposed Rule in which the Agency explores a policy and process for promoting use of state cleanup programs in lieu of the federal or state authorized RCRA programs to satisfy corrective action obligations at individual facilities. See 66 Fed. Reg. at 52232 36.

AISI member companies own and operate numerous facilities that are subject to RCRA permit requirements and, therefore, the statute's corrective action provisions. Consequently, AISI has been an active participant in EPA's development of the RCRA corrective action program, meeting with the Agency on several occasions and providing substantive comments on EPA's implementing guidance and regulatory actions and reforms. We appreciate this opportunity to 28 provide input on yet another important Agency initiative designed to facilitate more expeditious  yet protective  cleanups at RCRA corrective action sites. ( American Iron and Steel Institute, RCRA 2001 0029 0066)

Response: We appreciate AISI's comments.

Comment: The American Chemistry Council represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. Council members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives better, healthier and safer. The Council is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product testing. The business of chemistry is a $ 462 billion enterprise and a key element of the nation's economy. It is the nation's largest exporter, and chemistry companies invest more in research and development than any other business sector.

Brief comments are provided concerning the standardized permit component of the proposed rule, more extensive comments are provided concerning the use of alternate state cleanup programs in lieu of the RCRA Corrective Action program. ( American Chemistry Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0067)

Response: We appreciate ACC's comments.

Comment: The ETC is a national trade association that represents the commercial hazardous waste management industry. ETC members include companies that provide technologies and services for source reduction, fuel blending, recycling, treatment, and secure disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes. The ETC companies own and operate commercial facilities such as Subtitle C permitted landfills, chemical treatment plants, incinerators, light weight aggregate kilns, industrial furnaces, fuel blending facilities, and other types of facilities for the safe and proper management of hazardous wastes. As a result, the ETC and its member companies will be directly regulated and significantly affected by the proposed rule.

The ETC does not support the limited scope of the proposed rule, and particularly the preferred status and special relief given to on site generator facilities. EPA should streamline the administrative process and shorten the time required to obtain all RCRA permits, not just reduce requirements for one relatively small subgroup of routine storage units at generator facilities. There is no question that the RCRA permit process is too complex, time consuming and burdensome, but EPA has proposed a Band Aid for a gaping wound.

Many commercial facilities must wait, not months, but years for simple permits and permit modifications. The ETC can document interminable delays in many states for such routine actions as eliminating waste codes from the permit, adding drum storage capacity, or reducing landfill cell 29 size. To some extent the RCRA permit process is hampered by resource constraints, but EPA could do a lot more in the Federal program to standardize the process and expedite permit review and decision making. In addition, EPA must use RCRA grant funds and state program oversight more effectively to encourage states to process and make prompt decisions on permits and modifications. We view the proposed rule on standardized permits, particularly if it remains limited to on site facilities, not as a small step in the right direction, but as a potentially wasteful expenditure of time and resources solving a very small problem that diverts attention from the fundamental flaws in the RCRA permit process.

The most pressing need is for EPA to reform RCRA permitting for commercial facilities, not storage units at on site facilities. Commercial facilities provide the infrastructure for proper hazardous waste management for all the productive industries in this nation. As long as commercial TSD facilities are delayed, deterred, and defeated from obtaining timely RCRA permits and, perhaps more importantly, permit modifications for the routine facility upgrades and changes that are essential to conducting a cost efficient business, EPA has failed in its responsibilities.

The ETC urges in the strongest possible terms that EPA reconsider the scope and direction of its permit reform proposal. Many of the approaches for reducing unnecessary burdens and streamlining the process, such as deadlines for agency reviews and decisions, would apply equally to individual RCRA permits. We are very distressed to comment on a rulemaking that, at least as proposed, has no application to the commercial industry and provides very little benefits to the nation as a whole. Nonetheless, if EPA decides to go forward with this limited proposal for truly routine units only, the following comments are provided. ( Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0068)

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

The Agency remains open to considering providing relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting.

Streamlining the entire RCRA permitting process is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 30 Comment: The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste feels that there are certain important disadvantages with the general approach to this rulemaking. Since most of our standardized permit applicants would already be operating at the time of application ( under interim status or an existing individual RCRA permit), we feel that the standardized permit process as proposed will result in little benefit to our universe of regulated facilities.

Furthermore, most of the delays in the issuance of RCRA permits that we have experienced in New Jersey have been caused not by a lack of agency resources or backlogs of application reviews by the permitting agency, but by chronic incomplete or deficient application submissions, causing too much " back and forth" between the agency and the applicants and resulting in long time frames for issuance. We have experienced these inadequate submissions in spite of our efforts to provide detailed technical guidance and assistance to the applicants. Obviously, this situation causes us difficulty in embracing a proposal for a permitting process which eliminates the submission and agency review of technical application information.

In addition, we are concerned that the level of public participation for standardized permits will be lower than for individual permits, since we will not be circulating technical application information to other state and local agencies for their review and comment. We also wonder how capable we will be to respond to public comments, since we will not be performing a technical review of the application information.

It is for these reasons that we would like to offer two alternative approaches for consideration:

First, we suggest that a conditional permit by rule for the generation and on site storage or non thermal treatment of hazardous wastes in containers, tanks, and containment buildings be considered. These activities would be listed at 40 CFR 270.60 with compliance conditions that include all of the current 40 CFR 262.34 standards plus some additional relevant technical standards appropriate for each type of unit ( e. g. secondary containment and a storage time limit for containers, in place secondary containment for all units, waste analysis requirements for treatment activities, etc.). We see little difference in the potential environmental threat between less than 90 day and greater than 90 day waste management activities in these simple units, and we feel that this type of permit by rule for greater than 90 day storage or treatment would not compromise protection of the environment and would result in a much lesser compliance burden on the owners or operators of these units.

Second, we suggest that consideration be given to the " paring down" of Part B permit application submission requirements for the generation and on site storage or non thermal treatment of hazardous wastes in containers, tanks, and containment buildings. We believe that some of the submission requirements in 40 CFR 270.14 were developed with the more complicated units ( e. g. landfills, incinerators, etc.) in mind and may not be necessary for containers, tanks, or containment buildings. The permitting process would remain unchanged, but the applicant would enjoy a reduced burden when preparing application information. Some suggested items for reduction or elimination are fewer topographic map requirements, deletion of the traffic pattern submission 31 requirement, reduced personnel training standards, and less detailed or simplified closure cost estimates. ( John A. Castner, Director of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0069)

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

The Agency remains open to considering providing relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting. The specific alternatives the commenter has suggested may be appropriate as part of that rulemaking or some future rulemaking.

Regarding delays in permitting caused by incomplete applications, the compliance audit requirement should help improve that situation. The compliance audit accompanied by the certification of compliance puts the onus on the facility owner/ operator to provide accurate information.

Regarding public participation, we believe that a couple of events will address this issue. First, the public meeting prior to the submission of the notice of intent should alert the public to what the company intends to accomplish. And then, the draft permit, which would include the closure plan, would be made available for comment. If public comments require your to review facility information, then you might work with the facility to review the information at an on site location.

In conclusion, the standardized permit is intended to address routine storagerelated activities in devices that are rather straightforward in their design and operation. Operations involving more complex units that require more intensive review may be more suited to individual permitting. Because of the standard engineering practices for design and construction of the eligible units, we feel review by the regulators can be eliminated without compromising human health and the environment.

Comment: On December 11, 2001, the Environmental Technology Council ( ETC) submitted comments on the proposed rule entitled " Hazardous Waste Management System; Standardized Permit; Corrective Action; and Financial Responsibility for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities." 66 Fed. Reg. 52,192 ( Oct. 12, 2001). 32 One of our principal comments was that the proposed rule is too limited in scope and will have negligible benefits compared to the time and resources consumed by this rulemaking. The ETC urged EPA to reconsider the scope and direction of its permit reform proposal and to address the complexity, burden, and delay of the RCRA permit process for commercial TSD facilities. The ETC has now completed its review of the Economics Background Document for the proposed rule, which strongly reenforces our concerns, and we therefore submit these supplemental comments. ( David R. Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0071)

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

The Agency remains open to considering providing relief to off sites in future rulemaking, ( e. g., Performance Track), where facilities meeting certain performance criteria could enjoy streamlined approaches to permitting.

Comment: Suggestions:

1. Provide Large Quantity Generators More Time for Hazardous Waste Accumulation 2. Specify Conditions Under Which Generator Facilities May Accept Off Site Wastes from Regional Facilities Under the Same Corporate Management Beyond simplifying permitting procedures, EPA could reduce the need for storage only permits by allowing large quantity generators to accumulate limited amounts of waste on site for longer than 90 days. If in addition, regulations can be crafted that would allow generators to accept and consolidate off site wastes generated at other regional facilities under the same corporate management, then very few facilities would ever require a " storage only" TSDF permit.

Generally, a storage only permit provides the time flexibility that generators may need to consolidate small volumes of unique or infrequently generated waste types, or to handle unanticipated problems. Additionally, a RCRA permit is currently needed for receipt of off site wastes.

The most " radical" part of this proposal is the idea of acceptance ( by a generator) of off site wastes for continued accumulation and consolidation. While the idea is not inherently evil or unworkable, it would require a bit of a conceptual change in the way we have thought about 33 transporting and manifesting wastes. Clearly a manifest and registered hauler would be used whenever wastes are transported via public roads, and manifest copies would be routed to the usual recipients, except that the receiving generator would be identified instead of the TSD and would be responsible for returning the manifest copies. Accumulation time would continue to be tracked from the initial labeling of the container.

EPA already allows a longer accumulation time of 180 days for small quantity generators, subject to limits on the total quantity of waste on site, which may not exceed 6000 kilograms ( 40 CFR 262.34( d)( 1)). For large quantity generators, why not provide for accumulation up to 180 days subject to a similar limit ( e. g., 6000 kilograms, or a specified percentage of the waste generation rate) on the total amount of waste that may be accumulated on site at any one time.

Additionally, EPA could probably identify some types of waste that could be safely accumulated beyond 90 days ( without quantity limits) under certain conditions. TCLP leaching wastes, for example, should not pose any particular threat provided that they are protected from exposure to the elements.

Finally, regarding accumulation time, EPA has limited to 30 days the period of extension that a Regional Administrator or authorized state may grant in response to a request from the generator ( 40 CFR 262.34( f)). Relaxing this provision would reduce the perceived need for storage only RCRA permits, while retaining full regulatory control.

We hope these suggestions are helpful in EPA's attempt to reduce the burden of RCRA permitting. ( Andy Maree and Associates, RCRA 2001 0029 0074)

Response: We appreciate Andy Maree and Associates' comments. Extending the accumulation time for generators is outside the scope of the standardized permit rulemaking.

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

We considered the comments on this issue, most of which came from either States or industry groups. While industry believed the rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States 34 expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring off site. Of the off site facilities, States felt that captive facilities might be best suited for the standardized permit, because of their familiarity with the wastes managed.

Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility. Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.

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

Regarding changes to the accumulation provisions of § 262.34 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: Ohio EPA has reviewed the proposed rule for standardized permits issued by your Agency on October 12, 2001 ( Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 198), and is in the process of developing specific comments. The purpose of this letter is to request an extension to the comment period for this proposed rule which is set to close on December 11, 2001. Ohio EPA is requesting an additional 45 days to comment on the proposed rule for the following reasons:

3. The proposed 40 CFR Part 267 ( Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Operating under a Standardized Permit) adds approximately 80 new rules to the hazardous waste permitting program. Although the Federal Register indicates that these new rules are analogous to the existing standards set forth under Part 264, they have been rewritten in a " plain language" format and as such, must be evaluated carefully and individually to determine if this reformatting has changed their meaning in any way. Ohio EPA is seeking additional time to conduct this evaluation.

4. The proposed rule sets up an entirely separate hazardous waste permitting option with the addition of the standardized permit program. As detailed in the Federal Register, there are 35 a number of important factors to consider with the proposed addition of such a program: adequacy of public participation procedures, consistency with existing permitting program, overall potential benefit, to name a few. Ohio EPA has some general comments on the rule with respect to these factors that are expressed later in this letter, but is seeking additional time to fully develop specific comments.

5. Ohio EPA is also seeking additional time to evaluate the proposed standardized permit rule and it's potential applicability under Ohio's current hazardous waste permitting statutory requirements.

6. Lastly, the proposed rule's approach to financial assurance and options for developing cost estimates for closure will require more time to fully evaluate. ( Christopher Jones, Director, Ohio EPA, RCRA 2001 0029 0075)

Response: The comment period was not extended.

Comment: The proposed standardized permit program administrative procedures are less cumbersome than the procedures for an individual, or traditional RCRA permit. This was listed as one of the driving forces that led to the proposal of the rule. However, even with the elimination of some administrative procedures, it is difficult for Ohio EPA to envision many facilities taking advantage of the standardized permit option. Existing facilities have already invested the major component of work involved with obtaining a traditional RCRA permit: preparation and submission of a Part B application. Additionally, it is hard to envision generators of hazardous waste, who currently are not subject to permitting requirements, deciding to change their waste management practices so they become subject to permitting requirements only because a standardized permit by now be available. The financial assurance, closure and corrective action requirements provide a disincentive for any facility to seek a permit if it can be avoided. ( Christopher Jones, Director, Ohio EPA, RCRA 2001 0029 0075)

Response: We agree that generators that are currently not managing hazardous waste under a permit will not now start. The rule was not intended to bring new generators into permitting through the standardized permit. While not many facilities may have taken advantage of the rule, as proposed, the final rule will extend eligibility to facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off site by a generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility. Receiving facility must submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, along with documentation showing that both the receiving facility and off site generator are under the same ownership. This may increase the number of facilities that may seek a standardized permit in Ohio. 36 Comment: General Motors commends EPA for its efforts to streamline the RCRA permitting process for certain regulated facilities. Specifically, we support EPA's proposal to reduce the voluminous amount of information currently required in the draft permit application process, and the proposal to require a draft permit decision from the agency within 120 days. The proposed revisions for these two issues alone should result in a vast improvement over the current permit approval process.

However, we are concerned about the lack of the ability to negotiate any of the standardized permit conditions. For this reason, we foresee instances where a facility will opt for an individual permit even though the facility, in concept, would be a better candidate for a standard permit. ( Lenora Strohm, CHMM, General Motors, RCRA 2001 0029 0076)

Response: We appreciate GM's comments. It's unclear whether many facilities will, because of negotiation issues, " opt for an individual permit" when they can get a standardized permit. The standardized permit rule is designed to streamline the permitting process for rather straightforward operations involving tanks, containers, and containment buildings. Situations where there is a likelihood, or need, for " negotiation" on permit conditions may indicate that an individual permit is a better option for a particular facility.

Comment: If finalized, the " Standardized Permit" proposal would streamline the administrative permitting process   resulting in reduced paperwork especially for permitting agencies. However, as stated in the proposal, the standardized permitting process does not result in a reduced compliance burden. The proposed standardized permit would not amend RCRA regulations in a way that addresses the concerns of educational and research laboratories as EPA was directed to do by Congress in the House Appropriations Committee Report VA, HUD and Independent Agencies FY 1995 Appropriations Act.

Some laboratory organizations treat small quantities of RCRA wastes on site in accumulation tanks and containers. Such treatment is typically carried out without a RCRA TSDF permit as provided for by EPA in its preamble to the Small Quantity Generator Rule ( March 24, 1986: 51 FR 10168) as well as in subsequent FR notices and interpretive memos. For laboratories, treatment is more likely to occur in a container than in a tank. Examples of treatment in accumulation containers that might be carried out in a laboratory include precipitating heavy metals from solutions, and oxidation/ reduction reactions. However, since the provision for treatment in accumulation containers without a permit is not codified, it is difficult to rely on with confidence and it is not adopted by some states. I was hoping that EPA's response to the Permits Improvement Team's ( PIT's) recommendation would have a more substantial impact on laboratories than the " Standardized Permit" proposal. For example, the PIT considered a permit by rule approach or conditional exclusion from permitting for treating small quantities of waste. Is EPA considering these options still? 37 If EPA is not considering other permitting schemes for RCRA waste treatment in laboratories, then at least some nagging questions regarding treatment in accumulation containers should be answered. Several of theses questions follow:

° Can the accumulation container be opened to allow for treatment in the container? The requirement in 265.173 ( as referred to by 262( a)( 1)) requires that waste containers " always be closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or remove waste." Does the requirement to keep waste containers closed apply during " storage" but not treatment? Obviously, closed containers would severely limit treatment options since, for example, one could not add treatment reagents or allow for pressure release during reactions.

° Could an " accumulation container" include typical laboratory glassware ( e. g., flasks, beakers)?

° Can such treatment be carried out in both the satellite accumulation area and the 90 day accumulation area?

Allowing laboratories to treat limited quantities of hazardous waste on site would reduce the costs and public health risks of transporting and disposing of wastes at commercial facilities. And, at laboratories, there are individuals uniquely qualified to treat wastes in order to minimize the volume or toxicity of the waste ( a RCRA mandate). The " Standardized Permit" proposal would not help laboratories. EPA was directed by Congress to amend RCRA regulations in a way that addresses the concerns of laboratories. What is being done about this? ( Cynthia Salisbury, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Polytek, RCRA 2001 0029 0077)

Response: We appreciate Polytek's comments. However, the comments regarding laboratory wastes and the accumulation provisions of § 262.34 are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

2. Overview and Background ( I)

Comment: This section proposes changes to 40 CFR Parts 124, 260, and 270, and creates Part 267 for issuing " standardized permits" for facilities that treat/ store hazardous wastes in tanks, containers, and containment buildings ( no land based units). A standard permit would have a uniform standard portion and a site specific supplemental portion. We feel that this mechanism will streamline the permit process for facilities which qualify under the standardized permit criteria.

Part 267 Subpart F  Releases from solid waste management units  is essentially identical to existing corrective action ( CA) requirements in 264.101 ( except written in plain language). CA requirements would be in the supplemental portion of the standard permit. EPA's proposal would 38 exempt facilities that require a hazardous waste permit for remediation waste only from the facility wide CA requirements of 267.101. This is a significant departure from the current requirement of facility wide CA at RCRA facilities. However, its application may be limited because there may not be many facilities without land based units which require a permit for remediation purposes only. ( Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, RCRA 2001 0029 0072)

Response: This final rule provides that corrective action conditions, which were developed specifically for that facility, be included in the supplemental portion of the standardized permit. The Agency believes this is the best approach because it balances the Agency's desire to streamline the permitting process against the need for flexibility to fashion remedies that are protective of human health and the environment and that reflect the conditions and complexities of each facility requiring corrective action.

This rule does not have the effect the commenter believes. The rule makes no changes to the requirements for facility wide corrective action.

3. What would be the Advantages of a Standardized Permit? ( I. C. 3)

Comment: The Standardized permit is unnecessary. Facilities submitting a Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Part B Permit Application are granted Interim Status and can operate within the law until permitted. Even a ` simple' Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Part B Permit Application can be several hundred pages in length. To issue permits to facilities without a proper review process, an RFA, no Part B application, and no correction of deficiencies in the application is not protective of human health and the environment and assumes a greater level of understanding and compliance with the regulations than most facilities have shown in the past twenty years. ( Donald Webster, RCRA 2001 0029 0029).

Response: We believe that, for the units involved ( tanks, containers, containment buildings), the necessary safeguards are in place ( compliance audits, public participation, closure plan submissions, etc.) that the standardized permit rule is in fact protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, RCRA permitting authorities can require a facility to go through the individual permit process if there are site specific concerns.

Comment: I applaud the EPA proposal to streamline the permitting process for RCRA permittees that generate hazardous waste and then manage them in units such as tanks, containers, and containment buildings. There has long been a need to address regulatory compliance under RCRA and one of the most pressing needs has been to create a permitting process that allows flexibility for expansions without lengthy permitting requirements. Technology and business 39 move at a fast pace in the 21st Century and it is increasingly critical that regulatory schemes create a fair and competitive environment for businesses operating in a global economy. While I applaud this needed standardized permitting process, my 15 years as an environmental professional tells me that without specific safeguards there is the potential for much backsliding. There is also the potential for the EPA to lose connection and control of the quantity and quality of hazardous waste generated and disposed of in the United States.

RCRA as a Proactive Regulation The mission of RCRA as mandated in its enabling legislation is for the proactive recovery and disposal of hazardous materials before they can be carelessly disposed of to the air, ground, or waterways. One of industries' biggest problems with RCRA compliance has been how individual facilities fit within the elaborate regulatory scheme created by RCRA. A standardized permit would go a long way in helping facilities understand where each type of hazardous waste generator fits into the scheme and the regulatory requirements that position entails. I have two concerns, however, that I believe should be taken into consideration for the final proposal of this change in the permitting scheme. One, that this new permit system will cause industry and the EPA to treat large categories of hazardous wastes the same. Two, that the scheme will bring about an increase use of hazardous chemicals that the prior permitting and compliance scheme made too expensive to implement.

Treating Large Categories of Hazardous Waste the Same The standardized permit should not make broad assumptions about the management of hazardous waste. It is easy to assume that waste generated on site and kept in containers and tanks in which the inputs and outputs can be monitored and controlled can be managed under similar regulatory schemes. RCRA has been such an onerous regulation both in its implementation and enforcement that most industries have tended to err on the side of a conservative view in regards to which chemicals to use on site. I am concerned that the standardized permit will lump wastes together based on industry on site management choices ( to pump waste to containers) instead of their long term treatment and disposal needs. This problem may not be readily discernable when we look at industry practices today under the present RCRA regulatory scheme, however, as new chemicals proliferate there could be a tendency to manage them in a way that allows for inclusion within the standardized permit system to the detriment of pollution prevention.

Standardize Permit Could Increase Hazardous Chemical Usage Industries are always looking for ways to increase their efficiency or product quality by changing the chemicals used in the process. In most companies a profitable process idea that uses a hazardous chemical would not be discarded until it reached the in house regulatory compliance team and then only after a fight. Industries know which chemicals will signal red flags during the present RCRA permitting process and opted out of their use to expedite the permitting process. One of the most successful means of limiting the use of hazardous chemicals and ushering in the age of pollution prevention in the first place has been that onerous permitting and guidance scheme called RCRA. We can replace it with something less onerous; however, we must also deal with the incentive that such a change will create. By creating a standardized permit, 40 industries would be able to make decisions upon which chemicals to use in their processes without consideration of the regulatory effects of the decision. Without regulatory permit requirement that make the company closely evaluate proposed chemical processes, there is a tendency for industry to make decisions based upon the economic impacts. If the EPA intents upon relying on the part of the permit that would not be standardized to eliminate these incentives, then it would seem that the non standardized part of the permit would just be a duplication of the old RCRA permit.

Conclusion RCRA was legislated to be a proactive regulation for the recovery and disposal of hazardous waste. While its regulatory scheme is onerous and needs work, standardized permits have their own set of incentives that need to be addressed. It is easy to assume that industry has learned its lesson and has bought into environmental regulatory requirements and efforts; however, when pitted against the bottom line environmental concerns normally are put on the back burner. Regulatory schemes like RCRA have proliferated company pollution prevention programs and environmental awareness programs that are the basis for U. S. environmental recovery. If implemented, this new permit standardization plan will have to find a way to replace the age old RCRA incentives with new ones. ( Horace Lee, EMBA, CHMM, RCRA 2001 0029 0030)

Response: Waste minimization is still a goal of the RCRA program  because of the financial responsibility requirements and corrective action standards we do not believe that facilities will enter into hazardous waste management without careful consideration of alternatives.

We feel adequate controls are in place to prevent us from losing control on the quantity and quality of hazardous waste generation. The biennial reporting provisions still apply to these facilities.

Regarding the concern that facilities will treat large categories of hazardous waste the same, we do not agree. Wastes that are stored in containers, containment buildings, and tanks will still need to be sent to appropriate treatment and disposal units within one year.

Comment: USWAG agrees that the proposed standardized permit application and modification procedures are less cumbersome than individual permit procedures ( e. g., the permittee would no longer need to submit the amount of information needed to support an individual permit application, but would instead keep the required information at its facility; the permitting agency would no longer be involved with detailed review of permit application materials associated with waste management unit design and operation; the time required to obtain a RCRA permit would be shortened). Id. at 52196. USWAG understands that EPA is proposing that permittees must continue to comply with waste management practices, day to day housekeeping, and judicious maintenance programs found in the " individual" RCRA permit programs, and that failure to maintain waste management practices that protect human health and the environment could result 41 in revocation of the standardized permit by the permitting agency, as well as civil and/ or criminal penalties. Id.

As USWAG has historically emphasized, however, we believe that EPA should only revoke a standardized permit or assess penalties where failure to meet a standardized permit condition endangers human health or the environment. ( Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) et al., RCRA 2001 0029 0041)

Response: Revoking a standardized permit should only be done after careful consideration by the regulatory authority, as to whether actions by the facility warrant revocation. No new revocation conditions were proposed or included in the final rule.

Comment: One advantage cited for the standardized permit is the prospect of not being required to submit certain documents to the regulatory agency. These documents ( waste analysis plan, contingency plan, closure plan etc.) would instead be maintained at the facility. We are concerned that this arrangement, though perhaps saving the facility time on the front end of the permit process, will result in significantly longer inspections and increased enforcement due to plan inadequacies and subsequent compliance issues and enforcement. In short, this approach could backfire.

We are also concerned that this arrangement will not facilitate public participation. The public may be uncomfortable asking to review documents maintained exclusively at the facility. And we are aware of certain situations in which relations between the community and the regulated facility have become confrontational. It seems unrealistic that the public could get information in this way if there was a dispute with the permit applicant.

Finally we believe this arrangement does not facilitate direct dialogue on these documents between the community and the agencies, since we will not normally have the documents in our possession. We believe that it would be worthwhile to require facilities to submit the information to the regulatory agency that they will maintain at their facility to demonstrate compliance but not require agency approval of these documents. ( Jennifer R. Kaduck, Chief, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, RCRA 2001 0029 0048)

Response: The final rule will require two of the documents mentioned to be submitted with the Notice of Intent to the regulatory agency. The final rule requires the submission of a closure plan, and, for eligible facilities receiving wastes generated off site, a waste analysis plan. The closure plan will help assure the regulatory authority that the owner or operator has planned for closure of the facility, and the waste analysis plan will provide information when wastes are coming from off site. Some commenters expressed concern about wastes being managed that were generated off site, and the need for adequate characterization of those wastes. Submitting the waste analysis plan should minimize those concerns. 42 EPA has clarified in the preamble that the Director has the discretion to establish an information repository that contains the permit information at a location off site from the facility, if such a location will better foster public participation. This can be at the facility or at a public location with acceptable access. The final rule will also require that closure plans be submitted with the notice of intent.

Comment: Onyx, a company specializing in the commercial treatment and storage of hazardous waste, would not be eligible for the proposed standardized RCRA permit. However, Onyx is supportive of EPA's proposal to provide a streamlined permitting process for generators of hazardous waste who require treatment and/ or storage permits. Onyx believes that the proposal will benefit generators not only in the initial process of obtaining permits but also in the permit modification process. The primary advantages of the standardized permits from Onyx's perspective are the accelerated time frame for the review and issuance of permits, the uniformity of the permit language, and the reduced paperwork burden associated with the application process. The primary disadvantage of the standardized permits as proposed is that it is not applicable to commercial treatment and storage facilities. ( Thomas M. Baker, Director, Environmental and Transportation, Onyx Environmental Services, RCRA 2001 0029 0058)

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

We considered the comments on this issue, most of which came from either States or industry groups. While industry believed the rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring off site. Of the off site facilities, States felt that captive facilities might be best suited for the standardized permit, because of their familiarity with the wastes managed.

Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility. ( Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include 1The National Environmental Performance Track program recognizes and encourages top environmental performance among private and public facilities in the United States. Performance Track members go beyond compliance with regulatory requirements to achieve environmental excellence. Currently the program has approximately 300 members.

43 documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.)

It should also be noted that the Agency is exploring whether to extend eligibility for the standardized permit to other off site facilities that have demonstrated superior environmental performance; the National Performance Track Program provides an example of the kind of criteria/ facilities that EPA is considering in this context. 1 We believe it may be appropriate to offer this option to such facilities to further encourage superior environmental results. In fact, the Agency believes it important to reward companies that are top environmental performers and therefore, believe that such a change may be appropriate. The Agency anticipates issuing a proposed rulemaking involving Performance Track facilities in the near future.

Comment: Advantages: Standardized permits can be an alternate mechanism and appropriate way for states to minimize their oversight of lower risk facilities and re focus their efforts towards permitting higher priority facilities towards cleanup goals. The standardized permit rule should be applicable only to facilities that generate waste and routinely manage the waste on site in above ground tanks, containers, and containment buildings. The standardized permit specifically should not apply to interim status facilities, research and development activities, or construction permits. Standardized permits are especially appropriate for renewal permits.

Permit applicants with a history of compliance with the environmental laws should be eligible for longer permits, short form permit renewals and other incentives to reward and encourage such applicants, including the proposed standardized RCRA permit for on site storage of hazardous waste in tanks, containers and containment storage buildings.

Disadvantages: Experience has shown that facilities sometimes represent that they will carry out endeavors according to a written plan that meets regulatory requirements, but subsequent reviews and inspections reveal that plans and/ or regulations were not in fact appropriately followed. The Department believes that reliance on post installation inspections may not be adequate to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, especially after construction is complete without prior review of plans, drawings, specifications or reports. At a minimum construction design and proposed operation procedures must be approved by the regulatory agency prior to installation 44 and operation. In addition, professional certifications that the construction design was followed should be submitted following completion of construction. ( Augusta Posner, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, RCRA 2001 0029 0059)

Response: While we understand that not all companies operate the way they have portended in their written plans, the same might be said of any permittee. We believe the standardized permit rule provides enough safeguards ( e. g., binding self certifications, compliance audits) to help assure the permitting authority that the regulations are being/ will be followed.

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

We considered the comments on this issue, most of which came from either States or industry groups. While industry believed the rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring off site. Of the off site facilities, States felt that captive facilities might be best suited for the standardized permit, because of their familiarity with the wastes managed.

Thus, we are extending the rule to include generators managing wastes generated off site, as long as the off site generator is under the same ownership as the receiving facility. ( Generators receiving wastes generated off site, would need to submit a waste analysis plan with their Notice of Intent, and also include documentation showing that both the off site generator and the receiving facility are under the same ownership.)

It should also be noted that the Agency is exploring whether to extend eligibility for the standardized permit to other off site facilities that have demonstrated superior environmental performance; the National Performance Track Program provides an example of the kind of criteria/ facilities that EPA is considering in this context. We believe it may be appropriate to offer this option to such facilities to further encourage superior environmental results. In fact, the Agency believes it important to reward companies that are top environmental performers and 45 therefore, believe that such a change may be appropriate. The Agency anticipates issuing a proposed rulemaking involving Performance Track facilities in the near future.

Comment: The advantages are a streamlined permitting process for generators of hazardous waste storing in tanks and containers for greater than 90 days. One disadvantage would be the ability of the permitting agency to determine compliance of the facility with the waste analysis plan and closure plan requirements prior to permit issuance. These plans are not proposed to be included in an application for a standardized permit, and there is a 120 day limit to determine applicability of the standardized permit. This would necessitate getting a copy of the waste analysis and closure plans from the facility for review because permits cannot be issued to facilities that are not in compliance with the basic waste analysis and closure provisions. ( Jim Sygo, Chief of the Waste Management Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, RCRA 2001 0029 0060)

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

We considered the comments on this issue, most of which came from either States or industry groups. While industry believed the rule should extend to off site facilities, and further believed that many off site facilities could adequately manage off site generated wastes under a streamlined permit approach, States expressed great concerns about such facilities complying with the permitting requirements, especially in cases where a facility manages complex waste streams. States expressed concern about both commercial disposal/ treatment and recycling operations occurring off site. Of the off site facilities, States felt that captive facilities might be best suited for the standardized permit, because of their familiarity with the wastes managed.