BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
/
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
I"
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PART 264, SUSPART E
AND
40 CFR PART 265, SUBPART E
MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 1980
-------
124401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
1. RCRA Mandate 1
2. Definitions 4
II. Rationale for Need to Regulate 6
1. Damage Incidents 6
2. Other Bases 6
HI. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations 8
IV. Comment Analysis and Rationale for Chosen Actioji 10
* * ' ,
A. General Issues 10
1. Confidentiality 10
a. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations 10
b. Rationale for Proposed Regulations 10
c. Comment Analysis and Response 11
Issue #1: Public Disclosure Statement 11
Issue #2; Public Availability of Specific
Data 12
Issue #3: Use of Generic Terminology 14
2. Burden of Administrative Requirements 16
a. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 16
b. Rationale for Proposed Regulation 16
c. Comment Analysis and Response 17
Issue #1: General Burden 17
Issue #2: Burden on Hospitals 21
Issue #3: Inapplicability to Continuous
Processes 22
Issue #4; Duplication of Reporting and
Recordkeeping under the Clean
Water Act 22
Issue #5: Class of Hazard 23
B. §264.70 - Applicability 24
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
1. Rationale 24
2. Final Rule 25
C. §264.71 - Use of Manifest System 25
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations 25
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulations 25
3. Comment Analysis and Response 27
a. General Issues 27
Issue #1: EPA/State Relationships 27
Issue #2: Universal Manifest 27
Issue #3: Additional Information on Manifest 28
b. Acknowledgement of Shipments 29
Issue #1; Multiple Movements 29
Issue #2: Blending of Wastes 30
Issue #3; Agent vs. Authorized Representative 31
c. Noting Discrepancies 31
d. Transporter Copy 32
e. Generator Copy 32
Issue #1; Time Period 32
Issue #2: Routing of Manifest Copies 35
f. Manifest Retention 36
g. Final Rule 39
D. §264.72 - Manifest Discrepancies 40
Issue #1: Specification of Allowable Deviations 41
Issue #2: Reporting of Significant Discrepancies 45
Issue #3; Time Period 46
Issue #4: Alternate Reporting 47
Issue #5: Refusal of Waste with Manifest Discrepancies 48
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
E. Recordkeeping - General Issues 49
Issue #1: Recordkeeping Based on Degree of Hazard 50
Issue #2: Limit Recordkeeping - 50
Issue #3: Recordkeeping for Nonhazardous Waste , 52
Issue #4: Congressional Intent 53
Issue #5: Exemption from Recordkeeping 54
F. §264.73 - Operating Record 54
1. Name, Format, and Access to Record 54
Issue #1; Operating "Log" vs. "Record" 55
Issue #2; Operating Record Format 55
Issue #3: Public Access to Operating Records 56
Issue #4: Warrantless Inspections 57
2. Content of Operating Record 60
Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 60
Rationale for Proposed Regulation 60
Comment Analysis and Response 61
Issue #1: Use Manifest as the Operating Record 61
Issue #2: Exempt Incinerators from Recordkeeping 62
Issue #3: Exempt Treatment and Storage Facilities 63
Issue #4: Nomenclature for Waste Information 64
Issue #5: Quantity Descriptions 66
Issue #6: Statistics on Quantities of Waste 67
Issue #7: Use of Estimated Quantities 67
Issue #8: Recordkeeping of Waste Location 69
Issue #9: Waste Analysis Recordkeeping 70
Issue #10: Incident Recordkeeping 71
Issue #11: Inspection Recordkeeping 71
3. Final Rule 72
G. §264.74 - Availability, Retention, and Disposition of
Records 74
1. Availability of Records 74
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
2. Retention of Records
Issue #1: Retention of Incineration Records 'Jt
Issue #2: Retention of Training Records
3. Disposition of Records '
H. General Reporting Issues 78
Issue #1: Integration with State Programs 78
Issue #2; Joint Filing of Reports 79
Issue #3; Simplify the Reporting Requirements 80
I. §264.75 - Annual Report 81
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 81
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation 82
3. Comment Analysis and Response 83
Issue #1; Frequency of the Reporting Requirement 83
Issue #2: Applicability of the Standard 83
Issue #3: Submission of Manifest in lieu of the
Annual Report 84
Issue #4: Delivery Document 84
Issue #5: Exemptions to Reporting 84
Issue #6: Submission of the Annual Report 85
Issue #7: Inability of the Owner or Operator to Fill
Out Sections of the Annual Report Form 86
Issue #8: Units of Measurement 88
Issue #9; Additions to the Standards 89
Issue #10: Certification Statement 90
4. Final Rule 93
J. §264.76 - Unmanifested Waste Report 95
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 95
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation 96
3. Comment Analysis and Response 97
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Issue #1: Ban or Restrict the Acceptance of
Unmanifested Waste 97
Issue #2: Delete the Requirement for
Unmanifested Waste Reports 98
Issue #3; Frequency of the Requirement 99
Issue #4: Applicability of the Requirement 100
4. Final Rule • 100
K. §264.77 - Additional Reports 101
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 101
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation 102
3. Comment Analysis and Response 102
Issue #1: Reporting Incidents 102
Issue #2: Reporting Ground-Water Monitoring Data 103
Issue #3: Reporting Close-Out and Closure of the
Facility 104
4. Final Rule 105
L. Appendices to the Regulations 105
References 123
Appendix I - State Regulations 125
Appendix II - Use of Generic Nomenclature 134
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This document provides background information, rationale, and
supporting data for standards for manifest system compliance, re-
cordkeeping, and reporting at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. These regulations (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart E)
partially implement Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). This document also covers
interim status standards on the same subjects (40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart E).
1. RCRA Mandate
In Section 3004 of RCRA, Congress specifically required EPA to
write regulations respecting the maintenance of records of all
hazardous wastes treated, stored, or disposed of and the manner of
such treatment, storage or disposal, as well as satisfactory
reporting, and compliance with the manifest system established under
Section 3002 of RCRA, as follows:
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Section 3004. Not later than eighteen months after the date
of enactment of this section, and after the opportunity for
public hearings and after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies, the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations establishing such performance
standards, applicable to owners and operators of facilities
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
identified or listed under this Subtitle, as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment. Such
standards shall include, but need not be limited to,
requirements respecting—
-------
(1) maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or liste
under this title which are treated, stored, or disposed of, as
the case may be, and the manner in which such wastes were
treated, stored, or disposed of; and,
(2) satisfactory reporting, monitoring, and inspection and compli-
ance with the manifest system referred to in Section 3002 (5J.
In the legislative history of RCRA (Pub. L. 94-580), the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce expressed its clear
awareness that important information about hazardous waste is
unavailable.
One of the major problems to be addressed in the hazardous
waste area is the lack of information concerning the components,
volumes and sources of hazardous waste.1
The Committee also stated:
To date there has been no survey or other wide ranging
investigation of the sources of hazardous or potentially hazard-
ous waste generation or disposal.2
The Committee indicated the significance of this lack of infor-
mation:
As a result, little is known about the actual volume of
hazardous waste being generated, the geographical distribution
of the generators or the extent to which hazardous wastes are
transported. Neither does the Committee or the EPA know where
much of the waste which is clearly hazardous is being disposed
of.
To gain the information needed to adequately plan for the
disposal of hazardous waste and to ensure its proper disposal,
it is imperative to know what is being generated, where and by
whom.3
The Committee then proceeded to identify who should know what is
being generated, where, and, by whom. The Committee explicitly
states that in exchange for the freedom from restrictions on the gen-
eration of waste, and hence interference with production, the waste
-------
generator is expected to provide information as needed for the
planning of hazardous waste disposal, and as needed to ensure its
proper disposal.4
In summary, the generator of hazardous waste is to supply
information to the EPA through periodic reports, and to transporters
and disposers through the manifest and labeling of containerized
hazardous waste.
Through this process [of providing information] the Adminis-
trator will have at hand information on the location and volume
of wastes being generated. Transporters of the wastes will know
what the cargo contains, its general characteristics, and will
have a warning as to its nature. Further, those who receive
such wastes for treatment, storage, or disposal will have accu-
rate knowledge of the characteristics and constituents of such
waste prior to working with such wastes.5
The legislative history also provides an explanation of
Congressional intent as to the meaning of the term "compliance with
the manifest system" in Section 3004(2).
Inherent in the manifest system it is expected that there
will be developed a process whereby those receiving hazardous
wastes will notify the shipper of such wastes that such wastes
have been received so that the system will be self-policing....
The manifest system finds its completion when such wastes
are received by those who treat, store or dispose of such wastes
and notices of receipt of such solid wastes are sent to the
generator.6
Thus, a clear requirement for disposers under the manifest sys-
tem is sending the notice of receipt of hazardous waste to the
generator.
A further requirement of the manifest system to inform the dis-
poser is explained in the legislative history of RCRA.
-------
Further, the disposal facilities will be informed of the
nature of the waste by the manifest document and the waste
labeling.?
A capsule description of the manifest system provides support
for the use of the manifest as a record at disposal facilities.
Originating with the generators, moving through the trans-
portation stage, registered at an approved disposal site for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of such hazardous waste and re-
turned to the generator, the manifest will give to each party in
the chain of handling a record.8
In addition, the use of this manifest and record as an en-
forcement tool is clearly intended by Congress.
It will also provide the Administrator with a clear record
of the movement and final disposition of waste originating at
any specific site. Such records will greatly assist the
Administrator, or state, where appropriate, in its enforcement
of the hazardous waste regulations.9
Within RCRA, much discretion as to reporting has been given to
the Administrator of EPA by the term "satisfactory reporting" in
Section 3004(2). The legislative history supports the contention
that such reporting shall be satisfactory to the Administrator.
The requirements shall include periodic reporting to the
Administrator.10
2. Definitions
The following statutory definition of "manifest" given in
Section 1004 of RCRA is pertinent to establishing standards for
manifests, recordkeeping, and reporting under Section 3004:
"The term 'manifest1 means the form used for identifying the
quantity, composition, and the origin, routing, and destination
of hazardous waste during its transportation from the point of
generation to the point of disposal, treatment, or storage.
-------
In addition, the following terms which are defined in Part 260
are key to this area of regulation:
"EPA identification number" means the number assigned by EPA to
each generator, transporter, and treatment, storage, or disposal
facility.
"Facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may con-
sist of several treatment, storage, and or disposal operational
units (e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or
combinations of them).
"Movement" means that hazardous waste transported to a facility
in an individual vehicle.
"On-site" means the same or geographically contiguous property
which may be divided by public or private right(s)-of-way,
provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a
cross-roads intersection, and access is by crossing, as opposed
to going along, the right(s)-of-way. Non-contiguous properties
owned by the same person but connected by a right-of-way which
he controls and to which the public does not have access, is
also considered on-site property.
The analysis of comments on the proposed versions of the defini-
tions given in Part 260, and the rationale for the modifications made
to these definitions in the final rules, is contained in the back-
ground document entitled "Definitions."
-------
II. RATIONALE FOR NEED TO REGULATE
1. Damage Incidents
Numerous instances of damage to human health and the environment
and the management of wastes have been documented by the EPA.
Selected incidents were described in a U.S. EPA report to Congress in
197412 and in the Legislative History to RCRA.13 Analysis and
further documentation of selected incidents are contained or refer-
enced in background documents supporting other RCRA Subtitle C regula-
tions (e.g., see background document for Subparts C and D,
Preparedness and Prevention, Contingency Plan, and Emergency
Responsel4).
In general, reporting and recordkeeping requirements help to
assure that the hazardous waste regulations are followed by the regu-
lated community by providing the enforcement agency with sufficient
information to monitor and determine compliance.
In certain instances, recordkeeping and reporting can be essen-
*
tial to prompt, proper, and effective response to emergency events
such as spills, fires, and explosions, or releases to air, land,
surface water, and ground water. The existence of records can allow
the accurate assessment of the hazard posed to human health and may
guide proper responses earlier than would be possible otherwise.
2. Other Bases
Increased protection of human health and the environment will
result from periodic review by EPA of waste information provided to
-------
EPA by facilities in reports. Oversight of waste within a State or
region will be enhanced by reporting.
EPA examined precedents established by States that have mani-
fest, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. These were dis-
cussed in the RCRA Section 3002 draft background document of December
15, 1978.15 Existing and proposed State regulations have been
reviewed and abstracted in Appendix I to this document. Many of the
concepts and methods used by States are incorporated in EPA's final
regulations.
-------
III. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
Proposed RCRA Section 250.43-5, published on December 18, 1978,
specified the manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
owners and operators of off-site hazardous waste facilities. These
requirements prescribed the final steps in the manifest system,
established in the Section 3002 rules, which tracks hazardous waste
from its origin with the generator through its trip with the trans-
porter to disposition at a treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
This system is central to the cradle-to-grave management system for
hazardous waste.
Under the proposed rules, owners or operators of facilities that
accepted waste accompanied by a manifest for treatment, storage, or
disposal were required to sign and return the manifest to the genera-
tor within 30 days, and make annual reports to the Regional Adminis-
trator summarizing information on the manifest, and from other
sources, including the types and amounts of waste received, their
source, and other information.
Under the proposed rules, all facility owners or operators were
required to keep records of how waste was treated, stored, or dis-
posed. Also, records were to be kept on the location of waste, waste
analyses, inspections, operating conditions, personnel training, mon-
itoring results, and incidents of damage to human health or the
environment.
-------
In addition to the annual report mentioned above, owners or
operators were required to make quarterly reports to the EPA Regional
Administrator of ground-water monitoring data and wastes received
without a manifest. Further, all facility owners or operators were
required to immediately report incidents, such as fires, explosions,
discharges, and problems detected via monitoring, to the Regional
Administrator.
[Comment: Reporting requirements for facility owners or opera-
tors that generate and treat, store, or dispose of their waste
at the same location (i.e., on-site) were specified in the pro-
posed Section 3002 rules. This caused some confusion. Conse-
quently, reporting requirements applicable to the owners or
operators of both on-site and off-site facilities are consolida-
ted in the final Section 3004 rules.]
-------
IV. COMMENT ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE FOR CHOSEN ACTION
The Agency received numerous comments from many sources on the
proposed rules for manifests, recordkeeping, and reporting; Some
comments raised general issues applicable to the entire Subpart.
These general issues are discussed first, followed by analysis of
comments on each specific section of the proposed rule in turn.
A« General Issues
1. Confidentiality
a. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations
In the proposed hazardous waste regulations, the Agency ex-
pressed its basic stance towards confidentiality in §250.27, which
stated that all information provided in connection with the manifest
and reporting sections must be made available to any person to the
extent and in the manner authorized by Section 3007(b) of the Act,
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Section 552), and the
EPA regulations adopted to implement FOIA (40 CFR Part 2). This
general provision applied also to the recordkeeping and reporting
*
systems under Section 3004 of the proposed regulations because they,
were designed to use information supplied on the manifest as the data
base to be compiled. However, this was not stated explicitly in the
Section 3004 regulations.
b. Rationale for Proposed Regulations
The Agency included §250.27 in the proposed rules in response to
suggestions (made during public review of earlier drafts of the
10
-------
regulations) that the confidentiality issue should be addressed in
the regulations. Proposed §250.27 was essentially a restatement of
Congressional intent, as expressed in RCRA Section 3007(b) and the
Freedom of Information Act, and established EPA policy, as expressed
in 40 CFR Part 2, regarding public disclosure of information. A
similar provision was not included in the Section 3004 regulations
because the Agency believed it would be redundant, since the same
*
data base was involved in both cases.
c. Comment Analysis and Response
Issue #1: Public Disclosure Statement
Commenters argued that EPA should clearly express its intent to
maximize public disclosure of information in the Section 3004 regula-
tions.
Response;
The Agency agrees in principle that the public should have
access to information regarding the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory
program, subject to Congressional guidance in RCRA Section 3007(b)
and the limitations of other applicable statutes. Further, the
Agency agrees that it was not clear that proposed §250.27 also ap-
plied to the Section 3004 rules. However, it is duplicative to state
EPA's policy in every regulation promulgated under RCRA. Consequent-
ly, the Agency has decided to include a regulation concerning confi-
dentiality of information in Part 260 of the final rules, which
covers general matters applicable to all aspects of the hazardous
11
-------
waste management system. Thus, the Agency's policy is clearly stated
in the general section of the final rules but not in the Section 3004
regulations.
Issue #2; Public Availability of Specific Data
Several commenters argued that certain types of information
should be made known to the public because public knowledge is essen-
tial to the effective enforcement of RCRA. In particular, it was
argued that the public oversight and citizen suit provisions of the
Act, to be effective, require public knowledge of:
1) information on the types of waste being handled by facili-
ties, especially by landfills;
2) information on the quantities of each type of waste handled
by facilities;
3) data from the monitoring of ground water;
4) data from the monitoring of surface water;
5) the type of process generating the waste; and,
6) the hazardous properties of the waste such as specific
toxicity information, flammability, and other properites.
Other commenters stated that the Agency should routinely dis-
close any information reported to the Agency for fires, explosions
and releases of hazardous waste, including deterioration of ground
water.
Supporting arguments provided by commenters stated that, in the
past, facility owners and operators have cited confidentiality as an
12
-------
excuse to prevent public disclosure of such information in instances
where contamination of ground water and surface water have occurred.
Response;
The Agency has sought to balance the public need for information
against legitimate claims of confidentiality. With respect to infor-
mation collected pursuant to Section 3007(a), Congressional guid-
ance, under Section 3007(b) of RCRA, does not authorize full public
disclosure of that information, but rather directs the Administrator
to consider as confidential that information which would be entitled
to protection under Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, upon a satisfactory showing by the claimant that his informa-
tion does indeed warrant confidential treatment.
However, with respect to RCRA regulation development and
enforcement, Section 3007(b) provides that records, reports, docu-
ments, or information claimed to be confidential may be disclosed to
other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of the
United States concerned with carrying out RCRA, or in relevant
proceedings.
The Agenc, generally favors broad public disclosure of RCRA
information. However, release of particular information will be
decided on a case-by-case basis if claims of confidentiality are made
by the waste generator or facility owner or operator. Thus, the
Agency believes it is inappropriate to impose in the regulations a
13
-------
blanket requirement that specific information must be released to the
public in all cases.
At the Administrator's discretion, in accordance with the man-
date of Section 1006(a) of the Act, the Agency has decided not to
collect surface water monitoring data under RCRA regulations. In-
stead, surface water monitoring will be the responsibility of
facilities according to existing authorities governing discharges to
surface water under the Clean Water Act.
Information on the type of process producing a waste stream is
an element of the system chosen by EPA to list hazardous wastes under
Section 3001 regulations. The background documents supporting these
regulations in most cases identify specific industrial categories and
processes which produce the hazardous wastes listed. These documents
are available to the public.
The Agency supports the release of confirmed data on episodes of
fires, explosions, and releases of hazardous waste which have the
potential for adverse human health and environmental impact as neces-
sary to alert those potentially affected. Special considerations
would apply for instances where enforcement proceedings are possible.
The notification of local authorities of serious incidents is re-
quired under the contingency plan regulations in Part 264, Subpart D.
Issue #3; Use of Generic Terminology
Commenters argued that on-site and off-site disposal facilities
handling only one type of waste could have any trade secret
14
-------
information protected as necessary by the use of generic chemical
names, such as generic terminology consistent with regulations imple-
menting Section 5 or Section 8b (Inventory) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (40 CFR 710.7).16 Other commenters felt that, in
appropriate circumstances, the identity of the generator should also
be protected as confidential by the Agency.
Response:
The Agency agrees that trade secret information may be protected
in some cases by the use of generic terminology. For RCRA purposes,
the EPA, in concert with the Department of Transportation, requires
the use of DOT's general descriptions pursuant to regulations under
49 CFR 172 for the shipping description required on the manifest.
For other records and reports under RCRA Sections 3002 and 3004, as
described later, the Agency requires a hazardous waste to be
described by its common name and the EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
specified in Part 261. These numbers also relate to general descrip-
tions of the waste. Thus, the generator, either as shipper of wastes
or as disposer at the site of generation, can control release of"
information, which the generator believes to be proprietary, by the
use of generic terminology. However, for non-listed hazardous waste,
the Agency requires the process which produced the waste to be iden-
tified, as well as its name and the EPA Hazardous Waste Number.
The Agency does not agree that waste descriptions must necessar-
ily entail the same standards for confidentiality as used by the
15
-------
Agency in collecting information on pure chemical substances under
TSCA. Most wastes are mixtures of variable composition, often
including unknown constituents. Indeed, some commenters argued that
off-site commercial facilities handling such waste should have no
proprietary stake regarding specific hazardous wastes they handle.
2. Burden of Administrative Requirements
a. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations
The Agency believed that the reporting and recordkeeping re-
quired by the proposed Section 3004 regulations, including compliance
with the manifest system, were the minimum necessary to effectively
regulate owners or operators of hazardous waste facilities. In
general, the Agency attempted to eliminate duplicative and unneces-
sary reporting, and to reduce administrative burdens consistent with
obeying the mandate of RCRA Sections 1006 and 3004. Comments were
requested on the utility, burden, and practicality of the recordkeep-
ing and reporting requirements.
b. Rationale for Proposed Regulations
Administrative standards under the proposed regulations carried
out the Congressional mandate in Section 3004
(1) to maintain records of all hazardous waste which is
treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which
such wastes were managed; and
(2) to ensure satisfactory reporting, and compliance with the
manifest system established under Section 3002 regula-
tions.
16
-------
c. Comment Analysis and Response
Issue #1; General Burden
A number of commenters expressed general concern that the admin-
istrative requirements were excessive, particularly for small firms.
The proposed manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were
described as not cost effective and not substantially contributing to
human health and environmental protection. One commenter described
the manifest and general recordkeeping requirements as releasing a
flood of paperwork which would largely go unread and unappreciated.
Commenters described the administrative burden as costly.
Others called it unnecessary and impractical, particularly in requir-
ing the various reports and signatures of generators, transporters,
and disposal operators. [EPA points out, however, that neither the
proposed nor final rules require transporter reports.]
Commenters stated that the paperwork associated with the pro-
posed manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting system would be substan-
tial and duplicative, and would require additional personnel in
government and industry to process the necessary paperwork.
Response:
The Agency agrees that the paperwork associated with control of
hazardous waste will be substantial. The Agency does not agree,
however, with the commenters who suggested that the manifest system,
recordkeeping, and reporting proposed under §250.43-5 imposed an
unnecessary burden on the regulated community. Numerous past
17
-------
documented damage cases have resulted from improper waste disposal jn
part because wastes were not tracked and little liability or respon-
sibility was assigned or accepted by the waste generators, transport-
ers, or disposers. A recent EPA study estimated that just the
cleanup costs of past improper disposal practices, which these regu-
lations seek to end, amount to as much as $50 billion.*' This
figure does not include human nor environmental costs. Just one
incident, at the Love Canal in New York, resulted in lawsuits claim-
ing more than $2.65 billion in damages.*° These incidents have
been exacerbated by the lack of definitive information concerning the
composition and disposition of the wastes. These RCRA manifest,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are designed to minimize
the likelihood of incidents like these occurring again. To the end,
the Agency believes that the various records, reports, and signatures
of treaters, storers, and disposers are necessary to allow EPA en-
forcement officials to assign responsibility, and ultimately liabil-
ity, in cases where problems arise.
To institute needed reforms in hazardous waste disposal prac-
tices, among other goals, Congress passed and the President approved
the new hazardous waste control program in RCRA. The Act mandates a
waste control system expressly including a waste manifest tracking
system with associated reporting and recordkeeping.
The Agency does not agree that the resulting paperwork will be
duplicative. The Agency has made every effort to eliminate any
18
-------
duplication and has documented these attempts in the Reports Impact
Analysis which was developed internally in response to the Presi-
dent's paperwork reduction campaign.19 For example, EPA and DOT
developed joint regulations and manifest formats for the transporta-
tion of hazardous waste to avoid duplicative EPA regulations and
paperwork, since much of the information required by EPA on the mani-
fest is also required by DOT. [See Issue #4 below for more discus-
sion on this point.]
EPA points to the use of manifest systems in the States of
California, Texas, and Illinois, among others, to show that hazardous
waste manifest systems are practical and workable. EPA review of
these and other systems is partially described in Appendix I of this
document and in the background document for Section 3002.20
Detailed study of the costs of the total RCRA interim status
administrative cost indicates a cost of about $36 million initially
and $40 million annually thereafter.21 This figure includes all
costs of complying with notification, manifest system, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements, as well as other requirements such as
inspections and preparing closure and post-closure plans. Consider-
ing that an estimated 72,000 installations will be regulated under
the program, the Agency does not believe that, for the regulated
community in general, the cost of this aspect of the program will be
excessive.
19
-------
The EPA recognizes the potential paperwork burden on small
firms. In the final Part 261 regulations, the Agency has defined
special requirements for small firms, based upon the amount of waste
generated. The exclusion limits are described in the final Part 261
regulations. These exclusions will reduce the paperwork burden on
off-site hazardous waste facilities as well, because otherwise they
would have had to handle numerous small waste shipments.
EPA believes the final regulations maximize cost-effectiveness
by maximizing the self-policing aspects of the system, which is based
on return of the manifest to the generator by the facility owner or
operator. (See discussion below under §264.71 - Use of Manifest
System.) Annual reporting requirements are the minimum necessary for
EPA oversight of the program. In addition, this information will be
used for trend analysis, analyses of regulation effectiveness, revi-
sion of the regulations where required, and to assist development of
supplementary guidance documents, among other purposes.
The Agency agrees that additional personnel will be required,
both in government and industry, to maintain records and prepare and
evaluate reports. As to private industry personnel requirements, EPA
feels strongly, in view of documented damage incidents and industry
waste management assessment studies, that the added personnel costs
are justifiable and indeed legislatively mandated. Nonetheless, EPA
has attempted to minimize the need for additional government and
industry personnel wherever possible in these rules.
20
-------
EPA has conducted an overall review of the burden imposed by the
hazardous waste rules. Through a process of refinement, this review
resulted in reduced reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Full
documentation and discussion of the results of this process are in-
cluded in the final Reports Impact Analysis which the Agency is pub-
lishing as a separate background document in support of the final
rules.22
Issue #2: Burden on Hospitals
A commenter stated that requirements for a manifest procedure
will significantly increase hospital recordkeeping requirements and
therefore increase the total number of personnel employed.
Response:
Based upon comments received on the proposed Section 3001 reg-
ulations, the number of infectious wastes from hospitals considered
to be hazardous wastes has been reduced substantially from that pro-
posed. Further, the Agency has deferred listing infectious wastes as
hazardous wastes. Thus, hospitals will have no manifest and record-
keeping burden at the outset of the RCRA hazardous waste program and,
ultimately, will have a smaller burden than the commenter contempla-
ted. EPA agrees that additional cost and personnel may be required
of hospitals, as well as of other segments of society. However,
these requirements are imposed only to the extent needed to comply
with the Congressional mandate to protect human health and the envi-
ronment from improper hazardous waste management practices.
21
-------
Issue #3: Inapplicability to Continuous Processes'
A commenter stated that the manifest and reporting system was
generally inappropriate for application to continuous processes in an
industrial wastewater treatment plant. The commenter felt the mani-
fest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were intended for in-
termittent and batch treatment and disposal of solid wastes and
sludges.
Response:
The Agency agrees that continuous production of sludges and
solid wastes at industrial wastewater treatment plants and elsewhere
creates the need for a different recordkeeping system than was de-
scribed under proposed §250.43-5, which envisioned recordkeeping
based upon routine use of the manifest. In the final regulations,
facilities have the option to use different recordkeeping systems
appropriate to operations at their facilities. The concept of the
operating log in the proposed regulations has been broadened in the
final regulations to be consistent with both an automatic data pro-
cessing system and continuous recording of unit process operations.
Issue #4: Duplication of Reporting and Recordkeeping Under the
Clean Water Act
A commenter stated that RCRA Section 3004 would duplicate re-
ports required now by regulations promulgated under the Clean Water
Act, and to be required in the future under regulations currently
being developed by EPA to specify Best Available Treatment (BAT)
technologies for toxic materials in industrial wastes. In addition
22
-------
the commenter stated that such duplication was inconsistent with the
Federal government's highly publicized program to reduce redundant
paperwork and reporting requirements.
Response;
The EPA disagrees with this comment. First, Congress specific-
ally exempted from RCRA industrial wastewater discharges which are
point sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended.- This exemption is found in RCRA under the defini-
tion of "Solid Waste" at Section 1004(27). Second, these final RCRA
regulations do not regulate discharges to sewers; these aspects are
covered in the pretreatment program under Section 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act, as amended.23 Third, the Agency has not yet issued
final BAT guidelines. The Agency will minimize duplication of
reporting in the two programs to the extent possible while still
satisfactorily complying with the two statutes involved.
Issue #5: Class of Hazard
A few commenters supported the reporting of detailed information
on "truly" hazardous wastes as being of value, but added that
information is not needed nor would be of value on other wastes.
Response:
The Agency agrees with the concept that information needs could
vary with class or degree of hazard of a waste. As noted in the
preamble to the final rules, EPA is developing a class of hazard
system for technical waste management requirements under Section 3004
23
-------
regulations. However, the Agency believes the final manifest,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are the minimum necessary
for any hazardous waste, regardless of class of hazard. The Agency
anticipates the possibility of adding different recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the future for the classes of highest
hazard identified in the new system.
B. §264.70 - Applicability
1. Rationale
This is a new section added to the final rules to explicitly
state who is subject to the Section 3004 facility manifest, record-
keeping, and reporting requirements. In the proposed rules, the
Agency attempted to group together all generator requirements in the
Section 3002 rules. Thus, these proposed rules contained some re-
porting requirements which applied to on-site treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities operated by the generator. Similar rules for
off-site facilities were specified in the proposed Section 3004 re-
gulations.
Many commenters were confused as to which set Lf rules applied
to them. To clarify the situation, the Agency in the final rules has
consolidated all facility manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting re-
quirements in the Section 3004 regulations. These rules apply to
owners and operators of both o site and off-site facilities, except
that manifest-related sections do not apply to owners and operators
of on-site facilities that do not accept any waste from off-site
sources.
24
-------
2. Final Rule
§264.70 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators of
both on-site and off-site facilities, except as §264.1 provides
otherwise. Sections 264.71, 264.72, and 264.76 do not apply to
owners and operators of on-site facilities that do not receive
any hazardous waste from off-site sources.
The final interim status standard at §265.70 is essentially
identical to the above rule.
C. §264.71 - Use of Manifest System [Proposed as §250.43-5(a)]
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations prescribed the final steps in the mani-
fest system established in Section 3002 regulations to track
hazardous waste from its origin with the generator through its trip
with the transporter to its disposition at a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility. Owners or operators of facilities which receive
waste from off-site were to sign and date the manifest, return a copy
of the manifest to the transporter immediately, and return the mani-
fest to the generator within 30 days of receipt of the waste. Owners
or operators were also to note discrepancies in type or quantity of
waste actually received from that described on the manifest. They
were required to notify EPA immediately if discrepancies were dis-
covered.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulations
The proposed Section 3004 manifest rules applied only to owners
or operators of facilities which receive hazardous waste accompanied
by a manifest from off-site sources. The facility owner or operator
25
-------
was required to sign and date the manifest upon arrival of the waste
at the facility in order to verify that the waste had arrived safety
at its intended destination. He was required to provide a copy of
the signed and dated manifest to the transporter so that the trans-
porter would have a record of delivery.
The Agency believes that the waste generator has primary
responsibility to assure safe delivery of his waste to an off-site
waste management facility. Consequently, the manifest was required
to be returned to the generator because this action completed the
information feedback loop, thus assuring the generator that his waste
had arrived at the facility to which it was sent. The proposed rules
allowed up to 30-days for the facility owner or operator to return
the manifest to the generator in order to allow the facility owner or
operator to combine return of manifests with monthly billings to
generators, thus reducing paperwork and labor and postage costs. If
the generator did not receive a properly signed manifest for each
waste shipment within 30 days, he was required (in the proposed
Section 3002 rules) to make a quarterly exception report to EPA.
The facility owner or operator was required to note discrepan-
cies in type or quantity of waste received, compared to the data on
the manifest, to provide a check against bonafide errors and unscrup-
ulous generators or transporters. This is part of the self-policing
system mentioned earlier. Discrepancies were to be reported immedi-
ately to EPA so that enforcement officials could follow up and rec-
tify any illegal practices found.
26
-------
3. Comment Analysis and Response
a. General Issues
Issue #1: EPA/State Relationships
Commenters stated that regulations should specify how an ac-
cepted State manifest would be integrated with the EPA national mani-
fest system. Another commenter specifically asked if reports were to
be sent to both the State and EPA.
Response:
These commenters seem to misunderstand the basic point that the
EPA regulations apply only in States that are not authorized by EPA
to conduct a RCRA hazardous waste program. Where a State has an
on-going program with a manifest system different from the Federal
manifest, the State manifest may be used if the State program is
authorized under the regulations implementing Section 3006 and the
State manifest meets the Federal manifest format requirements. Where
the State program is not authorized by EPA, facility owners or opera-
tors must use the Federal manifest and send reports to EPA.
The reader is directed to the Section 3002 background document
for further discussion.
Issue #2: Universal Manifest
A commenter recommended that a universal manifest accompany each
shipment and that the term "delivery document" be deleted from the
rules.
27
-------
Response:
The Agency's detailed response to the question of the use of a
universal manifest is contained in the Section 3002 background docu-
ment. The intent is to specify a "format" rather than a single
"form," thus providing flexibility to waste generators to tailor the
requirements of the manifest to their own business practices.
In the final Section 3004 regulations, the term "delivery docu-
ment" has been deleted for purposes of clarity. (See Section 3003
background document.) However, the term "shipping paper" is used for
rail or water (bulk shipment) transport to be consistent with Depart-
ment of Transportation usage. The shipping paper must contain all
the information required on the manifest, except the EPA identifica-
tion numbers, generator's certification, and signatures. 40 CFR
262.23(c) requires the generator to send three copies of the manifest
to the facility when hazardous waste is sent by rail or water (bulk
shipment).
Issue #3: Additional Information on Manifest
Commenters suggested that additional information should be con-
veyed from the facility owner or operator to the generator using the
manifest. One commenter stated that the facility should indicate on
the manifest, within 30 days, the fact, method, and date of waste
disposal or recovery. Another commenter was more specific and asked
that information as to sale of the waste for recovery should be pro-
vided to the generator to help limit the generator's future liability
in the event of improper disposal.
28
-------
Response:
The Agency disagrees with these suggestions. The principal
purpose of the manifest is to track wastes from the generator to the
disposer. The Agency does not believe it should regulate the addi-
tional information a generator is to receive from the disposer on the
manifest, other than confirmation of delivery. The facility owner or
operator is required to record and report to EPA the method(s) of
treatment, storage, or disposal of each waste received at the facil-
ity. If the generator wishes to receive that information from the
facility owner or operator, he can obtain it through channels other
than the manifest.
b. §264.71(a)(l) and (b)(l) - Acknowledgement of Shipments
[Proposed as §250.43(a)(3)]
Proposed §250.43-5(a)(3) required that the facility owner or
operator acknowledge each individual shipment received, and use a
special procedure for the acknowledgement of multiple shipments in
conformance with §250.22(f) of the proposed Section 3002 regulations.
Issue #1: Multiple Movements
Several commenters requested the deletion of proposed §250.43-
5(a)(3) because their comments on proposed §250.22(f) suggested that
single manifests for multiple movements should not be allowed. No
comments were received on the requirement to acknowledge each indi-
vidual movement.
29
-------
Response:
The resolution of this issue is discussed in the background
document for Section 3002 under the heading "Multiple Movements -
Single Manifest." Multiple waste movements by a single generator
during any one day using a single manifest are not allowed in the
final Section 3002 regulations. The final Section 3004 rules have
been modified to reflect that decision.
Issue #2: Blending of Wastes
A cotnmenter recommended that the Section 3004 manifest procedure
specifically address situations where blending of multiple wastes oc-
curs.
Response:
If a generator blends wastes before shipment, only one waste
blend would be listed on a given manifest. The facility owner or
operator would sign and date the manifest upon receipt of the blended
waste. If a transporter were to pick up the same waste from several
different generators and blend them together in his truck for ease of
transport (as opposed to blending for treatment), a separate manifest
would be required from each generator involved. The facility owner
or operator would acknowledge receipt of the blended waste by signing
and dating each manifest.
If a transporter were to pick up different wastes from different
generators and blend them together at the transporter's facility
(e.g., a transfer station), that facility would require a permit and
30
-------
the transporter would also be the facility owner or operator. If the
transporter then ships the blended waste onward to another facility,
the transporter is also the waste generator, and would have to
originate a new manifest.
Issue #3; "Agent" vs. "Authorized Representative"
In the final rules, to be consistent with EPA's NPDES regula-
tions, the term "authorized representative" is defined as the person
responsible for the overall operation of the facility, such as a
plant manager or superintendent. For the proper use of the manifest
system, in EPA's opinion, it is not necessary to require manifests or
shipping papers to be signed by a person of such high rank within an
organization. Other facility personnel designated by the owner or
operator could be authorized to sign manifests or shipping papers
without jeopordizing the integrity of the manifest system. Conse-
quently, the proposed term "authorized representative" is replaced in
this final rule by the term "the owner or operator, or his agent,"
with respect to use of the manifest system. However, reports submit-
ted to EPA must be signed by the owner or operator or his "authorized
representative," rather than his "agent."
c. §264.71(a)(2) and (b)(2) - Noting Discrepancies
The final rule requires the facility owner or operator or his
agent to note significant discrepancies in a movement received in the
comment section of each copy of the manifest or shipping paper. A
discussion of comments received concerning manifest discrepancies,
31
-------
and of the meaning of a significant discrepancy, is given below under
Section IV.D. (§264.72 - Manifest Discrepancies.)
d. §264.71(a)(3) and (b)(3) - Transporter Copy [Proposed as
§250.43-5(a)(D]
Rationale for Final Rule
Proposed §250.43-5(a)(l) provided that an authorized representa-
tive of the facility certify receipt of each waste shipment by sign-
ing and dating the manifest, and giving a copy of the manifest to the
transporter.
No comments were received on this section of the regulations.
However, in response to comments received on proposed Section 3003
regulations, §264.71(b)(3) provides that, for rail or water (bulk
shipment) transport, a copy of the signed shipping paper is to be
provided to the final rail or water (bulk shipment) carrier. (See
Section 3002 background document.)
e. §264.71(a)(4) and (b)(4) - Generator Copy [Proposed as
§250.43-5(a)(2)]
Proposed §250.43-5(a)(2) provided that the manifest or delivery
document, after it had been signed and dated by an authorized repre-
sentative of the facility, must be forwarded within 30 days to the
generator as certification of receipt of the shipment covered by the
manifest or delivery document.
Issue #1; Time Period
Many commenters expressed opinions and desires to either modify
or retain the time period for the return of the manifest to the waste
generator.
32
-------
Option 1; Retain 30 Days
A number of cotnmenters supported the proposed 30-day time period
allowed for transmitting the manifest as reasonable, and argued its
retention to (1) allow an orderly return of manifests, (2) greatly
reduce paperwork and the chances of losing one of the manifests, and
(3) allow the generator to prepare his reports based on receipt of
t
submittals at expected times rather than a continuous stream of mani-
fests received at varying intervals.
Option 2; Shorten Time Period
A number of commenters requested that the time period be short-
ened to one or two weeks to (1) allow more effective and timely
follow-up on waste shipments, (2) give generators more time to com-
plete exception reports, and (3) avoid loss of documents.
Other commenters suggested that, coupled with a return period of
15 days, the regulations should require the generator to follow up
any manifest not returned by the disposer, and notify the Regional
Administrator when a shipment cannot be located to provide for earl-
ier detection should something go wrong during shipment.
Option 3: Immediate Return of Manifests
A number of commenters suggested that the time period be made
one day because (1) the manifest requires only a signature and date,
and immediate mailing would be simple for the disposal facility
operator; (2) even with this one-day requirement, manifest turnaround
time would be about 10 days; and (3) one-day turnaround was necessary
33
-------
for effective follow-up by the generator and the EPA on wastes for
which manifests are not returned to the generator.
However, some commenters argued against immediate return of
manifests by disposers as being unreasonable since time would be
needed to check out any discrepancies and record data from the mani-
fest. These commenters felt a shorter return period would not pro-
vide any enforcement benefit nor prevent illegal dumping*
Option 4: Extend Period
A commenter recommended that a return time period of 90 days
would be more reasonable and workable based upon experience with the
California manifest system. Another commenter suggested that the
period be extended to allow more time for recording data from each
manifest for reporting, but_did not suggest a specific time exten-
sion.
Response:
After careful review of comments on this issue, the Agency has
decided to retain the 30-day time period allowed for return of mani-
fests to the generator, as proposed. The Agency believes a 30-day
time period is reasonable and does not preclude returning of mani-
fests within a shorter time period should a generator insist that the
facility owner or operator do so.
The final Section 3002 rules provide that the generator must
send to the Regional Administrator a letter report (an Exception
Report) describing efforts to find each lost manifest, together with
34
-------
a copy of the manifest for the lost movement, no later than 45 days
after the waste is accepted by the initial transporter. While a
shorter time period for manifest return might result in better detec-
tion should something go wrong during transportation, the Agency
believes these incidents will be infrequent. For the great majority
of movements, a shorter manifest return time period is not needed
and, if imposed, would increase paperwork and labor and postage costs
without additional benefit. In the Agency's opinion, the exception
reporting requirements established under Section 3002 regulations
should adequately address human health and environmental considera-
tions. (See Section 3002 background document for more details.)
The Agency believes that quarterly return of manifests would not
provide acceptable protection of human health and the environment for
the reasons explained in the Section 3002 background document. Fur-
ther, return of the manifest to the generator does not preclude
preparing facility reports from the facility owner's or operator's
copy.
Issue #2: Routing of Manifest Copies
A commenter suggested that facility owners or operators should
return manifests to the permitting agency, rather than to the genera-
tor, to eliminate the need for exception reports by the generator.
Another commenter argued that the regulation should provide flexibil-
ity to allow manifests to be returned to either an authorized State
agency or the generator. This would allow States to become aware of
35
-------
exceptions earlier. A related comment argued that States with
programs adequate to identify missing movements should have the
authority not to require the manifest to be returned to the
generator. Another commenter recommended that efforts be made to
reduce the number .of copies of manifests required to be distributed
and retained in order to minimize costs and space requirements.
Response;
The Agency strongly believes that the waste generator, rather
than EPA, should be responsible for ensuring that his hazardous waste
actually arrives at the intended facility. The manifest routing
system is designed to provide the generator with the feedback infor-
mation necessary to make that determination. While this system may
require more copies of manifests to be distributed and maintained
than would be the case in other systems, it will result in more time-
ly and effective discovery of errant movements and allow prompt
enforcement actions. The rationale for the EPA manifest system is
discussed in more detail in the Section 3002 background document.
As noted earlier, the Agency's regulations apply in States that
are not authorized to carry out the RCRA hazardous waste program.
States with an authorized program will control the manifest system in
accordance with their RCRA authorization agreement.
f. §264.71 (a)(5) and (b)(5) - Manifest Retention [Proposed as
S250.43-5(b)(6)]~~
Proposed §250.43-5(b)(6) required the owner or operator of a
facility accepting deliveries of hazardous waste from off-site
36
-------
sources for treatment, storage, or disposal to retain for a period of
three years a copy of each manifest or delivery document as certified
by the generator, transporter, and owner or operator of the facility.
This rule has been moved from the recordkeeping section to the mani-
fest section of the final rule in order to consolidate all manifest-
related requirements in one location within the rules.
One commenter stated that all facilities accepting waste should
retain all manifests for the duration of the facility's operation
rather than for only three years as proposed. In support, the com-
menter argued that problems at Love Canal surfaced 25 years after the
last recorded use of the dump and, therefore, three years is too
short a period for recordkeeping, considering the longevity of many
hazardous materials and their potential threat to human health and
the environment.
Response;
The Agency agrees that records of all hazardous wastes handled
should be kept until facility closure. However, the Agency does not
agree that all hazardous waste manifests need to be kept on file for
that long a period.
The Agency anticipates both short-range and long-range uses for
hazardous waste records. Retention of manifests or shipping papers
for a three-year period is sufficient for the majority of enforcement
cases involving the generation and transportation of hazardous waste,
37
-------
which are likely to be discovered and acted upon within that period.
Thus, the Agency has specified a three-year retention period for man-
ifests or shipping papers in the generator (Section 3002) and trans-
porter (Section 3003) rules, as well as in these rules for facility
owners or operators. However, if the owner or operator is the sub-
ject of an enforcement action which is unresolved at the time the
three year retention period expires, the final rule at §264.74(a)
specifies that the owner or operator must retain a copy of each mani-
fest or shipping paper at issue during the course of the enforcement
action.
For longer-range uses, such as responding to Love Canal-type
situations, the facility recordkeeping rules require owners or opera-
tors to retain records (but not necessarily manifests) of all hazard-
ous waste handled until facility closure. The requirement allows the
owner or operator the flexibility to design a recordkeeping system
suitable to the specific needs of his operation. Larger facilities
may use automatic data processing systems. Smaller facilities may
choose to retain manifests as the basis for recordkeeping.
In addition, the Agency will receive and retain reports which
summarize the waste transported to each facility. These reports will
contain a description of the waste, the quantity of the waste, and
the EPA identification number of the generator or transporter.
Therefore, the Agency will be able to review and summarize the data
on the annual reports for a particular facility, should any emergency
38
-------
or slow release problem arise at a facility after the manifests or
shipping papers have been destroyed.
For the reasons given above, the Agency has retained the re-
quirement for facility owners or operators to keep copies of all
manifests or shipping papers for at least three years, or until any
enforcement action regarding the facility is resolved, whichever is
later.
g. Final Rule
The final rule for §264.71 reflects all of the points discussed
above, and reads as follows:
§264.71 Use of Manifest System
«
(a) If a facility receives hazardous waste accompanied by a
manifest, the owner or operator, or his agent, must:
(1) Sign and date each copy of the manifest to certify
that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was
received;
(2) Note any significant discrepancies in the manifest (as
defined in §264.72(a)) on each copy of the manifest;
(3) Immediately give the transporter at least one copy of
the signed manifest;
(4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the
manifest to the generator; and
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of each manifest for at
least three years from the date of delivery.
(b) If a facility receives, from a rail or water (bulk ship-
ment) transporter, hazardous waste which is accompanied
by a shipping paper containing all the information required
on the manifest (excluding the EPA identification numbers,
generator's certification, and signatures), the owner or
operator, or his agent, must:
39
-------
(1) Sign and date each copy of the shipping paper to
certify that the hazardous waste covered by the
shipping paper was received;
(2) Note any significant discrepancies in the shipping
paper (as defined in §264.72(a)) on each copy of the
shipping paper;
(3) Immediately give the rail or water (bulk shipment)
transporter at least one copy of the shipping paper;
i
(4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the
shipping paper to the generator; however, if the mani-
fest is received within 30 days after the date of
waste delivery, the owner or operator, or his agent,
must sign and date the manifest and return it to the
generator in lieu of the shipping paper; and
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of each shipping paper
and manifest for at least three years from the date of
delivery.
The final interim status standard at §265.71 is essentially
identical to the above.
D. §264.72 - Manifest Discrepancies [Proposed as §250.43-5(a)(4)]
Proposed §250.43-5(a)(4) required the facility owner or operator
to notify the generator of any discrepancies, such as differences in
the type and quantity of hazardous waste actually received from that
described on the manifest or delivery document, by indicating these
discrepancies in the comment section of the manifest. In addition,
the owner or operator was required to notify the Regional Administra-
tor immediately when such discrepancies were discovered, by forward-
ing a copy of the manifest or delivery document to the Regional
Administrator.
No comments were received opposing the concept of the proposed
standard. However, commenters suggested that:
40
-------
- allowable deviations should be specified
- only "significant" discrepancies should be reported
- a time limit for the discrepancy report should be specified
- discrepancies should be reported to States
- facilities should not accept shipments with discrepancies.
These issues are discussed below in turn.
Issue #1: Specification of Allowable Deviations
Several commenters suggested that an allowable deviation be spe-
cified in the regulations. A commenter gave the example that a
facility owner should not be required to report the receipt of 4,900
gallons of waste when the manifest shows 5,000 gallons; or a waste
received with a pH of 9.1 when the manifest shows a pH of 8.8. An-
other commenter suggested that an allowable range for deviations
might be 1 percent, 2.5 percent, or 5 percent before notification is
required. In support, this commenter noted that normal errors by
measuring devices or personnel would require notification.
Response;
In response to commenter's requests to define an allowable de-
viation, the Agency determined that separate provisions should be
developed for determing what is a significant difference in terms of
waste quantity and type.
Difference in Quantity
One kind of discrepancy is a difference in the waste quantity
reported on the manifest or shipping paper and the quantity actually
delivered to a facility.
41
-------
If less than the manifested amount of waste is delivered, the
loss of a portion of the waste would be of concern to the Agency.
Loss in transit would be reportable, if the result of a discharge,
under the final Section 3003 regulations. The likelihood of inten-
tional "midnight" dumping from a vehicle destined for a permitted
disposal facility seems low, especially if the waste generator has
paid the transporter and disposer separately for transport and dis-
posal of the amount designated on the manifest. Nonetheless, re-
quiring the disposer to note and report discrepancies in waste
amounts acts as a check on the transporter.
Those instances where an excess amount of waste is delivered to
a facility are not as serious since a facility owner or operator
would wish to be paid for the larger quantity of waste actually dis-
posed. As a result, overages should be self-policing.
Scales with the ability to measure the weight of a truckload of
bulk waste have a certain limited sensitivity and may not be calibra-
ted with precision. Thus, it seems likely that errors in measurement
at the sending and receiving sites, due to use of different scales,
could happen often. For example, if the sensitivity of scales for
both shipper and receiver were 1 percent, which is a normal value for
such scales, measurement of an average shipment of bulk waste could
have an error of about 2 percent due to scale accuracy and calibra-
tion alone. Other additive errors could be introduced by other fac-
tors, such as gasoline or waste evaporation losses during transport,
temperature variations, and human error.
42
-------
• Neither the proposed nor final rules, however, require the waste
generator or facility owner or operator to have bulk waste weighing
scales, such as the truck scales commonly used by State highway
patrols, since weighing scales are not appropriate to all waste types
or handling situations. In the absence of weighing scales, bulk
waste amounts (weight) can be obtained by a combination of volume and
specific gravity measurements.
Bulk waste transport trucks and rail cars are of different sizes
and shapes. The concensus of four hazardous waste facility operators
polled by EPA was that bulk waste volume could be estimated no better
than 5 percent, and that a volume error would have to be greater than
5 percent to be noticed routinely. The accuracy of ASTM specific
gravity measurement methods is approximately +_ 1 percent for homo-
geneous materials with no phase separations and assuming no human
error. Measurements made by the shipper and receiver routinely could
vary by 2 percent. Consequently, bulk waste quantity measurements
based on volume and specific gravity commonly could be in error by _+_
7 percent.
In summary, many factors enter into the decision as to setting
limits on the variation in amounts of bulk waste which would trigger
a discrepancy notation and report. Limits on sensitivity and cali-
bration of weighing scales, as well as possible variations in volume
and density measurements, argue for allowing relatively large errors
for bulk shipments, such as 5 to 10 percent. Further, the Agency
43
-------
does not wish to be swamped with discrepancy reports as a result of
setting discrepancy limits too tightly.
On balance, the Agency believes it is reasonable to set limits
which would not routinely trigger discrepancy findings, but which
also do not allow excessive amounts of hazardous waste to be unac-
counted for. Further, the Agency believes that many apparent dis-
crepancies can be resolved without Agency intervention (see
discussion of following issue). Consequently, for the final rule,
the Agency has selected an allowable discrepancy limit of 10 percent
in weight of the manifested waste amount, with respect to bulk ship-
ments.
The selected limit does not apply to batch shipments, however.
A discrepancy of one drum in a movement would be considered suffi-
cient cause for the facility owner or operator to start follow-up
procedures. The Agency decided to apply a different limit to batch
shipments, even though the Agency recognizes that the amounts of
waste involved can vary considerably, because such discrepancies can
be detected easily by a simple count.
Difference in Type
Another kind of possible discrepancy between the waste manifest
or shipping paper and the actual shipment is a. difference in the
chemical or physical nature of the waste.
The Agency's intention in this respect is to have facilities
flag obvious differences in waste type, such as waste solvents
44
-------
received versus waste acids listed on the manifest, and failure to
identify toxic contaminants in waste, as opposed to more subtle
changes, such as part-per-million variations in the concentrations of
heavy metals within a sludge. The Agency wishes to ensure that a
facility is properly equipped to handle the wastes received, and not
subject to surprises in waste type introduced by mistake or on pur-
pose by waste generators or transporters. Facility waste sampling
and analysis requirements (see §264.13) should ensure discovery of
obvious waste type differences in most cases.
No comments were received specifically on this point but the
Agency has revised the final rules to clarify its intention nonethe-
less.
Issue #2: Reporting of Significant Discrepancies
Several commenters stressed the importance of requiring only
significant discrepancies to be reported, based on the judgment of
the owner or operator, arguing that regulatory agencies would be
swamped with unnecessary paperwork resulting from the reporting of
inadvertent errors or unimportant mistakes.
Response;
The Agency agrees with commenters that the reporting of inadver-
tent errors or unimportant mistakes is unnecessary. The Agency
believes that a distinction should be made between discovering a dis-
crepancy and reporting the discrepancy.
45
-------
The Agency believes that the logical and reasonable response,
upon discovery of a discrepancy in waste amount or type, by the
facility owner or operator, is for the facility owner or operator to
contact the waste generator, and transporter if necessary, and try to
resolve the discrepancy. The discrepancy should be reported to EPA
only if it cannot be resolved satisfactorily. In this manner, the
number of discrepancy reports can be minimized, and the reports will
focus on truly significant discrepancies. The final rules have been
written to include this procedure.
Issue #3: Time Period
Several commenters felt that the proposed requirement for imme-
diate discrepancy reporting was too stringent and asked that a time
limit to report discrepancies be set, since more time might be needed
to determine the existence of a discrepancy. Some commenters sug-
gested that a 10-working-day time limit would make the system more
efficient. Other commenters suggested 30 days from receipt of the
shipment as a more practical requirement.
Response:
The Agency agrees with the commenters that a time frame (other
than immediate) for reporting discrepancies to the Regional Adminis-
trator should be specified. All discrepancies should be discovered
soon after arrival of the waste at the facility. Discrepancies in
amount should be found at the weighing station, if there is one, or
waste receiving area before the facility owner or operator or his
46
-------
agent signs the incoming manifest or shipping paper. Discrepancies
in type can be discovered by inspection, in some cases, or by samp-
ling and analysis of incoming wastes, which usually is completed
within a matter of hours.
It is expected that the facility owner or operator will attempt
to reconcile most potentially reportable discrepancies by telephone
conversations with the waste generator or transporter. It should be
possible to check records, etc., and provide feedback in a matter of
days, even if mailing time is included.
Consequently, the Agency believes discovery and reconciliation
of discrepancies, where possible, can be accomplished within 15 days
of receipt of the waste at the disposal facility. The final rules,
therefore, specify that unresolved significant discrepancies and
attempts to reconcile them must be described in a letter report to
the Regional Administrator, with a copy of the manifest or shipping
paper at issue, within 15 days after receiving the waste.
Issue #4: Alternate Reporting
A commenter suggested that discrepancies be reported to an
authorized State agency in the case of a State having an authorized
hazardous waste program under Section 3006 of the Act.
Response;
The commenter's request that discrepancies be reported to an
authorized State agency indicates a misunderstanding of the hazardous
waste regulations.
47
-------
As noted earlier, the EPA regulations apply in States which are
not authorized to carry out the RCRA hazardous waste program. Dis-
crepancy reports would be sent to State agencies, in lieu of EPA, in
those States which are authorized. Consequently, the commenter's
suggestion has not been adopted in the final rules.
Issue #5: Refusal of Waste with Manifest Discrepancies
A commenter suggested that, if there are discrepancies in the
manifest, the hazardous waste should not be accepted until the gener-
ator or transporter reconciles the discrepancies.
Response:
The Agency agrees in principle that significant discrepancies in
the manifest or shipping paper should be reconciled between the gen-
erator or transporter and the disposer. However, the Agency dis-
agrees with the suggestion that the waste not be accepted by the dis-
poser. In the Agency's view, it is more protective of human health
and the environment for wastes to be accepted by a responsible dispo-
ser, and properly managed while reconciliation is attempted, than for
the waste to be rejected with the possibility of its improper dispo-
sal elsewhere. In addition, writing such a regulation would conflict
with the Agency's decision to allow the disposer to accept unmani-
fested movements of hazardous waste (see §264.76). Consequently, the
suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule. However, the dis-
poser is not obligated to accept the waste if there were a signifi-
cant discrepancy in quantity or type.
48
-------
Final Regulatory Language
The final regulation was rewritten for greater clarity and, in
keeping with the rationale discussed above, the meaning of a
significant discrepancy and the time period for discrepancy reports
were specified. Accordingly, the final rule reads as follows:
§264.72 Manifest Discrepancies
(a) Manifest discrepancies are differences between the quantity
or type of hazardous waste designated on the manifest or
shipping paper, and the quantity or type of hazardous waste
a facility actually receives. Significant discrepancies in
quantity are: (1) for bulk waste, variations greater than
10 percent in weight and (2) for batch waste, any variation
in piece count, such as a discrepancy of one drum in a
truckload. Significant discrepancies in type are obvious
differences which can be discovered by inspection or waste
analysis, such as waste solvent substituted for waste acid,
or toxic constituents not reported on the manifest or ship-
ping paper.
(b) Upon discovering a signficiant discrepancy, the owner or
operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the
waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone con-
versations). If the discrepancy is not resolved within 15
days after receiving the waste, the owner or operator must
immediately submit to the Regional Administrator a letter
describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it,
and a copy of the manifest or shipping paper at issue.
The final interim status standard at §265.72 is identical to
the above.
E. Recordkeeping - General Issues
Proposed §250.43-5(b) prescribed that an owner or operator main-
tain, as part of the operating log, records of waste managed at the
facility, the locations of stored and disposed waste, waste analysis
records, monitoring data, summary reports and records of incidents,
records or results of visual inspections, records of operating
49
-------
conditions, and training records. Retention times for various
records were proposed as well. Commenters raised a number of general
issues regarding recordkeeping at hazardous waste management facili-
ties. These issues are discussed in this section.
Issue #1; Recordkeeping Based on Degree of Hazard
A commenter stated that recordkeeping should be consistent with
the degree of hazard of the waste.
Response:
The Agency has incorporated some considerations of class of
hazard into the technical regulations, and intends to expand this
concept in future rulemaking. However, the Agency does not agree
that any great savings in paperwork would be possible under any class
or degree of hazard system for recordkeeping because the present
recordkeeping system is the minimum acceptable system in the Agency's
view. A class or degree of hazard system might, however, require a
greater degree and specificity of recordkeeping to take better ac-
count of those wastes designated by EPA as more hazardous than "nor-
mal" hazardous waste. (See related discussion at IV.A.2., Issue #5.)
Issue #2: Limit Recordkeeping
Some commenters felt that the proposed recordkeeping require-
ments were too detailed, were unjustified, and would create addition-
al expense without benefits. One commenter felt that the required
records should only contain information of potential value in an
emergency situation on the site, such as storage or burial locations
50
-------
for wastes which might cause immediate danger to employees or emer-
gency personnel responding to an incident. The commenter suggested
that long-range information of a statistical or maintenance value
only should be forwarded to the Administrator for determination as to
its value for permanent maintenance, and that any specific records to
be maintained should be proposed in the permit application and agreed
to at the time a permit is issued.
Another commenter felt that only records of importance in
assessing the facility's performance (primarily monitoring data)
should be required. This commenter then stated that documentation of
personnel training, operating procedures, etc., is not necessary and
is an undue burden for a properly operating facility.
Response:
The Agency does not believe that the limited recordkeeping sug- '
gested by the commenters would be sufficient to assure meeting the
RCRA mandate for protection of human health and the environment. In
both the proposed and final rules, the Agency has carefully weighed
the burden of recordkeeping against the needs for accurate data asso-
ciated with human health and environmental protection, and for en-
forcement of the rules. In the Agency's opinion, each recordkeeping
requirement is necessary for these purposes, and is based on lessons
learned from improper hazardous waste facility operations in the
past. The Agency's proposed and final recordkeeping requirements are
closely tied to the operation of the facility, and the burden of the
requirements should be minimal at a properly operating facility.
51
-------
The commenter who suggested forwarding long-range information of
a statistical or maintenance value to the Administrator for determi-
nation is, in fact, proposing a massive reporting requirement much
larger in its impact upon facilities than the annual report required
by the final rules. In addition, the requirement suggested by the
commenter would result in the accumulation of more information than
the Agency will likely be able to use. Therefore, the Agency rejects
this suggestion as impractical and unnecessarily burdensome.
The Agency believes that adequate facility recordkeeping is an
integral part of proper facility operations. These records may be
needed to assist owners or operators in emergency situations, or en-
forcement officials who may be called upon to investigate problems at
any time. However, facility owners or operators will need to meet
only those requirements that apply to their facility. The final
regulations are designed to allow facilities sufficient flexibility
to adapt or extend their present recordkeeping, billing practices,
operating logs, and reports to State, local, and other Federal agen-
cies to meet the incremental burden of RCRA. The Agency expects
recordkeeping will be included as part of the permit process. During
the interim status period, however, owners or operators will be
expected to meet all applicable recordkeeping requirements.
Issue #3; Recordkeeping for Nonhazardous Waste
A commenter suggested that records of all waste shipments should
be kept in case wastes originally thought to be nonhazardous are
determined to be hazardous at a later time.
52
-------
Response:
The Agency recognizes that facilities which handle hazardous
waste may also handle nonhazardous waste. There may indeed be wastes
considered as nonhazardous now, but which may be listed as hazardous
later. Other wastes may simply be managed as nonhazardous because
the generator has not tested them, or because of variations between
tested waste and later batches.
To the extent that*such situations are deliberate attempts to
avoid the law, incident reporting and enforcement inspections will
provide a remedy. To the extent that such situations occur in good
faith, however, the Agency believes it would be unnecessarily burden-
some to impose such a requirement in these regulations.
Issue #4: Congressional Intent
A commenter claimed that the proposed §250.43-5(b) recordkeeping
requirements were contrary to Congressional intent because manifests
are not required for on-site disposal of hazardous waste, yet the in-
formation required to be kept by the proposed regulation was substan-
tially identical to the information on a manifest. Therefore, the
practical effect of the proposed regulation (according to the com-
menter) would be to impose indirectly on facilities recordkeeping
requirements which Congress chose not to impose directly.
Response;
The Agency disagrees that recordkeeping at on-site facilities is
contrary to Congressional intent. Section 3004(1) of the Act, which
53
-------
mandates recordkeeping at hazardous waste facilities, makes no dis-
tinction between on-site and off-site facilities. The manifest is
primarily a waste transport tracking and control document. Record-
keeping requirements for facilities are independent of the manifest,
and serve different purposes. It happens that the core information
which appears on the manifest (e.g., origin, quantity, and type of
waste), is also necessary for recordkeeping purposes,
Issue #5: Exemption from Recordkeeping
A commenter claimed that the proposed recordkeeping requirements
should not be required for on-site process-associated incinerators.
Responses
The Agency in the final Section 3001 and 3004 rules has excluded
from RCRA Subtitle C control boilers which burn waste as a fuel. An
"on-site process-associated incinerator" may qualify for this exemp-
tion. (See Section 3001 background document for further details.)
F. §264.73 - Operating Record [Proposed as §250.43-5(b)]
1. Name, Format, and Access to Record
Proposed §250.43-5(b)(l) required a facility owner or operator
to keep an operating log, and to open the log for inspection by any
duly designated employee or agent of EPA at all reasonable times. A
number of commenters raised issues concerning the name, format, and
access to the operating log, as discussed below.
54
-------
Issue #1: Operating "Log" vs. "Record"
A commenter suggested that the proposed term "operating log" be
changed to the term "operating record" to allow the use of automatic
data processing systems.
Response:
The Agency agrees that the use of an ADP system is consistent
with the recordkeeping system flexibility intended by the proposed
regulations. Further, the large area of some facilities, and the
variety of functions performed at some facilities, make it very un-
likely that all required information would be recorded in one opera-
ting log at only one location. In writing the proposed rules, the
Agency assumed a number of logs, or records, would be maintained at
each facility. All such records taken together would then constitute
the facility's operating log.
The Agency agrees that the term "operating record" more accur-
ately reflects the Agency's intentions and expected commercial prac-
tice than does the term "operating log." The Agency has therefore
changed all references in the final regulations from "log" to
"record."
Issue #2: Operating Record Format
A commenter requested that EPA include in the regulations an ex-
hibit of an operating log if a particular format is desired. Another
commenter requested clarification as to whether separate records are
required for each type of waste, each waste shipment, or some other
grouping.
55
-------
Response:
The Agency does not believe a specific format for the operating
record is necessary or justified in view of the wide variations pos-
sible in activities and types of waste handled at various facilities.
Consequently, the Agency has not included an exhibit of an operating
record in these final regulations. Separate records are required for
each waste type or some other grouping * Records of each waste move-
ment will automatically result from the requirement to keep copies of
each manifest or shipping paper received.
Issue #3: Public Access to Operating Record
A number of commenters recommended that the operating record
kept by the owner or operator of a facility should be open to State
and local officials to ensure proper inspections and to duly repre-
sented members of the pub lie, within the bounds of confidentiality,
to provide the public with the necessary information to determine the
extent and type of public participation appropriate. Another com-
menter, however, felt all reference to access to the operating record
should be deleted as unnecessary.
Response;
The Agency interprets its authority under RCRA as insufficient
to prescribe by regulation access by either the public or State and
local officials to hazardous waste management facilities. Both EPA
and State officials (in States which have authorized RCRA programs)
will have access to facilities under the authority of Section 3007(a)
56
-------
of RCRA. Where States do not have an authorized RCRA program, access
to facilities by State officials will be a matter of State law.
The Agency has determined that RCRA does not provide for public
access to facilities except to the extent provided for in the public
hearing process under the RCRA permit regulations. Through its
regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act, EPA has
provided for a degree of public access to information reported to EPA
which should allow adequate public knowledge of facility operations.
The Agency recognizes that hazardous waste facilities are industrial
areas to which access must be controlled by the owner or operator.
The broad inspection powers of the Act and the reasonable limits on
public release of information have been described in detail earlier
under the discussion on "confidentiality."
The Agency has, therefore, specified in the final regulations
under §§264.74(a) and 265.74(a) that all records, including plans,
must be furnished upon request, and made available at all reasonable
times for inspection, by any officer, employee, or representative of
EPA who is duly designated by the Administrator.
Issue #4: Warrantless Inspections
A commenter suggested that the proposed requirement that the
operating record be open to any duly designated employee or agent of
the Agency authorized warrantless administrative inspections without
the consent of the facility's owner or operator. The commenter
stated that the United States Supreme Court, in Marshall v. Barlow's,
57
-------
Inc. , 413 U.S. 266 (1978), held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits
administrative personnel from conducting warrantless inspections
without the consent of the facility's owner or operator. The com-
menter quoted an EPA Office of General Counsel memorandum which,
according to the commenter, directed each program office exercising
rights of entry (including the authority of RCRA) to draft regula-
tions governing EPA's entry procedures under RCRA, and directed the
Agency to seek consent to enter, and to seek warrants where consent
is refused.
The commenter, therefore, recommended that the proposed regula-
tion be amended to require the Agency to seek the consent of the
facility's owner or operator before inspecting the operating record,
to provide reasonable notice of the Agency's intent to inspect, and
to seek appropriate relief should a generator refuse to consent to
the inspection.
Response:
EPA's information-gathering activities under RCRA Section 3007
are subject to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable
searches as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Barlow's
Inc., supra. It should be noted that the Supreme Court in Barlow's,
quoting Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (413 U.S. 266,271), empha-
sized that
A central difference between those cases [involving warrantless
searches_of pervasively regulated industries] and this one is
that businessmen engaged in such Federally licensed and regula-
ted enterprises accept the burdens as well as the benefits of
58
-------
their trade whereas the petitioner here was not engaged in any
regulated or licensed business. The businessman in a regulated
industry in effect consents to the restrictions placed on him.
Despite the recommendation of the General Counsel in 1978, EPA
has decided not to promulgate regulations implementing Marshall v.
/
Barlow's Inc. That case establishes standards of conduct for Federal
officials and enforcement personnel. Therefore, regulations are
unnecessary, because internal directives to EPA personnel will suf-
fice. EPA's exercise of its Section 3007 authority will be conducted
in a manner consistent with the decision.
Rationale for Final Regulation
EPA maintains that acceptable standards of hazardous waste man-
agement necessarily require that a facility maintain an operating
record. In addition, the record must be open to inspection by
authorized EPA officers, employees, or representatives for enforce-
ment or regulation development purposes. The Agency interprets the
term "at all reasonable times" to include the normal operating hours
at the facility, but reserves the right to inspect the facility at
other than normal operating hours on a case-by-case basis.
For the reasons discussed above, the Agency replaced the term
"log" with "record" to clarify the broad variety and dispersion of
records that might constitute the operating record of a facility.
The Agency changed the term "designated" to "designated by the
Administrator" to clarify the official status and responsibilities of
officers, employees, or representatives of EPA, which the Agency had
59
-------
assumed was implicit in the proposed regulations, but may have led to
misinterpretation by the regulated community.
2. Content of Operating Record
Synopsis of Proposed Regulation
Proposed §250.43-5(b)(2) required the following information to
be promptly recorded and maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility:
a. Waste management information
(1) A description of each hazardous waste
(2) A description of the hazardous properites of each waste
(3) The quantity of each hazardous waste treated, stored,
or disposed
(4) The method of treatment, storage, and disposal used for
each waste
(5) The dates of treatment, storage, and disposal of each
hazardous waste.
b. Locations where waste was stored or disposed
c. Waste analysis information
d. Ground-water monitoring data
e. Summary reports and records of incidents
f. Records and results of visual inspections
Rationale for Proposed Regulation
RCRA Section 3004(1) requires that recordkeeping standards in-
clude maintaining records of all hazardous waste identified or listed
under Section 3001 rules which is treated, stored, or disposed of,
and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored or disposed.
60
-------
EPA, therefore, imposed waste management recordkeeping requirements
in the Section 3004 proposed rules to comply with RCRA.
The Agency required that the location of stored and disposed
waste, and the results of waste analyses, be recorded to allow
assessment of any localized problems at storage sites and disposal
cells, such as fires, releases, and ground-water contamination.
These records can provide information allowing a more effective
response to incidents or emergencies.
Recordkeeping requirements for ground-water monitoring data,
incidents, and inspections were specified in other provisions of the
proposed Section 3004 rules. They were repeated in this rule to en-
sure that all facility records were maintained in a central location.
Comment Analysis and Response
Commenters raised a number of general and specific points con-
cerning the content of the operating record. These are discussed be-
low in turn.
Issue #1; Use Manifest as the Operating Record
A commenter stated that the majority of the information to be
entered into the operating record is information already contained on
the manifest, and that needless duplication could be eliminated by
requiring only that the facility operator retain a copy of the mani-
fest and that he need not record information contained therein in the
operating record.
61
-------
Response:
Neither the proposed nor final recordkeeping requirements pre-
clude the facility owner or operator from using copies of retained
manifests (with suitable notation to show EPA Hazardous Waste Num-
bers, waste disposition, and location) as part of the operating
record. In addition, cross-references to retained manifest copies
filed elsewhere are also compatible with the final recordkeeping
regulations.
The Agency cannot design a general recordkeeping system that
would be suitable for each facility. There exists a tradeoff between
the cost of recordkeeping of all manifests for the life of the facil-
ity and the cost of generating a new record at the facility for each
waste received. The Agency has allowed manifests to be destroyed
after three years, but at their discretion facility owners or opera-
tors may choose to maintain manifests until facility closure to
simplify recordkeeping.
However, on-site disposers do not use manifests. Further, for
both on-site and off-site facilities, the operating record must con-
tain other information that is not carried on the manifest. The
Agency, therefore, rejects the suggestion that the regulations
require retention of the manifest in place of the operating record.
Issue #2: Exempt Incinerators from Recordkeeping
A commenter stated that because incineration destroys hazardous
waste, thus eliminating future threat to human health and the
62
-------
environment, maintaining incineration records until closure of the
facility is unnecessary; the commenter therefore recommended that all
incinerators be exempted from recordkeeping requirements.
Response;
The Agency believes that recordkeeping for all hazardous waste
disposition is required by RCRA. The incineration of hazardous waste
may produce hazardous residues or emissions even if most of the waste
is destroyed by incineration. Incineration of wastes should be sup-
ported by trial burns for which recordkeeping will be necessary for
safe management of subsequent batches of similar waste. Further, in-
cineration records are needed to support preparation of annual
reports. Consequently, the Agency has maintained recordkeeping
requirements for incinerators in the final regulations.
Issue #3: Exempt Treatment and Storage Facilities
A commenter questioned the applicability of the proposed record-
keeping requirements to treatment and storage facilities on the
grounds that treatment and storage facilities do not have predeter-
mined closure dates, as would a landfill, and therefore it would con-
stitute an unnecessary burden to maintain such records for an
indefinite period of time. For this reason, the commenter recommend-
ed exemption of treatment and storage facilities from the recordkeep-
ing requirement.
Response:
Both the proposed and final rules for closure of all facilities,
including treatment and storage facilities, require the preparation
63
-------
of a closure plan which includes the estimated date of closure. Fur-
ther, a facility permit is issued for a specified period. The Agency
believes that records of the operation of storage and treatment
facilities must be maintained in order to meet the requirements of
RCRA and the technical regulations, and thus has rejected the exemp-
/
tion recommended by the commenter.
Issue #4: Nomenclature for Waste Information
A commenter complained that proposed §250.43-5(b)(2)(i)(A) and
(B) were poorly constructed and needed redrafting, with the inclusion
of examples, to avoid confusing the reader. The proposed sections at
issue concerned the use of DOT or EPA waste descriptions in the
operating record.
Response:
The Agency attempted to provide the most cost-effective, flexi-
ble, and least burdensome method for recording waste management
information. The waste manifest contains much of the information
needed. Consequently, the recordkeeping requirements were keyed to
manifest information to which management method and date were added.
The proposed rules for waste descriptions allowed use of DOT shipping
descriptions and DOT hazard classes, as well as EPA waste names and
characteristics identified in the proposed Section 3001 rules.
In retrospect, the Agency now believes this was not the best
approach. The proposed Section 3004 rules for recordkeeping applied
to both on-site and off-site facilities, but separate rules for
64
-------
on-site facility reporting were contained in the proposed Section
3002 rules. On-site facilities do not use manifests, and thus
recordkeeping based on DOT nomenclature is not appropriate for these
facilities. This problem has been corrected in the final rules.
To simplify the rules, and to avoid confusion between on-site
and off-site facility recordkeeping requirements, the Agency has
decided to base all facility recordkeeping and reporting on EPA
nomenclature for waste names and characteristics.
The Section 3001 rules define hazardous waste in two ways: (1)
by listing specific hazardous waste, and (2) by identifying charac-
teristics of hazardous waste. To simplify the proposed rules fur-
ther, the final Section 3001 rules assign a four-digit EPA Hazardous
Waste Number to each listed waste, and to each hazardous waste char-
acteristic. These numbers must be used to describe hazardous waste
for recordkeeping and reporting purposes, along with the waste's
common name.
For most listed wastes, the process that produces the waste is
identified in the listing, and thus this information is automatically
contained within the EPA Hazardous Waste Number assigned to it. This
is not the case, however, for nonlisted wastes identified as hazard-
ous via the characteristics. Consequently, the Agency requires for
nonlisted waste that the process which generated the waste be record-
ed and reported, as well as the EPA Hazardous Waste Number.
All of the above points are reflected in the final recordkeeping
and reporting rules for hazardous waste management facilities. The
65
-------
same rules apply to all facilities, whether on-site or off-site.
Consequently, the Agency believes the revised waste description rules
are more straightforward and less confusing than those proposed.
Issue #5: Quantity Descriptions
Several commenters asked that additional units of measurement
for waste quantity be allowed under proposed §250.43-5(b)(2)(i)(C)
and elsewhere. One commenter asked that the use of metric units be
allowed. Another suggested that cubic feet be allowed since it is a
commonly used waste unit. Another commenter suggested that the units
of barrels also be allowed since barrels is a common unit of measure.
Response;
The Agency agrees that the use of metric units should be encour-
aged, and the Agency will use metric units. Other parts of the pro-
posed regulations gave metric equivalents to English units of
measurement. The Agency has included metric units in the table of
units suitable for recordkeeping and reporting in the final rule.
The proposed and final rules allow owners or operators to record
i
waste quantity in "cubic yards." Although the use of "cubic feet" is
also common, it is easy to convert meas_rements made in "cubic feet"
to "cubic yards." Considerations of ADP usage also argue for use of
a minimum set of interconvertible units as the basis of recordkeeping
and reporting9 Therefore, "cubic feet" has not been added to the
list of units designated in the final rule.
The use of barrels as a unit of measure, although common in cer-
tain industries, would be ambiguous for purposes of waste disposal
66
-------
records due to the variation in barrel sizes used by waste disposers.
Not all barrels that would be reported would be of the same size.
Also, barrels may not be full. The Agency has decided that too many
inaccuracies could be introduced and thus has rejected the suggestion
to include barrels as a unit of measure.
Issue #6: Statistics on Quantities of Waste
A commenter suggested that if EPA needs waste tonnage statis-
tics, EPA should require that copies of manifests be sent to the
regional EPA office.
Response:
As previously discussed, EPA has rejected the option of sending
copies of manifests to the regional EPA offices. Further, many
facilities required to keep records and make reports do not use mani-
fests. Hence, the commenter's suggestion is not practical.
Issue #7: Use of Estimated Quantities
A commenter argued that exact quantity measurements at facil-
ities would not be possible without "costly flow meters and weighing
hoppers fot which there would be no benefit other than RCRA-required
recordkeeping." The commenter argued that estimated quantities would
be sufficiently accurate and more cost effective for on-site dispo-
sal. Another commenter stated that estimated quantities for on-site
waste disposal would be adequate, on the grounds that it would be
impractical to weigh every truck. A third commenter stated that
specific quantity information cannot be determined by the disposal
67
-------
facility due to the variations in means of measurement (i.e., tons,
barrels, gallons), the inability to measure at the disposal facility,
and the inaccuracies of any such measurement. The commenter also
argued that the value of the information must be weighed against the
added cost and the added exposure and hazard to personnel at the
disposal facility while performing the measurement.
Response:
The Agency recognizes the validity of the commenter's arguments
indicating the need for a more flexible approach to reporting of
quantities. Inasmuch as the Agency has not required waste generators
or facility owners or operators to own truck scales or other measure-
ment devices, it seems inconsistent to create a "de facto" require-
ment by requiring a greater degree of accuracy in measuring wastes
than may be necessary. Many off-site facilities use truck scales or
other measuring devices for business purposes. Further, Federal and
many State transportation rules require accurate weight measurements
of off-site movements. Thus, EPA does not believe it is necessary to
supplement existing requirements and common business practice with
explicit EPA rules in this area.
The Agency recognizes, however, that where no manifest is used,
i.e., at on-site facilities, manifest-reported quantities will be
nonexistent. The Agency therefore has permitted the use of estimated
quantities at on-site facilities as an alternative to manifest-
reported quantities in the final rules. Note, however, that the
68
-------
owners or operators of on-site facilities are required to certify the
accuracy of these estimates in their annual reports to the Agency.
Issue #8; Recordkeeping of Waste Location
A number of commenters to proposed §250.43-5(b)(2)(ii) suggested
refinements and exemptions to recordkeeping of waste disposal loca-
tions. Commenters suggested that cross-references to specific mani-
fest identification numbers should be included when locations are
recorded. Other commenters suggested that facilities disposing of a
limited number of compatible wastes should not be required to record
locations for each type of waste. Another commenter suggested that
the volume and nature of the waste should be recorded as well as the
location information.
Response:
The Agency agrees that cross-references to specific manifests by
using the manifest numbers, where appropriate, would be practical and
consistent with such concerns as resource recovery and emergency
response and has accordingly incorporated this suggestion into the
final regulations.
The commenters who suggested an exclusion for compatible wastes
may have misunderstood the level of detail required to record waste
locations. The Agency intends waste treatment, storage, and disposal
locations to be recorded only on maps or diagrams. Consequently, the
Agency believes the exemption suggested by the commenters would
unnecessarily complicate the regulation without removing any
69
-------
significant burden. Further, the Agency believes that the disposal
locations of all hazardous wastes should be recorded, whether or not
the wastes are compatible, because waste compatibility is only one of
many waste characteristics of potential interest at a later time.
The suggestion that volume and nature of the waste be recorded
along with the location has been addressed by the inclusion of quan-
tity in the recordkeeping rule, and the requirements for (1) using
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers in recordkeeping, because these numbers
relate to the nature of the waste, and (2) recording the results of
waste analyses under §264.13 in the operating record.
Issue #9: Waste Analysis Recordkeeping
A commenter suggested that waste analysis recordkeeping required
by proposed §250.43-5(b)(2)(iii) was not needed since the information
would duplicate that reported to the facility on the manifest'. An-
other commenter suggested that waste analysis should be described as
"waste characterization appropriate to the physical state, nature,
and management method of the waste."
Response:
The Agency disagrees that manifest information on wastes, such
as name, DOT hazard class, and EPA Hazardous Waste Number, would
adequately characterize the waste for management purposes at the
facility. Further waste analyses are independently required by
§264.13 of the final rule. The rule in this section merely requires
these waste analysis records to be maintained at the facility.
70
-------
The term "waste analysis" as it is used in the final regulations
at §264.13 is discussed in the waste analysis background document.
Monitoring Data Recordkeeping
No comments were received on proposed §250.43-5(b)(2)(iv).
Issue #10; Incident Recordkeeping
A commenter stated that the words "requiring initiation of a
contingency plan, or" should be deleted from proposed §250.43-
5(b)(2)(v).
Response:
The commenter did not provide any reasons why recordkeeping of
the implementation of a contingency plan should be deleted.
The Agency holds to its rationale for the recording of such
incidents as fires, explosions, and releases that require implement-
ing the contingency plan as being important as a record of facility
operations and response. Additional rationale is supplied in the
background document for contingency plans.
Issue #11; Inspection Recordkeeping
A commenter stated that proposed §250.43-5(b)(2) (iv) should be
changed to read "records or results of unusual or unexpected observa-
tions made during visual inspections."
Response;
The Agency believes that proof of compliance with the inspection
provisions of §264.15 requires a record that the inspections were, in
fact, performed, as well as records of unusual or unexpected observa-
tions. Therefore, the language of the proposed requirement has been
71
-------
retained. The retention time for these records has been reduced to
three years in the final rule. (See the Inspections background docu-
ment for further discussion.)
3. Final Rule
Based on the discussions of the above issues, the proposed rules
have been revised. The final Phase I Part 264 rules for the content
of the operating record read as follows:
§264.73 Operating record
(a) The owner or operator must keep a written operating record
at his facility.
(b) The following information must be recorded, as it becomes
available, and maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility:
(1) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste
received, and the method(s) and date(s) of its treat-
ment, torage, or disposal at the facility as required
by Appendix I;
(2) The location of each hazardous waste within the facil-
ity and the quantity at each location. For disposal
facilities, the location and quantity of each hazard-
ous waste must be recorded on a map or diagram of each
cell or disposal area. For all facilities, this in-
formation must include cross-references to specific
manifest document numbers, if the waste was accompan-
ied by a manifest;
(3) Records and results of waste analyses performed as
specified in §264.13;
(4) Summary reports and details of all incidents that
require implementing the contingency plan as specified
in §264.56(j);
(5) Records and results of inspections as required by
§264.15(d) (except these data need be kept only three
years); and
72
-------
(6) For off-site facilities, notices to generators as spe-
cified in §264.12(b).
The final interim status standards make reference to additional
sections of Part 265 which are not included in the Phase I Part 264
standards. Accordingly, the final interim status standards of
§265.73 read as follows:
§265.73 Operating record
(a) The owner or operator must keep a written operating record
at his facility.
(b) The following information must be recorded, as it becomes
available, and maintained in the operating record until
closure of the facility:
(1) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste
received, and the method(s) and date(s) of its treat-
ment, storage, or disposal at the facility as required
by Appendix I;
(2) The location of each hazardous waste within the facil-
ity and the quantity at each location. For disposal
facilities, the location and quantity of each hazard-
ous waste must be recorded on a map or diagram of each
cell or disposal area. For all facilities, this in-
formation must include cross-references to specific
manifest document numbers, if the waste was acompanied
by a manifest;
(3) Records and results of waste analyses and trial tests
performed as specified in §§265.13, 265.193, 265.225,
265.252, 265.273, 265.345, 265.375, and 265.402;
(4) Summary reports and details of all incidents that
require implementing the contingency plan as specified
in §265.56(j);
(5) Records and results of inspections as required by
§265.15(d) (except these data need be kept only three
years);
(6) Monitoring, testing, or analytical data where required
by §§265.90, 265.94, 265.276, 265.278, 265.280(d)(l),
265.347, and 265.377; and
73
-------
(7) All closure cost estimates under §265.142 and, for
disposal facilities, all post-closure cost estimates
under §265.144.
G. §264.74 - Availability, Retention, and Disposition of Records
[Proposed as §250.43-5(b)(3)]
1. Availability of Records
Several separate requirements for making records available to
the Regional Administrator were specified in the proposed rules. In
the final rules, these separate requirements are grouped into one
general rule, and the separate requirements are deleted. (See rela-
ted discussions under Section IV.F. - Operating Record.)
2. Retention of Records
Issue #1: Retention of Incineration Records
A commenter to proposed §250.43-5(b)(4) stated that the holding
period for incinerator operating records should be reduced to one
year, as opposed to three years in the proposed rule.
Response^;
The Agency has deferred promulgation of general Section 3004
standards for incinerators until a later date. The Section 3004
interim status standards for incinerators do not require that records
be kept of incinerator operating conditions because all existing
incinerators may not have the necessary monitoring equipment and it
may be impossible to install this equipment without major modifica-
tions to the incinerator. Thus, the recordkeeping requirement for
incinerator operating conditions in this section of the regulations
74
-------
has been deferred for the time being. Consequently, it is inappro-
priate to respond to the commenter's suggestion until the final in-
cinerator rules are promulgated.
Issue #2: Retention of Training Records
A commenter to proposed §250.43-5(b)(5) stated that retention of
training records until! the closure of the facility seemed excessive,
and recommended retention for three years. Another comment asked for
deletion of the requirement as unworkable and unnecessary.
Response:
The Agency sought to make clear in the proposed rules that the
records of job titles, job descriptions, and training requirements
would likely not change over the life of the facility. Thus, once
generated, such records would be sufficient with minor changes. The
Agency has responded to the commenter's concerns by specifying (in
§264.16(e)) that training records of former employees must be kept
for at least three years from the date the employee last worked at
the facility, but not until closure of the facility.
The Agency does not agree that the recordkeeping requirement
proposed was unworkable and unnecessary. Such records document that
the training requirements have been met. Therefore, the Agency has
retained the training recordkeeping requirement, modified as noted
above, but has shifted the requirement to §264.16 of the final
regulations.
75
-------
[Comment: Proposed §250.43-5(b)(6) concerning retention of manifests
has been moved in the final rule to the section entitled "Use of
Manifest System" at §264.71(a)(5). Comments on the proposed rule
were discussed earlier in the manifest section of this document,]
3. Disposition of Records
A commenter stated that the proposed §250.43-5(b)(3) requirement
to turn over waste management and landfill disposal location records
to EPA upon facility closure could be burdensome in some cases. The
commenter noted that, for example, a landfill owner or operator ac-
cepting 25,000 truckloads per year over a 20-year period would accu-
mulate records fo 500,000 transactions. The commenter felt it would
be more appropriate to turn over these records to EPA on an annual
basis.
Response:
The commenter makes a valid point. The Agency will receive the
waste management information (waste description, quantity, and man-
agement method) on an annual basis via the annual report, and thus it
is redundant for the owner or operator to resubmit cumulative records
of this information upon facility closure.
In the final rule, the Agency has clarified its intention that
locations of treated, stored, or disposed waste are to be recorded on
maps or diagrams.
All stored waste is to be treated or disposed of prior to facil-
ity closure. Thus, maps of waste treatment and storage locations are
required to be maintained during facility operation, but need not be
submitted upon proper facility closure. Submission of waste disposal
76
-------
location maps upon closure should not be burdensome. Consequently,
the Agency in the final rule has deleted the requirement for submis-
sion of cumulative waste management information to EPA upon facility
closure, but has retained the requirement that waste disposal loca-
tion records be turned over to EPA upon closure.
The Agency has added the requirement to this rule that the
records of waste disposal locations also must be turned over to the
local land authority upon closure of a disposal facility (see Closure
and Post-closure background document for further discussion).
The final rule for availability, retention, and disposition of
records reads as follows:
§264.74 Availability, Retention, and Disposition of Records
(a) All records, including plans, required under this Part must
be furnished upon request, and made available at all rea-
sonable times for inspection, by any officer, employee, or
representative of EPA who is duly designated by the Admin-
istrator.
(b) The 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.
(c) A copy of records of waste disposal locations and quanti-
ties under §264.73(b)(2) must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and local land authority upon closure of the
facilityfsee. £ ->-63' "
-------
§265.74 Availability, Retention, and Disposition of Records
(a) All records, including plans, required under this Part must
be furnished upon request, and made available at all rea-
sonable times for inspection, by any officer, employee, or
representative of EPA who is duly designated by the Admin-
istrator.
(b) The 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.
(c) A copy of records of waste disposal locations and quanti-
ties under §265.73(b)(2) must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and local land authority upon closure of the
facility (see §265.119).
H. General Reporting Issues
Issue #1: Integration with State Programs
Summary of Comments
1. The reporting requirements should be deleted if the State
has assumed the responsibility for regulating hazardous
waste facilities.
2. In States with authorized programs, the reports should
be sent to the applicable State agency, rather than to
the Regional Administrator.
3. EPA should be responsible for sending copies of the
facility's reports to the officials of the municipality
where the facility is located.
Response
The first two commenters apparently did not realize that the
proposed rules are Federal regulations which, when promulgated,
will apply only to facilities in States which do not have authorized
hazardous waste programs. If a State has an authorized program, then
the facilities in the State are subject to the reporting regulations
78
-------
prescribed by the State, and not to the Federal regulations promul-
gated under Section 3004 of RCRA. Thus, facilities in States with
authorized RCRA programs are not subject to any of the reporting
requirements specified in the proposed or final rules. For these
facilities, owners or operators will be required to submit reports to
the director of the State program, who will in turn forward portions
of the data collected in these reports to the Regional Administrator.
The Agency agrees that it may be desirable for local officials
to be familiar with the information contained in the reports submit-
ted to the Regional Administrator. However, the Agency believes that
it is the local officials' responsibility to obtain this information,
if desired. The reports submitted to the Agency are available to
local officials (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act), so
that any official desiring this information in most cases can obtain
a copy of a facility's report by requesting it from EPA.
Issue #2: Joint Filing of Reports
Summary of Comments
1. Fii-s with more than one site should be allowed to submit
reports for all sites.
<.. The regulations should allow for an Assumption of Duties
Contract between the generator and the facility owner or
operator whereby legal responsibility for complying with
the reporting requirements can be allocated to the owner
or operator.
Response
If a corporate headquarters maintains the records for the
various facilities it controls, both the proposed and final rules
79
-------
allow the firm's headquarters to submit reports for each of its fa-
cilities.
The Agency cannot regulate nor prohibit owners or operators from
assuming responsibility for the generator's reporting requirements,
if owners or operators choose to do so. Contract law provides the
appropriate mechanism for owners or operators to assume the genera-
tor's reporting requirements. If, however, the generator's contrac-
ted duties are not performed, the generator will be held responsible
for not complying with the RCRA reporting requirements.
Issue #3: Simplify the Reporting Requirements
Summary of Comments
The reporting requirements are too complicated because there are
too many variations (e.g., quarterly vs. annual reporting, on-site
vs. off-site management, manifested vs. unmanifested waste, etc.) and
too many details. For this reason, the regulations should be revised
by reducing the number of variations and eliminating unnecessary de-
tails.
Response
The proposed rules contained different reporting requirements
under differen t circumstances because the information which is avail-
able and necessary varies in different circumstances. For example,
the information which can be readily obtained on manifested waste
differs from that obtainable for unmanifested waste (e.g., the name
of the generator or the identity of the waste may be unknown in
80
-------
the latter case). The proposed regulations were designed to reflect
this difference in the availability of information.
Similarly, the frequency of the reporting requirements differed
in the proposed rules because the Agency's need to readily know
about the disposition of waste varies under different circumstances.
(Compare the Agency's rationale for the proposed quarterly reporting
requirement for unmanifested waste—in Section K.2 of this document—
and the rationale for the proposed annual reporting requirement—in
Section K, "Frequency of Reports," in the background document enti-
tled "Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste."]
However, the proposed rules have been modified to delete the
proposed §250.23(d) requirements for waste managed on-site. Since
these requirements were similar to those proposed in §250.43-5(c) for
waste managed off-site, the Agency consolidated these requirements in
the final rules, so that the final §§264.75-264.77 reporting require-
ments apply to waste managed both off-site and on-site. The Agency
believes that this modification is consistent with the commenter's
request for simpler standards.
I. §264.75 - Annual Report
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation
The proposed rules required that owners or operators file an
annual report summarizing the information contained on the manifests
delivery documents corresponding to the incoming waste received at
or
81
-------
the facility during the reporting year. The report was to be sent to
the Regional Administrator within four weeks after the closing date
of the reporting year, and was to contain the following information:
- the identification code, name, and address of the facility
- the closing date of the reporting year
- the identification code of each generator from which waste
was received during the reporting year (for international
shipments, the name and address of the generator was also
required);
- the name, common code and quantity of each waste received
from each generator (the quantity was to be reported in
pounds, tons, gallons, or cubic yards)
- the method used to manage each waste
- a statement which certified that the report was true,
accurate, and complete
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation
Because the proposed reporting requirements for off-site facil-
ities (as prescribed in §250.43-5(c)(5)) were comparable to those
for on-site facilities (as prescribed in §250.23(d)), the rationale
for the frequency and content of the proposed reporting requirements
for both types of facilities is the same. Therefore, refer to the
rationale for the proposed reporting requirements of §250.23(d), as
described in Section K of the background document entitled "Section
3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste", for
the rationale for the proposed reporting requirements of §250.43-
5(c)(5).
82
-------
3. Comment Analysis and Response
Issue #1: Frequency of the Reporting Requirement
The response to the comments suggesting intervals other than
that specified in the standard (e.g., quarterly vs. annually) for the
filing of the reports to the Regional Administrator, is contained in
Section K, "Frequency of Reports," in the background document enti-
tled "Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste."
Issue #2: Applicability of the Standard
Summary of Comments
1. The standard should be deleted because it duplicates the
requirements of proposed §250.23.
2. The Agency should clarify that the standard only refers
to hazardous waste received off-site and only applies to
waste shipments accompanied by a manifest.
Response
The reporting requirements of proposed §250.23(d) only applied
to on-site facilities. The reporting requirements of proposed
§250.43-5(c)(5), on the other hand, only applied to off-site facil-
ities. Because the two standards applied to different types of fa-
cilities, the proposed standards were not duplicative. However, the
Agency has consolidated the reporting requirements for waste managed
at off-site and on-site facilities in the final Section 3004 rules.
Therefore, proposed §250.23(d) has been deleted from the final rules.
The final §264.75 reporting requirements apply to both off-site
and on-site facilities. Since manifests are not required for waste
83
-------
both generated and managed on-site, the final rules do not specify
that §264.75 applies only to waste movements accompanied by a mani-
fest.
Issue #3: Submission of Manifests in Lieu of The Annual Report
The response to the comment suggesting the transmittal of
manifests, in lieu of the annual report, is addressed in Section K,
"Adequacy of Reports", in the background document entitled "Section
3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste".
Issue #4; Delivery Document
Summary of Comments
The phrase "or delivery document" should be deleted from the
standard.
Response
The phrase "or delivery document" has been deleted throughout
the final RCRA Subtitle C rules. The rationale for the inclusion
of the phrase in the proposed rules, and the exclusion of the phrase
from the final rules, is contained in the Background Document enti-
tled "Section 3003 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Waste".
Issue #5: Exemptions to Reporting
Summary of Comments
Facilities which treat waste on-site (e.g., neutralization
processes) should be exempt from the reporting requirements because
the resulting information will be of questionable value.
84
-------
Response
One of the purposes of the reporting requirements is to enable
the Agency to ascertain the quantity and disposition of hazardous
waste generated in the United States. In order to develop an accu-
vrate accounting of all hazardous waste generated in the country, the
Agency must receive reports on all waste managed at all facilities,
including waste treated at on-site facilities. Therefore, the Agency
rejects the suggestion to exempt from the reporting requirements fa-
cilities which treat waste on-site.
Issue #6; Submission of the Annual Report
Summary of Comments
1. The proposed turnaround time of four weeks from the end of
the reporting year to the time when the annual report must
be submitted to the Agency is too short because:
- most large firms will require more than four weeks to
prepare the annual report;
the paperwork burden of the report is so great that the
operation of the facility will have to be stopped in
order to complete the report if the required turnaround
time is only 30 days;
four weeks does not allow sufficient time for the return
of recent manifests.
2. EPA should provide a standardized form amenable to key
punch for annual reporting.
Response
The Agency agrees that more than 30 days may be needed to com-
pile the information needed to complete the facility annual report.
The owners or operators of both on-site and off-site facilities may
8-5
-------
be generators of hazardous waste sent elsewhere, as well as disposers
of hazardous waste. To allow waste generators sufficient time to
collect all manifests to file their annual report, the final Section
3002 rules allow 60 days, rather than 30 days, from the end of the
calendar year to file the annual report.* In order to be consistent
with the reporting requirements for waste generators, and to avoid
confusion and unnecessary burden, the deadline for submitting the
annual report for waste management facilities has also been extended
to 60 days.
The Agency agrees that the report form should be made amenable
to key punch in order for the Agency to more readily utilize the data
collected on the report forms. Therefore, the report form in the
final rules has been designed for this purpose.
Issue #7: Inability of The Owner or Operator to Fill Out Sections
of Annual Report Form
Summary of Comments
1. The owner or operator may be unable to fill out the part
of the form designating the generator of the waste because
this information is protected through State health depart-
ment confidentiality rulings.
2. The quantity of waste managed at the facility cannot be
determined by the owner or operator due to:
variations in the means of measurement (e.g., tons,
barrels, gallons);
*See Section K, "Frequency of Reports," in the background document
entitled "Section 3002 - Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste," for a further explanation for the extension of
the deadline for returning annual reports at on-site facilities.
86
-------
- inability to accurately measure at the disposal site:
and
the cost of such measurements in terms of manpower
and employee exposure to the waste.
Since the generator is being charged for the quantity
of waste designated on the accompanying manifest, it is
unlikely that materials listed on the manifest will be
diverted.
Response
1. Section 3007(b) of RCRA provides that information obtained
under Section 3007(a) authority may be treated as confidential if it
concerns or relates to trade secrets, processes, opera-
tions, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity,
confidential statistical data, amount or source of any
income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person,
firm, partnership, corporation, or association; [18
U.S.C. §1905]
EPA has protected such information through the regulations of 40 CFR
Part 2, which provides that information which companies indicate
they wish treated as confidential will be released only if EPA finds,
among other things, that the release of this information is not
"likely to cause substantial harm to the company's competitive posi-
tion" [40 CFR §2.208(a)(l)].
Although the Agency does not believe that the identity of the
generator would satisfy the above criteria for information to be
treated as confidential, EPA's regulations do not prohibit companies
from asserting claims for confidentiality for such information.
If a company indicates that it considers confidential the iden-
tity of the generator, and EPA finds that this information should not
87
-------
be protected, then the RCRA requirement that all manifests be signed
by the generator will supersede any State regulation which protects
the identity of the generator. Because the Agency believes that few
such claims for confidentiality will be upheld, the Agency expects
that as soon as the RCRA rules become effective, owners or operators
will be able to designate the generator of the manifested waste on
the report form.
2. See response to Issue #7: "Use of Estimated Quantities" in
Section IV.F.2.—"Recordkeeping - Content of Operating Record—of
this document.
Issue #8: Units of Measurement
Summary of Comments
1. EPA should allow the use of metric units in reports
2. "Cubic feet" should be added to the list of units designated
in the standard
Response
1. The Agency agrees that the use of the metric system should
be encouraged, and the Agency will use metric units. Therefore, the
final rules have been revised to allow owners or operators to report
the quantity of waste managed at the facility by weight in metric
units or English units.
2. See response to Issue #5: "Quantity Descriptions" in Sec-
tion IV.F.2—"Recordkeeping - Content of Operating Record"—of this
document.
88
-------
Issue #9; Additions to the Standard
Summary of Comments
The following reporting requirements should be added to the
standard:
1. The volume and type of waste stored at facilities;*
2. The location, volume, and type of waste disposed in secure
landfills;*
3. Surface water monitoring data.
Response
Proposed §250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(E) required owners or operators
to report the volume of waste received from each generator. Proposed
§250.43-5(c)(5)(iii)(G) required owners or operators to report the
method used to treat, store, or dispose the waste received at fa-
cilities. Taken together, these two standards required that owners
or operators report the volume of each waste stored at facilities.
Therefore, the commenters1 suggestion to require the reporting of the
volume and type of waste stored at facilities was already required in
the proposed rules.
Proposed §§250.45-2(b)(3) and 250.43-5(b)(l) required that the
location of each hazardous waste be recorded in the facility's oper-
ating log. In addition, proposed §250.43-7(1) required that, within
*The commenters also suggested that the reporting requirements for
stored and landfilled waste (1 and 2 above) should be submitted
quarterly. This aspect of the commenters1 suggestions is addressed
in Section K, "Frequency of Reports," in the background document en-
titled "Section 3002-Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste."
89
-------
180 days after completion of closure, owners or operators must submit
a survey plat to the local land authority and to the Regional Admin-
istrator which indicates the type and location of the hazardous waste
disposed of in their landfills. The Agency believes that these re-
quirements provide EPA with adequate access to information regarding
the content of hazardous waste landfills, so that the additional
reporting requirement suggested by the commenters is unnecessary.
Because the standards prescribed under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
already include provisions for the monitoring of discharges to navi-
gable waters, it would be duplicative for EPA to establish surface
water monitoring standards under Subtitle C of RCRA for facilities
regulated under the CWA. Therefore, because no monitoring require-
ments for surface water have been included in the final RCRA rules,
no reporting requirements for surface water monitoring data have been
added to the final reporting standards.
Issue #10; Certification Statement
Summary of Comments
1. The phrase "to the best of my knowledge" should be inserted,
and the word "personal" sho Id be deleted, from the proposed
certification statement because:
the person signing the certification may not have com-
piled the actual information reported, and thus, will
not have "^rsonal knowledge of each of the many pieces
of information reported.
the proposed wording of the statement places the indi-
vidual who signs the report in the position of being
criminally liable for errors beyond his control. In
many instances, an error could be made even though
there was a good faith effort to submit accurate in-
formation.
90
-------
2. The ^sentence "I am aware that there are significent pen-
alties^for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment" should be deleted
from the statement because the sentence is:
unnecessary, since it is evident that anyone who
knowingly submits a false report to the Federal
government is subject to significant penalties.
offensive and, therefore, uncalled for.
3. Owners or operators should be required to certify that
they have properly disposed of all waste committed to
them.
Response
The Agency agrees that the certification statement should
reflect, to the extent possible, the signer's personal knowledge of
»
the truth, accuracy and completeness of the submission. The owner
or operator or his authorized representative may not have firsthand
knowledge of the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the information
submitted. Accordingly, the Agency has changed the certification
statement on the annual report to require the owner or operator or
his authorized representative to state that "based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the informa-
;' ^
tion, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and com-
plete." This formulation, adopted from EPA's NPDES regulations,
recognizes both the limits of the signer's personal knowledge and
the Agency's need for accurate and complete information. It allows
the owner or operator to respond on the basis of his belief, but sets
forth precisely what the basis of that belief must be.
91
-------
The Agency disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to delete
from the certification statement: "I am aware that there are sig-
nificant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment." The Agency included this
sentence in the statement to impress upon the signer the necessity
for submitting complete and accurate information. The Agency be-
lieves that some owners or operators may not realize that the knowing
submission of false information to EPA may subject the signer to sig-
nificant penalties. Therefore, the sentence has been retained in the
certification statement in the final rules.
The Agency believes that it is unnecessary to amend the certi-
fication statement to include a statement that the owner or operator
has properly managed all the waste committed to him. The Agency has
designed the Annual Report to be useful for gathering essential in-
formation on the activities of persons handling hazardous wastes.
This information will be used in implementing the Federal hazardous
waste program. Although the Annual Report will prove valuable in
developing enforcement strategies and, perhaps, in indicating par-
ticular targets for enforcement actions, the Report is not primarily
intended or designed as an enforcement tool. Other mechanisms exist
which are specifically tailored for enforcement needs. These include
unmanifested waste reports filed by the owner or operator and excep-
tions reports filed by generators.
92
-------
The certification statement on the Annual Report is intended to
impress upon the signer the necessity for providing good information.
The statement was drafted to ensure that the signer take serious
steps to verify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the report.
Among the information so certified is the signer's statements con-
cerning the quantities of waste handled and their disposition. If
he reports that 100 drums of waste X were stored, it is assumed that
the 100 drums were stored in accordance with the terms and conditions
of his permit. The statement cannot, however, realistically serve
as the owner's or operator's voucher that all the waste that he has
treated, stored, or disposed of in the past year was handled prop-
erly. If EPA learns of improper management, its enforcement action
will be based primarily on the improper activities rather than the
falsity of the report. To require the suggested certification state-
ment would not increase EPA's information on improper practices, nor
would it provide a strong basis for an enforcement action.
4. Final Rule
§264.75 Annual Report
The owner or operator must prepare and submit a single copy of
an annual report to the Regional Administrator by March 1 of each
year. The report form and instructions in Appendix II must be used
for this report. The annual report must cover facility activities
during the previous calendar year and must include the following
information:
(a) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the
facility;
93
-------
(b) The calendar year covered by the report;.
(c) For off-site facilities, the EPA identification number of
each hazardous waste generator from which the facility
received a hazardous waste during the year; for imported
shipments, the report must give the name and ad dress of
the foreign generator;
(d) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste
the facility received during the year. For off-site fa-
cilities, this information must be listed by EPA identi-
fication number of each generator;
(e) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each
hazardous waste; and
(f) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the
facility or his authorized representative.
The final interim status standards at §265-75 references addi-
tional sections which are not included in the Phase I Part 264 reg-
ulations :
§265.75 Annual Report
The owner or operator must prepare and submit a single copy of
an annual report to the Regional Administrator by March 1 of each
year. The report form and instructions in Appendix II must be used
for this report. The annual report must cover facility activities
during the previous calendar year and must include the following
information:
(a) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the
facility;
(b) The calendar year covered by the report;
(c) For off-site facilities, the EPA identification number of
each hazardous waste generator from which the facility
received a hazardous waste during the year; for imported
shipments, the report must give the name and address of the
foreign generator;
94
-------
(d) A description and the quantity of each hazardous waste
the^facility^received during the year. For off-site fa-
cilities, this information must be listed by EPA identi-
fication number of each generator;
(e) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each
hazardous waste;
(f) Monitoring data under §265.94(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), and
(b)(2), where required;
(g) The most recent closure cost estimate under §265.142, and,
for disposal facilities, the most recent post- closure cost
estimate under §265.144; and
--{h) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the
facility or his authorized representative.
J. §264.76 - Unmanifested Waste Report
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation
The proposed standard required that owners or operators file a
quarterly report to the Regional Administrator describing hazardous
waste received at the facility not accompanied by a manifest or de-
livery document, unless the waste was not required to be accompanied
by a manifest or delivery document because of the generator exemp-
tions provided in proposed §250.29 of the Section 3002 regulations.
The quarterly report was to contain the following information:
the identification code, name, and address of the facility
the closing date of the reporting year
the word "unmanifested" in the column entitled "Manifest
Document Number"
the name and address of the generator, if known, or the
transporter
- the DOT shipping name, if applicable, or the EPA name
(as listed in Subpart A) for the waste
95
-------
the quantity of each waste received (the quantity was
to be reported in pounds, tons, gallons, or cubic yards)
a statement which certified that the report was true,
accurate, and complete
an explanation, if known, as to why the shipment was
unmanifested
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation
The Agency believes that facility owners or operators should be
allowed to accept unmanifested hazardous waste. In the Agency's
view, it is more protective of human health and the environment for
unmanifested hazardous waste to be accepted by a responsible facility
and properly managed, than to reject the waste and face the possibil-
ity of its improper disposal elsewhere. However, the owner or opera-
tor is not required to accept unmanifested hazardous waste.
The Agency wants to have records of how this waste is managed,
if it is accepted. Furthermore, because of the uncertainty asso-
ciated with unmanifested hazardous waste, the Agency wants to know
as much as it can about the waste, as soon as possible. Prompt sub-
mission of the details regarding unmanifested waste will enable the
Agency to ensure that the facility is managing the waste (with which
the facility may have limited management experience) in an appropri-
ate manner, and will also allow the Agency to detect any suspicious
patterns of unusually high incidences of unmanifested waste in par-
ticular areas. Such incidences should be infrequent, since it is
illegal to transport hazardous waste without a manifest. The latter
96
-------
type of information would be helpful in tracking down hazardous waste
generators who may be attempting to avoid the system, and would be
used by the Agency to develop enforcement actions against the gener-
ator.
3. Comment Analysis and Response
Issue #1: Ban/Restrict the Acceptance of Unmanifested Waste
Summary of Comments
1. Facilities should not be allowed to accept unmanifested
hazardous waste.
2. Facilities should only be allowed to accept unmanifested
waste in severe emergencies.
Response
As explained in the rationale for the proposed rule, the Agency
believes that there are legitimate reasons why owners or operators
should be allowed to accept this type of waste. If rejected, the
waste may be abandoned along the side of a road. The waste must be
managed eventually and, thus, should be accepted at facilities.
The Agency agrees that the receipt of unmanifested waste should
not be a normal operating procedure. However, the Agency does not
agree that unmanifested waste should only be allowed to be accepted
in severe emergencies. In the example of the abandonment of waste
along a roadside, such an incident may not pose an imminent threat
to human health and the environment (since the severity of the sit-
uation is dependent upon the character of the abandoned waste), but
the Agency believes that it is preferable to transport the waste to
97
-------
a facility as soon as possible, rather than leave the waste along the
side of the road. Therefore, the Agency rejects the suggestion to
allow owners or operators to accept unmanifested waste in only severe
emergencies.
Issue #2: Delete the Requirement for Unmanifested Waste Reports
Summary of Comments
The requirement should be deleted because:
it is burdensome, unnecessary, and submitted so infrequently
as to make the information of little or no value to the
Agency
the owner or operator will have to run all of the toxicity
tests on each shipment in order to determine which shipments
are hazardous
Response
The Agency disagrees that the information contained in the re-
ports is useless. The discussion of the rationale for the standard
explains why the Agency believes this information is valuable. The
Agency recognizes that, in some cases, it may be impossible for own-
ers or operators to identify the source of unmanifested waste re-
ceived at facilities. Therefore, the final rules have been reworded
to specify that this information only has to be reported if it is
available. Nevertheless, the waste analysis standards of §264.13
require that owners or operators must obtain sufficient information
on the composition and properties of waste received at the facility
in order to manage the waste in accordance with the Section 3004
standards. Therefore, although owners or operators may be unable to
98
-------
identify the source of unmanifested waste received at the facility,
they are required to analyze all incoming waste (including unmani-
fested waste) to the extent necessary to obtain sufficient infor-
mation to manage the waste in compliance with the Section 3004
standards.
Issue #3: The Frequency of the Requirement
The proposed rules required that reports on unmanifested waste
must be filed quarterly. The Agency believed at that time that
quarterly reporting of unmanifested shipments of waste provided a
reasonable trade-off between the Agency's need to quickly know about
this type of waste, and the owner's or operator's desire to operate
his facility without having to constantly submit reports to the
Regional Administrator.
Commenters suggested that the report to the Regional Administra-
tor should be made annually instead of quarterly, but gave no ratio-
nale for this suggestion.
Upon review of this issue, the Agency has decided that unman-
ifested waste reports should be submitted on a case-by-case basis,
rather than quarterly as proposed, or annually as suggested by the
commenters. As noted above, submission of these reports should be
infrequent, and, therefore, not burdensome. To maximize the useful-
ness of the reports for enforcement purposes, the reports should be
submitted to EPA soon after the manifested waste is received. There-
fore, in the final rules, the frequency of the reporting requirement
is specified as "within 15 days after receiving the waste."
99
-------
Small quantities of hazardous waste are excluded from regulation
under this Part and do not require a manifest. Where a facility
receives unmanifested hazardous wastes, it may be difficult for the
facility owner or operator to determine whether an unmanifested waste
report should be filed. In such cases, the Agency suggests that the
owner or operator obtain from each generator a certification that the
waste qualifies for exclusion. Otherwise, the owner or operator
should file an unmanifested waste report for the hazardous waste
movement.
Issue #4; Applicability of the Requirement
Summary of Comments
The standard should apply only to facilities that receive waste
generated off-site.
Response
Since manifests are not required for waste managed on-site, the
proposed standard only applies to facilities that receive unmani-
fested waste generated off-site. This includes on-site facilities
which might, in an emergency, accept unmanifested waste generated
off-site.
4. Final Rule
§264.76 Unmanifested Waste Report
If a facility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal any
hazardous waste from an off-site source without an accompanying
manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper as described in
§263.20(e)(2) of this Chapter, and if the waste is not excluded from
the manifest requirement by §261.5 of this Chapter, then the owner or
operator must prepare and submit a single copy of a report to the
100
-------
Regional Administrator within 15 days after receiving the waste. The
report form and instructions in Appendix II must be used for this
report. The report must include the following information:
(a) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the
facility;
(b) The date the facility received the waste;
(c) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the
generator and the transporter, if available;
(d) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested
hazardous waste the facility received;
(e) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each
hazardous waste;
(f) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the
facility or his authorized representative; and
(g) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if
known.
The final interim status standard at §265.76 is identical to the
above.
K. §264.77 - Additional Reports
1. Synopsis of Proposed Regulations
In addition to the annual and unmanifested waste reporting re-
quirements, §250.43-5(c) of the proposed rules also contained stan-
dards which required that owners or operators report:
fires, explosions, and discharges or releases of hazardous
waste immediately, as specified in proposed §250.43-3(c)(i);
ground-water monitoring data to the Regional Administrator
on a quarterly basis, as specified in proposed §250.43-
8(c)(4) and (d)(l); and
before facility close-out or before facility closure to the
Regional Administrator, as specified in proposed §250.43-7.
101
-------
2« Rationale for the Proposed Regulations
The purpose of the regulations was to gather all of the proposed
Section 3004 reporting requirements into one section of the regula-
tions so that owners or operators could refer to one place to deter-
mine the reporting requirements with which they must comply. The
rationale for each of the reporting requirements referenced in pro-
posed §250.43-5(c) is provided in the background documents pertaining
to the sections of the proposed regulations in which the referenced
standards are contained.
3. Comment Analysis and Response
jssue #1: Reporting Incidents
Summary of Comments:
1. The requirement to report fires, explosions, and discharges
should be deleted because It duplicates the reporting
requirements prescribed under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).
2. The phrase "outside the facility" should be inserted in the
standard.
Response
The reporting requirements under TSCA apply only to toxic sub-
stances. The reporting requirements prescribed under Subtitle C of
RCRA apply to waste which is listed or meets the characteristics
described in Section 3001 rules. These characteristics include not
only toxicity, but also ignitability, reactivity, and corrosivity.
Thus, the universe of substances controlled under RCRA overlaps with,
but is not identical to, those substances regulated under TSCA.
102
-------
Therefore, because the reporting requirements prescribed under TSCA
are not an adequate substitute for the RCRA reporting requirements,
the Agency rejects the commenter's suggestion to delete the standard.
The Agency has adopted the commenter's suggestion by inserting
the phrase "outside the facility" in the emergency procedure regula-
tions (see §264.56(d) and the background document on contingency plan
and emergency procedures) for reporting incidents which could threat-
en human health, or the environment, outside the facility. Reports
under §264.56(j), however, are required for any incident that re-
quires implementing the contingency plan.
Issue #2; Reporting Ground-water Monitoring Data
Summary of Comments
1. Annual reports of ground-water monitoring data should be
sufficient to bring changes evidenced by monitoring to
the attention of the EPA.
2. Reporting of routine monitoring should be on an annual
basis to reduce the quantity of paperwork associated
with the reporting requirements.
3. A semiannual or an annual reporting of monitoring data
should be sufficient if variations are reported within
seven days of such a finding*
Response
The frequency of reporting requirement for routine ground-water
monitoring data has been changed from quarterly to annual reporting
in the final rule. Significant variations in such data must be
reported within seven days. The response to comments received on
this issue is contained in the background document on ground-water
monitoring.
103
-------
Issue #3: Reporting Closeout and Closure of the Facility
Summary of Comments
The standard should be reworded to specify that "owners or
operators must notify the Regional Administrator prior to closeout
and prior to closure in accordance with the time schedule specified
in §250.43-7" because:
use of the defined terms "closeout" and "closure" will
lend more certainty to the meaning of the provision; and
specific reference to the time schedule will clarify that
it is the only portion of §250.43-7 being referenced.
Response
Closure requirements are not included in the Phase I Part 264
regulations. The Agency's response, therefore, applies to the Part
265 interim status standards.
The Agency agrees that use of the term "closure" in the standard
lends clarity to the meaning of the provision. Therefore, the stan-
dard has been changed accordingly. The term "close-out" is no longer
used in any of the Section 3004 standards.
The Agency agrees that, instead of referring to all of the
closure standards, the final reporting standards should refer only
to the section of the closure standards in which the reporting re-
quirements—and the time schedule—for notification of closure are
specified. Accordingly, the final §265.77 reporting standards refer
to §265.115 of the final closure standards.
104
-------
4. Final Rule
§264.77 Additional Reports
In addition to submitting the annual report and unmanifested
waste reports described in §§264.75 and 264.76, the owner or operator
must also report to the Regional Administrator releases, fires, and
explosions as specified in §264.56(j).
The final interim status standard at §265.77 references addi-
tional sections which are not included in the Phase I Part 264 regu-
lations:
§265.77 Additional Reports
In addition to submitting the annual report and unmanifested
waste reports described in §§265.75 and 265.76, the owner or operator
must also report to the Regional Administrator:
(a) Releases, fires, and explosions as specified in §265.56(j);
(b) Ground-water contamination and monitoring data as specified
in §§265.93 and 265.94; and
(c) Facility closure as specified in §265.115.
L. Appendices to the Regulation
In order to make the regulations clearer, the Agency in these
final rules has moved recordkeeping details to Appendix I of the
regulation, and the reporting form and instructions to Appendix II of
the regulation. TLjse appendices for Part 265 are more comprehensive
than those for Phase I of Part 264, since Part 265 addresses addi-
tional provisions not included in the Phase I Part 264 regulations.
Otherwise, the two sets of Appendices are very similar. Appendices I
and II for Part 265 follow.
105
-------
APPENDIX I
RECORDKEEPING INSTRUCTIONS
The recordkeeping provisions of §265.73 specify that an owner or
operator must keep a written operating record at his facility. This
appendix provides additional instructions for keeping portions of the
operating record. See S265.73(b) for additional recordkeeping
requirements.
The following information must be recorded, as it becomes avail-
able, and maintained in the operating record until closure of the
facility in the following manner:
«
Records of each hazardous waste received, treated, stored, or
disposed of at the facility which include the following:
(1) A description by its common name and the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number(s) from Part 261 of this Chapter which apply
to the waste. The waste description also must include the
waste's physical form, i.e., liquid, sludge, solid, or con-
tained gas. If the waste is not listed in Part 261, Sub-
part D, of this Chapter, the description also must include
the process that produced it (for example, solid filter
cake from production of , EPA Hazardous Waste Number
W051).
Each hazardous waste listed in Part 261, Subpart D, of
this Chapter, and each hazardous waste characteristic
defined in Part 261, Sufapart C, of this Chapter, has a
four-digit EPA Hazardous Waste Number assigned to it.
This number must be used for recordkeeping and reporting
purposes. Where a hazardous waste contains more than one
listed hazardous waste, or where more than one hazardous
waste characteristic applies to the waste, the waste
description must include all applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers.
(2) The estimated or manifest-reported weight, or volume
and density, where applicable, in one of the units of mea-
sure specified in Table 1; and
106
-------
(3) The method(s) (by handling code(s) as specified in
Table 2) and date(s) of treatment, storage, or disposal.
107
-------
TABLE 1
Unit of Measure
Pounds
Short Tons (2000 Ibs)
Gallons (U.S.)
Cubic Yards
Kilograms
Tonnes (1000 kg)
Liters
Cubic Meters
Symbol *
P
T
G
Y
K
M
L
C
Density
—
—
P/G
T/Y
—
—
K/L
M/C
* Single digit symbols are used here for data processing purposes,
108
-------
TABLE 2
HANDLING CODES FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE. AND
DISPOSAL METHODS
Enter the handling code(s) listed below that most closely
represents the technique(s) used at the facility to treat, store, or
dispose of each quantity of hazardous waste received.
1. Storage
SOI Container (barrel, drum, etc.)
S02 Tank
SOS Waste pile
S04 Surface impoundment
805 Other (specify)
2. Treatment
(a) Thermal Treatment
T06 Liquid injection incinerator
T07 Rotary kiln incinerator
T08 Fluidized bed incinerator
T09 Multiple hearth incinerator
T10 Infrared furnace incinerator
Til Molten salt destructor
T12 Pyrolysis
T13 Wet air oxidation
T14 Calcination
T15 Microwave discharge
T16 Cement kiln
T17 Lime kiln
T18 Other (specify)
(b) Chemical Treatment
T19 Absorption mound
T20 Absorption field
T21 Chemical fixation
T22 Chemical oxidation
T23 Chemical precipitation
T24 Chemical reduction
T25 Chlorination
T26 Chlorinolysis
T27 Cyanide destruction
109
-------
T28 Degradation
T29 Detoxification
T30 Ion exchange
T31 Neutralization
T32 Ozonation
T33 Photolysis
T34 Other (specify)
(c) Physical Treatment
(1) Separation of components
T35 Centrifugation
T36 Clarification
T37 Coagulation
T38 Decanting
T39 Encapsulation
T40 Filtration
T41 Flocculation
T42 Flotation
T43 Foaming
T44 Sedimentation
T45 Thickening
T46 Ultrafiltration
T47 Other (specify)
(2) Removal of Specific Compounds
>
T48 Absorption-molecular sieve
T49 Activated carbon
T50 Blending
T51 Catalysis
T52 Crystallization
T53 Dialysis
T54 Distillation
T55 Electrodialysis
T56 Electrolysis
T57 Evaporation
T58 High gradient magnetic separation
T59 Leaching
T60 Liquid ion exchange
T61 Liquid-liquid extraction
T62 Reverse osmosis
T63 Solvent recovery
T64 Stripping
T65 Sand filter
T66 Other (specify)
110
-------
(d) Biological Treatment
T66 Activated sludge
T68 Aerobic lagoon
T69 Aerobic tank
T70 Anaerobic lagoon
T71 Composting
T72 Septic tank
T73 Spray injection
T74 Thickening filter
T75 Tricking filter
T76 Waste stabilization pond
T77 Other (specify)
T78-T79 [Reserved]
3. Disposal
D80 Underground injection
D81 Landfill
D82 Land treatment
D83 Ocean disposal
D84 Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)
D85 Other (specify)
111
-------
Appendix II
EPA Report Form
and
Instructions
112
-------
for generators or facilities before completing
o
nformation requested herein is required by law
JSTALLATION'S EPA I.D. NUMBER
PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE
±ARTA; GENERATOR aHHUAL REPORT
_ . j-
THIS REPORT IS FOR THE YEAR ENDING DEC.31. j | 9
__ PART B; FACILITY ANNUAL REPORT
THIS REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING DEC. 31,
PARTC: UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT
THIS REPORT IS FOR A WASTE
RECEIVED (day. ma., & yr.)
JAME OF INSTALLATION^!
was
i
- . ^f- * •"- ^" ^.~ - ; J*< r -~_-^,r* I i'fc i* * •"•" 1|W ^h V^'TJ * ^ ,' *• ^ ^ TT/_'4n"J' •• ' j3 J •i_M.i
-------
Please print or type with ELITE type
Form Approved OMB No. 158-ROOX.
XVII. FACILITY'S EPA 1.0. NO.
sT"
•Ml
G
FOR OFFICIAL.
USE ONLY >
(Ittm* 1 * 3)
GENERATOR ADDRESS (street or P.O. box, city, ttate, & zip code)
XVIII. GENERATOR'S EPA I.D
XIX. GENERATOR NAME Specify)
XXI. WASTE IDENTIFICATION
B. EPA
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
NUMBER
(tee instructions)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FACILITY REPORT - PARTS B & C
(Collected under the authority of Section 3004 of RCRA.)
10
11
12
2» - 31
it • 11
EPA Form 8700-138 (5-80 i
-------
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT
(EPA Form 8700-13)
IMPORTANT; READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM
Section TYPE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT:
I
Part A: Generator Annual Report
For generators who ship their waste off-site to facili-
ties which they do not own or operate; fill in the
reporting year for this report (e.g., 1982).
NOTE; Generators who ship hazardous waste off-site to a facility
which they own or operate must complete the facility (Part B)
report instead of the Part A report.
Part B; Facility Annual Report
For owners or operators of on-site or off-site facili-
ties that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste;
fill in the reporting year for this report (e.g.,
1982).
Part C; Unmanifested Waste Report
For facility owners or operators who accept for treat-
ment, storage, or disposal any hazardous waste from an
off-site source without an accompanying manifest; fill
in the date the waste was received at the facility
(e.g., 04-12-1982).
Section
II
thru
Section
IV
INSTALLATION I.D. NUMBER, NAME OF INSTALLATION, AND
INSTALLATION MAILING ADDRESS:
If you received a preprinted label from EPA, attach it
in the space provided and leave Sections II through IV
blank. If there is an error or omission on the label,
cross out the incorrect information and fill in the
appropriate item(s). If you did not receive a pre-
printed label, complete Section II through Section IV.
115
-------
Section
V
LOCATION OF INSTALLATION:
If your installation location address is different than
the mailing address, enter the location address of your
installation.
Section
VI
INSTALLATION CONTACT
Enter the name (last and first) and telephone number of
the person who may be contacted regarding information
contained in this report.
Section
VII
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USED (For Part A reports ONLY)
List the EPA Identification Number for each transporter
whose services you used during the reporting year.
Section
VIII
COST ESTIMATES FOR FACILITIES (For Part B reports ONLY)
A. Enter the most recent cost estimate for facility
closure in dollars. See Subpart H of 40 CFR
parts 264 or 265 for more detail.
B. For disposal facilities only, enter the most
recent cost estimate for post closure monitoring
and maintenance. See Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts
264 or 265 for more detail.
Section CERTIFICATION
IX
The generator or his authorized represents ive (Part A
reports) or the owner or operator of the facility or
his authorized representative (Parts B and C reports)
must sign and date the certificatio where indicated.
The printed or typed name of the person signing the
report must also be included where indicated.
NOTE: Since more than one page is required for each report, enter
the page number of each sheek in the lower right corner as
well as the total number of pages.
116
-------
FACILITY ANNUAL REPORT
PART B INSTRUCTIONS
(EPA Form 8700-13B)
Facility Annual Report for owners or operators of on-site or off-site
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
NOTE: Generators who ship hazardous waste off-site to a facility
they own or operate must complete this Part B report instead
of the Generator (Part A) Annual Report.
IMPORTANT: READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM
Section
XVI
TYPE OF REPORT
Put an "X" in the box marked Part B.
Section
XVII
FACILITY'S EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
Enter the EPA identification number for your facility.
Example: XVII FACILITY'S EPA I.D. NUMBER
|M|A|D|3|8|3|1|2|6|4|8T7T
Section
XVIII
Section
XIX
GENERATOR'S EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
Enter the EPA identification number of the generator of
the waste described under Section XXI which was
received by your facility during the reporting year. A
separate sheet must be used for each generator. If the
waste came from a foreign generator, enter the EPA
identification number of the importer in this section
and enter the name and address of the foreign generator
in Section XXII, Comments. If the waste was generated
and treated, stored, or disposed of at the same instal-
lation, leave this section blank.
GENERATOR'S NAME
Enter the name of the generator corresponding to the
generator's EPA identification number in Section XVIII.
117
-------
If the waste was generated and treated, stored, or dis-
posed of at the same installation, enter "ON-SITE."
If the waste came from a foreign generator, enter ^
name of the importer corresponding to the EPA identifi-
cation number in Section XVIII.
Section
XX
GENERATOR'S ADDRESS
Enter the address of the generator corresponding to the
generator's EPA identification number in Section XVIII.
If the waste was generated and treated, stored, or dis-
posed of at the same installation, leave this section
blank. If the waste came from a foreign generator,
enter the address of the importer corresponding to the
EPA identification number in Section XVIII.
Section
XXI
WASTE IDENTIFICATION
All information in this section must be entered by line
number. A separate line entry is required for each
different waste or mixture of wastes that your facility
received during the reporting, year. The handling code
applicable to that waste at the end of the reporting
year should be reported. If a different handling code
applies to portions of the same waste (e.g., part of
the waste is stored while the remainder was "chemically
fixed" during the year), use a separate line entry for
each portion.
Example:
XXI WASTE IDENTIFICATION
Line I A. DESCRIPTION
No. | OF WASTE
1. | Steel 'finishing sludge
2. | Steel finishing sludge
|B. HAZARDOUS
I WASTE NO.
I K060
I K060
K061
K061
C. HANDL.
CODE
S02
T21
ID. AMT.
1
1 25000
1157245
1 E.
lUNIT
1 T
1 T
Section DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
XXI-A
For hazardous wastes that are listed under 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart D, enter the EPA listed name, abbreviated
if necessary. Where mixtures of listed wastes were
received, enter the description which you believe best
describes the waste.
118
-------
For unlisted hazardous waste identified under 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart C, enter the description which you
believe best describes the waste. Include the specific
manufacturing or other process generating the waste
(e.g., green sludge from widget manufacturing) and, if
known, the chemical or generic chemical name of the
waste.
Section
XXI-B
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER
For listed waste, enter the four digit EPA Hazardous
Waste Number from 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, which
identifies the waste.
For a mixture of more than one listed waste, enter each
of the applicable EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers.
Four spaces are provided. If more space is needed,
continue on the next line(s) and leave all other infor-
mation on that line blank.
Example:
XXI WASTE IDENTIFICATION
Line
No.
1.
2.
A.
Steel
DESCRIPTION
OF WASTE
finishing
sludge
IB
1
1
1
1
1
. HAZARDOUS
WASTE NO.
K060 |
K062 |
K064 |
1
K061
K063
C. HANDL.
CODE
T21
ID.
1
AMT.
12917455
1
1 E.
(UNIT
1 T
1
I 1
1 1
For unlisted hazardous wastes, enter the EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers from 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, applic-
able to the waste. If more than four spaces are
required, follow the procedure described above.
Section
XXI-C
HANDLING CODE
Enter one EPA handling code for each waste line entry.
Where several handling steps have occurred during the
year, report only the handling code representing the
waste's status at the end of the reporting year or its
final disposition. EPA handling codes are given in
Appendix I of this Part.
119
-------
Section
XXI-D
AMOUNT OF WASTE
Enter the total amount of waste described on this line
which you received during this reporting year.
Section
XXI-E
UNIT OF MEASURE
Enter the unit of measure code for the quantity of
waste described on this line. Units of measure which
must be used in this report and the appropriate codes
are:
UNITS OF MEASURE
pounds
short tons (2000 Ibs)
kilograms
tonnes (1000 kg)
CODE
P
T
K
M
Units of volume may not be used for reporting but must
be converted into one of the above units of weight,
taking into account the appropriate density or specific
gravity of the waste.
Section
XXII
COMMENTS
This space may be used to explain or clarify any entry.
If used, enter a cross-reference to the appropriate
Section number.
NOTE; Since more than one page is required for each report, enter
the page number of each sheet in the lower right hand corner
as well as the total number of pages.
WHERE REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 264 or 265, SUBPARTS F 0£ R, ATTACH GROUND-
WATER MONITORING DATA TO THIS REPORT.
120
-------
UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT
PART C INSTRUCTIONS
(EPA Fora 8700-13B)
Unmanifested Waste Report for facility owners or operators who accept
for treatment, storage, or disposal any hazardous waste from an off-
site source without an accompanying manifest.
IMPORTANT; READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM
For the Unmanifested Waste Report, EPA Forms 8700-13 and 8700-
13B must be filled out according to the directions for the Part-B
Facility Annual Report except that: (1) blocks for which information
is not available to the owner or operator of the reporting facility
may be marked "UNKNOWN," and (2) the following special instructions
apply:
Section
VIII
COST ESTIMATES FOR FACILITIES
Do not enter closure or post-closure cost estimates.
Section TYPE OF REPORT
XVI
Put an "X" in the box marked Part C.
Section DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
XXI-A
Use as many line numbers as are needed to describe the
waste.
Section
XXI-C
HANDLING CODE
Enter the handling code which describes the status of
the waste on the date the report is filed.
Section
XXI-D
AMOUNT OF WASTE
Enter the amount of waste received, rather than a total
annual aggregate.
121
-------
Section COMMENTS
XXII
a. Enter the EPA Identification number, name, and
address of the transporter, if known. If the
transporter is not known to you, enter the name
and chauffeur license number of the driver and
the State and license number of the transporting
vehicle which presented the waste to your
facility, if known.
b. Enter an explanation of how the waste movement
was presented to your facility; why you believe
the waste is hazardous; and how your facility
plans to manage the waste. Continue on a separ-
ate blank sheet of paper if additional space is
needed.
MONITORING DATA
Oo not attach monitoring data.
122
-------
References
1. RCRA Legislative History. In U.S. Code: Congressional and
Administrative News. 94th Congress, 2nd Session. Volume 5,
! *, « ConSress- Ho*se. Report of the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce. House Document 94-1491, p. 26.
2. Ibid, p. 26.
3. Ibid, p. 26.
4. Ibid, p. 26.
5. Ibid, p. 26.
6. U.S. Congress. Congressional Record. House. September 27,
1976, p. H11148.
7. Ibid, p. H11154.
8. Op. Git., House Document 94-1491, p. 27.
9. Ibid, p. 27.
10. Op. Cit., House Document 94-1491, p. 28.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Damage
Incident Files and Summaries. Public Docket for RCRA Subtitle
C. Office of Solid Waste. Room 2101. Waterside Mall.
Washington, D.C.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: Dis-
posal of Hazardous Waste. Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs. Publication SW-115. 1974.
13. Op. Cit., House Document 94-1491, pp. 17 - 23.
14. U.S. EPA. Background Document for 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265,
Subparts C and D, Preparedness and Prevention, Contingency Plan,
and Emergency Response, April 1980.
15. U.S. EPA. RCRA Subtitle C Section 3002 Draft Background Docu-
ment. Office of Solid Waste. BD-8. December 15, 1978.
16. U.S. EPA. "Toxic Substances Inventory Regulations". Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 710.7.
123
-------
17. U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. "Analysis of Ground Water
Contamination Incident In Niagara Falls, New York". Draft Re-
port. Prepared by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Contract No.
68-01-3897. July 28, 1978 and
Wright, A.P., D. Huber, and G.K. Welshans. "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Problems and Associated Clean up Costs", in
Hazardous Material Risk Assessment, Disposal and Management.
1979 National Conference. April 25 - 27, 1979. Miami Beach,
Florida. Information Transfer, Inc. Silver Spring Maryland.
Le Catalog No. 79-67389. pp. 23-29.
18. McNeil, Donald G., Jr. "Emptied Niagara Neighborhood Now Looks
Like a Disaster Area". The New York Times, November 22, 1979.
p. B4.
19. U.S. EPA. RCRA Subtitle C. Reports Impact Analysis. Draft of
March 1979. Office of Solid Waste.
20. RCRA Section 3002 Final Background Document, February 19, 1980.
21. U.S. EPA. Integrated Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations. Draft Report. Arthur D. Little
Inc. for Office of Solid Waste. April 1980.
22. U.S. EPA. RCRA Subtitle C Reports Impact Analysis. April,
1980.
23. U.S. EPA. "General Pretreatment Regulations For Existing and
New Sources of Pollution". Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 123.
Monday, June 26, 1978, pp. 27736 - 27773.
124
-------
APPENDIX I
State Regulations - Manifest System. Recordkeeping and Reporting
In recent years, several States have enacted laws and regula-
tions which require various aspects of manifest use, recordkeeping
and reporting by hazardous waste management facilities. After review
of the California, Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington State
regulations, the Agency found that many of the concepts and require-
ments in them were applicable (directly or with modification) to the
administrative aspects of the RCRA mandate for use of the manifest
system, recordkeeping and reporting at hazardous waste management
facilities. This Appendix provides an abstract of selected regula-
tions promulgated by the aforementioned States that influenced the
development of the RCRA regulation.
I. MANIFEST SYSTEM
A manifest system is an integral part of the regulatory struc-
ture of the hazardous waste management programs in California^,
Louisiana^, Minnesota^, Texas^, and Washington5. The regula-
tions promulgated in each of these States require that a manifest or
shipping paper/ticket accompany the hazardous waste from the genera-
tor of the waste, through the transporter, to a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility. Each member (i.e., the generator, transporter,
treater, storer, or disposer) of the system is responsible for pro-
viding complete and accurate information to the other members of the
system via the manifest.
125
-------
Manifest Discrepancies
Louisiana (§5.4.3) requires that hazardous waste facility
operators report any irregularities between the waste actually
received and the waste described on the manifest, or any other
irregularities to the Department of Natural Resources within five
days of receipt of the waste.
Amount of Time Allowed for Facility Owner or Operator to
Return Manifest to the Generator
Minnesota and Louisiana are the only States of those reviewed by
the Agency that specify a period of time within which the manifest
must be returned to the generator. Minnesota (§4.9008) specifies two
days after relinquishing possession, or within two days of ultimate
disposition, whichever is applicable (this requirement only applies
to off-site facilities). Louisiana requires that facility operators
mail the original and final copy to the generator no later than the
next working day. The other three States reviewed by the Agency
simply require submission of a manifest to the State regulatory
agency (California §60235 and Washington - WAG 173-302-260) or to the
transporter (Texas §4.03).
II. RECORDKEEPING
Period of Retention of Manifests by the Facility Owner or Operator
In the States surveyed, copies of manifests (or the information
on the manifest in the case of California (§60257)) are required to
be retained by hazardous waste facility operators for one to five
years. The specific periods of retention are given below.
126
-------
State. Regulation No. Period of Retention
California §60259 1 yr.
Texas §4-03 3 yr. (minimum)
Louisiana §5.4.3 2 yr. (minimum)
Minnesota §4.9008 5 yr.
Washington (WAG 173-302-270) requires that disposal site
operators retain at least one copy of the manifest at the disposal
site. No retention period is specified in Washington's rules.
Other Recordkeeping Requirements
Texas requires on-site disposers of Class I Waste* to maintain
records of their on-site disposal activity. These records should
4>
include, as a minimum, information regarding the quantity, character,
and classification of the waste, and the method and location of
. disposal (§4.03).
The Texas Technical Guideline entitled, "Records"^ suggests
(i.e., the Guidelines are suggestive rather than regulatory) that a
disposer maintain two types of records; (1) Waste Disposal by waste
description, disposal method, amount, and location, and (2) Monitor-
ing Data by sample point, date, and analysis.
Operating Record
^ The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires the faci-
lity operator—except land disposal facility operators—to main: .in a
log at the facility site that indicates,
*"Class I Waste" -- All waste materials not classified as Class II
or III, normally including all industrial solid wastes in liquid
form and all hazardous wastes. (Texas Industrial Solid Waste
Management Regulation; Section 1.02 - Definitions.)
127
-------
(1) the date that each shipment arrived,
(2) the shipment number,
(3) the name of the generator,
(4) the name of the transporter,
(5) the location of the shipment at the facility and,
(6) the date that the hazardous waste was processed, disposed
of, or transported from the facility.
The facility operator must submit the log to the Agency (MPCA)
upon the request of its Director (§4.9004).
The content of a land disposal facility's "operating record" is
slightly different in Minnesota's Rules. A ledger for each cell is
required containing the information required in 1, 2 and 3 above and,
the amount of each shipment in gallons or tons, and the chemical
composition of each shipment of hazardous waste. Facility operators
must submit the ledger to the MPCA when each cell is closed, or when
requested to do so by the Director of the MPCA.
Records of Waste Location
California requires operators of hazardous waste disposal sites
(where solid and hazardous wastes are not commingled) to record on a
map the general location and identity of hazardous wastes disposed of
at the facility (§60257).
Before accepting any waste for disposal, the Texas Water Quality
Board (TWQB) requires owners/operators of new industrial solid waste
\
sites to submit for recordation in the county deed, a decription of
the portion of the tract to be utilized for ultimate disposal of
128
-------
industrial solid waste. Existing facilities were required to submit
this information within 180 days of the effective date (December 31,
1975) of that regulation. The owners or operators are also required
to identify and submit the TWQB class or classes of waste disposed
of, or to be disposed of, and the address of the persons to be con-
tacted for more specific information on the waste (§1.05).
Washington requires that site operators maintain survey records
at the site which indicate the exact location and boundaries of each
burial trench and evaporation pond. The survey record must contain
the following information:
(1) Dimension of the trenches and ponds;
(2) Its relation to the nearest USGS bench mark and monument;
(3) Volume and type of waste buried;
(4) Dates for beginning and completing burial and evaporation
operations.
A current copy of this survey record is required to be kept at the
county auditor's office (WAC 173-302-270).
III. REPORTING
i '.,
The regulatory agencies of California (§60259), Minnesota
(§4.9004), and Texas (§4.03) require owners or operators of off-site
facilities to submit a monthly report which largely consists of
either a summary of the information from the manifest, or copies of
all manifests received plus a summary.
129
-------
These States have different reporting requirements for on-site
facilities. Minnesota (§4.9004) requires operators to submit the
same type of report as operators of off-site facilities, except the
reporting interval is quarterly instead of monthly.
California only requires on-site facilities to submit informa-
tion on disposal activities. Information to be submitted about the
waste includes identity, source, chemical composition, weight or
volume, physical state, container type, hazardous properties, and
methods used to dispose of each waste (§60261).
Texas has no general reporting requirements for on-site facili-
ties (§4.03); only recordkeeping is required. However, on-site dis-
posers of Class I waste may be required to compile an Annual Disposal
Summary from their records. If required, this report must be submit-
ted to the Texas Water Quality Board on a date specified by the
TWQB's Executive Director.
Louisiana requires owners or operators of all facilities to sub-
mit a quarterly report to the Department including manifest numbers
and total quantity—by the type—of waste handled (§5.4.3).
Washington requires the operator to send written notification of
each manifest to the Department of Ecology at the time of delivery of
the waste (WAC 173-302-260).
Additional Reports
Washington (WAC 173-302-330) and Minnesota (§4.9004) require
quarterly reporting of monitoring or environmental sampling results
130
-------
to the applicable State regulatory agency. Washington also requires
operators to report telephone and written accounts of any accidents
or emergencies (e.g., spills, fire, explosion, or chemical reaction).
Minnesota (§4.9004) requires that facility operators give the
MPCA a minimum of 90 days written notice—or 180 days in the case of
land disposal facilities—before closing a facility.
Inspection of Records/Reports
Washington (WAG 173-302-330) requires operators to allow any
duly authorized representative of the State Department of Ecology, at
any reasonable hour of the day, to inspect any records, reports,
information, or test results relating to the purpose of its regula-
tions.
California's regulations (§60177) specify that the Director or
any duly authorized representative of the State Department of Health
may, by appointment, inspect and copy any pertinent records, reports,
information or test results relating to the requirements of the haz-
ardous waste regulations. An appointment is not needed for inspec-
tion of pertinent records during the facility's business office
hours.
Texas requires that all records and shipping tickets be kept
readily available for review upon request by the TWQB staff at any
reasonable hour (§4.03). The Technical Guideline on Records (No. 8)
also suggests that records of waste disposal, and monitoring data be
kept readily available for review by the TWQB staff.
131
-------
Louisiana requires that hazardous waste facility operators main-
tain file copies of manifests for at least two years for inspection
by the Department of Natural Resources (§5.4.3).
132
-------
References - Appendix I
1. California State Department of Health Hazardous Waste Regula-
tions. Title 22, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 2.
Hazardous Waste, Article 6. Requirements for Management of
Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes (Register 77, No.
42-10-15-77).
2. State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Rules and
Regulations, Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Mandated by: Act
334 of 1978. Effective: August 1, 1979.
3. Minnesota Code of Agency Rules - Pollution Control Agency (PCA).
Identification, Labeling, Classification, Storage, Collection,
Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. State Register,
Monday, June 11, 1979 (Effective: June 18, 1979).
4. Texas Water Quality Board Industrial Solid Waste Management Regu-
lation (Board Order No. 75-1125-1). Effective: December 31,
1975.
5. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Hazardous Waste Regula-
tion. Chapter 173-302. July 12, 1978.
6. Texas Water Quality Board Industrial Solid Waste Management.
Technical Guideline No. 8, "Records". Issued May 3, 1976.
133
-------
APPENDIX II
Use of Generic Nomenclature
This Appendix illustrates generic nomenclature suitable for the
description of chemical substances of unknown or variable composi-
tion, complex mixtures, and biological materials as might be used by
industrial firms who might wish to protect the exact chemical compo-
sition of a waste component and yet provide specific information as
to the chemical nature of the waste.
134
-------
GENERIC NOMENCLATURE FOR CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES OF UNKNOWN OR VARIABLE COMPOSITION,
COMPLEX MIXTURES AND BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS1
Biological materials
.(Animals)
..Animal products
...Amino acids
... .Peptides
....Proteins
Albumins
Caseins
Gelatins
.....Hemoglobins
... Enzymes
...Fats and Oils, animal
.... Grease
....Lard
....Sperm oil
....Tallow
Alkyd resins, tallow
...Fatty acids
...Glycerides
...Waxes
....Wool wax
Lanolin
.Microorganisms
..Bacteria
..Fungi
...least
..(Microorganism products)
...Amino acids
....Peptides
....Proteins
...Enzymes
.(Plants)
..Fungi
..Plant products
...Amino acids
....Peptides
....Proteins
Glutens
...Carbonhydrat es
....Cellulose
....Gumes
....Starch
...Enzymes
...Fats and oils, plant
....Castor oil
Alkyd resins, caster oil
....Cocoa Butter
Coconut Oil
Alkyd resins, coconut oil
... .Corn oil
....Cottonseed oil
....Linseed oil
Alkyd resins, linseed oil
Olive oil
Palm oil
....Peanut oil
....Rape oil
....Safflower oil
Alkyd resins, safflower oil
....Soybean oil
Alkyd resins, soybean oil
....Sunflower oil
Alkyd resins, sunflower oil
Tall oil
Alkyd resins, tall oil
.tung oil
.Alkyd resins, tung oil
...Fatty acids
...Flavonoids
...Glycerides
....Lecithins
...Humic acids
...Resins
....Balsams
.... Copals
....Rosin
Alkyd resins, rosin
Resin acids and Rosin acids
...Rubber
.. .Waxes
...Wood products
....Cellulose
....Lignin
....Shellac
.... Tannins
....Turpentine
Coal
.(Coking products)
..Coke
..Tar
...Asphalt
...Creosote
...Pitch
...Tar acids
.. .Tar bases
.(Gasification products)
..Fuel gases
.(Liquefaction products)
..Distillates
..Extracts
. .Residues
(Inorganic compounds)
.Alkali metal compounds
..Soaps
.Alkaline earth compounds
.Bases
.Group IIIA element compounds
. .Horaces
.Group IVA element compounds
..Carbonates
..Carbon black
..Silica gel
..Silicates
..Siloxanes and Silicones
.. .Silsequioxanes
.Group VA element compounds
. .Phosphates
. .Polyphosphoric acids
.Group VIA element compounds
..Oxides
..Sulfates
..Sulfides
...Polysulfides
.Halogen compounds
.Helium-group gas compounds
.Group IB element compounds
.Group IIB element compounds
.Group IIIB element compounds
..Rare earth metals
.Group IVB element compounds
.Group VB element compounds
.Group VIB element compounds
.Group VIIIB element compounds
.Group VIII element compounds
Minerals, Ores and Rocks
.Alloys
.Aluminum ores
.Asphalt
.Bentonite
.Copper ores
.Iron ores
.Lead ores
.Molybdenum ores
.Zinc ores
Natural gas
.Hydrocarbons
..Alkanes
..Alkanes
(Organic compounds)
.Acid chlorides
.(Acids)
..Car boxy lie acids
...Amino acids
... .Peptides
...Fatty acids
....Soaps
...Humic acids
...Naphthenic acids
...Resin acids and Rosin acids
. .Sulfonic acids
.Alcohols
..Glycols
..2-Hydroxyethyl compounds
..Phenols
...Tar acids
Aldehydes
.Amides
.Amines
.Anhydrides
.Azo compounds
.Carbohydrates
..Polysaccharides
...Cellulose
.. .Starch
.Epoxides
.Esters
..Borates
..Carbonates
..Glycerides
..Phosphates
..Polyphosphoric acids
..Silicates
..Sulfates
.Ethers
.Flavonoids
.Group IIIA element compounds
.Group VA element compounds
.Group VIB element compounds
.Heterocyclic compounds
..Imidazole compounds
..Imidazolium compounds
. .Pthalocyanines
.Hydrocarbons
..Alkanes
..Alkenes
"•From
Toxic Substances Control Acfi Chemical Substance Inventory. User Guide. Volume IV, p. 495ff.
135
------- |