 1 BURDEN REDUCTION FINAL RULE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS VOLUME I JUNE 2005  2  3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT This document includes, first, a list of all the commenters on the previous burden reduction proposed rule and the two notices of data availability. This list is arranged according to the docket number assigned each comment.

Second, this document includes excerpts from the comments, grouped according to subject area and/ or CFR section. In some cases, we have responded to each comment excerpt individually. These responses are identified by the word " Response." In other cases, when the comment excerpts are very similar, we have responded only at the end of the series of comment excerpts. These responses are distinguished by saying " Response to Comments." Therefore, if it appears that a comment has no response, scroll down through the series of similar comment excerpts and you'll find the response at the end.  4 Key to RCRA Docket Commenters and Documents Supporting the Following Burden Reduction Federal Register Notices June 18, 1999 NODA ( 64 FR 32859) January 17,2002 Proposed Rule ( 67 FR 2518) October 29, 2003 ( 68 FR 61662)

Document ID: 0001 Company/ Group/ Association: Page Count: Media: Paper Document ID: 0002 Company/ Group/ Association: Texas A& M University Corpus Christi Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0003 Company/ Group/ Association: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0004 Company/ Group/ Association: Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters ( AWHMT) Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0005 Company/ Group/ Association: Lion Technology, Inc. Page Count: 10 Media: Paper Document ID: 0006 Company/ Group/ Association: TXU Electric & Gas, TXU SESCO & Gas, TXU Mining Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0007 Company/ Group/ Association: Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association Page Count: 7 Media: Paper  5 Document ID: 0008 Company/ Group/ Association: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, ET AL. Page Count: 13 Media: Paper Document ID: 0009 Company/ Group/ Association: American Trucking Association Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0010 Company/ Group/ Association: Coalition for Effective Environmental Information Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0011 Company/ Group/ Association: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials ( ASTSWMO) Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0012 Company/ Group/ Association: Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration ( CRWI) Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0013 Company/ Group/ Association: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0014 Company/ Group/ Association: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0015 Company/ Group/ Association: City of Houston, Department of Solid Waste Management Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0015  6 Company/ Group/ Association: City of Houston, Department of Solid Waste Management Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0016 Company/ Group/ Association: GLAVO WELLCOME, Inc. Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0017 Company/ Group/ Association: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0018 Company/ Group/ Association: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, Inc. Page Count: 13 Media: Paper Document ID: 0019 Company/ Group/ Association: MICRON TECHNOLOGY, Inc. Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0020 Company/ Group/ Association: MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Page Count: 10 Media: Paper Document ID: 0021 Company/ Group/ Association: ONYX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, L. L. C. Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0022 Company/ Group/ Association: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE Page Count: 2 Media: Paper  7 Document ID: 0023 Company/ Group/ Association: CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION ( CMA) Page Count: 9 Media: Paper Document ID: 0024 Company/ Group/ Association: CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION ( CMA) Page Count: 31 Media: Paper Document ID: 0025 Company/ Group/ Association: CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION ( CMA) Page Count: 105 Media: Paper Document ID: 0026 Company/ Group/ Association: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0027 Company/ Group/ Association: ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Page Count: 14 Media: Paper Document ID: 0028 Company/ Group/ Association: NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0029 Company/ Group/ Association: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Page Count: 7 Media: Paper Document ID: 0030 Company/ Group/ Association: EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS Page Count: 3 Media: Paper  8 Document ID: 0031 Company/ Group/ Association: Lead Industries Association, Inc. Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0032 Company/ Group/ Association: Quebecor Printing MBMPHIS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0033 Company/ Group/ Association: Battery Council International Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0034 Company/ Group/ Association: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0035 Company/ Group/ Association: Environmental Technology Council Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0036 Company/ Group/ Association: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0037 Company/ Group/ Association: Missouri Department of Natural Resource Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0038 Company/ Group/ Association: U. S. Department of Defense Page Count: 17 Media: Paper  9 Document ID: 0039 Company/ Group/ Association: DaimlerChrysler Corporation Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0040 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0041 Company/ Group/ Association: Safety Kleen Corporation Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0042 Company/ Group/ Association: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page Count: 10 Media: Paper Document ID: 0043 Company/ Group/ Association: United Technologies Corporation Page Count: 12 Media: Paper Document ID: 0044 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 21 Media: Paper Document ID: 0045 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0046 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 10 Media: Paper  10 Document ID: 0047 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0048 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 7 Media: Paper Document ID: 0049 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 47 Media: Paper Document ID: 0050 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 38 Media: Paper Document ID: 0051 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0052 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0053 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0054 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper  11 Document ID: 0055 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0056 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0057 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0058 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0059 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 75 Media: Paper Document ID: 0060 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: Paper Document ID: 0061 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 39 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0062 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A  12 Document ID: 0063 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 20 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0064 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 18 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0065 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0066 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 21 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0067 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0068 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 49 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0069 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 28 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0070 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A  13 Document ID: 0071 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 7 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0072 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 7 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0073 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 15 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0074 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 6 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0075 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 1 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0076 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 4 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0077 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 54 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0078 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 77 Media: N/ A  14 Document ID: 0079 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0080 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0081 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0082 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0083 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0084 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0085 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0086 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A  15 Document ID: 0087 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0088 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0089 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0090 Company/ Group/ Association: SUPPORT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Page Count: 0 Media: N/ A Document ID: 0091 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: 0 Document ID: 0092 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 0 Media: 0 Document ID: 0093 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0094 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:  16 Document ID: 0095 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0096 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0097 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0098 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0099 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0100 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0101 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background ( OECA COMMENT SUMMARY) Page Count: 6 Media:

Document ID: 0102 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 3 Media:  17 Document ID: 0103 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 5 Media:

Document ID: 0104 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 97 Media:

Document ID: 0105 Company/ Group/ Association: Support Background Page Count: 28 Media:

Document ID: 0106 Company/ Group/ Association: EQUIVA SERVICES LLC Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0107 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0108 Company/ Group/ Association: Federal Register Page Count: 28 Media: Electronic Document ID: 0110 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0111 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  18 Document ID: 0112 Company/ Group/ Association: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0113 Company/ Group/ Association: DIGITAL AUDIO DISC CORPORATION Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0114 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0116 Company/ Group/ Association: BAY WEST, INC. Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0117 Company/ Group/ Association: INTERNATIONAL METALS RECLAMATION COMPANY, INC. Page Count: 10 Media: Paper Document ID: 0118 Company/ Group/ Association: ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 30 Media: Paper Document ID: 0119 Company/ Group/ Association: INSTITUTE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0120 Company/ Group/ Association: SOUTH CAROLINA MAGNOLIA CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  19 Document ID: 0121 Company/ Group/ Association: DALLAS FORT WORTH CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0122 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0123 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affilitation Page Count: 10 Media: Paper Document ID: 0124 Company/ Group/ Association: NEW MEXICO SOCIETY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0125 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF GEORGIA Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0126 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF GEORGIA Page Count: 19 Media: Paper Document ID: 0127 Company/ Group/ Association: GATEWAY SOCIETY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0128 Company/ Group/ Association: ASFE, INC. Page Count: 128 Media: Paper  20 Document ID: 0129 Company/ Group/ Association: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0130 Company/ Group/ Association: SHELL CHEMICAL LP Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0131 Company/ Group/ Association: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 7 Media: Paper Document ID: 0132 Company/ Group/ Association: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0133 Company/ Group/ Association: ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0134 Company/ Group/ Association: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Page Count: 14 Media: Paper Document ID: 0135 Company/ Group/ Association: INDIANA SOCIETY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0136 Company/ Group/ Association: TERRACON Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  21 Document ID: 0137 Company/ Group/ Association: TERRACON Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0138 Company/ Group/ Association: THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0139 Company/ Group/ Association: KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0140 Company/ Group/ Association: DUFFIELD ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0141 Company/ Group/ Association: CHICAGO CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0142 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0143 Company/ Group/ Association: COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTY BOARDS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0144 Company/ Group/ Association: ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS Page Count: 8 Media: Paper  22 Document ID: 0145 Company/ Group/ Association: PACIFIC NORTHWEST CHAPTER OF THE ACADEMY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0146 Company/ Group/ Association: NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER OF THE ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0147 Company/ Group/ Association: ARIZONA THUNDERBIRD CHAPTER OF THE ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0148 Company/ Group/ Association: MICHIGAN CHAPTER OF THE ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0149 Company/ Group/ Association: MIAMI VALLEY SOCIETY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0150 Company/ Group/ Association: KENTUCKIANA CHAPTER OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0151 Company/ Group/ Association: QUEEN CITY CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  23 Document ID: 0152 Company/ Group/ Association: TRI STATE CHAPTER OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0153 Company/ Group/ Association: CONNECTICUT CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0154 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Page Count: 8 Media: Paper Document ID: 0155 Company/ Group/ Association: ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0156 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 0157 Company/ Group/ Association: UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES GROUP Page Count: 8 Media: Paper Document ID: 0158 Company/ Group/ Association: SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Page Count: 11 Media: Paper Document ID: 0159 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper  24 Document ID: 0160 Company/ Group/ Association: COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0161 Company/ Group/ Association: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0162 Company/ Group/ Association: NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0163 Company/ Group/ Association: MID SOUTH CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 30 Media: Paper Document ID: 0164 Company/ Group/ Association: INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0165 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Page Count: 16 Media: Paper Document ID: 0166 Company/ Group/ Association: SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION Page Count: 12 Media: Paper Document ID: 0167 Company/ Group/ Association: GREATER OZARKS CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  25 Document ID: 0168 Company/ Group/ Association: WILLAMETTE COLUMBIA CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0169 Company/ Group/ Association: GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Page Count: 44 Media: Paper Document ID: 0170 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC. Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0171 Company/ Group/ Association: DOMINION ENERGY, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0172 Company/ Group/ Association: HAWAII PACIFIC CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0173 Company/ Group/ Association: NYPENN CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0174 Company/ Group/ Association: THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Page Count: 4 Media: Paper Document ID: 0175 Company/ Group/ Association: H. G. SCHLICKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  26 Document ID: 0176 Company/ Group/ Association: H. G. SCHLICKER & ASSOCIATES, INC Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0177 Company/ Group/ Association: ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0178 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0179 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0180 Company/ Group/ Association: NORTHEAST INDIANA CHAPTER OF CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0181 Company/ Group/ Association: IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0182 Company/ Group/ Association: SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR GEOLOGISTS Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0183 Company/ Group/ Association: LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page Count: 5 Media: PAPER  27 Document ID: 0184 Company/ Group/ Association: NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 4 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0185 Company/ Group/ Association: LOURIE CONSULTANTS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0186 Company/ Group/ Association: MALCOLM PIRNIE Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0187 Company/ Group/ Association: CALIFORNIA BOARD FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSICISTS Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0188 Company/ Group/ Association: PHILADELPHIA CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0189 Company/ Group/ Association: GEORGIA CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0190 Company/ Group/ Association: NORTHEAST OHIO CHAPTER OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGERS Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0191 Company/ Group/ Association: CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF GEOSCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER  28 Document ID: 0192 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0193 Company/ Group/ Association: WISCONSIN CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0194 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS, ARIZONA SECTION Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0195 Company/ Group/ Association: SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0196 Company/ Group/ Association: VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0197 Company/ Group/ Association: ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Page Count: 6 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0198 Company/ Group/ Association: NATIONAL PAINT & COATINGS ASSOCIATION Page Count: 3 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0199 Company/ Group/ Association: THE GRAPHIC ARTS COALITION Page Count: 3 Media: PAPER  29 Document ID: 0200 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0201 Company/ Group/ Association: BP AMOCO FABRICS AND FIBERS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0202 Company/ Group/ Association: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Page Count: 11 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0203 Company/ Group/ Association: ONYX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Page Count: 5 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0204 Company/ Group/ Association: COMPUS SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0205 Company/ Group/ Association: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0206 Company/ Group/ Association: NEW JERSEY CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media:

Document ID: 0207 Company/ Group/ Association: LION TECHNOLOGY, INC. Page Count: 4 Media: PAPER  30 Document ID: 0208 Company/ Group/ Association: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Page Count: 7 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0209 Company/ Group/ Association: TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0210 Company/ Group/ Association: ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0211 Company/ Group/ Association: TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Page Count: 9 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0212 Company/ Group/ Association: WORKING GROUP ON COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW, SIERRA CLUB, U. S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, ET AL. Page Count: 13 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0213 Company/ Group/ Association: STATE OF WASHINGTON Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0214 Company/ Group/ Association: NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0215 Company/ Group/ Association: BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION Page Count: 4 Media: PAPER  31 Document ID: 0216 Company/ Group/ Association: MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Page Count: 10 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0217 Company/ Group/ Association: EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY Page Count: 7 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0218 Company/ Group/ Association: OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page Count: 20 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0219 Company/ Group/ Association: ABARTA OIL & GAS COMPANY Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0220 Company/ Group/ Association: MIDWEST PLAINS CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0221 Company/ Group/ Association: PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS OF INDIANA, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0222 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL Page Count: 15 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0223 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL Page Count: 15 Media: PAPER  32 Document ID: 0224 Company/ Group/ Association: COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE WASTE INCINERATION Page Count: 4 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0225 Company/ Group/ Association: VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0226 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0227 Company/ Group/ Association: NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0228 Company/ Group/ Association: HALEY & ALDRICH OF NEW YORK Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0229 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 4 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0230 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0231 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER  33 Document ID: 0232 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0233 Company/ Group/ Association: BOARD FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSICISTS Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0234 Company/ Group/ Association: HYDROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0235 Company/ Group/ Association: NATIONAL CAPITAL CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0236 Company/ Group/ Association: NATIONAL REGISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS Page Count: 765 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0237 Company/ Group/ Association: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0238 Company/ Group/ Association: LUHDORFF & SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page Count: 3 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0239 Company/ Group/ Association: SOUTHEAST TENNESSEE CHAPTER OF ACHMM Page Count: 1 Media: PAPER  34 Document ID: 0240 Company/ Group/ Association: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Page Count: 20 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0241 Company/ Group/ Association: NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Page Count: 8 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0242 Company/ Group/ Association: EPOCH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP Page Count: 2 Media: PAPER Document ID: 0243 Company/ Group/ Association: Kerr McGee Corporation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0244 Company/ Group/ Association: Kimley Horn & Association Page Count: 5 Media: Paper Document ID: 0245 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0246 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0247 Company/ Group/ Association: Glover's Consultants Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  35 Document ID: 0248 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0249 Company/ Group/ Association: Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0250 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0251 Company/ Group/ Association: Envirodyne, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0252 Company/ Group/ Association: Arcadis G& M, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0253 Company/ Group/ Association: Rew Consultants Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0254 Company/ Group/ Association: L. S. Sims & Association Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0255 Company/ Group/ Association: The Geological Society of Puerto Rico Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  36 Document ID: 0256 Company/ Group/ Association: Secor International Incorporated Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0257 Company/ Group/ Association: BT2, Inc Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0258 Company/ Group/ Association: IT Corporation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0259 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0260 Company/ Group/ Association: The International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0261 Company/ Group/ Association: Geologic New York, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0262 Company/ Group/ Association: Environmental Corporation of America Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0263 Company/ Group/ Association: Neil O. Anderson & Assoc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  37 Document ID: 0264 Company/ Group/ Association: Burns & McDonnell Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0265 Company/ Group/ Association: University of Kentucky Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0266 Company/ Group/ Association: Geo Services Consultants Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0267 Company/ Group/ Association: Environmental Evaluations, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0268 Company/ Group/ Association: Envirospec, Inc Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0269 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0270 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0271 Company/ Group/ Association: ProTech Assessment Page Count: 2 Media: Paper  38 Document ID: 0272 Company/ Group/ Association: No Affiliation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 273 Company/ Group/ Association: THE IT GROUP Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 274 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 275 Company/ Group/ Association: CLAYTON GROUP SERVICES Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 276 Company/ Group/ Association: MILHOLLAND COMPANY Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 277 Company/ Group/ Association: BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 278 Company/ Group/ Association: GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 279 Company/ Group/ Association: ENVIROSCIENCE, INC. Page Count: 3 Media: Paper  39 Document ID: 280 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 281 Company/ Group/ Association: WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 282 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS Page Count: 14 Media: Paper Document ID: 283 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 284 Company/ Group/ Association: GREGG ENTERPRISES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 285 Company/ Group/ Association: HYDROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 286 Company/ Group/ Association: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 287 Company/ Group/ Association: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY Page Count: 4 Media: Paper  40 Document ID: 288 Company/ Group/ Association: HESS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 289 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 3 Media: Paper Document ID: 290 Company/ Group/ Association: GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Page Count: 18 Media: Paper Document ID: 291 Company/ Group/ Association: TERRACON Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 292 Company/ Group/ Association: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 293 Company/ Group/ Association: STATE OF IDAHO BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 294 Company/ Group/ Association: PARC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 295 Company/ Group/ Association: VIRGINIA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, P. C. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  41 Document ID: 296 Company/ Group/ Association: VIRGINIA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, P. C. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0297 Company/ Group/ Association: BURNS & MCDONNELL Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0298 Company/ Group/ Association: BURNS & MCDONNELL Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0299 Company/ Group/ Association: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0300 Company/ Group/ Association: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0301 Company/ Group/ Association: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0302 Company/ Group/ Association: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0303 Company/ Group/ Association: GALLET & ASSOCIATES Page Count: 1 Media: Paper  42 Document ID: 0304 Company/ Group/ Association: NO AFFILIATION Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0305 Company/ Group/ Association: IPC Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0306 Company/ Group/ Association: REGION 7 BIF WORK GROUP Page Count: 9 Media: Paper Document ID: 0307 Company/ Group/ Association: Bucher, Willis & Radcliff Corporation Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0308 Company/ Group/ Association: ASTM International Page Count: 6 Media: Paper Document ID: 0309 Company/ Group/ Association: ( Federal Register) Page Count: 8 Media: Electronic Document ID: 0310 Company/ Group/ Association: Recycle Worlds Consulting Corporation Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0311 Company/ Group/ Association: Bower  Morner, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File  43 Document ID: 0312 Company/ Group/ Association: TolTest, Inc. Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0313 Company/ Group/ Association: Board of Professional Engineers & Professional Land Surveyors Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0314 Company/ Group/ Association: Ball Corporation Page Count: 2 Media: Paper Document ID: 0315 Company/ Group/ Association: American Chemistry Council Page Count: 6 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0316 Company/ Group/ Association: PPG Industries, Inc. Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0317 Company/ Group/ Association: Dow Chemical Company Page Count: 7 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0318 Company/ Group/ Association: American Society of Civil Engineers Page Count: 13 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0319 Company/ Group/ Association: The Graphic Arts Coalition Page Count: 6 Media: Electronic File  44 Document ID: 0320 Company/ Group/ Association: Westinghouse Savannah River Company Page Count: 4 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0321 Company/ Group/ Association: Academy of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers ( ACHMM) Page Count: 9 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0322 Company/ Group/ Association: Institute of Professional Environmental Practice Page Count: 22 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0323 Company/ Group/ Association: ConocoPhillips Company Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0324 Company/ Group/ Association: ASFE Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0325 Company/ Group/ Association: Steve Diamond Page Count: Media:

Document ID: 0326 Company/ Group/ Association: Westinghouse Savannah River Company Page Count: 4 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0327 Company/ Group/ Association: American Petroleum Institute ( API) Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File  45 Document ID: 0328 Company/ Group/ Association: National Automobile Dealers Association Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0329 Company/ Group/ Association: IPC  Association Connecting Electronics Industries Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0330 Company/ Group/ Association: Giant Resource Recovery, Inc. Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0331 Company/ Group/ Association: National Paint and Coatings Association ( NPCA) Page Count: 4 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0332 Company/ Group/ Association: Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association ( SOCMA) Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0333 Company/ Group/ Association: Onyz Environmental Services Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0334 Company/ Group/ Association: Ohio Environmental Service Industry ( OESI) Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0335 Company/ Group/ Association: General Motors Corporation Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File  46 Document ID: 0336 Company/ Group/ Association: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0337 Company/ Group/ Association: SOCMA Page Count: 11 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0338 Company/ Group/ Association: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0339 Company/ Group/ Association: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0340 Company/ Group/ Association: National Ready Mixed Concrete Assoc. Page Count: 1 Media: Paper Document ID: 0341 Company/ Group/ Association: Duke Energy Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0342 Company/ Group/ Association: Institute of Professional Environmental Practice Page Count: 21 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0343 Company/ Group/ Association: National Society of Professional Engineer Page Count: 7 Media: Electronic File  47 Document ID: 0344 Company/ Group/ Association: Lockheed Martin Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0345 Company/ Group/ Association: ASTSWMO Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0346 Company/ Group/ Association: U. S. Department of Energy Page Count: 6 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0347 Company/ Group/ Association: Eastman Chemical Company Page Count: 4 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0348 Company/ Group/ Association: Sierra Club Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0349 Company/ Group/ Association: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 3 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0350 Company/ Group/ Association: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Page Count: 6 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0351 Company/ Group/ Association: Patricia Donohue Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File  48 Document ID: 0352 Company/ Group/ Association: Los Alamos National Lab Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0353 Company/ Group/ Association: Short Bliott Hendrickson, Inc. Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0354 Company/ Group/ Association: Colalition for Responsible Waste Incineration ( CRWI) Page Count: 5 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0355 Company/ Group/ Association: Peabody, LLP Page Count: 11 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0356 Company/ Group/ Association: Arizona Board of Technical Registration Page Count: 2 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0357 Company/ Group/ Association: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Page Count: 4 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0358 Company/ Group/ Association: SQG Specialist Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0359 Company/ Group/ Association: New Hampshire National Environmental Trust Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File  49 Document ID: 0360 Company/ Group/ Association: Citizens Leading for Environmental Action & Responsibility Page Count: 1 Media: Electronic File Document ID: 0361 Company/ Group/ Association: California Department of Toxics Substances Control Page Count: 7 Media: Electronic File  50 Summary of the Burden Reduction Final Rule The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), in accordance with the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), is promulgating changes to the regulatory requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) hazardous waste program to reduce the paperwork burden these requirements impose on the States, the public, and the regulated community. The Agency is finalizing  changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations that will eliminate  burden hours per year. This rulemaking is the culmination of five years worth of effort and will result in streamlining our information collection requirements, ensuring that only the information that is actually needed and used to effectively implement the RCRA program is collected and the goals of protection of human health and the environment are retained.  51 General Comments RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Proposed for Elimination or Modification  Overview Document #: 0002 Overall we support the concept of paperwork reduction via electronic reporting and recordkeeping We are currently involved in a project with EPA Region VI on the feasibility of a community based electronic incident contingency plan.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her support on the topic of paperwork reduction via electronic reporting and recordkeeping. This area however is not part of the burden reduction rulemaking.

Document #: 0004 Wherever paperwork burden can be reduced without unduly compromising environmental protection it should be supported.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comment.

Document #: 0008 USWAG supports the reduction and/ or elimination of RCRA reporting and certification requirements for Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities ( TSDFs). The document Hazardous Waste Reporting Requirements provides a valuable starting point in this analysis and demonstrates the vast scope of the exiting recordkeeping and reporting burden.

As a threshold matter, USWAG believes that it is incumbent upon EPA to identify a sound justification for the continued imposition of any paperwork burden. The fact that a particular regulatory requirement may impose a relatively low degree of burden does not relieve EPA from the task of justifying the rule, which by its mere existence subjects companies to the specter of potential enforcement actions.

In general, USWAG supports OSW's proposals for reducing the burdens associated with compliance with RCRA regulations. The Agency is to be commended for pursuing this initiative. The Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) provides a useful framework for considering and developing specific streamlining modifications. In particular, the background documents demonstrate unnecessary burdens imposed by the regulations and argue strongly for change. The following comments discuss USWAG's perspectives on specific opportunities for burden reduction. USWAG cautions, however, that regulatory change in the name of burden reduction must indeed result in a net reduction in burden rather than a shifting of burden from one EPA  52 program ledger to another.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for the comment and agrees that burden reduction changes must result in actual paperwork savings for all and not just a shift from one ledger to another.

Document #: 0010 CEEI believes that OSW has taken a responsible approach to the issue of burden reduction. We are encouraged by several aspects of this project. First, EPA acknowledged that adherence to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) necessitated a more aggressive approach to burden reduction than has occurred in the past. By its own admission, EPA has not made significant progress in meeting the PRA objectives established in 44 U. S. C. § 3505( a), and thus it is necessary for the Agency to adopt creative burden reduction strategies to satisfy this statutory mandate.

Second, OSW did a good job " taking stock" of the paperwork burdens associated with the RCRA program, preparing a comprehensive assessment of the burden hours imposed by each regulatory requirement. CEEI has been recommending since 1996 that EPA initiate such a " taking stock" effort. On several occasions, EPA officials have told us that the workload involved rendered such an exercise impossible. OSW has shown that a " taking stock" effort can be done on one of EPA's most complex programs. CEEI believes that OSW's experience provides a useful model for the Agency on how it might approach a " taking stock" initiative.

Third, OSW's approach recognized several important aspects of the burden reduction issue. For example, OSW evaluated separately the value of recordkeeping and reporting. There has been a tendency in past regulatory efforts to assume that any record worth keeping is also worth reporting to the Agency on a periodic basis. This is not an appropriate assumption because information should only be reported to EPA when there is a clear use for that information. In addition, OSW has also recognized the importance of electronic recordkeeping as a fast growing business practice. CEEI supports policies that permit companies to use electronic recordkeeping systems to satisfy regulatory requirements.

As an overall matter, then, CEEI urges OSW to proceed with the reforms outlined in the proposal. In particular, CEEI favors the elimination of the reporting requirements for which OSW no longer sees a compelling purpose.

CEEI encourages OSW to continue with its efforts to pursue burden reduction opportunities. For future activities, we recommend that EPA consider the following suggestions. OSW should expand its effort to identify and rely upon information collection efforts conducted by other government programs. CEEI believes that some of the best opportunities for burden reduction will come form the elimination of overlapping reporting requirements among different environmental programs.  53 Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments.

Document #: 0012 The Agency document " RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting Requirements" cited in the NODA includes over 325 possible requirements for large quantity generators and/ or TSDFs. Of these requirements over 80 Notifications may be required, over 75 reports, over 40 certifications, over 60 variances/ exemptions/ demonstrations/ extensions, over 45 permits, and over 20 plans are listed. The document has a 19 page table listing requirements. Many of these requirements are repeating certification and notifications. A reduction of the massive amount of reporting is clearly supportable. Not only does the facility use vast resources and time to comply with all these requirements, EPA has to maintain these reports and certifications. CRWI urges EPA to examine what effect on human health and the environment these requirements actually impact and adjust their requirements as appropriate.

CRWI also supports the concept of only requiring that justifiable electronic records be maintained at the facility. While records may be kept at other locations to guarantee safe retention of data, the public and the regulators would be able to inspect the records at the facility to ensuring that facility is meeting their permit requirements.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Electronic reporting however is not a part of the burden reduction rulemaking.

Document #: 0015 The Department of Solid Waste Management of the City of Houston does not have any specific activities that fall under the guidelines or requirements of RCRA, and therefore we do not generate records or have a reporting burden associated with RCRA. We do manage the city's Household Hazardous Waste Program, but at this time household wastes are exempt from RCRA regulations.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comment.

Document #: 0021 The twin objectives of reducing 40% of the RCRA recordkeeping and reporting burden, yet protecting human and environmental health, may not be mutually compatible. The 40% burden reduction objective was not developed with RCRA program requirements in mind, and therefore its relationship to achieving relevant program objectives is highly questionable. Through the elimination of significant RCRA requirements, EPA loses the ability as public advocates to monitor regulated parties, increases the potential for preventative measures such as inspections and accurate accounting of wastes to be overlooked, and increases the enforcement burdens placed principally on state agencies who have to oversee these facilities.  54 We note EPA identified 11 " untouchable" requirements deemed critical to the program, but did not include among this list groundwater monitoring, incident reports, and other crucial elements of an effective RCRA program ( see attachment for more complete list).

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments.

Document #: 0025 The Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) is to be commended for its thorough analysis and evaluation of current recordkeeping and reporting burdens associated with implementing the RCRA. CMA strongly encourages other offices in EPA to respond to OSW's lead and perform similar analyses of their own paperwork burden. The Coalition for Effective Environmental Information ( CEEI), of which CMA is a member, has submitted comments on broader issues of burden reduction. As those comments explain, EPA has not made significant progress implementing the burden reduction requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. OSW's effort shows that meaningful assessment of burdens and possible reductions is feasible and should be emulated Agency wide. We support CEEI's comments and incorporate them by reference.

CMA is interested in burden reduction opportunities that the Agency believes are achievable within the scope of the statutory requirements, and is willing to work closely with the Agency to ensure that any proposed changes do indeed reduce the overall reporting burdens.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments.

Document #: 0026 Over the past 20 years, RCRA regulations have been instituted that were clearly needed to provide a framework for controlling hazardous wastes in this country. But at the same time, tremendous paperwork burdens have been placed primarily on the business community, many of which seem to have little value in actually reducing risks to human health and the environment. We are pleased that the Agency, with the prompting of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), is now conducting a systematic review of these burdens and intends to reduce them substantially. We urge you look at this burden reduction project with open eyes, and not necessarily limit the scope of your efforts to the 40% mandated by the PRA. If the overall value of the collected information does not clearly exceed the cost of its collection, you should not be collecting it. The Agency should realize that the regulated community's resources are not unlimited, and that any activities performed to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements are potentially diverting resources from other valuable environmental activities like waste minimization or pollution prevention.

As noted above, Kodak believes that there are many opportunities to reduce the burden presented by RCRA without endangering human health and the environment. Many things have changed since the early days of RCRA regulations, and it is time to begin moving from a set of " command and control" regulations to a more " performance based" system. The changes outlined can start to do so.  55 Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. EPA notes that we will continue to look for burden reduction opportunities.

Document #: 0027 The Illinois EPA ( IEPA) applauds EPA's efforts to reduce excessive reporting and record keeping requirements in RCRA. While we concur with several of the proposals which call for increased electronic reporting and record keeping, we also found many of the proposals to make key RCRA reporting or notification requirements " self implementing" to be ill advised. Since the only burden reduction to the regulated community is postage and handling, savings if any would be minimal. As an authorized State, we feel it is necessary for facilities to notify us if there is a significant technical change at the site. We fail to see how EPA found these types of proposals to be protective of human health and the environment.

Most importantly, IEPA was very surprised and disturbed to find the Burden Reduction Project contained proposals to modify technical aspects of the RCRA permit program which had nothing to do with record keeping or reporting. The EPA Fact Sheet and other general descriptions of the project gave absolutely no indication that the project contained proposals to allow generators to store waste on site for more than 90 days without a permit, replace technical descriptions of regulated units with certifications, or allow in house engineers instead of independent P. E. s to certify key documents. It is not appropriate to include changes such as these, or others, in a proposal which is intended to address solely reporting and record keeping.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. In the Burden Reduction final rule we are not pursuing many of the changes the commenter felt were " ill advised". Specific comment responses to the items identified in the comment can be found in this comment response document.

Document #: 0034 The Department supports the Agency's goal to reduce recordkeeping and reporting burden of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) administrative requirements. However, we are concerned that in reducing regulatory burden, EPA may do away with information that the Department considers vital when determining compliance monitoring priorities. Specifically, the Department is concerned that a reduction in key generator or facility notification requirements may not allow us to adequately monitor activities such as hazardous waste treatment or may eliminate notification requirements for persons managing hazardous waste under exemptions in RCRA. The Department believes that any reduction in our ability to identify and track hazardous waste generation, management, and disposal or treatment is less protective or Oregon's environment and it's citizens. Limited resources require the Department to increasingly rely on information submitted by hazardous waste facilities and generators. Elimination of some of this key information would reduce the effectiveness of our RCRA program. We urge EPA to carefully review present data collection needs and reduce only those requirements that serve little purpose.  56 Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0037 The existing record keeping requirements were put in place to ensure safe hazardous waste generation and management and to satisfy statutory mandates. Those requirements do not appear particularly onerous. However, some reporting requirements can probably be eliminated or revised. Each specific requirement was instituted to provide information to the regulating agency. Agencies use the information to ensure that the public is not threatened by a facility's hazardous waste activities. Elimination or modification of specific reporting requirements should be done on a case by case basis with input from all stakeholders.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0041 We applaud the Agency's efforts in reducing the administrative burden of the RCRA program. We believe that substantial savings in time and money, both for hazardous waste generators and the waste management industry can be realized by taking advantage of state of the art electronic recordkeeping systems and the elimination of duplicative, and, often unnecessary, paperwork.

Safety Kleen has actively participated in the Agency's efforts to implement electronic reporting of hazardous waste shipments via EDI and have recently participated in EPA's pilot test of the manifest EDI system. We look forward to continuing to work with the Agency on this and other burden reduction projects.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0043 United Technologies Corporation ( UTC) is pleased to submit the following comments on the EPA's Paperwork Reduction Act proposal associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. UTC supports the Office of Solid Waste's plans to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on states, the public and regulated community associated with RCRA wand welcomes the opportunity to contribute the attached comments to meet this objective.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0106 First, we are supportive of the comments made by both the Coalition for Effective Environmental Information ( CEEI) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA) in response to your request for comment, and incorporate their comments by reference.  57 Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0117 Inmetco strongly supports EPA's sensible proposal to reduce those burdens consistent with assuring continued protection of human health and the environment. IF the present proposal really does eliminate 929,000 hours of paperwork requirements that do not " reflect demonstrated need," as EPA estimated will be the case, it will represent a significant achievement.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0129 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject federal register regarding the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Burden Reduction Initiative Proposed Rule. Michigan supports the Proposed Rule as drafted.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0134 DOE agrees with EPA that the reports the Agency proposes to eliminate are rarely used by regulatory agencies and that most of the modifications proposed by EPA will help to streamline the administrative process, without reducing the level of protection for human health and the environment already established by EPA's RCRA regulatory program.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0138 In general, Dow supports the initiative to reduce the recordkeeping burden and appreciates EPA's ideas. Dow understands that records are needed to demonstrate to inspectors that activities were indeed completed. However much of the existing burden involves continuing to prove that archives of records can be effectively maintained for a very long time. Dow is very glad that EPA recognizes that this is an unproductive burden on the regulated community and that eliminating such long term recordkeeping does not diminish from protection of the environment or inhibit the ability of inspectors to ensure that required activities are completed.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments.

Document #: 0144 The Subcommittee has reviewed the proposed rule and has several comments which we would like the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA to consider before finalizing this rule. In general,  58 we would like to commend EPA for taking on this burden reduction initiative and for some of the positive changes proposed in the rule. In particular, we are pleased to see the proposal which provides flexibility by allowing a smaller subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list for ground water detection monitoring.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0155 The Illinois EPA strongly supports the proposal to add this rule to the list of minor or routine rulemakings. This action would further EPA's encouragement that states amend their programs and seek authorization for today's proposal once it becomes final.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0156 On behalf of its member colleges and universities, the American Council on Education submits the following comments on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Burden Reduction Initiative, Proposed Rule for reducing the recordkeeping and reporting burden that RCRA imposed on the regulated community. ACE is the nation's coordinating higher education association. Its approximately 1,800 members include accredited, degree granting colleges and universities from all sectors of higher education and other education and education related organizations. ACE maintains both a domestic and an international agenda and seeks to advance the interests and goals of higher and adult education in a changing environment by providing leadership and advocacy on important issues, representing the views of the higher and adult education community to policy makers, and offering services to its members.

ACE supports EPA's RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative and believes that in addition to the recordkeeping and reporting proposed rule, there are a number of other opportunities to reduce the regulatory burden of RCRA without compromising protection of human health and the environment. We hope that the scope of this proposal is intended to be just one step in a continuum of activities by the EPA that will reduce unnecessary burdens on the regulatory community while ensuring protection of the environment and human health.

In conclusion, ACE supports EPA's RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative as set forth in the Proposed Rule as a first step in the continuing process of building a regulatory program that is protective of human health and the environment, without creating unnecessary burdens that undermine the efficacy of the program and create expensive inefficiencies.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0158 Again, SOCMA applauds EPA for addressing these long standing recordkeeping and recording burdens and strongly urges EPA to finalize these changes. This is the third time stakeholders have  59 commented on these changes  finalizing them would truly show commitment from EPA to solve these unproductive and burdensome paperwork obligations.

SOCMA is pleased the EPA is taking steps to improve RCRA reporting and recordkeeping programs by modifying certain requirements found to be redundant or unnecessary. States and EPA, as well as the regulated community, will all benefit from the opportunity to focus their time and resources on implementation of a more focused regulatory program.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0169 While we agree with many of the ideas for reducing the record keeping and reporting requirements, some of the proposals go too far and would result in unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The RCRA program has been largely successful and is well established. We believe that it would be unwise to reduce the administrative burden if it means sacrificing important safeguards, which have proven effective in ensuring the sage handling of hazardous waste. We would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA to help work on this to replace the existing permit modification scheme.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0174 In general, Dow supports the initiative to reduce the recordkeeping burden and appreciates EPA's ideas. Dow understands that records are needed to demonstrate to inspectors that activities were indeed completed. However, much of the existing burden involves continuing to prove that archives of records can be effectively maintained for a very long time. Dow is very glad that EPA recognizes that this is an unproductive burden on the regulated community and that eliminating such long term recordkeeping does not diminish from protection of the environment or inhibit the ability of inspectors to ensure that required activities are completed.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0197 In general, the Department supports the agency's efforts to reduce the unnecessary burdens placed on the regulated community by the RCRA program. However, the agency is proposing to eliminate a number of important notifications, particularly for releases exceeding certain groundwater monitoring parameters ( e. g., groundwater protection standards), releases from landbased units exceeding the action leakage rate, and similar releases. While it is true that this information must be maintained in the operating record and would be available to an inspector to review, it is important that notifications of this type continue to occur. As state hazardous waste programs continue to struggle with budget constraints and declining federal grants, frequency of RCRA inspections are declining. So there are fewer opportunities to review these instances.  60 Also, it is important that the regulatory agencies be kept informed of site activities such as these in order to be responsive to public concerns. Finally, frequent instances such as those described above can be symptoms of design problems or other technical inadequacies that must be detected early so that immediate steps can be taken in order to protect human health and the environment. State and federal agencies should be involved in the process form the beginning. We agree that there are a number of aspects to the notifications, particularly for groundwater monitoring, that are duplicative and should be streamlined.

Response: In response to the concern expressed by commenters, EPA is today retaining in the CFR the following regulatory requirements, among others, that pertain to permitted facilities: § 264.90 ( Applicability), § 264.92( a)( 2), § 264.98 ( Detection monitoring program), notifications under § § 264.98( g)( 1), ( g)( 5)( ii), and ( g)( 6)( i) and ( ii), § 264.99 ( Compliance monitoring program  releases from solid waste management units), notifications under § § 264.99( h)( 1) and 264.99( i)( 1) and ( 2). These changes, among others, were retained because the States convinced us of the necessity of these reports and or notifications. The Agency, however, is going forward with other proposed changes. The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the number of inspections is decreasing and the commenter offers no proof that this is actually the case. EPA believes that as long as an operating record is maintained, the information remains available for review and comment. There is nothing in today's rule that prevents appropriate environmental officials from being involved in the oversight of the design, construction, and maintenance of land based waste management units.

Document #: 0198 EPA heavily regulates the paint and coatings industry under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), among other regulations. As many of our members are small businesses  over 50% by Small Business Administration definition  with limited staff and resources, they are particularly disadvantaged by many of the administrative requirements under these regulations. In addition, whether small or large, companies are able to better focus resources and activities on substantive environmental improvements when regulatory administrative burdens are lessened. Therefore, NPCA supports EPA's efforts under this rulemaking to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burdens under RCRA. NPCA believes that the requirements that EPA has targeted in this rulemaking are indeed redundant and in some cases wholly unnecessary, and therefore should be eliminated. However, NPCA also believes that there are other such administrative burdens that can and should be reduced. Therefore, NPCA also urges EPA to continue in the examination and evaluation their efforts to reduce these burdens and to pursue further reductions as suggested in our comments. EPA, States and Industry can only benefit from these efforts while not failing to and in most cases increasing the protection of human health and the environment.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0202 The DoD applauds the US Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) efforts to reduce RCRA reporting burdens and encourages EPA to move forward with this proposal. We have some  61 concerns as detailed in the attached comments. In particular, we are concerned over proposed reductions in treatment, storage and disposal facility ( TSDF) operating record retention periods. We believe that TSDFs should continue to maintain operating records for the operating for life of the TSDF so that the interests of the HW generator are protected ( see issues 5, 6, and 7). Further, we are concerned that the proposal inadvertently expands OSHA training requirements beyond that required for emergency response.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0203 Onyx does not believe that 40CFR 268.7( a)( 1) is a duplicative regulation. Rather, Onyx believes that this regulation places the burden of determining if a waste must be treated prior to land disposal on the appropriate entity, the generator.

Furthermore, Onyx encourages EPA to further reduce the recordkeeping burden on generators and TSDFs by revising the LDR paperwork requirements as referenced in 268.7( a)( 4)( 10). The information identified in the " Generator Paperwork Requirements Table" in 268.7( a)( 4) is best communicated between the generator and the TSDF at the time the generator initially submits the waste information profile to the TSDF for waste approval. This information must be available to the TSDF during the waste approval decision making process to assure compliance with the facility's waste analysis plan and the applicable LDR treatment standards. Currently the regulations require this LDR information to be submitted by the generator with the initial shipment of the waste. Onyx experience has been that this creates a situation where the generator is required to provide the necessary LDR information at least twice  prior to shipment during the waste approval process and again upon initial shipment. Instead, Onyx recommends that EPA revise the LDR regulations to require the LDR notifications be submitted prior to initial acceptance of the waste at a treatment facility. This would allow generators and TSDFs to manage the LDR paperwork just once  during the waste approval process.

Response: Commenters opposed to the deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden.

Furthermore, the Agency's goal of avoiding redundant waste analysis requirements is being met in the final rule, as it clarifies that the waste characterization and analysis requirements of 262.11 and 268.7( a)( 1) can be performed concurrently.

The Agency appreciates the additional information about the LDR generator notification being submitted at least twice to the TSDF. We may investigate this issue further in our efforts to reduce paperwork burden. However, it is outside the scope of this final rule to make such a  62 change.

Document #: 0207 Lion agrees with EPA's conclusions that the requirements proposed to be eliminated were either redundant, or simply not necessary. After presenting RCRA training to tens of thousands of people nationwide, for nearly 24 years, we do not know of any case where a member of the public requested copies of the records proposed for elimination from a regulated entity. If these records are not needed by the Agency for program management or enforcement, their elimination is warranted.

Lion agrees with EPA's assessments that existing regulations provide adequate substantive management requirements to assure protection of human health and the environment, without needing the records proposed for elimination.

The most conspicuous public information need is for data on the kinds of hazardous materials present, waste generated and chemicals released to the environment in each community. Under RCRA, much of this information is collected in biennial reports and is provided to the general public by EPA in online reports and databases.

The general public also needs reliable, understandable information on environmental issues and risks and the programs in place to address them. EPA's web site and outreach brochures also include consideration information in this area.

Finally, the public needs to know about major enforcement and permitting activity in their communities Again, EPA has a number of outreach and public participation programs to serve this need.

The general public does not need information on the details of compliance administration at a given facility. This information should not be mandated by regulation unless it is needed by the Agency for program management, oversight or enforcement.

Again, we believe that EPA's paperwork reduction efforts in this rulemaking represent a valuable and sensible effort to reduce unnecessary burden on the regulated community from outdated or unnecessary regulation. The Agency is to be commended fro this work. We encourage continued efforts in this regard.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0209 We wish to commend EPA for the degree of beneficial innovation and reform contained in this proposal. In general, it appears that these proposals will make it easier for the regulated community, public, and regulatory, agencies without compromising environmental protection.  63 We support efforts to improve environmental protection while reducing the regulatory burdens. We also believe it will make enforcing the regulations easier. By eliminating regulations with limited or no benefit, it makes the remaining ones easier for all parties to concentrate on. We fully support this innovation.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0212 EPA states that, " One of the measures we used [ to weigh the utility of information] was whether the information was put into a database by regulatory authorities." We strongly disagree with EPA's use of this criterion. The inability or unwillingness of regulatory authorities to create and maintain effective information systems is not a reason in itself, to restrict or eliminate the collection of information. EPA should create adequate data systems, rather than eliminating the collection of information.

Further, EPA calls for comments on whether specific information " is stored in an accessible database". Again, we strongly object to EPA's use of this criterion. Lack of meaningful, timely, and effective access to information is often reason that the information is under used by the public or by regulatory agencies.

The TNRCC commends the EPA for its efforts toward removing outdated portions of the regulations and attempting to eliminate or greatly reduce non essential paperwork for the regulated community, and appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposals. Most of our comments are not in opposition to proposed changes, but are made only to suggest changes in specific proposals to assist in complying with state statutes or the need for some reporting of releases to generate state mandated inventories of releases to groundwater. The following are comments which detail the TNRCC's observations on the proposed rule changes.

EPA's proposal defers any decision on suggested electronic reporting and recordkeeping changes, arguing that the agency's Cross Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule will address such issue ( CMERRR). However EPA's reliance on the CMERRR process is misplaced for two reasons. First, EPA's officials heading the CMERRR initiative told the commenters that EPA might never finalize the CMERRR initiative. Second, CMERRR is only an electronic reporting initiative. This is distinct from our suggestion that the agency undertake a proactive burden reduction initiative based around intelligent reporting software, and other reforms noted above.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0213 Staff from the Department of Ecology have reviewed the proposed rule and have several comments which we would like the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to consider before finalizing this rule. In general, we would like to commend EPA for taking on this burden reduction initiative and for some of the positive changes proposed in the rule. In particular, we  64 are pleased to see the proposal which provides flexibility by allowing a smaller subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list for ground water detection monitoring. Specific comments regarding proposals that we are concerned about and those that we support are enclosed.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments.

Document #: 0215 I am one of about 25 people who work full time at Bethlehem Steel on environmental performance, and I have particular responsibility in the area of RCRA compliance at Bethlehem's Burns Harbor Division in Northwest Indiana. I have more than 20 years of RCRA field experience and am a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager ( CHMM). I personally appreciate the agency's goal " to reduce the burden imposed by our reporting and recordkeeping requirements" by " 47% from 1995" levels and strongly support the agency's desire for " information requirements to reflect demonstrated needs". My company, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, strongly supports the agency's proposed rulemaking with the following qualifications, Bethlehem supports the agency's action in reducing the reporting and paperwork burdens, and it encourages further work by the agency in this area.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments and continues to explore new burden reduction opportunities.

Document #: 0216 The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection would like to offer comment on this proposed rulemaking. We appreciate the need to revisit the regulatory demands of the various reporting requirements after twenty years of RCRA's operating history. We agree with eliminating any duplicative reporting, whenever possible. However, we are concerned about the proposal for three principal reasons.

First, some of these proposed changes incorrectly assume facility inspections will compensate for timely submissions of important reports or plans or regulatory agencies. The assumption is incorrect due to the varying frequency of inspections and the huge amount of material that would be necessary to review during an inspection, a significant portion of which may be outside an inspector's area of expertise.

Second, EPA proposes to eliminate a variety of release or potential release notifications to the regulatory agencies because EPA suggests permit modifications or other applications submitted months later makes such notification redundant. However, in such cases, time is of the essence. Knowledge of releases or potential releases as soon as possible is critical for both determining an appropriate agency response and communicating to the public at large.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.  65 Document #: 0217 Eastman thanks the Agency for the resources committed to developing this proposed rule. It definitely has the potential to reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens at our facilities. We reiterate, however, that we think the Agency's aggregate estimate of reduced burden of 929,000 hours and $ 120 million is vastly overestimated in the areas of LDR and in keeping records on site rather than submitting them to the Agency. We encourage the Agency to look for further opportunities within the operating record requirements at § 264.73 and § 265.73, and we respectfully request clarifications of some of the changes made to these sections as described above.

Response: After further deliberation, the Agency agrees that estimate of reduced burden of 929,000 hours and $ 120 million was overestimated in the areas of LDR and in keeping records on site rather than submitting them to the Agency. Commenters pointed out, generally, that deleting 268.7( a)( 1) would only shift the waste analysis burden from the generators to the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). They assert that if the TSDFs were forced to test incoming waste because the generators did not characterize it, the analyses would be more expensive. This is because generators often use their knowledge of their waste to identify what constituents are in the waste and at what levels, and that information would not be available to the TSDFs, who would have to perform waste analysis. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that the proposed deletion of 268.7( a)( 1) would result in a shift or an increase burden, not an elimination of burden. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0218 In general, the DEQ supports the concept of reducing unnecessary or redundant reporting burdens on the hazardous waste management community. However, the reductions proposed should be fully and fairly evaluated to ensure that a modification or elimination of a given reporting requirement does not reduce the ability of the regulatory agencies to be adequately informed of unexpected developments at waste handling sites. Hopefully, reducing unnecessary reporting will help other ongoing efforts to ensure collection of that information which is truly needed by regulatory agencies and the public.

While it is noted that the proposed rules are " less stringent" than existing rules ( and thus are not required to be adopted by authorized states), Oklahoma and many other states adopt the federal rules in total, to reduce confusion and duplication of requirements for the regulated industries. As a practical consequence, then, the length and complexity of site inspections will be significantly increased.

Characterization and management of waste on the Hanford Site is extremely difficult primarily due to the lack of records kept during weapons production. While it is recognized that characterization and management is also difficult due to the technology and funding limitations,  66 the fundamental RCRA requirements to properly designate waste are continually at issue directly due to the lack of recordkeeping. The Federal Register appears to conclude that reporting and recordkeeping requirements for RCRA facilities are simply an undue and/ or unnecessary burden. This is an inaccurate and unfair conclusion that appears to be made without a supporting basis. At the Hanford Site, it could easily be argued that had better waste inventory records been kept, the nation would not currently be spending the millions of dollars per year to characterize the wastes for safe waste management at the Hanford Site. The proposed rule changes will not aid the Washington State Department of Ecology's ability to perform our jobs. It is requested that this concern be evaluated and considered in context of implementing the proposed rule changes.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0222 Overall, ACC supports EPA's proposal to reduce recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative burdens. We acknowledge that certain records are necessary to demonstrate that requirements have been met and that activities have been completed. ACC is encouraged by EPA's efforts to eliminate and reduce unnecessary reporting and recordkeeping requirements on our industry. We have reviewed the proposed rule and are responding to the Agency's request for comment on certain aspects of the rule.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0224 In general, CRWI supports the burden reduction initiative proposed by EPA. CRWI has a few suggestions that we think will improve the rule. These primarily include increasing the number of places where a 3 year record retention requirement is allowed. These are listed below. We also urge the Agency to allow these recordkeeping requirements to apply to all RCRA facilities, either as a part of the preamble discussion or as a part of policy initiatives.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0226 API actively supports EPA's efforts to implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( PRA) requiring the federal government to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, states and the public. API is generally supportive of this proposal yet concurs with the clarification and consistency comments provided to the docket by the American Chemistry Council ( ACC).

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.  67 Document #: 0237 Eli Lilly and Company appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative. Lilly operates three facilities which holds Part B permits under RCRA, including permitted RCRA incineration units, and also has several sites which are regulated as RCRA generators. Lilly strongly supports the agency's initiative to reduce the burden of RCRA regulations on regulated facilities, and believes that the burden reduction initiatives can be implemented without compromising environmental protection in any way. Lilly agrees with the agency's statements in the preamble to the proposed rule that there is now over 20 years of experience with operating RCRA facilities in a safe and compliant manner, and that some of the " unnecessary bureaucratic controls" can be eliminated.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0241 The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste supports the USEPA's goal established by the Paperwork Reduction Act to reduce the burden imposed by the RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements, so long as the burden to be reduced is truly a reporting and recordkeeping ( paperwork) burden and does not significantly reduce a facility's accountability and responsibility to carry out the basic activities specified in the regulations that we feel are important to remain protective of human health and the environment. We are concerned that some of the regulatory changes proposed in this rulemaking will result in a reduction of this accountability and responsibility.

Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his/ her comments. Specific comment responses to the issues raised by the commenter can be found, by subject area, in this document.

Document #: 0280 Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the RCRA recordkeeping and reporting requirements proposed for elimination or modification by US EPA are directly applicable to generators. Specifically, less than 20 or 120 regulations that will be addressed by US EPA as part of the rulemaking deal directly with generators.

We believe that the most common RCRA burden imposed on the regulated community, authorized States, and US EPA Regional Offices deals with hazardous waste generator requirements. We acknowledge the statements made by US EPA related to " Other Burden Reduction Proposals" that address hazardous waste generator requirements.

AFS believes that the spirit and intent of the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative is clearly a benefit to our industry. AFS commends the US EPA for evaluating the RCRA program to reduce the paperwork burden posed on American businesses. We also recognize the agency's significant efforts and accomplishments to date in reducing the significant paperwork burden posed on our  68 member foundries that operate under RCRA requirements. However, AFS believes that the vast majority of our membership will not benefit substantially from the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative proposal.

This is due to the fact that few of the proposals to reduce the RCRA burdens in the aforementioned rule are targeted at hazardous waste generators. The vast majority of US foundries are not hazardous waste generators. There are some foundries that are. Of these very few operate as TSDFs. This fact is evident in the US EPA's Metal Casting Sector Notebook that identified only a fraction of the industry establishments that are regulated as TSDFs under RCRA.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0286 We support efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on the states, member of the regulated community and private citizens. However, after a review of the proposed changes and your explanation of how you estimated burden, we are concerned that you did not take into account how this proposal transfers the regulatory burden form the regulated community to the states and the public. This transfer may occur in cases where you eliminated the requirement to submit information to the regulatory agency but retained the requirement to obtain and keep that information on file. In general, it appears as though you did not consider the time and resources a state regulatory agency will need to conduct inspections or the increased burden on the public to obtain such information.

Response: Upon further deliberation on many of the changes that were identified in the proposed rule did in fact result in an increased burden to the States. In this final rule we have decided not to go forward with many of the proposed changes. The commenter is referred to specific sections, by subject area, in this document for a complete discussion of our rationale.

Document #: 0310 I have personal information of one such facility in Wisconsin, for example, and nothing has been done about the fact that four of its collection lines are clogged. The owner is unable to clean them out by routine maintenance, has refused to proceed to either determine the extent of the adverse impacts on the hydraulic head, and, needless to say, has not expended the millions of dollars that would be necessary to repair the lines.

Yet, nothing has been done to resolve this matter, and I strongly suspect that EPA is completely unaware that the problem even exists due to the woefully inadequate recordkeeping requirements.

We formally request the EPA to state where is has established a process to systematically determine where recordkeeping and reporting deficiencies exist, as a counterpart to where they are too burdensome. Beyond the compelling case for a balanced approach on the face of the matter, RCRA's peremptory legislative mandates to the agency to insure that no harm to health or the environment follows from land disposal of solid waste would seem to permit no other course.  69 Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0323 COPC supports EPA's efforts to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, states and the public. COPC agrees that requiring regulated facilities to collect and submit information that is seldom or never used is wasteful and diverts resources from valueadded activities such as pollution prevention or waste minimization programs to burdensome and unnecessary data collection and paperwork efforts.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Document #: 0332 Same comments as Document #: 0158.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates this comment.

Inspections, General  70 Document #: 0004 Time Period for Self Inspections Inspection is a necessary part of regulatory compliance. We agree, however, that " one size fitsall inspection standards may be overly restrictive and not recognize technology that some companies may invest in or other performance measures that may reduce the need for physical inspection. Nevertheless, without information about what standards EPA may employ to allow reduced inspection schedules on a case by case basis, we are not in a position to evaluate the burden reducing aspects of this initiative. Additionally, we note that states can be more stringent than EPA and allow no relief from current inspection frequency requirements.

Document #: 0007 SOCMA Supports Modifying the Time Periods Between Self Inspections SOCMA supports the Agency's consideration of options for increasing the time periods between required self inspections under the hazardous waste regulations. There is a range of circumstances under which such time periods could be lengthen without any significant decrease in environmental protection. For example, in many instances, hazardous waste accumulation and storage areas are located in areas that are frequented by operating personnel on an 8 hour basis, if not on a 24 hour basis. Thus, these areas are routinely under visual review and oversight and do not require as frequent formal inspections.

SOCMA urges EPA to focus in particular on options for reducing the daily inspection requirements established for tanks under 40 CFR 265.195. The requirement to inspect the items listed in 265.195( a) and ( b) on a daily basis and to enter the inspection in an operating log is labor is labor intensive and, in most instances, not needed to assure adequate integrity of the tank and operating devices.

SOCMA suggests that EPA develop a self implementing option that would enable a facility to engage in less frequent inspections based upon the performance of the equipment and areas being inspected. For example, if a facility had conducted daily inspections of a tank for an initial period without any releases or noncompliance being identified, the facility would have the option of placing a certification to that effect in the facility inspection log and shifting to either a weekly or monthly inspection frequency for that tank. Under this approach, the facility could continue on the less frequent inspection schedule so long as there were no release or incident of noncompliance related to that tank.

A similar self implementing program could be established for inspection of container storage areas. Presently, the regulations require a weekly inspection and logging of results for container storage areas. If no problems have been identified at a container storage area after an initial period, the facility should have the option of entering an appropriate certification in the inspection log and shifting to a less frequent inspection schedule.  71 SOCMA believes that this type of shift in inspection schedule requirements needs to be selfimplementing in order to be effective. SOCMA is concerned that any type of more formal waiver requirement or case by case assessment would be so cumbersome as to preclude either regulators or industry from actually being able to take advantage of the option. The time required to submit additional documentation and obtain approval to shift inspection schedules would effectively undermine the very burden reduction goal that EPA is seeking to achieve.

SOCMA believes that the self implementing shift in inspection schedules is a logical and feasible step that could significantly reduce the administrative burden of compliance without reducing substantive compliance. One appealing aspect of this approach is its self reinforcing nature. This option would provide an immediate and positive result ( decreased inspection requirements) to the individual facility personnel most immediately responsible for routine oversight, inspection and maintenance of the hazardous waste tanks and containers. By effectively maintaining the safety and integrity of tanks and container storage areas for an initial period, these facility personnel would be eligible to shift to a less frequent formal inspection schedule, thus reducing the time required for more frequent inspection log entries.

Finally, the ability of a facility to certify and then implement a reduced inspection schedule on its own would be particularly important to those facilities that store hazardous waste in tanks under the 90 day provision set out in 40 CFR 262.34. Many SOCMA members specifically manage hazardous wastes in tanks and containers under the terms of the 90 day storage option in order to avoid the need to obtain a hazardous waste permit. Thus, the option suggested by EPA in the Federal Register preamble of allowing inspections schedules to be adjusted in the context of permit proceeding would be of no benefit to these SOCMA members.

Document #: 0008 EPA should pursue its burden reduction proposal to decrease the frequency of mandatory selfinspections for generators and TSDFs. EPA should focus on results rather than process and eliminate prescriptive inspection requirements that do not necessarily improve performance, but create paperwork compliance pitfalls. Environmental managers should be provided the discretion to inspect units upon any reasonable and protective schedule that they determine best reflects the risks associated with their waste management practices.

EPA should provide this flexibility in the regulations by establishing the option for facilities to seek approval of an alternate inspection schedule. However, the pursuit of such an alternate approval must not become a regulatory burden in itself. Therefore, an alternate inspection schedule should be deemed approved if EPA does not specifically deny the request in writing within 30 days. Once approved, the alternate inspection schedule should remain available indefinitely, unless there is a violation that EPA determines is directly related to the alternate schedule.

Document #: 0009 Inspection Requirements. The Agency has made an important point in recognizing that not all  72 RCRA facilities pose the same risk to the environment. Variabilities in risk posed by a facility include the nature and quantity of waste stored on site, storage location, and overall level of facility management. While different inspection frequencies could be assigned based on these factors, this might result in an overly complex system. The proposed system where facilities without a history of problems are required to inspect less frequently than those facilities with a history of problems would reduce the burden of compliance without resulting in likely impacts to human health or the environment.

Document #: 0011 Should we lengthen the periods between facility self inspections? Although it would not be objectionable to change the frequency of required inspections, we oppose changing or eliminating inspection documentation. An appropriate frequency may not be daily or weekly, but each facility should be required to have the same inspection schedules. Allowing variances or waivers on a case by case basis would be confusing and difficult to regulate.

EPA should further investigate which inspection time frames should be adjusted. This should be done through an analysis of the compliance history of those areas in RCRIS.

Document #: 0012 Should we lengthen the periods between facility self inspections? CRWI believes that there are certain inspection schedules that should continue on a periodic basis but there are others that can flexible based on the results of the inspections. When RCRA was enacted, an inspection schedule was developed based upon limited information. Many facilities have been in existence for over 20 years and that experience in protecting human health and the environment should be used to develop more flexible inspection schedules. CRWI supports the concept that where a series of inspections fail to show any concerns, the inspection period should be lengthened. Should problems occur, the schedule can be written in a manner that appropriate adjustments to the frequency of inspections can be made.

In addition, technological advances in monitoring equipment have made some daily inspections unnecessary. For example, inspecting RCRA waste tanks daily for spills or leaks can be eliminated by installing continuous LEL monitors which would indicate any spill or leak of a volatile material. At this time, the incentive to install monitors is minimal because of the daily inspection requirement. If a simple procedure, such as noting the justification in operating record, were available, many facilities would consider using continuous monitors instead of daily inspections.

Document #: 0013 Inspections are required for large quantity generators ( LQGs) and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). The MDEQ agrees that establishing a variable inspection schedule, based on the control in place on a case by case basis, is appropriate for a TSDF as specified in the facility's permit. But for interim status TSDFs and LGQs, the frequency should not be altered because there is no permit specifying that the " controls in place" must stay in operation to  73 maintain the variable schedule. A leak from a small tank can cause as much impact to human health and the environment as a leak from a large tank. Conducting inspections is a relatively small burden compared to the high level of preventive benefit obtained. Allowing a facility that conducts an inspections also defeats the purpose of a preventative program. It assumes that all leaks are based on man made errors that can be more readily controlled instead of an equal proportion being mechanical and/ or acts of God, which cannot be controlled. This type of leak would ve missed for a longer period of time with a reduced inspection frequency.

Document #: 0016 Glaxo Wellcome supports a change in self inspection frequencies. Many owner/ operators, including Glaxo Wellcome have implemented waste storage improvements such as stainless steel totes for container storage areas, which lessen the chance of corrosion, and which provide external sight glasses to check liquid levels. The tank systems in use are housed inside, and are fully contained including piping. The entire tank storage system is alarmed. The integrity and safety of these systems would not be compromised by reducing the daily or weekly inspections to weekly or biweekly. In some instances, instrumentation in place can be modified to run a quantity control check on a daily basis.

Document #: 0020 Inspections are an effective means to ensure that containment structures and associated equipment are in good shape and will prevent discharges to the environment. Routine inspections and proper maintenance ensure a safer and more efficient work environment. These practices translate to greater environmental protection. At facilities where routine inspections are not conducted, environmental degradation is more likely to occur. The Department believes that inspections are a critical part of the prevention portion of the RCRA program. Absent compelling evidence the inspections are unnecessary or duplicative, the current rules should be maintained. Moreover, the Department would not favor a phased schedule if no problems were detected that would gradually be lengthened from daily to weekly to biweekly. As tanks and containers and their associated containment structures age, their integrity declines, making a discharge more likely, not less In short, the lack of a problem in year 5 is not indicative of potential equipment failure in year 10.

EPA proposes Change 2 to eliminate reporting hazardous wastes managed in units that are exempt from permitting. The Department strongly disagrees with this proposal. Wastes managed in units exempt from RCRA permitting should be reported in BRS, particularly where the exemptions are not the result of a risk analysis, but are instead the result of " temporary" or deferred regulatory decisions unrelated to the potential risks posed by the units or activities ( i. e., " temporary" wastewater treatment unit exclusion promulgated in 1980, exemption for recycling unit deferred in 1985, exemption for K061 derived fertilizers). Moreover, the reporting on some of these exemptions should not be an optional item, but an integral part of EPA's data collection efforts. The exempt units and activities are the very items which EPA and the States need more information on. How can these activities ever be determined to be handled properly or improperly if inadequate information is available on them? Elimination leaves the mistaken impression that these activities are always benign. To the extent burden reductions are sought in the BRS  74 reporting scheme, the Department recommends utilizing the turn around document concept mentioned above.

Document #: 0021 Onyx does not support lengthening inspection schedules through specific permit changes or variances. These requirements have been in place for nearly 20 years and in Onyx's experience they have not been unduely burdensome.

Document #: 0025 Reduce Reporting Requirements  We support a move to allowing data to be stored at the reporting facility   electronically or in hard copy   and made available for inspection rather than being reported to state and federal agencies. All data is not equally important for protecting human health and the environment. OSW's current notice provides a reasonable rationale for the notices that facilities would continue to report. It is important to stress that because a report is not submitted to a regulatory agency does not mean the information is not collected or available. From our reading of the notice, there is no proposal to change what is required to document compliance with requirements, merely where that information is housed.

Lengthen the Periods Between Facility Self Inspection   As facility operations become more automated, a variety of control and detection systems are installed that may be able to detect changes of concern in operating conditions more quickly than a human inspection, regardless of its frequency. It makes sense for such facilities to be able to rely on such systems as a general rule, and require less frequent human inspections as primarily a check on the monitoring system.

It also makes sense to reward good performers by moving to less frequent inspection frequencies if no problem arise. This concept has worked well in the Clean Air Act leak detection requirements, and there is every reason to believe it would work as well in RCRA.

EPA should lengthen the period between inspections for hazardous waste storage tanks from daily to monthly. Inspecting hazardous waste storage tanks daily is an overly conservation, manpowerintensive approach. Chemical and hazardous waste storage facilities are designed to minimize potential leaks and unsafe conditions and to minimize the need for daily or weekly inspections. Hazardous waste storage tank designs, with secondary containment, are even more conservatively designed than process equipment. Modifying the inspection frequency to monthly will save about 100 man hours per year per tank ( based on 20 minutes to inspect and record results) with no unfavorable environmental impact.

Document #: 0026 Self inspections of RCRA units are useful in ensuring the integrity of the facility, but there should be greater flexibility in the currently mandated frequencies in order to reduce the burden they present. This flexibility may come in the form of exemptions for inspecting empty or idle equipment, variances for alternative inspections schedules, or extended schedules for consistently well managed facilities. The Agency should also recognize that many modern facilities have  75 extensive automatic monitoring equipment built into their facility that can obviate the need for traditional " walk around" inspections.

Document #: 0027 Section II. C. Under the heading: Possible Changes to the Frequency of Inspection Requirements, a proposal is set forth for establishing the frequencies on a case by case basis or through a special variance in the regulations. IEPA opposes this proposal due to the added administrative burden on the Agency. The Agency does not have the desire nor the resources to make such decisions for every RCRA facility. In Illinois, a facility may request a variance to the RCRA regulations through the Illinois Pollution Control Board. With every year that passes with stagnant federal RCRA funding, IEPA loses approximately four FTE in the RCRA program. We are looking to streamline our administrative resource burden, not add to it. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this proposal is unnecessary and undesirable to IEPA.

Document #: 0029 p. 32863, col. 2  EPA believes it might be acceptable to reduce the frequency of inspections at some facilities. DOE agrees with EPA that inspections are vital component of an effective regulatory system. Inspections can be instrumental as a tool in preventing releases of hazardous wastes and constituents into the environment. Inspections can also help assure continuing compliance with basic unit requirements. DOE also agrees that in many instances the length of time between self inspections could be extended without increasing risk to human health and the environment. However, DOE believes that such instances depend on the type of unit, the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste being managed in the unit, the environmental setting, and the likely consequences of not discovering leaks or other problems within a certain period. Therefore, DOE would support regulatory changes that allow the frequency of inspections to be established on a case specific basis as part of the RCRA permitting process, or under a special variance. DOE also believes it may be possible to change the regulations to specify reduced minimum inspection frequencies for well defined combinations of particular wastes and unit types; or for a designated unit type, if past experience has shown the designated type to not be prone to releases or other failures that could endanger human health or the environment. The permit for a particular unit could specify more frequent inspections on a casespecific basis. In any event, DOE notes that implementing such regulatory changes may not significantly reduce the net RCRA recordkeeping and reporting burden.

Several options for lengthening the period between facility self inspections are presented in the Notice of Data Availability ( NODA). These options include establishing a variable schedule based on unit size, or a phased schedule based on successful operation, as evidenced from previous investigations. DOE would not support variable inspection schedules based on unit size alone because, as was explained above, there are many factors other than unit size that influences the risk to human health and the environment created by a hazardous waste management unit. Notwithstanding, DOE believes that phased inspection schedules that become less frequent over time, contingent upon evidence of past successful operation could be acceptable, if waste type and environmental setting are considered.  76 Document #: 0031 OSW's proposal to lengthen the time between periodic self inspections would directly reduce the burden upon industry under the existing RCRA regulations. This allows each facility to tailor the length of the time period between inspections on a case by case basis. Additionally, such a proposal recognizes that ongoing operating and maintenance serves adequately to provide for necessary inspections in many cases. In the alternative, it may make sense to set up a system in which particular inspections would not occur more frequently than x number of times within a given time period. This may be determined under individual permits. Under either system, recordkeeping and reporting burdens are relieved significantly while ensuring compliance with federal regulations.

Document #: 0037 Lengthening Periods Between Inspections. EPA has requested comment on the issue of whether a lengthening of the required self inspection frequency for a facility would reduce the regulatory burden? On the surface it appears that the answer to EPA's question is obvious, in that a lengthening of the required self inspection frequency would directly result in a reduction in the regulatory burden. However, what is not evident in this proposal, is the scenario that with an extension of the frequency of self inspections, releases of hazardous waste from containers or tanks would go undetected for longer periods resulting in an increase in the potential for release of hazardous constituents into the environment. For facilities that have significant potential for releases of hazardous waste to the environment ( principally due to the type of waste), this proposal could result in increased contamination from releases depending upon the lengthening of the inspection frequency.

Document  0038 Comment. The Department of Defense ( DoD) supports reduction in the frequency of performing tank self inspections to allow weekly inspection.

Discussion. The current requirement is to inspect hazardous waste storage tanks on a daily basis. However, we believe the design standards in 40 CFR 264.191 193 regarding secondary containment, leak detection, and corrosion protection in conjunction with integrity testing and registered professional engineer's assessment/ certification requirements provide an adequate margin of safety to allow less frequent inspections.

We do not support adoption of a variable implementation schedule based on the size of the tank as suggested by the Federal Register notice ( 64 FR 32863, middle column). We consider variable inspection schedules as contrary to the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act since it will complicate data collection activities. Instead, we encourage harmonizing tank and container inspection requirements such that both are required on a weekly basis.

Also, we do not support the suggested phased schedule that considers changing from a daily to a weekly, to a biweekly inspection schedule, if no problem arises. We do not believe that the likelihood of a release decreases with time. Rather, we believe that releases are minimized to the  77 extent practicable by a system design and testing. Weekly inspections should ensure that releases, when they do occur, will not be undetected for extended periods of time.

Recommendation: The DoD recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) reduce the required frequency for performing tank self inspections to weekly in all cases.

References. 64 FR 62863.

Document #: 0043 " We ( EPA) would like comment on whether we ( EPA) should lengthen any of RCRA's inspection frequencies, and the extent to which such an action would reduce, and whether this would impact human health and the environment."

With respect to " We ( EPA) would like comment on whether we ( EPA) should lengthen any of RCRA's inspection frequencies,"

In general, UTC believes that the current frequency of inspections supports a level of compliance and operation that is protective of human health and the environment. However, some of the existing inspection language is ambiguous and has resulted in different interpretation among EPA regions, state environmental agencies and the regulated entities. By taking the lead to eliminate any confusion, EPA could reduce the burden or non essential inspections that add little protective value. UTC strongly encourages EPA to use this opportunity to more completely specify the inspection schedules as suggested below:

Inspection type: Regulatory language/ impact: Suggested language:

Less than 90 day Weekly / Interpreted as no more Once per calendar week accumulation areas than 7 days apart No more than 10 days apart ______________________________________________________________________________ Tanks Daily / Interpreted as any day the Daily when the tank has the tank contains any amount activity ( filling and of waste emptying) No more than a week between inspecting ______________________________________________________________________________ Emergency response Regulations do not specify a Monthly, and following any equipment schedule / Some interpret weekly; use of equipment some allow the facility to set the schedule and inspect to that schedule ______________________________________________________________________________

With the exception of the language regarding tank inspections, these clarifications would not  78 change the current inspection schedule and would avoid confusion in the regulatory language that leads to " over inspection". In order to provide quantitative data to support this belief, another UTC site completed the matrix in Appendix C.

While the data provided in Appendix C is limited to one site, an extrapolation of the data to the total number of sites in the United States leads to significant potential savings.

Document #: 0117 Reduction in the Frequency of Required Inspections  Under the proposal, the minimum required frequency for self inspections of tanks would be reduced from daily to weekly. Container storage areas and containment buildings could be inspected less frequently than weekly if a reduced inspection schedule is approved, on a case by case basis, by EPA or the State Hazardous Waste Director. Eliminating the requirement for daily inspections of tanks will reduce a burdensome requirement that contributes little, if anything, to ensuring the integrity of the tanks or protecting against potential leaks or other releases of hazardous waste. As EPA points out, other kinds of tanks  like oil tanks and underground storage tanks holding petroleum or hazardous substances  are not subject to daily inspections; nor are process tanks that handle the same chemicals for which the waste was designated as " hazardous." Moreover, in contrast to process tanks, hazardous waste tanks are subject to a secondary containment requirement under CFR 264.193, so that if a tank's integrity were compromised and a spill occurred, it would be contained. Furthermore, in Inmetco's case, all of the tanks are located within a containment building, providing an additional layer of protection against potential environmental releases even if a tank's integrity should fail for some reason.

Human nature being what it is, daily tank inspections not only are unnecessary; they actually may be counter productive  because, when personnel have to inspect the tanks day after day, there is a tendency to perform the inspections in a more perfunctory and routine manner than would be the case if the inspection were scheduled at weekly intervals. Thus, rather than increasing the likelihood of detecting an emerging flaw in tank integrity, the lesser degree of diligence that inevitably creeps into daily inspection over time ( despite the best of intentions) may cause the flaw to go unnoticed, whereas it might very well have been detected in a more carefully performed weekly inspection.

By the same token, allowing a reduced frequency of inspections for container storage areas and containment buildings on a case by case basis when approved by the competent regulatory authority is well justified  because there may be many situations in which the risk of a contamination incident stemming from the failure of a hazardous waste container is negligible. At Inmetco, for example, containers of hazardous waste are held in a permitted drum storage area having a secondary containment system, all of which rests on a concrete floor that is coated with an impervious layer and undergirded by a 30 mil PVC liner that is surrounded top and bottom by protective geotechnical fabric to guard against possible puncture. And the drum storage areas are located within a containment building. Moreover, the drums are stored on elevated pallets, so any leak would be readily apparent. Other facilities may have similar overlapping protections in place  79 and a track record that could justify an inspection schedule less frequent than weekly. While weekly inspections should be the presumed norm, case by case exceptions should be allowed when regulatory approval is obtained.

Document #: 0133 In general, the Alliance supports all of the agency's efforts to reduce unnecessary burden on the regulated community.

In Support of: Modify and reduce the inspection frequencies for tanks, containers, and containment buildings to monthly Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for his comment, however we are not proceeding with this proposed action, due to the burden it would place on the regulatory agency to evaluate and grant these case by case petitions.

Document #: 0157 ACE supports the modified tank and container inspection frequencies in the Proposed rule. We believe that weekly inspections are sufficient and longer intervals my well be justified on a caseby case basis, considering the type and quantity of waste being accumulated as well as the compliance history of the facility.

Response to Comments: The Agency appreciates the comments in support of reduced selfinspection frequency. The Agency believes that self inspection frequency can be reduced under a set of specific conditions. However the idea of reduced inspection frequency on a case by case basis would be a high burden on the regulatory agency in order to evaluate each and every petition. In that this rule is an attempt to reduce burden, the Agency recognizes that granting case by case reductions in self inspection frequency would place an undo burden on the States and regions. This notion has been supported by a majority of the State commenters. As such, we are no going forward with reduced inspection frequency for hazardous waste management units on a case by case basis. The final rule, however, does reduce the inspection frequencies for interim status, permitted, and LQG tanks, and adds language to § § 264/ 265.195 allowing weekly inspections when the secondary containment employs leak detection equipment that notifies facility personnel if a leak occurs. In the absence of an leak detection equipment, the facility must have workplace practices in place that shall ensure that any leaks will be promptly identified, so as to not violate the provisions of 264/ 5.193( c)( 3)). ( Today's rule does not reduce the inspection frequencies for containers or containment buildings.) The leak detection equipment/ system used must alert facility personnel to the presence of any leak or spill, within 24 hours or the earliest practicable time, in accordance with § 264/ 5.193( c)( 3). Automatic leak detection systems were described in the proposed rule ( 67 FR 2527). However, the existing regulations, which requiring that secondary containment systems be able to detect releases, do not specify the method of leak detection. Some facilities, according to a comments on this rulemaking, use daily visual inspections as a method of leak detection for their above ground tanks. Under the current regulations, without daily visual inspections,  80 automatic detection equipment is the only way to meet the leak detection requirement. Workplace practices must ensure leaks are promptly identified. Such practices would involve facility personnel who, in the course of their duties, remain alert to potential problems at the workplace so that problem areas are identified and addressed. Whether workplace practices or automatic leak detection systems are employed as a means of detecting leaks or spills, any leaks or spills must be detected within 24 hours, to comply with 264/ 5.193( c)( 3). As stated above, the reduced inspection requirements apply to tank systems. This would include ancillary equipment ( including piping), except for ancillary equipment that does not have secondary containment. It is anticipated that workplace practices would provide for the detection of releases from this equipment. The final rule also extends the inspection frequency for up to monthly for Performance Track facilities for tank systems. We believe that the performance track program is a sufficient screen for those who will be allowed to petition for reduced inspection frequencies because they must have demonstrated superior environmental performance, have a history of sustained compliance, and be committed to an environmental management system. Since only facilities in the Performance Track who wish to obtain reductions in their self inspection frequencies can apply through their state or region, this will not add a significant amount of extra burden on the states.

Document# Reduction of Container/ Tank Inspection Frequency and Elimination of Notification/ Certification Requirements for Tank System Releases and Major Repairs USWAG supports EPA's proposal to amend 40 CFR 265.174 & 265.195( a) to reduce the selfinspection frequency for tanks from once a day to weekly, or even less frequently, as determined by regulators on a case by case basis. Id. At 2524, 2526. We also support allowing hazardous waste containers, which now must be inspected weekly, to be eligible for a more flexible inspection schedule on a case by case basis. Id. USWAG agrees that other kinds of tanks ( e. g., USTs) are required to be inspected less frequently than daily, but still meet criteria for protecting human health and the environment, and that " the integrity and safety of hazardous waste tanks would not be compromised by reducing the daily inspection requirement to a weekly frequency." Id. At 2526 27.