Response: The Agency proposed to eliminate notifications regarding implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards. In addition, we proposed to eliminate notifications for implementing alternative work practices for valves. We also proposed elimination of the semi annual report with a record of equipment, shutdowns, and control device monitoring events. We receive a number of comments on these proposed eliminations. Some commenters opposed elimination of notifications for alternative valve standards, believing that some technical review was needed to approve an alternative standard. Another commenter opposed to eliminating these notifications argued that the report ( equipment leaks) should be submitted only if there have been problems with the equipment, and that the public has an interest in these reports and would not see the information if it were only maintained at the facility. Another commenter argued that the alternative valve standard should be selfimplementing and there should be no need to submit a notification to implement the standard, since, since this information is retained in facility records. Similarly, this commenter also believed there was no need to submit alternative work practices for valves specified in 264.1062. 127 Another commenter believed the notifications are not necessary since the appropriate documentation will be in the facility's records, available for review during inspections. This reduces the administrative burden on both the facility and regulator. Another commenter said that the record keeping requirements for facilities subject to Subpart BB are extensive, and that facility records would contain documentation on leaks from valves, pumps, and compressors and resulting repairs. Therefore, there should be no need for facilities to also submit semi annual reports with this same information. The final rule eliminates the notifications for implementing and discontinuing alternative valve standards, alternative work practices fo valves, and the requirement for a semi annual report submission. The necessary information related to the report and the notifications is contained in the operating record and available for review during inspection. Furthermore, we believe that the information regarding the use or discontinued use of alternative valve standards need not be submitted but maintained on site.

265.1100 Containment Buildings ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of intent to be bound by the regulations earlier than as specified in section 265.1100: Eliminate  an obsolete requirement.

Document #: 0042 [ § 265.1100, 265.1061( b)( 1)] Equipment Leaks ( Interim Status)   Submit notification to Region.

Notify EPA of intent to be bound by the regulations earlier than as specified in.

Document #: 0169 We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0213 We support the elimination of this language.

Document #: 0218 Delete obsolete language.

Response: We are removing this obsolete language in the final rule.

265.1101( c)( 2) Containment Buildings ( Interim Status)  Obtain certification that building meets design requirements: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this certification can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 265.1101( c)( 2) 128 Document #: 0218 The DEQ generally SUPPORTS the proposed rule, WITH MODIFICATION, as shown below. Because a structure is involved, state law may require the building to be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer for safety reasons. The DEQ believes that the possibility of this requirement can be addressed by a note at the end of the rule. Secondly, the requirement that the certification be obtained prior to first use of the building, should be retained. Suggested language is as follows:

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

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

Response to Comments: The Agency is not proceeding with the proposed change of allowing a CHMM to certify this requirement. This certification must be done by a qualified professional engineer. We however removing obsolete language from the regulation and we are providing for the certification to be maintained on site. Please refer to the preamble discussion.

265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) Containment Buildings ( Interim Status)  Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement to notify regulatory authorities about a cleanup that must be done by regulation. Records of the cleanup will be in a facility's operating record, which is available for inspection by regulatory authorities.

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

Document #: 0213 We support reducing the paperwork burden of automatically submitting reports of planned actions. However, a notice of a release does not represent a significant paperwork burden and provides the regulatory agency the ability to provide timely oversight to ensure correction. We recommend retaining the notice requirement by amending 265.1101( c)( 3)( i)( D) to read as follows: 129 Sec. 265.1101 Design and operating requirements.

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

Document #: 0218 Add text to paragraph ( C) and delete paragraph ( D).

265.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii) Containment Buildings ( Interim Status) Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed: Proposed Action: Eliminate  an unnecessary requirement as long as cleanup required by regulation takes place. This information will be maintained in the operating record, which is available for inspection by regulators. Final Action: We are not changing this requirement Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.1101( c)( 3)( ii), ( iii).

Document #: 0218 Delete reporting requirements.

265.1101( c)( 3)( j)( D): Containment Buildings ( Interim Status) Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup: Proposed Change: Eliminate an unnecessary requirement to notify regulatory authorities about a cleanup that must be done by regulation. Records of the cleanup will be in a facility's operating record, which is available for inspection by regulatory authorities.

Document #: 0169 We oppose this change. This can be an indication of a serious problem. It is simply good engineering practice to document repairs. These reports allow the regulatory agencies to determine if proper action was taken. The notification also allows the regulatory authority to require further investigation to determine no exposure occurred to human health or the environment. Notification of clean up ensures that proper procedures were followed to eliminate harm to the environment. It also documents in the regulatory file that the repairs were properly handled when the public reviews the file. Otherwise, the public must inquire to the facility 130 regarding documentation of clean up and repairs.

Response: We are persuaded by the commenters on the utility of this information, so we will not be proceeding with these changes.

265.1101( c)( 4) Containment Buildings  Interim Status: Proposed Change: Allow reduced inspection frequencies on a case by case basis. This determination will be made by regulatory authorities based on past performance of the facility.

Document #: 0131 The proposed rule would allow an operator to inspect containment buildings once every seven days or less frequently ( up to a month) at the discretion of the regulatory program. Containment buildings typically are designed to store large quantities of hazardous waste. As with tank systems, weekly inspections of containment buildings provide a means to detect spills or releases in a timely manner. Also, the proposed rule's provision to allow the regulatory agency to grant less frequent inspections would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the regulatory program because the agency would have to expend additional resources making decisions for less frequent inspections. As with containers and tank systems, such a rule would necessitate increased regulatory program inspections to assure that undetected releases do not occur.

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

Document #: 0213 Same comment as 264.1101( c)( 4)

Document #: 0218 Modify language to allow longer inspection intervals with the approval of the Division Director. ( Note: The proposed language is not clear.)

Response: Today's changes provide Performance Track members the opportunity to reduce self inspection frequencies beyond those applicable to all other facilities for containers, containment buildings, tanks, tank systems, and areas subject to spills upon approval by the regulatory agency. To employ these provisions, Performance Track members must provide submit an application to the authorized state or EPA regional office. ( See discussion of procedures in today's preamble.) Today's final rule provides regulatory incentive provisions to facilities who are members 131 of the National Environmental Performance Track Program. Performance Track member facilities are provided the opportunity to reduce self inspections of tank systems, containers, containment buildings, and areas subject to spills to a frequency not less than once each month. . The Agency has determined these provisions are appropriate for these facilities because of their demonstrated top environmental performance and rigorous evaluation by the Agency. In addition, the Agency believes it is important to recognize the difference in the need for oversight of facilities that are top environmental performers who have developed comprehensive environmental management systems and who have a track record of effective self oversight. Commenters have convinced us that allowing every facility to apply for a case by case reduction in theirself inspection frequency would put a tremendous burden on the regulatory agency to review these application, counter to the purpose of this rule.

266.111( e)( 2) Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Permitted)  Recordkeeping: Modify  records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations.

Document #: 0020 Idea C 1 BIF requirements: EPA proposes to decrease retention time for operating records at BIF facilities. The requirement to retain records until closure would be reduced to 3 years. One useful purpose of retaining operating records until closure is that it provides a complete records of the wastes disposed at a BIF. These records could be useful for scientists evaluating health effects over time by comparing wastes incinerated, temperature, retention time, and the many other factors kept in the operating record. With the availability of electronic media storage, it does not seem unreasonable to maintain the operation record until closure.

Response: While data from keeping records until closure may be somewhat useful at times, we do not believe that this potential use would offset the effects of lowering of burden for keeping these records for a shorter period of time. Therefore, we are decreasing the retention time for BIF facilities. Other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0138 Dow is particularly pleased that EPA proposed to reduce the recordkeeping period for permitted and interim status Boilers and Industrial Furnaces from closure to three years. There are many requirements associated with these units, and keeping records until closure has been more difficult than supported by the potential benefit of maintaining these records. DOW has explored paper 132 records, microfiche, and long term computer files. None of these methods are attractive. Keeping these records this long has not protected the environment in any fashion. Again, frequent inspection of these units makes such long term records retention unnecessary. DOW supports EPA's proposed changes to BIF recordkeeping.

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

Document #: 0157 USWAG supports EPA's proposal to standardize the recordkeeping retention period for boiler and industrial furnace owners/ operators to three years, bringing the retention period into line with other RCRA recordkeeping requirements. Id, at 2529 Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0165 DOW is particularly pleased that EPA proposed to reduce the recording period for permitted and interim status Boilers and Industrial Furnaces from closure to three years. There are many requirements associated with these units, and keeping records until closure has been more difficult than supported by the potential benefit of maintaining these records. DOW has explored paper records, microfiche, and long term computer files. None of these methods are attractive. Keeping these records this long has not protected the environment in any fashion. Again, frequent inspection of these units make such long term records retention unnecessary. DOW supports EPA's proposed changes to BIF recordkeeping.

Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for 133 reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0169 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Permitted) Record keeping: Modify records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations.

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

Document #: 0213 WE do not support reducing the recordkeeping time.

Response: Most commenters supported reducing the recordkeeping time, therefore we are not persuaded by this comment. We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

266.102( e)( 10); 266.103( k)

Document #: 0216 Maine disagrees with the proposal that records only have to be kept for three years. It may be important to know years from now what kinds of waste were burned in such a facility.

Response: While data from keeping records until closure may be somewhat useful at times, we do not believe that this potential use would offset the effects of lowering of burden for keeping these records for a shorter period of time. Therefore, we are decreasing the retention time for 134 BIF facilities. Other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0217 Eastman supports changing the retention period for BIF recordkeeping requirement from life of the facility to three years. This avoid the accumulation of large amounts of data for which no one has any use after a reasonable three year period.

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

Document #: 0218 Modify recordkeeping time frames.

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

Document #: 0224 CRWI supports the proposed changes to the record retention from life of BIF facility to 3 years. In addition, we support the proposed change the frequency of re certification from 3 years to 5 years for BIFs. CRWI also encourages EPA to examine the regulations to see if there are other requirements for other RCRA facilities where a 3 year record retention policy is appropriate.

Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority 135 of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0241 The proposal would reduce the holding time for BIF records to three years. We general agree with the change, however, we believe that the most recent trial burn and compliance test data, including both stack emissions and operating parameter data, should be maintained until closure of the unit. We feel this is necessary because this data documents the unit's ability to comply with emission standards and also forms the basis for the day to day operating requirements for the life of the unit.

Response: We understand the commenter's point that trial burn and compliance test data are important, however we believe that the five year record retention time would be sufficient. Therefore, we are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. We have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0332 SOCMA is supportive of a record retention policy of 3 years for incinerators as opposed to life of a facility and concurs with EPA that these record keeping requirements should be changed to Class 1 RCRA permit modifications. These are both changes that will reduce record keeping burdens without endangering the environment Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

266.103( b)( 2)( ii)( D) Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status)  Evaluation of data and making determinations: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this evaluation can be made by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. 136 Document #: 0213 We do not support this proposal.

Response: We agree with the comment and are not making the proposed change because it was a sunset provision and has been deleted.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ opposes the changes made to subparagraph ( D). The certification deals with a critical factor in determining the potential emissions from a boiler or furnace. Since the rule in question involve " interim status" burners who haven't gone through complete trial burns to establish acceptable operating conditions the highest level of review is needed, which would be performed by a qualified registered professional engineer. The EPA itself uses the language ... best engineering judgement ..., in several areas, to describe the review process needed to make the required determinations. It therefore follows that, if this is the standard to be met, then engineers are the technical professionals best qualified to make the certification. To allow other individuals ( with as accreditation that is not generally governed or recognized by the states) may unnecessarily endanger human health and the environment.

Response: We agree with the comment and are not making the proposed change because it was a sunset provision and has been deleted.

266.103( d) Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status)  Periodic re certifications of compliance: Modify  extend period of time from three to five years, which Agency field staff believe is sufficient for regulatory purposes.

Document #: 0134 EPA proposes to modify the existing requirement that, every three years, an interim status boiler or industrial furnace ( BIF) must test for compliance with emissions standards and submit the results to the responsible regulatory agency. Under the proposed modified regulations, compliance testing of the emissions from an interim status BIF and submission of the results to the responsible regulatory agency would be required every five years ( see Specific Comment on the Preamble III, item 1).

Document #: 0169 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status Periodic re certification of compliance: Modifyextend period of time from three to five years, which Agency field staff believe is sufficient for regulatory purposes. This proposal is inconsistent with the proposal to go to a three year record retention period. By extending the time for re certifications of compliance to five years, the three year record retention for the information required for the certification would not be sufficient. 137 Document #: 0196 Extend BIF ( interim Status) re certification of compliance frequency from three to five years. We support this change. Velsicol has been operating four BIF units under interim status long enough to experience two re certifications and we are coming up on the third one. During this time we neither changed the waste feed nor the operating scheme for these units. We felt the initial certification adequately demonstrated compliance during the whole time we have operated the units and that re certification was not necessary. We feel that the resources made available through less frequent re certification would be better served elsewhere ( i. e., corrective action, waste minimization, and energy conservation).

Document #: 0217 Eastman also support the re certification change from three years to five years.

Document #: 0218 Extend re certification frequency from three to five years.

Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities and are also extending the recertification of compliance requirement to five years, as suggested by the commenters.

266.103( k) Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status)  Recordkeeping: Modify  records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations.

Document #: 0134 In general, DOE supports this proposed modification of the record retention period for interim status of BIFs. However, the chart, titled " RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Proposed for Elimination or modification" ( see p. 2526), indicates that EPA is also proposing to reduce the frequency of emissions compliance testing for interim status BIFs from once every three years to once every five years. If EPA finalizes a three year retention period for all BIFs records and also reduces the frequency of emissions compliance testing for interim status BIFs to once every five years, DOE is concerned that an interim status BIF would be allowed to discard the records for one compliance testing event up to two years before the next compliance testing event occurs. While it is not clear that this would create any particular problem, DOE suggests that it would be better for the retention period for records of interim status BIF compliance testing events to not be shorter than the length of time between such events. Therefore, DOE urges that the recordkeeping retention regulations expressly state that, unlike other records for interim status BIFs, the records of each emissions compliance testing event must be retained for five years or until the next compliance testing event is completed and documented, whichever time is shorter ( see Specific Comments on Proposed Regulatory Text, item 6).

An interim status BIF would be allowed to discard the records for one compliance testing event 138 up to two years before the next compliance testing event occurs. While it is not clear that this would create any particular problem, DOE suggests that it would be better for the retention period for records of interim status BIF compliance testing events to not be shorter than the length of time between such events. Therefore, DOE urges that the recordkeeping retention regulations expressly state that, unlike other records for interim status BIFs, the records of each emissions compliance testing event must be retained for five years or until the next compliance testing event is completed and documented, whichever time is shorter ( see Specific Comments on Proposed Regulatory Text, item 6). DOE is concerned that if the frequency of emissions compliance testing for interim status BIFs is changed from once each three years to once each five years then the proposed change to 40 CFR 266.103k would allow an interim status BIF to discard the records for one compliance testing events up to two years before the next compliance testing event occurs. Accordingly, DOE requests that EPA consider adopting in the final rule the following revisions to the proposed text for 266.103k.

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

Document #: 0138 Dow is particularly pleased that EPA proposed to reduce the recordkeeping period for permitted and interim status Boilers and Industrial Furnaces from closure to three years. There are many requirements associated with these units, and keeping records until closure has been more difficult than supported by the potential benefit of maintaining these records. DOW has explored paper records, microfiche, and long term computer files. None of these methods are attractive. Keeping these records this long has not protected the environment in any fashion. Again, frequent inspection of these units makes such long term records retention unnecessary. DOW supports EPA's proposed changes to BIF recordkeeping.

Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards. 139 Document #: 0157 USWAG supports EPA's proposal to standardize the recordkeeping retention period for boiler and industrial furnace owners/ operators to three years, bringing the retention period into line with other RCRA recordkeeping requirements. Id, at 2529 Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0169 Boilers and Industrial Furnaces ( Interim Status) Record keeping: Modify records only have to be kept for three years, making this record retention time consistent with other treatment units. Bringing consistency to record retention times will assist facilities in complying with our regulations. This proposal is inconsistent with the proposal to go to a three year record retention period. By extending the time for re certifications of compliance to five years, the three year record retention for the information required for the certification would not be sufficient.

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

Document #: 0213 We do not support reducing the recordkeeping time.

Response: Most commenters supported the proposed change, therefore, we are not persuaded by this comment. We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to 140 BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0216 Maine disagrees with the proposal that records only have to be kept for three years. It may be important to know years from now what kinds of waste were burned in such a facility.

Response: While data from keeping records until closure may be somewhat useful at times, we do not believe that this potential use would offset the effects of lowering of burden for keeping these records for a shorter period of time. Therefore, we are decreasing the retention time for BIF facilities. Other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards.

Document #: 0217 Eastman supports changing the retention period for BIF recordkeeping requirement from life of the facility to three years. This avoid the accumulation of large amounts of data for which no one has any use after a reasonable three year period.

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

Document #: 0218 Modify recordkeeping time frames.

Response: We are decreasing the record retention time for BIF facilities. However, other commenters pointed out that the recordkeeping requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those that the Agency is currently developing for incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). We agree with these commenters, and have decided, for reasons of consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year records retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the five year records retention time to BIFs ( such as sulfur recovery furnaces) that will not be subject to the upcoming MACT standards. 141 Document #: 0224 CRWI supports the proposed changes to the record retention from life of BIF facility to 3 years. In addition, we support the proposed change the frequency of re certification from 3 years to 5 years for BIFs. CRWI also encourages EPA to examine the regulations to see if there are other requirements for other RCRA facilities where a 3 year record retention policy is appropriate.

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

Document #: 0241 The proposal would reduce the holding time for BIF records to three years. We general agree with the change, however, we believe that the most recent trial burn and compliance test data, including both stack emissions and operating parameter data, should be maintained until closure of the unit. We feel this is necessary because this data documents the unit's ability to comply with emission standards and also forms the basis for the day to day operating requirements for the life of the unit.

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

266.111( e)( 2) Direct Transfer Equipment  Assessment of equipment: Modify  in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

Document #: 0169 Direct Transfer Equipment Assessment of equipment: Modify in addition to an independent, registered professional engineer, this assessment can be done by a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.

We oppose this change. It is no clear how this proposal in any way reduces the record keeping or 142 reporting burden, which is the stated purpose of the proposed change. It is inappropriate to allow a CHMM to certify work that is professional engineering.

Georgia law defines professional engineering as " including any professional services, such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, designing, or responsible supervision of construction or operation, in connection with any public welfare, or the safeguarding or like, health or property is concerned or involved, when professional services requires the application of mathematical or physical sciences". The certification referenced is, by definition, the practice of engineering. Georgia law further states, : It shall be unlawful for any person other than a professional engineer to practice or offer to practice professional engineering in this state." The proposed change is not in the public interest, and is less protective of human health and the environment. Designation of the professional engineer as the certifying professional, places the responsibility with a profession that holds a duty of care to the public, as regulated by the laws of the State of Georgia. The CHMM has no legal standing and is unregulated in Georgia.

Document #: 0218 The DEQ supports the modification to subparagraph ( e) ( 2), with further modifications as noted. The modifications to subparagraph ( e) ( 2) expand upon the existing language which allow a registered engineer, and are believed to be protective of human health and the environment. However, the text should be made clear that the CHMM must be " independent, [ and] qualified... as with the engineer and tank installers. Secondly, the DEQ would recommend that the following text be added as a note to subparagraph ( e) ( 2): [ Note: Some states have specific requirements regarding the personnel allowed to perform these certifications. The owner or operator is advised to consult with state regulatory bodies to determine if such requirements are in effect for their state.]

Response: After publication of the October 29, 2003 NODA, ( See 68 FR 61662), EPA determined that the certification required by 266.111( e)( 2) had to be made by August 21, 1992. As such, the Agency is not pursuing a change to this requirement in today's rulemaking, obviously because the date has passed.

266.203 Standards applicable to the transportation of solid waste military munitions.

Document #: 0202 Comment: DOD requests technical corrections to 40 CFR 266.203 as part of the Burden Reduction Initiative.

Discussion: Existing regulations in 40 CFR 266.203 ( a)( 1)( ii) require all conditionally exempt waste munitions to be transported under certain shipping controls identified in 40 CFR 266.203( c). This section currently requires all shipments to possess the following forms: 143 Government Bill of Lading ( GBL) ) GSA Standard Form 1109), requisition tracking form DD Form 1348, the Signature and Tally Record ( DD Form 1907), Special Instructions for Motor Vehicle Driver ( DD Form 836), and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report ( DD Form 626). This does not accurately reflect actual DOD requirements and practices and overstates certain paperwork requirements because some of these forms are applicable only to military transportation as opposed to commercial transport.

Because it is the intent of the Burden Reduction Initiative to eliminate unnecessary paperwork, DOD believes it would be appropriate to delete 40 CFR 266.203( c) via this rulemaking. Text provided in 40 CFR 266.203( a)( 1)( ii), which requires munitions to be transported in accordance with DOD shipping controls, is sufficient, If 40 CFR 266.203( c) is retained, the regulations must be modified every time a form number changes.

If EPA feels it necessary to retain reference to forms within 40 CFR 266.203( c), it should be corrected to reflect the following:

( 1) The applicability of forms depends upon whether it is a commercial or military shipment. Commercial transport uses only the GBL, DD form 1907, and DD form 626. However, shipments by military transport are required to sue DD Forms 1348, 1907,836 and 626.

( 2) The form number for the GBL should be corrected from 1109 to 1103. GSA Standard Form 1109 refers to the continuation sheet of the 1103 form.

( 3) The title of DD Form 836 should be corrected to " Hazardous Materials Transported by Government Vehicles".

( 4) The title of DD Form 626 should be corrected to " Transporting Hazardous Materials".

Recommendation: Delete 40 CFR 266.203( c).

Document #: 0323 COPC has no comments on this issue.

Document #: 0327 API has no comments to offer on this issue.

Document #: 0336 FDEP supports the proposed shipping paperwork requirements.

Document #: 0345 All regulatory forms ( not just Military Munitions forms) must be published in the Federal Register when they are amended, and this is the method by which States and the regulated community are routinely notified of such amendments. 144 Document #: 0347 No comments; not applicable to Eastman.

Document #: 0349 ADEQ Comments: ADEQ concurs. Response: We are making no change to section 266.203. We currently require conditionally exempt munitions ( i. e., exempt form 40 CFR Part 260 through 270) to be transported under shopping controls specified in 266.203( c). This section requires all shipments to be accompanied by five specific forms ( the regulations currently list the name of each form, as well as the accompanying form identification number). The problem, according to a commenter, is that every time the name of one of these forms, or the form identification number changes, the Department of Defense must publish a Federal Register notice annoucing the change. In our October 29, 2003 Federal Register NODA, we suggested eliminating the form change Federal Register Notice and replacing it with a written notification to the Director of EPA's Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement. States strongly opposed this change, pointing out that we would be eliminating a notification about wastes of concern to them and their citizens. Because States have identified a strong interest by the public in these notices, we are not making this change. .

266.205( a)( 1)( v) Storage of Solid Waste Military Munitions  Notification of loss or theft: Simplify notification process  there is no need to notify the regulatory authorities twice.

Document #: 0169 Storage of Solid Waste Military Munitions Notification of loss or theft Simplify notification process there is no need to notify the regulatory authorities twice. We agree with this proposal.

Document #: 0202 Comment: The proposed text for the notification regarding waste military munitions does not state whether the notification can be oral or written.

Discussion: Under existing requirements, when waste military munitions are lost or stolen or a condition of 40 CFR 266, subpart M is not met, an oral notice must be provided to EPA within 24 hours followed by a written notice within 5 days. The proposed change merely requires a single notification within 24 hours but does not specify whether it is to be written or verbal.

Recommendation: DOD recommends modifying the text in proposed 266.205( a)( 1)( v) to. " The owner or operator must provide either written or verbal notice to the Director within 24 hours from the time.

Document #: 0213 We support this proposal. 145 Document #: 0216 Storage of Solid Waste Military Munitions. Maine does not believe either notice requirement should be eliminated.

Document #: 0218 Eliminate redundant reporting requirement.

Reponse: We are making no change to section 266.205, as it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

268.5( f)

Document #: 0042 Procedures for Case by Case Extension  Notify EPA of any changes.

Response : No changes to 268.5( f) were proposed, so any change would be outside the scope of the final rule.

268.6 Document #: 0134 In the fifth line of the quote above, " section 298.6" should be corrected to read section " section 268.6.

Response: Thank you for the correction.

268.7 LDR Generator Requirements  Generator waste determination:

Document #: 0004 EPA rules require notification to treatment and disposal facilities about the LDR status of waste shipments. The notifications are to be submitted " with the initial shipment of waste." This wording creates confusion as to the responsibility of the transporter to carry LDR notifications. While no direct charge is given to a transporter for this paperwork, the requirement that the notifications be submitted " with" a shipment appears to require transporter compliance. Please use this opportunity to clarify that this is not a transporter responsibility, and that electronic filing is acceptable.

Response: The LDR regulations do not require transporters to carry LDR notifications. We leave it to the generator and the TSDF to decide how to submit LDR notifications, therefore, electronic filing  among other methods is acceptable. 146 Document #: 0012 E. Should we streamline the LDR requirements?

Change 1: Eliminate 268.7( a)( 1) Generator waste determinations Change 2: Eliminate 268.7( b)( 6) Recycler notifications and certification Change 3: Eliminate 268.7( d) Hazardous debris notification Change 4: Eliminate 268.9( a) Characteristic waste determination and streamline 268.9( d) Notification procedures CRWI supports streamlining the LDR paperwork requirements. As reported in the NODA, the waste determinations under Part 262 and 264 would meet the obligations under Part 268. This is a duplicative requirement that should be removed.

The notifications and certification under LDR program are extensive and numerous. CRWI supports eliminating the additional certifications required. These certifications have no impact on human health and the environment. The certification required to accompany the manifested shipment should be adequate and can be reviewed by inspectors to ensure compliance and protection of the environment.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. We are however providing additional flexibility to the generator whereby, he/ she does not have to make the determination that the waste needs to be treated to met LDR. The generatormay simply send his/ her waste to a permitted hazardous waste treatment facility with the determination that they do not know whether it meets LDR. In these cases, the treatment facility must make that determination. The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the 147 requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

Document #: 0022 Land Disposal Restrictions: If treatment facilities are not required to perform LDR analysis, they might not know if their treatment was effective until it reaches the disposal facility. Once the waste arrives at the disposal facility and they determine that it fails LDR, then the waste would have to be sent back to the treatment facility. It could increase the amount of time the waste has to travel on the highways. It is important for the treatment facility to know if its treatment is effective. Therefore, we oppose changing the LDR analysis requirements for treatment facilities.

Response: The commenter appears to misunderstand what was being proposed in regards to the LDR waste analysis requirements. We proposed to eliminate the 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) waste analysis requirements for generators, not TSDFs. Furthermore, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a).

Document #: 0025 EPA Should Streamline LDR Paperwork Requirements While the four changes proposed by EPA in this notice would be specific to the LDR program, they can also be seen as examples of earlier ideas. Changes 1 and 4 ( eliminating the generator and characteristic waste determinations) is a variation on burden reduction concept D except, in this case, EPA is proposing to eliminate redundancy with the RCRA program rather than between RCRA and OSHA. Changes 2 and 3 ( eliminating the recycler notifications and certifications and the hazardous debris notification) are examples of burden reduction concept B  allowing information to be kept on site rather than submitted to the regulatory agency and eliminating duplication. This concept makes sense generally, and it makes sense in this context.

We agree with the discussion that the 262.11 waste determination, along with the determinations required under 264.13 and 268.40, are sufficient to assure that a treated waste is properly characterized for compliance with LDRs, and thus we encourage the Agency to eliminate the 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) requirements. We also agree with the discussion that notifications under 268.7( b)( 6) for materials recycled and 268.7( d) for hazardous debris can be eliminated and replaced by requirements to maintain information in the facility records.

Document #: 0027 Section II. E. Illinois EPA agrees with the proposals regarding LDR requirements.

Response to Comments: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, 148 the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

Document #: 0028 LDR information is required and should not be reduced. However, time and ease of use may be enhanced by changing the hazardous waste manifest to include a standardized LDR notification. It ( LDR portion) would still only need to be completed on first shipment, etc., as now.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. The Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increased burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send 149 the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

The Agency appreciates the suggestion made by the commenter about the Uniform Manifest. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule.

Document #: 0029 1. p. 32864, col. 3  EPA requests comment on whether the requirements in 40 CFR 268.7 for generators to determine whether their waste must be treated before it can be land disposed, and to provide certain notifications and certifications to the treatment, storage, or disposal facility, should be eliminated.

The NODA indicates that if the generator of a waste determines, as required by 40 CFR 262.11, that the waste is hazardous, and the treater obtains a detailed chemical and physical analysis, as required by 40 CFR 264.13, this should be sufficient to decide whether the waste meets the applicable LDR treatment standards contained in 40 CFR 268.40. DOE disagrees. LDR treatment standards are not always assigned simply by waste code, which is all the generator is required by 40 CFR 262.11 to determine. Some waste codes have been divided into waste code treatment subcategories for the purpose of assigning LDR treatment standards. For example, the waste code P092 ( phenyl mercuric acetate) has five waste code treatment subcategories, each of which has its own LDR treatment standard. Furthermore, the waste code treatment subcategories do not depend entirely on factors that can be determined by testing the waste itself. Typically, one or a combination of the following factors defines a waste code subcategory:

° The source of the waste ( e. g., nuclear fuel rod reprocessing, emergency response actions involving explosives, incineration, etc.); and ° The content of the waste ( e. g., high mercury, high total organic carbon, lead acid batteries, etc.).

Other complications arise if the waste is a complex waste that falls into a category for which EPA has promulgated alternative LDR treatment standards, such as lab packs, or if the waste is a characteristic hazardous waste.

Under 40 CFR 268.7( a), generators are now required to notify the receiving facility of the waste code subcategory and, in the case of a characteristic hazardous waste, of the underlying hazardous constituents. If 40 CFR. 268.7( a) were to be eliminated, generators would no longer be 150 required to determine such information, or submit it to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. It is unclear as to what waste handling problems would be created by eliminating the requirement that generators determine and submit such information to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. However, it is clear that before treatment and disposal facilities can determine applicable LDR treatment standards for certain wastes, and demonstrate that the treated wastes meet those standards, such facilities will require more information from the generator than a waste code determination.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

Document #: 0041 We also believe, however, that the Agency is missing a major burden reduction opportunity by still requiring the generator notification provisions contained in 40 CFR Part 268.7. Safety Kleen has been an advocate of eliminating the notification documents, under certain conditions, for some time. We recently reiterated our position on this issue in our June 4, 1999 response to Information Collection Request, No. 801.12, OMB No. 2050 0039 that was published in the 151 Federal Register on April 5, 1999.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concern, however it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Document #: 0042 268.5( f)  Procedures for Case by Case Extension  Notify EPA of any changes.

Section ( 11)( E) Should we streamline the LDR Paperwork Requirements?

a. Change 1: Eliminate the Generator Waste Determinations for the Purposes of LDR Requirements found in Sections 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a)( 1) Characteristic Waste Determinations DHWM agrees that the Section 262.11 generator waste determination in conjunction with the waste information required to be obtained by the TSD facility will provide sufficient information for the TSD facility to store, treat, or dispose of hazardous wastes according to the LDR rules. We believe the generator waste determinations under Section 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a)( 1) can be removed from the rules. We do not anticipate that the removal of waste determination will harm the RCRA program or cause significant enforcement issues.

However, we are hesitant to conclude that the elimination of the generator waste determination requirements from the rules will reduce any burden on generators imposed by the LDR requirements.

Due to the manner in which it is structured, the LDR program dictates that waste determinations must be conducted in order to achieve compliance with the LDR requirements. So, even though the determinations are removed from the rules, a waste determination will still need to be performed. Either the generator or the TSD facility will need to perform the task.

In addition, the TSD facility must obtain certain information so that the waste can be properly stored, treated, or disposed. This information is equivalent to the information gained from a waste determination. In order for the TSD facility to meet their regulatory requirements, they need to either require the generator to supply information similar to a waste determination in order to do business or offer the waste determination analysis for a fee. The burden of a waste determination will still be present.

B. Change 2: Eliminate 268.7( b)( 6), Submission of Recycler Notifications and Certifications to US EPA, and C. Change 3: Eliminate 268.7( d), Generator and Treater One Time Notification for Treated Characteristic Hazardous Waste Debris, and D. Change 4. Remove Generator and Treater One Time Notification and Certification 152 Requirement of 268.9( d) for Treated Characteristic Hazardous Waste that is Disposed of at Non hazardous Waste Facility.

DHWM supports all three of the above contemplated rule changes to eliminate the submission of certain one time notifications and certifications to the overseeing agency. We can obtain much of this information from the annual hazardous reports Ohio treaters and LGQs are required to submit to us. Furthermore, the information will be maintained on site at the facility and available to an inspector upon request.

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

268.7( b)( 6) Treatment Facility Notification and Certifications  Complete and submit a recycling notice and certification to EPA.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 153 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

Document #: 0144 268.7  The proposed revisions to rules would eliminate the requirements for generators to notify treatment, storage, and disposal ( TSD) facilities of waste streams which are subject to the land disposal restrictions ( LDRs) of 40 CFR 268. Many commercial TSD facilities rely on this certification prior to accepting wastes from generators. This certification from generators enables commercial facilities to accurately characterize waste streams for treatment ( if required) and disposal. In addition, the certification acts as an additional tool in identifying and accurately characterizing LDR waste streams prior to disposal. Because waste streams may not be accurately characterized, the proposed elimination of this requirement will potentially create a problem for commercial TSD facilities which accept large and different waste streams. The expense of additional characterization will be passed on to the generator. In addition, certain waste streams are often generated infrequently; hence, generators and commercial facilities draw upon previous analyses for characterization of such wastes. The elimination of this requirement would require unnecessary, redundant characterization by the TSD. Please note that the LDR requirements are addressed in existing waste analysis plans ( WAPs) for both commercial and noncommercial permitted TSD facilities, which means that the proposed changes to the rules will require permitted facilities to review and revise their existing WAP. Be reminded that such revisions to the permit application call for modification or amendment, thus placing an added burden on commercial TSD facilities, and possibly on permitted generators.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion, such as this commenter, to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). As this commenter pointed out, if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. 154 The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2).

Document #: 0166 Generator Determination Section 268.7 EPA proposes to eliminate the requirement in 268.7( a)( 1) that generators determine, by testing or knowledge, whether their waste must be treated prior to land disposal. EPA believes that other requirements, such as the generator hazardous waste determination in 262.11, provide the same safeguards. The related record retention provision in 268.7( a)( 6) would also be eliminated.

After careful consideration, and contrary to our initial reaction, the Safety Kleen must disagree with the agency's assessment. It is true that TSD facilities usually obtain waste profiles, including analytical results, from their generator customers in order to determine treatment requirements. But the waste profiles provided by generators are based on the requirements of 268.7( a)( 1), which is the underpinning for this commercial practice. In other words, the regulation sets the standard for the commercial practice. We are concerned that the elimination of 268.7( a)( 1) will jeopardize the ability of commercial TSD facilities to obtain constituent specific information on wastes from customers and brokers. If generators are not required to provide this information on their own wastes, then TSD facilities may not be able to obtain it as a matter of commercial practice and contract arrangement.

Other regulatory requirements do not provide the same safeguards. For example, 262.11 requires the generator merely to determine if its waste is listed or exhibits a hazardous characteristic. Most often the generator uses knowledge, rather than testing the waste. The fact that the waste is listed or characteristically hazardous, however, does not tell the generator, or the subsequent TSD facility, what must be known about the presence or concentration of hazardous constituents in the waste that require treatment prior to land disposal. The hazardous waste determination under 262.11 is simply the starting point, and the obvious and necessary next step is for the generator to determine whether the hazardous waste requires treatment prior to land disposal.

In contrast, the LDR requirements for generators in 268.7( a)( 1) are more exacting. The generator must specifically determine " if the hazardous waste meets the treatment standards in 268.40, 268.45, or 268.49." As EPA knows, the treatment standards are expressed mainly as concentrations of specific hazardous constituents, so the generator must determine both the presence and concentration of the relevant constituents in the waste or a waste extract. For this information, the generator usually must test the waste using EPA approved analytical test methods, and the results can then be provided to the TSD facility in waste profiles for proper treatment.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 155 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a).

While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion, such as this one, to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2).

Document #: 0216 12. LDR Hazardous Debris Requirements. Maine disagrees with the proposal that the notification of a waste determined to meet the hazardous waste exclusion be maintained onsite rather than submitted to the regulatory agency. We believe that regulatory agencies should be made aware of these waste determinations and should also receive notification of which solid waste disposal facilities are receiving such waste.

Response: The Agency is maintaining the requirement under 268.7( d) because commenters, such as this commenter, opposed its deletion. Other commenters said that the notification was necessary to alert inspectors before the hazardous waste debris is impossible to recover. Also, they argued that it alerts inspectors to the need to do spot checks, especially for " controversial" hazardous waste debris.

Document #: 0218 Eliminate  redundant languages Response: Thank you for your general support. We have made efforts in the final rule to eliminate as much of the redundant language as possible. 156 268.7( a)  LDR Generator Requirements.

Document #: 0011 We agree that the 268.7( a) requirements can be replaced in part with the 162.11 and/ or 264/ 265.13. However, a typical generator waste determination 262.11, or a general TSDF waste analysis, 264/ 265.13, does not include the detail needed to determine the treatment standards as required in 268.40. We would encourage EPA to revise the requirements of 262.11 and 264/ 265.13 so that the requirements of 268.40 may still be met.

Eliminating the Recycler Notification, 268.7( b)( 6) and the Hazardous Debris Notification 268.7( d) is appropriate provided that the records are maintained on site.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the notification and certification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted.

Document #: 0016 Glaxo Wellcome supports any effort to streamline the LDR requirements. Eliminating 157 redundancies in the rules covering land disposal restrictions ( LDR) and waste analysis is a sensible step in the burden reduction process and also shows that the Agency is taking aim at some of the confusion inherent in the LDR section of RCRA. The elimination of a redundant rule such as 40 CFR 268.7( a), where a similar waste analysis requirement is already in place for generators 262.11, would not eliminate the information waste handlers need to manage wastes properly.

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

Document #: 0021 Onyx believes that this notification is of no value to the commercial hazardous waste treatment industry. As was discussed at the July 1998 Land Disposal Restrictions Roundtable, this notification is simply placed in a file and adds no value to the process, as the facility already has the waste stream profiled and approved into their site prior to receiving the LDR form.

Therefore, Onyx does not agree with the Agency's justification that this information is necessary for tracking purposes. Onxy believes that this is still an area where more burden reduction can be achieved because the Agency can monitor what happens to hazardous waste from generation to treatment through the manifest system and Generator and TSDF annual/ biennial reports.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They 158 assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0033 LDR Paperwork Requirements and Generator Waste Determinations  BCI supports EPA efforts to eliminate waste determinations under RCRA Section 268.7( a). The section 262.11 waste determination and those required under sections 264.13 and 268.40 are sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized to achieve compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions. BCI appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on EPA's Burden Reduction Initiative.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). However, in order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0038 159 Comment. The DoD encourages the EPA to implement the proposed Change 1 ( 64 FR 32864) to eliminate the waste determination requirements of 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) for separate LDR waste determinations.

Discussion. Generators are required to determine whether they have hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262.11, and treaters are required to obtain a detailed physical and chemical analysis of the waste under 40 CFR 264.13. The DoD believes that these requirements generally provide all information necessary for the generator to comply with the land disposal restrictions ( LDRs) and requiring separate waste determinations is duplicative and unnecessary.

Recommendation. The DoD recommends deletion of the 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) requirement for a generator LDR waste determination.

References. 64 FR 32864.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). In order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0133 Eliminate duplicable LDR waste determination requirements. 160 Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). In order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0157 Finally, ACE supports the proposal to eliminate the duplicative reporting in the generator requirements of the Land Disposal Restriction regulations. We believe that the requirement to keep records of waste determinations, waste debris exclusions and treatment of characteristic hazardous wastes provides adequate protection, whereas the requirement to notify EPA or an authorized state agency is another opportunity for technical noncompliance with no adverse impact.

Response: The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted. The Agency is maintaining the requirement under 268.7( d) because commenters said that the notification was necessary to alert inspectors before the hazardous waste debris is impossible to recover. Also, they argued that it alerts inspectors to the need to do spot checks, especially for " controversial" hazardous waste debris. 161 Document #: 0184 268.7( a)( 1)  We support this proposed change, but only with modification of 262.11( c). Problems we have experienced with the 262.11 requirements and Waste Analysis Plans at TSDFs are identified in the discussion of 268.11( c) could eliminate confusion by stating "... the generator must identify all applicable subpart C waste codes...".

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

Document #: 0184 Proper application of the land disposal restriction requirements in Part 268, requires that all waste codes must be identified to ensure adequate treatment standard are met. We are reminded of an often heard statement to the effect that, " it doesn't matter if all the codes are right because it's going to a TSDF where it will be properly managed." Part 268 mandates treatment of all waste codes prior to land disposal. If the waste is D001 ( high TOC), but the generator neglects to mention it's also D008, then it could be treated by combustion and the ashes be sent to a RCRAD landfill and still be D008 or be above 0.75 Mg/ L.

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

While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not 162 characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0006 Eliminate Section 268.7( a)( 1)  EPA correctly recognizes that a separate waste determination is not required since generators must already make hazardous waste determinations under 262.11. EPA should also consider elimination of additional generator requirements. These requirements are unnecessary given the treatment facility notifications in 268.7( b) and the relationship between the generator and treatment facility. For example, the Waste Analysis Plan requirements contained in 268.7( a)( 5) can create compliance problems with little environmental benefit. Additionally, the 3 year record retention requirement in 268.7( a)( 8) creates another overly restrictive requirement. The exact duration should be determined by the generator based on company specific needs.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). In order to provide maximum flexibility to generators, we also are clarifying that if a generator does not want to determine, based on waste analysis or knowledge of the waste, whether the waste must be treated, he may assume that he is subject to the full array of LDR requirements. The generator then must send the waste to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facility where the treatment facility must make the determination when the waste has met the treatment standard of LDR ( possibly even upon receipt as generated.) A conforming change is also being made to the notification in 268.7( a)( 2). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, 163 therefore, not eliminating these requirements.

Document #: 0007 SOCMA supports the changes being considered by EPA to reduce the burden of compliance with the LDR requirements. SOCMA concurs with EPA's assessment that the generator waste determination requirements under 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) and 40 CFR 268.9( a) are redundant with the basic waste characterization requirement imposed on all generators under 40 CFR 262.11. These requirements should be eliminated as they are effectively a paperwork exercise that provides no additional substantive information. Elimination of these requirements would be particularly valuable to those industry sectors such as the specialty and custom chemical industry which use batch manufacturing processes. The routine production of multiple and shifting product lines generates multiple and shifting waste streams. For this industry, eliminating the additional paperwork burden imposed by these two LDR requirements would be of particular value.

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

Document #: 0008 Elimination of Generator Waste Determinations Under 40 CFR Section 268.7( a)( 1). Section 268( a)( 1) requires large quantity generators ( LQGs) of hazardous waste to determine whether their waste meets applicable LDR treatment standards by either testing the waste or relying on " generator knowledge." Generators are then required to make one time notifications to the applicable treatment facility. EPA correctly recognizes that other testing obligations eliminate the need for these generator determinations. Generators already must make hazardous waste determinations under 40 CFR 262.11. Most significantly, existing waste determination requirements for treatment facilities insure that waste is properly characterized for LDR compliance. 164 In addition USWAG requests the Agency to provide the option of satisfying the section 268.7( a)( 2) and ( 3) requirements by including the notification and certification on the hazardous waste manifest form. This streamlining provision would simplify recordkeeping and reduce the burdens associated with generating a stand alone LDR notice document.

EPA also should consider elimination of additional generator requirements found in section 268.7( a). As discussed above in the context of waste determinations, these regulatory requirements are unnecessary given the treatment facility notifications in 268.7( b) and the relationship between the generator and treatment facility. The section 268.7( a)( 5) Waste Analysis Plan requirements in particular can create a compliance obstacle with little benefit for day to day environmental management. Similarly, the 3 year record retention requirement in section 268.7( a)( 8), simply creates another unduly restrictive burden. Certainly sound environmental and liability management requires the retention of records for an appropriate period of time. The exact duration should be determined by the generator based on company specific needs.

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

Document # ??? Land Disposal Regulations Paperwork Requirements:

The first proposed change is to eliminate Section 268.7( a)( 1) governing the generator waste determination, since treaters are required to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under Section 264.13, which provides all of the information required to comply with Part 268. The MDEQ concurs that the requirement in Section 264.13 ( specifying that a detailed chemical and 165 physical analysis must be obtained before an owner or operator treats, stores, or disposes of any hazardous waste) should be adequate to allow elimination of Section 268.7( a)( 1). We amended the rules to require further assessment, supposedly in response to an inadequacy in the regulations. The EPA should first assess if, by removing the requirement in Section 268.7( a)( 1), the problem( s) will return.

The second proposed change is to remove the requirement that treatment facilities send notifications and certifications to the EPA, as long as the information is kept in facility records as required in Section 268.7( b)( 6) for wastes that are recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal. The MDEQ supports this proposed change.

The third proposed change is to allow generators and treaters to keep in facility records only the hazardous debris notifications and not submit them to the EPA as specified in Section 268.7( d). The MDEQ supports this proposed change.

The next proposal under consideration is to eliminate Section 268.9( a), characteristic waste determinations, because generators are already required to determine whether they have a hazardous waste under Section 262.11. The MDEQ does not agree with elimination of this rule. Section 262.11 only specifies the generator must determine if the waste is hazardous waste, and this does not provide enough information to determine characteristic waste determinations.

The MDEQ concurs that the one time notification and certification that a waste is no longer characteristic, as required in Section 268.9( d), need only be placed in the facility files and that a copy need not be submitted to the EPA. The MDEQ concurs with removal of this requirement.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification 166 specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted. The Agency is maintaining the requirement under 268.7( d) because commenters said that the notification was necessary to alert inspectors before the hazardous waste debris is impossible to recover. Also, they argued that it alerts inspectors to the need to do spot checks, especially for " controversial" hazardous waste debris.

Document #: 0021 Onyx does not believe a separate waste determination under 268.7( a) is necessary. We believe it can be accomplished by rewriting 268.7( a) to state that the LDR waste determination obligations can be satisfied under 262.11, 264.13 and 268.40.

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

Document #: 0037 E. Streamlining LDR Paperwork Requirements. If a greater degree of risk is tolerable under HSWA, there does not appear any reason that many of these requirements could not be combined into existing recordkeeping and/ or made selfimplementing

Response: The Agency acknowledges this comment.

Document #: 0117 C. Simplifying Land Disposal Restrictions Paperwork Requirements EPA proposes to simplify or eliminate a number of paperwork requirements under the Land 167 disposal Restrictions (" LDR") program. The provisions at issue are unnecessary ( given other requirements contained in the RCRA regulations) or result in the reporting of information that experience has shown is not being used by regulatory authorities or other interested parties.

Section 268.7( a)( 1)   which requires a generator to determine if its waste must be treated prior to land disposal  is a good example of this. Other provisions of the rules require the generator to determine whether the waste is hazardous and, if so, to specify which hazardous waste code category( ies) it fits. 8 And 40 CFR 264.13( a)( 1) requires a treatment storage, or disposal (" TSD") facility to perform a waste analysis sufficient to obtain the information needed to handle the waste in accordance with the RCRA regulations, including the LDR program. Thus, before a hazardous waste is land disposed, someone  either the generator or the TSDF facility operator  will have to determine whether the applicable LDR treatment standards have been met. The requirement of 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) is not needed to ensure that this occurs.

Furthermore, in the case of wastes that are sent for recycling at a facility like Inmetco's, it does not matter whether the wastes meet LDR treatment standards as received at the facility  because the waste is not stored on the ground, and it is going to be processed before anything is applied to the land. As far as LDR standards are concerned, the relevant material at Inmetco is the slag produced as a co product of its high temperature metals recovery process, not the feed materials that it receives from its hazardous waste generating customers. Even if those hazardous wastes did not meet LDR treatment standards as received, Inmetco still would have to determine whether its slag ( a " derived from" hazardous waste) meets the applicable LDR standards ( which it does) before the slag could be used in land applications. So Inmetco is largely indifferent to whether the hazardous wastes it receives for processing meet LDR treatment standards when they enter its gate. Thus, from Inmetco's perspective, 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1) serves no useful purpose. We therefore support EPA's proposed elimination of 40 CFR 268.7( a)( 1), as well as the other paperwork reduction revisions that EPA has proposed for the LDR program.

Response: The Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently. However, the Agency has decided to not go forward with the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) and 268.9( a). While several commenters supported avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements, the Agency found the comments of those opposed to the deletion to be most persuasive. These commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. In addition, if generators did not have the responsibility for waste analysis under the land disposal restrictions program, it would break the RCRA cradle to grave tracking for hazardous wastes. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) 168 and 268.9( a) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. We are, therefore, not eliminating these requirements. The Agency is eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification specified in 268.7( b)( 6) to the Regional Administrator as proposed. Also, we are eliminating the requirement to submit the certification and notification to the EPA or the authorized state under 268.9( d). The Agency continues to believe that these notifications are not routinely reviewed by EPA or the authorized state, so the deletion of these requirements is warranted. The Agency is maintaining the requirement under 268.7( d) because commenters said that the notification was necessary to alert inspectors before the hazardous waste debris is impossible to recover. Also, they argued that it alerts inspectors to the need to do spot checks, especially for " controversial" hazardous waste debris.

Document #: 0157 Burden Reduction for Generator LDR Paperwork Requirements EPA proposes to eliminate a number of redundant recordkeeping, testing, and reporting requirements for generators under RCRA's land disposal restriction (" LDR") program. We concur, " that a number of LDR requirements for waste determinations, notifications, and certifications could be eliminated without diminishing the protection of human health or the environment." ld. at 2528.