United State* - Office of Solid Waste SW"94«i
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response July 1981
Agency Washington, DC 204*0
Solid Watte
vvEPA Reporting and Recordkeeping
under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, Subtitle C
T
Burden Reduction
Options: Status Report
-------
REPORTING AND RECQRDKEEPING
UNDER THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, SUBTITLE C
Burden Reduction Options; Status Report
This report (SW-943) was prepared by the
Office of Solid Waste
I f r-ivironmenta! Protection Agency
[•- oo V, Library
'<- • South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
U.S. ENVITONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 31, 1981
-------
environmental Protection Agency
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction
A. Annual Report
B. Manifest System
C. Permitting Process
D. Operating Record.
E. Groundwater Monitoring
F. Closure/Post-Closure and Financial
Assurance Requirements
G. Contingency Plan
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI
Appendix VII
Appendix VIII
— Annual Survey
Manifest System
RCRA Permit Process
— Operating Record
— Groundwater Monitoring
— Closure/Post-Closure and Financial
Assurance Requirements
— Contingency Plan
— Developing a Framework for
Regulatory Facilities
2
3
5
6
7
8
8
1-1
II-l
III-l
IV-1
V-l
VI-1
VII-1
VIII-1
-------
Introduction
This paper presents the results of a preliminary
examination of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
in the Environmental Protection Agency's implementing
regulations for Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act or RCRA. The Agency is conducting this exam-
ination in an attempt to reduce the paperwork burden on the
industrial community which is regulated by RCRA. The objectives
of the examination are straightforward; they are: to eliminate
unnecessary paperwork burdens and maximize the efficiency with
which necessary information collection activities are undertaken.
In order to achieve the greatest possible burden reduction,
we focus on those reporting and recordkeeping requirements that
produce the greatest burdens. Rather than expending limited
resources analyzing the more than 30 individual requirements,
we have concentrated our efforts on the seven largest informa-
tion collection activities. Together, these seven requirements
account for approximately 80 percent of the information burden
on the regulated community. They are the following:
A. Annual Report (for generators and facilities)
B. Manifest System Information Requirements
C. Permitting Requirements (Part B) for storage facilities
D. Operating Record
E. Groundwater Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
F. Closure/Post-Closure and Financial Assurance,
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Contingency Plan
At the same time EPA is examining ways to reduce paperwork
burdens under RCRA, the Agency is also reviewing its hazardous
waste regulations to identify areas where a "degree/class of
hazard" approach may be incorporated into the regulation to a
greater extent. One key focal point for the class of hazard
analysis is the area of administrative requirements which
includes reporting and recordkeeping. Because it may also be
possible to "tailor" administrative requirements using the
class of hazard concept, EPA is taking a double-barreled
approach to achieve paperwork burden reduction.
The paper is organized into three parts as follows:
I. Introduction
II, Summary of results of specific activity
III. Eight appendices, seven describing results for each
activity in greater detail and one that will even-
tually affect these areas, the framework for regu-
lating facilities.
-------
-2-
We present three specific proposals for significant burden
reduction in the first three activities: annual reports, the
manifest system, and Part B permit applications for storage
facilities. For the remaining four activities, we give possible
future directions instead of specific proposals. Two reasons
account for this lack of specificity. First, the paperwork
reduction examination has not been completed. Second, the
class of hazard work underway for some of the remaining
four activities must be completed and integrated into the
paperwork reduction analysis before specific proposals can
be made. We expect, that a s'-sort-term analysis in the class
of hazard area can be completed by August of this year and a
final report on paperwork reduction issued by September.
Although more analysis must, be completed in the last four
activity areas prior to the development of specific proposals,
it should be noted that, as of this time, it does not appear
that significant burden reductions will be possible in all
four remaining areas. In particular, groundwater monitoring
does not have potential for significant burden reduction in
our opinion. The reasons for this lack of potential, along
with the activities which do have significant potential for
burden reduction are discussed below.
A. Armual
The Agency plans to eliminate the current requirement that
all generators and all owners or operators of hazardous waste
facilities file an annual report summarizing their activities
related to hazardous waste management. In its place, EPA expects
to substitute an annual survey of generators and facilities. The
survey would be sent each year to a statistical sample of both
the generator and facility populations. Specifically, EPA plans
to:
o
Survey a representative sample of generators and
facilities each year to obtain specific information
on hazardous waste generation and management, around
which state, regional, and national population para-
meters would be constructed;
Conduct extensive follow-up interviews/inspections with
a limited subset of the sample population to verify the
accuracy of survey responses and to collect additional,
more detailed data on hazardous waste maneigement prac-
tices and the burden imposed by the survey response;
Produce management information reports compiling the
data collected through the initial survey (covering
the first six months of 1981) by February of 1982.
Require all generators and facilities to submit a
simple self-certification each year stipulating that
they are hazardous waste handlers; and
-------
0 Eliminate the requirements specifying retention of
annual reports for three years.
The benefits associated with replacing annual reporting
requirements with a sample survey approach are significant.
First and foremost, this approach would greatly reduce report-
ing requirements on the regulated community. In fact, we
estimate the burden reduction for annual reporting requirements
would be in a range of 90 to 95 percent—from roughly 308,000
hours down to approximately 23,000 hours. Two factors account
for this reduction. First, only 10 percent or less of the
total number of generators and facilities would be affected
at all in any given year. Second, the survey forms would be
substantially simplified and therefore less burdensome to
complete than the current annual survey forms.
In addition, the survey approach would significantly
reduce EPA's processing costs. This reduction would allow a
more complete and systematic compilation and analysis of the
hazardous waste data received through the survey, Finally,
this approach would result in more complete statistics because
the survey would go out to facilities and generators in all
States. The Subtitle C program provides for the authorization
of state hazardous waste programs, in lieu of the federal pro-
gram, where the state program is substantially equivalent to
the federal program. Using an annual reporting mechanism,
however, EPA would receive reports only from hazardous waste
handlers in states where T;PA is operating the program, i.e.,
in non-authorized States. Over the years EPA would only be
collecting information directly from the handlers in the hand-
ful of States which will not receive authorization to run
their own hazardous waste programs.
Specific regulatory language for implementation of the
annual survey proposal and copies of draft survey forms should
be available for OMB scrutiny by September. (Appendix I to this
repon; describes the annual survey proposal in greater detail.)
R. Manifest System
EPA plans to replace the general information requirements
for what data must appear on manifests with a prescribed uniform
manifest form. Current regulations do not set forth a required
form for the manifest system. The Agency's original intent
was to set up a manifest requirement with enough flexibility
~o allow States and industry to design specific documents to
fulfill specific needs.
The current system is causing two problems. First, the
lack of uniformity in the development of manifests has created
situations in which generators and transporters must fill out
and carry multiple manifest forms when wastes are shipped
interstate. Currently, a transporter carrying a hazardous
waste shipment across state lines must comply with the manifest
-------
-4-
system operating in each state. This means that a transporter
traveling through a state must have in his possession the mani-
fest required in that state. Under these conditions, several
manifests could be necessary to transport one load of hazardous
waste interstate.
Second, generators with plants in more than one State
cannot consolidate and standardize their manifesting procedures
company-wide because of a lack of uniform requirements. This
situation results in a failure to achieve efficiency in infor-
mation collection activities in all multi-state corporations
in the country which are currently regulated by RCRA.
To solve these problems—all of which give rise to
unnecessary paperwork burdens--EPA has begun working with the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials and the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council, which
represent the States and industry, respectively, in developing
a uniform manifest system. Although the exact burden reduc-
tion which will accrue from this project is difficult to
calculate due to uncertainties in the number of interstate
waste shipments and the actual economies of scale achievable
by multi-state corporations not having multiple requirements
to comply with, we believe nonetheless that burden reductions
can be significant by adopting uniform manifest requirements.
In addition to a uniform manifest form, EPA is developing
a proposal for a permanent manifest which could be used as
an alternative to the existing manifest system. This alter-
native is designed to reduce the administrative burden on
generators in cases where the same wastes are shipped by
generators to off-site facilities which they own.
In lieu of the existing system which requires a separate
manifest for each waste shipment, a permanent manifest would
be carried by the transporting vehicle every time a shipment
of this same waste occurred. The permanent manifest would
include all manifest information and identify the route the
vehicle would travel. The generator and hazardoxis waste
management facility would also be required to establish a
waste tracking system that would identify the quantity for
each shipment (e.g., shipment log).
This alternative system provides for a simpler and more
practical approach to the manifest requirement when a gener-
ator and TSD facility are owned or operated by the same
person. A large measure of the paperwork in such situations
would be eliminated through the discontinuation of manifest
preparation for each and every shipment of the same waste.
In addition, there would be reduced recordkeeping due to
the need to keep only a copy of the shipping log rather
than each individual manifest.
-------
-5-
Final proposals and accompanying regulatory language
for the national uniform manifest is expected by October and
for the alternative permanent manifest by late this year.
(Appendix II to this report describes the manifest system
and its requirements in further detail.)
^• Permitting Process
Using a class of hazard approach, the Agency plans to
reduce the information requirements for permit applications
and permit procedures for lower risk hazardous waste storage
facilities. Storage facilities have been targeted for permit
process burden reduction for two reasons. First, such fac-
ilities represent a highly significant fraction of hazardous
waste facilities. Preliminary analysis of the approximately
14,000 Part A permit applications received by EPA indicates
that roughly 40 percent of all applications only involve
storage of hazardous wastes in tanks or containers. Second,
storage facilities, if properly run, represent, in general,
a lower public health and environmental risk than disposal
facilities,
As originally considered, it was expected that the Part B
permit applications and permitting procedures would be tailored
to the degree of risk posed by the various categories of storage
facility,, In the case of very low risk storage facilities, no
permit application would be required. If facility owners or
operators use appropriate Department of Transportation con-
tainers and notify EPA that they fall in this category, then
such facilities would be granted a permit by rule.
For moderate risk storage facilities, EPA would develop a
standardized and simplified Part B permit application. Certain
technical information required in an application would be
obtained through statements to be filled in or checked by the
applicant (e.g., the distance to firefighting equipment is
feet). Certain other technical arid administrative information
required in an application (e.g., the contingency plan) would
be provided by self-certification that such information is
available at the facility and does comply with the requirements
of the regulations.
For high risk facilities, the Part B permit application
requirements currently in effect and the normal permit pro-
cedures would remain in effect owing to the areater risks
involved.
Upon closer examination, it has become apparent that
the development of a regulation amendment to implement this
approach will take considerable work and extensive data in
order tc produce legally defendable categories and requirements.
In addition, this approach will lead to a fundamental change
in thn regulatory strategy f~-r man- ning storage facilities.
-------
Therelor-:, ...; ^Loulcl be excniined in the context of the
regulatory inpr.c" ana ,: . -.is th?t ji'PA is committed to prepare
for ".he .jCir-uary 1?., LSGL storage end treatment regulations.
Finally, Ep/\ .-s wo? King on another alternative which merits
careful exaraiiv-t_r en- a pe> iro t.~t-y™rai.e for all storage in
tanks, c o r, t a i n .' :r;: , ci s; d r> i 1 e s .
In short, »-"
ways to reduce c
indicated that i
tional dota d-K1
part o
d
. ! r -i.• -
needed by ger^
a storage permi;:,
ge
e
'nc:wr--ver., so^o significant shorter-term efforts
sr,a,':Jiaray , e few of which affect permitting
^ an amendment to authorize short-term (up
n- 01: Lho 90-day accumulation provision (and
le storage requirements). These may be
for good cause to avoid having to obtain
second Is an amendment to exempt short-
term, small-qii'inrity accumulations (storage) of hazardous
wastes at the point of generation from the regulations. The
third is several amendments to respond to the major comments
on EPA's Jr-.raaiy 12, 198.1 s to cage and treatment regulations.
These shcrter-tsrm efforts address the most immediate and
significant concerns of the regulated community , They prin-
cipally will reduce Niclinical requirements, but will also
reduce or avoid reiaced paperwork reouirements. Amendments
should be drafted
this year,
oy t- opt ember and promulgated by the end of
Re
EPA will review tho operating record requirements
with the objective of reducing the information burden in
two major areas. First., tr. .• number of handling codes to
be used in the operating record should be reduced to agree
with the number used in the peririi-ctir.q process. Facilities
must currently utilize a table of 85 handling codes to
identify the management techniques applied to each waste.
Facility permits, however, utilize only 13 handling codes.
Furthermore, the proposed annual survey would collect
information based upon those 13 codes, Continuing to
require facilities, to keop records oased on the 85 codes
when the Agency intends to an?. ly?-_> ..heir operations under
the 13 code format seems ques t i -rv.abla ,
Second, the operating record r o
facilities keep copies of a number t-.
duplication of records kept in other
aireinents mandate that
reports that result in
locations. Examples
-------
-7-
inclucie summary reports of emergency incidents and notices of
certification of compliance with permit requirements. Copies
of these report •=. -nay be kept more appropriately in another
location iof-cead of placing this burden on the facility.
Ad~. it I on a 1 possibilities for burden reduction may be
discovered as a result of" the class of hazard analysis
scheduled for completion in late summer. In large measure,
however, the facility operating records form a keystone to
the entire hazardous waste regulatory system. Not only does
the waste-specific information included in the operating
records c L ovid 5? the basis upon which facilities can comply
with the V'j.rior.5 reporting requirements imposed by EPA and
the states, it also constitutes a key element in the frame-
work for trackino hazardous wastes from generation through
transportation to final disposition,
In addition, EPA and uhe States may discover over time
that current waste management practices are insufficient at
protecting human health and the environment against unplanned
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents
into the environment. If such situations arise, the ability
to take corrective action will be contingent upon having
required owners or operators to keep specific records indica-
ting the disposition, and location of each waste or combination
of wastes handled at their facilities. (Appendix IV provides
a fuller discussion of the operating record requirement and.
potential areas for burden reduction.)
EPA does not .. -'.pact possibilities for major burden
reduction in the grou;>dwat.er monitoring requirements. Pro-
tection of groundwater ayainst contamination from releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents is a major
objective of the RCRA statute. Years of negligence in guarding
against groundwater contamination have led to the closing of
countless wells used by individuals and public utilities
as sources of drinking water. These impacts are long-term in
nature, and may ultimately produce irreversible damage to our
groundwater resources.
In this context, the qroundwater monitoring requirements
affect only a -nail subset of the population of hazardous
waste managerr-cn'c facilities, i.e., an estimated 4500 landfill,
injection wel U ci.rface impoundment (for storage, treatment
and di-3po•>>•->-•'•<• rec^lrer^ent ~ , )
-------
Moreover, EPA has tried to minimise the burden of
groundwater monitoring with a minimum indicator program
leading to assessment mor.'itorinq only if problems are
detected. However, EPA has a continuing concern that the
funds which industry expends on grouudwate^r monitoring
pursuant to this regulation lead to information useful to
the facilities and to environmental officials. To get
maximum use of the data EPA plans to issue; further guidance
to facilities on how they can be sure of getting sound advice
from their hydrogeoi ogists and drillers. EPA will also
undertake a timely .evaluation of the groundwater monitoring
requirements to ensure that industry and agencies are getting
the most from the expenditure of funds in this area.
re g_Qd F i n a n c i a it Assurance Requirements
EPA will review two elements of the cl osure/post-closure
and financial assurance requirements which may be unnecessarily
burdensome to the regulated community. (See Appendix VI
for a discussion of all requirements under closure, post-closure
and financial assurance.)
First, the requirement that post-closure cost estimates
be adjusted reflect changes in tha post-closure plan during
the post-closure period should be reconsidered. Since
during post-closure the amount of the financial instrument
adjustment is no longer required and doss not appear in
the final regulation, this requirement could possibly be
eliminated .
Second, the requirement chat both a copy of the insurance
policy and endorsement be forwarded to the RA by all owners or
operators may not be necessary, The receipt of the endorse-
ment alone would be sufficient evidence of insurance. A
sampling of policies, however, should, be conducted to deter-
mine whether there is a need to make coverage requirements
more specific.
The above review? will be completed in late summer
and final proposals are expected in September.
The Agency will review the contingency plan requirements
to assess whether they ful'y address the variety of hazards
posed by different facilities applying different processes to
different wnpte streams. (A complete description of the con-
tingency plan requirements LS provided i>\ Appendix VII.)
The purpose of th~» contingency plan requirement is
to ensure that treats nt, Acorago and disposal facl litx • ^
are prepared to addre&s ctn..*ryency =itu .t i ~i---* r-ap.1. ':. ly ana
ir --"acv A marine"*" so ~"? to ".:.mii. r mr\'->nt .injuries o~
-------
-9-
possible hazards to human health or the environment. Because
the contingency plan requirement is a performance standard
which takes into account varying circumstances related to
waste management, the owner/operator already has the authority
to tailor his approach to a variety of hazards. It may, how-
ever, make sense to clearly and explicitly identify situations
where less regulation is required.
Through the class of hazard analysis, EPA will attempt
to tailor contingency plan requirements to classes of wastes.
Wastes which pose lower risks of unplanned emergencies, such
as non-ignitable or compatible wastes in storage situations,
may be the subject of less stringent contingency plan
requirements.
Final proposals to reduce burden in this area will be
completed by September.
-------
APPENDIX I - Annual Survey
Background
40 CFR Parts 262.41, 264.75, and 265.75 (§3002 and 3004
of RCRA) require generators of hazardous waste and owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities to submit annually on March 1 (for the calendar
reporting year ending the previous December 31) reports detailing
their hazardous waste activities.
Generator annual reports are to specify:
0 the name, location, and EPA identification number
of their operations;
0 the names, addresses, and EPA identification numbers
of all transporters used to ship their wastes off-
site during the reporting year;
0 the names, addresses, and EPA identification numbers
of all treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
to which the generator shipped hazardous wastes
during reporting year. For each TSD facility shipped
to, generators are required to report:
- specific descriptions of each type of hazardous
waste, or mixture of hazardous wastes, shipped;
the EPA waste numbers associated with those
wastes or waste mixtures;
the DOT hazard class that the wastes or waste
mixtures fall under; and
- the quantity of each waste or waste mixture
shipped.
Treatment, storage, and disposal facility annual reports
are to specify:
0 the name, location, and EPA identification number of
the facility;
0 updated cost estimates for facility closure and post-
closure monitoring and maintenance, in dollars;
0 the names, addresses, and EPA identification numbers
of all generators from which the facility received
shipments of hazardous waste during the reporting
year. For each generator from which waste shipments
were received, TSD facilities are required to report:
-------
specific descriptions of each type of hazardous
waste, or mixture of hazardous wastes, received;
the EPA waste numbers associated with those
wastes or waste mixtures;
the quantity of each waste or waste mixture
that was received; and
the EPA handling code representing the waste's
or waste mixture's status at the end of the
reporting year or its final disposition.
Additionally, facility owners or operators are required to submit
as part of their annual reports the results of their groundwater
monitoring program, the details of which are described in
Appendix V.
Generators and TSD facilities are required to keep copies
of the annual reports for three years following submission to
EPA.
Annual Reports from generators and TSD facilities would
have been received for the first time by EPA's Regional Offices
on March 1, 1981, covering the reporting period from November 19,
1980, when the RCRA regulations took effect, through December 31,
1980. However, on January 26, 1981, EPA issued a technical
amendment to the regulations suspending the §§262.41, 264.75,
and 265.75 reporting requirements for the 1980 reporting year.
In its Federal Register announcement, EPA stated that the
reason for the suspension was that the Agency would not be
prepared by March 1 of this year to adequately collate, analyze,
and make use of the data from the reports, given the heavy work-
load the Agency is currently experiencing in the initial phase
of the RCRA regulatory program. EPA concluded that requiring
the regulated community to bear the significant cost of reporting
when the Agency could not make good use of the reports was
clearly unwarranted.
EPA noted, however, that its suspension of the annual reporting
requirements for the 1980 reporting year does not affect the
reporting requirements for future years. As of this date, gener-
ators and TSD facilities are still required to file annual reports
for the 1981 reporting year by March 1, 1982.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste has taken advantage of the
suspension in the annual reporting requirements to review the
existing form and instructions in light of the Agency's current
and future information needs. Additionally, OSW "has been engaged
in a continuing effort to reduce the information burdens imposed
upon the regulated community by RCRA. Since the annual reporting
requirements represent significant portions of the information
1-2
-------
burdens for both gonerators nnd TSD facilities, OSW decided to
make them the focus of one of its initial burdei reduction
efforts.
Discussion and Proposed _CtlsI1!'ep
The result of that effort is EPA's proposal to replace
RCRA's annual reporting requirements with an annual survey of
a statistical sample of the population of regulated hazardous
waste generators and TSP i'ac.i "-. 11 if -s. Specifically proposed is:
0 Eliminating the ei't ret'T, annual reporting requirements
contained in 40 CFR i^-.rts 262.41, 264.75, and 265.75
for generators and TSO facilities;
0 Surveying a represtnr.^'-.ive sample of generators and
TSD facilities each y^ai: to obtain specific informa-
tion on hazardous wa. ha Generation and management,
around which state, --oniona!, and national population
parameters could \yf- constructed. The sample would be:
- composed of approximately 10% of the populations
of hazardous V6.sc.e generators and TSD facilities
regulated under 1?CRA;
- stratified c.round categories and classes of
generators and TSD facilities to be established
by OSW;
- varied from year to year?
- drawn at random from all stales, including states
granted int-erii!, -authori/.atj.jn;
0 Conducting extensive follow-up interviews/inspections
with a subset of the sample population to verify the
accuracy of survey responses and to collect additional,
more detailed data on hazardous waste management
practices and the bur-den imposed by the survey response;
0 Producing manageir-ent information reports compiling
the data collected through the initial sui'vey (covering
the first six nionvi-.y of 1981) by February 15, 1982.
In addition, EPA is proposing to require all generators
and owners and operators of TSD facilities to subr.it a simple
statement by January IS of each year certifying that they are
still engaged in the hand.1 i rig of hazardous wastes and that they
have complied with a.11 recordkeepi ng requirements relevant to
their operations, Furthermore, the requirements specifying
retention of annual report1-, for t'.ree }rear ;-= would be eliminated
under the survey approach.
-------
EPA has the statutory authority to collect information
for annual generator and TSD facility reports using a statistical
survey mechanism through the combined authorities of §§3002,
3004, and 3007 of RCRA. Section 3007 will allow the Agency
to implement this proposed approach in all states, including
those granted interim authorization.
There are a number of significant benefits associated with
switching from the existing annual reporting requirements to
the sample survey approach. These include:
0 the annual reporting burdens borne by the regulated
community would be drastically reduced, perhaps by
as much as 95%, due to reductions in the numbers of
handlers affected in any given year, and to simpli-
fications in the information items proposed for
inclusion in the survey;
0 EPA's processing costs would be reduced proportionately
with reductions in the numbers of handlers required to
respond;
0 statistical sampling techniques are generally as reliable
as census-type approaches in providing accurate data
regarding a given population;
0 improved state, regional, and national statistics
describing hazardous waste management practices would
result, since the sample would include handlers from
states granted interim authorization (whereas annual
reports, which are currently not required to be sub-
mitted by handlers in interim authorized states,
would provide less and less information over time as
more and more states receive interim authorization);
and
0 incentives for the regulated community to continue to
comply with existing recordkeeping requirements would
be maintained, if not increased, since all handlers
would have to be prepared in any given year to provide
EPA with detailed information on their operations, and
because there would be greater likelihood within the
sampled population that questionable responses would
be detected and investigated.
Timing
A complete proposal package, including specific regulatory
language, is expected to be developed by September. EPA antici-
pates being able to meet the following schedule with respect to
implementing the initial annual survey:
-------
0 prepare survey package August 15, 1981
0 pilot test survey package August 30, 1981
0 finalize and mail survey to sample October 15, 1981
population
0 process survey returns January 15, 1982
0 prepare management information February 15, 1982
reports
0 evaluate/or reuse survey program Spring 1982
for reporting year 1982
1-5
-------
APPENDIX II - Manifest System
Background
One of the major components of EPA's Hazardous Waste
Management System is the manifest system, required by regu-
lations found in 40 CFR Parts 262.20-262.23, 263.20, 264.71
and 265.71 (§§3002, 3003, and 3004 of RCRA). As developed by
EPA, the manifest serves three principle objectives in ensuring
the proper management of hazardous wastes that are transported
off the site of generation. First, it serves as a tracking
device which creates clear lines of accountability among the
participants in the hazardous waste system. Second, it, together
with the other EPA and DOT transportation requirements, serves
to protect human health and the environment during the trans-
portation of hazardous waste by providing information on the
waste to persons handling the waste and to emergency response
personnel. Third, the manifest provides the principal basis
for EPA's reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Current EPA regulations do not set forth a required form
for'the manifest, but rather state that required information
must accompany the waste. That information is:
1, a manifest document number;
2. the generator's name, mailing address, phone
number, and EPA identification number;
3. the name and EPA identification number of each
transporter;
4. the name, address and EPA identification number
for the designated facility, and alternate
facility, if any;
5. the description of the waste(s) (e.g. proper
shipping name,etc.) required by regulations of
hhej U.S. Department of Transportation in 49 CPR
172.101,172*.2C2 and 172.203;
6. the total quantity of each waste by units of
weight or volume, and the type and number of
containers as loaded into or onto the transport
vehicle; and
7. EPA certification.
By not requiring a specific form, EPA's manifest system is designed
to be flexible enough to allow states and industry to design a
-------
document that would fulfill their specific needs. However, no
state may impose any requirements that might interfere with the
free movement of hazardous waste across state boundaries.
In addition to allowing flexibility of form design, EPA
strove to minimize the administrative burden on industry by
jointly promulgating regulations with U.S. DOT that allow a
hazardous waste manifest document to function as a DOT shipping
paper. A manifest form containing the previously listed informa-
tion requirements qualifies as a shipping paper.
Discussion and Proposed Changes
The manifest system, as it functions today, imposes an
economic and administrative burden on both transporters and
generators. Since the promulgation of the RCRA manifest
regulations on May 19, 1980, a majority of the states have
developed and are using a manifest which will meet federal
requirements and individual state program needs. The lack of
uniformity in the manifests required by the states has created a
situation which requires generators and transporters to respond
to a variety of state regulations in the case where hazardous
waste is transported interstate.
Currently, a transporter carrying a hazardous waste shipment
across state lines must comply with the manifest system operating
in each state. This means that a transporter traveling through
a state must have in his/her possession the manifest required in
that state. Under these conditions, several manifests could be
necessary to transport one load of hazardous waste interstate.
In March, the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), and the Hazardous Materials
Advisory Council (HMAC) which represent states and industry
(generators and transporters), respectively, delivered recommen-
dations for the development of the national manifest system to
EPA and DOT. Both the ASTSWMO and the HMAC proposals advocated
the use of a uniform national manifest form.
EPA is currently reviewing the proposals and developing a
uniform national manifest form. The resulting uniform manifest
form is not expected to be dramatically different from the propo-
sals. It will be designed to allow the states to track wastes
(considered essential by the states) and will simplify the burden
by eliminating the multiplicity of state forms now being used
by hazardous waste handlers.
In addition to a uniform manifest form, EPA is developing
a proposal for a permanent manifest which could be used as an
alternative to the existing manifest system. This alternative
is designed to reduce the administrative burden on generators
in cases where the same wastes are shipped by generators to
off-site facilities which they own.
TI- 2
-------
Tn lieu of the existing system which requires a separate
manifest for each waste shipment, a permanent manifest would be
carried by the transporting vehicle every time a shipment of this
c,ane waste occurred. The permanent manifest would include all
manifest information and identify the route the vehicle would
travel. The generator and hazardous waste management facility
would also be required to establish a waste tracking system that
would identify the quantity for each shipment (e.g., shipment log),
Notice of intent to use this alternative system would be
sent to EPA prior to initiation, and would include a copy of each
permanent manifest and an explanation of the waste tracking system,
This alternative system provides for a simpler and more
practical approach to the manifest requirement when a generator
and T3D facility are owned or operated by the same person. A
large measure of the paperwork in such situations would be
eliminated through the elimination of manifest preparation for
each and every shipment of the same waste. In addition, there
would be reduced recordkeeping due to the need to keep only a
copy of the shipping log rather than each individual manifest.
Timing
An early draft of a uniform national manifest form will be
presented to the states and industry representatives by July. A
proposal with draft regulations is scheduled for October.
Establishment and implementation of the permanent manifest
system requires Department of Transportation concurrence and joint
rulemaking. A final joint proposal for a permanent manifest is
expected to be developed later this year.
11-3
-------
APPENDIX III - RCRA Permit Process
Background
The RCRA permitting process, (40 CFR Part 122, RCRA §3005)
which has been consolidated with other EPA permitting programs,
specifies how existing and new facilities may receive permits
to treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste. The basic
permitting requirements provide a framework within which
facilities are granted approval to operate within the Federal
or a State hazardous waste program and in accordance with
the standards of Parts 264 and 265 (§3004, RCRA).
The permit process for existing facilities includes a
two-part application procedure—Part A and Part B. The first
step, qualification for interim status, is dependent, in part,
upon the filing of a Part A application with EPA. The Part
A allows EPA to identify those facilities which will require
permits and allows generators to begin sending waste to
regulated sites as required under the manifest system. The
information contained in the Part A application assists EPA
in establishing a profile of existing facilities: the local
geography, the amount and kind of waste handled, and the
processes used for handling the waste.
The second step in this process is the Part B application
submission. (The same requirements are mandated for new
facilities but on a different schedule—both Part A and Part B
are to be submitted to EPA 180 days before construction begins
on a new facility).
General information requirements for the Part B submission
include:
0 general description of the facility;
0 chemical and physical analyses of hazardous wastes
to be handled;
° copy of the waste analysis plan required by §264.13;
0 description of security procedures and equipment
required by §264.14 or justification for a waiver;
0 copy of the general inspection schedule;
0 justification of any requests for waivers of preparedness
and prevention requirements;
° copy of the contingency plan;
0 description of procedures, structures and equipment
used to ensure safety and protection of facility
personnel;
0 traffic pattern, volume, and control.
Additional information requirements, relating to the
Part 264 standards, include:
-------
0 specific design and operating data?
0 financial plans; and
0 site engineering information.
Discussion and Proposed Changes
EPA has begun to look at simplifying the Part B permit
process. An analysis of a 10 percent sample of the approximately
14,000 Part A applications received to date, indicates that
roughly 40 percent of all applications only involve storage in
tanks or containers.
Storage facilities, thus, constitute a major segment of the
facility population. In addition, storage of hazardous waste is,
if facilities are properly run in accordance with RCRA standards,
generally of less environmental and human health concern than
is disposal of such wastes. Accordingly, many of these facilities
may fall into lower risk categories and, thus, are potential tar-
gets for a simplified permitting process.
As originally considered, it was expected that the Part B
permit applications and permitting procedures would be tailored
to the degree of risk posed by the various categories of storage
facility. In the case of very low risk storage facilities, no
permit application would be required. If facility owners or
operators use appropriate Department of Transportation con-
tainers and notify EPA that they fall in this category, then
such facilities would be granted a permit by rule.
For moderate risk storage facilities, EPA would develop a
standardized and simplified Part B permit application. Certain
technical information required in an application would be
obtained through statements to be filled in or checked by the
applicant (e.g., the distance to firefighting equipment is
feet). Certain other technical and administrative information
required in an application (e.g., the contingency plan) would
be provided by self-certification that such information is
available at the facility and does comply with the requirements
of the regulations.
For high risk facilities, the Part B permit application
requirements currently in effect and the normal permit pro-
cedures would remain in effect owing to the greater risks
involved.
Upon closer examination, it has become apparent that the
development of a regulation amendment to implement this approach
will take considerable work and extensive data in order to produce
legally defendable categories and requirements. In addition,
this approach will lead to a fundamental change in the regulatory
strategy for managing storage facilities. Therefore, it should
be examined in the context f the regulatory impact analysis '
that EPA is committed to prepare for the January 12, 1981 storage
II1-2
-------
and treatment regulations. Finally, EPA is working on another
alternative which merits careful examination: a permit-by-rule
for all storage in tanks, containers, and piles.
In short, EPA's examination, to date, of substantial
ways to reduce the permitting paperwork for storage facilities
indicated that this is a complex matter which requires addi-
tional data and further analysis. It also should be done as
part of a regulatory impact analysis. Consequently, EPA is
moving forward with a more deliberate, longer-term effort
aimed at proposing regulatory changes by next summer.
There are, however, some significant shorter-term efforts
underway on storage standards, a few of which affect permitting
requirements. One is an amendment to authorize short-term (up
to 30-day) extensions of the 90-day accumulation provision (and
related permit-by-rule storage requirements). These may be
needed by generators for good cause to avoid having to obtain
a storage permit. A second is an amendment to exempt short-
term, small-quantity accumulations (storage) of hazardous
wastes at the point of generation from the regulations. The
third is several amendments to respond to the major comments
on EPA's January 12, 1981 storage and treatment regulations.
Timing
These shorter-term efforts address the most immediate and
significant concerns of the regulated community. They prin-
cipally will reduce technical requirements, but will also
reduce or avoid related paperwork requirements. Amendments
should be drafted by September and promulgated by the end of
this year.
III-3
-------
APPENDIX IV - Operating Record
Background
40 CFR Parts 264.73 and 265.73 (§3004, RCRA) require owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities to keep an operating record that contains descriptive
information regarding the receipt and disposition of the hazardous
wastes managed therein. The operating record is not required to
be submitted to EPA, but must be open for inspection at all
reasonable times by any duly authorized employee or agent of
the Agency. The following information is required as part of
the operating record:
0 quantity and description of hazardous waste received,
and the method(s) and date(s) of its treatment,
storage, or disposal at the facility;
0 location and quantity of each hazardous waste within
the facility;
0 records and results of waste analyses;
0 summary reports and records of all incidents that
require implementing the contingency plan;
0 records and results of inspections (which must be kept
for three years);
0 monitoring data;
° closure cost estimates and, for disposal facilities,
the estimate of annual post-closure care;
0 copies of notices sent to off-site generators,
certifying in writing that the facility has all
required permits and will accept the wastes being
shipped to it by the off-site generators.
Discussion and Potential Changes
With the exception of inspection records, the operating
record must be maintained by the facility through its active
life. For disposal facilities, however, the operating record
must be maintained throughout the post-closure care period as
well. EPA did not, and has not, set precise format requirements
for the operating record. Instead, the Agency has provided for
flexibility to allow firms to utilize normal business records
wherever possible. For example, the operating record can include
a series of documents generated at different locations within
facilities and need not be a single record located at one place.
Additionally, information contained in automated data processing
systems is acceptable as part of the operating record.
-------
Effective regulation of the management of "hazardous wastes
requires an information base upon which decisions regarding the
propriety or impropriety of waste management practices may be
based. EPA and interim authorized states are depending, and
will depend, upon facility operating records to meet a variety
of information needs in this regard. One of the key elements
of the RCRA regulatory program is the tracking of hazardous
wastes from generation through transportation to final disposi-
tion. Requiring owners or operators to keep specific records
indicating the disposition and location of each waste or combin-
ation of wastes handled at their TSD facilities is the only
method by which that objective can be fulfilled.
Furthermore, EPA and the states may discover that current
waste management practices are insufficient at protecting human
health and the environment against unplanned releases of hazardous
wastes or hazardous waste constituents into the environment. If
such situations arise, the ability to take corrective action
will be contingent upon knowing the exact location of those
wastes that could pose significant dangers. The more optimistic
side of this issue is that future technological developments may
provide for economic recovery and reuse of the resources contained
in hazardous wastes. Once again, TSD facility operating records
describing the quantity and disposition of such wastes would be
the only information source capable of locating such potentially
valuable resources.
In its present form, the operating record represents the
only receptacle of the important information items described
above. Hazardous waste manifests do not contain any information
regarding the management techniques applied to wastes shipped to
treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities, and are only
required to be maintained for three years. No other descriptive
recordkeeping devices are required to be kept by facility owners
or operators. Furthermore, the waste-specific information included
in operating records provides the basis upon which facilities
can comply with various reporting requirements imposed by EPA
and the States. Finally, operating record information detailing
the processes applied to wastes received by TSD facilities will
form the basis for enforcement efforts by regulating agencies
to identify and take action against hazardous waste management
practices that pose threats to human health and the environment.
In this regard, the waste-specific information required to
be maintained in facility operating records is a keystone to
the entire hazardous waste regulatory system established by
EPA. One aspect of the waste-specific part of the operating
record may, however, be simplified to reduce the overall infor-
mation bur.den. Currently, facilities must utilize a table of
85 handling codes to identify the management techniques applied
to each waste. Facility permits, however, utilize only 13
handling codes. Furthermore, the proposed annual survey would'
collect information based upon those 13 codes. Continuing to
IV-2
-------
require facilities to keep records based on the 85 codes when
the Agency intends to analyze their operations under the 13
code format seems questionable.
Other aspects of the operating records may not be as critical
as the waste-specific items discussed above. Some of the items
described at the beginning of this section may be duplicative
of records "kept in other locations. Summary reports of emergency
incidents must be forwarded to the Regional Administrator, where
it is likely that they will be entered into the Agency's record-
keeping system. Requiring such records to be maintained simul-
taneously by facility owners or operators may therefore be
unnecessary, at least for low-risk types of facilities or for
minor emergency incidents.
In addition, the need for facilities to maintain at their
expense copies of notices sent to generators certifying their
compliance with required permits seems unwarranted, since it
is the generator's responsibility to ensure such compliance
for all facilities shipped to. In this sense, copies of these
certifications may be more appropriately maintained by generators.
Timing
Specific recommendations for burden reduction in this area
must await the pending completion of the class of hazard analysis
(September). With respect to the operating record, however, it
is clear that there is little or no room for reductions in the
waste-specific information requirements (e.g., location and
quantity of wastes, waste analysis, etc.). These account for
the largest share of the operating record's information burden,
but represent its most important elements.
IV-3
-------
APPENDIX V - Groundwater Monitoring
Background
40 CFR Parts 265.90 through 265.94 (§3004, RCRA) require
owners and operators of surface impoundments, landfills, and
land treatment facilities that are used to dispose of hazardous
waste to prepare and implement a groundwater monitoring program
capable of determining the facility's impact on groundwater in
the uppermost aquifier underlying the facility. (In special
circumstances storage tanks may also be subject to these Parts.)
However, all or part of the groundwater requirements may be
waived if the owner or operator can demonstrate that there is
a low potential for migration of hazardous wastes or hazardous
waste constitutents from the facility via the uppermost aquifier
to water supply wells (domestic, industrial, or agricultural) or
to surface water.
The regulations require owners or operators to develop
and follow a sampling and analysis plan to provide indicators
of the facility's impact on groundwater. The plan must be
kept at the facility during its active life. In addition,
owners or operators are required, within one year, to prepare
an outline of a more extensive groundwater quality assessment
program for implementation upon indication of significant
deterioration of groundwater quality.
Unless the analyses performed upon samples drawn through
the monitoring program confirm significant deterioration of the
groundwater quality, owners or operators are required to:
0 Keep records of analyses to:
establish initial background concentrations or
values of parameters indicating groundwater con-
tamination and quality, to be conducted quarterly
during the initial year (commencing November 19,
1981);
- establish groundwater quality after the first year
on an annual basis (parameters include chloride,
iron, manganese, phenols, sodium and sulfate);
determine groundwater contamination after the first
year on a semi-annual basis(parameters used as
indicators include pK, specific conductance, total
organic carbon, total organic halogen);
determine the elevation of the groundwater surface
each time a sample is drawn;
-------
t
Such records must be kept at the facility throughout
its active life, and, for disposal facilities, through-
out the post-closure care period as well;
0 Report to the Regional Administrator the following
groundwater information:
concentrations or values of groundwater contam-
ination and quality parameters for each monitoring
well. During the initial year of monitoring, these
reports are to be submitted within 15 days after
completing each quarterly analysis. In successive
years, these concentrations or values, along with
associated evaluations to determine significant
changes in concentrations or groundwater quality,
are to be submitted annually by March 1 following
the calendar reporting year;
results of the evaluation of groundwater surface
elevations, and a description of the response to
that evaluation, to be submitted annually by March 1
following the calendar reporting year.
If, however, the analyses performed upon samples drawn
through the monitoring program do confirm significant deterior-
ation of groundwater quality, the owner or operator must:
0 provide written notice to the Regional Administrator
- within seven days of such confirmation - that the
facility may be affecting groundwater quality;
0 develop and submit to the Regional Administrator
within 15 days of that notification a plan for a
groundwater quality assessment program at the
facility, based upon the outline cited above;
0 submit a report to the Regional Administrator
containing an assessment of the groundwater quality
within 15 days of the completion of an analsyis
determining a) the rate and extent of migration of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents in
the groundwater, and b) the concentrations of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents
in the groundwater;
0 keep records of the analyses and evaluations spec-
ified in the plan throughout the active life of the
facility, and, for disposal facilities, throughout
the post-closure care period as well;
0 submit to the Regional Administrator cinnually a report t
containing the results of the assessment program by
March 1 following the calendar reporting year.
V-2
-------
Discussion and Potential Changes
Protection of groundwater against contamination from
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents
is one of EPA's and the State's highest priorities. Years of
negligence in guarding against groundwater contamination have
led to the closing of countless wells used by individuals and
public utilities as sources of drinking water. These impacts
are long-term in nature, and may ultimately produce irreversible
damage to our groundwater resources.
In this context, the groundwater monitoring requirements
seem anything but over-burdensome. They affect only a small
subset of the population of hazardous waste management facil-
ities, i.e., an estimated 4500 land application, landfill,
injection well, surface impoundment (for storage, treatment
and disposal), and land treatment facilities. In addition,
there is provision for facilities to obtain a waiver from
compliance with any of the groundwater regulations, pending
demonstration of low potential for migration of contaminants
to water supply wells. EPA does not yet have any indication
of how many facilities will actually claim that waiver, since
the Agency only discovers that a waiver has been claimed after
it inquires of facilities that do not submit the required reports
(Facilities are not required to report to EPA that they are
claiming waiversT)
Moreover, EPA has tried to minimize the burden of
groundwater monitoring with a minimum indicator program leading
to assessment monitoring only if problems are detected. However,
EPA has a continuing concern that the funds which industry
expends on groundwater monitoring pursuant to this regulation
lead to information useful to the facilities and to environmental
officials. To get maximum use of the data EPA plans to issue
further guidance to facilities on how they can be sure of getting
sound advice from their hydrogeologists and drillers. EPA will
also undertake a timely evaluation of the groundwater monitoring
requirements to ensure that industry and agencies are getting the
most from the expenditure of funds in this area.
While the monitoring and analysis requirements, together
with their associated reporting requirements, are extensive,
the problems they are designed to address are complex in
nature. Where action might be possible is in the area of
varying the requirements based upon the types of wastes
handled or disposal techniques applied. An example of what
form such variations might take, would include differences
between facilities that handle wastes in solid versus liquid
form, or,differences between facilities that install more
extensive protective devices versus those that do not,
V-3
-------
Timing
Specific proposals in the groundwater monitoring
requirements await completion of the class of hazard analysis
in September. Nevertheless, it is clear that complexity and the
importance of protection will preclude major burden reduction.
V-4
-------
APPENDIX VI - Closure/Post-Closure and Financial
Assurance Requirements
Background
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 (§3004, RCRA) contain requirements
for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities for closure and post-closure care and
the financial assurance for this care and for liability
insurance for claims for damages or injuries to third parties
during the operating life of the facility.
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Closure
and Post-Closure include:
1. Preparation of a closure plan which must include
at least:
a) a description of closure activities
b) an estimate of maximum waste inventory
c) a description of equipment decontamination procedures
d) a schedule for closure activities including expected
year of closure.
For facilities seeking a permit (general status facilities),
this plan must be submitted to the Regional Administrator as
part of the permit application process. Those existing facil-
ities with interim status need not forward a copy of the plan
until 180 days before closure is scheduled to begin. Both
interim and general status facilities are required to keep a
copy of the plan and all revisions must be kept at the facility
until closure is completed and certified. The owner or operator
must amend the plan whenever changes in operating plans or
facility design affect the closure plan or whenever there is a
change in the estimate of maximum inventory or the expected
year of closure.
2. Notification of closure to be submitted to the
Regional Administrator (RA) at least 180 days prior
to the beginning of closure.
3. Submission to Regional Administrator of certification
by the owner or operator and an independent registered
professional engineer that the facility has been
closed in accordance with the approved closure plan.
4. Preparation of a post-closure plan for disposal
facilities, including at least:
-------
a) a description of groundwater monitoring activities
b) a description of maintenance activities
c) the name and address of the party to contact in
case of a site accident.
Again, as with the closure plan, new facilities must submit
the post-closure plan as part of the permitting procedure. In
addition, a copy of the plan and all revisions must be kept at
the facility until the post-closure care period begins. For
disposal facilities with interim status, the plan must be kept
at the facility and submitted to the RA 180 days before closure
begins.
5. For disposal facilities, notice to the local zoning
authority or the authority with jurisdiction over
local land use and to the RA containing a survey plat
indicating the location and dimensions of landfill
cells or other disposal areas and a record of the
type, location, and quantity of hazardous waste
disposed of within each cell or area of the facility.
6. For disposal facilities, notice on. the deed that the
land has been used to manage hazardous wastes, that
its use is restricted under §§264.117(c) and 265.117(c);
and that the survey plat and record of wastes is
available for scrutiny.
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Financial
Assurance include:
1. Preparation of an estimate of closure costs, which
must be adjusted annually for inflation and whenever
a change in the closure plan affects the cost of
closure.
New facilities must submit this estimate to the RA as part
of the permitting procedure and keep a copy and all subsequent
estimates at the facility. Facilities with interim status
need not submit this cost estimate but merely keep it and all
subsequent estimates at the facility.
2. Establishment and submission to the RA of financial
instrument, which must be maintained in an amount
that reflects the adjusted cost estimate.
3. Estimate of post-closure costs for disposal facilities,
- to be adjusted annually during the operating life of
the facility.
Handling of thin estimate is the same as that for closure cost
estimates.
VI-2
-------
4. Forwarding to EPA a copy of the facility's liability
insurance policy and Hazardous Waste Facility Liability
Endorsement for sudden accidents.
5. Forwarding to EPA a copy of the insurance policy and
Endorsement for surface impoundments, landfills, and
land treatment facilities for non-sudden accidents.
Discussion and Potential Changes
The requirement that closure and post-closure plans be
developed serves many purposes. Most importantly it ensures
that an owner or operator will carefully prepare for proper
closure and post-closure care and will run his/her operation
with the stated provisions of the plans in mind. These plans
provide the basis for the cost estimates, which in turn deter-
mine the amount of financial assurance required. The plans are
inspected periodically by EPA to ensure that they are accurate.
The requirement for notification of intent to close 180
days before the procedure begins allows the Agency to inspect
the site and the plans before closure is affected and to order
any changes that may be necessary to assure compliance. This
is necessary because although the regulations require updating
of closure and post-closure plans whenever changes in operations
dictate, the Agency anticipates that there may be some facilities
that fail to do so. This, coupled with a predicted shortage of
personnel for inspections, results in the potentiality that the
Agency may be unaware of inadequacies in some closure and post-
closure plans. The certification by an independent professional
engineer that the facility has been closed in accordance with
the approved plan provides the final evidence of compliance
with closure requirements. These certifications trigger the
release of the owner or operator from the requirement to main-
tain a mechanism for financial assurance for closure costs,
unless the Regional Administrator has reason to believe that
closure is not in accordance with the closure plan, or with
the liability insurance requirement, and signals the beginning
of the post-closure period for disposal facilities.
The requirement that a survey plat and record, of wastes
be sent to the RA and to the local land use authority insures
that the Agency always has a record of the disposition of the
hazardous wastes and that any interested party will have access
to the same information.
The notice on the deed warns all prospective buyers that
the land has been ased to manage hazardous wastes and that its
use is restricted unde- §§264.117(c) and 265.117(c).
As stated previously, the closure and post-closure cost
estimates establish the amount of funding necessary for financial
assurance. The Agency needs to ascertain that these funds will
VI-3
-------
be available when needed. It therefore requires the establish-
ment of one of the allowed mechanisms and proof thereof in the
form of submission to the Regional Administrator of an instrument
whose wording is provided in §264.151 and §265.151. The amount
of the instrument must be reviewed annually for inflation and
adjusted whenever the estimate is changed throughout the operating
life of the facility. This assures that an adequate amount of
money will be available when needed.
Likewise, in order to ensure that the facility has the
required insurance, some evidence must be sent to the RA.
Two areas have been identified by the Agency, however,
that may be unnecessarily burdensome to the regulated community.
First, the provision that post-closure cost estimates be adjusted
to reflect changes in the post-closure plan during the post-
closure period was included in an earlier draft version of the
regulations which sought to require concurrent adjustment in
the amount of the financial instrument. Since during the
post-closure period, the amount of the financial instrument
adjustment is no longer required and does not appear in the
final regulation, it is suggested that this requirement be
eliminated.
Second, the requirement that both a copy of the insurance
policy and endorsement be forwarded to the RA by all owners or
operators is considered superfluous. The Agency now feels
that its receipt of the endorsement alone would be sufficient
evidence of insurance. However, the Agency does propose that
a sampling of policies be done to determine whether there is a
need to make coverage requirements more specific.
Many commenters have suggested that there be a de minimis
limit on those facilities with small closure costs. This would
eliminate the need for them to establish financial assurance
for closure. The Agency agrees with this suggestion in principle.
However, much analytical work must be performed in order to
determine at which point the line may be drawn.
Timing
Analysis of the closure, post-closure and financial
assurance requirements is being conducted in conjunction with
the class of hazard analysis and formal proposals are expected
in September,
VI
-------
APPENDIX VII - Contingency Plan
Background
40 CFR Parts 264.50-56 and 265.50-56 (§3004, RCRA) require
owners and operators of "hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to prepare and maintain a contingency plan
for effective action to minimize hazards to human health or
the environment from fires, explosions, or any unplanned sudden
or non-sudden releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water. The contingency
plan must include:
0 descriptions of spill prevention/response procedures;
0 details of arrangements agreed to by local police
and fire departments, hospitals, contractors, and
state and local emergency response teams to coor-
dinate emergency services;
0 a list of facility emergency coordinators, one of
which must be at the facility or on call at all
times during facility operation;
0 a list of facility emergency equipment;
° an evacuation plan, where necessary (as determined
by the facility owner or operator).
Copies of the contingency plan must be kept at the facility
throughout its operating life, submitted to all local organiza-
tions cited above, and sumitted to the Regional Administrator
with Part B of the permit application, at which point it becomes
a condition of the permit.
The contingency plan must be revised immediately whenever:
0 the facility permit is revised;
0 the plan fails in an emergency;
0 the facility changes in a way that affects the plan;
0 the list of emergency coordinators or equipment
changes.
When an emergency occurs, the facility owner or operator
must submit a report of the event to the Regional Administrator
within 15 days. The report must include information about the
emergency, the extent of injuries or possible hazards to human
health or the environment outside the facility, and the etimatec^
quantity and disposition of hazardous material that results
from the incident. In addition, before the affected area can
resume operations, the facility must notify the Regional Admin-
istrator and local authorities that clean-up procedures are
completed and emergency equipment is fit for reuse.
-------
Discussion and Potential Changes
The purpose behind the contingency plan requirement detailed
above is to ensure that treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
are prepared to address emergency situations rapidly and in such
a manner so as to limit or prevent injuries or possible hazards
to human health or the environment. Because the contingency
plan requirement is a performance standard which takes into
account varying circumstances related to waste mamagement, the
owner/operator already has the authority to tailor his approach
to a variety of hazards. It may, however, make sense to clearly
and explicitly identify situations where less regulation is
required.
Through the class of hazard analysis, EPA will consider
tailoring contingency plan requirements to classes of wastes.
Wastes which pose lower risks of unplanned emergencies may be
the subject of less stringent contingency plan requirements. In
the case where wastes are not ignitable or potentially incompatible,
for example, it may not be necessary to require a contingency
plan, or the same level of detail or content in a plan, for the
storage of such waste.
This strategy will be followed in an attempt to reduce
burdens. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the basic
decision is whether to encumber the regulations with extra require-
ments or continue a performance standard which is relatively
unencumbered with situational specifics.
Timing
Recommendations for specific changes in the contingency
plan requirements are expected by September.
VII-2
-------
APPEND EX 'rIII - DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATING FACILITIES
[vJA is developing an overall strategy for regulating
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
We view this effort as an attempt to provide a target or goal
for the program over the next several years.
The framework we are using to select a strategy examines the
interaction of different technologies (or management approaches),
types of wastes, and environmental settings rather than any of
them in xnolation. In addition to our efforts to understand the
complexities of the risks that managing wastes can pose, we are
considering carefully the costs that our control measures might
impose. We also expect to review systematically, over time, all
the possible options for managing wastes at lower costs and risks.
Finally, we are installing a management system that ensures that
explicit tradeoffs are made between, for example, types of
technologies. We hope to develop a program that is even and
consistent—matching the level of control to the level of potential
harm.
We have a large and complex program already in place, and
we are blending our efforts into our existing regulations by
deleting requirements when we find they are unnecessary, changing
them when appropriate, and adding new controls when they are
warranted. This framework does not, however, replace the
detailed analyses that must be a part of writing specific
regulations, nor does it suffice for the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) that Executive Order 12291 requires. We need
to guide those processes, though, so we can devote our resources
to analyzing practical and consistent alternatives.
The approach is based on two ideas. The first is that
policy decisions require tradeoffs between risks, costs, and the
feasibility of implementing the program.
By risks we mean three types of dangers that result from
managing wastes in different situations—those to human health,
',:o the ecology, and to the economy. A polluted aquifer, for
example, is an ecological risk, people unsuspectingly drinking
polluted water is a risk to human health, and the expense of
purifying water is an economic risk. We must compare these risks
to at least two types of costs--the dollar costs of compliance
and the net effect on employment. Finally, EPA will contrast
risks and costs to the feasibility of using different control
techniques to achieve a specified level of control. We generally
view feasibility ?»~! our admin ist.re.tive capability (for example,
do we have the staif, ;iow long w". LI it taKe, is there enough
scientific: support, do we have the legislative authority'') to
use performance standards, design standards, tax or fee systems,
and other rrpp*~oehes. Control techniques can be regulatory or •
nonr-'-o-jl atory, ^^ needed. The assessments will, for policy
-------
purposes, be qualitative but will he based on quantifiable data
to the extent possible. The decisions ibout how to balance
risks, costs, and the feasibility of different control techniques
are subjective, rather than technical, judgments.
Cataloging what we know (and do not know) about risks,
costs, and feasibility will allow EPA to understand the
increased costs we impose and the increased difficulty in
implementing progressively safer alternatives. Similarly, we
will more clearly see the increased risk society must bear if
we chooose less costly alternatives. The better background we
have, the better reasoned and more defensible our decisions
will be.
The second basic idea, mentioned earlier, is that the most
appropriate unit of analysis for analyzing risks, costs, and
feasibilities is combinations of wastes, technologies, and
environments. The questions we need to ask are: what is being
managed, how is it being managed, and where is it being managed?
Various "degree of hazard" approaches have been suggested before,
but they rely on a single, prespecified categorization of wastes,
and strive to find the management approach appropriate for each
category. These suggestions are insufficient for a regulatory
base.
First, the importance of location (where is it being
managed?) is undervalued by the usual degree of hazard
approaches. Second, a single categorization of waste types
limits the analysis, and will eventually result in a program
that is unncessarily costly and risky. It will be important
to EPA when analyzing different combinations of technology and
environment to categorize wastes differently. The criteria
important in one situation (solubility and toxicity, for
example), may be inappropriate in another (where the physical
state, solid or liquid, may be the main contributor to risk).
Prespecifying one categorization of wastes will result in forcing
many waste handlers to conform to broadly conceived governmental
regulations that do not make sense in many specific situations.
This same waste/technology/environment approach will be
used to analyze costs and administrative feasibility. In this
way, for a given situation, risks and costs are directly com-
pared and EPA can identify the appropriate control technique
to achieve that level of control.
To help make these comparisons, or tradeoffs, we will
develop a series of alternative strategies or options. The
first group of strategies will define the limits within which
decionmaking can take place. These strategics will emphasize
only one of the concerns, for example, least risk to human
health, or lowest compliance cost. After we establish the
boundaries, we will construct strategies that are mixtures of
these to ensure a full range of options. In essence, this
VII1-2
-------
method of identifying unique situations (waste/technology/
environment combinations), cataloging the risks, costs, and
administrative feasibility, and defining alternative strategies
gives EPA the background and leverage to ensure a consistent
and rational set of regulations.
We expect a contractor to begin work during August and
produce initial results by the end of the year. The results
will be rough, but should enable EPA to define more realistic
and consistent alternatives that can be analyzed through the
full RIA process. We expect this first round of results to be
particularly useful in re-examining the treatment and incin-
eration regulations we promulgated in January and the land
disposal regulations we proposed in February.
wo 2092
SW-943
VIII-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
R-. 7'on V, Library
L.,.J South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
------- |