Response (152):  EPA only proposed to allow use of contactors in the case of SQGs with the understanding that SQGs would hire a contractor to respond to spills. The Agency does not envision the same approach being taken by LQGs since, by their very nature, LQGs would be expected to employ in-house staff for this purpose.

Response (overall):  EPA understands statements from certain commenters who supported the proposal to allow containment and cleanup by a contractor. In acknowledging these statements, the Agency believes that duties and responsibilities, as well as issues of liability associated with containment and cleanup, would be addressed as part of any contractual or other agreement entered into between the facility and its contractor. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing § 262.16(b)(9)(iv)(B) as proposed.
Section 4.7.11 - Online computer training (LQGs)

Section 4.7.11:   Technical Changes on Personnel Training Applicable to LQGs [proposal to allow generators to use online computer training, in addition to classroom instruction and on-the-job training, to complete the personnel training requirements]

Comment:  21 commenters supported the intent of EPA's proposal to clarify that online training is acceptable to meet hazardous waste generator training requirements (77, 85, 116, 262, 137, 159, 160, 174, 178, 189, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 225, 232/281, 240, 248, 260; 262).

Response (77, 85, 116, 262, 137, 159, 160, 174, 178, 189, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 225, 232/281, 240, 248, 260; 262):  EPA appreciates the commenters' support.

Comment:  A commenter reviewed the list of training topics highlighted in the proposed rule preamble and agreed that many would be very valuable in addition to the typical emergency response training, including completing hazardous waste manifests, managing accumulation areas, waste inventorying, and inspecting containers and accumulation areas. This commenter also reviewed the required training topics listed in 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7) and, with the exception of responding to groundwater contamination incidents, agreed that EPA has included appropriate topics for ensuring personnel are prepared to respond to emergencies, with the exception of responding to groundwater contamination incidents. The commenter noted that, although groundwater monitoring is required for landfills and land-based hazardous waste management units, most LQGs do not have such units and that groundwater monitoring is usually an ongoing responsibility of a facility's environmental manager  -  rather than an emergency response function. The commenter suggested that EPA might want to consider replacing the groundwater topic with one that is more likely an issue during an emergency response, such as responding to a hazardous waste release to surface water. (159)

Response (159):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion but notes that the Agency did not propose changes to this portion of the regulations, namely, 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7(i)(C). However, facilities themselves are free to identify and include a training topic, such as hazardous waste releases to surface water, or any other training topics.  Authorized states may also elect to require inclusion of this and other training topics.

Comment:  One commenter suggested EPA clarify that the following criteria must be met:  (1) records of electronic training must include all of the information currently required for the documentation of LQG training; (2) records of training must be complete, accurate and accessible on-site to hazardous waste inspectors during an inspection; (3) recordkeeping systems must have data integrity and security features so as to prevent them from being inappropriately altered, falsified, or lost and (4) provisions must be made for clearly identifying any persons who enter and/or modify data in the system  -  at a minimum, their first and last names. (178)

Response (178):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestions but notes that the Agency did not propose changes to this portion of the regulations, namely, 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(iv). However, facilities themselves are free to include these records requirements as part of their training records and authorized states may elect to make inclusion of these requirements mandatory.

Comment:  A commenter suggested that another option for personnel training could be required reading of an EPA RCRA Training Module and online testing. (189)

Response (189):  EPA did not propose including additional training topics but appreciates this comment and suggests that facilities themselves are free to include this and other topics as part of training requirements and that authorized states may elect to make inclusion of additional training topics mandatory.

Comment:  A commenter encouraged EPA to recognize that LQGs are in the best position to identify positions that are in need of training and that training should be limited to those personnel who specifically handle/control/manage hazardous wastes or plan responses to releases of hazardous waste at an LQG. This commenter added that other facility personnel should only be made aware of, and practiced in, evacuation and notification requirements for the facility. (216)

Response (216):  EPA appreciates this comment and notes that the applicability of personnel training at LQGs is discussed elsewhere in the Agency's response to comments received.

Comment:  This commenter noted that many states already allow for training, such as online training via computers, and allow verifiable electronic signatures to document completion of such training. (225)

Response (225):   EPA appreciates this comment and adds that authorized states may elect to identify other types of training, as well as the means of conducting and documenting completion of such training as part of RCRA requirements.

Comment 232/281:  This commenter believed that EPA's proposal is still too restrictive and does not align with real-world training scenarios. The addition of the term "`online training" without a definition seems to clearly suggest computerized training from an external remote source. The commenter could not discern any reason why training developed by an LQG itself and provided to an employee "`in-house" in a prepackaged program, and thus consisting of "offline training" would not equally well meet the intended result of a hazardous waste employee's being versed in the technical information necessary to understand their duties and familiar with the site specifics necessary to carry out those duties in both normal and emergency operations  -  even though it would be excluded from the final proposed list of training methods. The commenter believed EPA's actual intent was to ensure that a complete training program is provided by an LQG to its employees, as opposed to unnecessarily limit or restrict the medium by which that training is provided. The commenter was not aware of any specific training method or medium that would be considered by the EPA or authorized states as inappropriate or non-compliant to the intent of the regulation, as long as it resulted in the required information being provided to the employee in an understandable, coherent, complete manner. The commenter believed that the clearest means to communicate this intent is not by listing explicitly allowed training mediums but instead to focus on the training syllabus itself; additionally, none of the current or proposed explicitly allowed training mediums is defined, thus creating ambiguity about what training methods would actually comply with the regulation. The commenter recommended that the EPA replace both the current and proposed list of explicitly allowed hazardous waste training mediums with a more inclusive phrase, such as "...Site personnel must successfully complete a program of direct or indirect training that teaches them..." with the phrase "direct or indirect" to include direct methods, such as on-the-job training or the related job shadowing, and  indirect methods, such as classroom, offline electronic, online electronic or paper package-based. (223/281)

Response (232/281):  EPA appreciates the commenter's recommendations and detailed explanation and notes that the Agency has defined "online training" in the final rule by way of including a parenthetical that specifically references computer-based and electronic training. It is not EPA's intent to restrict or otherwise exclude training options or media or to imply that training developed by an LQG and provided to its employees would not satisfy RCRA requirements. EPA agrees that it is the content of the training, rather than the medium, that is most important and also that generators need not restrict their training methods or media as long as it results in a properly trained employees.  EPA adds that authorized states are free to provide additional details in their regulations to accomplish this objective.

Comment:  One commenter stated that the reference to online training is too narrow as it implies training conducted over the Internet, while computer-based training is any course of instruction whose primary means of delivery is a computer (i.e., a computer-based training course may be delivered via software installed on a single computer, through a corporate or educational intranet or over the Internet as web-based training).  This commenter suggested replacing word "online" with "computer-based" to give additional training options (79).  Similarly, another commenter recommended EPA use "electronic training" instead of "online training" to allow, for example, computerized non-Internet based training. (152)

Response (79, 152):  EPA agrees with both commenters and believes that language in the final rule has satisfactorily addressed these comments.

Comment:  One commenter recommended EPA consider simplifying codified language rather than expanding it since, while online training is currently a popular teaching method, technology is changing rapidly and codified rules could become obsolete even before they are published. The commenter added that "instruction" is a very inclusive word that is independent of the mode of delivery. The commenter suggested deleting the word "classroom" from proposed regulatory text so that it reads "program of instruction or on-the-job training." The commenter also observed that, since the conjunction currently used is "or" rather than "and," EPA may wish to further edit proposed regulatory text to read "instruction and on-the-job training" to better reflect the intent of the requirement. (99)

Response (99):  EPA appreciates these suggestions but believes the final regulatory text is sufficiently clear so as to satisfactorily convey the intent of these requirements.

Comment:  One commenter noted that training is already being provided by internet in addition to classroom and on-the-job training but added that contractor and computer training alone is not adequate and should be supplemented by facility-specific training to review the contingency plan, recordkeeping and inspection plans and operating equipment, especially related to operation and maintenance of tank systems and containment buildings. (214)

Response (214):  EPA agrees with this comment and notes that that facilities themselves are free to include the specific types of training mentioned and that authorized states may elect to require inclusion of these types of training.

Response (overall):  The vast majority of commenters supported EPA's proposal to clarify that online training is acceptable to meet hazardous waste generator training requirements. EPA has considered these comments and is qualifying the term "online training" in the final rule at 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(A) to allow for computer-based and/or electronic training options, which the Agency believes will accord the regulated community more training options for facility personnel.

Section 4.7.12 - Scope of applicability of training requirement (LQGs)

Section 4.7.12:  Scope of Applicability of Training Requirements (SQGs)

    EPA sought comment on whether the regulations should specifically identify positions at LQGs where hazardous waste training would be required and for which a written job description is necessary and what those areas should be.

Comment:  A commenter believed written job descriptions are only necessary for certain hazardous waste management responsibilities and stated that written job descriptions are appropriate for positions requiring an individual to: (1)  make a waste classification decision; (2) design a sampling plan; (3) develop a process or procedure for treatment in a container; (4) direct emergency response for incidents involving hazardous waste; (5) conduct required inspections of waste accumulation areas; (6) create waste manifests; (7) label or mark hazardous waste containers; (8) make decisions to utilize hazardous waste exemptions; or (9) make required regulatory reports or notifications. The commenter added that employees or contractors whose responsibilities are limited to placing waste in either an SAA or the initial bulk container or directing it to a 90-day tank, an exempt wastewater treatment system or other initial management unit or device do not require written job descriptions. In addition, the commenter recommended EPA ensure that employers are not required to maintain two separate job descriptions  -  one in their normal HR systems and one to ensure compliance with these provisions. (77)

Response (77):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestions regarding areas of hazardous waste management where training and written job descriptions would be required but notes that, in the final rule, the Agency is not requiring this information. EPA also notes that the proposed rule did not contemplate creation of written job descriptions for staff who work at SAAs and that final rule does not include such a requirement. EPA's discussion of written job descriptions in the proposed rule, which remains unchanged in the final rule, is not intended to require employers to maintain separate job descriptions.

Comment:  A commenter mentioned that this requirement refers to "site personnel" without limitation of applicability to personnel responsible for, or working at or near, a CAA and that, consequentially and importantly, this would mean that the training requirements of 262.17 would apply to anyone working at the generator's site.  The commenter requested EPA to revise this requirement to make it applicable only to those that are responsible for the management of hazardous waste. (78)

Response (78):  The final preamble and regulatory text make it clear that training requirements apply to RCRA hazardous wastes only at CAAs, while also recognizing that there are other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances other than hazardous wastes are managed and that these areas would not be subject to RCRA regulations.

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(A), the commenter stated that the term "site personnel" is not defined and implies that a wide number and type of personnel require training  -  not just those that are responsible for management of hazardous waste  -  and that this lack of definition causes the term "ensures compliance with this part" to also be unclear. The commenter also asked whether the reference to "this part" means part 262. (78)

Response (78):  The final preamble and regulatory text make it clear that training requirements apply to RCRA hazardous wastes only at CAAs, while also recognizing that there are other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances other than hazardous wastes are managed and that these areas would not be subject to RCRA regulations.  The Agency also notes the reference to "this part" means 40 CFR part 262.

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(B), the commenter stated that the term "relevant to the positions in which they are employed" makes sense when used in 40 CFR part 265, as it is clear which positions are being referred to (i.e. those related to hazardous waste management); however, in the context of "site personnel", this term is not clear. Many types of site personnel at a generator's facility might be interpreted to have one or more duties that could be considered "hazardous waste management procedures" and/or involve "contingency plan implementation." For instance, since administrative and support personnel are responsible for evacuating the facility if an alarm is sounded, this could be considered to be a step in "contingency plan implementation." The commenter believed that, without further clarification, this requirement is unclear to generators. (78)

Response (78):  The final preamble and regulatory text make it clear that training requirements apply to RCRA hazardous wastes only at CAAs, while also recognizing that there are other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances other than hazardous wastes are managed and that these areas would not be subject to RCRA regulations. Moreover, EPA also notes that the proposed rule did not contemplate creation of written job descriptions for staff who work at SAAs and that final rule does not include such a requirement. We believe that the final rule satisfactorily spells out responsibilities and training needs associated with "contingency plan implementation."

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(D), the commenter stated that the allowance for OSHA training equivalency appears to be nearly inconsequential when coupled with the exception "provided that the overall site training meets all the conditions of exemption in this section." The commenter noted that most generator locations are likely to have site-specific contingency requirements that will not be adequately met by OSHA training. (78)

Response (78):  EPA understands the commenter's point but offers this exemption in cases where site-specific contingency requirements will, in fact, be adequately met by OSHA training.

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(iv), the proposed regulation requires documents and records to be maintained "at the site." In some cases, different "sites" may be located in close proximity to one another. For instance, a generator-leased facility owned by a third party (hence a separate "site" per 40 CFR 260.10) may be located near the facility owned by the same generator. Flexibility to allow environmental records (training records in this case) to be maintained in a single location for ease of maintenance and inspection should be acceptable. The commenter recommends EPA consider allowing a central, but local, location. (78)

Response (78):  EPA recognizes that the scenario described by the commenter (i.e., generator-leased facility owned by a third party) exists and believes that changing references from "site" to "facility" in the final regulations will address the commenter's concern. EPA agrees that there should be flexibility to allow training records to be maintained in a single location for ease of maintenance/inspection and believes proposed (and final) regulations accord this flexibility. However, to the extent that such records are maintained at multiple locations within a facility, the Agency does not foresee problems as long as these records are available for inspection.

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(v), the commenter believes that the requirement for generators to keep training records until closure of the "site" is new and burdensome, as the current requirement requires records to be kept until closure of the "facility" (i.e., the 90-day area). However, the substitution of the word "site" intimates that any large quantity generator must keep records until it goes out of business, perhaps many years after it ceases to generate hazardous waste. The commenter asked EPA to consider clarifying that records must only be kept for an individual 90-day area until three years after it closes, in order to reduce the recordkeeping burden. (78)

Response (78):  EPA believes that changing references from "site" to "facility" in the final regulations will address the commenter's concern. We believe the final rule makes it sufficiently clear that training records must only be kept for CAAs until three years after the facility closes and further note that this requirement would not apply to SAAs.

Comment:  Regarding the applicability of personnel training, the commenter agreed with the areas of hazardous waste management identified by EPA as requiring personnel training and does not object to specifically stating these areas in the training requirements. The commenter recommended removal of the requirement for written job descriptions, noting that a facility list of personnel required to be trained and subsequent training records is much more valuable. Written job descriptions do not benefit the facility or inspectors. The commenter noted that it has never allowed personnel only working in SAAs to be exempt from training requirements and believes that these personnel should be required to undergo hazardous waste training relevant to their responsibilities. (85)

Response (85):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. EPA also notes that the proposed rule did not contemplate creation of written job descriptions for staff who work at SAAs and that final rule does not include such a requirement.

Comment:  The commenter noted that written job descriptions for personnel working with hazardous waste in CAAs and permitted TSDFs are currently required by a certain state's hazardous waste management regulations. The commenter also noted that discussion in the proposed rule preamble regarding personnel training states that the Agency has identified certain areas of hazardous waste management for which personnel training and a written job description should be required but that the preamble does not explain "maintains hazardous waste inventory" and unclear exactly which jobs this would encompass. The commenter added that, if this term is intended to include clerks who compile lists for quarterly reports or for permit revisions, then the need for hazardous waste management training unclear and the commenter would not agree with this proposal. The commenter does not agree with the proposal to provide personnel training and a written job description for anyone who could respond to emergencies that involve hazardous wastes. To this point, the commenter provided an example of a large facility with numerous facilities of varying types  -  including a national laboratory, a university operated ecology laboratory and nuclear materials processing facilities  -  where numerous personnel generate a wide variety of wastes at approximately 300 SAAs and 30 CAAs at any one time. Considering the complexity and extent of emergency planning, as well as the large number of emergency personnel at the facility in question, this proposed requirement would significantly expand the number of personnel to train each year; therefore, the commenter does not see added value in this additional training. The commenter also stated that proposed 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(D) provides an exemption "for site employees that receive emergency response training pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations 29 CFR 191 0.120(p )(8) and 1910.120(q)...provided that the overall site training meets all the conditions of exemption in this section." The commenter believed it is unclear by the wording of the proposed regulation exactly what "all the conditions of exemption" are and that this wording needs to be clarified.  The commenter believes the training currently provided to site emergency personnel is sufficient and does not need to be expanded. (92)

Response (92):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. EPA also notes that the proposed rule did not contemplate creation of written job descriptions for staff who work at SAAs and that final rule does not include such a requirement. EPA believes that the discussion of the OSHA exemption is sufficiently clearly worded. Under the final rule, training currently provided to site emergency personnel will be not be expanded.

Comment:  The commenter noted that, based on EPA's preamble discussion, it appears consideration is being given to require personnel training and a written job description for anyone who "manages hazardous waste in areas where hazardous wastes are accumulated", "maintains hazardous waste inventory," "conducts daily or weekly inspections of areas where hazardous waste are accumulated" and "plans or responds to emergencies that involve hazardous waste." Under the current standard, employers are able to make the determination as to who requires annual RCRA training based on duties assigned. This flexibility should be maintained. It would be inappropriate to blanketly impose training without consideration of site-specific circumstances. The commenter recommends that EPA maintain current training standards and not impose more specific requirements, thereby allowing the generator/facility to make the decision as to who is required to be trained. (103)

Response (103):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. Under the final rule, training currently provided to site emergency personnel will be not be expanded and employers will still be able to make the determination as to who requires annual RCRA training based on duties assigned.

Comment:  The commenter seeks clarification from EPA on its proposal to "clarify" what positions within an LQG must receive hazardous waste management training and urges EPA to not only more clearly state which personnel are subject to the requirement but to limit the training requirement to those personnel that are handling hazardous waste. (117)

Response (117):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion but notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. Other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances besides hazardous wastes are managed would not be subject to RCRA regulations. The Agency adds that employers may elect to include additional information as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Comment:  The commenter was in favor of regulations specifically identifying positions where hazardous waste training would be required and for which a written job description is necessary since this would simplify compliance with personnel training requirements. The commenter requests the addition of text to delineate which positions require hazardous waste training and to limit the scope of that required training to just the responsibilities of those positions that pertain to hazardous waste. The commenter stated that employees with waste management duties must be familiar with proper handling during emergency and normal operations and requested that the proposed text at 40 CFR 262.17(7) be revised to be consistent with the preamble text on this topic. The commenter also requested the addition of text to limit emergency response training requirements to just those actions expected by an individual in the event of an emergency, as detailed emergency response training should only be required for individuals that would resolve an emergency situation. (123)

Response (123):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion but notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. Other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances besides hazardous wastes are managed would not be subject to RCRA regulations. EPA believes it unnecessary to add text to limit emergency response training requirements to just those actions expected by an individual in the event of an emergency; rather, employers will be in the best position to make this determination. The Agency adds that employers may elect to include additional information as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Comment:  Although the commenter agrees that all personnel handling/managing hazardous waste should be properly trained regardless of where (i.e., CAAs or SAAs) the waste is collected and stored, the commenter does not believe that the level of specificity proposed by EPA is necessary is concerned that the proposal could, in fact, have the opposite effect. For instance, there is a danger that personnel who do not fit within the proposed descriptions but who, nevertheless, have some role in handling or managing hazardous waste might not be covered by the training requirement. The commenter believes current requirements are sufficient to ensure that employees who have oversight and/or management responsibilities for hazardous waste are trained. (126/188)

Response (126/188):  The commenter's concerns have been addressed since the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required.

Comment:  A commenter stated that a requirement for a written job description for each position related to hazardous waste management may not be very straightforward to implement since a single employee may carry out a variety of hazardous waste management functions in addition to other duties. The commenter suggested that it may be more helpful to provide descriptions of key hazardous waste management functions with the title of the person responsible for performing them. (159)

Response (159):  In considering feedback from this commenter and other commenters, EPA realizes that establishing a written job description for each position related to hazardous waste management would not be a straightforward process. EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion regarding providing descriptions of key functions but notes that the final rule does not include this information, nor does it identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required.

Comment:  The commenter concurred with the list of personnel that EPA identified in the proposed rule preamble who should receive the required hazardous waste training and suggests that EPA add to this list personnel who transfer hazardous waste from CAAs to loading/unloading areas and that load hazardous waste onto transport vehicles. (178)

Response (178):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion but notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. The Agency adds that employers may elect to include additional information, such as that specifically mentioned by the commenter, as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Commenter:  The commenter believed that the training and documentation of hazardous waste personnel should occur for all employees that are directly involved with hazardous waste and the management of that hazardous waste. (182)

Response (182):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required and adds that training documentation requirements remain unchanged.  Employers may elect to include additional information, such as that specifically mentioned by the commenter, as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Comment:  The commenter believes that the regulation should specifically identify positions at an LQG where hazardous waste training would be required and for which a written job description is necessary. (185)

Response (185):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. Employers may elect to include additional information, such as that specifically mentioned by the commenter, as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Comment:  The commenter did not support identifying positions where specific types of training are required, noting that businesses struggle enough to define job titles and duties without needing to additionally try to pigeon-hole this information. (196)

Response (196):   For reasons such as that mentioned by the commenter, EPA has decided not to require facilities to identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training, as well as written job descriptions, would be required.

Comment:  The commenter sought clarification from EPA on the Agency's proposal to "clarify" what positions within an LQG must receive hazardous waste management training. The commenter noted that, under current regulations, only personnel handling wastes at CAAs are required to comply with training requirements.  The commenter notes that EPA's proposal in 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7) would require that "site" personnel must complete training, interpreting this to mean that personnel training requirements would not only be applicable to employees at CAAs but also persons who work in any area where hazardous waste is generated, which could include all persons working in all production and maintenance operations. The commenter was very concerned this would mean that literally everyone on the property would be required to obtain training. The commenter urged EPA to not only more clearly state which personnel are subject to training requirements but to limit these requirements to those personnel who are actively managing and/or handling hazardous waste. The phrase "actively managed" could include personnel with direct supervisory or other accountability for CAAs but, importantly, not all personnel simply only associated with or familiar with CAAs. The commenter added that training should also be task-oriented. (200)

Response (200):  The final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required and makes it clear that training requirements apply only to CAAs. EPA further believes that the final rule language, as well as discussions in the final rule preamble and elsewhere in the Agency's response to comments, will adequately allay this commenter's concerns.

Comment:  The commenter encouraged EPA to recognize that LQGs are in the best position to identify those positions that are in need of training and that training should be limited to those personnel that specifically handle, control, or manage hazardous wastes or plan responses to releases of hazardous waste at an LQG. Additionally, the commenter stated that other facility personnel should only be made aware of and practiced in evacuation and notification requirements for the facility. (213)

Response (213):  EPA notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required and makes it clear that training requirements apply only to CAAs. EPA adds that other portions of a facility where chemicals/substances besides hazardous wastes are managed would not be subject to RCRA regulations. EPA agrees that employers are in the best position to make this determination.

Comment:  A commenter providing feedback on behalf of multiple member organizations indicates that one member agrees personnel training and written job descriptions should be required for personnel conducting the tasks illustrated by EPA in the proposed rule preamble.  Another member believed that the training and documentation of hazardous waste personnel should occur for all employees that are directly involved with hazardous waste and the management of that hazardous waste. Yet another member believed that defining who is required to receive training might be done best by defining this as a performance-based requirement similar to how it is done for SQGs. For instance, anyone managing hazardous waste should be trained to perform duties adequately and any training provided, including on-the-job training), should require simple documentation. More cumbersome recordkeeping requirements for training should be reserved for those employees who are providing the training to others, responsible for recordkeeping (maintaining manifests, weekly inspection documentation, waste determinations, etc.), conducting waste determinations, and signing manifests. All other positions can be covered by the simpler performance-based training, where job descriptions/titles and other information are not really contributing to compliance with the regulations. (217)

Response (217):  EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestions and agrees with many of the concepts presented but notes that the final rule does not identify specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be required. The Agency believes recordkeeping and documentation requirements for LQGs, as stated at 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(iv), are sufficient. We recognize that SQGs are not required to have an established training program, although they must ensure that employees handling hazardous waste are familiar with proper handling and emergency procedures. This requirement, which remains unchanged and now appears at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(iii), could be construed to represent a performance-based requirement. EPA notes that employers may elect to include additional information, such as that specifically mentioned by the commenter, as part of their training requirements and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.

Comment:  This commenter did not support regulations specifically identifying positions where hazardous waste training would be required and for which a written job description is necessary as job descriptions vary significantly depending on departments, locations, companies, regions and industries, as well as being a function of time and modes of operation (i.e., normal operation versus emergency). The regulations need to give generators flexibility in job responsibilities to better respond to changes and requiring written job descriptions limits this flexibility and, therefore, decreases a company's ability to respond efficiently. (220)

Response (220):  For the reasons cited by this commenter, as well as feedback from other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary.

Comment:  The commenter opposes an attempt to identify through regulations what jobs require RCRA training as this would restrict the ability of the generator to manage their business by removing the flexibility needed to appropriately manage staff and train employees appropriately based on their specific duties. The commenter added that this undoubtedly would confuse rather than clarify the expectations of the generator regarding employee training.  (225)

Response (225):  For the reasons cited by this commenter, as well as feedback from other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary.

Comment:  The commenter supported specifically identifying positions at LQGs where hazardous waste training would be required and for which a written job description is necessary and what those areas of responsibilities should be. In addition to the five areas of responsibility identified in the proposed rule preamble, the commenter suggested including the following additional areas:  (1) anyone responsible for recordkeeping (e.g., evaluation documentation, personnel training records, weekly inspection documentation, and manifest documents) and (2) anyone responsible for ensuring that personnel training is accomplished. The commenter also suggested that EPA consider requiring training and documentation for the person assigned overall responsibility for the hazardous waste management program ("Program Manager'') and at least one "Backup Program Manager." In the commenter's experience, a common cause of violations is the prolonged absence of the person in charge of directing the hazardous waste program, due to such causes as termination of employment, retirement, illness and many other reasons, and the lack of someone to assume this role to ensure that employees continue to maintain compliance. Though this may seem obvious, the commenter's experience is that not all generators understand the necessity for such trained individuals and that it is not unusual to find a generator that does not have documented training for program managers and backups. The commenter recommended that EPA make it an explicit requirement that someone, with documented training to perform these duties, be assigned overall responsibility to serve as a hazardous waste regulatory manager and that at least one person who is also so trained be assigned as a backup. (229)

Response (229):  EPA appreciates the commenter's willingness to share its experiences and also the suggestions provided.  Based upon feedback provided by other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary. In saying this, EPA is sensitive to the situations of non-compliance identified by the commenter and would encourage employers to act upon the commenter's suggestions. Furthermore, we note that authorized states may impose additional training requirements, including but not limited to those identified by the commenter.

Comment:  This commenter did not support the potential for EPA to, by regulation, explicitly identify the positions that would require hazardous waste training. The commenter is concerned that, even with an "includes but not limited to" disclaimer, LQGs could easily misinterpret this and direct their attention only to the explicitly listed positions, thereby excluding many employees with legitimate hazardous waste duties from the training requirement. The commenter has observed that, when an explicit list is promulgated, even if intended to be a starting point and not all-inclusive, the natural tendency is to focus solely on the list and forego considering outliers or less common occurrences. The commenter has further observed that the great majority of LQGs can readily identify all employees with hazardous waste-related duties without provision of an explicit list in regulations and those LQGs that need assistance have available to them many non-regulatory assistive and guidance publications from EPA, authorized states, consultants and industry associations. (232/281)

Response (232/281):  EPA appreciates the commenter's observations.  Based upon feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary. EPA agrees that employers should be in the best position to identify employees and associated positions with hazardous waste-related duties that should receive training and further agrees that there are resources available to employers in this regard in case any questions arise.

Comment:  The commenter discourages the agency from mandating how job descriptions are maintained, as described in the proposed rule preamble. While the commenter believes the proposal is sound clarification of who should receive training, the commenter suggests that it need not be codified in the contingency plan or in particular job descriptions. In surveying its members, the commenter noted that it appears most company environmental managers utilize a training matrix and/or checklist to ensure that personnel involved in these tasks receive and have satisfied their training requirements. Rather than encroach on the human resource department to track and ensure that this information is part of job descriptions, the commenter instead recommends using a "central checklist" to track personnel that must receive training and documenting that these personnel have satisfied those requirements would be more practicable than the proposal to include this information as a requirement. The commenter notes that, at most, documentation that training has been received is all that is necessary, further adding that any requirement necessitating periodic revisions to the contingency plan should be avoided. (240)

Response (240):  EPA appreciates the commenter's thoughts. Based upon feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary. The Agency notes that employers in addition to those surveyed by the commenter may elect to use a "central checklist" and that authorized states may impose additional requirements in this regard.  The Agency also agrees that documentation that training has been received would suffice.  We believe that the training requirements set forth in the final rule will not unnecessarily result in revisions to the contingency plan.

Comment:  This commenter did not believe it appropriate that regulations specify exactly which positions require training and would prefer that the list shown in the proposed rule preamble be presented as a minimum requirement, making it clear that the generator must evaluate the staff and job tasks at its facility to determine who needs to be trained. For example, if a hazardous waste storage area is on the loading dock, staff that work on the loading dock may not handle or interact with hazardous waste, although their job places them in the vicinity of the storage area and, therefore, they may be the first to observe a spill or leak. They should be trained to recognize a spill or leak and what steps to take to notify the appropriate personnel or to evacuate the area. The commenter noted that it may be helpful if the regulations make it clearer that training should be specific to the job task  -  not all staff need the same level of training. In the example of the loading dock workers, the training should be very focused and minimal. The commenter suggested that possible alternative language could indicate that, at a minimum, staff involved in performing the following responsibilities must be trained: (1) complete and/or sign the hazardous waste manifest; (2) manage hazardous waste in areas where hazardous wastes are accumulated; (3) maintain hazardous waste inventories; (4) conduct daily or weekly inspections of areas where hazardous wastes are accumulated and (5) plan or respond to emergencies that involve hazardous wastes. The commenter noted that additional staff that may require training include, but are not limited to staff that move, manage or prepare hazardous waste for shipment, as well as staff that would reasonably be expected to be exposed to hazardous waste. (248)

Response (248):  EPA appreciates the loading dock example provided as an illustrative point and believes this underscores the need to have generators identify training needs for employees, including the particular employees and associated positions for which training is required and the specific types of training required. We would encourage LQGs to make use of this information and add that authorized states are not precluded from including such information in their hazardous waste regulations.

Comment:  The commenter believes that requiring training for each written job description has the potential to cause flexibility issues in work assignments and believes that these should not be requirements but voluntary guidelines. (262)

Response (262):   For the reasons cited by this commenter, as well as feedback from other commenters, EPA decided that the final rule would not include a requirement for identifying specific hazardous waste management areas where training and written job descriptions would be necessary.

Response (overall):  Taking into account all comments received, EPA has decided not to revise 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7) to identify areas of hazardous waste management for which personnel training and a written job description are required.

    EPA sought comment on whether personnel involved in handling or managing hazardous wastes in SAAs should be required to undergo hazardous waste training [current Agency guidance at RO 14703 excludes staff working in satellite accumulation areas from the training requirements]

Comment:  Given the fact that most generators of hazardous waste at SAAs are thoroughly familiar with the process and resulting hazardous waste, the level of training required should not be the same level as required for personnel working in CAAs where the workers may lack this intimate knowledge of the waste. By complying with the container management standards already required to be eligible for satellite accumulation, as well as the newly proposed separation of incompatible wastes, the commenter believes these workers are adequately trained and do not need to be subjected to additional training. (68)

Response (68):  EPA agrees with this commenter and notes that, consistent with current EPA guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency believes that staff working at SAAs should be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job.

Comment:  The commenter noted that a certain state's hazardous waste management regulations require its facility to train personnel working with hazardous waste in SAAs. However, this requirement is not required annually; rather, it is required to be repeated only if the nature of the waste accumulated in the SAA changes. The commenter stated that proposed wording of 262.17(a)(7)(i) requires personnel working with hazardous waste in an SAA or a 90-day area (CAA) to be trained annually. The commenter did not agree that annual training for SAA personnel is necessary and believed it is an unnecessary burden on waste generators. (92)

Response (92):   EPA agrees with the commenter and adds that the Agency has decided SAA personal need not be required to undergo any hazardous waste training. Having said this, we note that authorized states may impose additional training requirements for employees who work at SAAs.  Similarly, LQGs may also (and very likely do) decide to establish training requirements for staff who work at SAAs, commensurate with their job duties and responsibilities.  Although the Agency would encourage this, we are not including a training requirement for employees who work at SAAs in the final rule.

Comment:  The commenter believed personnel involved in handling or managing hazardous wastes in SAAs should be required to undergo hazardous waste training. (108)

Response (108):  EPA understands this commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, we have decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training.

Comment:  The commenter strongly urged EPA to continue with the Agency's current guidance that excludes staff working in SAAs from the RCRA training requirements. Adding this requirement will create an unnecessary recordkeeping burden, particularly for large and diverse institutions such as universities with hundreds of generating sites and large and transient populations. The commenter noted that it is unreasonable to expect SAA staff to be competent to make a hazardous waste determination and it is unreasonable to expect Environmental Health and Safety staff to make determinations prior to a waste being generated, especially in situations such as research laboratories. (121)

Response (121):  EPA appreciates the rationale provided by the commenter and believes that the types of training that SAA staff receive should be dependent, in large part, on the type of wastes with which the customarily deal.  We believe the LQG would be in the best position to make such a determination and that any questions regarding necessity and adequacy of training could be posed to regulators and others such as industry groups. Therefore, consistent with current EPA guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training.

Comment:  The commenter requests the addition of text to this proposed rule to specify that training is needed for only those employees working at accumulation areas, as opposed to all site employees. Without this distinction, training requirements at 40 CFR 262.17 would apply to all site employees  -  not just those working at or near CAAs. (123)

Response (123):  Assuming that the commenter's concern applies to training at SAAs (as opposed to CAAs), EPA has addressed this concern in the final rule and rule preamble, as well as in the Agency's responses to comments  -  the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training.

Comment:  The commenter stated that workers performing operations in the area of an SAA are typically there to undertake specific, discrete tasks according to facility operating procedures or specific instructions and that, while these workers must be aware of the risks associated with any waste generated, there is no need for them to be trained on the full scope of the RCRA hazardous waste management requirements. Compliance with OSHA standards and general safety precepts is sufficient. (126/188)

Response (126/188):  EPA agrees. Consistent with current Agency guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although we would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job.

Comment:  This commenter would not agree with a requirement for personnel involved in handling or managing hazardous waste at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. Currently, there are no requirements for training for employees managing or handling hazardous waste at SAAs. The amount of hazardous waste at SAAs is limited and is under the control of the operator. The commenter notes that the operator already receives training relative to the wastes at the areas where they work, which would include safe handling, management and emergency response for the materials in their area of responsibility including the generation of waste. Therefore, the commenter believes additional for these operators is redundant and an undue burden, particularly for smaller facilities and those who operate SAAs only. (131)

Response (131):  Consistent with current EPA guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job.  We also note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter believes EPA should not require training of employees at SAAs. The commenter notes that proposed rule preamble discussion ignores the reasons why EPA originally excluded SAA these employees from training requirements and why the Agency has maintained this exclusion for over 30 years. The commenter went on to discuss at length and in much detail the creation of the satellite accumulation rule in 1984, including EPA discussions regarding why it was unnecessary to require training for employees in these areas. The commenter believes that personnel training at SAAs is no more necessary today than in 1984. The commenter also asserted that Congress clearly intended RCRA not interfere with manufacturing processes (or their equivalent in the retail sector described by the commenter as normal handling of consumer products), adding that SAA, by definition, are at or near the points of waste generation and, as such, are integral to operations that Congress said should not be interfered with. The commenter noted that, even if training for personnel at SAAs could be justified for other industries, it cannot be justified for the retail sector, adding that, in retail stores, not only do the satellite areas contain only small amounts of wastes, but those wastes are the same materials that employees unloaded from boxes and stocked onto shelves as products. The commenter further noted that these wastes are also identical to the materials that the employees  -  and the general public  -  would encounter if the products became wastes at home. Because the wastes at retail facilities are not "exotic things" with which retail employees would have no familiarity and would be present only in very small quantities at SAAs, employees operating in these areas should not require specialized hazardous waste training. (168)

Response (168):  EPA appreciates the commenter's discussion.  In the context of the retail sector, the Agency is curious how SAAs would come into play, particularly for larger stores, since it is presumed that any unused/intact consumer goods that become unsalable and have been determined at the store to be wastes would be managed at CAAs  -  even at SQGs.  Moreover, wastes from routine maintenance activities and cleanup of spilled materials, as well as damaged/leaking products no longer considered commodities and "unknowns" (i.e., item contents cannot be identified) would be managed at CAAs.  Regardless, consistent with current Agency guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job. We also note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter supports the adoption of the criteria created by the three north-eastern states, including the additional criterion for persons who routinely manage or handle hazardous wastes within SAAs and other hazardous waste generation areas. (174)

Response (174):  EPA understands this commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, we have decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training.  The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and notes that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter, noting that EPA's current interpretation is that such personnel are not subject to training requirements, believes that it would be appropriate for personnel managing waste at SAAs to be trained, at least to the extent that it is relevant to their specific hazardous waste management activities. (178)

Response (178):  EPA understands this commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, we have decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and notes that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter believes that employees who work near SAAs should have required hazardous waste training. (182)

Response (182):   EPA understands this commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, we have decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and notes that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  This commenter strongly urged EPA to continue with the Agency's current guidance that excludes staff working at generation points and in SAAs from the RCRA training requirements and stated that adding this requirement will create an unnecessary recordkeeping burden, particularly for large and diverse institutions such as universities with hundreds/thousands of generation points and large/transient populations. As it currently exists, all staff and students are taught how to identify physical and health hazards of the chemicals that they work with or near in accordance with OSHA's Hazard Communication and/or Laboratory Standards. In addition, staff are also trained in general emergency preparedness and response (e.g., actions to take in the event of a fire or other emergency). The commenter added that internal training related to waste management procedures and requirements for generating and collecting waste at generation points and SAAs is already provided, further adding that this information is directly transferrable to wastes and adequately informs SAA operators to work in a safe manner. The commenter also stated that generators already have incentive to inform SAA staff of applicable RCRA regulations requiring closed and labeled containers as a matter of ensuring compliance and that these requirements are routinely assessed during inspections in a performance-based manner, which is a process the commenter believes should continue.  The commenter believed that to require formalized training and documentation of such training would largely be a paperwork-driven exercise with little or no added benefits. (183)

Response (183):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and understands that such training is provided by generators. Authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter stated that proposed regulations do not specifically address the training requirements for individuals working in various areas (i.e., SAAs versus CAAs), which will cause confusion for both generators and regulators. Large universities can have more than one thousand individual SAAs throughout their campuses, each managed and staffed by different individuals. These individuals are currently trained on the following hazardous waste management topics: (1) collection of appropriate wastes; (2) labeling & identification; (3) container management and (4) segregation of incompatible wastes. The commenter notes that current training requirements for individuals working in SAA were clarified in the Federal Register (49 FR 49570; December 20, 1984), in which EPA stated, "EPA believes that since only one waste will normally be accumulated at each satellite area and since only limited quantities are allowed to accumulate, contingency and training plans are not necessary." This clearly indicates training is only required for individuals managing hazardous waste outside of an SAA (i.e. CAA). The expectation to provide and document detailed hazardous waste training for more than one thousand individuals working only at SAAs is unreasonable and places undue burden on generators. The commenter believes training requirements should remain as stated in the above mentioned excerpt of the Federal Register. (187)

Response (187):  EPA believes the discussion in the final rule preamble, along with regulatory text in the final rule and discussions in the Agency's response to comments, make it clear that employees at SAAs are not required to undergo hazardous waste training; as such, this will effectively allay concerns expressed by the commenter.

Comment:  The commenter believed training for personnel involved in management of SAAs appears appropriate and so the proposed rule should include requirements for training SAA personnel.  However, the commenter believed it unlikely that requiring a written job description for these personnel would provide any benefit to the facility or regulators. (189)

Response (189):  EPA appreciates the commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, the Agency has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. We would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs. We also add that providing a written job description for these personnel was not contemplated as part of the proposed rule.

Comment:  This commenter strongly encouraged EPA to continue with current guidance that excludes staff working in SAAs from training requirements. The commenter stated that all faculty and staff are taught to identify physical and health hazards of the chemicals they work with, as well as general emergency preparedness and response. This information is used in determining the associated hazards of generated waste. The commenter noted that it employs staff of specifically trained personnel to make this determination after the waste is moved to the CAA, where staff possess the knowledge and advanced training to make the most accurate and safe assessment based on generator knowledge and recurring waste streams specific to research. The commenter believes that requiring formalized RCRA training in these areas would largely be a paperwork driven exercise with no added benefit. (209)

Response (209):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and understands that such training is provided by generators. Authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter indicated that previous EPA interpretations (49 FR 49570, dated December 20, 1984) indicated that SAAs were not included as part of contingency planing and that staff at SAAs needed only OSHA training, as opposed to a job title, position description and training. (214)

Response (214):  Consistent with current EPA guidance, the final rule does not require staff at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job.  We also note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  A commenter providing feedback on behalf of multiple member organizations indicated that employees who work in satellite accumulation areas should have required hazardous waste training. (217)

Response (217):  EPA appreciates the commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, the Agency has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. We would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  This commenter believed that personnel involved in handling or managing hazardous wastes in SAAs do not need specific training beyond general awareness of hazardous waste so as to know the associated risks. General workers do not need to have the level of training that an employee working in a CAA needs. The risks from hazardous waste in an SAA are much less than that in a CAA, therefore, additional training is not necessary and, in fact, would be overly burdensome to generators. (220)

Response (220):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and notes that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  This commenter believed that training requirements should not apply to SAAs and personnel working near these areas and that to apply these requirements to SAAs would be a reversal of EPA's position on SAAs as stated in 1984 rulemaking citing Agency statements at the time  -  "EPA believes, however, that since only one waste will normally be accumulated at each satellite area and since only limited quantities are allowed to accumulate, contingency plans and training plans are not necessary. [49 FR 49568 (emphasis added)]" The commenter also stated that training about materials being handled by personnel is required under other programs, such as OSHA and others. The commenter believed there is no reason to also have a separate RCRA requirement. (224)

Response (224):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job. This could include training provided under other programs to the extent such training is germane to the job duties and responsibilities for the particular wastes being managed at SAAs.  Although there is no separate RCRA requirement for training at SAAs, we note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter believed employees that simply generate waste for satellite accumulation should not be required to have a written job description. The commenter noted that, in cases such as automobile dealerships, hazardous wastes at SAAs are aerosol cans and non-dripping wipes and that management of these types of wastes does not justify extensive training and recordkeeping. The commenter opposes requiring training for personnel in SAAs and opposes such annual training requirements for employees who occasionally generate small quantities of hazardous waste and place it in a container  -  asserting that there were not cases cited indicating that a lack of formal RCRA training, with all the implied paperwork, is justified for SAAs. (225)

Response (225):  EPA appreciates the commenter's discussion of the situation encountered under this particular generator scenario. Based on feedback provided this commenter and other commenters, the Agency has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. We would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs. Regarding the commenter's statement that lack of training is not justified, we note that certain other commenters have indicated that training is important for employees who work at SAAs. We also add that providing a written job description for these personnel was not contemplated as part of the proposed rule.

Comment:  The commenter encouraged EPA to require training for personnel managing waste at SAAs as violations in SAAs can also result in appreciable threats to human health and the environment and training would tend to reduce the occurrence of these violations. (229)

Response (229):  EPA appreciates the commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, the Agency has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. We would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter noted that personnel in SAAs are already trained in the hazards of the chemicals they work with as part of the OSHA HAZCOM Standard or the OSHA Laboratory Standard and therefore do not need hazardous waste training. The commenter added that waste chemicals produced in the SAA should have the same hazards as the virgin product with which SAA personnel are already familiar. The commenter believes that requiring training of SAA personnel would defeat the purpose of an SAA; therefore, the current regulation of excluding staff in SAAs is appropriate and does not need to be changed. (230)

Response (230):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training, although the Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job. This could include training provided under other programs to the extent such training is germane to the job duties and responsibilities for the particular wastes being managed at SAAs.  Although there is no separate RCRA requirement for training at SAAs, we note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter supported the potential to require LQG  -  and for identical reasons  -  SQG personnel handling hazardous waste only in SAAs to be subject to the same hazardous waste training regulations as any other employees with hazardous waste-related duties. For equivalent reasons to those presented by the commenter regarding the potential applicability of emergency preparedness requirements to SAAs, the commenter strongly believes that no reasonable justification exists to exclude such employees from hazardous waste training. The commenter has observed that, as commonly the employees most directly responsible for generating and first placing hazardous waste into any accumulation containers, the success of the hazardous waste program at any generator lies primarily with SAA employees. An employee working solely with SAA hazardous waste containers who misidentifies a hazardous waste or who places a hazardous waste into the wrong container will likely cause that hazardous waste to be mismanaged not only throughout its time at the facility but even through disposal  -  despite well-trained "standard accumulation" (CAA) employees elsewhere in the facility. The commenter believes evaluation and identification of hazardous wastes is the foundation of proper hazardous waste management and that a spill of hazardous waste from a container at an SAA is likely to be smaller and more easily contained/cleaned if the directly-involved employee is trained in hazardous waste handling appropriate to their job duties, as opposed to waiting until "standard accumulation" employees respond. The commenter has also observed that SAA containers are those most often repeatedly opened and closed while waste is being added and thus are those most likely to be the source of small, relatively easily contained and cleaned up spills or that, for containers left open, would pose a risk to non-handling employees in the near vicinity. The commenter recommends that the current exclusion of LQG and SQG employees handling only SAA containers be rescinded and that such employees be subject to the same hazardous waste training expectations as any other LQG employee with hazardous waste-related duties. In making this recommendation, the commenter noted that it not suggesting or requesting that SAA employees be required to receive any hazardous waste training that is not directly related to the needs of their normal job duties or emergency situations. For example, there may be no reason to train an SAA employee in how to manage hazardous waste manifests or how to evaluate hazardous wastes produced from chemicals or by processes that are not part of their normal or emergency duties  -  even if such chemicals/processes are present in other locations of the same facility. (232/281)

Response (232/281):  EPA appreciates the commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, the Agency has decided, consistent with existing Agency guidance, not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. Regarding the commenter's suggestion that this training requirement also apply at SQGs, we note that SQGs are not required to have an established training program for either CAAs or SAAs, although they must ensure that employees handling hazardous waste are familiar with proper handling and emergency procedures. The Agency did not propose to add training requirements for staff at an SQG who manage SAA wastes; therefore, this SQG training "requirement" remains unchanged and now appears at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(iii). Having said this, EPA would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs. Such requirements could be extended to SAAs at SQGs. Finally, as clearly noted in the final rule preamble and regulatory text, as well as in responses to comments, CAAs, SAAs and associated pints of generations are subject to emergency preparedness requirements.

Comment:  This commenter supports requiring staff involved in handling or managing hazardous waste in SAAs to undergo appropriate hazardous waste training and have documented job descriptions. (248)

Response (248):  EPA appreciates the commenter's position but, based on feedback received from other commenters, the Agency has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. We would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and note that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Comment:  The commenter believes that requiring training for personnel involved in handling hazardous waste in SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training has the potential to cause flexibility issues and believes that these should not be requirements but voluntary guidelines. (262)

Response (262):  Based on feedback provided by this commenter and other commenters, EPA has decided not to require employees at SAAs to undergo hazardous waste training. The Agency would encourage staff working at SAAs to be adequately trained to properly handle the types of wastes encountered as part of the job and notes that authorized states may (and sometimes do) impose additional training requirements for staff who work at SAAs.

Response (overall):  Taking into account the differing opinions of commenters, the existence of EPA guidance on this point and the desire to maintain flexibility, the Agency has decided not to require training for staff at SAAs. However, EPA would encourage all generators to take appropriate steps to ensure that all employees who work at areas where hazardous waste is accumulated, including at SAAs, or are otherwise involved in hazardous waste management receive sufficient training to ensure that they are familiar with proper handling and emergency procedures.

Section 4.7.13 - Applying preparedness/planning revisions to 264 & 265

Section 4.7.13:    Applying Emergency Planning and Procedures Revisions to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265:  EPA took comment on whether it would be appropriate/helpful if proposed revisions to part 262 were also be made in the applicable paragraphs of parts 264 (permitted facilities) and/or 265 (facilities operating under interim status) to ensure consistency or whether the regulations should remain unchanged despite the result that generators and TSDFs would be left with some regulations that are very similar but not exactly the same.

Comment:  Nine commenters, either in entirety or at least to some extent, recommended incorporating changes to generator regulations into 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 (85, 106, 123, 182, 217, 219, 232/281, 248; 286). One commenter stated that having requirements that are similar but not identical does not make sense (85). One commenter suggests that the US EPA make the same changes to contingency plan and emergency procedures at TSDFs as these changes would have the added benefit of reducing administrative burden to TSDFs and regulators associated with Class 1 permit modifications triggered when the name of one of the numerous persons fulfilling a "shift leader" position no longer performs this function (106). One commenter was in favor of creating consistency between the generator training requirements and the training required by 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 (123). One commenter stated that permitted facilities should not have lesser requirements than non-permitted facilities and that, since proposed generator regulations increase certain requirements, any increased requirements for generators should be also be reflected in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 (182). Another commenter, presumably reflecting feedback from all member organizations, also indicated that that permitted facilities should not have lesser requirements than non-permitted facilities and that any proposed changes to generator regulations that are finalized and that could affect 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 should result in changes to the latter for the sake of consistency (217). Two commenters requested that EPA modify contingency plan and emergency procedures regulations to eliminate employee personal information at permitted and interim status TSDFs (219, 286). One commenter believed all of EPA's discussions regarding preparedness, prevention and emergency procedures provisions are equally applicable to TSDFs and supported revising TSDF preparedness and training requirements in parallel with proposed revisions to applicable SQG and LQG requirements (232/281).

Comment:  Three commenters did not believe corresponding changes needed to be made to TSDF regulations (134, 181; 243). One of these commenters noted that, in the case of documenting arrangements with local emergency authorities, companies have preparedness, prevention and emergency procedures in place along with adequate and up-to-date emergency contingency plans, such that proposed modifications for generators need not be mandated for TSDFs (243).

Comment:  Three commenters suggested that the requirement to provide an executive summary of the contingency plan be extended to TSDFs (82, 217; 264).

Comment:  One commenter providing feedback on behalf of multiple member organizations indicated that one of its members suggested that use of online training should also be allowed at TSDFs. (217)

Response (general):  EPA recognizes that the majority of commenters supported making corresponding changes to TSDF regulations; however, the Agency is not making such changes as part of this rulemaking because we believe that emergency planning and procedure requirements at TSDFs can best be addressed on a facility-specific basis through the permitting process.

Section 4.7.14 - Other

Comment:  A commenter indicated that the terms "emergency situation" and "when the emergency coordinator is on call" in 40 CFR 262.265(a) are confusing, further noting that "emergency situation" is not defined and can be interpreted differently by the regulated community than by regulators. The commenter suggested that it would be better to use the term "release, fire, or explosion" as in 40 CFR 262.265(b) and (d) so there is consistency as to what is regulated in 40 CFR 262.265. This commenter also indicated that the term "designee" in 40 CFR 262.265(a) is not used elsewhere probably should be changed to "alternate" (as in 40 CFR 262.261(d)), with suggested wording, "Whenever there is an actual or impending release, fire or explosion, the emergency coordinator or alternate must immediately..." This commenter noted that the term "on call" is described in 262.264 as being able to reach the site within a short period of time and, thus, a designee would not be needed to initiate response (78).

Response (78):  EPA did not propose any changes to requirements at 40 CFR 262.265(a), 40 CFR 262.265(b) and 40 CFR 262.265(d), therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Notwithstanding, EPA takes this opportunity to provide the following information. EPA believes there are important distinctions between the situations described in terms of the progression of an emergency situation. 40 CFR 262.265(a) describes a situation where a release of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents has not yet occurred but could occur, 40 CFR 262.265(b) describes a situation where a release (or fire/explosion) has already occurred, and 40 CFR 262.265(d) describes a situation where a release (or fire/explosion) could threaten human health or the environment or has occurred outside the facility. For this reason, the Agency is not making any changes to regulatory text. EPA also realizes that the term "alternates" is used in 40 CFR 262.261(d). However, since the Agency believes the meaning is already sufficiently clear, text at 40 CFR 262.265(a) is not being revised. Lastly, EPA did not propose any changes to requirements at 40 CFR 262.264. The Agency believes it unnecessary to specify time periods in terms of how soon a response should occur since as this will depend on the nature of the situation. Moreover, should an emergency arise, the effectiveness of emergency response activities will be known and could subsequently be evaluated. If there are issues encountered regarding response time frames, then this would be addressed on a facility-specific basis including, potentially, as part of amending the contingency plan.

Comment: Three commenters requested clarifications/modifications regarding aisle space requirements (78, 123; 280).  One commenter stated that application of this requirement is problematic for generator facilities in that storage is usually limited in scope and co-located with other facility operations, adding that the phrase "any area of site operation" broadens the requirement significantly. This commenter also stated that, since the International Fire Code (IFC) contains a requirement for maintaining aisle space for this purpose, this requirement is duplicative for facilities subject to the IFC requirement or other local fire codes. This commenter provided an example of a state where adequate aisle space is specified (e.g., 30 inches or more) and that this requirement can even be more stringent than fire codes. Lastly, the commenter expressed concerns that compliance with generally worded requirements, as determined during inspections, is subjective and that EPA should consider a definitive standard such as compliance with IFC requirements (78). Another commenter requested clarification regarding the meaning of "maintain aisle space to allow the unobstructed movement" and suggested that the meaning of this statement be consistent with IFC requirements for aisle space (123).  The final commenter suggested EPA include guidance on the minimum required dimensions of "aisle space" (280).

Response (78, 123; 280):  Besides minor wording changes (i.e., replace "owner or operator" with "large quantity generator"), EPA did not propose any changes to these regulations regarding aisle space for either LQGs or SQGs. Therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Notwithstanding, EPA takes this opportunity to provide the following information. The Agency believes existing regulatory text, "...maintain aisle space to allow the unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection equipment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment to any area of site operation in an emergency, unless aisle space is not needed for any of these purposes" at § 262.16(b)(8)(v) and §262.255 for SQGs and LQGs, respectively, is sufficiently detailed without being overly prescriptive. Moreover, it should be noted that authorized states are not precluded from establishing specific aisle requirements for hazardous wastes nor are other authorities precluded from defining what constitutes sufficient aisle space.

Comment:  A commenter disagreed with the wording of proposed section 262.264 because the commenter believed wording in this section implies that only one person must serve as emergency coordinator, while also noting that the draft rule preamble acknowledges that the emergency coordinator position can be filled by several persons serving at different times. The commenter requests that regulations be revised to reflect this concept. (92)

Response (92):  EPA disagrees with the commenter and notes that the Agency has revised section 262.264 to reflect the fact that emergency coordinator responsibilities may vary depending upon the type/variety of hazardous wastes, as well as the type/complexity of the facility.  Existing regulations, as well as proposed and final regulations at 40 CFR 262.261(d), 40 CFR 262.263(e) and 40 CFR 262.264, allow for more than one emergency coordinator at a facility.

Comment:  Regarding 40 CFR 262.251 (maintenance and operation of facility), a commenter requested clarification as to what steps are required to minimize the possibility of fire, explosion, and release (123).

Response (123):  Besides the proposal to change the term "facility" to "site," which EPA has not adopted, the Agency did not propose any changes associated with 40 CFR 262.251.  EPA believes existing language regarding preparedness, prevention and emergency procedures already spells out the steps that need to be taken to minimize the possibility of fire, explosion, and release.

Comment:  A commenter requested clarifying the meaning of "necessary to assure its proper operation in time of emergency" in 40 CFR 262.253 (123).

Response (123):  Besides minor wording changes (i.e., the word "facility" has been omitted), EPA did not propose any changes to existing regulations. In terms of specific testing and maintenance requirements, we believe such requirements would be dependent upon the particular type of equipment, as well as the manufacturer's specifications. This information would be used by the generator to establish testing/maintenance criteria, which would then be retained as part of the operating record and made available during an inspection. Having said this, the Agency believes that regulatory text at 40 CFR 262.253 for LQGs and parallel language for SQGs at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(8)(iii) accords the generator sufficient flexibility in establishing testing/maintenance criteria.

Comment:  A commenter suggested to add text to proposed 40 CFR 262.265(a) to define an emergency situation as a release, fire or explosion, consistent with text in the proposed change to 40 CFR 262.265(b) (123).

Response (123):  EPA did not propose any changes to either of these requirements, therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Notwithstanding, EPA takes this opportunity to provide the following information. EPA believes there is an important distinction between the situations described by 40 CFR 262.265(a) and 40 CFR 262.265(b) in terms of the progression of an emergency situation. In the former, a release of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents has not yet occurred but could occur while, in the latter, a release (or fire/explosion) has already occurred. For this reason, the Agency did not propose and is not making any changes to regulatory text.

Comment:  A commenter suggested that EPA replace the term "designee" with "alternate" to create consistency with proposed text of 40 CFR 262.261(d) (123).

Response (123):  EPA realizes that the term "alternates" is used in 40 CFR 262.261(d). However, since the Agency believes the meaning is already sufficiently clear, text at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(iv) and 40 CFR 262.265(a) for SQGs and LQGs, respectively, is not being revised.

Comment:  A commenter suggested rewriting the proposed text at 40 CFR 261.420(g) to state, "All employees must be familiar with their responsibilities for emergency procedures relevant to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies.  Employees with waste management duties must be familiar with proper waste handling during emergency and normal operations." (123)

Response (123):  The language in 40 CFR 261.420 is a technical correction to the emergency preparedness and response requirements for hazardous secondary material recycling that were finalized in the most recent DSW rule. (see 80 FR 1760). As noted in the Generator Proposal, EPA inadvertently left out the language about requiring generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite to ensure their personnel are familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures (see 80 FR 57984).  This change corrects that error.  Note that parallel language applicable to hazardous secondary material generators who accumulate less than 6,000 kg can already be found in 40 CFR 261.411(c).  Without this correction, EPA would technically be requiring generators who store less than 6,000 kg to be familiar with emergency procedures but not requiring the same thing of generators who store more than 6,000 kg. Since the language is intended to be parallel to that already finalized in 40 CFR 261.411(c) it wouldn't be appropriate to change it here.

Comment:  A commenter believed that the word "increases" in proposed §262.263(c) should be changed to "affects." More specifically, the commenter believed that the contingency plan should be changed not only if a change in the generators site increases the potential for fires, explosions, or releases but also in any case where such potential is affected. In either case, the commenter asserted that such changes could merit amendments to the information and response procedures that it would be appropriate to have in the contingency plan (178).

Response (178):  EPA neither proposed nor took comment on changes to the proposed requirement at 40 CFR 262.263(c) in this regard, therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Notwithstanding, the Agency takes this opportunity to provide the following information. The Agency understands that changes in the generator facility could result in decreased potential for fires, explosions or releases of hazardous waste or hazardous wastes constituents, as implied by the commenter. However, the Agency believes the emphasis on the increased potential for these events to occur should remain unchanged. Authorized states are not precluded from requiring LQGs to amend the contingency plan to address the situation described by the commenter.

Comment:  A commenter requested that EPA define a "short period of time" or discuss this term further in the preamble to final rule because specifying a time period provides consistency, thereby allowing the generator and inspector to know that the emergency coordinator needs to be able to respond sufficiently quickly (206).

Response (206):  EPA did not propose any changes to requirements at 40 CFR 262.16(b)(9)(i) and 40 CFR 262.264 for SQGs and LQGs, respectively, so this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA takes this opportunity here to provide our thoughts on this comment. The Agency believes it unnecessary to specify time periods in terms of how soon a response should occur since as this will depend on the nature of the situation. Moreover, should an emergency arise, the effectiveness of emergency response activities will be known and could subsequently be evaluated. If there are issues encountered regarding response time frames, then this would be addressed on a facility-specific basis including, potentially, as part of amending the contingency plan.

Comment:  A commenter noted that conditions for exemption for an LQG that accumulates hazardous waste, under 40 CFR 262.17(a)7)(i)(D)(iii), states that "Site personnel must take part in an annual review of the initial training required in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section" and recommended to explicitly state under 40 CFR  262.17(a)(7)(i)(D)(iii) that the annual review must occur at least once every calendar year (206).

Response (206):  Aside from replacing the word "site" with "facility," EPA did not propose any changes to this requirement. The Agency believes occurrence of a review every calendar is already apparent given existing wording, "must take part in an annual review."

Comment:  In the context of commenting on contingency planning, a commenter noted that "confined space violations happen." (214)

Response (214):  EPA is aware of this fact but cannot ascertain the relevance of this comment to the Agency's proposed revisions to emergency preparedness and planning regulations; therefore, additional discussion is not possible.

Comment:  A commenter providing feedback on behalf of multiple member organizations indicated that one of its members agrees with EPA's proposed revision to update regulations such that they reflect modern technology utilized in emergency situations. (217)

Response (217):  EPA's discussion in the proposed rule preamble specifically mentioned incorporation of modern technology into emergency planning and procedures regulations in order to provide information more quickly to emergency responders. In line with this intention, EPA proposed to allow an LQG to use online computer training, in addition to classroom instruction and on-the-job training, to complete the personnel training requirements. EPA also requested comment on whether contingency plans should be submitted electronically to emergency responders to enhance their ability to respond safely and effectively to an emergency at an LQG, including what EPA's role should be in electronic submittals. In making this request, EPA noted that the Agency currently makes numerous electronic databases and tools available for helping first responders with emergency management  -  an example cited was a suite of software applications used to assist with data management requirements under EPCRA. EPA presumes that the member organization in question would support these efforts. The final rule includes language at 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(i)(A) allowing an LQG to use online training (e.g., computer-based or electronic) to satisfy training requirements. Although EPA is not making any changes to proposed regulations at 262.262(a) regarding transmission of the contingency plan, the Agency is encouraging LQGs to work with first responders to determine, on a facility-by-facility basis, whether electronic submission of contingency plans, including incorporating contingency plan information into existing software applications, is an acceptable approach either in lieu of or in addition to a hard copy submission.

Comment:  One commenter noted a potential typographical error in that the proposed modifications described for 40 CFR 262.254 refer to 40 CFR 265.252 twice. The commenter believes this is a typographical error (40 CFR 265.525 is regulations apply to waste piles) and should actually refer to 40 CFR 262.252. (255).

Response (255):  The commenter is correct and EPA has addressed this error in the final regulatory text.

Comment:  One commenter observed that proposed 40 CFR 262.264, which references 40 CFR 262.265 with respect to coordinating emergency response measures and implementing necessary emergency procedures, no longer includes language, "Applicable responsibilities for the emergency coordinator vary, depending on factors such as type and variety of waste(s) handled by the facility, and type and complexity of the facility" and recommended that such language be included so as to accord some flexibility to those who must perform these emergency response duties. (263)

Response (263):  EPA proposed incorporating a minor revision associated with a "comment" in existing regulatory text into the final rule at 40 CFR 262.264 because the Federal Register style no longer permits this kind of comment in new regulations. EPA recognizes this oversight and has incorporated the suggested text into 40 CFR 262.264.

Comment:  A commenter noted that a new section on personnel training, 40 CFR 261.420(g), has been added to the requirements for facilities generating or accumulating more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material. The commenter noted that, depending on the nature of the hazardous secondary material, this training might not be warranted at all and that the mass of secondary material is not the correct criterion for evaluating training needs; rather, it is the ability of the material to adversely affect the environment and worker health that is key. (263)

Response (262):  The language in 40 CFR 261.420 is a technical correction to the emergency preparedness and response requirements for hazardous secondary material recycling that were finalized in the most recent DSW rule. (see 80 FR 1760). As noted in the Generator Proposal, EPA inadvertently left out the language about requiring generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite to ensure their personnel are familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures (see 80 FR 57984).  This change corrects that error.  Note that parallel language applicable to hazardous secondary material generators who accumulate less than 6,000 kg can already be found in 40 CFR 261.411(c).  Without this correction, EPA would technically be requiring generators who store less than 6,000 kg to be familiar with emergency procedures but not requiring the same thing of generators who store more than 6,000 kg. Since the language is intended to be parallel to that already finalized in 40 CFR 261.411(c) it wouldn't be appropriate to change it here.

Comment:  One commenter asserts that existing EPA guidance, as referenced in Section VIII.H.1 of the proposed rule preamble, makes it very clear that both developing a contingency plan and conducting training are not "site-wide" requirements and that this is in contrast to what the Agency states in Section VII.A of the proposed rule preamble, which discusses waste generation and generator category in the context of generators that generate both acute and non-acute hazardous waste in the same calendar month.  The commenter therefore suggests that EPA make a correction in a subsequent Federal Register (267).

Response (267):  EPA makes it clear in the final rule preamble and the rule itself that preparedness, prevention and emergency procedures apply to those portions of a facility where hazardous waste is generated and accumulated. In doing so, the Agency, notes that there may exist multiple points of generation and associated SAAs at a facility from which hazardous wastes are routinely moved to CAAs; hence, the potential exists for spills during the accumulation and management process. The Agency adds that "allowable treatment," though not defined in the regulations, is covered as part of the overall hazardous waste accumulation and management process within a facility and will continue to be addressed at generator facilities within the framework of existing guidance. With respect to training requirements, EPA has decided not to similarly expand the scope of training requirements beyond CAAs because the Agency believes that existing regulatory language, insofar as outlining the objective of training, is sufficiently comprehensive and allows generators the flexibility to determine those areas of hazardous waste management, including SAAs, for which personnel training and a written job description are required.

Comment:  A commenter asked EPA to consider removing the "fire hydrant flow rate" requirement at 40 CFR 262.262(b)(6) as this information would be very difficult to maintain accurately (280).

Response (280):  EPA did not propose any changes to this requirement, so this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA takes the opportunity here to provide our thoughts on this comment. The Agency believes that any flow rate would necessarily vary through time and notes that the intent here is simply to ensure that sufficient water pressure and water volume are available. The Agency believes this could easily be explained by the facility in the event that questions arise during an inspection.

Comment:  A commenter suggested that the word "immediate" text at 40 CFR 262.263 regarding amendment of the contingency plan be replaced by "within 60 days." (280)

Response (280):  EPA did not propose any changes to this requirement, so this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment:  A commenter recommended that EPA provide outreach materials to local governments, citizens and businesses to help them better understand the rule and how to protect their community and prevent contamination.  This commenter further stated that coordination with state, local and tribal governments are important, especially in implementation of the final rule, and therefore recommended that intergovernmental feedback on implementation should be closely monitored (289).

Response (289):  EPA concurs with this comment.  Although the efforts outlined by the commenter are not discussed in the final rule preamble or regulatory text, the Agency fully intends to coordinate with stakeholders and conduct other outreach activities as part of implementing this final rule.

Section 4.8 - Satellite accumulation areas

Comment: Five commenters support the proposed changes to Satellite Accumulation Area (SAA) standards (Commenters 85, 134, 178, 188, 240).
EPA Response: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support.

Comment: Three commenters request the following clarifications (Commenters 97, 178, 239):
· The existence of an SAA does not necessarily imply a requirement for a CAA and that there is no set of geographic or geometric standards that define an SAA (Commenter 97).
EPA Response: EPA agrees that an SQG or LQG that has an SAA is not required to have a CAA (or vice versa). And although SAAs are required to be "at or near any point of generation," there is no set of specific geographic or geometric standards that define the term "at or near the point of generation." EPA would not consider a shed outside a building where the waste is initially generated to be "at or near the point of generation." Nevertheless, as this term is not particularly specific, implementing regulatory agencies will retain authority in determining what they consider "at or near the point of generation."

· Hazardous wastes stored in SAAs are not subject to the one-year land disposal restriction storage prohibition and have no time limit while wastes are being accumulated (Commenter 239).
EPA Response: Although it is true that SAAs do not have an accumulation time limit, hazardous wastes accumulated in SAAs are not exempt from the one-year land disposal restriction storage prohibition of § 268.50 (which is taken directly from HSWA §3004(j)). The storage prohibition does allow for storage beyond a year if such storage is "solely for the purpose of the accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recover, treatment or disposal," which may apply in the case of some SAAs.

· Adding language emphasizing that wastes may not be moved between SAAs (Commenter 178).
EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that hazardous wastes may not be moved between SAAs. Although we have stated this in guidance (RCRA Online #14703 and #14337), we did not propose to make this clarification in this rule and therefore we are not able to finalize this change.

Comment: Five commenters express the following opposition (Commenters 78, 168, 178, 214):
· Proposed SAA changes indicate a problematic reversal in the policy that SAAs warrant less burdensome requirements (Commenter 224).
EPA Response: Although this final rule does impose additional requirements on SAAs that did not previously exist, the SAA regulations still are less burdensome than for CAAs. Notably, SAAs still are not required to comply with the inspection requirements, the special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste, the air emission standards or the personnel training. And in this final rule, we are providing new flexibility for SAAs that did not exist previously (i.e., the ability to keep containers open temporarily in certain circumstances).
· EPA is unjustified in setting the same requirements for generator accumulation areas as for commercial storage facilities (Commenter 78). Appropriate requirements should be set for generator accumulation independent of those imposed on permitted facilities.
EPA Response: The SAA, SQG and LQG accumulation regulations have always referenced the technical standards found in Subpart I of Part 265, which is the container standards for interim status TSDFs and we continue to believe that they provide the appropriate level of protection.
Comment: One commenter believes that EPA should not require training for personnel in SAAs (Commenter 168).
EPA Response: Although the Agency did request comment in this area, the final regulations do not require training of personnel working in SAAs. Personnel that have access to or work in central accumulation areas, including those that move hazardous waste from a SAA to a central accumulation area, must be trained. As the ones actually generating hazardous waste, however, personnel working in SAAs need to be familiar enough with the chemicals with which they are working to know when they have generated a hazardous waste so that it will be managed in accordance with the RCRA regulations.
Comment: One commenter urges EPA to add a requirement that SAAs comply with the requirements of 265.31 and 265.173(b) (Commenter 178).
EPA Response: EPA agrees that, as a matter of best practice, hazardous waste in SAAs should be managed to minimize the possibility of fire, explosion and releases to the environment (265.31). Although we did not propose to make SAAs subject to 265.31, we are clarifying in the final rule that SAAs at SQGs are subject to the emergency preparedness and prevention regulations of 262.16(b)(8) and emergency procedures of 262.16(b)(9) and SAAs at LQGs are subject to the Preparedness, Prevention and Emergency Procedures in part 262 subpart M.
EPA also agrees that, as a matter of best practice, a container of hazardous waste should not be opened, handled, or stored in a manner which may rupture the container or cause it to leak (265.173(b)). However, we did not propose this change, and therefore we are not able to finalize this change.
Comment: One commenter notes the preamble discusses the satellite requirement for waste to be "at or near the point of generation" but the draft rule language is not changed (Commenter 214).
EPA Response: The proposed and final SAA regulatory language in § 262.15 retains the original regulatory language from § 262.34(c) which states, "A generator may accumulate....in containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially accumulate..." (emphasis added).

Section 4.8.1 - Incompatible waste requirements

Comment: Nine commenters support separation of incompatible wastes in satellite areas (Commenters 78, 108, 121, 127, 174, 183, 185, 217, 232). One commenter believes the requirements for storage of incompatible hazardous wastes should be more restrictive to prevent generators from accumulating these wastes in the same container, as would be allowed if the conditions of 265.17(b) are met (Commenter 127).
EPA Response: We anticipate that the limitations included in §265.17(b) are sufficiently restrictive such that they will ensure that any mixing of incompatibles would be rare.
Comment: Three commenters put forth that prohibiting the mixing of incompatible wastes is obvious self-regulation and that there is no need to specify this requirement (Commenters 99, 101, 242). One commenter states 265.31 facility operation and maintenance already sufficiently covers this (Commenter 214).
EPA Response: The Agency is encouraged to hear from commenters that they believe generators already routinely segregate their incompatibles. Nevertheless, for additional clarity and to ensure generators that are not following these best management practices adopt them, the Agency is finalizing the requirement that SQGs and LQGs accumulating hazardous waste in SAAs comply with the part 265 subpart I container management standards for incompatible hazardous wastes at § 265.177.
Comment: Three commenters found EPA's use of the phrase in 264.177 "dike, berm wall or other device" problematic for satellite areas, since installation of such might be impractical, overly burdensome, or clash with the requirement that SAAs be `at or near' the point of generation (Commenters 78, 224, 260).
EPA Response: The Agency agrees that most SAAs would not accommodate a dike, berm or wall. Although, the proposed regulatory language also allows for "other device[s]," to keep incompatibles segregated, the Agency has decided to replace the regulatory language "by means of a dike, berm, wall or other device" with the phrase "by any practical means" in order to address commenters' concerns.

Section 4.8.2 - Exceptions to closed containers

Comment: 36 commenters support the proposed changes allowing containers to be vented or to remain open under limited circumstances that will not pose a threat to human health or the environment (Commenters 68, 77, 78, 85, 91, 97, 99, 101, 110, 121, 123, 135, 136, 141, 154, 178, 183, 190, 201, 212, 214, 217, 219, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232, 242, 248, 256, 258, 260, 282).
Comment: One commenter proposes that a sealed lid should not be required for some containers, for example pipettes should be allowed to be collected in a container with a swinging lid (Commenter 201).
EPA Response: A swinging lid on a container would be allowed in order for the container to be considered closed, provided that the swinging lid has a clasp (or other mechanism) to keep the lid from swinging open unintentionally, if, for example, the container was knocked over.
Comment: One commenter believes that it would be a useful if a facility is required to document each instance where they keep SAA containers open (Commenter 223).
EPA Response: The Agency did not consider requiring documentation when proposing this provision. However, states may choose to be more stringent when adopting these regulations.

Comment: Seven commenters propose the following (Commenters 78, 92, 196, 217, 219, 232, 235):

· Making this provision container/waste type specific instead of defining `areas' (Commenter 196).
EPA Response: EPA believes it would be difficult to develop an exhaustive list of all of the types of containers and wastes for which the closed container exception would be suitable. Furthermore, it would require a regulatory change each time a new example was found to be suitable. We prefer the performance-based approach that we have included.

· Extending the rule to SQG and LQG CAAs, and permitted storage areas (Commenters 78, 92, 219).
EPA Response: As with the proposed rule, the flexibility for containers to remain open in specific situations applies only to containers in SAAs because that is where hazardous waste initially accumulates in most cases. We realize that in some cases, generators may not have SAAs and that they initially accumulate hazardous waste in their CAA and therefore will not be able to use this flexibility. However, given our concerns about the volumes of hazardous waste in CAAs compared to SAAs, we are not extending this flexibility to containers accumulating in CAAs at this time.

· Clarification and guidance as the proposed rule introduces vague loopholes in addition to increased flexibility (i.e. allowing open containers `for the proper operation of equipment') (Commenters 217, 232, 235).
EPA Response: This flexibility has been in place since 2008 as part of the Academic Laboratories Rule (Subpart K) and we have not learned of any implementation problems associated with that provision. Nevertheless, we have strengthened the regulatory language to make clear that this exception to requiring closed containers was intended for temporary situations only. In the preamble to the proposed rule, we indicated that the requirement to keep the container closed applies when the danger passes (e.g., the contents cool), and when the equipment is not in operation. In response to commenters' concerns, EPA is finalizing this provision, as proposed, with a minor addition. The regulatory language has been modified so that a container holding hazardous waste must be closed at all times during accumulation, except when adding, removing, or consolidating waste, or when temporary venting of a container is necessary (1) for the proper operation of equipment, or (2) to prevent dangerous situations, such as build-up of extreme pressure (emphasis added). EPA stresses it does not intend to create a loophole to the closed container requirement or to allow intentional evaporation of hazardous waste. Rather, the intent of the flexibility is to address the limited cases in which "strict adherence to the "container closure" requirements could substantially increase a risk of a hazardous waste incident rather than decrease it" (Commenter 232).

Comment: One commenter notes the proposed changes for closure of SAA containers do not address 265 Subpart CC standards (Commenter 217). How do those requirements affect the proposal? Would be appropriate to address the Subpart CC requirements within 262.15?
EPA Response: We agree with the commenter that the air emission standards found in 265 subpart CC do not apply in SAAs. Given that the exceptions to keeping containers closed in SAAs are only allowed under limited circumstances, on a short-term basis, and that only limited amounts of hazardous waste are accumulated in SAAs, we do not think it is necessary to require compliance with part 265 subpart CC at this time.
Comment: One commenter cautions that if EPA were to define the term `closed' the plain meaning of that word would convey the opposite standard (Commenter 240).
EPA Response: EPA did not propose to define the term "closed," nor are we finalizing a definition of the term.

Section 4.8.3 - "Three Days"

Comment: Seven commenters agree with the proposed change (Commenters 85, 99, 178, 185, 232, 242, 248). One commenter urges clarification on what moment the `counting' begins (Commenter 232).
EPA Response: Consistent with existing guidance, the counting of three consecutive calendar days begins when the maximum volumes (or mass) has been exceeded (see RCRA Online #14703 and #12503).
Comment: Five commenters urge EPA to allow up to 10 days (Commenters 87, 188, 238, 249, 280). Twelve commenters urge that EPA revise `three days' to refer to three business or operational days, not calendar days (Commenters 97, 113, 126, 133, 179, 187, 189, 192, 217, 219, 224, 262). One commenter suggests EPA use the term `three consecutive calendar days' (Commenter 152).
EPA Response: The Agency was simply proposing to codify long-standing policy on the issue of what "three days" meant, as it is used in the SAA regulations. We did not take comment on extending the time frame.
Although many commenters argued that we should allow "three working days," one commenter conceded that, "due to differences in business schedules, this becomes difficult to define in a rule" (Commenter 133). For example, some companies shut down completely for lengthy periods around the holidays or during seasonal slowdowns. As a result, if we relied on "three working days," it would create an uneven and unfair implementation of this SAA provision. Further, it's easy to imagine a raft of implementation questions that would ensue about the definition of a "working day." Therefore, the Agency is finalizing this provision, as proposed, with one minor revision. While in the preamble to the proposed rule we used the term "three consecutive calendar days," in the proposed regulatory language, we used "three calendar days." To promote the most clarity, in the final rule, we will use "three consecutive calendar days."
Comment: One commenter opposes the new time limit and asserts that the benefit of this rule change is not clear (Commenter 244).
EPA Response: As discussed above, the Agency disagrees that this is a new time limit. Rather this is a codification of existing policy and is consistent with the intent of the original SAA regulations.

Section 4.8.4 - One quart or 1kg of acute hazardous waste

Comment: Five commenters agree with the proposed weight measurement addition for waste (Commenters 85, 178, 214, 232, 248). Two commenters suggest EPA specify that the one quart limit applies to liquids and the 1 kg limit applies to non-liquids (Commenter 178, 242).
EPA Response: EPA agrees and we have added regulatory language to indicate that the 1 quart limit for acute hazardous waste applies to liquids and the 1 kg limit for acute hazardous waste applies to solids. In the preamble, we also indicate that these quantities are not additive, so in cases where a generator has both liquid and solid acute hazardous waste accumulating in an SAA, the 1 kg (or 2.2 lbs) limit will be applied.
Comment: Six commenters disagree with this proposal, especially when applied to non-acute hazardous waste, and assert that placing a weight restriction on a 55-gallon container serves no purpose and would lead to noncompliance (Commenters 99, 101, 152, 154, 217, 232).
EPA Response: EPA took comment on whether to apply a weight restriction for non-acutes, as an alternative to the 55-gallon maximum. Because commenters either saw no need or objected, we are not finalizing an alternative. Therefore, for non-acute hazardous waste accumulating in an SAA, the maximum volume will continue to be 55 gallons.
Comment: One commenter requests clarification for dealing with wastes consisting of debris or packaging and how will the kilogram of waste be determined? (Commenter 214)
EPA Response: In a February 17, 2016, memo, EPA clarified that the container (e.g., packaging) does not need to be included when calculating the maximum accumulation volume of acute hazardous waste in an SAA (RCRA Online 14875). This would also be the case when calculating the maximum accumulation weight (mass) of acute hazardous waste in an SAA.
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA should use Standard International (SI) units throughout the SAA regulations instead of the English units (Commenter 99). Two commenters propose defining SAAs to include up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste and/or one liter of acute hazardous waste (Commenters 60, 99).
EPA Response: EPA does not have a definition, per se, of the term "satellite accumulation area." However, the regulations for SAAs, now found in §262.15, place limits on how much waste may be accumulated in an SAA. In the revised regulations, EPA has included both metric (1 kg) and English (2.2 pounds) units for the maximum weight allowed for solid acute hazardous waste in an SAA. We did not, however include a metric equivalent to 1 quart allowed for liquid acute hazardous waste. Given that 1 quart is nearly identical to 1 liter (1 qt = 0.94 L or 1 L = 1.05 qts, it seemed unnecessary to include both. We also chose not to change the 55-gallon limit for non-hazardous waste, as the 55-gallon drum continues to be the industry standard, as it was when we adopted it in the original SAA regulations.

Section 4.8.5 - Revisions for when maximum weight or volume are exceeded

Comment: Three commenters agree with the proposed change (Commenters 85, 232, 248).
Comment: The language "in excess of the amounts" and "the excess" causes confusion and should be reworded (Commenters 151, 156, 178, 206, 224).

EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and, during the development of the proposed rule, we sought to revise this aspect of the SAA regulations. We also agree with the commenter that "In reality, what happens in most cases is that the generator removes the older waste, and continues to accumulate the most-recently generated waste. For example, if a generator has a 55-gallon drum in an SAA and that drum becomes full, the generator might begin accumulating newly generated waste in a second 55-gallon drum" (Commenter 178). Unfortunately, during the development of the proposed rule, EPA's attempts to convey this idea through regulatory changes were unsuccessful and therefore were not included in the proposed rule. Nevertheless, we endorse the commenter's description as a best management practice for removing hazardous waste from an SAA. One alternative suggested by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (Commenter 206) is to "clarify that a full 55-gallon drum must be moved from the satellite accumulation area. As the proposed rule reads now, a full 55-gallon drum may be under the satellite accumulation requirements indefinitely because 40 CFR § 262.15(a)(6) refers to excess amounts...If a satellite accumulation drum is at capacity it should be moved into the central accumulation area." Again, the Agency agrees that a full 55-gallon drum should be moved to a CAA. During the development of the proposed rule, we considered rewording this section of the proposed regulations as the WDNR suggested but we declined to use this construct in the proposal out of concern that generators would be able to easily circumvent our intent by not completely filling a container before beginning to fill another container.

Comment: Two commenters agree with EPA's attempt at providing clarify and suggests including the option of converting the SAA into a CAA, i.e., retain the management in place option (Commenters 97, 214).

EPA Response: At the time of proposal, the Agency did not anticipate that generators would choose to convert SAAs into CAAs. However, this commenter pointed out that some generators do not have a CAA to move the waste to and therefore must manage the SAA as a CAA when volumes (or mass) are exceeded. In response, in the final rule the Agency has amended the regulatory text to retain the option to allow generators to convert an SAA to a CAA when maximum volumes (or mass) are exceeded.

Section 4.8.6 - Rescinding reactive hazardous waste memo

Comment: Eight commenters agree with the proposal to rescind the memo (Commenters 85, 99, 126, 174, 188, 217, 242, 248).
Comment: Four commenters recommend not rescinding the memo (Commenters 92, 123, 214, 232).