Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative, 16862-16915 [06-2690]
Download as PDF
16862
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid
Waste (5302W), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (703) 308–8449, fax
number: (703) 308–8443, e-mail address:
eby.elaine@epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 266,
268, 270, and 271
[RCRA–2001–0039: FRL–8047–3]
RIN 2050–AE50
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Burden Reduction Initiative
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
SUMMARY: 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, EPA, and the
regulated community. EPA has
estimated that the total annual hour
savings under the final rule ranges from
22,000 hours to 37,500 hours per year.
The total annual cost savings under the
final rule ranges from approximately $2
million to $3 million. This rulemaking
will streamline our information
collection requirements, ensuring that
only the information that is actually
needed and used to implement the
RCRA program is collected and the
goals of protection of human health and
the environment are retained.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–1999–0031. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the RCRA docket is (202)
566–0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elaine Eby, Waste Minimization Branch,
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This rule applies to entities regulated
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, including manufacturing,
transportation, utilities, the waste
treatment industry, and the mineral
processing industry. This list is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your
facility, company, or business is
regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine 40 CFR parts 260
through 273. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background, Purpose, and Summary of
Today’s Action
III. What Burden Reduction Changes Are We
Making?
A. Changes to the Amount of Time Records
Must Be Kept
1. We Are Reducing the Retention Time for
Certain Information Kept in a Facility’s
Operating Record
2. We Are Increasing the Retention Time
for Certain Information Kept in an
Interim Status Facility’s Operating
Record
3. We Are Establishing a Five Year Record
Retention Time for Information Kept on
the Operation of Incinerators, Boilers,
and Industrial Furnaces
B. Changes to the Professional Engineer
Certification Requirements
1. We Are Removing the ‘‘Independent and
‘‘Registered’’ Requirements for Selected
Certifications
2. We Are Also Changing the Closure and
Post-Closure Certification Requirements
C. Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Have an Option of Following
the Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance
D. Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Have an Option to Follow the
RCRA or Equivalent Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)
Standard for Emergency Response
Training
E. We Are Clarifying Selected
Requirements Under RCRA’s Land
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Disposal Restrictions and Eliminating
Obsolete Regulatory Language
1. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory
Language on the Land Disposal
Restrictions Generator Waste
Determination
2. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory
Language on the Land Disposal
Restrictions Characteristic Waste
Determination
3. We Are Removing Obsolete Regulatory
Language
F. We Are Eliminating Selected
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements That We Believe Provide
Duplicative Information to EPA
1. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Facilities To Notify That They Are in
Compliance After a Release
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Facilities To Notify of Their Intent to
Burn F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and
F027 Wastes
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Facilities to Notify if They Employ or
Discontinue Use of the Alternative Valve
Standard
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Facilities To Notify If They Are Using
Alternative Valve Work Practices.
G. We Are Permitting Decreased Inspection
Frequency for Certain Hazardous Waste
Management Units
1. We Are Establishing Weekly Inspections
for Certain Hazardous Waste Tank
Systems at Permitted and Interim Status
Facilities, and at Large Quantity
Generator Sites
2. We Are Establishing Weekly Inspections
for SQG Hazardous Waste Tanks Systems
With Secondary Containment
3. We Are Allowing Members of the
National Environmental Performance
Track Program To Apply for an
Adjustment to the Frequency of Their
Inspections for Certain Hazardous Waste
Management Units and Areas.
a. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection
Frequency for Areas Subject to Spills.
b. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection
Frequency for Containers.
c. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection
Frequency for Tank Systems.
d. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection
Frequency for Containment Buildings
H. We Are Making Selected Changes to the
Requirements for Record Retention and
Submittal of Records
1. We Are Removing the Requirement To
Submit a One-time Notification for
Recycled Wood Wastewater and Spent
Wood-Preserving Solutions and
Clarifying an Unintentional Elimination
Made in the Proposal
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Interim Status Facilities To Submit
Specific Ground-Water Monitoring Plans
and Ground-Water Assessment Reports
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Interim Status Surface Impoundments,
Waste Piles, and Landfills To Submit a
Response Action Plan
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
Facilities To Submit a Tank System
Certification of Completion of Major
Repairs
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
5. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for
a Recycler To Submit a Notification and
Certification
6. We Are Eliminating the Requirement To
Submit an LDR Notification and
Certification
I. We Are Making Selected Changes To the
Requirements for Document Submittal
1. We Are Streamlining the Procedure for
Obtaining a Variance From Classification
as a Solid Waste
2. We Are Streamlining the Requirements
for Treatability Study Reports for Testing
Facilities
3. We Are Streamlining the Requirements
for Ground-Water Monitoring
J. We Are Making Selected Changes to the
Requirements for Semi-Annual Reports
to Annual Reports
1. We Are Changing the Requirement for a
Semi-Annual Report Detailing the
Effectiveness of the Corrective Action
Program
2. We Are Changing the Requirement for a
Semi-Annual Report Detailing the
Progress of the Corrective Action
Program
IV. What Regulatory Requirements Will
Remain in the CFR?
V. We Will Implement this Rule via the Class
I Permit Modification Process Without
Prior Approval
VI. How Will Today’s Regulatory Changes Be
Administered and Enforced in the
States?
A. Applicability of Federal Rules in
Authorized States
B. Authorization of States for Today’s Rule
VII. Statutory and Executive Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
VIII. Regulatory Language
I. Statutory Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulates the generation
and management of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR parts 260 through 273
using the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
1 The Notices of Data Availability were published
in the Federal Register on June 18, 1999 (64 FR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
(RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.
II. Background, Purpose, and Summary
of Today’s Action
As part of its hazardous waste
regulations, EPA has established
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that allow the Agency to
enforce and ensure compliance with
these regulations. In the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq, Congress directs all federal agencies
to become more responsible and
publicly accountable for reducing the
burden of federal paperwork on the
public. ‘‘Burden’’ is defined as the total
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency
(44 U.S.C. 3502(2))t
Over the past five years, EPA has
continued to assess and evaluate the
need for the many recordkeeping and
reporting requirements found in the
RCRA hazardous waste program. In the
course of this effort, we have identified
numerous opportunities to eliminate or
streamline RCRA requirements, while
continuing to fulfill our mission of
protecting human health and the
environment.
Today’s final rule changes a number
of the regulatory requirements found in
40 CFR parts 260 through 271. These
changes will bring about burden
reductions to both the regulated
community and the regulators and is a
direct result of our consultations with a
number of state experts on potential
burden reduction ideas, as well as
public input through two Notices of
Data Availability and a Proposed
Rulemaking.1
The regulatory changes contained in
the Burden Reduction final rule will
have no practical impact on the many
protections that EPA has established
over the years for human health and the
environment. At the same time, this rule
strives to relieve stakeholders of the
burden of nonessential paperwork. The
final rule clarifies certain requirements
and eliminates or simplifies other
requirements. We have eliminated
paperwork requirements if they entail
information that is obscure,
inconsequential, or infrequently
submitted to or used by regulators. Note,
however, that the final rule does not
curtail the right of regulatory agencies to
request any information desired. Waste
handlers must continue to keep on-site
32859) and October 29, 2003 (68 FR 61662). The
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16863
records of their waste management
activities and make them available to
regulators when requested. As such, the
rule does not limit regulators’ or the
public’s ability to learn what is
happening at a facility.
To effectively present the large
number of regulatory changes we are
finalizing, we have divided these
changes into ten categories or groups of
changes; they are: (1) The amount of
time records must be kept; (2)
certification by a professional engineer;
(3) option to follow the Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance; (4) option
to follow the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations for emergency training; (5)
clarifications and elimination of
obsolete regulatory language; (6)
elimination of selected recordkeeping
and reporting requirements; (7)
decreased self-inspection frequency for
selected hazardous waste management
units; (8) selected changes to the
requirements for record retention and
submittal of records; (9) changes to the
requirements for document submittal;
and (10) reduced frequency for report
submittals. A summary of the major
components of the final rule is
presented in Table 1.
The preamble discussion follows the
set of categories presented above (see
also Table 1, ‘‘Summary of the Major
Components and a Description of the
Regulatory Changes Being Promulgated
in Today’s Burden Reduction Final
Rule’’). Within each category, we
present the changes we are
promulgating, along with a discussion
of the comments received and our
resolution of the major issues or
concerns. At the conclusion of each
section, we present comparative tables
showing both the current regulatory
requirement and the new requirement
for the affected group, i.e., generators;
permitted hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; and
interim status treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Interim status
regulations at 40 CFR Part 265 provide
for the continued operation of an
existing facility that meets certain
conditions until final administrative
disposition of the owner and operator
permit application is made. Regulations
for permit applications are found in 40
CFR part 270 and general standards for
permitted facilities are found in 40 CFR
part 264.
Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2518).
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16864
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE REGULATORY CHANGES BEING
PROMULGATED IN TODAY’S BURDEN REDUCTION FINAL RULE
Regulatory change
Description of regulatory change
The amount of time records must be kept ...............................................
Many of the recordkeeping requirements for treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) mandate record retention for the life of the
facility. In this final rule, we have reduced the length of time waste
handlers must retain certain records on site to three years or five
years for hazardous waste combustion units (e.g., operating record
requirements at 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73). We have also increased the record retention time for a selected number of documents for interim status facilities in cases where the notification requirement has been eliminated.
Numerous regulations require generators and TSDFs to obtain an independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer’s certification, as
specified. We have changed certain RCRA certification requirements
by taking out the terms ‘‘independent’’ and ‘‘registered.’’
Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) and TSDFs must have contingency
plans to minimize hazards to human health and the environment
from fires, explosions, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste
to the environment. We have modified our RCRA regulations to indicate that these waste handlers may consider developing one comprehensive contingency plan based on the Integrated Contingency
Guidance. This guidance provides a mechanism for consolidating the
multiple contingency plans that waste handlers have to prepare to
comply with various government regulations.
LQGs and TSDFs must train their employees in emergency procedures. We have modified the RCRA regulations to allow waste handlers to have the option of complying with either the RCRA or OSHA
requirements for emergency response procedures.
We are modifying specified regulatory language by and eliminating obsolete terms and/or rewording language to make it clearer. We are
also providing regulatory clarifications to several LDR requirements.
We have eliminated certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the RCRA regulations in order to eliminate submission of duplicative information and/or reporting unnecessary burden to waste handlers.
Under many RCRA inspection requirements, we specify a frequency at
which waste handlers must inspect their frequency for facility and
equipment. We have reduced the self-inspection frequency for hazardous waste tank systems from daily to weekly, under certain conditions. In addition, EPA is allowing facilities in the National Performance Track Program to reduce their inspection frequencies, under
certain conditions, up to monthly, on a case-by-case basis, for tank
systems, containers, containment buildings, and areas subject to
spills.
We are modifying certain requirements under which waste handlers
must keep records on-site and submit these same records to EPA.
We are specifying certain records that waste handlers need to keep
only on-site.
We have eliminated several requirements to reduce the number of documents that are submitted to the Agency document for review.
We have reduced the submittal frequency of certain documents (e.g.,
from semi-annual to annual).
Certification by a professional engineer ...................................................
Option to follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance ...................
Option to follow Occuputional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations for emergency training.
Clarifications and elimination of obsolete regulatory language ...............
Elimination of selected recordkeeping and reporting requirements .........
Decreased inspection frequency for hazardous waste management
units.
Selected changes to the requirements for record retention and submittal of records.
Changes to the requirements for document submittal .............................
Reduced frequency for report submittal ...................................................
1. We Are Reducing the Retention Time
for Certain Information Kept in a
Facility’s Operating Record
III. What Burden Reduction Changes
Are We Making?
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
A. Changes to the Amount of Time
Records Must Be Kept
As a precautionary measure in
promulgating the hazardous waste
requirements in 1980, we mandated the
retention of many kinds of records until
facility closure, resulting in a
tremendous volume of stored
paperwork. Our experience in
implementing the RCRA program has
shown that this retention time is
excessive, and a priority item for
reduction.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
We are changing a number of the
operating record requirements under
§§ 264.73 and 265.73 to reduce the
record retention time to three years.
Among other things, we are modifying
the retention time limit for records on
waste analyses; certain monitoring,
testing and analytical data; waste
determinations; selected certifications;
and notifications.
We believe that these changes
establish a more reasonable record
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
retention time than the requirement to
keep this information until closure of
the facility.2 The three-year record
retention period is sufficient to enable
regulators to monitor industry
compliance and take enforcement
actions as needed. In any event,
2 Record retention times for all Agency programs
vary, but in numerous instances have retention
times shorter than the life of the facility. For
example, the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations require records retention times of one,
five, and twelve years (depending on the record).
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, Subpart FF—National Emission
Standards for Benzene Waste Operations requires a
two-year records retention time.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
§§ 264.74(b) and 265.74(b) require the
retention period of any records to be
extended automatically during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the facility, or as
requested by the Administrator.
We are not modifying the retention
limit for records that contain the
following information: (1) Description
and quantity of each hazardous waste
received and what was done with it; (2)
location of each hazardous waste; (3)
closure estimates; or (4) quantities of
waste placed in land disposal units
under an extension to the effective date
of any land disposal restriction. The
retention of this information is
necessary to ensure protection of human
health and the environment through the
life of the facility, and until closure of
the facility.
We believe that these changes will not
affect the government’s or the public’s
ability to know what is happening at a
hazardous waste facility because a basic
set of compliance information will still
be available in the facility’s records. The
Agency will have access to the facility’s
operating record, which will contain
many of the documents previously
submitted to the Agency. Although the
public does not generally have access to
the facility’s operating record, the
Agency Director can require permitted
facilities to establish and maintain a
publicly accessible information
repository at any time (see § 270.30 (m)).
Similarly, facilities that are applying for
permits may be required to establish
and maintain an information repository.
(See 124.33.)
In today’s rule, we are also amending
the regulatory language proposed for
maintaining these records. In the
proposed rule, we used the language,
‘‘maintain for three years after entry into
the operating record.’’ A commenter
pointed out that some records, such as
laboratory analytical results, stand alone
in the laboratory records and are not
actually ‘‘entered into the operating
record.’’ We recognize that this is an
important distinction and are changing
the regulatory language from the
proposal to say ‘‘maintain for three
years’’ instead of ‘‘maintain for three
years after entry into the operating
record.’’ Also, a commenter pointed out
that since monitoring and ground-water
clean up is a multi-year or multi-decade
task, these records should be kept until
closure of the facilities. We agree, and
are changing § 264.73(b)(6) and
§ 265.73(b)(6) accordingly.
We also received comments stating
that we should not reduce our record
retention requirements, because any
particular record might be useful at
some future point. This could be said of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
any requirement. In the Paperwork
Reduction Act, Congress instructed us
to set a higher standard for imposing an
information collection requirement. We
believe that information must have a
demonstrable value. Based on our
experience, we believe that we have
identified those records that have the
greatest potential impact on the
protection of human health and the
environment. Such records must be
maintained until closure of the facility.
We also received questions in
response to the proposed rule asking
whether facilities must keep existing
records, once generated and stored,
until the date that was initially
established for their disposal, even
though we are changing that date with
this rule. It would be burdensome for
facilities to have two different sets of
recordkeeping requirements, and
difficult for EPA and the states to
enforce a phase-out of recordkeeping.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
maintain consistency and retain records
until the date established by today’s rule
(or if the date is unchanged by this rule,
to the original date (i.e., until closure of
the facility)). Therefore, facilities may
dispose of existing records consistent
with today’s rule, once the retention
date established by today’s rule becomes
effective.
2. We Are Increasing the Retention Time
for Certain Information Kept in an
Interim Status Facility’s Operating
Record
In response to comments received,
EPA is amending § 265.73(b)(6) and
creating a new § 265.73(b)(15) to require
retention in the operating record until
closure of the facility, the ground-water
quality assessment plans required under
§ 265.90 and § 265.93(d)(2), and groundwater quality assessment reports
required under § 265.93(d)(5). Under
today’s rule, these plans are no longer
required to be submitted to the Regional
Administrator. Accordingly, EPA has
decided that, in order to ensure
protection of health and the
environment, these records need to be
available and, therefore, has amended
the regulation to require that the
information be maintained in the
operating record until closure of the
facility. EPA believes today’s changes
would result in no more burden to
facility owners or operators for storage,
since it is likely that any report
submitted to the Agency would also be
kept on-site by the facility. In other
words, there would be no increase in
burden over what is already being done.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16865
3. We Are Establishing a Five-Year
Record Retention Time for Information
Kept on the Operation of Incinerators,
Boilers, and Industrial Furnaces
Owners and/or operators of boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) are
subject to compliance-related
recordkeeping regulations. For example,
BIFs must conduct emission tests to
demonstrate compliance with the RCRA
emission standards (such as certification
of compliance tests), performance tests
for their continuous emissions monitors,
and retain these test reports on-site until
closure of the facility. As a result of the
emissions tests, BIFs also establish
enforceable operating limits that must
be achieved on a daily basis (such as
hourly rolling average feed rate limits).
BIFs are also required to record the
daily operating data in their operating
record for compliance purposes and
make them available for inspection.
In the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61662), we solicited comment on
amending the current record retention
requirement for incinerator monitoring,
testing and analytical data, from ‘‘for the
life of the facility’’ to three years. We
took this action because we had
overlooked incinerators in the original
proposal and maintain that their record
retention requirements should be
consistent with those for BIFs. This
change for incinerators was supported
by a majority of the commenters;
however, some pointed out that the
recordkeeping requirements for
incinerators and BIFs should be
consistent with those that the Agency
promulgated on October 12, 2005 (70 FR
59402) for incinerators and the majority
of BIFs under the Clean Air Act (CAA).3
We agree with these commenters and
have decided for reasons of consistency
with the CAA requirements, to finalize
a five year record retention time for
incinerators and BIFs. We are also
promulgating the five year record
retention time for BIFs (such as sulfur
recovery furnaces) that will not be
subject to the recently promulgated
MACT standards.
One commenter that opposed any
change to the record retention time
stated that incinerators should keep all
their data points for the life of the
facility. The commenter asserted that
the only information that a state
inspector has to use during a violation
are the data on the incinerator’s
parametric monitoring. They argued
3 The Clean Air Act requires the Agency to
develop rules to reduce Hazardous Air Pollutant
emissions. The rules require the application of strict
air emission controls based on performance of best
technologies, the overall approach usually being
referred to as maximum achievable control
technology, or MACT.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16866
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
that, in no case, should record retention
be reduced if there are outstanding
enforcement, non-compliance or legal
issues pending.
For reasons cited earlier, we believe
that modifying the record retention
period for incinerators and BIFs to five
years is appropriate. Regarding the
commenter’s point that records should
be retained if there is an outstanding
enforcement, non-compliance or legal
action pending, the regulations already
provide for this and nothing in today’s
rule would amend this provision. See
§§ 264.74 and 265.74 which state:
The record retention period for all records
required under this part is extended
automatically during the course of any
unresolved enforcement action regarding the
facility or as requested by the Administrator.
The following tables show the new
retention times by facility for selected
records. We have also included the
recordkeeping requirements found in:
(1) Section 264.73, Operating record; (2)
Section 264.347, Monitoring and
inspections; (3) Section 265.73,
Operating record; (4) Section
266.102(e)(10), Permit standards for
burners; and (5) Section 266.103(d) and
(k), Interim status standards for burners.
TABLE 2.—REVISED RECORD RETENTION TIMES FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current retention time
CFR section
Record summary
264.73(b)(1) .........................
264.73(b)(5) .........................
Description and quantity of each hazardous waste received and the method(s) and date(s) of its treatment, storage or disposal at the facility.
The location of each hazardous waste within the facility
and the quantity at each location.
Records and results of waste analyses and waste determinations.
Summary reports and details of all incidents that require implementing the contingency plan.
Records and results of inspections .................................
264.73(b)(6) .........................
Monitoring, testing, or analytical data corrective action
264.73(b)(7) .........................
For off-site facilities, notices to generators as specified
in § 264.12(b).
All closure cost estimates for disposal facilities, all postclosure cost estimates.
Waste minimization certification ......................................
264.73(b)(2) .........................
264.73(b)(3) .........................
264.73(b)(4) .........................
264.73(b)(8) .........................
264.73(b)(9) .........................
264.73(b)(10) .......................
264.73(b)(11) .......................
264.73(b)(12) .......................
264.73(b)(13) .......................
New retention time as amended by the burden reduction rule
Records of the quantities and date of placement for
each shipment of hazardous waste place in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date
of any land disposal restriction granted.
For off-site treatment facility, notices and certifications
from generator.
For on-site treatment facility, notices and certifications
264.73(b)(16) .......................
For off-site land disposal facility, notices and certifications from generator.
For on-site land disposal facility, notices and certifications.
For off-site storage facility, notices and certifications
from generator.
For on-site storage facility, notices and certifications .....
264.73(b)(17) .......................
Records required under § 264.1(j)(13) ............................
264.73(b)(18) .......................
264.73(b)(19) .......................
Monitoring, testing or analytical data where required by
§ 264.347.
Certification as required by § 264.196(f) .........................
264.347(d) ............................
For incinerators: monitoring and inspection data ...........
266.102(e)(10) .....................
For burners: recordkeeping .............................................
264.73(b)(14) .......................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.73(b)(15) .......................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain for three years.
No change in requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years, except for records and results
pertaining to ground-water monitoring and cleanup,
which must be maintained until closure of the facility.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for five years.
No specified requirement.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for five years.
Maintain until closure of the
Maintain for five years.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
facility.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16867
TABLE 3.—REVISED RECORD RETENTION TIMES FOR INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current retention time
CFR section
Summary record
New retention time as amended by the burden reduction rule
265.73(b)(1) ..............................
265.73(b)(2) ..............................
265.73(b)(3) ..............................
265.73(b)(4) ..............................
265.73(b)(5) ..............................
Description and quantity of each hazardous
waste received and the method(s) and
date(s) of its treatment, storage or disposal
at the facility.
The location of each hazardous waste within
the facility and the quantity at each location.
Records and results of waste analyses and
waste determinations.
Summary reports and details of all incidents
that require implementing the contingency
plan.
Records and results of inspections ..................
265.73(b)(6) ..............................
Monitoring, testing, or analytical data and corrective action.
265.73(b)(7) ..............................
All closure cost estimates for disposal facilities, all post-closure cost estimates.
Records of the quantities and date of placement for each shipment of the hazardous
waste place in land disposal units under an
extension to the effective date of any land
disposal restriction granted.
For off-site treatment facility, notices and certifications from generator.
For on-site treatment facility, notices and certifications.
For off-site land disposal facility, notices and
certifications from the generator.
For on-site land disposal facility, notices and
certifications.
For off-site storage facility, notices and certifications from generator.
For on-site storage facility, notices and certifications.
Monitoring, testing, or analytical data, and corrective action where required by §§ 265.90,
265.93(d)(2), and 265.93(d)(5) of this part
and
certifications
as
required
by
§ 265.196(f).
Periodic Recertifications. The owner or operator must conduct compliance testing and
submit to the Director a recertification of
compliance under provisions of paragraph
(c) of this section within five years from
submitting the previous certification or recertification. If the owner or operator seeks
to recertify compliance under new operating
conditions, he/she must comply with the requirements of paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
Interim status standards for burners: recordkeeping.
265.73(b)(8) ..............................
265.73(b)(9) ..............................
265.73(b)(10) ............................
265.73(b)(11) ............................
265.73(b)(12) ............................
265.73(b)(13) ............................
265.73(b)(14) ............................
265.73(b)(15) ............................
266.103(d) .................................
266.103(k) .................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
B. Changes to the Professional Engineer
Certification Requirements
Throughout the RCRA regulations,
there are various requirements for the
services of an independent, qualified,
registered, professional engineer to
certify the effectiveness of the design
and operation of various hazardous
waste management units. We proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain for three years.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years, except for records and results pertaining to ground-water monitoring and cleanup, and response action plans for surface impoundments, waste
piles, and landfills which must be maintained until closure
of the facility.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for three years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
No change in regulatory requirement.
Every three years.
Every five years.
Maintain until closure of the facility.
Maintain for five years.
to add Certified Hazardous Materials
Managers (CHMMs) as professionals
qualified to make selected certifications.
This proposed change was a result of
comments received on our June 18, 1999
NODA (64 FR 32859). In response to
this proposal, the Agency received
significant comment, primarily
requesting that we expand the category
of persons allowed to provide the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
various certifications. Commenters
argued that we were being arbitrary in
proposing to allow only two
professional disciplines (i.e., CHMMs
and professional engineers) to certify
hazardous waste management
operations. Conversely, professional
engineers strongly opposed the
proposed change in the regulatory
requirements. They suggested that
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16868
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
CHMMs were not qualified to certify the
design, construction, and structural
integrity of hazardous waste
management units.
In addition, numerous states opposed
the change on the grounds that their
state laws allow only licensed engineers
to make these certifications. State
comments also pointed out that state
licensing boards can investigate
complaints of negligence or
incompetence, on the part of
professional engineers, and may impose
fines and other disciplinary actions
such as cease-and-desist orders or
license revocation. According to
commenters, similar controls do not
exist for other professions. This
personal liability of the professional
engineer is one of the reasons why state
commenters supported the idea that
RCRA certifications should only be
done by licensed professional engineers.
Other commenters suggested that,
rather than deciding which professions
are qualified to make certifications, we
should establish an environmental
professional performance standard
based on membership in a recognized
professional organization. In response to
these comments, we solicited comment
in our October 29, 2003 NODA to allow
professionals accredited by
organizations meeting the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E1929–98, Standard Practice for
the Assessment of Certification
Programs for Environmental Engineers:
Accreditation Criteria to conduct a
limited number of certifications,
including: (1) Section
264.573(a)(4)(ii)(g), Drip Pads, Design
and operating requirements; (2) Section
265.443(a)(4)(ii)(g), Drip Pads, Design
and operating requirements; (3) Section
264.574(a), Drip Pads, Inspections; (4)
Section 265.444(a), Drip Pads,
Inspections; and (5) Section
266.111(e)(2), Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces, Direct transfer equipment—
requirements prior to meeting secondary
containment requirements.4
Comments to the change described in
the NODA were mixed. Some
commenters supported this change in
qualifications for selected certifications,
while a number of states and
professional organizations still strongly
opposed allowing anyone other than a
professional engineer to perform these
certifications. While the Agency
believes that added flexibility to the
RCRA regulations is a goal worth
4 After publication of the October 29, 2003
NODA, (see 68 FR 61662), EPA determined that the
certification required by § 266.111(e)(2) had to be
made by August 21, 1992. As such the Agency is
not pursuing a change to this requirement in today’s
rulemaking, obviously because the date has passed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
pursuing, in this case, we are persuaded
by the arguments presented by states
with regard to these certifications and
are not going forward with these
changes at this time. Certifications for
drip pads involve certifying engineering
designs, drawings, plans and other
engineering details, involving structural
and hydraulic and other functions. As
such, we believe that while there may
be professionals other than professional
engineers qualified to make these
certifications, it is imperative that the
goals of human health and the
environmental protection are
maintained. In reviewing the comments,
we are not convinced that all
environmental professionals certified by
the ASTM standard would be qualified
to perform these engineering
evaluations. To this end, we are not
going forward with allowing the
changes to the drip pad certification
requirements that would allow
environmental professionals recognized
by a certification program that is
compliant with ASTM E–1929–98
Standard Practice for the Assessment of
Certification Programs for
Environmental Professionals:
Accreditation Criteria.
Although the Agency was not
persuaded that ASTM board certified
environmental professionals, including
CHMMs, should be allowed to make the
required RCRA certifications that were
the subject of this rulemaking, the
Agency wants to make it clear that
facilities are still permitted to utilize
qualified professionals who may not be
professional engineers in performing the
analyses that underlie these
certifications. Facilities can potentially
lower their costs by utilizing the
flexibility to employ others as part of
the certification requirement. For
example, as part of the closure and post
closure requirements, some CHMMs
may be qualified to make certain
determinations associated with these
certifications to determine whether
operations at the site will minimize
hazards.
The Agency is sympathetic to the
large number of comments by the
CHMMs and other environmental
professionals about unnecessary
restrictions in the marketplace.
However, EPA is retaining the
professional engineering certification, in
part, to allay state concerns about the
need to monitor and control the
activities of personnel that are now
subject to state licensure control. Given,
however, additional experience by the
Agency with the utilization of other
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
environmental professionals, EPA may
re-examine this issue in the future.5
1. We Are Removing the ‘‘Independent’’
and ‘‘Registered’’ Requirements for
Selected Certifications
Some commenters to the proposed
rule suggested that we change the
certification requirements by amending
the qualifications required for the
certification from ‘‘independent,
qualified, registered, professional
engineer’’ to ‘‘qualified professional
engineer.’’ That is, the commenters
suggested it was not necessary for the
professional engineer to be independent
or registered. Commenters argued that
the term ‘‘qualified professional
engineer’’ retains the most important
components of the requirement: (1) That
the engineer be qualified to perform the
task; and (2) that she or he be a
professional engineer (following a code
of ethics and the potential of losing his/
her license for negligence).
In the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61662), EPA also solicited comment on
changing the qualifications for who can
certify the design, operation and closure
of specific hazardous waste
management units from ‘‘independent,
qualified, registered, professional
engineer’’ to ‘‘qualified professional
engineer.’’ We solicited comment on
eliminating the requirement that the
certifier be ‘‘independent,’’ reasoning
that we could rely on the professional
standards of the certifier to ensure
accurate certifications. This could
potentially save expenses for companies
with in-house engineers, since they
would not have to hire outside
consultants. State commenters strongly
argued that the word ‘‘independent’’
should be retained because an
independent review and certification
avoids any potential of conflict of
interest. Commenters stated that an
employee of a facility would more likely
have a biased approach to review and
certification, and that state agencies
would have less confidence in the
accuracy and quality of review and
5 For example, in the All Appropriate Inquiries
(AAI) rule published on November 1, 2005, (70 CFR
66070) EPA sets standards for CERCLA liability
protection by establishing criteria that prospective
property owners must use in the inquiries they
conduct into the previous ownership, uses, and
environmental conditions of a property prior to
acquiring the property. The AAI rule differs from
the RCRA burden reduction rule in that AAI does
not in any way require the environmental
professional to render any judgment or opinion
regarding RCRA or CERCLA compliance or liability.
AAI requirements include research activities and a
site investigation similar to a Phase I environmental
site assessment. It does not include compliance
evaluation or an assessment of engineering or
technical requirements (which may inherently
require the expertise of an engineer or geologist).
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
certification. Furthermore, the
commenters argued that the public
would have reduced confidence in the
accuracy and meaning of the
engineering review and certification if it
was conducted by an employee of the
facility. The public would more likely
suspect a conflict of interest and
demand a more rigorous review by state
agencies. Commenters also noted that a
similar change, regarding whether to
retain the term ‘‘independent’’ for
professional engineers certifying
closure, was proposed by EPA on March
19, 1985 (50 FR 11074). After receiving
public comment, a final rule was issued
on May 2,1986 with the term
‘‘independent’’ retained. In the
preamble to the May 2, 1986 final rule,
we stated that, because certification of
final closure is the final step in the
closure process and triggers the release
of the owner or operator from financial
responsibility requirements for closure
and third party liability coverage
requirements, we believed that the
certification should be made by a person
who is least subject to pressures to
certify to the adequacy of a closure that,
in fact, is not in accordance with the
approved closure plan. Commenters
also noted that in the October 9, 1991
Federal Register, EPA addressed
concerns regarding proposed language
that would have allowed a ‘‘qualified
party’’ to perform closure and post
closure certification. In that FR notice,
we stated on page 51103:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
The Agency agrees with commenters that
objective closure and post-closure
certifications are essential for avoiding any
potential conflicts of interest and ensuring
protection of human health and the
environment and that more specific
requirements concerning the qualification of
the certifying party are necessary to ensure
the adequacy of the certification. We,
therefore, are requiring in this final rule that
certifications be obtained from independent,
registered, professional engineers (i.e.,
registered professional engineers not in the
employ of the owner or operator), consistent
with requirements under subtitle C and other
federally mandated certification programs
(e.g., Clean Water Act grants).
Upon further analysis and reflection,
we have decided to delete the
independent qualification for
certification made by a professional
engineer. EPA continues to believe that
this proposed modification retains the
most important requirements: That the
engineer is qualified to perform the task
and is a professional engineer (i.e.,
licensed to practice engineering under
the title Professional Engineer.) We
believe that a professional engineer,
regardless of whether he/she is
independent is able to give fair and
technical review because of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
programs established by the state
licensing boards. It is not clear to us that
an in-house engineer faces a greater
economic temptation than an
independent engineer seeking to
cultivate an ongoing relationship with a
client. This is a central mission of state
licensing boards. If certifications are
provided when the facts do not warrant
certification, the professional engineer
is subject to penalties, including the loss
of license and the possibility of fines.
Furthermore, we are convinced that the
change to the certification requirements
will allow facilities to reduce burden
without compromising environmental
safety by using in-house expertise.
Professional engineers employed by a
facility are more familiar with its own
particular situation and are in a position
to provide more on-site review and
oversight of the activity being certified.
We also solicited comment on
removing the term ‘‘registered,’’
explaining that based on our
understanding of the term ‘‘registered’’
(one who is licensed by a state) the
terms ‘‘registered,’’ ‘‘licensed’’ and
‘‘professional’’ mean the same thing in
the case of certifying the design,
operation and closure of hazardous
waste management units. Thus, using
the terms ‘‘registered’’ and
‘‘professional’’ when defining the
qualification of an engineer, in this
context, is redundant. While the
majority of the comments supported the
change, agreeing that the term
‘‘registered’’ appears to be redundant
and could be removed, several
commenters were opposed to making
the change. These commenters argued
that the word ‘‘registered’’ is necessary
to prevent confusion in the field,
particularly among generators, that a
license or registration is required. The
Agency is unconvinced by this
argument and maintains that the use of
‘‘registered’’ and ‘‘professional’’ as
qualifications for engineers making
these certifications is redundant and
should be simplified.
As a final matter, we unintentionally
failed to identify eight additional
certification requirements that are part
of this regulatory change, i.e., each
contains one or a combination of the
terms: independent, registered and/or
professional when describing the
qualifications of the engineer. These
certifications include: (1) Section
264.193(h)(4)(i)(2), Tank Systems,
Containment and detection of releases;
(2) Section 265.193(h)(5)(i)(2), Tank
Systems, Containment and detection of
releases; (3) Section 264.554(c)(2),
Staging Piles; (4) Section 264.1101(c)(2),
Containment Buildings, Design and
operating standards; (5) Section
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16869
265.1101(c)(2), Containment Buildings,
Design and operating standards; (6)
Section 270.14(a), Permit Application,
Content of part B. General requirements;
(7) Section 270.17(d) Permit
Application, Specific part B information
requirements for surface
impoundments; and (8) Section
270.26(c)(15), Permit Application,
Special part B information requirements
for drip pads. EPA believes today’s
changes provide consistency to the
certification requirements, i.e.,
removing the terms independent and
registered. As such, we are finalizing
these eight additional certification
changes.
2. We Are Also Changing the Closure
and Post-Closure Certification
Requirements
In the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61662), we also solicited comment on
amending the qualifications for selected
closure and post-closure certifications to
‘‘qualified professional engineer.’’ These
certifications included: (1) Section
264.115, Closure and Post-Closure,
Certification of closure; (2) Section
265.115, Closure and Post-Closure,
Certification of closure; (3) Section
264.120, Closure and Post-Closure,
Certification of completion of postclosure care; (4) Section 265.120,
Closure and Post-Closure, Certification
of completion of post-closure care; and
(5) Section 264.280(b), Land Treatment,
Closure and post-closure care.
During the development of today’s
final rule, we discovered that we
incorrectly stated the required
qualifications for engineers providing
the closure and post-closure
certifications, and we failed to identify
one additional certification, § 265.280(e)
Land Treatment, Closure and postclosure care, and six cross-reference
citations to the original closure and
post-closure certifications. These crossreferences are: (1) Section 264.143(i),
Financial Assurance for Closure,
Release of the owner or operator from
the requirements of this section; (2)
Section 265.143(h), Financial Assurance
for Closure, Release of the owner or
operator from the requirements of this
section; (3) Section 264.145(i), Financial
Assurance for Post-Closure, Release of
the owner or operator from the
requirements of this section; (4) Section
265.145(h), Financial Assurance for
Post-Closure, Release of the owner or
operator from the requirements of this
section; (5) Section 264.147(e), Liability
Requirements, Period of coverage; and
(6) Section 265.147(e), Liability
Requirements, Period of coverage.
We incorrectly stated, in both the
proposed rule and the October 29, 2003
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16870
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
NODA (68 FR 61662), the regulatory
requirements for these certifications. In
both these notices, we stated that the
regulatory language for closure and
post-closure certifications require an
‘‘independent, qualified, registered,
professional engineer’’ to make the
certifications. This is incorrect. The
regulatory language for these
certifications does not include the word
‘‘qualified;’’ the certifications language
states that the certification must be
made by an ‘‘independent, registered,
professional engineer.’’ Hence our
proposed regulatory change to
‘‘qualified professional engineer’’ for
these certifications was inaccurate and
inconsistent with our other proposed
certification requirements. In our view,
this error was minor and does not
change our position regarding the
redundancy of using both ‘‘registered’’
and ‘‘professional,’’ when defining the
necessary certification qualifications.
This error also does not change our
position that all certifications should be
conducted by a ‘‘qualified professional
engineer’’ i.e., one that is qualified to
perform the task and is a professional
engineer (licensed/registered by the
state and following a code of ethics and
the potential of losing his/her license for
negligence). As such, we are today
amending all the closure and postclosure certification requirements to
require qualified professional engineers
to certify closure and post-closure.
Tables 4 and 5 identify the
certifications that we are amending in
today’s rule for permitted and interim
status treatment, storage and disposal
facilities as needing a qualified (as in
‘‘qualified to perform the task’’)
professional engineer.6
TABLE 4.—PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES NEEDING RCRA CERTIFICATIONS BY A
QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
New RCRA certification requirement
(i.e., dropping ‘‘registered’’)
CFR section
264.115 ................................
264.120 ................................
264.143(i) .............................
264.145(i) .............................
264.147(e) ............................
264.191(a), (b)(5)(ii) .............
264.192(a), (b) .....................
264.193(h)(4)(i)(2) ................
264.196(f) .............................
264.280(b) ............................
264.554(c)(2) ........................
264.571(a),(b),(c) .................
264.573(a)(4)(ii) ....................
264.573(g) ............................
264.574(a) ............................
264.1101(c)(2) ......................
270.14(a) ..............................
270.16(a) ..............................
270.26(c)(15) ........................
Closure and Post-Closure. Certification of closure.
Closure and Post-Closure. Certification of completion of post-closure care.
Financial Assurance for Closure. Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section.
Financial Assurance for Post-Closure. Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section.
Liability Requirements. Period of coverage.
Tank Systems. Assessment of existing tank system’s integrity.
Tank Systems. Design and installation of new tank systems or components.
Tank Systems. Containment and detection of releases.
Tank systems. Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit-for-use tank systems.
Land Treatment. Closure and post closure care.
Staging Piles.
Drip Pads. Assessment of existing drip pad integrity.
Drip Pads. Design and Operating Requirements.
Drip Pads. Design and Operating Requirements.
Drip Pads. Inspections.
Containment Buildings. Design and operating standards.
Permit Application. Content of part B. General requirements.
Permit Application. Specific part B information requirements for tank systems.
Permit Application. Specific part B information requirements for drip pads.
TABLE 5.—INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES NEEDING RCRA CERTIFICATIONS BY A
QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
New RCRA certification requirement
(i.e., dropping ‘‘registered’’)
CFR section
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
265.115 ................................
265.120 ................................
265.143(h) ............................
265.145(h) ............................
265.147(e) ............................
265.191(a), (b)(5)(ii) .............
265.192(a), (b) .....................
265.193(h)(5)(i)(2) ................
265.196(f) .............................
265.280(e) ............................
265.441(a), (b),(c) ................
265.443(a)(4)(ii) ....................
265.443(g) ............................
265.444(a) ............................
265.1101(c)(2) ......................
270.14(a) ..............................
270.16(a) ..............................
270.26(c)(15) ........................
Closure and Post-Closure. Certification of closure.
Closure and Post-Closure. Certification of completion of post-closure care.
Financial Assurance for Closure. Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section.
Financial Assurance for Post-Closure. Release of the owner or operator from the requirements of this section.
Liability Requirements. Period of coverage.
Tank Systems. Assessment of existing tank system’s integrity.
Tank Systems. Design and installation of new tank systems or components.
Tank Systems. Containment and detection of releases.
Tank Systems. Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit-for-use tank systems.
Land Treatment. Closure and post closure care.
Drip Pads. Assessment of existing drip pad integrity.
Drip Pads. Design and Operating Requirements.
Drip Pads. Design and Operating Requirements.
Drip Pads. Inspections.
Containment Buildings. Design and operating standards.
Permit Application. Content of part B. General requirements.
Permit Application. Specific part B information requirements for tank systems.
Permit Application. Special part B information requirements for drip pads.
6 In §§ 264.192(b) and 265.192(b), certifications
may also be done by an independent, qualified
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
installation inspector. Similarly, in § 264.280(b),
this certification may be done by an independent,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
qualified soil scientist, in lieu of a qualified
professional engineer.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
C. Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Have an Option of Following
the Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance
We are amending §§ 264.52(b) and
265.52(b) of the RCRA regulations to
provide owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities the option of
developing one contingency plan. EPA
recommends that the plan be based on
the integrated contingency plan
guidance.7 This guidance provides an
excellent set of considerations for
consolidating the multiple contingency
plans that facilities have to prepare to
comply with various government
regulations. The use of a single plan per
facility will eliminate the confusion for
facilities that must decide which of the
contingency plans is applicable to a
particular emergency. In addition, a
single plan will provide ‘‘first
responders’’ (e.g., firemen) with a
mechanism for complying with multiple
regulatory requirements. The adoption
of a standard plan should ease the
burden of coordination with local
emergency planning committees.
Today’s rule clarifies our regulations
(see §§ 264.52 and 265.52) by
specifically authorizing combined
plans, as well as clarifying that when
modifications are made to non-RCRA
provisions in an integrated contingency
plan, the changes do not trigger the need
for a RCRA permit modification.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
D. Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Have an Option To Follow the
RCRA or the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)
Standards for Emergency Response
Training
We are revising §§ 264.16 and 265.16
to eliminate redundant emergency
response training requirements under
OSHA and RCRA regulations while still
ensuring protectiveness.
EPA and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) have
both promulgated regulations
addressing worker activities and
training at hazardous waste
management facilities. While EPA’s
7 In 1996, EPA, in conjunction with the
Department of Transportation, the Department of
the Interior, and the Department of Labor, issued
the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance. This
guidance provides a mechanism for consolidating
the multiple contingency plans that facilities have
to prepare to comply with various government
regulations. Owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities can develop one contingency plan
based on this Guidance. The Integrated Contingency
Plan can be found at 61 FR 28641, June 5, 1996 or
on the Internet at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/
ceppoweb.nsf/content/serc-lepc-publications.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
hazardous waste regulations focus on
facility operations, worker training,
OSHA focuses on worker safety. Both
agencies require worker training.
While we were conducting our own
review of potential overlaps between
EPA and OSHA regulations, the
Government Accountability Office 8
published in October 2000 a study on
the issue. GAO suggested that the
overlap in emergency training
requirements diminishes the efficiency
of the facility and creates unnecessary
compliance costs. The GAO study
pointed out that OSHA’s regulations
have specific training requirements for
RCRA-permitted facilities to teach
hazardous waste workers how to
respond to emergencies under 29 CFR
1910.120(p). With the support of the
GAO findings, EPA proposed to
eliminate the RCRA emergency response
training requirements in favor of the
OSHA requirements.
While we received comments in
support of the proposal, other
commenters expressed particular
concern that two of the RCRA
emergency response training
requirements are not covered in OSHA’s
requirements. (1) understanding key
parameters for automatic waste feed cutoff systems; and (2) how to respond to
ground-water contamination incidents.
These commenters believe that the
deletion of these two requirements
would endanger the environment and
human health in the area of RCRA
facilities, in that adhering only to the
OSHA requirements would mean that
workers would not be trained in these
areas.
This, however, is not EPA’s intention.
The final rule has been written to ensure
that RCRA facilities are not required to
provide separate training. We also note
that facilities exempted from RCRA
emergency response training would still
have to comply with §§ 264.16(a)(1) and
265.16(a)(1), which state: ‘‘Facility
personnel must successfully complete a
program of classroom instruction or onthe-job-training that teaches them to
perform their duties in a way that
ensures the facility’s compliance with
the requirements of this part.’’
OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.120 regulations
require that employees understand and
be able to perform the standard
operating procedures that are part of
their daily work. OSHA’s 29 CFR
1910.38 Emergency Action Plan
requirements include mandated training
in procedures to be followed by
employees who operate critical plant
operations (such as responding to
ground-water contamination incidents)
during a spill or other emergency.
Other commenters opposed the
proposal because OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910
requirements are not as comprehensive
as the RCRA requirements regarding the
universe of facilities. Specifically, they
stated that OSHA’s regulations are not
required for all hazardous waste
generators (e.g., conditionally exempt
small quantity generators under § 261.5
and small quantity generators under
§ 262.34) and certain treatment, storage,
disposal facilities (e.g., municipal, state
and federal owned and operated
facilities.) We agree, and facilities not
subject to OSHA training requirements
would have to comply with the RCRA
training requirements.
To ensure that all facilities are
covered and that there are no gaps in the
emergency response training
requirements, we are providing
flexibility by allowing facilities to
eliminate redundant emergency
response training requirements under
RCRA and OSHA requirements (as
opposed to the proposed rule’s
approach of requiring facilities to follow
only the OSHA regulations). For
example, if a facility can meet all of the
RCRA emergency response training
requirements through an OSHA training
course, we would consider the facility
in compliance with the regulation. On
the other hand, if a facility cannot meet
the emergency response training
requirements through an OSHA training
course, then it would be incumbent
upon that facility to address any gaps
(for example, if OSHA did not include
automatic waste feed cut-off training,
there would not be a problem as long as
appropriate training occurs, such as
combustor staff receives this training as
part of its RCRA training.) Facilities not
subject to OSHA training requirements
would have to comply with the RCRA
training requirements. We believe that
this is a reasonable accommodation for
all facilities.
Generators and owners/operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities should work with the
appropriate permitting and/or
enforcement authority to ensure that the
approach they take in developing an
emergency response training program is
in compliance with the requirements of
§§ 264.16 and 265.16.
8 Formerly the United States General Accounting
Office.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16871
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16872
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
E. We Are Clarifying Selected
Requirements Under RCRA’s Land
Disposal Restrictions and Eliminating
Obsolete Regulatory Language
1. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory
Language on the Land Disposal
Restrictions Generator Waste
Determination
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
We proposed eliminating § 268.7(a)(1)
that requires, among other things, that
generators conduct a waste
determination for purposes of
complying with the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs). Section 268.7(a)(1)
requires generators to determine if
hazardous waste must be treated prior to
land disposal. This determination can
be made either through testing or using
the generator’s knowledge of the waste’s
properties and constituents. We
suggested that a combination of two
other requirements provided the same
safeguards as § 268.7(a)(1), making it
redundant. First, a determination of
whether a waste is hazardous is
required by 40 CFR 262.11, which says
that generators of solid waste must
determine whether a waste is
hazardous. Second, § 264.13(a)(1)
requires treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) to perform a general
waste analysis to determine ‘‘all of the
information which must be known to
treat, store, or dispose of the waste in
accordance with this Part and Part 268
of this chapter’’. We suggested that these
other determinations are sufficient to
assure that a waste is properly
characterized for achieving compliance
with the LDRs.
Some commenters supported deleting
this waste analysis requirement, stating,
generally, that they supported the
Agency’s efforts to reduce redundant
testing requirements. We agree with
these comments with respect to
reducing redundant testing
requirements and are adding a cross
reference in § 268.7(a)(1) to § 262.11, in
order to clarify that these two generator
waste analysis functions can be
performed concurrently, thus avoiding
redundant waste analysis.
Commenters who opposed deleting
the generator LDR waste analysis
requirement, however, were persuasive
in their argument that the deletion of
§ 268.7(a)(1) would not really result in
burden reduction. Rather, it would
merely shift the burden from the
generator to the TSDF. While TSDFs
have a separate LDR waste analysis
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirement under § 264.13(a)(1), they
often rely—at least in part—on
determinations or information provided
by the generator.
Commenters further asserted that if
TSDFs have to assume full
responsibility for the LDR waste
analysis requirement, it would be more
expensive overall, because generators
can use their knowledge of the waste in
determining how LDRs apply to a waste,
while the TSDF would not have that
background and would have to perform
much more extensive waste analysis.
We agree with these comments, and
have determined that we need to
maintain the LDR generator waste
analysis requirement of § 268.7(a)(1).
Thus, today’s rule, rather than
eliminating paragraph § 268.7(a)(1),
amends paragraph § 268.7(a)(1), to avoid
duplication and clarify that the two
generator waste analysis functions can
be performed concurrently. However, in
order to provide maximum flexibility to
generators, we also are clarifying that if
a generator does not want to determine,
based on waste analysis or knowledge of
the waste, whether the waste must be
treated, he may assume that he is
subject to the full array of LDR
requirements. The generator then must
send the waste to a RCRA-permitted
hazardous waste treatment facility
where the treatment facility must make
the determination when the waste has
met the treatment standards of LDR
(possibly even upon receipt as
generated.) A conforming change is also
being made to the notification in
§ 268.7(a)(2) for such cases.
2. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory
Language on the Land Disposal
Restrictions Characteristic Waste
Determination Requirement
We proposed to eliminate the separate
waste analysis requirement (§ 268.9(a))
for generators of characteristic
hazardous wastes under the land
disposal restrictions, in order to parallel
the proposed changes to § 268.7(a)(1)
that are discussed above.
Some commenters supported deleting
this waste analysis requirement, stating,
generally, that they supported the
Agency’s efforts to reduce redundant
testing requirements. We agree with
these comments with respect to
reducing redundant testing
requirements and are adding a cross
reference in § 268.9(a) to § 262.11, in
order to clarify that these two generator
waste analysis functions can be
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
performed concurrently, thus avoiding
redundant waste analysis.
Commenters who opposed deleting
the generator LDR waste analysis
requirement, however, were persuasive
in their argument that the deletion of
§ 268.9(a) would not really result in
burden reduction. Rather, it would
merely shift the burden from the
generator to the TSDF. While TSDFs
have a separate LDR waste analysis
requirement under § 264.13(a)(1), they
often rely—at least in part—on
determinations or information provided
by the generator. Commenters further
asserted that if TSDFs have to assume
full responsibility for the LDR waste
analysis requirement, it would be more
expensive overall, because generators
can use their knowledge of the waste in
determining how LDRs apply to a waste,
while the TSDF would not have that
background and would have to perform
much more extensive waste analysis.
We agree with these comments, and
have determined that we need to
maintain the LDR generator waste
analysis requirement of § 268.9(a). Thus,
today’s rule, rather than eliminating
paragraph § 268.9(a), amends paragraph
§ 268.9(a), to avoid duplication and
clarify that the two generator waste
analysis functions can be performed
concurrently.
3. We Are Removing Obsolete
Regulatory Language
We are deleting seventeen RCRA
requirements because they are no longer
applicable or have an expiration date
that has passed. Except as noted below,
we received no negative comments on
these proposed changes.
In the proposed rule, we suggested
amending §§ 264.193(a) and 265.193(a),
arguing that the language was obsolete.
However, the proposal inadvertently
deleted paragraphs (1) and (5) of
§§ 264.193(a) and 265.193(a). These
paragraphs specify what tanks are
required to have secondary
containment, and in the case of tanks
managing newly regulated waste, how
soon secondary containment must be
provided. We are correcting this mistake
by finalizing the deletion of only
§§ 264.193 (a)(2),(3), and (4) and
265.193(a)(2), (3), and (4) and clarifying
the requirements in §§ 264.193(a)(5) and
265.193(a)(5). Tables 6, 7, and 8
summarize the changes being finalized
today.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16873
TABLE 6.—REGULATORY CLARIFICATION BEING MADE FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TESTING, TRACKING, AND
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS, TREATERS, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
268.7(a)(1) ............................
268.7(a)(2) ............................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
268.9(a) ................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
(a) Requirements for generators: (1) A generator of hazardous waste must determine if the waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. This is done by determining if the hazardous waste meets the treatment
standards in § 268.40, § 268.45, or § 268.49. This determination can be made in either of two ways: testing the
waste or using knowledge of the waste. If the generator tests the waste, testing would normally determine the
total concentration of hazardous constituents, or the concentration of hazardous constituents in an extract of
the waste obtained using test method 1311 in ‘‘Test Methods of Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846, as referenced in § 260.11 of this chapter, depending on whether the treatment standard for the waste is expressed as a total concentration or concentration of hazardous constituent in
the waste’s extract. In addition, some hazardous wastes must be treated by particular treatment methods before they can be land disposed and some soils are contaminated by such hazardous wastes. These treatment
standards are also found in § 268.40, and are described in detail in § 268.42, Table 1. These wastes, and solids contaminated with such wastes, do not need to be tested (however, if they are in a waste mixture, other
wastes with concentration level treatment standards would have to be tested). If a generator determines they
are managing a waste or soil contamination with a waste, that displays a hazardous characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, they must comply with the special requirements of § 268.9 of this part in addition to any applicable requirements in this section.
(a) Requirements for generators: (1) A generator of hazardous waste must determine if the waste has to be treated before it can be land disposed. This is done by determining if the hazardous waste meets the treatment
standards in § 268.40, § 268.45, or § 268.49. This determination can be made concurrently with the hazardous
waste determination required in § 262.11 of this chapter, in either of two ways: testing the waste or using
knowledge of the waste. If the generator tests the waste, testing would normally determine the total concentration of hazardous constituents, or the concentration of hazardous constituents in an extract of the waste obtained using test method 1311 in ‘‘Test Methods of Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA
Publication SW–846, incorporated by reference (see § 260.11 of this chapter), depending on whether the treatment standard for the waste is expressed as a total concentration or concentration of hazardous constituent in
the waste’s extract. (Alternatively, the generator must send the waste to a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste
treatment facility, where the waste treatment facility must comply with the requirements of § 264.13 of this
chapter and § 268.7(b) of this part.) In addition, some hazardous wastes must be treated by particular treatment methods before they can be land disposed and some soils are contaminated by such hazardous wastes.
These treatment standards are also found in § 268.40, and are described in detail in § 268.42, Table 1. These
wastes, and solids contaminated with such wastes, do not need to be tested (however, if they are in a waste
mixture, other wastes with concentration level treatment standards would have to be tested). If a generator determines they are managing a waste or soil with a waste, that displays a hazardous characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, they must comply with the special requirements of § 268.9 of this part in addition to any applicable requirements in this section.
If the waste or contaminated soil does not meet the treatment standards: With the initial shipment of waste to
each treatment or storage facility, the generator must send a one-time written notice to each treatment or storage facility receiving the waste, and place a copy in the file. The notice must include the information in column
‘‘268.7(a)(2)’’ of the Generator Paperwork Requirements Table in 268.7(a)(4). No further notification is necessary until such time that the waste or facility change, in which case a new notification must be sent and a
copy placed in the generator’s file.
If the waste or contaminated soil does not meet the treatment standards, or if the generator chooses not to make
the determination of whether his waste must be treated, with the initial shipment of waste to each treatment or
storage facility, the generator must send a one-time written notice to each treatment or storage facility receiving
the waste, and place a copy in the file. The notice must include the information in column ‘‘268.7(a)(2)’’ of the
Generator Paperwork Requirements Table in 268.7(a)(4). (Alternatively, if the generator chooses not to make
the determination of whether the waste must be treated, the notification must include the EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers and Manifest Number of the first shipment and must state ‘‘This hazardous waste may or may
not be subject to the LDR treatment standards. The treatment facility must make the determination.’’) No further notification is necessary until such time that the waste or facility change, in which case a new notification
must be sent and a copy placed in the generator’s file.
(a) The initial generator of a solid waste must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the waste in order to determine the applicable treatment standards under subpart D of this part. For
purposes of part 268, the waste will carry the waste code for any applicable listed waste (Part 261, Subpart D).
In addition, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste will carry one or more of the characteristic
waste codes (Part 261, Subpart C), except when the treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of
the treatment standard for the characteristic waste, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. If the generator determines that their waste displays a hazardous characteristic (and is not D001 nonwastewaters treated
by CMBST, RORGS, OR POLYM of § 268.42, Table 1), the generator must determine the underlying hazardous constituents (as defined at § 268.2(i)) in the characteristic waste.
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16874
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.—REGULATORY CLARIFICATION BEING MADE FOR LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TESTING, TRACKING, AND
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS, TREATERS, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
(a) The initial generator of a solid waste must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the waste in order to determine the applicable treatment standards under subpart D of this part. This
determination may be made concurrently with the hazardous waste determination required in § 262.11 of this
chapter. For purposes of part 268, the waste will carry the waste code for any applicable listed waste (Part
261, Subpart D). In addition, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste will carry one or more of the
characteristic waste codes (Part 261, Subpart C), except when the treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of the treatment standard for the characteristic waste, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. If the generator determines that their waste displays a hazardous characteristic (and is not D001
nonwastewaters treated by CMBST, RORGS, OR POLYM of § 268.42, Table 1), the generator must determine
the underlying hazardous constituents (as defined at § 268.2(i)) in the characteristic waste.
TABLE 7.—OBSOLETE REGULATORY LANGUAGE BEING DELETED FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory requirement as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
264.193(a)(3) .............
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
264.193(a)(4) .............
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
264.251(c) .................
Waste Piles: Design and operating requirements.
264.314(a) .................
Land fills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
264.314(b) .................
Landfills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
264.314(f) ..................
Land Fills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
264.1100 ....................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.193(a)(2) .............
Containment Buildings. Applicability.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
For all existing tank systems used to store or treat EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027, within two years after January 12, 1987.
Section 264.193(a)(2) is being deleted.
For those existing tank systems of known and documented age, within two years
after January 12, 1987 or when the tank system has reached 15 years of age,
whichever comes later.
Section 264.193(a)(3) is being deleted.
For those existing tank systems for which the age cannot be documented, within
eight years of January 12, 1987; but if the age of the facility is greater than seven
years, secondary containment must be provided by the time the facility reaches 15
years of age, or within two years of January 12, 1987, whichever comes later.
Section 264.193(a)(4) is being deleted.
The owner or operator of each new waste pile unit on which construction operating
commences after January 29, 1992, each lateral expansion of a waste pile unit on
which construction commences after July 29, 1992, and each replacement of an
existing waste pile unit that is to commence reuse after July 29, 1992 must install
two or more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between such liners. ‘‘Construction commences’’ is as defined in section 260.10
under ‘‘existing facility’’.
The owner or operator of each new waste pile unit, each lateral expansion of a waste
pile unit, and each replacement of an existing waste pile unit must install two or
more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between such
liners.
Bulk or non-containerized liquid waste or waste containing free liquids may be placed
in a landfill prior to May 8, 1985.
Section 264.314(a) is being deleted.
Effective May 8, 1995, the placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous
waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids (whether or not sorbents have
been added) in any landfill is prohibited.
The placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous
waste containing free liquids (whether or not sorbents have been added) in any
landfill is prohibited.
Effective November 8, 1985, the placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous
waste in a landfill is prohibited unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator, or the Regional Administrator determines
that:
The placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited
unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator, or the Regional Administrator determines that:
The requirements of ths subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 264.1101 of this subpart.
These provisions will become effective on February 18, 1993, although owner or
operator may notify the Regional Administrator of his intent to be bound by this
subpart at an earlier time. The owner or operator is not subject to the definition of
land disposal in RCRA § 3004(k) provided that the unit:
The requirements of this subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 264.1101 of this subpart. The
owner or operator is not subject to the definition of land disposal in RCRA
§ 3004(k) provided that the unit:
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16875
TABLE 7.—OBSOLETE REGULATORY LANGUAGE BEING DELETED FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory requirement as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
264.1101(c)(2) ...........
Containment Buildings. Design
and Operating Standards.
Obtain certification by a qualified registered professional engineer that the containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section. For units placed into operation prior to February 18, 1993, this certification
must be placed in the facility’s operating record (on-site files for generators who are
not formally required to have operating records) no later than 60 days after the
date of initial operation of the unit. After February 18, 1993, PE certification will be
required prior to operation of the unit.
Obtain and keep on-site a certification by a qualified professional engineer that the
containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section.
TABLE 8.—OBSOLETE REGULATORY LANGUAGE BEING DELETED FOR INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory requirement as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
265.193(a)(3) .............
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
265.193(a)(4) .............
Tank Systems: Containment
and detection of releases.
265.314(a) .................
Land Fills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
265.314(b) .................
Land Fills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
265.314(g) .................
Land Fills: Special requirements
for bulk and containerized liquids.
265.1100 ....................
Containment Buildings. Applicability.
265.1101(c)(2) ...........
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
265.193(a)(2) .............
Containment Buildings. Design
and Operating Standards.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
For all existing tank systems used to and store or treat EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027, within two years after January 12, 1987.
Section 265.193(a)(2) is being deleted.
For those existing tank systems of known and documentable age, within two years
after January 12, 1987, or when the tank system has reached 15 years of age,
whichever comes later.
Section 265.193(a)(3) is being deleted.
For those existing tank systems for which the age cannot be documented, within
eight years of January 12, 1987; but if the age of the facility is greater than seven
years, secondary containment must be provided by the time the facility reaches 15
years of age, or within two years of January 12, 1987, whichever comes later.
Section 265.193(a)(4) is being deleted.
Bulk or non-containerized liquid waste or waste containing free liquids may be placed
in a landfill prior to May 8, 1985.
Section 265.314(a) is being deleted.
Effective May 8, 1995, the placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous
waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids (whether or not sorbents have
been added) in any landfill is prohibited.
The placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous
waste containing free liquids (whether or not sorbents have been added) in any
landfill is prohibited.
Effective November 8, 1985, the placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous
waste in a landfill is prohibited unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator, or the Regional Administrator determines
that:
The placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited
unless the owner or operator of such landfill demonstrates to the Regional Administrator, or the Regional Administrator determines that:
The requirements of ths subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 265.1101 of this subpart.
These provisions will become effective on February 18, 1993, although owner or
operator may notify the Regional Administrator of his intent to be bound by this
subpart at an earlier time. The owner or operator is not subject to the definition of
land disposal in RCRA § 3004(k) provided that the unit:
The requirements of this subpart apply to owners or operators who store or treat hazardous waste in units designed and operated under § 265.1101 of this subpart. The
owner or operator is not subject to the definition of land disposal in RCRA
§ 3004(k) provided that the unit:
Obtain certification by a qualified registered professional engineer that the containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section. For units placed into operation prior to February 18, 1993, this certification
must be placed in the facility’s operating record (on-site files for generators who are
not formally required to have operating records) no later than 60 days after the
date of initial operation of the unit. After February 18, 1993, PE certification will be
required prior to operation of the unit.
Obtain and keep on-site a certification by a qualified professional engineer that the
containment building design meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16876
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 8.—OBSOLETE REGULATORY LANGUAGE BEING DELETED FOR INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory requirement as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
265.221(a) .................
Surface Impoundments: Design
and operating requirements.
265.301(a) .................
Land Fills: Design and operating requirements.
F. We Are Eliminating Selected
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements That We Believe Provide
Duplicative Information to EPA
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Facilities To Notify That They Are
in Compliance After a Release
We received comments that both
supported and opposed the elimination
of the notifications required by
§§ 264.56(i) and 265.56(i). These
notifications require the facility owner
or operator to notify the Regional
Administrator and appropriate state and
local authorities after an emergency
action has taken place, and that the
facility is in compliance with
§§ 264.56(h) and 265.56(h), respectively.
Sections 264.56(h) and 265.56(h) require
the facility emergency coordinator to
ensure that no wastes that may be
incompatible with the released material
is treated, stored, or disposed of until
cleanup procedures are completed, and
that emergency equipment listed in the
contingency plan is cleaned and fit for
its intended use before operations are
resumed. Several commenters generally
supported the elimination of these
notification provisions. Other
commenters were opposed to
eliminating these provisions because
they thought that it was prudent for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
The owner or operator of each new surface impoundment unit on which construction
commences after January operating 29, 1992, each lateral expansion of a surface
impoundment unit on which construction commences after July 29, 1992, and each
replacement of an existing surface impoundment unit that is to commence reuse
after July 29, 1992 must install two or more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between such liners, and operate the leachate collection
and removal systems, in accordance with § 264.221(c), unless exempted under
§ 264.221 (d), (e), or (f) of this chapter. ‘‘Construction commences’’ is as defined in
§ 260.10 under ‘‘existing facility’’.
The owner or operator of each new surface impoundment unit, each lateral expansion
of a surface impoundment unit, and each replacement of an existing surface impoundment unit must install two or more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between such liners, and operate the leachate collection
and removal systems, in accordance with § 264.221(c), unless exempted under
§ 264.221(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter.
The owner or operator of each new and operating landfill unit on which construction
commences after January 29, 1992, each lateral expansion of a landfill unit on
which construction commences after July 29, 1992, and each replacement of an
existing landfill unit that is to commence reuse after July 29, 1992 must install two
or more liners and a leachate collection and removal system above and between
such liners, and operate the leachate collection and removal systems, in accordance with § 264.301 (d), (e), or (f) of this chapter. ‘‘Construction commences’’ is as
defined in § 260.10 under ‘‘existing facility.’’
The owner or operator of each new landfill unit, each lateral expansion of a landfill
unit, and each replacement of an existing landfill unit must install two or more liners
and a leachate collection and removal system above and between such liners, and
operate the leachate collection and removal system, in accordance with § 264.301
(d), (e), or (f) of this chapter.
regulatory agency to receive notification
that a facility was ready to again manage
hazardous waste after emergency
measures were implemented and
releases were cleaned up.
We have decided to finalize the
elimination of this notification
provision. The Regional Administrator
and appropriate state and local
authorities will still be getting a report
15 days after the emergency incident (as
required in §§ 264.56(j) and 265.56(j)).
This report will specify the details of
the incident that required
implementation of the contingency
plan. In most cases, the incident is
likely to be relatively minor, and
operations may even be ready for
resumption with the 15 days. The
actions to be taken (i.e., not handling
incompatible waste and cleaning
emergency equipment) are
straightforward and it is not clear what
value a simple notification would add.
On the other hand, in major incidents
the state would likely send personnel
on-site and would be in a position to
ensure that an appropriate response was
taken before operations resumed.
Therefore, we have decided to eliminate
this notification requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Facilities To Notify of Their Intent
To Burn F020, F021, F022, F023, F026,
and F027 Wastes
We proposed to eliminate the
notification of intent to burn hazardous
dioxin/furan wastes listed as F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026 and F027. We
viewed this as an unnecessary
requirement because the facility is
already permitted to burn these wastes,
and there are already regulatory
standards governing how the waste is
burned.
Commenters generally supported our
proposed change. Therefore, we are
removing the notification requirement.
We inadvertently proposed to remove
the entire paragraph (a)(2) of § 264.343.
We are merely removing the last
sentence that referred to the notification
of intent to burn listed dioxin/furan
wastes.
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Facilities To Notify if They Employ
or Discontinue Use of the Alternative
Valve Standard
The regulations in Subpart BB of
RCRA deal with air emission standards
for equipment leaks. They apply to
owners and operators of facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste with equipment that contains or
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
contacts hazardous waste with organic
concentrations of at least 10 percent by
weight. We proposed to eliminate the
requirement for submitting notifications
to the Regional Administrator with
regard to the implementation of the
alternative standards for valves in gas/
vapor service or in light liquid service.
Under the current regulations in
§§ 264.1061(b)(1), (d) and 265.1061(b)(1)
and (d), if an owner or operator decides
to either: (1) Implement the alternative
standard or (2) discontinue the use of
the alternative standard, a written
notification must be sent to the Regional
Administrator. In the proposed rule, we
stated that these notifications were an
unnecessary requirement because
§§ 264.1061(b)(2) and 265.1061(b)(2)
require performance tests to be
conducted (upon designation, annually,
and as requested by the Regional
Administrator) and their results kept on
site once a decision is made to use the
alternative valve standard. Several
commenters disagreed with our position
and suggested that facilities need to
notify regulators when they elect to use
alternative standards. Commenters
further stated that without knowledge of
the specification that facilities are using,
regulators may not be able to effectively
administer the standards and that this
information may be required for
regulators to address various permitting,
compliance and enforcement actions at
the facility. We remain unconvinced
that these notifications are an essential
element in our regulatory compliance
regime. While we understand the
commenters concerns, we believe that
sufficient information and data will be
available to the regulatory authority to
monitor compliance with an alternative
standard without these notifications.
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Facilities To Notify if They Are
Using Alternative Valve Work Practices
We proposed to eliminate the
requirement to submit a notification to
the Regional Administrator before
implementing one of the alternative
work practices specified in
§§ 264.1062(b)(2) and (3) and
265.1062(b)(2) and (3). Under the
current regulations, an owner or
operator may elect to comply with one
of two alternative work practices
specified in the regulations. These
alternatives are: (1) After two
consecutive quarterly leak detection
periods with the percentage of valves
16877
leaking equal to or less than 2 percent,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
one of the quarterly leak detection
periods (i.e., monitor for leaks once
every six months) for the valves; or (2)
after five consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2
percent, an owner or operator may be
begin to skip three of the quarterly leak
detection periods ( i.e., monitor for leaks
once every year) for the valves.
The majority of the commenters
agreed with the proposal. One
commenter, however, argued that some
technical review by the Agency should
be warranted to approve this alternative
standard. Upon review of the comment,
we are unconvinced that the
implementation of this alternative work
practice needs technical review or
oversight by the regulated authority.
The alternative work practices described
in the regulations are straightforward
and the results of the leak detection
periods will be maintained in the
facility files as required under the
recordkeeping requirements found in
§ 264.1064. Therefore, we are
eliminating the need for these
notifications.
TABLE 9.—RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS BEING DELETED FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE,
AND DISPOSAL, FACILITIES
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
Deletion to 264.56 ................
264.56(i) ...............................
Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures. Emergency Procedures.
Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with § 265.56(h) (which requires that no waste that may
be incompatible with the released material will be treated, stored, or disposed until cleanup is completed, and
emergency equipment is made ready for use again) before resuming operations.
Incinerators. Performance standards.
Submit notification of intent to burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027.
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service: percentage of valves allowed to leak.
Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard
Submit notification to discontinue the alternative valve standard.
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service; skip period leak detection and repair.
Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves.
Deletion to 264.343 ..............
264.343(a)(2) ........................
Deletions to 264.1061 ..........
264.1061(b)(1) ......................
264.1061(d) ..........................
Deletion to 264.1062 ............
264.1062(a)(2) ......................
TABLE 10.—RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS BEING DELETED FOR INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
Deletion to 265.56 ................
265.56(i) ...............................
Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures. Emergency Procedures.
Notify Regional Administrator that facility is in compliance with § 265.56(h) (which requires that no waste that may
be incompatible with the released material will be treated, stored, or disposed until cleanup is completed, and
emergency equipment is made ready for use again) before resuming operations.
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service: percentage of valves allowed to leak.
Submit notification to implement the alternative valve standard.
Submit notification to discontinue the alternative valve standard.
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Alternative standards for valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service; skip period leak detection and repair.
Submit notification to implement alternative work practices for valves.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Deletions to 265.1061 ..........
265.1061(b)(1) ......................
265.1061(d) ..........................
Deletion to 265.1062 ............
265.1062(a)(2) ......................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
16878
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
G. We Are Permitting Decreased
Inspection Frequency for Certain
Hazardous Waste Management Units
RCRA regulations require generators
and treatment, storage and disposal
facilities to self-inspect their facilities to
ensure that they are in compliance. The
regulations include both facility-wide
and unit- and equipment-specific
inspection standards. Some of RCRA’s
regulations specify the inspection
frequency.
Self-inspections are a vital component
of an effective regulatory system. We
recognize however, that the frequency of
inspections has been a concern, and that
in most cases (particularly where
alternative approaches are employed)
facilities are able to carry out formal
inspections less frequently without
sacrificing human health and
environmental protection.
The Agency proposed a reduction in
tank self-inspection frequency from
daily to weekly for large quantity
generator tanks and treatment, storage
and disposal facilities. We also solicited
comment on allowing further reduced
inspection frequencies, on a case-bycase basis (as approved by the Regional
Administrator or the state Director, as
the context requires, or an authorized
representative), for containers,
containment buildings, and tanks.
However, this proposal required that
these inspections occur at least
monthly. In proposing these changes,
we suggested that decreased inspection
frequencies should be based on factors
such as: (1) A demonstrated
commitment by facility management to
sound environmental practices; (2)
achievement of good management
practices over the history of the
facility—that is, having a record of
sustained compliance with
environmental laws and permit
requirements; (3) a demonstrated
commitment to continued
environmental improvement; (4) a
demonstrated commitment to public
outreach and performance reporting; (5)
the installation of automatic monitoring
devices at the facility; and (6) the risk
posed by the waste managed in the unit.
Many commenters supported the
change from a daily to weekly
inspection frequency for tanks.
Commenters pointed out that the
integrity and safety of hazardous waste
tanks would not be compromised by
reducing the daily inspection
requirement to a weekly frequency.
Several other commenters pointed out
that hazardous waste storage tanks,
which have secondary containment, are
even more protectively designed than
process tanks which handle the same
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
chemicals. Other commenters, however,
did not support any decrease in
inspection frequency because of
concerns that if inspection frequencies
were decreased, the amount of time
between a leak and its discovery would
increase.
With regard to extending even further
the inspection frequency, to at least
once each month on a case-by-case
basis, we received comments from the
states expressing concern over the
added administrative burden in
implementing case-by-case changes to
inspection frequencies.
Based on the comments from the
proposed rule, we reconsidered whether
to make case-by-case reduced
inspections available to all generators
because of the burden it might impose
on authorized states to evaluate
compliance with the criteria. In the
October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR 61662),
we proposed reduced inspection
frequencies, granted on a case-by-case
basis, only for members of the National
Environmental Performance Track
Program, stating that, at a minimum, we
believe that providing relief is
appropriate for companies that are
demonstrated ‘‘good performers.’’ 9
In the NODA, we also clarified that
the reduced inspection frequency for
tanks was intended to apply not just to
the tanks, but to the complete tank
systems, which include piping, pumps,
valves and other associated equipment,
also known as ancillary equipment (see
§§ 264.193(f) and 265.193(f)). We also
asked for comment on expanding the
change to include tanks, not only at
large quantity generator sites, but small
quantity generator sites as well (see
§ 265.201(c)). Furthermore, we solicited
comment on extending the reduced
inspection frequencies, granted on a
case-by-case basis, to areas subject to
spills (see §§ 264.15(b)(4) and
265.15(b)(4)). We solicited comment on
whether to grant this relief only to
members of the National Environmental
Performance Track Program in that we
believe the risk from this change would
be minimal at facilities that have met
9 The National Environmental Performance Track
Program is a voluntary EPA program that recognizes
and rewards private and public facilities that
demonstrate strong environmental performance
beyond current requirements. The program is based
on the premise that government should
complement its existing programs and regulations
with new tools and strategies that not only protect
people and the environment, but also capture
opportunities for reducing cost and spurring
innovation. For more information and a closer look
at the activities and accomplishments of
Performance Track members to date, as well as
member’s goals for future achievements, please
refer to the program Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the requirements to be accepted into
this program.
1. We Are Establishing Weekly
Inspections for Certain Hazardous Waste
Tank Systems at Permitted and Interim
Status Facilities and at Large Quantity
Generator Sites
We are changing the self-inspection
frequencies for tank systems from daily
to weekly at permitted and interim
status treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, as well as for large quantity
generator (LQG) tank systems that are
operated under certain conditions.
Changing inspections for small quantity
generator (SQG) tanks is discussed in
section III.G.2 of this preamble. Tank
system, as defined in § 260.10, means a
hazardous waste storage or treatment
tank and its associated ancillary
equipment and containment system.
The requirements for permitted, interim
status, and LQG tank systems appear in
§§ 264 and 265, subpart J. Daily
inspections enable tank systems, subject
to subpart J, to comply with the
§§ 264.193(c) and 265.193(c)
requirements to detect leaks and spills
within 24 hours.
Our rule reduces inspections for: (1)
Above ground portions of the tank
system, if any, to detect corrosion or
releases of waste; and (2) the
construction materials and the area
immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tank system,
including the secondary containment
system (e.g., dikes) to detect erosion or
signs of releases of hazardous waste
(e.g., wet spots, dead vegetation).
Reduced inspections will be allowed
when either of two conditions are met:
(1) Tank owners and operators employ
leak detection equipment; or (2) in the
absence of leak detection equipment,
tank owners and operators employ
established workplace practices that
ensure that when any leaks or spills
occur, they will be promptly identified,
and promptly remediated. Owners and
operators choosing one of these options
to reduce inspection frequencies should
document the option selected in their
operating record. If the option selected
is ‘‘established workplace practices,’’
the owner and/or operator should
document those practices in the
facility’s operating record.
Leak detection equipment must meet
the respective requirements of
§§ 264.193(c)(3) and 265.193(c)(3). It
should be designed to alert facility
personnel promptly to the presence of
any leaks or spills (e.g., alarm systems)
so that emergency and/or remedial
action can be taken. (The existing
subpart J tank regulations require
secondary containment systems to be
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
designed and operated to detect releases
within 24 hours.) Leak detection
systems were described in the proposed
rule (67 FR 2527). But, while subpart J
requires releases to be detected within
24 hours, the regulations do not specify
the method of leak detection systems
that must be used. For example, some
facilities use daily visual inspections as
a method of leak detection for their
aboveground tanks, which is an
acceptable practice. However, under the
current tank system regulations, absent
daily visual inspections, leak detection
equipment that promptly notifies
facility personnel of leaks or spills, must
be used.
In the absence of leak detection
equipment, established workplace
practices must ensure that when any
leaks or spills occur, they will be
promptly identified and promptly
remediated in compliance with
§§ 264.193(c)(3) and (4) and
265.193(c)(3) and (4). When we say
‘‘established workplace practices,’’ we
mean practices that are documented and
that describe how the facility is
operated. (An example of established
workplace practices could be the
presence of an Environmental
Management System that includes plans
and practices to ensure that any releases
are promptly identified, contained, and
cleaned up.) Established workplace
practices will most likely be put in
place in situations, like that described
by a state commenter, where
aboveground tanks without leak
detection exist and daily visual
monitoring is the most common method
of leak detection used. In cases such as
these, lacking leak detection equipment,
owners or operators would need to use
workplace practices to identify releases,
if they choose to reduce their inspection
frequency.
A number of commenters noted that
reducing inspection frequencies of
§§ 264.195 and 265.195 should only be
done if secondary containment is
equipped with leak detection that
notifies response personnel if releases
occur. We partially agree with the
commenters; however, as noted earlier,
the rule also allows the facility operator
to institute work practices to ensure
prompt detection of a release. For
example, if the tank system is in an area
frequented by employees, where
releases will be immediately obvious,
all employees might be trained to watch
for releases and report them. In other
situations, an employee might be
assigned to check secondary
containment on a daily basis without
conducting a full tank system
‘‘inspection.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
We received several comments from
industry that the current daily
inspection requirements are a large
burden for the regulated community,
and that weekly inspections would
provide welcome relief. One commenter
noted that the majority of printers that
have tanks for collecting hazardous
waste have small tanks and they are
generally located indoors. Any release
from the tank would be detected almost
immediately and the extension of
mandatory inspection frequency would
greatly reduce the administrative
burden associated with using these
types of collection tanks. In this case,
the facility might not have leak
detection equipment, but standard work
practices might require all employees to
notify appropriate facility personnel if
they observe a release from the tanks.
Given the nature of the facility
described by the commenter, this would
likely constitute a work practice
sufficient to ensure prompt detection of
a release. Conversely, we also received
other industry comments suggesting that
while they liked the flexibility of the
reduced inspections, they offered that
they probably would not reduce their
own inspection frequency.
A state commenter argued that a basic
principle of RCRA is prevention,
including preventing a major release
from a waste management unit and that
the proposed rule appears primarily
guided by a desire to project an image
of providing a ‘‘burden reduction’’ for
the regulated community, while
disregarding prevention mechanisms.
The commenter further stated that the
chance of a release occurring and going
undetected is greatly increased by
allowing for weekly inspections of tank
systems. The commenter believes the
current requirement for daily
inspections of tank systems provides a
reasonable means to detect and
minimize release of hazardous waste in
a timely manner and the commenter
further stated that the requirement for
daily inspection of tank systems has not
been a significant burden on the
regulated community. We question this
commenter’s conclusion. By requiring
owners and operators who wish to
change the self-inspection frequencies
for tanks, to use either leak detection or
work place practices, we believe it is
unlikely that releases from tanks will go
undetected. The use of either leak
detection systems or established
workplace practices should assure that
releases are promptly detected, and that
the appropriate personnel are notified
so that releases can be stopped and
cleaned up. According to § 264.196,
upon detection of a leak, either through
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16879
the leak detection system or visual
observation, the owner or operator of
the tank system must immediately stop
the flow of hazardous waste, determine
and rectify the cause of the leak, remove
the waste, and contain releases to the
environment.
It is important to note that we are not
changing the existing requirement,
found in § 264.195(a)(2) and
§ 265.195(a)(3)), that data gathered from
monitoring and leak detection
equipment (e.g., pressure or temperature
gauges, monitoring wells) must be
inspected at least once each operating
day to ensure that the tank system is
being operated according to its design.
We believe that this requirement is
necessary in order to ensure compliance
with § 264.193(c) and § 265.193(c),
which require the detection of leaks and
spills within 24 hours. In addition,
keeping this requirement supports the
new reduced inspection requirements
that we are putting in place today, by
providing further information about any
releases that may occur.
As a final matter, several commenters
to the proposed rule suggested changing
the inspection frequencies for ancillary
equipment, specifically citing
§§ 264.193(f) and 265.193(f). (These
requirements specify that ancillary
equipment must have secondary
containment, except in four instances,
each involving daily visual inspections
for leaks.) While most commenters
provided little information to support
making the change, one commenter did
argue that if the proposed changes to
§§ 264.195 and 265.195 were finalized,
the existing provisions in §§ 264.193(f)
and 265.193(f), if not also changed,
would be inconsistent.
As background, the October 29, 2003
NODA requested comment on
expanding the proposed rule to include
ancillary equipment at LQG and SQG
sites. The NODA referenced the
regulations at §§ 264.193(f) and
265.193(f), suggesting making the
change would be consistent with our
intent, as discussed in the proposed
rule. Because today’s rule changes the
inspection frequencies for tank systems
provided with secondary containment,
where leak detection equipment or
workplace practices are used, as
discussed previously, any ancillary
equipment associated with such tank
systems would, therefore, be eligible for
reduced inspections.
We considered allowing ancillary
equipment without secondary
containment, as described at
§§ 264.193(f)(1)–(4) and 265.193(f)(1)–
(4), to be visually inspected weekly
instead of daily. While most of the
commenters supported this change,
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16880
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
upon further analysis we now conclude
that expanding the rule to include
ancillary equipment without secondary
containment is not consistent with how
the final rule addresses reduced
inspection frequency for tank systems.
The proposed rule discussed reducing
inspection frequencies for tanks and
tank systems because of, among other
reasons, the presence of secondary
containment. Allowing ancillary
equipment without secondary
containment to change from daily visual
inspections to weekly visual inspections
would not be consistent with our
approach. We are including regulatory
language in §§ 264.194(d) and
265.195(c) to say that ancillary
equipment that is not provided with
secondary containment, as described in
§§ 264.193(f)(1)–(4), must be inspected
at least once each operating day.
We would like to note that there are
instances where tanks and tanks
systems are located within buildings,
and where the building itself provides
secondary containment. In cases where
ancillary equipment is located inside a
building that has been determined to
provide secondary containment, and
either leak detection systems or
established workplace practices exist to
identify leaks and spills, then the
regulatory criteria are met and that
ancillary equipment may be inspected
weekly. For example, in a case where
ancillary equipment inside a building
does not have double walls or leak
detection, this ancillary equipment
would still be eligible for weekly
inspections if the building serves as
secondary containment, and if the area
is frequented by employees whereby
releases will be immediately obvious
and the employees will promptly
identify and remediate leaks and spills.
In cases involving buildings serving
as secondary containment, authorized
states necessarily have the ultimate
authority to make the determination that
secondary containment requirements
are met (taking into account all relevant
site-specific considerations).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2. We Are Establishing Weekly
Inspections for SQG Hazardous Waste
Tank Systems With Secondary
Containment
While the previous discussion
addressed changes in the inspection
frequency for certain tank systems at
permitted and interim status facilities,
and LQG sites, today’s rule also changes
the inspection frequency for certain tank
systems at SQG sites. The requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
for SQG tanks are found in 40 CFR
265.201(b).10
Under the current regulations,
generators of between 100 and 1,000 kg/
mo accumulating hazardous waste in
tanks must inspect at least once each
operating day, if applicable; (1)
discharge control equipment (e.g., waste
feed cutoff systems, by-pass systems,
and drainage systems); (2) data gathered
from monitoring equipment (e.g.,
pressure and temperature gauges); and
(3) the level of waste in the tank. In
addition, at least weekly, generators
must also inspect: (1) The construction
materials of the tank to detect corrosion
or leaking of fixtures or seams; and (2)
the construction materials of, and the
area immediately surrounding,
discharge confinement structures (e.g.,
dikes) to detect erosion or obvious signs
of leakage (e.g., wet spots or dead
vegetation).
While § 265.201 does not require
SQGs to be equipped with secondary
containment, nor leak detection, under
today’s rule, SQG tank system owners
and operators who wish to reduce their
inspection frequency may do so if these
tank systems are provided with
secondary containment with either leak
detection equipment or established
workplace practices that ensure prompt
detection of releases, as described above
for other tank systems. Owners and
operators choosing one of these options
to reduce inspection frequencies should
document the option selected in their
operating record. If the option selected
is ‘‘established workplace practices,’’
the owner and/or operator should
document those practices in the
facility’s operating record.
In the proposal, we received
comments suggesting that we expand
the proposed reduction in tank selfinspection frequency to include tanks
located at small quantity generator sites
(see § 265.201(c)) and ancillary
10 The requirements for SQG tanks were finalized
on March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), and with the July
14, 1986 final tank regulations (51 FR 25422),
codified at § 265.201. Discussion in the March 1986
rule explains how the SQG requirements were
developed, as distinct from the requirements for
tanks at LQG sites. The rule states: ‘‘Congress
anticipated reducing administrative requirements,
such as reporting and recordkeeping, as a means to
reduce impacts on the 100–1000 kg/mo generators.
Thus, EPA proposed to relieve these generators of
some Part 262 standards that are administrative in
nature, while retaining all existing technical
standards. The relief was only provided to
generators who accumulate on-site for the
statutorily prescribed periods, because, given that
the amount of waste accumulated would
necessarily be limited, the relative risk from
releases of such waste would be less than that from
the unlimited amounts of waste accumulated by offsite facilities.’’ (51 FR 10149).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
equipment (see § 265.193(f)11). This
change would affect only three of the
five SQG inspection requirements: for
discharge control equipment
(§ 265.201(c)(1)); data gathered from
monitoring equipment (§ 265.201(c)(2));
and monitoring the level of waste in the
tank (§ 265.201(c)(3)), since the last two
inspection requirements
(§§ 265.201(c)(4) and (c)(5)) are already
done on a weekly basis. We stated in the
NODA that changing these inspection
frequencies would be consistent with
our intent to establish weekly
inspections for all tank systems.
One state commenter argued that
tanks can and frequently do fail
abruptly and with little or no warning,
losing most or all of their contents in a
very short period of time and if the rule
were promulgated as proposed, it might
be a week or longer before leaks of any
size were discovered and remediation
begun. The commenter further reasoned
that for those tanks without secondary
containment (e.g., SQGs), waiting such
a long time for remediation efforts may
lead to extensive environmental
damage. We acknowledge the
commenter’s concerns and support the
rapid remediation of leaks; we believe
that the controls we are promulgating
today will adequately prevent such an
occurrence, even for SQGs.
One commenter did state that,
although he did not object to allowing
small quantity generators reduced tank
inspection frequencies, he noted that
reducing inspection frequencies will not
provide any additional reduction in the
recordkeeping/reporting burden for
small quantity generators who are not
subject to §§ 264.15 and 265.15 and are
not required to maintain a schedule or
a record of inspections. We agree that
§ 265.201 does not require SQGs to
record inspections. Burden reduction
would come from the time saved
(person-hours) from reduced
inspections.
Several states were not in favor of
reduced inspection frequency for small
quantity generators. One commenter
stated that EPA has not provided any
data that suggest that the reduced
frequency of tank inspections is as
protective as the intent of the current
standard which as stated in 51 FR
25454, July 14, 1986 is to ‘‘* * * enable
the detection of releases or potential
11 While the Agency solicited comment on
reducing the inspection frequency for ancillary
equipment for SQGs, the referenced regulation,
§ 265.193(f) does not apply to tank systems at SQG
sites, only the requirements found in § 265.201(c)
apply to SQG tank systems. Therefore, the Agency
is not pursuing changes to § 265.193(f) that would
affect SQGs. As discussed above, the regulatory
changes we are making today apply to SQG tank
systems, which include ancillary equipment.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
releases at the earliest possible time.’’
Another commenter further argued that
reduced tank inspection frequency
should not be afforded to small quantity
generators unless their tank systems are
upgraded to meet additional standards
and that currently SQGs only have to
inspect their tank systems for proper
operations controls daily. SQGs are not
required to do any type of additional
leak detection, except for the weekly
requirements already in place. Since
SQGs are not required to provide
secondary containment, the operating
day inspections assist in protecting from
a release or potential release. Other
commenters argued that if SQGs wish to
receive this reduced inspection
frequency, they should comply with the
same secondary containment
requirements as large quantity
generators and install an automated leak
detection equipment that alerts a person
designated to respond. We agree, in
part, with the commenters. SQG tanks
historically have less stringent
requirements than LQGs, permitted, and
interim status tanks. But, while existing
SQG tanks are not required to have
secondary containment, in order to
enjoy reduced inspection frequencies
under today’s rule, tanks must have
secondary containment with leak
detection, or have secondary
containment and workplace practices in
use that promptly identify leaks and
spills.
3. We Are Allowing Members of the
National Environmental Performance
Track Program To Apply for an
Adjustment to the Frequency of
Inspections for Certain Hazardous Waste
Units and Areas
In addition to allowing a change in
the inspection frequency for selected
tank systems, we also proposed to allow
on a case-by-case basis, less frequent
self-inspections for tank systems,
container storage areas, and
containment buildings. Under our
current regulations, container storage
areas and containment buildings must
be inspected weekly. (See §§ 264.174,
265.174, 264.1101(c)(4), and
265.1101(c)(4).)
Based on comments received on the
proposal, we reconsidered whether to
make such a change available to all
generators because of the burden it
would impose on authorized states to
evaluate compliance with the criteria.
As stated in the October 29, 2003 NODA
(68 FR 61662), we believe that providing
relief is appropriate for companies that
are demonstrated ‘‘good performers’’
and we solicited comment on limiting
this provision to member companies of
the National Environmental
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Performance Track Program, as well as
extending reduced inspection
frequencies, granted on a case-by-case
basis, to areas subject to spills (see
§ 264.15(b)(4)).
In today’s rule we are finalizing this
provision—the ability to file a case-bycase application for further reduced selfinspection frequencies—to facilities that
are members of the National
Environmental Performance Track
Program. Performance Track member
facilities are provided the opportunity
to reduce self-inspections of tank
systems, containers, containment
buildings, and areas subject to spills to
a frequency of at least once each month.
Performance Track members must
apply to the regulatory agency for
approval before implementing a reduced
inspection frequency schedule.12 The
Performance Track facility must submit
an application to the regulatory
authority identifying itself as a member
of the National Environmental
Performance Track Program and request
a reduction in self inspection frequency.
For those members that are also
permitted treatment, storage and
disposal facilities, the application must
be in the form of a Class 1 permit
modification with prior approval. The
Performance Track member facility
must request reduced inspections, for
no less than once each month, for any
of the waste management units
identified in today’s rule (including
tank systems, containers, containment
buildings, and areas subject to spills).
(Only one application per Performance
Track member facility is required.) After
the application is received, the Director
has 60 days to approve or deny the
application, in writing. The Director
also may choose to extend this 60 day
deadline, if more time is needed to
review the application (e.g., in the case
where an on-site inspection is needed or
a more in-depth analysis of the
application is warranted.) If the
application is approved, the notification
will identify the management units
12 In the proposed rule (67 FR at 2527), the
Agency made reference to a commenter’s suggestion
that inspection frequency changes should be selfimplementing. The example given by the
commenter outlined an option where an inspection
schedule should be deemed approved if EPA does
not specifically deny the request in writing within
30 days. At that time, we stated that one of our
principle objectives for this burden reduction
change, was to ensure that the regulatory agencies
made the decision to decrease inspection
frequencies and as such, we were not considering
self-implementing alternatives. While we still
maintain that regulatory agencies should make
these decisions on a case-by-case basis, upon
further consideration, we believe it is also
important to streamline the application process by
establishing a timetable for application/permit
modification review.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16881
approved for reduced frequency of
inspections, as well as the time interval
between inspections (at a minimum of
one inspection each month.) This notice
must be placed in the facility’s
operating record.
The Performance Track member
facility should consider the application
approved after 60 days if the Director
does not: (1) Deny the application, in
writing; or (2) notify, in writing, the
Performance Track member facility of
an extension to the 60-day deadline. In
these situations, the Performance Track
member facility must adhere to the
revised inspection schedule outlined in
their application and keep a copy of the
application in the facility’s operating
record.
It is expected that Performance Track
facilities would have an EMS providing
sufficient oversight to prevent and
detect leaks and spills. In addition,
facilities that applied for Performance
Track would have conducted an
Environmental Management System
(EMS) Independent Assessment.13 The
assessment must determine whether the
facility regularly monitors and measures
its key operations that can have a
significant impact on the environment,
and records this information. Therefore,
through the use of EMSs and workplace
practices, we would expect Performance
Track facilities to be able to prevent and
detect leaks and spills. Providing
Performance Track member facilities
with the option for reduced inspection
frequencies does not mean we are
reducing the requirements for the owner
or operator to detect leaks and spills;
providing reduced inspection for
Performance Track member facilities
acknowledges that these facilities have
established controls and procedures to
prevent releases and to respond
promptly if and when they occur. The
Agency believes it is important to
recognize the difference in the need for
oversight of facilities that are top
environmental performers which have
developed comprehensive
environmental management systems
and who have a track record of effective
self-oversight.
Any Performance Track member
facility that discontinues its
membership in Performance Track or is
terminated from the program must
immediately notify the Director, in
writing of its change in status (i.e., they
are no longer a Performance Track
member facility). These facilities must
revert back to the ‘‘non-Performance
13 For more information on the Independent
Assessment Criteria for EMSs, see https://
www.epa.gov/performancetrack/
indlassessment.htm.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
16882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Track member’’ inspection frequency
within seven calendar days. The facility
must place in their operating record a
dated copy of this notification. In cases
where the Performance Track member is
a permitted TSDF, the Agency is
requiring that the permit modification to
allow the reduced inspection frequency
contain a ‘‘sunset’’ clause, in case the
facility’s membership in Performance
Track ends. If written without a
‘‘sunset’’ clause, an approved permit
modification allowing a reduced
inspection frequency could otherwise
‘‘shield’’ the facility from violation if it
ceases to be a Performance Track
member. Therefore, we are requiring
that the Class 1 modification request
contain specific language stating that
the reduced frequency is for as long as
the facility remains a Performance Track
member. The language must say that if
the facility ceases to be a Performance
Track member facility, it must revert to
the ‘‘non-Performance Track’’
inspection frequency within seven
calendar days after membership in
Performance Track ends.
Sections a. through d. below discuss
in more detail the Agency’s basis for
decisions on inspection frequency for
areas subject to spills, containers, tank
systems, and containment buildings at
Performance Track member facilities.
a. Performance Track: Reduced
Inspection Frequency for Areas Subject
to Spills. The general inspection
requirements of §§ 264.15 and 265.14,
require that areas subject to spills, such
as loading and unloading areas, must be
inspected daily, while in use. These
inspections are to identify malfunctions
and deterioration, operator errors, and
discharges which may be causing—or be
leading to—(1) a release of hazardous
waste constituents to the environment,
or (2) a threat to human health. In
response to a comment in the 2002
proposal, the October 29, 2003 NODA
(68 FR 61662) considered reducing
inspection frequencies, granted on a
case-by-case basis, for areas subject to
spills. We also solicited comment on
whether to grant this relief only to
Performance Track member facilities,
stating that the risk from this change is
minimal at facilities that have met the
requirements to be accepted into the
Performance Track Program. We
received two comments on this issue;
one commenter supported the proposal,
and one did not . The commenter that
opposed the proposal provided no
explanation or justification for its
position. The supporting commenter
stated that activities that may cause
spills ‘‘usually allow for the spills to be
easily detected and quickly cleaned up.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
More frequent inspections are unlikely
to result in quicker spill detection.’’
In general, we do not believe that
such a change to the regulation is
appropriate for all facilities, for the
reasons laid out above. However, we
believe the risk from this change is
minimal at facilities that have met the
requirements to be accepted into the
National Environmental Performance
Track Program. Therefore, we have
decided to extend inspection
frequencies for no less than once each
month, at areas subject to spills, but
only for facilities that are members of
the National Environmental
Performance Track Program that have
received prior approval from the
regulatory agency.
b. Performance Track: Reduced
Inspection Frequency for Containers.
Sections 264.174 and 265.174 require
owners or operators to inspect, at least
weekly, areas where containers holding
hazardous waste are stored, looking for
leaking containers and for deterioration
of containers and the containment
system caused by corrosion or other
factors. We proposed to allow case-bycase decreased inspection frequencies
for containers.
The October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61662) addressed comments received on
the 2002 proposal. Based on the
comments from the proposal, the NODA
reconsidered whether to make case-bycase reduced self-inspections available
to all generators because of the burden
it might impose on authorized states to
evaluate compliance with the criteria.
That is, making such a change available
to all generators would likely impose a
substantial burden on the states or EPA
in order to evaluate whether an
applicant facility met the criteria. Such
a burden is clearly in opposition to the
intent of today’s rule. Finally, the
Agency stated clearly that ‘‘at a
minimum, we believe that providing
relief is appropriate for companies that
are demonstrated good performers.’’ (68
FR 61665.)
The Agency received comments on
this issue that supported the application
of this provision to Performance Track
members. Other comments stated that
this provision should be made available
to all facilities with a demonstrated
record of good compliance, with some
type of demonstrated top performance,
or by meeting the proposed criteria.
The Agency considered all comments
received on this issue and has decided
to finalize a reduced self-inspection
requirement to §§ 264.174 and 265.174
available only to members of the
National Environmental Performance
Track Program. The reason for this
decision is that case-by-case
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
determinations for all hazardous waste
facilities would significantly increase
the burden associated with providing
this benefit to all facilities. Performance
Track member facilities may apply to
their regulatory agency for a reduction
in self-inspection frequency, for no less
thanonce each month, for containers
and for areas where containers holding
hazardous waste are stored.
c. Performance Track: Reduced
Inspection Frequency for Tank Systems.
Today, we are changing the selfinspection frequencies for tank systems
from daily to no less than once each
month for tank systems, granted on a
case-by-case basis, for members of the
National Environmental Performance
Track Program when operating under
certain conditions.14 This includes
Performance Track member facilities
that are either permitted TSDFs, interim
status TSDFs, large quantity generators
(LQGs), and/or small quantity
generators (SQGs).
Today’s rule allows Performance
Track member facilities to apply to the
regulatory agency for reduced tank
system self-inspection frequency, of no
less than once each month when either
of two conditions are met: (1) When
tank owners and operators employ leak
detection equipment, or (2) when in the
absence of leak detection equipment,
owners and operators of tank systems
employ workplace practices that ensure
that when any leaks or spills occur, they
will be promptly identified and
remediated. Performance Track member
facilities choosing one of these options
to reduce inspection frequencies, should
identify the option selected as part of its
application to the regulatory agency.
Small quantity generator (SQG) tank
systems are subject to separate
requirements, found in 40 CFR 265.201.
Today’s rulemaking also allows
National Environmental Performance
Track members to apply to the
regulatory agency for reduced selfinspection frequencies for SQG tank
systems under § 265.201(b) when they
meet either one of the two conditions
described above.
d. Performance Track: Reduced
Inspection Frequency for Containment
14 As previously discussed, we intended to
include a broad applicability for tank systems in
our proposed rule; however, the proposal did not
clearly address the point. We clarified in the
October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR 61662) that the
proposal was meant to apply not just to the tanks,
but to the complete tank systems (i.e., ancillary
equipment). Complete tank systems were defined as
including piping, pumps, valves and other
associated equipment. Commenters were generally
supportive of this change. Therefore, we are
applying this provision to complete tank systems,
except to ancillary equipment without secondary
containment as described at §§ 264.193(f)(1)–(4) and
265.193(f)(1)–(4).
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Buildings. We proposed to allow caseby-case decreased inspection
frequencies for containment buildings.
As stated generally above, the intent
was to offer this provision only to the
safest and best performing facilities. In
the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61662), we solicited comment on
whether to limit the reduced inspection
frequency for containment buildings to
member facilities of the National
Environmental Performance Track
16883
Program. Again, for the same reasons
stated above, we decided to limit
§§ 264.1101 and 265.1101 to
Performance Track member facilities.
TABLE 11.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AT PERMITTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Definitions.
264.15(b)(4) ...............
General Facility Standards:
General Inspection Requirements.
264.15(b)(5) ...............
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
260.10 ........................
General Facility Standards:
General Inspection Requirements.
264.174 ......................
Use and Management of Containers: Inspections.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
No regulatory definition currently exists.
Performance Track member facility means a facility which has been accepted by EPA
for membership in the National Environmental Performance Track Program and is
still a member of the Program. The National Environmental Performance Track Program is a voluntary, facility based, program for top environmental performers. Facility members must demonstrate a good record of compliance, past success in
achieving environmental goals, and commit to future specific quantified environmental goals, environmental management systems, local community outreach, and
annual reporting of measurable results.
The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on the schedule. However, the
frequency should be based on the rate of deterioration of the equipment and the
probability of an environmental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or any operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject
to spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily when in
use. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the items and frequencies
called for in §§ 264.174, 264.193, 264.195, 264.226, 264.254, 264.278, 264.303,
264.347, 264.602, 264.1033, 264.1052, 264.1053, 264.1058, and 264.1083 through
264.1089 of this part, where applicable.
The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on the schedule. However, the
frequency should be based on the rate of deterioration of the equipment and the
probability of an environmental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject to
spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily when in use,
except for Performance Track member facilities, that may inspect at least once
each month, upon approval by the Director, as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the items and frequencies called for in §§ 264.174, 264.193, 264.195, 264.226, 264.254, 264.278,
264.303, 264.347, 264.602, 264.1033, 264.1052, 264.1053, 264.1058, and
264.1083 through 264.1089 of this part, where applicable.
No regulatory language currently exists.
Performance Track member facilities that choose to reduce their inspection frequency
must:
(i) Submit a request for a Class I permit modification with prior approval to the Director. The modification request must identify the facility as a member of the National
Environmental Performance Track Program and identify the management units for
reduced inspections and the proposed frequency of inspections. The modification
request must also specify, in writing, that the reduced inspection frequency will
apply for as long as the facility is a Performance Track member facility, and that
within seven calendar days of ceasing to be a Performance Track member, the facility will revert to the non-Performance Track inspection frequency. Inspections
must be conducted at least once each month.
(ii) Within 60 days, the Director will notify the Performance Track member facility, in
writing, if the request is approved, denied, or if an extension to the 60-day deadline
is needed. This notice must be placed in the facility’s operating record. The Performance Track member facility should consider the application approved if the Director does not: (1) deny the application; or (2) notify the Performance Track member facility of an extension to the 60 day deadline. In these situations, the Performance Track member facility must adhere to the revised inspection schedule outlined
in its request for a Class I permit modification and keep a copy of the application in
the facility’s operating record.
(iii) Any Performance Track member facility that discontinues its membership or is terminated from the program must immediately notify the Director of its change in status. The facility must place in the operating record a dated copy of this notification
and revert back to the non-Performance Track inspection frequencies within seven
calendar days.
At least weekly, the owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are
stored, looking for leaking containers, and for deterioration of containers and the
containment system caused by corrosion or other factors.
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16884
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AT PERMITTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Tank Systems: Inspections .......
264.1101(c)(4) ...........
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.195 ......................
Containment Buildings: Design
and Operating Standards.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
At least weekly, the owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are
stored, except for Performance Track member facilities, that may conduct inspections at least once each month, upon approval by the Director. To apply for reduced inspection frequencies, the Performance Track member facility must follow
the procedures described in § 264.15(b)(5) of this part. The owner or operator must
look for leaking containers and for deterioration of containers and the containment
system caused corrosion or other factors.
(b) The owner or operator must inspect at least once each operating day:
(1) Above ground portions of the tank system, if any to detect corrosion or releases of
waste:
(2) Data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (e.g., pressure or
temperature gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that the tank system is being operated according to its design; and
(3) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system
(e.g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste (e.g., wet
spots, dead vegetation).
[Note: Section 264.15(c) requires the owner or operator to remedy any deterioration
or malfunction he finds. Section 264.196 requires the owner or operator to notify
the Regional Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a leak. Also, 40 CFR part
302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National Response Center of a
release.]
(b) The owner or operator must inspect at least once each operating day data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (e.g., pressure or temperature
gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that the tank system is being operated according to its design;
(c) In addition, except as noted under paragraph (d) of this section, the owner or operator must inspect at least once each operating day:
(1) Above ground portions of the tank system, if any to detect corrosion or releases of
waste:
(2) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system
(e.g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste (e.g.,
wetspots, dead vegetation).
(d) Owners or operators of tank systems that either use leak detection equipment to
alert facility personnel to leaks, or implement established workplace practices to ensure leaks are promptly identified, must inspect at least weekly those areas described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. Use of the alternate inspection schedule must be documented in the facility’s operating record. This documentation must include a description of the established workplace practices at the
facility.
(e) Performance Track member facilities may inspect on a less frequent basis, upon
approval by the Director, but must inspect at least once each month. To apply for a
less than weekly inspection frequency, the Performance Track member facility must
follow the procedures described in § 264.15(b)(5).
(f) Ancillary equipment that is not provided with secondary containment, as described
in § 264.193(f)(1)–(4), must be inspected at least once each operating day.
[Note: Section 264.15(c) requires the owner or operator to remedy any deterioration
or malfunction he finds. Section 264.196 requires the owner or operator to notify
the Regional Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a leak. Also, 40 CFR part
302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National Response Center of a
release.]
Inspect and record in the facility’s operating record, at least once every seven days,
data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous waste.
Inspect and record in the facility’s operating record, at least once every seven days,
except for Performance Track member facilities that must inspect at least once
each month, upon approval by the Director, data gathered from monitoring and leak
detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately
surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous
waste. To apply for reduced inspection frequency, the Performance Track member
facility must follow the procedures described in § 264.15(b)(5) of this part.
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16885
TABLE 12.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AT INTERIM STATUS
FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Definitions.
265.15(b)(4) ...............
General Facility Standards:
General Inspection Requirements.
265.15(b)(5) ...............
General Facility Standards:
General Inspection Requirements..
265.174 ......................
Use and Management of Containers: Inspections.
265.195 ......................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
260.10 ........................
Tank Systems: Inspections. ......
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
No regulatory definition currently exists.
Performance Track member facility means a facility that has been accepted by EPA
for membership in the National Environmental Performance Track Program and is
still a member of the Program. The National Environmental Performance Track Program is a voluntary, facility based, program for top environmental performers. Facility members must demonstrate a good record of compliance, past success in
achieving environmental goals, and commit to future specific quantified environmental goals, environmental management systems, local community outreach, and
annual reporting of measurable results.
The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on the schedule. However, the
frequency should be based on the rate of deterioration of the equipment and the
probability of an environmental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or any operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject
to spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily when in
use. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the items and frequencies
called for in §§ 265.174, 265.193, 265.195, 265.226, 265.260, 265.278, 265.304,
265.347, 265.377, 265.403, 265.1033, 265.1052, 265.1053, 265.1058 and
265.1084 through 265.1090 of this part, where applicable.
The frequency of inspection may vary for the items on the schedule. However, the
frequency should be based on the rate of deterioration of the equipment and the
probability of an environmental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject to
spills, such as loading and unloading areas, must be inspected daily when in use,
except for Performance Track member facilities, that must inspect at least once
each month, upon approval by the Director, as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section. At a minimum, the inspection schedule must include the items and frequencies called for in §§ 265.174, 265.193, 265.195, 265.226, 265.260, 265.278,
265.304, 265.347, 265.377, 265.403, 265.1033, 265.1052, 265.1053, 265.1058 and
265.1084 through 265.1090 of this part, where applicable.
No regulatory language currently exists.
Performance Track member facilities that choose to reduce their inspection frequency
must:
(i) Submit an application to the Director. The application must identify the facility as a
member of the National Environmental Performance Track Program and identify the
management units for reduced inspections and the proposed frequency of inspections. Inspections must be conducted at least once each month.
(ii) Within 60 days, the Director will notify the Performance Track member facility, in
writing, if the application is approved, denied, or if an extension to the 60-day deadline is needed. This notice must be placed in the facility’s operating record. The
Performance Track member facility should consider the application approved if the
Director does not: (1) deny the application; or (2) notify the Performance Track
member facility of an extension to the 60-day deadline. In these situations, the Performance Track member facility must adhere to the revised inspection schedule
outlined in its application and keep a copy of the application in the facility’s operating record.
(iii) Any Performance Track member facility that discontinues its membership or is terminated from the program must immediately notify the Director of its change in status. The facility must place in the operating record a dated copy of this notification
and revert back to the non-Performance Track inspection frequencies within seven
calender days.
The owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are stored, at least
weekly, looking for leaks and for deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors.
At least weekly, the owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are
stored, except Performance Track member facilities, that must conduct inspections
at least once each month, upon approval by the Director. To apply for reduced inspection frequency, the Performance Track member facility must follow the procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5) of this part. The owner or operator must look for
leaking containers and for deterioration of containers and the containment system
caused by corrosion or other factors.
(a) The owner or operator must inspect, where present, at least once each operating
day:
(1) Overfill/spill control equipment (e.g., waste-feed cutoff systems, bypass systems,
and drainage systems) to ensure that it is in good working order;
(2) Above ground portions of the tank system, if any to detect corrosion or releases of
waste;
(3) Data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (e.g., pressure or
temperature gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that the tank system is being operated according to its design; and
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16886
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 12.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AT INTERIM STATUS
FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
265.1101(c)(4) ...........
Containment Buildings: Design
and Operating Standards.
(4) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tanks system, including the secondary containment system (e.g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste (e.g.,
wet spots, dead vegetation).
Note: Section 265.15(c) requires the owner or operator to remedy any deterioration
or malfunction he finds. Section 265.196 requires the owner or operator to notify
the Regional Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a release. Also, 40 CFR
part 302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National Response Center
of a release.
(a) The owner or operator must inspect, where present, at least once each operating
day, data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (e.g., pressure or
temperature gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that the tank system is being operated according to its design.
(b) Except as noted under paragraph (c) of this section, the owner or operator must
inspect at least once each operating day:
(1) Overfill/spill control equipment (e.g., waste-feed cutoff systems, bypass systems,
and drainage systems) to ensure that it is in good working order;
(2) Above ground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion or releases
of waste; and
(3) The construction materials and the area immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tank system, including the secondary containment system
(e.g., dikes) to detect erosion or signs of releases of hazardous waste (e.g., wet
spots, dead vegetation).
(c) Owners or operators of tank systems that either use leak detection equipment to
alert facility personnel to leaks, or implement established workplace practices to ensure leaks are promptly identified, must inspect at least weekly those areas described in paragraphs (b)(1)–(3) of this section. Use of the alternate inspection
schedule must be documented in the facility’s operating record. This documentation
must include a description of the established workplace practices at the facility.
(d) Performance Track member facilities may inspect on a less frequent basis, upon
approval by the Director, but must inspect at least once each month. To apply for a
less than weekly inspection frequency, the Performance Track member facility must
follow the procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
(e) Ancillary equipment that is not provided with secondary containment, as described
in § 265.193(f)(1)–(4), must be inspected at least once each operating day.
Note: Section 265.15(c) requires the owner or operator to remedy any deterioration
or malfunction he finds. Section 265.196 requires the owner or operator to notify
the Regional Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a release. Also, 40 CFR
part 302 may require the owner or operator to notify the National Response Center
of a release.
Inspect and record in the facility’s operating record, at least once every seven days,
data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous waste.
Inspect and record in the facility’s operating record, at least once every seven days,
except for Performance Track member facilities, that must inspect at least once
each month, upon approval by the Director, data gathered from monitoring and leak
detection equipment as well as the containment building and the area immediately
surrounding the containment building to detect signs of releases of hazardous
waste. To apply for reduced inspection frequency, the Performance Track member
facility must follow the procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
TABLE 13.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT UNITS
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
265.201(c) .................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Tank Systems: Special requirements for generators of between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo
that accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks.
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
(c) Generators of between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste in tanks must inspect, where present:
(1) Discharge control equipment (e.g., waste feed cutoff systems, by-pass systems,
and drainage systems) at least once each operating day, to ensure that it is in
good working order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g., pressure and temperature
gauges) at least once each operating day, to ensure that the tank is being operated
according to its design;
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16887
TABLE 13.—DECREASED INSPECTION FREQUENCIES FOR SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT UNITS—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
(3) The level of waste in the tank at least once each operating day to ensure compliance with § 265.201(b)(3);
(4) The construction materials of the tank at least weekly to detect corrosion or leaking of fixtures or seams; and
(5) The construction materials of, and the area immediately surrounding, discharge
confinement structures (e.g., dikes) at least weekly to detect erosion or obvious
signs of leakage (e.g., wet spots or dead vegetation).
(c) Except as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, generators who accumulate between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste in tanks must inspect, where
present:
(1) Discharge control equipment (e.g., waste feed cutoff systems, by-pass systems,
and drainage systems) at least once each operating day, to ensure that it is in
good working order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g., pressure and temperature
gauges) at least once each operating day, to ensure that the tank is being operated
according to its design;
(3) The level of waste in the tank at least once each operating day to ensure compliance with § 265.201(b)(3);
(4) The construction materials of the tank at least weekly to detect corrosion or leaking of fixtures or seams; and
(5) The construction materials of, and the area immediately surrounding, discharge
confinement structures (e.g., dikes) at least weekly to detect erosion or obvious
signs of leakage (e.g., wet spots or dead vegetation).
(d) Generators who accumulate between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste in
tanks or tank systems that have full secondary containment and that either use
leak detection equipment to alert facility personnel to leaks, or implement established workplace practices to ensure leaks are promptly identified, must inspect at
least weekly, where applicable, the areas identified in paragraphs (c)(1)–(5) of this
section. Use of the alternate inspection schedule must be documented in the facility’s operating record. This documentation must include a description of the established workplace practices at the facility.
(e) Performance Track member facilities may inspect on a less frequent basis, upon
approval by the Director, but must inspect at least once each month. To apply for a
less than weekly inspection frequency, the Performance Track member facility must
follow the procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
H. We Are Making Selected Changes to
the Requirements for Record Retention
and Submittal of Records
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
EPA is modifying certain
requirements for hazardous waste
handlers who keep records on site and
submit these same records to EPA. We
will now require waste handlers only to
keep these selected records on site.
EPA believes that many of the various
notices required do not add much in
protection and some are simply
redundant. We believe that reporting to
EPA on the majority of the day-to-day
functions of a facility does not need to
occur. Because a basic set of compliance
information will still be kept in the
facility’s operating record, we believe
the regulatory agency has an ample
opportunity for effective oversight.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
1. We Are Removing the Requirement
To Submit a One-Time Notification for
Recycled Wood Wastewaters and Spent
Wood-Preserving Solutions and
Clarifying an Unintentional Elimination
Made in the Proposal
Currently under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9),
spent wood preserving solutions and
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes are excluded from
classification as a solid waste if they are
reclaimed and reused for their original
intended purpose, and if five conditions
specified in subparagraphs (iii)(A)
through (iii)(E) are met. Paragraph (E)
required that the plant owner or
operator submit a one-time notification
that the plant intends to claim the
exclusion.15 Paragraph (E) also requires
15 The four other conditions found in 40 CFR
261.4(a)(9)(iii)(A)–(D) are: (A) The wood preserving
wastewaters and spent wood preserving solutions
are reused on-site at water borne plants in the
production process for their original intended
purpose; (B) Prior to reuse, the wastewaters and
spent wood preserving solutions are managed to
prevent release to either land or groundwater or
both; (C) Any unit used to manage wastewaters and/
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the owner or operator to maintain a
copy of the notification on-site for no
less than three years. Finally, paragraph
(E) explains that the exclusion applies
only so long as the plant meets all of the
conditions, and sets forth procedures for
what to do to retain the exclusion if the
facility goes out of compliance with a
condition.
The proposed rule (see 67 FR 2521)
was to reduce the burden on wood
preservers/treaters by eliminating the
requirement to submit the one-time
notification. The proposal stated that
the requirement is unnecessary and has
limited use for regulators. However, the
change to the regulations specified in
the regulatory text of the proposal
unintentionally eliminated the entire
paragraph (E) of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9),(iii)
or spent wood preserving solutions prior to reuse
can be visually or otherwise be determined to
prevent such releases; and (D) Any drip pad used
to manage the wastewaters and/or spent wood
preserving solutions prior to reuse complies with
the standard in part 265, subpart W of this chapter,
regardless of whether the plant generates a total of
less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16888
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
thus eliminating the one-time
notification requirement and also
eliminating the two other requirements
in that paragraph: (1) The requirement
to maintain the notification on-site for
three years, and (2) the implementation
discussion for compliance with the
conditions.
Three state commenters did not agree
with the proposal. These commenters
argued that the notification is useful for
identifying facilities that are claiming
the exclusion, identifying potential
problems before they occur, allowing
the regulating agency to verify
compliance, and workload planning.
Several state commenters, however,
agreed with the proposal to eliminate
the requirement to submit the
notification. Based on their comments,
these commenters appeared to
understand that only the requirement to
submit the one-time notification was
proposed for elimination. None
mentioned the requirement to retain the
notification on-site or the compliance
implementation procedures.
While we understand the concern of
some of the commenters, we still do not
believe that arguments put forth were
sufficient to change the proposed
approach. We believe that the submittal
of this notification is unnecessary
because the facilities are engaged in
limited activities to return materials to
their intended use in the wood treating
industry. Many comparable activities
occur without notification, including
direct reuse of the same material. These
activities will occur at generator sites
subject to EPA or state inspection (and
in some case at treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities), so EPA or the state
will have an opportunity to review the
activity. Note that in the final change to
the regulatory text, we are only
eliminating the requirement to submit
the one-time notification; we are not
eliminating the requirement to keep the
document on-site, or the discussion of
compliance implementation procedures.
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Interim Status Facilities To Submit
Specific Ground-Water Monitoring
Plans and Ground-Water Assessment
Reports
In today’s final rule, we are reducing
some of the burden on interim status
facilities by eliminating the need to
submit specific ground-water
monitoring plans and ground-water
assessment reports to the Regional
Administrator. These reports include:
(1) Plans for an alternative ground-water
monitoring system under § 265.90(d)(1)
that are implemented when the owner
or operator assumes (or knows) that
ground-water monitoring of indicator
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
parameters in accordance with
§§ 265.91 and 265.92 would show
statistically significant increases when
evaluated under § 265.93(b); (2) records
of the analyses and evaluations
specified in the plan under
§ 265.93(d)(2); and (3) ground-water
quality assessment reports required
under § 265.93(d)(5). These plans are
not being eliminated, but are to be
placed in the facility’s operating record
until closure of the facility. We consider
today’s changes to be a common sense
approach to reducing burden at
regulated facilities without
compromising environmental
protection.
Numerous states objected to these
proposed changes to the interim status
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, asserting that the
regulatory agency should continue to
receive a copy of these reports to assess
the effectiveness and appropriateness of
the ground-water monitoring system.
Other states asserted that EPA’s
approach places an undue burden on
the regulatory authority and makes it
difficult for states to fully evaluate
ground water across the state.
We believe that self-implementing
ground-water monitoring plans for
interim status facilities can be protective
of human health and the environment;
we disagree with the assertion that our
rationale places a burden on the
regulating authority. These reports must
be kept in the facility’s operating record
until closure of the facility and will be
available for inspection when the state
or EPA visits the facility. Nothing in
today’s rulemaking prevents the
regulating authority from requesting
reports from interim status facilities for
ground-water quality assessment or
indicator parameter concentrations.
EPA is retaining many requirements
for interim status facilities. For example,
we are not changing the ground-water
reporting requirements of
§§ 265.93(c)(1), (d)(1), (e) and (f) and
265.94(a)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii), that deal
with submitting notifications of
increased indicator parameter
concentrations and the development
and submittal of: (1) Ground-water
quality assessment reports; (2)
preparation and submittal of quarterly
reports on drinking water suitability
parameters; indicator parameter
concentrations and evaluations; and (3)
ground-water surface elevations.
Stakeholders have convinced us of the
importance of this information. Without
the knowledge of the status of the
facility ground-water monitoring
system, it may be difficult for regulators
to conduct effective inspections, address
compliance issues, and address
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
enforcement issues regarding the ground
water at interim status facilities.
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Interim Status Surface
Impoundments, Waste Piles, and
Landfills To Submit a Response Action
Plan
Response action plans are generated
by the owner or operator of a specified
hazardous waste management unit (e.g.,
surface impoundment, waste pile, and/
or landfill), and document actions to be
taken if the action leakage rate in the
unit’s leak detection system has been
exceeded.16 These actions are listed in
§§ 265.223, 265.259 and 265.303.17 The
Agency proposed eliminating the need
to submit to the Regional Administrator
response action plans for interim status
surface impoundments, waste piles, and
landfills. We are eliminating the
submission of the response action plan
to the Regional Administrator. The
facility must still prepare and retain
these plans on-site.
Several state commenters agreed with
the proposal; however, several others
did not. One commenter argued that a
release from a land-based unit is a
significant noncompliance and could
pose serious impacts to the people and
the environment, and it is important for
the facility to have a clear plan in
advance to respond to releases. Because
of the importance of controlling these
releases, it is appropriate for the
response action plan to be submitted to
EPA or the state permit agency. While
we agree with the commenter that any
release from a land-based unit is a
serious matter, and that controlling
these releases is of the utmost
importance, we are not convinced that
these plans need to be submitted to the
regulatory agency. EPA is retaining all
requirements to submit notices to the
regulatory authority when an action
leakage rate is exceeded (see
§§ 265.224(b)(2) and (6); 265.259(b)(2)
and (6); and 265.303(b)(2) and (6)); we
16 The action leakage rate is the maximum design
flow rate that the leak detection system (LDS) can
remove without the fluid head on the bottom liner
exceeding one foot. The action leakage rate must
include an adequate margin of safety to allow for
uncertainties in the design (e.g., slope, hydraulic
conductivity, thickness of drainage material),
construction, operation, and location of the LDS,
waste and leachate characteristics, likelihood and
amounts of other sources of liquids in the LDS, and
proposed response actions (e.g., the action leakage
rate must consider decreases in the flow capacity
of the system over time resulting from siltation and
clogging, rib layover and creep of synthetic
components of the system, overburden pressures,
etc.).
17 In the CFR there are two sections identified as
§ 265.223, the first titled ‘‘Containment system’’ and
the second titled ‘‘Response actions’’. In today’s
rule we are redesignating § 265.223 titled
‘‘Response actions’’ as § 265.224.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
believe that the need to submit the
response action plan which merely
reiterates these requirements is an
overly burdensome requirement that can
be removed.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for Facilities To Submit a Tank System
Certification of Completion of Major
Repairs
We are amending the requirement for
submitting to the Regional
Administrator a certification of
completion of major repairs to a tank
system by an independent, qualified,
professional engineer. This certification
need only be kept on-site in the
operating record through the intended
life of the system. This change will
eliminate the submission of duplicative
information to the regulatory authority.
Sections 264.196(d) and 265.196(d)
already require that certain notifications
be submitted that include descriptions
of response actions taken or planned.
Several commenters did not support
the proposed change, noting that
submission of the certification helps to
ensure that the regulatory authority is
made aware of any potentially
significant repairs that were conducted.
One commenter argued that the
elimination of these notices or notations
in the operating record will adversely
affect oversight. Another commenter
argued that, while supportive of the
proposed change, the certification of
major repairs must be kept with the
facility record, and be available for
review by regulatory inspectors. We
believe that information provided by the
certification of major repairs is already
provided through the notification
mechanisms described in §§ 264.196(d)
and 265.196(d), which require
notification when releases occur, and a
description of response actions taken or
planned. While we are not eliminating
the certification, we are requiring the
certification be kept on site in the
operating record, and we are requiring
the certification be signed by a qualified
professional engineer.
5. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
for a Recycler To Submit a Notification
and Certification
Under 40 CFR 268.7(b)(3), a treatment
facility must send a one-time notice to
the receiving land disposal facility with
the initial shipment of waste or
contaminated soil. Also, in § 268.7(b)(4),
the treatment facility must submit a onetime certification with the initial
shipment of waste or contaminated soil
to the land disposal facility.
Under § 268.7(b)(6), however, if the
wastes are recyclable materials used in
a manner constituting disposal, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
owner or operator of the treatment
facility (i.e., the recycler) is not required
to send the one-time (b)(3) notice to the
receiving facility. For each shipment,
however, the owner or operator of the
treatment facility (i.e., recycler) must
submit a (b)(4) certification and a notice
with the information listed in (b)(3) to
the Regional Administrator. These
notifications and certifications are to
assure and document that treatment
standards are being met. The preamble
to the proposed rule described a
proposal that would reduce burden on
the regulated industry by eliminating
the requirement to send the
notifications and certifications to EPA,
and instead require that the treatment
facility (i.e., recycler) place these
documents in its on-site files.
Five commenters, including three
states, agreed that notifying the
regulatory agency is not necessary as
long as the information is maintained at
the facility. Only one commenter did
not support the elimination of the
requirement. This commenter argued
that it is important to track hazardous
wastes used in the manufacture of
fertilizers because it believes there are
problems with compliance in this
industry. It believes that notification to
the regulatory agency allows such
tracking. We, however, do not agree
with this commenter, for the reasons
presented below.
Based on the majority of comments
received, we are amending § 268.7(b)(6)
to eliminate the requirement to submit
notifications and certifications to EPA,
and instead require that the information
be placed in the treating/recycling
facility’s on-site files. All but one
commenter confirmed that maintaining
these records on-site provides sufficient
documentation of waste treatment in
these cases. We also point out that
regulating agencies have a great deal of
information about these facilities
already since, in most cases, they would
be permitted facilities. Retaining these
notices on-site does not eliminate the
regulating agency’s knowledge of the
existence of the facility. We also note
that if a state has concerns about
compliance in a particular use
constituting disposal industry in their
state, they may choose to be more
stringent than the federal program, and
choose to retain these notifications.
It should be noted that the preamble
to the proposal incorrectly indicated
that the current regulations only require
one-time notifications and certifications
for these materials. This is not accurate.
As discussed earlier, the existing
regulations actually require that
certifications and notifications be sent
to the regulating agency with each
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16889
shipment. One commenter suggested
that we change the requirement so that
these notifications and certifications are
only required to be prepared once and
maintained in the facility’s records,
unless there are changes to the
treatment process. The commenter
pointed out that it would greatly reduce
the burden for the facility if they were
only required to prepare these
documents once, and then again any
time the treatment process changes. We
agree with this commenter’s point. As
long as these notifications and
certifications are required to be
maintained in the facility’s files and be
available for inspection, there is no
reason for the facility to prepare and
maintain multiple copies for each
shipment. The information will be
available for inspection at all times.
Whereas the proposal did address the
burden of sending notifications and
certifications to the regulatory agency, it
did not address the burden associated
with the requirement to send those
documents with each waste shipment.
This final rule corrects that omission.
Thus, this final rule only requires
facilities (i.e., recyclers) to prepare and
maintain notifications and certifications
with the initial shipment of waste, and
then to prepare new documentation
only if the waste, the treatment process,
or the receiving facility changes.
6. We Are Eliminating the Requirement
to Submit an LDR Notification and
Certification
Under § 268.9(d), once a characteristic
waste is treated so it is no longer
characteristic, a one-time notification
and certification of this fact have to be
placed in the generator’s or treater’s
files, and also sent to EPA or the
authorized state. We proposed to
eliminate the requirement to submit the
notification to EPA or the authorized
state (the notification and certification
would continue to be required to be
kept in the facility’s files).
Almost all commenters supported the
proposal to delete the one-time
requirement that the § 268.9(d)
notification and certification be sent to
EPA or the authorized state. This is
because the notification and the
certification must be placed in the onsite files and would thus be available for
inspection. However, a few commenters
opposed the deletion of these
submittals, stating that this information
is valuable. While we agree that the
information is valuable, we do not
believe that submitting these documents
to the regulatory agency is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. For a number of years,
other LDR notifications and
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16890
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
certifications have not been required to
be submitted to the regulatory agency,
but are available for inspection in the
facility’s on-site files. Therefore, we
believe that this system of
recordkeeping is sufficient and are
deleting the notification and
certification submission requirement as
proposed.
TABLE 14.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD RETENTION AND SUBMITTAL OF RECORDS FOR PERMITTED
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
264.196(f) ..................
Tank Systems. Response to
leaks or spills and disposition
of leaking or unfit-for-use tank
systems.
Certification of major repairs. If the owner/operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, and the repair has been extensive
(e.g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or
secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service
unless the owner/operator has obtained a certification by an independent, qualified,
registered, professional engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d) that the repaired
system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended
life of the system. This certification must be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within seven days after returning the tank system to use.
Certification of major repairs. If the owner/operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, and the repair has been extensive
(e.g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or
secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service
unless the owner/operator has obtained a certification by a qualified professional
engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d) that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of the system. This
certification must be placed in the operating record and maintained until closure of
the facility.18
18 The reader is referred to Section III. B. of today’s preamble for a discussion of the change from ‘‘independent, qualified, registered, professional’’ to ‘‘qualified professional engineer’’.
TABLE 15.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD RETENTION AND SUBMITTAL OF RECORDS FOR INTERIM
STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
265.90(d)(1) ...............
Ground-Water Monitoring. Applicability.
265.90(d)(3) ...............
Ground-Water Monitoring. Applicability.
Ground-Water Monitoring. Preparation, evaluation, and response.
265.93(d)(5) ...............
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
265.93(d)(2) ...............
Ground-Water Monitoring. Preparation, evaluation, and response.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Within one year after the effective date of these regulations, submit to the Regional
Administrator a specific plan, certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, which satisfies the requirements of § 265.93(d)(3), for an alternate groundwater monitoring system.
Within one year after the effective date of these regulations, develop a specific plan,
certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, which satisfies the requirements of § 265.93(d)(3), for an alternate ground-water monitoring system. This
plan is to be placed in the facility’s operating record and maintained until closure of
the facility.
Prepare and submit a written report in accordance with § 265.93(d)(5).
Prepare a report in accordance with § 265.93(d)(5) and place it in the facility’s operating record and maintain until closure of the facility.
Within 15 days after the notification under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the owner
or operator must develop and submit to the Regional Administrator a specific plan,
based on the outline required under paragraph (a) of this section and certified by a
qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, for a ground-water quality assessment
at the facility.
Within 15 days after the notification under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the owner
or operator must develop a specific plan, based on the outline required under paragraph (a) of this section and certified by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer, for a ground-water quality assessment at the facility. This plan must be
placed in the facility operating record and be maintained until closure of the facility.
The owner or operator must make his first determination under paragraph (d)(4) of
this section, as soon as technically feasible, and, within 15 days after that determination, submit to the Regional Administrator a written report containing an assessment of the ground-water quality.
The owner or operator must make his first determination under paragraph (d)(4) of
this section as soon as technically feasible, and prepare a report containing an assessment of the ground-water quality. This report must be placed in the facility operating record and be maintained until closure of the facility.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16891
TABLE 15.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD RETENTION AND SUBMITTAL OF RECORDS FOR INTERIM
STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
265.196(f) ..................
Tank Systems. Response to
leaks or spills and disposition
of leaking or unfit-for-use tank
systems.
265.223(a) .................
Surface Impoundments.
sponse actions.
265.259(a) .................
Waste Piles. Response actions
265.303(a) .................
Landfills. Response actions ......
Re-
Certification of major repairs. If the owner/operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, and the repair has been extensive
(e.g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or
secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service
unless the owner/operator has obtained a certification by an independent, qualified,
registered, professional engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d) that the repaired
system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended
life of the system. This certification must be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within seven days after returning the tank system to use.
Certification of major repairs. If the owner/operator has repaired a tank system in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, and the repair has been extensive
(e.g., installation of an internal liner; repair of a ruptured primary containment or
secondary containment vessel), the tank system must not be returned to service
unless the owner/operator has obtained a certification by a qualified professional
engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d) that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of the system. This
certification must be placed in the operating record until closure of the facility.19
The owner or operator of surface impoundment units subject to § 265.221(a) must
submit a response action plan to the Regional Administrator when submitting the
proposed action leakage rate under § 265.222. The response action plan must set
forth the actions to be taken if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a
minimum, the response action plan must describe the actions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(Now § 265.224(a)) The owner or operator of surface impoundment units subject to
§ 265.221(a) must develop and keep on-site until closure of the facility a response
action plan. The response action plan must set forth the actions to be taken if the
action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a minimum, the response action plan
must describe the actions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
The owner or operator of waste pile units subject to § 265.254 must submit a response action plan to the Regional Administrator when submitting the proposed action leakage rate under § 265.255. The response action plan must set forth the actions to be taken if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a minimum, the
response action plan must describe the action specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
The owner or operator of waste pile units subject to § 265.254 must develop and
keep on-site until closure of the facility a response action plan. The response action
plan must set forth the actions to be taken if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a minimum, the response action plan must describe the actions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
The owner or operator of landfill units subject to § 265.301(a) must submit a response
action plan to the Regional Administrator when submitting the proposed action
leakage rate under § 265.302. The response action plan must set forth the actions
to be taken if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a minimum, the response action plan must describe the action specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
The owner or operator of landfill units subject to § 265.301(a) must develop and keep
on-site until closure of the facility a response action plan. The response action plan
must set forth the actions to be taken if the action leakage rate has been exceeded. At a minimum, the response action plan must describe the actions specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
19 The reader is referred to today’s preamble for a discussion of the change from ‘‘independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer’’ to
‘‘qualified professional engineer.’’ We are also requiring that this certification be retained in the operating record until closure of the facility.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16892
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 16.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD RETENTION AND SUBMITTAL OF RECORDS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATORS
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
General. Exclusions. Materials
which are not solid wastes.
268.7(b)(6) .................
Land Disposal Restrictions.
Testing, tracking, and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters, and disposal
facilities.
268.9(d) .....................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
261.4(a)(9)(iii)(E) .......
Land Disposal Restrictions.
Special
rules
regarding
wastes that exhibit a characteristic.
Prior to operating pursuant to this exclusion, the plant owner or operator submits to
the appropriate Regional Administrator or state Director a one-time notification stating that the plant intends to claim the exclusion, giving the date on which the plant
intends to begin operating under the exclusion, and containing the following language: ‘‘I have read the applicable regulation establishing an exclusion for wood
preserving wastewaters and spent wood preserving wastewater and spent wood
preserving solutions and understand it requires me to comply at all times with the
conditions set out in the regulation.’’ The plant must maintain a copy of that document in its on-site records for a period of no less than 3 years from the date specified in the notice. The exclusion applies only so long as the plant meets all of the
conditions. If the plant goes out of compliance with any condition, it may apply to
the appropriate Regional Administrator or state Director for reinstatement The Regional Administrator or state Director may reinstate the exclusion upon finding that
the plant has returned to compliance with all conditions and that violations are not
likely to recur.
Prior to operating pursuant to this exclusion, the plant owner or operator prepares a
one-time notification stating that the plant intends to claim the exclusion, giving the
date on which the plant intends to begin operating under the exclusion, and containing the following language: ‘‘I have read the applicable regulation establishing
an exclusion for wood preserving wastewaters and spent wood preserving solutions
and understand it requires me to comply at all times with the conditions set out in
the regulation.’’ The plant must maintain a copy of that document in its on-site
records until closure of the facility. The exclusion applies only so long as the plant
meets all of the conditions. If the plant goes out of compliance with any condition, it
may apply to the appropriate Regional Administrator or state Director for reinstatement. The Regional Administrator or state Director may reinstate the exclusion
upon finding that the plant has returned to compliance with all conditions and that
violations are not likely to recur.
Where the wastes are recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal
subject to the and provisions of § 268.20(b) regarding requirements for treatment
standards and prohibition levels, the owner or operator of a treatment facility (i.e.,
the recycler) is not required to notify the receiving facility, pursuant to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. With each shipment of such wastes, the owner or operator of
the recycling facility must submit a certification described in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section, and a notice which includes the information listed in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section (except the manifest number) to the Regional Administrator, or his delegated representative. The recycling facility also must keep records of the name
and location of each entity receiving the hazardous waste-derived product.
Where the wastes are recyclable materials used in a manner constituting disposal
subject to the provisions of § 266.20(b) 20 of this chapter regarding treatment standards and prohibition levels, the owner or operator of a treatment facility (i.e., the recycler) must, for the initial shipment of waste, prepare a one-time certification described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and a one-time notice which includes the
information in paragraph (b)(3) of this section (except the manifest number). The
certification and notification must be placed in the facility’s on-site files. If the waste
or the receiving facility changes, a new certification and notification must be prepared and placed in the on-site files. In addition, the recycling facility must also
keep records of the name and location of each entity receiving the hazardous
waste-derived product.
Wastes that exhibit a characteristic are also subject to § 268.7 requirements, except
that once the waste is no longer hazardous, a one-time notification and certification
must be placed in the generators or treaters files and sent to the EPA region or authorized state. The notification and certification that is placed in the generators or
treaters files must be updated if the process or operation generating the waste
changes and/or if the subtitle D facility receiving the waste changes. However, the
generator or treater need only notify the EPA region or an authorized state on an
annual basis if such changes occur. Such notification and certification should be
sent to the EPA region or authorized state by the end of the calendar year, but no
later than December 31.
Wastes that exhibit a characteristic are also subject to § 268.7 requirements, except
that once the waste is no longer hazardous, a one-time notification and certification
must be placed in the generator’s or treater’s files. The notification and certification
must be updated if the process or operation generating the waste changes and/or if
the subtitle D facility receiving the waste changes.
20 In the previous regulatory language, the citation referred to § 268.20(b), however, this was an error. In today’s rule, we are correcting this
error by referring to the correct citation which is § 266.20(b).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
I. We Are Making Selected Changes to
the Requirements for Document
Submittal
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1. We Are Streamlining the Procedure
for Obtaining a Variance From
Classification as a Solid Waste
A regulatory agency may grant a
variance from classification as a solid
waste for materials that are reclaimed
and then reused as feedstock within the
original production process in which
the materials were generated. The
regulation lists eight criteria that are to
be used in determining if the request for
a variance is to be granted. One of the
criteria is a requirement to demonstrate
the prevalence of the practice on an
industry-wide basis.
The proposed rule described a
proposal to eliminate the requirement
that applicants for this variance submit
information on the prevalence of the
practice on an industry-wide basis. The
Agency found that this information was
less important in making the decision
than the other factors and could be
difficult for a facility to provide.
Four commenters agreed with the
proposal to eliminate the requirement.
One pointed out the difficulty of
obtaining such information, particularly
in the batch and speciality chemical
industry. Three states also supported
eliminating the requirement. Three
other commenters opposed eliminating
the requirement, arguing that the
information is important in determining
whether the reclamation process is an
essential part of the production process.
While the Agency believes that this
information can be useful in some cases,
we also believe that such industry-wide
information about these practices is not
critical in demonstrating or determining
that reclamation is an essential part of
production. We believe that a successful
demonstration can be made without this
information. We also acknowledge that
this information may be very difficult,
and in some cases, impossible for one
company to obtain. We are, therefore,
eliminating the requirement in
§ 260.31(b)(2) that applicants provide
industry-wide information.
2. We Are Streamlining the
Requirements for Treatability Study
Reports for Testing Facilities
Treatability studies are studies at
laboratories and testing facilities in
which hazardous waste is tested to
evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment
process. (See definition in 40 CFR 260.)
Facilities conducting treatability studies
are excluded from the standard
hazardous waste management
requirements if they comply with
certain requirements described in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 261.4(f). Paragraph (9) requires the
facility to submit to the regulatory
agency an annual report that includes:
(1) An estimate of the number of studies
and the amount of waste expected to be
used in treatability studies during the
current year; and (2) information on the
treatability studies conducted during
the previous year.
We proposed to reduce burden by
eliminating the requirement to submit
an estimate of the number of treatability
studies and amount of waste expected to
be used in treatability studies in the
upcoming year. The proposal explained
that the requirement is duplicative
because the same information is
submitted in the annual report at a later
date. However, the change to the
regulations specified in the regulatory
text of the proposal unintentionally
eliminated the entire paragraph (9) of
§ 261.4(f), thus proposing to eliminate
both the requirement to submit
estimates for the current year, as well as
information for the previous year.
The majority of commenters (seven)
supported elimination of the estimates.
They did so with the apparent
understanding that only the requirement
to provide estimates for the coming year
was to be eliminated, and that the
requirement to submit information for
the previous year would remain in
place. Most agreed with the proposal to
eliminate the estimates based on the
rationale in the preamble that the
information would be provided at a later
date. Two commenters did point out
that eliminating all of § 261.4(f)(9) also
eliminates the requirement for
providing any report, including the
submittal of information from the
previous year.
We agree with commenters that the
estimate of upcoming activities are
unnecessary since the same information
will be provided later in the annual
report, and the information provided on
past activities will be more accurate
than estimates of the future. We are,
therefore, eliminating the requirement
in § 261.4(f)(9) to submit estimates of
the number of studies and the amount
of waste to be used in treatability
studies for the current year, but are
retaining the requirement for preparing
and submitting an annual report
providing information for the previous
year.
3. We Are Streamlining the
Requirements for Ground-Water
Monitoring
As previously discussed in the
October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR 61662),
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities must implement
ground-water monitoring as a condition
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16893
for receiving a RCRA permit. EPA
requires a phased approach to groundwater monitoring (detection monitoring,
compliance monitoring, corrective
action). Ground-water monitoring
systems must consist of a sufficient
number of wells, properly located and
constructed, and capable of ensuring
that the ground-water impacts of a
treatment, storage, or disposal unit can
be determined. Sampling and analysis
procedures must also be capable of
determining both background quality of
ground water and quality at the point of
compliance.
If hazardous constituents are detected
in ground water, more detailed
monitoring may be required. In this
case, a facility would need additional
wells, sampling, and analysis to
determine the extent and rate of
contaminant migration, to determine if
the ground-water protection standard is
violated, and to indicate the need for, or
effectiveness of, corrective action.
Detection monitoring is the first phase
of ground-water monitoring, and is
designed to detect a change in groundwater quality in wells surrounding a
regulated unit. A potential release from
the unit, or impacts from activities up
gradient of the unit, may cause this
change. For detection monitoring,
ground-water monitoring wells are
installed up-gradient of the unit and at
the point of compliance. Facilities then
monitor for each indicator parameter or
hazardous constituent specified in the
permit.
Compliance monitoring occurs when
hazardous waste constituents are
detected down-gradient of the unit. The
permitting authority will establish
hazardous constituent standards for
facilities undergoing compliance
monitoring.
The third phase of ground-water
monitoring, corrective action, is
required when hazardous constituents
exceed the ground-water protection
standards at the point of compliance.
Once this has occurred, the owner or
operator must remedy the situation by
removing the hazardous constituents or
treating them in place.
We are modifying the § 264.99(g)
requirement that facilities performing
compliance monitoring conduct an
annual 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX
(the ground-water monitoring chemical
list) analysis of all monitoring wells. We
are allowing, on a case-by-case basis, as
authorized by a permit authority,
sampling from a subset of the wells.
Appendix IX analyses are costly at large
facilities, and analyzing all wells does
not necessarily contribute to protection
of human health and the environment.
This is especially the case if there are
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16894
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
multiple units and wells at a facility,
and only one unit shows signs of
contamination.
In addition, monitoring for
constituents that are not likely to be
found at a site is wasteful and does not
increase the protection of monitoring
programs. We, therefore, are also
modifying § 264.98(g)(2) to give the
Regional Administrator discretion on a
case-by-case basis to allow sampling for
a subset of the Appendix IX
constituents. While this change was
proposed for § 264.98(c), upon reevaluation, we decided it is more
appropriate to amend § 264.98(g)(2) and
leave § 264.98(c) unchanged. Decisions
on what constituents must be sampled
will be based on the regulatory agencies’
judgment of what amount of sampling
supports the protection of human health
and the environment, as well as the
level of knowledge of what
contaminants could be present at a site.
As a commenter pointed out, this
subsection prior to today did not require
that all samples must be analyzed for
every chemical parameter and
hazardous constituent listed in
Appendix IX. Today’s rule eliminates
ambiguity by specifically confirming
that sampling for a site-specific subset
of constituents is allowable.
Based on a comment we received, we
also are revising § 264.98(d) to allow for
alternative sampling procedures as
provided in § 264.97(g)(2). Under
§ 264.98(d), a facility must collect at
least four samples from each well at
least semi-annually. This provision has
resulted in sites being required to
sample four times within a single
monitoring event, despite the
contradiction with § 264.97(g)(2) which
allows for an alternate sampling
procedure. To reduce some of the
burden related to this sampling and
reporting, we are removing the last
sentence from § 264.98(d) (requiring a
facility to collect at least four samples
from each well at least semi-annually).
We are also eliminating the last
sentence in § 264.99(f) (requiring a
facility to collect at least four samples
from each well at least semi-annually).
These changes will prevent § 264.98(d)
and § 264.99(f) from unintentionally
trumping the flexibility granted by
§ 264.97(g)(2).
Finally, based on another comment
received, we are also changing the resampling requirements in § 264.98(g)(3)
and § 264.99(g) from ‘‘may resample
within one month’’ to ‘‘may resample
within one month or at an alternative
site-specific time frame approved by the
Administrator.’’ This change allows for
sampling to be based on site-specific
hydrogeologic conditions. It also can be
burdensome for facilities to resample
wells within 30 days, because this time
frame can allow, in some circumstances,
insufficient time to evaluate the original
data set, perform quality assurance
evaluations, and re-mobilize the
sampling team.
TABLE 17.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL FOR VARIANCES FROM CLASSIFICATION AS A
SOLID WASTE AND FOR TESTING FACILITIES REGARDING TREATABILITY STUDY REPORTS
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
260.31(b)(2) ...............
Rulemaking Petitions. Standards and criteria for variances
from classification as a solid
waste.
261.4(f)(9) ..................
General. Exclusions. Samples
undergoing treatability studies
at laboratories and testing facilities.
The prevalence of the practice on an industry-wide basis.
Section 260.31(b)(2) has been deleted from the regulatory text.
The facility prepares and submits a report to the Regional Administrator, or state Director (if located in an authorized state), by March 15 of each year that estimates
the number of studies at studies and the amount of waste laboratories and expected to be used in treatability testing studies during the current year, and facilities. includes the following information for the previous calendar year:
The facility prepares and submits a report to the Regional Administrator, or state Director (if located in an authorized state), by March 15 of each year, that includes
the following information for the previous calendar year:
TABLE 18.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.98(d) ...................
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Detection
monitoring program.
264.98(g)(2) ...............
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Detection
monitoring program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
The Regional Administrator will specify the frequencies for collecting samples and
conducting statistical tests to determine whether there is statistically significant evidence of contamination for any parameter or hazardous constituent specified in the
permit under paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with § 264.97(g). A sequence of at least four samples from each well (background and compliance wells)
must be collected at least semi-annually during detection monitoring.
The Regional Administrator will specify the frequencies for collecting samples and
conducting statistical tests to determine whether there is statistically significant evidence of contamination for any parameter or hazardous constituent specified in the
permit conditions under paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with
§ 264.97(g).
Immediately sample the ground water in all monitoring wells and determine whether
constituents in the list of appendix IX of part 264 are present, and if so, in what
concentration.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
16895
TABLE 18.—CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES—Continued
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Detection
monitoring program.
264.99(f) ....................
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Compliance monitoring program.
264.99(g) ...................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.98(g)(3) ...............
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Compliance monitoring program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Immediately sample the ground water in all monitoring wells and determine whether
constituents in the list of appendix IX of part 264 are present, and if so, in what
concentration. However, the Regional Administrator, on a discretionary basis, may
allow sampling for a site-specific subset of constituents from the Appendix IX list of
this part and other representative/related waste constituents.
For any appendix IX compounds found in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of
this section, the owner or operator may resample within one month and repeat the
analysis for those compounds detected. If the results of the second analysis confirm the initial results, then these constituents will form the basis for compliance
monitoring. If the owner or operator does not resample for the compounds found
pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the hazardous constituents found during this initial appendix IX analysis will form the basis for compliance monitoring.
For any appendix IX compounds found in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of
this section, the owner or operator may resample within one month or at an alternative site-specific schedule approved by the Administrator and repeat the analysis
for those compounds detected. If the results of the second analysis confirm the initial results, then these constituents will form the basis for compliance monitoring. If
the owner or operator does not resample for the compounds in paragraph (g)(2) of
this section, the hazardous constituents found during this initial appendix IX analysis will form the basis for compliance monitoring.
The Regional Administrator will specify the frequencies for collecting samples and
conducting statistical tests to determine statistically significant evidence of increased contamination in accordance with § 264.97(g). A sequence of at least four
samples from each well (background and compliance wells) must be collected at
least semi-annually during the compliance period of the facility.
The Regional Administrator will specify the frequencies for collecting samples and
conducting statistical tests to determine statistically significant evidence of increased contamination in accordance with § 264.97(g).
The owner or operator must analyze samples from all monitoring wells at the compliance point for all constituents contained in appendix IX of part 264 at least annually
to determine whether additional hazardous constituents are present in the uppermost aquifer and, if so at what concentrations, pursuant to procedures in
§ 264.98(f). If the owner or operator finds appendix IX constituents in the ground
water that are not already identified in the permit as monitoring constituents, the
owner or operator may resample within one month and repeat the appendix IX
analysis. If the second analysis confirms the presence of new constituents, the
owner or operator must report the concentration of these additional constituents to
the Regional Administrator within seven days after the completion of the second
analysis and add them to the monitoring list. If the owner or operator chooses not
to resample, then he or she must report the concentrations of these additional constituents to the Regional Administrator within seven days after completion of the initial analysis and add them to the monitoring list.
Annually, the owner or operator must determine whether additional hazardous constituents from appendix IX of this 264, which could possibly be present but are not
on the detection monitoring list in the permit, are actually present in the uppermost
aquifer and, if so, at what concentration, pursuant to procedures in § 264.98(f). To
accomplish this, the owner or operator must consult with the Regional Administrator
to determine on a case-by-case basis: (1) Which sample collection event during the
year will involve enhanced sampling; (2) the number of monitoring wells at the
compliance point to undergo enhanced sampling; (3) the number of samples to be
collected from each of these monitoring wells; and, (4) the specific constituents
from Appendix IX of this 264 for which these samples must be analyzed. If the enhanced sampling event indicates that appendix IX constituents are present in the
ground water that are not already identified in the permit as monitoring constituents, the owner or operator may resample within one month or at an alternative
site-specific schedule approved by the Regional Administrator, and repeat the analysis. If the second analysis confirms the presence of new constituents, the owner
or operator must report the concentration of these additional constituents to the Regional Administrator within seven days after the completion of the second analysis
and add them to the monitoring list. If the owner or operator chooses not to resample, then he or she must report the concentrations of these additional constituents to the Regional Administrator within seven days after completion of the initial
analysis, and add them to the monitoring list.
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16896
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
J. We Are Making Selected Changes to
the Requirements for Semi-Annual
Reports to Annual Reports
the change we are making to
§ 264.113(e)(5) and was supported by a
majority of the commenters.
1. We Are Changing the Requirement for
a Semi-Annual Report Detailing the
Effectiveness of the Corrective Action
Program
2. We Are Changing the Requirement for
a Semi-Annual Report Describing the
Progress of the Corrective Action
Program
Section 264.100(g) requires the owner
or operator of a permitted facility to
report in writing to the Regional
Administrator on the effectiveness of
the corrective action program. These
reports must be submitted semiannually. We are now requiring an
annual report instead of a semi-annual
report. While this change was not in the
proposed rule, it was identified in the
comments received and was discussed
in the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR
61668). It is a change that conforms to
We proposed lengthening the
reporting frequency for corrective action
effectiveness reports required by
§§ 264.113(e)(5) and 265.113(e)(5).
These reports are currently required to
be submitted semi-annually and include
a description of the progress of the
corrective action program, all groundwater monitoring data, and an
evaluation of the effect of the continued
receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the
effectiveness of the corrective action.
We received comments, mainly from the
states, on this proposed regulatory
change. Several states suggested giving
the regulatory agency the flexibility of
establishing report submittals on a caseby-case basis. Other states suggested the
reports be submitted at least annually.
Still another state suggested that the
semi-annual submittal of reports is
preferred because it allows the state to
identify inadequate monitoring systems
earlier, which in turn, could save the
facilities needless ground-water
monitoring expenses.
After reviewing the comments
submitted, we have decided to
promulgate the changes as proposed.
Ground-water cleanup is generally a
multi-year effort. Thus, we believe that
annual submittal of these reports will
not jeopardize the protection of human
health and the environment.
TABLE 19.—REDUCED FREQUENCY FOR SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS FOR PERMITTED TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
264.100(g) .................
Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units. Corrective action program.
264.113(e)(5) .............
Closure and Post-Closure. Closure; time allowed for closure.
The owner or operator must report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the effectiveness of the corrective action program. The owner or operator must submit
these reports semi-annually.
The owner or operator must report in writing to the Regional Administrator on the effectiveness of the corrective action program. The owner or operator must submit
these reports annually.
During the period of corrective action, the owner or operator shall provide semi-annual reports to the Regional Administrator that describe the progress of the corrective action program, compile all ground-water monitoring data, and evaluate the effect of the continued receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the effectiveness of the
corrective action.
During the period of corrective action, the owner or operator shall provide annual reports to the Regional Administrator describing the progress of the corrective action
program, compile all ground-water monitoring data, and evaluate the effect of the
continued receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the effectiveness of the corrective
action.
TABLE 20.—REDUCED FREQUENCY FOR SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS FOR INTERIM STATUS TREATMENT, STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Current regulatory language
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
New regulatory language as amended by the Burden Reduction Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
265.113(e)(5) .............
Closure and Post-Closure. Closure; time allowed for closure.
IV. What Regulatory Requirements Will
Remain in the CFR?
Commenters opposed a number of the
burden reduction changes that we either
proposed or noticed in our October 29,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
During the period of corrective action, the owner or operator shall provide semi-annual reports to the Regional Administrator that describe the progress of the corrective action program, compile all ground-water monitoring data, and evaluate the effect of the continued receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the effectiveness of the
corrective action.
During the period of corrective action, the owner or operator shall provide annual reports to the Regional Administrator describing the progress of the corrective action
program, compile all ground-water monitoring data, and evaluate the effect of the
continued receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the effectiveness of the corrective
action.
2003 NODA. After thorough analysis of
the comments, and in consultation with
state representatives, we have decided
(at least for the present time) to retain
these regulatory requirements.
Stakeholders persuaded us that these
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
changes could delete important
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that were necessary in
order to protect human health and the
environment. Stakeholders, particularly
the states, also provided arguments as to
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the importance of retaining their
oversight role when dealing with leaks
and spills of hazardous waste. Table
21—Regulatory Requirements That Will
Remain in the CFR, identifies those
proposed regulatory sections that we are
not promulgating in today’s rule.
For information on what commenters
said regarding particular provisions and
the Agency’s response, the reader is
16897
referred to the following document,
Response to Comments Background
Document that can be found in the
rulemaking docket.
TABLE 21.—REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL REMAIN IN THE CFR
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
261.38 ......................................
261.38(c)(1)(i)(A) .....................
264/5.16 ...................................
264/5.16(d)(1) ..........................
264/5.16(d)(2) ..........................
264/5.16(d)(3) ..........................
264.90 ......................................
264.90(a)(2) .............................
Lists of Hazardous Wastes. Comparable/syngas fuel exclusion.
Submit a one-time comparable/syngas fuel notice to the permitting agency.
General Facility Standards. Personnel training.
Record the job title.
Record job description.
Record type and amount of training employees will be provided.
Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Applicability.
Comply with the requirements of 264.101 with exceptions for surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment unit, or landfills.
Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Detection monitoring program.
Conduct and maintain ground-water monitoring.
Prepare and submit a notification of contamination.
Prepare and submit an engineering feasibility plan for corrective action.
Prepare and submit a notification of intent to make a demonstration.
Releases From Solid Waste Management Units. Compliance monitoring program.
Prepare and submit a notification of exceeded concentration limits.
Prepare and submit a notification of intent to make a demonstration.
Use and Management of Containers. Inspections.
Inspect containers weekly.
Tank Systems. Leak detection systems for tanks.
Demonstration.
Demonstration.
Demonstrate to EPA that technology and site conditions do not allow detection of release within 24 hours.
Variance from leak detection systems for tanks.
Variance from leak detection systems for tanks.
Tank Systems. Response to leaks or spills and disposition of leaking or unfit-to use tank systems.
Notify EPA of release.
Notify EPA of release.
Submit report describing release.
Surface Impoundments. Response actions.
Notify EPA in writing if flow rate exceeds Action Leakage Rate for any sump within 7 days.
Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.
Compile and submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.
Waste Piles. Response actions.
Notify EPA in writing of the exceedence within 7 days of the determination.
Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determining leakage.
Compile and submit information to the EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.
Land Treatment. Unsaturated zone monitoring.
Prepare and submit a notice of statistically significant increases in hazardous constituents below treatment
zone.
Prepare and submit a notice of intent to make a demonstration that other sources or error led to increases
below treatment zone.
Landfills. Response actions.
Notify EPA if Action Leakage Rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination.
Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.
Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.
Drip Pads. Design and operating standards.
Notify EPA in writing of release.
Regional Administrator will make a determination and will notify owner/operator of the determination.
Notify EPA and certify completion of repairs.
Air Emission Standards for Process Vents. Reporting requirements.
Notify EPA semi-annually of exceedences.
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks. Reporting requirements.
Notify EPA semi-annually of exceedences.
Containment Buildings. Design and operating standards.
Certify by qualified professional engineer.
Notify EPA in writing of release.
Notify EPA and verify in writing that the cleanup and repairs have been completed after a release.
Inspection frequency.
Purpose, scope, and applicability.
Ground-Water Monitoring. Preparation, evaluation, and response.
Notify of increased indicator parameter concentrations.
Notify of increased indicator parameter concentrations.
Any ground-water assessment to satisfy the requirements of § 265.93(d)(4) which is initiated prior to final closure must be completed and reported in accordance with § 265.93(d)(5).
264/5.98 ...................................
264.98(c) ..................................
264.98(g)(1) .............................
264.98(g)(5)(ii) .........................
264.98(g)(6)(i)–(ii) ....................
264.99 ......................................
264.99(h)(1) .............................
264.99(i)(1)–(2) ........................
264/5.174 .................................
264/5.174 .................................
264/5.193 .................................
264.193(c)(3) ...........................
264.193 (c)(4) ..........................
264/5.193(e)(3)(iii) ...................
264/5.193(g) .............................
264/5.193(h) .............................
264.196 ....................................
264.196(d)(1) ...........................
264.196(d)(2) ...........................
264.196(d)(3) ...........................
264/5.223 .................................
264/5.223(b)(1) ........................
264/5.223(b)(2) ........................
264/5.223(b)(6) ........................
264.253 ....................................
264.253(b)(1) ...........................
264.253(b)(2) ...........................
264.253(b)(6) ...........................
264.278 ....................................
264.278(g)(1) ...........................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
264.278(h)(1)–(2) .....................
264.304 ....................................
264.304(b)(1) ...........................
264.304(b)(2) ...........................
264.304(b)(6) ...........................
264.573 ....................................
264.573(m)(1)(iv) .....................
264.573(m)(2) ..........................
264.573(m)(3) ..........................
264.1036 ..................................
264.1036(a) ..............................
264.1065 ..................................
264.1065(a) ..............................
264/5.1101 ...............................
265.1101(c)(2) .........................
264/5.1101(c)(3)(i)(D) ..............
264/5.1101(c)(3)(ii)–(iii) ............
264/5.1101(c)(4) ......................
265.1(b) ....................................
265.93 ......................................
265.93(c)(1) .............................
265.93(d)(1) .............................
265.93(e) ..................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16898
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 21.—REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL REMAIN IN THE CFR—Continued
CFR section
Regulatory requirement
265.93(f) ...................................
Evaluate data and if § 265.91(a) are not satisfied, immediately modify the number, location, or depth of the
monitoring wells.
Ground-Water Monitoring. Recordkeeping and reporting.
Prepare and submit a quarterly report of concentrations of values of the drinking water suitability parameters.
Prepare and submit a report on indicator parameter concentrations and evaluations.
Prepare and submit a report on ground-water surface elevations.
Prepare and submit a report on the results of the ground-water quality assessment program.
Waste Piles. Response actions.
Notify EPA in writing within 7 days of determination.
Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.
Submit information to EPA each month that the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.
Land Treatment. Food-chain crops.
Submit notification for food-chain crops at land treatment facility.
Landfills. Response actions.
Notify EPA if Action Leakage Rate is exceeded within 7 days of determination.
Submit a written assessment to the Regional Administrator within 14 days of determination of leakage.
Submit information to EPA each month the Action Leakage Rate is exceeded.
Drip Pads. Design and operating requirements.
Notify EPA of release and provide written notice of procedures and schedule for cleanup.
Regional Administrator will make a determination and notify the owner/operator of the determination.
Notify Regional Administrator and certify completion of repairs.
Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. Interim status standards for burners.
Certification of pre-compliance.
Land Disposal Restrictions. General. Testing, tracking, and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters, and disposal facilities.
Requirement to keep in the facility’s files all supporting data and waste analysis data for ‘‘knowledge of the
waste’’ determinations and for testing determinations.
Requirement to submit to the regulatory authority one-time notifications that hazardous debris is excluded form
the definition of hazardous waste.
Permit Application. Specific part B information requirements for surface impoundments.
265.94 ......................................
265.94(a)(2)(i) ..........................
265.94(a)(2)(ii) .........................
265.94(a)(2)(iii) ........................
265.94(b)(2) .............................
265.259 ....................................
265.259(b)(1) ...........................
265.259(b)(2) ...........................
265.259(b)(6) ...........................
265.276 ....................................
265.276(a) ................................
265.303 ....................................
265.303(b)(1) ...........................
265.303(b)(2) ...........................
265.303(b)(6) ...........................
265.443 ....................................
265.443(m)(1)(iv)(2) .................
265.443(m)(2) ..........................
265.443(m)(3) ..........................
266.103 ....................................
266.103(b)(2)(ii)(D) ..................
268.7 ........................................
268.7(a)(6) ...............................
268.7(d)(1) ...............................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
270.17(d) ..................................
V. We Will Implement This Rule Via
the Class I Permit Modification Process
Without Prior Approval
Several comments on the proposed
rule pointed out that implementing
many of the changes in the proposal
would require a Class 2 Permit
modification for facilities with permits
(see the following Web site for
information about Permit modifications:
https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/
training/perm.pdf). Obtaining a Class 2
Permit modification requires a
substantial effort on the part of a
regulated facility, which is contrary to
the intent of today’s rule. We believe the
changes in this rule will provide no
significant risk to human health or the
environment, and thus, we prefer that
these changes become effective as
quickly as possible so that the
paperwork reduction benefits from the
rule can be realized.
Therefore, in our October 29, 2003
NODA, we requested comment on
allowing permitted facilities to use the
Class 1 permit modification procedure,
with prior Agency approval, to
implement the changes arising from this
rulemaking. We also requested comment
on whether the Class 1 permit
modifications should be without prior
Agency approval.
States represented by the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Management Officials (ASTSWMO)
requested that we use the Class 1 permit
modification procedure with prior
Agency approval. They expressed an
interest in retaining oversight in the
implementation of our burden
reductions. After weighing this interest
against the interest in achieving savings
as soon as possible, we have decided in
favor of not delaying the benefits of this
rule. This is based on our judgment that,
in general, the risks associated with
these changes are negligible. We will
allow the changes in today’s rule to be
implemented as Class 1 permit
modifications without prior approval,
except for a permit modification for
reduced inspection frequency for
Performance Track member facilities
which will be implemented as a Class
1 permit modification with prior
approval. To implement this approach,
we are adding regulatory language and
an entry to the permit modification
classification table in Appendix I to
270.42, denoting modifications pursuant
to the burden reduction rule. However,
we wish to point out that, unless state
law prevents it, states can be more
stringent than the EPA rules if there are
specific concerns with the consequences
of these changes in any state. All states
also can use the omnibus authority of
RCRA Section 3005(c) for specific
facilities where they believe there is risk
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
due to site-specific circumstances not
identified in our rulemaking process.
This will allow states to retain oversight
where they choose to do so.
VI. How Will Today’s Regulatory
Changes Be Administered and Enforced
in the States?
A. Applicability of Federal Rules in
Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified states to
administer their own hazardous waste
programs in lieu of the federal program
within the state. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013,
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
states have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for state authorization are
found at 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), a state with final RCRA
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the federal
program in that state. The federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized state, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in that
state, since only the state was
authorized to issue RCRA permits.
When new, more stringent federal
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
requirements were promulgated, the
state was obligated to enact equivalent
authorities within specified time frames.
However, the new federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized state
until the state adopted the federal
requirements as state law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was
added by HSWA, new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under HSWA
authority take effect in authorized states
at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. EPA is directed by
the statute to implement these
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized states, including the
issuance of permits, until the state is
granted authorization to do so. While
states must still adopt HSWA related
provisions as state law to retain final
authorization, EPA implements the
HSWA provisions in authorized states
until the states do so.
Authorized states are required to
modify their programs only when EPA
enacts federal requirements that are
more stringent or broader in scope than
existing federal requirements. RCRA
section 3009 allows the states to impose
standards more stringent than those in
the federal program (see also 40 CFR
271.1). Therefore, authorized states may,
but are not required to, adopt federal
regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less
stringent than previous federal
regulations.
B. Authorization of States for Today’s
Rule
Today’s rule affects many aspects of
the RCRA program and is promulgated
pursuant to both HSWA and non-HSWA
statutory authority. Today’s rule amends
a number of provisions in the RCRA
regulations which were promulgated
pursuant to HSWA. These provisions
include, among others, the land disposal
restrictions and the regulation of air
emissions from hazardous waste
facilities, which were promulgated
pursuant to authority in sections
3004(m) and (o) respectively, of RCRA.
Therefore, the Agency is adding the rule
to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to the statutory authority that
was added by HSWA.
Other sections of today’s rule are
being promulgated pursuant to nonHSWA authority. All of the HSWA and
non-HSWA requirements in today’s
rulemaking are equivalent to, or less
stringent than, the existing provisions in
the Federal regulations which they
would amend. Authorized states are
required to modify their program only
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
when EPA promulgates Federal
regulations that are more stringent or
broader in scope than the authorized
state regulations. For those changes that
are less stringent or reduce the scope of
the Federal program, states are not
required to modify their program. This
is a result of section 3009 of RCRA,
which allows states to impose more
stringent regulations than the Federal
program. Therefore, states are not
required to adopt and seek authorization
for this rulemaking. EPA will
implement this rulemaking only in
those states which are not authorized for
the RCRA program, and will implement
provisions promulgated pursuant to
HSWA only in those states which have
not received authorization for the
HSWA provision that is amended today.
Nevertheless, this rule will provide
significant benefits to EPA, states, and
the regulated community, without
compromising human health or
environmental protection. Because this
rulemaking will not become effective in
authorized states until they have
adopted and are authorized for it, we
strongly encourage states to amend their
programs and seek authorization for
today’s rule. EPA will try to act
promptly on any such requests for
authorization.
VII. Statutory and Executive Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether a regulatory
action is significant and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines significant regulatory
action as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Although this rule clarifies
inconsistencies in the regulations and
decreases burden, it is still considered
a significant regulatory action under the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16899
terms of Executive Order 12866 since it
addresses one of the President’s
priorities of reducing burden.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. This rule
is promulgating changes to the
regulatory requirements of the RCRA
hazardous waste program to reduce the
paperwork burden certain requirements
impose on the States, EPA, and the
regulated community. EPA estimates
that the reporting and recordkeeping
hour burden reduction for this rule
ranges from 22,000 hours to 37,500
hours. EPA also estimates that the
reporting and recordkeeping cost
burden reduction for this rule ranges
from approximately $2 million to $3
million. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations 40
CFR parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268,
270, and 271, under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The burden reduction
resulting from this rulemaking will
affect the following seven existing
Information Collection Requests (ICRs):
OMB control number 2050–0033,
Facility Groundwater Monitoring
Requirements, EPA ICR number
0959.12; OMB control number 2050–
0035, Hazardous Waste Generator
Standards, EPA ICR number 0820.09;
OMB control number 2050–0050,
Hazardous Waste Specific Unit
Requirements and Special Waste
Processes and Types, EPA ICR number
1572.06; OMB control number 2050–
0053, Identification, Listing and
Rulemaking Petitions, EPA ICR number
1189.14; OMB control number 2050–
0073, Boilers and Industrial Furnaces:
General Hazardous Waste Facility
Standards, Specific Unit Requirements
and Part B Permit Application and
Modifications Requirements, EPA ICR
number 1361.10; OMB control number
2050–0085, Land Disposal Restrictions,
EPA ICR number 1442.18; OMB control
number 2050–0120, General Hazardous
Waste Facility Standards, EPA ICR
number 1571.07. A copy of these OMB
approved Information Collection
Requests (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 566–1672.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16900
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of the final rule on small entities, a
‘‘small entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule.
The final rule is specifically intended
to reduce, not increase, the paperwork
and related burdens of the RCRA
hazardous waste program. For
businesses in general, including all
small businesses, the regulatory changes
will reduce the labor time and other
costs of preparing, keeping records of,
and submitting reports to the Agency.
The final rule, for example, reduces the
frequency by which businesses must
conduct specified recordkeeping and
reporting activities (e.g., decreased
inspection frequency for hazardous
waste tanks from daily to weekly). It
also eliminates certain recordkeeping
and reporting requirements altogether,
i.e., in cases where the documents are
little used by the public or regulators. In
addition, the rule eliminates
redundancies between the RCRA
regulations and other regulatory
programs (e.g., RCRA and OSHA
requirements for personnel training),
thereby streamlining facilities’
compliance activities. Finally, the rule
provides increased flexibility in how
waste handlers may comply with the
regulations (e.g., establishment of
decreased inspection frequencies for
facilities in the National Performance
Track Program). We have therefore
concluded that today’s final rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected
small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes
requirements for Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
must prepare a written statement for
rules with Federal mandates that may
result in the expenditure by state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, Section 205 of the
UMRA requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of Section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, Section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed, under Section 203 of
the UMRA, a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments; enabling officials of
affected small governments to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates; and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that the final rule
does not contain a federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, in any one year.
In addition, the rule contains no
regulatory requirements for small
governments. Thus, the final rule is not
subject to the requirements of Sections
202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications.’’ As
defined in Executive Order 13132,
‘‘policies that have Federalism
implications’’ include regulations,
legislative comments or proposed
legislation, and other policy statements
or actions that have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
Under Section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
unless the Federal Government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and
local governments, or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts state
law, unless the Agency consults with
state and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
The final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it will
not impose any requirements on states
or any other level of government. As
explained above, the final rule
eliminates or relaxes many of the
paperwork requirements in the
regulations. Because these changes are
equivalent to or less stringent than the
existing federal program, states will not
be required to adopt and seek
authorization for them. Thus, the
requirements of Section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal
implications.’’ As defined in Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘policies that have Tribal
implications’’ include regulations,
legislative comments or proposed
legislation, and other policy statements
or actions that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.
The final rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on Tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. As
explained above, the final rule
eliminates or relaxes many of the
paperwork requirements in the
regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any
rule that may: (1) Be ‘‘economically
significant’under Executive Order 12866
(i.e., a rulemaking that has an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or would adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
governments or communities), and (2)
concern an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency.
EPA has determined that the final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866. EPA also expects the rule
does not have a disproportionate effect
on children’s health. The basic reason
for this finding is that the rule modifies
or eliminates paperwork requirements
that were deemed unnecessary or
infrequently used by regulators.
However, the rule preserves the
technical requirements underlying these
paperwork requirements. In addition,
regulators continue to have access to all
facility paperwork held on site, should
the need arise.
In addition, EPA has reduced the
inspection frequency of tank systems
from each operating day to at least
weekly, provided that the tank systems
have full secondary containment with
leak detection equipment or established
workplace practices that will alert
facility personnel. SQG tank systems are
required to have secondary containment
with leak detection equipment or
established workplace practices to adopt
the weekly inspections.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211 requires EPA
to prepare and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to OMB for those matters
identified as significant energy actions.
As defined in Executive Order 13211, a
‘‘significant energy action’’ is any action
by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of
a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking that: (1) Is a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 or any successor
order and is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is
designated by OMB as a significant
energy action.
The final rule does not involve the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16901
Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not
apply to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures) that
are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The
NTTAA also directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The final rule does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Under Executive Order 12898, as well
as through EPA’s April 1995
‘‘Environmental Justice Strategy,
OSWER Environmental Justice Task
Force Action Agency Report’’ and
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken
to incorporate environmental justice
into its policies and programs. EPA is
committed to addressing environmental
justice concerns, and is assuming a
leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all residents of the U.S. The
Agency’s goals are to ensure that no
segment of the population, regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income,
bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of
EPA’s policies, programs, and activities.
EPA has considered the impacts of the
final rule on low-income populations
and minority populations and
concluded that there are no
disproportionately high impacts under
the rule. The basic reason for this
finding is that the rule modifies or
eliminates paperwork requirements that
were deemed unnecessary or
infrequently used by regulators.
However, the rule preserves the
technical requirements underlying these
paperwork requirements. In addition,
regulators continue to have access to all
facility paperwork held on site, should
the need arise.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16902
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, EPA has reduced the
inspection frequency of tank systems
from each operating day to at least
weekly, provided that the tank systems
have full secondary containment with
leak detection equipment or workplace
practices that will alert facility
personnel.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
K. Congressional Review Act
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective May 4, 2006.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous waste Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 15, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
I
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–
6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,
and 6974.
Subpart B—Definitions
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order the
definition of ‘‘Performance Track
member facility’’ to read as follows:
I
40 CFR Part 261
§ 260.10
Excluded hazardous waste, Hazardous
waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
40 CFR Part 264
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds.
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Water supply.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
40 CFR Part 266
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
Performance Track member facility
means a facility that has been accepted
by EPA for membership in the National
Environmental Performance Track
Program and is still a member of the
Program. The National Environmental
Performance Track Program is a
voluntary, facility based, program for
top environmental performers. Facility
members must demonstrate a good
record of compliance, past success in
achieving environmental goals, and
commit to future specific quantified
environmental goals, environmental
management systems, local community
outreach, and annual reporting of
measurable results.
*
*
*
*
*
Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Subpart C—Rulemaking Petitions
40 CFR Part 268
I
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:28 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 260.31
[Amended]
3. Section 260.31 is amended by
removing paragraph (b)(2) and
redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) through
(b)(8) as (b)(2) through (b)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
4. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y), and 6938.
Subpart A—General
5. Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(9)(iii)(E) and
(f)(9) introductory text to read as
follows:
I
§ 261.4
Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(9) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) Prior to operating pursuant to this
exclusion, the plant owner or operator
prepares a one-time notification stating
that the plant intends to claim the
exclusion, giving the date on which the
plant intends to begin operating under
the exclusion, and containing the
following language: ‘‘I have read the
applicable regulation establishing an
exclusion for wood preserving
wastewaters and spent wood preserving
solutions and understand it requires me
to comply at all times with the
conditions set out in the regulation.’’
The plant must maintain a copy of that
document in its on-site records until
closure of the facility. The exclusion
applies so long as the plant meets all of
the conditions. If the plant goes out of
compliance with any condition, it may
apply to the appropriate Regional
Administrator or state Director for
reinstatement. The Regional
Administrator or state Director may
reinstate the exclusion upon finding
that the plant has returned to
compliance with all conditions and that
the violations are not likely to recur.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(9) The facility prepares and submits
a report to the Regional Administrator,
or state Director (if located in an
authorized state), by March 15 of each
year, that includes the following
information for the previous calendar
year:
*
*
*
*
*
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
6. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
7. Section 264.15 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) (the comment
to paragraph (b)(4) is unchanged), and
adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
I
§ 264.15
General inspection requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of inspection may
vary for the items on the schedule.
However, the frequency should be based
on the rate of deterioration of the
equipment and the probability of an
environmental or human health
incident if the deterioration,
malfunction, or operator error goes
undetected between inspections. Areas
subject to spills, such as loading and
unloading areas, must be inspected
daily when in use, except for
Performance Track member facilities,
that must inspect at least once each
month, upon approval by the Director,
as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section. At a minimum, the inspection
schedule must include the items and
frequencies called for in §§ 264.174,
264.193, 264.195, 264.226, 264.254,
264.278, 264.303, 264.347, 264.602,
264.1033, 264.1052, 264.1053, 264.1058,
and 264.1083 through 264.1089 of this
part, where applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Performance Track member
facilities that choose to reduce their
inspection frequency must:
(i) Submit a request for a Class I
permit modification with prior approval
to the Director. The modification
request must identify the facility as a
member of the National Environmental
Performance Track Program and identify
the management units for reduced
inspections and the proposed frequency
of inspections. The modification request
must also specify, in writing, that the
reduced inspection frequency will apply
for as long as the facility is a
Performance Track member facility, and
that within seven calendar days of
ceasing to be a Performance Track
member, the facility will revert to the
non-Performance Track inspection
frequency. Inspections must be
conducted at least once each month.
(ii) Within 60 days, the Director will
notify the Performance Track member
facility, in writing, if the request is
approved, denied, or if an extension to
the 60-day deadline is needed. This
notice must be placed in the facility’s
operating record. The Performance
Track member facility should consider
the application approved if the Director
does not: deny the application; or notify
the Performance Track member facility
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
of an extension to the 60-day deadline.
In these situations, the Performance
Track member facility must adhere to
the revised inspection schedule
outlined in its request for a Class 1
permit modification and keep a copy of
the application in the facility’s
operating record.
(iii) Any Performance Track member
facility that discontinues their
membership or is terminated from the
program must immediately notify the
Director of their change in status. The
facility must place in its operating
record a dated copy of this notification
and revert back to the non-Performance
Track inspection frequencies within
seven calendar days.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 264.16 is amended by
adding new paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
I
§ 264.16
Personnel training.
(a)(1) * * *
(4) For facility employees that receive
emergency response training pursuant
to Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations 29
CFR 1910.120(p)(8) and 1910.120(q), the
facility is not required to provide
separate emergency response training
pursuant to this section, provided that
the overall facility training meets all the
requirements of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
9. Section 264.52 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.52
Content of contingency plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) If the owner or operator has
already prepared a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan in accordance with part 112 of this
chapter, or part 1510 of chapter V, or
some other emergency or contingency
plan, he need only amend that plan to
incorporate hazardous waste
management provisions that are
sufficient to comply with the
requirements of this part. The owner or
operator may develop one contingency
plan which meets all regulatory
requirements. EPA recommends that the
plan be based on the National Response
Team’s Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance (‘‘One Plan’’). When
modifications are made to non-RCRA
provisions in an integrated contingency
plan, the changes do not trigger the need
for a RCRA permit modification.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 264.56
16903
[Amended]
10. Section 264.56 is amended by
removing paragraph (i) and
redesignating paragraph (j) as paragraph
(i).
I
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
11. Section 264.73 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text, (b)(1), (b)(2) (the comment to (b)(2)
remains unchanged), (b)(6), (b)(8), and
(b)(10), and by adding paragraphs
(b)(18) and (b)(19) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.73
Operating record.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The following information must be
recorded, as it becomes available, and
maintained in the operating record for
three years unless noted as follows:
(1) A description and the quantity of
each hazardous waste received, and the
method(s) and date(s) of its treatment,
storage, or disposal at the facility as
required by appendix I of this part. This
information must be maintained in the
operating record until closure of the
facility;
(2) The location of each hazardous
waste within the facility and the
quantity at each location. For disposal
facilities, the location and quantity of
each hazardous waste must be recorded
on a map or diagram that shows each
cell or disposal area. For all facilities,
this information must include crossreferences to manifest document
numbers if the waste was accompanied
by a manifest. This information must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data, and corrective action where
required by subpart F of this part and
§§ 264.19, 264.191, 264.193, 264.195,
264.222, 264.223, 264.226, 264.252–
264.254, 264.276, 264.278, 264.280,
264.302–264.304, 264.309, 264.602,
264.1034(c)–264.1034(f), 264.1035,
264.1063(d)–264.1063(i), 264.1064, and
264.1082 through 264.1090 of this part.
Maintain in the operating record for
three years, except for records and
results pertaining to ground-water
monitoring and cleanup which must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) All closure cost estimates under
§ 264.142, and for disposal facilities, all
post-closure cost estimates under
§ 264.144 of this part. This information
must be maintained in the operating
record until closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16904
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(10) Records of the quantities and date
of placement for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5 of this
chapter, a petition pursuant to § 268.6 of
this chapter, or a certification under
§ 268.8 of this chapter, and the
applicable notice required by a
generator under § 268.7(a) of this
chapter. This information must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(18) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data where required by § 264.347 must
be maintained in the operating record
for five years.
(19) Certifications as required by
§ 264.196(f) must be maintained in the
operating record until closure of the
facility.
Subpart F—Releases From Solid
Waste Management Units
12. Section 264.98 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d), (g)(2), and (g)(3)
to read as follows:
I
§ 264.98
Detection monitoring program.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The Regional Administrator will
specify the frequencies for collecting
samples and conducting statistical tests
to determine whether there is
statistically significant evidence of
contamination for any parameter or
hazardous constituent specified in the
permit conditions under paragraph (a)
of this section in accordance with
§ 264.97(g).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) Immediately sample the ground
water in all monitoring wells and
determine whether constituents in the
list of appendix IX of this part are
present, and if so, in what
concentration. However, the Regional
Administrator, on a discretionary basis,
may allow sampling for a site-specific
subset of constituents from the
Appendix IX list of this part and other
representative/related waste
constituents.
(3) For any appendix IX compounds
found in the analysis pursuant to
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the
owner or operator may resample within
one month or at an alternative sitespecific schedule approved by the
Administrator and repeat the analysis
for those compounds detected. If the
results of the second analysis confirm
the initial results, then these
constituents will form the basis for
compliance monitoring. If the owner or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
operator does not resample for the
compounds in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the hazardous constituents
found during this initial appendix IX
analysis will form the basis for
compliance monitoring.
*
*
*
*
*
I 13. Section 264.99 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as
follows:
§ 264.100
§ 264.99
I
Compliance monitoring program.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The Regional Administrator will
specify the frequencies for collecting
samples and conducting statistical tests
to determine statistically significant
evidence of increased contamination in
accordance with § 264.97(g).
(g) Annually, the owner or operator
must determine whether additional
hazardous constituents from Appendix
IX of this part, which could possibly be
present but are not on the detection
monitoring list in the permit, are
actually present in the uppermost
aquifer and, if so, at what concentration,
pursuant to procedures in § 264.98(f).
To accomplish this, the owner or
operator must consult with the Regional
Administrator to determine on a caseby-case basis: which sample collection
event during the year will involve
enhanced sampling; the number of
monitoring wells at the compliance
point to undergo enhanced sampling;
the number of samples to be collected
from each of these monitoring wells;
and, the specific constituents from
Appendix IX of this part for which these
samples must be analyzed. If the
enhanced sampling event indicates that
Appendix IX constituents are present in
the ground water that are not already
identified in the permit as monitoring
constituents, the owner or operator may
resample within one month or at an
alternative site-specific schedule
approved by the Regional
Administrator, and repeat the analysis.
If the second analysis confirms the
presence of new constituents, the owner
or operator must report the
concentration of these additional
constituents to the Regional
Administrator within seven days after
the completion of the second analysis
and add them to the monitoring list. If
the owner or operator chooses not to
resample, then he or she must report the
concentrations of these additional
constituents to the Regional
Administrator within seven days after
completion of the initial analysis, and
add them to the monitoring list.
*
*
*
*
*
I 14. Section 264.100 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Corrective action program.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The owner or operator must report
in writing to the Regional Administrator
on the effectiveness of the corrective
action program. The owner or operator
must submit these reports annually.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart G—Closure and Post-Closure
15. Section 264.113 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 264.113
closure.
Closure; time allowed for
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(5) During the period of corrective
action, the owner or operator shall
provide annual reports to the Regional
Administrator describing the progress of
the corrective action program, compile
all ground-water monitoring data, and
evaluate the effect of the continued
receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the
effectiveness of the corrective action.
*
*
*
*
*
I 16. Section 264.115 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 264.115
Certification of closure.
Within 60 days of completion of
closure of each hazardous waste surface
impoundment, waste pile, land
treatment, and landfill unit, and within
60 days of the completion of final
closure, the owner or operator must
submit to the Regional Administrator,
by registered mail, a certification that
the hazardous waste management unit
or facility, as applicable, has been
closed in accordance with the
specifications in the approved closure
plan.. The certification must be signed
by the owner or operator and by a
qualified Professional Engineer.
Documentation supporting the
Professional Engineer’s certification
must be furnished to the Regional
Administrator upon request until he
releases the owner or operator from the
financial assurance requirements for
closure under § 264.143(i).
I 17. Section 264.120 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 264.120 Certification of completion of
post-closure care.
No later than 60 days after completion
of the established post-closure care
period for each hazardous waste
disposal unit, the owner or operator
must submit to the Regional
Administrator, by registered mail, a
certification that the post-closure care
period for the hazardous waste disposal
unit was performed in accordance with
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the specifications in the approved postclosure plan. The certification must be
signed by the owner or operator and a
qualified Professional Engineer.
Documentation supporting the
Professional Engineer’s certification
must be furnished to the Regional
Administrator upon request until he
releases the owner or operator from the
financial assurance requirements for
post-closure care under § 264.145(i).
Subpart H—Financial Requirements
18. Section 264.143 is amended by
revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.143
Financial assurance for closure.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Release of the owner or operator
from the requirements of this section.
Within 60 days after receiving
certifications from the owner or operator
and a qualified Professional Engineer
that final closure has been completed in
accordance with the approved closure
plan, the Regional Administrator will
notify the owner or operator in writing
that he is no longer required by this
section to maintain financial assurance
for final closure of the facility, unless
the Regional Administrator has reason
to believe that final closure has not been
in accordance with the approved
closure plan. The Regional
Administrator shall provide the owner
or operator a detailed written statement
of any such reason to believe that
closure has not been in accordance with
the approved closure plan.
19. Section 264.145 is amended by
revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.145 Financial assurance for postclosure care.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Release of the owner or operator
from the requirements of this section.
Within 60 days after receiving
certifications from the owner or operator
and a qualified Professional Engineer
that the post-closure care period has
been completed for a hazardous waste
disposal unit in accordance with the
approved plan, the Regional
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator that he is no longer required to
maintain financial assurance for postclosure of that unit, unless the Regional
Administrator has reason to believe that
post-closure care has not been in
accordance with the approved postclosure plan. The Regional
Administrator shall provide the owner
or operator a detailed written statement
of any such reason to believe that postclosure care has not been in accordance
with the approved post-closure plan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
20. Section 264.147 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.147
Liability requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Period of coverage. Within 60 days
after receiving certifications from the
owner or operator and a qualified
Professional Engineer that final closure
has been completed in accordance with
the approved closure plan, the Regional
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator in writing that he is no longer
required by this section to maintain
liability coverage for that facility, unless
the Regional Administrator has reason
to believe that closure has not been in
accordance with the approved closure
plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—Use and Management of
Containers
21. Section 264.174 is revised to read
as follows:
I
§ 264.174
Inspections.
At least weekly, the owner or operator
must inspect areas where containers are
stored, except for Performance Track
member facilities, that may conduct
inspections at least once each month,
upon approval by the Director. To apply
for reduced inspection frequencies, the
Performance Track member facility
must follow the procedures identified in
§ 264.15(b)(5) of this part. The owner or
operator must look for leaking
containers and for deterioration of
containers and the containment system
caused by corrosion or other factors.
[Comment: See §§ 264.15(c) and 264.171
for remedial action required if
deterioration or leaks are detected.]
Subpart J—Tank Systems
22. Section 264.191 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(5)(ii) (the
note to paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is
unchanged) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.191 Assessment of existing tank
system’s integrity.
(a) For each existing tank system that
does not have secondary containment
meeting the requirements of § 264.193,
the owner or operator must determine
that the tank system is not leaking or is
unfit for use. Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
or operator must obtain and keep on file
at the facility a written assessment
reviewed and certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer, in accordance
with § 270.11(d) of this chapter, that
attests to the tank system’s integrity by
January 12, 1988.
(b) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16905
(5) * * *
(ii) For other than non-enterable
underground tanks and for ancillary
equipment, this assessment must
include either a leak test, as described
above, or other integrity examination
that is certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer in accordance
with § 270.11(d) of this chapter, that
addresses cracks, leaks, corrosion, and
erosion.
*
*
*
*
*
I 23. Section 264.192 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (b) introductory text to
read as follows:
§ 264.192 Design and installation of new
tank systems or components.
(a) Owners or operators of new tank
systems or components must obtain and
submit to the Regional Administrator, at
time of submittal of part B information,
a written assessment, reviewed and
certified by a qualified Professional
Engineer, in accordance with
§ 270.11(d) of this chapter, attesting that
the tank system has sufficient structural
integrity and is acceptable for the
storing and treating of hazardous waste.
The assessment must show that the
foundation, structural support, seams,
connections, and pressure controls (if
applicable) are adequately designed and
that the tank system has sufficient
structural strength, compatibility with
the waste(s) to be stored or treated, and
corrosion protection to ensure that it
will not collapse, rupture, or fail. This
assessment, which will be used by the
Regional Administrator to review and
approve or disapprove the acceptability
of the tank system design, must include,
at a minimum, the following
information:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The owner or operator of a new
tank system must ensure that proper
handling procedures are adhered to in
order to prevent damage to the system
during installation. Prior to covering,
enclosing, or placing a new tank system
or component in use, an independent,
qualified, installation inspector or a
qualified Professional Engineer, either
of whom is trained and experienced in
the proper installation of tanks systems
or components, must inspect the system
for the presence of any of the following
items:
*
*
*
*
*
I 24. Section 264.193 is amended by:
I a. Removing paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4);
I b. Redesignating (a)(5) as (a)(2);
I c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), newly
designated (a)(2), and (i)(2) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16906
§ 264.193
releases.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Containment and detection of
(a) * * *
(1) For all new and existing tank
systems or components, prior to their
being put into service.
(2) For tank systems that store or treat
materials that become hazardous wastes,
within two years of the hazardous waste
listing, or when the tank system has
reached 15 years of age, whichever
comes later.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(2) For other than non-enterable
underground tanks, the owner or
operator must either conduct a leak test
as in paragraph (i)(1) of this section or
develop a schedule and procedure for
an assessment of the overall condition
of the tank system by a qualified
Professional Engineer. The schedule and
procedure must be adequate to detect
obvious cracks, leaks, and corrosion or
erosion that may lead to cracks and
leaks. The owner or operator must
remove the stored waste from the tank,
if necessary, to allow the condition of
all internal tank surfaces to be assessed.
The frequency of these assessments
must be based on the material of
construction of the tank and its ancillary
equipment, the age of the system, the
type of corrosion or erosion protection
used, the rate of corrosion or erosion
observed during the previous
inspection, and the characteristics of the
waste being stored or treated.
*
*
*
*
*
I 25. Section 264.195 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraph (b) (the note to
paragraph (b) is unchanged);
I b. Redesignating existing paragraphs
(c) and (d), as paragraphs (g) and (h),
respectively;
I c. Adding new paragraphs (c) through
(f), to read as follows:
§ 264.195
Inspections.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The owner or operator must
inspect at least once each operating day
data gathered from monitoring and leak
detection equipment (e.g., pressure or
temperature gauges, monitoring wells)
to ensure that the tank system is being
operated according to its design.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In addition, except as noted under
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner
or operator must inspect at least once
each operating day:
(1) Above ground portions of the tank
system, if any, to detect corrosion or
releases of waste.
(2) The construction materials and the
area immediately surrounding the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
externally accessible portion of the tank
system, including the secondary
containment system (e.g., dikes) to
detect erosion or signs of releases of
hazardous waste (e.g., wet spots, dead
vegetation).
(d) Owners or operators of tank
systems that either use leak detection
systems to alert facility personnel to
leaks, or implement established
workplace practices to ensure leaks are
promptly identified, must inspect at
least weekly those areas described in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section. Use of the alternate inspection
schedule must be documented in the
facility’s operating record. This
documentation must include a
description of the established workplace
practices at the facility.
(e) Performance Track member
facilities may inspect on a less frequent
basis, upon approval by the Director,
but must inspect at least once each
month. To apply for a less than weekly
inspection frequency, the Performance
Track member facility must follow the
procedures described in § 264.15(b)(5).
(f) Ancillary equipment that is not
provided with secondary containment,
as described in § 264.193(f)(1) through
(4), must be inspected at least once each
operating day.
*
*
*
*
*
I 26. Section 264.196 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) (the notes to
paragraph (f) are unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 264.196 Response to leaks or spills and
disposition of leaking or unfit-for-use tank
systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Certification of major repairs. If the
owner/operator has repaired a tank
system in accordance with paragraph (e)
of this section, and the repair has been
extensive (e.g., installation of an
internal liner; repair of a ruptured
primary containment or secondary
containment vessel), the tank system
must not be returned to service unless
the owner/operator has obtained a
certification by a qualified Professional
Engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d)
of this chapter that the repaired system
is capable of handling hazardous wastes
without release for the intended life of
the system. This certification must be
placed in the operating record and
maintained until closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 264.251 Design and operating
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The owner or operator of each new
waste pile unit, each lateral expansion
of a waste pile unit, and each
replacement of an existing waste pile
unit must install two or more liners and
a leachate collection and removal
system above and between such liners.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart M—Land Treatment
28. Section 264.280 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
I
§ 264.280
*
*
*
*
(b) For the purpose of complying with
§ 264.115 of this chapter, when closure
is completed the owner or operator may
submit to the Regional Administrator
certification by an independent,
qualified soil scientist, in lieu of a
qualified Professional Engineer, that the
facility has been closed in accordance
with the specifications in the approved
closure plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart N—Landfills
29. Section 264.314 is amended by:
a. Removing paragraph (a);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (f) as paragraphs (a) through (e);
and,
I c. Revising newly designated
paragraphs (a) and newly designated
paragraph (e) introductory text to read
as follows:
I
I
I
§ 264.314 Special requirements for bulk
and containerized liquids.
(a) The placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or
hazardous waste containing free liquids
(whether or not sorbents have been
added) in any landfill is prohibited.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The placement of any liquid which
is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is
prohibited unless the owner or operator
of such landfill demonstrates to the
Regional Administrator, or the Regional
Administrator determines that:
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart O—Incinerators
30. Section 264.343 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
I
§ 264.343
Subpart L—Waste Piles
Closure and post-closure care.
*
Performance standards.
*
27. Section 264.251 is amended by
revising the introductory text to
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(a)(1) * * *
(2) An incinerator burning hazardous
wastes FO20, FO21, FO22, FO23, FO26,
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
or FO27 must achieve a destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999%
for each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) designated (under
§ 264.342) in its permit. This
performance must be demonstrated on
POHCs that are more difficult to
incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans. DRE is determined for
each POHC from the equation in
§ 264.343(a)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
I 31. Section 264.347 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 264.347
Monitoring and inspections.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) This monitoring and inspection
data must be recorded and the records
must be placed in the operating record
required by § 264.73 of this part and
maintained in the operating record for
five years.
Subpart S—Special Provisions for
Cleanup
32. Section 264.554 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
I
§ 264.554
Staging piles.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Certification by a qualified
Professional Engineer for technical data,
such as design drawings and
specifications, and engineering studies,
unless the Director determines, based on
information that you provide, that this
certification is not necessary to ensure
that a staging pile will protect human
health and the environment; and
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart W—Drip Pads
33. Section 264.571 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
I
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 264.571
integrity.
Assessment of existing drip pad
(a) For each existing drip pad as
defined in § 264.570 of this subpart, the
owner or operator must evaluate the
drip pad and determine whether it
meets all of the requirements of this
subpart, except the requirements for
liners and leak detection systems of
§ 264.573(b). No later than the effective
date of this rule, the owner or operator
must obtain and keep on file at the
facility a written assessment of the drip
pad, reviewed and certified by a
qualified Professional Engineer that
attests to the results of the evaluation.
The assessment must be reviewed,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
updated and re-certified annually until
all upgrades, repairs, or modifications
necessary to achieve compliance with
all the standards of § 264.573 are
complete. The evaluation must
document the extent to which the drip
pad meets each of the design and
operating standards of § 264.573, except
the standards for liners and leak
detection systems, specified in
§ 264.573(b).
(b) The owner or operator must
develop a written plan for upgrading,
repairing, and modifying the drip pad to
meet the requirements of § 264.573(b)
and submit the plan to the Regional
Administrator no later than 2 years
before the date that all repairs,
upgrades, and modifications are
complete. This written plan must
describe all changes to be made to the
drip pad in sufficient detail to
document compliance with all the
requirements of § 264.573. The plan
must be reviewed and certified by a
qualified Professional Engineer.
(c) Upon completion of all upgrades,
repairs, and modifications, the owner or
operator must submit to the Regional
Administrator or state Director, the asbuilt drawings for the drip pad together
with a certification by a qualified
Professional Engineer attesting that the
drip pad conforms to the drawings.
*
*
*
*
*
I 34. Section 264.573 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (g) to
read as follows:
§ 264.573 Design and operating
requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator must obtain
and keep on file at the facility a written
assessment of the drip pad, reviewed
and certified by a qualified Professional
Engineer that attests to the results of the
evaluation. The assessment must be
reviewed, updated and recertified
annually. The evaluation must
document the extent to which the drip
pad meets the design and operating
standards of this section, except for
paragraph (b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The drip pad must be evaluated to
determine that it meets the requirements
of paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section and the owner or operator must
obtain a statement from a qualified
Professional Engineer certifying that the
drip pad design meets the requirements
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
I 35. Section 264.574 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 264.574
16907
Inspections.
(a) During construction or installation,
liners and cover systems (e.g.,
membranes, sheets, or coatings) must be
inspected for uniformity, damage and
imperfections (e.g., holes, cracks, thin
spots, or foreign materials). Immediately
after construction or installation, liners
must be inspected and certified as
meeting the requirements in § 264.573
of this subpart by a qualified
Professional Engineer. This certification
must be maintained at the facility as
part of the facility operating record.
After installation, liners and covers
must be inspected to ensure tight seams
and joints and the absence of tears,
punctures, or blisters.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks
§ 264.1061
[Amended]
36. Section 264.1061 is amended by:
a. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (d);
and,
I b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2).
I
I
§ 264.1062
[Amended]
37. Section 264.1062 is amended by
removing paragraph (a)(2) and
redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as
paragraph (a).
I
Subpart DD—Containment Buildings
38. Section 264.1100 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
I
§ 264.1100
Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart
apply to owners or operators who store
or treat hazardous waste in units
designed and operated under § 264.1101
of this subpart. The owner or operator
is not subject to the definition of land
disposal in RCRA section 3004(k)
provided that the unit:
*
*
*
*
*
I 39. Section 264.1101 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 264.1101 Design and operating
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Obtain and keep on-site a
certification by a qualified Professional
Engineer that the containment building
design meets the requirements of
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Inspect and record in the facility’s
operating record, at least once every
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16908
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
seven days, except for Performance
Track member facilities that must
inspect at least once each month, upon
approval by the Director, data gathered
from monitoring and leak detection
equipment as well as the containment
building and the area immediately
surrounding the containment building
to detect signs of releases of hazardous
waste. To apply for reduced inspection
frequency, the Performance Track
member facility must follow the
procedures described in § 264.15(b)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912,
6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and
6937, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
41. Section 265.15 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.15
General inspection requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of inspection may
vary for the items on the schedule.
However, the frequency should be based
on the rate of deterioration of the
equipment and the probability of an
environmental or human health
incident if the deterioration,
malfunction, or operator error goes
undetected between inspections. Areas
subject to spills, such as loading and
unloading areas, must be inspected
daily when in use, except for
Performance Track member facilities,
that must inspect at least once each
month, upon approval by the Director,
as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section. At a minimum, the inspection
schedule must include the items and
frequencies called for in §§ 265.174,
265.193, 265.195, 265.226, 265.260,
265.278, 265.304, 265.347, 265.377,
265.403, 265.1033, 265.1052, 265.1053,
265.1058, and 265.1084 through
265.1090, where applicable.
(5) Performance Track member
facilities that choose to reduce
inspection frequencies must:
(i) Submit an application to the
Director. The application must identify
the facility as a member of the National
Environmental Performance Track
Program and identify the management
units for reduced inspections and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposed frequency of inspections.
Inspections must be conducted at least
once each month.
(ii) Within 60 days, the Director will
notify the Performance Track member
facility, in writing, if the application is
approved, denied, or if an extension to
the 60-day deadline is needed. This
notice must be placed in the facility’s
operating record. The Performance
Track member facility should consider
the application approved if the Director
does not: (1) Deny the application; or (2)
notify the Performance Track member
facility of an extension to the 60-day
deadline. In these situations, the
Performance Track member facility
must adhere to the revised inspection
schedule outlined in its application and
maintain a copy of the application in
the facility’s operating record.
(iii) Any Performance Track member
facility that discontinues its
membership or is terminated from the
program must immediately notify the
Director of its change in status. The
facility must place in its operating
record a dated copy of this notification
and revert back to the non-Performance
Track inspection frequencies within
seven calendar days.
*
*
*
*
*
I 42. Section 265.16 is amended by
adding new paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 265.16
Personnel training.
(a) * * *
(4) For facility employees that receive
emergency response training pursuant
to Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations 29
CFR 1910.120(p)(8) and 1910.120(q), the
facility is not required to provide
separate emergency response training
pursuant to this section, provided that
the overall facility training meets all the
requirements of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Contingency Plans and
Emergency Procedures
43. Section 265.52 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.52
Content of contingency plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) If the owner or operator has
already prepared a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan in accordance with Part 112 of this
chapter, or Part 1510 of chapter V, or
some other emergency or contingency
plan, he need only amend that plan to
incorporate hazardous waste
management provisions that are
sufficient to comply with the
requirements of this Part. The owner or
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operator may develop one contingency
plan which meets all regulatory
requirements. EPA recommends that the
plan be based on the National Response
Team’s Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance (‘‘One Plan’’). When
modifications are made to non-RCRA
provisions in an integrated contingency
plan, the changes do not trigger the need
for a RCRA permit modification.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 265.56
[Amended]
44. Section 265.56 is amended by
removing paragraph (i) and
redesignating paragraph (j) as paragraph
(i).
I
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
45. Section 265.73 is amended by
revising the introductory text to
paragraph (b), (b)(1), (b)(2) (the
comment to paragraph (b)(2) is
unchanged), (b)(6) (the comment to
paragraph (b)(6) is unchanged), (b)(7),
and (b)(8) and adding a new (b)(15) to
read as follows:
I
§ 265.73
Operating record.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The following information must be
recorded, as it becomes available, and
maintained in the operating record for
three years unless noted below:
(1) A description and the quantity of
each hazardous waste received, and the
method(s) and date(s) of its treatment,
storage, or disposal at the facility as
required by Appendix I to part 265. This
information must be maintained in the
operating record until closure of the
facility;
(2) The location of each hazardous
waste within the facility and the
quantity at each location. For disposal
facilities, the location and quantity of
each hazardous waste must be recorded
on a map or diagram of each cell or
disposal area. For all facilities, this
information must include crossreferences to manifest document
numbers if the waste was accompanied
by a manifest. This information must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility;
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data, and corrective action where
required by subpart F of this part and by
§§ 265.19, 265.94, 265.191, 265.193,
265.195, 265.224, 265.226, 265.255,
265.260, 265.276, 265.278,
265.280(d)(1), 265.302, 265.304,
265.347, 265.377, 265.1034(c) through
265.1034(f), 265.1035, 265.1063(d)
through 265. 265.1063(i), 265.1064, and
265.1083 through 265.1090. Maintain in
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the operating record for three years,
except for records and results pertaining
to ground-water monitoring and
cleanup, and response action plans for
surface impoundments, waste piles, and
landfills, which must be maintained in
the operating record until closure of the
facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) All closure cost estimates under
§ 265.142 and, for disposal facilities, all
post-closure cost estimates under
§ 265.144 must be maintained in the
operating record until closure of the
facility.
(8) Records of the quantities (and date
of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5 of this
chapter, monitoring data required
pursuant to a petition under § 268.6 of
this chapter, or a certification under
§ 268.8 of this chapter, and the
applicable notice required by a
generator under § 268.7(a) of this
chapter. All of this information must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(15) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data, and corrective action where
required by §§ 265.90, 265.93(d)(2), and
265.93(d)(5), and the certification as
required by § 265.196(f) must be
maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility.
Subpart F—Ground-Water Monitoring
46. Section 265.90 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) to
read as follows:
I
§ 265.90
Applicability.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Within one year after the effective
date of these regulations, develop a
specific plan, certified by a qualified
geologist or geotechnical engineer,
which satisfies the requirements of
§ 265.93(d)(3), for an alternate groundwater monitoring system. This plan is to
be placed in the facility’s operating
record and maintained until closure of
the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Prepare a report in accordance
with § 265.93(d)(5) and place it in the
facility’s operating record and maintain
until closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
I 47. Section 265.93 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(5) to
read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 265.93 Preparation, evaluation, and
response.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) * * *
(2) Within 15 days after the
notification under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, the owner or operator must
develop a specific plan, based on the
outline required under paragraph (a) of
this section and certified by a qualified
geologist or geotechnical engineer, for a
ground-water quality assessment at the
facility. This plan must be placed in the
facility operating record and be
maintained until closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) The owner or operator must make
his first determination under paragraph
(d)(4) of this section, as soon as
technically feasible, and prepare a
report containing an assessment of
ground-water quality. This report must
be placed in the facility operating record
and be maintained until closure of the
facility.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart G—Closure and Post-Closure
48. Section 265.113 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(5) to read as
follows:
I
§ 265.113
closure.
Closure; time allowed for
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(5) During the period of corrective
action, the owner or operator shall
provide annual reports to the Regional
Administrator describing the progress of
the corrective action program, compile
all ground-water monitoring data, and
evaluate the effect of the continued
receipt of non-hazardous wastes on the
effectiveness of the corrective action.
*
*
*
*
*
I 49. Section 265.115 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 265.115
Certification of closure.
Within 60 days of completion of
closure of each hazardous waste surface
impoundment, waste pile, land
treatment, and landfill unit, and within
60 days of completion of final closure,
the owner or operator must submit to
the Regional Administrator, by
registered mail, a certification that the
hazardous waste management unit or
facility, as applicable, has been closed
in accordance with the specifications in
the approved closure plan. The
certification must be signed by the
owner or operator and by a qualified
Professional Engineer. Documentation
supporting the Professional Engineer’s
certification must be furnished to the
Regional Administrator upon request
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16909
until he releases the owner or operator
from the financial assurance
requirements for closure under
§ 265.143(h).
I 50. Section 265.120 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 265.120 Certification of completion of
post-closure care.
No later than 60 days after the
completion of the established postclosure care period for each hazardous
waste disposal unit, the owner or
operator must submit to the Regional
Administrator, by registered mail, a
certification that the post-closure care
period for the hazardous waste disposal
unit was performed in accordance with
the specifications in the approved postclosure plan. The certification must be
signed by the owner or operator and a
qualified Professional Engineer.
Documentation supporting the
Professional Engineer’s certification
must be furnished to the Regional
Administrator upon request until he
releases the owner or operator from the
financial assurance requirements for
post-closure care under § 265.145(h).
Subpart H—Financial Requirements
51. Section 265.143 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
I
§ 265.143
Financial assurance for closure.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Release of the owner or operator
from the requirements of this section.
Within 60 days after receiving
certifications from the owner or operator
and a qualified Professional Engineer
that final closure has been completed in
accordance with the approved closure
plan, the Regional Administrator will
notify the owner or operator in writing
that he is no longer required by this
section to maintain financial assurance
for final closure of the facility, unless
the Regional Administrator has reason
to believe that final closure has not been
in accordance with the approved
closure plan. The Regional
Administrator shall provide the owner
or operator a detailed written statement
of any such reason to believe that
closure has not been in accordance with
the approved closure plan.
I 52. Section 265.145 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
§ 265.145 Financial assurance for postclosure care.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Release of the owner or operator
from the requirements of this section.
Within 60 days after receiving
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16910
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
certifications from the owner or operator
and a qualified Professional Engineer
that the post-closure care period has
been completed for a hazardous waste
disposal unit in accordance with the
approved plan, the Regional
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator in writing that he is no longer
required to maintain financial assurance
for post-closure care of that unit, unless
the Regional Administrator has reason
to believe that post-closure care has not
been in accordance with the approved
post-closure plan. The Regional
Administrator shall provide the owner
or operator a detailed written statement
of any such reason to believe that postclosure care has not been in accordance
with the approved post-closure plan.
I 53. Section 265.147 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 265.147
Liability requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Period of coverage. Within 60 days
after receiving certifications from the
owner or operator and a qualified
Professional Engineer that final closure
has been completed in accordance with
the approved closure plan, the Regional
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator in writing that he is no longer
required by this section to maintain
liability coverage for that facility, unless
the Regional Administrator has reason
to believe that closure has not been in
accordance with the approved closure
plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—Use and Management of
Containers
54. Section 265.174 is revised to read
as follows:
I
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 265.174
Inspections.
At least weekly, the owner or operator
must inspect areas where containers are
stored, except for Performance Track
member facilities, that must conduct
inspections at least once each month,
upon approval by the Director. To apply
for reduced inspection frequency, the
Performance Track member facility
must follow the procedures described in
§ 265.15(b)(5) of this part. The owner or
operator must look for leaking
containers and for deterioration of
containers and the containment system
caused by corrosion or other factors.
[Comment: See § 265.171 for remedial
action required if deterioration or leaks
are detected.]
Subpart J—Tank Systems
55. Section 265.191 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(5)(ii) (the
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
note to paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is
unchanged) to read as follows:
§ 265.191 Assessment of existing tank
system’s integrity.
(a) For each existing tank system that
does not have secondary containment
meeting the requirements of § 265.193,
the owner or operator must determine
that the tank system is not leaking or is
unfit for use. Except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
or operator must obtain and keep on file
at the facility a written assessment
reviewed and certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer in accordance
with § 270.11(d) of this chapter, that
attests to the tank system’s integrity by
January 12, 1988.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) For other than non-enterable
underground tanks and for ancillary
equipment, this assessment must be
either a leak test, as described above, or
an internal inspection and/or other tank
integrity examination certified by a
qualified Professional Engineer in
accordance with § 270.11(d) of this
chapter that addresses cracks, leaks,
corrosion, and erosion.
*
*
*
*
*
I 56. Section 265.192 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (b) introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 265.192 Design and installation of new
tank systems or components.
(a) Owners or operators of new tank
systems or components must ensure that
the foundation, structural support,
seams, connections, and pressure
controls (if applicable) are adequately
designed and that the tank system has
sufficient structural strength,
compatibility with the waste(s) to be
stored or treated, and corrosion
protection so that it will not collapse,
rupture, or fail. The owner or operator
must obtain a written assessment
reviewed and certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer in accordance
with § 270.11(d) of this chapter attesting
that the system has sufficient structural
integrity and is acceptable for the
storing and treating of hazardous waste.
This assessment must include the
following information:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The owner or operator of a new
tank system must ensure that proper
handling procedures are adhered to in
order to prevent damage to the system
during installation. Prior to covering,
enclosing, or placing a new tank system
or component in use, an independent,
qualified installation inspector or a
qualified Professional Engineer, either
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of whom is trained and experienced in
the proper installation of tank systems,
must inspect the system or component
for the presence of any of the following
items:
*
*
*
*
*
I 56. Section 265.193 is amended by:
I a. Removing paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4);
I b. Redesignating (a)(5) as (a)(2);
I c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), newly
designated (a)(2) and (i)(2) (the note to
(i)(2) is unchanged) to read as follows.
§ 265.193
releases.
Containment and detection of
(a) * * *
(1) For all new and existing tank
systems or components, prior to their
being put into service.
(2) For tank systems that store or treat
materials that become hazardous wastes,
within 2 years of the hazardous waste
listing, or when the tank system has
reached 15 years of age, whichever
comes later.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) For other than non-enterable
underground tanks, and for all ancillary
equipment, the owner or operator must
either conduct a leak test as in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section or an
internal inspection or other tank
integrity examination by a qualified
Professional Engineer that addresses
cracks, leaks, and corrosion or erosion at
least annually. The owner or operator
must remove the stored waste from the
tank, if necessary, to allow the condition
of all internal tanks surfaces to be
assessed.
*
*
*
*
*
I 58. Section 265.195 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraph (a) (the note to
paragraph (a) is unchanged);
I b. Redesignating existing paragraphs
(b) and (c), as paragraphs (f) and (g),
respectively; and,
I c. Adding new paragraphs (b) through
(e).
§ 265.195
Inspections.
(a) The owner or operator must
inspect, where present, at least once
each operating day, data gathered from
monitoring and leak detection
equipment (e.g., pressure or temperature
gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that
the tank system is being operated
according to its design.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except as noted under the
paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
or operator must inspect at least once
each operating day:
(1) Overfill/spill control equipment
(e.g., waste-feed cutoff systems, bypass
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
systems, and drainage systems) to
ensure that it is in good working order;
(2) Above ground portions of the tank
system, if any, to detect corrosion or
releases of waste; and
(3) The construction materials and the
area immediately surrounding the
externally accessible portion of the tank
system, including the secondary
containment system (e.g., dikes) to
detect erosion or signs of releases of
hazardous waste (e.g., wet spots, dead
vegetation).
(c) Owners or operators of tank
systems that either use leak detection
equipment to alert facility personnel to
leaks, or implement established
workplace practices to ensure leaks are
promptly identified, must inspect at
least weekly those areas described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section. Use of the alternate inspection
schedule must be documented in the
facility’s operating record. This
documentation must include a
description of the established workplace
practices at the facility.
(d) Performance Track member
facilities may inspect on a less frequent
basis, upon approval by the Director,
but must inspect at least once each
month. To apply for a less than weekly
inspection frequency, the Performance
Track member facility must follow the
procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
(e) Ancillary equipment that is not
provided with secondary containment,
as described in § 265.193(f)(1) through
(4), must be inspected at least once each
operating day.
*
*
*
*
*
I 59. Section 265.196 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) (the notes to
paragraph (f) are unchanged) to read as
follows:
I
I
§ 265.196 Response to leaks or spills and
disposition of leaking or unfit-for-use tank
systems.
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Certification of major repairs. If the
owner/operator has repaired a tank
system in accordance with paragraph (e)
of this section, and the repair has been
extensive (e.g., installation of an
internal liner; repair of a ruptured
primary containment or secondary
containment vessel), the tank system
must not be returned to service unless
the owner/operator has obtained a
certification by a qualified Professional
Engineer in accordance with § 270.11(d)
that the repaired system is capable of
handling hazardous wastes without
release for the intended life of the
system. This certification is to be placed
in the operating record and maintained
until closure of the facility.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
60. Section 265.201 is amended by:
a. Revising the paragraph (c)
introductory text;
I b. Redesignating paragraph (d)
through (f), as paragraphs (f) through
(h), respectively; and,
I c. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (e).
§ 265.201 Special requirements for
generators of between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo.
that accumulate hazardous waste in tanks.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Except as noted in paragraph (d) of
this section, generators who accumulate
between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo of
hazardous in tanks must inspect, where
present:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Generators who accumulate
between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo of
hazardous waste in tanks or tank
systems that have full secondary
containment and that either use leak
detection equipment to alert facility
personnel to leaks, or implement
established workplace practices to
ensure leaks are promptly identified,
must inspect at least weekly, where
applicable, the areas identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section. Use of the alternate inspection
schedule must be documented in the
facility’s operating record. This
documentation must include a
description of the established workplace
practices at the facility.
(e) Performance Track member
facilities may inspect on a less frequent
basis, upon approval by the Director,
but must inspect at least once each
month. To apply for a less than weekly
inspection frequency, the Performance
Track member facility must follow the
procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
61. Section 265.221 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.221 Design and operating
requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each new
surface impoundment unit, each lateral
expansion of a surface impoundment
unit, and each replacement of an
existing surface impoundment unit
must install two or more liners, and a
leachate collection and removal system
above and between the liners, and
operate the leachate collection and
removal system, in accordance with
§ 264.221(c), unless exempted under
§ 264.221(d), (e), or (f) of this Chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 265.223
[Redesignated as § 265.224]
I 62. Section 265.223 titled ‘‘Response
actions’’ is redesignated as § 265.224
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16911
and the newly designated § 265.224 is
amended by revising paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 265.224
Response actions.
(a) The owner or operator of surface
impoundment units subject to
§ 265.221(a) must develop and keep on
site until closure of the facility a
response action plan. The response
action plan must set forth the actions to
be taken if the action leakage rate has
been exceeded. At a minimum, the
response action plan must describe the
actions specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart L—Waste Piles
63. Section 265.259 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.259
Response actions.
(a) The owner or operator of waste
pile units subject to § 265.254 must
develop and keep on-site until closure
of the facility a response action plan.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart M—Land Treatment
64. Section 265.280 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.280
Closure and post-closure.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For the purpose of complying with
§ 265.115, when closure is completed
the owner or operator may submit to the
Regional Administrator certification
both by the owner or operator and by an
independent, qualified soil scientist, in
lieu of a qualified Professional Engineer,
that the facility has been closed in
accordance with the specifications in
the approved closure plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart N—Landfills
65. Section 265.301 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.301 Design and operating
requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each new
landfill unit, each lateral expansion of a
landfill unit, and each replacement of
an existing landfill unit must install two
or more liners and a leachate collection
and removal system above and between
such liners, and operate the leachate
collection and removal system, in
accordance with § 264.301(d), (e), or (f)
of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16912
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
66. Section 265.303 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 265.303
Response actions.
(a) The owner or operator of landfill
units subject to § 265.301(a) must
develop and keep on site until closure
of the facility a response action plan.
The response action plan must set forth
the actions to be taken if the action
leakage rate has been exceeded. At a
minimum, the response action plan
must describe the actions specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
I 67. Section 265.314 is amended by:
I a. Removing paragraph (a);
I b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (g) as paragraphs (a) through (f);
and,
I c. Revising newly designated
paragraph (a), and the introductory text
of newly designated paragraph (f) to
read as follows:
§ 265.314 Special requirements for bulk
and containerized liquids.
(a) The placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or
hazardous waste containing free liquids
(whether or not sorbents have been
added) in any landfill is prohibited.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The placement of any liquid which
is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is
prohibited unless the owner or operator
of such landfill demonstrates to the
Regional Administrator or the Regional
Administrator determines that:
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart W—Drip Pads
68. Section 265.441 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
I
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 265.441
integrity.
Assessment of existing drip pad
(a) For each existing drip pad as
defined in § 265.440, the owner or
operator must evaluate the drip pad and
determine that it meets all of the
requirements of this subpart, except the
requirements for liners and leak
detection systems of § 265.443(b). No
later than the effective date of this rule,
the owner or operator must obtain and
keep on file at the facility a written
assessment of the drip pad, reviewed
and certified by a qualified Professional
Engineer that attests to the results of the
evaluation. The assessment must be
reviewed, updated, and re-certified
annually until all upgrades, repairs, or
modifications necessary to achieve
compliance with all the standards of
§ 265.443 are complete. The evaluation
must document the extent to which the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
drip pad meets each of the design and
operating standards of § 265.443, except
the standards for liners and leak
detection systems, specified in
§ 265.443(b).
(b) The owner or operator must
develop a written plan for upgrading,
repairing, and modifying the drip pad to
meet the requirements of § 265.443(b),
and submit the plan to the Regional
Administrator no later than 2 years
before the date that all repairs,
upgrades, and modifications are
complete. This written plan must
describe all changes to be made to the
drip pad in sufficient detail to
document compliance with all the
requirements of § 265.443. The plan
must be reviewed and certified by a
qualified Professional Engineer.
(c) Upon completion of all repairs and
modifications, the owner or operator
must submit to the Regional
Administrator or state Director, the asbuilt drawings for the drip pad together
with a certification by a qualified
Professional Engineer attesting that the
drip pad conforms to the drawings.
*
*
*
*
*
I 69. Section 265.443 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (g) to
read as follows:
§ 265.1061
§ 265.443 Design and operating
requirements.
§ 265.1100
(a) * * *
(4)(i) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator must obtain
and keep on file at the facility a written
assessment of the drip pad, reviewed
and certified by a qualified Professional
Engineer that attests to the results of the
evaluation. The assessment must be
reviewed, updated and recertified
annually. The evaluation must
document the extent to which the drip
pad meets the design and operating
standards of this section, except for
paragraph (b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The drip pad must be evaluated to
determine that it meets the requirements
of paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section and the owner or operator must
obtain a statement from a qualified
Professional Engineer certifying that the
drip pad design meets the requirements
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
I 70. Section 265.444 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 265.1101 Design and operating
standards.
§ 265.444
Inspections.
(a) During construction or installation,
liners and cover systems (e.g.,
membranes, sheets, or coatings) must be
inspected for uniformity, damage and
imperfections (e.g., holes, cracks, thin
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
spots, or foreign materials). Immediately
after construction or installation, liners
must be inspected and certified as
meeting the requirements of § 265.443
by a qualified Professional Engineer.
This certification must be maintained at
the facility as part of the facility
operating record. After installation,
liners and covers must be inspected to
ensure tight seams and joints and the
absence of tears, punctures, or blisters.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks
[Amended]
71. Section 265.1061 is amended by
removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (d), and
redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2).
I
§ 265.1062
[Amended]
72. Section 265.1062 is amended by
removing paragraph (a)(2) and
redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as
paragraph (a).
I
Subpart DD—Containment Buildings
73. Section 265.1100 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
I
Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart
apply to owners or operators who store
or treat hazardous waste in units
designed and operated under § 265.1101
of this subpart. The owner or operator
is not subject to the definition of land
disposal in RCRA section 3004(k)
provided that the unit:
*
*
*
*
*
I 74. Section 265.1101 is amended
revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Obtain and keep on-site a
certification by a qualified Professional
Engineer that the containment building
design meets the requirements of
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Inspect and record in the facility’s
operating record at least once every
seven days, except for Performance
Track member facilities, that must
inspect up to once each month, upon
approval of the director, data gathered
from monitoring and leak detection
equipment as well as the containment
building and the area immediately
surrounding the containment building
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
to detect signs of releases of hazardous
waste. To apply for reduced inspection
frequency, the Performance Track
member facility must follow the
procedures described in § 265.15(b)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
75. The authority citation for part 266
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001–
3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922,
6924–6927, 6934, and 6937.
Subpart H—Hazardous Waste Burned
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
76. Section 266.102 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(10) to read as
follows:
I
§ 266.102
Permit standards for burners.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(10) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator must maintain in the operating
record of the facility all information and
data required by this section for five
years.
*
*
*
*
*
I 77. Section 266.103 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d) and (k) to read
as follows:
§ 266.103
burners.
Interim status standards for
*
*
*
*
(d) Periodic Recertifications. The
owner or operator must conduct
compliance testing and submit to the
Director a recertification of compliance
under provisions of paragraph (c) of this
section within five years from
submitting the previous certification or
recertification. If the owner or operator
seeks to recertify compliance under new
operating conditions, he/she must
comply with the requirements of
paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator must keep in the operating
record of the facility all information and
data required by this section for five
years.
*
*
*
*
*
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
78. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Subpart A—General
79. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and
(b)(6) to read as follows:
I
§ 268.7 Testing, tracking and
recordkeeping requirements for generators,
treaters, and disposal facilities.
(a) Requirements for generators: (1) A
generator of hazardous waste must
determine if the waste has to be treated
before it can be land disposed. This is
done by determining if the hazardous
waste meets the treatment standards in
§ 268.40, 268.45, or § 268.49. This
determination can be made concurrently
with the hazardous waste determination
required in § 262.11 of this chapter, in
either of two ways: testing the waste or
using knowledge of the waste. If the
generator tests the waste, testing would
normally determine the total
concentration of hazardous constituents,
or the concentration of hazardous
constituents in an extract of the waste
obtained using test method 1311 in
‘‘Test Methods of Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’
EPA Publication SW–846, (incorporated
by reference, see § 260.11 of this
chapter), depending on whether the
treatment standard for the waste is
expressed as a total concentration or
concentration of hazardous constituent
in the waste’s extract. (Alternatively, the
generator must send the waste to a
RCRA-permitted hazardous waste
treatment facility, where the waste
treatment facility must comply with the
requirements of § 264.13 of this chapter
and paragraph (b) of this section. In
addition, some hazardous wastes must
be treated by particular treatment
methods before they can be land
disposed and some soils are
contaminated by such hazardous
wastes. These treatment standards are
also found in § 268.40, and are
described in detail in § 268.42, Table 1.
These wastes, and solids contaminated
with such wastes, do not need to be
tested (however, if they are in a waste
mixture, other wastes with
concentration level treatment standards
would have to be tested). If a generator
determines they are managing a waste or
soil contaminated with a waste, that
displays a hazardous characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity, they must comply with the
special requirements of § 268.9 of this
part in addition to any applicable
requirements in this section.
(2) If the waste or contaminated soil
does not meet the treatment standards,
or if the generator chooses not to make
the determination of whether his waste
must be treated, with the initial
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
16913
shipment of waste to each treatment or
storage facility, the generator must send
a one-time written notice to each
treatment or storage facility receiving
the waste, and place a copy in the file.
The notice must include the information
in column ‘‘268.7(a)(2)’’ of the Generator
Paperwork Requirements Table in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(Alternatively, if the generator chooses
not to make the determination of
whether the waste must be treated, the
notification must include the EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers and Manifest
Number of the first shipment and must
state ‘‘This hazardous waste may or may
not be subject to the LDR treatment
standards. The treatment facility must
make the determination.’’) No further
notification is necessary until such time
that the waste or facility change, in
which case a new notification must be
sent and a copy placed in the
generator’s file.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) Where the wastes are recyclable
materials used in a manner constituting
disposal subject to the provisions of
§ 266.20(b) of this chapter regarding
treatment standards and prohibition
levels, the owner or operator of a
treatment facility (i.e., the recycler)
must, for the initial shipment of waste,
prepare a one-time certification
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section, and a one-time notice which
includes the information in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section (except the
manifest number). The certification and
notification must be placed in the
facility’s on-site files. If the waste or the
receiving facility changes, a new
certification and notification must be
prepared and placed in the on site files.
In addition, the recycling facility must
also keep records of the name and
location of each entity receiving the
hazardous waste-derived product.
*
*
*
*
*
I 80. Section 268.9 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (d)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic.
(a) The initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each EPA
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D of this part.
This determination may be made
concurrently with the hazardous waste
determination required in § 262.11 of
this chapter. For purposes of part 268,
the waste will carry the waste code for
any applicable listed waste (40 CFR part
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
16914
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
261, subpart D). In addition, where the
waste exhibits a characteristic, the waste
will carry one or more of the
characteristic waste codes (40 CFR part
261, subpart C), except when the
treatment standard for the listed waste
operates in lieu of the treatment
standard for the characteristic waste, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. If the generator determines that
their waste displays a hazardous
characteristic (and is not D001
nonwastewaters treated by CMBST,
RORGS, OR POLYM of § 268.42, Table
1), the generator must determine the
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined at § 268.2(i)) in the
characteristic waste.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Wastes that exhibit a characteristic
are also subject to § 268.7 requirements,
except that once the waste is no longer
hazardous, a one-time notification and
certification must be placed in the
generator’s or treater’s on-site files. The
notification and certification must be
updated if the process or operation
generating the waste changes and/or if
the subtitle D facility receiving the
waste changes.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
§ 270.26 Special part B information
requirements for drip pads.
(a) Part B of the permit application
consists of the general information
requirements of this section, and the
specific information requirements in
§§ 0.14 through 270.29 applicable to the
facility. The part B information
requirements presented in §§ 270.14
through 270.29 reflect the standards
promulgated in 40 CFR part 264. These
information requirements are necessary
in order for EPA to determine
compliance with the part 264 standards.
If owners and operators of HWM
facilities can demonstrate that the
information prescribed in part B can not
be provided to the extent required, the
Director may make allowance for
submission of such information on a
case-by-case basis. Information required
in part B shall be submitted to the
Director and signed in accordance with
the requirements in § 270.11. Certain
technical data, such as design drawings
and specification, and engineering
studies shall be certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer. For post-closure
permits, only the information specified
in § 270.28 is required in part B of the
permit application.
*
*
*
*
*
I 83. Section 270.16 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
*
§ 270.16 Specific part B information
requirements for tank systems.
*
81. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924,
6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974.
Subpart B—Permit Application
82. Section 270.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 270.14 Contents of part B: General
requirements.
*
*
*
*
(a) A written assessment that is
reviewed and certified by a qualified
Professional Engineer as to the
structural integrity and suitability for
handling hazardous waste of each tank
system, as required under §§ 264.191
and 264.192 of this chapter;
*
*
*
*
*
I 84. Section 270.26 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(15) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(15) A certification signed by a
qualified Professional Engineer, stating
that the drip pad design meets the
requirements of paragraphs (a)
through(f) § 264.573 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Changes to Permits
85. Section 270.42 is amended by
adding new paragraph (l) and by adding
new entry O to the table in Appendix I
to § 270.42. to read as follows:
I
§ 270.42 Permit modification at the request
of the permittee.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Performance Track member
facilities. The following procedures
apply to Performance Track member
facilities that request a permit
modification under Appendix I of this
section, section O(1).
(1) Performance Track member
facilities must have complied with the
requirements of § 264.15(b)(5) in order
to request a permit modification under
this section.
(2) The Performance Track member
facility should consider the application
approved if the Director does not: deny
the application, in writing; or notify the
Performance Track member facility, in
writing, of an extension to the 60-day
deadline within 60 days of receiving the
request. In these situations, the
Performance Track member facility
must adhere to the revised inspection
schedule outlined in its application and
maintain a copy of the application in
the facility’s operating record.
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix 1 To § 270.42—Classification
of Permit Modification
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Modifications
Class
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
O. Burden Reduction
1. Approval of reduced inspection frequency for Performance Track member facilities for:
a. Tanks systems pursuant to § 264.195 ............................................................................................................................................
b. Containers pursuant to § 264.174 ...................................................................................................................................................
c. Containment buildings pursuant to § 264.1101(c)(4) ......................................................................................................................
d. Areas subject to spills pursuant to § 264.15(b)(4) ..........................................................................................................................
2. Development of one contingency plan based on Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance pursuant to § 264.52(b) ............................
3. Changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements pursuant to: §§ 264.56(i), 264.343(a)(2), 264.1061(b)(1),(d),
264.1062(a)(2), 264.196(f), 264.100(g), and 264.113(e)(5) ...................................................................................................................
4. Changes to inspection frequency for tank systems pursuant to § 264.195(b) ......................................................................................
5. Changes to detection and compliance monitoring program pursuant to §§ 264.98(d), (g)(2), and (g)(3), 264.99(f), and (g) ..............
1 Class
1 modifications requiring prior Agency approval.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
16915
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and
6926.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
87. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entries to Table 1
in chronological order by date of
§ 271.1
I
86. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
I
publication in the Federal Register, to
read as follows:
*
Purpose and scope.
*
*
(j) * * *
*
*
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
*
*
*
*
*
*
May 4, 2006 ........................... Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project .................... [Insert FR page numbers] ......
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–2690 Filed 4–3–06; 8:45 am]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Apr 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Effective date
*
May 4, 2006.
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16862-16915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2690]
[[Page 16861]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 260, 261 et al.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2006 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16862]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 271
[RCRA-2001-0039: FRL-8047-3]
RIN 2050-AE50
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction
Initiative
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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, EPA, and the regulated
community. EPA has estimated that the total annual hour savings under
the final rule ranges from 22,000 hours to 37,500 hours per year. The
total annual cost savings under the final rule ranges from
approximately $2 million to $3 million. This rulemaking will streamline
our information collection requirements, ensuring that only the
information that is actually needed and used to implement the RCRA
program is collected and the goals of protection of human health and
the environment are retained.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0031. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA
docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Eby, Waste Minimization Branch,
Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, Office of Solid
Waste (5302W), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8449, fax
number: (703) 308-8443, e-mail address: eby.elaine@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This rule applies to entities regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, including manufacturing, transportation,
utilities, the waste treatment industry, and the mineral processing
industry. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected
by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, or
business is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 40
CFR parts 260 through 273. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background, Purpose, and Summary of Today's Action
III. What Burden Reduction Changes Are We Making?
A. Changes to the Amount of Time Records Must Be Kept
1. We Are Reducing the Retention Time for Certain Information
Kept in a Facility's Operating Record
2. We Are Increasing the Retention Time for Certain Information
Kept in an Interim Status Facility's Operating Record
3. We Are Establishing a Five Year Record Retention Time for
Information Kept on the Operation of Incinerators, Boilers, and
Industrial Furnaces
B. Changes to the Professional Engineer Certification
Requirements
1. We Are Removing the ``Independent and ``Registered''
Requirements for Selected Certifications
2. We Are Also Changing the Closure and Post-Closure
Certification Requirements
C. Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities Have an Option of Following the Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance
D. Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities Have an Option to Follow the RCRA or
Equivalent Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Standard for Emergency Response Training
E. We Are Clarifying Selected Requirements Under RCRA's Land
Disposal Restrictions and Eliminating Obsolete Regulatory Language
1. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory Language on the Land
Disposal Restrictions Generator Waste Determination
2. We Are Clarifying the Regulatory Language on the Land
Disposal Restrictions Characteristic Waste Determination
3. We Are Removing Obsolete Regulatory Language
F. We Are Eliminating Selected Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements That We Believe Provide Duplicative Information to EPA
1. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities To Notify
That They Are in Compliance After a Release
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities To Notify
of Their Intent to Burn F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027
Wastes
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities to Notify
if They Employ or Discontinue Use of the Alternative Valve Standard
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities To Notify
If They Are Using Alternative Valve Work Practices.
G. We Are Permitting Decreased Inspection Frequency for Certain
Hazardous Waste Management Units
1. We Are Establishing Weekly Inspections for Certain Hazardous
Waste Tank Systems at Permitted and Interim Status Facilities, and
at Large Quantity Generator Sites
2. We Are Establishing Weekly Inspections for SQG Hazardous
Waste Tanks Systems With Secondary Containment
3. We Are Allowing Members of the National Environmental
Performance Track Program To Apply for an Adjustment to the
Frequency of Their Inspections for Certain Hazardous Waste
Management Units and Areas.
a. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection Frequency for Areas
Subject to Spills.
b. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection Frequency for
Containers.
c. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection Frequency for Tank
Systems.
d. Performance Track: Reduced Inspection Frequency for
Containment Buildings
H. We Are Making Selected Changes to the Requirements for Record
Retention and Submittal of Records
1. We Are Removing the Requirement To Submit a One-time
Notification for Recycled Wood Wastewater and Spent Wood-Preserving
Solutions and Clarifying an Unintentional Elimination Made in the
Proposal
2. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Interim Status
Facilities To Submit Specific Ground-Water Monitoring Plans and
Ground-Water Assessment Reports
3. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Interim Status Surface
Impoundments, Waste Piles, and Landfills To Submit a Response Action
Plan
4. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for Facilities To Submit a
Tank System Certification of Completion of Major Repairs
[[Page 16863]]
5. We Are Eliminating the Requirement for a Recycler To Submit a
Notification and Certification
6. We Are Eliminating the Requirement To Submit an LDR
Notification and Certification
I. We Are Making Selected Changes To the Requirements for
Document Submittal
1. We Are Streamlining the Procedure for Obtaining a Variance
From Classification as a Solid Waste
2. We Are Streamlining the Requirements for Treatability Study
Reports for Testing Facilities
3. We Are Streamlining the Requirements for Ground-Water
Monitoring
J. We Are Making Selected Changes to the Requirements for Semi-
Annual Reports to Annual Reports
1. We Are Changing the Requirement for a Semi-Annual Report
Detailing the Effectiveness of the Corrective Action Program
2. We Are Changing the Requirement for a Semi-Annual Report
Detailing the Progress of the Corrective Action Program
IV. What Regulatory Requirements Will Remain in the CFR?
V. We Will Implement this Rule via the Class I Permit Modification
Process Without Prior Approval
VI. How Will Today's Regulatory Changes Be Administered and Enforced
in the States?
A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States
B. Authorization of States for Today's Rule
VII. Statutory and Executive Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
VIII. Regulatory Language
I. Statutory Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the
generation and management of hazardous waste under 40 CFR parts 260
through 273 using the authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
II. Background, Purpose, and Summary of Today's Action
As part of its hazardous waste regulations, EPA has established
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that allow the Agency to
enforce and ensure compliance with these regulations. In the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq, Congress directs all
federal agencies to become more responsible and publicly accountable
for reducing the burden of federal paperwork on the public. ``Burden''
is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency (44 U.S.C. 3502(2))t
Over the past five years, EPA has continued to assess and evaluate
the need for the many recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in
the RCRA hazardous waste program. In the course of this effort, we have
identified numerous opportunities to eliminate or streamline RCRA
requirements, while continuing to fulfill our mission of protecting
human health and the environment.
Today's final rule changes a number of the regulatory requirements
found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 271. These changes will bring about
burden reductions to both the regulated community and the regulators
and is a direct result of our consultations with a number of state
experts on potential burden reduction ideas, as well as public input
through two Notices of Data Availability and a Proposed Rulemaking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Notices of Data Availability were published in the
Federal Register on June 18, 1999 (64 FR 32859) and October 29, 2003
(68 FR 61662). The Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2518).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulatory changes contained in the Burden Reduction final rule
will have no practical impact on the many protections that EPA has
established over the years for human health and the environment. At the
same time, this rule strives to relieve stakeholders of the burden of
nonessential paperwork. The final rule clarifies certain requirements
and eliminates or simplifies other requirements. We have eliminated
paperwork requirements if they entail information that is obscure,
inconsequential, or infrequently submitted to or used by regulators.
Note, however, that the final rule does not curtail the right of
regulatory agencies to request any information desired. Waste handlers
must continue to keep on-site records of their waste management
activities and make them available to regulators when requested. As
such, the rule does not limit regulators' or the public's ability to
learn what is happening at a facility.
To effectively present the large number of regulatory changes we
are finalizing, we have divided these changes into ten categories or
groups of changes; they are: (1) The amount of time records must be
kept; (2) certification by a professional engineer; (3) option to
follow the Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance; (4) option to follow
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations
for emergency training; (5) clarifications and elimination of obsolete
regulatory language; (6) elimination of selected recordkeeping and
reporting requirements; (7) decreased self-inspection frequency for
selected hazardous waste management units; (8) selected changes to the
requirements for record retention and submittal of records; (9) changes
to the requirements for document submittal; and (10) reduced frequency
for report submittals. A summary of the major components of the final
rule is presented in Table 1.
The preamble discussion follows the set of categories presented
above (see also Table 1, ``Summary of the Major Components and a
Description of the Regulatory Changes Being Promulgated in Today's
Burden Reduction Final Rule''). Within each category, we present the
changes we are promulgating, along with a discussion of the comments
received and our resolution of the major issues or concerns. At the
conclusion of each section, we present comparative tables showing both
the current regulatory requirement and the new requirement for the
affected group, i.e., generators; permitted hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; and interim status treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Interim status regulations at 40 CFR
Part 265 provide for the continued operation of an existing facility
that meets certain conditions until final administrative disposition of
the owner and operator permit application is made. Regulations for
permit applications are found in 40 CFR part 270 and general standards
for permitted facilities are found in 40 CFR part 264.
[[Page 16864]]
Table 1.--Summary of the Major Components and a Description of the
Regulatory Changes Being Promulgated in Today's Burden Reduction Final
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of regulatory
Regulatory change change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of time records must be kept Many of the recordkeeping
requirements for treatment,
storage and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) mandate
record retention for the life
of the facility. In this final
rule, we have reduced the
length of time waste handlers
must retain certain records on
site to three years or five
years for hazardous waste
combustion units (e.g.,
operating record requirements
at 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73).
We have also increased the
record retention time for a
selected number of documents
for interim status facilities
in cases where the
notification requirement has
been eliminated.
Certification by a professional Numerous regulations require
engineer. generators and TSDFs to obtain
an independent, qualified,
registered, professional
engineer's certification, as
specified. We have changed
certain RCRA certification
requirements by taking out the
terms ``independent'' and
``registered.''
Option to follow the Integrated Large Quantity Generators
Contingency Plan Guidance. (LQGs) and TSDFs must have
contingency plans to minimize
hazards to human health and
the environment from fires,
explosions, or any unplanned
release of hazardous waste to
the environment. We have
modified our RCRA regulations
to indicate that these waste
handlers may consider
developing one comprehensive
contingency plan based on the
Integrated Contingency
Guidance. This guidance
provides a mechanism for
consolidating the multiple
contingency plans that waste
handlers have to prepare to
comply with various government
regulations.
Option to follow Occuputional Safety LQGs and TSDFs must train their
and Health Administration (OSHA) employees in emergency
regulations for emergency training. procedures. We have modified
the RCRA regulations to allow
waste handlers to have the
option of complying with
either the RCRA or OSHA
requirements for emergency
response procedures.
Clarifications and elimination of We are modifying specified
obsolete regulatory language. regulatory language by and
eliminating obsolete terms and/
or rewording language to make
it clearer. We are also
providing regulatory
clarifications to several LDR
requirements.
Elimination of selected recordkeeping We have eliminated certain
and reporting requirements. recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the RCRA
regulations in order to
eliminate submission of
duplicative information and/or
reporting unnecessary burden
to waste handlers.
Decreased inspection frequency for Under many RCRA inspection
hazardous waste management units. requirements, we specify a
frequency at which waste
handlers must inspect their
frequency for facility and
equipment. We have reduced the
self-inspection frequency for
hazardous waste tank systems
from daily to weekly, under
certain conditions. In
addition, EPA is allowing
facilities in the National
Performance Track Program to
reduce their inspection
frequencies, under certain
conditions, up to monthly, on
a case-by-case basis, for tank
systems, containers,
containment buildings, and
areas subject to spills.
Selected changes to the requirements We are modifying certain
for record retention and submittal of requirements under which waste
records. handlers must keep records on-
site and submit these same
records to EPA. We are
specifying certain records
that waste handlers need to
keep only on-site.
Changes to the requirements for We have eliminated several
document submittal. requirements to reduce the
number of documents that are
submitted to the Agency
document for review.
Reduced frequency for report submittal. We have reduced the submittal
frequency of certain documents
(e.g., from semi-annual to
annual).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What Burden Reduction Changes Are We Making?
A. Changes to the Amount of Time Records Must Be Kept
As a precautionary measure in promulgating the hazardous waste
requirements in 1980, we mandated the retention of many kinds of
records until facility closure, resulting in a tremendous volume of
stored paperwork. Our experience in implementing the RCRA program has
shown that this retention time is excessive, and a priority item for
reduction.
1. We Are Reducing the Retention Time for Certain Information Kept in a
Facility's Operating Record
We are changing a number of the operating record requirements under
Sec. Sec. 264.73 and 265.73 to reduce the record retention time to
three years. Among other things, we are modifying the retention time
limit for records on waste analyses; certain monitoring, testing and
analytical data; waste determinations; selected certifications; and
notifications.
We believe that these changes establish a more reasonable record
retention time than the requirement to keep this information until
closure of the facility.\2\ The three-year record retention period is
sufficient to enable regulators to monitor industry compliance and take
enforcement actions as needed. In any event,
[[Page 16865]]
Sec. Sec. 264.74(b) and 265.74(b) require the retention period of any
records to be extended automatically during the course of any
unresolved enforcement action regarding the facility, or as requested
by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Record retention times for all Agency programs vary, but in
numerous instances have retention times shorter than the life of the
facility. For example, the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations require records retention times of one, five, and twelve
years (depending on the record). The National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart FF--National Emission Standards
for Benzene Waste Operations requires a two-year records retention
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not modifying the retention limit for records that contain
the following information: (1) Description and quantity of each
hazardous waste received and what was done with it; (2) location of
each hazardous waste; (3) closure estimates; or (4) quantities of waste
placed in land disposal units under an extension to the effective date
of any land disposal restriction. The retention of this information is
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment
through the life of the facility, and until closure of the facility.
We believe that these changes will not affect the government's or
the public's ability to know what is happening at a hazardous waste
facility because a basic set of compliance information will still be
available in the facility's records. The Agency will have access to the
facility's operating record, which will contain many of the documents
previously submitted to the Agency. Although the public does not
generally have access to the facility's operating record, the Agency
Director can require permitted facilities to establish and maintain a
publicly accessible information repository at any time (see Sec.
270.30 (m)). Similarly, facilities that are applying for permits may be
required to establish and maintain an information repository. (See
124.33.)
In today's rule, we are also amending the regulatory language
proposed for maintaining these records. In the proposed rule, we used
the language, ``maintain for three years after entry into the operating
record.'' A commenter pointed out that some records, such as laboratory
analytical results, stand alone in the laboratory records and are not
actually ``entered into the operating record.'' We recognize that this
is an important distinction and are changing the regulatory language
from the proposal to say ``maintain for three years'' instead of
``maintain for three years after entry into the operating record.''
Also, a commenter pointed out that since monitoring and ground-water
clean up is a multi-year or multi-decade task, these records should be
kept until closure of the facilities. We agree, and are changing Sec.
264.73(b)(6) and Sec. 265.73(b)(6) accordingly.
We also received comments stating that we should not reduce our
record retention requirements, because any particular record might be
useful at some future point. This could be said of any requirement. In
the Paperwork Reduction Act, Congress instructed us to set a higher
standard for imposing an information collection requirement. We believe
that information must have a demonstrable value. Based on our
experience, we believe that we have identified those records that have
the greatest potential impact on the protection of human health and the
environment. Such records must be maintained until closure of the
facility.
We also received questions in response to the proposed rule asking
whether facilities must keep existing records, once generated and
stored, until the date that was initially established for their
disposal, even though we are changing that date with this rule. It
would be burdensome for facilities to have two different sets of
recordkeeping requirements, and difficult for EPA and the states to
enforce a phase-out of recordkeeping. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to maintain consistency and retain records until the date
established by today's rule (or if the date is unchanged by this rule,
to the original date (i.e., until closure of the facility)). Therefore,
facilities may dispose of existing records consistent with today's
rule, once the retention date established by today's rule becomes
effective.
2. We Are Increasing the Retention Time for Certain Information Kept in
an Interim Status Facility's Operating Record
In response to comments received, EPA is amending Sec.
265.73(b)(6) and creating a new Sec. 265.73(b)(15) to require
retention in the operating record until closure of the facility, the
ground-water quality assessment plans required under Sec. 265.90 and
Sec. 265.93(d)(2), and ground-water quality assessment reports
required under Sec. 265.93(d)(5). Under today's rule, these plans are
no longer required to be submitted to the Regional Administrator.
Accordingly, EPA has decided that, in order to ensure protection of
health and the environment, these records need to be available and,
therefore, has amended the regulation to require that the information
be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility.
EPA believes today's changes would result in no more burden to facility
owners or operators for storage, since it is likely that any report
submitted to the Agency would also be kept on-site by the facility. In
other words, there would be no increase in burden over what is already
being done.
3. We Are Establishing a Five-Year Record Retention Time for
Information Kept on the Operation of Incinerators, Boilers, and
Industrial Furnaces
Owners and/or operators of boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)
are subject to compliance-related recordkeeping regulations. For
example, BIFs must conduct emission tests to demonstrate compliance
with the RCRA emission standards (such as certification of compliance
tests), performance tests for their continuous emissions monitors, and
retain these test reports on-site until closure of the facility. As a
result of the emissions tests, BIFs also establish enforceable
operating limits that must be achieved on a daily basis (such as hourly
rolling average feed rate limits). BIFs are also required to record the
daily operating data in their operating record for compliance purposes
and make them available for inspection.
In the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR 61662), we solicited comment on
amending the current record retention requirement for incinerator
monitoring, testing and analytical data, from ``for the life of the
facility'' to three years. We took this action because we had
overlooked incinerators in the original proposal and maintain that
their record retention requirements should be consistent with those for
BIFs. This change for incinerators was supported by a majority of the
commenters; however, some pointed out that the recordkeeping
requirements for incinerators and BIFs should be consistent with those
that the Agency promulgated on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402) for
incinerators and the majority of BIFs under the Clean Air Act (CAA).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Clean Air Act requires the Agency to develop rules to
reduce Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions. The rules require the
application of strict air emission controls based on performance of
best technologies, the overall approach usually being referred to as
maximum achievable control technology, or MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with these commenters and have decided for reasons of
consistency with the CAA requirements, to finalize a five year record
retention time for incinerators and BIFs. We are also promulgating the
five year record retention time for BIFs (such as sulfur recovery
furnaces) that will not be subject to the recently promulgated MACT
standards.
One commenter that opposed any change to the record retention time
stated that incinerators should keep all their data points for the life
of the facility. The commenter asserted that the only information that
a state inspector has to use during a violation are the data on the
incinerator's parametric monitoring. They argued
[[Page 16866]]
that, in no case, should record retention be reduced if there are
outstanding enforcement, non-compliance or legal issues pending.
For reasons cited earlier, we believe that modifying the record
retention period for incinerators and BIFs to five years is
appropriate. Regarding the commenter's point that records should be
retained if there is an outstanding enforcement, non-compliance or
legal action pending, the regulations already provide for this and
nothing in today's rule would amend this provision. See Sec. Sec.
264.74 and 265.74 which state:
The record retention period for all records required under this
part is extended automatically during the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the facility or as requested by the
Administrator.
The following tables show the new retention times by facility for
selected records. We have also included the recordkeeping requirements
found in: (1) Section 264.73, Operating record; (2) Section 264.347,
Monitoring and inspections; (3) Section 265.73, Operating record; (4)
Section 266.102(e)(10), Permit standards for burners; and (5) Section
266.103(d) and (k), Interim status standards for burners.
Table 2.--Revised Record Retention Times for Permitted Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current retention
time
---------------------
CFR section Record summary New retention time
as amended by the
burden reduction
rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264.73(b)(1)................ Description and Maintain until
quantity of each closure of the
hazardous waste facility.
received and the No change in
method(s) and regulatory
date(s) of its requirement.
treatment, storage
or disposal at the
facility.
264.73(b)(2)................ The location of each Maintain until
hazardous waste closure of the
within the facility facility.
and the quantity at No change in
each location. regulatory
requirement.
264.73(b)(3)................ Records and results Maintain until
of waste analyses closure of the
and waste facility.
determinations. Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(4)................ Summary reports and Maintain until
details of all closure of the
incidents that facility.
require Maintain for three
implementing the years.
contingency plan.
264.73(b)(5)................ Records and results Maintain for three
of inspections. years.
No change in
requirement.
264.73(b)(6)................ Monitoring, testing, Maintain until
or analytical data closure of the
corrective action. facility.
Maintain for three
years, except for
records and results
pertaining to
ground-water
monitoring and
cleanup, which must
be maintained until
closure of the
facility.
264.73(b)(7)................ For off-site Maintain until
facilities, notices closure of the
to generators as facility.
specified in Sec. Maintain for three
264.12(b). years.
264.73(b)(8)................ All closure cost Maintain until
estimates for closure of the
disposal facility.
facilities, all No change in
post-closure cost regulatory
estimates. requirement.
264.73(b)(9)................ Waste minimization Maintain until
certification. closure of the
facility.
Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(10)............... Records of the Maintain until
quantities and date closure of the
of placement for facility.
each shipment of No change in
hazardous waste regulatory
place in land requirement.
disposal units
under an extension
to the effective
date of any land
disposal
restriction granted.
264.73(b)(11)............... For off-site Maintain until
treatment facility, closure of the
notices and facility.
certifications from Maintain for three
generator. years.
264.73(b)(12)............... For on-site Maintain until
treatment facility, closure of the
notices and facility.
certifications. Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(13)............... For off-site land Maintain until
disposal facility, closure of the
notices and facility.
certifications from Maintain for three
generator. years.
264.73(b)(14)............... For on-site land Maintain until
disposal facility, closure of the
notices and facility.
certifications. Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(15)............... For off-site storage Maintain until
facility, notices closure of the
and certifications facility.
from generator. Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(16)............... For on-site storage Maintain until
facility, notices closure of the
and certifications. facility.
Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(17)............... Records required Maintain until
under Sec. closure of the
264.1(j)(13). facility.
Maintain for three
years.
264.73(b)(18)............... Monitoring, testing Maintain until
or analytical data closure of the
where required by facility.
Sec. 264.347. Maintain for five
years.
264.73(b)(19)............... Certification as No specified
required by Sec. requirement.
264.196(f). Maintain until
closure of the
facility.
264.347(d).................. For incinerators: Maintain until
monitoring and closure of the
inspection data. facility.
Maintain for five
years.
266.102(e)(10).............. For burners: Maintain until
recordkeeping. closure of the
facility.
Maintain for five
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16867]]
Table 3.--Revised Record Retention Times for Interim Status Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current retention
time
----------------------
CFR section Summary record New retention time as
amended by the burden
reduction rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
265.73(b)(1).................. Description and Maintain until
quantity of each closure of the
hazardous waste facility.
received and the No change in
method(s) and regulatory
date(s) of its requirement.
treatment,
storage or
disposal at the
facility.
265.73(b)(2).................. The location of Maintain until
each hazardous closure of the
waste within the facility.
facility and the No change in
quantity at each regulatory
location. requirement.
265.73(b)(3).................. Records and Maintain until
results of waste closure of the
analyses and facility.
waste Maintain for three
determinations. years.
265.73(b)(4).................. Summary reports Maintain until
and details of closure of the
all incidents facility.
that require Maintain for three
implementing the years.
contingency plan.
265.73(b)(5).................. Records and Maintain for three
results of years.
inspections. No change in
regulatory
requirement.
265.73(b)(6).................. Monitoring, Maintain until
testing, or closure of the
analytical data facility.
and corrective Maintain for three
action. years, except for
records and results
pertaining to ground-
water monitoring and
cleanup, and
response action
plans for surface
impoundments, waste
piles, and landfills
which must be
maintained until
closure of the
facility.
265.73(b)(7).................. All closure cost Maintain until
estimates for closure of the
disposal facility.
facilities, all No change in
post-closure regulatory
cost estimates. requirement.
265.73(b)(8).................. Records of the Maintain until
quantities and closure of the
date of facility.
placement for No change in
each shipment of regulatory
the hazardous requirement.
waste place in
land disposal
units under an
extension to the
effective date
of any land
disposal
restriction
granted.
265.73(b)(9).................. For off-site Maintain until
treatment closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications years.
from generator.
265.73(b)(10)................. For on-site Maintain until
treatment closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications. years.
265.73(b)(11)................. For off-site land Maintain until
disposal closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications years.
from the
generator.
265.73(b)(12)................. For on-site land Maintain until
disposal closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications. years.
265.73(b)(13)................. For off-site Maintain until
storage closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications years.
from generator.
265.73(b)(14)................. For on-site Maintain until
storage closure of the
facility, facility.
notices and Maintain for three
certifications. years.
265.73(b)(15)................. Monitoring, Maintain until
testing, or closure of the
analytical data, facility.
and corrective No change in
action where regulatory
required by Sec. requirement.
Sec. 265.90,
265.93(d)(2),
and 265.93(d)(5)
of this part and
certifications
as required by
Sec.
265.196(f).
266.103(d).................... Periodic Every three years.
Recertifications Every five years.
. The owner or
operator must
conduct
compliance
testing and
submit to the
Director a
recertification
of compliance
under provisions
of paragraph (c)
of this section
within five
years from
submitting the
previous
certification or
recertification.
If the owner or
operator seeks
to recertify
compliance under
new operating
conditions, he/
she must comply
with the
requirements of
paragraph (c)(8)
of this section.
266.103(k).................... Interim status Maintain until
standards for closure of the
burners: facility.
recordkeeping. Maintain for five
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Changes to the Professional Engineer Certification Requirements
Throughout the RCRA regulations, there are various requirements for
the services of an independent, qualified, registered, professional
engineer to certify the effectiveness of the design and operation of
various hazardous waste management units. We proposed to add Certified
Hazardous Materials Managers (CHMMs) as professionals qualified to make
selected certifications. This proposed change was a result of comments
received on our June 18, 1999 NODA (64 FR 32859). In response to this
proposal, the Agency received significant comment, primarily requesting
that we expand the category of persons allowed to provide the various
certifications. Commenters argued that we were being arbitrary in
proposing to allow only two professional disciplines (i.e., CHMMs and
professional engineers) to certify hazardous waste management
operations. Conversely, professional engineers strongly opposed the
proposed change in the regulatory requirements. They suggested that
[[Page 16868]]
CHMMs were not qualified to certify the design, construction, and
structural integrity of hazardous waste management units.
In addition, numerous states opposed the change on the grounds that
their state laws allow only licensed engineers to make these
certifications. State comments also pointed out that state licensing
boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence, on the
part of professional engineers, and may impose fines and other
disciplinary actions such as cease-and-desist orders or license
revocation. According to commenters, similar controls do not exist for
other professions. This personal liability of the professional engineer
is one of the reasons why state commenters supported the idea that RCRA
certifications should only be done by licensed professional engineers.
Other commenters suggested that, rather than deciding which
professions are qualified to make certifications, we should establish
an environmental professional performance standard based on membership
in a recognized professional organization. In response to these
comments, we solicited comment in our October 29, 2003 NODA to allow
professionals accredited by organizations meeting the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1929-98, Standard Practice for the
Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Engineers:
Accreditation Criteria to conduct a limited number of certifications,
including: (1) Section 264.573(a)(4)(ii)(g), Drip Pads, Design and
operating requirements; (2) Section 265.443(a)(4)(ii)(g), Drip Pads,
Design and operating requirements; (3) Section 264.574(a), Drip Pads,
Inspections; (4) Section 265.444(a), Drip Pads, Inspections; and (5)
Section 266.111(e)(2), Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Direct transfer
equipment--requirements prior to meeting secondary containment
requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ After publication of the October 29, 2003 NODA, (see 68 FR
61662), EPA determined that the certification required by Sec.
266.111(e)(2) had to be made by August 21, 1992. As such the Agency
is not pursuing a change to this requirement in today's rulemaking,
obviously because the date has passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments to the change described in the NODA were mixed. Some
commenters supported this change in qualifications for selected
certifications, while a number of states and professional organizations
still strongly opposed allowing anyone other than a professional
engineer to perform these certifications. While the Agency believes
that added flexibility to the RCRA regulations is a goal worth
pursuing, in this case, we are persuaded by the arguments presented by
states with regard to these certifications and are not going forward
with these changes at this time. Certifications for drip pads involve
certifying engineering designs, drawings, plans and other engineering
details, involving structural and hydraulic and other functions. As
such, we believe that while there may be professionals other than
professional engineers qualified to make these certifications, it is
imperative that the goals of human health and the environmental
protection are maintained. In reviewing the comments, we are not
convinced that all environmental professionals certified by the ASTM
standard would be qualified to perform these engineering evaluations.
To this end, we are not going forward with allowing the changes to the
drip pad certification requirements that would allow environmental
professionals recognized by a certification program that is compliant
with ASTM E-1929-98 Standard Practice for the Assessment of
Certification Programs for Environmental Professionals: Accreditation
Criteria.
Although the Agency was not persuaded that ASTM board certified
environmental professionals, including CHMMs, should be allowed to make
the required RCRA certifications that were the subject of this
rulemaking, the Agency wants to make it clear that facilities are still
permitted to utilize qualified professionals who may not be
professional engineers in performing the analyses that underlie these
certifications. Facilities can potentially lower their costs by
utilizing the flexibility to employ others as part of the certification
requirement. For example, as part of the closure and post closure
requirements, some CHMMs may be qualified to make certain
determinations associated with these certifications to determine
whether operations at the site will minimize hazards.
The Agency is sympathetic to the large number of comments by the
CHMMs and other environmental professionals about unnecessary
restrictions in the marketplace. However, EPA is retaining the
professional engineering certification, in part, to allay state
concerns about the need to monitor and control the activities of
personnel that are now subject to state licensure control. Given,
however, additional experience by the Agency with the utilization of
other environmental professionals, EPA may re-examine this issue in the
future.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, in the All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) rule
published on November 1, 2005, (70 CFR 66070) EPA sets standards for
CERCLA liability protection by establishing criteria that
prospective property owners must use in the inquiries they conduct
into the previous ownership, uses, and environmental conditions of a
property prior to acquiring the property. The AAI rule differs from
the RCRA burden reduction rule in that AAI does not in any way
require the environmental professional to render any judgment or
opinion regarding RCRA or CERCLA compliance or liability. AAI
requirements include research activities and a site investigation
similar to a Phase I environmental site assessment. It does not
include compliance evaluation or an assessment of engineering or
technical requirements (which may inherently require the expertise
of an engineer or geologist).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We Are Removing the ``Independent'' and ``Registered'' Requirements
for Selected Certifications
Some commenters to the proposed rule suggested that we change the
certification requirements by amending the qualifications required for
the certification from ``independent, qualified, registered,
professional engineer'' to ``qualified professional engineer.'' That
is, the commenters suggested it was not necessary for the professional
engineer to be independent or registered. Commenters argued that the
term ``qualified professional engineer'' retains the most important
components of the requirement: (1) That the engineer be qualified to
perform the task; and (2) that she or he be a professional engineer
(following a code of ethics and the potential of losing his/her license
for negligence).
In the October 29, 2003 NODA (68 FR 61662), EPA also solicited
comment on changing the qualifications for who can certify the design,
operation and closure of specific hazardous waste management units from
``independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer'' to
``qualified professional engineer.'' We solicited comment on
eliminating the requirement that the certifier be ``independent,''
reasoning that we could rely on the professional standards of the
certifier to ensure accurate certifications. This could potentially
save expenses for companies with in-house engineers, since they would
not have to hire outside consultants. State commenters strongly argued
that the word ``independent'' should be retained because an independent
review and certification avoids any potential of conflict of interest.
Commenters stated that an employee of a facility would more likely have
a biased approach to review and certification, and that state agencies
would have less confidence in the accuracy and quality of review and
[[Page 16869]]
certification. Furthermore, the commenters argued that the public would
have reduced confidence in the accuracy and meaning of the engineering
review and certification if it was conducted by an employee of the
facility. The public would more likely suspect a conflict of interest
and demand a more rigorous review by state agencies. Commenters also
noted that a similar change, regarding whether to retain the term
``independent'' for professional engineers certifying closure, was
proposed by EPA on March 19, 1985 (50 FR 11074). After receiving public
comment, a final rule was issued on May 2,1986 with the term
``independent'' retained. In the preamble to the May 2, 1986 final
rule, we stated that, because certification of final closure is the
final step in the closure process and triggers the release of the owner
or operator from financial responsibility requirements for closure and
third party liability coverage requirements, we believed that the
certification should be made by a person who is least subject to
pressures to certify to the adequacy of a closure that, in fact, is not
in accordance with the approved closure plan. Commenters also noted
that in the October 9, 1991 Federal Register, EPA addressed concerns
regarding proposed language that would have allowed a ``qualified
party'' to perform closure and post closure certification. In that FR
notice, we stated on page 51103:
The Agency agrees with commenters that objective closure and
post-closure certifications are essential for avoiding any potential
conflicts of interest and ensuring protection of human health and
the environment and that more specific requirements concerning the
qualification of the certifying party are necessary to ensure the
adequacy of the certification. We, therefore, are requiring in this
final rule that certifications be obtained from independent,
registered, professional engineers (i.e., registered professional
engineers not in the employ of the owner or operator), consistent
with requirements under subtitle C and other federally mandated
certification programs (e.g., Clean Water Act grants).
Upon further analysis and reflection, we have decided to delete the
independent qualification for certification made by a professional
engineer. EPA continues to believe that this proposed modification
retains the most important requirements: That the engineer is qualified
to perform the task and is a professional engineer (i.e., licensed to
practice engineering under the title Professional Engineer.) We believe
that a professional engineer, regardless of whether he/she is
independent is able to give fair and technical review because of th